Sentenza tedesca d'appello che riconosce la elettrosensibilità come malattia professionale
Prima sentenza confermata in appello di un tribunale tedesco di riconoscimento di elettrosensibilità .
E' una causa avviata da un ex-militare radarista tedesco : è stata riconosciuta come malattia professionale.
Qui sotto è riportato il lungo iter, iniziato con primi sintomi evidenziati nel 1973 , nel 1994 lo Stato Federale ha rigettato la richiesta di riconoscimento della malattia, acquisita a causa di servizio ; è andato in pensione nel 1994.
Ha iniziato la causa contro lo Stato Federale Tedesco. La controparte ha eccepito che EMF sotto i valori limite riportati da WHO/OMS, ICNIRP e Agenzia tedesca per le radiazioni, non sono dannose. Egli ha portato alla corte gli studi e la testimonianza di Drr Karl Hecht e Lebrecht von Klitzing .
La corte ha incaricato un esperto nel 2005 che ha dato ragione allo Stato.
Dopo altre testimonianze tecniche la corte ha incaricato un altro esperto che nel 2008 ha dato ragione all'ex militare.
Ovviamente lo Stato ha fatti ricorso alla Corte d'Appello (?) che ha incaricato altro esperto, che ha detto che esiste la relazione tra malattia e fonte di radiazione.
Quindi sentenza definitiva.
_________________________________________________________________________
EHS of a former German Army Radar-mechanic acknowledged as occupational disease by the court of appeal for administrative litigation in german state Schleswig-Holstein (Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht)
3 LB 21/11, September 13, 2012
The plaintiff worked for the geman army (Bundeswehr) from 1970 to 1992 as a mechanic for Radarsystems. While working he was exposed to ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. Since 1973 the plaintiff suffered from inflammation, infectious diseases and palpitations. From 1976 he also suffered from agitation, sleep disorders, fatigue, lack of concentration and extreme forgetfulness, extreme headaches, disorder of the immune system, food allergies and other allergic symptoms, non-functioning eyesight, sweats, exhaustion until midth of the 90ies.
The plaintiff was diagnosed with EHS and treated in two clinics in 1993. In 1994 the Federal Republic of Germany as his employer rejected to acknowledge his illness as an occupational disease claiming there is no proof that his symptoms are caused by the exposure. In 1994, the plaintiff was pensioned off.
The plaintiff filed a law-suit against the Federal Republic as his former employer to the court for administrative litigation in Schleswig to get this acknowledgement. He gave the court several reports of experts who examined his or other Radar-Mechanics conditions. As the court granted the plaintiff´s suit the defendant filed an appeal to the higher court, arguing that committees and experts- the WHO, the ICNIRP and the german committee for the protection of radiation (Strahlenschutzkommission – SSK) are of the opinion that EMF-exposure below standards does not cause any physical harm.
The plaintiff sent the court Prof. em. Prof. Dr. Dr. med. Karl Hecht´s study from 2001 on „Effects of EMF“ as well as a report by medicine physicist Dr. rer nat Lebrecht von Klitzing on the biological effects of pulsed high frequency waves below standards as well as a synopsis by Prof. Hecht from 2005 that explained that the majority of personnel exposed to radiation suffered from the symptoms of what is called the „microwave syndrom“. The court appointed another expert who reported in 2005 and 2006 that the plaintiff´s symptoms are not caused by ionizing or non-ionizing radiation or a combination of both. After hearing several other expert witnesses – among them Prof. em. Prof. Dr. Dr. Karl Hecht and Dr. rer. nat. Lebrecht von Klitzing – the court appointed another expert and – after another hearing – obliged the defendant to acknowledge the plaintiffs request in a verdict from August 20th, 2008.
On appeal, the highest federal court in administrative matters (Bundesverwaltungsgericht) declared that the decision violated federal law as the court had not taken enough efforts to research the facts. The court of appeal than appointed a third expert who stated that it was possible to proof the causation of the plaintiff´s exposure and his disease.
The court ruled again in favor of the plaintiff and also ruled that another appeal is not permitted. The defendant´s complaint against this to the highest federal court was not successful. In consequence, the acknowledgement is now legally binding.
More information about Prof. Hecht´s research:
http://www.emfacts.com/2005/05/germanrussian-report-on-electrosensitivity/
More information about Dr. von Klitzing´s research:
Hypothesis on how to measure electromagnetic
hypersensitivity
Andreas Tuengler1 & Lebrecht von Klitzing2
1Institute of History, Theory and Ethics in Medicine, and Human Technology Centre
(HumTec), RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany, and 2Institute of Environmental
Physics, Wiesenthal, Germany
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is an ill-defined term to describe the fact that people who
experience health symptoms in the vicinity of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) regard them as
causal for their complaints. Up to now most scientists assume a psychological cause for the
suffering of electromagnetic hypersensitive individuals. This paper addresses reasons why most
provocation studies could not find any association between EMF exposure and EHS and presents
a hypothesis on diagnosis and differentiation of this condition. Simultaneous recordings of heart
rate variability, microcirculation and electric skin potentials are used for classification of EHS.
Thus, it could be possible to distinguish “genuine” electromagnetic hypersensitive individuals
from those who suffer from other conditions.
Keywords: athermal effects, heart rate variability, hypersensitivity to electromagnetic fields,
radiofrequency, time series analysis
Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, Early Online: 1–10, 2012
Copyright Q Informa UK Ltd
ISSN: 1536-8378 print / 1536-8386 online
DOI: 10.3109/15368378.2012.712586
E' una causa avviata da un ex-militare radarista tedesco : è stata riconosciuta come malattia professionale.
Qui sotto è riportato il lungo iter, iniziato con primi sintomi evidenziati nel 1973 , nel 1994 lo Stato Federale ha rigettato la richiesta di riconoscimento della malattia, acquisita a causa di servizio ; è andato in pensione nel 1994.
Ha iniziato la causa contro lo Stato Federale Tedesco. La controparte ha eccepito che EMF sotto i valori limite riportati da WHO/OMS, ICNIRP e Agenzia tedesca per le radiazioni, non sono dannose. Egli ha portato alla corte gli studi e la testimonianza di Drr Karl Hecht e Lebrecht von Klitzing .
La corte ha incaricato un esperto nel 2005 che ha dato ragione allo Stato.
Dopo altre testimonianze tecniche la corte ha incaricato un altro esperto che nel 2008 ha dato ragione all'ex militare.
Ovviamente lo Stato ha fatti ricorso alla Corte d'Appello (?) che ha incaricato altro esperto, che ha detto che esiste la relazione tra malattia e fonte di radiazione.
Quindi sentenza definitiva.
_________________________________________________________________________
EHS of a former German Army Radar-mechanic acknowledged as occupational disease by the court of appeal for administrative litigation in german state Schleswig-Holstein (Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht)
3 LB 21/11, September 13, 2012
The plaintiff worked for the geman army (Bundeswehr) from 1970 to 1992 as a mechanic for Radarsystems. While working he was exposed to ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. Since 1973 the plaintiff suffered from inflammation, infectious diseases and palpitations. From 1976 he also suffered from agitation, sleep disorders, fatigue, lack of concentration and extreme forgetfulness, extreme headaches, disorder of the immune system, food allergies and other allergic symptoms, non-functioning eyesight, sweats, exhaustion until midth of the 90ies.
The plaintiff was diagnosed with EHS and treated in two clinics in 1993. In 1994 the Federal Republic of Germany as his employer rejected to acknowledge his illness as an occupational disease claiming there is no proof that his symptoms are caused by the exposure. In 1994, the plaintiff was pensioned off.
The plaintiff filed a law-suit against the Federal Republic as his former employer to the court for administrative litigation in Schleswig to get this acknowledgement. He gave the court several reports of experts who examined his or other Radar-Mechanics conditions. As the court granted the plaintiff´s suit the defendant filed an appeal to the higher court, arguing that committees and experts- the WHO, the ICNIRP and the german committee for the protection of radiation (Strahlenschutzkommission – SSK) are of the opinion that EMF-exposure below standards does not cause any physical harm.
The plaintiff sent the court Prof. em. Prof. Dr. Dr. med. Karl Hecht´s study from 2001 on „Effects of EMF“ as well as a report by medicine physicist Dr. rer nat Lebrecht von Klitzing on the biological effects of pulsed high frequency waves below standards as well as a synopsis by Prof. Hecht from 2005 that explained that the majority of personnel exposed to radiation suffered from the symptoms of what is called the „microwave syndrom“. The court appointed another expert who reported in 2005 and 2006 that the plaintiff´s symptoms are not caused by ionizing or non-ionizing radiation or a combination of both. After hearing several other expert witnesses – among them Prof. em. Prof. Dr. Dr. Karl Hecht and Dr. rer. nat. Lebrecht von Klitzing – the court appointed another expert and – after another hearing – obliged the defendant to acknowledge the plaintiffs request in a verdict from August 20th, 2008.
On appeal, the highest federal court in administrative matters (Bundesverwaltungsgericht) declared that the decision violated federal law as the court had not taken enough efforts to research the facts. The court of appeal than appointed a third expert who stated that it was possible to proof the causation of the plaintiff´s exposure and his disease.
The court ruled again in favor of the plaintiff and also ruled that another appeal is not permitted. The defendant´s complaint against this to the highest federal court was not successful. In consequence, the acknowledgement is now legally binding.
More information about Prof. Hecht´s research:
http://www.emfacts.com/2005/05/germanrussian-report-on-electrosensitivity/
More information about Dr. von Klitzing´s research:
Hypothesis on how to measure electromagnetic
hypersensitivity
Andreas Tuengler1 & Lebrecht von Klitzing2
1Institute of History, Theory and Ethics in Medicine, and Human Technology Centre
(HumTec), RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany, and 2Institute of Environmental
Physics, Wiesenthal, Germany
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is an ill-defined term to describe the fact that people who
experience health symptoms in the vicinity of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) regard them as
causal for their complaints. Up to now most scientists assume a psychological cause for the
suffering of electromagnetic hypersensitive individuals. This paper addresses reasons why most
provocation studies could not find any association between EMF exposure and EHS and presents
a hypothesis on diagnosis and differentiation of this condition. Simultaneous recordings of heart
rate variability, microcirculation and electric skin potentials are used for classification of EHS.
Thus, it could be possible to distinguish “genuine” electromagnetic hypersensitive individuals
from those who suffer from other conditions.
Keywords: athermal effects, heart rate variability, hypersensitivity to electromagnetic fields,
radiofrequency, time series analysis
Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, Early Online: 1–10, 2012
Copyright Q Informa UK Ltd
ISSN: 1536-8378 print / 1536-8386 online
DOI: 10.3109/15368378.2012.712586
Commenti
Posta un commento