The European Union assessments of radiofrequency radiation health risks – Review

The European Union assessments of radiofrequency radiation health risks – another hard nut to crack (Review)
Nyberg, Rainer, McCredden, Julie and Hardell, Lennart.
Reviews on Environmental Health, 2023.
doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2023-0046

Abstract

In 2017 an article was published on the unwillingness of the WHO to acknowledge the health effects associated with the use of wireless phones. It was thus stated that the WHO is ‘A Hard Nut to Crack’. Since then, there has been no progress, and history seems to be repeating in that the European Union (EU) is following in the blind man’s footsteps created by the WHO. Despite increasing evidence of serious negative effects from radiofrequency radiation on human health and the environment, the EU has not acknowledged that there are any risks. Since September 2017, seven appeals by scientists and medical doctors have been sent to the EU requesting a halt to the roll-out of the fifth generation of wireless communication (5G). The millimeter waves (MMW) and complex waveforms of 5G contribute massively harmful additions to existing planetary electromagnetic pollution. Fundamental rights and EU primary law make it mandatory for the EU to protect the population, especially children, from all kinds of harmful health effects of wireless technology. However, several experts associated with the WHO and the EU have conflicts of interest due to their ties to industry. The subsequent prioritizing of economic interests is resulting in human and planetary health being compromised. Experts must make an unbiased evaluation with no conflicts of interest. The seven appeals to the EU have included requests for immediate protective action, which have been ignored. On the issue of wireless radiation and the health of citizens, the EU seems to be another hard nut to crack.

Keywords: electromagnetic fields; European Union; health risks; Human Rights; precautionary principle; wireless EMF guidelines

See the link at the top for the full paper and see also the earlier paper:
The European Union prioritises economics over health in the rollout of radiofrequency technologies
Nils Rainer Nyberg EMAIL logo , Julie E. McCredden , Steven G. Weller and Lennart Hardell
From the journal Reviews on Environmental Health
doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2022-0106

Abstract

The fifth generation of radiofrequency communication, 5G, is currently being rolled out worldwide. Since September 2017, the EU 5G Appeal has been sent six times to the EU, requesting a moratorium on the rollout of 5G. This article reviews the 5G Appeal and the EU’s subsequent replies, including the extensive cover letter sent to the EU in September 2021, requesting stricter guidelines for exposures to radiofrequency radiation (RFR). The Appeal notes the EU’s internal conflict between its approach to a wireless technology-led future, and the need to protect the health and safety of its citizens. It critiques the reliance of the EU on the current guidelines given by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), that consider only heating and no other health relevant biological effects from RFR. To counteract the ICNIRP position, the 2021 cover letter briefly presented recent research from the EU’s own expert groups, from a large collection of European and other international studies, and from previous reviews of the effects of RFR on humans and the environment. The 5G Appeal asserts that the majority of scientific evidence points to biological effects, many with the potential for harm, occurring below the ICNIRP public limits. Evidence to establish this position is drawn from studies showing changes to neurotransmitters and receptors, damage to cells, proteins, DNA, sperm, the immune system, and human health, including cancer. The 2021 Appeal goes on to warn that 5G signals are likely to additionally alter the behaviour of oxygen and water molecules at the quantum level, unfold proteins, damage skin, and cause harm to insects, birds, frogs, plants and animals. Altogether, this evidence establishes a high priority for the European Union towards (i) replacing the current flawed guidelines with protective thresholds, and (ii) placing a moratorium on 5G deployment so as to (iii) allow industry-independent scientists the time needed to propose new health-protective guidelines. This 2021 Appeal’s relevance becomes even more pressing in the context of the EU plans to roll out the sixth generation of wireless technologies, 6G, further adding to the known risks of RFR technology for humans and the environment. This all leads to an important question: Do EU decision makers have the right to ignore EU´s own directives by prioritising economic gain over human and environmental health?

Keywords: 5G; appeals; electromagnetic field; EMF; environment; EU; health risks; non-ionizing radiation guidelines; radiofrequency radiation; WHO

For the full paper see the link at the top of this abstract



Lees verder in de categorie Berichten Internationaal | Terug naar homepage | Lees de introductie