[PART 1] [PART 2] [REPACHOLI RESUME] [JUNK SCIENCE] [MAIN PAGE-PL] | Explanations about JP Lentin's info from France | Important message from France | SCANDAL: WHO denied Prof. Olle Johansson the democratic right to participate in a workshop | Time To Stop the WHO Charade | I am really ashamed | Yess! | show us the money, Mike | Your position please | from Mike Repacholi | Who - Repacholi Advice To Governments | Who - Repacholi update | WHO says that phones are dangerous to children | Petition to remove Repacholi1 | M. Repacholi ? - send him home to Australia ! | petition to remove Repacholi seems a good idea | WHO's Repacholi Has Done It Again | Petition to remove Dr. Mike Repacholi as General Coordinator for the "International Electromagnetic Fields Programme" | Another reason to sign the petition. | Join the petition | WHO: a lot of people report symptoms of electromagnetic radiation sickness | WHO, the following petition to your information and relief | A new member/director on the WHO board has been appointed | WHO Welcomes Electric Utility Industry To Key EMF Meeting, Bars the Press | Was dürfen Betroffene von dem angekündigten Info-Blatt der WHO zu EHS erwarten? | Prof. Marino: "how someone as ignorant as Repacholi could rise to the position of EMF boss" | Prof. Marino: "My goal here is to pose Repacholi for the scientific fraud that he is" | First Evidence Of Brain Abnormalities Found In Pathological Liars | Martin Weatherall's letter to the who concerning ehs | Dear Prime Minister, DO NOT MEASURE RADIATION IN YOUR OFFICE | Repacholi News | 1000 Meter, ICNIRP, Satelliten-Handy |
|||
Repacholi was asked by Next up about the money he receives | Repacholi responds - but not to NEXT UP | Blake Levitt on WHO (FW) | Repacholi's industry benefits, Cher Ami, Merci de vos premiers renseignements concernant Repacholi | The response | Repacholi-history which is clear as mud | The WHO syndrom: Dr. Chiyoji Ohkubo, Radiation and Environmental Health, WHO | Public Inquiery | Weatherall receives response from WHO | Benevento: murderer from the WHO has not appeared in public | More surprises from the Italian Workshop | WHO chief Lee Jong died | Marino: at the bottom of the barrel is the EMF scientist who functions as a brainwasher to deceive the public | Repacholi to retire | Malta and integrity of WHO | Integrity of WHO 2 | Integrity of WHO 3 | Dear Scientific Committee | The EU is inviting stakeholders to send comments | Wichtig, die Befragung der EU-Kommission | Mike Repacholi: Industry Consultant | Repacholi responsed to MWN | The Man WHO sold the world | Repacholi Strikes Again  : Mobile masts safe, report says | : Repacholi Admits Interference from the Industry | : We wish this man, M. Repacholi, brought to justice | |||
|
| |||
|
| |||
 Repacholi Strikes Again : Mobile masts safe, report saysFri, 23 Mar 2007 When did he become a professor ? the degrees are flying in the air there together with the money. Friday, March 23, 2007 I just spotted this! The man is a danger........ http://www.irishhealth.com/?level=4&id=11207 Mobile masts safe, report says By Angela Long [JUNK SCIENCE]  There is no health risk to either children or adults from proximity to mobile phone base stations, according to a report done for the government.The mobile phone masts have been controversial, especially the decision to place many of them on the roofs of garda stations around the country. But the report by an expert group commissioned in 2005 says there is no evidence of any adverse health effects from these masts. The report, Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, also says that mobile phones themselves are not a health hazard. There is no data to suggest that the radio frequencies emitted by phones can harm child health. The report notes that the only time at which children could be at risk to Radiofrequency Fields (RF) exposure to their heads is very early, up to the age of two. Power lines are another potential electromagnetic risk which have been cleared by the expert group. Studies of the exposure to electricity at Extremely Low Frequency (ELF), such as comes from power lines, have not shown any harmful effects, the report says. It says current evidence does not allow for a conclusive judgement, but there are no identified harmful effects. It recommends, among other measures, that local authorities should avoid arbitrary policies regarding the siting of phone masts and similar structures. The report concludes that the risk from cancer or related conditions has been ruled out, but that other effects from mobile phone use such as cognitive function and sleep quality need more research. The report says the chance of any harm from the electromagnetic sources is, on present knowledge, very tiny. It contrasts this with a set of known risks, such as death by heart attack (one in four), death from a fall (one in 380), death from the flu (one in 5,000) and death as the result "of a plane falling on you" (one in 25 million). It notes that the public fear of radiation from mobile phone masts is much greater than that from mobile phones themselves, yet this is not rational. The report also notes that there are hundreds of emissions from the broadcasts of radio and television in the air, of which people are unaware, and are unaffected. The expert group was led by Professor Michael Repacholi, former co-ordinator of the Radiation and Environmental Health Unit at the World Health Organisation. Its report was presented to the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. |
|||
The Man WHO sold the world From: "Iris Atzmon" <atzmonh@bezeqint.net> Sat, 18 Nov 2006 - Yesterday I distributed Mike Repacholi's response to Microwave News. Today Microwave News published a response to Mike Repacholi's circulating letter. Mike Repacholi can be happy that his side of the story is not only distributed among the "'activists' that quote MW News religiously" (maybe he would prefer the activists to quote him?) but his response is also staying online on Microwave News website. This is what is called - a balance of the weight of evidence, in contrast, for example, to the WHO's biased fact sheets, standards, and all the rest of the EMF project. Please see the full details on http://microwavenews.com/ Iris. P.S declaration of conflicts of interests: An 'activist' who [and not "that"] quotes religiously Microwave News and intends to continue doing just that. |
|||
| Repacholi.. responsed to MWN Fri, 17 Nov 2006 ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Riedlinger Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 7:26 PM Subject: Fw: FW: It's Official: Mike Repacholi Is an Industry Consultant ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Repacholi To: r_riedlin am telus.net Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 7:08 AM Subject: Re: FW: It's Official: Mike Repacholi Is an Industry Consultant Sorry Robert I was looking in the "Junk mail" folder and found your message...for some reason the WHO mail server recognised your messages as junk. Anyway I am sure your not interested in my side of the story but here it is anyway "Repacholi, Michael Harry" <repacholim@who.int> From: Robert Riedlinger [mailto:r_riedlin@telus.net] Sent: Wed 15/11/2006 04:42 To: Repacholi, Michael Harry Cc: Eileen O'Connor; agnes ingvarsdottir Subject: It's Official: Mike Repacholi Is an Industry Consultant Mr Rep You have let down millions of inocent people wold wide!!! I hope you make lots of use of your cellphone and are able to find pills to help you sleep . Robert |
|||
|
|
|||
EN | PL
1. Oktober 2006 Liebe Mitstreiter, Die EU fordert Betroffene auf Stellung zu nehmen zu Gesundheitsschäden durch elektromagnetische Felder. Eingabeschluss ist Freitag der 03.Nov. 2006 Die Kommission ist in Beratungen mit der SCENIHR (Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks) und bittet nun Betroffene ihre Erfahrungen und Meinungen zu "möglichen Gesundheitsschäden durch elektromagnetische Felder" abzugeben. http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/scenihr_cons_03_en.htm Nach dem 3. Nov. sollen die Ergebnisse auf der SCENIHR Internetseite veröffentlicht werden http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/04_scenihr_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/scenihr_opinions_en.htm (hier meine Stellungnahme: 1000 Meter, ICNIRP, Satelliten-Handy) Ich finde das ist eine wichtige Befragung der EU und eine einmalige Gelegenheit ihre Erfahrungen und gegebenenfalls Erkrankungen in Zusammenhang mit einer Sendeanlage oder anderen Hochfrequenz- oder EMF-Belastungen an die EU Commision zu schicken! Bitte beteiligt euch unbedingt! In der Anlage ist die zu verwendende Vorlage als Word-Dokument. Wer kein englisch kann, soll seine Erfahrungen in deutsch schreiben und die ausgefüllte Worddatei an folgende Emailadresse schicken: Sanco-Sc1-Secretariat@ec.europa.eu European Commission Health & Consumer Protection DG Directorate C: Public Health and Risk Assessment Unit C7: Risk Assessment Office: B232, 2/6 B-1049 Brussels Tel (+32-2-29)85552 Fax: (+32-2-29)57332 Bitte verbreitet die Befragung der EU. Beste Grüsse Volker Schorpp |
|||
| Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks 21.9.2006 Dear Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks, I have looked at your preliminary report http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/docs/scenihr_o_006.pdf 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://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://feb.se/EMFguru/ 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 the way). By the way, the Benevento resolution is contradictory to your preliminary report. http://icems.eu/docs/BeneventoResolution.pdf Sincerely Iris Atzmon. Victim of conflict of interests. Israel. see Don Maisch Conflict of Interest and Bias in Health Advisory Committees: A case study of the WHO’s EMF Task Group, .pdf, 35 KB Association for representation of interests and for protection of afflicted persons by electrosmog Hans-U. Jakob, to Mr. Kofi Annan General Secretary of the United Nations, .doc, 106,3 |
|||
DE | PL The EU is inviting stakeholders to send comments with regards to EMFs and the effects on human health before 3rd November, 2006.September 21, 2006 EU Commission consultation on EMF's The Commission is in consultation with the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR), is now inviting stakeholders to comment on the scientific opinion on "Possible effects of Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) on Human Health" which has just been finalized: http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/ The consultation will run until 3 November 2006 and the outcome will be published on the SCENIHR website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/ http://ec.europa.eu/health/ This is an important inquiry and a fantastic opportunity to send research/information to the EU Commission which is encouraging. European Commission Health & Consumer Protection DG Directorate C: Public Health and Risk Assessment Unit C7: Risk Assessment Office: B232, 2/6 B-1049 Brussels Tel (+32-2-29)85552 Fax: (+32-2-29)57332 E-mail: Sanco-Sc1-Secretariat@ec.europa.eu Kind Regards Eileen O'Connor Trustee EM Radiation Research Trust http:/radiationresearch.org/ |
|||
Fri, 14 Jul 2006 Dr. Gunde to Hans Karow From: "Iris Atzmon" atzmonh by bezeqint.net> Fri, 14 Jul 2006 19:41:56 For your information, the israeli Env. ministry head of radiation department, Dr. Stelian Galberg, wrote that the WHO has collected 250 million dollars in 10 years for research funding on EMR. what exactly they did with the money is not clear. The israeil Env. ministry contributes $10,000 a year to the WHO. "The support received by ICNIRP from the International Radiation Protection Association, the World Health Organization, and the French, German, Korean, and Swiss Governments is gratefully acknowledged" . (in the attached ICNIRP document, .pdf, 147,2 KB) -----Original Message----- From: Karine Chabrel [mailto:KChabrel by BfS.de] Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 3:04 AM To: hkarow by shaw.ca Cc: Gunde Ziegelberger Subject: RE: EMF exposure guidelines Dear Hans Karow, Thank you for your interest in ICNIRP's work. We would like to invite you to read the attached leaflets and statement, which give you information about ICNIRP's work procedures. The update of guidelines is a process, which starts on the ground of advancement in scientific knowledge with a comprehensive evaluation of the science performed by ICNIRP, its Standing Committees and Consulting Experts through the review of new research data. In addition, specialized workshops are organized to trigger discussions on the main scientific questions to be answered throughout the revision process. Draft guidelines are prepared by the members and submitted to the Commission for comments and approval. A formal external review of the draft guidelines is systematically performed prior to publication, as per ICNIRP Charter. Consequently, those are sent to the IRPA Executive Council and all IRPA national associations, the ICNIRP partners in protection such as the EU and the WHO and a number of consulting experts. The list of the Workshops speakers, the professional background of the Commission, SC members and consulting experts are viewable online at icnirp.org and in the proceedings of the Workshops. The update of the recommendations on ELF and Static Magnetic Field started with a review (1) and, so far, three International Workshops - (2),(3),(4) - organized by ICNIRP or in collaboration with ICNIRP http://icnirp.org/activities.htm. Final drafts are intended for comments and approval by the End of this year. (1) Exposure to Static and Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, Biological Effects and Health Consequences (0-100 kHz) - Review of the Scientific Evidence and Health Consequences. J.H. Bernhardt, R. Matthes, A. McKinlay, P. Vecchia, B. Veyret (eds.) International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection 2003, ISBN 3-934994-03-2. (2)Weak Electric Field Effects in the Body. Proceedings of an International Workshop, NRPB, Chilton, UK, March 24-25, 2003. AF McKinlay, MH Repacholi (eds.) Nuclear Technology Publishing, Radiation Protection Dosimetry, Vol 106, 4, 2003. ISBN 1904453023 (3)Effects of Static Magnetic Fields Relevant to Human Health. Proceedings of an International Workshop, NRPB, Chilton, UK, April 26-27, 2004. D. Noble, AF McKinlay, MH Repacholi (eds.) Journal Progress in Biophysics & Molecular Biology, February/April 2005. ISBN 0079-6107 (4) International Workshop on EMF Dosimetry and Biophysical Aspects Relevant to Setting Exposure Guidelines, 20 - 22 March 2006, Berlin, Germany. We invite you and anyone with an interest in ICNIRP's work to regularly visit our website for updates on the status of ICNIRP's activities. Best regards, Dr. Gunde Ziegelberger Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz Arbeitsgruppe Nichtionisierende Strahlung Ingolstädter Landstr. 1 D-85764 Neuherberg/Oberschleißheim E-Mail: GZiegelberger by BfS.de Tel.: 01888/333-2142 ----Original Message----- From: hans karow [mailto:hkarow by shaw.ca] Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 6:41 PM To: 'Gunde Ziegelberger' Subject: RE: EMF exposure guidelines Dear Mrs. Ziegelberger, Thank you for your response enclosed below. You indicated that ICNIRP has began the process to revise the EMF exposure guidelines. May I kindly ask you for the list of organizations and/or names of all experts involved in this revision, if possible with a brief professional background/history of those persons. I would also be interested in the names of persons/organizations that do assist (i.e. assisting in draft. Reviewing the draft etc) the experts who are doing the actual review, in addition any observers, and whether any media are being allowed to observe and report the review process. Where and how is the review being done? Thank you for your understanding and taking the time, Mit freundlichen Gruessen, Hans Karow 1215 Poplar Grove Road Penticton, BC, V2A 8T6, Canada E-mail: hkarow by shaw.ca 1. Yes, ICNIRP has began the process to revise the exposure guidelines for static and also for low frequency fields. As you might be aware, ICNIRP's guidelines for limiting exposure to fields up to 300 GHz are based on the scientific knowledge of the years 1997/1998. Research has been going on since then and ICNIRP has issued an in depth review of the scientific evidence concerning the relevance of low frequency electric and magnetic fields for human health (2003). The WHO is going to publish an Environmental Health Criteria Document on this topic in 2006. In view of new resaerch data and their reviews, the ICNIRP guidelines will be revisited. The process will not be finalized before the end of the year. 2. and 3. I could not open the ppt. presentation by Dr. Havas, but according to the title I suggest, that it deals with the inconsistency between the known biophysical effects of low frequency fields and the results from experimental studies on one hand, and the epidemiologic results on childhood leukaemia on the other hand. Also this apparent conflict will be addressed during the revision process. I hope, I could provide you with the information you have been looking for. |
|||
From: "Iris Atzmon" atzmonh by bezeqint.net Subject: Fw: your request of information Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 18:29:15 +0200 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Iris Atzmon" atzmonh by bezeqint.net "Gunde Ziegelberger" GZiegelberger by bfs.de Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 1:01 PM Subject: Re: your request of information Dear Dr. Gunde, Thanks for your reply. You write that The MWN report is beyond the ICNIRP's scope, and that ICNIRP members are indepenent. But how can you say this - when the ICNIRP member himself is the one who is involved so much with the industry? It proves that you actually don't make sure of the independence of ICNIRP members: If you are really independent, Why did you not publish a reservation from Repacholi's corruption? Instead, 6 ICNIRP members agreed to sit with the industry to form health standards. Don't you think it's a contradiction to what you wrote below? Do you not care about the negative publicity Microwave News gives you? it caused you a lot of damage in the public's eye. How is it that ICNIRP commission members, agreed to set standard with the industry: why did the ICNIRP not resist this biased process if they are independent? For your information, I attach a new doctorat paper that was published recently. It docuements that ICNIRP members cooperate with the WHO corruption. I am not your advocate, but I think you are in a very dangerous route becuase people around here see what is going on, no matter how much you want to protect your organization, and I understand your interest to protect it, but it does not stand in the same line of what happens in reality. It damages your integrity as an organization but more as a person who is responsible to say certain things even when the facts speak differently. I wish you best regards Iris. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karine Chabrel" KChabrel by BfS.de To: atzmonh by bezeqint.net Cc: "Gunde Ziegelberger" g.ziegelberger by icnirp.org Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 12:02 PM Subject: your request of information Dear Iris Atzmon, thank you for sending us further information published in the press (Microwave News) about the World Health Organization. This information reached us also through the Microwave Newsletter, which we regularly receive. However, we regard checking the reliability and accuracy of any press release as being a matter outside of ICNIRP's scope but take note of the information. You imply that the WHO and IARC are under industry influence. While ICNIRP is not qualified to control the functioning of any international public organization, it is extremely attentive to the correctness and independency of its partners. We are aware that both WHO and IARC follow extremely rigorous codes of behaviour, on which their international trust is based, that ICNIRP shares. As regards the behaviour of the Commission members, let me emphasize that ICNIRP is fully aware of its high responsibility, including the need of independency. Any possible conflict of interest must be openly declared and is discussed within and decided by the Commission. Best regards, Dr. Gunde Ziegelberger Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz Arbeitsgruppe Nichtionisierende Strahlung Ingolstädter Landstr. 1 D-85764 Neuherberg/Oberschleißheim E-Mail: GZiegelberger by BfS.de Tel.: 01888/333-2142 -------- Original-Nachricht -------- Betreff: Re: ICNIRP Datum: Sat, 13 May 2006 10:00:27 +0200 Von: Iris Atzmon atzmonh by bezeqint.net An: Gunde Ziegelberger GZiegelberger by bfs.de Dear Gunde: On the 29.4.06 I sent you an email and requested your direct reponse with regard to the contect published in Microwave News. You didn't reply to me. I don't know how you view this, but to my understanding, as an organization that receives public importance and leads the international policy on EMF-R, the most ethical thing would be to adress this evidence urgently and not ignore it. Ethics is part of science isn't it? You wrote me that ICNIRP is scientific and has no industry influence whatsoever, you also directed me to your website which presents the same thing. Then I presented you what everybody can read on MWN about bribe, about clear cooperation with the industry: 6 members of the ICNIRP are in the WHO task group meeting with the industry and with the person who is accused in bribe on the website- to set health standards- together. This is direct industry influence. I think you tried to mislead me, but not only me. You expect the public to relate to the ICNIRP as a scientific body. Activists write you politely questions, and give importance to your views on non-ionizing radiation, they feel commited to your guidance, but I don't see the same commitment from the ICNIRP to explain to to activists, to scientists, and others who are exposed according to your guidelines, about this contradiction. Sincerely Iris. Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2006 1:00 PM Subject: Re: ICNIRP Dear Gunde Ziegelberger (please note that I put the references inside my text and then continue the text below the references, it is just for the convenience of the reader to see directly what I mean) Thank you very much for your detailed answer. However, I find some contradictions inside your text. I don't know who funds IRPA, but I do know something about the WHO. In the ICNIRP sits a person from the WHO, who according to recent publication, receives from the cellular industry $150,000 a year + travel and meeting expenses. reference: "We also know that he [Mike Repacholi] found a way to skirt the WHO rules that bar direct industry support -the mobile phone manufacturers have said that they provide him with $150,000 a year with additional money for meeting and travel expenses." http://microwavenews.com/fromthefield.html#whoottawa Second, If the ICNIRP has contract with the WHO and you are now reviewing the EMF guidelines, it is relevant to note that the person who is in charge of the EMF- R at the WHO, invites the power industry for setting radiation exposure values. Reference: October 1, 2005 WHO and Electric Utilities: A Partnership on EMFs http://microwavenews.com/fromthefield.html#partners WHO Welcomes Electric Utility Industry To Key EMF Meeting, Bars the Press September 22, 2005 http://microwavenews.com/fromthefield.html#whoehc and so to say that the funding doesn't come from the industry is not accurate beucause the WHO is not really a "firewall" between the ICNIRP and the industry. Third, INTERPHONE researchers are funded by the industry and are at the same time at the ICNIRP - this can point to conflict of interest if we assume that the ICNIRP is indeed not industry-dependent. I am aware that the International Union against cancer is a firewall but I think it is more of a semantic thing, the funding comes from the industry no matter what firewalls are put for public image, and we all saw the consequence of this in two TV programmes: This was on a TV programme at Friday night in Israel and an abstract was published in the newspaper Haaretz: http://haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=63100 7 This was a TV programme in Canada http://cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/health/iarc/pageone.html I am not writing this to bother you, but because we the citizens are exposed to radiation according to your decisions, and the above issue should not be taken lightly, I ask for your direct response for the above issue. I write many copies because I want to make sure that the maximum number of people are invloved in this - because if someone gets the smallest scratch from any conflict of interests which is responsible for public health- exposure- then it should be brought to anyone's attention. This is a VERY sensitive issue because it concerns 2 billion people, and every suspicion for fraud has huge consequences. Only yesterday we read in the newspaper that Disney company representaive said: "Disney has said that parents believe the benefits of being able to reach a child at any time are more important than any possible health risks' Source: Daily Mail Date: 28/04/2006 Thanks in advance Iris. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gunde Ziegelberger" GZiegelberger by bfs.de To: "Iris Atzmon" atzmonh by bezeqint.net Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 9:51 AM Subject: Re: ICNIRP Dear Iris Atzmon, Thank you for your interest in ICNIRP's work. ICNIRP is a non-profit making organisation legally registered and controlled as such in Germany (i.e., eingetragener Verein, e.V). Its income derives from various sources with the exception of industry. The regular income that ICNIRP receives is an annual grant from IRPA. It also receives support from national governments, most notably from the German Environment Ministry for ICNIRP's Scientific Secretariat based in Munich. All other income is generated by the Commission through contract work (to the exclusion of any work for industry), organisation of scientific meetings and sales of its scientific publications. Currently, ICNIRP's contract income comes mainly from the WHO (to carry out scientific reviews on biological effects and health consequences of low and high frequency fields) and the European Commission. We also regard this question as being of public interest and have therefore published this information on our website (icnirp.org/what.htm), which we invite you to visit for further details on the functioning of ICNIRP. Sincerely, Gunde Ziegelberger Dr. Gunde Ziegelberger ICNIRP Scientific Secretary c/o Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz Ingolstädter Landstr. 1 D-85764 Neuherberg/Oberschleißheim E-Mail: G.Ziegelberger by icnirp.org Tel.: ++49-1888-333-2142 Iris Atzmon schrieb: Dear Dr. Gunde Ziegelberger: I received the below interesting notice from Hans Karow in Cananda. Since the ICNIRP is a central organiztion to public exposure to EMF-RF, I think the public has the right to know about the sources of the ICNIRP funding. Who funds the ICNIRP? Thank you very much in advance Iris Atzmon ----- Original Message ----- From: hans karow Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 10:51 PM Subject: ICNIRP EMF exposure guidelines to be revised FYI, and please share with others not yet on my new computer's list. I wonder whether regulatory agencies should be advised to wait with their decisions on pending and near future applications of power lines and cell towers until the out come of the EMF Exposure Guidelines revision. Comments? Thanks, Hans. Hans Karow Coalition to Reduce Electropollution (CORE) 1215 Poplar Grove Road PENTICTON, BC, V2A 8T6, CANADA E-mail: hkarow by shaw.ca -----Original Message----- From: Gunde Ziegelberger [mailto:GZiegelberger by bfs.de] Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 8:08 AM To: hans karow Subject: Re: EMF exposure guidelines Dear Mr. Karow, thanks for contacting ICNIRP regarding your health concerns. 1. Yes, ICNIRP has began the process to revise the exposure guidelines for static and also for low frequency fields. As you might be aware, ICNIRP´s guidelines for limiting exposure to fields up to 300 GHz are based on the scientific knowledge of the years 1997/1998. Research has been going on since then and ICNIRP has issued an in depth review of the scientific evidence concerning the relevance of low frequency electric and magnetic fields for human health (2003). The WHO is going to publish an Environmental Health Criteria Document on this topic in 2006. In view of new resaerch data and their reviews, the ICNIRP guidelines will be revisited. The process will not be finalized before the end of the year. 2. and 3. I could not open the ppt. presentation by Dr. Havas, but according to the title I suggest, that it deals with the inconsistency between the known biophysical effects of low frequency fields and the results from experimental studies on one hand, and the epidemiologic results on childhood leukaemia on the other hand. Also this apparent conflict will be addressed during the revision process. I hope, I could provide you with the information you have been looking for. Sincerely, Gunde Ziegelberger Dr. Gunde Ziegelberger ICNIRP Scientific Secretary c/o Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz Ingolstädter Landstr. 1 D-85764 Neuherberg/Oberschleißheim E-Mail: G.Ziegelberger by icnirp.org Tel.: ++49-1888-333-2142 hans karow schrieb: Dear Dr. Ziegelberger, With regards of my questions (please see below) Dr. Ahlbom referred me to your office. May I kindly ask to please respond to my three questions as stated below. Thank, you! Mit freundlichen Gruessen, Hans Karow 1215 Poplar Grove Road Penticton, BC, V2A 8T6, Canada E-mail: hkarow by shaw.ca From: Anders Ahlbom [mailto:anders.ahlbom by ki.se] Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 11:31 PM To: 'hans karow' Subject: SV: EMF exposure guidelines To get the official ICNIRP view I suggest to contact the secretariat in Munich. Gunde Ziegelberg is the scientific secretary. Best wishes, Anders Ahlbom Please note new e-mail below: Anders Ahlbom Office: + 46 8 5248 74 70; Mobile + 46 70 324 74 70 e-mail: anders.ahlbom by ki.se Från: hans karow [mailto:hkarow by shaw.ca] Skickat: den 1 april 2006 20:07 Till: 'Anders Ahlbom' Kopia: Magda Havas Ämne: EMF exposure guidelines Dear Dr. Ahlbom, 1. During the oral hearing (as indicated below), while cross-examining industry consultant Dr. William Bailey/Exponent, New York, I learned that ICNIRP just had a meeting in Berlin/Germany. Could you please inform, whether the exposure EMF guidelines will be reviewed in the near future and the guidelines possibly adjusted? 2. May I kindly ask you whether you agree with the statements presented by Dr. Magda Havas at a Hydro One Workshop on EMFs, Markham Ontario, June 16, 2004, " Electromagnetic Fields- Cancers: Children at risk with residential and school exposure to EMFs" source: http://stop-emf.ca/hydroone/PresentationEMFHydro_files/frame.htm If there is anything you do not agree with, could you please state where why? 3. A particular question would be: do you agree with slide 12, "Exposure Guidelines vs Effects" ? Thank you for taking the time to respond please, Hans Karow. |
|||
Conflict of Interest and Bias in Health Advisory Committees: A case study of the WHO’s EMF Task Group Malta - the next victim of Repacholi, Veyret and Vecchia Let's remember for whom the WHO and the ICNIRP work, with the wonderful article by Don Maisch that is attached. From: atzmonh am bezeqint.net 17 Jun 2006 The people of Malta were fed with lies at the conference by the WHO/ ICNIRP Many people in Malta were fooled by the World health organization and the ICNIRP at a conference on the 7 July 2006. Read the sad story of how Repacholi, Veyret and Veccia traveled to Malta and misled the public. By the way: were the traveling expenses part of the $150,000 Repacholi receives every year from the cellular industry or is it a separate payment? Poor innocent Malta. Let's remember for whom the WHO and the ICNIRP work, with the wonderful article by Don Maisch that is attached. Author's note: On the website of the exNational Grid in Northeastern USA, it is mentioned under the section, "Additional Information": "If you decide to research EMF, it's important to check the credentials of those who provide or produce the information. For example, websites can be developed by anyone regardless of training or experience and are sometimes created to promote limited agendas or points of view." National Grid then lists a number of EMF websites that "were selected solely on the basis of the scientific qualifications of the sponsoring organizations. These sites are sponsored by federal agencies and professional organizations and provide information that reflects the work of many experienced scientists." Included on their list of approved web sites are the locations for the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the World Health Organization's International EMF Project, established and headed by Dr. Michael Repacholi. The following paper very much supports the National Grid's call to check the credentials of those who provide EMF information for limited agendas or points of view. Don Maisch Conflict of Interest and Bias in Health Advisory Committees: A case study of the WHO’s EMF Task Group, Maisch Don, JACNEM, Vol. 21 No. 1, pages 15-17, April 2006 Introduction The potential problem of conflicts-of-interest biasing outcomes in papers submitted to bio-medical journals, including papers published in journals by expert advisory bodies, was an issue addressed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors in November 3003. To quote from their "Uniform Requirements": "Conflict of interest exists when an author (or the author's institution), reviewer, or editor has financial or personal relationships that inappropriately influence (bias) his or her actions..The potential for conflict of interest can exist whether or not an individual believes that the relationship affects his or her scientific judgement. Financial relationships . . . are the most easily identifiable conflicts of interest and the most likely to undermine the credibility of the journal, the authors, and of science itself." (1) This paper briefly examines this problem, using recent actions taken by the World Health Organisation's (WHO) International EMF Project and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). In both organisations the case is presented that maintaining independence from industry vested interests is essential for maintaining scientific objectivity and credibility in giving expert advice on public health matters. At the May 2001 Australian Senate Inquiry into Electromagnetic Radiation, Michael Repacholi, head of the WHO's International EMF Project, informed the Senate Committee that the WHO had a firm policy against industry involvement in its processes. To Quote: "The world health Organization does not allow industry to participate in either standard setting or in health risk assessment. The WHO takes the view that there cannot be industry representation on standard setting working groups. There cannot be someone on the working group who is having an influence on health effects for an industry when they derive benefit from that industry." (2) ICNIRP clearly states on its website that all commission members are independent experts in their respective scientific disciplines and do not represent either their countries or institutes and specifically they cannot be employed by industry. In order to maintain this independence from industry or other vested interests it is stated: "Members are reminded frequently of the need to declare any interests detrimental to ICNIRP's status as an independent advisory body..ICNIRP also does not accept funding from industry." (3) So these requirements were established so that ICNIRP's credibility of its advice and guidelines cannot be said to be influenced or biased by industry vested interests. Dr. Ken Joyner, from Motorola, stressed the independence of ICNIRP from industry at the Australian Senate "Inquiry into Electromagnetic Radiation" in May 2001. Joyner stated: "If you want to look at one standards body that has specifically excluded any industry representatives, there is the ICNIRP body. You cannot be a member of the ICNIRP if you are part of industry. They exclude you from that process." (4) The ICNIRP website also explains that the scientific reviews carried out by ICNIRP members are combined with risk assessments done by WHO International EMF Project working groups with the resultant being the publication of ICNIRP's EMF exposure guidelines. Therefore the claim that ICNIRP's scientific advice is value-free from industry influence must also include the same requirement for any WHO risk assessment task group. That was what Repacholi stated to the Australian Senate Committee in May 2001 (as quoted previously). "There cannot be someone on the working group who is having an influence on health effects for an industry when they derive benefit from that industry". The close working relationship between ICNIRP and the WHO's EMF Task Group evaluating power frequency research is seen in the make up of the membership of the Task Group. Out of the 20 members from 17 countries (5), we have Paolo Vecchia, the current ICNIRP Chairman, Anders Ahlbon, Larry Anderson, Rudiger Matthes as members of ICNIRP's main commission, with Ahlbon as also on ICNIRP's Standing Committee on Epidemiology. Other ICNIRP Standing Committee members include Christoffer Johansen, Jukka Juutilainen, Alasdair McKinlay and Zhengping Xu. Eric van Rongen is a consulting expert for ICNIRP. In addition, Michael Repacholi, head of the WHO's International EMF Project, is also Chairman Emeritis of ICNIRP. (6) Including Repacholi, half of the official members of the WHO task group are also members of ICNIRP, so it is obvious that there are no secrets between ICNIRP and the Task Group. next, see the exfull article: Industry influence endemic in the decision making process The Myth of not accept funding from industry A Claytons oversight committee? Forgotten lessons: Big Tobacco and Protecting the Integrity of WHO Decision Making In Conclusion It is acknowledged that in an ever increasingly globalized world the reliance on international organisations to set standards to protect public health is an irrefutable fact of modern life. It is also a fact that international organizations charged with this task need to be "eternally vigilant" to ensure that their organisations are not co-opted by vested interests groups - as exampled by Big Tobacco and WHO. However when it comes to non-ionizing radiation issues ( in this case for power frequency health risk assessment) the evidence is clear that Michael Repacholi has used his standing in both WHO and ICNIRP to stack the WHO's Environmental Health Criteria Task Group for power frequency exposures with representatives of the power industry in contravention of WHO policy. This can only be to the detriment of the group's ability to evaluate the scientific literature in an unbiased way. This action can only be construed as being aimed at ensuring that industry involvement in determining the WHO Environmental Health Criteria will bias ICNIRP's risk assessment for power frequency exposure limits for years to come. This will conveniently provide economic protection for the industry against the need to spend enormous sums of money on upgrading distribution systems as well as risks of litigation. Such a blatant disregard for the fundamental principles of credible science as well as WHO's mission on protecting world health speaks of a desperation to bury independent science at all costs, even if that cost is at the integrity of WHO. exThe full article, .pdf, 40 KB |
|||
|
|
|||
| Comments to Testimony of Michael Repacholi from Andrew A. Marino, Ph.D., J.D. Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center Department of Orthopaedic Surgery Department of Cellular Biology and Anatomy 1501 Kings Highway / Post Office Box 33932 Shreveport, LA 71130-3932 Phone: 318-675-6177 / Fax: 318-675-6186 E-mail: amarino by lsuhsc.edu from http://ortho.lsuhsc.edu/Faculty/Marino/Comments/ At the bottom of the barrel is the EMF scientist who functions as a brainwasher to deceive the public, innocent young and old alike, into giving themselves cancer and other diseases. There is no purer example of such a man than Michael Repacholi. He is at the end of a historical line of change that must be recognized before science can once again resume its task of finding the best truth possible. COMMENT 1 Repacholi was hired by the Australian power company because he would say what the company needed saying, irrespective of considerations involving morality or truth. Repacholi could count on the fact that he would not undergo any significant cross-examination by the trial lawyer who represented the party that opposed the power company in this litigation (the homeowners) because the lawyer was ignorant of the scientific issues and bereft of any desire to learn the science of powerline electromagnetic fields (EMFs). Repacholi wanted to win his case. Scientific truth, and the morality of involuntarily exposing other human beings to a carcinogenic agent were simply not pertinent considerations. This comment, and those provided below constitute the thrust of the cross-examination that ought to have been conducted. Had Repacholi been effectively cross-examined, the court would have seen him for what he was, a greedy opportunist whose testimony was no more than a web of lies, distortions, and half-truths. COMMENT 2 These paragraphs are the key to understanding how someone as ignorant as Repacholi could rise to the position of EMF boss at WHO, and thereby produce worldwide misery. The legal structure in Australia, as in essentially all countries in the world whose legal system is based on the English common-law system, allows someone with a Ph.D. to make knowledge claims without ever forcing the witness to explain how he knows what he claims to know. The Australian legal system, much like that in America, more or less presumes that someone with a Ph.D. "knows." To trigger this automatic respect, which allows the witness to testify as if God had told him the truth of the facts that he recounts, the witness needs to cement in the judge's mind the idea that the witness is a "scientist." Methodologically, this is accomplished by listing the number of times and the different ways in which the witness has functioned as a scientist, or at least apparently so. Matters such as what exactly the witness did, on whose behalf, for what remuneration, with what degree of skill, and to what end are not pertinent to the witness' task. The idea is simply to list things done, like Homer listing the ships that sailed for Troy, from which the judge can then infer that Repacholi is a scientist and therefore that whatever he says constitutes "knowledge." Repacholi did not invent this structure, but he exploited it magnificently. COMMENT 3 The material in paragraphs 26-52, which consists of a tutorial dealing with the elementary physics of EMFs, was entirely irrelevant in the lawsuit. In almost all lawsuits involving health hazards from high-frequency or low-frequency EMFs such didactic information has no legal relevance. Nevertheless it sounds scientific, and was included by the lawyer who presented Repacholi to elevate his stature and make it easier for him to mount a defense of their client's interests. In an ordinary legal case, irrelevant material is stricken following an objection by the adverse party. In EMF cases such an objection is rarely made because the fact that the material is irrelevant is almost never appreciated by the judge or the lawyers. The strategy of turning a courtroom into a classroom on the elementary physics of EMFs was invented by the attorneys for the power industry. Repacholi's willingness to include this material in his testimony is an early indication that he doesn't know what evidence is important, doesn't care, or both. COMMENT 4 The paragraph is deceptive, like a shell game at a carnival. Repacholi argues that tumor development "appears" to require a particular series of steps. Soon he will begin talking as if what "appears" to him to be true is actually true. That is, the distinction between his unsupported opinion (the way something "appears" to him) and the way it "appears" to someone else will be completely glossed over, and in the rest of his testimony he will assume that tumor development in humans "requires." The perspective from which the paragraph was constructed is that the way cancer comes about is known, namely that it involves initiation, and promotion. Subsequently, he will present evidence that EMFs don't initiate and don't promote, allowing him to conclude that they don't cause cancer. What he obscures is that there is no reason to believe that the initiation-promotion model applies to all human cancers, or even to a majority of human cancers. Actually, all that we know is that "initiation/promotion" applies to is an animal model developed by Boutwell more than 40 years ago. Consequently, even if it were the case that EMFs were neither initiators nor promoters, it would not follow logically that they didn't cause cancer. The general structure of Repacholi's arguments are as follows: • If EMFs cause disease, they must do x. • EMFs don't do x. • Therefore EMFs don't cause disease. In each case, the truth is that Repacholi's premise is no more than gross speculation. It describes the way he wants the world to be, not as it is. COMMENT 5 The first sentence is a tautology because it says only that stimuli that don't do anything (below threshold), don't do anything (do not promote). Nevertheless, in a courtroom, it sounds as if it actually means something. The rest of the paragraph applies solely to Boutwell's model, but that limitation is obscured here and in the rest of the testimony. Reasoning from Boutwell's model is a common tactic by power-company experts; Boutwell himself has done it several times to exonerate both power-frequency and high-frequency EMFs. In this case, the power company hired Boutwell and Repacholi and, like a mutual admiration society, they cited one another as authority for their respective opinions. COMMENT 6 Evidence that a particular EMF was not positive in the Ames test is not probative (evidence tending to make a proposition more likely than not to be true) with regard to the issue in the case, which was whether powerline EMFs were health risks (even assuming that the cited publications constituted honest research). In a rational adjudicatory proceedings, this kind of nonsensical reasoning would be excluded. One reason that almost never happens is that experts like Repacholi are more clever at constructing such arguments than judges and lawyers for plaintiffs are at recognizing they are being deceived. COMMENT 7 Repacholi exonerates EMFs because some EMF reports "...did not cause...," "...did not alter...," the investigators were "...unable to detect...," "...could not demonstrate...," found "...no increases in...," and because "no effects were found...." However, (1) he ignores the large number of published studies that reported exactly the opposite results; (2) he disregards the issue of bias in the negative reports that he cited (that the investigators working for a power industry had a vested interest in not finding anything that would be inconsistent with the public posture of the power industry; (3) he obfuscates the fact that negative studies have almost no scientific value (except in very specialized circumstances not pertinent here). Repacholi's exoneration is breathtaking in its over-broadness, because there are numerous conditions under which low-frequency fields have been reported to damage DNA. Repacholi's argument in paragraph 58 is vacuous and misleading. What does it mean to say that studies "in general" "have indicated" something? Are we to understand that some reports described EMF mutagenicity and others didn't but that the number of the latter is somehow outweighed by the former in quantity or quality? The reality is that there are some conditions in which fields have produced mutagenic effects, and others in which they haven't. There simply is no objective "in general," no "bottom line." Everything in Section 2.6 is irrelevant, because nowhere in the case was it alleged that 50/60-Hz fields damaged DNA or caused initiating events in cells. The allegation in the case was that the fields cause cancer, which is a completely different proposition. COMMENT 8 Paragraph 62 is an instantiation of the deception mentioned earlier. The initiation/progression model of reality has actually become reality for Repacholi. Thus, he argues: If powerlines cause cancer they must initiate or promote, but they don't initiate, so the only other possibility is that they promote. He has already turned down the wrong road for scientific reasoning, so nothing that follows makes any sense. Additionally, the topic under discussion is legally irrelevant, so this testimony is defective in two dimensions. From a historical perspective, the general pattern for EMF research is that there is an initial report by a scientist, usually unconnected with any EMF industry, that reports a positive effect of the fields on the system under study. Then, the industry enters into secret research contracts with investigators whose results invariably contradict the initial report. In subsequent court cases, someone like Repacholi is hired to perfect the argument that X reported an effect but Y could not replicate the effect, from which the conclusion drawn is that X was wrong. The argument is logically nonsensical, it is built on the assumption that what comes later is always better than what came earlier, and it ignores the fact that the later work is invariably larded with industry bias. This is the structure of almost every argument that comes from Repacholi's mouth. Cohen (1987) found exactly what the Power Authority of New York paid him to find, namely data that put the work of Phillips into issue. With the exception of power-company lawyers and their witnesses, no one else would normally see the Cohen report, which is not a published, peer-reviewed study. One sophistic device that Repacholi has perfected far beyond the level of any other power-company expert that I have encountered in my years of dealing with the issue of EMF health hazards is the technique of the selective reference. In paragraph 64, for example, Repacholi cites Winters (1986) so that it appears his study is adverse to that of Phillips, which is not true. Winters and Phillips have published together. Their work is mutually supportive, not mutually contradictory. Repacholi's citation of Thompson (1988) in paragraph 65 is grossly misleading, because it suggests that the group of investigators made a sincere and independent effort to evaluate the biological effects of powerline EMFs, which is far from the case. The major player in the group was Sol Michaelson who, along with Herman Schwan, were probably the two most myopic investigators in the history of EMF bioeffects research. They both believed to the depths of their souls that powerline EMFs were harmless Schwan on the basis of cockamamie calculations for which he was famous, and Michaelson, a veterinarian, on the basis of enormously crude experiments. We know that microwaves can cook tissue; Sol Michaelson was the person who made that discovery. One can read in the published literature his descriptions of animals as they were cooked alive. He describes the change in core body temperature, the oozing of fluids from the eyes and various orifices, and the other physiological sensations associated with being cooked alive. In Michaelson's perspective, a field that failed to produce a "thermal burden" was safe. Since most investigators are agreed that powerline EMFs do not produce a "thermal burden" it follows on the basis of Michaelson's twisted logic that powerline EMFs are "safe." When someone proceeds from this perspective, it is certain that the experiments he performs will substantiate his point of view, and that's exactly what happened with every experiment Michaelson ever performed. To cite Michaelson as support for the proposition that powerline EMFs are safe is simply absurd. From a scientific perspective, the reports by Thompson and Frazer are rigged industry-controlled research that deserves to be ignored in their entirety. From a legal perspective one might wonder about the credibility of a witness such as Repacholi who (1) introduces an irrelevant topic to a case; (2) analyzes it on the basis of faulty scientific reasoning; (3) supports his view based on only a selected sub-sample of the relevant scientific literature; and (4) employs a sub-sample that consists entirely of industry controlled research. Sadly, Repacholi's credibility was never attacked by the cross-examining attorney. COMMENT 9 There had been research as of the date of this testimony that reported an association between 50-60-Hz fields and gene expression in higher order animals. Repacholi might not have agreed with it, nevertheless, it existed, contrary to what he told the court under oath. The last sentence in paragraph 73 densely packs (1) a judgment based on a subjective term, (2) an assertion of an inapplicable standard, and (3) an overt, unjustified value judgment. The phrase "...only preliminary..." is a pejorative characterization of Goodman's work; from her point of view it was a finished, peer-reviewed publication that reported laboratory observations. It was no more nor less "preliminary" than any other published scientific report. The real problem with this work, from Repacholi's perspective, is that it pointed in a direction opposite to his client's interests. The phrase "needs confirmation" is biased. As will shortly be clear from other parts of his testimony, it means that any report whose implications are adverse to his client must be replicated exactly before the report can be taken seriously. One difficulty with this viewpoint is that almost no published study is ever replicated exactly. The desire to do so hardly constitutes a basis, for example, to solicit funds for research from NIH, where the emphasis in securing such support is on novelty, not on aping the results of others. Published studies are not replicated because usually no one is interested in paying for duplicative studies. Secondly, Repacholi is hypocritical because he applies a "replication" standard only to reports that are adverse to his client's interests. If Dr. X reports that EMFs don't produce a particular biological effect then Repacholi applies no replication criterion, presumably because he sees "no effect" as the "right" result. If Dr. X reports a positive result, Repacholi raises the bar for acceptance by requiring "confirmation." Thus he has two standards for scientific acceptability, depending on whether or not he likes the results. Should a decision regarding whether EMFs are health risks be made on the basis of an overall evaluation of the cumulative, credible evidence, or should the rule be that a nexus between each individual report and the overall conclusion must be established in order to rationalize a conclusion of risk? It is obviously impossible to satisfy the latter criteria, and thus an insistence on its applicability amounts to prevention of any rationalization of health risks. It is possible to imagine a society in which health risks are not recognized, except in particularly egregious cases (living next to a dynamite factory, working in an asbestos mine, smoking cigarettes, for example). It could be argued that society is better off, overall, if the bar is set so high. The point is, however, that whether that point of view is accepted or not is a societal decision, and is not properly one within the purview of a single, arrogant scientist such as Repacholi. He has no authority whatever to address that issue in the context of testifying as an expert for the power company. COMMENT 10 Calcium ions can also be released from intracellular stores, and as a consequence, produce diverse cellular changes. Repacholi seems ignorant of the phenomenon because he interprets the literature as if transmembrane ion flow were the only pertinent source of calcium ions. Movement of calcium ions from freshly isolated chick cerebral tissues exposed to electric fields using a microwave carrier (147 and 450MHz) modulated to ELF (about 16 Hz) frequencies and at multiple power density windows has been reported (Bawin and Adey 1976, Blackman et al 1979, 1982). It should be noted that Bawin and Adey (1976) showed a decrease in calcium efflux while Blackman et al (1979, 1982) showed an increase - a difference which has not been satisfactorily explained. COMMENT 11 Whether the difference has been "satisfactorily explained" is quite subjective, and the implicit assertion that such an explanation is needed in the context of this case is misleading. Finally, the paragraph implies a false dichotomy; both experiments showed that EMFs affected calcium movement. There is no inconsistency because the experimental conditions differed between the two studies. COMMENT 12 The argument here was created by Edwin Carstensen, an engineer from the University of Rochester, during his testimony on behalf of the Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation in a forum in New York in 1975; the argument is foolish for 2 reasons. First, the calculation (like essentially all such EMF calculations) was completely arbitrary. By assuming different values for tissue constants and tissue geometry (such assumptions are absolutely necessary to perform the calculations) it is possible to produce results that are equally justifiable as the proffered results, but that differ drastically in the numerical values that they produce. Thus, the calculations have no probative value. Second, drawing parallels between studies done at widely divergent frequencies for the purposes of establishing "the same tissue gradient" makes no sense because it is expected that physical processes will vary as a function of EMF frequency. Carstensen's arguments were rejected in New York. Yet Repacholi introduces them as if they are meaningful, relevant, and uncontradicted. COMMENT 13 The statements are purely gratuitous. Such terms as "unusual," "not established," and "do not support" do not characterize the work, but rather the dishonest approach to the literature followed by Repacholi. The real problem here is that the studies are used by people Repacholi regards as enemies to jeopardize his client's interests. COMMENT 14 The work of Albert, Merritt, and Graves was rigged by the commercial interests that paid for the work; its purpose was to put the work of Adey and Blackman into issue so that ethically compromised witnesses such as Repacholi could denigrate the work as "scientifically unsatisfactory." The term "Cheshire cat" was coined by Graves to explain all EMF bioeffects; Repacholi manifests his ignorance when he limits its import to the calcium studies. COMMENT 15 The work is quite irrelevant. In the rabbit hole that Repacholi fell down, evidence that someone looked for a phenomenon and didn't find it is evidence against the existence of the phenomenon, notwithstanding the fact that someone else did find it. COMMENT 16 This is another example of Repacholi's selective reporting. In other studies, the same authors reported effects of EMFs on calcium movement. COMMENT 17 The work by Blackwell and Reed was controlled by the power industry, which invariably indicates that the work was rigged. It should be noted that industry-supported work is not simply incompetent (it almost always finds no effects, and anybody can fail to find something). The work is far worse it is actively misleading. It is, in effect, a form of advertising that is created by the industry to deflect attention from the serious health risks produced by the way the industry designs and builds powerlines. COMMENT 18 As with essentially every "conclusion" Repacholi reaches, it is unrelated to the state of the scientific literature but rather derives from his mission which is to exonerate the power industry. COMMENT 19 The work of Adey and Byus is interesting for both historical and scientific reasons, but it is largely irrelevant in a powerline hearing. It would be relevant if it were legally required that a claim powerline EMFs constituted health risks must be supported by a showing of the cellular mechanism that mediates the process. There is no such requirement. Repacholi's testimony is intended solely to create collateral issues that present an insurmountable obstacle to the recognition of powerline health risks. Both Bailey and Boutwell are industry hacks; they work for the same employer as does Repacholi. COMMENT 20 Of course the results weren't supported by Morris and Phillips; they worked for the power industry. In the late 1970s and early 1980s Phillips was in charge of a veritable data-fabrication factory at the Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories; the product was false and misleading information regarding the health risks of powerline EMFs. It is impossible to pinpoint his budgets during those years because almost everything about his work was secret except for selected releases of data that suited the interests of the industry. I estimate that he controlled or at least influenced $100-300 million in research funds. Even as the work was being produced it was apparent to unbiased observers that the work was worthless. Today (December, 2005) it is not possible to delineate even a single published report from Phillips' laboratory that provided useful or worthwhile information about the biological effects of EMFs; there is no report regarding which I can tell my students, "Here, read this, it says something true and useful about understanding the biology of EMFs." The reason is clear; none of the work was ever intended to do so. Rather, it was intended to obfuscate the issue in the eye of the public. All this was surely known by Repacholi. COMMENT 21 Repacholi constantly sets up inappropriate contrasts, irrelevant criteria, and insurmountable hurdles in the path of any realistic attempt to evaluate the health risks due to powerline EMFs. These strategies are folded into virtually every paragraph he writes, and it is easy for an honest but naïve reader to miss the point that the testimony is corrupt by virtue of its very structure, as well as because of the distortion of the facts discussed in the testimony. COMMENT 22 All of the organizations discussed by Repacholi are dominated or controlled by the EMF-producing industries. Not surprisingly, the organizations see no problems with exposure of the public to EMFs. Almost invariably, the rules propounded by these organizations were designed to avoid obvious or acute effects (cooking of tissue, electrical shocks). No other effects are recognized by these organizations, and hence no other protections are built into the standards that they adopted. In some instances the adopted standards call for levels even below those that produce cooking or electrical shocks; in these cases, it had already been determined that the lower levels were consistent with the normal patterns of business in the industry. That is, if level x is sufficient to avoid electrical shocks but in the normal course of business the public is not exposed to levels higher than y, where y is less than x, then it's prudent to set the standard at y, rather than x. Such a strategy creates the impression of solicitude for the public but costs the industry nothing. These simple considerations are behind the standards set by the organizations discussed by Repacholi. His testimony is therefore fundamentally misleading because he obscures the underlying bias. His testimony is also misleading for another reason. He presents the process of evaluating scientific evidence for the purpose of determining the extent of risk as if it were a scientific process, whereas it is actually a societal process that involves human judgment, and human values. The values incorporated into the standards of the organizations he discusses are strictly those of the industry; the consumer, the victim, the general public, all have no significant voice in his organizations. It is clear, therefore, whose values were incorporated into the standards. COMMENT 23 "Established scientific literature," "preliminary or unconfirmed data," "unproven hypotheses," and "higher degree of confidence" are subjective criteria. In this testimony, and throughout his career, Repacholi employs such language as a code to indicate what reports he will accept or reject based on the interests of his clients. Note the misleading metaphor he implicitly adopts for science that science can prove hypotheses. Knowledge that will never need to be revised ("change significantly with further research") cannot occur in biology. exmore |
|||
| WHO director Lee Jong died Mon May 22, 2006 5:51am ET The World Health Organization's director-general Lee Jong-wook of South Korea died on Monday after surgery to remove a blood clot from the brain, the United Nations agency said. Lee, 61, had been WHO chief since 2003 and was spearheading the Organization's fight against the global threat of bird flu. "I am sorry to tell you that Dr. Lee Jong-wook, director-general of the WHO, died this morning," Spain's Health Minister Elena Salgado, who was chairing the session, told the opening meeting of the agency's annual assembly. Her voice trembling, Salgado described Lee as an "exceptional person and an exceptional director-general. "Under his leadership, the WHO has been strengthened and has been able to give an effective response to world (health) problems," she said before asking delegates from the 192 member states to observe two minutes' silence. World Health Assembly opens, mourns death of WHO Director-General 22 MAY 2006 | GENEVA -- The Fifty-ninth World Health Assembly (WHA) opened today in sombre mood following the death early on Monday morning of the World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General, Dr LEE Jong-wook. Dr Lee, who was 61 and had been in his post since July 2003, died following a sudden illness. Opening the formal proceedings of the Assembly, the Minister of Health of Spain, Elena Salgado, said Dr Lee "was an exceptional person and an exceptional Director-General." The Assembly observed a two-minute silence and was suspended for 30 minutes following the announcement of Dr Lee's death. see letter to Lee Jong-wook LeeJong.doc, 50 KB UrgentNotice.doc, 24 KB see also here WHO-Repacholi - history which is clear as mud Related links exWHO chief dies after blood clot surgery exWorld Health Assembly opens, mourns death of WHO Director-General |
|||
More surprises from the Italian Workshop28 Feb 2006 Antonio Gagliardi, who fights aganist the Electropollution in Italy (Elettrosmog Volturino) sent me several emails explaining what had happened, but since he doesn't speak English and uses a translation programme to convert Italian into English, and since the conversion to English created texts which were not clear I asked for more clarifications. Slowy I gathered more details and summerized it here. In addition I attach the first email that arrived to me on the subject from Antonio, which illustrates what happened there. Iris. Antonio Gagliardi, an activist against EMF-R pollution, was not allowed to enter inside the conference in Italy ,which was free for the public. Gagliardi was interviewed on the Italian radio about week before the conference and among the rest of things mentioned the sum of $150,000 a year that Repacholi receives from the cellular companies (according to the Industry itself, as reported by microwavenews.com) This is the link to the interview (in italian). http://radiobase.net/ Antonio Gagliardi translated Michael Raz's letter to the pope into Italian and distributed it to the Italian press. It turned out that someone thought he should be punished and not be allowed to enter to the conference, because he translated and distributed this letter. When he came to the workshop, on the 23.2.06 in order to listen to Repacholi, he noticed Repacholi was not in the room. Then he was taken outside and was told to present "a pass" - a confirmation that he was on the guests list, and allowed to enter to the workshop, but as far as Antonio knew, the conference was free for the public and he didn't remember anyone mention any need for a pass to enter. An police inspector asked what had happened, and Antonio replied that he was not allowed to enter and then he heard one of the employees tell the inspector- "we were told that it is a dangerous subject". Antonio took the advantage of the conference break and told about it to Dr. Marinelli, who was surprised from what he heard and went to speak to Dr. L. Giuliani, the person who was responsible for the organization of the workshop. The inspector told Antonio that for that day (23.2.06) he couldn't receive a pass but for the next they would prepare one for him. Then F. De Lorenzo saw Antonio, he was surprised that A' was not inside, and went to speak to Dr. Giuliani, and then Lorenzo came to speak in private with Antonio. He told him: "You have done a big mistake, you launched [on line] a threat letter of someone you don't know, and you translated it. Repacholi then learnt about this letter and he didn't come because he was afraid, and we wanted the opportunity to meet him and it made Giuliani very angry. If you want to talk to him [Giuliani] then wait one moment". Antonio waited until he met Giuliani who refused to talk to him, telling him "you made a big mistake and do not come back even in the next days because this conference doesn't interest you" and went away with the policeman. |
|||
| Murderer from the WHO has not appeared in public 27 Feb 2006 No, it is not from the Italian movie "The Godfather", it is reality: Translation of Zamir Shalita's letter with an update. Iris. My dear Michael, With regard to Repacholi: I returned only this morning from the international workshop, in which Repacholi was about to participate. I was told by the organizer of the conference that following your letter, the Italian police opened an investigation to find out who you are (I have no idea whom they talked to) and also informed to Repacholi that they cannot guarantee his safety, and it is better than he wouldn't come to Benevento where the workshop was held (it's in south of Italy). When she informed this, the participants approached me immediately (among them the best in the world in the field of transmission's damage) and they told me that here you screwed up the whole thing, because they were about to crucify him in an open meeting and not let him get away. But since he didn't come, they couldn't tell him what they think of him. Too bad about this point. There was also a meeting with journalists from all over Italy in the mayor's office because he was very proud that such a respected workshop was done in his city. In the meeting they talked in Italian, so I didn't understand what they said, but I did understand that an Israeli named Michael Raz threatened on Repacholi from the World Health Organization and accused him as a murderer. Your intention was good of course, but several of the workshop's participants told me separately that they wanted to criticize him as strong as it get, just in a more polite way, and believe me they were not going to give up. They were very disappointed that he got away with it easily by not attending. All the best Zamir |
|||
| Weatherall receives response from WHO 22 Jan 2006 From Martin Weatherall I have recently received a reply letter from Dr. M. Repacholi, Coordinator, Radiation and Environmental Health, World Health Organization. This was in response to the letter of complaint that I sent dated November 10, 2005. The letter stated - Dear Sir Your letter to the Director-General of WHO has been passed on to me for reply. WHO does not make any decisions on its own; this is done through the formation of expert groups on the topics under discussion, and they conduct a thorough review of scientific literature to reach their conclusions and recommendations. This was the process used to reach conclusions about EMF hypersensitivity. The results of the workshop held in Prague in October 2004 are now reflected in the enclosed WHO Fact Sheet. Yours sincerely Dr Mike H. Repacholi From Martin: The only good part of the document that I can find is the part under 'Physicians', where it states; This requires - an assessment of the workplace and home for factors that might contribute to the presented symptoms. This seems to be quite a change from the working document and it may be worth finding out the reason for that change. Of course we all know that physicians are highly unlikely to ever assess the home or the workplace of a EHS sufferer. Doctors are simply to busy and do not have the knowledge and equipment to search for the true cause of electro hypersensitivity. This change would have been more appropriate if it had appeared under 'Governments' and if they then provided realistic electromagnetic dangers to search for, and details of the equipment and knowledge required for that search.. It is obvious from the document that the WHO are 'barking up the wrong tree'. With the exception of Prof Olle Johansson, it seems that the 'experts' either do not realize what is really harming EHS sufferers, or they are deliberately protecting the financial interests of the telecommunications industry, the wireless industry and the electrical industry. They are failing to look for the real reasons why people are getting sick and developing cancer near to cell phone towers, near to transformers, near to transmission lines, from defective wireless equipment and from the effects of electricity polluted by high frequencies. In short, the World Health Organization is failing in its duties to the world population. |
|||
|
Public Inquiery -- Original Message ----- From: Iris Atzmon To: OhkuboC by who.int Cc: Sibylle ; agnes by mast-victims.org ; Hans Karow ; Robert Riedlinger Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 7:32 PM Subject: Public Inquiery Dear Dr. Ohkubo, I would like to ask for your input with regard to each of the following points, which contradict certain statements you made to Sibylle with confidence: like that the ICNIRP guidelines are highly protective, and that they include ALL the evidence, and that there is no need for precaution. I will be glad to know that the following points are not true, but unfortunately, until today, they have never been refuted (they were denied, but never refuted) by any of the WHO/ ICNIRP members. I would like to know your comments to the following data: 1. The WHO invites the power industry to participate in evaluation of EMF health standards : based on: "20-member task group from 17 countries, assembled by Michael Repacholi, the head of the WHO EMF project, will finalize an Environmental Health Criteria (EHC) document, which is designed to guide the development of standards for extremely low frequency (ELF) EMFs all over the world. It will likely represent WHO's official position on EMF health risks for years to come. Last month, Repacholi gave eight observers the green light to attend the meeting -all eight either work for electric utilities or have direct and strong ties to the industry. Other than WHO staff, these are the only people on the Repacholi's list of approved observers: Kazu Chikamoto, Japan NUS Co., Tokyo Rob Kavet, EPRI, Palo Alto. CA, U.S. Michel Plante, Hydro-Quebec, Montreal, Canada Jack Sahl, Southern California Edison, Upland, CA, U.S. Martine Souques, Electricity de France-Gaz de France, Paris Hamilton Moss de Souza, CEPEL, Brazilian Electrical Energy Research Center, Rio de Janeiro John Swanson, National Grid, London, U.K. Tom Watson, Watson & Renner, Washington DC, U.S. http://microwavenews.com/fromthefield.html#whoehc 2. Repacholi receives 150,000 dollar a year (at least) from the Mobile Phone industry: based on: "We also know that he found a way to skirt the WHO rules that bar direct industry support " the mobile phone manufacturers have said that they provide him with $150,000 a year with additional money for meeting and travel expenses." http://microwavenews.com/fromthefield.html#whoottawa 3. With regard to the ICNIRP/ WHO standard documents, two examples for bias of data: A. The study on the polish army Szmigielski 1996, (which found high cancer increase) in the WHO/ICNIRP document it's written that it was hard to interpret the findings because the level of radiation was not clear and also how many people were exposed. But in the study itself it's written clearly: population 128,000 people, and radiation: "Evaluation of the exposure intensities revealed that at 80-85% of posts, the fields (mostly pulse-modulated RF/MWs at 150-3500 MHz) do not exceed 2 W/m2 (0.2 mW/cm2), while the others have intensities 2-6 W/m2 How is it one thing in the study, and another thing in the ICNIRP/WHO document? B. Prof Goldsmith published in 1995 the Lilienfeld findings of increased Leukemia in the american embassy workers in Moscow. The ICNIRP documents still present the study as a "proof" that there is no increased risk. Why isn't it updated in the ICNIRP document? source: Goldsmith J, "Where the trail leads" Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics, Vo. 5 p. 92-94, July 1995. 4. The ICNIRP/ WHO Standards documents were refuted by these scientists: The following scientists wrote serious, detailed, evidence based documents in which they compared the findings of the actual studies which are reviewd in the WHO/ ICNIRP documents and showed significant difference between actual data and they way the are presented in the documents. We have never seen anybody saying that the were not right. They are: Dr. Neil Cherry in : "Criticism of the Health Assesment in the ICNIRP Guidlines for Radiofrequency and Microwave Radiation" 31/1/2000. http://emfguru.org/CellPhone/cherry2/ICNIRP-2.htm Dr. Michael Kundi in: Fundemental Errors, the Biased Presentation of proofs and arguments with Prejudices of the 1998 ICNIRP Guidlines. 06/ 2002 Dr. Gerard Hyland as presented in the European Paliament http://carolinelucasmep.org.uk/news/mobilemasts_11072001.html Prof John Goldsmith as mentioned above and in his other publications. Barie Trower, expert of electromagnetic weapon who worked in the British Government, as written to the British Police about TETRA. http://rense.com/general60/tetra.htm Don Maisch in "The ICNIRP Guidelines: RF risk assessment built on a house of cards" http://emfacts.com/papers/icnirp_critique.pdf Is the WHO able to refute the data presented in the above papers scientifically? 5. The WHO Interphone study results will be given to the industry one week before they hit the media. *************** I am looking forward to reading your clarification to the above points, Respectfully, and blessings for the new job, Iris. |
|||
| The WHO syndrom: 14 Jan 2006 Dr. Chiyoji Ohkubo, Radiation and Environmental Health, World Health Organization: ".....Thus, the limits in the ICNIRP guidelines are highly protective and are based on all the available scientific evidence. The WHO EMF Project also has issued the opinion that international guidelines provide a high level of protection against all proven hazards of radiofrequency fields. Certainly, the levels of exposure to the public from mobile phone, mobile phone base stations and under typical circumstances are far below these limits. For more detailed information, I recommend you to look ICNIRP web site." "....There have been some scientific studies on the problem, but these have generally unable to unequivocally link exposure to electromagnetic fields and the symptoms that hypersensitive people report." "My best advice regarding your symptoms is to seek a physician who can identify the cause of your problems, - without presuming the cause. Symptoms such as you describe can have many causes, and only a competent physician can hope to uncover them" iris. ****************************************************************************** did you know that: ..........ICNIRP wishes you all the best in 2006 ! (from icnirp.de) iris. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ohkubo, Chiyoji", OhkuboC by who.int To: sibylle.gabriel by bluewin.ch Cc: "Ravenscroft, Lisa", ravenscroftl by who.int "Repacholi, Michael Harry", repacholim by who.int Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 10:07 AM Dear Ms. Sibylle Gabriel, The WHO EMF Project has several fact sheets on its website which give a good overview of the subject at http://who.int/docstore/peh-emf/publications/facts_press/fact_english..htm. For more detailed discussions, several national health agencies have analyzed the literature, and their reports are available online. See: Health Council of the Netherlands, Mobile telephones; an evaluation of health effects. The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands. Available on the Internet at http://gr.nl/ (an update to this report is available at http://gr.nl/pdf.php?ID=886 ) Independent Expert Group On Mobile Phones, Mobile Phones and Health, UK (available on the Internet at http://iegmp.org.uk/index.htm) Health Protection Agency (former National Radiation Protection Board) (UK), Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation, Health Effects from Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields: Report of an independent Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation. ( Available on the Internet at: http://hpa.org.uk/radiation/publications/documents_of_nrpb/abstracts/absd14-2.htm http://hpa.org.uk/radiation/understand/information_sheets/mobile_telephony/base_stations.htm Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency(ARPANSA), Radiation from mobile phones and communication antennas at: http://arpansa.gov.au/issues.htm New Zealand Ministry for the Environment, National guidelines for managing the effects of radiofrequency transmitters. On line at: http://mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/radio-freq-guidelines-dec00.pdf The Royal Society of Canada, A Review of the Potential Health Risks of Radiofrequency Fields from Wireless Telecommunication Devices. Ottawa: Available on the Internet at http://rsc.ca/english/RFreport.html Swedish Radiation Protection Authority (SSI) - First Annual Report from SSI's Independent Expert Group on Electromagnetic Fields http://ssi.se/english/english_news.html These health assessments have found no clear evidence of a health hazard at exposure levels below international guidelines (ICNIRP/ANSI/IEEE) including children. The ICNIRP guidelines were developed to limit human exposure to electromagnetic fields under conditions of maximum absorption of the fields, which rarely occurs, and the limits incorporate large safety factors to protect workers and even larger safety factors to protect the general public, including children. Thus, the limits in the ICNIRP guidelines are highly protective and are based on all the available scientific evidence. The WHO EMF Project also has issued the opinion that international guidelines provide a high level of protection against all proven hazards of radiofrequency fields. Certainly, the levels of exposure to the public from mobile phone, mobile phone base stations and under typical circumstances are far below these limits. For more detailed information, I recommend you to look ICNIRP web site at http://icnirp.de/. Last year, the WHO International EMF Project hosted a workshop on " Sensitivity of Children to EMF Exposure" on 9-10 June 2004 (http://who.int/peh-emf/meetings/children_turkey_june2004/en/index.html). There have been suggestions that exposure of young children to EMF may be detrimental to their health, especially during the development and maturation of the central nervous system, immune system and other critical organs. In addition children are exposed to EMF for a much greater part of their lifespan than adults. Use of mobile telephones by young children has been a concern expressed by the Stewart Committee report in the United Kingdom and others. The purpose of this Workshop was to evaluate available information and summaries what conclusions can be made and what research is still needed to fill gaps in knowledge about any health concerns related to children's exposure to EMF. You can get useful information from this website including a rapporteur report (http://who.int/peh-emf/meetings/archive/en/rapporteurreport.pdf). In 2000 WHO issued a fact sheet (#193) on Mobile Phones and their Base Stations. In the section under "Precautionary measures" it states "Present scientific evidence does not indicate the need for any special precautions for the use of mobile phones. If individuals are concerned, they might choose to limit their own or their children's radiofrequency EMF exposure by limiting the length of calls, or by using "hands-free" devices to keep mobile phones away from the head and body." Not only is the information provided in this WHO fact sheet still valid, but the precautionary measures suggested are still those recommended by the International EMF Project. Regarding your symptoms evoked by "electromagnetic fields", I offer you my deepest sympathy. However, WHO does not offer medical advice about your problems. Some of the people report symptoms that seem similar to yours, and there is even a name for the problem, electrical hypersensitivity. There have been some scientific studies on the problem, but these have generally unable to unequivocally link exposure to electromagnetic fields and the symptoms that hypersensitive people report. The connection between fields and the symptoms is evidently complex. In some cases, emotional or other environmental factors might also play a role. Recently, WHO published a fact sheet regarding this issue. I would like to recommend you to read it at our web site: http://who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs296/en. My best advice regarding your symptoms is to seek a physician who can identify the cause of your problems, - without presuming the cause. Symptoms such as you describe can have many causes, and only a competent physician can hope to uncover them. I hope that these comments are helpful. Sincerely yours, Chiyoji Ohkubo ******************************* Dr. Chiyoji Ohkubo Radiation and Environmental Health World Health Organization Avenue Appia 20 CH-1211 Geneva 27 Switzerland E-mail OhkuboC by who.int Tel +41-22-791-35-59 Fax +41-22-791-41-23 ******************************* -----Original Message----- From: sibylle.gabriel to bluewin.ch Sent: 11 January 2006 19:50 To: Repacholi, Michael Harry Dear Dr. Repacholi, as a teacher I have noticed for a while a subtantial degratation in the behavior and the learing capacities of my pupils. I turn to you as famous specialist in order to ask you wether you belive this pulsed micro-waves could be cause of this changes or not. As a mater of fact some children phon more then two hours a day and - or have their eyes irritated or worse, do'nt see a thing for moment. Being myself electroensitive I am also heavely affected by thoses waves and have to systematecally evoid any places with wi-fi. The wi-fi, the worst for my system. Hence I experience growing difficulties to concentrate and headaches. If my body reaction is not exeptional, it is urgent to worn the population, especially children, particulary vulnerable and exposed because of their abuse of electronic gadgets. Would appreciate a prompt reply and in the meantime I remaine, yours sincerly Sibylle Gabriel |
|||
| webmaster by umtsno.de 12.1.2006 Repacholi - historia, która sie ciagnie jak gówno przez morze. / Repacholi-history which is clear as mud. / Repacholi - die unendliche Geschichte. Oprócz Profesora Huberta Trzaski nikt mi dotychczas nie odpowiedzial. / Except Prof Trzaska nobody has answered my letter. / bis auf Professor Trzaska niemand hat mir geantwortet. Wyslalem listy dyrektora WHO LeYong do nastepujacych osób: / I have sent Mr LeYong's (Letter to WHO Director, Urgent Notice to WHO direktor General) letters to following people: / Ich habe die Briefe an den WHO-Direktor Herr Le Yong an folgende Personen weiter gereicht: |
|||
|
|||
| The response and clarification Sat, 14 Jan 2006 Clarification: Next Up organization sent Repacholi the letter with signatures that had been sent to Lee Jong + the attached picture, and asked him to confirm the information...this was Repacholi's full response. Best, Iris.  Wed, 11 Jan 2006 Repacholi's industry benefits, FYI ----- Original Message ----- From: Iris Atzmon To: Don Maisch ; Next-up: Contact Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 1:28 PM Subject: Re: Repacholi's industry benefits Did you show him the source? Please show him the source, in microwave news, and ask him for his reaction, this is the soucre: "We also know that he found a way to skirt the WHO rules that bar direct industry support -the mobile phone manufacturers have said that they provide him with $150,000 a year with additional money for meeting and travel expenses. " the direct link http://microwavenews.com/fromthefield.html#whoottawa ----- Original Message ----- From: Next-up: Contact ----- Original Message ----- From: Repacholi, Michael Harry To: infos by next-up.org Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 7:46 AM Subject: FW: Next-up News Could you please explain where you received this totally false information. If it is not withdrawn with apology legal action will proceed Dr Mike H Repacholi Coordinator, Radiation & Environmental Health Protection of the Human Environment World Health Organization 20 Avenue Appia CH-1211 Geneva 27 Switzerland Tel +41 22 791 34 27 Fax +41 22 791 41 23 Email repacholim by who.int |
|||
| Repacholi's industry benefits
From: "Iris Atzmon" atzmonh by bezeqint.net |
|||
WHO Fact Sheet No. 296: "Sie versuchen in offensichtlich voreingenommener Weise, die Auswirkung von EMF, insbesondere der Mobilfunktechnologie, auf die Gesundheit vieler Menschen zu verharmlosen" |
|||
| Blake Levitt on WHO (FW) Tue, 10 Jan 2006 For those who don't know, Blake wrote the book: Electromagnetic Fields: A Consumer's Guide to the Issues and How to Protect Ourselves by B. Blake Levitt, Blake B. Levitt (Paperback - October 1995) and edited the book: Cell Towers: Wireless Convenience? or Environmental Hazard? by B. Blake Levitt (Editor) (Paperback - November 1, 2001) ----- Original Message ----- Blakelevit from cs.com Tuesday, January 10, 2006 7:19 PM Subject: Re: FYI Henry, This WHO "Fact Sheet" on EHS is very unfortunate and a direct slap at the work of Olle Johansson and others. I had great hope that this WHO committee would produce some balanced work but it just seems to be getting more rigid according to the individual bias/politics of the heads of the committee. Such a shame. I am increasingly convinced that this is a rogue committee within WHO whose work is so exemplary in so many other areas. Certainly their funding decisions in taking money for travel expenses from the industry goes against all WHO parameters. Not sure what will right this situation now. Once these fact sheets are produced, they can take on a patina of credibility that outlives rewrites. The baseline opinion contained in this is the same as 10 years ago -- as if no new work had been done. Worse, it utterly dismisses the increasing reports of EHS coming from all over the world. It's not likely that everyone is having the same transcultural psychotic hallucination. Much of the basis for dismissal rests on the fact that those with EHS cannot distinguish between frequencies, cannot tell when exposures are on or off, and appear to have an emotional overlay. Therefore the syndrome must be imagined because it doesn't respond to our normal way of capturing data. The fact that a different nonlinear model might be needed doesn't even get mentioned. Olle's work in changes in skin mast cells appears to be one possibility. I often quote a line from Hippocrates in my speeches. Hippocrates his students, "Listen to your patients... They are handing you the diagnosis." Indeed, that's what often leads to further research. How come not with WHO? Blake See: http://who.int/mediacentre/ |
|||
| Repacholi responds - but not to NEXT UP From: "Iris Atzmon" atzmonh on bezeqint.net To: "Martin Weatherall" weather on golden.net Tue, 10 Jan 2006 19:03:21 +0200 Dear Martin, It is interesting that Repacholi responded to you but he didn't respond to Next Up organization at the same time. What an interesting selection he does. Anyway, in my opinion he mislead you in his reply: What experts is he talking about? The celluar + power industries ? can he give you the names of these mysterious experts? because Repacholi's definition for experts can be very liquid. What kind of experts can possibly lead to a recommendation to NOT measure the radiation in people's house? According to what parameters does the WHO choose experts? These are legitimate questions. Please see how he invited the power industry to set health standards: A 20-member task group from 17 countries, assembled by Michael Repacholi, the head of the WHO EMF project, will finalize an Environmental Health Criteria (EHC) document, which is designed to guide the development of standards for extremely low frequency (ELF) EMFs all over the world. It will likely represent WHO's official position on EMF health risks for years to come. all eight either work for electric utilities or have direct and strong ties to the industry. Other than WHO staff, these are the only people on the Repacholi's list of approved observers: Kazu Chikamoto, Japan NUS Co., Tokyo Rob Kavet, EPRI, Palo Alto. CA, U.S. Michel Plante, Hydro-Quebec, Montreal, Canada Jack Sahl, Southern California Edison, Upland, CA, U.S. Martine Souques, Electricity de France-Gaz de France, Paris Hamilton Moss de Souza, CEPEL, Brazilian Electrical Energy Research Center, Rio de Janeiro John Swanson, National Grid, London, U.K. Tom Watson, Watson & Renner, Washington DC, U.S. Although Watson is on the list, he will not be at the meeting. "I tried to become an observer, but I did not succeed," he said in a recent interview. It is not clear why Repacholi changed his mind and disinvited Watson. Chris Portier of the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) will chair the task group. Very few other members of the EMF community are aware of the meeting. A spot check, an admittedly unscientific survey, found that staff members at U.S. health agencies knew nothing about it. The single exception said that he had heard about it from colleagues in the electric utility industry. When asked whether Microwave News could sit in as an observer, Repacholi dismissed the idea. "The press is not permitted to attend EHC Task Group meetings," he told us. Did Repacholi invite the industry representatives? If not, how and when did they first learn about the meeting and request observer status? Have any of the companies or associations, other than EPRI, contributed to the WHO EMF project or its activities? EPRI cosponsored a WHO workshop on EMF risks to children held last year in Istanbul (see August 8 entry below), but it is not known whether EPRI's Kavet has made other contributions to the WHO. All these questions need answering. While Repacholi has long said that the EHC would be revised around this time, the specific schedule has not been previously publicly disclosed. For instance, the October 3-7 task group meeting is not in the listing of meetings on the WHO Web site nor is it included in the Bioelectromagnetics Society Newsletter conference calendar. The WHO released its first EHC for ELF EMFs in 1984. Repacholi chaired the task group that wrote that report. Back then, 20 years ago, the panel recommended that: "efforts be made to limit exposure, particularly for members of the general population, to levels as low as can be reasonably achieved" (a policy known as ALARA). Yet for the last ten years while he has been at the helm of the WHO EMF project and while the health risks posed by power-frequency fields have become much less uncertain, Repacholi has consistently refused to endorse ALARA for ELF EMFs. In addition to NIEHS' Portier, the members of the EHC task group are: Houssain Abouzaid, WHO Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean, Cairo, Egypt Anders Ahlbom, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden Larry Anderson, Battelle Pacific Northwest Labs, Richland, WA, U.S. Christoffer Johansen, Danish Cancer Society, Copenhagen Jukka Juutilainen, University of Kuopio, Finland Sheila Kandel, Soreq, Yavne, Israel Leeka Kheifets, University of California, Los Angeles and EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, U.S. Isabelle Lagroye, University of Bordeaux, France Rüdiger Matthes, Federal Office of Radiation Protection, Oberschleissheim, Germany Alastair McKinlay, Health Protection Agency (HPA), Didcot, U.K. Jim Metcalfe, University of Cambridge, U.K. Meike Mevissen, University of Berne, Switzerland Junji Miyakoshi, Hirosaki University Faculty of Medicine, Japan Eric van Rongen, Health Council of the Netherlands, The Hague Nina Rubtsova, RAM Institute of Occupational Health, Moscow, Russia Paolo Vecchia, National Institute of Health, Rome, Italy Barney de Villiers, University of Stellenbosch, Cape Town, South Africa Andrew Wood, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Australia Zhengping Xu, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China Those attending from WHO include Elisabeth Cardis (IARC); Chiyoji Ohkubo, Rick Saunders (on leave from the U.K. HPA) and Emilie van Deventer. As we post this on the Web, we have learned that Michinori Kabuto of Japan's National Institute for Environmental Studies will also be an observer at the meeting. Five years ago, the Committee of Experts on Tobacco Industry Documents issued a 260-page report documenting the tobacco industry's strategies to undermine the work of the WHO. In response, the WHO issued 15 pages of recommendations on how to make sure its work is never subverted again. Nevertheless, the WHO appears to be unable to apply the hard lessons it learned from tobacco to other potentially harmful agents. Instead, the WHO now simply invites the industry to be part of the process. http://microwavenews.com/ all the best Iris. ----- Original Message ----- From: Martin Weatherall To: Iris Atzmon Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 5:13 AM Subject: Fw: EHS_Factsheet_296_English ----- Original Message ----- From: Martin Weatherall To: Dr. David Fancy Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 1:59 PM Subject: EHS_Factsheet_296_English Hi I have recently received a reply letter from Dr. M. Repacholi, Coordinator, Radiation and Environmental Health, World Health Organization. This was in response to the letter of complaint that I sent dated November 10, 2005. The letter started - Dear Sir Your letter to the Director-General of WHO has been passed on to me for reply. WHO does not make any decisions on its own; this is done through the formation of expert groups on the topics under discussion, and they conduct a thorough review of scientific literature to reach their conclusions and recommendations. This was the process used to reach conclusions about EMF hypersensitivity. The results of the workshop held in Prague in October 2004 are now reflected in the enclosed WHO Fact Sheet. Yours sincerely Dr Mike H. Repacholi I have attached the WHO Fact Sheet to this E mail. I have also attached the WHO working document and the original complaint that I sent to the WHO. The only good part of the document that I can find is the part under 'Physicians', where it states; This requires - an assessment of the workplace and home for factors that might contribute to the presented symptoms. This seems to be quite a change from the working document and it may be worth finding out the reason for that change. Of course we all know that physicians are highly unlikely to ever assess the home or the workplace of a EHS sufferer. Doctors are simply to busy and do not have the knowledge and equipment to search for the true cause of electro hypersensitivity. This change would have been more appropriate if it had appeared under 'Governments' and if they then provided realistic electromagnetic dangers to search for, and details of the equipment and knowledge required for that search.. It is obvious from the document that the WHO are 'barking up the wrong tree'. With the exception of Prof Olle Johansson, it seems that the 'experts' either do not realize what is really harming EHS sufferers, or they are deliberately protecting the financial interests of the telecommunications industry, the wireless industry and the electrical industry. They are failing to look for the real reasons why people are getting sick and developing cancer near to cell phone towers, near to transformers, near to transmission lines, from defective wireless equipment and from the effects of electricity polluted by high frequencies. In short, the World Health Organization is failing in its duties to the world population. Regards Martin Weatherall |
|||
| Repacholi was asked by Next up about the money he receives 9 Jan 2006 Dear all, for your information, In December, Mike Repacholi was asked by Next up (a french organization with a legal status) about the claims in the letter that was sent to Lee Jong, whether they are right, pointing to the money he receives from the industry as claimed in the letter (on the basis of Microwave News report), Repacholi hasn't answered them until today. A copy was sent also to Lee Jong but he ignored them either. Silence is as agreement, isn't it. There must be an investigation and publication of these things. If you can, please involve the media, police, EU, whatever...the light of sun is very healthy for this info, because as long as people will not know it, time will play to the hands of the WHO to continue to cover for the industry, and the courts will accept governments claim that the WHO is responsible for our health. Please see here about the letter that was sent to Repacholi by Next Up, all the best to you and thank you for your cooperation and signatures, Iris. Next-up wrote to the WHO, to Repacholi to ask him his argumants against the accusation to have accepted the mony from the lobby of themobile tel. They told this person that never untill now anybody had a greater repnsability than ihe has this ten years. They told him also that they what to know the truth and that all of tem are akting acording to there moral convictions. They Told Repacholi that the SMALLEST MISTAK FROM HIM IN THE APPROCH AN IN THE INTERNATIONAL RECOMMODATIONS MIGHT BE DANGEROUS FOR HUNDERDS OF MILLION OF PEOPLE. That he makes an professional abuse Kind regards Sibylle Copie au Dr LEE Jong-Wook Directeur General de l'Administration Centrale de l'OMS. |
|||
