Recently, I posted several blogs on SCENIHR, presenting my own opinion and two opinions coming from Radiation Research Trust, UK (link 1; link 2)
In my own opinion blog on SCENIHR, I stated the following about the membership of SCENIHR:
“It would be also interesting to get to know what are the EU ‘criteria’ used in selection of scientists to SCENIHR.“
Knowing the basis of the selection process is of importance because of the very strong impact of SCENIHR report on the development of RF-related policies within the European Union.
The selection of scientists to SCENIHR, at least from the sidelines, looks like the selection process used by ICNIRP – ‘The Buddy System’ – leading to formation of yet another exclusive, by-invitation-only, ‘private club’. Friends are selecting/recommending friends with the same scientific opinions. This time, however, in contrast with the earlier SCENIHR compositions, one (!) scientist with different opinions was added, sort of “cherry on the top”. Apparently, his single vote and his lone opinions and co-authored publications counted for nothing for the IARC’s epidemiologist, responsible for epidemiological part of the SCENIHR report.
Today, EMFields Consultancy published post with SCENIHR-concerning comments from Mona Nilsson and the Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation (SRPF). SRPF went further than just asking for disclosing the selection process for the SCENIHR membership. They called for the total overhaul of SCENIHR membership. Here are two quotes from the SRPF opinion:
“…There is even evidence of scientific fraud or misconduct [in SCENIHR report]. We hereby expose why:
A. Fraudulent and misleading presentation of what studies on brain tumour risks in children, adolescents and adults show;
B. Omission of critical new studies providing evidence of increased risks of malignant brain tumours from mobile phone use;
C. Omission of critical statistical data over increasing trends in brain tumour incidence in some countries;
D. Omission and biased presentation of studies showing increased cancer risks from base stations;
E. Serious omissions of results of studies showing negative effects and health risks from RF – EMF radiation: 144 of 211 new neurological studies show neurological effects (68%)
and 90% of 105 studies show neurological effects of low frequency EMF…”
The Preliminary Opinion of SCENIHR gives a false and even fraudulent presentation of research results and statistical data. Critical data are abundantly omitted or ignored. Studies and results showing health risks from radiofrequency and low frequency radiation are misrepresented. Studies showing no risks with severe limitations and errors are instead presented without any relevant criticism.
In conclusion the report should be revised and submitted to a new group of experts that are prone to and capable of presenting an objective and accurate report of what the science has shown about health risks from high frequency radiation from wireless technology and techniques emitting low frequency radiation. The available preliminary opinion of SCENIHR is a disservice and a betrayal to the people of the European Union…” [emphasis added DL]
Read the full opinion from Mona Nilsson and the Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation.
The above opinion of the SRPF was also sent by Susan Foster to John Ryan of EU. Letter explains what are the problems with evaluation of epidemiological evidence in SCENIHR report. Letter of Susan Foster to John Ryan, Acting Director, EC May 8, 2014. This letter was broadly distributed among the scientists as seen from the “cc” listing.
Pingback: Eesti kiirgusalane pädevus: kallutatud teadus ja Wikipedia! – Kiirgusinfo
Pingback: CANADA: WEEP News – SCENIHR special reports | hjjproductions