- Forums - Sign Up - Reply - Search - Statistics -
www.mast-victims.org forum / Technical / ICNIRP- what exactly do they protect against?
Author Message
# Posted: 26 Jun 2008 17:19

Someone a while ago - possibly on Emfrefugees (tom?) - said that all the ICNIRP limits guarantee is that a person's tissues will not be cooked in under 6 minutes of exposure. Can anyone point me to the section in the official literature that says this?

Of course this is information that the HPA should be able to provide, and I would email them but I know I'll only get a load of bollocks back from them, that will give me rage-induced stroke when i read it! But i will go down this avenue if no one reading this can help.
ta, jane

# Posted: 26 Jun 2008 19:43

You shouldnot bother to look.

The ICNIRP protects the industry against the civilians.

According to them, if your flesh is not cooking, then there can not be any adverse health effects.

If you still feel ill, everything can be the cause, except electromagnetic fields.

# Posted: 25 Jul 2008 16:53

'Cooking' is of course a silly and emotive word; nevertheless, the guidelines are set with respect to heating effects. This is for the very sensible reason that these are the only known effects at these frequencies.

That aside, and since no one else has decided to help with this question. Referencing my copy I think the information you are looking for can be found here:

Page 509 – Note 5 under table 4
Page 511 – Note 3 under table 6
Page 511 – Note 3 under table 7

This should brighten up your day Henrik. A quote from Bryan at last!

# Posted: 8 Aug 2008 13:50

What copy is this?

# Posted: 23 Apr 2010 06:45

Someone a while ago - possibly on Emfrefugees (tom?) - said that all the ICNIRP limits guarantee is that a person's tissues will not be cooked in under 6 minutes of exposure. Can anyone point me to the section in the official literature that says this?


# Posted: 27 Apr 2010 18:52

Clarke - you might look here. They refer to the ICNIRP guidelines.

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/x-transport/reports-00 /trr00-03-05.htm
see points 31 /33

# Posted: 28 Apr 2010 23:47

Hi Clark;
From a copy of have of the, Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields ICNIRP Guidelines, Health Physics April 1998, Volume 74, Number 4.
Page 509 at bottom # 5, It states All SAR values are to be averaged over any 6-min period.
#6. Localized SAR averaging mass is any 10 g of contiguous tissue; the maximum SAR so obtained should be the value used for the estimation of exposure.

# Posted: 30 Apr 2010 19:21

ICNIRP guidelines,

R.C. Petersen did a brief history on Radiofrequency/Microwave Safety Standards

# Posted: 13 May 2010 00:44

ICNIRP Philosophy Document


# Posted: 17 May 2011 20:25

this will provide more info on effects of EMF exposure


by World Health Organisation

# Posted: 18 May 2011 02:26

ICNIRP protect themselves against the public with the help of the WHO, and the WHO protect themselves against the public with the help of ICNIRP.

What a cosy little world it is.


# Posted: 18 May 2011 11:23


I recently wrote Paolo Vecchia, current ICNIRP chairman, asking about the basis of the ICNIRP guidelines and below is his reply, followed by my original letter. He basically says that ICNIRP guidelines only cover what is "established" - which means that they require close to 100% scientific certainty before accepting a effect as a "health effect". In a public-health protection scenario (which wireless comms have become due to rapid widespread adoption and high consumption) such an approach is rubbish, outright dangerous and only really serves the polluting industry. All claims of safety relating to ICNIRP I've heard yet, carefully avoid mentioning that the basis of the guidelines void the precautionary principle and force health protection agencies into a "wait-state" until there is absolute certainty that everyone's brain will blow up in 10 years.

Nuff' ranting... on to the emails:

From: Vecchia Paolo <paolo.vecchia@iss.infn.it>
Cc: g.ziegelberger@icnirp.org
Subject: Re: Request for comment
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:46:05 +0200
To: Henrik Eiriksson <henrik@solvation.net>

Dear Mr Eiriksson,
recommendations provided by ICNIRP are not "safety standards" (I intentionally use quotes as you do) in the sense that they pretend to assure total safety against any possible, hypothetical, non-unconceivable risks.
They are explicitly intended to protect against what is scientifically been established to be dangerous for human health. In the opinion of ICNIRP - a scientific body - this is the only scientific approach, that does not prevent other approaches based on social, economic, or political considerations.
Regarding pre-marked tests, my personal opinion is that it is quite unrealistic for many technologies, and especially for mobile telephony. Any comparison with procedures used for drugs is inappropriate. While a huge number of laboratory studies - with largely negative results - have been carried out on RF fields, including GSM-type signals, reliable answers about long-term effects on humans can only be provided by epidemiological studies. By definition, such studies cannot be performed without real exposure, i.e. without the technology in place.
ICNIRP is continuously and carefully monitoring the development of such studies, and is ready to revise its recommendations as soon as new data so require.

Best regards
Paolo Vecchia

Il giorno 16/apr/2011, alle ore 12.27, Henrik Eiriksson ha scritto:

Dear Prof. Vecchia,

I don't recall receiving a reply to the following question so here I send it again in the hope that your organisation, ICNIRP, will kindly offer an answer. I do recall that you invite comments and questions relating to the basis of the ICNIRP guidelines.

Will someone please explain why "safety standards" for non pre-market tested technology should be based on causal evidence?

There seem to be two competing interests at play: the desire to actively protect public health in the face of uncertainty and the desire to scientifically explain all observed effect mechanisms before acting.

If all risks were analyzed according to the criteria used to arrive at the current "safety standards" then, for example, observing the tip of an iceberg would lead to the assessment that it's unsafe for ships to sail towards it, but fine for submarines.

Consider the reality of todays exposure: four billion people pressing microwave transmitters against their heads and at the same time chronically exposed to cordless phones, wifi and cell-phone towers – who wants to gamble?

Waiting for causal evidence before preventing exposure means that a significant portion of four billion people will already be damaged.

Do the current "safety standards" account for cumulative effects from chronic exposure?
Are the current "safety standards" then even applicable in today's chronic exposure reality?

Please forgive my complete naivety when I ask why the safety standards aren't set at the threshold where biological effects have been shown to occur? Keeping in mind that exposure these days is practically chronic.

# Posted: 22 May 2011 16:23

Posted a year ago
Table 2 mentions thermo-acoustic wave propogation but relates it to microwave hearing.
Says it all in the first 3 sentences. Photon energy can produce sound in any material. i.e. the air!

Your reply
Bold Style  Italic Style  Underlined Style  Image Link  URL Link 

» Username  » Password 
You can post anonymously by entering a nickname with no password (if that nickname has not been taken by another member) or by leaving both fields empty. If you have an account you can also log in from this page without posting a message.

These forums are running on online community software miniBB™ © 2001-2024