German Doctors write America about Digital TV Broadcasts

[Guest guest]

We are getting digital in NZ too. N

 

 

German Doctors write America about Digital TV Broadcasts

 

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

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/12548638/Warning-Against-Adverse-Health-Effects-From-t\

he-Operation-of-Digital-Broadcast#document_metadata