The disinformation campaign—and massive radiation increase—behind the 5G rollout.
Mark Hertsgaard and Mark Dowie, THE NATION, March 29, 2018
January 30, 2017
In the following post, Dr. Leszczynski, one of the world's leading EMF scientists, was censored by STUK, the Finnish government radiation research agency whom he worked for, when he wrote about scientific misconduct in the WHO-sponsored Interphone study in 2011.
Uncensored version of blog post on Interphone, first published in 2011 and re-published for the first time now…Dariusz Leszczynski, Between a Rock and a Hard Place, Jan 30, 2017. http://bit.ly/2jMBgwa--
March 7, 2015
In his February 12 blog post, Dr. Dariusz Leszczynski discussed how industry-funded scientists undermined his cutting-edge research on cell phone radiation biologic effects which he conducted for the Finnish government for more than a decade. The Wireless Industry, following Big Tobacco's playbook, co-opts scientists to do low quality research and uses them to manufacture doubt about high quality science. Dr. Leszczynski provides some insight about how industry-funded scientists undermined his government-funded, state-of-the-art scientific research.
Dr. Leszczynski was one of 31 experts selected to review the cancer risks of radio frequency (RF) radiation in 2011 by the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer. The panel declared that RF radiation is "possibly carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2B). Dr. Leszczynski reported in a subsequent blog post that he and several other experts wanted RF radiation to be classified as "probably carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2A), but a majority of the panel would not support this designation.
Science and Conflict of Interest in Bioelectromagnetics
Dariusz Leszczynski, Between a Rock and a Hard Place, March 7, 2015
"The general trend of exposing cells at 2.0 SAR was strongly advocated and propagated by the scientists from the telecom industry. It was a strong peer pressure from, among others, Mays Swicord, Joe Elder and C-K Chou of Motorola, USA, and Sakari Lang and Jafar Keshvari of Nokia, Finland, that caused lack of in vitro studies at SAR higher than 2.0. These five scientists mentioned above were the most active in exercising peer pressure.It was a normal occurrence at the scientific meetings, and I attended really a lot of them, that whenever scientist reported biological effects at SAR over 2.0, the above mentioned industry scientists, singularly or as a group, jumped up to the microphone to condemn and to discredit the results. The argument was always the same – safety standards are set at 2.0 and examining effects above it is futile. Furthermore, any study with SAR above 2.0 was suggested to be caused by thermal effect. It meant, according to these industry scientists that the obtained biological data were irrelevant.It was the continuous and relentlessly executed peer pressure from the industry scientists that discouraged, and in the end prevented, scientists from the academia to do freely research at SAR higher than 2.0, even when the exposure chamber had cooling system."
"Therefore, with the extreme delight I read the recent paper in Bioelectromagnetics “The Discrepancy Between Maximum In Vitro Exposure Levels and Realistic Conservative Exposure Levels of Mobile Phones Operating at 900/1800 MHz” by Gernot Schmid and Niels Kuster.
Here area few quotes from this game-changing paper by Schmid and Kuster:"
In vitro studies of GSM cell phone radiation should be redone using higher SAR levels to better simulate real-world conditions
Here is the abstract for the "game-changing" paper by Schmid and Kuster. The results of this analysis suggest that most in vitro studies of GSM cell phone bioeffects tested exposures that are too low to simulate real-world exposures, especially to cells contained in skin and blood. According to the authors, these studies should to be redone using SAR's that greatly exceed 2 watts per kilogram so the results can be generalized to real-world exposures.
Gernot Schmid, Niels Kuster. The discrepancy between maximum in vitro exposure levels and realistic conservative exposure levels of mobile phones operating at 900/1800 MHz. Bioelectromagnetics. 36(2):133-148. 2015. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25644546
The objective of this paper is to compare realistic maximum electromagnetic exposure of human tissues generated by mobile phones with electromagnetic exposures applied during in vitro experiments to assess potentially adverse effects of electromagnetic exposure in the radiofrequency range.
We reviewed 80 in vitro studies published between 2002 and present that concern possible adverse effects of exposure to mobile phones operating in the 900 and 1800 MHz bands. We found that the highest exposure level averaged over the cell medium that includes evaluated cells (monolayer or suspension) used in 51 of the 80 studies corresponds to 2 W/kg or less, a level below the limit defined for the general public. That does not take into account any exposure non-uniformity. For comparison, we estimated, by numerical means using dipoles and a commercial mobile phone model, the maximum conservative exposure of superficial tissues from sources operated in the 900 and 1800 MHz bands.
The analysis demonstrated that exposure of skin, blood, and muscle tissues may well exceed 40 W/kg at the cell level. Consequently, in vitro studies reporting minimal or no effects in response to maximum exposure of 2 W/kg or less averaged over the cell media, which includes the cells, may be of only limited value for analyzing risk from realistic mobile phone exposure.
We, therefore, recommend future in vitro experiments use specific absorption rate levels that reflect maximum exposures and that additional temperature control groups be included to account for sample heating.
Keywords: SAR; GSM; cell; compliance; radiofrequency
“…Vinnova administers a grant from Telenor, TeliaSonera and Sony Ericsson, and acts as a firewall according to a contract that guarantees the independence and autonomy of the research…”
This statement is to assure us that the science is independent of the industry because:
- the industry provided research funding, but
- funding is administered by Vinnova, meaning that
- researchers receive funds from Vinnova and not directly from the industry ....
Industry that sponsors research projects often requires, as a part of the deal, to know on what projects their money will be used. This way the industry justifies the participation of the industry scientists in planning phase of the research projects – they do not want their money to be wasted for unnecessary research. There is some logic in this kind of thinking but there is also a danger. Projects that for some reasons industry considers as undesirable, from the industry point of view, will not get funded. This does not automatically mean that these “undesired” projects are wrong….