The European Parliament approved the EMF resolution, prepared by MEP Frédérique Ries
http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/the_european_parliament_approved_the_emf_resolution.pdf

--------

European Parliament resolution of 2 April 2009 on health concerns associated with electromagnetic fields

Here is the text of the European Parliament EMF Resolution as passed.

Elizabeth Kelley, M.A.
Managing Secretariat International Commission For Electromagnetic Safety
Email: info@icems.eu
Web: http://www.icems.eu

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2009-0216+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN

--------

Avoiding potential risks of electromagnetic fields
http://www.next-up.org/parlement_europeen.php#1

Texts adopted: European Parliament resolution on health concerns associated with electromagnetic fields
http://www.next-up.org/parlement_europeen.php#1

--------

Ries Report - but what next?

Having had this response from a Scottish Labour MEP - No problems accepting the Ries Report - but what are they going to do about it?

Smells like those in member governments and the EU Commissioners won't be giving up on their devotion to the industries or the 'Health Protection' place persons. -

"The report recognised the concern about the health effects of EMF and called on the Commission to review the limit values for devices emitting electromagnetic waves. It recognised that there is inadequate data available to be able to make a conclusive scientific statement on the health effects of EMF. It is therefore important to carry out more scientific research and in particular study the effects of EMF at low frequencies and on children and teenagers.

A large majority of MEPs supported this approach because it is important to carry out further scientific research to back up legislative action.

I hope this information is helpful".

Yours sincerely,
Catherine Stihler MEP
Labour MEP for Scotland

(artjar)


Delaying tactics - as usual. It is difficult, obviously, to carry everyone along at the same pace, but I am sure there are differing levels of commitment.

Sylvia


From Mast Sanity/Mast Network



The European Parliament approved the EMF resolution, prepared by MEP Frédérique Ries, on April 2, 2009.

The votes by the MEPs were: 559 for, 22 against and 8 abstentions.



Text to the adopted document available here:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2009-0216+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN


See News story on the Reis Report, dated March 31, 2009 Man-made electromagnetic fields: are we at risk?

Public health - 31-03-2009 - 12:25

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/public/story_page/066-52826-089-03-14-911-20090326STO52724-2009-30-03-2009/default_en.htm

--------

559 EU MEP's approve EMF resolution

The Reis Report contains some excellent recommendations and we congratulate the 559 MEP’s for voting in support of this resolution and taking this ethical approach to public health.

Unfortunately, the alternative motion was not adopted which excluded the call for the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) to carry out a scientific review and report back to MEPs. Many members of SCENIHR consist of people who have a background in the ICNIRP committee and have been involved in establishing limits. SCENIHR also require absolute and extensive proof. David Gee gave an excellent presentation at the European Commission workshop on the problems with regards to waiting for absolute proof; his presentation is available on the following EU Commission website: http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/ev_20090211_en.htm?e

SCENIHR’s conflict of interest has been raised by Danish EU-MEP Christel Schaldemose in the following questions submitted to the EU Commission. Below are two links to the Danish EU-MEP Christel Schaldemose's questions to the EU Commission on children’s use of mobile phones and the conflict of interest of SCENIHR. One of our colleagues has kindly provided an English translation, see below the website links.

http://www.christels.dk/38842.1/Om%20b%C3%B8rns%20risiko%20for%20at%20udvikle%20tumorer%20pga.%20mobilstr%C3%A5ling

http://www.christels.dk/39012.1/Om%20uafh%C3%A6ngighed%20blandt%20eksperter%20i%20SCENIHR


Written questions for the EU Commission by Danish EU-MEP Christel Schaldemose

Concerning the risk of children developing tumours due to mobile radiation

Children are using mobile phones more and more. At the same time are the preliminary results from research with youngsters who started using mobile phones before 20, showing that the increased risk of developing brain tumours is similar to adults.

It is both unethical and contrary to the precautionary principle, which the EU is delaying implementing, until it is established for certain that children are exposed to a high risk of developing brain tumours as a result of electromagnetic radiation. In France a court judgement was recently made which determined that a mobile provider should place their mobile mast at a distance.

Is the Commission intending to follow independent experts’ advice (Khurana 2008, Herberman 2008) and demand that children under 12 years should only use mobile phones for emergency calls and should reduce their mobile phone use to a minimum?


Concerning the independence of experts in the SCENIHR

Written question for the EUCommission by Danish EU-MEP Christel Schaldemose

ICNIRP, who is responsible for determining the international limits for electromagnetic radiation, which are used in large parts of the EU, has been criticised by both researchers and organisations for setting limits that are too high, to the advantage of the telephone industry and the military sector.

Even so, the majority of the recently established expert group in the EU, the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR), consists of people who have their background in the ICNIRP and thereby have been involved in the establishment of the limits which have since been asked to be reviewed.

Is it the view of the Commission that these experts, who have been involved in the establishment of the limits for radiation, can be considered to be impartial and independent?

Does the Commission realise that a lowering of the limits for electromagnetic radiation will result in a great economic burden for European mobile operators?

Is the Commission in agreement that to have been, or to be, a member of ICNIRP consist in a strong conflict of interests in order to take part in the work of the SCENIHR?

What steps is the Commission intending to take in order to achieve a better balance between critical and uncritical researchers in the ICNIRP?


I would like to thank you all once again for your support.

Eileen O'Connor
Radiation Research Trustee
http://www.radiationresearch.org


Informant: Iris Atzmon



http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=European+Parliament
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Frédérique+Ries
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=EMF+resolution
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=ICEMS
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=SCENIHR
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=ICNIRP
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=brain+tumour
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=electromagnetic+radiation
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=electromagnetic+field
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Khurana