On Nov. 28th, 2018, the Australian Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research (ACEBR) with the financial support of Telstra organizes this year’s Science and Wireless event at the Innovation Campus of the University of Wollongong.
In order to participate in the S&W2018 it is necessary to RSVP before Nov. 12, 2018. Registration form is here: Science & Wireless 2018 – Registration Form
I have registered for this event and will report on the developments in the EHS research.
One of the main topics will be presentation on ‘EHS: Current Knowledge and Future Research Needs‘ by Adam Verrender of the ACEBR (Verrender is a PhD student of Croft and Loughran). For those interested in the EHS, it is a “slim” chance that at the S&W2018 will be reported any progress in scientifically resolving the issue of causal connection between EHS and EMF.
All important players from Australia will be there: R.Croft of ICNIRP, S.Loughran of ACEBR, M.Wood of Telstra, A.Wood of Swinburne and K.Karipidis of ARPANSA.
One thing that “unites” all of the Australian players is the stubborn & firm opinion, contrary to the all available scientific evidence, that there is no causal link whatsoever between the EHS and EMF. They all agree that the symptoms reported by the persons claiming to be EHS are real but… not caused by the EMF exposures.
Having experience of over 20 years of hands-on research on the biological and health effects, I have written report explaining why the to-date executed research on EHS is of inadequate scientific quality to claim lack of causal link between EHS and EMF.
The fact is that the shortcomings in the design of the EHS studies, do not permit to claim neither existence nor lack of causal link between EHS and EMF.
My attempt to discuss the issue of EHS with the CEO of ARPANSA, Dr. Carl-Magnus Larsson, and other experts within this organization was, after a nearly one month of back-and-forth e-mail wrangling, flatly rejected. I was simply informed that my report on EHS will be read and considered, of course at the discretion of ARPANSA = I will not get to know whether any of the arguments of my report were accepted/rejected.
This “procedure” of ARPANSA resembles very much the recent ICNIRP’s consultation. Anyone can submit comments but nobody will get to know if any of the specific comments were considered as valid and accepted or rejected, as per statement on ICNIRP website [emphasis added DL]:
“…When all comments have been considered, a short feedback will be provided via the website on how ICNIRP dealt with the comments. For time constraints, though, no individual replies will be formulated…”
However, on the contrary to ARPANSA, R. Croft of ACEBR and Telstra‘s M. Wood and S. Iskra agreed (or nearly agreed) to meet and discuss the EHS issue.
Representatives of the industry organizations MWF and GSMA, so far, did not respond to my repeated e-mails asking for debate…
A A Marino has done some good work on EHS however it is difficult to communicate well w/ people who have a vested interest not to hear.
Good luck, but it seems the outcome is predetermined…..