Qui sotto ci sono le relazioni di Ellen O'Connor (UK) e del professore russo (che il Presidente della Commissione Russa sulle radiazioni non ionizzanti, la risposta all' ICNIRP).
In questo intervento si chiede che dopo la classificazione avvenuta da parte di IARC dei CEM come possibili cancerogeni (ma anche dopo la sentenza italiana ) IMPONE che Commissione Europea informi la pibblica opinione sui pericoli derivanti dall'utilizzo di queste tecnologie ; il non farlo è non solo un errore (vedere la storia del tabacco) ma un atto non etico.
Lancia la sfida delle 85 associazioni che sono sotto l'ombrello di IEMFA a informare la pubblica opinione.
DG SANCO – Health and Consumers
Unit D3 Risk Assessment
Workshop on Risk Communication – Electromagnetic Fields and Human Health
20 February 2013
DG SANCO invited stakeholders to participate in a risk communication workshop, not risk
management. In addition DG SANCO provided a clear statement saying this meeting is not in
a position to deal with the Precautionary Principle. I raise a question to this approach and
would like to know how the Commission intends on providing risk communication without
discussing the risks first?
The continued lack of action or implementation of the precautionary approach to RF from
the EU Commission and other authorities is leading to serious frustration with members of
the public, some politicians and many doctors and scientists.
Many scientists are now refusing to attend meetings at the EU Commission due to the lack
of respect shown towards their advice or opinions. The following statement from Professor
Denis Henshaw offers evidence towards this:
"The mis-match between our extensive scientific knowledge of the adverse health effects of
exposures to EMFs of all forms, and the unwillingness of Governments, including the EU even
to listen to the scientific advice from those most knowledgeable in the field, well illustrates
the unwillingness of many to attend the EMF workshop on risk communication."
There is growing public concern about health risks from exposure to electromagnetic fields
from base stations, wifi, smart meters and mobile phones. We therefore need to review the
latest evidence using the precautionary principle and take the latest findings into account
before providing risk communication. RF is now classified by IARC as a 2B possible human
carcinogen and therefore firmly falls into the proper application of the Precautionary
Principle as defined in various EC documents. It is not ethical to blindly expose the public to
electromagnetic fields labelled as “2B possible human carcinogen” without informing them
about the risks.
4.3.4 The Precautionary principle under EU law
The EU provides for a precautionary approach to environmental harm under Art 174* EU
Treaty (*previously Article 130r before the Treaty renumbered). Article 174(2) states:
"Community policy on the environment shall aim at a high level of protection taking into
account the diversity of situations in the various regions of the Community. It shall be based
on the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive action should be taken,
that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter
should pay". In case of doubt, the authorities are prevented from authorising the plan or
project under the precautionary principle, article 6(3).
It appears that the EU are totally ignoring and misusing the Precautionary Principle and this
approach is forcing the public to take action into their own hands via the courts and through
spreading information and research via action groups. Lack of action and consideration from
authorities and policy makers is creating the need for a global movement amongst
activists. There are now approximately 85 organisations listed under the umbrella for the
International EMF Alliance and the list is growing.
Many people are now looking towards taking legal action. On October, 2012, the Italian
Supreme Court ruled the Insurance Body for Work (INAIL) must compensate a worker who
developed a tumour in the head due to long-term, heavy use of mobile phones on the job.
Importantly, the ruling of the Supreme Court underlined the discrepancies between the low
evidence of risk found by industry-funded studies and the higher evidence of risk found by
In addition, A Spanish Labour Court in Madrid ruled ‘permanent incapacitation’ of a college
professor who suffered from chronic fatigue and environmental and electromagnetic
hypersensitivity. The ruling is unique in this regard and will set a precedent for future
conditions related to hypersensitivity to these microwaves.
Mobile phone radiation lawsuits are also moving forward in the U.S.
Business risks for investors listed on the New York Stock Exchange are also discussed in the
annual report of the securities exchange act of 1934 for the fiscal year ending December 21,
The report includes the following statement from VERIZON:
“Our wireless business also faces personal injury and consumer class action lawsuits relating
to alleged health effects of wireless phones or radio frequency transmitters, and class action
lawsuits that challenge marketing practices and disclosures relating to alleged adverse
health effects of handheld wireless phones. We may incur significant expenses in defending
these lawsuits. In addition, we may be required to pay significant awards or settlements.”
Download more details here:
Policy makers are clearly failing to catch up with the science, the courts and public
opinion. Measures need to be taken as a matter of urgency to alert the public to the latest
The last SCENIHR report was produced 19th January, 2009. This is a review of research up to
2008. IARC have since released the 2b possible human carcinogen classification and the
Bioinitiative Group have just last month released a new updated report. The previous
SCENIHR report is no longer appropriate and we therefore cannot provide risk
communication until the 2b possible human carcinogen classification is taken into account.
The Precautionary Principle has been built into a number of conventions, regulations and
laws, notably the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992). The Rio
Declaration states: Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full
scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to
prevent environmental degradation. (From Principle 15)
Is the EU Commission willing to repeat the mistakes made with the Tobacco industry? Or
can we learn and take action now before it’s too late?
We cannot allow corporate strategies with the end goal of profit-over-health to subvert the
truth. It is clear from the Italian Supreme Court decision that the highest court in Italy has
taken a decision that bias may be evident in science produced by those companies that have
a vested interest in selling their products. Thus we have moved beyond a “perception” of
risk or blind acceptance of what is presented to a more discriminating view of how science
can be twisted to achieve and outcome that may not have a basis in truth.
“Risk perception” is a term and a focus that has been long used by industry to employ a
rather self-serving view that “we are going to frighten consumers if we tell them the truth,
and that fright is of greater harm than any real threat that could come from the technology
or the product.”
Really what we’re discussing here is “who has the right to play God?” The truth is the truth.
Reality is reality. Psychological studies of human behaviour have long shown that patients
facing critical illness have better outcomes when armed with two things: truth and
control. If we can come out of this meeting deciding that truth in the hands of consumers is
a far better tool than a handful of self-interested parties obscuring the truth behind the
scenes, we will have a more honest society and a physically and psychologically healthier
It we decide it is best to hide the truth for fear of creating fear among the masses, please
raise your hand if you will like to volunteer for the position of playing God.
Let us remember how many decades "risk perception" was debated with respect to tobacco
. . . learn from history and not live with regret!
EM Radiation Research Trust
Founder and Board member for International EMF Alliance
Four indisputable postulate / truth to the risk assessment of mobile communications for public health (our opinion)
SANCO EMF Workshop, Brussels, 20. 02. 2013
We have entered into active discussion for more than fifteen years: about whether there are adverse effects as a result of exposures to mobile communications. Despite the discussions there is not progress, in my opinion.
However EMF exposures on the population are continuing, a radiation loading grows daily.
Too much controversy!
I shall not stop at debatable themes so far, in particular on the proof danger from EMF of base stations and Wi-Fi.
Today I have chosen four postulates, or axioms, or absolute truth. These four truths are connected to mobile communication and, in my opinion, are essential for the population to fully understand risk.
The first postulate - mobile communication uses EMF RF. This kind of electromagnetic radiation is harmful types of radiation and EMF in all countries is stocked with appropriate regulations. Excess of allowable levels can cause pathology. I believe that you should agree that EMF require restrictions and hygiene control!
The second postulate - ” EMF and a brain “. Mobile phone is open EMF source without a protective shield. EMF is directly exposing the brain when we use a mobile phone. It is the absolute truth.
Nervous system structures of an internal ear (acoustical and vestibular devices) are directly exposed to EMF beam. It is an axiom.
The exposure to the brain has arisen for the first time in this period of civilization.
The third absolute truth - “EMF RF and children”.
Children for the first time in civilization are EMF exposing their own brain.
The risk for damage to a child's brain compared to the adult brain is much greater.
Children are more vulnerable to external factors of the environment. It is an absolute truth.
The fourth postulate is “Absence of adequate recommendation/standards”.
We have very little scientific materials about probable pathological effects after long-term EMF exposure on the brain of adults and children, so we have no scientific base for definition of a permission level exposure on brain to EMF Mobile phones and, as consequence, the corresponding standards are no. This is real fact.
What is the possible solution?
I have wide experience of research on issues surrounding with two problems " Ionizing radiation and health” (more than 60 years) and «Non-Ionizing radiations and health” (about 40 years).
I took part in the first issue with in 1949. There were periods of "underestimation", "hyper assessment" with elements of phobias, and again period "underestimation" before the nuclear Chernbylski accident. This accident has caused fear among the population. The Russian government agreed to provide full information to the population about dangers of ionizing radiations. As a result the population of Russia is now reassured and respect decisions regarding protective actions.
Now we are dealing with similar issues surrounding EMF mobile communication. I believe that the time has arrived to period of a provide full information to the general population.
These four postulates allow the population to appreciate the probable risk for adverse health effects from uncontrolled use of mobile communication. Of course, we must remind people that their entire body is also continuously exposed round-the-clock to extra exposures associated with EMF base stations and Wi-Fi.
I think that mobile communication should become a temporarily service of a selection.
Because of the danger inherent in microwave technology, and the failure of standards to protect the population in general and particularly children, should be a choice for short term, temporary use so that we may preserve human health.
I address to colleagues: do not sin against the truth.
Deeds, not words!