International research scientists have challenged ICNIRP, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. The new panel, the International Commission on the Biological Effects of EMF (ICBE-EMF), wants a complete revision of ICNIRP’s radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines. The researchers are demanding the adoption of more scientifically rigorous standards, which better protect public health and the environment.
“We are calling for an independent evaluation of the limits,” Joel Moskowitz of Berkeley Public Health, an arm of the University of California, told Microwave News. This needs to be done, he said, because ICNIRP’s guidelines are “based on smoke and mirrors.” ICBE-EMF promotes precautionary policies to minimize potential adverse effects, especially for children, pregnant women, and those with EM hypersensitivity (EHS). ICNIRP has ignored them.
ICNIRP, founded by Michael Repacholi in 1992, issued its first set of exposure guidelines in 1998. They were last updated in 2020. The ICNIRP limits are now the most widely-used metric for assessing radiation safety.
ICBE-EMF’s opening salvo is a peer-reviewed paper with a detailed deconstruction of 14 assumptions that, it states, are “inherent” in ICNIRP’s RF radiation guidelines. The report, which runs 25 pages with 230 references, was posted by the journal Environmental Health on October 18. The fallacies at the heart of these 14 assumptions, ICBE-EMF argues, have led ICNIRP to adopt limits that are “wrong” and that “fail to protect public and environmental health.”
One of the significant criticisms of ICNIRP’s guidelines is that they are based on the assumption that only heating caused by RF radiation can lead to adverse health effects and that these effects will only occur at a SAR (specific absorption rate) simulating a full-grown adult male. ICBE-EMF argues that this threshold is outdated and has been disproven by numerous studies that have found harmful effects at lower SAR levels. Additionally, ICNIRP has ignored the potential long-term effects of RF radiation exposure, which could be even more dangerous.
The ICBE-EMF panel comprises a group of respected scientists and researchers who have dedicated their careers to studying the effects of RF radiation on human health. They include Henry Lai and Ronald Melnick of the U.S., Igor Belyaev of Slovakia, and Suleyman Dasdag of Turkey, among others.
So far, ICNIRP has not responded to the criticisms and demands put forward by ICBE-EMF. However, the new panel’s call for an independent evaluation of RF radiation limits is gaining support from other scientists and public health advocates. If their demands are met, it could significantly shift how we think about and regulate RF radiation safety.
As a cell phone safety activist, I am thrilled to see the formation of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of EMF (ICBE-EMF), a group of esteemed international researchers who are stepping up to challenge the status quo on cell phone radiation safety guidelines.
For far too long, we have relied on the standards set by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), an organization founded by industry-backed scientists who have consistently downplayed the potential health risks of cell phone radiation. Unfortunately, the ICNIRP guidelines, based on a threshold of 4 W/Kg for adverse effects, are woefully outdated and fail to protect public health adequately.
The ICBE-EMF, on the other hand, is calling for an independent evaluation of these limits and is demanding the adoption of more scientifically rigorous standards that better protect public health and the environment. This is a vital step in the right direction and is long overdue.
One of the significant issues with the ICNIRP guidelines is that they are based on the assumption that adverse health effects are caused only by heating, and the only test method is outdated SAR guidelines. This threshold is over 40 years old and was derived from a few studies investigating behavioral effects in a small number of animals following short-term RF exposure. Furthermore, the ICNIRP has never made any allowance for possible effects due to long-term exposures. Yet, we are now seeing a growing body of research linking long-term cell phone radiation exposure to various health issues, including cancer, DNA damage, and oxidative stress.
The ICBE-EMF is also taking a more precautionary approach, focusing on protecting vulnerable populations such as children, pregnant women, and those
with EM hypersensitivity (EHS). This starkly contrasts with the ICNIRP, which has consistently ignored the potential risks to these populations.
The ICBE-EMF’s opening salvo is a peer-reviewed paper with a detailed deconstruction of 14 assumptions that, it states, are “inherent” in ICNIRP’s RF radiation guidelines. This paper, which has been published in the journal Environmental Health, lays out the fallacies at the heart of these assumptions and shows how they have led the ICNIRP to adopt limits that are “wrong” and that “fail to protect public and environmental health.”
As a cell phone safety activist, I fully support the ICBE-EMF and their efforts to revise and strengthen cell phone radiation safety guidelines. We cannot continue to rely on outdated and industry-backed standards that fail to protect public health. It is time for a new, independent evaluation of these limits, and I believe the ICBE-EMF is the organization to do it.
I urge the public to educate themselves on the potential risks of cell phone radiation and to support the ICBE-EMF in revising and strengthening safety guidelines. We must take action now to protect ourselves and future generations from the potential harm of cell phone radiation.
“Cell phone radiation safety in question: International scientists challenge outdated guidelines”
“Is your cell phone putting your health at risk? New panel calls for revision of radiation guidelines”
“Experts demand more stringent standards for cell phone radiation safety”
“Cell phone radiation: The truth behind industry-backed guidelines”
“Protecting public health from cell phone radiation: International commission calls for independent evaluation”
Twitter Posts:
“It’s time to reevaluate cell phone radiation guidelines. Scientists call for independent evaluation to better protect public health #cellphoneradiation #ICBE-EMF”
“Outdated guidelines put public health at risk. International commission demands more scientifically rigorous standards for cell phone radiation #cellphonesafety #ICNIRP”
“Don’t be fooled by industry-backed science. Experts call for an independent evaluation of cell phone radiation guidelines #cellphonerisks #ICBE-EMF”
“Precautionary measures needed for cell phone radiation. New panel calls for protection of vulnerable populations #cellphonetherapy #ICNIRP”
“Cell phone radiation: Separating fact from fiction. International commission calls for independent evaluation of guidelines #cellphonescience #ICBE-EMF”
