Political Interests

Wireless radiation

Political and industrial conflict of interests

Conflict of Interests

Does the telecom industry tell the truth about wireless technology and harm?

Of course not. Too much money is involved. The telecom industry has much more money than the tobacco industry would ever have imagined.

You will be surprised on how much influence the telecom industry has on politics.

You will be surprised to hear how much money is spent to pay influential persons, leaders, and scientists concerning political interests.

You will be surprised to see that the telecom industri has got the power and leadership on all important political issues concerning wireless radiation, even concerning health effects and “safety limits”.

Is the telecom industry objective concerning heath effects and “safety limits”? Of course not.

Image of 3G, 4G, and 5G

WHO and IARC are now both funded by the telecom industry and together with ICNIRP they want to review cancer and 5G.

WHO’s Cancer Research Agency to Assess 5G Health Risks — But Not Until 2025

5 Jan 2023

CHD By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D.

“The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer will participate in a project to assess the health risks of exposure to 5G technologies, but critics accused the agency of ignoring already existing evidence and suggested the results could be tainted by industry partners.”


” Nilsson emphasized that in view of the influential corporate economic interests involved, it is necessary that any risk assessment be performed by scientists that have no ties to the telecom sector or telecom-affiliated corporations.

“However, the IARC is unfortunately no longer a guarantee for such objectivity,” she said, adding:

“The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is by far the largest single voluntary funder of the IARC and such funding probably comes with strings attached.

“Further, IARC’s head of the radiation department, Joachim Schüz, is a well-known risk-denier, in spite of growing evidence to the contrary, who has produced a seriously biased report for the EU-Commission and flawed studies on brain tumor risks from cellphones, funded by telecom companies, such as the Danish Cohort and the Cefalo study.”


“… Nilsson told The Defender the project “looks like a greenwashing project for the rollout of 5G to the benefit of the major corporate stakeholders.”

For instance, Nilsson pointed out, some of SEAWave’s consortia partners — such as Telecom Paris and ITIS — are “of concern” for potentially receiving sponsor funding from 5G stakeholders.”




ICNIRP connections in the new WHO and IARC review on cancer and RF exposure


The WHO task force group to review cancer and RF exposure (and 5G)

“Eleven of the 21 people have a current or former association with ICNIRP. Most of the other individuals have published or presented papers defending the ICNIRP limits for RF exposure.”

Not a single one of the 250 EMF scientists who signed the  International EMF Scientist Appeal was selected by the WHO for the Task group. Neither of these researchers was selected to work with the  ten research overviews that the working group will consider. The signatories of the International EMF Scientist Appeal have more than 2,000 EMF publications listed in the EMF-Portal archive.”

Link (multiple language translation on the website):



21 Dec 2022

Einar Flydal

It appears that WHO has biased the selection of task force and research review participants to ensure that the forthcoming WHO health risk monograph on RF will support ICNIRP’s lax exposure limits for RF, which fail to protect humans and other species from chronic exposure to low levels of radio frequency radiation. It’s no wonder that much of the public distrusts the WHO if this is how the agency is going to continue to “improve its handling of conflicts of interest and strengthen public trust and transparency.”


Link (multiple language trranslation on the website):


The report “The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection: Conflicts of interest ,
corporate capture and the push for 5G” writes:

“The majority of ICNIRP-scientists have done, or are doing, research partly funded by industry. Is this important? As we argue in the introduction, we believe it is. Scientific
publications, co-authored by two ICNIRP-scientists – Anke Huss and Martin Röösli, confirm the importance of funding. In 2006 and 2009 they did a systematic review of the effects of
the source of funding in experimental studies of mobile phone use on health, and their conclusion was that, “industry-sponsored studies were least likely to report results
suggesting (adverse health) effects”. And theirs is not the only study that showed this, as there have been numerous studies of the differences in reporting from industry-funded research versus publicly-funded research that suggest a strong funding bias on the results.
In addition to the fact that certain members of ICNIRP, are simultaneously members of the International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety (ICES) of the US-registered Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), we have seen further evidence of a close cooperation between ICNIRP and ICES, an organisation in which many people from the
media and telecom industries, as well as from the military, are actively and structurally involved. During the current leadership of ICNIRP, these ties have become even closer “with
the goal of setting internationally harmonized safety limits for exposure to electromagnetic fields”. This must surely be considered as a situation in which conflicts of interest are a real
It is clear from ICES minutes that ICNIRP worked very closely with IEEE/ICES on the creation of the new RF safety guidelines that were published in March 2020. And this implies that large telecom-companies such as Motorola and others, as well as US military, had a direct influence on the ICNIRP guidelines, which are still the basis for EU-policies in this domain.”


“The report describes ICNIRP’s history and examines conflicts of interest for each of the 45 members of ICNIRP’s so-called “main commission” and “scientific expert group.” The question of whether ICNIRP is truly an independent organization or if there are conflicts of interest within the organization is raised.

The new report suggests that ICNIRP may not be a reliable independent decision-making body. ICNIRP’s composition is highly one-sided and not representative of the scientific community’s stance. Furthermore, over half of the members have conflicts of interest in the form of funding from the telecommunications industry. Additionally, several members of the industry organization ICES are also within IEEE. ICES issues guidelines for permissible radiation in line with ICNIRP’s perspective that only immediate heating effects are of concern. Representatives from telecom, military, and energy companies are actively involved in decision-making processes within ICES. Nevertheless, in 2016, ICNIRP Chairman Eric van Rongen chose to invite ICES members to submit comments on the new ICNIRP proposals. Several other events, according to the report, demonstrate a close collaboration between the industry organization ICES and ICNIRP. The fact that Eric van Rongen and several other ICNIRP members are also ICES members reinforces the perception that ICNIRP may not be as independent as claimed.”

“ICNIRP exerts significant influence on the risk assessments of member countries, not only through its recommendations but also because ICNIRP members hold positions in many other expert panels within various organizations, including WHO, the EU, the Radiation Safety Authority, and the Public Health Agency. A majority of their expert groups also consist of ICNIRP members. Therefore, when “teleloven” (law) refer to WHO, ICNIRP, EU, SSM, and the Public Health Agency arriving at the same conclusion, it is largely due to the fact that it is the same limited group of experts who have conducted these assessments. Additionally, these ICNIRP experts often have ties to the telecommunications industry through research funding, as confirmed by the new report.”


“In 1996, ICNIRP’s first chairman, Michael Repacholi, became the head of WHO’s work on the issue. He ensured that WHO established a close collaboration with ICNIRP, leading to WHO essentially acting as an extended PR arm for ICNIRP and promoting ICNIRP’s recommendations, which were favorable to telecommunications laws. The interest groups of telecom companies, such as the Mobile Manufacturers Forum (MMF), of which Ericsson is a member, and the GSM Association, where Telia is a member, were allowed to finance WHO’s efforts to promote ICNIRP’s recommendations worldwide, including through a so-called “harmonization project.”




Connections between the EUropean Commission and the telecom lobby


The report “The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection: Conflicts of interest ,
corporate capture and the push for 5G” writes:

“The Telecom Lobby
In order to promote a continuation of favourable policy-making, European telecom companies have many lobby-meetings with the European Commission, and no doubt also at
national political levels. According to the EU transparency Register, ETNO has a budget of over one million euros for lobbying and representing Europe’s telecom companies. With at least seven registered lobbyists, ETNO had 70 registered lobby meetings with the European Commission (EC) in 2019. “ETNO’s primary purpose is to develop top-level policy papers and support members in promoting a positive policy environment allowing the EU telecommunications sector to deliver best quality services to consumers and businesses. We also organize some of the main European events for discussing telecom and digital policy.”
But of course, the individual telecom companies also have lobbying budgets and lobbyists representing them at the European institutions in Brussels. Ericsson had a lobby budget of 700.000 euros and five accredited lobbyist in 2019, Telefonica had a lobbying budget of 1,8 million euros and 6 lobbyists who covered no less than 83 meetings with the EC, Deutsche Telekom had a 1,5 million lobbying budget, with 5 lobbyists and a total of 110 lobby meetings with the EC.
In early December 2019, a large delegation of CEOs from ETNO met with Margrethe Vestager, Executive Vice-President of the European Commission responsible for “Europe fit for the Digital Age”. The delegation included: Tim Hoettges from Deutsche Telekom, Stephane Richard from Orange; Thomas Arnolder from Telekom Austria, Salvatore Rossi from TIM, Alexandre Fonseca from Altice Portugal, as well as the Chairman of ETNO, Steven Tas, the Director General of ETNO, Lise Fuhr, and senior representatives from Telefonica and Telenor.
At the end of January 2020, an important event was held, the European 5G conference. It welcomed more than 250 delegates, who discussed “the necessary next steps to ensure the success of 5G in Europe”. Eric Van Rongen, at the time still ICNIRP-Chair, was among the speakers who provided “the audience with insightful views on their areas of expertise.” The purpose, apparently, was not to discuss the sagacity and safety of rolling out 5G, but rather to ensure the success of 5G deployment.
It is important to note that the efforts of the telecom industry to influence regulatory agencies often take illegal forms. Telecommunications companies are high on the list of the
companies that were penalised in the U.S. for corrupt practices. European companies like Ericsson, Alstom and Telia are in the top ten.
Also significant, is the fact that more and more world leading insurance companies are backtracking from insuring telecom companies concerning the risks around EMF. In March
2019, in its “SONAR Emerging risk insights” report, one of the world’s largest insurance companies, Swiss Reinsurance Company (Swiss Re), classified “unforeseen consequences of electromagnetic fields” into the highest risk class, together
with endocrine disrupting chemicals. “The ubiquity of electromagnetic fields (EMF) raises concerns about potential implications for human health, in particular with regard to the use of mobile phones, power lines or antennas for broadcasting. Over the last decade, the spread of wireless devices has accelerated enormously. The convergence of mobile phones with computer technology has led to the proliferation of new and emerging technologies.
This development has increased exposure to electromagnetic fields, the health impacts of which remain unknown.”
The lobby power of the telecom-industry in Brussels, the decision-making heart of the EU, is enormous. Yet the corporations involved do not have to lobby the guidelines and health advice related to their technology, because ICNIRP has been providing the “safety certification” for over 25 years. At the same time the insurance sector is not very assured and does not want to pay possible litigation costs once telecom companies would get sued, which is happening more and more frequently. “

Link: https://www.stralskyddsstiftelsen.se/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/icnirp-report-june_2020_buchner_rivasi.pd 

Conflict of Interests

Telecom industry advisors for Japan, Korea NTP Repeat

The American NTP study found clear evidense on cancer in male rats. Now the telecom industry in Janan and Korea is making their own study concerning RF exposure


Japanese-Korean “validation study”

Advisors for Japan, Korea NTP Repeat


“This is the list of members who receive money from or who comes directly from the telecom industry:


As appears from the list of members of the Japan-Korea  International Advisory Committee, 8 out of 10 have a connection to ICNIRP or the telecommunications industry :

  • Alexander Lerchl , Prof. Dr. at Jacobs University (private), Germany. Over a number of years, industry spokesperson and, among other things, known to persecute other researchers. In both 2015 and 2020, he lost a libel lawsuit, an attempt to sweep the EU’s 20 million with false accusations. large REFLEX studio from 2004 under the carpet. Was dropped from the WHO’s IARC expert panel in 2011 due to his association with industry and his general behavior.

  • Michael Repacholi , Prof., founded the  WHO-EMF Project  and chairman of ICNIRP from 1992 to 1996, since then he has been honorary chairman.

  • Emilie van Deventer , electrical engineer, employed by Repacholi as head of the WHO-EMF Project.

  • Eric van Rongen , former chairman but now vice-chairman of ICNIRP.

  • Vijayalaxmi ,  University of Texas Health Science Center

  • Joe Wiart , Telecom Paristech, formerly France Telecom. Senior Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). IEEE’s mission is ‘to advance technology for the benefit of mankind .’

  • Michael Wyde , toxicologist and head of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)/NTP “

Link (multiple language translation on the website):




World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health - a hard nut to crack

2017 Pub Med.

By Lennart Hardell
Department of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sweden.

“The biophysicist Michael Repacholi from Australia was the first chairman of ICNIRP in 1992.

Repacholi was during 1996-2006 the leader of the WHO department of electromagnetic radiation, the WHO
EMF project.

Michael Repacholi immediately set up a close collaboration
between WHO and ICNIRP (being head of both organizations)
inviting the electric, telecom and military industries to meetings. He also arranged for large part of the WHO EMF project to be financed by the telecommunication industry’s lobbying
organisations; GSM Association and Mobile Manufacturers
Forum, now called Mobile & Wireless Forum.

Michael Repacholi acted like a representative for the telecom industry while responsible for the EMF health effects
department at the WHO. Since he left WHO in 2006 he has
been involved in industry propaganda video interviews with
GSM Association and Hydro Quebec where he clearly speaks in favor of the telecommunications and the power industries, respectively.
Michael Repacholi is still the Chairman emeritus at ICNIRP and has propagated during almost 20 years worldwide the ‘only thermal effect’ paradigm of health risks from RF-EMF exposure, ignoring the abundant evidence for nonthermal effects or cancer risks.
Repacholi recruited Emilie van Deventer to the WHO EMF Project in 2000. She is the current project manager at WHO for the EMF project. She has been a long time
member of the industry dominated organization Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). IEEE is the
world’s most powerful federation of engineers. The members are or have been employed in companies or organizations that are producers or users of technologies that depend on radiation frequencies, such as power companies, the telecom and the military industry. IEEE has prioritized international
lobbying efforts for decades especially aimed at the WHO.

Van Deventer is an electrical engineer. She has no formal
or earlier knowledge in medicine, epidemiology or biology, so it is surprising that she was selected for such an important position at the WHO.”

PDF Test File

WHO uses the telecom industry and their funds on science concerning health effects


The documentary reveals that the WHO made research funded by the telecom industry “Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research (MTHR).

David Cogggan, chief scientist at the MTHR, admits that it gives a conflict of interest.

Please watch 41 minutes in the documentary.

We also has a link to this documentary on our page here: https://microwavesicknessinfo.com/index.php/wireless-harm/

Image of a MTHR document. Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research
Image of a MTHR document. Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research
Image of a MTHR document. Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research

The lack of international and national health policies to protect persons with self-declared electromagnetic hypersensitivity


26 October 2022

Dariusz Leszczynski


Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), known also as an idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF) or a microwave sickness, is not considered by the World Health Organization (WHO) as being caused by the exposures to electromagnetic fields (EMF). EHS is not recognized as a disease anywhere in the world. Some studies have roughly estimated that 1–10% of the population might experience some form of EHS. However, because of the lack of diagnostic criteria for EHS, these estimates might be either under- or over-estimates. Because the vast majority of human population is exposed to EMF, the possibility of developing EHS from the EMF is a substantial public health issue that should be dealt with globally, even if the individual risk of developing EHS might be small. The WHO recognizes that the symptoms experienced by the EHS persons might be severe and might significantly hamper everyday life. However, after a broad analysis of international and national documents, there seems to be currently no effort to develop health policies for the dealing with EHS, no matter what causes it. National governments, follow the opinions of the WHO and the EMF safety standards setting organizations, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers – International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety (IEEE-ICES), are not developing any practical health policy advisories for self-declared EHS sufferers. However, symptoms experienced by the self-declared EHS persons affect their well-being and, according to the Constitution of the WHO, are a health problem. Hence, independently of what causes EHS symptoms, this admitted well-being-impairment should be dealt with globally by developing an uniform health policy. Furthermore, WHO, ICNIRP and IEEE-ICES should be advocating and supporting research that would generate a reliable scientific evidence on what are the possible cause(s) of EHS. Without such research there is not possible to develop diagnostic methods as well as any possible mitigation approaches. There is an urgent need for the WHO to advocate for the national governments to urgently develop a comprehensive and common EHS health policy.

Keywords: EHSelectromagnetic hypersensitivityhealth policyIEI-EMFRF-EMF



The EU Commission scientific advisory group, SCHEER


Critique of SCHEER Opinion Report on Health Risks from Radiofrequency Radiation

A review of the EU expert group and opinion of August 2022 on the need of a revision of the maximum exposure limits for radiation from wireless communications

“The EU Commission scientific advisory group, SCHEER, has released a draft opinion report on the possible risks from exposure to wireless technology like 5G, 4G, cellphones, Wi-Fi etc.

The SCHEER Opinion published in August 2022 advises positively on the adoption of the ICNIRP 2020 limits, in stark contrast to the opinion of the majority of field experts, concluding that ICNIRP limits are far too high, allowing radiation exposures known to cause harmful effects.”


“The EU Commission has appointed only eight scientists to produce the SCHEER Opinion report 2022 (the working group). The chosen scientists are either not experts in the field, or scientists who have previously expressed opinions favorable to upholding the prevailing exposure limits, and some members even having ties to the telecommunications industry”

Conflict of interests

PDF Test File

Conflict of interests
Conflict of interests

EU SCENIHR: SCENIHR members' history (bias and conflicts of interest)

SCENIHR is the European Union’s Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks


Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation, Sweden and 
Priartem, France write in their report:

“Unbalanced and biased expertise on EMF
The European Commission expertise on EMF has since 2004 only included experts with an industry-friendly viewpoint and interpretation of the scientific literature. In the 2015 review, one single SCENIHR committee member was in charge of steering the process and selecting the experts assisting him. Nine of the ten selected experts have been involved with standards committees in the past who have repeatedly underplayed evidence that pointed to health effects – most notably ICNIRP, WHO-EMF Project, the Swedish Radiation Protection Authority (SSM) and the UK’s AGNIR. An updated opinion from such a group is likely to be consistent with the opinions they’ve previously expressed.”

“A context of industry influence
The European Ombudsman published a strong report in January 2015 criticizing the lack of transparency that surrounds the powerful experts groups called upon by the European
“The Ombudsman calls on the Commission to establish a legally binding framework for all
expert groups, including a definition of what balanced representation in different groups should look like.
She also recommends measures to reduce potential conflict of interest situations and to publish more
information about the work of the groups. The Commission should reply to her proposals by 30 April 2015″



Image of the EU Parliament logo

PDF Test File

How do you manipulate science?

There are many ways to manipulate science.

One of them is to use simulated signals and not real-world signals.

Real- world signals are pulsed microwave signals and are more biological reactive. You find them in wi-fi routers, mobile phones, Bluetooth, antennas, and masts.

Simulated signals are non-pulsive (like the ones in a microwave owen), and they are less biological reactive.

Science financed by the telecom Industry uses simulated signals.

Read more on our page about real-life or simulated exposure here. Internal link:

Real or fake science?

Who is funding the WHO?

2023 (2021-2023)

The main funding of the WHO is by voluntary contributions. 

The information is from the WHO’s own website.



Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the second largest financial contributor in the WHO.

They have funded the WHO for many years.


Gates Ventures

Swisscom (telecom industry) writes

Swisscom (telecom industry) 2003: 

“The influence of electrosmog on the human body is a known problem. The health risk from mobile radio transmitters, handys and DECT telephones has been an explosive subject among the general public at least since the enormous breakthrough in mobile radio technology in the 1990s.” 

“ …When, for example, human blood cells are irradiated with electromagnetic fields, clear damage to hereditary material has been demonstrated and there have been indications of an increased cancer risk”. 

“ … These findings indicate that the genotoxic effect of electromagnetic radiation is elicited via a non-thermal pathway. Moreover aneuploidy is to be considered as a known phenomenon in the increase of cancer risk.”

(You can read more in the Responsum from lawyer Christian F. Jensen. Link: https://microwavesicknessinfo.com/index.php/emf-links/ )

Image of mast

Sign up for our newsletter

Get the latest science and news about Microwave Sickness here

Microwave Sickness

<!– wp:tnp/minimal –>
<div style=”padding:20px” class=”wp-block-tnp-minimal”><p>Subscribe to our newsletter!</p><div>

<!– /wp:tnp/minimal –>