“Radiation Research” and The Cult of Negative Studies
Dear Colleagues:
"Radiation Research" is known in some EMF circles as the journal of negative results. Even its editors appear to be sensitive about the fact that they almost only publish papers which show that extremely-low-frequency fields and RF/microwave radiation have no biological effects. In its June issue, three of the editors, including John Moulder, offer us an explanation in an editorial titled "Publishing Negative Results."
This prompted us to take a closer look. With the help of Henry Lai of the University of Washington in Seattle, we assembled a subset of radiation health studies --those on the effects of microwaves on DNA. We found that, unlike Radiation Research, many other peer-reviewed journal have had no trouble finding high-quality papers that do show genotoxic effects.
When we investigated who sponsored the microwave-DNA papers published in Radiation Research, we discovered that four out of five were paid for by the wireless industry --notably Motorola-- and/or the U.S. Air Force, both of which have a long history of trying to control or suppress EMF research. Indeed, industry and the USAF paid for more than 75% of all the negative genotox studies, that is those published in all the various journals.
What goes unmentioned in the Radiation Research editorial is that Moulder is a long-time consultant to the power, communications and electronics industries. At a time when there are widespread concerns over the lack of disclosure of potential conflicts of interest, why does the Radiation Research Society, the publisher of Radiation Research, allow someone with such obvious conflicts to continue as the gatekeeper at one of the leading radiation journals?
Read the full Microwave News special report --simply go to our Home Page, http://www.microwavenews.com. You can also download a pdf there, but be sure to read it on a color display.
http://www.microwavenews.com/docs/mwn.7-06.RR.pdf
Best,
Louis Slesin
--------
The protocol for the Interphone study is published
see http://www.microwavenews.com
http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/protocol_for_the_interphone_epidemiological_study.htm
The WHO needs more.....money! Anyone wants to donate to the EMF project?... see http://www.microwavenews.com
If you haven't read yet the report about Professor John Moulder http://www.microwavenews.com/RR.html it is very recommended, it details, among the rest, how much money he receives from the cellular AND power industries to represent them in courts, and at the same time how he edits Radiation Research with bias. The Journal does not disclose Moulder's clear conflict of interest. Time to react? I did, but have not received any answer so far. Maybe what Radiation Research needs is more pressure by other people.
Iris Atzmon.
"Radiation Research" is known in some EMF circles as the journal of negative results. Even its editors appear to be sensitive about the fact that they almost only publish papers which show that extremely-low-frequency fields and RF/microwave radiation have no biological effects. In its June issue, three of the editors, including John Moulder, offer us an explanation in an editorial titled "Publishing Negative Results."
This prompted us to take a closer look. With the help of Henry Lai of the University of Washington in Seattle, we assembled a subset of radiation health studies --those on the effects of microwaves on DNA. We found that, unlike Radiation Research, many other peer-reviewed journal have had no trouble finding high-quality papers that do show genotoxic effects.
When we investigated who sponsored the microwave-DNA papers published in Radiation Research, we discovered that four out of five were paid for by the wireless industry --notably Motorola-- and/or the U.S. Air Force, both of which have a long history of trying to control or suppress EMF research. Indeed, industry and the USAF paid for more than 75% of all the negative genotox studies, that is those published in all the various journals.
What goes unmentioned in the Radiation Research editorial is that Moulder is a long-time consultant to the power, communications and electronics industries. At a time when there are widespread concerns over the lack of disclosure of potential conflicts of interest, why does the Radiation Research Society, the publisher of Radiation Research, allow someone with such obvious conflicts to continue as the gatekeeper at one of the leading radiation journals?
Read the full Microwave News special report --simply go to our Home Page, http://www.microwavenews.com. You can also download a pdf there, but be sure to read it on a color display.
http://www.microwavenews.com/docs/mwn.7-06.RR.pdf
Best,
Louis Slesin
--------
The protocol for the Interphone study is published
see http://www.microwavenews.com
http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/protocol_for_the_interphone_epidemiological_study.htm
The WHO needs more.....money! Anyone wants to donate to the EMF project?... see http://www.microwavenews.com
If you haven't read yet the report about Professor John Moulder http://www.microwavenews.com/RR.html it is very recommended, it details, among the rest, how much money he receives from the cellular AND power industries to represent them in courts, and at the same time how he edits Radiation Research with bias. The Journal does not disclose Moulder's clear conflict of interest. Time to react? I did, but have not received any answer so far. Maybe what Radiation Research needs is more pressure by other people.
Iris Atzmon.
Starmail - 31. Jul, 18:45
