(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
Norwegian academic communities are responding that the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority will remove an important precautionary principle from the Radiation Protection Regulations. They want a clearer precautionary line for "everyday radiation" from wireless technology. At the same time, several other countries are now introducing measures to protect children.
The Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority has received an extraordinary amount of criticism for its proposal for revised Radiation Protection Regulations. The criticism from several Norwegian professional bodies particularly affects the proposal to remove the ALARA principle from the regulations. ALARA is a precautionary principle that requires radiation to be kept as low as possible for the health of the population. Removing this, we are left with high limit values as the only real limit for the permissible exposure of adults and children – despite the fact that they are explicitly set only to protect against harmful effects associated with rapid warming. In reality, this means an almost total "release" of wireless industry and other industry players' plans related to "Internet of Things", "smart power meters", "smart" homes, schools and new 5G, which over time is expected to generate significant exposure in the society.
Split. At the same time, there is an ever-increasing number of published studies that find serious adverse effects and long-term effects – also on animal and plant life – well below our limit values.
Among the Norwegian professional bodies that criticize the Swedish Radiation Protection Agency's desire to remove ALARA are: the Norwegian Association for Medical Physics, the Norwegian Occupational Hygienic Association, the Norwegian Mechanical Association, the Hospital in Vestfold, Sørlandet hospital and several other organizations, companies and private individuals.
The field of study is today divided into the conflict between those who hold on to the paradigm that damage can only occur at heat-creating radiation levels, and those who believe the "heating paradigm" has long since become outdated. There are serious professionals on both sides, but it is hardly surprising that scientists in particular in the wireless industry are holding on to the "warming paradigm". Some of their critics believe the industry is behind a "fogging industry" based on the tobacco industry's pattern.
Some critics believe the industry is behind a "fogging industry" following the tobacco industry's pattern.
Opposite direction. Already in 2011, the International Cancer Research Agency (IARC / WHO) classified radiation from standard wireless technology as group 2B "potentially carcinogenic" due to evidence of brain cancer. Some researchers in the field believe it is now time for an even stricter classification.
Several consultation responses indicate that many other countries have far stricter legislation, and that several countries have relatively recently introduced measures to protect children: France now bans wireless technology in kindergartens with children under the age of three, and limits its use in schools. Similar rules have been adopted in parts of Italy and in Israel. A new report from the French Ministry of Health states that children are more vulnerable to such radiation than adults. They refer to research that suggests possible cognitive impairment in children, and recommend that children be screened extra. The Council of Europe and the EU Agency The European Environment Agency (EEA 2013) have also recommended that children be screened. The same was done by 223 international EMF researchers in an appeal to the UN and WHO last year, where they called for immediate action.
Even among those who believe the question remains unclear, many now believe that the findings of adverse effects are too serious to be ignored and that they must have consequences in the form of precautionary measures.
Why will the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority go the opposite way?
