ANTHONY STEELE5
NORTHUMBRIA POLICE INVESTIGATION INTO THE ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES OF GATESHEAD COUNCIL - THEIR EMPLOYER - A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment
https://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=17994Author(s): Parliamentary Assembly
Origin - Text adopted by the Standing Committee, acting on behalf of the Assembly, on 27 May 2011 (see Doc. 12608, report of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, rapporteur: Mr Huss).
1. The Parliamentary Assembly has repeatedly stressed the importance of states’ commitment to preserving the environment and environmental health, as set out in many charters, conventions, declarations and protocols since the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment and the Stockholm Declaration (Stockholm, 1972). The Assembly refers to its past work in this field, namely Recommendation 1863 (2009) on environment and health: better prevention of environment-related health hazards, Recommendation 1947 (2010) on noise and light pollution, and more generally, Recommendation 1885 (2009) on drafting an additional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the right to a healthy environment and Recommendation 1430 (1999) on access to information, public participation in environmental decision-making and access to justice – implementation of the Ǻrhus Convention.
2. The potential health effects of the very low frequency of electromagnetic fields surrounding power lines and electrical devices are the subject of ongoing research and a significant amount of public debate. According to the World Health Organization, electromagnetic fields of all frequencies represent one of the most common and fastest growing environmental influences, about which anxiety and speculation are spreading. All populations are now exposed in varying degrees to electromagnetic fields, the levels of which will continue to increase as technology advances.
3. Mobile telephony has become commonplace around the world. This wireless technology relies upon an extensive network of fixed antennae, or base stations, relaying information with radio-frequency signals. Over 1.4 million base stations exist worldwide and the number is increasing significantly with the introduction of third generation technology. Other wireless networks that allow high-speed Internet access and services, such as wireless local area networks, are also increasingly common in homes, offices and many public areas (airports, schools, residential and urban areas). As the number of base stations and local wireless networks increases, so does the radio-frequency exposure of the population.
4. While electrical and electromagnetic fields in certain frequency bands have wholly beneficial effects which are applied in medicine, other non-ionising frequencies, whether from extremely low frequencies, power lines or certain high frequency waves used in the fields of radar, telecommunications and mobile telephony, appear to have more or less potentially harmful, non-thermal, biological effects on plants, insects and animals as well as the human body, even when exposed to levels that are below the official threshold values.
5. As regards standards or threshold values for emissions of electromagnetic fields of all types and frequencies, the Assembly strongly recommends that the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principle is applied, covering both the so-called thermal effects and the athermic or biological effects of electromagnetic emissions or radiation. Moreover, the precautionary principle should be applied when scientific evaluation does not allow the risk to be determined with sufficient certainty. Given the context of growing exposure of the population, in particular that of vulnerable groups such as young people and children, there could be extremely high human and economic costs if early warnings are neglected.
6. The Assembly regrets that, despite calls for the respect of the precautionary principle and despite all the recommendations, declarations and a number of statutory and legislative advances, there is still a lack of reaction to known or emerging environmental and health risks and virtually systematic delays in adopting and implementing effective preventive measures. Waiting for high levels of scientific and clinical proof before taking action to prevent well-known risks can lead to very high health and economic costs, as was the case with asbestos, leaded petrol and tobacco.
7. Moreover, the Assembly notes that the problem of electromagnetic fields or waves and their potential consequences for the environment and health has clear parallels with other current issues, such as the licensing of medication, chemicals, pesticides, heavy metals or genetically modified organisms. It therefore highlights that the issue of independence and credibility of scientific expertise is crucial to accomplish a transparent and balanced assessment of potential negative impacts on the environment and human health.
8. In light of the above considerations, the Assembly recommends that the member states of the Council of Europe:
8.1. in general terms:
8.1.1. take all reasonable measures to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields, especially to radio frequencies from mobile phones, and particularly the exposure to children and young people who seem to be most at risk from head tumours;
8.1.2. reconsider the scientific basis for the present standards on exposure to electromagnetic fields set by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection, which have serious limitations, and apply ALARA principles, covering both thermal effects and the athermic or biological effects of electromagnetic emissions or radiation;
8.1.3. put in place information and awareness-raising campaigns on the risks of potentially harmful long-term biological effects on the environment and on human health, especially targeting children, teenagers and young people of reproductive age;
8.1.4. pay particular attention to “electrosensitive” people who suffer from a syndrome of intolerance to electromagnetic fields and introduce special measures to protect them, including the creation of wave-free areas not covered by the wireless network;
8.1.5. in order to reduce costs, save energy, and protect the environment and human health, step up research on new types of antenna, mobile phone and DECT-type device, and encourage research to develop telecommunication based on other technologies which are just as efficient but whose effects are less negative on the environment and health;
8.2. concerning the private use of mobile phones, DECT wireless phones, WiFi, WLAN and WIMAX for computers and other wireless devices such as baby monitors:
8.2.1. set preventive thresholds for levels of long-term exposure to microwaves in all indoor areas, in accordance with the precautionary principle, not exceeding 0.6 volts per metre, and in the medium term to reduce it to 0.2 volts per metre;
8.2.2. undertake appropriate risk-assessment procedures for all new types of device prior to licensing;
8.2.3. introduce clear labelling indicating the presence of microwaves or electromagnetic fields, the transmitting power or the specific absorption rate (SAR) of the device and any health risks connected with its use;
8.2.4. raise awareness on potential health risks of DECT wireless telephones, baby monitors and other domestic appliances which emit continuous pulse waves, if all electrical equipment is left permanently on standby, and recommend the use of wired, fixed telephones at home or, failing that, models which do not permanently emit pulse waves;
8.3. concerning the protection of children:
8.3.1. develop within different ministries (education, environment and health) targeted information campaigns aimed at teachers, parents and children to alert them to the specific risks of early, ill-considered and prolonged use of mobiles and other devices emitting microwaves;
8.3.2. for children in general, and particularly in schools and classrooms, give preference to wired Internet connections, and strictly regulate the use of mobile phones by schoolchildren on school premises;
8.4. concerning the planning of electric power lines and relay antenna base stations:
8.4.1. introduce town planning measures to keep high-voltage power lines and other electric installations at a safe distance from dwellings;
8.4.2. apply strict safety standards for the health impact of electrical systems in new dwellings;
8.4.3. reduce threshold values for relay antennae in accordance with the ALARA principle and install systems for comprehensive and continuous monitoring of all antennae;
8.4.4. determine the sites of any new GSM, UMTS, WiFi or WIMAX antennae not solely according to the operators’ interests but in consultation with local and regional government authorities, local residents and associations of concerned citizens;
8.5. concerning risk assessment and precautions:
8.5.1. make risk assessment more prevention oriented;
8.5.2. improve risk-assessment standards and quality by creating a standard risk scale, making the indication of the risk level mandatory, commissioning several risk hypotheses to be studied and considering compatibility with real-life conditions;
8.5.3. pay heed to and protect “early warning” scientists;
8.5.4. formulate a human-rights-oriented definition of the precautionary and ALARA principles;
8.5.5. increase public funding of independent research, in particular through grants from industry and taxation of products that are the subject of public research studies to evaluate health risks;
8.5.6. create independent commissions for the allocation of public funds;
8.5.7. make the transparency of lobby groups mandatory;
8.5.8. promote pluralist and contradictory debates between all stakeholders, including civil society (Ǻrhus Convention).
Energy and Climate Change Committee Written evidence submitted by Ann Gore (SMR117)
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmenergy/161/161vw102.htm
1. I am an individual, who has recently become concerned about the wification of our cities and of our countryside, as it is becoming clear I have no control over my exposure and absorption of the radio frequencies and of ever increasing EMF exposure. Smart meters are a significant part of this, and I have been struck by the ever gathering advice and representations being made by important agencies around the world in connection with this
2. These agencies/authors include, The American Environmental Academy, April 2012, The Bioinitiative Report of 2012 “The European Environmental Agency Jan 2013. Also the US Government Accountability Office July 2012, has also called for a revision of the safety standards. (see links listed below). There is also growing pressure for the ICNIRP guidelines, to be modified for greater safety.
3. In the US, class actions are underway against smart meters because of the health problems they have caused. France has banned wifi in schools. And there is an acknowledgement by the Council of the Europe Parliamentary Assembly resolution 1815 (2011) of the need:
“to ensure there are public places free from Electro-pollution in line with the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly: resolution 1815 (2011) “The assembly recommends that the member states of the Council of Europe: 8.1 In general terms: 8.1.1. take all reasonable measures to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields especially to radio frequencies from mobile phones, particularly the exposure of children and young people who seem to be most at risk from head tumours. 8.1.4. pay particular attention to “electro-sensitive” people who suffer from an intolerance to electromagnetic fields and introduce special measures to protect them, including the creation of wave-free areas not covered by the wireless network”
4. The ES-UK society acts as a collector of information on this subject and is a registered charity which keeps an active log of symptoms and responses from hundreds of people in the UK and around the world. I have been informed by the society that there has recently been an increase in contacts from the public, raising the issue of their health response to wifi. Electro-sensitivity has increased since the introduction of wifi in 2000, and everyone thinks they will be immune.
5. Insurance companies tend to exclude cover for damage due to electro-magnetic fields, perhaps they understand the science. In a recent letter to my MP, the Dept. of Health likened the category of EMFs, being a possible 2B carcinogen, as the same risk as coffee. I found this disingenuous, as it totally fails to recognise the individuals ability to control their intake. I ingest very little coffee, I am forced to ingest far more EMF’s than I want to, especially from wifi. And as there are already so many different sources, from different companies and agencies, responsibility for any damage to health, may fall into the trap currently experienced by many sufferers from asbestosis (no-one seems to be liable if it can be shown, that exposure was probably due to working for more than one company.)
6. It is extremely important to take into account the likely exposure to wifi and mobile phones/masts for any person in a 24 hour period, as their homes, work areas and places of leisure are all gradually completely wified and mobile phone mast covered, without an opt out provision, and to act seriously in line with a precautionary principle. Wifi from smart meters should not be looked at in isolation. We are enduring an ever increasing massive experiment on our environment. (Issues re; how street and home architecture might act as an antennae, as not been looked out). Public consent gained by keeping the public ignorant is not true consent.
7. Any plans must recognise the possible ill-health effects, and make absolutely clear how people are going to be protected. Are own GPs have little training in this area. I was born in the 1950’s and have lived through the long long denial of smoking causing lung cancer, and the time it took to recognise the dangers of thalidomide, or asbestosis or fuel emissions. I believe that electro-pollution saturation will put all of these well into the shade, and the fact that I have recently become aware of some of the symptoms, means that we are probably at a turning point from safe-ish to unsafe use. (When I recently spoke with my MP on this issue I discovered I was the second person to do so.) This is a pollutant, and as it increases more and more people will be affected.
8) This is an edited version of a letter I have already sent into my local council.
www.es-uk.info Look at Ill Health from WI-FI : Ill Health from Wireless Smart Meters: My Ill Health from smart meters (This has some information on environment.) Also look at the Dec 2012 Newsletter.
ES-UK is a registered charity which keeps an active log of symptoms and responses from hundreds of people in the UK and around the world. Recently there has been an increase in contacts from the public, raising the issue of their health response to wifi. This is very much a growing problem.
Council of Europe:
http://assembly.coe.int/mainf.asp?link=/documents/adoptedtext/ta11/eres1815.htm
www.bioinitiative.org
The American Environmental Academy, (the first agency to recognise the Gulf War Syndrome.)
http://aaemonline.org/pressadvisoryemf.pdf
US:Government Accountability Office
http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592901.pdf
http://www.eea.europa.eu/pressroom/newsreleases/the-cost-of-ignoring-the
http://www.radiationresearch.org/
http://wifiinschools.org.uk/resources/safeschools2012.pdf
http://ssita.org.uk/
February 2013
