“I AM BACK…” at The Washington Times

Melbourne, Australia; January 31, 2013

On January 29th, 2013 I received e-mail from my former editor at The Washington Times inquiring whether I would be interested to come back. Among others she wrote:

“…we are undergoing some exciting changes at The Communities at the same time, The Times is changing a bit, and want to invite you to be a part of it…”

Indeed, since autumn 2012 there is happening something. Not that the newspaper has become less conservative…

I do not identify myself with conservative views at all. I am liberal. What I am doing at The Washington Times is not the politics. I am science writer.

That is why, after consideration, I decided to return and be part of the change ongoing at The Washington Times. My columns will not be as frequent as before (weekly) but I hope to write something once – twice each month. There is much interesting things happening in the mobile phone radiation area. As before, I will make every effort to present unbiased opinions, based on facts and not on gossip.

Lastly, all my old columns with all comments were restored to The Washington Times and are available right away here:

TWT Communities logo

New posts on TWT will be coming shortly…

Advertisements

12 thoughts on ““I AM BACK…” at The Washington Times

  1. I am glad, Dariusz.
    Since you previously worked at STUK, I think the authorities in Sweden have respect for you Dariusz. We have big problems with the National Board and Radiation Safety here in Sweden. Perhaps it’s just as bad in Finland? In Sweden they stopped research on EHS in 2004, if I remember correctly.
    There is much to say about how this mobilphone radiation affects all biological life.
    I have greatly benefited from your skills Dariusz and Dr. Devra Davis. The review of research is extremely important to take note of. And am grateful to have access this critical review. Thanks!

  2. Well, I guess my earlier remark here about the “lamented” column no longer applies. Very good. Maybe you can coax more researchers to, using pseudonym if they dare not speak openly, express themselves, debate the sci. even. I remember that infamous Lerchl fellow even piped up for a bit, albeit with no follow up.

    Your stated reasons for quitting & rejoining the column are pretty dubious, but no matter. It is very much in the public service that you provoke public comment & discussion. Maybe the Times will see readership spikes after your columns come out, and be moved to offer you a paid position to offset what you announced you recently lost. Let the loss be public gain, with spinoff private recovery for you.

  3. I could not find better words than Mr. Segerback in response to this surprising news. 🙂

    In fact, the difference of opinion among scientists on further RF-research is disturbing and yet very interesting.

    I’m very glad, Dr. Leszczynski, that you will continue your good work and look forward to your next blog.

    Best regards
    Doris

  4. Welcome back indeed! The restored columns and comments are a very useful resource for anyone interested in the debate on potential adverse health effects of RF emissions. And I look forward to your future columns. Keep up the good work Dariusz.

  5. I am not a doctor or scientist, but a parent with a real child who, along with millions of children around the world, are being exposed to multiple sources of EMF without consent. Marketing of cellphone and wireless gadgets that target children is to the point of exploit these days. Check this out: http://www.gizmag.com/ipotty-ipad-toilet/25764/pictures#5 From prenatal exposure to baby gadgets to WiFi in school and Bring Your Own Device (Demise!!), where is the end…? Where is the Precautionary Principle? We just signed three “informed consent” documents to the school for one school outing, but non-consent for radiation exposure is completely ignored. Thank you for speaking up on behalf of all children and parents, Dr. Leszczynski and Dr. Davis. Please keep up your great work to turn this tide.

  6. Devra,

    You are correct. Epidemiology does not provide ultimate proof of harm to humans. That is why other studies are very important.

    At the same time we should learn from the past experiences with tobacco or asbestos. We should not wait for the ultimate scientific proof to take action.

    Precautionary action should be taken immediately when science shows red flags. And science concerning mobile phone radiation is full of such red flags.

    That is why precaution, and as I argued recently in my talk in the event ‘Science & Wireless 2012’ (http://www.swinburne.edu.au/lss/bpsyc/science-wireless.html) held at the Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne Australia, Precautionary Principle, should be implemented immediately.

  7. Glad to have you back. Please let your readers know that unlike this website, epidemiology is not a matter of black and white, but truly has many shades of gray. The history of tobacco, asbestos and vinyl chloride reminds us that where we have insisted on definitive human proof of harm, millions have died and suffered avoidable health disasters as a result. Epidemiology simply affirms the past and cannot and should not be used to guide future policies. The absence of proof of harm is not proof of safety. For a discussion of recent findings on reproductive damage to sperm and pregnancy, please see http://www.linktv.org/video/8621/can-cell-phones-kill

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s