Source: De Telegraaf, Netherlands: https://www.telegraaf.nl/lifestyle/882391636/weterschap-verdeeld-over- radiation-5-g / https://www.stopumts.nl/doc.php/Artikelen/12476/wetenschap_verdeeld_over_straling_5g
By: Jannes van Roermund
Published [in Dutch]: March 23, 2020
[Note: In the article, published in March, Eric van Rongen is mentioned. Eric van Rongen was on that moment chair holder of ICNIRP. In May 2020 Rodney Croft took over Eric van Rongen’s position, and Eric van Rongen became vice chair. I made changes in the text, placed between brackets. A.J.]
While everyone’s eyes are on the coronavirus, work is continuing behind the scenes on the rollout of the “revolutionary” new wireless data network 5G. But fears for the threat of health damage are growing. Scientists are also suspicious.
With 5G wireless super fast internet can be used. Useful for the use of phones and tablets, but in the future also necessary to safely lead cars without drivers through traffic. A “revolution” is promised. But many people fear the electromagnetic radiation.
Not only citizens, but also a group of scientists. “We have had a plethora of scientific articles, already for decades, that show that electromagnetic fields are harmful,” said Elizabeth Kelley, initiator of the EMF Scientist Appeal, an emergency letter, signed by 240 scientists, to the United Nations.
They state that an increased risk of cancer has already long been demonstrated, also damage to DNA and “impairment of reproductive functions.” The Australian collective of scientists and health workers ORSAA has created a database with 2,266 peer-reviewed studies on radiation. In 68 percent of those studies, “significant biological or health effects” were found.
.
Harmful
Now that 5G is being rolled out, a new “layer” of electromagnetic radiation is added, they warn, of which it is unclear how harmful it is.A large study by the American National Toxicology Program (NTP) in 2018 showed that rats and mice developed cancer when exposed to cellphone radiation. “Our study was groundbreaking,” said lead researcher Michael Wyde. “We discovered that increased presence of heart, brain and adrenal tumors was caused by radio frequency radiation.”Another group of scientists sweeps aside this conclusion. These scientists are often present in institutions that determine on a global level how much radiation is safe and how much is not. The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), for example, states that radiation is only dangerous when the body heats up. “That is the only certain factor,” said Eric van Rongen, [former, A.J.] ICNIRP’s Dutch president [now vice chair, Rodney Croft is the new chair holder, A.J.], whose standards a number of European [and world countries, A.J.], including the Netherlands, rely on. The warming of the human body must remain below 1 degree Celsius. Then it is safe. ICNIRP rejects research that shows or suggests more harm.Similarly, according to ICNIRP, the conclusions of the American NTP are incorrect. The identified tumors can also be indirectly caused by heating, says Van Rongen. “Nonsense,” research leader Wyde retorts. “Our study shows that the effects are not from tissue heating but from the radiation itself.”
Now that 5G is being rolled out, a new “layer” of electromagnetic radiation is added, they warn, of which it is unclear how harmful it is.A large study by the American National Toxicology Program (NTP) in 2018 showed that rats and mice developed cancer when exposed to cellphone radiation. “Our study was groundbreaking,” said lead researcher Michael Wyde. “We discovered that increased presence of heart, brain and adrenal tumors was caused by radio frequency radiation.”Another group of scientists sweeps aside this conclusion. These scientists are often present in institutions that determine on a global level how much radiation is safe and how much is not. The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), for example, states that radiation is only dangerous when the body heats up. “That is the only certain factor,” said Eric van Rongen, [former, A.J.] ICNIRP’s Dutch president [now vice chair, Rodney Croft is the new chair holder, A.J.], whose standards a number of European [and world countries, A.J.], including the Netherlands, rely on. The warming of the human body must remain below 1 degree Celsius. Then it is safe. ICNIRP rejects research that shows or suggests more harm.Similarly, according to ICNIRP, the conclusions of the American NTP are incorrect. The identified tumors can also be indirectly caused by heating, says Van Rongen. “Nonsense,” research leader Wyde retorts. “Our study shows that the effects are not from tissue heating but from the radiation itself.”
.
Trench warfare
Professor Hans Kromhout of Utrecht University, Netherlands, who is conducting a long-term study into the effects of mobile phone use, observes the controversy with sorrow. “In science two camps have emerged, with one group calling from their trenches to the other. A normal conversation is no longer possible.” Kromhout does not like the “activist” academics who write emergency letters. Nor does he believe that ICNIRP is “paid by industry,” as some claim. He is nuanced and has a sense of diplomacy. Not surprising though, because as chair of a special committee on Electromagnetic Fields of the Health Council, the professor must advise the House of Representatives on 5G before summer, while ICNIRP [vice, A.J.]chair Eric van Rongen is the secretary of that committee. The two will have to get along with each other. Yet Kromhout speaks out cautiously. He stresses that the NTP investigation was “a breakthrough.” “You see that certain groups try to explain that away. But they are well-executed studies.”Kromhout calls it “significant” that the ICNIRP standards have “gained so much power in Europe”. And he states, very carefully, that just looking at thermal effects is not enough. “If you see that under the level of 1 degree warming, where ICNIRP clings to, all kinds of effects do occur, you have to go a step forward at some point.”
.
“Don’t let industry take its course”
Kromhout also endorses the criticism of ICNIRP’s selection procedures. “It’s a rather non-transparent group. It is not clear how candidates are elected. Call it self-indulgence. Within that context it doesn’t really have an independent status.” Van Rongen points out that nominations “are made internally”, that the nomination is made public and that ICNIRP as an independent body “does not have to be accountable to governments, for example.” According to Kromhout, the evaluation of 5G, due to its economic importance, is at odds with the careful way in which we deal with other exposures, such as chemicals, pesticides or medicines. “There are very strict regulations for this,” he underlines. “But for 5G you have just one single standard, the ICNIRP standard, which is entirely based on thermal effects. Some measurements are taken near 5G transmitters, as you see in the RIVM report on 5G. However, no exposure of individuals is measured, no future scenarios of exposure are calculated and no health risks are estimated. That has to change. One shouldn’t just let the industry take its course. Well-considered pre-considerations – benefits versus risks – are also necessary in this case.”
Kromhout also endorses the criticism of ICNIRP’s selection procedures. “It’s a rather non-transparent group. It is not clear how candidates are elected. Call it self-indulgence. Within that context it doesn’t really have an independent status.” Van Rongen points out that nominations “are made internally”, that the nomination is made public and that ICNIRP as an independent body “does not have to be accountable to governments, for example.” According to Kromhout, the evaluation of 5G, due to its economic importance, is at odds with the careful way in which we deal with other exposures, such as chemicals, pesticides or medicines. “There are very strict regulations for this,” he underlines. “But for 5G you have just one single standard, the ICNIRP standard, which is entirely based on thermal effects. Some measurements are taken near 5G transmitters, as you see in the RIVM report on 5G. However, no exposure of individuals is measured, no future scenarios of exposure are calculated and no health risks are estimated. That has to change. One shouldn’t just let the industry take its course. Well-considered pre-considerations – benefits versus risks – are also necessary in this case.”
~
.
The English text is an as good as possible edit of a mix of a Google, Reverso Context, Linguee, and Bab.la translation of the original Dutch text, and some terms and names have been linked to websites, to create a more complete total, by Antoinette Janssen.
~
Additional:
1. Professor Hans Kromhout is an international authority on occupational and environmental exposure assessment and epidemiology based at the Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences at Utrecht University in the Netherlands.
1. Professor Hans Kromhout is an international authority on occupational and environmental exposure assessment and epidemiology based at the Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences at Utrecht University in the Netherlands.
Professor Kromhout’s work has covered the health effects of chemical and physical (EMF) agents in the workplace and general environment. He has been the (co-)PI of large international studies in among others the asphalt industry, rubber manufacturing industry, industrial minerals industry, health sector and agriculture and community based studies on cancer, respiratory diseases, neurodegenerative diseases and reproductive health effects. Professor Kromhout has published more than 350 peer-reviewed publications. Source
.
2. Professor Kromhout: “In science two camps have emerged, with one group calling from their trenches to the other. A normal conversation is no longer possible.”
My comment: There has never ever been a conversation between the two camps. ICNIRP has swept from the beginning till today all kinds of conversations about biological effects from the table. It was never enough, but what exactly was missing, was never mentioned. Besides that it is impossible to finance the many many many more researches that ICNIRP demands, without money, capital, without the help of the industry, but the industry does not finance projects that unveil the dangers of electromagnetic radiation. WHO should finance these, but WHO is just another short term for ICNIRP. Question to Professor Kromhout: Why the group, studying and researching the biological effects of EMF, would continue to try to communicate with ICNIRP? While you, professor Kromhout, are trying to be utterly diplomatic when it comes to talking about ICNIRP, because soon you will have a meeting with ICNIRP’s Eric van Rongen. The atmosphere, as drawn in the article, shows fear for Eric van Rongen, willing to please the man, while ICNIRP should be in court, at least dismantled, as soon as possible. Pleasing a member of a criminal organisation —criminal because of all chronic and even deadly human diseases, and extinctions in wildlife that are taking place because of false guidelines, created by ICNIRP— will not solve the problem, but worsen it.
.
3. Professor Hans Kromhout is not mentioning the impact of 5G satellites. It is absolutely striking that in hardly any scientific comment or newspaper article this chapter, 5G satellites, is mentioned, it is “forgotten”, or worse: they, the authors, do not even realise it. See: Satellites – https://multerland.blog/emf-links/satellites/
.
4. Professor Kromhout obviously does not know that ICNIRP is the WHO electromagnetic radiation guidelines decision maker. This creates the principle role for ICNIRP, worldwide, in governmental decisions. All governments refer to the WHO guidelines, even EU does. See also my correspondence with EU: Eu guidelines are fraudulent, part 3: Politics and Law, §2. https://multerland.blog/emf-links/politics-and-law/
.
5. See also the comments in this post. (Scroll down)
