A Slide Show about EMF, cell phones, EMF and children, EMF from base stations, and health, was published in LinkedIn, on October 19, 2007 by Professor Mike Repacholi and is still available there. The text belonging to the slide show has been created by Professor Mike Repacholi as well and has therefore been added to this post. Each paragraph is followed by a comment, created by Admin. One must take in consideration that the ICNIRP guidelines and statements concerning EMF and health have not been changed until today. More: ICNIRP.
One must also take in consideration that the ICNIRP guidelines are directly or indirectly implemented world wide, and have created the path to 5G, to the EMF crisis we, all life on Earth and Mother Earth herself are in today, in what Russian Professor Yuri B. Zubarev names: “trapped into an invisible death“.
Professor Mike Repacholi is a former coordinator of the World Health Organisation’s programme on electromagnetic fields. He is the former Chair of ICNIRP, the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (1992 to 1996) and is now one of its Emeritus Members. Source: Investigate Europe
1. Dr. M. H. Repacholi Department of Electronic Engineering University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Rome, Italy Former Co-ordinator, Radiation and Environmental Health World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland Health Risks from Radiofrequency Fields
1a. Attention: Sounds nice, this title. This creates a feeling of: “he is caring for me. He agrees, that there are health risks. He writes it: Health risks from Radiofrequency Fields”. But when going through the following 30 texts one can discover that there is just one real risk, and that is calling with a mobile phone while driving: see nr. 30. All other texts are cleaning your mind from your worries, and filling it in with so-called “care”, “research”, and fake seriousness. One does not need to be so smart to hear the kissing up. This is named “brainwashing”.
2. We all use EMF technologies, but are there health consequences? Industrial Sources Residential Sources Medical Sources
2a. Attention: Yes, there are health consequences. See: EMF Links
3. When land-line telephones were first introduced into New York people worried about
3a. Attention: Yes, people worried about it, because of very good reasons. Arthur Firstenberg writes about it in his book: “The Invisible Rainbow”. See: Part two of the video series to be found here. See also: The link between electromagnetic radiation and illnesses.
4. Public concern about base stations, has continued for years in many countries. Possible health consequences being the main reason Base stations
4a. Attention: Psychologically very well chosen words, to create doubt. First opening the reader’s heart and mind with “public concern”. Creating the idea that ICNIRP follows up, is really interested, via the words: for many years. Then, last but not least: “Possible” health consequences. They say: well, WE doubt —read: we pretend we doubt, and put our created but false doubt in YOUR mind—. [What are base stations? Wikipedia.] For my own experiences with base stations please read this page in this blog. Also: EMF links.
6. Wireless Local Area Networks (LANs) are now common in schools, airports, business centres and residential buildings Cafeteria at WHO HQ, Geneva
6a. Attention: Analysing the words one hears: “Though there was turbulence around LANs and worries, now it is common in etc. EVEN in WHO headquarters! So: do not worry, all is totally safe!”
7. WHO’s main focus is developing count[r]ies[‘s] need to ensure new technologies are introduced safely
7a. Attention: WHO and ICNIRP are in a conflict of interest, and cooperate. WHO has implemented the ICNIRP guidelines for EMF: see ICNIRP, several paragraphs, and blog post: EHT: Letter to the UN Secretary-General and Office of Ethics
8. Its important to realise that people’s perceptions may not be based on facts. This is why we need good science to confirm the facts …about EMF
8a. Attention: The words “may not be based on facts” are not correct: the people’s perceptions ARE NOT based on real FACTS! Read the article “Wireless Hazards“, published: December 28, 2020.
in The Washington Spectator by Barbara Koeppel. She is a Washington D.C.-based investigative reporter who covers social, economic, political, and foreign policy issues. This article starts with the question: “If you think your cellphone is safe, have you considered why you believe that? Is it a fact or is it based on carefully crafted messages that you’ve read or heard?”
- WHO established the EMF Project in 1996
- Primarily to assesses the health and environmental effects of EMF exposure (0 to 300 GHz)
- A multinational, multidisciplinary effort to create and disseminate information appropriate to EMF health risks
- Co-ordinated by WHO, but decisions on health risk are made by international expert committees
9a. Attention: The WHO EMF Project is a branch of WHO, but also under the supervision of the United Nations. It is under attack. Read: EHT: Letter to the UN Secretary-General and Office of Ethics
- Evaluate scientific evidence
- Report on current status of knowledge
- Identify gaps in knowledge needing focused research to make better health risk assessments
- Promote and facilitate research programs
- Conduct health risk assessments and risk estimation, and develop policy options
- Provide information on standards, management programs and advice to national authorities
- Further information on WHO EMF Project: http://www.who.int/emf
10a. Attention: The WHO EMF Project is ICNIRP-linked. The best is to read: EHT: Letter to the UN Secretary-General and Office of Ethics
11. WHO Environmental Health Criteria on EMF
- EHC 16 Radiofrequency and microwaves (1981)
- EHC 35 Extremely low frequency (ELF) fields (1984)/2007
- EHC 69 Magnetic fields (1987)/2004
- EHC 137 Electromagnetic fields (300 Hz-300 GHz) (1993 ) /2009?
Major objective of EMF Project is to update EMF monographs
11a. Attention: Read EHT: Letter to the UN Secretary-General and Office of Ethics
12. Structure Research Coordinating Committee International Advisory Committee EMF Project Secretariat Standards Harmonization Committee 6 International Organizations Collaborating Institutions >60 National Authorities
12a. Attention: Read EHT: Letter to the UN Secretary-General and Office of Ethics
13. Biological and Health Effects Working definitions for health risk assessments
- A biological effect is a measurable physiological response to EMF exposure ….not necessarily hazardous…this must be evaluated
- An adverse health effect is a biological effect
- outside the body’s normal range of physiological compensation that is detrimental to health or well-being
13a. Attention: be aware that this slide show by Mike Repacholi is telecom industry protecting. Read: Wireless Hazards
14. Exposures to people are low ~1mW/cm 2 Exposures lower than from other RF sources such as radio and TV …depends where measurements made Difficult to distinguish base station exposures from other RF sources Few studies on health effects from base stations alone…but can extrapolate from higher exposure studies Base stations
14a. Attention: This slide Show is from 2007. The exposures where we have to deal with now are shown in this table, source.
15. RF exposures from RF technologies compared to ICNIRP (1998) limits (After Valberg et al 2007)
15a. Attention: RF exposures in 2010:
16. WHO Fact Sheet #304 May 2006 (1)
- RF exposures from base stations 0.002% to 2% of ICNIRP …lower or comparable to radio or TV
- Only established health effect from RF fields.. increase in body temperature (>1°C). Need high field intensities to increase temperature. Basis for ICNIRP guidelines
- No significant temperature rise from weak wireless network RF signals
- RF signals from wireless technologies in public areas (e.g. schools and hospitals) normally 1000s times below ICNIRP
WHO Fact Sheet #304 May 2006 Base stations and wireless technologies (1)
16a. Attention: This is about 2006. 14 years ago. See former tables to understand what has happened with the radiation levels and what can be expected because ICNIRP paved the path to 5G.
17. WHO Fact Sheet #304 May 2006 Base stations and wireless technologies (2)
- Body absorbs up to 5x more RF from FM radio and TV than base stations .. Because radio and TV use lower frequencies that the body absorbs more than at mobile phone frequencies
- Radio and TV have operated for over 50 years without any known health consequence..
- Digital versus analogue signals? There are no unique health effects due to different RF modulation because base station and wireless technology signals are too weak
WHO Fact Sheet #304 May 2006 Base stations and wireless technologies (2)
17a. Attention: Time: 2006. The information is outdated, but what is not outdated is that ICNIRP is still the safety guidelines decision maker for WHO, despite numerous letters from scientists. Read: EHT: Letter to the UN Secretary-General and Office of Ethics
18. WHO Fact Sheet #304 May 2006 Base stations and wireless technologies Health effects: Cancer
- Research has provided no convincing evidence that RF exposure increases the risk of cancer, even at levels much higher than from base stations and wireless technologies
- Cancers is unevenly distributed among populations so it is expected cancer clusters will occur near base stations merely by chance… because base stations are everywhere
- Reported cancers in clusters are often a collection of different types of cancer with no common cause
WHO Fact Sheet #304 May 2006 Base stations and wireless technologies Health effects: Cancer
19. WHO Fact Sheet #304 May 2006 Base stations and wireless technologies General health effects
- Human and animal studies examining brain wave patterns, cognition and behaviour after RF exposure have not established any adverse effects… even at exposures 1000x higher than base stations or wireless networks
- No consistent evidence of altered sleep patterns or changes in cardiovascular function
- EMF from wireless technologies is not the cause of symptoms in electromagnetic hypersensitivity individuals
WHO Fact Sheet #304 May 2006 Base stations and wireless technologies General health effects
19a. Attention: The ICNIRP view on EMF has never changed, despite several updates in their guidelines, until today.
20. No adverse short- or long-term health effects from weak RF signals produced by base stations or wireless technologies WHO Fact Sheet N° 304, Base Stations and Wireless Technologies, May 2006 See: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs304/en/index.html WHO Fact Sheet #304 May 2006 Base stations and wireless technologies Health effects: Conclusion The same conclusion has been reached by EVERY major international and national review. For a listing of these reviews see: http://www.elettra2000.it/scienza/docs2.htm#inglese
20a. Attention: See 19a. See further all other links to articles and sources in this post.
21. Sample of national RF Reviews
The following indicate no RF-induced health effects below the levels of ICNIRP
- Australia ARPANSA Fact Sheet No. 10 (2003) See https://www.arpansa.gov.au
- Canada Royal Society Expert Panel Report (2004)
- European Commission (2001)
- France French Senate, (2001), Zmirou Report, (2001), AFSSE (2005)
- Ireland Dept of Communications (2007) See: http://www.dcmnr.gov.ie/NR/rdonlyres/9E29937F-1A27-4A16-A8C3-F403A623300C/0/ElectromagneticReport.pdf
- Italy National Agency for the Protection of the Environment (2003)
- Netherlands, Health Council of The Netherlands (2007) http://www.gr.nl/pdf/ Press%20release%20200706%20site.pdf
- New Zealand Ministry of Health (2001)
- Spain Ministero della Salute e del Consumo (2001)
- Sweden SSI, (2007) See: http://www.ssi.se/ssi_rapporter/pdf/ssi_rapp_2007_4.pdf
- USA IEEE COMAR (2000)
21a. Attention: Of course all mentioned on the list have implemented / copied and pasted the ICNIRP guidelines, which are not evidence based medical science but non-science, or industrial science, based on prostitution of science. See: article
22. No RF induced health effects below ICNIRP
- UK – British Medical Association (2001) Dept of Health (2000) Institution of Electrical Engineers (2004) NRPB (2003, 2004, 2005) Stewart Report (2000) recommended UK adopt ICNIRP as a precautionary measure UK reviews
23. NRPB became part of the HPA April 2005 UK HPA (2007) website: http://www.hpa.org.uk/radiation/understand/radiation_topics/emf/wifi.htm [ page not found / redirected to archive: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20080228120000/http://www.hpa.org.uk/radiation/understand/radiation_topics/emf/wifi.htm
On the basis of the studies so far carried out in house, the Agency sees no reason why WiFi should not continue to be used in schools. However with any new technology it is a sensible precautionary approach, as happened with mobile phones, to keep the situation under ongoing review so that parents and others can have as much reassurance as possible. That is why our Chairman, Sir William Stewart, has stated it would be timely to carry out further studies as this new technology is rolled out. The Health Protection Agency is discussing this with relevant parties. But radio, TV and other devices (mobile phones) expose people (children) to much higher levels! All devices expose people to levels below ICNIRP!
24. Implementing precautionary measures MUST be done with caution
24a. Attention: Showed document: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Wiedemann2/publication/248992408_The_Impacts_of_Precautionary_Measures_and_the_Disclosure_of_Scientific_Uncertainty_on_EMF_Risk_Perception_and_Trust/links/53d79e890cf2631430bfba8a.pdf
25. Wiedemann et al. 2006 Precautionary measures should be introduced only when there is the possibility of a real health concern justified by the science
25a. Attention: Now, 15 years later, the world finally starts to wake up to the fact that real health concern is justified by science, which started already in the sixties of the former century. Barrie Trower explains in his lecture how the for the military used wireless was discovered by what now is Telecom. Barrie Trower, lecture February 2020.
26. Mobile phones
- Many coordinated research programs in UK, EC, Germany, Netherlands, Australia etc
- No adverse health effects have been established
- If worried you can reduce exposure using hands free kits or limiting call times
- Pregnant women are not at risk.. very low RF absorption to the foetus
- Children are high users and increasing …more research recommended
26a. Attention: Again: adverse health effects do already exist from the sixties of the former century, See former paragraph.
27. Childrens’ Sensitivity to EMF
- Stewart Report (UK: IEGMP 2000)
- Health Council of the Netherlands (2002)
- EC: COST 281 (2002)
- WHO EMF Project workshop (Istanbul, 2004)
Key issues – Workshop concluded: Added safety factor for the public in ICNIRP seems to adequately protect children, but few studies exist and so more research is recommended…see WHO research agenda
28. Hypersensitivity to EMF Many symptoms; headaches, fatigue, stress, sleep disturbances etc, not consistent among affected individuals WHO workshop (Prague, 2004)
Recent reviews, UK Fox (Essex U) study.
Key topics – Conclusion: Hypersensitivity symptoms is NOT directly caused by exposure to EMF (WHO Fact sheet N°296 Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity , December 2005 ) See: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs296/en/index.html
28a. Attention: Mike Repacholi lies. We are all electro sensitive, also without understood symptoms. See the list of EMF links (upper right in the menu) in this blog: birds, bees, insects, amphibians, mammals, trees, plants, all life beings are affected by EMF: man-made EMF. More about EMF and EHS: page
- Continue research: see WHO’s RF research agenda (http://www.who.int/peh-emf/research/rf_research_agenda_2006.pdf)
- Conduct risk assessments with a transparent process
- Advise national authorities on facts and policies
- Disseminate results in an easily understood language
RF fields What is the way forward? Over the past 12 years >$250 million has been spent by researchers to complete WHO’s EMF research agendas
29a. Attention: With other words: he advises to use words people can understand. Read: Rodney Croft, the psychologist who is now ICNIRP chair.
30. Health hazard of mobile phones: Driving while using a mobile phone is dangerous. WHO strongly recommends against this!!
30a. Attention: Of course. This has nothing to do with EMF but with common sense. That is why Blue Tooth was invented and wireless could irradiate the entire car. Driving in a car with an active device is unhealthy: Read Zubarev: Do not use a cellphone in cars, elevators, transport, in general not in metal-enclosed spaces.