Calling on the EU
The European Union has an obligation to protect the population. But it’s not fulfilling it when it comes to recently, the authors ask why the EU is ignoring scientists, medical practitioners and thousands of peer-reviewed studies in favour of science that has been shown to be outdated and flawed.
Since 2017 seven appeals, endorsed by scientists and medical doctors, have been sent to the EU urging them to protect humans and the environment from exposure to wireless radiation. Yet no adequate response has been forthcoming.
‘Since 2017, the world has not seen any evidence of the EU prioritizing human health protection over economics,’ the authors say.
Instead, the EU continues to rely on radiation guidelines produced by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), which are widely recognised as being flawed. Among the problems with the ICNIRP Guidelines, the authors note that:
they only address the heating (thermal) effects of exposure but studies show many harmful effects on the body not caused by heating
they are based on flawed assumptions
courts have recognised that exposure caused harm at levels that comply with ICNIRP’s Guidelines
they don’t address the complex combinations of signals present in real-world exposures
they only consider exposures averaged out over 6 or 30 minutes in a mould of a plastic (adult male) head.
‘ICNIRP exposure guidelines are a million times too high to protect children and our most vulnerable. By following the ICNIRP guidelines, the EU has effectively prioritized economics [over health],’ the authors wrote.
Further, the authors point to the limitations of the committee that developed them.
‘ICNIRP is a self-selected, industry supportive body comprised of only 14 persons with limited biophysics or medical training, and no industry-independent views. Its members elect like-minded colleagues ensuring the perpetuation of the wireless industry’s need for maximum exposure.’
Not only does the use of wireless technologies affect human and animal health, but the authors point out that it uses huge amounts of electricity, which impacts on the environment. ‘…one Google search uses as much electricity as a lightbulb left on for 35 min,’ they explain.
Moreover, there are better alternatives to wireless technology, such as Passive Optical Networks (which are faster and use less energy) and wired technologies.
‘As a result of the increased consumption of energy, the harm to people and the environment, and the potential misuse of data, we consider current EU policy to grossly infringe EU primary law and citizens’ and children’s fundamental rights,’ the authors said. ‘The EU’s current course of action is in direct conflict with the foundations on which the EU was built. By maintaining its course to support the industry-led rollout of 5G, 6G and smart meters, the EU is violating the EU Convention on Human Rights, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the EU Treaty, and EU Case law, which all agree that: The protection of health and the environment takes precedence over economic considerations.’
Australia’s Dr Julie McCredden, one of the authors of the paper, is concerned that many governments, including Australia’s, are ‘following the EU example, prioritising economic interests over human and planetary health. This means that everyday citizens are not being warned about the potential harm to themselves and their children.’
This has important implications for the users of wireless technologies. Dr McCredden says, ‘people need to educate themselves on how to use healthy practices with their devices and how to take protective measures for their children.
‘People must not allow themselves to be fooled by the popular spin messages that wireless technology is making us smarter, richer, healthier or greener. It is not so. More technology and higher speeds will not save us from environmental degradation or from compromised bodies and minds caused by wireless radiation and other environmental toxins.’
Nyberg, Rainer, McCredden, Julie and Hardell, Lennart. "The European Union assessments of radiofrequency radiation health risks – another hard nut to crack (Review)" Reviews on Environmental Health, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-...