Dariusz Leszczynski

Published 8:52 p.m. May 3, 2012

The recent UK Health Protection Agency’s (HPA) Report ‘Health Effects from Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields’ by the Advisory Group on Non-Ionizing radiation (AGNIR) clearly misleads the public and decision makers alike. It claims to be a comprehensive review of studies published after 2003. It is by far not what it claims to be.

Published 3:09 a.m. April 14, 2012

Former Head of the WHO EMF Project, Mike Repacholi, commented that the former Head of the WHO, Gro Harlem Brundtland, spread "fear of cell phones"

Published 9:55 a.m. April 7, 2012

The IARC has warned that cell phone radiation is a possible carcinogen. Why the warning was forgotten?

Published 10:56 a.m. April 1, 2012

Four European experts consider that EHS, ailment allegedly caused by EMF, does not exist. Austrian physicians think the opposite and provide guidelines how to diagnose EHS. Is the science on EHS sufficiently reliable for any far reaching conclusions? I do not think so. New scientific approach is urgently needed.

Published 3:30 p.m. March 26, 2012

Use of the headline "Mouse, phone call" (in German "Maus, Telefon!") in the German Die Zeit story attempts to ridicule Yale study on the effects of cell phone radiation on mouse fetuses. For me, the Die Zeit story ultimately ridicules not the Yale study, but also the debunker.

Published 3:14 p.m. March 18, 2012

Users are continuously assured by the authorities that current cell phone radiation safety limits protect us all. The new study from Yale seriously questions this assumption. It is a wake-up call for research.

Published 7:28 a.m. March 14, 2012

NCI scientists conclude that the brain cancer rise trend in USA fits predictions made by INTERPHONE study.

Published 8:06 a.m. February 24, 2012

Health concerns are not sufficient to reverse or even slow down wireless technological development. The problem has become a policy and politics issue.

Published 12:00 p.m. February 18, 2012

It is difficult to understand the scare and hype surrounding "smart meters". Radiation exposure is negligible.

Published 2:41 p.m. February 13, 2012

Should the general public trust in what peer-reviewed articles published in scientific journals say? I recommend a "limited trust".

Published 3:19 a.m. February 4, 2012

Environment & Human Health, Inc. just released its report on cell phones. The first impression is good. However, like with every report, there are both good and bad points.

Published 8:36 a.m. January 31, 2012

Animal studies, important tools to evaluate health risks, are less applicable to cell phone radiation studies because of the heating ability of this radiation.

Published 9:48 a.m. January 22, 2012

INTERPHONE is casting, and will continue to cast, a long shadow over the future cell phone research while Epidemiological research is stuck in a vicious circle

Published 10:21 a.m. January 11, 2012

Epidemiological studies are given the most weight in the evaluation of human health effects but are they overrated?

Published 10:52 a.m. January 3, 2012

The WHO says that the electromagnetic hypersensitivity does not exist. People say the opposite. Does science provide an answer?