I will second that. ORSAA has conducted an exhaustive survey of peer-reviewed science. It appears they have caught our Australian EMR "safety" regulator, ARPANSA, omitting key adverse findings from their published reports. This is significant because industry relies almost exclusively upon their recommended exposure limits to deflect accusations that their technology causes harm.

The Federal Government itself funds virtually no biological research into EMR, instead preferring experiments that attempt to prove EHS is a wholly psychological condition. It’s a classic case of “don’t look there”. This not surprising since our own CSIRO invented Wi-Fi and sold it to the world.

ORSAA has also demonstrated that independent research studies conclude adverse effects far more often than those funded by industry. Sounds like tobacco all over again. See the pie charts in the image gallery fo this website.

Someone brought to my attention yesterday the disclaimers on ARPANSA's website.  These can be found by scrolling to the bottom of their home page.  The second disclaimer, in particular, about the quality of their information defies belief.  They are effectively saying that we should take their advice with a grain of salt.  I agree; we should.  However, all the authorities, government departments, etc, etc, uphold nothing but ARPANSA's view.  Did someone forget to tell them to read ARPANSA's disclaimers?

thanks TMBL, would you be able to copy the disclaimer here for all to see?

Eloqwence, below are the first two ARPANSAA disclaimers, which are about the 'quality' of the information they provide.  Cleaarly they are not in the business of "preventing any disease" or providing accurate, complete and up to date info.  Rather, the info they provide is what they want you to believe, and by inference, it is inaccurate, incomplete, out of date and irrelevant.  And they know it!

Disclaimer

Provision of education and research information only – always seek professional advice

This website is presented by ARPANSA for the purpose of disseminating regulatory information and information on radiation and health free of charge for the benefit of the public. This website is not a substitute for independent professional advice. Nothing contained in this site is intended to be used as medical advice and it is not intended to be used to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease, nor should it be used for therapeutic purposes or as a substitute for your own health professional's advice. ARPANSA does not accept any liability for any injury, loss or damage incurred by use of or reliance on the information.

Quality of information – always check the information

ARPANSA makes every effort to ensure the quality of the information available on this website and updates the information regularly. Before relying on the information on this site, however, users should carefully evaluate its accuracy, currency, completeness and relevance for their purposes, and should obtain any appropriate professional advice relevant to their particular circumstances. ARPANSA can not guarantee and assumes no legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, currency or completeness of the information.

thanks for that!!  So in essence this means that "professional advice" is not something they are qualified to appoint either, in terms of who is professional?  So I could choose Barry Trower, Devra Davis, Olle Johanssen, or any number of well known professional names in the field to fill me in. I could also refer to the ORSAA database, peer reviewed articles etc which no one could deem UNprofessional. I would then be following the government appointed authority's [ARPANSA's] advice. In addition, ARPANSA according to its disclaimer, is not equipped to present ACEBR as a candidate for professionalism, nor is ACEBR itself, considering the lack of professional qualifications in the field of EMR health.  ACEBR's only claim to fame is that they are funded by the NHMRC, yes they may have professors but they are professors of something else!!  In fact were I to take advice from Rodney Croft of ACEBR, "EHS could be caused by orange juice". My comment is paving the way for a lawsuit that would prove croneyism, vested interests, propaganda etc, which ever way a litigant would like to frame it.  The government and therefore the taxpayer is funding an organisation that has no faith in itself. Yes this is all obvious but its worth writing it down I thought. Mumbling, making other noises, writing letters to MP's, talking to councils, signing petitions - none of this is looking effective. Surely it has to be class action.  I'm thinking, should I have put this discussion in a new thread?

Eloquently stated, Eloqwence.  Did Rodney Croft actually say that EHS could be caused by orange juice?  Is so, do you have a website or document link to that?

yes indeed he said that!!!  I forget a lot of things but I couldn't forget that!! However it could take me a whole day to find it again.  He was flippantly trying to make the point that "we recognise there is a condition called EHS but we have no proof of what causes it".

Its possibly on the ACEBR website

The thing to do would be to ask Rodney what he thinks is the cause of EHS or whatever they are calling it these days

Professor Rodney Croft is a psychologist at Monash University and principal of the ACEBR. His team's research has been focused largely upon determining whether or not EHS is a mental disorder based upon fear and expectation, the so-called "nocebo" effect. He has been accused of conducting studies that are predisposed toward supporting industry views, and continuance of the current ARPANSA public exposure guidelines.

Nonetheless, Croft continues to receive the bulk of Australia's EMR-related funding via the NRHMC which seems equally intent upon not investigating known biological effects and markers. Keep in mind that our country's CSIRO invented Wi-Fi and licensed it worldwide.

Croft occasionally branches out into epidemiological studies, such as the following one which has also been widely criticised. https://www.smart-safe.com/blogs/news/aussies-claim-no-brain-tumor-link-skepticism-abounds

In my opinion, if you are thinking about asking him for objective advice on EHS, you may want to reconsider

I found the quote from Rodney Croft about orange juice 'potentially' causing EHS.  It is at  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-10/clay-wi-fi-might-not-hurt-us-but-fear-of-it-certainly-does/6607860.

Some time ago I read or heard an opinion on GPs claiming that various illnesses are psychosomatic.  I wish I could recall it better, but the person turned it back on the GPs and said to the effect that their appalling inability to diagnose many illnesses led them to use the cop-out diagnosis of 'psychosomatic'.  She expressed it so much better than I have here, I guess effectively saying that the problem is not the nervous Nellies who think they have some illness, but the ignorant GPs who don't know how to do their job at all well.