Science, Politics, and Groupthink [Health Matters]

Abstract

Science, Politics, and Groupthink [Health Matters] James C. Lin. Science, Politics, and Groupthink [Health Matters]. IEEE Microwave Magazine. 22(5):24-26. Apr 1, 2021. DOI: 10.1109/MMM.2021.3056975. Abstract Discusses how the COVID-19 health pandemic worldwide was complicated by not only health and medical concerns, but the inclusion of politics, conspiracy theories, and social media. ieeexplore.ieee.org In his latest column Professor Emeritus Lin criticizes the ICNIRP, the non-profit organization which the WHO relies upon for non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) exposure guidelines that it promotes worldwide. As you may know, this column is important not only because Professor Lin is one of the most respected EMF scientists in the world, he is the first scientist who has served on the ICNIRP Commission (2004 - 2016; chair of the committee on Physics & Engineering, 2008-2012; chair of the Radio Frequency group, 2012-2015) to challenge the credibility of ICNIRP's EMF exposure guidelines. Excerpts "Recently, a privately constituted group, with self-appointed membership, published a set of guidelines for limiting exposure to RF electromagnetic fields in the 100-kHz and 300-GHz frequency range [7]. The proposed guidelines were primarily based on the tissue-heating potentials of RF radiation to elevate animal body temperatures to greater than 1° C. While recognizing that the two aforementioned studies used large numbers of animals, best laboratory practice, and animals exposed for the entirety of their lives, the private group preferred to quibble with alleged “chance differences” between treatment conditions and the fact that the measured animal body core temperature changes reached 1° C, implying that a 1° C body core temperature rise is carcinogenic, ignoring the RF exposure. The group then pronounced that, when considered either in isolation or within the context of other animal carcinogenicity research, these findings do not provide evidence that RF radiation is carcinogenic. Furthermore, the group noted that, even though many epidemiological studies of RF radiation associated with mobile phone use and cancer risk had been performed, studies on brain tumors, acoustic neuroma, meningioma, and parotid gland tumors had not provided evidence of an increased cancer risk. It suggested that, although somewhat elevated odds ratios were observed, inconsistencies and limitations, including recall or selection bias, precluded these results from being considered for setting exposure guidelines. The simultaneous penchant to dismiss and criticize positive results and the fondness for and eager acceptance of negative findings are palpable and concerning. In contrast, the IARC’s evaluation of the same epidemiological studies ended up officially classifying RF radiation as possibly carcinogenic to humans [2], [3]. An understandable question that comes to mind is this: How can there be such divergent evaluations and conclusions of the same scientific studies? Humans are not always rational or as transparent as advertised, and scientists are not impervious to conflicts of interest and can be driven by egocentric motivations. Humans frequently make choices and decisions that defy clear logic. Science has never been devoid of politics, believe it or not " "Cellular mobile communication and associated wireless technologies have proven, beyond any debate, their direct benefit to humans. However, as for the verdict on the health and safety of billions of people who are exposed to unnecessary levels of RF radiation over extended lengths of time or even over their lifetimes, the jury is still out. When confronted with such divergent assessments of science, the ALARA—as low as reasonably achievable—practice and principle should be followed for RF health and safety." [7] “ICNIRP guidelines for limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz),” Health Phys., vol. 118, no. 5, pp. 483–524, 2020.

AI evidence extraction

Main findings

This column discusses how politics and group dynamics can influence scientific and public discourse, using COVID-19 as context and critiquing how RF-EMF evidence is evaluated in exposure guidelines. It criticizes ICNIRP’s 2020 RF guidelines as emphasizing thermal effects and, in the author’s view, dismissing positive animal and epidemiological findings while accepting negative findings. The author contrasts this with IARC’s classification of RF radiation as possibly carcinogenic to humans and argues that precaution (ALARA) should be followed because long-term safety remains uncertain.

Outcomes measured

• Policy/guideline evaluation
• Cancer risk evidence interpretation
• Risk communication/precaution (ALARA)

Limitations

• Column/commentary rather than original empirical research
• No specific methods, inclusion criteria, or quantitative synthesis described in the provided text
• Relies on interpretation of other studies and guideline documents without detailed appraisal in the abstract/excerpts

Suggested hubs

• who-icnirp (0.95)
  Critiques ICNIRP guidelines and notes WHO reliance on ICNIRP for EMF exposure guidance.
• cell-phones (0.6)
  Discusses epidemiological evidence related to mobile phone use and cancer risk.

{
    "publication_year": 2021,
    "study_type": "other",
    "exposure": {
        "band": "RF",
        "source": null,
        "frequency_mhz": null,
        "sar_wkg": null,
        "duration": null
    },
    "population": null,
    "sample_size": null,
    "outcomes": [
        "Policy/guideline evaluation",
        "Cancer risk evidence interpretation",
        "Risk communication/precaution (ALARA)"
    ],
    "main_findings": "This column discusses how politics and group dynamics can influence scientific and public discourse, using COVID-19 as context and critiquing how RF-EMF evidence is evaluated in exposure guidelines. It criticizes ICNIRP’s 2020 RF guidelines as emphasizing thermal effects and, in the author’s view, dismissing positive animal and epidemiological findings while accepting negative findings. The author contrasts this with IARC’s classification of RF radiation as possibly carcinogenic to humans and argues that precaution (ALARA) should be followed because long-term safety remains uncertain.",
    "effect_direction": "mixed",
    "limitations": [
        "Column/commentary rather than original empirical research",
        "No specific methods, inclusion criteria, or quantitative synthesis described in the provided text",
        "Relies on interpretation of other studies and guideline documents without detailed appraisal in the abstract/excerpts"
    ],
    "evidence_strength": "low",
    "confidence": 0.7199999999999999733546474089962430298328399658203125,
    "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
    "stance": "concern",
    "stance_confidence": 0.7800000000000000266453525910037569701671600341796875,
    "summary": "This IEEE Microwave Magazine column argues that scientific assessments can be influenced by politics, conflicts of interest, and groupthink. It criticizes ICNIRP’s RF exposure guidelines as focusing on tissue heating and, according to the author, discounting positive animal and epidemiological findings while favoring negative results. The author notes IARC’s classification of RF radiation as possibly carcinogenic and recommends applying the ALARA precautionary principle given ongoing uncertainty about long-term exposures.",
    "key_points": [
        "The piece is a commentary/column discussing science, politics, and groupthink in health-related debates.",
        "It critiques ICNIRP’s 2020 RF-EMF exposure guidelines as primarily based on thermal (heating) considerations.",
        "The author describes large lifetime animal studies and argues their findings were dismissed by guideline authors on methodological grounds.",
        "It states that epidemiological studies on mobile phone use and several tumor types were judged by the guideline group as not showing increased risk due to limitations and biases.",
        "It contrasts ICNIRP’s conclusions with IARC’s classification of RF radiation as possibly carcinogenic to humans.",
        "The author recommends applying ALARA for RF exposures because the long-term safety verdict is described as unresolved."
    ],
    "categories": [
        "RF Exposure",
        "Health Policy & Guidelines",
        "Risk Communication"
    ],
    "tags": [
        "ICNIRP Guidelines",
        "WHO Reliance On ICNIRP",
        "IARC Classification",
        "RF Radiation",
        "Mobile Phones",
        "Cancer Risk",
        "Animal Carcinogenicity Studies",
        "Epidemiology",
        "Thermal Effects",
        "ALARA Principle",
        "Conflicts Of Interest",
        "Groupthink",
        "Science And Politics"
    ],
    "keywords": [
        "ICNIRP",
        "WHO",
        "IARC",
        "RF electromagnetic fields",
        "100 kHz to 300 GHz",
        "guidelines",
        "thermal effects",
        "carcinogenicity",
        "epidemiological studies",
        "mobile phone use",
        "ALARA",
        "groupthink"
    ],
    "suggested_hubs": [
        {
            "slug": "who-icnirp",
            "weight": 0.9499999999999999555910790149937383830547332763671875,
            "reason": "Critiques ICNIRP guidelines and notes WHO reliance on ICNIRP for EMF exposure guidance."
        },
        {
            "slug": "cell-phones",
            "weight": 0.59999999999999997779553950749686919152736663818359375,
            "reason": "Discusses epidemiological evidence related to mobile phone use and cancer risk."
        }
    ],
    "social": {
        "tweet": "IEEE Microwave Magazine column critiques ICNIRP’s RF-EMF exposure guidelines, arguing they emphasize thermal effects and may discount positive animal/epidemiology findings; contrasts with IARC’s “possibly carcinogenic” classification and calls for ALARA precaution.",
        "facebook": "A column in IEEE Microwave Magazine discusses how politics and groupthink can shape health debates and critiques ICNIRP’s RF-EMF exposure guidelines as focusing on heating effects while, in the author’s view, dismissing positive evidence. It contrasts this with IARC’s “possibly carcinogenic” classification and recommends ALARA precaution given uncertainty about long-term exposure.",
        "linkedin": "In an IEEE Microwave Magazine “Health Matters” column, James C. Lin critiques ICNIRP’s RF-EMF exposure guidelines and discusses how group dynamics and conflicts can influence scientific assessments. The piece contrasts ICNIRP’s interpretation of animal and epidemiological evidence with IARC’s “possibly carcinogenic” classification and argues for applying ALARA in RF safety."
    }
}

Comments

Log in to comment.

No comments yet.