Exposing ICNIRP 5G ‘Safety’ Deceptions Part II

Posted by & filed under , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

#Science2Stop5G ⚠️ Join: Fb.com/groups/Stop5G (35,650+ members) … Follow: Twitter.com/Stop5G

⚠️ 🌐 ‼️ Call for Truly Protective Limits for Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (100kHz to 300GHz): PDF

ICNIRP ‘Guidelines’ Do not Protect against Harmful Health Effects!

In the judgment in summary proceedings to stop the roll-out of 5G, it appeared that the judge, like the Dutch state, fully relied on the exposure guidelines of the ICNIRP . That is striking since there is really a lot to criticize.

Dr. Leendert Vriens is a physicist, former Philips Research Fellow, and has written an extensive commentary on these guidelines from the ICNIRP. This comment is also attached to the summons to the summary proceedings that the Stop5GNL Foundation conducted against the Dutch state. All parties have therefore been able to take this information.

Given the great importance that the government attaches to these ICNIRP guidelines, we place the full article by Dr Leendert Vriens below, so that everyone can determine for themselves whether it is wise to sail blindly on these guidelines.

Summary of comments on the ICNIRP 2020 guidelines

The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) circulated new guidelines for exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) in March 2020 as a pre-publication. According to ICNIRP, these guidelines are intended to protect people from the adverse health effects of radio frequency EMF in the frequency range of 100 kHz to 300 GHz. This includes all wireless communications, including 5G. As far as field strengths and radiation intensities are concerned, these guidelines do not differ from those from 1998 and therefore offer no protection.

Thermal load test setup

The guidelines refer to the first five introductory pages, up to p. 37, only on thermal effects caused by 6 minutes and 30 minutes of exposure to radio frequency EMF. Those times are defined somewhat more clearly in ICNIRP 2020 than in ICNIRP 1998, but that is of no further importance. Both guidelines concern short-term exposure.

Only in Appendix B, from p. 37 until the end of the guidelines on p. 43, a few more scientific publications on non-thermal biological long-term effects have been mentioned, discredited and not included in determining the guidelines.

This has ignored virtually all of the thousands of peer-reviewed scientific publications demonstrating such non-thermal biological long-term effects. Some of these effects, which occur at field strengths and radiation intensities under and far below the ICNIRP 2020 guidelines, are harmful to health. The ICNIRP guidelines therefore, contrary to what is claimed, do not protect against harmful health effects.

In view of the great financial interests of the telecom industry and governments, it is obvious to conclude that the orders of magnitude too high ICNIRP 2020 guidelines are only intended to prevent the roll-out of wireless communication applications in general and of 5G in particular from being strobe-wide. to lay the road.

preface

In March 2020, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) issued new guidelines for the pre-publication ( 1 ) of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) from wireless communications. These guidelines would be intended for: “the protection of humans exposed to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) in the range 100 kHz to 300 GHz”.

This appendix addresses the question of whether “humans” are actually protected by these guidelines and is intended as an addition to the summons in the Kort Geding ( 2 ) that was sent on 25-02-2020, before the publication of the ICNIRP prepublication. . At the end of this appendix, special attention is given to 5G.

ICNIRP 1998

In the Netherlands, guidelines published by ICNIRP in 1998 have so far been applicable ( 3 ). These should guarantee the health of citizens as long as the field strength or radiation load remains below the guidelines. In reality, they only take into account acute harmful thermal (heating) effects caused by short-term exposure to said electromagnetic fields (EMF) and not long-term harmful effects caused by non-thermal biological processes in which heating of our body or parts thereof is negligible . For clarification, we quote from ( 3 ):

Only established effects were used as the basis for the proposed exposure restrictions. Induction of cancer from long-term EMF exposure was not considered to be established, and so these guidelines are based on short-term, immediate health effects such as stimulation of peripheral nerves and muscles, shocks and burns caused by touching conducting objects, and elevated tissue temperatures resulting from absorption of energy during exposure to EMF. In the case of potential long-term effects of exposure, such as an increased risk of cancer, ICNIRP concluded that available data are insufficient to provide a basis for setting exposure restrictions,… ”

The letter of 16 April 2019 sent to the President of the Second Chamber and signed on behalf of the Government by the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs MCG Keijzer and the Minister for Medical Care and Sport, BJ Bruins, states ( 4 ) that the Dutch exposure guidelines are based on, and we quote, “scientifically established effects that may occur during or shortly after exposure.” All long-term effects are therefore excluded.

Non-thermal biological effects have now been demonstrated in thousands of peer-reviewed scientific publications, including for EMF exposures below and well below the Dutch (ICNIRP) guidelines. Warming of our body or parts thereof is negligible. Several of those effects are harmful or potentially harmful to our health, especially in the long term. In the writ of summons ( 2 ) on pp. 38 to 45 referred to scientific (overview) articles in this field.

ICNIRP 2020

The ICNIRP 2020 exposure guidelines are in the frequency range of 10 MHz to 300GHz, which includes all wireless communications, equal to or wider than those in ICNIRP 1998. The main subpoena commentary on the ICNIRP 1998 guidelines – based on the subpoena mentioned in the subpoena and other scientific studies – was that those ICNIRP guidelines are many orders of magnitude too high. This is due to the fact that the harmful effects of non-thermal biological effects have not been included in the determination of the guidelines.

That comment applies in full and to a greater extent to the new ICNIRP 2020 guidelines, given that non-thermal biological effects have still not been included, despite the thousands of scientific publications published since 1998, demonstrating the harmfulness or potential harmfulness of those effects . All arguments discussed in the subpoena therefore remain applicable.

In the following we will discuss some specific points regarding ICNIRP 2020.

Source

1. Long-term effects

Page 2 of ICNIRP 2020 starts with the text:

“The main objective of this publication is to establish guidelines for limiting exposure to EMFs that will provide a high level of protection for all people against substantiated adverse health effects from exposures to both short- and long-term, continuous and discontinuous radiofrequency EMFs.”

The difference with ICNIRP 1998 is that it gives the impression that long-term effects are now included. However, in the main body of ICNIRP 2020 and in Appendix A, the term “long-term” does not appear once and in Appendix B four times, with in all cases a denial of the existence or the harmfulness of this “long- term”. term ”securities. In more detail:

1a . Cognitive functions

Appendix B on 37 of the 43-page text – states: “In summary, there is no substantiated experimental or epidemiological evidence that exposure to radiofrequency EMFs affects higher cognitive functions relevant to health.”

In reality, there are many scientific publications showing that these radiofrequency EMF do influence cognitive functions. First of all, we refer to the TNO report ( 5 ) from 2003, in which the influence of GSM and UMTS-like fields on subjects was specifically investigated. From the summary we quote:

“From our research it is concluded that our hypotheses to find no relation between presence of RF-fields and the measured parameters is rejected. We have found statistically significant relationship between UMTS-like fields with a field strength of 1 V / m and an effect on the Well Being. Further, from the cognitive tasks, it is observed that a number of significant effects is found ”.

At a field strength of 1 V / m, a factor of 60 under the ICNIRP 1998 guideline, and thus with a radiation intensity a factor of 3600 under the ICNIRP guideline, statistically significant effects on well-being and cognitive performance were already found.

In the relevant parts of the first BioInitiative report from 2007 ( 6 ) and the update of that part from 2014 ( 7 ), an extensive literature overview can be found on neurological problems caused by “cell phone radiation” , including cognitive effects. Prof. Lai, the author of these articles, has also analyzed the difference between the studies financed by the telecom industry and the studies financed by independent bodies. In ( 6 ) reference is made to 23 studies of cognitive effects. Biological effects were identified in 13 of these. Of the 10 no-effect studies, 6 were fully and one partially funded by the telecom industry.

1b. National Toxicology Program and Ramazzini research

Two large-scale studies – from the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) and from the Ramazzini Institute, where the subpoena on pp. 42 and 43 referred to – have been brought down in ICNIRP 2020 without sound arguments. The qualifications used are: “ inconsistencies”, “important limitations” and “ insufficient statistical methods” .

All this, however, without even a single specification of what these imperfections would consist of. Especially in the case of the NAP study, an external committee of specialists was set up to check all measuring procedures and results on the spot, precisely in view of the importance of the study. That committee tightened up the final conclusions because, in their opinion, the authors / researchers had formulated the results too cautiously.

The relevant comments in ICNIRP 2020 cannot be seen otherwise as discrediting investigators and researchers who come up with undesirable scientific results for industry. Such practices are known from other areas where economic interests also play a major role.

EMC Committee of the Health Council

Professor Kromhout, chair of the EMV committee of the Health Council of the Netherlands in Telegraaf ( 8 ): He emphasizes that the NTP investigation was ‘a breakthrough’. “You see that certain groups try to explain that away. But they are well-executed studies. ”

Kromhout calls it ‘very special’ that the ICNIRP standards ‘have received so much power in Europe’. And he states, very carefully, that just looking at heat is not enough. “If you see that under the level of 1 degree warming, which ICNIRP maintains, all kinds of effects do occur, you have to go a step further at some point.”

1c and 1d. Unspecified long-term studies and auditory nerve cancer

The third reference to “long-term” refers to long-term studies that, according to ICNIRP, would have been too short and that would not have given consistent results. None of these studies are specifically mentioned – with reference to the list of references. The relevant paragraph only refers to a study by Martin Röösli, member of the ICNIRP. The fourth reference concerns the only publication in the three bibliographies with a “long-term” in the title. That publication is about the relationship between “acoustic neuroma” (cancer of the auditory nerve) and mobile phone use. On the subject of cancer we go on pp. 5 and 6 further in.

2. Guidelines based on negation of non-thermal biological effects

After introductory chapters on procedures and an explanation of the parameters and units used, intended for readers who are not at home in this area, ICNIRP 2020 starts at p. 5 on substantive topics.

The first mentioned on p. 5 are “nerve stimulation” and “permeability of cell membranes” . The further article shows that these topics did not play a role in establishing the ICNIRP exposure guidelines for the frequencies from 10 MHz to 300 GHz, which includes all wireless communications. We limit ourselves to that area in our comments.

Then it goes in pp. 5 – 9 only about temperature effects: “steady-state temperature rise”, “body core temperature”, “local temperature” and “rapid temperature rise”.

Then in pp. 9 – 21 discussed the drafting of the ICNIRP 2020 guidelines and these guidelines are laid down in tables (2 – 9). It appears from the text and from the above and the captions of these tables that only temperature increases caused by short-term (6 or 30 minutes) exposure to the radio-frequency EMF have been decisive for the realization of these guidelines. All harmful long-term effects are again excluded. These non-thermal biological effects, described in thousands of scientific publications, have been ignored or discredited.

Two appendices have been added to the main body of ICNIRP 2020.

Appendix A (pp. 21 – 36) provides information on modeling the energy absorption caused by the EMF and the temperature increases caused by it. This modeling does not provide information about the non-thermal biological effects that should be involved in determining the guidelines. Namely, as mentioned, the threshold values ​​of the harmful effects caused thereby are many orders of magnitude lower than those caused by thermal effects.

Appendix B (pp. 36 – 43) is entitled: “Health risk assessment literature”. In this part, a number of topics are treated very selectively. We will illustrate this selectivity with a few examples.

Cancer

At the end of ICNIRP 2020 (p. 42) the subject of cancer is stated: “In summary, no effects of radiofrequency EMFs on the induction or development of cancer have been substantiated.”

This is already in contradiction with the aforementioned NTP and Ramazzini studies and is also in contradiction with the op p. 41 studies by Lerchl et al. ( 9 ) and Tillmann et al., In which:
“Tumor promotion by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields below exposure limits for humans” has been
confirmed, according to the title (and content) of the publications by Lerchl et al. and from Tillmann et al.

WHO and IARC-WHO

In Appendix B, the WHO only refers to a non-scientific “WHO progress report” ( 10 ) in which only organizational matters are discussed. And while there are three relevant scientific IARC-WHO publications, written by a working group of 31 scientists from 14 countries, all specialists in this field. [IARC stands for International Agency for Research on Cancer, the WHO subdivision dealing with everything related to cancer.]

The collaboration in the said working group has led to:
(i) The classification in 2011 of radio frequency EMF of wireless communication as possibly carcinogenic to humans ( 11 ) (class 2B), the same class in which DDT, leaded petrol and chloroform are classified.
(ii) A scientific article in The Lancet Oncology ( 12 ) which states, among other things, that children are at extra risk from radiofrequency EMF loads.
(iii) A 430-page IARC-WHO monograph ( 13 ), published in 2013, concluding in chapter 6:

“There is limited evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of radiofrequency radiation. Positive associations have been observed between exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless phones and glioma, and acoustic neuroma. ”

This confirms the classification in class 2B referred to in point (i).

There is also a leading update from 2018 ( 14 ), containing the following “Highlights” :
• Increased risk of brain, vestibular nerve and salivary gland tumors are associated with mobile phone use.
• Nine studies (2011–2017) report increased risk of brain cancer from mobile phone use.
• Four case-control studies (3 in 2013, 1 in 2014) report increased risk of vestibular nerve tumors.
• Concern for other cancers: breast (male & female), testis, leukemia, and thyroid.
• Based on the evidence reviewed it is our opinion that IARC’s current categorization of RFR as a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B) should be upgraded to Carcinogenic to Humans (Group 1).
All this information has been completely ignored in ICNIRP 2020. Scientifically speaking, this is not permissible.

In Appendix B, many other topics are discussed in a similar one-sided way. We will discuss one of these, “fertility, reproduction and childhood development” (pp. 40-41). The final conclusion is: “In summary, no adverse effects of radiofrequency EMF exposure on fertility, reproduction, or development relevant to human health have been substantiated.”

This conclusion completely contradicts what has been reported in the relevant part of the BioInitiative report ( 15 ). The “Conclusions” therein:

“Though causal evidence of one or more mechanism (s) are not yet fully refined, it is generally accepted that oxidative stress and free radical action may be responsible for the recorded genotoxic effects of EMFs which may lead to impairments in fertility and reproduction. Free radical action and / or hydrolytic enzymes like DNAase induced by exposure to EMFs may constitute the biochemical actions leading to adverse changes in hormones essential in males and female reproduction, DNA damage, which in turn causes damage to sperm motility, viability, and sperm morphology . Such exposures are now common in men who use and who wear wireless devices on their body, or use wireless-mode laptop computers. It may also account for damage to ovarian cells and female fertility, and miscarriage in women (ELFEMF at 16 mG intermittent exposure). ”

Such substantive scientific information cannot be found in ICNIRP 2020 and is also completely ignored there. That too is scientifically unacceptable.

5G

The rollout of 5G in the Netherlands was discussed in detail in the subpoena ( 2 ). It has been argued that insufficient attention has been paid by the State and research has been done into the adverse health effects of a national 5G network. The correctness of this has been confirmed by Prof. Kromhout, chairman of the EMV committee of the Health Council, who has stated that no research has been conducted into the health effects of 5G for the higher frequencies (3.5 – 3.8 GHz and above). In the USA, it was also confirmed in a “Hearing of the US Congress” by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC), following questions from Senator Blumenthal, that no research has been conducted in this frequency range.

The writ of summons has already substantiated (points 47 – 49) that with the use of 5G the radiation intensity will be increased and that additional health problems can be expected as a result.

There are two other important problems with regard to the radiation intensity and its effect on health. The first is that the range of radiation at higher frequencies is considerably reduced and that the radiation is disturbed and absorbed much faster by obstacles and rain. The increase in the radiation intensity is necessary to extend the range and to partially compensate for disturbance effects.

Also, at higher (5G) frequencies, the depth of penetration of the radiation (EMF) into our body becomes smaller, see table 10 in ( 1 ). With the same radiation intensity, the absorption of the radiation in the skin is increased proportionally because this radiation is absorbed in a smaller volume (smaller depth). Together with the already higher 5G intensities this gives a double increase in absorption in the skin and just below it, so that additional problems are to be expected, how serious cannot be predicted given that no research has been done yet. The roll-out of 5G can therefore be seen as a large-scale experiment with uncertain results regarding the extent to which the health problems of the population have worsened.

A salient detail is that the House of Representatives sent a request for advice to the Health Council on 5-11-2019 to issue advice based on current scientific insights about possible health risks in relation to 5G ( 16 ). So only in November last year while 5G has been in development for years and huge amounts are involved in the rollout. The Government has never even asked the Health Council for such advice, while it has been published for decades about the harmfulness of the EMF (or radiation) of wireless communication and information about this has been sent to the Government and the House of Representatives for many years.

Conflict of interest

In several publications, members of the private organization ICNIRP have been accused of conflicts of interest and links with the telecom industry. In one review publication ( 17 ), Prof. Hardell – oncologist and member of the IARC-WHO working group responsible for the class B classification of RF radiation – provides inside information about the relationships between ICNIRP, WHO and the telecom industry and about the differences between the WHO and the IARC-WHO, the latter organization being more independent. For further information about the conflict of interest, we also refer to ( 18 ).

It should also be noted that the telecom industry works closely with governments and that governments have major financial interests in the telecom industry. Therefore, governments cannot be seen as independent in this area either. Nor does the EMV Knowledge Platform, which was funded by the government, the telecom industry and energy companies in the years 2014 to 2019.

In six court cases in Italy ( 19 ), it has been confirmed by judgment that the brain tumors of employees, who had to make long-term mobile calls because of their work, were caused by that mobile phone use. In their judgments, the judges gave less weight to the studies of the defense, mainly paid by industry, than to the studies of independent researchers. Less weight was also given to studies by members of ICNIRP and SCHENIHR because of “conflicts of interest”. Similar statements, recognizing cell phone use or other long-term radiation exposure from wireless communications as the cause of brain tumors or other physical complaints, have also been made in Spain, France and Australia.

Other subjects

In the foregoing, we have limited ourselves to commenting on the ICNIRP 2020 guidelines. This only provides limited insight into the entire area.

For more information about scientifically proven harmful non-thermal biological effects, i.e. when exposed under the ICNIRP standards, we refer to the summons on pp. 38 – 45 independent investigations. It has shown, among other things: the formation of reactive radicals, single and double breaks in DNA, the formation of micronuclei, the formation of stress hormones and the permeability of the blood-brain barrier, which allows toxic substances to penetrate into the brain.

For information on measures taken in other countries, as in the subpoena, we refer to the Compilation ( 20 ) and to a selection of some of the key items therein with additional information ( 21 ). The subpoena goes on pp. 45 – 50 on those measures, as well as the fact that no insurance company insures health damage caused by the EMF of wireless communication.

In the previous it has been made clear that the ICNIRP 2020 guidelines, as well as those from 1998, are orders of magnitude too high. The question can be asked which standards should then be used. Now there are the still valid older Russian (Eastern Bloc) standards that were known in the West as early as 1976 ( 22 ). With regard to field strength, these standards are a factor 10 stricter than the ICNIRP guidelines, while radiation intensity is a factor 100 stricter.

The difference with the ICNIRP guidelines is that the Russians took into account the long-term effects already known to them at the time. This concerned experiences with radar operators and military research with radio frequency fields. A post-1998 study found that with pulsed signals, such as those used for wireless communications, the guidelines would need to be revised down by about a factor of 10. But that does not explain the even more factor 1000 stricter SBM guidelines for the radiation intensities, drawn up by construction biologists, doctors and scientists. SBM stands for “Standard der Baubiologisch Messtechnik” .

The latest version of the SBM guidelines dates from 2015 ( 23 ). This takes into account the experiences of electro-hypersensitive (EHS) persons, namely that many people have no or little trouble with the radio-frequency EMF for a long time, but then after an sometimes years-long cumulative exposure EHS can become with orders of magnitude increased sensitivity. Such an effect is also known with some allergies.

Finally, for the layman in this area, a few clarifying explanations about misconceptions that are going around:

a) It is claimed that the photons of the RF radiation (EMF) do not have enough energy to cause damage to our body. That is quite correct, but that is not the point. We are not dealing with single photons (wireless communication would not be possible), but with gigantic numbers of photons that vibrate in the same way and together make the EMF. With an EMV with a field strength of 1 V / m, which occurs regularly, 10 21 photons per second pass through an area of ​​1 m 2 . The EMF built up as a result penetrates into our body and can cause damage. This is the simplest explanation, the reality is more complicated.

b) It is said that the sun’s radiation is much more intense than that of wireless communication and that the latter therefore cannot cause any damage. In the middle of a sunny day, the intensity (in mW / m 2 ) of the sunlight is indeed a factor of 1000 to 10,000 or more higher than that of the EMV of wireless communication. But that is not the point. The photons of the sun do not work together and do not emit an electric field at all, unlike the EMF of wireless communication. For a further explanation see ( 24 ).

Literature:

  1. ICNIRP Guidelines for limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz); 2020
    https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPrfgdl2020.pdf
  2. Summons in summary proceedings (of the Stop5GNL Foundation against the State of the Netherlands)
    https://www.stop5gnl.nl/wp-content /uploads/2020/02/Dagvaarding-in-kort-geding.pdf
  3. ICNIRP Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz); 1998
    https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPemfgdl.pdf
  4. Letter dated 16 April 2019 sent to the President of the House of Representatives and signed on behalf of the Government by the State Secretary of Economic Affairs MCG Keijzer and the Minister for Medical Care and Sport, BJ Bruins
    https://www.stopumts.nl/pdf/5G_en_health_brief_regering.pdf
  5. TNO report FEL-03-C148: Effects of Global Communication system radio-frequency fields on Well Being and Cognitive Functions of human subjects with and without subject complaints; 2003
    https://milieu health.be/dossiers/gsm/TNO_verslag_Nederland_sept_2003.pdf 6. BioInitiative Report, Section 9; Evidence for Effects on Neurology and Behavior; 2007
    https://bioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/sec09_2007_Evidence_Effects_Neurology_behavior.pdf
  6. BioInitiative Report, Section 9; Neurological Effects of Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Fields; 2014 Supplement
    https://bioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/sec09_2012_Evidence_Effects_Neurology_behavior.pdf
  7. Telegraaf 23-03-2020: Science divided over radiation 5G
    https://www.telegraaf.nl/lifestyle/882391636/wetschap-verdeeld-over- radiation-5-g
  8. Tumor promotion by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields below exposure limits for humans; 2015
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006291X15003988
  9. The international EMF project; Progress Report June 2013-2014
    https://www.who.int/peh-emf/project/IAC_2014_Progress_Report.pdf?ua=1
  10. IARC classifies radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans; 2011
    https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf
  11. Carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields; in The Lancet Oncology
    https://www.stopumts.nl/pdf/Lancet-June-2011-11.pdf
  12. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, No. 102
    Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields; 2013
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK304630/
  13. Cancer epidemiology update, following the 2011 IARC evaluation of RF EMF (Monograph 102); 2018
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118303475?via%3Dihub
  14. BioInitiative Report, Section 18; Electromagnetic Field Exposure Effects (ELF-EMF and RFR) on Fertility and Reproduction; 2012
    https://bioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/sec18_2012_Exposure_Effects_Fertility_Reproduction.pdf
  15. Request for advice on health risks in relation to 5G; 2019
    https://www.althheidsraad.nl/documenten/magazines/2019/11/5/adviesaanvraag–healthrisicos-in-relatie-tot-5g
  16. World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health – a hard nut to crack (Review) ; 2017
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/
  17. The World Health Organization trusts a private entity (ICNIRP) with no independent experts to set EMF exposure guidelines for the purpose of protecting the health of the population; 2015
    http://www.avaate.org/IMG/pdf/escrito_web_icnirp_ingles_final.pdf
  18. Six Italian Courts Have Ruled that Cell Phones Cause Brain Tumors; 2020
    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/six-italian-courts-have-ruled-that-cell-phones-cause-brain-tumors/
  19. Compilation of measures, advice and rulings from governments, international organizations and courts on the application of electromagnetic (EM) radiation from masts, smartphones, cordless (DECT) telephones and WiFi
    https://www.stopumts.nl/pdf/Compilation- RF-radiation-2020.pdf
  20. Literature about health effects caused by radio-frequency radiation from wireless communication and by low-frequency electromagnetic fields; a selection
    https://www.stopumts.nl/pdf/Literatuur-over-healthseffecten-RF- radiation.pdf
  21. US Defense Intelligence Agency; Biological effects of electromagnetic radiation; Eurasian communist countries; 1976
    https://electroplague.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/dia-report-1976.pdf
  22. SBM-2015 Building biology evaluation guidelines
    https://buildingbiology.com/site/wp-content/uploads/richtwerte-2015-englisch.pdf
  23. On the difference between Man-made and Natural Electromagnetic Fields / Radiation, in regard to Biological Activity
    https://www.stopumts.nl/pdf/Man-made-and-Natural-EMF-EMR.pdf .

Dr. Leendert Vriens
Physicist, former Philips Research Fellow
02-04-2020

Source

In the comments paper on Appeals on the Deployment of 5G by L Hardell, Department of Oncology, Orbrero University (Sweden) and R Nyberg, Faculty of Education and Welfare Studies, Abo Akademi University (Finland) it stated:

“Unfortunately, decision makers seem to be uninformed or even misinformed about the risks. EU officials rely on the opinions of individuals within the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non‑Ionizing Radiation Protection) and the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR), most of whom have ties to the industry. They seem to dominate evaluating bodies and refute risks.. The responses from the EU seem to have thus far prioritized industry profits to the detriment of human health and the environment.”

The ICNIRP’s issued guidelines on radiofrequency exposure were concerned only about short term heating (or thermal) effects from radiation. And these were the guidelines that were adopted by most countries around the world. The ICNIRP’s guidelines were originally produced a couple of decades ago. And while these were later updated in 2009, no changes were made to reflect the features of a new RF signal from the modern technologies, nor were any changes made about the rapidly growing proof of dangerous effects that come from it.

In collaboration with major telecom organizations and the WHO (the World Health Organisation), the ICNIRP has made significant efforts to ensure nations around the world adhere to their guidelines. With that said, even the outdated guidelines could be exceeded with the spread of fifth generation RF radiation, and therefore these could become an obstacle for 5G rollout.

‘The ICNIRP exposure limits are dependent on an unproven hypothesis that “only heat from EMF can cause health hazards”. This hypothesis has clearly been rejected in a large number of scientific studies.’

The ICNIRP’s guidelines may contradict most scientific reports that evidence harmful adverse effects from RF radiation. Supported by major telecom giants, ICNIRP has achieved a fair success in imposing their views on countries all around the globe. What it seems to be a reluctance to listen to clear warnings from subject matter expects is of a concern and potential neglection of health risks.

Another big concern is what is appears to be a conflict of interest among people in assessment groups, given their involvement or association with the telecom sector. The same people are also usually part of other industry or regulatory bodies, and as such, they often may be representing a functioning that of a cartel.

In the US, the obstacles to a widespread 5G deployment have been removed by the federal government. Most regulations that existed were revoked for the sake of spurring progress. Local states, governments, and citizens alike have endeavored to challenge the repeal of certain FCC regulations that pertain to telecom organizations.

In response to these calls, FCC implemented a regulation that allows seizing local control of properties like utility poles in order to place 5G towers or antennas on them. This is being done to advance 5G adoption, simplifying process for telecom firms. The US Conference of Mayors claims that this act has misapplied federal law, and has stripped property rights away from local communities.

Those who stand to benefit from 5G implementation say that 5G technology meets the Federal Safety Standards, however these themselves are widely refuted by many subject matter experts.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its letter stated that “The FCC’s current [radio frequency/microwave] exposure guidelines.. are thermally based, and do not apply to chronic, non-thermal exposure situations…. The generalization by many that the guidelines protect human beings from harm by any or all mechanisms is not justified…. There are reports that suggest that potentially adverse health effects, such as cancer, may occur…. Federal health and safety agencies have not yet developed policies concerning possible risk from long-term, non-thermal exposures.”

You’d think that governments would adopt stronger regulations and health warnings based on numerous red flags raised by a substantial body of researchers. However, it’s not as straight forward as it seems. Dr. Joel Moskowitz explains:

“Unfortunately, as with many other issues, like tobacco, or asbestos, or various chemicals, or global warming, for that matter, there is a body of researchers who are basically defending the industry-promoted guidelines that have been adopted by the FCC and by the ICNIRP, which is the international equivalent of the FCC, which the WHO relies upon.”

“And very recently, a team of investigative journalists identified 14 scientists, actually named them, who defend these obsolete exposure guidelines and they do so by preparing biased reviews of the literature for various health agencies around the world.. There may be another dozen EMF scientists around the world who take a similar position as these researchers, but mostly in the U.S. we’re hearing from non-EMF researchers, people who’ve never published EMF research — typically physicists, engineers, sometimes oncologists, who are defending the FCC guidelines saying the only risks are short-term and due to heating.”

While various attempts are being made by states and local governments to address the issue, it is not enough at this stage. Until it is proven that 5G cellular technology is safe, regulations that matter should be strengthened not eased up. If this technology does have long term health effects, they won’t show up until several years later after we all have been exposed to it.

Source

ICNIRP exposure standards inappropriate – Better protection of civilians from radiation sought!

⚠️ Join: Fb.com/groups/Stop5G (35,575+ members) … Follow: Twitter.com/Stop5G

Written by Dr. Hugo Schooneveld April 28, 2020

We must move away from the current system of standards and limits for the protection of civilians from electromagnetic fields (EMF), as recommended by the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, the ICNIRP.

For radio frequency fields, these limits are based solely on limitation of global warming (‘thermal effects’) and those for low frequency fields on a combination of physiological effects in the body. For both frequency ranges, the limits are several orders of magnitude too high. Under normal living conditions, the field strengths do not come close to these limits, while people do experience nuisance and develop ‘electrostress phenomena. So there are also ‘non-thermal effects’, but ICNIRP denies their existence. Therefore, better standards should be developed that also protect electro-sensitive people against (weak) EMF at home or at work.
We propose to abandon ICNIRP standards and limits for citizens and to adopt the limits of the physician organization EUROPAEM for the time being. But ideally we should develop standards based on the determination of health problems in the body. Physical responses to incident EMF are diverse and complex and it is important to set up a think tank with specialists in relevant biological disciplines to investigate the possibilities for research. Establishment of realistic exposure limits must follow.

ICNIRP standards and limits in disrepute

The Netherlands applies the ICNIRP 1 Guidelines on limits for exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF). With regard to the radio frequency (RF) fields, the heat-generating capacity of these fields is assumed: the so-called ‘ thermal effect ‘. In practice, however, health problems arise among the citizens at field strengths (far) below those limits. They are ‘ non-thermal effects’ that do not generate heat, but do give physiological disturbances from which one can get electrostress complaints. ICNIRP has never seriously looked for biological markers that cause these effects. It is also denied that these effects can occur when exposed to fields below the set limits. This is culpable because such effects have existed for many years and are well documented 2 . There are other countries that have adopted much lower limits on their own authority, but the Netherlands intends to stick to the ICNIRP guidelines and threatens to include them in law 3 . It must be remembered that it is risky to put our safety in the hands of the private organization International commission for non-ionizing radiation protection– ICNIRP. Because the structure, association structure, objectives, ambitions and working methods are opaque and are not under democratic control. Especially the wonderful choice and method of evaluation of scientific papers surprising fourth .

LOGO metro red cross Stichting EHS - Exposure standards ICNIRP inappropriate - Better protection of citizens against radiation wanted
ICNIRP denies that EMFs with strengths below exposure limits can have physiological effects on humans. That is factually incorrect. ICNIRP has no right to speak of ‘non-thermal’ effects and new guidelines must be drawn up for this.

Nuisance from electromagnetic fields (EMF) determined

There is a subpopulation of people worldwide who suffer from exposure to weak EMF and develop short-term symptoms of ‘electrohypersensitivity (EHS) 5 , or long-term brain tumors. There is also a marked increase in neurodegenerative problems, particularly in the Netherlands (2 e in the ranking of countries) 6 attributed to the sharp increase of EMFs in the environment.
ICNIRP denies the relationship between EMV and EHS. Therefore, measures at national level will be omitted. But Denis Henshaw argues 7 that magnetic fields can prevent thermal energy from having a DNA damaging quantum effect due to the effects of coherent fields and the formation of ‘radical pairs’ . They are toxic to the cell.

Health complaints in practice

Meanwhile, significant numbers of people suffer from EHS to varying degrees. The most common complaints are chronic fatigue, sleep and concentration problems, headache, ringing in the ears, rash and many derivative problems. In Sweden, 1.5% of residents of Stockholm are electrosensitive 8 . The Kantar study 9, which was commissioned by the EMF and Health Knowledge Platform, reports that 3% of 628 adult respondents state that they have …… actually noticed something physically, or have been affected by electromagnetic radiation. The most frequently cited symptoms are fatigue, difficulty concentrating and headaches“. In a similar representative study of the RIVM even larger groups of citizens was 7% of the average respondents a degree of discomfort caused by EMC reported 10 Gradually begin also general practitioners to recognize the EHS problems, as evidenced by a scientific study of the RIVM 11 and from publications in a medical journal 12 . An Austrian association of general practitioners has previously issued guidelines for the treatment of people with EHS 13 as well as the European academy for environmental medicine (EUROPAEM) 14 . EHS is regarded as a given by Barnes and Greenebaum and should be further substantiated 15.

History of the high exposure limits

In the days of the Cold War, the middle 20 e -Century, came the radar industry in the US to detect enemy aircraft 16 . The more powerful those radars became, the further they could “look”. But the soldiers on duty on the warships were literally warmed up by the powerful radars, leading to cancer from which they died. Thus, restrictions were placed on the strength of the EMF in areas where crews were allowed to stay. The Institute of electronic and electrical engineers 17 was called in to draw up standards for this, based only on the warming power of the radiation. That became 10 mW / cm2 (= 100W / m2) (note: the current ICNIRP limit is lower: 10 W / m2, but still much too high).
The limits established by the IEEE and ICNIRP are similar, but have different exposure limits due to differences in assumptions. So there is in itself room for discussion and determination of emphasis in standards. Many countries therefore draw up their own plans (see below).

ICNIRP’s advance

ICNIRP apparently has the ambition to have their model for risk assessment of EMF accepted in Europe and beyond. Probably in order to promote the interests of the electronic industry. This is done, among other things, by making their knowledge, writings (‘Guidelines’) and by making board members available to, among others, the WHO, the Dutch Health Council, the RIVM, the GGD / GHOR, the EMF & Health Knowledge Platform. All organizations speak with the same tongue here: ‘only EMF exposure above the limits can cause nuisance’. With comparable health organizations in other countries, personnel ICNIRP ‘reinforcement’ exists, such as Switzerland, Norway, Sweden and Japan 18 , which is no different. It is also referred to as an ICNIRP ‘cartel’ and also the magazine Investigate Europeit was noticed that ICNIRP has suspiciously many formal connections 19 . Why does the Netherlands adhere to the ICNIRP system and not come up with more relevant security measures?

ICNIRP’s updated Guidelines

In 1998 ICNIRP was released with the Guidelines for limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields (100 kHz – 300 GHz) and after more than 20 years it was time for an update. In the last 2 years, the scientific community has been able to make improvements for the planned revision 20, and many took advantage of this, including proposing to lower the very high limits. The final version was completed this year (2020) 21. Little or nothing appeared to have been done with the criticisms submitted: the limits were largely maintained. Only the ‘extremities’ such as head, arms, legs and skin were now allowed to be exposed to a higher dose, so to speak, because the relatively larger surface area after heating by EMF would give a stronger cooling 22 .  
The thermal effects have remained; the non-thermal categoryeffects were denied and no special adjustments were made with regard to the developments of 5G networks. Long-term exposures, pulsed fields, cumulative effects of high and low frequency fields have also not been taken into account. Also the specific behavior of millimeter waves in the skin, the likely harmful effects on subcutaneous tissues with associated health complaints did not receive special attention.

ICNIRP’s exposure limits unrealistic for citizens

The proposed exposure limits are unrealistically high, as people are not approximately exposed to them in their daily lives and yet experience significant complaints. Measures to reduce exposure also reduce complaints. Examples: (1) for 4G transmitter fields there is a limit of 61 V / m, while people on the street rarely experience values ​​of 3V / m, usually and at home only 1V / m 23 . For low-frequency magnetic fields of 50 Hz, the limit applies to citizens of approx. 200 µT; for electric fields a limit of approx. 5 kV / m 25 . In the living / working situations of citizens, we prefer to keep the magnetic field strengths below 20 nT, the electric field strengths below 1 V / m 24. In addition, people feel significantly better.
In addition to the above guidelines for exposure to radio frequency EMF, ICNIRP also publishes guidelines for lower frequency ranges 1Hz – 100 kHz 25 . For both frequency ranges it is given how strong the external fields may be so that the integrity of the body is not disturbed. For the RF fields this is the effect of heating, for the low frequencies it is the voltages and currents that are generated in the body. The frequency of the reference level is indicated per frequency range .

Develop more realistic standards and limits

There are countries that have up to a thousand times sharper limits to protect against radio frequency fields, such as Russia, China, France, Belgium, Switzerland and others 16 . The big difference is that their health organizations also take into account the patient’s pre-existing complaints. Precisely those syndromes that are not (yet?) Clinically objectifiable are included in the assessment.
Several organizations have made proposals to reduce the ICNIRP limits, including the BioInitiative Project 26 , the Seletun Statement 27 , the Council of Europe 34 , the European Academy of Environmental Medicine (EUROPAEM) 14 and others. The latter makes the most detailed proposals on limits for low and high frequency fields, based on literature data. The proposed limits are all orders of magnitude below those of the ICNIRP.
The German Wolfgang Maes organization goes even further, borrowing its guidelines from data from thousands of people with EHS and suggesting field reduction measures that can get them back on their feet. The Standard Baubiologisch Messtechnik (SBM-2015) 28 document is widely used and effective in home and room remediation. In almost every environment there is a complex mixture of field types. It requires the deployment of qualified measurement specialists to make good measurements and make proposals for field reduction 29. People with EHS often need coaching afterwards for reintegration into society 30 .

In summary: If the Dutch Health Council could see that it is irresponsible to go further with the ICNIRP guidelines and that it is not included in national legislation, the EUROPAEM system seems to be a useful alternative system of EMF standardization, although refinements can also be made in this respect. bring. Human health is the starting point.

Impeccable polarization between defenders and rejectors of non-thermal EMF effects

In an interview with De Telegraaf 31, professor Hans Kromhout, chairman of the EMV committee of the Health Council, expressed his heart about irreconcilable positions of representatives of electro-sensitive persons towards deniers of EMV damage to health. Some points from the interview:

  • … The assessment of 5G from an economic point of view is at odds with the way we deal with other exposures
  • … The American NTP study provided evidence for the relationship between RF EMF exposures and cancer in mice and rats
  • … ‘Special’ that ICNIRP standards have gained so much power in Europe; just looking at heat development is not enough
  • … The ICNIRP is a somewhat opaque club, it has no independent status
  • … There is only one standard for 5G: heating. No passing on of health risks. “You shouldn’t just let the industry go its own way.”

The problem is that the Council, at the request of the two e Room for the summer should submit an opinion on the risks of 5G. In the same Council, as secretary, Dr. Eric van Rongen, who is also the current chairman of the ICNIRP board. It is therefore exciting what advice the Health Council will send to the House.

Identifying EMF effects as a basis for EHS diagnosis and limit determination

As explained earlier by me 32 , the EMF effects on the body can be distinguished in stages. The ‘cascade model’ assumes a relationship between place / time of primary impact and the nervous system from which further processing of the stimulus is carried out and EHS complaints arise. It is important to map out the ‘measurable’ aspects of that stimulus trajectory. It is about developing an objectifiable biological model (physiological, molecular, genetic) in order to be converted into practical tools. Particular attention should be paid to non-invasive techniques that can be performed in the doctor’s office or in clinical laboratories. Of course, there are the differences between sensitive and control subjects in body fluid composition 33. But there are more biochemical and physiological manifestations of effects that are characteristic for the determination of EHS complaints 15 .

Open discussion between experts on what to do next

It is therefore time to promote a meeting of experts in the field of EMF to give substance to the wish for demonstrability of the EHS condition. The search is for a person or organization who wants to put their weight behind it. Why not the EMF and Health Knowledge Platform? Perhaps a professor with a broad profile who would like to advocate and set up a broad study under the auspices of ZonMW, for example. Barnes and Greenebaum in the USA also advocate further biological research to design better guidelines; they also present an action plan for this 15 .

For a list of quoted references, click here .

Source

Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) from wireless communications and health ‘Scientific proof’ versus ‘observation’ and ‘experiences: PDF

Judgment in summary proceedings against Stop5GNL against the State; no carte blanche

Photo: Shutterstock

Monday 25 May 2020 started with the judgment in summary proceedings of the Stop5GNL Foundation against the State. In the evening the first informative webinar about 5G and health for municipalities took place. In this post, we will zoom in on the statement and tell you more about the 5G webinar.

The judge ruled that the government may continue to roll out 5G, but also indicated that the State is obliged to intervene if it appears that health damage can still occur below the limits that are now considered safe. No carte blanche so .

The discussion about the way in which this new technology can and can be applied is now mainly with the municipality. They are primarily concerned with the protection of public health, the environment and the safety of citizens in their territory. In order to fulfill this important task, the 5G webinar for administrators, council members and civil servants of municipalities was organized.

Serious evidence of health damage

We believe that there are too many serious indications of damage to health that make the rollout of 5G unjustifiable. The rollout of 5G could seriously violate our human rights. Official authorities are now providing false and even misleading information about the safety of radiation. Because of these risks, we want a moratorium on the rollout of 5G, just like in  Brussels  and in different parts of Switzerland.

This can be read on the website of Stichting Stop5GNL , which filed summary proceedings against the State at the end of last year with the aim of stopping the roll-out of 5G. The judge did not find the evidence that Stop5GNL put forward to demand this moratorium convincing enough: he ruled that the State has not acted wrongfully and that the frequencies may be auctioned for the benefit of 5G. Very disappointing for anyone who stands up for better protection of citizens and the environment against the harmful effects of electromagnetic radiation and 5G.

No carte blanche

Despite this ruling, the summary proceedings have yielded much good and the discussion about how this technology is being used is far from settled. Stop5GNL is considering possible next steps and other ‘grassroots’ groups are working selflessly to counterbalance the marketing strategy of government and industry. The judge’s decision indicates that the government may continue to roll out 5G, but it will certainly not get carte blanche , as journalist Rien van den Berg also writes in the Nederlands Dagblad :

Remarkably, the State initially denied its responsibility over 5G in court. She relied on ‘technology neutrality’. Setting up the network would be a matter for telecom companies. “But it is evident,” says the judge, “that the state encourages and facilitates telecom companies to use 5G.” And in the most important part of the ruling, the judge holds the government fully responsible for ensuring public health now that the electromagnetic fields will become stronger through 5G… ..

In other words: the state is  now allowed to move on, but above all must take its responsibility. Important voices call for more research. A European Parliamentary investigation service casts doubt on whether the whole scientific story is being told. Utrecht professor Hans Kromhout, chairman of the Electromagnetic Fields Committee of the Health Council, therefore believes that the rollout of 5G is not self-evident. And Aart Nederveen, radiologist at the AMC and professor of applied radiology at the University of Amsterdam, recently argued  in this newspaper one more step in place, because there is too little scientific consensus. That is wise advice, but it seems that he has gone on deaf ears. The government can go through the courts, and the state will earn at least 900 million euros from the 5G auction.

Application of the precautionary principle?

The results of studies by scientists, both national and international, that raise major questions about the safety of 5G have also been presented to the court by the Stop5GNL foundation. However, the preliminary relief judge indicated that he should be cautious and that the scientific value or weight of investigations cannot be assessed in summary proceedings. However, Stop5GNL’s requirement was not to make that assessment, but to stop on the basis of the precautionary principle 5G.

The precautionary principle is laid down in European legislation and the Dutch government ‘s guidelines for risk and safety issues.

Precaution is not about reducing risks to zero, but provides a policy framework for dealing with scientific uncertainty and dealing with risk. If there is a large and irreversible risk, even in uncertainty, it is necessary to take precautions:

With some techniques, products or actions, there is ( still) no scientific certainty about whether, when and to what extent there is a risk of damage to people and the environment. The starting point in these cases is that measures must be taken to prevent major and irreversible damage as much as possible .

In its defense, the State indicated that it applies the precautionary principle by applying the guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ioninzing Radiation (ICNIRP), by regularly checking that the limits stated therein are not exceeded, by having regular review take place based on new insights into the potentially harmful effects of electromagnetic waves and by (promising to) act accordingly.

Conflicts of Interest

It is special that the judge agrees with this statement by the State. Because these measures are not in accordance with the European policy framework and the Dutch guidelines for risk and safety issues. In addition, the ICNIRP guidelines are heavily criticized in terms of content and the independence of this private expert organization is questioned. The criticism and conflict of interest with Telecom is described in, among other things, the article ‘Calling damages cells’ in the Groene Amsterdammer. The Turin court Last year, even found that studies provided – denying a causal link between radiation from mobile technology and health damage – are largely industry-funded and should therefore weigh less due to conflicts of interest.

Studies provided by the defense — which denied a causal link — were mostly industry-funded and, therefore, should be given less weight because of conflicts of interest.

Studies by members of the ICNIRP and the SCHENIHR (the Scientific Committee on New Health Risks of the European Commission) are also subject to conflicts of interest, according to the Turin court, as these organizations also receive funding from industry. The World Health Organization (WHO) International EMF project and many countries around the world have adopted ICNIRP’s industry-funded recommendations as their safety guidelines. The advisory bodies of the Dutch State are also still blind to these ICNIRP guidelines.

It is also striking in the judge’s opinion that the policies of other countries, which act in line with the European precautionary principle, were not considered convincing. And policies of insurers (which place and refuse to insure electromagnetic fields in the highest risk class) were even dismissed as irrelevant. We are curious whether our government will remain as stubborn as the roll-out of 5G in other countries is definitively discontinued or if strict conditions and measures are required. In any case, we are following with great interest the lawsuit that is now being started in the UK by the multidisciplinary Action group Action Against 5G and the lawsuits that have been started in the US and France , among others .

Interim relief gives a boost to social awareness

All in all a statement, where the 5G critics are concerned, there is a lot to be discussed. In any case, a positive effect is that the subject of 5G has attracted a great deal of interest as a result of this lawsuit, as a result of which awareness of the health risks of electromagnetic fields has increased considerably.

In the past period, countless citizens, politicians and policymakers have reached flight heights in terms of knowledge about this matter. The protests against the new 5G networks in the making are getting louder in the Netherlands, as can be read in this Computable article . More and more opinion articles are appearing in the media, the topic is now on the agenda of many municipalities and ordinary citizens are uniting to inform others.

This video of the new 5Bburgers platform is a good example. They call on our Prime Minister Mark Rutte to take a critical (and really very critical) look at the possible dangers of electromagnetic radiation and 5G:

Video call 5Bburgers.nl

5G webinar

Due to the corona measures, council information meetings and citizen speeches have not been possible in the past period. We therefore sent an appeal in April to all Mayors, Aldermen and city councilors to stop all 5G activities , at least as long as the democratic process is stagnating.

We are now a phase further and slowly but surely there are more possibilities to have a discussion about the desirability and necessity of the 5G technology. The lock-down period has been seized by a number of professionals to launch a 5G webinar for municipalities. The 90-minute webinar was held on May 25th and provides insight into 5G, so that politicians and councilors can participate in the democratic process with the appropriate factual and scientific knowledge. The program is as follows:

Let’s Talk About Tech colleague Vera was one of the leaders of this initiative. Her premium article ‘The 5G Appeal and the monopoly of science’ forms the basis of the analysis of the presentation ‘Scientific evidence: how are the research results achieved?’. In summary proceedings, the judge was unable to judge science itself. This is possible in a basic procedure. This analysis, in which the systematic bias is clarified by the advisory bodies in the interpretation, can provide tools.

We therefore recommend watching this webinar. In a relatively short time, you will be well informed about the nature of the technique and key points in the discussion about the effects of 5G on health. The webinar also offers starting points for municipalities what they can do for citizens in this area.

For those who have missed it and want to take the information here already the:

Source

The 5G appeal and the monopoly on ‘science’

Drs. Vera Verhagen

Photo: shutterstock

“We, the undersigned, scientists and physicians, recommend a moratorium on the rollout of the fifth generation, 5G, for telecommunications until potential threats to human health and the environment have been fully investigated by industry-independent scientists. 5G will significantly increase exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) on top of 2G, 3G, 4G, Wi-Fi, etc. for pre-existing telecommunications. RF-EMV has proven to be harmful to people and the environment ”

On September 13, 2017, 260 scientists (PhD, professor) and doctors (MD) have The 5G Appeal presented to the European Union and called for a moratorium on 5G. The scientists argue that the vast majority of research on existing technology points to harmful biological effects such as DNA damage far below the maximum exposure guidelines and that the impact of 5G on health has not even been studied. Furthermore, they argue that current safety guidelines only protect industry and not health. In contrast, the European Commission maintains that there is no convincing scientific evidence for health damage as long as the guidelines are not exceeded. Stopping the roll-out of 5G on the basis of the precautionary principle, the European Commission therefore considers too drastic a measure.First, it is necessary to consider how the new technology will be applied and how scientific evidence will develop.

We are now almost two and a half years further and the discussion about the harmfulness of 5G has started worldwide. The number of scientists and doctors who have endorsed the 5G appeal has now grown to 304 people (counting March 2, 2020). The question arises: what happened to this 5G call?

In any case, we have not heard anything about it in the media. Just like that there is hardly any attention for the moratoria on 5G, which now apply in several Swiss cantons and Slovenia. Meanwhile, the discussion about the health implications of 5G seems to be moving from science itself to how science is evaluated and who is entitled to do so. The gap between the two worlds of official advisory bodies, government and telecom industry on the one hand and independent scientists and informed citizens on the other is widening. How is it possible that the same enormous mountain of scientific research can lead to such a diametrically opposite evaluation? In the recently published article‘Appeals that matter or not on a moratorium on the deployment of the fifth generation, 5G, for microwave radiation’ about an exchange of letters from the appealing scientists with the European Commission, Lennart Hardell and Rainer Nyberg clarify this issue. Their sharp and detailed analysis is based on the scientific facts themselves, from which the influence of possible ‘conflicts of interest’ slowly but surely emerges.

In the premium article ‘The 5G appeal and monopoly on science’ Let’s Talk About Tech colleague Vera Verhagen discusses:

  • The reactions and defense to the 5G appeal.
  • The interwovenness of the committees in Europe advising on safety limits.
  • The underpinning of the European Commission conclusions.
  • The recent briefing by the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) , the European Parliament’s research service , which expresses a different vision from that of the European Commission. The EPRS even endorses the recommendation by some experts to opt for a safer technique such as glass fiber that has no speed limit.
  • The multi-disciplinary composition of advisory bodies.
  • The realization of research budgets and their influence on the content and quality of science.

The full article is available as PDF: Let’s Talk About Tech premium article ‘The 5G appeal and monopoly on science’

Source

🛑 ICNIRP – investigative files, articles, papers, documentaries

Posted on June 2, 2019 by Multerland

I. Introduction

ICNIRP is a particularly influential group, as it not only evaluates radiation and health risk research, but also provides guidelines for radiation safety limits that most countries use. It is a private, German-registered organisation located outside Munich [map], behind a yellow door on the premises of the German Federal office for radiation protection. Decisions on who to invite in, are taken by ICNIRP itself.  Source: Investigate Europe

Bundesamt_fuer_Strahlenschutz

File:Bundesamt fuer Strahlenschutz.jpg  This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

Wikipedia: “The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) is an international commission specialized in non-ionizing radiation protection. The organization’s activities include determining exposure limits for electromagnetic fields used by devices such as cellular phones.

ICNIRP is an independent non profit scientific organization chartered in Germany. It was founded in 1992 by the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) to which it maintains close relations.”

balk1

.

II. The totalitarian role of ICNIRP, world wide

Website ICNIRP: Commission, to find the names to those who are the ICNIRP’s most important influencers. Chair: Eric van Rongen.  Videos with Eric van Rongen; 1, 2, 3, 4

Eric van Rongen participates in the Dutch “Gezondheidsraad”: visit webpage Commission Electromagnetic Fields, scroll down to “secretarissen”. As the chairperson of ICNIRP he is the official connection with and superior, authoritarian influence of ICNIRP on WHO, and EU, and via EU on all European member states and treaty countries. Via WHO he has a world wide authoritarian influence and power. The connection with EU has been admitted in the letter that Wojciech Kalamarz sent me. In not any former letter neither on the website of EU or WHO is published what exactly the name is of the group that decides the electromagnetic radiation guidelines. The confirmation of EU that ICNIRP is the EU guidelines creator can be found in “EU guidelines are fraudulent, 3“. All other connections of ICNIRP and can be found in the ICNIRP Cartel. Missing detail in this Cartel: the connection of ICNIRP (via Eric van Rongen) with the Health Council of the Netherlands.

Alarming: world wide the research results of ICNIRP are considered to be infallible, and therefore indisputable. This phenomenon is comparable with the system of a church, a religion, and being infallible and therefore indisputable are the most essential characteristics of religious totalitarianism. To make it understandable: the “God” of ICNIRP is the dogmatic science that ICNIRP considers as the right and only true one. ICNIRP, and its believers: WHO, EU, the Dutch Health Council, all in the ICNIRP Cartel, show absolute intolerance of other views and opposition.

Totalitarianism is a political concept of a mode of government that prohibits opposition parties, restricts individual opposition to the state and its claims, and exercises an extremely high degree of control over public and private life. It is regarded as the most extreme and complete form of authoritarianism. Source: Wikipedia

.

balk1

.

III. ICNIRP – investigative files, articles, papers, documentaries

  1. My own investigations on ICNIRP
  2. Documentary: Resonance: Beings of Frequencies [2012]
  3. Documentary: An Invisible Threat [2014]
  4. Dr. Hugo Schooneveld PhD
  5. Interview: Dr. Zac Cox PhD, with Mr Barrie Trower
  6. Louis Slesin, PhD / Microwave News
  7.  Documentary: Anders Børringbo – Brennpunkt, NRK, ‘’A Radiant Day’’, 2008
  8. Investigate Europe
  9. Adam J. Vanbergen, Simon G. Potts, Alain Vian, E. Pascal Malkemper, Juliette Young, Thomas Tscheulin
  10. Dr. Lennart Hardell
  11. Einar Flydal
  12. Dr. Martin L. Pall
  13. Dafna Tachover
  14. Prof. Girish Kumar
  15. Stralingsbewust
  16. S. Cucurachia; W.L.M. Tamisa; M.G. Vijvera; W.J.G.M. Peijnenburg; J.F.B. Bolte; G.R.de Snoo
  17. Fragopoulou A, Grigoriev Y, Johansson O, Margaritis LH, Morgan L, Richter E, Sage C.
  18. Naren, Anubhav Elhenc, Vinay Chamola, Mohsen Guizan
  19. Dr. Susan Pocket
  20. Antoinette Janssen
  21. The EMF Call
  22. Playlist with videos about ICNIRP
  23. Additional information
  24. Archive Michael Repacholi
  25. Archive Martin Röösli

.

balk1

MSM pushes Bogus ‘Radiation Watchdog’ ICNIRP 2020 ‘Safety Guidelines’ – NOT Safety Standards Backed by Evidence! … Click on Me!

balk1

ICNIRP – investigative files, articles, papers, documentaries

§1. My own investigations on ICNIRP

From the moment I had read and understood the article, also the consequences of it for all life beings, I started to do my own research: who are the ICNIRP? Their website offered names, and I searched on PubMed for what “the names” studied, how many researches they made, alone, or together with others. I made a PDF with the complete list of names, and research results. You can take a look here.

Conclusion: ICNIRP has in total 13 members, of which 5 did not study anything about EMF. The ICNIRP’s total research results on PubMed is 12.615. Of these 12.615 studies are just 95 related with EMFs, wireless exposure, radiation, etc. This is 0,8% of the total. Total impression: the researches show not to find any worrying aspect of EMF. Not found: 4G, 5G, bee collapse, bird collapse, insects, plants, trees, forests, amphibians. Research date: 15 March 2019. This organization pretends to have the skills and the science to guide us, humanity.
This is in my opinion beyond any sane rational thought. Not any politician has obviously ever asked the ICNRP commissioners, for their C.V., did not examine their C.V.,  did not check the content of their C.V., and…. what their ethics are. [Add. February 18, 2020: The Largest Unethical Medical Experiment in Human History]

icnirp-FULL
balk1

§2. Documentary: Resonance: Beings of Frequencies
The video starts at 50:17, with information about and analyses of ICNIRP: guidelines that are not safety guidelines, the industry, who are invited in the ICNIRP team, by who, and why. The role of WHO, EU. The absence of science in the group.

balk1

§3. Documentary: An Invisible Threat
The documentary is an investigation, delving into three groups: the telecommunications industry (mobile telephone companies, MMF); official organisations (WHO, IARC, ICNIRP) and official scientific reports (BioInitiative, Interphone, CEFALO).
Duration: 1:11:40
Director: Pablo Coca
Published: 2014

balk1

.

HugoSchoonveld

§4. Dr. Hugo Schooneveld PhD – Netherlands

ICNIRP exposure standards inappropriate -Better protection for citizens against radiation sought
English: http://www.hugoschooneveld.nl/bestanden/Extern/ICNIRP exposure standards inappropriate.pdf

Summary
We need to get rid of the current system of standards and limits for the protection of citizens against electromagnetic fields (EMF), as recommended by the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, the ICNIRP. These limits for radio frequency fields are based solely on limiting warming of the body (“thermal effects”) and limits for low frequency fields are based on a combination of physiological effects in the body. For both frequency ranges, the limits are several orders of magnitude too high. Under normal living conditions, the field strengths experienced do not come close to these limits, while people do experience nuisance and develop “electrostress phenomena. So there are also “non-thermal effects”, but ICNIRP denies their existence. Therefore, better standards should be developed that also protect electro-sensitive people against (weak) EMF at home or at work.We propose to abandon ICNIRP guidelinesfor citizens and adopt instead the limits of the physician organization EUROPAEM, for the time being. But ideally,we should develop new standards based on physiological criteria.Physical responses to incident EMF are diverse and complex and it is important to set up a ‘think tank’with specialists in relevant biological disciplines to investigate the possibilities for biological standards. Realistic exposure limits for the electrosensitives should be the outcome.
Index:

  • ICNIRP standards and limits in disrepute
  • Nuisance from electromagnetic fields (EMF)
  • History of the high exposure limits
  • ICNIRP’s progress
  • ICNIRP’s updated Guidelines
  • ICNIRP’s exposure limits are unrealistic for citizens
  • Develop more realistic standards and limits
  • Polarizationbetween defenders and rejectors of non-thermal EMF effects
  • Identifying EMF effects as a basis for EHS diagnosis and exposure limits
  • Open discussion between experts on what to do next

Dutch: Blootstellingsnormen ICNIRP ongepast –Betere bescherming van burgers tegen straling gezocht
https://www.hugoschooneveld.nl/pdf_bestanden/pdf_blogs/blootstellingsnormen_icnirp_ongepast.pdf
Newsletter number 55
Published: April 28, 2020


balk1

.

Louis Slesin

§6. Louis Slesin, PhD – USA

  Microwave News. [Introduction: PubMed and ResearchGate show zero search results for scientific research, published by Louis Slesin. Nowhere on the web is to be found what exactly Louis Slesin studied. In Wikipedia is a page about Microwave News, in which, of course, the name of Microwave News owner Louis Slesin is mentioned, but not any detail is to be found there about his personal career, his studies. Also the name Paul Brodeur is present. Paul Brodeur is an American investigative science writer and author of a.o. The Zapping of America. As far I am able to understand the total picture, then the most likely could be that the industry where Slesin writes about has created a similar kind of scenario with the life of Louis Slesin, as with Dr. George Carlo. There are more scientists who work(ed) in this field, who made studies about EMF, and have undergone threats of the industry. Read for instance this by Louis Slesin written article: N.P. Singh, the Comet Assay and “Radiation Research”]

§5. Dr. Barrie Trower – United Kingdom

On November 13, 2010, scientist Barrie Trower talked about the dangers of microwave
technology and the ignorance of the decision makers in relation to the international
guidelines.
By: The World Foundation for Natural Science http://www.naturalscience.org
Total length: 2 hours, 20 minutes
Blog post: The World Foundation for Natural Science talks with Dr. Barrie Trower

In the interview Dr. Barrie Trower speaks about ICNIRP. Click on the upper right button in the video below and search for video number 12/21: The Dangers of Microwave Technology – Law & Guidelines. Dr. Barrie Trower speaks also about the Nuremberg treaty in part 13/21: The Dangers of Microwave Technology – Nuremberg treaty

.

balk1

§6a.The Lies Must Stop – Disband ICNIRP, Facts Matter, Now More Than Ever, published: April 9, 2020 in Microwave News.

§6b. Microwave News Responds to Mike Repacholi / November 17, 2006..[In the following text I have used bold, Italic, and underlined to create attention for essential information. A.J. || Who is Mike Repacholi? See §3.]

Repacholi_1

In his November 15 response to Microwave News, Mike Repacholi [picture] does not to point to a single factual error in our November 13 “News and Comment” on his consulting work for two U.S. electric utilities. Notably, Repacholi does not challenge that: . • He misrepresented the conclusions of the expert panel he assembled to complete the WHO’s Environmental Health Criteria on power-frequency EMF health risks, as pointed out by NIEHS As-sociate Director Chris Portier; • Up to half, if not more, of the WHO’s EMF project’s funding came from industry. Repacholi states that he always followed the WHO rules on funding and that, “ NO funds were EVER sent to me.” [His emphasis.] This is financial legerdemain. As Microwave News has previously reported, Repacholi arranged for the industry money to be sent to the Royal Adelaide Hospital in Australia, where he used to work. The funds were then transferred to the WHO. Seven years ago, Norm Sandler, a Motorola spokesman, told us that, “This is the process for all the supporters of the WHO program.” At the time, Motorola was sending Repacholi $50,000 each year. That money is now bundled with other industry contributions and sent to Australia by the Mobile Manufacturers Forum (MMF), which gives the project $150,000 a year. . “What is the difference between sending money directly to the WHO and sending it via Australia?,” we asked Repacholi last December. . He never responded. . We don’t think there is any difference. We don’t understand how the WHO can see this as anything other than money laundering.On numerous occasions we have asked Repacholi to reveal all the sources of the funding of the WHO EMF project. . He has consistently refused. . With respect to Repacholi’s and Peter Valberg’s failure to cite the increase in acoustic neuroma among those who had used mobile phones for ten years or more in their paper in Environmental Health Perspective, Repacholi explains that their paper was about mobile phone base stations not the phones themselves. Once again, Repacholi is dissembling. This is what he and Valberg wrote: “For example, the risk of acoustic neuroma in relation to mobile phone use has been assessed via six population – based, shared-protocol, case-control studies in four Nordic countries and the U.K. The authors concluded that there was no association of risk with duration of use, life-time cumulative hours of use or number of calls, for phone use overall or for analogue or digital phones separately (Schoemaker et al. 2005).” Much of this text is adapted from the Schoemaker abstract. . The very next sentence of the abstract is: “Risk of a tumour on the same side of the head as re-ported phone use was raised for use for 10 years or longer (OR=1.8, 95% CI: 1.1-3.1).” [British Journal of Cancer, 93, p.842, 2005.] . This is the most “disquieting finding” that Repacholi and Valberg chose to ignore. Repacholi calls us “hypocritical” for accusing him of using an unreleased report in his testimony for the two electric utilities. We did not make this accusation. As we clearly stated in our article, it was a group of well-known EMF researchers who raised an objection. Finally, Repacholi would have us believe that he and his staff served only as the secretariart for all the meetings that the WHO project hosted over the years. . More nonsense. Mike Repacholi was the EMF project. He was in total control. He was the conductor who orchestrated all the key decisions. For instance, it was Repacholiwho flip-flopped over applying the precautionary principle to EMF health risks. And, of course, it was Repacholi who decided who would be invited to all those meetings. Repacholi writes that: “To say that I am or was ever influenced by industry in any way is completely ludicrous.” Those of us who have watched Repacholi sell out the public health at the WHO for the last ten years know just how ridiculous that statement is. . 6c. ICNIRP Finds NTP & Ramazzini RF–Animal Studies Unconvincing
“Further Research Is Required”
By: Dr. Louis Slesin
Published: 2018
Update on May 1, 2020:
*Regarding ICNIRP’S Evaluation of the National Toxicology Program’s Carcinogenicity Studies on Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields
https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Citation/2020/06000/Regarding_ICNIRP_S_Evaluation_of_the_National.11.aspx
By: Ronald Melnick
Published: 2020
*Response to Melnick (2020)
https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Citation/2020/06000/Response_to_Melnick__2020_.12.aspx
By: ICNIRP
Published: 2020 . 6d. Industry Support for the WHO‘s EMF Project: New Sources RevealedImagine, a Belgian magazine, is reporting in its November/December issue that the WHO EMF project has been receiving even more industry money than has been previously disclosed. In a cover story titled, “Mobile Phones: We’re All Guinea Pigs!,” David Leloup revealed that the GSM Association (GSMA) recently increased its annual payment to €150,000 ($165,000). Before 2005, the GSMA contributed €50,000 ($55,000) a year. This is in addition to the $150,000 a year, the Mobile Manufacturers Forum (MMF) gives the EMF project each year. (MMF’s Mike Milligan confirmed this to Microwave News in 2003.) Previously, Motorola gave Repacholi $50,000 a year; but the company now funnels its payments through the MMF. Leloup estimates that these two mobile phone trade asso-ciations alone made upmore than 40%of the EMF project’s 2005-2006 budget. The total contribution from the wireless industry is nodoubt higher, however. Other groups have also been sending money to Mike Repacholi. For instance, the FGF, the German RF research institute, Forschungsgemeinschaft Funk, has been giving the project about €15,000 ($16,500) a year, according to Gerd Friedrich, the director of FGF. This does not include any possible support from the electric utlity industry.
By: Dr. Louis Slesin, in: MICROWAVE NEWS
Published: November 13, 2006

.

§6e. Microwave News – Michael Repacholi: Collection review articles about Michael Repacholi from 2004 – …. : https://microwavenews.com/news-tags/michael-repacholi§6f. Microwave News – Martin Röösli: Collection review articles about Martin Röösli from 2004 – …. : https://microwavenews.com/news-tags/martin-r%C3%B6%C3%B6sli . .

balk1

.

.

.§7. Anders Børringbo – Norway

Brennpunkt, NRK, ‘’A Radiant Day’’, 2008 – The Radiation Exposure War
https://www.nrk.no/dokumentar/the-radiation-exposure-war-1.6292981
Author: Frode Nielsen
Published: 14 November 2008

 Playlist with the documentary in 5 parts:
Anders Børringbo – Brennpunkt, NRK, ‘’A Radiant Day’’, 2008

.

balk1

.

§8. Investigate Europe

The ICNIRP Cartel and the 5G Mass Experiment –  March 2019

ICNIRP is a particularly influential group, as it not only evaluates radiation and health risk research, but also provides guidelines for radiation safety limits that most countries use. It is a private, German-registered organisation located outside Munich, behind a yellow door on the premises of the German Federal office for radiation protection. Decisions on who to invite in, are taken by ICNIRP itself.

“ICNIRP does not have an open process for the election of its new members. It is a self-perpetuating group with no dissent allowed. Why is this not problematic?” asks Louis Slesin, editor of the publication Microwave News in New York. He has followed the scientific debate on radiation and health for decades.

There are not enough highly qualified scientists, explains Mike Repacholi, an EMF research pioneer who founded ICNIRP in 1992, to Investigate Europe. The excluded research often does not meet high standards, adds Eric van Rongen, head of ICNIRP. “We are not against including scientists who think differently. But they must fill the profile in a specific vacant position and cannot just be taken in for their dissident views”, says van Rongen.

ICNIRPCARTEL

Click to go to the animated version

Major overlap of scientists

ICNIRP is the de facto standard-setter of radiation safety limits in much of Europe. Still, it is  just one out of several scientific groups. The groups, however, are to a remarkable degree staffed by the same experts.

Of 13 ICNIRP scientists, six are members of at least one other committee. In the WHO group, this applies for six out of seven. Every third researcher in the EU commission that gave radiation advice in 2015 was represented in other groups.

This is not so strange, according to Gunnhild Oftedal. She is a member of both the ICNIRP commission and WHO’s research group. “People who demonstrate that they are skilled are asked to contribute. Look at who sits on boards and councils in general, this is what it is like everywhere in society”, she says.

The committees agree on a basic premise between themselves: The only documented health risk from mobile radiation is the heating of body tissue. The radiation safety limits are set to prevent this from happening. As long as one adheres to these, there is no health risk, according to all but one committee.

For most mobile users it is easy to stay safe in relation to these limits: They are only reached or exceeded by standing directly in front of a base station at a shorter distance than 10 meters.

Are not nearly five billion mobile users worldwide proof that this works well?

Many studies find risk

No, argue a significant number of scientists who believe that people may be harmed by being exposed to mobile radiation far below these limits, especially in the course of many years of use. Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Organisation, an Australian entity, examined 2266 studies and found “significant biological effects or health effects” in 68 percent of them. Another, the “Bioinitiative Group“, referred to up to 1800 studies when they concluded that many such bio-effects probably cause health damage if people are exposed for a long time. This is because the radiation interferes with normal processes in the body, preventing them from repairing damaged DNA and creating an imbalance in the immune system, say these scientists.

According to the report produced by the Bioinitiative Group, the list of possible damage is frightening: Poor sperm quality, autism, alzheimers, brain cancer and childhood leukemia.

[….]

Source of finance may affect result

At least three studies over the years have documented that there is often a link between conclusions of studies and the source of the money that paid for the research. Science funded by industry is less likely to find health risks than studies paid for by institutions or authorities.

Research money often goes to universities and has “firewalls” between the individual scientist and the money, says Lennart Hardell, cancer doctor and scientist at the University hospital in Örebro in Sweden. “The problem is, however, that one becomes dependent on this money. Most people do not bite the hand that feeds them”, believes the Swedish researcher.

Hardell studies connections between long-term mobile use and brain cancer and has concluded that one can cause the other. He sat on the IARC committee in 2011, but is not represented on other committees. According to Hardell, his research is funded through his salary from the hospital as well as by funds raised by local cancer foundations and national organisations. “Of course I have also worked a lot on my free time”, he says.

Martin Röösli co-authored one of the studies that documented the link between financing source and results. The associate professor at the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute is a member of ICNIRP and other advisory bodies.  “Studies which are solely financed by industry are likely to be biased”, Röösli confirms to Investigate Europe. But in his study, mixed financial models with proper firewalls did not result in biased research outcomes – and it had a higher quality. There might also be preferred outcomes in any camp, Röösli asserts: “Researchers may create uncertainties to raise funding for their research”.

Some studies can go on for 15 to 20 years. Such projects are bread and butter for researchers, argues Louis Slesin. Some studies are industry-funded. “Does this constitute a conflict of interest for the scientists involved?” Slesin asks – and answers: “Of course it does”.

Gunnhild Oftedal does not dismiss that the source of funding can affect conclusions – just as “a strong belief that one will find something” can. Such mechanisms were not much considered before. “But today we are concerned about it. I have the impression that scientists are much more cautious about receiving support from the industry – at least direct support”, says Oftedal.

“Industry should pay”

Not everyone wants to denounce money from business. Industry should definitely pay for research into potential dangers of their products; but it should only be conducted independently of the funders, thinks Zenon Sienkiewicz, a UK physiologist, He is part of the ICNIRP commission and has previously been on other advisory bodies.

Research is critically dependent on external funding, adds former ICNIRP scientist Norbert Leitgeb, professor at the Institute of Health Care Engineering at the Graz University of Technology in Austria. “The question is not whether industry has provided money, which it should do if the products are the reason of concern. The important issue is whether there are efficient firewalls established assuring that stakeholders cannot interfere with researchers and influence scientific outcome or conclusions”, he says.

New, stricter rules

The debate of a potential industry bias ignores potential bias from NGOs and private pressure groups, asserts Leitgeb. “Groups such as people with self-declared electromagnetic hypersensitivity would merit the same attention”.

Mike Repacholi founded ICNIRP as well as the WHO EMF project. In the beginning, the WHO project received substantial funding from industry. Upon leaving WHO, Repacholi became an industry consultant.

“There has been such criticism of industry-funded research that the industry now doesn’t fund research. Yet they are the ones causing the concerns about health. Who has lost from this situation?” Repacholi asks.

Nevertheless, both ICNIRP and WHO now exclude researchers who have received support from industry over the past three years.

WHO and the tobacco heritage

Both Eric van Rongen and Gunnhild Oftedal are also deeply into the work of the World Health Organization to update this entity’s knowledge of radiation and health.

The WHO “core” group of scientist has been working since 2012, and the work was initially expected to be completed a long time ago. But allegations of one-sidedness have also ravaged this committee. Now the WHO will put together a larger research group that will evaluate the work of the core group. Participants are not yet appointed, but will include “a broad spectrum of opinions and expertise,” a WHO spokesperson assures Investigate Europe.

Many critics of the dominant EMF research bodies and its historical ties to industry compare the situation with the way tobacco manufacturers were able to maintain doubt about whether smoking was dangerous. “I don’t like that comparison, because there, the harmful effects are clear, whereas with EMF we are still guessing how big or small the problem is”, says Louis Slesin.

The lesson to be learned from the tobacco issue, he thinks, is to be careful not to give too much access and influence to industry. “In 2000, WHO published a major mea culpa report on how it allowed the tobacco industry to influence its thinking. But then they repeated that with EMF. They have never given me an answer to why”, says Slesin.

ICNIRP: Still uncertainty

Most of the research on mobile technology radiation and health has been done on 2G and 3G technology. In the coming years the super fast 5G will be rolled out, and it will partly use very much higher frequencies than what have been used before. The scientific knowledge on what this can mean for public health is minimal. Individual projections have warned that there is danger that such high frequencies may heat body tissue. ICNIRP says it does not agree.

The ICNIRP head agrees with critics on one issue, though: More research is needed.

500px-Cquote2.svg

“Absolutely. There is still much uncertainty. For example, we know too little about the long-term effects of mobile use for brain cancer to draw conclusions. We absolutely need more information”, says Eric van Rongen.

[A.J.’s additional comment on Eric van Rongen: We do not have the time! Louis Slesin: “Disband ICNIRP!“]

.

balk1

.

§9. Adam J. Vanbergen, Simon G. Potts, Alain Vian, E. Pascal Malkemper, Juliette Young, Thomas Tscheulin

Electromagnetic fields threaten wildlife
Risk to pollinators from anthropogenic electro-magnetic radiation (EMR): Evidence and knowledge gaps
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969719337805?via%3Dihub

[The figure shows research results dating from 1950, 1980 and 2010. One can wonder how the figure would look like now, 2020. Watch the ICNIRP lines! Are these lines still there of much higher? They claim all is still safe, they keep their 1998 guidelines without changes, but we know that the figure would show now levels that are very much higher than all what is coloured red, because of the explosive growth of cell phone users after 2010, and the rollout of 5G. | A.J.]

ICNIRP

.

balk1

.

Dr.LennartHardell

 §10. Dr. Lennart Hardell – Sweden

World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health – a hard nut to crack (Review, with graphics and tables, including the link between WHO and ICNIRP)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/
By: Lennart Hardell
Published: June 21, 2017 

Detail from chapter 3. The WHO EMF project: “The WHO EMF project is supposed to:

  1. provide information on the management of EMF protection programs for national and other authorities, including monographs on EMF risk perception, communication and management;
  2. provide advice to national authorities, other institutions, the general public and workers, about any hazards resulting from EMF exposure and any needed mitigation measures. (http://www.who.int/peh-emf/project/EMF_Project/en/index1.html).
Repacholi_1

Michael Repacholi immediately set up a close collaboration between WHO and ICNIRP (being head of both organizations) inviting the electric, telecom and military industries to meetings. He also arranged for large part of the WHO EMF project to be financed by the telecommunication industry’s lobbying organisations; GSM Association and Mobile Manufacturers Forum, now called Mobile & Wireless Forum (MWF) (51) in addition to WHO, see the International EMF Project, Progress Report June 2005–2006 (http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/reports/IAC_Progress_Report_2005-2006.pdf).

Repacholi acted like a representative for the telecom industry while responsible for the EMF health effects department at the WHO (http://microwavenews.com/news/time-stop-who-charade). Since he left WHO in 2006 he has been involved in industry propaganda video interviews with GSM Association and Hydro Quebec (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDZx7MphDjQ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MI_fa5YsgY) where he clearly speaks in favor of the telecommunications and the power industries, respectively.

Michael Repacholi is still the Chairman emeritus at ICNIRP (http://www.icnirp.org/en/about-icnirp/emeritus-members/index.html) and has propagated during almost 20 years worldwide the ‘only thermal effect’ paradigm of health risks from RF-EMF exposure, ignoring the abundant evidence for non-thermal effects or cancer risks.

Repacholi recruited Emilie van Deventer to the WHO EMF Project in 2000. She is the current project manager at WHO for the EMF project. She has been a long time member of the industry dominated organization Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). IEEE is the world’s most powerful federation of engineers. The members are or have been employed in companies or organizations that are producers or users of technologies that depend on radiation frequencies, such as power companies, the telecom and the military industry. IEEE has prioritized international lobbying efforts for decades especially aimed at the WHO, for more information see (http://www.ices-emfsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Approved-Minutes-TC95-Jan_16.pdf).

Van Deventer is an electrical engineer. She has no formal or earlier knowledge in medicine, epidemiology or biology, so it is surprising that she was selected for such an important position at the WHO (http://www.waves.utoronto.ca/people_vandeventer.htm) (http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/worksem/emc-emf/201107/bios.html).

The very same year she was recruited to the WHO EMF Project Toronto University Magazine wrote about Emilie van Deventer’s work stating that it was ‘invaluable’ to industry: ‘The software modelling done by teams like van Deventer’s is invaluable.’ ‘The industrial community is very interested in our research capabilities,’ says van Deventer. ‘It always needs to be working on the next generation of products, so it turns to universities to get the research done.’ (http://www.research.utoronto.ca/edge/fall2000/content2b.html).

The importance of this work is reflected in the research funding van Deventer and her team received from the Natural Sciences & Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), Communications & Information Technology Ontario (CITO), and their major industrial partner, Nortel. Read on here.

.

10a. ICNIRP draft on new radiofrequency guidelines is flawed“At a meeting in Paris on 17 April 2019 Eric van Rongen, the present ICNIRP chairman presented a draft on new ICNIRP guidelines for radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure. The presentation is freely available at the web although labeled as a ’draft – do not cite or quote’.

Most remarkable is that the science on health effects is still based on thermal (heating) effect from RFR just as the evaluations published 1998 and updated in 2009.
In the draft only thermal effects are considered for health effects (page 7). Van Rongen states there is ’No evidence that RF-EMF causes such diseases as cancer’ (page 8).
These comments are based on the power point presentation. However, there is no evidence that non-thermal effects are considered and thus a large majority of scientific evidence on human health effects, not to mention hazards to the environment. Thus the basis for new guidelines is flawed and the whole presentation should be dismissed as scientifically flawed.
If this draft represents the final version on ICNIRP guidelines it is time to close down ICNIRP since their evaluation is not based on science but on selective data such as only thermal effects from RFR, see also www.emfcall.org.
The draft represents a worst-case scenario for public health and represents wishful thinking.” Source

.

§10b: November 4, 2019 – Article on Prof. Lennart Hardell’s blog:
WHO – ICNIRP and radiofrequency radiation
The close association between WHO and the ICNIRP has been described in a previous article. Unfortunately, this association seems to have prevented actions on health and the environment. ICNIRP is a private NGO based in Germany that acts pro-industry. In fact, exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation has increased in the society. Now the fifth generation, 5G, of wireless communication is implemented in spite of potential risks to human health and the environment. Our appeal (www.5gappeal.eu) asking for a moratorium until research on risks have been performed has not had any positive response either from EU or the Nordic countries.Microwave news has now published an update with historical views. It is well worth to read. This information is usually not available to the layman.

.

Röösli

§10c: January 15, 2020 –  Article on Prof. Lennart Hardell’s blog:  Letter on Expert evaluations on health risks from radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) and 5G – Article about the fraud of Martin Röösli, director BERENIS and member of ICNIRP  

.

§10d: January 28, 2020 – Article on Prof. Lennart Hardell’s blog:
Appeals that matter or not on a moratorium on the deployment of the fifth generation, 5G, for microwave radiation
Excerpt:
“In an appeal sent to the EU in September, 2017 currently >260 scientists and medical doctors requested for a moratorium on the deployment of 5G until the health risks associated with this new technology have been fully investigated by industry‑independent scientists. The appeal and four rebuttals to the EU over a period of >2 years, have not achieved any positive response from the EU to date. Unfortunately, decision makers seem to be uninformed or even misinformed about the risks. EU officials rely on the opinions of individuals within the ICNIRP and the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR), most of whom have ties to the industry……In this article, the warnings on the health risks associated with RF presented in the 5G appeal and the letters to the EU Health Commissioner since September, 2017 and the authors’ rebuttals are summarized. The responses from the EU seem to have thus far prioritized industry profits to the detriment of human health and the environment.”

[Note by A.J.: Also Dr. Martin L. Pall has corresponded with EU officials, see the serial EU guidelines are fraudulent, and never got any reply. Also I have corresponded with EU, got reactions, but the last letter, the key letter, written by Wojziech Kalamarz did not offer any answer finally, while I asked for answering 12 questions, created by Dr. Martin L. Pall. The answer of Kalamarz can be found here.]

.

balk1

.

Einar_Flydal

§11. Einar Flydal – Norway

Röösli

Head of Swiss Radiation Protection Committee accused of 5G-swindle. Nordic countries deceived, too.  

Article related with §4b, prof. Hardell’s Letter on Expert evaluations on health risks from radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) and 5G. – Martin Röösli

Published: 20 February 2020.

.

balk1

.

§12. Dr. Martin L. Pall – USA

ICNIRP, EU and the fraudulent EU guidelines

Dr. Martin L. Pall

10a. Though EU pretends to have an own commission to create guidelines: SCHEER, the reality proves that those who are represented in SCHEER, do not know so much about the science of electromagnetic radiation and the effects of it on our health either, in fact comparable with WHO, an empty, misleading facade for, as to be expected, ICNIRP. I made a similar research about SCHEER. Though it has not been admitted somewhere on the EU website, or in one of their answers on my questions to them, it is obvious that ICNIRP rules everywhere. There is even an ICNIRP cartel. A compressed total: ICNIRP cartel PDF

Dr. Martin L. Pall was so kind to react on my question to comment on the information, sent to me by EU. Dr. Pall’s comment was forwarded by me to EU’s vice president Frans Timmermans, who has obviously asked Wojciech Kalamarz to react on it. His answer has been sent also to Dr. Martin L. Pall, and he commented on this also. The entire correspondence between me, EU, EU and me, me and Pall, Pall and me, me and Frans Timmermans, Wojciech Kalamarz and me, me and Pall, Pall and me, me and Kalamarz can be followed in the articles EU guidelines are fraudulent 1  , 2 and 3

12b. Dr. Martin L. Pall: EMF Safety Guidelines Do Not Predict Biological Effects and are therefore Fraudulent
https://www.stopumts.nl/doc.php/Onderzoeken/12250/
Abstract
ICNIRP, US FCC, EU and other EMF safety guidelines are all based on the assumption that average EMF intensities and average SAR can be used to predict biological effects and therefore safety. Eight different types of quantitative or qualitative data are analyzed here to determine whether these safety guidelines predict biological effects. In each case the safety guidelines fail and in most of these, fail massively. Effects occur at approximately 100,000 times below allowable levels and the basic structure of the safety guidelines is shown to be deeply flawed. The safety guidelines ignore demonstrated biological heterogeneity and established biological mechanisms. Even the physics underlying the safety guidelines is shown to be flawed. Pulsed EMFs are in most cases much more biologically active than are non-pulsed EMFs of the same average intensity, but pulsations are ignored in the safety guidelines despite the fact that almost all of our current exposures are highly pulsed. There are exposure windows such that maximum effects are produced in certain intensity windows and also in certain frequency windows but the consequent very complex dose-response curves are ignored by the safety guidelines. Several additional flaws in the safety guidelines are shown through studies of both individual and paired nanosecond pulses. The properties of 5G predict that guidelines will be even more flawed in predicting 5G effects than the already stunning flaws that the safety guidelines have in predicting our other EMF exposures. The consequences of these findings is that “safety guidelines” should always be expressed in quotation marks; they do not predict biological effects and therefore do not predict safety. Because of that we have a multi-trillion dollar set of companies, the telecommunication industry, where all assurances of safety are fraudulent because they are based on these “safety guidelines.”
Published: 23 May 2019

§12c. Dr. Martin L. Pall speaks about ICNIRP
Location: Culemborg, the Netherlands
Recording date: 20 November 2019
Excerpt from the video as been created by “Eleven Monkeys
Published: February 17, 2020

.

balk1

.

Dafna_Tachover

§13. Dafna Tachover, USA, senior attorney and director of the 5G program at Children’s Health Defense (Robert F. Kennedy Jr.) speaks about the role of ICNIRP in an interview with RTAmerica. Start at 3:10 in the video to go to the spot where ICNIRP is mentioned. Website Dafna Tachover: We Are The Evidence.

.

balk1
Professor Girish Kumar

§14. Prof. Girish Kumar, Bombay, India
2nd Workshop on Cell Phone / Tower Radiation Hazards & Solutions at Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IITB) organized by Prof. Girish Kumar, Dept. of Electrical Engineering, IIT Bombay. The first workshop was held on 20th Nov 2011 at VMCC, IIT Bombay. ICNIRP is mentioned in several different chapters in different PDF documents.

Workshop on Cell Tower/ Cell Phone Radiation Hazards & Solution
https://www.ee.iitb.ac.in/~mwave/workshop.htm
Download Resource material :
1. Cell tower radiation report sent to Department of Telecommunications, India by Prof. Girish Kumar
https://www.ee.iitb.ac.in/~mwave/GK-cell-tower-rad-report-DOT-Dec2010.pdf
2. Presentation on Cell Phone/Tower Radiation Hazards & Solutions by Prof. Girish Kumar. https://www.ee.iitb.ac.in/~mwave/GK-Cell%20Tower-%20Hazard-Sept11.pdf Copy: http://www.wiki.leba.eu/_media/infrastruktura/kumar_g._-_cell_phone_tower_radiation_hazards_solutions.pdf
3. Cell Phone Towers Radiation Hazards Submitted to West Bengal Environment Ministry
https://www.ee.iitb.ac.in/~mwave/Cell-tower-rad-report-WB-Environ-Oct2011.pdf
4. Report on Possible Impacts of Communication Towers on Wild Life Including Birds & Bees
https://www.ee.iitb.ac.in/~mwave/Report%20on%20Possible%20Impacts%20of%20Communication%20Towers.pdf

The following text about ICNIRP is copied from the presentation, and interesting, because the ICNIRP document is not available any more on the web.

India adopts ICNIRP guideline for Power density (Pd) = Frequency /200, frequency is in MHz(averaged over 6 min exposure) ICNIRP has given following disclosure:

“ICNIRP is only intended to protect the public against short term gross heating effects and NOT against ‘biological’ effects such as cancer and genetic damage from long term low level microwave exposure from mobile phones, masts and many other wireless devices.” http://ww.icnirp.de/documents/emfgdl.pdf

Article in The Economic Times / India Times, with a reaction on Prof. Girish Kumar’s workshop on Cell Tower/ Cell Phone Radiation Hazards & Solution:
Myths about radiation risks from cell tower
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/myths-about-radiation-risks-from-cell-tower/articleshow/18263811.cms
Some excerpts from the pro-ICNRP article:
“In 2008, India adopted the guidelines developed by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) for electromagnetic radiation from mobile towers.”

“The activists conduct seminars, arrange private talks and employ every trick under the sun to sell their products. “Living in Mumbai is like living in an open microwave oven! The public exposed to EM radiation from cell phone towers is getting cooked!” they say. Reporters obligingly spread the spicy stories. At DoT levels, what will be the temperature increase in the body? Responding to queries from this writer, Dr. Mike Repacholi [Note: ICNIRP Chairman from 1992 until 1996. ICNIRP Emeritus Member since 1996. A.J.] stated that temperature increase in the human body exposed to electromagnetic radiation at the level of ICNIRP standards could not exceed 0.1° C. At DoT levels, it will be 0.01° C! The most glaring disinformation propagated by activists is that the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) limit for cell phones — a safety standard of 1.6 Wper kg — is actually for six minutes per-day usage! Do not use for more than 18-20 minutes daily, they assert.”

Dr. Kari Jokela [Note: ICNIRP SCIII Member 1994-2012 – ICNIRP Commission Member 2008-2016 – ICNIRP SEG Member 2016-2019, A.J.] member of ICNIRP and research professor at the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, Finland, in an email message stated that Dr. Girish Kumar’s interpretations of ICNIRP guidelines are incorrect. The studies thus far are reassuring. More research is needed to reduce the uncertainties. This writer trusts the safety standards for electromagnetic radiation prescribed by the ICNIRP, which is formally recognised by the WHO, the International Labour Organization and the EU. Sixty-three countries accepted ICNIRP limits. Our limits are 10 times lower. Have we to lose sleep over the alleged risks of cell tower radiation?”   Full article: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/myths-about-radiation-risks-from-cell-tower/articleshow/18263811.cms

Author: K.S. Parthasarathy
The author is former secretary of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board
The article was last updated on Jan 31, 2013 / The article is also published on the wordPress blog of K.S. Parthasarathy: https://ksparthasarathy.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/myths-about-radiation-risks-from-cell-tower/

Read the blog post ICNIRP in India for more information.


Additional from India:
We The People – Barkha Dutt Show – Cell phone towers
Barkha Dutt covering burning issue of cell phone tower radiation and health hazard. Check on norms adopted in India and whether they are matching to ICNIRP and WHO guidelines.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHlNG7NxL1M
Video published: 22 March 2013

.

balk1

.

§15. Stralingsbewust – Netherlands
Waar baseert de GGD zich op dat 5G niet gevaarlijk zou zijn?  / Where is the Municipal Health Service referring to when claiming 5G is not dangerous?

Picture: overview of conflicts of interest of ICNIRP, directly or indirectly, with all existing departments within the Dutch healthcare systems, into the highest levels of the hierarchic pyramid of power: the RIVM.

Waar-baseert-de-GGD-zich-op

Credits: Stralingsbewust, Netherlands

Published: 20 February 2020
Translate Dutch text via https://translate.google.com/
https://stralingsbewust.info/2020/02/21/waar-baseert-de-ggd-zich-op-dat-5g-niet-gevaarlijk-zou-zijn/

.

balk1

.

§16. S. Cucurachia; W.L.M. Tamisa; M.G. Vijvera; W.J.G.M. Peijnenburg; J.F.B. Bolte; G.R.de Snoo

A review of the ecological effects of radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412012002334
S. Cucurachia; W.L.M. Tamisa; M.G. Vijvera; W.J.G.M. Peijnenburg; J.F.B. Bolte; G.R.de Snoo
Published: January 2013, 2020
Chapters with links to ICNIRP and/or WHO:
1. Introduction; 1.1.; 1.2.;
2. Review method: 2.1.;
4. Ecological effects of RF-EMF: 4.2.2.; 4.3.; 4.4.;
5. Synthesis: 5.3.; 5.5.;
6. Conclusions and recommendations:in several paragraphs. One of these:

“At the current state of our knowledge, it is possible to conclude that there is an urgent need for repetitions of experiments and field studies by other research groups and under other (standard) situations and setup in order to confirm the presence/absence of effects. We, once again, refer to the ICNIRP statement of (2010), suggesting that results can only be accepted ‘for health risk assessment if a complete description of the experimental technique and dosimetry are provided, all data are fully analysed and completely objective, results show a high level of statistical significance, are quantifiable and susceptible to independent confirmation, and the same effects can be reproduced by independent laboratories’ (Repacholi and Cardis, 1997). If the significant conclusions found by studies are confirmed, they will be important for a mechanistic understanding of the interaction of RF fields with ecosystems.”

[Note: The entire document, with all possible proof of harm via electromagnetic radiation, is a battle with the laws of ICNIRP and WHO. For ICNIRP it is not enough, neither for WHO. ICNIRP wants obviously every spot on earth on a map, with graphics, photos, laboratory results, to be satisfied finally and accept the biological effects research results as presented in this document. Question: why not turning it around? Why does ICNIRP not need to prove that their studies, as they claim, are focusing on the right corner of the field, and why do they not need to prove that the results as presented in the document are, as they claim, false and/or not sufficient? A.J.]

.

balk1

.

§17. Fragopoulou A, Grigoriev Y, Johansson O, Margaritis LH, Morgan L, Richter E, Sage C.

Call by scientists to review the EMF guidelines
PubMed: Health risk assessment of electromagnetic fields: a conflict between the precautionary principle and environmental medicine methodology. / World Health Organization [see conflicts of interest with ICNIRP, §3, A.J.] and the European Commission, do not have at all the precautionary principle in mind when they report on health risks.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21268445
Dämvik M, Johansson O.
Published: 2010

PubMed: Scientific panel on electromagnetic field health risks: consensus points, recommendations, and rationales.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21268443
Fragopoulou A, Grigoriev Y, Johansson O, Margaritis LH, Morgan L, Richter E, Sage C.
Published: 2010

balk1

.

§18. Naren, Anubhav Elhenc, Vinay Chamola, Mohsen Guizan

Electromagnetic Radiation due to Cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth technologies: How safe are we?
Electromagnetic Radiation due to Cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth technologies: How safe are we? Chapter III. Standards and Guidelines for Electro-Magnetic Radiation – A. ICNIRP

Scientists

https://multerland.wordpress.com/2020/03/04/how-safe-are-we/
Published: 4 March, 2020

.

balk1

.

Dr. Susan Pockett

§19. Dr. Susan Pocket, MsC, PhD, School of Psychology, University of Auckland, Auckland 1142, New Zealand:

Conflicts of Interest and Misleading Statements in Official Reports about the Health Consequences of Radiofrequency Radiation and Some New Measurements of Exposure Levels
https://piotrbein.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/susanpockett-icnirp-new-zealand.pdf
Keywords: radiofrequency radiation; RF; microwave; cellphone; smart technology; public health; cancer; diabetes; depression; dementia; ICNIRP; WHO
Published: 5 May 2019

.

balk1

.

Icon4

§20. Antoinette Janssen / Blog Multerland – Norway

ICNIRP – investigative files, articles, papers https://multerland.wordpress.com/2019/06/02/icnirp/ / Start: 2 June, 2019

§19a. “New” ICNIRP commission: 2020 – 2024
https://multerland.wordpress.com/2020/03/06/new-icnirp-commission-2020-2024/
Posted: March 6, 2020
By: Antoinette Janssen

§19b. The founding chairman of IRPA was Michael Repacholi
https://multerland.wordpress.com/2020/03/09/the-founding-chairman-of-irpa-was-michael-repacholi/
By: Antoinette Janssen
Published: March 9, 2020

§19c.  Video ICNIRP – World Wide EMF Guidelines Deciding Group / A Radiant Day (2008)
Published first time: 2008, NRK, Norway
Edited, Part 1, Republished: 2020
Additional info: The Radiation Exposure War
https://www.nrk.no/dokumentar/the-radiation-exposure-war-1.6292981
Author: Frode Nielsen
Published: 14 November 2008
Playlist with the documentary in 5 parts:
Anders Børringbo – Brennpunkt, NRK, ‘’A Radiant Day’’, 2008
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQapQJi4cwKY-hUnZzyM5aYraud8EC5ai

§19d. 5G, Coronavirus and ICNIRP – reaction on the false content of the article written by Forbes journalist Bob O’Donnell: Here’s why 5G and coronavirus are not connected

.

balk1

.

§21. The EMF Call
Call for Truly Protective Limits for Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz)
ICNIRP’s opinion and guidelines are unscientific and protect industry, not public health
https://www.emfcall.org/the-emf-call/

.

balk1

§22.    Playlist with videos about ICNIRP  –  https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvjgztX_Uo3ZwIq5G3OBuUEMzL2aciWc5

.

balk1

.

§23. Additional information:

  1. [2013 – Petition closed] Petition demanding ICNIRP to revise environmental and health standards surrounding EMF exposure.
    Philipe Dorion started this petition in 2013 to Dr. Gunde Ziegelberger (Scientific Secretary of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) and 15 others:
    (ICNIRP) International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection: Revise environmental and health standards surrounding EMF exposure.
    https://www.change.org/p/icnirp-international-commission-on-non-ionizing-radiation-protection-revise-environmental-and-health-standards-surrounding-emf-exposure
  2. Investigate Europe: ICNIRP Cartel
  3. Article in “Community Operating System”: How ICNIRP, AGNIR, PHE and a 30 year old political decision created and then covered up a global public health scandal
  4. Article: Former ICNIRP member advocates that wireless must get a more stringent cancer risk class
  5. ACADEMIA
    10 Paper Titles match ICNIRP
  6. How ICNIRP, AGNIR, PHE and a 30 year old political decision created and then covered up a global public health scandal
    https://communityoperatingsystem.wordpress.com/2019/09/12/how-icnirp-agnir-phe-and-a-30-year-old-political-decision-created-and-then-covered-up-a-global-public-health-scandal/
    Author: Simon Hodges
    Published: September 12, 2019
  7. Related article: Instytut Spraw Obywatelskich – Institute of Civil Affairs:
    Nauka oparta na dowodach czy na prostytucji?
    Evidence based on science or prostitution?
    About scientific prostitution, the impact of corporations on scientific research and how the dismantling of the environmental and human protection system in Poland has been dismantled, says prof. Janusz Mikuła from the Cracow University of Technology.
    English: https://multerland.wordpress.com/2020/02/27/evidence-based-science-or-prostitution/
    Author: Rafał Górski – Poland
    Published: 25 February, 2020
  8. Michael Repacholi
    Independent Research Professional
    https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-repacholi-b4455711/ [Attention: the word “independent” does not fit with the content of §2, this document: Microwave News Responds to Mike Repacholi | A.J. ]
  9. Video: Former WHO expert Mike Repacholi speaks on studies that prove there is no link between EMF & Cancer  [Attention: the title has been created by channel: Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI), their comment in the video information: “Watch the video to listen to him describe in detail the results of scientific studies that have been conducted on animals in the recent past, which negate [=deny] the possibility of EMF radiations being responsible for cancer.”. A.J.]
  10. Repacholi Revises Safety Code 6.
    https://magdahavas.com/pick-of-the-week-8-failed-attempt-to-reduce-safety-code-6-guidelines-in-1977/
    By: Dr. Magda Havas
    Updated: July 7, 2018
  11. WHO admits “conflicts of interest”
    https://magdahavas.com/who-admits-the-world-has-lost-their-trust/
    By: Dr. Magda Havas
    Published: September 3, 2010
  12. LinkedIn Slide-Share: Professor Michael Repacholi, University of Rome –
    31 photos with additional text.
    https://www.slideshare.net/HandheldLearning/professor-michael-repacholi-university-of-rome
    Published: October 19, 2007 – Attention: a description of each photo can be found when scrolling down on the page.
  13. Who’s who? Eric van Rongen –  https://www.kumu.io/Investigate-Europe/whos-who#emf-research/eric-van-rongen
  14. Blog Stralingsleed: 60 Ghz zonder licentie wordt gebruikt voor o.a. 5G
    http://stralingsleed.nl/blog/60-ghz-zonder-licentie-wordt-gebruikt-voor-o-a-5g/
  15. 2020 / Setting Guidelines for Electromagnetic Exposures and Research Needs
    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bem.22267
    By: Frank Barnes, Ben Greenebaum
    Published: 20 April, 2020

.

balk1

.

24. ICNIRP chair, chair of honour, Michael Repacholi – Collection

.

balk1

.

25. ICNIRP member, head of BERENICE Martin Röösli – collection of links to articles

.

balk1

.

Latest update: May 13, 2020

icnirp-FULL

Source

Louis Slesin: “Disband ICNIRP!”

Posted on April 10, 2020 by Multerland

Intro: In his article The Lies Must Stop – Disband ICNIRP, Facts Matter, Now More Than Ever, published: April 9, 2020 in Microwave News, Louis Slesin, PhD, owner of the investigative magazine Microwave News, writes about ICNIRP. Because the introduction to that article contains sentences about the Coronavirus and 5G, with views that are not facts, but far too quick created conclusions without links to sources with evidence based scientific facts, and… since he writes himself that Facts Matter, I leave that part out. See also: my argumentation on Twitter. The title of his article is about ICNIRP, and here follows the part about ICNIRP. This post is is added to the extended and well documented article ICNIRP.

.

Louis Slesin, PhD:

Louis Slesin

“[….]…science has taken a back seat to politics. The failure to separate fact from fiction has made the battle against the coronavirus far worse, especially in the U.S. Much the same can be said of how governments and scientific committees have addressed electromagnetic health risks.

The public has been fed lies and half-truths about the health effects of RF/microwave radiation for as long as I have been involved, since the 1970s. The campaign has created a culture of confusion, especially with respect to cell phones and cancer. In this environment, why would anyone be surprised that sensational conspiracy theories about 5G have found a footing?

The Microwave News website is chock-full of articles describing how the public has been misled time and time again. Here are two current examples from those who are supposed to serve as the world’s experts and to protect us from EMF/RF hazards: the members of the International Commission of Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, ICNIRP for short.

.

“No Evidence for Cancer”

The first is from Eric van Rongen of The Netherlands, the current chairman of ICNIRP. Van Rongen has posted a six-minute overview of the Commission’s updated RF exposure standards, issued about a month ago. Two minutes into his PowerPoint narration you can hear him say, “There is no evidence from all [this] scientific information for the induction of cancer by radiofrequency fields” (see slide below).

ICNIRP.No Evidence.2020

Source: ICNIRP

Anyone who has been paying any attention at all knows that this is —let’s not mince words— a lie. Van Rongen and the other members of ICNIRP should go to the nearest blackboard and write 100 times: The U.S. National Toxicology Program has found “clear evidence” that exposure to RF radiation can lead to cancer.

I hasten to add that the NTP study is only one of many that show an RF–cancer link. It’s the most important and the most persuasive, but hardly the only one.

ICNIRP may not agree with the NTP finding, but that is what the $30 million animal study showed. Its members want you to think that they know better and that the NTP results are untrustworthy.

Not long after details of the NTP experiment were released, Sweden’s Maria Feychting, ICNIRP’s vice chair, spread the word that it had methodological flaws. When she was corrected, Feychting clammed up. She never offered an explanation or an apology. Is this any different from those spreading 5G/COVID-19 rumors? Each acts on what they want to believe rather than what the facts show. Feychting’s machinations may be more damaging because she is backed by the full weight of the Karolinska Institute.

.

Missing: The Headline News of 2018

The second example comes from a report prepared for the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority by a nine-member panel of experts. Each year, the Authority commissions an annual update with the past year’s most important scientific developments on the health effects of EMFs and RF radiation. Van Rongen and Switzerland’s Martin Röösli, who is also on ICNIRP, are members of this panel. (Having ICNIRP’s seal of approval leads to invitations to sit on other advisory groups.)

The 2019 panel report, which recently became available, covers papers “published from April 2018 up to and including December 2018.” Here again, the two ICNIRP members and their seven colleagues made believe that the NTP report does not exist. It’s not mentioned, there is no citation. Nothing at all.

For the record, the NTP final report was released on November 1, 2018.

I would argue that the NTP warning was the most important RF–health development not only of 2018, but of the decade and most likely of the new millennium. Yet the expert panel chose to ignore it.

I asked both van Rongen and Röösli why the NTP findings had been left out of the report, even though they were published in the panel’s time window for inclusion. Each replied that the NTP report had been addressed in their previous summary (covering April 2017 through March 2018). I had checked the wrong annual update, Röösli suggested.

There is a discussion of the NTP findings in last year’s Swedish update. But that was based on an earlier NTP draft where the staff had opted for a weaker designation, “some evidence” of cancer. Later, after an in-depth public peer review, the NTP strengthened the conclusion to “clear evidence” of cancer.

That was the headline news of 2018. “Clear evidence” was a game changer; leaving it out of the annual update is a sure sign of bias. The NTP conclusion was now qualitatively different from the earlier draft —it could well have been the title of the panel’s 2018 update. But van Rongen, Röösli and the others ignored it.

.

Time To Clean House

This cannot go on. The first step is for ICNIRP, Mike Repacholi’s bastard child, to be disbanded. The Swedish panel should also be dissolved and reconstituted with a more balanced membership. Indeed, all expert committees should be broadened to include those who allow that more than RF tissue heating may be at work.

But most important: The lies and distortions must stop. Otherwise, confusion and conspiracy theories will continue to run rampant. The net result is that the entire RF research enterprise will lack credibility, which, unfortunately, is the objective of many of the leading players.

________________

* Cindy Sage and Stephanie Kerst have recently assembled a list of more than two dozen studies showing disrupted immunological responses following exposure to low-intensity non-ionizing radiation. It’s available on the BioInitiative Report website.

† The other members of the Swedish panel are: Anke Huss (The Netherlands), Aslak Harbo Poulsen (Denmark), Clemens Dasenbrock (Germany), Heidi Danker-Hopfe (Germany), Lars Mjönes, (Sweden, scientific secretary), Leif Moberg (Sweden, chair) and Maria Rosaria Scarfi (Italy).

‡ Also missing from the panel’s 2018 summary is the Ramazzini animal study. It too found cancer —indeed, exactly the same type of rare tumor (malignant schwannoma of the heart) seen in the NTP study. The Ramazzini paper was published in the August 2018 issue of Environmental Research. It was covered in the previous year’s update where it was dismissed based on arguments that are at best facile, and at worst off the wall.

Additional Reading:

Videos with Louis Slesin:

Source

⚠️ 🌐 ‼️ Call for Truly Protective Limits for Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (100kHz to 300GHz): PDF

MSM pushes Bogus ‘Radiation Watchdog’ ICNIRP 2020 ‘Safety Guidelines’ – NOT Safety Standards Backed by Evidence! … Click on Me!

How the Mobile Communication Industry Deals with Science as Illustrated by ICNIRP versus NTP

The development of mobile communication technologies starting with 1G up to now 5G is a success story rarely heard of previously. It has only been possible because industry experts in charge of the technology assumed that radiofrequency (RF) radiation and its modulations – similar to visible light – are biologically harmless. They believed in safety limits that reliably protect people only from the acute thermal effects of RF radiation inherent in the system. Biological effects below the safety limits were categorically ruled out because their existence allegedly contradicted the laws of physics.

So, the technical use of RF radiation in mobile communication has experienced hardly any limitation. Doubts about the harmlessness of this radiation, just as old as the technique itself, have been countered by the mobile communication industry as wrong and without basis. Compliant scientists, whose preferred opinion was more important than their qualifications, were generously supported and, by using political connections, placed in national and international advisory and decision-making bodies.

A milestone in putting through the interests of the mobile communication industry was the establishment of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) in 1992. It is a non-governmental organization. Michael Repacholi, then head of the WHO’s EMF Project, managed to get official recognition for this group by the WHO as well as the EU and a series of its member states, among them Germany. Repacholi, first ICNIRP chairman and later emeritus – member, left the WHO after allegations of corruption in 2006 and found a new position as a consultant to an American electricity provider. ICNIRP’s most important task is the establishment of safety limits for non-ionizing radiation including RF radiation. Its decisions are of utmost importance for the mobile communication industry’s economic and strategic planning. The ICNIRP, whose members are convinced of the harmlessness of RF radiation, has never changed its attitude despite all research progress made in this field since 1992. To guarantee that the mobile communication industry can permanently rely on ICNIRP, the succession of a member who leaves is regulated by statute. The remaining members select the new one on the basis of mutual understanding. Together with the other groups mentioned above ICNIRP has ensured that mobile communication industry is not only dominating the technical research to which it is entitled to, but also the biological research – this at the expense of the human health.


How the Mobile Communication Industry Deals
with Science as Illustrated by ICNIRP versus NTP
Von Franz Adlkofer | Pandora Foundation for independent research:

Read the Full Report

Source

European Greens question ICNIRP standards, call for new public body to look at 5G Exposure!


Wednesday 24 June 2020

Green parties in the European Parliament have published a report calling for the EU to distance itself from Icnirp, the international group for standards on RF exposure. The report claims Icnirp’s independence cannot be guaranteed as the organisation lacks official oversight, and the parties called for a new public regulatory body to be set up ahead of the widespread roll-out of 5G networks.

The EU’s regulations setting limits on exposure to electro-magentic radiation from wireless networks and equipment are largely based on the recommendations from Icnirp. However, the Green MEPs claim the health risks are too great to be left to private organisation like this.

They drew parallels with asbestos, tobacco, leaded petrol climate change and pesticides – all areas where lobbying, a lack of truly independent research and economic interests left the health risks under-estimated for too long. They see a similar problem for non-ionising radiation.

They pointed to research published in the Lancet in December 2018 showing that 68 percent of the 2,266 studies examined found a significant biological or health effect from non-ionising radiation. While this does not confirm an actual risk to health, it does provide enough scientific evidence to doubt the claims over no effects from exposure to the electro-magnetic fields, according to the report.

The MEPs recommend setting up an independent public authority to address the matter, which could eventually be integrated into the WHO.

source

⚠️ #Science2Stop5G 🦜🦋🌳 tinyurl.com/Gov-Ignore-Own-EMF-Evidence

⚠️ ICNIRP and/or W.H.O. and/or FCC discussed in any Pro #5G video or MSM articles? 🌐 ‼️ Always add these 21 links (in the description box of the video or in comments below it):

⚠️ ICNIRP and/or W.H.O. and/or FCC discussed in any Pro #5G video or MSM articles? 🌐 ‼️ Always add these 28 links (in the description box of the video or in comments below it):

⚠️ Join: Fb.com/groups/Stop5G (35,750+ members) … Follow: Twitter.com/Stop5G

5 1 vote
Article Rating

Leave a Reply

2 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments