See it For Yourself: Download the Emails Here.
Page 6 has the response on Dr. Miller
1. When Congressional staffers inquired into Dr Anthony Miller's testimony against cell towers. (Watch it to the left.) Dr. Linet responded in an email concerning Dr. Miller's medical research and opinion that " I do not advocate incorporating these in a response."
Our question is this: Why not share Dr. Miller's research?
Dr. Miller is a World Health Organization Expert on Cancer. Read about his years of expertise here. Why wouldn't NCI be clear about the full body of research? Where is the full disclosure? Shouldn’t our government be fully transparent on this issue?
Read the research NCI did not share with Congressional staff here: Mobile phone radiation causes brain tumors and should be classified as a probable human carcinogen (2A) (review). International Journal of Oncology. 2015 May;46(5):1865-71.
Some other questions we have: Why didn't NCI know about Miller's research earlier? The emails state she was trying to track down why Dr. Miller would state such an opinion and then found the research study. Why was she not aware of this before? Who is ensuring our federal agencies are up to date on research? Isn't this their job?
The inquiry came from California U.S. Representative Henry Waxman's Office. Why not tell these staff that there is no scientific consensus and here is why Dr. Miller has the opinion he has? Waxman's staff was doing their due diligence. Why not the National Cancer Institute?
The picture below is part of the research study that NCI cites in their emails as considering radiation absorption from a laptop.
Please write all of your elected officials and ask that this issue be a priority. The time is now. CC us on your correspondence at email@example.com.
A Parent Put in A Public information Request to the National Cancer Institute About Emails Regarding Children and Wireless. Here is what the emails reveal.
How Does The National Cancer Institute Deal With Questions About Wi-Fi and Children?
The research abstract concludes the radiation absorbed meets federal compliance. However, as we have detailed on our website, federal compliance does not equal safety. In addition, this research did not even consider radiation absorption to the hear and reproductive organs. In addition, this research did not consider a room of 30 children all using laptops resulting in multiple streams of radiation.
Where is the comprehensive due diligence from our federal government on a radiation exposure so pervasive in our society? Where is the leadership? Is the federal government doing their job and protecting our children's healthy future?
In light of the lack of scientific consensus, why not err on the side of caution?