In 2020, ICNIRP has published an updated safety guidelines for EMF exposures that consider solely thermal effects of radiation exposure as the source of any health effects. In ICNIRP’s opinion, prevention of thermal effects, by the currently used safety limits, is sufficient to protect health of the users.
However, there is a long list of experimentally observed biological effects, induced in animals or cells grown in laboratory, by exposures to radiation levels that are well below the current exposure limits, set by ICNIRP. These effects should not happen. So, unless all scientists that observed these effects are hallucinating, there is something wrong with ICNIRP’s opinion. These observed biological effects, if occurring in humans, might lead to health effects.
Safety guidelines, besides being based solely on the notion that only thermal effects are induced in living matter by the EMF exposures, also refer solely to the short term exposures, and do not provide information on whether safety guidelines are protective for the continuous and long lasting exposures (from months to tens-of-years). While there is available published research on the effects occurring immediately, during or shortly after exposure, there is practically very little of research on long-term chronic exposures. How ICNIRP knows what is safe when there is no research?
Safety guidelines of ICNIRP are advertised as protective for all users, no matter of age and no matter of the health status. It means that the growing and developing body of baby child or the ailing body of an old person suffering from potentially lethal disease, are equally protected, to the same degree, as the bodies of young and healthy adults. For ethical reasons, experimenting on humans is limited. The biological effects and the health effects demonstrated by the epidemiology studies are the only ones that examine long term effects of RF-EMF exposures in people. This means that there is not much of scientific evidence assuring that the ICNIRP safety guidelines apply to all persons, no matter their age or health status and no matter how long they used RF-EMF-emitting devices. How ICNIRP knows what limits are safe when there is no research?
Interestingly, evaluations by ICNIRP are frequently contradicted by researchers not involved in ICNIRP activities. Even more interestingly, ICNIRP members, when placed on various national scientific committees, might arrive at conclusions that are contradicting ICNIRP opinions.
The currently ongoing deployment of the new generation of wireless communication, the 5G, has further stimulated debate on the validity of the safety guidelines provided by ICNIRP.
What will be new in the 5G wireless communication is the use of millimeter-waves, with frequencies from over 20 GHz up to 300 GHz. Millimeter-waves, while can transfer large amounts of data, have problem of how far they can be transmitted and limits to their penetration ability. This will cause a very dense deployment of base stations throughout neighborhoods (roughly, small base station on every second lamppost) and will require base stations inside buildings. It means that in few years, when the 5G is fully deployed, environment of cities will be somewhat saturated with the millimeter-waves.
ICNIRP assures that safety guidelines will protect users, no matter what. However, how ICNIRP knows it?
The research on millimeter-waves and health is very limited. Several recently published reviews, through searching in various data-bases have found only very limited number of studies dealing with health effects of millimeter-waves. The vast majority of science published on 5G millimeter-waves’ deals with radiation dosimetry, not with biological and health effects.
- In 2019, Simkó and Mattsson published review of just 97 experimental studies.
- In 2020, Leszczynski published review of just 99 experimental studies.
- In 2021, Karipidis et al. published review of just 107 experimental studies.
The majority of this research are small in vitro or animal studies that are practically useless when developing public health protection opinions.
How ICNIRP knows that ICNIRP’s safety guidelines are protective when ICNIRP itself, through opinion expressed by its chairman, Rodney Croft admits – there is no research but… we, ICNIRP, don’t need research.
ICNIRP provides guidelines that are vital for telecom industry. Anyone claiming there is no influence and interaction between these entities is naïve.
Pingback: Lobbysystem ICNIRP und Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz – ICNIRP gibt Sicherheitsrichtlinien zu 5G heraus, die für die Telekommunikationsindustrie überlebenswichtig sind - bvmde.org
Pingback: 14.04.2021: Werner Thiede 'Digitaler Turmbau zu Babel - Der Technikwahn und seine Folgen': 2. erweiterte und aktualisierte Auflage 2021 - bvmde.org
Pingback: Spanish translation of my BRHP blog published on March 22, 2021 | BRHP – Between a Rock and a Hard Place
Pingback: German translation of my BRHP blog published on March 22, 2021 | BRHP – Between a Rock and a Hard Place
Thank you so much for the references, Steve Weller and Thomas. Wishing both of your links a very wide circulation. I will post a link on my page and through my contacts, if that’s alright. It’s so difficult for me to understand how all of these recurring effects can be acknowledged in some scientific circles and dismissed or denied in others. And even when they are acknowledged, a further sticking point becomes whether or not the effects are adverse or merely “biological”. I don’t understand how most of these effects could possibly be considered benign, especially in the long term with continuous and ever increasing exposures. How long can the body keep compensating before some regulatory mechanism wears out or slips up? And while this is all pretty complicated, almost every doctor or other medical professional I know remains skeptical that wireless radiation is hazardous to health–how can this be?
Debora Rubin: You can go to https://www.orsaa.org/orsaa-database.html and generate a list. aka “long list of experimentally observed biological effects, induced in animals or cells grown in laboratory, by exposures to radiation levels that are well below the current exposure limits, set by ICNIRP”
Deborah, you can find a laundry list of biological effects in the ORSAA database https://n431.fmphost.com/fmi/webd#Research_Review_V4
Go to the effects tab (note this list is a subset of a much larger list that we have categorized and will provide to the public in the near future, which has more than 90 major effect categories and over 1000 endpoints). You can also get a summary of the number of papers that are finding statistically significant effects for the categories identified by click on the summary button at the bottom of the page. The majority(~90%) of the 2200 experimental papers in the RF range contained in the ORSAA database are at or below ICNIRP limits.
I also created a presentation in 2017 that summarizes effects noted in more than 50 years of research and can be found here https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331733393_RADIO_FREQUENCY_RF_BIO-EFFECTS_DO_WE_HAVE_A_PROBLEM
Trying to be fair… but getting mud thrown at me from both sides… Sign to wrap up and live happily ever after?
Well done, Dariusz. Please keep writing/publishing on precisely this subject.
Dariusz, would you please list the “long list of experimentally observed biological effects, induced in animals or cells grown in laboratory, by exposures to radiation levels that are well below the current exposure limits, set by ICNIRP”? Thank you.