Does the Victorian Radiation Advisory Committee have a conflict of interest issue… and does the government really care?

Dr Don Maisch has previously written about this issue on his blog ( in November 2012 but nothing has changed since that time. The Victorian Radiation Advisory Committee has made no attempt to address what is clearly a conflict of interest and so here we go again!

On January 22, 2016, Don received a letter from a Victorian resident who was concerned about the roll-out of smart meters in that state. Attached to his letter was a letter sent to him by Lily D’Ambrosio MP, the Victorian Minister for Industry and Minister for Energy and Resources. D’Ambrosio tried to reassure the resident that smart meters were perfectly safe by quoting advice given to the Victorian government by Victoria’s Chief Health Officer. The VCMO, in turn, relies on the expert advice from the Victorian Ministerial Radiation Advisory Committee, an expert advisory board consisting of doctors and experts in the field of radiation. It would be a brave politician indeed who dares question this expert body. After all they are the experts, not to be questioned by lesser mortals. The advice given by this committee is that “that there is no substantive evidence to suggest that exposure to radiofrequency radiation such as from smart meters can increase the risk of chronic health effects, such as cancer”……

“Here is current membership of the Victorian Ministerial Radiation Advisory Committee

Dr David Bernshaw – radiation oncology
Dr Ken Joyner – non-ionising radiation
Dr Roslyn Drummond – radiation oncology
Professor Robert Gibson – radiology
Mr Russell Booth – nuclear medicine
Dr Russell Horney – medical physics
Mr Christopher Perry – radiography
Dr Joanna Lia Wriedt – law and epidemiology
Mr Paul Tomlinson – industrial radiography
Dr Dean Morris – accelerator physics
Mr Paul Marks – nuclear medicine and medical physics
Dr Ray Budd – medical physics.”

There is only one person on that committee with relevant ‘expertise’ in the area of non-ionising radiation (microwaves used by smart meters for communication), Dr. Ken Joyner, who is a former strategist for Motorola and longtime spokesperson for the telecommunications industry.

Read the entire post by Dr Maisch here.




This entry was posted in Energy Minister, health risks, Radiation, RF, Smart Meter and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Does the Victorian Radiation Advisory Committee have a conflict of interest issue… and does the government really care?

  1. Anonymous says:

    “that there is no substantive evidence to suggest that exposure to radiofrequency radiation such as from smart meters can increase the risk of chronic health effects, such as cancer.”

    There may very well be be no alleged substantive evidence to suggest exposure to radiofrequency radiation, such as from smart meters, can increase the risk of chronic health effects, like cancer. However, the reality is, evidence does exists which shows a risk and this risk is real. A possible cancer causing agent is a risk to health it does not matter if current evidence does not show an increased risk, what it does show is that a risk exists.
    The Radiation Advisory Committee have just carefully worded what they said – a play on words so to speak. They don’t actually say we have no risk at all, they can’t, even they aren’t that stupid, what they do say is we don’t see an increased risk. Just because they allege they don’t see an increased risk does not mean that it does not exist.
    You have to keep in mind that they are probably looking at studies that show no health effects or very little. Please also be aware that they have professionals to type up fact sheets, we can also type up our own. Our fact sheets can also be used.
    I am positive that they would never be able to produce any documentation to prove smart meters are safe and don’t cause health problems, they can’t if the radiation from smart meters is a possible cancer causing agent this alone makes it unsafe. You can’t prove anything is 100% safe. We don’t have to prove that a risk exists the IARC/WHO did this for us. A possible cancer causing agent can’t be deemed safe. They can test all the smart meters they want, this still wont change the possible cancer causing classification.
    They did not say that no risk exists they said an increased risk, these are two different things and have two different meanings.

  2. Anonymous says:

    I have a few disturbing letters from her office, she can explain the contents one day in a Royal Commission. I have asked her for a meeting she still has not replied. This woman and the other energy minsters before her, need to be hauled into a Royal Commission and made to answer questions. You can’t speak on behalf of others its hearsay and if this ever gets to the Supreme Court, Ms D’ambrosio would need to have first hand knowledge that smart devices are safe or whatever.
    I have witnessed a court case where a friend of mine was a mere witness, it wasn’t even a big deal but she was constantly reminded by the Police Prosecutor that she could not speak on behalf of someone else its hearsay. She could speak of what she saw and heard, this is first hand knowledge but you can’t offer opinions they don’t count its facts that count.
    Its important to understand that whatever Lily or others say has to be based on first hand knowledge otherwise it does not matter what she says. Anyone can offer an opinion, this does not make it fact, nor the truth. Would Lily write this information in an affidavit under penalty of perjury?
    Which Chief Health Officer gave the information ?,We have a new acting Chief at the moment. Since Rosemary Lester resigned we have had two acting Chief Health Officers. Is this strange?
    Its an important job and you can understand an acting Chief Health Officer for a while but two. Can’t they find a permanent chief?
    Or are we now going to be seeing a constant change of Acting Chief Health Officers.I suppose if we only have Acting Chief’s then it will be hard to keep track of who said what. Reminds me a bit of the Royal Commission, priests being moved around.
    I am pretty sure that such an important job should of been filled by now, with a permanent Chief Health Officer.
    Wonder how long this one will last? Remember hearsay does not count only first hand knowledge, that is what i suspect a judge and jury would like to hear.
    Perhaps Lily and others need to be reminded that hearsay does not count only first hand knowledge.If everyone could speak on behalf of others with out proof or first hand knowledge a lot of us would probably be in jail. This is why we are innocent until proven guilty.

    • Ainsleigh Needham says:

      It seems that smart meters have made the position of Chief Health Officer a poison chalice just like the Energy Ministers position.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Experts don’t have all the answers and only you can be an expert on your own body. The Radiation advisory committee are not experts they have expertise in the fields they work in but that does not make you an expert and i bet if you asked them for proof that smart meter radiation is completely safe they would not provide it.
    Ask them for evidence that smart meter radiation is safe and also ask them for insurance details so you can sue in the future.

  4. Rob Reiken says:

    The only thing our Psychopathic Government cares about is to get these meters installed to screw us all over and rape us financially and destroy our health. These over paid public servants care nothing about our rights that only serve their own needs for financial greed as always, cause if they go against the grain then they end up out of their job.

  5. Rik says:

    Oh so the only person that is supposed to protect us is a bullsh@t artist and lied during the mobile phone findings. It’s been proven many times mobile phones can give you cancer and here is the specialist now saying smart meters are safe. Well guess what? Smart meters are NOT safe but we have the same guy doing the same thing again. Lying to get cancer devices out in the public and try to bullsh@t us to say they are safe.

    So all these health problems I have since smart meters were installed in this area is what? A lie?
    My problems started the very next day after the neighbour’s smart meter was installed. I refuse to get one and I’m not as bad as I could’ve been but I’m far from stable and I can’t work. The government is paying my pension as it wanted to install smart meters and made me disabled. That’s fine. I cant work so they pay me. If they wanted to save money they wouldn’t have installed those smart meters and would’ve let me work.
    In the end I’m a burden on the government for their stupidity for forcing smart meters on us.
    I will never work while smart meters are in the area.
    My only chance to get better will be change states but it sounds like smart meters are going to be compulsory Australia wide so my real only choice would be to change countries. Thanks Australian government for making Australia a place we can’t live in anymore.

  6. Enrico Grani says:

    Greetings all,

    Please send all future emails to Thank you.

    Please be advised that website domain will not be renewed.

    Regards, Enrico

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s