Gegevens

Gepubliceerd: donderdag 25 juli 2013 16:02

EMR Policy Institute (nieuwsbericht) -  July 18, 2013, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered the Israeli Government to investigate how many children in Israel already suffer from EHS [electrohypersensitivity].

The Order was issued in response to a Petition to the Israeli Supreme Court to ban WiFi in schools that was submitted in August, 2012.

The Government must submit the result of its investigation to the Court by November 16, 2013.

The Israeli Supreme Court's decision seems to indicate that the Court does not trust the Government's statements as:

(1) Not only did the Court order the Government to check how many children are already sick with EHS, thereby accepting the existence of EHS and its correlation to radiation, but it also demanded that the Government specify in its statement the exact measures it took in order to conduct the inquiry.

(2) Another indication that the Court found the statement of the Government unreliable can be found in the fact that the Supreme Court ordered that the Government's reply on November 16, MUST be supported with a sworn affidavit; Meaning that every fact mentioned, data collected or statement made in the Government's answer must be supported by an Affidavit, attesting to the truthfulness of the claim.

This order is the result of an extensive brief which was written by Dafna Tachover and submitted to the Court on June 13, 2013. A 65-page brief, supported by 640 pages of appendices, it emphasized, amongst other things, the problem of EHS and claimed that it is unreasonable to expose children to WiFi when it is proven to cause sickness.

Furthermore, it should be noted that in the July 18, 2013 Supreme Court hearing, when the Government was asked what it intends to do if there would be a child with EHS attending the school, the attorney for the Government. answered: "The WiFi will be turned off in the school".

Ms. Dafna Tachover, herself an attorney, has been representing herself since Feb. 2013. Mr. Bach, who represented her until that time, is still representing the other Plaintiffs (including a National Parent Organization and two children).

It is Ms. Tachover's opinion that even though the Government lied about its policy in regard to the deployment of WiFi, if the Court is not convinced that this technology is harmful and the damage is not hypothetical and abstract but existent and real, it will not rule that the government's actions are unreasonable and will not ban the use of WiFi in schools.

The brief claimed that the Court was unaware that the damage from wireless technology is proven and existing, as the Court, just like the public, loves its wireless gadgets and has been reading intentionally misleading headlines in the papers such as the ones claiming that "no correlation between cell phones and cancer was proven" over the past 15 years.

The brief attempted to prove the following:

(1) Prove EHS is an existing illness, caused by EMFs.
(2) Prove that the thermal safety standard was proven false as early as 40 years ago.
(3) Prove that it is unreasonable to rely on WHO considering it is corrupt.
(4) Prove that the Government's evaluation on the issue was unprofessional and negligent at best.
(5) Prove how the industry intentionally misled the public.

Regarding the safety standards the brief claimed:

(1) The contention of the Government that the existing Israeli standard (1/10 of the Thermal Standard) "Protects with absolute certainty from known adverse health effects" is ridiculous as:

How can it be protective if Ms. Tachover and others are sick with EHS?
How can it be protective when thousands of papers prove biological effects?
How can it be protective when even the corrupt WHO declared RF a 2B carcinogen?

(2) The brief showed that the government is so reckless in dealing with wireless technology that it does not even know of its own ignorance in how to measure radiation from WiFi considering the special modulation of WiFi.

EHS

The brief emphasized the EHS issue to indicate that the damage already exists. Affidavits from 7 professionals with EHS were provided, including an affidavit of a mother, both daughters of whom suffer from EHS. Supporting scientific evidence was presented, and it was shown that the government did nothing to investigate the issue despite ample notice and - legal obligation. In addition, the brief attempted to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the claim that the condition does not exist and/or that it is not proven to be caused by EMF's.

It should be noted that in Ms. Tachover's correspondence with the Government. Committees on the issue of WiFi in schools prior to the submission of the lawsuit, the Committee eventually admitted the existence of EHS. The committee in its final report wrote:
"If there is a child with sensitivity to RF radiation, the Ministry will provide a solution on an individual basis".

What next:

On Nov. 16 the Government must submit its Answer and the Plaintiffs will have to respond 15 days later. The Court indicated that following the submission of these responses, it intends to reach a decision.

While the Court has still not made a decision, the Court's Order is an important development.

In the summary of the brief Gandhi's words were quoted:

"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it. Truth stands, even if there be no public support. It is self sustained. "

It seems that the court is recognizing the truth.

(Report from Attorney Dafna Tachover)