Why does the WHO say there is no risk from base stations when 80% of studies in its own database show increased risk of neurological diseases, impaired well-being and cancer?
The WHO’s EMF research database contains both published and non-peer reviewed studies. It is not the quantity of experiments but the quality of the experimental method that is important (PDF). For example, in the case of an Austrian study from 2008, it has since been reported that no base station was active during the period of the claimed cancer increase and the report is no longer available from the website of the regional Styrian government who sponsored the study. Independent health experts have criticised many of the base station studies for technical flaws such as poor exposure assessment and symptom-reporting bias or inadequate control of confounders such as age. These studies may also be measuring effects of concern rather than RF signals. There are many technical challenges to conducting epidemiological studies of base stations (PDF). In 2004 the ICNIRP said: ‘The need for better exposure assessment is particularly strong in relation to transmitter studies, because the relatio
Related Questions
- Why does the WHO say there is no risk from base stations when 80% of studies in its own database show increased risk of neurological diseases, impaired well-being and cancer?
- Why does the WHO say there is no risk from base stations when studies in its own database show increased risk of neurological diseases, impaired well-being and cancer?
- Is there an increased risk of autoimmune diseases with implants?
