Base Stations, operating within strict national and international Guidelines, do not present a Health Risk?
The industry/establishment's recitation is that 'evidence' of mast safety comes from an esteemed International body known as ICNIRP supported by the World Health Organisation (WHO), the British Medical Association (BMA) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), Lyon.
Sounds impressive. So does it mean that all their pronouncements are quite separate and so additive, coming from unchallengeable sources?
No.
The BMA have not conducted any technical or original work. Their Interim Report 2001 and Update 2005 only re-state the published Reviews of ICNIRP participants, including the UK's NRPB (now HPA).
The original selection of which research to include and more importantly what to exclude for review, apart from how it was assessed, rather determines all conclusions. Visit the BMA website - they are not offering any independent certainty, just echoing the less than independent 'experts' applying their erroneous dogma.
When we hear 'World Health Organisation', what is meant is The WHO EMF Group - until recently led by Michael Repacholi, an ICNIRP stalwart, and his few industry connected seconded helpers. There is very good reason for the public not to have confidence in the impartiality of this group. The IARC are also represented on the ICNIRP Committee. The Cancer establishment have never been inclined to shine light on environmental causes of cancer when it is man made. Though they are relaxed so long as it's a 'natural' source.
Current wheeze in explaining localised excesses (e.g.masts, nuclear, ) is that - 'viruses are involved'.
Nifty, since there are well known particular cancers of viral origin, such as cervical -hpv/warts, liver - hep and Epstein-Barr virus.
So, 98% of cancer resources much publicly donated, goes in every other direction, but usually towards the progression mechanisms linked to the creation of 'treatments', on behalf of big pharma. A perfect world.
What we see throughout is the fine tradition of elites endorsing the statements of other elites.
Arthur J.
How about this?
Sarah
1. The ICNIRP Guidelines
The ICNIRP guidelines as officially endorsed by the World Health Organisation (WHO) were formulated in 1998 and largely adopted in the Western world..
They state:
"Induction of cancer from long-term EMF exposure was not considered to be established, and so these guidelines are based on short-term immediate health effects such as stimulation of peripheral nerves and muscles, shocks and burns caused by touching conducting objects and elevated tissue temperatures resulting from absorption of energy during exposure to EMF. In the case of potential long term effects of exposure, such as an increased risk of cancer, ICNIRP concluded that available data are insufficient to provide a basis for setting exposure restrictions..." http://www.icnirp.de/documents/emfgdl.pdf
That is to say that the ICNIRP only protect against short-term heat effects, i.e. we won't be Œcooked in the beam! There are no guidelines to protect against any other effects!
However in 1992 The German Federal Radiation Protection Agency had published a statement, which clearly referred to non-thermal, biological effects of microwave radiation and marked a watershed in our understanding of living systems. "Specific effects which are not related to heating have been described in the scientific literature for approximately 15 years. If a high frequency radiation is amplitude modulated with another frequency, field effects can occur, which do not exist under unmodulated radiation. These manifest mostly as changes in the permeability of the cell membranes. For example, it has been found that with high frequency radiation with a frequency of 147 MHz, which was modulated with frequencies between 6 and 20 Hz, the calcium efflux from cell cultures was significantly increased (by 1020%) for certain frequencies. Generally, a complex dependency of these effects on intensity and frequency has been observed, showing that certain frequency windows are particularly active. These membrane effects have been replicated many times, so that their existence has become established scientific knowledge. It needs to be noted that the SAR values used in some studies were lower than 0.01 W/kg, and therefore significantly below the threshold of thermally relevant intensities."
Mobilfunk - die verkaufte Gesundheit (Mobile communications - the sell-out of health) by Dr med Hans-Christoph Scheiner, published by Michaels Verlag, March 2006 The source listed in the Bibliographie of the book reads: Strahlenschutzkommission SSK, 1992: 'Schutz vor elektromagnetischer Strahlung beim Mobilfunk'. Bundesanzeiger Nr 43, 03. March 1992, Veroeffentlichungen der Strahlenschutzkommission, Band 24. The original publication can be ordered here http://www.ssk.de/pub/kurzinfo/b24.htm
An eminent epidemiologist, Prof. J.R. Goldsmith, said: "There are strong political and economic reasons for wanting there to be no health effect of RF/MW exposure, just as there are strong public health reasons for more accurately portraying the risks. Those of us who intend to speak for public health must be ready for opposition that is nominally, but not truly, scientific."
http://tinyurl.com/2el57h http://www.mastsanity.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=30
From Mast Sanity/Mast Network
--------
Competing interests, conflicts of interest: Who's funding WHO?
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/3347390/
ICNIRP Guidelines
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/1538462/
The guidelines are obsolete
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/705630/
Review of ICNIRP EMF exposure guidelines
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/2253406/
ICNIRP clarification
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/2406287/
The Precautionary Principle and Regulation of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/686111/
GUIDELINES BASED ON KEY STUDIES
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/678269/
Emissions from Cell Sites below International Guidelines
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/676712/
ICNIRP Guideline Critique
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/619583/
Mobile Telephony: Standards more than insufficient
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/618857/
Current planning guidelines do not recognise adverse health effects of masts
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/1594205/
The Inadequacy of the ICNIRP Guidelines
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/567526/
The ICNIRP Saga
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/566278/
On ICNIRP EMF exposure guidelines
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/2289938/
The ICNIRP Guidelines: RF risk assessment built on a house of cards
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1414514/
ICNIRP EMF exposure guidelines to be revised
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/1822415/
Measure people, not masts
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/559799/
WLAN, DECT in Schools and Kindergardens
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1579030/
Letter to the WHO from the WSF (World Social Forum)
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/501745/
WHO, EMF, Electromagnetic Radiation and Mobile Phones
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1194586/
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Gunde
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=World+Health+Organization
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Repacholi
http://www.next-up.org/Newsoftheworld/WHO_OMS.php#10
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Goldsmith
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Scheiner
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=ICNIRP+guideline+critique
Sounds impressive. So does it mean that all their pronouncements are quite separate and so additive, coming from unchallengeable sources?
No.
The BMA have not conducted any technical or original work. Their Interim Report 2001 and Update 2005 only re-state the published Reviews of ICNIRP participants, including the UK's NRPB (now HPA).
The original selection of which research to include and more importantly what to exclude for review, apart from how it was assessed, rather determines all conclusions. Visit the BMA website - they are not offering any independent certainty, just echoing the less than independent 'experts' applying their erroneous dogma.
When we hear 'World Health Organisation', what is meant is The WHO EMF Group - until recently led by Michael Repacholi, an ICNIRP stalwart, and his few industry connected seconded helpers. There is very good reason for the public not to have confidence in the impartiality of this group. The IARC are also represented on the ICNIRP Committee. The Cancer establishment have never been inclined to shine light on environmental causes of cancer when it is man made. Though they are relaxed so long as it's a 'natural' source.
Current wheeze in explaining localised excesses (e.g.masts, nuclear, ) is that - 'viruses are involved'.
Nifty, since there are well known particular cancers of viral origin, such as cervical -hpv/warts, liver - hep and Epstein-Barr virus.
So, 98% of cancer resources much publicly donated, goes in every other direction, but usually towards the progression mechanisms linked to the creation of 'treatments', on behalf of big pharma. A perfect world.
What we see throughout is the fine tradition of elites endorsing the statements of other elites.
Arthur J.
How about this?
Sarah
1. The ICNIRP Guidelines
The ICNIRP guidelines as officially endorsed by the World Health Organisation (WHO) were formulated in 1998 and largely adopted in the Western world..
They state:
"Induction of cancer from long-term EMF exposure was not considered to be established, and so these guidelines are based on short-term immediate health effects such as stimulation of peripheral nerves and muscles, shocks and burns caused by touching conducting objects and elevated tissue temperatures resulting from absorption of energy during exposure to EMF. In the case of potential long term effects of exposure, such as an increased risk of cancer, ICNIRP concluded that available data are insufficient to provide a basis for setting exposure restrictions..." http://www.icnirp.de/documents/emfgdl.pdf
That is to say that the ICNIRP only protect against short-term heat effects, i.e. we won't be Œcooked in the beam! There are no guidelines to protect against any other effects!
However in 1992 The German Federal Radiation Protection Agency had published a statement, which clearly referred to non-thermal, biological effects of microwave radiation and marked a watershed in our understanding of living systems. "Specific effects which are not related to heating have been described in the scientific literature for approximately 15 years. If a high frequency radiation is amplitude modulated with another frequency, field effects can occur, which do not exist under unmodulated radiation. These manifest mostly as changes in the permeability of the cell membranes. For example, it has been found that with high frequency radiation with a frequency of 147 MHz, which was modulated with frequencies between 6 and 20 Hz, the calcium efflux from cell cultures was significantly increased (by 1020%) for certain frequencies. Generally, a complex dependency of these effects on intensity and frequency has been observed, showing that certain frequency windows are particularly active. These membrane effects have been replicated many times, so that their existence has become established scientific knowledge. It needs to be noted that the SAR values used in some studies were lower than 0.01 W/kg, and therefore significantly below the threshold of thermally relevant intensities."
Mobilfunk - die verkaufte Gesundheit (Mobile communications - the sell-out of health) by Dr med Hans-Christoph Scheiner, published by Michaels Verlag, March 2006 The source listed in the Bibliographie of the book reads: Strahlenschutzkommission SSK, 1992: 'Schutz vor elektromagnetischer Strahlung beim Mobilfunk'. Bundesanzeiger Nr 43, 03. March 1992, Veroeffentlichungen der Strahlenschutzkommission, Band 24. The original publication can be ordered here http://www.ssk.de/pub/kurzinfo/b24.htm
An eminent epidemiologist, Prof. J.R. Goldsmith, said: "There are strong political and economic reasons for wanting there to be no health effect of RF/MW exposure, just as there are strong public health reasons for more accurately portraying the risks. Those of us who intend to speak for public health must be ready for opposition that is nominally, but not truly, scientific."
http://tinyurl.com/2el57h http://www.mastsanity.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=30
From Mast Sanity/Mast Network
--------
Competing interests, conflicts of interest: Who's funding WHO?
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/3347390/
ICNIRP Guidelines
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/1538462/
The guidelines are obsolete
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/705630/
Review of ICNIRP EMF exposure guidelines
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/2253406/
ICNIRP clarification
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/2406287/
The Precautionary Principle and Regulation of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/686111/
GUIDELINES BASED ON KEY STUDIES
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/678269/
Emissions from Cell Sites below International Guidelines
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/676712/
ICNIRP Guideline Critique
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/619583/
Mobile Telephony: Standards more than insufficient
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/618857/
Current planning guidelines do not recognise adverse health effects of masts
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/1594205/
The Inadequacy of the ICNIRP Guidelines
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/567526/
The ICNIRP Saga
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/566278/
On ICNIRP EMF exposure guidelines
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/2289938/
The ICNIRP Guidelines: RF risk assessment built on a house of cards
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1414514/
ICNIRP EMF exposure guidelines to be revised
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/1822415/
Measure people, not masts
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/559799/
WLAN, DECT in Schools and Kindergardens
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1579030/
Letter to the WHO from the WSF (World Social Forum)
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/501745/
WHO, EMF, Electromagnetic Radiation and Mobile Phones
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1194586/
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Gunde
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=World+Health+Organization
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Repacholi
http://www.next-up.org/Newsoftheworld/WHO_OMS.php#10
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Goldsmith
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Scheiner
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=ICNIRP+guideline+critique
Starmail - 17. Jun, 09:39
