Latest update: An edit. September 10, 2019.
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
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.
ICNIRP came in the news on March 9, 2019. The Telegraph: Mobile safety standards relaxed ahead of 5G networks
Content of this article:
Spotlights on ICNIRP
- My own investigations on ICNIRP
- The connection between ICNIRP and WHO, and what is lacking
- Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D. – ICNIRP’s Exposure Guidelines for Radio Frequency Fields
- Dr. Lennart Hardell – ICNIRP draft on new radiofrequency guidelines is flawed
- ORSAA comments to ICNIRP
- ICNIRP and EU
- ICNIRP draft on new radiofrequency guidelines is flawed
- Additional information
Spotlights on ICNIRP
§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: The 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 knowledge to guide us, humanity.
This is in my opinion beyond any sane rational thought. Not anybody of those who govern our planet and our destiny, has obviously ever asked them, the ICNRP commissioners, about their C.V., did not examine their C.V., did not check the content of their C.V., and…. what their ethics are.
§2. The connection between ICNIRP and WHO, and what is lacking
In the same period of time I also searched for information about the WHO, and created even an article: WHO is directing the laboratory named Earth? On May 31, 2019, I got the answer. The answer was found in the article “Brief Opinion on 5G and Health” by Dr. Dariusz Leszczynski. His answer is: ICNIRP.
- Brief opinion on 5G and Health – https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/2019/05/31/leszczynski-brief-opinion-on-5g-and-health/amp/
May 31, 2019
- ICNIRP Chairman, Eric van Rongen, clarifies issues from ‘The Telegraph’ interview
March 15, 2019
- ICNIRP’s public consultation of the draft of the RF guidelines is just a gimmick
July 25, 2018
- Publications by Eric van Rongen, Chairman of ICNIRP (updated)
May 1, 2018
- Aftermath of the peer-review of the NTP study: Do not hold your breath…https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/2018/03/30/aftermath-of-the-peer-review-of-the-ntp-study-do-not-hold-your-breath/ Note: Read the comment by Mona Nilsson (Sweden) on ICNIRP’s chair holder Eric van Rongen’s comment. Mona Nilsson refers to this video: https://vimeo.com/170138515 March 30, 2018
- ICNIRP ‘Jumps the Gun’: The Early Christmas Gift for Telecoms
December 18, 2017
- “BLUNDER” by ICNIRP’s and WHO EMF Project’s bosses
September 13, 2017
- Alzheimer’s, ICNIRP & 5G: Report from the Science & Wireless 2016, Melbourne, Australia
January 10, 2017
- Is ICNIRP reliable enough to dictate meaning of science to the governmental risk regulators?
April 8, 2016
- ICNIRP did it again…
April 4, 2016
- Mike Repacholi responds to “ICNIRP did it again…”
April 5, 2016
§3. Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.: ICNIRP’s Exposure Guidelines for Radio Frequency Fields – ICNIRP’s Revised RF Exposure Limits Will Ignore Expert Opinions of Most EMF Scientists
Wednesday, June 26, 2019
- “No evidence that RF EMF causes such diseases as cancer
- Results of NTP, Falcioni studies (animals, lifetime exposure) not convincing (statement on ICNIRP website)
- No evidence that RF EMF impairs health beyond effects that are due to established mechanisms of interaction”
“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.”
“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
§5. ORSAA comments to ICNIRP on the draft “GUIDELINES FOR LIMITING EXPOSURE TO TIME-VARYING ELECTRIC, MAGNETIC AND ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS (100 kHz TO 300 GHz)” / 9 October 2018
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.
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).
§6. ICNIRP, EU and the fraudulent EU guidelines
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 and 2.
§7. ICNIRP draft on new radiofrequency guidelines is flawed
Blog post July 2, 2019
§8. Additional information:
- Twitter: ICNIRP Moment
- ICNIRP on PubMed – PDF
- SCHEER on PubMed – PDF
- Blog Article: EU guidelines are fraudulent 1
- Blog Article: EU guidelines are fraudulent 2
- Blog Article: Dr. Martin Pall on 5G
- Blog Article: Arthur Firstenberg, the Hidden Dangers of Wireless and Cell Phone Radiation
- Blog Article: The Copenhagen Resolution on 5G
- Blog Article: Increasing Brain Cancer In Norway Follows Mobile Market
- Blog Article: 5G – Search and Share
§8a. Dr. Dariusz Leszczynski
- Dr. Dariusz Leszczynski’s Scientific Blog [incl. C.V.] – “Between a Rock and a Hard Place“
- Research Gate: Dr. Dariusz Leszczynski | University of Helsinki | HY | Department of Biosciences
- PubMed: Dariusz Leszczynski
§8b. Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.
- Physicians For Safe Technology – Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.
- ResearchGate – Joel M. Moskowitz
- Wikipedia – Joel Moskowitz
- International EMF Scientist Appeal: Scientists call for Protection from Non-ionizing Electromagnetic Field Exposure – Martin Blank, Magda Havas, Elizabeth Kelley, Henry Lai, Ph.D., Joel M. Moskowitz.
- EMF-SA : Cell Phones, Cell Towers, and Wireless Safety by Dr Joel Moskowitz
§8c. Dr. Lennart Hardell
- ResearchGate – Lennart Hardell, Örebro University Hospital | USÖ · Department of Oncology
- Lennart Hardell’s blog – A blog about environmental and health related research
- Wikipedia: Lennart Hardell
- PubMed: Lennart Hardell, Mobile phones, cordless phones and the risk for brain tumours.
- Google Scholar: Lennart Hardell – onkologi
- Generation Zapped -a film by Sabine El Gemayel- ¤ Meet The Experts ¤Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD., Oncologist & Professor of Cancer Epidemiology at the University Hospital in Orebro, Sweden