ICNIRP * Scientific Misconduct

Updated: July 20, 2020

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

The fifth generation, 5G, of radiofrequency (RF) radiation is about to be implemented globally without investigating the risks to human health and the environment. This has created debate among concerned individuals in numerous countries. In an appeal to the European Union (EU) in September 2017, currently endorsed by >390 scientists and medical doctors, a moratorium on 5G deployment was requested until proper scientific evaluation of potential negative consequences has been conducted. This request has not been acknowledged by the EU. The evaluation of RF radiation health risks from 5G technology is ignored in a report by a government expert group in Switzerland and a recent publication from The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. Conflicts of interest and ties to the industry seem to have contributed to the biased reports. The lack of proper unbiased risk evaluation of the 5G technology places populations at risk. Furthermore, there seems to be a cartel of individuals monopolizing evaluation committees, thus reinforcing the no-risk paradigm. We believe that this activity should qualify as scientific misconduct.

Read the entire 11 pages PDF: bit.ly/5GCOIs

Excerpt 1:

From page 1/11: Introduction

The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) has repeatedly ignored scientific evidence on adverse effects of RF radiation to humans and the environment. Their guidelines for expo-sure are based solely on the thermal (heating) paradigm and were first published in ICNIRP 1998 (6), updated in ICNIRP 2009 (7) and have now been newly published in ICNIRP 2020 (8), with no change of concept, only relying on thermal effects from RF radiation on humans. The large amount of peer-reviewed science on non-thermal effects has been ignored in all ICNIRP evaluations (9,10). Additionally, ICNIRP has successfully maintained their obsolete guidelines worldwide. Read on: bit.ly/5GCOIs

Excerpt 2:

From page 2/11: Evaluation of health risks in Switzerland


Martin Röösli

Several Swiss citizens have brought to our attention that Associate Professor Martin Röösli is the chair of two important government expert groups in Switzerland (directeur), despite possible COIs and a history of misrepresentation of science (22,23). These groups are Beratende Expertengruppe NIS (BERENIS; the Swiss advisory expert group on elec-tromagnetic fields and non-ionizing radiation) (24), and the subgroup 3, the Mobile Communications and Radiation Working Group of the Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications/Eidgenössisches Departement für Umwelt, Verkehr, Energie und Kommunikation, evaluating RF-radiation health risks from 5G technology (25,26). The conclusions made in the recent Swiss government 5G report are biased and can be found here (27,28). This 5G report concluded that there is an absence of short-term health impacts and an absence or insufficient evidence of long-term effects [see Table 17 (Tableau 17) on page 69 in the French version (27) and Table 17 (Tabelle 17) on page 67 in the German version (28)]. Furthermore, it was reported that there is limited evidence for glioma, neurilemmoma (schwannoma) and co-carcinogenic effects, and insufficient evidence for effects on children from prenatal exposure or from their own mobile phone use. Regarding cognitive effects, fetal development and fertility (sperm quality), the judgement was that the evidence on harmful effects is insufficient. These evaluations were strikingly similar to those of the ICNIRP (see Appendix B in ICNIRP 2020; 8). Other important endpoints, such as effects on blood-brain barrier, cell proliferation, apoptosis (programmed cell death), oxidative stress (reactive oxygen species) and gene and protein expression, were not evaluated.

According to Le Courier November 19, 2019, Martin Röösli presented the conclusion in an interview in the following way:

‘Sur l’aspect sanitaire pur, «le groupe de travail constate que, jusqu’à présent, aucun effet sanitaire n’a été prouvé de manière cohérente en dessous des valeurs limites d’immissions fixées», résume Martin Röösli, professeur d’épidémiologie environnementale à l’Institut tropical et de santé publique suisse’ (29).

[Regarding the health issue, the working group concludes that, until now, no health effect has been consistently proven below the given exposure limits, summarizes Martin Röösli, professor in environmental epidemiology at the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute].

This Swiss evaluation is scientifically inaccurate and is in opposition to the opinion of numerous scientists in this field (18).

In addition, 252 electromagnetic field (EMF) scientists from 43 countries, all with published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) have stated that:

‘Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that RF-EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life’(30).

We are concerned that the Swiss 5G report may be influenced by ties to mobile phone companies (COIs) by one or several members of the evaluating group.

[[Note: Characters in bold, underlined or red, are edits by Antoinette Janssen.]]

Read on: bit.ly/5GCOIs


Excerpt 3

From page 3/11: Table

Screenshot_2020-07-20 ol_20_4_11876_PDF-1 pdf_edited

ONCOLOGY LETTERS 20: 15, 2020 /  License: Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License. Source: 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





ICNIRP member Martin Röösli reacted on Twitter on the PDF, in a post, that was published by Joel Moskowitz, a well known oncologist, who was also in one of the research groups with ICNIRP’s Rodney Croft [see the PDF in the post], and more, also defending Martin Röösli on Twitter, when I confronted Röösli, and why I suspect Joel Moskowitz from conflicts of interest because of cord dancing between ICNIRP and Stop5G with other words: how reliable IS Moskowitz? [see post] Moskowitz did not react on Röösli’s comment on Twitter. Why not? Ask him, if you have a Twitter account. Martin Röösli:


The screenshot in Röösli’s comment is taken from Lennart Hardell’s blog. Check. I do not see anything wrong in it, even if I try. There are thousands of reasons to ask for donations, for thousands of different purposes, and these cannot even be compared with ICNIRP’s question for donations and support. Is Röösli ever on the ICNIRP website? I sincerely doubt. “Collaboration” and “Support ICNIRP” facts  from the ICNIRP website:

A. Collaboration [click the title]

  • *World Health Organization
    Official Collaboration
  • *International Labour Organization
    Official Collaboration
  • *International Radiation Protection Association
    Official Collaboration
  • *European Commission
    Contractual Partnership 
  • *National Radiation Protection Bodies
    Annual and Ad Hoc Collaborations
  • *Other Radiation Protection Bodies
    Ad Hoc Collaborations

B. Support ICNIRP [click the title]
For independent science based advice on NIR protection 

Compare ICNIRP’s financial, political, geopolitical and economical forces with the humble asking for donations on Lennart Hardell’s blog. Keep also in mind what Lennart Hardell’s work is: he is in a daily war with cancer, created by the false safety guidelines, whereto also Martin Röösli has contributed, and still does.


Microwave News:

ICNIRP’s Principal Patron: Germany Provided 70-80% of Its Support in Each of Last Three Years
Published: June 25, 2020
By: Dr. Louis Slesin, editor Microwave News


Röösli and his 5G swindle

In order to check and update the barricades of Disband-ICNIRP in the readers’ mind, after the vile attack of Röösli on Hardell’s and Carlberg’s PDF, some important info about Röösli, in case you did not know yet, or forgot it: In January 2020 Lennart Hardell, together with 22 other scientists, sent the president of Switzerland a letter about Röösli, asking for his resignation as the head of BERENIS,  because of 5G swindle. Einar Flydal wrote a superb analyse of the swindle, and the person Röösli. See PDF

Martin Röösli: Microwave News Article Archive (2004 – )



Header: a creation out of two pictures published on Spandidos Publications – Copyright: © Hardell et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License. / PDF: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License.



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.

Leave a Reply

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