Tuesday, August 26, 2014

German radar verdict/German EHS court case; Schleswig-Holsteinisches

German radar verdict/German EHS court case; Schleswig-Holsteinisches 
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 regards

Prof. Dr. Lebrecht von Klitzing
-Medizinphysiker (DGMP)

Umweltphysikalische Messungen GbR
DE-36466 Wiesenthal, Schwimmbadweg 21
Tel.: 036964  863446 + 831203
Betreff: Re: German radar verdict/German EHS court case; Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberlandesgericht, 3 LB 21/11
Datum: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 11:15:55 +0200
Von: Olle Johansson <Olle.Johansson@ki.se>
An: Dr Lebrecht von Klitzing <vonklitzing@umweltphysik.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 regards
Yours sincerely
Olle J.

(Olle Johansson, associate professor
The Experimental Dermatology Unit
Department of Neuroscience
Karolinska Institute
171 77 Stockholm

No comments:

Post a Comment