Talk:Bioinitiative Report

Article Deletion and Restoration

This article was previously deleted on 19 June 2008 by administrator Tone following the proposed deletion process, and restored 17 months later on 23 November 2009 by the same administrator following a request by an editor (not this editor). --papageno (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion recommendation / general notability

Firstly, I will admit that I am naturally biased against large scale edits made by anonymous IPs with little editing history, and that this is further exacerbated by deliberately pejorative choices of wording for the reason such as "fringe source" (instead of, for example, minority view), and statements such as "unreliable" and "biased" that are not supported. I have chosen to revert the edits because no attempt was made to properly discuss them in the discussion page, and likewise I have removed the other tags that direct people through to the talk page - if people aren't going to put the effort in to explain why they have added a tag that explicitly directs people to where the explanation should be (outside of the edit summary), the tag shouldn't have been placed there.

I think it is now pretty untenable to hold the view that the BioInitiative report is not notable, even if there was a complete consensus that its content was nonsense. The European Parliament have passed a vote on a document criticising current EMF standards ("Mid-term review of the European Environment and Health Action Plan 2004-2010"), citing the BioInitiative report as their justification, and it was also cited by a court in a successful appeal against a mobile phone base station operator in France. I can accept the argument that the BioInitiative Report may not be an accurate representation of the science (and this argument should be made if so in the article, cited appropriately), but I cannot see any justification for its deletion, particularly on notability grounds. topazg (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

COI template not warranted for reason given

A {{COI}} template (now housed as a parameter in the {{Article issues}} template) has been added to the article. The editor suggested in the edit summary that the template was being added because user "Topazg has COI". While I and others may have had cause to disagree with user Topazg's views in this article and others in the general topic area, they have always been welcome. More to the point, he is not nor has he been a member of the BioInitiative working group. That is the only COI relevant to this article. The COI tag should be removed. --papageno (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I am aware that I may well constitute a COI of a kind because I have an interest and internal beliefs on aspects of the topic in question that would affect my opinion of it. I would deny any financial COI however - although I do support work in Powerwatch (and am not in any way attempting to hide this) I am not employed by them. I am also a (unpaid volunteer) trustee of the non-profit charity EM Radiation Research Trust, because I consider the issue interesting, and I am frustrated with what I perceive to be imbalanced arguments on both sides (including both of the aforementioned organisations in places). However, because I neither have nor could easily benefit financially from a scientific consensus view change on the BioInitiative report or ES, I don't consider myself to have a COI that would make contributions inappropriate on these articles. I am in a fortunate position to receive a reasonable salary developing software unrelated to ES or the BioInitiative Report, and have available time at my disposal to fulfil other voluntary roles as I choose. I suspect at some point I will move on another IT role where it may not be tenable for me to continue in volunteer capacities, but I would most likely still have enough of an interest to continue with articles on Wikipedia. If I say something out of line either as an edit or a mention in the talk page, I would hope that these would be picked up accordingly by one of the other editors in place to do so, and I hope my edits recently have not been seen as attempts to push any POV over another. topazg (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done The COI tag has been removed. --papageno (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

EU Parliament

An article must contain the very subject. It can not only give critism of something that is not explained. The European Parliament representing 400 million people, cannot be POV. Please show respect for democratic societies.Kozzz (talk) 15:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The concern above was raised more than a year ago. I just found this article and had the identical reaction - the subject of the article is completely missing. Especially if one disagrees with the Bioiniative Report - it's substance must be described - or it will leave far more people than just me with the impression that someone is conducting some heavy handed censorship. (and as of today none of the responses below even respond to this idea which is the subject of this topic.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.151.191.126 (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The EU Parliament has used it as a reference. They have used many sources as a reference, but have not commented on the report itself. You are inferring that by using it they somehow make it notable, are agreeing with it. That is not the case. The EU parliament is also not an expert forum in any relevant area. Verbal chat 15:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Verbal, I agree that politicians are not experts. They express political views, and they might be wrong. But they have been chosen to express views and make politics, even when they are wrong. Wikipedia should not hide political decisions, even when they are considered unsound. I think information on how the report has been used by politicians should be included in the article. When the EP expresses "great concern" about the report, it is relevant (albeit that does not mean the EP stands behind every statement inside). Had not politicians reacted this way, it is probable that the BioInitiative report would have been ignored. It is relevant to explain how the report has caused controversy. (FYI: I have no coi here, I do not support the reports conclusions, but I do think the Wikipedia article is unbalanced - only explaining why the report is wrong; without explaining why the report is worth a Wikipedia article.) I suggest some of the following is taken into the article: "The European Parliament has expressed great concern at the report, and it has stated that current limits on electromagnetic fields exposure are obsolete. The European Commission has, upon questions from members of the European Parliament, submitted the BioInitiative report to the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR), together with a mandate to update the 2007 opinion on the potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields. The committee has concluded that ... resolution, sect 21-23 question 2007-4754, oct 2007 Commission asks SCENIHR, 2008-6099 Commission explains its response to 2007-4754, Mandate to SCENIHR Bio201001 (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The only claim to notability this report has is the extensive criticism. And that is tenuous at best. The report should probably not have a wikipedia article, as that is already giving this fringe report undue weight. If the EU Parliament had expressed "great concern" about the report then that might be worthy of inclusion (and would be criticism), but they have merely used it as a reference. Verbal chat 20:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Erm, they did express great concern. In fact, that's pretty much verbatim of the words they used in the reference I linked to above. topazg (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: By great concern I mean great concern about what the report suggested, not the quality of the report itself topazg (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The criticism of this report is its only significant aspect, but I'm not convinced it cuts WP:GNG. Verbal chat 16:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The EP has expressed concern, not only used it as a reference. See the text of the resolution - starteing with "The European Parliament," and stating: "21. Is greatly concerned at the Bio-Initiative international report(8) concerning electromagnetic fields, ..." [1]. As long as the report is used heavily (from one side) in the debate, I think it should be kept in Wikipedia - with appropriate critisism of it's scientific standard. Bio201001 (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It hasn't been used heavily, only criticised heavily. Verbal chat 21:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

And if so, that's enough to not exclude it on notability grounds. It has definite notability in the EMF scientific debate, regardless of its flaws or virtues. topazg (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

See above reply to your "edit". Verbal chat

Whatever - this is close to splitting hairs. It is a controversial report, is used by (the few, but active?) supporters, criticized by the many whom disagree. The point is that it is causing political debates - and a Wikipedia article can enlighten this debate. And the article should mention both its (lack of) scientific value and the political initiatives it has influenced (or "caused" ;-) I.e. the EP resolution and a mandate to SCENHIR to review its recommendations (I have not seen the results, but guess SCENHIR has stressed the uncertainties, and upheld its recommendations) Bio201001 (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It isn't splitting hairs, and this report has done nothing for the debate, political or otherwise. If you can show otherwise, please bring the WP:RS. Verbal chat 16:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to know how the BioInitiative Report become the subject of discussion by the EU Parliament, especially since there had already been not one but two comprehensive reports by SCENHIR that included almost all the information "studied" in the Report. Who introduced it to committee? Was it the subject of review? Are there minutes of the meetings? --papageno (talk) 06:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I have a sneaking suspicion from various contacts that it was put forward by Caroline Lucas MEP originally ... topazg (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Origin and credibility of the BI report and its authors

This report didn't cause any debate, it was created by the lobbyists in an attempt to further their cause, but has clearly failed. The debate started and was resolved long before this report. I doubt SCENHIR stressed any "uncertainties", just the certainty that this report is bad science. Verbal chat 07:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You can't be seriously claiming that it hasn't created any debate. The last two ICNIRP conferences I attended both discussed the BioInitiative report at length (though admittedly the last one was on Risk Assessment, Risk Communication, and Terminology, so it's obviously very appropriate for that one). There are definitely serious issues with the report as a whole - the lead, the conclusions, and the tone and manner in which it is written for starters. However, many of the individual chapters on the science itself are not poor science, and it wasn't created by lobbyists (ok, with the possible exception of two of them), but by career scientists with a long history of publishing relevant papers - three of them are past presidents of the hugely prestigious (in EMF and biology circles) Bioelectromagnetics Society. Much of the content is now published, although with some rather suspicious and unfortunate ties to the journal that has published them. To claim that the debate is "resolved" is quite ridiculous, it's far from resolved, and will remain so for another good 5 to 10 years at least. topazg (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The only significant debate has been about the quality of the report, and it has found to be of very poor quality. It hasn't contributed to scientific understanding at all, and has only muddied the waters for laypeople. The only people claiming there is a problem are those with financial ties and their victims. Verbal chat 15:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope you aren't serious. There are a large body of qualified publishing scientists that believe there is a very real problem. Many of the authors of this report fit into that category, including holding being active professorships and, as I said elsewhere, three past presidents of BEMS. Can you support your claim that Professors Henry Lai, Lennart Hardell, Michael Kundi, Leif Salford all have financial ties? How about past BEMS presidents Carl Blackman, Martin Blank, and Kjell Hansson Mild? Mild is even on the UK MTHR group, hardly known for its general support of EMF related health issues. You really need to support such claims if they are to be taken seriously. topazg (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The science doesn't support the existence of electrosensitivity, or the conclusions of the bioinitiative group on harm and "radiation" levels. However, I am aware of your COI. This report has not contributed in a constructive way to the debate, or scientific understanding. Note also that in science we don't argue from authority, and real science isn't conducted in the poor way this report was prepared and pushed. Verbal chat 16:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That's your opinion, which you have a right to. FWIW, I agree the report was prepared and pushed nonscientifically, however, that does not mean there isn't significant merit in some of the chapters within it (a case I am neither arguing for or against, merely that one doesn't preclude the other). However, you have made a claim that "the only people claiming there is a problem are those with financial ties and their victims". I would like you to explain why the seven authors I linked to in the last comment fit into either category. I'm simply asking you to support your claim. topazg (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to take your word for it, so you'll have to provide WP:RS to their unscientific personal opinions. However, please don't do it here as it's off topic for this page. Verbal chat 16:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to take my word for anything, I'm asking you support your claim that the authors mentioned having financial ties. Considering the severity of the claim, it should either be supported with evidence or retracted as incorrect. topazg (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't claimed that they have financial ties, and I didn't refer to any people or groups (except you). You have listed some people and attributed to them an opinion, and attributed to me a statement about them that I haven't made. That's a straw man. If you provide a reference for any of them saying electrosensitivity is an actual condition (or similar), then I'll respond to that. The status of this report is accurately outlined currently in the article, where it is heavily criticised, which is the focus of this page. Verbal chat 16:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not a straw man argument, I'm quoting you verbatim from this discussion thread: "The only people claiming there is a problem are those with financial ties and their victims" (see third comment in this section, the second by you). That's fairly explicit in stating that everyone who believes there is a problem either has a financial tie, or are a victim of those that do, and the authors are clearly in the category of "people claiming there are a problem". Therefore there's a burden of evidence on you to support the claim, else it's a rather ad-hominem attack of yours at researching scientists that is neither supported nor justified. topazg (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The quality of this report and the conflict of interest of its principle authors is well known. For individuals, I am not going to take your word for it that they have made the statement you attribute to them (about electrosensitivity or something similar - something contrary to known and accepted science). Unless you bring this back on topic I'll stop responding. This is not a WP:FORUM. Verbal chat 16:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not attributing any statement to anyone other than you: I'm contesting your statement that "The only people claiming there is a problem are those with financial ties and their victims". If you are happy admitting that you haven't claimed those 7 authors fit into that category, can I assume you are also happy accepting that that statement is unsupported? topazg (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've already answered that. I'll not reply further to this thread and suggest you drop it or bring the RS I've asked for to my talk page. Verbal chat 16:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed Liechtenstein sentence

I have removed the sentence about Liechtenstein adopting the Bioinitiative Report in full. The reference does not support the statement. A more reliable source such as parliamentary hansard, government gazette or quality Liechtenstein news source would in any case be required. Second, giving Liechtenstein's adoption of the report is undue weight. --papageno (talk) 06:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Reverted edits by user Megabytehertz back to version 534035179 by User Qui1che - see Talk

I have reverted three edits by user Megabytehertz (talk · contribs) back to the last prior version, 534035179, which happens to be my own. The edits introduced substantial change to the meaning of aspects of the article, the text for which had been stable for some years after initial passionate editing discussions. I would like to suggest that, if User Megabytehertz would like to introduce his/her changes, that he/she make the case for them here on the talk page first. --papageno (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I have again reverted two similar edits by User Megabytehertz (talk · contribs), back to the last prior consensus version, 534233670, which happens to be my own. I have added another message to User Megabytehertz's talk page to encourage him/her to discuss any changes here.--papageno (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I and others (Hadolaven (talk · contribs), 93.136.33.83 (talk · contribs)) have reverted the same edits by User Megabytehertz several more times. These edits are unsourced, have not been discussed on Talk, despite polite requests at User Megabytehertz's talk page, and do not reflect a consensus view (see also next Talk sub-section below). Any further attempts by User Megabytehertz to make similar changes will be considered disruptive editing, and will cause me to initiate a request to an administrator of an incident (ANI). --papageno (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

User Hadolaven once again reverted the changes made anew by User Megabytehertz. User Megabytehertz shortly thereafter blanked the article except for his/her article lead changes. This massive change was caught by ClueBot NG (talk · contribs) (see comment on User Megabytehertz's Talk page), and under 3 minutes later User Megabytehertz was given an indefinite block from editing by administrator Toddst1 (talk · contribs) for "disruptive editing" (see bottom of January 2013 section on User Megabytehertz's Talk page). I think this obviates the need for an ANI for now. --papageno (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Corrected the attempt to legitimize this report as a scientific document

I have made a number of changes because the recent changes were clearly another attempt to try and legitimize this report as a proper scientific document. This seems to have happened since the 2012 update has been released. I provided the original quotes and references to the criticisms by independent health authorities. The introduction needs to reflect the views of these reviews or the reader will be given the wrong impression about the report. Even the heading 'Criticism' had been changed to no longer be a level 2 heading - which I fixed.

I am also dubious about the history section because this attempt to link the report to the views of BEMS and it does not reflect the overall views of BEMS members. It might reflect some of the members views- but anyone can join BEMS - it runs conferences to discuss these issues so of course divergent views are discussed at BEMS conferences. Although I haven't edited this section - I question its relevance - it is clearly an attempt to give the report some scientific credibility.

I have also added links to some of the major reviews by independent health authorities around the world so the reader has access to the balanced and accurate scientific reviews from 2012.

I also added a link to the WHO EMF Project so that readers have access to the most credible source on this topic, so they can see the fundamental difference between this report and the scientific consensus on this important topic.

Also, readers should also know that the main author is not a scientist and is a consultant that has a financial interest in keeping the community worried about this issue. The major updates between the 2007 report and the 2012 report are mostly by this consultant. The update is an attempt to get the report more publicity there is no new scientific data presented. Hadolaven (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I should also mention I fixed the attempt to discredit the ACRBR by adding it was 'defunct' prior to its heading. The ACRBR did close due to a delay in funding by the Australian government. But it has been reinstated with a slightly new name to reflect a broader research interest. The fact that it had closed was also not a reason to try and discredit the views of its scientists. The delay in funding was because the NH&MRC can't see the need for this sort of research when they have much more significant health concerns to fund - but the funds come from a levy on mobile phone sales in Australia and have to be spent in this area.Hadolaven (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I undid Megabytehertz changes because they are unexplained and unjustified - for example, the change to start of the Criticism section which said "The following government health authorities and independent expert groups have reviewed the 2007 BioInitiative Report..." to The following government health authorities and INDUSTRY groups have reviewed the 2007 BioInitiative Report ..." is completely unjustfied and unless they are trying to vandalize the page - hard to understand. There are no industry groups views listed in this section they are all government funded health authorities or expert committees set up by governments.Hadolaven (talk) 05:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in this article, Hadolaven (talk · contribs). The reversion back to the "original" pre-early 2013 text (hereafter "Original text") is covered by the Talk page item just above and is uncontroversial. It would be best to cover it under that heading as a reversion without any additional changes. The addition of more criticism from other groups could be covered briefly in the "Other" sub-section of criticism, something like "Group G in Year said This(reference) and Group H said this (reference)". We have criticism from a good number and variety of types of sources already, and there is no need to create an exhaustive list (which Wikipedia would wish us not to do anyway). Adding more recent reviews on health effects from authoritative sources I think is best included on the article pages about health effects (for example Mobile phone radiation and health) rather than here. If there were recent criticisms of the updated 2012 Bioinitiative Report itself from authoritative sources, however, I think those could be included here. Even still, I would counsel anyone to suggest such changes here on Talk first, to achieve consensus from other editors before making the changes to the article. The original text here was achieved through consensus after much effort and compromise, and making even well-intended changes outright is likely to be less productive in the end than discussing them on Talk first (the same goes for any changes to pages like Mobile phone radiation and health). I thus support the roll-back by 93.136.33.83 (talk · contribs) to pretty much an original text (admittedly a version with my name on it) as a result, and look forward to working through proposed changes with all interested contributors. --papageno (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with the pre-early 2013 text 'original text' but the later version was the version I corrected. This version is fundamentally wrong and clearly an attempt to misrepresent and promote the report. No health authorities have yet to comment on the 2012 update and I suspect they won't even bother to do so because the updates are not significant but if they do it will be months before they respond. In the 'original text' the section titled 'other' is not another criticism and i suggest be removed - it is another attempt to try and support the validity of the report - suggesting that BEMS via its newsletter supports the report's ideas. Even if correct the purpose of the page is not to run the arguments for and against. This section should be deleted? Hadolaven (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments here, Hadolaven. (1) We are agreed that correcting "back" to the pre-early 2013 "original text" was a good thing. (2) I think you have interpreted the material in the Other sub-section incorrectly: it is critical, and I think it should stay. Also think we could add a few other groups' criticisms in this section briefly if so desired. (3) Agree there may not be any updated criticisms of the 2012 report by authorities. We will have to keep an eye out. I none are forthcoming in a reasonable (say in the next 2 or 3 months), we could consider including brief text near the mention of the 2012 update saying something like "Recent reports by government health bodies like S and T continue to come to the complete opposite conclusion as the Bioinitiative Report" with a references. However, I do not think we should include broad health reviews by authorities in this article right now. PS I see User Megabytehertz has once again made his/her changes; I will try and roll-back. --papageno (talk) 10:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Qui1che your are correct - sorry - (2) I had a closer look at the statement and source and agree it is a criticism of the fundamental argument of the BI report which tries to claim there are established health effects beyond the existing solid scientific evidence both in physics and biology. (3) I will also watch for any assessments of the 2012 update in the scientific literature. I think there is some merit in providing some references and links to the recent scientific reviews of government health authorities or expert committees. The general public may not be aware that this area is continually being researched and these new results are continually assessed against the whole body of research which has been ongoing for 50 or more years. They also may not know where to find the expert reviews which are not controversial because they do not make wild health allegations and therefore to do get any attention. I provided three of the most recent in my earlier update if it is decided this is an appropriate way forward. In my view it is very sad that report like the BI report tries to give the impression there is increasing evidence of a problem when in fact the opposite is more correct - for example the most recent independent review by a Norwegian Expert Committee (September 2012) found there were no health risks from EMF and also conducted a risk assessment that said that given the weight of scientific evidence, it was unlikely that any health hazards would occur in the future.Hadolaven (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The French Federation of Telecoms has asked the National Agency for Sanitary Safety (ANSES) to review the 2012 update to the BIR. They want an update to their earlier assessment of the 2007 BIR. (See http://www.fftelecoms.org/articles/position-fftelecoms-sur-le-2eme-rapport-bioinitiative ) This might be the first assessment of the update.Hadolaven (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Kenneth R. Foster, professor of bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania and Lorne Trottier, President of the Board of the Montreal Science Center Foundation (Centre iSCi) have published a review of the updated report (see http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/picking-cherries-in-science-the-bio-initiative-report/) Not sure if this should be included?Hadolaven (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

While I admire Mr. Trottier's work, perhaps we might wait for a more authoritative source like an official government health body or regulatory agency. --papageno (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The Indian Council of Medical Research made the following comments about the 2012 BIR:

″Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), on critical examination of the Bio-initiative 2012 Report, has observed that the report is not based on multi disciplinary weight – of evidence method leads to a scientifically sound judgment & objective and there is no balanced reflection of the current state of scientific knowledge. However, the evidence given in the report cannot be ignored and hence, need further investigation in this area.”″ See http://inbministry.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/study-on-radiation-from-mobile-towers.htmlHadolaven (talk) 04:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done Added ICMR comments to "Criticism" section. --papageno (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

ICNIRP Chairman response to 2012 BIR

Dr Dr Michael Repacholi the former leader of the World Health Organisation’s EMF project and Chairman Emeritus of the International Council for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)has commented on the 2012 BIR in a March 16 2013 guest blog: http://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/guest-blog-from-mike-repacholi/

His comments about the weight of evidence approach adopted by ICNIRP and its relevance to the BIR approach are signficant:

Weight of evidence

There is widespread misunderstanding about the “weight of evidence” approach when used for health risk assessments. Weight of evidence is NOT counting the number of positive and negative studies and then concluding there are more positive study results than negative, or vice versa. A true weight of evidence approach requires that each study, both positive and negative, be evaluated for quality, similar to what was used in the systematic review of head cancers from cell phone use (Repacholi et al 2012). Quality assessment criteria for all study types (See Repacholi et al 2011; online appendix) are well known and studies can be given more or less weight, where those studies that conducted experiments correctly according to these criteria are given more weight or believability in the outcome, than those deemed low quality. All “blue-ribbon” reviews use this approach. WHO has used this approach for over 50 years and it is a very well accepted, tried and true method for assessing health risks from any biological, chemical or physical agent.

ICNIRP

ICNIRP works closely with WHO since it is a formally recognised NGO of WHO for NIR. As part of this relationship ICNIRP uses exactly the same weight of evidence approach as WHO and other leading national public health authorities in the NIR field when conducting their literature reviews and assessing the scientific evidence on which to base their guidelines. If one assesses the quality of studies referenced in the BioInitiative report it becomes very obvious they almost all fit into the low quality category that have not been replicated. It is very apparent that the authors of the BioInitiative report do not quote leading public health authorities such as WHO or the HPA in their review because they only want to summarise any study that supports their opinion and omit studies that don’t. With this approach there is no basis for discussion between ICNIRP and the BioInitiative group. ICNIRP has to maintain high quality standards in their approach to EMF protection to keep its very high credibility with national and international authorities who use their guidelines and recommendations.

Coming from their Chairman this is ICNIRP's response to the many criticisms the BIR makes about its EMF exposure guildlines and perhaps it should be included as a separate section to highlight its significance and difference from health authority criticisms of the report?Hadolaven (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

There has been no response to including these comments. Because of their source they are significant. They also explain why the major heath authorities have a different opinion to the BIR and would add the the understanding of this topic. If there are no disagreements can I add these comments to the page? Hadolaven (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, must have missed this. Is there a concise summary of the comments that you might propose to include? --papageno (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest using the same heading as above to show ICNIRP have responded to the BIR and something like the following text.

Dr Dr Michael Repacholi the former leader of the World Health Organisation’s EMF project and Chairman Emeritus of the International Council for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) commented on the 2012 BIR in a March 16 2013 guest blog: http://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/guest-blog-from-mike-repacholi/

He explained the weight of evidence approach adopted by ICNIRP and how this differs from the BIR:

There is widespread misunderstanding about the “weight of evidence” approach when used for health risk assessments. Weight of evidence is NOT counting the number of positive and negative studies and then concluding there are more positive study results than negative, or vice versa. A true weight of evidence approach requires that each study, both positive and negative, be evaluated for quality…

Quality assessment criteria for all study types are well known and studies can be given more or less weight, where those studies that conducted experiments correctly according to these criteria are given more weight or believability in the outcome, than those deemed low quality…

If one assesses the quality of studies referenced in the BioInitiative report it becomes very obvious they almost all fit into the low quality category that have not been replicated. It is very apparent that the authors of the BioInitiative report do not quote leading public health authorities such as WHO or the HPA in their review because they only want to summarise any study that supports their opinion and omit studies that don’t.Hadolaven (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Date format edits reverted

I have reverted this good faith edit by User Ohconfucius. There is not reason to change dates in references from concise, numeric dates to something else, and all reference dates were consistently numeric dates in the format yyyy-mm-dd. See Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Dates. Also, the template {{Use dmy dates}} is not called for as all dates in the text coding (they may be displayed differently according to a user's date display preferences) are consistently in MMMM D, YYYY format, and I don't believe there is any cultural or other reason for adopting some different coding format. --papageno (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism

I reverted the changes made by an unregistered user which were blanket removals of major sections of the page. If you would like to make changes please discuss them here in the talk pages.Hadolaven (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Suspect reference

Hi, it is the first time I contribute to Wikipedia.

I noticed something suspect in this article, but as I am totally new, I don't dare to delete it, so I just begin by drawing attention on to it.

In the category "Criticism", there is a supposed review of the 2012 Bioinitiative report by the Indian Council of Medical Research. There is a quote, and a reference for a source of this quote.

But when you follow the link of this reference (number 11), you end up here : http://inbministry.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/study-on-radiation-from-mobile-towers.html

This website is not of the Indian Council of Medical Research, in fact I do not know what it is, it doesn't seem an official source.

I searched the Indian Council of Medical Research webiste (http://icmr.nic.in/), they have a good search engine, and I found nothing about Bioinitiative reports.

So I suggest the Indian Council of Medical Research quote be deleted.

Grive Rouge (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)Grive_Rouge

Thanks for joining Wikipedia. You are correct that there does not seem to be a direct source page at the Indian Council of Medical Research. However, the full quote being referenced is given at this link, which appears to be at an official Indian government ministry, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Further, the exact same text as given on the page was released as a press release by the Press Information Bureau of the Government of India on February 22, 2013. I think that is sufficient to keep the quotation. --papageno (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer.

You're right, this quote seems to be thorough, as you found it on the official Ministry of Information and Broadcasting website. So wouldn't it be better to reference the quote with the official MIB website (http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=92395) instead of this suspect website on blogspot ?

At the bottom of the http://inbministry.blogspot.com.au website it says that "This is the official Blog of Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India". But I went on the site map on the official MIB website (here http://www.mib.nic.in/sitemap.aspx) and I couldn't find any blog linked. And the website is ".au" instead of ".in" ...

--Grive Rouge (talk) 11:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the Blogger link is at the official MIB website. Click the Blogger icon near the bottom right. And the domain name is irrelevant: you could choose .ca (which I used after going to .in) or any other domain in which Blogger operates and get the same blog. The original poster probably was in Australia. I think we can keep the link. We could also add the press release link too. What do you think? --papageno (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done I have added a reference using the Press Information Bureau press release.--papageno (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with what you said and did. Thanks a lot. Grive Rouge (talk) 13:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Grive_Rouge

source needed

You might want to add a soucre for your quote in the 1st paragraph Ar ôl i'r amser fynd heibio (talk) 08:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

this is from the report itself. It's how the authors describe themselves. The quote is to highlight this because this is questionable. A more cynical view is they are activists. It's the first reference shown. Hadolaven (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)