Driven/lobbied by the telecoms industry, ICNIRP members play a leading role in the preparation of WHO's Monograph on Environmental Health Criteria on RF EMFs (such as cellphone radiation) that will influence the future of wireless technologies.

[T]he evidence is clear that Michael Repacholi has used his standing in both WHO and ICNIRP
[International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection] to stack WHO’s [EHC] Task Group
for power frequency exposures with representatives of the power industry in contravention of WHO
policy.

This action can only be construed as being aimed at ensuring that industry involvement in
determining the WHO Environmental Health Criteria will bias ICNIRP’s risk assessment for power
frequency exposure limits for years to come. This will conveniently provide economic protection for
the industry against the need to spend enormous sums of money on upgrading distribution systems as
well as the risks of litigation.

Such a blatant disregard for the fundamental principles of credible science, as well as WHO’s mission
of protecting world health, speaks of a desperation to bury independent science at all costs, even if
that cost is the integrity of WHO

—Hans Karow, Coalition to Reduce Electropollution (CORE)

“Industry is not interested in your health. They want the network to work properly.”

—Emilie van Deventer, speaking to journalist Karl Muller at a SABS/STUK conference in Johannesburg in 2007 (pers comms)

"In response to WHO’s call for consultations on the draft monograph, numerous other
independent scientists and researchers have pointed out its glaring bias, lack of transparency,
and incompleteness—all of which make a complete mockery of the consultation process."

“My problem is the unfinished documents and the missing, unwritten chapters. This is not how consultation
should be done. Documents should be ready, including conclusions and recommendations. As it is now,
the WHO EMF Project is pretending to conduct consultations…”14
—Dr Dariusz Leszczynslki, PhD, MSc, DSc



“The WHO draft is biased towards a null result. Findings of an association between the use of wireless
phones (mobile phones and cordless phones) and an increased risk of brain tumours are misinterpreted,
selectively reported and/or omitted in total. The draft cannot be used as a science-based evaluation of
increased risk. It must be re-written in a balanced way by scientists trained in epidemiology and oncology—not to mention medicine—and without any conflict of interest.”

—Dr Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD and Michael Carlberg, MSc
Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden



“...This is not a review of the science. The [RF EHC] appears to be another whitewash to allow yet another
‘pass’ for an industry reaping trillions of dollars each year, while an unsuspecting public bears
the massive costs—increasing RF exposure that diminishes the quality of life, slows productivity due to
lost work time and diminished performance, and overwhelms healthcare systems worldwide. This is blind
short-term gain for immediate profit. It is a crime against humanity.”

—Susan Foster, MSW, Advisor, EM Radiation Research Trust