Betreff: Repacholi responds - but not to NEXT UP
Von: Iris Atzmon
Datum: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 19:03:21 +0200
An: "Martin Weatherall"

Dear  Martin,
It is interesting that Repacholi responded to you but he didn't respond to Next Up organization at the same time. What an interesting selection he does. Anyway, in my opinion he mislead you in his reply:  
What experts is he talking about? The celluar + power industries ?  can he give you the names of these mysterious experts? because Repacholi's definition for experts can be very liquid. 
What kind of experts can possibly lead to a recommendation to NOT measure the radiation in people's house?  According to what parameters does the WHO choose experts?  These are legitimate questions.
Please see how he invited the power industry to set health standards: 
A 20-member task group from 17 countries, assembled by Michael Repacholi, the head of the WHO EMF project, will finalize an Environmental Health Criteria (EHC) document, which is designed to guide the development of standards for extremely low frequency (ELF) EMFs all over the world. It will likely represent WHO’s official position on EMF health risks for years to come.

all eight either work for electric utilities or have direct and strong ties to the industry. Other than WHO staff, these are the only people on the Repacholi’s list of approved observers:

Kazu Chikamoto, Japan NUS Co., Tokyo
Rob Kavet, EPRI, Palo Alto.
CA, U.S.
Michel Plante, Hydro-Quebec, Montreal, Canada
Jack Sahl, Southern California Edison, Upland, CA, U.S.
Martine Souques, Electricity de France-Gaz de France, Paris
Hamilton Moss de Souza, CEPEL, Brazilian Electrical Energy Research Center, Rio de Janeiro
John Swanson, National Grid, London, U.K.
Tom Watson, Watson & Renner, Washington DC, U.S.

Although Watson is on the list, he will not be at the meeting. “I tried to become an observer, but I did not succeed,” he said in a recent interview. It is not clear why Repacholi changed his mind and disinvited Watson.

Chris Portier of the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) will chair the task group.

Very few other members of the EMF community are aware of the meeting. A spot check, an admittedly unscientific survey, found that staff members at
U.S. health agencies knew nothing about it. The single exception said that he had heard about it from colleagues in the electric utility industry.

When asked whether
Microwave News could sit in as an observer, Repacholi dismissed the idea. “The press is not permitted to attend EHC Task Group meetings,” he told us.

Did Repacholi invite the industry representatives? If not, how and when did they first learn about the meeting and request observer status? Have any of the companies or associations, other than EPRI, contributed to the WHO EMF project or its activities? EPRI cosponsored a WHO workshop on EMF risks to children held last year in
Istanbul (see August 8 entry below), but it is not known whether EPRI’s Kavet has made other contributions to the WHO. All these questions need answering.

While Repacholi has long said that the EHC would be revised around this time, the specific schedule has not been previously publicly disclosed. For instance, the October 3-7 task group meeting is not in the listing of meetings on the WHO Web site nor is it included in the
Bioelectromagnetics Society Newsletter conference calendar.

The WHO released its first EHC for ELF EMFs in 1984. Repacholi chaired the task group that wrote that report. Back then, 20 years ago, the panel recommended that: “efforts be made to limit exposure, particularly for members of the general population, to levels as low as can be reasonably achieved” (a policy known as ALARA). Yet for the last ten years while he has been at the helm of the WHO EMF project and while the health risks posed by power-frequency fields have become much less uncertain, Repacholi has consistently refused to endorse ALARA for ELF EMFs.

In addition to NIEHS’ Portier, the members of the EHC task group are:

Houssain Abouzaid, WHO Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean, Cairo, Egypt
Anders Ahlbom, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
Larry Anderson, Battelle Pacific Northwest Labs, Richland, WA, U.S.
Christoffer Johansen, Danish Cancer Society, Copenhagen
Jukka Juutilainen, University of Kuopio, Finland
Sheila Kandel, Soreq, Yavne, Israel
Leeka Kheifets, University of California, Los Angeles and EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, U.S.
Isabelle Lagroye, University of Bordeaux, France
Rüdiger Matthes, Federal Office of Radiation Protection, Oberschleissheim, Germany
Alastair McKinlay, Health Protection Agency (HPA), Didcot, U.K.
Jim Metcalfe, University of Cambridge, U.K.
Meike Mevissen, University of Berne, Switzerland
Junji Miyakoshi, Hirosaki University Faculty of Medicine, Japan
Eric van Rongen, Health Council of the Netherlands, The Hague
Nina Rubtsova, RAM Institute of Occupational Health, Moscow, Russia
Paolo Vecchia, National Institute of Health, Rome, Italy
Barney de Villiers, University of Stellenbosch, Cape Town, South Africa
Andrew Wood, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Australia
Zhengping Xu, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China

Those attending from WHO include Elisabeth Cardis (IARC); Chiyoji Ohkubo, Rick Saunders (on leave from the U.K. HPA) and Emilie van Deventer.

As we post this on the Web, we have learned that
Michinori Kabuto of Japan’s National Institute for Environmental Studies will also be an observer at the meeting.

• • • • •

Five years ago, the Committee of Experts on Tobacco Industry Documents issued a 260-page report documenting the tobacco industry’s strategies to undermine the work of the WHO. In response, the WHO issued 15 pages of recommendations on how to make sure its work is never subverted again.

Nevertheless, the WHO appears to be unable to apply the hard lessons it learned from tobacco to other potentially harmful agents. Instead, the WHO now simply invites the industry to be part of the process.
all the best
----- Original Message -----
From: Martin Weatherall
To: Iris Atzmon
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 5:13 AM
Subject: Fw: EHS_Factsheet_296_English

----- Original Message -----
From: Martin Weatherall
To: Dr. David Fancy
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 1:59 PM
Subject: EHS_Factsheet_296_English

I have recently received a reply letter from Dr. M. Repacholi, Coordinator, Radiation and Environmental Health, World Health Organization.  This was in response to the letter of complaint that I sent dated November 10, 2005.
The letter stated - Dear Sir
                                       Your letter to the Director-General of WHO has been passed on to me for reply.
WHO does not make any decisions on its own; this is done through the formation of expert groups on the topics under discussion, and they conduct a thorough review of scientific literature to reach their conclusions and recommendations.
This was the process used to reach conclusions about EMF hypersensitivity.  The results of the workshop held in Prague in October 2004 are now reflected in the enclosed WHO Fact Sheet.
Yours sincerely
Dr Mike H. Repacholi
I have attached the WHO Fact Sheet to this E mail.  I have also attached the WHO working document and the original complaint that I sent to the WHO.
The only good part of the document that I can find is the part under 'Physicians', where it states;  This requires - an assessment of the workplace and home for factors that might contribute to the presented symptoms.  This seems to be quite a change from the working document and it may be worth finding out the reason for that change.  Of course we all know that physicians are highly unlikely to ever assess the home or the workplace of a EHS sufferer.  Doctors are simply to busy and do not have the knowledge and equipment to search for the true cause of electro hypersensitivity.  This change would have been more appropriate if it had appeared  under 'Governments' and if they then provided realistic electromagnetic dangers to search for, and details of the equipment and knowledge required for that search..
It is obvious from the document that the WHO are 'barking up the wrong tree'.  With the exception of Prof Olle Johansson, it seems that the 'experts' either do not realize what is really harming EHS sufferers, or they are deliberately protecting the financial interests of the telecommunications industry, the wireless industry and the electrical industry.  They are failing to look for the real reasons why people are getting sick and developing cancer near to cell phone towers, near to transformers, near to transmission lines, from defective wireless equipment and from the effects of electricity polluted by high frequencies.  In short, the World Health Organization is failing in its duties to the world population.
Regards  Martin Weatherall