* Posts by walter buchanan

2 posts • joined 3 Dec 2007

Beeb coughs to Panorama WiFi-scare travesty

walter buchanan

Nowt is wrong with Mobiles?

You all forget that no matter who says what, Panorama discussed evidence. Evidence like this:

About 100 biological effects here:

Recent studies (1995-2000) on the biological effects of radiofrequency and cell phone radiation,


Or if you like to do your own pick ‘n mix, go into the Pubmed medical database http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

- and type eg “cell phone effects”.

Then look amongst your resulting list for

*DNA damage

*reduction in melatonin (an antioxidant with cancer-fighting properties)

*weakening of the blood-brain barrier

*oxidative stress

and see how many of each you can find.

Or put each of these effects into Pubmed directly.

Of course some studies look for an effect but don't find it.

Also check out brain tumour studies. Don’t forget to look at those that included lots of long term heavy users.

Lots of work - but its better than sitting around slagging off Panorama...

walter buchanan

O dear very uninformed comments

Sorry folks – too early to relax and ignore all the evidence.

First, the lead article: the “voice of sanity” – the man from the WHO, Prof Repacholi whose “scientific independence was in question” on Panorama.

Ha. He was actually let off very lightly. Surely the register is aware of the huge controversy surrounding Prof Repacholi stemming from:

1) Repacholi Admits Interference from the Industry at the World Health Organisation EMF Project

http://www.mastsanity.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=168&Itemid=90, and

2) Repacholi reveals that up to half of the funds raised for WHO’s EMF Project came from industry


and so not surprisingly studies and headlines like this:

3) Conflict of interest and bias at the WHO

Conflict of Interest and Bias in Health Advisory Committees: A case study of the WHO's EMF Task Group. http://www.emfacts.com/papers/who_conflict.pdf

and therefore also studies like this one (from the Lancet, no less)

4) WHO Criticized for Neglecting Evidence.

WHO's Director of Research Policy Dr. Tikki Pang “…acknowledged the criticism had merit..“ "We know our credibility is at stake" , and

“WHO officials also noted that, in many cases, evidence simply did not exist”. http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007May07/0,4670,BritainLancetWHO,00.html