October 30, 2018
Truly Protective Limits
for Exposure to
(100 kHz to 300
ICNIRP's opinion and guidelines
and protect industry,
In order to protect the public and the environment from the known
harmful effects from electromagnetic fields (EMF) we ask
the United Nations, the World
Health Organization and all governments not to accept
the ICNIRP guidelines.
They are not
protective, rather they pose a serious risk to human health and
the environment since they allow harmful exposure to the world
population, including the most vulnerable, under the unscientific
pretext that they are "protective".
The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection
issued draft Guidelines on 11th July 2018 for limiting
exposure to electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (100 kHz
to 300 GHz). 1
These guidelines are
unscientific, obsolete and do not represent an objective evaluation
of the available science on effects from this form of radiation.
They ignore the vast amount of scientific findings that clearly and
convincingly show harmful effects at intensities well below ICNIRP
The guidelines are
inadequate to protect humans and the environment.
ICNIRP guidelines only protect against acute thermal effects from
very short and intense exposure.
The guidelines do not
protect against harmful effects from low-intensity and long-term
exposure, such as cancer, reproductive harm, or effects on the
nervous system, although these effects are convincingly shown to
appear from chronic exposure at intensities below ICNIRP limits.
In May, 2011, the World Health Organization's cancer agency, the
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that,
radiofrequency radiation in the frequency range 30 kHz–300 GHz is a
"possible" human carcinogen (Group 2B). 4
ICNIRP ignores this
important conclusion. On the contrary, in the past seven years, the
evidence base for carcinogenicity has increased substantially.
244 scientists state that ICNIRP guidelines are not protective
The ICNIRP opinion is not in line with that of the scientific
community that has published peer-reviewed research on EMF biologic
or health effects.
Since 2015, 244
scientists have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal
11 and are of the opinion that more protective EMF guidelines
than ICNIRP's are necessary to protect public health:
guidelines do not cover long-term exposure and low-intensity
effects (and)… are insufficient to protect public health"...
"Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF
affects living organisms at levels well below most international
and national guidelines.
harmful free radicals
and functional changes of the reproductive system
impacts on general well-being in humans
Damage goes well
beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful
effects to both plant and animal life."
mandate needs to be questioned
ICNIRP's mandate to issue exposure guidelines needs to be seriously
ICNIRP is not independent
of industry ties as it claims. 11,13 Its opinions are not
objective, not representative of the body of scientific evidence,
but are biased in favor of industry.
It is obvious from their
reluctance to consider scientific findings of harm that ICNIRP
protects industry, not the public health, nor the environment.
ICNIRP's first chairman and other experts have or have had financial
ties to the telecom, military and/or power industry. 12,15
Their first chairman managed to head the
WHO EMF project using WHO
as an umbrella to promote ICNIRP guidelines as the world standard.
That person was also
responsible for channeling funding from the telecom industry to the
WHO EMF project for several years. 13,14
protective guidelines are needed
We ask the United Nations, the World Health Organization, and all
governments to support the development and consideration of medical
guidelines,16 that are independent of conflict of
interests in terms of direct or indirect to industry, that
represent the state of medical science, and that are truly
The signatories to this call have signed as individuals, but that
does not necessarily mean that this represents the views of their
employers or the professional organizations they are affiliated
David O. Carpenter, MD, Director, Institute for Health and
the Environment, University at Albany, State University of
New York, USA
Lennart Hardell, MD, Ph.D, Department of Oncology,
University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden (retired), The
Environment and Cancer Research Foundation, Örebro, Sweden
M. Moskowitz, Ph.D. School of Public Health, University of
California, Berkeley, USA
Oberfeld, MD, Public Health Department, Salzburg Government,