Electrosensitivity 

Viewpoints on Electrosensitivity


                       back to: Viewpoints on ES

                       to: Expert Viewpoints

                       to: World Health Organization, ICNIRP

                       to: Nocebo effects and Electrophobia

                       to: other organizations

                       to: Pro-Industry Regulators

                       to: Provocation test failures and problems

                       to: Documentaries, Films, Humor


Pro-industry Regulators and Media

Pro-industry and government regulators who support high levels of wireless and other electromagnetic exposure have been criticised for producing reports with scientific bias and even 'fraud'. Many such reports have consistently omitted or rejected positive evidence of adverse effects, sometimes even omitting the WHO/IARC classifications of 2B cancer agents and the recommendations by leading scientists that these should be upgraded to Class 1 Certain.


In the US it has been alleged that "Julius Genachowski donated $3,494,919 to DNC [Democratic National Committee] and served as Chairman of the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] from 2009 to 2013" (Tyler Durden: "This Is How Much It 'Costs' To Get An Ambassadorship: Guccifer 2.0 Leaks DNC 'Pay-To-Play' Donor List" Zero Hedge, September 14 2016)


The wireless and cellphone industry is well aware of the potentially devastating costs of damage litigation when harm is eventually proved from low-level electromagnetic energy sufficient to convince all courts world-wide. At present the industry seems more concerned about short-term profits than the long-term safety of its products and tries to prevent the public becoming aware of the growing amount of evidence proving harm.



USA:

FCC (Federal Communications Commission) and FDA (Food and Drug Administration)


​"FCC relies on the FDA and other health agencies on health and safety related questions about cell phones."
"FDA does not review the safety of radiation-emitting consumer products such as cell phones and similar wireless devices before they can be sold, as it does with new drugs or medical devices."

"All phones that are sold in the United States must comply with FCC guidelines on RF exposure."

"FCC also regulates cell phone base stations."
      ​FDA: Cell Phones (August 29 2018)


"The FCC's primary jurisdiction does not lie in the health and safety area, and it must rely on other agencies and organizations for guidance in these matters."

"The FCC guidelines for human exposure to RF electromagnetic fields were derived from the recommendations of two expert organizations, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)."

"Radiofrequency warning or alerting signs should be used to provide information on the presence of RF radiation or to control exposure to RF radiation within a given area."

    FCC: RF Safety FAQ (November 25 2015)


Australia: ARPANSA, ACEBR

Members of ARPANSA (Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency) appear to belong to the minority clique of activists still clinging to Schwan's mistake of 1953. They seem to believe that the only adverse effect of EM energy is heating, despite the vast majority of scientists long accepting the established evidence for non-thermal effects, now used extensively in healthcare procedures and electronic weapons.

  • "It would appear that outdated and incorrect philosophies dominate the viewpoints of non-ionizing radiation protection/regulatory bodies. A case perhaps where there is an application of too much physics and engineering principles in isolation and not integrated with the field of biology and medicine. Unless the nexus between government and industry can be broken it is unlikely we will see a fair assessment of the science or the recognition of the potential harm that is being suggested by the accumulated research."
                         (Steven Weller, BRHP, June 10 2018)
  • Bandara P et al.: “Health Risks of Wireless Technologies” (Radiat Protection in Australasia, 2018)


Criticism of ARPANSA's approach to Risk Management:


Criticism of ARPANSA TR 178 Synopsis on EMF Research Needs:


ARPANSA's and ACEBR's failure to adopt an appropriate scientific approach:


ARPANSA is limited in what it can say about bioeffects of EM energy because its freedom is restricted by the ARPANSA Act of 1998 which requires "that the Act will not prejudice either Australia's defence or national security" (Explanatory Memorandam, 1998):

  • Under this Act ARPANSA is prohibited from prejudicing Australia’s defence (Radar, Communications, Missile Guidance, ECM etc.)
  • Under this Act ARPANSA is prohibited from prejudicing Australia's national security (Communications, Surveillance and other covert action).

Excellent reviews of ARPANA's deficient approach to the scientific evidence:


Australia: ARPANSA and ACEBR, links with ICNIRP

'Pseudoscience' by ARPANSA and ACEBR:

'Paper should be withdrawn'

A new analysis (Karipidis K et al, 2018) by two pro-wireless activist groups, Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) and the Australian Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research (ACEBR), claimed the incidence of brain tumours in Australia did not increase between 2003 and 2013. “People say mobile phones can cause cancer but our study showed this was not the case,” said ARPANSA’s Ken Karipidis, who led the study with ACEBR’s Rodney Croft, under an A$2.6 million grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Croft, a psychology professor, is a member of ICNIRP, and Karipidis is a member of ICNIRP’s Scientific Expert Group. ICNIRP has long strived to counter any suggestion of a link between brain tumors and cell phones. 


Others are skeptical. The work is incomplete and misleading —or worse, they say, since it included only brain tumours in Australia between 1982 and 2013 among those under 60. Karipidis and Croft excluded all cases aged 60 years or more at diagnosis. That decision has prompted widespread criticism because it leaves out the largest segment of the brain tumor population. In the U.S. the median age of brain tumor cases is 60, according the American Brain Tumor Association (that is, there are more cases among those older than 59 than those who are 59 or younger). If a similar distribution applies to Australia, Karipidis and Croft would have ignored a majority of all brain tumor cases in their analysis. 

Limiting cases to those 59 and younger seems “quite bizarre and unnecessary” said Vini Khurana, an Australian brain surgeon and the director of CNS Neurosurgery in Sydney. Joel Moskowitz of the University of California, Berkeley said “It’s a biased study”.  Bruce Armstrong, emeritus professor at the University of Sydney School of Medicine who led Australia’s Interphone team, acknowledged the problem with the study design: if Karipidis’s team had behaved “rationally,” Armstrong said, they would have done it differently. “Interphone excluded people over 60 because it was argued at the time that these people had little mobile phone use.” Karipidis and Croft’s ecological analysis —a search for trends— is totally different from the case-control design used in Interphone. They have no information on the use of mobile phones by those with brain tumors. Interphone, on the other hand, went to great lengths to estimate each participant’s exposure to RF radiation.


The Australian study runs counter to a paper (Philips A et al, 2018) in the U.K. They showed that the incidence of glioblastoma (GBM), the most aggressive type of brain tumor, more than doubled in England between 1995 and 2015. Philips said “By stopping at age 59, they are missing the group with the largest increase in GBM, and those with the most exposure to mobile phone radiation. This is impossible to justify. Frankly, I find their limited analysis shocking and I don’t understand how it cleared peer review. For GBM, ignoring those over 59, eliminates 63% of all the cases in England. Essentially the entire increase in GBM over the last 20 years is among the older group of people. The Australian paper is nothing more than misleading pseudoscience and should be withdrawn.”


Industry influence on Australian regulators and research;


ARPANSA:
December 2018-March 2019:
    "Not one iota of evidence"

    "Possible civil and/or criminal liability”

    “Nonsense”

    "Guilty of Scientific Fraud"
    "Not protecting Australians under the Nuremberg Code"


Prof. Em. Martin Pall’s 28-page letter of March 4 2019, in response to ARPANSA’s Unsigned letter of December 18 2018, demolishes the scientific credibility of ARPANSA’s claims, similar to those of ICNIRP, SCENHIR and the FCC.

  • "No Scientific Evidence"
    “ARPANSA provides not one iota of evidence that its exposure standard is based on scientific research or that it protects us from any, let alone all harmful effects nor that it protects people of all ages and health status against all known adverse effects of RF (microwave frequency) exposures. … The SCENIHR 2015 report was also shown to have multiple falsehoods, to have used false logic in examination of the literature and to have other serious flaws such that the SCENIHR 2015 report must be viewed as being deeply flawed.” [p.2]
  • "Failure to Protect Health"
    “What ARPANSA has opted to do is to completely ignore each of these bodies of evidence and by ignoring them, completely fail in their responsibility to protect the health of Australians.” [p.3]
  • Short-term and heating effects only
    “The ARPANSA regulatory scheme, and the same scheme is used by ICNIRP, SCENIHR, the US FCC and many other regulatory agencies only considered averaged intensities, usually averaged over a 6 minute period or as ICNIRP does, over a 30 minute period, and sets the allowable cut off at levels that produce little or no heating. These only consider thermal effects and the failure to consider non-thermal effects such as documented in the 158 bodies of evidence discussed above have lead the 41 groups of scientists and physicians to reject these safety guideline over and over again, as shown in the first attachment.” [p.3-4]
  • Electrosensitivity and criminal liability 
    “I have two questions here for ARPANSA:
    Was your goal to deceive or did you systematically avoid looking at the strongest studies or do you have some other explanation here?
    Secondly, is the reason that no one signed your letter because no one was willing to take responsibility for the possible civil and/or criminal liability for the nonsense of so much of the ARPANSA letter?” [p.17]
  • Scientific Fraud:
    “My questions for the Health Minister:
    Are you going to ignore these four clear examples of scientific fraud on the part of ARPANSA?
    Are you going to ignore these clear failures on the part of ARPANSA to protect the health and safety of the people of Australia?
    If the answer is no to either of these questions, what are you going to do about either or both of them?” [p.22]
  • The Nuremberg Code:
    “What ARPANSA is arguing is that the people of Australia and other countries should be denied the protections of the Nuremberg Code simply because the plan is to put out 5G without actually collecting the data.” [p.25]
    “My question of ARPANSA here:
    Why are you raising a questionable legalistic argument here rather than protecting that health and safety?” [p.27]
  • Summary:
    With 100% consistency, ARPANSA avoids all of the strongest available science in this area.
    With 100% consistency, ARPANSA has produced a stunningly biased document, whose positions are repeatedly and consistently contradicted by the strongest science and by large numbers of independent scientists.
    With 100% consistency, ARPANSA has failed to protect the health and safety of the people of Australia.
    With 100% consistency, ARPANSA has protected the economic interests of the telecommunications industry.

        “Emeritus Professor Martin Pall slams ARPANSA response” (Stop Smart Meters Australia, March 22 2019)​
        "Response to 2018 ICNIRP Draft Guidelines" (Pall ML, 2018)
​        "41 expressions of high level concern" (Pall ML, 2018)
        "5G: Great risk for EU, U.S. and International Health!" (Pall ML, 2018)


Draft ARPANSA Standard

ERM & Health (September 2020)


ARPANSA’s unfounded claims on 5G safety 


Canada: Safety Code 6 RSC review (2013)

Criticism of the Royal Society of Canada's review of Safety Code 6:

Submissions to the RSC included:

Health Canada's failure:


Europe: SCENIHR Opinion (draft 2014; published March 6th 2015)

Criticism of the draft Opinion of 2014 by the European Commission's SCENIHR (Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks). This included the failure to include studies showing the need for a Class 1 Certain cancer classification for radio frequency, and comments on the role of one the committee members.

​European Parliament: Petitions Committee:"Petition on potential health risks of electromagnetic fields and the 5G rollout"
08-01-2020 - 12:37
At the meeting of 21 January 2020, the Members will examine a petition on the potential health and environmental risks stemming from the 5G (5th generation) mobile networks. The petition challenges the most recent opinion by the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR), which argues that there is no reason to be concerned about exposure to electromagnetic fields, as allegedly inconsistent and conflicting. 
The petitioner calls for a non-biased and thorough literature review by the EU, which will take into account all viewpoints when assessing the potentially harmful health and environmental effects of electromagnetic fields.

  • Petition 20:  1151/2018 by Holger Wagner (German) on an independent scientific review of documented health risks of electromagnetic fields and a request to postpone the 5G rollout.


Finland: STUK (2015)


  • Finland’s Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK: Säteilyturvakeskus, a governmental organization responsible for assuring radiation safety in Finland) "is hiding important radiation exposure information from the general public, the Government and the Parliament."
  • "This is another untruthful statement from STUK experts (“It should be also remembered there is still no scientific evidence of harmful effects of cell phones.”), where they dismiss evidence, some of which came from STUK scientists, and which IARC considered as sufficiently compelling to classify cell phone radiation as a possible human carcinogen. It is possible to claim that there is no conclusive evidence, but the claim that there is no evidence is a simply a lie."
    (Dariusz Leszcynski: "STUK in Finland: How trustworthy is information on smart phones and… nuclear power plants…" BRHP, August 10 2015)



France

"Phonegate" Scandal:

There has been sustained criticism of the way cellphones are apparently not assessed as required, or accurate results are not made available. It is alleged that ANFES, the French National Frequencies Agency, has not released essential information. It has not published its test reports for 2012-17


See also:
"French and International 'PhoneGate': a 'Global Scandal'"

​on:    "Replacing Cellphones and Cordless phones"


Wireless industry pressure on reporting Phonegate scandal:


ANSES EHS Report, 2018:

On March 27 2018 ANSES, a French government agency concerned with health and safety, published a report on Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS). The following comments are based on first impressions of the French version.


  • The ANSES Report is highly damaging.
  • It omits much of what is known about EHS.
  • It adopts a minority skeptic viewpoint supportive of industry and some governments.
  • The ANSES report confuses two different conditions, real physiological EHS, and the distinct condition of psychological Electrophobia or the nocebo effect. Since the medical literature has differentiated these conditions sine the 1980s, it is inexcusable for the ANSES report to confuse them. The ANSES report will likely harm people suffering from real EHS
  • The 16 members of ANSES' working group, none of whom are well known experts in this field, have exposed themselves to accusations of bias and deliberate harm to people with real EHS.
  • The ANSES report of March 27 2018 was a literature review for 2009-16. This is only 8% of the time since 1932, when real EHS was first accurately described in the medical literature. Consequently, the report is inevitably worthless by rejecting 92% of the period for which evidence is available establishing without any doubt at all that real physiological EHS exists.


The ANSES website claims wrongly:

“current scientific knowledge shows no cause and effect relationship between the symptoms of people declaring themselves as electrohypersensitive and their exposure to electromagnetic waves”.

This is clearly wrong. If ANSES's claim were true, hundreds of peer-reviewed would have to be withdrawn. It has been established for 50 years that people with real EHS have their specific symptoms because of exposure to EM waves. ANSES cannot undo established science because it wants to help the French government and the wireless industry.

Equally this ANSES report fails to assess the many studies showing that some people are sensitive to geomagnetic events, solar radiation, the aurora borealis and sferics. It is extraordinary that all these studies are omitted, along with the studies showing animal and plant sensitivity to man-made and natural electromagnetic energy.

   “Hypersensitivity to electromagnetic waves: research efforts should be scaled up and suitable care provided for the people concerned” (ANSES: French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety, March 27 2018)


The following 14 points (March 28 2018) are based on the French version of the ANSES EHS Report published on March 27 2018. Collectively they show that the ANSES Report is not only worthless but actually highly damaging to people with real EHS.

  • The ANSES Report does not start by accepting that real EHS is already recognized internationally - e.g. in the ICD listing by the Nordic Council of Ministers in 2000 and in increasing numbers of legal cases around the world.
  • It omits the established and foolproof diagnosis of real EHS, that when all man-made EM energy is removed, all specific EHS symptoms also disappear.
  • It confuses two different conditions, real EHS supported by its physiological markers, and psychological Electrophobia or the nocebo effect. Only about 1% of people with real EHS also have Electrophobia. The difference has been known for over 30 years, so the Report has no excuse for confusing these two separate conditions.
  • It omits reference to Allan Frey, who identified tinnitus or microwave hearing in 1962, one of the commonest of specific symptoms of real EHS.
  • It omits reference to Dr Jean-Paul Maschi, the Paris physician, who developed the fundamental concept of Electropollution in 1965 with all its health harm, and wrote "Combat pour une idée - La pollution électromagnétique" (2nd ed. 2005) about his unique work on what causes health problems from this man-made toxin.
  • It apparently has only one reference to Multiple Sclerosis and omits reference to Dr Jean-Paul Maschi who published a key book on this topic in 2014: "Sclérose en plaques et pollution électromagnétique : La théorie environnementale d'une maladie neurologique" of 364 pages. The Report does not seem to address at any length a central issue that real EHS is established as particularly applying to people with MS and others with compromised myelin, and that man-made EM exposure appears to have a role in demyelination.
  • It fails to describe in detail the numerous existing studies establishing and detailing the objective biological markers of EHS or RWS (Radio Wave Sickness) as already published in the medical literature. Instead it relegates them to a single footnote (no.28). It could have referred to the US Joint Publications Research Service which in 1974 published detailed summaries in English of some of the key literature establishing the existence and markers for real EHS/RWS (Gordon ZV (ed.): “Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields”  (JPRS) 63321, 274 pages). This is readily available online (link) yet not even referenced by the ANSES Report.
  • It does not use effectively one of the best recent sources on real EHS, which is based on examining and diagnosing hundreds of people with real EHS. This is the outstanding work by Professor Dominique Belpomme of Paris, internationally regarded as one of the leading experts on this condition and other environmental intolerances such as chemical sensitivity. A report on EHS should build on Belpomme's excellent research by elucidating and synthesising its valuable contributions with the studies relating real EHS to genetics and molecular pathways based on gene expression and proteomics which are becoming available.
  • It has no mention of Professor Luc Montagnier, one of France's best known Nobel prize winners, whose discoveries on how DNA information can be transduced through water and electromagnetic waves (Montangier L et al, 2015) is relevant to how current research on real EHS is exploring the quantum nature of human neurology and how this is inevitably affected by man-made EM energy.
  • It has no reference to the way that the effects of real EHS can be studied in 3d fMRI scans - see Dr G Heuser et al, 2017; 2017b, 
  • It does not make the EUROPAEM EM Guidelines 2016 central to protecting people with real EHS. Instead it has pages explaining the ICNIRP's guidelines, although these are based on Schwan's basic mistake of 1953 when he claimed that the only adverse effect of EM exposure was heating. This has been established as wrong for over 50 years and, anyway, has nothing to do with real EHS, which is caused by non-thermal effects, longer than ICNIRP's 6 minutes.
  • It has no reference to the studies on the socio-economic effects of real EHS and similar environmental sensitivities from toxins, such as man-made EM energy, by Professor Pamela Gibson (e.g. Gibson PR et al, 2015). This is a crucial aspect of living with real EHS, as opposed to the Report's emphasis on the different condition of Electrophobia.
  • It shows the importance of creating 'White' (or 'Green') Zones without any man-made EM radiation, for people with real EHS, but it does not address fully the far more fundamental issue of basic human rights, where all people functionally disabled should have full access to all elements of society according to the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities of 2006.
  • The ANSES Report is therefore not only worthless in terms of addressing the established science on real EHS, as opposed to the different condition of Electrophobia, but it renders its 16 authors liable to doing definite harm to people with real EHS by such fundamental flaws. As a result of the last two points in particular, if the intention of the Report was to confuse real EHS with Electrophobia and to ignore basic human rights of people with real EHS, then French citizens would appear to have reason to examine how each of the authors of this Report is liable for causing harm to people with real EHS.

                      "Hypersensibilité électromagnétique ou intolérance environnementale idiopathique attribuée aux champs                                                    électromagnétiques" (ANSES, 2018)

​

Germany: ICNIRP (1998 on)

ICNIRP

The ICNIRP is a private group of like-minded scientists all of whom hold the minority viewpoint that the only adverse effect of electromagnetic energy is heating, not the established and known biological effects. Like supporters of the wireless industry, they follow the mistake made by Schwan in 1953.


The Lies Must Stop: Disband ICNIRP
When the chair of ICNIRP deliberately tells blatant lies, pretending that RFR is safe, it is time for the ICNIRP to be disbanded.


Criticism of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)'s heating limits:

In 2010 ICNIRP accepted substantiated and known electrosensitivity symptoms from non-thermal exposure to low frequency fields, but it has not yet recommended non-thermal biological safety limits to protect people against these known adverse effects and ill health.

  • "Exposure to low-frequency electric fields may cause well-defined biological responses, ranging from perception to annoyance, through surface electric-charge effects ... the stimulation of central and peripheral nervous tissues and the induction in the retina of phosphenes, a perception of faint flickering light in the periphery of the visual field. The retina is part of the CNS."
  • "​The responsiveness of electrically excitable nerve and muscle tissue to electric stimuli including those induced by exposure to low-frequency EMFs has been well established for many years."
  • "Acute effects: There are a number of well established acute effects of exposure to low-frequency EMFs on the nervous system: the direct stimulation of nerve and muscle tissue and the induction of retinal phosphenes. There is also indirect scientific evidence that brain functions such as visual processing and motor co-ordination can be transiently affected by induced electric fields."

                  ICNIRP: "Guidelines for limiting exposure to time‐varying electric and magnetic fields (1hz – 100 khz)​" (2010)


The ICNIRP accepts known and established adverse biological effects yet promulgates guidelines which concern only heating and not established and known biological effects. It relies on Schwan's mistake of 1953 in rejecting established and known biological effects because they did not agree with his heating hypothesis. All countries should adopt biological guidelines based on scientifically established known biological effects and not on unproven assumptions about heat.


The ICNIRP is aware that people with electrosensitivity and other vulnerable groups like children, the elderly and some chronically ill people, need biological guidelines, not ICNIRP's current heating guidelines.

  • "Different groups in a population may have differences in their ability to tolerate a particular NIR exposure. For example, children, the elderly, and some chronically ill people might have a lower tolerance for one or more forms of NIR exposure than the rest of the population. Under such circumstances, it may be useful or necessary to develop separate guideline levels for different groups within the general population, but it may be more effective to adjust the guidelines for the general population to include such groups."

                    ICNIRP: "Statement: General approach to protection against non‐ionizing radiation" (2002)


ICNIRP Draft Guidelines 2018; Published 2020

The ICNIRP is calling for comments on its draft 2018 guidelines, still based on Schwan's 1953 heating mistake. The ICNIRP should be providing guidelines for people it states are particularly sensitive to EM energy and need biological guidelines and not its invalidated heating guidelines, declared "obsolete" by the European Parliament in 2009.


The ICNIRP draft guidelines have been shown to be totally inadequate for protecting human health.

Areas which are scientifically invalid include:


ICNIRP continues to reject scientific evidence:


The “ICNIRP Note on recent animal carcinogenesis studies” (ICNIRP, Munich, Germany, September 4 2018) rejected the scientific evidence from the $25m USA’s National Toxicology Programme’s study and Ramazzini Institute’s study. Both of these comprehensive and top quality studies showed that RF can cause cancer.


The Note was published during the ICNIRP’s review process in re-issuing its 1998 6-minute heating limits. It attempted to justify the ICNIRP's rejection of the overwhelming weight of evidence which now shows that RF is a class 1 certain human carcinogen. According to the Note, the ICNIRP claimed that, for revising its 1998 6-minute heating exposure guidelines: 
“these studies do not provide a reliable basis”. 


The ICNIRP admitted that the Ramazzini whole-body exposures were 0.001-0.1 W/kg, making all their local exposures within the ICNIRP 1998 heating limits, while the whole-body exposures at 0.1 W/kg only slightly exceeded the ICNIRP's whole-body limit of 0.08 W/kg, concluding about this Ramazinni study:
“In terms of relevance to mobile-phones, if any adverse health effects were shown to be due to local exposures, then these could be highly relevant to mobile-phones.”


The ICNIRP's claim that the NTP and Ramazinni evidence is not “reliable” goes against the majority of expert international scientists and against the 2018 independent review panel for the NTP results.



ICNIRP denial or omission of scientific evidence

Since 2008 the majority of scientists have accepted non-thermal adverse effects from cellphone radiation, such as cancer.

The ICNIRP and similar minority viewpoint and pro-industry scientists still deny what has been scientifically proven.

This denial of the scientific evidence or omission of crucial evidence is well illustrated in studies published in early 2019 by authors including members of ICNIRP.


The ICNIRP Cartel

"Investigate Europe alleges the existence of an “ICNIRP cartel.” The journalists identified a group of fourteen scientists who either helped create, or defend, the EMF exposure guidelines disseminated by ICNIRP, a nongovernmental organization (NGO) based in Germany.
ICNIRP’s self-selected members and advisors believe that EMF safety guidelines need to protect humans only from heating (or thermal) effects due to acute EMF exposure. ICNIRP scientists argue that the thousands of peer-reviewed studies that have found harmful biologic or health effects from chronic exposure to non-thermal levels of EMF are insufficient to warrant stronger safety guidelines. The journalists argue that the cartel promotes the ICNIRP guidelines by conducting biased reviews of the scientific literature that minimize health risks from EMF exposure. These reviews have been conducted for the World Health Organization (WHO) and other government agencies. By preserving the ICNIRP EMF exposure guidelines favored by industry, the cartel ensures that the cellular industry will continue to fund health effects research. Besides these fourteen scientists, perhaps several dozen EMF scientists in the EU and other countries actively defend the ICNIRP exposure guidelines.
In contrast to the dozens of EMF scientists who support the ICNIRP EMF exposure guidelines, more than 240 EMF scientists from 42 nations who published peer-reviewed research on EMF and biology or health totaling over 2,000 papers have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal. The Appeal calls on the WHO, the United Nations and all member nations to adopt much stronger EMF exposure guidelines that protect humans and other species from sub-thermal levels of EMF exposure and to issue health warnings about the risks of EMF exposure."

The ICNIRP Cartel of 14 members:

  1. Anders Ahlbom, Sweden. Swedish Radiation Protection Authority (SSM), member of the ICNIRP and the EU SCENIHR Committee,
  2. Maria Feychting, Sweden. Deputy Chairman of the ICNIRP, and assessments for Public Health England.
  3. Norbert Leitgeb, Austria. He has worked in the SCENIHR EU committee and has been a consultant member of ICNIRP.
  4. Sarah Loughran, Australia. The University of Wollongong at the Australian Centre for EM Bioeffects Research (ACEBR), a member of the evaluation committee for the WHO EMF Project and the scientific sxpert group (SEG) of the ICNIRP.
  5. Simon Mann, UK. Public Health England, previously secretary of AGNIR and currently working with the WHO to develop the Environmental Health Criteria monograph on HF fields, since 2015 a member of the ICNIRP Scientific Expert Group.
  6. Gunnhild Oftedal, Norway. A member of the core group of experts for the WHO EMF Project and member of ICNIRP.
  7. Michael Repacholi, Australia. Founder of ICNIRP and the WHO EMF project.
  8. Martin Röösli, Switzerland. Member of the ICNIRP, scientific advisory board of COSMOS, committee for the WHO Environmental Health Criteria Monograph on RF EMF, member of the expert group for the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (SSM).
  9. Maria Rosaria Scarfì, Italy. The WHO Core Group for Assessing the Health Risks of EM Radiation, and external expert on SCENIHR.
  10. Joachim Schüz, head of the Department of Environment and Radiation at the IARC. Previously head of the Department at the Research Center of the Danish Cancer Society, Copenhagen, and a member of the EU SCENIHR Committee.
  11.  Zenon Sienkiewicz, UK. Public Health England, member of ICNIRP, external expert on SCENIHR, UK AGNIR and the Program Management Committee of the UK Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research (MTHR) programme.
  12. Anthony Swerdlow, UK. Chair of UK PHE’s AGNIR, a member of ICNIRP 2000-2012.
  13. Emilie van Deventer, former electrical engineer, Canada. The WHO from 2000, director of the WHO EMF Project, member of the expert group of the Swedish Radiation Protection Authority (SSM), a WHO observer at the meetings of the ICNIRP.
  14. Eric Van Rongen, Netherlands. A member of the ICNIRP, chair since 2016, member of the Advisory Committee of the WHO EMF Project and a board member of the scientific council of the Swedish Radiation Protection Authority (SSM). 



ICNIRP conflicts of interest: time to stop believing ICNIRP spin

  • It is time to stop believing ICNIRP spin. Tissue heating is not the only biological effect of radiofrequency radiation. The thermal-only exposure limit is not safe.
  • Like tobacco smoke, low intensity radiofrequency radiation has multiple harmful effects on human health. Unlike secondhand smoke, secondhand radiation is fast becoming inescapable. The present situation is thus worse than Big Tobacco redux.
  • Elected politicians should stop accepting biased reports from individuals with blatant conflicts of interest and start taking seriously the health and safety of their constituents; or at least of their own children and grandchildren.
  • The unchecked expansion of Big Wireless permitted by ICNIRP’s thermal-only guidelines is actively harmful to all biological inhabitants of planet Earth. Further expansion to 5G technology will inevitably involve yet more radiation exposure. The fact that this exposure will not breach the ludicrously high ICNIRP-based standard is no defense at all.

Pockett S: “Conflicts of Interest and Misleading Statements in Official Reports about the Health Consequences of Radiofrequency Radiation and Some New Measurements of Exposure Levels” (Magnetochemistry, 2019) 


ICNIRP against evidence-based science:
Although Electrosensitivity has been proved many times since it was first described in 1932, and hundreds of studies since the 1960s have proved physiological effects such as disturbed sleep, Martin Röösli, a member of ICNIRP, dismissed such an evidence-based scientific approach:

  • "If it were possible to prove electrosensitivity only once, that would question the whole model of thinking."

       “Video Interview [in Swiss German] with Professor Martin Röösli, President of the Swiss Advisory Expert Group NIS (BERENIS)” (Schutz-vor-Strahlung.ch, May 29 2019; TBH, translation, YouTube, May 30 2019)


ICNIRP: "Skewed Evaluation" and "Lack of Accountability"

The major problems causing distrust towards ICNIRP, and reflecting in the distrust towards ICNIRP-interpretation of science, are:

  • ICNIRP is considered to act as a “private club” where the current members and own uncontrolled discretion, elect new members; there is no need or requirement to justify the selection of new members to anyone;
  • There is a complete lack of accountability of ICNIRP actions and activities before anyone;
  • On the contrary to ICNIRP claims, there is a complete lack of transparency of their activities and their decisions in matters of the interpretation of the scientific evidence;
  • There is a complete lack of supervision of its activities that is being purported by the self-claim of the scientific independence;
  • ICNIRP evaluation of science is likely skewed because in this ‘private club’ all members have a close similarity of the opinions; this applies to all members of the Main Commission and all of the scientists selected as advisors to the Main Commission;
  • ICNIRP achieves consensus opinions by shutting off any dissenting opinions;
  • No scientist with opinion suggesting that cell phone radiation has health effects was ever elected to the membership of the Main Commission of ICNIRP;
  • While ICNIRP provides guidelines concerning health effects of radiation, there are no physicians elected to the membership of Main Commission of ICNIRP.


What is concerning, is that the European States follow whatever advice they receive from the ICNIRP, trusting the group of self-appointed experts, without critically evaluating what kind of NGO ICNIRP is, what might be its Conflicts of Interests, stemming from industry lobbying, and what is its accountability for the recommended safety limits.

People concerned with the correctness of the ICNIRP guidelines for the safety limits are concerned that the ICNIRP-interpretation of the science is not credible because it is:

  • Inadequately considering the so-called non-thermal effects;
  • Arbitrarily disregarding numerous biological effects as insufficiently proven;
  • Arbitrarily disregarding cancer risk evidence from the replicated case-control epidemiology studies;
  • Relying solely on scientifically inadequate psychology provocation studies when examining the individual sensitivity to wireless radiation;
  • Refusing to advocate for the physiology/biochemistry studies of individual sensitivity to radiation;
  • Not considering the significance of the ‘research that has not been done’ in formulation of the safety limits and health protection recommendations.
                                        Dariusz Leszczynski: "Brief Opinion on 5G and Health" (BRHP, May 31 2019)


ICNIRP's continued one-sided heating-only denial of established scientific evidence:


ICNIRP's Eric van Rongen Updated on the Actual Science of RFR:


First ICNIRP Former Member to Question ICNIRP and ICNIRP's Reliance on Arbitrary Heating Limits;

Professor Emeritus James Lin, who served as a member of the ICNIRP 2004 - 2016, became the first former member of ICNIRP to publish a criticism of ICNIRP's failure to follow the science because of its political 'group think': 

"... a privately constituted group, with self-appointed membership 
... The proposed guidelines were primarily based on the tissue-heating potentials of RF radiation to elevate animal body temperatures to greater than 1° C."

... ICNIRP "suggested that, although somewhat elevated odds ratios were observed, inconsistencies and limitations, including recall or selection bias, precluded these results from being considered for setting exposure guidelines.

The simultaneous penchant to dismiss and criticize positive results and the fondness for and eager acceptance of negative findings are palpable and concerning. In contrast, the IARC’s evaluation of the same epidemiological studies ended up officially classifying RF radiation as possibly carcinogenic to humans ."




       For details on the ICNIRP, see also: World Health Organization 



GLORE


GLORE stands for "Global Coordination of Research and Health Policy on RF Electromagnetic Fields".

GLORE began as a bilateral meeting between Japan and South Korea. Its first meeting was in Tokyo in 1997 and its second in Seoul in 1998. The EU has been involved since 1999, the USA since 2000 and Australia and Canada more recently.

GLORE is still composed only of invited and "registered" representatives from governments supporting the wireless industry, industry and their associated academics.

Its meetings have included representatives from minority-viewpoint scientific groups like the ICNIRP and the WHO.

The second day of its meetings are held in secrecy and closed to outsiders so that political/critical issues can be discussed.

Meetings are usually held in November/December: Ottawa Canada 2020 (virtual), Lima Peru 2019, Paris 2018 , FFC HQ Washington DC 2017, Washington DC 2013.

The virtual Canada meeting on November 9-12 2020 was held in total secrecy. The public, press and scientific experts were denied entry. The agenda, presentations and discussions were intended to be kept secret.



India


There are signs in India of an awareness of the problem of industry influence.

  • “Any study in my country which is funded by private industry, I am not going to accept it.” 
        Dr. R S Sharma, Indian government Senior Scientist, Deputy Director General & Scientist of the Indian Council of Medical Research     (Environmental Health Trust)

Attempted wireless industry censorship:


Ireland




New Zealand


Thailand


 UK: PHE(HPA) AGNIR Report (2012)

Criticism of the Advisory Group on Non-Ionizing Radiation (AGNIR)'s report of 2012:


The 2012 AGNIR Report has been analysed in detail and shown to be a fringe minority viewpoint where its conclusions of no harm are not supported by the evidence which clearly and convincingly shows harm.

  • “The executive summary misleadingly implied that because not all studies reported the same effects, RF signals have no effect ...
  • Decisions about involuntary, continuous and widespread RF exposures in schools, hospitals, workplaces and public and private spaces in the UK and around the world have been made based upon inaccurate conclusions of the AGNIR report …
  • The denial of the existence of adverse effects of RF fields below ICNIRP guidelines in the AGNIR report conclusions is not supported by the scientific evidence …
  • The involvement of ICNIRP scientists in the misleading report calls into question the basis and validity of the international exposure guidelines …
  • The anticipated WHO Environmental Health Criteria Monograph on Radiofrequency Fields, due in 2017, is being prepared by a core group and additional experts, with 50% of those named, being, or having been, members of AGNIR or ICNIRP …
  • Schools, hospitals, employers, organisations and individuals have legal responsibilities to safeguard the health, safety, well-being and development of children, employees and members of the public. But they are unable to fulfil their legal responsibilities when they have been provided with inaccurate information and the evidence of possible harm has been covered up …
  • This has been a safeguarding failure and the health of some children or adults may have been damaged as a result …
  • All children in schools and care environments need protection from the potential harmful effects of RF exposures and not, as is now often the case, a compulsory use of wireless devices in the classroom …
  • Unfortunately, the report suffered from an incorrect and misleading executive summary and overall conclusions, inaccurate statements, omissions and conflict of interest. Public health and the well-being of other species in the natural world cannot be protected when evidence of harm, no matter how inconvenient, is covered up.”

Starkey SJ (2016) “Inaccurate official assessment of radiofrequency safety by the Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation”Rev Environ Health.


The consequences of the inaccuracy of the AGNIR 2012 RF Report include the need to revise all advice given since 2012 based on the false conclusions of this Report. In the UK this Report was accepted by Public Health England, the agency of the Department of Health which gives advise on radiation harm. Since PHE has thus given the general public inaccurate information, it means that PHE will have to revisit the acceptable levels of involuntary radiation exposure permitted in schools, hospitals, workplaces, public and private spaces, etc. Other countries which have also used this AGNIR Report to support their heating-only limits will also now need to reject the AGNIR conclusions and revise the evidence based on the actual science and not on pro-industry 'inaccuracies'.


General criticism of Public Health England:


Public Health England's acceptance of individual Radiosensitivity since 1999. based on defective DNA repair:


    (a) Public Health England accepts that some people have individual genetic radiosensitivity.


Public Health England also accepts that the fact that some people have individual genetic radiosensitivity raises ethical dilemmas if society allows levels of radiation dangerous to these specific groups and individuals. 


Although these comments were written in relation to radiosensitivity from ionizing radiation,  expert doctors nowadays accept that there are extensive overlaps between the ways ionizing and non-ionizing radiation affect the human body. Often the physical effects based on objective markers, such as DNA changes, cannot be differentiated between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. The dilemma recognized by PHE (HPA) and its AGIR over individual radiosensitivity and its ethical implications are relevant to radiosensistivity at low levels at other frequencies in the radio spectrum.


  • "We are moving gradually to a situation where it will be possible to identify groups and sometimes individuals at greater than average risk from radiation exposure. Consideration as to how such groups and individuals might be protected raises new and important ethical questions, particularly in the occupational context. In the absence of routing individual testing it makes sense to focus on providing information to people about such risks and anything that can be done to reduce them."
  • "Work should continue in order to develop a better understanding of heterogeneity in cellular and molecular responses to radiation and their relevance to radiation-induced cancer."
  • "There is a need for further work to be carried out to examine the interaction of inflammatory responses and responses to irradiation."

                                                                                                                         (AGIR: "Human Radiosensitivity" (HPA/PHE, 2013, pages 150-151)


    (b) Public Health England accepts that individual genetic radio-hypersensitivity to cancers probably involves defective DNA repair: 

  • "There is a large body of information that provides evidence of the existence of genetic subgroups with increased radiosensitivity, but there are few quantitative datasets on which to estimate the true prevalence of such individuals or the degree to which their risk of radiation-induced cancers is enhanced."
  • "These include individuals with certain cancer-prone syndromes and individuals with no known syndrome whose cells have been found to be remarkably radiosensitive. In both cases, there is usually an association with defective DNA repair."
  • "Current knowledge of the role of DNA damage in carcinogenesis suggests that many of these individuals will also be hypersensitive to the induction of radiation-related cancer. Such individuals are, however, extremely rare in the population."

                                        (AGIR: "Genetic Heterogeneity in the Population and its Implications for Radiation Risk" (NRPB, 1999, p.36, 37)



NRPB (PHE, HPA): evidence of non-thermal effects in 2004:


  • "There is some evidence suggesting field dependent effects on reaction time and reduced accuracy in performance of some cognitive tasks, which is supported by the results of studies on the EEG."
  • "There is convincing evidence that power frequency electric fields can be detected by animals, most likely as the result of surface charge effects."
  • "There is some evidence that exposure to magnetic fields may modulate the functions of the opioid and cholinergic systems, and this is supported by the results of studies investigating effects on anelgesia and on the acquisition and performance of spatial memory tasks." 
  • "Various claims have been made over many years suggesting that RF EMFs from a variety of military and civilian sources may cause adverse changes in an assortment of behavioural and neurological functions. These include lack of concentration, poor memory, changes in sleep pattern, as well as loss of appetite and reduced libido. Together these symptoms have sometimes been called the neurasthenic or microwave sickness syndrome. More recently exposure to mobile phones has been suggested to cause similar effects."
  • "Specific concerns have been expressed about possible adverse effects on memory, attention or other cognitive functions."
  • ​"A wide range of subjective symptoms has been attributed to exposure to various sources of RF EMFs both at home and at work. Some users of mobile phones report they suffer a variety of subjective complaints, including headaches and migraines, fatigue, skin itches, and sensations of warmth ....   Less commonly reported symptoms include dizziness, blurred vision, memory loss, confusion and vagueness, toothaches and nausea."

                          (NRPB: "Review of the Scientific Evidence for Limiting Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (0-300 GHz)" (2004, p.64, 98) 


Government, PHE, HPA, NRPB and industry collusion

  • "The centre of the organised fraudulent defence of industry is at King’s College London. There professor Simon Wessely (see Appendix Twelve) and a team of clinical psychological researchers spend their time proving that people who think they have been damaged by environmental factors are suffering from ‘false illness beliefs.’ It was to King’s College University that the British Academy sent Ben Goldacre; to finishing school as it were. It is probably not surprising, therefore, that Goldacre, if he didn’t before, now embraces all the classic nons(ci)ence views of the quackbusters.
  • "One of these is that Electromagnetic Fields (EMF), the kind that come from mobile phone relay masts, for instance, are incapable of causing harm to humans. There are no long-term studies to attest to this negative, blind and irrational assertion. The Lobby is deeply involved in research projects to prove that those who claim to be affected by electromagnetic fields have a mistaken perception of their illnesses. According to Mark Anslow in The Ecologist [Mark Anslow: "The Gathering Brainstorm" The Ecologist, December 2007],  the researchers who conducted the latest of these studies failed to disguise their obvious methodological blunders. Nevertheless the study carried out at Essex University was given a high-profile launch at the Science Media Centre, the public organisation of New Labour / industry science spin."
  • "The Science Media Centre, announcing the Essex study results, took their policy on media censorship to its ultimate conclusion, and banned ‘representatives of pressure groups and non-mainstream media from the research launch’."
  • "Wessely has a long history of suggesting that most illnesses are imagined by their sufferers – let’s face it, apart from taking the blame off industry, this model of illness is of very low cost to the NHS. A founder member of HealthWatch and more recently on the advisory panel of the American Council of Science and Health, Wessely has in the past claimed a psychiatric aetiology to allergy and food intolerance, the Camelford toxic chemical disaster, Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME/CFS) and Gulf War Syndrome."
  • "The Essex study and those conducted by Simon Wessely at King’s College were brought up in the quackbuster created row that followed the excellent Panorama programme, WI-FI A warning signal. The BBC programme was shown in May 2007 and its clear aim was to give voice to the arguments - censured from the British media, mainly by The Lobby - that there was a possible health risk associated with Wi-fi, and perhaps the wisdom of introducing it into schools to help run computers used in some class rooms, should be questioned." (pp.62-65)

                          Martin J Walker: "Cultural Dwarfs and Junk Journalism: Ben Goldacre, Quackbusting and Corporate Science" (Slingshot,   ​
    ​                            ISBN 13 978-0-9519646-9-9, 2008)

UK: Reviews of 2004 and 2005

  • "​The primary means by which electric fields and currents induced in the body by exposure to external fields intereact with biological tissue is by voltage-gated ion channels situated in cell membranes ... The most sensitive tissues are those comprising of interacting networks of electrically excitable tissue, such as the central, autonomic and enteric system." (p.66)
  • "Sensitivity to electric fields induced within the body will vary within the population. People who are particularly sensitive will include those with epilepsy, a family history of seizure, or those using tricyclic anti-depressants, neuroleptic agents and other drugs that lower seizure threshold.  The developing nervous system in utero and in neonates and young children, may also be considered more sensitive." (p.66)
               NRPB: "Review of the Scientific Evidence for Limiting Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields, 0-300 GHz" (NRPB/HPA, 2004, 15(3))
  • In response to criticisms that this 2004 NRPB report failed to address EHS properly, the HPA commissioned another review in 2005. This was limited to the definition, epidemiology and management of EHS, not its etiology. The review was limited to studies, books and websites between 1966 and 2004 and referenced only 75, with seven from the 1980s but none earlier.

    Extraordinarily, this review omitted the 2,000+ studies from Poland, the USA and the USSR up to the 1970s which had established EHS as a real physiological condition. Such a limited review was particularly extraordinary given that the UK government had used specific symptoms from microwave radiation during the troubles in Northern Ireland and was developing them for military use.

    The fundamental failure in Irvine 2005 to understand an environmental multi-systemic condition which the NRPB report of 2004 correctly stated involved the central, autonomic and enteric nervous systems was shown in comments like the need to "ensure homogeneous subject groups" (p.30) for future studies, when the nature of the condition is essentially individual with varying degrees and types of sensitivity (NRPPB, 2004).

    Although there is now "a robust understanding of the aetiology of EHS" (p.30), as shown in e.g. Belyaev I et al, 2016, Belpomme D et al., 2015, PHE, successor to HPA, does not yet seem to have realised the urgency to provide the necessary advice for the "prevention and management" (p.30) of EHS.  

                Irvine N: "Definition, Epidemiology and Management of Electrical Sensitivity" (Health Protection Agency, HPA-RPD-010, 2005)


PHE and DHSC: RF and 5G Advice:

Mayor of London, 5G Advice:


UK: IET report (2012)

Criticism of the Institution of Engineering and Technology's report of 2012:


UK: Cancer Research UK (CRUK)'s misleading information

Cancer Research UK (CRUK) has failed to provide robust and accurate information about the established dangers of radio frequency radiation.

On their webpage "Do mobile phones cause cancer?" updated October 5 2018 they made the following misleading claims:

  • "In 2012 an independent report concluded that there is no convincing evidence that being exposed to radiofrequency fields, including those from mobile phones, masts and base stations within the guidelines could affect somebody's health." 

    This is a reference to the discredited AGNIR 2012 RF Report which was not peer-reviewed but has been shown in a detailed peer-reviewed critique (S. Starkey, 2016) to be 'inaccurate' and 'unsafe'.
  • "The UK follows a set of international safety standards, which restrict the amount of electromagnetic radiation people can be exposed to."

    This fails to explain that these obsolete ICNIRP standards which the UK still follows are to protect against heating only, averaged over 6 or 30 minutes, and not to protect from the established health effects of radio frequency radiation, like cancer, reduced fertility, cardiovascular and neurological effects, which are known to be caused by long-term exposures.

    ​The relevant safety standards which countries and the ICNIRP should adopt for people in work, schools or at home are biological standards, such as EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 or IGNIR.
  • "There still aren't any good explanations for how mobile phones could cause cancer." 

    Some key mechanisms have been robustly established since the 1970s, such as calcium flux, VGCCs and membrane effects.

    Bawin SM et al.: “Sensitivity of calcium binding in cerebral tissue to weak environmental electric fields oscillating at low frequency” (Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A., 1976)

    ​​Pall ML: “Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects” (J Cell Mol Med., 2013)
  • "Research so far shows that it is unlikely mobile phones could increase the risk of brain tumours or other types of cancer."

    In contrast, there is much robust science confirming that radio frequency radiation can and does cause cancer. For instance, in 1980-82 a $4.5 million USAF study at 0.15-0.4 W/kg for 2.45 GHz (as used by cellphones) confirmed cancer (OR=4.27 primary malignancies). A 2018 NIHS NTP $30 million study found "clear evidence", the highest rating possible, that radio frequency radiation including cellphone radiation does indeed cause cancer at non-thermal levels, far below the ICNIRP's short-term heating standards.


UK: ASA's censorship of information posters

In England the Advertizing Standards Authority (ASA) censored an information poster displayed in May 2017 by the non-profit Electrosensitivity UK (ES-UK). The poster stated, accurately according to the established majority science, that "More and more research is starting to show potential health risks" from man-made electromagnetic energy. The ASA did not produce a single "robust" peer-reviewed study to disprove the statement, but still censored it. The ASA claimed that they thought that the IARC's 2B classification as a "possible" human carcinogen did not mean that there was a "potential risk".


UK: NHS misleading information

The NHS website, under the heading "Overview-Mobile phone safety" (reviewed 0/04/2016)  makes misleading claims.

  • "Concerns have been expressed that prolonged or frequent exposure to radio waves might increase a person's risk of health problems such as cancer. However, most current research suggests it's unlikely that radio waves from mobile phones or base stations increase the risk of any health problems."

    The majority scientific viewpoint of experts in this field now accept that radio frequency radiation at non-thermal levels below the ICNIRP short-term heating guidelines causes cancer. The NTP 2018 study found "clear evidence", its highest classification, for RF radiation at non-thermal levels causing cancer. 

    The website bases its misleading claims on the discredited AGNIR 2012 RF Report which was not peer-reviewed but has been shown in a detailed peer-reviewed critique (S. Starkey, 2016) to be 'inaccurate' and 'unsafe'.


On the NHS page "Risks-Mobile phone safety"  (reviewed 0/04/2016) there is the following instruction:

  • "Schools should regularly monitor the emissions of base stations situated inside or close to school grounds."

    This is inconsistent with the misleading claim further up the page that:

    "Research suggests it's unlikely that mobile phones or base stations increase the risk of health problems."


On the NHS page "FAQs-Mobile phone safety" (reviewed 0/04/2016) there is the following misleading statement: 

  • "In May 2010 the results [of the INTERPHONE study] were released and indicated there was no increased risk of such tumours with mobile phone use."
    In fact, there was an increased risk of cancers for long-term users. The following year, in 2011, the WHO's IARC classified radio frequency radiation as from cellphones as a 2B possible human carcinogen.​


UK: Government pressure on media to hide scientific facts, following some US media

The UK government apparently uses D orders to gag the media and prevent publication of facts it does not want publicized. 

An example was an article in the Guardian arguing against the health warnings by numerous expert scientists over 5G:

The Guardian's article did not mention the established science, such as the fact that radio frequency has been known as causing cancer since 1953 and this was proved conclusively in the NTP study, but based its beliefs on the claims of Howard Jones from the cellphone operator EE who relied on the notorious articles by William Broad in the New York Times. Broad apparently proposed a Russian conspiracy theory:

Broad's conspiracy theory and denigration of the established science was firmly rebutted by the acclaimed scientist Dr Devra Davis, other leading scientists and others.


UK: GSMA's distinction over 'risk' and 'hazard'

The wireless industry, in a document by the trade association GSMA of 2017, tried to make a distinction between 'hazard' and risk'. 'Hazard' is often defined as a 'danger' or 'risk' and 'risk' is often defined as exposure to a 'danger' or 'hazard'. In terms of health these are interchangeable, since exposure to any dangerous substance like RF is both a quantifiable hazard and risk.

The GSMA claims: 

"It is important to distinguish between hazard and risk. A hazard is a set of circumstances that could potentially harm a person’s health. Risk is the likelihood, or probability, that a person will be harmed by a particular hazard."

In fact exposure to RF creates both a quantifiable hazard where injury is possible and a quantifiable set of circumstances or risk. Both these expressions of danger can be assessed and quantified in terms of a percentage of the possible danger.

The GSMA's claim that "there is no such thing as a zero risk" is also odd, given that there is clearly zero risk if an established danger such as RF radiation is removed. The fallacy of the GSMA's approach is revealed in their instruction to people trying to defend the known dangers of RF radiation: "In explanations never compare a voluntary risk (such as driving) to an involuntary risk", since in the case of RF dangers from cellphone tower radiation is involuntary.  

Some of the statements are clearly invalid. "Importantly, the international safety guidelines are designed to be protective of all persons, including children and pregnant women, against all established health hazards." In fact IEEE and ICNIRP Guidelines are for short-term heating effects only and admit that they do not and explicitly state that they therefore do not cover long-term biological effects like cancers and Electrosensitivity. Even the GSMA Guide itself states this: " The only established effects are related to heating from very high-level exposures", thus excluding the long-term biological effects established for many decades and used in therapeutic procedures and electronic warfare. 

Some GSMA statements are simply wrong: "Radio signals have been in use for more than 100 years and studies of high powered broadcast transmitters have uncovered no increased health risk for nearby communities" whereas courts around the world have closed down such transmitters causing too many cancers in the nearby communities.

GSMA: "Risk Communication Guide for Mobile Phones and Base Stations" (2017)


USA: FCC, FDA, ICES, IEEE, CDC and NCRP

​Criticism of the obsolete thermal limits still used by the US FCC, ICES and IEEE and of apparent Conflicts of Interest:


Testimony to the FCC on disabling health effects of wireless radiation at levels above biological safety limits, as still used by the FCC, ICNIRP etc.:



FFC failure to follow majority science on wireless harm



FCC Broadband Development Advisory Committee mainly from wireless industry



FCC Admits No Health Expertise
It is extraordinary that the US agency allegedly responsible for the safety of RF communications equipment has no health expertise,

The FCC admits to relying on interested groups like the wireless industry trade organization, the IEEE, which promotes the use of wireless. The IEEE is not independent of the wireless industry, it is not primarily a health and safety organization, and it lacks physicians experienced in the diagnosis of real physiological electrosensitivity as opposed to psychological electrophobia. Some of its physicists still follow Schwan's 1953 mistake that the only adverse effect of RF is heating one degree averaged over 6 minutes, a hypothesis long invalidated by the majority viewpoint scientists.

“The FCC relies on the expertise of health and safety agencies and organizations with respect to appropriate levels of RF exposure. Our current RF exposure limits incorporate recommendations from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and other federal health and safety agencies. And these limits are derived from exposure limits recommended by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements."


FFC failure to answer requests

  • "On August 15 2017, Senator Richard Blumenthal and Congresswomen Eshoo wrote to Pai requesting updates to rules and protections for workers who may be at risk from radiofrequency radiation. This letter followed similar requests to the FCC in 2015 and 2013, though Pai cannot be blamed in those circumstances"
            Jamie Davies: "US Congress asks Pai why he keeps ignoring its letters" (Telecoms.com, May 24 2018)


FCC Review and Proposals:


U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), NCRP

In 2014, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) posted “We recommend caution in cellphone use,” on their website
Within weeks of posting their cell phone caution online, the passage was removed, along with a section that addressed potential risks of cell phone use for children. More than 500 pages of internal records suggest controversy at the agency over how to address cell phone risks, including disagreements about such risks among its scientists.


U.S. DHHS, NIH, NTP

  • "Just as long term research into the health impacts of the 'electrosmog' created by wifi and mobile phones is yielding its first results, it's at risk of sudden termination from President Trump's budget cuts. But the cuts have little to do with saving money - and a lot to do with protecting corporate profit and economic growth from harsh truths, including evidence that electrosmog causes cancer in laboratory rats, and maybe humans too.

    The Department for Health and Human Services (DHHS) funds the USA's leading public health institutes. As part of Trump's attempt to nullify environmental opposition in the USA, a long-standing objective of the political-right, the DHHS' budget is being cut by 18%, or about $15.1 billion. That will have wide-ranging effects on its dependent research agencies. The National Toxicology Programme, maintained by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is one such example. At present cuts to the NIH, which has seen increases in its funding over recent years, are believed to be around 20% of its budget, roughly $5.8 billion."
                (Paul Mobbs: "Cellphones, wifi and cancer: Will Trump's budget cuts zap vital ‘electrosmog' research?" Ecologist, March 27 2017)

California Department of Public Health: 2008-2017

Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne Chang ordered the state of California in March 2017 to turn over the final version of the "Cell Phones and Health" guidelines from 2014. In May 2017 the judge forced California health officials to turn over all the previous versions of the guidelines it had kept secret. Joel Moskowitz, a public health researcher at UC Berkeley who sued the state to force the release of the records, said state officials should never have withheld the warnings from the public. “It would have to be purely political to deny distributing this,” Moskowitz said. “Science supports this.”

  • "Newly released public records show that California public health officials worked for five years on a set of guidelines to warn the public about the potential dangers of cell phones, revising their work 27 times with updated research before abandoning the efforts without ever making their concerns public until ordered by a judge. The 27 versions of the guidelines, obtained by The Chronicle, show that California health officials deleted a section that warned state employees with work-issued cell phones about the potential increased risk for brain cancer from use of the devices over time. The final version of the guidelines was a broad warning to the public about exposure to electromagnetic fields emitted by cell phones. It included a list of best practices to minimize exposure."
               Melody Gutierrez: "New records show how state reworked secret cell phone warnings" (San Francisco Chronicle, May 19 2017)
               California Department of Public Health:  "Cell Phones and Health" (Division of Environmental and Occupational Disease Control, April 2014)
               "Cell Phone Safety Guidance from the California Public Health Department" (Electromagnetic Radiation Safety, May 19 2017)

In December 2017, after 9 years, California Department of Public Health issued an Advisory warning of the dangers of cellphone radiation. This was done under a Court Order. The California Department of Public Health's "Cell Phone Warning", cautioning children and pregnant women, was the same as one issued a decade previously by a top cancer center, the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, in 2007.


FCC (Federal Communications Commission)


  • The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) admitted in 2013 that it is not a health and safety organization. It therefore depends on others to establish biological safety limits:

    "Since the Commission is not a health and safety agency, we defer to other organizations and agencies with respect to interpreting the biological research necessary to determine what levels are safe. As such, the Commission invites health and safety agencies and the public to comment on the propriety of our general present limits and whether additional precautions may be appropriate in some cases, for example with respect to children." (FCC 13-39: Section 6)
  • The FCC admits it depends on international organizations like ICNIRP to establish safety limits and that these limits are for heating and not for other biological effects of RF energy:

    "These more recent international exposure standards activities [i.e. ICNIRP, 1998 heating standards] have a fundamentally similar basis in protecting against established adverse health effects due to tissue heating." (FCC 13-39: Section 13)
  • The FCC admits that international organizations like the WHO's IARC have classified both RF and ELF energy as possible carcinogenic to humans:
    ​"Also we have observed ongoing international health-related activity in this area, with ... the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifying both RF and ELF fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans." (FCC 13-39: Section 13)

                      Federal Communications Commission: "First Report and Order Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Notice of Enquiry" (FCC 13-39, March 27 2013)


  • The FCC admits that there is some scientific evidence for non-thermal effects, but the FCC claims that it has not been "proved" that electromagnetic radiation "causes" cancer and neurological effects like headaches, dizziness and memory loss:


    "There is no scientific evidence to date that proves that wireless phone usage can lead to cancer or a variety of other health effects, including headaches, dizziness or memory loss."

    "The FDA, which has primary jurisdiction for investigating mobile phone safety, has stated that it cannot rule out the possibility of risk, but if such a risk exists, "it is probably small." "

    ​"A number of reports have appeared in the scientific literature describing the observation of a range of biological effects resulting from exposure to low levels of RF energy.  However, in most cases, further experimental research has been unable to reproduce these effects."

    ​"While some experimental data have suggested a possible link between exposure and tumor formation in animals exposed under certain specific conditions, the results have not been independently replicated. "

                      Federal Communications Commission: "Frequently asked questions about the safety of radiofrequency (RF) and microwave emissions from transmitters and facilities regulated by the FCC" (RF Safety FAQ, updated November 25 2015)
  • The FCC admits that the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Section 704, appears to deny States and local planners the authority to determine non-thermal limits to ensure the health of all people, including the sensitive people, like children, the elderly, the ill, pregnant women and people with EHS,  recognized by international standards, such as Bioinitiative and EUROPAEM EMF Guidelines 2016, within their jurisdiction:

    "In the United States, some local and state jurisdictions have also enacted rules and regulations pertaining to human exposure to RF energy.  However, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 contained provisions relating to federal jurisdiction to regulate human exposure to RF emissions from certain transmitting devices.  In particular, Section 704 of the Act states that, "No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions." 

                      Federal Communications Commission: "Frequently asked questions about the safety of radiofrequency (RF) and microwave emissions from transmitters and facilities regulated by the FCC" (RF Safety FAQ, updated November 25 2015
  • In 1946 the FCC assigned the unrestricted 2.45 GHz waveband, now used for wifi and numerous other household devices, to medical uses because of its greater effects on water and biological tissue especially in terms of blood flow and metabolic effects.
                     Guy AW: "History of Biological Effects and Medical Applications of Microwave Energy" (IEEE MTT, 1984; rev. 2015)
  • Josh del Sol Beaulieu: "Our Wireless Tech Is Unsafe, and These 5 US Government Agencies Have Tried to Warn Us" (September 24 2018):
  • “The FCC’s current [radio frequency/microwave] exposure guidelines, as well as those of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection, are thermally based, and do not apply to chronic, non-thermal exposure situations."  (Letter)
    (Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Norbert Hankin, of the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, Center for Science and Risk Assessment, Radiation Protection Division, July 6 2002)
  • “FCC rules do not address the issue of long-term, chronic exposure to RF fields.”
    (Comments of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to the FCC, November 10 1993)
  • The FCC’s standard is inadequate because it “is based on only one dominant mechanism — adverse health effects caused by body heating.”
    (Comments of National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to the FCC, January 11 1994)
  • “The FCC’s standard does not protect against non-thermal effects.”
    (Comments of the Amateur Radio Relay League (ARRL) Bio-Effects Committee to the FCC, January 7 1994)
  • “The electromagnetic radiation standards used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) continue to be based on thermal heating, a criterion now nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today.” (Submission)
    (Willie R Taylor, Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, The U.S. Department of Interior, February 7 2014)


FCC Maintains its Standards Against Cancer Evidence:

On August 8 2019 the FCC issued a statement that, following its review begun in 2013, it was not changing its standards. Thus the FCC continues to ignore all the established non-thermal RF effects known since 1896. In addition, RF has been proven a cancer agent many times in recent decades.


FDA (Food and Drug Administration)

  • The FDA follows pro-wireless cliques, like the ICNIRP and the IEEE, which still claim that the only adverse effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic energy are the result of heating, thus discounting the thousands of studies establishing non-thermal effects since the 1970s.

    "According to current data, the FDA believes that the weight of scientific evidence does not show an association between exposure to radiofrequency from cell phones and adverse health outcomes. Still, there is consensus that additional research is warranted to address gaps in knowledge, such as the effects of cell phone use over the long-term and on pediatric populations."

                 "​​Current Research Results" (FDA: Radiation-Emitting Products, updated 12/04/2017)


EPA (Environmental Protection Agency)


  • The EPA claims, like the pro-wireless cliques such as the FCC, FDA, ICNIRP and IEEE, that the only known adverse effect of electromagnetic exposure is heating, ignoring the thousands of studies establishing adverse effects at non-thermal levels.

    Under "Who is Protecting You", the EPA lists the FCC and the FDA.

    "RF can be dangerous at very high levels because it creates heat, and has the ability to heat tissue rapidly."

    "To date, the scientific evidence linking long-term use of cell phones to cancer or other health effects is not conclusive. More research is needed to clarify the question of safety."  

                        "Wireless Technology" (EPA, National Service Center for Environmental Publications)


Massachusetts: leadership role in protecting the public

  • "Massachusetts is taking a leadership role in protecting the public. Ashland Public Schools has become the first in the nation to take measures while awaiting further instruction from state leaders. Ashland has posted signs in each classroom advising wireless devices be turned off when not in use, wireless access points be turned on only when needed, and as the manufacturers’ fine print indicates, never keep an active device on one’s body.

    On Beacon Hill, five legislators have introduced bills to address wireless radiation and public health. The first two bills are scheduled for public hearing on Tuesday, June 20, 1-4 p.m. Senator Michael O. Moore’s S.1864 will give residents the right to choose a non-radiation-emitting public utility meter (gas, electric, water, solar, etc.). Senator Julian Cyr’s S.108 addresses safe use of hand-held devices by children.

    In the fall, additional bills by Senator Karen Spilka, Senator Cyr, Senator Donald Humason and Representative Carolyn Dykema will come up for public hearing to educate our doctors, schools and the general public on wireless radiation risks and safer technology practices.

    Until these bills are enacted and/or biologically safe mobile technology is brought to market, there are simple but important measures we can all choose to reduce our radiation exposure: connect to the internet via hard-wired fiber optics and Ethernet cables, then turn off the wireless emissions at work, home, school and leisure spaces. When on the go, keep devices in airplane mode except when needed as this disables the radiation transmissions, and never give a child a wireless device in active mode.

    Other best practices are to create radiation-free white zones, especially in sleeping areas so the radiation doesn’t disrupt our body’s ability to cell repair while we sleep. Distances of a quarter to a half mile (for those with health complications) minimum should be established from cell towers, including the street-level antennas being installed in neighborhoods to support 5G infrastructure.

    More than 200 leading scientists and public health experts have submitted an International Appeal to the World Health Organization and United Nations seeking their leadership in bringing public policy in line with current scientific evidence of harm."

                 Cece Doucette: "Protecting ourselves from two-way microwave radiation" (MetroWest Daily News, June 20 2017)


Colorado proposed ban on smartphone sales for children

"Too much technology too soon can impair brain development, hinder social skills and trigger an unhealthy reliance on the neurotransmitter dopamine, a high similar to what drug and alcohol addicts feel.

In February, he formed the nonprofit PAUS (Parents Against Underage Smartphones) with a few other medical professionals and began drafting a ballot initiative that, if passed, would make Colorado the first state in the nation to establish legal limits on smartphones sales to children.
Farnum’s proposal, ballot initiative no. 29, would make it illegal for cellphone providers to sell smartphones to children under the age of 13. The ban would require retailers to ask customers the age of the primary user of the smartphone and submit monthly adherence reports to the Colorado Department of Revenue."

        Katie Mettler: "Smartphones made his kids ‘moody’ and ‘withdrawn.’ Now he wants to ban them for preteens" (Washington Post, June 19 2017)


IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers)

  • The IEEE formed its Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR) in 1972 to counter health concerns relating to EM radiation effects. It undertakes public education and produces position papers. Some members were cautious about COMAR because they had financial stakes or employment in the electrical, electronics and wireless industries.


IEEE: to benefit its members and and the electronics industry, not primarily health
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) made recommendations which were part of the 1996 guidelines adopted by the FCC and the ICNIRP.
The IEEE does not conduct research into radio-frequency health effects.


US Draft Bill

"Radiofrequency Radiation Site Safety Information Act of 2018" (12/10/2018) H. R. 7236:

Sec.344:

  • “(e) Limitation Of Liability.—A person described in subsection (b)(1) with respect to a covered facility shall not be liable in any civil action for an injury alleged to have been caused by radiofrequency radiation emissions of such facility, if such person is in compliance with the information sharing requirement under subsection (c) with respect to such facility during the period that—
    (1) begins—
    (A) in the case of an injury that is alleged to have occurred on or after the day that is 180 days after the date on which the database is established under subsection (a), on the date on which the injury is alleged to have occurred; or
    (B) in the case of an injury that is alleged to have occurred before the day described in subparagraph (A), on such day;
    (2) ends on the date on which there is a final disposition, from which no appeal may be taken, in such civil action; and
    (3) excludes any time when such information sharing requirement does not apply to such person."



US Government Officials stated 1976 that 10,000 microW/m2 is dangerous 

“These beams have resulted in radiation densities within Chancery Offices and some apartments of personnel ranging from 1 to 15 microwatts per square centimeter.”
“Our medical experts are of the considered opinion that prolonged exposure to microwave radiation at the levels measured in the U.S. embassy constitute a potential health hazard.”
            US Government: Moscow Embassy Report to Department of State, dated January 31 1976 (originally secret, unclassified 2006)                  “Moscow Signal – Approach to Gromyko”; Canonical ID: 1976MOSCOW01437_b:

  • 1-15 microWatt/cm2 = 10,000-150,000 µW/m2 = 1.9–7.5 V/m.
  • Current 1996 FCC heating limits are:  1,000 microW per cm2 = 10,000,000 µW/m2 = 61 V/m.
  • Current 1998 ICNIRP heating limits are:  900 microW per cm2 = 9,000,000 µW/m2 = 58 V/m, and 450 microW per cm2 = 4,500,000 µW/m2 = 41 V/m.
  • Old USA 1955 heating limits: 10,000 microWatt/cm2 = 100,000,000 µW/m2 = 194 V/m.
  • USSR 1958 biological limits: 10 microWatt/cm2 = 100,000 µW/m2 = 6.1 V/m.


Media silence and industry spin


Individual pro-industry scientists

There have been leading scientists in  many countries who rejected established evidence for biophysical and non-thermal effects of EMFs and wireless energy. Some have been physicists, unable to accept the complexities of quantum biology if that evidence clashes with what they believe is required by their preferred physics formulae. Good examples are (a) the beliefs in thermal noise dominating biological systems of resonances or coherences, and (b) linear dose-response beliefs discounting evidence for 'windows' of frequency effects.


Phainomena and Endoxa: This is not a new problem. Aristotle, in the fourth century BCE, can be seen as both the founder of evidence-based science and medicine ('phainomena'), and also the founder of the principles of physics ('endoxa'). Nevertheless he was able to hold both approaches together in a balanced methodology. The European medieval bias was towards Aristotle's principles or endoxa. This had to be corrected in the 1600s by a new emphasis on phainomena and a scientific evidence-based methodology by people like Bacon with his "Novum Organum" to replace Aristotle's "Organum", and Galileo. Isaac Newton's approach was mainly mathematical but focused more on astronomy and basic physics than on biophysical and biological systems, causing some physicists to undervalue biophysical evidence.

  • "Aristotle, one the greatest minds that ever existed, is indeed the godfather of evidence-based medicine. His teachings of logic and philosophy have been a driving force continuously guiding medicine away from superstition and towards the scientific method. Today, the revival of evidence-based medicine is only a reaffirmation of his early teachings dating from the fourth century BC."​(Sallam HN: "Aristotle, godfather of evidence-based medicine" Facts Views Vis Obgyn., 2010)


Some scientists, especially in the US, have been surprisingly dogmatic in rejecting biophysical and biological evidence, especially for non-thermal effects. Herman Schwan in 1953 chose safety limits based on his thermal belief or hypothesis, now long invalidated, that only heating can cause adverse effects. He was followed by a number of others who also put this non-thermal belief above evidence-based science, in a manner reminiscent of some European medieval churchmen. This small clique of like-minded believers in the thermal hypothesis seems to dominate groups like the FCC, ICNIRP and WHO, whereas the vast majority of scientists worldwide now accept non-thermal effects as established both for therapeutic and adverse roles.


​Professor Robert Adair

Dr Robert Adair, Sterling Professor of Physics Emeritus at the University of Yale and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote “Health Effects of Low-Intensity Electric and Magnetic Fields (and Scientific Error)” in about 2006 for the website of the American Council on Science and Health. In it, he asserted that public focus on threats to children’s health should not include power-frequency electric and magnetic fields, because, in his words, “many published results of scientific research are wrong.”

  • "There are at least 300 papers reporting biological effects of EMFs generated at low frequencies by our power distribution system and at higher frequencies by radio, TV, radar, and communication devices such as cell phones. But there are no such effects. As with many other scientific hypotheses, such as cold fusion and polywater in physics, all of the many positive results showing biological effects of weak EMFs, many published in reputable journals, are wrong.”
    ("American Health Society Features Adair: Robert Adair offers Opinion on EMF Policy and Scientific Error" The Bioelectromagnetics Society, website January 2018)
  • "Adair [Bioelectromagnetics 14:1-4, 1993] writes that "the effects of 60 Hz magnetic fields of 5 microT (50 mG) or less on biological structures holding magnetite (Fe3O4) are shown to be much smaller than those from thermal agitation; hence such interactions cannot be expected to be biologically significant." This conclusion is questioned, because it appears to be based on a model that probably has very limited validity for pertinent biological systems. Furthermore, biologically plausible parameters can be selected to show that even this particular model does not exclude biologically significant effects of 60 Hz magnetic fields below 5 microT."
    (Polk C:P "Effects of extremely-low-frequency magnetic fields on biological magnetite"Bioelectromagnetics, 1994)
  • "Here we show that nociception in mice is altered by a 30 Hz field with a peak amplitude more than 1000 times weaker than the static component of the geomagnetic field. ... Any purported detection mechanisms being considered will need to explain effects at such weak ELFMF."
    (Prato RS et al,: "Magnetoreception in laboratory mice: sensitivity to extremely low-frequency fields exceeds 33 nT at 30 Hz"J R Soc Interface, 2013)
  • '“Bob Adair’s calculations are not wrong,” Barnes added. “They just don’t deal with the situations we are dealing with.” He was referring to Robert Adair, a professor emeritus of physics at Yale University, who has long maintained that weak field effects are incompatible with the laws of physics. Barnes was careful to point out that not all experiments would show effects because “biological systems have many feedback and repair mechanisms.”'
    ("It May Not Be Impossible After All: Weak Magnetic Fields Can Promote Cancer" Microwave News, March 18 2016)



Pro-industry influence: government agencies, journals and the media


The media and regulators are often influenced by pro-industry groups, including government agencies.

This is true of many industries in addition to the Wireless, Cellphone and Power-line Industries, including: Asbestos, Chemicals, Food & Sugar, GM, Glyphosate and Pesticides, and Tobacco, 

The pro-wireless private German group called ICNIRP was spun out of a pro-nuclear weapons radiation group and usually adopts pro-wireless viewpoints.

The US pro-wireless IEEE represents parts of the wireless industry.
The WHO's IARC had to remove Anders Ahlbom after his industry links were revealed. 

A Canadian panel of the Royal Society of Canada had to remove Daniel Krewski after conflicting interests were revealed.

In the US there have been concerns about industry links by people in the FCC. 

In England Sir Richard Doll, the scientist who confirmed the link between smoking and lung cancer, later switched to supporting some industries and was chair of England's NRPB pro-wireless and pro-power-line Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation (AGNIR) from 1990 to 2003 denying serious adverse bioelectromagnetic effects at low levels of exposure.


Asbestos and Chemicals Industries:


Fluoride:


Food and Sugar Industries:


GM, Glyphosate and Pesticides Industries:


Lead:


​Radiation Industry and WHO's subordination to IAEA:


Tobacco Industry:


Vaccinations:


Wireless, Cellphone and Power-line Industries:



Wikipedia and pro-industry editors


One of the clearest examples of the systematic influence of the clique of pro-industry activists appears to be Wikipedia. It has been alleged that some editors are paid or expected to alter articles and entries in favor of the industry for which they work.


The Wikipedia entry on Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity used to have some balance between real physical EHS and psychological Electrophobia, with which it has sometimes been confused. Since 2016, however, it has been rewritten in a blatantly anti-scientific way, ignoring the established evidence since 1932 and instead pretending that all cases of real EHS are actually Electrophobia, without supplying convincing proof. 


In fact it is not just conditions like EHS which have been misrepresented in Wikipedia. Much of natural medicine, organic farming and 'green' attempts to preserve life on planet Earth have also been unfairly condemned  (see e.g. alternative medicine, dental amalgam controversy, Glyphosate, genetically modified crops, homeopathy, naturopathy, water fluoridation).






​See also: Science - corruption by industry

                  Federal Communications Commission: "Frequently asked questions about the safety of radiofrequency (RF) and microwave emissions from transmitters and facilities regulated by the FCC" (RF Safety FAQ, updated November 25 2015)
"Acute effects: There are a number of well established acute effects of exposure to low-frequency EMFs on the nervous system: the direct stimulation of nerve and muscle tissue and the induction of retinal phosphenes. There is also indirect scientific evidence that brain functions such as visual processing and motor co-ordination can be transiently affected by induced electric fields. 
The Note does not address the issue that even if the ICNIRP wished to reject the NTP and Ramazzine evidence,