– 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.


A concerned citizen

1. Environment and human health (EEA, 2013)
2. Radiation risk from everyday devices assessed (EEA, 2007)
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

Last discussed by EEA
Apr 25, 2017 08:49 AM
Last workflowed by EEA
Jun 26, 2014 09:10 AM
Last discussed by EEA
Feb 27, 2013 11:47 AM