Literature DB >> 27902455

Inaccurate official assessment of radiofrequency safety by the Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation.

Sarah J Starkey.   

Abstract

The Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation (AGNIR) 2012 report forms the basis of official advice on the safety of radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields in the United Kingdom and has been relied upon by health protection agencies around the world. This review describes incorrect and misleading statements from within the report, omissions and conflict of interest, which make it unsuitable for health risk assessment. The executive summary and overall conclusions did not accurately reflect the scientific evidence available. Independence is needed from the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), the group that set the exposure guidelines being assessed. This conflict of interest critically needs to be addressed for the forthcoming World Health Organisation (WHO) Environmental Health Criteria Monograph on Radiofrequency Fields. Decision makers, organisations and individuals require accurate information about the safety of RF electromagnetic signals if they are to be able to fulfil their safeguarding responsibilities and protect those for whom they have legal responsibility.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27902455     DOI: 10.1515/reveh-2016-0060

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Rev Environ Health        ISSN: 0048-7554            Impact factor:   3.458


  7 in total

Review 1.  Evidence Regarding the Impact of Conflicts of Interest on Environmental and Occupational Health Research.

Authors:  Ellen M Wells
Journal:  Curr Environ Health Rep       Date:  2017-06

Review 2.  World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health - a hard nut to crack (Review).

Authors:  Lennart Hardell
Journal:  Int J Oncol       Date:  2017-06-21       Impact factor: 5.650

3.  High radiofrequency radiation at Stockholm Old Town: An exposimeter study including the Royal Castle, Supreme Court, three major squares and the Swedish Parliament.

Authors:  Lennart Hardell; Michael Carlberg; Tarmo Koppel; Lena Hedendahl
Journal:  Mol Clin Oncol       Date:  2017-03-03

4.  Radiofrequency radiation from nearby mobile phone base stations-a case comparison of one low and one high exposure apartment.

Authors:  Tarmo Koppel; Mikko Ahonen; Michael Carlberg; Lena K Hedendahl; Lennart Hardell
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2019-09-20       Impact factor: 2.967

5.  Reply to Brzozek et al. Comment on "Choi et al. Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8079".

Authors:  Joel M Moskowitz; Seung-Kwon Myung; Yoon-Jung Choi; Yun-Chul Hong
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-05-24       Impact factor: 3.390

6.  Comments on the US National Toxicology Program technical reports on toxicology and carcinogenesis study in rats exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 900 MHz and in mice exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 1,900 MHz.

Authors:  Lennart Hardell; Michael Carlberg
Journal:  Int J Oncol       Date:  2018-10-24       Impact factor: 5.650

7.  Appeals that matter or not on a moratorium on the deployment of the fifth generation, 5G, for microwave radiation.

Authors:  Lennart Hardell; Rainer Nyberg
Journal:  Mol Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-01-22
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.