{"id":4,"date":"2010-09-20T18:47:24","date_gmt":"2010-09-20T18:47:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/notabortower.experiencedynamics.com\/?page_id=4"},"modified":"2020-07-15T11:32:21","modified_gmt":"2020-07-15T19:32:21","slug":"thescience","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/friendsofamazoncreek.org\/?page_id=4","title":{"rendered":"The Science"},"content":{"rendered":"

“A precautionary, prevention-oriented approach should replace current reactionary approaches to environmental contaminants in which human harm must be proven before action is taken to reduce or eliminate exposure.” — National Cancer Institute, 2008-2009 Annual Report,<\/a> <\/cite>President’s Cancer Panel<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

The Science
\n<\/span><\/h2>\n

The health and safety impacts of microwave radiation emissions are a highly charged topic because of their implications for high-profit industries, regulatory agencies and consumer product use. While scientific methods can offer clear and objective means of assessing these impacts, they can be abused and manipulated to appear to promote a desired conclusion. Common abuses where money and industry are involved take the form of funding bias<\/strong>, conflict of interest<\/strong>, and disinformation strategies<\/strong>. Responsible planning requires (1) the recognition of each of these in the current dialog, (2) objective assessment of the body of available research as a whole, and (3) exercising caution (The Precautionary Principle)<\/strong> in the face of doubt or ambiguity.<\/p>\n

1. Funding bias<\/strong> refers to the influence of the funding source on a study’s outcomes. Funding bias is recognized as a serious problem in research on radiation-emitting technologies. For example, the table below shows funding bias in research on cell phone radiation in 326 studies reported between 1990 and 2006 (compiled by Dr. Henry Lai, U Washington). As you can see, 67% of independently funded studies reported biologic effects from cell phone radiation, while only 28% of industry-funded studies reported such effects. (Of course, even 28% is cause for concern.)Funding bias even influences the interpretation<\/strong><\/em> of results. <\/strong>That is, industry-funded studies have a higher rate of discrepancies<\/a> between their actual results<\/strong><\/em> and the author’s conclusions<\/strong><\/em> compared to independent studies (click to expand).<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

2. Conflict of interest<\/strong> is another serious problem. “Expert panels” often referred to for setting policy (ICNIRP<\/a>, SCENIHR<\/a>) are actually staffed by industry-funded scientists with conflicts of interest and no accountability. To watch a new video presentation on this problem, “Science and Conflict of Interest in Bioelectromagnetics”, by Dr. Dariusz Leszczynski at the Swiss association Gigaherz on March 7, 2015, click here<\/a>. The BioInitiative Report<\/a> provides the most independent as well as comprehensive review of the evidence in this field and makes recommendations for setting safety guidelines.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

3. Disinformation strategies<\/strong> involve science denial and the deliberate misrepresentation of the available scientific evidence to mislead the public. In the case of the telecom industry and its proxy the FCC, this takes the form of public messaging that there is no evidence of non-thermal effects from EMR, even though an abundance of scientific evidence shows otherwise. Disinformation is particularly disturbing coming from a federal agency (the FCC) in that it exploits the public’s trust in government as a protector of public health, in favor of corporate profit.<\/p>\n

The Precautionary Principle<\/strong> holds that to protect the public health, new technologies and products should not be introduced until they are proven safe<\/strong> for consumers and the environment. Safety<\/strong> is established by independent studies,<\/strong> not studies conducted by the industry or by scientists it has funded with a conflict of interest.<\/p>\n

Overview of the Scientific Literature
\n<\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\n

There are now well over 1,200 published scientific studies examining the question of whether EMR has physiological or health effects. The table below summarizes the findings as of late 2014. This table was compiled using the Powerwatch database<\/a>, which comprises regular searches of PubMed (the US National Institutes of Health database) as well as other world health research databases. The preponderance of studies, by a 4:1 ratio, report significant impacts (click to expand).<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

In any large body of research, conflicting findings are expected. Most studies can be criticized in some way on methodological grounds. For this reason scientists look at the trends in the body of research as a whole<\/em> to see what direction it is pointing, rather than relying on any one study as “proof” one way or another. This makes the 4:1 ratio of positive to negative findings all the more important.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Perhaps the most urgent findings concern proliferation of cellular transmission equipment in residential areas. Here are a few recent developments on this topic:<\/p>\n