Ref. Ares(2020)2949745 - 08/06/2020

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY
Public health, country knowledge, crisis management
Health determinants and international relations

Luxembourg,
SANTE.DDG1.C.4/(2020)3300135

Dear Prof Nyberg, dear Prof Hardell, dear Prof Buchner,Thank you for your email and letter of 18 April 2020 to President von der Leyen, whoasked me to reply to you directly.
Firstly, let me recall the already comprehensive correspondence with you, namely ourletters of 13 October 2017, 29 November 2017, 19 February 2018, 20 March 2018 and 27April 2018, which has already covered a range of the issues you raised again in yourletter.
You have called to invoke the precautionary principle. Please be advised that theapplicable Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC already follows a precautionary
approach, and is in line with the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation
Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines. Please compare the levels of exposure linked to thepresumed health effects established based on available scientific evidence with theexposure levels as set out in the ICNIRP guidelines and in the Council Recommendation.
For workers the recommended protective exposure levels are 10 times lower than thehealth effect levels, and for the public they are even 50 times lower. Accordingly, there isalready a lot of conservatism built into the guidelines and the Recommendation. Inaddition, according to the Implementation Reports of the Council Recommendation theMember States are following the Recommendation. A number of Member States have set
exposure limits that are even significantly lower.
As regards the safety limits, ICNIRP concluded that lowering the levels would not add
any additional safety.
Mr Rainer Nyberg
Professor emeritus, MP, EdD
Vasa, Finland
Email: RainerNyberg@protonmail.com
Lennart Hardell
Assoc Professor, MD, PhD
Örebro, Sweden
Email: lennart.hardell@tutanota.com
Klaus Buchner
Professor, Dr., Member of EU Parliament
Munich, Germany
Email: klaus.buchner@europarl.europa.eu
Commission européenne, 2920 Luxembourg, LUXEMBOURG - Tel. +352 43011
Office: HTC 01/096 ‐ Tel. direct line +352 430134658

To support risk assessment, the Commission has invested EUR 49 million in research
projects on electromagnetic fields through its Framework Programmes for Research andInnovation and has through its Framework Programmes of Research and Innovation
funded research on non-technological means of reducing exposure to electromagneticfields. Under the Health Cluster of Horizon Europe, the next EU Framework of Researchand Innovation, health risks of digitalisation have been identified as a possible researchchallenge. Projects co-funded by the Commission are:
•MOBI-KIDS, which assessed the potential link between the risk of brain tumours
and environmental risk factors, including use of communication devices.
•GERNONIMO, which concerned generalized EMF research using novel methods
following an integrated approach from research to risk assessment and support to riskmanagement.
•SEAWIND, which studied the effects of the pervasive and prolonged EMF
exposure on human health due to the exponential growth of wireless network device
usage in homes, offices and schools.
•ARIMMORA, which aimed to scrutinize the underlying biophysical mechanisms
and to clarify a possible causal relationship between ELF MF exposure and cancer,
especially childhood leukaemia.
You claim that the introduction of 5G would increase the exposure to electromagnetic(EMF) fields. Firstly, the protection of public health is of paramount importance and isalways taken into account in all of the Commission's proposals and initiatives, including
on 5G. New wireless technologies such as 5G are likely to create new cumulative EMF
characteristics including reduced emission power levels with small cells, on the one
hand, and more focused EMF effects with beamforming emissions, on the other hand. 5Gis expected to use smaller cells with lower power levels and the overall electromagnetic
fields exposure is, therefore, expected to decrease in areas where 5G is deployed and theolder generations of mobile networks are phased out. The introduction of 3G and 4G did
not increase exposure to electromagnetic fields and this has been confirmed in peerreviewed journals. In particular, the introduction of 3G lowered exposure of mobilephone users for calls, compared to 2G. 5G rollout is under the responsibility of theMember States. There is currently no conclusive scientific evidence available to provethat the higher 5G frequencies are dangerous as long as they are below the recommended
limits.
One of the most important conclusions from recent expert meetings is that the power
consumption per bit on 5G is 90% less than on 4G. This really constitutes an importantimprovement.
The third point I would like to make is that measurements carried out by the Australian
Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency have shown that even if in a 5G setting
mobile communication is operated at maximum level of capacity the level of exposure of
the test persons only reached a tiny fraction of the recommended maximum exposurelevels. This is, I believe a very reassuring message.
And finally, we know that the bulk of our daily exposure to electromagnetic fields isrelated to the use of mobile phones. However, the overall evaluation of all the researchon High Frequency fields as emitted by mobile phones leads to the conclusion that HighFrequency exposure below the thermal threshold is unlikely to be associated with adverse2

health effects. In addition, every user has means to limit exposure, which can be managed
fairly easily. We can avoid overly long phone calls, make sure we only use mobiles when
the connection is good, use headphones or simply communicate via SMS.
The limits recommended by the Council are based on independent guidance issued by theInternational Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. Following the recent
review of this guidance, the Commission is now reassessing the situation, in
collaboration with the Scientific Committee, and, if needed, with the Scientific Advice
Mechanism. This will include an in-depth review of the scientific evidence currently
available.
This second option would include referring the guidance to the Scientific Advice
Mechanism for an opinion, which would cover both public health protection and thenecessary legislative changes. The Group of Chief Scientific Advisors is an expert groupof the European Commission and provides independent scientific advice to the Collegeof European Commissioners to inform their decision making. The Group is supported bya dedicated Unit staffed by the European Commission’s Research and Innovation andJoint Research Centre Directorates General. The Group of Chief Scientific Advisors andthe Unit work closely with the Science Advice for Policy by European Academies
consortium, which consists of the five European Academy Networks. The consortium
brings together the outstanding knowledge and expertise of Fellows from over 100
Academies and Learned Societies in over 40 countries across Europe, spanning thedisciplines of engineering, humanities, medicine, natural sciences and social sciences.
Together, the Group of Chief Scientific Advisors, the Unit and the consortium are known
as the Scientific Advice Mechanism. The Group of Chief Scientific Advisors can be
asked to provide advice.

Yours sincerely,

Wojciech Kałamarz
Head of Unit

3
Electronically signed on 02/06/2020 18:58 (UTC+02) in accordance with article 4.2 (Validity of electronic documents) of Commission Decision 2004/563