In this installment of our newsletter we have used ORSAA’s database to extend the work of both Starkey  and Hardell  who have looked at the EHC core group and their memberships/associations. What clearly stands out is the WHO Environmental Health Criteria (EHC) Group appears to be biased and ICNIRP is a closed club.
Reference 1: Dr Starkey’s paper entitled: “Inaccurate official assessment of radiofrequency safety by the Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation”
Reference 2. Professor Lennart Hardell’s latest paper entitled “World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health - a hard nut to crack (Review)“
ORSAA has carefully looked at a number of attributes for each EHC “expert” as shown in the attached pdf and we have to say we find the linkages are very troubling.
Country EHC group are primarily based or funded from – this is important to understand whether we have a good representation of countries with varying RF Safety Standards. What we have found is that the researchers represent countries that have in most cases adopted ICNIRP Guidelines, which are the least protective when compared to what is available around the world. There is no representation from countries that have more stricter scientific based RF Standards like countries from Eastern Europe, Russia, China or India. This suggests the WHO has employed biased selection criteria when establishing the EHC group. Tables below generated from the ORSAA database as of May 2017, show the breakdown of effect and no effect findings for a number of countries.
It should be noted that government communications agencies make significant amounts of money from the sale of spectrum license’s and may explain why outcomes are biased towards “No Effect”. Caution needs to be applied when trying to interpret “Government Only” funding as it clearly depends on which countries we focus on as indicated in the tables above. China has a significant contribution to the number of papers showing “Effect” and are predominantly Government sponsored. A future newsletter will look at military funding (USAF, US Navy etc.) influence on research outcomes.
Below are the descriptions and purpose of key headline fields provided in the attached pdf document.
Research Findings “Effect” vs “No Effect” – To identify any potential personal biases particularly when used in conjunction with funding sources.
Co Authors – To identify relationships between EHC ”experts” and/or other scientists with similar opinions, associations (ICNIRP, AGNIR, SCENIHR etc.) as well as industry relationships.
Research Focus – to identify primary areas of research covered by EHC “experts” to see if there are any gaps. Are all bio-effects covered?
Study Funding – to identify primary sources of funding to see if there are potential conflicts of interest.
Qualifications – to understand the qualifications of the researchers and to determine whether there are potential gaps
What we have invariably found is a complex web of intrigue where there appears to be a large number of "No Effect" scientists with industry connections performing a review on RF and potential health effects for the WHO.
Main Issues that we see are as follows:
This analysis indicates that the composition of the WHO's EHC panel is not appropriate and acceptable as a balanced international expert panel without conflicts of interest. ORSAA urges WHO to reappoint the EHC panel with multidisciplinary experts well-representing the EMF research community, particularly including experts in cell biology and clinical medicine.
This leads us to ask the following questions:
QUESTION : Who is really running the EHC review program WHO or ICNIRP?
QUESTION : Who in the list (particularly in core group) has specialist experience in epigenetics, endocrinology, neurology or cardiology?