Novinky Our Feedback to EC 18 August 2022

Have your say - Biodiversity

You can also get involved in forming EU laws. The European Commission would like to hear your views on laws and policies currently in development. They offer a platform "Have your say" with the list of all new EU initiatives open for public consultation. You need to register to write your feedback.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say

There are always 5 stages of each EU initiative, each stage is open for public consultation for a specific time frame:

  1. In preparation

  2. Call for evidence

  3. Public consultation

  4. Draft act

  5. Commission adoption

Protecting biodiversity: nature restoration targets under EU biodiversity strategy

About this initiative: Biodiversity, on which we all depend, is disappearing at an unprecedented rate. The initiative will contribute to the goal of the 2030 Biodiversity Strategy: to put Europe’s biodiversity on the path to recovery.

Feedback period: for stage 5 it is 24 June 2022 - 22 August 2022

Link: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12596-Protecting-biodiversity-nature-restoration-targets-under-EU-biodiversity-strategy_en

Short feedback from Europeans for Safe Connections

Europeans for Safe Connections welcomes the Commission's efforts to protect biodiversity. Nevertheless, we have a number of important recommendations.

The EU lists many causes that threaten biodiversity. However, one is systematically ignored. It is the very important artificial radio frequency radiation (RF-EMV) to which nature is increasingly exposed.

This RF-EMV from wireless communication affects all living organisms. A great deal of scientific research has shown this influence is harmful. Yet nothing is done with this fact.

As the philosopher of science K.Popper stated long ago: A single black swan found already disproves the theory that there are no black swans. This has been the generally accepted and applied principle underlying modern science ever since. Looking away from uncomfortable research results is therefore completely unacceptable.

Numerous studies refute the claim that RF-EMV levels below the limits are safe. This RF-EMV is at least partly responsible for the observed decline in biodiversity to date. A three-part study on the effects on wild species, with over 1200 scientific references, shows that even very low intensities of RF-EMV have adverse biological effects on orientation and migration, reproduction, mating, nest building and survival. www.pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34047144

5G technology and the Internet of Things are under development. No research has been done into the effects of the new, higher frequencies of 5G on organisms. Furthermore, it may be expected that RF-EMF is about to increase significantly and will be present everywhere: There will no longer be places where the RF-EMF will be low or absent. With what is already known about the effects of RF-EMF it is safe to say that without measures to reduce RF-EMF biodiversity will decline even further and living conditions will deteriorate.

This means the nature recovery plans will have to take into account this neglected environmental factor, both in determining the RF-EMV at the start and in filling in the recovery plans - adequately limited and controlled of RF-EMV load. The regulation proposal must be adapted to this.

In addition, there should be legislation that specifically protects nature from the RF-EMV load, because there simply is none. The current exposure limits were not designed to protect flora or fauna. No official body with expertise in science, biology or safety has ever assessed the existing research on the effects of the RF-EMF on birds, bees, other pollinators, plants, trees and wildlife and drawn up safe limits for these.

ESC therefore calls on the EU with its European Citizens' Initiative Stop5G - Stay connected but protected (www.SignStop5G.eu) to apply the precautionary principle to RF-EMV so that the environment and the health of flora and fauna are protected from its risks.

In our citizens' initiative we make several proposals for transposition into EU law:

-Proposal 1: better exposure limits based on all health and biological effects of RF-EMV (up to now, only warming has been erroneously considered potentially harmful) and we ask for application of the precautionary principle.

-Pr 8: designation of RF-EMF free areas in municipalities and for all nature reserves and parks to be declared RF-EMF free areas.

-Pr 10: a directive on exposure limits for specific fauna and flora, in order to protect nature from RF--EMV.

-Pr 15: the official recognition of all biologically harmful parameters of RF-EMV as contaminants. And to include them in all relevant EU policies and directives.

-Pr 16: EU to include the monitoring of all biologically harmful parameters of RF-EMV in Environmental Monitoring Programmes, the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2030, the EU Nature Restoration Objectives, the Habitat Directive and the Birds Directive and Natura 2000 sites.

www.signstop5g.eu/en/solutions/protection-of-all-life-on-earth
www.signstop5g.eu/en/solutions/protection-of-our-environment

Best regards,
C. van Vuuren
Europeans for Safe Connection

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12596-Protecting-biodiversity-nature-restoration-targets-under-EU-biodiversity-strategy/F3333851_en

biodiversity
Facebook post available for sharing:
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid02L6yFWVjGwBf8DTmT1M7CDE4VftgrYnaN3vMUAAeriwSKNkS8XKvfAdHQCwkDc4Ql&id=247379643832902

Full feedback from Europeans for Safe Connections:

Europeans for Safe Connections welcomes the Commission's efforts to protect biodiversity. We are deeply concerned about the dramatic loss of biodiversity and the failure of policies to reverse this trend. There is an urgent need to halt this trend and to move forward swiftly on the path of recovery for the sake of human and natural conservation. Nevertheless, we have a number of very important recommendations for the present proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on nature restoration.

Flora and fauna are under severe pressure and the situation is getting worse. This is not something that only scientists and government institutions see. Everyone sees it happening in their own environment1. There are more and more diseases and plagues. Species are disappearing acutely and simultaneously. The natural balance is seriously disturbed and the effects are huge.

This situation has arisen because of the ruthless way in which we humans treat the earth. We are poor stewards of our planet, from whose natural conditions we think we have detached ourselves. Not only have we ignored the intrinsic right of all life to a healthy existence, we have also neglected how enormously dependent we are on well-functioning ecosystems for our own survival. It is therefore high time to work with all due precaution and without restraint towards recovery.

The EU lists many causes that threaten biodiversity. However, one is systematically ignored. It is, however, a very important one, namely, the 'radio pollution' caused by artificial radio frequency radiation to which nature is increasingly exposed worldwide.

This radiofrequency radiation from wireless communication affects all living organisms. A great deal of scientific research has shown that this influence is harmful. Yet nothing is done with this fact. One can only guess at the reason. Many people are eagerly awaiting the technological developments in wireless communication: there is a lot of money to be made from it and it makes great developments possible. Politics and an economy focused on consumption, profit and data (or digitalisation) are driving this development. The fact that technology can be harmful is something that people apparently do not want to, or cannot, believe.

As the philosopher of science K. Popper stated long ago: A single black swan found already disproves the theory that there are no black swans. This has been the generally accepted and applied principle underlying modern science ever since. Looking away from uncomfortable research results is therefore completely unacceptable.

And here it is not just one, but numerous studies refuting the claim that radiation levels below the limits are safe. Many peer-reviewed scientific studies, independent of industry, show that radiofrequency electromagnetic fields have harmful biological effects at intensities millions of times lower than current exposure limits.

This radiation is at least partly responsible for the observed decline in biodiversity to date. The Mount Nardi Wildlife Report to Unesco provides a striking example of the effects of this wireless technology on biodiversity. But of course there is much more to read about it, see e.g. here, here, here. This groundbreaking three-part study on the effects on wild species, with over 1200 scientific references, shows that even very low intensities of radiation have adverse biological effects on orientation and migration, reproduction, mating, nest building and survival.

Or read Planetary electromagnetic pollution: it is time to assess its impact: This recent review of 2266 studies (including in vitro and in vivo studies in experimental systems in humans, animals and plants, and population studies) found that most studies (n=1546, 68-2%) found significant biological or health effects associated with exposure to man-made electromagnetic fields.

In the Official Journal of the EU of 04.03.2022, p. 34 ff, even the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) demands, among others, the protection against electromagnetic pollution and the recognition of ecological environmental risks!

5G technology and the Internet of Things are under development. Only the lower frequencies are already in use. With the planned intensive digitalisation of society and the introduction of the Internet of Things, an exorbitant number of 'things' will be connected to the Internet. This will require a large densification of the transmitter network (the required coverage for 5G is therefore 98%).

No research has been done into the effects of the new, higher frequencies on organisms. Furthermore, it may be expected that the radiation in the near future will not only increase significantly but will also be present everywhere: unlike now, there will no longer be any places where the radiation will be low or absent. With what is already known about the effects of radiation on nature, it is safe to say that without measures to reduce radiation, biodiversity will decline even further and our living conditions will deteriorate.

This means that the nature recovery plans, as proposed in this regulation, will have to take account of this neglected environmental factor, both in determining the starting position - what is the radiation load in a given starting situation - and in filling in the recovery plans - how do we ensure that the radiation load is adequately limited and controlled. The proposal for a regulation must be adapted to this.

In addition, there should be legislation that specifically protects nature from the radiation load, because there simply is none. The current exposure limits were not designed to protect flora or fauna. No independent and neutral official body with expertise in science, biology or safety has ever assessed the existing research on the effects of the electromagnetic fields on birds, bees, other pollinators, plants, trees and wildlife and drawn up safe limits for flora and fauna on that basis.

Europeans for Safe Connections therefore call on the EU with its European Citizens' Initiative Stop5G - Stay connected but protected (www.SignStop5G.eu) to apply the precautionary principle to radio frequency radiation so that the environment and the health of flora and fauna are protected from its risks.

In our citizens' initiative to the EU, we make several proposals for transposition into EU law:

Proposal 1 asks for better exposure limits based on all health and biological effects of radiofrequency radiation (up to now, only warming has been erroneously considered potentially harmful) and we ask for application of the precautionary principle.

Proposal 4 asks that, contrary to current practice, this determination be made by fully independent experts in this specific field.

Proposal 5 calls for all types of wireless equipment to be assessed for the potential harmfulness of even the biologically active parameters of the radiation to be applied prior to their introduction.

Proposal 8 calls for the designation of radiation-free areas in municipalities and for all nature reserves and parks to be declared radiation-free areas.

Proposal 10 asks for a directive on exposure limits for specific fauna and flora, in order to protect nature from radio-frequency radiation.

Proposal 15 calls for the official recognition of all biologically harmful parameters of radiofrequency radiation as contaminants. And to include them in all relevant EU policies and directives.

Proposal 16 asks the EU to include the monitoring of all biologically harmful parameters of radiofrequency radiation in Environmental Monitoring Programmes, the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2030, the EU Nature Restoration Objectives, the Habitat Directive and the Birds Directive and Natura 2000 sites.

In addition to radiofrequency radiation, there are other environmental aspects to digitisation that also have a major impact on environmental quality and biodiversity. This is because projects like 5G and the introduction of the Internet of Things do not have to comply with environmental laws. 5G and this Internet of Things will not contribute to an energy-efficient and sustainable future. On the contrary, they will greatly increase pollution and the depletion of resources.

We therefore also call on the EU to start protecting the environment from the impact of the emerging 5G technologies and hyper-digitisation with stricter regulations.

Proposal 11 calls for environmental legislation to be amended to cover these activities and to assess and reduce their environmental impact.

Proposal 12 aims to reduce the expected huge electricity consumption of digital communication technologies by prioritising wired and low-energy solutions in the European Green Deal action plan. By 2025, they could account for 20% of global electricity consumption.

Proposal 13 calls for a drastic reduction in waste from electrical and electronic equipment and waste products, as well as other environmental impacts from mining the (rare) minerals and metals used in the equipment, by including it in the Zero Pollution Action Plan.

Proposal 14 asks that the Ecodesign Directive 2009/125/EC set strict limits on the waste of resources and energy in all equipment connected to the Internet, including antennas and satellites.

Europeans for Safe Connections believes that all of these steps, in addition to those envisaged in this proposed Regulation, are necessary to achieve a comprehensive approach to nature restoration. If you want to know more about our European Citizens' Initiative Stop5G - Stay connected but protected please visit www.SignStop5G.eu.

1 It rained big bumblebees when 3G was introduced. Is that a coincidence? All kinds of birds suddenly and simultaneously disappeared from my garden shortly after 4G-LTE was installed. It became quiet in my garden, which was in the middle of Natura 2000, and year after year, no birds nest there: sparrow, swallow, wren, hedge sparrow, apple finch and whatnot all disappeared at the same time. Since then, the alder hares are a real plague. The boxwood moth has also removed the boxwood from my other garden. The taxus weevil now eats its host plants completely bare and moves on to other vegetation. Bees disappear, hoverflies and butterflies disappear. My fruit trees are hardly ever pollinated. The blackbirds and thrushes have stopped singing. I am only occasionally stung by a mosquito. The car window stays clean. Chestnuts, elms, ash trees and spruces are disappearing from the area. I rarely see the bats anymore.

© 2022 Europeans for safe connections.