Critic of ICNIRP & WHO
European Parliament (2008): Mid-term review of the European Environment and Health Action Plan 2004-2010
"Notes that the limits on exposure to electromagnetic fields which have been set for the general public are obsolete, since they have not been adjusted in the wake of Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC of 12 July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0Hz to 30 GHz)(9) , obviously take no account of developments in information and communication technologies, of the recommendations issued by the European Environment Agency or of the stricter emission standards adopted, for example, by Belgium, Italy and Austria, and do not address the issue of vulnerable groups, such as pregnant women, newborn babies and children" (item 22)
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2008-0410+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN
Neil Cherry (2000): Criticism of the health assessment in the ICNIRP guidelines for radiofrequency and microwave radiation (100 kHz - 300 GHz)
"The ICNIRP Game:
ICNIRP is playing its own game and setting its own rules. It is the game that is played by national authorities which, as a team, they feel very comfortable with it. The name of the team is "The Consensus of Science". However, it involves quite a small and very select team that includes national experts who come from national authorities who subscribe to the rules of the ICNIRP game.
In the ICNIRP game the first rule is that there is only a tissue heating effect from RF/MW exposure. You must agree with this rule to play the ICNIRP game. As a consequence of this rule, in the ICNIRP game, all other biological effects are not real and any epidemiological study that shows an effect with non-thermal exposure, must be faulty and will be rejected. In other words, if you break this rule you are out of the game. In this game it is fine to change the rules about acceptable significant, what is evidence, and criteria for how a biological effect is established. In this game a study does not provide evidence until it has been exactly replicated."
http://neilcherry.com/documents/90_m4_EMR_ICNIRP_critique_09-02.pdf
Livio Giuliani (2010): Why investigate the non thermal mechanisms and effects of electromagnetic fields on living systems? An introduction. ICEMS Monograph.
"Protection against Non Ionizing Radiation is based on a paradigmatic assumption: "We know very well the interaction between electromagnetic fields and living organisms: it is a thermal interaction; thus the standards internationally accepted are adequate to protect people and workers".
This is a fairy tale. Since the 1970s the non thermal effects of electromagnetic fields on living organisms have been well known and also the non thermal mechanisms have been investigated. Nevertheless, until today, we have been condemned to listen to representatives from international institutions repeating the old refrain above." ... The point is, protection against non ionizing radiation, based on parameters adopted by international standards organizations, seems not to be adequate, despite the statement of Dr Van Deventer, nor able to protect people and workers.
http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm
Microwave News (2005): WHO and Electric Utilities: A Partnership on EMFs
"As members of the WHO Task Group make their way to Geneva for next weeks meeting to complete its Environmental Health Criteria (EHC) document on power-frequency EMFs, new information has emerged showing that the electric utility industry has played a major role at every stage of developing the review document."
http://www.microwavenews.com/nc_oct2005.html#partners
Comment: Please, check the 'WHO Watch' in the right frame of Microwave News.
Igor Belyaev (2008): Problems in assessment of risks from exposures to microwaves of mobile communication
Critique of ICNIRP-guidance levels - no consideration of:
http://multimedia.biol.uoa.gr/2008/Seminaria_Diplwmatikes%20k.a/Synedrio_Thess/Global%20new/Belyaev.htm
Comment: This presentation explains the technical limitation of ICNIRP guidelines. The diashow requires the IE browser.
Khurana, V. G., Hardell, L., Everaert, J., Bortkiewicz, A., Carlberg, M. & Ahonen, M. (2010). Epidemiological Evidence for a Health Risk from Mobile Phone Base Stations. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health (IJOEH), Vol. 16, No. 3, 263-267.
"We found that eight of the 10 studies reported increased prevalence of adverse neurobehavioral symptoms or cancer in populations living at distances less than 500 meters from base stations.
None of the studies reported exposure above accepted international guidelines, suggesting that current guidelines may be inadequate in protecting the health of human populations."
http://www.brain-surgery.us/Khurana_et_al_IJOEH-Base_Station_RV.pdf
Michael Kundi and Hans-Peter Hutter (2009). Mobile phone base stations -Effects on wellbeing and health. Pathophysiology. Pathophysiology (2010) Special issue of electromagnetic fields. Pathophysiology. 2009 Aug;16(2-3):71-8
"Studying effects of mobile phone base station signals on health have been discouraged by authoritative bodies like WHO International EMF Project and COST 281.
From available evidence it is impossible to delineate a threshold below which no effect occurs, however, given the fact that studies reporting low exposure were invariably negative it is suggested that power densities around 0.5-1 mW/m² must be exceeded in order to observe an effect. The meager data base must be extended in the coming years.
The difficulties of investigating long-term effects of base station exposure have been exaggerated, considering that base station and handset exposure have almost nothing in common both needs to be studied independently. It cannot be accepted that studying base stations is postponed until there is firm evidence for mobile phones."
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/broadbandgrants/comments/71B9.pdf
Yuri Grigoriev, RNCNIRP (2010) Electromagnetic fields and the public: EMF standards and estimation of risk
"Numerous peer-reviewed studies covering non-thermal biological effects have been made by scientists in Russia (previously the USSR). Analysis of 28 biological experiments conducted in vitro, in situ, and in vivo by the present author from 1975 onwards in the former Soviet Union, and later in Russia, using modulated RF-EMF allows the following basic conclusions to be made:
- exposure of biological systems to EMF with higher or lower composite regimens of modulation can lead to the possible development of both physiological and unfavourable biological effects, that are distinct from the biological effects induced by non-modulated EMF;
- acute exposure to low intensities of modulated EMF (at non-thermal levels) can result in development of pathological effects;
- there is a dependence of development of a reciprocal biological response on the intensity and directness of the concrete regimen of EMF modulation; this dependence was fixed at all levels of biological systems - in vitro, in situ, and in vivo;
- as a rule, modulated EMF invokes more recognisable biological effects than continuous EMF regimes.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1755-1315/10/1/012003/pdf/1755-1315_10_1_012003.pdf
Gerald Hyland (2002) Response to COST281's 'Scientific Comment on Individuals Statements of Concern About Health Hazards of Weak EMF'
"The COST paper is an ill-considered, deliberate attempt to misrepresent and distort the sense of my text by means of many untruths and inaccuracies - ... - The whole tenor of their response betrays the hallmark of a panic, rear-guard action to attempt to maintain the (industry-beneficial) status quo.
Their tactic is to frame their criticisms in such a way that in many cases they appear eminently reasonable to anyone who has not read my original STOA Report; ...
In arguing why, in their view, certain electronic instruments are more sensitive to electromagnetic radiation than are humans, and so should be better protected, they conveniently choose to ignore the fact (given in my Report) that the human EEG is sensitive to microwave radiation at an intensity as low as 10-15W/cm2, a value well below sensitivities currently realisable technologically!"
http://www.cost281.org/activities/HylandResponsetoCOST281.pdf
EU STOA Paper: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/stoa/publications/studies/20000703_en.pdf
Comment: Please, take a look at the COST 281 document by (mostly) ICNIRP members.
Don Maisch (2006): Conflict of Interest & Bias in Health Advisory Committees: A case study of the WHO’s Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Task Group
"Although the above sample of WHO recommendations were in response to Big Tobacco’s attempts to undermine WHO integrity, its direct relevance to other large industrial interests cannot be ignored, be it the power industry or telecommunications. Unfortunately it seems that in this case at least, WHO has forgotten the hard lessons learnt with its previous experiences with Big Tobacco.
In the case of WHO’s Task Group writing the new Environmental Health Criteria (EHC) for power frequency EMFs, a violation of the above recommendations urgently calls for an independent evaluation to protect both public health and WHO’s integrity."
http://www.emfacts.com/papers/who_conflict.pdf
Andrew Marino (2006): SOBs at WHO
"In 1996 the World Health Organization began what it said was a program "to assess the scientific evidence of possible health effects of EMF in the frequency range from 0 to 300 GHz" (EMF Project).
However, the project was corrupted from the start because it was controlled by the power- and cell-phone industries in the industrialized countries. ...
It was not realistic to expect that he would conduct an open and honest inquiry, and his performance in office has been even more miserable than could have been anticipated based on what was known about his personal views at the time he was appointed."
http://andrewamarino.com/SOBs.html
http://andrewamarino.com/repacholi.html
http://www.goingsomewherebook.com
Nilsson, M. (2011). Leading expert Anders Ahlbom linked to the Telecom Industry. Conflict of interest at the WHO
Professor Ahlbom, who is supposed to chair the expert group on epidemiology at the upcoming IARC evaluation of the carcinogenicity of mobile phone radiation, is the cofounder of “Gunnar Ahlbom AB” a Brussels-based lobby firm aiming to assist the telecom industry on EU regulations, public affairs and corporate communications. Anders Ahlbom’s link to the Telecom Industry through his brother and their common company is a straight-forward explanation of his systematic denial of health risks....
... In 1998 he [Gunnar Ahlbom] was the Swedish mobile phone leading operator Telias ”country manager” and 1999 he was interviewed in the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet as a lobbyist for Telia in Brussels.In 2006 he was contracted by COCIR, a Brussels-based lobby organisation for the medical equipment industry, the telecommunication industry and so on. His brother Anders Ahlbom, was at the same time, 2006/2007 as a chair for the SCENIHR, and 2009 as a SCENIHR expert, evaluating health risks with telecommunications as well as medical equipment (MRI-equipment).
http://ollejohansson.adante.se/Anders-Ahlbom-IARC-2011-May.pdf
Maisch, D. (2010). The Procrustean Approach.
Setting Exposure Standards for Telecommunications Frequency Electromagnetic Radiation, An examination of the manipulation of telecommunications standards by political, military, and industrial vested interests at the expense of public health protection.
PhD Thesis, University of Wollongong, Australia, 302 pages.
http://www.iemfa.org/images/pdf/The_Procrustean_Approach.pdf
Pathophysiology (2010) Special issue of electromagnetic fields. Pathophysiology. 2009 Aug;16(2-3):71-8
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/broadbandgrants/comments/71B9.pdf
Comment: Describes various biological effects and DNA response. Explains why the ICNIRP guideline is inaccurate. We recommend especially the Blank & Goodman (2009) and Blackman (2009) articles.
CBC Marketplace (2003). Controversy at IARC
" For Lorenzo Tomatis [ex IARC WHO director], the downgrading of DEHP was a clear sign IARC had let industry get too close to the science. He and 30 other scientists from around the world decided to go public with their fears saying that allowing industry representatives to take part in IARC's decisions about what is cancerous "compromises public health" and that scientific papers showing a possible link to cancer had been "ignored or intentionally suppressed." ... He [IARC director Peter Kleihues] told me I was persona non grata and had me escorted out by two witnesses from the building saying I was not allowed to come back…I think even Saddam Hussein could go back into IARC but not me. I found it totally absurd because it was a disagreement on the interpretation of scientific data."
http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/pre-2007/files/health/iarc/pagetwo.html
Morton, W. E. (1988). The nature and significance of the corporate influence on threshold limit values. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 14(6), 721-723.
http://www.interscience.wiley.com/jpages/0271-3586/
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 1.0 Finland License.