FOR
IMMEDIATE RELEASE – May 12, 2014
SCIENTIFIC COVER-UP AT THE HIGHEST
LEVELS
IS THERE
A SCIENTIST IN THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION’S SCENIHR
& THE
WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION
WHO IS
SUPPRESSING LENNART HARDELL’S SCIENCE?
Susan
Foster
In
May 2011 the World Health Organization’s cancer committee, IARC, voted to
classify the RF – EMF Spectrum as a 2B or “possible human carcinogen.”
Worldwide attention was once again focused on the possible cancer causing
effects of RF (microwave) radiation, yet in the three years since the 2B
classification, two divergent paths have been taken with respect to the science
focusing on cell phones and brain tumors.
On one hand,
the Hardell Group from Sweden led by oncologist Dr. Lennart Hardell published
five more studies in 2013 – for the first time looking at over 20 years of
data. As a result of these findings Dr. Hardell has called for an urgent
upgrading of the classification of RF – EMF from 2B to Group 1 – a known human carcinogen. If IARC were
to accept Dr. Hardell’s recommendation, RF – EMF would then be placed in
the same carcinogenic category as tobacco and asbestos.
On the other hand, there appears to be a back-room effort
to ignore, denounce and bury Dr. Hardell’s newest science by two highly
recognized groups, the World Health Organization and SCENIHR, the European
Commission’s Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health
Risks.
Susan Foster, on behalf of the UK’s Radiation Research
Trust, has discovered that one man appears to be responsible for the attempted
suppression of what is arguably the best epidemiological research in the world
on cell phone usage and its correlation to gliomas and acoustic neuromas. This
science could threaten a multi-trillion dollar industry; thus the stakes could not
be higher – for corporate profits, yet more importantly, for the health of
people all over the world.
In her letter
of May 8, 2014 to the European Commission’s John Ryan, Acting Director of the
European Commission’s Health and Consumers division, Susan Foster accuses
SCENIHR of scientific misconduct. She further asks for a thorough review of the
process whereby science was selected for SCENIHR’s Preliminary Report. SCENIHR
had been given the charge of reviewing the present RF – EMF safety limits
affecting over 500,000,000 European citizens.
“This is not
‘independence’ on SCENIHR’s part,” states Susan Foster. “This is scientific
misconduct. SCENIHR is claiming to be something it is not, and hundreds of
millions of lives are at stake as well as the ability to impact standards
worldwide, albeit indirectly.”
Susan Foster joins Eileen O’Connor, Director of the UK’s Radiation Research
Trust, Cindy Sage, co-author of The BioInitiative Reports, Swedish
investigative journalist and Chairman of the Swedish Radiation Protection
Foundation Mona Nilsson, as well as Blake Levitt and Henry Lai in demanding a
new unbiased evaluation of health risks from RF - EMF by SCENIHR.
The EM Radiation Research Trust is an educational organisation funded by
donations. An independent Charity Registered No. 1106304 © The EM Radiation
Research Trust 2003-2004
Susan
Foster
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Rancho Santa Fe, California
susan.foster04@gmail.com
May 8, 2014
John F. Ryan, Acting Director
Public Health Directorate
Health and Consumers Directorate General
European Commission,
L – 2920 Luxembourg
SCENIHR Preliminary Report on Potential Health
Effects of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (EMF)
Sent
Via Email
Dear Mr. Ryan:
The concern about the 2014 SCENIHR Preliminary Report has
been swift, severe, and global. It causes those who know
the science and comprehend the potential for harm from microwave radiation to
ask if SCENIHR is truly a body worth listening to, or has it lost all
credibility. In hopes that all is not lost, I am writing to express my profound
concern that industry-bias is destroying the ability of standard-setting bodies
to protect the citizens of Europe, and indirectly, citizens on a global scale.
As an Advisor to the UK’s Radiation Research Trust (RRT), I
am following up on RRT Director Eileen O’Connor’s recent letter to you asking
for a thorough review of the SCENIHR Preliminary Report and the process itself
by which science is selected for consideration. I contend the current selection
process by SCENIHR is suggestive of a pattern of scientific fraud that is
intended to suppress high quality science in order to preserve the way the
telecommunications industry conducts business. The question must be asked if
both SCENIHR and the World Health Organization are being influenced or
controlled by the same interests and individuals who favor industry profits
over their charge of protecting the public health.
No fewer than 500 million citizens of the European
Commission are relying on SCENIHR for review of the current EMF standards, which
have already been criticized as being set more than a thousand times higher
than the level at which adverse biological impacts occur. When standards are
set this high, it allows the manufacturers to falsely yet legally assure
consumers, “There is no health problem or safety concern as the level of
exposure is 1/1000th of what is allowable.” Thus there is the
promise of safety, which is only an illusion because so-called “safety
standards” are set capriciously high to begin with. There is no legitimate,
independent science that will declare the current standards are safe.
Absolutely none.
In my opinion and that of many others, the 2014 SCENIHR Preliminary Report
inaccurately and, in part, fraudulently assesses the existing science. It
ignores the new science by Lennart Hardell (five studies in 2013) in which he
calls for radiofrequency RF - EMF to be classified a Group 1 carcinogen. Yet
rarely has “dismissing” a group of studies shone the spotlight on them so
brightly. It is causing people around the world to ask what is so significant
about these new Hardell studies. The answer to that question may shed some
light on the inner-workings and true motivation behind some key SCENIHR
scientists.
It was the Hardell Group’s earlier science that IARC, the
World Health Organization’s cancer committee, used along with the Interphone
Study before declaring a 2B classification in May 2011 for all EMF within the
RF Spectrum. The newer Hardell epidemiological studies cover more than 20
years, something no similar study has ever done, and the results are so
convincing that Lennart Hardell states in his conclusion that RF - EMF should
be urgently upgraded to a human carcinogen with no “possible” or “probable”
qualifications. Dr. Hardell makes the case that RF radiation belongs in the
Group 1 human carcinogen category.
By ignoring Hardell’s science, SCENIHR attempts to
marginalize and even suppress the Hardell Group’s science which could change
the way the world—consumers, courts, and governments alike—view the use of wireless
in today’s world. Why would SCENIHR, a group composed predominantly of
industry-friendly scientists, work so hard to pretend they “had not received”
or “did not like the methodology of the epidemiology” of the 2013 Hardell
studies? There is a possible answer to this question. A Group 1 or even a 2A
classification changes the “causation” argument in cell phone/brain tumor court
cases, and will make it easier for victims who have developed brain tumors
related to cell phone usage to prevail in the courts. When consumers prevail in
the courts, it may force the mobile industry toward a more cost effective manufacturing
decision to shield mobile phones and find safer ways (e.g., fiber optics) to
replace microwave signal transmissions. It would, at least in the short run,
increase costs for the mobile industry and decrease profits. I believe the
Hardell Group’s 2013 studies are game-changing, and as such, the industry wants
this science suppressed.
To further the concern
that SCENIHR is not operating in good faith, the one scientist who was touted
by SCENIHR as being their proof of objectivity is Dr. Kjell Hansson Mild of
Sweden. Dr. Hansson Mild is one of the co-authors along with Dr. Lennart Hardell
in four of the five studies published in 2013 and subsequently ignored by both
the World Health Organization (WHO) in its 2014
World Cancer Report and SCENIHR. For SCENIHR to pin their reputation as an
objective body on the presence of Dr. Hansson Mild, and then to ignore five
Hardell studies, four of which were co-authored by Dr. Mild himself, is the
height of hypocrisy. It casts a deep shadow of doubt on SCENIHR’s Report. I am
aware that Dr. Hansson Mild has come forward with a letter detailing his attempts
to have the 2013 Hardell Group science included in SCENIHR’s report, and his
efforts were denied. He described bringing the Hardell Group studies to the
attention of Dr. Joachim Schüz,
in particular. These papers were delivered within the time frame for acceptance
of publication and are relevant as they provide evidence of the link between
mobile phone use and glioma and acoustic neuroma. The Hardell papers were
systematically disregarded while SCENIHR relies heavily on the much criticized
Danish cohort study using poor exposure data. [See Söderqvist F, Carlberg M,
Hardell L. Review of four publications on the Danish cohort study on mobile
phone subscribers and risk of brain tumors. Reviews Environmental Health. 2012;
27: 51-58.]
When another
highly criticized study was sent to SCENIHR [Benson et al, with Joachim Schüz as a co-author], including two reports
that were published during the same time or even after the Hardell studies, it was
included in the SCENIHR Preliminary Report. This study failed to find a link
between cell phones and cancer, and when it initially did find a link between
cell phones and acoustic neuroma, the authors, including Schüz, failed to discuss it in the Abstract. The
systematic inclusion of poor quality science with industry backing, and the
systematic exclusion of Hardell’s science, allowed SCENIHR to come to an
erroneous conclusion that evidence for glioma is weaker now than in 2009. This
sort of “cherry-picking” favors industry profits over consumer protection and
thus the SCENIHR Report should not even be considered science.
This is not “independence” on SCENIHR’s part. This is scientific misconduct.
SCENIHR is claiming to be something it is not, and hundreds of millions of
lives are at stake as well as the ability to impact standards worldwide, albeit
indirectly.
It is important to note that Dr. Joachim Schüz has been named as the key person to whom
Hardell’s science was delivered and summarily dismissed, both as Head of IARC’s
Section of Environment and Radiation and as a SCENIHR Committee Member. As Dr.
Mild wrote to you in a letter dated 28 April 2014: “It must be clearly stated that Dr Schüz refused to include these studies in
SCENIHR and that the omission is his responsibility.” Dr. Mild elaborates: “[Schüz]
clearly stated that the epidemiological part was solely his responsibility to
write and furthermore he himself was to decide what to include.” It is also important
to note that Schüz has received industry
funding for much of his participation in studies such as Interphone and COSMOS
which had predictable findings. Should Dr. Schüz’s influence continue to be felt at SCENIHR, and
by the same token, at IARC?
Gratefully, the BioInitiative Working Group is offering us
an alternative that is receiving increasing recognition and respect around the
world and, as you know from Cindy Sage’s recent letter to you, BioInitiative
has done a thorough review of SCENIHR’s Report and issued its response. I am
offering the link to the BioInitiative Working Group’s letter commenting on the
2014 SCENIHR Preliminary Report. http://www.bioinitiative.org/potential-health-effects-emf/
Mona Nilsson on behalf of the Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation submitted
her comments to SCENIHR on 16 April 2014, and they are well-worth reading. I
have included a link to Ms. Nilsson’s comments, in which she writes to SCENIHR:
“The Preliminary Opinion of SCENIHR gives a false and even fraudulent
presentation of research results and statistical data. Critical data are
abundantly omitted or ignored. Studies and results showing health risks from
radiofrequency and low frequency radiation are misrepresented. Studies showing
no risks with severe limitations and errors are instead presented without any
relevant criticism.” http://www.emfacts.com/2014/05/further-critique-of-the-scenihr-spin/
I join the RRT’s Director Eileen O’Connor, Cindy
Sage on behalf of the BioInitiative Working Group, Mona Nilsson of the Swedish
Radiation Protection Foundation, and scores of others in calling upon the European
Commission to investigate possible conflicts of interest on the part of SCENIHR
scientists, and to demand a thorough investigation of the selection process of
science for the 2014 SCENIHR Preliminary Report. I also call for a new unbiased evaluation
of health risks from RF - EMF by SCENIHR.
Respectfully Yours,
Susan Foster
Advisor, Radiation Research Trust (UK)
Medical Writer
Cc: Eileen O’Connor
Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD
Kjell Hansson Mild, PhD
Cindy Sage, MA
IARC Ethics Committee
c/o Susan Haver
Joe Benton, MP
Carl F. Blackman, PhD
David O. Carpenter, MD
Jill Evans, MEP
Adamantia F. Fragopoulou, PhD
Giulio Gallo
David Gee
Dr. Ian Gibson
Yuri Grigoriev, MD
Sissel Halmøy, MS
Gunnar Heuser, MD, PhD
Martha Herbert, PhD, MD
Girish Kumar, PhD
Michael Kundi, PhD
Henry Lai, PhD
Dariusz Leszczynski, DSc, PhD
Caroline Lucas, MP
Lukas H. Margaritis, PhD
Erica Mallery-Blythe, MD
Donata Meroni
Steve Miller
Mona Nilsson
Gerd Oberfeld, MD
Alasdair Philips, BSc, DAgE
Brian Stein
Christopher Wild, PhD
