Europe Backs Away from Protecting the Electrohypersensitive

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedinmailFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedinmail

sign warning nonionizing radiationThe European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) is an advisory body, comprised of several bureaus and sections, designed to assist policy making at the European Parliament, Council and Commission.

Last year, its Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society section (TEN) started a process to create an opinion regarding how to alleviate the problems people who suffer from electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) face in daily life.  Discussion included how the EU currently handles the problem, why they should be more proactive and how.

In December 2014, the TEN Rapporteur, Bernardo Hernandez Barteller, produced a series of draft opinions which resulted in this finalized draft. Among many points, the final draft acknowledged that microwave radiation seemed causally linked to the symptoms experienced by electrohypersensitive people and that when away from these fields, people stopped suffering. The British research and advocacy group Powerwatch has produced a useful summary of the draft opinion.

Numerous EHS advocacy groups from across Europe joined forces and submitted a letter expressing their concerns about the issue and support for a strong opinion. It seemed like the draft would go to a plenary session of the full EESC for a vote on January 21, 2015. However, a counter-opinion written by EESC member Richard Adams, appeared and rapidly changed everything.

Adams’ counter-opinion took an extremely different approach to the issue of electrohypersensitivity, failing to address basic questions regarding the social and economic impacts imposed on EHS sufferers. It instead focused on how global and national health agencies refute linkage between exposure to microwave radiation and the wide variety of symptoms experienced by the electrohypersensitive. The counter-opinion does not dismiss the existence of the condition or the suffering of electrohypersensitive people, but suggests that instead of looking at avoiding microwave radiation, they should instead engage in talking therapy, specifically cognitive behavioral therapy, implying that these people really just have psychological problems. This widely outraged those who suffer from the condition, those who advocate on their behalf and scientists who feel that their work has demonstrated a strong link between exposure to microwaves and EHS.

At the final plenary session on January 21, both the Rapporteur’s opinion and Adams’ counter-opinion were introduced and then there was an opportunity for EESC members to speak. After roughly an hour of discussion, the vote was called. The counter-opinion was voted on first, however when this  was first mentioned early in the plenary, there seemed to be a tone of surprise in the voice of the official who announced this would happen. Listen for yourself and decide.

Just prior to the vote, an EESC member protested what he felt was a procedural error in that Mr. Adams was allowed to speak following the Rapporteur which is not supposed to happen. I am currently looking through the EESC rules and procedures and attempting to talk with those officials to try and determine if any irregularities did occur in the process. When I learn more, I will post it above.

The counter-opinion was approved 136-110 with 19 members abstaining which meant that the original opinion from the Rapporteur was simply dismissed without any vote.

I interviewed Richard Adams about a week after the vote to try and learn more about why he drafted his counter-opinion, why it focused almost exclusively on issues other than economic and social ones, what is his awareness of the literature regarding electrohypersensitivity and exposure to microwave radiation and what his counter-opinion would do to alleviate the daily problems that EHS people must face.

Download

8 thoughts on “Europe Backs Away from Protecting the Electrohypersensitive

  1. Thank you for reporting on this very important issue and for interviewing Richard Adams.

    How can millions of people of people be wrong?

    Download the enclosed report containing a timeline of letters sent to Richard Adams:

    http://www.radiationresearch.org/images/rrt_articles/One-step-closer-towards-gaining-recognition-for-the-rights-of-EHS-thoroughout-Europe-2.pdf

    Eileen O’Connor
    Director
    EM Radiation Research Trust
    http://www.radiationresearch.org

  2. Great interview. This guy is a stooge of the industry. They are building a case against us by comminisioning these bullshit studies that they keep refering to. We need to look at everyone of those studies with a critical eye and identify the short coming in them. The results of our studies are not random–if they were done properly. Look, I can always identify if a cell phone is near me. It isn’t that I BELIEVE that my skin burns when by a cell phone–it actually happens. It happens to many people. Where are these great researchers and why don’t they take some of these extremely sensitive people nad do a good study. Why don’t people answer that the reason these studies don’t show things frequently is because they don’t test people for the thing that they are sensitive to!! If you test people with specific food allergies simply by giving the a food item–just any food items–itwon’t produce the effect. For example–if you are allergic to shell fish–but I give you strawberries (also a ‘food’) and they don’t react-and you say then that obviously shell fish allergies don’t exist. That is stupid!! They need to find out what these people are sensitive to and then exposethem to t. There are plenty of ways to ‘pin down’ what it is but nobody wants to actually address it. I still don’t understand why those researchers who know this is real don’t set up one experiement to end all the shit talk and actually show it exists. I can always tell when a phone is near me. I can always tell if wifi is on near me. I can always tell when I am exposed to high magnetic fields. I am not the ‘unique’ case–most EHS people can do this. Plus, we need to always bring up the bullshit research that was done by the tobacco companies and the asbestos companies. They did the same kind of bullshit research and ‘buying’ science as teh cell phone company isdoing now. The added twist is the claim that we are somehow mentally ill so as to keep the vast majority of people from giving any credence to us. They knew that eventually the science would showthe truth so they have to put up many roadblocks to the science. Iftehy can slow the research and slow public opinion–then they can continue to collect their billions while many suffer in the mean time. Plus–what about he studies showing that this is a real conditon like the Andrew Mariano study. What about th eMagda Havas studies showingthat people ehart rate increeased with exposure. It exists and it is real so why aren’t those studies being looked at. Andrew–ask that jackass how does he explain that these symptoms only appear when the affected people are by electromagnetic fields. The interview was well done Andrew but very frustrating when you are a sufferer of an actual biological issue and they continue to dismiss you. This guy deserves a very awful life as he continues to leave the millions of people who are suffering from exposure to EMR without any assistance and without any acceptance. This guy is both ignorant and evil and without any regard for the suffering of this disinfranchased suffering minority.

    1. An excellent study was performed already in 1991 – giving an outline of how the test persons should be selected (and why):
      http://www.aehf.com/articles/em_sensitive.html
      In: Journal of Bioelectricity, 10(1&2), 241-256.

      We all know why Rubin et al. never used a similar setup, but instead chose to “expose people with peanut allergy to milk, to prove that peanut allergy does not excist”.

  3. Also–it should be brought up about all the misdeeds in science and how industry has bought their way into the science and science publications. For his guy to act like that doesn’t exist is just crazy. Just because there is a reamarkable similar view across medicine can actually mean that the very deep pockets of this industry can affect many people, institutions, and publications. Again, look at tobacco studies through the ages. They put out tons of bullshit studies. It isn’t surprising that they can put out research that is sympathetic to their view point. Look at the Rubin study showing it is psychosomatic–he used a device that emitted EMR is the sham mode completley not understanding that there are specific things that people react to–some being the levels of emissions from his “sham” exposures. He doesn’t understand his topic and his studies but still gets to claim he is an expert on this when he doesn’t even understand what effects this exposure has on people. How can he measure something that he doesn’t even understand The world isn’t organizing itself–the INDUSTRY is organizing the world to dismiss our suffering.

    1. OR – Rubin is really an expert , knowing what he is doing. And does exactly what he has to, to be certain NOT to find any effects of EMR.

      It ahas been seen before in “science”.
      For example the famous Danish Cohort studies on the relation between cellphones and cancer (also non-conclusive, because there was no reason to believe that the so called exposed group was more exposed that the control group.)

  4. Also–it should be brought up about all the misdeeds in science and how industry has bought their way into the science and science publications. For his guy to act like that doesn’t exist is just crazy. Just because there is a reamarkable similar view across medicine can actually mean that the very deep pockets of this industry can affect many people, institutions, and publications. Again, look at tobacco studies through the ages. They put out tons of bullshit studies. It isn’t surprising that they can put out research that is sympathetic to their view point. Look at the Rubin study showing it is psychosomatic–he used a device that emitted EMR is the sham mode completley not understanding that there are specific things that people react to–some being the levels of emissions from his “sham” exposures. He doesn’t understand his topic and his studies but still gets to claim he is an expert on this when he doesn’t even understand what effects this exposure has on people. How can he measure something that he doesn’t even understand The world isn’t organizing itself–the
    INDUSTRY is organizing the world to dismiss our suffering.
    Plus, all the things that medacine came late to the table should be looked at too. For example, when Dr. Sammelwies tried to get doctors to wash their hands to prevent people from dying–the medical community laughed at him. Ther ewas no microscope or germ theory at he time. He was before his time on this!! He was able to see what a problem was even before ‘science’ hadways of proving it. BUT the medical profession refused to adopt his idea for decades. Mnay dies as a result. How many othe conditons existed before we had a way to show why they existed. Befoer thy could use tests to see heart problems–those heart problems stil existed. Befoer they could check for h-pylori–people still had ulcers–which themedica and mental helath community also erroneously attributed to strss and mental health. There are plenty of examples where medicne was stubbornely wrong or solw to teh table and plent of evidence of inudstry inter ference. This is a mockery of millions of sufferers. This is a dath sentnce for many of them This is a pubilc healht nightmare and a personal nightmare for me. These epople who deny this suffering and those reseracher who refuseto put together a decent study should be ashamed of themselves. We need those doctors who are profiting mightily from this condtion to use some of that money to reproduce some of hte studies showing this is real and attributed to exposure to EMR. Plus–wht about all the people who get headaches from cell phone use and from wifi but who arent sensitive to the degree we are??? Doesn’t th prove there is a continuum of people affectedand just varying degrees–like with all things tha affect people thre are outliers who are vastly more affected by something.? How may studies are needed to show tha peopel ar afffected bythis anyway?? D. Moraino’s study should have ended the debat aboout beingaffected and turned it instead to how does it cause these biological changes–instead we are still stuck on IF it is real. Why doesn’t some researcher do the same study with taht doctor who was reactiveand another EHS person and a control person. That would be cheap and relatively simple (except for finding a ‘clean’ spot to conduct the study in). Why can’t his happen?? One clean study like thi and that is what we could use for proof. Where is that one brave researcher??

  5. The health effects that EHS patients suffer from have been shown in controlled expertiments also on healthy individuals. Abundant animal studies have shown effects on the central nervous system and brain, for instance reduced memory and effects on behaviour. 250 studies only betwen 2007 and 2013 have shown effects on the nervous system. Read more on http://www.bioinitiative.org/conclusions/

    The Independent in 2008 wrote “Mobile phone radiation wrecks your sleep” after a “controlled laboratory study at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/mobile-phone-radiation-wrecks-your-sleep-771262.html. This is one example of a study that Mr Adams claims doesn’t exist. It is also an example of a study that is today being used as evidence against EHS, although it is not done on persons representative of EHS persons and in spite of the fact that it shows health effects – on healthy individuals.

  6. The irony is that early papers from the 1970s openly admitted EHS symptoms as genuine in people who just worked around RF; healthy young men. It’s just become more inconvenient now or they’ve lost touch with the older research.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *