Current ICNIRP RF Safety Guidelines are 22 years old.

Updated: Jan 20, 2020

Chances are that if you owned a cat born in 1998, the same year that the International ICNIRP Safety Guidelines FOR LIMITING EXPOSURE TO TIME-VARYING ELECTRIC, MAGNETIC AND ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS (UP TO 300 GHZ) were released then your beloved family member has likely passed away , maybe even quite a few years ago. Sure there may be some felines still luxuriating themselves on a fluffy pillow somewhere if they have had a pampered life but essentially 'most if not the vast majority' of cats born in 1998 are now no longer with us.

Think about that as a period of time.

Think about the changes to our technology that have occurred since 1998 over that period of time. Think how widespread they have become since 1998. Think about all the 'G's' we have gone through , 2,3,4 and now 5. It is a long time ago .... a cats life .... in some cases two cats lives ... two generations of cats ago we had international safety guidelines presented to ALL the world's governments to specifically govern the safe use of our technology by setting safe exposure limits.

Image © @5GRemedies

Here's another sense of time perspective for the time lapsed since the safety guidelines that still govern the limits for exposure to electromagnetic fields up to 300Ghz were released. In 1998, that same year, RUN DMC re entered the charts with a remixed version of their 1983 track 'It's Like That' Remember that Jason Nevins' beauty .... HUH! Well being at the far end of my forties I can say I do and it feels a hell of a long time ago. That year everybody was making it one of the top selling singles of all time , that's the year the safety guidelines were released.

Image © eBay

Still not getting how long ago this was? Try this

The International ICNIRP Safety Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to time-varying electric , magnetic and electromagnetic fields up to 300Ghz were released the same year that the Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky story broke.

Getting a perspective now as to how old these safety guidelines are?

Image © TimePublishing

If you were 21 last year , 2019, YOU were born the year the Safety Guidelines were released. How much have you watched technology change throughout your lifetime? You have only known a world with cell phones so you have a unique perspective.

1998 was the first year that 'smart' came into usage as a term directed at consumers of technology. It was the first year that contemporary smart home products became available yet network computers were still awaiting a catalyst to push them into widespread use. In 1998 Netscape ( who?) was the internet browser of choice and papers were still be filed in the US to register and start a small tech start up company called Google..... You may have heard of it?

Remember the 1998 Google logo?

Image © Google

Heres what the Google offices looked like at the time , back in 1998 , when the safety guidelines were released by the ICNIRP. I mean , just look at that PC.

Image © Google

The point of all this should be obvious .... and the question you should be asking yourself is this. "Surely these guidelines have been reviewed , revisited and updated??"

Well a review was undertaken in 2018... the public consultation has now closed and INCIRP are reviewing that data. What does this mean ? This means that categorically the 1998 Safety Guidelines are STILL, in 2020, the only guiding document referred to by governments, regulators, health authorities and so on for limits on 'safe exposure' . Find out more here.

Now given that these guidelines were released in 1998 it would be another year or so before countries adopted them to guide exposure safety levels within their own jurisdictions and thus guide the narratives of governments , regulators , health providers, telcos, phone providers etc etc with regard to safety advice given to populations and to consumers. To get an idea of how that translation works in New Zealand check this out from the New Zealand Ministry of Health.

These ICNIRP safety guidelines are challenged in many and various ways and you can discover for yourself exactly how inadequate they are through some simple research. You'll want to get familiar with the term Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) and will probably want to get familiar with the EHTrust.

For these guidelines to be released in 1998 the ICNIRP relied on data collected within the preceding years and with that in mind its easiest to quantify the international safety standards that govern us all and the safe use of the technology available to us today as being almost a quarter of a century old.

Think about that.

If you are reading this YOU are the Resistance, So Resist.

Update 19 January. - Comment from SMcC

"And the "safety guidelines" (they aren't even tested standards!) were out-dated and non-protective even back in 1998! Industry and military-friendly ICNIRP don't even consider well-proven non-thermal effects i.e. what causes most of the beyond 6 minutes chronic effects. SAR is based on large male army recruits with "jar heads". It wasn't considered that children would be using this equipment at all back in 1998, or since it seems. Devices were analogue back then too, not highly-pulsed as they are now. The erratic digital pulsing is what scientists believe cause the majority of adverse biological effects. There are millions more towers and devices than there were then too but testing only considers exposure to a single device at a time for heating effects only. Some homes, let alone schools or offices, might have 15-20 wireless devices these days. So many corrupt agencies colluding to keep this insanity going in favour of industry. ICNIRP are advisors to WHO! So who can you trust? IGNIR maybe, or BioInitiative, or Building Biology advisors but certainly not governments that say they follow the cartel ICNIRP that's for sure."

Update 20 January - Sue Grey , NZ Lawyer and Activist

"This shows just how dated the advice behind the NZ standard for cellphones, celltowers and other RFEMR NZS2772.1 1999 really is. It was controversial then, it's adequacy was questioned by the Local Government and Environment Parliamentary Committee in 2008 in response to the petition of Sarah Allen for the Atawhai Playcenter community and it was only ever intended to protect against heating effects, not biological effects such as to DNA damage and repair, changes to protein folding and function , changes to cell membranes leakiness, hormone function, mental health effects,Bor electrohypersensitivity etc"

266 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All