• 11 JAN 22

    Abandoning Inconvenient Science How RF Research on the Blood-Brain Barrier Was Shut Down

    Excerpt

    From Louis Slesin, editor of Microwave News:

    I  often write about why microwave health research rarely moves forward and nothing much ever gets resolved. Today, I offer yet another example.

    When I first started following the field in the late 1970s, everyone was talking about the apparent ability of microwaves to cause substances to leak through the blood-brain barrier, first demonstrated by Allan Frey. Today, 50 years later, the issue remains unsettled.

    The cover-up started back in the 1970s, resumed in the 2000s, and continues today. All the usual suspects played a role: the U.S. military, the telecoms and, of course, ICNIRP…..SNIP

    Read more →
    • 12 JUN 21

    IARC on RF: What’s Next?

    From Louis Slesin, Microwave News: Agency Questions Basis for “Possible” Cancer Risk Classification Trends for Aggressive Brain Tumors Unresolved   A new analysis from the radiation group at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) challenges the agency’s own classification of wireless radiation as a possible human carcinogen. On May 27, IARC’s Isabelle Deltour

    Read more →
    • 09 MAY 21

    Non-thermal “heresy” that might be the reason why we see non-thermal effects

    Biological and health effects of cell phone radiation are being denied by ICNIRP and by IEEE/ICES and number of governmental agencies.

    The problem is that if it happens that cell phone radiation causes biological and health effects then the “Big Telecom” industry is in “Big Trouble”. This might be the reason why ICNIRP and IEEE/ICES perpetuate the dogma of cell phone radiation as able to induce only thermal effects. The large body of peer-reviewed published science, showing that non-thermal effects exist, is simply trashed by ICNIRP and IEEE/ICES because according to their dogma, these effects don’t exist and scientific evidence of them is just bunch of experimental artifacts caused by thermal exposures, mistaken for non-thermal exposures by naïve scientists.

    Another dogma disseminated by ICNIRP and IEEE/ICES is that the energy of the cell phone radiation is insufficient to break chemical bonds. This claim shows absolute incompetence of both “expert” groups. There is much more to biochemistry of cells than only breaking of chemical bonds. Any cell biologist knows that!…SNIP

    Read more →
    • 15 APR 21

    Science, Politics, and Groupthink [Health Matters] James C. Lin

    Posted by Joel Moskowitz,  Electromagnetic Radiation Safety
    In his latest column Professor Emeritus Lin criticizes the ICNIRP, the non-profit organization which the WHO relies upon for non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) exposure guidelines that it promotes worldwide. As you may know, this column is important not only because Professor Lin is one of the most respected EMF scientists in the world, he is the first scientist who has served on the ICNIRP Commission(2004 – 2016; chair of the committee on Physics & Engineering, 2008-2012; chair of the Radio Frequency group, 2012-2015) to challenge the credibility of ICNIRP’s EMF exposure guidelines….SNIP

    Read more →
    • 16 MAR 21

    This is Big News from USA: Yet another expert considers RF as probably carcinogenic

    Excerpt:
    Christopher J. Portier, former director of the National Center for Environmental Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), and a scientific advisor for the World Health Organization (WHO), recently completed an expert report on brain tumor risk from exposure to radio frequency (RF) radiation used in cellphone technology.

    After completing a comprehensive review of the scientific literature, Dr. Portier concluded:

    “In my opinion, RF exposure probably causes gliomas and neuromas and, given the human, animal and experimental evidence…SNIP

    Read more →
    • 19 FEB 21

    Leszczynski: Clear indication that ICNIRP review of science is skewed and should be independently validated

    Excerpt: From Dariusz Leszczynski:

    In this blog, published from 2009, first on website of STUK – Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority and subsequently transferred to the current site, I have criticized ICNIRP on many occasions. In my recently published blogs I have pointed out that several groups of scientists evaluating to-date published EMF research, have disagreed with ICNIRP opinions. These disagreeing opinions were published in:

    Switzerland BERENIS disagrees with ICNIRP

    The Netherlands Significant discrepancy of opinions on 5G and health between ICNIRP and the Health Council of the Netherlands

    USA US FDA 2020 Report on carcinogenicity of RF-EMF contradicts safety claims of ICNIRP

    I have also suggested that there is something wrong with ICNIRP and that ICNIRP opinions need to be validated by independent review:

    Leszczynski: There is something utterly wrong with the ICNIRP membership

    Leszczynski: Statement on the need for validation of ICNIRP’s review of science

    ICNIRP acts as a “private club” where current members select new members to replace those retiring from the ICNIRP’s Main Commission. The selection criteria and justifications for selecting particular new members are secret that is not available publicly. Only ICNIRP Main Commission members know what and why is happening….SNIP

    Read more →
    • 24 NOV 20

    Public Shut Out of Global RF Health Briefing (Microwave News)

    Notice from Microwave News: Updates from NTP, Japan, Korea & WHOAn international briefing on RF health research, known as GLORE 2020, was held online, November 9-12, featuring updates on the second phase of the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) project and the Japanese-Korean partial repeat. The WHO presented a status report on ten ongoing systematic reviews of RF health effects. Government and industry representatives from Australia, Canada, France, Japan, Korea, New Zealand and the U.S. participated, as did an assortment of academics. The public and the press were not invited. Everything about GLORE 2020 is being kept secret. Microwave News has the story. We have the presentations of the NTP and WHO….SNIP

    Read more →
    • 06 NOV 20

    Dariusz Leszczynski on ICNIRP and Croft

    For those interested in the thinking promoted by ICNIRP, DL’s correspondence with ICNIRP chair Rodney Croft is well with a read. DL: Today, on November 5, 2020, Rodney Croft, Chairman of ICNIRP, provided response to questions I posed to him and to Eric van Rongen in my Open Message sent out on October 6, 2020. As I have agreed with Rodney Croft, I am posting the response as such, without any comments of my own. To better understand the context of question #3 and response to it, please, see earlier post entitled post Influential Australia where is presented discussion on IEI-EMF between D. Leszczynski and R. Croft, My own comments on the manner and the substance of Rodney Croft’s response, as well as some of the more important/interesting comments from readers of my blog (scientists and activists), will be published soon. Any reader of my blog, wishing to be included in this forthcoming commentary, please, send your comments to me at blogbrhp@gmail.com ….SNIP

    Read more →
    • 03 JUL 20

    Leszczynski on ICNIRP and 5G

    WE KNOW THAT WE DON’T KNOW BUT… UNDER DICTATE FROM TELECOMS AND ICNIRP, GOVERNMENTS DEPLOY 5G WITHOUT PRE-MARKET TESTING AND WITHOUT SETTING RESEARCH AGENDA ON 5G AND HEALTH. Yesterday, I came across a document, posted on twitter, from the Polish Ministry of Digital Affairs. The letter from Waldemar Kraska, Secretary of State, is addressed to Ms. Elżbieta Witek, MarszaÅ‚ek of Sejm (Speaker of Sejm). Here is the photo of the letter and google translation to English. “Dear Madam Marshal,In response to the inquiry no. 1048 submitted by Mr. Deputy JarosÅ‚aw Rzepa on June 4, 2020, regarding the introduction of 5G technology in Poland, please accept the following.When answering question 1, it should be noted that there is no data yet on the impact of 5G technology on the health and life of Poles – the launch of such networks has begun in recent months. In February this year WHO has found that so far little research has been done into the frequencies used in newly developed 5G networks….SNIP

    Read more →
    • 10 APR 20

    An important message from Microwave News

    Excerpt: We’re all frazzled and anxious. The world has changed, seemingly overnight, and we don’t know when and how we will ever go back to normal —whatever that means. One thing we don’t have to worry about is whether 5G radiation is responsible for COVID-19. It’s not. There’s no credible evidence to suggest otherwise.Yet, there is at least one parallel between how we’ve been struggling with COVID-19 over the last few months and how we have been dealing with electromagnetic radiation for the last few decades in the U.S. and elsewhere: Science has taken a back seat to politics.The public has been fed lies and half-truths about the health effects of RF/microwave radiation for as long as I have been involved, since the 1970s. The campaign has created a culture of confusion. In this environment, why would anyone be surprised that sensational conspiracy theories about 5G have found a footing?The Microwave News website is full of articles describing how the public has been misled time and time again. In my latest article, I offer two current examples from those who are supposed to serve as the world’s experts, the members of the International Commission of Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, ICNIRP for short…

    Read more →
    • 27 FEB 20

    Einar Flydal on ICNIRP’s “acceptable science”

    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, 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.

    Read more →
    • 27 FEB 20

    Dariusz Leszczynski on the US FDA report on carcinogenicity of RF

    Excerpt:
    In February 2020 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published Report analyzing studies examining the possible causal link between RF-EMF and cancer.The anti-5G activists in their reading of the FDA Report have narrowly focused on Report’s dismissal of the carcinogenicity evidence/claim by the FDA and they demand withdrawal of the FDA Report as biased and scientifically flawed. This might be a mistake, like ‘throwing out baby with a bath water’, because FDA Report, when read carefully, contradicts some of the opinions of ICNIRP that are the pillars of the ICNIRP’s claim of RF-EMF safety…SNIP

    Read more →
    • 17 FEB 20

    The Australian 5G inquiry and Whirling Dervishes…

    Excerpt: At the International conference, Mobile Communications and Health: Medical, Biological and Social Problems, held in Moscow in 2004, The then ICNIRP chairman Paulo Vecchia stated the following in relation to ICNIRP’s so called precautionary principle approach: “ICNIRP only considers acute effects in its precautionary principle approach. Consideration of long-term effects is not possible. Precautionary actions to address public concerns may increase rather than mitigate worries and fears of the public. This constitutes a health detriment and should be prevented as other adverse effects of EME.”…SNIP

    Read more →
    • 28 JAN 20

    Former ICNIRP member advocates that wireless must get a more stringent cancer risk class

    Excerpts from Einar Flydal’s blogpost: Tidligere ICNIRP-medlem gÃ¥r inn for at trÃ¥dløst mÃ¥ fÃ¥ strengere kreftfareklasse, published January 27, 2020. James Lin was from 2004 till 2016 member of ICNIRP. Lin was loyal to ICNIRP until he left ICNIRP in 2016. In an article in IEEE Microwave Magazine last November, Lin corrects ICNIRP. He justifies his position that there are now two large, well-executed and solid studies that point in the same direction: cancer from exposure to GSM and to CDMA – two key technologies in mobile communication…SNIP

    Read more →
    • 05 NOV 19

    Will WHO Kick Its ICNIRP Habit? (Microwave news)

    From Microwave News:Non-Thermal Effects Hang in the Balance: Repacholi’s Legacy of Industry Cronyism……After eight years of work, the World Health Organization (WHO) is reopening its review of the health effects of RF radiation for a summary report intended to serve as a benchmark for its more than 150 member countries. The move might suggest that the WHO EMF/RF program is poised to reassess its long-held policy of rejecting non-thermal effects, and to loosen its deep ties to ICNIRP, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation with its heat-only dogma.The reputation of both organizations has never recovered from the rampant industry cronyism of Mike Repacholi, who created them in the 1990s. A close look at the WHO radiation program and its approach to this new review show that not much has changed in Geneva. In other words: Don’t count ICNIRP out just yet….SNIP

    Read more →
    • 29 JUN 19

    ICNIRP draft on new radiofrequency guidelines is flawed (Lennart Hardell)

    From Lennart Hardell’s blog 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… 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. Van Rongen states there is ’No evidence that RF-EMF causes such diseases as cancer’… 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 …The draft represents a worst-case scenario for public health and represents wishful thinking.

    Read more →
    • 08 MAR 19

    Now ICNIRP/ACEBR researchers looks at NIR for cosmetic purposes!

    Wouldn’t it be nice if the folks at ICNIRP and ACEBR decided to research the following for example:

    * The biological effects of 5G millimeter waves for both humans and insects

    * Effects on sleep quality from close exposure to smart meter transmissions.

    But no, why risk finding inconvenient truths which could pose a risk to the virtual global rollout of 5G, the smart grid and the internet of things, when you can safely spend time drafting a statement on the “Intended human exposure to NIR for cosmetic purposes”.

    No matter how you word it, it still smells like bullshit…. SNIP

    Read more →
    • 08 DEC 18

    Planetary electromagnetic pollution: it is time to assess its impact

    As the Planetary Health Alliance moves forward after a productive second annual meeting, a discussion on the rapid global proliferation of artificial electromagnetic fields would now be apt. The most notable is the blanket of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation, largely microwave radiation generated for wireless communication and surveillance technologies, as mounting scientific evidence suggests that prolonged exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation has serious biological and health effects. However, public exposure regulations in most countries continue to be based on the guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection
    and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, which were established in the 1990s on the belief that only acute thermal effects are hazardous. Prevention of tissue heating by radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation is now proven to be ineffective in preventing biochemical and physiological interference…SNIP

    Read more →
    • 12 OCT 18

    US Scientist Criticizes ICNIRP’s Exposure Guideline Spin

    From the Environmental Health Trust:   US Scientist Criticizes ICNIRP”™s Refusal to Reassess Cell Phone Radiation Exposure Guidelines after US National Toxicology Program Studies Show Clear Evidence of Cancer in Experimental Animals   US Scientist Criticizes ICNIRP”™s Refusal To Reassess Cell Phone Radiation Exposure Guidelines After US National Toxicology Program Studies Show “Clear Evidence Of

    Read more →
    • 13 SEP 18

    New paper: Critique of ICNIRP’s latest deception

    Excerpt
    Critique of the ICNIRP Note of September 4, 2018 Regarding
    Recent Animal Carcinogenesis Studies
    Ronald L. Melnick PHD
    Senior Scientist (retired), National Toxicology Program, NIEHS, NIH
    September 12, 2018

    Excerpt:
    The International Commission of Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP, 2018) recently
    issued a report (dated September 4, 2018) that contains numerous false and misleading
    statements, particularly those about the toxicology and carcinogenesis studies on cell phone
    radiofrequency radiation by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP). This flawed analysis by
    ICNIRP served as the basis for ICNIRP to support their conclusion that existing radiofrequency
    exposure guidelines do not need to be revised despite new evidence showing that exposure to
    cell phone radiofrequency radiation (RFR) causes cancers in experimental animals….SNIP

    Read more →