Subject: Re EMF and the law (Teule).
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 043503 -0600
From: Roy Beavers
To: guru
--------------------------------------------------
.........Response from EMF-L.......
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: EMF and the law (Teule)...
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 10:40:34 +0100
From: EMFscreensaver@t-online.de (Harald Roth, EMFscreensaver)
To: roy@emfguru.com
Hi Gerrit,
I am no expert in this sector of law, and my thoughts are restricted to my
german view. We have similar provisions in our constitution which also
contains the right of acting in economics, provided no other rights are
violated. There is an obvious conflict between the right of personal
integrity and the right of economic activity. This conflict must be
resolved. If you only have an abstract risk with no body harm ever proven
the right of economics would prevail.
However, in this case, we have more than just an abstract risk. We have the
scientific proof of increased stress via Adrenaline production and of
increased eyestrain. Both proofs have been made with accepted orthodox
medical tests.
Best regards,
Harald
At 11:29 12.11.00 -0600, you wrote:
>.........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