Professor Hecht—who, sadly, has since passed away—said as far back as 15 years ago:
A distinction between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation is no longer justified.
The damage is actually the same. It's just a matter of time.
Now I would like to introduce the next speaker, my colleague Dr. med. dent., dentist Claus
Scheingraber, a dentist and electrobiologist.
And Claus Scheingraber studied mineralogy and dentistry in Munich.
He paid for his college education by working as a nurse.
He has been a dentist since 1977 and ran his own practice from 1981 to 2018.
His focus has always been on holistic and biological dentistry, and on avoiding and eliminating toxic
substances in dental treatment—such as amalgam and the like.
He has also been actively involved in providing dental care to various nursing homes and
residential facilities in the greater Munich area.
And, incidentally, he has made a name for himself as a building biologist.
In 1990, he founded his own construction and electrobiological consulting firm specializing in physical environmental hazards.
There, he conducted surveys of residential and work settings.
He is a founding member of the Arbeitskreis Elektrobiologie e. V., which was established in 1986.
And since 1991, he has been the president of this important association, known as AEB for short.
He has authored several articles in professional journals on the topics of electrobiology and building biology.
He has given lectures and presentations on the topics of electrobiology and environmental medicine at universities,
universities of applied sciences, adult education centers, and other adult education institutions both in Germany and
abroad, and has also conducted independent research on the effects of electromagnetic fields on humans and the environment.
He was a member of the DGUHT (German Society for Environmental and Human Toxicology) from 2011 to 2025 and
chaired the Working Group on Physical Environmental Pollutants.
He has been a member of EuroPAM since 2016.
And in 2002, he helped launch the Freiburg Appeal and other appeals regarding the use of
cellular communications and electromagnetic fields.
In 2014, he was awarded the EVA—the Electrosmog Prevention Award—for his work combating physical environmental pollution.
And since 2020, he has been working on his book project: “Electrobiology,” ... which will be finished when?
You'll probably tell us about it later.
His goal is always to have electromagnetic hypersensitivity recognized as an environmental hazard.
He advocates for the establishment of exposure limits and the introduction of precautionary thresholds for preventive
health protection, and argues that these limits must be lowered.
And he's also in favor of establishing programs at educational institutions in fields such as
physical stress in environmental medicine... and so on.
And we are pleased to say that we were able to secure his participation in today's event.
We also met during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021.
And I'm glad, dear Claus, that you're here today at the press symposium to share your expertise.
And I can’t help but get everyone in the audience excited about your presentation on mobile communications and the
increased health risks posed by 5G. The floor is yours, Claus.
Dear Ronny, thank you very much for the introduction.
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, in my presentation today, I would like to inform you about the physiological and
health-related issues associated with cellular communications, with a special focus on 5G.
Professor Bergholz has already explained it very well. Why do we need 5G?
Ultimately, it is the latency—the transmission of signals from the sensor to the effector.
Today, that's still in the millisecond range.
The millisecond range is far too slow to ultimately enable autonomous driving and the
autonomous control of devices without any issues.
That's why we need 5G—and even 5G isn't enough.
6G is already in development and will replace the 5G network after the 2030s.
When we discuss cellular communications, the first thing we need to consider is the field strengths and
energy densities associated with cellular communications.
The current limit value, which is based on the Federal Government's 26th Ordinance on the
Control of Environmental Pollution, is 61 V/m.
Or, as Mr. Buchner has already aptly pointed out, we have just under 10 watts per square meter.
The values here are in milliwatts because those are the biological units.
As Professor Bergholz has aptly pointed out, the attenuation of high-frequency waves in the gigahertz range is
significantly greater than in the megahertz range, so we need either more transmitting stations or longer ranges.
ICNIRP is considering whether to increase the field strength and, consequently, raise the limit to 120 V/m.
Please look at the remaining lines. In other words, starting from 10 watts per square meter, this means
an increase to 40 watts per square meter for the body.
Irresponsible with regard to human biology and human health.
Well, what does it look like? How many transmission towers do we need in Germany if we want to
provide nationwide 5G coverage for our population?
A comparison with China is in order here.
Shenzhen, a major city with a population of 13 million, needs 35,000 base stations to provide adequate 5G coverage
throughout the city. Germany has a population of 84 million.
As of 2019, 72,000 sites were needed to provide 3G and 4G coverage on the existing networks.
Once 5G is fully rolled out, more than 300,000 base stations will be needed—as of today, there are 222,000.
So we'll be reaching the 300,000 mark soon.
By the way, with 6G, we can expect a further increase in the number of installations.
It will get to the point where there will be a transmitter under every manhole cover, in every electrical distribution
box, on every streetlight, and on every traffic light.
That's the outlook for 2030 and beyond. All I can say is, from my perspective, "Cheers—here's to what's coming."
Yes, do we have any alternatives to radio communication?
I'd have to say, yes and no. We have to make a distinction.
Industry, commerce, and the government cannot coexist.
As already explained, industry and commerce require lower latency—latency that will be in the microsecond range
with 5G, and perhaps even in the nanosecond range with 6G.
What's not shown on this slide: this is very important, and the military is heavily involved in it.
After all, you can sum it up in one sentence: Whoever shoots faster lives longer.
But, of course, they deliberately avoid telling the public that the military is a major driving force behind this technology.
Yes, there are definitely alternatives available to the general public in the private sector.
Above all, as I just mentioned, we could reduce indoor private communication by 90% if we replaced Wi-Fi with LAN networks—that
is, wired networks—and replaced standard cell phone or cordless phone communication with optical communication.
As we all know, light doesn't pass through walls.
From a technical standpoint, everything has been prepared, developed, and is available on the market.
However, it is not being introduced for deliberate reasons.
Yes, I'm now going to duplicate the image that Professor Bergholz has already shown.
In my opinion, the slide on the right is very important.
After all, the mobile communications industry would have us believe that, in the double-digit
gigahertz range, microwaves no longer penetrate the body.
To do this, please take a look at the black box on the left.
If you've read the text there, you'll see that Professor Alexander Pressmann conducted experiments on rats as early as
the 1970s to determine the dose required to reach an LD50.
LD50 (lethal dose) refers to a lethal dose. It is a measure used in experiments in physics, chemistry, and
other fields, where it is generally considered equivalent.
When 50% of the test animals have died, maximum toxicity has been reached and the experiment is terminated.
So, let's take a look at the figures. At 40 MHz, 20 W/m² was required to ultimately kill half of
the test animals. At 40 GHz, it was only 40 mW/m².
So, if you compare the graph on the right with the box on the left, you'll see a discrepancy here that cannot be reconciled.
And we want to take a closer look at that.
As Professor Bergholz has aptly explained, it is the energy that is carried by an electromagnetic wave.
Every housewife knows that electromagnetic waves carry energy—after all, she uses a microwave oven to cook food.
Well, there's no need to go into that in detail. Which EM wave causes the most damage?
Yes, everyone is familiar with sunburn. The wavelength range associated with sunburn—that is, UVB light—is
between 315 µm and 280 µm (in the micrometer range).
If we look at the frequency range, it lies between 900 and 1,000 terahertz (THz).
The penetration depth is now only a few micrometers.
If we compare the penetration depths at 500 megahertz (MHz) and 2.4 gigahertz (GHz), they
are still 1.5 and 0.5 centimeters, respectively.
So, the industry's claim that microwaves in the gigahertz range aren't harmful to us is
absolute nonsense and biologically irresponsible.
Yes, what do we need to take into account if we assume that electromagnetic waves are hazardous?
First and foremost: The dose is a crucial factor.
Ultimately, dose is nothing more than intensity times time.
Professor Hecht—who, sadly, has since passed away—said as far back as 15 years ago:
A distinction between ionizing radiation and non-ionizing radiation is no longer justified.
The damage is actually the same. It's just a matter of time.
If I take a high dose, it doesn't take long to cause biological and health damage.
If I take a low dose, it lasts a long time—sometimes even decades.
However, as I said, there are other factors that are not always taken into account today and
that many scientists are unwilling to investigate.
The first three terms—frequency, wavelength, and power density—are actually characterized by dose.
But it’s just as important to consider the type of modulation—pulsed or non-pulsed—the frequency bandwidth, as
Professor Bergholz aptly explained, the pulse rate, the polarization—whether the wave is more vertical or
horizontal—which affects us more while we’re sleeping or standing, something like that—and the rise time of a signal.
How fast—how many dB are reached in milliseconds?
It is well known that science even uses high-frequency holes in membranes today, and this is supposedly not harmful.
Back in 1995, Professor Silny had already posited the following in his lectures:
A high-frequency wave that penetrates the body is attenuated.
The wavelength and speed of propagation change in the process.
Unfortunately, he couldn't quantify it; the AEB tried to do so.
Here is a graph. We used ourselves as test subjects and ran through a frequency range from 400 MHz to 2.2 GHz.
In the process, we found that 90% of the radiation is absorbed in the 400 MHz to 900 MHz range and in the 900 to 2,000 MHz range.
That's 99%, and from 2,000 to 3,000 MHz, it's actually 99.9%.
This means that the higher the frequency of the wave, the more intensely it remains in our body—and thus the more
intense the energy that affects our body and our cells.
And Professor Buchner aptly said: “The actual mechanism of destruction is the destabilization of the cell membrane.”
When the cell membrane can no longer maintain the balance between the inside and outside, cell
damage begins. And that is when the disease begins.
Yes, but Professor Klitzing (Dr. Klaus von Klitzing) also conducted experiments as early as 1999:
So how does cell phone radiation ultimately affect our brains? And here you can see two charts.
The graph on the left shows the data for a healthy, young person who sleeps well in a room
free of cell phone signals—a field-free room.
The graph on the right shows the same subject who was exposed to a cellular frequency for only three
minutes and at only 1 μW/m², i.e., a very low power density.
In the image on the right, you can see a huge signal at 10 hertz.
In an EEG, 10 hertz is the signal that characterizes a patient who is waking up.
This patient will say the next day that he didn't sleep well.
Well, a bad night's sleep doesn't necessarily make you sick.
But if you sleep poorly for many years, there will be consequences.
And that's what we tried to track using nighttime sleep profiles.
Over the years, the AEB has studied a number of people to determine what their sleep patterns look like.
Unfortunately, I don't have time to explain a sleep profile to you in detail.
But I just want to tell you this much: There are five stages of sleep, ranging from Stage 1 (awake) to Stage 5.
During this time, our sleep stages ultimately alternate back and forth.
During the middle part of the sleep cycle, the deep sleep phases become shallower.
Only moderate sleep phases occur now.
And during the waking phase, sleep is actually mostly just light sleep. REM sleep is the
most common type of sleep during this phase.
This image shows a healthy person sleeping in a field-free environment.
And now I'm going to show you a picture of a terminally ill person.
I don't think I need to explain to you—even as a layperson—that this sleep profile has nothing to do with what was shown earlier.
Nothing is the same anymore. There is no longer a deep sleep phase.
There are only sleep phases between the wakefulness phase and the deep sleep phase.
This is actually called regulatory rigidity. You can also observe this phenomenon in HRV, or heart rate variability.
This situation is life-threatening. I hate to say it, but I'm saying it publicly for the first time now.
Some of these patients died within half a year.
Yes, the effect of 5G radiation on the blood.
Due to time constraints, I won't go into detail about the individual studies here.
I just want to show you that there are plenty of studies.
You can read all of them for yourself online.
I'd like to show you what the consequences of this are.
This is an American study, specifically one conducted prior to the introduction of
radio-based meters—in this case, electricity meters.
Blood samples were taken from the participants beforehand and analyzed, specifically to examine the red blood cells.
Specifically, whether any morphological changes have occurred in these blood cells. You can see the
top row, which shows the condition before admission.
You can see beautiful, round erythrocytes—that is, red blood cells—under a dark-field microscope.
Then the radio measurement devices were installed, and then blood samples were taken from
them again. Now take a look at the bottom row.
This means that the rounding has broken down; in some places, the cell wall is cracking open, and in the image
on the far right, we see the formation of money rolls.
That might be an absolutely pathological finding.
The formation of fat rolls is also an indicator of a tendency to have a heart attack.
Yes, the impact of 5G radiation on the studies.
I don't want to go into detail about the slide; it would just take up my time.
You can research and look up everything yourself online and then make your own judgment.
An important study that I would like to discuss in detail is one from Salford, specifically from 2003.
He studied rats and wanted to see what effects radiation would have.
He irradiated rats with three different doses and then examined them. But he did something unusual.
In such scientific experiments, the rats—or mice—are usually killed after the exposure period
ends, and their brains or organ samples are examined.
And then, of course, you don't find anything. Why?
After all, it's not ionizing radiation. Salford came up with the key idea.
He said that you actually have to wait out what's called a "degeneration period."
Because weak radiation takes a certain amount of time to cause damage.
That's exactly what he did. He left the rats there for 50 days.
And then you'll see something like the image on the right. The image on the right.
Here you can see the pathological brains of rats.
These dark spots are what are known as necrotic foci. They are areas of brain damage.
It is interesting to note that the rats did not exhibit any behavioral abnormalities.
You can certainly observe the same thing in people as well.
Yes. Freedom of research is important to me.
I had the opportunity to read an interesting interview with Prof. Maike Mevissen.
There, a journalist—(the print is so small I can't even read it myself anymore)—as I said, a journalist asked Prof.
Mevissen some questions and interviewed her about her research.
You can read on your own, more or less. (Because, well… my glasses aren't strong enough anymore.)
Should I help out quickly? I'll read it aloud.)
So, in response to the first question about academic freedom, my colleague says, “What bothers me is that
institutions like the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection constantly dismiss everything.”
Research is highly political, and we are constantly confronted with the view that there must be no health risks.
And then there's a question about interference. Yes, what bothered me the most was that people were
constantly trying to tell us how to do our jobs.
The WHO expert in charge wanted to decide for us which studies were even eligible for the
assessment. We had to constantly push back.
"And as for the study design—I know one thing about animal studies: you can set them up in such a way that
you find nothing by creating statistical noise that masks relevant effects." That's shocking.
I just realized I need to see the eye doctor again—I need stronger glasses.
Yes, I would like to introduce you to another significant category of noxious substances .
Specifically, the synergistic effects of various environmental pollutants.
The oldest pollutants we know of are smoke and asbestos. Today, we would say microfibers.
We all know that someone who has smoked for 20 years has a six times higher risk of developing lung cancer.
Anyone who has worked with microfibers for 20 years without protection has an 11-fold higher risk.
Now, one might think that if someone has taken both risks, then their risk is 17 times higher.
No, I'm sure you've already read that. He has a 60-fold higher risk of developing one of these types of tumors.
With this slide, I'd like to show you—it actually comes from Professor Witte in Oldenburg.
These are the main environmental factors and pollutants that affect us.
How people deal with this depends in part on genetics.
There are people who are very good at detoxifying on their own, without seeking medical or naturopathic help.
However, there are people who are completely unable to detoxify.
But the consequences are generally nitrosative or oxidative stress.
I would like to summarize the six main factors that are causing us humans to become increasingly sick today.
It is the physical environmental stressors.
This includes not only cellular radiation, but ultimately also low-frequency and static magnetic field
exposure, geoengineering, and weather modification.
Here, microaerosols—toxic microaerosols in nanoform—are sprayed into the air, eventually
settling on us and being ingested along with our food.
And finally, food. Genetic engineering is becoming more and more...
Right now, the EU is trying to push through a regulation that would obscure the identification of
genetically modified organisms in food—which is irresponsible.
Then there are the vaccines. By that, I don't just mean the mRNA vaccine, but also traditional vaccines.
It is irresponsible to do this when we consider that these products contain toxic substances
such as thiomersal, a toxic mercury compound.
And, of course, chemical exposure.
Let's consider insecticides, pesticides, and even mechanical stress.
These are dust particles and microplastics. Microplastics in nanoform can penetrate cells.
All of these interactions will ensure—to put it sarcastically—that socially acceptable early retirement is guaranteed.
We are slowly coming to the end of my presentation.
I'd like to give you another example of just how much our government cares about research into environmental pollutants.
In Germany, there are only ten institutions that deal with such issues.
But if you've already read the second line, you'll see that there are 163 research institutes dedicated to gender studies.
Now I ask you, what is actually more important?
Well, you can judge for yourself how much our government values the health of its citizens—namely, nothing.
Yes, here's a summary again. I don't want to read it out in detail because I'm short on time.
The source is listed below. You can read it for yourself and extract more detailed information from it.
Yes, Mr. Weikl asked me to say a few more things about prevention.
So, outdoors, there's really nothing you can do to avoid it, because the field strengths are
simply present everywhere due to technical antennas.
But whether you stay healthy for a long time really depends on how you manage your indoor stressors.
Even today, I still find that the main sources of exposure come from indoors—namely, cordless phones
and Wi-Fi. People often don't want to believe it.
They come to pick me up, then I take measurements, and then I find that while the external exposure might only be in the
three-digit microwatt range, your own sources of exposure—Wi-Fi and cordless phones—are causing milliwatt-level exposure.
So if you want to reduce radiation exposure, you should actually measure your indoor exposure
first before you start reducing radiation outdoors.
I'm not saying that it isn't desirable to significantly reduce external radiation.
Yes, that brings me to the end of my presentation.
Thank you for your attention. I know this raises some questions.
I will, of course, be available to participate in the discussion. Thank you.