A letter to industry experts

[news....@googlemail.com]

From Enrico Grani

 

 

To: webm...@emfandhealth.com

http://www.emfandhealth.com/index.html

Dear EMF & Health:

 

Dr. Ariel Fenster

Harvey Kofsky

Michel Plante

Dr. Joe Schwarcz

Lorne Trottier (webmaster: combating pseudo-science).

Congratulations collaborator's and contributors.

It has come to my attention many months ago that such a disinformation website is available, not as a real science source in which competent information can be disseminated, but quite the opposite in order to cause confusion to those who know no better. Since I have an open mind and take everything into consideration, and since the title of your website appears to be pertaining to health, I decided to look at your website. 

Unfortunately what I found on your website was lower than that of Kindergarten status (no offense to the Kindergarten children intended). It is clear that some links on your website to back up scientific argument are by bloggers with very limited intelligence, if they know what the word "intelligence" actually means, remains a mystery. 

Upon further reading of your website, I could not stop laughing at the content which defies logic, reason, and reality by distorting the well known scientific facts (or by explanations which do not relate with the facts). The site is very good for a laugh, but other than that, it is of no value at all, to persons seeking a balanced perspective of the science which has been available for years. Scientists which have proven/shown biological effects from wireless communications are discredited on the website (by some pseudo-scientific explanation, or by the title of being "alarmist") this is a very old tactic to convince the ignorant that all is well. The tactic is synonymous with a broken record which spins around and gets no-where. 

Does that also mean that the cellphone industry scientific studies showing biological effects, military scientists showing biological effects, which are also shown as deleterious: Should the website also discredit all of these scientists which go back to the 1950's as well? If the persons on the website decide this, I suggest they work day and night to keep their disinformation campaign going, only ignorant troll bloggers devoid of rational thinking may believe the content of the website? 

The International Agency for Research on Cancer [IARC] an arm of the [WHO] issued a press release on 31 May 2011 with regards to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields RF EMR as being a (class 2B carcinogen) just after Anders Ahlbom was found to have "conflicts of interest" hence he was eliminated from participation in the discussions. He also tried to point the finger at Lennart Hardell, however there are no "conflicts of interest" (no surprises there). This was a vain attempt by Anders Ahlbom to try to save his reputation and be part of the [IARC] discussions, the scandal was not anticipated, but opened the eyes of many around the world to the corruption within Industry and their ilk. 

It appears that the website now attempts to cause confusion / discredit [IARC] and the [WHO] by stating "this is at odds with the conclusions of expert groups " which when I click on the link it directs me to http://www.emfandhealth.com/Science%20Sources.html which just happens to have the [WHO] listed in the Recent Updates. "It seems like someone wants to have their cake and eat it too"? Very interesting odd behaviour indeed. 

It appears that when the [WHO] conforms with the thinking of the website contributors, it is convenient to "jump on the bandwagon and play a tune", but when the [WHO] classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as a (class 2B carcinogen) ... for the website contributors the [WHO] is no longer convenient and so-called conclusions of expert groups are mentioned to be used as a feeble defense mechanism to keep spinning the misinformation. All in all the website has nothing to do with health, it is a poorly devised public relations exercise which even a person with limited intelligence should be able to understand. 

Off course this correspondence is in relation to what has been viewed on the so-called Health and EMR website, and also my opinion which I am entitled to.

I wonder if the contributors who write all the rubbish on the EMR and Health website have any "conflicts of interest" to disseminate such rubbish?

EMF & Health (dedicated to discrediting real science).

Yours Sincerely,
Enrico Grani

Informant: Iris Atzmon

[news....@googlemail.com]

Please counter industry and government agencies or anyone else  downplaying the issue, if any of them refer to the recent IARC class 2B classification for cell phone radiation being in same group of pickled cucumbers!

 

They are misleading the public by not telling the right truth.

 

Here is the evaluation of the IARC monograph for pickled vegetables , note especially yellow highlighted!

 

Source for the below (and I suggest to read the whole article once only for correct understanding)

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol56/mono56-7.pdf

 

5.5 Evaluation 1

There is limited evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of pickled vegetables as

prepared traditionally in Asia.

There is inadequate evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of pickled

vegetables.

Overall evaluation

Pickled vegetables (traditional Asian) are possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B).

 

Hans