From the journal Reviews on Environmental Health

Nils Rainer Nyberg, Julie E. McCredden, Steven G. Weller and Lennart Hardell


The fifth generation of radiofrequency communication, 5G, is currently being rolled out worldwide. Since September 2017, the EU 5G Appeal has been sent six times to the EU, requesting a moratorium on the rollout of 5G. This article reviews the 5G Appeal and the EU’s subsequent replies, including the extensive cover letter sent to the EU in September 2021, requesting stricter guidelines for exposures to radiofrequency radiation (RFR). The Appeal notes the EU’s internal conflict between its approach to a wireless technology-led future, and the need to protect the health and safety of its citizens. It critiques the reliance of the EU on the current guidelines given by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), that consider only heating and no other health relevant biological effects from RFR. To counteract the ICNIRP position, the 2021 cover letter briefly presented recent research from the EU’s own expert groups, from a large collection of European and other international studies, and from previous reviews of the effects of RFR on humans and the environment. The 5G Appeal asserts that the majority of scientific evidence points to biological effects, many with the potential for harm, occurring below the ICNIRP public limits. Evidence to establish this position is drawn from studies showing changes to neurotransmitters and receptors, damage to cells, proteins, DNA, sperm, the immune system, and human health, including cancer. The 2021 Appeal goes on to warn that 5G signals are likely to additionally alter the behaviour of oxygen and water molecules at the quantum level, unfold proteins, damage skin, and cause harm to insects, birds, frogs, plants and animals. Altogether, this evidence establishes a high priority for the European Union towards (i) replacing the current flawed guidelines with protective thresholds, and (ii) placing a moratorium on 5G deployment so as to (iii) allow industry-independent scientists the time needed to propose new health-protective guidelines. This 2021 Appeal’s relevance becomes even more pressing in the context of the EU plans to roll out the sixth generation of wireless technologies, 6G, further adding to the known risks of RFR technology for humans and the environment. This all leads to an important question: Do EU decision makers have the right to ignore EU´s own directives by prioritising economic gain over human and environmental health? ,,,,,,

Read Full Article HERE

PDF 10.1515_reveh-2022-0106


Increase in LED lighting ‘risks harming human and animal health’ – New Research

Research Article: Environmental risks from artificial nighttime lighting widespread and increasing across Europe

Source Article: The Guardian   Waseem Mohamed  14th Sept 2022

Transition to blue light radiation across Europe increases suppression of sleep hormone melatonin, say scientists

Blue light from artificial sources is on the rise, which may have negative consequences for human health and the wider environment, according to a study.

Academics at the University of Exeter have identified a shift in the kind of lighting technologies European countries are using at night to brighten streets and buildings. Using images produced by the International Space Station (ISS), they have found that the orange-coloured emissions from older sodium lights are rapidly being replaced by white-coloured emissions produced by LEDs.

While LED lighting is more energy-efficient and costs less to run, the researchers say the increased blue light radiation associated with it is causing “substantial biological impacts” across the continent. The study also claims that previous research into the effects of light pollution have underestimated the impacts of blue light radiation.

Chief among the health consequences of blue light is its ability to suppress the production of melatonin, the hormone that regulates sleep patterns in humans and other organisms. Numerous scientific studies have warned that increased exposure to artificial blue light can worsen people’s sleeping habits, which in turn can lead to a variety of chronic health conditions over time.

The increase in blue light radiation in Europe has also reduced the visibility of stars in the night sky, which the study says “may have impacts on people’s sense of nature”. Blue light can also alter the behavioural patterns of animals including bats and moths, as it can change their movements towards or away from light sources.

The UK is among the countries singled out in the study for being most affected by the impacts of the transition to LED night lighting, especially the risk of melatonin suppression. Fifty-one per cent of street lights in the UK were powered by LEDs in 2019.

Italy, Romania, Ireland and Spain were also identified as countries more vulnerable to the impacts of blue light radiation due to their recent transitions to LED night lights. The impacts have been felt much less in countries such as Austria and Germany, which still power much of their night lighting using older gas and fluorescent bulbs.

The research was published in the journal Science Advances.

Darren Evans, professor of ecology and conservation at Newcastle University, who was not involved in the study, hailed it as “an extraordinary piece of work”, and said it aligned with his own findings on how local street lighting has dramatically reduced the abundance of nocturnal insect populations.

The transition to LEDs in the UK “poorly considered” the ecological and human costs of such a policy, said Evans.

David Smith, of the conservation charity Buglife, said: “Light pollution can dramatically impact invertebrates, whether that be how they go about their daily lives, or even by reducing populations of species that live in habitats lit by LED lights. Given that invertebrates are already suffering dramatic declines, it is vital that we relieve them from all pressures to provide the best chance of recovery.”

Smith urged the UK government to introduce national targets to reduce levels of light pollution, saying measurement in the country was patchy and uncoordinated.

“We should consider light from a wider biological perspective than that of just humans [and] we must focus on better quality lighting that is harmonious with our natural world. Better quality and lower levels of lighting would help save energy, and lower financial costs, while also making our environment safer for invertebrates.”

Some councils in England are already trying to reduce the impact of LED lighting, which Evans says are “encouraging signs” that action is being taken. He points out that some authorities are dimming the lights during night hours, and are changing the bandwidths of their LED bulbs to produce less harmful blue light, as seen on the Isle of Wight, which uses warmer bulbs that emit less blue light

See Article Here

RESEARCH ARTICLE: Environmental risks from artificial nighttime lighting widespread and increasing across Europe

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Increase in LED lighting ‘risks harming human and animal health’ – New Research


Source Article:

With more bandwidth, EMFs become stronger.

By Owen Davies

Contributing Writer

An illustration of 5G network architecture, showing 5G and 4G working together, with central and local servers providing faster content to users and low-latency applications.

Recently, we tried to cut through the babble about 5G, look at actual data, and figure out how troublesome it really is for aviation. (See Pro Pilot, April 2022, p 8). Since then, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has doubled down on blaming its victims, ordering avionics makers to bring their “defective” radar altimeters up to a standard of signal discrimination required in no other country. However, that is not our topic here. This time, we will look at what electromagnetic fields (EMFs) may be doing – not to your equipment, but to you.

Why EMFs matters

Many hundreds of scientific studies have linked radio frequency EMFs to serious medical issues.

They include DNA damage, rare brain cancers, including glioma and acoustic neuroma, salivary tumors, heart disease, diabetes, sperm abnormalities, reduced volumes of the brain’s gray matter and damage to white matter, neuropsychiatric disorders such as anxiety and depression, and even very early onset Alzheimer’s disease.

The list seems to grow almost daily. This may be significant to pilots. Nina Anderson, a retired corporate pilot who has built a second career as a respected consultant specializing in EMF issues, reports that jet cockpits are the most EMF-dense environments she has ever examined. Every flight instrument and radio contributes its share.

We should note that all findings of a link between EMFs and health are disputed. For every study showing that electromagnetic fields subvert biological systems, scientists funded by the telecommunications industry can provide one to refute it, plus an explanation of why the other research was methodologically flawed or otherwise invalid.

They do so routinely. Anderson has little sympathy for them. A similarity to the tobacco industry may have been mentioned. Nonetheless, since the 1990s, the great preponderance of independent evidence has shown that exposure to EMFs has medical consequences. A lot more supporting data has been added since then.

What has changed

Nature exposes all life to EMFs. Most forms are weak, and distributed over a wide range of frequencies. The sun’s ultraviolet light causes burns and skin cancers, and contributes to skin aging.

As far as we know, natural EMFs are otherwise harmless. Technology is different. The EMFs our artifacts create are stronger than most natural fields, and we marinate in them 24/7. Their frequencies are often well suited to couple with biological processes. They’re also polarized, where natural EMFs are not.

This can greatly amplify their biological effects. EMF sources abound in our homes and workplaces – even on the street. Wi-Fi, Bluetooth devices, computers, microwave ovens, “smart” electric meters, and the inverters that turn DC electricity from solar panels to 120V AC, all generate EMFs at varying frequencies and power.

A single fluorescent light can add high-frequency voltage spikes to electricity that arrived “clean.” Turn off all these devices, and we still would receive EMFs from our neighbors – especially in apartments – and when passing cellphone towers. In the years ahead, we will experience even more EMFs.

Devices connected to the “Internet of things” pass data and control signals back and forth wirelessly almost constantly. Estimates vary, but they could be 30 to 50 billion of them by 2025. In time, their “electrosmog” will fill the air as London’s pea-soup fogs did in the age of coal.

energyWhy 5G matters

Cellphones are a particular concern because they broadcast next to our ears at frequencies that in recent generations can extend into the microwave range. And in all but the most rural areas, tower transmissions are with us always. Each new generation of phones carries more data faster than the last by transmitting at higher frequencies.

4G phones, for example, operate at 2.5 GHz microwave frequencies. 5G extends to 39 GHz. And generations up to 8G are already under development. The good news is that the electrical component of high-frequency EMFs penetrates barely 1 mm into the body.

The bad is that it couples to biological processes much more efficiently than phone transmissions used to, and nothing keeps their magnetic component at bay. There is more. Buildings block 5G signals, so many more transmitters are needed to serve an urban area. They also use beam forming to aim all their power in one direction rather than omnidirectionally, as previous cell technologies have done.

Standing in a 5G beam at a given distance subjects us to much more powerful electromagnetic radiation than 4G did – and, because there are more transmitters, we have more opportunity for exposure. Telecoms point out that no one has ever shown that 5G transmissions harm human health, and this is true.

The technology is so new that no one has had time to carry out the necessary studies. Yet, even for 4G, the data is compelling. As long ago as 2009, neurosurgeon Vini G Khurana at the Australian National University, and colleagues in Australia, Austria, and Sweden, reviewed long-term epidemiologic studies of cell phones and brain cancer.

They found that using a cell phone for 10 years or more doubled the risk of glioma and acoustic neuroma, but only on the side of the head where users held their phones. In Malta, researchers studied the incidence of glioblastoma multiforme, the rare brain cancer scientists have long suspected might be linked to the use of cell phones.

From 2008 through 2017, the number of people who had used cell phones for 10 years or more, when excess cancers are considered most likely to appear, was rising fast. Medical records showed an obvious trend. In 2008, there were only 0.73 cases per 100,000 population.

Ten years later, there were 4.49 per 100,000. Something might have caused this other than the growing use of cell phones, but no credible alternative has been suggested. Moreover, researchers at the Yale School of Public Health reported in 2020 on genetic variations that predispose people to develop thyroid cancer.

Heavy cell phone use more than doubled the risk of thyroid cancer in those with any of four such variations. Professional critics can find ways to trash any inconvenient research. For the rest of us, the picture should be clear.

F-16 cockpit is dense with RF emitters that may fatally degrade pilot cognition. DARPA is now investigating that possible hazard.

The bottom line

EMFs can affect us in ways that are especially important in the air. Known effects that appear within the duration of an average flight include fatigue, irritability, an inability to concentrate, and mild cognitive impairment resulting in task saturation, mistaken priorities, complacency, and spatial disorientation. Between 1993 and 2013, US Air Force pilots were involved in 72 severe accidents attributed to spatial disorientation.

The incidents resulted in 101 deaths and 65 aircraft lost. The possibility that electromagnetic fields were to blame concerned the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) enough that in October 2020 it initiated a 2-year project called Impact of Cockpit Electro-Magnetics on Aircrew Neurology (ICEMAN).

ICEMAN appears to have been dormant for some 20 months, but in May DARPA issued a $371,000 grant to Spotlight Labs, specialists in human factors analytics in Haddonfield NJ, and Norwich University in Vermont. Engineers there will use 5 workstations to simulate EMF in the cockpit of an F-16 and identify any effects on experienced F-16 pilots.

ICEMAN has $1.5 million in total funding and is scheduled to last 3 years. A hint of what ICEMAN could find comes from the International Association of Fire Fighters. As early as 2004, the organization published a resolution stating that it did not want telecom infrastructure located near fire stations.

The issue came up when firefighters in Santa Barbara responding to emergencies could not remember such basic information as where they were going or how to administer CPR. The problem affected those operating from stations with cell towers nearby.

According to Dr Gunnar Heuser, now retired from the UCLA Medical Center Department of Medicine, brain scans showed changes in their gray and white matter.

Looking ahead

Regulators and advisory bodies have been remarkably unmoved by all this evidence. A few decades ago, the only known hazard of radio frequency (RF) signals was excessive heating: when powerful enough, RF can warm tissues like a microwave oven. Emissions were known to cause corneal damage in this way, and FCC regulations were designed to prevent that kind of injury.

They have remained unchanged since 1977. Independent researchers say that emissions are 10 to 100 times higher than they should be. The official positions of nearly all regulators and medical bodies match that of the telecom industry exactly. FCC, FDA, and even the National Cancer Institute declare, in FCC’s words, “At relatively low levels of exposure to RF radiation, ie, levels lower than those that would produce significant heating, the evidence for production of harmful biological effects is ambiguous and unproven.”

The World Health Organization (WHO) concurs. Yet, one government body does not. In 2019, the New Hampshire state legislature created a commission to study the environmental and health effects of evolving 5G technology. It reported in November 2020 that 5G signals unambiguously couple with biological processes in ways that cause health problems.

The commission also concluded that regulators and advisory bodies had been captured by the telecoms they were supposed to police. They had cause to believe it.

The picture is clearest at WHO

The guidelines most European governments rely on for EMF standards come from the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) – a private non-governmental organization based in Germany.

In practice, it is tightly bound to both WHO and the telecom industry. ICNIRP was founded in 1992. Its first chairman was Australian biophysicist Michael Repacholi. He had no background in EMF research, and he immediately adopted the idea that only heating injury matters.

Four years later, he became founding chairman of the WHO EMF Project and established the same policy there. Despite what might seem a conflict of interest, he held both offices simultaneously. His chosen successor at WHO was Emilie van Deventer, an electrical engineer from the University of Toronto praised by the university magazine for her “invaluable” service to the telecom industry. It brought in donations and lucrative research contracts.

She received research funding from the Natural Sciences & Engineering Research Council of Canada, Communications & Information Technology Ontario, and Nortel, then Canada’s largest telecommunications company. Deventer took office in 2008 and remains head of the EMF Project today.

The EMF Project is WHO’s sole authority on electromagnetic radiation. It established the organization’s current policy in a 2016 monograph. The 6-member core group in charge of writing it had only 1 independent member. The rest belonged to ICNIRP and many to other industry groups as well. Their rejection of non-thermal risks from EMF remains unchanged. Similar – although less obvious – influences can be found at most regulatory bodies concerned with EMF.

In the US, of course, we also have congressmen to run interference for donors’ companies. Their interest in tightening regulations is, at best, inconspicuous. In all, anyone concerned about the possible health risks of EMFs will have to protect themselves. How that can be accomplished in the cockpit is not obvious. If you are interested in more information about EMFs, it can be found at the Scientific Alliance for Education (

OwenOwen Davies is a veteran freelance writer specializing in technology. He has been a futurist at Forecasting International and TechCast Global.

Original Article – Please share from HERE


Headache in the Car

Kopfschmerzen im Auto – Headache in the Car (English Subtitles)

This experiment demonstrates brain effects from Wifi, Bluetooth, smart devices  and other electronic features in modern vehicles.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Headache in the Car

Video : War-Gaming for Profit – Mobile Radiation, Cancer Risk and Industry Lobbying

Courtesy of Kompetenzinitiative e.V.


Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Video : War-Gaming for Profit – Mobile Radiation, Cancer Risk and Industry Lobbying


Source Article: Microwave News Louis Slesin

July 20, 2022
Last updated July 22, 2022

My wife and I spent a few days in Basel, Switzerland, earlier this month. We came for its many  exceptional museums, and they didn’t disappoint. One afternoon as we were walking through town, not far from the complex that is home to Art Basel, the annual contemporary art fair, I spotted a carefully crafted warning on the side of an otherwise unremarkable building on Drahtzugstrasse. “The Odious Smell of Truth,” it called out.

With a little Googling, I learned that the expression comes from the title of an exhibition held at the Royal College of Art in London in the spring of 2017. The show was organized by Peter Kennard, a noted British political artist, and his students. They called themselves the Rage Collective. What does it mean, they wanted to know, to tell the truth in a world of false news and social media misinformation.

The Odious Smell of Truth
A building on Drahtzugstrasse in Basel

As it happens, a few days later while I was making my way home to New York, I received an email from Peter Hensinger, the scientific director of Diagnose Funk, a German-Swiss environmental and consumer protection group. It took me right back to those words above Drahtzugstrasse.

Hensinger sent me a commentary he had recently published which was sharply critical of Martin Röösli, an associate professor of environmental epidemiology at the University of Basel.

Last year, Röösli was the lead author of a health review for physicians on the state of RF science and what might be expected from the latest generation of wireless technology, known as 5G. The message is that there’s nothing to worry about. “According to current knowledge,” Röösli advises, 5G “would not represent a health risk.” The open access paper is in German, with an abstract in English.

“Röösli’s paper is full of misleading half-truths,” Hensinger told Microwave News. “It reminds me of the work of David Michaels,” he said, referring to the author of Doubt Is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Affects Your Health. “Röösli is manufacturing uncertainty.” Michaels, an American epidemiologist, was the head of OSHA under President Obama.

A Prominent Member of the RF–Health Community

Few people are as influential in RF/microwave public policy circles as Röösli. He is a full member of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), and has been since 2016. He serves on a number of committees, including those that advise the German, Swedish and Swiss governments. Indeed, he chairs the Swiss group, called BERENIS, which prepares regular updates on new research for the Federal Office of the Environment. He sits on a number of editorial boards of scientific journals, including Bioelectromagnetics and the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (IJERPH).

No one doubts that Röösli is well briefed in all facets of RF health research. He knows what’s in the literature. His influence comes from deciding what’s important and what’s not. As Hensinger shows in his seven-page deconstruction of Röösli’s review paper, discomfiting findings are often shunted aside.

Martin Röösli     Peter Hensinger
Martin Röösli                      Peter Hensinger

For example, Hensinger points out that Röösli does not mention the U.S. NTP’s $30 million animal study that showed RF radiation leads to cancer. He similarly ignores the Ramazzini Institute study that, remarkably, found an increase in the same rare tumor —schwannoma of the heart— as had the NTP.

That Röösli ignores the NTP and Ramazzini studies is all the more striking given that BERENIS, the Swiss advisory group which he was chairing at the time, published a special issue evaluating them in November 2018. There, the panel wrote that these two animal studies are “the most comprehensive” to date and, despite their methodological differences, they both showed “relatively consistent results.” Based on these findings, BERENIS called for a precautionary approach for RF/EMF exposures.

Röösli also fails to tell his readers that IARC has classified RF radiation as a possible human carcinogen, and that RF is on the priority list for reassessment. A possible upgrade will be considered in light of the release of the NTP and Ramazzini results.

Misrepresenting a Fertility Study

Hensinger is particularly critical of the way Röösli discounts RF effects on sperm quality and fertility. Here’s what Röösli wrote:

“Until recently we have not had an epidemiological study of sufficient quality about the impact of radiation from wireless communication technologies on sperm quality, even though it is a matter of public controversy. In a recently published prospective cohort study with about 3,000 subjects, no effect was observed for the use of cell phones in the front pockets of pants on sperm quality and the period until a pregnancy is confirmed.” [Hensinger’s translation]

Sounds definitive, but as Hensinger points out, “Röösli bypasses an overall analysis of the current body of knowledge from in vivo [animal], in vitro [cell culture] and epidemiological studies by pointing to an anecdotal note in a single (!) epidemiological study.” [That’s Hensinger’s exclamation mark.]

A recent report for the European Parliament, cited by Hensinger, reviewed more than 60 studies and concludes that there is indeed an effect on fertility.

How reliable is that prospective study that Röösli insinuates settles the fertility issue? If you read the paper —take a look, it’s open access— you’ll see details on the many possible sources of exposure misclassification that would tend to mask any risks. The research team calls the problem of determining radiation dose a “major challenge” [p.1402].

But the most obvious reason this study does not cancel out all the previous work is that —as Hensinger also points out and Röösli does not— in two different data sets, it shows a statistically significant decrease in fecundity among lean men who carried their phones in their front pockets. (No similar effect was observed in heavier men; fecundity is a fancy word for fertility.)

Röösli is effectively saying that phones can be worn near reproductive organs without hesitation, according to Hensinger. “That’s irresponsible,” he said.

5G Health Risks by Martin Röösli      Aktuelle Kardiologie
Martin Röösli’s 5G review was published in Aktuelle Kardiologie

Why a Cardiology Journal?

Another incongruous aspect of Röösli’s radiation review is that it appears in a cardiology journal, Aktuelle Kardiologie. Hensinger doesn’t know why it ended up there, but he did say that its parent company, Thieme, is one of the most important medical publishers in Germany and reaches a large number of practicing physicians.

The journal’s influence goes beyond its circulation of about 4,500. Röösli’s article was picked up by other German-language news outlets (one example here), with the result that, as Hensinger told me, “Almost all medical doctors in Germany, Austria and Switzerland learned about it.”

That, of course, was the objective.

When the experts mangle the facts so badly, is it any wonder that confusion reigns over RF health risks?

The corruption of the scientific literature continues. I don’t know when this might change, but a good start would be for Röösli to take a walk down Drahtzugstrasse and take a deep breath. Then, maybe, he’ll come to his senses.


Aktuelle Kardiologie has agreed to publish a one-page rebuttal of Röösli’s paper by Hensinger. It is scheduled to appear in mid-August.

This is not the first time an ICNIRP member has had trouble with the facts. See our “The Lies Must Stop.”

Another story on the same general theme: “Four Reasons Why David Grimes’s RF-Cancer Review Must Be Retracted.”



Press Release from PHIRE UK – Child with EHS Ruling

Source : PHIRE Physicians’ Health Initiative for Radiation and Environment 

Press Release August 2022

Education Health Care Plan (EHCP)
awarded (Aug 2022) for UK child on the
basis of
Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS).

Statements from parents, child and excerpts from 3 Tribunal Hearings included below:

Parents have now won a 5 year legal battle against 2 local authorities to have their child accommodated in school for EHS. They won in the Upper Tribunal, thus the ruling is also precedent setting. We believe this is the first case in the world where a government body is legally mandated to make low EMF educational provisions to accommodate a child with EHS.

The family wishes to protect the anonymity of their child, however they (and their child) hope that the ruling may begin to facilitate a better future for other children and adults with EHS:

The parents share, Going through this process has opened our eyes to some shocking truths regarding the ways in which families can be treated within the current system. We recognised that it would not be easy to navigate such novel and politically charged territory, but the bar was elevated to a higher degree than even we anticipated. Our daughter was put through misery that no child should have to go through. Nonetheless, finally justice has been served and we hope that our daughter can move forward with her education whilst also being allowed a healthy environment. We are proud of how optimistic she has remained. We are aware that currently other children with EHS in the UK are unable to access school and some of them are profoundly isolated given that even home schooling groups can be inaccessible to them due to prolific use of Wifi and mobile phones in the community. Legal recognition that some children can be adversely affected by these exposures in a serious and debilitating way, is the first step to making schools healthier for all pupils in our digital age and allowing equal opportunities for those who are acutely affected”.

The school girl wanted to share her thoughts with other children who have EHS, I am a 13 year old girl with EHS. I have headaches, insomnia and other symptoms sometimes when exposed to WiFi or other kinds of EMF (electromagnetic fields). These can become very severe. If you are reading this, you may experience these symptoms yourself, you may recognise them and are perhaps starting to think you may have this condition, or maybe you are doubtful it even exists. Maybe I would be too, if I hadn’t felt the effects firsthand. EHS has dramatically affected my life, but maybe not in the ways you might think. Of course there are places I can’t go, or things I don’t have, but I live a very “normal” life in most ways. I can message my friends through email or Skype on a hardwired system as long as I don’t spend too long and I can go to school now that I have one without Wifi and mobile phones. Some people have more severe EHS and can’t do these things that most take for granted. I appreciate how much they suffer, but believe that even those people, can recover in a low EMF environment. I can feel things and sense things most people can’t. This has protected my health, and I like to think of it as a superpower. Of course sometimes, when I can’t sleep, or can’t go to school, it doesn’t feel like that, but in my stronger states, I recognise that it is kind of amazing. I have previously been unable to go to school, as the school I went to put in WiFi, but people fought for me, comforted me, and welcomed me, despite how weird or crazy our situation may have been. These people were my family, my friends, teachers and sometimes near strangers, and they didn’t just fight for me, but for anyone and everyone with EHS. They are the people we need more of, those with open minds and hearts. Thank you, to all of them. If you have EHS, and are struggling to stay in good health, or can’t go to school, or work, don’t give up, because everything will get better. People are becoming more aware of this condition, and even if right now it seems like nothing will ever change, it already is…..

Please read full Press Release – and share from – here

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Press Release from PHIRE UK – Child with EHS Ruling



New precedent setting ruling: UK child with Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity to be accommodated with educational low EMF environment

East Sussex, UK

Upper Tribunal requires council to secure EHCP for student who is hypersensitive to Wi-Fi signals

‘The Upper Tribunal has ruled that a council must secure special educational provision for a child who has electromagnetic hypersensitivity and is particularly sensitive to Wi-Fi signals.

In EAM v East Sussex County Council (Special educational needs) [2022] UKUT 193 (AAC), on appeal from the First-tier Tribunal, Upper Tribunal judge Jacobs found that the child should be considered disabled by her condition under the Equality Act 2010 and that she required an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP).

The child’s parents – who argue that their daughter needs to be schooled in a ‘low electromagnetic environment’ – have been attempting to secure an EHCP that acknowledges her condition since 2017….’

Tribunal decision:

Screenshot 2022-08-18 at 13-53-46 ua-2022-000328-hs__002_.pdf

Trinity College Dublin: First 5G test licence awarded by ComReg will enable next-gen communications networks research

Source Article

22nd March 2022

Researchers from Trinity and CONNECT, the SFI Research Centre for Future Networks, have been awarded a 5G test licence to allow advanced experimentation on the next generation of communication networks.

This is the first 5G test licence given by ComReg in the new 5G band (3.8-4.2GHz) and will enable crucial research on delivering faster internet speeds and more reliable mobile phone coverage, and on delivering new applications such as remote medical surgery.

A 5G test licence provides access to a portion of radio spectrum, allowing researchers to carry out experiments in real-world outdoor scenarios taking into consideration the effect of the environment, such as buildings and geographical features, on coverage and connection speed of a mobile network.

This is important because the behavior of wireless communications is strongly dependent on the frequency at which it operates, thus experiments need to be done exactly at those frequencies that will then be used by commercial implementations.

In addition, since the licence enables operation at the frequencies that have been standardised for 5G, it allows experimenting using the same equipment that is also used in commercial systems, which brings academic research much closer to commercialisation. This also allows the use of commercial smartphones for the experiments, meaning the experiment can be easily scaled up to hundreds of users and approaches like crowdsourcing can be considered.

Welcoming the award, Marco Ruffini, Associate Professor in the School of Computer Science and Statistics in Trinity, said: “This 5G test licence will allow us to conduct experiments at the same radio frequency used by commercial applications. This makes our research particularly relevant to industry partners, and we are looking forward to many new collaborative projects with different companies, including new spin-outs from CONNECT in Trinity.

“This licence will be a key feature of our OpenIreland testbed as it enables deep research on the integration of optical communication, wireless systems (based on OpenRAN) and edge cloud.

“Most of the remaining challenges in the development of 5G are associated with intelligent software for network control and optimisation. This licence will allow us to perform research on these intelligent systems by exploring the use of machine learning and Artificial Intelligence for implementing network customisation and dependability. The creation of network digital twins will also form part of the research plan.”

Dan Kilper, Director of CONNECT, said: “ComReg’s decision to award this test licence highlights the value of academic research in the development of 5G-and-beyond networks. We anticipate significant interest from industry and we are open to discussing how we can tailor research projects to fit the interests of those interested in exploring commercial applications.”

The Irish telecoms regulator ComReg said: “We welcome opportunities to facilitate test and trials for research and development of novel wireless communication services and technologies, such as CONNECT’s innovative 5G testbed, through Test & Trial Ireland.”

Trinity’s Provost Linda Doyle said: “Marco is a brilliant researcher and a leader in the field of optical networks. His use of testbeds has been hugely innovative. The OpenIreland testbed, for instance, provides an end-to-end approach to the whole network using open interfaces and open source. This licence will allow Marco and his team to perform cutting-edge research on next-generation networks, which will be of relevance to academic and industry partners.”

This article was first published on 18 March by Trinity College Dublin.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Trinity College Dublin: First 5G test licence awarded by ComReg will enable next-gen communications networks research


Written in 2016 by Professor Franz Adlkofer, on the third anniversary of the death of Carsten Häublein

Source: PDF – Pandora – Adlkofer/Häublein

Electrosensitivity: as experienced by an electrosensitive person and assessed by scientists

by Franz Adlkofer

Electrosensitivity experienced by an electrosensitive person

On February 13, 2013, the body of Carsten Häublein a former pastor from Ammertal, was recovered from the river Schlei in Schleswig-Holstein (Germany). From the available evidence, it was concluded that he had taken his own life. After seven years of suffering whenever he was exposed to mobile communication radiation (RFEMF), he obviously had lost the courage to continue this way of life. Half a year before he died, on September 13, 2012, I received a mail from him at 2:46 a.m. in which he described his state of health as follows:

My formerly radiation-free home in the North of Schleswig-Holstein, where I took shelter after fleeing from Bavaria and where I became free of symptoms and again socially acceptable, has turned into a buzzing, whizzing, and burning inferno precisely at the same time when the horror “LTE” was introduced nation-wide …

I only hold out by lying for about 3-4 hours each day in a tub filled with salt water, afterwards covering myself with piles of emergency blankets and winding a canopy around my head – just enough not to suffocate. Then I find several, a few hours of sleep …

The brutal nocturnal charge, which I do not get rid off during the day in any other place but in the water, causes an increasing intolerance of also this PC, the stove, the phone, the car’s electrics, and so on – something I did not experience at all until July this year. To write a letter like this one I am perhaps able every other two days. For some people this is a sort of death sentence.

Yet, I still seem to be able to regenerate: After each swim in the salt containing river Schlei and after each bath in the tub I feel free from symptoms. This is the proof for me that all the wild turbulences are of exogenous nature, owed to a noxious state hostile to life which from the outside attacks and tortures my body. The wellbeing, though, does not last very long …

A second mail followed a few hours later:

Dear Prof. Franz Adlkofer,
Carsten Häublein is writing – but this time not with a substantial message but in very deep distress because of new EMF stress. If you can arrange it, please call me – xxxxx. Whatever we exchange, please treat it with absolute discretion – many greetings
Carsten Häublein

Both mails give evidence that the pastor Häublein must have been in an emotional state marked by despair, bitterness, and hopelessness. His enemies, who from the beginning thought of him as a mentally ill person, will probably feel fully supported in their view by the description of his suffering, and they will not even wonder at all what made him so very ill. But the answer clearly lies in his move from South to North Germany. Between 2006 and 2009, he was ill in the radiation-exposed Ammertal, he then felt well again in 2009 after moving to a radiation-free spot at the Baltic Sea. When the radiation finally reached his new home in 2012, his illness not only returned, but was worse than before. With his long ordeal and his reoccurrances when confronted with new exposures, he proved that his electrosensitivity was caused by electromagnetic fields.

Since 2006, pastor Häublein was strongly committed to have electrosensitivity regarded as an environmental illness. He did not want and could not approve that German politicians responsible for taking care of the health of the people, would sit back and watch how a minority of people are deprived of their right to health. As science obviously could not help him and the many other persons concerned, he intended to have a court decision on this matter and he wanted to hear my opinion. I believe it is in his interest that on the occasion of the third anniversary of his death I write this report.

I told pastor Häublein that in my opinion a court action to have electrosensitivity recognized as an environmental disease would be doomed to fail. The judge would refer to the safety limits of RF-EMF, which the German Commission on Radiological Protection (SSK) and the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS) – opposite to my view – claim to reliably protect the people against any health risk. It could also to be added that the radiation emitted by base stations and other radiating devices fall well below the safety limits. The prospects of convincing a judge that the BfS hardly knows anything about the biological effects of mobile communication radiation and, therefore, uses the “expertise” of “experts” from the mobile communication industry are certainly rather poor. Furthermore, should indeed a courageous judge be found who believes that the plaintiff’s personal history and the causes behind his illness may be true, he would probably be set right latest in the second instance.

Electrosensitivity assessed by scientists

The Häublein case is an example of a tragedy in Europe, where thousands of people suffering from the aftereffects of electrosensitivity are classified as psychologically peculiar or even mentally disturbed. The sole reason of this claim is to deny RF-EMF being the cause of this suffering. The German SSK made a statement on this issue in 2011 in an especially perfidious way:

Thus, looking at the international literature altogether the conclusion can be drawn despite the different definition of target groups and recruitments that “electrosensitivity” in the sense of being causally connected to EMF exposition most probably does not exist. Further research therefore should be carried out in a subject area outside EMF research.

The way the issue of electrosensitivity is dealt with arouses the suspicion that the ignoring of any effects is based on an arrangement between industry and politics.

Scientists, who are selected for this kind of research by industry and politics because they know a lot about psychology and psychiatry, but often nothing about RF-EMF, try to find out – endowed with ample funds – if there are any differences in behaviour and sensitivity between non-electrosensitive and electrosensitive people. With the statistical evaluation of experimental or questionnaire data, they come to the conclusion that the electrosensitive persons suffer significantly more from somatoform disorders, without finding an adequate physical cause for the symptoms described. Unanimously, the researchers then state that the suffering of these people can be very severe due to these somatoform disorders and that this has to be taken seriously. Yet, unanimously they are of the opinion that the research results obtained cannot confirm RF-EMF being a cause of the electrosensitivity. Thus, the way for the so-called risk communication is paved for which the mobile communication industry has a special group of “experts” on stand-by. Regularly, it informs the public that based on the available investigations it is scientifically proven that electrosensitivity occurs quite independently from RF-EMF exposure and that, too, it has nothing to do with it, because, they believe that below the safety limits there are no relevant biological effects causing a health risk.

In his report on the BioEM2015 (1) , Prof. Dariusz Leszczynski states that all studies concerning the question of electrosensitivity, which are quoted as proof against electromagnetic fields causing health disorders, are from their approach inadequate to justify this conclusion. He talks of a standstill in science because for years it has been limited to the questions “how do you feel” and “what do you feel” instead of impartially searching with molecular-biological techniques for the physiological differences between electrosensitive and healthy persons. The biggest obstacle to advancing knowledge in this field, according to Leszczynski, is that scientists obviously lack ideas for new research approaches. What he hides is the fact that industry and government, the only ones having the necessary funds, do not support the research approach he proposes. His professional experience is the best proof that this assumption is correct: His research division at the national STUK in Finland was closed in 2012 and he lost his job apparently because he had started to turn to this neglected research area (2) .

The reason that there is no real explanation for electrosensitivity caused by mobile communication radiation is not at all a proof against the assumption that electrosensitivity is a special form of the radiation illness known for a long time. The argument also turns into air because there are other diseases with a pathogenesis only partly or not at all understood, but without anyone doubting their existence. Pastor Häublein – by the way not the only one – claims that the symptoms of electrosensitivity disappeared all the sudden after moving to a radiation-free place, but returned all the sudden when the place was connected to radio network via LTE. Furthermore, he has shown himself that protection from the external radiation is possible under certain conditions. If this is true, and we do not have any reason to doubt, any further proof of the causality of an interaction would not be necessary – quite independently from knowing the mechanisms.

In the meantime it is well known that radiation effects exist also below the safety limits, which industry and politics categorically ruled out so far. Further proof was recently provided by Professor Alexander Lerchl from the private Jacobs University Bremen, a former member of SSK – even if just by accident. For many years, Alexander Lerchl ensured the harmlessness of RF-EMF with exclusively negative results. Recently, however, he was forced to confirm – based on the outcome of a study financed by industry and politics and carried out by his research group – something which he had vehemently denied before: RF-EMF in form of UMTS can increase tumour growth in mice below the safety limits (3) . By the way, the mechanism of this process is still a mystery just as the one of electrosensitivity. Tumour promotion is with a high probability accompanied by tumour initiation. The genotoxic potential of RF-EMF as demonstrated in laboratory studies and the outcome of several epidemiological studies speak in favour of this assumption. Altogether, the conclusion can be drawn that biological organisms of any nature, be it single cells, animals or humans, may be at risk in some way due to RFEMF exposure. If this is possible, inevitably the question arises why it should not be responsible for the symptoms of electrosensitivity also.

Dariusz Leszczynski criticizes in his report on the BioEM2015 that during the conference a vast number of bioelectromagnetic topics were dealt with, yet biological effects on humans were sparsely presented. However, without such investigations it is nearly impossible to prove that electromagnetic fields cause physiological changes in human organisms that are relevant for the development of diseases. He suspects that this kind of research is more or less blocked by decision-makers in politics and industry who may be afraid of the possibly awkward consequences from the results. That Dariusz Leszcynski’s suspicion is more than justified reflects the dealing with the REFLEX-Study, a research project designed as required by him. In this study financed by the European Union and coordinated by me we found genotoxic effects of RF-EMF far below the safety limits. To get rid of these results, in 2008, Alexander Lerchl – who no doubt acted in the interest of the industry – suddenly claimed that the REFLEX results would be faked. With this kind of emergency brake, he obviously intended to prevent the support for the REFLEX link-up study on which the decision of the European Union was pending. He adhered to this allegation for years until finally in 2015 the Hamburg District Court forced him to recant and convicted him of defamation and libel.


As it currently appears, politicians responsible for the health of people seem to rank the business of the mobile communication industry higher than they rank the protection of the people suffering from electrosensitivity. This is illustrated especially by the government-funded pseudo-research in this area, the pseudo-results of which make it possible to play down the relevance of electrosensitivity for the health of people. Upon the invitation by members of the EU Parliament, a hearing took place on January 12, 2016, which dealt with electrosensitivity. The outcome remains to be seen. In preparation of the hearing the Initiative Citizens of the World called attention to the International Electromagnetic Field Scientist Appeal signed by 218 scientists from 40 countries in 2015 which states among others:

Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines.

Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans.

Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.

In the meantime there are first signs that the policy of playing down the environmental radiation exposure as harmless may slowly come to an end. A court in Toulouse, France, considered it proven based on medical certificates that Ms Marine R. just as pastor Häublein is suffering from gnawing aches in head and spine and sleep disorders near base stations, smartphones, and even TVs. Therefore, it classified the plaintiff 85% severely handicapped and awarded her with a monthly pension of 800 € for three years. In order to avoid any exposure to electromagnetic fields Ms Marine R. now lives in an old stone house in the Pyrenees near the Spanish border without electricity and running water, and of course without mobile phones.

Let us hope that courageous judges will be found not only in France who understand the basis for electrosensitivity, who question the rationale for the safety limits and who provide justice to electrosensitive people.

Pandora – Foundation for independent research 2016