Closure of the legacy of the now-defunct Swedish Radiation Protection Authority
news....@googlemail.com
Closure of the legacy of the now-defunct Swedish Radiation Protection Authority
Forwarded from Olle Johansson, Karolinska Institute, Sweden
Note: This article in Swedish was published yesterday, March 17, 2009.
For your convenience, a Google translation appears below (not guaranteed to be 100% accurate)
Dämvik
M, Johansson O, "Gör upp arvet efter SSI" 
("Closure
of the
legacy of the now-defunct Swedish Radiation Protection
Authority",
in Swedish), 
Borås Tidning 18/3
2009
http://www.bt.se/debatt/gor-upp-arvet-efter-ssi(1216430).gm
Olle
Johansson, assoc. prof.
The Experimental Dermatology
Unit
Department of Neuroscience
Karolinska Institute
171 77
Stockholm
Sweden
&
Professor
The Royal
Institute of Technology
100 44 Stockholm
Sweden)
_________________________________________________________________
Make
up the legacy of SSI
Debate
yesterday 10:19
In Sweden the expansion of wireless
telecommunications on a scale and a pace which has no equivalent in
the world.
The negative side of this, that our environment
greatly impaired by the new and unnatural sources, is something which
not at all considered by our policymakers. Why?
The
explanation is simple. They believe that radiation is harmless, since
the Swedish Radiation Protection Authority (SSI) has said that
exposure falls below a reference value and therefore present no risk
from radiation protection point of view. SSI's information, however,
is grossly misleading.
For such radiation used in wireless
communications is the thermal effect scientifically assured.
Radiation of sufficiently high effect can be, just as in a microwave
oven, heating up our cells and molecules. It is very easy to realize
that full security can establish a benchmark for when this effect is
detrimental.
There is also extensive research showing
non-thermal health risks of exposure below. These findings, however,
not yet meet the very high requirements to be guaranteed. , This is
of such potential, but uncertain, risks that the precautionary
principle (FP) is intended. The purpose of this principle is that
policy makers should be able to require precautions to protect
against possible risks. FP, however, been eliminated by the SSI,
since the many years förtigit information on risks other than those
guaranteed.
The reference value has been adopted as a
recommendation in the EU, which clearly states that it only expresses
a fundamental limitation of science guaranteed health. For other
risks, at lower exposure levels, the then European Community law that
the recommendation is complemented by the FP. Since SSI would
implement the recommendation in Sweden by the General Council,
however, thrown on the meaning. Instead of saying that the reference
value is based on fully guaranteed impact have they specified that it
should guide the application of the FP, a distortion of the rarely
seen.
In his writings hides also SSI his abuse of the
reference value, which is done through a short and deliberately
obscure language. A widely used formulation is eg that there is no
scientific evidence that radiation leads to adverse health effects,
as long as the reference value observed. The Authority has thus
created a reträttväg where they can argue that the term evidence
refers only to what is scientifically ensured, while the intention is
to give the impression that there is no scientific support for
non-thermal effects. Such support is, however, in abundance. In
BioInitiativ report, several prominent area experts reported
different health risks, at levels far below the reference value,
based on results from over 1500 scientific studies.
The
reference value, which is one million billion times greater than the
natural microwave radiation as humans adapted to the evolution time,
it has nothing to do with FP. It says only when it is fully
guaranteed warming effect occurs. European Environment Agency, the EU
Parliament and the national courts in the EU has recently given
expression to this truth. This should be done also in Sweden.
After
the SSI was replaced by Strålsäkerhetsmyndigheten we have noticed
improvements in the information on its website. SSI's old writings
and the general advice is, however, still remain unchanged.
Parliament, government, courts and authorities misled by this
material, which means that they are not given the opportunity to
perform an adequate examination of the FP. This is completely
unacceptable. And now it is high time to seriously come to terms with
the legacy of SSI.
We therefore ask that
Strålsäkerhetsmyndigheten clearly announces that the reference
value is only say at what level scientifically established acute
health effects due heating occurs, and therefore not relevant in
trials of long-term effects and non-thermal effects under FP.
Mats
Dämvik
environmental lawyer in Juristenzeitung Firman Unite
Kungsbacka
Olle Johansson
Associate Professor of
Neuroscience
Karolinska Institute, Stockholm
Informant: Elizabeth Kelley
[ http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Johansson
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=non-thermal
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=BioInitiative ]