Why EHS sufferers and activists are shooting their own foot, again and again?

I learned this lesson already in 1999. Large part of EHS activists accept and approve scientists’ opinion on EHS only when it agrees 100% with their own. They, EHS activists, already know for sure that EHS is caused by EMF, … Continue reading →

Possible ‘censorship’ and certainly ‘cherry-picking’ of science in ‘Helsingin sanomat’, the major Finnish newspaper

This gallery contains 1 photo.

Helsingin sanomat is the major daily newspaper in Finland. Helsingin sanomat does not publish, as if by default, stories, opinions and science questioning the health safety of the radiation emitted by the wireless communication devices and their networks. For Helsingin … Continue reading →

Is ‘junk journalism’ complaining about ‘junk science’ in The Baltimore Sun?

This gallery contains 4 photos.

this post is open for comments The most efficient way to mislead an inexperienced reader is to write a story with a pinch of truth, a pinch of ambiguity and a dose of falsehoods or misrepresentations. This is the way … Continue reading →

SCENIHR’s credibility problem… again…

Eileen O’Connor’s post about the credibility problem of SCENIHR was just published by EMFacts Consultancy. It is titled “Industry bias exposed in SCENIHR’s scientific assessment” and here is a quote from this post “…Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified … Continue reading →