AUSTRALIA, March 5, 2013 - In my previous column I proposed “The Round-Table Initiative” that would attempt to close the gap between evaluations of scientific evidence done by the ICNIRP and by the BioInitiative. [The website of the Round-Table Initiative available here]
Unfortunately, both “private clubs”, as I call them, rejected outright my initiative.
The responses of BioInitiative and ICNIRP clearly indicate that each “club” considers the other club to consist of either lesser scientists or of corrupted scientists. This is not a good basis for any debate.
ICNIRP is a “club” with well developed procedures. The INCIRP hails these “procedures” as a proof of the correctness of science evaluation.
I strongly disagree with this ICNIRP’s notion. Having, or not having, an elaborate bureaucratic procedure has nothing to do with the expertise in evaluation of science. If it would, then the vast majority, if not all, of to date published scientific review articles would be worthless. Their authors had no bureaucratic procedures to follow when they evaluated science and wrote reviews. By ICNIRP’s own criteria these reviews are lesser science. I think that their authors would strongly disagree.
ICNIRP’s rejection message had also a flavor of “scientific arrogance” by stating that:
”We do not consider that participation in the suggested Round Table would bring any added value to our science-based approach.”
This ICNIRP’s statement implies that ICNIRP has all needed knowledge and that discussions with anybody else will not provide any added value. This is a very well known and frequently used phrase when someone does not want to be bothered but at the same time is obliged to give an answer to an inquiry – no added value.
It is no wonder that the ICNIRP does not care about other scientists’ opinions. ICNIRP has all “power” it needs to decide what safety standards are sufficient and should be implemented world wide, thanks to backing from the WHO and MMF. And this influence ICNIRP uses.
Here is an example of how the ICNIRP the safety standards were implemented in
1. ICNIRP reviewed science and proposed safety standards
2. WHO, though the WHO EMF Project, led then by the Chairman Emeritus of ICNIRP, advised worldwide implementation of ICNIRP safety standards
3. Appropriate Minister in the Finnish Government asked appropriate Authority to give an opinion on the validity of the ICNIRP safety standards
4. The Expert from the Authority gave opinion that fully supported implementation of the ICNIRP safety standards in
Throughout the whole process ICNIRP plays an important role. Why would the ICNIRP be interested in any Round-Table Initiative? ICNIRP got all the influence that it needs to recommend (=dictate?) safety standards.
If some country steps out of line and implements own, non-ICNIRP safety standards, then ICNIRP gets help from MMF. Recently MMF criticized the city of Brussels, for implementing more restrictive safety standards.
Thus, MMF also refused to participate in the Round-Table Initiative because it is not interested in changing the status quo that allows unlimited implementation of wireless technologies when each of them alone meets the ICNIRP safety standards.
However, there is not much consideration for the possibility that each single technology that meets ICNIRP safety standards, when combined in “time and space” with other wireless technologies, causes constant “thickening” of the surrounding us EMF-smog. This all is happening in situation when science dose not know what is the safe limit for such EMF-smog for general population and for the sub-population of EMF sensitive persons. As I wrote in my earlier column such sensitive sub-population must exist but we still do not know how to detect and diagnose it.
Furthermore, MMF used participation in the EU stakeholders group as an excuse to refuse participation in the Round-Table Initiative. Unfortunately, the stakeholders group was not designed to re-evaluate science in order to find common explanation for the observed effects. Furthermore, the stakeholders group is semi-dead since late 2011, with the exception of the recent conference that had nothing to do with evaluation of science. In a single word, the refusal e-mail from MMF was misleading.
BioInitiative is another “private club” that also refused to take part in the Round-Table Initiative and called it a waste of time. The BioInitiative indicated that this organization made great progress and achieved lot of attention and influence with their first and second reports. They did not want that these achievements would be diluted or outright wasted by the Round-Table Initiative.
I disagree with some of the arguments presented by the BioInitiative. The fact that many people viewed the first BioInitiative report does not yet mean that the viewers agreed with the report’s conclusions. Many years passed since the publication of the first BioInitiative report and not much progress has been achieved.
The BioInitiative may have made more people are aware of the problem. But the fact remains that the safety standards are the same as before, the Precautionary Principle is not considered as implementable and the expansion of wireless technology continues at an increasing speed.
To me it means that the opinions of ICNIRP, and not opinions of the BioInitiative, are still dominant and propagated by WHO and implemented by various governments around the world.
This whole situation is worrisome. The wireless technologies are everywhere and are expanding at an increasing pace. Society, which should benefit from the scientific debate, is in fact kept hostage of two groups of scientists that do not wish to discuss but just defend their own “sandboxes”.
These groups of scientists are not responsible in front of anyone. In a way is possible to say that they behave as if their only responsibility would be before “God and History”. But what will happen if they are wrong? When the safety standards will be shown inappropriate and people will be getting sick?
Industry will say that they implemented safety standards recommended by scientists. Both groups of scientists will say that they made best evaluation of science possible. Who will be responsible for eventual human health damage that is possible? Who will be responsible for the stubbornness and refusal to continue scientific debate and scientific research? Apparently nobody, because every one of them, BioInitiative, ICNIRP and MMF, will have some excuse…
We have a serious scientific hostage crisis going on. We all, users of the wireless technologies, are kept as hostages.
I do not know who can solve this hostage crisis and force all parties to the same Round-Table. It seems that the only power able to do it might be either massive grass-root movement or action of influential politicians or combination of the above. Because the “private clubs” and the industry are sitting in their own “sandboxes” and stubbornly refuse debate.
Suggestions how to solve this Hostage Crisis are cordially welcome!
Follow Dariusz on twitter: @blogBRHP
Disclaimer: the opinions presented in this column are author’s own and should not be automatically considered as opinions of his employer.
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.