Industry-biased guys Eric and Ken have hit a new low in stupid and dishonest pro-industry lies. You guys may want to reduce your exposure on RF-EMF. Are you going downhill?
· Eric says many EMF Scientist signatories are not scientists or don't know EMF 😂
· Ken calls credible EMF research garbage 😂
· And PBS doesn't even bother to check the facts (e.g., of Eric's cold blooded lie).
Congrats to evil powers - you should be proud of yourselves for helping one of the biggest evil attacks in history of our planet. But karma is a bitch.
RESPONSE TO PRO-INDUSTRY LIES PROMOTED BY WHYY / NPR / PBS / Pulse article/podcast by Liz Tung: "Science vs science: The contradictory fight over whether electromagnetic hypersensitivity is real"
by Réza Ganjavi, MBA
25 April 2021
Dear Liz: Overall you did a good job except you absolutely should have fact checked the lies that industry-biased creatures like Ken Foster and Eric van Rongen spoon-fed you. Some of these are shameless cold-blooded lies. You could have and should have crossed checked them like a good investigative journalist should - esp. when the claims are so ridiculous as Eric van Rongen saying the EMF scientists are not EMF scientists... LoL
I had good experience with you but I also thought your article "could have been worse" since the wicked industry pulls strings in more places than you imagine, and they have a very proficient lobbying arm. Just ask your big boss ;)
My comments below. Some require correction of the online version. Please see that they're done quickly. Thanks.
~~~
Could you please replace the URL of my site from https://rezamusic.yolasite.com/ to https://www.rezamusic.com
"Pretty soon, he came across something he’d never heard of before: electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS)."
This is totally made up - it's a lie. I never said this. I didn't come across EHS as a condition / disease your program promotes. I came across biological damages of EMF. It can be twisted logically but the concept of EHS had no role in my world at that time, and it still doesn't. It's all about sensitivity in my opinion. I know people who are clearly damaged by RF-EMR and they're not sensitive to it. They're still damaged!
"For Ganjavi, an IT professional, the idea that his Wi-Fi could be making him sick wasn’t a welcome one."
That's also a made up line. I didn't care about my profession and it wasn't just about WiFi.
"Mainstream science has affirmed for years that these human-made electromagnetic fields are safe, at least in the frequencies and dosages that most people encounter them."
That is absolutely a false statement. Mainstream science comprised by some 90% of EMF scientists if not more maintain it *is* harmful. It's mainstream industry that thinks it's safe. BIG LIE you just said. That should be corrected. It helps brainwash people with the same lie industry promotes.
Also the line that I used WiFi all my life -- I'm not that young ;)
~~~
You quote WHO.
"But the WHO does not recognize that there is a relation with exposure to electromagnetic fields.”
WHO is a captured agency, and largely a lazy, inefficient, highly political one. I've worked for 2 bodies of UN as a consultant. I know it from inside.
WHO also thinks the current thermal standards are sufficient in light of thousands of studies that show otherwise. That's how politically corrupt WHO is.
MORE COLD-BLOODED LIES BY ICNIRP'S ERIC VAN RONGEN
ICNIRP "generally regarded as the world’s leading authority on health issues related to electromagnetic fields."
Except by large majority of scientists who are not affiliated with the industry in direct or indirect way, including Eric van Rongen (see below). They can't stand ICNIRP and have called for it to be shut down or totally overhauled away from its industry bias.
Not surprising that ICNIRP boss says yet another BIG FAT LIE: “From the literature, you cannot draw the conclusion that there is indeed even a hint of an association or a causal relationship between exposure to electromagnetic fields and the complaints and symptoms that people exhibit”! WRONG!! The literature clearly indicates DNA damage and host of other biological effects which your standards Eric do not even consider. It must really suck to bat for such a wicked industry that's on record for repeatedly lying to people about matters of public health.
"So where did these fears of electromagnetic fields come from?"
What a stupid question! I don't blame you Liz - it's probably Eric who called it fear and tried to rationalize it. Industry calling EHS fear instead of sensitive people feeling biological harm that's been shown through thousands of studies -- is a very profitable, cunning, wicked model.
Another BIG LIE by Eric van Rongen of ICNIRP: "“As long as the exposure guidelines are observed, they should not pose a threat". FALSE!! The exposure guidelines completely ignore biological effect, DUH! But of course your lie is the line that's very profitable for the industry.
Thanks to Dr. Joe Moskowitz who helped set the record straight in the article. Liz, you got his credentials and history wrong, as he pointed out to you already.
"ICNIRP, van Rongen said, receives the majority of its funding from the German government — and none from the industry!" HELLO! Eric forgot to say which agency of the German government. It's called BMU and it's the wicked organization that is behind ruining Germany with genotoxic pulsed microwave radiation. It's the biggest supporter of the industry. And it pays ICNIRP. The connection is not difficult to make. All cut from the same cloth. All part of the same cartel.
Eric further fabricates yet another lie, that the scientists who signed the EMF Scientist appeal "are not scientists with knowledge of EMF effects (or even not scientists at all)". Eric Van is probably living proof that too much EMF can do you real harm! HOW CAN YOU LIE LIKE THAT ERIC? HOW CAN YOU SLEEP AT NIGHT KNOWING YOU MADE SUCH DISHONEST STATEMENTS?!?
Dr. Moskowitz set the record straight later:
"Van Rongen is absolutely wrong. See the list of signatories of the International EMF Scientist Appeal who signed this petition “based on solid science.” All signatories have published peer-reviewed papers on EMF and biology or health. In September 2019, using the EMF-Portal database I counted more than 2,000 papers and letters in professional journals were published by these signatories (unduplicated count)."
Did van Rongen really argue that the scientists decided to base the safety standards on heat because of stories about birds dropping dead? That sounds implausible to me.
He overstates his position. Much EHS research has been methodologically weak, especially studies which his claims of a nocebo effect depend on. See my post on EHS: https://www.saferemr.com/2014/10/electromagnetic-hypersensitivity_30.html
Most members of ICNIRP have conflicts of interest and the organization has been called a “cartel” by a multi-national team of investigative journalists in the EU. For more information see: https://www.saferemr.com/2018/07/icnirps-exposure-guidelines-for-radio.html
This page on the WHO website is obsolete; it was last updated in December 2005. To obtain an historical understanding of the collusion between the WHO and ICNIRP to facilitate the telecom’s industry’s agenda, I suggest you search Microwave News.
OMG KEN FOSTER AGAIN !!
For the record, Liz told me she was surprised that she couldn't find any scientists who would argue the industry line !! Except !! Ken Foster !! The lone spokesman for the industry line !! And of course, Eric van Rongen of ICNIRP. On the other side there are hundreds of scientists who speak *against* the industry lines/lies.
Ken Foster repeats his usual pro-industry babble:
"The exposure limits are designed explicitly to protect against heating. The reason is that these are the only hazards that are well established."
Are you kidding Ken?! Might help to take your head out out the industry's whatever and see the facts. Thanks Liz for quoting Dr. Moskowitz, that those hazards have been proven — through thousands of studies demonstrating biological harm resulting from electromagnetic radiation.
Is it any surprise Ken Foster things "the better done studies" are industry studies?! LoL -- Ken happened to have gotten a lot of money from the industry, so he's just doing what makes business sense for him personally: keep the customers happy! To be a good paid shill of the industry that relies on outdated irrelevant standards to expose people to genotoxic radiation and lie to them that it's safe -- Ken Foster calls the credible studies that show biological damage "garbage". What a sad case!
Dr. Moskowitz later wrote:
Did he really call the thousands of studies which reported biologic or health effects from electromagnetic fields that have been published in peer-reviewed professional journals, “all this garbage”?
[yes he did - because there's garbage in his brain from too much exposure to RF-EMF so he just sees garbage ;-) -- perhaps his DNA has turned into garbage code]
Ken Foster eliminated a big fact in his rationalization of his conflict of interest. The fact that industry is on record for having axed scientists who achieved results that did not favor the industry. Same thing tobacco industry and every other wicked industry does!
Dr. Moskowitz later commented after the industry-biased, unbalanced article was published:
I addressed Ken Foster’s misguided portrayal of the research in a piece that Scientific American published on its website:
Scientific American Created Confusion about 5G's Safety: Will They Clear It Up?
"We Have No Reason to Believe 5G is Safe" (Scientific American) https://www.saferemr.com/2020/02/will-scientific-american-clear-up.html
MAEL'S DIEUDONNE'S FALLACIES
Finally, Maël Dieudonné's statements are meaningless. Dr. Moskowitz explained it better than I could:
"His research is worthless. Relying solely on the patient’s self-report of EHS is a huge flaw with his studies. In order to study this environmental illness, you first need to determine your patients actually suffer from this particular illness and not some other problem (e.g., multiple chemical sensitivity). For more information see: https://www.saferemr.com/2014/10/electromagnetic-hypersensitivity_30.html"
I think the entire topic of EHS is a problematic paradigm. Sensitive people feel the harmful biological impact of a genotoxic radiation that makes some people sick but hurts everyone. Industry loves the idea that this is an "illness" that some people have. To be sensitive is a good thing. Instead of blaming people for being sick, remove or reduce the cause which harms everyone. Instead, the wicked industry, with help from creatures like Kenneth Foster and Eric van Rongen is upping the anti, further polluting the planet and all living beings. One of the biggest evils ever descended on our planet.
And the media, often in the pockets of the industry -- with reporters who often don't know they're being tools of an agenda -- helps the wicked industry and its beneficiaries.
Environmental Health Trust wrote to me: "I'm shocked that the podcast would be so slanted after I sent her information." (info EHT sent to the reporter was totally ignored).
~~~
Dr. Moskowitz quotes from the article:
“When that went public, I began to hear from people all over the country who were suffering various illnesses related to electromagnetic fields,” Moskowitz said, “essentially begging me to keep working on this area, because there was virtually no one in the U.S. within academic institutions that was addressing these issues.”
“But in talking to many of these people who were contacting me, I became pretty convinced that it wasn’t just psychosomatic, what they were experiencing".
“The broad categories are increased tumor risk from long-term exposure, increased risk of reproductive harm in both males and females, neurologic effects, particularly in children, neurologic and cognitive effects, and electromagnetic hypersensitivity".
In fact, last year, Moskowitz was among at least 240 scientists from 44 countries who signed a letter to the United Nations calling for strengthening exposure limits.
“I would argue that that constitutes the vast majority of EMF scientists who have taken a position on exposure limits in the world". (see Eric's lie above).
“The current safety standards are completely inadequate,” he said. “They were only designed to prevent short-term heating effects, and yet the mechanisms that cause the harm to humans and other species, in most cases, it has nothing to do with heating.”
The group was largely dominated by engineers and physicists.
“They failed to understand the biology,” Moskowitz said. “Many of the cells in our body use very small electrical mechanisms to activate chemical processes. And it’s at the cellular level that many of these effects begin to initiate.”
One of the more popular hypotheses for why electromagnetic fields could be causing harm is that they’re disrupting those chemical processes, causing oxidative stress. Moskowitz laid out one of the more popular ideas for how this could be happening.
“Certain frequencies and modulations … appear to be triggering calcium channels within the cells to open up in certain cases, letting in a cascade of calcium, which is known to create nitric oxide within the cell and superoxide — essentially free radicals, or what are also called reactive oxygen species, which then creates stress proteins and can either lead to cell death or DNA damage. So it’s a complex set of mechanisms, which has been well elaborated in a number of peer reviewed papers,” he said.
But none of those effects have been taken into consideration when it comes to safety limits — only those related to heating.
“The industry has been extremely effective, like the tobacco industry was maybe 40 to 50 years ago, in ensuring that no research has been done in this country on an issue that is of great importance to that industry,” Moskowitz said.
“The FCC is a completely captured agency,” Moskowitz said. “There’s a revolving door between people who run the FCC, the FCC commissioners, and the telecom industry.”
Later he wrote:
I am not a physician, nor have I taught at UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health for more than 40 years.
I earned a Ph.D. in experimental social psychology in 1976 and completed a post-doctoral fellowship in evaluation research and methodology in 1977. I have conducted public health research since 1978. I have been a researcher in the UC Berkeley School of Public Health for 33 years and have directed the Center for Family and Community Health for 28 of these years. Although I have been a guest lecturer many times, I have had a teaching appointment for only 3 of my years at UC Berkeley.
Reza Ganjavi's quotes from the article:
“ICNIRP is the problem,” Ganjavi said. “ICNIRP is a complete scandal itself. It’s a pro-industry body, which pretends to be neutral.”
Dr. Moskowitz wrote later: Some investigative journalists and many EMF scientists agree with this assertion.
https://www.saferemr.com/2018/07/icnirps-exposure-guidelines-for-radio.html
~~~
Also, from Dr. Moskowitz:
Hi Liz,
Reza raised some valid points regarding the challenges of attaining journalistic balance when a powerful industry is trying to control the narrative through the scientists it funds.
I thought you might be interested in reading my SciAm op-ed which addressed Ken Foster's SciAm op-ed. You may also find of interest my response to David Grimes' op-ed which addressed my op-ed.
Scientific American Created Confusion about 5G's Safety: Will They Clear It Up?
"We Have No Reason to Believe 5G is Safe" (Scientific American)
Joel
~~~
Also, from Dr. Moskowitz:
Hi Liz,
I heard from Reza that you interviewed Ken Foster and Eric van Rongen. If Foster accuses scientists who have been critical of the EMF exposure limits established by the ICNIRP or the FCC of "cherry-picking" studies, this is a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black. If anyone is cherry-picking studies, it is Foster along with van Rongen and his ICNIRP colleagues.
See the following posts from my website:
The 240+ EMF scientists who have signed the Appeal have published more than 2,000 papers and letters in professional journals on EMF and biology or health:
"We are scientists engaged in the study of biological and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF). Based upon peer-reviewed, published research, we have serious concerns regarding the ubiquitous and increasing exposure to EMF generated by electric and wireless devices. These include–but are not limited to–radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitting devices, such as cellular and cordless phones and their base stations, Wi-Fi, broadcast antennas, smart meters, and baby monitors as well as electric devices and infra-structures used in the delivery of electricity that generate extremely-low frequency electromagnetic field (ELF EMF).
Scientific basis for our common concerns
Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.
These findings justify our appeal to the United Nations (UN) and, all member States in the world, to encourage the World Health Organization (WHO) to exert strong leadership in fostering the development of more protective EMF guidelines, encouraging precautionary measures, and educating the public about health risks, particularly risk to children and fetal development. By not taking action, the WHO is failing to fulfill its role as the preeminent international public health agency.
Inadequate non-ionizing EMF international guidelines
The various agencies setting safety standards have failed to impose sufficient guidelines to protect the general public, particularly children who are more vulnerable to the effects of EMF...."
The preponderance of peer-reviewed biological studies of the effects of radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure reports significant effects -- overall 75% of the 944 radiation frequency radiation studies in Henry Lai's comprehensive collection of studies published from 1990 - 2020 found significant effects.
Effects of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (studies published from 1990 - 2020)
Top Line Results
Radio frequency radiation:
91% (n=240) of 261 oxidative damage (or free radical) studies reported significant effects.
65% (n=226) of 348 genetic effects studies reported significant effects including:
· 65% (n=72) of 110 DNA comet assay studies reported significant effects.
73% (n=245) of 335 neurological studies reported significant effects.
Overall, 75% (n=711) of 944 radio frequency radiation studies reported significant biologic effects.
However, when ICNIRP reviews the literature, they exclude most low-intensity RFR studies because they require replication for a study to be considered; yet, as in most fields, replication studies are rare because they are difficult to get funded. They also exclude studies that did not measure heating even if the exposure was well-measured.
Scientific knowledge accumulates based upon theory development via hypothesis testing, triangulation of results and reproducibility in addition to replication. The adverse effects from low intensity RFR exposure (below the ICNIRP or FCC limits) are reproducible and the mechanisms have become much clearer over time. For example, see:
NTP Cell Phone Radiation Study: Final Reports
NTP: Not the First Govt. Study to Find Wireless Radiation Can Cause Cancer in Lab Rats
Ramazzini Institute Cell Phone Radiation Study Replicates NTP Study
Expert report by former U.S. govt. official: High probability RF radiation causes brain tumors (Dr. Christopher Portier, former director, Natl Ctr for Envir Health, CDC)
Key Cell Phone Radiation Research Studies (see mechanisms)
Let me know if you have any questions.
Joel
~~~
Moskowitz responded: “Van Rongen is absolutely wrong. See the list of signatories of the International EMF Scientist Appeal who signed this petition ‘based on solid science.’ All signatories have published peer reviewed papers on EMF and biology or health. In September 2019, using the EMF-Portal database I counted more than 2,000 papers and letters in professional journals were published by these signatories (unduplicated count).”