Betreff: Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks
Von: Iris Atzmon
Datum: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 21:29:33 +0200

Dear  Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks,
I have looked at your preliminary report
It seems that the position of this committee is already rather clear. You write:  
A.   "The additional information which has become available on carcinogenic and other nonthermal  effects of radiofrequency and microwave radiation frequencies in the last years does not justify a  revision of exposure limits set by the Commission on the basis of the conclusions of the 1998....A relatively large series of laboratory studies has not provided evidence of  genotoxicity....
current knowledge is insufficient for the  implementation of measures aimed at the identification and protection of a highly sensitive subgroup of the population.....Studies on neurological effects and reproductive effects have not indicated any health risks at exposure levels below the ICNIRP-limits established in 1998".....
B.   "Bias in these studies [studies on EMF, that compose the IARC possible carcinogens evaluation] could explain  some of the raised risk. The findings from observational studies are not supported by studies in experimental animals, which provide inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity'".  p.30  
C. "Overall, there is little evidence of any health-relevant in vitro effects of RF electromagnetic fields below guidelines"  p. 22
D. "Most likely, the health problems described as EHS are not related  to the physical presence of EMF" p. 24
With regard to:  "The EU is inviting stakeholders to send comments with regards to EMFs and the effects on human health before  3rd November, 2006" : 
I am writing you as a  private person, who sees what's going on.  I am a shareholder because I 
live in an irradiated city in an irradiated country, I read EMF studies, I am in contact with electrosensitive people and public informed groups.  I am one of the victims of conflicts of interests in the WHO and the ignoring in the EU of this conflict. 
There are about 2 billions such victoms in the world. The implications of this conflict is that the documented bias of the
ICNIRP standard is ignored.  Therefore I  insist:    
1)  I ask on my and other victims' behalf, that an investigative committee in the EU will investigate the conflict of  interests in the World Health Organization that is documented in a doctorat work done by Don Maisch. I attach one of the doctorat papers on the subject.  A lot of work has been published about EMF in the last 40 years, and the public is not aware of it: can the reason for this negligence be that during years, the former head of EMF project  at the World Health  Organization, Dr. Michael Reapcholi,  has received, according to the cellular inudstry, (according to Microwave News report, ) $150,000 a year + travel and meeting expenses from the cellular industry? The WHO also invited the power industry to set the health EMF standards (everything is docuemented in the published doctorat paper that I attached)  I ask to check whether his replacement, Emili van Deventer, receives this money now also, or more money than he received.  I read on a french website that Dr. Emili Van Devener was not ashamed to say that the risk from powerlines is equivalent to one case of   Leukemia in whole France. (
I have been following  during the last years after dozens of reports from people all over the world reporting to the WHO about illness clusters around celllular antennas, and they were ignored, and not checked. A petition that was sent to Kofi Anan in 2000 by a huge group of citizens and scientists was ignored - nothing was done about it, although they sent 10 kg of signatures and scientific works.  I attach the petition too.  In addiation, this is a new resolution of 31 scientists that must not be ignored:
2)  The late Dr. Neil Cherry documented a large amout of data that shows that the ICNIRP systematically biased 
results of studies together with the World Health Organization.  Your committee recommends on this standard according to your preliminary report. and your committee supports the view that there is no justification to reduce ICNIRP standard according to non-thermal data. Dr. Michael Repacholi pushed all the governments in the world to adopt the standard ON THE BASIS  of bias of litrature as Dr. Cherry documented and not only him, but also prof John Goldsmith, Dr. Michael Kundi, Don Maisch, Dr. Jerard Hyland, Dr. Walter Medinger. Just one question:  Did you bother to check Cherry's refute of the ICNIRP assesment?  Because the public is aware of this bias already, I ask you to respond to public knowledge and not ignore it.  There was never any refute of Cherry's documentation of bias, so I understand that both ICNIRP and WHO know that he was right. This is his documentation of bias:   I think the public will be more protected without the ICNIRP, it is a private organization which the public never chose.  I repeat: the ICNIRP was not chosen by the public and there was never a public examination of the ICNIRP. (Isn't it a good idea, by he way).  
By the way, the Benevento resolution is contradictory to your preliminary report.
Iris Atzmon.
Victim of conflict of interests.