ICNIRP EMF exposure guidelines to be revised
FYI, and please share with others not yet on my new computer's list.
I wonder whether regulatory agencies should be advised to wait with their decisions on pending and near future applications of power lines and cell towers until the out come of the EMF Exposure Guidelines revision.
Comments?
Thanks, Hans.
Hans Karow
Coalition to Reduce Electropollution (CORE)
1215 Poplar Grove Road
PENTICTON, BC, V2A 8T6, CANADA
E-mail: hkarow@shaw.ca
-----Original Message-----
From: Gunde Ziegelberger
GZiegelberger@bfs.de
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 8:08 AM
To: hans karow Subject:
Re: EMF exposure guidelines
Dear Mr. Karow,
thanks for contacting ICNIRP regarding your health concerns.
1. Yes, ICNIRP has began the process to revise the exposure guidelines for static and also for low frequency fields. As you might be aware, ICNIRP´s guidelines for limiting exposure to fields up to 300 GHz are based on the scientific knowledge of the years 1997/1998. Research has been going on since then and ICNIRP has issued an in depth review of the scientific evidence concerning the relevance of low frequency electric and magnetic fields for human health (2003). The WHO is going to publish an Environmental Health Criteria Document on this topic in 2006. In view of new resaerch data and their reviews, the ICNIRP guidelines will be revisited. The process will not be finalized before the end of the year.
2. and 3. I could not open the ppt. presentation by Dr. Havas, but according to the title I suggest, that it deals with the inconsistency between the known biophysical effects of low frequency fields and the results from experimental studies on one hand, and the epidemiologic results on childhood leukaemia on the other hand. Also this apparent conflict will be addressed during the revision process.
I hope, I could provide you with the information you have been looking for.
Sincerely,
Gunde Ziegelberger
Dr. Gunde Ziegelberger
ICNIRP Scientific Secretary
c/o Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz
Ingolstädter Landstr. 1
D-85764 Neuherberg/Oberschleißheim
E-Mail: G.Ziegelberger@icnirp.org
Tel.: ++49-1888-333-2142
hans karow wrote:
Dear Dr. Ziegelberger,
With regards of my questions (please see below) Dr. Ahlbom referred me to your office.
May I kindly ask to please respond to my three questions as stated below.
Thank, you!
Mit freundlichen Gruessen,
Hans Karow
1215 Poplar Grove Road
Penticton, BC, V2A 8T6, Canada
E-mail: hkarow@shaw.ca
From: Anders Ahlbom
anders.ahlbom@ki.se
Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 11:31 PM
To: 'hans karow'
Subject: SV: EMF exposure guidelines
To get the official ICNIRP view I suggest to contact the secretariat in Munich. Gunde Ziegelberg is the scientific secretary.
Best wishes,
Anders Ahlbom
Please note new e-mail below:
Anders Ahlbom
Office: + 46 8 5248 74 70; Mobile + 46 70 324 74 70
e-mail: anders.ahlbom@ki.se
_____
Från: hans karow
hkarow@shaw.ca
Skickat: den 1 april 2006 20:07
Till: 'Anders Ahlbom'
Kopia: Magda Havas
Ämne: EMF exposure guidelines
Dear Dr. Ahlbom,
1. During the oral hearing (as indicated below), while cross-examining industry consultant Dr. William Bailey/Exponent, New York, I learned that ICNIRP just had a meeting in Berlin/Germany.
Could you please inform, whether the exposure EMF guidelines will be reviewed in the near future and the guidelines possibly adjusted?
2. May I kindly ask you whether you agree with the statements presented by Dr. Magda Havas at a Hydro One Workshop on >EMFs, Markham Ontario, June 16, 2004, “ Electromagnetic Fields & Cancers: Children at risk with residential and school exposure to EMFs” source:
http://www.stop-emf.ca/hydroone/PresentationEMFHydro_files/frame.htm
If there is anything you do not agree with, could you please state where and why?
3. A particular question would be: do you agree with slide 12, “Exposure Guidelines vs Effects” ?
Thank you for taking the time to respond please,
Hans Karow.
Informant: Eileen O'Connor
--------
I have read nothing in this story to suggest the limits are to be revised downwards, in fact the questions were deliberatly dodged, indeed we know that Repacholi is more interested in refuting the effects of EMR and pointing the finger of blame as being psychological.
Phil Watts
From Mast Sanity/Mast Network
--------
Dear Dr. Gunde Ziegelberger,
This is a reminder about my email from the 12.4.06 with regard to the ICNIRP funding.
Thanks Iris.
----- ----- Original Message -----
From: Iris Atzmon
To: GZiegelberger@bfs.de
Cc: Hans Karow
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 11:28 PM
Subject: Re: ICNIRP EMF exposure guidelines to be revised
Dear Dr. Gunde Ziegelberger:
I received the below interesting notice from Hans Karow in Cananda.
Since the ICNIRP is a central organiztion to public exposure to EMF-RF, I think the public has the right to know about the sources of the ICNIRP funding.
Who funds the ICNIRP?
Thank you very much in advance
Iris Atzmon
--------
Dear Gunde Ziegelberger
(please note that I put the references inside my text and then continue the text below the references, it is just for the convenience of the reader to see directly what I mean).
Thank you very much for your detailed answer. However, I find some contradictions inside your text. I don't know who funds IRPA, but I do know something about the WHO. In the ICNIRP sits a person from the WHO, who according to recent publication, receives from the cellular industry $150,000 a year + travel and meeting expenses. reference:
"We also know that he [Mike Repacholi] found a way to skirt the WHO rules that bar direct industry support -the mobile phone manufacturers have said that they provide him with $150,000 a year with additional money for meeting and travel expenses." http://www.microwavenews.com/fromthefield.html#whoottawa
Second, If the ICNIRP has contract with the WHO and you are now reviewing the EMF guidelines, it is relevant to note that the person who is in charge of the EMF- R at the WHO, invites the power industry for setting radiation exposure values. Reference: October 1, 2005 WHO and Electric Utilities: A Partnership on EMFs
http://www.microwavenews.com/fromthefield.html#partners
WHO Welcomes Electric Utility Industry To Key EMF Meeting, Bars the Press September 22, 2005
http://www.microwavenews.com/fromthefield.html#whoehc
and so to say that the funding doesn't come from the industry is not accurate beucause the WHO is not really a "firewall" between the ICNIRP and the industry.
Third, INTERPHONE researchers are funded by the industry and are at the same time at the ICNIRP - this can point to conflict of interest if we assume that the ICNIRP is indeed not industry-dependent. I am aware that the International Union against cancer is a firewall but I think it is more of a semantic thing, the funding comes from the industry no matter what firewalls are put for public image, and we all saw the consequence of this in two TV programmes:
This was on a TV programme at Friday night in Israel and an abstract was published in the newspaper Haaretz:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=631007
This was a TV programme in Canada http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/health/iarc/pageone.html
I am not writing this to bother you, but because we the citizens are exposed to radiation according to your decisions, and the above issue should not be taken lightly, I ask for your direct response for the above issue. I write many copies because I want to make sure that the maximum number of people are invloved in this - because if someone gets the smallest scratch from any conflict of interests which is responsible for public health & exposure - then it should be brought to anyone's attention. This is a VERY sensitive issue because it concerns 2 billion people, and every suspicion for fraud has huge consequences. Only yesterday we read in the newspaper that Disney company representaive said: "Disney has said that parents believe the benefits of being able to reach a child at any time are more important than any possible health risks'
Source: Daily Mail Date: 28/04/2006
Thanks in advance Iris.
----- Original Message -----
From: Gunde Ziegelberger GZiegelberger@bfs.de
To: Iris Atzmon atzmonh@bezeqint.net
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 9:51 AM
Subject: Re: ICNIRP
Dear Iris Atzmon,
Thank you for your interest in ICNIRP's work.
ICNIRP is a non-profit making organisation legally registered and controlled as such in Germany (i.e., eingetragener Verein, e.V). Its income derives from various sources with the exception of industry. The regular income that ICNIRP receives is an annual grant from IRPA. It also receives support from national governments, most notably from the German Environment Ministry for ICNIRP's Scientific Secretariat based in Munich. All other income is generated by the Commission through contract work (to the exclusion of any work for industry), organisation of scientific meetings and sales of its scientific publications. Currently, ICNIRP's contract income comes mainly from the WHO (to carry out scientific reviews on biological effects and health consequences of low and high frequency fields) and the European Commission.
We also regard this question as being of public interest and have therefore published this information on our website
( http://www.icnirp.org/what.htm ), which we invite you to visit for further details on the functioning of ICNIRP.
Sincerely, Gunde Ziegelberger
Dr. Gunde Ziegelberger ICNIRP Scientific Secretary c/o Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz Ingolstädter Landstr. 1 D-85764 Neuherberg/Oberschleißheim
E-Mail: G.Ziegelberger@icnirp.org
Tel.: ++49-1888-333-2142
--------
Dear Gunde:
On the 29.4.06 I sent you an email and requested your direct reponse with regard to the contect published in Microwave News. You didn't reply to me. I don't know how you view this, but to my understanding, as an organization that receives public importance and leads the international policy on EMF-R, the most ethical thing would be to adress this evidence urgently and not ignore it. Ethics is part of science isn't it?
You wrote me that ICNIRP is scientific and has no industry influence whatsoever, you also directed me to your website which presents the same thing. Then I presented you what everybody can read on MWN about bribe, about clear cooperation with the industry: 6 members of the ICNIRP are in the WHO task group meeting with the industry and with the person who is accused in bribe on the website- to set health standards- together. This is direct industry influence. I think you tried to mislead me, but not only me. You expect the public to relate to the ICNIRP as a scientific body. Activists write you politely questions, and give importance to your views on non-ionizing radiation, they feel commited to your guidance, but I don't see the same commitment from the ICNIRP to explain to to activists, to scientists, and others who are exposed according to your guidelines, about this contradiction.
Sincerely
Iris Atzmon.
--------
----- Original Message -----
From: Karine Chabrel
To: Iris Atzmon
Cc: Gunde Ziegelberger
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 12:02 PM
Subject: your request of information
Dear Iris Atzmon,
thank you for sending us further information published in the press
(Microwave News) about the World Health Organization. This information reached us also through the Microwave Newsletter, which we regularly receive. However, we regard checking the reliability and accuracy of any press release as being a matter outside of ICNIRP's scope but take note of the information.
You imply that the WHO and IARC are under industry influence. While ICNIRP is not qualified to control the functioning of any international public organization, it is extremely attentive to the correctness and independency of its partners. We are aware that both WHO and IARC follow extremely rigorous codes of behaviour, on which their international trust is based, that ICNIRP shares. As regards the behaviour of the Commission members, let me emphasize that ICNIRP is fully aware of its high responsibility, including the need of independency. Any possible conflict of interest must be openly declared and is discussed within and decided by the Commission.
Best regards,
Dr. Gunde Ziegelberger
Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz
Arbeitsgruppe Nichtionisierende Strahlung
Ingolstädter Landstr. 1
D-85764 Neuherberg/Oberschleißheim
E-Mail: GZiegelberger@BfS.de
Tel.: 01888/333-2142
Dear Dr. Gunde,
Thanks for your reply. You write that the MWN report is beyond the ICNIRP's scope, and that ICNIRP members are indepenent. But how can you say this - when the ICNIRP member himself is the one who is involved so much with the industry? It proves that you actually don't make sure of the independence of ICNIRP members: If you are really independent, why did you not publish a reservation from Repacholi's corruption? Instead, 6 ICNIRP members agreed to sit with the industry to form health standards. Don't you think it's a contradiction to what you wrote below? Do you not care about the negative publicity Microwave News gives you? it caused you a lot of damage in the public's eye. How is it that ICNIRP commission members, agreed to set standard with the industry: why did the ICNIRP not resist this biased process if they are independent?
For your information, I attach a new doctorat paper that was published recently. It documents that ICNIRP members cooperate with the WHO corruption.
Omega see "Conflict of Interest and Bias in Health Advisory Committees: A case study of the WHO’s EMF Task Group" under:
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/2310876/
I am not your advocate, but I think you are in a very dangerous route becuase people around here see what is going on, no matter how much you want to protect your organization, and I understand your interest to protect it, but it does not stand in the same line of what happens in reality. It damages your integrity as an organization but more as a person who is responsible to say certain things even when the facts speak differently.
I wish you best regards
Iris.
For your information, the israeli Env. ministry head of radiation department, Dr. Stelian Galberg, wrote that the WHO has collected 250 million dollars in 10 years for research funding on EMR. What exactly they did with the money is not clear. The israeil Env. ministry contributes $10,000 a year to the WHO. "The support received by ICNIRP from the International Radiation Protection Association, the World Health Organization, and the French, German, Korean, and Swiss Governments is gratefully acknowledged".
Iris Atzmon
--------
ICNIRP reviewing guidlines for exposure to EMR
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/1864548/
Review of ICNIRP EMF exposure guidelines
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/2253406/
WHO, EMF, Electromagnetic Radiation and Mobile Phones
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1194586/
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=ICNIRP
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=ICNIRP
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Ziegelberger
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Repacholi
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Repacholi
I wonder whether regulatory agencies should be advised to wait with their decisions on pending and near future applications of power lines and cell towers until the out come of the EMF Exposure Guidelines revision.
Comments?
Thanks, Hans.
Hans Karow
Coalition to Reduce Electropollution (CORE)
1215 Poplar Grove Road
PENTICTON, BC, V2A 8T6, CANADA
E-mail: hkarow@shaw.ca
-----Original Message-----
From: Gunde Ziegelberger
GZiegelberger@bfs.de
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 8:08 AM
To: hans karow Subject:
Re: EMF exposure guidelines
Dear Mr. Karow,
thanks for contacting ICNIRP regarding your health concerns.
1. Yes, ICNIRP has began the process to revise the exposure guidelines for static and also for low frequency fields. As you might be aware, ICNIRP´s guidelines for limiting exposure to fields up to 300 GHz are based on the scientific knowledge of the years 1997/1998. Research has been going on since then and ICNIRP has issued an in depth review of the scientific evidence concerning the relevance of low frequency electric and magnetic fields for human health (2003). The WHO is going to publish an Environmental Health Criteria Document on this topic in 2006. In view of new resaerch data and their reviews, the ICNIRP guidelines will be revisited. The process will not be finalized before the end of the year.
2. and 3. I could not open the ppt. presentation by Dr. Havas, but according to the title I suggest, that it deals with the inconsistency between the known biophysical effects of low frequency fields and the results from experimental studies on one hand, and the epidemiologic results on childhood leukaemia on the other hand. Also this apparent conflict will be addressed during the revision process.
I hope, I could provide you with the information you have been looking for.
Sincerely,
Gunde Ziegelberger
Dr. Gunde Ziegelberger
ICNIRP Scientific Secretary
c/o Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz
Ingolstädter Landstr. 1
D-85764 Neuherberg/Oberschleißheim
E-Mail: G.Ziegelberger@icnirp.org
Tel.: ++49-1888-333-2142
hans karow wrote:
Dear Dr. Ziegelberger,
With regards of my questions (please see below) Dr. Ahlbom referred me to your office.
May I kindly ask to please respond to my three questions as stated below.
Thank, you!
Mit freundlichen Gruessen,
Hans Karow
1215 Poplar Grove Road
Penticton, BC, V2A 8T6, Canada
E-mail: hkarow@shaw.ca
From: Anders Ahlbom
anders.ahlbom@ki.se
Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 11:31 PM
To: 'hans karow'
Subject: SV: EMF exposure guidelines
To get the official ICNIRP view I suggest to contact the secretariat in Munich. Gunde Ziegelberg is the scientific secretary.
Best wishes,
Anders Ahlbom
Please note new e-mail below:
Anders Ahlbom
Office: + 46 8 5248 74 70; Mobile + 46 70 324 74 70
e-mail: anders.ahlbom@ki.se
_____
Från: hans karow
hkarow@shaw.ca
Skickat: den 1 april 2006 20:07
Till: 'Anders Ahlbom'
Kopia: Magda Havas
Ämne: EMF exposure guidelines
Dear Dr. Ahlbom,
1. During the oral hearing (as indicated below), while cross-examining industry consultant Dr. William Bailey/Exponent, New York, I learned that ICNIRP just had a meeting in Berlin/Germany.
Could you please inform, whether the exposure EMF guidelines will be reviewed in the near future and the guidelines possibly adjusted?
2. May I kindly ask you whether you agree with the statements presented by Dr. Magda Havas at a Hydro One Workshop on >EMFs, Markham Ontario, June 16, 2004, “ Electromagnetic Fields & Cancers: Children at risk with residential and school exposure to EMFs” source:
http://www.stop-emf.ca/hydroone/PresentationEMFHydro_files/frame.htm
If there is anything you do not agree with, could you please state where and why?
3. A particular question would be: do you agree with slide 12, “Exposure Guidelines vs Effects” ?
Thank you for taking the time to respond please,
Hans Karow.
Informant: Eileen O'Connor
--------
I have read nothing in this story to suggest the limits are to be revised downwards, in fact the questions were deliberatly dodged, indeed we know that Repacholi is more interested in refuting the effects of EMR and pointing the finger of blame as being psychological.
Phil Watts
From Mast Sanity/Mast Network
--------
Dear Dr. Gunde Ziegelberger,
This is a reminder about my email from the 12.4.06 with regard to the ICNIRP funding.
Thanks Iris.
----- ----- Original Message -----
From: Iris Atzmon
To: GZiegelberger@bfs.de
Cc: Hans Karow
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 11:28 PM
Subject: Re: ICNIRP EMF exposure guidelines to be revised
Dear Dr. Gunde Ziegelberger:
I received the below interesting notice from Hans Karow in Cananda.
Since the ICNIRP is a central organiztion to public exposure to EMF-RF, I think the public has the right to know about the sources of the ICNIRP funding.
Who funds the ICNIRP?
Thank you very much in advance
Iris Atzmon
--------
Dear Gunde Ziegelberger
(please note that I put the references inside my text and then continue the text below the references, it is just for the convenience of the reader to see directly what I mean).
Thank you very much for your detailed answer. However, I find some contradictions inside your text. I don't know who funds IRPA, but I do know something about the WHO. In the ICNIRP sits a person from the WHO, who according to recent publication, receives from the cellular industry $150,000 a year + travel and meeting expenses. reference:
"We also know that he [Mike Repacholi] found a way to skirt the WHO rules that bar direct industry support -the mobile phone manufacturers have said that they provide him with $150,000 a year with additional money for meeting and travel expenses." http://www.microwavenews.com/fromthefield.html#whoottawa
Second, If the ICNIRP has contract with the WHO and you are now reviewing the EMF guidelines, it is relevant to note that the person who is in charge of the EMF- R at the WHO, invites the power industry for setting radiation exposure values. Reference: October 1, 2005 WHO and Electric Utilities: A Partnership on EMFs
http://www.microwavenews.com/fromthefield.html#partners
WHO Welcomes Electric Utility Industry To Key EMF Meeting, Bars the Press September 22, 2005
http://www.microwavenews.com/fromthefield.html#whoehc
and so to say that the funding doesn't come from the industry is not accurate beucause the WHO is not really a "firewall" between the ICNIRP and the industry.
Third, INTERPHONE researchers are funded by the industry and are at the same time at the ICNIRP - this can point to conflict of interest if we assume that the ICNIRP is indeed not industry-dependent. I am aware that the International Union against cancer is a firewall but I think it is more of a semantic thing, the funding comes from the industry no matter what firewalls are put for public image, and we all saw the consequence of this in two TV programmes:
This was on a TV programme at Friday night in Israel and an abstract was published in the newspaper Haaretz:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=631007
This was a TV programme in Canada http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/health/iarc/pageone.html
I am not writing this to bother you, but because we the citizens are exposed to radiation according to your decisions, and the above issue should not be taken lightly, I ask for your direct response for the above issue. I write many copies because I want to make sure that the maximum number of people are invloved in this - because if someone gets the smallest scratch from any conflict of interests which is responsible for public health & exposure - then it should be brought to anyone's attention. This is a VERY sensitive issue because it concerns 2 billion people, and every suspicion for fraud has huge consequences. Only yesterday we read in the newspaper that Disney company representaive said: "Disney has said that parents believe the benefits of being able to reach a child at any time are more important than any possible health risks'
Source: Daily Mail Date: 28/04/2006
Thanks in advance Iris.
----- Original Message -----
From: Gunde Ziegelberger GZiegelberger@bfs.de
To: Iris Atzmon atzmonh@bezeqint.net
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 9:51 AM
Subject: Re: ICNIRP
Dear Iris Atzmon,
Thank you for your interest in ICNIRP's work.
ICNIRP is a non-profit making organisation legally registered and controlled as such in Germany (i.e., eingetragener Verein, e.V). Its income derives from various sources with the exception of industry. The regular income that ICNIRP receives is an annual grant from IRPA. It also receives support from national governments, most notably from the German Environment Ministry for ICNIRP's Scientific Secretariat based in Munich. All other income is generated by the Commission through contract work (to the exclusion of any work for industry), organisation of scientific meetings and sales of its scientific publications. Currently, ICNIRP's contract income comes mainly from the WHO (to carry out scientific reviews on biological effects and health consequences of low and high frequency fields) and the European Commission.
We also regard this question as being of public interest and have therefore published this information on our website
( http://www.icnirp.org/what.htm ), which we invite you to visit for further details on the functioning of ICNIRP.
Sincerely, Gunde Ziegelberger
Dr. Gunde Ziegelberger ICNIRP Scientific Secretary c/o Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz Ingolstädter Landstr. 1 D-85764 Neuherberg/Oberschleißheim
E-Mail: G.Ziegelberger@icnirp.org
Tel.: ++49-1888-333-2142
--------
Dear Gunde:
On the 29.4.06 I sent you an email and requested your direct reponse with regard to the contect published in Microwave News. You didn't reply to me. I don't know how you view this, but to my understanding, as an organization that receives public importance and leads the international policy on EMF-R, the most ethical thing would be to adress this evidence urgently and not ignore it. Ethics is part of science isn't it?
You wrote me that ICNIRP is scientific and has no industry influence whatsoever, you also directed me to your website which presents the same thing. Then I presented you what everybody can read on MWN about bribe, about clear cooperation with the industry: 6 members of the ICNIRP are in the WHO task group meeting with the industry and with the person who is accused in bribe on the website- to set health standards- together. This is direct industry influence. I think you tried to mislead me, but not only me. You expect the public to relate to the ICNIRP as a scientific body. Activists write you politely questions, and give importance to your views on non-ionizing radiation, they feel commited to your guidance, but I don't see the same commitment from the ICNIRP to explain to to activists, to scientists, and others who are exposed according to your guidelines, about this contradiction.
Sincerely
Iris Atzmon.
--------
----- Original Message -----
From: Karine Chabrel
To: Iris Atzmon
Cc: Gunde Ziegelberger
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 12:02 PM
Subject: your request of information
Dear Iris Atzmon,
thank you for sending us further information published in the press
(Microwave News) about the World Health Organization. This information reached us also through the Microwave Newsletter, which we regularly receive. However, we regard checking the reliability and accuracy of any press release as being a matter outside of ICNIRP's scope but take note of the information.
You imply that the WHO and IARC are under industry influence. While ICNIRP is not qualified to control the functioning of any international public organization, it is extremely attentive to the correctness and independency of its partners. We are aware that both WHO and IARC follow extremely rigorous codes of behaviour, on which their international trust is based, that ICNIRP shares. As regards the behaviour of the Commission members, let me emphasize that ICNIRP is fully aware of its high responsibility, including the need of independency. Any possible conflict of interest must be openly declared and is discussed within and decided by the Commission.
Best regards,
Dr. Gunde Ziegelberger
Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz
Arbeitsgruppe Nichtionisierende Strahlung
Ingolstädter Landstr. 1
D-85764 Neuherberg/Oberschleißheim
E-Mail: GZiegelberger@BfS.de
Tel.: 01888/333-2142
Dear Dr. Gunde,
Thanks for your reply. You write that the MWN report is beyond the ICNIRP's scope, and that ICNIRP members are indepenent. But how can you say this - when the ICNIRP member himself is the one who is involved so much with the industry? It proves that you actually don't make sure of the independence of ICNIRP members: If you are really independent, why did you not publish a reservation from Repacholi's corruption? Instead, 6 ICNIRP members agreed to sit with the industry to form health standards. Don't you think it's a contradiction to what you wrote below? Do you not care about the negative publicity Microwave News gives you? it caused you a lot of damage in the public's eye. How is it that ICNIRP commission members, agreed to set standard with the industry: why did the ICNIRP not resist this biased process if they are independent?
For your information, I attach a new doctorat paper that was published recently. It documents that ICNIRP members cooperate with the WHO corruption.
Omega see "Conflict of Interest and Bias in Health Advisory Committees: A case study of the WHO’s EMF Task Group" under:
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/2310876/
I am not your advocate, but I think you are in a very dangerous route becuase people around here see what is going on, no matter how much you want to protect your organization, and I understand your interest to protect it, but it does not stand in the same line of what happens in reality. It damages your integrity as an organization but more as a person who is responsible to say certain things even when the facts speak differently.
I wish you best regards
Iris.
For your information, the israeli Env. ministry head of radiation department, Dr. Stelian Galberg, wrote that the WHO has collected 250 million dollars in 10 years for research funding on EMR. What exactly they did with the money is not clear. The israeil Env. ministry contributes $10,000 a year to the WHO. "The support received by ICNIRP from the International Radiation Protection Association, the World Health Organization, and the French, German, Korean, and Swiss Governments is gratefully acknowledged".
Iris Atzmon
--------
ICNIRP reviewing guidlines for exposure to EMR
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/1864548/
Review of ICNIRP EMF exposure guidelines
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/2253406/
WHO, EMF, Electromagnetic Radiation and Mobile Phones
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1194586/
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=ICNIRP
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=ICNIRP
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Ziegelberger
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Repacholi
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Repacholi
rudkla - 12. Apr, 23:59
