**4. Evaluation of expert group reports based on 10 criteria**

An evaluation of the different reports should take into account a great number of aspects. Amongst them the composition of the working group, the topics that were taken into account and the methods that were used are certainly some of the important aspects. We therefore tried to identify the members or participants in the working group activities and tried to see whether they constituted a *multidisciplinary* and *independent* group of experts. Did they evaluate all scientific (peer reviewed) publications, or did they make a selection of papers, and if so, what was the rationale for doing so? Was this satisfactory? Was the report a consensus report? Where minority opinions mentioned?

An evaluation of the reports bases on the answer to these questions can for example be done according to 10 criteria as indicated in Table 3. It is obvious that such an evaluation is always to a certain extent subjective. However, the purpose was not to make a ranking of the expert group reports according to their quality but especially to try to explain why they may (eventually) come to divergent conclusions on radiofrequency induced health effects. Because it is not possible to give in this chapter detailed answers to all the questions for each of the working groups the reports were given a score based on the answers and criteria indicated in table 3 (score of 0 when not a single criterion was met, up to 10 when all criteria were met).

## **Expert group:**

542 Wireless Communications and Networks – Recent Advances

**EXPERT REPORT CONCLUSION ADVISES +/-** 














(+)








RF-radiation is possibly carcinogenic in humans (group 2B in IARC classification)

Table 2. Summary of the expert group reports (scientific disciplines, conclusions and advises; -/+: overall conclusion in terms of respectively absence of sufficient evidence for

It can be seen from the table that the vast majority of the reports *do not* consider that radiofrequency fields at current exposure levels (especially from mobile phone base-station antennas and handsets) pose a serious health risk to humans. The only exception comes from the Bioinitiative report. All reports, except the Bionitiative report, conclude that there is so far no clear indication of adverse health effects from RF-exposure from applications for wireless communication purposes. They usually remain prudent with regard to long-term bio-effects, not because of strong indications that such effects might occur, but only because

adverse health effects (-), or sufficient evidence for adverse health effects (+).

phones

radiation


remain valid

a mobile phone -Uncertainty related to long-term effects warrants some care

conclusions and assertions of the Bioinitiative report -Exposure limits (IEEE and other) are certainly

adequate

proven

26. AUSTRIAN MINISTRY OF HEALTH ((2009) (all

27. ARPANSA (AUS) (2009) (all topics covered)

28. HEALTH CANADA (CAN) (2009) (all topics

29. FDA (USA) (2010) (general)

30. NCI (USA) (2009) (all topics covered)

31. COMAR (INT) (2009) (all topics covered)

32. WHO (INT) (2010) (all topics covered)

33. IARC/WHO (2011)

(cancer)

covered)

topics covered)


#### **Methods used in the evaluation of the scientific data:**


#### **Criteria for evaluation of scientific data:**


Table 3. Evaluation of expert group reports based on 10 criteria.

We did not made a full evaluation of all reports because some did not provide sufficient information or were not expert group reports *as such* as they were for example only opinion papers or short evaluations or advises as formulated in leaflets or fact sheets from certain organisations. In such cases a (re)examination of all available scientific data was not necessary and hence not attempted. Here, a "quality comparison" with the "bigger" reports would not be fair. The results of the evaluation are therefore only given as an example for a number of important reports (based on the criteria in Table 3, and summarized in Table 4).

It can be seen that most expert group reports got an excellent score, except the Bioinitiative report. This report certainly has merits and individual sections were often written by well renowned scientists, but overall it was deficient against most of the criteria as indicated before (see also http://www.gezondheidsraad.nl/sites/default/files/200817E\_0.pdf). As mentioned before the purpose of the Bioinitiative report was to demonstrate that RFradiation (at low-exposure levels as from mobile phones and their base station antennas) may be hazardous to humans. The purpose was to indicate that exposure limits should be considerably revised. The report was written in such a way that the outcome was in accordance with these goals.

As indicate above any such evaluation is always subjective to a certain extent, also because it is not always possible to fully appreciate the work that was done. Reports may mention that all peer reviewed papers were consulted but obviously this cannot be verified. They can mention that particular attention was paid to "conflict of interests" of the participating members, or report that literature data was carefully analysed and that particular attention was paid to, for example, aspects of biological dosimetry, but it was also not always possible to understand how this was done. Table 4 nevertheless can be useful as a general appraisal. It shows that most reports got a good to excellent 'score'. Reports from ICNIRP, SCENIHR or the Dutch Health council got a maximal score of '10' as they all fulfilled satisfactorily the 10 criteria of Table 3. All ICNIRP members are experts in non ionizing radiations bio-effects and/or dosimetry. Some questions can be raised on how the members were elected and in how far they constitute a balanced representation of opinions, but the methodology, through literature evaluations by subcommittee members and a careful and strong 'peer reviewed' process of their work can be seen as sufficient guarantee of quality. This justifies a high score although this does not automatically imply that ICNIRP opinions should be accepted without questions. ICNIRP was for example often accused of insufficiently applying the precautionary principle and hence of being not careful enough in its advises. This opinion can be defended. The same holds true for the reports from the Dutch Health Council. All criteria were met (= high score) which does not mean that the council is never criticized or criticisable. It is indeed often criticized, again for not applying the precautionary principle and insisting on absence of proof and lack of convincing data, hence not taking the few alarming data sufficiently into account. The Belgian Superior Health Council is on the contrary often criticized for emphasizing too much on the precautionary principle and providing advises that are scientifically not well sound. We have not extensively described their reports as they were *only* advises from a working group which did not perform a complete literature search and evaluation. The report from the IARC working group on Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields (including mobile telephones; Baan et al., 2011, and Monograph Volume 102, *in preparation*) also received a maximum score as it is based on an extensive evaluation of the scientific literature performed by a great number of experts and according to a well described and rigid procedure (see also

We did not made a full evaluation of all reports because some did not provide sufficient information or were not expert group reports *as such* as they were for example only opinion papers or short evaluations or advises as formulated in leaflets or fact sheets from certain organisations. In such cases a (re)examination of all available scientific data was not necessary and hence not attempted. Here, a "quality comparison" with the "bigger" reports would not be fair. The results of the evaluation are therefore only given as an example for a number of important reports (based on the criteria in Table 3, and summarized in Table 4). It can be seen that most expert group reports got an excellent score, except the Bioinitiative report. This report certainly has merits and individual sections were often written by well renowned scientists, but overall it was deficient against most of the criteria as indicated before (see also http://www.gezondheidsraad.nl/sites/default/files/200817E\_0.pdf). As mentioned before the purpose of the Bioinitiative report was to demonstrate that RFradiation (at low-exposure levels as from mobile phones and their base station antennas) may be hazardous to humans. The purpose was to indicate that exposure limits should be considerably revised. The report was written in such a way that the outcome was in

As indicate above any such evaluation is always subjective to a certain extent, also because it is not always possible to fully appreciate the work that was done. Reports may mention that all peer reviewed papers were consulted but obviously this cannot be verified. They can mention that particular attention was paid to "conflict of interests" of the participating members, or report that literature data was carefully analysed and that particular attention was paid to, for example, aspects of biological dosimetry, but it was also not always possible to understand how this was done. Table 4 nevertheless can be useful as a general appraisal. It shows that most reports got a good to excellent 'score'. Reports from ICNIRP, SCENIHR or the Dutch Health council got a maximal score of '10' as they all fulfilled satisfactorily the 10 criteria of Table 3. All ICNIRP members are experts in non ionizing radiations bio-effects and/or dosimetry. Some questions can be raised on how the members were elected and in how far they constitute a balanced representation of opinions, but the methodology, through literature evaluations by subcommittee members and a careful and strong 'peer reviewed' process of their work can be seen as sufficient guarantee of quality. This justifies a high score although this does not automatically imply that ICNIRP opinions should be accepted without questions. ICNIRP was for example often accused of insufficiently applying the precautionary principle and hence of being not careful enough in its advises. This opinion can be defended. The same holds true for the reports from the Dutch Health Council. All criteria were met (= high score) which does not mean that the council is never criticized or criticisable. It is indeed often criticized, again for not applying the precautionary principle and insisting on absence of proof and lack of convincing data, hence not taking the few alarming data sufficiently into account. The Belgian Superior Health Council is on the contrary often criticized for emphasizing too much on the precautionary principle and providing advises that are scientifically not well sound. We have not extensively described their reports as they were *only* advises from a working group which did not perform a complete literature search and evaluation. The report from the IARC working group on Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields (including mobile telephones; Baan et al., 2011, and Monograph Volume 102, *in preparation*) also received a maximum score as it is based on an extensive evaluation of the scientific literature performed by a great number of experts and according to a well described and rigid procedure (see also

accordance with these goals.

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Preamble/index.php). Special attention was also taken to conflict of interests.

We already mentioned that most of the reports express the same opinion. This is not surprising knowing that they are all based on the same scientific data and evidence and usually also similar and well defined criteria. Another reason for fairly concordant conclusions may be yet that different expert groups were often partly composed of the same scientists. The Swedish SSI report was written following constitution of an expert group from which some members were also members from ICNIRP. The same holds true for EFRAN and EDUMED. It is not surprising then that these expert groups expressed the same opinion or did not substantially deviate from the ICNIRP position.


Table 4. Evaluation of a number of important expert Group reports based on well defined criteria (cf. Table 3).
