Subject:  EMF and the law (Teule).
Date:     Sun, 12 Nov 2000 112433 -0600
From:     Roy Beavers 
To:       guru 
--------------------------------------------------

.........From EMF-L.......

This is very intriguing.  .........guru......

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: EMF and the law.
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 15:32:54 +0100
From: teule 
Reply-To: teuleger@wxs.nl
To: roy@emfguru.com
References: <3A0BDE30.571E2D91@emfguru.com>

Dear Roy,

Could you be so kind to pass this question to the list?

In the Netherlands I'm investigating the possibilities of EMF versus the Dutch
Groundlaw. I was writing a booklet about this, and that is now reviewed by some
juridical advisers to my publisher. In our Groundlaw, the most important law
that we have, it says in art. 11, that we have the "right of untouchability of
our body (except when it is regulated by law in antother way)". The normal rule
is untouchability. The exception is for police actions and some other things,
like a physical examination for a government job. There is no law, prepared as
an exception to art. 11, that allows any (telephone)company to radiate EMF all
over the place. Other occasional laws about side subjects can never overrule the
Groundlaw, if they are not explicitely created to do so.

The point is that up till now the discussion alway has been about damage to
cells and to the body. But this article, and there must be similar articles in
the groundlaw of every country, suggest that "biological effect" in itself is
already breaking this law. There is a clear difference between a biological
effect that does not (yet) cause damage and real proven biological damage. Even
the Dutch Health Council does not deny biological effects, but following the
ICNIRP thoughts they are supposed to be harmless, they say (I call that the
"waterbag" theory" as opposed to the bio-electricity theory).

According to this law one should have the right to say: I do not want to be
artificially radiated, whatever the consequences may be (damage or no damage).
The scientific proof for "biological effects" seems to me easier to give than
scientific proof for damage.  In fact thousands of articles describe the
biological effects, where the damages now or in some future are still under
discussion. (Sending out a radiation that could couse damage in some way and
timeframe  is called "creation of danger" and should be seen as unlawfull as
well.)

Is there any experience with this type of talking? Did anyone use it in court?
In the Netherlands there were several court sessions about celltowers, but they
were fruitless, because most of them handled building procedures and that kind
of secondary stuff. I have the feeling, that a judge never will give any answer
to a question not posed. So, we have to ask the right question, as above.

Please give me your thoughts and ideas on this.

Gerrit Teule
Netherlands


>


Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com