🛑 ICNIRP – investigative files, articles, papers, documentaries

The article: ICNIRP – investigative files, articles, papers, documentaries started June 2, 2019. All publications about ICNIRP in the media, world wide, are collected in this article, since that date. For a while already, the most recent publication in the media is published on the top of a list in chapter III of this post, with in the meantime 40 paragraphs and often even sub paragraphs. Newest adds on the top.

Latest update: September 13, 2020

.

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

Bundesamt_fuer_Strahlenschutz

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.”

balk1

.

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: Rodney Croft (from May, 2020). [Article: ICNIRP’s new chair Rodney James Croft] When this article started, in June 2019, ICNIRP’s chair was Eric van Rongen. Videos with Eric van Rongen; 1, 2, 3, 4. Eric van Rongen is ICNIRP’s vice chair, from May 2020. 

Eric van Rongen participates in the Dutch “Gezondheidsraad”: visit webpage Commission Electromagnetic Fields, scroll down to “secretarissen”. eric_rongen

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

.

balk1

.

III. ICNIRP – investigative files, articles, papers, documentaries

  1. My own investigations on ICNIRP
  2. Barrie Trower, Lecture of February 3, 2020: Lecture. Length: about 2 hours
  3. “Strålskyddsstiftelsen”, the Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation_ The Swedish Radiation Safety Authority hires unscrupulous experts
  4. “Strålskyddsstiftelsen”, the Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation – ICNIRP’s neutrality is a lie
  5. The EMF Call – an appeal of scientists, medical doctors and NGO’s
  6. 5G Appeal of Scientists and Medical Doctors
  7. Priyanka Bandara, Tracy Chandler, Robin Kelly, Julie McCredden, Murray May, Steve Weller, Don Maisch, Susan Pockett, Victor Leach, Richard Cullen, Damian Wojcik – 5G Wireless Deployment and Health Risks: Time for a Medical Discussion in Australia and New Zealand
  8. Dr. Hugo Schoonveld – The Netherlands – 5G systems come in phasesincluding health- and skin problems / Why ICNIRP is wrong
  9. Dr. Lennart Hardell and Dr. Michael Carlberg – Health risks from radiofrequency radiation, including 5G, should be assessed by experts with no conflicts of interest
  10. Dr. Andrew Goldsworthy responds to ICNIRP’s Eric van Rongen’s statements, published in Business Insider on June 23, 2020
  11. Stralingsbewust, the Netherlands: Frequency auction 5G started despite serious warnings and new critical report on ICNIRP
  12. Microwave News: ICNIRP’s Principal Patron: Germany
    Provided 70-80% of Its Support in Each of Last Three Years
  13. Setting Guidelines for Electromagnetic Exposures and Research Needs: Prof. Em. Frank Barnes, Prof. Em. Ben Greenebaum
  14. ICNIRP: Conflicts of interest , corporate capture and the push for 5G – New 98-page report from two members of European Parliament: Dr. Klaus Buchner, and Michèle Rivasi
  15. Dutch citizens speak to the Dutch Prime Minister, about ICNIRP
  16. Professor Hans Kromhout
  17. Dr. Leendert Vriens
  18. Documentary: Resonance: Beings of Frequencies [2012]
  19. Documentary: An Invisible Threat [2014]
  20. Dr. Hugo Schooneveld PhD
  21. Interview: Dr. Zac Cox PhD, with Mr Barrie Trower
  22. Louis Slesin, PhD / Microwave News
  23. Documentary: Anders Børringbo – Brennpunkt, NRK, ‘’A Radiant Day’’, 2008
  24. Investigate Europe
  25. Adam J. Vanbergen, Simon G. Potts, Alain Vian, E. Pascal Malkemper, Juliette Young, Thomas Tscheulin
  26. Dr. Lennart Hardell
  27. Einar Flydal
  28. Dr. Martin L. Pall
  29. Dafna Tachover
  30. Prof. Girish Kumar
  31. Stralingsbewust
  32. S. Cucurachia; W.L.M. Tamisa; M.G. Vijvera; W.J.G.M. Peijnenburg; J.F.B. Bolte; G.R.de Snoo
  33. Fragopoulou A, Grigoriev Y, Johansson O, Margaritis LH, Morgan L, Richter E, Sage C.
  34. Naren, Anubhav Elhenc, Vinay Chamola, Mohsen Guizan
  35. Dr. Susan Pocket
  36. Antoinette Janssen
  37. Playlist with videos about ICNIRP
  38. Additional information
  39. Archive Michael Repacholi
  40. Archive Martin Röösli

.

balk1

.

ICNIRP – investigative files, articles, papers, documentaries

§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 do 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]

icnirp-FULL

..

balk1

.

§2. Lecture – Physicist Barrie Trower reveals his findings on 5G, ICNIRP and WHO
Lecture date: 3 February 2020
In: Exeter Phoenix, UK.

Total length: 1:50:46
Part 1: 00:00 – 48:26 – Keywords: ICNIRP, WHO, guidelines, top secrets, scam, industry, governments, military, tests,  Wi-Fi, cell phones, children at risk, schools, cancer, science, the year 1953
Part 2: 48:26 – 1:32:03 Keywords: Trees, DNA, 5G, law, court, Nuremberg treaty, the European Convention of Human Rights, the UN convention on the rights of the child, EU regulations, and the Bern and Bonn conventions. top-secret research of a test in Russia, in 1977, with radiation that is similar with 5G, ICNIRP’s agreement with twice this dosage now, 24/7, UNESCO, the 5G abyss.
Part 3: 1:33.00 – Questions and Answers

Part 1 of the lecture / Full transcript PDF

Excerpt – 01:05

Anything I say I have evidence documentary for, in total 1700 papers. I do not say a single word, unless I have documentary evidence.

Between 1949 and 1962 everything we needed to know about microwaves was known and published. By 1962 all of the dangers, all of the hazards, everything was known. When I say “all of them”: between the super powers and us[Britain], the brain at that time had been studied for brainwaves and microwaves could be used to penetrate the brain and cause behavioural changes. By 1962, with the resonance frequencies of the organs, the brain, the cyclotron frequencies, the circadian frequencies, a statement was made in 1962 by the governments that all birth-defects, organs, whole organisms, all cells, brain-functions, all moods, could be altered, changed and destroyed. By 1962. Microwaves then, as now, were used as stealth weapons, before they became cellphones.

In 1965 cellphones were used by the military, I had them. By 1965 the prospects of cellphones and everything from cellphones was seen as a really, really lucrative market for  the general public. And, knowing the dangers that cellphones could cause -the military are exempt[free from obligation]: you do not have, in the military, when you sign, any danger that comes your way for using whatever, you don’t have any recourse for that. But the general populations do. The military, and the industry of several countries: the United Sates, Canada, us[Britain], some of the NATO countries, Australia and New Zealand, the people got together and they knew that cellphones and all the other gadgets you have today, they knew they would not be allowed under current safety limits.We needed a safety limit that could never be taken to court and never challenged if these things were to progress.

In 1965 they adopted an old 1953 thermal level by an engineer by the name of Schwan and in order to prevent to be taken to court the industries and the people who are making decisions they adopted the Schwan 1953 level which basically says: “If a certain weight of your tissue does not heat up by a certain temperature in 6 minutes then everything will be deemed for a lifetime exposure for adults, men, women, children, pregnant women, everybody. The 6 minute level is the one that is still used today.

They totally ignored and put aside the electromagnetic vectors of the wave and the harm that the electromagnetic vectors can do. They interfere with the electrical conductivity of the cells, the electromagnetic conductivity of the neurons, the electromagnetic conductivity of the brain. They interfere with the resonant frequency of the circadian resonant cells the electronic ions, they interfere with everything.

All of these were brushed aside. We stuck with the 6 minutes thermal limit. Sometimes they extended to 30 minutes, but basically it is 6 minutes and that is what is enforced today in 42% of the planet, of what we are in that part today.

You have really no protection against the electromagnetic vectors. That is enforced today. That comes from the International Non Ionizing Radiation Protection[ICNIRP] who advise our, what was the government scientists, now Public Health England, who advise governments, who advise councils, and it comes all the way down, and it is still in force today.

08:30

Part 2 of the lecture / Full transcript PDF

Excerpt:

1:24:02

Now an experiment was carried out on 5G. An experiment was carried out in Russia. In 1977, I have the paper, an experiment was carried out on animals and humans using 5G[Barrie Trower explained earlier in this lecture that the there used radiation levels and frequencies used are similar with what we name now 5G, Admin]. I won’t go into the units but the radiation level unions, the humans[volunteering humans, Admin] and the animals were subjected to was at a level of 62. They were subjected to a level of 62 for 15 minutes a day, for 60 days. In other words: 15 hours. That’s it.

1:25:05

You can legally, under the International Commission[ICNIRP, Admin] and our government, under the thermal regulations, you, and all of the animals and all of the trees, if 62, and I am going to list the illnesses caused from a level of 62 you can legally be given for 24 hours a day, non-stop, for ever, a level of 140: more than twice.

1:25:31

The professors listed damage to the skin, liver, heart, brain, adrenal glands, blood, the foetus, children, stem cells, human sperm, honeybee. and that was just from one paper. There’s the paper[Barrie Trower shows a paper, Admin], it’s a top-secret paper from Russia that I had sent to me.

 

.

balk1

.

§3. Strålsäkerhetsmyndigheten anlitar jäviga experter
https://www.stralskyddsstiftelsen.se/2020/08/stralsakerhetsmyndigheten-anlitar-javiga-experter/
Published: 18 August, 2020
By: “Strålskyddsstiftelsen”, the Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation
Translated via Google into English by Multerland

1. The Swedish Radiation Safety Authority hires unscrupulous experts
2. The majority does not agree
3. The members of the expert group
4. ICNIRP is not independent of the telecommunications companies
5. “Independent” group not independent
6. Brother was a lobbyist for Telia
7. WHO also dominated by ICNIRP
8. Major financial interests

.

balk1

.

 §4. Comment of The Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation “Strålskyddsstiftelsen” on “Conflicts of interest, corporate capture and the push for 5G” published by the European Parliament members Dr. Klaus Buchner and Michèle Rivasi.
Swedish: https://www.stralskyddsstiftelsen.se/2020/06/eu-rapport-om-icnirp-visar-kopplingar-till-telekombolag/
English: https://multerland.wordpress.com/2020/08/22/icnirps-neutrality-is-a-lie/
1. EU report on ICNIRP shows links to telecommunications companies
2. ICNIRP’s neutrality is a lie
3. Links with telecom
4. Comment from the Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation on ICNIRP
Published: 21 August 2020

.

balk1

.

§5. The EMF Call – an appeal of scientists, medical doctors and NGO’s

On November 1st, 2018, in order to protect the public and the environment from the known harmful effects from electromagnetic fields (EMF), The EMF Call was launched. It is by November 26, 2018, signed by 164 scientists and medical doctors together with 95 non-governmental organizations. New medical guidelines need to be developed that represent the state of medical science and are truly protective. They also need to be developed without any industry influence.

The EMF Call also urges all governments, the UN and the WHO not to accept the ICNIRP guidelines, issued as draft on 11th July 2018. ICNIRP’s guidelines pose a serious risk to human health and the environment. They allow harmful exposure to the world population, including the most vulnerable. They are not protective. They do not represent an objective evaluation of the available science on effects from this form of radiation.

If you are a scientist, medical doctor or represent an NGO, and also want to support The EMF Call, you are welcome to contact us.

.

balk1

.

§6. 5G Appeal of Scientists and Medical Doctors
Launched on September 13, 2017
Number of signatories on August 10, 2020: 398

Excerpt: “The current ICNIRP ”safety guidelines” are obsolete. All proofs of harm mentioned above arise although the radiation is below the ICNIRP “safety guidelines”. Therefore new safety standards are necessary. The reason for the misleading guidelines is that “conflict of interest of ICNIRP members due to their relationships with telecommunications or electric companies undermine the impartiality that should govern the regulation of Public Exposure Standards for non-ionizing radiation…To evaluate cancer risks it is necessary to include scientists with competence in medicine, especially oncology.”

The current ICNIRP/WHO guidelines for EMF are based on the obsolete hypothesis that ”The critical effect of RF-EMF exposure relevant to human health and safety is heating of exposed tissue.” However, scientists have proven that many different kinds of illnesses and harms are caused without heating (”non-thermal effect”) at radiation levels well below ICNIRP guidelines.”

.

balk1

.

5G Wireless Deployment and Health Risks§7. 5G Wireless Deployment and Health Risks: Time for a Medical Discussion in Australia and New Zealand
https://multerland.wordpress.com/2020/08/07/5g-wireless-deployment-and-health-risks-time-for-a-medical-discussion-in-australia-and-new-zealand/
Authors: Priyanka Bandara, Tracy Chandler, Robin Kelly, Julie McCredden, Murray May, Steve Weller, Don Maisch, Susan Pockett, Victor Leach, Richard Cullen, Damian Wojcik
Posted on August 7, 2020

Index:
Introduction to the issue
Claims of safety made by ARPANSA without medical care expertise
Oxidative stress
Misleading of primary care physicians by ARPANSA
Occupational exposures to millimetre waves
Chief medical officer’s statement on 5G
Australian parliamentary inquiry on 5G / 2019-2020
References (44)

Abstract:
This article discusses the need to raise a medical discussion on the health risks of wireless technology, particularly about new 5G that is lacking in the Australia – New Zealand region at present. It presents some evidence for the concerns raised in the global scientific community.

Keywords:
ARPANSA, ICNIRP, WHO, public health, Rodney Croft, Ken Karpidis, 5G, conflicts of interest, fraud, deception, health risk, medical science

.

balk1

.

HugoSchoonveld

§8. The Netherlands – 5G systems come in phasesincluding health- and skin problems – Blogpost in Dutch, with very detailed scientific information and references. Translate via google.

ICNIRP: “The skin protects the body against millimetre waves” Wrong! ICNIRP simply sees the skin as a kind of “shell” that absorbs millimetre waves and “thus” (they wrongly conclude) protects the body against millimetre waves effects. Furthermore, the tests were often carried out with field strengths that are (far) above the ICNIRP limits that we already consider to be too high.
https://www.hugoschooneveld.nl/pdf_bestanden/pdf_blogs/5g_systemen_komen_in_fasen_ook_gezondheid_en_huidproblemen.pdf 
By: Dr. Hugo Schooneveld
Published: 28 July 2020

.

balk1

.

ol_forthcoming§9. Health risks from radiofrequency radiation, including 5G, should be assessed by experts with no conflicts of interest bit.ly/5GCOIs

By: Dr. Lennart Hardell and Dr. Michael Carlberg
The Environment and Cancer Research Foundation, SE-702 17 Örebro, Sweden     Published: June 19, 2020
DOI: 10.3892/ol.2020.11876

Excerpt:

The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) has repeatedly ignored scientific evidence on adverse effects of RF radiation to humans and the environment. Their guidelines for expo-sure are based solely on the thermal (heating) paradigm and were first published in ICNIRP 1998 (6), updated in ICNIRP 2009 (7) and have now been newly published in ICNIRP 2020 (8), with no change of concept, only relying on thermal effects from RF radiation on humans. The large amount of peer-reviewed science on non-thermal effects has been ignored in all ICNIRP evaluations (9,10). Additionally, ICNIRP has successfully maintained their obsolete guidelines worldwide.

The conclusion in the article is that:

“..the ICNIRP has failed to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of health risks associated with RF radiation. The latest ICNIRP publication cannot be used for guidelines on this exposure.” Source

.

balk1

.

goldsworthy_whiteborder§10. Dr. Andrew Goldsworthy responds to ICNIRP’s Eric van Rongen’s statements about 5G and Covid-19
https://multerland.wordpress.com/2020/07/05/andrew-goldsworthy-about-5g-and-covid19/
Published: July 5, 2020

.

balk1

.

§11. Frequency auction 5G started in the Netherlands despite serious warnings and new critical report on ICNIRP
Dutch: https://stralingsbewust.info/2020/06/29/frequentieveiling-5g-gestart-ondanks-serieuze-waarschuwingen-en-nieuw-kritisch-rapport-over-icnirp/
English: https://multerland.wordpress.com/2020/07/02/netherlands-frequency-auction-5g-started-despite-serious-warnings-and-new-critical-report-on-icnirp/
Published: 29 June, 2020
By: Stralingsbewust, the Netherlands

.

balk1

.

Logo1§12. ICNIRP’s Principal Patron: Germany
Provided 70-80% of Its Support in Each of Last Three Years
https://microwavenews.com/short-takes-archive/germany-supports-icnirp
Published: June 25, 2020
By: Dr. Louis Slesin / Twitter
In: Microwave News / Twitter

The German government is the main sponsor of ICNIRP, the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. The Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), which is the bureaucratic parent of the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS), has contributed 70-80% of ICNIRP’s annual income in each of the last three years.

ICNIRP Support

Sources: BMU and ICNIRP

This does not include revenue from the sale of books and fees to attend workshops. Read on: here

.

balk1

.

Greenbaum_Barnes§13. Setting Guidelines for Electromagnetic Exposures and Research Needs
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bem.22267
By: Prof. Em. Frank Barnes, Prof. Em. Ben Greenebaum
First published: 20 April 2020
In: Wiley Online Library
Abstract: Current limits for exposures to non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) are set, based on relatively short‐term exposures. Long‐term exposures to weak EMF are not addressed in the current guidelines. Nevertheless, a large and growing amount of evidence indicates that long‐term exposure to weak fields can affect biological systems and might have effects on human health. If they do, the public health issues could be important because of the very large fraction of the population worldwide that is exposed. We also discuss research that needs to be done to clarify questions about the effects of weak fields. In addition to the current short‐term exposure guidelines, we propose an approach to how weak field exposure guidelines for long‐term exposures might be set, in which the responsibility for limiting exposure is divided between the manufacturer, system operator, and individual being exposed. Bioelectromagnetics. © 2020 Bioelectromagnetics Society

.

balk1

.

1000px-European_Parliament_logo.svg §14. New 98-page report from two members of European Parliament: Dr. Klaus Buchner, and Michèle Rivasi:

The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection: Conflicts of interest , corporate capture and the push for 5G
https://klaus-buchner.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/ICNIRP-report-FINAL-19-JUNE-2020.pdf
This report was commissioned, coordinated and published by two Members of the European Parliament –Michèle Rivasi (Europe Écologie) and Klaus Buchner (Ökologisch-Demokratische Partei), and financed by the Greens/EfAgroup in the European Parliament. The report was written by Hans van Scharen with editing and additional research support from Tomas Vanheste. Final Editing: Erik Lambert
Published: June 2020
Table of Contents:

  • Foreword by Klaus Buchner and Michèle Rivasi: 3-5
  • I -Introduction & Scope 6-19
  • II -Historic overview of ICNIRP and accusations of COI20-34
  • III-Discussion & Controversies35-46
  • IV –Conclusion47-49
  • V –Portraits of ICNIRP Members 50-95
  • Annex I: Questions to ICNIRP 96
  • Annex II: Questions to WHO EMF Project 97

Bottom line: Replace ICNIRP with a “new, public and fully independent advisory” panel.

.

balk1

.

§15. A message from a citizens initiative, named “5bburgers”, for the Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte about ICNIRP, and its radiation limits,which are a threat for human health. Article Multerland: 5B versus 5G
Published: May 2020
Website: 5bburgers
YouTube: 5bburgers

.

balk1

.

HansKromhout

§16. Science divided on radiation 5G, and the significant role of ICNIRP
Professor Hans Kromhout, Utrecht University, Netherlands
Article by Jannes van Roermund, published in De Telegraaf, Netherlands
https://multerland.wordpress.com/2020/06/05/science-divided-on-radiation-5g/

.

balk1

.

Dr. Leendert Vriens §17. ICNIRP 2020 guidelines do not protect against harmful health effects 
By: Dr. Leendert Vriens, Physicist, former Philips Research Fellow, the Netherlands
Published: June 3, 2020
Appendix to the summary proceedings of the lawsuit against the Dutch State to stop 5G.[See: Lawsuits, 7, 7a]
Original tekst in Dutch, 20th April 2020: http://www.stopumts.nl/doc.php/Berichten%20Nederland/12501/redir

1. Summary of comments on the ICNIRP 2020 guidelines
The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) circulated new guidelines for exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) in March 2020 as a prepublication. According to ICNIRP, these guidelines are intended to protect people from the adverse health effects of radio frequency EMF in the frequency range of 100 kHz to 300 GHz. This includes all wireless communications, including 5G. As far as field strengths and radiation intensities are concerned, these guidelines do not differ from those from 1998 and therefore offer no protection.

After the first five introductory pages up to p. 37, the guidelines refer only to thermal effects caused by 6 minutes and 30 minutes of exposure to radiofrequency EMF. Those times are defined somewhat more clearly in ICNIRP 2020 than in ICNIRP 1998, but that is of no further importance. Both guidelines concern short-term exposure.

Only in Appendix B, from p. 37 until the end of the guidelines on p. 43, a few more scientific publications on non-thermal biological long-term effects have been mentioned, discredited and not included in determining the guidelines.

This has ignored virtually all of the thousands of peer-reviewed scientific publications demonstrating such non-thermal biological long-term effects. Some of these effects, which occur at field strengths and radiation intensities below and far below the ICNIRP 2020 guidelines, are harmful to health. The ICNIRP guidelines therefore, contrary to what is claimed, do not protect against harmful health effects.

In view of the great financial interests of the telecom industry and governments, it is obvious to conclude that the orders of magnitude too high ICNIRP 2020 guidelines are only intended to prevent any obstruction to the roll-out of wireless communication applications in general and of 5G in particular.  Read on……

Other chapters:

  • Preface
  • ICNIRP 1998
  • ICNIRP 2020
  • 01. Long-term effects
    1a. Cognitive functions
    1b. National Toxicology Program and Ramazzini research
  • EMF Committee of the Dutch Health Council
    1c. 1d. Unspecified long-term studies and auditory nerve cancer
    2. Guidelines based on denial of non-thermal biological effects
  • Two appendices have been added to the main body of ICNIRP 2020
    Appendix A
    Appendix B
  • Cancer
  • WHO and IARC-WHO
  • 5G
  • Conflict of interest
  • Other subjects
  • References (24)

PDF version: https://www.stopumts.nl/pdf/ICNIRP-2020-guidelines-do-not-protect-against-harmful-health-effects.pdf

.

balk1

.

§18. Documentary: Resonance: Beings of Frequencies
The video starts at 50:17, with information about and analyses of ICNIRP: guidelines that are not safety guidelines, the industry, who are invited in the ICNIRP team, by who, and why. The role of WHO, EU. The absence of science in the group.

.

balk1

.

§19. Documentary: An Invisible Threat
The documentary is an investigation, delving into three groups: the telecommunications industry (mobile telephone companies, MMF); official organisations (WHO, IARC, ICNIRP) and official scientific reports (BioInitiative, Interphone, CEFALO).
Duration: 1:11:40
Director: Pablo Coca
Published: 2014

.

balk1

.

HugoSchoonveld

§20. Dr. Hugo Schooneveld PhD – Netherlands

ICNIRP exposure standards inappropriate -Better protection for citizens against radiation sought
English: http://www.hugoschooneveld.nl/bestanden/Extern/ICNIRP exposure standards inappropriate.pdf

Summary
We need to get rid of the current system of standards and limits for the protection of citizens against electromagnetic fields (EMF), as recommended by the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, the ICNIRP. These limits for radio frequency fields are based solely on limiting warming of the body (“thermal effects”) and limits for low frequency fields are based on a combination of physiological effects in the body. For both frequency ranges, the limits are several orders of magnitude too high. Under normal living conditions, the field strengths experienced do not come close to these limits, while people do experience nuisance and develop “electrostress phenomena. So there are also “non-thermal effects”, but ICNIRP denies their existence. Therefore, better standards should be developed that also protect electro-sensitive people against (weak) EMF at home or at work.We propose to abandon ICNIRP guidelinesfor citizens and adopt instead the limits of the physician organization EUROPAEM, for the time being. But ideally,we should develop new standards based on physiological criteria.Physical responses to incident EMF are diverse and complex and it is important to set up a ‘think tank’with specialists in relevant biological disciplines to investigate the possibilities for biological standards. Realistic exposure limits for the electrosensitives should be the outcome.
Index:

  • ICNIRP standards and limits in disrepute
  • Nuisance from electromagnetic fields (EMF)
  • History of the high exposure limits
  • ICNIRP’s progress
  • ICNIRP’s updated Guidelines
  • ICNIRP’s exposure limits are unrealistic for citizens
  • Develop more realistic standards and limits
  • Polarizationbetween defenders and rejectors of non-thermal EMF effects
  • Identifying EMF effects as a basis for EHS diagnosis and exposure limits
  • Open discussion between experts on what to do next

Dutch: Blootstellingsnormen ICNIRP ongepast –Betere bescherming van burgers tegen straling gezocht
https://www.hugoschooneveld.nl/pdf_bestanden/pdf_blogs/blootstellingsnormen_icnirp_ongepast.pdf
Newsletter number 55
Published: April 28, 2020

.

balk1


§21. Dr. Barrie Trower – United Kingdom      

On November 13, 2010, scientist Barrie Trower talked about the dangers of microwave
technology and the ignorance of the decision makers in relation to the international
guidelines.
By: The World Foundation for Natural Science http://www.naturalscience.org
Total length: 2 hours, 20 minutes
Blog post: The World Foundation for Natural Science talks with Dr. Barrie Trower

In the interview Dr. Barrie Trower speaks about ICNIRP. Click on the upper right button in the video below and search for video number 12/21: The Dangers of Microwave Technology – Law & Guidelines. Dr. Barrie Trower speaks also about the Nuremberg treaty in part 13/21: The Dangers of Microwave Technology – Nuremberg treaty

.

balk1

.

Louis Slesin §22. Louis Slesin, PhD – USA

§22a.The Lies Must Stop – Disband ICNIRP, Facts Matter, Now More Than Ever, published: April 9, 2020 in Microwave News.

§22b. Microwave News Responds to Mike Repacholi / November 17, 2006..[In the following text I have used bold, Italic, and underlined to create attention for essential information. A.J. || Who is Mike Repacholi? See §3.]

Repacholi_1
In 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.
 
.
 
22c. ICNIRP Finds NTP & Ramazzini RF–Animal Studies Unconvincing
“Further Research Is Required”
By: Dr. Louis Slesin
Published: 2018
Update on May 1, 2020:
*Regarding ICNIRP’S Evaluation of the National Toxicology Program’s Carcinogenicity Studies on Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields
https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Citation/2020/06000/Regarding_ICNIRP_S_Evaluation_of_the_National.11.aspx
By: Ronald Melnick
Published: 2020
*Response to Melnick (2020)
https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Citation/2020/06000/Response_to_Melnick__2020_.12.aspx
By: ICNIRP
Published: 2020
.
 
22d. Industry Support for the WHO‘s EMF Project: New Sources Revealed
Imagine, a Belgian magazine, is reporting in its November/December issue that the WHO EMF project has been receiving even more industry money than has been previously disclosed. In a cover story titled, “Mobile Phones: We’re All Guinea Pigs!,” David Leloup revealed that the GSM Association (GSMA) recently increased its annual payment to €150,000 ($165,000). Before 2005, the GSMA contributed €50,000 ($55,000) a year. This is in addition to the $150,000 a year, the Mobile Manufacturers Forum (MMF) gives the EMF project each year. (MMF’s Mike Milligan confirmed this to Microwave News in 2003.) Previously, Motorola gave Repacholi $50,000 a year; but the company now funnels its payments through the MMF. Leloup estimates that these two mobile phone trade asso-ciations alone made up more than 40% of the EMF project’s 2005-2006 budget. The total contribution from the wireless industry is nodoubt higher, however. Other groups have also been sending money to Mike Repacholi. For instance, the FGF, the German RF research institute, Forschungsgemeinschaft Funk, has been giving the project about €15,000 ($16,500) a year, according to Gerd Friedrich, the director of FGF. This does not include any possible support from the electric utlity industry.
By: Dr. Louis Slesin, in: MICROWAVE NEWS
Published: November 13, 2006

§22e. Microwave News – Michael Repacholi: Collection review articles about Michael Repacholi from 2004 – …. : https://microwavenews.com/news-tags/michael-repacholi

§22f. Microwave News – Martin Röösli: Collection review articles about Martin Röösli from 2004 – …. : https://microwavenews.com/news-tags/martin-r%C3%B6%C3%B6sli
 
§22g. Louis Slesin, founder and editor of Microwave News: There are more complicated interactions than the pure thermal ones
https://www.investigate-europe.eu/en/2019/%e2%86%92-louis-slesin-founder-and-editor-of-microwave-news/?pk_campaign=2020-06-25&pk_kwd=promote&pk_source=Twitter
Published: 1 January 2019
By: Investigate Europe
 
§22h. ICNIRP’s Principal Patron: Germany Provided 70-80% of Its Support in Each of Last Three Years
https://microwavenews.com/short-takes-archive/germany-supports-icnirp
Published: June 25, 2020
By: Dr. Louis Slesin
In: Microwave News
.
 
.
.
balk1.

.

.§23. Anders Børringbo – Norway

Brennpunkt, NRK, ‘’A Radiant Day’’, 2008 – The Radiation Exposure War
https://www.nrk.no/dokumentar/the-radiation-exposure-war-1.6292981
Author: Frode Nielsen
Published: 14 November 2008

YouTube_logo_(2013-2015) Playlist with the documentary in 5 parts:
Anders Børringbo – Brennpunkt, NRK, ‘’A Radiant Day’’, 2008

.

balk1

.

§24. Investigate Europe

The ICNIRP Cartel and the 5G Mass Experiment –  March 2019

500px-Cquote2.svgICNIRP 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, 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.

“ICNIRP does not have an open process for the election of its new members. It is a self-perpetuating group with no dissent allowed. Why is this not problematic?” asks Louis Slesin, editor of the publication Microwave News in New York. He has followed the scientific debate on radiation and health for decades.

There are not enough highly qualified scientists, explains Mike Repacholi, an EMF research pioneer who founded ICNIRP in 1992, to Investigate Europe. The excluded research often does not meet high standards, adds Eric van Rongen, head of ICNIRP. “We are not against including scientists who think differently. But they must fill the profile in a specific vacant position and cannot just be taken in for their dissident views”, says van Rongen.

ICNIRPCARTEL

Click to go to the animated version

Major overlap of scientists

ICNIRP is the de facto standard-setter of radiation safety limits in much of Europe. Still, it is  just one out of several scientific groups. The groups, however, are to a remarkable degree staffed by the same experts.

Of 13 ICNIRP scientists, six are members of at least one other committee. In the WHO group, this applies for six out of seven. Every third researcher in the EU commission that gave radiation advice in 2015 was represented in other groups.

This is not so strange, according to Gunnhild Oftedal. She is a member of both the ICNIRP commission and WHO’s research group. “People who demonstrate that they are skilled are asked to contribute. Look at who sits on boards and councils in general, this is what it is like everywhere in society”, she says.

The committees agree on a basic premise between themselves: The only documented health risk from mobile radiation is the heating of body tissue. The radiation safety limits are set to prevent this from happening. As long as one adheres to these, there is no health risk, according to all but one committee.

For most mobile users it is easy to stay safe in relation to these limits: They are only reached or exceeded by standing directly in front of a base station at a shorter distance than 10 meters.

Are not nearly five billion mobile users worldwide proof that this works well?

Many studies find risk

No, argue a significant number of scientists who believe that people may be harmed by being exposed to mobile radiation far below these limits, especially in the course of many years of use. Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Organisation, an Australian entity, examined 2266 studies and found “significant biological effects or health effects” in 68 percent of them. Another, the “Bioinitiative Group“, referred to up to 1800 studies when they concluded that many such bio-effects probably cause health damage if people are exposed for a long time. This is because the radiation interferes with normal processes in the body, preventing them from repairing damaged DNA and creating an imbalance in the immune system, say these scientists.

According to the report produced by the Bioinitiative Group, the list of possible damage is frightening: Poor sperm quality, autism, alzheimers, brain cancer and childhood leukemia.

[….]

Source of finance may affect result

At least three studies over the years have documented that there is often a link between conclusions of studies and the source of the money that paid for the research. Science funded by industry is less likely to find health risks than studies paid for by institutions or authorities.

Research money often goes to universities and has “firewalls” between the individual scientist and the money, says Lennart Hardell, cancer doctor and scientist at the University hospital in Örebro in Sweden. “The problem is, however, that one becomes dependent on this money. Most people do not bite the hand that feeds them”, believes the Swedish researcher.

Hardell studies connections between long-term mobile use and brain cancer and has concluded that one can cause the other. He sat on the IARC committee in 2011, but is not represented on other committees. According to Hardell, his research is funded through his salary from the hospital as well as by funds raised by local cancer foundations and national organisations. “Of course I have also worked a lot on my free time”, he says.

Martin Röösli co-authored one of the studies that documented the link between financing source and results. The associate professor at the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute is a member of ICNIRP and other advisory bodies.  “Studies which are solely financed by industry are likely to be biased”, Röösli confirms to Investigate Europe. But in his study, mixed financial models with proper firewalls did not result in biased research outcomes – and it had a higher quality. There might also be preferred outcomes in any camp, Röösli asserts: “Researchers may create uncertainties to raise funding for their research”.

Some studies can go on for 15 to 20 years. Such projects are bread and butter for researchers, argues Louis Slesin. Some studies are industry-funded. “Does this constitute a conflict of interest for the scientists involved?” Slesin asks – and answers: “Of course it does”.

Gunnhild Oftedal does not dismiss that the source of funding can affect conclusions – just as “a strong belief that one will find something” can. Such mechanisms were not much considered before. “But today we are concerned about it. I have the impression that scientists are much more cautious about receiving support from the industry – at least direct support”, says Oftedal.

“Industry should pay”

Not everyone wants to denounce money from business. Industry should definitely pay for research into potential dangers of their products; but it should only be conducted independently of the funders, thinks Zenon Sienkiewicz, a UK physiologist, He is part of the ICNIRP commission and has previously been on other advisory bodies.

Research is critically dependent on external funding, adds former ICNIRP scientist Norbert Leitgeb, professor at the Institute of Health Care Engineering at the Graz University of Technology in Austria. “The question is not whether industry has provided money, which it should do if the products are the reason of concern. The important issue is whether there are efficient firewalls established assuring that stakeholders cannot interfere with researchers and influence scientific outcome or conclusions”, he says.

New, stricter rules

The debate of a potential industry bias ignores potential bias from NGOs and private pressure groups, asserts Leitgeb. “Groups such as people with self-declared electromagnetic hypersensitivity would merit the same attention”.

Mike Repacholi founded ICNIRP as well as the WHO EMF project. In the beginning, the WHO project received substantial funding from industry. Upon leaving WHO, Repacholi became an industry consultant.

“There has been such criticism of industry-funded research that the industry now doesn’t fund research. Yet they are the ones causing the concerns about health. Who has lost from this situation?” Repacholi asks.

Nevertheless, both ICNIRP and WHO now exclude researchers who have received support from industry over the past three years.

WHO and the tobacco heritage

Both Eric van Rongen and Gunnhild Oftedal are also deeply into the work of the World Health Organization to update this entity’s knowledge of radiation and health.

The WHO “core” group of scientist has been working since 2012, and the work was initially expected to be completed a long time ago. But allegations of one-sidedness have also ravaged this committee. Now the WHO will put together a larger research group that will evaluate the work of the core group. Participants are not yet appointed, but will include “a broad spectrum of opinions and expertise,” a WHO spokesperson assures Investigate Europe.

Many critics of the dominant EMF research bodies and its historical ties to industry compare the situation with the way tobacco manufacturers were able to maintain doubt about whether smoking was dangerous. “I don’t like that comparison, because there, the harmful effects are clear, whereas with EMF we are still guessing how big or small the problem is”, says Louis Slesin.

The lesson to be learned from the tobacco issue, he thinks, is to be careful not to give too much access and influence to industry. “In 2000, WHO published a major mea culpa report on how it allowed the tobacco industry to influence its thinking. But then they repeated that with EMF. They have never given me an answer to why”, says Slesin.

ICNIRP: Still uncertainty

Most of the research on mobile technology radiation and health has been done on 2G and 3G technology. In the coming years the super fast 5G will be rolled out, and it will partly use very much higher frequencies than what have been used before. The scientific knowledge on what this can mean for public health is minimal. Individual projections have warned that there is danger that such high frequencies may heat body tissue. ICNIRP says it does not agree.

The ICNIRP head agrees with critics on one issue, though: More research is needed.

“Absolutely. There is still much uncertainty. For example, we know too little about the long-term effects of mobile use for brain cancer to draw conclusions. We absolutely need more information”, says Eric van Rongen. 500px-Cquote2.svg

[A.J.’s additional comment on Eric van Rongen: We do not have the time! Louis Slesin: “Disband ICNIRP!“]

.

balk1

.

§25. Adam J. Vanbergen, Simon G. Potts, Alain Vian, E. Pascal Malkemper, Juliette Young, Thomas Tscheulin

Electromagnetic fields threaten wildlife
Risk to pollinators from anthropogenic electro-magnetic radiation (EMR): Evidence and knowledge gaps
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969719337805?via%3Dihub

[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.]

ICNIRP

.

balk1

.

Dr.LennartHardell

 §26. Dr. Lennart Hardell – Sweden

World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health – a hard nut to crack (Review, with graphics and tables, including the link between WHO and ICNIRP)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/
By: Lennart Hardell
Published: June 21, 2017 

Detail from chapter 3. The WHO EMF project: “The WHO EMF project is supposed to:

  1. provide information on the management of EMF protection programs for national and other authorities, including monographs on EMF risk perception, communication and management;
  2. provide advice to national authorities, other institutions, the general public and workers, about any hazards resulting from EMF exposure and any needed mitigation measures. (http://www.who.int/peh-emf/project/EMF_Project/en/index1.html).

Repacholi_1Michael Repacholi immediately set up a close collaboration between WHO and ICNIRP (being head of both organizations) inviting the electric, telecom and military industries to meetings. He also arranged for large part of the WHO EMF project to be financed by the telecommunication industry’s lobbying organisations; GSM Association and Mobile Manufacturers Forum, now called Mobile & Wireless Forum (MWF) () in addition to WHO, see the International EMF Project, Progress Report June 2005–2006 (http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/reports/IAC_Progress_Report_2005-2006.pdf).

Repacholi acted like a representative for the telecom industry while responsible for the EMF health effects department at the WHO (http://microwavenews.com/news/time-stop-who-charade). Since he left WHO in 2006 he has been involved in industry propaganda video interviews with GSM Association and Hydro Quebec (; ) where he clearly speaks in favor of the telecommunications and the power industries, respectively.

Michael Repacholi is still the Chairman emeritus at ICNIRP (http://www.icnirp.org/en/about-icnirp/emeritus-members/index.html) and has propagated during almost 20 years worldwide the ‘only thermal effect’ paradigm of health risks from RF-EMF exposure, ignoring the abundant evidence for non-thermal effects or cancer risks.

Repacholi recruited Emilie van Deventer to the WHO EMF Project in 2000. She is the current project manager at WHO for the EMF project. She has been a long time member of the industry dominated organization Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). IEEE is the world’s most powerful federation of engineers. The members are or have been employed in companies or organizations that are producers or users of technologies that depend on radiation frequencies, such as power companies, the telecom and the military industry. IEEE has prioritized international lobbying efforts for decades especially aimed at the WHO, for more information see (http://www.ices-emfsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Approved-Minutes-TC95-Jan_16.pdf).

Van Deventer is an electrical engineer. She has no formal or earlier knowledge in medicine, epidemiology or biology, so it is surprising that she was selected for such an important position at the WHO (http://www.waves.utoronto.ca/people_vandeventer.htm) (http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/worksem/emc-emf/201107/bios.html).

The very same year she was recruited to the WHO EMF Project Toronto University Magazine wrote about Emilie van Deventer’s work stating that it was ‘invaluable’ to industry: ‘The software modelling done by teams like van Deventer’s is invaluable.’ ‘The industrial community is very interested in our research capabilities,’ says van Deventer. ‘It always needs to be working on the next generation of products, so it turns to universities to get the research done.’ (http://www.research.utoronto.ca/edge/fall2000/content2b.html).

The importance of this work is reflected in the research funding van Deventer and her team received from the Natural Sciences & Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), Communications & Information Technology Ontario (CITO), and their major industrial partner, Nortel. Read on here.

.

26a. 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

.

§26b: 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.

.

§26c: 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  

.

§26d: 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
Excerpt:
“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.]

.

§26e. Health risks from radiofrequency radiation, including 5G, should be assessed by experts with no conflicts of interest
file:///C:/Users/ANTOIN~1/AppData/Local/Temp/ol_20_4_11876_PDF.pdf
Lennart Hardell and Michael Carlberg
The Environment and Cancer Research Foundation, SE-702 17 Örebro, Sweden
Received April 8, 2020; Accepted June 19, 2020
DOI: 10.3892/ol.2020.11876

.

balk1

.

Einar_Flydal§27. Einar Flydal – Norway

Head 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.

.

balk1

.

§28. Dr. Martin L. Pall – USA

ICNIRP, EU and the fraudulent EU guidelines

Dr. Martin L. Pall 28a. 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

28b. Dr. Martin L. Pall: EMF Safety Guidelines Do Not Predict Biological Effects and are therefore Fraudulent
https://www.stopumts.nl/doc.php/Onderzoeken/12250/
Abstract
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

§28c. 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

.

balk1

.

§29. Dafna Tachover, USA, 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.

.

balk1

Professor Girish Kumar§30. 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
https://www.ee.iitb.ac.in/~mwave/workshop.htm
Download Resource material :
1. Cell tower radiation report sent to Department of Telecommunications, India by Prof. Girish Kumar
https://www.ee.iitb.ac.in/~mwave/GK-cell-tower-rad-report-DOT-Dec2010.pdf
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
https://www.ee.iitb.ac.in/~mwave/Cell-tower-rad-report-WB-Environ-Oct2011.pdf
4. Report on Possible Impacts of Communication Towers on Wild Life Including Birds & Bees
https://www.ee.iitb.ac.in/~mwave/Report%20on%20Possible%20Impacts%20of%20Communication%20Towers.pdf

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
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/myths-about-radiation-risks-from-cell-tower/articleshow/18263811.cms
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHlNG7NxL1M
Video published: 22 March 2013

.

balk1

.

§31. Stralingsbewust – Netherlands
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.

Waar-baseert-de-GGD-zich-op

Credits: Stralingsbewust, Netherlands

Published: 20 February 2020
Translate Dutch text via https://translate.google.com/
https://stralingsbewust.info/2020/02/21/waar-baseert-de-ggd-zich-op-dat-5g-niet-gevaarlijk-zou-zijn/

.

balk1

.

§32. S. Cucurachia; W.L.M. Tamisa; M.G. Vijvera; W.J.G.M. Peijnenburg; J.F.B. Bolte; G.R.de Snoo

A review of the ecological effects of radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412012002334
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, 2020
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.]

.

balk1

.

§33. Fragopoulou A, Grigoriev Y, Johansson O, Margaritis LH, Morgan L, Richter E, Sage C.

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, §3, A.J.] and the European Commission, do not have at all the precautionary principle in mind when they report on health risks.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21268445
Dämvik M, Johansson O.
Published: 2010

PubMed: Scientific panel on electromagnetic field health risks: consensus points, recommendations, and rationales.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21268443
Fragopoulou A, Grigoriev Y, Johansson O, Margaritis LH, Morgan L, Richter E, Sage C.
Published: 2010

 

balk1

.

§34. Naren, Anubhav Elhenc, Vinay Chamola, Mohsen Guizan

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

ScientistsPublished: 4 March, 2020

.

balk1

.

Dr. Susan Pockett §35. 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
https://piotrbein.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/susanpockett-icnirp-new-zealand.pdf
Keywords: radiofrequency radiation; RF; microwave; cellphone; smart technology; public health; cancer; diabetes; depression; dementia; ICNIRP; WHO
Published: 5 May 2019

.

balk1

.

Icon4 §36. Antoinette Janssen / Blog Multerland – Norway

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

§36a. “New” ICNIRP commission: 2020 – 2024
https://multerland.wordpress.com/2020/03/06/new-icnirp-commission-2020-2024/
Posted: March 6, 2020
By: Antoinette Janssen

§36b. The founding chairman of IRPA was Michael Repacholi
https://multerland.wordpress.com/2020/03/09/the-founding-chairman-of-irpa-was-michael-repacholi/
By: Antoinette Janssen
Published: March 9, 2020

§36c.  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
https://www.nrk.no/dokumentar/the-radiation-exposure-war-1.6292981
Author: Frode Nielsen
Published: 14 November 2008
Playlist with the documentary in 5 parts:
Anders Børringbo – Brennpunkt, NRK, ‘’A Radiant Day’’, 2008
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQapQJi4cwKY-hUnZzyM5aYraud8EC5ai

§36d. 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

§36e. ICNIRP’s Eric van Rongen lies about 5G
Posted on June 25, 2020

§35f. ICNIRP’s new chair: Rodney James Croft
Posted: July 10, 2020

.

balk1

.

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

.

balk1

.

§38. 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.
    https://www.change.org/p/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
  5. ACADEMIA
    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
    https://communityoperatingsystem.wordpress.com/2019/09/12/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.
    https://magdahavas.com/pick-of-the-week-8-failed-attempt-to-reduce-safety-code-6-guidelines-in-1977/
    By: Dr. Magda Havas
    Updated: July 7, 2018
  11. WHO admits “conflicts of interest”
    https://magdahavas.com/who-admits-the-world-has-lost-their-trust/
    By: Dr. Magda Havas
    Published: September 3, 2010
  12. LinkedIn Slide-Share: Professor Michael Repacholi, University of Rome –
    31 photos with additional text.
    https://www.slideshare.net/HandheldLearning/professor-michael-repacholi-university-of-rome
    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
  14. Blog Stralingsleed: 60 Ghz zonder licentie wordt gebruikt voor o.a. 5G
    http://stralingsleed.nl/blog/60-ghz-zonder-licentie-wordt-gebruikt-voor-o-a-5g/
  15. 2020 / Setting Guidelines for Electromagnetic Exposures and Research Needs
    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bem.22267
    By: Frank Barnes, Ben Greenebaum
    Published: 20 April, 2020
  16. 2020 / Ärzte un Mobilfunk – Zitate
    http://www.aerzte-und-mobilfunk.eu/mobilfunk-zitate-forschung-wissenschaft/
  17. Die Mobilfunk-Industrie bestimmt ihre eigenen Grenzwerte
    https://klaus-buchner.eu/bestimmt-die-mobilfunk-industrie-ihre-eigenen-grenzwerte/
    Published: June 18, 2020
    By: Prof. Dr. Klaus Buchner  
  18. European Greens question Icnirp standards, call for new public body to look at 5G exposure
    https://www.telecompaper.com/news/european-greens-question-icnirp-standards-call-for-new-public-body-to-look-at-5g-exposure–1343780
    Published: June 24, 2020
    In: Telecompaper / Wireless
  19. Latin American Experts Committee on High Frequency Electromagnetic Fields and Human Health – Scientific Review on Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation in the Radiofrequency Spectrum and its Effects on Human Health
    Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection Standards and Policies
    https://www.wireless-health.org.br/downloads/LASR2010-ProtectionStandards-Policies.pdf
    Published: 2010
  20. “Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) in Africa”, Abuja, Nigeria / Africa
    https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/studygroups/2017-2020/20/sg20rgafr/20190827/Documents/S2-P1-Lewicki-EMF.pdf
    Published: 29 August 2019
    By: Dr. Fryderyk Lewicki, ITU-T SG5, Chairman of WP1, Orange Polska, Poland / Past chair of the Polish Chapter of the IEEE EMC Society

.

balk1

.

39. ICNIRP chair, chair of honour, Michael Repacholi – Collection

.

balk1

.

40. ICNIRP member, head of BERENIS Martin Röösli – collection of links to articles

.

balk1

.

Latest update: September 9, 2020

icnirp-FULL

About Multerland

Multerland is the well thought out name of the Multerland blog, the related YouTube channel, and Twitter account, 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.