Study (amongst others):
⚠️ ICNIRP and/or W.H.O. and/or FCC discussed in any Pro #5G video or MSM articles? 🌐 ‼️ Always add these 16 links (in the description box of the video or in comments below it):
The Lies Must Stop
Facts Matter, Now More Than Ever
We’re all frazzled and anxious. The world has changed, seemingly overnight, and we don’t know when and how we will ever go back to normal —whatever that means. One thing we don’t have to worry about is whether 5G radiation is responsible for COVID-19. It’s not. There’s no credible evidence to suggest otherwise.
Lots of data show that various types of RF radiation can affect our immune systems.* But, like everything else about electromagnetic radiation, the necessary follow-up research was never done and no one knows for sure if electronic smog makes us more vulnerable to disease. I’ll leave that conversation for another time.
Yet, there is at least one parallel between how we’ve been struggling with COVID-19 over the last few months and how we have been dealing with electromagnetic radiation for the last few decades. In each case, 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 worlds’ experts and to protect us from EMF/RF hazards: the members of the International Commission of Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, ICNIRP for short. All over the world, ICNIRP’s guidelines are the de facto standards for safe exposure to RF and EMFs.
“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).
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.
Will WHO Kick Its ICNIRP Habit? Non-Thermal Effects Hang in the Balance; Repacholi’s Legacy of Industry CronyismICNIRP, Swedish Radiation Protection Authority, Eric van Rongen, Martin Röösli, NTP, RF animal studies, cancer, Michael Repacholi, Cindy Sage, BioInitiative, Ramazzini Institute,
Heavy criticism of current official ICNIRP exposure limits
Most Western countries have adopted the exposure limits for electromagnetic radiation of the ICNIRP, a non-governmental organisation. In resolution 1815, the Council of Europe heavily criticizes these limits. See Problems with official ICNIRP exposure limits for electromagnetic radiation.
The Council recommends a new directive for the maximum field strength of 0.2 Volts per metre (V/m). Note: The current standard is 40 Volts per metre. Wireless devices exceed the level of 0.2 V/m in an area of about 3 metres around the device by more than 0.2 V/m:
- A GSM phone at 3 meters distance, while making a call, is 3 V/m peak power ( with poor range).
- A DECT base station or DECT handset 3 meters away while making a call is 1 V/m peak power.
- A Wifi laptop at a distance of 0.5 metres in data transmission is 0.95 V/m peak power.
This means that mobile phone calls should no longer be allowed in a school classroom, wireless home telephones (DECT) should not be used and no Wifi installation and Wifi devices can be used. The advice is to use wired Internet.
2020 ICNIRP’s Exposure Guidelines for Radio Frequency Fields
100% Related: Harvard Press Book on Telecom Industry Influence To The US FCC – Captured Agency by Norm Alster.
New Guidelines Adopted by the International Commission on Non‐Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) Protect Us Only from Thermal or Heating Effects The ICNIRP issued a media release today to announce the publication of its new human exposure guidelines for non-ionizing radiation(100 KHz to 300 GHz) in the journal Health Physics. The guidelines address radio, WiFi, and Bluetooth in addition to 3G, 4G, and 5G cell phones and cell towers.
According to ICNIRP Chairman, Eric van Rongen, “We know parts of the community are concerned about the safety of 5G and we hope the updated guidelines will help put people at ease.”
However, ICNIRP’s new 2020 guidelines are likely to have the opposite effect and increase public concerns about wireless technology because the guidelines were designed to protect us only from short-term heating (or thermal) effects. The guidelines fail to protect us from non-thermal effects, especially from long-term exposure to wireless radiation because ICNIRP continues to dismiss the many hundreds of peer-reviewed studies that have found biologic and health effects from exposure to low-intensity, radio frequency radiation including many human as well as animal studies. The preponderance of the research has found evidence of increased cancer incidence, oxidative stress, DNA damage, and infertility from exposure to wireless radiation.
ICNIRP guidelines pdfICNIRP media release
Differences between 2020 and 1998 ICNIRP guidelines
ICNIRP. Guidelines for limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz). Health Phys 118(00):000–000; 2020. Pre-print. DOI: 10.1097/HP.0000000000001210. https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPrfgdl2020.pdf
January 1, 2020ICNIRP’s Revised RF Exposure Limits Will Ignore Expert Opinions of Most EMF Scientists
According to Eric van Rongen, chairman of the International Commission on Non-ionizing Research Protection (ICNIRP), in August or September the ICNIRP plans to publish its revised guidelines regarding safe human exposure limits to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields (EMF) (100 kHz – 300 GHz).
On April 17, 2019, Van Rongen made a presentation about the revised guidelines to the French National Frequency Agency. The ICNIRP guidelines will still be based only on thermal or heating effects. The Commission continues to ignore the many hundreds of peer-reviewed studies that have found bioeffects and health effects from exposure to low intensity, non-thermal levels of RF radiation.
Van Rongen made the following claims (see slide 8 of the presentation):
- “No evidence that RF EMF causes such diseases as cancer
- Results of NTP, Falcioni studies (animals, lifetime exposure) not convincing (statement on ICNIRP website)
- No evidence that RF EMF impairs health beyond effects that are due to established mechanisms of interaction”
The 13 commissioners of the ICNIRP strongly disagree with more than 240 EMF scientists who signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal. These scientists who have published over 2,000 papers in professional journals on EMF and biology or health stated:
various agencies setting safety standards have failed to impose
sufficient guidelines to protect the general public, particularly
children who are more vulnerable to the effects of EMF. The
International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)
established in 1998 the “Guidelines For Limiting Exposure To
Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields (up to 300
GHz)” . These guidelines are accepted by the WHO and numerous countries
around the world. The WHO is calling for all nations to adopt the ICNIRP
guidelines to encourage international harmonization of standards. In
2009, the ICNIRP released a statement saying that it was reaffirming its
1998 guidelines, as in their opinion, the scientific literature
published since that time “has provided no evidence of any adverse
effects below the basic restrictions and does not necessitate an
immediate revision of its guidance on limiting exposure to high
frequency electromagnetic fields. ICNIRP continues to the present day to
make these assertions, in spite of growing scientific evidence to the
contrary. It is our opinion that, because the ICNIRP guidelines do
not cover long-term exposure and low-intensity effects, they are
insufficient to protect public health.”
the public consultation period, about 120 contributors provided the
ICNIRP with more than 1,000 comments regarding the draft guidelines.
How many contributors called for RF exposure guidelines that protect humans and other species from health risks due to exposure to low-intensity or non-thermal levels of RF radiation? Did the ICNIRP seriously consider the public input in revising the guidelines? Will the ICNIRP publish these comments?
The slides from the van Rongen presentation (marked “Draft — Do Not Cite or Quote”) are available at: https://www.anfr.fr/fileadmin/mediatheque/documents/expace/workshop-5G/20190417-Workshop-ANFR-ICNIRP-presentation.pdf
“Cell Phones, Cell Towers, and Wireless Safety” (UC Berkeley presentation / video & slides, Feb. 2019) International EMF Scientist AppealNTP Cell Phone Radiation Study: Final ReportsNTP: Not the First Govt. Study to Find Wireless Radiation Can Cause Cancer in Lab RatsRamazzini Institute Cell Phone Radiation Study Replicates NTP StudyMobile Communications and Public HealthPowerWatch: 1,670 Scientific Papers on EMF (1979 – 2018) Effects of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields: 1,027 Studies
February 12, 2019 (Updated January 9, 2020)The “ICNIRP Cartel” and “The 5G Mass Experiment”
“… it could also harm your health. Europe’s governments ignore the danger.”
As part of a project called, “The 5G Mass Experiment,” Investigate Europe, a team of investigative journalists from the European Union (EU), examined the risks of deployment of 5G, the fifth generation of mobile phone technology, and the adequacy of electromagnetic field (EMF) safety guidelines promoted by the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). To date, the team has published 22 articles in major newspapers and magazines in eight countries: France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, and the United Kingdom. Investigate Europe alleges the existence of an “ICNIRP cartel.” The journalists identified a group of fourteen scientists who either helped create, or defend, the EMF exposure guidelines disseminated by ICNIRP, a non-governmental organization (NGO) based in Germany. ICNIRP’s self-selected members and advisors believe that EMF safety guidelines need to protect humans only from heating (or thermal) effects due to acute EMF exposure. ICNIRP scientists argue that the thousands of peer-reviewed studies that have found harmful biologic or health effects from chronic exposure to non-thermal levels of EMF are insufficient to warrant stronger safety guidelines. The journalists argue that the cartel promotes the ICNIRP guidelines by conducting biased reviews of the scientific literature that minimize health risks from EMF exposure. These reviews have been conducted for the World Health Organization (WHO) and other government agencies. By preserving the ICNIRP EMF exposure guidelines favored by industry, the cartel ensures that the cellular industry will continue to fund health effects research. Besides these fourteen scientists, perhaps several dozen EMF scientists in the EU and other countries actively defend the ICNIRP exposure guidelines. In contrast to the dozens of EMF scientists who support the ICNIRP EMF exposure guidelines, more than 240 EMF scientists from 42 nations who published peer-reviewed research on EMF and biology or health totaling over 2,000 papers have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal. The Appeal calls on the WHO, the United Nations and all member nations to adopt much stronger EMF exposure guidelines that protect humans and other species from sub-thermal levels of EMF exposure and to issue health warnings about the risks of EMF exposure. The 5G Mass Experiment and the ICNIRP Cartel
A compilation of the information gathered by Investigate Europe about the ICNIRP Cartel members and the health agencies that the Cartel affected can be downloaded at:
The information on these pages was extracted from “The ICNIRP Cartel: Who’s Who in the EMF Research World,” an interactive graphic developed by Investigate Europe which can be found at https://www.kumu.io/Investigate-Europe/whos-who. For more information see: Investigate Europe (2019). The 5G Mass Experiment. https://www.investigate-europe.eu/publications/the-5g-mass-experiment/. (Google Translate is a useful tool for translating these articles into other languages.)
Investigate Europe (2019). How Much is Safe?https://www.investigate-europe.eu/publications/how-much-is-safe/.
Investigate Europe (2019). Mobile phones and health: Is 5G being rolled out too fast? https://www.computerweekly.com/feature/Mobile-phones-and-health-is-5G-being-rolled-out-too-fast
Countries are deploying 5G at breakneck speed to gain a competitive edge, but scientists have concerns about effects on public health and are calling for a precautionary approach.Related Information:
WHO RadiofrequencyRadiation PolicyWorldwide Radio Frequency Radiation Exposure Limits versus Health EffectsInternational EMFScientist Appeal
Nov 1, 2018
THE EMF CALL: Scientists and NGO’s call for better protection from Exposure to Radiation from Wireless Technologywww.emfcall.orgPress-Release Nov 1, 2018
157 scientists and medical doctors together with 86 non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) from all over the world are calling for more protective limits for exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless technologies. In a joint statement, THE EMF CALL, they conclude that the ICNIRP guidelines are unscientific and do not protect against harmful health effects including cancer. The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) issued draft Guidelines on 11th July 2018 for limiting exposure to electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (EMF) (100 kHz to 300 GHz).The guidelines are inadequate to protect humans and the environment, as they only protect against acute thermal effects from very short and intense exposure. They do not protect against cancer, reproductive harm, or effects on the nervous system, although the preponderance of the peer-reviewed research has found adverse effects from chronic exposure at intensities below the ICNIRP limits. In May, 2011, the World Health Organization’s cancer agency, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), concluded that radiofrequency radiation in the frequency range 30 kHz–300 GHz is a “possible” human carcinogen (Group 2B).However, the ICNIRP ignores this as well as the increasing evidence in recent years for carcinogenicity. The scientists and the NGO’s demand the development and adoption of new medical guidelines that represent the state of medical science and that are truly protective of human health and the environment. The scientists and medical doctors, selected to review the scientific literature and propose new radiofrequency radiation safety guidelines, must be free of conflicts of interest including direct and indirect ties to industry. Professor David Carpenter, Director at the Institute for Health and the Environment, University of Albany, USA notes that:
– The evidence for harm from both 50/60 Hz EMFs and radiofrequency exposures is strong in both human and animal studies. There are associations between increasing exposure not only with cancer, but also with adverse reproductive outcomes in both males and females, adverse effects on cognitive function and behavior and increased risk of development of the syndrome of electro-hypersensitivity. We must find ways of reducing human exposure in order to reduce the incidence of human disease.
Dr. Lennart Hardell, Swedish oncologist with long-term research in this area says: – The roll-out of 5G, the fifth generation of telecommunication technology will substantially increase exposure to radiofrequency radiation. Thus, in addition to the urgent need for new guidelines on current exposure a moratorium on the roll-out of 5G should be implemented. Dr Joel Moskowitz, from the School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, USA points out that the EMF CALL re-iterates the concerns raised by the scientific community in the International EMF Scientist Appeal about the harm caused by chronic exposure to low-intensity EMF:
– The Appeal, which has been signed by more than 240 scientists who have published over 2,000 peer-reviewed papers on EMF and biology or health, calls for strengthening of EMF guidelines, especially to protect children and pregnant women. For more information about the Appeal, see https://emfscientist.org.
According to Dr Gerd Oberfeld, from the Salzburg Public Health Department, Austria, the world has too long relied on incomplete EMF exposure guidelines:
– The body of scientific evidence for detrimental health effects from EMF exposure is overwhelming. There is now even no need to call the precautionary principle into play to take action. It is the duty of scientists to inform the public and the duty of the public to force governments to apply new truly protective EMF exposure guidelines as well as to educate the society how to reduce EMF exposures.
Contacts: David Carpenter, email: firstname.lastname@example.org Lennart Hardell, email: email@example.com Joel Moskowitz, email: firstname.lastname@example.org Gerd Oberfeld, email: email@example.com
See THE EMF CALL and all signatories at: www.emfcall.org
Swedish Radiation Protection Foundationwww.stralskyddsstiftelsen.se
How the Mobile Communication Industry Deals with Science as Illustrated by ICNIRP versus NTP
Franz Adlkofer, Pandora Foundation for independent research, Oct 26, 2018
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.
Full report: https://stiftung-pandora.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Pandora_Adlkofer_Dealing-with-NTP-Nancy-Draft_181026_en.pdf
“There is no doubt that the evaluation of the NTP Study results by the invited panel members met all scientific criteria. This is also proven by the fact that the scientists responsible for the NTP Study have been confronted with numerous mistakes and other flaws, which could have been avoided with a better planning and implementation. However, these mistakes and flaws are by far not enough to question the most important result of the NTP Study, the evidence of carcinogenicity from mobile communication radiation.”
“From the NTP Study it must be concluded that the safety limits established by ICNIRP are unable to guarantee the intended purpose, which is the protection of people from harmful effects of the mobile communication radiation, and that therefore time has come for IARC to adjust the classification of RF radiation from “possibly carcinogenic for humans” (Group 2B) to “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A) or even “carcinogenic to humans” (Group 1). Casting doubt on the NTP results, which threaten the business model of the mobile communication industry, as done by ICNIRP, is betrayal of science. If any further proof that ICNIRP is a public relations organization of the mobile communication industry would have been necessary, its Note on recent animal carcinogenesis studies (2) quoted above has finally adduced it. [See below.]
ICNIRP argues that the NTP Study has no reliable basis to revise the current safety limits for RF radiation. Since its guidelines are solely based on acute thermal effects of the radiation, believing that other effects do not exist, the argument is not without logic to them. However, the NTP Study has clearly shown that this stand is absolutely unfounded, because the RF radiation unfolds its harmful effects also within the safety limits, when the exposure time is long enough. The NTP Study, up to now certainly the most ambitious and the most convincing one, has proven this with “clear evidence” (3,5). At the same time, it has refuted the reliability of the current safety limits. As always in such cases the robot-like answer by ICNIRP is that many questions must be answered until causality can finally be acknowledged.
ICNIRP wants the perfect study. The fact that this is impossible because of the nature of biological research, can obviously not be imparted to its members. So they show either incompetence in regard of their scientific qualifications or, most probably, the intention to help the mobile communication industry in a difficult situation. It looks as if ICNIRP is once again used by this industry to enforce its interests, and this time with a method copied from the tobacco industry. By sowing doubt for decades, the tobacco industry succeeded in keeping people unsure about the already certain fact that smoking causes lung cancer. Now the mobile communication industry uses the same tactic, and this with even more dire consequences: the addiction might be comparable, but the number of addicts is by far much higher.”
Sep 12, 2018
US Scientist Criticizes ICNIRP’s Refusal to Reassess Cell Phone Radiation Exposure Guidelines after US National Toxicology Program Studies Show Clear Evidence of Cancer
Ronald L. Melnick, Ph.D., has issued a scientific critique of ICNIRPs dismissal of the cell phone radiation studies conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP).
On September 4, 2018, ICNIRP issued a “Note on Recent Animal Studies” that concluded the $28 million NTP study did “not provide a reliable basis” for changing the over two decades old guidelines on radio frequency- cell phone and wireless – radiation.
In response, Dr. Melnick addressed 15 concerns raised by the ICNIRP about the NTP studies. He presented data to show that the ICNIRP document contains “numerous false and misleading statements” and concluded by questioning who the ICNIRP is protecting:
“Based on numerous incorrect and misleading claims, the ICNIRP report concludes that “these studies (NTP and Ramazzini) do not provide a reliable basis for revising the existing radiofrequency exposure guidelines.” The data on gliomas of the brain and schwannomas of the heart induced by cell phone radiation are suitable for conducting a quantitative risk assessment and subsequent re-evaluation of health-based exposure limits. The ‘P’ in ICNIRP stands for Protection. One must wonder who this commission is trying to protect – evidently, it is not public health.”
Melnick was a Senior Scientist in the National Toxicology Program,
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes
of Health. He served as a toxicologist for over 28 years before retiring in 2009. In 2007 he received the American Public Health Association’s David P. Rall Award for science-based advocacy in public health.
Melnick RL. Critique of the ICNIRP Note of September 4, 2018 Regarding Recent Animal Carcinogenesis Studies. Environmental Health Trust. Sep 12, 2018. Open access document: http://bit.ly/MelnickICNIRP9-12-2018
Comments about the ICNIRP evaluation of the NTP and Ramazzini Institute studies by the Ramazzini Institute
In recent days, the International Commission for the Protection of Non-Ionizing Radiation (ICNIRP) has dismissed the results of the studies conducted by the Ramazzini Institute (RI) and the National Toxicology Program (NTP) on cell phone radiation as “unconvincing. Following are the observations of Dr. Fiorella Belpoggi, director of the “Cesare Maltoni” cancer research center of the Ramazzini Institute.
1. Both the NTP and the RI studies were well performed,and no bias affected the results. The ICNIRP confirms this conclusion. 2. Schwannomas are tumors arising from the Schwann cells. They are peripheral glial cells which cover and protect the surface of all nerves diffused throughout the body; so vestibular (acoustic nerve) and heart schwannomas have the same tissue of origin: ICNIRP seems to ignore that. 3. In rats, increases in malignant heart schwannomas, malignant glial tumors of the brain and Schwann Cell Hyperplasia (a pre-malignant lesion) are rare yet these lesions were observed in exposed animals in both laboratories, at thousands of kilometers distance, in a wide range of radiofrequency radiation exposures studied. These findings could not be interpreted as occurring “by chance”. 4. We are scientists. Our role is to produce solid evidence for hazard and risk assessment. Underestimating the evidence from carcinogen bioassays and delays in regulation have already proven many times to have severe consequences, as in the case of asbestos, smoking and vinyl chloride. This position of ICNIRP represents its own responsibility toward citizens and public health. 5. ICNIRP is not a public health agency that routinely evaluates carcinogens. On the other hand, an independent agency that has evaluated over 1000 agents, IARC, as early as 2011 classified radio freqency radiation as a possible carcinogen on the basis of limited evidence in humans and limited evidence in animals. The studies of the RI and NTP will certainly contribute to the burden of evidence that IARC and other public health agencies can draw upon as a solid base for the re-evaluation of RFR carcinogenicity. http://bit.ly/RI-ICNIRP
ICNIRP Critique of the National Toxicology Program and Ramazzini InstituteAnimal Studies of the Carcinogenicity of Long-Term Exposure to Cell Phone Radiation
ICNIRP. ICNIRP Note on Recent Animal Carcinogenesis Studies. Munich, Germany. Sep 4, 2018. https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPnote2018.pdf
Two recent animal studies investigating the carcinogenic potential of long-term exposure to
radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) associated with mobile phones have been released: one by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP 2018a, b) and the other from the Ramazzini Institute (Falcioni et al. 2018). These studies, among others, have been taken into account during revision of the ICNIRP radiofrequency exposure guidelines. However, both studies have inconsistencies and limitations that affect the usefulness of their results for setting exposure guidelines, and both need to be considered within the context of other animal and human carcinogenicity research. Overall, based on the considerations outlined below, ICNIRP concludes that these studies do not provide a reliable basis for revising the existing radiofrequency exposure guidelines.
Although the NTP (2018a, b) and Falcioni et al. (2018) studies used large numbers of animals, best laboratory practice, and exposed animals for the whole of their lives, consideration of their findings does not provide evidence that radiofrequency EMF is carcinogenic. NTP reported that their strongest findings were of increased malignant cardiac schwannoma in male rats, however that is not consistent with the results of Falcioni et al. (2018), is not consistent with the NTP female rat nor male or female mouse results, and is not consistent with the radiofrequency EMF cancer literature more generally. While results from epidemiological studies suggest vestibular schwannoma is an outcome of interest,
this is not true for malignant cardiac schwannoma. NTP found no increase in schwannoma overall or for vestibular schwannoma. Further, as multiple comparisons were not controlled for in the NTP study, there is no indication that the increased incidence of malignant cardiac schwannomas in male rats was more than what would be expected by chance alone. ICNIRP considers that the NTP (2018a, b) and Falcioni et al. (2018) studies do not provide a consistent, reliable and generalizable body of evidence that can be used as a basis for revising current human exposure guidelines. Further research is required that addresses the above limitations.
Jul 23, 2018
ICNIRP requests public input on its radio frequency radiation exposure guidelines
The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) has recently announced that it wants public input regarding a new draft of its guidelines on limiting radio frequency (RF) fields (i.e., electromagnetic fields [EMF] from 100 kilohertz to 300 Gigahertz).
“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 known adverse health effects from direct, non-medical exposures to both short- and long-term, continuous and discontinuous radiofrequency EMFs.”
The new publication replaces the 1998 RF exposure guidelines which have influenced RF exposure standards in many nations including the guidelines adopted by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission.
ICNIRP is an association with a scientific mission that is registered in Germany as a nonprofit organization. It is “formally recognized as an official collaborating non-governmental organization (NGO) by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO). ICNIRP is linked to many organizations engaged in non-ionizing radiation protection worldwide and consults with the European Commission.”
ICNIRP’s new draft safety guidelines dismiss the research on the effects of chronic exposure to non-thermal levels of RF radiation. In its latest health risk assessment, ICNIRP concludes that there are no “substantiated” adverse effects of RF radiation on human health. See Appendix B: Health Risk Assessment Literature and a summary of the findings which appears below.
Following is ICNIRP’s justification for ignoring most of the EMF research in its health risk assessment:
“ICNIRP bases its guidelines on substantiated adverse health effects. This makes the difference between a biological and an adverse health effect an important distinction, where only adverse health effects require limits for the protection of humans.” (ICNIRP Guidelines: Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic and Electromagnetic Fields [100 kHz TO 300 GHz]. July 11, 2018 draft. p. 2)
“These guidelines specify quantitative EMF levels for safe personal exposure. Adherence to these levels is intended to protect people from all known harmful effects of radiofrequency EMF exposure. To determine these levels, ICNIRP first identified published scientific literature concerning effects of radiofrequency EMF exposure on biological systems, and established which of these were both harmful to human health, and scientifically substantiated. This latter point is important because ICNIRP considers that, in general, reported effects need to be independently replicated, be of sufficient scientific quality and explicable more generally within the context of the scientific literature, in order to be taken as ‘evidence’ and used for setting exposure restrictions. Within the guidelines, ‘evidence’ will be used within this context, and ‘substantiated effect’ used to describe reported effects that satisfy this definition of evidence. (ICNIRP Guidelines: Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic and Electromagnetic Fields [100 kHz TO 300 GHz].” July 11, 2018 draft. p. 2)
Public consultation on ICNIRP RF exposure guidelines
If you choose to provide public input to ICNIRP, the draft documents consist of RF exposure guidelines and two appendices. Appendix A reviews dosimetry, and Appendix B summarizes the health risk assessment.
The consultation process which began on July 11 ends on October 9, 2018. ICNIRP members will review public comments prior to finalizing the RF exposure guidelines. ICNIRP will not reply to comments.
To provide comments on the draft documents, complete the form on the ICNIRP website or the template available at https://www.icnirp.org/en/activities/public-consultation/consultation-1.html
Files for download
ICNIRPRF Guidelines_PCD 2018 07 11ICNIRPRF Gdl Appendix A_PCD 2018 07 11ICNIRPRF Gdl Appendix B_PCD 2018 07 11ICNIRPRF Consultation Template_PCD 2018 07 11
My editorial comments
To date, 242 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on EMF and biology or health have signed the EMF Scientist Appeal. Collectively, these scientists from 41 nations have published more than 2,000 papers on EMF. The Appeal calls on the WHO and the United Nations including its member states to adopt more protective exposure guidelines for EMF including RF radiation in the face of increasing evidence of health risks since these exposures are a rapidly growing form of worldwide environmental pollution.
In a recently published, peer-reviewed paper, “Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An international perspective,” Belpomme and his colleagues (2018) criticize the WHO due to its reliance upon ICNIRP and its members for expert advice. The paper claims that ICNIRP and its advisors have “close associations with industry,” and “conflicts of interest.” According to the authors, ICNIRP and its advisors have been engaged in decades of “denial of serious non-thermal effects of RF-EMFs in spite of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.”
Moreover, Belpomme and his colleagues criticize ICNIRP’s safety limits:
“The specific absorption rate (SAR)-based ICNIRP safety limits were established on the basis of simulation of EMF energy absorption using standardized adult male phantoms, and designed to protect people only from the thermal effects of EMFs. These assumptions are not valid for two reasons. Not only do they fail to consider the specific morphological and bioclinical vulnerabilities of children, but also they ignore the effects known to occur at non-thermal intensities….”
Finally, Belpomme and his colleagues (2018) provide a summary of the peer-reviewed scientific literature that arrives at very different conclusions than ICNIRP’s health risk assessment:
“It is urgent that national and international bodies, particularly the WHO, take this significant public health hazard seriously and make appropriate recommendations for protective measures to reduce exposures. This is especially urgently needed for children and adolescents. It is also important that all parts of society, especially the medical community, educators, and the general public, become informed about the hazards associated with exposure to EMFs and of the steps that can be easily taken to reduce exposure and risk of associated disease.”
The rules that ICNIRP applies for a study to be included in
its health risk assessment seem overly stringent. If other official bodies
(e.g., the International Agency for Research on Cancer or the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency) were to adopt such rules, I suspect that very few
chemicals would be classified as toxins or carcinogens. By its own admission, ICNIRP
is not concerned about protecting animal or plant life from the adverse effects
of EMF exposure, and it is arguable that they are truly concerned about protecting
If the claims of some EMF scientists and scientific organizations (e.g., the European Cancer and Environment Research Institute and the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) are true that ICNIRP’s members and scientific advisors are selected because they are biased toward industry, then it is fruitless to engage in ICNIRP’s public consultation process (see my posts from May 1 through June 27, 2017.)
Since the credibility of ICNIRP depends heavily upon its association with the WHO, a more fruitful activity for the EMF scientific community might be to convince the WHO and governments not to rely on ICNIRP for EMF guidelines and no longer consult ICNIRP’s advisors.
Summaries from ICNIRP’s Draft Appendix B: Health Risk Assessment Literature
“ICNIRP bases its guidelines on substantiated adverse health effects. This makes the difference between a biological and an adverse health effect an important distinction, where only adverse health effects require limits for the protection of humans.” (p. 2)
Brain electrical activity and cognitive function
“In summary, there is no substantiated experimental or epidemiological evidence that exposure to radiofrequency EMF affects higher cognitive functions relevant to health.” (p. 3)
Symptoms and wellbeing
“In summary, no reports of adverse effects on symptoms and wellbeing have been substantiated, except for pain, which is related to elevated temperature at high exposure levels. Thresholds for these have not been clearly identified, but the best estimate is within the vicinity of 10 and 20 mA for indirect contact currents, for children and adults respectively, and 12.5 kW m-2 for direct millimeter-wave exposure.” (pp. 3-4)
Other brain physiology and related functions
“In summary, there is no evidence of effects of radiofrequency EMF on physiological processes or eye pathology that impair health in humans. Some evidence of superficial eye damage has been shown in rabbits at exposures of at least 1.4 kW m-2, although the relevance of this to humans has not been demonstrated.“ (p. 4)
Auditory, vestibular and ocular function
“In summary, no effects on auditory, vestibular, or ocular function relevant to human health have been substantiated.” (p. 5)
“In summary, the lowest level at which an effect of radiofrequency EMF on the neuroendocrine system has been observed is 4 W kg-1 (in rodents and primates), but there is no evidence that this translates to humans or is relevant to human health. No other effects have been substantiated.” (p. 6)
“In summary, no adverse effects on neurodegenerative diseases have been substantiated.” (p. 6)
Cardiovascular system, autonomic nervous system and thermoregulation
“In summary, no effects on the cardiovascular system, autonomic nervous system, or thermoregulation that compromise health have been substantiated for exposures with whole body average SARs below approximately 1 W kg-1, and there is some evidence that 4 W kg-1 is not sufficient to alter body core temperature in hamsters. However, there is strong evidence that whole body exposures in rats that are sufficient to increase body core temperature by several degrees centigrade can cause serious adverse health effects in rats.” (p. 7)
Immune system and haematology
“The few human studies have not indicated any evidence that radiofrequency EMF affects health in humans via the immune system or haematology.” (p. 7)
Fertility, reproduction and childhood development
“In summary, no adverse effects of radiofrequency EMF exposure on fertility, reproduction or development relevant to human health have been substantiated.” (p. 8)
“In summary, no effects of radiofrequency EMF on cancer have been substantiated.” (pp. 8-9)
June 19, 2017International EMF Expert Group to Counter ICNIRP
ECERI Newsletter. No. 6, June 2017
“Following a recent meeting with WHO representatives in Geneva, members of this ECERI group have decided to publish their own data in the form of a scientific consensus paper on the effects of non-thermal EMFs on behalf of the ECERI. Finally, since several ECERI scientists believe that environmental pollution may in fact be a cause of cancer and other diseases such as Alzheimer disease and autism, ECERI has proposed to create another international group comprising scientists and jurists to discuss the possibility that intentional massive pollution could be recognized by the International Criminal Court (ICC) as a true crime against health. This proposal will be discussed at the next ECERI Executive Committee and General Assembly in Brussels.
Following the meeting with WHO in Geneva on March, the 3rd, it was proposed to create an ECERI-related working group to oppose ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection), that might be termed “International commission of scientific expertise on non-thermal radiation effects (ICSENTRE). The members of this group so far are: Dominique Belpomme (France), Igor Belyaev (Slovakia), Ernesto Burgio (Italy), David Carpenter (USA), Lennart Hardell (Sweden), Magda Havas (Canada), SMJ Mortazavi (Iran), André Vander Vorst (Belgium) and Gérard Ledoigt (France). If you wish to join this group, please contact Christine Campagnac (firstname.lastname@example.org).”
ECERI – European Cancer and Environment Research Institute, Square de Meeus 38-40, 1000 Brussels; Tél :0032 24 01 87 75 or 0033 188.8.131.52.52 email@example.com
The European Commission wants to become a leader in the next generation of wireless technology: 5G. Blinded by ambition, she sweeps possible health risks under the carpet and ignores the resistance from the population and within the telecom sector itself.
The Smart Potato brings the hyper-connected society to the agricultural fields. It is a smart sensor that farmers plant and that reports the moisture, temperature and nutritional value of the soil in real time . In this way, the farmers have a continuous view of the soil quality of their fields. This ‘smart potato’ is one of the many pilot projects of the largest experiment in the Netherlands around the next generation of wireless data traffic: 5Groningen. The project was set up to give the earthquake area new economic impulses and to prepare local SMEs for the latest innovations in wireless technology, said project leader Peter Rake.
Dozens of pilot projects involving 5G technology are underway. From self-driving vans, vibration sensors in buildings and an alarm button for those in need, to a drone that builds an image database of agricultural fields so that farmers have a real-time view of the health and needs of their crops. With 5G, everything promises to get smart . From smart cities and smart buildings to smart manufacturing and smart homes .
That is why in September 2016 the European Commission launched the ‘5G for Europe’ action plan with great fanfare. The ambitions were no less. By 2025, all public buildings such as schools, hospitals, town halls and train stations must offer a download and upload speed of one gigabyte per second. European households have to make do with ‘only’ one hundred megabytes per second. Currently, the fastest measured 4G download speed is between twenty and fifty megabytes per second. By 2025, all city centers and major transportation roads must also provide uninterrupted 5G coverage.
The investments to get there are also no less: about five hundred billion euros over the next ten years. The Commission itself promises to invest EUR 700 million through public-private partnerships. The future benefits and promises are also satisfactory, according to the 5G evangelists. The new technology will boost Europe’s gross domestic product in the coming years to EUR 900 billion and create 1.3 million jobs. The telecom sector expects an annual turnover of EUR 225 billion by 2025, the Commission calculates.
A year after the launch of the 5G Action Plan, a group of over 230 scientists is calling on the Commission to suspend its plans. The doctors, scientists and researchers all signed the ‘5G Appeal’ petition. In it they write that with the next generation of wireless technology the radiation of electromagnetic fields ( emv ) will increase exponentially. And, they go on, because there is more and more scientific evidence for its harmful effects, they ask not to roll out the 5G plans until there is more clarity as to whether and how harmful emv radiation is for people.
In its response to the 5G Appeal, the European Commission reassures that it puts the protection of European public health first in all its decisions. She relies, among other things, on the international radiation guidelines of the leading advisory body. As long as the radiation is below that, there is no danger, the Commission said.
However, those guidelines are already twenty years old and increasingly controversial. They are drawn up by a small group of insiders who dominate all international advisory bodies on radiation limits. In recent decades, more and more scientific studies have shown possible harmful health effects from radiation below those limits. The radiation debate is thus bathed in scientific disagreement and uncertainty.
De Groene Amsterdammer and Investigate Europe therefore investigated the current state of affairs in the radiation debate. We spoke to dozens of researchers, telecom players and regulators, scrutinized key policy documents and measured the most recent research on health effects of radio frequency radiation. Not with the intention of removing the scientific disagreement about whether or not radiation is harmful. That debate has been raging for decades. A dozen journalists who do research for a few months will not settle this. However, our research shows that a particular camp invariably predominates in the debate. This means that important scientific findings remain underexposed, especially among policymakers.
There are two camps in the radiation study. One believes that the only harmful effects can be explained by heat. If the radiation generates so much energy that body tissue heats up, it is dangerous. The other camp believes that the non-thermal effects of radiation can also be harmful. It wants to break the heat paradigm.
New Yorker Louis Slesin is the founder and editor of the American magazine Microwave News . He has been following radiation research for decades and is a walking encyclopedia on the subject. “There is more to it than just the heat effects,” he says. “There are too many studies showing non-thermal effects.”
This disagreement runs like a thread through all important scientific studies into the harmful effects of electromagnetic radiation. The Interphone study is one of the largest epidemiological studies of the harmful effects of mobile calling. It was founded in 2000 by the World Health Organization ( who ). Thirteen countries took part and researchers from all over the world focused on the results. Quite quickly they split into two parties: skeptics who saw no connection between cancer and mobile calling, and the believers who derived a clear connection between certain brain tumors and mobile phone use from the Interphone data.
The stalemate within the group of researchers was so great that it took four years to formulate the conclusions. They were as ambiguous as the scientists who wrote them. This was also clear from the headlines: “Mobile calling half an hour a day increases the risk of brain cancer,” headlined the Daily Telegraph when the Interphone results were released in 2010. The BBC reported the same day: “No evidence that mobile calling is a carcinogen, says important study.”
European policymakers forget that scientific disagreement places them with their political responsibility regarding public health. If there are sufficient reasons for concern about the possible health consequences of something, European politicians are obliged to protect the European population against it on behalf of the precautionary principle. Especially if the consequences are serious and irreversible. In her reply to the signers of the 5G Appeal, the Head of Cabinet of the European Commissioner for Public Health wrote that the application of the precautionary principle to 5G “seems too drastic a measure”. “We first need to see how this new technology will be deployed and how scientific evidence will evolve,” it said. “The Commission prefers to wait for concrete evidence, but it is always too late. Once the harmfulness has been proven, the damage is already done ‘
It was not the first time that the Commission had been asked this question. In 2007 her own environmental agency, the European Environment Agency ( eea ), issued a first warning about electromagnetic radiation. The British David Gee was then chief advisor for science policy and emerging threats to the agency. “The eea then expressed its concern about radiation because of the relevant scientific research that was known about it at the time,” says Gee. Among other things, he refers to the Interphone study for which interim results were known and a similar study from Sweden. Both found the same thing, namely a certain type of brain tumor on the side of the head. Given the severity of the potential damage, the millions of people exposed to it and the vulnerability of children in particular, we thought it justified to launch an early warning around that radio frequency radiation. ”
“The precautionary principle was created not for scientists, but for policymakers,” said David Gee. ‘During the risk analysis phase, they ask scientists for advice. But often after that, they hold up those scientific glasses and don’t ask the question they should ask themselves as policymakers, namely, what do we do with those early indications of potential harm and are they serious enough to take precautions? That is the phase of risk management and the precautionary principle has been designed for that. ‘
The other reason the European Commission is putting aside responsibility is flat economic. “Should it apply that precaution in this case, it would limit a profitable economic activity based on scientific uncertainty,” Gee said. “The Commission prefers to wait for concrete evidence, but it is always too late. Once the harmfulness has been proven, the damage is already done. ”
In contrast to the European Commission, the insurance sector has been applying the precautionary principle regarding the health effects of radiation for years. After all, no insurer covers health risks associated with radiation exposure. The Swiss reinsurance giant Swiss Re, in its report on emerging risks, points to the danger that “if a direct link between electromagnetic fields and health problems were to be established, it would open the door to new claims and lead to large losses under product liabilities”.
The telecom players themselves are aware of the increasing indications that emv radiation can be harmful. They read about this and cover themselves against it, as we read in their annual reports. Vodafone writes about electromagnetic radiation that it ‘can be seen as a health risk’. Telefonica warns against ‘possible effects (…) on human health’ and Deutsche Telekom against a ‘risk of regulatory interventions, such as reduced electromagnetic field limits or the introduction of precautions in mobile communication’.
It resembles a gigantic circular bookcase or carousel several meters high. But instead of books, a few white rats crawl over each other. In the rodent housing tower, researchers at the Italian Ramazzini Institute exposed more than 2,000 rats to radiation every day for two years. The dose was consistent with normal ambient radiation well below international recommended limits. The results came out last year and were groundbreaking. At the same time, the US National Toxicology Program ( NTP ) conducted a ten-year study commissioned by the United States Department of Health. ntp delivered equally shocking results last year. 2018 was therefore a turning point in the radiation research.
Louis Slesin sees it that way: ‘In the two studies, the researchers found a rare tumor of the same cell type, Schwann cells. Similar experiments performed three thousand kilometers apart discovering the same type of tumor. How big is that chance? ” His arms go up in the air. “We cannot say with certainty that mobile calling causes cancer, but it is more likely,” says Slesin.
“We were hoping we’d be wrong at the time, but with the new scientific evidence, our warning in 2007 is justified,” said David Gee. Since those initial warnings, scientific evidence for the harmfulness of radio frequency radiation has only increased. A group of Australian radiation scientists called Orsaa has created a database containing all peer-reviewed radiation studies. Of the 2266 publications, 68 percent of the cases found ‘significant biological or health effects’.
In line with those findings, the International Agency for Research on Cancer ( iarc ), part of the World Health Organization, decided in 2011 to label electromagnetic radiation from mobile phones as ‘potentially carcinogenic’. “If iarc would assess current scientific findings, it would classify emv radiation as” probably carcinogenic “or even bluntly” carcinogenic, “says David Gee firmly. However, it will be several years before iarc has gathered a new working group to view a reclassification. The 2011 rankings happened under a fierce clash between the “activists” in the IARC working group who questioned the heat paradigm and the “establishment” within international radiation research who radically rejected that paradigm shift.
Investigate Europe (IE) is a pan-European pilot project that brings together a team of nine journalists from eight European Member States. They research topics of broad European relevance and publish to media partners from all over Europe. They depend on gifts and grants for their research and work. This research has received financial support from the German Hans Böckler Foundation, the Huebner & Kennedy Foundation, GLS Treuhand, the Rudolf Augstein Foundation, the Norwegian Fritt Ord Foundation and the Open Society Initiative for Europe. The IP team also collaborates with the NGOs Journalismfund and n-ost.
Globally, there are some authoritative committees and advisory bodies that assess scientific research on EMF radiation and set exposure limits based on this. Policymakers worldwide fall back on those advice to set legal radiation limits. The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, or ICNIRP for short, is the main advisory body. Policy makers invariably refer to the ICNIRP guidelines from 1998. “As long as you stay below that, everything is safe,” is the adage. The European Commission also relies on this and in 1999 adopted the ICNIRP limits in its own recommendation.
Dutchman Eric van Rongen is the current chairman of the ICNIRP committee. ‘ icnirp evaluates the scientific literature and determines the effects of exposure to emf radiation on that basis,’ he explains. “Those identified effects form the basis for the ICNIRP guidelines.”
In addition to icnirp , the World Health Organization also started in 1996 with a project that evaluates the effects of emv : the ‘ who emf project’. The Swedish Radiation Commission is also a renowned institute. The European Commission itself commissioned its own Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks ( scenihr) to conduct an extensive literature study into the dangers of radio frequency radiation. In the United Kingdom this was the AGNIR Committee . “Similar experiments that were carried out three thousand kilometers apart and discovered the same type of tumor. How big is that chance? ”
The problem with these advisory bodies is that they are largely made up of the same people and that they often have links with the private industry, especially with the telecom sector. The interdependence is evident when you place the committees side by side. Of the current thirteen ICNIRP members, six sit in at least one of the other advisory bodies. In the who emf group, this is even six out of seven. A third of the European Scenihr Committee that issued radiation recommendations in 2015 was interwoven with other advisory groups.
Moreover, there is no question of scientific disagreement in those different committees. They all adhere to the predominant heat paradigm. “We know that there are non-thermal effects of radio frequency radiation,” says Van Rongen. “But we are not convinced that they are harmful to human health.”
Louis Slesin denounces this one-sidedness and calls for a more level playing field between the various research camps. “At the moment, the establishment, in particular ICNIRP , is too dominant in this discussion,” he says. “Why doesn’t icnirp allow investigators from the other camp to keep themselves honest?” icnirp chairman Van Rongen says that they are open to that. “But we look at the profile of new members, we don’t just choose them because of their dissent,” he says. For Slesin, the fact that icnirp chooses its own committee members is the crux of the problem. “In my view, icnirp and the who’s emf group are one and the same,” he says. “They have the same founder, the same members and say the same things.”
icnirp got rid of both the Ramazzini and the ntp results as unsatisfactory in quality. The evidence of the two studies would not be sufficiently coherent and generalized and therefore there was no reason to revise the current exposure guidelines, it was concluded. However, the researchers from the National Toxicology Program had their results reviewed by a group of 15 external scientists, knowing that their findings would be controversial. Those fifteen confirmed the ntp conclusions.
Regarding links with industry, eight out of thirteen ICNIRP members have or had links with the telecom or electricity industry through consultancy or research funding. Within the who emf group, there are five out of seven and half of the European scenihr . Eric van Rongen assures us that there are currently no conflicts of interest within icnirp . “In the past, some members may have received private sector co-financing, but currently no member has a connection with the telecom sector.” Within icnirp , they must not be affiliated with commercial companies for at least three years prior to their membership. The who sets similar requirements.
The closed nature of the advisory bodies and their privilege of the private sector starts with the godfather of international radiation research, Australian professor of information technology Michael Repacholi. He founded ICNIRP in 1992 and was chairman for four years. Then he founded the who emf project in 1996. Repacholi was not without discussion from the outset because of its ties to the industry. For years, the telecom sector channeled money to Repacholi via the Royal Hospital in Adelaide. “I once asked him how that construction differs from a money laundering carousel,” says Slesin of Microwave News . “He never answered me.”
Repacholi took this private financing to the EMF project. Each year, the two largest telecom industry associations donated $ 300,000 to Repacholi’s who- emf project. “With that he went against the rules of the who, ” says Slesin. “After his departure in 2006, those cash flows have stopped, but since then the EMF project has not performed much anymore,” he adds. After his career as a standard setter at icnirp and the who , Repacholi started working as a consultant for large telecom players.
One would think that the who wouldn’t repeat her mistakes around the harmfulness of secondhand smoke. In 2000, she released a report that was a long-drawn-out confession of guilt about how she had been tricked by the tobacco industry. “I hate to make the tobacco comparison,” Slesin says, “because we know it’s harmful. We still do not know with certainty about radiation. An important lesson from the tobacco case is that you should not give the sector too much influence. In that trap, the who has stepped again with his emf project. ‘
‘In three days they installed an antenna 35 meters high. Since then, our daily life has been a disaster. The view is ruined, our household appliances are on the go and we have a continuous headache when we get home, ‘testifies one of the inhabitants of L’Aquila, the capital of the Abruzzo mountains in central Italy. After the 2009 earthquake, the city was shattered. In the wake of the reconstruction, the Italian government selected L’Aquila as one of the five 5G test cities. “After the drama of the earthquake, they want to make our city an open-air testing ground, but we are the test animals,” says a doctor. He is one of 1,500 signatories to the anti-5G petition; on a mild fall day in November, a few of them gathered on the steps of the local church. There is great resistance to the 5G plans of the Italian government.
Protests against 5G are also rising in the rest of Europe. In the Polish city of Gliwice, Orange secretly performed 5G tests. This was done without informing the local authorities or the citizens. When that leaked out, people took to the streets and the tests were silently stopped. Last year, there were similar 5G protests in four other Polish cities. Patras, the third largest city in Greece, declined to be a test hub for 5G.
Within the telecom sector itself, too, there is a lot of reluctance towards the 5G revolution. The technical feasibility is not up for discussion, the economic one all the more. After all, the bandwidth required for the mass data traffic, the spectrum, is a scarce public good. Telecom players have to buy spectrum bandwidth from governments. Such spectrum auctions are an important source of income for the latter. In the Netherlands, the last frequency auction in 2012 raised public treasury 3.8 billion euros. kpn , T-Mobile, Vodafone and Tele2 then bought bandwidth for their mobile telephony and data services. In the fall of 2019, the Netherlands will hold a new frequency auction, part of which is for 5G.
Not many 5G frequencies have been auctioned in Europe yet. The largest and most recent is the one in Italy. In October last year, it raised about 6.5 billion euros. Good for the Italian treasury, less good for the telecom players who had to cough up the billions and have to earn back later. The sector is dealing with customers who want to pay less and less for more capacity and services.
The costs for 5G frequencies are so high that telecom players are openly critical of it. In Portugal, the entire sector is skeptical of the 5G hype. “It is mainly pushed through with a political agenda, without looking at whether there is really a need for that technology,” says Jorge Graça, CEO at the Portuguese telecom company nos . Mario Vaz, the CEO of Vodafone Portugal, shares that view. “It is not up to politics or regulations to stimulate new technologies. They must stem from a real market need. ” Moreover, the 4G network is not yet at its top, according to the two telecom top men.
The EU is therefore threatening to pump hundreds of billions of euros into a technology that may pose a huge health risk and has no revenue model. Moreover, the scientific disagreement revolves around existing technology and the associated radiation of lower frequencies, such as electricity networks and mobile calls. The 5G frequencies are much higher and must therefore be rolled out in a much denser network of cell towers and antennas. And the number of studies into biological and health effects of the higher 5G frequencies is just zero.
The 5G evangelists usually put forward the argument that high frequencies enter the body only superficially. Last year, however, the Swiss research foundation IT’IS, which is financed by the telecom sector, already raised the alarm. The IT’IS researchers calculated that despite those higher frequencies and limited penetration, 5G can generate enough energy to permanently damage skin tissue. Niels Kuster, head of IT’IS, concludes from this that the ICNIRP limits urgently need to be revised. “If a research group like IT’IS says ICNIRP needs to revise its guidelines, you know there is a problem,” Slesin says firmly.
Icnirp is busy with that, just like the who emf group. Both want to come up with new guidelines and scientific conclusions about the harmfulness of radio frequency radiation next year.
Excerpts from Einar Flydal’s blogpost: Tidligere ICNIRP-medlem går inn for at trådløst må få strengere kreftfareklasse, published January 27, 2020
Note from the author: I have linked some terms, to create the possibility to search for more information. Text between brackets is added by Antoinette Janssen, Multerland.
In an article in IEEE Microwave Magazine last November, Lin corrects ICNIRP. He justifies his position that there are now two large, well-executed and solid studies that point in the same direction: cancer from exposure to GSM and to CDMA – two key technologies in mobile communication. He also points out that the data in the large US NTP study, which found a clear correlation between exposure to mobile radiation and cancer rates in rats, shows even greater cancer risk than revealed in the final report. –Here it is possible that James Lin has Arthur Firstenberg’s note in mind: Firstenberg’s analysis shows that the….
NTP study shows “good” results [in the meaning of, I guess, fitting more with what the industry liked more: to play down the risks] because the differences between control group and exposed group are far lower than they would have been if the control group had been better shielded –blog post 16.07.2018-.–
Lin therefore advocates for WHO-hazard class 1 (carcinogenic), instead of today’s 2B (possibly carcinogenic). It is a an airtight argumented conclusion, with support of an overwhelming amount of research results (see, for example, the reviews in Flydal & Nordhagen 2019).
See an earlier article about James Lin: Clear Evidence of Cell Phone RF Radiation Cancer Risk, published September 23, 2018.
How ICNIRP, AGNIR, PHE and a 30 year old political decision created and then covered up a global public health scandal!
Who are ICNIRP?
The International Committee on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) are a private self appointed body or NGO who together with the Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation (AGNIR) and Public Health England (PHE), have somehow ended up effectively setting microwave radiation exposure ‘safety’ standards for the populations of large parts of the world since the 1990s.
In May 2011, Mr Jean Huss from the EU Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs in a report entitled “The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment” made the following statement on the credibility of ICNIRP.
The rapporteur underlines in this context that it is most curious, to say the least, that the applicable official threshold values for limiting the health impact of extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and high frequency waves were drawn up and proposed to international political institutions (WHO, European Commission, governments) by the ICNIRP, an NGO whose origin and structure are none too clear and which is furthermore suspected of having rather close links with the industries whose expansion is shaped by recommendations for maximum threshold values for the different frequencies of electromagnetic fields.more info
An organisation whose origin and structure is none too clear and which is suspected of having rather too close links with the interests of the industries it notionally ‘regulates’. Indeed, how do such bodies mysteriously come about in the first place? NGOs may technically be non-governmental organisations but that doesn’t mean that they are necessarily non-political organisations, so called scientific ‘objectivity’ is always shaped and influenced to some degree by political and economic considerations and NGOs are subject to corporate capture and corruption just as much as a sporting ruling body such as FIFA. How is it that a group of people manage to self appoint themselves as the reliable regulatory body which takes upon itself to decide what is supposedly safe for the rest of us or not?
Was ICNIRP funded, established or captured by the very industries it was designed to ‘regulate’? Given the endemic corruption which is the hallmark of Neoliberal deregulation in general one would have to say that in all probability: yes.
Anthony J. Swerdlow, who was the ICNIRP Chair of the standing committee on epidemiology contributed to a paper of 2011 which concluded that ” the trend in the accumulating evidence is increasingly against the hypothesis that mobile phone use can cause brain tumors in adults“. Swerdlow on this occasion, declared in a mere footnote and not any statement of interests or conflict of interests that “A.J.S. holds shares in the telecom companies Cable and Wireless Worldwide and Cable and Wireless Communications. A.J.S.’s wife holds shares in the BT group, a global telecommunications services company. ” Should the chair of the supposedly ‘independent’ body setting the guidelines of microwave radiation protection and also his wife – really be holding shares in the very same companies he is supposed to be regulating? How is this not an extreme conflict of interests?
Why is the origin and structure of ICNIRP so opaque when the decisions it has made have had direct impacts on the health of billions of people? This is something which is far more than ‘curious to say the least’ and should be a matter of thorough public investigation considering what is at stake in all of this in terms of global public health. Billions of people may well have been adversely effected by the extremist decisions of this self appointed scientific oracle of health and safety to which the whole world seems to have meekly deferred to without asking any real questions.
In terms of its philosophy, it turns out that ICNIRP is something of a closed ideological shop, in that in order to be accepted or invited to become a member of ICNIRP, one is preliminarily required to strictly adhere to the thermal paradigm in terms of radiation health and safety. This paradigm in terms of its followers and their beliefs, asserts that only short term, extremely high exposure to non-ionising microwave radiation that produces a large thermal effect is deemed to be hazardous to human health. Once one adopts that position, then all non-ionising radiation that falls below these levels is automatically and universally assumed to be benign. Once this paradigm is also accepted by government and other bodies such as Public Health England, then the burden falls on those subjected to such now completely unregulated sources of radiation to prove that far lower levels of exposure are indeed harmful, whereas conversely, there is no burden on the industry to irrefutably demonstrate that such exposures are completely and utterly safe. Because in the real world there are no control groups on account of the universal exposure of all the population to such radiation sources then proving irrefutable links between illness and exposure is intensely problematic.
In taking this highly selective approach ICNIRP have effectively inverted the conventions of environmental risk assessments. Don Maisch describes this reversal of principles in the ‘Procrustean Approach’.
Risk assessment for chemicals reversed for non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation
It is important to note that when it comes to risk assessment that serves as the basis for Western radiofrequency and microwave (RF/MW) standards there is a fundamental departure from conventional risk assessment as used for chemicals. In their 1995 review of risk assessment of environmental chemicals, Fan, Howd and Davis point out that when assessing human exposure to chemicals, environmental levels are the focus. In other words, protecting the public from toxic effects of chemicals in the environment involves consideration of possible mechanisms of low-level toxicity and likely biological effects at low levels of exposure. In addition, the potential for cumulative (long-term), irreversible effects, such as cancer induction and neurotoxicity, are important considerations. There may be debate over what is the lowest level at which a hazard from a chemical may exist, but calculations are aimed at determining the lowest-dose toxic effects to provide human health protection. The obvious adverse effects from high level exposures are not usually a focus of risk assessment as there is no uncertainty on hazards at high-level exposure. Just the reverse applies to the risk assessment of possible hazards from human exposure to non-ionizing radiation from extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic fields (EMF) to RF/MW electromagnetic radiation (EMR), as examined in this thesis. This thesis explores reasons why a risk assessment paradigm developed in the so-called ‘Western world’ that only provides protection from obvious adverse effects at high-intensity (acute) exposures unlikely to be encountered in the environment. The possibility of cumulative effects, cancer induction and neurological effects arising from low-intensity exposures that could be encountered in the environment are not a consideration in assessing human health risks [Under ICNIRP’s terms]. This has been pointed out in a Swiss government agency publication ‘Electrosmog in the Environment’ where it is stated “Exposure limit values [in Western standards/guidelines] ensure protection against recognised, acute effects, but they do not protect against suspected effects at lower radiation intensities, especially with long-term exposure”. This thesis proposes that such a radical departure from accepted risk assessment practice is based on reasons that primarily are to ensure the continuing development of both corporate and military technology at the expense of public health considerations. This assessment is in agreement with Michaels & Monforton in their observations that both corporate and a revisionist political influence in the risk assessment process has affected the outcome of supposedly scientific risk assessments to marginalize the interests of the public, while at the same time maximizing the influence of the vested interest corporate sector.
This short term exposure paradigm is ridiculous. It can take decades of smoking to develop lung cancer not just the 6 minutes it might take to smoke a cigarette. It can take many years to develop simple allergies from environmental exposure to certain substances or foods. In the case of all the various symptoms and illnesses that can result from exposure to low level microwave radiation, there is an incubation period from 8 to 30 years before we start to see epidemiological evidence of such effects. We are only now starting to see these effects emerging at greater scale as over 2000 peer reviewed small scale health studies have shown, unfortunately there is no global epidemiological system in place that would enable us to gather and collate all the relevant information already being provided by patients around the world in order to get a full picture of the scale of public health effects from extremely long term, low level microwave radiation exposures of all types. It is a mistake to be making small or selective ‘studies’ as such, as with an appropriate system we could collect the data about symptoms and detailed information about patient’s environments being presented on a daily basis and map them globally. It is extremely likely that a global public health crisis is silently building in the background and there is no system or alert mechanism in place to give us clear warnings as to the scale of what is actually taking place. This is deeply concerning. The proliferation of microwave wireless technology is the largest unregulated, blind technological experiment to have ever taken place on the human race: which has and is, effecting billions of people.
In response to this growing public health crisis, in direct contrast to ICNIRP’s thermally based denial paradigm, in 2007 the BioInitiative Report was put forward with a completely different biologically based paradigm presented as a “Rationale for Biologically-based Exposure Standards for Low-Intensity Electromagnetic Radiation”. This paradigm asserts that in terms of very long term exposure, non-ionising microwave radiation of low power density can have strong effects on the human body and the general environment. The two different paradigms lead to remarkably different views as to what constitutes radiation safety levels. The BioInitiative Report of 2012 recommends a maximum exposure of just 5 microwatts per metre squared (5µW/m2) whereas ICNIRP suggest a base line maximum of ten million microwatts per metre squared (10,000,000µW/m2).
One of the biggest problems in researching this subject is trying to get some coherent point of reference in order to understand what kind of exposure levels could properly considered to be safe? The range of guidance is quite simply extraordinary and ranges from the Salzburg 2002 recommendation of a maximum indoor home exposure of 1 micro-watt per meter squared to ICNIRP’s 10,000,000 micro-watts per metre squared. How is it possible for different countries or bodies to have ‘standards’ that vary by a magnitude of 10 million?
The ICNIRP guide for safety standards in wireless communications state that a maximum power density of 10 W/m2 or 10,000 mW/m2 is presented as being a very ‘conservative’ limit. The FCC in the US has the same limits of 1mW/cm2. Confusingly, the US power density is expressed in mW/cm2 as opposed to ICNIRP’s and European use of mW/m2. 1mW/cm2 is equal to 10,000mW/m2 which is precisely the same as ICNIRP’s levels and the same is true for US occupational levels: 5mW/cm2 = 50 Watts per meter squared.
To most of us, these figures are not in anyway comprehensible. How do we even begin to imagine or understand their meaning in terms of what we should consider to be a public health threat? Are they too low, too high or just about right? ICNIRP would like us all to believe that they are incredibly conservative. If one reads all of ICNIRP’s guidelines issued and even their latest draft guidelines issued in 2018 one is struck by the rhetorical devices of ‘conservatism’ that are consistently deployed throughout the texts. In the latest draft we find the word ‘conservative’, strongly conservative etc. is applied no less than 25 times. Below are 6 examples of this device in action in the first 3 pages of the 25 page draft 2018 guidelines. Note that the term ‘precautionary’ is also thrown in twice in a supporting role for good rhetorical measure.
These thresholds were derived to be strongly conservative for typical exposure situations and populations…Reduction factors account for biological variability in the population, variance in baseline conditions (e.g. tissue temperature), variance in environmental factors (e.g. air temperature, clothing), dosimetric uncertainty associated with deriving exposure values, uncertainty associated with the health science, and as a conservative measure more generally…. As a conservative step, reference levels have been derived...ICNIRP adopts a conservative approach to each of these steps in order to ensure that its limits would remain protective even if exceeded by a substantial margin…… The degree of precaution in the exposure levels is thus greater than may be suggested by considering only the reduction factors, which represent only one conservative element of the guidelines. ICNIRP considers that the derivation of limits is sufficiently conservative to make additional precautionary measures unnecessary.more info
In the absence of any general agreement as to what either ‘precautionary’ or ‘conservative’ might actually mean within the laboratorial confines and politics of ICNIRP’s text and also in real terms in the real world, I suggest that we entirely bracket this rather overly extensively applied language and suspend its influence on our comprehension. For the moment we should just dwell of the extreme nature of its over use in the text. I will be over using it myself as an ironic and sarcastic counter-point to illustrate the pervasiveness and effectiveness of such rhetorical devices in any given text and also consistently place them in inverted commas as a constant reminder of the misleading nature of such devices and the misleading perceptions they are designed to engender in any given reader not familiar with such techniques.
A real world referential framework to understand safety limits
In this article I propose to try and understand these frequently so called ‘conservative’ safety limits from a different perspective. In order to do this I am going to take the results of a survey carried out in Sweden on an apartment within very close proximity to a GSM/3G/4G LTE base station and then extrapolate from that survey’s results what kind of cell tower or base station infrastructure would actually be required to breach ICNIRP’s ‘conservative’ limit. I should stress here that I am predominantly concentrating on power density radiation exposure related to base stations and cell towers and not ‘Specific Absorption Rates’ (SARs) related to specific personal mobile phone use. One can keep a mobile phone in airplane mode most of the time or use a shielded case and always use it on speaker phone keeping a safe distance. The user is potentially sovereign over their potential radiation exposure risks in such cases whereas with respect to base stations and cell towers they are not. In the UK if someone wants to erect such infrastructure 10 metres from your windows or balcony there is nothing whatsoever that you can effectively do about it other than move house. In the UK you would have to hope that such infrastructure breached planning regulations in that it would have to breach ICNIRP’s limits. In this case study, we are about to see what the chances of such a breach occurring actually are. It should also be noted that in the case below: legally, under current laws, no planning permission would be required to install such infrastructure in the UK anyway, just the permission or co-operation of the owner of the building next door. Only masts that exceed 15 metres in height require planning permission.
The survey took place in 2017 at Östermalm in Stockholm at a 6th floor apartment that had a GSM/3G/4G LTE base station just 12 metres away. The photograph below was taken on the balcony outside the living room.
Looking at that apartment and infrastructure, I would certainly not want to live there and one might be surprised that considering ICNIRP’s such ‘conservative’ limits that the network operator was given planning permission to site a base station at such close range and within direct line of sight of such a living space. From a layperson’s perspective one might guess that apartment to be getting close to at least 98% of what ICNIRP deems to be a very ‘conservative’ safe public exposure limit or even suppose that it might be exceeding the limit? One would hope in these circumstances that the occupants might be able to complain about the siting of such infrastructure.
We have all seen such equipment and seeing that physical infrastructure in that location gives us a reasonable grasp of the power densities produced by such equipment at very, very close range. Over the 83 hour survey of the apartment, the average power density recorded at the property was just 3.8mW/m2 or 3.8 milliwatts per square metre. Italy has a maximum exposure level of 1mW/m2 so if that apartment were in Italy, that particular apartment would be just 3.8 times the limit. As the Italian limit is one ten thousandth of the ICNIRP limit, then the Italian limit which one may have assumed to be very conservative in relation to ICNIRP’s levels, is not particularly conservative as the apartment surveyed is only exceeding the Italian limit by a factor of just under four. It seems to me that as a starting point in terms of public health and safety, a strict legal limit of 1mW/m2 is far more appropriate and one would hope that such a base station would not have been allowed to be installed at that location. 1mW/m2 is still far too high in terms of safety limits in comparison with the 0.005mW/m2 suggested by the BioInitiative 2012 report.
In contrast to Italy’s 1mW/m2, the ICNIRP ‘conservative’ safety limit is a massive 10,000 mW/m2 or 10 Watts per square metre as is the US FCC limit and these have to be an average taken over 6 or 30 minutes respectively and are not based upon any peak reading. So this apartment which is within just 12 metres line of sight communication with a medium sized base station is only a minuscule 0.038% of the way to breaching ICNIRP’s self proclaimed ‘conservative’ safety standards.
One wonders what kind of infrastructure would it actually take to beach ICNIRP’s standards? If we take 10,000 mW/m2 and divide by the recorded average of 3.8mW/m2 we get a result that in principle you could surround the apartment surveyed with 2,632 such base stations before you would get to ICNIRP’s supposed ‘precautionary’ and ‘conservative’ safety limit.
In terms of cell tower and base station infrastructure, we can say that even using the higher 0.038% Stockholm figure, it would be impossible to actually get to ICNIRP’s limits even if it were physically possible to install 2,632 base stations around the apartment because the power density of the radiation emitted is not a constant source but is dependent on the network usage by all the devices in the surrounding area. To replicate the same flow of data and traffic and hence power density, one would also need 2,632 times the amount of people and devices on the network which is similarly impossible. In which case we would have to take the minimum reading of all frequencies measured in the apartment of 15µW/m2 as a base line (15µW or micro-watts, 1 milliwatt = 1000 micro-watts). In terms of base stations alone: one would require something in the order of 666,000 base stations before one approached the ludicrous target of ICNIRP’s ‘safety’ limits. If a base station even cost as little as £20,000 such an experiment would cost no less than £13.3 billion to conduct so we can safely assume that no-one is ever going to carry it out even if it were physically and practically possible. Bear in mind that these are just ICNIRP’s base limits and they see room for them to be exceeded by a substantial margin and maintain that even in that instance they would still not constitute any threat to public health!
Microwave Radiation Safety Levels in the UK do not exist as such
In terms of a ‘safety’ level ICNIRP’s are impossible to breach practically in the real world.
In practice, in much of Europe and the US, there are no real restrictions at all on the levels of radiation that we can be exposed to and the telecommunications industry has carte blanche as to the kind of infrastructure it could install in principle anywhere. In many senses one can see ICNIRP’s mock limits as yet another example of effective Neoliberal deregulation which directly compromises human and environmental health & safety.
No-one has erected 666,000 cell towers or base stations within the grounds of a school, but in terms of ICNIRP’s risible safety limits there would be absolutely nothing to stop someone doing it in principle as they would never breach the limit in practice. Does anyone really see the precautionary placement of 666,000 base stations within a school’s grounds as being consistent with a ‘conservative’ base safety level with room for substantial levels above that?
Under ICNIRPs guidelines, in practice there are no limits whatsoever as to the kind of infrastructure that could be put in place. The only reason that masts and base stations are limited in the power density they output at all is purely a question of economics as the mobile network operators want them to function at the lowest cost to efficiency in terms of power consumption and it has nothing to do with ICNIRP’s ridiculous ‘standards’. In reality there are effectively no safety standards when it comes to wireless radiation safety and the only reasons we are ‘protected’ at all is due to economic cost controls, physical, aesthetic and practical restrictions and likely some self imposed safety restraint from the Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) who are obviously wary of being sued some time in the future. As any kind of ‘useful’ point of reference: ICNIRP’s ‘conservative’ standards are many thousands of times beyond any even vaguely reasonable limit.
For some additional perspective, in order to average 10 Watts per square meter in real world field conditions would require frequent massive spikes and peaks of power density from 40 – 200 W/m2 and higher. ICNIRP state that “For frequencies exceeding 10 MHz (which covers all forms of microwave radiation) it is suggested that the peak equivalent plane wave power density, as averaged over the pulse width does not exceed 1,000 times the Seq restrictions”. In this respect peak power density could go as high as 9.9 KW/m2 and still remain within the safety ‘guidance’. As far as the biological effects of microwave radiation exposure are concerned it is the pulsed and extreme variations in strength of power density that are of most concern.
To give an additional perspective on the strength of such power density, 100W/m2 is the lower end of the health & safety power density guidance for a wireless phone charging pad where the energy is only travelling a few millimetres. These levels of power density are simply obscene and would never ever be seen in real world operating conditions.
In 2012, The BioInitiative Report reduced their suggested limit of 2007 from 1mW/m2 to just 5µW/m2 or 5 microwatts per square meter. A mobile phone can function at power density levels as low as 0.00003 µW/m2, so even the seemingly conservative BioInitiative 5µW/m2 recommendation of 2012 is still 166,000 times greater than the basic power density required to make or receive a mobile phone call whilst the ICNIRP limit is a completely staggering 333 billion times greater than these basic functional requirements.
What does this mean in terms of legal objections?
In the UK, Masts up to 15 metres high (49.2 feet or twice the height of an average two story house), are within permitted developments and do not require planning permission. Only masts over 15 metres require planning permission. Small antennas and ‘de minimis’ developments, base stations etc. do not need full planning permission just a notification to the local authority. Planning permission in the few cases it is required is granted with the proviso that ICNIRP’s guidelines are not exceeded. As we have seen this is practically impossible so there could never be any objection on those grounds.
Given that the Stockholm apartment was on only 3.8 times the Italian limit, then unless we demand the right for local authorities to set their own safety standards and local authorities at least apply the Italian guideline of 1mW/m2, then no resident, association or the council itself can object to any infrastructure put in place. The local authority can deny access to its own street furniture and land but cannot stop developments on private land where a MNO is paying rent to have the infrastructure hosted. If anyone puts the Stockholm base station or one even a thousand times more powerful, within 5 metres of your house and windows then there is nothing you can do about it as although it would breach the Italian levels it will never breach ICNIRP’s limits which are 10,000 times higher.
This is Neoliberal deregulation at its very worst. It is undemocratic, unfair and places those unlucky enough to have such infrastructure foisted upon them in immediate danger with no recourse to any legal objections.
Have ICNIRP’s limits ever been tested?
A rather fundamental question here is has ICNIRP or anyone else for that matter actually tested any of these exposures in anything even remotely approaching real world conditions? I simply do not see how any such thing could be done in laboratory conditions. Have ICNIRP really done testing with the highly erratic pulsed radiation that one sees in the real world from 20-50 multiple sources all acting at the same time and viciously peaking and falling between 1mW/M2 and up to 10KW/m2 thousands of times a second in order to confirm their safety declarations? I doubt even the software to control 20 to 50 signal generators packed into any given area could cope with simulating the erratic behaviour of thousands and thousands of different devices which determine the power density in real world networking conditions. The Stockholm survey listed no less than 20 different RF sources and that is only limited because the EME-Spy 200 exposimeter they used can only log up to twenty different portions of the spectrum (measurements are given in microwatts m2).
This aggregation of multiple signals of a dynamic nature with complex interference effects was something that the EU’s Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies commented on in April 2019. Bear in mind that this report was prepared by the people responsible for overseeing the roll-out of 5G and was not intended as a critique of 5G technology
Significant concern is emerging over the possible impact on health and safety arising from potentially much higher exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation arising from 5G. Increased exposure may result not only from the use of much higher frequencies in 5G but also from the potential for the aggregation of different signals, their dynamic nature, and the complex interference effects that may result, especially in dense urban areas.
The 5G radio emission fields are quite different to those of previous generations because of their complex beamformed transmissions in both directions – from base station to handset and for the return. Although fields are highly focused by beams, they vary rapidly with time and movement and so are unpredictable, as the signal levels and patterns interact as a closed loop system. This has yet to be mapped reliably for real situations, outside the laboratory. One aspect, for example, that is not well understood today is the unpredictable propagation patterns that could result in unacceptable levels of human exposure to electromagnetic radiation. While the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) issues guidelines for limiting exposure to electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (EMF), and EU member states are subject to Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC which follows ICNIRP guidelines, the problem is that currently it is not possible to accurately simulate or measure 5G emissions in the real world.
One can guarantee that none of these things have been taken into account in laboratory conditions and certainly not to the peak power levels that ICNIRP ‘conservatively’ deems to be safe. ICNIRP’s ‘safety’ standards are simply not fit for any practical purpose. Even the demand for highly accurate and strictly calibrated measuring instruments which need to be re-calibrated every two years is completely meaningless given the insane spread between real world levels and ICNIRP’s mockery of a ‘conservative’ standard.
One of the largest issues in all of this is the question as to why Italy only allow a maximum power density of 1mW/m2 but in most of the rest of Europe and the US the threshold level is 10,000 times higher? Italy’s mobile telecommunications do not seem to have suffered and are fully functional at that far lower power density: so why do we not all similarly apply such a precautionary standard?
The plot thickens: The Links Between ICNIRP, AGNIR & HPA/PHE
In the UK at least, the answer lies within the history of three suspiciously interconnected organisations – ICNIRP, AGNIR (the Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation) and the HPA (Health Protection Agency) or PHE (Public Health England).
In 2012 AGNIR published a highly influential and now controversial report on the safety of non-ionising radiation which is still being used today around the world as a point of reference to set standards and deflect criticism of wireless radiation in general.
The timing of the release of this report is highly suspicious. If we return to the 2011 report from the EU Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, then we can see that the BioInitiatve report of 2007 and a great many scientific studies at that time had many in the EU questioning the wisdom of such experimental public radiation exposure and there was strong momentum earned by concerned health professionals to persuade the EU into taking a far more precautionary approach to RF/EMF regulations within the EU.
This report as an EU document, is quite extraordinary in terms of the criticisms that it makes of ICNIRP, making conflicts of interest a central concern in its analysis of ICNIRP’s role in setting the referential framework for EU safety standards and much of the rest of the world. This report was so important that I am going to quote from it extensively and whilst I urge people to read it in full (its actually not that long) then I am not so naive as to rely on everyone clicking the relevant link so apologies for quoting this at length. Please also bear in mind that this document was written as 3G was being rolled out 8 years ago and that RF and wireless infrastructure in general, and consequently the power densities of microwave radiation exposure has grown exponentially since.
2. The potential health effects of the very low frequency of electromagnetic fields surrounding power lines and electrical devices are the subject of ongoing research and a significant amount of public debate. According to the World Health Organisation, electromagnetic fields of all frequencies represent one of the most common and fastest growing environmental influences, about which anxiety and speculation are spreading. All populations are now exposed to varying degrees of electromagnetic fields, the levels of which will continue to increase as technology advances.
3. Mobile telephony has become commonplace around the world. This wireless technology relies upon an extensive network of fixed antennas, or base stations, relaying information with radio frequency signals. Over 1.4 million base stations exist worldwide and the number is increasing significantly with the introduction of third generation technology. Other wireless networks that allow high-speed internet access and services, such as wireless local area networks, are also increasingly common in homes, offices and many public areas (airports, schools, residential and urban areas). As the number of base stations and local wireless networks increases, so does the radio frequency exposure of the population.
4. While electrical and electromagnetic fields in certain frequency bands have wholly beneficial effects which are applied in medicine, other non-ionising frequencies, be they sourced from extremely low frequencies, power lines or certain high frequency waves used in the fields of radar, telecommunications and mobile telephony, appear to have more or less potentially harmful, non-thermal, biological effects on plants, insects and animals as well as the human body even when exposed to levels that are below the official threshold values.
5. As regards standards or threshold values for emissions of electromagnetic fields of all types and frequencies, the Assembly recommends that the ALARA or “as low as reasonably achievable” principle is applied, covering both the so-called thermal effects and the athermic or biological effects of electromagnetic emissions or radiation. Moreover, the precautionary principle should be applicable when scientific evaluation does not allow the risk to be determined with sufficient certainty, especially given the context of growing exposure of the population, including particularly vulnerable groups such as young people and children, which could lead to extremely high human and economic costs of inaction if early warnings are neglected.
6. The Assembly regrets that, despite calls for the respect of the precautionary principle and despite all the recommendations, declarations and a number of statutory and legislative advances, there is still a lack of reaction to known or emerging environmental and health risks and virtually systematic delays in adopting and implementing effective preventive measures. Waiting for high levels of scientific and clinical proof before taking action to prevent well-known risks can lead to very high health and economic costs, as was the case with asbestos, leaded petrol and tobacco.
7. Moreover, the Assembly notes that the problem of electromagnetic fields or waves and the potential consequences for the environment and health has clear parallels with other current issues, such as the licensing of medication, chemicals, pesticides, heavy metals or genetically modified organisms. It therefore highlights that the issue of independence and credibility of scientific expertise is crucial to accomplish a transparent and balanced assessment of potential negative impacts on the environment and human health……………………
27. It is certain that one cause of public anxiety and mistrust of the communication efforts of official safety agencies and governments lies in the fact that a number of past health crises or scandals, such those involving asbestos, contaminated blood, PCBs or dioxins, lead, tobacco smoking and more recently H1N1 flu, were able to happen despite the work or even with the complicity of national or international agencies nominally responsible for environmental or health safety.
28. Indeed, it is in this connection that the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs is currently working on the question of conflicts of interest and the urgent need for real independence of scientists involved in the official agencies tasked with evaluating the risks of products prior to licensing.
29. The rapporteur underlines in this context that it is most curious, to say the least, that the applicable official threshold values for limiting the health impact of extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and high frequency waves were drawn up and proposed to international political institutions (WHO, European Commission, governments) by the ICNIRP, an NGO whose origin and structure are none too clear and which is furthermore suspected of having rather close links with the industries whose expansion is shaped by recommendations for maximum threshold values for the different frequencies of electromagnetic fields.
30. If most governments and safety agencies have merely contented themselves with replicating and adopting the safety recommendations advocated by the ICNIRP, this has essentially been for two reasons:
in order not to impede the expansion of these new technologies with their promise of economic growth, technological progress and job creation; and also because the political decision-makers unfortunately still have little involvement in matters of assessing technological risks for the environment and health.
31. With regard to the frequently inconclusive if not contradictory findings of scientific research and studies on the possible risks of products, medicines or, in this case, electromagnetic fields, a number of comparative studies do seem to suggest a fairly strong correlation between the origin of their funding – private or public – and the findings of risk assessments, a manifestly unacceptable situation pointing to conflicts of interest which undermine the integrity, the genuine independence and the objectivity of scientific research.
32. Concerning the assessment of health risks resulting from mobile telephone radio frequencies, for example, in 2006 Swiss researchers from Bern University presented the findings of a systematic analysis of all research results and concluded that there was a strong correlation between how the research was funded and the results obtained: 33% of studies funded by industrial concerns conclude that exposure to mobile telephone radio frequencies has an effect on our organism. That figure rises to over 80% in studies carried out with public funding.
33. Accordingly, in this field and in others, one should call for genuine independence on the part of the expert appraisal agencies and for independent, multidisciplinary and properly balanced expert input. There must no longer be situations where whistleblowers are discriminated against and renowned scientists with critical opinions are excluded when experts are selected to sit on expert committees or no longer receive funding for their research.
That is an extremely strong and damning indictment from an EU Body which acknowledges the health risks posed by microwave radiation, suggests conflicts of interests and the unreliability of industry funded studies in comparison with publicly funded studies and all of this indicates the extent to which the EU was moving at that time to a properly conservative and precautionary ALARA or “As Low As Reasonably Achievable” safety principle.
This realistic precautionary move appeared to have been largely halted by the publication of AGNIR’s 2012 report. This report merely dismissed all scientific health studies that did not suit its purposes whilst cherry picking those that did. It claimed a cut-off date for studies it would consider in order to exclude unwanted conclusions, but then admitted studies after that date if they provided the ‘right’ conclusions. It refused to acknowledge or even mention that in May 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reclassified RF-EMFs as a 2B possible human carcinogen.
The report was loudly trumpeted and promoted in the main stream media. George Monbiot wrote the following at the Guardian in April 2012 in order to attempt to directly discredit all and any environmental RF/EMF protesters under the claim that it was damaging the greater environmental movement.
Protesting against mobiles is damaging the environmental movement
As a new study shows that mobile phone usage is not a health risk, campaigners should concentrate on other targets.
….The new study by the Health Protection Agency confirms the overwhelming trend in evidence on this issue (in particular the outputs of the massive Interphone project). It finds that:
• Laboratory studies have detected “no convincing evidence that RF [radiofrequency] fields cause genetic damage or increase the likelihood of cells becoming malignant.”
• Animal studies find no evidence that the levels of microwave radiation produced by mobile phones “affect the initiation and development of cancer” and no consistent evidence that they harm the brain, the nervous system, hearing or fertility.
• Studies on humans suggest no cognitive effects and no acute symptoms of any kind.
• Evidence from epidemiological studies “does not suggest that use of mobile phones causes brain tumours or any other type of cancer.”
• Overall, the evidence “has not demonstrated any adverse health effects” in either adults or children.
Public Health England are still using AGNIR’s report as their basis for claiming that low level microwave radiation exposure is safe and deflecting any claims to the contrary.
It was not until December 2016 that a peer review of the AGNIR 2012 report was carried out by Dr Sarah J. Starkey, a UK neuroscientist. Dr Starkey reaches some truly shocking conclusions about the nature of AGNIR’s report which are highly significant given the political context in which it was launched when the EU was heading toward adopting the ALARA or “As Low As Reasonably Achievable” safety principle. Dr Starkey gives the abstract of her review below.
Abstract: The Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation (AGNIR) 2012 report forms the basis of official advice on the safety of radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic
fields in the United Kingdom and has been relied upon by health protection agencies around the world.
This review describes incorrect and misleading statements from within the report, omissions and conflict of interest, which make it unsuitable for health risk assessment. The executive summary and overall conclusions did not
accurately reflect the scientific evidence available.
Independence is needed from the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), the group that set the exposure guidelines being assessed. This conflict of interest critically needs to be addressed for the forthcoming World Health Organisation (WHO) Environmental Health Criteria Monograph on Radiofrequency Fields.
Decision makers, organisations and individuals require accurate information about the safety of RF electromagnetic signals if they are to be able to fulfil their safeguarding responsibilities and protect those for whom they have legal responsibility
Basically we can understand Dr Starkey’s report in two ways. Firstly as an examination as to why AGNIR and the HPA(PHE) were prompted to cover up evidence of RF/EMF health hazards and secondly the methodologies of exclusion they employed as to how this cover up was executed.
As to why a cover up was required, then this directly arose from the conflict of interests that the rapporteur on the EU 2011 report highlighted and suggested to be an area of important focus. If we look at the table below we can see that there were very close connections between ICNIRP, AGNIR and the Department of Health and the Health Protection Agency which later became Public Health England.
In the AGNIR committee of 2012 three members were also members of ICNIRP and 6 members were also members of the UK Health Protection Agency and the Department of Health. One of the HPA members was also a member of ICNIRP. By 2016 we see there were no less than 6 members of ICNIRP and 8 members of PHE and the department of health. Of those 8 PHE members, three of them were also members of ICNIRP. One should note that A.J. Swerdlow was chair of both AGNIR and ICNIRP. The same A.J.Swerdlow and his wife who owned shares in Cable and Wireless Worldwide, Cable and Wireless Communications and BT.
This obvious conflict of interests between these 3 inter-related organisations is completely unacceptable. Neither the HPA (the former incarnation of PHE) nor AGNIR could ever take an objective view of peer reviewed scientific evidence presented to them because they all strictly adhere to ICNIRP’s thermal only paradigm in the first place. It would be impossible for the PHE members to acknowledge any evidence presented to them that contradicted this fundamental assumption as that would necessarily involve them having to resign from their prestigious positions as committee members of both AGNIR and/or ICNIRP and admit that they have been wrong all along. Those members of PHE who were also members of ICNIRP and AGNIR would have a huge influence on the rest of PHE who would completely defer to the ICNIRP and AGNIR members on these issues as they would be deemed to be the ‘experts’ who sat on such prestigious committees. It would be virtually impossible to even try and disagree with them even in the unlikely event that any members of PHE managed to find either the morals or courage to do so in the first place.
Dr Starkey comments on the nature of this conflict of interests in her analysis.
When the group charged with assessing whether there is evidence of health effects occurring at exposures below current ICNIRP values have members who are responsible for setting the guidelines, it introduces a conflict of interest. How can AGNIR report that the scientific literature contains evidence of harmful effects below the current guidelines when several of them are responsible for those guidelines? PHE provide the official advice on the safety of wireless signals within the UK, but having members in ICNIRP introduces a conflict of interest which could prevent them from acknowledging adverse effects below ICNIRP guidelines.
In this respect PHE’s role as a public health agency: is very much a case of the wolves guarding the sheep. They cannot acknowledge the dangers of low level radiation exposure without trashing their reputations. In such a case, any such admission would make their membership of all 3 bodies completely untenable. There was no way that such radical radiation extremists were ever going to allow their decisions to be called into question. It was always guaranteed that such ideologically entrenched career scientists are compelled to dismiss all scientific evidence that contradicted their views by whatever means necessary. To add insult to injury the HPA even went as far as theatrically staging a warm reception and welcome of their own report and falsely represented it as a study that was ‘independent’ of them, thereby concealing their conflicts of interest in order to suggest that they were taking an objective view of the report.
1. HPA response to the 2012 AGNIR report on the health effects from radiofrequency electromagnetic fields
The Heath Protection Agency welcomes this comprehensive and critical review of scientific studies prepared by the independent Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation (AGNIR) …
AGNIR’s main conclusion is that, although a substantial amount of research has been conducted in this area, there is no convincing evidence that RF field exposures below guideline levels cause health effects in adults or children. These “guideline levels” are those of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, which already form the basis of public health protection in the UK and in many other countries.
Therefore, a recommendation to follow the ICNIRP guidelines will remain central to HPA’s advice on exposures to RF fields. HPA considers the reasons set out in 2004 for recommending adoption of these guidelines in the UK remain valid.
How convenient for ICNIRP, AGNIR, the HPA and DH to jointly declare business as usual whilst pretending to be separate entities. No less than 6 members of the HPA and DH were responsible for drawing up the report in the first place so this staging of a warm welcome as if they were not involved and implicated in its production is entirely disingenuous. It is no more credible than a novelist writing a welcoming critical review of their own latest book moments after it hit the shelves.
In terms of a public health scandal, the HPA (PHE) clearly became implicated in a cover-up. As Dr. Starkey concludes.
PHE and AGNIR had a responsibility to provide accurate information about the safety of RF fields. Unfortunately, the report suffered from an incorrect and misleading executive summary and overall conclusions, inaccurate statements, omissions and conflicts of interest. Public health and the well-being of other species in the natural world cannot be protected when evidence of harm, no matter how inconvenient, is covered up.
So we now see why with the EU heading toward ALARA principles that evidence of harm had to be suppressed and that those ICNIRP and AGNIR members who set the completely inappropriate standards in the first place would be those whose reputations had to be most closely guarded. AGNIR’s 2012 report effectively set back our chance of greatly reducing the mounting risks of microwave radiation to public health by at least 7 years.
In many respects, since Dr Starkey’s review was published the government and PHE have become implicated in a cover up of the cover up. AGNIR was disbanded in May 2017, just 5 months after Dr Starkey published her review. The government made the risible claim that the reason for this was that AGNIR had ‘completed’ its work. Since then responsibility for supposedly monitoring this public health issue has supposedly been shifted to COMARE. Suspiciously no members of COMARE appear to be members of ICNIRP suggesting that the government has quietly removed the impediment of conflict of interest in the current group but cannot erase it from its history. PHE still remains firmly committed to ICNIRP’s and AGNIR’s principles because they remain historically tied to them and cannot admit otherwise without bringing about one of the greatest public health scandals of all time. Needless to say that Dr Starkey’s inconvenient conclusions have never been published or acknowledged by establishment and industry stooges such as George Monbiot and the same main stream media who were so willing to give maximum coverage and publicity to AGNIR’s original 2012 report.
Having covered why this cover up was necessary we now come to the demonstration of how the cover up was executed as a general misrepresentation of the scientific studies AGNIR wished to dismiss. One particularly interesting aspect of this is that AGNIR and ICNIRP are not prepared to accept any real world studies based on exposures to real base stations and real phones as they deem that they do not match their laboratory condition ‘standards’ in dosimetry. I stated earlier that I thought it highly unlikely that ICNIRP and AGNIR were capable of reproducing any even close approximation in laboratory conditions to the radiation effects that we are subjected to in the real world and Dr Starkey backs this point of view when she states:
Some studies, mostly those which had tested signals from real mobile devices, were dismissed as uninterpretable because they had not described the dosimetry, the process of determining internal electromagnetic quantities relating to exposure in tissues, in enough detail. Limited descriptions restrict possible interpretations, but do not make them uninterpretable.
If the question is ‘do mobile phone signals damage male fertility?’, real phone signals are highly relevant because they allow possible effects of the complex patterns of fields to which humans are exposed to be investigated.
ICNIRP only accept thermal effects of RF fields and focus on average energy absorbed. Highly controlled, simulated signals with descriptions of overall specific absorption rates (SARs) are suited to the assessment of temperature rises in cells or tissues. Real signals make it more difficult to measure average energy, but have characteristics which controlled, simulated signals lack.
The complex field patterns, with variable peak field strengths and intervals between transmissions, may influence biology in ways that controlled, simulated patterns cannot, but they are not represented by time-averaged, duty factor reductions of described energy absorption.
Responses to RF fields can be greater for intermittent exposures than continuous and depend upon the pulse characteristics for the same average power. Effects can be dependent on frequency, modulation, signal strength (intensity windows), durations of exposure and polarisation.
For the nervous system, complex signals from real devices may modulate neuronal activity, similar to endogenous electric field ephaptic (non-synaptic) coupling in the brain. There is evidence that endogenous electric fields feedback to modulate neuronal activity. Fields with amplitudes similar to those found in vivo, applied to neocortical brain slices, modulated and entrained neuronal spiking activity. Irregular patterns of fields with complex dynamics, which mimicked in vivo fluctuations, entrained neuronal activity more strongly than sine waves .
There are valid reasons for testing the effects of signals from real mobile devices, and dismissing these limited and misrepresented the evidence.
There are many other examples of such exclusions in Dr Starkey’s review, but I have included this particular one here because as a Neuroscientist, such topics are directly within her immediate field of study. All exclusions are deployed to try and ensure that only the right kind of data is given the publicity they wish to air.
I would say that there are far more than valid reasons for testing effects of signals in the real world with real infrastructure. In my view they are far more informative than any laboratory model that completely fails to account for all the massive pulsing and spiking of dozens of different interacting RF/EMF sources all at the same time. The laboratory simulations tell us nothing about what we are being exposed to in the real world and nothing about the health effects produced in the real world. ICNIRP have never proved that such complex forms of exposure would not lead to a thermal increase or not cause cell damage in laboratory conditions because they have never even carried out such experiments. In effect what this means is that ICNIRP are setting safety levels in the real world by reference to an ideologically restrictive thermal laboratory model that is completely disconnected from reality. One wonders then how in the 2018 guidelines cited earlier, that they possibly saw fit to make the outlandish claim that “These thresholds were derived to be strongly conservative for typical exposure situations and populations.” when they have never even studied or don’t know what ‘typical’ real world ‘exposure situations’ and ‘populations’ actually consist of as they rule out the relevance of any real world data, measurement or analysis on the basis of demands for a laboratory standard quality of dosimetry?
ICNIRP, AGNIR, the HPA, Public Health England and Government were and are not in the business of protecting people, due to economic considerations, they are purely in the business of protecting and advancing the interests of the telecommunications industry and others. Throughout history, GDP and economics have always trumped public health considerations and any negative evidence will continue to be smeared and covered up until such a time as the health crisis will be so advanced that it will become impossible to deny. PHE will continue to be compromised by its history unless a full public enquiry takes place that exposes the extent and machinations of this cover up and that is unlikely to ever take place until it’s too late. As usual in such circumstances, no-one will ever be held accountable and responsible. The AGNIR 2012 report has been exposed to be deeply flawed and at the very least should be withdrawn. It is a travesty that PHE carry on referring to it in order to defend their historically compromised position. Indeed given this historical compromise, monitoring and review of human and environmental effects of long term low level microwave exposure should be completely removed from PHE’s remit and responsibility and be passed to DEFRA as part of their air quality and pollution responsibilities.
One might naively hope that the World Health Organisation might offer some prospect of an objective view of this potential public health crisis, but unfortunately ICNIRP and AGNIR members have fully infiltrated that organisation also.
The WHO is currently embarking on a mission to ‘harmonize’ safety standards. Basically this means getting everyone to accept ICNIRP’s standards.
With 54 participating countries and 8 international organizations involved in the International EMF Project, it provides a unique opportunity to bring countries together to develop a framework for harmonization of EMF standards and to encourage the development of exposure limits and other control measures that provide the same level of health protection to all people.https://www.who.int/peh-emf/standards/en/
This can be seen as an attempt to make public high radiation exposure more democratic in the sense that everyone will be routinely exposed to high levels without any reasonable form of restriction.
What role did a 30 year old political decision play in all of this?
Whilst all of these things are deeply suspicious and disturbing, then there is also a very sensitive political element to this story which must also be taken into consideration with regard to PHE and the government’s completely cavalier attitudes to wireless microwave radiation safety and public health.
As much of the high intensity of the profile of current interest in this topic is being driven by the threat to public health presented by the roll-out of all the additional frequency ranges of exposure of 5G wireless technology then a common criticism of any critique is that it is written off as Russian trolls trying to sabotage the UK and US race to roll-out 5G because Russia is behind in the technology.
This is misleading to say the least. For decades now Russian scientists have been well aware of the health risks associated with wireless microwave radiation and Russia’s limits are 100 times lower than in the UK or US. Russia has no particular political or economic need to roll-out aggressive wireless technology because it has massively invested in optical Fibre to the Home/Building infrastructure. (FTTH/B). The chart below shows the success levels of different European countries in terms of FTTH/B roll-out to their populations.
Spain and Sweden have rolled out superfast FTTH/B Broadband to 44% of their populations and Russia has rolled out FTTH/B connections to 35.4% which is considerable when one considers the sheer size of the country and its population of 144.5 million people. In contrast the UK as of March 2019 had managed just 1.5% and languishes at the bottom of the list only just making it past the 1% inclusion proviso.
Most of the so called ‘Fibre’ broadband connections in the UK are actually Fibre to the Cabinet or FTTC connections and not true fibre optic FTTH/B connections. FTTC means that the Fibre part of the connection terminates at the cabinet and the rest of the connection is made over copper wire. This means that UK fibre broadband connections are restricted to around 80 Mbps whereas in Russia, Sweden and Spain etc, then their true FTTH/B connections could be upgraded with multimode fibre optic cable to reach up to 10 Gbps and importantly FTTH/B connections are synchronous in that they have the same downlink and uplink capabilities.
It is the failure to roll out FTTH/B fibre that is driving countries such as the UK into pushing for the roll out of 5G. How is it that the UK and also the US find themselves so far behind in the roll-out of the alternative, completely safe, radiation free FTTH/B connections?
The answer we find is that it is a direct result of an extreme political blunder made by Margaret Thatcher’s government toward the end of her tenure as Prime Minister.
This story was reported by techradar.pro back in 2014.
The story actually begins in the 70s when Dr Cochrane was working as BT’s Chief Technology Officer, a position he’d climbed up to from engineer some years earlier.
Dr Cochrane knew that Britain’s tired copper network was insufficient: “In 1974 it was patently obvious that copper wire was unsuitable for digital communication in any form, and it could not afford the capacity we needed for the future.”
He was asked to do a report on the UK’s future of digital communication and what was needed to move forward.
“In 1979 I presented my results,” he tells us, “and the conclusion was to forget about copper and get into fibre. So BT started a massive effort – that spanned six years – involving thousands of people to both digitise the network and to put fibre everywhere. The country had more fibre per capita than any other nation.
“In 1986, I managed to get fibre to the home cheaper than copper and we started a programme where we built factories for manufacturing the system. By 1990, we had two factories, one in Ipswich and one in Birmingham, where we were manufacturing components for systems to roll out to the local loop”.
At that time, the UK, Japan and the United States were leading the way in fibre optic technology and roll-out. Indeed, the first wide area fibre optic network was set up in Hastings, UK. But, in 1990, then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, decided that BT’s rapid and extensive roll out of fibre optic broadband was anti-competitive and held a monopoly on a technology and service that no other telecom company could do.
“Unfortunately, the Thatcher government decided that it wanted the American cable companies providing the same service to increase competition. So the decision was made to close down the local loop roll out and in 1991 that roll out was stopped. The two factories that BT had built to build fibre related components were sold to Fujitsu and HP, the assets were stripped and the expertise was shipped out to South East Asia.
“Our colleagues in Korea and Japan, who we were working with quite closely at the time, stood back and looked at what happened to us in amazement. What was pivotal was that they carried on with their respective fibre roll-outs. And, well, the rest is history as they say.
“What is quite astonishing is that a very similar thing happened in the United States. The US, UK and Japan were leading the world. In the US, a judge was appointed by Congress to break up AT&T. And so AT&T became things like BellSouth and at that point, political decisions were made that crippled the roll out of optical fibre across the rest of the western world, because the rest of the countries just followed like sheep.
“This created a very stop-start roll-out which doesn’t work with fibre optic – it needs to be done en masse. You needed economy of scale. You could not roll out fibre to the home for 1% of Europe and make it economic, you had to go whole hog.
“It’s like everything else in the electronics world, if you make one laptop, it costs billions; if you make billions of laptops it costs a few quid”.How Thatcher killed the UK’s superfast broadband before it even existed
By the late 1980’s the UK had more fibre per capita than anyone in the world. BT had rolled out the very first wide area fibre optic network in the world in Hastings. They had purpose built factories and used economies of scale to make the roll-out of fibre optic networks cheaper than copper. At that time BT and the UK were leading the world in FTTH/B technology.
Despite the tremendous advantages the UK had at that time, Margaret Thatcher made the decision to scrap BT’s project out of blind adherence to the principles of Neoliberal economics whose philosophy is informed by the false assumption that efficiencies can only be made via competitive markets and consequently deemed all of BT’s achievements as threatening this principle so BT’s achievements were consequently deemed to be anti-competitive. This was likely a result of pressure from competing corporations whose only option was to drag BT down to their level.
In cases of massive public infrastructure projects such as these, the Neoliberal economic model is not appropriate. BT had done all the hard work and were ready to revolutionise the UK’s communications networks, as such BT were in the best position to roll-out super fast fibre optic networks more efficiently than any idealized system of free market competition could produce. This incredible opportunity was simply thrown away.
To see the UK fall from leading the world in FTTH/B networks to languish at the bottom of the European rankings is dismal given what could have been put in place nationally over a decade ago at reasonable costs. Given how central such networks have become to business and commerce, to industry and the general public: then this has to rank as one of the worst and most incompetent political decisions in history and it was sadly replicated in the US who are now already being exposed to mmWave extremely high frequency radiation as a result.
Who ultimately has to pay the price for this incompetence? Sadly the people. We have been denied access to completely safe, wired super fast broadband and this political error is also simultaneously driving the roll-out of 5G technology in order to try and rectify the original policy mistake. Decisions taken 30 years ago are now putting the health and safety of the public into jeopardy as we are being forced to endure more and more extreme levels of wireless radiation exposure to compensate for such bad policy.
This is about Public Health and is not a party political issue
Although the conservative government of Margaret Thatcher was responsible for this poor decision, I should stress that this is not a politically motivated criticism. Unfortunately all political parties, including the Greens are currently being completely cavalier about such public health issues. 5G and the IoT have been falsely identified as a form of technological saviour to issues such as climate change and when one also considers all the supposed economic benefits that are being trumpeted about such technology then it is easy to understand why every political party is on board with the industry. This is very much part of the problem.
Given this debacle, and PHE’s own compromised conflicts of interest and pressure from the industry not to adopt anything approaching an ALARA radiation standard as it looked to be likely to happen in 2012, then taken collectively it is no surprise that Public Health England and the government have been motivated into suppressing evidence as to the serious health effects that are currently being caused by existing and legacy wireless radiation exposure and remain resolutely in denial that 5G technology will prove any kind of additional threat to public health.
All of this is completely unacceptable just as is our acceptance of ICNIRP’s safety standards as being in any way meaningful or appropriate. We must urge local governments to immediately adopt the Italian 1mW/m2 standard as in most cases this will only require a small reduction in power supplied to a few base stations to bring them into line. From there we must timetable and plan a move toward reducing exposure to an open air maximum of 5µW/m2 proposed by the BioInitiative 2012 report with a limit of 1µW/m2 in the home, workplace, schools and other public buildings with the ultimate goal of As Low As Reasonably Achievable standards.
Concurrently with this we should prioritise the roll out of super fast FTTH/B Fibre to the home and building connections. In terms of mobile phone data usage most people would vastly prefer unlimited 1-10Gbps synchronous Fibre connections at home which they can also use via their phones using the safest form of wired, bluetooth or WiFi connections conforming to ALARA standards, rather than sign up to expensive individual mobile phone contracts for asynchronous, more limited connectivity and for everyone to be exposed to increasingly saturated radiation as a result.
In technological terms such a safe wireless environment has always been a technically reachable target, but without anything even approaching any kind of realistic safety limit on power density and infrastructure there has never been any impetus for the industry to ever seriously take such things into consideration.
Central governments and bodies such as ICNIRP, AGNIR and PHE cannot be trusted with ensuring our health and safety and as our exposures are such a localised phenomenon then we and our local governments should decide what limits we should be exposed to in direct democratic consultation with the people, with extra weight being given to those most effected by such infrastructure. Ideally we would strive for the ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) standards and push to absolutely minimise our exposures to microwave RF/EMF. The lack of general public knowledge on these subjects is distressing but not surprising given that the majority of the main stream media have been captured by corporations and interests in just about every field.
Lastly, the epidemiological evidence is globally being presented daily in medical practices around the world and there is no system in place for recording and organising this real world data. There is no reason such a full data gathering system could not be put in place to capture this data and reveal the true extent of the problem.
UPDATE 18th October:
Encouragingly, a prototype for such an epidemiological data gathering system has been put in place as explained below.
The study asks parents of children ages 1-15 to participate in a private, secure online survey that collects critical data about children and their development, medical, social and environmental health history. (The survey covers what children in the U.S. are eating, their chemical exposures at home, their exposures at school, EMF exposures, industrial sites nearby, their medical history, consumption of medical products, prenatal and preconception health of parents, family medical history, and so much more.)
Clearly we need to take an online system similar to this that applies to all age groups and make it available for every GP in the world to be able to quickly document such things when they suspect that a patient’s illness and symptoms are indicative of EMF exposures.
European Greens question ICNIRP standards, call for new public body to look at 5G exposure … 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.
⚠️ 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):
- 01. tinyurl.com/DrMartinPall-vs-ICNIRP
- 02. tinyurl.com/WHO-5G-EMFs-CoverUp
- 03. tinyurl.com/MSM-Bias-Fact-Check-5G
- 04. tinyurl.com/Stop5G-vs-ICNIRP-Corruption
- 05. tinyurl.com/ICNIRP-Corruption-Dossier-01
- 06. tinyurl.com/MSM-ICNIRP-Deceptive-Content
- 07. tinyurl.com/FCCcapturedAgency
- 08. tinyurl.com/Scientific-American-5G-Warning
- 09. tinyurl.com/5GWarning-by-IEEE
- 10. tinyurl.com/5G-EU-Science-Appeal
- 11. tinyurl.com/2020-Science2Stop5G-PDF
- 12. tinyurl.com/Science2Stop5G-2020
- 13. tinyurl.com/5GviolatesNurembergCode
- 14. tinyurl.com/WHO-and-5G-Corporatism
- 15. tinyurl.com/Stop5G-Scientists-and-Doctors
- 16. tinyurl.com/Gov-Ignore-Own-EMF-Evidence
- 17. tinyurl.com/ICNIRP-5G-Safety-Deceptions-II
- 18. tinyurl.com/Stop5G-CHD-vs-FCC
- 19. tinyurl.com/Smartphone-Radiation-Law
- 20. tinyurl.com/Legitimate-5G-Concerns
- 21. tinyurl.com/5G-Health-Risks-Warning
- 22. tinyurl.com/5G-Russian-Roulette
- 23. tinyurl.com/Top100-Science2Stop5G-Videos
- 24. tinyurl.com/Stop5G-Disband-ICNIRP
- 25. tinyurl.com/NEPA-vs-FCC-Stop5G
- 26. tinyurl.com/5G-Can-Damage-Eyes-Skin
- 27. tinyurl.com/Sub-TerraHerz-5G-Dangers
- 28. tinyurl.com/5G-1st-Safety-2nd-FCC-Policy