These are several posts that I published in 2018 following the ICNIRP update of their so-called “safety standards”
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2018
International call for revoking the ICNIRP’s mandate and for better standards
A call for better protective standards, and revoking the mandate of ICNIRP is made by more than 244 scientists from around the world after ICNIRP ports its draft for updates on it’s Radiofrequency so-called safety standards (a quick look reveals nothing is changed, the standards are still note protective of humans, protective of the industry and are based only on heat effect of the radiation).
The letter will be sent to the WHO – World Health Organisation.
The letter is available at – http://www.iemfa.org/wp-content/pdf/EMF-Call-2018-10-30.pdf
Scientists and NGOs can join in and ask their names to be added to the call.
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 2018
ICNIRP does it again – rejecting the finding of NTP and Ramzini studies that RF radiation may cause and promote cancer
The ICNIRP does it again – rejecting the finding of NTP and Ramzini studies that RF radiation may cause and promote cancer.
Microwave news report that ICNIRP has released an 8-page note that tries to explain why these studies’ findings will not affect the old, non-protective standard for RF exposure.
By that ICNIRP proves once again that the role it chose to play is to protect the industry from any update of the easy-to-follow, non-protective RF exposure guidelines. These non-protective guidelines were written in 1998, that don’t cover health and biological damage from RF exposure and that take into consideration only immediate damage from the rise of temperature due to RF exposure.
The trick they use is repeated every once in a while when a new study finds evidence that RF radiation exposure can cause or promote cancer or damage health in any other way.
They use the magic words: “inconsistent” and ” unreliable” to undermine the findings while accepting and promoting studies that show a safer picture, even if proven wrong (for example the Danish cohort study)
ICNIRP prove itself once again as inadequate, biased, and irrelevant.
Therefore I suggest changing “ICNIRP” name to “ICNIRIP”.
It is a small change that will bring more “reliability” to the group.
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 27, 2018
5G might radiate more than the non-protective exposure standards.
A post in Lennart Hardell’s blog about a presentation given by Ericsson about the “challenge in meeting safety standards during 5G deployment”.
In it’s presentation (link in the post), Ericsson gives an estimation of the radiation emission from 2 of it’s infrastructure products (antenna), one at 3.5GHz, the other a 28GHz.
Ericsson claims that the current ICNIRP (non-protective, heat-based, “good for the industry” ) standards are going to make the deployment difficult.
I am afraid that now the industry will put pressure to allow even less protective standards to comply with the need for faster, cheaper, easier deployment of 5G.
It is very sad that the industry still thinks it can save money by exposing the public to more radiation, instead of developing their products and infrastructure in such a way that will reduce users’ and the public’s exposure.
Hardell’s post –
https://lennarthardellenglish.wordpress.com/2018/06/26/impact-of-emf-limits-on-5g-network-roll-out/
Presentation – https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/Workshops-and-Seminars/20171205/Documents/S3_Christer_Tornevik.pdf
