Radiation Safety SSM does not handle the issue of mobile phone risks according to the requirement of impartiality. SSM uses biased experts who defend an outdated threshold of great economic importance to the industry. The Authority's handling of the issue urgently needs to be exposed to scrutiny. It writes the journalist and author Mona Nilsson.
Radiation Safety SSM does not handle the issue of mobile phone risks according to the requirement of impartiality. SSM uses biased experts who defend an outdated threshold of great economic importance to the industry.
The Authority's handling of the issue urgently needs to be exposed to scrutiny. Radiation Safety SSM recently held a seminar in Stockholm where the Authority's alleged "independent" experts would provide information on what the latest research showed the risks of mobile telephony. However, they are far from independent.
A majority is now like the last eight years, members of the controversial organization ICNIRP. Most can also research funds from the mobile industry, in some cases significant amounts. SSM boycotting all those scientists who believe that there are risks associated with mobile telephony.
The Authority therefore ignore its obligation under the Constitution to remain objective and impartial. ICNIRP is behind the current standard for mobile telephony by mobile industry adapted its technology to. The day a health risk with mobile telephony becomes widely recognized, will the important threshold to fall. Fall limit hit industry hard: It results in increased costs, reduced use and circulation, and increases the risk of costly litigation. It simply is of immense importance for the industry: a turnover of 3 trillion dollars annually is in the balance when the risk assessment.
Mobile industry and the ICNIRP-experts have a common interest in denying the mobile radiation health risks, as there are many examples. ICNIRP members dismisses year after year all the research data on risks in their own limit. ICNIRP-experts dominate teams not only in Sweden but also in Europe and the WHO. The limit is heavily criticized for being outdated and does not not fit with the extensive use and passive radiation exposure today.
It explicitly protects only against the immediate effects of very short-term exposure (6 minutes), and excludes long-term effects such as cancer. The Expert Group on SSM was established in June 2002 by the SSM's former director general Lars-Erik Holm, who is now director general of the National Board, a month before the researcher Lennart Hardell was expected to present evidence that cell phone use increased the risk of brain tumors. While there was a notable process in the U.S. where the neurologist Christopher Newman, who blamed his brain tumor on the phone, called mobilinudstrin of 800 million U.S. dollars. Lennart Hardell results could have a crucial bearing on the question of the risks of mobile phones and for similar processes in the courts in the future.
Years have passed and each year has the ICNIRP-dominated group of experts submitted their report which Hardell and all other research showing the health risks of mobile telephony was dismissed. Some members of the group have stopped, but they are immediately replaced by other ICNIRP-experts. The group is headed now, as in 2002 by Anders Ahlbom, who established the ICNIRP maximum and the Secretary is still ICNIRP member Maria Feychting. Both participated in the large international study, largely funded by the mobile industry, the risk of brain tumors from cell phone use has finally announced last spring. The researchers then had fought for four years about how the mobile industry decisive results would be presented. ICNIRP-faction won the battle for the official conclusion: No risk of brain tumors. The elevated risk observed for current normal users were discarded.
The most alarming analysis, in which elevated risk was seen with increased use and increased latency so-called dose-response curves, relegated to an appendix. Maria Feychting presented the new findings on the SSM seminar. As in May, she claimed that the increased risk could not be taken seriously, because there was no clear dose-response curve. Feychting showed a flat line, representing a reduced risk of brain tumors: - We saw no increased risk in the first nine exposure categories, the risk was seen only in the most extreme user category, explained Feychting. The increased risk meant she was due to reporting errors. She felt that it is unlikely that any of those who had brain tumors were used cell phone more than 1 hour a day. Maria Feychting did not explain that the first nine exposure categories are represented as low exposure, if we turn it on ten years of use, no increased risk could be expected. The first seven categories had only used the phone for 0.1 to 6 minutes per day. That and Feychting 'normal' use of "extreme" and instead very low use of "normal" is a perverse use of language. Some would call it manipulation.
It is interesting to ask Feychting arguments in relation to a court ruling in Italy in 2009. The Court held that a man who used a mobile phone and wireless phone received the tumor due to the intense use. The Italian court decision is not based on opinions but on the details of the man's use of the work. Moreover, the Court took note of Lennart Hardell results which were judged most reliable. Hardell has shown that the cell phone and the cordless phone increases the risk of brain tumors in adults, a clear trend in which the risk increases with increased use, and that the risk is even higher for young people (up to eight times higher).
Feychting their part, ignoring Hardell resultaten with the only explanation that they show a higher risk than she showed. Unlike SSM experts believe Israel's representative in the WHO study, Professor Siegal Sadetzki and the study's project leader, Professor Elisabeth Cardis, that shows elevated risks. Sadetzki has recently led an expert study in Israel, which culminated in a parliamentary proposal for a comprehensive action to reduce school children's exposure to mobile phone radiation and she recommends with the country's health ministry to avoid the use of wireless telephones.
A few days after SSM seminar, I see a news program from the U.S. where a heartbroken father says his son died of brain cancer, only 28 years old. He had reviewed the invoices from your carrier. The son had used mobile phones for up to 10 hours a day. Yet a week later, a report in the Australian TV. A 27-year-old woman has been a life-threatening tumor right where she used to keep the phone for 2-3 hours each day. Excessive! , the Swedish experts say. Radiation Safety Authority have all other authorities pressure to respond objectively and impartially. Swedish people's exposure to mobile phone radiation, both from base stations and their phones have exploded only in the past five years, while research shows that serious risks are high.
That a significantly biased group of experts, may autocratic rule in question is offensive and clearly inconsistent with the requirement of objectivity. It is high time that the SSM's handling of the mobile communications risks examined.
----- Original Message -----
From: Mona Nilsson
Swedish authorities are lying about Mobile phone health risks
Read more http://svtdebatt.se/2010/11/svenska-myndigheter-ljuger-om-riskerna-med-mobiltelefoni/
Mona Nilsson's new article plus the response from the Radiation Safety Authority. It is so interesting the words they choose:
1) "of course" we do not lie.
2) direct funding vs. indirectfunding- indirect used as a protection. It just sharpens the problem.
3) scientific basis and how it is looked at
4) risk assessment- used as a tool to delete studies?
5) warming effects- how many years can this go on?
What should the next step be?
The authorities continue to lie about mobile risks and treasury experts
Published December 4, 2010 - 18:08
MOBILE RADIATION Lars Mjönes from Radiation Safety writing on 30 November that the researchers included in the Radiation Safety scientific advice "do not receive research funding directly from the telecom company". [it is like claimingthat it goes indirectly,in order to not admit the connection to industry...how transparent can a person be?..]It is wrong. Experts in the SSM's scientific advice may be many years, research funds, directly or indirectly, from mobile and electrical industries. Writes journalist Mona Nilsson.
SSM's expert Bernard Veyret has received funding directly from, and is a consultant to, the mobile industry for many years. Veyret always publishes results that are favorable to them: no effects. When he was in a study, as well as the Swedish research group in Lund, saw that the brain was injured he had to stop publication of the results of the false statement that it was a small pilot study. In the light of their connections to the mobile industry, he was not fit to participate in France's equivalent of experts.
SSM expert during 2003-2009 Leeka Kheifets has for years received money and also worked at the U.S. electricity industry organization, EPRI. Maria Feychting also gets research funding directly from EPRI. All these three and the team, Anders Ahlbom, members of the ICNIRP, which is claimed to be independent from industry.
The latter is an equally important aspect of research funding: The majority of experts are members of the ICNIRP, which established the controversial outdated values which are of immense importance for the mobile industry. This is a disturbing conflict of interest.
Even more outrageous is that none of all the experts and scientists who believes that there are health risks found in SSM's experts. SSM boycotting both their expertise as the research evidence that radiation harms humans, animals and cells. An example is Lennart Hardell alarming results show that young mobile users are at high risk brain tumors.
Mjönes claiming falsely that "limit protects against all known health effects" and that "the only health effect it could find, so far at least, is acute warming effect." [for how many years from now is he planning to continue say this no matter what he can find on Medline?] I encourage everyone to check the facts: the ICNIRP limit specifically excludes long-term effects such as cancer. It is proven over and over and over again that radiation harms people, animals and cells at levels well below this threshold. Among other things, a dozen studies have shown that sperm damaged by mobile phone radiation. Course of study have shown that radiation disrupts sleep, causing oxidative stress and DNA damage. This list could be much longer.
Mjönes also asserts that "for the low exposure levels caused by transmitters such as cell towers, wireless networks, radio and television are not scientifically well-founded doubts about the health effects". Here mislead him in the square: It is not "low levels" from cell towers and wireless networks and more. There are high levels when compared with the maximum value recommended by a large group of critical experts. It is "low" only if that Mjönes compare with ICNIRP's soaring value, which does not protect against the effects of the shape of the exposure in question: for a long time.
8 of 10 studies show that cell towers, the incidence of mikrovågssyndromet (sleep problems, headaches, cardiac arrhythmias, etc.) and cancer among the local residents. Meanwhile, the testimony of these health effects are very comprehensive and consistent.
Mjönes also asserts that the same assessments that SSM does is done all over the world, including the WHO. He does not mention that the WHO has been paid by the mobile industry for many years and to work piquant enough, led by the ICNIRP members who dominate the SSM's experts. Several other countries are doing other risk assessments. For example, France has banned mobile phones in school, many countries have lowered the limits. Experts in Israel proposes comprehensive measures to reduce children's exposure. German and Finnish children SSM is to minimize the mobile use.
SSM violates its duty to behave impartially and objectively, and the requirement of objectivity. Year after year, SSM lied about what is known about the risks, children's sensitivity and the limit and used the services of biased experts. It's time to clean up, both at the agency as among the experts. I urge the Swedish journalists to review the SSM.
Mona Nelson, journalist and author of the book "mobile radio health risks - facts about today's biggest environmental and health scandal"
Lars Mjönes, investigators in the Radiation Safety Authority is respondingto Mona Nilsson:
We do not lie on mobile radiation
Published November 30, 2010 - 18:00
MOBILE RADIATION The researchers included in the Radiation Safety scientific advice must all submit jävsdeklarationer and they do not accept research funding directly from the telecom companies. Mona Nilsson accuses Radiation Safety Authority of lying about the risks of mobile telephony. Of course we do not do it, writes Lars Mjönes, investigators in the Radiation Safety
Mona Nilsson accuses Radiation Safety Authority of lying about the risks of mobile telephony. Of course we do not do it. [without second thought] We follow the research and knowledge in the field and do a risk assessment based on the state of scientific knowledge. In the case of mobile phone use, we apply the precautionary principle. Since 2004 we have, among other things recommended the use of hands to reduce unnecessary exposure in talks with mobile phone. The reason is that there is a scientifically based suspicion of possible health effects for those who use mobile phones for more than 10 years. The suspicion is admittedly weak, but has not yet been dismissed. Caution with the mobile phone is important for everyone but is especially important for children and young people because they will use mobile phone for a long time. For the low exposure levels caused by transmitters such as cell towers, wireless networks, radio and television are not scientifically well-founded doubts about the health effects.
Mona Nilsson also says that researchers in the Radiation Safety scientific advice would be the telecom industry matters. It is of course not. It is now very rare for serious researchers, in the case studies on health risks, receiving research money directly from companies. In the research on possible health risks of mobile telephony has been implemented in several countries, governments have contributed half the money and the industry by half. Research money is then distributed by an independent commission, just to avoid the possibility that scientists will be in a position of dependence on industrial firms. The researchers included in the Radiation Safety scientific advice must all submit jävsdeklarationer and they do not accept research funding directly from the telecom companies.
She also tackles the International Commission on Radiological Protection for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). Their task is to monitor research regarding health risks and, if necessary, amend its guidelines. Nilsson says that the current limit, which ICNIRP updated in 2009, only to "protect against acute effects". Wrong again. The limit protects against all known health effects. The only health effect it could find, so far at least, is acute warming effect. The limit protects against these, one can hardly ask for a limit to protect against unknown health effects.
The Radiation Safety risk assessments will be shared by virtually all radiation safety authorities worldwide, including the responsible authority in the U.S. and the World Health Organization.
Lars Mjönes, investigators in the Radiation Safety
"How is it possible that the Swedish (and Finnish) people has such a club to decide on children's health?"
Very good question indeed.
----- Original Message -----
From: Mona Nilsson
To: Iris Atzmon
Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 12:06 PM
Subject: new article as reply to the Swedish Radiation Protection Authority
SVT Debatt: Slutreplik: Mona Nilsson om mobilstrålning
Myndigheterna fortsätter ljuga om mobilrisker och köpta experter
Publicerad 4 december, 2010 - 18:08
MOBILSTRÅLNING Lars Mjönes från Strålsäkerhetsmyndigheten skriver den 30 november att de forskare som ingår i Strålsäkerhetsmyndighetens vetenskapliga råd ?inte tar emot forskningsanslag direkt från telekomföretag?. Det är fel. Experter i SSM:s vetenskapliga råd får sedan många år forskningsmedel direkt eller indirekt från mobil- och elindustrin. Det skriver journalisten Mona Nilsson.
The new article: http://svtdebatt.se/2010/12/myndigheterna-fortsatter-ljuga-om-mobilrisker-och-kopta-experter/
My first article:
Svenska myndigheter ljuger om riskerna med mobiltelefoni http://svtdebatt.se/2010/11/svenska-myndigheter-ljuger-om-riskerna-med-mobiltelefoni/
The SSM reply http://svtdebatt.se/2010/11/vi-ljuger-inte-om-mobilstralningen/
More about the theme: