the nationIn een artikel van wordt een historisch overzicht gegeven van de manipulatie van wetenschappelijke onderzoeken door de telecomindustrie

"How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation"


[April 2018]

In dit zeer uitgebreide verslag worden vele ontwikkelingen besproken die laten zien dat vooral het belang van de telecomindustrie voorop wordt gesteld ten koste van de mogelijke effecten op de volksgezondheid.

Hieronder is een kort verslag gemaakt van dit artikel van The Nation:

the nationHow Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation

** Remarkably, cell phones had been allowed onto the US consumer market a decade earlier without any government safety testing.

** Now, some customers and industry workers were being diagnosed with cancer. In January 1993, David Reynard sued the NEC America Company, claiming that his wife’s NEC phone caused her lethal brain tumor. After Reynard appeared on national TV, the story went viral. A congressional subcommittee announced an investigation; investors began dumping their cell-phone stocks; and Wheeler and the CTIA swung into action.

** A week later, Wheeler announced that his industry would pay for a comprehensive research program.

** In 1995, Carlo began directing the industry-financed Wireless Technology Research project (WTR), whose eventual budget of $28.5 million made it the best-funded investigation of cell-phone safety to date.

** ..the WTR’s findings, which Carlo presented to wireless-industry leaders on February 9, 1999. By that date, the WTR had commissioned more than 50 original studies and reviewed many more. Those studies raised “serious questions” about cell-phone safety, Carlo told a closed-door meeting of the CTIA’s board of directors, whose members included the CEOs or top officials of the industry’s 32 leading companies, including Apple, AT&T, and Motorola.

** Carlo urged the CEOs to do the right thing: give consumers “the information they need to make an informed judgment about how much of this unknown risk they wish to assume,” especially since some in the industry had “repeatedly and falsely claimed that wireless phones are safe for all consumers including children.”

** The very next day, a livid Tom Wheeler began publicly trashing Carlo to the media. In a letter he shared with the CEOs, Wheeler told Carlo that the CTIA was “certain that you have never provided CTIA with the studies you mention”—an apparent effort to shield the industry from liability in the lawsuits that had led to Carlo’s hiring in the first place. Wheeler charged further that the studies had not been published in peer-reviewed journals, casting doubt on their validity.

** In the years to come, the WTR’s cautionary findings would be replicated by numerous other scientists in the United States and around the world, leading the World Health Organization in 2011 to classify cell-phone radiation as a “possible” human carcinogen and the governments of Great Britain, France, and Israel to issue strong warnings on cell-phone use by children

** Carlo told The Nation, that “they would do what they had to do to protect their industry, but they were not of a mind to protect consumers or public health.”

** This Nation investigation reveals that the wireless industry not only made the same moral choices that the tobacco and fossil-fuel industries did; it also borrowed from the same public-relations playbook those industries pioneered. The playbook’s key insight is that an industry doesn’t have to win the scientific argument about safety; it only has to keep the argument going. That amounts to a win for the industry, because the apparent lack of certainty helps to reassure customers, even as it fends off government regulations and lawsuits that might pinch profits.

** Central to keeping the scientific argument going is making it appear that not all scientists agree. Again like the tobacco and fossil-fuel industries, the wireless industry has “war gamed” science, as a Motorola internal memo in 1994 phrased it. War-gaming science involves playing offense as well as defense: funding studies friendly to the industry while attacking studies that raise questions; placing industry-friendly experts on advisory bodies like the World Health Organization; and seeking to discredit scientists whose views depart from the industry’s.

De eerste aanwijzingen van mogelijke gezondheidseffecten waren dus al in de jaren 90 van de vorige eeuw bij de telecomindustrie bekend.
De telecomindustrie heeft bij het bekend worden hiervan gekozen om wetenschappelijk onderzoeken te gaan manipuleren. Met als doel om de consument gerust te stellen omdat er: niet voldoende bewijs is van schadelijke effecten.

Het programma 20/20 heeft hier eind jaren 90 de volgende reportage over gemaakt</strong>:<br />"" target="_self">