Post Conference Addition
of 2
Transcript of Post Conference Addition
-
7/31/2019 Post Conference Addition
1/2
Strasbourg,November21,2011
TO:CommissionerJohnDALLI,HealthandConsumerPolicyCC:CommissionerJanezPotonik,Environment
CommissionerMireGeoghegan-Quinn,Research,InnovationandScience.
Ref:CallforTransparent,ImpartialandPluralistExpertAssessmentonhealthrisksofnon-
ionizingelectromagneticfields(EMF)
RemainingquestionsafterDGSanco'sscientificconferenceonEMFandhealth,BrusselsNovember16-18,2011.
EsteemedCommissionerDALLI,
As signatories1of the abovementioned callweexpressed our concern about the narrow
rangeofspeakersatDGSancosscientificconferenceonEMFandhealthandpointedout
thatanimbalancedpanelmightignoreorplaydownthefullrangeofplausiblescientificand
empirical evidence of health risks, including IARCs recent classification of RF fields as
possiblycarcinogen.Ourworrywaswell-founded:
- Panelmembersconcludedthereisconsensuswherethereisnot.- DrJamesRubinpresentedaverydismissiveviewofthecausesofElectrosensitivity.- IARCs classification, which is ordinarily considered as an international agreed
scientificjudgement,wasdescribedascontroversial.
- Studiesindicatinganhealthriskwerebarelynotexposed.- Apart from a few notable exceptions, the scientific debatewas nourished by the
audience which had limited ability and possibilities to explore the issues and to
exposeitsviewpoints.
- MEPRivasiandseveralvoicesfromtheaudienceexpressedtheirastonishmentoverthe absence of a number of key researchers, all prominent scientists, who havepublishedscientificarticlesconcludingtherearehealthrisks.
Wearedeeplyconcernedthattheconferencepanelmainlyrepresented onesinglescientific
interpretation2, and that the steeringcommitteewill advice the Commissionaccording to
thispartialdata.Westillare confidentthattheEuropeanCommissionagreesthatpluralism
isnecessaryforrationaldecision-makingandwilldowhatisnecessarytoredressthepresent
1Wereceivecontinuouslyadditionalsignaturestotheletter.Latestsignatures:TheInternationalCommissionforElectromagnetic
Safety(ICEMS),CampaignforRadiationFreeSchool(USA),DonMaischPhDAustralia,MDSigurdNes,Norway.
2TheimpartialityofICNIRPrelatedscientistshasfurthermorebeenrepeatedlyquestionedbyseveralstakeholders,amongthemMEPChristelSchaldemosehttp://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=WQ&reference=P-2009-1843&language=EN
-
7/31/2019 Post Conference Addition
2/2
biasedsituationthatisagainsttheEuropeanCommissionsownstandardsonimpartiality.
Therefore we address the following questions that are directly related to the Call for
impartialriskassessmentandthatremainwithoutanansweraftertheconference:
1. WhenwilltheCommissioninviteandlistentothescientistsrepresentingtheothermainscientificjudgementofthewellknowncontroversyonEMFhealthrisksinordertobalancetheviewpointspresentedattheconference?
2. When will representatives from the civil society be invited to share their longexperienceandwell-documentedempiricalinformationinthisarea,asanimportant
democratic complement to the expert assessment as described by the Aarhus
convention?
3. How will the statements of the European Environment Agency, the EuropeanParliamentandtheParliamentaryAssemblyoftheCouncilofEuropebeincludedinto
thedecisionprocess?
We also recall that the signatories asked you to Establish and publish a policy for risk
assessment committees assuring pluralism and transparency and avoiding conflicts of
interestandotherbias.
Weare hoping for aprompt answer considering that statusquo would lead todecisions
based on partial information that might hinder the needed review of the Commissions
recommendations andpostpone the implementationof urgent preventiveandprotective
measures.Inadequatedecisionsmightresultinhighpublichealthcostsaswholepopulations
arecurrentlyexposedtounprecedentedandgrowinglevelsofEMFradiation.
SincerelyYours,
TheboardoftheInternationalEMFAlliance(IEMFA)
Contactpersons:
KerstinStenberg,IEMFA [email protected]
AlexSwinkels,IEMFA [email protected]
IEMFA,c/oStenberg,25rueSteOdile,FR-67530Boersch,FRANCE
www.iemfa.org
