Electromagnetic Sense Ireland

We were saddened to hear of the death of Con Colbert, who died on 31st March 2021.

Con was a founding member of Irish Electromagnetic Radiation Victims Network (IERVN) which was set up in 1999, a group who came together due to all suffering ill health effects from EMF radiation from mobile phone masts or other sources

For many years, Con was active in helping and offering support to fellow sufferers and also in raising awareness of this issue whenever and wherever he could, contacting and trying to educate politicians, doctors and health professionals.

Con was usually the first port of call for people who had discovered their ill health and symptoms were due to EMF radiation, many not knowing where to turn and feeling completely alone. Somehow people found Con – he offered help, support, encouragement and kindness, and would put fellow sufferers in contact with each other.

He was the group’s spokesperson at two Oireachtas Committee meetings on the Health Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation in 2006 and 2012.

He was involved with, and liaised with the Irish Doctors Environmental Association who gave public presentations on the dangers of EMF Radiation.

Con was a gentleman.

We offer our sincere condolences to his family.

Ar dheis Dé go raibh a anam

SOURCE ARTICLE: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR SCIENCES

by David Schuermann and Meike Mevissen

Abstract: Concomitant with the ever-expanding use of electrical appliances and mobile communication systems, public and occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) in the extremely-low-frequency and radiofrequency range has become a widely debated environmental risk factor for health.

Radiofrequency (RF) EMF and extremely-low-frequency (ELF) MF have been classified as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).

The production of reactive oxygen species (ROS), potentially leading to cellular or systemic oxidative stress, was frequently found to be influenced by EMF exposure in animals and cells.

In this review, we summarize key experimental findings on oxidative stress related to EMF exposure from animal and cell studies of the last decade.

The observations are discussed in the context of molecular mechanisms and functionalities relevant to health such as neurological function, genome stability, immune response, and reproduction.

Most animal and many cell studies showed increased oxidative stress caused by RF-EMF and ELF-MF. In order to estimate the risk for human health by manmade exposure, experimental studies in humans and epidemiological studies need to be considered as well.

Open access article. https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/22/7/3772/htm

Keywords: oxidative stress; ROS; electromagnetic field; extremely low frequency; radiofrequency; environment and public health; environmental exposure; animal study; cultured cells

SOURCE ARTICLE – Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D. -SAFER EMR

FULL ARTICLE (Please share from here)  https://www.saferemr.com/2021/03/expert-report-by-former-us-government.html?fbclid=IwAR2ct0RonulQpDUaFdsOXtNQ2a-fF-vUJF1igResI60enT2KaDh7HE3iZTk

Letter and petition will be delivered to Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus in April

PETITION TO ACCOMPANY LETTER BELOW. PLEASE SIGN AND SHARE WIDELY https://www.change.org/p/letter-to-the-who-for-lower-emf-exposure

To: Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus,

Director-General of the World Health Organization  (WHO)

International Public call for Protection from

Non-ionizing Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposure

We write as experts in bioelectromagnetics with grave concerns about the public health and environmental impacts of exponentially increasing use of wireless radiating devices relying on radiofrequencey (RF) and extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic field (EMF) throughout the world today.  As the authors of more than a thousand relevant peer-reviewed publications on this topic and concerned citizens, we urge the WHO to convene an independent global Commission on wireless radiation and health, and recommend biologically-based EMF exposure limits.

The safety standards used for personal wireless devices such as smart telephones were originally formulated back in 1970’s before the advent of personal wireless devices when less than 0.1% of the civilian population lived close to RF transmitters of that period such as broadcast and TV antennas. Use of RF-radiating antennas on or close to an individual’s body came decades later with The development of the mobile telephones in 1990’s.

Today in the U.S., Australia, and much of the world, there are more phone numbers than people and over 90% of the world population is regularly exposed to unmeasured levels of RF radiation close to the body. For the first time in human history the rapidly developing  brains of young children      are irradiated on a regular basis for many hours a day. This exposure to  RF radiation is likely to increase even further when the space-based internet from low orbit satellites is completely rolled out in the next 2-3 years.

Even though important consideration was originally given to all likely users of EMF  including children, women and smaller adults     in 1970s [1], safety compliance testing of      new wireless devices has now been focused on models of large male adults using a head size of army recruits of weight 100 kg to determine the coupled electromagnetic energy. Several reports in the peer-reviewed scientific literature have shown a considerably higher incidence of coupled electromagnetic energy (EME) being deposited in the brains of  children, smaller adults and  women because of a closer placement of the cell phone radiating antenna to the brain [2,3] for these users.

Lastly, several long-term exposure studies conducted with laboratory animals have shown higher rates of cancer, DNA and other organ damage  for EMF-exposed animals as compared to those that were not exposed [4-6].

Many expert scientists around the world have done research documenting significant biological      and environmental effects of these man-made electromagnetic signals that can lead to pathological consequences and other diseases. These diseases include cancer and other risks that have been described in many reports [see publications a – g below] ;  also additional reports such as the Bioinitiative Report, the REFLEX Project Report, the Interphone Project Report, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) Report [5,6], the Ramazzini Report, as well as results in high quality studies by scientists without conflicts of interest  [7] .      These effects can occur at  levels well below the existing recommended RF-EMF exposure limits recommended by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and endorsed by the WHO EMF project to avoid acute short-term heating.  Several expert organizations have recently documented the fact that the ICNIRP constitutes  a self-appointed, self-monitored group that only represents a minority scientific viewpoint.

Most recently, an expert panel advising the Swiss government concluded that  low levels of EMF cause serious health problems, especially for children, the elderly, and those with existing diseases (https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10122280631517/Newsletter_BERENIS_Special_Issue_January_2021.pdf.) Following the outdated guidelines of ICNIRP could have grave consequences for humanity and the environment. [5-7].

In June 2001, the WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classiffied extremely-low frequency magnetic fields as a Group 2B, possible human carcinogen that increases risk of childhood leukemia. Static/ELF magnetic fields are emitted by ubiquitous electrical appliances and powerlines. Low intensity static/ELF –EMF has been reported to cause biological effects that could be detrimental to health, e.g., oxidative stress, genetic, and neurological changes [8-10]. In addition, man made static/ELF-EMF could affect wildlife and possibly survival of many species.

In May 2011, the WHO/IARC classified all radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B).

Several important appeals, resolutions and other documents were issued in the last few years by the scientific community warning public health authorities about the necessary reduction on EMF exposure limits and its associated risks. These include the Freiburg Appeal, the Salzburg Resolution, the Catania Resolution, the Benevento Resolution, the Venice Resolution, the Porto Alegre Resolution, the Copenhagen Resolution, American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations, Seletun Scientific Statement,  International EMF Scientist Appeal , 5G Appeal, 2020 Consensus Statement of UK and International Medical and Scientific Experts and Practitioners on Health Effects of Non-Ionising Radiation (NIR), as well as many other important documents.

We concur that the present guidelines are obsolete and must be revised based on new research data.   We advocate the prompt adoption of the Precautionary Principle in all applications of these technologies and services.

Therefore, the undersigned ask for the following actions from the WHO :

• Recommendations to the health authorities of all countries to adopt reduced EMF exposure limits considering the biological effects due to low-level and long-term exposures;
• Promote awareness, considering sustainability and leading a program to reduce EMF exposures, including broad disclosure of the health risks associated with EMF;
• For wireless devices operated close to the head or body, the certification process must consider a distance compatible with realistic practices of the user population;

a.)National testing of 677 cell phones by ANFR France has revealed that the cell phones presently on the market exceed the safety limits of ICNIRP used in Europe by factors as large as 1.6-3.7 ; and by factors as large as eleven used by the FCC in U.S.A. [11,12].

b.) Such high rates of microwave absorption measured by ANFR in France have previously been reported to cause elevation of temperature in excess of 1 degree centigrade for parts of the brain close to radiating antennas of cell phones [13].

• Broad recommendation to the population of all countries to use the Precautionary Principle to reduce EMF exposure, and encourage the use of wired devices (e.g., connected via cables, such as ethernet or optical fiber) ;
• Broad recommendation to the population of all countries :
• when talking on the mobile phone, make only short or essential calls; try to hold it at least one inch away from the head; and use of hands-free kits, headphones and text messages;
• children and other sensitive and vulnerable people should avoid the use of mobile phones and other wireless devices.
• The WHO EMF project needs to be reconstituted with a balanced panel of experts who have no conflicts of interest. The current panel constitutes members from ICNIRP who ignore evidence of bio-effects other than acute heating.

 Peer-reviewed publications

[1] O.P. Gandhi, L.L. Morgan et al.  “Exposure Limits: The underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children”, Electrom Biol Med, 31(1):34-51, 2012. doi: 10.3109/15368378.2011.622827.

[2] O.P.Gandhi, G.Lazzi and C.M.Furse, “Electromagnetic Absorption in the Human Head and Neck for Mobile Telephones at 835 and 1900 MHz”, IEEE Trans.MTT, vol.44 (10), pp.1884-1897, 1996.

[3] A.A.de Salles, G.Bulla and C.E.F.Rodriguez,  “Electromagnetic Absorption in the Head of Adults and Children due to Mobile phone operation close to the Head”, Electromagn.Biol.Med.,  vol. 25(4), pp.349-360, 2006.

[4] C.K. Chou, A.W. Guy et al.  “Long–term low-level microwave irradiation of rats”, Bioelectromagnetics, 13(6):469-496, 1992. doi :10.1002/bem.2250130605.

[5]  S.L. Smith-Roe et al. “Evaluation of the genotoxicity of cell phone radiofrequency radiation in male and female rats and mice following subchronic exposure”,  Environ Mol Mutagen, 61(2):276-290, 2020. doi: 10.1002/em.22343.

[6] National Toxicology Program. NTP Technical Report on the  Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of GSM- and CDMA-Modulated Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation at 900 MHz in Hsd :Sprague Dawley SD Rats (Whole-Body Exposure), NTP  TR 595. 2018. Downloaded on 02/01/2021: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/lt_rpts/tr595_508.pdf

[7] L. Hardell. “World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health – a hard nut to crack (Review) “. Int J Oncol, 51(2):405-13, 2017. doi: 10.3892/ijo.2017.4046.

[8] H. Lai, “Exposure to static and extremely-low frequency electromagnetic fields and cellular free radicals. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 38:231-248, 2019.

[9] H.  Lai , “Genetic effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields”. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine DOI: 10.1080/15368378.2021.1881866, 2021.

[10] H. Lai, Research summary- ELF-EMF/Static field neurological effects abstracts. In Sage, C and Carpenter, D. (eds) BioInitiative Report: “A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF) “, https://bioinitiative.org, Updated 2020.

[11] Report provided by Dr. Marc Arazi of Phonegate Alerte, Paris,  France:

https://data.anfr.fr/anfr/visualisation?id=ad8014ec-f631-450e-a259-799188714ef9

[12] O.P.Gandhi, “ Microwave Emissions from Cell Phones  Exceed Safety Limits in Europe and the U.S. When Touching the Body”, IEEE ACCESS, vol.7 pp.47050-47052, 2019.

[13] Q-X.Li and O.P.Gandhi, “ Thermal Implications of the New Relaxed IEEE RF Safety Standard  for Head Exposures to Cellular Telephones at 835 and 1900 MHz”, IEEE Trans. MTT vol. 54 (7), pp.3146-3154, 2006.

Additional  information can also be obtained from  the following references [a-i]

[a] P. Bandara,  D. Carpenter.  “Planetary electromagnetic pollution: it is time to assess its impact“. Lancet Planet Health, 2(12):e512-e514, 2018. doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(18)30221-3.

[b] D. Belpomme, L. Hardell, et al. “Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An international perspective“. Environ Pollut, 242(Pt A):643-658, 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.07.019.

[c] L. Hardell and M. Carlberg,  “Lost opportunities for cancer prevention: historical evidence on early warnings with emphasis on radiofrequency radiation”, Rev Environ Health, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2020-0168.

[d]   C. Fernández, A.A. de Salles, M.E. Sears, R.D. Morris, D.L. Davis, “Absorption of wireless radiation in the child versus adult brain and eye from cell phone conversation or virtual reality“, Environmental Research, Volume 167, Pages 694-699, 2018, ISSN 0013-9351, doi:0.1016/j.envres.2018.05.013.

[e] R. Kostoff, P. Heroux, et al.  “Adverse health effects of 5G mobile networking technology under real-life conditions“, Toxicol Lett, 323:35-40, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2020.01.020

[f ] A.B. Miller, L.L. Morgan, et al. “Cancer epidemiology update, following the 2011 IARC evaluation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (Monograph 102) “, Environ Res, 167:673-683, 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.06.043.

[g] “International Appeal: Scientists call for protection from non-ionizing electromagnetic field exposure“. Eur J Oncol, 20(3-4):180-182, 2015. Downloaded 02/01/2021: https://www.mattioli1885journals.com/index.php/EJOEH/article/view/4971

Signatures –

Experts

• Adilza C. Dode
• Alvaro A. de Salles
• Cindy Sage
• Claudio Poggi
• Claudio R. Fernández
• David Carpenter
• Devra L. Davis
• Don Maisch
• Fiorenzo Marinelli
• Franz Adlkofer
• Francisco de A. Tejo
• Geila R. Vieira
• Henry C. Lai
• Hugo E. Figueroa
• Igor Belyaev
• Joel Moskowitz
• Lennart Hardell
• Livio Giuliani
• Lloyd Morgan
• Magda Havas
• Marc Arazi
• Martin Pall
• Meris Michaels
• Morando Soffritti
• Murray May
• Olle Johansson
• Om P. Gandhi
• Paul Héroux
• Priyanka Bandara
• Rodolfo Touzet
• Victor Leach
• Yael Stein

Supporters

• Alberto Atz
• Aline Gonçalves Cassimiro de Vasconcelos
• Ana Maria Daitx Valls Atz
• Brian Stein
• Camilla Rees
• Carlos Eduardo C. Abrahão
• Cece Doucette
• Eileen O’Connor
• Elisabeth Kelley
• Ellen Marks
• Eugênio Lopes
• Fabiano Lauser Tim
• José Carlos Virtuoso
• Mariléia Giassi Zanette
• Ormy Hütner Junior
• Silvia Calbo Aroca

PETITION TO ACCOMPANY LETTER. PLEASE SIGN AND SHARE WIDELY

https://www.change.org/p/letter-to-the-who-for-lower-emf-exposure

Source Article https://www.lexology.com

Is Wi-Fi sickness a disability? The California Court of Appeal just said it is in Brown v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2d Dist., Div. Eight), Case No. B294240. In a case that tests the limits of California’s liberal pleading standard, the appellate court green-lighted a claim of a woman who asserted a disability of “electromagnetic hypersensitivity,” or, as the concurring justice put it, “Wi-Fi sickness.”

The trial court had sustained a demurrer, granting judgment for the employer, a school district. The appellate court revived the plaintiff’s claim for failure to provide a reasonable accommodation.

The court acknowledged that it is likely the first to recognize Wi-Fi sickness as a disability under laws against discrimination. In fact, the court discussed contrary federal court authority, distinguishing those cases by concluding that the definition of “disability” in California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act is broader than in the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Apart from the holding that Wi-Fi sickness is a disability under FEHA, California employers should take note of the facts alleged about the failure to provide a reasonable accommodation.

After the school district installed a new Wi-Fi system, the plaintiff teacher complained of headaches and other symptoms caused by exposure to the electromagnetic waves. The school district initially tried to accommodate the teacher by turning off the Wi-Fi in her classroom and an adjacent one. The teacher said that her symptoms persisted and asked for additional accommodations. By that point, the school district’s consultant had reported that the Wi-Fi and radio frequencies at the school “evidenced a safe and non-hazardous working environment.” Based on that report, the school district did not grant any further accommodation, and the teacher sued.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Wiley expressed reluctance “about giving any sort of green light to

this unprecedented and unorthodox disability claim.” But that’s exactly what the court did.

The decision serves as a reminder of just how easy it is to survive a pleading challenge in California.

Details of the  Case: https://scholar.google.co.uk

“WE ARE REDUCING THE DIRECT AND PASSIVE EXPOSURE TO NON-IONISING RADIATION EMITTED FROM CELL-PHONES AND Wi-Fi AT THE ARCHBISHOP MAKARIOS III HOSPITAL – WE ARE PROTECTING THE CHILDREN”

The Directorate and doctors of Archbishop Makarios III Hospital, taking into account the scientific documentation on the impact of wireless communication on children, and the concerns of the medical world, decided to implement the above project, adopting the Precautionary Principle.

This initiative, that has started from the Pediatric Intensive Therapy Unit (PITU), comprises a first step towards “the development of the Archbishop Makarios III Hospital as an international model/pioneer hospital that applies the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE, reducing the exposure of children to the radiation of wireless communication”

Environmental Health Trust:

Video Release: Archbishop Makarios III Hospital, Cyprus Reduces Wi-Fi and Wireless in Pediatric and Neonatal Units

Original Article Children’s Health Defence

After the FCC last month found no evidence of harm caused by wireless technology, CHD and other groups sued — and included 11,000 pages of evidence refuting the FCC’s conclusion.

 

The Opening Brief was filed by petitioners on July 29, 2020. The FCC filed its brief on Sept. 22, 2020; and the petitioners filed their Reply Brief on Oct. 21, 2020.

The court has ordered that in the oral arguments scheduled for Jan. 25, only one attorney will present the case for all the petitioners. It allocated 10 minutes for oral arguments for the petitioners as well as for the FCC.

EHT and CHD have agreed to have CHD’s attorney, Scott McCullough, former Assistant Texas Attorney General and a seasoned telecom and administrative law attorney, present the petitioners’ joint argument.

The three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that presides over the case includes the Honorable Karen Henderson, Patricia Millett and Robert Wilkins.

EHT is represented by attorney Edward B. Myers, who intervened in the successful case against the FCC with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and several Native American tribes when the court upheld the relevance of NEPA in FCC proceedings.

The NRDC filed an amicus brief in the case. An amicus brief was also filed by the Building Biology Institute, and by an executive from the telecom industry, Joe Sandri. Sandri’s brief included a statement of Dr. Linda Birenbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental and Health Services (NIEHS) from 2009-2019, stating that the evidence of carcinogenic effects of wireless technology has been established.

The evidence referenced in the case shows profound harmful effects and widespread sickness from wireless technology. The evidence (called the “Joint Appendix”) was recently filed and includes 11,000 pages of scientific and human evidence, yet, it is only the tip of the iceberg.

In this type of case only evidence that was submitted to the FCC’s docket can be used. There s much evidence that wasn’t submitted.

The Joint Appendix contains 440 documents. The table of contents alone is 54 pages. Because of the sheer volume of evidence, it had to be divided into 27 volumes. The court requires seven sets of the Joint Appendix, and therefore, 189 binders each containing approximately 500 pages were shipped to the court. The printing and shipping costs for the Joint Appendix amounted to more than $15,000.

The Joint Appendix includes references to thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies showing DNA damage, reproductive harm, neurological effects such as ADHD, and radiation sickness, which seems to be the most widespread manifestation of wireless harms.

The evidence shows effects on the brain, including impaired blood flow and damage to the blood-brain barrier, cognitive and memory problems and effects on sleep, melatonin production and mitochondrial damage. Causal mechanism of harm was also established. Oxidative Stress, a mechanism of harm that can lead to cancer, non-cancer conditions and DNA damage, was found in 203 out of 225 studies.

Unlike industry statements, both the majority of the studies and the weight of the evidence leave no doubt that the harms are proven.

The Joint Appendix also includes reports of leading expert scientists such as the BioInitiative Report; opinions of medical associations such as the California Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics; appeals of leading expert scientists; U.S. government agencies’ reports (U.S. Access Board, NIBS, the Department of Interior, U.S. Navy, the Military, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; government studies including the recent National Toxicology Program (NTP), a $30 million study that found clear evidence of cancer and DNA damage; as well as acknowledgement of harm by U.S. government agencies and scientists contradicting the FCC position.

In December 2020, the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NAS) issued a report determining that the most likely cause of the symptoms suffered by the U.S. diplomats in Cuba and China is Radio-Frequency (wireless) weapons. The NAS was appointed by the Department of State. The report references much of the same evidence filed in the case against the FCC.

The NAS invited Prof. Beatrice Golomb, M.D., Ph.D., to present to the committee. Golomb’s 2018 paper was the first to show that pulsed RF is the most likely explanation for the diplomats’ symptoms. She pointed out the diplomats likely suffer from the same condition experienced by growing segments of the population from wireless technology known as radiation sickness/ microwave sickness/ electrosensitivity. Golomb’s paper was referenced in the case.

Hundreds of testimonials of people who have become sick like the diplomats and statements of doctors were filed to the FCC’s docket. The petitioners argued that the FCC guidelines that deny sickness are being used to deny accommodation for the injured, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Nevertheless, the FCC denied the evidence, the sickness and did not address the accommodation issue. For those who have been injured this case has profound consequences.

“Environmental Health Trust has worked for over a decade to protect the public from radiofrequency radiation, testified to Congress and published critical research on why children are more vulnerable,” said Devra Davis Ph.D., MPH, president and founder of Environmental Health Trust. “The FCC has ignored our extensive submissions to the FCC over the years which clearly document harm. As the legacies of lead, asbestos, and tobacco teach us, this issue deserves the immediate attention of our federal government in order to protect our children’s healthy future.”

“This is a landmark case and it is of the utmost importance to the Children’s Health Defense which works relentlessly to eliminate the epidemic of sickness in children,” said the organization’s chairman, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “The American public has been poorly served by the FCC. The FCC’s guidelines are decades-old and are based on scientific assumptions that were proven false. Its failure and disregard of public health is evident in the growing and widespread conditions involving brain damage, learning disabilities, and a host of complex neurological syndromes.”

Kennedy added: “The overwhelming experimental and human evidence which the FCC has ignored leaves no doubt that wireless technology is a major contributory factor to this epidemic. The FCC has shown that its chief interest is protecting the telecom industry and maximizing its profits, and its position as put forward in its brief is simply indefensible.”

The oral arguments are the final stage of this case. After the hearing, all that will be left is to wait for the court’s decision, said Dafna Tachover, director of CHD’s Stop 5G and Wireless Harms Project, who has initiated and led the case for CHD. “We have invested significant resources in this case and all of us worked very hard for the past 13 months. We believe that we have a strong case. Now it is up to the court. As William Wilberforce, who fought slavery said, ‘You may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again that you didn’t know.’”

Link to Joint Appendix 27 volumes:

Volume 1; Volume 2; Volume 3; Volume 4

Volume 5; Volume 6; Volume 7; Volume 8

Volume 9; Volume 10; Volume 11; Volume 12

Volume 13; Volume 14; Volume 15 ; Volume 16

Volume 17; Volume 18; Volume 19; Volume 20

Volume 21; Volume 22; Volume 23; Volume 24

Volume 25; Volume 26; Volume 27

How to access the oral arguments online

The oral arguments are Jan. 25 9:30 a.m. EST, however according to the schedule, 2 other cases are scheduled for the same time and they will be heard ahead of our case. Hence, most likely, our oral arguments will not start before 10:20 a.m. EST.

You can listen to the hearing here.

TO READ ORIGINAL ARTICLE AND MORE INFORMATION PLEASE SEE AND SUPPORT CHILDREN’S HEALTH DEFENSE

SOURCE : BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL https://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2021/01/04/jech-2019-213595.full

Please share this information from the source article links above.

Facebook are blocking this website.

Holland – Administrative judge acknowledges increased health risks to wireless technology well below exposure limits.

Message from Wilma de Jong:  24 Dec 2020

Lovely people,

With great gratitude I address you the day before Christmas with great news! The administrative judge declared my appeal well-founded [1] . On the basis of my notice of appeal [2] and the hearing of October 20, 2020 [3] , the court classified me as an interested party and ruled that increased health risks, when installing an antenna mast approximately 650 meters from my home, cannot be excluded.

This means we can speak of a huge breakthrough since more than two decades ago citizens started asking the courts for attention for the health risks of antenna installations. In other words, the administrative judge has given us citizens back our voice in the radiation debate. A “Christmas present” that I didn’t want to keep from you the day before Christmas.

What does this ruling of the administrative judge mean?
If the law that speaks of this verdict is victorious, this verdict will have a huge impact. This statement means in any case that:

Municipalities must consider the health interests of citizens who are sensitive to radiation in their local antenna policy.
“The health interests of local residents who are sensitive to radiation must also be included in the weighing of interests to be made by the respondent.”

(ECLI ruling: NL: RBGEL: 2020: 6702 [4] , claim 8, with reference (in consideration 4.2.) To the decision on my appeal: ECLI: NL: RBGEL: 2020: 6699 [1] , consideration 4.4.)

The (false) safety claim for exposure limits ICNIRP has been removed.
“In the opinion of the court, considering all arguments, with reference to scientific literature, it cannot be ruled out that even at a field strength lower than 1 V / m, and therefore also in the plaintiff’s case, there will be increased health risks. ”

(ECLI verdict: NL: RBGEL: 2020: 6699 [1] , consideration 4.4.) As you may know, the ICNIRP exposure limits run up to 61 V / m (volts per meter).

From which it follows that:

The national determination of the ICNIRP limits in the intended ‘Amendment to Frequency Decree 2013 to protect public health against radio frequency fields’ [5] is contrary to this ruling.
Even if a fictitious safety margin of a factor of 50 is used, the ICNIRP limits are well above 1 V / m, while the administrative judge has ruled (see 2.) that increased health risks at a field strength below 1 V / m are not excluded. .

In addition, if the ICNIRP limits are set nationally, the municipalities are denied the opportunity to weigh up and promote the health interests of citizens locally (which is also contrary to the decision of the administrative judge, see 1.). After all, if this amendment decision is adopted, municipalities may not deviate locally from the ICNIRP limits by applying lower exposure limits [6] , even if the health interests of citizens demand this.

Recommendations Health Council inadequate

Already during the session on 20 October 2020, the administrative judge, on the basis of the recent report of the EMV Committee of the Health Council [7], came to the conclusion that the Health Council ‘simply does not know’ [8] [9] .

According to the Scientific Council for Government Policy, ignorance indicates ‘uncertain risk problems’ that require precaution [10] . We also find this point of view repeatedly in EU case law on the precautionary principle. [11] Although the Health Council suggests that it recommends precaution with regard to EMF, this is not actually the case.

In the first place, the recommendation of the Health Council to continue to take the ICNIRP exposure limits as a starting point, in view of the scientific and social controversy surrounding these limits, is contrary to precaution. [12] Second, the recommendation to apply the ALARA principle (ALARA is abbreviated from ‘As Low As Reasonably Achievable’) is meaningless, given the extreme height of the field strengths allowed under the ICNIRP limits. As early as 2003, RIVM reported the controversy surrounding this principle, because ALARA can be translated into ‘As Large As Regulators Allow’. [13] The energetic way in which 5G is currently being rolled out nationally as if there were no risks whatsoever is illustrative of not taking protective measures by the government.

Local and national antenna policy must be overhauled
I cannot yet foresee how the verdict will affect at national level. But I do see, as law and truth winning over power politics and technocracy, that antenna policy must be overhauled both locally and nationally. Violations of integrity, such as the Health Council’s conflict of interest with the ICNIRP and the obfuscation (defactualization) of scientific evidence [14] , must be brought to light.

Moral responsibility

I would like to express the wish – also a nice Christmas thought – that the governments and other involved (medical) institutions take not only their legal, but also their moral responsibility as a result of this decision and recognize that there are limits to ignoring or fighting the rights of citizens.

Regardless, I feel great gratitude that my research over the past 4 years and the appeal I was able to write has paid off. I would like to thank everyone who supported me in this.

On Monday December 28 I will be sending a press release to the media. In addition, I will also offer this information, in modified form, in response to the internet consultation (draft regulation) ‘Amendment to Frequency Decree 2013 to protect public health against radiofrequency electromagnetic fields’, so that the government can adjust its decision making accordingly.

I wish you a Merry Christmas. May the light (of consciousness) dissipate the darkness (of ignorance). I would like to continue to make my contribution.

Greetings,
Wilma de Jong

Footnotes :

[1] ECLI verdict: NL: RBGEL: 2020: 6699. https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2020:6699&showbutton=true .

[2] https://stralingsbewust.info/wp-content/uploads/Beroepschrift-WJ-de-Jong-zaaknummer-ARN-19-2184-WABOA-Rechtbank-Arnhem.pdf . For ‘Further explanation and substantiation: https://stralingsbewust.info/wp-content/uploads/Nadere-toelichting-en-onderbouwing-WJ-de-Jong-ARN-19-2184-WABAO-Rechtbank-Arnhem.pdf .

[3] https://stralingsbewust.info/2020/10/27/verslag-van-beroep-wilma-de-jong-bij-de-bestuurswacht-in-arnhem/ .

[4] ECLI verdict: NL: RBGEL: 2020: 6702. https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2020:6702&showbutton=true .

[5] https://www.internetconsultatie.nl/emvbesluit .
See also: https://stralingsbewust.info/2020/12/18/mona-keijzer-wil-discutabele-icnirp-limieten-landelijk-vastreken-en-gemeenten-buitenspel-stellen/ .

[6] ‘In Article 1.4. However, the Environmental Act stipulates that the Environmental Act will withdraw if a specific act provides for an exhaustive regulation in the field of the physical living environment. Such an exhaustive regulation is intended with this amendment decision. This means that local authorities such as provinces, municipalities and water boards will not be able to impose deviating or additional regulations with regard to electromagnetic fields under the Environmental Act. ‘ Article 5.2., Draft scheme. Consultation version ‘Decision to amend the Frequency Decree 2013 in connection with the establishment of national rules for the protection of public health against the electromagnetic fields resulting from the use of frequency space’. (See also article 5.1. Draft scheme.)https://www.internetconsultatie.nl/emvbesluit .

[7] https://www.gezondheidheidsraad.nl/documenten/adviezen/2020/09/02/5g-en-gezondheid .

[8] https://stralingsbewust.info/2020/10/27/verslag-van-beroep-wilma-de-jong-bij-de-bestuurswacht-in-arnhem/

[9] See also: https://stralingsbewust.info/2020/10/11/gezondheidheidsraad-versluiert-stralingsrisicos-chter-moet-burgers-stem-terugvragen/ .

[10] Scientific Council for Government Policy (2008). Uncertain security. Responsibilities around physical safety. Pages 119–120.

[11] Commission Notice on the Precautionary Principle, Section 6.3.1. Proportionality. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/NL/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52000DC0001 .

[12] The Scientific Council for Government Policy writes in its report ‘Uncertain security. Responsibility for physical safety ‘(page 121):
‘ Ambiguous risks arise where scientific or social controversies about risks arise. ‘ Precaution is necessary for ambiguous risks, according to the WRR. Since the ICNIRP limits are controversial, this precaution cannot be based on these limits at the same time.

[13] RIVM (2003). Dealing with risks soberly. Environment and Nature Plan (MNP). RIVM report 2510701047/2003, page 35.

[14] See my appeal: https://stralingsbewust.info/wp-content/uploads/Beroepschrift-WJ-de-Jong-zaaknummer-ARN-19-2184-WABOA-Rechtbank-Arnhem.pdf . For ‘Further explanation and substantiation: https://stralingsbewust.info/wp-content/uploads/Nadere-toelichting-en-onderbouwing-WJ-de-Jong-ARN-19-2184-WABAO-Rechtbank-Arnhem.pdf .