• 15 SEP 17

    “BLUNDER” by ICNIRP’s and WHO EMF Project’s bosses

    From Dariusz Leszczynski’s blog: Between a Rock and a Hard Place
    Posted on September 13, 2017

    Excerpt

    Recently, I came across two short videos recorded in 2016 in Stockholm. The occasion was the seminar at the SSI concerning health effects of EMF. In these videos, Emilie van Deventer, Head of the WHO EMF Project and Eric van Röngen, Chairman of the ICNIRP, answered to question from Swedish journalist Mona Nilsson.

    Question was straightforward, whom should Swedes trust, the evaluation of science done by ICNIRP or the opinion of 220 scientists who signed an Appeal submitted to the United Nations and the WHO. The Appeal questioned the validity and reliability of evaluation of science done by ICNIRP that is used by the WHO EMF Project and by the telcom industry as the proof that radiation emitted by the wireless communication devices is not a human health hazard. This opinion is, of course, contrary to the opinion of IARC wherein 2011 radiation emitted by the wireless communication devices was classified as possible human carcinogen. SNIP

    Read more →
    • 23 DEC 16

    WHO Monograph on Radiofrequency Radiation and ICNIRP

    From Lennart Hardell’s blog posting:

    There is growing international concern on the biased representation of persons in the preparation of the WHO Monograph on Radiofrequency Radiation. As discussed earlier the group is dominated by members of ICNIRP. In fact the Ethical Board at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden concluded already in 2008 that being a member of ICNIRP may be a conflict of interest that should be stated in scientific publications (Karolinska Institute Diary Number 3753-2008-609). SNIP

    Read more →
    • 29 NOV 16

    Has the WHO EMF Project been hijacked by ICNIRP?

    From Lennart Hardell’s blog:

    Has the WHO EMF Project been hijacked by ICNIRP?

    Recently the following appeal has been posted at http://olgasheean.com/who-emf/ .
    Sign this VOTE of NO CONFIDENCE in WHO’s EMF Project ….SNIP

    [Commentary from Lennart Hardell and Michael Carlberg]

    IARC as part of WHO evaluated radiofrequency (RF) radiation in May 2011 and concluded it to be a possible human carcinogen, Group 2B. However, in a fact sheet issued by WHO in June 2011 shortly after the IARC decision it was stated that ‘To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use’.

    WHO has still not acknowledged health risks form RF radiation: ‘No major public health risks have emerged from several decades of EMF research, but uncertainties remain’.

    WHO plans to publish in 2017 an Environmental Health Criteria Monograph on RF radiation. It has been open for comments and parts of our letter to WHO is shown below: SNIP

    Read more →
    • 11 MAY 16

    ICNIRP’s meeting at Capetown, South Africa

    Excerpt

    Press release issued by the Electromagnetic Radiation Research Foundation of South Africa.
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mobilfunk_newsletter/0VYr4Y1ScS8
    As the world’s radiation protection agency meets in Cape Town, scientists call for the retraction of a study from a top industry researcher claiming that children are not at higher risk from mobile phones

    May 9, 2016

    The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) is a self-appointed body that sets the safety guidelines used by the World Health Organisation to cover all radiation from electrical and electronic apparatus, including power lines, smartphones, wifi, and telecoms masts.
    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 06 MAY 16

    Latest info on ICNIRP and BEMS from Dariusz Lesczcynski

    Note that I have had knee surgery three weeks ago and and now in rehab – learning how to walk again! For that reason I will be largely silent for some weeks.

    However, please see Lesczcynski’s recent postings on ICNIRP and BEMS on his “Between a Rock and a Hard Place” blog . Well worth a read!

    Posts:

    *Somewhat “happy” ending to the election scandal at BEMS
    *What next, after the election scandal at BEMS?
    *Election scandal at BEMS – election by-laws were violated
    *Election scandal at the Bioelectromagnetics Society
    *Is ICNIRP reliable enough to dictate meaning of science to the governmental risk regulators?
    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 09 APR 16

    More on ICNIRP from Dariusz Lesczcynski

    As written by DL on Between A Rock and A Hard Place on April 8, 2016

    Is ICNIRP reliable enough to dictate meaning of science to the governmental risk regulators?

    Excerpt

    This post is a follow up to my posts published on April 4 and April 5.

    *****

    In my two last blog posts, last two blog posts ‘ICNIRP did it again…’ and ‘Mike Repacholi responds to ICNIRP did it again…’, I presented several reasons why the current modus operandi of ICNIRP is prone to provide unreliable and skewed evaluation of the scientific evidence on EMF and health.

    I was strongly opposed by Mike Repacholi, Chairman Emeritus of the ICNIRP, scientist who is responsible for the “birth” of this organization.

    In my opinion the major problems of ICNIRP are: SNIP

    Read more →
    • 06 APR 16

    Mike Repacholi responds to “ICNIRP did it again…” (recommended reading!)

    My comment to the below blog from Dariusz Lesczcynski:

    Mike Repacholi’s response to Dariusz Lesczcynski’s blog posting on ICNIRP is clear evidence of the international influence that Dariusz’s blog is having. Repacholi does not like criticism of the creature (ICNIRP) he created in order to maintain the disingenuous paradigm that the only hazardous biological effect of radiofrequency/microwave EMR is thermal. I note that Repacholi states that “ICNIRP Main Commission members are selected for their scientific integrity, no industry conflict of interest, range of expertise to cover all scientific disciplines to review EMF research, as well as excellent and reliable scientific publications themselves.” The current commission members are here: http://www.icnirp.org/en/activities/news/news-article/membership-2016-2020.html

    Repacholi’s definition of “scientific integrity” means a firm adherence to ICNIRP’s orthodoxy as well as a viewpoint that all the claimed health effects of exposure are psychosomatic, a chant which ICNIRP Main Commission member Rodney Croft knows all too well. As for “no industry conflict of interest”, perhaps Repacholi hopes that if he repeats that falsehood often enough it somehow transmogrifies into being true.
    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 26 FEB 16

    The Dominant Media … and the Illusion of Consensus

    The following article appeared in Truthout on 25 February, although it primarily ideals with the bizarre presidential circus currently underway in America, the topic of manufacturing a false consensus in the media is all too relevant to the recent media ‘witch-hunt’ against the Catalyst program “Wi-Fried”, and presenter Maryanne Demasi by sections of the Australian media. This was sparked off following the media release by the Australian Science Media Centre (AusSMC). In that release, Rodney Croft gave his expert opinion (in part) that there “is no substantiated evidence that the low levels of radiofrequency emissions encountered by mobile telecommunications can cause any harm” and after comparing WiFi to orange juice, stated that “we we can be very confident that the emissions are indeed safe”. He also mentioned the international consensus view in this area which is that of ICNIRP.

    How often do we read and hear about this supposed international consensus which does not stand up to even a rudimentary examination? This was thoroughly debunked by my Procrustean Approach thesis but I doubt that it is on the ICNIRP/ACEBR reading list.

    I could, of course go on but instead have a read of the excellent article by Michael Corcoran in Truthout, excerpts follow.

    Read more →
    • 16 MAY 14

    DARPA research confirms environmental electrosmog disrupts bird’s internal magnetic compass.

    The telecommunications industry may deny any effect of its increasing emissions on bird navigation but when confirming research comes from the US military’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) it makes the findings hard to deny. This is a biological effect far below the ICNIRP and IEEE C95.1 allowable exposure limits. If environmental level electrosmog effects bird’s navigational ability what about the bees, for example?

    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 21 OCT 13

    Are the RF standards/guidelines (IEEE C95.1 and ICNIRP) subservient to U.S. Airforce weapons development

    The US Air Force is one of the largest developers and users of radio frequency (RF) and high power microwave (HPM) emitting devices in the world and consequently, has been at the forefront of research on the biological effects of RF/HPM radiation for more than 30 years. The mission of the 711 HPW/RHDR is to protect Air Force personnel from RF/HPM radiation hazards, while minimizing negative operational impact. This requires an extensive research program in the dosimetry and bioeffects of RF/HPM radiation. Research results are transitioned and transferred to national and international health and safety standards, which are used by the Air Force Surgeon General for occupational health and environmental safety. Additionally, data are used to support the rapid development and deployment of directed energy (DE) technologies. The advent of HPM and ultra-wide band directed energy weapons make the 711HPW/RHDR’s products and services ever more essential to national security. Our goal is to provide the US Air Force with the world’s best RF/HPM bioeffects research and science-based exposure standards, allowing maximum safe exploitation of directed energy for the national defense. With joint-service cooperation, we bring broad expertise, advocacy, and involvement in RF/HPM technology development.
    The goal of this effort includes conducting bioeffects research to identify the benefits, risks, and capabilities for a wide range of military RF/HPM systems.
    SNIP

    Read more →