On ICNIRP / Martin Röösli

Health risks from RF radiation, including 5G, should be assessed by experts with no conflicts of interest - by Professor Lennart Hardell

Health risks from radiofrequency radiation, including 5G, should be assessed by experts with no conflicts of interest

PDF Version


The Environment and Cancer Research Foundation, SE-702 17 Örebro, Sweden

Received April 8, 2020; Accepted June 19, 2020

DOI: 10.3892/ol.2020.11876


In conclusion, it is important that all experts evaluating

scientific evidence and assessing health risks from RF radiation do not have COIs or bias. Being a member of ICNIRP and

being funded by the industry directly, or through an industryfunded foundation, constitute clear COIs. Furthermore, it is

recommended that the interpretation of results from studies on

health effects of RF radiation should take sponsorship from the

telecom or other industry into account. It is concluded that the

ICNIRP has failed to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of

health risks associated with RF radiation. The latest ICNIRP

publication cannot be used for guidelines on this exposure.


The authors would like to thank Mr. Reza Ganjavi for valuable


Rodney Croft, A PSYCHOLOGIST, is heading ICNIRP. Can't get any more tragic!

Rodney Croft, A PSYCHOLOGIST, is heading ICNIRP. Can't get any more tragic!


Dear Dr. Croft

I didn't realize you're the new Chairman of ICNIRP! What a job! Condolences. Spoon feeding evil forces to strengthen them to continue to lie to public and damage the public's DNA, so they make money! Do you let you kids sleep next to a WiFi router at night? If you do, you're utterly stupid and reckless. If you don't, then how is it that it's ok for others' kids to sleep next to a WiFi router since your evil ICNIRP says that's perfectly ok, and the entire cartel that ICNIRP is at the heart of it tells people the same thing and says ICNIRP said it's ok.

I don't know how you sleep at night knowing that you're propagating use of a technology that has not been shown to be safe biologically. Isn't it funny that it's physicists, and now in your case, a psychologist who are put in charge of being industry sympathizers. Real medical doctors and those who have credentials in biology and without conflict of interest, intellectual or financial, would pay attention to truth. Did you know the Philosophy in your PhD in Psychology means love of truth/wisdom? Are you not troubled by all the lies that the industry your cherish and support are telling people?

Funny that a psychologist is put at the head of ICNIRP. I wonder. Is this so that ICNIRP would be best fit to help the industry manipulate people's minds as it has been doing by systemic lies. Your predecessor recently told PBS a big fat lie. I hope at a minimum you have the integrity to speak the truth, and the integrity to seek truth, and integrity to pay attention to thousands of studies that show RF-EMF exposure has biological effect which is entirely missing from your equations, and the integrity to demand an overhaul of the "standards" which are useless beyond ensuring you're not burned since DNA damage occurs at sub-thermal levels, and you should know that. And even more, the integrity to quit ICNIRP and demand it to be dissolved and replaced by an independent organization that's not being funded by pro-industry forces  as it is today.

Whole lot of things to think about Rodney Croft. The world has been pushed into chaos, including psychological chaos, apparently by the irresponsible proliferation of this unsafe technology, and ICNIRP is at the heart of it. Just look at the crazy news stories that have come out in the last 6 months and compare them to 2 years or 5 years ago. Think responsibility! You and I are here to help humanity not to help evil forced hurt them, which is exactly what being part of ICNIRP is, in  my opinion.

In this video I document an instance of the scandal ICNIRP is part of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cB02xHWLmco

I implore you to resign and make it known to the world that you've seen the light and stop helping the industry that's been systemically engaged in dishonest conduct. It's never too late. If you haven't seen the light, you know where to look. EMFscientist.org is a good start!


Reza Ganjavi, MBA


From: Réza Ganjavi

Sent: Thursday, 5 August 2021 8:54 AM

To: Christine McLoughlin <cfm@uow.edu.au>

Cc: ...

Subject: For Chancellor Christine McLoughlin about Rodney Croft's STRANGE role outside university life


To: Chancellor Christine McLoughlin, University of Wollongong, Australia

Dear Madam Chancellor

It's a shame that one of your professors in psychology has taken on a key post as the head of ICNIRP which is essentially an industry mouthpiece by having acted totally in concert with the wireless industry, sings their song, is extremely industry biased, is funded by industry leaning groups (majority of their funding comes from a German government unit that is in bed with the industry), and an organization that's on record for distorting real credible science in favor of industry.

It's also interesting that Mr. Croft seems to have taken a role as head of the pathetic ICNIRP, without being a medical doctor, biologist, or even a physicist. He's a psychologist. My only guess is as a psychologist he could help the industry refine its mass brain washing of people to believe a genotoxic radiation is safe!

I suggest Mr. Rodney Croft makes up his mind and quit his professorship job and work for the industry instead.

Professor Rodney Croft

Chairman, International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection

Australian Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research

School of Psychology | Faculty of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities

Illawarra Health & Medical Research Institute


If you like to learn more about the scandal ICNIRP is a central figure in, check my new video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cB02xHWLmco

Kind Regards

Reza Ganjavi, MBA





Dear Reza,

What a great letter.  Let us know if there was any effect.

<from a top scientist>



Dear Reza,


Thank you for your efforts towards protection of public health. I hope you will get a reply from the VC.


<from a professor>


Dear Reza


Thank you for your email.


On behalf of the Chancellor, I acknowledge receipt of your email received on Thursday 5 August 2021.


A formal response will be provided in due course.


Kind regards, Amber


Amber Croft

Senior Executive Assistant for the Vice-Chancellor’s Unit and the Office of the Chancellor

Level 4, Building 36, University of Wollongong NSW 2522 Australia

T (+61) 2 4221 3933 | M (+61) 4 3272 7382


21 October 2021

Dear Madam Chancellor

I received the following message from an assistant, Ms. Frigo:  <Paragraph Snipped> which essentially doesn't say much except that you received my message.

A number of senior and highly respectable academicians have expressed interest in my email to you because they share my concerns about Rodney Croft's engagement and leadership of a majorly scandalous organization that ICNIRP is, and its huge negative impact on the world, and all living being's well-being by enabling the reckless proliferation of genotoxic radiation. If you truly abide by what you said, i.e., "in fact encourage, robust academic debate", why not encourage Rodney Croft to participate in a zoom call with a panel of academicians in a debate around ICNIRP. Historically ICNIRP leaders have dodged such a debate because they've been pushing a wicked industry's agenda under the guise of being neutral while the large majority of their funding comes from an extremely industry-biased entity.

I hereby formally invite you, Dr. Croft to a debate with a few academicians. Please inform me of your acceptance and we can work out the details (time, formal, participants).

Many thanks and best regards

Reza Ganjavi



According to attorneys, the main issue with ICNIRP is its information is being used to set health and safety standards and they are not a health and safety body and none of them have health and safety expertise which is unethical. 

They know that their information is being used for this purpose and they are doing nothing to stop it other than encourage it.  

I think you sent an earlier email that stated that this new member of ICNIRP has a background in psychology not health and safety so contacting his licensing board or professional organization regarding him working outside of his expertise should be effective in them pulling his license if he has one or sanctioning and fining him within their authority. 

This would also be the basis for the University he is associated with to sanction, fine and otherwise penalize him given their authority. 



It became evident in this email thread with the highly respected Professor Dr. Hardell (MD, PhD) that Martin Roosli is unable and unqualified (and unwilling) to grasp real medical science. The wicked, evil ICNIRP Cartel is used to denying truth. It's used to twisting truth. It's used to lying. It's used to manipulating facts in favor of the industry. It's used to helping promote industry propaganda. But I am putting the Legal Opinion below in your face. You can't say you didn't know. I envisage some day, just as the Big Tobacco criminals had to face justice, Big Wireless and its pushers will face justice.

The Legal Opinion is from Denmark -- a very thorough, well done document. Conclusion is everything the disgraceful ICNIRP Cartel doesn't want to hear.

Martin Roosli's buddy, Eric van Rogen (the head of the ICNIRP evil empire), and Alexander Reichenbach from BAFU are copied. ICNIRP should close its doors and stop its shameful existence, or change its deceptive name to Wireless Industry Interest Group. Don't keep lying to people that you are objective. Your flawed statistics don't count any more. You're exposed by real scientists and doctors and no matter how powerful the industry (which you seem to sucker up to and bat for) -- all their might, power and money will not be able to quash the light of truth.

The conclusion from the Danish document fits perfectly into the catastrophes committed by Swiss Federal Government and BAFU -- e.g., collusion with the industry, auction of 5G licenses, blind following of ICNIRP's pro-industry "standards" -- (misuse of the word -- we should just call them scandalous numbers used to cover up for a morally corrupt industry which knows biological harm but lies to people about matters of public health) -- and ruining our beautiful country with 4G antenna, and now 5G, and not doing their job in properly REGULATING the industry and its highly polluting, biologically damaging wireless "paraphernalia".

In the last 5 years, Swiss cities have become unbearable microwave ovens which are slowly damaging all life, radiating at 50 to 300x real safe limits). Ask your buddies Swisscom: they know, as y'all know. I bet none of you are stupid enough to sit next to a WiFi router, use Bluetooth headsets, or tolerate a cell tower near your home -- but it's ok for others!

Let's call a spade a spade. It's on thing to be part of an evil empire (intentionally or out of ignorance, small-mindedness, stupidity), it's another thing to pretend you're innocent and sincerely believe the garbage you feed people. Don't try to sugar coat it for God's sake. Speaking of God, you guys are clearly on the dark, evil side of the equation. Anybody who cared about goodness, God, well-being, health, truth, decency, morality and ethics, wouldn't go around misinforming others about risks of RF-EMF.

Conclusion and final remarks from Danish Legal Assessment of 5G [exactly applies to Switzerland]

It is the conclusion of this legal opinion that establishing and activating a 5G-network, as it is currently described, would be in contravention of current human and environmental laws enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, EU regulations, and the Bern- and Bonn-conventions.

The reason is the very significant body of scientific documentation available, showing that radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation is harmful and dangerous to the health of humans (particularly children), animals and plants.

This also applies when the radiation remains within the limits recommended by ICNIRP and currently used in Denmark as well as broadly within the EU.

The exact damaging effects to health from 5G are not known, since the system is not exactly defined, though given the background of the current research on the effects of radiofrequent electromagnetic radiation on, e.g. the bodies of humans and animals, including the provocation of DNA damage and oxidative stress, it appears highly unlikely that it would not lead to similar harm as the current systems, particularly since it is based on the same basic form of radiation.

The Danish state earns considerable amounts licensing the establishment and operation of the communications systems by, inter alia, auctioning off the frequency bands to telecommunications companies who then use the bands to generate billions of profit, which is then taxed.


Reza Ganjavi, MBA



German Government Is Behind This Disaster

German Government Is Behind This RF Disaster

Aside from funding ICNIRP, German government has been funding a man who's been relentlessly bashing credible studies that show harms from exposure to microwave radiation!!  When will you learn Germany?!? Shame on you?!? Isn't the human rights catastrophes you've done in modern history enough?!


Rich Rewards for Bad Behavior: Alexander Lerchl Has Received $5 Million in Research Grants from German Government. Alexander Lerchl’s bogus campaign against the REFLEX project and members of Hugo Rüdiger’s lab did nothing to harm his career. Just the opposite, Lerchl thrived as he gained stature and a succession of rich research grants from the German government.



German Court Moves To Silence Relentless Critic of RF DNA Studies: Alexander Lerchl’s Unfounded Claims of Fabricated Data from Vienna Lab 13-Year Campaign of Disinformation





Neuer Brief an Martin Roosli. Ich glaube, Martin ist ein sehr kluger Mann, aber sehr fehlgeleitet, und keine formale Qualifikation in Medizin oder Biologie zu haben, macht ihn meiner Meinung nach ungeeignet, BERENIS oder EMF/Gesundheitsgruppe zu leiten. Ich glaube auch, dass er einen intellektuellen Interessenkonflikt hat, was bedeutet, dass man an einer Ideologie hängen bleibt und sich damit identifiziert -- oder das Gefühl, das es einem gibt, Teil einer so mächtigen (und doch bösen) Organisation wie der ICNIRP zu sein, die grösstenteils vom deutschen Äquivalent der BAFU finanziert wird, die sehr industriefreundlich ist -- und man wird von den Großmächten verehrt (die Industrie LIEBT Martin) -- oder sogar einige Leute bekommen einen Kick daraus, gegen das zu sein, was dem Gemeinwohl dient. Ich hoffe, dass er eines Tages zu den Fakten aufwacht, aber das mag Wunschdenken sein. Einige der Fakten sind hier dargelegt: https://emfcrisis.yolasite.com/videos-by-doctors-and-scientists.php


New letter to Martin Roosli. I believe Martin is a very smart man, but very misguided, and not having any formal qualifications in medicine or biology, makes him unfit, in my opinion, to head BERENIS or EMF/health group. Also I believe he has intellectual conflict of interest which is when you get stuck on an ideology and identify with it -- or the feeling it gives you to be a part of such a powerful (yet wicked) organization like ICNIRP which is funded largely by German equivalent of BAFU which is very pro-industry -- and you're adored by big powers (the industry LOVES Martin) -- or even some people get a kick out of being opposed to what's common good. I'm hoping some day he may wake up to the facts, but that may be wishful thinking. Some of the facts are laid out here: https://emfcrisis.yolasite.com/videos-by-doctors-and-scientists.php

1 Nov 2020

Reply to Martin Roosli, by Reza Ganjavi

Hi Martin - finally got a chance to listen to this the audio segment you sent me. It's standard ICNIRP, pro-industry misinformation, shooting down NTP, etc. -- you guys (ICNIRP) have been cunningly ignoring good science for a long time, in favor of your industry. If you can't see the link (German government industry backers support of ICNIRP - just as in Switzerland BAFU is supporting disgusting places lie FSM and is acting like industry spokesperson when responding to Swiss public -- repeating the same lies y'all repeat, that RF exposure is safe (which it's not) using the excuse of standards that totally ignore biological impact. This is bad. This is evil, if you agree that people's health -- holistic well being and not just being alive -- is their most important asset.

You're a very smart man but you don't have the right background (medicine, biology) to grasp the necessary subtleties that e.g. Dr. Hardell has been trying to point out to you -- and you are too caught in nuances of statistics to see the forest for the tree. I think psychologically too, you're getting a kick out of getting loved by the industry (I've seen how ASUT folks adore you) -- the whole topic of attention is a very complex one. Killer of John Lennon wanted to get famous.

I believe you are also driven by intellectual conflict of interest -- you're fanatically stuck to an ideology that is extremely dogmatic. Again, you seem too caught in the nitty-gritty detail to see the big picture, which is BIOLOGY!!

So here we are, a tiny country, the world looks up to us, envy of the world in terms of natural beauty -- and one of our best scientists is batting for the industry, and either doesn't get it, or is too caught in fanatic thinking to see the big picture. As a result of that, and the deceptive practices of the very industry you bat for -- the lies they tell people -- and the deceptive practices of the government (e.g., telling people exposure to RF radiation is safe despite a huge body of evidence that it is not) -- we're left with a country which is extremely polluted. Your industry buddies haven't left any stone un-turned.

The industry you support has ruined almost every corner of our beautiful country with RF pollution which is DNA-damaging, which cause oxidative stress FAR more than eating apples !! I know you told students at ETH food also causes oxidative stress so RF is ok but it's not -- the levels are far different. And so on and on.

And you carry a big responsibility in this. So I invite you to repent -- to give up your fanatic beliefs -- and help dismantle, obliterate and dissolve ICNIRP from within -- it's a shame of an organization that should shut its own doors and be redefined by neutral parties. This will get you a lot of good karma. Going the path which is against people's health and well-being, while maintaining decades-old standards that are very profitable to the industry, doesn't pay off.

Yes there's also been a lot of garbage in the airwaves, mind boggling conspiracy theories like Covid-19 is not a virus or we're not in a pandemic -- but listening to this cunning reporter who's robotically reciting wireless industry lines he's given, wasn't any better. For example, trying to assess 5G while ignoring the huge body of evidence and studies that exist on RF-EMF, is very cunning and manipulative -- or downplaying risks of WiFi (which Swisscom even mentions in a patent filing as DNA-damaging at sub-thermal levels) using extremely weak arguments.

Here goes another government channel again, trying to brainwash people to think RF-EMF is biologically safe (which it is not) to deceive people in favor of the industry -- this is evil!!

Regarding supplements, I do take a lot of high quality supplements myself but not from one source -- I buy from 3 different discount vendors in the USA.

You're right about gullible people who fall for nonsense, unscientific voodoo and woowoo gadgets and spent lots of money on it to get placebo effect. It's probably much more dominant in rich countries. In most of the world people can't afford 1000 franc for a piece of garbage that's supposed to protect them from EMF, with no peer-reviewed science to back it up :-)

Kind Regards



Not sure if I sent this one: 

To: Martin Röösli (Roosli) martin.roosli@swisstph.ch

Mr. Röösli

I am a Swiss Citizen and love this country and want it to be better. I am deeply concerned about you and your role in influencing attitudes and policies, related to the evil exposure of Swiss population to toxic wireless pollution: radiating Swiss people with harmful microwave radiation without their consent, and the industry lying to them that it's safe. This will be a black mark in human history.

I see that the propaganda machine has been hard at work, publishing in multiple Swiss newspapers, and article which in the words of one reader, tried to whitewash you, and in the process, propagated your ideas, some of which I believe are pure bullshit.

The background is simple -- the wicked evil wireless industry has been hard at work ruining our beautiful country with highly polluting radiation which the industry's own people know it can cause DNA damage and cancer, while lying to Swiss people, saying it's safe. Here's a proof of Swisscom's own cold-blooded lie about safety -- and admission that high frequency EMF is biologically damaging at sub-thermal levels https://end5g.yolasite.com/swisscomdeception.php

The wicked industry has been totally ignoring biological impact of RF-EMF. Today's standards, pushed and promoted by your ICNIRP cartel in favor of the wicked industry, has consistently ignored peer-reviewed paper research that clearly indicates biological damage.

YOU appear to have been helping that cause by getting on Swiss TV etc etc and raising FUD against solid science (FUD means Fear Uncertainty Doubt) that somehow there's no clarity -- that it could be this way or that way. This is a big fat lie which the industry likes to promote. There's nothing uncertain or ambiguous about the fact that

a) there is a huge body of peer reviewed (not industry sponsored) research that clearly show biological impact of RF-EMF.

b) there's not a single long-term study that shows, indicates (forget proof) that exposure to RF-EMF is safe. ZERO! ZILCH!

So the Swiss government sold 380m CHF of licenses of  a technology that has NOT been shown to be safe. The wicked industry's CEOs can turn and twist this however they want but fact is fact.

You've been actively engaged in trying to downplay the risks. People who attend your lectures say you even downplay oxidative damage caused by RF-EMF. How dare you'd compare oxidative damage from ordinary daily habits to getting exposed to microwave radiation!

How dare you try to downplay the priority and urgency of this topic, by saying in this recent newspaper article the government should focus on other priorities! How Surprising! Let the wicked industry do its thing, pocket its profits, at the expense of OUR HEALTH, and try to downplay the urgency and importance of this subject.

Don't you see that some of those very topics you feel should be higher priority ARE indeed related to biological impacts of wireless pollution! DUH!

You are DEAD WRONG Mr. Roosli: The topic of WIRELESS POLLUTION is the MOST IMPORTANT CHALLENGE we face in Switzerland, and worldwide (relay that to your buddies at ICNIRP).

What is more important than health? Tell me! Among many of those studies that you and ICNIRP have apparently chosen to IGNORE are studies that clearly show a host biological damage, cancer, DNA damage (think fractal antennas, electronic conduction and self­-symmetry), depression, reduction in cognitive function, reproductive harm, fatigue, dizziness, insomnia, tinnitus, heart palpitations, thinning of blood brain barrier, oxidative stress, sperm damage, vision damage / blindness, breast cancer, brain tumors, concentration problem, tremors, loss of appetite, MS, facial paralysis, Allergies, ALS, Alzheimer's, ADD/ADHD, Asperger's syndrome, cataracts, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, immune suppression, Parkinson's, migraines, etc. etc.

You have the nerve to tell us wireless pollution that has been linked with the above and more conditions is just fine, just because it fits withing a stupid, outdated, defunct set of standards devised decades ago which totally neglect biology.

By the way, I don't see any biology degrees or any medical degrees on your resume. Do you feel you're qualified to be on the pedestal Swiss media has put you on?

Do you have any idea how many real medical doctors and real biologists are crying about the very topic you're downplaying?!

Are you intentionally ignorant, just as ICNIRP seems to be -- seeing but closing your eyes -- or -- did you never bother to look? Here's something I want you to look at. ANYBODY in your shoes should have been aware of all this but I give the benefit of doubt that till now you just somehow never came across it. Here's a very small sample of people qualified in medicine and biology (which you're not qualified in) and others who have some words to say to you: https://end5g.yolasite.com/videos-by-doctors-and-scientists.php

Mr. Roosli, what is your opinion of the letter signed by 252 EMF scientists (real specialists in EMF) from 43 countries. Are they all wrong and you, without a biology degree, and without a medical degree are right?! https://emfscientist.org/

Mr. Roosli, what is your opinion of the appeal signed by 253 scientists and medical doctors demanding a moratorium to 5G? Are they all wrong and you, with no biology or medicine degree is right?!

How stupid Swiss media must be to rely on you as the Go-To person on this topic!

How foolish our Federal Government must be to put you, an ICNIRP person, as head of BERENIS! In a way it's not surprising, given the way our government is structured, with people who have no clue whatsoever about topics, leading certain departments. BERENIS which you lead, is part of BAFU which reports into Ms. Sommaruga, who is a nice, sweet lady, but is a PIANIST by training! So this seems to me to be a case of blind leading blind.

If you were one of these hundreds of independent scientist with a medical and biology degree who understood biological impact, we wouldn't have a problem -- but you're not -- and YOUR BERENIS is going to determine the future of our country -- and I can only assume you will vote for the industry -- and the outcome will be catastrophic for Swiss adults, children, wildlife, nature, birds, bees, the animals entrapped in zoos which cannot escape from being zapped with 300 to 6000 mV/meter of microwave radiation. It means the ignorant Federal and Cantonal Departments of Education will continue completely ignoring the topic and not doing their job in teaching about dangers of this technology, and safety precautions.

It means our entire beautiful country will be covered with cancer sticks so that some person who is stupid enough to ride in a microwave oven (autonomous vehicle) can do so -- and avoid driving so s/he can stream a stupid movie instead, which further exposes and fast-tracks them quicker to cancer.

It means, our already incredibly polluted schools, post offices, post buses, SBB trains, supermarkets, streets, [bombarded round the clock with constantly pulsating microwave at levels of 300 mV/m if you're lucky to 6000 mV/m +, while safe limit is 20 (TWENTY) mV/m -- and you have the nerve to say  this is no problem and shouldn't be a priority topic?

Obesity impacts about 12% of Swiss adult population. Wireless Pollution impacts 100% of population. In my opinion, you are the one who have your priorities wrong Mr. Roosli!

Mr. Roosli, why don't you WAKE UP! Stop your behavior, which in my opinion resembles batting for the "dark side". I'm calling it dark side because the industry ONLY thinks of MONEY. Morality seems to be out the window. They LIE to people about safety.

Mr. Roosli, you have the nerve to say in the article ICNIRP is not batting for the industry?!

Mr. Roosli, you say you're not connected with ETH's FSM. But you did lecture at ETH a few months ago, didn't you? In my opinion, ETH has negatively diluted its name by even allowing FSM to exist. You gave a lecture there and presented your analysis, and downplayed the very real dangers of this dirty technology. That's a FACT. Did you get money from ETH? I don't really care. I need all I need to know. Action speaks far louder than words.

The article talks about the negative view some people have of you -- include as those "people" some experts in Switzerland who are very fed up with you, and are very worried, like me, that you being part of BERENIS.

UC Berkley's Professor Moskowitz called your so called meta-analysis / research paper that you presented at ETH as a "travesty":  

·  “...Roosli circulated a meta-analysis of cell phone use and brain tumor risk that he and his colleagues published in the recent issue of the Annual Review of Public Health. The most important finding that heavier cell phone use was associated with brain tumor risk was buried in the appendix and not discussed in the paper. The paper should have never been published!


·  The Roosli et al (2019) paper is a travesty and should have never been published. This is a good example of how the peer review system can be bungled by journal editors and/or manipulated by authors...


·  Roosli is a member of the "ICNIRP cartel”. See:

 ICNIRP’s Exposure Guidelines for Radio Frequency Fields

 International Perspective on Health Effects of Low Intensity Non-Ionizing Radiation

 International EMF Scientist Appeal

 Scientists and Doctors Demand Moratorium on 5G

 5G Wireless Technology: Is 5G Harmful to Our Health?

 5G Wireless Technology: Millimeter Wave Health Effects

 Cell Tower Health Effects


o   And:


o   Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D. 5G Health Risks. BBC Radio 5, May 30, 2019 (9 minute news segment).  The deployment of 5G in the United Kingdom today has generated great concern among the public. This is a brief overview of the health risks from exposure to 5G millimeter waves.


o   Devra Davis, Ph.D. 5G: The Unreported Global Threat. Medium, May 18, 2019.  Major mainstream newspapers commonly ignore the substantial body of science pinpointing wireless radiation and 5G hazards detailed in journalistic investigations.


o   Sue Pockett, Ph.D. Conflicts of interest and misleading statements in official reports about the health consequences of radiofrequency radiation and some new measurements of exposure levels. Magnetochemistry, 5(2):31, May 5, 2019.  "...politicians in the Western world should stop accepting soothing reports from individuals with blatant conflicts of interest and start taking the health and safety of their communities seriously."


o   Investigate Europe. Mobile phones and health: Is 5G being rolled out too fast? Computer Weekly, April, 2019.  Countries are deploying 5G at breakneck speed to gain a competitive edge, but scientists have concerns about effects on public health and are calling for a precautionary approach.


o   Investigate Europe. The 5G mass experiment. Jan 13, 2019. In a series of news stories, a team of investigative journalists examines the risks of 5G deployment. "it could also harm your health. Europe's governments ignore the danger." 


Mr. Roosli, Are you stupid enough to let your child sleep or sit next to a WiFi router? Or to be totally ok with having one of those "cancer sticks" (4G and/or 5G cell masts) near your house? To live in over a Volt/meter of HF-EMF like most Swiss people have to, because of the reckless deployment of this wicked industry?  If any of the answers is NO, then why is is ok for others and not for you and your loved ones?!

I feel disgusted having read the newspaper article about you in multiple Swiss newspapers. I feel ashamed that as a Swiss citizen, these newspapers are so actively engaged in covering up for you and your bullshit.

I am so fed up with you and your ideas, some of which in my opinion are pure bullshit!


A Danish reporter wrote to me asking questions about Dr. Hardell's letter. My response below. Kind Regards. Reza Ganjavi

Dear David

Please see my comments below. Perhaps Dr. Hardell will add his own comments.

Keep in mind, while I contributed to the letter, the bulk of it was written by Dr. Hardell. And I am not a spokesman for him -- just expressing my own opinions.

"Because my research is only funded by public money [blah blah]..."   [this statement is a lie in itself since later in the email he contradicts himself]

Conflict of interest is not just financial. It's also intellectual. A dogmatic, fanatic person who blindly believes in a false set of ideas, may not get profit from it, but he gets other benefits, like identification.

"ICNIRP has a very strict policy [blah blah]... "

The letter addresses why ICNIRP is intellectually corrupt as it's been distorting the science just as Mr. Roosli has been distorting the science, and lying to people about health impacts of RF-EMF. Some of these lies are clearly demonstrated in the letter. ICNIRP has an utterly industry biased. Also their donors are not all listed -- and some already have a very close tie with the industry.

"It is the tone of activists, who do not talk about scientific facts but just attack persons."

Poor Mr. Roosli. Finally someone is calling out his lies, and he doesn't like it. He's used to getting away with his lies to unassuming Swiss public, media.

Funny Mr. Roosli didn't detect the science in the letter. The letter is 90% hard-core science!! I guess it's because he's not an oncologist, medical doctor, biologist -- it flew right above his head.

The letter is not the tone of activists per se. It's the tone of real scientists who are specialists in areas Mr. Roosli has no clue about, like oncology! Roosli has neither a biology degree nor medicine degree, yet the highly pro-industry Swiss government with inherent conflict of interest (51% owner of Swisscom) has put him in charge of two most important health authorities! This is not a joke. It's a tragic reality.

In several direct exchanges with Dr. Hardell, it became apparent that Mr. Roosli does not have the educational background to understand what Dr. Hardell was talking about -- it was over his head. So Roosli just sees things through his own fanatic, myopic, small-minded, industry-biased view which is no surprise given his past conflicts of interest and ties with the industry. Still today, he's very closely tied to the industry. It doesn't matter if they pay him a kickback or not -- we know they try to protect him, and they absolutely love him, as he's instrumental in their attempt to brainwash and lies to Swiss public that this DNA damaging, cancerous radiation is safe.

"Would be much more convincing if Lennart would response to this criticisim in a scientific manner instead of sidetracking."

Oh poor Martin, now he's picking issue with the venue. The substance isn't going away.

"yes, the money comes from industry..." [blah blah... and then he admits to get money from industry!]

EMF Risk Research funded by industry has had a history of moral corruption.

I agree with Roosli that the funding should come from the wicked industry, but not the execution of the studies. These need to be totally impartial and not as puppets of a morally corrupt industry which is on record for lying to people about the most important topic in life: HEALTH!

"interesting enough... donations from scared people and activists."

This is a loaded, bad question. Scared people? This is totally an industry line. It's Roosli's industry talk -- this whole concept of "Scared people" is a misnomer -- it's a way for the wicked, morally corrupt industry to downplay real concerns of real people, by just attributing it to unfounded fear.

"Maybe Hardell can answer: Are 5G appeal scientists making a living out of activism like Röösli claims? Is it a conflict of interest recieving money from activists and how much can they earn?

Dr. Hardell does not need a penny of activist money -- he's a very successful, top notch oncologist. This is the lamest excuse of Roosli -- and a desperate line that shows he's got no other defense.

How about his defending his misrepresentation of science which Dr. Hardell points out with clear evidence?  No reaction from Roosli I guess on that. That's a bigger problem than Conflict of Interest. It's intentional misrepresentation by a person at top of the food chain of government, working with a government that itself has a conflict of interest, feeding people lies. Wonderful!

Another question for you, Reza.

- Can direct democracy possibly defeat 5G in Switzerland? We saw a poll in 20 Minuten finding a majority of the Swiss population against 5G.

Yes I believe so -- with big action and big thinking. There are multiple initiatives in the works.

However, my personal view is legal action will have bigger results, not in Swiss courts which are generally (with exception) highly biased, but by higher authorities like the European Court of Human Rights.

"Can we expect a direct election in Switzerland in the near future?"

Not this year. The initiatives take time.

"How can it be explained that exactly the francophone cantons i Suisse has voted against 5G. Is the country divided into language zones?"

Yes the country is highly divided. I was the first activist which reached out to the French side for collaborative campaign on 5G. The German side is more passive, and more conditioned to trust the authorities, not question status quo -- the French side is more like France, more active in some ways -- and we saw more action there than in German side early on. But there's some action on the German side and the biggest activist organizations are now based in the German side. I am in close contact with them.

"What makes you optimistic?"

You asked if it can be done, I said yet. Am I optimistic? Not too much because Switzerland is a very passive country and people are not used to complaining or taking big action -- it's not like France. They simply don't have strikes in Switzerland for example. And the educational system conditions people to conform.

"And what could go wrong?"

Wicked industry continues to brainwash people and win their votes.

Kind Regards

Reza Ganjavi

MBA, BSCS, BA Phil, Magna Cum Laude, Phi Kappa Phi

Zurich, Switzerland


Also see: Dr. Hardell exposing Martin Roosli's Conflict of Interest and Misrepresentation of Science (lies)







André Fauteux & Reza Ganjavi challenging Martin Röösli

by Reza Ganjavi

Two email threads below. One was started by André Fauteux (Editor/Publisher, La Maison du 21e siècle Magazine).

Reza Ganjavi (27 Oct 2019):

Martin Röösli's email sound like a joke to me. BERENIS' leadership (i.e., M. Roosli) is part of the ICNIRP cartel. Result can only be expected!

IARC is the most useless of any organization I've ever known, and I've worked for 2 UN bodies before (UN standing for Useless Nations) since IARC sat on its ass for YEARS and did NOTHING about the Emfscientist plea signed by over 200 real scientists specializing in EMF field. All to the benefit of industry. Laziness? Corruption? The ultimate cost is OUR HEALTH WHICH MATTERS. The whole  planet has been ruined by wireless pollution because  of the lazy (and  corrupt?)  UN's lack of action, and pro-industry stance of ICNIRP and its cronies. See: https://www.saferemr.com/2018/07/icnirps-exposure-guidelines-for-radio.html

Oh BAFU is copied. You can add that to the cartel -- led  by a Pianist !! and it's engaged in lying to public about safety -- just as Swisscom is on record for lying to public. Here's a proof of Swisscom's cold blooded lie to public about the serious matter of public safety. https://end5g.yolasite.com/swisscomdeception.php Not very Swiss to be so dishonest!

My fellow Swiss people are educated to blindly trust the government and Big Business (by the way, Swisscom is 51% owned by the government). So the powers imagine they can get away with just anything.


Reza Ganjavi

A Swiss Citizen


Reza Ganjavi (28 Oct 2019):


UC Berkley's Professor Moskowitz called your so called meta-analysis / research paper as a "travesty":

·      “...Roosli circulated a meta-analysis of cell phone use and brain tumor risk that he and his colleagues published in the recent issue of the Annual Review of Public Health. The most important finding that heavier cell phone use was associated with brain tumor risk was buried in the appendix and not discussed in the paper. The paper should have never been published!

·      The Roosli et al (2019) paper is a travesty and should have never been published. This is a good example of how the peer review system can be bungled by journal editors and/or manipulated by authors...

·      Roosli is a member of the "ICNIRP cartel”. See:

 ICNIRP’s Exposure Guidelines for Radio Frequency Fields

Would love to hear your comments!


André Fauteux (28 Oct 2019):

Dr Roosli,

Why did you not discuss the finding that heavier cell phone use was associated with greater ipsilateral brain rumor risk?


André Fauteux, Editor/Publisher


17 Feb 2019:

Martin Röösli: "You may check the website of ICNIRP"

Reza Ganjavi:

Martin, I think Dr. Hardell ( https://emfcrisis.yolasite.com/hardell-calling-out-roosli.php ) exhibits it much better than ICNIRP which is a cesspool of moral or intellectual or ideological corruption. Twisting facts, lying, is morally wrong. Doing so in matters of public health should be criminalized. ICNIRP's intentional neglect of biological impact is a disgrace. Their response to NTP was a lie. Their ties are very suspect. It's as bad as BAFU funding ETH's FSM. You call that kosher? FSM is an industry den that's been engaged in lying to Swiss people. Just as Swisscom has, and the Federal government itself. We have these all on record. Have you seen this?


We also have letters from BAG and BAFU lying to people about safety. You can't hold irrelevant standards as an excuse to lie. Outdated standards that don't even consider biological effect observed through thousands of studies, are less useful than toilette paper, let alone as a moral gauge.

Martin, conflict of interest can take different forms. It doesn't have to be financial. Fanatics have an ideological conflict of interest. Their identity is tied to their belief. There's also intellectual conflict of interest. So don't pad yourself on the back. You seem like a fanatic to me -- blindly believing sexy statistics while those of us who've followed bio/pharma industry know how manipulative statistics can be.

Nobody can know your problem other than yourself, but from the outside, my guess is it's intellectual myopia -- believing a set of narrow minded, dogmatic, which the industry loves you for, and you love the attention. Head of Telecom Association of Switzerland, your pal, Christian Grasser was trying hard to stand up for you. It's fair to say Swisscom Loves Martin Röösli, so does the rest of the wicked industry that's engaged in lying to people about matters of public health.

In response to my remark that Martin Röösli has no degree in medicine or biology, and is not a medical doctor -- and therefore not qualified in my opinion to be the head of BERENIS (and the useless Health subcommittee of the industry den, the so-called Expert Group). His reaction was: Are you a medical doctor? Duh! I'm not the head of BERENIS or the Expert Group, so me being a medical doctor or not is utterly irrelevant. But your industry buddies stick out for you. You scratch their back with your going around discrediting credible science in favor of the industry, and them batting for you.

My neighbor who came to your workshop at ETH (surprise?!) said you were comparing oxidative damage from food to oxidative damage from microwave pollution!!! Classy!

I encourage you to step down. Stop misleading people with your narrow-minded, industry biased, faulty ideas. It's really bad karma, because people listen to you and believe the same lies your buddies at the wicked industry tell them: That RF-EMF is safe. So they don't take measures to protect themselves. They welcome cell antennas, and they sit next to WiFi routers, and their DNA gets damaged, and their experience quality gets hampered, and some get cancer.

Knowing all that you know, you're be utterly wicked and/or stupid to let anybody you love sit next to a WiFi router or have a cell antenna near their house, but it's ok for strangers right?

The wicked industry you support (at least intellectually) has ruined our beautiful country. Central Zurich is zapped at some 6 Volt per meter and the low-lives are talking about boosting that mega-fold.

Martin, you know all too well the nobody needs faster download or driverless cars or internet of things. These are just fabrications of the wicked that loves you. They're nothing but business plans to create fake demand, and in the process ruin our world. People are you who are on the side of the industry are responsible for all that.

Here's a song you should listen to regularly which may create a spiritual awakening to you.


If and when it ever clicks in your brain, you should turn on the industry, and join goodness, and help us topple the wicked acts of the industry, and help their government backers stop lying to people and put our health ahead of the business plans of the industry (which they call "economy") -- an economy of people whose DNAs are damaged is good for nothing!

It's never too late to repent and wake up to facts, to what independent scientists who are not in the pocked of the industry are saying. Here are some links for you -- things you've been ignoring, but they'll never go away as hard painful facts for you and your industry buddies:




Reza Ganjavi, MBA





Head of Swiss Radiation Protection Committee accused of 5G-swindle.  Nordic countries deceived, too.

By Einar Flydal, cand.scient. and Master of Telecom Strategy, science blogger on EMF, health and the environment

A few weeks ago, the president of Switzerland and her counsel received a serious letter. The authors were a number of the world's foremost scientists in the field of radiation protection and health.

The researchers warned that Martin Röösli (picture), the man who chairs the BERENIS committee, a committee responsible for providing the Swiss government with advice on radiation protection guidelines, should be scrutinized for impropriety – or to put it more bluntly – for scientific fraud.

About time, was my initial reaction. Then, I began to ponder: Is Martin Röösli an outright fraudster? Or are his mischaracterizations of the science the result of the application of unreasonable scientific criteria in his search for truth? It seemed to be an interesting topic worthy of reflection.

Either way, the consequences are substantial, not just for Switzerland, but also for the Nordic countries and Japan, as Röösli is a member of radiation protection committees of those countries as well. These committees establish what is to be considered "accepted science" – and thereby also establish the misconceptions on which the radiation protection and health care agencies, as well as politicians, act.

The final drop causing the scientists' decision to take the unusual step of reporting Röösli, and addressing the president - were his assertions that no health risks associated with 5G technologies can be shown. These assertions fall in line with Röösli's long record of cell phone "radiation hazard denial", where his modus operandi has been to argue that the main body of research on the topic unambiguously indicates zero health hazards – despite the fact that the vast majority of research indicates the exact opposite.

Thus, the letter has the potential of triggering what could develop into a serious criminal case. Consequently, I have conducted somewhat of a deep dive into the story, resulting in an unusually long blog post of 11 pages. Forewarned is forearmed!


The letter of accusation against Martin Röösli is extensive. A number of internationally prominent researchers from several countries have signed it. They accuse him of systematically underestimating solid research findings indicating cancer and other dangers from wireless radiation, both in his writings and in speaking engagements. Furthermore, they accuse him of having major conflicts of interest; of promoting views counter to the vast majority of scientists in the world; and of conveying strongly erroneous views on what research findings actually show. It's quite a salvo.

The accusations against Martin Röösli are particularly important considering that Martin Röösli chairs the BERENIS committee. I have followed the work of this committee for several years. This group - the Swiss Expert Group on Electromagnetic Fields and Non-ionizing Radiation - reviews research in the area of EMF and health effects, and regularly publishes assessments of research studies. The group itself always selects the studies chosen for assessment. It is administratively located under the Swiss Ministry of the Environment. The political and administrative authorities of Switzerland base their policies on healthcare, environmental protection, communication and business development on the assessments delivered by this committee. Assessments of the health effects of man-made EMFs - Electromagnetic Fields - are obviously of importance in all sectors of society.

The influence of this group does not stop at the Swiss border. Academic communities in other countries listen to what the BERENIS committee determines. In countries that don't have their own regular committees, such as Norway, Denmark, Finland and Iceland, the national radiation protection administration, agency or bureau reads reports from such committees as BERENIS, and, might we suppose, readily accepts them at face value. Independent committees, although set up to make their own independent assessments, will of course also be influenced by the conclusions from such committees as BERENIS – and the wireless industry will obviously use committee reports that conclude in ways converging with industry’s interests, as proofs for their cause. In addition, and as previously mentioned, Martin Röösli sits on the board of equivalent radiation committees of particular importance for the Nordic countries and in Japan. That makes this whistle-blower case particularly important.


There is a striking similarity between the BERENIS committee reports and the conclusions of reports in other countries, such as the one under the Swedish radiation protection agency, where he is member, and the now infamous British AGNIR-group, the latter disbanded following a series of outrageously one-sided and misleading reports.

A common feature of many of these public committees is their domination by one or more ICNIRP members or sympathizers. ICNIRP is a German-registered foundation, the acronym referring rather immodestly to the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. ICNIRP selects its own members. No scientist opposing the view that heating is the only relevant potential health-factor of non-ionizing radiation worth considering - has ever been accepted as a member of ICNIRP.

As mentioned, a national committee similar to BERENIS exist in the Nordic region under the Swedish Radiation Protection Centre (HERE). Several of the committee members are also ICNIRP members. This presently includes Martin Röösli, Anke Huss and Heidi Danker Hopfe, with whom Röösli has collaborated on publications, in addition to Eric van Rongen who also heads ICNIRP itself.

The Swedish Radiation Protection Expert Committee, half of which are ICNIRP members, will never be able to come to any conclusions contrary to the ICNIRP view, regardless of what findings research may come up with. You will not find discussions of dissenting opinions of significance here, only passive rubberstamping. Of course, Röösli’s views in the BERENIS committee need to be consistent with his role in the Swedish radiation protection committee. Hence, the BERENIS committee's conclusions will always be identical to ICNIRP’s, and as an ICNIRP-member Röösli contributes to the fortification of the ICNIRP view in the Nordic region.


At one point, the management of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm stated that this conflict is unacceptable: Being an ICNIRP member is in itself disqualifying for any role in a committee tasked with independent consideration of health risks from EMF (see the accusatory letter here):

ICNIRP grants committee membership for a few years at a time, but only to people who tow the ICNIRP line. The organization proposes radiation protection guidelines, but only guidelines intended for protection from acute heating damage. Although ICNIRP admits there are many other proven mechanisms by which non-ionizing radiation may cause damage, it states that these are too complex and not sufficiently researched and understood to provide grounds for relevant safety limits (ICNIRP 1998).

ICNIRP therefore passes to the next stage of policy providers, the task of deciding whether protection designed to protect only from heating is adequate. Such policy providers may be the WHO, the EU, the International Electricity Committee (CENELEC), other supranational bodies, or national radiation protection agencies. The national bodies are then encouraged to conduct their own assessments of whether their national limits should be set more stringent than ICNIRP provides. It is thus here that BERENIS and the aforementioned Swedish Committee enter the policy supply chain. (The supply chain is further analysed in Flydal and Nordhagen 2019, Part 3 (Norwegian))

In Switzerland therefore, Martin Röösli sits as a kind of Tordenskiold’s soldier (an expression referring to the military tactic of the commander Tordenskjold of creating the illusion of a greater number of forces by patrolling them in a circle past the enemy line of sight), whereby he staffs both ends of the supply chain - both at ICNIRP and at BERENIS. ICNIRP would dismiss Röösli if he did not follow the ICNIRP line in his work at BERENIS. This double role is in itself a conflict of interest. The BERENIS committee, the corresponding Swedish committee and a number of other committees where ICNIRP members also sit - are all characterized by this conflict of interest. When evaluating the assessments of these various committees, this might be useful taking into consideration. So, let's take a look at their assessments.


More than 3/4 of the world's research within this field find adverse effects on humans, animals and the environment at exposure intensities far lower than those capable of causing thermal heat damage, as shown by the graph below. The graph comprises research papers from the highly recognized database Medline for the period 1990 - 2017 (graph by Flydal 2018, based on data from Lai 2017). The predominance of studies showing positive findings is massive (other analyses of research databases demonstrate approximately the same results).

ICNIRP, BERENIS and Röösli, however, consistently conclude that research has not demonstrated any such findings well enough. Therefore, they claim, the current knowledge status and established opinion is that evidence of negative health effects have not been demonstrated.

Even the recent NTP and Ramazzini studies - large rodent trials ongoing for several years, considered by the entire research establishment as solid evidence for mobile phones' cancer-promoting properties (see, for example..) – have been disregarded by ICNIRP, BERENIS and Röösli, who claim that even these large government studies do not provide sufficient evidence of harm (BERENIS November 2018).

Practical and political decisions are made based on such reports. For example, 5G can now be rolled out free and clear. The line of thinking represented by these committees goes directly against the precautionary principle and is exceedingly industry-friendly, rooted in American legal and corporate tradition from the 1970’ies: As long as health hazards are considered unproven, the health hazard is to be considered non-existent. Any other conclusion would risk imposing unnecessary and unfair restrictions on society, the individual and the wireless industry.

Consequently, politicians and government leave it to epidemiological studies - i.e. morbidity statistics - to consider in retrospect whether problems occur that may cause a need for restrictions – in retrospect. Thus, people are reduced to guinea pigs while BERENIS and their sister committees draw their conclusions by ignoring the massive majority of published studies.

The dividing line between ICNIRP, BERENIS, Röösli and what these call "established knowledge status" on the one hand, and on the other the thousands of scientists, doctors and other professionals who for years have requested urgent measures to mitigate the harm from man-made EMFs, is stark. Regardless of which side you belong to, it is tempting to believe the other side either has been bought off, or are a bunch of morons and ignorants. Or both. In theory, all options are conceivable, and of course outright corruption gets exposed from time to time. The autobiography of researcher Andrew Marino (Marino 2010) details how the U.S. electricity industry paid scientists well for "product defence" lawsuits over high voltage power lines. Scientists happened to be less than truthful in their testimonies even though cases included neighbourhoods near power lines, abnormally affected by cancer. Marino also describes the failure of government bodies and the judicial system.


However, matters are not as simple as one side being right - and the other being unskilled idiots. Röösli is a mathematician and epidemiologist. He probably knows as much about statistical method as anyone – as well as about finding faults in other people's use of statistics. So is he then a scammer? Or is he a "misled soul"? I needed to spend some time on this quandary. After all, Röösli's reports dismissing 5G health concerns could be explained by the quality criteria he uses for assessing research findings:

Both ICNIRP, BERENIS and some other committees are continuously evaluating whether research studies should be approved or rejected. If approved, their findings should be taken into account when setting safety standards. However, whether the studies are approved or not, depends on the criteria used when assessing the studies, and how these criteria are practiced.

ICNIRP's criteria for evaluating research findings are set so that they permit the evaluators to reject all studies with positive findings, and that is exactly what happens: no studies showing effects other than heating damage pass through. Findings showing damage at lower intensities of exposure (where no significant heat effects occur), as from mobiles or smart meters, are filtered out. The ICNIRP guidelines do not deny that sub-thermal effects might exist, but without exceptions, for some reason or another, each and every study – although peer-reviewed and published in renown journals - are deemed to be below quality standards, or at best insufficient proof. If at all evaluated, something always seems to justify disapproval for these types of findings – when assessed by the ICNIRP criteria by the ICNIRP influenced committees. (Flydal & Nordhagen 2019, Part 3 (Norwegian text), referring a.o. to Mercer 2016, Wright 2017.)

The BERENIS assessment criteria are quite common in stringent, empirical research. Nevertheless, the criteria may be practiced in ways that exclude any study you don't want included. The reason for this is simple: no empirical studies will, in practice, be perfect, meet all ideal requirements, and provide 100% reliability and validity. Thus, the BERENIS Committee - under Martin Röösli's leadership – can tow the ICNIRP line just like the ICNIRP's people inserted into the WHO do: "No harmful effects have been conclusively shown, more research is needed" ... This line is touted by virtually all the mentioned committees, and has so for years, virtually without exception.


These conclusions - "no harmful effects have been conclusively shown, more research is needed" - provide the entire ecom-industrial complex – the stakeholders within electronic communication systems, commercial as well as not – with maximum leeway. From enthusiastic mobile app developers and system developers, to mobile phone producers - and into the halls of the many government bodies who have been led to believe "the green shift" can be realized by streamlining society with wireless technologies. A wider berth for the ecom-industry could not possibly been provided: Only acute tissue burns or heat damagtoe provide the ceiling, as such damages would be too visible and grotesque to be accepted. When symptoms develop slowly and have complex causes, the level and prevalence of injury is unclear, and one can always argue - and convince both oneself and others - that something entirely different from EMF exposure must be the cause.

The financial motives for the adherence and use of such criteria leading to conclusions providing the exom-industrial complex with max leeway are obvious. But could anyone really be cynical enough to exploit such criteria just as a business strategy? For sure. The efforts made to deny or denigrate negative health findings from manmade EMF follow the same playbook as the whitewashing of tobacco, lead, PCB, mercury, CFCs, pesticides and many other toxic products – well after knowledge of their detrimental effects was at hand. As is now common knowledge, the industries and their experts didn't just use scientists who used criteria and assessment methods that would tone down negative findings, they also funded outright fraudulent research – provided by “product defence institutes” - to provide clean bills of health and clear the product for the market.

The reports from BERINIS and their corresponding committees - i.e. their reviews where all findings proving injury are rejected – fulfil just this very same function. They are used by the industry as evidence of safety. You may find these reports, among other places, HERE on the website of the GSMA – the mobile industry's international organization. These reports are used in GSMA's lobbying activities. As one might come to expect GSMA does not list any of the many reviews showing conclusions contradicting its interest. You will find more than 200 such reviews referred to in (Flydal & Nordhagen 2019, where a Norwegian translation of Martin L Pall’s letter to the EU Commission (Pall 2016), analysing 192 of them, is found. There you will also find demonstrated that when radiation protection authorities in countries such as the USA, the Nordic countries and other countries giving max leeway to the ecom-industrial complex, explain to their citizens why exposure below the heating treshold "is harmless", they derive their material and knowledge from the reports that reject all the findings in all these reviews, right out of hand. Thus, they conclude only based on research that found "the nothing they were looking for". According to normal scientific standards, research finding nothing should be disregarded when good studies with positive findings are at hand.

Leaving only inconclusive or negative findings to constitute "the current knowledge status" – as the ICNIRP network does, makes no scientific sense. However, it does explain the need to find the lion’s share of the studies – all the ones with positive findings – faulty. One would be hard pressed to imagine Röösli is not well aware of this. Could it still be possible that Röösli is a sincere researcher who simply does a proper job of finding faults in other people's research; based on the strict criteria he honestly believes should be used? If that is the case, he is the ideal person to have in the ICNIRP network - a useful idiot – one that can be used in a larger scheme, not understanding the consequences.


In the world of scientific research, the criteria used to evaluate the veracity of results should be strict - to identify invalid results. The nature, and indeed the duty, of scientists is to scrutinize other sientists' research and to look for weaknesses. That is their job, and it is what makes science advance.

However, the assessment criteria must also suit the nature of the research and the characteristics of what is being researched. Assessment criteria must be aligned with the subject studied: For example, different criteria must be used to assess the quality of studies within mathematics (and other closed conceptual worlds); studies of the effects of gravity on tidal flows; statistical studies of population morbidity; studies of the effects of environmental toxins on biological life; and studies of the concept of foreign religions. Research within such diverse fields cannot be subject to the same requirements as to precision, repeatability, transferability, objective and quantifiable scales, or mathematical / statistical assessment criteria, such as statistical significance:

Criteria that are too lax may easily cause faulty findings to be accepted as real, and if the set criteria are irrelevant, the outcome of the assessment could go in any direction. Unfit criteria easily pave the way for other forces to direct the outcome, e.g. political wishes or the scientist's interests and beliefs - whether consciously or not.

A small example from (Marino 2010) illustrates this point: In a series of experiments exposing mice to electromagnetic fields, one set of mice grew smaller than normal, another turned out larger than normal. In a court case, these findings where interpreted by a electricity industry scientist as evidence that the radiation did not affect the size of the mice – after all, the average size was unchanged. Another researcher concluded the trials were invalid as they lacked repeatability, i.e. they could not be repeated with the same outcome each time.

Whereas Marino claimed that the experiments were consistent, as they consistently resulted in an abnormal change in the growth of the mice, his arguments where dismissed in court on the grounds that repeatability - which in the strict laws of mathematics and physics means the same result every time, should cause identical abnormalities, not just abnormalities. The power industry expert did not accept the view that when dealing with biology, you are facing systems which are not mechanistic. They do not normally produce identical outcomes. They are open, dynamic, complex, teleological, homeostatic systems:


In such systems that build life – whether a cell, a fruit fly, a human or an elephant – connections and processes are complicated and diverse. In addition, they can be influenced by a variety of conditions both internally and from the outside. One influence can also affect how strongly another influence impacts. (In statistics these are called interaction effects.) In addition, such systems are often goal-oriented (teleological), in the sense that they attempt to compensate for threatening influences to maintain their balanced state (homeostasis). Many of these processes are not governed by so-called discrete (clearly delineated) processes or changes, but rather by processes and changes with quite fluid boundaries that are far from being fully understood. Researchers may however have to conceive of the boundaries as being more distinct than they actually are, for the purpose of modelling, measuring and mapping. In addition, two such open, dynamic, complex, teleological, homeostatic systems - e.g. two hamsters – are never identical, they can only be almost the same, and we can't know exactly how they differ.

All these complicating factors mean that even small differences somewhere in the system, can make a big difference at later steps in the system, and cause the end result to be quite different in different specimens of the supposedly almost identical complex systems: In principle though, as reactions to identical exposure one hamster might have its growth affected; another one develops bone cancer or "leaky gut"; whereas another is seemingly unaffected and stays healthy. If the trial was aimed solely at testing whether exposure affected one single parameter, e.g. growth, the researchers would not detect any significant effects. They would conclude that the radiation had no effect as unnormal growth happened in just one case.

Research methodology in the more rigorous research traditions prescribes that one should define in advance precisely what to test. The risk of pre-placing measuring points in a way that obscures effects of EMF on health (whether inadvertently or on purpose), are therefore very real.

Those who faithfully follow rigid assessment criteria fit for much simpler systems such as physics, where systems have neither purpose nor will, or make their assessments within a bubble of statistical rules of evidence, can therefore easily discard research showing real findings. They may "throw the baby out with the bathwater" – due to the assessment criteria and their professional thinking providing them with blinders. Which is one of the reasons for science having developed into different traditions using different methods and assessment criteria, with the less rigid Hill criteria (Hill 1965) much used to assess the more complex causal relationships within life-sciences. The Hill criteria are not used by ICNIRP, nor by BERENIS. They stick to far more rigid – and mechanistic – criteria. Using the Hill criteria, causal relationships that fall short as assessed by ICNIRP/BERENIS, would have to be accepted as well proven (Hardell & Carlberg 2013, Carlberg & Hardell 2017).

In his position as an ICNIRP member, Röösli is simply tied to using ICNIRP’s unfit set of assessment criteria and make BERENIS use criteria of the same kind. Whether they are used by scientific tradition or conviction, or for industry defence is hard to tell without access to his thoughts, but seems less important for the results.


Retired professor of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences, Martin L. Pall, has assessed the qualifications of ICNIRP members within the fields they assess. Pall finds a clear lack of qualifications as to relevant topics (notes by Pall referred to by Flydal & Nordhagen 2019). So, what is the state of the BERENIS committee? Does Röösli have qualified people with him? Is he himself qualified? I had a brief look:

Martin Röösli is an epidemiologist and mathematician. Much of his work has been within issues related to various instances of morbidity associated with environmental factors, e.g. cigarette smoking in restaurants, traffic accidents and noise pollution. He has led several projects assessing reactions to EMF exposure. Being a statistician, we can take for granted that his contribution has been within statistical method and analysis. While finding clear life-systems impacts from passive smoking, his research within effects from EMF exposure seems perhaps predominantly characterized by lack of findings. Here are the results of the EMF projects listed on Röösli's website:

·      CEFALO – a study of brain cancer among children related to mobile use: no correlation

·      Project on radon and radiation from broadcast masts and child cancer: no correlation

·      HERMES - study of whether thought functions, behavioural problems and non-specific health problems can be linked to mobile use: correlation, but not from radiation

Given the number of studies showing a strong increase in brain cancer among children in country after country in Europe, and the number of studies with clear findings of health complaints near telecommunications masts (Firstenberg 2018, Warnke 2005), one must wonder what went wrong in Röösli's research. Were his evidence requirements too stringent? Should he have chosen research subjects who were slightly older, so they would have had longer exposure? Or are there other reasons for the results? This if difficult to know. But what about the rest of the committee?

The BERNIS Committee has the following representatives, their prime characteristic being conflicts of interest and, with an interesting exception to whom we shall shortly revert, lack of qualifications, nor any published studies within the research field that the BERENIS committee is tasked with assessing:

·      a committee secretary with a doctorate in health geography and mathematics, working on geographic information systems

·      a man with a PhD who works for a measurement technology company designing wireless solutions

·      a neurologist who specializes in MS. He has published one paper on EMF, where he found that treatment with pulsed magnetic fields have some short-term efficacy, which in the paper were considered to be the results of placebo effects

·      a veterinarian who does not appear to have produced any relevant work in the field

·      a medical doctor having specialized in x-rays (i.e. a quite a different type of radiation)

·      a section manager for non-ionizing radiation in the Ministry of Environment

·      an epidemiologist specializing on the Zika-virus

While the equivalent Swedish committee is staffed with foreign members that at least can be said to work within the field, the BERENIS committee is staffed with Swiss members who don’t seem to have any particular qualifications in the field. Neither does the committee seem to be staffed based on any interest in developing new understanding or knowledge. Frankly, without knowing the inner workings of the committee, it does to the outsider appear to be a council of elders, or a front group, where the committee leader and secretary do the work, leaving the others to rubberstamp their conclusions.


In committee work, it is not uncommon for the committee head and secretary to make most of the decisions, while the rest of the committee are nominal. Certainly, the BERENIS committee seems to be run this way. But there is one curious exception to the lack of expertise on the comittee. It makes me wonder if being a member in this committee is perhaps primarily an honour awarded, and accepted to maintain useful old boys’ networks while letting the committee leader and his secretary do the work:

The exception I am referring to is a man who seems to have some qualifications relevant to the field in question - Prof. Dr. Peter Achermann:

Achermann has a management position at The KEY Institute for Brain-Mind Research, a research foundation on information and communications technology and society. He held his farewell address as a professor at the Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology at the University of Zurich in August 2019. Achermann is currently co-author of 105 research articles registered in the PubMed database (he is never the lead author).

Judging from his production, Achermann is a specialist in sleep and neurological issues in relation with sleep. Some of the articles he has contributed to (listed below), deal with the effects of radio frequency radiation on brain waves. At the end of the reference list below, I have added them all, and noted the main findings of each paper.

The effects of radio frequency radiation on brain waves is a topic where several researchers have made consistent findings: such radiation affects brain waves when pulsed - or amplitude-modulated, as radio engineers would say. One of them is Karl Hecht, the great German researcher of the GDR era in this field (Hecht 2018). Another is Andrew Marino, one of the US's major researchers on the issue of EMF and biological effects (Marino 2018).

Achermann makes these findings in all his papers: pulsed exposure affects the brain. It is not particularly surprising - it has been established knowledge for a long time. The surprising thing is that in the one paper he has co-authored with Martin Röösli. in which Achermann’s name is added at the end of the authors’ list, there is found no connection between exposure and well-being.

That paper with Röösli is from 2006, in the midst of a stream of papers where the connection is always found. So what was the purpose of that paper? It seems to have had the purpose of neutralizing a Dutch investigation commissioned by several ministries – a comprehensive study (Zwamborn 2003) that could have become a "game changer" had it been allowed to stand: It showed an unequivocal and significant negative impact on test subjects' well-being when exposed to UMTS (3G mobile data).

At the time the current ICNIRP chairman, Eric van Rongen was on the Dutch National Health Council where he is still a member. As previously mentioned, Eric van Rongen is at present also on the Swedish Radiation Protection Committee, with Anke Huss, who also co-authored the 2006-article. The task of the article seems to have been to render UMTS harmless by negating the findings of exposure that Zwamborn had found. Had Zwamborn's findings remained standing, it could have led to restrictions for the industry.

Zwamborn conducted his study on behalf of the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of planning, Housing and the Environment, and the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports. The counterattack from Röösli and his cohorts was massive and funded by the Swiss Foundation for Mobile Communications Research. But how do you undermine a study that makes clear findings? You do so by creating doubt. The Röösli & co study's conclusions largely consisted of speculation as to why Zwamborn and their own experiments had not produced consistent findings.

Why was it central to come up with a study that concludes that the two studies were not consistent? My suggestion is the following: According to how these people think, or at least argue, studies showing inconsistent findings should be ignored, as they have not fulfilled the criteria of repeatability! Hence, presenting a survey that does not make findings, casts doubt on previous findings, and legitimizes the exclusion of it from any ICNIRP style literature study, and makes it legitimate to conclude that “the status of knowledge” remains unchanged. Providing research yielding no findings is since long a documented, deliberate strategy, designed by PR firms working within the field of "product defence" (Michaels 2008, Oreskes & Conway 2010).

For some reason, Achermann had to accept a conclusion that went against the conclusions in all of his production, before and thereafter. A price that seems not to have been too high for him.

Why Achermann’s findings could not be accepted

The figure shows pulses typical for the wireless communication from an Aidon AMS meter (an automatic electricity meter). We can see five pulses appearing with equal intervals, thus creating a brief low-frequency signal “on the top of” the carrier wave, which is the very weak, horisontal black line between the two As. Pulsed radiation is inherent in all radio communications, being the consequence of the coding of information into the carrier signal (modulation). Modern generations of radio signals tend to contain more powerful pulses than older ones. As you see in the graph, the pulses are very abrupt and powerful, but so short that they are very, very far from increasing the average intensity of the signal enough to create heating. Therefore, since the ICNIRP based safety standards only consider the heating potential, the exposures stay very well within the set limits.

If Martin Röösli as the head of BERENIS, or Martin Röösli and Anke Huss as co-authors with Achermann, were to accept Achermann's findings in all his other papers - that such low intensity levels of radiation do affect biology through their pulsed signals - they would end up on a collision course with ICNIRP, as well as with the ICNIRP network of researchers and consultants. It would have made the counterattack impossible, their present or future ICNIRP memberships impossible, and most likely also block any further funding from the wireless industry. In short, they would have been excommunicated.

To accept that such non-thermal radiation affects the brain, would also entail admitting that even such “weak” radiation has consequences we do not understand, but which we must assume can be harmful. It would imply a critique of the entire basis for the present ICNIRP recommendations and the exposure standards derived from it. Martin Röösli's job is obviously to prevent any such admissions.

It will be interesting to see if the accusations against Martin Röösli are taken seriously - or if they are just brushed aside.


Einar Flydal, 20th of February, 2020

This text is a slightly adapted translation of a blogpost in Norwegian, published 27th of January 2020 at http://einarflydal.com.

Einar Flydal (70, cand. polit. and Master of Telecom Strategy) is since 2014 a science blogger, author and lecturer on EMF, health and the environment. He is retired from positions as a researcher and senior strategy adviser at Telenor ASA and as an adjunct assistant professor of telematics at NTNU (Norwegian University of Polytechnics).


BERENIS assessment criteria for epidemiological studies, experimental animal and cell studies, human experimental studies and dosimetry studies, note, undated, retrieved 12.01.2020 from https://www.bafu.admin.ch/bafu/en/home/topics/electrosmog /newsletter-of-the-swiss-expert-group-on-electromagnetic-fields-a/beratende-expertengruppe-nis-berenis.html#-1059250647

BERENIS Newsletter - Special Issue November 2018, https://www.bafu.admin.ch/bafu/en/home/topics/electrosmog/newsletter-of-the-swiss-expert-group-on-electromagnetic-fields-a. html

Carlberg, M. & Hardell, L. (2017). Evaluation of Mobile Phone and Cordless Phone Use and Glioma Risk Using the Bradford Hill Viewpoints from 1965 on Association or Causation. BioMed Research International, vol. 2017, Article ID 9218486, 17 pages, 2017. doi:10.1155/2017/9218486


Flydal, E and Nordhagen, E (ed.): "5G and our wireless reality – a dicey play with health and the environment", Z-publisher, 2019. (More review and ordering: HERE)

Hardell, L. & Carlberg, M. (2013). Using the Hill viewpoints from 1965 for evaluating strengths of evidence of the risk for brain tumors associated with use of mobile and cordless phones1). Reviews on Environmental Health, 28(2-3), pp. 97-106. Retrieved 6 Dec. 2017, doi:10.1515/reveh-2013-0006,


Hardell, Lennart & al: Letter of 7 January 2020 to Mrs. Simonetta Sommaruga, President of the Swiss Confederation from Hardell, Adlkofer, Ahonen, Bandara, Belpomme, Belyaev, Carlberg, Carpenter, de Salles, Eger, Havas, Hedendahl, Héroux, Lai, Mallery-Blythe , Miller, Morgan, Nyberg, Oberfeld, Philips, Richter, Sage, Yakymenko, https://einarflydal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Whistleblow-Martin-R%C3%B6%C3%B6sli_January-2020 .pdf

Hecht, Karl: Die Wirkung der 10-Hz-Pulsation der elektromagnetischen Strahlungen von WLAN auf den Menschen, brennpunkt Ausgabe Mai 2018, Diagnose:funk

Hill AB. The environment and disease: association or causation? Proc R Soc Med 1965;58:295–300.

Marino, Andrew: Going Somewhere - Truth about a Life in Science, Cassandra Publishing, 2010

Mercer, David: The WHO EMF Project: Legitimating the Imaginary of Global Harmonization of EMF Safety Standards, ResearchGate, · May 2016, DOI: 10.17351/ests2016.41, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303700958

Michaels, David: Doubt is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health, Oxford, 2008

Oreskes, Naomi & Conway, Erik M.: Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming, N.Y. 2010

Pall, Martin L: 5G: Great risk for EU, U.S. and International Health! Compelling Evidence for Eight Distinct Types of Great Harm Caused by Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them, notat datert 17.5.2018, https://einarflydal.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Pall-ML-5g-emf-hazards-eu-emf2018-6-11us3.pdf

Warnke, Ulrich: Deutliche Hinwiese af Gefahren und Schädigungen durch Kommunikationsfunk-Strahlung sind seit Jahrzehnten ‘Stand des Wissens’, in Richter & Wittebroch (eds.): Kommerz, Gesundheit und demokratische Kultur, Rörig Universitätsverlag, 2005, pp. 103-49

Wright, Nicola: «Downplaying Radiation Risk», Chapter 24 in Walker, Martin J. (ed.): Corporate ties that bind – An Examination of Corporate Manipulation and Vested Interests in Public Health, Skyhorse Publishing, N.Y., 2017

Zwamborn APM, Vossen SHJA, van Leersum BJAM, Ouwens MA, Mäkel WN. 2003. Effects of Global Communication System Radio-Frequency Fields on Well Being and Cognitive Functions of Human Subjects with and without Subjective Complaints FEL-03-C148. The Hague, the Netherlands: TNO Physics and Electronics Laboratory. https://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/digitaaldepot/Zwamborn2003COFAMrapport.pdf


Inter-individual and intra-individual variation of the effects of pulsed RF EMF exposure on the human sleep EEG. Lustenberger C, Murbach M, Tüshaus L, Wehrle F, Kuster N, Achermann P, Huber R. Bioelectromagnetics. 2015 Apr; 36 (3): 169-77. doi: 10.1002 / bem.21893. Epub 2015 Feb 17. PMID: 25690404 - Finds Clear Effects on Sleep of Pulsed Radio Frequency Exposure to Brain Waves

Modeling of EEG electrode artifacts and thermal ripples in human radiofrequency exposure studies. Murbach M, Neufeld E, Christopoulou M, Achermann P, Kuster N. Bioelectromagnetics. 2014 May; 35 (4): 273-83. doi: 10.1002 / bem.21837. Epub 2014 Feb 13. PMID: 24523224 - finds that the effects of pulsed radio frequency radiation cannot be due to heating, and that the mode of operation is still unknown

Stimulation of the brain with radiofrequency electromagnetic field pulses affects sleep-dependent performance improvement. Lustenberger C, Murbach M, Dürr R, Schmid MR, Kuster N, Achermann P, Huber R. Brain stimulus. 2013 Sep; 6 (5): 805-11. doi: 10.1016 / j.brs.2013.01.017. Epub 2013 Feb 24. PMID: 23482083 - finds negative impact on sleep by radio frequency radiation

Sleep EEG alterations: effects of pulsed magnetic fields versus pulse-modulated radio frequency electromagnetic fields. Schmid MR, Murbach M, Lustenberger C, Maire M, Kuster N, Achermann P, Loughran SP. J Sleep Res. 2012 Dec; 21 (6): 620-9. doi: 10.1111 / j.1365-2869.2012.01025.x. Epub 2012 Jun 22. PMID: 22724534 - a number of changes in sleep were detected as a result of exposure to pulsed radio frequency radiation

 Exposure system to study hypotheses of ELF and RF electromagnetic field interactions of mobile phones with the central nervous system. Murbach M, Christopoulou M, Crespo-Valero P, Achermann P, Kuster N. Bioelectromagnetics. 2012 Sep; 33 (6): 527-33. doi: 10.1002 / bem.21710. Epub 2012 Feb 13. PMID: 22331550 - (assessing a test method)

Sleep EEG alterations: effects of different pulse-modulated radio frequency electromagnetic fields. Schmid MR, Loughran SP, Rule SJ, Murbach M, Bratic Grunauer A, Rusterholz T, Bersagliere A, Kuster N, Achermann P. J Sleep Res. 2012 Feb; 21 (1): 50-8. doi: 10.1111 / j.1365-2869.2011.00918.x. Epub 2011 Apr 12. PMID: 21489004 - Pulsed Radio Frequency EMF changes the physiology of the brain, and partial pulsing is sufficient

Cognitive performance measures in bioelectromagnetic research - critical evaluation and recommendations. Rule SJ, Achermann P. Environ Health. 2011 Jan 25; 10 (1): 10. doi: 10.1186 / 1476-069X-10-10. Review. PMID: 21266038 - concludes that the test methods are outdated, and that no biological mechanism has been established for how the brain is affected by EMF.

Novel methodology to characterize electromagnetic exposure of the brain. Crespo-Valero P, Christopoulou M, Zefferer M, Christ A, Achermann P, Nikita KS, Kuster N. Phys Med Biol. 2011 Jan 21; 56 (2): 383-96. doi: 10.1088 / 0031-9155 / 56/2/007. Epub 2010 Dec 22. PMID: 21178239 - (describes an analysis tool)

Pulsed radio frequency electromagnetic fields: dose-dependent effects on sleep, the EEG sleep and cognitive performance. Rule SJ, Tinguely G, Schuderer J, Adam M, Kuster N, Landolt HP, Achermann P. J Sleep Res. 2007 Sep; 16 (3): 253-8.PMID: 17716273 - finds influences from real pulsed radio

Pulsed radio frequency radiation affects cognitive performance and the waking electroencephalogram. Rule SJ, Gottselig JM, Schuderer J, Tinguely G, Rétey JV, Kuster N, Landolt HP, Achermann P. Neuroreport. 2007 May 28; 18 (8): 803-7. PMID: 17471070- finds clear effects from real pulsed radio, but none from sinusoidal curves

UMTS base station-like exposure, well-being, and cognitive performance. Rule SJ, Negovetic S, Röösli M, Berdiñas V, Schuderer J, Huss A, Lott U, Kuster N, Achermann P. Environ Health Perspect. 2006 Aug; 114 (8): 1270-5. PMID: 16882538 - finds NO clear effects

Radio frequency electromagnetic field exposure in humans: Estimation of SAR distribution in the brain, effects on sleep and heart rate. Huber R, Schuderer J, Graf T, Jütz K, Borbély AA, Kuster N, Achermann P. Bioelectromagnetics. 2003 May; 24 (4): 262-76. PMID: 12696086 - Finds clear effects


LETTERS TO ICNIRP - by Reza Ganjavi




-By Reza Ganjavi, MBA

Subject: ICNIRP Moral Corruption

16 December 2019

Dear <snipped>

The puzzle is outstanding in my mind -- if you can help solve it, I'd be grateful.

How did ICNIRP turn into such a morally corrupt organization? To say it has no conflict of interest is not enough. It is fair to consider it corrupt (corruption is not just financial, it can also be moral, ethical, ideological, intellectual, and as you effectively mentioned, psychological: holding certain dogmatic beliefs because that makes you "somebody".

Looking at this from every angle, the fact stands out clear that

- ICNIRP's stance on radiation values acts as a gift to the industry, it is totally pro-industry, and contradicts the large body of independent science. Majority of people who find your work helpful are industry people. They LOVE you!

- ICNIRP has been engaged in misrepresenting certain key facts,  again,  totally pro-industry.

- Some ICNIRP commission members are cherished by the industry as gurus since they help the industry brainwash people into falsely believing current standards are sufficient.

- Your own statement that the hazard is low is very misleading. Average city in the world is zapped with 6 V/m of radiation that very solid evidence, including industry's admission itself, shows that it can cause DNA damage and cancer. ICNIRP's ignorance of solid, widely accepted, peer-reviewed science, is the cause of this horror. It is a horror -- far worse than "hazard", when you are microwaved against your wish at extremely unhealthy levels, and then are lied to that it's safe. This is a health and a moral horror.

- Your own chief is on record for saying standards based on thermal effect are sufficient.

This topic is far beyond realm of belief and intellectual foreplay. Your reference to epidemiology and statistics is at the heart of the problem. Statistics can be twisted till end of time, and most epidemiologists don't have credentials in medicine and biology.

- Your chief is a physicist, and thinks physics is enough, while highly respectable professors, doctors, researchers who've devoted a lifetime to this cause -- and are not holding blind belief for their ego's sake -- are screaming that we need to pay attention to biology, but ICNIRP has consistently ignored that. If this is not moral corruption, I don't know what is.

- Regarding funding, if the German ministry of environment is anything like their Swiss counterpart, they're also morally corrupt: when you lie to public about matters of public health, and misrepresent the science, this is moral corruption. So if a regulator gives you money, and the regulator is in bed with the industry, this is conflict of interest on your part.

- I can't believe you don't know this, and you're still working for ICNIRP. I'd quit if I were you  and get a respectable job. Or get ICNIRP to change its name to "industry special interest group", or better yet, shut its door and end its miserable, morally corrupt existence.

- I asked you on the call but you had no answer: Do you believe, as ICNIRP does, that current thermal-based standards are sufficient to protect public health?


Reza Ganjavi

Reference: "Recently, ICNIRP published a note on the NTP (7,8) and Ramazzini Institute (9) animal studies (13). This note is based on the view by the 13 Commission members and represents the misconception and wrong evaluation of these studies; for example it is claimed that the histopathological evaluation was not blinded, a false statement. ICNIRP also claims that there is no verified mechanism for RF radiation carcinogenesis in spite of well‑designed studies showing the contrary, e.g., oxidative stress (14) and DNA damage (15). There are also several other wrong suggestions, such as that some of the NTP findings were due to heat caused by RF radiation. On the contrary, heat is not a known carcinogen. The wrong statements by ICNIRP have already been rebutted (16)."


Subject: Your Lies

29 Nov 2019

Eric van Rongen (head of ICNIRP):

I just heard you LIED to a reporter saying 90% of EMF scientists think thermal standards are sufficient. When hundreds of EMF scientists sign the appeal to UN to tighten the standards, and hundreds write to EU to put moratorium on 5G, are your 90% prostitutes from Amsterdam's Red Light District or scientists who are prostitutes to the industry?

You LIED saying current studies are not sufficient. I believe ICNIRP is morally corrupt because it has been ignoring and manipulating results of credible studies in favor of industry. Shame on ICNIRP. It should close its doors or rename itself MORALLY CORRUPT WIRELESS INDUSTRY LOBBY.

Fee free to write me back if you can manage to not lie again.


Reza Ganjavi

Fighter for the Light against you Evil, Dark forces who are playing Russian Roulette with people's health.


To: Mr. Eric van Rongen (e.vanrongen@icnirp.org) -- head of ICNIRP who's planning on loosening the radio frequency exposure limits to facilitate the deployment of 5G

SHAME ON YOU Mr. van Rongen, and shame on your captured agency International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).

The word PROTECTION should be dropped from the name of this useless pathetic shameful of an organization -- or rather kept and changed to "protection of the telecom/wireless industry".

What part of the scientist appeal to the UN did you not understand? You can read it again here: www. emfscientist. org

What part of the scientist moratorium to the EU did you not comprehend? You can read it here: www. 5gappeal. eu

Or you'd rather keep your head in your ass and IGNORE science? What could be a bigger evil than IGNORING HUMAN HEALTH IN FAVOR OF INDUSTRY?

You and your organization are engaged in what many believe to be a huge evil deed of relaxing the already intolerable standards, so as to facilitate 5G which is absolutely unnecessary for humans, and indisputable unhealthy. You've chosen to IGNORE THE SCIENCE, otherwise you wouldn't even consider this. You'd work to TIGHTEN not loosen the standards which you should very well know, are decades old and are based on thermal effect, and wireless industry knows very well how harmful they are at sub-thermal levels. Look at Swisscom Patent application WO 2004/075583 A1 as an example.

And look at the scientist video section of www.end5g .com to see what some real scientist who are not in the pocket of Big Wireless are saying about the topic.

I don't know if you believe in God, Karma, or justice, but your actions in favor of the industry, against humanity's health, will not go without consequence in the eyes of the universe.


Reza Ganjavi

#stop5g #emfcrisis

*by Moral Corruption I mean violation of basic moral value of honesty for example. In this article: http://fqp.luiss.it/files/2014/06/6_Di-Paola_Climate-Change-and-Moral-Corruption_PPI_vol3_n1_2013.pdf

It is defined in context of climate change, as "Moral corruption is corruption of the understanding, of the way we think and talk of climate change." I believe ICNIRP is morally corrupt because it has ignored and manipulated results of credible science, to downplay risks of wireless pollution, in favor of a corrupt industry which is on record for lying to people about health risks of RF-EMF.


An email I received:

Who is the ICNIRP's #1 Sponsor?

Provided 70-80% of Its Support in Each of Last Three Years

June 25, 2020




The German government—home of the European Union—an energy hungry conglomeration.


The German government is the main sponsor of ICNIRP, the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection.

The Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), which is the bureaucratic parent of the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS), has contributed 70-80% of ICNIRP’s annual income in each of the last three years. This does not include revenue from the sale of books and fees to attend workshops.

The BMU/BfS has been known to support ICNIRP, but the extent of its funding has only now emerged.

Details of Germany’s support for ICNIRP was provided to Microwave News by the BMU following an information request.

… Among the other agencies that support ICNIRP are: European Union Programme for Employment and Social Innovation “EaSI” (2014–2020), International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA), Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) and New Zealand Ministry of Health.

ICNIRP, originally an offshoot of IRPA, was launched in 1992, at the initiative of Michael Repacholi, who at the time was with the Australian Radiation Laboratory (see MWN, J/A92, p.12). He served as ICNIRP’s first chairman until 1996, when he moved to become the head of the WHO EMF Project, which he also helped set up (see MWN, J/A96, p.14).

ICNIRP develops exposure guidelines which are the basis for many national standards, including Germany’s. It releases an annual report, but specifics about its finances are sketchy at best.


WHO EMF Project – Michael Repacholi



Project activities

The mandate of the International EMF Project is to assess the health and environmental effects of exposure to static and time varying electric and magnetic fields in the frequency range 0 - 300 GHz. For the purposes of the EMF Project, this range is divided into: static (0 Hz), extremely low frequency (ELF, >0-300 kHz), intermediate frequencies (IF, >300Hz to 10MHz), and radiofrequency (RF, 10 MHz-300 GHz) fields.

The EMF Project is located at the World Health Organization (WHO) headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, since this is the only United Nations organization with a clear mandate to investigate detrimental health effects from exposure of people to non-ionizing radiation.

[They know damn well that the extremely low frequency (ELF, >0-300 kHz) and VLF’s are the most damaging—the lower they get, the more damaging. Arthur Firstenberg says:  In 1918 all radio stations were VLF, around 8 to 10 kHz. the trans-oceanic stations were immensely powerful.)






Reza Ganjavi's Email to ICNIRP following their new embarrassing / pro-industry guidelines that still ignore biological impact

TO: martin.roosli@swisstph.ch, k.chabrel@icnirp.org, e.vanrongen@icnirp.org

Eric van Rongen, Martin Röösli, Karine Chabrel, and the rest of your pro-industry ICNIRP cartel:

SHAME ON YOU FOR ONCE AGAIN IGNORING BIOLOGICAL IMPACT OF RF-EMF, IN FAVOR OF THE WICKED INDUSTRY, AGAINST OUR HEALTH, AND YOU HAVE THE NERVE TO SHAMELESSLY SAY YOUR PATHETIC USELESS "GUIDELINES" "will help put people at ease". It will put stupid people who blindly follow the garbage you feed them at ease. ICNIRP's new guidelines will have the opposite effect and increase public concerns about wireless technology because the guidelines only protect us from short-term heating (thermal / physics) effects and COMPLETELY IGNORE our BIOLOGY, WELLBEING, HEALTH.

ICNIRP continues to dismiss the many hundreds of peer-reviewed studies that have found biologic and health effects from exposure to low-intensity, radio frequency radiation including many human as well as animal studies. The preponderance of the research has found evidence of increased cancer incidence, oxidative stress, DNA damage, and infertility from exposure to wireless radiation.

ICNIRP should close its doors and end its own miserable existence that's contributing to lies, deception, falsehoods, and biological damage caused by RF-EMF.

By the way, despite not being a Medical Doctor or Biologist, as an epidemiologist Martin Röösli should be very interested in Coronavirus. Now ask yourselves -- use your brains and put all your intellectual or other conflict of interest aside: DID YOU KNOW THAT RF-EMF EXPOSURE WEAKENS THE IMMUNE SYSTEM?

Did you know Wuhan has had a massive 5G deployment?

Did you know that the WORLD WHICH IS HIGHLY POLLUTED WITH RF-EMF (THANKS TO ICNIRP'S ROLE) in prone to mass devastation because your beloved wireless industry hasn't left many corners untouched by this cancerous, DNA damaging radiation which YOU have downplayed as only having thermal issues!

Röösli, in his regular attempts to downplay RF-EMF risks, said in a lecture that my neighbor attended that food also causes oxidative stress. SO WHAT? An elephant is an animal and so is an ant!

PLEASE, CLOSE DOWN ICNIRP. Do the right thing and call it quits instead of giving continuity to its pathetic existence.


Réza Ganjavi, MBA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUMxPxZdUfY reza@rezamusic.com  www.rezamusic.com www.facebook.com/rganjavi www.emfcrisis.com Swiss Stop-5G: https://www.facebook.com/groups/358542968210641/ Global Stop-5G: https://www.facebook.com/groups/stop5g/ * Sent from my WIRED Internet connection


New Guidelines Adopted by the International Commission on Non‐Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) Protect Us Only from Thermal or Heating Effects

The ICNIRP issued a media release today to announce the publication of its new human exposure guidelines for non-ionizing radiation (100 KHz to 300 GHz) in the journal Health Physics. The guidelines address radio, WiFi, and Bluetooth in addition to 3G, 4G, and 5G cell phones and cell towers.

According to ICNIRP Chairman, Eric van Rongen, "We know parts of the community are concerned about the safety of 5G and we hope the updated guidelines will help put people at ease."

However, ICNIRP's new guidelines are likely to have the opposite effect and increase public concerns about wireless technology because the guidelines were designed to protect us only from short-term heating (or thermal) effects. The guidelines fail to protect us from non-thermal effects, especially from long-term exposure to wireless radiation because ICNIRP continues to dismiss the many hundreds of peer-reviewed studies that have found biologic and health effects from exposure to low-intensity, radio frequency radiation including many human as well as animal studies. The preponderance of the research has found evidence of increased cancer incidence, oxidative stress, DNA damage, and infertility from exposure to wireless radiation.

For more information see:

ICNIRP’s Exposure Guidelines for Radio Frequency Fields  https://www.saferemr.com/2018/07/icnirps-exposure-guidelines-for-radio.html


Effects of 5G wireless communication on human health

Briefing document

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service

Author: Miroslava Karaboytcheva

Members' Research Service PE 646.172 – March 2020


The fifth generation of telecommunications technologies, 5G, is fundamental to achieving a European gigabit society by 2025.

The aim to cover all urban areas, railways and major roads with uninterrupted fifth generation wireless communication can only be achieved by creating a very dense network of antennas and transmitters. In other words, the number of higher frequency base stations and other devices will increase significantly.

This raises the question as to whether there is a negative impact on human health and environment from higher frequencies and billions of additional connections, which, according to research, will mean constant exposure for the whole population, including children.

Whereas researchers generally consider such radio waves not to constitute a threat to the population, research to date has not addressed the constant exposure that 5G would introduce. Accordingly, a section of the scientific community considers that more research on the potential negative biological effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) and 5G is needed, notably on the incidence of some serious human diseases. A further consideration is the need to bring together researchers from different disciplines, in particular medicine and physics or engineering, to conduct further research into the effects of 5G.

The EU’s current provisions on exposure to wireless signals, the Council Recommendation on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz), is now 20 years old, and thus does not take the specific technical characteristics of 5G into account.

For more information see:

5G Wireless Technology: Is 5G Harmful to Our Health?






Debunking ICNIRP's lies / misrepresentation of the National Toxicology Program (NTP) study

- by Reza Ganjavi, MBA

US Scientist Criticizes ICNIRP’s Refusal to Reassess Cell Phone Radiation Exposure Guidelines after US National Toxicology Program Studies Show Clear Evidence of Cancer in Experimental Animals

Ronald L. Melnick, Ph.D., Senior Scientist (retired), National Toxicology Program, NIEHS, NIH has issued a scientific critique of ICNIRPs dismissal of the National Toxicology program findings.

On September 4, 2018, ICNIRP issued a “Note on Recent Animal Studies” that concluded the 28 million dollar US National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences study did “not provide a reliable basis” for changing the over two decades old guidelines on radiofrequency- cell phones and wireless – radiation. In response, Dr. Ronald Melnick went through the ICNIRP document point by point and presented the data to show the document has “numerous false and misleading statements.”

Melnick RL. Critique of the ICNIRP Note of September 4, 2018 Regarding Recent Animal Carcinogenesis Studies. Environmental Health Trust. Sep 12, 2018. http://bit.ly/MelnickICNIRP9-12-2018


Critique of the ICNIRP Note of September 4, 2018 Regarding Recent Animal Carcinogenesis Studies

Ronald L. Melnick Ph.D Senior Scientist (retired), National Toxicology Program, NIEHS, NIH

September 12, 2018

The International Commission of Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP, 2018) recently issued a report (dated September 4, 2018) that contains numerous false and misleading statements, particularly those about the toxicology and carcinogenesis studies on cell phone radiofrequency radiation by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP).This flawed analysis by ICNIRP served as the basis for ICNIRP to support their conclusion that existing radiofrequency exposure guidelines do not need to be revised despite new evidence showing that exposure to cell phone radiofrequency radiation (RFR) causes cancers in experimental animals. ICNIRP also does not take into account evidence on other harmful effects of cellphone radiation including damage to brain DNA, reduced pub birth weights, and decreased sperm quality.

The number of extensive incorrect and misleading statements in this ICNIRP document includes the following:

1) The ICNIRP statement that “the NTP reports have not yet undergone full peer–review” is wrong; the NTP reports on cell phone RFR underwent multiple peer reviews, including an unprecedented 3-day independent review more than five months earlier in March 2018.

2) The ICNIRP statement that many endpoints presented in the NTP reports were not defined “a priori” is also wrong. All of the endpoints presented in the NTP reports were specified in the Statement of Work for the conduct of the NTP studies that was developed during my tenure at NTP.

3) ICNIRP incorrectly states many critical conclusions from the NTP studies (NTP 2018a, 2018b). The peer review panel in March 2018 (NTP 2018c) concluded that there was “clear evidence” of carcinogenic activity for heart schwannomas in male rats exposed to GSM- or CDMA-modulated RFR, “some evidence” of carcinogenic activity for brain gliomas in male rats (both GSM and CDMA), and “equivocal evidence” for heart schwannomas in female rats (both GSM and CDMA). These categories of evidence are defined in all NTP technical reports: some evidence of carcinogenic activity means that the test agent caused an increased incidence in neoplasms, but “the strength of the response was less than that required for clear evidence.” Equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity means that there was “a marginal increase in neoplasms that may be test-agent related.” Therefore, any analysis of the NTP data must include the brain gliomas and the heart schwannomas; the ICNIRP report excluded consideration of the RFR-induced gliomas.

4) The statement by ICNIRP that animals in the NTP study were exposed “over the whole of their lives” is incorrect. Surviving animals were killed at about 110 weeks of age; e.g., more than 70% of mice were still alive at the end of the study (NTP 2018a, 2018b).

5) The ICNIRP report criticized the exposure intensities used in the NTP studies as being “75 times higher than the whole-body exposure limit for the general public” and therefore “not able to inform on mobile-phone radiofrequency exposures.” This issue had been raised before by others and is addressed in my paper (Melnick, 2018):

“While the exposure limit to RFR for the general population in the US is 0.08 W/kg averaged over the whole body, the localized exposure limit is 1.6 W/kg averaged over any one gram of tissue (FCC, 1997); for occupational exposures, the limit is five times higher (0.4 W/kg and 8 W/kg, respectively). Thus, the whole-body exposure levels in the NTP study were higher than the FCC’s whole-body exposure limits (3.8 to 15 times higher than the occupational whole-body exposure limit). Whole-body SAR, however, provides little information about organ-specific exposure levels (IARC, 2013). When an individual uses a cell phone and holds it next to his or her head, body tissues located nearest to the cell phone antenna receive much higher exposures than parts of the body that are located distant from the antenna. Consequently, the localized exposure level is more important for understanding and assessing human health risks from cell phone RFR. When considering organ-specific risk (e.g., risk to the brain) from cell phone RFR, the important measure of potential human exposure is the local SAR value of 1.6 W/kg (the FCC’s SAR limit for portable RF transmitters in the US, FCC 1997) averaged over any gram of tissue. In the NTP study in which animals were exposed to whole-body RFR at SARs of 1.5, 3, and 6.0 W/kg, exposures in the brain were within 10% of the whole-body exposure levels. Consider the converse scenario. If the brain and whole-body exposures were limited to 0.08 W/kg, then localized exposures in humans from use of cell phones held next to the ear could be 20 times greater than exposures to the brain of rats in the NTP study. Under this condition, a negative study would be uninformative for evaluating organ-specific human health risks associated with exposure to RFR. Therefore, exposure intensities in the brains of rats in the NTP study were similar to or only slightly higher than potential, localized human exposures resulting from cell phones held next to the head, and lower than the FCC’s permissible localized limit for occupational exposures.”

6) The claim by ICNIRP that the whole-body exposures in the NTP can produce adverse health effects is without foundation; the animals tolerated the exposure levels used in the NTP study without significant effects on body temperature, body weights, or induction of tissue damage (NTP 2018a, 2018b). The current RF exposure guidelines from the Federal Communication Commission, which are similar to those of ICNIRP, are based on a whole-body SAR of 4 W/kg, in order to ‘protect’ against adverse effects that might occur due to increases in tissue or body temperature of 1OC or higher from acute exposures. The whole-body exposure limit of 0.4 W/kg SAR for occupational exposures and 0.08 W/kg SAR for the general public is based simply on dividing the 4W/kg value by 10 for occupational exposures and by 50 for the general public, while the exposure guideline limit for localized exposures in the US is 1.6 W/kg averaged over any one gram of tissue for the general population and 8 W/kg for occupational exposures (FCC, 1997) is based simply on multiplying the whole-body exposure limits by 20. For localized exposures, the ICNIRP guideline is 2 W/kg averaged over any 10 grams of contiguous tissue for the general population, and 10 W/kg for occupational exposures.  The NTP thermal pilot study showed that rats and mice could maintain body temperatures within 1OC at 6 W/kg and 10 W/kg, respectively (Wyde et al., 2018). Thus, the exposures used in the NTP study are consistent with FCC and ICNIRP guidelines that limit whole body exposures to levels that do not cause any significant temperature increase. The 10x or 50x uncertainty factors applied to the 4 W/kg SAR are intended to avoid aimed at minimizing potential acute thermal effects, but do not address health risks from non-thermal or minimally thermal exposures. The ICNIRP report also criticized the use of subcutaneously implanted transponders to monitor the effects of RF exposure on core body temperature; however, Kort et al. (1998) showed that temperature changes recorded by the subcutaneous transponders did not differ significantly from rectal temperature measurements in rats or mice.

7) Criticism by ICNIRP concerning the consistency between the NTP studies (NTP 2018a) and the Ramazzini study (Falcioni et al., 2018) is disingenuous. The fact that both studies carried out in independent laboratories in Italy and the U.S. found increased incidences of heart schwannomas and Schwann cell hyperplasias in Sprague-Dawley rats under different exposure environments and different RF intensity levels is  remarkable. Without knowledge or analysis of the true dose-response relationship between RFR exposure and the induction of schwannomas and Schwann cell hyperplasias of the heart, it is unreasonable to expect a linear dose-response by combining data from these two separate studies.

8) The discussion by ICNIRP concerning the “expected ratio’” of about 30% for schwannomas to hyperplasias is based on the paper by Novilla et al., 1991, and is a misrepresentation of the data and its relevance to the NTP study on cell phone RFR. In the Novilla paper, there were zero hyperplasias and zero schwannomas among 100 male Sprague-Dawley rats (there was one hyperplasia and one schwannoma in female Sprague Dawley rats). Most of the spontaneous hyperplasias and schwannomas reported in that paper were observed in Wistar rats (ratio ~ 3). However, even if there had been a difference in the ratio of spontaneous hyperplasias to schwannomas in that study, it still would not reflect the impact of cell phone RFR on that ratio. The fact that Novilla et al. did not see either hyperplasias or schwannomas in male Sprague-Dawley rats lends further credibility to the absence of these lesions in the NTP study in Sprague-Dawley rats and the increased incidences of schwannomas in exposed rats being due to the exposures to cell phone RFR.

9) It is noteworthy that ICNIRP cites two reviews that conclude there is no association between RFR and acoustic neuromas, while ignoring any mention of the IARC monograph (IARC, 2013)) that reported positive associations between RFR from cell phone and glioma and acoustic neuroma in humans.

10) The issue raised by ICNIRP on the lack of cardiac schwannomas in control male rats in the NTP study and the expected incidence (0-2%) based on historical control rates had been raised before by others and is addressed in my paper (Melnick, 2018) for both schwannomas and gliomas:

  “Gliomas and schwannomas of the heart are uncommon tumors that occur rarely in control Sprague-Dawley rats. It is not unusual to observe a zero incidence of uncommon tumors in groups of 50-90 control rats. In experimental carcinogenicity studies, the most important control group is the concurrent control group. As mentioned above, the uniquely designed reverberation chambers used in the NTP study were fully shielded from external EMFs, and the lighting source was incandescent instead of fluorescent light bulbs. The housing of rats in the RFR shielded reverberation chambers could affect tumor rates in control animals. No data are available on expected tumor rates in control rats of the same strain (Hsd: Sprague Dawley rats) held under these specific environmental conditions. Thus, historical control data from previous NTP studies are not reliably informative for comparison to the results obtained in the cell phone RFR study.”

11) The hypothetical argument raised by ICNIRP about the effect of one additional schwannoma in the control group is nonsense; one must analyze the available data rather than inserting arbitrary values to downplay the significance of a true response.

12) The discussion in the ICNIRP concerning survival differences between controls and exposure groups affecting the relative tumor response had been raised before by others and is addressed in my paper (Melnick, 2018)

   “This comment is an inaccurate portrayal and interpretation of the data for at least two reasons: (1) there was no statistical difference in survival between control male rats and the exposure group with the highest rate of gliomas and heart schwannomas (CDMA-exposed male rats, SAR = 6.0 W/kg), and (2) no glial cell hyperplasias (potential precancerous lesions) or heart schwannomas were observed in any control rat, even though glial cell hyperplasia was detected in exposed rats as early at week 58 of the 2-year study and heart schwannoma was detected as early as week 70 in exposed rats. Thus, survival was sufficient to detect tumors or pre-cancerous lesions in the brain and heart of control rats.”

13) The issue in the ICNIRP report about the need for blind pathology to avoid biases related to exposure status is discussed in my paper (Melnick, 2018).

   “The reviews of the histopathology slides and final diagnoses of lesions in the RFR studies by the pathology working groups were conducted similar to all other NTP studies in that the pathologists did not know whether the slides they were examining came from an exposed or an unexposed animal (Maronpot and Boorman, 1982). In fact, the reviewing pathologists didn’t even know that the test agent was RFR. For anyone questioning the diagnosis of any tissue in this study, all of the slides are available for examination at the NTP archives.”

Also, the designations ‘test agent A’ and ‘test agent B’ refer to the separate studies of GSM and CDMA exposures and not to exposure status within a study. Therefore, these designations would not “result in bias because perceived patterns within a group’s samples can affect how subsequent samples are evaluated.”

14) The issue of multiple comparisons leading to possible false positives (with a probability of 0.5) was addressed by the NTP in its release of the partial findings of the RFR study (NTP, 2016):

  “Although the NTP conducts statistical tests on multiple cancer endpoints in any given study, numerous authors have shown that the study-wide false positive rate does not greatly exceed 0.05 (Fears et al., 1977; Haseman,1983; Office of Science and Technology Policy,1985; Haseman, 1990; Haseman and Elwell, 1996; Lin and Rahman, 1998; Rahman and Lin, 2008; Kissling et al., 2014). One reason for this is that NTP’s carcinogenicity decisions are not based solely on statistics and in many instances statistically significant findings are not concluded to be due to the test agent. Many factors go in to this determination including whether there were pre-neoplastic lesions, whether there was a dose-response relationship, biological plausibility, background rates and variability of the tumor, etc. Additionally, with rare tumors especially, the actual false positive rate of each individual test is well below 0.05, due to the discrete nature of the data, so the cumulative false positive rate from many such tests is less than a person would expect by multiplying 0.05 by the number of tests conducted (Fears et al., 1977; Haseman, 1983; Kissling et al., 2015).”

15) The conclusion in the ICNIRP report that the NTP study is not consistent with the RFR cancer literature is wrong, and the claim by ICNIRP that epidemiological studies have not found evidence for cardiac schwannomas neglects to note that no studies of cell phone users have examined relationships between RFR exposure to the heart and risk of cardiac schwannomas. While it is true that the NTP did not report an increase in vestibular schwannomas in rats, it must be recognized that the vestibular nerve was not examined microscopically.  The NTP findings of significantly increased incidences and/or trends for gliomas and glial cell hyperplasias in the brain and schwannomas and Schwann cell hyperplasias in the heart of exposed male rats are most important because the IARC classified RFR as a “possible human carcinogen” based largely on increased risks of gliomas and acoustic neuromas (which are Schwann cell tumors on the acoustic nerve) among long term users of cell phones. The concordance between rats and humans in cell type affected by RFR is remarkable and strengthens the animal-to-human association.


Based on numerous incorrect and misleading claims, the ICNIRP report concludes that “these studies (NTP and Ramazzini) do not provide a reliable basis for revising the existing radiofrequency exposure guidelines.” The data on gliomas of the brain and schwannomas of the heart induced by cell phone radiation are suitable for conducting a quantitative risk assessment and subsequent re-evaluation of health-based exposure limits. The ‘P’ in ICNIRP stands for Protection. One must wonder who this commission is trying to protect – evidently, it is not public health.



Falcioni, L., Bua L., Tibaldi, E., Lauriola, M., DeAngelis, L., Gnudi, F., Mandrioli, D., Manservigi, M., Manservisi, F., Manzoli, I., Menghetti, I., Montella, R., Panzacchi, S., Sgargi, D., Strollo, V., Vornoli, A., Belpoggi, F. 2018. Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz base station environmental emission. Environ. Res. 165, 496-503.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 1997. Evaluating compliance with FCC guidelines for human exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. OET Bulletin 65. Federal Communications Commission Office of Engineering & Technology, Washington, DC

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 2013. IARC Monograph on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans: Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields. Lyon, France, Volume 102.

ICNIRP (2018) International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection. https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPnote2018.pdf

Kort, W.J., Hekking-Weijma, J.M., TenKate, M.T., Sorm, V., VanStrik, R.  1998. A microchip implant system as a method to determine body temperature of terminally ill rats and mice. Lab Anim. 32: 260-269.

Maronpot, R.R., Boorman, G.A. 1982. Interpretation of rodent hepatocellular proliferative alterations and hepatocellular tumors in chemical safety assessment. Tox. Pathol. 10, 71-80.

Melnick, R.L. 2018. Commentary on the utility of the National Toxicology Program Study on cell phone radiofrequency radiation data for assessing human health risks despite unfounded criticisms aimed at minimizing the findings of adverse health effects. Environ. Res. (in press).

National Toxicology Program (NTP). 2016. Report of partial findings from the National Toxicology Program carcinogenesis studies of cell phone radiofrequency radiation in Hsd: Sprague Dawley SD rats (whole body exposures).


National Toxicology Program (NTP). 2018a. NTP technical report on the toxicology and carcinogenesis studies in Hsd:Sprague Dawley SD rats exposed to whole-body radio frequency radiation at a frequency (900 MHz) and modulations (GSM and CDMA) used by cell phones. NTP TR 595 (in final preparation).

National Toxicology Program (NTP). 2018b. NTP technical report on the toxicology and carcinogenesis studies in B6C3F1/N mice exposed to whole-body radio frequency radiation at a frequency (1,900 MHz) and modulations (GSM and CDMA) used by cell phones.  NTP TR 596 (in final preparation).

National Toxicology Program (NTP). 2018c. Peer review of the draft NTP technical reports on cell phone radiofrequency radiation. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/trpanel/2018/march/peerreview20180328_508.pdf

Wyde, M.E., Horn, T.L., Capstick, M.H., Ladbury, J.M., Koepke, G., Wilson, P.F., Kissling, G.E., Stout, M.D., Kuster, N., Melnick, R.L., Gauger, J., Bucher, J.R., and McCormick, D.L. 2018. Effect of cell phone radiofrequency radiation on body temperature in rodents: Pilot studies of the National Toxicology Program’s reverberation chamber exposure system. Bioelectromagnetics 39, 190-199.


Dr. Ronald L. Melnick  served as a toxicologist for 28+ years at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the National Toxicology Program (NTP), before retiring in 2009. Dr. Melnick received his B.S. from Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, and his M.S. and Ph.D. from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. He was a postdoctoral research fellow in the Department of Physiology-Anatomy at the University of California in Berkeley and then an assistant professor of Life Sciences at the Polytechnic Institute of New York. At NTP/NIEHS, Dr. Melnick was involved in the design, monitoring and interpretation of toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of numerous environmental and occupational agents including 1,3-butadiene, chloroprene, isoprene, water disinfection byproducts, etc. He led the design of the NTP carcinogenicity studies of cell phone radiofrequency radiation in rodents. In addition, his research has focused on the use of mechanistic data in assessing human health risks of environmental chemicals. He was manager of the NIEHS Experimental Toxicology Unit, Carcinogenesis and Toxicology Evaluation Branch, and group leader of the NIEHS Toxicokinetics and Biochemical Modeling Group, in the Laboratory of Computational Biology and Risk Analysis. He spent one year as an agency representative at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to work on interagency assessments of health risks of environmental agents and on risk assessment research needs in the Federal government. Dr. Melnick has organized several national and international symposiums and workshops on health risks associated with exposure to toxic and carcinogenic agents, and he has served on numerous scientific review boards and advisory panels, including those of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. He is a fellow (emeritus) of the Collegium Ramazzini. Dr. Melnick is the recipient of the American Public Health Association’s 2007 David P. Rall Award for science-based advocacy in public health.





Letter to Honored Madam Doctor Steiner, member of Swiss BERENIS and Doctors for the Environment

by Reza Ganjavi -- July 2020


Ärztinnen und Ärzte für Umweltschutz (AEFU)

Westquai 2, Postfach 620, 4019 Basel

Telefon 061 322 49 49, Fax 061 383 80 49

To: Dr. Edith Steiner

Cc: Dr. Martin Forter, Dr. Cornelia Semadeni

Dear Dr. Steiner

Thanks for your good work for the sake of our health! Hereby, I respectfully express a couple of impressions after our long, interesting talk. Sorry it took so long -- I've been very busy. While I really appreciated you taking the time for the talk, and agree with you on many points, and appreciate the good work you're doing, I found it alarming that you showed so much sympathy for Martin Röösli, the leader of BERENIS. I also know Martin -- we've had some exchanges -- and even collaborated on something. I think he's a nice man on a personal level, but his ideas are very problematic. The articles below demonstrate that better that I could.

I trust you're aware of the following publications that refer to Martin Roosli's conflict of interest. I personally am not accusing him of personal financial conflict of interest, but it's well established that his parent organizations, ICNIRP is funded by parties who are very sympathetic to the industry, e.g. the German equivalent of BAFU (BAFU as you know is also very sympathetic to the industry). Also, conflict of interest is not just financial -- but also intellectual, which goes the direction of psychology, identification, sense of self, etc., which is out of scope here.

As a side note, since a Swiss man has been untruthfully taking undue credit in association with the first letter, fact is, I initiated and coordinated it, and the authors also thanked me in the second publication which is more elaborate than the first (page 8). 

I do know your sentiments towards ICNIRP and totally agree with you. I believe ICNIRP should be dissolved. Here are two new good article on ICNIRP:

And a few more:

That's why I do not understand your sympathy for him. Just because we don’t have any experts in Switzerland doesn’t mean we need to settle for someone who simply doesn’t have the credentials in Medicine or Biology (not to mention his association with the pro-industry ICNIRP) to be leading BERENIS and the Health subsection of BAFU. 

Secondly, I noticed your attendance at the industry-funded FSM (ETH). If I were in your shos, I would not put my foot on FSM grounds, because of their allegedly unethical conduct of engaging in manipulating Swiss people in favor of the industry (have you seen the kind of nonsense Gregor Dürrenberger tells the public on behalf of Sunrise?! -- it's mind boggling!). AEFU should be shunning these events and such organizations. By your attendance, you give credibility to an organization which is fundamentally problematic, and is in the pocket of the industry.


I do not know AEFU's internal structure but would hope to have a very strong presence in BERENIS to really fight for the people and our health, and stand up to the deception and industry lies and lines, and the wicked practices of the wicked industry and its cronies, who are ruining our beautiful country. There’s hardly a place left in Switzerland which is not polluted with extreme levels of DNA-damaging RF-EMF, sometimes 300 or more times the safe limit, per Bioinitiative Report -- limits that don't consider biological effect should be flushed down the toiletter -- please pound on the tables and make sure this gets through the thick heads of our leaders.

The useless standards are cherished by the Industry/BAFU/BERENIS/ICNIRP/FSM/ASUT/COMCOM conglomerate because they are profitable for the industry. The standards allow the industry to damage our DNA, and give us cancer, for the sake of money! That's how bad and unethical they are.

We need leaders who can change the rotten status quo.

Thank you for your good work.


Reza Ganjavi, MBA

Swiss Citizen


Sent 5 Sep 2020 to AEFU:

Dear AEFU friends, here's a link to full article exhibiting FSM's lies.

I know Frau Steiner attends meetings at FSM. That's an endorsement of FSM! I suggest you stop that. And instead demand that FSM is shut down or change its course. [See emfcrisis.com for letter on FSM / Dürrenberger.]

Kind Regards

Reza Ganjavi



"Fraudulent Epidemiology" by Professor Hardell; Letter by Reza Ganjavi

"Fraudulent Epidemiology" by Professor Hardell; Letter by Reza Ganjavi

Letter to Martin Röösli et al., by Reza Ganjavi  [SEE IMPORTANT LETTER FROM PROFESSOR HARDELL BELOW]

Subject: "Dr. Hardell (MD, PhD in Medicine) on "fraudulent epidemiology" / Questions to ICNIRP M. Röösli"

11 Nov 2019


A very interesting message follows from PROFESSOR DR. HARDELL (MD, Oncologist, PhD in Medicine) with some surprising statements from head of Swiss BERENIS / Swiss Media & Government Guru on EMF / ICNIRP member: Martin Röösli who has no medical or biology degree.

I also learned that Martin Roosli has been associated with ETH's industry funded FSM! Surprise!


Professor Hardell (includes 3 Attachments):

I asked Mona Nilsson at the Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation  https://www.stralskyddsstiftelsen.se/english/

about the CEFAO study, see included publication. Röösli’s name was the last one in the list of authors. That gives in the academic world a special responsibility for design, performance, interpretation and communication of the study.

In the following Mona Nilsson’s correspondence with Röösli is shown.

Some comments:

One major limitation in the study (CEFALO study JNCI)) is that they did not assess use of cordless phones (DECT) other than during the first 3 years of use.

This exposure was of course a major topic for the study – so not assessing life time use is fraudulent epidemiology. This shows a lack of understanding of carcinogenesis – is it a late stage carcinogen (not studied) or early stage, or a combination, not to say all problems with cumulative use, latency etc. or blunt ignorance. It is like studying a work place carcinogen only the three first years of employment and ignoring the rest. Exposure may of course vary over time and e.g. cumulative exposure is not possible to assess.

Of course studying e.g. cumulative number of cordless (DECT) calls has little meaning since life time use was not assessed, see Table 6.

In spite of this limitation the highest risk was obtained in the category with highest number of calls (Table 6).

There is more to be discussed, see Söderqvist et al 2011. In fact this study does not represent good sound epidemiology. The design and performance underestimated a true risk increase.

In spite of the many limitations there was a statistically significant increased risk for time > 2.8 years since first subscription based on operator recorded data, OR = 2.15, 95 % CI = 1.07-4.29, see Table 4 in CEFALO. In spite of that finding the press release from Karolinska Institute stated that: Results are reassuring because they are non-significant and thus are compatible with chance, Martin Röösli, the coordinator of CEFALO and a board member of the industry

funded Swiss Research Foundation on Mobile communication, explained the strange interpretation of the systematic increased risks throughout the study.

See Cefalo sept 28.

In my opinion this study is biased representing also lack of medical knowledge. As stated being a member of ICNIRP, as Röösli, is a conflict of interest. The Commission members tend to give the same opinion as the ICNIRP no-risk paradigm. Thus, giving other evaluation would not be within the realm of ICNIRP views and being a member of that non-governmental private organization.

Thus Röösli should be immediately removed from the Swiss evaluating body. Only scientist with no conflicts of interest should be included.

Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD 

Från: Mona Nilsson Strålskyddsstiftelsen

Skickat: den 30 oktober 2019 11:44

Till: 'Lennart Hardell'

Ämne: RE: Response from Dr. Hardell (MD, PhD in Medicine)

Classic statements from a fraudulent ICNIRP Big Telecom expert (Röösli)

- Results are reassuring because they are non-significant and thus are compatible with chance.

- As I said we were interested in early cordless phone use to investigate long latency.

Regarding shorter latencies, mobile phone use is a more relevant exposure source and if

microwave is a risk it would appear with the mobile phone use data. Thus, we saw no need to

focus also on short-term latency with respect to cordless phone use. Röösli also claimed that

studying the total use of cordless phones would require too much resources:

- You cannot prove all hypotheses with one study, unless you make a very long interview

which may not be acceptable to the study participants.

The explanation of the 3 years limit is so strange that it has to be controlled. Did the

researchers really do what they claim? The parallel would be scientists restricting questions

on smoking to the first 3 years in a study on lung cancer risks, then ignoring if smoking

increased substantially during the years thereafter. This seems inconceivable.

I therefore aske both Martin Röösli and Maria Feychting to send the questionnaire. Both

refused. However, the draft CEFALO questionnaire could be obtained from the Ethical

Review Board at the Karolinska Institute.

The missing question

The CEFALO questionnaire finally obtained from the Ethical Review Board at the Karolinska

Institute does not include the question that Röösli claimed that they asked and that he

explicitly stated in a written email:

- How often did (child) speak on cordless phone in the first 3 years he/she used it regularly?

Only 5 questions (of 267 in total) are asked about use of cordless phones.

The questionnaire is very long including questions about contact with sheep, goats, reptiles

and snakes. 38 questions about exposure to cigarette smoke. The claim that it would demand

too much resources to investigate more than the 3 first years use of cordless phone exposure

simply cannot be justified on the basis of the rest of the questionnaire.

Röösli's fraudulent coauthor Joachim Schuz replied to me in 2011 in Brussels that they asked about the first three years of use only because they wanted to study risks with using DECT phones at “the kindergarten” age….

What interests does Martin Röösli represent?

[auto translated from German]

What interests does Martin Röösli represent?

On the one hand, experts recommend protective measures against excessive radiation exposure, but claim that the applicable limit values ​​would offer sufficient protection. Why do they make such recommendations when everything is okay?

Why does Professor Martin Röösli in particular argue that there are supposedly no indications of health effects below the limit values? He is well aware of the many industry-independent studies that prove just the opposite. Does he simply ignore her because she does not fit into the concept? Does he rather refer to studies that are influenced by the industry and give the all-clear as desired?  


It pays to have a clearer look behind the person of Martin Röösli.

He is tasked by the Federal Council and the Federal Office for the Environment to assess the protective effect of the limit values. He regularly states that, from a scientific point of view, there would be no need to adjust the limits. In professional circles this function is called "Firewall". This is in the sense of his client, who takes a lot of money with the assignment of mobile radio licenses and in return guarantees the mobile phone service providers high limits by regulation. Why did not Röösli speak from a medical point of view at the end of 2016, when Parliament was supposed to increase the limit values, but luckily just refused? Why does he give interviews just before the next vote on the limit value increase in Parliament, and give the green light for a limit value increase from a medical perspective?


Who does the Bundesrat trust? Martin Röösli trained as a primary school teacher and studied Environmental Engineering and Statistics. He has a doctorate in the field of epidemiology. He then specialized in environmental statistics and now manages this area of ​​the Tropical Institute in Basel.   Why does the Federal Council rely on a specialist who does not have a degree in medicine, biology or physics?


Röösli also works for the Research Foundation for Mobile Radio and Electricity (FSM), which was founded and financed by the industry. It systematically denies the risks of radiation. He is also a member of a NGO with the misleading name International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation (ICNIRP). It is an association of 14 members, initiated by industry and military circles, which has to answer for far too high radiation limits internationally and also in Switzerland.   Why does not Martin Röösli disclose his ties to the mobile industry?


It is also well documented that the WHO project on the health risks of mobile communications is being instructed by the ICNIRP association. Therefore, it is not surprising that the new advisory group for non-ionizing radiation (BERENIS) of the Federal Office for the Environment is headed and administered by the ICNIRP member Martin Röösli.   The circle closes and it should be clear that the goat was made a gardener.






Welche Interessen vertritt Martin Röösli?

Veröffentlicht: Sonntag, 18. Februar 2018

Zum einen empfehlen Experten Schutzmassnahmen vor übermässiger Strahlenbelastung, beteuern dabei aber, dass die geltenden Grenzwerte ausreichenden Schutz bieten würden. Weshalb machen sie überhaupt solche Empfehlungen, wenn doch alles okay ist?

Wieso vertritt insbesondere Professor Martin Röösli die Meinung, dass es angeblich keine Hinweise auf Gesundheitsauswirkungen unterhalb der Grenzwerte geben würde? Ihm sind die vielen industrieunabhängigen Studien sehr wohl bekannt, die genau das Gegenteil belegen. Ignoriert er sie einfach, weil sie nicht ins Konzept passen? Bezieht er sich lieber auf Studien, die von der Industrie beeinflusst sind und wunschgemäss Entwarnung geben? 

Es lohnt sich ein klärender Blick hinter die Person von Martin Röösli.

Er ist vom Bundesrat respektive dem Bundesamt für Umwelt damit beauftragt, die Schutzwirkung der Grenzwerte zu beurteilen. Regelmässig lässt er verlauten, dass aus wissenschaftlicher Sicht keine Notwendigkeit zur Anpassung der Grenzwerte bestehen würde. In Fachkreisen nennt man diese Funktion „Firewall“. Dies ist im Sinne seines Auftraggebers, der mit der Vergabe von Mobilfunkkonzessionen sehr viel Geld einnimmt und den Mobilfunkanbietern im Gegenzug hohe Grenzwerte per Verordnung garantiert. Weshalb hat sich Röösli Ende 2016 aus medizinischer Sicht nicht zu Wort gemeldet, als das Parlament die Grenzwerte erhöhen sollte, aber glücklicherweise knapp ablehnte? Weshalb gibt er ausgerechnet kurz vor der nächsten Abstimmung zur Grenzwerterhöhung im Parlament, laufend Interviews und erteilt aus medizinischer Sicht grünes Licht für eine Grenzwerterhöhung?

Auf wen vertraut der Bundesrat eigentlich? Martin Röösli hat eine Ausbildung als Primarschullehrer und studierte Umwelttechnik und Statistik. Promoviert hat er auf dem Gebiet der Epidemiologie. Danach spezialisierte er sich auf Umweltstatistik und leitet inzwischen diesen Bereich des Tropeninstituts in Basel. Weshalb setzt der Bundesrat auf einen Fachmann, der über kein Studium in Medizin, Biologie oder Physik verfügt?

Röösli ist zudem für die Forschungsstiftung Mobilfunk und Strom (FSM) tätig, die von der Industrie gegründet wurde und finanziert wird. Sie leugnet systematisch die Risiken von Strahlung. Er ist auch Mitglied einer NGO mit der irreführenden Bezeichnung internationale Kommission für nicht-ionisierende Strahlung (ICNIRP). Es handelt sich dabei im einen von Industrie- und Militärkreisen initiierten Verein mit 14 Mitgliedern, der international und auch in der Schweiz die viel zu hohen Grenzwerte für Strahlung zu verantworten hat. Weshalb legt Martin Röösli seine Interessenbindungen zur Mobilfunkindustrie nicht offen?

Es ist zudem ausführlich dokumentiert, dass das Projekt der WHO zu den gesundheitlichen Risiken des Mobilfunks vom ICNIRP-Verein instruiert wird. Es wundert deshalb nicht weiter, dass die neue Beratungsgruppe für nichtionisierende Strahlung (BERENIS) des Bundesamtes für Umwelt ausgerechnet durch das ICNIRP-Mitglied Martin Röösli geleitet und administriert wird. Der Kreis schliesst sich und es sollte klar sein, dass der Bock zum Gärtner gemacht wurde.

EHT Challenging ICNIRP

From : Theodora Scarato 


I still have not received an answer to my questions and it has been three months now since I sent the follow up letter to your short December 11 response. My new questions are in red.

Please see our updated list of questions. 


I asked “ ICNIRP has “ identified the 'adverse health effect threshold’ at approximately 1° C and a whole-body exposure with an average SAR of 4 W/kg corresponding to the operational adverse health effect threshold for frequencies up to 6 GHz. Can you share the study or  studies  that determined this specific  threshold specifically? “ 

ICNIRP responded on Dec 11, 2020 that “In terms of your request for details about how ICNIRP derived the restrictions for whole body SAR, this is described in the 2020 RF Guidelines.”

However when I go to ICNIRP 2020 one cannot find the studies cited.   Please direct me to the studies specifically- as ICNIRP 2020 does not clarify this. The ICNIRP 2020 simply states 

Pg 488 “As described in Appendix B, body core temperature rise due to radiofrequency EMFs that results in harm is only seen where temperature increases more than +1°C, with no clear evidence of a specific thresh- old for adverse health effects.” When I  go to Appendix B APPENDIX B: HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT LITERATURE Pg 518 states    “Both rodents and non-human primates have shown a decrease in food-reinforced memory performance with exposures to radiofrequency EMFs at a whole-body average SAR >5 W kg−1 for rats, and a whole-body average SAR >4 W kg−1 for non-human primates, exposures which correspond to increases in body core temperatures of approximately 1°C. However, there is no indication that these changes were due to reduced cognitive ability, rather than the normal temperature-induced reduction of motivation (hunger).”

Yet the reference to these studies are not cited. 

Question 1: Can you please provide the studies, with author, journal date and the full citation- you are referring to when you state on pg 518 “Both rodents and non-human primates have shown a decrease in food-reinforced memory performance with exposures to radiofrequency EMFs at a whole-body average SAR >5 W kg−1 for rats, and a whole-body average SAR >4 W kg−1 for non-human primates, exposures which correspond to increases in body core temperatures of approximately 1°C.” 


I asked on November 10, 2020   “Research you published and others has found that brain waves are affected by radiofrequency radiation (the 8–13 Hz alpha band in waking EEG and the 10–14 Hz “sleep spindle” frequency range in sleep EEG). See Schmid et. al., 2012Croft et. al., 2010, Yang et. al., 2016, Danker-Hopfe et. al., 2019. These effects were found at exposure levels compliant with (and lower than)   ICNIRP and FCC limits. As these EEG effects are considered proven, can you please explain why you do not advocate for RF limits that protect against these changes to brain waves? “

ICNIRP answered December 11, 2020 “Note that you have referred to some effects (e.g. RF effects on the EEG) as adverse health effects. Although we won’t comment on the research itself, please note that this confuses biological effects that do not result in adverse health effects, with adverse health effects. ICNIRP’s mandate is to protect against adverse health effects, and so ICNIRP guidelines do not specifically attempt to avoid bioeffects that do not result in adverse health effects.”

Scarato follow up question 2: ICNIRP states on page 37 “ Studies analyzing frequency components of the EEG have reliably shown that the 8–13 Hz alpha band in waking EEG and the 10–14 Hz “sleep spindle” frequency range in sleep EEG, are affected by radiofrequency EMF exposure with specific energy absorption rates (SAR) <2 W kg−1 , but there is no evidence that these relate to adverse health effects (e.g., Loughran et al. 2012).” but is there evidence that such brain wave changes are safe? ICNIRP seems to be stating that although these bioeffects clearly have been found, they are not health effects.  Has research been done  demonstrating that altering brain waves night after night is safe? 


 I asked on November 10, 2020  “ In the same interview (Go to minute 12:52)  you stated regarding the World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer  classification of Radiofrequency as a Class 2 B possible carcinogen that  “What they have actually said is that we don’t have any evidence that mobile phones cause cancer but it’s possible that it does..” Please explain the basis for this statement as the WHO/IARC classification was based specifically on published scientific evidence showing an association between cell phone use  and glioma and acoustic neuroma.  We are aware that more science was needed by the panel, especially animal data back in 2011. However evidence did show associations at that time. Numerous publications since 2011 have documented the recent science adding to the weight of evidence. Now several scientists state that the classification should be upgraded to status as a confirmed human carcinogen (Miller et al., 2018, Hardell and Carlberg 2019). “

ICNIRP answered December 11, 2020 , “In terms of your question about the IARC 2B classification, this is often misinterpreted, and by ‘possibly carcinogenic’ it merely means that it cannot be excluded that there is an effect. Although the IARC classification was back in 2011, from what we know now in 2020 there is no reason to change that conclusion, and thus no possibility to use carcinogenicity as a basis for exposure guidelines.” 

The ICNIRP statement that  ‘possibly carcinogenic’ “merely means that it cannot be excluded that there is an effect.” is false.  

The  International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of World Health Organization lists what possibly carcinogenic means in their preamble accessed online  and it states of the Class 2 B Classification that  “This category includes agents for which, at one extreme, the degree of evidence of carcinogenicity in humans is almost sufficient, as well as those for which, at the other extreme, there are no human data but for which there is evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” 

In 2019, the  advisory group of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization released new recommendations to reassess  as a “high priority” the cancer risks of radiofrequency (RF) radiation between 2020–2024 due to new research study findings in animals.   The recommendations were published in The Lancet Oncology on April 18, 2019 and  the full report cites new epidemiological studies as well as new animal studies published after the 2011 classification as the reason the new review is needed. 

Follow up Question 3:  Is ICNIRP aware that the advisory group of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of  the World Health Organization  has released newrecommendations  to reassess  as a  “high priority” the cancer risks of radiofrequency (RF) radiation? 

If ICNIRP is aware of these recommendations, does the 14 member ICNIRP Commission disagree with the need for a re-evaluation? 


I asked “ In a news interview in Australia (Go to minute 13:25) where Rodney Croft  stated that “It's very true that the amount of studies that have specifically looked at 5G are very limited, but from a science perspective that just isn’t relevant. What’s relevant is the electromagnetic energy and how that affects us..”  Why is it not relevant when 5G will increase ambient levels of Radiofrequency, add in millimeter waves and there will be billions of new interconnected devices, including dozens in our homes? “

ICNIRP answered December 11, 2020 “Note that although you appear concerned that 5G will result in substantially more RF exposure relative to pre-5G levels, it is highly uncertain that this is indeed the case. However, ICNIRP’s remit is not to control exposure levels in the community, but to set protective limits.”

Scarato Response: Please explain what you mean “ it is highly uncertain that this is indeed the case that 5G will result in substantially more RF exposure?’”  The documentation I have showsboth industry and published research studies show an increase in ambient environmental levels of RF. For example: 

The above is ample evidence from industry itself that 4G and 5G networks will increase environmental levels of RF. If there is not going to be increases in radiofrequency radiation exposure then why are companies publishing white papers stating that countries with more stringent RF limits  should change their limits to accommodate 5G? 

There are several studies documenting that the ambient level of radiofrequency will increase such as 

Research shows that base station antennas are a significant source of exposure. Industry is densifying 4G antennas for the future 5G network. Numerous 5G networks are using low band frequencies that have deeper penetration. 

The  ambient levels will increase as the research cited clearly documents. Animals, babies, and toddlers do not use cell phones but they do play outside. This is involuntary exposure. 

Furthermore, the study “Human Electromagnetic Field Exposure in 5G at 28 GHz” published in IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine evaluated human exposure to radiofrequency for three wireless systems -5G, 4G, and 3.9G and found that  5G’s higher frequencies penetrate into the skin very intensely despite the fact that the depth of penetration is more shallow.“The SAR is inversely proportional to the penetration depth, and hence, a shallower penetration occurring in 5G yields a higher absorption.” The authors conclude that “the fact that a high-frequency EMF cannot penetrate deep into human skin does not mean that it is not dangerous.”

Scarato follow up question 4:  Can you please share the scientific documentation substantiating this statement by ICNIRP “Note that although you appear concerned that 5G will result in substantially more RF exposure relative to pre-5G levels, it is highly uncertain that this is indeed the case.”  Please ensure your response incorporates real work scenarios in terms of the RF level that would be expected with 5G deployment and the densification of other networks such as LTE considered the backbone of 5G.  


I asked 5 questions to which ICNIRP responded with one paragraph. 

Here are the questions I asked: 

ICNIRP did not answer these questions but said Dec 11, 2020   “In terms of your questions 1-5, ICNIRP has not conducted a thorough review of the literature relating to potential adverse effects on ecology and the environment, and accordingly, ecology and the environment have not been included within the scope of the RF guidelines. However, ICNIRP has looked at this issue, and consistent with what was reported at the ELF and RF flora and fauna workshop that was run by the German government in autumn last year, there is no reliable indication at present that RF exposure within the ICNIRP guidelines adversely affects ecology and the environment. Details of the workshop can be found at https://www.bfs.de/DE/bfs/wissenschaft-forschung/ergebnisse/emf-umwelt/emf-umwelt_node.html.” 

Scarato follow up question  5  : 

Please explain the exact studies ICNIRP  reviewed that underpin your statement  that “there is no reliable indication at present that RF exposure within the ICNIRP guidelines adversely affects ecology and the environment” as I shared published research clearly showing effects. You referred to a “ ELF and RF flora and fauna workshop that was run by the German government in autumn last year” (and I will note that the webpage does not list the studies and in fact under “Effects of high frequency electromagnetic fields on vertebrates” only lists one study on calves which is rather odd..) so is it the protocol of ICNIRP to simply use the conclusions of the German government workshop which was not a systematic review and which has no publication available regarding the presentation itself or methodology used in such a determination? 


I asked November 2020 to ICNIRP , “ ICNIRP 2020 cites “an in-depth review from the World Health Organization (WHO) on radiofrequency EMF exposure and health that was released as a draft Technical Document (WHO 2014)” however that draft was never finalized nor was the full draft ever publicly shared. The draft was missing the  very important chapters: #1 (Summary and recommendations for further study), #13 (Health risk assessment) and #14 (Protective measures).  Thus it is not a valid scientific reference. We understand several ICNIRP members were also part of the group of scientists drafting the draft  Technical Document which never was made final. Did ICNIRP use draft material (summaries of health risk) that have not ever been published or publicly shared? Or was the reference to never finalized (also never published) drafts released for comment.   

ICNIRP answered December 11, 2020, “In terms of the WHO technical document, ICNIRP used the list and description of the individual studies from the WHO draft, whereas the conclusions on the different endpoints were ICNIRP’s.”

Scarato follow up question: So ICNIRP is confirming that it was referring to a draft document by the WHO, one which was never finalized and in fact, will be superseded by a new “review.” Please confirm you used the  outdated, non final and non published  review - the 2014 WHO draft  ? 


I asked November 2020 to ICNIRP, “According to the WHO webpage, the World Health Organization has NOT done an evaluation of the current body of research on radiofrequency radiation since 1993.  This is stated on the website  “The World Health Organization is undertaking a health risk assessment of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, to be published as a monograph in the Environmental Health Criteria Series. This publication will..update the monograph on radiofrequency fields (1993).” Has there been any more recent complete systematic evaluation of the science by the World Health Organization  in terms of health effects performed since the date of 1993? (I am asking about a completed evaluation of the hazard, not a draft document please.) “ 

ICNIRP answered December 11, 2020, “For details about what WHO documents have been published, you would need to contact the WHO.”

Scarato follow up question:  Are members of ICNIRP aware that the WHO EMF Project states on their  website  that they last issued a  monograph in 1993 stating  “The World Health Organization is undertaking a health risk assessment of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, to be published as a monograph in the Environmental Health Criteria Series. This publication will..update the monograph on radiofrequency fields (1993).”  My question is to understand if you are aware of this fact. 


I would  like clarity regarding the ICNIRP Local SAR (100 kHz to 6 GHz). What is the safety factor for the head and torso ? 


Regarding basic restrictions, what are the ICNIRP Local SAR (100 kHz to 6 GHz) limits for the eyes? I would appreciate it if you would provide the scientific documentation for this development of the restriction. 


I asked several questions and ICNIRP did not answer them in the December 11, 2020 letter so I will try to clarify my questions one by one. 

I asked- Research on animals  (Bas et al., 2009; Deshmukh et al., 2015; Shahin et al., 2017;Megha et al., 2015;Aldad et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2015) shows impacts after RFR exposure to the brain such as  alterations in neurodevelopment and behavior of offspring,  impaired learning and spatial memory, a deleterious impact on hippocampal, pyramidal or cortical neurons and induced markers of oxidative stress and inflammation in the brain.  Human studies have found  higher cell phone radiation associated with behavioral problems and memory damage (Divan et al., 2012Birks et al. 2017; Foerster et. al., 2018 ). A study you co-authored also found cognitive impacts - Verrender et. al., 2016 (as have several studies you published). In light of this research showing impacts to the brain, why not recommend the public keep the phone away from the brain? Or at a minimum that parents ensure children do not place the phone to their head? 

ICNIRP answered December 11, 2020 “You have also asked about specific studies. Except for a few exceptions (e.g. the NTP study), ICNIRP does not provide in depth commentary on individual studies.” 

Scarato updated question: If ICNIRP has reviewed the research on impacts to the brain, it must be aware of this research and my question is why wont ICNIRP recommend parents reduce children’s exposure as there are not studies showing long term safety? 


I asked “ Are you aware of the  American Cancer Society funded research by Yale researchers (Luo 2020) that found thyroid cancer linked to cell phone radiation exposure and that thyroid cancer is rising worldwide (Deng et al., 2020) and specifically in youth in the United States (Bernier et.al 2019, CDC 2018 ? If you are aware of this research linking thyroid cancer to cell phone radiation, please explain why ICNIRP is not lowering their reference levels in response? “

ICNIRP answered December 11, 2020 “You have also asked about specific studies. Except for a few exceptions (e.g. the NTP study), ICNIRP does not provide in depth commentary on individual studies. ICNIRP bases its assessments and guidelines on the literature as a whole, which includes consideration of individual studies as part of the hazard assessment process. As further assessments are conducted, ICNIRP will provide the sort of material that will hopefully answer your questions. “ 

Scarato updated question: Has ICNIRP reviewed the research on impacts to the thyroid at all?  If so please provide documentation. 


I asked “An Australian study also found that children in kindergartens with nearby antenna installations had nearly three-and-a-half times higher RF exposures than children with installations further away (more than 300 meters (Bhatt 2016). The research study “Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations.” found people living closer to cell antennas had statistically significant higher frequency of micronuclei and a rise in lipid peroxidation in their blood. These changes are considered biomarkers predictive of cancer. Do you think cell towers are safe to be near schools and playgrounds or do you think there should be restrictions to cell towers?  

ICNIRP answered December 11, 2020 “You have also asked about specific studies. Except for a few exceptions (e.g. the NTP study), ICNIRP does not provide in depth commentary on individual studies. ICNIRP bases its assessments and guidelines on the literature as a whole, which includes consideration of individual studies as part of the hazard assessment process. As further assessments are conducted, ICNIRP will provide the sort of material that will hopefully answer your questions. “ 

Scarato updated question: Does ICNIRP consider cell towers near schools hazardous due to potential impacts on the developing brains and bodies of children? 


I asked “ICNIRP has put forward an ELF EMF threshold far far higher than the levels   of exposure for pregnant women at which California Kaiser Permanente researchers found  increased miscarriage (a replicated study),  increased ADHD, increased obesity and increased  asthma  in the woman’s prenatally exposed children. A recent large-scale study again found associations between ELF EMF with cancer.  Can you respond to these studies showing adverse effects from non ionizing radiation at levels from 3 to 4 milligauss (far lower than ICNIRP restrictions) please and explain why you and /or ICNIRP are not acting to recommend pregnant women and children reduce their exposure to ELF-EMF?

ICNIRP answered December 11, 2020For example, the claims that you’ve made about ELF causing a range of adverse health effects will be evaluated and communicated in the upcoming ELF hazard assessment.”

Scarato updated question:  I did not make” claims” but merely cited published research studies. My question had to do with why ICNIRP is not taking preventive action regarding children. So for clarification as to your upcoming review, will ICNIRP be reviewing research that has looked at long term exposures to pregnant women? 


ICNIRP has up to 14 Commissioners. What is the oversight process for ICNIRP ? Is there any entity that reviews the ICNIRP guidelines to ensure they are protective?  

Thank you very much for answering these questions, 

Theodora Scarato