• 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 går inn for at trådløst må få 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 →
    • 11 MAR 18

    Scientific Bullshit — How ‘Science’ Is Used To Deceive The Public

    From Gavin Nascimento’s blog

    Excerpt
    Scientific Bullshit — How ‘Science’ Is Used To Deceive The Public

    Did you know that there was a shocking study published in the Public Library of Science Journal, that found“up to 72%” of scientists admitted their colleagues were engaged in “questionable research practices,” and that just over 14% of them were engaged in outright “falsification”?… SNIP This becomes especially concerning when we consider how “science” seems to have replaced organized religion as the new authority that should blindly be obeyed in many ways. People speak of it as if it is infallible, and anyone who questions the high priests of science are generally attacked, degraded, and dismissed as modern day heretics. SNIP

    Read more →
    • 19 DEC 17

    ICNIRP ‘Jumps the Gun’: The Early Christmas Gift for Telecoms

    Published on the blog of Daruisz Leszczynski

    December 18, 2017

    Excerpt

    On Dec. 7th, 2017, International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), has published a ‘Note on the Revision of the High-Frequency Portion of the ICNIRP 1998 EMF Guidelines’.

    Revision of the guidelines has been long awaited because the current guidelines are very old. As stated in ICNIRP’s note:

    “…current guidelines for the high-frequency (100 kHz – 300 GHz) portion of the electromagnetic spectrum were published in 1998. Given the large body of relevant research that has been generated since those 1998 guidelines, ICNIRP is now revising the guidelines to incorporate this literature…”

    The ICNIRP’s Note ends with information that the draft of the revised guidelines will be open for public consultation because ICNIRP is keen to obtain feedback:

    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 02 DEC 17

    ICNIRP’s Feychting Claims Pathology Bias Ruined NTP Cancer Study

    From Louis Slesin, Microwave News:

    The Anatomy of a Rumor
    Feychting Claims Pathology Bias Ruined NTP Cancer Study

    Excerpt from Louis

    A few days ago, I received an urgent warning from a longtime contact in Sweden. An industry associate had told him that the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s study of cell phone cancer risks was screwed up and essentially “useless.”

    I was tempted to disregard it as nothing more than a corporate delusion. But the original source was said to be Maria Feychting, a professor at the Karolinska Institute and the vice chair of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). She had cast doubt on the landmark $25 million NTP RF-animal study in a talk presented at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences —the institute that awards the Nobel prizes in physics and chemistry every year.

    I decided I had to check out the rumor.

    Read more →
    • 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 →