Wireless-Protection.org

Author’s note:
On the website of the National Grid in Northeastern USA, it is mentioned under the
section, “Additional Information”: “If you decide to research EMF, it’s important to check the
credentials of those who provide or produce the information. For example, websites can be
developed by anyone regardless of training or experience and are sometimes created to promote
limited agendas or points of view.”
National Grid then lists a number of EMF websites that “were selected solely on the basis of
the scientific qualifications of the sponsoring organizations. These sites are sponsored by federal
agencies and professional organizations and provide information that reflects the work of many
experienced scientists.”
Included on their list of approved web sites are the locations for the International
Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the World Health
Organization’s International EMF Project, established and headed by Dr. Michael
Repacholi.
The following paper very much supports the National Grid’s call to check the
credentials of those who provide EMF information for limited agendas or points of
view.
Don Maisch
Reference: http://www.nationalgridus.com/non_html/shared_env_emfslink.pdf
1
Conflict of Interest and Bias in Health Advisory Committees:
A case study of the WHO’s EMF Task Group
Maisch Don,
JACNEM, Vol. 21 No. 1, pages 15-17, April 2006
Introduction
The potential problem of conflicts-of-interest biasing outcomes in papers submitted to
bio-medical journals, including papers published in journals by expert advisory bodies,
was an issue addressed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors in
November 3003. To quote from their “Uniform Requirements”:
"Conflict of interest exists when an author (or the author’s institution), reviewer, or editor has
financial or personal relationships that inappropriately influence (bias) his or her actions. . . The
potential for conflict of interest can exist whether or not an individual believes that the
relationship affects his or her scientific judgement. Financial relationships . . . are the most easily
identifiable conflicts of interest and the most likely to undermine the credibility of the journal,
the authors, and of science itself." (1)
This paper briefly examines this problem, using recent actions taken by the World
Health Organisation’s (WHO) International EMF Project and the International
Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).
In both organisations the case is presented that maintaining independence from
industry vested interests is essential for maintaining scientific objectivity and credibility
in giving expert advice on public health matters.
************
At the May 2001 Australian Senate Inquiry into Electromagnetic Radiation, Michael
Repacholi, head of the WHO’s International EMF Project, informed the Senate
Committee that the WHO had a firm policy against industry involvement in its
processes. To Quote:
“[T]he world health Organization does not allow industry to participate in either standard
setting or in health risk assessment. The WHO takes the view that there cannot be industry
representation on standard setting working groups. There cannot be someone on the working
group who is having an influence on health effects for an industry when they derive benefit
from that industry.”(2)
ICNIRP clearly states on its website that all commission members are independent
experts in their respective scientific disciplines and do not represent either their
countries or institutes and specifically they cannot be employed by industry. In order to
maintain this independence from industry or other vested interests it is stated:
2
“Members are reminded frequently of the need to declare any interests detrimental to
ICNIRP’s status as an independent advisory body. . . ICNIRP also does not accept funding
from industry.”(3)
So these requirements were established so that ICNIRP’s credibility of its advice and
guidelines cannot be said to be influenced or biased by industry vested interests. Dr.
Ken Joyner, from Motorola, stressed the independence of ICNIRP from industry at the
Australian Senate “Inquiry into Electromagnetic Radiation” in May 2001. Joyner stated:
“If you want to look at one standards body that has specifically excluded any industry
representatives, there is the ICNIRP body. You cannot be a member of the ICNIRP if you are
part of industry. They exclude you from that process.” (4)
The ICNIRP website also explains that the scientific reviews carried out by ICNIRP
members are combined with risk assessments done by WHO International EMF Project
working groups with the resultant being the publication of ICNIRP’s EMF exposure
guidelines. Therefore the claim that ICNIRP’s scientific advice is value-free from
industry influence must also include the same requirement for any WHO risk
assessment task group. That was what Repacholi stated to the Australian Senate
Committee in May 2001 (as quoted previously).
“There cannot be someone on the working group who is having an influence on health effects
for an industry when they derive benefit from that industry”.
The close working relationship between ICNIRP and the WHO’s EMF Task Group
evaluating power frequency research is seen in the make up of the membership of the
Task Group. Out of the 20 members from 17 countries (5), we have Paolo Vecchia, the
current ICNIRP Chairman, Anders Ahlbon, Larry Anderson, Rudiger Matthes as
members of ICNIRP’s main commission, with Ahlbon as also on ICNIRP’s Standing
Committee on Epidemiology. Other ICNIRP Standing Committee members include
Christoffer Johansen, Jukka Juutilainen, Alasdair McKinlay and Zhengping Xu. Eric van
Rongen is a consulting expert for ICNIRP. In addition, Michael Repacholi, head of the
WHO’s International EMF Project, is also Chairman Emeritis of ICNIRP. (6)
Including Repacholi, half of the official members of the WHO task group are also
members of ICNIRP, so it is obvious that there are no secrets between ICNIRP and the
Task Group.
Industry influence endemic in the decision making process
As reported by the New York based publication, Microwave News, on October 1, 2005,
the 20 member WHO Task Group writing a new Environmental Health Criteria (EHC)
document on power frequency EMFs included, at the request of Repacholi,
representatives from the electrical utilities, or organisations with close ties with the
industry. Their task was to both assist in writing the initial draft and review the
completed draft.(7) This is in clear conflict with what Repacholi stated in his testimony
in the May 2001 Australian Senate Inquiry hearings. To quote again: “There cannot be
someone on the working group who is having an influence on health effects for an industry when
they derive benefit from that industry.”
3
One of the central authors of the draft, and member of the EHC Task Group, Leeka
Kheifets, was a former WHO assistant to Michael Repacholi. She disclosed in Sept. 2005
in a letter (declaring any potential conflicts of interest) to the British Medical Journal
that she “works with the Electric Power Research Institute… and consults with utilities.”(8)
Other power industry representatives who assisted Kheifets on preparing the draft
were Gabor Mezei, from the EPRI, Jack Sahl from Southern California Edison, USA, and
Jack Swanson from the National Grid, UK. When Repacholi sent a draft of the EHC out
for review in early July 2005, the reviewers included representatives from the power
industry bodies: The Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan, Pacificorp
(USA), Hydro-Quebec (Canada), the Utility Health Sciences Group (USA) and Exponent
Inc, (USA). (9) The question of liability must have also been on the agenda, as Exponent
has described its business activities as follows:
“Exponent serves clients in automotive, aviation, chemical, construction, energy,
government, health, insurance, manufacturing, technology and other sectors of the economy.
Many of our engagements are initiated by lawyers or insurance companies, whose clients
anticipate, or are engaged in, litigation over an alleged failure of their products, equipment or
services.” (10)
In addition to WHO staff, the only other observers that Repacholi invited to the WHO
Task Group meeting in Geneva on 3 October to recommend exposure limits, were eight
representatives from the power industry. Members of the press were barred from
attending.(11) In addition the meeting was not publicised on either the WHO web site
meetings list or the Bioelectromagnetics Society Newsletter’s conference calendar and
very few members of the EMF scientific community, including important EMF
epidemiologists, were even aware of the meeting. (12) Only industry representatives
received invitations. Why were the epidemiologists who were directly involved in the
research that the WHO’s risk assessment task group would evaluate, not also invited as
observers and reviewers?
The Microwave News article points out that a number of independent researchers were
involved in the preparation and review of the draft, but it was “highly unusual, if not
unprecedented, for a WHO health document to be reviewed by so many with such
strong ties to the affected industry,” (13)
One example of an industry reviewer’s viewpoint, seeking to downplay potential health
hazards, is seen in the comments from Michel Plante, representing Hydro-Quebec:
“The whole section on cancer seems more like a desperate attempt to maintain some positive
statistical association from epidemiological studies alive than a factual and honest
presentation of arguments both, for and against, carcinogenicity.” (14)
Plante’s role as a protector of his employer’s interests in denying a cancer link with
EMFs was amply demonstrated in his involvement, as a Hydro-Quebec representative,
in suppressing potentially damaging cancer data in a 1994 Hydro-Quebec funded
epidemiological study By Dr. Gilles Theriault et al, from McGill University. The initial
analysis of the data collected from three electric utilities found that workers who had
the greatest exposures to magnetic fields had twelve times the expected rate of
astrocytomas, a type of brain tumour, based on a small number of cases. (15)
4
In a later re-analysis of the data (16), this time looking at high frequency transients
(HFT), the McGill University team found up to a 10-fold increased risk of developing
lung cancer amongst highly exposed utility workers, with a “very clear” exposureresponse
relationship. (17)
When Gilles Theriault’s McGill team wanted to further analyse the HFT data for other
associations, Hydro-Quebec, which funded the $3 million study, and therefore owned
the collected data, refused further access to the data. Plant said at the time that “We
have a contract problem that has to be resolved and there will be no new mandate until
it is solved.” Plante argued that by Theriault publishing the findings on HFT he had
violated the contract with the utilities. Many senior EMF researchers and
epidemiologists saw the HFT data as having important implications and needing
further analysis by other researchers. (18) As of October 2005 the Hydro-Quebec HFT
data has continued to be suppressed from any further analysis from the scientific
community – and Plante, as Hydro-Quebec’s man at the centre of that suppression, has
now been asked by Repacholi to review the WHO’s Environmental Health Criteria risk
assessment.
It is not known if Plante was asked at the meetings about the “positive statistical
association” seen in the Hydro-Quebec HFT data but he could have replied that it is not
important because it has not yet been replicated!
The Utility Health Sciences Group, another power industry group that Repacholi asked
to review the EHC draft document, plainly indicated that they considered increased
costs to industry should take precedence over health considerations when they
proposed a change in the chapter on protective measures that stated:
“It should also be pointed out that redirecting facilities or redesigning electrical systems may
be so expensive as to be inconsistent with the low-cost and no-cost steps typically viewed as
prudent avoidance.” (19)
The UHSG also proposed a statement be included in the summary”
“It would be useful for the summary to include a clear statement that the scientific research
does not establish ELF EMF as a cause or contributing factor in any disease or adverse health
effect, including cancer.” (20)
The Myth of not accept funding from industry
It is stated on the ICNIRP web site that in order to protect its status as an independent
advisory body, “ ICNIRP also does not accept funding from industry”.(21) When it comes to
the WHO’s International EMF Project, however, no such restrictions apply. As
Repacholi has stated, the “[EMF]Project can receive funding from any source through Royal
Adelaide Hospital; an agency established through WHO Legal Department agreement to collect
funds for the project.”(22) Questions of a conflict-of-interest and even money laundering
could be raised at this point when it was revealed by “Microwave News” that Repacholi,
as head of the EMF Project, receives $150,000 annually from the cellphone industry. (23)
However, Repacoli could rightfully still claim that he does not receive any direct
5
funding from industry sources since it is funneled through the Royal Adelaide Hospital.
This arrangement may be in violation of current WHO rule against employees and
consultants accepting any “gift or remumeration” from external sources “incompatible”
with their duties to WHO. (24)
A Claytons oversight committee?
According to a fact sheet “New Electromagnetic Fields Exposure Guidelines” published by
the European Commission in December 2005, an “International Advisory Committee”
(IAC) has been set up to provide oversight to the WHO’s International EMF Project.
This committee consists of representatives of international organisations, independent
scientific institutions and national governments who are supporting the Project. (25)
In this case IAC oversight should essentially operate much the same as Judicial
oversight where a judicial branch of the government watches or monitors what is going
on or happening in a case or matter. In the judicial arena it is a form of checks and
balances that operates to keep law officers from abusing their powers. (26) In the case of
the WHO’s EMF Project IAC oversight should operate to prevent WHO officials from
abusing their powers - and this should include preventing the possibility of bias
through conflict-of-interest. It would also be important for the IAC to maintain an
"arms-length" distance from the project activities that it is supposed to monitor.
The question then needs to be asked of the IAC: Why have they failed to intervene in
the case of blatant industry influence on the WHO’s EMF Task Group?
Forgotten lessons: Big Tobacco and
Protecting the Integrity of WHO Decision Making
In July 2000 the WHO Committee of Experts on Tobacco Industry Documents released a
260 page report documenting the tactics used by the tobacco industry’s strategies to
undermine the work of the WHO. (27) At the same time the WHO issued a 15 page
response document listing a detailed response to ensure that the WHO was never
undermined again. Just a few of the 58 recommendations were as follows (To quote):
#6. WHO should urge other UN organisations to investigate possible tobacco company
influences on their decisions and programs, and to report their findings publically.
# 7. WHO should advocate implementation and consistent enforcement of effective conflict of
interest and ethics policies throughout UN agencies.
#8. WHO should urge Member States to conduct their own investigations of possible tobacco
company influence on national decisions and policies, and to publish reports on their
findings.”
#11: Appoint an ombudsman or other independent offices, outside the standard lines of
reporting authority, with autonomy and clear authority for enforcing ethical rules.
6
#12. Disseminate conflict of interest rules more broadly.# 14. Introduce a formal process for
vetting prospective employees, consultants, advisers, and committee members, to identify
conflicts of interest.
# 19. Prohibit employees, consultants, advisers, and committee members from holding any
substantial financial affiliation with the tobacco industry, including any employee or
consulting relationship. . . “
#20. Disqualify any professional services from performing work on behalf of WHO if the firm
also provides a tobacco company with services likely to be adverse to the interest of public
health. . . “
#21. Prohibit employees, consultants, advisers and committee members from accepting any
item of value from a Tobacco company or its affiliates. . . “
# 35. WHO and IARC should take steps to educate their scientific investigators and
collaborators about tobacco company efforts to undermine research and the need for special
vigilance in protecting the integrity of tobacco-related research.”(28)
Although the above sampling of WHO recommendations were in response to Big
Tobacco’s attempts to undermine WHO integrity, its direct relevance to other large
industrial interests cannot be ignored, be it the power industry or Telecommunications.
Unfortunately it seems that in this case at least, WHO has forgotten the hard lessons
learnt with its previous experiences with Big Tobacco. In the case of WHO’s Task Group
writing the new Environmental Health Criteria (EHC) for power frequency EMFs, a
violation of the above recommendations urgently calls for an independent evaluation to
protect both public health and WHO’s public credibility.
In Conclusion
It is acknowledged that in an ever increasingly globalized world the reliance on
international organisations to set standards to protect public health is an irrefutable fact
of modern life. It is also a fact that international organizations charged with this task
need to be “eternally vigilant” to ensure that their organisations are not co-opted by
vested interests groups – as exampled by Big Tobacco and WHO.
However when it comes to non-ionizing radiation issues ( in this case for power
frequency health risk assessment) the evidence is clear that Michael Repacholi has used
his standing in both WHO and ICNIRP to stack the WHO’s Environmental Health
Criteria Task Group for power frequency exposures with representatives of the power
industry in contravention of WHO policy. This can only be to the detriment of the
group’s ability to evaluate the scientific literature in an unbiased way. This action can
only be construed as being aimed at ensuring that industry involvement in determining
the WHO Environmental Health Criteria will bias ICNIRP’s risk assessment for power
frequency exposure limits for years to come. This will conveniently provide economic
protection for the industry against the need to spend enormous sums of money on
upgrading distribution systems as well as risks of litigation. Such a blatant disregard for
the fundamental principles of credible science as well as WHO’s mission on protecting
7
world health speaks of a desperation to bury independent science at all costs, even if
that cost is at the integrity of WHO.
References
1) Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and
Editing for Biomedical Publication, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors,
http://wwwicmje.org/index.html#peer, page 8, November 2003
2) Inquiry into Electromagnetic Radiation, Report of the Senate Environment,
Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee, Section
4.115, page 151, May 2001
3) http://www.icnirp.de/what.htm Accessed August 22, 2005.
4) Inquiry into Electromagnetic Radiation, (as above), Section 4.68, page 137, May 2001
5) As listed in Microwave News, WHO Welcomes Electric Utility Industry To Key EMF
Meeting, Bars the Press, Sept. 22, 2005
http://www.microwavenews.com/fromthefield.html#partners Accessed October 10,
2005.
6) As listed on the ICNIRP website: http://www.icnirp.de Accessed October 12, 2005.
7) Microwave News, From the Field, WHO and Electric Utilities: A Partnership on
EMFs, October 1, 2005.
http://www.microwavenews.com/fromthefield.html#partners Accessed October 10,
2005.
8) Letters, Childhood cancer and power lines, British Medical Journal, Vol. 331, pp. 634-
638, Sept.17, 2005.
9) Microwave News, WHO and Electric Utilities… (as above).
10) Bohme, SR, et al, Maximizing Profit and Endangering Health: Corporate Strategies
to Aviod Litigation and Regulation, Int J Occup Environ Health, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp.338-
348, Oct/Dec 2005.
11) Microwave News, WHO Welcomes Electric Utility Industry To Key EMF Meeting,
Bars the Press, Sept. 22, 2005
http://www.microwavenews.com/fromthefield.html#partners Accessed October 10,
2005.
12) ibid.
13) ibid.
14) ibid.
8
15)Theriault G, et al, “Cancer Risks Associated with Occupational Exposure to magnetic
Fields Among Electric Utility Workers in Ontario and Quebec, Canada, and France:
1970-1989, American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 139, pp. 550-572, 1994.
16) Armstrong B et al, “Association Between Exposure to Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields
and Cancer in Electric Utility Workers in Quebec, Canada, and France”, American
Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 140, pp. 805-820, 1994.
17) Microwave News, “Transients and Lung Cancer: A “Strong” Association and a
“Remarkable” Exposure-Response”, Vol. XIV, No. 6, Nov/Dec 1994.
18) ibid
19) Microwave News, WHO and Electric Utilities… (as above)
20) ibid.
21) http://www.icnirp.de/what.htm (as above)
22) Welcoming speech by Michael Repacholi, 9th International Advisory Committee
(IAC) meeting, Istanbul Turkey, June 7, 2004.
23) Communication with Louis Slesin, editor of Microwave News, November 21, 2005.
Also see: http://www.microwavenews.com/fromthefield.html#whoottawa
24) “Response of WHO to the Report of the Committee of Experts on Tobacco Industry
Documents”, WHO, June 10, 2000.
25) Science for Environment Policy, New Electromagnetic Fields Exposure Guidelines,
European Commission DG ENV, News Alert Issue 3, December 2005.
26) Wikipedia definition, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_oversight, Accessed February
25, 2006.
27) Tobacco Company Strategies to Undermine Tobacco Control Activities at the World
Health Organization, Report of the Committee of Experts on Tobacco Industry
Documents, July 2000.
28) Response of WHO to the Report of the Committee of Experts on Tobacco Industry
Documents, WHO document, June 10, 2000.