House Republicans just passed a bill forbidding scientists from advising the EPA on their own research

WEDNESDAY, NOV 19, 2014 02:15 PM PST

House Republicans just passed a bill forbidding scientists from advising the EPA on their own research

The "reform" measure makes room for industry-funded experts on the EPA's advisory board 

LINDSAY ABRAMS

John Boehner  (Credit: AP/J. Scott Applewhite)

Congressional climate wars were dominated Tuesday by the U.S. Senate, which spent the day debating, and ultimately failing to pass, a bill approving the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. While all that was happening, and largely unnoticed, the House was busy doing what it does best: attacking science.

H.R. 1422, which passed 229-191, would shake up the EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board, placing restrictions on those pesky scientists and creating room for experts with overt financial ties to the industries affected by EPA regulations.

The bill is being framed as a play for transparency: Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, argued that the board’s current structure is problematic because it  “excludes industry experts, but not officials for environmental advocacy groups.” The inclusion of industry experts, he said, would right this injustice.

But the White House, which threatened to veto the bill, said it would “negatively affect the appointment of experts and would weaken the scientific independence and integrity of the SAB.”

In what might be the most ridiculous aspect of the whole thing, the bill forbids scientific experts from participating in “advisory activities” that either directly or indirectly involve their own work. In case that wasn’t clear: experts would be forbidden from sharing their expertise in their own research — the bizarre assumption, apparently, being that having conducted peer-reviewed studies on a topic would constitute a conflict of interest. “In other words,” wrote Union of Concerned Scientists director Andrew A. Rosenberg in an editorial for RollCall, “academic scientists who know the most about a subject can’t weigh in, but experts paid by corporations who want to block regulations can.”

Speaking on the House floor Tuesday, Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., summed up what was going on: “I get it, you don’t like science,” he told bill sponsor Rep. Chris Stewart, R-Utah. “And you don’t like science that interferes with the interests of your corporate clients. But we need science to protect public health and the environment.”

The House, alas, is staying the course, voting this week on two other bills aimed at impeding the EPA, including one that prevents the agency from relying on what it calls “secret science” in crafting its regulations — but which in reality, opponents argue, would effectively block the EPA from adopting any new rules to protect public health. The trio, wrote Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, in an editorial for the Hill, represents “the culmination of one of the most anti-science and anti-health campaigns I’ve witnessed in my 22 years as a member of Congress.”

The White House has threatened to veto all three.

Lindsay Abrams is a staff writer at Salon, reporting on all things sustainable. Follow her on Twitter @readingirl, email labrams@salon.com.

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/19/house_republicans_just_passed_a_bill_forbidding_scientists_from_advising_the_epa_on_their_own_research/

Reliance on smartphones linked to lazy thinking

Reliance on smartphones linked to lazy thinking

Date:

March 5, 2015

Source:

University of Waterloo

Summary:

Our smartphones help us find a phone number quickly, provide us with instant directions and recommend restaurants, but new research indicates that this convenience at our fingertips is making it easy for us to avoid thinking for ourselves.

Our smartphones help us find a phone number quickly, provide us with instant directions and recommend restaurants, but new research indicates that this convenience at our fingertips is making it easy for us to avoid thinking for ourselves.

Credit: © psphotography / Fotolia

Our smartphones help us find a phone number quickly, provide us with instant directions and recommend restaurants, but new research indicates that this convenience at our fingertips is making it easy for us to avoid thinking for ourselves.

The study, from researchers at the University of Waterloo and published in the journal Computers in Human Behavior, suggests that smartphone users who are intuitive thinkers -- more prone to relying on gut feelings and instincts when making decisions -- frequently use their device's search engine rather than their own brainpower. Smartphones allow them to be even lazier than they would otherwise be.

"They may look up information that they actually know or could easily learn, but are unwilling to make the effort to actually think about it," said Gordon Pennycook, co-lead author of the study, and a PhD candidate in the Department of Psychology at Waterloo.

In contrast, analytical thinkers second-guess themselves and analyze a problem in a more logical sort of way. Highly intelligent people are more analytical and less intuitive when solving problems.

"Decades of research has revealed that humans are eager to avoid expending effort when problem-solving and it seems likely that people will increasingly use their smartphones as an extended mind," said Nathaniel Barr, the other lead author of the paper, and a postdoctoral researcher at Waterloo.

In three studies involving 660 participants, the researchers examined various measures including cognitive style ranging from intuitive to analytical, plus verbal and numeracy skills. Then they looked at the participants' smartphone habits.

Participants in the study who demonstrated stronger cognitive skills and a greater willingness to think in an analytical way spent less time using their smartphones' search-engine function.

"Our research provides support for an association between heavy smartphone use and lowered intelligence," said Pennycook. "Whether smartphones actually decrease intelligence is still an open question that requires future research."

The researchers say that avoiding using our own minds to problem-solve might have adverse consequences for aging.

"Our reliance on smartphones and other devices will likely only continue to rise," said Barr. "It's important to understand how smartphones affect and relate to human psychology before these technologies are so fully ingrained that it's hard to recall what life was like without them. We may already be at that point."

The results also indicate that use of social media and entertainment applications generally did not correlate to higher or lower cognitive abilities.

Professors Jennifer Stolz and Jonathan Fugelsang, also from Waterloo's Department of Psychology, are co-authors of the study. Funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada supported the research.

---

Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by University of Waterloo. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

---

Journal Reference:

1. Nathaniel Barr, Gordon Pennycook, Jennifer A. Stolz, Jonathan A. Fugelsang. The brain in your pocket: Evidence that Smartphones are used to supplant thinking. Computers in Human Behavior, 2015; 48: 473 DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.029

---

Cite This Page:

• MLA
• APA
• Chicago

University of Waterloo. "Reliance on smartphones linked to lazy thinking." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 5 March 2015. .

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150305110546.htm

Newsletter from International EMF Alliance

Newsletter from International EMF Alliance

Dear all,  As you all know the SCENIHR working group on Potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) strikingly lacks of pluralism and transparency.  Consequently, it is not a surprise that its recent opinion is strongly biased towards corporate, military and economic interests with a strategic need for wireless techniques.  If you want to act we invite you to:  ---> SIGN the enclosed common press release before March 10 at 9 am (GMT+1)  You can also (translate it and) send it to your national media contacts on Mars 10, adding the contact data and logo of your organisation. If you see this message after deadline, please answer anyway, for following versions, further common actions and for the IEMFA website. (It we don't receive enought signatories in time we might postpone the deadline. But please sign ASAP, the sooner we spread this pressrelease, the better!)  ---> JOIN a petition to the European Commission and a complaint to the European Ombudsman  Please add: our organisation also wants to sign the upcoming petition and complaint to the European Ombudsman based on the same arguments.  ---> ANALYSE another chapter of the SCENIHR final opinion  Please step forward if you're willing to contribute to further actions (petition and complaint), by making an analysis of bias and omissions of other chapters of the SCENIHR final opinion than the ones regarding brain tumours and EHS.  Please send your signature by contacting sissel@iemfa.org or kerstin@iemfa.org Format: Your organisation, country www.yourorganisation.org Name of a contact person + yourcontactperson@yourorganisation.org http://www.iemfa.org/wp-content/pdf/newsletter/FINAL-Open-letter-to-Commissioner-DALLI.pdf http://www.iemfa.org/wp-content/pdf/newsletter/Kjell-Hansson-Mild-comments.pdf http://www.iemfa.org/wp-content/pdf/newsletter/Pressrelease-SCENIHR-2015-FINAL.pdf http://www.iemfa.org/wp-content/pdf/newsletter/SCENIHR-a-biased-assessment-Mobile-phones-and-head-tumour-risks.pdf Best wishes,  The NGO working group on SCENIHR  Mona Nilsson, Janine le Calvez, Alasdair Philips, Sophie Pelletier, Kerstin Stenberg  Representing 5 organisations under the IEMFA umbrella PS. You will find Enclosure 1, 4 and 5 attached to this email. The work on Enclosure 2, analysing SCENIHR's opinion on EHS and Enclosure 3 on the experts past and present history, is going on. The signatories will receive them before deadline together with the "final" version (without the word Final in the title), including the names of all signing organisations.

Tumor promotion by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields below exposure limits for humans

Joel's comments: This is an important study on several accounts. First, the study demonstrates that the tumor-enhancing effects from exposure to UMTS (3G) cell phone radiation observed in a previous animal study are reproducible. Reproducibility is one of the foundations of the scientific method. 

Second, the study did not find a dose-response effect. Rather "many of the tumor-promoting effects in our study were seen at low to moderate exposure levels (0.04 and 0.4 W/kg SAR), thus well below exposure limits for the users of mobile phones." The tumor-promoting effects were not observed when the animals were exposed to 2.0 W/kg SAR, the legal limit in many countries outside the U.S. (where the limit is 1.6 W/kg.) The SAR exposure limits adopted by most countries assumes a dose-response relationship between the exposure and adverse health effects. The nonlinear effects observed in this study suggest that the SAR methodology is inadequate to protect human health.

Third, The authors explain why some researchers have had difficulty in reproducing the results of earlier studies -- their methods deviate in critical ways from the original experiments. Hence, these so-called "replication studies" fail to reproduce the effects observed in earlier studies.

--

Tumor promotion by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields below exposure limits for humans

Alexander Lerchl, Melanie Klose, Karen Grote, Adalbert F.X. Wilhelm, Oliver Spathmann, Thomas Fiedler, Joachim Streckert ,Volkert Hansenc, Markus Clemens. Tumor promotion by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields below exposure limits for humans. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications. Available online 6 March 2015.

Abstract

The vast majority of in vitro and in vivo studies did not find cancerogenic effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF), i.e.emitted by mobile phones and base stations. Previously published results from a pilot study with carcinogen-treated mice, however, suggested tumor-promoting effects of RF-EMF (Tillmann et al., 2010). 
We have performed a replication study using higher numbers of animals per group and including two additional exposure levels (0 (sham), 0.04, 0.4 and 2 W/kg SAR). 
We could confirm and extend the originally reported findings. Numbers of tumors of the lungs and livers in exposed animals were significantly higher than in sham-exposed controls. In addition, lymphomas were also found to be significantly elevated by exposure. 
A clear dose-response effect is absent. We hypothesize that these tumor-promoting effects may be caused by metabolic changes due to exposure. Since many of the tumor-promoting effects in our study were seen at low to moderate exposure levels (0.04 and 0.4 W/kg SAR), thus well below exposure limits for the users of mobile phones, further studies are warranted to investigate the underlying mechanisms. 
Our findings may help to understand the repeatedly reported increased incidences of brain tumors in heavy users of mobile phones.

Highlights

• Tumor-promoting effects of RF-EMF exposed mice have been reported in 2010.

• We have replicated the study with higher numbers of mice per group.

• We could fully confirm the previous results, thus the effects are reproducible.

• Apparently, no clear dose-response relationship is evident.

• We hypothesize that metabolic changes are responsible for the effects observed.

http://bit.ly/1EXI3Hq

Excerpts

In 2010, a study was published [4] showing tumor-promoting effects of life-long exposure to RF-EMF (Universal Mobile Telecommunication System, UMTS) at moderate exposure levels in mice treated with a carcinogen (ethylnitrosourea, ENU) in utero. Those results were potentially influenced by an unexpected infection with Helicobacter hepaticus (which may have had an influence on the pathological findings in the liver, as suggested by the authors). Nevertheless the data showed clear effects of RF-EMF exposure on the incidences of lung and liver tumors. We have replicated this study with higher numbers of animals per group, but otherwise under similar conditions, in order to clarify whether the previously reported results could be confirmed. In addition, two additional SAR levels of exposure (low and high) were included in order to investigate possible dose-response relationships. Furthermore, we ensured that we did not have any infection with Helicobacter species in our animals.

... Special care was taken to repeat the study by Tillmann et al. [4] as accurately as possible. Male C3H/HeNCrl (n = 43) and female C57Bl/6N (n = 290) mice were purchased in a staggered design from Charles River Germany, Sulzfeld, Germany, at an age of 8 – 9 weeks. After acclimatization, at the age of 12 weeks (females), the males and 128 females were mated for one week (ratio 3 females: 1 male) in two rounds, thus a total of 256 potentially pregnant females were obtained. They were distributed to the 128 cages of the exposure devices, two animals per cage. Exposure or sham-exposure of the pregnant females thus started at day 6 p.c. (post conception) ...

The exposure devices consisted of eight radial waveguides with 16 cages each, arranged in stacks of two and connected to power amplifiers and RF-generators. Details have been published earlier [5]. Extensive numerical calculations of the field distributions and the corresponding SAR values revealed unavoidable substantial variations for animals in different positions and within animals (local maximum SAR values) which could be as much as 3 – 5 times higher than the whole-body SAR. Two waveguides per exposure group with 16 cages each (32 cages in total, 96 animals) were one out of four groups with the following nominal whole-body SAR levels: sham-exposed (0 W/kg), 0.04 W/kg (low), 0.4 W/kg (moderate) and 2 W/kg (high) for a reference configuration of three mice (body weight 20 g each) per cage, with a standard deviation for this configuration of around 36% ...

As compared to the sham-exposed control mice, numbers of animals with bronchiolo-alveolar adenomas (lungs) were doubled at low and moderate SAR levels, and hepatocellular carcinomas were nearly or more than doubled at low, moderate, and high SAR levels, respectively. The numbers of multiple tumors were found to be significantly elevated at 0.04 W/kg (bronchiolo-alveolar adenomas, Table S1). The numbers of animals with lymphomas were increased 2.5 fold at moderate SAR levels (Fig. 1, Table 1). No increased tumor numbers were found in the brains, kidneys, and spleens of the exposed animals. Here the tumor rates were well below 10%. As expected, survival times in all ENU-treated animals were much lower than in cage controls, but not affected by exposure (Fig. S1). Body weights of (sham-) exposed animals were only slightly different from untreated, unexposed cage-control mice (Fig. S2).

The fact that both studies found basically the same tumor-promoting effects at levels below the accepted (and in most countries legally defined) exposure limits for humans is worrying. Although animal experiments are generally not easily transferable to the situation in humans, the findings are a very clear indication that – in principal – tumor-promoting effects of life-long RF-EMF exposure may occur at levels supposedly too low to cause thermal effects. The basis for defining safety guidelines regarding RF-EMF exposure by mobile phones and other RF-EMF emitting devices relies on the assumption that increases in temperature above a certain threshold are the only way how exposure can cause damage (thermal effects). These are clearly prevented by the exposure limits. However, the RF-EMF energy absorbed by the tissues or organisms, respectively, is converted to thermal energy regardless the exposure dose. As a consequence, this thermal energy influences to some extent the energy balance of tissue and the entire organism. It was shown that RF-EMF exposure at low levels (0.08 W/kg) causes increased body weights in hamsters which indicates a shift in metabolism of food [14]. Other experiments in hamsters have shown that the consumption of food and the production of CO₂ is decreased by RF-EMF exposure, albeit only at relatively high SAR-levels [15]. It is therefore plausible to assume that RF-EMF energy, when absorbed and converted into thermal energy, influences metabolism and energy balance to some extent which may play a role for the observed tumor-promoting effects.

In this context it is important that the carcinogen ENU was administered to the pregnant mice at day 14 of pregnancy. We do not know at which time periods after the treatment with the carcinogen the tumor-promoting effects occurred. Early studies [16] clearly demonstrated that the prenatal time point of ENU-administration is crucial for the development of tumors in the adult. Since the carcinogen was administered to the pregnant females while being already exposed to RF-EMF, it is possible that immediately after ENU-treatment the promoting effects happened. Alternatively, they occurred during the later stages of development. Another possibility why tumor-promoting effects were seen in both studies is that the uptake of the carcinogen by the fetuses was higher in the exposed animals due to elevated metabolism. Studies addressing this question are clearly needed.

The results of our study also stress the importance of exposure conditions in replication studies which are unfortunately often slightly or substantially different from the original studies. For example, Repacholi and co-workers have shown tumor-promoting effects in transgenic mice prone for developing lymphomas [18]. Two replication studies did not confirm these effects [19] and [20]. Both replication studies, however, deviated from the original study in several ways. Not only were the exposure times different, but also were the mice in the replication studies exposed while restrained (in tubes), whereas in the original study the mice were non-restrained. While restrained animals allow exposure at comparably low SAR variations, the physiological and metabolic situations are fundamentally different in comparison to freely moving animals [21]. In fact, the unavoidable SAR variations in non-restrained, freely moving animals may turn out to be of key importance for the understanding of tumor-promoting effects.

--


Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director
Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

Website:              http://www.saferemr.com
Facebook:            http://www.facebook.com/SaferEMR
News Releases:    http://pressroom.prlog.org/jmm716/
Twitter:                 @berkeleyprc

Science and Conflict of Interest in Bioelectromagnetics

Science and Conflict of Interest in Bioelectromagnetics

Between a Rock and a Hard Place, March 7, 2015

Key-note presentation of Dariusz Leszczynski at the Jubiläums-Generalversammlung of the Swiss association Gigaherz, celebrating its 15th anniversary, Thalvil (near Zurich) on March 7, 2015.

Video recording of the presentation will be made available shortly.

http://bit.ly/1CMWkHq

-- 

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director
Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

Website:               http://www.saferemr.com
Facebook:            http://www.facebook.com/SaferEMR
News Releases:   http://pressroom.prlog.org/jmm716/
Twitter:                 @berkeleyprc

Powerwatch Breaking News: 07/03/2015 RF EMFs produce clear co-carcinogenic properties

RF EMFs produce clear co-carcinogenic properties

On the same day that the EC's SCENIHR released their long-awaited report that concluded that we should not worry about any adverse health effects of EMF/RF fields, a new well conducted replication study shows that long-term 3G/UMTS microwave exposure can act as a co-carcinogen and statistically significantly increase cancer growth at very low exposure levels, 50-fold below currently permitted levels. Everyone using a 3G mobile phone or iPad or other tablet will be exposed at higher levels than this (0.04 W/kg). This study flags a big and important "wake up alarm call".

Click here for the full news story

If you wish to unsubscribe from the mailing list, please edit your account settings from the edit profile screen.

New paper: Tumor promotion by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields below exposure limits for humans

New paper: Tumor promotion by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields below exposure limits for humans

From Science Direct

Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications

Available online 6 March 2015

Researchers: Prof. Dr. Alexander Lerchla, Melanie Klosea, Karen Grotea,Adalbert F.X. Wilhelmb, Oliver Spathmannc, Thomas Fiedlerc, Joachim Streckertc, Volkert Hansenc, Markus Clemensc

Abstract

The vast majority of in vitro and in vivo studies did not find cancerogenic effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF), i.e. emitted by mobile phones and base stations. Previously published results from a pilot study with carcinogen-treated mice, however, suggested tumor-promoting effects of RF-EMF (Tillmann et al., 2010). We have performed a replication study using higher numbers of animals per group and including two additional exposure levels (0 (sham), 0.04, 0.4 and 2 W/kg SAR). We could confirm and extend the originally reported findings. Numbers of tumors of the lungs and livers in exposed animals were significantly higher than in sham-exposed controls. In addition, lymphomas were also found to be significantly elevated by exposure. A clear dose-response effect is absent. We hypothesize that these tumor-promoting effects may be caused by metabolic changes due to exposure. SNIP

Read the post here.