Quellen
[1] Alle ICNIRP / BfS Studien stehen auf: https://www.sciencedirect.com/special-issue/109J1SL7CXT
[2] Die Auseinandersetzung um die ICNIRP/BfS-Reviews ist in der Datenbank www.emf-portal.de dokumentiert, hier die Kritiken im Portal (Stand 15.01.2025) u.a.:
Bevington M: Letter to the Editor, Environment International 'Available evidence shows adverse symptoms from acute non-thermal RF-EMF exposure'. Comment on: Bosch-Capblanch X et al., The effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields exposure on human self-reported symptoms: A systematic review of human experimental studies, Envir Int. vol. 187, May 2024, 108612 , Environ Int 2024; 191: 108888 https://www.emf-portal.org/de/article/55768
Frank JW, Melnick RL, Moskowitz JM: A critical appraisal of the WHO 2024 systematic review of the effects of RF-EMF exposure on tinnitus, migraine/headache, and non-specific symptoms, Rev Environ Health 2024, https://www.emf-portal.org/de/article/55306
Frank JW, Moskowitz JM, Melnick RL, Hardell L, Philips A, Héroux P, Kelley E: The Systematic Review on RF-EMF Exposure and Cancer by Karipidis et al. (2024) has Serious Flaws that Undermine the Validity of the Study's Conclusions, Veröffentlicht in: Environ Int 2024: 109200, https://www.emf-portal.org/de/article/57879
James C. Lin: World Health Organization’s EMF Project’s Systemic Reviews on the Association Between RF Exposure and Health Effects Encounter Challenges, IEEE Microwave Magazine, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10795296 DOI 10.1109/MMM.2024.3476748, January 2025
Moskowitz JM, Frank JW, Melnick RL, Hardell L, Belyaev I, Héroux P, Kelley E, Lai H, Maisch D, Mallery-Blythe E, Philips A, International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF): COSMOS: A methodologically-flawed cohort study of the health effects from exposure to radiofrequency radiation from mobile phone use Kommentar, Environ Int 2024; 190: 108807, https://www.emf-portal.org/de/article/55023
Nordhagen EK, Flydal E: WHO to build neglect of RF-EMF exposure hazards on flawed EHC reviews? Case study demonstrates how "no hazards" conclusion is drawn from data showing hazards Kommentar, Rev Environ Health 2024, https://www.emf-portal.org/de/article/55226
Auseinandersetzung zwischen der ICBE-EMF und Karipidis:
December 30, 2024: Environment International publishes the ICBE-EMF critique of the WHO
review “The Systematic Review on RF-EMF Exposure and Cancer by Karipidis et al. (2024) has
Serious Flaws that Undermine the Validity of the Study’s Conclusions.”
December 30, 2024: Karipidis et al. then publishes their response to the ICBE-EMF critique
“Response to letter from members of the ICBE-EMF.”
January 15, 2025: The ICBE-EMF release this rebuttal Scientific Rebuttal To The Misleading Responses From Karipidis et al. On The ICBE-EMF Critique Of Their Systematic Review On
Exposure To RF-EMF And Human Cancer to the Karipidis et al. 2024 response.
[3] Louis Slesin: Old Wine in New Bottles Decoding New WHO–ICNIRP Cancer Review Game Over? Likely Not, 11.09.2024, https://www.microwavenews.com/news-center/old-wine-new-bottles
[4] David Michaels: Wenn wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse mächtige Interessen bedrohen. Über die Taktiken der Industrie: Zweifeln säen, um Schutzvorschriften zu verhindern https://www.diagnose-funk.org/aktuelles/artikel-archiv/detail?newsid=1882
[5] EUA (2004,2013): Späte Lehren aus frühen Warnungen, Download: https://www.diagnose-funk.org/aktuelles/artikel-archiv/detail?newsid=1039
[6] diagnose:funk Schweiz:Wie haben Sie es mit der Wissenschaftlichen Integrität? https://www.diagnose-funk.ch/alle-artikel/116-wie-haben-sie-es-mit-der-wissenschaftlichen-integritaet
[7] Bericht zur Technikfolgenabschätzung Mobilfunk des Deutschen Bundestages (2023):https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/20/056/2005646.pdf
[8] Artikel: Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz korrigiert eigene Falschmeldung zu Handy, Krebs und WHO! Halbherzig wird Fehler zugegeben: Wo bleibt die öffentliche Korrektur? https://www.diagnose-funk.org/aktuelles/artikel-archiv/detail?newsid=2143
[9] Artikel: ICNIRP-Studie behauptet, Handynutzung erhöhe Krebsrisiko nicht. Ist das so? Wir analysieren die weltweite Kampagne zur Risikoleugnung! https://www.diagnose-funk.org/aktuelles/artikel-archiv/detail?newsid=2127
[10] Auflistung der Reviews aus der Review-Liste (2024): https://www.diagnose-funk.org/aktuelles/artikel-archiv/detail?newsid=1693
Siehe dazu auch die diagnose:funk Pressemitteilung (09.12.2024): Stand bei Mobilfunk-Studien: 7 zu 1 fürs Krebsrisiko ☹. Systematische Übersichtsarbeiten sagen: Vielnutzer haben erhöhtes Krebspotenzial / Nur industrienahe Wissenschaftler sehen das nicht so.
[11] Artikel: Dr. Oleg Grigoriev (russ. Strahlenschutz-Kommission) kritisiert ICNIRP-Studie. WHO hat keine neue Entscheidung gefällt. https://www.diagnose-funk.org/aktuelles/artikel-archiv/detail?newsid=2128
[12] James C. Lin (2024): World Health Organization’s EMF Project’s Systemic Reviews on the Association Between RF Exposure and Health Effects Encounter Challenges, IEEE Microwave Magazine, S. 13-15, January 2025:
„For sure, the assessment of scientific evidence in this subject has been controversial and less than uniform. The question is, “Is this review really the definitive word on the long-standing issue of whether cell phone radiations pose a cancer risk?” My answer is, far from it!“
„The criticisms and challenges encountered by the published WHO-EMF systematic reviews are brutal, including calls for retraction. Rigorous examinations of the reviews reveal major concerns. In addition to the scientific quality, they appear to have a strong conviction of nothing but heat to worry about with RF radiation. The unsubtle message that cellular mobile phones do not pose a cancer risk is clear. The reviews exhibit a lack of serious concerns for conflicts of interest and display unequivocal support for the recently promulgated ICNIRP RF exposure guidelines for human safety. From its inception, WHO-EMF had close ties with ICNIRP, a private organization, frequently referred to as the WHO-EMF project’s scientific secretariat [18]. What may not be as apparent for the WHO-EMF systematic reviews is the lack of diversity of views. A large number of ICNIRP commissioners and committee members are listed as authors for the WHO-EMF systematic reviews; some also served as lead authors. These concerns advance issues of reviewer independence and potential for conflicts of interest.“
[13] Zum ICNIRP_Netzwerk: Recherche von Investigate Europe im Berliner Tagessoiegel: https://www.diagnose-funk.org/aktuelles/artikel-archiv/detail?newsid=1335 , https://www.kumu.io/Investigate-Europe/das-experten-netzwerk
[14] EWSA fordert Umsteuern in Mobilfunkpolitik. Stellungnahme: „Die gesellschaftlichen & ökologischen Auswirkungen des 5G-Ökosystems“. https://www.diagnose-funk.org/aktuelles/artikel-archiv/detail?newsid=1828