Addendum 3

Addendum 3

ICNIRP

To: WRAGG, William <william.wragg.mp@parliament.uk>norman.lamb.mp@parliament.ukJeremy.wright.mp@parliament.ukmatt.hancock.mp@parliament.ukcommonsleader@cabinetoffice.gov.uk

 

Dear William,

ICNIRP guidelines are central to this technological story. The following is for your information and also for forwarding to your Westminster researcher, for whom the Adlkofer and Cherry documents are essential reading:

1. https://www.emfcall.org/

Scientists’ EMF Call Appeal:  ‘ICNIRP’s opinion and guidelines are unscientific and protect industry, not public health.’

‘In order to protect the public and the environment from the known harmful effects from electromagnetic fields (EMF) we ask the United Nations, the World Health Organization and all governments not to accept the ICNIRP guidelines. They are not protective, rather they pose a serious risk to human health and the environment since they allow harmful exposure to the world population, including the most vulnerable, under the unscientific pretext that they are “protective”.

Background: The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) issued draft Guidelines on 11th July 2018 for limiting exposure to electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz). 1. These guidelines are unscientific, obsolete and do not represent an objective evaluation of the available science on effects from this form of radiation. They ignore the vast amount of scientific findings that clearly and convincingly show harmful effects at intensities well below ICNIRP guidelines. 2. The guidelines are inadequate to protect humans and the environment.’

2. https://stiftung-pandora.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Pandora_KI_Adlkofer-lecture_2014-10-30.pdf

How Industry and Politics Has Been Dealing with the Radiation Protection of People

‘Before ending my professional life – being an involved scientist with a long-term experience in mobile communication research – I wish to point at past and current false developments. My move has three different motives:

There is a real health hazard for the people through radiation technologies.

There is a real threat to the freedom of science and research through politics and industry.

There is a real threat to independent scientists with the courage to tell the truth, in the job as well as in person. This threatening development has a background.’

‘… it will still take a while until the prevalence of chronic diseases such as cancer and neurodegenerative disorders cannot be overlooked anymore due to the continuing rise of the radiation intensity.’

‘Conclusion: Since the beginning of the 50’s in the last century the safety limits for radiofrequency radiation contradict the state of scientific research. They do not protect people exposed to radiation but the interest of industry and politics. The way they were introduced, ensured and defended meets all criteria for ‘institutional corruption’.’

3. http://www.neilcherry.nz/documents/90_m1_EMR_Australian_Senate_Evidence_8-9-2000.pdf

‘Evidence of Health Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation, To the Australian Senate Inquiry into Electromagnetic Radiation‘ Dr Neil Cherry

‘How reliable is ICNIRP and the WHO’s Dr Michael Repacholi ? On these matters I have no respect for the position of ICNIRP nor that of the WHO. The WHO position is taken solely by Dr Repacholi. ICNIRP is a small self-appointed, selfpromoted group that claims standing by having WHO recognition. …  I have seen more and more evidence of misrepresentation and deliberate misinformation from ICNIRP and Dr Repacholi. These are strong statements but they are documented.’

4. http://phiremedical.org/safety-limits-and-political-conflicts-of-interest/?print=print

‘Safety Limits and Political Conflicts of Interest’

The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines (devised in 1998  that we currently use in England) are obsolete  They are based on thermally induced (tissue heating) effects which have been undermined by thousands of papers demonstrating serious biological effects at non-thermal levels, orders of magnitude below current ICNIRP guidelines’

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close