The BioInitiative report claims that it has found evidence of links between EMF and Brain tumours. Is it a path breaking study or a misleading sham?

1. Misleading Findings Derived
from Flawed Procedures

2. Agenda

What is the BioInitiative Report?

Is it Fool-Proof?

Negative feedback from:
1. The European Initiative
2. The Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR) Technical Information
3. The German Federal Office for Radiation Protection
4. The Health Council of the Netherlands
5. The Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research (ACRBR)
6. The Danish National Board of Health

Conclusion

Reference Links

3. What Is The BioInitiative
Report?

A new report by the BioInitiative Working Group 2012
says that evidence for risks to health from wireless
technologies and electromagnetic fields (EMFs) has
substantially increased since 2007

The study examines EMF exposures from wireless
technologies including cell and cordless phones, cell
towers, 'smart meters', WI-FI, wireless laptops,
wireless routers, baby monitors, and similar electronic
devices and from power lines, electrical wiring and
other appliances.

The studies allege a link between cell phone radiation
and brain tumours

4. Is it Fool-Proof?
1. BioInitiative Report (BIR) and the Building Biology
Institute are NOT “recognized standards bodies” in
the area of EMF
2. BioInitiative Report (BIR) does not follow a
consistent approach and there is no consensus
among the authors
3. BioInitiative Report (BIR) is not an objective
comprehensive review and does NOT rationalize its
recommendations
4. It has been severely criticized by many health and
radiation bodies internationally

5. Negative Feedback
The European Initiative EMF-NET states on the
BioInitiative Report 2012:
 The ‘Summary for the public’ is written in an alarmist
and emotive language and whose arguments have no
scientific support from well-conducted EMF research.
 There is a lack of balance in the report; no mention is
made in fact of reports that do not concur with authors’
statements and conclusions.

6. Negative Feedback
The Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR)
Technical Information Statement
 The BioInitiative Report has a number of weaknesses
and is a selective, rather than a comprehensive, review
of the literature in various topical areas.

7. Negative Feedback
The German Federal Office for Radiation Protection
 The Bioinitiative report has clear scientific weaknesses
including selection bias in several research areas.
The Health Council of the Netherlands
 [WHO’s and ICNIRP’s] multidisciplinary weight-of
evidence method leads to a scientifically sound
judgement that is as objective as possible. The
BioInitiative report did not follow this procedure.
 And concluded: (The report) is not an objective and
balanced reflection of the current state of scientific
knowledge and does not provide any grounds for
revising the current views as to the risks of exposure to
electromagnetic fields.

8. Negative Feedback
The Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects
Research (ACRBR)
 Overall we think that the BioInitiative Report does not
progress science, and would agree with the Health
Council of the Netherlands
 (The report) is not an objective and balanced reflection
of the current state of scientific knowledge. As it stands
it merely provides a set of views that are not consistent
with the consensus of science, and it does not provide
an analysis that is rigorous-enough to raise doubts
about the scientific consensus.

9. Negative Feedback
The Danish National Board of Health
 The BioInitiative report
(a) does not provide any reason to change the current
health risk assessment on exposure to electromagnetic
fields and
(b) does not include new data and has not taken the
scientific quality of the cited reports into consideration in
the way that is customary.

10. Conclusion
 The BioInitiative Report and the Building Biology
Institute are not recognised standards bodies in the
area of EMF, and it is misleading to suggest that they
are
 The World Health Organisation (WHO) recognizes only
two organizations (ICNIRP and IEEE) on developing
EMF exposure standards or guidelines

11. Conclusion
 It should also be noted that the BioInitiative
Report has not resulted in any change in the
conclusions arrived at by over 100 reviews,
reports and government statements that have
been published in this area from countries around
the world
 The conclusions from those studies have been
similar to that of ICNIRP and WHO – “that there is
no established evidence that EMF exposure
within the internationally accepted limits causes
any adverse health effects”

12. Reference Links

A ZeeBiz coverage of the
reporthttp://bit.ly/ZKJjdD

An article by moneycontrol http://bit.ly/SlSjUr

An article by the Economic Times
http://bit.ly/TMwbRi

13. THANK
YOU
www.theradiationdoctor.wordpress.
com