George Carlo comments on the RF part of the World Cancer Report 2020

In response to my yesterday’s blog post, critical of the evaluation of RF-related carcinogenicity in the World Cancer Report 2020 published by IARC, George Carlo has submitted a short comment. Because issues mentioned in the comment are of importance, I have decided to post this comment as a separate blog post.

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

George Carlo comments on the RF part of the IARC World Cancer Report 2020

It is not clear to me whether the shortcomings in this astonishingly erroneous subchapter of the World Cancer Report is the result of investigator bias or simple scientific incompetence.

The rationale used by the authors to dismiss causal inferences between bioactive waveforms (which they improperly generalize as RF-EMF as if all are forms of such are biologically equivalent) and tumors, are indeed more appropriately determinative of false-negative findings or underestimates of true risk. Each of the imprecisions they highlight — from latency to recall inaccuracies, and amplified by the fact that exposure to cell phone emissions is most accurately quantifiable based on location relative to base stations than time on a call — are all discussed in the epidemiological literature as biases toward the null hypothesis. Similar factors are appropriately used in interpreting experimental toxicology studies, with the added imprecision of extrapolation from animal models to real-life human use situations.

Further, the now determined bioactivity mechanisms attendant to polarized waveform induced biological cascades present another layer of challenges, as the health outcomes from such fundamental biological activity are varied from person to person due to genetic and epigenetic characteristics. This is another layer of imprecision both leading to underestimates of true risk and underscoring that the traditional interpretive rationale that unique exposures lead to unique effects (e.g. asbestos/mesothelioma; smoking/lung cancer; vinyl chloride/angiosarcoma of the liver) does not hold up with wireless waveform sequelae.

That the traditional tools for determining cause and effect used by groups such as IARC are not precise enough for the uniquely arrayed bioactive exposures from wireless devices needs to be openly recognized and addressed in fora such as the World Cancer Report. New methods need to be devised which increase precision and accuracy. If not, this type of published report, which skims over and even eliminates known facts in favor of supposedly learned opinions, becomes not only a source of wrong information but a disservice to the public that the World Health Organization is supposed to serve.

12 thoughts on “George Carlo comments on the RF part of the World Cancer Report 2020

  1. Pingback: US FDA 2020 Report on RF-EMF contradicts ICNIRP + RF part of IARC’s World Cancer Report 2020 | Piotr Bein's blog = blog Piotra Beina

  2. @Tomwhitney – The FDA employs an ICNIRP commission member, Sharon Miller – go read her bio on their site. James C. Lin, is a fellow at IEEE, who was also a commissioner at ICNIRP (at the same time and who is now publishing pro-safety, pro-precaution paper suggesting the IARC up their classification.) You clearly haven’t done any research.

  3. BTW, FDA do not have the same set of scientists as the others. Nor does IEEE. Yet, they have all reached the same conclusions as the ICNIRP scientists – none of which have any connections to the wireless industry!

  4. You, Tom Whitney, have no ability to determine whether the “authoritative” sources’ claims of safety are exaggerated or not. Your education and knowledge are insufficient for such evaluation.

    Not all what the “authoritative” sources say is always correct. If so, then we would be still be considering smoking as source of healthy balm for lungs or powdering kids hair with DDT to prevent parasites… and so on and so on… Authors of “authoritative” sources also make mistakes or have bias.

    It is job of scientists to question everything, no matter how authoritative it might appear. Amateur “experts” like yourself are just followers of opinions that you like but that not necessarily are fully correct.

    BTW, all “authoritative” sources that you listed have the same set of core-experts… no wonder they arrive at the same conclusions…

  5. Calling ‘scientists’ on their attempts to frame their exaggeration and speculation as accepted science is not “making malicious fun” – it’s fair comment. I must apologize for my bias toward accepted science opinion as published by authoritative sources such as WHO, FDA, ARPANSA, ICNIRP, Health Canada, etc., etc. My bad!

  6. It is not about this particular comment. It stems from years of experience with your comments, disseminated as either ‘Tom Whitney’ or ‘Doubting Thomas’.

  7. Time will show. Carlo is at least a scientist and his opinions are worth reading, even if disagreeing, whereas you, making malicious fun of scientists, are just an amateur “expert” with bias towards the telecom industry (you were scouting for locations for cell towers).

  8. Pingback: George Carlo comments on the RF part of the World Cancer Report 2020 – Eremophila's Musings

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.