Dear Olle,Really, there are some misunderstandings.
Firstly, the abbrevation EHS means "Environmental Health and Safety" in connection with the discussion about healthy events by RADAR.
By RADAR - equipments the main healthy effect we have by ionizing electromagnetic fields (X-rays) by the Thyratron-bulbs in the electronic system. These exposure is only relevant nearby the electronic equipment, that means for the staff about some meters (< 5 m).
The RADAR exposure itself is non-ionizing, similar to eposures by off-line communication systems (but with higher -pulsed- energy).
The judgment of the court in Schleswig was mainly focused to the ionizing effect (= x-rays for the operating staff).
Additionally there was the discussion about shorttimed high(!)-energetic non-ionizing eposure in the focus of the RADAR-screen, because the German safety guidelines describe only the total mean value of immission over 6 min, that means all over the interval ratio pulse/pause.
All that is far away from the actual "EHS =electrohypersensitivity"-
discussion.I hope having answered your questions.With best regardsLebrecht------------------------------ ----------Prof. Dr. Lebrecht von Klitzing-Medizinphysiker (DGMP)Umweltphysikalische Messungen GbRDE-36466 Wiesenthal, Schwimmbadweg 21Tel.: 036964 863446 + 831203-----Original-Nachricht-----Betreff: Re: German radar verdict/German EHS court case; Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberlandesgericht, 3 LB 21/11Datum: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 11:15:55 +0200Von: Olle Johansson <Olle.Johansson@ki.se>An: Dr Lebrecht von Klitzing <email@example.com>Dear Dr. von Klitzing,I need your help to sort out the truth behind the recent German radar verdict/German EHS court case; Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberlandesgericht, 3 LB 21/11, at which I understand you (and Professor Karl Hecht) participated as an expert witness.I have tried to get to the bottom of the actual verdict, please, correct me if I am wrong below:1) As far as I can understand, the plaintiff had been damaged from ionizing radiation (X-rays) from a 24 MW radar installation and this was acknowledged by the court of law. Correct?2) But did the verdict also include a ruling about the functional impairment electrohypersensitivity?3) And did the verdict also deal with damages from non-ionizing radiation?4) Finally, the abbreviation ("EHS") in the verdict, does it stand for "electrohypersensitivity" or "Environmental Health and Safety"?+++Please, excuse me for being so terribly confused. These legal matters certainly are somewhat clouded, at least to me as a 'court of law'-amateur. So, please, help me to get this 100% correct.With my very best regardsYours sincerelyOlle J.(Olle Johansson, associate professorThe Experimental Dermatology UnitDepartment of NeuroscienceKarolinska Institute171 77 StockholmSweden)