🛑 ICNIRP – investigative files, articles, papers


I. Introduction

ICNIRP is a particularly influential group, as it not only evaluates radiation and health risk research, but also provides guidelines for radiation safety limits that most countries use. It is a private, German-registered organisation located outside Munich [map], behind a yellow door on the premises of the German Federal office for radiation protection. Decisions on who to invite in, are taken by ICNIRP itself.  Source: Investigate Europe


File:Bundesamt fuer Strahlenschutz.jpg  This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

Wikipedia: “The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) is an international commission specialized in non-ionizing radiation protection. The organization’s activities include determining exposure limits for electromagnetic fields used by devices such as cellular phones.

ICNIRP is an independent non profit scientific organization chartered in Germany. It was founded in 1992 by the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) to which it maintains close relations.”


II. The totalitarian role of ICNIRP, world wide

Website ICNIRP: Commission, to find the names to those who are the ICNIRP’s most important influencers. Chair: Eric van Rongen.  Videos with Eric van Rongen; 1, 2, 3, 4

Eric van Rongen participates in the Dutch “Gezondheidsraad”: visit webpage Commission Electromagnetic Fields, scroll down to “secretarissen”. As the chairperson of ICNIRP he is the official connection with and superior, authoritarian influence of ICNIRP on WHO, and EU, and via EU on all European member states and treaty countries. Via WHO he has a world wide authoritarian influence and power. The connection with EU has been admitted in the letter that Wojciech Kalamarz sent me. In not any former letter neither on the website of EU or WHO is published what exactly the name is of the group that decides the electromagnetic radiation guidelines. The confirmation of EU that ICNIRP is the EU guidelines creator can be found in “EU guidelines are fraudulent, 3“. All other connections of ICNIRP and can be found in the ICNIRP Cartel. Missing detail in this Cartel: the connection of ICNIRP (via Eric van Rongen) with the Health Council of the Netherlands.

Alarming: world wide the research results of ICNIRP are considered to be infallible, and therefore indisputable. This phenomenon is comparable with the system of a church, a religion, and being infallible and therefore indisputable are the most essential characteristics of religious totalitarianism. To make it understandable: the “God” of ICNIRP is the dogmatic science that ICNIRP considers as the right and only true one. ICNIRP, and its believers: WHO, EU, the Dutch Health Council, all in the ICNIRP Cartel, show absolute intolerance of other views and opposition.

Totalitarianism is a political concept of a mode of government that prohibits opposition parties, restricts individual opposition to the state and its claims, and exercises an extremely high degree of control over public and private life. It is regarded as the most extreme and complete form of authoritarianism. Source: Wikipedia


III. ICNIRP – investigative files, articles, papers

  1. My own investigations on ICNIRP
  2. Dr. Devra Davis, Environmental Health Trust – Research Studies on Industry Influence and Involvement in the Science of EMF
  3. Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D. – The ICNIRP Cartel and the 5G Mass Experiment
  4. Dr. Lennart Hardell –  ICNIRP draft on new radiofrequency guidelines is flawed
  5. Einar Flydal: Head of Swiss Radiation Protection Committee accused of 5G-swindle. Nordic countries deceived, too
  6. ORSAA reacts on ICNIRP
  7. ICNIRP, EU and the fraudulent EU guidelines
  8. Dafna Tachover, senior attorney and director of the 5G program at Children’s
    Health Defense (Robert F. Kennedy Jr.) speaks about the role of ICNIRP in an interview with RTAmerica.
  9. Don Maisch PhD, EMFactsConsultancy: ICNIRP’s thermal only guidelines don’t work for insects with 5G-unless you like them fried
  10. The EMF Call: Call for Truly Protective Limits for Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz) –  ICNIRP’s opinion and guidelines are unscientific and protect industry, not public health
  11. Prof. Girish Kumar, Bombay, India
  12. Stralingsbewust – overview of conflicts of interest of ICNIRP, directly or indirectly, with all existing departments within the Dutch healthcare systems, into the highest levels of the hierarchic pyramid of power: the RIVM.
  13. A review of the ecological effects of radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF)
  14. Call by scientists to review the EMF guidelines
  15. Naren, Anubhav Elhenc, Vinay Chamola, Mohsen Guizan
  16. Dr. Susan Pocket, MsC, PhD
  17. Antoinette Janssen, blog owner Multerland
  18. The EMF Call – Call for Truly Protective Limits for Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz) – ICNIRP’s opinion and guidelines are unscientific and protect industry, not public health
  19. Playlist with videos about ICNIRP
  20. Additional information



ICNIRP – investigative files, articles, papers

§1. My own investigations on ICNIRP

From the moment I had read and understood the article, also the consequences of it for all life beings, I started to make my own research: who are the ICNIRP? Their website offered names, and I searched on PubMed for what “the names” studied, how many researches they made, alone, or together with others. I made a PDF with the complete list of names, and research results. You can take a look here.

Conclusion: ICNIRP has in total 13 members, of which 5 did not study anything about EMF. The ICNIRP’s total research results on PubMed is 12.615. Of these 12.615 studies are just 95 related with EMFs, wireless exposure, radiation, etc. This is 0,8% of the total. Total impression: the researches show not to find any worrying aspect of EMF. Not found: 4G, 5G, bee collapse, bird collapse, insects, plants, trees, forests, amphibians. Research date: 15 March 2019. This organization pretends to have the skills and the science to guide us, humanity.
This is in my opinion beyond any sane rational thought. Not any politician has obviously ever asked the ICNRP commissioners, for their C.V., did not examine their C.V.,  did not check the content of their C.V., and…. what their ethics are. [Add. February 18, 2020: The Largest Unethical Medical Experiment in Human History]




Devra Davis§2. Dr. Devra Davis, Environmental Health Trust – Research Studies on Industry Influence and Involvement in the Science of EMF: https://ehtrust.org/science/research-industry-influence-emfs/ This page contains an ongoing list of published studies and reports on industry involvement in the science of EMFs.

Documentation that ICNIRP and the EMF Project are connected to industry money.  Watch details of how radiation limits were developed in the documentary “A Radiant Day.”

The Radiation Exposure War
Author: Frode Nielsen
Published: 14 November 2008

Playlist with the documentary in 5 parts:
Anders Børringbo – Brennpunkt, NRK, ‘’A Radiant Day’’, 2008


[In the following text I have used bold, Italic, and underlined to create attention for essential information. A.J.]

Microwave News, Microwave News Responds to Mike Repacholi / November 17, 2006:.

Repacholi_1In his November 15 response to Microwave News, Mike Repacholi [picture] does not to point to a single factual error in our November 13 “News and Comment” on his consulting work for two U.S. electric utilities. Notably, Repacholi does not challenge that:
• He misrepresented the conclusions of the expert panel he assembled to complete the WHO’s Environmental Health Criteria on power-frequency EMF health risks, as pointed out by NIEHS As-sociate Director Chris Portier;
Up to half, if not more, of the WHO’s EMF project’s funding came from industry. Repacholi states that he always followed the WHO rules on funding and that, “ NO funds were EVER sent to me.” [His emphasis.] This is financial legerdemain. As Microwave News has previously reported, Repacholi arranged for the industry money to be sent to the Royal Adelaide Hospital in Australia, where he used to work. The funds were then transferred to the WHO. Seven years ago, Norm Sandler, a Motorola spokesman, told us that, “This is the process for all the supporters of the WHO program.” At the time, Motorola was sending Repacholi $50,000 each year. That money is now bundled with other industry contributions and sent to Australia by the Mobile Manufacturers Forum (MMF), which gives the project $150,000 a year.
“What is the difference between sending money directly to the WHO and sending it via Australia?,” we asked Repacholi last December.
He never responded.
We don’t think there is any difference.
We don’t understand how the WHO can see this as anything other than money laundering. On numerous occasions we have asked Repacholi to reveal all the sources of the funding of the WHO EMF project.
He has consistently refused.
With respect to Repacholi’s and Peter Valberg’s failure to cite the increase in acoustic neuroma among those who had used mobile phones for ten years or more in their paper in Environmental Health Perspective, Repacholi explains that their paper was about mobile phone base stations not the phones themselves. Once again, Repacholi is dissembling. This is what he and Valberg wrote: “For example, the risk of acoustic neuroma in relation to mobile phone use has been assessed via six population – based, shared-protocol, case-control studies in four Nordic countries and the U.K. The authors concluded that there was no association of risk with duration of use, life-time cumulative hours of use or number of calls, for phone use overall or for analogue or digital phones separately (Schoemaker et al. 2005).” Much of this text is adapted from the Schoemaker abstract.
The very next sentence of the abstract is:
“Risk of a tumour on the same side of the head as re-ported phone use was raised for use for 10 years or longer (OR=1.8, 95% CI: 1.1-3.1).” [British Journal of Cancer, 93, p.842, 2005.]
This is the most “disquieting finding” that Repacholi and Valberg chose to ignore. Repacholi calls us “hypocritical” for accusing him of using an unreleased report in his testimony for the two electric utilities. We did not make this accusation. As we clearly stated in our article, it was a group of well-known EMF researchers who raised an objection. Finally, Repacholi would have us believe that he and his staff served only as the secretariart for all the meetings that the WHO project hosted over the years.
More nonsense. Mike Repacholi was the EMF project. He was in total control. He was the conductor who orchestrated all the key decisions. For instance, it was Repacholi who flip-flopped over applying the precautionary principle to EMF health risks. And, of course, it was Repacholi who decided who would be invited to all those meetings. Repacholi writes that: “To say that I am or was ever influenced by industry in any way is completely ludicrous.” Those of us who have watched Repacholi sell out the public health at the WHO for the last ten years know just how ridiculous that statement is.




§3. Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.:  

1. The ICNIRP Cartel and the 5G Mass Experiment
Published: Feb 11, 2019

2. ICNIRP’s Exposure Guidelines for Radio Frequency Fields – ICNIRP’s Revised RF Exposure Limits Will Ignore Expert Opinions of Most EMF Scientists

According to Eric van Rongen, chairman of the International Commission on Non-ionizing Research Protection (ICNIRP), in August or September the ICNIRP plans to publish its revised guidelines regarding safe human exposure limits to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields (EMF) (100 kHz – 300 GHz).
On April 17, 2019, Van Rongen made a presentation about the revised guidelines to the French National Frequency Agency. The ICNIRP guidelines will still be based only on thermal or heating effects. The Commission continues to ignore the many hundreds of peer-reviewed studies that have found bioeffects and health effects from exposure to low intensity, non-thermal levels of RF radiation.
Van Rongen makes the following claims (see slide 8 of the presentation):
1. “No evidence that RF EMF causes such diseases as cancer
Results of NTP, Falcioni studies (animals, lifetime exposure) not convincing (statement on ICNIRP website)
2. No evidence that RF EMF impairs health beyond effects that are due to established mechanisms of interaction”
The 13 commissioners of the ICNIRP strongly disagree with more than 240 EMF scientists who signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal. These scientists who have published over 2,000 papers in professional journals on EMF and biology or health state:

“The various agencies setting safety standards have failed to impose sufficient guidelines to protect the general public, particularly children who are more vulnerable to the effects of EMF.  The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) established in 1998 the “Guidelines For Limiting Exposure To Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields (up to 300 GHz)” . These guidelines are accepted by the WHO and numerous countries around the world. The WHO is calling for all nations to adopt the ICNIRP guidelines to encourage international harmonization of standards. In 2009, the ICNIRP released a statement saying that it was reaffirming its 1998 guidelines, as in their opinion, the scientific literature published since that time “has provided no evidence of any adverse effects below the basic restrictions and does not necessitate an immediate revision of its guidance on limiting exposure to high frequency electromagnetic fields . ICNIRP continues to the present day to make these assertions, in spite of growing scientific evidence to the contrary. It is our opinion that, because the ICNIRP guidelines do not cover long-term exposure and low-intensity effects, they are insufficient to protect public health.”

During the public consultation period, about 120 contributors provided the ICNIRP with more than 1,000 comments regarding the draft guidelines. Does the ICNIRP plan to publish these comments? How many contributors called for RF exposure guidelines that protect humans and other species from health risks due to exposure to low-intensity or non-thermal levels of RF radiation?

The slides from the van Rongen presentation (marked “Draft — Do Not Cite or Quote”) are available at: https://www.anfr.fr/fileadmin/mediatheque/documents/expace/workshop-5G/20190417-Workshop-ANFR-ICNIRP-presentation.pdf

Published: June 26, 2019
Read more of the article here.

3. ICNIRP’s Exposure Guidelines for Radio Frequency Fields
Page with frequent updates.
First post: June 19, 2017
Latest post: March 11, 2020
New Guidelines Adopted by the International Commission on Non‐Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) Protect Us Only from Thermal or Heating Effects
Author: Joel Moskowitz, PhD
Published: March 11, 2020

4. Electromagnetic fields threaten wildlife
Risk to pollinators from anthropogenic electro-magnetic radiation (EMR): Evidence and knowledge gaps
By: Adam J. Vanbergen, Simon G. Potts, Alain Vian, E. Pascal Malkemper, Juliette Young, Thomas Tscheulin

[The figure shows research results dating from 1950, 1980 and 2010. One can wonder how the figure would look like now, 2020. Watch the ICNIRP lines! Are these lines still there of much higher? They claim all is still safe, they keep their 1998 guidelines without changes, but we know that the figure would show now levels that are very much higher than all what is coloured red, because of the explosive growth of cell phone users after 2010, and the rollout of 5G. | A.J.]

Published: 10 December 2019
Published: 15 March, 2020 / Electromagnetic Radiation Safety, Joel Moskowitz, PhD

5. Electromagnetic Radiation Safety
Published: March 17, 2020
a. 27 new papers on electromagnetic fields and biology or health
Joel Moskowitz: “I have been circulating abstracts of newly-published scientific papers on wireless radiation and electromagnetic fields (EMF) about once a month since August, 2016. Several hundred EMF scientists around the world receive these updates. The complete collection the papers below contains more than 850 abstracts.”

b. To see abstracts for the most recent papers or to download the entire 623-page document (pdf) go to: http://bit.ly/saferemr200317

c. Recent Research on Wireless Radiation and Electromagnetic Fields




§4. Dr. Lennart Hardell –  ICNIRP draft on new radiofrequency guidelines is flawed

“At a meeting in Paris on 17 April 2019 Eric van Rongen, the present ICNIRP chairman presented a draft on new ICNIRP guidelines for radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure. The presentation is freely available at the web although labeled as a ’draft – do not cite or quote’.

Most remarkable is that the science on health effects is still based on thermal (heating) effect from RFR just as the evaluations published 1998 and updated in 2009.
In the draft only thermal effects are considered for health effects (page 7). Van Rongen states there is ’No evidence that RF-EMF causes such diseases as cancer’ (page 8).
These comments are based on the power point presentation. However, there is no evidence that non-thermal effects are considered and thus a large majority of scientific evidence on human health effects, not to mention hazards to the environment. Thus the basis for new guidelines is flawed and the whole presentation should be dismissed as scientifically flawed.
If this draft represents the final version on ICNIRP guidelines it is time to close down ICNIRP since their evaluation is not based on science but on selective data such as only thermal effects from RFR, see also www.emfcall.org.
The draft represents a worst-case scenario for public health and represents wishful thinking.” Source

§4a: November 4, 2019 – Article on Prof. Lennart Hardell’s blog:
WHO – ICNIRP and radiofrequency radiation
The close association between WHO and the ICNIRP has been described in a previous article. Unfortunately, this association seems to have prevented actions on health and the environment. ICNIRP is a private NGO based in Germany that acts pro-industry. In fact, exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation has increased in the society. Now the fifth generation, 5G, of wireless communication is implemented in spite of potential risks to human health and the environment. Our appeal (www.5gappeal.eu) asking for a moratorium until research on risks have been performed has not had any positive response either from EU or the Nordic countries.Microwave news has now published an update with historical views. It is well worth to read. This information is usually not available to the layman.

§4b: January 15, 2020 –  Article on Prof. Lennart Hardell’s blog:  RöösliLetter on Expert evaluations on health risks from radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) and 5G – Article about the fraud of Martin Röösli, director BERENIS and member of ICNIRP  

§4c: January 28, 2020 – Article on Prof. Lennart Hardell’s blog:
Appeals that matter or not on a moratorium on the deployment of the fifth generation, 5G, for microwave radiation
“In an appeal sent to the EU in September, 2017 currently >260 scientists and medical doctors requested for a moratorium on the deployment of 5G until the health risks associated with this new technology have been fully investigated by industry‑independent scientists. The appeal and four rebuttals to the EU over a period of >2 years, have not achieved any positive response from the EU to date. Unfortunately, decision makers seem to be uninformed or even misinformed about the risks. EU officials rely on the opinions of individuals within the ICNIRP and the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR), most of whom have ties to the industry……In this article, the warnings on the health risks associated with RF presented in the 5G appeal and the letters to the EU Health Commissioner since September, 2017 and the authors’ rebuttals are summarized. The responses from the EU seem to have thus far prioritized industry profits to the detriment of human health and the environment.”

[Note by A.J.: Also Dr. Martin L. Pall has corresponded with EU officials, see the serial EU guidelines are fraudulent, and never got any reply. Also I have corresponded with EU, got reactions, but the last letter, the key letter, written by Wojziech Kalamarz did not offer any answer finally, while I asked for answering 12 questions, created by Dr. Martin L. Pall. The answer of Kalamarz can be found here.]


Einar_Flydal§5. Einar FlydalHead of Swiss Radiation Protection Committee accused of 5G-swindle. Nordic countries deceived, too.   Röösli

Article related with §4b, prof. Hardell’s Letter on Expert evaluations on health risks from radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) and 5G. – Martin Röösli

Published: 20 February 2020.



[ORSAA: Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association] – The Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association (ORSAA) has submitted formal comments to the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) on the draft “GUIDELINES FOR LIMITING EXPOSURE TO TIME-VARYING ELECTRIC, MAGNETIC AND ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS (100 kHz TO 300 GHz)”. Please refer to the ORSAA comments attached.

ORSAA Submission to ICNIRP  – The draft RF Guideline documents were released on the 11 July 2018 and public consultation ended on the 9 October 2018. We understand that ICNIRP had received over 100 responses. ICNIRP also indicated that they will not generate individual replies so we anticipate the whole exercise will be a “whitewash” without any substantial changes to the proposed limits. We made extensive use of the ORSAA database in formulating our response.

After publishing a recent paper entitled “A novel database of bio-effects from non-ionizing radiation” the EMF portal research group sent a letter to the editor critically reviewing the ORSAA database on 16 Oct 2018. We have added this letter to the editor to the ORSSA database as NESS Paper ID: 3228 and cross-linked to our paper ID: 3088

ORSAA authors will be responding with our own letter to the editor shortly. Our papers were placed in a peer-reviewed journal of Reviews on Environmental Health (REVEH).

Excerpts: [SNIP] Read on


§7. ICNIRP, EU and the fraudulent EU guidelines

Dr. Martin L. Pall 7a. Though EU pretends to have an own commission to create guidelines: SCHEER, the reality proves that those who are represented in SCHEER, do not know so much about the science of electromagnetic radiation and the effects of it on our health either, in fact comparable with WHO, an empty, misleading facade for, as to be expected, ICNIRP. I made a similar research about SCHEER. Though it has not been admitted somewhere on the EU website, or in one of their answers on my questions to them, it is obvious that ICNIRP rules everywhere. There is even an ICNIRP cartel. A compressed total: ICNIRP cartel PDF

Dr. Martin L. Pall was so kind to react on my question to comment on the information, sent to me by EU. Dr. Pall’s comment was forwarded by me to EU’s vice president Frans Timmermans, who has obviously asked Wojciech Kalamarz to react on it. His answer has been sent also to Dr. Martin L. Pall, and he commented on this also. The entire correspondence between me, EU, EU and me, me and Pall, Pall and me, me and Frans Timmermans, Wojciech Kalamarz and me, me and Pall, Pall and me, me and Kalamarz can be followed in the articles EU guidelines are fraudulent 1  , 2 and 3

7b. Dr. Martin L. Pall: EMF Safety Guidelines Do Not Predict Biological Effects and are therefore Fraudulent
ICNIRP, US FCC, EU and other EMF safety guidelines are all based on the assumption that average EMF intensities and average SAR can be used to predict biological effects and therefore safety. Eight different types of quantitative or qualitative data are analyzed here to determine whether these safety guidelines predict biological effects. In each case the safety guidelines fail and in most of these, fail massively. Effects occur at approximately 100,000 times below allowable levels and the basic structure of the safety guidelines is shown to be deeply flawed. The safety guidelines ignore demonstrated biological heterogeneity and established biological mechanisms. Even the physics underlying the safety guidelines is shown to be flawed. Pulsed EMFs are in most cases much more biologically active than are non-pulsed EMFs of the same average intensity, but pulsations are ignored in the safety guidelines despite the fact that almost all of our current exposures are highly pulsed. There are exposure windows such that maximum effects are produced in certain intensity windows and also in certain frequency windows but the consequent very complex dose-response curves are ignored by the safety guidelines. Several additional flaws in the safety guidelines are shown through studies of both individual and paired nanosecond pulses. The properties of 5G predict that guidelines will be even more flawed in predicting 5G effects than the already stunning flaws that the safety guidelines have in predicting our other EMF exposures. The consequences of these findings is that “safety guidelines” should always be expressed in quotation marks; they do not predict biological effects and therefore do not predict safety. Because of that we have a multi-trillion dollar set of companies, the telecommunication industry, where all assurances of safety are fraudulent because they are based on these “safety guidelines.”
Published: 23 May 2019

§7c. Dr. Martin L. Pall speaks about ICNIRP
Location: Culemborg, the Netherlands
Recording date: 20 November 2019
Excerpt from the video as been created by “Eleven Monkeys
Published: February 17, 2020



§8. Dafna Tachover, senior attorney and director of the 5G program at Children’s Dafna_TachoverHealth Defense (Robert F. Kennedy Jr.) speaks about the role of ICNIRP in an interview with RTAmerica. Start at 3:10 in the video to go to the spot where ICNIRP is mentioned. Website Dafna Tachover: We Are The Evidence.


Don Maisch§9. Don Maisch, EMFactsConsultancy: ICNIRP’s thermal only guidelines don’t work for insects with 5G-unless you like them fried Exposure of Insects to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields from 2 to 120 GHz
Arno Thielens, Duncan Bell,  David Mortimore, Mark Greco, Luc Martens, Wout Joseph Scientific Reports volume 8, Article number: 3924 (2018)

Abstract – Insects are continually exposed to Radio-Frequency (RF) electromagnetic fields at different frequencies. The range of frequencies used for wireless telecommunication systems will increase in the near future from below 6 GHz (2 G, 3 G, 4 G, and WiFi) to frequencies up to 120 GHz (5 G). This paper is the first to report the absorbed RF electromagnetic power in four different types of insects as a function of frequency from 2 GHz to 120 GHz. A set of insect models was obtained using novel Micro-CT (computer tomography) imaging. These models were used for the first time in finite-difference time-domain electromagnetic simulations. All insects showed a dependence of the absorbed power on the frequency. All insects showed a general increase in absorbed RF power at and above 6 GHz, in comparison to the absorbed RF power below 6 GHz. Our simulations showed that a shift of 10% of the incident power density to frequencies above 6 GHz would lead to an increase in absorbed power between 3–370%. SNIP

Conclusions – We investigated the absorbed radio-frequency electromagnetic power in four different real insects as a function of frequency from 2–120 GHz. Micro-CT imaging was used to obtain realistic models of real insects. These models were assigned dielectric parameters obtained from literature and used in finite-difference time-domain simulations. All insects show a dependence of the absorbed power on the frequency with a peak frequency that depends on their size and dielectric properties. The insects show a maximum in absorbed radio frequency power at wavelengths that are comparable to their body size. They show a general increase in absorbed radio-frequency power above 6 GHz (until the frequencies where the wavelengths are comparable to their body size), which indicates that if the used power densities do not decrease, but shift (partly) to higher frequencies, the absorption in the studied insects will increase as well. A shift of 10% of the incident power density to frequencies above 6 GHz would lead to an increase in absorbed power between 3–370%. This could lead to changes in insect behaviour, physiology, and morphology over time due to an increase in body temperatures, from dielectric heating. The studied insects that are smaller than 1 cm show a peak in absorption at frequencies (above 6 GHz), which are currently not often used for telecommunication, but are planned to be used in the next generation of wireless telecommunication systems. At frequencies above the peak frequency (smaller wavelengths) the absorbed power decreases slightly.

Access the full paper here

§9a. ICNIRP critique
The ICNIRP Guidelines: RF risk assessment built on a house of cards – PDF
Author: Dr. Don Maisch
Published: May 15, 2005

§9b. The Australian 5G inquiry and Whirling Dervishes…
Published: 17 February, 2020 [The article contains brackets with additional information, added by Antoinette Janssen]

At the International conference, Mobile Communications and Health: Medical, Biological and Social Problems, held in Moscow in 2004, the then ICNIRP chairman Paulo Vecchia [ICNIRP Commission Member from 2000 until 2012. ICNIRP Chairman from 2004 until 2012] stated the following in relation to ICNIRP’s so called precautionary principle approach:

“ICNIRP only considers acute effects in its precautionary principle approach. Consideration of long-term effects is not possible. Precautionary actions to address public concerns may increase rather than mitigate worries and fears of the public. This constitutes a health detriment and should be prevented as other adverse effects of EME.”

This is why Australians [ICNIRP’s] Rodney Croft [1][2] and Sarah Loughran[3] from ACEBR[4] have been elevated to the lofty heights of becoming members of the exclusive ICNIRP[5] club. They will push the nocebo line hinted at by Vecchia in 2004. Watch for any reports of harm from 5G to be put down as “worries and fears” and the blame put on media and community groups claiming that 5G is a potential health hazard.

So, will anyone who comes home from work one day to find a 5G small cell antenna mounted on a bus shelter or power pole right outside their bedroom be comforted by knowing that “consideration of long-term effects is not possible”. SO, if they suddenly find that they cannot sleep, are fatigued all the time and suffer from tinnitus, the folks at ICNIRP could claim that its just a result of needless worry and blame it on the many Stop 5G groups!

The Australian Communications Minister Paul Fletcher[6] who chairs the current 5G inquiry actually thinks people will be “confident that we have rigorous safety standards…which are based on the recommendations of the scientific community…ICNIRP recommends these standards – based on decades of careful research.”

Fletcher’s blind faith in ICNIRP (NOTE: ARPANSA’s RF standard is just a copy-& paste version of ICNIRP) is certainly not justified considering another statement from Vecchia in 2008:

“The ICNIRP guidelines are neither mandatory prescriptions for safety, the “last word” on the issue nor are they defensive walls for Industry or others.”

Enough spin to topple a Sufi Whirling Dervish[7]….

[Note: EU states on their website that all countries are each fully responsible for following up the EU (=ICNIRP) EMF guidelines: “Under Article 168 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the primary responsibility for protecting the public from potential harmful effects of electromagnetic fields remains with the Member States, including the choice of measures to be adopted based on age and health status.”[8]

§9c. Head of Swiss Radiation Protection Committee accused of 5G-swindle. Nordic countries deceived, too.
A guest posting by Einar Flydal, cand.scient. and Master of Telecom Strategy, science blogger on EMF, health and the environment.
Published: 27 February 2020.
In EMFactsConsultancy: https://www.emfacts.com/2020/02/einar-flydal-on-icnirps-acceptable-science/
PDF: https://einarflydal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Einar-Flydal-The-Accusations-against-R%C3%B6%C3%B6sli-and-the-BERENIS-20200220_v-3.pdf



§10. The EMF Call: Call for Truly Protective Limits for Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz) –  ICNIRP’s opinion and guidelines are unscientific and protect industry, not public health
Website with article: The EMF Call. Download The EMF Call as pdf  EN | FR | DE | ES | IT | RU | FI | SK | GR | SV
Scientists and medical doctors that signed The EMF Call: PDF
Non-governmental organizations that signed The EMF Call: PDF



Professor Girish Kumar§11. Prof. Girish Kumar, Bombay, India
2nd Workshop on Cell Phone / Tower Radiation Hazards & Solutions at Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IITB) organized by Prof. Girish Kumar, Dept. of Electrical Engineering, IIT Bombay. The first workshop was held on 20th Nov 2011 at VMCC, IIT Bombay. ICNIRP is mentioned in several different chapters in different PDF documents.

Workshop on Cell Tower/ Cell Phone Radiation Hazards & Solution
Download Resource material :
1. Cell tower radiation report sent to Department of Telecommunications, India by Prof. Girish Kumar
2. Presentation on Cell Phone/Tower Radiation Hazards & Solutions by Prof. Girish Kumar. https://www.ee.iitb.ac.in/~mwave/GK-Cell%20Tower-%20Hazard-Sept11.pdf Copy: http://www.wiki.leba.eu/_media/infrastruktura/kumar_g._-_cell_phone_tower_radiation_hazards_solutions.pdf
3. Cell Phone Towers Radiation Hazards Submitted to West Bengal Environment Ministry
4. Report on Possible Impacts of Communication Towers on Wild Life Including Birds & Bees

The following text about ICNIRP is copied from the presentation, and interesting, because the ICNIRP document is not available any more on the web.

India adopts ICNIRP guideline for Power density (Pd) = Frequency /200, frequency is in MHz(averaged over 6 min exposure) ICNIRP has given following disclosure:

“ICNIRP is only intended to protect the public against short term gross heating effects and NOT against ‘biological’ effects such as cancer and genetic damage from long term low level microwave exposure from mobile phones, masts and many other wireless devices.” http://ww.icnirp.de/documents/emfgdl.pdf

Article in The Economic Times / India Times, with a reaction on Prof. Girish Kumar’s workshop on Cell Tower/ Cell Phone Radiation Hazards & Solution:
Myths about radiation risks from cell tower
Some excerpts from the pro-ICNRP article:
“In 2008, India adopted the guidelines developed by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) for electromagnetic radiation from mobile towers.”

“The activists conduct seminars, arrange private talks and employ every trick under the sun to sell their products. “Living in Mumbai is like living in an open microwave oven! The public exposed to EM radiation from cell phone towers is getting cooked!” they say. Reporters obligingly spread the spicy stories. At DoT levels, what will be the temperature increase in the body? Responding to queries from this writer, Dr. Mike Repacholi [Note: ICNIRP Chairman from 1992 until 1996. ICNIRP Emeritus Member since 1996. A.J.] stated that temperature increase in the human body exposed to electromagnetic radiation at the level of ICNIRP standards could not exceed 0.1° C. At DoT levels, it will be 0.01° C! The most glaring disinformation propagated by activists is that the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) limit for cell phones — a safety standard of 1.6 Wper kg — is actually for six minutes per-day usage! Do not use for more than 18-20 minutes daily, they assert.”

Dr. Kari Jokela [Note: ICNIRP SCIII Member 1994-2012 – ICNIRP Commission Member 2008-2016 – ICNIRP SEG Member 2016-2019, A.J.] member of ICNIRP and research professor at the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, Finland, in an email message stated that Dr. Girish Kumar’s interpretations of ICNIRP guidelines are incorrect. The studies thus far are reassuring. More research is needed to reduce the uncertainties. This writer trusts the safety standards for electromagnetic radiation prescribed by the ICNIRP, which is formally recognised by the WHO, the International Labour Organization and the EU. Sixty-three countries accepted ICNIRP limits. Our limits are 10 times lower. Have we to lose sleep over the alleged risks of cell tower radiation?”   Full article: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/myths-about-radiation-risks-from-cell-tower/articleshow/18263811.cms

Author: K.S. Parthasarathy
The author is former secretary of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board
The article was last updated on Jan 31, 2013 / The article is also published on the wordPress blog of K.S. Parthasarathy: https://ksparthasarathy.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/myths-about-radiation-risks-from-cell-tower/

Read the blog post ICNIRP in India for more information.

Additional from India:
We The People – Barkha Dutt Show – Cell phone towers
Barkha Dutt covering burning issue of cell phone tower radiation and health hazard. Check on norms adopted in India and whether they are matching to ICNIRP and WHO guidelines.
Video published: 22 March 2013


§12. Stralingsbewust
Waar baseert de GGD zich op dat 5G niet gevaarlijk zou zijn?  / Where is the Municipal Health Service referring to when claiming 5G is not dangerous?

Picture: overview of conflicts of interest of ICNIRP, directly or indirectly, with all existing departments within the Dutch healthcare systems, into the highest levels of the hierarchic pyramid of power: the RIVM.


Credits: Stralingsbewust, Netherlands

Published: 20 February 2020
Translate Dutch text via https://translate.google.com/


§13. A review of the ecological effects of radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF)
S. Cucurachia; W.L.M. Tamisa; M.G. Vijvera; W.J.G.M. Peijnenburg; J.F.B. Bolte; G.R.de Snoo
Published: January 2013
Chapters with links to ICNIRP and/or WHO:
1. Introduction; 1.1.; 1.2.;
2. Review method: 2.1.;
4. Ecological effects of RF-EMF: 4.2.2.; 4.3.; 4.4.;
5. Synthesis: 5.3.; 5.5.;
6. Conclusions and recommendations:in several paragraphs. One of these:

“At the current state of our knowledge, it is possible to conclude that there is an urgent need for repetitions of experiments and field studies by other research groups and under other (standard) situations and setup in order to confirm the presence/absence of effects. We, once again, refer to the ICNIRP statement of (2010), suggesting that results can only be accepted ‘for health risk assessment if a complete description of the experimental technique and dosimetry are provided, all data are fully analysed and completely objective, results show a high level of statistical significance, are quantifiable and susceptible to independent confirmation, and the same effects can be reproduced by independent laboratories’ (Repacholi and Cardis, 1997). If the significant conclusions found by studies are confirmed, they will be important for a mechanistic understanding of the interaction of RF fields with ecosystems.”

[Note: The entire document, with all possible proof of harm via electromagnetic radiation, is a battle with the laws of ICNIRP and WHO. For ICNIRP it is not enough, neither for WHO. ICNIRP wants obviously every spot on earth on a map, with graphics, photos, laboratory results, to be satisfied finally and accept the biological effects research results as presented in this document. Question: why not turning it around? Why does ICNIRP not need to prove that their studies, as they claim, are focusing on the right corner of the field, and why do they not need to prove that the results as presented in the document are, as they claim, false and/or not sufficient? A.J.]


§14. Call by scientists to review the EMF guidelines
PubMed: Health risk assessment of electromagnetic fields: a conflict between the precautionary principle and environmental medicine methodology. / World Health Organization [see conflicts of interest with ICNIRP, Devra Davis, §2, A.J.] and the European Commission, do not have at all the precautionary principle in mind when they report on health risks.
Dämvik M, Johansson O.
Published: 2010

PubMed: Scientific panel on electromagnetic field health risks: consensus points, recommendations, and rationales.
Fragopoulou A, Grigoriev Y, Johansson O, Margaritis LH, Morgan L, Richter E, Sage C.
Published: 2010


§15. Electromagnetic Radiation due to Cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth technologies: How safe are we?
Electromagnetic Radiation due to Cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth technologies: How safe are we? Chapter III. Standards and Guidelines for Electro-Magnetic Radiation – A. ICNIRP


Published: 4 March, 2020


Dr. Susan Pockett §16. Dr. Susan Pocket, MsC, PhD, School of Psychology, University of Auckland, Auckland 1142, New Zealand: Conflicts of Interest and Misleading Statements in Official Reports about the Health Consequences of Radiofrequency Radiation and Some New Measurements of Exposure Levels
Keywords: radiofrequency radiation; RF; microwave; cellphone; smart technology; public health; cancer; diabetes; depression; dementia; ICNIRP; WHO
Published: 5 May 2019


Face §17. Antoinette Janssen: ICNIRP – investigative files, articles, papers https://multerland.wordpress.com/2019/06/02/icnirp/ / Start: 2 June, 2019

§17a. “New” ICNIRP commission: 2020 – 2024
Posted: March 6, 2020
By: Antoinette Janssen

§17b. The founding chairman of IRPA was Michael Repacholi
By: Antoinette Janssen
Published: March 9, 2020

§17c. LinkedIn Post: EU Parliament: Effects of 5G wireless communication on human health, by Joel Moskowitz, PhD
Published: 12 March 2020
“The amount of papers to Stop 5G is essentially never ever enough, as long ICNIRP is the ruling empire. There are hardly Stop5G activists who understand the role of ICNIRP in the battle field we are in, and facing the final abyss. Pushed by ICNIRP. As long this industrial-political group has not been taken into court, life on earth will continue dying, despite all scientific researches of many decades, and in total far enough. Even when 5G is stopped, we are in danger, the abyss is already created by 4G. ICNIRP belongs in the World Court. Nobody talks about this legalized essentially criminal organisation, where the entire world is dependent on, since its founder Michael Repacholi has started with it. Who is Repacholi? He had a great job in the telecom industry, before starting to found the group IRPA, that started to administer the guidelines for radiation. IRPA morphed into ICNIRP. The dogmatic view of this group has been implemented as an unbreakable law, by Michael Repacholi. The role of ICNIRP is comparable with a totalitarian regime. So, there is not any question, because it is ICNIRP that is harmful for our health: https://multerland.wordpress.com/2020/03/09/the-founding-chairman-of-irpa-was-michael-repacholi/

§17d.  YouTube_logo_(2013-2015)Video ICNIRP – World Wide EMF Guidelines Deciding Group / A Radiant Day (2008)
Published first time: 2008, NRK, Norway
Edited, Part 1, Republished: 2020
Additional info: The Radiation Exposure War
Author: Frode Nielsen
Published: 14 November 2008
Playlist with the documentary in 5 parts:
Anders Børringbo – Brennpunkt, NRK, ‘’A Radiant Day’’, 2008

§17e. 5G, Coronavirus and ICNIRP – reaction on the false content of the article written by Forbes journalist Bob O’Donnell: Here’s why 5G and coronavirus are not connected

§17f. Corona-check via magnetism – About the electro sensitivity of viruses, in EMF levels that have been claimed to be harmless, by ICNIRP.
Published: March 30, 2020


§18. The EMF Call
Call for Truly Protective Limits for Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz)
ICNIRP’s opinion and guidelines are unscientific and protect industry, not public health


§19.  YouTube_logo_(2013-2015)  Playlist with videos about ICNIRP  –  https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvjgztX_Uo3ZwIq5G3OBuUEMzL2aciWc5


§20. Additional information:

  1. [2013 – Petition closed] Petition demanding ICNIRP to revise environmental and health standards surrounding EMF exposure.
    Philipe Dorion started this petition in 2013 to Dr. Gunde Ziegelberger (Scientific Secretary of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) and 15 others:
    (ICNIRP) International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection: Revise environmental and health standards surrounding EMF exposure.
  2. Investigate Europe: ICNIRP Cartel
  3. Article in “Community Operating System”: How ICNIRP, AGNIR, PHE and a 30 year old political decision created and then covered up a global public health scandal
  4. Article: Former ICNIRP member advocates that wireless must get a more stringent cancer risk class
    10 Paper Titles match ICNIRP
  6. How ICNIRP, AGNIR, PHE and a 30 year old political decision created and then covered up a global public health scandal
    Author: Simon Hodges
    Published: September 12, 2019
  7. Related article: Instytut Spraw Obywatelskich – Institute of Civil Affairs:
    Nauka oparta na dowodach czy na prostytucji?
    Evidence based on science or prostitution?
    About scientific prostitution, the impact of corporations on scientific research and how the dismantling of the environmental and human protection system in Poland has been dismantled, says prof. Janusz Mikuła from the Cracow University of Technology.
    English: https://multerland.wordpress.com/2020/02/27/evidence-based-science-or-prostitution/
    Author: Rafał Górski – Poland
    Published: 25 February, 2020
  8. Michael Repacholi
    Independent Research Professional
    https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-repacholi-b4455711/ [Attention: the word “independent” does not fit with the content of §2, this document: Microwave News Responds to Mike Repacholi | A.J. ]
  9. YouTube_logo_(2013-2015) Video: Former WHO expert Mike Repacholi speaks on studies that prove there is no link between EMF & Cancer  [Attention: the title has been created by channel: Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI), their comment in the video information: “Watch the video to listen to him describe in detail the results of scientific studies that have been conducted on animals in the recent past, which negate [=deny] the possibility of EMF radiations being responsible for cancer.”. A.J.]
  10. Repacholi Revises Safety Code 6.
    By: Dr. Magda Havas
    Updated: July 7, 2018
  11. WHO admits “conflicts of interest”
    By: Dr. Magda Havas
    Published: September 3, 2010
  12. LinkedIn Slide-Share: Professor Michael Repacholi, University of Rome –
    31 photos with additional text.
    Published: October 19, 2007 – Attention: a description of each photo can be found when scrolling down on the page.
  13. Who’s who? Eric van Rongen –  https://www.kumu.io/Investigate-Europe/whos-who#emf-research/eric-van-rongen


Latest update: March 25, 2020



About Multerland

Multerland is the well thought out name for the Multerland blog, and related YouTube channel, explained on the home page of the blog. Owner is Antoinette Janssen, who collects and creates educational information via blog posts, links, articles, books, films, photos, videos. She publishes articles about care for nature, natural health, holistic medicine, holistic therapies, deep ecology, biodynamic farming, sustainability, climate change, life processes, spirituality, awareness, mindfulness, and, recently, also articles and videos about the hidden dangers of wireless and cell phone radiation.
This entry was posted in 5G, EMF, EMF (electro magnetic field), Ethics, WiFi and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.