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

Thank you to Coeursdehs France for organising another World EHS Awareness Day

See photos and events from other countries : http://coeursdehs.fr/ehs-day-2022-report-in-pictures/

Ireland

Interview With Solveig on Electrosensitivity, Wireless Radiation and Hope

Thanks to Environmental Health Trust