by Dr.Harald Wiesendanger– Klartext
What the mainstream media is hiding
Limit values are supposedly there to protect us. In fact, they protect more business interests: they lull us into a false sense of security so that we don’t ask, don’t worry, don’t rebel, don’t refuse to consume. In this way, they serve to dumb down the people – often with downright criminal intent. Because a state that plays down dangers to life and limb (“safe below threshold X”) instead of eliminating them is guilty of assisting in bodily harm. If you want to stay healthy, you have to see through the comprehensive, lobby-driven swindle.
Instead of protecting us from perceived dangers to our health, government agencies have always been turning the prayer wheel. Stereotypically, they reassure us with arguments of the same pattern: “The limit value determined by scientific experts for pollutant X from source Y is demonstrably not exceeded – so there is no reason to worry at all!”
To this end, regulations have been enacted at the national and EU level, the complexity of which tends to go beyond any upper limits. In Germany, for example, the Drinking Water Ordinance, the Radiation Protection Ordinance, and the Food, Commodity, and Animal Feed Code prescribe the definition of maximum permissible values and ensure compliance with them. Below these values, the pollutants are considered harmless.
The general trust in this form of consumer “protection” is enormous, as a careful glance at the filled shopping carts of supermarket customers shows. A Forsa survey from August 2021 confirms the impressions collected. (1) “Food safety” is “very important” for 88% of German consumers when they buy meat and sausage products; 82% emphasize this when it comes to fresh fruit and vegetables. Four out of five expect that limit values for residues of pollutants will be observed, for example, when using antibiotics in animal husbandry or pesticides. And 72% have high confidence that this expectation will be fully met; for 78%, this sense of security has even “consolidated in recent years.”
Figures like this show that no attempt to dumb down the people is stupid enough to be guaranteed to fail. Only a tiny minority of the population is able to escape the multimedia brainwashing that sweeps even the most monstrous health risk under the carpet based on evidence.
13 arguments against false security
• Limit values always refer to a single substance supplied in isolation. However, humans are constantly exposed to a mixture of pollutants: an unmanageable number of artificial substances that they constantly inhale, inhale, or absorb through the skin. No limit value sufficiently takes into account the extent to which their respective doses can add up and potentiate the negative consequences.
• No limit value considers the possibility that different pollutants in our body interact with each other, form new compounds, and reinforce each other’s adverse effects. “There is good evidence that joint effects occur even when each component of a combination is present below concentrations at which observable effects occur,” Andreas Kortenkamp, a pharmacologist at the University of London, warned in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives as early as 2007. (2) “The assessment of individual substances downplays several risks,” admits an employee of the Federal Environment Agency: “Investigating possible combinations is an endless task.” (3)
• We ingest one and the same pollutant unnoticed from a wide variety of sources. Example Bisphenol A (BPA): The ubiquitous plastic base promotes diabetes and metabolic disorders, weakens the immune system, increases the risk of cancer, initiates premature puberty, and can make infertile – because it has a hormonal effect; as a so-called “endocrine disruptor” it triggers developmental disorders and behavioral problems in children. What good is a BPA limit value for plastic drinking bottles, no matter how strict, if we simultaneously absorb BPA through packaging, tin cans, milk cartons, microwave dishes, and skin contact with the BPA-coated thermal paper of receipts, travel, and admission tickets? What good is a ban on the highly toxic preservative and pesticide ethoxyquin in fruit, vegetable, and meat production if it can continue to be added to fish feed – and end up on our plates this way? (See CLEAR TEXT “Farmed salmon: poisonous junk food?”.)
• Limits depend on the state of the science. They are based on supposedly determined “effect thresholds”: What is the highest ineffective dose? As long as it is unclear which biological processes trigger exposure to a pollutant and within which period of time, the all-clear can never be given. Because damage often only occurs decades after exposure, “impact thresholds” are always based on high-risk, largely unfounded assumptions.
The common indicator of “tolerable daily intake” (TDI) is correspondingly absurd: The TDI value indicates the amount of a substance that can be ingested daily “over the entire lifetime without any recognizable health risk.” Who knows that in advance with the necessary certainty? Can anyone other than a super Nostradamus foresee what level of intoxication will have proven harmless after several decades?
Example bisphenol A: As of 2015, its TDI within the European Union was 4 micrograms per kilogram of body weight per day. Previously, 50 micrograms were considered acceptable. Only half a decade later, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) decided to reassess the possible health risks associated with using bisphenol A. She published the result in December 2021: The newly derived “tolerable daily intake” was suddenly 0.04 nanograms per kilogram of body weight and day. This is around 100,000 times below the previous health guideline. “Tolerances” can be that flexible. Anyone who trusted those before 2015 was just unlucky.
• Limit values depend on the verification options. However, suitable measuring techniques are often still lacking – for example, microplastics and nanoparticles in drinking water.
• Limit values are based on a healthy, middle-aged average citizen with an intact immune system and metabolism. Concerning children, pregnant women and the elderly, allergy sufferers, those particularly sensitive to harmful substances (MCS), and the chronically ill, they are set far too high. An unbalanced diet, the consumption of medicines, or frequent contact with the relevant or other toxins due to work also cause significant deviations from the average. Some people are exposed to certain pollutants more often, heavily, and for longer than others.
To consider such differences, limit values are lowered by a “safety factor” as a precaution. But because nobody knows how much damage even the most minor amounts of poison can cause in the long run in combination with countless other substances that have not been taken into account, this operand is more likely to have come from reading around in the coffee grounds.
• Limit values follow a simple dose-effect model: the more pollutant, the greater the effect. Smaller amounts often have more dangerous consequences, such as hormonal impurities.
• Limit values promote what they are intended to curb: For polluters, they mean the green light to release pollutants – below the limit. However, even the smallest amounts of carcinogenic, mutagenic, and hormonally active substances can cause irreversible damage.
• Limit values result mainly from investigations of cell cultures and test animals, but such reviews are far too brief to assess what long-term effects an exposure will do. Its transferability to humans is always questionable. “Bio-monitoring” of the bodily functions, fluids, and tissues of test subjects provides little information about the diverse sources of their exposure to pollution. Even the most elaborate “morbidity and mortality studies” referred to by experts say too little. How should any newly developed chemical, add to the thousands upon thousands of toxins already released, immediately make itself felt in abnormal, sick leave and cause of death statistics?
Because of this uncertainty, a generously dimensioned buffer will be built into the limit values as a precaution, and we are reassured. From animal experiments or epidemiological data, scientists first determine a “No Observed Adverse Effect Level” (NOAEL): the threshold below which no adverse effects can be determined. This value is divided by a “safety factor” – usually 100 – to consider the sensitivities between humans and animals and between members of specific population groups. But is 100 enough? Over the past decade, the EU has been forced to gradually reduce the limit value for bisphenol A not just by a factor of 100 – but by a factor of a million, as mentioned above.
• A limit is not an objective fact. It always results from compromises between different stakeholders, and these compromises are usually rotten. Overpowering industry lobbies have always worked successfully to ensure that limit values are either not set at all or are set with a delay and as low as possible. “How chemicals harm people has never really interested their producers,” complains the Kiel toxicologist Prof. Dr. Ottmar Wassermann – “although such profound damage has been predicted for over 100 years, has been known for over 30 years and has now increased exponentially in number.” (4)
Therefore, whether and which limit values apply reflects less the state of scientific knowledge than the assertiveness of certain market participants. “The decision to classify an impact as critical depends on policy priorities and society’s willingness to take certain risks,” the editors of an anthology on “Risk and Responsibility in Modern Society” point out. “It also depends on the importance we give to specific effects. For example, is it more critical that industries maximize their profits under some environmental stress, or is the health and healthy diet of the population more important, with the result that certain technologies are not competitive? (5)
The fact that economy comes before health when it comes to limit values is nowhere shown in more obscene frankness than in the case of high-frequency radio radiation. Determined by disguised lobby groups, they are ultimately there to legitimize the business model of the mobile phone industry. (6)
• You can only find what you are looking for. The majority of all pollutants fall through the search grid as long as no one investigates where they are in everything. Coincidences often determine discoveries.
Example water toys, swimming rings, and wings: They have been on the market for decades – and are a hit in swimming pools, at bathing lakes, and on the beach. But it was only in 2017 that the Fraunhofer Institute for Process Engineering and Packaging (IVV) in Freising determined: Three out of four such products are contaminated with alarming amounts of dangerous solvents, even those that had previously been certified as “tested for harmful substances.” cyclohexanone causes dizziness and headaches; Isophorone is considered carcinogenic; Phenol can irritate and burn mucous membranes, skin, and eyes; if inhaled or swallowed, the substance can damage the kidneys, blood, nervous and cardiovascular systems. How did this analysis come about? An employee of the Fraunhofer Institute noticed a pungent odor on birthday presents for her children – plastic things for bathing and paddling. (7)
• What use are the strictest limit values without adequate controls and sanctions?
• The chemical industry brings several thousand “innovations” into the world annually. According to statistics from the European Patent Office (8), in 2012 alone, it patented no fewer than 5364 pharmaceuticals, 1434 food substances, and 6002 fine organic chemicals. Who is independently and scientifically soundly checking every single droplet of this mighty tide to ensure it is medically safe – not to mention the thousands upon thousands of artificial substances that have already surrounded us?
In the history of chemical exposure limits, lowering has been the norm. The more one learns about their potential danger over the years and decades; the deeper one sets them. Doesn’t this suggest that almost all current limits are set too high – and that the certainty they give us is fundamentally deceptive?
After all, so many limit values, all notoriously “strict,” have by no means prevented our creeping poisoning. How vulnerable they actually leave us comes to light reliably whenever researchers dare to check. 109 industrial chemicals have recently been detected in the blood of newborns, some of which have never been found in humans before. Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and perfluorooctanoic acid, which weaken the immune system and increase the susceptibility to infection, were found in 86 percent of all young people tested; the measured values were far above the precautionary risk values. In the blood of all the minors studied, there are reproductively harmful plasticizers that have long been “strictly regulated,” perfluorinated alkyl compounds (PFAS) – which can lead to liver damage, thyroid disease, obesity, fertility problems, and cancer – and numerous dangerous concoctions of industrial chemicals. “You can easily identify 300 substances in the body,” admits Marike Kolossa-Gehring from the Federal Environment Agency (UBA). (9) There are hundreds of such ticking time bombs in breast milk alone. The spectrum ranges from bisphenol A to the biocide Fibronil, which was recently detected in eggs, to glyphosate, the world’s best-selling pesticide.
The example of glyphosate, classified by the WHO as “probably carcinogenic”: After the amount used has increased 15-fold since the end of the 1990s (10), more than 70 % of the population, from infants to the elderly, measurable levels of glyphosate in blood; from 1993 to 2016 these increased by 1208%. (11)
How long do the toxins stay in the body? What are they doing in it in the long run? How do they interact with other incorporated toxins? Limit value bureaucrats remain silent about this – out of necessity.
A sham called REACH
“In order to ensure a high level of protection for human health and the environment,” a chemicals regulation called REACH, an acronym for “Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of Chemicals,” came into force across the EU on June 1, 2007. What does she bring? A registration obligation, according to the noble principle, “no data, no market.” A “proof” obligation: Manufacturers must prove, at least for particularly dangerous substances, that they do not have a negative impact on people and the environment in the “intended uses.” And a “right to information” for consumers: Manufacturers must provide information within 45 days upon request.
On closer inspection, however, REACH turns out to be a brazen sham – “the lion has become a tame kitten,” as a Greenpeace spokeswoman notes.
1. Registration farce. Only the manufacturer’s substance name, number, name, address, and contact persons must be reported. The exact chemical composition remains a trade secret. Polymers, the molecular building blocks of all plastics, have so far not had to be registered at all unless they are classified as “hazardous,” i.e., their concentration exceeds existing limit values.
2. Absurd “evaluation.” After the registration documents have been submitted, there is usually only a “completeness check”: Has the fee been paid? Are all the data available?
3. No independent investigation. As with pharmaceuticals, the industry is also allowed to prove the safety of new chemicals with its own studies; there is no independent quality control. The mafia could just as well be allowed to use purchased experts to prove the safety of the drugs they deal in.
4. Generous Exceptions. Special permits can be applied for “particularly hazardous” substances (SVHC: “substances of very high concern” – carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic, toxic, and endocrine disrupting. They are granted (a) if the risks emanating from the substance are “sufficiently controlled (b) if suitable alternative substances are not available or their use would be “economically and technically unviable.” In other words: the illusion of control and economic calculation is sufficient to make the most threatening substances marketable.
5. Safety when limit values are observed. But, as mentioned above: With hormonally active chemicals, the simple principle “the dose makes the poison” does not apply; small amounts can do more damage than larger ones.
6. No compulsory substitution. “It is a scandal that substances that can cause miscarriages or developmental disorders in fetuses do not have to be replaced,” complains Daniela Rosche, REACH expert from the Women in Europe for a Common Future (WECF) initiative. (12)
7. Biased controllers. The authorities responsible for risk assessment, ECHA (European Chemicals Agency) and EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), are notoriously close to industry and have repeatedly proved to be dominated by lobbyists.
8. Snail’s pace. It takes an average of ten years (!) to regulate a single substance, as the consumer protection initiative EEB determined in July 2022. https://eeb.org/library/the-need-for-speed-executive-summary/ So it happened that bisphenol A, which is harmful to reproduction, has only been officially on the list of candidates since March 2018 – although the damage it causes has long been known.
9. Absurd obligation to inform. In most cases, the manufacturer’s “information” can be limited to naming the substance and providing a free “safety data sheet.” And it only applies to those chemicals that are on the European Union’s official list of particularly dangerous substances, the so-called “candidate list”: They are classified as such if it has already been proven that they cause cancer, damage genetic material or limit fertility, may cause fetal harm, are not broken down in the body, accumulate over time and/or are toxic; intervene in the endocrine system. To date, 205 substances have been classified in this way. According to the environmental organization BUND, “that is far too little because estimates by the European Union assume that around 1,500 chemicals must be classified as particularly dangerous. (…) The right to information applies to most everyday products such as toys, sporting goods, textiles, vehicles, or packaging. However, many liquid products such as cosmetics, detergents, cleaning agents, and pharmaceuticals are excluded. Food does not fall under REACH either. If you make inquiries about such products, they only apply to the packaging.”
There are currently around 140,000 chemicals on the European market. REACH was initially intended to determine their risks, advantages, and disadvantages – comprehensively. “After years of tugging and wrangling with the industry, it finally became 30,000,” criticizes Greenpeace.
A research project of its own, the European Human Biomonitoring Initiative (HBM4EU) from 2017 to 2022, https://www.hbm4eu.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/HBM4EU-Newspaper.pdf recently showed the EU that how far along REACH’s “protective” function is. In children and young people, it was shown that the concentrations of plastic additives such as plasticizers or poly- and perfluorinated compounds (PFAS) were so high that “damage to health can no longer be ruled out.”
As part of its ambitious “Green Deal” (13) – with the aim of being toxin-free by 2050 – the EU Commission wanted to present a proposal by the end of 2022 on how to update REACH. But lobbyists successfully put the brakes on – now a “targeted revision” of REACH is only to take place in the fourth quarter of 2023.
Where there is no limit value, there is no danger?
You can only find and control what you are looking for. Our food, the air we breathe, and our drinking water are now full of microplastics, tiny plastic particles ranging from micrometers (0.000 001 m) to nanometers (0.000 000 001 m), invisible to the human eye. (See CLEAR TEXT “Microplastics in us: a time bomb.”) Once it gets into our body, it can accumulate in all organs and tissues and even penetrate cell walls.
Does the state protect us from this?
In the summer of 2018, several members of the Green parliamentary group wanted to know about the federal government. Their disconsolate information:
Nine months earlier, the Federal Ministry of Research had funded 18 projects with a total of 35 million euros as part of a new “priority” called “Plastics in the Environment.” According to Berlin, with “100 participating institutions from science, business, and practice, ” this is “one of the largest research activities in this area, also in international comparison.” It “is intended to counteract the gaps in our knowledge.” Is this really happening? The strangely limited questions alone stir up doubts: First of all, it’s just a matter of finding out suitable “investigation methods” with which “biological effects of micro- and nano plastics on living aquatic organisms” can then be researched.
But what about the biological effects of our kind? Don’t worry; there is no danger, at least according to our rulers. According to the Federal Ministry for the Environment, it is “not to be feared according to current knowledge (…).
The Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) also dismisses: There is “no reliable knowledge.” After all, it is currently examining mussels for microplastics – well, then.
Such small-scale “research” is window dressing, and if limit values should be derived from it in the near future, they would be too. Because every protective measure that is finally decided, every limit, and every control reduces or, at some point, only prevents further microplastics from entering the environment. However, the contamination of our planet that has already taken place cannot be reversed. Microplastics cannot be filtered out of the sea. Polluted agricultural areas can neither be cleaned nor exchanged globally.
Nanoparticles are just as threatening to our health: groups of a few to a few thousand atoms or molecules, usually 1 to 100 nanometers (nm) in size. (For comparison, a nanometer is the equivalent of ten hydrogen atoms next to each other; a bacterium is a thousand times larger. The size ratio of a silicon oxide nanoparticle and a soccer ball is similar to that of a soccer ball and the earth.) They are being added to more and more foods, as well as cosmetics; they are in packaging, paint, tires, tooth fillings, vaccines, drinking water, pesticides, and fertilizers.
So what? “There is no evidence that the nanomaterials currently used pose a threat to humans or the environment,” reassures Wikipedia in the entry about “nanoparticles” – in unison with the German Chemical Industry Association (VCI): “There is no evidence of specific (eco)toxicity of industrially manufactured nanomaterials (…) The nanoscale nature of a substance is not in itself a hazardous property. Nano-specific regulations are therefore not required.” (15)
Actually? Like microplastics, nanoparticles threaten all organs and functions of the human organism – down to the level of cells, cell nuclei, and genetic material. Nevertheless, there are still no special regulations for artificially miniaturized substances. If a substance is considered harmless, then any small parts of it. What is misunderstood is that micro-/nanoization leads to completely new physical and chemical properties. A surface area that is many times larger makes the fabrics more reactive and bondable.
And the smaller a particle is, the easier it is to cross physiological barriers such as the blood/brain barrier, the placental barrier, the intestinal wall and cell membranes.
Where are the limits that protect us from this monstrous danger? In response to a request from the Hessischer Rundfunk, the EU Commission stated in 2013:
And so, there is not even a reporting obligation for artificial nanoparticles within the European Union. An approval and labeling obligation only applies to nano-additives in food and cosmetics – otherwise, there are no separate test procedures. They would be hostile to growth, the Federation of German Industries (BDI) warns: “To ensure that Germany remains the most important location in Europe for the production and application of nanomaterials, no nano-specific regulatory obstacles should be set up.” (16)
It’s all about this.
At least the insurance industry seems to have been fully aware of the true extent of the nano-danger for a long time. SwissRe, the world’s largest reinsurer, distinguishes three types of emerging risks. (17) Among the “potentially low” risks, he counts social unrest, crop failure, and “robots among us.” For him, the “potentially medium risks” include cyber attacks, epidemics, debt crises, supply bottlenecks, and antibiotic resistance. In addition, he anticipates three “potentially high” risks: Electromagnetic fields from cell phone devices and systems; “endocrine disruptors,” hormone-like acting chemicals; and nanotechnology. Here, SwissRe refers to “unforeseen consequences.” Because “nano-sized particles have unique properties compared to larger particles of the same substance. This enables new applications but can also entail new risks. Little is currently known about the toxicity of nanomaterials or the potential for latent diseases that could affect workers and consumers. Additional research on the life cycle of nanomaterials and products containing nanomaterials is needed to assess potential exposure better. However, there is some evidence that certain nanostructures accumulate in tissues and organs and can be taken up by individual cells. Adverse health effects have been found in studies using materials such as carbon nanotubes, titanium dioxide nanoparticles, or silicon dioxide nanoparticles. Nanotechnology poses major challenges for the insurance industry due to the relatively unknown environmental, health, and safety impacts of nanomaterials throughout their life cycle. Of key importance are the delayed effects, i.e., whether nanomaterials pose a latent hazard. Similar to the case of asbestos, there can be large losses in product liability, workers’ compensation, and environmental liability insurance.”
Will the state, at some point, deal with nano-damaged people in the same way as with PostVac victims of the Corona regime?
Placebos to calm the people.
For all these reasons, limit values for pollutants primarily serve as placebos to calm the public: the deceptive appearance of scientific knowledge and official control secures and prolongs the business with medically high-risk products.
A prime example of this is asbestos: It was clear to those responsible at the latest in 1936 that this building material is highly carcinogenic when asbestosis, a form of lung cancer caused by asbestos, was recognized as an occupational disease. Nevertheless, asbestos was still allowed to be sold very profitably in Germany up until the 1970s; it was used in almost every building. Restrictions on use only came into effect after 1981, and the hazardous material has only been banned throughout the EU since 1990. It took a similar amount of time before lindane and formaldehyde, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), and pentachlorophenol (PCP) finally disappeared from the market. The list could be continued at will.
Absurd reversal of the burden of proof
The fact that the state prefers to protect the interests of corporations rather than the health of its citizens is revealed by the fact that it allows an absurd reversal of the burden of proof. Shouldn’t the person who exposes us to a toxic chemical have proven its harmlessness beyond any doubt beforehand? Only then should responsible governments and authorities strictly adhere to the precautionary principle? Instead, the producer is allowed to release the poison as long as there is no irrefutable “scientific evidence” that it actually harms us.
Hard-and-fast proof that a particular substance causes a specific disease can, of course, never be provided – the processes involved in the human organism are far too complex for that. And there are always other stress factors that play a role, which can also be held responsible for the health damage that has been identified. (Critics of lockdowns, masks and social distancing, of PCR tests and gene injections disguised as “vaccination” had to experience in the unspeakable corona crisis that it can be almost impossible to even publicly put unacceptable evidence up for discussion.)
Consistently implemented, the precautionary principle would require “zero tolerance” to prevail: artificial chemicals should not even be present in food and feed as long as it is unclear what they will do to us sooner or later. The Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) explains that legislators occasionally issue corresponding bans in order to “preclude contamination of food, e.g., because they consider the risks to be insufficiently calculable or tolerable. (…) Even in the case of insufficient toxicological data,” emphasizes the authority, “or if there is sufficient suspicion of further possible harmful effects to health, zero tolerances can be set.” (18) Aren’t these requirements always met when it comes to chemical or high-frequency “innovations” that people come into contact with?
How can we protect ourselves?
How can we protect ourselves and our loved ones under such circumstances? By exercising the greatest possible caution, fundamentally distrusting official trivializations, and fundamentally expecting lobbying and corruption from politicians and experts who soothe us. When coming into contact with poison slingshots, we should avoid everything that can be avoided in order to limit the unforeseeable damage that the inevitable could do to us. This applies equally to drinking water and food, detergents and cosmetics, packaging and artificial radiation, medicines, and vaccines.
If our planet were actually worth an observation mission for extraterrestrials, they would be amazed to find that a long-term global experiment has obviously been taking place here for a long time, threatening the life and limb of all inhabitants of the earth. The study question seems to be: To what extent does this species have to be poisoned in order to destroy the health of as many people as possible in the long term – without them seeing through what is happening to them and defending themselves against it?
What threatens humanity on an almost apocalyptic scale is a godsend for a few: namely, for all those who are better off, the worse off we are. The more people become chronically ill, the earlier they do it, the longer they remain so, and the more profits flow from the pharmaceutical and medical technology industry, from pharmacists, clinic and nursing home operators, from laboratories, and therapists of all kinds. The more powerful these profiteers, the less likely it is that the experiment will come to an end any time soon. Will ET ever stop being amazed?
(Harald Wiesendanger)
Remarks
1 https://www.q-s.de/pressemeldungen/verbraucher-vertrauen-der-sicherheit-von-lebensmit.html; https://www.q-s.de/services/files/pressemeldungen/pm-2021/QS_Pressegrafik_Verbrauchervertrauen_Lebensmittelsicherheit_Deutschland_300dpi-RGB.jpg
2 Andreas Kortenkamp u.a.: „Low-Level Exposure to Multiple Chemicals: Reason for Human Health Concerns?“, Environmental Health Perspectives 115, No. Suppl. 1, Dezember 2007, https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.9358
3 Zit. nach https://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article170262846/Im-Koerper-kann-man-locker-300-Stoffe-nachweisen.html
5 O. Wassermann/A. Carsten: Die gesellschaftspolitische Relevanz der Umwelttoxikologie, Berlin 1986; siehe auch O. Wassermann u.a.: Die schleichende Vergiftung. Die Grenzen der Belastbarkeit sind erreicht, Frankfurt a. M. 1990.
6 Hermann H. Hahn/Thomas W. Holstein/Silke Leopold (Hrsg.): Risiko und Verantwortung in der modernen Gesellschaft, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York 2014, S. 22.
7 https://www.diagnose-funk.org/aktuelles/artikel-archiv/detail?newsid=1937; https://www.diagnose-funk.org/aktuelles/artikel-archiv/detail?newsid=1910; https://www.diagnose-funk.org/download.php?field=filename&id=1555&class=NewsDownload
8 Süddeutsche Zeitung Nr. 91, 20.4.2018, S. 1: „Reizender Badespaß“.
9 https://www.epo.org/about-us/annual-reports-statistics/annual-report/2012/statistics-trends/patent-applications_de.html#tab5, abgerufen am 20.4.2018.
10 Zit. nach https://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article170262846/Im-Koerper-kann-man-locker-300-Stoffe-nachweisen.html
11 Environmental Sciences Europe 2016; 28: 3, https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-016-0070-0; JAMA Internal Medicine 2018;178(1):17-26, https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2659557
12 http://www.gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/17932-exposure-prevalence-to-glyphosate-has-increased-500-since-introduction-of-gm-crops) (https://www.bund.net/fileadmin/user_upload_bund/_migrated/publications/20050600_chemie_schadstoffe_muttermilch_studie.pdf
13 Women Engage for a Common Future (WECF), 2022: “Vorsicht! PFAS. #NotWastingOurFuture“, https://www.wecf.org/de/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Vorsicht_PFAS_22.pdf
14 Europäische Kommission (2019): „Mitteilung der Kommission – Der Europäische Grüne Deal“, COM(2019) 640 final, (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/DE/TXT/?uri=celex:52019DC0640
15 https://www.vci.de/top-themen/nanomaterialien.jsp, abgerufen am 5.11.2018.
16 BDI-Broschüre „Herausforderungen aus Sicht der Industrie“, S. 12, https://bdi.eu/media/presse/publikationen/Herausforderungen_Forschungs-_Innovations-_und_Technologiepolitik.pdf
17 SwissRe SONAR: “Emerging Risk Insights “(2022), https://www.swissre.com/institute/research/sonar/swiss-re-sonar-2013-emerging-risk-insights.html
18 Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung (BfR): „Nulltoleranzen in Lebens- und Futtermitteln“, Positionspapier des BfR vom 12.3.2007, www.bfr.bund.de/cm/343/nulltoleranzen_in_lebens_und_futtermitteln.pdf.
Limit Values, REACH, Safety Factor, Consumer Protection, Consumer Deception, Bisphenol A, Glyphosate, TDI, Tolerable Daily Intake, Dose Effect Model, No Observed Adverse Effect Level, NOAEL, Microplastic, Nanoparticles, Reversal of the Burden of Proof, Harald Wiesendanger, Asbestos