ICNIRP Still Runs RF at WHO Briefing in Geneva This Week Japanese-Korean ‘NTP Lite’ on the Agenda EXCERPT June 5, 2023 ICNIRP continues to dominate EMF policies at the WHO, according to documents made available to Microwave News. The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection is a private, self-perpetuating, secretive group whose exposure limits are
Read more →From Louis Slesin, Editor of Microwave News
Excerpt:
The World Health Organization in Geneva is gearing up to update its 30-year-old document on the health effects of RF radiation. It’s called the Environmental Health Criteria and will dictate WHO policy on wireless radiation for the foreseeable future. Last week, the agency announced who will sit on an influential panel that will help decide what the document says. These are the people who’ll tell you whether cell phone radiation causes cancer or infertilitI asked three years ago, “Will WHO Kick Its ICNIRP Habit?” Now we know the answer – “Nope.”…..Read on
Read more →From Louis Slesin
Why does confusion reign over RF/microwave radiation health risks?
Don’t blame the public. Much of the misinformation comes from top experts in the field.
One of those responsible is Martin Röösli, an environmental epidemiologist at the University of Basel in Switzerland. And yes, he is a long-time member of ICNIRP.
Röösli serves on a number of other committees, including those that advise the German, Swedish and Swiss governments. He also sits on the editorial boards of Biolelectromagnetics and the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.
If you want to understand why we need change, please read my latest story….SNIP
Read more →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 →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 →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 →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
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 →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 →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 →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 →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, Marszałek 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 Jarosław 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 →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 →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.
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
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 →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 →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 →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 →