EESC: European Economic and Social Committee on Electromagnetic hypersensitivity

Bron 1: EESC van de Europese Unie
pdf/eesc-2014-05117-00-00-apa-tra-en.pdf .
28 nov. 2014

PRELIMINARY DRAFT OPINION
of the
Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society
on
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity

Een voorlopig rapport met (vrijwel) volledige erkenning van het bestaan van elektrogevoeligheid en EHS. Er komen nog wel twee sessies voordat het eindrapport beschikbaar komt. Voorlopig is dit een goede steun.


Bron 2: de tweede veelbelovende versie van de EESC:
pdf/EESC-2014-05117-00-00-PA-TRA-EN.pdf .
19 dec. 2014


Bron 3: Press Release van onze Franse zusterorganisatie Robin des Toits, met als titel:
European Union and Eletromagnetic Hypersensitivity : a New Turn ?
pdf/PressRelease_EESC_2014_12_09.pdf .


Bron 4: Een artikel over Human rights:
ELECTROMAGNETIC HYPERSENSITIVITY & HUMAN RIGHTS
commentary to the european economic and social committe
www.radiationresearch.org/images/rrt_articles/IAJ_EHS__Human_Rights_0141204.pdf .


Bron 5: Een overzichtelijk gecondenseerd overzicht van het EESC rapport van powerwatch:
www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/2015-01-06-eesc-aer.asp .
6 jan. 2015


Bron 6: Electrosensibles por el Derecho a la Salud.
INFORMATION ON MEETING OF THE EESC'S TEN SECTION ON 7 JANUARY 2015. TEN/559: own-initiative opinion on the Electromagnetic hypersensitivity. EESC 2014-05117-00-00-PA-TRA - rapporteur: Mr Hernandez Bataller
9 jan. 2015

In the following, we will inform you on the vote on the EHS own-initiative opinion in the EESC'S TEN section. We also inform you of events and involved actions.

1. - “Why vote yes” in own-initiative opinion on Electromagnetic hypersensitivity. This text was sent to all EESC'S TEN section members before the date of the meeting.
We thank all groups involved in sending of this or other texts in your respective countries. It is a good example of coordination.

2. - Richard Adams, a United Kingdom member of the TEN Section, told us to be against the own-initiative opinion. He considers that there is no sufficient evidence to recognize the EHS or the rights of people EHS with denier arguments. We have expressed it to the United Kingdom colleagues. We thank Eileen O'Connor, Dr. Erica Mallery-Blythe and Dr. Andrew Tresidder for his timely and appropriate answers addressed to Richard Adams. It is a good example of teamwork.

3. - Jan Simons, businessman and Dutch member of the TEN Section, presented amendments to the EHS own-initiative opinion. These amendments seem prepared directly by telecommunications enterprises to render meaningless the own-initiative opinion:
toad.eesc.europa.eu/ViewDoc.aspx?doc=ces%5cten%5cten559%5cEN%5cEESC-2014-05117-01-00-AMS-TRA_EN.doc&docid=3045395

You can access the EHS own-initiative opinion (EESC-2014-05117-00-00-PA-TRA) and the amendments (EESC-2014-05117-01-00-AMS-TRA) of TEN/559 in all the European official languages on line:
toad.eesc.europa.eu/AgendaDocuments.aspx?pmi=RmFYXXWy9u%2bqMxJ6Yv8mAsABhLeZ5KVI8V%2f0yS2nhXg%3d

4. - On the results of the meeting of the EESC'S TEN section on 7 January 2015:
After a long and intense discussion, the EESC'S TEN section adopted the EHS own-initiative opinion with only one amendment removing the reference to “the possible existence of conflicts of interest among the members of the scientific bodies”. The remaining amendments were rejected.

The result of the vote was 50 votes in favour, 39 votes against and 9 abstentions.

Moreover Richard Adams (UK representative member) expressed its intention to introduce an ''alternative text'' in the EESC plenary session to prevent the approval of the text adopted in the TEN section. He denies the current evidence to the implementation of the precautionary principle, just as the telecommunications enterprises.

5. - We formally request a copy of the meeting video and the results of the roll-call votes. However, they said that due to the internal rules, such information cannot be provided. We will continue requesting this information.

6. - We provide you as an attachment the letter received from Richard Adams and the various responses (Eileen O'Connor, Dr. Erica Mallery-Blythe, Dr. Andrew Tresidder and Minerva Palomar) which were sent to Richard Adams.

7. – Soon, we will contact you as soon as possible to assess the next steps.

We remain at your disposal.

Electrosensibles por el Derecho a la Salud.


Bron 7: Een informatieve ingezonden brief van Eileen O'Connor met veel nuttige verwijzingen.

Open letter - please distribute widely.

For the attention of UK and Ireland members representing the European Economic and Social Committee TEN Section on electrosensitivity,

I am contacting you after receiving a copy of the opinion on Electormanetic hypersensitivity (EHS) report recently adopted by the EESC’s TEN section: toad.eesc.europa.eu/ViewDoc.aspx?doc=ces%5cten%5cten559%5cES%5cEESC-2014-05117-00-00-AS-TRA_ES.doc&docid=3045930

The reports main purpose is to protect people suffering with electrosensitivity and your important work will hopefully lead towards suggesting binding EU legislation on EMF. I am grateful to all members for allocating almost five hours towards this important debate on 7th January, 2015 and appreciate the voting has been close in the final text along in the voting on each of the amendments. I understand that the next plenary session is due to take place on 21st January, 2015 to finalise the report and therefore call on all members to review the evidence and information contained within this letter.

I am the founder and Director for the UK EM Radiation Research Trust. I am also founding member and Board member for the International EMF Alliance and member of the EU Commission Stakeholder Dialogue Group on EMF.

I can assure you that EHS is very real. It is a physiological condition, not a psychological one. Some studies have been published by psychologists who are not qualified to establish physiological causality, and funding from the telecommunications industry has also created a literature bias as evidenced in published figures by Henry Lai and Anke Huss.

The number of people suffering from EHS is increasing as the exposure to modern digital wireless technology increases at a fast rate. Wireless technology is currently being widely promoted and will greatly increase the number of pulsing RF sources close to people. Many homes, schools and offices now have DECT RF phone systems and WiFi. We believe that already the economic costs of people working less well due to EHS symptoms outweighs the apparent benefits of having everyone wirelessly connected. In most cases it is better, faster and certainly more secure to have properly Ethernet wired systems in homes and offices. The EESC should ensure that they are able to properly quantify these factors so that you can make a balanced judgement.

I am shocked to hear that UK EESC member Sir Richard Adams argued against the precautionary approach and apparently used denial arguments that are clearly modelled on telecommunications enterprise lobbies. I hear that Sir Richard Adams publicly announced his intention to meet with opponents to the report to develop alternative text for the next EESC plenary meeting on 21st January, 2015. This is in total contrast to his public image as the founder of several social enterprises that allow people to express ethical values with a focus on fair trade, the problems of social exclusion and sustainability and I am therefore struggling to believe that he would argue against supporting some of the most vulnerable people in society with regards to people suffering with electrosensitivity.

In addition Sir Richard Adams is known for encouraging public opinion. ‘According to Sir Richard Adams, another EESC member who has drafted numerous opinions on nuclear energy, “the public must be positively engaged in open ended decision-making on nuclear energy related issues that have long term consequences.” Please read the following text under section 23. www.bne.eu/content/file/dispatch-pdf/2012-12-10/237c-11.pdf .

I have written to Sir Richard on 6th January, 2015 in the hope of providing supportive evidence for the meeting on 7th January and included a request to meet with him as his earliest convenience. I await his response.

I have no doubt that EESC members are honest and full of integrity, however, I am sure you will all agree that total transparency and openness is essential in decision making. EESC members voting on the lives and human rights of electrosensitive people have a duty of care and responsibility and should be called to report any conflicts of interest. It would be unfair to allow any member of the EESC to vote if influenced by primary or secondary interests which may affect professional judgement. Protection of public health is priority. I am therefore requesting a report highlighting any conflicts of interest of members under the freedom of information act and I encourage all citizens throughout Europe to engage with their Members of Parliament and Members of the European Parliament to call for a thorough and open investigation. I also call for a report detailing the reasons for deleting sections contained within the original report.

This issue is an emergency situation that could have far reaching impacts for society and the environment. Many people currently suffering with EHS feel abandoned due to the detrimental impacts to their health as a result of exposure to man-made radiation. RF radiation can adversely affect the immune system and the central and peripheral nervous systems, as well as the endocrine system, causing a host of conditions and diseases that make routine tasks in life such as going to school, work, the shop, and seeking medical care not only difficult but often impossible. For these people to face further ridicule due to the ignorance of some members in authority who wrongly believe that EHS is psychological is blatantly unjust. The telecommunications industry is pushing this message that EHS is a psychological condition, and they are paying scientists to generate science that gives an ''all clear'' to WiFi in some instances, and in other studies, to insist EHS is psychosomatic. Yet when these studies are closely examined, it becomes clear they have been skewed to come out with a predictable message that suits the industry's agenda. This is the time to establish sound policy to protect human rights. I am talking about the human rights of millions of people throughout the whole of Europe who are suffering with EHS today. To turn your backs on them would be inhumane. They have no voice. Most are housebound and cannot attend public forum meetings to voice their concerns.

I would like to highlight a very important quote from Professor Yuri Grigoriev, Honorary Chairman of Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection and Advisory Committee member of WHO on EMF and Health. Professor Grigoriev has also worked actively for the state governmental program on creation of nuclear protection since 1949. His expertise was called upon to help contain the Chernobyl disaster after accumulating 40 years experience before the failure in Chernobyl. I directly asked Professor Grigoriev a question with respect to comparing the severity of non-ionizing radiation compared to ionizing radiation. He said, “Ionizing radiation is monitored with safety systems in place to contain and control and prevent overexposure. The current proliferation of wireless frequencies is worse as levels of non-ionizing radiation are constantly increasing and ubiquitous; it is out of control. The world-wide dissemination of mobile telecommunications has resulted in new sources of large-scale population exposure to radio-frequency electromagnetic fields. Prevention of childhood and juvenile diseases from exposure to EMF sources is of paramount social and economic importance. It is one of the bases for public health policy in the near and long-term future. The human brain and the nervous system tissues directly perceive EMF and react irrespective of its intensity, and in certain cases it depends on EMF modulation. This feature distinguishes EMF from all other environmental factors and complicates human health risk assessment for EMF exposure. A situation has emerged that cumulative EMF exposure of children may be comparable to adult exposure and may be equal to the levels of occupational exposure of workers. The current standards are outdated and inadequate. Urgent action is needed to curb the negative impact from this physical agent.”

I hope you will listen to the voice of experts in this field such as Professor Yuri Grigoriev, independent doctors, scientists and to members of the public especially those who suffer with electrosensitivity as your decisions will carry long term consequences and I am therefore appealing with you to follow the precautionary approach. People suffering with EHS are sounding the warning bells for society and need to be taken seriously. Millions of European citizens are relying on officials for protection of their lives and freedom. There is a potential for discrimination to ignore human rights. Allowing the proliferation of technology to continue without any due care and attention will result in subjecting the public and the environment to long term irreversible consequences.
Many doctors and scientists worldwide believe there is a very real and significant risk to the general health of the public, wildlife and the environment. Including the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) an agency forming part of the World Health Organisation have categorised RF as a Group 2b carcinogen for the entire spectrum, some members of which are publicly vocal that the classification must be increased as rapidly as possible to Group 1.

Please find enclosed a recent document on Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity by Dr Erica Mallery-Blythe. This is the first draft working document with more sections to follow. The first 5 pages of the report are bullet points and we feel it essential in your decision making. The remaining pages are abstracts to corroborate her points.
www.iemfa.org/wp-content/pdf/Mallery-Blythe-v1-EESC.pdf .
This document will site evidence supporting our claim that EHS is physiological and highlight literature which demonstrates the irrelevance of the nocebo effect. In particular we would like to draw your attention to the multitude of studies which show EHS symptom constellation in the general population manifesting in a dose response fashion from exposure to RF emitting devices such as mobile phone base stations and telephones. This work cannot be ignored, as it is part of a growing body of evidence proving the existence of EHS. Additionally of course there are positive provocation studies which demonstrate that EMF exposure is instigating the symptoms.
Dr Erica Mallery-Blythe is the founder of PHIRE (Physicians' Health Initiative for Radiation and Environment), Trustee Radiation Research Trust (RRT), Medical Advisor ES-UK and Board Member CPTF. The following links are to presentations that she has given on use of RF in schools and also to the British Society of Ecological Medicine on EHS:
www.vimeo.com/100623585 & www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNFdZVeXw7M

I suggest calling on Dr Erica Mallery-Blythe to speak as an advocate and medical doctor to support the debate in favour of people suffering with EHS.

In addition please download the following paper by Professor Henry Lai and Blake Levitt: www.magdahavas.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Blake_Levit-Henry_Lai.pdf .

EHS is recognised in Sweden as a disability/functional impairment and the Government provides benefits directly to their handicap organization ''Elöverkänsligas Riksförbund'' for these victims to gain accessibility measures with benefits to shield their homes etc.

Furthermore, it is not just humans that are suffering from EMFs. Many animal studies have also shown biological effects. The effects of EMR are being felt by wildlife and the environment as a whole and many other species. The animal kingdom and the environment cannot be labeled as suffering from psychiatric conditions as well as stress reactions as a result of worrying about EMF health effects. Please review the following paper on functionality Disorders in Bees, Birds and Humans by Dr Ulrich Warnke, Biosciences, University of Saarland. archive.radiationresearch.org/conference/downloads/021500_warnke.pdf .

Finally, I would like to end with a quote from Dr. Gro Harlem Bruntland, a medical doctor, former Prime Minster of Norway, former Director-General of the World Health Organization and now a member of the Elders – an independent group of global leaders brought together by Nelson Mandela. Professor Magda Havas directly asked Dr Gro Harlem Bruntland to responded to a question asking for her opinion saying “In this age of growing exposure to wireless technology and constantly increasing levels of exposure to radiofrequency radiation, what advice?” Dr Bruntland said: “This is important. We are exposed to different technologies of a new nature. I am frustrated that I was unable to sound the alarm fully. A sentence in an instruction book—where you do not explain the danger of radiofrequency—is not good public health and consumer policy. I became electrically sensitive and have been criticized because I can scare the public. We know they are not inert and there are potential consequences. People who have electrical sensitivity show that we do take some risk. Until we know more, we cannot say this is no problem.”
Download here: www.magdahavas.com/gro-harlem-brundtland-talks-at-the-university-of-waterloo/ .

The number of people suffering from EHS is increasing as the exposure to wireless technology increases in all facets of home, school, business and commerce. There are costs beyond human suffering that must be considered by those in authority, and you have the power to attempt to control these costs and losses in the policy you are about to address. The medical costs for EHS and RF radiation-initiated diseases will overload an already burdened health care system. Additionally, there is an unquantifiable cost to society in terms of lost education and lost productivity. Every life is precious, but without doubt some of our best and brightest will fall through the cracks, unable to function in today's world unless EHS suffers are fully recognised and accommodated.

With all this in mind I respectfully request that the issues contained in this letter are taken on board. I hope that you follow the precautionary approach and vote in favour to support the health and well-being of people suffering with EHS today and protect the health of future generations.

I have included Radiation Research Trust trustees and Patrons in this open letter along with other interested parties.

Yours faithfully,

Eileen O’Connor

Director

EM Radiation Research Trust
www.radiationresearch.org .


Bron 8: mail van 'Electrosensibles por el derecho a la Salud' als antwoord/toevoeging op/aan de mail van Eileen O'Conner

We send again a document attached with the letter received from Richard Adams (denying the existence of sufficient evidence to recognize the rights of the EHS people) and also the responses sent by Eileen O'Connor, Dr. Erica Mallery-Blythe, Dr. Andrew Tresidder and Minerva Palomar. No reply has arrived to date.

Information received about Richard Adams within the EESC:

He was nominated by Foreign and Commonwealth Office as EESC member

Despite its environmental image, he is widely known for voting habitually in favour of the interests of the polluting industries in sessions of the CESE, voting against the environmental proposals and health protection.

He has repeatedly denied the need to apply the precautionary principle knowing of the potential risks

On their usual arguments: we report that often relies on two types of arguments:

- The argument of the scientific certainty, not taking action until there is a conclusive causal relationship

- Inconsistent arguments, trying to decorate his sentences with an environmental rhetoric

We think it is good to make public these positions in our media, as it is hiding behind the anonymity and hermetic of voting at the EESC to maintain its image coherence as environmentalist.

This is one reason why we are trying to get the video of the meeting of the TEN section 7 January.
We think there is a real threat that the adoption of Views EHS is prevented, at the EESC plenary session on 21 and 22 January. We report that Richard Adams is to lobby for an ''alternative text'' against the current proposal.

What can we do?

It is very important that from now until January 21 to speak and write the EESC members informing them of the need to adopt protective specific measures (as some of those contained in the recently adopted opinion on the TEN section) with current knowledge. In this line, we welcome the coordination they are doing the French EHS associations.

Also, it is important that bodies working in the field of human rights and the rights of persons with disabilities Know and support our position. In Spain we are already contacting them.

Bron 9: www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/2015-01-20-eesc-final-opinion.asp .
21 jan. 2015

Een samenvatting van een aantal belangrijke punten uit het voorlopige EESC rapport.


Voor de eindversie en alle perikelen, zie:
Berichten%20Internationaal/9007/redir .



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