– or –
Please login or register to participate.
.
 
+

DigitalDisconnect Non-ionising Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) Radiation (RFR) vs. Health and Environmental Concerns

Dear Professor Hans Bruyninckx and colleagues,

I write to you today to enquire on behalf of my local/organisational community, as well the broader European community of nations. I do so as a member of Digital Disconnect: a voluntary organisation established in order to promote the safe and sustainable use of Digital Age technology. I do so anonymously for reasons of personal security, this being an open letter concerning a matter of great industrial, militarily, and political sensitivity.

Getting straight to the point, a decade has passed since the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) reported on possible adverse health effects of human/animal exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), aka ‘dirty energy’ and ‘electrosmog’. At that juncture, they “identified priority areas where there was insufficient or contradictory information regarding possible adverse health impacts and recommended further research” (1). Firstly, please provide a summary of any such subsequent research, indicate how EEA policy has evolved in response to the findings of said research, along with the broader growing body of literature finding physiological interference, and state clearly the EEA’s current stance in terms of both human health and broader environmental/ecological sustainability.

As your organisation stated, around the same time: "harmful exposures can be widespread before there is both 'convincing' evidence of harm from long-term exposures, and biological understanding of how that harm is caused" (2). Secondly, please provide details of the most up to date damage, or ‘risk’, assessment that has been performed by either your organisation, or any other relevant organ of the EU family of institutions, in relation to public health and environmental impacts: applicable over the period to date and into the future.

Thirdly, please explain why “no epidemiologic studies on children are available” if, in the EEA’s own words (mirroring those of ICNIRP [3]), “children could be particularly vulnerable to radiofrequency [RF] EMF” (1). In other words: why have the EEA/SCENIHR not expedited such research, and encouraged constituent member environmental and public health authorities to pursue such research, as a matter of priority e.g. when this is a matter critical to the health and vitality of the next generation of young people (who are, incidentally, by now heavy users of microwave RF technology).

Fourthly, please confirm when the most recent EC Public Health: 'Stakeholder Dialogue Group on EMF' meeting took place and why the latest minutes to have been listed on the relevant EC webpage appear to date from 2011.

Fithly, please explain whether, and if so why, the EEA still stands by ICNIRP guidelines that:

• Were established by an international body (WHO: ICNIRP) that is not fit for purpose e.g. not representative, transparent, democratically accountable, nor, apparently, truly independent of industry or, unsurprisingly, willing to acknowledge or respond to serious letters of concern, “no confidence”, conflict of interest, and suggested remedies, from groups of socially and environmentally conscientious expert medics and scientists in the field, such as the Bio Initiative Working Group and IEMFA (4).

• Are by now decades old and were essentially framed around the unfounded, outmoded, and manifestly false presumption that non-thermal non-ionising radiation cannot materially interfere with human health and functioning (5).

• Have scarcely been adjusted/updated to take account of contemporary scientific developments and discoveries, when even electrical and electronic engineers organisations, i.e. bodies whose main stakeholders are literally physically responsible for this issue, now recognise there exists a significant, growing threat to well-being (6).

• Establish levels of pulsed RF radiation that have not shown to be safe, as safe, when there is, in fact, a considerable and growing body of literature that demonstrates the reverse is true, even at power densities well below these guidelines (7).

Finally, please explain in what sense EEA policy, and by extension EU/ECJ/ECHR legislature and process, effectively permitting, or else inadequately serving as to protect the public from, increasingly inescapable involuntary exposure to EMFs that have been repeatedly shown to impose a variety of biological burdens is concordant with EU and UN conventions on human rights when there is plenty of evidence to suggest that this conflicts with the rights of affected persons; this may include the right to life, liberty and security, and freedom from torture (e.g. for those who come to suffer with ‘electro-sensitivity’ [ES] or ‘electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome’ [EHS]) (8), as well as effective remedy.

I look forward to your considered public response.

Sincerely,

A concerned citizen

1. Environment and human health (EEA, 2013)
2. Radiation risk from everyday devices assessed (EEA, 2007)
3.
http://icnirp.org/[…]/ICNIRPphilosophy.pdf
4. http://bioinitiative.org/whats-new-2
5. http://bioinitiative.org/[…]/RFR-11_28-research-summary.pdf
6. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7425396
7. http://c4st.org/200-scienti[…]ial-harm-non-thermal-levels
8. http://iemfa.org/wp-content/pdf/Mallery-Blythe-v1-EESC.pdf

Rating
0
Last discussed by EEA
Apr 25, 2017 08:49 AM
+

Jordi Dear Forum,
I am working in car fuel economy in the EU and I downloaded your database on
passenger cars registered in all EU Member States (
http://www.eea.europa.eu/[…]/co2-cars-emission-10). However, I am interested in identifying the car model and I am not sure which variable (or set of variables) I should use.
By car model I mean the one that purchasers choose. My first intuition was to use comercial name x fuel type x engine capacity, however, the many typos in the variable of comercial name makes this very complicated and somehow unfeasible to my best knowledge (eg, my statistical program (STATA) will not recognize as the same the "FIAT DOBLO / 1.9 / JTD" and "FIAT DOBLO 1.9 JTD").

Hence I was wondering whether there is any other way to identify the car model without depending on the comercial name variable (cn). I have seen that the data set
also provides other variables names version(ve) and variant(va). Could these ones be
of any help?

Rating
+2
Last discussed by EEA
Apr 24, 2017 01:38 PM
+

esolson3 Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to you because I found some very big discrepancies in the average age of the car passenger fleet, between your data (
http://www.eea.europa.eu/[…]/average-age-of-the-vehicle-8) and the data presented by ACEA (http://www.acea.be/[…]/average-vehicle-age). For example, you stated that the averae car age of Poland is 5.75, while the European agency says that is 17.5.

Is there any reason for this?

Many thanks in advanced for your help.

Kind regards,

Rating
0
Last discussed by EEA
Apr 24, 2017 01:29 PM
+

SV1GZ FULL INJUSTICE & ILLEGAL ACTIONS IN EUROPEAN AUTHORITIES ...

To: U.N.,I.C.C.'Prosecutor,European Authorities,Embassies of Nations,Others...
Πρός τις Εισαγγελείες[Α.Π.+Εφετών+Πρωτοδικών] Αθηνών+Ε.Υ.Π.+Ελλην. Αστυνομία+Αλλους...
Special communication to {Royal Embassy of Netherlands+Canadian Embassy} in Greece.

From: Joseph-Christos Kondylakis,Nuclear Physicist & Research Scientist in Basic Fundamental Scientific Research, Mikras Asias 13,Agios Nikolaos,Anavissou,19013 Attiki, Greece,
tel+fax:+30-2291055275 , Thursday-13-April-2017 [ fax : two pages ]

FULL INJUSTICE & BIG ILLEGAL ACTIONS IN EUROPEAN UNION AUTHORITIES, CONCERNING VITAL !! THEMES OF INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR SAFETY, ONCOLOGICAL/CANCER FUNDAMENTAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH,E.T.C. FOR MY CASES,E.T.C.,...

Your references may be found by using Internet search “key” words “Joseph Christos Kondylakis” , “Unified Theory Oncology”, “Kondylakis Nuclear”, “Ιωσήφ Χρήστος Κονδυλάκης” and study the information(author Petition,Thinking viz Joseph-Christos Kondylakis) in the Internet site :
https://semfe.gr/forum/viewforum.php?f=21
and also study our previous relevant communications...

I am a scientist who made Basic Fundamental scientific research in many fields of sciences which open new directions in the scientific research , including in the International Nuclear Safety with my original scientific article “Theoretically and under very special applied conditions a nuclear fission reactor may explode as nuclear bomb” available from the Internet site:
 http://nuclpart.phys.uoa.gr/HNPS/Files/ANP2010.pdf
and in the Theoretical Oncology research , with my original set of articles entitled “The Unified Theory of Oncology” that exist in my CV with a CD of July 2014 which may be found in the office of General Director of C.E.R.N. , in the office of the former President of European Parliament Mr Marin Schulz , in the Royal Embassy of Netherlands in Greece, in the Canadian Embassy in Greece , in the All Medical Doctors Association of Greece, in the Criminal Prosecution of the first instance Criminal Court in Athens,Greece & Elsewhere...
Also I research & investigate the major problem for the future of Humanity , viz the existing Worldwide Satanic(kabbalah) Jewish Dictatorship which leads the Gentiles(Not jews) Humanity to
De-humanization & Sub-Animalization, and the Gentiles & the planet Earth to Huge Catastrophe(s)...

Sending Petitions to European Parliament concerning my above VITAL scientific research the Petitions Committee of European Parliament ILLEGALY is NOT registering most of my VITAL Petitions or if registering certain of them it reject them with Clearly ILLEGAL & INJUSTICE “justifications” that f.e. the Nuclear Safety , Oncology/Cancer is...NOT inside the interests of European Union!!!...
I found from an Internet video of her ,that the Chair-woman of the Petitions Committee Mrs Cecilia Wikstrom is vise-chairwoman in the fighting anti-semitism group of European Parliament and this may be a proof that she in First priority fullfill Jewish interests ,and ignore!! Fundamental Vital European interests as the Nuclear Safety and Fundamental scientific research in Cancer illness...
Note that ILLEGALY the Petitions Committee of European Parliament STOP registering my Petitions to European Parliament...
I complained to the European Ombudsman for the Petitions Committee of European Parliament putting BARRIERS in the Fundamental scientific research in International Nuclear Safety , in Oncology/Cancer and in other Vital themes of my scientific research (as f.e. in Genetic Modified Organisms) , Macro Economics, Jewish Satanic(kabbalah) Worldwide Dictatorship and other Vital fields of Fundamental scientific research and the European Ombudsman rejected my complain WITHOUT SEARCHING FOR THE TRUE!!! , but on the justification that...my case contains “hate speak”...The European Ombudsman also put in First priority the Jewish interests and she also ignore!! Fundamental Vital European interests, as the International Nuclear Safety and the Basic & Fundamental scientific research in Oncology/Cancer illness...
My only option left was to go to the General Court of European Union in Luxembourg, and I did two applications for Legal aid Against the Petitions Committee of European Parliament STOPING my Basic Fundamental Scientific Research in International Nuclear Safety [case T-51/16 AJ ] and for STOPING my Basic Fundamental Scientific Research in Oncology/Cancer [case T-385/16 AJ].Both of my applications of Legal Aid was refering also to the Jewish factor as implied cause of putting BARRIERS for STOPING my Basic Fundamental Scientific researches.The President of general court of European Union rejected Both of my applications for Legal Aid , the first on the STOPING my Petition on the VITAL International Nuclear Safety rejected with the justification that was outside of deadline for application(although inside the time of deadline I have made a simple fax application , that may be interpreted as extending the deadline time)
and the second application of mine for Legal Aid it was very clearly inside the deadline and extremely clear the ILLECAL action of the Committee of European Parliament of rejecting it with the justification that...Oncology/Cancer is NOT inside the European interests.The judge of the court of European Union was impossible to reject it on the essence of the matter , but he rejected it ,with the “justification” that … the proposed action has not been set out coherently and comprehensibly on the legal aid form...BUT as I received a fax from an Embassy it was clear that the proposed action has been set clearly coherently & comprehensibly on the legal aid form. The only explanation that I can give in both cases is that the Jewish interests count more and higher than the VITAL International Nuclear Safety & Oncology/Cancer Scientific research,E.T.C.,...
Also to be mentioned is that the European Commission/Energy STOPED my communications on my VITAL International Nuclear Safety, the Greek Justice do not legally protect me although many times I ask its help and the Jewish controlled mass communication media do not publish my VITAL Scientific researches and similar problems I confrond from the scientific journals & elsewhere...
The above may considered as a clear proof of how strong is the Jewish Satanic(kabbalah) Worldwide Dictatorship....and to ask from Free Gentiles(Not jews),worldwide, to help me in my cases , to Investigate my cases & my past history and to try to FREE Europe & the World from the “invisible” very strong Jewish Worldwide Satanic(kabbalah) Dictatorship leading the Humanity and planet Earth to their Huge Destruction...viz The Worst Crime in World History Against Humanity...S.O.S...S.O.S...

Rating
0
Last discussed by EEA
Apr 20, 2017 08:59 AM
+

dheo Dear Sir, or Madam, and European Environment Agency,

It is a great honor for me and my team members to contact with you and EEA.

This is Daeun Heo from Kyunghee University in Seoul, South Korea. My team members and I are now attending the last year of university pursuing BA, and currently working on a project on environmental issues – especially on photovoltaic recycling.
 
In the early 2000s, the South Korean government and cities started putting their best effort and budgets on replacing the traditional electricity system with renewable energy. Thanks to their effort, many of households and businesses in Korea now own solar panels on their rooftops to generate energy. However, with the expected life of solar panels – 20 to 25 years – taken into account, a considerable amount of panels around South Korea will be disposed sooner or later.

Until few years ago, end-of-life PV modules in Korea were disposed without going through adequate recycling process. With increasing amount of used solar panels, the Korean government took the issue seriously and began establishing the infrastructure of photovoltaic recycling since 2016.

This summer, my team and I are planning to visit some European businesses and institutions with great examples of recycling. Among them, we decided that EEA is one of the most suitable models for us to learn from for our project.

For this reason, my team and I hope to visit EEA in August this summer and learn from your company.
 
Would it be okay, please give us a response via this email address. We hope we could contribute to making the better environment through this opportunity.
 
Please consider the request and feel free to contact us via mail (
dheo@khu.ac.kr).
 
We will be looking forward to your response.
 
Thank you.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
Daeun Heo
Kyunghee University

Rating
0
Last discussed by EEA
Apr 19, 2017 03:03 PM
+

esolson3 Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to you because I found some very big discrepancies in the average age of the car passenger fleet, between your data (
http://www.eea.europa.eu/[…]/average-age-of-the-vehicle-8) and the data presented by ACEA (http://www.acea.be/[…]/average-vehicle-age). For example, you stated that the averae car age of Poland is 5.75, while the European agency says that is 17.5.

Is there any reason for this?

Many thanks in advanced for your help.

Kind regards,

Rating
0
Last created by esolson3
Apr 18, 2017 10:00 PM
+

dkilham Temperatures on Green Infrastructure map
http://www.eea.europa.eu/[…]/urban-green-infrastructure-1

seem incorrect. For the United Kingdom, the minimum temperatures published are often 2-3 C below those given here:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/[…]/gfz3se40s

Rating
0
Last created by dkilham
Apr 12, 2017 08:35 AM
 
Loading