Subscription 790/year or 190/quarter

The Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority's "recognized" institutions

CHRONICLE / Do the authorities overlook research in the field of radiation protection? For example, damage from the pulsation of the AMS meters – or damage from weak electromagnetic fields, such as mobile phone radiation?


When the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority DSA criticized for inadequate management of the area of ​​wireless communication, the standard answer is that they follow consensus, WHO and other reputable institutions – and that the radiation is per mille of the recommended limit values. The ongoing the debate in MODERN TIMES is no exception. If you look at the instances and the basis in the seams, you see a reality the radiation protection never comments on.

The ICNIRP Foundation and bodies intertwined with this constitutes the backbone of radiation protection. ICNIRP, which has created the guidelines the radiation protection follows, is criticized for being a closed club that ignores relevant research, and for ties to the telecom industry. Among the many who point this out is the journalist network Investigate Europe and the 255 international radiologists who support EMF Scientist Appeal, including a former radiation protection professor and expert on WHO's cancer panel IARC, Darius Leszczynski.

According to the judge, the radiation from an AMS meter could not possibly be damaged.

WHO's cancer panel classifies the radiation as possibly carcinogenic. When the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority says they "follow the WHO", this means the group EMF Project, which received great maternity care from the industry. How the EMF Project evaluates the research is uncertain. The group does not respond to inquiries from peers, and is ten years late with a planned research review of health effects associated with radiation. The work described by Leszczynski as so incomplete that leaves more questions than answers.

ICNIRP and the EMF Project / WHO Core Group consist of 15 researchers, and just about everyone in the EMF Project is also affiliated with ICNIRP. Half have according to one survey from Investigate Europe received financial support from the industry, and NRK Brennpunkt has characterized a committee central to the creation of the limit values ​​as «permeated by industry interests». Are these trust worthy?

Consensus and law

I over 10 years it has the industry spirit researcher Alexander Lerchl sowed doubt EU study REFLEX. The study found that even weak mobile radiation causes bilateral DNA breaks, and that the breaks are due to the radiation's pulsation, not its intensity / strength. Such violations can destroy the gene or cause cancer. A German court in December ordered Lerchl to stop the baseless blackmail, or risk staggering fines and imprisonment.

Here in Norway, the climate lawsuit equivalent recently took place in the area of ​​radiation protection, in Søndre Østfold District Court. Ten electricity customers sued to prevent the grid company from forcing AMS meters into their homes. The Radiation Protection Authority's expert witness Lars Klæboe (see also MODERN TIMES) claimed it is unlikely that the radiation from an AMS meter can be damaged, but clarified that the agency only looks at intensity, not pulsation. Klæboe confirmed knowledge of REFLEX, but was incredibly not familiar with the project's conclusions.

How can a leading professional avoid getting caught up in such startling findings in a key multinational EU project – findings that also contradict what the professional has previously learned? Isn't this a bit like being an astronomer in 1543 and having heard of Copernicus' heliocentric model, but not what it's about? The shit packs from Lerchl have helped to set both REFLEX and studies that point same direction in the shadow? Norwegian Wikipedia mediates for example at studiene (see 1 og  2) Lerchl criticized are drawn after admissions of cheating, but Lerchl is in fact convicted twice for such charges. Norwegian Wikipedia is, however, known for tendentious mention of, among other things, radiation protection.

How can a leading professional avoid getting caught up in such startling findings in a key multinational EU project?

How much has the efforts of industry and compliant collaborators meant for the Radiation Protection Authority's choice to override reasonable mechanisms and neglect it? overwhelming majority studies that find biological effects or health effects? Deriblant WHO Cancer Institute IARC and the U.S. Toxicology Program NTP their assessment of radiation from wireless technology – as possible and clearly carcinogenic, respectively. In addition, the research that the American Academy of Sciences NAS used as a basis for the conclusion that the embassy staff in China and in Cuba became ill as a result of pulsed radiation. They recognize that weakly pulsed radiation can cause electrical hypersensitivity symptoms.

A parody of law and order

In Søndre Østfold District Court, the assistant judge was to answer whether there is any doubt that the health problems experienced by thousands after the AMS meter enters the house are due to something other than the meter itself. After three days of first-hand information, and one final proceedings from the plaintiff which should puncture most of the doubt, the assistant judge – who insisted on conducting this difficult case without professional judges – concluded that the defendant's sources were the only credible ones: the radiation from an AMS meter could, according to the judge, impossibly damage. Those who conclude differently, such as REFLEX, IARC, NTP and NAS, as well several thousand researchers and medics worldwide, takes obviously error.

For those who have followed the trial online, it appears obvious and well-founded who will soon be on the right side of the story. For example, the expert witness Else Nordhagen documented in detail how the court chose to rely on loose and incorrect allegations from the radiation protection professional witnesses, rather than the explanation from the heavier international professional witnesses. What amazes me most is that the question of health hazards – the main theme of the case – in fact was not even considered. The verdict is a parody of law and justice, cooked on a professional traditionally compliant variant of Dunning-Kruger effects.

The Judicial Commission will tighten on this kind of assistant judge scheme – and a minority will scrap it completely. Maybe a good idea? Dishwashing is also needed in the radiation protection.



Torleif Dønnestad
Torleif Dønnestad
Dønnestad is a system developer.

You may also like