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, www.microwavenews.com )
$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. (www.next- up.org).
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: http://www.icems.eu/docs/BeneventoResolution.pdf
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: http://www.feb.se/EMFguru/CellPhone/cherry2/ICNIRP-2.htm
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.
Sincerely
Iris Atzmon.
Victim of conflict of interests.