Date:Mon, 24 Jun 2019 15:27:59 +0100
To:WRAGG, William <william.wragg.mp@parliament.uk>norman.lamb.mp@parliament.ukJeremy.wright.mp@parliament.ukmatt.hancock.mp@parliament.ukcommonsleader@cabinetoffice.gov.uk

Dear William,

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

1. https://www.emfcall.org/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Safety Limits and Political Conflicts of Interest’

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

5. https://www.radiationresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2017_03_01_WHO.pdf

НАЦИОНАЛЬНЫЙ КОМИТЕТ ПО ЗАЩИТЕ ОТ НЕИОНИЗИРУЮЩИХ ИЗЛУЧЕНИЙ Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection RUSSIA, 123182, MOSCOW, 46, ZHIVOPISNAYA STR. (8-499)-190-9660 rcnirp@mail.ru № ___19/int__01-03-2017________

World Health Organization Avenue Appia 20 – 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland 

Attention: Maria Neira, Director, Public Health and Environment

Subject: International EMF Project; unbalanced WHO working group (WG) on evaluation of health effects from radiofrequency (RF) radiation 

It has just come to our attention that the WHO RF Working group consists mainly from present and past ICNIRP members. In general, the WG is not balanced and does not represent the point of view of majority scientific community studying effects of RF. In particular, the private self-elected organization ICNIRP, similar as majority of the current WHO RF WG members, does not recognize the non-thermal RF effects, which represent the main concern of widespread exposure to mobile communication and upholding guidelines from 1996, which are based on RF thermal effects only. Thus, the quidelines of ICNIRP are irrelevant to present situation when majority of population over the world is chronically exposed to non-thermal RF from mobile communication.

Based on multiple Russian studies and emerging number of studies coming from other countries, RNCNIRP has consistently warned against possible health effects from mobile communication. The point of view of RNCNIRP is supported by hundreds of new publications including well known recent RF studies in human and animals. 

Balancing of the evaluation group is a key factor to achieve a credible conclusion. We request that this main principle of scientific evaluation would be followed up by the WHO in the evaluation of RF health effects by balancing the WHO RF working group. Please, do not hesitate to contact the RNCNIRP regarding the additional members/ substitutes for the WHO RF working group. 

Respectfully submitted by RNCNIRP 

Oleg A. Grigoriev, Chairman DrSc., PhD, Assoc. Prof. Head of the Scientific Department of Non-Ionizing Radiation, Federal Medical Biophysical Center of Federal Medical Biological Agency of Russia’

6. http://freiburger-appell-2012.info/en/observations-findings.php

Freiburg Appeal: ‘Wireless Radiation Poses a Health Risk. Physicians Demand Overdue Precaution!’

‘In numerous appeals and resolutions over the past years, more and more scientists and physicians have pointed to the health risks associated with wireless radiation exposures. In 2008 the Russian Radiation Protection Committee RNCNIRP gave a warning about the serious and irreparable consequences, of electromagnetic radiation especially for children, and again in 2011, intensified its warning. The European Environment Agency called for urgent precautionary action in 2009. The European Parliament repeated this call also in 2009.’ 

7. https://www.emrpolicy.org/news/headlines/helsinki_appeal_05.pdf

Helsinki Appeal 2005

‘The present safety standards of ICNIRP (International Commission of Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) do not recognize the biological effects caused by non-ionizing radiation except those induced by the thermal effect. In the light of recent scientific information, the standards recommended by ICNIRP have become obsolete and should be rejected.’

7. https://bioinitiative.org/conclusions/

From the Bioinitiative Report conclusions: 

‘Existing public safety limits (FCC and ICNIRP public safety limits) do not sufficiently protect public health against chronic exposure from very low-intensity exposures. If no mid-course corrections are made to existing and outdated safety limits, such delay will magnify the public health impacts with even more applications of wireless-enabled technologies exposing even greater populations around the world in daily life.’

8. https://www.stopumts.nl/doc.php/Artikelen/11684/prof._pall_s_response_to_2018_icnirp_draft_statement_with_appendices

‘Prof. Pall’s Response to 2018 ICNIRP draft statement, with appendices’

‘Conclusion: It is our opinion that safety can only be assessed biologically and that the whole structure that ICNIRP proposes is deeply flawed.’

9. http://www.icems.eu/docs/resolutions/London_res.pdf

‘The London Resolution’

Resolution (2000) to immediately reduce the guidelines for exposure to radiofrequency radiation (RF) and extremely low-frequency electromagnetic1 fields (ELF-EMF) … We call for the ICNIRP to reconvene as a matter of urgency to reassess the exposure guidelines and to develop and implement biologically based public safety limits reflecting the overall scientific evidence that existing ICNIRP guidelines are not sufficiently protective against health effects from chronic exposures to the rapidly increasing environmental-level ELF-EMF and RF.

10. https://cdn.website-editor.net/2479f24c54de4c7598d60987e3d81157/files/uploaded/Early_Years_Inquiry_EY10062.pdf

Written evidence submitted by Dr Sarah Starkey (EYI0062)

‘This means that members of PHE as well as members of ICNIRP, who set the international exposure guidelines, have provided inaccurate, incorrect and misleading scientific information. The ICNIRP guidelines no longer reflect the scientific evidence and are no longer protective of human health. We urgently need biologically-based exposure guidelines to protect the population.’

(Also, by Dr Starkey, a De Gruyter article: ‘Inaccurate official assessment of radiofrequency safety by the Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation’,  https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/reveh.2016.31.issue-4/reveh-2016-0060/reveh-2016-0060.pdf)

The late Dr Martin Blank, speaking on behalf of the many highly qualified scientists who are desperately trying to protect the world’s population and eco-system from the increasingly harmful biological effects of EMFs: ”Although we are in the midst of a great technological transformation, the time to deal with the biological and health effects is long overdue. … To protect our children, ourselves and our eco-system, we must reduce exposure by establishing more protective guidelines.‘’

Dr Martin Pall: ”There are ways in which these devices can be made safer but we’re currently running as fast as we can in exactly the wrong direction.”Kindest regards,


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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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