🛑 Collection with evidence of fraud, corruption and immorality by ICNIRP

The article: ICNIRP – investigative files, articles, papers, documentaries started June 2, 2019. All publications about ICNIRP in the media, world wide, about the immorality of ICNIRP, are collected in this article, since that date. The most recent publication in the media is published on the top of a list in chapter III of this post, with in the meantime 56 paragraphs and often even sub paragraphs.

Latest update: April 2, 2023  

For newer updates go to: https://multerland.blog/emf-links/icnirp/

 

.

I. Introduction

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

Bundesamt_fuer_Strahlenschutz

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

Attention: the image above shows the “Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz”(BsF) building in Munich., Germany, which is located on exact the same address as ICNIRP. See article.

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

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

.

balk1

.

II. The totalitarian role of ICNIRP, world wide

Website ICNIRP: Commission, to find the names to those who are the ICNIRP’s most important influencers. 

Chair: Rodney Croft (from May, 2020). [Article: ICNIRP’s new chair Rodney James Croft] When this article started, in June 2019, ICNIRP’s chair was Eric van Rongen. Videos with Eric van Rongen; 1, 2, 3, 4. Eric van Rongen is ICNIRP’s vice chair, from May 2020. 

 

.

Eric van Rongen participates in the Dutch “Gezondheidsraad”: visit webpage Commission Electromagnetic Fields, scroll down to “secretarissen”.

As the chair[till May 2020, since May 2020 vice-chair] of ICNIRP [and in a conflict of interest with 5G Italy] he is the official connection with and superior, authoritarian influence of ICNIRP within the WHO-EMF project, and EU, and via EU on all European member states and treaty countries. Via WHO-EMF project he has a world wide authoritarian influence and power. The connection with EU has been admitted in the letter that Wojciech Kalamarz sent me. In not any former letter neither on the website of EU or WHO is published what exactly the name is of the group that decides the electromagnetic radiation guidelines. The confirmation of EU that ICNIRP is the EU guidelines creator can be found in “EU guidelines are fraudulent, 3“. All other connections of ICNIRP and can be found in the ICNIRP Cartel. Missing detail in this Cartel: the connection of ICNIRP (via Eric van Rongen) with the Health Council of the Netherlands

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

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

.

 Martin Röösli, ICNIRP Commissioner 

“Few people are as influential in RF/microwave public policy circles as Röösli. He is a full member of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), and has been since 2016. He serves on a number of committees, including those that advise the German, Swedish and Swiss governments. Indeed, he chairs the Swiss group, called BERENIS, which prepares regular updates on new research for the Federal Office of the Environment. He sits on a number of editorial boards of scientific journals, including Bioelectromagnetics and the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (IJERPH).

No one doubts that Röösli is well briefed in all facets of RF health research. He knows what’s in the literature. His influence comes from deciding what’s important and what’s not. As Hensinger shows in his seven-page deconstruction of Röösli’s review paper, discomfiting findings are often shunted aside.”

Read the entire article: The Odious Smell of Truth, written by Dr. Louis Slesin, and published July 20, 2022, in Microwave News.

More about Röösli: Archives Microwave News

.

balk1

.

III. INDEX of this page ~ Collection with evidence of fraud, corruption and immorality by ICNIRP

  1. The ICNIRP Commission, and the ICNIRP Scientific Expert Group
  2. Devra Davis PhD, MPH, Linda Birnbaum PhD, Paul Ben-Ishai PhD, Hugh Taylor MD, Meg Sears MEng, PhD, Tom Butler PhD, MSc, Theodora Scarato MSW: – Wireless technologies, non-ionizing electromagnetic fields and children: Identifying and reducing health risks [and the role of ICNIRP and FCC in increasing health risks]
  3. ORSAA: The assumption of safety is being used to justify the rollout of 5G technologies 
  4. Environmental Health Trust / Dafna Tachover: ICNIRP The International Commission on Non ionizing Radiation Protection: Deep Industry Ties, No Oversight and Only 14 Members 
  5. Flawed Assumptions Regarding FCC and ICNIRP Exposure Limits for Radiofrequency Radiation (RFR) / International Commission on the Biological Effects of EMF
  6. The European Union prioritises economics over health in the rollout of radiofrequency technologies / Nils Rainer Nyberg, Julie E. McCredden, Steven G. Weller and Lennart Hardell
  7. Dariusz Leszczynski:  Tekniikka & Talous / Puheenvuoro: 5g testaa luottamuksen rajoja / 5G tests the limits of trust / 
  8. Peter Hensinger: An analysis of Prof. Röösli’s presentation of available studies on non-ionizing radiation and 5G 
  9. New book: Debatten om mikrobølgene / Norwegian translation of Nicholas H. Steneck’s book: The Microwave Debate (1984), translation: Einar Flydal, with an epilogue by Tomas Butler, a professor at Ireland’s Cork University Business School, who has contributed seven chapters —about 30,000 words— to bring Steneck’s history up to the present. 
  10. Self-referencing authorships behind the ICNIRP 2020 radiation protection guidelines. Authors: Else Nordhagen, Einar Flydal
  11. ICNIRP  ~  Excerpt from the documentary: Something Is In The Air -The cell phone radiation documentary
  12. Mobi-kids scandal, with serious conflicts of interest of the French Telecom Orange (Wiart), and ICNIRP / Analysed by: 1. Dr. Marc Arazi, 2. Dr. Joel Moskowitz, 3. Dr. Joel Moskowitz and Dr. Lennart Hardell
  13. ICNIRP – EMF Limit Values – Gränsvärden
  14. ICNIRP: identity, location and nationality, by Multerland / 6a. Open letter to Angela Merkel (2006) 6b. 5G WAHN[]SINN, authors: Prof. Dr. Klaus Buchner, Dr. Med. Monika Krout – First edition: May 2021. Subjects: ICNIRP / Angela Merkel
  15. The Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation: ICNIRP dominates expert investigations 
  16. L. Hardell: “Health Council of the Netherlands and evaluation of the fifth generation, 5G, for wireless communication and cancer risks.”
  17. Lennart Hardell MD, PhD; Mona Nilsson, investigative EMF journalist; Tarmo Koppel, BSc, MA, MSc, PhD; Michael Carlberg, Statistician, MSc.: Aspects on the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) 2020 Guidelines on Radiofrequency Radiation
  18. Dr. Joel Moskowitz: Is ICNIRP “war-gaming the science”?
  19. Dr. Lennart Hardell and Dr. Michael Carlberg: Lost opportunities for cancer prevention: historical evidence on early warnings with emphasis on radiofrequency radiation, and the overruling role of ICNIRP within the lost opportunities for cancer prevention.
  20. Canadians for Safe Technology(C4ST) has fact‐checked some of the “Canada Safety Code 6” statements and found them to be inaccurate and misleading to the point of being “misinformation.”
  21. Dr. Louis Slesin, Microwave News: Portrait of a Conspiracy: Professor Alexander Lerchl, Cell Phones, DNA Breaks and Lies, $5 Million in Research Grants from German Government – involved: ICNIRP and ICNIRP’s Mike Repacholi, Emilie van Deventer, Eric van Rongen
  22. Barbara Koeppel, investigative journalist The Washington Spectator: Wireless Hazards – Published: December 28, 2020
  23. Dr. Louis Slesin, Microwave News: In a new paper, ICNIRP and WHO describe how RF health outcomes were picked for systematic reviews (now ongoing). They point out that non-thermal effects, which they have consistently refused to acknowledge, may in fact exist.
  24. Dr. Louis Slesin, Microwave News: Public Shut Out of GLORE’s Global RF Health Briefing
  25. Barrie Trower, Lecture of February 3, 2020: Lecture. Length: about 2 hours
  26. “Strålskyddsstiftelsen”, the Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation_ The Swedish Radiation Safety Authority hires unscrupulous experts
  27. “Strålskyddsstiftelsen”, the Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation – ICNIRP’s neutrality is a lie
  28. The EMF Call – an appeal of scientists, medical doctors and NGO’s
  29. 5G Appeal of Scientists and Medical Doctors
  30. Priyanka Bandara, Tracy Chandler, Robin Kelly, Julie McCredden, Murray May, Steve Weller, Don Maisch, Susan Pockett, Victor Leach, Richard Cullen, Damian Wojcik – 5G Wireless Deployment and Health Risks: Time for a Medical Discussion in Australia and New Zealand
  31. Dr. Hugo Schoonveld – The Netherlands – 5G systems come in phasesincluding health- and skin problems / Why ICNIRP is wrong
  32. Dr. Lennart Hardell and Dr. Michael Carlberg – Health risks from radiofrequency radiation, including 5G, should be assessed by experts with no conflicts of interest
  33. Dr. Andrew Goldsworthy responds to ICNIRP’s Eric van Rongen’s statements, published in Business Insider on June 23, 2020
  34. Stralingsbewust, the Netherlands: Frequency auction 5G started despite serious warnings and new critical report on ICNIRP
  35. Microwave News: ICNIRP’s Principal Patron: Germany
    Provided 70-80% of Its Support in Each of Last Three Years
  36. Setting Guidelines for Electromagnetic Exposures and Research Needs: Prof. Em. Frank Barnes, Prof. Em. Ben Greenebaum
  37. ICNIRP: Conflicts of interest , corporate capture and the push for 5G – New 98-page report from two members of European Parliament: Dr. Klaus Buchner, and Michèle Rivasi
  38. Dutch citizens speak to the Dutch Prime Minister, about ICNIRP
  39. Professor Hans Kromhout
  40. Dr. Leendert Vriens
  41. Documentary: Resonance: Beings of Frequencies [2012]
  42. Documentary: An Invisible Threat [2014]
  43. Dr. Hugo Schooneveld PhD
  44. Interview: Dr. Zac Cox PhD, with Mr Barrie Trower
  45. Louis Slesin, PhD / Microwave News
  46. Documentary: Anders Børringbo – Brennpunkt, NRK, ‘’A Radiant Day’’, 2008
  47. Investigate Europe
  48. Adam J. Vanbergen, Simon G. Potts, Alain Vian, E. Pascal Malkemper, Juliette Young, Thomas Tscheulin
  49. Dr. Lennart Hardell
  50. Einar Flydal
  51. Dr. Martin L. Pall
  52. Dafna Tachover
  53. Prof. Girish Kumar
  54. Stralingsbewust
  55. S. Cucurachia; W.L.M. Tamisa; M.G. Vivera; W.J.G.M. Peijnenburg; J.F.B. Bolte; G.R.de Snoo
  56. Fragopoulou A, Grigoriev Y, Johansson O, Margaritis LH, Morgan L, Richter E, Sage C.
  57. Naren, Anubhav Elhenc, Vinay Chamola, Mohsen Guizan
  58. Dr. Susan Pocket
  59. Antoinette Janssen
  60. Playlist with videos about ICNIRP
  61. Additional information
  62. Archive Michael Repacholi
  63. Archive Martin Röösli

.

balk1

.

§1. The ICNIRP Commission and Scientific Expert Group / SEG

icnirp3

.

ICNIRP – “Scientific” [thermal effects only] “Expert” Group: SEG

Info: see website ICNIRP.  /  Election: SEG members are elected from nominations by members of the Commission, the Executive Council of the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA), the IRPA Associate Societies, and national radiation protection agencies following a call for nominations. The election takes place every 4 years in general at the beginning of a new term of office after the IRPA Congress.

 

.

balk1

.

Here follows the collection with evidence that ICNIRP is comprised, creating severe health risks, via false claims, dismissing important science, misrepresenting the scientific evidence due to industry influences, conflicts of interest with the telecommunications industry, inadequate safety testing, fraud, denials, and immorality. 

.

balk1

.

§2. Wireless technologies, non-ionizing electromagnetic fields and children: Identifying and reducing health risks [including the role of ICNIRP and FCC in improving health risks, in adults and children]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1538544223000238
Published: 17 March 2023
By: Devra Davis PhD, MPH, Linda Birnbaum PhD, Paul Ben-Ishai PhD, Hugh Taylor MD, Meg Sears MEng, PhD, Tom Butler PhD, MSc, Theodora Scarato MSW
In: ScienceDirect / Current Problems in Paediatric and Adolescent Health Care

Chapters:

  • Introduction. Children’s exposures to wireless radiation are increasing rapidly
  • Electromagnetic radiation and biological effects
  • Electromagnetism
  • The electromagnetic spectrum
  • Signals
  • The increase in exposure to electromagnetic radiation
  • How is EMF exposure quantified?

Since 1996, measurement of radiation permitted from any particular cell phone is made by testing temperature changes inside a plastic phantom 12-pound head of SAM (Specific Anthropomorphic Mannequin), filled with homogenous saline liquid to mimic the human brain with its diverse tissues and densities, making a 6 to 30 minute phone call, with a spacer between the head and the tested phone to allow for the ear/pinna. [Click to enlarge]

~

Internationally, many national governments either take their cue for exposure levels from the FCC or from the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).

A comparison of the allowed PD limits amongst counties is given in Fig. 7. [Click to enlarge]

ICNIRP grew out of a working committee of the International Commission for Radiation Protection, a non-governmental organization representing professionals and bodies involved in radiation industries.48

Numerous publications have criticized ICNIRP as a close-knit invitation-only group that downplays and misrepresents research49 indicating biological effects at nonthermal levels and instead self-references its own commissioners, many of whom have a history of conflicts of interest.50,51 ICNIRP and FCC limits for SAR are summarized in Table 2.

  • Physical mechanisms of the interaction of RFR and tissues
  • Biological pathways for non-ionizing effects
  • Children’s unique vulnerability to wireless radiation
  • Reproduction and pregnancy
  • Reproductive capacity
  • Pregnancy is a critical window of vulnerability
  • Toxicological evidence of adverse impacts of RFR
  • Prenatal exposures and the central nervous system
  • Prenatal exposures in humans alter behavior and cognition in offspring
  • Behavior and cognition in children and adolescents affected by cell phones
  • Behavior in animals
  • Carcinogenicity
  • Experimental carcinogenicity evidence
  • Cancer epidemiology—Case-control studies
  • Cancer epidemiology—Cohort studies
  • Unexplained increases in pediatric and young adult cancers are consistent with increasing wireless exposures
  • EMFs as endocrine disruptors
  • Animal studies of additive or synergistic effects of RFR with other agents
  • Effects of screen time
  • Technoference contributes to speech and bonding delays
  • Clinical practice guidance
  • Electromagnetic sensitivity—An underdiagnosed pediatric problem
  • Synergistic and combined toxic exposures in children
  • Synergistic and combined toxic exposures in children
  • Inadequate regulatory limits
  • Cell phone and wireless device limits
  • Wireless network exposure limits
  • Why the SAR standard is inadequate to protect children
  • Regulatory gaps affecting children
  • Prevention: medical organization, public health, government policy and actions to mitigate risk to children
  • Medical organizations and public health agencies
  • How families can reduce EMF exposure
  • Cell phones
  • Computer, laptop and tablet internet connections in buildings
  • At home
  • Additional considerations during pregnancy
  • Cell tower emission and ambient limits
  • Regulatory gaps in the U.S
  • International marketing, compliance and transparency measures
  • Premarket cell phone and wireless device RFR testing
  • Schools and child care settings
  • Healthcare settings
  • Conclusion: next steps for clinicians to better protect the young from impacts of RFR

.

balk1

.

 §2. The assumption of safety is being used to justify the rollout of 5G technologies
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1058454/full
Published: January 26, 2023
By: ORSAA – Julie E. McCredden, Steven Weller and Victor Leach
In: Frontiers in Public Health

Excerpts:

Fallacies used in setting standards

Several fallacies are also embedded within the ICNIRP guidelines, for mmWaves as well as other radiofrequencies.

Only heating matters

The main fallacy that has been pointed out by many researchers is the “Thermal Only” fallacy, whereby ICNIRP and industry have adopted the position that only heating can produce important biological or health effects. This “Red Herring” takes the focus away from research that investigates non-thermal biological and health effects. For example, in the main mmWave literature review of skin effects presented within the current ICNIRP guidelines, a decision has been made to focus on heating effects only [(9), p. 6–8].

Averaging is an adequate measure of harm

When ICNIRP assumes that averaging over time and space are effective measures for measuring the, this is the fallacy of “Slanting” because not all of the evidence available is being used to inform the case (20).

The ICNIRP premise that averaging over time and space is sufficient to calculate harm from exposure is deficient in realism in several ways. First, the statistical use of an average assumes an underlying normal distribution, which is not the case for complex telecommunications signaling. Moreover, averages hide potential biophysical effects resulting in a conclusion of no harm overall, even though extreme harm may have occurred for a small portion of tissue [see (1830)].

Authority uncertain

The fallacy of “Appeal to Authority” occurs when claims are believed because they are made by alleged authorities, but not all of the following are true: (i) they are making claims within their field of expertise, (ii) they are presenting facts about which there is some agreement, and (iii) they can be trusted (23). While bodies like ICNIRP and the WHO International EMF Project are given formal authority, other researchers have criticized them for being a small-self referencing group (40) with no dissenting voices (41). These bodies present one consistent message: that there is no evidence of harm from radiofrequencies, including mmWaves. In contrast, hundreds of scientists around the world with concerns for safety have appealed to the European Union for a moratorium on the 5G rollout (4243). Because there is no clear agreement on the facts, to assume an ultimate voice of authority on this topic is fallacious.

Furthermore, some expert scientists researching in this field have links with industry; therefore, conclusions from their papers need to be treated with caution. This is because industry can influence the science (44). For example, industry-funded research for UHF studies (including when partnered with government or military, public trusts, private foundations and institutions) was found to typically use short-term, single one-off exposures created by signal generators, to predominantly expose cell lines (in vitro) rather than live animals (in vivo) and to avoid epidemiological studies (45). These design decisions have resulted in studies that do not provide insights into potential health effects associated with multiple long-term, real-world exposure scenarios.

Similar to Huss et al. (46), an analysis of mmWave studies demonstrates how industry funding influences outcomes. Industry funded mmWave studies have produced a lower overall proportion of “Effect” outcomes, compared to government-funded and institution-based studies (see Figure 2).

.

balk1

.

§3. ICNIRP The International Commission on Non ionizing Radiation Protection: Deep Industry Ties, No Oversight and Only 14 Members
https://ehtrust.org/icnirp-the-international-commission-on-non-ionizing-radiation-protection-deep-industry-ties-no-oversight-and-only-14-members/
Published: March 21, 2021
By: Dafna Tachover
In: Environmental Health Trust

.

balk1

.

§4. Flawed Assumptions Regarding FCC and ICNIRP Exposure Limits for Radiofrequency Radiation (RFR) [Summary: Slide show, 15 minutes] / PDF, 25 pages: “Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G”
Published: October 2022
By: The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields [ICBE-EMF]
On: Their website.

The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields offers science-based information about the health and safety of artificial nonionizing radiation sources used for various wireless network communications and electrical technologies available on the Website, launched October 2022.

.

.

balk1

 

  §5. The European Union prioritises economics over health in the rollout of radiofrequency technologies
Authors: Nils Rainer Nyberg, Julie E. McCredden, Steven G. Weller and Lennart Hardell
From the journal Reviews on Environmental Health / 2022
Complete review: https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2022-0106 / PDF

EXCERPT 1: THE CURRENT GUIDELINES ARE COMPROMISED AND UNSCIENTIFIC
All of the current plans of the Council and the Commission are based on the assumption that wireless technologies are harmless. This is the message declared by two main advisory bodies that the EU has endorsed regarding the health risks of non-ionising radiation, ICNIRP and SCENIHR. In 1999 the council adopted the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines [67]. The authority of these guidelines was reiterated by The Council of the EU, in its 2020 conclusions on shaping Europe’s digital future when it requested that the Commission takes into account the international guidelines concerning the health impact of electromagnetic fields [10, para 36.] In addition to ICNIRP, the Commission established its own advisory body in 2008, the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) [68].

Advisory bodies are compromised
Unfortunately, these two main advisory bodies, ICNIRP and SCENIHR, are compromised. Their members comprise a handful of like-minded industry-linked researchers, very few of whom have expertise in the biophysics of RFR, a crucial area of expertise that is required for this field. In spite of credentials that are not task-appropriate, these individuals have been able to use their positions in ICNIRP and SCENIHR to promote the industry-favourable claim within the halls of government that the ICNIRP international guidelines are protecting health. While giving the appearance of being scientific, the roles of these bodies are actually political and aimed at protecting the telecom industries and operators.

SCENIHR misrepresentations
In 2015, SCENIHR submitted an opinion report to the EU [69], which not only misrepresented the science and used incorrect evaluation criteria, but also failed in its fundamental obligation to warn the European Commission that EMF is a new and emerging problem that may pose an actual or potential threat [70, p. 192]. Through this strategy the members of SCENIHR, who have been shown to be supportive of industry and biased [71], were able to give the telecom industry a clean bill of health, allowing operators and equipment producers to expose EU citizens to levels and pulses of radiation that are far too high to guarantee human health and wellbeing in the long term.

ICNIRP compromised
In 2020, two EU parliamentarians, Buchner & Rivasi, commissioned an in-depth investigation into the makeup and functioning of ICNIRP. Their final report [72]] concluded that ICNIRP has been captured by industry and is therefore unable to give a trustworthy appraisal of the current science. Furthermore, such conflict of interest has enabled ICNIRP to formulate a set of “safety” guidelines that are designed to protect industry profits over the health of the public and the environment [73]]. Unfortunately, as ICNIRP decrees, so SCENIHR echoes and the EU complies without questioning. Most national radiation safety agencies in European states make exactly the same mistake, because the EU has endorsed SCENIHR and ICNIRP members as authorized scientists.

A very recent investigation into the breadth and variation of the scientific opinions used by ICNIRP [74] discovered that the contributors belong to a core group of 17 authors, and that literature reviews presented by ICNIRP 2020 as being from independent committees, are in fact products of this same informal network of collaborating authors, all committees having ICNIRP 2020 authors as members. This shows that the ICNIRP 2020 Guidelines fail to meet fundamental scientific quality requirements and are therefore not suited as the basis on which to set RF EMF exposure limits for the protection of human health.

Dismissal of important science
In the service of industry interests, ICNIRP and SCENIHR have dismissed most of the above studies showing adverse biological effects of radiation, and have justified ignoring clearly observed effects because they claim that science does not yet fully understand the underlying causal biophysical mechanisms. Each of these actions is a poor example of scientific process and judgment, which have together enabled ICNIRP and SCENIHR to formulate an opinion for the EU and governments that the evidence for harm is ‘not established’.

Such dismissal of relevant science suggesting harm has also excused ICNIRP from addressing risk in an effective manner. Rather than considering the array of observed biological effects, ICNIRP has narrowed the focus for harm down to temperature rises in human tissue caused by energy transfer from the EMF signal to body tissue, thereby keeping the outdated view that RFR only has heating effects [75]. Consistent with this narrow focus, ICNIRP sets its limits for exposure to ensure that the energy (heat) from one single source of RFR does not cause an increase of 2 or 5 degrees Celsius (depending on the specific area of the body and depth of penetration). ICNIRP and SCENIHR then claim that the current levels of RFR in the built environment are safe because they are much lower than these microwave oven-like heating thresholds set by ICNIRP. These ICNIRP safety thresholds are designed to protect people only from heating of tissue when exposed to short-term exposures (6 or 30 min). Thus, they do not provide protection for most European citizens who are being subject to RFR exposures 24 × 7, continuously for decades, and now coming from an increasing number of radiating objects, which may be as high as one million transmitters in just one square kilometre [5, Section 3.3].

Simple modelling of complex systems
ICNIRP calculations use only simple heating models that are not considering the complexities of the many interacting and aggregated signals that occur in the built environment, an important issue that the 5G Deployment: State of Play in Europe, USA and Asia report [7] has raised (described above). The many new and complex exposure-patterns that are now being used are addressed by a directive of the EU [76] regarding exposure of workers to the risks from electromagnetic fields, that exposure limitation systems need to be exposure-pattern and frequency dependent in order to adequately protect workers exposed to electromagnetic fields. However, the ICNIRP calculations ignore this directive. They only use average values for heating of tissue, and simplistic modelling that does not include the effect of several important physical characteristics of telecommunication signals such as low frequency modulations, pulsing, polarisation [77] and the constant variability in intensity that occurs with real world signals used in many laboratory experiments [78]. These complexities, together with the aggregation of different signals [7, p. 11] from ongoing intermittent spikes of energy, which can be hundreds of thousands times higher than mean values [79, p. 458] causing harm to biological tissues irrespective of the average absorbed energy. An ICNIRP literature review admits that pulsed signals are generally more effective in producing a biological response [14, p. 506] than continuous signals with same average energy levels. However, the ICNIRP method for calculating risk neglects those characteristics of telecommunication signals that are the most harmful to human and planetary health.

In truth, the exposure patterns caused by beam formed signals from 5G base stations and 5G cell phones are still not fully understood by physicists and engineers [80]. For example, rapid trains of pulsed millimetre waves may create intense hotpots within the skin, causing permanent damage [7981]]. Furthermore, at millimetre wave frequencies, sweat ducts in the skin both become more conductive and act as spiral antennas [82], thereby increasing their energy absorption from 5G and leading to unforeseen non-thermal biological effects at the higher 5G frequencies [83].

The ICNIRP position has been deemed to be flawed by many reviewers, such as Cherry [84], Favre [85], Hansson-Mild & Hardell [86], ORSAA [87] and Redmayne [88]. The overall state of play has been summarized by Pall: the ICNIRP … guidelines are completely unscientific and cannot be relied upon to protect our safety [36, p. 17].

Inadequate safety testing
As well as neglecting harmful patterns, aggregations and components of signals, industry and national radiation safety agencies use inadequate testing methods [89] to test only for thermal changes in body tissue. In order to test mobile phones for compliance, heating of brain tissue is estimated by encasing simulant fluids [90] within a large plastic phantom head [91]. Such testing can only validate thermal changes, but does not address the well documented biological interference effects and aggregations of radiofrequency fields on cell integrity and function (described above). Moreover, during measurements, the phones are not pressed against the head, but held 2–3 cm from the phantom head, which leads to underestimates of real exposure levels. If held at 0 mm from the body (by the ear, in a shirt pocket etc.) many cell phones exceed the current “safety limits”. Cell phone tests should be made more realistic with 0 mm distance to the body [9293].

These findings have been the basis for recent action against mobile phone companies [93] as well as leading to the French ministries of Health, Ecology and Economy asking the European Commission to ensure that more accurate tests be carried out in contact mode, and consumers be given adequate warnings [94]. The tests carried out consider only heating and from only one cell phone or one tablet during only 6 or 30 min. They do not consider the stronger and extended exposures of real-world environments. For example, a typical school classroom may have 20 simultaneously active tablets, cell phones in many students’ pockets, and a Wi-Fi router in the ceiling, all radiating continuously for at least 5 h a day over many years. The current testing is completely inadequate to ensure safety in such real-world scenarios, where radiation can be life-long and emanating from a large number of sources; e.g., see [95].

Exposure of captured agencies
The deficits of industry-biased bodies are now beginning to be exposed. In 2021, the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was deemed by a US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruling as having been negligent for two decades in its role as protector of public health, in that when it decided that its 1996 emission guidelines protected public health, it neglected to consider (a) impacts of long term wireless exposure, (b) unique impacts to children, (c) testimony of people injured by wireless radiation, (d) impacts to wildlife and the environment and (e) impacts to the developing brain and reproduction [96]. The book Captured Agency describes the compromised position of the FCC in its role as public protector [97]. The compromised actions of ICNIRP since their inception, including inviting industry representatives to the table, are described by Maisch [98, Chapter 4]. As noted by the Turin Court of Appeal [43], opinions from such conflicted advisory bodies as ICNIRP are not reliable.

 

EXCERPT 2: NEW GUIDELINES ARE NEEDED
After reviewing the above issues of negligence, the Appeal recommends that ICNIRP and SCENIHR be replaced by two new groups of truly industry-independent EMF-health scientists, and that the ICNIRP guidelines be replaced, as described below.

Since the first ICNIRP guidelines were written, the science has evolved and greater understanding has developed. The results of more recent research described above clearly show that the ICNIRP guidelines are out of step with the levels at which harm has been shown to occur and therefore are unable to protect the health of the public. For the reasons given above, the ICNIRP guidelines [14]], which consider only heating must be discarded and replaced with guidelines considering all biological effects that have health implications while also utilising principles of safety and precaution.

Complete review: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2022-0106/html

.

balk1

.

§6. Finland: Tekniikka & Talous / Puheenvuoro: 5g testaa luottamuksen rajoja / 5G tests the limits of trust / English -google- translation in PDF
https://www.tekniikkatalous.fi/uutiset/puheenvuoro-5g-testaa-luottamuksen-rajoja/7b268023-12f2-4889-bc7c-7825ad7115e3
Published: 20 January, 2022
Author: Dariusz Leszczynski

Excerpt: 

Icnirp’s instructions therefore only prevent the occurrence of an acute heat effect lasting from minutes to hours, but not repeated and long-lasting from months to decades. Although there have been published studies on acute effects that occur during or shortly after exposure, there are very few publications on long-term chronic exposure. The application of Icnirp’s standards to the real situation seems to be based on a mere safety assumption with no scientific basis. 

.

balk1

.

§7. An analysis of Prof. Röösli’s presentation of available studies on non-ionizing radiation and 5G
https://microwavenews.com/sites/default/files/docs/Hensinger_5G-Roosli_Englisch.pdf
Published: February 2022
Author: Peter Hensinger, MA Board Member of diagnose:funk e.V.
Head of Science
Related article:
The Odious Smell of Truth
https://microwavenews.com/news-center/odious-smell-truth
Published: July 20, 2022
In: Microwave News
By: Dr. Louis Slesin

[Quote from the article:]Few people are as influential in RF/microwave public policy circles as Röösli [picture]. He is a full member of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), and has been since 2016. He serves on a number of committees, including those that advise the German, Swedish and Swiss governments. Indeed, he chairs the Swiss group, called BERENIS, which prepares regular updates on new research for the Federal Office of the Environment. He sits on a number of editorial boards of scientific journals, including Bioelectromagnetics and the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (IJERPH).

.

This story has now been translated into German and Norwegian.

.

balk1

.

§8. Book: Debatten om mikrobølgene / Norwegian translation of [1]Nicholas H. Steneck’s book: The Microwave Debate (1984), with an epilogue by [2]Tomas Butler, a professor at Ireland’s Cork University Business School, who has contributed seven chapters —about 30,000 words— to bring Steneck’s history up to the present.
Norwegian translation: [3]Einar Flydal
Published: July 2022
Article in Microwave News: https://microwavenews.com/short-takes-archive/microwave-debate-norwegian
Website of the book: https://www.paradigmeskifte.nu/project/debatten-om-mikrobolgene/

Tomas Butler: ““ICNIRP is an immoral group of scientists who knowingly distort scientific truth to protect industry interests over the public good. Given the weight of evidence on oxidative stress, and the ubiquity of wireless devices in homes, we may be looking at an increase in chronic and systemic illnesses.” Butler describes himself as a social scientist and technologist.”

balk1

 

§9. Open Access / Published online by De Gruyter June 27, 2022

Nordhagen, Else K. and Flydal, Einar. “Self-referencing authorships behind the ICNIRP 2020 radiation protection guidelines” Reviews on Environmental Health, vol. , no. , 2022. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2022-00

See also: The ICNIRP fraud: evidence based analyses 

 

balk1

.

§10. ICNIRP  ~  Excerpt from the documentary: Something Is In The Air -The cell phone radiation documentary
Published: September 30, 2021
By: Flipped Media, Finland

 

.

.

 Info video: 1) Full documentary 2) Report Michèle Rivasi and Professor Doctor Klaus Buchner: The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection: Conflicts of interest, corporate capture and the push for 5G 3) All information in a list: ICNIRP

.

 

balk1

.

MOBI-kids

§11. Conflicts of interest in The International MOBI-Kids Study:
“Wireless phone use in childhood and adolescence and neuroepithelial brain tumours: Results from the international MOBI-Kids study”
Published in Science Direct, February 2022
By: G.Castaño-Vinyals, S.Sadetzki, R. Vermeulen. F. Momoli, M. Kundi, F. Merletti, M. Maslanyj, C. Calderon, J. Wiart, A.K. Lee, M. Taki, M. Sim, B. Armstrong, G. Benke, R. Schattner, H.-P. Hutter, D. Krewski, C. Mohipp, E. Cardis  [The names in bold have been proven to be related with, and paid by the Telecom industry. Source. Admin.]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412021006942

The Mobi-kids study has been analysed by:

1. Dr. Joel Moskowitz
Comment on: MOBI-KIDS: Childhood Brain Tumor Risk & Mobile Phone Use Study
https://www.saferemr.com/2013/05/mobi-kids-childhood-brain-tumor-risk.html
Published: February 2, 2022

2. Dr. Joel Moskowitz and Dr. Lennart Hardell
A critical analysis of the MOBI-Kids study of wireless phone use in childhood and adolescence and brain tumor risk
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360590446_A_critical_analysis_of_the_MOBI-Kids_study_of_wireless_phone_use_in_childhood_and_adolescence_and_brain_tumor_risk
Published: May 2022
In: ResearchGate

3. Dr. Marc Arazi
Mobi-kids: a study infiltrated by the mobile phone industry
https://phonegatealert.org/en/mobi-kids-a-study-infiltrated-by-the-mobile-phone-industry
Published: May 13, 2022
By: Equipe Phonegate (Dr. Marc Arazi)

~

Conclusion: The International MOBI-Kids Study shows unacceptable conflicts of interest with Telecom, and ICNIRP, is therefore not offering an independent research, and should be removed from Science Direct.
The German governmental Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz, BsF, Germany, located at the same address as ICNIRP, has published the in Science Direct published study without any comment or criticism, on their website.

.

balk1

.

Strålskyddsstiftelsen§12. ICNIRP – EMF Limit Values – Gränsvärden
Published: February 14, 2022
In: Strålskyddsstiftelsen
The Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation
English translation:
https://multerland.blog/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/stralskyddsstiftelsen_limit_values_icnirp_eu_february_2022.pdf

 

balk1

 

ICNIRP_  §13. ICNIRP: identity, location and nationality
https://multerland.blog/2022/02/10/icnirp-identity-location-and-nationality/
Posted: February 10, 2022
In: Blog Multerland

 

balk1

 

§13a. Open letter to Dr. Angela Merkel
[Chancellor of Germany from 2005 to 2021]
Authors: Dr. med. Christine Aschermann – Dr. med. Cornelia Waldmann-Selsam
Nervenärztin – Psychotherapie Ärztin
Published: 27 November 2006

Angela_Merkel_BfS_ICNIRP

 

balk1

5G Madness

§13b. 5G Wahn[Sinn] 
Authors: Prof. Dr. Klaus Buchner / Dr. med. Monika Krout
The risks of mobile communications • The dangerous game with the limit values ​​• The low-radiation alternatives
ISBN-978-3-86374-608-7
1st edition: May 2021.

234 / Diese Grenzwerte wurden 1996 eingeführt, als Angela Merkel Umweltministerin war. Seitdem geltem sie praktisch unverändert. Inzwischen haben sich aber, wie im Kapitel über die durch Funkstrahlung erzeugten Krankheitsrisiken, siehe Seite 49 ff.,gezeigt wurde, die Beweise für die gesundheitsschädigende Wirkung der Funkstrahlung noch erheblich verschärft. Trotzdem ist die Bundesregierung untätig geblieben. Dass sie von Anfang an nicht aud Nachlässigkeit gehandelt hat, sondern im vollen wissen, geht aus einem Zitat des damaligen Bundespostministers Wolfgang Bötsch (CSU)bei der Einführung des flächendeckenden Mobilfunks 1993 hervor: “Die aufgeregte Diskussion in der Bevölkerung über die Kernenergie dürfte in Relation zu dem, was uns die Mobilfunknetze noch bescheren werden, nur ein laues Lüftchen sein.” 235 /  Source: Google Books, 5G WAHN[SINN]

5G WAHN[SINN]

Twitter Post (2)

Source: 5G WAHN[SINN]

 

balk1

icnirp_kartell_1200x600-1 (1)

§14. ICNIRP dominates expert investigations
Published 2021-06-02
By: The Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation – Strålskyddsstiftelsen
https://multerland.blog/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/stralskyddsstiftelsen_sweden_january_28_2020.pdf

 

balk1

Dr.LennartHardell

§15. Professor L. Hardell: “Health Council of the Netherlands and evaluation of the fifth generation, 5G, for wireless communication and cancer risks.”
Published: June 24, 2021
In: World Journal of Clinical Oncology
https://wjgnet.com/2218-4333/full/v12/i6/393.htm

Abstract:

Currently the fifth generation, 5G, for wireless communication is about to be rolled out worldwide. Many persons are concerned about potential health risks from radiofrequency radiation. In September 2017, a letter was sent to the European Union asking for a moratorium on the deployment until scientific evaluation has been made on potential health risks (http://www.5Gappeal.eu). This appeal has had little success. The Health Council of the Netherlands released on September 2, 2020 their evaluation on 5G and health. It was largely based on a World Health Organization draft and report by the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority, both criticized for not being impartial. The guidelines by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection were recommended to be used, although they have been considered to be insufficient to protect against health hazards (http://www.emfscientist.org). The Health Council Committee recommended not to use the 26 GHz frequency band until health risks have been studied. For lower frequencies, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines were recommended. The conclusion that there is no reason to stop the use of lower frequencies for 5G is not justified by current evidence on cancer risks as commented in this article. A moratorium is urgently needed on the implementation of 5G for wireless communication.

Key Words: 5G, Cancer risk, Health Council Netherlands

Core Tip: In this comment, guidelines for radiofrequency radiation are discussed in relation to a recent evaluation by the Health Council of the Netherlands. The Committee recommends that for the deployment of 5G the frequency band 26 GHz should not be used. For lower frequencies, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines are recommended. However, these guidelines are not based on an objective evaluation of health risks, which is discussed in this paper.

Read on: https://wjgnet.com/2218-4333/full/v12/i6/393.htm

.

balk1

.

Team

§16. Aspects on the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) 2020 Guidelines on Radiofrequency Radiation
https://multerland.blog/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/hardell.pdf
Published: May 21, 2021
By: Lennart Hardell MD, PhD; Mona Nilsson, investigative EMF journalist; Tarmo Koppel, BSc, MA, MSc, PhD; Michael Carlberg, Statistician, MSc.

.

balk1

.

Moskowitz

§17. Is ICNIRP “war-gaming the science”?
New review study finds that heavier cell phone use increases tumor risk
https://www.saferemr.com/2020/11/new-review-study-tumor-risk.html
Author: Joel Moskowitz PhD
Published: March 24, 2021
In: Safer EMR, Joel Moskowitz’s blog about Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

.

balk1

.

§18. Lost opportunities for cancer prevention: historical evidence on early warnings with emphasis on radiofrequency radiation
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2020-0168/html
Published by: Dr. Lennart Hardell, Dr. Michael Carlberg
In: De Gruyter / 2020

In a special chapter about ICNIRP, Dr. Hardell and Dr. Carlberg show the role of ICNIRP within the lost opportunities for cancer prevention, on page 5 of the PDF:

The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) is a private non-governmental (NGO) organization registered in Munich, Germany. ICNIRP appoints its own members and is closed to transparency. It was started in 1992 with the biophysicist Michael Repacholi as the first chairman, now emeritus member. ICNIRP has published three articles with guidelines on RF-EMF exposure [86, 89, 90]. Only thermal (heating) effects from RF radiation are recognized, thereby excluding all studies showing harmful effects at lower non-thermal intensities. In contrast to ICNIRP, some other expert panels such as European Academy of Environmental Medicine [91], the Bioinitiative group [92], and the Russian Commission for Protection from Non-Ionizing Radiation [93], take into account non-thermal RF effects and suggest much lower guidelines for RF exposure. ICNIRP has managed to get collaborative status with WHO, as discussed previously [88]. The aim is to harmonize the RF-radiation guidelines all over the world. For that purpose ICNIRP has been successful. The guidelines are set to allow very high exposure levels so that the deployment of this technology is not hampered, in favor for industry but at disadvantage to human health and environment. In fact, the ICNIRP guidelines have never been challenged by industry in peer-reviewed articles, which must be taken as a greencard for acceptance by industry.  [Copyrights: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License]

And in the chapter “Discussion”, on page 6 of the PDF they write:

No lessons on prevention of cancer risks seem to have been learned in spite of decades of publications on adverse health risks. In fact, early prevention is usually very cost-effective [2, 99]. The issue on RF radiation risks is ongoing and in fact increasing despite decades of research showing adverse effects on human health, plants, insects and birds. It seems as if the industry view of no risk dominates on national level [84], among many countries [85], also at EU level (www.5gappeal.eu), and even within WHO [88]. Notably such industry organizations and nations have the power and economic resources to suppress scientific evidence on risks and have access to mainstream media to propagate their views, may it be for political or economic reasons. RF radiation is a current controversy regarding cancer risks. The 2011 IARC evaluation on carcinogenesis [62, 63] has been downplayed and detracted by industry and captured agencies from the very beginning in spite of increasing evidence on harmful effects. However, IARC has decided that a new evaluation of cancer risks is top priority within a few years [100]. [Copyrights: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License]

.

balk1

.

  §19. Canadians for Safe Technology(C4ST) has fact‐checked some of the “Canada Safety Code 6” statements and found them to be inaccurate and misleading to the point of being “misinformation.” Canada Safety Code 6 directs to ICNIRP as a reliable authority body.
https://stopsmartmetersbc.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/C4ST-Fact-checks-Government-of-Canada-Webpages-re-Health-Risks-and-Wireless-Technologies-including-5G-January-2021.pdf
Published: January, 2021
By: Canadians for Safe Technology

..

balk1

 

§20. Dr. Louis Slesin, Microwave News: Portrait of a Conspiracy: Professor Alexander Lerchl, Cell Phones, DNA Breaks and Lies, $5 Million in Research Grants from German Government / Professor Alexander Lerchl holds office at BfS, the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection. BfS, (through parent BMU, Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit), has provided 70-80% of ICNIRP’s operating budget. Source: Dr. Louis Slesin, Microwave News

20a. “German Court Moves To Silence Relentless Critic of RF DNA Studies” https://microwavenews.com/news-center/german-court-moves-silence-critic-rf-dna-breaks
Alexander Lerchl’s Unfounded Claims of Fabricated Data from Vienna Lab
13-Year Campaign of Disinformation
Published: February 8, 2021
In: Microwave News
By: Dr. Louis Slesin

20b. Alexander Lerchl Has Received $5 Million in Research Grants from German Government
https://microwavenews.com/short-takes-archive/big-rewards-bad-behavior
Published: February 8, 2021
In: Microwave News
By: Dr. Louis Slesin

20c. International Steering Committee
https://microwavenews.com/short-takes-archive/korea-japan-advisors
Alexander Lerchl, Jacobs University, Germany
Michael Repacholi, founder of WHO-EMF Project and ICNIRP
• Emilie van Deventer, head of WHO-EMF Project
• Eric van Rongen, chair of ICNIRP (chair till May, 2020, now vice chair)
• Vijayalaxmi, University of Texas Health Science Center
Joe Wiart, Telecom Paristech, formerly France Telecom
Michael Wyde, NIEHS/NTP
Published: May 6, 2019
In: Microwave News’By: Dr. Louis Slesin

Sources photos:

  1. Professor Alexander Lerchl – BfS, the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection. BfS, (through parent BMU, Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit), has provided 70-80% of ICNIRP’s operating budget.
  2. Michael Repacholi – Founder WHO-EMFproject, founder ICNIRP, former chair ICNIRP, chair of honour, ICNIRP
  3. Emilie van Deventer – WHO-EMFproject
  4. Eric van Rongen – Former chair ICNIRP, now vice chair ICNIRP, member Health Council of the Netherlands, speaker at 5G Italy
  5. Joe Wiart – Engineer of Telecommunication (92) is since 2015 the holder of the Chair C2M “ Caractérisation, modélisation et maitrise of the Institut Mines Telecom (http://chairec2m.mines-telecom.fr) at Télécom Paris. Previously he was the head of the research unit of Orange (former France Telecom) in charge of the studies relative to the human exposure to electromagnetic fields. Since 2018 he is the president of « Comité d’orientation de l’observatoire Ondes- Paris de la ville de Paris ». He is also the Chairman of the TC106x of the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC) in charge of EMF exposure standards. He is the present Chairman of the International Union of Radio Science (URSI) commission k and has been the Chairman of the French chapter of URSI. He is emeritus member of The Society of Environmental Engineers (SEE) since 2008 and senior member of Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) since 2002. His research interests are dosimetry, numerical methods, machine learning and statistic applied in electromagnetism and  dosimetry. His works gave rise to more than 150 publications in journal papers and more than 200 communications. Source: Institut Polytechnique de Paris
  6. Michael Wyde – NIH, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, manages and participates in multidisciplinary teams of NIEHS/NTP scientists to develop research programs to address a broad array of toxicological study needs for chemicals selected for study by the National Toxicology Program. Source: NIH
  7. Vijayalaxmi – UT Health: Dr. Vijay teaches in the Radiation Biology course. His research interests are biological and health effects of exposure to Ionizing and non-ionizing radiation in animals and humans. Source: UT Health

 

.

balk1

 

§21. Wireless Hazards
https://washingtonspectator.org/wireless-hazards/
Published: December 28, 2020
In: The Washington Spectator
By: Barbara Koeppel

Barbara Koeppel is a Washington D.C.-based investigative reporter who covers social, economic, political, and foreign policy issues.

Excerpt [Note: WHO and ICNIRP are in a conflict of interest with each other via Emilie van Deventer, see article: EHT: Letter to the UN Secretary-General and Office of Ethics]

Other deniers

Henry Lai, a University of Washington bioengineer researcher, says the industry’s influence is so profound that “even the American Cancer Society accepts its views.” So, too, have other respected groups, such as the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which repeat the “no radiation problems” refrain.

For example, when the National Toxicology Program released the results of its study—citing cancers in the heart cells, brains, and adrenal glands of laboratory rats exposed to cellphone emissions—an American Cancer Society site said, “Updated Cellphone Study Findings Still Inconclusive,” the exact opposite of what the scientists concluded. In fact, the ACS’s chief medical officer at the time, Dr. Otis Brawley, said, “The evidence for an association between cellphones and cancer is weak.”

Could the ACS have industry ties? I asked Kathi Di Nicola, director of ACS media relations, for its donor list. “We do not release individual or partner giving, unless required by law,” she emailed back. But an ACS site called “Our Partners” lists Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, and JP Morgan, whose clients include the telecom giants; other partners are the giants themselves, such as Microsoft, United Technologies, and World Wide Technology.

For its part, the CDC switched its position about wireless dangers without offering any reasons. Theodora Scarato, executive director of the Wyoming-based nonprofit group the Environmental Health Trust, which works with communities and health professionals to promote research and policies, says that, in June 2014, the CDC website recommended “caution in cellphone use” and noted that “more research is needed . . . before we know for sure if cellphones cause cancer.”

Just two months later, most of the message had disappeared and was replaced by one line: “There is no scientific evidence that provides a definite answer to that question [can using a cellphone cause cancer?].” Scarato notes that her nonprofit submitted hundreds of Freedom of Information Act requests to the CDC to determine why; in doing so, it learned that the CDC had hired Kenneth Foster, an industry consultant, in 2015, to write that agency’s new web pages on the health effects of wireless technology.

The WHO has also straddled both sides. Just one month after its division the International Agency for Research on Cancer defined cellphone radiation as a possible human carcinogen in 2011, a WHO fact sheet claimed “no adverse health effects have been established.” However, Alasdair Philips notes that many IARC scientists now believe the group should revisit the issue and change the assessment from possible to probable.

Further, the WHO consistently adopts the views of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, or ICNIRP, which, since its founding in 1992, has argued that electromagnetic frequency, or EMF, radiation can only cause damage by heating body tissues, which, it says, wireless devices don’t do. The WHO also defers to the United States (whose position is articulated by the FDA and the FCC), which, until recently, when President Trump cut U.S. funding, was the WHO’s largest contributor.

[…] James Lin, a University of Illinois professor of engineering, physiology, and biophysics, who was an ICNIRP member for 12 years [..] told me, “If you look at the group’s output, it says the same things industry says.”

Moreover, many ICNIRP members have serious conflicts of interest. While they’re supposed to list their income on Declaration of Interests forms, they often don’t. For example, Michael Repacholi, an Australian biophysicist and ICNIRP’s first chair, also founded a WHO project in 1996 to study cellphone radiation effects. But Louis Slesin, editor of Microwave News, reported in 2006 that Repacholi admitted the telecom industry had funded half the WHO project’s budget. When he left WHO in 2006, Repacholi soon became an industry consultant.

Andrew Wood, who is on the ICNIRP’s Scientific Advisory Group, runs a lab at Swinburne University in Australia supported by the Telstra Corporation, which builds and operates digital networks, provides mobile and internet access, and is that country’s largest telecommunications company. Telstra gave Wood’s lab some equipment and sent its staff there to test Telstra’s products.

Rodney Croft, an ICNIRP member since 2008, told an Australian Broadcasting Corporation news show, “A lot of research . . . has clearly shown there aren’t any health effects.” However, Croft didn’t mention that the research center he directed was created with Telstra funding and lab equipment.

Rene de Seze, in ICNIRP for over a decade, left his Declaration of Interests form completely blank—not listing grants from France Telecom or his work for Motorola.

Even the National Institutes of Health has minimized the radiation hazards. For several years, it sponsored Healthy Building Roundtable conferences, the last one in 2018. On July 19 and 20, speakers on the Electro Magnetic Frequency panel described the dangers of wireless devices, circulated material at the conference, and posted it on the NIH–Healthy Buildings Roundtable website. It said, “Current FCC public radiation exposure guidelines were set decades ago, based on the outdated premise that devices need to emit enough heat to raise the temperature of one’s skin to cause harm. There are now over 25,000 articles published, and the majority of non-industry funded studies show great evidence of biological harm at the non-thermal level.”

The message still appeared in September, but by early October, it had disappeared. So, too, had any mention of the EMF panel. [Read on: here]

 

balk1

.

§22. Dr. Louis Slesin, Microwave News
In a new paper, ICNIRP and WHO describe how RF health outcomes were picked for systematic reviews (now ongoing). They point out that non-thermal effects, which they have consistently refused to acknowledge, may in fact exist.
Published: December 20, 2020 / Twitter

Paper: Prioritizing health outcomes when assessing the effects of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields: A survey among experts
Published: January, 2021
By: Jos Verbeek, GunnhildOftedal, Maria Feychting, Eric van Rongen, Maria Rosaria Scarfìe, Simon Mann, Rachel Wong, Emilie van Deventer
In: Science Direct

.

balk1

.

§23. Public Shut Out of GLORE’s Global RF Health Briefing
https://microwavenews.com/news-center/glore-2020
Published: November 23, 2020
In: Microwave news

GLORE’s seven-member international ADVISORY committee contains names which are linked with Telecom, WHO, ICNIRP and each other.

.

balk1

.

§24. Lecture – Physicist Barrie Trower reveals his findings on 5G, ICNIRP and WHO
Lecture date: 3 February 2020
In: Exeter Phoenix, UK.

Total length: 1:50:46
Part 1: 00:00 – 48:26 – Keywords: ICNIRP, WHO, guidelines, top secrets, scam, industry, governments, military, tests,  Wi-Fi, cell phones, children at risk, schools, cancer, science, the year 1953
Part 2: 48:26 – 1:32:03 Keywords: Trees, DNA, 5G, law, court, Nuremberg treaty, the European Convention of Human Rights, the UN convention on the rights of the child, EU regulations, and the Bern and Bonn conventions. top-secret research of a test in Russia, in 1977, with radiation that is similar with 5G, ICNIRP’s agreement with twice this dosage now, 24/7, UNESCO, the 5G abyss.
Part 3: 1:33.00 – Questions and Answers

Part 1 of the lecture / Full transcript PDF

Excerpt – 01:05

Anything I say I have evidence documentary for, in total 1700 papers. I do not say a single word, unless I have documentary evidence.

Between 1949 and 1962 everything we needed to know about microwaves was known and published. By 1962 all of the dangers, all of the hazards, everything was known. When I say “all of them”: between the super powers and us[Britain], the brain at that time had been studied for brainwaves and microwaves could be used to penetrate the brain and cause behavioural changes. By 1962, with the resonance frequencies of the organs, the brain, the cyclotron frequencies, the circadian frequencies, a statement was made in 1962 by the governments that all birth-defects, organs, whole organisms, all cells, brain-functions, all moods, could be altered, changed and destroyed. By 1962. Microwaves then, as now, were used as stealth weapons, before they became cellphones.

In 1965 cellphones were used by the military, I had them. By 1965 the prospects of cellphones and everything from cellphones was seen as a really, really lucrative market for  the general public. And, knowing the dangers that cellphones could cause -the military are exempt[free from obligation]: you do not have, in the military, when you sign, any danger that comes your way for using whatever, you don’t have any recourse for that. But the general populations do. The military, and the industry of several countries: the United Sates, Canada, us[Britain], some of the NATO countries, Australia and New Zealand, the people got together and they knew that cellphones and all the other gadgets you have today, they knew they would not be allowed under current safety limits.We needed a safety limit that could never be taken to court and never challenged if these things were to progress.

In 1965 they adopted an old 1953 thermal level by an engineer by the name of Schwan and in order to prevent to be taken to court the industries and the people who are making decisions they adopted the Schwan 1953 level which basically says: “If a certain weight of your tissue does not heat up by a certain temperature in 6 minutes then everything will be deemed for a lifetime exposure for adults, men, women, children, pregnant women, everybody. The 6 minute level is the one that is still used today.

They totally ignored and put aside the electromagnetic vectors of the wave and the harm that the electromagnetic vectors can do. They interfere with the electrical conductivity of the cells, the electromagnetic conductivity of the neurons, the electromagnetic conductivity of the brain. They interfere with the resonant frequency of the circadian resonant cells the electronic ions, they interfere with everything.

All of these were brushed aside. We stuck with the 6 minutes thermal limit. Sometimes they extended to 30 minutes, but basically it is 6 minutes and that is what is enforced today in 42% of the planet, of what we are in that part today.

You have really no protection against the electromagnetic vectors. That is enforced today. That comes from the International Non Ionizing Radiation Protection[ICNIRP] who advise our, what was the government scientists, now Public Health England, who advise governments, who advise councils, and it comes all the way down, and it is still in force today.

08:30

Part 2 of the lecture / Full transcript PDF

Excerpt:

1:24:02

Now an experiment was carried out on 5G. An experiment was carried out in Russia. In 1977, I have the paper, an experiment was carried out on animals and humans using 5G[Barrie Trower explained earlier in this lecture that the there used radiation levels and frequencies used are similar with what we name now 5G, Admin]. I won’t go into the units but the radiation level unions, the humans[volunteering humans, Admin] and the animals were subjected to was at a level of 62. They were subjected to a level of 62 for 15 minutes a day, for 60 days. In other words: 15 hours. That’s it.

1:25:05

You can legally, under the International Commission[ICNIRP, Admin] and our government, under the thermal regulations, you, and all of the animals and all of the trees, if 62, and I am going to list the illnesses caused from a level of 62 you can legally be given for 24 hours a day, non-stop, for ever, a level of 140: more than twice.

1:25:31

The professors listed damage to the skin, liver, heart, brain, adrenal glands, blood, the foetus, children, stem cells, human sperm, honeybee. and that was just from one paper. There’s the paper[Barrie Trower shows a paper, Admin], it’s a top-secret paper from Russia that I had sent to me.

.

balk1

.

§25. Strålsäkerhetsmyndigheten anlitar jäviga experter
https://www.stralskyddsstiftelsen.se/2020/08/stralsakerhetsmyndigheten-anlitar-javiga-experter/
Published: 18 August, 2020
By: “Strålskyddsstiftelsen”, the Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation
Translated via Google into English by Multerland

1. The Swedish Radiation Safety Authority hires unscrupulous experts
2. The majority does not agree
3. The members of the expert group
4. ICNIRP is not independent of the telecommunications companies
5. “Independent” group not independent
6. Brother was a lobbyist for Telia
7. WHO also dominated by ICNIRP
8. Major financial interests

.

balk1

.

 §26. Comment of The Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation “Strålskyddsstiftelsen” on “Conflicts of interest, corporate capture and the push for 5G” published by the European Parliament members Dr. Klaus Buchner and Michèle Rivasi.
Swedish: https://www.stralskyddsstiftelsen.se/2020/06/eu-rapport-om-icnirp-visar-kopplingar-till-telekombolag/
English: https://multerland.blog/2020/08/22/icnirps-neutrality-is-a-lie/
1. EU report on ICNIRP shows links to telecommunications companies
2. ICNIRP’s neutrality is a lie
3. Links with telecom
4. Comment from the Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation on ICNIRP
Published: 21 August 2020

.

balk1

.

§27. The EMF Call – an appeal of scientists, medical doctors and NGO’s

On November 1st, 2018, in order to protect the public and the environment from the known harmful effects from electromagnetic fields (EMF), The EMF Call was launched. It is by November 26, 2018, signed by 164 scientists and medical doctors together with 95 non-governmental organizations. New medical guidelines need to be developed that represent the state of medical science and are truly protective. They also need to be developed without any industry influence.

The EMF Call also urges all governments, the UN and the WHO not to accept the ICNIRP guidelines, issued as draft on 11th July 2018. ICNIRP’s guidelines pose a serious risk to human health and the environment. They allow harmful exposure to the world population, including the most vulnerable. They are not protective. They do not represent an objective evaluation of the available science on effects from this form of radiation.

If you are a scientist, medical doctor or represent an NGO, and also want to support The EMF Call, you are welcome to contact us.

.

balk1

.

§28. 5G Appeal of Scientists and Medical Doctors
Launched on September 13, 2017
Number of signatories on August 10, 2020: 398

Excerpt: “The current ICNIRP ”safety guidelines” are obsolete. All proofs of harm mentioned above arise although the radiation is below the ICNIRP “safety guidelines”. Therefore new safety standards are necessary. The reason for the misleading guidelines is that “conflict of interest of ICNIRP members due to their relationships with telecommunications or electric companies undermine the impartiality that should govern the regulation of Public Exposure Standards for non-ionizing radiation…To evaluate cancer risks it is necessary to include scientists with competence in medicine, especially oncology.”

The current ICNIRP/WHO guidelines for EMF are based on the obsolete hypothesis that ”The critical effect of RF-EMF exposure relevant to human health and safety is heating of exposed tissue.” However, scientists have proven that many different kinds of illnesses and harms are caused without heating (”non-thermal effect”) at radiation levels well below ICNIRP guidelines.”

.

balk1

.

5G Wireless Deployment and Health Risks§29. 5G Wireless Deployment and Health Risks: Time for a Medical Discussion in Australia and New Zealand
https://multerland.blog/2020/08/07/5g-wireless-deployment-and-health-risks-time-for-a-medical-discussion-in-australia-and-new-zealand/
Authors: Priyanka Bandara, Tracy Chandler, Robin Kelly, Julie McCredden, Murray May, Steve Weller, Don Maisch, Susan Pockett, Victor Leach, Richard Cullen, Damian Wojcik
Posted on August 7, 2020

Index:
Introduction to the issue
Claims of safety made by ARPANSA without medical care expertise
Oxidative stress
Misleading of primary care physicians by ARPANSA
Occupational exposures to millimetre waves
Chief medical officer’s statement on 5G
Australian parliamentary inquiry on 5G / 2019-2020
References (44)

Abstract:
This article discusses the need to raise a medical discussion on the health risks of wireless technology, particularly about new 5G that is lacking in the Australia – New Zealand region at present. It presents some evidence for the concerns raised in the global scientific community.

Keywords:
ARPANSA, ICNIRP, WHO, public health, Rodney Croft, Ken Karpidis, 5G, conflicts of interest, fraud, deception, health risk, medical science

.

balk1

.

HugoSchoonveld

§30. The Netherlands – 5G systems come in phasesincluding health- and skin problems – Blogpost in Dutch, with very detailed scientific information and references. Translate via google.

ICNIRP: “The skin protects the body against millimetre waves” Wrong! ICNIRP simply sees the skin as a kind of “shell” that absorbs millimetre waves and “thus” (they wrongly conclude) protects the body against millimetre waves effects. Furthermore, the tests were often carried out with field strengths that are (far) above the ICNIRP limits that we already consider to be too high.
https://www.hugoschooneveld.nl/pdf_bestanden/pdf_blogs/5g_systemen_komen_in_fasen_ook_gezondheid_en_huidproblemen.pdf 
By: Dr. Hugo Schooneveld
Published: 28 July 2020

.

balk1

.

 

ol_forthcoming§31. Health risks from radiofrequency radiation, including 5G, should be assessed by experts with no conflicts of interest bit.ly/5GCOIs

The conclusion in the article is that:

“..the ICNIRP has failed to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of health risks associated with RF radiation. The latest ICNIRP publication cannot be used for guidelines on this exposure.” Source

.

balk1

.

goldsworthy_whiteborder§32. Dr. Andrew Goldsworthy responds to ICNIRP’s Eric van Rongen’s statements about 5G and Covid-19
https://multerland.blog/2020/07/05/andrew-goldsworthy-about-5g-and-covid19/
Published: July 5, 2020

.

balk1

.

§33. Frequency auction 5G started in the Netherlands despite serious warnings and new critical report on ICNIRP
Dutch: https://stralingsbewust.info/2020/06/29/frequentieveiling-5g-gestart-ondanks-serieuze-waarschuwingen-en-nieuw-kritisch-rapport-over-icnirp/
English: https://multerland.blog/2020/07/02/netherlands-frequency-auction-5g-started-despite-serious-warnings-and-new-critical-report-on-icnirp/
Published: 29 June, 2020
By: Stralingsbewust, the Netherlands

.

balk1

.

Logo1§34. ICNIRP’s Principal Patron: Germany
Provided 70-80% of Its Support in Each of Last Three Years
https://microwavenews.com/short-takes-archive/germany-supports-icnirp
Published: June 25, 2020
By: Dr. Louis Slesin / Twitter
In: Microwave News / Twitter

The German government is the main sponsor of ICNIRP, the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. The Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), which is the bureaucratic parent of the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS), has contributed 70-80% of ICNIRP’s annual income in each of the last three years.

ICNIRP Support

Sources: BMU and ICNIRP

This does not include revenue from the sale of books and fees to attend workshops. Read on: here

.

balk1

.

Greenbaum_Barnes§35, Setting Guidelines for Electromagnetic Exposures and Research Needs
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bem.22267
By: Prof. Em. Frank Barnes, Prof. Em. Ben Greenebaum
First published: 20 April 2020
In: Wiley Online Library
Abstract: Current limits for exposures to non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) are set, based on relatively short‐term exposures. Long‐term exposures to weak EMF are not addressed in the current guidelines. Nevertheless, a large and growing amount of evidence indicates that long‐term exposure to weak fields can affect biological systems and might have effects on human health. If they do, the public health issues could be important because of the very large fraction of the population worldwide that is exposed. We also discuss research that needs to be done to clarify questions about the effects of weak fields. In addition to the current short‐term exposure guidelines, we propose an approach to how weak field exposure guidelines for long‐term exposures might be set, in which the responsibility for limiting exposure is divided between the manufacturer, system operator, and individual being exposed. Bioelectromagnetics. © 2020 Bioelectromagnetics Society

.

balk1

.

1000px-European_Parliament_logo.svg §36. New 98-page report from two members of European Parliament: Dr. Klaus Buchner, and Michèle Rivasi:

The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection: Conflicts of interest , corporate capture and the push for 5G
https://multerland.blog/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/ICNIRP-report-FINAL-JUNE-2020_EN.pdf
This report was commissioned, coordinated and published by two Members of the European Parliament –Michèle Rivasi (Europe Écologie) and Klaus Buchner (Ökologisch-Demokratische Partei), and financed by the Greens/EfAgroup in the European Parliament. The report was written by Hans van Scharen with editing and additional research support from Tomas Vanheste. Final Editing: Erik Lambert
Published: June 2020
Table of Contents:

  • Foreword by Klaus Buchner and Michèle Rivasi: 3-5
  • I -Introduction & Scope 6-19
  • II -Historic overview of ICNIRP and accusations of COI20-34
  • III-Discussion & Controversies35-46
  • IV –Conclusion47-49
  • V –Portraits of ICNIRP Members 50-95
  • Annex I: Questions to ICNIRP 96
  • Annex II: Questions to WHO EMF Project 97

Bottom line: Replace ICNIRP with a “new, public and fully independent advisory” panel.

.

balk1

.

§37. A message from a citizens initiative, named “5bburgers”, for the Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte about ICNIRP, and its radiation limits,which are a threat for human health. Article Multerland: 5B versus 5G
Published: May 2020
Website: 5bburgers
YouTube: 5bburgers

.

balk1

.

HansKromhout

§38. Science divided on radiation 5G, and the significant role of ICNIRP
Professor Hans Kromhout, Utrecht University, Netherlands
Article by Jannes van Roermund, published in De Telegraaf, 2020, Netherlands
https://multerland.blog/2020/06/05/science-divided-on-radiation-5g/

.

balk1

.

Dr. Leendert Vriens §39. ICNIRP 2020 guidelines do not protect against harmful health effects 
By: Dr. Leendert Vriens, Physicist, former Philips Research Fellow, the Netherlands
Published: June 3, 2020
Appendix to the summary proceedings of the lawsuit against the Dutch State to stop 5G.[See: Lawsuits, 7, 7a]
Original tekst in Dutch, 20th April 2020: http://www.stopumts.nl/doc.php/Berichten%20Nederland/12501/redir

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

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

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

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

In view of the great financial interests of the telecom industry and governments, it is obvious to conclude that the orders of magnitude too high ICNIRP 2020 guidelines are only intended to prevent any obstruction to the roll-out of wireless communication applications in general and of 5G in particular.  Read on……

Other chapters:

  • Preface
  • ICNIRP 1998
  • ICNIRP 2020
  • 01. Long-term effects
    1a. Cognitive functions
    1b. National Toxicology Program and Ramazzini research
  • EMF Committee of the Dutch Health Council
    1c. 1d. Unspecified long-term studies and auditory nerve cancer
    2. Guidelines based on denial of non-thermal biological effects
  • Two appendices have been added to the main body of ICNIRP 2020
    Appendix A
    Appendix B
  • Cancer
  • WHO and IARC-WHO
  • 5G
  • Conflict of interest
  • Other subjects
  • References (24)

PDF version: https://www.stopumts.nl/pdf/ICNIRP-2020-guidelines-do-not-protect-against-harmful-health-effects.pdf

.

balk1

.

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

.

balk1

.

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

.

balk1

.

HugoSchoonveld

§42. Dr. Hugo Schooneveld PhD – Netherlands

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

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

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

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

.

balk1


§43. Barrie Trower – United Kingdom      

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

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

.

balk1

.

Louis Slesin §44. Louis Slesin, PhD – USA

§44a.The Lies Must Stop – Disband ICNIRP, Facts Matter, Now More Than Ever, published: April 9, 2020 in Microwave News.

§44b. Microwave News Responds to Mike Repacholi / November 17, 2006..[In the following text I have used bold, Italic, and underlined to create attention for essential information. A.J. || Who is Mike Repacholi? See §3.]

Repacholi_1

In his November 15 response to Microwave News, Mike Repacholi [picture] does not to point to a single factual error in our November 13 “News and Comment” on his consulting work for two U.S. electric utilities. Notably, Repacholi does not challenge that:

.

• He misrepresented the conclusions of the expert panel he assembled to complete the WHO’s Environmental Health Criteria on power-frequency EMF health risks, as pointed out by NIEHS As-sociate Director Chris Portier;

Up to half, if not more, of the WHO’s EMF project’s funding came from industry. Repacholi states that he always followed the WHO rules on funding and that, “ NO funds were EVER sent to me.” [His emphasis.] This is financial legerdemain. As Microwave News has previously reported, Repacholi arranged for the industry money to be sent to the Royal Adelaide Hospital in Australia, where he used to work. The funds were then transferred to the WHO. Seven years ago, Norm Sandler, a Motorola spokesman, told us that, “This is the process for all the supporters of the WHO program.” At the time, Motorola was sending Repacholi $50,000 each year. That money is now bundled with other industry contributions and sent to Australia by the Mobile Manufacturers Forum (MMF), which gives the project $150,000 a year.

“What is the difference between sending money directly to the WHO and sending it via Australia?,” we asked Repacholi last December.

He never responded.

We don’t think there is any difference.

We don’t understand how the WHO can see this as anything other than money laundering. On numerous occasions we have asked Repacholi to reveal all the sources of the funding of the WHO EMF project.

He has consistently refused.

With respect to Repacholi’s and Peter Valberg’s failure to cite the increase in acoustic neuroma among those who had used mobile phones for ten years or more in their paper in Environmental Health Perspective, Repacholi explains that their paper was about mobile phone base stations not the phones themselves. Once again, Repacholi is dissembling. This is what he and Valberg wrote: “For example, the risk of acoustic neuroma in relation to mobile phone use has been assessed via six population – based, shared-protocol, case-control studies in four Nordic countries and the U.K. The authors concluded that there was no association of risk with duration of use, life-time cumulative hours of use or number of calls, for phone use overall or for analogue or digital phones separately (Schoemaker et al. 2005).” Much of this text is adapted from the Schoemaker abstract.

The very next sentence of the abstract is:

“Risk of a tumour on the same side of the head as re-ported phone use was raised for use for 10 years or longer (OR=1.8, 95% CI: 1.1-3.1).” [British Journal of Cancer, 93, p.842, 2005.]

This is the most “disquieting finding” that Repacholi and Valberg chose to ignore. Repacholi calls us “hypocritical” for accusing him of using an unreleased report in his testimony for the two electric utilities. We did not make this accusation. As we clearly stated in our article, it was a group of well-known EMF researchers who raised an objection. Finally, Repacholi would have us believe that he and his staff served only as the secretariart for all the meetings that the WHO project hosted over the years.

More nonsense. Mike Repacholi was the EMF project. He was in total control. He was the conductor who orchestrated all the key decisions. For instance, it was Repacholi who flip-flopped over applying the precautionary principle to EMF health risks. And, of course, it was Repacholi who decided who would be invited to all those meetings. Repacholi writes that: “To say that I am or was ever influenced by industry in any way is completely ludicrous.” Those of us who have watched Repacholi sell out the public health at the WHO for the last ten years know just how ridiculous that statement is.

44c. ICNIRP Finds NTP & Ramazzini RF–Animal Studies Unconvincing
“Further Research Is Required”
By: Dr. Louis Slesin
Published: 2018
Update on May 1, 2020:
*Regarding ICNIRP’S Evaluation of the National Toxicology Program’s Carcinogenicity Studies on Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields
https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Citation/2020/06000/Regarding_ICNIRP_S_Evaluation_of_the_National.11.aspx
By: Ronald Melnick
Published: 2020
*Response to Melnick (2020)
https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Citation/2020/06000/Response_to_Melnick__2020_.12.aspx
By: ICNIRP
Published: 2020

44d. Industry Support for the WHO‘s EMF Project: New Sources Revealed  Imagine, a Belgian magazine, is reporting in its November/December issue that the WHO EMF project has been receiving even more industry money than has been previously disclosed. In a cover story titled, “Mobile Phones: We’re All Guinea Pigs!,” David Leloup revealed that the GSM Association (GSMA) recently increased its annual payment to €150,000 ($165,000). Before 2005, the GSMA contributed €50,000 ($55,000) a year. This is in addition to the $150,000 a year, the Mobile Manufacturers Forum (MMF) gives the EMF project each year. (MMF’s Mike Milligan confirmed this to Microwave News in 2003.) Previously, Motorola gave Repacholi $50,000 a year; but the company now funnels its payments through the MMF. Leloup estimates that these two mobile phone trade asso-ciations alone made up more than 40% of the EMF project’s 2005-2006 budget. The total contribution from the wireless industry is nodoubt higher, however. Other groups have also been sending money to Mike Repacholi. For instance, the FGF, the German RF research institute, Forschungsgemeinschaft Funk, has been giving the project about €15,000 ($16,500) a year, according to Gerd Friedrich, the director of FGF. This does not include any possible support from the electric utlity industry.
By: Dr. Louis Slesin, in: MICROWAVE NEWS
Published: November 13, 2006

§44e. Microwave News – Michael Repacholi: Collection review articles about Michael Repacholi from 2004 – …. : https://microwavenews.com/news-tags/michael-repacholi

§44f. Microwave News – Martin Röösli: Collection review articles about Martin Röösli from 2004 – …. : https://microwavenews.com/news-tags/martin-r%C3%B6%C3%B6sli

§44g. Louis Slesin, founder and editor of Microwave News: There are more complicated interactions than the pure thermal ones
https://www.investigate-europe.eu/en/2019/%e2%86%92-louis-slesin-founder-and-editor-of-microwave-news/?pk_campaign=2020-06-25&pk_kwd=promote&pk_source=Twitter
Published: 1 January 2019
By: Investigate Europe

§44h. ICNIRP’s Principal Patron: Germany Provided 70-80% of Its Support in Each of Last Three Years
https://microwavenews.com/short-takes-archive/germany-supports-icnirp
Published: June 25, 2020
By: Dr. Louis Slesin
In: Microwave News

.
.
balk1.

.

§45. Anders Børringbo – Norway

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

YouTube_logo_(2013-2015) Playlist with the documentary in 5 parts:
Anders Børringbo – Brennpunkt, NRK, ‘’A Radiant Day’’, 2008

.

balk1

.

§46. Investigate Europe

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

500px-Cquote2.svgICNIRP is a particularly influential group, as it not only evaluates radiation and health risk research, but also provides guidelines for radiation safety limits that most countries use. It is a private, German-registered organisation located outside Munich, behind a yellow door on the premises of the German Federal office for radiation protection. Decisions on who to invite in, are taken by ICNIRP itself.

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

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

ICNIRPCARTEL

Click to go to the animated version

Major overlap of scientists

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many studies find risk

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

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

[….]

Source of finance may affect result

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Industry should pay”

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

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

New, stricter rules

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

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

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

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

WHO and the tobacco heritage

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

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

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

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

ICNIRP: Still uncertainty

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

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

“Absolutely. There is still much uncertainty. For example, we know too little about the long-term effects of mobile use for brain cancer to draw conclusions. We absolutely need more information”, says Eric van Rongen. 500px-Cquote2.svg

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

.

balk1

.

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

Electromagnetic fields threaten wildlife
Risk to pollinators from anthropogenic electro-magnetic radiation (EMR): Evidence and knowledge gaps
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969719337805?via%3Dihub   2019

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

ICNIRP

.

balk1

.

Dr.LennartHardell

 §48. Dr. Lennart Hardell – Sweden

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

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

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

Repacholi_1Michael Repacholi immediately set up a close collaboration between WHO and ICNIRP (being head of both organizations) inviting the electric, telecom and military industries to meetings. He also arranged for large part of the WHO EMF project to be financed by the telecommunication industry’s lobbying organisations; GSM Association and Mobile Manufacturers Forum, now called Mobile & Wireless Forum (MWF) () in addition to WHO, see the International EMF Project, Progress Report June 2005–2006 (http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/reports/IAC_Progress_Report_2005-2006.pdf).

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

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

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

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

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

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

48a. ICNIRP draft on new radiofrequency guidelines is flawed“At a meeting in Paris on 17 April 2019 Eric van Rongen, the present ICNIRP chairman presented a draft on new ICNIRP guidelines for radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure. The presentation is freely available at the web although labeled as a ’draft – do not cite or quote’.

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

§48b: November 4, 2019 – Article on Prof. Lennart Hardell’s blog:
WHO – ICNIRP and radiofrequency radiation
The close association between WHO and the ICNIRP has been described in a previous article. Unfortunately, this association seems to have prevented actions on health and the environment. ICNIRP is a private NGO based in Germany that acts pro-industry. In fact, exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation has increased in the society. Now the fifth generation, 5G, of wireless communication is implemented in spite of potential risks to human health and the environment. Our appeal (www.5gappeal.eu) asking for a moratorium until research on risks have been performed has not had any positive response either from EU or the Nordic countries.Microwave news has now published an update with historical views. It is well worth to read. This information is usually not available to the layman.

§48c: January 15, 2020 –  Article on Prof. Lennart Hardell’s blog:  RöösliLetter on Expert evaluations on health risks from radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) and 5G – Article about the fraud of Martin Röösli, director BERENIS and member of ICNIRP  

§48d: January 28, 2020 – Article on Prof. Lennart Hardell’s blog:
Appeals that matter or not on a moratorium on the deployment of the fifth generation, 5G, for microwave radiation
Excerpt:
“In an appeal sent to the EU in September, 2017 currently >260 scientists and medical doctors requested for a moratorium on the deployment of 5G until the health risks associated with this new technology have been fully investigated by industry‑independent scientists. The appeal and four rebuttals to the EU over a period of >2 years, have not achieved any positive response from the EU to date. Unfortunately, decision makers seem to be uninformed or even misinformed about the risks. EU officials rely on the opinions of individuals within the ICNIRP and the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR), most of whom have ties to the industry……In this article, the warnings on the health risks associated with RF presented in the 5G appeal and the letters to the EU Health Commissioner since September, 2017 and the authors’ rebuttals are summarized. The responses from the EU seem to have thus far prioritized industry profits to the detriment of human health and the environment.”

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

§48e. Health risks from radiofrequency radiation, including 5G, should be assessed by experts with no conflicts of interest
file:///C:/Users/ANTOIN~1/AppData/Local/Temp/ol_20_4_11876_PDF.pdf
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

.

balk1

.

Einar_Flydal§49. Einar Flydal – Norway

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

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

Published: 20 February 2020.

.

balk1

.

§50. Dr. Martin L. Pall – USA

ICNIRP, EU and the fraudulent EU guidelines

Dr. Martin L. Pall 50a. Though EU pretends to have an own commission to create guidelines: SCHEER, the reality proves that those who are represented in SCHEER, do not know so much about the science of electromagnetic radiation and the effects of it on our health either, in fact comparable with WHO, an empty, misleading facade for, as to be expected, ICNIRP. I made a similar research about SCHEER. Though it has not been admitted somewhere on the EU website, or in one of their answers on my questions to them, it is obvious that ICNIRP rules everywhere. There is even an ICNIRP cartel. A compressed total: ICNIRP cartel PDF

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

50b. Dr. Martin L. Pall: EMF Safety Guidelines Do Not Predict Biological Effects and are therefore Fraudulent
https://www.stopumts.nl/doc.php/Onderzoeken/12250/
Abstract
ICNIRP, US FCC, EU and other EMF safety guidelines are all based on the assumption that average EMF intensities and average SAR can be used to predict biological effects and therefore safety. Eight different types of quantitative or qualitative data are analyzed here to determine whether these safety guidelines predict biological effects. In each case the safety guidelines fail and in most of these, fail massively. Effects occur at approximately 100,000 times below allowable levels and the basic structure of the safety guidelines is shown to be deeply flawed. The safety guidelines ignore demonstrated biological heterogeneity and established biological mechanisms. Even the physics underlying the safety guidelines is shown to be flawed. Pulsed EMFs are in most cases much more biologically active than are non-pulsed EMFs of the same average intensity, but pulsations are ignored in the safety guidelines despite the fact that almost all of our current exposures are highly pulsed. There are exposure windows such that maximum effects are produced in certain intensity windows and also in certain frequency windows but the consequent very complex dose-response curves are ignored by the safety guidelines. Several additional flaws in the safety guidelines are shown through studies of both individual and paired nanosecond pulses. The properties of 5G predict that guidelines will be even more flawed in predicting 5G effects than the already stunning flaws that the safety guidelines have in predicting our other EMF exposures. The consequences of these findings is that “safety guidelines” should always be expressed in quotation marks; they do not predict biological effects and therefore do not predict safety. Because of that we have a multi-trillion dollar set of companies, the telecommunication industry, where all assurances of safety are fraudulent because they are based on these “safety guidelines.”
Published: 23 May 2019

§50c. Dr. Martin L. Pall speaks about ICNIRP
Location: Culemborg, the Netherlands
Recording date: 20 November 2019
Excerpt from the video as been created by “Eleven Monkeys
Published: February 17, 2020

.

balk1

.

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

.

balk1

.

Professor Girish Kumar§52. Prof. Girish Kumar, Bombay, India
2nd Workshop on Cell Phone / Tower Radiation Hazards & Solutions at Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IITB) organized by Prof. Girish Kumar, Dept. of Electrical Engineering, IIT Bombay. The first workshop was held on 20th Nov 2011 at VMCC, IIT Bombay. ICNIRP is mentioned in several different chapters in different PDF documents.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the blog post ICNIRP in India for more information.


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

.

balk1

.

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

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

Waar-baseert-de-GGD-zich-op

Credits: Stralingsbewust, Netherlands

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

.

balk1

.

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

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

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

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

.

balk1

.

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

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

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

 

balk1

.

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

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

ScientistsPublished: 4 March, 2020

.

balk1

.

Dr. Susan Pockett §57. Dr. Susan Pocket, MsC, PhD, School of Psychology, University of Auckland, Auckland 1142, New Zealand:

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

.

balk1

.

Icon4 §58. Antoinette Janssen / Blog Multerland – Norway

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

§58a. “New” ICNIRP commission: 2020 – 2024
https://multerland.blog/2020/03/06/new-icnirp-commission-2020-2024/
Posted: March 6, 2020
By: Antoinette Janssen

§58b. The founding chairman of IRPA was Michael Repacholi
https://multerland.blog/2020/03/09/the-founding-chairman-of-irpa-was-michael-repacholi/
By: Antoinette Janssen
Published: March 9, 2020

§58c.  YouTube_logo_(2013-2015)Video ICNIRP – World Wide EMF Guidelines Deciding Group / A Radiant Day (2008)
Published first time: 2008, NRK, Norway
Edited, Part 1, Republished: 2020
Additional info: The Radiation Exposure War
https://www.nrk.no/dokumentar/the-radiation-exposure-war-1.6292981
Author: Frode Nielsen
Published: 14 November 2008
Playlist with the documentary in 5 parts:
Anders Børringbo – Brennpunkt, NRK, ‘’A Radiant Day’’, 2008
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQapQJi4cwKY-hUnZzyM5aYraud8EC5ai

§58d. ICNIRP’s Eric van Rongen lies about 5G
Posted on June 25, 2020

§58e. ICNIRP’s new chair: Rodney James Croft
Posted: July 10, 2020

.

balk1

.

§59.  YouTube_logo_(2013-2015)  Playlist with videos about ICNIRP  –  https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvjgztX_Uo3ZwIq5G3OBuUEMzL2aciWc5

.

balk1

.

§60. Additional information:

  1. [2013 – Petition closed] Petition demanding ICNIRP to revise environmental and health standards surrounding EMF exposure.
    Philipe Dorion started this petition in 2013 to Dr. Gunde Ziegelberger (Scientific Secretary of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) and 15 others:
    (ICNIRP) International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection: Revise environmental and health standards surrounding EMF exposure.
    https://www.change.org/p/icnirp-international-commission-on-non-ionizing-radiation-protection-revise-environmental-and-health-standards-surrounding-emf-exposure
  2. Investigate Europe: ICNIRP Cartel
  3. Article in “Community Operating System”: How ICNIRP, AGNIR, PHE and a 30 year old political decision created and then covered up a global public health scandal
  4. Article: Former ICNIRP member advocates that wireless must get a more stringent cancer risk class
  5. ACADEMIA
    10 Paper Titles match ICNIRP
  6. How ICNIRP, AGNIR, PHE and a 30 year old political decision created and then covered up a global public health scandal
    https://communityoperatingsystem.wordpress.com/2019/09/12/how-icnirp-agnir-phe-and-a-30-year-old-political-decision-created-and-then-covered-up-a-global-public-health-scandal/
    Author: Simon Hodges
    Published: September 12, 2019
  7. Related article: Instytut Spraw Obywatelskich – Institute of Civil Affairs:
    Nauka oparta na dowodach czy na prostytucji?
    Evidence based on science or prostitution?
    About scientific prostitution, the impact of corporations on scientific research and how the dismantling of the environmental and human protection system in Poland has been dismantled, says prof. Janusz Mikuła from the Cracow University of Technology.
    English: https://multerland.blog/2020/02/27/evidence-based-science-or-prostitution/
    Author: Rafał Górski – Poland
    Published: 25 February, 2020
  8. Michael Repacholi
    Independent Research Professional
    https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-repacholi-b4455711/ [Attention: the word “independent” does not fit with the content of §2, this document: Microwave News Responds to Mike Repacholi | A.J. ]
  9. YouTube_logo_(2013-2015) Video: Former WHO expert Mike Repacholi speaks on studies that prove there is no link between EMF & Cancer  [Attention: the title has been created by channel: Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI), their comment in the video information: “Watch the video to listen to him describe in detail the results of scientific studies that have been conducted on animals in the recent past, which negate [=deny] the possibility of EMF radiations being responsible for cancer.”. A.J.]
  10. Repacholi Revises Safety Code 6.
    https://magdahavas.com/pick-of-the-week-8-failed-attempt-to-reduce-safety-code-6-guidelines-in-1977/
    By: Dr. Magda Havas
    Updated: July 7, 2018
  11. WHO admits “conflicts of interest”
    https://magdahavas.com/who-admits-the-world-has-lost-their-trust/
    By: Dr. Magda Havas
    Published: September 3, 2010
  12. LinkedIn Slide-Share: Professor Michael Repacholi, University of Rome –
    31 photos with additional text.
    https://www.slideshare.net/HandheldLearning/professor-michael-repacholi-university-of-rome
    Published: October 19, 2007 – Attention: a description of each photo can be found when scrolling down on the page.
  13. Who’s who? Eric van Rongen –  https://www.kumu.io/Investigate-Europe/whos-who#emf-research/eric-van-rongen
  14. Blog Stralingsleed: 60 Ghz zonder licentie wordt gebruikt voor o.a. 5G
    http://stralingsleed.nl/blog/60-ghz-zonder-licentie-wordt-gebruikt-voor-o-a-5g/
  15. 2020 / Setting Guidelines for Electromagnetic Exposures and Research Needs
    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bem.22267
    By: Frank Barnes, Ben Greenebaum
    Published: 20 April, 2020
  16. 2020 / Ärzte un Mobilfunk – Zitate
    http://www.aerzte-und-mobilfunk.eu/mobilfunk-zitate-forschung-wissenschaft/
  17. Die Mobilfunk-Industrie bestimmt ihre eigenen Grenzwerte
    https://klaus-buchner.eu/bestimmt-die-mobilfunk-industrie-ihre-eigenen-grenzwerte/
    Published: June 18, 2020
    By: Prof. Dr. Klaus Buchner  
  18. European Greens question Icnirp standards, call for new public body to look at 5G exposure
    https://www.telecompaper.com/news/european-greens-question-icnirp-standards-call-for-new-public-body-to-look-at-5g-exposure–1343780
    Published: June 24, 2020
    In: Telecompaper / Wireless
  19. Latin American Experts Committee on High Frequency Electromagnetic Fields and Human Health – Scientific Review on Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation in the Radiofrequency Spectrum and its Effects on Human Health
    Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection Standards and Policies
    https://www.wireless-health.org.br/downloads/LASR2010-ProtectionStandards-Policies.pdf
    Published: 2010
  20. “Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) in Africa”, Abuja, Nigeria / Africa
    https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/studygroups/2017-2020/20/sg20rgafr/20190827/Documents/S2-P1-Lewicki-EMF.pdf
    Published: 29 August 2019
    By: Dr. Fryderyk Lewicki, ITU-T SG5, Chairman of WP1, Orange Polska, Poland / Past chair of the Polish Chapter of the IEEE EMC Society

.

balk1

.

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

.

balk1

.

62. ICNIRP member, head of BERENIS Martin Röösli – collection of links to articles

.

balk1

.

Latest update: April 2, 2023

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 EMF (electro magnetic field) and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.