Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 48 Share on Twitter 1 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds   

WHO Ignores Questions by Scientists, Poised to Okay 5℃ Heating of Eyes by 5G

By       (Page 1 of 2 pages)   2 comments
Become a Premium Member Would you like to know how many people have read this article? Or how reputable the author is? Simply sign up for a Advocate premium membership and you'll automatically see this data on every article. Plus a lot more, too.
Author 11383
Message Patricia 0rmsby
Become a Fan
  (7 fans)

The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) released new guidelines for exposure to radiofrequency (RFR) and other non-ionizing radiation recently, raising its threshold for harm to 41 degrees C for local heating.

On page 7, it says,

"The present guidelines take a conservative approach and treat radiofrequency EMF-induced temperature rises of 5°C and 2°C, within Type-1 and Type-2 tissue, respectively, as operational adverse health effect thresholds for local exposure."

Type-1 tissues are defined as "all tissues in the upper arm, forearm, hand, thigh, leg, foot, pinna and the cornea, anterior chamber and iris of the eye, epidermal, dermal, fat, muscle, and bone tissue."

Type-2 tissues are defined as "all tissues in the head, eye, abdomen, back, thorax, and pelvis, excluding those defined as Type-1 tissue."

In other words, the new guidelines claim that it is safe to raise the temperature of shallower parts of the eye by 5 degrees Celsius, and of the brain by 2 degrees Celsius. In ICNIRP's previous guidelines, the threshold for harm of the brain was deemed heating by 1 degree Celsius.

This is a shock to anyone aware of research on the biological effects of RFR, but not a surprise. It has been noted that for IoT to work as its planners and designers hope, ICNIRP's already controversial standards would need to be relaxed even further.

Despite criticisms that ICNIRP ignores any scientific evidence that would be awkward for the industries it represents, the WHO treats it as the official standard-setting body, and incorporates its views into its "factsheets" for the public, with no consideration of opposing viewpoints.

Last November, a letter questioning WHO's transparency and signed by 18 international experts on the biological effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) was sent to Dr. Va Deventer, team leader of the World Health Organization's Radiation Programme. To date there has been no reply says the letter's author (who has not responded to the author's request to release the letter or names of its signatories).

The letter asked five questions:

1) Who specifically selects the teams for the WHO EMF Project?

2) What are the criteria of selection?

3) Will industry funding of universities be stated on the conflict-of-interest (COI) forms? (A point often missed in COI forms, with one university cited being so heavily funded by telecommunications companies that it boasted its "affiliates share in it like an R&D arm.")

4) Which scientists wrote the factsheets for the WHO EMF Project, and what was the process for reaching the conclusions put forth in those factsheets? The following six online factsheets were listed as examples:

Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile phones (2014 revision)(with a photo of a child holding a cellphone)

Q&As on mobile phones and their base stations (2013)

Next Page  1  |  2

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).


Rate It | View Ratings

Patricia 0rmsby Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

The author has lived 35 years in Japan. She has also spent time in Siberia, where she led ecotours for Friends of the Earth Japan. She is fluent in Japanese and Russian, and also speaks Indonesian, Thai and Spanish. She loves nature and is an (more...)

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Confucianism and the Impact of Sociopathy, Part I

Complete Regulatory Failure of 5G

WHO Ignores Questions by Scientists, Poised to Okay 5℃ Heating of Eyes by 5G

Confucianism and the Impact of Sociopathy, Part III

Confucianism and the Impact of Sociopathy, Part II

What Can We Do to Fix America's Ghastly Health Care Train Wreck? Part 2

To View Comments or Join the Conversation: