**2.34 Council of Europe's Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs (2011)**

*Committee on the Environment, Agriculture, and Local and Regional Affairs of the Council of Europe. The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the nvironment. 2011 May 6.* 

http://assembly.coe.int/main.asp?Link=/documents/workingdocs/doc11/edoc12608.ht *Jowitt T. GSMA slams Euro call for ban on wireless in schools. eWeek Europe. 2011 May 16.*  www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/gsma-slams-euro-call-for-ban-on-wireless-in-schools-29363 http://assembly.coe.int/Mainf.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta11/ERES1815.htm

This committee referred to the precautionary principle in order to ask for a reconsideration of the existing guidelines or exposure standards.

This committee consists of 47 members. It can influence decisions of the European Union but is not entitled to adapt existing regulations or to adopt new ones. According to the committee several measures should be taken. These include (1) adoption of reasonable measures to reduce exposure of children to electromagnetic fields, (2) a reconsideration of the ICNIRP guidelines and advises, (3) adoption of campaigns to alert the public, especially concerning health effects on children and adolescents, (4) adoption of measures to protect hypersensitive subjects, (5) encourage new scientific research to develop new less hazardous technologies, (6) A 0.6 V/m exposure limit for radiofrequency technologies such as wifi, WLAN, wiMAX, DECT and mobile phones and indication of SAR-values on the appliances, (7) increasing public information to protect children and a ban on RF-sources in schools (DECT, mobile phones, wifi, WLAN, WiMAX), (8) siting of antenna for wireless communication devises only after a public consultation and all antennas should be at a reasonable distance from dwellings, (9) creation of risk assessment procedures and protection of "early warning scientists", and (10) research in biological effect studies should be encouraged by increasing research funds.

The report does not take into consideration the many other reassuring reports. Its conclusions are not based on a weight of evidence evaluation. The report has the merit that it brings forward the concerns of the public and that it proposes a number of measures that can be taken into consideration. Some of the proposed measures are however not very realistic, especially on the short run.
