In this webinar, Rodney Croft, Chairman of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) will talk about “ICNIRP, 5G, Guidelines and Health”. His presentation will provide a background to ICNIRP and its radiofrequency EMF guidelines, with a particular focus on issues pertinent to 5G. It will cover this topic both from the perspective of the intention and adequacy of the guidelines to provide protection, as well as through consideration of how the guidelines deal with issues that are commonly raised by anti-5G activists.

Afterwards, Emilie Van Deventere, head of the World Health Organisation’s EMF project, will detail the WHO’s approach to electromagnetic waves and what member countries are doing.

Finally, Joe Wiart, head of the Modeling, Characterization and Control of Electromagnetic Wave Exposure 5C2M) Chair held by Télécom Paris, will talk about issues related to the quantification of exposure to electromagnetic waves and will outline the challenges related to 5G.

The link to register for the webinar is available from https://www.telecom-paris.fr/agenda/5g-state-of-knowledge-and-emf-exposure-level

The post Industry/ICNIRP/WHO Webinar 5G: State of knowledge and EMF exposure level appeared first on EMFSA.

Source: https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/2020/09/08/leszczynski-there-is-something-utterly-wrong-with-the-icnirp-membership/

Leszczynski:

… this blog is long so, please be patient and read to the end…

Yesterday, I have written, yet again and as for the last nearly 20 years, that ICNIRP is a private club. Its new members are selected by the current members. There are no published criteria for the selection of new members. Nobody checks whether the selected experts are sufficiently good experts.

There is no responsibility, before nobody, for what and how ICNIRP does.

What if time will show that ICNIRP review of science was incorrect? Nothing, at least to ICNIRP members… but it could be a big problem for the telecom industry and us, the users.

On the contrary to claims by ICNIRP and by telecoms, it is difficult to believe that the telecoms do not influence who will be elected to ICNIRP Main Commission and don’t influence how the scientific evidence is interpreted by ICNIRP.

It is logically certain that some kind of lobbying happens.

Thinking otherwise is illogical. Just imagine the multi-billion-worth telecom industry to meekly wait for what ICNIRP does. It would be completely irresponsible for the telecom bosses. They need to be certain that ICNIRP guidelines are designed as necessary to continue business as usual.

With the “new” guidelines, ICNIRP gave carte blanche to the telecom industry.

Read more at: https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/2020/09/08/leszczynski-there-is-something-utterly-wrong-with-the-icnirp-membership/

The post Leszczynski: There is something utterly wrong with the ICNIRP membership appeared first on EMFSA.

Brief Report from the 5G session at the EMERG meeting in Australia

Meeting of the EMERG, Electromagnetic Energy Reference Group

@ ARPANSA in Yallambie/Melbourne, Australia on May 8, 2018

The 5G Technology session

Slides are available for download from Between a Rock and A Hard Place

Excerpts:

Mike Wood of AMTA – Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association:

• 4G LTE is reaching its maximum capacity
• Commercial launch of 5G in Australia is expected in 2020 and mass adoption of 5G will be in 2025
• Launch of 5G networks will come first (MIMO, massive input massive output, – antennas will be similar in size to 4G antennas but of squared shape)
• At first the 5G will work together with 4G: 4G macro connectivity (cell towers) 5G micro-connectivity (small cells)
• Later on 5G will also stand alone, without 4G (?): 5G will provide macro-connectivity (MIMO towers) and micro-connectivity (small cells; millimeter-waves 30-100GHz)
• Launch of 5G handsets will come later – first handsets with 3G, 4G and 5G connectivity expected in 2020 –2021
• Small cells will be deployed throughout neighborhoods as hot spots to which households will connect
• 5G will be complementary to the fixed internet systems = 5G is not intended to replace the wired internet
• Advantages of 5G: enhanced broadband connectivity – more data and faster
  • Latency of data transfer in 5G will be down to 1 millisecond – nearly instantaneous what is necessary for successful robotics; e.g. surgeon operating on patient located far away using robot will be possible with the 1 millisecond latency
  • In 4G the latency was 40-50 millisecond
• Environmental EMF levels may increase slightly (near to sites) with the addition of 5G networks

(DL: what is slight increase in EMF levels for AMTA is still unclear; AMTA confirms that 5G devices must comply with safety standards; safety standards are still not defined by neither ICNIRP nor WHO EMF Project; there are plans to allow higher exposures than current safety limits permit. 

Few notes from Dariusz Leszczynski’s presentation

• The problem with 5G deployment and health safety
  • Deployment of technology is based on an assumed lack of health hazard
  • The assumed lack of health hazard might be false; in past it happened with cell phones – deployment with the assumption of no health risk but subsequent research has shown radiation to be a possible human carcinogen
  • Very limited biomedical research on 5G-emitted novel radiation (millimeter-waves) shows potentially hazardous outcomes on humans and environment
• Serious limitations of biomedical research on millimeter-waves
  • Very limited number of studies; EMF Portal (www.emf-portal.org) lists only <200 studies; few more on PubMed database
  • Lack of studies examining responses of human physiology to exposure (human volunteer studies)
  • Lack of studies on chronic exposures
  • Published studies came from a very limited number of research groups
  • Lack of replication studies confirming correctness of the observations
• False assumption that because the radiation will be absorbed by skin only thus, there will be no major health problem – it is just skin – false assumption from the EMF engineers – skin is the largest organ in human body and plays vital role in regulation of immune responses and is host to a multitude of microorganisms that regulate normal human physiology, it is not just a “coat” covering the body! (e.g. Sanford JA, Gallo RL. Semin Immunol 25, 2013: 370–377)

Few notes from Andrew Wood’s presentation

• As a scientist, Andrew Wood agrees that more research needs to be done
• Andrew Wood considers that the current basic restrictions for the millimeter-waves exposures to humans, based on thermal mechanisms, are adequate to protect from any unwanted health effects
• Reviewed some of the research studies (see slides for details)
  • Interesting studies from Marvin Ziskin who has shown that application of millimeter-waves in some area of skin induces a biological response in other, distant from the exposure area, place
  • Ziskin work suggested that the millimeter-waves can induce non-thermal effects
  • However, Andrew Wood suspects that thermal mechanisms played role in Ziskin’s therapy applications of millimeter-waves
  • Ziskin was awarded in 2011, for his research in EMF, the highest honor of the Bioelectromagnetics Society (BEMS) – the d’Arsonval Award

Presentation #4 by Rodney Croft, Wollongong University, ACEBR and ICNIRP

Rodney Croft refused to share his slides claiming that these might be misunderstood out of the context of the EMERG meeting.

• Rodney Croft, when asked about the EHC for RF-EMF being prepared by the WHO EMF Project, said that he knows nothing about any personnel changes to the core group of the scientists who will be preparing draft document for the working group that will finalize the EHC for RF-EMF. Croft also commented that he does not know that any systematic reviews will be prepared to replace the earlier version documents prepared under the guidance of ICNIRP. These were quite surprising responses – either Croft was under-informed or the WHO EMF Project is just “playing games”…

The post Brief Report from Electromagnetic Energy Reference Group Meeting in Australia appeared first on EMFSA.

Report from the ARPS2017: EHS, sleep & non-thermal effects
The ARPS 2017 meeting included a key-note plenary talk on radiation emitted by the wireless communication devices and networks:
Dariusz Leszczynski, University of Helsinki, Finland
BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE: THE ART OF RADIATION PROTECTION IN THE WIRELESS ERA
Slides of the presentation at ARPS2017 are available here final-arps2017-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place
Video and Slides of an expanded ARPS talk, presented at the Griffith University, Brisbane, Qld, Australia, are available here

The long list of Conclusions of the key-note lecture is as follows:

2011 IARC classification of cell phone radiation as a possible carcinogen is a sufficient reason for invoking Precautionary Principle
Claims that the current safety standards protect all users are not supported by the scientific evidence
Children should be especially protected by precautionary measures
Schools should use only wired internet -a precautionary measure
Users should be better informed about the current scientific uncertainty and advised to limit exposures whenever  possible and feasible and strongly discouraged from keeping cell phones close to body (in pockets)
Real radiation exposure data should be used in epidemiological and human studies
ALARA principle should be implemented for cell phone radiation exposures
Science is limited, ambiguous, contradictory and with many gaps
More research is needed but it is trivialized
Evaluation of science is scientifically biased = advice to decision-makers is biased
Technology is very useful –“mesmerizing effect”; seeing only one side of the coin
Technology deployment is based on biased evaluation of science
Policy of “low power” used as an excuse for unrestricted deployment
Implementation of the Precautionary Principle is considered as “scaremongering”
Need for temporary moratorium on 5G & IoT deployment due to lack of health research

EXCERPTS

report-from-arps-2017

Adam Verrender presented results from two studies where the research group led by Rodney Croft attempts to determine whether the EHS (IEI-EMF) exists. The issue is of importance because, as reported in several studies there might be a substantial part of population affected by (self-diagnosed) EHS (see Prevalence table slide). Finding out whether the self-diagnosis is correct and finding ways for physicians to be able to correctly diagnose EHS is of great importance.

The Study #1 presented by Verrender was to address “…the methodological concerns of IEI-EMF provocation studies by taking a novel, case-study approach to testing (self-reported) sensitive individuals, using a sufficient number of EMF-tailored sham and active provocation trials to determine statistically, within an individual, whether any individually-tailored symptom – exposure relationship is significant…”

DL comments on Study #1 by Verrender et al.

• 1. From the slides presented it appeared that, as for now, the study has failed. In spite of the very ambitious design to expose group of self-diagnosed EHS persons in various conditions and repeatedly, to examine responses of the same person exposed numerous times in the same circumstances, the goal of achieving statistically analyzable data did not materialize because only 3 (three) volunteers participated in the study.

2. There are few possible reasons for the lack of volunteers willing to participate:
Simple scheduling problems – not everyone is able to take 3 days off for participation in experiments
EHS volunteers might have gotten concerned that extensive experiments over 3-days period will be a too heavy burden on their health. Studies of this research group always show lack of existence of EHS and some volunteers might have re-considered whether to participate.

3. The major problem of this, and other EHS studies, is the assumption by the scientists that the volunteers, with the self-diagnosed EHS, indeed have symptoms caused by EMF exposures. There is no such certainty. The volunteers are self-diagnosed and might assume they are EHS but, in reality, some of those participating in experiments might suffer from symptoms caused by sensitivity to something else, not EMF. In this context, experimental EHS group is likely “tainted” by the non-EHS volunteers and the results of experiments using such “tainted” group are skewed towards no effect.
I asked Rodney Croft about this problem – the contamination of the EHS volunteer group by non-EHS sensitive persons that, in practice, invalidates obtained experimental results. The only answer that I received from Rodney Croft was that the scientists have no method to objectively determine who is and who is not an EHS and they have to rely/accept the self-diagnosis.

Rodney Croft’s team relies solely on the subjective self-diagnosis of EHS presented by the volunteer. This means that EHS experiments performed by Rodney Croft’s team use groups of volunteers where scientists do not know how many members of the volunteer group have real EHS and how many are “contaminating” non-EHS sensitive persons.
The “contamination” of the experimental group means that the experimental results obtained in this and other EHS research studies are useless as proof that EHS does not exist.

The Study #2 presented by Verrender was to “…test whether watching a short video which claims that EMF is harmful can influence symptom detection, risk perception and physiological response in a general population sample, including those who do not have high pre-existing levels of anxiety…”
Study #2: The Nocebo Effect
Research Question: Can public messaging about the harmful effects of EMF exposure act as a potential trigger for a nocebo response in the general population? Aim:
To test whether watching a short video which claims EMF is harmful can influence:
Symptom detection
Risk perception
Physiological response
Design of the experiments: two groups of participants were shown two different videos. Thereafter, they were exposed to RF or sham and asked about the severity of the primary symptom.
Results of the Study #2 – data presented at the conference were not yet analyzed with statistical methods but the authors arrived at the following conclusion:
Explicit suggestions and the Nocebo Effect – Some evidence that public messaging produces negative expectations which may lead to an IEI-EMF Nocebo Effect
DL comments on Study #2 by Verrender et al.
It is worth reading what I wrote about such “video” studies in my blog and in my report from the BioEM2015:

Report from the BioEM2017

Gunnhild Oftedal has quoted a  study showing how media influences peoples’ opinions. In an experiment subjects were shown two movies, one warning about health risks of EMF and the other, neutral to EMF and health issue. Following the presentation, study subjects experienced more EHS symptoms after seeing the movie warning of EMF health risk danger. One important aspect of this study was, again, very small subject sample of 147 persons in total (76 + 71).
This study shows that, indeed, we are affected by what we see and hear around us. That is why court juries, in important cases, are sequestered… Nothing new… Just an obvious – we, the people, are affected by the media…

This study is being used as a “proof” that EHS link to EMF is imaginary and that the increasing prevalence of EHS in  the population is caused by the news media reports, and not by the EMF…”

DL:I have concluded then, in 2015, and I have the same opinion now, in 2017:
“…The data gathered in studies where persons are asked how they feel when in laboratory conditions are being exposed to real or sham radiation are unacceptable as scientific proof of lack of causality link between EMF and EHS… because the study subjects are affected by the experimental setting and their answers are subjective, not objective. The study subjects come to the experiment with their pre-conceptions of what is good and what is bad about EMF exposures. This all affects their reactions and responses made to investigators.…”
Also, in my blog ’“Nocebo effect” proves: Available EHS research is useless for decisions-making‘,

“Nocebo effect” proves: Available EHS research is useless for decisions-making

I stated that:
“…The existence of nocebo effect proves neither lack nor existence of causal link between EHS and EMF. However, the nocebo effect proves that the research data collected in the to-date executed EHS studies is absolutely unreliable…”
In the search for the answer whether EHS exists is necessary to move from the subjective methods of psychology to objective methods of molecular biology. Continuation of the psychological “feelings” studies will not resolve the issue of EHS and EMF. Continuation of psychological research is just a waste of resources and time.

It is utterly puzzling why the Rodney Croft’s team stubbornly misrepresents results of own studies and pretends that the EHS can’t be caused by the individual variability (individual sensitivity), refuses to study EHS with sensitive and objective methods instead to continuing futile research with subjective “feelings” approach, and refuses to acknowledge that the biological effects induced by RF exposures that are well below safety limits are, what ICNIRP calls, the non-thermal effects.

The post Report from NIR session at the ARPS2017: EHS, sleep & non-thermal effects by Dariusz Leszczynski appeared first on EMFSA.