Month: January 2020

Former ICNIRP Member calls for EMF’s to be Class 1 Carcinogen

The ICNIRP is the organization that the FDA uses to decide what is a “SAFE” or “UNSAFE” level for EMF’s. There are MAJOR problems with using the ICNIRP levels to determining these levels. Here are the scary facts and a follow-up related article about the ICNIRP’s former member singing a very different tune. ICNIRP = “The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection “

The FDA uses the level of EMF’s that the ICNIRP came up with in the early 1990’s based on studies from the 1980’s. In other words, the FDA has been using extremely outdated information which was based on EMF’s BEFORE microwave ovens were popular, and before cell phones, Wi-Fi routers, and Bluetooth devices were around in the public!!?? It is obviously, ridiculously time for the ICNIRP and the FDA to use current studies. There are over 10,000 studies they could choose from that would land the new “safe” levels at a much much lower figure. Yikes.

The following is a great article about what seems like a former ICNIRP member developing a conscience and/or being able to use Google to search for more current studies on EMF’s that clearly show huge dangers to human health at levels a tiny fraction of what the FDA says is “safe”. (FYI – the ICNIRP does have more realistic views and danger warnings about EMF’s compared to the FDA. But then it is possible that every organization world-wide has more strict danger warnings about EMF’s than the FDA does.)

Former ICNIRP member advocates that wireless must get a more stringent cancer risk class

Posted on January 27, 2020

Dr. James C. Lin

James Lin was from 2004 till 2016 member of ICNIRP. [For the most detailed information about ICNIRP: go here.]  Lin was loyal to ICNIRP until he left ICNIRP in 2016.

(There is a middle section of this article not shown here…see below for full article link)

Lin therefore advocates for WHO-hazard class 1 (carcinogenic), instead of today’s 2B (possibly carcinogenic). It is a an airtight argumented conclusion, with support of an overwhelming amount of research results (see, for example, the reviews in Flydal & Nordhagen 2019).