European Parliament Questions-Subject: 5G and Health Risks from EM Fields

Parliamentary questions, September 24, 2020

Subject: 5G and health risks from EM fields: Commission deliberately confuses the positions of the SCENIHR and SCHEER committees

In his answer to the parliamentary question from Member of the European Parliament Sinčić (P-000873/2020) (1) , Commissioner Breton stated that the Scientific Committee on Health Risks, Environmental Risks and Emerging Risks (SCHEER) had the permanent mandate to Assess health risks from exposure to electromagnetic fields, and that the committee has already issued five relevant opinions. The positions of the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) – which last published an opinion in 2015 (2)– Assigning it to the SCHEER committee – which started its work in 2016 – creates confusion. The SCHEER committee has not yet issued an opinion, only a statement in December 2018 in which the committee expressed the assumption that 5G could have biological consequences (3) .

According to Commissioner Breton’s answer, 5G is supported, although the SCHEER committee has not yet completed its risk assessment for 5G, and it is only referred to the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), a non-governmental organization based in Munich (4) , referred to. On the other hand, a contradiction from more than 180 European scientists (5) was not mentioned , in which a moratorium is recommended on the introduction of 5G until any risks to human health and the environment have been fully researched (6) .

1.  Will the Commission continue to recommend 5G without waiting for the SCHEER committee’s risk assessment?

2.  On the basis of which industry-independent research did it determine that the exposure to electromagnetic fields with 5G is very similar to the exposure in connection with 4G and is well below the strict limit values ​​(see P-000873/2020)?

3.  Why does it fully trust the position of the ICNIRP, and why has it not taken into account the positions of other relevant scientific associations (e.g. Bionitiative 2012 (7) , EMFscientist.org (8) and European Academy for Environmental Medicine (9) )?

Supporters (10)

(1)https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/P-9-2020-000873-ASW_EN.html

(2)https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/scenihr_o_041.pdf

(3)https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/scientific_committees/scheer/docs/scheer_s_002.pdf

(4)https://klaus-buchner.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/ICNIRP-report-FINAL-JUNE-2020-2.pdf

(5)https://www.indymedia.ie/attachments/apr2020/20170913scientistappeal5gmoratorium.pdf

(6)http://www.5gappeal.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/reply_ryan.pdf

(7)https://bioinitiative.org/

(8)https://www.emfscientist.org/

(9)https://europaem.eu/en/library?highlight=WyJlbGVjdHJvbWFnbmV0aWMiXQ==&catid=0&id=97

(10)This request is supported by members who are not identical to the authors: Eleonora Evi (NI), Ignazio Corrao (NI)

Source:

https://tinyurl.com/y49shtd4

Related Posts

%d bloggers like this: