1Bürgerinitiative Stuttgart-mobile - West club to protect the public from elect romagnetic eV March 2009 www.

der-mast-must-weg.de info@der-mast-muss-weg.de Justice: A courageous article at the right time A judge in question is the mobile Lex Time and again people are desperate or resigned over an absurd law in the mobile phone issue. appeared in the New Journal of Administrative Law 3 / 2009 now the article "mobile versus human rights - Technical ko or compromise?", written by Bernd Irmfrid Budzinski, Judge at the Administrative Court of Freiburg. He criti cized the law. His conclusion after discussing the health hazards of mobile phon es: "Considering all this, it appears the" wide discretion of the state "in the desi gn of mobile telephony services, in the opinion of the EGMR1 probably just becau se of their" fair balance "should be given no more maintained properly. It was n ot just done that is possible and is commanded to have the precautions to protec t the health (as it derives also from Article 174 EC II). Rather, one was admitt ed Maximalkonzept uncompromising. In that regard, in the 26th BImSchVO ("aware") is not a "precautionary approach" to high-frequency radiation include the contr ol of the "competent authorities according to the progress of science simply wou ld be" as the ECHR on for enough stops. On the contrary, the German radiation pr otection authorities have not found even already has a "sufficient legal basis f or the current uncontrolled exposure of the population and keep them out precaut ionary measures for" inevitable ". For this reason and in view of now in the tho usands walking concerned (is also) the courts the task of swabs from a maximumseek and find compromises. That would be possible without the mobile phone to ca ll in question may in principle, the approach has to be taken from above, but wo uld also be time for an absolutely necessary - evidence available. " 26th BISchV off because it is defined by that one below the threshold will not i ll. The verordnungswidrig ill become citizens is declared to be psychosomatic ca se. It is worth recalling the Behördendialektik: if the regulation specifies th at the limit is 10 million μWatt/m2, one can not in compliance, become ill. Thi s is then prescribed, the authority is relieved and does not need to act. Anyone who is still sick then, is a hypochondriac. This drives legal positivism grotes que flowers. Thus the law makes use in a grotesque way, the fact that humans, in contrast to many animals no sense organ with which he can perceive electromagne tic fields. The Stuttgart administrative court dismissed the application so in N ovember 2008 on health hazards caused by the mobile phone masts in the Bismarck Street Others back, "because this plant does not smell or noise nuisances caused a still ongoing visitor traffic on them, and not disruptive to the outside worl d makes its appearance" 3 Dear Justice: the cloud from Chernobyl in 1986, we hav e not heard and smelled. The reasoning of the judiciary is a grotesque and arrog ance. Budzinski face this absurd interpretation of the law with reality. He poin ts to the contradiction of "the public interest in a mobile care and out of the health forced exposure: "Includes the right to respect for the right apartment to use it also unaffected by invisible or intangible injuries such as noise, emissions, smells or similar agents, said the European Court of Human Rights - ECHR - in remarkable clarity ... should, however, the in 20 feet away standing mobile station fully irradiate more house and yard of the complainant, although conclusive argument for sleep disorders in addition to major health problems such as tinnitus and heart rhythm disturbances and (for livestock) even deformities caused his sollen4. sufficien t until the (scientific) proof of damages, it said the court that the permit iss ued in a formally correct procedure and a "fair balance" the interest of the gen eral public on a mobile network coverage with the health interests of the compla inant were made. On the latter, there are here, however, considerable doubt. " 3 4

Criticism of the positivist legal opinion Budzinski argued not only formally, or building laws, but specifically with the health hazards preparedness and commitment have already occurred. He turns away from the dominant positivist Rechtsauffassung2 unspeakable,€with the ground tha t the 26.BISchV determined the limits and can not be called into question by a c ourt, hiding the reality and not claims for health risks involved. The courts re fuse to review the diseases caused by mobile phone by pointing to the 1 2 European Court of Human Rights is the basic option of legal positivism tells the judge, judging from a regulatory context set by the state. This is given by law and creates the reality, not the reality of the law. Our own discretion of the judge does not count, he must not put existing laws in question. A current pract ical critique of positivism as the dominant legal ideology production interests: Quast, Thomas, Positivism, method of thinking in the interest of the rulers, fi fth in Documentation Open Academy in 2008, Gelsenkirchen. Administrative Court of Stuttgart, reference 13 K 4465/06, 4.11.2008 Budzinski f ootnote: "It seems more likely to act at the tip of an iceberg as an isolated in cident: According to an estimate by the Federal Office for Radiation Protection is currently around 25 000 people are normal on the "escape" from mobile station s, meaning they sleep at least temporarily in the basement, in a caravan in the forest or in a remote second home (as Financial Times Germany v. 1 8, 2008). " -2Grenzwerte include any precautionary aspect Vehement Budzinski is the ICNIRP guidelines for setting limits in question, and suggests the need to limit reduction of one million times: "The limits of ICNIRP and also the 26th BImSchVO are not "kompromissartig" possi bly in a "medium" intensity range required for mobile broadcasts emitted radiati on, but at its extreme upper edge through to mechanical and physical damage has occurred. Only one in all limits more common - in this case 50-fold - "security clearance" is up to the beginning of the occurrence of excessive heating or dama ge from overheating, as from experience with microwave ovens known to everyone. The distance to the bottom "Sendeminimum", however, does not amount to the 50 -, 100 -, or perhaps 1000-fold, but the 10-billion-fold (105) of what is required. This means that billions of times higher than the minimum value that would be e nough just yet to keep a properly functioning mobile phone conversation, and in fact may be sent at least up to a million times higher will also be sent. This b uilds on the intensity in an area in the range of three orders of magnitude belo w the limits discussed "non-thermal" or "biological" disorders and took no accou nt of possible dangers from the outset. And this is despite the occurrence of re cognized institutions, despite the utmost caution in assessing effects of mobile phone possible, sometimes even for "probably" kept. In that regard, lacking in the required "proof" is often only the knowledge of the mechanism of action. Con sequently, a "fair balance" of competing interests to be already in technical te rms the question. This would rather - at least as a precaution - one orientation (also) on Sendeminimum and assume that a potentially millions of lowering the l imits. Thus, the European Parliament now has the applicable limits for "outdated " and said of Liechtenstein by Law 29th 5th 2008 reduction in their already deci ded. "Waiver of this permanent exhibit" irradiation "of all the houses - the socalled" indoor coverage. That would help the (potential) victims in their own ho mes is expected to substantially and also reduce the radiation exposure in the o pen air by up to 80% - with high energy savings. " Budzinski to meet the criticism with the federal government for the Environment and Nature Conservation Germany The Bund, in his position paper on the prevailing case law: "The force today, only the thermal effects of electromagnetic fields related sta ndards of protection for the rich and famous ... effects described by the non-th ermal effects are far from enough, and urgently demand an adjustment to the curr

ent state of knowledge ... Even if legally effective measures be omitted because of the electromagnetic theory of offices and courts are not recognized evidence of impacts through fields so far (but not least, industrial policy reasons play a role), now takes up the force not only in Germany but internationally establi shed precautionary principle .... . Courts evaluate the protection that is payab le under the statutory provisions. If these are inadequate or mention of any spe cific claim (eg in the form of a concrete specification);€refer them to the rol e of the legislature to fill the right to protection and to give concrete has. . ... A clear formulation of what is reasonable and pension entitlement of the Com pany by the legislature is therefore overdue, because technically and legally un tenable judgments dominate the situation ... For one, the reasoning is not tenab le, that science-based mechanisms were missing (which neither should be a part o f screening have yet to be provided as the basis for a measurable or demonstrabl e effect). On the other hand are toxicologically justified in settling for the s tandard pollution control the known risk groups of the population considered and are not "average people" be recognized. Here is more insistent demand that the legislature finally meets both professional and competent legal requirements. In particular an untenable definition of "scientific proof" by the Radiation Prote ction Commission to the test. She urgently needs to be adjusted to the way previ ous assessment in other areas of air pollution control. "(Anm.6, p.26 ff) And finally, he criticized the lack of moderation and respect with which the sup ply network is established: "The lack of" fair "balance is - and then the immission exacerbated considerably - just for the design of mobile Supply: Again, lack of any compromise in terms of a restriction to a" less ". Under a compromise, one could imagine that every citizen as far as possible, at least in his home, is free to decide whether he p articipates in the mobile market and how strong and how long it will expose to t he radiation caused thereby will. Instead, the mobile phone regardless of the wi ll itself is home to the targeted citizens residing in their apartment with a sp ecially enhanced performance, supported by all sides through to them. Even at ni ght during sleep, they can not escape from such exposure. This is everyone, whet her or not he mobile phone, day and night and in any place - and inescapable "ir radiated." The transmission intensity may be up to 600 times higher than in a fr ee to the limited supply. The fact can any alleged health risks only arise throu gh not by a mere - truly "mobile" - Supply the road outside, which was enough fo r a Sendeminimum. A just settlement with the health concerns of residents thus r equired at least a partThe publication of Budzinski is in a leading legal journal is another encouragin g sign, after now, the European Parliament, the existing limits in question, cri ticized the Federal Medical the German Mobile Telecommunication Research Program and the Bund finds: "The health of the people takes damage from coverage, unnat ural radiation a previously encountered power density. Short and long-term effec ts are foreseeable and will manifest above all in the next generation, if not po litically responsible and will act immediately. "6 6 For future wireless technologies. Justification and requirements to limit the dangers and risks posed by high-frequency electromagnetic fields, federal BUND, 2008