Starting the “The Round-Table Initiative”

In my column published on the Washington Times Community pages, I proposed “The Round-Table Initiative” on cell phones and health and explained the reasons for my initiative. I concluded my column by saying:

“…It is time to stop squabbling who is better expert in reviewing and interpreting science. It is time to reach consensus what the scientific evidence tells us. It is time to agree on international scale whether and how the Precautionary Principle should be implemented. It is time to stop misleading and confusing the general public...”

Here is the first, very general, draft of the proposal. More details will come later, after consultations with ICNIRP, BioInitiative, MMF, WHO and individual scientists.

The Round-Table Initiative

  • To review the available scientific evidence
  • To determine whether the current safety standards are sufficient to protect all users
  • To determine whether the implementation of the Precautionary Principle is justified
  • The Round Table Initiative should be  executed under the auspices of the WHO (not the WHO EMF-Project that in opinions of many is inert and “discredited”)
  • The three major players should be invited:
    • ICNIRP – International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection
    • the BioInitiative
    • Mobile Manufacturers Forum
  • The debate of The Round-Table Initiative should be moderated by a person, known for impartiality and agreed upon by all three major players;
  • The moderator should be also the person acceptable for the major players as the go-between-mediator in case the debate reaches impasse.

6 thoughts on “Starting the “The Round-Table Initiative”

  1. This round table should even the views represented to include the American Academy of Environmental Medicine organization. No doctors group is included. The FCC has made the same mistake and excluded doctors’ opinions about human health impacts when they adopted their outdated physics-based standards. The BioInitiative has scientists and public health professionals and I believe, epidemiologists. But you need doctors.

    THe round table group ought to also consider including expert, such as Devra Davis, who studied the cell phone industry and health factors in depth as reported in her book Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation, What the Industry Is Doing to Hide It, and How to Protect Your Family.

    THE round table should also include representative citizens, who have a stake in appropriate standards, including a representative for people with Radiofrequency Sickness, who are very affected by public policy and RF standards. ONE might say, well, they are not scientists. But scientists are not lily-white nor without bias. You must admit, yourself, that the mobile phone industry has strong financial motives, which could drive findings. The industry, no doubt, also would not be interested in policy that excercised the precautionary principle if would hurt business and convenience.

  2. As you say, science will always be argued. Oleg wrote the following in a comment somewhere here, “the mere fact of people being informed that this is stil a debatable topic (based on the proper convencional science, not “alternative”) and that “scientific consensus” is a myth in this field will be already valuable and beneficial for population and society at large…” Part of the problem may be that “people” don’t care that you’re striving to accomplish something for them. Why would “people” care if they only think that there ‘might’ be a problem because some scientists are still talking about this year after year after year? Most “people” perceive that there is no necessity to do anything because nothing ‘is’ done and it continues to be legal to irradiate everyone in this manner for commercial, government, and private purposes, continues to be legal to INcrease the density and sources and exposures of this radiation, and legal for anyone to sell it, buy it, and use it. “People” think if there really was a problem, important people and government would have done something about it by now.

    In this era of technology and (supposed?) transparency and accountability, I think it’s important that scientific meetings of huge global significance (any topic) be broadcast publicly – why should anyone nowadays be afraid to openly tell whatever truth or opinion? First, you’d have to be sleeping under a rock in the middle of the desert for the past few years in order to not notice that nowadays, basically, anything and everything is fit for airing to the public. Secondly, if there are scientists who are fearful of threat of unfavorable repercussions of telling their truths and opinions, with openness you’ve got thousands of witnesses to challenge any groundswell of discrimination against you. Thirdly, maybe in an open platform meeting participants would feel even more accountable and responsible to each and every individual on the planet, so hopefully this encourages even more truth-telling.

    Also with scientific meetings of huge global significance (any topic), I think it’s important to think of a mechanism to–whether during the meeting’s progress or at its conclusion–release not solely official press releases in the ‘proper’ scientific lingo, have media scramble to report (and edit) whatever suits their fancy (dependent on the weather, horrid war events of the day, their sponsors, how the day was in the stock markets, and whether or not a celebrity overdosed), and have participants, sage observers, and others strive to jump (sooner or not until much time has passed) to help other scientists, sages, and others to know, analyze, understand, think about acting, etc., but to also pre-plan assigned writing tasks to various levels of authorities and other skilled professional writers outside mainstream media who do know the topic and do genuinely write without particular bias or at least honestly and voluntarily with good intentions for the meeting to also ‘officially’ release those contributions and make sure they are broadcast just as widely as any science/authority meeting publications.

    I think it would be folly to not invite “people” (or their family or associate citizen representatives) to participate in the meeting who fully and credibly know the reality of experiencing fewer adverse bio-effects in the absence of RF-EMF (or ELF-EMF) firsthand. Yes, please notice that the previous sentence was stated in reverse of the usual statement. Whether or not anyone agrees about there being particular causes, particular facts, particular mechanisms-of-action for degrees of electrosensitivity in any specific situation, environment, or generally, the previous sentence is a fact. Isn’t to figure out whatever degrees of absence are required–whether re thermal or non-thermal, and whether for all or some “people” (and flora and fauna)–really the end-point to aim for (not merely to figure out exactly what the problem is)? Also, one reason that “people” don’t ‘care’ is because there is no ‘face’. I don’t know for a fact, but I’m sure that, for example, a chief in various national or international organizations that support cures, prevention, and education regarding cancers, heart disease, HIV/AIDs, childhood diseases, etc. are all invited to such meetings.

    This is a topic that faces most “people” individuals on the planet, daily, whether they know it or not. This is all “people,” regardless of any demographic trait, regardless of health status. If you don’t progress to inviting “people” to the table, welcoming them, asking for their facts and opinions, why would “people” care?

    It’s 3:30 pm on Sunday here in Toronto, and now I’m going to shove myself away from the computer to put some breakfast foods into my stomach. Lately, I’ve been trying to make more of an effort to get my act together to take better care of myself–for example, eating breakfast at a time preferred by my body–instead of diving in to begin my layperson daily 16-hours of work on this topic. My sincere thanks to all of you very sage people who also work on this topic with such devotion. Whatever you decide to do, please get your act together too, and consider doing things differently because we need different results. What’s that adage? Something about, “… doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” (I think attributed to Einstein?)


    Thank you.

    • Barb,

      Many good points!

      Transparency – yes. The meetings of “The Round-Table Initiative” should be broadcasted live on internet. No doubt about it.

      Three major players should be there either as organizations or as individual scientists. Preferrably as organizations because then the debate might have impact on what the organizations say and thing and tell people.

      Others should be invited too but, too big crowd will “kill” discussion. So, there are limits…

      Procedures have to be worked out before meetings, including the format of the report. This will be discussed once we know who is coming and in what capacity…

    • Barb, this statement you made iis important: “Isn’t to figure out whatever degrees of absence are required–whether re thermal or non-thermal, and whether for all or some “people” (and flora and fauna)–really the end-point to aim for (not merely to figure out exactly what the problem is)? ”
      Why? Because looking for the mechanisms before declaring caution in light of evidence calling for caution is a well-known stalling technique used by other industries. Tobacco Industry comes to mind.
      Another NOTE about finding “mechanisms”: Biological impacts of pulsed RF not only depends upon frequency and strength, etc., but will vary depending on individual genetics, health status, age, and other cell stress sources. Unlike fire, which will predicably burn whatever part of the body you put into it, RF acts upon cellular function and body systems in unpredictable ways.
      This is not to say no mechanisms exist. But the BioInitiative Reports list oxidative stress as one harmful impact at the cellular level. Oxidative stress causes inflammation, which is the mother of many conditions and diseases.

      In today’s age of people being told what is good and bad for them to protect their health, one would think exposures causing oxidative stress would be among them.

  3. Dariusz,

    Not to squabble, just to discuss:

    How did you determine who the three major players should be? What qualifies the three groups you list to make sound public health and environmental policies?

    I would like to see strong Environmental expertise as well as that more specifically addressing human health. The whole living Ecosystem is at stake. There is further evidence that the atmosphere, building structures, and other non-living matter are also affected by emf’s.

    What do you think MMF can bring to this Round Table? From their website: “The MMF’s regulatory activities are focussed on developing and presenting the views of the mobile industry to regulatory agencies and authorities in a globally coordinated manner.” Do you think this group is unbiased–do they have the public and environmental welfare as their first interest? I will await your reply, but this does not sit right with me.

    Also, before I would consider signing, you must add that there will be absolute transparency into the entire process for the Public. The proceedings must be video-taped. I want to see the process, not just the conclusion. We need it for the Public Record.

    • Deborah,

      The three major ones:
      ICNIRP – obvious due to its influence exerted via WHO on our safety standards around the world
      MMF – obvious as industry that will have to adhere to the standards and can explain what is and what might not be possible technologically
      BioInitiative – because reports got the most of attention, even though they had little practical impact

      There might be also other “players” but the above mentioned three, or members from the three, would be in my opinion essentaial for the succesful debate

      Transparency of the process is obvious and I would do all in my power to assure it. How in practice it would be done remains to be determined. Any and all suggestions are welcome!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s