Guest Blog from George L. Carlo, stemming from the blog on Martin L. Pall, with commentary from Dariusz Leszczynski

Below is the next in a series of Guest Blogs on BRHP. The opinions expressed in this Guest Blog are of George L. Carlo himself. Publication of these opinions in BRHP does not imply that BRHP automatically agrees with or endorses these opinions. Publication of this, and other guest blogs, facilitates an open debate and free exchange of opinions on wireless technology and health.

The published below opinion from George L. Carlo was triggered by the publication of the blog Professor Martin L. Pall does not know the basics about millimeter waves. Following publication of my blog, George L Carlo, has sent me a very supportive message. This message was then added to the blog post and is available there. Please, read it before continuing, in order to better understand what’s up.

George L. Carlo has expressed a hope that my blog will be the wake-up call. The wake up call is needed in two levels: science itself and informing about science.

Comments about science itself are presented by George L. Carlo in his Guest Blog, whereas my comments pertain to communicating science.

**********************

Commentary from Dariusz Leszczynski

Apart of doing science, informing about science is another important issue and here are my “two cents“. When scientific evidence is unequivocal then we do not have problem and it is easy to agree on what science shows. However, when scientific evidence is ambiguous then came to play different interpretations of it, leading to discrepancies in interpretation and finally to polarization of the opinions on what the science says. This polarization of opinions, an extreme polarization in fact, can be observed in science on EMF and health. This is bad for science and this is bad for the general public that is unable to evaluate science and wonders which of the extreme polarized opinions is the correct one. The extremes in interpretation of the EMF science are that there is either no problem whatsoever and never will be or that the problem is so severe that doom of human kind is on the horizon (within a couple of years). However, looking calmly at the, never perfect, scientific evidence suggests that neither of these extremely polarized opinions is correct. Saying so, in response to an extreme case of scaremongering, was not easy but it was a necessary wake-up call. Over-interpretation of the science in a single direction, pointing towards no less but apocalypse, is a very bad science. When this kind of apocalyptic over-interpretation of science is, then, presented to decision-makers it will be met with skepticism because, the other side of the debate will easily “poke holes” in the “science” of apocalyptic argumentation. In public relations terms, the opposite side of the EMF debate, ICNIRP and telecoms to name just few, will easily make the “apocalypse” a laughing matter. Scaremongering is a very, very, very bad PR. But there is more, a single scaremonger overshadows work of others and in the end the scaremonger and those being more moderate, accurate and ethical  in interpretation of the science, are bundled with scaremonger together, as if they all would be scaremongers. This is another very, very very bad PR outcome. In consequence, decision-makers might stop listening to the words of reason expressed by moderate ethical interpreters of science because they will be considered by decision-makers as scaremongers by association. That is why, after years of listening, I felt compelled to write the above mentioned blog Professor Martin L. Pall does not know the basics about millimeter waves.

It is a wake-up call. Following publication, I got assailed by many, for daring to speak up and be critical. But there are also those who think that the wake-up call was necessary and for the greater good. One of them is George L. Carlo, with whom I am connected for many, many good years. Thank you George.

*****************************

Guest Blog from George L. Carlo

Dariusz:

After some further thought, I believe that the discussion around Martin Pall’s work that you have initiated gives scientists in this arena both a wake-up call and an opportunity for reflection in the interest of increasing the precision of our collective science. We can put this discussion to good use. For those of us who have been working in this area of science for decades, it’s fair to say that we will have humbly come to understand that none of us is equipped alone to know all the nuances of the multiple disciplines necessarily involved in sorting out how waveforms impact biology and health. The physics of waveforms, the dynamics of those waveforms being impacted while moving through the environment, the biophysics of interactions, the quantification of dosimetry, and the triggering of both direct and indirect bio-effects are only the beginning. We then have to contend with genetics, biological effect triggering, stressor compensation, adaptation, epigenetic mechanisms, and then scale-up of structural and functional changes from cells to tissues to organs to organ systems and to the organism itself. To say it’s a heavy lift is a gross understatement as each of these elements is a scientific discipline unto itself. What this tells me is that we need to pay close attention to the expert helpers we need as we formulate new hypotheses, new study designs, new interpretations, and new conclusions. We need to bring into our realms those who are able to dig deep into these unique disciplines as only those who make a living in those disciplines can do. In short, we all need helpers, peer-reviewers and co-authors to be our best. With these types of collaborations, we not only will be more precise in our approaches but synergies will emerge that can catapult us to new understandings and solutions. It is true that peer-review can sometimes become strident. For me, I am most grateful that in my papers, peer-review has mostly been done in private. But whether private or public, the purpose of peer-review, counter comment, and challenging discussion is to get closer to the truth of the matter. As scientists we need to strive for facts that can hold their own. And we’re most likely to get there when we work together, as teams, and with the understanding that the more we iterate and interact, the better we will be and better we’ll be able reach our public health protection goals.

G_________________Dr. George L. Carlo, Washington, D.C

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “Guest Blog from George L. Carlo, stemming from the blog on Martin L. Pall, with commentary from Dariusz Leszczynski

  1. Dr. Leszczynski,
    Do you recall any studies which have been performed on brain cancer patients which use their actual data (minutes and talk time,) not a study in which questionnaire’s were filled out where people were asked to remember? If not, how important to you think that would add to the overall discussion or help in establishing or not establishing a casual relationship? Do you think that piece of information is crucial in all of this? I’ve not yet read a study where real life mobile phone use and factual talk time, was involved – you?

  2. Marne, thanks for this very insightful comment. Would you agree to publish it on BRHP as a guest blog? It would become more visible and, hopefully, alter some attitudes. Thanks, Dariusz

  3. I have been following the science as a layperson for 18 years and been involved in many an advocacy effort during that time. As I have had more and more experience, I have found myself screening out a lot of websites, articles, films, and youtube lectures when presenters take what appears to me to be an extreme position. Imminent, dire predictions do not stick with a general audience, and just make anxious people more anxious.
    From what I understand talking with researchers, the evidence at this time supports significant concern and a need to act to circumvent potential harms. It doesn’t mean we know for sure what or how much that harm might be, or who and how many will be affected. We don’t know the time line.
    Trying to urge people on through imminent, dire predictions seems like a bad idea to me. From a psychological standpoint, you can’t take people from zero to one hundred in one big leap—they will rationalize it and dismiss it the first chance they get. You must get their attention with what is believable, given a little key information, and then build on it. As has been mentioned, it is too easy to become characterized as “one of THOSE people,” not as a scientist or advocate who is basing a position on good quality evidence.
    I don’t know what kind of mechanism can be employed to temper extreme claims. Maybe none. Or maybe we just need to keep letting one another know when we think the other has gone over the top. And be open to reviewing our own positions to make sure they are well supported with evidence.
    One good thing is that we have a variety of points of view on the low intensity effects side of the issue. The industry and its influencers seem monolithic—saying the same things now they have said for over 20 years, showing, to me, little scientific insight or flexible thinking. It seems they have traded all that in for an industry-approved “going truth.” I don’t think we need to try to counter it with another “all or nothing” stance that may be flawed, as well.

  4. Speaking as a member of the generally exposed public, we clearly have not been informed enough–in most cases, not at all–about the biological effects demonstrated in the peer-reviewed literature at the time that cell phones were first introduced and certainly not to date. Every bit of information I have, I had to find myself. I wrote to scientists for clarification, including Dr. Pall, who like all of the others I approached, was kind enough to answer, share his work and deductions. Most people I know didn’t even realize there is anything to investigate before going wireless. When approached about the issue, 9 out of 10 people I talk to will parrot back one of several conditioned responses: something about sunshine, we’re all going to die anyway, FDA says its safe, cancer, no convincing evidence, no scientific consensus… As a heads up to the scientists, when an ordinary person hears no scientific consensus, they think “safe.” Doubt of harm is created and will prevail. No one is fully informing them. 5G means nothing to them but faster downloads.

    Isn’t it fair to say there is sound and replicated scientific evidence of several biological effects that could logically be considered quite adverse? The public is largely unaware that any such science exists. And so they are not making informed decisions. They are not truly consenting to what they have.

    We need more information and I am thankful that Dr. Pall and others like him are speaking out as loudly as they can, based on their own scientific knowledge, experience and deductions. It takes courage and fortitude to stand alone and say something no one wants to hear or believe– that we might be really hurting ourselves, our children, and everything else on our planet–even the entire planet, itself. If a scientist or public policy person or even an ordinary citizen knows/has good reason to believe something is wrong, that people or life in general is in needless danger, isn’t he or she morally obligated to act? To sound the alarm? If not now, when? After scientists do more studies, specific to 5G? How many? But we all will have been exposed by then, probably for years. And then it will be the next level, neural implants, man to machine interface, what have you. What good have the tens of thousands of studies to date done practically to protect the public health and life on this planet? Almost everything is wireless now. Every school, job and home. And now, this technology is being deployed faster and more densely than ever. And more intensely. I am all for more research, BUT FIRST I WANT THE EXPOSURE STOPPED. That is sensible. That is the voice of reason. Then we can afford to wait for the scientific community to reach–if they ever do reach– a scientific consensus. Otherwise, even that consensus won’t stop the exposure. As with all of our other toxic agents, the exposure generally continues indefinitely long after it is found to be toxic because no one can stop it then. The system in place feeds itself! Don’t we all know that by now? This is the old paradigm. The irrevocable damage is done to generations and for generations. Once the 5G infrastructure is up and operating, do you really think it’s coming down? Now is the only time to get people informed and try to stop it. Please speak more loudly and widely about what you do know.

    Our current approach is not comprehensive, but unscientific and immoral because it endangers Life and ignores precaution. The complexity of the science is not being heeded, not fully considered, and surely not completely understood. And this negligence is not purely passive. In the US, as we know, the FCC actively prevents public health and environmental agencies from protecting us, even if they actually want to. So, what can be going on and why?
    All of us are being exposed and so much more is coming. We need a real wake-up call. HELLO! I, personally, wonder why more scientists are not speaking out loudly? And for the ones who are, thank you. I wish everyone could hear and understand you now.

    Despite the fact that there are more cell phones than people in the US–not to mention the towers, access points, satellites, etc, most people have never heard of Dr. Martin Pall. And likely never will. They’ve never heard of any of you. Or your work. And if this trend continues as it has some 30-40 years since the introduction of cordless and cellular phones, they never will. People’s ability to think critically and empathetically is being impacted–for whatever reasons–and that’s been demonstrated by the literature, too. Some of us have heard about the brain tumors. But we text now or we have a sticker, so most of us are not worried. False sense of security! A thousand cuts! Unless we start getting plagued by headaches. I’ve personally known 5 people with brain tumors in the last 15 years or so, not through my advocacy; family, friends and neighbors. All have died, but one. This was unheard of generations ago, but the brain cancer rate is unchanged according to most scientists. So I guess my circle must be a hotspot or a fluke. How many have you known? Anyway, I think it’s past time to speak out loud, to intentionally and fully inform the public now as the 5G lamp posts are being deployed outside their homes.

    Almost everyone I know well enough to know about his or her health–and not just those in my gene pool–has a chronic condition or is borderline for one. Some people have two or more. This also was unheard of when I was young. At the May 3, 2011 School Board meeting of my children’s district, I learned that 1 in 4 students in Hillsborough County, Florida is prescribed psychotropic drugs for mental health and behavioral disorders. Health Services Supervisor Maria Russ went on to state that 1 in 2 students is medicated for asthma, diabetes, seizures, hypertension, cholesterol, etc. This, too, was unheard of when I was a child. What about when you were young? It’s long past time to speak out loud, to intentionally and fully inform the public now as multiple appliances and devices in their homes are being retrofitted for 5G and the internet of things.

    According to Lear, “at least forty chronic diseases and disorders have more than
    doubled in the past generation. Many of these new age diseases weren’t even on our radar
    until the 1980’s.” Many of those have seen a much more dramatic increase than doubling. “The impact from germless disease in America is staggering. In a population of 322 million, there are now more than 700 million instances of the forty fast-growing chronic diseases and medical conditions tracked in [t]his article.” It’s long past time to speak out loud, to intentionally and fully inform the public now as the 20,000 or so satellites are being launched to beam 5G over every millimeter of our Planet. If not now, when?

  5. My thanks to Carlo for timely words, without accusations in any direction. «Real versus simulated mobile phone exposures» in experimental studies» is the title of one of his papers (together with Panagopoulos and Johansson), stressing the need for exactly that same distinction as Pall does:
    In his 90 pages critique of the scandalous SCENIHR 2016 report that paves the way for 5G rollout, Pall does over and over again stress the need for using «real mobile phone exposures» in experimental studies in stead of simulated exposures, which, he argues, often consist of sine waves. And he connects the reason why this distiction is so important, to the impact of «pulsing», (which means lower frequencies than mm waves when mm waves is used), among other factors. I understand from this that, to him, as to me and the layman, «real millimeter waves» include the lower frequencies modulated into them, as well as the various derived mechanisms thereof.
    Hence, as to the debacle that triggered Carlo’s remark, following Dariusz’s «wake up call» followed by harsh words and condemnations, I think much of it is due to semantics, and could – and should – be reduced to a complaint from the part of Dariusz as to a lack of precision in the use of the term “millimeter waves”. If I am wrong, I would like to have a clarification, as also seems needed for others in this discussion.
    However, be that as it might, I have a comment to the scientic ambition that Carlo seems to set, if I understand him right: Of course we always need better and more well-founded knowledge, but do we really need to know it in all details before warning? Or should seeing in which direction development PROBABLY is taking us, be enough to trigger warnings and action? To me, the ICNIRP rules of the game have just been to insist on the former, thereby paralyzing all precautionary action:
    In empirical sciences, there is no final truth, and the process of finding the final answer is, as we know, endless. Results will always be debatable, in particular when the numbers of parameters are next to endless and the systems are dynamic, homestasis seeking and hardly delimitable, as Carlo underscores. We know from the litterature on the tobacco companies’ strategy games, that exploiting this feature has been consciously planned and executed. Hence, we cannot always permit ourselves a strategy that DEPENDS on finding final, not even better, answers, as seem to be Carlo’s ambition.
    It is old wisdom about paradigm shifts (from Kuhn, I guess) that the old paradigms do not die from its adherers getting convinced of the new paradigm, but from them dying off. Hence, when fighting for paradigm shifts, dialogue might be futile, and polarization – as well as drawing the worst case scenarios based on present knowledge – might be a justified, and even necessary, way forward, although unplesant. In the real world, one has to mix and balance them both, although the two strategies might damage each other and each will have its adherers. However, of course, one should make clear when one is talking about factual research results, and when one is extrapolating or showing worst case scenarios to wake up politicians and the general public. They need that we speak with a concerted voice, with well grounded opinions, respecting that more than just one of the strategies is right.

  6. As a mother who fought for six years to get my very sensitive son out of wifi in school I cannot express, how important I find this initiative for clarification. Today, I have no doubt that my son should have been shielded and it is liberating to experience more and more people waking up one by one and taking action. But the experience of being ignored and not listened to by anyone – and therefore failing – combined with the struggle to try to understand this whole issue and the seriousness (or not), completely tore me apart. So please and thank you!

  7. I asked for clarification after the lecture in Mainz. However, he did not respond to my message. Then, in Helsinki, he has repeated the same opinion using exactly the same wording and expressions. I have no doubts that he is not talking about Brillouin Precursors because, if he did, he would mention it either in London lecture or Mainz lecture or Helsinki lecture.

  8. Dariusz, have you considered asking Dr. Pall whether he’s talking about the effect known as Brillouin Precursors when he says that mmWaves penetrate deeper than as per your definition?

  9. a change in initials. Suggestion? Attached is todays update about electromagnetic radiation I give to my visitors. Suggestions? Improvements?

    Diane Schou

    On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 5:02 AM BRHP – Between a Rock and a Hard Place wrote:

    > dariuszleszczynski posted: “Below is the next in a series of Guest Blogs > on BRHP. The opinions expressed in this Guest Blog are of George L. Carlo > himself. Publication of these opinions in BRHP does not imply that BRHP > automatically agrees with or endorses these opinions. Publicatio” >

  10. Thanks Q. As you correctly pointed out, scaremongering also scares funding agencies and hampers efforts to conduct research on EMF. Dariusz

  11. Hi Dariusz,
    Your evaluation of Prof. Pall’s opinions on mm waves is on the mark. His scare mongering does not help in bringing attention and funding to needed biological research.
    Best wishes,
    Q.

  12. Thanks Nicolas. Polarization of opinions is bad but I have no idea how to resolve it. In 2012 I called for a round table and invited e.g. ICNIRP and BioInitiative and MMF (currently MWF) and GSMA. All of them refused stating that they are not interested…

  13. As someone who is a non-scientist but focused on explaining the complicated science to the public and navigating the cloudy waters of “what we should do right now, until the science becomes clear” — I applaud your efforts to bring this debate to the table.

    While some pro-industry scientists like Dr. Karl are pushing forward the idea that there’s no problem whatsoever, others like Dr. Pall and Firstenberg, for example, push forward the idea that the future is bleak.

    I honestly have no definite idea who’s right on this — but what I do know is that the only way to get more clarity on the issue is to openly share ideas, instead of taking an “us versus them” approach.

    I think that everyone — public, scientists, activists, doctors, and wider — who believes that EMFs are not safe at least agree on something. Real science is lacking, and we’re definitely “flying blind” (as Senator Blumenthal put it last year) about the health effects that we’re already seeing or might see in the future.

    Our common goal is to avoid the mistakes of the past — asbestos, glyphosate, etc — or at least minimize the health effects of wireless as soon as possible, and as much as possible… while also helping shape the future of safe technology.

    Thanks Dr. Leszczynski & Dr. Carlo.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.