– or –
Please login or register to participate.
.
 
Rating
0
Last created by rneri
May 24, 2017 07:13 PM
Rating
0
Last discussed by EEA
May 17, 2017 02:16 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 discussed by EEA
May 08, 2017 09:27 AM
+

SV1GZ IN SEARCHING FOR CANCER CONSPIRACY...

To:U.N.,I.C.C.'Prosecutor,European Authorities,Embassies of Nations,Interpol,Europol,Others...
Πρός τις Εισαγγελείες[Α.Π.+Εφετών+Πρωτοδικών] Αθηνών+Ε.Υ.Π.+Ελληνική Αστυνομία,κ.α.

          IN SEARCHING FOR CONSPIRACY FOR BLOCKING FUNDAMENTAL
                                   SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN CANCER ILLNESS...
     by Joseph-Christos Kondylakis,Research Scientist,Mikras Asias 13,Agios Nikolaos,Anavissou,
             19013 Attiki,Greece,tel+fax:+30-2291055275, Saturday-29-April-2017

Your references are:
[1] My Fundamental scientific research on “The Unified Theory of Oncology”,since 1983...
[2] My articles in Internet, to be found by using “key” words “Unified Theory Oncology”, “Joseph Christos Kondylakis”, “Ιωσήφ Χρήστος Κονδυλάκης” and in the Internet site(with my user names Thinking,Petition) :
https://semfe.gr/forum/viewforum.php?f=21
[3] Our previous & future communications ,and my past history,E.T.C.,...

      Conspiracy may be defined as “An agreement between two or more persons to engage jointly in an unlawful or criminal act, or an act that is innocent in itself but becomes unlawful when done by the combination of actors.” and note that “conspiracy requires less than attempt. A conspiracy may exist before a crime is actually attempted”
[from Internet site: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/conspiracy ]
      Fundamental Scientific Research may be defined as the Scientific Research that open major new direction(s) of Research in a scientific field(s) of knowledge.

This article is writen because of the following facts:
A. Those information & facts contained into the above mentioned references (are)...
B. Only in USA the “Cancer Industry” is a 124.6 Billions dollars/year Industry and in the Internet site:
 http://www.theorganicpreppe[…]on-dollar-industry-12092013 is asked the following question “If you had a business selling something that made you well over a hundred billion dollars per year, would you take steps to eradicate the need for your business? Or would you make every effort for that money continue rolling in?...”
C. The International Dictatorship on the Gentiles(Not jews) which control the World Economy,the Mass Communications Media, the major International Secret Societies,major Politicians & Others...
D. The following scientific facts:
(1) There is No major progress in the published Cancer research for the last 70 years , although huge Billions of dollars have been given to Cancer research ,and although perhaps more difficult scientific fields as the numbers theory,theoretical high energy physics,theoretical nuclear physics,quantun-general relativity physics,space travelling studies have much progressed with much less money allocated to them...
(2) Because of the complexities of the living beings and particularly for Real progress in the Cancer scientific research a Fundamental Unified Theory of Oncology is mandatory required to Guide in accelarating & systematic way the applied oncological scientific research...This theory was first created in 1983 by Joseph-Christos Kondylakis ,BUT then HUGE Barriers is put to its creator...(f.e. Study our relevant communications and the above mentioned References (are)... )
This author think that a common way that possibly the in searching international conspiracy may be applied is by using Media & Journals Control & “brain washing” & psychological motivation(s) to its actors in the decision(s) area(s),in additional to usual ways a Conspiracy may be applied,E.T.C.,...

Rating
0
Last discussed by EEA
May 02, 2017 03:57 PM
+

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.

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).

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).

“No epidemiologic studies on children are available” yet, in the EEA’s own words (mirroring those of ICNIRP [3]), “children could be particularly vulnerable to radiofrequency [RF] EMF” (1). In other words: relevant organs of the EU have not expedited such research, and encouraged constituent member environmental and public health authorities to pursue such research, as a matter of priority. One has to wonder why, 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).

I look forward to your considered 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

Rating
0
Last discussed by EEA
May 02, 2017 02:48 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 28, 2017 09:33 AM
 
Loading