The BioInitiative Report

Much of the scientific evidence that underpins the anti-wifi groups comes from The BioInitiaitve Report, a self-published, non peer reviewed report first published online in 2007 and re-released in 2012.

The BioInitiative Report has been widely criticized.

The Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR) is a technical committee of the Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBS) of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). Its primary area of interest is biological effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation, including radio-frequency (RF) energy. The international standards body reviewed (PDF) the Bioinitiative Report and concluded:

COMAR concludes that the weight of scientific evidence in the RF bioeffects literature does not support the safety limits recommended by the BioInitiative group. For this reason, COMAR recommends that public health officials continue to base their policies on RF safety limits recommended by established and sanctioned international organizations such as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, which is formally related to the World Health Organization.

In 2010, Luc Verschaeve. member of the Scientific Institute of Public Health in Belgium and member of the Department of Biomedical Sciences at the University of Antwerp, Belgium conducted a meta-analysis of  33 expert groups that have issued positions on the safety of radio-frequency and non-iodizing radiation. The results of the analysis showed that, of the 33 expert groups, only one – the BioInitiative Report – reached the conclusion that RF posed a health risk.

The Bio-initiative Report has also been criticized by Health Council of the Netherlands (pdf), Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research (ACRBR) (pdf), European Commission’s EMF-NET, German Federal Office for Radiation Protection (translated from German), French Agency for Environmental and Occupational Health Safety (pdf), and the Indian Council of Medical Research.

References

“COMAR Technical Information Statement: Expert Reviews on Potential Health Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields and Comments on the Bioinitiative Report.” Health Physics 97, no. 4 (October 2009): 348–356. doi:10.1097/HP.0b013e3181adcb94.

Evaluations of International Expert Group Reports on the Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Fields” Verschaeve, Luc from the book “Wireless Communications and Networks – Recent Advances”, book edited by Ali Eksim, ISBN 978-953-51-0189-5, Published: March 14, 2012.
doi: 10.5772/37762

“Bioinitiative Report.” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, March 8, 2013. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bioinitiative_Report&oldid=542827007.

8 comments on “The BioInitiative Report
  1. dyr2 says:

    look, why give inaccurate info – Bioinit not only had peer reviewed sections published in Pathophysiology in 09, it is much expanded in terms of material & intl scholsrly presence in 12

    you want a good quote about ieee attitudes on this topic? here –
    (book quote accessible via http://www.emfacts.com/the-procrustean-approach/)
    …………….

    “in his review of the IEEE’s data-base, theoretical biophysicist Vladimir N. Binhi from the Russian Academy of Sciences wrote that the IEEE’s dismissal of non-thermal effects was essentially based on flawed reasoning. According to Binhi, the IEEE incorrectly considered non-thermal effects as not possible since they contradict the known laws of physics and evidence for such effects are simply artefacts since they are not replicated in other labs. Where they have been replicated, IEEE considered that they had no significance for human health. Binhi analysed the IEEE data-base used as the rationale for the IEEE standard. Although it contained over 1300 references, a discrepancy is seen between the number of non-thermal papers sited in the IEEE standard compared to a 2005 Swedish review of research on non-thermal biological effects of microwaves. This review, by Igor Belyaev, included 115 references for peer reviewed and published non-thermal research papers, of which only about 25% are referenced by IEEE’s RF/MW standard. Another 85 recently published papers, most showing non-thermal effects, were not included in the references for the IEEE standard. Given this discrepancy, Binhi stated that “consumers of the electromagnetic safety standards might expect a more attentive and careful attitude to human health.”
    …………….

    • Scott Leslie says:

      I will leave it to others to judge the reliability of various sources. This does seem like a particularly weak defense of that report.

      • dyr2 says:

        “weak defence”? i was not defending it, i was pointing out how your remarks were way off the mark

        the best defence or offence would arise from actually reading it, which you must not have, there is something in it from many angles

        do not fall for mischaracterization of the BIR – it was intended as corrective, would not have been necessary were authorities you appeal to not in muscular possession by private interests

        examples of corruption in this field abound, as from the quote i brought

  2. Steve says:

    And let’s not forget that the Bioinit report relied on at least one study that had to be retracted for academic fraud. Quality job there guys.

    • dyr2 says:

      What is Steve talking about, please? It wouldn’t be stuff from the REFLEX programme? You’d be wrong to accept claims of fraud in that famous European case. Lots to refer you to on that.

  3. Clint says:

    The purpose of this page is to inform people who may be neutral on this issue to know that this report is controversial, and that if they see reference to it when they read anti-wifi literature they should at least know that there is considerable skepticism about the validity of the report. It is a starting point for further research for people who are neutral and undecided.

  4. Ray says:

    The report is based on over 3800 peer reviewed studies, most of which found adverse biological and health effects. Looking over those studies, it is clear that WiFi is not safe.

    Try as you like, you can’t make those studies disappear.