John William Frank recently published an essay in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, entitled “Electromagnetic fields, 5G and health: what about the precautionary principle?” (doi:10.1136/jech-2019-213595). Among other things, that essay included false, unsupported accusations about ICNIRP and its members, and used those false claims to paint a misleading picture of radiation protection, especially in so far as it relates to 5G. Although ICNIRP limits its response to such claims, as it has become apparent that the inaccuracies of the essay are being used by community influencers to mislead society, ICNIRP submitted a letter of response to the journal to clarify the inaccuracies. Given the limited length (400 words) allowed for this response by the journal, this focuses only on false claims related to conflicts of interest. However, as that represents only a small proportion of the inadequacies of the essay, we provide here a more detailed letter of response to help provide the radiation safety community with a more balanced perspective on radiation safety.
People are exposed to NIR in naturally occurring situations, for example to the magnetic field of the earth and to radiation from the sun. Within the last century individual’s NIR exposure has increased through the use of a wide array of technological applications that utilise NIR, such as electric appliances and communication devices.
ICNIRP expresses its protection recommendation primarily through the ICNIRP guidelines related to a specific frequency or wavelength band independently from the source. Read here how these recommendations translate for some common NIR applications.