Warning signs of a [ICNIRP] Cult…

Today, I run across some text that, in my mind was very fitting… just a small change, replacing word ‘leader’ with word ‘ICNIRP’ led to the following… [comment, like, disseminate, whether you agree or disagree]

I have been interacting with ICNIRP members and ICNIRP as organization starting from 1997 and my experience agrees with this:

Sounds and feels familiar?

The original text for comparison…

7 thoughts on “Warning signs of a [ICNIRP] Cult…

  1. Pingback: Comment on: The Death Rays That Never Were | Multerland

  2. Pingback: Día de la Independencia 5G ICNIRP – ¿Volar a ciegas, sin frenos? ¿Sin barandillas? ¿Sin cinturones de seguridad? ¿No tiene código de salud? ¿Sin control? ¿Sin investigación medioambiental? – Salud y Bienestar

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

  4. Pingback: Neil Cherry’s assessment of “The ICNIRP Game”, from 20 years ago… | BRHP – Between a Rock and a Hard Place

  5. I was not aware of this particular text… if it is OK I will post it… and mention you as person who made me aware of it

  6. Reminded me of 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.”

    https://researcharchive.lincoln.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10182/3933/90_m4_EMR_ICNIRP_critique_09-02.pdf [p30]

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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.