The BioInitiative Report-Misleading Findings Derived from Flawed Procedures
Download as PPT, PDF1 like1,289 views
The BioInitiative Report 2012 claims increased evidence of health risks from wireless technologies and electromagnetic fields, alleging a link between cell phone radiation and brain tumors. However, it has faced widespread criticism from various health and radiation bodies for being alarmist, inconsistent, and not based on a comprehensive review of scientific literature. Major organizations, including WHO and ICNIRP, maintain that there is no established evidence linking EMF exposure within accepted limits to adverse health effects.
![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.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/thebioinitiativereport-misleadingfindingsderivedfromflawedprocedures-130110062809-phpapp02/85/The-BioInitiative-Report-Misleading-Findings-Derived-from-Flawed-Procedures-7-320.jpg)
The BioInitiative Report-Misleading Findings Derived from Flawed Procedures
- 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