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 →PRESS RELEASE July 20, 2007 Contact Information: CL Sage@ sage@silcom.com Expected release date: 31 August 07 (Internet- Full Public Access) BioInitiative: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF) An international working group composed of scientists, researchers and public health policy professionals (The BioInitiative) has joined together to document
Read more →The Lancet has just published online an article quite relevant to the recommendations of the WHO International EMF Project and ICNIRP as examined in the other articles below. Don http://www.thelancet.com Use of evidence in WHO recommendations Dr Andrew D Oxman MD, John N Lavis MD, and Atle Fretheim MD Summary / Background WHO regulations, dating
Read more →The weblog version of this message is at: #508: Canadian Cancer Society advises on EMFs While the various cancer organisations in Australia and elsewhere continue to ignore the EMF cancer connection, the Canadian Cancer Society now gives clear advice on the issue. This is an IMPORTANT breakthrough which will be communicated to the many thousands
Read more →The weblog version of this message is at: #501: The Spin Begins: Reporting the Italian cell phone study Following is an email sent to ICNIRP and also widely distributed by Dr. Martin Blank, Associate Professor of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics and Bioelectromagnetics Society President, 1997-1998. He is reporting on the latest ‘state of the science’
Read more →The weblog version of theis message is at: https://www.emfacts.com/weblog/index.php?p=497 I have just heard from a reliable source who attended the June 11-15 Annual Meeting of the Bioelectromagnetics Society at Cancun, Mexico that Michael Repacholi has reached his use-by-date and apparently is retiring at the end of this month to be replaced by an Emily Van
Read more →From Robert James: Dear Don After digesting your paper on the WHO charade (message490) your readers might find the extensive Repacholi commentary posted on Andrew Marino’s web site somewhat relevant to your paper. http://www.ortho.lsuhsc.edu/Faculty/Marino/Comments/RepacholiTestimony.html#52306 Here’s a snippet to wet your reader’s appetites. Yours Robert “At the bottom of the barrel is the EMF scientist who
Read more →Notice: A new paper titled, “Conflict of Interest and Bias in Health Advisory Committees: A case study of the WHO’s EMF Task Group” is now available on the EMFacts web site: https://www.emfacts.com/papers/who_conflict.pdf It is published in the latest Journal of the Australasian College of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine, Vol. 21 No. 1, pages 15-17, April
Read more →Why searching out some information for my thesis I happened to come across an interesting paper titled: “Why States Believe Foolish Ideas: Non-Self-Evaluation By States And Societies” by Stephen Van Evera, January 10, 2002 For the topic of this list, those readers interested in why the Myth of ICNIRP and why Repacholian pseudo-science continues to
Read more →