News for Switzerland

«First  ‹Previous   Page 7 of 7 

Repacholi/WHO: Money Talks and the WHO Follows
Switzerland Created: 2 Mar 2007
EPRI, the Electric Power Research Institute, the research arm of the electric utility industry, has lots of money and is not shy about using it to push its agenda.

Today, EPRI is the only source of research funds on power line EMFs in the U.S. In recent times, practically all of EPRI’s money has been devoted to pushing the idea, championed by staffer Rob Kavet, that contact currents —not EMFs— are responsible for the oft-observed increase in childhood leukemia. Kavet may be onto something, but at the moment only Kavet himself and his contractors embrace this hypothesis.

Actually, there is another: The WHO EMF Project in Geneva.

EPRI was one of the sponsors of WHO’s workshop on EMF risks to children, held in Istanbul last summer.

EPRI also paid Leeka Kheifets to prepare a review of the epidemiologic evidence for the EMF-childhood leukemia link. She presented a draft at the meeting; the final paper, “The Sensitivity of Children to Electromagnetic Fields,” appears in the August issue of the journal Pediatrics, which is posted on the Internet. (You can download a complete copy of the Pediatrics paper for free.)

Most of you will remember that Kheifets was a coconspirator, with Mike Repacholi, in the infamous flip-flop over applying the precautionary principle to EMFs (see MWN, M/A03 and M/J03). After announcing a decision to adopt precautionary policies, they backed off without any explanation for the reversal.

Before joining Repacholi in Geneva, Kheifets worked at EPRI in California for many years, where she was Kavet’s boss. She now has a position at the University of California, Los Angeles. She continues to do a lot of work for Repacholi.

Kavet’s non-EMF theory gets top billing in both Kheifets’s review paper, and the workshop report.

Kheifets and Repacholi, as they have done in the past, cast the EMF-childhood leukemia association as still highly uncertain due to the lack of a mechanism. They write:

“At present there is no experimental evidence that supports the view that [the EMF-childhood leukemia] relationship is causal.”

What is left out of both papers is the fact that at least six different labs have shown that power-frequency EMFs can break DNA. It’s true, we don’t know how EMFs can do this, but it has been observed experimentally over and over again.

Kheifets and Repacholi must be aware of the DNA work.

If EMFs can break DNA, EMFs can certainly play a major role in the etiology of childhood leukemia. But this is an inconvenient fact for both EPRI’s Rob Kavet and WHO’s Mike Repacholi. They have common interests: In addition to both supporting Kheifets, neither wants to endorse precautionary policies to protect children from EMFs.

Here’s the payoff —from the conclusion of the Pediatrics paper (with some emphasis added):

For ELF (power-frequency) fields, there is some evidence that exposure to environmental magnetic fields that are relatively high but well below guidance levels is associated with an increase in the risk of childhood leukemia, a very rare disease (even if the risk is doubled, it remains small at 5-8 per 100,000 children per year). Although the evidence is regarded as insufficient to justify more restrictive limits on exposure, the possibility that exposure to ELF magnetic fields increases risk cannot be discounted. For the physician faced with questions from, for example, a couple planning a family and concerned about this issue, or from someone pregnant and occupationally exposed to relatively high ELF magnetic fields, standardized advice is not possible. Instead, physicians could inform their patients of possible risk and advise them to weigh all the advantages and disadvantages of the options available to them (of which EMF reduction is but one consideration). Some simple options include reducing exposure by minimizing the use of certain electrical appliances or changing work practices to increase distance from the source of exposure. People living near overhead power lines should be advised that such proximity is just an indicator of exposure and that homes far away from power lines can have similar or higher fields.

This may read like it was written at EPRI, but the paper is signed by Kheifets, Repacholi, together with Rick Saunders (on leave from the U.K. Health Protection Agency) and Emilie van Deventer, all affiliated with the EMF project at the World Health Organization.

How much money does EPRI give the EMF project every year? How much support did EPRI provide for the Istanbul workshop? And how much did Kavet pay his old boss Kheifets for the literature review? We don’t know because Repacholi continues to refuse to open up his books.

But whatever the cost to EPRI, you can be sure that Kavet’s managers back in Palo Alto, California, are pleased.

One final footnote: Kheifets was recently hired to serve as a consultant to the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) to help develop state EMF policies. She will receive approximately $58,000, plus expenses. In her application, she told the presiding administrative law judge that, “I believe that rigorous application of Precautionary Framework to EMF is appropriate.”

Hmmmm....We wonder how we should interpret the word “rigorous.” Actually, it doesn’t matter. It’s doubletalk. The capital “P” and “F” indicate that she is referring to Repacholi’s framework and we know that neither of them has any interest in applying precautionary EMF policies (see the July 5 entry, below).

When Kheifets applied for the CPUC job, she requested that her personal financial information be kept confidential because its release “would unnecessarily intrude on [her] privacy.” Maybe so, but it would reveal how much EPRI and Repacholi are paying her, while she gives advice —on behalf of the rate-paying public— to California regulators.

Most surprising of all is that, in his ruling granting her request, the judge noted that not one of the many EMF activist groups in the state of California challenged Kheifets’s application.

August 5, 2005
A few more words about the potential health risks to children from mobile phones...

A literature review on the topic by Luc Martens of Belgium’s Ghent University was posted on the Bioelectromagnetics Web site a few days ago. Anyone who doubts how little we know about all this should check it out.

Not counting the abstract, references and acknowledgments, the review runs just three pages —that’s it. There’s not much to say because we don’t know much.

Even the relatively long-running controversy over whether children absorb more radiation than adults due to their thinner skulls and whether the radiation penetrates deeper into their heads —sometimes referred to as Salt Lake City vs. Zurich or Gandhi vs. Kuster— remains unresolved (see MWN, N/D01). Or as Martens puts it, “There is still an inconsistency in the literature.”

The fact is that most of the literature on cell phone health risks is inconsistent. Not only don’t we know whether the unlimited use of mobile phones is riskier for children than for adults, we don’t know how great the risk is for adults.

Regardless of all this uncertainty, U.S. mobile companies, ever hungry for more profits, are now targeting children as young as six. The health issue is so far off the radar screen that in the last week, Time, USA Today and the Wall Street Journal have all run major stories on the selling of kiddie phones. Not one of them even mentioned health concerns.

Youri Grigoriev of the Institute of Biophysics in Moscow predicted this would happen after Eric van Rongen and the Health Council of the Netherlands’ finding that there is no scientific rationale to limit children’s use of cell phones.

To be fair, van Rongen is hardly alone. As we have made clear in earlier postings, the World Health Organization (led by Mike Repacholi) and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (led by Paolo Vecchia) are similarly more concerned with maintaining scientific integrity than with possible health impacts.

Here’s how Grigoriev closed his response to van Rongen and the other members of the council: “The resolution of the Health Council of the Netherlands that it ‘sees no reason for recommending limiting the use of mobile phones by children,’ opens the way for aggressive advertisement of a ‘cellular phone for each child’ and the possibility of using cellular phones by children without limit or control.”

That was last year. This year it has all come to pass.

August 3, 2005
WHO’s Repacholi Flip-Flops Again

Remember this: The next time Mike Repacholi tells you something, it probably means nothing at all.

A couple of years ago, he advocated precautionary policies for EMFs from power lines and RF radiation from mobile phones, but soon afterwards he backed off, saying it was all a misunderstanding (see MWN, M/A03 and M/J03).

Now he’s done it again.

Cell phones are safe and children need take no special precautions—unless they or their parents are concerned —Repacholi advises in a just-released clarification, reaffirming a five-year old policy statement.

Repacholi sang a different tune when he was in Canada last month for his workshop on setting precautionary policies under uncertainty. That same week (July 9-14), the Toronto Star ran a major series on the controversy over the safety of cell phones, with special emphasis on the possible risks to children. Under the media spotlight, Repacholi, promoted precautionary policies for children’s use of mobile phones.

“With respect to children, WHO recommends that children should use hands-free headsets,” Repacholi told Canadian TV.

“We certainly advocate precautionary measures for children,” Repacholi told the Toronto Star.

“With respect to children, WHO recommends that children should use hands-free headsets” reported ConsumerAffairs.com.

Repacholi would have us believe they all got it wrong.

Tyler Hamilton, one of the two reporters who wrote the Star series is standing firm. “Repacholi said it in three different forums plus I saw him say it on television,” Hamilton told Microwave News. “He said it to me in a telephone interview, he wrote it to me in an e-mail and I heard him say it at the Ottawa conference.”

Hamilton forwarded an e-mail Repacholi had sent him a few days before the conference. This is part of what Repacholi wrote:

“WHO has already said on a number of occasions that children’s exposure should be reduced. However the best way to achieve this is to ask them to use hands-free-kits.”

In his latest clarification posted on the WHO Web site, Repacholi states that “WHO’s policy on mobile phones, released in 2000, remains intact.” He goes on: “WHO’s International EMF Project does not change its position through media reports, rather policies and recommendations will only be amended in documents through normal WHO information outlets.”

We beg to differ.

Mike Repacholi does change his position for media reports. He believes that he can say whatever he wants when under pressure and that he can retract it all later.


Repacholi and Sound Science

When asked by a Canadian who is electrosensitive for a response to our July 5 commentary, “Time To Stop the WHO Charade,” here’s part of what Repacholi replied:

“As you know WHO has built the highest possible reputation in public health matters among the public and governments world wide and the EMF Project will not be deviating from the sound science course that sustains this high esteem, no matter what the pressures from self interest groups or individuals. Louis appeals to people who do not believe in the scientific method for resolving issues. He, like others who are unable to argue a scientific case always claim WHO decisions are industry biased—a completely untrue position.” [our emphasis]

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, our criticism of WHO’s EMF project has nothing to do with science per se, but how Mike Repacholi sets policies based on the science—both what the science tells us and, just as importantly, what it doesn’t tell us.

As we noted in the commentary, many national governments have looked at the same body of scientific data and have promoted precautionary policies. These include China, Italy, Switzerland and Russia. In addition, expert panels in England, France, Germany and Russia have issued advisories discouraging children from using mobile phones.

Perhaps, it is easier for Mike to single us out than to address those who seek to protect the public health of well over a billion people, including the national government of Switzerland, WHO’s host country.

As we have stated time and time again, the WHO should err on the side of public health, not the interests of the wireless industry.

We should also highlight Mike’s use of the phrase “sound science.” As Elisa Ong and Stanton Glantz of the University of California, San Francisco, have pointed out, these seemingly unchallengeable words were coined by the tobacco industry and other corporate interests to manipulate public opinion. Here is some of what they wrote in the American Journal of Public Health in November 2001:

“Public health professionals need to be aware that the ‘sound science’ movement is not an indigenous effort from within the profession to improve the quality of scientific discourse, but reflects sophisticated public relations campaigns controlled by industry executives and lawyers whose aim is to manipulate the standards of scientific proof to serve the corporate interests of their clients.”

The WHO has long been targeted by the tobacco industry in its continuing efforts to water down control initiatives. Ong and Glantz have also documented the campaign waged against the IARC study on second-hand smoke.

A detailed report on the tobacco industry’s nefarious activities was released in 2000. At that time, Nature ran an editorial calling for the WHO and other groups to “strengthen their guard against conflicts of interest.”

As we have reported (see MWN, N/D01), a number of the players in the mobile phone controversy have also worked for the tobacco industry —most notably, George Carlo.

Where does Mike Repacholi fit in to all this? No one will know until he opens up his books and tells us who is paying the bills for the EMF charade that he
runs out of the WHO offices in Geneva.

Once again, we ask: Show us the money, Mike.
Mwave news 080805
Commentary
From the Field
August 8, 2005
Click here to view the source article.
Source: GB/Eileen O´Connor

From Microwave news: Time To Stop the WHO Charade, The same Repacholi who tryed to convince Jersey Scrutiny?
Switzerland Created: 2 Mar 2007
Time To Stop the WHO Charade
Now we know what Mike Repacholi has been doing since the infamous Mike-and-Leeka flip-flop of 2003. Back then Repacholi and his assistant Leeka Kheifets decided that there was no need to apply the precautionary principle to EMFs—soon after telling everyone that the time for action had finally arrived.

It appears that for the last two-and-a-half years, when not shuttling from one meeting to another, Mike has been cataloguing ways the WHO can avoid taking precautionary steps to reduce EMF exposures.

Mike’s apologia will be presented next week at a three-day workshop in Ottawa, July 11-13. He calls it a policy framework. We call it a sham. Mike has assembled a list of reasons for doing nothing. Electric utilities and telecom companies could have written the WHO plan. They may well have played a leading role.

You can see where Mike’s sympathies lie from the workshop agenda: the GSM Association, the U.K. National Grid, the American Chemical Council, Shell Canada, have all been invited to speak, together with an assortment of academics, risk consultants and a few of his WHO buddies.

Mike has not even made a pretense of having a balanced program. Absent are labor, consumer and environmental groups, save one small Canadian organization. John Swanson of the National Grid will be in Ottawa, but Alasdair Phillips, England’s leading and most knowledgeable EMF activist, will not be there—no doubt because he would openly challenge Repacholi’s pro-industry sympathies.

Power lines or mobile phones are not really even on the workshop agenda. Only Mike is slated to address the EMF issue. Instead, the Ottawa workshop will address many of the major social risks that are in the news: global warming, mad cow disease, and even a flu pandemic which could wipe out many of us long before the ice caps melt. Mike’s message is loud and clear: Don’t worry about a tiny—and unlikely—EMF health risk when there are more important threats on the horizon.

Back in early 2003, there were enough reasons to invoke the precautionary principle for power-frequency EMFs and for RF from mobile phones. Over the last year, more studies have reaffirmed the need for caution. Three different data sets now implicate long-term use of mobile phones with acoustic tumors: Two from the ÷reboro group and one from the Karolinska group. The University of Vienna has found support for Henry Lai and NP Singh’s studies showing that RF radiation can break DNA—these results from the REFLEX research program indicate that RF radiation may well be genotoxic after all. And even more recently, an Australian researcher reported additional evidence that RF can break up DNA.

Just last month, a British team published a paper in the British Medical Journal showing that children living near power lines had higher than expected rates of leukemia. The National Grid’s Swanson is one of the authors of that paper, but at this point he is not slated to discuss it in Ottawa.

Mike has no use for any of this new information —none of it is cited in his framework—because he has already made up his mind that nothing needs to be done. When the REFLEX DNA work first hit the media, Mays Swicord and his gang at Motorola didn’t have to say a word because their man in Geneva, Mike Repacholi of the World Health Organization, was ready to speak for them. Mike offered immediate reassurances that the Vienna results are spurious and may be discounted. “One has to question what went wrong, or was different, for them to get the results they claim,” Mike told the New Scientist.

Mike wants us to believe that his is the voice of reason, but, in fact, it is his views that are out of step with those of many national governments. China, Italy, Switzerland and Russia have all adopted precautionary exposure limits —directly rejecting Mike’s pleas for harmonizing radiation standards. Expert panels in England, France, Germany and Russia have all issued statements discouraging children from using mobile phones.

To his shame, Mike was the only member of Sir William Stewart’s panel to object when, in 2000, it was the first to call for children to avoid cell phones. English kids, like others everywhere, love their mobile phones and use them all the time. Neither they nor most of their parents have ever heard of Sir William’s cautionary advice. But even though largely ignored by consumers, Sir William, with this single recommendation, underscored our ignorance about radiation health effects and prompted continued health research. He set a tone for others to follow.

Sir William’s imperative is to protect public health. That is also supposed to be Mike’s mission at the WHO. But his words and action make it clear that his principal interest is in the well-being of his corporate friends.

As the old saying goes, “If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it’s a sure bet, that it’s a duck.” Mike’s actions and words are those of an industry operative. And for all we know he may be one.

Mike has repeatedly refused to disclose who is paying for his EMF project and all its conferences and workshops. We do know that WHO does not foot the bill. Mike has to raise his own budget and travel funds. We also know that he found a way to skirt the WHO rules that bar direct industry support —the mobile phone manufacturers have said that they provide him with $150,000 a year with additional money for meeting and travel expenses.

But where does all the other money come from? What’s stopping Mike from doing the right thing? Why doesn’t he issue a simple and clear message that EMFs and RF radiation present possible health risks and that, until more answers are in hand, we should try to reduce unnecessary exposures. All he needs to do is to offer a single sentence of advice: Be careful until we know more about the health risks. That’s it. A simple public health message of caution from the World Health Organization.

It's time for the Mike-and-Leeka charade to come to an end. Show us the money, Mike. Show us who’s paying the bills. Maybe then we will know who you are really working for.
Microwave News
July 5, 2005
Click here to view the source article.
Source: GB/Eileen O´Connor

Consultations in primary care for symptoms attributed to electromagnetic fields – a survey among general practitioners
Switzerland Created: 15 Dec 2006
New study: Consultations in primary care for symptoms attributed to electromagnetic fields – a survey among general practitioners
Abstract: Background
Five percent of the Swiss population attribute symptoms to electromagnetic fields (EMF). General practitioners (GPs) might play a key role in recognising an emerging health risk, since they are the first to observe and follow up persons who attribute symptoms to EMF. It is unclear to what extent EMFs have become an issue in general practice and which experiences GPs report from the consultations.
Methods:
We conducted telephone interviews in a random sample of GPs in Switzerland in order to assess the frequency of consultations in primary care due to EMF and the GPs' experience with these patients.
Results:
342 general practitioners were interviewed, corresponding to a response rate of 28.2%. 69% of the GPs reported at least one consultation due to EMF, but GPs with a certificate in complementary medicine were much more likely to report EMF consultations. The median of EMF consultation numbers within one year was three. An overview of the most recent EMF-related consultation per GP yielded sleep disorders, headaches and fatigue as the most often reported symptoms and mobile phone base stations, power lines and the own use of mobile phones as the main EMF sources suspected to be associated to symptoms. GPs judged the association between EMF and the symptoms to be plausible in 54% of the cases. There was no combination of symptoms and EMF sources that was remarkably and consistently judged to be a plausible cause of the symptoms.
Conclusion:
In our survey, GPs often judged the association between the health problems and the suspected exposure to be plausible. This plausibility assessment seems to be based on grounds of preventive positions in a situation of scientific uncertainty. More research effort is needed to obtain more insight on a potential association between long term EMF exposure and unspecific symptoms.
Anke Huss and Martin Röösli
Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Berne, Finkenhubelweg 11, 3012 Berne, Switzerland
Read the whole abstract at link: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/6/267

Sarah Dacre MSc ACIB
London, UK
http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/heseuk/who.php
Eileen O´Connor
http://www.radiationresearch.org/research.htm
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Eileen O´Connor/Sarah Dacre

Conflict of Interest & Bias in Health Advisory Committees: A case study of the WHO’s Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Task Group
Switzerland Created: 27 Nov 2006
Conflict of Interest & Bias in Health Advisory Committees:
A case study of the WHO’s Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Task Group

Don Maisch
EMFacts Information Service

... a number of independent researchers were involved in the preparation and review of the draft, but it was “highly unusual, if not unprecedented, for a WHO health document to be reviewed by so many with such strong ties to the affected industry”13
http://www.safewireless.org/Portals/2/Documents/Conflict_of_Interest___Don_Mais__2_.pdf

Dear Mike What is your comment on the attached info??
Regards Robert
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Robert Riedlinger. Canada

Griff nach den Sternen
Switzerland Created: 20 Oct 2006
Er treibt sein verblüffendes Projekt unbeirrt voran: Kamal Alavi, der Luftfahrtingenieur, der in wenigen Jahren mit seiner in der Stratosphäre positionierten X-Station den drahtlosen Datenverkehr revolutionieren will. Mehrere ETH-Institute arbeiten an dem Vorhaben mit. Am vergangenen Freitag stieg vom Zugersee aus erstmals ein Testballon auf die Höhe von 21 Kilometern.
Für den ersten Stratosphären-Test vom letzten Freitag wurde das Ufer des Zugersees gewählt, nicht weit von Walchwil entfernt, dem Domizil von Kamal Alavis Firma StratXX. Er ist Luftfahrtingenieur, Erfinder und die treibende Kraft hinter dem Projekt. Um 10.30 Uhr begann der mit Helium gefüllte, etwa acht Meter lange und mit Sensoren bestückte Testballon seinen Aufstieg. Einige Stunden später befand er sich auf der Zielhöhe von 21 Kilometern.

Start zur Prototypen-Phase

Kamal Alavi ist zufrieden über diesen Testlauf für die X-Station, die fliegende Plattform, die neben der drahtlosen Handy- auch Internet-, TV-und Radioübertragungen ermöglichen und sowohl die terrestrische als auch die Satellitenübertragung schlagartig in den Schatten stellen soll. Alavi: „Dieser Test ist ein Meilenstein in der Entwicklung der X-Station und stellt die Funktionsfähigkeit unserer Near-Space-Technologie unter Beweis. Gleichzeitig ist er Startschuss für die Prototyp-Phase des Projekts.“

Das Projekt sieht vor, fortschrittlichste Antennen-Technologie in ein unbemanntes Kleinflugzeug zu packen, das an einem mit Helium gefüllten, rund 70 Meter langen Ballon hängt, der die Form eines Zeppelins hat. Dieser Ballon wird geostationär in der Stratosphäre positioniert und durch einen Propellerantrieb des Kleinflugzeugs stabilisiert. Eine einzige Plattform deckt laut StratXX aus der Stratosphäre eine Landfläche von über 1’000 Kilometer Durchmesser ab. (Siehe dazu den „ETH Life“-Artikel „Fliegende Handyantenne“ (1)) Damit das Ganze funktioniert, ist allerdings das neue Mobilfunk-Protokoll WiMAX zwingende Voraussetzung (Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access). Damit ist es möglich, auf eine Distanz von 30 Kilometer zu senden. Zudem ist dessen Bandbreite enorm. Ist ein Laptop mit WiMAX ausgerüstet, kann es 40 Megabyte pro Sekunde empfangen und senden.

Read more at link:
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Christine Kind

So, Who is cheating and telling fibs???
Switzerland Created: 11 Sep 2006
The studies on the effects of mobile telephones financed exclusively by industry less often bring back statistically significant biological effects than those profiting from other funds, note Swiss researchers in the work presented in Paris.
These effects of radio frequencies on the body can be a modification of the electroencephalogram, secretions hormonal, cardiovascular functions or results with cognitive tests, according to this study of reliability, communicated in Paris at the time of an international conference on health and the environment.
After having listed 59 studies, including 12 financed exclusively by the industrialists of the sector, 11 by public or caritative organizations, 14 being given a mixed financing and 22 whose financing is not known, the researchers note that only one third (4 out of 12) of the studies financed by the industrialists found at least an effect physiological significant.
The proportion of work raising at least an effect related to health is much higher among the other studies: 82% (9 out of 11) of those profiting from public or caritative funds, 10 out of 14 for the mixed financings, 17 out of 22 with the nonknown financings.
The cases of sponsored studies exclusively by industry now became "rare", that belong rather "to the past", specify however Martin Röösli (University of Bern), joint author of this analysis of reliability, adding that current work is of "better quality".
Source: S: PARIS (AFP) --

Die Standardargumente der WHO und Mobilfunkbefürworter
Switzerland Created: 30 Jul 2006
Die Standardargumente der WHO und Mobilfunkbefürworter
Erfahrungen auf dem internationalen Workshop
Electrical Hypersensitivity vom 25.-26. Oktober 2004 PRAG

Anwesend waren Vertreter aus den verschiedensten Staaten der Erde, was zeigte, dass es sich bei der Elektrosensitivität um ein internationales Problem handelt. Es diskutierten ca. 75 Forscher aus universitären Instituten, ca. 25 Ingenieure der Mobilfunk-Industrie sowie etwa 35 Beamte aus Strahlenschutzbehörden und Ministerien. Leider waren nur 4 Ärzte zugegen. Aus den Betroffenen-Organisationen waren lediglich 9 Personen gekommen.
Dr. Birgit Stöcker: http://www.elektrosmognews.de/news/20041128_workshop_prag.html

Alles Wissen oder was?
Entschuldigung, dies ist eine zarte Anspielung auf die Käuflichkeit von Wissen, ein grundsätzliches Thema bei der Forschung im Zusammenhang von Mobilfunk. Eine solch flapsige Ausdrucksweise entspricht zwar nicht der „political correctness“ der hohen Wissenschaft, beschreibt aber einen Zusammenhang, den man nicht unter den Tisch kehren kann. Ich möchte noch sagen, dass ich Journalistin bin und nicht das Ziel verfolge, die Studien detailliert wissenschaftlich zu diskutieren. Mir geht es vielmehr um die Prämissen und um verantwortliche Wissenschaft. Wenn ich daran denke, wie oberflächlich das Problem der Verantwortung in den Bereichen Risikotechnologien verwendet wird fällt mir reine Wissenschaftlichkeit wirklich schwer.

Über den Prager Workshop äußerten sich Gerd Friedrich Geschäftsführer der Forschungs-Gemeinschaft Funk FGF und Prof. Dr. med. Reinhold Berz Vorstand von der Organisation Non Ionizing Radiation Medical Expert Desk NIRMED hinterher ganz euphorisch:
Die WHO und die unterstützenden Organisationen haben Mut bewiesen mit dieser Konferenz, resümieren Friedrich und Berz. Sie haben (mit diesem Workshop, Anm. der Verfasserin) ein heißes Eisen ohne Vorurteile angepackt. Sie haben Fachleute und sehr wichtig und lobenswert auch Betroffene zu Wort kommen lassen. Na ja, einfach mal reden lassen....denke ich mal.
http://www.google.de/search?q=cache:jxnokryjuc0J:www.fgf.de/fup/publikat/news_einzel/NL_04-04/Internationaler_EMF_Projekt_Workshop_Elektrohypersensitivitaet_04-04d.pdf+weltgesundheitsorganisation+IEI&hl=de&ie=UTF-8
Von welchem Mut die Herren da sprechen?

Im Folgenden werden einmal die wesentlichen Argumente aufgeführt, mit denen Betroffene in kommunalen Versammlungen und Veranstaltungen der Betreiber auch auf dem Workshop in Prag, immer wieder konfrontiert werden. Diese Informationen sind wichtig, weil die Vertreter der Mobilfunkbetreiber geschult sind und mit bestimmten Argumenten standardmäßig antworten.

Ich möchte aber noch etwas vorausschicken:
Die blockierte Suche nach der Wahrheit
Die Wissenschaft hat zur Zeit Schwierigkeiten bei der Suche nach der Wahrheit. Konkret sehe ich drei große Probleme, die für die Misere bei der Beurteilung von Risikotechnologien wie Mobilfunk eine Rolle spielen.

Read the whole article in M-V Forum: Link http://www.mast-victims.org/forum/index.php?action=vthread&forum=1&topic=250
Click here to view the source article.

The standard arguments of the WHO and mobile phone proponents.
Switzerland Created: 28 Jul 2006
Experience from the international workshop on Electrical hypersensitivity.
25-26th October 2004, Prague
Present were representatives from a wide number of countries, showing that electrical hypersensitivity (EHS) is an international problem. 75 researchers from universities, 25 engineers from the cellular phone industry and around 35 officials from radiation protection authorities and ministries were present at the discussions. Unfortunately only 4 medical doctors were present. Nine representatives of self-help groups were present.

Knowledge for sale

That knowledge can be bought is a basic issue with research relating to cellular telephony. Although such a tactless way of putting it does not correspond to the “political correctness” expected in this area of science, it does describes a link which cannot be ignored. I would like to add that I am a journalist and I do not intend to discuss the studies in scientific detail. My concerns are more the premises and the accountability of science. If I consider how superficially the problem of accountability is used in connection with hazardous technologies, I find it difficult to be absolutely scientific.
Read the whole document in MV Forum at the link below.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Written by: Antje Bultmann-Transladed by: David Cousins,

June 29th 2006 "guinea pigs" of the false Swiss replication of TNO talk !
Switzerland Created: 28 Jul 2006
"I was taken giddinesses" K-Tipp No 12 of June 14, 2006
The new study does not prove that 3G radiation is harmless.

"No effects short-term on the wellbeing", known as new Swiss study 3G.

Participants in the study think they lived the opposite. For the industry of the mobile phone, the results of the investigation which were published on June 6th, were a good chance. The SICTA, association of the operators, exultes : "The study does not find any indication about disorders of the wellbeing with the signals of 3G". From now on, the requests of the blocked projects for masts should immediately be raised. What the SICTA did not say and what was also treated in less importance in some articles of newspapers: the study of three Swiss researchers gives only indications on short-term loads. Because the people tested were only exposed during 45 minutes with 3G radiation in a laboratory and then they were questioned on their wellbeing. But actually, the 3G masts emit radiations 24 hours a day. In the laboratory, the 117 participants in the experiment were to solve tasks with the computer during 45 minutes and to thus prove their "cognitive functions". Once, there no was radiation, once it was assembled to 1 Volt/meter (1 V/m), once to 10 V/m (the limiting value accounts for 6 V/m). The participants in the experiment did not know if there was a radiation and with which intensity. At the time of the plays of spirit, no or few significant differences were noted. However, about the wellbeing, of the effects were waited. Because the Swiss study was interpreted like the so-called counterpart of Dutch study TNO published in the year 2003; the latter had noted a reduction in the wellbeing. A minority felt symptoms In Switzerland, it was not the case. "No negative effect of radiation 3G on the wellbeing could be noted", write the researchers having taken share being studied.

To a sharp contrast a declaration of a man is placed who was one of the people tested: "I was taken giddinesses, I would have almost fallen from my chair. But I held out and I succeeded in solving the tasks on the computer". And: "I could not have driven a car, I felt like drunk. When I returned to the house, my wife said to me that I was white and that I seemed to be badly. The next day, I had headache and tooth aches".

And the participant in the study Armin Furrer de Ausserberg VS pays: "After the experiment I felt bad for several hours".

For the chief of the project Peter Achermann of the university of Zürich, these experiments are not a contradiction compared to the general result of the study, according to which "no effect" was to be noted. "We must retain that some people on the unit spoke occasionally about the symptoms (mainly weak)". In fact "correct isolated data", but "because of the results of all the participants in the study, could not compare with the intensity of the electric field".

And Ackermann insists: "The large majority of the people having taken part in the study speaks about no or few symptoms". The opposite conclusion is then allowed: A minority evoked symptoms. Thus the principal declaration of the study ("no effect") is to be strongly relativized. Provision of the study very far away from reality From criticisms produce other arguments: The participants were exposed to the radiation with a signal of 3G control, it did not contain any transmission of communications. "Such a situation can occur for example very early in the morning", write the researchers. Actually, the signals emitted by the masts are stronger, more complex and more problems from the point of view of health. The provision of the study is then very far from reality. The masts emit 24 hours a day rays Lothar Geppert of the organization for the environment "Diagnosis-Funk" studies the scientific literature on the subject in an intensive way. "Each month, three to seven studies on the high frequency radiation appear in the world. 75 percent of these studies find an influence on health like p. e.g. a damaged genetic inheritance, sleep disorders and a fall of the level of the mélatonine". The masts emit 24 hours a day ; not only 45 minutes as in the study. Even the researchers acknowledge: "The absence of short-term effects does not represent any proof of the long-term harmlessness of 3G radiation". This is why it is clear for the organization "doctors in favour of the environment": "We always require a moratorium concerning the extension continues infrastructure of mobile telephony". The communal council inhabitant of Zurich proved that technology 3G frightens also the politics, and this exactly the day when the Swiss study was published: In spite of the negative results of the study, it requested the government to examine, by means of a postulate, a stop of the construction (moratory) of 3G masts.

Association Romande pour la non-prolifération d'Antennes de téléphonie mobile


Case postale 17 CH-1454 L'Auberson

CCP 17-776 638-1 ara@alerte.ch <mailto:ara@alerte.ch>

+++++++++++++
« J'ai été pris de vertiges » K-Tipp No 12 du 14 juin 2006
La nouvelle étude ne prouve pas que le rayonnement UMTS est inoffensif.

« Pas d'effets à court terme sur le bien-être », dit la nouvelle étude suisse UMTS.

Des participants à l'étude ont vécu le contraire. Pour l'industrie du téléphone mobile, les résultats de l'enquête qui ont été publiés le 6 juin, ont été une bonne aubaine. La SICTA, association des opérateurs, exulte : « L'étude ne trouve aucune indication au sujet de troubles du bien-être lors de signaux UMTS ». Désormais, les demandes du permis de construire d'antennes bloquées devraient être tout de suite levées. Ce que la SICTA n'a pas dit et ce qui a aussi été traité en moindre importance dans quelques articles de journaux : l'étude de trois chercheurs suisses ne donne que des indications sur des charges à court terme. Car les personnes testées ont été exposées seulement pendant 45 minutes à un rayonnement UMTS dans un laboratoire et ensuite elles ont été interrogées sur leur bien-être. Mais en réalité, les antennes UMTS émettent des rayons 24 heures sur 24. Dans le laboratoire, les 117 participants à l'expérience devaient résoudre des tâches à l'ordinateur pendant 45 minutes et ainsi prouver leurs « fonctions cognitives ». Une fois, il n'y a pas eu de rayonnement, une fois il s'est monté à 1 Volt/mètre (1 V/m), une fois à 10 V/m (la valeur limite se situe à 6 V/m). Les participants à l'expérience ne savaient pas s'il y avait un rayonnement et à quelle intensité. Lors des jeux d'esprit, aucune ou peu de différences significatives ont été constatées. Cependant, au sujet du bien-être, des effets étaient attendus. Car l'étude suisse était interprétée comme la soi-disant réplique de l'étude hollandaise TNO parue en l'an 2003; cette dernière avait constaté une diminution du bien-être. Une minorité a ressenti des symptômes En Suisse, ce n'était pas le cas. « Aucun effet négatif du rayonnement UMTS sur le bien-être n'a pu être constaté », écrivent les chercheurs ayant pris part à l'étude. A un vif contraste se place une déclaration d'un homme qui était une des personnes testées : « J'ai été pris de vertiges, je serais presque tombé de ma chaise. Mais j'ai tenu le coup et j'ai réussi à résoudre les tâches sur l'ordinateur ». Et : « Je n'aurais plus pu conduire une voiture, je me sentais comme saoul. Lorsque je suis rentré à la maison, ma femme m'a dit que j'étais blanc comme un linge et que j'avais l'air d'aller mal. Le jour suivant, j'avais la migraine et des maux de dents ». Et le participant à l'étude Armin Furrer de Ausserberg VS rapporte : « Après l'expérience je me suis senti mal pendant des heures ». Pour le chef du projet Peter Achermann de l'université de Zürich, ces expériences ne sont pas une contradiction par rapport au résultat général de l'étude, d'après lequel « aucun effet » n'était à constater. « Nous devons retenir que quelques personnes sur l'ensemble ont parlé occasionnellement des symptômes (la plupart faibles) ». C'étaient des « données isolées correctes », mais qui « en raison des résultats de tous les participants à l'étude, ne pouvaient être mises en relation avec l'intensité du champ électrique ». Et Ackermann insiste : « La grande majorité des personnes ayant participé à l'étude ne parle d'aucun ou de peu de symptômes ». La conclusion inverse est alors permise : Une minorité a évoqué des symptômes. Ainsi la déclaration principale de l'étude (« aucun effet ») est à relativiser fortement. Disposition de l'étude très éloignée de la réalité Des critiques produisent d'autres arguments : Les participants ont été exposés aux rayons avec un signal de contrôle UMTS ne contenant aucune transmission de communications. « Une telle situation peut survenir par exemple de très bonne heure », écrivent les chercheurs. En réalité, les signaux émis par les antennes sont plus forts, plus complexes et plus problématiques du point de vue de la santé. La disposition de l'étude est alors très loin de la réalité. Les antennes émettent des rayons 24 heures sur 24 Lothar Geppert de l'organisation pour l'environnement « Diagnose-Funk » étudie la littérature scientifique sur le sujet de manière intensive. « Chaque mois, trois à sept études sur le rayonnement à haute fréquence apparaissent dans le monde. 75 pourcent de ces études trouvent une influence sur la santé comme p. ex. un patrimoine héréditaire endommagé, des troubles du sommeil et une baisse du niveau de la mélatonine ». Les antennes émettent des rayons 24 heures sur 24 – pas seulement 45 minutes comme dans l'étude. Même les chercheurs avouent : « L'absence d'effets à court terme ne représente aucune preuve de l'innocuité à long terme du rayonnement UMTS ». C'est pourquoi il est clair pour l'organisation « médecins en faveur de l'environnement » : « Nous exigeons toujours un moratoire concernant l'extension continue de l'infrastructure de la téléphonie mobile ». Le conseil communal zurichois a prouvé que la technologie UMTS apeure aussi les politiciens, et ceci exactement le jour où l'étude suisse a été publiée : Malgré le résultat négatif de l'étude, il a prié le gouvernement d'examiner, au moyen d'un postulat, un arrêt de la construction (moratoire) des antennes UMTS.

Association Romande pour la non-prolifération d'Antennes de téléphonie mobile


Case postale 17 CH-1454 L'Auberson

CCP 17-776 638-1 ara@alerte.ch <mailto:ara@alerte.ch>
Click here to view the source article.
Source: S:

Projekt von StratXX: Fliegende Handy-Antenne
Switzerland Created: 1 Jul 2006
Kamal Alavi ist ein umtriebiger Mensch und ein findiger Kopf. Jetzt kommt er, der Chef der Einmannfirma StratXX Holding AG, mit einer neuen Idee, die die Übertragung digitaler Daten, die Handy-Telefonie oder auch GPS-Anwendungen völlig auf den Kopf stellen könnte.
Peter Rüegg
Alavi will spezielle Ballone bauen, die bis in die Stratosphäre in 20 Kilometern Höhe aufsteigen. An das Mutterschiff ist ein unbemanntes Kleinflugzeug gekoppelt, das im Wesentlichen eine Handy-Antenne enthält. Der Ballon hält sich dank eines ausgeklügelten Steuerungssystems geostationär auf, steht also immer über dem gleichen Fleck Erde. Solarzellen auf der Oberfläche des Luftschiffs versorgen Luftschiff und Antenne mit Energie.
Auch braucht es kein Baikonur und kein Cape Canaveral, um die Ballone steigen zu lassen. Aufsteigen können diese von überall her. Gefüllt sind sie mit dem Edelgas Helium, das leichter ist als Luft. Der ehemalige Raumfahrtingenieur sagt, dass man genau berechnen könne, welche Menge Helium nötig sei, um das Luftschiff in die gewünschte Höhe zu bringen.
Wartung am Boden dank unbemanntem Flugzeug
Sind die Geräte an Bord defekt, lässt sich das unbenannte Kleinflugzeug abkoppeln. Wie ein Mini-Space Shuttle kehrt es zur Erde zurück, wo die Reparaturen durchgeführt werden können. Ausgelegt sind die Ballone auf eine Nutzungsdauer von fünf Jahren. „Dann ist die Technik sowieso veraltet“, rechtfertigt Alavi die ziemlich geringe Lebensdauer.
Diese Handy-Antenne in der Stratosphäre könnte quasi den ganzen Antennenwald für den Mobilfunk auf dem Boden ersetzen und löst gemäss Carmen Kobe vom Zentrum für Produkt-Entwicklung der ETH Zürich das Problem der letzten Meile. Diese zu mieten sei teuer und die Bandbreite reiche meist nicht aus. Weitere Mobilfunk-Antennen aufzustellen sei allerdings kaum mehr machbar.
1000 mal weniger Strahlung
Weiterer Vorteil: „Auf der Erdoberfläche zu senden verursacht hohe Strahlung, weil man oft unzählige Gebäude durchdringen muss“, ergänzt Kamal Alavi. Von oben habe man aber zu jedem Punkt Sichtverbindung und sende vor allem durch die Luft. „Die Strahlung kann dadurch um den Faktor 1000 verringert werden“, sagt er. Die fliegende Antenne für moderne Breitband-Anwendungen würde „bodenständige“ Antennen ersetzen. Die Strahlen lassen sich dank so genannten Spotbeam-Antennen, die die EPF Lausanne entwickelt, dem Bedarf anpassen. In Gebieten, wo wenig über das Mobilfunknetz telefoniert wird oder wo nur geringe Datenmengen versandt werden, ist die Strahlung entsprechend gering.
Für die Mobilfunk-Anwendung über derart grosse Distanzen haben Ingenieure des IEEE ein neues Mobilfunk-Protokoll entwickelt, das so genannte WiMAX (Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access). Damit ist es möglich, in einem Umkreis von 30 Kilometer zu senden. Zudem ist dessen Bandbreite enorm. Ist ein Laptop mit WiMAX ausgerüstet, kann es 40 Megabites pro Sekunde empfangen und senden. Jeder Spot der Spotbeam-Antenne sendet zudem bis zu acht Gigabites pro Sekunde. Damit würden Funkengpässe, etwa an Silvester, wenn Millionen von Glückwunsch-SMS das Mobilfunknetz zusammenbrechen lassen, der Vergangenheit angehören.
Günstiger als Antennenwald
„Die Technologie ist nicht nur gut, sie ist auch günstig“, sagt der gebürtige Iraner. Ein Stratosphären-Ballon kostet 30 bis 40 Millionen Franken. Zum Vergleich: eine einzelne Handyantenne kommt die Betreiber auf 300'000 Franken zu stehen, ein Satellit gar auf 600 Millionen.
In der Schweiz sind rund 1'000 Antennen nötig, um das Land mit Mobilfunk abzudecken. Eine einzige Ballon-Station in der Stratosphäre reicht, um die Schweiz mit Handy, Digital-Fernsehen und -Radio sowie Internet zu versorgen. Satelliten sind zudem nur mit Raketen auf ihre Umlaufbahn zu bringen, die Wartung ist aufwändig und – einmal ins All geschossen – nicht wieder auf die Erde zurückzubringen. Beim Eintritt in die Astmoshpäre verglühen sie. Zudem haben sie technische Grenzen. Die Breitbandtechnologie zum Beispiel wäre über einen Satelliten gar nicht machbar. Das Bundesamt für Kommunikation (Bakom) ist deshalb am StratXX-Projekt interessiert und hat seine Unterstützung zugesichert.
Stabile Lage dank Druckausgleich
Die grösste Herausforderung ist es, das Luftschiff in einer stabilen Lage zu halten. Im Winter wehen in der Stratosphäre starke Winde, die den Ballon verfrachten können. Zudem heizt am Tag die Sonne das Gas auf. Helium dehnt sich aus, das Luftschiff steigt. Nachts hingegen sinkt es ab, weil sich das Gas wieder zusammenzieht. Alavi hat nun einen Weg gefunden, den Druckausgleich hinzukriegen, um den Ballon auf Höhe und Position zu halten. Das System ist bereits weltweit patentiert. „Hier liegt eine weitere Herausforderung in diesem Projekt: das Luftschiff möglichst bald auf den Markt zu bringen. Ein Patent läuft nach 20 Jahren aus“, sagt der Tüftler.
Alavis Idee hat auch Partner an Hochschulen und in der Industrie überzeugt. An der ETH Zürich arbeiten das Zentrum für Produkt-Entwicklung sowie weitere drei Institute aus dem Departement Maschinenbau mit ihm zusammen. Zudem kann er auf die Unterstützung durch die EPF Lausanne, die EMPA und die Universität Neuenburg zählen. Auch die RUAG Aerospace, der ehemalige Rüstungsbetrieb des Bundes, ist an der Planung beteiligt.
Erster Test im Juli 2007
Schritt für Schritt testen die Ingenieure nun einzelne Komponenten. Mitte Mai wurden die Solarzellen in 30 Kilometer Höhe getestet. Am ersten August dieses Jahres soll zum ersten Mal ein Ballon in die Stratosphäre aufsteigen. Im Juli 2007 soll der erste Test mit einem vollständigen System über die Bühne gehen. Alavi und Kobe sehen dieses Projekt als Chance für die Schweiz. Es sei eine Möglichkeit, Forschung und Industrie zusammenzubringen und ein neues Hightech-Produkt in der Schweiz herzustellen. Konkurrenz droht aus den USA und Japan. Allerdings setzt StratXX auf ein anderes Konzept. „Es ist ein Rennen, eine echte Herausforderung. Wenn wir uns durchsetzen, haben wir gewonnen“, betont Alavi.
http://www.stratxx.com/
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Christine Kind

«First  ‹Previous   Page 7 of 7 
 News item: