The Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI) has stated that the recently released BioInitiative Report 2012 is just an update on their 2007 report which had been heavily criticized as being biased, without balance and for not being an objective comprehensive review, or a weight-of-evidence assessment. Several credible Health Organisations across the world had disowned the 2007 version of the report as having clear scientific weaknesses including selection bias in several research areas, lack of multidisciplinary weight-of evidence method which leads to a scientifically sound judgment, lack of updated info, no consideration of the scientific quality of the cited reports, amongst others.
The 2012 BioInitiative Report, like its predecessor, is an informal interpretation of a limited selection of the available scientific information on electromagnetic fields (EMF). The report is largely critical of the internationally accepted and most widely adopted EMF exposure standards developed by the international Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), which have been endorsed by the World Health Organization (WHO), and the International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. The report does not include any new scientific data but reflects the interpretations of individual authors who do not have consensus among themselves.
It is pertinent to note that the BioInitiative Report and the Building Biology Institute are not recognised standards bodies in the area of EMF, and it is misleading to suggest that they are. The World Health Organisation (WHO) recognizes only two organizations (ICNIRP and IEEE) on developing EMF exposure standards or guidelines. (See WHO Fact Sheet #193) It should also be noted that the BioInitiative Report has not resulted in any change in the conclusions arrived at by over 100 reviews, reports and government statements that have been published in this area from countries around the world. The conclusions from those studies have been similar to that of ICNIRP and WHO – “that there is no established evidence that EMF exposure within the internationally accepted limits causes any adverse health effects”.
In fact, there have been revelations that the report relies for 'evidence' on studies from Oberfeld - who claimed to have found an increase in cancer from a base station that was not in existence at the location claimed - resulting in the ultimate withdrawal of the study; and also from De Pomerai - who claimed to have found 'nonthermal' effects on nematodes but who later admitted that his earlier study design was flawed and did cause heating - he was essentially cooking and starving the nematodes. Hence we can see that the authenticity of the report in question is highly ambiguous and does not qualify for applicability in an issue as critical and sensitive as public health and well-being.
Also, while the BioInitiative Report 2012 claims to have updated its studies from the 2007 version, it needs to be understood that agencies like the WHO, ICNIRP and IEEE are responsible organisations who have been tracking and testing the developments in this sphere continuously and updating their reports accordingly.
