The recent Bioelectromagnetics Supplement [BEMS, 2005], based on a symposium organized by theWorldHealth Organization (WHO),must have been approved by the BEMS Board, but was not in our Society’s best interest. The supplement was designed by WHO to promote the WHO electromagnetic fields (EMF) program, and it gave itself a good ‘report card’ in the introduction. We are not opposed to WHO doing that in its own publications, just not in ours. Here is a more realistic ‘report card’ on the Supplement and the EMF program of the WHO. The mix of papers in the Supplement included epidemiology, dosimetry, etc., but was deficient in bioelectromagnetics mechanisms. Having chosen our Journal, onewould have expected theWHO to come up with a reasonable paper on biological mechanisms. Can you imagine a review onmechanism of interaction with biological tissue [Challis, 2005] that does not include the latest studies on interaction of RF with DNA? A recurring theme of the symposiumwas the possibility of cancer, and cancer was clearly linked to DNA in the good review by Lightfoot [2005].Why not include ELF mechanisms, since cellphones include both ELF and RF, and both activate the same biological mechanisms [Blank and Goodman, 2004]? Why publish the symposium at all, if we could not review the quality of the papers and pick the referees to insure that the paperswouldmeetBEMSstandards?The disclaimer by the Editor at the beginning of the issue is meaningless! Publication of a paper with our imprimatur lends credibility to the WHO program, where a sincere interest in meaningful research into disease related mechanisms involving EMF is painfully absent. That last remark may appear unusually harsh, but how else can one describe the failure of the WHO symposium to mention the many research papers showing stimulation of DNA as in the stress response [e.g., Leszczinski et al., 2004], reports of DNA strand breaks [e.g., Lai and Singh, 2004; REFLEX Project Report, 2004], and the ‘Liburdy experiment’ [Liburdy, 2003] showing a loss of inhibition of breast cancer cell growth by melatonin/tamoxifen, all due to EMF and all replicated in many laboratories? The references given here cite many related papers. Another reason for this harsh judgment is the WHO policy regarding the Precautionary Principle. The Precautionary Principle defines a proactive policy for regulatory agencies when information about risk is inconclusive, but where there is a reasonable possibility that the public may be harmed if no action is taken. The 1992 Treaty on European Union favored the Precautionary Principle, and it has been invoked by Italy and Switzerland to regulate RF levels. Initially, the WHO EMF program appeared to support the idea, but then reversed its policy. Why? Opposing the Precautionary Principle is almost like opposing Motherhood. It is good old fashioned common sense, and its soundness is embodied in the conventional wisdom of many popular sayings:
Read full abstract