Workshop on Biological Effects of EMF, Kos, Greece
Enclosed some impressions from this workshop. This is not a report. However, if you wish some particular information on a certain presentation, you are wellcome to contact me.
Kind regards
Sianette Kwee
3rd International Workshop on Biological effects of EMFs, Kos, Greece, 4-8 October 2004
“Negative and No effects” was the order of this meeting , so another step backwards. It almost looked like a conspiracy.
The Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research was strongly represented with in vitro and in vivo RF studies, all supported by Telstra and Motorola, who also handled their exposure systems.
Among others, they had one (#B6:4) that was to be a replication of the Salford group’s work on BBB and dark neurons. They did not find any effects. Their experiment was run during a much shorter time and when asked how many mice they had used, the answer was: 6. The Salford group used hundreds of mice!
From the Salford group new results were reported (#A9:1), which showed that even after 50 days there was no change in the number of dark neurons in the 136 mice. Actually a group in Bordeaux, France got the same positive results as in the Salford’s study. However, this study was not allowed to be published and the scientist who did the work has disappeared.
Another Australian study was on human cells and heat-shock proteins (#B2:4). No change in transcription level or trace of the heat-shock protein was found. When asked how many experiments were done, the answer was: 1. Actually one more experiment was done, but since this showed a positive result, it was discarded as a false positive and was not mentioned at all. This group has now received funds to replicate my studies within one year.
However, we never did less than 20-30 independent experiments!
De Pomerai tried very hard to explain the mistakes in his first studies on the worms that gave positive effects. I almost felt sorry for him. It gave the impression, that he made experimental mistakes of the most elementary kind (controls, shams, exposure calculations etc.) or that editorial committees from the journals where he published these articles, among them the prestigious Nature, had been fast asleep while refereeing. He presented some new negative results, some hardly relevant. These resulted in a sarcastic question from Adlkofer (REFLEX), whether he had switched on the exposure apparatus!
These are just a few examples, but enough to show a very depressing trend in EMF science. It makes one feel sad to see what they have done to science. They have come a far way from the original intention, that a scientific study is something one is completely committed to, morally as well, and that it becomes almost part of oneself.
Indeed industry has corrupted science in cooperation with a coalition of willing scientists.
As Repacholi mentioned in his update on WHO EMF projects (#PLII:1): replication studies are recommended, but they need not be an exact replication of the original study.
In other words, they may be changed so as to fit a desired result?
Anyway who would like to have their work replicated by a bunch of amateurs.
The REFLEX report has still not been published officially and the reason is that industry is trying to prevent it.
Motorola was actively represented by a younger edition, but with the same viewpoints.
Poland, as one of the countries that recently has joined the EU, has now to change their safety limits. Their original safety limits were much stricter than EU’s ICNIRP limits, so for them it is also a step backwards.
SAR is getting a growing number og opponents and is considered as useless by many. Actually it is based on electrical fields and not on magnetic fields. Proposals for other ways to measure and express exposure were proposed e.g. Poland (#A7:1).
The Melatonin theory was also disproved (#PLI:3). It only applies to mice and not to man. Probably because mice are nocturnal animals was the explanation.
In trying to find a mechanism for the effects of EMF and non-thermal effects, it has now become politically correct again to talk about “Windows” (#PLI:1). Other explanations were cooperativity, like the one used for the allosteric enzyme mechanism (#PLIII:1).
However, I think we should rather turn to Kaiser (Germany) as the expert.
Fortunately not all was as dark. The posters showed many positive and interesting results, among them many in vivo experiments. Probably because these are mostly from younger scientists, not yet biased. Of course there were also a number of negative replications, but one has to be aware of who is behind these studies.
A Spanish poster was a about a patented device(#58) that could protect the brain against RF, as measured by recording of the 4 brainwaves. This was very similar to the Klieesens study some years earlier. This project was supported by Siemens. Some time ago one of Siemens’ directors in Germany said to a Danish newspaper, that if mobile phones really proved to have negative health effects, Siemens was ready to pull out of the mobile phone market.
After all it was not their main product. However, this is not the case for companies like Motorola, Nokia etc. They have all reasons to stick to their only product and use all means to buy influence in the appropriate places.
The full program for this workshop can be seen at http://imm.demokritos.gr/bioeffects04/Program/program.html
but unfortunately not the Abstracts. However, Abstracts do not always tell the real story.
Sianette Kwee
http://www.biokemi.au.dk/kwee/
Mis-reporting the Russian Cell Phone Conference
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/442172/
The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/394532/
The unbridled alliance of science and industry
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/297097/
How Industry Manipulates Science
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/350582/
Greenwashing as "corporate responsibility"
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/416134/
Kind regards
Sianette Kwee
3rd International Workshop on Biological effects of EMFs, Kos, Greece, 4-8 October 2004
“Negative and No effects” was the order of this meeting , so another step backwards. It almost looked like a conspiracy.
The Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research was strongly represented with in vitro and in vivo RF studies, all supported by Telstra and Motorola, who also handled their exposure systems.
Among others, they had one (#B6:4) that was to be a replication of the Salford group’s work on BBB and dark neurons. They did not find any effects. Their experiment was run during a much shorter time and when asked how many mice they had used, the answer was: 6. The Salford group used hundreds of mice!
From the Salford group new results were reported (#A9:1), which showed that even after 50 days there was no change in the number of dark neurons in the 136 mice. Actually a group in Bordeaux, France got the same positive results as in the Salford’s study. However, this study was not allowed to be published and the scientist who did the work has disappeared.
Another Australian study was on human cells and heat-shock proteins (#B2:4). No change in transcription level or trace of the heat-shock protein was found. When asked how many experiments were done, the answer was: 1. Actually one more experiment was done, but since this showed a positive result, it was discarded as a false positive and was not mentioned at all. This group has now received funds to replicate my studies within one year.
However, we never did less than 20-30 independent experiments!
De Pomerai tried very hard to explain the mistakes in his first studies on the worms that gave positive effects. I almost felt sorry for him. It gave the impression, that he made experimental mistakes of the most elementary kind (controls, shams, exposure calculations etc.) or that editorial committees from the journals where he published these articles, among them the prestigious Nature, had been fast asleep while refereeing. He presented some new negative results, some hardly relevant. These resulted in a sarcastic question from Adlkofer (REFLEX), whether he had switched on the exposure apparatus!
These are just a few examples, but enough to show a very depressing trend in EMF science. It makes one feel sad to see what they have done to science. They have come a far way from the original intention, that a scientific study is something one is completely committed to, morally as well, and that it becomes almost part of oneself.
Indeed industry has corrupted science in cooperation with a coalition of willing scientists.
As Repacholi mentioned in his update on WHO EMF projects (#PLII:1): replication studies are recommended, but they need not be an exact replication of the original study.
In other words, they may be changed so as to fit a desired result?
Anyway who would like to have their work replicated by a bunch of amateurs.
The REFLEX report has still not been published officially and the reason is that industry is trying to prevent it.
Motorola was actively represented by a younger edition, but with the same viewpoints.
Poland, as one of the countries that recently has joined the EU, has now to change their safety limits. Their original safety limits were much stricter than EU’s ICNIRP limits, so for them it is also a step backwards.
SAR is getting a growing number og opponents and is considered as useless by many. Actually it is based on electrical fields and not on magnetic fields. Proposals for other ways to measure and express exposure were proposed e.g. Poland (#A7:1).
The Melatonin theory was also disproved (#PLI:3). It only applies to mice and not to man. Probably because mice are nocturnal animals was the explanation.
In trying to find a mechanism for the effects of EMF and non-thermal effects, it has now become politically correct again to talk about “Windows” (#PLI:1). Other explanations were cooperativity, like the one used for the allosteric enzyme mechanism (#PLIII:1).
However, I think we should rather turn to Kaiser (Germany) as the expert.
Fortunately not all was as dark. The posters showed many positive and interesting results, among them many in vivo experiments. Probably because these are mostly from younger scientists, not yet biased. Of course there were also a number of negative replications, but one has to be aware of who is behind these studies.
A Spanish poster was a about a patented device(#58) that could protect the brain against RF, as measured by recording of the 4 brainwaves. This was very similar to the Klieesens study some years earlier. This project was supported by Siemens. Some time ago one of Siemens’ directors in Germany said to a Danish newspaper, that if mobile phones really proved to have negative health effects, Siemens was ready to pull out of the mobile phone market.
After all it was not their main product. However, this is not the case for companies like Motorola, Nokia etc. They have all reasons to stick to their only product and use all means to buy influence in the appropriate places.
The full program for this workshop can be seen at http://imm.demokritos.gr/bioeffects04/Program/program.html
but unfortunately not the Abstracts. However, Abstracts do not always tell the real story.
Sianette Kwee
http://www.biokemi.au.dk/kwee/
Mis-reporting the Russian Cell Phone Conference
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/442172/
The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/394532/
The unbridled alliance of science and industry
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/297097/
How Industry Manipulates Science
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/350582/
Greenwashing as "corporate responsibility"
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/416134/
Starmail - 14. Okt, 15:18
