http://www.ehponline.org/members/2009/0900727/0900727.pdf

The Electromagnetic Fields  Committee of the Health Council of the Netherlands reviewed the BioInitiative report and

concluded (Health Council of the Netherlands 2008):  ‘In view of the way the BioInitiative report was compiled, the selective use

of  scientific  data and the other shortcomings mentioned above, the Committee concludes that the BioInitiative report is not

an   objective and balanced reflection of the current state of  scientific knowledge. Therefore, the report does not provide

any  grounds   for revising  the current views as to the risks of exposure to electromagnetic fields. The BioInitiative report argues

that  any effect  of electromagnetic fields on biological systems should be  avoided, thereby ignoring the distinction between

effect  and damage. …’ Similar conclusions have been reached by EMF-NET and the Australian Centre for  Radiofrequency

Bioeffects  Research (ACRBR) (ACRBR 2008; EMF-NET 2007;).

The use of WORDS in order to fill what is missing in reality:

the primary conclusion that, on the basis of available scientific evidence, the ICNIRP recommendations are protective of public health is robust. Therefore, we argue strongly that application of the PP to mobile communications is not justified because the threshold of scientific plausibility (the COMEST term) has not been crossed and there is no convincing theoretical basis that a hazard is likely to be established in the future (Valberg et  al. 2007 [[et al = Repacholi]]).

[ http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=BioInitiative
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=ICNIRP
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Repacholi ]