…updated with info about Anke Huss…
In this blog, published from 2009, first on website of STUK – Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority and subsequently transferred to the current site, I have criticized ICNIRP on many occasions.
In my recently published blogs I have pointed out that several groups of scientists evaluating to-date published EMF research, have disagreed with ICNIRP opinions.
These disagreeing opinions were published in:
I have also suggested that there is something wrong with ICNIRP and that ICNIRP opinions need to be validated by independent review:
ICNIRP acts as a “private club” where current members select new members to replace those retiring from the ICNIRP’s Main Commission. The selection criteria and justifications for selecting particular new members are secret that is not available publicly. Only ICNIRP Main Commission members know what and why is happening.
Looking at the membership of ICNIRP it is easy to notice that all members have very similar opinion on the issue of EMF and health. All ICNIRP members have nearly the same opinion that EMF is absolutely and completely safe for use by everyone, as long as it is within safety limits advised by ICNIRP.
I call this achievement of unity of ICNIRP scientific thinking (sarcasm!) an “inbreed” ICNIRP.
No scientist with differing opinion on EMF safety was ever selected to ICNIRP Main Commission.
With such uniform opinion on EMF safety it is easy to understand that achieving consensus of scientific opinions by ICNIRP members is automatically assured whenever ICNIRP is selecting new members.
This pre-selection of scientists, having nearly the same scientific opinions, causes that science review becomes biased. When opinions of all ICNIRP members are similar it skews the opinion that ICNIRP presents to the WHO, Governments and Industry.
There is nobody at ICNIRP that could oppose opinions within ICNIRP Main Commission. There is not even the proverbial “devil’s advocate” available.
However, are the opinions presented by the “inbreed” membership of ICNIRP scientifically correct?
I beg to disagree, and very strongly.
- Science review in Switzerland by BERNEIS disagrees with ICNIRP. BERNEIS has a single member of ICNIRP Main Commission: Martin Röösli.
- Science review in The Netherlands disagrees with ICNIRP. Scientific committee there has two members of ICNIRP Main Commission: Eric van Rongen and Anke Huss.
- Science review in USA by FDA disagrees with ICNIRP. There is no ICNIRP member at FDA.
But, there is an exception. In Sweden scientific committee SSM arrives year after year at the same conclusions as ICNIRP.
Guess why?
Because, in my opinion, on Swedish committee are several members of ICNIRP Main Commission:
- Anke Huss,
- Eric van Rongen,
- Martin Röösli
It is possible to consider that when scientific committee has no ICNIRP member onboard or has only one or even two ICNIRP members then the conclusions of science review differ from ICNIRP’s. But when there are several ICNIRP members, like three persons in Sweden, then the ICNIRP members support each other and are able to skew the review. This happens year after year in Sweden as evidenced in their yearly reports.
These examples of science reviews give clear support to my opinion that ICNIRP reviews of science are biased and skewed by the way ICNIRP selects its membership. When non-ICNIRP criteria are used for selection of members of different science committees then the results of the science review differ significantly from ICNIRP.
This observation gives a support to what I proposed in my blog post: ICNIRP review of scientific evidence should be validated by committee with un-biased and un-skewed membership.
It is matter of global health safety for all of us. Telecom industry have chosen to use ICNIRP as provider of evaluation of scientific research and provider of safety limits that telecom industry uses in production of wireless communication devices and networks.