Original headline:
Brennpunkt: Internationale Grenzwertkommission ICBE-EMF will strengere Mobilfunk-Grenzwerte
Original sub-headline:
Studie weist Unwissenschaftlichkeit der geltenden ICNIRP-Grenzwerte nach
Published in: diagnose:funk
https://www.diagnose-funk.org/aktuelles/artikel-archiv/detail?newsid=1937

The in the German language published article has been translated via Google, and edited by Multerland.

Brennpunkt: International Commission on Limit Values ​​ICBE-EMF wants stricter mobile phone limits
Study proves: current ICNIRP limits are unscientific
The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) is calling for new limits that take the current state of research into account. In its article, the ICBE-EMF shows why the existing limits are unscientific and have no protective function. The ICBE-EMF article exposes the rotten core of mobile phone policy: The setting of limits by the ICNIRP was the pragmatic legitimization of the mobile phone industry’s business model. diagnose:funk presents a German version of the article. This is one of the most important “Brennpunkt”s that we have published so far.

SCIENTIFIC STUDY JUSTIFIES NEW LIMITS

The in 2022 founded international limit commission ICBE-EMF (International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields) is calling for the limits for high-frequency radio radiation (WLAN, mobile communications, Bluetooth) to be redefined.

To this end, the commission published the study in summer 2022 entitled “Scientific findings refute health assumptions underlying the limit regulations for high-frequency radiation of the FCC (Federal Communication Commission, USA) and the ICNIRP: consequences for 5G”.

Download Brennpunkt “International limit commission ICBE-EMF wants stricter limits” with a translation of the study (German language)
Download diagnose:funk fact sheet with a summary of the key findings of the study (German language)

PREVIOUS ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT MOBILE PHONE RADIATION ARE OUTDATED The current limits were proposed in the late 1990s by the US communications authority FCC and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and adopted by many countries. Currently, the argument that “the limits are being complied with” legitimizes the expansion of the mobile communications infrastructure and the sale of radiating devices without any significant new safety and health tests.

The current limits are based on two main assumptions:

1. All biological effects [of mobile communications radiation] are due to excessive heating of the tissue” and
2. no effects would occur below the supposed threshold SAR values” (see summary of the ICBE-EMF study).

The FCC and ICNIRP also rely on a further twelve assumptions, but these are inadequately substantiated. After more than 25 years of research, these are simply outdated. The previously valid limits therefore pose a risk to human health and the environment. Their redefinition is necessary and long overdue.

WHO ARE BEHIND ICBE-EMF?
The international limit commission consists of a multidisciplinary consortium of scientists, doctors and specialists around Prof. Henry Lai, Dr. Ronald Melnick and Dr. Igor Yakymenko. They are researching the biological and health effects of electromagnetic radiation.

Prof. Lai was the first scientist to discover the DNA-altering effect of mobile phone radiation in 1994. Dr. Melnick designed the very extensive NTP studies of 2018, which showed the carcinogenic effect of mobile phone radiation in laboratory animals. And Dr. Yakymenko is researching how mobile phones trigger oxidative cell stress.

REQUESTS
Based on the current state of scientific knowledge, the Commission formulates the following requests:

1. The effects and risks of high-frequency radio radiation must be independently reassessed on the basis of scientific findings from peer-reviewed studies conducted over the past 25 years. The aim of such an assessment would be to set standards for protecting the health of people and nature.
2. The public should be informed about the health risks of wireless radiation and encouraged to take precautions to minimize exposure, especially children, pregnant women and people who are hypersensitive to electromagnetic radiation.

At the end of the study it says: We should “no longer rely on the untested assumption that current or future wireless technologies, including 5G, are safe without adequate testing. Doing otherwise is not in the interest of public or environmental health.”

SOURCES
International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G. Environ Health 21, 92 (2022).

Original ICBE-EMF study doi.org/10.1186/s12940-022-00900-9
Original PDF file of the study
ICBE-EMF website: icbe-emf.org
Entry in the EMF portal

EXCERPT FROM THE FOREWORD OF THE diagnose:funk / BRENNPUNKT

THE FIVE MONKEYS, EIGHT RATS EXPERIMENT

The ICBE EMF Limits Study contains a detailed refutation of 14 false assumptions underlying the ICNIRP guidelines. The ICNIRP limits are based on two main assumptions: “All biological effects are due to excessive heating of tissue and no effects occur below a supposed threshold SAR value of 4 W/Kg.” The false basis of the ICNIRP limits is comprehensively exposed for the first time in the ICBE EMF Limits Study and undermines all the assurances that these limits are protective. Short-term experiments for the US Navy on eight (!) rats and five (!) monkeys were a basis:

The adverse effects that served as the basis for the exposure criteria were behavioral changes observed in a small number of rats and monkeys when exposed to radiofrequency radiation for up to 60 minutes at power flux densities at which the whole-body SAR was approximately 4 W/kg or higher [10, 11]. These studies were conducted in the early 1980s (1980 and 1984, respectively) by researchers at the US Navy Department. Consequently, 4 W/kg was set as the threshold for harmful effects from high frequency radiation… Behavioral disturbances associated with an increase in body temperature of about 1.0 °C were assumed to be the most sensitive measure of harmful effects from RF-EMF exposure.” (p. 2, introduction to the ICBE-EMF study)

These five monkeys and eight rats experiments (De Lorge & Ezell (1980), De Lorge (1984)) reflect a military logic and the value of a US soldier’s life in combat. This is now used to guarantee protection for billions of people!
The ICBE-EMF advocates precautionary measures to minimize possible harmful effects, especially for children, pregnant women, the sick and people with electromagnetic hypersensitivity. This requires a new definition of limit values ​​on a medical basis.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: RF LIMIT VALUES DO NOT CONTAIN PRECAUTIONARY COMPONENT

The federal government confirmed in its response of January 4, 2002, in response to a major inquiry by the CDU/CSU parliamentary group (Bundestagsdrucksache 14/7958), the Federal Government explicitly stated that the mobile radio limits do not contain any precautionary component. In response to the question from the CDU/CSU parliamentary group:

“On which scientific investigations and studies regarding possible health risks does the Federal Government base this position? (meaning: on radiation protection limits and precautionary measures, ed.)” the Federal Government replied:

The above-mentioned assessments by the SSK (Radiation Protection Commission) agree with the assessments of international scientific expert committees (meaning: ICNIRP, ed.). The precautionary principle was not taken into account when deriving the applicable limits, which form the basis of the site certificate” (p. 18, point 34).

ANALYSIS OF THE ICNIRP NETWORK

The ICNIRP has a political function. It safeguards the business of the mobile phone industry. The ICNIRP’s interpretive authority was called into question in 2019 after Investigate Europe – a team of journalists – published a detailed Analyse im Tagesspiegel. Their verdict: The ICNIRP is a protective wall for industry. The following year, two members of the European Parliament, Klaus Buchner and Michèle Rivasi[*1953 – †2023], published a 98-page report on the ICNIRP entitled “Conflicts of interest, corporate capture and the push for 5G”. They called the ICNIRP “one-sided” and without medical qualifications to assess health risks. Criticisms in specialist journals are piling up, and the ICNIRP and the BfS are evading them.

The statement by the ICBE-EMF limit value commission is a crucial document because it proves with new details that the ICNIRP guidelines have no protective function. With the evidence from ICBE-EMF, supported by the EESC (European Economic and Social Committee)‘s call to replace ICNIRP, their thermal house of cards is beginning to shake.

THE ICNIRP THESES HAVE LONG BEEN REFUTED

If you want to read more deeply into the discussion that has now been going on for 70 years, we recommend further analyses of the ICNIRP hypotheses and their history. They are posted on the diagnose:funk homepage. They come to the same conclusion:

• The ICNIRP is a “closed club” without democratic legitimacy and structures, which only accepts members with industry-compatible opinions.
• The ICNIRP does not represent the opinion of the majority of the scientific community.
• The ICNIRP has created a self-referential system that consists of ICNIRP members sitting on national protection and assessment committees worldwide, in large European countries, the European Union and the WHO, who also refer to each other’s own reports.

Series of articles and videos on the history of limit values ​​and the role of the ICNIRP

FACT SHEET of the ICBE-EMF Limits Commission

Scientific evidence undermines health assumptions underlying government limits for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G (1)

Many questions still need to be answered before we can be sure that wireless technologies are safe for human health and the environment.

• Exposure to radiofrequency radiation (RFR) is associated with a range of negative health effects such as cardiomyopathy, carcinogenicity, DNA damage, neurological effects, increased permeability of the blood-brain barrier and sperm damage.
• Since 2002 (2), several robust epidemiological studies on cell phone radiation have found an increased risk of brain tumors (3), supported by evidence of carcinogenicity of the same cell types (glial cells and Schwann cells) from animal experiments. (4,5)
• Based on very limited research conducted 40 years ago (before most people had cell phones), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for the US and the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) for many other countries found in the 1990s and again in 2020 that there are no adverse health effects from RFR exposure below the specific absorption rate (SAR) of 4 watts per kilogram (W/kg) for frequencies in the range 100 kHz to 6 GHz. The assumed safe level is based on a behavioral effect observed in acute studies (up to 1 hour) conducted in the 1980s with small numbers of rats and monkeys.(6,7)
• The FCC and ICNIRP state that any biological effect observed at exposure above the supposed threshold of 4 W/kg is due to tissue heating. (8-11) A large and growing number of peer-reviewed experimental studies have found adverse effects at lower doses or longer exposure durations, demonstrating that a SAR of 4 W/kg is not a threshold for effects from RFR.(12)
• Current RFR exposure limits do not take into account the potential synergistic effects reflected from modern exposure to multiple environmental factors.
• There is insufficient information on the health effects of 5G radiation.
• Neurological effects, some of which are recognized by ICNIRP and currently occurring in individuals with electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), are health effects that can be mitigated with radiation-free areas for hypersensitive individuals.

REFERENCES

1. International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G. Environ Health (2022) 21:92. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-022-00900-9.
2. Hardell et al. Cellular and cordless telephones and the risk for brain tumors. Your J Cancer Prev. 2002 Aug;11(4):377-86. doi.10.1097/00008469-200208000-00010.
3. Choi et al. Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Nov 2;17(21):8079. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218079.
4. National Toxicology Program (NTP). NTP technical report on the toxicology and carcinogenesis studies in Hsd:Sprague Dawley SD rats exposed to whole-body radio frequency radiation at a frequency (900 MHz) and modulations (GSM and CDMA) used by cell phones, Technical report series no. 595. Research Triangle Park: National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2018. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/lt_rpts/tr595_508.pdf
5. Falcioni et al. Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental emission. Environ Res. 2018 Aug;165:496-503. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.037.
6. De Lorge & Ezell. Observing responses of rats exposed to 1.28- and 5.62-GHz microwaves. Bioelectromagnetics. 1980;1:183–98.
7. De Lorge. Operant behavior and colonic temperature of Macaca mulatta exposed to radio frequency fields at and above resonant frequencies. Bioelectromagnetics. 1984;5:233–46.
8. ICNIRP. Guidelines for limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz). Health Phys. 2020;118:483–524.
9. ICNIRP. ICNIRP guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz). Health Phys. 1998;74:494–522.
10. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Biological effects and exposure criteria for radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. NCRP Report No. 86, 1986. https://ncrponline.org/publications/reports/ncrp-report-86/
11. American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Safety levels with respect to human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz., ANSI/IEEE C95.1–1992. https://emfguide.itu.int/pdfs/c95.1-2005.pdf
12. ICBE-EMF. Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G. Appendix 1, Table 1. Studies demonstrating increased oxidative DNA damage and other indicators of oxidative stress at SAR < 4 W/kg. Environ Health (2022) 21:92. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-022-00900-9

To the English original
https://icbe-emf.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/fact-sheet-221009-v2.pdf

PUBLICATION ON THE TOPIC

ICBE-EMF: The time is ripe for new limits – Download PDF
The newly founded limit commission proves the unscientific nature of the current ICNIRP limits for mobile phone radiation

Author:
ICBE-EMF / diagnose:funk
Content:
This focus publishes the translation of the study by the international limit value commission ICBE-EMF (International Commission on the Biological Effects of EMF) “Scientific evidence refutes health assumptions underlying the FCC (Federal Communication Commission, USA) and ICNIRP limit values ​​for radio frequency radiation: consequences for 5G” (2022). In it, the ICBE-EMF calls for the withdrawal and redefinition of the limits for exposure to high-frequency radio radiation (HF). The withdrawal of the limits is necessary because their setting is based on false assumptions. The aim of new limits would be to set standards for the health protection of workers, the public and nature.

How the telecommunications industry has politics under control – Download PDF

Author:
diagnose:funk
Content:
In this focus, diagnose:funk presents research into the lobbying work of the mobile communications industry and BITKOM sector on digitization, based on the federal government’s response to the minor inquiry by the DIE LINKE parliamentary group “Relationships between telecommunications companies and the federal government” (Bundestag document 18/9620, September 13, 2016). Six graphics illustrate the interrelationships. This analysis is politically classified based on our own experiences with visits to members of the Bundestag and the new book “Lobbyland. How the economy buys our democracy” (2021) by the former Dortmund SPD member of parliament Marco Bülow about his 18 years of experience in the Bundestag and other literature research.

Why mobile phone limits and SAR values ​​for mobile phones do not protect – Download PDF

2011 / Content:
In the discussion about the health risks of non-ionizing radiation from mobile communications, industry and authorities justify their policy with two main arguments: 1. The German Mobile Communications Research Program has clarified all open questions. 2. As long as the limit values ​​are complied with, there are no health risks. In Germany, the 26th BImSchV (Federal Immission Control Ordinance) regulates the limit values ​​for mobile phone radiation. Whenever citizens protest against emissions from mobile phone masts, criticize the installation of WiFi hotspots because of radiation exposure, or point out the danger to the brain from mobile phone radiation, the authorities counter with one argument: the limit values ​​are complied with, and even far below them. But what medical significance do the limit values ​​have?