In published today opinion in ‘Voi hyvin’ journal (9/2016), Professor of Physics Tapio Ala-Nissilä makes simply joke of himself when he states [emphasis added DL]:
“…Naiivia on väittää, että glioomien takana olisi heikko SMG-säteily “tuntemattomana tekijänä”. Jos näin on, eihän glioomia olisi pitänyt esiintyä ollenkaan ennen digitaalisen tiedonvälityksen aikakautta ja niiden määrän olisi pitänyt kasvaa räjähdysmäisesti jo 1990-luvulta lähtien. Todelliset terveysriskit ovat aivan muualla kuin “kännykkäsäteilyssä”. Tapio Ala-Nissilä, fysiikan professori, COMP-huippuyksikkö…”
Here is translated text with added emphasis on most ridiculous part of the statement by Ala-Nissilä::
“…It is naïve to claim that gliomas would be caused by weak EMF radiation as an “unknown factor”. If so, gliomas would have not happen at all before time of digital communication and their number should have been growing exponentially since the 1990s. The actual health risks are much different from “mobile phone radiation”. Tapio Ala-Nissilä, Professor of Physics, the COMP Center of Excellence…”
Is this the ultimate proof that cell phone radiation can not cause glioma? Apparently, in mind of Professor Ala-Nissilä, it is the ultimate proof. Professor Ala-Nissilä claims that because gliomas were happening before the wireless radiation emitting devices came to use, therefore, this proves that wireless devices-emitted radiation can’t cause gliomas.
With this statement and opinion on gliomas Professor of Physics Tapio Ala-Nissila makes simply a joke of himself and his knowledge.
Such opinions may “mislead and impress” some of the lay persons because they are signed and served by the of “Aalto University Professor of Physics from COMP Center of Excellence”, but it does not mean these opinions are correct or even logical.
I honestly wonder, how Professor of Physics who has no knowledge whatsoever about bio-medical research, who should be considered lay person or amateur in area of bio-medicine, can serve such final opinions on health?
There might be, and are, differences of opinions in interpretation of the currently available science on cell phone radiation and health. Not all is clear. Especially that lots of scientific evidence is either contradictory or ambivalent, leaving room for diverse interpretations.
However, what Professor Ala-Nissilä presents can not be considered as serious scientific opinions. What he presents are rumblings of “amateur bio-medical researcher”.
Is this behavior of Professor Tapio Ala-Nissilä, serving misleading and false opinions on science, in line with the code of ethics in science at the Aalto University?