Electromagnetic radiation: between hypersensitivity and pseudo-science

Recently, Westdeutscher Rundfunk (WDR) reported on a man who lives in the forest due to his electrosensitivity because the electromagnetic radiation apparently makes him ill. A new study looks behind the scenes of “pig scientists” who deliberately trivialize the consequences of electromagnetic radiation.

A man in a suit reminiscent of an astronaut boots through the deep snow of a remote wilderness in southern Germany. Ulrich has been on the run from an invisible danger for almost 15 years. He has no postal address, no stationary telephone and certainly no mobile phone. He is certain that electromagnetic radiation, such as that emitted by cell phones, WLAN, Bluetooth and emergency call networks, is making him ill. On March 2, 2017, Westdeutscher Rundfunk (WDR ) reported on the life of an electrosensitive person. However, electrosensitivity is not recognized as an illness in Germany. According to WDR, many scientists and doctors consider Ulrich’s ailment to be hypochondria. And most of his fellow human beings dismiss Ulrich as a crank. He himself, on the other hand, is certain that staying in the radiation for two days would mean death for him.

Various symptoms and sources

WDR also investigated the phenomenon of electrosensitivity. Time and again, people report nausea, headaches or sleep disorders caused by electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity” is a health disorder which, in the view of those affected, occurs when they come into contact with electrical, magnetic or electromagnetic fields. According to the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS), just under two percent of the German population describe themselves as electrosensitive. Similar figures are likely to apply to Switzerland. Hypersensitivity is not classified as a disease – because according to the BfS and the World Health Organization (WHO), it has not yet been possible to prove that electromagnetic radiation is actually the cause of the symptoms. “Both the symptoms and the perceived sources of the disease, for example WLAN or mobile radio frequency fields, are very diverse,” Gunde Ziegelberger from the Federal Office for Radiation Protection told WDR. This makes it impossible to measure electrosensitivity as a scientific parameter.

“The limits are set too high”

Electrosensitivity, on the other hand, i.e. the ability to sense a real electric, magnetic or electromagnetic field, can be scientifically measured according to studies. However, this is only possible above the so-called threshold values, as Gunde Ziegelberger from the Federal Office for Radiation Protection explains. However, some medical and environmental physicists such as Lebrecht von Klitzing criticize the model used to calculate these threshold values: “The threshold values are absolutely set too high,” said von Klitzing. For a fee, he offers expert opinions to prove electrosensitivity. However, his method, developed at the University of Wiesenthal and RWTH Aachen, is not without controversy: it measures outward currents, heart rate variability and irritation of the skin muscles under the influence of electromagnetic fields. The measured reactions could theoretically also have other causes. However, the coincidence in time makes it possible to make a clear statement as to whether someone is electrosensitive, says von Klitzing in the WDR program.

Mobile phone limit values seemingly scientifically legitimized

It is well known that the handling of measurement and limit values is not without controversy. The new diagnose:funk ‘brennpunkt’ deals with the study “Flawed official assessment of the safety of radio radiation by the Advisory Group on Non-Ionizing Radiation” (2016) by S. J. Starkey. The ‘brennpunkt’ contains the study in German translation. “No danger, the limit values protect, this is confirmed by the studies!” This argument is used to dismiss criticism of the mobile communications policy. But the limit values do not protect, the expert opinions are obviously manipulated. The study by Sarah J. Starkey uses the example of the AGNIR report(Advisory Group On Non-ionizing Radiation, Great Britain) to show the methods used to put together a justification.

“Fraud system” with “reliable” scientists

<According to the report on diagnose:funk, the report is exemplary for these expert opinions, also because the methods and authors are similar internationally, “whether this is the SCENHIR report for the EU, the report of the Scientific Advisory Board for Radio (Austria), or the seventh mobile communications report of the federal government> in Germany”. The WHO report announced for 2017 will also be written by an almost identical team of authors. This “fraud system”, set up by the industry with “reliable” scientists, is international, and the mechanisms of institutional corruption that S. J. Starkey exposes can apparently be applied to almost all Western European countries.

Mechanisms with the following main pillars

According to diagnose:funk, the following mechanisms are based on the following main pillars, which S. J. Starkey demonstrates in the AGNIR report:

1. A self-referential system of risk communication has been created. The “independent” evaluation commissions that draw up expert opinions are made up of the same national and international experts who issue the protective regulations in government commissions.
2. The studies that do not fit in with the marketing concept are simply omitted from the expert reports or only part of the study results are communicated.
3. All studies that prove health risks are declared to be “poorly done” studies, even if they are published in recognized peer-reviewed journals. Studies that find no harmful effects, on the other hand, are generally emphasized as being well done.
4. They use language that obscures the study situation, cast doubt on the results and contrast them with industry-financed individual results.

This raises the question: Where does science stand? Why do scientists give themselves up to write reports for industry? The prevailing science is dominated by the interests of industry. Professor Christian Kreiss reveals in his book “Gekaufte Forschung. Science in the Service of Corporations” (2015), Professor Christian Kreiss reveals the alarming extent of this dominance. Sociologist Ulrich Beck calls this a state of organized irresponsibility. S. J. Starkey demystifies the alleged protective function of limit values. Their investigation removes the legitimization arguments that are intended to secure the marketing of mobile communications.

Generate a harmonic oscillation field
How can you protect yourself from high-frequency radiation and electrosmog? “The law of resonance states that no resonances can occur in an oscillating field with oscillations whose frequencies lie outside those of the field,” says Richard Neubersch. In other words: In a harmonic oscillation field, artificial radiation has no effect, regardless of who generates it, whether it comes from a neighbor or a nearby mobile phone mast. The mobile products from Swiss Harmony (BioRing, BodyCard, BioBracelet and the BioPatch) harmonize the human body by transmitting the harmonic vibration as information to the human energy system. This means that artificially created radiation fields can no longer resonate.
Protection from harmful radiationIn concrete terms, this means that Products from Swiss Harmony for harmonizing houses and apartments ensure that the electricity that supplies a building with electricity receives a different message. “They transfer the information of the visible light spectrum to the passing current via the resonance path, which in turn distributes it throughout the entire effective range of the circuit,” explains Richard Neubersch. The electromagnetic field of the apartment or house thus becomes a harmonious field. In-house WLAN transmitters, cell phones or cordless phones are interference-free because they are connected to the harmonic current field and therefore emit the same harmonic information.

Share post

• 5G
• Electrosmog
• Electrosmog pollution

---

Swiss Harmony