Federal government fails in its duty to protect. Limit values ​​are unacceptable

Original headline:
Dissertationsschrift: Kommunen haben die Pflicht zu Mobilfunkkonzepten, um ihre Bürger zu schützen
Bundesregierung verfehlt Schutzauftrag. Grenzwerte untragbar
Published: July 26, 2024
In: diagnose:funk (Germany)
https://www.diagnose-funk.org/aktuelles/artikel-archiv/detail?newsid=2109

Google translation, edited by Multerland.

Municipalities not only have the opportunity, but the duty, to protect their residents from the effects of radiation exposure from mobile phone transmission systems. Studies show that mobile phone radiation poses health risks. This is the core message of Anja Brückner’s dissertation “Municipal mobile phone concepts in the tension between prevention and care” (2022). This dissertation is one of the most comprehensive legal opinions on the rights and obligations of municipalities and a first-class warning for the authorities’ previous practice.

Anyone who is confronted with the issue of cell phone masts, whether residents, local councils or mayors, knows the answer: cell phone masts must be approved, the municipality has no right to refuse to install them. And besides, they pose no danger, the limit values ​​provide reliable protection.[1] Neither of these has anything to do with the facts, as Brückner shows in 194 pages in detail and in an understandable manner. Brückner’s legal analysis is a first-class warning for the federal government. The dissertation has two main focuses:

01. It shows that in Germany the research results on the athermal effects of cell phone radiation are ignored by the federal government and that insufficient research is commissioned. The limit values ​​therefore do not reflect the state of research and do not provide protection.
Due to this “inaction” on the part of the federal government, the municipalities are obliged to protect their residents through cell phone concepts. They have the right to do so.
Inappropriate limit values ​​prove: federal authorities refuse to protect…

02. Brückner criticizes the official cell phone policy. The federal government is ignoring the studies: “Research results are now piling up that prove that biological effects of mobile phone radiation are harmful” (p. 66).[2] These new findings are not being taken into account. Brückner states that the German federal government is violating its “obligation to monitor” (p. 49) the studies due to “a lack of inclusion of further research results regarding non-thermal effects” (p. 53)[3] and “no further efforts to research” (p. 52). It criticizes the fact that it is not fulfilling its “obligation to improve” (ibid.) the limit values ​​through “inaction” (p. 50).

From this, Brückner derives the accusation that “the regulatory authority is not striving to improve the protection of the population”:

“The state is therefore only fulfilling its duty to take precautions with regard to thermal effects.[4] Since athermal effects were not included in the (re-)calculation of the limit values ​​of the 26th BImSchV despite current research results and precautionary risk levels, these limit values ​​- in relation to mobile phone radiation as a whole – are currently unsuitable for taking precautionary measures and are therefore unacceptable” (p. 50).
This means that “the required protection goal cannot be achieved” (p. 50). Brückner calls for research results on athermal effects to no longer be excluded from the risk assessment and appeals to the legislator: “Both the numerous studies and research in the field of mobile communications and the presence of a “precautionary risk level” clearly demonstrate the need for a state duty to protect” (p. 46).

The precautionary principle applies in the EU. Proof of causality is not required to act, a potential for concern is enough. The inadequate precautions taken by the state in the mobile communications sector justify increased precautions at the local level. As part of the executive branch, the municipality has the protective task of protecting fundamental rights and taking precautions. As the increasing digitization…

“… an unmanageable number of people are exposed to electromagnetic radiation, which makes the need for a protection-compliant interpretation of Section 22 of the Federal Imission Control Act in the sense of a general precautionary norm even clearer… A general precautionary duty… both with regard to thermal and athermal effects of mobile phone radiation – for municipalities in the context of urban development planning – is therefore proportionate and necessary” (p. 66).

The municipality has “a constitutional duty to protect young people in particular due to potentially increased electrosensitivity and need for protection” (p. 132), which affects, among other things, “sensitive places”, “sensitive facilities” and “residential facilities” (p. 133).

… and every municipality needs a mobile communications concept

These are clear demands and formulations, the feasibility of which is legally secured. The right of municipalities to participate in the installation of mobile radio systems is laid down in Section 7a of the 26th BImSchV and can be implemented through a mobile phone concept as an urban development concept. Mobile radio concepts are reports with concrete location suggestions for future mobile phone systems or designation of alternative locations.

A mobile radio concept focuses on the long-term and controlled development of the infrastructure from the point of view of minimizing radiation in the municipal area. A municipality that wants to keep its total radiation in the municipal area low must therefore act in advance and exclude sensitive building areas from mobile phone systems, although this exclusion can only be achieved through a development plan. With a municipal mobile phone concept, municipalities can take their protective task into account by taking precautions:

“A municipality can achieve the greatest possible protection through a municipal mobile phone concept with designated alternative locations and by excluding certain areas in the development plan” (p. 113).

Radiation minimization can be achieved through a bundle of measures: alternative locations for transmitters, small cell networks, roaming, complete fiber optic coverage, lighting technology instead of WLAN.

The end of the balancing act and excuses: rights become duties of municipalities and local councils

The legal opinions of Nitsch/Weiss/Frei (2020) and the many specialist articles by the lawyer Bernd I. Budzinski have already clearly demonstrated that municipal autonomy gives municipalities the right to control the development of the mobile communications infrastructure. Brückner develops this reasoning further. Municipalities not only have the right, which they can exercise or not at will, but also the duty to protect their residents due to the potential danger of radiation, the inadequacy of the limit values ​​and the failure of the federal authorities. Every local council and mayor must be familiar with this opinion. For citizens’ initiatives, it is the ultimate legal basis for argumentation.

Anja Brückner: Municipal mobile communications concepts in the tension between prevention and care, ©2022 Dissertation, 194 pages, series: Erlanger Schriften zum Öffentlichen Recht, Volume 12

Sources and comments

[1] Although it has long been proven, most recently in the analysis of the ICBE-EMF, that the limit values ​​are scientifically untenable and have no protective function, the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS) is sticking to them as a firewall. The BfS recently wrote to the spokesperson for diagnose:funk Bayern, who suggested to the BfS a symposium between representatives of the ICNIRP and the ICBE-EMF at a conference on risk communication to conduct the limit value debate:

“Nevertheless, the main statements of the TAB report coincide with the scientific risk assessment of the BfS:

• The existing limit values ​​protect against the proven health effects of high-frequency electromagnetic fields.

• The limit values ​​are set in such a way that groups of people who may be particularly at risk, such as children, are protected.

• If the emission limit values ​​and the regulations applicable to products are complied with, no health-related effects from high-frequency electromagnetic fields are to be expected. This also applies to children, young people and the elderly.

As promised by Mr. Neuhäuser, we have also looked into the question of whether the BfS is organizing an event with the content you have proposed. At the moment we see no reason for this.” (July 25, 2024)

The BfS is obviously shying away from a scientific debate. In order to secure the interpretive sovereignty of a profit-oriented expert arrogance, the BfS explicitly denies professional competence to scientists, citizens and NGOs who are not to its liking with the theory of “false balance”.[1] In contrast, the head of the TAB, Armin Grunwald, calls for “the defense against technocratic rule by experts and the insistence on a democratic claim to shape the way we deal with scientific and technical progress and the use of its products.” These experts are responsible for “pushing back thinking in alternatives in favor of technical optimization,” especially in digitalization.[2] The cancellation of a debate in the BfS on positions with the aim of advancing knowledge is typical of the political style. In interviews and talk shows, a policy of being heard is invoked in order to regain trust, but in practice the citizens are given the cold shoulder.

The TAB report is also incompletely reproduced by the BfS. The thermal dogma and the ICNIRP guidelines on which the limit values ​​are based are relativized in the TAB report with the note that “with regard to possible non-thermal effects with health effects, a large number of studies of varying quality exist with partly contradictory or inconsistent results” and their relevance for setting limit values ​​is “sometimes very controversially discussed in specialist circles and in the general public”. The report even puts the limit values ​​up for discussion. The TAB report questions the BfS’s monopoly on opinion. It criticizes the fact that the BfS has so far only accepted the ICNIRP opinion, while other expert opinions, including those of “non-economic interest groups”, have not been taken into account in the risk assessment, and calls for them to be taken into account. See our analyses of the TAB: https://www.diagnose-funk.org/aktuelles/artikel-archiv/detail&newsid=1954.

Contrary to the BfS, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) of the EU calls in its opinion in the Official Journal of the EU for the review and replacement of the unsuitable ICNIRP guidelines for limit values ​​with new guidelines drawn up by an independent body. The EESC calls for the recognition of the overall study situation, the replacement of the ICNIRP with an independent body and new guidelines with the stipulation: “Particular attention should be paid to non-thermal effects (1.11.)” https://www.diagnose-funk.org/aktuelles/artikel-archiv/detail&newsid=1899

• [1]   Gutbier J, Hensinger P (2021): Dialogbüro 5G der Bundesregierung: Störfall Bürgerengagement. Der Absturz vom Dialog- zum Monologbüro, https://www.diagnose-funk.org/1772
• [2]  Grunwald A (2022): Technikfolgenabschätzung, 3. Auflage, S. 56/57

[2] Diagnose:funk documents the study situation in detail in the publication series “Overview for a clear view“, in the database www.EMFdata.org, in the ElectrosmogReport and in the Kompass Study situation: Mobile phone radiation – a risk? Be informed about the current state of research.

[3] As early as 2016, diagnose:funk published the analysis by Sarah J. Starkey (2016): “Inaccurate official assessment of the safety of radiofrequency radiation by the Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation.” Starkey documents the extent to which ICNIRP-affiliated committees exclude controversial study results from the risk assessment. Brennpunkt on Starkey with a supplementary list of excluded studies.

Original text: Sarah J. Starkey (2026): Inaccurate official assessment of radiofrequency safety by the Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation; Published in: Rev Environ Health 2016; 31 (4): 493-503, Verlag deGruyter, DOI 10.1515/reveh-2016-0060;

[4] The physicist and diagnose:funk board member Dr. Klaus Scheler wrote the article “Claims & false arguments: mobile phone radiation has too little energy to damage cells. Oxidative stress is implausible” on the thermal dogma and the energy thesis: https://www.diagnose-funk.org/aktuelles/artikel-archiv/detail&newsid=1441

Publication on the topic

Municipal fields of action
Mobile communications: Rights of municipalities – risk minimization and precaution at the municipal level
Download (PDF, 991 KB)
Author:
diagnose:funk | Dipl.-Ing. Jörn Gutbier
Contents:
This brochure provides information on the options municipalities have to intervene in the installation of mobile radio transmission systems. It shows what municipalities can do in addition to the so-called dialogue process with the operators to protect their citizens from the continued uncontrolled increase in radiation in our living environment with a precautionary and minimization concept. In addition, arguments that play an important role in the mobile communications debate are addressed: the limit values, the lack of insurance cover for operators, the mobile communications pact of the municipal associations, the spread of radiation around transmitters, the measurement and evaluation of radiation intensity, the debate about transmitters versus end devices, small cell networks, alternative technologies, etc. The municipality is still the only level at which an important part of a new, effective type of mobile communications precautionary policy to protect people and the environment can currently be initiated and implemented.

Mobile communications, transmission systems, network expansion. Make use of local rights to health care! Download PDF
Author:
diagnose:funk
Contents:
A mobile phone mast is to be built. What risks have been proven? What can initiatives demand? What rights do local authorities have? The tried-and-tested flyer on the risks of mobile phone transmission systems and the options for action available to local authorities has been completely redesigned. It briefly summarizes the most important information, also for decision-makers in local authorities.

Study shows how limits are legitimized on pseudo-scientific grounds
Mobile phone limits debunked
Download (PDF, 696 KB)
Author:
Sarah J. Starkey / diagnose:funk
Contents:
The new diagnose:funk ‘Focus’ deals with the study “Faulty official assessment of the safety of radio radiation by the Advisory Group on Non-Ionizing Radiation” (2016) by S. J. Starkey and is available in German translation. Using the AGNIR report (Advisory Group On Non-ionizing Radiation, Great Britain) as an example, the study shows the methods used to cobble together and manipulate a justification for the limits. Addition: The AGNIR advisory group was dissolved in May 2017. There was virtually no reporting on this in England. On October 17, 2018, the investigative portal http://truepublica.org.uk uncovered this secret handling. See links below for the English article and online translation.

Further links

TruePublica uncovers the secret dissolution of AGNIR
TruePublica article in German translation via Google Translator

ICBE-EMF: The time has come for new limits
The newly founded limit commission proves the unscientific nature of the current ICNIRP limits for mobile phone radiation – Download PDF
Author:
ICBE-EMF / diagnose:funk
Content:
This focus publishes the translation of the study by the international limit commission ICBE-EMF (International Commission on the Biological Effects of EMF) “Scientific findings refute health assumptions underlying the FCC (Federal Communication Commission, USA) and ICNIRP limit regulations for radio frequency radiation: consequences for 5G” (2022). In it, the ICBE-EMF calls for the withdrawal and redefinition of the limits for exposure to high-frequency radio radiation (HF). The withdrawal of the limits is necessary because their setting is based on false assumptions. The aim of new limits would be to set standards for health protection for workers, the public and nature.

Overview No. 3: Does mobile communications also have non-thermal effects? Download PDF
Author:
diagnose:funk
Contents:
Overview No. 3 deals with one of the main reasons for the harmlessness of mobile communications radiation: the legal limits protect against health risks. There is no evidence of non-thermal effects. However: the exclusion of studies with non-thermal effects from the risk assessment has now been criticized by European committees, as well as in legal reports. This overview presents the discussion about the thermal dogma from the 1950s to the present day. diagnose:funk documents 70 studies that show non-thermal effects as examples. This scientifically questions the protective function of the applicable limits.

Guide to transmitter construction
Precautionary principle when setting up, operating, converting and expanding fixed transmitter systems
Download (PDF, 2.4 MB)
Author:
Vienna Chamber of Labor; AUVA – General Accident Insurance Institute; Chamber of Commerce – Federal Guild of Electrical, Building, Alarm and Communications Technicians; Vienna Environmental Office; Austrian Medical Association; Scientists at the Medical University of Vienna, Institute for Environmental Hygiene and Institute for Cancer Research.
Contents:
The introduction and worldwide spread of radio frequency services (e.g. WiFi, mobile communications) is unprecedented in the history of technical innovations. The rapid development is accompanied by concerns about health effects. This leads to considerable resistance from the population, especially where infrastructure is being expanded without involving local residents. This guide describes strategies and procedures to meet the need for technical innovation on the one hand and the understandable desire for low emissions on the other. The recommendations are based on scientific findings and practical experience from past years. The guide offers concrete recommendations for a participatory approach to the construction of base stations for building authorities, residents and operating companies with the aim of taking health and economic consequences into account. Conflict-prone construction projects can thus be implemented through a constructive dialogue-driven process in consensus with the residents.