Belgian senate votes on EHS recognition

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view

Belgian senate votes on EHS recognition

This post was updated on .
This happened on Friday, May 21, 2021

1 example of what was said:

Karl Vanlouwe (NVA) said:
"A lot of studies have been published on electro sensitivity, but research never
found a causal relationship between radiation exposure and the
complaints that electro-sensitives experience.
Of course, that does not mean that the complaints that many people have are
not serious or not real, it can indeed be that people feel radiation, but that is more likely to be the case when
being under very high-voltage pylons of, for example 380 kilovolts.
As said, there is no scientific evidence for the existence of electro hypersensitivity and that is precisely where the problem lies.
After all, we are convinced that we should pursue an evidence-based policy and this resolution is not in line with that.
Secondly, we also seriously question the various recommendations made to governments, like ensuring network free zones.
Allow me to be very critical of that. Network free zones not only imply that you would not be able to call, say, the emergency services everywhere, but also that the self-driving car will not be able to drive everywhere in the future.
In addition, we are asked, I quote:
" take into account the syndrome of electromagnetic hypersensitivity in part of the
population in the development of government policies that have a direct or indirect impact
on the level of exposure of the population to high-frequency electromagnetic radiation..."

This sounds very much like a hidden excuse to prevent the roll out of 5G.
It seems as if this resolution wants to nullify any technological advancements that have been made in recent years
and they want to return to the stone age. We should do the opposite, we need to embrace innovation and
facilitate it, of course not blindly, we should certainly be vigilant for possible negative consequences, but let us resolve them mainly on the basis of scientifically substantiated policy."

My overview
Prof. Dominique Belpomme and Professor Olle Johansson were mentioned. Some saw a problem, people suffering and were in favor of helping and more research, but with no consensus and clear scientific evidence linking EHS to EMF they found no foundation on which to build and so concluded it to be premature to make political decisions. There was no consensus in the voting but many voted against. Voting can be seen at the end of the YouTube video:

Links to files and video: