Betreff: Responding to Repacholi's interview
Von: Iris Atzmon
Datum: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 21:16:33 +0300
A. Scientists, not Activists.
Repacholi's answers are an insult to the intelligence of both "vocal activists" and scientists,
because Scientists are the ones who taught activists about the bias of science or how unscientific
Repacholi's work was during the EMF project and ICNIRP periods. (examples later).
Using Repacholi's language - it's a cheap shot to blame "vocal activists" who read studies like
crazy, claiming simply that "they are not really interested in the science".
The pot calls the kettle black here.
Who are the "reasonable activist groups" Repacholi tried to engage in his work as he claims?
What are their names? When did it take place? I don't think anyone believes this.
But Repacholi found the industry to be very interested in science, didn't he?
Because it is the industry that he chose to engage in his activities over activists groups.
B. Education, not Replication
Repacholi likes very much to use the word Science. He inserts this word almost obsessively.
Once I read his answer to an activist who asked him about money
(about the $150,000 a year he received from the Mobile Manufacturers Forum through
the Adelaide hospital bypassing the WHO rules). Repacholi's short response included 8 times the word
(or root of the word) "science" and 0 times the word money. This was an interesting "balance" and actually exposed his method. He uses the word "science" like a drug, everytime he has to compensate for a lack of real scientific argument
or as a red herring from the financial issues he has been asked about again and again especially during the last year.
For example the study he presents as a "replication" of his mice study.
Repacholi doesn't give legitimation for a single positive study, no matter how reliable it is.
But only if it is replicated or better - "negated": The example he gives is an excellent one to expose his bias,
because Kuchel-Utteridge study was actually NOT a replication of his study, and that's what he hides
from the interviewer, and that's what he hides from the "ordinary people" who still believe in the
WHO because some WHO's workers exploit cynically their ignorance -
The Devil is in the details: Isn't it funny that Kuchel and Utteridge didn't expose the mice to radiation in weekends and
holidays, and that they continued to weigh the poor mice after they were dead?
The facts about the changes the researchers made in the design of the "replication" are documented in
Radiation Research 159, 274-278 (2003),
and described by Scientists, not activists: Dr. Michael Kundi, Alexander Lerchl (University of Bermen).
Kuchel - Utteridge did not design the study like Repacholi's was designed hence it was simply
not a replication, but this doesn't prevent from Repacholi to present it as replication.
This is not a scientific attitude but politics. It is pathetic to present Kuchel's study as "replication"
after you read what they exactly did there.
Read more about this "replication" in Microwave News Jan/Feb 2003 p.6 (free online)
Neil Cherry showed how unscientific the ICNIRP assesment is and he was never contradicted by the WHO and ICNIRP. In recent years more and more researchers criticized the standards in the scientific literature (Beylaev 2005) and in the European Parliament (Cherry 2000, Hyland 2000). They showed discrepancies between the studies on which the standards are based, and the interpretation that was given to them in the safety standards documents (Goldsmith 1995, Cherry 2000, Maisch 2005) and also related to the involvement of industrial interests in the World Health Organization, that were documented in a doctorate paper (Maisch 2006). The Benevento Resolution was signed by 40 scientists who admitted that
the WHO/ICNIRP assesment is not objective. Again, we talk about scientists, not activists.
(Benevento Resolution 2006). Repacoli's patronizing attitude towards activists is baseless.
C. EHS - the sensitive point of the WHO
Repacholi says: "To assess all the facts, WHO held a special workshop in Prague"....
But if it was really to asses ALL the facts, why did prof Olle Johansson report this on the
I am very sorry to inform you that the WHO, after its "Workshop on EMF
Hypersensitivity", 25-27 October 2004, in Prague, completely has denied me
- after all being a participant of the workshop - the democratic right to
have a formal reservation included in the summary (the latter can be found at
The persons behind this decison are Michael Repacholi (WHO), Norbert
Leitgeb (Institute of Clinical Engineering and PMG, Medical Devices
European Notified Body 0636, Graz, Austria), Emilie van Deventer (WHO) and
Sarah Bullock (WHO).
Since the TNO study showed the EHS case, the industry histerically
started funding not physicians, not biologists, but psychologists and psychiatrists
in order to show EHS is in the mind. Well, that's what psychiatrists do for a living.
But an article in the Sunday Express 5.8.07 showed it will not be so easy to bury
the EHS issue.
Yes, Repacholi buries evidence - the studies on masts like Graham Blackwell
documented, show the effects not in EHS people but in healthy people who become ill.
For Repacholi these studies don't exist as well as in his EHP review he omitted
long term studies on mobile phones that showed increase in tumors among users
(Hardell) (and acustic neuroma positive studies).
<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>
Ignoring REFLEX and its replications, claiming that non thermal mechanisms have high thresholds,
using theoretical explanations of what "should" happen in order for the radiation to have an effect (page 11-12
in the EHP article) instead of recognizing existing evidence of production of free radicals and existing
others mechanisms like BBB effects, calcium efflux (claiming modulation has no effect), heat-shock proteins, etc,
this is ignoring the evidence, not considering the weight of evidence.
E. ICNIRP and WHO
Repacholi says he resigned from ICNIRP when he joined WHO but a petition was
sent to Kofi Anan exactly because of this existing conflict, Anan's response did not
contradict it, on the contrary, the response claimed that by working both at the WHO and
ICNIRP there is no conflict. Of course, it was also revealed there that the ICNIRP is
a private organization. Many of its scientists are funded by the industry.
Repacholi replied once to an activist:
"Pity is that people such as yourself won't listen to the science"
"if the science does not support your position this is not my problem".
Again, the pot calls the kettle black.
Belyaev, I., MArkova, Eva, Hillert, Lena, Malmgren L.,
Persson R.R.B. Microwaves from GSM mobile phones affect 53BP1 and gamma-H2AX
foci in human lymphocytes from hypersensitive and healthy persons. Environmental
Health Perspectives. online
Cherry, N. Criticism of the health assessment in the ICNIRP guidelines for
radiofrequency and microwave radiation (100 kHz- 300 GHz),
Goldsmith J, “Where the trail leads" Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 1995 July; Vol. 5 p. 92-94. http://www.csu.edu.au/learning/eubios/EJ54H.html
The Physiological and Environmental Effects of Non-ionising
Electromagnetic Radiation, Presentation in the European Parliament on
Institute of Biophysics, Kapellner Straße, ehem. Raketenstation,D-41472
Maisch, D. The ICNIRP Guidelines: RF risk assessment built on a house of cards
Maisch. D. Conflict of Interest and Bias in Health Advisory Committees:
A case study of the WHO’s EMF Task Group. JACNEM 2006 Apr; Vol. 21 (1): 15-17.