Conflicts of Interest and Misleading Statements in Official Reports about the Health Consequences of Radiofrequency Radiation and Some New Measurements of Exposure Levels
2. Conflict of Interest: A History
“A conflict of interest exists when professional judgment concerning a primary interest (such as patients’ welfare or the validity of research) may be influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain).… Financial relationships (such as employment, consultancies, stock ownership or options, honoraria, patents and paid expert testimony) are the most easily identifiable conflicts of interest and the most likely to undermine the credibility of the journal, the authors and science itself…. Purposeful failure to disclose conflicts of interest is a form of misconduct.”
- Creation of an air of uncertainty about the science: Given that biological organisms are formidably complex and that science by its nature rarely involves complete certainty, this should perhaps not have proved too difficult. But just to make sure, a concerted campaign of disinformation was launched anyway. Basically, whenever a piece of science inimical to industry or Air Force interests appeared, contractors were hired to discredit it by apparently repeating the experiments, but actually changing critical factors to produce more funder-friendly results. Frey  describes one such attempt as follows:“After my colleagues and I published in 1975 , that exposure to very weak microwave radiation opens the regulatory interface known as the blood brain barrier (BBB), a critical protection for the brain, the Brooks AFB group selected a contractor to supposedly replicate our experiment. For 2 years, this contractor presented data at scientific conferences stating that microwave radiation had no effect on the BBB. After much pressure from the scientific community, he finally revealed that he had not, in fact, replicated our work. We had injected dye into the femoral vein of lab rats after exposure to microwaves and observed the dye in the brain within 5 min. The Brooks contractor had stuck a needle into the animals’ bellies and sprayed the dye onto their intestines. Thus it is no surprise that when he looked at the brain 5 min later, he did not see any dye; the dye had yet to make it into the circulatory system.”The continuing nature of such campaigns is suggested by Maisch , who writes:“A survey conducted by the New York based publication Microwave News in 2006 consisted of examining papers on microwave effects on DNA that were published in peer-reviewed journals since 1990. A total of 85 papers on the topic were identified. 43 of the papers reported finding a biological effect and 42 did not. Of the 42 no-effect papers, 32 were identified as having been funded by either the U.S. Air Force or industry. With the 43 papers that reported effects, only 3 were identified as being funded by Air Force or industry. This survey thus suggests that the source of funding has a strong influence on the outcome of research”.
- Adoption of an algebraic model of evidence assessment: Once approximately equal numbers of papers had been installed in the scientific literature concluding that sub-thermal levels of microwaves on the one hand do, but on the other hand do not, have harmful biological effects, the narrative was promulgated in official circles that “weight of evidence” is the important thing to consider in such matters. The implicit model behind this narrative involves an unstated presumption that each negative study (i.e., each study that does not find any effect of low intensity microwaves) cancels out one positive study (i.e., one study that does find an effect of low intensity microwaves); with an algebraic sum of zero indicating no effect . Any inconvenient remainder is then dealt with by impugning the validity and/or the significance of particularly convincing postive studies: as, for example, in Section 4.2 and Appendix A of the NZ Government Interagency Report 2018 .
- Population of regulatory bodies by industry insiders: The above strategies certainly served to convince time-strapped politicians that all is fine, but to an unbiased scientist, they appear decidedly dicey. Thus, the most vital of all the strategies implemented by Big Wireless has been the appointment to regulatory roles of people who are, or used to be, members of the industries they are now charged with regulating. Arguably the most important regulatory body in the world is ICNIRP, whose 1998 Guidelines document is still the basis of the national standards adopted by the governments of most English-speaking nations. ICNIRP is a self-selected, private (non-governmental) organization, populated exclusively by members invited by existing members. The organization is very concerned to project the image that it is composed of disinterested scientists—indeed all ICNIRP members are required to post on the organization’s website detailed declarations of interest (DOIs). However, a closer inspection of these DOIs reveals that a good many of the sections of a good many of the forms remain unfilled, and a detailed list of undeclared conflicts of interest among ICNIRP members has been published by a group of concerned citizens . The relevant section of WHO is essentially identical to ICNIRP : Michael Repacholi, the founder of ICNIRP, established the WHO International EMF Project (IEMFP) in 1996 and remained in charge of it until 2006 , when he reportedly resigned after allegations of corruption  to officially become an industry consultant . In 2004, Repacholi stated in a conference presentation that the IEMFP was able to “receive funding from any source through Royal Adelaide Hospital; an agency established through WHO Legal Department agreement to collect funds for the project”—an arrangement that reportedly enabled receipt of annual payments of $150,000 from the cellphone industry [3,14]. Thus, in spite of their stated rules and protestations to the contrary, there have been persistent allegations that both ICNIRP and the relevant section of WHO are riddled with undeclared conflicts of interest. In the USA, the Federal Communications Commission, whose function it is to regulate the wireless industry in that country, has been openly characterized by the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University as “a captured agency” .
3. Misleading Statements in the New Zealand Government’s Interagency Committee on the Health Effects of Non-Ionizing Fields Report to Ministers 2018
3.1. Misleading Statement One (p. 2)
“Animal studies do not suggest an effect of RF fields on cancer.”
3.2. Misleading Statement Two (p. 2)
“RF research is continuing in a number of areas, but data currently available provides no clear and persuasive evidence of any other effects.”
- Psychiatric problems, including depression: For a review of a large number of peer-reviewed studies in this area, see . Because inexplicable mental health issues among the young are an increasing problem in New Zealand, this must be seen as a rather important “other effect” of RF radiation.
- Diabetes: Wi-Fi irradiation of young rats causes damage to the pancreas and reduced insulin secretion [31,32] and is thus the standard method of producing an animal model of diabetes. Epidemiological evidence  shows statistically significant increases in pre-diabetic blood markers in human children attending a school near a cell tower, as compared with an otherwise identical group of children whose school is further from a cell tower. These findings suggest that (a) cell towers should not be built near schools and (b) Wi-Fi in schools should be replaced with cabled internet connections, accessed by multiple jack points for convenience.
- Breakdown of the blood–brain barrier (BBB): Double-blind studies done as long ago as 1975 showed that RF causes abnormal leakage of fluorescein dye from the blood of rats into their brain tissue , and disingenuous attempts to discredit that finding constituted the first documented dirty tricks campaign in the area . Honest attempts to replicate the 1975 experiments proved hard to interpret, until it was realized that a counterintuitive, inverted-U-shaped dose–response curve held—at which point it became clear that the parameters involved in mobile phone use are particularly effective in disrupting the BBB . Because disruption of the BBB is a known contributor to the onset and development of Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia [34,35], at least two public health conclusions might reasonably be drawn from these findings. First, it would be prudent to advise the increasing population of elderly citizens to avoid cell phones, smart meters, and Wi-Fi. But perhaps more importantly, chronic exposure of the young to RF now starts in the womb and continues throughout babyhood (wireless baby monitors), childhood (wrist-worn child locators), and adolescence (smart phones, Wi-Fi). Because the biological effects of RF are known to be cumulative, urgent steps should be taken to reduce the exposure of babies, children, and teenagers to radiofrequency radiation, to avoid an epidemic of early-onset dementia starting in middle age.
- Death of hippocampal neurons: The neurophysiological mechanisms of memory are presently ill-understood, but one thing that is known for sure is that a properly functioning hippocampus is essential for the laying down of new memories. Hence the demonstrated loss of hippocampal neurons in teenaged rats exposed to RF  reinforces the warning at the end of the preceding subsection.
- Reproductive damage: A review of multiple studies on the effects of cell phone radiation on male reproduction  reveals that exposure to RF (a) increases oxidative stress and decreases sperm count and motility in rodents; (b) increases oxidative stress, decreases motility, and causes morphometric abnormalities of human spermatozoa in vitro; and (c) does not affect morphology but does cause decreased concentration, motility, and viability of sperm in men using mobile phones, with these abnormalities being directly related to duration of phone use. Fewer studies have been done on female reproduction, but cell phone radiation is reported also to affect the reproduction of female mice by multiple mechanisms .
- Oxidative stress: Oxidative stress  is a condition arising when free radicals (atoms or molecules that have developed unpaired electrons, which make the molecule unstable and highly reactive), outnumber antioxidants (compounds that neutralize free radicals by donating electrons to them). An excess of free radicals, also known as oxidative stress, is implicated in virtually all of the degenerative diseases afflicting humankind: atherosclerosis, heart disease, cancer, inflammatory joint disease, asthma, diabetes, dementia, and degenerative eye disease to name some of them. Oxidative stress also lowers immune function, which impacts the development of infectious diseases. Because low-intensity radiofrequency radiation is now an accepted cause of oxidative stress (for a review of multiple individual studies showing this see ), at least some role in the development of all of the above health problems might reasonably be attributed to the radiofrequency radiation in which virtually everyone on Earth is now bathed on a daily basis.
3.3. Misleading Statement Three (p. 53)
“The ICNIRP limits used in the [New Zealand] standard are based on a review of all relevant research on health effects, regardless of the mechanisms that might be involved. ICNIRP and other expert panels that have reviewed the data find that the only effects that show up with any clarity are consistent with the effects of heat stress and occur at exposure levels at which absorption of RF energy in the body (as heat) exceeds the body’s ability to dissipate that heat”.
3.4. Misleading Statement Four (p.39)
“While there is sometimes public concern over the presence of industry representatives on the Committee, in practice they have never attempted to influence the Committee’s conclusions on the health effects research and generally see the Committee as a means for them to stay abreast of recent developments. In addition, they are able to bring to the Committee’s attention forthcoming developments in their industries that may have policy implications for our Government.”
“Martin Gledhill spoke to his paper on 5G deployment and highlighted the need to ensure that reliable information about the deployment of 5G infrastructure, effects on exposures to RF fields and health be available ahead of time. Peter Berry [representative of the Electricity Engineers’ Association] commented that government and the industry need to work together on this. The Ministry of Health is seen as a credible source of information and should prepare information on health and have this on its website. If the issue develops then ways to communicate more proactively could be investigated.”
4. Some Hard Numbers: Preliminary Results on Ambient RF Power Densities in Auckland
5. Which is Worse: Sharp Spikes of RF or Continued Low Level Exposure?
- It is time to stop believing ICNIRP spin. Tissue heating is not the only biological effect of radiofrequency radiation. The thermal-only exposure limit is not safe.
- Like tobacco smoke, low intensity radiofrequency radiation has multiple harmful effects on human health. Unlike secondhand smoke, secondhand radiation is fast becoming inescapable. The present situation is thus worse than Big Tobacco redux.
- Elected politicians should stop accepting biased reports from individuals with blatant conflicts of interest and start taking seriously the health and safety of their constituents; or at least of their own children and grandchildren.
- The unchecked expansion of Big Wireless permitted by ICNIRP’s thermal-only guidelines is actively harmful to all biological inhabitants of planet Earth. Further expansion to 5G technology will inevitably involve yet more radiation exposure. The fact that this exposure will not breach the ludicrously high ICNIRP-based standard is no defense at all.
Conflicts of Interest
- New Zealand Ministry of Health. Interagency Committee on the Health Effects of Non-Ionising Fields: Report to Ministers. 2018. Available online: https://www.health.govt.nz/publication/interagency-committee-health-effects-non-ionising-fields-report-ministers-2018 (accessed on 29 April 2019).
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. Available online: http://www.icmje.org/about-icmje/faqs/icmje-recommendations/ (accessed on 29 April 2019).
- Maisch, D.R. The Procrustean Approach: Setting Exposure Standards for Telecommunications Frequency Electromagnetic Radiation: An Examination of the Manipulation of Telecommunications Standards by Political, Military and Industrial Vested Interests at the Expense of Public Health Protection. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Becker, R.O.; Seldon, G. The Body Electric; Morrow: New York, NY, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Marino, A.; Ray, J. The Electric Wilderness; San Francisco Press Inc.: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
- Frey, A. Opinion: Cell phone health risk? The Scientist. 2012. Available online: https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/opinion-cell-phone-health-risk-40449 (accessed on 29 April 2019).
- Bakan, J. The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power; Simon and Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Frey, A.H.; Feld, S.R.; Frey, B. Neural function and behavior: Defining the relationship. Ann. New York Acad. Sci. 1975, 247, 433–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pockett, S. Public health and the radio frequency radiation emitted by cellphone technology, smart meters and wifi. N. Z. Med. J. 2018, 131, 96–106. [Google Scholar]
- AVAATE. 2015. Available online: http://www.avaate.org/IMG/pdf/escrito_web_icnirp_ingles_final.pdf (accessed on 29 April 2019).
- Hardell, L. World Heath Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health—A hard nut to crack (review). Int. J. Oncol. 2017, 51, 405–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adlkofer, F. How the Mobile Communication Industry Deals with Science as Illustrated by ICNIRP versus NTP; Pandora Foundation for Independent Research. 2018. Available online: https://stiftung-pandora.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Pandora_Adlkofer_Dealing-with-NTP-Nancy-Draft_181026_en.pdf (accessed on 29 April 2019).
- Slesin, L. It’s Official: Mike Repacholi Is an Industry Consultant and He’s Already in Hot Water. In Microwave News. 2006. Available online: https://microwavenews.com/CT.html (accessed on 29 April 2019).
- Slesin, L. WHO watch: Mike Repacholi and the EMF charade. Microwave News, 2005; XXV. [Google Scholar]
- Alster, N. Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission is Dominated by the Industries It Presumably Regulates; Harvard University: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Mortazavi, S.M.J. Comments regarding: “Occupational exposure to high-frequency electromagnetic fields and brain tumor risk in the INTEROCC study: An individualized assessment approach”. Environ. Int. 2018, 121, 1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mortazavi, S.M.J.; Mortazavi, S.A.R.; Haghani, M. Evaluation of the validity of a nonlinear J-shaped dose-response relationship in cancers induced by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. J. Biomed. Phys. Eng. 2018, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vila, J.; Turner, M.C.; Gracia-Lavedan, E.; Figuerola, J.; Bowman, J.D.; Kincl, L.; Richardson, L.; Benke, G.; Hours, M.; Krewski, D.; et al. Occupational exposure to high-frequency electromagnetic fields and brain tumor risk in the INTEROCC study: An individualized assessment approach. Environ. Int. 2018, 119, 353–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vila, J.; Turner, M.C.; Gracia-Lavedan, E.; Figuerola, J.; Bowman, J.D.; Kincl, L.; Richardson, L.; Benke, G.; Hours, M.; Krewski, D.; et al. Authors’ response to the comments from S.M.J. Mortazavi regarding: "occupational exposure to high-frequency electromagnetic fields and brain tumor risk in the INTEROCC study: An individualized assessment approach”. Environ. Int. 2018, 121, 1025–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- National Toxicology Program. Peer Review of the Draft NTP Technical Reports on Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation; National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Research Triangle Park, NC 2018. Available online: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/trpanel/2018/march/peerreview20180328_508.pdf (accessed on 29 April 2019).
- ICNIRP. ICNIRP note on recent animal carcinogenesis studies. Available online: https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPnote2018.pdf (accessed on 29 April 2019).
- Melnik, R.L. Commentary on the utility of the National Toxicology Program study on cell phone radiofrequency radiation data for assessing human health risks despite unfounded criticisms aimed at minimizing the findings of adverse health effects. Environ. Res. 2019, 168, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Falcioni, L.; Bua, L.; Tibaldi, E.; Laurioloa, M.; De Angelis, L.; Gnudi, F.; Mandrioli, D.; Manservigi, M.; Manservisi, F.; Manzoli, I.; et al. Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental emission. Environ. Res. 2018, 165, 496–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lerchl, A.; Klose, M.; Grote, K.; Wilhelm, A.F.X.; Spathmann, O.; Fiedler, T.; Steckert, J.; Hansen, V.; Clemens, M. Tumour promotion by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields below exposure limits for humans. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2015, 459, 585–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nittby, H.; Brun, A.; Eberhardt, J.; Malmgren, L.; Persson, B.R.R.; Salford, L.G. Increased blood-brain barrier permeability in mammalian brain 7 days after exposure to the radiation from a GSM-900 mobile phone. Pathophysiology 2009, 16, 103–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nesslany, F.; Aurengo, A.; Bonnet-Belfais, M.; Lambrozo, J. Comment on Lerchl study: “Tumor promotion in mice by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields still waiting evidence”. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2015, 467, 101–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- IARC Working Group. Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields. IARC Monogr. Eval. Carcinog. Risks Hum. 2013, 102, 1–460. [Google Scholar]
- Hardell, L.; Carlberg, M. Comments on the US National Toxicology Program technical reports on toxicology and carcinogenesis study in rats exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 900 MHz and in mice exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 1,900 MHz. Int. J. Oncol. 2019, 54, 111–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Miller, A.B.; Morgan, L.L.; Udasin, I.; Davis, D.L. Cancer epidemiology update, following the 2011 IARC evaluation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (Monograph 102). Environ. Res. 2018, 167, 673–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pall, M.L. Microwave frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produce widespread psychiatric effects including depression. J. Chem. Neuroanat. 2016, 75, 43–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masoumi, A.; Karbalaei, N.; Mortazavi, S.M.J.; Shabani, M. Radiofrequency radiation emitted from Wi-Fi (2.4 GHz) causes impaired insulin secretion and increased oxidative stress in rat pancreatic islets. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 2018, 94, 850–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Topsakal, S.; Ozmen, O.; Cicek, E.; Comlekci, S. The ameliorative effect of gallic acid on pancreas lesions induced by 2.45 GHz electromagnetic radiation (Wi-Fi) in young rats. J. Radiat. Res. Appl. Sci. 2017, 10, 233–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meo, S.A.; Alsubaie, Y.; Almubarak, Z.; Almutawa, H.; AlQasem, Y.; Hasanato, R.M. Association of exposure to radio-frequency electromagnetic field radiation (RF-EMFR) generated by mobile phone base stations with glycated hemoglobin (HBALC) and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 14519–14528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nelson, A.R.; Sweeney, M.D.; Sagare, A.P.; Zlokovic, B.V. Neurovascular dysfunction and neurodegeneration in dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. Biochim. et Biophys. Acta 2016, 1862, 887–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zenaro, E.; Piacentino, G.; Constantin, G. The blood-brain barrier in Alzheimer’s disease. Neurobiol. Dis. 2017, 107, 41–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bas, O.; Odaci, E.; Kaplan, S.; Acer, N.; Ucok, K.; Colakoglu, S. 900 MHz electromagnetic field exposure affects qualitative and quantitative features of hippocampal pyramidal cells in the adult female rat. Brain Res. 2009, 1265, 178–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- La Vignera, S.; Condorelli, R.A.; Vicari, E.; D’Agnata, R.; Calogero, A.E. Effects of the exposure to mobile phones on male reproduction: A review of the literature. J. Androl. 2012, 33, 350–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shahin, S.; Singh, S.P.; Chaturvedi, C.M. Mobile phone (1800 MHz) radiation impairs female reproduction in mice, Mus musculus, through stress induced inhibition of ovarian and uterine activity. Reprod. Toxicol. 2017, 73, 41–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alkadi, H. A review on free radicals and antioxidants. Infect. Disord. Drug Targets 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dasdag, S.; Akdag, M.Z. The link between radiofrequencies emitted from wireless technologies and oxidative stress. J. Chem. Neuroanat. 2016, 75, 85–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, K.M.; Samuel, A.; Hoopingarner, R. Chromosomal aberrations of living cells induced by microwave radiation. Environ. Lett. 1974, 6, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Belpomme, D.; Hardell, L.; Belyaev, I.; Burgio, E.; Carpenter, D.O. Thermal and nonthermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An international perspective. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 242, 643–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sagan, C. The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark; Random House Publishing Group: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Moskowitz, J.M. The ICNIRP Cartel and the 5G Mass Experiment. Available online: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qNcaWa85khAk9YO9Z2J3nAFmVw9eMTHw/view (accessed on 29 April 2019).
- EMFscientist.org. International EMF Scientist Appeal. Available online: https://www.emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal (accessed on 29 April 2019).
- Sagar, S.; Adem, S.M.; Struchen, B.; Loughran, S.P.; Brunjes, M.E.; Arangua, L.; Dalvie, M.A.; Croft, R.J.; Jerrett, M.; Moskowitz, J.M.; et al. Comparison of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure levels in different everyday microenvironments in an international context. Environ. Int. 2018, 114, 297–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Redmayne, M. International policy and advisory response regarding children’s exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). Electromagn. Biol. Med. 2016, 35, 176–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burlaka, A.; Tsybulin, O.; Sidorik, E.; Lukin, S.; Polishuk, V.; Tsehmistrenko, S.; Yakymenko, I.; Kavetsky, R.E. Overproduction of free radical species in embryonal cells exposed to low intensity radiofrequency radiation. Exp. Oncol. 2013, 35, 219–225. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Dasdag, S.; Akdag, M.Z.; Kizil, M.; Cakir, D.U.; Yokus, B. Effect of 900 MHz radio frequency radiation on beta amyloid protein, protein carbonyl and malondialdehyde in the brain. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 2012, 31, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
© 2019 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Pockett, S. Conflicts of Interest and Misleading Statements in Official Reports about the Health Consequences of Radiofrequency Radiation and Some New Measurements of Exposure Levels. Magnetochemistry 2019, 5, 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/magnetochemistry5020031
Pockett S. Conflicts of Interest and Misleading Statements in Official Reports about the Health Consequences of Radiofrequency Radiation and Some New Measurements of Exposure Levels. Magnetochemistry. 2019; 5(2):31. https://doi.org/10.3390/magnetochemistry5020031Chicago/Turabian Style
Pockett, Susan. 2019. "Conflicts of Interest and Misleading Statements in Official Reports about the Health Consequences of Radiofrequency Radiation and Some New Measurements of Exposure Levels" Magnetochemistry 5, no. 2: 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/magnetochemistry5020031