Wednesday, July 20, 2016
Scientists Unite to Protect Alarming EMF-effects Findings against Offense
“Comments on Environmental Impact of Radiofrequency Fields from Mobile Phone Base Stations”by Dimitris J. Panagopoulos, Marie-Claire Cammaerts, Daniel Favre, and Alfonso Balmori, Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology. 46(9), 885-903.
The article is a response to the review paper: Verschaeve L, (2014), Environmental Impact of Radiofrequency Fields from Mobile Phone Base Stations, Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 44:1313–1369.
In this review paper the author (L. Verschaeve, member of IARC committee) tried to reject every study that shows alarming effects of microwave radiation on living organisms. His conclusions are not supported by scientific data and are mostly based on his claims for “inaccurate” dosimetry in the reviewed studies. This issue is not the case, especially in studies employing real and not simulated exposures by mobile telephony (and related technologies) antennas, since this type of radiation is of highly varying nature, and its levels – regardless of any dosimetry – are simply those exposing daily billions of users.
The author of the review criticized exclusively those studies that find adverse biological effects instead of recognizing the fact that these results are corroborating each other and would thus be most unlikely to be wrong. The author attempted to minimize the importance of these studies by “discovering” “shortcomings” in each and every one of them. Most of the “discovered” “shortcomings” were related with the “accurate” evaluation of the exposure dosimetry. The author claimed that the measurements “are not correct”, and “for this reason these studies do not provide any evidence that observed biological effects are associated with exposure to the electromagnetic fields”. In this way Dr. Verschaeve systematically attempted to discredit practically all studies showing a variety of alarming effects related to animal/human health and the natural environment.
The four scientists demolish one by one Verschaeve’s arguments against the alarming findings. In their paper they write:
“It is as if we are observing a huge tidal wave coming upon a city on a shore and just because we are not able to measure by our instruments its exact height (e.g. whether it is 80 or 90 m), we claim that once we can not measure it exactly, we cannot draw conclusions for any adverse effects that it may cause!… That - of course - would be absolutely absurd, unscientific and catastrophic. Although the example with the tidal wave is an extreme one, phenomena such as the observed disappearance of bees (which is explained by induced cell death in the gonads as found in Drosophila studies) or birds may have tremendous adverse effects on our societies.
In this case, we have already hundreds of studies performed on a variety of organisms in many different laboratories around the world, all pointing at the same direction: This radiation at many different exposure levels is responsible for a variety of adverse biological effects ranging from simple alterations in different biological rates, loss of orientation, or retardation of growth, to DNA damage, protein damage, or cell death, transient or permanent infertility, or even the organisms’ death in extreme cases. But according to Dr Verschaeve, it doesn’t matter… Since there are other studies that do not show effects, and since we cannot estimate accurately the radiation level, there is “no overall evidence” and thus no precaution should be taken! In other words, according to Dr Verschaeve’s reasoning, the effects do not exist, or they are totally negligible!”
“It is most strange to us that such reasoning as that of Dr Verschaeve which is evident throughout his review paper is considered scientific and is published in a peer review scientific journal. It is also most strange that a scientist with such logic is a member of decision making health organizations such as the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (IARC 2013).
The practice of not recognizing the “tidal wave” because of lack of “accurate dosimetry” is not only unscientific but in addition catastrophic for public health in case that those who support and promote it are members of decision making health organizations.”
In the meanwhile Luc Verschaeve continues his work, this time on ELF studies that show alarming effects ...: