Recently, I came across two short videos recorded in 2016 in Stockholm. The occasion was the seminar at the SSI concerning health effects of EMF. In these videos, Emilie van Deventer, Head of the WHO EMF Project and Eric van Röngen, Chairman of the ICNIRP, answered to question from Swedish journalist Mona Nilsson.
Question was straightforward, whom should Swedes trust, the evaluation of science done by ICNIRP or the opinion of 220 scientists who signed an Appeal submitted to the United Nations and the WHO. The Appeal questioned the validity and reliability of evaluation of science done by ICNIRP that is used by the WHO EMF Project and by the telcom industry as the proof that radiation emitted by the wireless communication devices is not a human health hazard. This opinion is, of course, contrary to the opinion of IARC wherein 2011 radiation emitted by the wireless communication devices was classified as possible human carcinogen.
As seen from the video, Emilie van Deventer completely avoided response to the question from Mona Nilsson. Interestingly, Emilie van Deventer did not defend at all the correctness of the ICNIRP’s science evaluation that was done for the WHO EMF Project. Emilie van Deventer did not say that the ICNIRP evaluation of science is the correct evaluation.
Similarly, as seen in video below, Eric van Röngen, Chairman of ICNIRP did not defend at all the validity and correctness of the ICNIRP’s evaluation of science. Instead, Eric van Röngen stated that people can choose what opinion on science they prefer, the opinion of ICNIRP or the opinion of the 220 scientists who signed the Appeal.
In conclusion, this is a massive “BLUNDER” from Van Röngen and van Deventer. It is an ADMISSION that they both have doubts about the reliability of the evaluation of science by ICNIRP. Neither of them said that ICNIRP evaluation of science is reliable and the Appeal’s opinion is unreliable.
This clearly demonstrates that there is NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS on the health effects of radiation emitted by the wireless communication devices. This situation should be taken into consideration when the WHO will select expert group for preparation of the final version of the Environmental Health Criteria for RF-EMF. Scientists with diverse scientific opinions should and must be appointed in order to facilitate an unbiased scientific debate.
BRHP - Between a Rock and a Hard Place 
Pingback: Pall, Firstenberg and the ‘silent enablers’ are responsible for the current 5G storm | BRHP – Between a Rock and a Hard Place
Pingback: #5G #InternetofThings “BLUNDER” by ICNIRP’s and WHO EMF Project’s bosses | BRHP – Between a Rock and a Hard Place – Defending Sanity in the Uppity Down World
Richard – Sorry, mate – no refunds because there are no salaries! ICNIRP members work pro bono, and their travel budget relies on support granted by public bodies. Additionally, ICNIRP members must comply with the ICNIRP policy of independence and cannot be employed by industry.
Send your funding request to ARPANSA, perhaps?
Admin@HealingLivesToday – “I don’t understand how they could draw their conclusions that it is safe.” This is an excellent question. Perhaps the following could assist your understanding:
WHAT DO EXPERT AGENCIES SAY?
Several national and international agencies study different exposures and substances in the environment to determine if they can cause cancer. (Something that causes cancer or helps cancer grow is called a carcinogen.) The American Cancer Society looks to these organizations to evaluate the risks based on evidence from laboratory and human research studies.
Based on the available evidence, some of these expert agencies have evaluated the cancer-causing potential of cell phones and RF waves. In general, they agree that the evidence of a possible link is limited, and more research is needed to look at possible long-term effects.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is part of the World Health Organization (WHO). Its major goal is to identify causes of cancer. The IARC has classified RF fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based on limited evidence of a possible increase in risk for brain tumors among cell phone users, and inadequate evidence for other types of cancer.The other main agencies that classify cancer-causing exposures (carcinogens), including the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Toxicology Program (NTP), have not formally classified cell phones as to their cancer-causing potential. However, several other agencies have commented on the possible risks.
According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which regulates the safety of radiation-emitting devices such as cell phones in the United States:
“The majority of studies published have failed to show an association between exposure to radiofrequency from a cell phone and health problems.”
According to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC):
“There is no scientific evidence that proves that wireless phone usage can lead to cancer or a variety of other problems, including headaches, dizziness or memory loss. However, organizations in the United States and overseas are sponsoring research and investigating claims of possible health effects related to the use of wireless telephones.”
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):
“At this time we do not have the science to link health problems to cell phone use. Scientific studies are underway to determine whether cell phone use may cause health effects.”
According to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), which is conducting studies of the possible health effects of cell phones:
“Current scientific evidence has not conclusively linked cell phone use with any adverse health problems, but more research is needed.”
According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI):
“Studies thus far have not shown a consistent link between cell phone use and cancers of the brain, nerves, or other tissues of the head or neck. More research is needed because cell phone technology and how people use cell phones have been changing rapidly.”
For more details:
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phones.html
Luckily ORSAA, a bunch of unpaid citizen-scientists, have done the hard work and collated all the scientific evidence into a single database.
http://www.orsaa.org/orsaa-database.html
Now can we get a refund for the salaries of ICNIRP members who failed to do this work themselves? Perhaps the money could be better spent providing more resources to ORSAA and similar?
I don’t understand how they could draw their conclusions that it is safe. How many times has it been shown that this kind of exposure damages DNA? It is linked with brain cancer. Study after study show it affects living cells, brain permeability, immune function, protein synthesis…..how can that be considered safe by any sane, rational person?