• 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?


    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.

    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?


    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.

    Read more →
    • 31 AUG 12

    Margaret Heffernan: “Dare to disagree” (- a lesson lost on RF expert committees)

    As I have pointed out with numerous examples in my thesis The Procrustean Approach, the prime feature of expert committees given the task of setting RF exposure standards is that membership is determined by one’s unquestioning adherence to the thermal paradigm with alternative viewpoints treated as heresy – that which should never be uttered. The

    Read more →
    • 24 AUG 12

    Another dismissive RF review by Anders Ahlbom and Co. backs ICNIRP RF guidelines

    Anders Ahlbom, former consultant to the tobacco industry and a director of Gunnar Ahlbom AB, a telecom PR firm specializing in environmental and energy regulations (which resulted in Ahlbom being kicked off the IARC panel for this huge and undeclared conflict of interest) -Also see this link- is lead author of a new report that

    Read more →
    • 23 AUG 12

    RNCNIRP to issue report on Russian RF research

    From the International EMF Alliance: Professor Yury Grigoriev calls for order and the world needs to listen: “Man conquered the Black Plague, but he has created new problems – EMF pollution” The Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection has agreed to provide a detailed report for the world containing clear information on the most

    Read more →
    • 02 AUG 12

    Implications of IARC classification that are not spoken aloud

    From Dariusz Leszczynski: New column in The WashingtonTimes.com Implications of IARC classification that are not spoken aloud The IARC classification justifies implementation of the Precautionary Principle, confirms the existence of non-thermal effects and justifies revision of safety standards. Excerpt: MELBOURNE, Australia, August 2, 2012–In May 2011 at the meeting at the Headquarters of the International

    Read more →
    • 18 JUL 12

    Commentary by Dariusz Leszczynski on expert committees

    Another thought provoking commentary by Daruisz Leszczynski: “In Experts We Trust” …or should we? Excerpt: MELBOURNE, Australia, July 17, 2012–Let me begin with a quote from Thomas Henry Huxley: “Science commits suicide when it adopts a creed” …and this is what, in my opinion, is happening in the research on the biological and health effects

    Read more →