News feed for Graham Philips's Powerwatch Column http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/columns/topazg/index.asp http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/images/sidelogo.gif http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/columns/morgan/index.asp The SAGE II Science Forum has set out to investigate divergence of views in science, and a lot of ground has been covered on the principles on which science (and specifically EMF science) is assessed. The topics covered ranged from peer review and the nature of journals, through definitions of cellular studies, animal studies, and epidemiology, to biases, confounding factors, and the importance of replication. The overview was useful, and it covered the methods by which scientists carry out, publish, and assess science. However, it raised one particularly pertinent question that scientists really don't like to admit: Whilst the separation between risk assessment and risk management is well understood in principle, it is still unclear who exactly is primarily responsible for each, and how much crossover is implicitly necessary for both scientists and public policy makers. I cover the possible implications of this and offer a suggestion on how to mitigate some of the potential impact that this dilemma may have. http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/columns/topazg/20090519_risk_assessment_management.asp Graham Philips Who's responsible for EMF Risk Assessment and Risk Management 19/05/2009 12:34:56 With both Mike Repacholi (ex head of the WHO international EMF project and current chairman emeritus of ICNIRP) and Paolo Vecchia (current actual chairperson of ICNIRP) talking candidly about the assessment of science used to formulate guidelines, it became very clear that there was a serious gap in addressing areas of scientific uncertainty. For example, Paolo Vecchia explained that ICNIRP guidelines were set to provide protection against scientifically "established" effects, and established effects only. Associations between EMFs and health effects such as cancers are discussed in ICNIRP documentation, but until the association is considered causal no attempt will be made to adjust the guidelines to cater for them. http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/columns/topazg/20090306_icnirp_guidelines.asp Graham Philips ICNIRP and guidelines 06/03/2009 12:34:56 I have found that generally Wikipedia has an outstanding collection of information, with good principles on weight of evidence, citations of notable material, and a comprehensively thought out set of principles on how articles should be edited and maintained. For non-controversial issues, it can often be a reliable wealth of information, particularly on many areas of science and medicine. However, it really struggles to deal with areas of controversy in areas of science with relatively low degrees of public notability. http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/columns/topazg/20090130_wikipedian_methods.asp Graham Philips Wikipedian methodology and logic 30/01/2009 12:34:56