An installation is considered acceptable
if less than 10% of the population is disturbed in its well-being.
Hans-Ulrich Jakob. Electrical engineer IUT, President of Gigaherz.
Thank you very much for coming in such numbers to my birthday party. This morning at 4:30, I turned 81 exactly.
As probably the oldest person in this federal square, I would like to send you a message that dates back to 1996, when our government first had to look at the limits of electromagnetic fields.
In 1996, Swiss Radio International decided to reorganize the short-wave radio station in Schwarzenburg. Because previously, two scientific studies had shown that in the irradiated areas around the transmitter there were:
- 5 times more people with sleep disorders
- 4 times more depressed people
- 3 times more cancer patients
- 2 times more cases of diabetes than in non-irradiated areas.
And this at field strengths between 0.4 and 4V/m. This corresponds roughly to the current exposure of mobile phone transmitters.
However, since the so-called renovation at the time concealed a strengthening of the system by a factor of 5 instead of a reduction, the leaders decided to issue the following decree:
“An installation is considered acceptable if less than 10% of the population is disturbed in its well-being. Renovations are only necessary if more than 25% of the population is seriously affected. Sleep disorders are not considered as damage, but only as a nuisance.”
What is written here is a quote from the environmental report of the time to the Federal Council.
Although the transmitter had to be interrupted following a national revolt in 1998, this absurdity of 10 and 25% became bogged down in the subsequent judicial practice.
On 30 August 2000, the Federal Court issued a first judgment against the Federal Council’s ordinance on non-ionising radiation in the field of mobile radiocommunications:
“Limit values should not be determined on the basis of medical aspects, but on the basis of economic viability and technical feasibility”.
On 8.2.2001, the Aargau Administrative Court doubled its judgment with the following verdict: “The Federal Law on Environmental Protection is not an impediment law, but a measurement law. Demand for some products should not be prohibited, but should be met by some risk reduction.”
And on 5.3.2001, the Bernese Administrative Court stated: “The population is not entitled to zero risk. Limit values are only used to keep damage within reasonable limits.”
Dear colleagues and fellow citizens: These damages have never been justified and will never be! Let us finally put an end to this absurdity!