Wednesday, March 20, 2019

Prof. Adlkofer discusses carcinogenicity of RF radiation, electrosensitivity, NTP study, 5G, ICNIRP and mobile communication industry

Prof. Franz Adlkofer

Prof. Dr. med. Franz Adlkofer, born in 1935, received his doctorate from the Max Planck Institute for Biochemistry in Munich in 1965 and his post-doctoral education in internal medicine from the Free University of Berlin till 1976. From 1976 to 1992 Prof. Adlkofer worked for the industry. Since 1992 he is Executive Director and since 2002 Member of the Board of VERUM - Foundation for Behaviour and Environment in Munich. His special interest concentrates on the investigation of diseases caused by behaviour and environment. Until 2004 he lectured on this topic at the Free University of Berlin. 

To investigate the biological effects of electromagnetic fields, Prof. Adlkofer organized and coordinated the EU-funded research project REFLEX between 1999 and 2004. In addition, the VERUM Foundation promoted complementary research and sponsored numerous scientific workshops in this area. Prof. Adlkofer is author and co-author of many scientific papers and presentations at national and international meetings.

Final summary of the REFLEX research project: https://www.bems.org/node/592

--

Glioblastomas Have Doubled in Number in England Since Mobile Phones Were Introduced in 1995

Prof. Franz Adlkofer, Pandora Foundation, Mar 19, 2019

On October 28, 2018, Microwave News published a report on two research teams from UK, in which each had observed a rise in glioblastoma in England between 1995 and 2014. Glioblastomas are the most malignant brain tumours leading to death in nearly 100% of the cases shortly after detection (1). 

While incidence and location of the brain tumours were comparable in both studies, the conclusions about the pathogenesis of the tumours were different. Philips et al. (2) see the cause for the rise in glioblastoma in the increasing use of mobile phones, while de Vocht (3) is of the opinion that such an  assumption can be excluded with a high probability. This dispute is in some way evocative of the controversy between the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP). In the $ 30-million study, the NTP detected malignant schwannoma in the heart and glioblastoma in the brain of male rats after exposure to mobile phone radiation for a period of two years. ICNIRP, a non-governmental organization under the undisclosed control of the telecommunication industry, which is responsible for the establishment of safety limits for non-ionizing radiation in Europe and beyond, tried to play down the significance of the NTP findings by casting doubts on their reliability. While ICNIRP has totally ignored any progress of research since the turn of the century (4), de Vocht based his findings on what he calls “synthetic counterfactuals”, which sounds – rightly or wrongly – more like “alternative facts”.


Excerpts

"If a chemical compound gives evidence for a carcinogenic effect in in-vitro, as well as in animal and epidemiological studies, the probability approaches certainty that this agent is carcinogenic for humans. Mobile phone radiation causes genetic damage in isolated human cells: shown in the REFLEX Study and others; it causes malignant tumours in the hearts and brains of male rats and genetic damage in the brain of rats and mice: proven in the NTP Study; it causes glioblastoma in long-term users of mobile phones: revealed in epidemiological studies by Hardell et al. among others. If it needed any further proof, Philips et al. and unintentionally also de Vocht did provide it with their recent research results. Therefore, it must be assumed that mobile communication radiation generated by 1G (sic) up to 4G (sic) causes among other diseases cancer in humans. In the long term, the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in Lyon, France, which in 2011 classified mobile communication radiation as being “possibly carcinogenic to humans”, will not be able to withstand any longer the demand from independent science to finally adjust the classification to the reality of: “carcinogenic to humans.” ....

"As it looks like, the mobile communication industry and politics today silently assume that the publicdiscussion on possible health risks through mobile phone radiation may slowly abate after the introduction of the new 5G (sic) standard necessary for the intended digitization of the world. Since G5radiation rarely penetrates the human skin, they in advance of any research obviously rule out a further rise in glioblastoma in the brain – so far the most terrible outcome – and optimistically alsoall the other hazardous effects on the human body. 

Independent scientists strongly doubt that the assumption is justified since the skin, the largest organ of the human body, may not be able to protect people from the effects of the 5G radiation, which presents an entirely new challenge to the all life on earth. So far no research has been carried out which allows the conclusion that 5G radiation is safer than the preceding 1G up to 4G standards. 

The 5G standard, too, will be inflicted upon human society without any prior check of its compatibility with health. However, the few results available so far indicate that 5G radiation may lead to permanent tissue damage even after short exposures (11). These findings are reason enough to advise caution, but they will obviously be totally ignored."



--

How the Mobile Communication Industry Deals with Science as Illustrated by ICNIRP versus NTP
The development of mobile communication technologies starting with 1G up to now 5G is a success story rarely heard of previously. It has only been possible because industry experts in charge of the technology assumed that radiofrequency (RF) radiation and its modulations – similar to visible light – are biologically harmless. They believed in safety limits that reliably protect people only from the acute thermal effects of RF radiation inherent in the system. Biological effects below the safety limits were categorically ruled out because their existence allegedly contradicted the laws of physics.

So, the technical use of RF radiation in mobile communication has experienced hardly any limitation. Doubts about the harmlessness of this radiation, just as old as the technique itself, have been countered by the mobile communication industry as wrong and without basis. Compliant scientists, whose preferred opinion was more important than their qualifications, were generously supported and, by using political connections, placed in national and international advisory and decision-making bodies.

A milestone in putting through the interests of the mobile communication industry was the establishment of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) in 1992. It is a non-governmental organization. Michael Repacholi, then head of the WHO’s EMF Project, managed to get official recognition for this group by the WHO as well as the EU and a series of its member states, among them Germany. Repacholi, first ICNIRP chairman and later emeritus – member, left the WHO after allegations of corruption in 2006 and found a new position as a consultant to an American electricity provider. ICNIRP’s most important task is the establishment of safety limits for non-ionizing radiation including RF radiation. Its decisions are of utmost importance for the mobile communication industry’s economic and strategic planning. The ICNIRP, whose members are convinced of the harmlessness of RF radiation, has never changed its attitude despite all research progress made in this field since 1992. To guarantee that the mobile communication industry can permanently rely on ICNIRP, the succession of a member who leaves is regulated by statute. The remaining members select the new one on the basis of mutual understanding. Together with the other groups mentioned above ICNIRP has ensured that mobile communication industry is not only dominating the technical research to which it is entitled to, but also the biological research – this at the expense of the human health.


Von Franz Adlkofer | Pandora Foundation for independent research



--

Electrosensitivity: as experienced by an electrosensitive person and assessed by scientists

Prof. Franz Adlkofer, Pandora Foundation, Mar 9, 2016

On February 13, 2013, the body of Carsten Häublein a former pastor from Ammertal, was recovered from the river Schlei in Schleswig-Holstein (Germany). From the available evidence, it was concluded that he had taken his own life. After seven years of suffering whenever he was exposed to mobile communication radiation (RF-EMF), he obviously had lost the courage to continue this way of life.


The Häublein case is an example of a tragedy in Europe, where thousands of people suffering from the aftereffects of electrosensitivity are classified as psychologically peculiar or even mentally disturbed. The sole reason of this claim is to deny RF-EMF being the cause of this suffering. Since 2006, pastor Häublein was strongly committed to have electrosensitivity regarded as an environmental illness.

Let us hope that courageous judges will be found not only in France who understand the basis for electrosensitivity, who question the rationale for the safety limits and who provide justice to electrosensitive people.

Prof. Franz Adlkofer published to the third anniversary of the death of Father Häublein this report.


Read the full report
https://pandora-foundation.eu/2016/03/09/electrosensitivity-the-haublein-case/

-- 
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director
Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety
Website:          https://www.saferemr.com
Facebook:        https://www.facebook.com/SaferEMR
Twitter:            @berkeleyprc

Source

No comments:

Post a Comment