The Hostage Crisis – column in TWTC

My new column in The Washington Times Communities (TWTC) deals with the refusals of ICNIRP, BioInitiative and MMF to take part in The Round-Table Initiative.

Mistrust seems to run deep. No solution in sight. Everyone defends current status quo and own “sandbox”.

You can read TWTC column here: The Cell Phone Radiation Hostage Crisis

 

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “The Hostage Crisis – column in TWTC

  1. Dr Repacholi, I have 2 questions:

    1. Which forum do you think would be best “to discuss differences between ICNIRP and the BioInitiative report authors”?

    2. You state that “ICNIRP believes […] that high quality, replicated studies providing established health effects is the only basis on which to develop standards…” – To my understanding, developing standards in this way means exposure first, for an unspecified and indefinitely extended period of time – which leaves no room for Precaution. i.e. you are according the expansion of RFR the same rights as a person before a court of law who is “innocent until proven guilty”. Are the standards intended to protect people, or rampant RFR exposures?

  2. Mike,

    Thanks for commenting.

    I do not agree with all what you say and wonder at some of your statements.

    1. The most recent text where I discussed BioInitiative and ICNIRP was published in my science column in The Washington Times, not in this blog. This is the forum that I have… ICNIRP and BioInitiative dismiss me and my opinions…

    2. I do not understand the meaning of your statement “…differences between ICNIRP and the BioInitiative report authors. You know they are world’s apart. …”. ? In what way they are “world’s apart”…

    3. The weight-of-evidence approach is being abused by ICNIRP because the higher number of negative studies is being used to dismiss claims made in lower number of positive studies. This is unscientific. Both negative and positive studies should be judged on their science, not number of them. Scientific merit is the most important criterium. One good study should be able to change opinion and not be dismissed because there are few more negative studies. ICNIRP’s attitude dismisses such approach. This is wrong. Also, the negative studies are not scrutinized for their quality but accepted as obvious by ICNIRP. This is absolutely biased attitude of ICNIRP.

    4. As I said in my science column, procedures are not enough to guarantee quality of scientific review. If it would be so then all review articles published in science would be worthless by this criterion, because authors had no “written procedures”.

    5. In my opinion the “health risk assessment approach”, mentioned in your comment, does not guarantee correctness of the evaluation of science. The same health risk approach by WHO and by ICNIRP and by national committees does not guarantee that science is being evaluated correctly.

    6. orrectness of the evaluation of science is of paramount importance. Once science is evaluated correctly, other things are “easy”.

    I am sure that both evaluations, ICNIRP and BioInitiative, have some correct ideas and some wrong ideas. It is not so that all ICNIRP is correct and all BioInitiative is not. It is seriously biased attitude. Joining forces in the Round-Table Initiative would give a chance to sift out good ideas from wrong ones, that are present in reports by both teams of scientists. Unfortunately both geoups of scientists prefere to defend own “sandbox” than debate science openly.

    Best, Dariusz

  3. Dariusz I dont think your blog is the best medium to discuss differences between ICNIRP and the BioInitiative report authors. You know they are world’s apart. Nice try but no T-shirt as they jokingly say in English.
    ICNIRP believes, and rightly so, that high quality, replicated studies providing established health effects is the only basis on which to develop standards. The weight-of-evidence approach is also the only way to establish effects given the high number of poor quality EMF studies that are now published in the large number of weakly peer-reviewed online journals that actively seek papers. The BIR cherry picks positive studies that support their own conclusions and suggests standards that have no scientific basis. This is why ICNIRP uses the same health risk assessment approach used by WHO and all national blue-ribbon panels.

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