Today, on November 5, 2020, Rodney Croft, Chairman of ICNIRP, provided response to questions I posed to him and to Eric van Rongen in my Open Message sent out on October 6, 2020.
As I have agreed with Rodney Croft, I am posting the response as such, without any comments of my own.
To better understand the context of question #3 and response to it, please, see earlier post entitled post Influential Australia where is presented discussion on IEI-EMF between D. Leszczynski and R. Croft
My own comments on the manner and the substance of Rodney Croft’s response, as well as some of the more important/interesting comments from readers of my blog (scientists and activists), will be published soon. Any reader of my blog, wishing to be included in this forthcoming commentary, please, send your comments to me at blogbrhp@gmail.com .
*****************************
Response from Rodney Croft
Dear Dariusz,
Further to your continued request for response to some statements and questions that you posted on your blog, please see below. Consistent with what you agreed to in your email, it first comments on the nature of the open letter, and then responds to the questions/comments themselves.
A somewhat confused ‘open letter’
Having indirectly heard about your open letter (I don’t read your blog, nor did your emails, until now, pass my spam filter), I had decided not to respond. This is because: 1/ the questions posed were not appropriate for the addressees; and 2/ the ‘questions’ were not sensibly asked.
The first issue is important as it asks, for example, Dr van Rongen to comment on a private discussion over coffee that you and I had back in 2018, and also asks me to personally say what ICNIRP believes about statements that you have made (which I could not do even if I wanted to, because ICNIRP has not considered your letter and accordingly has not commented on it).
The second issue is also important, because answers cannot be given to questions unless they are asked sensibly. We have all heard of what we call ‘loaded questions’, such as ‘have you stopped beating your wife?’, which does not allow for any satisfactory answer as it combines at least two separate questions (e.g. ‘have you previously beaten your wife’ and ‘do you currently beat your wife’), and no indication is given in the question regarding how the two separate questions are meant to be joined. Unfortunately your questions were similarly loaded, which did not allow answers to provide meaning – although perhaps you did not mean to elucidate, but rather sway opinion, I cannot tell. In either case it does not help your readership to get answers that are not informative. Of course if you had simply asked questions about, for example, whether ICNIRP had arbitrarily dismissed certain epidemiological studies, then I would have been in a position to answer those, but you chose not to do that, and rather introduced a range of statements that you believe needed to be incorporated into an answer to your question. In essence, as you had failed to ask questions, but had blended questions with highly contentious statements, this removed any opportunity for an answer to be given. I would note that ICNIRP has an online system for people to provide comments and questions, and for that we have specifically provided separate sections for comments and for questions to help people avoid making the same error.
However, I will try to clarify, where it is feasible to do so, what I, as an individual scientist, believe in relation to what was written in your open letter. I am not writing this on behalf of Dr van Rongen, nor on behalf of ICNIRP.
Addressing the statements/questions
I have numbered my responses using the numbering of your open letter, along with the prefix ‘DL’ (e.g. ‘DL-1’) and included the ‘question’ that you asked in italics.
[DL: for better clarity, questions are now marked as D. Leszczynski-1, -2, -3, -4; and responses are marked as R. Croft-1, -2, -3, -4]
D. Leszczynski-1. ICNIRP assures that every user is completely protected but, at the same time, there is no sufficient research on age-dependency and health-status-dependency of exposures to RF-EMF. How ICNIRP can assure that the reduction factors built into guidelines are correct when there is no such experimental research and the safety provided by the guidelines is solely an assumption. How the user, who begins use of cellphone at young age of 5-6 years and will be using it for the next 80+ years, with years of varying health status caused by diseases and by aging, can be assured of complete safety when research is missing and assurances come from just assumptions.
R. Croft-1:You confuse two issues in this section, the assumption that there is not sufficient research to determine safety, with the question about how safety can be assured. The first suggests that you believe that for science to know something about a particular scenario (e.g. whether a 902.34 MHz exposure for 72 seconds causes an adverse health effect in a 53.24 year-old male), that science needs to have conducted research using that particular scenario. This of course is a misunderstanding of how science works. What is needed in order to determine whether that particular exposure for that particular person will lead to adverse health effects is sufficient knowledge of the relation between exposure and human health, and this may not involve a test of that particular frequency, or that particular exposure duration, or that particular age, at all.
The question is thus whether there is sufficient scientific knowledge to conclude that the physical agent relevant to 5G (radiofrequency electromagnetic fields; RF EMFs) will adversely affect humans. To know this we need to know what the effects of RF EMFs are, how this relates to the frequency and duration of EMF exposure, and whether there are differential effects of RF EMF exposure on humans as a function of such factors as age, gender and infirmity. Science knows a great deal about the relation between RF EMF exposure and human health, including the relative role of the factors described above, and we can use this knowledge to generalize to what will happen in new situations – after all, generalization based on multiple instances is science’s modus operandi. In terms of 5G, the main difference between it and exposure from 4G devices is that ‘some’ 5G technologies use higher frequencies than 4G (e.g. 26 GHz, as opposed to a few GHz). So if science understands what the effect of RF EMF on the body is, as a function of frequency, then it also understands what the situation is at 26 GHz. That is, science does not need to rerun the last 50+ years of research specifically at 26, 26.1, 26.11, 26.111 and so on GHz. If, however, science had found that current knowledge is not sufficient to generalize to other scenarios (e.g. the research across the RF EMF spectrum does not generalize to 120 or 650 MHz exposures), then that could provide good reason to look further into that hypothetical conundrum. But that is not the case, and it is certainly appropriate to conclude that science has a very good understanding of the relation between RF EMF relevant to 5G, and human health.
D. Leszczynski-2. The question is, why ICNIRP arbitrarily disqualified the results of the four epidemiological case-control studies, supported by the brain cancer localization study, that have shown an increase in risk of brain cancer in avid and long term users?
R. Croft-2: Having worked with ICNIRP for some years now, I have not seen any instance of arbitrary disqualification of research. As you would no doubt be aware, science can be very complex, and even though a researcher may put a lot of effort into trying to answer a particular question, it doesn’t follow that their research outputs are useful for furthering knowledge. For example, it is not unusual to see methodological errors such as inappropriate data analysis, or a failure to account for random variation through appropriate statistics. It is also common for data to be valid in the sense that it provides appropriate representations of the real world, but for interpretations of the data to be incorrect, such as when measures of association are used to infer causation, or when data has been interpreted selectively. As a result, papers can sometimes be put aside for good reason, and results from papers can be used that may diverge from the conclusions reached from the original authors. Such decisions require careful consideration of the evidence and the papers, and this is indeed what I have seen within ICNIRP. I am thus surprised that you have accused ICNIRP of being arbitrary, but note that you have not provided any evidence in support of your accusation.
D. Leszczynski-3. Why ICNIRP, as came out in my extensive discussion with Rodney Croft, opposes research on sensitivity to EMF that would employ physiology and biochemistry methods.
R. Croft-3: This is a bizarre (and categorically false) accusation on so many levels. To be clear, I do not believe that physiology and/or biochemistry should be opposed in terms of idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to EMF (IEI-EMF) research. To be clear, I have never heard ICNIRP discuss the type of research that should be used to address IEI-EMF, have no idea what the members think, and so would never have been in a position to discuss this with you at all. This is merely a figment of your imagination.
It is important to point out that the ‘extensive discussion’ that you refer to relates to conversation over coffee that we had while you were attending a community forum that we at the Australian Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research were running in Australia in November 2018. I remember that you positioned your request to talk as that you wanted my views on an IEI-EMF research program that you thought would be important, and I agreed to give you some feedback. That meeting consisted of you presenting your ideas, and me having to explain to you why your proposals would not answer the questions that that you believed they would – you were apparently unaware of the flaws in your proposals. My criticisms, however, related to your particular proposals, and did not relate to biological research itself. You may remember, for instance, that the main flaw that I pointed out was that you were not planning on conducting sufficient trials to enable meaningful statistics to be conducted, and thus that any results could only be hypothesis generating and thus not able to determine any of the questions that you had set yourself. To be clear, whatever the endpoint (be it subjective, neurochemical or proteomic), it is crucial to provide a means of differentiation between effects due to RF EMF, and normal random variation (i.e. not related to RF EMF). To be clear, the relative appropriateness of the end-point assessed will depend on what you are trying to determine. If you are interested in the claim that people can subjectively discern when they are exposed to RF EMF (be it through conscious awareness of the EMF or the presence of a subjectively discernible symptom), then subjective end-points would be relevant. If you are hypothesizing that RF EMF will affect cortisol levels in particular people, then clearly cortisol levels would be important.
D. Leszczynski-4. Please, kindly explain this extremely puzzling statement [“There is no harm associated with 5G”] and please, let me know, what scientific studies were used by ICNIRP in preparation of the Guidelines that assure human health safety while the sufficient scientific research has not been performed.
R. Croft-4: This statement relates to the strong body of science that has shown that exposures within the ICNIRP 2020 guidelines will not result in harm, and the assumption that 5G will produce exposures that are within the ICNIRP 2020 guidelines. The assumption is supported by recent measurement studies, but of course if someone wanted to generate 3G, 4G, 5G, Bluetooth or FM radio-related signals at levels sufficient to exceed the above exposure guidelines, whether the resultant exposure would cause harm would depend on a range of factors. Your commentary (as opposed to your question) suggests that you are concerned about there being enough research that has specifically used particular EMF frequencies. If that is indeed your concern, then that is addressed in response DL-1 above. In terms of the studies used, there are many thousands of studies that have been used, with key or exemplar papers cited in the guidelines themselves.
Sincerely,
Rodney Croft
5th November, 2020
BRHP - Between a Rock and a Hard Place 
For years I suffered a strange and terrible influenza-like syndrome that I thought was caused by some virus and doctors could not identify. After many episodes of getting immediately better as I went several weeks to a small village and getting immediately ill again as soon as I returned to my city house I thought of an environmental offender. And for the first time in decades I remarked a telephone base station near my house. EMF measurements confirmed the high radiation emitted by the antenna plus a public wifi which I totally ignored plus other EM sources. Once identified the cause I could protect a bit my home and my symptoms were less acute for a certain time until the highly increased levels of radiation being spread in the last months are much disturbing me lately. At least I have a better idea how to proceed with radiation excesses now.
During years of sickness I was lucky enough to have a physician who never suggested my symptoms to be psychosomatic and requiring cognitive therapies as is happens to others, He knew me and tought I probably had some kind of autoimmune disorder producing neurological inflammations although due to side effects I refused to take corticoseroids. I am glad I eventually found the cause for those overreactions. Despite my evidences the official medical bodies refuse to acknowledge my sickness as a case of electrosensitivity.
When I see some comments here exposed I would like to tell those pretending that there are no evidences of EMF producing health complaints to take into account the following arguments: Are you sure that sicknesses like mine in a person that had no previous concerns about EMF can be explained by the conveniently well publicized “nocebo effect”? If I had had a different doctor and I had had personal problems and a less inquisitive science-oriented mind I would have accepted the idea that my symptoms were psychosomatic and I would have entered into a world of psychotherapies which very obviously are of no use in the case of syndromes caused by EMF. How many persons made ill by radiation of wireless devices are being (mis)treated with psychological approaches is a mystery but I guess that many of the so-called mental health disorders are related to environmental exposures like the electromagnetic fields/radiation or whatever.
And further, how many people will not be associating the multitude of electrical, electronic and wireless equipment around them to their headaches, dizziness, difficult concentration and other brain complaints, nauseas and stomach upsets, dry eyes, irritated airways, skin alterations, tinnitus/head noises, fatigue, general malaise and a long list of lose symptoms and severe health conditions?
Many persons refuse to accept the suggestion that their beloved smartphone with its cohort of accompanying radiofrequencies/microwaves can be harming them and their families”: the glamourous image that the high technologies project, the reassurances about their safety even for babies and cancerous patients repeatedly expressed by the regulating bodies which deny evidences of harm coming from very different sides, the silence of many medical and scientific bodies, the big business revolving around this murky affair which involves also the collaboration of the press, all combined, have managed to achieve that a large portion of the world population remains significantly ignorant of any EM health risks. But you people in the high ranks, beware; sooner or later the evidences will not be easy to hide and to disguise anymore and then there might be some inconveniences happening around.
There are two Australians on ICNIRP now: Croft and Karipidis of ARPANSA
ICNIRP = International Criminals on Non Ionizing Radiation Proliferation
One should check to see what influence Telstra and AMTA had via lobbying Government officials (particularly ARPANSA) for ICNIRP to appoint Croft as the Chairman. A gift perhaps for his faithful behaviour in marginalizing those who suffer EHS and his unsubstantiated & reckless claims of wireless safety in the media.
Professor Croft: “I do not believe that physiology and/or biochemistry should be opposed in terms of idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to EMF (IEI-EMF) research. To be clear, I have never heard ICNIRP discuss the type of research that should be used to address IEI-EMF, have no idea what the members think, and so would never have been in a position to discuss this with you at all.”
Professor Croft seems to issue conflicting statements on this topic, depending on his audience. If he was not in opposition to multidisciplinary research on the topic, then why include a slide comparing EHS individuals to “Better Call Saul” in an ITU presentation? In my opinion, Professor Croft, as a psychologist, should know better than to make derogatory comments about any group or individuals, despite his personal opinion on the topic.
I do not know if Professor Croft will read these comments, but again, in my opinion, an unreserved apology is in order. If not, I feel he should resign.
If any other representative of an advisory body at the ICNIRP level had to behave in this way I would have expected there to be severe repercussions. https://www.emfsa.co.za/ehs/icnirps-chair-rodney-croft-electrohypersensitivity/
Sadly, there seems to be little difference in the arrogant way ICNIRP responds and the FCC responds.
Let me ask Mr. Croft a very simple question – How do you define “adverse” or “harmful” health effects? Are there any health effects from wireless that you do not consider adverse or harmful?
The reason I ask is that I was listening to a presentation a few years ago that an ICNIRP employee was giving in Poland and he stated:
“So what evidence do we have of harm. Well unfortunately, curiously, we have still the effects of elevated temperature. We knew this very early on and we still know that. There is this phenomenon of microwave hearing, this hissing and popping sound that you can sometimes hear with pulsed fields. And we know at the lower end of the RF frequencies you can have actually stimulation of nerves and muscles. And also you can have very high fields electroporation. So there, as far as we are concerned, are the four interaction mechanisms that we have to deal with. Now I am going to take them almost in reverse order and do the last of those three first because we don’t think we are actually going to base the guidelines on them. We have talked about guidelines, we have already talked about microwave hearing in our guidelines before, we now actually feel that having a hissing or popping sound actually does require very very quiet conditions to hear it and is clearly a very localized thermal effect. As far as we can tell it is the fields are absorbed by tissues close to or in the inner ear and it sets up a pressure wave which is interpreted by the brain as actually being a sound. So again you hear this hissing clicking popping noise. But what we don’t consider is its harmful. So we are not going to have any specific restrictions based upon the avoidance of that noise.”
Zenon Sienkiewicz, ICNIRP: A long and winding road: update of the ICNIRP draft HF guidelines, ITU Workshop on Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (EMF), December 5, 2017, Warsaw, Poland.
Newsflash – if they put a 50 foot small cell tower on my lawn and then I develop a “hissing clicking pooping noise” I would think that was a harmful health effect. So why aren’t there restrictions to make sure it doesn’t happen?
I know you may think it is rare – but what do you do with the rare people? Answer thus far – ignore them!
The sad part is that microwave hearing was first noted in the 1940’s with radar. So 80 years later the best ICNIRP can say is “as far as we can tell..”. I think you don’t want to do the proper studies because you don’t want to know the answers. It complicates your mission to advance wireless technologies.
To the wireless industry and tower companies – STAY OFF MY FRONT LAWN.
Hi Dariusz
An excellent conversation you have started off. Here is my second comment.
Cheers
Don
While head of the Australian Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research (ACEBR), Rodney Croft’s group designed a provocation study to help determine the validity of EHS. In October 2011, Dr David McDonald from the CSIRO was given the study’s methodology for inspection. His analysis of the provocation study was damning. Here is the conclusion from his analysis:
The discussion above points out a number of serious scientific and statistical shortcomings in the proposal to determine whether a subject is truly sensitive to an EMF. As it stands the proposed experimental design and statistical analysis cannot be used to achieve the stated aim. The scientific and statistical shortcomings of the proposal are each serious flaws in themselves and their cumulative impact and interaction render the proposal scientifically indefensible. All of them need to be corrected in a major revision of the proposed. In addition, there is a need to consider the ethical issues raised above and to include an explicit statement to this effect in any revised proposal.
It is interesting that the provocation study later used by Croft’s group appears to be little revised, if at all, from the one McDonald examined in 2011. And considering that there were only three participants in the ACEBR provocation study, is that the best of science we can expect from ACEBR and now ICNIRP?
Don Maisch
>
No. I got only one comment from you and it is seen in comments section…
HI Dariusz
Did you get my last comment? I don’t see it on your blog. Regards
Don
>
In his answer 1, R. Croft speaks about the extrapolation of the state of knowledge to frequencies that have not yet been investigated. He may have overlooked “window effects” that limit EMF effects to specific frequency ranges. The EMF portal showed 51 hits when searching for the term. Whether reported window effects (mostly related to magnetic fields) are only hypothetical or real I cannot judge.
It seems to me that the arrogance of ICNIRP is best expressed in the following sentence by Dr. Croft: “ICNIRP has not considered your letter …”. Indeed ICNIRP did not consider many letters, many comments from the public which they requested and received and vast numbers of relevant scientific papers. The organization is not fit to provide radiation safety guidelines.
Michael Peleg
Also, white zones would protect animal corridors, real estate, the biosphere, and people; it’s crazy not to create these, perhaps they don’t want to notice that people, animals and plants would be healthier in these zones, a little cynical, but probably true. Without a biosphere, we have no planet. Something to consider.
A child knows and can observe gravity by watching a ball roll down a hill, or a pebble drop from a table top. Perhaps this organization believes that because radiation cannot be seen, it doesn’t in fact exist, or have provable impacts, other than to use a specific piece of technology or a range of them. The governments themselves have studies on the effects, dating back decades. In addition, people have genetic differences regarding ‘allergy,’ the ability to detoxify, and other loads and pressures in every different age group and environment. Perhaps this particular organization believes a full wallet and a closed mind is better than an open mind and an empty wallet; yet this doesn’t serve anyone except those who might be paid to remain in a state of ignorance. The birds, bees and animals are proof enough. Adults who notice a change in their environment, and negative effects should be listened to. Thanks.
Comment received from and submitted on behalf of Arthur Hoffmann-Ostenhof
Reading Rodney Crofts answer was shocking to me. Simple questions by Dariusz are regarded by Rodney as “loaded questions” such that the reader could get the impression that Rodney actually means “how dare you to ask such question”. No scientist in my community would ever behave in such a way. Questions are the first step in obtaining solutions and to make progress.
As a scientist, as a mathematician, and having read main parts of the original ICNIRP guidelines, my conclusion is: this is not science and I am sure many mathematicians and many other scientists from many other fields would agree if they would read the ICNIRP guidelines. The essential fundament of the ICNIRP guidelines does not only contain facts, but also a high amount of beliefs and wishful thinking. To be more clear, ICNIRP makes logic conclusions, but if the start of their conclusions are wishful thinking and beliefs, then one cannot expect a meaningful outcome.
It is especially sad, that – although it is clear that ICNIRP cannot guarantee that their guidelines protect everybody – ICNIRP does not tell this fact to the governments and just looks away as the governments and industry fill up the world with more and more EMFs. That ICNIRP members do not see a need to warn and to react by demanding white zones, although it is known that EHS-people have already killed themselves is horror and unforgivable. I can only advise every honest member of ICNIRP with a conscience to openly recommend white zones and to quit ICNIRP immediately. As soon as the public and more scientists look closer at ICNIRP, and they are doing this right now, ICNIRP will be dissolved. ICNIRP members might be banned worldwide from attending conferences, and universities and enterprises won’t want to hire them. For some of the ICNIRP members their scientific career will definitely be over.
Best Wishes,
Arthur
Comment received from and submitted on behalf of Dave Ashton
Hi Dariusz,
Thanks for seeking the opinions of Dr Rodney Croft, and publishing them on your blog.
As you probably know, I am not a scientific or medical expert on EMFs. However, I am personally affected by them by virtue of my electrosensitivity, to a considerable degree, and so I am at least qualified to discuss their effects based upon my personal experience.
Leaving aside the barbed and insulting comments from Dr Croft in response to your emails, I’d like to make the following points.
Firstly, I am interested that ICNIRP has chosen to make a psychologist its new Chairman. With no offence intended, I would have thought that there are many other skills sets that would be far more appropriate for a group which effectively decides the ‘safe’ levels of EMFs to which much of the world’s population (to say nothing of other species) can safely be exposed, 24/7, 365 days of the year. I find this appointment doubly puzzling, because Dr Croft has consistently argued that electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is not linked to EMFs, and that the EMFs themselves, such as those emitted by 5G technologies, come ‘without any risk to health’, as his July 2020 presentation to the ITU puts it. These are very sweeping statements to make.
ICNIRP claims that it is independent, according to its website. If it is truly independent, then presumably its members should assess all scientific evidence objectively, in order to guard against ‘group think’ and confirmation bias. Otherwise, scientific evidence that challenges the prevailing group orthodoxy is likely to be arbitrarily dismissed by the ICNIRP members, to the possible detriment of the wider public.
I would argue that Dr Croft’s central claims are inherently biased in favour of commercial and military interests, as they facilitate the essentially unchecked roll-out of radiation-emitting technologies, despite the scientific evidence suggesting harm.
In the fact sheet on its cell phone radiation studies, the $30m U.S. National Toxicology Program makes the following statement (the emphasis is mine):
‘…the studies question the long-held assumption that radio frequency radiation is of no concern as long as the energy level is low and does not significantly heat the tissues’
The implication of the NTP’s statement is that if this ‘long-held assumption’ is found to be flawed, as I believe has been adequately documented in the independent scientific literature, then we have a real problem, given the ubiquity of man-made EMFs in our environment, and the adherence of groups such as ICNIRP to this ideology.
How can we guard against such assumptions, if they are truly flawed, guiding policy on EMFs? A start would be to scrutinise organisations such as ICNIRP extremely carefully, and apply maximum pressure on them to become more objective, more transparent, and more accountable. Microwave News, in a recent article, called for the ‘lies to stop’, and for ICNIRP to be disbanded. If it is failing to properly perform its remit ‘to protect people and the environment against adverse effects of non-ionizing radiation’, as the ICNIRP website claims, then it is very hard to argue with this sentiment.
Regarding the specific responses from Dr Croft to your comments (numbered below), I’d like to make a few points:
R. Croft-1: Dr Croft mentions factors such as frequency and duration of exposure, along with age, gender and infirmity, as being pertinent when considering the biological effects of EMFs. This surely is a somewhat simplistic view, which may be missing some important elements. What about the polarity of the EMFs? The pulsation patterns and the modulations of the signals? The interplay between Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) and Radiofrequency (RF) frequencies used in many types of wireless transmission? The interplay between RF radiation and ELFs from power lines, wiring, and electrical items? What about concurrent exposures to RF radiation from a wide variety of wireless sources? How about the interaction between EMFs and other agents, such as pollution particulates? What about the varying ability of individuals to cope with exposures? What about deficiencies in their immune systems? What about ever greater exposure of the population to ever higher EMF frequencies, over the whole of their lives? What about infants, children, pregnant women, those predisposed to illness, and, yes, what about electrosensitive individuals? Do ICNIRP’s Guidelines properly take account of all of the variables (and probably more besides) that I have mentioned, and do they really protect vulnerable people?
ICNIRP seems to inhabit a world where exposures are easily managed, as they happen one at a time, and then only for a short duration – i.e. 6 or 30 minutes. It also inhabits a world where the beneficial effects of some types of non-thermal EMFs are very well known (as described by Dr Robert O. Becker, for example), and yet detrimental effects of non-thermal EMFs apparently don’t exist.
Finally, while your question to Dr Croft concerned RF radiation as a whole, I notice that he seemed to limit his response to 5G alone. Why? What about all of the other sources of man-made RF radiation, at frequencies and of types other than those that are, or will be, used for 5G technologies?
R. Croft-3: Dr Croft says, I think, that ICNIRP does not oppose ‘research on sensitivity to EMF that would employ physiology and biochemistry methods’. Good. I think that all electrosensitive people have had more than enough of EHS ‘provocation tests’, which have subjective endpoints, and which perhaps can be manipulated to produce results that are convenient for those with an interest in maintaining the current wireless proliferation. EHS provocation tests are a busted flush. I am severely electrosensitive, and I have absolutely zero interest in taking part in any such test. Perhaps other EHS individuals think likewise, which may account for the recent paper which involved just three participants.
Now that ICNIRP is at least ambivalent, or perhaps even supportive, of electrosensitivity studies which are not based on subjective end-points, let’s have some, and let’s have them designed and carried out by independent experts who are interested in establishing the truth, rather than in pushing a particular agenda, or in being paid to push such an agenda.
R. Croft-4: In response to your question, Dr Croft again seeks to defend the position that ICNIRP’s Guidelines, if implemented properly, will prevent harm. It is obvious that many experts on the biological effects of EMFs do not agree with this assessment, such as the 253 signatories of the international EMF Scientist Appeal.
I take some solace that unless he has a way to vacate the planet, or to somehow shield himself from all of the environmental EMFs to which we are all exposed throughout our lives, Dr Croft will be a participant, along with the rest of us, in what Dr Eric van Rongen conceded in the UK Telegraph could be considered a ‘public health experiment’. He will personally benefit from (or suffer) the consequences of his own thermal effects-only paradigm. Let’s hope for all our sakes that all of the scientists who are sounding the warning have got it completely wrong, and that a private club called ICNIRP, which has been accused of conflicts of interest and of lying, has somehow got it right…
Kind regards,
Dave Ashton
Dr. Croft’s answers are like the “conceptualization of an elephant” by a misinformed blind man.
I am amazed by the ignorance.
Henry Lai
Comment received from and submitted on behalf of Joel M. Moskowitz
Rodney Croft’s responses to Leszczynski’s open message seem confusing and misleading. He claims that the ICNIRP 2020 guidelines which ensure the safety of 5G are based on “many thousands of studies.” Really?
Does ICNIRP dismiss every case-control study which found a positive association between cell phone use and tumor risk? I guess ICNIRP must consider the latest review of this research (“New review study finds that heavier cell phone use increases tumor risk”) a complete waste of our time. Is there any epidemiologic research that ICNIRP trusts (besides the bogus “nocebo effect” EHS studies conducted by Croft)?
Comment received from and submitted on behalf of Sue Pockett
Sorry, I can’t force myself to read this arrogant nonsense any further, but here’s my comment on just one of the ridiculous statements in Croft 1:
Croft: “That is, science does not need to rerun the last 50+ years of research specifically at 26, 26.1, 26.11, 26.111 and so on GHz.”
SP: Considering that when one does research the differences between the effects of various frequencies of low intensity, very high frequency microwaves on, for example, the inflammation caused by an injection of zymosan, the finding is that these effects have unexpectedly narrow frequency dependencies (Gapeyev et al 2008) Dr Croft’s comment here must be seen as philosophically quite wrong. What “science does not need” to do is make the arbitrary assumption that all microwave frequencies have the same effects on biology. Rather, the pressing need is to muster some small degree of humility and actually investigate real world bio-effects. Specifically, if you propose to expose everyone, without their consent, to inescapable irradiation by self-driving cars that use 26 – 27 GHz control systems, I would argue that a thorough and close investigation of the effects of various subdivisions of these frequencies is exactly what’s needed.
Gapeyev AB, Mikhailik EN, Chemeris NK. (2008)Anti-inflammatory effects of low-intensity extremely high-frequency electromagnetic radiation: frequency and power dependence. Bioelectromagnetics 29(3):197-206.
Comment received from and submitted on behalf of Victor Leach
Croft states that “science has a very good understanding of the relation between RF EMF relevant to 5G, and human health” This is certainly not the case and this type of thinking is dangerous. He appears to be oblivious to concerns around modulations and the wave propagation debate around high data rates ( > 1 Gigabit per sec). The attenuated within the first 8 mm of the skin as current mathematical models suggest may not be the case. His example of looking for adverse health effects in a particular short-term exposures ( 73 seconds) shows he is incapable of understanding the concept of chronic exposure over a life-time. Radiation Protection professional bodies like ICRP with regard to ionising radiation take this into account long-term exposure over a life time (70 years) when setting guidelines. The lack of medical input in setting ICNIRP guidelines is very evident. Having an academic psychologist like Croft as the chair of ICNIRP which is supposed to be a health committee is a case in point.
ICNIRP still does not address the long-term non-thermal effects of these complex RF modulations patterns. There are many thousands of studies that show detriment and only a few that show possible therapy. ICNIRP does not have a risk management strategy to address these long-term non-thermal exposures and as such are putting present and future generations at risk. Children in particular should be treated as a special exposure group. For the first time in the history of civilization, our children bring this EMF source directly to their heads and expose their brains to radiation.
These are my views not ORSAA.
Regards Victor Leach
(ORSAA database administrator)
I read with interest that Croft claims that “science has a very good understanding of the relation between RF EMF relevant to 5G, and human health”. Well, wIth that profound level of creative thinking, if Trump gets re-elected, Rodney should apply to be his science advisor. After all, never let the facts interfere with the SPIN.
Indeed, use of only 3 subjects in study executed and published by Rodney Croft and his collaborators is a good example of wasting research funding. However, the fact is that only 3 participants was not what scientists planned. Plan was for use of many more volunteers. Unfortunately, volunteers didn’t “materialize” and majority of the volunteers that agreed to participate in the study have withdrawn leaving only 3 volunteers in the study. Were the volunteers afraid or was there mistrust in research group involved?
On electrosensitivity, I apparently have the advantage over Dr Croft, as I have this ‘intolerance’ myself. I have no need to ‘attribute’ my severely incapacitating and long-term symptoms to man-made EMFs. Simple linking of cause and effect experienced over many years is all the proof that I require.
Ironically though, because I was so naive about the biological effects of electromagnetic radiation at the time, it took me three years from the onset of my symptoms to finally realise that my suspicions were correct, that EHS is real, and that I am ‘electrosensitive’.
(Aren’t all biological organisms electrosensitive though? How else would we function?).
An RF meter was an essential element in decoding the otherwise bizarre patterns of my symptoms (for example, they were much more severe on one side of the house than the other, which I discovered was due to a) my AMR electricity meter, which was emitting frequently, and b) the DECT cordless phone radiation that was entering my property via the party wall with my neighbour).
Prior to this, I had absolutely no idea that my electricity meter was emitting radiation throughout my house, or that my neighbour had a DECT phone!!
I do not need to be a scientist, or a member of a controversial international radiation group, to know what harms me. I am my own proof, and I am just waiting for the science to catch up with what all electrosensitive people around the world already know.
By the way, however future studies on electrosensitivity are carried out, it would presumably be useful for them to involve more than three electrosensitive participants…