Americans for Responsible Technology

Americans For Responsible Technology is pleased to recognize Dr. Joel Moskowitz as the recipient of the organization’s Leadership Award for his outstanding service and contributions to public health.
 
In making the announcement, ART National Director Doug Wood cited Dr. Moskowitz’s dedication to ensuring that the supporters of safe technology were armed with the best science available. ” Joel has been unparalleled in his work keeping us informed about the latest research from the scientific community,” said Wood. “He has helped us immensely in our efforts to bring awareness to the issue of RF radiation and its impact on human health.” “The world is a better place because of the vitally important efforts of Dr. Joel Moskowitz to promote public understanding of the growing scientific evidence detailing the public health impacts of wireless radiation,” said Dr. Devra Davis, renowned epidemiologist and founder and President of the Environmental Health Trust.
 
“Joel performs an enormous service to the scientific community as well as to the general public and global governments in documenting the progress made worldwide through study of the harmful effects of exposure to electromagnetic radiation,” said Dr. David Carpenter, Director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany. “We all owe him a major debt of gratitude.”
 
Dr. Kent Chamberlin, former Chair of the University of New Hampshire’s Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering noted, “I became involved with wireless radiation issues in 2019, having little background knowledge about it. Fortunately, Dr. Moskowitz has paved the way for me and others by making well-vetted information available and by responding in detail to questions posed to him. He has clearly ‘moved the needle’ with his work.”
 
“Joel has provided the world and the electromagnetic field health impact assessment community a rare commodity: poise and intellectual brilliance in the middle of a storm,” said Dr. Paul Héroux, Professor of Toxicology & Health Effects of Electromagnetism at McGill University in Montreal. “He has also immensely contributed to the selfless spreading of critical scientific information within the community of researchers.”
 
Elizabeth Kelley, Director of the International EMF Scientist Appeal Campaign, agreed. “I am grateful to Joel Moskowitz for his many effective contributions that add depth and clarity to our messages about EMF’s biological and health effects and support our urgent call for policy and practical solutions aimed at ensuring greater health protections for people and wildlife,” she said. About Joel Moskowitz
 
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D. is the Director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley. Dr. Moskowitz has published research on health promotion and disease prevention for more than 40 years, most recently focusing on the adverse health effects of radiofrequency radiation (RFR). His peer-reviewed publications on RFR address the tumor risk from mobile phone use, environmental exposure to RFR, and electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS).

He is a founding member and advisor to the International EMF Scientist Appeal, Physicians for Safe Technology, and the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.

He provided pro bono expertise on RFR to help the cities of San Francisco and Berkeley defend their cell phone “right to know” laws in two Federal lawsuits: CTIA v City and County of SanFrancisco, and CTIA v Berkeley.

In 2018, he received The James Madison Freedom of Information Award from the Society of Professional Journalists (Northern California Chapter) for a successful lawsuit that resulted in the California Department of Public Health releasing its cell phone safety guidance document previously suppressed for eight years.
 
Since 2009 he has been a source for hundreds of news stories on RFR. He has disseminated research on electromagnetic fields on a monthly basis since 2016. His Electromagnetic Radiation Safety website, which has received more three million page views, has served as a valuable resource for scientists, journalists. and the public since 2013.

https://mailchi.mp/a9bc815ac0f9/art-honors-joel-moskowitz-with-leadership-award?e=76c9b43ae9

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.

Outlook

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

Source/Fonte:

http://www.pandora-foundation.eu/downloads/pandora_ehs-haeublein_160309_english.pdf

Professor Franz Adlkofer was co-ordinator of the REFLEX Project, funded by the European Commission from 2000 to 2004.  It was considered at that time to be the most important project in basic research investigating the biological effects of Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) on cell systems, below present safety levels i.e. those produced by the ICNIRP (International Commission for Non-ionising Radiation Protection).  The REFLEX results summarised the effects of exposures to various EMF frequencies and found, in short, powerful genotoxic effects, DNA strand breaks, chromosomal aberrations and intracellular free radicals. 

The REFLEX Project results, which emerged at a time when UMTS (3G) mobile phone systems were being deployed around Europe, led to an unexpected antagonistic response from the media, political agencies and particularly from the Telecom industry.  Allegations regarding the validity of the results and accusations of data falsification and scientific misconduct were made from the time the study was released, in spite of the fact that the study had been carried out by 12 research groups from seven European Countries.

One of Professor Adlkofer’s persistent critics, Professor Alexander Lerchl, was taken to Court for spreading falsifications about the findings of the study.  The case eventually ended up being heard before the Hanseatic Higher Regional Court of Bremen in 2021, where a final ban on Professor Lerchl making allegations of fraud and campaigning against the findings of the REFLEX Study was issued.  Throughout the intervening years it appears Professor Lerchl had performed a ‘U-Turn’ (Microwave News March 13, 2015) when, on leading a study himself, higher rates of cancer among mice exposed to EMF was discovered. 

Despite the findings of genotoxiciity and DNA damage in the REFLEX Study, the UMTS (3G) system continued to be ‘rolled out’ across Europe.

Professor Adlkofer’s experience of the hostility he received was echoed in lectures he gave at a number of later events including the Center for Ethics at Harvard Law School (2011), as Executive Director of the VERUM Foundation for Behaviour and Environment.  Here he raised the issues of “institutional corruption”, laying pressure on and obstructing scientific researchers in the field of EMF who were assessing its potential health effects.  In October 2018 Professor Adlkofer wrote an article for the Pandora foundation for Independent Research upon recognising a similar pattern of aggression from ICNIRP and industry-led scientists when the National Toxicology Program (NTP) results were released (2016).  This study demonstrated clear evidence of particular tumours and an increase in DNA damage after exposure to EMF. Professor Aldkofer’s article, “How the Mobile Communication Industry Deals with Science as Illustrated by ICNIRP versus NTP” voiced his awareness about the strategic placement of ‘compliant scientists, whose preferred opinion was more important than their qualifications’ {and who} were generously supported and, by using political connections, placed in national and international advisory and decision-making bodies.’  He criticised the ICNIRP set-up which, he stated, had ‘ensured that {the} mobile communication industry is not only dominating the technical research  …  but also the biological research – this at the expense of the human health.’

Despite the findings of the REFLEX and NTP studies, those in decision-making positions have continued to allow the exponential rise in 3G and 4G LTE along with WiFi, wireless radiation infrastructure and numerous usable devices.  Currently 5G is being deployed on every inch of the earth and is also being radiated onto the earth from satellites in space.   

Finally, Professor Adlkofer released the story of Paster Carsten Häublein who suffered from Electrohypersensitivity/Microwave sickness (EHS) for many years and for whom the continuous tortuous stress of the effects of EMF saw him take his own life in 2013.  This story was an important means of confirming the truth of the daily reality of EHS sufferers who are affected by EMF. Three years after the event Professor Adlkofer decided to publicise the story as an example of “Electrosensitivity experienced by an electrosensitive person”.

Rest in Peace Professor Adlkofer and Paster Carsten Häublein

Ethna Monks for Electromagnetic Sense Ireland    https://es-ireland.com

References:

Sudden Passing of Professor Franz Adlkofer: https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/2022/06/29/sudden-passing-of-professor-franz-adlkofer/

The REFLEX Study

Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards From Low Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods

Funded by the EU under the programme Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources  –  Summary of results – page 241 https://itis.swiss/assets/Downloads/Papers-Reports/Reports/REFLEXFinal-Report171104.pdf

The REFLEX Project Controversy:  The IT’IS Foundation’s Position – March 26, 2020 https://itis.swiss/news-events/news/other-news/2020/reflex-controversy/

Harvard Law School:  At Center for Ethics event, cell phone radiation and institutional corruption addressed (video)  written by  Sophie Bishop, November 18, 2011 https://today.law.harvard.edu/at-center-for-ethics-event-cell-phone-radiation-and-institutional-corruption-addressed-video/

A Higher Regional Court in Germany Orders Professor Alexander Lerchl to Retract his Falsification Allegations Against the REFLEX Study.  By Redaktion  22.2.21 https://pandora-foundation.eu/2021/02/22/a-higher-regional-court-in-germany-orders-professor-alexander-lerchl-to-retract-his-falsification-allegations-against-the-reflex-study/

Microwave News March 13, 2015:  RF Cancer Promotion:  Animal Study Makes Waves.  Germany’s Alex Lerchl Does a U-Turn https://microwavenews.com/news-center/rf-animal-cancer-promotion

Tumor promotion by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields below exposure limits for humans – Alexander Lerchl et al https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006291X15003988

How the Mobile Communication Industry Deals with Science as Illustrated by ICNIRP versus NTP https://pandora-foundation.eu/2018/10/26/how-the-mobile-communication-industry-deals-with-science-as-illustrated-by-icnirp-versus-ntp/

The National Toxicology Program

Regarding ICNIRP’S Evaluation of the National Toxicology Program’s Carcinogenicity Studies on Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields.

Ronald Melnick PhD – Lead Designer of the NTP https://ehtrust.org/new-paper-icnirp-misrepresents-the-national-toxicology-program-study-on-cell-phone-radiation/

https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Citation/2020/06000/Regarding_ICNIRP_S_Evaluation_of_the_National.11.aspx

Professor Franz Adlkofer: “ Electrosensitivity experienced by an electrosensitive person” https://www.elettrosensibili.it/2016/03/26/electrosensitivity-as-experienced-by-an-electrosensitive-person-and-assessed-by-scientists/

Source Article: Children’s Health Defense

Children’s Health Defense led advocacy groups in replying to the Federal Communications Commission’s request for comments on preventing digital discrimination by urging the commission to accommodate the electromagnetically sensitive.

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and a coalition of more than 80 nonprofits — including disability advocacy groups, safe technology groups and individuals — responded to the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) request for comments on how to “prevent and eliminate digital discrimination.”

The June 30 “Reply Comments of Advocates for the EMS-Disabled” summarized more than 330 comments submitted by the public since the comment period opened on March 17.

In addition to calling for acceptance, affirmation and inclusion of people for whom electromagnetic sensitivity (EMS) is a disability, the June 30 reply comments made these two key points:

1. The FCC should always prioritize “to-the-premises” fiber solutions and rely on wireless only when wiring is technically or economically infeasible or the main purpose is mobility.
2. If the FCC is sincere about achieving “diversity, equity and inclusion,” it must recognize the specific and profoundly deleterious effects of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) on the EMS-disabled and take immediate measures within its regulatory remit to address and solve this growing plight.

The proceeding was required by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and President Biden’s Executive Order 13985 — “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government.”

On May 16, CHD and 50 cosigners submitted comments accompanied by a white paper.

People who are electromagnetically sensitive, or EMS-disabled, suffer from a sensitivity to wireless radiation that makes living in a wireless world intolerable.

As of June 28, FCC Docket 22-69 listed 333 comments. Among the 333 comments, 65.17% stated they suffered from EMS disability or their family members and/or friends experienced symptoms of EMS or electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) or electrosensitivity.

More than 62% advocated that the EMS-disabled be accommodated with fiber to the premises and wireless-free zones, and 50.15% of respondents requested fiber to the premises.

EMS/EHS affects a growing segment of the population. Somewhere between 3% and 30% of the U.S. population, or between 9 million and 99 million people, are harmed by wireless technology.

Sensitivity to wireless technology usually is not limited to one device or one frequency.

EMS-disability is a constellation of neurological symptoms caused by sensitivity to cell phones, cell towers, smart meters, Wi-Fi and smart appliances.

EMS/EHS symptoms frequently include chronic headaches, cognitive impairment, extreme fatigue, trouble sleeping, ringing in the ears, rashes/hives, nausea, anxiety, depression and hyperactivity.

The U.S. Access Board, an independent federal agency that advises the government on guidelines for accommodation, recognized this disabling condition in 2002, and promised to develop accommodation guidelines but has failed to follow through.

“A rapidly increasing percentage of our population is suffering from a spectrum of EMS-disability,” said Mary Holland, CHD president and general counsel. “This condition and its disabling effects were acknowledged more than 20 years ago, but those who suffer are still not accepted by society, and are still routinely denied the accommodations they deserve.”

Holland added:

“There must be an allowance for radiofrequency radiation-free ‘safe zones’ in public spaces and buildings to ensure these individuals’ inclusion in public life. We must have fiber to and throughout the premises in every building accessed by the public, and fiber to the home in the United States.

“Refusing accommodation for this growing population of EMS-disabled is the direct opposite of the FCC’s stated goal of achieving diversity, equity and inclusion. The EMS-disabled cannot come to public meetings because of radiofrequency radiation saturation so we will advocate for them.”

Original article can be shared from here:

CHD Urges FCC to End Discrimination Against People Disabled by Electromagnetic Sensitivity

Children’s Health Defense

Watch:

https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/shows/good-morning-chd/3Vd7PbnQMB

Are you aware of the dangers of the technology you use on a daily basis? Did you know about the correlation between Autism, ADHD, reproductive issues, insomnia, headaches and microwave radiation? Many people refuse to acknowledge the truth about the WIFI, 5G, EMF all around them and continue to use their phones, laptops, iPads, Smartboards, and other technology and put themselves and their children/future children at risk. Join guest Cece Doucette on today’s episode of “Good Morning CHD” to hear more!

Source Article : Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation     5/7/22

Google Translation:

A German court has clarified in a lawsuit that property owners who rent space for base stations and mobile towers assume responsibility for health consequences of the activity. Although the radiation is lower than the relevant reference values from the authorities, this does not mean that the property owner is not responsible for negative health consequences. According to Björn Gillberg, the same responsibility principles also apply in Sweden.

The current case, which was decided in the District Court in Münster, Germany, concerned a municipality that wanted to terminate a rental agreement with a mobile phone operator regarding the location of base stations. The ruling, which rejected the municipality’s demand for termination of a lease for mobile base stations, clarifies that property owners who rent space for mobile masts or base stations are responsible together with the telecom operators for any damage that the business may cause. Attorney Krahn-Zembol, who represented the municipality, comments on the court’s decision as follows:

“As even official bodies such as the European Parliament’s Research Service (STOA) point out that the electromagnetic radiation limit values ​​are too high by at least a factor of 10, the owner takes a liability when entering into an agreement with a mobile phone system operator in this regard.

In addition, to date, almost 1,000 scientific studies, out of a total of more than 1,600 scientific studies on mobile telephony, have shown that biological effects and harmful effects occur with weaker radiation than the long-obsolete limit values ​​in the 26th BImSchV. (Regulation 26 on electromagnetic fields / Germany). The telecom operators have therefore for years in their annual reports warned their shareholders of further government regulation in the area.

Should set aside funds for the liability risk

Lawyer Krah-Zembol continues:

In addition, the system operators themselves have insured themselves for comparatively low liability amounts. If the municipalities were to enter into an agreement anyway, they would have to ask themselves to what extent and to what extent they would have to set aside funds from the municipal budget for this liability risk. It is all reminiscent of the extensive (and even legal) exemption for nuclear power plant operators, who would only be liable for up to EUR 250 million even in the event of a serious accident (GAU). (…) ”

The limit values ​​do not protect against liability claims

Furthermore, the lawyer states that the mere fact that the limit values ​​are complied with does not mean that the liability for damages is removed:

“Even if telecom operators repeatedly claim to comply with the limit values ​​when operating their facilities, this does not in any way exclude liability on their part or on the part of the property owner. On the contrary, the Federal Court (in Germany) has repeatedly stated that producers or operators cannot liberate themselves by referring to the official limit values ​​if they know or should have known of additional harmful effects, etc .. This is obvious even today, since even the majority of scientific studies show additional effects and harmful effects even though the radiation is lower than the limit values.

Since even the head of the Office of Technical Assessment at the German Bundestag, prof. A. Grunwald, has pointed out that it is irresponsible to introduce new technology with significantly higher frequencies without prior investigation of the consequences, this is also a sign of a not insignificant risk of liability. ”

In the present case, the court also clarified that the municipality is contractually liable for 30 years. Property owners must therefore also be responsible for all new dangers and risks, which can be further strengthened through future upgrades and new mobile phone technology.

The same responsibility for property owners in Sweden

Björn Gillberg at the Environmental Center has for many years pointed out the joint and several responsibility that arises for property owners who rent out space for mobile masts and mobile base stations. He has previously pursued several successful damages cases against environmentally damaging operators:

• It is the same principle that applies in Sweden. It is my opinion that in these cases, both the telecom operator and the property owner are jointly and severally liable for damages as a result of the business in accordance with applicable tort law in the Environmental Code. This also applies to damages for reduced property values ​​when it can be demonstrated that nearby residents have been affected by reduced property values ​​due to the business. The same principle also applies to, for example, wind turbines.

– The damages are strict, ie there is an obligation to pay compensation even if the applicable conditions, limit values, etc. are complied with. The current rules of tort law came about through our lawsuits in the 70s, 80s and 90s when some of our lawsuits went through the entire legal system and the rulings were codified by changing the then legislation.

Property owners are often unaware of the responsibility

According to the organization Diagnose-funk, property owners should be informed about the current responsibilities. The vast majority should be unaware of the liability they assume when they provide space for mobile base stations or mobile masts. Potential landlords of a plot / property should in each individual lease agree that the tenant (telecom operator) agrees to take responsibility for all claims for an unlimited amount, for example according to the wording below:

“The tenant shall indemnify the landlord [municipality, parish, housing company…] for all claims from third parties that arise in connection with the construction, operation or dismantling and otherwise in connection with the use of the rented property.” Source: https://www.diagnose-funk.org/aktuelles/artikel-archiv/detail?newsid=1846

References:

[1] In the judgment of the Landster tribunal in Münster, AZ: 08 O 178/21, it is stated on page 11, second and third paragraphs: ‘ did not know that in the external relationship he himself was responsible as responsible for the condition, he can not succeed with this. As a company governed by public law, the plaintiff as a municipality must have been sufficiently aware of his own disturbance of the permit. This does not mean that the defendant would have a possible information obligation that it did not fulfill, which the plaintiff claims. The possible lack of knowledge of one’s own responsibility is due to one’s own fault and not to the defendant’s fault.

[2] Reinsurers warn their customers to insure mobile phone operators against EMF damage – the damage is not calculable. https://www.diagnose-funk.org/655, https://www.diagnose-funk.org/1412

[3] STOA study from the European Parliament’s Research Service, July 2021 at https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/690012/EPRS_STU(2021)690012_EN.pdf

[4] Ericsson’s annual report states the following about risks for Ericsson associated with new results on harmful health effects of the radiation from Ericsson’s equipment:

“5.3 Any health risks associated with electromagnetic fields within the radio frequency band may give rise to different product liability claims and lead to changes in the law.” The mobile telecommunications industry is affected by claims that mobile phones and other equipment that generates electromagnetic fields within the radio frequency band can expose individuals to health risks.

[5] In the judgment delivered by the Münster Regional Court, it is stated on page 11, third paragraph: “To the extent that the plaintiff bases the unreasonable liability risk on him on a partial limitation of the defendant’s liability, this does not lead to any other result.”

[6] BGHZ 81, 199, in detail also Krahn-Zembol, “Germany: Product Liability Risks in EMF Emitting Devices and Devices”, Produkthaftpflicht international 6/93, pp. 204-210.

[7] Particularly for municipalities intending to enter into an agreement with a system operator, it should be noted that the Regional Court of Münster in its judgment found that there is no reason for termination in the fact that the wider possible health risks below the limit values ​​in 26: e BImSchV were not sufficiently obvious to the municipality when the agreement was entered into. Page 12, the last paragraph and page 13 above in the judgment thus read: “The appellant, as a company governed by public law, is not a private person who is in special need of protection. According to his own statement, the discussions about possible health risks from mobile radio installations have not only been public for many years, even though the limit values ​​in the 26th BImSchV are followed, but “scientifically based doubts” were known even before the agreement was entered into. In this respect, the complaining municipality must allow the knowledge of its mayor at the relevant time to be attributed to it. The risk of an incorrect assessment of the political consequences of the decision taken by the plaintiff belongs to his own area of ​​responsibility and risk, which he cannot transfer to the defendant as a contracting party through the obligation to provide information. ”

[8] Gem. Merkur.de, 08.08.2020; https://www.merkur.de/lokales/weilheim/weilheim-ort29677/5g-telekom-wehrt-sich-gegen- oedp-brief-90022476.html. (Published in German with the prior permission of lawyer W. Krahn-Zembol)

https://www.stralskyddsstiftelsen.se/2022/07/05/domstol-fastighetsagare-delansvariga-for-halsoskador-av-mobilbasstationer/

Source Article: https://www.healthcouncil.nl

News item | 29-06-2022 | 09:00

Power lines and health: neurodegenerative diseases

Source Article: https://www.saferemr.com/ – Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.

Effects of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields: Thirty years of research

Feb 1, 2018 (Updated June 26, 2022)

The preponderance of research published from 1990 through April 2022 has found significant effects from exposure to radio frequency radiation as well as to extremely low frequency and static electromagnetic fields. Overall, 76% (n=796) of 1,046 radio frequency radiation (RFR) studies reported significant effects. Additionally, 88% (n=810) of 916 extremely low frequency (ELF) and static electromagnetic field studies found significant effects.

Currently, there are 1,962 studies in Dr. Henry Lai’s collection of research on the effects of exposure to RFR and static or ELF electromagnetic fields (EMF). The abstracts for these studies can be downloaded by clicking on the link below.

Government and industry-linked scientists often claim that research on the effects of exposure to EMF is inconsistent, and that more research is needed before health warnings are issued or regulatory exposure limits are strengthened.

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization classified radio frequency radiation (RFR) “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B). The IARC plans to review RFR again by 2024 because most peer-reviewed studies published in the past decade found significant evidence that RFR causes genotoxicity. Thus, the IARC will likely re-classify RFR to either “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A) or “carcinogenic to humans” (Group 1) at the next expert review.

Cell phones and other wireless devices also produce static and extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic fields. ELF was classified by the IARC as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B) a decade before RFR received this classification.

Dr. Henry Lai, Professor Emeritus at the University of Washington and Editor Emeritus of the journal, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, has compiled summaries of the research on the biologic and health effects of exposure to RFR and ELF EMF. His set of abstracts which cover the period from 1990 to April 2022 constitute a comprehensive collection of this research.

Dr. Lai reports that the preponderance of the research has found that exposure to RFR or ELF EMF produces oxidative damage or free radicals, and damages DNA. Moreover the preponderance of RFR studies that examined genetic and neurological effects has found significant effects.

The evidence for DNA damage has been found more consistently in animal and human (in vivo) studies than in studies of cell cultures (in vitro).

Top Line Results

Overall, 82% (n=1,608) of 1,962 studies of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields reported significant biologic effects.

Radio frequency radiation:

91% (n=263) of 288 oxidative damage (or free radical) studies published since 1990 reported significant effects.

68% (n=291) of 423 genetic effects studies published since 1990 reported significant effects.

73% (n=244) of 335 neurological studies published since 2007 reported significant effects.

Overall, 76% (n=798) of 1,046 radio frequency radiation studies reported significant biologic effects.

Extremely low frequency and static electromagnetic fields::

90% (n=270) of 298 oxidative damage (or free radical) studies published since 1990 reported significant effects.

84% (n=257) of 307 genetic effects studies published since 1990 reported significant effects.

91% (n=283) of 311 neurological studies published since 2007 reported significant effects.

Overall, 88% (n=810) of 916 extremely low frequency and static electromagnetic field studies reported significant biologic effects.

Links to abstracts: https://bioinitiative.org/research-summaries/

EXTRACT:

ICNIRP