{"id":6150,"date":"2014-12-18T16:22:11","date_gmt":"2014-12-18T23:22:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/?p=6150"},"modified":"2015-04-15T16:26:50","modified_gmt":"2015-04-15T23:26:50","slug":"strong-criticism-of-the-who-report-on-cell-phone-radiation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/?p=6150","title":{"rendered":"Strong criticism of the WHO report on cell phone radiation"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Monica Kleja<\/a>\u00a0<br \/>\nPublished December 17, 2014 15:05<\/p>\n<p>Some 40 organizations deliver strong critique against report<br \/>\nby the WHO Expert Group on the effects of mobile phone<br \/>\nradiation and requires increased transparency of the experts.<\/p>\n<p>In November, a group of experts working for the World Health<br \/>\nOrganization drafted a major report that assesses health risks<br \/>\nsurrounding the mobile radiation.<\/p>\n<p>WHO then put the report on its website asking for comments<br \/>\nfrom the public. It presents the scientific studies in various<br \/>\nmedical fields, but lacks summary and chapters on risk<br \/>\nassessment and protective measures.<\/p>\n<p>47 organizations and lobby groups from Sweden, among others &#8211;<br \/>\nfor example Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation &#8211; Europe<br \/>\nand the US now state in a joint letter that the report is<br \/>\nsubject to several problems and calls for responsiveness from<br \/>\nWHO&#8217;s side.<\/p>\n<p>They include critique of the lack of transparency around how<br \/>\nthe WHO has selected the six experts who acts as the main<br \/>\nresponsible for WHO&#8217;s assessments of the risks surrounding the<br \/>\nradiofrequency fields and questions the objectivity of the<br \/>\nworld health organization.<\/p>\n<p>The letter states inter alia that WHO did not disclose the<br \/>\nexperts&#8217; declarations of research funding and conflicts of<br \/>\ninterests.<\/p>\n<p>Four of the six experts, among them the Swedish scientist<br \/>\nMaria Feychting, Karolinska InstituteI, is also active in the<br \/>\nICNIRP, the association that sets the limits for<br \/>\nelectromagnetic radiation in the world.<\/p>\n<p>The organizations also write that the report describes<br \/>\nresearch on cell phone radiation in a biased manner.<\/p>\n<p>New Technology succeeded today briefly reach Maria Feychting<br \/>\nat Karolinska , who was on her way to a conference.<\/p>\n<p>She says she does not want to comment on the criticism &#8211; and<br \/>\nwhen it comes to issues concerning the expert group she refers<br \/>\nto the Chairman of the Group Emilie van Deventer, who<br \/>\ncoordinates the WHO project on electromagnetic radiation.<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; It is she who leads and organizes the work, says Maria<br \/>\nFeychting.<\/p>\n<p>Emilie van Deventer was interviewed last summer by the New<br \/>\nYork Times about the state of research on cell phone<br \/>\nradiation, here you can read more.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.nyteknik.se\/nyheter\/it_telekom\/mobiltele\/article3872496.ece\" target=\"_blank\">http:\/\/www.nyteknik.se\/nyheter\/it_telekom\/mobiltele\/article3872496.ece<\/a><\/tt><\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Monica Kleja\u00a0 Published December 17, 2014 15:05 Some 40 organizations deliver strong critique against report by the WHO Expert Group on the effects of mobile phone radiation and requires increased transparency of the experts. In November, a group of experts working for the World Health Organization drafted a major report that assesses health risks surrounding [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,3,71],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6150","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cellular","category-health_and_safety","category-who"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6150","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=6150"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6150\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6152,"href":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6150\/revisions\/6152"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6150"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6150"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6150"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}