Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 73,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'catslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 73,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/biased-unscientific-report-on-electromagnetic-radiation-ks-parthasarathy-18923/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/biased-unscientific-report-on-electromagnetic-radiation-ks-parthasarathy-18923/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'catslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 74,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 74,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/biased-unscientific-report-on-electromagnetic-radiation-ks-parthasarathy-18923/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/biased-unscientific-report-on-electromagnetic-radiation-ks-parthasarathy-18923/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Code Context
            if (Configure::read('debug')) {

                trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);

            } else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680371b908769-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680371b908769-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr680371b908769-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680371b908769-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680371b908769-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680371b908769-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680371b908769-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr680371b908769-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr680371b908769-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 18789,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Biased, unscientific report on electromagnetic radiation -KS Parthasarathy&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;WHO, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection do not support the BioInitiative Report conclusions&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The recently released BioInitiative Report 2012 (BIR-2012) on standards for electromagnetic radiation is a perfect clone of a similar report published in 2007. According to many responsible agencies it is biased and unscientific. BIR-2012 claimed that the evidence for risks to health from wireless technologies and electromagnetic fields (EMFs) has substantially increased since 2007. The studies alleged a link between cell phone radiation and brain tumours. Agencies such as the World Health Organization, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) do not support the conclusions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;A self appointed group&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The BioInitiative Working Group which prepared the report originated as a self appointed group from a mini symposium during the annual meeting of the Bioelectromagnetic Society in 2006 and has no official status.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BIR 2012 gave a shot in the arm of anti cell phone tower radiation enthusiasts and sellers of protective screens, and &amp;lsquo;talisman&amp;rsquo; against electromagnetic radiation!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr David Carpenter and Ms Cindy Sage, the editors of the report clarified that each author is responsible for his/her own chapter in BIR 2012.The views are that of individual authors. It is a very unusual procedure.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Conflict of interests&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;ldquo;The great strength of the BioInitiative Report (www.bioinitiative.org) is that it has been done independent of governments, existing bodies and industry professional societies that have clung to old standards,&amp;rdquo; the Editors claim, which is laughable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A notable weakness of the report is that Ms Cindy Sage, who authored five sections and co-authored one, herself owns SAGE EMF Design, a consultancy firm which declares &amp;ldquo;Creating Low Field Lighting for Interiors,&amp;rdquo; and &amp;ldquo;Remediation: What if your existing home has high EMF?&amp;rdquo; among its functions. BIR 2012 does not state conflicts of interests, if any, of the authors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ms Sage stated that &amp;ldquo;the Report has been written to document the reasons why current public exposure standards for non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation are no longer good enough to protect public health.&amp;rdquo; With the die thus cast, no one can expect in BIR 2012 an objective analysis of the evidence, if any, on the bio-effects of electromagnetic radiation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ms Sage, MA wrote the important section called &amp;ldquo;Summary for the public and conclusions.&amp;rdquo; She and the co-editor Dr Carpenter wrote &amp;ldquo;Key scientific evidence and public health policy recommendations.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;ldquo;In public health and environmental policy-making, asking the right questions is a highly evolved art form,&amp;rdquo; they asserted. Do they imply that other authors cannot be trusted to do that job, though they may be more qualified?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Critique of BIR&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Responsible agencies roundly criticized the report. The European Initiative EMF-NET noted that the &amp;lsquo;Summary for the public&amp;rsquo; is written in an alarmist and emotive language and its 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&amp;rsquo; statements and conclusions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR) Technical Information Statement stated that BIR has many weaknesses and is a selective, rather than a comprehensive, review of the literature in various topical areas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection, the report has clear scientific weaknesses including selection bias in several research areas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Health Council of Netherlands highlighted the fact that [WHO&amp;rsquo;s and ICNIRP&amp;rsquo;s] multidisciplinary weight-of evidence method leads to a scientifically sound judgment that is as objective as possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The BIR report did not follow this procedure. The Council asserted that &amp;ldquo;(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.&amp;rdquo; The Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research (ACRBR) concurred.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This writer received from Dr Mike Repacholi, Chairman-Emeritus, ICNIRP, a list of 95 statements from Governments and expert panels concerning health effects and safe exposure levels of radiofrequency energy (2000-2012). Their conclusions were similar to those of ICNIRP and WHO &amp;mdash; &amp;ldquo;that there is no established evidence that EMF exposure within the internationally accepted limits causes any adverse health effects.&amp;rdquo; International guidelines at 4500 mW per sq.metre have a safety factor of 50. Indian guideline at 450 mW per sq.metre has a further safety factor of 10. BIR proposes an additional factor of 900!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though BIR is not based on sound science, cell tower radiation scare mongers selling protective shields and RF measuring instruments (complying with BIR 2007 recommendations) love to uphold BIR values. They can then scare the public further and make hay while the sun shines! &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 16 January, 2013, http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/biased-unscientific-report-on-electromagnetic-radiation/article4313241.ece&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;biased-unscientific-report-on-electromagnetic-radiation-ks-parthasarathy-18923&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 18923,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 18789,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Biased, unscientific report on electromagnetic radiation -KS Parthasarathy&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Health&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Hindu

WHO, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection do not support the BioInitiative Report conclusions

The recently released BioInitiative Report 2012 (BIR-2012) on standards for electromagnetic radiation is a perfect clone of a similar...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;WHO, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection do not support the BioInitiative Report conclusions&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The recently released BioInitiative Report 2012 (BIR-2012) on standards for electromagnetic radiation is a perfect clone of a similar report published in 2007. According to many responsible agencies it is biased and unscientific. BIR-2012 claimed that the evidence for risks to health from wireless technologies and electromagnetic fields (EMFs) has substantially increased since 2007. The studies alleged a link between cell phone radiation and brain tumours. Agencies such as the World Health Organization, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) do not support the conclusions.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;A self appointed group&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The BioInitiative Working Group which prepared the report originated as a self appointed group from a mini symposium during the annual meeting of the Bioelectromagnetic Society in 2006 and has no official status.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;BIR 2012 gave a shot in the arm of anti cell phone tower radiation enthusiasts and sellers of protective screens, and &amp;lsquo;talisman&amp;rsquo; against electromagnetic radiation!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Dr David Carpenter and Ms Cindy Sage, the editors of the report clarified that each author is responsible for his/her own chapter in BIR 2012.The views are that of individual authors. It is a very unusual procedure.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Conflict of interests&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;ldquo;The great strength of the BioInitiative Report (www.bioinitiative.org) is that it has been done independent of governments, existing bodies and industry professional societies that have clung to old standards,&amp;rdquo; the Editors claim, which is laughable.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A notable weakness of the report is that Ms Cindy Sage, who authored five sections and co-authored one, herself owns SAGE EMF Design, a consultancy firm which declares &amp;ldquo;Creating Low Field Lighting for Interiors,&amp;rdquo; and &amp;ldquo;Remediation: What if your existing home has high EMF?&amp;rdquo; among its functions. BIR 2012 does not state conflicts of interests, if any, of the authors.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Ms Sage stated that &amp;ldquo;the Report has been written to document the reasons why current public exposure standards for non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation are no longer good enough to protect public health.&amp;rdquo; With the die thus cast, no one can expect in BIR 2012 an objective analysis of the evidence, if any, on the bio-effects of electromagnetic radiation.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Ms Sage, MA wrote the important section called &amp;ldquo;Summary for the public and conclusions.&amp;rdquo; She and the co-editor Dr Carpenter wrote &amp;ldquo;Key scientific evidence and public health policy recommendations.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;ldquo;In public health and environmental policy-making, asking the right questions is a highly evolved art form,&amp;rdquo; they asserted. Do they imply that other authors cannot be trusted to do that job, though they may be more qualified?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Critique of BIR&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Responsible agencies roundly criticized the report. The European Initiative EMF-NET noted that the &amp;lsquo;Summary for the public&amp;rsquo; is written in an alarmist and emotive language and its 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&amp;rsquo; statements and conclusions.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR) Technical Information Statement stated that BIR has many weaknesses and is a selective, rather than a comprehensive, review of the literature in various topical areas.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;According to the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection, the report has clear scientific weaknesses including selection bias in several research areas.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Health Council of Netherlands highlighted the fact that [WHO&amp;rsquo;s and ICNIRP&amp;rsquo;s] multidisciplinary weight-of evidence method leads to a scientifically sound judgment that is as objective as possible.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The BIR report did not follow this procedure. The Council asserted that &amp;ldquo;(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.&amp;rdquo; The Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research (ACRBR) concurred.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This writer received from Dr Mike Repacholi, Chairman-Emeritus, ICNIRP, a list of 95 statements from Governments and expert panels concerning health effects and safe exposure levels of radiofrequency energy (2000-2012). Their conclusions were similar to those of ICNIRP and WHO &amp;mdash; &amp;ldquo;that there is no established evidence that EMF exposure within the internationally accepted limits causes any adverse health effects.&amp;rdquo; International guidelines at 4500 mW per sq.metre have a safety factor of 50. Indian guideline at 450 mW per sq.metre has a further safety factor of 10. BIR proposes an additional factor of 900!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Though BIR is not based on sound science, cell tower radiation scare mongers selling protective shields and RF measuring instruments (complying with BIR 2007 recommendations) love to uphold BIR values. They can then scare the public further and make hay while the sun shines! &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 18789,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Biased, unscientific report on electromagnetic radiation -KS Parthasarathy&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;WHO, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection do not support the BioInitiative Report conclusions&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The recently released BioInitiative Report 2012 (BIR-2012) on standards for electromagnetic radiation is a perfect clone of a similar report published in 2007. According to many responsible agencies it is biased and unscientific. BIR-2012 claimed that the evidence for risks to health from wireless technologies and electromagnetic fields (EMFs) has substantially increased since 2007. The studies alleged a link between cell phone radiation and brain tumours. Agencies such as the World Health Organization, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) do not support the conclusions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;A self appointed group&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The BioInitiative Working Group which prepared the report originated as a self appointed group from a mini symposium during the annual meeting of the Bioelectromagnetic Society in 2006 and has no official status.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BIR 2012 gave a shot in the arm of anti cell phone tower radiation enthusiasts and sellers of protective screens, and &amp;lsquo;talisman&amp;rsquo; against electromagnetic radiation!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr David Carpenter and Ms Cindy Sage, the editors of the report clarified that each author is responsible for his/her own chapter in BIR 2012.The views are that of individual authors. It is a very unusual procedure.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Conflict of interests&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;ldquo;The great strength of the BioInitiative Report (www.bioinitiative.org) is that it has been done independent of governments, existing bodies and industry professional societies that have clung to old standards,&amp;rdquo; the Editors claim, which is laughable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A notable weakness of the report is that Ms Cindy Sage, who authored five sections and co-authored one, herself owns SAGE EMF Design, a consultancy firm which declares &amp;ldquo;Creating Low Field Lighting for Interiors,&amp;rdquo; and &amp;ldquo;Remediation: What if your existing home has high EMF?&amp;rdquo; among its functions. BIR 2012 does not state conflicts of interests, if any, of the authors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ms Sage stated that &amp;ldquo;the Report has been written to document the reasons why current public exposure standards for non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation are no longer good enough to protect public health.&amp;rdquo; With the die thus cast, no one can expect in BIR 2012 an objective analysis of the evidence, if any, on the bio-effects of electromagnetic radiation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ms Sage, MA wrote the important section called &amp;ldquo;Summary for the public and conclusions.&amp;rdquo; She and the co-editor Dr Carpenter wrote &amp;ldquo;Key scientific evidence and public health policy recommendations.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;ldquo;In public health and environmental policy-making, asking the right questions is a highly evolved art form,&amp;rdquo; they asserted. Do they imply that other authors cannot be trusted to do that job, though they may be more qualified?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Critique of BIR&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Responsible agencies roundly criticized the report. The European Initiative EMF-NET noted that the &amp;lsquo;Summary for the public&amp;rsquo; is written in an alarmist and emotive language and its 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&amp;rsquo; statements and conclusions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR) Technical Information Statement stated that BIR has many weaknesses and is a selective, rather than a comprehensive, review of the literature in various topical areas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection, the report has clear scientific weaknesses including selection bias in several research areas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Health Council of Netherlands highlighted the fact that [WHO&amp;rsquo;s and ICNIRP&amp;rsquo;s] multidisciplinary weight-of evidence method leads to a scientifically sound judgment that is as objective as possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The BIR report did not follow this procedure. The Council asserted that &amp;ldquo;(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.&amp;rdquo; The Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research (ACRBR) concurred.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This writer received from Dr Mike Repacholi, Chairman-Emeritus, ICNIRP, a list of 95 statements from Governments and expert panels concerning health effects and safe exposure levels of radiofrequency energy (2000-2012). Their conclusions were similar to those of ICNIRP and WHO &amp;mdash; &amp;ldquo;that there is no established evidence that EMF exposure within the internationally accepted limits causes any adverse health effects.&amp;rdquo; International guidelines at 4500 mW per sq.metre have a safety factor of 50. Indian guideline at 450 mW per sq.metre has a further safety factor of 10. BIR proposes an additional factor of 900!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though BIR is not based on sound science, cell tower radiation scare mongers selling protective shields and RF measuring instruments (complying with BIR 2007 recommendations) love to uphold BIR values. They can then scare the public further and make hay while the sun shines! &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 16 January, 2013, http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/biased-unscientific-report-on-electromagnetic-radiation/article4313241.ece&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;biased-unscientific-report-on-electromagnetic-radiation-ks-parthasarathy-18923&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 18923,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 18789
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Biased, unscientific report on electromagnetic radiation -KS Parthasarathy&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Health&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Hindu

WHO, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection do not support the BioInitiative Report conclusions

The recently released BioInitiative Report 2012 (BIR-2012) on standards for electromagnetic radiation is a perfect clone of a similar...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;WHO, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection do not support the BioInitiative Report conclusions&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The recently released BioInitiative Report 2012 (BIR-2012) on standards for electromagnetic radiation is a perfect clone of a similar report published in 2007. According to many responsible agencies it is biased and unscientific. BIR-2012 claimed that the evidence for risks to health from wireless technologies and electromagnetic fields (EMFs) has substantially increased since 2007. The studies alleged a link between cell phone radiation and brain tumours. Agencies such as the World Health Organization, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) do not support the conclusions.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;A self appointed group&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The BioInitiative Working Group which prepared the report originated as a self appointed group from a mini symposium during the annual meeting of the Bioelectromagnetic Society in 2006 and has no official status.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;BIR 2012 gave a shot in the arm of anti cell phone tower radiation enthusiasts and sellers of protective screens, and &amp;lsquo;talisman&amp;rsquo; against electromagnetic radiation!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Dr David Carpenter and Ms Cindy Sage, the editors of the report clarified that each author is responsible for his/her own chapter in BIR 2012.The views are that of individual authors. It is a very unusual procedure.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Conflict of interests&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;ldquo;The great strength of the BioInitiative Report (www.bioinitiative.org) is that it has been done independent of governments, existing bodies and industry professional societies that have clung to old standards,&amp;rdquo; the Editors claim, which is laughable.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A notable weakness of the report is that Ms Cindy Sage, who authored five sections and co-authored one, herself owns SAGE EMF Design, a consultancy firm which declares &amp;ldquo;Creating Low Field Lighting for Interiors,&amp;rdquo; and &amp;ldquo;Remediation: What if your existing home has high EMF?&amp;rdquo; among its functions. BIR 2012 does not state conflicts of interests, if any, of the authors.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Ms Sage stated that &amp;ldquo;the Report has been written to document the reasons why current public exposure standards for non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation are no longer good enough to protect public health.&amp;rdquo; With the die thus cast, no one can expect in BIR 2012 an objective analysis of the evidence, if any, on the bio-effects of electromagnetic radiation.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Ms Sage, MA wrote the important section called &amp;ldquo;Summary for the public and conclusions.&amp;rdquo; She and the co-editor Dr Carpenter wrote &amp;ldquo;Key scientific evidence and public health policy recommendations.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;ldquo;In public health and environmental policy-making, asking the right questions is a highly evolved art form,&amp;rdquo; they asserted. Do they imply that other authors cannot be trusted to do that job, though they may be more qualified?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Critique of BIR&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Responsible agencies roundly criticized the report. The European Initiative EMF-NET noted that the &amp;lsquo;Summary for the public&amp;rsquo; is written in an alarmist and emotive language and its 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&amp;rsquo; statements and conclusions.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR) Technical Information Statement stated that BIR has many weaknesses and is a selective, rather than a comprehensive, review of the literature in various topical areas.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;According to the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection, the report has clear scientific weaknesses including selection bias in several research areas.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Health Council of Netherlands highlighted the fact that [WHO&amp;rsquo;s and ICNIRP&amp;rsquo;s] multidisciplinary weight-of evidence method leads to a scientifically sound judgment that is as objective as possible.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The BIR report did not follow this procedure. The Council asserted that &amp;ldquo;(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.&amp;rdquo; The Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research (ACRBR) concurred.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This writer received from Dr Mike Repacholi, Chairman-Emeritus, ICNIRP, a list of 95 statements from Governments and expert panels concerning health effects and safe exposure levels of radiofrequency energy (2000-2012). Their conclusions were similar to those of ICNIRP and WHO &amp;mdash; &amp;ldquo;that there is no established evidence that EMF exposure within the internationally accepted limits causes any adverse health effects.&amp;rdquo; International guidelines at 4500 mW per sq.metre have a safety factor of 50. Indian guideline at 450 mW per sq.metre has a further safety factor of 10. BIR proposes an additional factor of 900!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Though BIR is not based on sound science, cell tower radiation scare mongers selling protective shields and RF measuring instruments (complying with BIR 2007 recommendations) love to uphold BIR values. They can then scare the public further and make hay while the sun shines! &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/biased-unscientific-report-on-electromagnetic-radiation-ks-parthasarathy-18923.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Biased, unscientific report on electromagnetic radiation -KS Parthasarathy | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Hindu

WHO, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection do not support the BioInitiative Report conclusions

The recently released BioInitiative Report 2012 (BIR-2012) on standards for electromagnetic radiation is a perfect clone of a similar..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Biased, unscientific report on electromagnetic radiation -KS Parthasarathy</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Hindu<br /><br /><em>WHO, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection do not support the BioInitiative Report conclusions<br /></em><br />The recently released BioInitiative Report 2012 (BIR-2012) on standards for electromagnetic radiation is a perfect clone of a similar report published in 2007. According to many responsible agencies it is biased and unscientific. BIR-2012 claimed that the evidence for risks to health from wireless technologies and electromagnetic fields (EMFs) has substantially increased since 2007. The studies alleged a link between cell phone radiation and brain tumours. Agencies such as the World Health Organization, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) do not support the conclusions.<br /><br /><em>A self appointed group<br /></em><br />The BioInitiative Working Group which prepared the report originated as a self appointed group from a mini symposium during the annual meeting of the Bioelectromagnetic Society in 2006 and has no official status.<br /><br />BIR 2012 gave a shot in the arm of anti cell phone tower radiation enthusiasts and sellers of protective screens, and &lsquo;talisman&rsquo; against electromagnetic radiation!<br /><br />Dr David Carpenter and Ms Cindy Sage, the editors of the report clarified that each author is responsible for his/her own chapter in BIR 2012.The views are that of individual authors. It is a very unusual procedure.<br /><br /><em>Conflict of interests<br /></em><br />&ldquo;The great strength of the BioInitiative Report (www.bioinitiative.org) is that it has been done independent of governments, existing bodies and industry professional societies that have clung to old standards,&rdquo; the Editors claim, which is laughable.<br /><br />A notable weakness of the report is that Ms Cindy Sage, who authored five sections and co-authored one, herself owns SAGE EMF Design, a consultancy firm which declares &ldquo;Creating Low Field Lighting for Interiors,&rdquo; and &ldquo;Remediation: What if your existing home has high EMF?&rdquo; among its functions. BIR 2012 does not state conflicts of interests, if any, of the authors.<br /><br />Ms Sage stated that &ldquo;the Report has been written to document the reasons why current public exposure standards for non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation are no longer good enough to protect public health.&rdquo; With the die thus cast, no one can expect in BIR 2012 an objective analysis of the evidence, if any, on the bio-effects of electromagnetic radiation.<br /><br />Ms Sage, MA wrote the important section called &ldquo;Summary for the public and conclusions.&rdquo; She and the co-editor Dr Carpenter wrote &ldquo;Key scientific evidence and public health policy recommendations.&rdquo;<br /><br />&ldquo;In public health and environmental policy-making, asking the right questions is a highly evolved art form,&rdquo; they asserted. Do they imply that other authors cannot be trusted to do that job, though they may be more qualified?<br /><br /><em>Critique of BIR<br /></em><br />Responsible agencies roundly criticized the report. The European Initiative EMF-NET noted that the &lsquo;Summary for the public&rsquo; is written in an alarmist and emotive language and its 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&rsquo; statements and conclusions.<br /><br />The Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR) Technical Information Statement stated that BIR has many weaknesses and is a selective, rather than a comprehensive, review of the literature in various topical areas.<br /><br />According to the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection, the report has clear scientific weaknesses including selection bias in several research areas.<br /><br />The Health Council of Netherlands highlighted the fact that [WHO&rsquo;s and ICNIRP&rsquo;s] multidisciplinary weight-of evidence method leads to a scientifically sound judgment that is as objective as possible.<br /><br />The BIR report did not follow this procedure. The Council asserted that &ldquo;(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.&rdquo; The Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research (ACRBR) concurred.<br /><br />This writer received from Dr Mike Repacholi, Chairman-Emeritus, ICNIRP, a list of 95 statements from Governments and expert panels concerning health effects and safe exposure levels of radiofrequency energy (2000-2012). Their conclusions were similar to those of ICNIRP and WHO &mdash; &ldquo;that there is no established evidence that EMF exposure within the internationally accepted limits causes any adverse health effects.&rdquo; International guidelines at 4500 mW per sq.metre have a safety factor of 50. Indian guideline at 450 mW per sq.metre has a further safety factor of 10. BIR proposes an additional factor of 900!<br /><br />Though BIR is not based on sound science, cell tower radiation scare mongers selling protective shields and RF measuring instruments (complying with BIR 2007 recommendations) love to uphold BIR values. They can then scare the public further and make hay while the sun shines! <br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$maxBufferLength = (int) 8192
$file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php'
$line = (int) 853
$message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Code Context
            $response->getStatusCode(),

            ($reasonPhrase ? ' ' . $reasonPhrase : '')

        ));
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680371b908769-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680371b908769-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr680371b908769-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680371b908769-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680371b908769-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680371b908769-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680371b908769-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr680371b908769-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr680371b908769-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 18789,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Biased, unscientific report on electromagnetic radiation -KS Parthasarathy&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;WHO, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection do not support the BioInitiative Report conclusions&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The recently released BioInitiative Report 2012 (BIR-2012) on standards for electromagnetic radiation is a perfect clone of a similar report published in 2007. According to many responsible agencies it is biased and unscientific. BIR-2012 claimed that the evidence for risks to health from wireless technologies and electromagnetic fields (EMFs) has substantially increased since 2007. The studies alleged a link between cell phone radiation and brain tumours. Agencies such as the World Health Organization, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) do not support the conclusions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;A self appointed group&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The BioInitiative Working Group which prepared the report originated as a self appointed group from a mini symposium during the annual meeting of the Bioelectromagnetic Society in 2006 and has no official status.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BIR 2012 gave a shot in the arm of anti cell phone tower radiation enthusiasts and sellers of protective screens, and &amp;lsquo;talisman&amp;rsquo; against electromagnetic radiation!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr David Carpenter and Ms Cindy Sage, the editors of the report clarified that each author is responsible for his/her own chapter in BIR 2012.The views are that of individual authors. It is a very unusual procedure.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Conflict of interests&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;ldquo;The great strength of the BioInitiative Report (www.bioinitiative.org) is that it has been done independent of governments, existing bodies and industry professional societies that have clung to old standards,&amp;rdquo; the Editors claim, which is laughable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A notable weakness of the report is that Ms Cindy Sage, who authored five sections and co-authored one, herself owns SAGE EMF Design, a consultancy firm which declares &amp;ldquo;Creating Low Field Lighting for Interiors,&amp;rdquo; and &amp;ldquo;Remediation: What if your existing home has high EMF?&amp;rdquo; among its functions. BIR 2012 does not state conflicts of interests, if any, of the authors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ms Sage stated that &amp;ldquo;the Report has been written to document the reasons why current public exposure standards for non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation are no longer good enough to protect public health.&amp;rdquo; With the die thus cast, no one can expect in BIR 2012 an objective analysis of the evidence, if any, on the bio-effects of electromagnetic radiation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ms Sage, MA wrote the important section called &amp;ldquo;Summary for the public and conclusions.&amp;rdquo; She and the co-editor Dr Carpenter wrote &amp;ldquo;Key scientific evidence and public health policy recommendations.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;ldquo;In public health and environmental policy-making, asking the right questions is a highly evolved art form,&amp;rdquo; they asserted. Do they imply that other authors cannot be trusted to do that job, though they may be more qualified?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Critique of BIR&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Responsible agencies roundly criticized the report. The European Initiative EMF-NET noted that the &amp;lsquo;Summary for the public&amp;rsquo; is written in an alarmist and emotive language and its 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&amp;rsquo; statements and conclusions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR) Technical Information Statement stated that BIR has many weaknesses and is a selective, rather than a comprehensive, review of the literature in various topical areas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection, the report has clear scientific weaknesses including selection bias in several research areas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Health Council of Netherlands highlighted the fact that [WHO&amp;rsquo;s and ICNIRP&amp;rsquo;s] multidisciplinary weight-of evidence method leads to a scientifically sound judgment that is as objective as possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The BIR report did not follow this procedure. The Council asserted that &amp;ldquo;(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.&amp;rdquo; The Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research (ACRBR) concurred.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This writer received from Dr Mike Repacholi, Chairman-Emeritus, ICNIRP, a list of 95 statements from Governments and expert panels concerning health effects and safe exposure levels of radiofrequency energy (2000-2012). Their conclusions were similar to those of ICNIRP and WHO &amp;mdash; &amp;ldquo;that there is no established evidence that EMF exposure within the internationally accepted limits causes any adverse health effects.&amp;rdquo; International guidelines at 4500 mW per sq.metre have a safety factor of 50. Indian guideline at 450 mW per sq.metre has a further safety factor of 10. BIR proposes an additional factor of 900!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though BIR is not based on sound science, cell tower radiation scare mongers selling protective shields and RF measuring instruments (complying with BIR 2007 recommendations) love to uphold BIR values. They can then scare the public further and make hay while the sun shines! &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 16 January, 2013, http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/biased-unscientific-report-on-electromagnetic-radiation/article4313241.ece&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;biased-unscientific-report-on-electromagnetic-radiation-ks-parthasarathy-18923&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 18923,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 18789,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Biased, unscientific report on electromagnetic radiation -KS Parthasarathy&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Health&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Hindu

WHO, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection do not support the BioInitiative Report conclusions

The recently released BioInitiative Report 2012 (BIR-2012) on standards for electromagnetic radiation is a perfect clone of a similar...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;WHO, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection do not support the BioInitiative Report conclusions&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The recently released BioInitiative Report 2012 (BIR-2012) on standards for electromagnetic radiation is a perfect clone of a similar report published in 2007. According to many responsible agencies it is biased and unscientific. BIR-2012 claimed that the evidence for risks to health from wireless technologies and electromagnetic fields (EMFs) has substantially increased since 2007. The studies alleged a link between cell phone radiation and brain tumours. Agencies such as the World Health Organization, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) do not support the conclusions.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;A self appointed group&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The BioInitiative Working Group which prepared the report originated as a self appointed group from a mini symposium during the annual meeting of the Bioelectromagnetic Society in 2006 and has no official status.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;BIR 2012 gave a shot in the arm of anti cell phone tower radiation enthusiasts and sellers of protective screens, and &amp;lsquo;talisman&amp;rsquo; against electromagnetic radiation!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Dr David Carpenter and Ms Cindy Sage, the editors of the report clarified that each author is responsible for his/her own chapter in BIR 2012.The views are that of individual authors. It is a very unusual procedure.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Conflict of interests&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;ldquo;The great strength of the BioInitiative Report (www.bioinitiative.org) is that it has been done independent of governments, existing bodies and industry professional societies that have clung to old standards,&amp;rdquo; the Editors claim, which is laughable.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A notable weakness of the report is that Ms Cindy Sage, who authored five sections and co-authored one, herself owns SAGE EMF Design, a consultancy firm which declares &amp;ldquo;Creating Low Field Lighting for Interiors,&amp;rdquo; and &amp;ldquo;Remediation: What if your existing home has high EMF?&amp;rdquo; among its functions. BIR 2012 does not state conflicts of interests, if any, of the authors.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Ms Sage stated that &amp;ldquo;the Report has been written to document the reasons why current public exposure standards for non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation are no longer good enough to protect public health.&amp;rdquo; With the die thus cast, no one can expect in BIR 2012 an objective analysis of the evidence, if any, on the bio-effects of electromagnetic radiation.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Ms Sage, MA wrote the important section called &amp;ldquo;Summary for the public and conclusions.&amp;rdquo; She and the co-editor Dr Carpenter wrote &amp;ldquo;Key scientific evidence and public health policy recommendations.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;ldquo;In public health and environmental policy-making, asking the right questions is a highly evolved art form,&amp;rdquo; they asserted. Do they imply that other authors cannot be trusted to do that job, though they may be more qualified?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Critique of BIR&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Responsible agencies roundly criticized the report. The European Initiative EMF-NET noted that the &amp;lsquo;Summary for the public&amp;rsquo; is written in an alarmist and emotive language and its 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&amp;rsquo; statements and conclusions.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR) Technical Information Statement stated that BIR has many weaknesses and is a selective, rather than a comprehensive, review of the literature in various topical areas.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;According to the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection, the report has clear scientific weaknesses including selection bias in several research areas.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Health Council of Netherlands highlighted the fact that [WHO&amp;rsquo;s and ICNIRP&amp;rsquo;s] multidisciplinary weight-of evidence method leads to a scientifically sound judgment that is as objective as possible.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The BIR report did not follow this procedure. The Council asserted that &amp;ldquo;(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.&amp;rdquo; The Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research (ACRBR) concurred.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This writer received from Dr Mike Repacholi, Chairman-Emeritus, ICNIRP, a list of 95 statements from Governments and expert panels concerning health effects and safe exposure levels of radiofrequency energy (2000-2012). Their conclusions were similar to those of ICNIRP and WHO &amp;mdash; &amp;ldquo;that there is no established evidence that EMF exposure within the internationally accepted limits causes any adverse health effects.&amp;rdquo; International guidelines at 4500 mW per sq.metre have a safety factor of 50. Indian guideline at 450 mW per sq.metre has a further safety factor of 10. BIR proposes an additional factor of 900!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Though BIR is not based on sound science, cell tower radiation scare mongers selling protective shields and RF measuring instruments (complying with BIR 2007 recommendations) love to uphold BIR values. They can then scare the public further and make hay while the sun shines! &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 18789,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Biased, unscientific report on electromagnetic radiation -KS Parthasarathy&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;WHO, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection do not support the BioInitiative Report conclusions&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The recently released BioInitiative Report 2012 (BIR-2012) on standards for electromagnetic radiation is a perfect clone of a similar report published in 2007. According to many responsible agencies it is biased and unscientific. BIR-2012 claimed that the evidence for risks to health from wireless technologies and electromagnetic fields (EMFs) has substantially increased since 2007. The studies alleged a link between cell phone radiation and brain tumours. Agencies such as the World Health Organization, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) do not support the conclusions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;A self appointed group&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The BioInitiative Working Group which prepared the report originated as a self appointed group from a mini symposium during the annual meeting of the Bioelectromagnetic Society in 2006 and has no official status.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BIR 2012 gave a shot in the arm of anti cell phone tower radiation enthusiasts and sellers of protective screens, and &amp;lsquo;talisman&amp;rsquo; against electromagnetic radiation!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr David Carpenter and Ms Cindy Sage, the editors of the report clarified that each author is responsible for his/her own chapter in BIR 2012.The views are that of individual authors. It is a very unusual procedure.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Conflict of interests&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;ldquo;The great strength of the BioInitiative Report (www.bioinitiative.org) is that it has been done independent of governments, existing bodies and industry professional societies that have clung to old standards,&amp;rdquo; the Editors claim, which is laughable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A notable weakness of the report is that Ms Cindy Sage, who authored five sections and co-authored one, herself owns SAGE EMF Design, a consultancy firm which declares &amp;ldquo;Creating Low Field Lighting for Interiors,&amp;rdquo; and &amp;ldquo;Remediation: What if your existing home has high EMF?&amp;rdquo; among its functions. BIR 2012 does not state conflicts of interests, if any, of the authors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ms Sage stated that &amp;ldquo;the Report has been written to document the reasons why current public exposure standards for non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation are no longer good enough to protect public health.&amp;rdquo; With the die thus cast, no one can expect in BIR 2012 an objective analysis of the evidence, if any, on the bio-effects of electromagnetic radiation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ms Sage, MA wrote the important section called &amp;ldquo;Summary for the public and conclusions.&amp;rdquo; She and the co-editor Dr Carpenter wrote &amp;ldquo;Key scientific evidence and public health policy recommendations.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;ldquo;In public health and environmental policy-making, asking the right questions is a highly evolved art form,&amp;rdquo; they asserted. Do they imply that other authors cannot be trusted to do that job, though they may be more qualified?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Critique of BIR&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Responsible agencies roundly criticized the report. The European Initiative EMF-NET noted that the &amp;lsquo;Summary for the public&amp;rsquo; is written in an alarmist and emotive language and its 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&amp;rsquo; statements and conclusions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR) Technical Information Statement stated that BIR has many weaknesses and is a selective, rather than a comprehensive, review of the literature in various topical areas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection, the report has clear scientific weaknesses including selection bias in several research areas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Health Council of Netherlands highlighted the fact that [WHO&amp;rsquo;s and ICNIRP&amp;rsquo;s] multidisciplinary weight-of evidence method leads to a scientifically sound judgment that is as objective as possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The BIR report did not follow this procedure. The Council asserted that &amp;ldquo;(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.&amp;rdquo; The Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research (ACRBR) concurred.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This writer received from Dr Mike Repacholi, Chairman-Emeritus, ICNIRP, a list of 95 statements from Governments and expert panels concerning health effects and safe exposure levels of radiofrequency energy (2000-2012). Their conclusions were similar to those of ICNIRP and WHO &amp;mdash; &amp;ldquo;that there is no established evidence that EMF exposure within the internationally accepted limits causes any adverse health effects.&amp;rdquo; International guidelines at 4500 mW per sq.metre have a safety factor of 50. Indian guideline at 450 mW per sq.metre has a further safety factor of 10. BIR proposes an additional factor of 900!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though BIR is not based on sound science, cell tower radiation scare mongers selling protective shields and RF measuring instruments (complying with BIR 2007 recommendations) love to uphold BIR values. They can then scare the public further and make hay while the sun shines! &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 16 January, 2013, http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/biased-unscientific-report-on-electromagnetic-radiation/article4313241.ece&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;biased-unscientific-report-on-electromagnetic-radiation-ks-parthasarathy-18923&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 18923,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 18789
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Biased, unscientific report on electromagnetic radiation -KS Parthasarathy&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Health&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Hindu

WHO, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection do not support the BioInitiative Report conclusions

The recently released BioInitiative Report 2012 (BIR-2012) on standards for electromagnetic radiation is a perfect clone of a similar...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;WHO, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection do not support the BioInitiative Report conclusions&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The recently released BioInitiative Report 2012 (BIR-2012) on standards for electromagnetic radiation is a perfect clone of a similar report published in 2007. According to many responsible agencies it is biased and unscientific. BIR-2012 claimed that the evidence for risks to health from wireless technologies and electromagnetic fields (EMFs) has substantially increased since 2007. The studies alleged a link between cell phone radiation and brain tumours. Agencies such as the World Health Organization, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) do not support the conclusions.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;A self appointed group&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The BioInitiative Working Group which prepared the report originated as a self appointed group from a mini symposium during the annual meeting of the Bioelectromagnetic Society in 2006 and has no official status.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;BIR 2012 gave a shot in the arm of anti cell phone tower radiation enthusiasts and sellers of protective screens, and &amp;lsquo;talisman&amp;rsquo; against electromagnetic radiation!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Dr David Carpenter and Ms Cindy Sage, the editors of the report clarified that each author is responsible for his/her own chapter in BIR 2012.The views are that of individual authors. It is a very unusual procedure.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Conflict of interests&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;ldquo;The great strength of the BioInitiative Report (www.bioinitiative.org) is that it has been done independent of governments, existing bodies and industry professional societies that have clung to old standards,&amp;rdquo; the Editors claim, which is laughable.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A notable weakness of the report is that Ms Cindy Sage, who authored five sections and co-authored one, herself owns SAGE EMF Design, a consultancy firm which declares &amp;ldquo;Creating Low Field Lighting for Interiors,&amp;rdquo; and &amp;ldquo;Remediation: What if your existing home has high EMF?&amp;rdquo; among its functions. BIR 2012 does not state conflicts of interests, if any, of the authors.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Ms Sage stated that &amp;ldquo;the Report has been written to document the reasons why current public exposure standards for non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation are no longer good enough to protect public health.&amp;rdquo; With the die thus cast, no one can expect in BIR 2012 an objective analysis of the evidence, if any, on the bio-effects of electromagnetic radiation.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Ms Sage, MA wrote the important section called &amp;ldquo;Summary for the public and conclusions.&amp;rdquo; She and the co-editor Dr Carpenter wrote &amp;ldquo;Key scientific evidence and public health policy recommendations.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;ldquo;In public health and environmental policy-making, asking the right questions is a highly evolved art form,&amp;rdquo; they asserted. Do they imply that other authors cannot be trusted to do that job, though they may be more qualified?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Critique of BIR&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Responsible agencies roundly criticized the report. The European Initiative EMF-NET noted that the &amp;lsquo;Summary for the public&amp;rsquo; is written in an alarmist and emotive language and its 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&amp;rsquo; statements and conclusions.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR) Technical Information Statement stated that BIR has many weaknesses and is a selective, rather than a comprehensive, review of the literature in various topical areas.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;According to the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection, the report has clear scientific weaknesses including selection bias in several research areas.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Health Council of Netherlands highlighted the fact that [WHO&amp;rsquo;s and ICNIRP&amp;rsquo;s] multidisciplinary weight-of evidence method leads to a scientifically sound judgment that is as objective as possible.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The BIR report did not follow this procedure. The Council asserted that &amp;ldquo;(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.&amp;rdquo; The Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research (ACRBR) concurred.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This writer received from Dr Mike Repacholi, Chairman-Emeritus, ICNIRP, a list of 95 statements from Governments and expert panels concerning health effects and safe exposure levels of radiofrequency energy (2000-2012). Their conclusions were similar to those of ICNIRP and WHO &amp;mdash; &amp;ldquo;that there is no established evidence that EMF exposure within the internationally accepted limits causes any adverse health effects.&amp;rdquo; International guidelines at 4500 mW per sq.metre have a safety factor of 50. Indian guideline at 450 mW per sq.metre has a further safety factor of 10. BIR proposes an additional factor of 900!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Though BIR is not based on sound science, cell tower radiation scare mongers selling protective shields and RF measuring instruments (complying with BIR 2007 recommendations) love to uphold BIR values. They can then scare the public further and make hay while the sun shines! &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/biased-unscientific-report-on-electromagnetic-radiation-ks-parthasarathy-18923.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Biased, unscientific report on electromagnetic radiation -KS Parthasarathy | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Hindu

WHO, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection do not support the BioInitiative Report conclusions

The recently released BioInitiative Report 2012 (BIR-2012) on standards for electromagnetic radiation is a perfect clone of a similar..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Biased, unscientific report on electromagnetic radiation -KS Parthasarathy</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Hindu<br /><br /><em>WHO, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection do not support the BioInitiative Report conclusions<br /></em><br />The recently released BioInitiative Report 2012 (BIR-2012) on standards for electromagnetic radiation is a perfect clone of a similar report published in 2007. According to many responsible agencies it is biased and unscientific. BIR-2012 claimed that the evidence for risks to health from wireless technologies and electromagnetic fields (EMFs) has substantially increased since 2007. The studies alleged a link between cell phone radiation and brain tumours. Agencies such as the World Health Organization, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) do not support the conclusions.<br /><br /><em>A self appointed group<br /></em><br />The BioInitiative Working Group which prepared the report originated as a self appointed group from a mini symposium during the annual meeting of the Bioelectromagnetic Society in 2006 and has no official status.<br /><br />BIR 2012 gave a shot in the arm of anti cell phone tower radiation enthusiasts and sellers of protective screens, and &lsquo;talisman&rsquo; against electromagnetic radiation!<br /><br />Dr David Carpenter and Ms Cindy Sage, the editors of the report clarified that each author is responsible for his/her own chapter in BIR 2012.The views are that of individual authors. It is a very unusual procedure.<br /><br /><em>Conflict of interests<br /></em><br />&ldquo;The great strength of the BioInitiative Report (www.bioinitiative.org) is that it has been done independent of governments, existing bodies and industry professional societies that have clung to old standards,&rdquo; the Editors claim, which is laughable.<br /><br />A notable weakness of the report is that Ms Cindy Sage, who authored five sections and co-authored one, herself owns SAGE EMF Design, a consultancy firm which declares &ldquo;Creating Low Field Lighting for Interiors,&rdquo; and &ldquo;Remediation: What if your existing home has high EMF?&rdquo; among its functions. BIR 2012 does not state conflicts of interests, if any, of the authors.<br /><br />Ms Sage stated that &ldquo;the Report has been written to document the reasons why current public exposure standards for non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation are no longer good enough to protect public health.&rdquo; With the die thus cast, no one can expect in BIR 2012 an objective analysis of the evidence, if any, on the bio-effects of electromagnetic radiation.<br /><br />Ms Sage, MA wrote the important section called &ldquo;Summary for the public and conclusions.&rdquo; She and the co-editor Dr Carpenter wrote &ldquo;Key scientific evidence and public health policy recommendations.&rdquo;<br /><br />&ldquo;In public health and environmental policy-making, asking the right questions is a highly evolved art form,&rdquo; they asserted. Do they imply that other authors cannot be trusted to do that job, though they may be more qualified?<br /><br /><em>Critique of BIR<br /></em><br />Responsible agencies roundly criticized the report. The European Initiative EMF-NET noted that the &lsquo;Summary for the public&rsquo; is written in an alarmist and emotive language and its 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&rsquo; statements and conclusions.<br /><br />The Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR) Technical Information Statement stated that BIR has many weaknesses and is a selective, rather than a comprehensive, review of the literature in various topical areas.<br /><br />According to the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection, the report has clear scientific weaknesses including selection bias in several research areas.<br /><br />The Health Council of Netherlands highlighted the fact that [WHO&rsquo;s and ICNIRP&rsquo;s] multidisciplinary weight-of evidence method leads to a scientifically sound judgment that is as objective as possible.<br /><br />The BIR report did not follow this procedure. The Council asserted that &ldquo;(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.&rdquo; The Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research (ACRBR) concurred.<br /><br />This writer received from Dr Mike Repacholi, Chairman-Emeritus, ICNIRP, a list of 95 statements from Governments and expert panels concerning health effects and safe exposure levels of radiofrequency energy (2000-2012). Their conclusions were similar to those of ICNIRP and WHO &mdash; &ldquo;that there is no established evidence that EMF exposure within the internationally accepted limits causes any adverse health effects.&rdquo; International guidelines at 4500 mW per sq.metre have a safety factor of 50. Indian guideline at 450 mW per sq.metre has a further safety factor of 10. BIR proposes an additional factor of 900!<br /><br />Though BIR is not based on sound science, cell tower radiation scare mongers selling protective shields and RF measuring instruments (complying with BIR 2007 recommendations) love to uphold BIR values. They can then scare the public further and make hay while the sun shines! <br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$reasonPhrase = 'OK'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Code Context
                    $value

                ), $first);

                $first = false;
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680371b908769-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680371b908769-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr680371b908769-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680371b908769-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680371b908769-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680371b908769-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680371b908769-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr680371b908769-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr680371b908769-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 18789,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Biased, unscientific report on electromagnetic radiation -KS Parthasarathy&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;WHO, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection do not support the BioInitiative Report conclusions&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The recently released BioInitiative Report 2012 (BIR-2012) on standards for electromagnetic radiation is a perfect clone of a similar report published in 2007. According to many responsible agencies it is biased and unscientific. BIR-2012 claimed that the evidence for risks to health from wireless technologies and electromagnetic fields (EMFs) has substantially increased since 2007. The studies alleged a link between cell phone radiation and brain tumours. Agencies such as the World Health Organization, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) do not support the conclusions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;A self appointed group&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The BioInitiative Working Group which prepared the report originated as a self appointed group from a mini symposium during the annual meeting of the Bioelectromagnetic Society in 2006 and has no official status.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BIR 2012 gave a shot in the arm of anti cell phone tower radiation enthusiasts and sellers of protective screens, and &amp;lsquo;talisman&amp;rsquo; against electromagnetic radiation!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr David Carpenter and Ms Cindy Sage, the editors of the report clarified that each author is responsible for his/her own chapter in BIR 2012.The views are that of individual authors. It is a very unusual procedure.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Conflict of interests&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;ldquo;The great strength of the BioInitiative Report (www.bioinitiative.org) is that it has been done independent of governments, existing bodies and industry professional societies that have clung to old standards,&amp;rdquo; the Editors claim, which is laughable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A notable weakness of the report is that Ms Cindy Sage, who authored five sections and co-authored one, herself owns SAGE EMF Design, a consultancy firm which declares &amp;ldquo;Creating Low Field Lighting for Interiors,&amp;rdquo; and &amp;ldquo;Remediation: What if your existing home has high EMF?&amp;rdquo; among its functions. BIR 2012 does not state conflicts of interests, if any, of the authors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ms Sage stated that &amp;ldquo;the Report has been written to document the reasons why current public exposure standards for non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation are no longer good enough to protect public health.&amp;rdquo; With the die thus cast, no one can expect in BIR 2012 an objective analysis of the evidence, if any, on the bio-effects of electromagnetic radiation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ms Sage, MA wrote the important section called &amp;ldquo;Summary for the public and conclusions.&amp;rdquo; She and the co-editor Dr Carpenter wrote &amp;ldquo;Key scientific evidence and public health policy recommendations.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;ldquo;In public health and environmental policy-making, asking the right questions is a highly evolved art form,&amp;rdquo; they asserted. Do they imply that other authors cannot be trusted to do that job, though they may be more qualified?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Critique of BIR&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Responsible agencies roundly criticized the report. The European Initiative EMF-NET noted that the &amp;lsquo;Summary for the public&amp;rsquo; is written in an alarmist and emotive language and its 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&amp;rsquo; statements and conclusions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR) Technical Information Statement stated that BIR has many weaknesses and is a selective, rather than a comprehensive, review of the literature in various topical areas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection, the report has clear scientific weaknesses including selection bias in several research areas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Health Council of Netherlands highlighted the fact that [WHO&amp;rsquo;s and ICNIRP&amp;rsquo;s] multidisciplinary weight-of evidence method leads to a scientifically sound judgment that is as objective as possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The BIR report did not follow this procedure. The Council asserted that &amp;ldquo;(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.&amp;rdquo; The Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research (ACRBR) concurred.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This writer received from Dr Mike Repacholi, Chairman-Emeritus, ICNIRP, a list of 95 statements from Governments and expert panels concerning health effects and safe exposure levels of radiofrequency energy (2000-2012). Their conclusions were similar to those of ICNIRP and WHO &amp;mdash; &amp;ldquo;that there is no established evidence that EMF exposure within the internationally accepted limits causes any adverse health effects.&amp;rdquo; International guidelines at 4500 mW per sq.metre have a safety factor of 50. Indian guideline at 450 mW per sq.metre has a further safety factor of 10. BIR proposes an additional factor of 900!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though BIR is not based on sound science, cell tower radiation scare mongers selling protective shields and RF measuring instruments (complying with BIR 2007 recommendations) love to uphold BIR values. They can then scare the public further and make hay while the sun shines! &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 16 January, 2013, http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/biased-unscientific-report-on-electromagnetic-radiation/article4313241.ece&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;biased-unscientific-report-on-electromagnetic-radiation-ks-parthasarathy-18923&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 18923,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 18789,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Biased, unscientific report on electromagnetic radiation -KS Parthasarathy&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Health&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Hindu

WHO, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection do not support the BioInitiative Report conclusions

The recently released BioInitiative Report 2012 (BIR-2012) on standards for electromagnetic radiation is a perfect clone of a similar...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;WHO, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection do not support the BioInitiative Report conclusions&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The recently released BioInitiative Report 2012 (BIR-2012) on standards for electromagnetic radiation is a perfect clone of a similar report published in 2007. According to many responsible agencies it is biased and unscientific. BIR-2012 claimed that the evidence for risks to health from wireless technologies and electromagnetic fields (EMFs) has substantially increased since 2007. The studies alleged a link between cell phone radiation and brain tumours. Agencies such as the World Health Organization, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) do not support the conclusions.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;A self appointed group&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The BioInitiative Working Group which prepared the report originated as a self appointed group from a mini symposium during the annual meeting of the Bioelectromagnetic Society in 2006 and has no official status.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;BIR 2012 gave a shot in the arm of anti cell phone tower radiation enthusiasts and sellers of protective screens, and &amp;lsquo;talisman&amp;rsquo; against electromagnetic radiation!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Dr David Carpenter and Ms Cindy Sage, the editors of the report clarified that each author is responsible for his/her own chapter in BIR 2012.The views are that of individual authors. It is a very unusual procedure.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Conflict of interests&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;ldquo;The great strength of the BioInitiative Report (www.bioinitiative.org) is that it has been done independent of governments, existing bodies and industry professional societies that have clung to old standards,&amp;rdquo; the Editors claim, which is laughable.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A notable weakness of the report is that Ms Cindy Sage, who authored five sections and co-authored one, herself owns SAGE EMF Design, a consultancy firm which declares &amp;ldquo;Creating Low Field Lighting for Interiors,&amp;rdquo; and &amp;ldquo;Remediation: What if your existing home has high EMF?&amp;rdquo; among its functions. BIR 2012 does not state conflicts of interests, if any, of the authors.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Ms Sage stated that &amp;ldquo;the Report has been written to document the reasons why current public exposure standards for non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation are no longer good enough to protect public health.&amp;rdquo; With the die thus cast, no one can expect in BIR 2012 an objective analysis of the evidence, if any, on the bio-effects of electromagnetic radiation.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Ms Sage, MA wrote the important section called &amp;ldquo;Summary for the public and conclusions.&amp;rdquo; She and the co-editor Dr Carpenter wrote &amp;ldquo;Key scientific evidence and public health policy recommendations.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;ldquo;In public health and environmental policy-making, asking the right questions is a highly evolved art form,&amp;rdquo; they asserted. Do they imply that other authors cannot be trusted to do that job, though they may be more qualified?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Critique of BIR&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Responsible agencies roundly criticized the report. The European Initiative EMF-NET noted that the &amp;lsquo;Summary for the public&amp;rsquo; is written in an alarmist and emotive language and its 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&amp;rsquo; statements and conclusions.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR) Technical Information Statement stated that BIR has many weaknesses and is a selective, rather than a comprehensive, review of the literature in various topical areas.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;According to the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection, the report has clear scientific weaknesses including selection bias in several research areas.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Health Council of Netherlands highlighted the fact that [WHO&amp;rsquo;s and ICNIRP&amp;rsquo;s] multidisciplinary weight-of evidence method leads to a scientifically sound judgment that is as objective as possible.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The BIR report did not follow this procedure. The Council asserted that &amp;ldquo;(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.&amp;rdquo; The Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research (ACRBR) concurred.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This writer received from Dr Mike Repacholi, Chairman-Emeritus, ICNIRP, a list of 95 statements from Governments and expert panels concerning health effects and safe exposure levels of radiofrequency energy (2000-2012). Their conclusions were similar to those of ICNIRP and WHO &amp;mdash; &amp;ldquo;that there is no established evidence that EMF exposure within the internationally accepted limits causes any adverse health effects.&amp;rdquo; International guidelines at 4500 mW per sq.metre have a safety factor of 50. Indian guideline at 450 mW per sq.metre has a further safety factor of 10. BIR proposes an additional factor of 900!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Though BIR is not based on sound science, cell tower radiation scare mongers selling protective shields and RF measuring instruments (complying with BIR 2007 recommendations) love to uphold BIR values. They can then scare the public further and make hay while the sun shines! &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 18789,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Biased, unscientific report on electromagnetic radiation -KS Parthasarathy&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;WHO, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection do not support the BioInitiative Report conclusions&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The recently released BioInitiative Report 2012 (BIR-2012) on standards for electromagnetic radiation is a perfect clone of a similar report published in 2007. According to many responsible agencies it is biased and unscientific. BIR-2012 claimed that the evidence for risks to health from wireless technologies and electromagnetic fields (EMFs) has substantially increased since 2007. The studies alleged a link between cell phone radiation and brain tumours. Agencies such as the World Health Organization, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) do not support the conclusions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;A self appointed group&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The BioInitiative Working Group which prepared the report originated as a self appointed group from a mini symposium during the annual meeting of the Bioelectromagnetic Society in 2006 and has no official status.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BIR 2012 gave a shot in the arm of anti cell phone tower radiation enthusiasts and sellers of protective screens, and &amp;lsquo;talisman&amp;rsquo; against electromagnetic radiation!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr David Carpenter and Ms Cindy Sage, the editors of the report clarified that each author is responsible for his/her own chapter in BIR 2012.The views are that of individual authors. It is a very unusual procedure.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Conflict of interests&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;ldquo;The great strength of the BioInitiative Report (www.bioinitiative.org) is that it has been done independent of governments, existing bodies and industry professional societies that have clung to old standards,&amp;rdquo; the Editors claim, which is laughable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A notable weakness of the report is that Ms Cindy Sage, who authored five sections and co-authored one, herself owns SAGE EMF Design, a consultancy firm which declares &amp;ldquo;Creating Low Field Lighting for Interiors,&amp;rdquo; and &amp;ldquo;Remediation: What if your existing home has high EMF?&amp;rdquo; among its functions. BIR 2012 does not state conflicts of interests, if any, of the authors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ms Sage stated that &amp;ldquo;the Report has been written to document the reasons why current public exposure standards for non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation are no longer good enough to protect public health.&amp;rdquo; With the die thus cast, no one can expect in BIR 2012 an objective analysis of the evidence, if any, on the bio-effects of electromagnetic radiation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ms Sage, MA wrote the important section called &amp;ldquo;Summary for the public and conclusions.&amp;rdquo; She and the co-editor Dr Carpenter wrote &amp;ldquo;Key scientific evidence and public health policy recommendations.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;ldquo;In public health and environmental policy-making, asking the right questions is a highly evolved art form,&amp;rdquo; they asserted. Do they imply that other authors cannot be trusted to do that job, though they may be more qualified?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Critique of BIR&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Responsible agencies roundly criticized the report. The European Initiative EMF-NET noted that the &amp;lsquo;Summary for the public&amp;rsquo; is written in an alarmist and emotive language and its 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&amp;rsquo; statements and conclusions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR) Technical Information Statement stated that BIR has many weaknesses and is a selective, rather than a comprehensive, review of the literature in various topical areas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection, the report has clear scientific weaknesses including selection bias in several research areas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Health Council of Netherlands highlighted the fact that [WHO&amp;rsquo;s and ICNIRP&amp;rsquo;s] multidisciplinary weight-of evidence method leads to a scientifically sound judgment that is as objective as possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The BIR report did not follow this procedure. The Council asserted that &amp;ldquo;(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.&amp;rdquo; The Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research (ACRBR) concurred.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This writer received from Dr Mike Repacholi, Chairman-Emeritus, ICNIRP, a list of 95 statements from Governments and expert panels concerning health effects and safe exposure levels of radiofrequency energy (2000-2012). Their conclusions were similar to those of ICNIRP and WHO &amp;mdash; &amp;ldquo;that there is no established evidence that EMF exposure within the internationally accepted limits causes any adverse health effects.&amp;rdquo; International guidelines at 4500 mW per sq.metre have a safety factor of 50. Indian guideline at 450 mW per sq.metre has a further safety factor of 10. BIR proposes an additional factor of 900!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though BIR is not based on sound science, cell tower radiation scare mongers selling protective shields and RF measuring instruments (complying with BIR 2007 recommendations) love to uphold BIR values. They can then scare the public further and make hay while the sun shines! &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 16 January, 2013, http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/biased-unscientific-report-on-electromagnetic-radiation/article4313241.ece&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;biased-unscientific-report-on-electromagnetic-radiation-ks-parthasarathy-18923&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 18923,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 18789
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Biased, unscientific report on electromagnetic radiation -KS Parthasarathy&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Health&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Hindu

WHO, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection do not support the BioInitiative Report conclusions

The recently released BioInitiative Report 2012 (BIR-2012) on standards for electromagnetic radiation is a perfect clone of a similar...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;WHO, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection do not support the BioInitiative Report conclusions&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The recently released BioInitiative Report 2012 (BIR-2012) on standards for electromagnetic radiation is a perfect clone of a similar report published in 2007. According to many responsible agencies it is biased and unscientific. BIR-2012 claimed that the evidence for risks to health from wireless technologies and electromagnetic fields (EMFs) has substantially increased since 2007. The studies alleged a link between cell phone radiation and brain tumours. Agencies such as the World Health Organization, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) do not support the conclusions.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;A self appointed group&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The BioInitiative Working Group which prepared the report originated as a self appointed group from a mini symposium during the annual meeting of the Bioelectromagnetic Society in 2006 and has no official status.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;BIR 2012 gave a shot in the arm of anti cell phone tower radiation enthusiasts and sellers of protective screens, and &amp;lsquo;talisman&amp;rsquo; against electromagnetic radiation!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Dr David Carpenter and Ms Cindy Sage, the editors of the report clarified that each author is responsible for his/her own chapter in BIR 2012.The views are that of individual authors. It is a very unusual procedure.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Conflict of interests&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;ldquo;The great strength of the BioInitiative Report (www.bioinitiative.org) is that it has been done independent of governments, existing bodies and industry professional societies that have clung to old standards,&amp;rdquo; the Editors claim, which is laughable.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A notable weakness of the report is that Ms Cindy Sage, who authored five sections and co-authored one, herself owns SAGE EMF Design, a consultancy firm which declares &amp;ldquo;Creating Low Field Lighting for Interiors,&amp;rdquo; and &amp;ldquo;Remediation: What if your existing home has high EMF?&amp;rdquo; among its functions. BIR 2012 does not state conflicts of interests, if any, of the authors.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Ms Sage stated that &amp;ldquo;the Report has been written to document the reasons why current public exposure standards for non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation are no longer good enough to protect public health.&amp;rdquo; With the die thus cast, no one can expect in BIR 2012 an objective analysis of the evidence, if any, on the bio-effects of electromagnetic radiation.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Ms Sage, MA wrote the important section called &amp;ldquo;Summary for the public and conclusions.&amp;rdquo; She and the co-editor Dr Carpenter wrote &amp;ldquo;Key scientific evidence and public health policy recommendations.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;ldquo;In public health and environmental policy-making, asking the right questions is a highly evolved art form,&amp;rdquo; they asserted. Do they imply that other authors cannot be trusted to do that job, though they may be more qualified?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Critique of BIR&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Responsible agencies roundly criticized the report. The European Initiative EMF-NET noted that the &amp;lsquo;Summary for the public&amp;rsquo; is written in an alarmist and emotive language and its 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&amp;rsquo; statements and conclusions.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR) Technical Information Statement stated that BIR has many weaknesses and is a selective, rather than a comprehensive, review of the literature in various topical areas.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;According to the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection, the report has clear scientific weaknesses including selection bias in several research areas.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Health Council of Netherlands highlighted the fact that [WHO&amp;rsquo;s and ICNIRP&amp;rsquo;s] multidisciplinary weight-of evidence method leads to a scientifically sound judgment that is as objective as possible.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The BIR report did not follow this procedure. The Council asserted that &amp;ldquo;(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.&amp;rdquo; The Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research (ACRBR) concurred.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This writer received from Dr Mike Repacholi, Chairman-Emeritus, ICNIRP, a list of 95 statements from Governments and expert panels concerning health effects and safe exposure levels of radiofrequency energy (2000-2012). Their conclusions were similar to those of ICNIRP and WHO &amp;mdash; &amp;ldquo;that there is no established evidence that EMF exposure within the internationally accepted limits causes any adverse health effects.&amp;rdquo; International guidelines at 4500 mW per sq.metre have a safety factor of 50. Indian guideline at 450 mW per sq.metre has a further safety factor of 10. BIR proposes an additional factor of 900!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Though BIR is not based on sound science, cell tower radiation scare mongers selling protective shields and RF measuring instruments (complying with BIR 2007 recommendations) love to uphold BIR values. They can then scare the public further and make hay while the sun shines! &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/biased-unscientific-report-on-electromagnetic-radiation-ks-parthasarathy-18923.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Biased, unscientific report on electromagnetic radiation -KS Parthasarathy | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Hindu

WHO, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection do not support the BioInitiative Report conclusions

The recently released BioInitiative Report 2012 (BIR-2012) on standards for electromagnetic radiation is a perfect clone of a similar..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Biased, unscientific report on electromagnetic radiation -KS Parthasarathy</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Hindu<br /><br /><em>WHO, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection do not support the BioInitiative Report conclusions<br /></em><br />The recently released BioInitiative Report 2012 (BIR-2012) on standards for electromagnetic radiation is a perfect clone of a similar report published in 2007. According to many responsible agencies it is biased and unscientific. BIR-2012 claimed that the evidence for risks to health from wireless technologies and electromagnetic fields (EMFs) has substantially increased since 2007. The studies alleged a link between cell phone radiation and brain tumours. Agencies such as the World Health Organization, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) do not support the conclusions.<br /><br /><em>A self appointed group<br /></em><br />The BioInitiative Working Group which prepared the report originated as a self appointed group from a mini symposium during the annual meeting of the Bioelectromagnetic Society in 2006 and has no official status.<br /><br />BIR 2012 gave a shot in the arm of anti cell phone tower radiation enthusiasts and sellers of protective screens, and &lsquo;talisman&rsquo; against electromagnetic radiation!<br /><br />Dr David Carpenter and Ms Cindy Sage, the editors of the report clarified that each author is responsible for his/her own chapter in BIR 2012.The views are that of individual authors. It is a very unusual procedure.<br /><br /><em>Conflict of interests<br /></em><br />&ldquo;The great strength of the BioInitiative Report (www.bioinitiative.org) is that it has been done independent of governments, existing bodies and industry professional societies that have clung to old standards,&rdquo; the Editors claim, which is laughable.<br /><br />A notable weakness of the report is that Ms Cindy Sage, who authored five sections and co-authored one, herself owns SAGE EMF Design, a consultancy firm which declares &ldquo;Creating Low Field Lighting for Interiors,&rdquo; and &ldquo;Remediation: What if your existing home has high EMF?&rdquo; among its functions. BIR 2012 does not state conflicts of interests, if any, of the authors.<br /><br />Ms Sage stated that &ldquo;the Report has been written to document the reasons why current public exposure standards for non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation are no longer good enough to protect public health.&rdquo; With the die thus cast, no one can expect in BIR 2012 an objective analysis of the evidence, if any, on the bio-effects of electromagnetic radiation.<br /><br />Ms Sage, MA wrote the important section called &ldquo;Summary for the public and conclusions.&rdquo; She and the co-editor Dr Carpenter wrote &ldquo;Key scientific evidence and public health policy recommendations.&rdquo;<br /><br />&ldquo;In public health and environmental policy-making, asking the right questions is a highly evolved art form,&rdquo; they asserted. Do they imply that other authors cannot be trusted to do that job, though they may be more qualified?<br /><br /><em>Critique of BIR<br /></em><br />Responsible agencies roundly criticized the report. The European Initiative EMF-NET noted that the &lsquo;Summary for the public&rsquo; is written in an alarmist and emotive language and its 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&rsquo; statements and conclusions.<br /><br />The Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR) Technical Information Statement stated that BIR has many weaknesses and is a selective, rather than a comprehensive, review of the literature in various topical areas.<br /><br />According to the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection, the report has clear scientific weaknesses including selection bias in several research areas.<br /><br />The Health Council of Netherlands highlighted the fact that [WHO&rsquo;s and ICNIRP&rsquo;s] multidisciplinary weight-of evidence method leads to a scientifically sound judgment that is as objective as possible.<br /><br />The BIR report did not follow this procedure. The Council asserted that &ldquo;(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.&rdquo; The Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research (ACRBR) concurred.<br /><br />This writer received from Dr Mike Repacholi, Chairman-Emeritus, ICNIRP, a list of 95 statements from Governments and expert panels concerning health effects and safe exposure levels of radiofrequency energy (2000-2012). Their conclusions were similar to those of ICNIRP and WHO &mdash; &ldquo;that there is no established evidence that EMF exposure within the internationally accepted limits causes any adverse health effects.&rdquo; International guidelines at 4500 mW per sq.metre have a safety factor of 50. Indian guideline at 450 mW per sq.metre has a further safety factor of 10. BIR proposes an additional factor of 900!<br /><br />Though BIR is not based on sound science, cell tower radiation scare mongers selling protective shields and RF measuring instruments (complying with BIR 2007 recommendations) love to uphold BIR values. They can then scare the public further and make hay while the sun shines! <br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$cookies = []
$values = [
	(int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
]
$name = 'Content-Type'
$first = true
$value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

<head>

    <link rel="canonical" href="<?php echo Configure::read('SITE_URL'); ?><?php echo $urlPrefix;?><?php echo $article_current->category->slug; ?>/<?php echo $article_current->seo_url; ?>.html"/>

    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>

$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
	'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		'id' => (int) 18789,
		'title' => 'Biased, unscientific report on electromagnetic radiation -KS Parthasarathy',
		'subheading' => '',
		'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Hindu<br />
<br />
<em>WHO, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection do not support the BioInitiative Report conclusions<br />
</em><br />
The recently released BioInitiative Report 2012 (BIR-2012) on standards for electromagnetic radiation is a perfect clone of a similar report published in 2007. According to many responsible agencies it is biased and unscientific. BIR-2012 claimed that the evidence for risks to health from wireless technologies and electromagnetic fields (EMFs) has substantially increased since 2007. The studies alleged a link between cell phone radiation and brain tumours. Agencies such as the World Health Organization, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) do not support the conclusions.<br />
<br />
<em>A self appointed group<br />
</em><br />
The BioInitiative Working Group which prepared the report originated as a self appointed group from a mini symposium during the annual meeting of the Bioelectromagnetic Society in 2006 and has no official status.<br />
<br />
BIR 2012 gave a shot in the arm of anti cell phone tower radiation enthusiasts and sellers of protective screens, and &lsquo;talisman&rsquo; against electromagnetic radiation!<br />
<br />
Dr David Carpenter and Ms Cindy Sage, the editors of the report clarified that each author is responsible for his/her own chapter in BIR 2012.The views are that of individual authors. It is a very unusual procedure.<br />
<br />
<em>Conflict of interests<br />
</em><br />
&ldquo;The great strength of the BioInitiative Report (www.bioinitiative.org) is that it has been done independent of governments, existing bodies and industry professional societies that have clung to old standards,&rdquo; the Editors claim, which is laughable.<br />
<br />
A notable weakness of the report is that Ms Cindy Sage, who authored five sections and co-authored one, herself owns SAGE EMF Design, a consultancy firm which declares &ldquo;Creating Low Field Lighting for Interiors,&rdquo; and &ldquo;Remediation: What if your existing home has high EMF?&rdquo; among its functions. BIR 2012 does not state conflicts of interests, if any, of the authors.<br />
<br />
Ms Sage stated that &ldquo;the Report has been written to document the reasons why current public exposure standards for non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation are no longer good enough to protect public health.&rdquo; With the die thus cast, no one can expect in BIR 2012 an objective analysis of the evidence, if any, on the bio-effects of electromagnetic radiation.<br />
<br />
Ms Sage, MA wrote the important section called &ldquo;Summary for the public and conclusions.&rdquo; She and the co-editor Dr Carpenter wrote &ldquo;Key scientific evidence and public health policy recommendations.&rdquo;<br />
<br />
&ldquo;In public health and environmental policy-making, asking the right questions is a highly evolved art form,&rdquo; they asserted. Do they imply that other authors cannot be trusted to do that job, though they may be more qualified?<br />
<br />
<em>Critique of BIR<br />
</em><br />
Responsible agencies roundly criticized the report. The European Initiative EMF-NET noted that the &lsquo;Summary for the public&rsquo; is written in an alarmist and emotive language and its 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&rsquo; statements and conclusions.<br />
<br />
The Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR) Technical Information Statement stated that BIR has many weaknesses and is a selective, rather than a comprehensive, review of the literature in various topical areas.<br />
<br />
According to the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection, the report has clear scientific weaknesses including selection bias in several research areas.<br />
<br />
The Health Council of Netherlands highlighted the fact that [WHO&rsquo;s and ICNIRP&rsquo;s] multidisciplinary weight-of evidence method leads to a scientifically sound judgment that is as objective as possible.<br />
<br />
The BIR report did not follow this procedure. The Council asserted that &ldquo;(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.&rdquo; The Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research (ACRBR) concurred.<br />
<br />
This writer received from Dr Mike Repacholi, Chairman-Emeritus, ICNIRP, a list of 95 statements from Governments and expert panels concerning health effects and safe exposure levels of radiofrequency energy (2000-2012). Their conclusions were similar to those of ICNIRP and WHO &mdash; &ldquo;that there is no established evidence that EMF exposure within the internationally accepted limits causes any adverse health effects.&rdquo; International guidelines at 4500 mW per sq.metre have a safety factor of 50. Indian guideline at 450 mW per sq.metre has a further safety factor of 10. BIR proposes an additional factor of 900!<br />
<br />
Though BIR is not based on sound science, cell tower radiation scare mongers selling protective shields and RF measuring instruments (complying with BIR 2007 recommendations) love to uphold BIR values. They can then scare the public further and make hay while the sun shines! <br />
</div>',
		'credit_writer' => 'The Hindu, 16 January, 2013, http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/biased-unscientific-report-on-electromagnetic-radiation/article4313241.ece',
		'article_img' => '',
		'article_img_thumb' => '',
		'status' => (int) 1,
		'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
		'lang' => 'EN',
		'category_id' => (int) 16,
		'tag_keyword' => '',
		'seo_url' => 'biased-unscientific-report-on-electromagnetic-radiation-ks-parthasarathy-18923',
		'meta_title' => null,
		'meta_keywords' => null,
		'meta_description' => null,
		'noindex' => (int) 0,
		'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		'most_visit_section_id' => null,
		'article_big_img' => null,
		'liveid' => (int) 18923,
		'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'edate' => '',
		'tags' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		'[new]' => false,
		'[accessible]' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[hasErrors]' => false,
		'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[repository]' => 'Articles'
	
	},
	'articleid' => (int) 18789,
	'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Biased, unscientific report on electromagnetic radiation -KS Parthasarathy',
	'metaKeywords' => 'Health',
	'metaDesc' => '
-The Hindu

WHO, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection do not support the BioInitiative Report conclusions

The recently released BioInitiative Report 2012 (BIR-2012) on standards for electromagnetic radiation is a perfect clone of a similar...',
	'disp' => '<div align="justify">-The Hindu<br /><br /><em>WHO, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection do not support the BioInitiative Report conclusions<br /></em><br />The recently released BioInitiative Report 2012 (BIR-2012) on standards for electromagnetic radiation is a perfect clone of a similar report published in 2007. According to many responsible agencies it is biased and unscientific. BIR-2012 claimed that the evidence for risks to health from wireless technologies and electromagnetic fields (EMFs) has substantially increased since 2007. The studies alleged a link between cell phone radiation and brain tumours. Agencies such as the World Health Organization, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) do not support the conclusions.<br /><br /><em>A self appointed group<br /></em><br />The BioInitiative Working Group which prepared the report originated as a self appointed group from a mini symposium during the annual meeting of the Bioelectromagnetic Society in 2006 and has no official status.<br /><br />BIR 2012 gave a shot in the arm of anti cell phone tower radiation enthusiasts and sellers of protective screens, and &lsquo;talisman&rsquo; against electromagnetic radiation!<br /><br />Dr David Carpenter and Ms Cindy Sage, the editors of the report clarified that each author is responsible for his/her own chapter in BIR 2012.The views are that of individual authors. It is a very unusual procedure.<br /><br /><em>Conflict of interests<br /></em><br />&ldquo;The great strength of the BioInitiative Report (www.bioinitiative.org) is that it has been done independent of governments, existing bodies and industry professional societies that have clung to old standards,&rdquo; the Editors claim, which is laughable.<br /><br />A notable weakness of the report is that Ms Cindy Sage, who authored five sections and co-authored one, herself owns SAGE EMF Design, a consultancy firm which declares &ldquo;Creating Low Field Lighting for Interiors,&rdquo; and &ldquo;Remediation: What if your existing home has high EMF?&rdquo; among its functions. BIR 2012 does not state conflicts of interests, if any, of the authors.<br /><br />Ms Sage stated that &ldquo;the Report has been written to document the reasons why current public exposure standards for non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation are no longer good enough to protect public health.&rdquo; With the die thus cast, no one can expect in BIR 2012 an objective analysis of the evidence, if any, on the bio-effects of electromagnetic radiation.<br /><br />Ms Sage, MA wrote the important section called &ldquo;Summary for the public and conclusions.&rdquo; She and the co-editor Dr Carpenter wrote &ldquo;Key scientific evidence and public health policy recommendations.&rdquo;<br /><br />&ldquo;In public health and environmental policy-making, asking the right questions is a highly evolved art form,&rdquo; they asserted. Do they imply that other authors cannot be trusted to do that job, though they may be more qualified?<br /><br /><em>Critique of BIR<br /></em><br />Responsible agencies roundly criticized the report. The European Initiative EMF-NET noted that the &lsquo;Summary for the public&rsquo; is written in an alarmist and emotive language and its 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&rsquo; statements and conclusions.<br /><br />The Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR) Technical Information Statement stated that BIR has many weaknesses and is a selective, rather than a comprehensive, review of the literature in various topical areas.<br /><br />According to the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection, the report has clear scientific weaknesses including selection bias in several research areas.<br /><br />The Health Council of Netherlands highlighted the fact that [WHO&rsquo;s and ICNIRP&rsquo;s] multidisciplinary weight-of evidence method leads to a scientifically sound judgment that is as objective as possible.<br /><br />The BIR report did not follow this procedure. The Council asserted that &ldquo;(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.&rdquo; The Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research (ACRBR) concurred.<br /><br />This writer received from Dr Mike Repacholi, Chairman-Emeritus, ICNIRP, a list of 95 statements from Governments and expert panels concerning health effects and safe exposure levels of radiofrequency energy (2000-2012). Their conclusions were similar to those of ICNIRP and WHO &mdash; &ldquo;that there is no established evidence that EMF exposure within the internationally accepted limits causes any adverse health effects.&rdquo; International guidelines at 4500 mW per sq.metre have a safety factor of 50. Indian guideline at 450 mW per sq.metre has a further safety factor of 10. BIR proposes an additional factor of 900!<br /><br />Though BIR is not based on sound science, cell tower radiation scare mongers selling protective shields and RF measuring instruments (complying with BIR 2007 recommendations) love to uphold BIR values. They can then scare the public further and make hay while the sun shines! <br /></div>',
	'lang' => 'English',
	'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
	'site_title' => 'im4change',
	'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	'id' => (int) 18789,
	'title' => 'Biased, unscientific report on electromagnetic radiation -KS Parthasarathy',
	'subheading' => '',
	'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Hindu<br />
<br />
<em>WHO, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection do not support the BioInitiative Report conclusions<br />
</em><br />
The recently released BioInitiative Report 2012 (BIR-2012) on standards for electromagnetic radiation is a perfect clone of a similar report published in 2007. According to many responsible agencies it is biased and unscientific. BIR-2012 claimed that the evidence for risks to health from wireless technologies and electromagnetic fields (EMFs) has substantially increased since 2007. The studies alleged a link between cell phone radiation and brain tumours. Agencies such as the World Health Organization, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) do not support the conclusions.<br />
<br />
<em>A self appointed group<br />
</em><br />
The BioInitiative Working Group which prepared the report originated as a self appointed group from a mini symposium during the annual meeting of the Bioelectromagnetic Society in 2006 and has no official status.<br />
<br />
BIR 2012 gave a shot in the arm of anti cell phone tower radiation enthusiasts and sellers of protective screens, and &lsquo;talisman&rsquo; against electromagnetic radiation!<br />
<br />
Dr David Carpenter and Ms Cindy Sage, the editors of the report clarified that each author is responsible for his/her own chapter in BIR 2012.The views are that of individual authors. It is a very unusual procedure.<br />
<br />
<em>Conflict of interests<br />
</em><br />
&ldquo;The great strength of the BioInitiative Report (www.bioinitiative.org) is that it has been done independent of governments, existing bodies and industry professional societies that have clung to old standards,&rdquo; the Editors claim, which is laughable.<br />
<br />
A notable weakness of the report is that Ms Cindy Sage, who authored five sections and co-authored one, herself owns SAGE EMF Design, a consultancy firm which declares &ldquo;Creating Low Field Lighting for Interiors,&rdquo; and &ldquo;Remediation: What if your existing home has high EMF?&rdquo; among its functions. BIR 2012 does not state conflicts of interests, if any, of the authors.<br />
<br />
Ms Sage stated that &ldquo;the Report has been written to document the reasons why current public exposure standards for non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation are no longer good enough to protect public health.&rdquo; With the die thus cast, no one can expect in BIR 2012 an objective analysis of the evidence, if any, on the bio-effects of electromagnetic radiation.<br />
<br />
Ms Sage, MA wrote the important section called &ldquo;Summary for the public and conclusions.&rdquo; She and the co-editor Dr Carpenter wrote &ldquo;Key scientific evidence and public health policy recommendations.&rdquo;<br />
<br />
&ldquo;In public health and environmental policy-making, asking the right questions is a highly evolved art form,&rdquo; they asserted. Do they imply that other authors cannot be trusted to do that job, though they may be more qualified?<br />
<br />
<em>Critique of BIR<br />
</em><br />
Responsible agencies roundly criticized the report. The European Initiative EMF-NET noted that the &lsquo;Summary for the public&rsquo; is written in an alarmist and emotive language and its 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&rsquo; statements and conclusions.<br />
<br />
The Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR) Technical Information Statement stated that BIR has many weaknesses and is a selective, rather than a comprehensive, review of the literature in various topical areas.<br />
<br />
According to the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection, the report has clear scientific weaknesses including selection bias in several research areas.<br />
<br />
The Health Council of Netherlands highlighted the fact that [WHO&rsquo;s and ICNIRP&rsquo;s] multidisciplinary weight-of evidence method leads to a scientifically sound judgment that is as objective as possible.<br />
<br />
The BIR report did not follow this procedure. The Council asserted that &ldquo;(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.&rdquo; The Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research (ACRBR) concurred.<br />
<br />
This writer received from Dr Mike Repacholi, Chairman-Emeritus, ICNIRP, a list of 95 statements from Governments and expert panels concerning health effects and safe exposure levels of radiofrequency energy (2000-2012). Their conclusions were similar to those of ICNIRP and WHO &mdash; &ldquo;that there is no established evidence that EMF exposure within the internationally accepted limits causes any adverse health effects.&rdquo; International guidelines at 4500 mW per sq.metre have a safety factor of 50. Indian guideline at 450 mW per sq.metre has a further safety factor of 10. BIR proposes an additional factor of 900!<br />
<br />
Though BIR is not based on sound science, cell tower radiation scare mongers selling protective shields and RF measuring instruments (complying with BIR 2007 recommendations) love to uphold BIR values. They can then scare the public further and make hay while the sun shines! <br />
</div>',
	'credit_writer' => 'The Hindu, 16 January, 2013, http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/biased-unscientific-report-on-electromagnetic-radiation/article4313241.ece',
	'article_img' => '',
	'article_img_thumb' => '',
	'status' => (int) 1,
	'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
	'lang' => 'EN',
	'category_id' => (int) 16,
	'tag_keyword' => '',
	'seo_url' => 'biased-unscientific-report-on-electromagnetic-radiation-ks-parthasarathy-18923',
	'meta_title' => null,
	'meta_keywords' => null,
	'meta_description' => null,
	'noindex' => (int) 0,
	'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	'most_visit_section_id' => null,
	'article_big_img' => null,
	'liveid' => (int) 18923,
	'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'edate' => '',
	'tags' => [
		(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	'[new]' => false,
	'[accessible]' => [
		'*' => true,
		'id' => false
	],
	'[dirty]' => [],
	'[original]' => [],
	'[virtual]' => [],
	'[hasErrors]' => false,
	'[errors]' => [],
	'[invalid]' => [],
	'[repository]' => 'Articles'

}
$articleid = (int) 18789
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Biased, unscientific report on electromagnetic radiation -KS Parthasarathy'
$metaKeywords = 'Health'
$metaDesc = '
-The Hindu

WHO, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection do not support the BioInitiative Report conclusions

The recently released BioInitiative Report 2012 (BIR-2012) on standards for electromagnetic radiation is a perfect clone of a similar...'
$disp = '<div align="justify">-The Hindu<br /><br /><em>WHO, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection do not support the BioInitiative Report conclusions<br /></em><br />The recently released BioInitiative Report 2012 (BIR-2012) on standards for electromagnetic radiation is a perfect clone of a similar report published in 2007. According to many responsible agencies it is biased and unscientific. BIR-2012 claimed that the evidence for risks to health from wireless technologies and electromagnetic fields (EMFs) has substantially increased since 2007. The studies alleged a link between cell phone radiation and brain tumours. Agencies such as the World Health Organization, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) do not support the conclusions.<br /><br /><em>A self appointed group<br /></em><br />The BioInitiative Working Group which prepared the report originated as a self appointed group from a mini symposium during the annual meeting of the Bioelectromagnetic Society in 2006 and has no official status.<br /><br />BIR 2012 gave a shot in the arm of anti cell phone tower radiation enthusiasts and sellers of protective screens, and &lsquo;talisman&rsquo; against electromagnetic radiation!<br /><br />Dr David Carpenter and Ms Cindy Sage, the editors of the report clarified that each author is responsible for his/her own chapter in BIR 2012.The views are that of individual authors. It is a very unusual procedure.<br /><br /><em>Conflict of interests<br /></em><br />&ldquo;The great strength of the BioInitiative Report (www.bioinitiative.org) is that it has been done independent of governments, existing bodies and industry professional societies that have clung to old standards,&rdquo; the Editors claim, which is laughable.<br /><br />A notable weakness of the report is that Ms Cindy Sage, who authored five sections and co-authored one, herself owns SAGE EMF Design, a consultancy firm which declares &ldquo;Creating Low Field Lighting for Interiors,&rdquo; and &ldquo;Remediation: What if your existing home has high EMF?&rdquo; among its functions. BIR 2012 does not state conflicts of interests, if any, of the authors.<br /><br />Ms Sage stated that &ldquo;the Report has been written to document the reasons why current public exposure standards for non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation are no longer good enough to protect public health.&rdquo; With the die thus cast, no one can expect in BIR 2012 an objective analysis of the evidence, if any, on the bio-effects of electromagnetic radiation.<br /><br />Ms Sage, MA wrote the important section called &ldquo;Summary for the public and conclusions.&rdquo; She and the co-editor Dr Carpenter wrote &ldquo;Key scientific evidence and public health policy recommendations.&rdquo;<br /><br />&ldquo;In public health and environmental policy-making, asking the right questions is a highly evolved art form,&rdquo; they asserted. Do they imply that other authors cannot be trusted to do that job, though they may be more qualified?<br /><br /><em>Critique of BIR<br /></em><br />Responsible agencies roundly criticized the report. The European Initiative EMF-NET noted that the &lsquo;Summary for the public&rsquo; is written in an alarmist and emotive language and its 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&rsquo; statements and conclusions.<br /><br />The Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR) Technical Information Statement stated that BIR has many weaknesses and is a selective, rather than a comprehensive, review of the literature in various topical areas.<br /><br />According to the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection, the report has clear scientific weaknesses including selection bias in several research areas.<br /><br />The Health Council of Netherlands highlighted the fact that [WHO&rsquo;s and ICNIRP&rsquo;s] multidisciplinary weight-of evidence method leads to a scientifically sound judgment that is as objective as possible.<br /><br />The BIR report did not follow this procedure. The Council asserted that &ldquo;(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.&rdquo; The Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research (ACRBR) concurred.<br /><br />This writer received from Dr Mike Repacholi, Chairman-Emeritus, ICNIRP, a list of 95 statements from Governments and expert panels concerning health effects and safe exposure levels of radiofrequency energy (2000-2012). Their conclusions were similar to those of ICNIRP and WHO &mdash; &ldquo;that there is no established evidence that EMF exposure within the internationally accepted limits causes any adverse health effects.&rdquo; International guidelines at 4500 mW per sq.metre have a safety factor of 50. Indian guideline at 450 mW per sq.metre has a further safety factor of 10. BIR proposes an additional factor of 900!<br /><br />Though BIR is not based on sound science, cell tower radiation scare mongers selling protective shields and RF measuring instruments (complying with BIR 2007 recommendations) love to uphold BIR values. They can then scare the public further and make hay while the sun shines! <br /></div>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'

include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51

Biased, unscientific report on electromagnetic radiation -KS Parthasarathy

-The Hindu WHO, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection do not support the BioInitiative Report conclusions The recently released BioInitiative Report 2012 (BIR-2012) on standards for electromagnetic radiation is a perfect clone of a similar report published in 2007. According to many responsible agencies it is biased and unscientific. BIR-2012 claimed that the evidence for risks to health from wireless technologies and electromagnetic fields (EMFs) has substantially increased since 2007. The studies alleged a link between cell phone radiation and brain tumours. Agencies such as the World Health Organization, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) do not support the conclusions. A self appointed group The BioInitiative Working Group which prepared the report originated as a self appointed group from a mini symposium during the annual meeting of the Bioelectromagnetic Society in 2006 and has no official status. BIR 2012 gave a shot in the arm of anti cell phone tower radiation enthusiasts and sellers of protective screens, and ‘talisman’ against electromagnetic radiation! Dr David Carpenter and Ms Cindy Sage, the editors of the report clarified that each author is responsible for his/her own chapter in BIR 2012.The views are that of individual authors. It is a very unusual procedure. Conflict of interests “The great strength of the BioInitiative Report (www.bioinitiative.org) is that it has been done independent of governments, existing bodies and industry professional societies that have clung to old standards,” the Editors claim, which is laughable. A notable weakness of the report is that Ms Cindy Sage, who authored five sections and co-authored one, herself owns SAGE EMF Design, a consultancy firm which declares “Creating Low Field Lighting for Interiors,” and “Remediation: What if your existing home has high EMF?” among its functions. BIR 2012 does not state conflicts of interests, if any, of the authors. Ms Sage stated that “the Report has been written to document the reasons why current public exposure standards for non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation are no longer good enough to protect public health.” With the die thus cast, no one can expect in BIR 2012 an objective analysis of the evidence, if any, on the bio-effects of electromagnetic radiation. Ms Sage, MA wrote the important section called “Summary for the public and conclusions.” She and the co-editor Dr Carpenter wrote “Key scientific evidence and public health policy recommendations.” “In public health and environmental policy-making, asking the right questions is a highly evolved art form,” they asserted. Do they imply that other authors cannot be trusted to do that job, though they may be more qualified? Critique of BIR Responsible agencies roundly criticized the report. The European Initiative EMF-NET noted that the ‘Summary for the public’ is written in an alarmist and emotive language and its 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. The Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR) Technical Information Statement stated that BIR has many weaknesses and is a selective, rather than a comprehensive, review of the literature in various topical areas. According to the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection, the report has clear scientific weaknesses including selection bias in several research areas. The Health Council of Netherlands highlighted the fact that [WHO’s and ICNIRP’s] multidisciplinary weight-of evidence method leads to a scientifically sound judgment that is as objective as possible. The BIR report did not follow this procedure. The Council asserted that “(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.” The Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research (ACRBR) concurred. This writer received from Dr Mike Repacholi, Chairman-Emeritus, ICNIRP, a list of 95 statements from Governments and expert panels concerning health effects and safe exposure levels of radiofrequency energy (2000-2012). Their conclusions were similar to those of ICNIRP and WHO — “that there is no established evidence that EMF exposure within the internationally accepted limits causes any adverse health effects.” International guidelines at 4500 mW per sq.metre have a safety factor of 50. Indian guideline at 450 mW per sq.metre has a further safety factor of 10. BIR proposes an additional factor of 900! Though BIR is not based on sound science, cell tower radiation scare mongers selling protective shields and RF measuring instruments (complying with BIR 2007 recommendations) love to uphold BIR values. They can then scare the public further and make hay while the sun shines!