Aftermath of the peer-review of the NTP study
…updated on April 3rd, 2018…
It happened again – a big surprise. Scientists decided that NTP study shows effects in rats.
When group of experts is assembled and the experts’ careers do not depend, in either direct or indirect way, on the telecoms, then the real scientific evaluation takes place. Not just a rubber-stamping of an opinion that is convenient for the telecoms, as it is done by the ICNIRP, WHO EMF Project and ICES. Because in ICNIRP and WHO EMF Project and ICES careers of the scientists are industry-dependent, even when the scientists are not directly employed by the industry. However, at ICES, the majority of the scientists is either employed by the industry or are consultants for the industry.
This real scientific debate happened just recently with the peer-review of the NTP study completed at the US NIEHS. The same happened in 2011 at IARC with classification of carcinogenic potential of the cell phone radiation.
In both cases (NIEHS 2018 & IARC 2011) the industry-independent scientists were able, in both cases, through thorough scientific debate, convince the industry-dependent scientists that science is more important and come to conclusions based on scientificmatter whether telecoms liked it or not (most likely the did not).
Result of the NIEHS 2018 evaluation of the NTP study were elegantly compiled by Joel Moskowitz (see updated table and explanatory material here).
However, please do not hold your breath. Scientists come to certain conclusions and… bureaucrats do nothing, because industry lobby is too powerful. Where science and big money collide the winner is easily predictable…
As I recently tweeted… US FDA will do nothing in response to the NTP study:
The same happened after IARC classified cell phone radiation as a possible human carcinogen = nothing happened… no action whatsoever to tighten safety limits…
Many declarations of interests and claims to be free from ties to industry in the past have later been proven to be false.
One such recent example is prof. Anders Ahlbom who never reported as a conflict of interest that his brother was a long term lobbyist for the major Swedish Telecom operator Telia in Brussels. while Anders Ahlbom was an “independent expert” for years to EU, ICNIRP, WHO and dominated all Swedish expert opinions on the issue. He also omitted his involvement in the lobbying firm of his brother. http://wwwc.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/9905/21/eu.html
Other example from other issues is professor Ragnar Rylander who secretly had a non-declared contract with Philip Morris for 30 year – until it was discovered.
We who work seriously with this issue cannot see any other logic than that your career as expert must be dependent of industry and that your “positions” all along have been to the benefit of industry when doing a “who-benefits” analysis of your statements that ignores or downplays the massive amount of data and research results that clearly and repeatedly show negative health effects..Also when analyzing the industry positions we can clearly see that they appreciate and make use of your “positions”.
You never declare that your “position” is in fact a minority position::over 200 other scientists do not agree, Neither do we who are checking the facts.
That your career is industry dependent is particularly striking in view of the following facts:
1. your clear lack of own research merits from the issue of health effects from EMF
2. your position as influential expert on ICNIRP, EU, WHO, Sweden, Holland and more….(why in view of 1?)
3. your constant denial of any health risks although evidence of harm is abundant (why? see for instance http://www.stralskyddsstiftelsen.se/forskning/)
4. your close involvement in the WHO EMF project while it was not clearly and openly declared as funded by GSM Association and MMF – or did you declare that in your declarations of interests?
5 your many years of involvement in IEEE/ICES – an industry organization.
And still although you make HIGHLY dubious statements that are clearly false (see example below) you are not prepared to take personal responsibility for the statements.
I asked you 1 year ago:
“Are you prepared to take full responsibility for the statement in the report of the Health Council of the Netherlands, in view of the fact that 75% of Swedish teenagers (girls) use their smartphones for over 3 hours a day” ? Are you thereby prepared to take full responsibility that there are no observed (or appeared) health and cancer risks for a normal use of a smart phone today among Swedes i.e. 3 hours a day or even lower (1 hour a day) for a period of up to 15 year s of mobile phone use”?
You had claimed:
“Altogether it (research results”) provides no or at most little indications for a risk for up to approximately 15 years of mobile phone use.”
This is clearly false – to claim “no indications for a risk up to 15 years” or even that there is “little”. Four meta-analysis published 2017 concludes that altogether studies on mobile phone use show increased risks for brain tumors.
Many brain tumors are deadly.
Most teenagers use the mobile phone for hours today. Much more than what has been shown in repeated studies to increase the risk of brain tumors (i e from 20-30 min/day)
The responsibility of denial of brain tumour and cancer risks from all the evidence available today for a clear increased risk should be huge.
By Mona Nilsson