Fwd: German Doctors write America about Digital TV Broadcasts

February 22, 2009

"TradingPostPaul" <tradingpostFebruary 22, 2009 8:33:54 AM HSTglobalnetnews-summarySubject: [globalnetnews-summary] German Doctors write America about Digital TV BroadcastsGerman Doctors write America about Digital TV Broadcastshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/12548638/Warning-Against-Adverse-Health-Effects-From-the-Operation-of-Digital-Broadcast#document_metadata Dear President Obama: Dear Members of the House of Representatives: Dear Members of the Senate: Dear Citizens of the United States of America: In the US, digital broadcast television is scheduled to start operating onFebruary 17, 2009. We write to you today because we wish to save you fromthe significant negative health consequences that have occurred here inGermany. In Germany, analog broadcast television stations have gradually beenswitching to digital broadcast signals since 2003. This switchover firsttook place in metropolitan areas. In those areas, however, the RF exposuresin public places as well as at home continued to increase at the same time.As a result, the continuing declining health status of children,adolescents, and adults in urban areas could not be attributed to anysingle cause. On May 20, 2006, two digital broadcast television stations went on the airin the Hessian Rhoen area (Heide!stein, Kreuzberg), which until recentlyhad enjoyed rather low mobile phone radiation exposure levels. Within aradius of more than 20 km, the following symptoms that occurred abruptlywere reported: “...constant headaches, pressure in the head, drowsiness, sleepproblems, inability to think clearly, forgetfulness, nervous tensions,irritability, tightness in the chest, rapid heartbeat, shortness of breath,depressive mood, total apathy, loss of empathy, burning skin, innerburning, leg weakness, pain in the limbs, stabbing pain in various organs,weight increase...” Birds had fled the area. Cats had turned phlegmatic and hardly ever wentinto the garden. One child committed suicide; a second child tried doingit. Over time the same unbearable symptoms showed up in other locations—mostrecently in Bamberg and Aschaffenburg on November 25, 2008. Physiciansaccompanied affected people to areas where there was no DVB-T reception(valleys, behind mountain ranges) and witnessed how these people becamesymptom-free only after a short period of time. The respective agencies responsible in Germany were approached for help,but they declined to follow up on the strongly suggestive evidence in theactual locations. The behavior of the government agencies disregards thefundamental rights of affected people guaranteed in the GermanConstitution. In Germany, DVB-T (Digital Video Broadcasting Terrestrial) uses OrthogonalFrequency Division Multiplex Modulation. The fundamental principle of thistype of modulation works by spreading the information across severalthousand carrier frequencies directly adjacent to each other. A channel is7.8 MHz wide. The amplitude also changes constantly. The WHO, the German Radiation Protection Commission, and the GermanFederal Ministry of the Environment rely on the Guidelines for LimitingExposure to Time-varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields (upto 300 GHz), (Health Physics 74 (4): 494-522; 1998) published by theInternational Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). Inthis document, it says: p. 495: "These guidelines will be periodically revised and updated asadvances are made in identifying the adverse health effects of time-varyingelectric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields." p. 507: "Interpretation of several observed biological effects of AMelectromagnetic fields is further complicated by the apparent existence of"windows" of response in both the power density and frequency domains.There are no accepted models that adequately explain this phenomenon, whichchallenges the traditional concept of a monotonic relationship between thefield intensity and the severity of the resulting biological effects." Why are the German agencies in charge not willing to help identify theadverse health effects? Since immediately, after digital broadcasttelevision stations had started transmitting, adverse health effects haveoccurred, the review of the Guidelines announced by the ICNIRP isimperative. Obviously, there are response windows contained within thebroad frequency bands with their several thousand frequencies that changeconstantly and whose amplitude also changes constantly. The ICNIRP hadalready pointed out this possibility. In 1992, Dipl.-Ing. R & #369;diger Matthes, member of ICNIRP and of theGeman Radiation Protection Agency (BfS), emphasized the preliminary statusof the exposure limits in a hearing on the health risks of electromagneticradiation: "...They (electromagnetic exposure levels) are several orders ofmagnitude higher than the natural background radiation levels ofnontechnical sources... In parallel to this development, findings ofscientific studies according to which long-term exposure to such fields maytrigger adverse health effects keep accumulating....ln this context, it isalso important to recognize that there are large differences in exposurelevels within a given population. A small child, for example, absorbs muchmore RF energy than an adult person...There are several findings onlow-level exposures, which are considered scientifically validated becausethey have been reproduced often but which are rather difficult tointerpret. “The impact of mostly pulsed or ELF modulated RF radiation on cellmetabolism, for example, counts among them. It has been observed that theefflux of certain ions (e.g. calcium) from a cell increases during exposureto such fields. The occurrence of this effect is described almostcompletely independent of the actual field strength. It can be found atextremely low absorption levels.... With all the currently availablescientific findings, there remain some crucial questions unanswered. “...There are gaps in the so-called body of evidence. That means thatthe biological effects, for example, have only been investigated forindividual frequencies. Data (e.g. effect thresholds) on the variousbiological effects across the entire frequency spectrum are not available.The exposure limits, therefore, are based on an approach that greatlysimplifies the very complex reality whose details are unfathomable. Itshould also be noted that concrete data on possible effects of long-termexposures are mostly lacking." Real life teaches us that it was wrong to simplify. In Germany, we seestrong evidence of a direct temporal association between the start-up ofterrestrial digital broadcast television and the occurrence of severehealth symptoms. Dr.-Ing. W. Volkrodt, former R & D engineer at Siemens, recognized thedanger of electromagnetic fields for humans, animals, and plants. He pinnedhis hopes on policymakers who would listen to reason when he wrote in 1987:"Future historians will refer to the RF dilemma during the period fromaround 1975 to 1990 as a short, time-limited 'technical incident.' Owing tothe introduction of fiber optic technology, this incident could beremediated quickly and effectively." Satellites and cable provide the US population with television services.By contrast, the risk associated with terrestrial digital broadcasttelevision transmitters is unacceptable. We, therefore, ask you, dear Mr. President, who has the wellbeing of hiscitizens at heart, to stop the scheduled introduction of this newtechnology in the United States of America and to save the people from thenegative health consequences that have occurred in our country. Dr. med. Cornelia Waldmann-Selsom Dr. med. Christine Aschermann. Dr. med Markus Kern =====In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

February 22, 2009

I am so glad Canada is behind in this transition!

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/3685/125/

Blurry Outlook for Canadian Digital TV Transition

PDF

| Print |

E-mail

Friday February 20, 2009

Earlier this week, hundreds of U.S. television stations plan to shut down their analog broadcasts as they complete the transition to digital over-the-air broadcasts. While the U.S. had planned for a nationwide change this month, last minute legislation has delayed the full mandatory transition until mid-June. My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) argues that the U.S. experience to date highlights what should be a major concern for Canada - the transition from analog to digital broadcasts is years behind the U.S. with virtually no industry or government support. This sounds like a purely technical issue, yet the policy implications of that transition will have a profound effect

on both the national broadcast and telecom landscape. The basic notion of the transition is fairly straightforward. For decades, Canadian broadcasters have used spectrum to transmit over-the-air analog broadcast signals. Before the widespread use of cable and satellite, many Canadians used antennae - "rabbit ears"- to access those broadcast signals. Today, approximately ten percent of Canadians still rely on over-the-air television signals.Early in the next decade, Canadian broadcasters are scheduled to complete the switch from analog to digital broadcasts. The shift to digital brings several advantages including better image and sound quality as well as more efficient use of spectrum that will open the door to new telecom services. The shift will require some significant investments, however, since broadcasters must phase out their analog transmitters in favour of new digital equipment. Regulators

first hoped that broadcasters would voluntarily make the switch. In response to concerns that North American broadcasters were moving too slowly (several European countries have already transitioned from analog to digital), both the United States and Canada established mandatory deadlines under which the change must be completed.While Canada and the U.S. negotiated an agreement on the digital television transition in 2000, the U.S. is now over two years ahead of Canada, with their mandatory transition set for June 12, 2009. By contrast, the Canadian deadline is August 31, 2011 (there are some exceptions for northern and remote communities). Notwithstanding the longer Canadian phase-in period, there are mounting concerns that Canadian broadcasters will not be ready in time. Last year, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Chair Konrad von Finckenstein delivered a stinging rebuke to the broadcasters, noting the paucity of

digital transmitters in Canada and lamenting that "so far, the industry has not shown the sense of urgency that I think is called for right now." Given the difficult economic climate, Canadian broadcasters are likely to lobby Industry Minister Tony Clement heavily for a deferral of the digital transition.The shift will also have implications for Canadian consumers, who may need new equipment since televisions that do not feature a digital tuner will require a special set-top box in order to view the over-the-air digital signals. This additional cost could affect lower income Canadians, who are also more likely to rely on the over-the-air signals rather than cable or satellite services. U.S. lawmakers have established a plan to support for those in need of the digital equipment with a coupon program that subsidizes the cost. The program does not come cheap, with US$1.5 billion set aside to cover the cost of the

program. At the moment, there are no similar plans in Canada. The CRTC has made it clear that consumer subsidies fall outside its statutory mandate and last week Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore told a House of Commons committee that there were no government plans to establish a consumer program. While the digital transition may result in some challenges for broadcasters, the implications are even greater for telecommunications since an important by-product of the transition will be that much of the spectrum currently used by broadcasters for analog broadcasts will be freed up for other uses. Next week's column will examine the potential for dramatic new uses of spectrum - including more open networks and unlicensed "white spaces" that could foster new innovation and deliver wireless broadband services.

--- On Sun, 2/22/09, Viviane Lerner <vivlerner wrote:

Viviane Lerner <vivlerner Fwd: German Doctors write America about Digital TV Broadcasts"HEALTH & HEALING" Cc: "NATURAL NEWS" <insider, "PROGRESSIVE REVIEW" <news, "ALTERNET" <joshua.holland, "RADTIMES" <resistSunday, February 22, 2009, 1:17 PM

"TradingPostPaul" <tradingpost@ riseup.net>

February 22, 2009 8:33:54 AM HST

globalnetnews- summary (AT) lists (DOT) riseup.net

[globalnetnews- summary] German Doctors write America about Digital TV Broadcasts

German Doctors write America about Digital TV Broadcasts

http://www.scribd. com/doc/12548638 /Warning- Against-Adverse- Health-Effects- Fr

om-the-Operation- of-Digital- Broadcast# document_ metadata

Dear President Obama:

Dear Members of the House of Representatives:

Dear Members of the Senate:

Dear Citizens of the United States of America:

In the US, digital broadcast television is scheduled to start operating on

February 17, 2009. We write to you today because we wish to save you from

the significant negative health consequences that have occurred here in

Germany.

In Germany, analog broadcast television stations have gradually been

switching to digital broadcast signals since 2003. This switchover first

took place in metropolitan areas. In those areas, however, the RF exposures

in public places as well as at home continued to increase at the same time.

As a result, the continuing declining health status of children,

adolescents, and adults in urban areas could not be attributed to any

single cause.

On May 20, 2006, two digital broadcast television stations went on the air

in the Hessian Rhoen area (Heide!stein, Kreuzberg), which until recently

had enjoyed rather low mobile phone radiation exposure levels. Within a

radius of more than 20 km, the following symptoms that occurred abruptly

were reported:

“...constant headaches, pressure in the head, drowsiness, sleep

problems, inability to think clearly, forgetfulness, nervous tensions,

irritability, tightness in the chest, rapid heartbeat, shortness of breath,

depressive mood, total apathy, loss of empathy, burning skin, inner

burning, leg weakness, pain in the limbs, stabbing pain in various organs,

weight increase...”

Birds had fled the area. Cats had turned phlegmatic and hardly ever went

into the garden. One child committed suicide; a second child tried doing

it.

Over time the same unbearable symptoms showed up in other locations—most

recently in Bamberg and Aschaffenburg on November 25, 2008. Physicians

accompanied affected people to areas where there was no DVB-T reception

(valleys, behind mountain ranges) and witnessed how these people became

symptom-free only after a short period of time.

The respective agencies responsible in Germany were approached for help,

but they declined to follow up on the strongly suggestive evidence in the

actual locations. The behavior of the government agencies disregards the

fundamental rights of affected people guaranteed in the German

Constitution.

In Germany, DVB-T (Digital Video Broadcasting Terrestrial) uses Orthogonal

Frequency Division Multiplex Modulation. The fundamental principle of this

type of modulation works by spreading the information across several

thousand carrier frequencies directly adjacent to each other. A channel is

7.8 MHz wide. The amplitude also changes constantly.

The WHO, the German Radiation Protection Commission, and the German

Federal Ministry of the Environment rely on the Guidelines for Limiting

Exposure to Time-varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields (up

to 300 GHz), (Health Physics 74 (4): 494-522; 1998) published by the

International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). In

this document, it says:

p. 495: "These guidelines will be periodically revised and updated as

advances are made in identifying the adverse health effects of time-varying

electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields."

p. 507: "Interpretation of several observed biological effects of AM

electromagnetic fields is further complicated by the apparent existence of

"windows" of response in both the power density and frequency domains.

There are no accepted models that adequately explain this phenomenon, which

challenges the traditional concept of a monotonic relationship between the

field intensity and the severity of the resulting biological effects."

Why are the German agencies in charge not willing to help identify the

adverse health effects? Since immediately, after digital broadcast

television stations had started transmitting, adverse health effects have

occurred, the review of the Guidelines announced by the ICNIRP is

imperative. Obviously, there are response windows contained within the

broad frequency bands with their several thousand frequencies that change

constantly and whose amplitude also changes constantly. The ICNIRP had

already pointed out this possibility.

In 1992, Dipl.-Ing. R & #369;diger Matthes, member of ICNIRP and of the

Geman Radiation Protection Agency (BfS), emphasized the preliminary status

of the exposure limits in a hearing on the health risks of electromagnetic

radiation: "...They (electromagnetic exposure levels) are several orders of

magnitude higher than the natural background radiation levels of

nontechnical sources... In parallel to this development, findings of

scientific studies according to which long-term exposure to such fields may

trigger adverse health effects keep accumulating. ...ln this context, it is

also important to recognize that there are large differences in exposure

levels within a given population. A small child, for example, absorbs much

more RF energy than an adult person...There are several findings on

low-level exposures, which are considered scientifically validated because

they have been reproduced often but which are rather difficult to

interpret.

“The impact of mostly pulsed or ELF modulated RF radiation on cell

metabolism, for example, counts among them. It has been observed that the

efflux of certain ions (e.g. calcium) from a cell increases during exposure

to such fields. The occurrence of this effect is described almost

completely independent of the actual field strength. It can be found at

extremely low absorption levels.... With all the currently available

scientific findings, there remain some crucial questions unanswered.

“...There are gaps in the so-called body of evidence. That means that

the biological effects, for example, have only been investigated for

individual frequencies. Data (e.g. effect thresholds) on the various

biological effects across the entire frequency spectrum are not available.

The exposure limits, therefore, are based on an approach that greatly

simplifies the very complex reality whose details are unfathomable. It

should also be noted that concrete data on possible effects of long-term

exposures are mostly lacking."

Real life teaches us that it was wrong to simplify. In Germany, we see

strong evidence of a direct temporal association between the start-up of

terrestrial digital broadcast television and the occurrence of severe

health symptoms.

Dr.-Ing. W. Volkrodt, former R & D engineer at Siemens, recognized the

danger of electromagnetic fields for humans, animals, and plants. He pinned

his hopes on policymakers who would listen to reason when he wrote in 1987:

"Future historians will refer to the RF dilemma during the period from

around 1975 to 1990 as a short, time-limited 'technical incident.' Owing to

the introduction of fiber optic technology, this incident could be

remediated quickly and effectively. "

Satellites and cable provide the US population with television services.

By contrast, the risk associated with terrestrial digital broadcast

television transmitters is unacceptable.

We, therefore, ask you, dear Mr. President, who has the wellbeing of his

citizens at heart, to stop the scheduled introduction of this new

technology in the United States of America and to save the people from the

negative health consequences that have occurred in our country.

Dr. med. Cornelia Waldmann-Selsom Dr. med. Christine Aschermann.

Dr. med Markus Kern

=====

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.