News for Germany
|Page 1 of 24  Next› Last»|
|BREAKING! German Court rules Landowners who host Mobile-Phone Masts can be held liable for EMF health-damages|
|Germany||Created: 30 Jun 2022|
The court confirms that not only the mobile phone system operator (as the so-called disruptor) is liable for damage caused by his system operation, but also the property owner (as the so-called disruptor) who makes his property available for the operation of the system. In the event of damage, this can be claimed by third parties in the same way as the system operator. And because the municipality and its representatives could/should have known that, their lawsuit for the termination of the tenancy was dismissed.  Very few municipalities and landowners who rent or lease their land for the operation of mobile communications systems are likely to be aware of their own liability risk.
(Article machine-translated from German)
The liability risk for landlords is not just theoretical
Lawyer Krahn-Zembol writes:
"Since even official bodies such as the European Parliamentary Research Service (STOA) of the European Parliament  point out that the limit values ​​in the area of ​​electromagnetic radiation fields are at least 10 times too high, owners when concluding a contract with a cell phone system operator do not just theoretical liability risk.
In the meantime, almost 1,000 scientific studies out of more than 1,600 scientific studies in the field of mobile communications have documented biological effects and harmful effects below the long outdated limit values ​​of the 26th BImSchV. Even the cell phone system operators have been warning their shareholders in their annual reports for years against further state regulations  .
In addition, the plant operators themselves have insured comparatively small amounts of liability  . Should municipalities nevertheless conclude a contract, they would have to ask themselves whether and to what extent provisions should be made from the municipal budget for this liability risk. The whole thing is reminiscent of the extensive (even legal) exemption of nuclear power plant operators, who would only be liable for up to € 250 million even in the event of a worst-case scenario (GAU). (...)"
Limit values ​​do not generally protect against liability claims
“Even if the plant operators repeatedly argue that they comply with the limit values ​​of the 26th BImSchV during plant operation, liability on the part of them or the owners is by no means excluded. On the contrary, the Federal Court of Justice has stated several times that producers or plant operators cannot exonerate themselves by referring to compliance with official limit values ​​if they are accused of further damaging effects and the like. are known or should have been known  . This is already obvious today in view of the fact that even the scientific study situation predominantly proves further effects and harmful effects below the limit values ​​of the 26th BImSchV.
Since even the head of the office for technology assessment at the German Bundestag, Prof. A. Grunwald, pointed out that the intended introduction of new radio technologies with significantly higher frequencies without a previous technology assessment is irresponsible  , this also creates a not inconsiderable risk of liability clear."
In the present case, the court made it clear that the municipality is contractually liable for 30 years (!) in this case. It also has to bear all the new dangers and risks that can be exponentially increased by upgrades and new radio technologies! The fact that it is part of the operators' business model to provide mobile phone coverage " deep into the house " makes things even more critical, because higher and higher frequencies also require higher overall transmission power from the mobile phone systems and the radiation exposure for the entire population thus increases overall .
EMF-related damage is not insurable
For many years, diagnose:funk has been pointing out the limited liability of mobile phone operators and the associated risk for the site lessor. As far as we know, mobile phone operators generally cannot insure themselves against potential damage to health from the electromagnetic fields/radiation emitted by their systems. From the operators themselves it is said that they would very well be able to rule out the liability risk - but they did not want to present corresponding insurance cover in the above-mentioned court proceedings, as RA Krahn-Zembol writes.
diagnose:funk recommends clarification and concrete contract content
Educate your community and potential landlords about this liability risk . [8th]
Potential landlords of a piece of land/property should make sure that the lessee agrees to accept liability for all liability claims in an individual lease agreement, up to an unlimited amount.
"The lessee releases the lessor from all third-party claims arising from the construction, operation or dismantling and otherwise from the use of the leased property."
It is definitely not enough for a contract to be concluded if e.g. For example, the press spokesman for Deutsche Telekom responded cryptically to the question of existing insurance cover for his systems:
"Deutsche Telekom maintains a liability insurance program that appropriately insures the risks of the group's business operations" 
See also guide 4. 'Municipal fields of action'from page 67 or online >>> .
 In the judgment handed down by the District Court of Münster, AZ: 08 O 178/21, it says on page 11, 2nd and 3rd paragraph: "Insofar as the plaintiff wants to derive the incalculability of her own liability risk from the fact that she did not know this when the contract was concluded wants to have that she herself is liable as a person disturbing the state of affairs, she cannot get through with that. As a public body, the plaintiff as a municipality must be sufficiently aware of its own condition. A possible obligation of the defendant to provide information, which it did not comply with, as claimed by the plaintiff, does not result from this. Any ignorance of one's own liability is based on one's own fault and not on the defendant's fault."
 Reinsurers warn their customers to insure cell phone operators against EMF damage – the damage potential cannot be calculated. https://www.diagnose-funk.org/655 , https://www.diagnose-funk.org/1412 ;
 See the full STOA study by the European Parliamentary Research Service, July 2021 at https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/690012/EPRS_STU(2021)690012_EN.pdf
 For example, in Telekom’s 2017 Annual Report, under the heading “Health and Environment” it says: “There is a risk of regulatory intervention, such as lowering the limit values ​​for electromagnetic fields or the implementation of precautionary measures for mobile communications...” .
 In the judgment handed down by the District Court of Münster, it says on page 11, paragraph 3: "Insofar as the plaintiff bases what she considers to be an unreasonable liability risk on a partial limitation of the defendant's liability, this does not lead to any other result.".
 e.g. BGHZ 81, 199, also in detail: Krahn-Zembol, “Germany: product liability risks for EMF-emitting systems and devices”, product liability international 6/93, pages 204 to 210.
 diagnose-funk, article: "5G like a real experiment on humans".
 Especially for municipalities that intend to conclude a contract with a plant operator, it should be noted that the district court of Münster found in its judgment that no reason for termination is to be seen in the fact that the municipality is aware of the further possible health hazards below the limit values ​​​​of the 26th BImSchV were not sufficiently evident at the time the contract was concluded. This is what it says on page 12, last paragraph and page 13 at the top of the judgment:“As a public corporation, the plaintiff is not a particularly vulnerable private individual. According to her own presentation, not only have the discussions about possible health hazards from mobile radio systems, even if the limit values ​​of the 26th BImSchV are observed, not only been public for many years, but (there) were "scientifically justified doubts" even before the contract was signed. In this respect, the plaintiff municipality must accept the knowledge of its then mayor. The risk of an incorrect assessment of the political effects of the decision made by the plaintiff is part of its own area of ​​responsibility and risk, which it cannot pass on to the defendant as a contractual partner with the help of information obligations.".
 According to Merkur.de, 08/08/2020; https://www.merkur.de/lokales/weilheim/weilheim-ort29677/5g-telekom-wehrt-sich-gegen-oedp-brief-90022476.html
(Published with the kind permission of attorney W. Krahn-Zembol)
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Diagnose-Funk, 28 Jun 2022|
|Strahlung von Mobilfunkmasten kann auch Ferkel krank machen|
|Germany||Created: 6 Apr 2022|
In einem Ferkelaufzuchtstall kam es zu hartnäckigen Gesundheitsproblemen, die auf eine Strahlenbelastung der Tiere hindeuteten. Mithilfe der alternativmedizinischen Heilmethode Bioresonanz konnte das Problem entschärft werden.
In einem Ferkelerzeugerbetrieb gab es zunehmend gesundheitliche Probleme bei den Ferkeln im Flatdeck. Die Tiere mussten häufiger antibiotisch behandelt werden, da vor allem Colikeime und Streptokokken vermehrt auftraten. Es kam zu Durchfällen sowie Arthritiden (Gelenkentzündungen) und Störungen des zentralen Nervensystems. Besonders problematisch war, dass die Ferkel dadurch schlecht wuchsen und am Ende der Aufzucht (nach sieben bis acht Wochen im Flatdeck) nur mit durchschnittlich 22 kg in die Mast umgestallt werden konnten.
Schulmedizinisch und fütterungstechnisch waren keine Auslöser für diese Erkrankungen zu finden, sind die erwähnten Erreger doch überall vorhanden. Es stellte sich damit die Frage: Gab es weitere, unbekannte Ursachen für die gehäufte Krankheitsfrequenz beziehungsweise warum kapitulierte das Immunsystem der abgesetzten Ferkel?
Mithilfe der Bioresonanz-Methode Strahlenbelastung nachgewiesen
Neue Wege zu gehen, war also das Motto. Deshalb entschied sich die betreuende Tierarztpraxis, die Methode der Bioresonanz einzusetzen. Die Bioresonanz ist ein bislang schulmedizinisch nicht anerkanntes Verfahren der sogenannten aktiven und passiven Radiästhesie (Strahlenwirkung auf den Organismus).
Hierbei wird sichtbar gemacht, ob das Energieniveau und die Körper- beziehungsweise Organfunktionen energetisch beeinträchtigt sind und was die Gründe dafür sein könnten. Der Test umfasst außer der Gesamtenergie und Energieverteilung auch alle Organsysteme, den Säure-Base-Haushalt, die Nährstoffversorgung sowie Belastungen durch Elektrosmog, hochfrequente Strahlung und geologische Störzonen wie Wasseradern oder Verwerfungen.
In diesem Fall bedeutete das, dass von betroffenen Ferkeln Kotproben mit einem speziellen Gerät (Rayocomp PS10) energetisch untersucht wurden. Das Ergebnis war verblüffend: Die Tiere waren stark belastet durch hochfrequente Strahlung, wie sie zum Beispiel von Mobilfunkmasten ausgeht. Der nächste Funkmast war etwa 1 km entfernt. Das Immunsystem, der Kohlenhydratstoffwechsel und die Bauchspeicheldrüse waren in ihrer Funktion gestört. Es zeigte sich eine Dysbiose (ungünstige Verschiebung der Darmflora) und damit eine beeinträchtigte Dünn- und Dickdarmfunktion.
Tränkewasser mit Bioresonanzgerät „behandelt"
Um die Organsysteme der Tiere zu stärken, vor allem das Immunsystem und den Darm, wurde ein Bioresonanzgerät (PS10 Basic) dauerhaft über eine Bandschelle mit dem metallenen Teil der Hauptwasserleitung verbunden. Das Gerät gab über etwa 10 Stunden täglich regulierende Frequenzspektren an das Trinkwasser der Tiere ab. Mithilfe sogenannter biofeldformender Geräte wurde zudem versucht, die Belastungen der Ferkel auszugleichen.
Welchen Effekt zeigten diese Maßnahmen? Bereits nach einer Woche hatten sich die Tiere stabilisiert. Der Durchfall wurde milder beziehungsweise trat nicht mehr auf, genau wie Gelenkentzündungen und ZNS- Störungen. Im weiteren Verlauf stiegen die Tageszunahmen der Ferkel und damit erhöhten sich auch die Ausstallgewichte. Gleichzeitig ging die Zahl der antibiotischen Behandlungen deutlich zurück.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Agrarheute, Uwe Bräunig, 28 Feb 2022|
|Supply Chain Squeeze Complicates Europe’s Mobile Mast Rollout|
|Germany||Created: 2 Feb 2022|
The global supply chain crunch has hit almost every major product, including smartphones. Now it’s getting in the way of building the antennas that provide their signals.
Vantage Towers AG, the mobile mast company spun out of Vodafone Group Plc, said its efforts to build new towers are being hindered by a squeeze on technology supply chains.
“Whilst the build-to-suit program accelerated in the third quarter, the macro site build year-to-date has been challenged mainly by supply chain issues,” the company said in an earnings report Tuesday. “We expect these challenges to persist beyond the fourth quarter of 2022 into 2023, and will require continued management.”
Vantage splits its operations between increasing the number of companies that use existing towers, like a landlord increasing tenancies of a building, upgrading those sites with newer technology such as 5G and connecting them into wider networks, and building entirely new wireless infrastructure - known as Built-To-Suit or BTS.
Although timings have been hit, Vantage said the issues didn’t affect its overall 2022 financial guidance or its planned delivery of 7,100 build-to-suit sites by 2026.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Bloomberg, Thomas Seal, 01 Feb 2022|
|5G Scientist Prof. Alexander Lerchl Guilty of False EMF Study Allegations|
|Germany||Created: 29 Jan 2021|
Professor Alexander Lerchl, who is leading a study examining the effects of 5G on human cells (funded by the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection), has been found guilty by the Hanseatic Higher Regional Court of Bremen of disseminating false allegations about the results of the 2004 REFLEX EMF study. Professor Lerchl has to bear the costs of the legal proceedings...
(Below is an auto-translation of an article published by Diagnose:Funk on 28th January 2021 - please see the original article for links)
The Hanseatic Higher Regional Court of Bremen sentenced Professor Alexander Lerchl to withdraw his falsification allegation against the REFLEX study
Text of the judgment and report by Prof. Adlkofer
The final judgment was made in December 2020: The falsification claims against the REFLEX study may no longer be repeated. In other words: the results of the REFLEX study from 2004 that cell phone radiation has a genotoxic potential are correct. We document the judgment text and the assessment of Prof. Franz Adlkofer, the former coordinator of the REFLEX study, on this judgment.
Preliminary remark diagnose:funk:
"The reflex study is fake - cell phone radiation does not trigger tumors!" - In 2008 we read this message in consternation in Spiegel, the Süddeutsche, in almost the entire press. Politicians calmly prayed this all-clear up and down. But we soon knew from reports from the scientists involved that the studies were being carried out properly. But at that time the power of interpretation had the mobile communications industry and the media, which did not look properly.
Little did we suspect that it would turn into a science thriller with character assassination, lawsuits and the destruction of livelihoods, which will be exposed as a scandal right away, but will not be legally concluded until 2020. One can learn from this what industry and a corrupted science can do. Now we have it official: the results of the REFLEX study are correct, the claim that they are falsified can no longer be made. A revision of the judgment is not permitted.
On December 11th, 2020 the Hanseatic Higher Regional Court of Bremen announced the following decision (supplemented by diagnose: funk for better readability):
"The defendant [Prof. Alexander Lerchl] is convicted of avoiding a fine to be determined for each case of the offense of up to EUR 250,000 and, in the event that this cannot be recovered, of custody or up to 6 Months to refrain from publishing and / or having published with reference to the plaintiff [his falsification allegations for the REFLEX study]. The defendant has to bear the costs of the proceedings. The judgment is provisionally enforceable. The amount in dispute is set at EUR 20,000. The revision is not permitted."
The REFLEX study demonstrated:
* GSM-1800 and GSM-900 change the structure and function of genes below the applicable limit value of 2 W / kg in various human and animal cells after intermittent and continuous exposure. The following effects were found:
* Increase in single and double strand breaks in DNA in human fibroblasts, HL60 cells and rat granulosa cells, but not in human lymphocytes
* Increase in micronuclei and chromosomal aberrations in human fibroblasts
* Changes in gene expression in several cell types, but especially in human endothelial cells and embryonic stem cells from mice. A significant increase in DNA strand breaks was found in human fibroblasts at an SAR value of 0.3 W / kg.
This has now been confirmed directly and indirectly by other large-scale studies, most recently by the NTP , Ramazzini , AUVA studies and many individual studies, confirmed in more than 90 reviews.
* In light of this judgment, we thank Professor Franz Adlkofer for having endured this grueling argument for 12 years.
* In light of this ruling, we urge the media to correct their reporting from 2008 and now to let people know what risks they expose themselves to when using the phone.
* In view of this judgment, we ask the management of the Medical University of Vienna to comment on the intrigue that they have approved and covered at their facility.
* In view of this ruling, we call on the Federal Office for Radiation Protection to cancel the assignment of the 5G study to Prof. Lerchl after his claims about the REFLEX study were condemned as incorrect.
* In view of this judgment, we ask the EMF portal to change the following discriminatory passage. In the EMF summary of the REFLEX studies Diem et al. (2005) and Schwarz et al. (2008) up to now: "Information from the Medical University of Vienna dated May 23, 2008: Suspicion of a faulty study by the former Department of Occupational Medicine and the press release Science and Ethics . In a statement by the Austrian Commission for Scientific Integrity dated November 23, 2010, the falsification allegations not be verified. " This must be supplemented and corrected with the results of this judgment.
The so-called "Viennese forgery scandal" and the "final document", with which Prof. Franz Adlkofer evaluates the process, are important documents in the history of science. This scandal is one of the scandals documented by the European Environment Agency in the two volumes "Late lessons from early warnings". That is why we are documenting Franz Adlkofer's article here in full. Anyone who wants to find out more about the history of the Viennese staging of the mobile communications industry can do so on the website http://www.pandora-stiftung.eu, where the dispute is documented, or in the brochure of the Competence Initiative Radiation Protection in Contradiction with Science (free download), can be ordered as a brochure from diagnose:funk shop.
Documentation: Comment by Prof. Franz Adlkofer on the judgment
"The Hanseatic Higher Regional Court of Bremen sentenced Professor Alexander Lerchl to withdraw his falsification allegation against the REFLEX study
The end of a long story
The legal dispute before the Hanseatic Higher Regional Court of Bremen against Alexander Lerchl, professor of biology and ethics at the private Jacobs University in Bremen, was about the final clarification of the question of whether he can prove his assertion, which has been repeated since 2008, that the results of the The REFLEX study funded by the EU Commission from 2000 to 2004 are falsified.
The finding that cell phone radiation can damage genes in isolated human cells was beyond his understanding. In order to give his claim credibility, he accused Elisabeth Kratochvil of falsification, who, as a technical assistant at the Medical University of Vienna (MUW), had made a significant contribution to the REFLEX results. His aim was twofold. On the one hand he wanted to prevent that the REFLEX follow-up study, which was highly rated by the experts of the EU Commission, is also funded. With that he was successful. On the other hand, he wanted to have the REFLEX publications withdrawn from the scientific literature. With that he failed. He was unable to convince the editors of the specialist journals in which they had appeared of his allegation of forgery. They saw through his intentions and were not prepared to allow themselves to be used for the purposes of a lobbyist for the wireless industry, as he was already known at the time.
He was unable to convince the editors of the specialist journals in which they had appeared of his allegation of forgery. They saw through his intentions and were not prepared to allow themselves to be used for the purposes of a lobbyist for the wireless industry, as he was already known at the time. He was unable to convince the editors of the specialist journals in which they had appeared of his allegation of forgery. They saw through his intentions and were not prepared to allow themselves to be used for the purposes of a lobbyist for the wireless industry, as he was already known at the time.
Although Prof. Lerchl from the Hamburg district court together with the laboratory journal in 2015, in which he had portrayed Elisabeth Kratochvil in a defamatory manner as a criminal forger, had been legally convicted of omission , he continued his slander. He interpreted the judgment in the sense that the Hamburg Regional Court had only forbidden him to mention the name of the forger, but not that the REFLEX results were falsified. In the meantime, he was able to dispense with the further denigration of Ms. Kratochvil, which for him from the beginning was only a means to an end to give credibility to his falsification allegation. This was ensured by his reports on the alleged forgery, which were still widely distributed worldwide and accessible to everyone, and which he only partially withdrew despite his conviction before the Hamburg Regional Court. The pain,
The reason for the continuation of the proceedings in Bremen was Prof. Lerchl's video appearance under the title “Pick Up The Phone” on YouTube and his report “Lerchl: Cell phone radiation, cable breaks and court judgments” at www.ots.at, Austria's press portal for German-speaking countries.
On YouTube he claims: "And these studies, which are at issue, from the years 2005 and 2008, they are fabricated ... also according to the judgment of the Medical University of Vienna, which still has them available on its website as information." This refers to the publications from the MUW belonging to the REFLEX study.
On www.ots.at he comments on a film by Klaus Scheidsteger in which the REFLEX study is reported as follows: “The judgment [of the Hamburg Regional Court] only speaks of that the name of a certain person may not be mentioned in connection with the falsification allegations that I have made against the REFLEX studies. The accusation of producing the results remains of course ... especially since the Medical University of Vienna is still making the accusations available online in a press release!”
The MUW press releases were actually still online when the two articles appeared, but were released shortly afterwards deleted by order of the new rector of the MUV because the statements contained therein are not true. The request of Elisabeth Kratochvil's legal representative to stop the falsification allegations in the future and to withdraw the reports because they violate her client's personal rights and honor was answered by Prof. Lerchl unwilling to comply. Following the advice of her legal representative, she filed a lawsuit with the Bremen Regional Court on November 8, 2016.
The Bremen Regional Court dismissed Elisabeth Kratochvil's complaint on October 12, 2017 as unfounded . The MUW press releases were still available at the time of Prof. Lerchl's statement. Since the statement in the past corresponded to the fact, there was no unlawful infringement that would induce a risk of repetition.
The first complaint, "And these studies, which are at issue, from the years 2005 and 2008, they are fabricated ..." is, according to the Regional Court, not a criminal assertion of fact, but a permissible expression of opinion. An average audience understands by "fabricated" that the studies are makeshift, amateurish, or painstakingly tinkered with. As with expressions of opinion, such an understanding would have a predominantly judgmental character.
The second complaint, "The allegation of data production, of course, remains in force", according to the Regional Court, meets the criteria for an expression of opinion. In the context of a scientific discussion, such remarks are common. Elisabeth Kratochvil's legal representative considered this reasoning of the regional court to be legally erroneous because it contradicts the highest judicial rulings. She therefore urgently advised an appeal, which Elisabeth Kratochvil then submitted to the Hanseatic Higher Regional Court of Bremen on October 20, 2017.
At the appeal hearing on February 16, 2018, the presiding judge stated that the Higher Regional Court had given its own thoughts to the question of whether the prohibition "The accusation of data production remains upright" is a value judgment, ie an expression of opinion or a factual assertion.
Since the text with the prohibition statement also speaks of "allegations of forgery", the meaning content can actually only be understood as an allegation of forgery. Under no circumstances should this interpretation be ruled out. In addition, the Stolpe case law of the Federal Constitutional Court asserted by Ms. Kratochvil must be taken into account. Since, with this approach, the falsification allegations are assertions of fact, Prof. Lerchl to bear the burden of proof for a forgery.
In a ruling of March 9th, 2018, the Higher Regional Court ordered that evidence be raised about Prof. Lerchl's assertion, “that the REFLEX studies from 2005 and 2008, which were carried out with the participation of Elisabeth Kratochvil as co-author or first author, are falsified, which is From this it follows that the data shown in the studies could never come from real experiments for statistical reasons or reasons of mathematical probabilities, but only allow the conclusion that they were invented. "
The expert commissioned by the Hanseatic Higher Regional Court with the report on the suggestion of Prof. Lerchl is a German university professor for applied statistics, but without any understanding of the biological test procedure used by Ms. Kratochvil at the MUW.
In his report of July 1st, 2019, he came to the conclusion that the objections to the REFLEX results were understandable, but by no means allowed the conclusion that they were falsified. In his supplementary report of November 26th, 2019, which the court thought necessary due to the criticism of the original report submitted by Prof. Lerchl, the expert went into Prof. Lerchl's remarks in detail, but stuck to his original statement without any restriction. Prof Lerchl's demand the Higher Regional Court rejected the expert because of concerns about bias. On December 11th, 2020 it announced the following decision :
“On appeal by Elisabeth Kratochvil, the judgment of the Bremen Regional Court is changed. Prof. Lerchl is convicted of avoiding an administrative fine up to the amount of EUR 250,000 for each case of violation and, in the event that it cannot be recovered, to refrain from custody or from custody for up to 6 months, with reference to the plaintiff to publish and / or have published his allegations of falsification (see above). Prof. Lerchl has to bear the costs of the proceedings. The judgment is provisionally enforceable. The amount in dispute is set at EUR 20,000. The revision is not permitted."
The lesson from history
Since his conviction by the Hamburg Regional Court, Prof. Lerchl has tried to convert his criminally assessed factual allegations about the REFLEX study into an expression of opinion free from punishment. On December 30, 2016, he affirmed in lieu of an oath that he had only "expressed the suspicion, corroborated by expert reports, that the results of the REFLX study ... were falsified." That this is a false statement that is popularly called perjury , he obviously accepted as someone to whom truth means little . His attempt at deception at the Bremen Regional Court was still successful. The Hanseatic Higher Regional Court saw through the fraud. In order to change it in his favor anyway, he had his legal representative present the following in the final phase of the proceedings:
"The defendant has been a nationally and internationally recognized expert in the field of research into the biological effects of magnetic fields and electromagnetic radiation for 30 years. He has over 100 peer-reviewed specialist publications in English. In 2008 he was appointed by the then Federal Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel as chairman of the Committee for Non-Ionizing Radiation as a member of the Radiation Protection Commission (Annex B60, SSK Lerchl Gabriel.pdf). In 2010 he was appointed by the then Federal Environment Minister Dr. Norbert Röttgen appointed as a member of the Radiation Protection Commission for a further two years (Annex BGV SSK Lerchl Röttgen.pdf). Dr. Röttgen wrote: "Let me take this opportunity to thank you for your excellent work so far, especially as chairman of the Committee for Non-Ionizing Radiation." In 2012, the then Federal Environment Minister Peter Altmaier (Annex B62, SSK Lerchl Altmaier.pdf) wrote: "After successful work in the Radiation Protection Commission leave this body at the end of the current year. I would like to thank you most sincerely for your long and committed cooperation in the deliberations of the Commission."
The defendant was and is active in numerous advisory bodies, including the WHO. The defendant was awarded the contract for a recently publicly tendered “Policy advice report to assess the need for regulation in the transition area of ​​the occupational health and safety ordinances to electromagnetic fields (EMFV) and artificial optical radiation (OStrV)" by the Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The defendant is therefore undoubtedly a scientifically recognized expert.
The findings published by the plaintiff and her co-authors on alleged damage to the genetic material (DNA) caused by mobile communications (Annexes B1 and B2) would be of great importance for all people who use a mobile phone or smartphone, since the alleged damage were real would pose an imminent threat to health and life, as DNA damage results in cancer. Thus, the defendant's critical statements are of paramount public interest ” .
After completing the legal disputes about Prof. Lerchl's handling of the REFLEX study, the following conclusions emerged:
1) The REFLEX results have wrongly lost their scientific importance due to the history of forgery invented by Prof. Lerchl and spread around the world. Because he was unable to provide evidence of the forgery, which he had been predicted several times, he was sentenced in 2015 by the Hamburg Regional Court and again in 2019 by the Hanseatic Higher Regional Court of Bremen for failing to make allegations of forgery. This justifies the requirement that the results of the REFLEX study must regain their original scientific significance. They contribute significantly to the still ongoing discussion about the biological effects of mobile phone radiation.
2) On September 22nd, 2009 took place in Vienna under the title Seriöseforschung or Junk-ScienceA workshop was held that was organized by the PR organizations of the mobile communications industry in Germany and Austria responsible for science with the aim of finally putting an end to the REFLEX results. Prof. Emilio Bossi, President of the “Scientific Integrity” commission of the Academies of Sciences in Switzerland, was invited to give a lecture on the fatal consequences of scientific misconduct. Subsequently, Prof. Lerchl reported on a particularly bad case of fraud, namely the falsification of the REFLEX results, which he uncovered on his own. In the discussion that followed, Prof. Bossi was asked whether he was aware of cases in which data production was only claimed to get rid of unpleasant research results. This was Prof. Bossi's answer: Such a procedure occurs and is particularly vile, because something of such slander always gets stuck, which could even lead to irreparable damage to the results. Of course, anyone who indulges in something like this - in this case Prof. Lerchl - must be treated in the same way as a forger .
3) Within the framework of the German Mobile Telecommunications Research Program from 2002 to 2008, no one from politics and the mobile telephony industry received funding as generously as Prof. Lerchl. He thanked them by providing the results they needed to avoid having to change the guidelines for radiation protection of the population . He was recently made available a further € 1.1 million to study the effects of 5G radiation on human cells. Presumably he will not disappoint you, so that the 5G installation, which, like the earlier generations of mobile communications, is being introduced without any prior risk assessment, can at least retrospectively be presented as harmless. Politicians have to be asked how long they want to expect the public to work with Prof. Lerchl.
However, Prof. Lerchl is not responsible for the fact that the current state of mobile radio research and the associated radiation protection of the population are extremely inadequate, but only politics, which use him to enforce their interests. His understanding of lobbying, which usually runs on the borderline between legal and illegal, is obviously broader. Nor does he shy away from criminal practices if - as in the present case - there is a good chance that their use will remain secret. In order to uncover such cases, courts are required that are not bound by politics but by law. That was the case here. "
 Judgment of the Hamburg Regional Court
 Judgment of the Bremen Regional Court
 Judgment of the Hanseatic Higher Regional Court of Bremen
Original Diagnose:Funk article (in German):
Background to this story:
EU Reflex study shows DNA damage caused by radiation from wireless devices and mobile phones - JRS Eco Wireless
RESEARCH PROJECT ON THE EFFECTS OF 5G MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS ON HUMAN CELLS AT JACOBS UNIVERSITY BREMEN - Jacobs University, 26th November 2019
Alexander Lerchl: Microwave News Article Archive
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Being Electrosensitive Blog, 29 Jan 2021|
|5G – a building biology perspective|
|Germany||Created: 2 May 2020|
Everybody is talking about 5G - The electrosmog debate has been stirred up again and all those concerns about the exposure to electromagnetic fields as well. The industry in particular, but also many other people would like to have faster and more powerful data networks. Yet others are concerned about radiation risks and data security. So what can building biology contribute to the solution, what do we know so far, and what do we have to expect from the future development of our ambient wireless environment?
5G – what is it?
5G refers to the latest generation of wireless technologies for cellular networks. This fifth generation goes well beyond basic communication between cell phones or the mobile Internet. After the first generation (1G) of analog networks (A, B, and C) in the 1960s and 1980s and the digital standards of the second generation (2G) GSM (D, E networks since 1991), the third generation (3G) UMTS/HSPA (since 2000), as well as the fourth generation (4G) LTE (since about 2010), wireless communication is now even faster (latency or response times will be about 1 millisecond).
It is not anymore just about communication from person to person, but also from person to machine as well as from machine to machine, including such applications as the Internet of Things (IoT), smart homes, autonomous driving, telemedicine, intelligent power supply, smart metering, smart farming, or smart cities. These applications have come to infiltrate our daily lives at an accelerated pace. The new model VW Golf 8, for example, is designed to be online at all times and stay connected with the cloud. This car can also talk to other cars and to the driver’s home. The goal of 5G developers and providers is the “totally connected society.”
New bandwidths, frequencies, and pulses
5G offers many new technical advancements. Besides the previously mentioned extremely fast transmission speed, data rates are also very high. With up to 10 gigabits per second – ten times more than LTE – the electromagnetic signals require a greater bandwidth. First measurements of active 5G cell antenna sites in Germany (e.g. in Düsseldorf, Cologne, or Darmstadt) showed “frequency hills” as wide as 50 or 100 MHz.
The initial 5G carrier frequencies will be not much different from the ones currently in use with 4G: Previous networks (2G, 3G, and 4G) mostly operated at 800 MHz, 900 MHz, 1800 MHz, 2100 MHz, and 2600 MHz and networks used inside homes such as Wi-Fi/WLAN (wireless local area network) and cordless phones (DECT) at 1900 MHz, 2.4 GHz, and 5.2–5.7 GHz. 5G networks will at first mainly use 3.4–3.7 GHz, from 2021 also 2.1 GHz. In Germany, four telecommunications providers secured those frequencies (for a total revenue of ca. 6.6 billion euro) during an auction in spring 2019. In addition to Telekom, Vodafone, and Telefonica, there is now also 1&1 Drillich.
The significantly higher frequency ranges of about 24–28 GHz and 32–33 GHz or even higher, which are often hotly debated, will most likely only become deployed in a few years.
So-called pulses – which constantly and strictly periodically switch the wireless signals on and off, several times per second – are expected to be similar to LTE because the modulations are similar (e.g. 100 Hz or 2000 Hz). There will be a new pulse of 50 Hz, at least in the frequency range about 3.5 GHz (due to the TDD modulation used). During our first measurements, these nonstop pulses could also be clearly shown, both in “zero span” mode of a spectrum analyzer and as an audio signal with broadband RF meters.
New antennas and cell sizes
When we analyze and evaluate 5G signals, it is important to consider the new antenna design. They are called “smart,” especially since they are able to form beams of radio and microwaves (so-called beamforming). As a result, wireless radiation is not spread indiscriminately everywhere, but it is directed, at least the main portion of it, toward the user of a smartphone or other mobile device. The emissions in the user’s direction will be possibly higher and thus greater safety distances must be calculated for cell antenna sites. In the past, safety distances around cell antennas ranged typically from 3 to 9 meters and now rather from 15 to 20 meters, as documented in the site certificates of the German Federal Network Agency.
New is also the much more frequent deployment of so-called small cells, whose coverage extends to just 200 meters. They are, for example, mounted at street lights, traffic lights, on-street parking meters, utility poles, garbage cans, or house facades, but also inside buildings. Though the transmit power of small cells is lower, people are also much closer to these (small and almost invisible) antennas; in addition, cellular network providers are not required to have a site certificate (due to the low output power below 10 W) because the exposure limits of the 26th Federal Pollution Control Ordinance do not apply here (however, the sites are to be reported to the German Federal Network Agency).
There are hardly any research results available about risks specifically associated with the use of 5G wireless radiation. Already in 2017, more than 180 scientists and physicians from 36 countries signed an appeal. In this appeal, they warn of severe health risks associated with 5G wireless technologies and recommend putting a moratorium on the deployment of the fifth generation of wireless communication technologies until possible risks to human health and the environment have been fully researched by industry-independent scientists. They also state that it has been proven that radio-frequency electromagnetic fields are harmful to human health and the environment. The use of 5G will significantly increase the exposure to electromagnetic fields in the radio-frequency range since this new layer of signals will be added to the already existing networks of GSM, UMTS, LTE, Wi-Fi, and so on.
Since mid-band frequencies of 800, 2000, and 3500 MHz feature similar modulations and/or pulses as are found in GSM and LTE, associated risks are also expected to be similar. Should the above-described 50 Hz pulse turn out to be present at all times, this could make for more serious effects.
Regarding high-band frequencies above 20 GHz, we know rather little and rather little research has been done so far. Due to their short wavelengths, these waves hardly penetrate the body, but are absorbed at the surface of the body. First studies suggest that adverse health effects predominantly occur in eyes, skin, and sweat glands, possibly also ECG effects.
It is the official position of the Federal Office for Radiation Protection in Germany that any developments shall be closely watched, but that the compliance with the exposure limits of the 26th German Federal Pollution Control Ordinance are sufficient for now.
Will the exposure to wireless radiation increase with 5G?
Based on the currently available scientific evidence, it is not possible to answer with a clear: yes or no. Due to the higher amount of data that can be transmitted, there will certainly also be an increase in total transmissions. And with many more antennas and smaller cell sizes, people will get much closer to them. (Consequently, personal exposure levels in the immediate vicinity of small cell antennas can be higher despite the antennas’ lower output power). Because of the characteristic beamforming, it could also be possible that in some – or even many? – locations where 5G is available, but not actively used by a user, exposure levels could even be much lower compared to LTE.
Furthermore, the higher frequencies about 3.5 GHz are typically much more strongly attenuated than those at 2 GHz or even 1 GHz, which is why in the former case indoor exposure levels could be lower.
The pending shutdown of the UMTS networks will result in some reduction of exposure levels. So this specific type of wireless radiation, also including its pulses and risks, will disappear; however, these very frequencies will be added to 5G networks and thus exposures in this frequency band will continue to occur after all.
In the future, possibly many new devices will operate at 5G frequencies inside buildings, which may contribute to much higher indoor exposure levels. It will be important to review on a case-by-case basis how much, how often, when, and where a given network is actively transmitting.
Caution is advised with higher frequencies, which are expected to be deployed later. As discussed earlier, in this higher frequency range, there will probably be other or additional risks.
Whether smartphones in 5G mode will emit more radiation than handsets in 2G, 3G, or 4G mode remains to be seen; 5G emission levels are currently not known or have not yet been measured by us (though the levels of intensity will most likely be similar to previous ones).
Currently, there are 2000 telecommunications satellites zipping around the Earth and about 10,000 new ones are planned to be added – with 5G capabilities. From a building biology perspective, it could be an advantage that the great distance to the Earth’s surface translates into very low exposure levels (lower than 0.1 µW/m²), though admittedly everywhere.
Building biology recommendations
Everybody is encouraged both to raise awareness in a factual and constructive way among family members, friends, and coworkers and to campaign against 5G antennas or for installations with the lowest emissions possible. (Unfortunately, many of the 5G antennas will not be subject to approval so that actions in this regard may be limited.) The consumer protection organizations “Diagnose Funk” and “Kompetenzinitiative,” which fight against wireless radiation pollution, are here to help you, but also need your support.
To reduce your personal exposure, it is best to choose high-mass building materials; in the case of lightweight construction – for the entire building or just the roof structure – a layer of shielding material should be integrated. Shielding materials (paints, fabrics, screens), which have been in common use to date, do not show much of a difference in their shielding effectiveness in the frequency range from around 1 to 3 GHz compared to current sources of wireless radiation such as 2G, 3G, 4G, Wi-Fi, DECT, etc. At higher frequencies above 20 GHz, mesh materials such as fabrics and screens are less effective, but high-mass building materials and continuous surface treatments such as paints are more effective.
If in doubt, have exposure levels verified by measurements; looking up the EMF Monitor at the German Federal Network Agency (or equivalent databases of cellular antennas in other countries) can already reveal important information.
It will be important to ensure that devices and systems with 5G wireless antennas (or other wireless technologies) are not installed inside buildings unless they can be disabled – at least at night, there should be wireless silence. Whenever possible, smart home applications should use hardwired solutions via network cables or cable bus systems. (In new construction, an abundance of data cables should be run.) Caution is also advised with all electrical appliances that come equipped with wireless functions: Either do without wireless functions or make sure that the wireless mode used only transmits infrequently and for short periods.
From a building biology perspective, it is generally recommended not only to focus on 5G, but also to consider other stress factors (e.g. ELF electric and magnetic fields, static electric and magnetic fields, formaldehyde, radioactivity, etc.) and to always take a holistic approach to problem solving, measurements, and mitigation.
Many things regarding 5G are not yet known, but enough to use caution and to reduce one’s exposure to 5G radiation as much as possible. One thing is for sure, the introduction of 5G will lead to an increased personal exposure in various situations, at work, in public, or even at home. It is possible, as discussed above, that wireless radiation levels may drop compared to current levels. The how and where of exposure levels must be verified on a case-by-case basis, preferably with measurements.
The main goal of the building biology approach is to keep the sleep environment as free of wireless radiation exposure as possible, also including 5G. With regard to indoor wireless sources, main strategies include prudent avoidance, shutting off devices, or keeping a safe distance; with regard to outdoor wireless sources, shielding measures are in order.
How to measure 5G
Ideally, spectrum analyzers are used to measure 5G signals, which allow for the most detailed measurements. Depending on the situation, broadband RF meters can also be used. In the latter case, there will be certain measurement errors due to “crest factors” similar to LTE and even higher bandwidths, but they should all be manageable in the context of building biology assessments.
In any case, the measurement device must cover the frequencies used: Since many 5G applications will transmit around 3.4-3.7 GHz, spectrum analyzers or broadband RF meters must at least detect up to 4 GHz. For higher frequencies above 10 GHz, there are no broadband meters available as of yet and only very few building biology professionals own spectrum analyzers that can detect such high frequencies.
In the building biology community, experience with 5G measurements is still rare. Owing to the low traffic on 5G networks at this time, first measurements should be treated with caution. In the future, measuring 5G signals will be most likely rather difficult because of the great fluctuations in power levels, depending on who transmits how much data where. For example, emissions from base station antennas to mobile devices will at least partly form beams. How should one calculate maximum power levels based on random measurements? And when there is no data traffic, 5G emissions may even be shut off completely!? These aspects will present new challenges to 5G exposure measurements.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Baubiologie Magazine, Dr. Manfred Mierau, 26 Apr 2020|
|Insect apocalypse: German bug watchers sound alarm|
|Germany||Created: 4 Jul 2019|
For almost 30 years they passed as quirky eccentrics, diligently setting up their insect traps in the Rhine countryside to collect tens of millions of bugs and creepy crawlers.
Now the group of German entomology enthusiasts can boast a world-class scientific treasure: evidence of what is described as one of Earth's worst extinction phases since the dinosaurs vanished.
Oct 2018, Australia: ‘Hyperalarming’ study shows massive insect loss
May 2018, United Kingdom: Electromagnetic radiation from power lines and phone masts poses 'credible' threat to wildlife, EU report finds
May 2018, USA: Radiation from Cell Phones, Wifi Are Hurting the Birds and the Bees; 5G May Make It Worse
Nov 2017, Australia: Botanist report links disappearance of birds, bats & insects to electromagnetic radiation
Aug 2017, USA: Where have all the insects gone?
Jun 2012, Greece: Microwave Exposure impacts Ovarian Development
Insects, which comprise two thirds of all terrestrial species, have been dying off at alarming rates, with disastrous impacts on food chains and habitats, researchers say.
The home of the Amateur Entomology Society of Krefeld on the Dutch border is a former school building where thick curtains block out the sunlight.
Inside in glass cabinets are stored thousands of butterflies, their wings bleached by time, along with exotic fist-sized beetles and dragonflies, brought back from around the world by amateur collectors.
Traditionally "entomology was mainly about drying and collecting rare specimens," says the society's president Martin Sorg, wearing John Lennon-style glasses, a multi-pocket jacket and sandals.
He and an army of volunteers have over the years gathered as many as 80 million insects that are now floating in countless ethanol bottles.
Each bottle contains the amount caught by a single insect trap over a set period, and each box represents a collection of such catches over nearly three decades.
"Since 1982, the traps we manufacture ourselves have been standardised and controlled, all of the same size and the same material, and they are collected at the same rate in 63 locations that are still identical," explains Sorg.
The result is a treasure trove of quantitative data that dwarfs that of any funded university project, he says.
But if he is visibly proud of the society's research, the outcome terrifies him: in the test period, the total biomass of flying insects here has plummeted by 76 percent.
Quaint Sunday hobby
To demonstrate the rapid decline, a lab technician holds up two bottles: one from 1994 contains 1,400 grammes of trapped insects, the newest one just 300 grammes.
"We only became aware of the seriousness of this decline in 2011, and every year since then we have seen it get worse," says Sorg, the man who sounded the alarm.
At the time, the news didn't make major waves outside ecological circles.
Concern about biodiversity loss focused mostly on large charismatic mammal species, and environmental monitoring such as that in Krefeld was considered a quaint Sunday hobby, largely ignored by the scientific community.
Also in 2011, just across the Dutch border, ecology professor Hans de Kroon was working on the decline of birds in the region.
He hypothesised that the birds suffered from a shortage of food, especially insects, but had no data to prove it.
"Then our German colleagues from Krefeld got in touch and said, 'we have the data, we've witnessed a strong decline, we are very concerned, could you analyse the data?'.
"That's how it all started."
'Point of no return'
In the search for the cause, the landscape around Krefeld provides some clues.
In the distance, industrial chimneys billow smoke.
On one side of the road lies a protected nature reserve. On the other, a sugar beet field is being sprayed with pesticides by an agricultural machine.
"You see, protected reserves are not so protected," says Sorg.
Across the border, Kroon says, "we must realise that here in western Europe our nature is getting smaller, the agriculture fields are very hostile to insects. There is no food, they get poisoned.
"And nature areas are also more and more isolated. Insects can't move from one place to another, it's too far away."
Although the exact cause for the die-off is not yet clear, he says, "the cause is anthropogenic, there's no doubt about it.
"It is our greatest fear that a point of no return will be reached, which will lead to a permanent loss of diversity."
'Path of extinction'
The Krefeld research played a central role in a meta-study published by Francisco Sanchez-Bayo and Kris Wyckhuys from the Australian universities of Sydney and Queensland.
In February, they published the first synthesis of 73 studies on entomological fauna around the world over the past 40 years, listing places from Costa Rica to southern France.
They calculated that over 40 percent of insect species are threatened with extinction, and each year about one percent is added to the list.
This is equivalent, they noted, to "the most massive extinction episode" since the dinosaurs disappeared.
The main drivers appeared to be habitat loss and land conversion to intensive agriculture and urbanisation, followed by pollution, mainly from pesticides and fertilisers, invasive species and climate change.
"The conclusion is clear," they wrote. "Unless we change our ways of producing food, insects as a whole will go down the path of extinction in a few decades."
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Phys.org, Daphne Rousseau, 01 Jul 2019|
|Weisse Zone – wie Elektrosensible leben (2015)|
|Germany||Created: 23 Dec 2018|
Schmerzen, Müdigkeit, akute Hautreaktionen, Verdauungsstörungen – die Symptome der Elektrosensiblen sind diffus und über ihre effektive Ursache besteht einstweilen kein Konsens. Für die Betroffenen allerdings ist das Leiden manifest genug, um sie zu einem Leben fern der Gesellschaft zu nötigen. Der Schweizer Fotograf Jean Revillard ist einigen von ihnen in ihr Reduit gefolgt.
*SNIP* view the entire article with photos via the source link below...
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Jean Revillard, 06 Jul 2015|
|Test shows how WiFi in car sends brain activity into frenzy|
|Germany||Created: 27 Jun 2018|
The driver is sitting still in his parked car and his brain activity is going off the charts - but it wasn't until he switched on the in-car WiFi (video link below).
In this German test, neuro-scientists examine what happens to brain activity when electronic functions are switched on in a car.
Especially the WiFi function sends the brain into a frenzy - but the driver is largely unaware of this sudden spike in brain activity and only feels what he describes as added stress.
And he isn't even driving yet..!
The scientist running the experiment is concerned that this impairs peoples ability to drive safely and that it may cause burnout.
Watch the video here (with English subtitles):
Link to original video here (in German):
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: RTL, 31 Oct 2017|
|Six year study proves wireless kills trees?|
|Germany||Created: 13 Oct 2017|
Wireless Kills Trees - A six-year study of trees around wireless cell towers reveals the 'invisible' damage of exposure to RF radiation. Radiation from wireless technology is now jeopardizing the health of our trees and other plants. "Tree damage in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations" by Waldmann-Selsam and Egar in 2013, documented suspected RF radiation related tree damage and RF radiation readings over a period of six years.
It found significantly higher RF radiation readings by damaged trees as compared to undamaged trees. Sometimes damaged areas and undamaged areas were on the same tree, in which case RF radiation levels were found to be higher near the damaged areas. Because trees are unable to move, differences in RF radiation levels from fixed sources like cell towers can result in very different RF radiation exposure micro-environments in different parts of the same tree or bush.
Researchers state "More recently, it has been shown that mortality rates of all dominant tree species in the western United States have been doubling every 17-29 years in old growth forests, and that recruitment of new trees is now occurring at a lower rate than mortality." The aspen experiment combined with other measurement and observational studies make a compelling case that our addiction to wireless technology is killing the trees we need so much for life far faster than they can replace themselves.
In the Netherlands, because of the increased use if Wi-Fi over the last few years, a whopping 70% of urban trees are suffering from radiation poisoning, up from only 10% five years ago.
Most people don't really stop to consider how their cell phone or other wireless devices work. They're just "magic" and "neat" and "convenient." If they do think about it, common perception includes these erroneous assumptions: direct communication from device to base station similar to an invisible wire or a homogeneous RF field put out by devices and towers.
Neither of these are true.
The RF fields put out by both devices and towers are not exclusively direct from device to tower. Nor are the RF fields homogeneous. There are areas of high RF concentration immediately adjacent to areas that are much lower. The exact nature of the fields depends on the transmitter configuration and use at the time. Hence, when you make a call on a cell phone or download a video on WiFi, the RF radiation (specifically, microwave radiation) used by the wireless devices goes through you and everyone around you. Which person, tree, or other creature is exposed to the most RF radiation will depend on the device, your surroundings, and the base station transmitter location. Trees cannot move when they start to "feel bad" and show signs of damage.
Tree give us oxygen and clear our air. Their health is declining visibly due to exposure.
What about the impact on human health?
These towers are being placed at schools, shopping malls, and near neighborhoods. The federal government has given cell phone companies exemption from all local ordinances as long as they can prove there is a gap in coverage. This means that even if NOBODY in the area wants it installed, they are still able to install it, and there is nothing we residents can do about it.
What about City, County and State Governments - will they listen to citizen concerns?
In Meridian and Eagle, Idaho, the West Ada school officials seemed to be unconcerned.
Could that be due to the fact that the district receives up to $2,500 a month for each cell tower site or as much as $180,000 a year. The proposed tower on an Eagle Elementary school in 2013 was opposed by the public. But in 2017 Eagle High school installed a cell tower after it was APPROVED by the school board in 2016. After being informed of the radiation testing results at the school, there has been no response or comment from the school board or the state governments.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Health Freedom Idaho, 02 Aug 2017|
|T-Mobile warns against radiation from own Wi-Fi router|
|Germany||Created: 11 Oct 2017|
German Telecom T-Mobile has put a clear warning in the manual for its own Wi-Fi router, warning to keep it away from children, sleeping quarters etc.
The text (in German) translates roughly to:
"You should not place it into sleeping rooms, rooms for children and where people to stay, because of the integrated antennas of the Speedport. Those antennas emit and receive electromagnetic waves e.g. for the WIFi. The aim is to keep the exposure to radiation as low as possible."
Download a copy of the manual via the source link below. The warning is on page 21, marked in yellow.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Olle Johansson / Christine Ashermann, 11 Oct 2017|
|Page 1 of 24  Next› Last»|