The only relevant and meaningful question that can be posed to a physicist is: do laws of physics predict or preclude EMF transduction? The present (and undisputed) answer is no. Therefore, the Symposium can serve no useful purpose because the physicists who appear at the Symposium can only state the obvious.

"Overall quality of research findings" is a relative concept, not an absolute concept. NIEHS' failure to specify a frame of reference for evaluating quality will encourage idiosyncratic notions of quality, leading inexorably to the conclusion that all present EMF studies suffer in comparison.

The most fundamental principle involved in the fact-finding is that all the relevant evidence ought to be considered - a good answer cannot emerge from considering only part of the evidence. Even if biophysical evidence were relevant to whether environmental EMFs are a health risk, the planned attempt to evaluate the question on the basis of biophysical evidence is intrinsically flawed because it explicitly ignores pertinent evidence - the results of animal and human studies.

 Marino Home Page | Research Interests

32989