News for Finland

 Page 1 of 8   Next›  Last» 

5G is testing the limits of trust
Finland Created: 14 Apr 2021
In 2020, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) published updated safety guidelines for exposures to radio-frequency radiation (RF-EMF) emitted by wireless communication devices and networks, such as mobile phones or mobile phone base stations. This publication replaced the ICNIRP 1998 RF-EMF guidelines.

These guidelines, recommended by the World Health Organization, have been adopted by a majority of countries around the world, becoming part of their wireless regulatory framework. US uses IEEE/ICES and FCC guidelines, but seeks to “harmonize” with the ICNIRP guidelines.

Safety according to ICNIRP

The basic principle underlying these safety guidelines is that, according to ICNIRP, the only proven health-related effects induced by this kind of radiation exposure are those that occur when the temperature of human tissue is increased by more than 1 degree Celsius — the so-called thermal effects.

When the temperature of human tissue does not increase by more than 1 degree Celsius, the radiation is considered by ICNIRP to be harmless to human health. In their opinion, the level of radiation emitted by wireless devices meeting ICNIRP safety guidelines is insufficient to cause a health-affecting increase in temperature in human tissue. Furthermore, according to ICNIRP’s review of science, there are no proven effects occurring without such a temperature increase.

Given that ICNIRP considers that only thermal effects of radiation exposure can cause health effects, ICNIRP has designed safety guidelines to protect users from any thermal effects that could affect health. In ICNIRP’s opinion, prevention of thermal effects by the currently used safety limits is sufficient to protect the health of all users.

However, there is a long list of experimentally-observed biological effects in animals or in cells grown in the laboratory, that have been induced by exposures to wireless radiation at levels well below the current exposure limits set by ICNIRP. Scientists are concerned that if such non-thermal effects were to occur in users, they might lead to health effects.

According to ICNIRP’s understanding of science, these non-thermal effects should not be happening. However, unless all scientists observing non-thermal effects are hallucinating, there is something wrong with ICNIRP’s evaluation of the scientific evidence.

ICNIRP’s guidelines, in addition to being set to prevent only thermal effects, are also based only on short-term, acute exposures (from minutes to hours). The guidelines do not provide information on whether they will be protective for continuous and long-term exposures, those lasting from months to decades. Thus, while there is available published research on the acute effects, those that occur during or shortly after exposure, there is very little research on long-term chronic exposures. This suggests that applying ICNIRP guidelines to long-term exposures is based on an assumption of safety and not on the scientific evidence.

The ICNIRP guidelines are also being promoted as protective for all users, no matter their age or health status. ICNIRP claims that whether it be the growing and developing body of a small child, the ailing body of an old person with chronic or potentially lethal diseases, or the robust body of a young and healthy adult — all are equally protected.

Since experimenting on humans is limited, for obvious ethical reasons, we must look to epidemiological studies to examine the long-term effects of exposures in people. These studies on long-term biological effects and health can take many years to complete, and often present real-world limitations, thus there are few such studies completed from which to draw. This means that there is not much scientific evidence assuring that the ICNIRP’s safety guidelines apply to all persons, no matter their age or health status, and no matter how long they have used wireless devices. It suggests, again, that the application of ICNIRP guidelines equally to young and old, healthy and sick, is based solely on the assumption of safety and not on the available scientific evidence.

The workings of ICNIRP

Looking at the membership of ICNIRP, it is easy to notice that all members have very similar opinions on the issue of RF-EMF and health. All ICNIRP members have expressed nearly the same opinion, that RF-EMF is absolutely and completely safe for use by everyone, as long as its levels are within the safety limits advised by ICNIRP.

It is interesting to note that science evaluations by ICNIRP experts are frequently contradicted by researchers not involved in ICNIRP activities. Even more interestingly, ICNIRP members, when placed on various national scientific committees in the company of other, non-ICNIRP, scientists, sometimes arrive at conclusions that contradict ICNIRP opinions.

Recently, these disagreeing opinions were published by:

BERENIS in Switzerland
The Health Council of the Netherlands
US FDA 2020 Report

For the majority of users of wireless technology, ICNIRP is merely an acronym. They hear that ICNIRP claims to be about science only, void of any influences, be it from the industry or from government radiation regulatory bodies. However, not many users are aware of how ICNIRP operates in practice. Consider:

1. ICNIRP is a group of about a dozen scientists who claim not to represent anyone else but themselves.

2. ICNIRP claims to be void of any lobbying influence from the industry and from the national radiation protection organizations.

3. Retiring members of ICNIRP are replaced by new members who are selected by current members.

4. ICNIRP’s selection criteria, and their justifications for selecting particular new members, are not publicly available. Only ICNIRP members know why a person has been selected to join their group.

5. ICNIRP is not responsible to any entity for the scientific decisions they make.

6. No one has controls over how ICNIRP arrives at their recommended safety guidelines.

7. There is no oversight of ICNIRP’s activities by anyone.

8. ICNIRP has no legal responsibility for their scientific opinions.

The legal responsibility

ICNIRP safety guidelines are what they say, just guidelines. No one is legally bound to use them. This means that even if the guidelines were proven to be in error, nobody could legally sue ICNIRP for this error.

The telecom industry and the national radiation protection organizations, however, in choosing to use ICNIRP safety guidelines, becomes legally responsible for any health hazard caused by the radiation-emitting devices they produce, even if they comply with the ICNIRP guidelines. Once the telecom and the national radiation protection organizations accept and use ICNIRP safety guidelines, it is they, and not ICNIRP, that has legal responsibility should the devices ever be shown to cause health harm.

In short, ICNIRP members are responsible only before ‘God and History’ for whatever right or wrong decisions ICNIRP may make.

To understand the significance of this complete lack of oversight or control of ICNIRP activities, it is necessary to remember that the safety guidelines developed by ICNIRP are the sole guidance used by the industry that manufactures and operates wireless communication hardware and infrastructure throughout most of the world.

In essence, ICNIRP safety guidelines justify the workings of the telecom industry, which, in 2019, had an annual worth, globally, of about 1.74 trillion US$ - ICNIRP, the organization that claims total independence from any outside interests, that acts without any external control or oversight, and that is not responsible to anyone for their scientific decisions.

ICNIRP and 5G safety

The currently ongoing deployment of the new 5th generation of wireless communication, 5G, has further stimulated debate on the validity of ICNIRP’s safety guidelines.

What will be new in 5G wireless communications is the use of millimeter-waves, with frequencies from over 20 GHz up to 300 GHz. While millimeter-waves can transfer large amounts of data, they have a problem with how far they can be transmitted, and with the limits of their penetration ability. This will cause a very dense deployment of base stations (cell antennas) throughout neighborhoods (roughly, one small base station on every second lamppost), and will require base stations inside buildings. This means that in a few years, when 5G is fully deployed, city environments will be virtually saturated with the millimeter-wave radiation.

ICNIRP, in its 2020 safety guidelines, assures us that the health of users will be completely protected. However, how does ICNIRP know that?

The research on millimeter-waves and health is extremely limited. Several recently published science reviews have searched various data-bases, and have found only a very limited number of studies dealing with the health effects of millimeter-waves. The vast majority of science published on 5G millimeter-waves deals with radiation measurements and dosimetry, not with the biological and health effects.

In 2019, Simkó and Mattsson published a review of just 97 experimental studies.
In 2020, Leszczynski published a review of just 99 experimental studies.
In 2021, Karipidis et al. published a review of just 107 experimental studies.

Most of this millimeter wave research consists of small, in vitro or animal studies that are of low practical value when developing public health protection guidelines. This lack of research studies causes confusion and problems within communities. When users ask for the scientific evidence of the effects of 5G millimeter-waves on health, they do not get answers because the research has not been done. It is not possible to prove that 5G is safe. However, it would be possible to perform a sufficient number of research studies on 5G and health to show whether the health effects are minimal or even negligible. At this point in time such scientific evidence does not exist.

However, interestingly and worryingly, ICNIRP Chairman Rodney Croft, Professor of Psychology at the University of Wollongong in Australia, has recently stated in an interview with “The Feed” on Australian TV on June 16, 2020:

“There is no harm associated with 5G”

“Look, it’s very true that the amount of studies that specifically look at 5G are very limited, but from a science perspective that just isn’t relevant”

In summary,

· ICNIRP is an organization that functions without any control or oversight, either scientific or legal.

· There is no control over whether or not telecom industry or national radiation protection organizations are actively lobbying ICNIRP.

· ICNIRP trivializes the lack of research on 5G millimeter-waves and health, as expressed by the ICNIRP Chairman.

· The opinions expressed and decisions made by ICNIRP members are considered not sufficiently science-based by national science groups in several countries, as well as a number of prominent scientists.

· While members of ICNIRP do not have any legal responsibility for their scientific opinions, the telecom industry that uses ICNIRP safety guidelines for their products does have legal responsibility should their devices cause health harm.

In this scientifically and legally complex situation, there is an urgent need to perform an independent validation of the results of ICNIRP’s review of science and of the validity of the ICNIRP safety guidelines.

**********

Acknowledgement: I am grateful to M.M. Glaser for English editing.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Medium / BlogBHRP, Dariusz Leszczynski, 13 Apr 2021

Call for Temporary Moratorium on 5G Deployment
Finland Created: 20 Jan 2021
The currently ongoing deployment of the fifth generation of the wireless communication technology (5G) is being met with a great enthusiasm by the telecommunication industry, national governments and portion of the general public. However, there is also some resistance from the part of the population, caused by the uncertainty whether radiation emitted by the 5G networks and devices will have any effects on human health and environmental impact on fauna and flora.

The 5G wireless communication technology that is being deployed comprises of parts of the used already 3G and 4G technologies. The radiation emitted by the predecessors of the 5G, the radiation frequencies emitted by the 3G and 4G technologies, has been classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), as a possible human carcinogen. IARC evaluation did not concern the frequencies above 6 GHz, especially the currently prepared for use 26 and 28 GHz bands and the whole spectrum of 30–300 GHz frequencies that will be used by 5G in coming years.

Recently published safety guidelines by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), claiming that mm-waves radiation exposure limits are protecting all users, are only an assumption that is not sufficiently based on science, because the research on effects of mm-waves on skin has not been done yet. ICNIRP’s claim that the safety limits protect all users, no matter of their age or their health status, are only assumption with insufficient scientific basis.

The notion, often presented by industry and in the news media, that mm-waves will not be of health concern because they are entirely absorbed by skin, is absolutely misleading. Skin is not just a “physiologically inert overcoat”. Skin is involved in regulation of the immune response, cardiovascular functions, or neurological functions.

Skin is the only organ of the human body, besides the eyes, that will be directly exposed to the mm-waves of the 5G technology. As I presented in recent review of science, the whole scientific evidence on the possible effects of mm-waves on skin and skin cells consists of only some 99 studies, where 11 are human volunteer studies, 54 are animal in vivo studies (rats & mice) and 34 are in vitro laboratory studies using human and animal cell cultures. These studies examined only short-term acute effects of the exposure that do not provide any information about the possible delayed or long-term-exposure effects. Furthermore, the effects of mm-waves were examined in separation from other frequencies used by 5G and in separation from other environmental stressors (chemicals and radiations). Possibility of any co-effects and/or synergistic effects were not yet examined at all.

There is an urgent need for research on the biological and health effects of mm-waves because, using the currently available evidence on skin effects, the claims that “we know skin and human health will not be affected” as well as the claims that “we know skin and human health will be affected” are premature assumptions, lacking sufficient scientific basis.

In this situation, it would be prudent to place temporary moratorium on 5G deployment, while progressing with health research.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: BlogBRHP, Dariusz Leszczynski, 20 Jan 2021

ICNIRP Chairman, Eric van Rongen, clarifies issues from ‘The Telegraph’ interview
Finland Created: 20 Mar 2019
On March 3rd and 9th, 2019, British ‘The Telegraph’ has published two articles by Margi Murphy, US Technology Reporter, San Francisco, titled: Do smartphones cause cancer? World Health Organisation to assess brain tumour link and Mobile safety standards relaxed ahead of 5G networks.

Writing this article Margi Murphy interviewed Chairman of the ICNIRP, Dr. Eric van Rongen. After reading the articles I have sent few questions to Dr. van Rongen, and he graciously provided responses that further clarify his opinions published by ‘The Telegraph’.

Both, my questions and Dr. van Rongen answers are unedited, copied directly from our e-mail exchange.

Related news:
Mar 2019, United Kingdom: Do smartphones cause cancer? World Health Organisation to assess brain tumour link

On relaxing recommended safety limits

Leszczynski: As I understood from your comments for The Telegraph, ICNIRP plans to relax limits for cell towers. If indeed it will happen, please, kindly advise when and what is the specific science basis for it. I understand the technology part where the relaxed limits make it easier to locate cell towers in very close proximity to where people live, but what is the scientific rationale that is used to justify the lack of the health hazard?

van Rongen: As you know, ICNIRP is currently working on the revision of the RF guidelines and we hope to publish them in the course of the year. We will discuss them with the Commission during our Spring meeting early April, and I hope we can finalize them. So the information below is currently only preliminary.

In the GHz frequency range, there will likely be some changes. The relaxation I was talking about in the interview with the Telegraph is not exactly the factor 2 as it might seem from the article. I forgot to mention that we changed the exposure parameter in that frequency range. In the old (current) guidelines it is the incident power density, i.e. the amount of energy that falls upon the body, so a factor external from the body. In the new guidelines it is the absorbed power density, i.e. the amount of energy absorbed in the body; that is not equal to the incident power density, since part of that will be reflected and thus not enter the body. From a biological perspective of course only the power density inside the body is of relevance, hence the change. In addition, we also changed the area over with the power density is to be measured from 20 cm2 to 4 cm2 (up to 30 GHz, and to 1 cm2 >30 GHz) and the averaging time to 6 min (while in the 1998 guidelines these were time-dependent). Overall, there is possibly some relaxation, but that depends on how much of the power density gets reflected, which in its turn depends on the frequency and on the surface upon which the power density falls. Any relaxation will be between none and a factor of 2, I suppose. In any case, the goal was not to change the limits in order to get relaxation, the goal was to provide a better biological rationale and dosimetric background to the limits. And these are described in detail.

I regret that I was not accurate enough in providing information to ‘The Telegraph’.

On selection of scientific studies for the review of scientific evidence

Leszczynski: From your interview it also appeared as if ICNIRP and WHO would be in the process of selecting studies that will be used for evaluation of health risk by ICNIRP (?) and by WHO (?). Is it indeed so that there will be pre-selection of studies that are considered as “suitable” and the rest will be simply thrown out? This is risky, in my opinion, as such action may be considered as excluding “inconvenient” research. I am certain that it will be the interpretation of activists, no matter what explanation/justification ICNIRP and WHO will provide.

van Rongen: For the WHO review we have drafted exclusion criteria based on the quality of the studies, e.g. lack of a sham-exposed group in experimental studies, or lack of information on the exposure or exposure level. Studies of insufficient quality will not be included in the analysis (which will, by the way, be done by a WHO Task Group, and not by the Core Group that is preparing the review). There is no ‘inconvenient’ research. All studies of sufficient scientific quality are included, no matter what the topic. The WHO review is as objective and transparent as possible; the exclusion criteria will of course also be published as part of the review. The same is the case for ICNIRP. We use the 2014 public draft of the WHO review, the 2015 SCENHIR review, more recent SSM reports and even more recent studies not included in any of these as basis for our own review of the science. That is described in an appendix to the guidelines. In the guidelines, a concise description and rationale is provided of the biological basis of the proposed exposure limits and the choices made.

On the lack of pre-market testing for health hazard – safety recommendations based solely on assumption, not on actual test results

Leszczynski: you were quoted in ‘The Telegraph’ article as saying (emphasis added DL):

“…“It is not set up as a public health experiment but of course you can consider it as such. It will be necessary to gain more information about the exposure and any health problems that might come from an effect of that exposure,” however, he added, “this is not any different to monitoring prescription drugs that we rely on”…”

This statement is completely incorrect. Any and all medicines are extensively tested for their effects on humans, as well as on animals and in vitro cells. Fact that the use of medicines is being followed up after they are put on market is just a logical follow-up to pre-market testing.

However, cell phones and any other wireless devices are sold on assumption that low power will not cause health effects. This was in 70’s and 80’s when 1G phones were marketed… but over time research has shown that there is possible hazard and radiation, the “harmless low-power”, was classified as possible human carcinogen.

The same seems to be happening with 5G devices. When I asked at BioEM in Hangzhou whether any health research is being conducted on 5G radiation emitting devices, Joe Wiart stated simply that these devices emit low power so… again no problem. Time will show what research on 5G will reveal in coming years…

van Rongen: I disagree with you. Mobile telecommunication systems are brought on the market with the assumption, based on available knowledge at the time of introduction, that they are safe. If they have not been tested specifically, this inference is made from general knowledge of effects of exposure to EMF. However, also in this case, post-market surveillance is useful to perform (by the way, you might consider the relevant case-control studies such as Interphone –that are by design retrospective- as some sort of pms). The classification of RF as a possible human carcinogen does not change anything in this, but indeed provides even more reason for doing these sort of studies. I think it is not correct if one considers the monitoring of possible health effects resulting from exposure to RF EMF from mobile telecommunication systems as a human health experiment. It is not an experiment, since it was never the intention to expose people and see what happens. The exposure is a by-product of the system, which, as I explained, was considered to be safe at the time of introduction, for which the monitoring of any effects is a useful (and indeed necessary) thing to do.

On the dismissal of inadequate evidence with another, inadequate, evidence

Leszczynski: ICNIRP and WHO seem to criticize case-control studies showing increased risk of developing glioma, by saying that the design and execution had flaws and, therefore result is unreliable. However, to dismiss these case-control studies, ICNIRP and WHO use other inadequate studies, as e.g. Danish Cohort or trend-studies. So, dismissal of inadequate evidence with another inadequate evidence? What is logical justification?

van Rongen: We do not generally dismiss case-control studies. Unfortunately there is no ‘perfect’ study, so there will always be some criticism or comment to any study of whatever type, case-control or cohort.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Telegraph, Margi Murphy, 15 Mar 2019

ICNIRP’s public consultation of the draft of the RF guidelines is just a gimmick
Finland Created: 26 Jul 2018
Recently, with several years of delay, ICNIRP finally put out their newest draft document for public consultation: ‘Guidelines on Limiting Exposure to Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic and Electromagnetic Fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz)’.

Reading the ICNIRP’s announcement one might be misled by its candor:

“As part of the development of the guidelines, ICNIRP has regularly given draft guidelines presentations to encourage critique and discussion from the many experts who are not members of ICNIRP. From this interaction we believe that the draft guidelines have developed substantially, and in particular into a logical, rigorous and transparent means of providing safety for both general public exposures and workers exposed to radiofrequency fields as part of their occupational duties. Now we expect through this Public Consultation to receive the detail required for further robust critique of this public health document.”

Readers of these words may get an idea that ICNIRP is genuinely interested in the opinions of the general public and that the submission of comments will matter.

Well, from my experience, nothing could be farther from the truth.

*SNIP* read the entire blog via the source link below...
Click here to view the source article.
Source: BRPH blog, Dariusz Leszczynski, 25 Jul 2018

Open Letter on the Electromagnetic Hyper-Sensitivity Research
Finland Created: 5 Feb 2018
Research funding and reviewing agencies should re-consider their stance on the importance of the research on EHS/IEI-EMF - Research should continue but the approach should change. The dominant study protocol till now, provocation studies, need to be replaced with studies examining molecular level physiology changes. Continuation of the research using provocation studies will not provide reliable scientific answers concerning EHS/IEI-EMF. Continuation of research using provocation studies approach is simply a waste of time and scarce resources.

*SNIP* Read the entire article via Dariusz' blog via the source link below
Click here to view the source article.
Source: BRHP blog, Dariusz Leszczynski, 04 Feb 2018

Cool body, hot mitochondria… is there a lesson for wireless radiation exposures?
Finland Created: 16 May 2017
There is a dogma, propagated by ICNIRP and opposed by BioInitiative, concerning the possible existence, or lack of it, of the non-thermal effects induced by the exposures to cell phone radiation.

There are numerous studies showing biological effects induced by cell phone radiation exposures that should not cause temperature increase. According to ICNIRP such studies are a “glitch” and such effects do not exist, but according to BioInitiative such studies prove existence of non-thermal effects of cell phone radiation.

I am of the opinion that it would be too big of a coincidence that all studies suggesting effects at the so-called non-thermal exposure levels would be a “glitch”. In my opinion such studies indicate that non-thermal exposures cause biological effects but…

*SNIP* read the entire article via the source link below...
Click here to view the source article.
Source: BRHP Blog, Prof. Dariusz Leszczynski, 10 May 2017

Wi-fi OFF Switches Installed In Finnish School To Reduce Wireless Radiation Exposure to Children
Finland Created: 7 May 2017
Elementary school parents long campaigned against wireless device rollout due to research evidence of health risks.

In the Fiskars primary school located in Raasepori in Southern Finland parents have long struggled against Ipad and Wifi based learning. They couldn’t prevent the installation of Wifi hot spots, but their struggle resulted in a compromise: in every class room there is a switch by which the radiation emitting hot spot can be turned off.

Most parents and teacher of the Fiskars school opposed the plan of Raasepori city administration to use tablets and microwave based wireless network in the school. Their critical stand was based on the recommendations of the Council of Europe, documented health risks, pedagogy, the limitations of tablets as computers, and the desire to keep children’s screen time reasonable.

In spring 2016 names were collected to a petition demanding postponement of the Wifi and tablet school project. The petition was signed by parents whose children are in Fiskars school now or will be in the near future. As the city was not forthcoming to the demand of parents and teachers, they suggested a compromise: let us install switches to the Wifi hot spots so that there wouldn’t be radiation when tablets were not in use. City officials initially maintained that installing the switches is technically impossible but in December 2016 switches were installed to every classroom.

Before the switches were installed the wireless microwave network was on 24/7 as in numerous other schools in many countries. Now, the Wifi Hotspot is generally turned off. The teacher turns it on only when tablets are used and the Internet connection is needed. The switches are set on a timer which turns it automatically off after 30 or 60 minutes so that you cannot accidentally leave the hot spot radiating for a long time.

Teachers have been satisfied with the new switches and find the installation of the switches sensible especially considering that in the first grades tablets are only rarely used.

The city administration did not support the project financially but after long negotiations it gave permission for the installation of the switches by a professional electrician and financed by a local child welfare association.

More information: Olli Tammilehto (one of the parents), tel. +358-19-237 035, email: olli@tammilehto.info Katri Pailos (the head of the Fiskars school), tel. +358-400-578 907 or +358-19-289 3575, email: katri.pailos@raasepori.fi
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Environmental Health Trust, Press Release by by Olli Tammilehto, 24 Mar 2017

Where science and big money collide…
Finland Created: 30 Apr 2017
Where science and big money collide, we enter a strange “twilight zone” of science politics, where various methods are applied to neutralize “inconvenient” science.

One of the examples of such collision between science and big money is presented in, as always, a very good story from Louis Slesin: ‘Peer Review in the Raw’. From his long-time perspective as Editor of the ‘Microwave News’ Louis is showing, yet again, that science and politics in EMF are a “toxic mix” for science.

The story of Henry Lai and N.P. Singh reminded me of my first publication in EMF arena.

In 2002 my research group published article that made worldwide headlines: ‘Non-thermal activation of the hsp27/p38MAPK stress pathway by mobile phone radiation in human endothelial cells: molecular mechanism for cancer- and blood-brain barrier-related effects.’ by Leszczynski D, Joenväärä S, Reivinen J, Kuokka R; Differentiation. 2002 May; 70(2-3):120-9.

*SNIP* read the entire article via the source link below...
Click here to view the source article.
Source: BRHP blog, Dariusz Leszczynski, 28 Apr 2017

How single-sided, outdated and obsolete will be the EHC RF-EMF when it will be, hopefully, published in 2018?
Finland Created: 26 Feb 2017
WHO EMF Project, under the ICNIRP’s “supervision”, is preparing the Environmental Health Criteria for radio-frequency modulated electromagnetic fields (EHC RF-EMF). This document will evaluate all possible health risks from the radio-frequency modulated electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) emitted by the wireless communication devices.

The EHC RF-EMF is delayed for some 10 years now. As I wrote on BRHP, partial draft of the EHC RF-EMF document, written by the group of scientists with a dominating presence of ICNIRP members, was released for the general public comments in 2014.

The next steps were to update the text using comments received, to select group of experts that will review the EHC draft document and to prepare the final version of EHC.

Now, in the end of February 2017, the progress seems to be slow and no end in sight.

*SNIP* read the entire article via the source link below...
Click here to view the source article.
Source: BRHP blog, Prof. Dariusz Leszczynski, 26 Feb 2017

Finnish Professor of Physics Talks Nonsense on Biological Effects of Cell Phone Radiation
Finland Created: 3 Nov 2016
I consider myself expert in biological effects of cell phone radiation - I have two doctorates and docentship in biochemistry - I worked at STUK for nearly 22 years, including as Head of Radiation Biology Laboratory and most recently, for 13 years, as Research Professor. I do research on cell phone radiation and health since 1996. My expertise in this area was recognized by my peers when e.g. I was invited to testify before a committee of the US Senate, Finland’s Eduskunta, Canadian Parliament or Health Minister of India. I was member of the group of 30 scientists who, at invitation of IARC, classified in 2011 cell phone radiation as a possible human carcinogen (group 2B in IARC scale). For those interested my full experience is available from this link.

I read carefully recent interview with Professor Tapio Ala-Nissilä published in ‘Voi hyvin‘ journal and in ‘Turun sanomat’ newspaper and I got very confused. Professor of physics at the Aalto University in Helsinki is serving very strong, partly false and misleading, one-sided opinions on biological effects of cell phone radiation.

*SNIP* read the entire article via the source link below...
Click here to view the source article.
Source: BRHP Blog, Dariusz Leszczynski, 03 Nov 2016

 Page 1 of 8   Next›  Last» 
 News item: