Radio Frequency Exposure Risk Assessment and Communication Critique of ARPANSA TRS-164 Report: Do we have a problem? Victor Leach and Steven Weller

Transcription

1 Radio Freqency Exposre Risk Assessment and Commnication Critiqe of ARPANSA TRS-164 Report: Do we have a problem? Victor Leach and Steven Weller 1

2 ORSAA Database Oceania Radiofreqency Scientific Advisory Association (ORSAA) ORSAA Database is a searchable EMR bio-effects relational database Categorizes experimental end-points for research (DNA breaks, biochemical changes etc.) Categorizes experimental otcomes (effect, no effect etc.) Categorizes type of investigation (in vitro, in vivo, provocation, epidemiological etc.) Categorizes freqencies and exposre details Categorizes biological effect findings Categorizes statistical information from epidemiological stdies 2

3 Prpose of TRS-164 RF Expert panel to assess the scientific literatre to formally determine whether there are any significant changes to the science nderpinning the Standard and whether it contines to provide adeqate protection. From TRS-164: The RF literatre database assembled by ARPANSA incldes 1354 stdies with health/biological otcomes from Janary 2000 till Agst 2012 (298 epidemiological, 238 hman/provocation, 453 in vivo and 365 in vitro). The database also incldes 72 major reviews or specialist reviews on in vivo / in vitro research pblished dring that period. ORSAA chose to perform its own independent assessment to validate TRS-164 conclsions 3

4 ORSAA Database methodology for paper inclsion All ARPANSA papers for the period 01/01/2000 to 31/08/2012 All ARPANSA monthly srvey of literatre with reviews after Janary 2008 All scientific stdies in the following categories mst appear in a peer-reviewed jornal: in vivo experiments in vitro experiments dosimetry experiments epidemiological stdies hman provocation experiments Non-English papers with a pblished abstract in English, in peer-reviewed national jornals in the contry of origin. All review articles, government EMR smmary reports, gideline material, measrement srveys, government-issed disease statistical reports and brochres which cited smmarised opinions were classified as Non-Experimental Spporting Stdy (NESS). 4

5 In vitro stdies TR-164 Effect 46% vs No Effect 54% ORSAA Effect 68% vs No Effect 32% 5

6 In vivo stdies TR-164 Effect 49% vs No Effect 51% ORSAA Effect 74% vs No Effect 26% 6

7 Reason for the difference The primary reason for these obvios differences are: TRS-164 expert reviewer was not reqested to se the ARPANSA literatre database Reprodced the findings obtained from the UK Health Department Report of the independent Advisory Grop on Non-Ionising Radiation (AGNIR) [3]. Provocation stdies relied on UK AGNIR report, Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) [5] and ICNIRP reviews. As the TRS-164 in vitro / In vivo review section has essentially reprodced the AGNIR report findings it has inherited all the flaws and deficiencies identified in Dr Sarah Starkey s paper[4] Some of the flaws identified by Dr Starkey inclde: Scientific inaccracy - conclsions did not accrately reflect the evidence Stdies omitted, inclded in other sections bt withot any conclsions, or conclsions left ot - Oxidative stress was not given the coverage it deserved. Fertility effects, cognitive fnction and behavioral effects were all misrepresented. Evidence dismissed and ignored in conclsions TR-164 is an inaccrate assessment of the available science 7

8 Smmary of Bio-effects stdies [8] 8 Sorce: ORSAA Database

9 Chronic diseases that plage modern society Does EMR have a role to play? Top Diseases Cardiovasclar Disease RF bio effects Cardiological and vasclar effects, oxidative stress Cancer DNA damage, altered gene expression, oxidative stress, inflammation Nerodegeneration Histopathological changes and neronal damage, Pyramidal cell loss (hippocamps), oxidative stress Mental illness Behavioral and cognitive effects, anxiety, nerotransmitter level changes Allergies Immnological effects, calcim flx changes, mast cell degranlation 9

10 Fnding Research Approximately one third of all experimental stdies in the ORSAA database do not declare their fnding sorces. Fnding sorces are classified in the ORSAA database into the following major categories: Government; Private; Pblic Not-for Profit; Indstry; Instittional; United Nations (WHO); Not known. 10

11 Review of fnding sorces in ORSAA database 11

12 Review of research by Contry of Origin 12

13 TRS-164 A poor state of affairs The TRS-164 terms of reference (page 64) for the 'Expert Panel' was to prepare an independent assessment Sections relied almost exclsively on UK HPA s AGNIR report and SCENIHR report (both reports have been heavily criticised by independent scientists) TRS-164 was spposed to be an examination of the science in this area from Janary 2000 till Agst AGNIR report did not cover this entire period and ARPANSA database (in vivo / in vitro stdies) were not reviewed AGNIR referenced papers were not meant to be looked at in isolation. They are a 'spplement' to the existing pool of papers Athor of the TRS-164 in-vivo / in-vitro section has simply performed a paper cont of 'no effect' verss 'effect' stdies referenced by AGNIR report which is meaningless Important papers available within the time period have not been considered TRS-164 is being cited in the literatre and indstry websites as being another independent review of the science The Astralian pblic is being misled into believing TRS-164 is a comprehensive and independent review of ARRANSA s extensive database 13

14 Missing In Action Robst Risk Management Policies The type of risks are not clearly identified The probability for many risks are not being assessed Strategies to manage risks are not made clear (facts sheet strategy!!) Absence of a precationary approach is palpable 4G, 5G, IoT, wireless smart meters etc. Inconsistent policies for radiation protection Ionising radiation implements As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) in conjnction with a well defined hierarchy of controls Non ionizing radiation compliance to RPS3 (ICNIRP) limits is assmed safe withot any scientific validation and anything goes (cell towers and Wi-Fi located in or near sensitive locations sch as hospitals, schools and homes). Indstry code of practice C564:2011 Mobile Phone Base Station Deployment effectively ignored Why is Astralia s reglatory body not dealing with risks responsibly? Concern that it may raise pblic concern and alarm? Potential economic fallot and legal challenges? To contine avoiding the isse of not providing fll pblic disclosre 14 of risk is reckless and irresponsible

15 All scientific work is incomplete whether it be observational or experimental. All scientific work is liable to be pset or modified by advancing knowledge. That does not confer pon s a freedom to ignore the knowledge we already have, or to postpone the action that it appears to demand at a given time. Sir Bradford Hill 15

16 Qestion for the Radiation Protection Commnity Do we have a problem? 16

17 Provocation Stdies Topic Y (TR-164) Y (ORSAA) N (TR-164) N (ORSAA) All Stdies 132 (+25 Uncertain Effect) 87 ARPANSA Stdies available for TRS-164 Not Stated 126 (+26 Uncertain Effect Not Stated 85 Electroencephalograph 78 (+5 Uncertain Effect 7 (EEG) Stdies EHS Stdies 24 (+5 Uncertain Effect 18 Relied on UK AGNIR report, Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) [5] and ICNIRP reviews. TRS-164 the important finding showing Brain Wave electrical 17 activity are altered (cortical excitability) are ignored becase it s not seen to be related to any potential health problems