BERENIS disagrees with ICNIRP

In my earlier blog I wrote about the disagreement of opinions between science committee in The Netherlands and ICNIRP and, pointed out that Eric van Rongen was member of both groups, meaning he backed up both, opposing, opinions.

Similar thing happened in Switzerland.

ICNIRP states that general public is protected by ICNIRP safety limits:

“The general public is defined as individuals of all ages and of differing health statuses, which includes more vulnerable groups or individuals, and who may have no knowledge of or control over their exposure to EMFs”

It means that every member of the general public, including fetuses classified by ICNIRP as members of the general public, no matter age or health status is protected by the ICNIRP safety limits. However, there is no practical research that examined how different diseases respond to RF-EMF-exposure-induced biological effects. I repeat, no research on diseases and EMF. In executed human volunteer studies people with pre-existing conditions were excluded.

BERENIS, the Swiss expert group on electromagnetic fields and non-ionizing radiation, clearly disagrees with ICNIRP opinion that radiation protection provided by ICNIRP safety limits protects equally all members of the general public.

In the January 2021 issue of the BERENIS newsletter is published an abbreviated version of review of studies examining effects of ELF-EMF and RF-EMF exposures on oxidative stress. This review is authored by Meike Mevissen (Bern Univ.) and David Schürmann (Basel Univ.). Neither of them is member of ICNIRP Main Committee.

In conclusions of the abbreviated review the authors stated:

“Pre-existing conditions, such as immune deficiencies or diseases (diabetes, neurodegenerative diseases), compromise the body’s defence mechanisms, including antioxidative protection, and it is therefore possible that individuals with these conditions experience more severe health effects. In addition, the studies show that very young and elderly individuals can react less efficiently to oxidative stress induced by EMF, which of course also applies to other stressors that cause oxidative stress. More extensive studies under standardised conditions are necessary, to better understand and confirm these phenomena and observations.”

This means that it is necessary to perform studies, on the impact of the oxidative stress on individuals with pre-existing conditions, before claiming that ICNIRP safety guidelines protect everyone, no matter of age and health status.

As with the opinion on 5G from The Netherlands, also BERENIS has a member who is simultaneously member of ICNIRP – Martin Röösli. It means that he underwrote both, opposing, opinions.

So, again, national review of science came to conclusions different from ICNIRP.

There is no need to wonder why it is happening. As I have suggested earlier, ICNIRP review of science has “shaky”, at the best, scientific reliability and ICNIRP opinion on EMF science should be validated. ICNIRP review of science is certainly skewed, in direction of no health effects, because members of ICNIRP are selected by members of ICNIRP and only scientists that “fit” with their scientific opinions are invited.


10 thoughts on “BERENIS disagrees with ICNIRP

  1. Pingback: L’ICNIRP sur la sellette – ACCAD : Anti Compteurs Communicants Artois (62)-Douaisis (59)

  2. Pingback: 5G strapaziert die Grenzen unseres Vertrauens – frequencia

  3. Pingback: frequencia

  4. Pingback: This is Big News from USA: Yet another expert considers RF as probably carcinogenic | Smart Meter News

  5. Pingback: This is Big News from USA: Yet another expert considers RF as probably carcinogenic | BRHP – Between a Rock and a Hard Place

  6. Pingback: Leszczynski: Clear indication that ICNIRP review of science is skewed and should be independently validated | Smart Meter News

  7. Pingback: Clear indication that ICNIRP review of science is skewed and should be independently validated | BRHP – Between a Rock and a Hard Place

  8. Steve – The Guidelines would remain the same; as IRPA has already given their input to the current guidelines.

    IRPA and ICNIRP are linked by historical ties now relayed by an institutional partnership on the basis of the ICNIRP Charter and Statutes.

    ICNIRP’s beginnings go back to 1973 when, during the 3rd International Congress of the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA), for the first time, a session on non-ionizing radiation protection was organized. In 1977 the International Non-Ionizing Radiation Committee (INIRC) was created. This Committee was the immediate forerunner of ICNIRP that was chartered as an independent Commission in 1992 during the IRPA 7th International Congress.

    As per its Charter and Statutes, ICNIRP and the IRPA Executive Council maintain a close working relationship. Every four years on the occasion of the IRPA Congress, ICNIRP reports to IRPA on its activities and recommendations. Prior to publication of new recommendations, ICNIRP informs IRPA and its associated national radiation protection societies and specifically sends them a call for participation in the public consultation. IRPA and its societies also receive calls for nominations prior to the regular ICNIRP membership elections. Finally, IRPA supports ICNIRP though an annual grant. Also ICNIRP and IRPA consult on the NIR Sessions of each IRPA Congress and on an ad hoc basis they organize joint workshops.

  9. I would not waste time reviewing ICNIRP’s broken and conflicted guidelines. Instead, ICNIRP should be disbanded and the setting of non-ionising radiation protection limits be the remit of IRPA – at least then they would be ethically based and they would incorporate the precautionary principle unlike ICNIRP’s current guidelines.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.