THERE APPEARS TO BE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST BETWEEN THE WORLD HEALTH
ORGANIZATION AND THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION NON-IONIZING RADIATION:

THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION TRUSTS A PRIVATE ENTITY WITH NO
INDEPENDENT EXPERTS TO SET EMF EXPOSURE GUIDELINES FOR THE PURPOSE
OF PROTECTING THE HEALTH OF THE POPULATION
PREPARED BY THE VALLISOLETANA ASSOCIATION OF PEOPLE AFFECTED BY MOBILE PHONE
ANTENNAS (AAVATE) July 10, 2015.

Get the PDF: http://www.avaate.org/IMG/pdf/escrito_web_icnirp_ingles_final.pdf

As part of its mandate to protect public health, and in response to public concern
over potentially adverse health effects due to human exposure to electromagnetic
fields (EMF), in 1996, the World Health Organization (WHO) created the International
EMF Project IN 1996. The purpose of the EMF Project is to assess health and
environmental effects of exposure to static and time varying electric and magnetic
fields in the frequency range 0-300 GHz1.
The introduction of new wireless and electrically enabled technologies is causing
growing anxiety in society. Many nations have developed electromagnetic field (EMF)
human exposure standards, or guidelines, for the purpose of protecting the health of
the population. The International Commission on Nonionizing Radiation Protection
(ICNIRP), an international non-governmental scientific organization founded in 1992,
is recognized by the World Health Organization and the International Labour
Organization (ILO) on EMF standard setting matters.
According to its statutes, ICNIRP’s goals are to advance protection from non-ionizing
radiation for the benefit of people and the environment. ICNIRP has issued safety
limits and other control measures that are based on avoiding thermal effects, or
tissue heating. However, these guidelines do not accommodate the growing scientific
evidence showing biological and adverse health effects for below the safety limits set
by these guidelines.
The World Health Organization EMF Project has endorsed ICNIRP’s EMF guidelines
and is urging all nations to adopt these guidelines to ensure “harmonization” of EMF
exposure standards worldwide. From an economic standpoint, industry and military
operations would benefit by if individual nations adopt these guidelines. Our main
concern is that the World Health Organization EMF Program is ignoring the scientific
evidence pointing to harm, while promoting non-protective EMF guidelines
established by a privately run organization that is not independent and is believed to
be under the control of the affected industries it seeks to regulate2. In Europe the
1 See http://www.who.int/peh-emf/project/en/
2 Michael Repacholi, an Australian biologist and radiation physicist, served as the Chairman of ICNIRP, starting in 1992 when it
was initially organized. In 1996, he left that post to work at the WHO as Coordinator of Radiation and Environmental Health
Unit and chaired the International Advisory Committee of the newly formed WHO EMF project
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Repacholi In 2006, he left the WHO and started working as an industry consultant.
http://microwavenews.com/CT.html
2
EMF guidelines recommended by the European Union are based on the ICNIRP
guidelines which are located under Recommendation 1999/519/EC of 12 July 1999 on
public exposure to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz). Spain has also legally
adopted ICNIRP criteria by Royal Decree 1066 on September 28, 2001. This means
when the courts rule on legal claims brought by people who have been harmed by
electromagnetic waves generated by the telecommunications and electrical power
companies, the court refers to ICNIRP’s scientific criteria in denying the claim.
In May 2015, 206 scientists and researchers from 40 countries appealed directly to
the UN and WHO, asking them to protect people from harmful levels of
electromagnetic radiation. They stated that international protection guidelines for
non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (which are based on ICNIRP’s criteria) are
inadequate. They point out that the WHO has a conflict of interest since it has
classified non-ionizing radiation as a possible human carcinogen, Class 2B, while
endorsing the ICNIRP guidelines which are based on thermal level exposure and
ignore studies showing biological changes and adverse health effects that do not
involve heat3.
The problems this causes are aptly described by D. Gabriel Doménech Pascual, a
Professor of Administrative Law at the University of Valencia, Spain, in his article "Not
Entirely Reliable: Private Scientific Organizations and Risk Regulation -The Case of
Electromagnetic Fields”4
ICNIRP has an Executive Council that consists of a President, a Vice President and a
maximum of 12 members. New and continuing members are elected by a vote of the
simple majority at a General Meeting by secret ballot, based on nominations received
by the current members, the Executive Council of the International Radiation
Protection Association (IRPA) and IRPA Associate Societies. The election is held every
four years at ICNIRP’S General Meeting held prior to each IRPA Meeting. According
to ICNIRP’s statutes, no member of the Commission may take a job that, in the
Commission's view, might endanger their scientific independence. However, a quick
overview of the Declarations of Interests signed by the members of the Commission,
attesting that they do not have any conflicts of interest and, of their scientific
publications, reveals some issues that call into question the impartiality of some of
the members. 

Get the PDF: http://www.avaate.org/IMG/pdf/escrito_web_icnirp_ingles_final.pdf