‘No scientific contribution’: Journal pulls paper alleging radiation coverup

The journal Magnetochemistry has retracted a 2019 article by a controversial researcher in New Zealand who argued that scientists are suppressing evidence that microwave radiation from smartphones and other devices cause harm to people. 

The paper was titled “Conflicts of interest and misleading statements in official reports about the health consequences of radiofrequency radiation and some new measurements of exposure levels.” In it, author Susan Pockett, a psychologist at the University of Auckland, argued that: 

Official reports to governments throughout the Western world attempt to allay public concern about the increasing inescapability of the microwaves (also known as radiofrequency radiation or RF) emitted by “smart” technologies, by repeating the dogma that the only proven biological effect of RF is acute tissue heating, and assuring us that the levels of radiation to which the public are exposed are significantly less than those needed to cause acute tissue heating. The present paper first shows the origin of this “thermal-only” dogma in the military paranoia of the 1950s. It then reveals how financial conflict of interest and intentionally misleading statements have been powerful factors in preserving that dogma in the face of now overwhelming evidence that it is false, using one 2018 report to ministers of the New Zealand government as an example. Lastly, some new pilot measurements of ambient RF power densities in Auckland city are reported and compared with levels reported in other cities, various international exposure limits, and levels shown scientifically to cause biological harm. It is concluded that politicians in the Western world should stop accepting soothing reports from individuals with blatant conflicts of interest and start taking the health and safety of their communities seriously. 

But according to the retraction notice, Pockett’s article offered no new data to support her claims (an assertion Pockett denies). In fact, it says, the paper is a scientific dead zone: 

The article [1] in Magnetochemistry will be marked as retracted. The Editorial Board have re-examined the paper post-publication and found that it contains no scientific contribution and that Magnetochemistry is not the appropriate forum for this kind of “opinion” publication. Magnetochemistry is devoted to magnetic studies to which the subject of the paper does not relate.

MDPI is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics and takes the responsibility to enforce strict ethical policies and standards very seriously. To ensure the addition of only high-quality scientific works to the field of scholarly publication, [1] is retracted and shall be marked accordingly. We apologize to the readership of Magnetochemistry for any inconvenience caused.

That apology comes with a deep disconnect: The retraction wouldn’t have been necessary if the journal — published by MDPI — hadn’t accepted Pockett’s paper in the first place. That’s a problem the company’s journals appear to suffer repeatedly.  As we have documented, the publisher has offered its services to avowed racists like Richard Lynn, anti-porn advocates and conspiracy theorists. (MDPI, by the way, is not alone in its clumsiness.)

‘An example of political interference’

Indeed, Pockett says the episode has made her doubt MDPI’s credibility. She told us by email that:

I most certainly not do not agree with the reason given by Magnetochemistry for retraction of my paper.

Pockett said the journal: 

invited me out of the blue to contribute a paper … The invitation specifically offered to waive their publication fees, so I presumed this was not just another predatory journal touting for business, and sent them a synopsis of the first part of the paper they eventually published (the part about conflict of interest and misleading statements in official reports).  They didn’t say no this is not appropriate for our journal, and indeed seemed keen to have it.  

Pockett sent a preliminary version of the article to the journal, which reviewed and ultimately accepted a revised version of the work that included 

some measurements of ambient RF in Auckland city in response to the suggestion that the original version might better be labelled an Opinion piece rather than an article (I almost agreed to this suggestion, but then remembered that one of the main strategies in the ICNIRP playbook is to ignore inconvenient papers on the grounds that they are merely opinion, so added some actual measurements). 

Then, after the paper had been downloaded by approximately 3,000 different IP addresses (according to the journal’s own graph), Magnetochemistry sent me an email saying they had received a comment from an unidentified reader, to the effect that the paper was merely opinion and had no science in it. This anonymous comment egregiously misquoted the figures in the paper about ambient RF levels, saying I had reported milliwatts per square cm instead of milliwatts per square metre as I actually did (since there are 10,000 square centimetres in one square metre, this made the figures in the paper sound completely nonsensical) and gave every evidence of having been written by some sort of Facebook troll.  I suggested to Magnetochemistry that if they took this comment seriously, the appropriate scientific protocol would be to publish the comment, with its author’s name and [affiliation] identified, together with my [response]. No reply. Then a different editor of Magnetochemistry wrote to me saying that the editor-in-chief of the journal had decided to withdraw his support for the paper and asking me to [respond] to the comment by email. I did so. Nothing happened for another few weeks. Then the journal unilaterally retracted the paper. 

I think it is fairly clear that this is an example of political interference in the normal processes of science.  The paper was nobbled, by one of the many large entities (governments, regulatory agencies, Big Wireless) who would have found the facts it states inconvenient. In short, MDPI appears to have been willingly afflicted by exactly the sort of conflict of interest the retracted paper is about. According to the guidelines on conflict of interest put out by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors [1] this brings science into disrepute. Consequently I suggest that MDPI should no longer be treated by the scientific world as a credible scientific publisher.

Unresolved questions

Pockett’s paper reports both milliwatts per square meter and microwatts per square centimeter, which might generate confusion. However, a bigger issue may be how she gathered the data for the paper. According to the article, Pockett used a commercial grade detector called a Cornet Electrosmog Meter Model EDT 88TPlus, the spec sheet for which states: 

ED88is designed for quick living environment RF radiation evaluation and is for reference use only. Official RF safety radiation measurement procedure is complicate and should be handled by trained technical person with lab instruments. 

Pockett told us she took three readings with the meter but reported only the peak value:

I think it’s more appropriate to consider the peak energy imparted by a single bullet than to average bullet-related energy over an extended period.  Put it this way: if somebody happens to be shot in the heart by a single gunshot, it is not sensible to average the total bullet-energy that has been imparted to that person’s body over the course of the last year and conclude that you don’t need to take them to the hospital, because the average bullet-energy they have received over the last year is FAR too low to do any damage.

We’re still trying to figure out if that analogy hits the mark. 

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up for an email every time there’s a new post (look for the “follow” button at the lower right part of your screen), or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com.