In response to my inquiry, e-mailed to Cindy Sage of the Bioinitiative, I received the letter signed on behalf of the BioInitiative by Cindy Sage and David O. Carpenter: Round-Table is Obsolete and Disfunctional.
In the letter they explained reasons why the BioInitiative is not going to participate in the proposed “The Round-Table Initiative” and why BioInitiative considers such a waste of time.
I disagree with some of the arguments in this letter. Fact that many people viewed the first BioInitiative report does not yet mean that the viewers agreed with the report’s conclusions. Many years passed since the publication of the first BioInitiative report and not much progress has been achieved. Yes, it might be so that more people are aware of the problem. But the fact remains that safety standards are the same as before, that the Precautionary Principle is not considered and the expansion of wi-fi continues at increasing speed. To me it means that the opinions of ICNIRP, and not of BioInitiative, are still dominant and implemented by WHO and by governments around the world.
To me, the only way to include BioInitiative opinions is to sit down with ICNIRP and reach consensus. As I know such consensus is possible. IARC evaluation in 2011 has shown that when gathering scientists from ICNIRP and from BioInitiative and debating science is possible to find commonn ground. Some of the BioInitiative opinions, that were different from ICNIRP opinions, were included in the final conclusions of IARC classification.
The response of Cindy Sage and David O. Carpenter was very negative towards “The Round-Table Initiative” but may be not everything is lost and “The Round-Table Initiative” is not dead yet.
When I approached individually 17 of the scientists listed as the authors of the BioInitiative 2012 report, I received immediately (within 48 hours) positive responses from 5 of them. These five responders agreed to participate in “The Round-Table Initiative” and considerd it as a step in the right direction. Though, of course, as everyone, including myself, they were concerned whether the really unbiased review of science is possible and whether the prevously experienced problems will repeat themselves in the “behind-the-scenes” activities.
Interestingly, it appeared that the individual scientists of the BioInitiative were not aware of the outright rejection of my proposal by the BioInitiative and of the letter that I received from Cindy Sage and David O. Carpenter. To my question, whether the letter was agreed by all BioInitiative members, so far Cindy Sage did not respond.