Two politicians, members of the European Parliament, Klaus Buchner (@Dr_KlausBuchner) and Michele Rivasi (@MicheleRivasi) have published a report that critically analyzes the expertise and the independence of the ICNIRP – International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection:

The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection: Conflicts of interest, corporate capture and the push for 5G‘ (ICNIRP-report-FINAL-19-JUNE-2020‘)

Few quotes from the report (emphasis added DL):

“…The findings of this report (‘The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection: Conflicts of interest and the push for 5G’) give us an uncomfortable déjà-vu: many facts and processes that lead to the actual situation whereby European authorities – from the European Commission to most of the member states – simply close their eyes for real scientific facts and early warnings. We have seen exactly the same scenario in the debate on Tobacco, asbestos, climate change and pesticides….”

“…Also the Council of Europe adopted in May 2011 a strong resolution on “the potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment” in which it called upon governments to take all reasonable measures to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields and said about ICNIRP: “It is most curious, to say the least, that the applicable official threshold values for limiting the health impact of extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and high frequency waves were drawn up and proposed to international political institutions (WHO, European Commission, governments) by the ICNIRP, an NGO whose origin and structure are none too clear and which is furthermore suspected of having rather close links with the industries whose expansion is shaped by recommendations for maximum threshold values for the different frequencies of electromagnetic fields….”

“…ICNIRP presents itself, and is described by the European Commission and in the media, as an independent international commission that gives advice based on scientific evidence. We believe that there are various reasons to question this (self)-image…”

“…It seems that “a closed circle of like-minded scientists” has turned ICNIRP into a self-indulgent science club, with a lack of bio-medical expertise, as well as a lack of scientific expertise in specific risk assessments. Thereby, creating a situation which might easily lead to “tunnel-vision” in the organisation’s scope…”

“…That is the most important conclusion of this report: for really independent scientific advice we cannot rely on ICNIRP. The European Commission and national governments, from countries like Germany, should stop funding ICNIRP. It is high time that the European Commission creates a new, public and fully independent advisory council on non-ionizing radiation. The funds currently allocated to ICNIRP could be used to set up this new organisation. And given the overall rise in R&D funding via Horizon Europe, with a foreseen budget (for 2021-2027) of between 75 and 100 billion euros, funding should in no way constitute an insurmountable hurdle to setting up this new, truly independent, body…”

The report extensively quotes various critical of ICNIRP opinions that were available on internet for for years already (including numerous opinions expressed in this BRHP blog).

Will referring these critical of ICNIRP opinion in this report help to overcome the pressure of the telecom lobby?

Time will show but… I do not hold my breath, at least for now…

Between a Rock and a Hard Place – Dariusz Leszczynski