The starting point to squash conspiracies and all forms of disinformation is to perform validation of the science review by ICNIRP, GSMA and MWF should consider the potential consequences of potentially incorrect scientific opinions provided by ICNIRP and followed by the telecom industry. Members of ICNIRP do not have any legal responsibility for their opinions but the telecom industry has legal responsibility if the telecom devices will cause health harm. Opinions of ICNIRP are challenged not only by the so-called anti-5G activists. In 2011 IARC performed evaluation of science related to cancer and based on studies from Interphone and Hardell classified RF-EMF as possibly carcinogenic to humans. At the same time, ICNIRP has published review article on epidemiology and using the same studies, Interphone and Hardell, arrived at conclusion that RF-EMF has no impact on cancer. It means that two groups of scientists, neither being made-up of activists, arrived at very different conclusions. It means that ICNIRP not necessarily provides best review of science. This is the reason for my call to validate science review of ICNIRP by another set of scientists, with more diverse opinions and not the “single truth” opinion of ICNIRP. MWF and GSMA should carefully consider what is in their best interest – to continue following ICNIRP or engaging support of independent review of ICNIRP science. Any comments or responses?
Image for easy distribution
BRHP - Between a Rock and a Hard Place 
Pingback: We need CONSENSUS, not another COMMISSION… | BRHP – Between a Rock and a Hard Place
Pingback: This is Big News from USA: Yet another expert considers RF as probably carcinogenic | Smart Meter News
Pingback: This is Big News from USA: Yet another expert considers RF as probably carcinogenic | BRHP – Between a Rock and a Hard Place
Pingback: Leszczynski: Clear indication that ICNIRP review of science is skewed and should be independently validated | Smart Meter News
Pingback: Clear indication that ICNIRP review of science is skewed and should be independently validated | BRHP – Between a Rock and a Hard Place
My comments were about ICNIRP in general. There is no point reviewing their work because it is tainted. What we need is an independent review of the science that is separate from ICNIRP and WHO. Having said this, what is happening today with the current WHO review (governed by the EMF Project) is scandalous. They have learned nothing from the Tobacco science debacle and are in fact perpetuating it with their current RF review. The lack of transparency and secrecy in the WHO review are the same complaints that are being leveled at ICNIRP. Microwave News talks about disbanding ICNIRP, the same needs to happen with the WHO EMF project. The rot starts at the top.
I didn’t mean ICNIRP reviewing and validating ICNIRP.
I meant group of scientists independent of ICNIRP reviewing and validation opinion of ICNIRP.
ICNIRP has already conducted a ‘public consultation’ on its Guidelines, although it is clear from the ‘Comments and Responses’ tab in the response file that any feedback relating to the existence of non-thermal effects, or the general inadequacy of the Guidelines in terms of protecting vulnerable individuals, is simply dismissed by this non-accountable, non-transparent, self-electing, and self-elected, private club.
ICNIRP marks its own homework, and for anybody who believes that harmful non-thermal effects have been shown (or suggested) by studies such as the NTP cell phone studies, the Ramazzini Institute studies, the Hardell Group studies, The Reflex study, or the Interphone study, there is no right of appeal against its grading.
The ICNIRP Guidelines are published in the journal Health Physics. Assuming that the standard Health Physics peer review process is used, this would involve an Associate Editor selecting two peer reviewers to evaluate the paper.
Health Physics has a number of associate editors, one of whom is William H. Bailey, who also works for product defense company Exponent. Dr Bailey has published papers denying non-thermal effects, and his work has, in the past, been part-funded by the CTIA (see ‘Wireless 5G Radiofrequency Technology — An Overview of Small Cell Exposures, Standards and Science’).
The bibliography in his recent paper (‘Wireless 5G Radiofrequency Technology’, published April 2020), states:
‘Dr. Bailey also is an Associate Editor of the journal Health Physics, with primary responsibility for the peer review of manuscripts describing the results of research on electromagnetic fields including both RF and other frequencies’
The same paper states:
‘Research to date does not provide a reliable scientific basis to conclude that the operation of these [5G] facilities will cause or contribute to adverse health effects in the population. Research on RF will continue as is often done with new technologies, but not because public health authorities have established that the use of RF communications technologies today causes adverse health effects or is unsafe’
It seems safe to suggest that ICNIRP and the journal Health Physics are on the same page concerning RF safety, and that they are unlikely to ever consider detrimental non-thermal effects of RF radiation to have been ‘established’.
I think that the idea of an external group of experts reviewing the ICNIRP Guidelines is an excellent idea, so long as this group is not stuffed with the usual suspects, who are just there to cherry-pick the science, and thereby perpetuate ICNIRP’s thermal dogma.
It is surely time for the ICNIRP Guidelines to be systematically critiqued, and challenged, by a rigorous scientific and medical review, comprised of a panel of skilled, experienced, and independent, experts.
Given many ICNIRP scientists have performed research with military and/or industry funding and they are the creator of RF Guidelines adopted by many countries around the world, biases may be creeping in. In my BEMS letter to the editor I quoted [Ravetz, 1999] – Ravetz asks “in whose interest, and under whose control, the basic science is done.” He questions “scientists who present themselves as impartial judges when they are actually committed advocates” and calls for an “extended peer community,”consisting“not merely of persons with some form or other of institutional accreditation (“stakeholders”),”but rather all those seeking a broad base of consensus including scientists with a differing viewpoint and communities via citizens’ juries and so on.”
So, ICNIRP scientists may not necessarily be considered activists per se, but they do come across as “committed advocates”. The continued failure to incorporate even rudimentary risk management policies in their RF Guidelines, the obvious lack of impartiality and the exclusion of scientists with different view points from ICNIRP membership creates a fundamental trust issue. Until ICNIRP rectifies these gross shortcomings it is difficult as a scientist to take any of their pronouncements seriously.
(PDF) Comment on Letter: “Post‐Normal Science and the Management of Uncertainty in Bioelectromagnetic Controversies” by A.W. Wood. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336518984_Comment_on_Letter_Post-Normal_Science_and_the_Management_of_Uncertainty_in_Bioelectromagnetic_Controversies_by_AW_Wood [accessed Dec 11 2020].
Niestety ICNIRP służy tylko jako przykrywka dla władz do podnoszenia limitów dopuszczalnego poziomu PEM wygodnych dla operatorów. Tak zrobiono w Polsce. Zwiększono w 2020 r. gęstość mocy z 0,1 W/m2 do 10 W/m2 wbrew opinii polskich naukowców:
Click to access Rezolucja_PTRB_2020.pdf
Dear Darius, I think that ICNIRP’s work is to be criticized by scientists but not to be reviewed and validated, it too much of credibility for them (you’ve mentionned how ICNIRP has reviewed Interphone but what about ICNIRP’s opinion on NTP ! It’s scandalous…). ICNIRP has no democratic nor scientific basis for risk assesment. As citizens and victims of RF exposure we can’t stand that exposure standards are made this way. States and WHO have to rebuild a way for real protective standards.