- Forums - Sign Up - Reply - Search - Statistics -
www.mast-victims.org forum / General discussion / One won't get anywhere with the status quo(?)
Author Message
# Posted: 24 Jun 2013 05:25

Two examples (many more to be found):

http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/biased-unscientific-report-on-electromagneti c-radiation/article4313241.ece

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/nonsense-about-the-health-effects-of-electromagne tic-radiation/

I'm completely potty, mad, a teapot—it must be so, as a neighbour, who knows that digital watches put out as much radiation as a cellphone, has spread this about me to at least three nearby towns. It eventually comes back to one.

Fortunately, i don't have any watch, digital or otherwise; however, they must be irradiating us for miles around.

And i sleep in a tent in the bush.

Shiwa o Cháiniko

# Posted: 24 Jun 2013 18:27


The Hindu newsletter quotes Mike Repacholi with his usual "No evidence of harm" statement.

Go to the news chapter of Mast-victims.org put "Repacholi" in the search box and you get 10 pages of info about the Industries top boy, including Henrik, the webmasters´1 April fool spoof from 2011

# Posted: 24 Jun 2013 20:08


The Government institutions that are mentioned in the article, all have members that are traceable back to ICNIRP, Repacholi's own "invitation only" private club of scientists.

Lets look at a few of them. COMAR is part of IEEE, which is basically the industry itself. EMF-NET which is a EU project has contracted reports out to Maria Feychting who is also Vice-Chairperson of ICNIRP. The Health Council of Netherlands has Dr. Eric van Rongen who is also on the ICNIRP main commission. The Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research is run by Dr. Rodney Croft who is also on the ICNIRP main commission.

Consider Repacholi's wording, quote:
"that there is no established evidence that EMF exposure within the internationally accepted limits causes any adverse health effects"

What Repacholi is really saying is that ICNIRP does not consider the available evidence to constitute absolute scientific proof (meaning at least 95% certainty of harm).
There is plenty of evidence of biological effects, which is what the BioInitiative report is about, but by using the words "health effect" in the context of how ICNIRP set their guidelines, namely for six minutes of exposure, Repacholi is demanding that the evidence shows acute effects on health within first six minutes of exposure. You can get that with sensitive individuals but usually not as obviously with the general population. That also explains why so much effort is being put into writing sensitive individuals off as psychological cases. It also important to understand what Repacholi means by "established". When he says "established", it means that an observed effect must be exactly replicated by other laboratories. Problem with such a reductionistic "mechanical" view of biology is that living cells can have widely different thresholds so biologists know not to rely on single replications but must perform many in order to observe a consistency in the results. Recently a young researcher showed that even the laboratory cell incubators could skew results because incubators expose the cells to magnetic and electric fields.

I once spoke with Dr. Andrew Goldsworthy, honorary lecturer in biology at Imperial College, London. He said about replicability of an effect of pulsed EMF on cells called "calcium eflux" that: "it doesn't happen every time, but you don't expect that with biological systems".
What he was explaining is that cells have genetic variance and are adaptable, to various degrees, towards environmental stressors. Well, if they weren't, there probably wouldn't be any life left on earth. But then again, life has had thousands, perhaps millions, of years to adapt to changes in environment. Some adapted, others died off. Now Man has increased the microwave electromagnetic environment a billion times in just ten years. And still some people expect nothing will happen biologically...?!

Also the BioInitiative report (BIR) and ICNIRP have different focus. BIR looks at whether there is enough evidence to warrant a precautionary approach in order to pre-emptively protect public health and ICNIRP basically looks at whether there is undeniable scientific proof that harm is already being done.

ICNIRPs approach to guidelines might have made some sense back in the 90's when exposure to microwaves was primarily an occupational hazard but now that the entire world is exposed (thanks to ICNIRPs "no problem until you cook" stance) a new, precautionary, approach is long overdue.

Don't expect ICNIRP, industry or Governmental vested interests to change. Find ways to make them irrelevant to the public.

Your reply
Bold Style  Italic Style  Underlined Style  Image Link  URL Link 

» Username  » Password 
You can post anonymously by entering a nickname with no password (if that nickname has not been taken by another member) or by leaving both fields empty. If you have an account you can also log in from this page without posting a message.

These forums are running on chat forum software miniBB™ © 2001-2022