01 Natürlich nutzen die allermeisten Menschen ihr Handy deutlich länger als 15 Minuten täglich. Die durchschnittliche Nutzungsdauer 2023 variiert zwischen 177 Minuten bei den 16 bis 29-Jährigen und 80 Minuten bei den über 80-Jährigen. Außerdem wird eine Unmenge an Zeit vor anderen elektronischen Endgeräten (Tablet, Laptop (Notebook), Rechner) verbracht. Kurzum: Die reale Dauer der durchschnittlichen täglichen EMF Exposition eines Durchschnittsdeutschen liegt sehr weit (!) über 15 Minuten. Entsprechend ist davon auszugehen, dass die in der Studie festgestellten gesundheitlichen Beeinträchtigungen tatsächlich gravierender ausfallen.

Quelle: Statista.

02 Zur Bewertung der  Herzratenvariabilität wird der Abstand zwischen regulären Herzschlägen beurteilt, d.h. im normalen Sinusrhythmus, ohne Herzrhythmusstörungen. Gemessen wird dabei der Abstand der R-Zacken im Elektrokardiogramm (EKG), dem RR- oder NN-Intervall.

03 Vollständige Zitate von Paul J. Rausch und Whitney North Seymour, Jr.

Paul J. Rausch: “Claims that cell phones pose no health hazards are supported solely by Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) limits safety standards written by the telecommunications industry decades ago based on studies they funded. These have made the erroneous assumption that the only harm that could come from cell phone radiofrequency emissions would be from a thermal or heating action, since such non thermal fields can have no biological effects. The late Dr. Ross Adey disproved this three decades ago by demonstrating that very similar radiofrequency fields with certain carrier and modulation frequencies that had insufficient energy to produce any heating could cause the release of calcium ions from cells. Since then, numerous research reports have confirmed that non thermal fields from cell phones, tower transmitters, power lines, and other man made sources can significantly affect various tissues and physiologic functions.

We are constantly being bathed in an increasing sea of radiation from exposure to the above, as well as electrical appliances, computers, Bluetooth devices, Wi-Fi installations and over 2,000 communications satellites in outer space that shower us with signals to GPS receivers. New WiMax transmitters on cell phone towers that have a range of up to two square miles compared to Wi-Fi’s 300 feet will soon turn the core of North America into one huge electromagnetic hot spot. Children are more severely affected because their brains are developing and their skulls are thinner. A two-minute call can alter brain function in a child for an hour, which is why other countries ban their sale or discourage their use under the age of 18. In contrast, this is the segment of the population now being targeted here in a $2 billion U.S. advertising campaign that views “tweens” (children between 8 and 12 years old) as the next big cell phone market. Firefly and Barbie cell phones are also being promoted for 6 to 8-year-olds.

It is not generally appreciated that there is a cumulative effect and that talking on a cell phone for just an hour a day for ten years can add up to 10,000 watts of radiation. That’s ten times more than from putting your head in a microwave oven. Pregnant women may also be at increased risk based on a study showing that children born to mothers who used a cell phone just two or three times a day during pregnancy showed a dramatic increase in hyperactivity and other behavioral and emotional problems. And for the 30% of children who had also used a cell phone by age 7, the incidence of behavioral problems was 80% higher! Whether ontogeny (embryonic development) recapitulates phylogeny is debatable, but it is clear that lower forms of life are also much more sensitive. If you put the positive electrode of a 1.5 volt battery in the Pacific Ocean at San Francisco and the negative one off San Diego, sharks in the in between these cities can detect the few billionths of a volt electrical field. EMF fields have also been implicated in the recent massive but mysterious disappearance of honeybee colonies essential for pollinating over 90 commercial crops. As Albert Einstein warned, “If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe, then man would only have four years of life left.”

Finally, all life on earth evolved under the influence of solar radiation and geomagnetic forces that we have learned to adapt to and in some instances even utilize. The health of all living systems (ranging upward from a cell, tissue, organ or person, to a family, organization or nation) depends on good communication – good communication within, as well as with the external environment. All communication in the body eventually takes place via very subtle electromagnetic signaling between cells that is now being disrupted by artificial electropollution we have not had time to adapt to. As Alvin Toffler emphasized in Future Shock, too much change in too short a time produces severe stress due to adaptational failure. The adverse effects of electrosmog may take decades to be appreciated, although some, like carcinogenicity, are already starting to surface. This gigantic experiment on our children and grandchildren could result in massive damage to mind and body with the potential to produce a disaster of unprecedented proportions, unless proper precautions are immediately implemented. At the same time, we must acknowledge that novel electromagnetic therapies have been shown to benefit stress related disorders ranging from anxiety, depression and insomnia, to arthritis, migraine and tension headaches. As demonstrated in Bioelectromagnetic Medicine, they may also be much safer and more effective than drugs, so we need to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater.”

Paul J. Rausch,
Clinical Professor of Medicine and Psychiatry, New York Medical College; Honorary Vice President International Stress Management Association; Diplomate, National Board of Medical Examiners; Full Member, Russian Academy of Medical Sciences; Fellow, The Royal Society of Medicine; Emeritus Member, The Bioelectromagnetics Society.

Whitney North Seymour, Jr.: “Electromagnetic radiation is a very serious human and environmental health issue that needs immediate attention by Congress. The BioInitiative Report is a major milestone in understanding the health risks from wireless technology. Every responsible elected official owes it to his or her constituents to learn and act on its finding and policy recommendations.”

Whitney North Seymour, Jr.
Retired Attorney; Former New York State Senator & United States Attorney, Southern District of NY; Co-Founder, Natural Resources Defense Council.

04 Im Folgenden ein Überblick über die aktuelle wissenschaftliche Studienlage.

Balmori, A.: Evidence for a health risk by RF on humans living around mobile phone base stations: From radiofrequency sickness to cancer.Environ Res Jul 14. 2022.

Belpoggi F., STOA: Health impact of 5G. Current state of knowledge of 5G- related carcinogenic and reproductive/developmental hazards as they emerge from epidemiological studies and in vivo experimental studies. 2021.

Belpommes D. et al.: Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An international perspective; Environmental Pollution 242. 2018.

Bortkiewicz A. et al: Mobile Phone use and risk for intracranial tumors and salivary gland tumors – a meta-analysis. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health. 2017.

Belyaev I.Y.: Non-thermal Biological Effects of Microwaves. Electromagn Biol Med 24: 2005. Microwave Review 11 (2), 2005.

Umfangreichste Dokumentation der Studienlage, erstellt von einem internationalen Team von 29 führenden Experten: The BioInitiative Report 2012: A Rationale for Biologically-based Public Exposure Standards for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF). 2012, 2014, 2020.

Di Ciaula A.: Towards 5G communication systems: are there health implications? Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2018; 221 (3).

Gangi S., Johansson, O.: Skin changes in „screen dermatitis“ versus classical UV- and imionizing irradiation-related damage — similarities and differences. Exp Dermatol 1997; 6.

Grigoriev Y.: Evidence for Effects on the Immune System Supplement. Bioinitiative Report 2012, Section 8.

Hecht K., Balzer, H.U.: Biologische Wirkungen elektromagnetischer Felder im Frequenzbereich 0 – 3 GHz auf den Menschen. Studie russischer Literatur von 1960-1996 im Auftrag des Bundesministerium für Telekommunikation. Umwelt-Medizin-Gesellschaft 14, 3/2001.

Hensinger P.: Risiko Mobilfunk – Blick in die Forschung: Gesundheitsschäden durch WLAN- und Mobilfunkstrahlung. DHZ – Deutsche Heilpraktiker Zeitschrift, 2018; 8.

Hensinger P., Wilke I.: Mobilfunk: Neue Studienergebnisse bestätigen Risiken der
nicht-ionisierenden Strahlung. Umwelt-Medizin-Gesellschaft 29, 3/2016.

Khurana V.G. et al.: Epidemiological evidence for a health risk from mobile phone base stations. Int J Occup Environ Health 2010; 16 (3).

Kostoff R.N. et al.: Adverse Health Effects of 5G Mobile Networking Technology
under Real Life Conditions. Toxicol Lett. 2020 May 1;323.

Levitt, B.B., Lai, H.: Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. Environ Rev. 2010; 18.

Mämpel W. et al.: Unterschätzte Gefahren durch Radioaktivität am Beispiel der Radarsoldaten. Bericht des Otto Hug Strahleninstituts, Bericht 25, 2015.

Makker K. et al.: Cell phones: modern man’s nemesis? Reprod Biomed Online 2009; 18 (1).

Miller A.B. et al.: Risks to health and well-being from radio-frequency radiation emitted by cell phones and other wireless devices. Front. Public Health 7:223. 2019.

Molla-Djafari H. et al.: ATHEM-2. Athermal effects of electromagnetic field exposure associated with mobile communication. Allgemeine Unfallversicherungsanstalt AUVA: Research Report 70, 2016.

Morgan L.L. et al.: Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The consequences. JMAU 2 (4). 2014.

Narayanan S.N. et al.: Radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation-induced behavioral changes and their possible basis. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2019 Oct; 26 (30).

Pall, M.L.: Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health. Environmental Research Volume 164, July 2018.

Sage C., Burgio, E.: Electromagnetic Fields, Pulsed Radiofrequency Radiation, and Epigenetics: How Wireless Technologies May Affect Childhood Development. Child Dev. 2018 Jan;89(1).

Saliev T. et al.: Biological effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields: Two sides of a coin. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 141. 2019.

Starkey S.J.: Inaccurate official assessment of radiofrequency safety by the Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation. Rev Environ Health 2016; 31(4).

Simko M., Mattson M.-O.: 5G Wireless Communication and Health Effects-A Pragmatic Review Based on Available Studies Regarding 6 to 100 GHz. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Sep 13; 16(18).

Vornoli A. et al.: The Contribution of In Vivo Mammalian Studies to the Knowledge of Adverse Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation on Human Health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16. 2019.

Wilke I.: Biological and pathological effects of 2.45 GHz radiation on cells, fertility, brain, and behavior. Umwelt-Medizin-Gesellschaft 2018; 31(1).

Wu T. ET AL.: Safe for Generations to Come: Considerations of Safety for Millimeter Waves in Wireless Communications. IEEE Microw Mag 2015; 16 (2).