Chronik der EWSA-Stellungnahme zu "Elektrosensibilität" (II) (Elektrosensibilität)

H. Lamarr , München, Montag, 02.02.2015, 22:04 (vor 3605 Tagen) @ H. Lamarr

Was sich, abgesehen von den Änderungsanträgen am TEN-Entwurf am 21. Januar sonst noch anlässlich der Abstimmung über die EWSA-Stellungnahme zu "Elektrosensibilität" in der Plenarversammlung ereignet hat, ist dem folgenden Sitzungsprotokoll zu entnehmen.

The vice-president Wilms moved that the Committee turn to agenda item 8 - adoption of an opinion on the

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity
(own-initiative opinion).

The preliminary work had been carried out by the Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society (president: Mr Buffetaut). The rapporteur was Mr Bernardo Hernández Bataller.

Mr Hernández Bataller introduced the opinion by pointing out that the document applies the principle of prevention and proposes concrete measures to help people affected by the Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity Syndrome (EHS).

Mr Adams then went on to present a counter-opinion supported by a number of members. He accepted that the symptoms should not be denied but the causality link to radiofrequency exposure was not proved by the vast majority of the scientific community. The counter opinion aims to present a balanced view and urges continuance of the precautionary principle through regulation and advisory work.

A general discussion ensued in which Mr Biermann, Mr Pegado Liz, Mr Stantic, Mr Wolf, Mr Cingal, Mr Coldrick, Ms Gardias, Mr Lechner, Ms Mader, Mr Polica, Ms Teder, Ms Batut, Mr Longo, Mr Maciulevicius, Mr Simons, Mr de Buck and Mr Fatovic made the following remarks:

• Precautions should be taken even if there is no proof; the asbestos case should be remembered. It is cheaper to prevent than cure a disease afterwards.
  
• The opinion highlights the conflict between the rights of a suffering minority and the rights of the unaffected majority.
  
• The issue should be referred back to the Section in order to take the upcoming Commission research result into consideration.
  
• Consensus could be reached by postponing the decision and merging the opinion with the counter-opinion.
  
• The World Health Organisation identified radiofrequency exposure as a possible carcinogen and the EESC should recognise this public health threat by adopting the opinion and amendments.
  
• It is not very clear how many people have been affected so far and acting on the basis of ideas and assumptions should be avoided.
  
• It is not the role of EESC to judge the medical profession's decision on this matter.

Mr Cingal expressed his shock at hearing that there was a conflict of interest concerning Mr Adams.

Mr Adams replied that he has been the target of aggressive lobbying by organisations who were in favour of Mr Hernández Bataller's opinion. He was repeatedly accused of being paid by the telecommunication industry, an accusation which he firmly denied.

Vice-president Wilms gave the floor to Mr Hernández Bataller who said that he will not withdraw the opinion from the agenda. The opinion rests on the fact that there exists sufficient scientific evidence and that we need to find ways to help the people affected. The opinion does not say that we should put a stop to technological development in order to do this.

Mr Adams reiterated that the connection between radiofrequency exposure and EHS was not scientifically proven by the overwhelming majority of studies undertaken so far and that the precautionary principle is already being enforced. He highlighted that, if adopted in the current form, the opinion could be misused by pressure groups.

A point of order was then raised concerning the fact that Mr Adams spoke last and normally it is the rapporteur who should have the last word in these situations. Vice-president Wilms said that the proceedings order was set out from the start and that he aimed to be fair throughout the debate.

The counter-opinion was then put to a vote and adopted by 136 votes to 110 with 9 [19, Anm. Spatenpauli] abstentions.

--
Jedes komplexe Problem hat eine Lösung, die einfach, naheliegend, plausibel – und falsch ist.
– Frei nach Henry Louis Mencken (1880–1956) –