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 →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
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 →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 →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 →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 →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 →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
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
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 →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
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 →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 →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
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 →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 →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 →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 →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 →