From Alex Swinkels, The International EMF Alliance:
This is the IEMFA EMF presentation held on the Madrid congress “Risks for Public Health & the Environment”
The two-perspective risk assessment system in Europe – World health change possibly linked to electromagnetic fields
The presentation gives an clarifying overview of the current system of risk-protection system for EMFs in Europe and wider regions in the world. The historically-established system is based on an obsolete “˜Exact-Physics”™ paradigm of technology institutions, plus a corresponding science interpretation. Such a paradigm is fundamentally inadequate for the complex dynamic domain of “˜Living organisms”™. The established system thus produces misguiding EMF-risk information for worldwide health-protection policies, -regulations, – research and -communications. According to the “˜Complex Biology”™ science interpretation of a growing life-science community, heterogeneous EMFs form a highly plausible work- and lifestyle factor of chronic multisystem diseases that increasingly occur worldwide. This threat of structural and serious damage requires an immediate precautionary approach. Implementing the existing guidelines of the Seletun-scientists Resolution is highly necessary to avoid further increase of public costs.
The Goals of the Conference were as follows:
1) Increase public and political awareness of social, economic and environmental risks of current and new technologies and discuss effective means for e.g. technology and risk assessments, product approvals, and liability schemes.
2) Provide a forum for open public debate where experts from different fields can address the following questions and issues:
– What are the public health and environment risks of technologies such as modern biotechnology, nanotechnology, electromagnetic fields, and novel chemicals?
– What are the private and societal needs that are addressed by these technologies?
– Which are the current policies and procedures for shaping and assessing these technologies?
– Which are the main barriers to avoiding or minimizing risks and how can they be overcome?
– How can the precautionary principle be best applied?
– Why is there a lack of comprehensive and strong policies and institutions that could better support public interests?
– How can the marginalization of independent research, neglect of its results, and the undue influence of vested interests that inhibit change for the public good be overcome?
3) Create an Action Plan with concrete and realistic activities to support the changes needed, including changes in scientific paradigms and practices.and in the control of technological choices.
Organised by: The European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), The European Environment Agency (EEA), The Health Defense Organisation (HDO), The CÃ¡tedra-Universidad-Empresa-Sindicato.
International EMF Alliance
Alex Swinkels, Netherlands