🇪🇺 * EU-guidelines are fraudulent (1)


Updated: August 7, 2020


  1. 5G * EU-guidelines are fraudulent 1
    Posted on March 29, 2019
  2. 5G * EU guidelines are fraudulent 2
    Posted on May 17, 2019
  3. 5G * EU guidelines are fraudulent 3
    Posted on July 30, 2019


Part 1

This post is a collection of emails, and answers on emails, of studies and scientific research, all around the subject 5G, and EMF safety guidelines in the European Union.

The writing of emails started a few years ago, in the first place to Norway’s telecommunications-industry Telenor. I had got health problems, and though I did not expect it to be related with a 3G cell tower, about 70 meters from where live[picture], I started to worry, and asked Telenor questions. They answered that all was safe, I did not need to worry, because all was within the EU and WHO safety guidelines. The health problems did not stop, and I bought an EMFields detector. The radiation in the entire building was in the most of the rooms not green (green means okay according to the EU safety guidelines, which does not mean that green is really “okay”), but amber, orange: my office and bedroom showed amber to orange/red spots. [1]. Again I wrote, and again I got the same answer. I wrote to the Ministry of Health, and was advised to contact DSA, Statens Strålevern, DSA. I did. I got the same answer from Lars Klæboe, DSA, as from Telenor. Then I started to read the EU website and the WHO website. In the following chapters you can follow my journey into the caverns of that what is written by EU radiation experts.

Update, August 7, 2020: In July 2020 I discovered the name Lars Klæboe in this research article:

Health risks from radiofrequency radiation, including 5G, should be assessed by experts with no conflicts of interest
Lennart Hardell and Michael Carlberg
The Environment and Cancer Research Foundation, SE-702 17 Örebro, Sweden
Received April 8, 2020; Accepted June 19, 2020
DOI: 10.3892/ol.2020.11876

Lars Klæboe’s name is on the list in Table 1 in the article. He is cooperating with members of ICNIRP/WHO Emilie van Deventer, Maria Feichting, Eric van Rongen -former ICNIRP chair, now ICNIRP vice chair-, Maria Rosaria Scarfi, Martin Röösli, and ICNIRP’s Anke Hus. Lars Klæboe belongs to the hardcore of ICNIRP / WHO group. He answers emails of those who are redirected to DSA, Norway, for questions, answers or criticism, by the Ministry of Health, and Helsedirektoratet. He is not visible, not even mentioned on the DSA website. DSA Norway’s director Ole Harbitz has not studied anything about electromagnetic fields, and has published only a few papers about the health effects of atomic radiation: with other words: how can he judge about EMF safety guidelines? Lars Klæboe seemed to me to be a simple office clerk, because of  his shallow standard answers in reply emails, while he factually was and is actively cooperating with the hard core of Europe’s EMF safety guidelines decision makers group ICNIRP, and WHO, the World Health Organization, that has adapted for 100% the ICNIRP guidelines, which are not based on medical science, but on fraudulent industrial science, and therefore extremely dangerous for our health, and the future of life on earth. See the article with a collection of scientific papers about ICNIRP: here. Lars Klæboe’s name is also to be found in the references of the official  ICNIRP safety guidelines publications.

This means that Lars Klæboe is an ICNIRP authority who has a job at DSA to mislead Norwegians, to mislead the press, -only Lars Klæboe talks with the press on the behalf of DSA, only he, and not any other DSA official-, with on the fraudulent industrial science based EMF standards, to discourage them to continue asking more, or to go deeper into the subject, by answering consequently with clinchers like: “It is safe! We follow the EU and WHO safety guidelines!”

Note: In the time I wrote letters to EU, on the EU website was written that EU has its own group of safety guidelines decision makers: SCHEER. After some emails, it was Wojziek Kalamarz, who wrote (see part 3)  accidentally that ICNIRP is EU’s safety guidelines decision maker. This means for me that EU had obviously obscure reasons to keep the name ICNIRP away from their website, an to lie about it. / end of the update.


EU , EMF Guidelines and Responsibilities

EU states on their website that each country has its own responsibilities on this issue. This means that in case all goes wrong with 4G, and 5G, -all concerning electromagnetic radiation-, Norway, its government, Helsedirektoratet, Minister of Health, Telenor, and Statens Strålevern are fully responsible. Not EU. This counts for all EU member-states and treaty countries.

In the following document you can read exactly what I asked EU, via the contact form, which additional scientific sources related to this subject I provided there, and how my questions were answered by Europe Direct.



March 7, 2019: Correspondence via Europe Direct about the EU guidelines:


To be able to judge the “Europe Direct” answer on its scientific content (meaning: truthfully) in particular one sentence from this answer:

“As 5G is expected to use narrower cells with lower power levels, the overall EMF exposure would be distributed more evenly, and therefore, is likely to even decrease in areas where 5G is deployed.»

I submitted the “Europe Direct” answer to the American scientist and radiation expert Arthur Firstenberg (Cornell University, USA), also head of the International Appeal, Stop 5G on Earth and in Space [1] [12], and to Professor Emeritus Dr. Martin L. Pall (Washington State University, USA).



Arthur Firstenberg:

Arthur Firstenberg

 PDF «That statement is not only shocking but wrong. 5G will use smaller cells with much higher power levels. The U.S. Federal Communication Commission’s limits for millimeter waves have been recently revised upwards to a shocking extent. In 2016 the FCC established a new section of its rules regulating the “upper microwave” spectrum. They apply to frequencies above 27 GHz: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/30.1.

Recently the FCC established the power levels permitted for these frequencies. Section 30.202 provides that base stations using these frequencies are allowed to emit a maximum effective radiated power (EIRP) of 75 dBm per 100 MHz ofspectrum: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/30.202.

75 dBm is the same as 30,000 watts! If the company uses 1 GHz of spectrum (i.e. ten times as much spectrum), they are allowed to emit an EIRP of 300,000 watts!

Even large towers do not emit so much power. Most large cell towers emit at most an EIRP of 5,000 or 10,000 watts.

I do not know what are the current regulations for Europe in the millimeter range, but the same technology is being deployed worldwide.

The person who wrote that sentence is completely ignorant



Dr. Martin L. Pall: 

Dr. Martin L. Pall

PDF  – Professor Pall challenges this assertion, stating that 5G small cells will increase EMF exposure and that EMF safety guidelines are fraudulent because biological effects are excluded.

  1. Seven repeatedly documented findings each show that EMF safety guidelines do not predict biological effects and are therefore fraudulent. The consequences for both microwave frequency exposures and 5G.
  2. 5G: Great risk for EU, US and international health. Compelling evidence for eight distinct types of great harm caused by electromagnetic field (EMF) exposures and the mechanism that causes them.
  3. 41 expressions of high-level concern drafted by scientists and/or medical doctors regarding the health impacts of low-level EMF exposures. 

Complete document: here.

Dr. Martin Pall briefly summarizes the findings of his research of EU guidelines and knowledge on radiation, as well as those of the ICNIRP, Canada safety code 6, the US FCC, and Australia’s ARPANSA as follows:

«While this document is aimed at the EU safety guidelines, the similar safety guidelines produced by ICNIRP, Canada safety code 6,the USFCC,and Australia’s ARPANSA are similarly fraudulent for each of those same seven reasons. All guarantees of safety given by these organizations or by industry organizations, which are based on these or similar safety guidelines, are similarly fraudulent. The fraudulence is caused, in part, by the series of false assumption underlying these safety guidelines:

  1. Assumptions that average intensities or average SARs can be used to assess safety are false.
  2. Assumptions that one can ignore pulsations including very short spikes are false.
  3. Assumptions that you one ignore biological heterogeneity and assess effects simply based on physics are false.
  4. Assumptions that dose-response curves are linear or at least monotone are false.
  5. Assumptions that there are no mechanisms that can explain the existence of non-thermal effects are false.
  6. Assumptions that electrical forces produced by low intensity EMFs are too weak to do anything are false.

The consequences of all this, is that we have a multi-trillion dollar (or multi-trillion euro) set of industries, the telecommunication industries that are based entirely on massive fraud.» 



Letter to EU

Frans TimmermansMarch 28, 2019 – Letter to Vice-President Frans Timmermans, and EU Commissioners Miguel Arias Cañete (Climate Action & Energy), Julian King (Security Union), Carlos Moedas (Research, Science and Innovation), Vytenis Andriukaitis (Health), Andrus Ansip (Vice President)(Digital Single Market), Věra Jourová (Justice and Consumers):

LETTER TO EU: https://multerland.blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/timmermans_eu_english.pdf

Investigation SCHEER: https://multerland.blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/1-3_scheer-1.pdf

Investigation ICNIRP: https://multerland.blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/2-3_icnirp-1.pdf

Group Members – ICNIRP-cartel: https://multerland.blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/3-3_icnirp-cartel-1.pdf



Part 2

Also published as a post: 5G * EU guidelines are fraudulent (2)

Answer from EU

KalamarzMay 6, 2019 – Letter from EU, via Wojciech Kalamarz.

Info about Wojciech Kałamarz: He graduated in International Relations, studied in London, Harvard and Stanford. He worked at the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs from 1989 until 2005.

He joined the European Commission in 2005 and he headed the units for quality control, finance and public procurement. Since January 2017, he has been the Head of Unit for Health Determinants and International Relations in DG SANTE. His area of responsibilities covers the promotion of health through measures addressing factors such as nutrition, physical activity and addictions (alcohol, drugs) as well as the coordination of the Commission/EU voice on global health, including co-operation with WHO, G7, G20, OECD, enlargement, neighbourhood, bilateral and regional partners.

He is serving as the chairperson of the EU High Level Group on Nutrition and Physical Activity, the EU Platform for Action on Diet, Physical Activity and Health, and EU Committee on National Alcohol Policy and Action.

Kalamarz’s answer
Kalamarz’s answer on my information, questions and deep concerns about 5G, in an extensive and well documented email, sent on March 28, 2019, to Frans Timmermans: see PDF

The content is alarming, and reason for asking Dr. Martin L. Pall to react on especially one sentence in the PDF. Kalamarz writes: “In his extensive review Prof. Pall makes reference to the last one of January 2015 which concluded that current exposure limits as laid down in the Council Recommendation are protective for the public.



Dr. Martin L. Pall reacts on EU’s Wojciech Kałamarz


On May 15, 2019, Dr. Martin L. Pall wrote me (I have edited the text where important into bold characters, and/or coloured, to create attention for what is written)

Dr. Martin L. Pall   There are actually two falsehoods in that letter from Wojciech Kalamarz.  1. The one that you commented on[2] was the claim that I concluded that current exposure limits are protective.  2. The other one is that we had an interchange.  I did, of course email information to them, but this is the first time I have received any response confirming receipt.  And because I have not had any communication back from the Commission, it is false to state that we had an interchange.  The implications there are obvious.

I am attaching two documents which you are free to use as you wish.  The first document clearly shows that when the predictions of the safety guidelines are tested based on 8 different types of repeated studies, in each case they fail predict biological effects and therefore fail to predict safety.  In several cases, these are massive failures.  In six of the 8, those failures are of multiple types.  It is as clear as anything ever is in science, therefore, that the safety guidelines have been falsified and therefore, any assurances of safety based on them are false.

The second document is a series of 12 questions, that should be asked to any defender of the 5G rollout based on those guidelines.  I hope that it speaks for itself.

You are welcome to use these as you wish.



Einar Flydal reacts on EU’s Wojciech Kałamarz

Einar_FlydalI have sent the Kalamarz document also to Norwegian scientist Einar Flydal, because he is working at a book about this subject. The manuscript will be ready at the end of May, 2019. Einar Flydal lectured together with Dr. Martin Pall in Oslo, Norway, in 2014, during the Arne Næss seminar. Video Dr. Pall in Oslo. Video Einar Flydal, Oslo. Einar Flydal lectured also during the  5G Conference May 4 2019, Copenhagen.

Screenshot from his lecture in Copenhagen: 4:33 in the video.

Einar Flydal. From his lecture in Copenhagen

The red column on the right is the graph that shows the exposure limits in USA, the Nordic countries, including Norway, and 22 states. On the left you see the small columns with recommended numbers by environmental medicine and bio-researchers.





Letter to DSA, Statens Strålevern, Norway

Again a new step forward: On March 28, 2019, I informed Statens Strålevern (DSA), Norway’s Prime Minister Erna Solberg, Norway’s Minister of Health Bent Høie, Helsedirektoratet, and Telenor.

Answers from DSA, Norway

The answers from Lars Klæboe[3][4], Senior Advisor at Norway’s Directorate for Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety DSA, Section Security, Radiation Use and UV, on April 5, 2019, can be read in this PDF.

  • Lars Klæboe on PubMed (25 research results in total).
  • Lars Klæboe on ResearchGate (8 research results in total) – skills: Echocardiography,
    Cardiac Imaging, Transesophageal Echocardiography, Valvular Heart Disease.

My criticism: Not any study about the biological effects of radiation can be found. Lars Klæboe has a job at DSA to answer questions about a subject that he did not study. I wonder if answers on questions are created by somebody else who works at DSA, answers which are easy to be copied and pasted. During the last year I have corresponded with him about the subject and the answers are always the same, at least: short and therefore not creating any insight in the why of their choices and views. Not any study or publication is offered.

The director of DSA, Ole Harbitz, has not studied anything about the dangers of wireless, EMFs, etc. either, but DSA decides anyway what the guidelines for Norway are. The most of the answers by DSA’s Lars Klæboe  are: “We follow the EU guidelines.” When I asked (see PDF) if they know that these EU guidelines are false, he answered: “No.” Not more.  And probably, when the clock shows 15:00, he closes his computer and goes home, to start the next day with opening it, and starting to copy and paste again. At the end of the month he gets his salary on his bank account.



Continue: EU guidelines are fraudulent (3)



[1] The Impact of EMF exposure on our health: https://multerland.blog/2018/08/26/the-impact-of-cell-sites-on-our-health/

[2] Here Dr. Pall refers to the by me quoted sentence in the Kalamarz PDF in the paragraph: “Answer from EU”

[3] Lars Klæboe (DSA, National Radiation Protection, Norway) : Rays not more than other stuff. They are not dangerous

[4] Lars Klæboe (DSA, National Radiation Protection, Norway): : – No health hazard



References, used in the letter to EU and to Norwegian authorities:

[1] CV Arthur Firstenberg: https://multerland.blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/0de9a-curriculumvitaeofarthurfirstenberg.pdf

[2] SCHEER information: http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/electromagnetic-fields2015/en/index.htm

[3] Website Senator Blumenthal:


[4] The Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/03/09/mobile-safety-standards-relaxed-ahead-5g-networks/

[5] ICNIRP cartel: https://www.investigate-europe.eu/publications/how-much-is-safe/

[6] ICNIRP cartel: https://www.stopumts.nl/doc.php/Berichten%20Internationaal/11876/the___icnirp_cartel___and___the_5g_mass_experiment__

[7] ICNIRP cartel: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qNcaWa85khAk9YO9Z2J3nAFmVw9eMTHw/view

[8] ICNIRP cartel: https://www.kumu.io/Investigate-Europe/whos-who

[9] FCC: https://thetruthaboutcancer.com/fcc-5g/?utm_campaign=daily-content

[10] FCC: https://www.nrdc.org/experts/sharon-buccino/5g-and-fcc-10-reasons-why-you-should-care

[11] FCC: https://truth11.com/2019/03/11/npr-report-on-5g-mentioned-nothing-about-widespread-opposition-or-that-telecom-cant-prove-5g-is-safe/

[12] International Appeal, Stop 5G on Earth and in Space: https://www.5gspaceappeal.org/the-appeal/

[13] Newsletter International Appeal: https://multerland.blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/stop-5g-space-appeal-newsletter-18-march-2019.pdf 

[14] Video Dr. Barrie Trower: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z99_SzoXZdY

[15] Economic fascism: https://fee.org/articles/economic-fascism/

[16] Hippocratic Oath: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Hippocratic_Oath

[17] The Lancet: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542519618302213

[18] Contact Arthur Firstenberg: https://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/contact-us/

[19] Contact Dr. Martin Pall: 638 NE 41stAve., Portland OR 97232 USA / martin_pall@wsu.edu

[20] Contact Einar Flydal: https://einarflydal.com/hjelp/ or by phone: https://www.gulesider.no/einar+flydal+oslo/72491103/person

[21] Documentairy about 5G: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol3tAxnNccY

[22] Documentary, part 2, BBC, 2011: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewdikNQhjUo Start: 8:33 in the video. Interview with Dr. Michael Repacholi, a scientist who is responsible for the WHO position, and who founded the standard setting-body ICNIRP. He no longer works for WHO but he made decisions which affect all our lives. Before he was involved with the WHO he was working in the telecommunications industry, the mobile market.




Photo in the header: https://thekharkivtimes.com/2016/09/10/eu-will-help-ukraine-to-develop-5g/

Photo Dr. Martin L. Pall: https://www.cancercontrolsociety.org/bio2018/pall.html


About Multerland

Multerland is a blog about care for nature, natural health, holistic medicine, holistic therapies, deep ecology, sustainability, climate change, life processes, psychology, spirituality, and awareness. Since 2017 only articles about the hidden dangers of wireless and cell phone radiation have been published. Since April 2023 a new branch has been added: "Sustainable Politics". URL: backups.blog
This entry was posted in Natural Health Care, and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *