Page 1 of 645   Next›  Last» 

Progress report on build up to EESC plenary session on 21st and 22nd January
United Kingdom Created: 22 Jan 2015
Radiation Research Trust has made a timeline page for the events leading up to the EESC meeting.

http://www.radiationresearch.org/progress-report-on-build-up-to-eesc-plenary-session-on-21st-and-22nd-january
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Radiation Research Trust, Eileen O'Connor, 22 Jan 2015

EESC EHS opinion loses by narrow vote to industry interests
Belgium Created: 21 Jan 2015
Dear all, today is a black day for human rights and especially for sufferers of the effects of electromagnetic fields.

The industry-friendly counter-opinion of Sir Richard Adams won by 136 votes to 110 (19 abstained) at the EESC plenary meeting.

The good news is that many groups and individuals from all around Europe came together to fight the industry influence and we have succeeded in winning 110 supporters within the EESC. Remember that.

The English interpretation audio of the 1-hour debate and vote is archived here:
https://soundcloud.com/mastvictims/eesc-ten559-plenary-ehs-opinion-discussion-and-vote
Listen online or download the audio file.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Mast-Victims, H.Eiriksson, 12 Jan 2015

Conflict of Interest scandal: Sir Richard Adams has deep ties to Smart-Meter industries
United Kingdom Created: 21 Jan 2015
Following an investigation it was revealed that Sir Richard Adams has an undeclared conflict of interest. It is a big scandal to continue as usual when Mr. Adams is actively acting to turn this decision against the European population.
Regarding others who may have conflicts as well, it is expected from the EU members to demand having a process that is free from foreign interests.

Powerwatch has published about the scandal:
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/2015-01-20-eesc-final-opinion.asp

Richard Adams is on the board of trustees of the charity "Sustainability First"
http://www.sustainabilityfirst.org.uk/people.htm

Smart meters is one of this charity's projects:
http://www.sustainabilityfirst.org.uk/projects.htm

Sponsors of Sustainability First include:

BEAMA (the expert knowledge base and forum for the electrotechnical industry for the UK and across Europe.
Representing over 300 manufacturing companies in the electrotechnical sector, the organisation has significant influence over UK and international political, standardisation and commercial policy.)
Cable & Wireless
British Gas
EDF Energy
Elexon
E-Meter (Siemens)
EON UK
National Grid
Northern Powergrid
Ofgem (the UK electricity industry Regulator)
Scottish Power Energy Networks
UK Power Networks

SIGNATORIES OF Richard Adams' COUNTER-OPINION:

Richard Adams
Bernd Dittmann (The German Business Representation)
Lubomir Hadjiysky (Director of marketing and development at auditors Grant Thornton. Bulgaria)
Tom Jones (Vice-president of the Wales Council for Voluntary Action (WCVA) - farmer - Trustee Community Foundation in Wales. UK)
Brenda King (Chief Executive, African & Caribbean Diversity. UK)
Anders Ladefoged (Danish Industry)
Jonathan Peel (Business and Trade Consultant. UK)
Virgilio Ranocchiari (Consultant European Affairs - Italian Confederation of Industry - Confindustria)
Pirkko Raunemaa (Council of Home Economics and Consumer Associations, expert on consumers and food issues. Finland)
David Sears (Former Deputy Director-General, British Chambers of Commerce – BCC. UK)
Ulla Sirkeinen (Confederation of Finnish Industries –EK. Finland)
Jan Simons (VNO-NCW, "Confederation of Netherlands Industry and Employers")
Georgi Stoev (Vice-chairman of the Bureau of the Committee on Trade at the Economic Council for Europe at the United Nations Organization -UNO/ECE-Geneva and vice-president of the Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Bulgaria)
Pavel Trantina (Representative, Czech Council of Children andYouth –ČRDM. Czech Republic)
Akos Topolanszky (Director of the Federation of Hungarian Drug therapeutic Institutes (MADRISZ); National Institute for Drug Prevention. Hungary)
Gerd Wolf (Representative of the Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres - HGF)
Reet Teder (business leader and Estonian)
Josef Zboril (Executive secretary, Governing board of the Slovenian Association of Free Trade Unions. Czech Republic)

All documents are here:
https://toad.eesc.europa.eu/AgendaDocuments.aspx?pmi=RmFYXXWy9u%2fUB7Xqmm4jW6lyKtAxaIqd8V%2f0yS2nhXg%3d

On the other hand, the Council of Europe recognized electrohypersensitivity in May 2011, on the basis of Dr. Dominique Belpomme's work. Dr. Belpomme, president of Association for Research on Treatment Against Cancer, examined clinically more than 1,000 electrohypersensitivity (EHS) – self reported patients. He concluded that these are real sick persons who are in a pre-Alzheimer’s state. http://mieuxprevenir.blogspot.ch/2014/06/interview-with-dr-dominique-belpomme-by.html

Best wishes,
Iris and many others who try to draw your attention to the importance of an ethical decision making process, in this highly important scientific, medical and health issue, for the European population.
Source: Iris Atzmon, via email, 21 Jan 2015

Final version of Richard Adams counter-opinion on EHS published
Belgium Created: 20 Jan 2015
Dear all, Sir Richard Adams has finally made his counter-opinion to the EESC opinion on EHS publicly available.
Download the document via the source link below.

This document is more elaborate than the previous version and is signed by a group of EESC members, most of them entrepreneurs (see below).

The orientation of the document has changed slightly: he recognizes that their EHS symptoms are real, but does not recognize their association with the EMF.

List of the 18 signatories:

Richard Adams

Bernd Dittmann (The German Business Representation)

Lubomir Hadjiysky (Director of marketing and development at auditors Grant Thornton. Bulgaria)

Tom Jones (Vice-president of the Wales Council for Voluntary Action (WCVA) - farmer - Trustee Community Foundation in Wales. UK)

Brenda King (Chief Executive, African & Caribbean Diversity. UK)

Anders Ladefoged (Danish Industry)

Jonathan Peel (Business and Trade Consultant. UK)

Virgilio Ranocchiari (Consultant European Affairs - Italian Confederation of Industry - Confindustria)

Pirkko Raunemaa (Council of Home Economics and Consumer Associations, expert on consumers and food issues. Finland)

David Sears (Former Deputy Director-General, British Chambers of Commerce – BCC. UK)

Ulla Sirkeinen (Confederation of Finnish Industries –EK. Finland)

Jan Simons (VNO-NCW, "Confederation of Netherlands Industry and Employers"

Georgi Stoev (Vice-chairman of the Bureau of the Committee on Trade at the Economic Council for Europe at the United Nations
Organization -UNO/ECE-Geneva and vice-president of the Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Bulgaria)

Pavel Trantina (Representative, Czech Council of Children and Youth –ČRDM. Czech Republic)

Akos Topolanszky (Director of the Federation of Hungarian Drugtherapeutic Institutes (MADRISZ); National Institute for Drug Prevention. Hungary)

Gerd Wolf (Representative of the Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres - HGF)

Reet Teder (business leader and Estonian)

Josef Zboril (Executive secretary, Governing board of the Slovenian Association of Free Trade Unions. Czech Republic)
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Mast-Victims, H.Eiriksson, 20 Jan 2015

EESC EHS Opinion - plenary vote January 2015
United Kingdom Created: 20 Jan 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. In its final form, to be voted on at the plenary meeting on the 21st and 22nd January 2015, it represents 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, as was expected, significant opposition has appeared.

*SNIP* read the rest at the source link below...
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Powerwatch, Alasdair Philips, 20 Jan 2015

This is what the EESC debate is all about
Belgium Created: 19 Jan 2015
The European Economic and Social Committee is on the way with an opinion statement on electro-hypersensitivity, otherwise known as microwave-sickness and EHS and we've been publishing news about the process over the last couple of days.
To aid understanding of what's happening, this post brings together the discussion:

First, see the latest draft opinion (published 13 jan.) from EESC that will be voted on 21-22 jan.:
https://toad.eesc.europa.eu/AgendaDocuments.aspx?pmi=RmFYXXWy9u%2fUB7Xqmm4jW6lyKtAxaIqd8V%2f0yS2nhXg%3d
(see under section: TEN/559, sub-heading: "Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (own-initiative opinion) - Section opinion - EESC-2014-05117-00-02-AS-TRA" and select your language.

A dutch businessman and EESC group member, Mr. Jan Simons, put forward industry-friendly amendments to the draft. Those amendments were largely dropped by vote. Download Simons amendment suggestions here.

Reet Teder, business leader and Estonian member of the EESC, has already submitted several amendments against the points 1.2, 1.5, 2.8, 8.1.1 & 8.2.3 of the own initiative opinion approved by the EESC TEN section. Removes the most important elements of each of these points emptying it of its content.
See entries beginning with "AMPX_§ X.X_Teder_Electromagnetic hypersensitivity..." under TEN/559 secion at the link below:
https://toad.eesc.europa.eu/AgendaDocuments.aspx?pmi=RmFYXXWy9u%2fUB7Xqmm4jW6lyKtAxaIqd8V%2f0yS2nhXg%3d

We learned that EESC member Sir Richard Adams suddenly began distributing an industry friendly counter-opinion text to a group of like-minded members within the EESC. Adams' version removes all support for EHS and goes against regulation of EMF.
Download Adams counter-opinion here which was kindly provided by our Spanish friends Electrosensibles por el Derecho a la Salud.
Sir Adams' version of the text has not yet been made publicly available so we reckon that he'll try and push it into vote at the plenary session. Such behaviour is highly disrespectful of the democratic process of the EESC and according to one EESC member that Mast-Victims spoke to, it is a desperate last-measure that will be regarded as an extreme provocation and a waste of time.

Following is the MV news coverage so far:

Jan 2015, United Kingdom: Final letter to Mr. Adams BY Director Eileen O`Connor Radiation Research UK.
Jan 2015, United Kingdom: Mast-Victims comments on Sir Richard Adams EESC / EHS counter-opinion
Jan 2015, USA: BioInitiative Group letter to EESC on electro-hypersensitivity
Jan 2015, United Kingdom: Open letter to European Economic and Social Committee TEN Section on electrosensitivity
Jan 2015, United Kingdom: EESC calling for action on behalf of EHS sufferers
Nov 2014, Belgium: Recordings from the EESC hearing on EHS
Nov 2014, Belgium: Europe starts to take EHS / ES seriously
Oct 2014, Belgium: Registration deadline is 29 oct. for EU open hearing on EHS
Oct 2014, Belgium: Public hearing on Electromagnetic hypersensitivity at the European Economic and Social Committee
Source: Mast-Victims.org, H. Eiriksson & A. Ingvarsdóttir, 19 Jan 2015

Final letter to Mr. Adams BY Director Eileen O`Connor Radiation Research UK.
United Kingdom Created: 19 Jan 2015
18 th January, 2015
Letter sent via email
Thank you for responding to my email and for reviewing the material enclosed.
I invited the BioInitiative Working Group to submit technical information on wireless health risks, please see attached. Also find attached letter defending their professional reputation and the value of the BioIniative Report and Working Group
.
You appear to have mistakenly used misguided and baseless arguments provided repeatedly by the telecommunications industry. I’ve no doubt that your accusations are unintentionally tort given the factual inaccuracy of your claims regarding the reputation of the Hardell Group and the BioInitative
Working Group.
On what basis do you contend the BioInitiative and Hardell Group science to have no academic or scientific support or credibility ?
Your misguided criticism of Hardell cannot be supported, given that IARC, The World Health Organisation’s esteemed cancer committee, concluded in May 2011 that RF – EMF is a 2B “possibly human” carcinogen.
This decision was based on reviewing myriad studies but clearly biased science and inadequate science was dismissed, leaving IARC to use, as the basis for its decision, two studies - the Interphone Study and the epidemiology of Dr. Lennart Hardell. If Hardell's science is good enough for IARC, why is it considered to have no academic or scientific support or credibility?

The Italian Supreme Court, in October 2012, upheld a ruling that said there was a link between a business executive's brain tumour and his heavy mobile phone usage.
The evidence was based on studies conducted by the Hardell Group between 2005
-
2009 (prior to his even stronger studies published in 2013
-
2014). The court said the research was independent and "unlike some others, was not co-financed by the same companies that produce mobile telephones".
If Hardell's science is the only science good enough for the Italian Supreme Court, why is it considered to have no academic or scientific support or credibility?

Conflict of interest is of serious concern, especially for those in positions of power and influence.
Time and time again we find the influence from industry creeping into the scientific arena
.
You may be interested to hear that the International Agency for Research on Cancer was forced to remove Anders Ahlom of the Karolinska Institute
from its panel of experts just a week before they were about to evaluate the cancer risks posed by mobile phones.
Ahlbom’s conflict of interest was reported by a Swedish Journalist Mona Nilsson after she discovered that Ahlbom was a director for a consulting firm, Gunnar Ahlbom AB.
The company was established to help clients on telecom issues, with an emphasis on environmental and energy regulations.
The full report is available via Microwave News: http://microwavenews.com/Ahlbom.html

This needs to stop.
Why are we relying on journalists, independent scientists and ordinary members of the public to alert policy makers to conflicts of interests within
official groups such as IARC, WHO and SCENIHR
.
We are concerned that you are providing an unbalanced opinion due to your reliance on industry funded experts, while dismissing a group of independent experts who have reviewed over 5000 peer reviewed published studies
.
You have made your position clear that you have no interest whatsoever in supporting any particular lobby or commercial organisation.
I therefore question why you are providing information and reports that are representing interests of industry lobbyists?
See attached email on conflict of interests disclosure sent to you yesterday from Iris Atzmon.

Were you previously aware of this before writing your counter opinion paper on electrohypersensitity?
You responded to Iris Atzmon via email yesterday sending an industry funded article that dismisses the Bioinitiative Report.
This article was coauthored by an industry consultant and a billionaire who had made his money off the very technology you are dismissing as having an adverse health impact on citizens.
Kenneth Foster is a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and has been a paid industry consultant for decades; Lorne Trottier is a Canadian entrepreneur who has made his fortune in electronics and telecommunications.

Trottier is a businessman without medical expertise, yet he has made it his mission to tell the world that people suffering from electrohypersensitivity are suffering from a psyhosomatic condition.
You offered an article by these two men as your basis for discrediting the esteemed BioInitiative Report.

Ordinary members of the public and especially our children and those who are suffering with electrosensitivity are counting on you for fairness and caution in a world where citizens are becoming increasingly electrosensitive; we deserve far better than this, Mr. Adams.
You have staunchly taken a very dangerous position that will affect every individual in Europe, a supposed 14,000,000 ES million of whom are already
disabled to varying degrees by RF radiation.

You relied on the opinion of Loren Trottier with respect to the BioInitiative Report, the man who funded 40 Canadian academics to write a letter to
the media, telling that smart meters are safe.
The truth is no non-industry funded study has proven that this technology is safe, including smart meters; reports continue to come in about EHS
developing in residents following installations of smart meters on their homes in those countries where smart meters have been introduced.

It appears your private investigation of this issue is influenced by external economic interests whether you are aware of it or not Trottier advances the
smart meters
.Why?
Lorne Trottier is the owner of Matrox, a large manufacturer of Wifi -enabled motherboards and graphic chips for mobile internet devices.
Trottier has set up multiple websites, including emfandhealth.com which serve to suppress the science pointing to the adverse effects of
electromagnetic radiation.

My question to you is – are you promoting wireless smart meters, too?
I read the EESC energy Opinion reports and understand and appreciate concerns for climate change and clean energy, but shouldn't the concern truly be as follows: How can we save energy and at the same time not threaten the health of citizens who are directly affected by energy conservation policies?

The smart grid currently runs on a wireless system, this grid has been initiating EHS in many residents wherever it is installed, and the Precautionary Principle must be followed to avoid adding to the multi-millions of EHS citizens already unable to live in today's wireless world.
Why the drive to install the ‘smart grid,’ forcing every home in the UK and throughout countries in Europe to use a wireless system, especially when there are safer options to follow?

Please download a copy of the smart meter, smarter practices report by Dr Isaac Jamieson.
My colleagues and I hand delivered a copy of this report to Number 10 Downing Street with Joe Benton MP and Bill Esterson MP.
Download report here:
http://www.radiationresearch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=173

As to the Hardell studies, I took SCENIHR on regarding their refusal to include the 2013 Hardell studies. I publicly challenged Dr. Schüz
regarding the suppression of Hardell’s five papers.
I held up the five brilliant, omitted studies for all to see at the EU event in Athens last year and demanded to know why they were not included in the SCENIHR preliminary report.

Dr. Schüz claimed that he had not seen them, yet I knew full well from Kjell Hansson Mild, a member of SCENIHR, that Joachim Schüz purposefully kept the 2013 compelling studies by Hardell out of the SCHENIR report; among those five studies includes research in which Hardell calls for RF to be urgently upgraded to a Group 1 carcinogen which would put it in the same category as tobacco and asbestos.

The BioInitiative Working Group, Kjell Hansson Mild, and my colleague Susan Foster all demanded that the five Hardell Group papers needed to be included within the SCENIHR review; to omit and ignore them is to cater to industry wishes and ignore not only the elephant in the room, but also the health and well being of over 500 million citizens.
With the deceit I just described, the review carried out by SCENIHR is false.
It is a whitewash and will not hold any value or weight with concerned citizens due to the industry ties connected to the group.

To further illustrate the depth of the conflict of interest that renders the SCENIHR report meaningless, please see the following declared conflicts of interest among the SCENIHR external committee:
> Dr. Maria Rosaria Scarfi declared connection to Telecom Italia and CTIA (wireless industry).
> Dr. Olga Zeni declared connection to Telecom Italia and CTIA.
> Prof' Mats- Olof Mattsson declared connection to TeliaSonera, (Swedish mobile industry).
>Prof. Anssi Auvinen represents Finland in the COSMOS study.
The Finnish part of COSMOS is funded by the Finnish Agency for Technology and Innovation (WIRECOM research program) and Yrjö Jahnsson
foundation. The WIRECOM program received funding from Nokia, TeliaSonera and Elisa. He wrote in his declaration to SCENIHR, that he receives
funding from the Mobile Manufacturers Forum.
>Dr. Joachim Schüz declared connection to Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), the US power industry research arm. Dr. Schüz is listed in an
Austrian mobile phone advisory group that has received funding from the telecom companies.
http://www.wbf.or.at/wbf-expertenforum/expertenforum-2009/expertenliste/Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Funk:Expertenliste

My final question is directed towards you under the Freedom of Information Act.

I call for you to clearly state any first or secondary connections to the telecommunications industry as well as any and all utilities. I call on you to reveal any conflict of interest before using your influence to encourage your colleague s to vote on your counter Opinion on electrohypersensitivity
which is based on industry values.

I’ve no doubt that you do not wish to commit yourself to an unsubstantiated and to a truly false position and therefore invite you to respond with an apology to Dr Lennart Hardell and the BioIniative Working Group and offer them the respect they deserve along with an equal opportunity
to voice concerns and present information and research to be included for review by the EESC rather than calling on a group of industry funded scientists to carry out the review.

Yours
sincerely,
Eileen O’Connor
Director
EM Radiation Research Trust
www.radiationresearch.org
The EM Radiation Research Trust is an educational organisation funded by donations. An independent Charity Registered No.1106304
© The EM Radiation Research Trust 2003-2004
Source: Agnes Ingvarsdottir

Who are the: Bioinitiative Working Group?
USA Created: 19 Jan 2015
The BioInitiative Report is an internationally acclaimed scientific and public health report on potential health risks of electromagnetic fields and
radiofrequency/microwave radiation.
In 2007, the BioInitiative Working Group, an international collaboration of prestigious scientists and public health experts from Columbia University
and the University at Albany (New York), University of Washington (Seattle), the Karolinska Institute, Umea University and Orebro University Hospital (Sweden), the European Environmental Agency (Denmark)
Medical University of Vienna (Austria) and Zhejiang University School of Medicine, (China) released a 650-page report citing more than 2000 studies
that document health effects of EMFs from all sources.
The BioInitiative Report was written in 2007 for publication to the broadest possible audience, hence placed on the Web. Much of the BioInitiative
Report content, including updated chapters and new chapters is now published in the journal Pathophysiology (2009).
Chronic exposure to even low-level EMF from cell and cordless phones, cell towers and wireless internet may cause health effects that vary from
impaired learning, headaches, mental confusion, skin rashes, tinnitus and disorientation to a variety of cancers, and neurological diseases like ALS
and Alzheimer’s.

Cindy Sage, MA and David Carpenter, MD, Director, Center for Health and the Environment, University at Albany, New York were co-editors, and were
contributing authors to the Report.
As a result, the European Parliament and its member countries unanimously adopted a resolution to address public health risks from EMF and wireless technologies, in line with the BioInitiative Report. The European Environmental Agency director has given high visibility to the issue and
recommended health agencies review and act to implement precautionary measures, particularly for children. The Report has received high praise
from many international groups, with limited exceptions from some industry-dominated committees and groups who continue to support
obsolete public safety standards. There is more than sufficient scientific evidence documented now to warrant public health actions..
Read all about the Bioinitiative group at link below:
http://www.bioinitiative.org/
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Agnes Ingvarsdottir

Mast-Victims comments on Sir Richard Adams EESC / EHS counter-opinion
United Kingdom Created: 18 Jan 2015
Dear honorary members representing the European Economic and Social Committee TEN Section on electro-hypersensitivity.

Regarding the EESC own-initiative opinion on electro-hypersensitivity it has come to our attention that an alternative text is being put forward at the last moment by EESC member Sir Richard Adams.
A representative from Mast-Victims.org was present at the hearing in Brussels, 4. nov. 2014 and we find it alarming that Mr. Adams is introducing an alternative version to the already debated, voted and amended text at such a late stage in the process. We have read Mr. Adams alternative text and present the following short comments that we sincerely hope you will consider.

Re. 1.2:
The referred SCENIHR report does not answer the question it was tasked with investigating! namely: are there possible health risks from exposure? Instead the SCENIHR report limits its conclusions to whether there is conclusive evidence. For what the SCENIHR committee was specifically asked to answer, see page 2 (“Terms of reference”) in this document:
http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/scenihr_q_029.pdf
For more info see the comprehensive commentary from the BioInitiative working group: http://www.bioinitiative.org/potential-health-effects-emf/

Re. 2.1:
Question: does the author, for the reasons given in 2.1, contest the term “peanut allergy” that implies exposure to peanut is the cause of a host of different symptoms that are shown to be related to peanut exposure although the mechanism of action is currently unexplained? Would the author contest the right of affected people to avoid exposure to peanut? Would the author even argue against the marking of products containing peanut?

Re. 3.1:
Again, the author's demand for “conclusive evidence” is incompatible with public health protection and irresponsible regarding an agent (EMF/RF) that the majority of the population is already and continuously exposed to. The claim that exposure does “not produce any known adverse health effect” is misleading in the context of ICNIRP guideline levels as the correct word to use in that context is: “established”. The ICNIRP criteria for “established” effects is equivalent to: conclusive scientific proof. As a result of those criteria, ICNIRP recognises only consistently reproducible thermal effects that obviously don't even require the exposed to be alive! It is thus clear that ICNIRP guidelines are incompatible with public health protection (which, of course, is about protecting the alive population).

Re. 3.3:
The author states clearly that “basic data for evaluating some risks is still limited, especially for long-term, low-level exposure”. Since that matches the exposure profile of the majority of the population, it must surely justify the Precautionary Principle with regards to EMF. Please note that the ICNIRP publication: “GENERAL APPROACH TO PROTECTION AGAINST
NON-IONIZING RADIATION” makes a clear statement regarding the need to protect the vulnerable in society.
From the section ”People being protected” (page 546):
“For example, children, the elderly, and some chronically ill people might have a lower tolerance for one or more forms of NIR exposure than the rest of the population. Under such circumstances, it may be useful or necessary to develop separate guideline levels for different groups within the general population, but it may be more effective to adjust the guidelines for the general population to include such groups”.
source: http://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPphilosophy.pdf

Re. 3.4:
It is confusing that the author first demands conclusive proof of highest possible scientific level (3.1) and then in 3.4 chooses to refer to lower quality studies relying on exposure to single frequencies and subjective reports. Some of the referenced negative studies even hint at psychological reasons without providing compelling evidence to support such claims.
While it is true that EHS studies are not all consistent, there are published double-blind studies showing correlation between EMF/EMR exposure and symptoms with a high level of accuracy (f.x.: Rea et. al 1991 / McCarthy et al. 2011). Please consider that subjecting a group of people “sensitive to EMF” to the same frequency/duration of exposure and expecting all to react in the same way is akin to gathering a group of people claiming “food allergies”, giving them all strawberries and then writing the result off as “negative” when only a few turn out to be allergic to specifically: strawberries.

Re. 3.5:
The author's use of the word “disconnected” with regards to reported EHS symptoms is unsupported speculation. Currently, we don't know whether there is a medical connection between the reported symptoms and I doubt the author is medically qualified to support such a claim. 1.13 in the original EESC opinion text mentions that there is published a diagnostics guide for EMF-related health issues by the Austrian Medical Association (so why the author denies its existence in his text is unclear). An update of the mentioned diagnostics guide is under way as a cooperation between European Medical Associations so for the author to claim that “the medical profession does not deal with this syndrome professionally” is incorrect.

Comment on author's reason #4:
It seems that the author misunderstands the point made about asbestos in EESC opinion text.
The point is that in the case of asbestos (and also in the author's own text) “irrefutable scientific evidence” was demanded which only served to delay the necessary public health protection actions with enormous cost to society.



Yours sincerely,

Henrik Eiriksson [a]
Denmark
phone: +45 36173404
email: henrik {at} solvation.net

Agnes Ingvarsdóttir [b]
United Kingdom
Phone: +44 (0)1684 540 138
email: agnes {at} mast-victims.org

Affiliations: Mast-Victims.org (a,b) & Danish Council on Health-Safe Telecommunications (a).

(download this letter as a PDF via the source link below)
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Mast-Victims.org, H. Eiriksson & A. Ingvarsdóttir, 16 Jan 2015

BioInitiative Group letter to EESC on electro-hypersensitivity
USA Created: 18 Jan 2015
The BioInitiative Working Group has been requested by the Radiation Research Trust to submit technical materials for your further consideration on wireless health risks. The BioInitiative 2007 Report and the five-year update BioInitiative 2012 Report both document studies reporting disruption of immune function and electrohypersensitivity (EHS). Electrosensitivity is a growing problem and will have significant global public health consequences.

The Draft EESC Opinion on Electrosensitiv ity should be adopted and should lead to precautionary actions by governments in line with this evidence.

*SNIP* read the entire letter via the source link below...
Click here to view the source article.
Source: BioInitiative Working Group, 15 Jan 2015

 Page 1 of 645   Next›  Last»