The ICNIRP does it again - rejecting the finding of NTP and Ramzini studies that RF radiation may cause and promote cancer.
Microwave news report that ICNIRP has released a 8 pages note that try to explain why these studies' findings will not effect the old, non protective standard for RF exposure.
By that ICNIRP prove once again that the role it chose to play is to protect the industry from any update of the easy to follow, non protective RF exposure guidelines. These non protective guidelines were written in 1998, that don't cover health and biological damage from RF exposure and that take into consideration only immediate damage from the rise of temperature due to RF exposure.
The trick they use is repeated every once in a while when a new study find evidence that RF radiation exposure can cause or promote cancer or damage health in any other way.
They use the magic words : "inconsistent" and " unreliable" to undermine the findings while accepting and promoting studies that show a safer picture, even if provem worn (for example the Danish cohort study)
ICNIRP prove it self once again as the inadequate, baise and irrelevant.
Therefore I suggest to change "ICNIRP" name to "ICNIRIP".
It is a small change that will bring more "reliability" to the group.
Microwave news report that ICNIRP has released a 8 pages note that try to explain why these studies' findings will not effect the old, non protective standard for RF exposure.
By that ICNIRP prove once again that the role it chose to play is to protect the industry from any update of the easy to follow, non protective RF exposure guidelines. These non protective guidelines were written in 1998, that don't cover health and biological damage from RF exposure and that take into consideration only immediate damage from the rise of temperature due to RF exposure.
The trick they use is repeated every once in a while when a new study find evidence that RF radiation exposure can cause or promote cancer or damage health in any other way.
They use the magic words : "inconsistent" and " unreliable" to undermine the findings while accepting and promoting studies that show a safer picture, even if provem worn (for example the Danish cohort study)
ICNIRP prove it self once again as the inadequate, baise and irrelevant.
Therefore I suggest to change "ICNIRP" name to "ICNIRIP".
It is a small change that will bring more "reliability" to the group.
Its corrupt stupid science. You need to test an animal the same size as the wavelength/dielectric coefficient or the test is a bad joke.( pigs for humans) Also albino and black animals at the same time. Melanin being natures Faraday suit. Where did these guys learn to fudge results? This is not science but fraud. Deliberate misinformations.
ReplyDeleteFor years and years ICNIRP is adurcing only the studies that show no effect, and does whatever it can to dismiss the studies that show effect. This is all done to support their claim there is no effect other then heat. THe NTP, Ramazini and other studies that show effects other then heat, without heating the animals disproves ICNIRP's basic assumption and prove their is a biological effect in levels that do not cause tissue temperature change. The effect might be different in humans, might be in different levels, but there is an effect and ICNIRP claims should be dismissed and ICNIRP should never be trusted again.
Delete