An exposure level 76 times higher than the radiation limit would cause exactly the same genetic defects
as this relatively low-power transmitter in a village.
You have to imagine what that means:
When it comes to radioactivity, health and safety regulations are in place for good reason—it is prohibited.
It is permitted for mobile phones.
But when there’s cell phone radiation, it’s not just for a moment—it goes on for a long time.
And then you can imagine what happens.
The muscles, especially those around the arteries, tense up.
Nerve cells transmit impulses; if it happens to be a pain nerve, you will experience constant pain.
This chronic pain can—unfortunately, I have to say—become so severe that, in extreme cases, people have
been unable to bear it and have taken their own lives.
Thank you very much for the nice introduction.
That's very kind.
Even a science program on Bavarian Radio claimed: “Mobile phone radiation can’t possibly be harmful, because the
energy—meaning quantum energy, as we’ve heard—is far too low to break down chemical compounds.”
So it can't be harmful.
Excuse me, but even our state-run media spreads this kind of nonsense. And it’s not just Bavarian Broadcasting.
It is important to realize that biological effects do not stem solely from chemistry, but that certain substances—such
as proteins—are biologically active simply because of their physical structure and their physical effects.
And for the physicists among you: You might find the term “van der Waals forces” interesting, as their energy lies precisely within
the range of the mobile communications we’re discussing here.
But even without any knowledge of physics, you can still understand what’s happening.
Let's take a look at a cell.
This is a blue sphere in the picture—a cell surrounded by a cell membrane.
This cell membrane separates the external region outside the cell, which is mostly filled with positively charged particles.
Here I’ve marked the calcium ions with small yellow balls, but they’re not just
calcium—there’s potassium and several others as well.
The cell contains mostly negative particles, such as chlorine.
And just like with “royal children,” the negatively charged particles want to move toward the positively
charged ones and vice versa, but they can’t reach each other because of the cell membrane.
But the cell membrane has holes in it.
Holes that allow only one type of particle to pass through.
The red dots here are holes that allow calcium to pass through.
There are others that allow potassium to pass through, and still others for different substances,
and so on, but these holes are usually blocked.
Blocked by complex molecules—proteins that prevent the calcium ions from entering.
If you take a closer look at how these holes are clogged, you'll see that tthere are spiral-shaped particles.
And the spirals keep their shape because the charges are not evenly distributed but attract each other.
And so the spiral cannot unwind.
But if we expose it to radiation now, the spiral starts to vibrate—or, in
physicists’ terms, to undergo torsional vibrations.
And then it can happen that the vibration becomes so strong that the charged particles are too far apart to attract
each other sufficiently, meaning that the spiral breaks apart.
This is shown here.
In the cell membrane—specifically in these calcium channels—it looks like this:
In a channel like this, there are spirals; I've only drawn two here, but in reality there are four.
When the radiation strikes them, these spirals may, under certain conditions—if the radiation is strong
enough—unravel, lose their rigidity, and allow calcium ions—the positively charged particles—to flow in.
Well, that’s not an unusual process in itself; for example, when you contract a muscle, calcium flows into the muscle cells.
In other words, calcium causes muscle cells to contract.
In nerve cells, calcium triggers the transmission of a nerve impulse, so there’s no problem there.
But when there is cell phone radiation, it’s not just for a moment—it goes on for a long time.
And then you can imagine what happens.
The muscles, especially those around the arteries, tense up.
Nerve cells transmit impulses; if it happens to be a pain nerve, you will experience constant pain.
This chronic pain can—unfortunately, I have to say—become so severe that, in extreme cases, people have
been unable to bear it and have taken their own lives.
Unfortunately, that's true; I know of several cases like that—it's terrible.
Okay, so what happens now when the calcium enters the cell?
Then a whole chain of reactions takes place.
These reactions—I've shown only one of the chains here, but there are several.
The endpoint of the blue boxes is important.
As you can see, free radicals and oxidative stress are present.
And this oxidative stress consists of highly reactive chemical compounds that, among other things, attack genetic material—DNA.
Incidentally, the end result of this was studied in numerous experiments many, many years ago.
I believe there are well over 100 scientific studies that examine this effect.
And right now we're in the midst of another boom period, with new research on this topic
being published constantly, almost every week.
The best-known study was the so-called “Reflex Study,” commissioned by the EU, which subsequently attracted
significant public attention and was vigorously opposed by the industry—with outrageous smears and other terrible things.
We won't go into that now—maybe my neighbor, Mr. Scheidsteger, will.
Well, as I said, these chemical reactions lead, among other things, to genetic changes, and
these genetic changes have two possible outcomes.
Either cancer or poor genetics for the next generation.
Let’s first take a closer look at how we can quantify genetic damage.
Of course, you can examine the DNA in individual cells to look for genetic defects
We've recently achieved something that people didn't think was possible.
As you know, before cell division, the genetic material organizes itself into chromosomes.
If DNA, the genetic material, is damaged, damaged chromosomes are also produced.
And there’s one type that’s particularly interesting: the so-called dicentric chromosomes.
They are used in radiation exposure assessments to determine the amount of radiation a person has been exposed to.
You should know that: Dizentric chromosomes are caused almost exclusively by radiation—not by chemical factors,
not by other environmental factors, but only by radiation.
And that is why it is legally recognized that the number or frequency of dicentric
chromosomes is a reliable measure of radiation exposure.
We—that is, a group which several of us belong to—have compared two villages.
One village had a cell tower—not even a particularly tall one—and the other had none.
Otherwise, the population or the segment of the population under study was compared in
minute detail, just as is done with radioactivity.
In other words, they wanted to be as precise as possible about everything—from people’s medical
history and eating habits to their cheese consumption.
And he just picked out a corresponding number of people.
In the people exposed to the radiation—as I said, a perfectly ordinary, not particularly powerful cell phone tower on the roof
of a house in the village—it caused dicentric chromosomes, the kind that would result from exposure to radioactive
radiation at the threshold level over a period of 76 years.
In other words:
Since the (radioactive) radiation was present in very high levels for only one year—a level 76 times higher than the
radiation limit—it would cause exactly the same genetic damage as this relatively weak transmitter in a village.
You have to imagine what that means.
When it comes to radioactivity, health and safety regulations are in place for good reason—it is prohibited.
It is permitted for mobile phones.
Let's go back to that—what does that mean in practice?
One outcome is cancer; we've already talked about that.
There are countless studies examining the link between cell phone use and cancer.
I've just picked out a few of the most important ones—perhaps the most famous ones.
The first study is by Hardell, who specifically investigated whether there is an increased incidence of
brain tumors among people who talk on the phone with a mobile device held to their ear.
And he found out that
there is an increased incidence of brain tumors: specifically, if you hold the phone in your right hand, the tumor
tends to develop on the right side, and if you hold it in your left hand, it tends to develop on the left side.
The second point here from the National Toxicology Program.
It is also a study that was commissioned by the government— the U.S. government.
Researchers exposed several thousand mice and rats to radiation and found that certain
types of cancer were caused by the radiation.
Statistically sound and well-documented.
However, the radiation levels in these studies were relatively high.
Then we said, “Well, the radiation levels are much lower here.”
That is why Ms. Belpoggi conducted the same studies in Italy using radiation levels slightly above our limit and also
well below our limit, and she reached the same conclusion.
In other words, even at levels well below our threshold, it has been shown that cancer develops in animals—specifically
in rats—albeit only certain types of cancer, but all the same.
And Professor Lin originally worked in the mobile communications industry.
Based on these experiments, he said, “It is now beyond doubt: Cell phone radiation causes cancer!”
You can also look at this in another study, which again uses official English-language data.
In the UK, the roles are different ...
Sorry, I almost forgot—we'll go back to Belpoggi:
The dose people were exposed to even correlates linearly with the likelihood that the animals developed cancer.
But now back to the British study—this data comes from the UK Health Security Agency.
They studied stage 4 gliomas—which are particularly aggressive brain tumors—specifically tumors that are almost always fatal.
They are classified according to the different regions of the brain.
The green curve represents the majority of brain regions that have not changed much over the years.
The red curve refers only to the frontal lobe, which extends laterally into the temporal lobe.
And since the introduction of mobile communications, that number has risen rapidly.
Unfortunately, my statistics stop relatively early on.
It's because I've been lazy that I haven't kept the data up to date since then, but I'll keep at it.
Okay, those were the cancer cases.
Now, one could say that if someone wants to be exposed to electromagnetic radiation—and since it’s
possible to avoid at least some of it, though only some—then it’s their own fault if they get cancer.
It's cynical, but it's something people often throw in your face.
One thing for which there is certainly no excuse is the harm done to the next generation.
We conducted a study involving 7,000 irradiated piglets and approximately 10,000 non-irradiated piglets.
Exactly in that month—really, in that very month—when the radiation began, the pregnant
sows started giving birth to malformed piglets.
I've recorded a few here.
That's very reminiscent of "Contergan."
It is important to note that this radiation—which averaged several hundred microwatts per square
meter—reached a maximum of 1,200 microwatts per square meter, a figure that was even officially measured.
Our threshold is 10 million!
But even with this low level of radiation, they develop these deformities.
And if I only count the ones that are visibly affected at birth—not those with internal organ damage, but the ones that are
immediately visible—then we have a 1% rate of damaged piglets.
You should know that, genetically speaking, pigs are very similar to humans.
And this isn't just about pigs; we're seeing deformities in cattle as well.
In other words, it spans the animal kingdom.
We've observed this in plants as well.
I don't have any pictures of that here.
Now I’d like to ask you to consider:
We could have a mobile network that uses only a fraction of the radiation.
Will anyone here explain how that works in practice?
The current method is cheaper and generates higher profits for the operators.
Is that really what we want?
In other words, are we willing to risk 1% of our offspring having visible defects just to save money?
Please keep in mind that this only applies to visible damage.
They aren't born in humans.
It's awful to say, but it's true—these children are being aborted.
You won't find them in any statistics.
But is that what we want?
Is that really what we want, just so it can be cheap?
Thank you very much for your attention.