The Constructive Dismissal Approach:

In order to maintain the RF-Thermal View against the extremely strong evidence from epidemiology, animal experiments and of non-thermal mechanisms, the WHO and ICNIRP assessors and their colleagues have developed as set of dismissive methodologies. These include:

Maintaining that the RF-Thermal view as the "consensus of science". This allows the biological mechanism to dominate and epidemiology and animal evidence is dismissed.

Maintaining a contrast between Ionizing radiation and Non-ionizing radiation.

Moving the level of evidence goalpost where for a study to become "evidence" it must first be replicated, whereas in the past each study was evidence and to "establish" a biological effect replication was required.

Promoting strict sets of scientific criteria which are proposed as being necessary for reliable use of the results, e.g. the Bradford Hill "criteria", instead of "viewpoints", and Dr Martin Meltz's 13 experimental criteria for testing genotoxicity, Meltz (1995). In this way all non-thermal evidence is rejected.

Citing studies which are too small and have small follow-up periods so there is little or no opportunity for cancer to develop, as evidence that radar exposure does not cause cancer.

Citing studies which do show significant increases in cancer as showing no evidence of increases in cancer.

Preferring to simply quote the conclusions of papers and reports that state that there were no adverse effects found, while failing to recognize that the data and analysis within the documents do show significant associations, including significant dose-response relationships.

Dismissing epidemiological studies on the grounds that populations and exposures are not well defined. Lilienfeld explains that this is a difficulty but results are still relevant and important.

Dismissing research results one by one and failing to assemble and interpret the whole pattern of research results - the divide to conquer approach.

All of these are demonstrated methods used by WHO and ICNIRP which amounts to a systematic approach to wrongly dismiss evidence of effects, i.e. Constructive Dismissal.

The evidence of a leading WHO/ICNIRP member:

In the 1990's a major WHO review was published, WHO (1993). The latest ICNIRP Guideline assessment has been published in 1998, ICNIRP (1998). Both of these maintain the RF-Thermal View. A leading scientist, Dr Michael Repacholi, was involved as the technical editor of the WHO review and in chairing both the WHO review team and ICNIRP until April 1996. He is now is Chairman emeritus of ICNIRP.

Insights into his mind-set, which is reflected by WHO and ICNIRP, is seen in his evidence in a New Zealand cell site case in November 1995, the MacIntyre Case. In this case the local residents of the suburb of Ilam, in Christchurch, New Zealand, appealed a City Council decision to allow a cell site to be installed on the roof of an old suburban movie theatre in the middle of their community. The site would irradiate a number of local residences and the local kindergarten that was about 70 m from the site.

Dr Repacholi appeared in this case as an expert witness on behalf of BellSouth Ltd,. In sworn testimony contained in his evidence-in-chief he states: (Note that the emphasis on 'any' is Dr Repacholi's)

"To produce any adverse effect, RF exposure above a threshold level must occur. This threshold level is the RF exposure needed to increase tissue temperature by at least 1(C."

Safe exposure levels by Dr. Neil Cherry - Lincoln University - 25/4/2000

"Multiple exposures to sub-threshold levels of RF have not been found to have any adverse health impact."

"Exposure to RF fields has not been established to cause cancer."

"No accumulation of damage occurs to tissues from low level (sub-threshold) RF exposures".

"The science has also not found any evidence for adverse health effects from repeated exposures at levels below the threshold."

Dr Repacholi's evidence is fully consistent with the ICNIRP conclusions outlined above and were referenced by Dr Repacholi to the WHO/IRPA/UNEP review, WHO(1993). To back up Dr Repacholi's claim that the RF-Thermal position was the "consensus of science", Dr Repacholi referenced WHO (1993), for which he had a major responsibility.