Opinions, recently expressed by Rodney Croft, the newly elected member of the Main Commission of ICNIRP International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) and Director of ACEBR (Australian Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research), are worrisome. Especially in the context of his influential position in Australian RF (radio frequency radiation) research that got in 2012 and 2013 ca. $7,500,000 to do research on RF and human health.
The opinions in question were published in Illawara Mercury September 28, 2013
“…”There’s a pretty strong consensus that there’s not a problem in adults, but people have only started doing research on children in the last five years and very little has come out of it,” he said. “We’ve got no reason to believe that there’ll be a greater effect in children than in adults.” “But we just don’t understand well enough the maturational phases that children go through, so it’s possible there’s greater sensitivity.”…”
I recently commented, on the opinions expressed by Rodney for Illawara Mercury, in news about new funding in Australia for RF research:
“It seems that Australia, because of recent research funding for studies on RF and health, is becoming “Mecca” for RF research. And it has a “prophet” – Rodney – speaking that: “there’s a pretty strong consensus that there’s not a problem in adults”… “We’ve got no reason to believe that there’ll be a greater effect in children than in adults.” It is absolutely embarrassing that such statements can be made by a scientist who is considered as expert in the field. There is absolutely no consensus among the scientists. Exception might be a pre-selected private club called ICNIRP, of which Rodney has recently become a member. Nothing else but, unfortunately, Voodoo Science comments from Rodney…”
I strongly disagree with the opinion that there is a scientific consensus in the matter of RF and health and here is why…
According to Wikipedia:
“Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.”
WHO (World Health Organization) follows in its advice in matters of RF and health, advice given by the ICNIRP and by the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer). The advice on RF and cancer, based on epidemiological evidence, and given by these two organizations are very different and show lack of consensus.
IARC classified in May 2011 RF as a possibly carcinogenic to humans and expressed the following opinion in a story published in The Lancet Oncology:
“…The Working Group concluded that there is “limited evidence in humans” for the carcinogenicity of RFEMF, based on positive associations between glioma and acoustic neuroma and exposure to RF-EMF from wireless phones…”
The ICNIRP expressed the following opinion on the same matter – epidemiological evidence of carcinogenicity – in article published in Environmental Health Perspectives:
“…Although there remains some uncertainty, the trend in the accumulating evidence is increasingly against the hypothesis that mobile phone use can cause brain tumours in adults…”
These are two scientifically different opinions presented by two different organizations that advice the one and the only – WHO. There is no consensus between them.
It is just one example demonstrating that Rodney’s claim of “consensus” is wrong.
There is no scientific consensus on RF and health.
However, some scientists repeat this consensus-mantra ad nauseam and hope that this half-truth, when repeated sufficiently often in public, will become something else than it is…