• 27 FEB 20
    • 0

    Einar Flydal on ICNIRP’s “acceptable science”

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

    A guest posting by Einar Flydal, cand.scient. and Master of Telecom Strategy, science blogger on EMF, health and the environment.

    Excerpt:

    A few weeks ago, the president of Switzerland and her counsel received a serious letter. The authors were a number of the world’s foremost scientists in the field of radiation protection and health.The researchers warned that Martin Röösli (picture), the man who chairs the BERENIS committee, a committee responsible for providing the Swiss government with advice on radiation protection guidelines, should be scrutinized for impropriety –or to put it more bluntly –for scientific fraud.About time, was my initial reaction. Then, I began to ponder: Is Martin Röösli an outright fraudster? Or are his mis-characterisations of the science the result of the application of unreasonable scientific criteria in his search for truth? It seemed to be an interesting topic worthy of reflection.Either way, the consequences are substantial, not just for Switzerland, but also for the Nordic countries and Japan, as Röösli is a member of radiation protection committees of those countries as well. These committees establish what is to be considered “accepted science” –and thereby also establish the misconceptions on which the radiation protection and health care agencies, as well as politicians, act. The final drop causing the scientists’ decision to take the unusual step of reporting Röösli, and addressing the president -were his assertions that no health risks associated with 5G technologies can be shown. These assertions fall in line with Röösli’s long record of cell phone “radiation hazard denial”, where his modus operandi has been to argue that the main body of research on the topic unambiguously indicates zero health hazards –despite the fact that the vast majority of research indicates the exact opposite.Thus, the letter has the potential of triggering what could develop into a serious criminal case. Consequently, I have conducted somewhat of a deep dive into the story, resulting in an unusually long blog post of 11 pages. Forewarned is forearmed!An important caseThe letter of accusation against Martin Röösli is extensive. A number of internationally prominent researchers from several countries have signed it. They accuse him of systematically underestimating solid research findings indicating cancer and other dangers from wireless radiation, both in his writings and in speaking engagements. Furthermore, they accuse him of having major conflicts of interest; of promoting views counter to the vast majority of scientists in the world; and of conveying strongly erroneous views on what research findings actually show. It’s quite a salvo.The accusations against Martin Röösli are particularly important considering that Martin Röösli chairs the BERENIS committee. I have followed the work of this committee for several years. This group – the Swiss Expert Group on Electromagnetic Fields and Non-ionizing Radiation – reviews research in the area of EMF and health effects, and regularly publishes assessments of research studies. The group itself always selects the studies chosen for assessment. It is administratively located under the Swiss Ministry of the Environment. The political and administrative authorities of Switzerland base their policies on healthcare, environmental protection, communication and business development on the assessments delivered by this committee. Assessments of the health effects of man-made EMFs -Electromagnetic Fields -are obviously of importance in all sectors of society.The influence of this group does not stop at the Swiss border. Academic communities in other countries listen to what the BERENIS committee determines. In countries that don’t have their own regular committees, such as Norway, Denmark, Finland and Iceland, the national radiation protection administration, agency or bureau reads reports from such committees as BERENIS, and, might we suppose, readily accepts them at face value. Independent committees, although set up to make their own independent assessments, will of course also be influenced by the conclusions from such committees as BERENIS –and the wireless industry will obviously use committee reports that conclude in ways converging with industry’s interests, as proofs for their cause. In addition, and as previously mentioned, Martin Röösli sits on the board of equivalent radiation committees of particular importance for the Nordic countries and in Japan. That makes this whistle-blower case particularly important. One-sided reports from one-sided committees with one-sided representation. There is a striking similarity between the BERENIS committee reports and the conclusions of reports in other countries,such as the one under the Swedish radiation protection agency, where he is member, and the now infamous British AGNIR-group, the latter disbanded following a series of outrageously one-sided and misleading reports. A common feature of many of these public committees is their domination by one or more ICNIRP members or sympathizers. ICNIRP is a German-registered foundation, the acronym referring rather immodestly to the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. ICNIRP selects its own members. No scientist opposing the view that heating is the only relevant potential health-factor of non-ionizing radiation worth considering -has ever been accepted as a member of ICNIRP. As mentioned, a national committee similar to BERENIS exist in the Nordic region under the Swedish Radiation Protection Centre (HERE). Several of the committee members are also ICNIRP members. This presently includes Martin Röösli, Anke Huss and Heidi Danker Hopfe, with whom Röösli has collaborated on publications, in addition to Eric van Rongen who also heads ICNIRP itself. The Swedish Radiation Protection Expert Committee, half of which are ICNIRP members, will never be able to come to any conclusions contrary to the ICNIRP view, regardless of what findings research may come up with. You will not find discussions of dissenting opinions of significance here, only passive rubber-stamping. Of course, Röösli’s views in the BERENIS committee need to be consistent with his role in the Swedish radiation protection committee. Hence, the BERENIS committee’s conclusions will always be identical to ICNIRP’s, and as an ICNIRP-member Röösli contributes to the fortification of the ICNIRP view in the Nordic region.

    ICNIRP-membership = Conflict of interest
    …SNIP

    Read the full article here

    ****************************************************************************

    Leave a reply →