From ‘Between A Rock and a Hard Place’ by Dariusz Leszczynski
Specialty Chief Editor at Frontiers
Adjunct Professor at University of Helsinki
Recently, I came across two short videos recorded in 2016 in Stockholm. The occasion was the seminar at the SSI http://www.stralsakerhetsmyndigheten.se/start/Magnetfalt–tradlos-teknik/EMF-seminarium-2016/ seminar at the SSI concerning health effects of EMF. In these videos, Emilie van Deventer, Head of the WHO EMF Project and Eric van Röngen, Chairman of the ICNIRP, answered to question from Swedish journalist Mona Nilsson.
Question was straightforward, whom should Swedes trust, the evaluation of science done by ICNIRP or the opinion of 220 scientists who signed an appeal https://emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal submitted to the United Nations and the WHO. The Appeal questioned the validity and reliability of evaluation of science done by ICNIRP that is used by the WHO EMF Project and by the telcom industry as the proof that radiation emitted by the wireless communication devices is not a human health hazard. This opinion is, of course, contrary to the opinion of IARC wherein 2011 radiation emitted by the wireless communication devices was classified as possible human carcinogen.
As seen from the video, Emilie van Deventer completely avoided response to the question from Mona Nilsson. Interestingly, Emilie van Deventer did not defend at all the correctness of the ICNIRP’s science evaluation that was done for the WHO EMF Project. Emilie van Deventer did not say that the ICNIRP evaluation of science is the correct evaluation.
Similarly, as seen in video below, Eric van Röngen, Chairman of ICNIRP did not defend at all the validity and correctness of the ICNIRP’s evaluation of science. Instead, Eric van Röngen stated that people can choose what opinion on science they prefer, the opinion of ICNIRP or the opinion of the 200 scientists who signed the Appeal.
In conclusion, this is a massive “BLUNDER” from Van Röngen and van Deventer. It is an ADMISSION that they both have doubts about the reliability of the evaluation of science by ICNIRP. Neither of them said that ICNIRP evaluation of science is reliable and the Appeal’s opinion is unreliable.
This clearly demonstrates that there is NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS on the health effects of radiation emitted by the wireless communication devices. This situation should be taken into consideration when the WHO will select expert group for preparation of the final version of the Environmental Health Criteria for RF-EMF. Scientists with diverse scientific opinions should and must be appointed in order to facilitate an unbiased scientific debate.