dan01

More documents

Recommendations

Info

”The limits currently being employed in Denmark have their basis in recommendations fromthe EU, which are founded on limits set by the International Commission on Non-IonizingRadiation Protection (ICNIRP).The telephone companies shall ensure compliance with these limits, which are 2 W/kgwherever people are staying and move about. These limits are technology neutral whichmeans that the limits apply irrespective of the technology employed, e.g. 2G, 3G, 4G or 5G.The telephone companies have informed that they expect the number of mast positions to beincreased by 15-25% towards 2025 as a result of the phasing in of 5G. It is the companies'expectation that the combined electromagnetic exposure will be increased by 10-20%compared to today.The telephone companies expect the exposure from the mobile nets to remain far below thelimits, also when the 5G-nets have been fully expanded.The 5G-net will be based on higher frequencies than the other technologies, and the mobilesignals will therefore have a shorter range. This means that there will be need of a finer meshwith more base stations (small cells). These base stations will transmit using a lower effectthan e.g. the antennas transmitting on 2G, 3G and 4G. The radiation will therefore becorrespondingly smaller.” 31.2. Research.Scientific research has been documenting health damage caused by electromagnetic fieldssince at least 1966. 4It is this research which will be compared with the intended 5G-system's knowncharacteristics, cf. item 1.1 above, as well as the ”limits” (maximums for emitting a certainkind of environmental affector) which are currently being employed in the EU and Denmark, cf.item 2.1 below.It has not been practically possible to peruse the full body of available scientific material thatunderpins the above mentioned health damage effects on humans and animals by means ofexposure to radiofrequent electromagnetic radiation, as this material comprises severalthousand articles.A portion of the analysed material has been compiled by the undersigned, and a portion hasbeen sent by the commissioner of this legal opinion, including by request from theundersigned.1.2.1. The focus of this legal opinion.This legal opinion is centred around the results that positively document either actual damagesor risks thereof to humans, animals, and plants.To the extent that such provable research results are available, they are inherently of muchgreater significance than examinations which have been incapable of identifying a damage orrisk thereof, since the latter group does not in itself exclude the possibility that there exist realdamages or risks.34For further information, see item 2.1 below which deals with the limits currently employed in Denmark.Cf. Pall (2018, p. 9) which refers to Marha K.’s (1966) article: “Biological effects of high-frequency electromagneticfields” (translation).4
If it has on one occasion defensibly been scientifically proven that there is a damaging effect orrisk of damage, then the fact that ten other defensible trials did not show such an effect or riskis irrelevant. It is then merely up to the scientific community to clarify why the ten defensibletrials did not show what is scientifically proven, in order to better understand why and how thedamages occur or could occur. 5This point can be illustrated at the hand of swan populations: If one study shows that blackswans exist, then it is not relevant that ten other studies did not find any black swans. It hasbeen proven that the black swan exists, and it may be useful to determine why the ten otherstudies did not yield the same results. 6It would be misleading if one were to attempt a ”statistical average calculation” and in such amanner conclude that there is but a 1/11 chance that the black swan actually exists, as itsexistence has been shown in only one study, whilst ten others found no such proof.1.2.2. Humans: Health damages and hazards.1.2.2.1. DNA damage.In 2015, a scientific review of the then more than 100 accessible peer-reviewed studiesregarding the so-called ”oxidative effects” of low intensity radiofrequent radiation (hereafter:RFR) was undertaken.The review (Yakymenko et al., 2015 7 ) showed e.g. that it was plausible that EHS-like 8conditions were in part caused by exposure to low intensity RFR (p. 195) and that theexposure could lead to cancer (p. 196), both of which are caused by ”oxidative stress”. It wasthus found that 93% of studies showed that such radiation led to the forming of reactiveoxidative connections in all investigated living organisms, from cells, plants, insects, labanimals to humans (sperm), (cf. ibid. p. 186).Yakymenko et al. (2015, p. 186) continues thus:”All above mentioned studies dealt with the effects of low-intensity RFR. This means that theintensity of radiation was far below observable thermal effects in biological tissues, and farbelow safety limits of the International Commissions on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection(ICNIRP) (ICNIRP, 1998).” 9Ibid. (p. 187):”Low-intensity RFR is referred to as radiation with intensities which do not induce significantthermal effects in biological tissues. Accordingly, any intensity of RFR under the ICNIRP limitscan be referred to as low-intensity. In this paper we will analyze only the effects of lowintensityRFR.”56789In the same vein, Philips et al. (2009) published an article titled “Electromagnetic fields and DNA damage” in thescientific journal “Pathophysiology,” no. 16, pp. 79 – 88. They state that “Each study to investigate RFR-inducedDNA damage must be evaluated on its own merits, and then studies that both show effects and do not show effectsmust be carefully evaluated to define the relationship of experimental variables to experimental outcomes and toassess the value of experimental methodologies to detect and measure these outcomes (see Section 2)” (p.85)The example has been used by e.g. the philosopher of science Karl Popper.Published in 2016 in the scientific journal “Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine”, no. 35, pp. 186 – 202.EHS stands for Electro Hyper Sensitivity, and is a physical condition in which a person displays a series ofsymptoms when they are near equipment which emits electromagnetic radiation, often termed “electric oversensitivity”.These limits are mentioned further in item 2.1 below.5
Page 1 and 2: Attorney-at-law Christian F. Jensen
Page 3: 1. Facts.1.1. What is 5G?”5G” i
Page 7 and 8: progression.”Ibid. (conclusion 10
Page 9 and 10: polarized MT signals, mainly due to
Page 11 and 12: number of urban users showed a sign
Page 13 and 14: Ibid. (p. 680, discussion):”Poten
Page 15 and 16: the source of funding was found to
Page 17 and 18: The (Danish) Minister of Health, in
Page 19 and 20: mean temperature by more than a fac
Page 21 and 22: maternal cell phone use and child b
Page 23 and 24: regarding behavioral problems showe
Page 25 and 26: can be carcinogenic, and in this re
Page 27 and 28: …The faithfulness of the white st
Page 29 and 30: Reference can be made to, e.g. Alfo
Page 31 and 32: 2010; Wajnberg et al., 2010; Winklh
Page 33 and 34: Cammaerts and Johansson (2014), ”
Page 35 and 36: Bats—A Possible Means of Discoura
Page 37 and 38: RNS production and disturbing antio
Page 39 and 40: It seems scientifically well docume
Page 41 and 42: A range of above mentioned research
Page 43 and 44: 2.2. Legal protection of humans (hu
Page 45 and 46: The state must impose upon the part
Page 47 and 48: Serious environmental pollution can
Page 49 and 50: 2.2.2. The UN's Convention on the R
Page 51 and 52: 2.3. Environmental regulations.2.3.
Page 53 and 54: A significant reduction of the popu
Page 55 and 56:
2.3.3. The EU directive on the cons
Page 57 and 58:
Art. 12, para. 1, 3 and 4:”1. Mem
Page 59 and 60:
2.4. The Bern convention.The Septem
Page 61 and 62:
There are other satisfactory soluti
Page 63 and 64:
2.5.1. Subject conclusion.The presu
Page 65 and 66:
APPENDIX 1 TO LEGAL OPINION65
Page 67 and 68:
Blank M. et al. 2011, DNA is a frac
Page 69 and 70:
D'Silva M.H. et al. 2017, Effect of
Page 71 and 72:
Karaca E. et al. 2011, The genotoxi
Page 73 and 74:
additional 35 days post-exposure. R
Page 75:
Zalata A. et al. 2015 , In vitro ef
show all

dan01

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?