EESC: European Economic and Social Committee on Electromagnetic hypersensitivity 2

Source 1: pdf/EESC-2014-05117-00-00-PA-TRA-EN.pdf .
English version and
www.iemfa.org/wp-content/pdf/EESC-2014-05117-00-00-PA-TRA-NL.pdf .
Dutch version
19 dec. 2014

The above link gives the second (very promising) draft opinion by the ''European Economic and Social Committee of the EU on ''Electromagnetic hypersensitivity''.
The beginning of this draft opinion reads as follows:

1. Conclusions and recommendations

1.1 More and more people suffer from electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome due to
exposure to electromagnetic fields, following the expansion of technologies in recent years. In addition to their health problems, people in this growing group usually have limited access to many public or private facilities (libraries, hospitals or even public transport), especially in buildings where devices have been installed for transmitting wireless technology.

1.2 These people may sometimes suffer the incomprehension and scepticism of doctors who do not deal with this syndrome professionally and therefore fail to offer proper diagnosis and treatment. This is without considering all those other people who might be unaware of the possible reasons for their current health problems.

This is very clear: a full recognition of the existence of EHS and the relation with EMF.

This draft opinion was discussed at a meeting on January 7, 2015, where it was largely accepted. This led to an opinion report:
www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/2015-01-20-eesc-final-opinion-full.pdf ,
see also:
www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/2015-01-20-eesc-final-opinion.pdf .
The beginning of this opinion report:

1. Conclusions and recommendations

1.1 Exposure to electromagnetic fields has been increasing in recent years, following the
expansion of technologies. In addition to health problems, this can result in limited access to many public or private facilities (libraries, hospitals or even public transport), especially in buildings where devices have been installed for transmitting wireless technology.

1.2 These people may sometimes suffer the incomprehension and scepticism of doctors who do not deal with this syndrome professionally and therefore fail to offer proper diagnosis and treatment. This is without considering all those other people who might be unaware of the possible reasons for their current health problems.

Still a recognition of the existence of EHS and its relation to EMF (see also:
www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/2015-01-20-eesc-final-opinion.asp .)

Prior to the final meeting in Brussels on January 21 there came, however, heavy opposition, largely from members of the EESC who had and/or still have links with industry. They were headed by Sir Richard Adams from the UK who at the last moment came with the following counter-opinion:

pdf/eesc-2014-05117-00-01-ac-tra-en.pdf .

From this counter opinion I reproduce sections 1.1, 1.2 and 1.6:

1. Conclusions and recommendations

1.1 The EESC acknowledges and is concerned about the prevalence of EHS. It is encouraged to note that further substantial research is ongoing to understand the problem and its causes. It also notes that SCENIHR (Preliminary opinion on Potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) SCENIHR 29.11.2013 -
ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/scenihr_o_041.pdf ) has been extensively
analysing this issue in recent years and will shortly be completing its latest opinion, having
engaged extensively in public consultation.


1.2 The EESC understands that the main conclusions of this report will not differ substantially from the preliminary opinion of 2013 which stated ''Overall, there is evidence that exposure to radio-frequency fields does not cause symptoms or affect cognitive function in humans. The previous Scientific Committee's opinion concluded that there were no adverse effects on reproduction and development from radiofrequency fields at exposure levels below existing limits. The inclusion of more recent human and animal data does not change that assessment.'' (Preliminary opinion on Potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF)
SCENIHR 29.11.2013 -
ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/scenihr_o_041.pdf ).

1.6 The Committee notes that EHS sufferers experience real symptoms. Efforts should be made to improve their health conditions with a focus on reducing disability as detailed in Biomedicine and Molecular Biosciences COST Action BM0704 (BMBS COST Action
BM0704 Emerging EMF Technologies and Health Risk Management). .

In place of full recognition, only concern about and recognition of the prevalence of EHS, which is positive, but a denial of the link to electromagnetic fields (EMF).

In the meeting on January 21 it came to a vote, with a victory for Richard Adams and the telecom Industry: 136 votes in favor of the counter opinion, 110 against and 19 abstentions.
Economic interests and telecom Industry versus Health of People: 136 to 110.

For the complete history see the links at the end of this file.

In fact it is strange that a vote by politicians, who have no inside knowledge in this field, is important in deciding about whether EMF are to be considered hazardous to our health or not and about whether electrohypersensitive people have to be offered real help or are allowed to be treated by some health authorities as suffering from psychosomatic disorders. Nevertheless, as long as health authorities don’t take their reponsibility, it is to be appreciated that politicians take over.

At the end of the counter opinion, as presented on January 21 but not included in the final text, a listing is given of reasons why the earlier draft opinion should be refuted in favor of the counter opinion. For the list of reasons see:
pdf/EESC-2014-05117-01-01-AMP-TRA-EN-counter%20opinion.pdf .
Some of these reasons are completely untrue. I won't go into details, others have done that already, but I make one exception, reason 2:

2. That the medical profession does not deal with this syndrome professionally (1.2). The counter opinion notes that the overwhelming view of the medical profession is that this is a self-diagnosed syndrome. Irrefutable evidence needs to be provided to substantiate such a serious allegation by an EU body against the medical profession.

So we, the consumers and victims who suffer from EMF have to provide ''Irrefutable evidence'' that ''the overwhelming view of the medical profession: that this is a self-diagnosed syndrome'' is wrong. Cleverly formulated, for most people this is indeed a self-diagnosed syndrome. We don't challenge it. The suggestion is made however that such a self-diagnosed syndrome should be wrong according to the medical profession and that there can therefore be no relation between EHS (recognized in the counter opinion) and EMF. In reality the medical profession as a whole does not say that this self-diagnosed syndrome is wrong. The usual procedure for the self-diagnosed patients is that the psysical complaints are acknowledged to be real as is done in the counter opinion and that in extended medical examinations no cause for the complaints is found. Electrosensitvity is not in the medical handbooks and the patients are therefore not diagnosed for that (except in Sweden and in Austria, where there are guidelines for diagnosis of EHS). Doctors usually don't say that the self-diagnosis is wrong, neither can they confirm that it is right.
To come back to the ''irrefutable evidence'', because of the word irrefutable this is same as ''scientific proof''' and ''scientific proofs'' exist only in mathematics, as explained in:

Artikelen/9001/redir .

So what is asked for: ''the irrefutable evidence'', is totally unrealistic. When the pharmaceutical industry brings a new drug on the market is it then up to the consumer to provide ''irrefutable evidence'' that such a drug is safe? That would be ridiculous and everyone would agree.


From the many e-mails with comments and additional information a selection is given below.

From mail 1

2. SERIOUS CONFLICTS OF INTEREST FOR MR ADAMS:

Mr Adams appears to be a Trustee of Charity Sustainability First which promotes the Smart Grid and Smart Meters.

Mr Adams also appears to be a member of the Stakeholder Council which advises the RWE AG Executive Board on matters related to Corporate Responsibility, and which may serve RWE in structuring and formulating its strategy, policy, business operations and stakeholder communications. RWE AG is one of Europe’s five leading electricity and gas companies. This company is also promoting the Smart Grid and Smart Meters (which uses RF to transmit data).
see: www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/2015-01-20-eesc-final-opinion.asp .

How can in these circumstances Mr Adams be allowed to provide a counter-opinion ?

From another mail on the same subject:
The Radiation Research Trust repeats the call for Mr Adams under the Freedom of Information Act to clearly state any first or secondary connections to the telecommunications industry as well as any and all utilities.

3. A new EESC will be composed in October 2015 (current mandate runs from October 2010 till September 2015). Maybe, it will be possible to put this on the table again ?

When scientists, politicians and NGO's join efforts (like they already did now), it might be possible to prevent people with conflicts of interest of being in the board so that health can be protected (instead of industry) and EHS can be recognized and protective measures implemented. Hoping you will be one of them!

C.

From mail 2

A remark that was made by several EESC members was that the Bataller-report couldn’t give a real estimate of how many people are affected. Here are two prevalence studies (not that recent though) that we can cite in the future:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11871850 and
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12194896.
Anyone aware of other more or less official or reliable numbers?

From mail 3

1.1 “The EESC acknowledges and is concerned about the prevalence of EHS.”

This is an extremely important statement and firmly puts EHS on the EC agenda for action

“It is encouraged to note that further substantial research is ongoing to understand the problem and its causes.”
Really? I was unaware that any substantial research is ongoing? ANSES (France) has funded some, but I would welcome details of funded research into EHS that is currently being carried out (please!).
We should ask Adams for details of the studies he was referring to.

Now that EESC have acknowledged EHS we need to demand that the EC ask Member States to record the numbers of people claiming EHS (“self-diagnosing”) to their doctors and clinicians so that we can get the statistics that members of the EESC were rightfully demanding. No country in the EC as far as I am aware has any mechanism in place for recording the numbers of people reporting EHS symptoms and claiming that they are due to EHS. That information is vital for properly assessing the situation and also for analysing if current treatments (including anxiolytics and CBT) are “curing” the patients EHS symptoms. The evidence that CBT works for real EHS patients is vanishingly small – it hardly exists in the literature. The denial of EHS as an environmental physiological problem is primarily based on old-paradigm scientist mind-sets and badly flawed provocation studies – virtually nothing official is published on treatments and cure rates of people living in the (electrosmog dominated) community by the Member States medical services.

A.P.

From mail 4

Progress report on build up to EESC plenary session on 21st and 22nd January

www.radiationresearch.org/progress-report-on-build-up-to-eesc-plenary-session-on-21st-and-22nd-january .

E.C.

-------------------------------------------------

For an earlier file on this topic on StopUMTS see:
Berichten%20Internationaal/8921/redir .

see also:
www.mast-victims.org/index.php?content=news&action=view&type=newsitem&id=6687 .
Conflict of Interest scandal: Sir Richard Adams has deep ties to Smart-Meter industries

and for a later Press Release (26 jan. 2015) see:
Berichten%20Internationaal/9010/redir .

and for a report in the March issue EMR and Health:
Berichten%20Internationaal/9053/ehs_recognition%E2%80%94nearly_but_not_yet .
--------------------------------------------------

For the final analysis undesigned by many European organisations, among these Stichting EHS and StopUMTS for the Netherlands, see:

pdf/EESC-ASSESSMENT_ON_THE_EESC_EHS_PROCESS_EN.pdf .

Thereafter followed a Letter of Notice Served on Mr Richard Adams
European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) Member
Foreign and Commonwealth Office of UK Government:

pdf/EM-Radiation-Research-Letter-Served-Mr-Adams.pdf .
and for the latest version:
www.radiationresearch.org/images/rrt_articles/EM-Radiation-Research-Trust-letter-to-EESC-President-and-Vice-Presidents-February-2015.pdf .

--------------------------------------------------

From a letter send to the EESC president:

This is a letter that I sent to Henry Malosse, President of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC):

Dear Henri Malosse:

EESC has recently adopted Richard Adam's opinion on electrohypersensitivity. According to this opinion, the solution for people who suffer is cognitive behavioral therapy, based on COST Action BM0704.
COST Action BM0704 was funded by IT'IS foundation.

IT'IS foundation receives funding from the following industries:
• Alcatel-Lucent, France
• ARIB, Japan
• Arizona Chemical, USA
• Biotronik, Germany
• Boston Scientific Corporation, USA
• Cisco Systems, USA
• Clarins Laboratories, France
• CTIA, USA
• Disney Research, USA
• Ericsson, Sweden
• GE Medical Systems, USA
• GSM Association, Switzerland
• Intel Corporation, USA
• International Business Machines Corporation (IBM), USA
• Kaba, Switzerland
• LG Electronics, Korea
• Micro Systems Engineering, USA
• Mitsubishi Electric, Japan
• Motorola, USA
• Nokia, Finland
• Nokia Solutions and Networks, Finland
• NTT DoCoMo, Japan
• Panasonic, Japan
• Philips Healthcare, Netherlands
• Phonak Communications AG, Switzerland
• Qualcomm Inc., USA
• Sagem, France
• Samsung, Korea
• Siemens Healthcare, Germany
• Sony Ericsson, Japan
• Sorin S.A.S., France
• Sunrise Communications AG, Switzerland
• TCT Mobile & Alcatel Mobile Phones, France
• Toshiba Medical Research Institute USA, Inc., USA
• Vodafone, United Kingdom
www.itis.ethz.ch/who-we-are/funding/

In addition, the Richard Adams adopted opinion is based on SCENIHR report. Both the responsible for the epidemiology section in SCENIHR report, and the Chairman of the SCENIHR committee, were in the management of COST Action BM0704.
Both have relations to the industry. The responsible for the epidemiology section (Dr. Joachim Schuz), declared funding from the American electric industry. He is also participating in the industry funded COSMOS study, and more. The Chairman of SCEHNIR, prof' Theodoros Samaras declared connection to Vodafone.

Iris

For another letter sent to the EESC President and Vice-Presidents, see:
pdf/EM%20Radiation%20Research%20Trust%20letter%20to%20EESC%20-%20Febr%202015.pdf .

For a complaint send by the Kompetentzinitiative and StopUMTS to the European Ombudsman, see
pdf/eesc-complaint-ombudsman.pdf .

Finally, for the most detailed complaint to the European Ombudsman, with very detailed information, in English, French and Spanish, see:
www.peccem.org/DocumentacionDescarga/Campanas/EHS-CESE/COMPLAINT_EUROPEAN_OMBUDSMAN_EESC_Spanish_English_French_21_03_2015.pdf .




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