The ICNIRP Guidelines: RF risk assessment built on a house of cards
http://www.emfacts.com/papers/icnirp_critique.pdf
http://www.emfacts.com/papers/submissions.html
http://www.eubios.info/EJ54/EJ54H.htm
http://www.goodhealthinfo.net/radiation/health_efx_western.htm
http://www.salzburg.gv.at/ICNIRP-Kritik1.pdf
--------
Dr. Chiyoji Ohkubo answers an EHS person
(excerpt)
-----Original Message-----
From: Sibylle Gabriel
Sent: 11 January 2006 19:50
To: Repacholi, Michael Harry
Dear Dr. Repacholi,
as a teacher i have noticed for a while a subtantial degratation in the behavior and the learing capacities of my pupils. I turn to you as famous specialist in order to ask you wether you belive this pulsed micro-waves could be cause of this changes or not. As a mater of fact some children phon more then two hours a day and - or have their eyes irritated or worse, do'nt see a thing for moment.
Being myself electroensitive I am also heavely affected by thoses waves and have to systematecally evoid any places with wi-fi. The wi-fi, the worst for my system. Hence I experience growing difficulties to concentrate and headaches.
If my body reaction is not exeptional, it is urgent to worn the population, especially children, particulary vulnerable and exposed because of their abuse of electronic gadgets.
Would appreciate a prompt reply and in the meantime I remaine,
yours sincerly
Sibylle Gabriel
Dr. Chiyoji Ohkubo, from the Radiation and Environmental Health, World Health Organization, answers the EHS person:
"the limits in the ICNIRP guidelines are highly protective and are based on all the available scientific evidence.... provide a high level of protection against all proven hazards of radiofrequency fields....
Present scientific evidence does not indicate the need for any special precautions for the use of mobile phones...
....these [studies] have generally unable to unequivocally link exposure to electromagnetic fields and the symptoms that hypersensitive people report....In some cases, emotional or other environmental factors might also play a role.
My best advice regarding your symptoms is to seek a physician who can identify the cause of your problems, - without presuming the cause. Symptoms such as you describe can have many causes, and only a competent physician can hope to uncover them.
Did you know that: ..........ICNIRP wishes you all the best in 2006 !
(from http://www.icnirp.de )
Iris Atzmon.
--------
----- Original Message -----
From: Iris Atzmon To: OhkuboC@who.int
Cc: Sibylle
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 7:32 PM
Subject: Public Inquiery
Dear Dr. Ohkubo,
I would like to ask for your input with regard to each of the following points, which contradict certain statements you made to Sibylle with confidence: like that the ICNIRP guidelines are highly protective, and that they include ALL the evidence, and that there is no need for precaution. I will be glad to know that the following points are not true, but unfortunately, until today, they have never been refuted (they were denied, but never refuted) by any of the WHO/ ICNIRP members. I would like to know your comments to the following data:
1. The WHO invites the power industry to participate in evaluation of EMF health standards based on: "20-member task group from 17 countries, assembled by Michael Repacholi, the head of the WHO EMF project, will finalize an Environmental Health Criteria (EHC) document, which is designed to guide the development of standards for extremely low frequency (ELF) EMFs all over the world. It will likely represent WHO’s official position on EMF health risks for years to come.
Last month, Repacholi gave eight observers the green light to attend the meeting —all eight either work for electric utilities or have direct and strong ties to the industry. Other than WHO staff, these are the only people on the Repacholi’s list of approved observers: Kazu Chikamoto, Japan NUS Co., Tokyo Rob Kavet, EPRI, Palo Alto. CA, U.S. Michel Plante, Hydro-Quebec, Montreal, Canada Jack Sahl, Southern California Edison, Upland, CA, U.S. Martine Souques, Electricity de France-Gaz de France, Paris Hamilton Moss de Souza, CEPEL, Brazilian Electrical Energy Research Center, Rio de Janeiro John Swanson, National Grid, London, U.K. Tom Watson, Watson & Renner, Washington DC, U.S.
http://www.microwavenews.com/fromthefield.html#whoehc
2. Repacholi receives 150,000 dollar a year (at least) from the Mobile Phone industry based on: "We also know that he found a way to skirt the WHO rules that bar direct industry support - the mobile phone manufacturers have said that they provide him with $150,000 a year with additional money for meeting and travel expenses."
http://www.microwavenews.com/fromthefield.html#whoottawa
3. With regard to the ICNIRP/WHO standard documents, two examples for bias of data:
A. The study on the polish army Szmigielski 1996, (which found high cancer increase) in the WHO/ICNIRP document it's written that it was hard to interpret the findings because the level of radiation was not clear and also how many people were exposed. But in the study itself it's written clearly: population 128,000 people, and radiation: "Evaluation of the exposure intensities revealed that at 80-85% of posts, the fields (mostly pulse-modulated RF/MWs at 150-3500 MHz) do not exceed 2 W/m2 (0.2 mW/cm2), while the others have intensities 2-6 W/m2. How is it one thing in the study, and another thing in the ICNIRP/WHO document?
B. Prof Goldsmith published in 1995 the Lilienfeld findings of increased Leukemia in the american embassy workers in Moscow. The ICNIRP documents still present the study as a "proof" that there is no increased risk. Why isn't it updated in the ICNIRP document? source: Goldsmith J, “Where the trail leads" Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics, Vo. 5 p. 92-94, July 1995.
4. The ICNIRP/ WHO Standards documents were refuted by these scientists: The following scientists wrote serious, detailed, evidence based documents in which they compared the findings of the actual studies which are reviewd in the WHO/ ICNIRP documents and showed significant difference between actual data and they way the are presented in the documents. We have never seen anybody saying that the were not right. They are:
Dr. Neil Cherry in : "Criticism of the Health Assesment in the ICNIRP Guidlines for Radiofrequency and Microwave Radiation" 31/1/2000.
http://www.emfguru.org/CellPhone/cherry2/ICNIRP-2.htm
Dr. Michael Kundi in: Fundemental Errors, the Biased Presentation of proofs and arguments with Prejudices of the 1998 ICNIRP Guidlines. 06/ 2002
Dr. Gerard Hyland as presented in the European Paliament
http://carolinelucasmep.org.uk/news/mobilemasts_11072001.html
Prof John Goldsmith as mentioned above and in his other publications.
Barrie Trower, expert of electromagnetic weapon who worked in the British Government, as written to the British Police about TETRA.
http://www.rense.com/general60/tetra.htm
Don Maisch in "The ICNIRP Guidelines: RF risk assessment built on a house of cards"
http://www.emfacts.com/papers/icnirp_critique.pdf
Is the WHO able to refute the data presented in the above papers scientifically?
5. The WHO Interphone study results will be given to the industry one week before they hit the media.
I am looking forward to reading your clarification to the above points,
Respectfully, and blessings for the new job,
Iris Atzmon.
--------
Base Stations, operating within strict national and international Guidelines, do not present a Health Risk?
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/771911/
http://omega.twoday.net/topics/Victims/
http://omega.twoday.net/topics/Wissenschaft+zu+Mobilfunk/
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=World+Health+Organisation
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Repacholi
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=ICNIRP+guideline+critique
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Barrie+Trower
http://www.emfacts.com/papers/submissions.html
http://www.eubios.info/EJ54/EJ54H.htm
http://www.goodhealthinfo.net/radiation/health_efx_western.htm
http://www.salzburg.gv.at/ICNIRP-Kritik1.pdf
--------
Dr. Chiyoji Ohkubo answers an EHS person
(excerpt)
-----Original Message-----
From: Sibylle Gabriel
Sent: 11 January 2006 19:50
To: Repacholi, Michael Harry
Dear Dr. Repacholi,
as a teacher i have noticed for a while a subtantial degratation in the behavior and the learing capacities of my pupils. I turn to you as famous specialist in order to ask you wether you belive this pulsed micro-waves could be cause of this changes or not. As a mater of fact some children phon more then two hours a day and - or have their eyes irritated or worse, do'nt see a thing for moment.
Being myself electroensitive I am also heavely affected by thoses waves and have to systematecally evoid any places with wi-fi. The wi-fi, the worst for my system. Hence I experience growing difficulties to concentrate and headaches.
If my body reaction is not exeptional, it is urgent to worn the population, especially children, particulary vulnerable and exposed because of their abuse of electronic gadgets.
Would appreciate a prompt reply and in the meantime I remaine,
yours sincerly
Sibylle Gabriel
Dr. Chiyoji Ohkubo, from the Radiation and Environmental Health, World Health Organization, answers the EHS person:
"the limits in the ICNIRP guidelines are highly protective and are based on all the available scientific evidence.... provide a high level of protection against all proven hazards of radiofrequency fields....
Present scientific evidence does not indicate the need for any special precautions for the use of mobile phones...
....these [studies] have generally unable to unequivocally link exposure to electromagnetic fields and the symptoms that hypersensitive people report....In some cases, emotional or other environmental factors might also play a role.
My best advice regarding your symptoms is to seek a physician who can identify the cause of your problems, - without presuming the cause. Symptoms such as you describe can have many causes, and only a competent physician can hope to uncover them.
Did you know that: ..........ICNIRP wishes you all the best in 2006 !
(from http://www.icnirp.de )
Iris Atzmon.
--------
----- Original Message -----
From: Iris Atzmon To: OhkuboC@who.int
Cc: Sibylle
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 7:32 PM
Subject: Public Inquiery
Dear Dr. Ohkubo,
I would like to ask for your input with regard to each of the following points, which contradict certain statements you made to Sibylle with confidence: like that the ICNIRP guidelines are highly protective, and that they include ALL the evidence, and that there is no need for precaution. I will be glad to know that the following points are not true, but unfortunately, until today, they have never been refuted (they were denied, but never refuted) by any of the WHO/ ICNIRP members. I would like to know your comments to the following data:
1. The WHO invites the power industry to participate in evaluation of EMF health standards based on: "20-member task group from 17 countries, assembled by Michael Repacholi, the head of the WHO EMF project, will finalize an Environmental Health Criteria (EHC) document, which is designed to guide the development of standards for extremely low frequency (ELF) EMFs all over the world. It will likely represent WHO’s official position on EMF health risks for years to come.
Last month, Repacholi gave eight observers the green light to attend the meeting —all eight either work for electric utilities or have direct and strong ties to the industry. Other than WHO staff, these are the only people on the Repacholi’s list of approved observers: Kazu Chikamoto, Japan NUS Co., Tokyo Rob Kavet, EPRI, Palo Alto. CA, U.S. Michel Plante, Hydro-Quebec, Montreal, Canada Jack Sahl, Southern California Edison, Upland, CA, U.S. Martine Souques, Electricity de France-Gaz de France, Paris Hamilton Moss de Souza, CEPEL, Brazilian Electrical Energy Research Center, Rio de Janeiro John Swanson, National Grid, London, U.K. Tom Watson, Watson & Renner, Washington DC, U.S.
http://www.microwavenews.com/fromthefield.html#whoehc
2. Repacholi receives 150,000 dollar a year (at least) from the Mobile Phone industry based on: "We also know that he found a way to skirt the WHO rules that bar direct industry support - the mobile phone manufacturers have said that they provide him with $150,000 a year with additional money for meeting and travel expenses."
http://www.microwavenews.com/fromthefield.html#whoottawa
3. With regard to the ICNIRP/WHO standard documents, two examples for bias of data:
A. The study on the polish army Szmigielski 1996, (which found high cancer increase) in the WHO/ICNIRP document it's written that it was hard to interpret the findings because the level of radiation was not clear and also how many people were exposed. But in the study itself it's written clearly: population 128,000 people, and radiation: "Evaluation of the exposure intensities revealed that at 80-85% of posts, the fields (mostly pulse-modulated RF/MWs at 150-3500 MHz) do not exceed 2 W/m2 (0.2 mW/cm2), while the others have intensities 2-6 W/m2. How is it one thing in the study, and another thing in the ICNIRP/WHO document?
B. Prof Goldsmith published in 1995 the Lilienfeld findings of increased Leukemia in the american embassy workers in Moscow. The ICNIRP documents still present the study as a "proof" that there is no increased risk. Why isn't it updated in the ICNIRP document? source: Goldsmith J, “Where the trail leads" Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics, Vo. 5 p. 92-94, July 1995.
4. The ICNIRP/ WHO Standards documents were refuted by these scientists: The following scientists wrote serious, detailed, evidence based documents in which they compared the findings of the actual studies which are reviewd in the WHO/ ICNIRP documents and showed significant difference between actual data and they way the are presented in the documents. We have never seen anybody saying that the were not right. They are:
Dr. Neil Cherry in : "Criticism of the Health Assesment in the ICNIRP Guidlines for Radiofrequency and Microwave Radiation" 31/1/2000.
http://www.emfguru.org/CellPhone/cherry2/ICNIRP-2.htm
Dr. Michael Kundi in: Fundemental Errors, the Biased Presentation of proofs and arguments with Prejudices of the 1998 ICNIRP Guidlines. 06/ 2002
Dr. Gerard Hyland as presented in the European Paliament
http://carolinelucasmep.org.uk/news/mobilemasts_11072001.html
Prof John Goldsmith as mentioned above and in his other publications.
Barrie Trower, expert of electromagnetic weapon who worked in the British Government, as written to the British Police about TETRA.
http://www.rense.com/general60/tetra.htm
Don Maisch in "The ICNIRP Guidelines: RF risk assessment built on a house of cards"
http://www.emfacts.com/papers/icnirp_critique.pdf
Is the WHO able to refute the data presented in the above papers scientifically?
5. The WHO Interphone study results will be given to the industry one week before they hit the media.
I am looking forward to reading your clarification to the above points,
Respectfully, and blessings for the new job,
Iris Atzmon.
--------
Base Stations, operating within strict national and international Guidelines, do not present a Health Risk?
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/771911/
http://omega.twoday.net/topics/Victims/
http://omega.twoday.net/topics/Wissenschaft+zu+Mobilfunk/
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=World+Health+Organisation
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Repacholi
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=ICNIRP+guideline+critique
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Barrie+Trower
Starmail - 14. Jan, 23:35
