Is ICNIRP reliable enough to dictate meaning of science to the governmental risk regulators?

Posted on April 8, 2016 by dariusz leszczynski

Gallery

Posted on April 8,

this post is open for comments…This post is a follow up to my posts published on April 4 and April 5.

*****

In my two last blog posts, last two blog posts ‘ICNIRP did it again…’ and ‘Mike Repacholi responds to ICNIRP did it again…’, I presented several reasons why the current modus operandi of ICNIRP is prone to provide unreliable and skewed evaluation of the scientific evidence on EMF and health.

I was strongly opposed by Mike Repacholi, Chairman Emeritus of the ICNIRP, scientist who is responsible for the “birth” of this organization.

In my opinion the major problems of ICNIRP are:

• it is a “private club” where members elect new members without need to justify selection
• lack of accountability before anyone
• lack of transparency of their activities
• complete lack of supervision of its activities
• skewed science evaluation because of the close similarity of the opinions of all members of the Main Commission and all of the other scientists selected as advisors to the Main Commission.

I have suggested that the similarity of scientific opinions expressed by the Main Commission members will lead to skewed evaluation of science and I wrote: “…Every expert has opinion. With this opinion he/she comes to work in expert committee. This applies to ICNIRP members too. I hope you are not suggesting that only the scientists of the Main Commission of ICNIRP are able to leave their opinions behind and evaluate the science for its merits alone. However, there is difference between the committee where work scientists with diverse opinions and with the committee where work scientists with very similar opinions. Scientists are humans and act as humans, with all ballasting baggage of pre-existing feelings and opinions. It is certain that the absolute “forgetting” of the pre-appointment opinions is not possible. Thus, scientists with no-effect opinion will easier accept no-effect studies and will look more closely for shortcomings in yes-effect studies. And the same will happen with the scientists having yes-effect opinion. They will easier accept studies showing yes-effect and look more closely for shortcomings in no-effect studies. Here is the problem. If all members of the Main Commission are of the same opinion, the scientific debate will be limited and likely skewed…”

READ FULL ARTICLE AT:

https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/2016/04/08/is-icnirp-reliable-enough-to-dictate-meaning-of-science-to-the-governmental-risk-regulators/