Steven Weller of Australia just released an open letter to WHO

Steven Weller of Australia just released an open letter to WHO and others regarding the state of their organizational positions and the reality of EMF impacts to human health. That letter is below and was accompanied by a document substantiating his thesis and an update on important EMF/RF research from 2012 to the present (12/14). His research update is linked here. Powerwatch has also just released a research update of important papers published since February of 2014. This update can be found here.

An open letter to WHO, ICNIRP, ARPANSA and their scientific representatives

Dear esteemed scientists, researchers and public officials,

I am writing to you all because I have a number of serious concerns regarding the position that many of you and your organisations have taken on radio frequencies (RF) in relation to health & wellbeing and because you are clearly people of influence. I would like to draw your attention to a number of claims being made by presenters at the recent ICNIRP/ACEBR workshops held in Wollongong (11th November) that are also reflected in the World Health Organisation (WHO) fact sheet 193 and ARPANSA’s EME fact sheets which are clearly disputable or are based on scientific research that has significant limitations.

  1. Dr Maria Feychting claimed that brain tumours have not increased in Nordic countries or the UK. The same is stated by Australian scientist Professor Rodney Croft for the incidence of Australian brain tumour statistics. This is clearly incorrect as you will find in my “WHO-ICNIRP-ARPANSA discussion paper final.pdf” which I have attached.
  2. “Animal studies have not shown any increased risk of health effects or cancers”. Animal studies, although vitally important in testing for biological effects, are usually limited to short term exposures and often see the animal sacrificed before health effects can be effectively determined. Those that are conducted over several years are performed on very small populations that do not have any significant statistical power nor are the animals exposures representative of what humans typically experience in their day to day lives.
  3. A number of scientists including Professor Michael Repacholi, Professor Rodney Croft, Dr Vitas Anderson suggest EHS is a psychosomatic condition. One of them even went on to give very poor advice of suggesting that sufferers should not seek to reduce their exposure but instead see a psychologist. As I have been EHS for more than ten years and have clearly been able to associate my “non-specific” symptoms to the devices that I have used in the past I find such statements offensive and disingenuous. I suggest that anyone who has doubts about EHS being a physiological condition to consider reading my “personal EHS case study” available on the internet or talk to Professor Dominique Belpomme of ARTAC.
  4. Finally, claims of no evidence of harm appear to be based on biased opinions and faulty research. Biological effects from RF exposure with the potential for serious health consequences are well known and documented.

This sad state of affairs reflects badly on both the credibility of the aforementioned individuals, who I believe are making false claims, and the organisations they represent. The end result of course is a rising level of distrust by the public who rely on honest and transparent communication of risks and potential harms relating to electromagnetic radiation exposure. This increase in public discontent is also reflected by the rapid rise in the number of public EMR awareness websites being established globally on the internet to deal with what is perceived as official misrepresentation of the level of protection provided by RF standards and guidelines and the unwillingness of authorities to talk honestly about the variety of harms that have been associated by many scientists with chronic long term RF exposures.

It was also mentioned at the recent ICNIRP workshop that significant amounts of money (hundreds of millions of dollars) have been spent on research around the world over the last 20+ years, but can we take this as an indication that it has been well spent? I would say this is questionable as research in the field of RF and health to date has often been seriously constrained by restricted budgets and in many instances, limited to only look at the consequences of short term exposures to specific frequencies. What is worse, there are studies that have found effects that could be of great importance but funding to further them or explore health implications was withdrawn or not provided. One example was apparent in Carl Blackman’s acceptance speech for the d’Arsonval Award at the BEMS 2014 meeting in Cape Town. Personally, I would like to know where are all the epidemiological studies looking at mobile phone usage/carriage and cancers other than brain tumours (i.e. thyroid, breast, prostate, liver and kidney as modern smart phones transmit frequently and are often placed in coat pockets, bra’s, on belts and trouser pockets for extended periods of time). Where are the epidemiological studies looking at WiFi usage and increases in allergies, headaches and other physiological reactions? Where are the Australian epidemiological studies looking at associations between mobile phone masts with declining physical and mental health as well as increased cancers in the community?

What I believe needs to happen as a minimum:

  1. WHO Fact sheet 193 needs to be updated urgently to clearly state the possible risks including the fact that there is mounting evidence of wireless technology triggering biological effects that are known, or very likely, to be associated with cancer (not just brain tumours), autism, dementia, allergies and immune dysfunction. We need to stop using words like there is “no proof” or “consistent evidence” to assuage the public because both are extremely difficult to obtain even with Group 1 Carcinogens (i.e. tobacco smoke). After all, it cannot be said that there is no evidence because there are a literally thousands of studies showing evidence of biological effects with potential health implications.
  2. Advice on EHS needs to be reviewed with consideration for this idiopathic environmental sensitivity to be recognised as a functional impairment like Sweden does, particularly when the WHO’s definition of health encapsulates not only physical health, but mental health and social well-being, all of which are seriously challenged by EHS. We should not be held hostage to poor science or conflicts of interest as is apparent today.
  3. There needs to be more health based community survey studies covering smart meters and associated wireless infrastructure, WiFi in schools and public places as well as those living in close proximity to mobile masts to develop data points for more focused research.
  4. The recommendation and implementation of a robust precautionary approach that is based on a lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL) with a safety margin that should not be hindered by corporate self-interests. Status quo is no longer acceptable.

Please find attached to this email two documents that contains more specific details of my claims and in some cases supporting evidence. Many of the statements have an Australian spin (because I am Australian) but are likely to apply equally to other nations around the world. I apologise in advance for the length of these documents but the issues are significant in number and not something that can be summarised in a couple of pages. I also sincerely hope that the WHO can take the concerns raised in the attached document with the seriousness it deserves and reflect them in in an updated fact sheet 193 as well as their forthcoming EHC report particularly when it comes to advice for future research focus.

Yours sincerely,
Steven Weller
B.Sc. Monash