post was updated and revised in response to comment from Eric van Rongen

In a very interesting news post, Louis Slesin of the Microwave News, reminded that the secretive dealings are part of the RF-arena [emphasis added DL]:

“…Government and industry representatives from Australia, Canada, France, Japan, Korea, New Zealand and the U.S. participated, as did an assortment of academics. The public was not invited…”

…and, of course, ICES, ICNIRP and EMF Project were there as well. It seems typical for the industry, regulators, governments, ICES, ICNIRP and EMF Project to mingle, in the absence of general public and later, to provide very scarce information, if any at all.

Those responsible for developing safety guidelines and for government/academia funded research, seem to prefer to do things in secrecy, behind the scenes, not to be “bothered” by a plethora of activists. They prefer to present their work when it is fully ready and “deal is done“.

I have frequently written about the problems with the transparency of ICNIRP, problems with the conflict of interests within ICNIRP problems with selection of members that lead to uniformity of opinions within ICNIRP on EMF and health = no problem whatsoever, even if research, like on mm-waves, have not been done.

Similar secrecy problems has EMF Project, associated with the WHO.

As pointed out by Louis Slesin, one of the presentations at the recent GLORE 2020 meeting was from Emilie van Deventer of the EMF Project.

The last time I have met Emilie van Deventer was at the 2017 BioEM conference in Hangzhou, China. There we had two discussions, just us face-to-face. One of the issues that I tried, apparently unsuccessfully, to explain was the counter-productivity of the secretiveness of dealings by EMF Project. My opinion was that if EMF Project, in post-Repacholi-era, would like to build trust with general public, it should be more open and should regularly write what it is doing, including matters that are not yet ready and still are in preparation.

In discussion Emilie van Deventer clearly agreed with my points but, my attempt at increasing openness of EMF Project clearly failed. Since our meeting in Hangzhou conference in 2017, Emilie van Deventer, either on her own or with someone’s advice, has stopped to respond to my messages and inquiries.

Information that I have been inquiring, with Emilie van Deventer, was who are the experts performing systematic reviews and who made selection or who approved certain applicants and on what basis. Unfortunately, this information is shrouded in secrecy even though it is well known that selection of experts has huge impact on the outcome of the systematic reviews. The outcome, that will not only impact telecoms and governments but will also impact the general public.

The presentation of Emilie van Deventer at the GALORE 2020 meeting was very general and did not provide any meaningful details. It is still not known who and how and by whom was approved as expert for systematic reviews. Nothing meaningful was revealed.

However, while the systematic reviews will be published only in 2022, EMF Project has already, in secrecy, scientifically revised own opinion on EMF and health, including 5G.

According to the newest (February 2020) opinion of the EMF Project on the health risks of EMF, including 5G [emphasis added DL]:

“…To date, and after much research performed, no adverse health effect has been causally linked with exposure to wireless technologies. Health-related conclusions are drawn from studies performed across the entire radio spectrum but, so far, only a few studies have been carried out at the frequencies to be used by 5G.

Tissue heating is the main mechanism of interaction between radiofrequency fields and the human body. Radiofrequency exposure levels from current technologies result in negligible temperature rise in the human body.

As the frequency increases, there is less penetration into the body tissues and absorption of the energy becomes more confined to the surface of the body (skin and eye). Provided that the overall exposure remains below international guidelines, no consequences for public health are anticipated…”

So, the question is, who has performed review of science for the EMF Project to enable posting of the above information on EMF and health well ahead of the results from the systematic reviews? Or, did EMF Project used the 2020 recommendations of ICNIRP?

Hereby, I am asking directly Head of EMF Project, Dr. Emilie van Deventer, to respond where from this opinion on 5G and health originates?

As far as it is known, the last WHO/IARC evaluation of carcinogenicity of RF exposures was performed in 2011 and it classified this radiation as possibly carcinogenic for humans. The next review by IARC is expected in a couple of years time.

Between a Rock and a Hard Place – Dariusz Leszczynski