Today morning, Oct. 18, 2022, I received message from Devra Davis with a surprising and puzzling subject line “Major New Paper by International Commission on Wireless Technology Presents Case For Revision of Human Exposure Limits“. The puzzling part was this ‘International Commission on Wireless Technology‘ that I never heard of… and for good reason.
This ‘International Commission on Wireless Technology‘ is in fact a new commission established in 2021 under the name of The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF).
The reason for e-mail from Devra Davis was that this new commission, ICBE-EMF, has published a paper “Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G“, that is in fact a comment (according to the journal website) that:
“is challenging the safety of current wireless exposure limits to radiofrequency radiation (RFR) and is calling for an independent evaluation.“
So far so good, as also I have, in my many writings (peer-reviewed and blogs) questioned the reliability of the current safety limits and called for re-evaluation of the ICNIRP safety guidelines. For example here, in my blog published on February 18, 2021: ‘Clear indication that ICNIRP review of science is skewed and should be independently validated‘, or in another blog published on December 10, 2020: ‘Leszczynski: Statement on the need for validation of ICNIRP’s review of science‘ with this image:
However, the look at the website of the ICBE-EMF was not anymore so good.
Firstly, the origin of the Commission:
“Founded in 2021, ICBE-EMF was commissioned by the advisors to the International EMF Scientist Appeal.“
Secondly, the Commissioners, the Executive Board, the Experts, and the Managers – we know many of them from the past attempts to challenge the hegemony of the ICNIRP and the IEEE-ICES, as participants of the the International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS), and its numerous ‘Resolutions‘, and the BioInitiative (I declined invitations and I was not involved in ICEMS or BioInitiative).
Thirdly, even that I agree with some of the scientific claims made by the ICBE-EMF in their comment-article, these are the same opinions and claims that were already published over the many years in a variety of peer-reviewed articles by numerous scientists, including myself, but – sadly – without any significant impact on ICNIRP or IEEE-ICES.
Why now, this new Commission would matter more?
- Because they mimic in their publication ICNIRP style of authorship and there are no individual scientists listed but the authorship is on the behalf of ICBE-EMF?
- Because the website mimic ICNIRP website?
- Because they published a fact sheet, like the WHO?
Sorry, but I don’t “buy it”.
Even though they are clearly more efficient administratively (website, press release) than the earlier attempts by ICEMS and BioInitiative, what matters in the end is not only the science but also who is backing it.
ICNIRP and IEEE-ICES have very powerful and influential backers from the industry. Hence, these groups are very influential with the WHO and with the Governments
How about ICBE-EMF? Who is backing it? Who is funding it? Many questions – time will tell the answers, hopefully.
To me the ICBE-EMF looks like an “old guard” of the same scientific experts “re-packaged” under a new, more flashy name and website.
Why now ICNIRP/IEEE-ICES or WHO would listen to ICBE-EMF science? The simple answer is – they will not. I am pessimist.
In my opinion this is not what we need. We don’t need “new” Commission. We need consensus re-evaluation of the ICNIRP/IEEE-ICES safety guidelines and safety limits as I stated above. We need a consensus debate, inclusive of diverse view points and opinions, that would assure that the safety guidelines and safety limits are indeed safe.
Such consensus debate is possible. The proof of it is the 2011 IARC evaluation of the carcinogenicity of the RF-EMF, where the Working Group of the invited scientists included a large diversity of scientific opinions.
This is what we need – a serious consensus debate that would assure the reliability of the safety guidelines and safety limits based on scientific evidence and not on assumptions.
