Will the GAO report for the FCC follow the fate of NAS report for the FDA?

The GAO report will be read, acknowledged, considered and... nothing will happen. Photo: author

MELBOURNE, Australia, August 9, 2012—In 2007, the US Food and Drug Administration asked the US National Academies of Science to organize a workshop: ‘Identification of Research Needs Relating to Potential Biological or Adverse Health Effects of Wireless Communication’. Presentations at the workshop were invited from leading US and international scientists. I had the honour to present my views at the workshop.

Following the workshop, in 2008, the US National Academies published a report of the outcome of the presentations and discussions. The report identified a long list of research gaps that needed the attention of scientists. The hope was that the US FDA will, based on the identified research needs, would set up a new research program in the USA.

Expectations were futile. The FDA decided that there is no need for a new research program.

Five years have passed from the time of that futile effort. A few days ago, the US Government Accountability Office published a report urging the US Federal Communications Commission to revisit the outdated safety standards for the exposures from wireless devices.

It will be interesting to see whether the GAO report encounters the same fate as the NAS report did.

The GAO report will be read, acknowledged, considered and… nothing will happen. Or, will it be, as some pessimistic forecasters suggest, that the safety standards will be revised, but the outcome might be new, less stringent standards, harmonized with ICNIRP.

The impetus for the GAO study and report was given by the 2011 IARC classification of cell phone radiation as a possible carcinogen. This classification, as I have written already, gives justification for a revision of our thinking about the potential health risks associated with the wireless communications.

The IARC classification, without applying any ‘spin’ but using just plain and simple logical thinking, allows the following (for details see here):

  • justifies implementation of the Precautionary Principle
  • confirms the existence of non-thermal effects that can cause health risk
  • indicates that the current safety standards are insufficient to protect health of the users

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

Read more from Dariusz Leszczynski in his science blog “BRHP - Between a Rock and a Hard Place”.

Follow Dariusz on twitter:@blogBRHP

Disclaimer: the opinions presented in this column are author’s own and should NOT be considered as the official opinions of any of Dariusz Leszczynski’s employers.


This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ WashingtonTimes.com. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

More from Between a Rock and a Hard Place
 
blog comments powered by Disqus
Dariusz Leszczynski

Dariusz Leszczynski is an expert in the biological and health effects of cell phone radiation.

Since 2009 he publishes a science blog dealing with the issue of cell phone radiation and health: http://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com  

Disclaimer: the opinions presented in this column are authors' own and SHOULD NOT be considered as opinions of any of his employers.

Contact Dariusz Leszczynski

Error

Please enable pop-ups to use this feature, don't worry you can always turn them off later.

Question of the Day
Featured
Photo Galleries
Popular Threads
Powered by Disqus