News for Austria
|«First ‹Previous Page 2 of 4  Next› Last»|
|Attempt to Destroy Evidence of Genotoxicity of Cellphone Radiation at the Medical University of Vienna Failed|
|Austria||Created: 1 Feb 2011|
Mid-2007 Prof Alexander Lerchl, a biologist at the private Jacobs University Bremen and a member of the German Commission on Radiological Protection at the Federal Office for Radiation Protection, informs the rector of the Medical University of Vienna, Prof Wolfgang Schütz, about a serious suspicion: the findings described in two publications from the Division of Occupational Medicine of his university are most likely fraudulent.
This news is picked up by numerous national and international media, with the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel leading the way, and broadcasted to the whole world.
The documentation provided on our website (http://www.pandora-foundation.eu) reports on the strenuous attempts to remove the Vienna research findings, which indicate that cell phone radiation has a cancer-causing potential, from the scientific literature.
Two scientists in important social positions, who certainly can be sure of the mobile phone industry's appreciation, were in front of the line.
That they disregard the information of the general public in favour of the cell phone industry do both - as it seems - approvingly accept.
The documentation published by Pandora Foundation for Independent Research reveals the strategies used by the Viennese rector, which he, of course, would like to be understood as his personal commitment to truth in science.
A further documentation will report on Prof. Lerchl's activities that exceed even the rector's schemes.
As shown in the documentation, the Council for Scientific Ethics at the Medical University of Vienna and later in addition the Austrian Agency for Research Integrity - both mandated to clarify the case - had a hard time deciding as to whether they should fully honour the truth in science or not.
In order to forestall uncomfortable decisions with far-reaching consequences, which would have been inevitable, they agreed on a compromise.
Independently of each other, both commissions stated that there is no evidence that the suspected team manipulated its data.
Both commissions also left no doubt that they consider the scientific quality of the Viennese research findings as being poor.
In this way, they not only overstepped their mandate and competence, but at the same time also ensured that the two masterminds of this scandal and the academic facilities they head did not completely lose their reputation.
Even if the cell phone industry with its "war gaming" strategy, which it has been using with success in the US in the 90s of the past century, should have succeeded in discrediting and devaluing the Viennese research findings in the eyes of many people, this victory has meanwhile become meaningless.
Because in the meantime - as shown in the documentation - several publications have been released whose findings agree with those obtained in Vienna.
Furthermore, epidemiological research provides more and more findings that the damage to the genome of human cells, as has been observed in Vienna and elsewhere, can certainly contribute to the development of malignant tumours.
Still to come, in January 2011 research findings of an epidemiological study from Israel will be published showing that the incidence of tumours of the parotid gland, which belongs to the sites of the highest exposure to cell phone radiation, has quadrupled since 1970, with the highest increase occurring after 2001.
That the human brain will be more resistant to cell phone radiation is highly unlikely in regard of already available epidemiological research data.
It remains to be seen how the cell phone industry and its friends in the scientific community will respond to that.
Prof. Dr. Franz Adlkofer & Prof. Dr. Karl Richter Board of Pandora Foundation for Independent Research
Trustee: Andreas Kaffka
Birkenwerderstrasse 27b OT Bergfelde
D-16562 Hohen Neuendorf
FOR THE DOCUMENTATION SEE: http://www.pandora-foundation.eu/news/index.html
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Pandora Foundation, Franz Adlkofer & Karl Richter, 01 Feb 2011|
|Double Tinnitus risk after 4 years cellphone use|
|Austria||Created: 1 Jul 2010|
Users of cell phones have another reason to be cautious. An Austrian team has found that the risk of developing tinnitus, a ringing in the ears, doubled after four years. This is one of the first epidemiological studies to investigate the long-term effects of mobile phones on hearing.
Hans-Peter Hutter of the Institute of Environmental Health at the Medical University of Vienna, and coworkers report that the observed association is "unlikely" to be spurious and could have important implications for public health. Their new epidemiological study, based on 100 cases and 100 controls, will appear in an upcoming issue of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.
Read the entire story at Microwave News:
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Microwave News, Louis Slesin, 30 Jun 2010|
|REFLEX project cleared of fraud claims|
|Austria||Created: 8 Nov 2009|
A story that has been invented in order to get rid of research results on the biological effects of mobile radiation.
(read the original PDF via the source link below)
Franz Adlkofer and Hugo W. Rüdiger
Since the year 2005, Professor Alexander Lerchl, Head of the Committee for Non-Ionizing Radiation in the German Radiation Protection Commission (SSK) of the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS), claims that the research results on biological effects of mobile radiation obtained at the Medical University of Vienna (MUV) are faked. If they were true, the results would have consequences he describes as follows: `The results by Diem et al.2 were indeed worrying. Should they be confirmed would this be not only an alarm but the beginning of the end of mobile communication, as DNA damages are a first step towards cancer'. Since then he repeated and confirmed his accusation of data fraud several times, the last time in his talk at an industrial event in Vienna on September 22, 2009.
Reasons for his claim are his own statistical examination of the data published by the MUV team in two scientific journals and the Final Report of the MUV Rector's Council of Ethics in Science (the "Council") that had been entrusted with the clarification of the case. In the form of an ultimatum, he demanded the withdrawal of the two papers from the scientific literature. While his analysis lacked substance to emphasize his demand, the impression the Final Report leaves to the normal reader is indeed able to permanently damage the reputation of the authors of the studies. Therefore, it is time to comprehensively comment on this.
On May 23, 2008, the MUV Rector, Professor Wolfgang Schütz, appeared before the public with the announcement that two papers of the former Division of Occupational Medicine `are based with very high probability on scientific misconduct'. In a further statement on July 29, 2008, he repeated his suspicion despite of a previous arrangement with Professor Hugo W. Rüdiger, former Head of the Division and of the accused team. In August of the same year, another MUV statement with the bombastic title Science and Truth came out maintaining the suspicion of data fraud and explaining this, in contrary to the truth, with the outcome of a hearing of the concerned staff members by the Rector's Council. So, the Rector supported the claim Prof. Lerchl at that time simply a member of the Committee for NonIonizing Radiation - had approached him with in writing.
Whoever reads the Final Report of the MUV Council will realize that the claimed fraud is in no way proven by the minutes summarizing the findings of this committee. Thus, the MUV Rector and Prof. Lerchl must have either made a serious mistake in their assessment of the events or both of them aimed from the very beginning to enforce a withdrawal of the papers, whatever it will cost. The motives that might explain the aggressive action against obviously unpleasant results in scientific research remain altogether in the dark, but do allow at least a speculation. The fact that the "radiation protector" from Germany still vehemently adheres to the claim of fraud speaks in favour of the intention to wipe out the data. The irreparable destruction of the scientific reputation and the personal integrity of the MUV staff members is quite obviously accepted as a collateral damage. As the aim to have the authors being independent from MUV withdraw the two papers was not achieved, the Rector and separately -also Prof. Lerchl turned directly to the editors of the scientific journals in which the papers had been published with their request of withdrawal. As they could not provide evidence for their claim their action was unsuccessful.
In the absence of evidence the Council cleared the team from charge of data fraud:
In its Final Report presented in April 2009 the Council comes to the conclusion: `However, the Council could not produce proof that the discovered knowledge of the concerned laboratory employee on how to break the blinding of the exposure device helped to deliberately falsify or fabricate data. A falsification or fabrication of data was denied several times by the concerned employee, and in this connection she was exonerated by another informant among others with a remark regarding the proper coding of the slides and, thus, a second blinding'. This statement of the Council prompts the conclusion that the MUV team is finally cleared of the charge of data fraud and any suspicion by the MUV Rector and the "radiation protector" from Germany is not justified. But in order to clear the Rector from the approach of slander the Council obviously looked for reasons to be able to adhere to its doubts in regard of the credibility of the MUV team.
With untruthfulness, half-truth and deliberate deception the Council justifies its adherence to the charge of scientific misconduct
Thus, the Council refused to include in its Final Report the undisputable testimony that data fraud and data falsification did actually not occur, although it must have come to this conclusion. On the contrary, it tried in a several pages long and rather confused argumentation of its verdict of non guilty in the absence of evidence to justify the Rector's suspicion about the MUV team, so to make his irresponsible way of handling the matter at least understandable. Obviously, the damage to the Rector was to be reduced at the costs of the team, so that his further stay in office would be out of question. Since the charges raised by the Council to exonerate the Rector are mainly based on untruthfulness, half-truth and deliberate deception, a clear statement is urgently required: 1. The Council claims that it did find undisputable proof that the one co-author of the paper Schwarz et al.3 who evaluated the samples all alone was, at the time of the research experiments, in the position to make out based on a description of the display in the manual - whether a sample was exposed or sham-exposed. As proof, the Council regards the fact that the concerned co-author listed the blinding code for several experiments already in August 2005 in her hand-written laboratory book. The statement in the Final Report that this co-author did admit and confirm in writing the insight into the blinding code during the meeting of the Council on July 24, 2008, however, is not true. The co-author solely admitted and confirmed in writing the fact that the entry in the laboratory book was her hand. She always contradicted the Council's conclusion that she was able to decode the blinding since August 2005. Moreover, the Council's charges do not consider that in addition to the blinding by the machine a second blinding common in the laboratory was carried out. Its claim that the data she gathered can no longer be called "scientific sound" and that she was obliged to inform her superior of her insight into the blinding code is lacking substance. This is also true for the claimed scientific misconduct from which she was exonerated by an informant. These claims disclose the desperate effort of the Council to protect the Rector by still suspecting this co-author of a possible scientific misconduct, even at the costs of the truth. 2. Furthermore, the Council states that the first author of the respective paper3 does not fulfil the prerequisites requiring that this place goes to the staff member who contributed procedurally, intellectually and conceptionally most to the project. Too, this is an allegation that is completely unfounded. Already in 2007, Prof. Rüdiger determined the first author to present the results she contributed to at an international conference in Switzerland for discussion. Based on this talk she later wrote a first draft of the paper on her own, which then was submitted by Prof. Rüdiger to the editors of the journal without major corrections. Only after the manuscript had been returned with the request for revision, he himself improved the text in close contact with the co-authors and according to the proposals of the editors. Too, the first author did receive a copy of the manuscript for a final check before submission. Her dissociation from the paper during the hearing can only be explained with the extremely strong pressure the Council put on her by claiming that the data fraud by her colleague cannot be doubted anymore. After all, even young scientists know very well that a career ends before it really starts if one is dragged into fraud. As matters stand, the Council's claim that she had no right to be a first author is fully untenable, and its statement that also this case is a question of scientific misconduct is farfetched. Again, all this can only be explained with its intention to exonerate the Rector at the costs of the team. It appears quite improperly when the Council calls Prof. Rüdiger, head of the team, as a witness for the soundness of its statement that the possible insight into the blinding code seems to make the obtained data not reliable anymore. With this statement the Council wanted Prof. Rüdiger, the corresponding author, to withdraw the respective paper3, and in order to reach this goal it even did not shrink from threats of personal consequences in case of refusal. In turn for his concession, the Council promised that the Rector would no longer adhere to the charges of data fraud and that, in addition, he would refrain from the request to also withdraw the first paper2 published in 2005. This latter concession was made although as clearly stated in the Final Report - no proof of scientific misconduct had been detected for this and all former papers of the authors. But the Rector did not stick to this compromise to which Prof. Rüdiger only agreed in order to reduce, as far as possible, the already occurred damage to MUV because of the worldwide spread of the fraud charges. Prof. Rüdiger followed the request of the Council and informed the editors of the journal of his plan to withdraw the respective paper3 with the argument that he can no longer guarantee the blinding of the experiments, although still convinced of its soundness. Shortly afterwards, MUV published a further press release repeating all previous charges against the team. But suspicions and unjust fraud charges always will catch up in the end. Neither the MUV Rector nor the "radiation protector" from Germany could imagine at the beginning of their smear campaign that their charges would vanish in the air. Currently, at least three papers from other laboratories have been submitted, two of them already accepted for publication, in which the genotoxic effects of mobile radiation and, thus, the results of the MUV team are convincingly confirmed.
As matters stand, the question arises if the handling by the MUV Rector does meet the ethical and moral principles appropriate for the position of a university rector. His aim , whatever made him do it, was nothing less but the attempt to remove research data of a great industrial and political impact from the scientific literature. To do so, he was ready to approvingly accept as a consequential damage that the reputation and the integrity of the concerned authors might be destroyed. This question is even more important when one discovers that the chairman of the first Council in charge was an employee of the telecommunications industry who, after his affiliation became known by accident, had to be removed because of suspicion of prejudice. Although the other two members of the Council of three had already agreed with him that the fraud charges can be considered proven, they stayed in the next Council under a newly assigned chairman. As the hearing under the new chairman did not allow the conviction of the MUV team obviously planned from the very beginning, the verdict of non guilty in the absence of evidence has to be understood as a compromise. One did probably refrain from the absolutely necessary new composition of the whole Council in order to save for the purposes of the Rector all that still could be saved. The minutes of the hearing under the new chairman it does not seem to give any of the hearing under the first chairman - describe, with the exception of one single ambiguous sentence referring to the early insight into the code, a full rehabilitation of the accused staff member and, thus, the team suspected of fraud. This might be the reason why the Rector refused to publish the minutes. Up to now, only the authors of the two papers were allowed to read the secret document under the strict supervision of a Council member. That in the later produced Final Report a few things were added at the costs of the team speaks for the situation at MUV as described in Profil, an Austrian news magazine (Nov 24, 2008; No. 48: 74-79). And a report in the noted journal Nature (August 2008; Vol. 454(21): 917) on a real fraud scandal at the University of Innsbruck ends with the conclusion: "But something, it seems, is rotten in the state of Austria, and it needs to be faced and dealt with openly". There is no need to add anything.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: REFLEX study team, Franz Adlkofer and Hugo W. Rüdiger,|
|Very Important - AUVA REPORT: Exposure Limits Challenged; Precaution Demanded|
|Austria||Created: 24 Aug 2009|
All across Europe the debate on exposure limits has flared up; insurance companies do not insure cell phone providers because of the incalculable health risks. The Austrian Social Insurance for Occupational Risks AUVA (Allgemeine Unfallversicherungsanstalt) commissioned the Vienna Medical University to carry out its own research projects, focusing on effects of cell phone radiation on the brain, immune system, and proteins.
The title itself Investigation of Nonthermal Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation in the Cell Phone Frequency Range (ATHEM) indicates that: AUVA runs in direct opposition to the representatives of the "thermal paradigm," radiation protection agencies of the various governments as well as the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection), all of which deny there are effects that are not caused by heating (non thermal effects). Ultimately, the results of the report confirm known health risks associated with cell phone long-known technologies.
With several quotes from the AUVA report, the results are summarized below.
1. The Significance of the AUVA Report
"The launch and widespread use of cell phones has introduced a new type of exposure. Never before did large groups of the population hold an RF transmitter to their head. Issues about health risks have made the headlines because the evaluation of current scientific data leave many questions unanswered. To this day, the conclusions of risk asses assessments concerning the effects after low low-level exposures to RF/EMF radiation (possible nonthermal effects) are, at times, rather contradictory (editor's note: RF/EMF=radiofrequency radiation / electrotion magnetic fields). (...) The research project ATHEM, therefore, has been aimed at studying the burning issue of potential interactions between RF/EMF and biology. (p. 7) (...) The significance of the experimental investigations also lies in the fact that the demonstrated effects, which do not necessarily have disease relevance (e.g. EEG changes), should not even have occurred, occurred according to the strictly thermal interaction mechaism that would have been covered by current exposure guidelines." (p. 8)
2. Main Results
The AUVA studies have verified that: Electromagnetic fields from cell phone radiation have an impact on the Central Nervous System (brain) Immune System Protein Syntheses  Current exposure guidelines do not consider the biological processes which already respond to electromagnetic field levels below the critical heating threshold. As a result, the guidelines do not provide protection. The AUVA Report is a slap in the face for the German Radiation Protection Commission and the ICNIRP, which in the interests of industry deny the existence of nonthermal effects and stick to the thermal paradigm . The ATHEM report by the AUVA confirms: Cell phone radiation has adverse impacts on health.
"Beyond that, the significance of the results also lies in the fact that the effects should not even have occurred when assuming exclusively thermal effects, which current exposure guidelines are based on. Thus, these effects are further evidence for the existence of nonthermal effects." (p. 168, see also p. 62) In plain English: Exposure guidelines, therefore, are generally called into question because they are based on thermal effects only.
Prof. Wilhelm Mosgöller, cordinator: "We have observed that cells are subjected to stress  when exposed to this type of radiation for hours." (DVD) "The radiation-induced effects observed, however, were not always dosage dependent as would be expected from thermal effects. Some cells showed an even stronger response when the 5-minute exposure was followed by a 10-minute break (intermittent exposure). This would also support a nonthermal effect mechanism.
The project results, therefore, serve as a further confirmation of the existence of so-called non-thermal effects."
Get the full document here or via the source link below.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Diagnose Funk, 21 Jul 2009|
|Mobile phone base stations-Effects on wellbeing and health. Kundi M, Hutter HP.|
|Austria||Created: 19 Mar 2009|
Institute of Environmental Health, Center for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, Kinderspitalgasse 15, A-1095 Vienna, Austria.
Studying effects of mobile phone base station signals on health have been discouraged by authoritative bodies like WHO International EMF Project and COST 281. WHO recommended studies around base stations in 2003 but again stated in 2006 that studies on cancer in relation to base station exposure are of low priority. As a result only few investigations of effects of base station exposure on health and wellbeing exist. Cross-sectional investigations of subjective health as a function of distance or measured field strength, despite differences in methods and robustness of study design, found indications for an effect of exposure that is likely independent of concerns and attributions. Experimental studies applying short-term exposure to base station signals gave various results, but there is weak evidence that UMTS and to a lesser degree GSM signals reduce wellbeing in persons that report to be sensitive to such exposures. Two ecological studies of cancer in the vicinity of base stations report both a strong increase of incidence within a radius of 350 and 400m respectively. Due to the limitations inherent in this design no firm conclusions can be drawn, but the results underline the urgent need for a comprehensive investigation of this issue. Animal and in vitro studies are inconclusive to date. An increased incidence of DMBA induced mammary tumors in rats at a SAR of 1.4W/kg in one experiment could not be replicated in a second trial. Indications of oxidative stress after low-level in vivo exposure of rats could not be supported by in vitro studies of human fibroblasts and glioblastoma cells. From available evidence it is impossible to delineate a threshold below which no effect occurs, however, given the fact that studies reporting low exposure were invariably negative it is suggested that power densities around 0.5-1mW/m(2) must be exceeded in order to observe an effect.
The meager data base must be extended in the coming years. The difficulties of investigating long-term effects of base station exposure have been exaggerated, considering that base station and handset exposure have almost nothing in common both needs to be studied independently.
It cannot be accepted that studying base stations is postponed until there is firm evidence for mobile phones.
PMID: 19261451 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Pubmed, Kundi M, Hutter HP, 02 Mar 2009|
|Agreement between Mobilkom Austria AG and Dr. med. Gerd Oberfeld|
|Austria||Created: 28 Nov 2008|
Communication from Dr Oberfeld: cancer-causing C-net mobile-phone mast in Hausmannstätten never existed.
Dear Sir or Madam,
In accordance with the agreement between mobilkom austria AG and Dr med Gerd Oberfeld from November 3, 2008, the contents of point 1) of this agreement is, hereby, communicated—without evaluative comments—to the circles of persons affected.
1) The defendant Dr. Gerd Oberfeld, hereby, acknowledges that there was no C-Network transmitter installed in the area of the telephone exchange center “Schemmerlstraße” in Hausmannstätten, Styria, at any time. The defendant is obligated, as of now, to refrain from disseminating claims of fact that would suggest that there was such a mobile phone transmitter at the above-mentioned location, drawing conclusions about a causal association with an increased cancer incidence, or any such claim of similar nature, especially in context of his “Environmental Epidemiological Study of Cancer Incidence in the Municipalities of Hausmannstätten & Vasoldsberg” from January 2008.
Dr. Gerd Oberfeld
|Source: Dr Gerd Oberfeld, 27 Nov 2008 (via email)|
|Sensitivity to electricity - Temporal changes in Austria|
|Austria||Created: 14 Sep 2008|
An increasing number of persons suffer from non-specific health symptoms such as headache, sleep disturbances, difficulties in concentrating and more. In lack of a medical explanation, more and more persons take refuge to the assumption that they were electromagnetic hypersensitive (EHS) and electromagnetic pollution causes their problems.
The discussion whether electromagnetic fields (EMF) could cause such adverse health effects is still ongoing.
Methods: Based on the Austrian inhabitants a statistical cross-sample of the general population with regard to age, gender and federal state had been investigated to assess the actual situation and potential temporal changes in comparison with a former study of 1994. In a telephone survey a total number of 526 persons were included.
Results: This study showed an actual EHS prevalence of 3.5% compared with 2% estimated in 1994.
About 70% of the sample believed that electromagnetic pollution could be a risk factor for health. More than 30% declared to at least some degree to be concerned about their well-being near mobile phone base stations or power lines.
However, only 10% were actively looking for specific information. Media triggered EHS hypothesis in 24% of the cases.
Conclusions: The results show that concerns about EMF did not decrease with time in spite of scientific studies and health risk assessments concluding that a causal relationship of EMF below recommended reference levels and non-specific health symptoms would be implausible.
Author: Joerg Schroettner and Norbert Leitgeb
Credits/Source: BMC Public Health 2008, 8:310
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Martin Weatherall|
|Liebe Kollegen, Freunde, Mitglieder und Mitstreiter!|
|Austria||Created: 3 Aug 2008|
Liebe Kollegen, Freunde, Mitglieder und Mitstreiter!
In England ist man anscheinend schon weiter als bei uns. Die Lehrerschaft lehnt zunehmend den Einsatz von WLAN in Schulen ab. Wenn Sie mehr darüber wissen möchten ,lesen Sie bitte die folgenden Zeilen ...
"pressetext (pte)" <email@example.com>
Datum: 30. Juli 2008 06:05:44 MESZ
An: "pte.abonnent" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Betreff: Lehrer wollen Schüler vor WLAN-Strahlung schützen
Antwort an: email@example.com
Lehrer wollen Schüler vor WLAN-Strahlung schützen
"Gesundheit der Kinder wird unnötig aufs Spiel gesetzt"
WLAN-Strahlung ist gesundheitlich nicht unbedenklich (Foto: pixelio.de, setcookie)
London (pte/30.07.2008/06:05) - Die rasant zunehmende Zahl an WLAN-Anbindungen hat in Großbritannien eine breite öffentliche Diskussion über etwaige gesundheitsschädliche Nebenwirkungen der kabellosen Internettechnologie ausgelöst. Wie die Zeitung Daily Mail berichtet, formt sich vor allem in den Reihen der britischen Lehrerschaft zunehmender Widerstand gegen den Einsatz der WLAN-Technologie an Schulen. Ausschlaggebend für die wachsende Besorgnis sei nicht zuletzt auch eine Reihe von erst kürzlich veröffentlichten Studien, die auf die besonderen Gesundheitsrisiken der drahtlosen Übertragungsmethode hinweisen. So soll ihre Verwendung unter anderem für Symptome wie Konzentrationsverlust, Ermüdungserscheinungen, eingeschränktes Erinnerungsvermögen oder Kopfschmerzen verantwortlich sein.
"Durch den Ansturm auf die Installation von kabellosen Computernetzwerken in Schulen wird die Gesundheit der Kinder unnötig aufs Spiel gesetzt", erklärt Philip Parkin, Generalsekretär der britischen Lehrervereinigung Voice http://www.voicetheunion.org.uk . Bis zu dem Zeitpunkt, da eine vollständige Untersuchung die tatsächlichen Auswirkungen von WLAN auf den menschlichen Organismus klären könnte, täten Schulen daher gut daran, auf eine Verwendung der Technologie zu verzichten. "Eine ganze Generation von Kindern wird hier im Grunde als Versuchskaninchen für ein groß angelegtes Experiment missbraucht", kritisiert Parkin. Der Voice-Generalsekretär habe die Befürchtung, dass die von WLAN-Geräten abgesonderte elektromagnetische Strahlung das Nervensystem, das sich bei Kindern noch in der Entwicklung befindet, schädigen könnte. Ohne eine entsprechende Untersuchung der Langzeitwirkung der austretenden Strahlung dürften keine weiteren kabellosen Internetverbindungen an Schulen installiert werden, fordert Parkin.
"Zum Thema WLAN-Internet und potenzielle Gesundheitsrisiken gibt es bislang noch keine ausreichend greifbaren Studienergebnisse", stellt Gerd Oberfeld, Umweltmediziner beim Amt der Salzburger Landesregierung http://www.salzburg.gv.at , im Gespräch mit pressetext fest. Dennoch liege doch schon einige schlüssige Evidenz vor, die nahe legt, dass WLAN-Anbindungen aus gesundheitlichen Gründen auf ein unbedingt notwendiges Maß reduziert werden sollten. "Der Strahlungspegel von WLAN ist unstrittig. Er liegt in der Regel zwischen 100 und 1.000 Mikrowatt pro Quadratmeter", betont Oberfeld. Kopfschmerzen würden etwa ab einem Wert von 500 Mikrowatt pro Quadratmeter häufiger auftreten. Erschwerend hinzu komme weiters die Tatsache, dass WLAN-Strahlung einen relativ hohen niederfrequenten Strahlungsanteil aufweise, der biologisch gesehen besonders aktiv sei.
Dass in Großbritannien die Lehrerschaft einen vorsichtigeren Umgang mit der WLAN-Technologie an Schulen fordert, ist für Oberfeld durchaus verständlich. "Auch in Österreich nehmen wir die Bedenken in diesem Zusammenhang sehr ernst", stellt er klar. Man habe etwa festgestellt, dass ein WLAN-Access-Point in einem Klassenzimmer, auch wenn er sich in der hintersten Ecke des Raumes befindet, aufgrund von Reflexionen an den Wänden immer noch Strahlung im Ausmaß von rund 100 Mikrowatt pro Quadratmeter absondere. "In Salzburg gibt es deshalb einen eigenen Landtagsbeschluss, durch den WLAN an Schulen aufgrund von Sicherheits- und Gesundheitsbedenken nur sehr zurückhaltend eingesetzt werden soll", so Oberfeld abschließend. (Ende)
Redakteur: Markus Steiner
|Source: Christine Kind|
|Scientists urgently call for biologically based EMF standards|
|Austria||Created: 7 Jun 2008|
The International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety, a scientific organization composed of concerned scientists worldwide, are issuing an urgent call for more health and safety protections against EMF hazards. The Venice Resolution was initially signed by forty-seven scientists, each who are in the forefront of their respective professional disciplines in conducting research on electromagnetic fields and health. The scientists state that recent epidemiological evidence on adverse effects of EMF is stronger than before and, they take exception to the claim of the wireless communication industry that there is no credible scientific evidence to conclude there a risk.
The scientists call for biologically based standards to be developed that would take various physiological conditions into consideration, e.g., pregnancy, newborns, children, and elderly people. The emerging health condition, known as electrohypersensitivity, now estimated to affect 2% of the world’s population, that can cause functional impairment, loss of worker productivity and increased national health care expenditures, is pointed to as an example of harm that needs further investigation.
For the past several years, the entire world has been transformed by the new information age that increasingly relies upon wireless communications for voice, data, and media transmissions. However, in spite of the clear economic and social benefits these technological innovations offer, government and industry has yet to provide the assurances, through independent sustained research programs, that wireless technologies, are safe. EMF energy
is emitted during electrical transmission and distribution, by electrical appliances, by radio and television broadcasts, cellular transmissions, wireless internet access and more. The signators to the Venice Resolution believe that exposure to even weak fields emitted by these technologies can affect biological systems, Prof. Livio Guiliani, ICEMS Spokesman, who also serves as Deputy Director for a unit of ISPESL, the Italian Health Ministry's worker safety and protection program, stated, "Fundamentally, our research shows that nonthermal EMF biointeractions have been proven both for extremely low frequency fields (ELF) and high frequency fields. These outcomes are not negligible, and require EMF risk assessment, also to protect against potential EMF hazards related to future developments in medical diagnostics and therapeutics".
As a precautionary measure, the scientists recommend lowered EMF exposure standards and advise that children and teenagers limit use cell phones or other wireless devices.
The International Commission on Electromagnetic Safety is a not-for-profit group of concerned scientists.
The Venice Resolution may be viewed online at http://www.icems.eu
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: The International Commission on Electromagnetic Safety, 06 Jun 2008|
|Operator claims cancer-causing mast never existed|
|Austria||Created: 26 Mar 2008|
The cancer study on mobile phone systems that appeared at the end of January researched by the environmental doctor, Dr Gerd Oberfeld, of the Salzburg regional medical centre and specialist in environmental medicine for the Austrian Medical Association has created a stir. His work, contracted by the Styrian health department, references a time period between 1984 and 1997. The environmental doctor ascertained an increased risk of cancer in people neighbouring class C network mobile phone systems in the area of Vasoldsberg/Hausmannstätten, in Austria. However: a class C network system has never existed at this location and up until 1994 there was absolutely no use of mobile phones. The mobile phone operators are therefore demanding that the author publicly retracts his incorrect cancer investigation and are calling for an objectively led discussion on mobile communication.
Read the entire press release from the Operator here: http://www.fmk.at/content.php?id=222&cb=196
Rebuttal from Dr. Gerd Oberfeld:
Proven Increase in Cancer Incidence Around Telephone Exchange Center Hausmannstätten - Well-known Environmental Health Expert from Salzburg Rejects Allegation.
"As an epidemiologist, I am committed to the science and correct interpretation of the data, resulting from a study.“ That is how the environmental health expert from Salzburg, Gerd Oberfeld, responded when mobilkom austria AG accused him of attributing an increased incidence of cancer to an allegedly non-existent C-Network in Vasoldsberg and Hausmannstätten municipalities.
The data as provided by Gerd Oberfeld is fact: Within the scope of the scientific study, a significant increase in incidence was documented in the area around the telephone exchange center Hausmannstätten, for all types of cancer the increase was found to be up to 8 times higher. Breast cancer and brain tumor were especially prevalent.
During the preliminary research of the study by Gerd Oberfeld, a retired technician from the Post and Telecommunication Administration of Styria confirmed that a transmitter of the C-Network was operating at this location of the telephone exchange center Hausmannstätten.
Furthermore, the informant could specify the precise power output of the transmitter as well as the number of channels.
Other possible factors - that could have caused such a significant increase in cancer incidence - could not be detected by Gerd Oberfeld.
During the preliminary research of the study, Gerd Oberfeld was told by the Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology (BMVIT) that to the knowledge of the federal ministry data for networks, which are not in operation anymore, are deleted and therefore the BMVIT does not have this kind of information available. Additional investigations among the residents and neighbors clearly showed that they did notice such a transmitter during the years in question.
It is interesting to note that the mobilkom austria AG only seems to explore the contents of the study as long as the quotes are taken out of context. The allegation that, for example, a 121 times higher risk was calculated, is firmly rejected by Gerd Oberfeld. In the study, this increase was discussed exclusively for brain tumor cases in the highest exposure category.
The „quoting of partial results out of context“ for reasons of mass impact is not considered a serious review of the study contents and therefore can hardly form the basis for an objective discussion, says Gerd Oberfeld.
The legal counsel of mobilkom austria AG has served Gerd Oberfeld with the demand to retract the conducted investigations and at the same time has threatened to take legal action for damages in the case of non-compliance.
Gerd Oberfeld is unable to find any fault on his part. The significant increase in cancer cases around the telephone exchange center Hausmannstätten is fact, which cannot be argued away. If the increase was caused by something else than the mobile phone network, this should surely be reviewed from a scientific perspective. At this point in time, however, Gerd Oberfeld has no reason to doubt the accuracy of the information available to him. So far the mobilkom austria AG was unable to supply sufficient proof for its claim that there had been no C-Network transmitter at the telephone exchange center in Hausmannstätten.
The statement by the mobilkom austria AG that Austria needs a reliable policy for mobile phone technologies, which would investigate feared risk, without increasing panic and fear-mongering, is very much applauded by Gerd Oberfeld. It is high time that the fears and concerns of affected populations are respected, but also include scientific findings that have already been pointing in a similar direction for years, and that we search for solutions together. We may finally find a joint point of departure in this right direction!
|Source: Land Salzburg / Forum Mobilkommunikation, Gerd Oberfeld / Mobilkom Austria, 25 Mar 2008|
|«First ‹Previous Page 2 of 4  Next› Last»|