I have written, on several occasions, about the differences between ICNIRP opinions and opinions of ICNIRP members when placed in non-ICNIRP scientific committees. There is something wrong with ICNIRP, that operates in detachment from science in general and thrives thanks to the support from the German government and telecom industry umbrella organizations as MWF and GSMA. Here are few examples of ICNIRP-bubble…
- Clear indication that ICNIRP review of science is skewed and should be independently validated
- BERENIS disagrees with ICNIRP
- Leszczynski: Statement on the need for validation of ICNIRP’s review of science
- Leszczynski: There is something utterly wrong with the ICNIRP membership
- Significant discrepancy of opinions on 5G and health between ICNIRP and the Health Council of the Netherlands
…and a news message from Joel Moskowitz…
Christopher J. Portier, former director of the National Center for Environmental Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), and a scientific advisor for the World Health Organization (WHO), recently completed an expert report on brain tumor risk from exposure to radio frequency (RF) radiation used in cellphone technology.
After completing a comprehensive review of the scientific literature, Dr. Portier concluded:
“In my opinion, RF exposure probably causes gliomas and neuromas and, given the human, animal and experimental evidence,
I assert that, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, the probability that RF exposure causes gliomas and neuromas is high.”
The 176-page report contains 443 references. The report was prepared for the plaintiffs in a major product liability lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia against the telecommunications industry (Murray et al. v Motorola, Inc. et al.).
The report is downloadable from this link: http://bit.ly/PortierExpertReport
More on the report on saferemr.com
Pingback: Overwhelming power of ICNIRP opinions through backing from GSMA, MWF & telecoms: WHO and governmental agencies, like ARPANSA, BfS, TNO, STUK et al., meekly follow and disseminate misinformation on 5G millimeter-waves’ safety research | BRHP –
This is comment from ORSAA’s Julie McCredden and Victor Leach was submitted via e-mail:
This report produced by Dr Christopher J. Portier is a very thorough investigation of the brain tumour evidence to date. ORSAA has conducted a similar analysis, and although not as comprehensive, have reached the same conclusion. A true scientist cannot continue to ignore the evidence that is accumulating, and use of the Bradford Hill approach, takes the evidence from a place of statistical association to causation. This method is not being applied by ICNIRP or ARPANSA in the interpretation of the science,
Currently, there is some very interesting work being done by Hans Geesink and Dirk Meijer looking at the bio-compatibility of these signals.
Modulated wireless communications signals are clearly carcinogenic and it comes down to risk management. However, government and telecommunication providers are still yet to recognise this fact with continued deployment of this technology in its current form. Instead they continue to make unsubstantiated claims of safety.
The first hurdle is to get governments to realise their policies in all probability are creating a burgeoning long-term health problem. The tragedy is we could have been a long-way “down the track” in making this technology safer if government advisors and industry scientists had actually looked at the science through a lens not distorted by power and monetary gain. Instead, it would appear that many have not learned from the lessons of tobacco and asbestos.