EESC EHS Opinion - plenary vote January 2015
The Section for
Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society (TEN)
of the European Economic and Social
Committee (EESC) has now produced it's final draft opinion that
we reported on recently. It would have represented a giant step forward in the
recognition of electromagnetic hypersensitivity and the need in society to
dramatically alter our approach to supporting sufferers of the condition.
However today, the 21st January 2015, a Counter-Opinion was proposed and voted
on before the EHS Opinion and the Counter Opinion was passed by plenary vote.
That means that the good TEN 559 EHS Opinion was dismissed.
The
Adams Counter-Opinion was voted on first and was passed 136 votes to 110 votes
with 19 Abstentions. We do plan to do a short report on the meeting which was
live-streamed.
If
anyone wants to replay the meeting, then Mast-Victims has
archived
the audio from the
meeting
Opposition
Richard
Adams OBE, a member of the TEN committee and
someone who has worked hard over many years to make the world a better and
fairer place, has written a strongly worded
alternative to the document, that seems to completely miss the
very purpose of the formal opinion, and also goes beyond its scope by
evaluating the scientific and medical evidence (something the original was
updated to avoid doing in its later iterations). His Counter-Opinion submission
has been co-signed by 17 colleagues, mostly with industry/commercial/economic associations
and experience.
He
also very strangely and unjustifiably has criticised Lennart Hardell for a
"lack of scientific and academic credibility", despite Dr Hardell's
long and distinguished career record of publishing relevant work in
peer-reviewed journals and inclusion in the IARC RF assessment panel as a
renowned expert. Professor Hardell and Michael Carlberg have produced a detailed rebuttal of
Adam's defamatory comments. Adams also made similar unjustified comments about
the excellent BioIniative Reports.
We
note that Mr Adams is a Trustee of UK Charity Sustainability First which
promotes the Smart Grid and Smart Meters (which use RF to transmit data). The
Charity is sponsored by BEAMA (which represents 300 electrotechnology firms and
claims to have significant influence over UK and international political,
standardisation and commercial policy), Cable & Wireless, Consumer Futures,
British Gas, EDF Energy, Elexon E-Meter (Siemens), EON UK, National Grid,
Northern Powergrid, Ofgem (the UK electricity industry Regulator), Scottish
Power Energy Networks, and UK Power Networks. He is also a member of the
Corporate Responsibility Stakeholder Council at RWE AG (one of Europe’s five
biggest electricity and gas utilities). There is nothing wrong with this, but
as all these organisations are promoting the installation of RF emitting Smart
Meters and as he is strongly opposing the TEN group EHS Opinion, we see this as
a potential conflict of interest that should be declared.
As a
continuation of the above point, the counter-opinion proposed by Richard Adams
demonstrates an apparent lack of understanding behind the reason the committee
was producing the opinion in the first place. It is not his role to argue one
side or the other of the scientific debate, but to provide pragmatic and
practical options for managing the social and economic impact of
electromagnetic hypersensitivity. There is at least as much published support
that "removal of EMF exposure" is as effective for sufferers as other
treatments such as cognitive behavioural therapy.
The
EC and Member States have signed up to applying the Precautionary Principle.
The most recent interpretation document from the EC is the Communication on
the precautionary principle COM(2000). This includes:
• Recourse
to the precautionary principle presupposes that potentially dangerous effects
deriving from a phenomenon, product or process have been identified, and that
scientific evaluation does not allow the risk to be determined with sufficient
certainty
• Decision-makers
need to be aware of the degree of uncertainty attached to the results of the
evaluation of the available scientific information. Judging what is an
'acceptable' level of risk for society is an eminently political responsibility
• Decision-makers
faced with an unacceptable risk, scientific uncertainty and public concerns
have a duty to find answers. Therefore, all these factors have to be taken into
consideration.
It
will be very disappointing if his counter-opinion is giving much merit or
weight in any future voting processes, as he has failed to offer any such options,
arguing instead that the symptoms are unrelated to EMFs. He recommends that
symptoms are addressed separately from EMFs, despite the lack of literature
supporting the efficacy of such treatments, and that treatment should be
designed around alleviating the concerns of these individuals about
environmental exposures generally.
»
An excellent new document on RF fields and health regarding 'Scientific proof'
versus 'observation' and 'experiences' by Dr Leendert Vriens is
well worth reading in our opinion.
Key extracts from the existing document
1.5 » The EU
should assist currently affected groups and limit exposure fields in light of
the recommendations set out in this opinion, especially with respect to
recognising this exposure as a cause of functional disability and environmental
illness. Steps should also be taken to prevent the number of sufferers from
gradually increasing in the future due to the expansion of devices using these
technologies.
2.2 » It is
now believed that electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome, which is one
aspect of what is known as Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance (IEI),
attributed to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from such everyday devices as
mobile phones and Wi-Fi, can lead to permanent disability since there are
reasonable indications that it could cause anatomical and functional disorders
for sufferers to the point that it limits or prevents their capacity to work.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer, a specialised WHO body,
examined the potential carcinogenic risk of radiofrequency fields produced by
mobile phones. Two international bodies have drawn up guidelines on exposure
limits for workers and the general public (ICNIRO and IEZZ) (sic),
should be ICNIRP and IEEE).
2.8 » There
are more and more people suffering from electromagnetic and environmental
hypersensitivity syndrome. In addition, these people may sometimes suffer the
incomprehension and scepticism of doctors who do not deal with the problem
professionally. That is why measures to stem the increase in the numbers of
those affected and prevent those suffering becoming socially excluded are so
important.
3.2 »
However, people affected by electromagnetic waves display no symptoms
whatsoever when not exposed to electromagnetic fields. This leads to the
conclusion that any recurring radiation-induced conditions that diminish or
disappear when the sufferer moves away from the source constitute
electromagnetic hypersensitivity, even when according to some doctors,
scientific evidence of a direct causal link is lacking. The present opinion
addresses the implications of their situation for those affected rather than its
causes.
3.3 »
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity sufferers experience a serious deterioration
in their quality of life, not only because of the physical symptoms it usually
entails, but also because their lives are totally disrupted by the need to
avoid exposure. In practice, it means that they not only have to avoid almost
all public facilities such as transport, hospitals and libraries, but even
their own homes, in order to escape adverse health effects, which is a breach
of rights that are enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
8.1.1 »
The EESC believes that the EU should assist current sufferers and take steps to
limit exposure fields in order to prevent the number of sufferers from
gradually increasing in the future due to the expansion of devices using these
technologies. It also supports the creation of white zones as an emergency
measures for people worst affected by this syndrome.
8.5 »
Electromagnetic safety thresholds for the use of products should be regulated
and rules concerning the planning of electric power lines and relay antenna
base stations should be established by adopting legislation on:
• a
safe distance between high-voltage power lines and other electrical
installations and homes;
• maximum
permissible exposure levels and effective and transparent control mechanisms;
• requirement
for spatial planning tools to include public and private EMF-free zones (i.e.
"white" zones, which would have to include housing, and public spaces
that were free of electromagnetic pollution, such as health centres, hospitals,
libraries, workspaces, etc.).
This
collection of extracts from the final opinion make a number of points clear,
and elucidate the purpose of the committee's opinion. It is not their remit to
discuss the scientific controversy between electromagnetic hypersensitivity and
causation by electromagnetic fields, nor to discuss its medical diagnosis. It
does recognise the existence of the syndrome, its recognition as a condition in
some form or another, the increase in its prevalance, and the need to address
it as a real societal issue preventing people from working and living normal
lives. As such, the recommendations that are made in the document are focused
on how best to manage the social and economic impacts of electromagnetic
hypsersensitivity and offer solutions that have been demonstrated to be the
most effective, such as providing places and areas where sufferers can live and
work.
Links
» European Economic
and Social Committee (EESC) website
» All the documents regarding the EHS opinion(s) (scroll
down to the TEN/559 section of documents)
» Final version of the TEN opinion
document on electromagnetic hypersensitivity
» Richard Adams' individual counter opinion to
be presented alongside the official committee document
» Future agenda for
the section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society
(TEN)
» Lennart Hardell's response to
Richard Adams' defamatory comments
Published
c.14:00 hrs GMT on 20th Jan 2015; small updates and link corrections made until
22:25 hrs
This page has links to content that requires a
.pdf reader such as 
Adobe Acrobat Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader
No comments:
Post a Comment