ICNIRP

The ICNIRP guidelines are accepted as a standard by council planners in accordance with the NPPF.

They are however, biased, unsafe, out of date and not in tune with current scientific knowledge.

Thermal effects

The ICNIRP standards are mainly based on acute warming effects, with more than one degree of temperature increase. By now, in several thousand studies, biological effects such as DNA damage have been demonstrated to occur at exposure levels far below these standards.

Criticism of ICNIRP by the Council of Europe:

“Both the European Parliament (in its resolution 2008/2211(INI)) and the Council of Europe recommend lowering the exposure limits based on the ICNIRP opinions.” The Council of Europe in its Opinion of 6 May 2011 on health risks associated with electromagnetic fields (12608):

The rapporteur underlines in this context that it is most curious, to say the least, that the applicable official threshold values for limiting the health impact of extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and high frequency waves were drawn up and proposed to international political institutions (WHO, European Commission, governments) by the ICNIRP, an NGO whose origin and structure are none too clear and which is furthermore suspected of having rather close links with the industries whose expansion is shaped by recommendations for maximum threshold values for the different frequencies of electromagnetic fields.
If most governments and safety agencies have merely contented themselves with replicating and adopting the safety recommendations advocated by the ICNIRP, this has essentially been for two reasons:

in order not to impede the expansion of these new technologies with their promise of economic growth, technological progress and job creation;
and also because the political decision-makers unfortunately still have little involvement in matters of assessing technological risks for the environment and health.” – http://www.jrseco.com/problems-with-official-icnirp-exposure-limits-for-electromagnetic-radiation/

ICNIRP conflicts of interest, omissions and misleading statements

Serious implications arising from differences in protection standards for ionising and non-ionising radiation are being raised by members IRPA, ICNIRP’s parent organisation. – “Protection Against Ionising Radiation vis-à-vis Protection Against Non-Ionising Radiation” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Oqct4yuLa0

Although IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) has classified EMF as a possible carcinogen, the main reference organisation (ICNIRP) adopts a policy re non-ionising radiation that is closer to promotion than to protection. In contrast to ionising radiation protection policy, ICNIRP does not recommend the use of dose constraints. This policy means that the public is not adequately protected or even informed. http://www2.irpa.net/members/IRPA13-abstract-USB-FINAL.pdf 2012 (Page 187)

Invalidity of ICNIRP guidelines

A 2020 ruling by the Court of Appeal of Turin stated that the ICNIRP are biased towards the industry and that their views should not be used as guidance – http://microwavenews.com/news-center/italian-supreme-court-affirms-tumor-risk
A detailed 2020 report by the MEPs Michele Rivasi and Klaus Buchner exposed the ICNIRP as being biased and having financial conflicts of interest: – http://www.michele-rivasi.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/ICNIRP-report-FINALJUNE-2020_EN.pdf
A presentation of conflicts of interest amongst PHE and ICNIRP by neuroscientist Dr Sarah Starkey whose evidence to Westminster preceded the disbanding of AGNIR: – http://www.degruyter.com/view/journals/reveh/31/4/article-p493.xml
A group of scientists states that ICNIRP’s opinion and guidelines are unscientific and protect industry, not public health – http://www.emfcall.org/the-emf-call/
PHE’s solicitors stated in 2019 that relevant parties should use their own discretion, based on available evidence, when making decisions regarding RFR.
In 2020, the ICNIRP removed the ‘vulnerable groups’ section, which included children, from its guidance. Yet its 2002 guidelines stated that ‘vulnerable people, such as the sick, elderly and children, would need non-thermal limits below its thermal-only limits.’

International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic fields ICBE-EMF [PDF]

Scientific evidence invalidates many of the assumptions upon which the ICNIRP guidelines are based.

Self referencing echo chamber

This paper shows that the papers and authorities referenced by ICNIRP to support their guidelines are really just products and affiliates of .. ICNIPR themselves!
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2022-0037/html

ICNIRP affiliates and ICNIRP 2020 authors are heavily involved in literature referenced in ICNIRP 2020 to underpin it
ICNIRP 2020 authors are involved in all literature reviews referenced in ICNIRP 2020 to underpin it
All scientific papers used to underpin ICNIRP 2020 are from the same co-author network centred around ICNIRP affiliates
A small and tight network of just 17 authors behind all the literature used to underpin ICNIRP 2020
The spread of first authors gives a false impression of broad support
All referenced papers not authored by the ICNIRP co-authorship network are either rejected, misinterpreted to underpin ICNIRP 2020, or offer no scientifically sound support

Related pages: Council responsibilities Safety Levels

Share this:

Like this: