Neil Cherry’s assessment of “The ICNIRP Game”, from 20 years ago…

Justine Hansen, one of the readers of my blog, after seeing my post on “Warning signs of a Cult…” dealing with ICNIRP, has pointed me to text written some 20 years ago by Neil Cherry…

It feels that the same “ICNIRP game” is being played for a long time and that we all are still being plaid. How long we have still to go before eyes open?

Dr Neil Cherry’s assessment of “The ICNIRP Game” nearly 20 years ago:

ICNIRP is playing its own game and setting its own rules. It is the game that is played by national authorities which, as a team, they feel very comfortable with it. The name of the team is “The Consensus of Science”. However, it involves quite a small and very select team that includes national experts who come from national authorities who subscribe to the rules of the ICNIRP game.

In the ICNIRP game the first rule is that there is only a tissue heating effect from RF/MW exposure. You must agree with this rule to play the ICNIRP game. As a consequence of this rule, in the ICNIRP game, all other biological effects are not real and any epidemiological study that shows an effect with non-thermal exposure, must be faulty and will be rejected. In other words, if you break this rule you are out of the game. In this game it is fine to change the rules about acceptable significant, what is evidence, and criteria for how a biological effect is established. In this game a study does not provide evidence until it has been exactly replicated.

Sounds familiar?

I, myself [DL], have been interacting with ICNIRP members and ICNIRP as organization starting from 1997 and my experience agrees with the opinion of Neil Cherry. [p30]


6 thoughts on “Neil Cherry’s assessment of “The ICNIRP Game”, from 20 years ago…

  1. Pingback: Independence Day 5G ICNIRP – Flying Blind, No Brakes? No Guardrails? No Seatbelts? No Health Codes? No Scrutiny? No Environmental Research? - Cialisvvr

  2. Pingback: Independence Day 5G ICNIRP - Flying Blind, No Brakes? No Guardrails? No Seatbelts? No Health Codes? No Scrutiny? No Environmental Research? - Earn 8 Magazine

  3. Radio-amateur emissions have not received much attention on the part of those concerned with biology but their contribution to the full EMF load might be largely underestimated in our times. Although their technicalities are not easily digested by commoners the descriptions in relevant websites suggest that they have the capabilities and the right to use a multitude of frequencies and to manipulate and tune up their equipements and the power with which they emit nearly as much as they want. Besides their antennas are located in residential areas often in front of windows. All in all the amateur emissions, although a minority compared to phone base stations, might not be so negligeable as they appear.

    The following are extracts of the site for USA radioamateurs. It is to be expected that about the same happens in a other countries.
    “Twenty-nine small frequency bands throughout the spectrum are allocated to this service internationally. Some 1,300 digital, analog, pulse, and spread-spectrum emission types may be transmitted.”
    “Millions of amateur operators in all areas of the world communicate with each other directly or through ad hoc relay systems and amateur-satellites.”
    “All frequencies are shared. No frequency is assigned for the exclusive use of any amateur station. Station control operators cooperate in selecting transmitting channels to make the most effective use of the frequencies. They design, construct, modify, and repair their stations. The FCC equipment authorization program does not generally apply to amateur station transmitters.”

  4. Great find I discovered the late Dr Cherry’s detailed work nearly 20 years ago and having a background in amateur radio helped me enormously explain elusive health issues emerging amongst neighbouring residents living in the elevated levels of EMR radiating from close proximity to various types of masts.

  5. The model that struck me as awfully familiar from the first time I saw it was the Union of Concerned Scientists’ (UCS) “DISINFORMATION PLAYBOOK.” Below is just a skeleton outline of what is actually on their site, hopefully to induce you to visit. See if it rings a bell.

    THE DISINFORMATION PLAYBOOK : How Business Interests Deceive, Misinform, and Buy Influence at the Expense of Public Health and Safety

    The results of independent science don’t always shine a favorable light on corporate products and practices. In response, some corporations manipulate science and scientists to distort the truth about the dangers of their products, using a set of tactics made famous decades ago by the tobacco industry. We call these tactics the Disinformation Playbook.
    Five of the most widely used “plays” have been used to block regulations or minimize corporate liability, often with frightening effectiveness—and disastrous repercussions on public health and safety.
    1. The Fake: Conduct counterfeit science and try to pass it off as legitimate research
    2. The Blitz: Harass scientists who speak out with results or views inconvenient for industry
    3. The Diversion: Manufacture uncertainty about science where little or none exists
    4. The Screen: Buy credibility through alliances with academia or professional societies
    5 .The Fix: Manipulate government officials or processes to inappropriately influence policy

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 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter 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.