schutz-vor-strahlung.ch, 29 May 2019 - translation
[All interviews are in Swiss German.]
We wanted to know why Prof. Röösli considers WLAN to be negligible, because building biologists have been recognizing WLAN as a disturbing factor for a good night's sleep for years.
"If it were possible to prove electrosensitivity only once, that would question the whole model of thinking."
How is that possible?
Are the studies wrong? Why do you not focus on biological effects? That electrosensitive people imagine their sensitivity is a malicious assumption. There are plenty of practical examples of people getting sick from too much electrosmog before they even knew the word electrosmog. In Sweden, EHS (electromagnetic hypersensitivity) is recognized as a disability. Contrary to the statements of Prof. Röösli, there is obviously a measurability.
Warnings on the phone and effects
We also asked the president of the expert group NIS (BERENIS) whether it would make sense to better warn the population against the use of mobile devices. For example, Apple states in the manual to carry the iPhone at least 5mm distance from the body. He answers in the following video. [See original article.]
"The negative aspect about a warning is also that it can trigger a concern that has additional real pathogenic effects."
 |
| Professor Martin Röösli |
Martin Röösli is Professor in Environmental Epidemiology at the Tropical Institute in Basel and also a member of ICNIRP. He also presides over the Advisory Expert Group NIS (BERENIS), which works for the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), and continues to work in the "Mobile Communications and Radiation" working group, which is mandated by the Confederation. We were allowed to interview him.
WLAN [Wi-Fi] and the detectability of electrosensitivity
WLAN [Wi-Fi] and the detectability of electrosensitivity
We wanted to know why Prof. Röösli considers WLAN to be negligible, because building biologists have been recognizing WLAN as a disturbing factor for a good night's sleep for years.
"If it were possible to prove electrosensitivity only once, that would question the whole model of thinking."
- Martin Röösli, epidemiologist and FOEN consultant
According to a 2004 survey , 5% of respondents said they were electrosensitive. According to another survey in 2009 , it was 8.6%. An additional increase in the number of persons affected by 2019 is to be expected. Around 800,000 people in Switzerland are therefore likely to react sensitively to electrosmog today. Nevertheless, Prof. Röösli finds no scientific proof of electrosensitivity.
How is that possible?
Are the studies wrong? Why do you not focus on biological effects? That electrosensitive people imagine their sensitivity is a malicious assumption. There are plenty of practical examples of people getting sick from too much electrosmog before they even knew the word electrosmog. In Sweden, EHS (electromagnetic hypersensitivity) is recognized as a disability. Contrary to the statements of Prof. Röösli, there is obviously a measurability.
Warnings on the phone and effects
We also asked the president of the expert group NIS (BERENIS) whether it would make sense to better warn the population against the use of mobile devices. For example, Apple states in the manual to carry the iPhone at least 5mm distance from the body. He answers in the following video. [See original article.]
"The negative aspect about a warning is also that it can trigger a concern that has additional real pathogenic effects."
. Martin Röösli, epidemiologist and FOEN consultant
According to Prof. Röösli, no health effects are to be feared when using mobile phones, but he advocates a technical optimization of the technologies so that fewer mobile emissions are created. So here too: everything is just imagination? Hardly likely. A court in Italy has ruled that cell phone radiation is detrimental to the brain and can cause serious harm.
The environmental epidemiologist Röösli fears that a warning could become a possible driver of a nocebo effect. Really? Mobile phone users are not to be warned about health risks, for fear of a nocebo effect? Based on today's study situation, we find this assessment incomprehensible. Consumers need to be better protected against potential risks. That's the way it works in medicine and food. A similar labeling as for tobacco seems obvious for mobile phones according to current study.
We thank Mr. Röösli for this interview. Even though we often disagree, we had a very stimulating and interesting conversation. Thank you.
The full length interview [in Swiss German].
https://schutz-vor-strahlung.ch/site/videointerview-mit-professor-martin-roeoesli/
According to Prof. Röösli, no health effects are to be feared when using mobile phones, but he advocates a technical optimization of the technologies so that fewer mobile emissions are created. So here too: everything is just imagination? Hardly likely. A court in Italy has ruled that cell phone radiation is detrimental to the brain and can cause serious harm.
The environmental epidemiologist Röösli fears that a warning could become a possible driver of a nocebo effect. Really? Mobile phone users are not to be warned about health risks, for fear of a nocebo effect? Based on today's study situation, we find this assessment incomprehensible. Consumers need to be better protected against potential risks. That's the way it works in medicine and food. A similar labeling as for tobacco seems obvious for mobile phones according to current study.
We thank Mr. Röösli for this interview. Even though we often disagree, we had a very stimulating and interesting conversation. Thank you.
The full length interview [in Swiss German].
https://schutz-vor-strahlung.ch/site/videointerview-mit-professor-martin-roeoesli/
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.