National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) & International Commission for Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)

ICNIRP
For ICNIRP to concentrate on and rely on a single biological mechanism, Tissue Heating, is inappropriate and wrong. Large portions of official documents are devoted to extensive discourses on SARs and determination of the thermal threshold. This whole methodology is flawed. Health effects assessments start with epidemiological evidence and the existence of a plausible biological mechanism is irrelevant.
    WHO, ICNIRP and their international and national counterparts have developed a highly sophisticated system of approaches to dismiss all epidemiological evidence and animal and cellular evidence which conflicts with their RF-Thermal view of the world. As the epidemiological and laboratory evidence has grown stronger and stronger, the dismissive methodology has lost all sophistication and, as demonstrated by ICNIRP (1998), it is blatantly selective, reductionist, biased and scientifically dishonest.
    It is scientifically dishonest because it cites papers that clearly report significant increases in cancer as showing no evidence of cancer. It deliberately chooses to accept conclusions that claim no association between radar and health effects when the data in the report or paper proves that this is incorrect. ICNIRP also includes studies in its assessment that are incapable of showing effects, as though they provide evidence that there are no effects........I strongly contend that the approach and conclusions of ICNIRP and the WHO position is methodologically and factually scientifically flawed. They place public health severely and demonstrably at risk. [June 2000] Health effects associated with mobile base stations in communities: the need for health studies : Dr. Neil Cherry

ICNIRP's statement about Beall et al. (1996) and Grayson (1996) is demonstrably scientifically wrong and misleading. It reveals a strong predetermination to dismiss evidence of effects.  Safe exposure levels by Dr. Neil Cherry - Lincoln University - 25/4/2000

This critique will show that some key non-thermal biological mechanisms are well established by replication in many independent laboratories. These established biological mechanisms are totally supportive of and consistent with a large body of epidemiological evidence, which includes many statistically significant associations and dose-response relationships. In doing so this critique will show that the ICNIRP assessment takes a predetermined dismissive approach that is highly selective and unscientific. It even involves deliberate and repeated misquoting and misrepresentation of study results. It becomes clear that the thermally based guideline is being defended at all costs, even at the cost of putting public health severely at risk all around the world.  Safe exposure levels by Dr. Neil Cherry - Lincoln University - 25/4/2000

One of the primary reasons many skeptics about EMR health effects, such as ICNIRP, use to dismiss studies that show statistically significant effects and even dose-response relationships, is their claim of the lack of a plausible biological mechanism. When a study reveals a significant biological effect at nonthermal levels then groups such as the ICNIRP state that it must be independently replicated before it can be accepted as an established biological mechanism. Based on this criteria calcium ion efflux/influx, GABA fluxes, melatonin reduction, DNA damage, chromosome aberrations and altered proto oncogenes are established biological mechanisms. All have been reported from two or more independent laboratories, most in 4 or more laboratories.  Safe exposure levels by Dr. Neil Cherry - Lincoln University - 25/4/2000

ICNIRP consistently uses very simple statements to dismiss any adverse effects. Every time a careful consideration of principles, methods, application of epidemiological approaches and consideration of the actual data and exposure regimes, produces a significantly different conclusion. And when sets of studies are considered together, very strong conclusions are drawn. These studies are no exception. Safe exposure levels by Dr. Neil Cherry - Lincoln University - 25/4/2000

The three challenges in this report of the ICNIRP assessment, of using the wrong methodology and of using Constructive Dismissal to defend their flawed methodology, and neglecting a large body of epidemiological research, have been proven.  Safe exposure levels by Dr. Neil Cherry - Lincoln University - 25/4/2000

ICNIRP's thermally based approach has been proven many times to be wrong in terms of scientific evidence and public health standard methodology. There is sufficient epidemiological evidence to establish a cause and effect relationship between chronic low level EMR exposure and many adverse health effects, including cardiac, neurological, reproductive and cancer effects. The dose response relationships indicate a cancer and reproductive problem threshold near zero.  Safe exposure levels by Dr. Neil Cherry - Lincoln University - 25/4/2000

Grayson (1996) is far from a no effects" study. Thus far consistently the ICNIRP claims are scientifically wrong and misleading. This study does show a small but statistically significant increase in brain tumour from RF/MW exposure......WHO and ICNIRP base non-ionizing radiation protection standards on a single biological mechanism, Tissue Heating. They systematically reject or ignore all epidemiological and animal evidence of non-thermal effects, for which there is a large body.......The ICNIRP assessment of biological mechanisms is reviewed and found to be selective, limited and flawed. Their assessment of RF/MW effects on reproductive outcomes is shown to be limited, misleading and flawed. The cancer assessment is shown to be selective, misleading, inappropriate and flawed. An incorrect epidemiological approach is consistently applied.......This is a woefully inadequate and thoroughly unprofessional treatment of this large and significant epidemiological study. The ICNIRP response represents a total misunderstanding or misrepresentation of epidemiology and the results of this study. Safe exposure levels by Dr. Neil Cherry - Lincoln University - 25/4/2000   (In Word format)

NRPB
 I find it absolutely beyond belief that the NRPB can admit they have very little information on a system that is already being used and to say that no numerical modelling appears to have been carried out suggests to me as a scientist that no measurements have been taken to assess any medical damage which may occur to the officers. What experimentation has been done (Gabriel 2000), appears to have been carried out by Mr Gabriel of Microwave Consultants Limited. As this research could possibly affect what may turn out to be brain tumours or spine cancers for the lady or gentlemen officers I would feel justified as a Police Federation in asking which totally independent scientists not connected in any way to the Government or communications industry peer reviewed this research paper and what were there comments? Confidential Report on TETRA for the Police of England and Wales by B Trower

The research necessary to establish its safety has been bypassed or compromised, but rather - and more reprehensibly – that already available indications that the technology is potentially less than safe have been (and continue to be) studiously ignored, not only by the mobile phone industry, but also by national and international regulatory bodies. A good example of this is afforded by the conduct of the UK National Radiological Protection Board, which was ‘unable’ to provide the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP) - for whom they were acting as the Secretariat - with certain highly relevant published papers, on the grounds that they could not ‘find’ them, despite having been provided with the full references by at least two individuals who gave evidence to the IEGMP, and curiously having had no difficulty in providing less significant papers from the same issue of the journal! The Physiological and Environmental Effects of Non-ionising Electromagnetic Radiation by G.J. Hyland

Here the NRPB agree that the phenomena of non-lethal weapons exists because they say that with a frequency of 8 waves per second into the brain, animals can be made to go to sleep, or be stimulated at higher frequencies. To me this simple statement by the NRPB verifies the non-lethal weapons programme as sound. Confidential Report on TETRA for the Police of England and Wales by B Trower

Baverstock, now advising the UK government as a member of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, delivered a fierce attack on government scientists. He accused the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) of “misusing” science in their studies of nuclear test veterans.  “Politics, aided and abetted by some in the scientific community, has poisoned the well which sustains democratic decision-making,” he told a conference on low-level radiation in Edinburgh yesterday.  [Media 04 July 2004] Radiation risk ‘underplayed’ to avoid compensation payouts

From a court case towards the end of 1998 Dr McKinlay was questioned in court about the use of mobile phones. Dr McKinlay is a senior scientist in the NRPB. It is known that roughly half of the NRPB's funding comes from the industries it represents, the other half of its funding comes from the Government. In court Dr McKinlay explained that data on tissue conductivity was supplied to the NRPB by Dr Camelia Gabriel of Microwave Consultants Limited. It transpired that virtually none of the NRPB documents on non-ionising radiation are peer reviewed and that Dr McKinlay himself had not authored any experimental studies. Dr McKinlay admitted he had no biological expertise. Dr Camelia Gabriel is Director of Microwave Consultants Limited and she reports to the Home Office and the Health & Safety Executive. She is also Chairman of the European Standardisation Body.
    To summarise, the NRPB subcontract research on microwave radiation to Microwave Consultants Limited; namely Dr Camelia Gabriel. Dr Camelia Gabriel is also a senior consultant for Orange plc and has authored jointly with others the Orange Base Stations Health & Safety Manual (please see Appendices 14 and 15). Dr Gabriel's son, also of Microwave Consultants Limited, confirms the safety of transmitters for Orange plc in school playgrounds (Appendix 16). This dual interest between Dr Camelia Gabriel as representing the NRPB and Orange plc was picked up and reported on, on 19 April 1999, by The Observer where Sarah Ryle writes "concerns are increasing about industry's involvement in research. Some of the NRPB's conclusions have been based on research by Dr Camelia Gabriel, a technical advisor to network operator Orange and Head of Private Consultancy, Microwave (Appendix 17). Confidential Report on TETRA for the Police of England and Wales by B Trower