(Dr. Grigoriev, one of the world’s leading experts, emailed me this message regarding the Karipidis et al. (2024) review and gave me permission to post it.)
A group of little-known scientists have claimed responsibility for all cases of cancer associated with exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. These scientists claim that possible, probable, and proven cancer from exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields does not exist and never can exist. Thus, responsibility for misleading consumers, industry, and healthcare systems lies with several specific authors.
They made this conclusion based on an analysis of other people’s articles, selected using a methodology not developed by them, using analysis criteria that they also did not develop. These scientists themselves are not known for their affiliation with scientific schools studying the biomedical effects of electromagnetism, their fundamental work in the field of biological effects of electromagnetic fields and hygiene is unknown. For an unknown reason, the scientists speak on behalf of the World Health Organization, whose employees remain silent and, in principle, do not have the authority (and competence) to make such categorical conclusions. As is well known, science has no categorical judgments, even geometry from the obvious Euclidean has become non-Euclidean, the theory of relativity has become relative. We do not discover “laws of nature”, but only generalize what is known. The physical nature of the electromagnetic field has been and remains a subject of discussion, as well as human nature and the role of natural electromagnetism and electricity in it.
The discussion of the carcinogenic potential of radio frequencies has become one of the topics of the international electromagnetic project after 1996, and we have repeatedly discussed this issue with the participants of the WHO project. I have been directly involved in discussions since 1997. Every specialist involved in experimental work using several species of animals, with volunteers, with hygiene and epidemiology understands how dangerous it is to make a categorical judgment “this exists” or “this does not exist”. We all need to be very careful when meeting the statements of such authors who “know the answer” in such a complex area for research as the bioeffects of the electromagnetic field.
Dr. Oleg A. Grigoriev
Dr. Sc. (radiobiology), Ph.D.(radiobiology & hygiene of non-ionizing radiation)
Chairman, Russian National Committee for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection
Member of the Board, Scientific Council for Radiobiology, Russian Academy of Sciences
Chairman, Non-Ionizing Radiation Section, Russian National Radiobiological Society
Chief Expert of the State Commission on Sanitary Rules (retired)
Member of the IAC WHO EMF Int Project – now WHO Non-ionizing Project (since 2004)
Member of the Advisory Group to Recommend Priorities for the IARC Monographs
during 2020–2024
See more on Joel Moskovitz’s website Electromagnetic Radiation Safety (Saferemr.com) :
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Russian National Committee for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection Chairman attacks WHO-commissioned review that claims no cellphone-cancer link
In light of the proposed ban or restricting of use of smartphones in classrooms and social media ban for children under 16, and because the government, schools, media, commentators, parents and others have made no mention of the negative health effects of radiofrequency microwave radiation from smartphones and wireless technology, here’s a reminder of just some of the many warnings, recommendations and studies regarding risks to children and young adults from mobile phones, smartphones, wifi, smart devices, for well over a decade.
Smartphones and other smart devices emit very high levels of radiation constantly, from the numerous antennas inside them sending and receiving signals back and forth to nearest wifi router, mobile phone mast and bluetooth devices, impacting not only the user but everyone nearby.
A typical smartphone has multiple antennas for wifi, for 2G, 3G and 4G (and 5G if a 5G phone), bluetooth, gps, and others. Even on standby and when not being used, smartphones and devices are emitting wireless radiation. (see video bottom of page).
Children and adolescents are especially vulnerable to exposure to electromagnetic and RF microwave wireless radiation over their lifetimes, which can contribute to adverse biological, neurological, developmental and behavioural conditions.
Update: Minister Norma Foley has proposed that a staggering €9m be spent on pouches to keep student’s phones locked in while in classes. These Yondr pouches do not block signals so unless the smartphones are on airplane mode and turned off, they will still be transmitting RF microwave radiation (see video at end), as well as able to receive messages, texts, calls etc. Students will have their smartphones with them. Yondr pouches are designed to be opened with a special magnetic base only, but they are not tamper proof.
Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly Resolution 2011
8.3. concerning the protection of children:
8.3.1. develop within different ministries (education, environment and health) targeted information campaigns aimed at teachers, parents and children to alert them to the specific risks of early, ill-considered and prolonged use of mobiles and other devices emitting microwaves;
8.3.2. for children in general, and particularly in schools and classrooms, give preference to wired Internet connections, and strictly regulate the use of mobile phones by school children on school premises; see full text here
Electromagnetic Fields, Pulsed Radiofrequency Radiation, and Epigenetics: How Wireless Technologies May Affect Childhood Development https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28504324/
“We may not truly understand the health affects of mobile phones for many years. However, research does show that using mobile phones affects brain activity. There is general consensus that children are more vulnerable to radiation from mobile phones than adults. Therefore the sensible thing to do is to adopt a precautionary approach rather than wait to have the risks confirmed.”Dept of Health Press Release Chief Medical Officer
In 2011, an un-enacted Irish Mobile Phone Radiation Warning Bill 2011 indicated recognition of a need to introduce precautionary measures (especially for children and pregnant women). It was dropped by the Government Mobile Phone Bill 2011Oireachtas.ie
The International Declaration on the Human Rights of Children in the Digital Age
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child guarantees nondiscrimination, devotion to the best interests of the child, the right to life, survival and development, and respect for the views of the child. Other international appeals recognize additional or supplemental rights of children, such as the European Union Action on the Rights of the Child, and the Reykjavik Appeal on Wireless Technology in Schools.
The existence of the legal rights of children is well recognized, but not adequately or uniformly enforced, especially when those rights conflict with powerful commercial interests. In this document we set out three fundamental legal rights of children regarding the deployment and use of technology: their right to be free from intentionally addictive devices, platforms and apps; their right to be free from harmful exposures to radiation; and their right to be free from commercial exploitation.
The legal duty to protect children and enforce these rights on their behalf is the obligation of all adults, particularly parents, legal guardians and others in positions of authority. This protection of children is a basic legal principle that we believe will increasingly be recognized as a part of international customary law that can be recognized and implemented by every country on Earth. https://www.thechildrensdeclaration.org/
This video shows the RF wireless radiation emitting from a smartphone while it is just on standby. Even on standby the levels are high.
The radiation levels will be much higher than this and continuous when the smartphone is being used for calls, internet access, streaming music, watching videos, whatsapping, messaging, etc.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on SMARTPHONE BAN. Smart tech and Children. Years of warnings to protect health and well-being of children and adolescents
Five years ago, De-Kun Li, a senior epidemiologist at Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, CA, offered a new possibility: carrying a cell phone below the waist. When placed in a pocket below the belt, the phone transmits RF radiation into the abdomen. Given that RF has been shown to cause cancer in animal experiments, Li thought it was a plausible risk factor. (This is what I wrote at the time.)
The idea didn’t catch on, but Li persisted and conducted a pilot study to test his hypothesis. It convinced him that he may be onto something.
It’s a small study, designed to survey 50 cases of EOCRC and 50 matched controls. He found that those who carried a phone below the waist were four timesmore likely to develop tumors…..
Phonegate Alert calls for a critical analysis of the recent WHO study on health risks of mobile phones
Paris, September 18, 2024 – The Phonegate Alert association demands a thorough and independent examination of the results of a recently published study by the World Health Organization (WHO). This study, which concludes there are no risks of brain cancer linked to mobile phone use, raises numerous questions about its methodology and impartiality….
An international team of researchers, many with close ties to ICNIRP, is trying to put to rest the very possibility that RF radiation can lead to brain cancer —and, by extension, any type of cancer.
On August 30, they published a detailed systematic review of RF and cell phone epidemiological studies, which concludes that there is little evidence to justify continued concern over a possible cancer link.
The review, commissioned by the World Health Organization‘s (WHO) EMF Project, appears in the journal Environment International.
A few days later, Ken Karipidis, the lead author, posted a short summary to serve as a press release for the journal manuscript, which takes up 52 typeset pages of the journal.
Camilla Rees Presents on Wireless Risks at Metro D.C. MENSA Conference, Calls on MENSA Members to Join the Fight for Safe Technologies
“The Wireless Elephant in the Room: The Biological and Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields–and Steps We Can Take to Protect Our Health in a Wireless Age”
Camilla Rees presented on wireless tech risks Saturday at the Metropolitan Washington, D.C. MENSA conference. Her talk was titled, “The Wireless Elephant in the Room: The Biological and Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields–and Steps We Can Take to Protect Our Health in a Wireless Age”.
Rees shared many studies with the high-IQ MENSA members showing biological and health risks from non-thermal (heating) exposures to wireless radiation, and mentioned several review studies by the U.S. government showing risk dating to the 1940s. They included studies by NASA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, EPA, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Naval Medical Research Institute, Department of the Army, NIH/DoE, NIH/National Toxicology Program, as well as communication from the Department of Interior to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration indicating present exposure guidelines are outmoded and are inadequate to protect wildlife.
IMPORTANT NOTE FROM ES-IRELAND. Rees and others call for Fibreoptic as an alternative to masts/towers.
However, many people have reported experiencing increased symptoms after fibreoptic internet cabling has been installed either to their homes or to their neighbours’ home, or even just in the area. Even with wifi disabled, people are still finding the installations are causing EMI interference or ‘dirty electricity’ and adding to their symptoms.
We therefore do not agree that Fibreoptic internet is a safe alternative to mobile/wireless masts, unless the EMI issue is addressed.
In addition even in areas where there is and has been good cabled broadband for years (ASDL and/or fibreoptic), people still use mobile and smartphones connected to masts and antennas, out and about in their cars, and at home.
Letter to the Editor of Environmental International from Michael Bevington, Chair of Trustees, Electrosensitivity UK, BM Box ES-UK, London WC1 3XX, United Kingdom
Letter to the Editor, Environment International ‘Available evidence shows adverse symptoms from acute non-thermal RF-EMF exposure’. Comment on: Bosch-Capblanch X et al., The effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields exposure on human self-reported symptoms: A systematic review of human experimental studies, Envir Int. vol. 187, May 2024, 108612
This review (Bosch-Capblanch et al., 2024) states in its Interpretation that “available evidence” suggests that acute non-thermal RF-EMF “does not cause symptoms”. However, this unqualified broad claim, while arguably valid if it had been limited to the 41 mainly negative studies reviewed, contradicts my experience over the last 16 years as a trustee of the charity Electrosensitivity UK, which since 2003 has sought to help people sensitised to RF-EMF. The review’s Interpretation is invalidated in three ways. Firstly, its parameters excluded much available evidence showing positive effects; secondly, the use of averaging hides individual cases which provide positive evidence; and, thirdly, its negative claim is contradicted by positive proof from other sources, including practical, judicial, legal and underwriting.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Letter to the Editor of Environment International – from Michael Bevington, Chair of Trustees, Electrosensitivity UK
The World Health Organization (WHO) in 2012 initiated an expert consultation about research on the health effects of radio-frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) for a WHO monograph that was last updated in 1993. The project was abandoned over concerns about the quality of the commissioned review papers. The WHO restarted the project in 2019 by commissioning 10 systematic reviews (SRs) of the research on RF-EMF exposure and adverse biological and health outcomes in laboratory animals, cell cultures, and human populations. The second of these SRs, published in 2024, addresses human observational studies of RF-EMF exposure and non-specific symptoms, including tinnitus, migraine/headache, and sleep disturbance. The present commentary is a critical appraisal of the scientific quality of this SR (SR7) employing criteria developed by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Based upon our review, we call for a retraction of SR7 and an impartial investigation by unconflicted experts of the currently available evidence and future research priorities.
…….
Conclusions
To summarize, the way in which any epidemiologically unsophisticated reader is likely to be misled by this SR is clear. It appears to conclude unequivocally that the body of scientific evidence reviewed supports the safety of current (e.g. ICNIRP-based) population exposure limits for RF-EMF [10]. We reiterate that, on the contrary, this body of evidence is not adequate to either support or refute the safety of current exposure limits – largely due to the very small number and low methodological quality of the relevant primary studies to date, and the fundamental inappropriateness of meta-analysis for the handful of very heterogeneous primary studies identified by Röösli et al. [3] for each of the exposure/outcome combinations analysed.
We therefore call for a retraction of the SR by Röösli et al., and an impartial international investigation, by unconflicted experts, of both the currently available evidence base on these issues, as well as related research priorities for the future. That investigation should particularly address, above and beyond the topic of priority health outcomes to be researched (which was already assessed in the international expert consultation by WHO in 2018) [2] the need for improved methods of accurately measuring RF-EMF exposures, suitable for large human observational studies in the general population – the Achilles heel of the current literature.
WHO to build neglect of RF-EMF exposure hazards on flawed EHC reviews? Case study demonstrates how “no hazards” conclusion is drawn from data showing hazards
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on A critical appraisal of the WHO 2024 systematic review of the effects of RF-EMF exposure on tinnitus, migraine/headache, and non-specific symptoms
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is a serious, often debilitating condition resulting in a diverse array of adverse health symptoms in individuals exposed to man-made electromagnetic fields (EMFs). Highly disparate symptoms may include sleep disorders, asthenia, headaches, memory loss, difficulties in concentration, dizziness, musculoskeletal pain, acute and chronic inflammation, gastrointestinal disorders, skin conditions and mood disorders. These occur in the presence of EMF emitted by various devices, including mobile phone base stations and handsets, Wi-Fi routers, DECT telephones, household appliances, compact fluorescent and halogen light bulbs, power lines, power transformers, or smart meters [Citation1,Citation2]. These devices moreover induce symptoms at far below current reference exposure levels [Citation3–6]. As a consequence, EHS cases may be forced to discard personal electronic devices and avoid highly exposed areas such as shopping centers, public transportation or even hospitals. Some have resorted to wearing EMF-shielding clothes, and living in isolated areas distant from sources of EMF exposure such as countryside, woods and caves [Citation2]. Available epidemiological data points to increasing numbers of cases of EMF sensitivity, ranging from 1.6% (Finland) to 10.3% (Germany) in European countries, for example [Citation2]. Because EMF devices are virtually ubiquitous in the modern world, EHS syndrome detracts significantly from the quality of life and productivity of these individuals.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on HYPERSENSITIVITY TO MAN-MADE ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS (EHS) CORRELATES WITH IMMUNE RESPONSIVITY TO OXIDATIVE STRESS: A CASE REPORT
Electromagnetic Sense Ireland 