The (Mis)use Of Science
During the past months I have participated in many hearings on the issue of mobile phones and towers. The latest one organized by the commune of Nacka, near Stockholm in Sweden. Next month there will be one for the MPs in the Swedish Parliament, and in March a similar one in the Danish Parliament.
All these meetings have the same procedure in common: There will be talks from representatives from the telecommunication industries, the ministries, expert panels that advise the government, the industry and sometimes, but not necessarily, from consumer organisations and independent persons. Afterwards there will be a debate.
Let us see what these official advisory panels have in common. They are nominated by the body they are working for and the members marketed as experts in their field and qualified scientists. Their reports and talks never contain one negative remark on the product they have to evaluate. Consequently only scientific material that ive a positive opinion of the product in question is included in their reports.
About scientific articles that find negative effects in their product, their standard remarks are: "Of course we know about these studies, but we choose not to include them in our evaluation - they have not been duplicated or reproduced by others - we could never obtain the same results when we tried to duplicate these studies - nobody else has ever obtained these results - the work is bad and has been criticized by others - it is published in low-level and obscure journals - the work was done by bad scientists."
They never insist that scientific studies that only show positive effects of the product should be duplicated or reproduced. They always complain that they need more money for their research. They say that this research should be paid by the industry that produces this product.
It is sad, because they represent governmental bodies, that should take care of the population's well-being and health. Some of these experts were once independent, honest scientists. Of course life has become more pleasant for them after they got engaged in industry-funded research.
So are the private or non-funded scientists just dumb fools, because they would like to be able to look themselves in the eyes each morning when they look into the mirror?
As to the outcome of these hearings, this can be very varying and dubious. Most politicians have already a pre-formed opinion and will not change it. All we can is to rely on a critical, unbiased and engaged population that are able to think for themselves.
In the meantime the debate in the Danish communes goes on about 3G and the towers. The number of communes that decide to put a stop to the raising of 3G towers, is growing.
Supplemental remarks
The pharmaceutical industry has been using these practices for decades. This is described in a recent article in the British Medical Journal by Dave Sackett and Andy Oxman, who invented the firm HARLOT (=How to achieve positive results without actually lying to overcome the truth), where they describe these malpractices in science. It certainly applies to the mobile phone industry too.
Another trait in governmental experts: they claim to be able to evaluate all kinds of scientific research, though it is completely outside their scope.
Sianette Kwee
--------
DELAY-TACTIC AND CREATING ILLUSIONS
http://www.amta.org.au/default.asp?Page=300
Comments
DELAY-TACTIC AND CREATING ILLUSIONS: NO - RESULTS OF LATEST DUTCH REVIEW OF RESEARCH INTO EME EFFECTS OF MOBILE PHONES.
1. There are no-health-based reasons in mobile telephony?:
“The permit limit for microwave radiation has not been determined by doctors and biologists, based on trials on animals and humans, but by technicians and solely from the amount of radiation it takes to warm up a bag of sugar water with 1 degree Celsius.”
“The present threshold level for microwave radiation is more than 10.000 times higher than the level where serious cell changes and damage on the DNA takes place.”
* “Microwave radiation is about to turn young cell phone users into premature senile weaklings within this decade.”
2. “Delay tactic” and creating illusions:
“Both government reports recommended further research on a number of areas requiring further clarification.”
Dr. George Carlo, (October 1999). "I am concerned that the wireless industry is missing a valuable opportunity by dealing with these public health concerns through politics, creating illusions that more research over the next several years helps consumers today, and false claims that regulatory compliance means safety. The better choice by the wireless industry would be to implement measured steps aimed at true consumer protection."
3. Cellular violence:
Microwave radiation is a silent killer eating your life away
An operating mobile phone can be detected 100 km’s away. Human brain waves are disturbed and distorted within a distance of 90 metres from a cell phone.
It is dangerous to health to stay within 400 m from a mobile base station, especially for children, youth, elderly or sick people.
3.1. There are no health based reasons for limiting the use of mobile phones by children?
“Children and youth are about three times more exposed and vulnerable to irreversible damage from microwave radiation because their brain, immune system and organisms are not fully developed.”
CONCLUSION: REGULATORY AND CONSUMER BACKLASH?
Dr. George Carlo. (October 1999). "I am especially concerned about what appear to be actions by a segment of the industry to conscript the FCC, the FDA and The World Health Organization with them in following a non-effectual course that will likely result in a regulatory and consumer backlash."
Message from Dr Miguel Muntané
--------
ACTU Digest is now available
The ACTU's latest OH&S Digest is now available:
http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/digest_of_occupational_health_and_safety.pdf The Australian Council of Trade Unions is the peak national body representing over 2 million trade union members. Other countries take note.....
Don Maisch
and
NEWSPEAK: Redefining the Precautionary Principle for the Cellphone Industry
http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/redefining_precautionary_principle.pdf
Comments by Dr Miguel Muntané:
WORDS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN "BRAIN DEATH"?
NEWSPEAK: REDEFINING THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE FOR THE CELLPHONE INDUSTRY
"NEWSPEAK" far from being a fictional medium of expression, is alive and well in the ongoing Cellphone controversy.
SUMMARY: WORDS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN “BRAIN DEATH”?
NEWSPEAK: Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning.
1. The invention of new words
2. Eliminating undesirable words
3. Stripping such undesirable words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever."
OLDSPEAK: Forgotten, a heretical thought -- that is, a thought diverging from the principles of IngSoc -- literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words.
REDEFINING THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE FOR THE CELLPHONE INDUSTRY
1. OLDSPEAK AND PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE:
The application of "precaution" recognizes that the absence of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing decisions where there is a risk of serious or irreversible harm."
"We conclude therefore that it is not possible at present to say that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects, and that the gaps in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach."
2. NEWSPEAK AND “IS NOT, BY DEFINITION”
The Dutch take Newspeak one step further. They discussed the adoption of the Precautionary Principle which they re-define as:
"The Precautionary Principle is not, by definition, the same thing as taking measures to reduce exposure. It can also include other actions." The Committee states, "carrying out further research...together with monitoring scientific developments and publishing its findings...are adequate steps in the current context of precautionary measures."
3. FURTHER RESEARCH ... FOLLOWING A NON-EFFECTUAL COURSE?
Dr. George Carlo, (October 1999). "I am concerned that the wireless industry is missing a valuable opportunity by dealing with these public health concerns through politics, creating illusions that more research over the next several years helps consumers today, and false claims that regulatory compliance means safety. The better choice by the wireless industry would be to implement measured steps aimed at true consumer protection."
Dr. George Carlo. (October 1999). "I am especially concerned about what appear to be actions by a segment of the industry to conscript the FCC, the FDA and The World Health Organization with them in following a non-effectual course that will likely result in a regulatory and consumer backlash."
TRUE CONSUMER PROTECTION IS TO REDUCE ONLY BY 10,000 THE PRESENT MICROWAVES EXPOSURE INTO THE BRAIN
Dr. Neil Cherry (27 Oct. 2000) “Leif Salford’s research on microwaves and the Blood Brain Barrier is probably very relevant. The BBB protects the brain from toxins and viruses. About 2 minutes on a cell phone can open the BBB and allow toxins, including prions, into the brain”.
* 2 minutes on a cell phone can open the BBB !
Source: http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/grn/omega290104.htm
Trust Us, We're Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/618577/
The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/394532/
All these meetings have the same procedure in common: There will be talks from representatives from the telecommunication industries, the ministries, expert panels that advise the government, the industry and sometimes, but not necessarily, from consumer organisations and independent persons. Afterwards there will be a debate.
Let us see what these official advisory panels have in common. They are nominated by the body they are working for and the members marketed as experts in their field and qualified scientists. Their reports and talks never contain one negative remark on the product they have to evaluate. Consequently only scientific material that ive a positive opinion of the product in question is included in their reports.
About scientific articles that find negative effects in their product, their standard remarks are: "Of course we know about these studies, but we choose not to include them in our evaluation - they have not been duplicated or reproduced by others - we could never obtain the same results when we tried to duplicate these studies - nobody else has ever obtained these results - the work is bad and has been criticized by others - it is published in low-level and obscure journals - the work was done by bad scientists."
They never insist that scientific studies that only show positive effects of the product should be duplicated or reproduced. They always complain that they need more money for their research. They say that this research should be paid by the industry that produces this product.
It is sad, because they represent governmental bodies, that should take care of the population's well-being and health. Some of these experts were once independent, honest scientists. Of course life has become more pleasant for them after they got engaged in industry-funded research.
So are the private or non-funded scientists just dumb fools, because they would like to be able to look themselves in the eyes each morning when they look into the mirror?
As to the outcome of these hearings, this can be very varying and dubious. Most politicians have already a pre-formed opinion and will not change it. All we can is to rely on a critical, unbiased and engaged population that are able to think for themselves.
In the meantime the debate in the Danish communes goes on about 3G and the towers. The number of communes that decide to put a stop to the raising of 3G towers, is growing.
Supplemental remarks
The pharmaceutical industry has been using these practices for decades. This is described in a recent article in the British Medical Journal by Dave Sackett and Andy Oxman, who invented the firm HARLOT (=How to achieve positive results without actually lying to overcome the truth), where they describe these malpractices in science. It certainly applies to the mobile phone industry too.
Another trait in governmental experts: they claim to be able to evaluate all kinds of scientific research, though it is completely outside their scope.
Sianette Kwee
--------
DELAY-TACTIC AND CREATING ILLUSIONS
http://www.amta.org.au/default.asp?Page=300
Comments
DELAY-TACTIC AND CREATING ILLUSIONS: NO - RESULTS OF LATEST DUTCH REVIEW OF RESEARCH INTO EME EFFECTS OF MOBILE PHONES.
1. There are no-health-based reasons in mobile telephony?:
“The permit limit for microwave radiation has not been determined by doctors and biologists, based on trials on animals and humans, but by technicians and solely from the amount of radiation it takes to warm up a bag of sugar water with 1 degree Celsius.”
“The present threshold level for microwave radiation is more than 10.000 times higher than the level where serious cell changes and damage on the DNA takes place.”
* “Microwave radiation is about to turn young cell phone users into premature senile weaklings within this decade.”
2. “Delay tactic” and creating illusions:
“Both government reports recommended further research on a number of areas requiring further clarification.”
Dr. George Carlo, (October 1999). "I am concerned that the wireless industry is missing a valuable opportunity by dealing with these public health concerns through politics, creating illusions that more research over the next several years helps consumers today, and false claims that regulatory compliance means safety. The better choice by the wireless industry would be to implement measured steps aimed at true consumer protection."
3. Cellular violence:
Microwave radiation is a silent killer eating your life away
An operating mobile phone can be detected 100 km’s away. Human brain waves are disturbed and distorted within a distance of 90 metres from a cell phone.
It is dangerous to health to stay within 400 m from a mobile base station, especially for children, youth, elderly or sick people.
3.1. There are no health based reasons for limiting the use of mobile phones by children?
“Children and youth are about three times more exposed and vulnerable to irreversible damage from microwave radiation because their brain, immune system and organisms are not fully developed.”
CONCLUSION: REGULATORY AND CONSUMER BACKLASH?
Dr. George Carlo. (October 1999). "I am especially concerned about what appear to be actions by a segment of the industry to conscript the FCC, the FDA and The World Health Organization with them in following a non-effectual course that will likely result in a regulatory and consumer backlash."
Message from Dr Miguel Muntané
--------
ACTU Digest is now available
The ACTU's latest OH&S Digest is now available:
http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/digest_of_occupational_health_and_safety.pdf The Australian Council of Trade Unions is the peak national body representing over 2 million trade union members. Other countries take note.....
Don Maisch
and
NEWSPEAK: Redefining the Precautionary Principle for the Cellphone Industry
http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/redefining_precautionary_principle.pdf
Comments by Dr Miguel Muntané:
WORDS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN "BRAIN DEATH"?
NEWSPEAK: REDEFINING THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE FOR THE CELLPHONE INDUSTRY
"NEWSPEAK" far from being a fictional medium of expression, is alive and well in the ongoing Cellphone controversy.
SUMMARY: WORDS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN “BRAIN DEATH”?
NEWSPEAK: Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning.
1. The invention of new words
2. Eliminating undesirable words
3. Stripping such undesirable words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever."
OLDSPEAK: Forgotten, a heretical thought -- that is, a thought diverging from the principles of IngSoc -- literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words.
REDEFINING THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE FOR THE CELLPHONE INDUSTRY
1. OLDSPEAK AND PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE:
The application of "precaution" recognizes that the absence of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing decisions where there is a risk of serious or irreversible harm."
"We conclude therefore that it is not possible at present to say that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects, and that the gaps in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach."
2. NEWSPEAK AND “IS NOT, BY DEFINITION”
The Dutch take Newspeak one step further. They discussed the adoption of the Precautionary Principle which they re-define as:
"The Precautionary Principle is not, by definition, the same thing as taking measures to reduce exposure. It can also include other actions." The Committee states, "carrying out further research...together with monitoring scientific developments and publishing its findings...are adequate steps in the current context of precautionary measures."
3. FURTHER RESEARCH ... FOLLOWING A NON-EFFECTUAL COURSE?
Dr. George Carlo, (October 1999). "I am concerned that the wireless industry is missing a valuable opportunity by dealing with these public health concerns through politics, creating illusions that more research over the next several years helps consumers today, and false claims that regulatory compliance means safety. The better choice by the wireless industry would be to implement measured steps aimed at true consumer protection."
Dr. George Carlo. (October 1999). "I am especially concerned about what appear to be actions by a segment of the industry to conscript the FCC, the FDA and The World Health Organization with them in following a non-effectual course that will likely result in a regulatory and consumer backlash."
TRUE CONSUMER PROTECTION IS TO REDUCE ONLY BY 10,000 THE PRESENT MICROWAVES EXPOSURE INTO THE BRAIN
Dr. Neil Cherry (27 Oct. 2000) “Leif Salford’s research on microwaves and the Blood Brain Barrier is probably very relevant. The BBB protects the brain from toxins and viruses. About 2 minutes on a cell phone can open the BBB and allow toxins, including prions, into the brain”.
* 2 minutes on a cell phone can open the BBB !
Source: http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/grn/omega290104.htm
Trust Us, We're Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/618577/
The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/394532/
Starmail - 4. Apr, 19:21
