Two ORSAA scientific members delivered two papers as follows :
1. “Biological Effects of Low-Intensity Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation – TIME FOR A PARADIGM SHIFT IN REGULATION OF PUBLIC EXPOSURE” Dr Priyanka (Pri) Bandara, ORSAA Note : Pri has added extra slides for possible Q&A
2. "Radio Frequency Exposure Risk Assessment and Communication, Critique of ARPANSA TR-164 Report. Do we have a problem? " Mr Victor (Vic) Leach, ORSAA
Where does the science stand at present and what are the problems with the current regulation? ORSAA invites multidisciplinary professionals in radiation protection, WH&S managers, office managers, medical practitioners, policy makers, lawyers, and school/university administrators to take part in a much-needed objective discussion on this highly relevant topic of our times. We facilitate a constructive dialogue by evaluation and dissemination of the scientific knowledge. In doing so, we recommend a few upcoming opportunities to broaden one’s knowledge on the topic:
The keynote speaker of the RF session, former Head of Finnish radiation biology labs Prof. Dariusz Leszczynski will be giving an overview of the current regulation and its gaps – with insights on health risks associated with long-term RF-EMR exposure. His presentation is titled “Between a Rock and a Hard Place: The Art of Radiation Protection in the Wireless Era”
ORSAA will have two presentations at this session: Mr. Victor Leach, BSc (Phys), MSc: “ Radio Frequency Exposure Risk Assessment and Communication, Critique of ARPANSA TR-164 Report. Do we have a problem?
Dr. Priyanka Bandara, PhD: “Biological Effects of Low-intensity Radiofrequency electromagnetic Radiation – Time for a Paradigm Shift in Regulation of Public Exposure”
The Centre for Environment and Public Health at Griffith University supported by the Australian Institute of Occupational Hygienists Inc. (AIOH), QLD Branch of the Australasian Radiation Protection Society Inc. (ARPS) and Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association Inc. (ORSAA) has organized a public seminar with Prof. Dariusz Leszczynski as invited guest speaker. Presentation title is “Global Expansion of the Wireless: The 5G dive into the great unknown”.
Registration for this public seminar on Thursday 17th August in Brisbane is free.
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.
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 the 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 such as 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.
A number of countries finding a large number of “no effects” have corporations significantly investing in wireless technology (i.e. Siemens, Samsung, Nokia, Sony, Motorola … etc.)
ICNIRP was founded in Germany (DEU) and receives funding from the German Federal Ministry for the environment. Germany is one of the few countries finding more “no effects” than “effects”
Many countries that are finding a significantly higher proportion of effects also typically have the most protective RF exposure limits (excluding USA)
Another view of how funding source can potentially impact research finding outcomes is presented in the pie charts below from the ORSAA database as of May 2017.
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:
EHC expert panel composition appears to be over represented by "No Effect" scientists particularly in the core group. A small number of token “Effect” researchers are included in the mix;
There is a clear lack of representation from countries that are finding significant amount of effects versus no effects, which is very concerning particularly when the majority have adopted RF standards that are significantly more restrictive (90 – 100 times or lower) than those advised by ICNIRP - China, Russia, Turkey, India and Iran;
Many of the chosen EHC representatives have research relationships directly or indirectly with ICNIRP chair (van Rongen) or vice chair (Feychting);
A number of experts, including the core group, are potentially conflicted and are members of ICNIRP. ICNIRP is an NGO with no public accountability and promotes one of the least protective scientific guidelines around the world, does not recognise non-thermal effects or their potential for harm;
Some key scientists represent countries who have a distorted balance of evidence in favour of “no effects” (e.g. GBR, DEU, FIN);
Nearly all members of the group have performed research (“no effect” studies) sponsored directly by military and/or Industry i.e. US Airforce, Electrical Power consortiums (such as EPRI) and Telecommunications companies like Motorola, Nokia, French Telecom, Telecom Italia Mobile etc. as well as industry groups or associations (GSM Association, Mobile Manufacturers Forum, Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association etc.);
Firewalls set up by organisations (MTHR, TEKE) are not failsafe as scientists know where funding comes from, recognise what happens to careers of those who make unwanted findings and go public. Some researchers are also known to have close associations with industry representatives;
As has been indicated in the recent EMERG Bio-effects presentation Industry/Military funding appears to be distorting finding outcomes to “No Effect” when compared to Institutional only funding;
There are gaps in specialist expertise and research experience and so it is questionable whether they will be able to correctly interpret all potential health effects associated with bio-effects being found in RF scientific literature;
Some of the researchers in the EHC group are known to cherry pick their data to support their "no evidence" or "no association" conclusions - particularly in relation to mobile usage and brain tumour studies;
A number of the same "no effect" scientists appear to have been involved in multiple review panels and expert advisory committees over the last 10 years (ICNIRP, AGNIR, SCENIHR, SSI etc.);
Composition of EHC is not representative of the diverse opinions held in the scientific community and suggests expert selection bias by WHO.
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?