Breakthrough in case law on radiation risks
Administrative judge acknowledges increased health risks to wireless technology well below exposure limits Message from Wilma de Jong:
Lovely people, With great gratitude I address you the day before Christmas with great news! The administrative judge declared my appeal well-founded [1] . On the basis of my notice of appeal [2] and the hearing of October 20, 2020 [3] , the court classified me as an interested party and ruled that increased health risks, when installing an antenna mast approximately 650 meters from my home, cannot be excluded. This means we can speak of a huge breakthrough since more than two decades ago citizens started asking the courts for attention for the health risks of antenna installations. In other words, the administrative judge has given us citizens back our voice in the radiation debate. A “Christmas present” that I didn’t want to keep from you the day before Christmas.
What does this ruling of the administrative judge mean?
If the law that speaks of this verdict is victorious, this verdict will have a huge impact. This statement means in any case that:
- Municipalities must consider the health interests of citizens who are sensitive to radiation in their local antenna policy.
“The health interests of local residents who are sensitive to radiation must also be included in the weighing of interests to be made by the respondent.”
(ECLI ruling: NL: RBGEL: 2020: 6702 [4] , claim 8, with reference (in consideration 4.2.) To the decision on my appeal: ECLI: NL: RBGEL: 2020: 6699 [1] , consideration 4.4.)
- The (false) safety claim for exposure limits ICNIRP has been removed.
“In the opinion of the court, considering all arguments, with reference to scientific literature, it cannot be ruled out that even at a field strength lower than 1 V / m, and therefore also in the plaintiff’s case, there will be increased health risks. ”
(ECLI verdict: NL: RBGEL: 2020: 6699 [1] , consideration 4.4.) As you may know, the ICNIRP exposure limits run up to 61 V / m (volts per meter).
From which it follows that:
- The national determination of the ICNIRP limits in the intended ‘Amendment to Frequency Decree 2013 to protect public health against radio frequency fields’ [5] is contrary to this ruling.
Even if a fictitious safety margin of a factor of 50 is used, the ICNIRP limits are well above 1 V / m, while the administrative judge has ruled (see 2.) that increased health risks at a field strength below 1 V / m are not excluded. .
In addition, if the ICNIRP limits are set nationally, the municipalities are denied the opportunity to weigh up and promote the health interests of citizens locally (which is also contrary to the decision of the administrative judge, see 1.). After all, if this amendment decision is adopted, municipalities may not deviate locally from the ICNIRP limits by applying lower exposure limits [6] , even if the health interests of citizens demand this.
Recommendations Health Council inadequate
Already during the session on 20 October 2020, the administrative judge, on the basis of the recent report of the EMV Committee of the Health Council [7], came to the conclusion that the Health Council ‘simply does not know’ [8] [9] .
According to the Scientific Council for Government Policy, ignorance indicates ‘uncertain risk problems’ that require precaution [10] . We also find this point of view repeatedly in EU case law on the precautionary principle. [11] Although the Health Council suggests that it recommends precaution with regard to EMF, this is not actually the case.
In the first place, the recommendation of the Health Council to continue to take the ICNIRP exposure limits as a starting point, in view of the scientific and social controversy surrounding these limits, is contrary to precaution. [12] Second, the recommendation to apply the ALARA principle (ALARA is abbreviated from ‘As Low As Reasonably Achievable’) is meaningless, given the extreme height of the field strengths allowed under the ICNIRP limits. As early as 2003, RIVM reported the controversy surrounding this principle, because ALARA can be translated into ‘As Large As Regulators Allow’. [13] The energetic way in which 5G is currently being rolled out nationally as if there were no risks whatsoever is illustrative of not taking protective measures by the government.
Local and national antenna policy must be overhauled
I cannot yet foresee how the verdict will affect at national level. But I do see, as law and truth winning over power politics and technocracy, that antenna policy must be overhauled both locally and nationally. Violations of integrity, such as the Health Council’s conflict of interest with the ICNIRP and the obfuscation (defactualization) of scientific evidence [14] , must be brought to light.
Moral responsibility
I would like to express the wish – also a nice Christmas thought – that the governments and other involved (medical) institutions take not only their legal, but also their moral responsibility as a result of this decision and recognize that there are limits to ignoring or fighting the rights of citizens.
Regardless, I feel great gratitude that my research over the past 4 years and the appeal I was able to write has paid off. I would like to thank everyone who supported me in this.
On Monday December 28 I will be sending a press release to the media. In addition, I will also offer this information, in modified form, in response to the internet consultation (draft regulation) ‘Amendment to Frequency Decree 2013 to protect public health against radiofrequency electromagnetic fields’, so that the government can adjust its decision making accordingly.
I wish you a Merry Christmas. May the light (of consciousness) dissipate the darkness (of ignorance). I would like to continue to make my contribution.
Greetings,
Wilma de Jong
Footnotes :
[1] ECLI verdict: NL: RBGEL: 2020: 6699. https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2020:6699&showbutton=true .
[2] https://stralingsbewust.info/wp-content/uploads/Beroepschrift-WJ-de-Jong-zaaknummer-ARN-19-2184-WABOA-Rechtbank-Arnhem.pdf . For ‘Further explanation and substantiation: https://stralingsbewust.info/wp-content/uploads/Nadere-toelichting-en-onderbouwing-WJ-de-Jong-ARN-19-2184-WABAO-Rechtbank-Arnhem.pdf .
[3] https://stralingsbewust.info/2020/10/27/verslag-van-beroep-wilma-de-jong-bij-de-bestuurswacht-in-arnhem/ .
[4] ECLI verdict: NL: RBGEL: 2020: 6702. https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2020:6702&showbutton=true .
[5] https://www.internetconsultatie.nl/emvbesluit .
See also: https://stralingsbewust.info/2020/12/18/mona-keijzer-wil-discutabele-icnirp-limieten-landelijk-vastreken-en-gemeenten-buitenspel-stellen/ .
[6] ‘In Article 1.4. However, the Environmental Act stipulates that the Environmental Act will withdraw if a specific act provides for an exhaustive regulation in the field of the physical living environment. Such an exhaustive regulation is intended with this amendment decision. This means that local authorities such as provinces, municipalities and water boards will not be able to impose deviating or additional regulations with regard to electromagnetic fields under the Environmental Act. ‘ Article 5.2., Draft scheme. Consultation version ‘Decision to amend the Frequency Decree 2013 in connection with the establishment of national rules for the protection of public health against the electromagnetic fields resulting from the use of frequency space’. (See also article 5.1. Draft scheme.)https://www.internetconsultatie.nl/emvbesluit .
[7] https://www.gezondheidheidsraad.nl/documenten/adviezen/2020/09/02/5g-en-gezondheid .
[8] https://stralingsbewust.info/2020/10/27/verslag-van-beroep-wilma-de-jong-bij-de-bestuurswacht-in-arnhem/
[9] See also: https://stralingsbewust.info/2020/10/11/gezondheidheidsraad-versluiert-stralingsrisicos-chter-moet-burgers-stem-terugvragen/ .
[10] Scientific Council for Government Policy (2008). Uncertain security. Responsibilities around physical safety. Pages 119–120.
[11] Commission Notice on the Precautionary Principle, Section 6.3.1. Proportionality. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/NL/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52000DC0001 .
[12] The Scientific Council for Government Policy writes in its report ‘Uncertain security. Responsibility for physical safety ‘(page 121):
‘ Ambiguous risks arise where scientific or social controversies about risks arise. ‘ Precaution is necessary for ambiguous risks, according to the WRR. Since the ICNIRP limits are controversial, this precaution cannot be based on these limits at the same time.
[13] RIVM (2003). Dealing with risks soberly. Environment and Nature Plan (MNP). RIVM report 2510701047/2003, page 35.
[14] See my appeal: https://stralingsbewust.info/wp-content/uploads/Beroepschrift-WJ-de-Jong-zaaknummer-ARN-19-2184-WABOA-Rechtbank-Arnhem.pdf . For ‘Further explanation and substantiation: https://stralingsbewust.info/wp-content/uploads/Nadere-toelichting-en-onderbouwing-WJ-de-Jong-ARN-19-2184-WABAO-Rechtbank-Arnhem.pdf .
https://ehtrust.org/administrative-judge-acknowledges-increased-health-risks-to-wireless-technology-well-below-exposure-limits/ Source: Environmental Health Trust