From Louis Slesin: The closer I look at the new EMF guidelines from ICNIRP, the more I am convinced that the deck is stacked against those who are interested in honest science. Please check out the latest “Short Take” on the Microwave News home page. Best, Louis __________________________________________________________ Louis Slesin, PhD Editor, Microwave News A
Read more →From Louis Slesin: We have recently added a new column to the Microwave News Web site. It’s called “Short Takes” and features brief news items. Short Takes begins on the right hand side of our Home Page, http://www.microwavenews.com. Among the recent posts are: — ICNIRP’s stunning rejection of precautionary policies for power-frequency EMFs; — An
Read more →From Cindy Sage on the CHEEMF list: The Swiss ITIS laboratory for testing of RF wireless emissions (headed by the former BEMS president Niels Kuster) has a new paper out (Vermeeren et al, 2010). It investigates whether the ICNIRP public safety standards for Europe and other countries (and similar to the US FCC limits in
Read more →From Dariusz Leszczynski’s blog: WHO has released its 2010 Research Agenda for Radiofrequency Fields (http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2010/9789241599948_eng.pdf). It is new but, to my great disappointment, there is nothing new. The opinion, as expected is very much influenced by the ICNIRP. Out of the 19 experts who met on February 2010 to formulate the new agenda, 10 are
Read more →NOTICE My PhD dissertation, The Procrustean Approach Setting Exposure Standards for Telecommunications Frequency Electromagnetic Radiation, is now available as a free download on the website of the International EMF Alliance. http://international-emf-alliance.org/ . Click on the publications box at the top. This is an examination of the manipulation of telecommunications standards by political, military, and industrial
Read more →From Devra Davis: BMJ on Conflicts of Interest, WHO and the pandemic flu “conspiracies” Deborah Cohen, features editor, BMJ, Philip Carter, journalist, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, London Key scientists advising the World Health Organization on planning for an influenza pandemic had done paid work for pharmaceutical firms that stood to gain from the guidance
Read more →From Alex Swinkels, the National Platform on Radiation Risks: 1) Progressive stages in world-wide knowledge development regarding Electromagnetic Fields & Health With this paper the Dutch National Platform on Radiation Risks aims to improve public awareness of the successive stages of development of knowledge about the domain of EMF&H which have occurred in recent decades.
Read more →From Louis Slesin, Microwave News: On one side there’s the establishment scientists at ICNIRP and the lobbyists in industry and, on the other, the activists at organizations like NEXT-UP. But there’s very little in between. And, in case you missed it, check out Christopher Ketcham’s article, “Warning: Your Cell Phone May Be Hazardous to Your
Read more →It has been pointed out that there were some errors in the money amounts mentioned in the last message due to the Google translation. This has been corrected on the link for the last message. The amount mentioned was 6.3 million euros, which is the equivalent of 47 million Danish KRONER and not dollars or
Read more →From Henrik Eiriksson: Find below a corrected translation of the latest article on WHO expert’s secret ties to industry from Danish paper “Information”: Best, Henrik —————————————————————————————- WHO adviser didn’t disclose million-dollar contribution from pharmaceutical industry. A Finnish member of the WHO vaccine advisory group received 6.3 million euro (47 million Danish KRONER) from vaccine manufacturer
Read more →Back in June of this year the World Health Organisation (WHO), acting on the expert advice of its supposedly independent influenza advisers, declared the H1N1 Swine Flu as a world pandemic that activated a number of processes to combat the disease, obstentially to protect the world’s population against the potentially deadly disease. Essentially the WHO
Read more →Considering that Australia’s draft ELF standards contains a three fold increase in allowable exposures, which I have argued in the past appears to be an attempt to find an accommodation with the MRI industry, it will be interesting to see what ICNIRP comes up with after their so-called consultation. For those of you who think
Read more →As Ahlbon et al points out in the latest ICNIRP inspired cell phone risk assessment, for carcinogens which have a very long average induction time, if there was a causal effect there should be an observable increase in risk much earlier than the average induction time. Asbestos exposure, an unfortunate legacy for many Australian workers,
Read more →The below analysis from Cindy Sage raises the question on why has ICNIRP (and IEMFP who does the risk assessments for ICNIRP) moved to release its risk cell phone assessment before the Interphone report is published. It would have seemed better to have waited until Interphone was published and then include that in the risk
Read more →Ever wonder why seemingly intelligent individuals who are members of organizations such as ICNIRP, steadfastly stick to the thermal paradigm rejecting all evidence that questions that viewpoint? Besides the deep seated financial/industry/military conflicts of interest that have dominated EMF/EMR standard setting since the 1950s, the following research suggests unbiased scientific objectivity can be a human
Read more →Doing the rounds on EMF internet sites at the moment is an Associated Press release of May 7. Note however that it is from 2007 and so is not new news. Here is the press release as written in the International Journal of Health Services, Volume 37, Number 4, Pages 783”“785, 2007. Also see related
Read more →Following on from the last message I have found that even the 3 fold limit increase in the proposed Australian ELF exposure standard is not enough to cover MRI operators and service technicians working with the high power machines. This means that the proposed 15,000mG occupational limit is still not enough. So, the question now
Read more →Previously on this list I have mentioned the proposed three-fold increase in Australia’s powerfrequency exposure standards by a working group from the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA). I have also suggested that this increase (3,000mG residential and 15,000mG occupational) is due to lobbying from the MRI industry / users who are concerned
Read more →From Powerwatch: The Radiation Research Trust organised conference “EMF & Health – A Global Issue … Exploring appropriate precautionary approaches” was held on the 8th & 9th September 2008 and was extraordinarily successful. Collecting some highly prominent speakers from world establishments such as ICNIRP, WHO, RNCNIRP and national bodies such as the UK Health Protection
Read more →Following is the latest progress report from the Australian Government’s Radiation Health Committee on its proposed new exposure standard for extremely low frequency (ELF) magnetic and electric fields. Although the standard will apparently contain a precautionary element, as I understand it, advising people how to reduce their exposures if they are concerned, the most notable
Read more →