Daily Mail, 12th June 2006

In a controversial analysis, scientist Alasdair Philips argues that many everyday gadgets are filling our homes with electromagnetic fields - and doing untold damage to us all:

Read more

by John Weigel

(DUBLIN) An eminent Swedish professor at the prestigious Karolinska Institute in Stockholm is being blocked from completing replication experiments aimed at seeking a definitive answer to the effects of electromagnetic frequencies on the human body.

 Prof. Olle Johansson

Prof. Olle Johansson

Prof. Olle Johansson, a long-time critic of wireless communications technology based on his research, has been informed that his offices and lab are required for other purposes, effectively blocking privatelysupported experiments scheduled for August and September. Johansson is associate professor and head of department at the Experimental Dermatology Unit in the institute’s Department of Neuroscience in Stockholm. He is also a professor with the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology.

Johansson first came to the attention of the public when his work led to improved computer screens to protect office workers from what he found as the adverse effects of radiation emitted from monitors.

Next month’s planned experiments are intended to replicate the experiments of Dr. Magda Havas of Trent U University, Canada whose work led to the cancellation of wi-fi in San Francisco and the recent new law requiring warning labels on mobile phones. San Francisco has yet to address the issue of radiation from mobile phone and other telecommunications masts.

Observers claim the current controversy at the Karolinska Institute follows Johansson’s efforts to assist activists in Ireland opposed to the proliferation of telecommunications masts to protect children who absorb up to 75 percent of this type of radiation into their brains. During a visit to Ireland he was quoted as saying “No level of radiation is safe.” The cash-strapped Irish government through the communications regulatory body, ComReg, has introduced what it calls “Test and Trial”, a program where companies are invited to test their wireless equipment in a live environment.

Most recently, Ericsson, the Swedish telecommunications giant conducted tests in the 2.3GHz band at speeds of up to 80MBits/sec using a license issued under ComReg’s Test and Trial licensing program. The experiment used TD-LTE, originally promoted by China Mobile using paired spectrum with separated channels as a competitior to Intel’s Wimax, signal. The TD-LTE technology provides high-speed broadband services which can be used to support services such as high-definition TV, video conferencing and many others”  without the need for new devices. Ericsson has two Irish addresses: one in Dublin and its Software Campus at Athlone, Co. Westmeath, the company’s first R&D lab outside Sweden.

The test was conducted using a “large black box” broadcasting from a taxi. No mention of public safety of the test was made by Ericsson.

Two weeks ago, the city of San Francisco passed the first law in the US requiring retailers to display the amount of radiation given off by mobile phones. In retaliation after the vote, the CTIA wireless trade group called off its Autumn show, set for San Francisco. The city stands to lose $80 million in economic activity generated by the 3-day Enterprise and Applications Show, attended by 68,000 visitors. The show has been staged In San Francisco five of the last seven years

Last week U.S. President Barack Obama signed a memorandum doubling the number of frequencies available for wireless devices. The move is intended to create jobs and boost investment in the $153 billion wireless market over the next 10 years. The availability of a bigger chunk of wireless spectrum would allow faster delivery of data and video onto smart phones and other next-generation devices. Digital television is generally regarded as particularly dangerous by the physics community due to the large volume of information incorporated into the carrier waves.

Obama’s memo jump-starts an effort to make available over the next 10 years 500 megahertz of government and commercial spectrum, which reflects a recommendation by the Federal Communications Commission in its National Broadband Plan released in March. In the nation's largest cities, local TV stations use about 150 megahertz, according to the National Broadband Plan.

Researchers such as Dr. George Carlo, of the Science and Public Policy Institute at the Institute for Healthful Adaptation in Washington, D.C. assert that it is not the microwaves but microwaves which carry information that are the cause of the drastic increase in a number of diseases. In Ireland, for example, in a request for funding infection-free examination rooms for cancer patients, the Royal College of Physicians in Ireland (RCPI) predicted last week that by the year 2025, half the population will suffer from some form of cancer.

In April, The European Academy for Environmental Medicine issued the Wuerzberg Appeal, outlining the increasing prevalence of chronic multisystem illnesses such as multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), fibromyalgia (FMS) as well as cardiovascular diseases, metabolic syndrome, neurodegenerative diseases, auto immune diseases and cancer. These multisystem diseases are considered chronic inflammatory processes influenced by environmental factors including chemical pollutants, biological infectious agents and electromagnetic field (EMF) triggers.

Johansson’s difficulties began last year when he was approached by Staffan Cullheim, head of the neuroscience department, who informed the professor he was to vacate his premises immediately because they were to be used as an “animal house for ferrets”.

Johansson refused point blank and the issue was dropped. The professor became ill and required surgery. Still convalescing, he returned to work and was again confronted by Cullheim, this time with plans to use his office and lab for an imaging facility.

Commenting on the Karolinska Institute’s attempted closure of Johansson’s research facilities, Dr. Carlo, said, "Olle Johansson's lab is one of the few remaining places in the world where independent, non-industry funded research on EMR health effects is being

done. It would be a tragedy if he were to be suppressed from carrying on his work."

The Karolinska Institute has a long history of intellectual scientific rigor as well as honours. Each year the Nobel Assembly of 50 Karolinska professors collates the nominees for the world famous Nobel awards in the fields physiology or medicine.

Prof. Harriet Walberg-Henriksson, president of the Karolinska Institute, and Prof. Bernd Huber, chairman of the League of European Research Universities, have not responded to queries regarding Johansson’s status, research or the timing of the proposed closure of his lab.


Read more: Karolinska ‘Nobel Prize’ Institute threatens work of noted wireless safety researcher

Safety Code 6 draws criticism at (Canadian) House of Commons committee meeting.

Health experts and industry clash over health effects from wireless technology

Concerns over the possible health effects from everyday wireless devices have prompted the federal government to take action.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Health heard from several health experts from around the world last Tuesday to discuss concerns over the safety of the burgeoning use of wireless technology in Canada.

Read full story here .

Dr.-Ing. Frank Ermisch Diplom-Physiker, Ellwangen 13-01-2007

Das unten aufgeführte Interview wurde am 7.12.06 von der Schwäbischen Post veröffentlicht. In Hüttlingen, einer Gemeinde in der Nähe von Ellwangen kämpfen die Einwohner ebenso wie in anderen Orten gegen einen geplanten Mobilfunksender.

The interview given below was published by the `Schwabischen Post’ on 7.12.06.

In Hüttlingen, a community near to Ellwangen, the residents are, just as in other places, fighting against a planned mobile telecommunications transmitter.


With best wishes,

Frank Ermisch


MOBILFUNK / Interview mit dem Radiologen Professor Dr. Eckel von der Bundesärztekammer

MOBILTELECOMMUNICATIONS / Interview with the Radiologist Professor Dr. Eckel from the  Bundesärztekammer (equivalent to the BMA in the UK)

"Der Zellkern verändert sich"

"The cell nucleus is mutating

Professor Dr. Heyo Eckel ist Fachmann für Strahlen. Er ist Radiologe, Dozent an der Uni Göttingen, stellvertretender Vorsitzender des Ausschusses Gesundheit und Umwelt der Bundesärztekammer, Vorsitzender der niedersächsischen Landesstiftung für "Tschernobyl-Kinder". Und weil er auch noch eine verwandtschaftliche Beziehung zu Hüttlingen hat, sprachen wir mit ihm über elektromagnetische Wellen.

Professor Dr. Heyo Eckel is a radiation expert. He is a radiologist, lecturer at Göttingen University, vice chairman  of the Health and Environment Committee of the German Medical Association [Ausschusses Gesundheit und Umwelt der Bundesärztekammer], Chairman of the Niedersachsen province charity for "Tschernobyl Children". And because he also still has family connections in Hüttlingen, we spoke with him about electromagnetic radiation.




Für den Radiologen gibt es zwei Bereiche: den wissenschaftlich-formal-rechtlichen und den emotionalen.

For Radiologists there are two areas: the scientific-formal-legal and the  emotional.


Sein wissenschaftliches Fazit: Elektromagnetische, gepulste Wellen von Sendemasten und Handys beeinflussen und deformieren den Zellkern. Vergleichbar mit denen von Röntgenstrahlen. Solange die Unschädlichkeit von Mobilfunksendern nicht bewiesen ist, müsse alles getan werden, um die Bevölkerung vor potentiellen Gesundheitsschäden zu schützen.

His scientific conclusion: Elektromagnetic, pulsed waves from transmitter masts and mobile phones affect and deform the cell nucleus. Comparable with those of X-rays. As long as the harmlessness of mobile telecommunications is not proven, everything must be done to protect the population against potential health damage.


Sind elektromagnetische Wellen gefährlich für den Menschen?

Are electromagnetic waves dangerous for humans?

Diese Wellen deformieren und schädigen den Zellkern. Das ist bewiesen und haben Untersuchungen "in vitro" (im Laborversuch) ergeben. Der Zellkern kann sich auch durch natürliche Vorkommnisse verändern. Darüber hat man aber keinen Einfluss. Diese Veränderungen durch die Wellen sind aber sicher belegt.

These waves deform and damage the cell nucleus. That is proven and has resulted in experiments "in vitro" (in laboratory studies). The cell nucleus can also mutate as a result of natural occurrences. However, one has no control over that. But  changes  due to the influence from electromagnetic waves are definitely documented.


Und diese Technik wird, flächendeckend, eingesetzt?

And this technology is deployed across the country?

Nach dem Stand der Wissenschaft besteht kein alarmierendes Gesundheitsrisiko. Von den vielen Tausend Gutachten gibt es nur 400 bis 500, die rein wissenschaftlichen Kriterien entsprechen und die also ernst zu nehmen sind. Aber man muss bedenken: Die Mobilfunktechnik ist noch relativ neu, kommt nun aber flächendeckend zum Einsatz. Folgeschäden sind also nur schwer, noch nicht oder erst in Jahren festzustellen. Wie damals bei den Röntgenstrahlen.

According to the present state of scientific knowledge there is no alarming health risk. Out  of the many thousand of reports, there are only 400 to 500, which comply with purely scientific protocoll and thus must be taken seriously. But one must consider: The mobile telecommunications technology is still relatively new, but yet it is now deployed across the whole country. Consequential damage is hard to ascertain, not yet and maybe only after years. Like  in bygone days with  X-Ray radiation.


Sie sind ja auch in die Tschernobyl-Problematik eingebunden...

You are  also  involved in the Tschernobyl problem.....


Ja. Und die Schädigungen, die von radioaktiver Strahlung ausgehen, sind identisch mit den Auswirkungen von elektromagnetischen Wellen vergleichbar. Die Schädigungen sind so ähnlich, dass man sie nur schwer unterscheiden kann.

Yes. And the injuries that result from  radioactive radiation are identical with the effects of electromagnetic radiation. The damages are so similar that they are hard to differentiate.


Sie sagen also, dass eine potentielle oder vermutete Gefahr besteht. Was ist ihr Vorschlag?

So you are saying, that there is a potential or suspected danger. What is your suggestion?

Man muss politisch einwirken. Die Politiker verweisen stets auf die Grenzwerte. Man muss sich auf die Mindestabstände der Anlagen, wie in der Schweiz, zusammen mit der Industrie, einigen. Vor allem muss weitergeforscht werden, wie diese elektromagnetische Wellen auf Menschen wirken. Diese Strahlung schmeckt nicht, riecht nicht. Und man hört sie nicht. Sie ist nicht mit menschlichen Sinnesorganen fassbar. Und deshalb haben die Menschen Angst vor ihr.

One must act politically. The politicians refer constantly to safe limits. There must be an agreement with the industry on a minimum distance from  base stations, as in Switzerland,. Above all there must be further research on how these electromagnetic waves effect humans. This radiation does not taste, it does not smell. And one does not hear it. It is not discernable through our senses. And, that’s why people are afraid of it.


Was raten Sie Bürgern, die Angst vor einem Sendemasten in ihrer Umgebung haben?

What do you advise citizens who have fears about a transmitter in their vicinity ?

Rechtlich kann man nur wenig machen. Man kann raten, dass sich die Menschen zusammenschließen. Um Druck - moralischen - Druck auf die Kommunalpolitiker, die Landes- und Bundespolitiker auszuüben. Denn die haben eine Fürsorgepflicht, vermutete oder vermeintliche Schäden von den Bürgern abzuwehren.

Legally, one cannot do much. One can advise, that people unite together. In order to exert pressure - moral - pressure on the local politicians, the provincial and federal government politicians. Because they have a duty of care to avert presumed or perceived damage to citizens.

German wide cross sectional survey on health impacts of electromagnetic fields in the view of general practitioners

Int J Public Health

DOI 10.1007/s00038-009-0110-2

Bernd Kowall

• Ju¨rgen Breckenkamp •Kristina Heyer • Gabriele Berg-Beckhoff

Department of Epidemiology and International Public Health, School of Public Health, University of Bielefeld, PO 100131, 33501, Bielefeld, Germany.

OBJECTIVES: The proportion of general practitioners (GPs) in Germany who assume health impacts of electromagnetic fields (EMF) is assessed. Moreover, factors associated with this risk perception are examined. METHODS: A 7% random sample was drawn from online lists of all the GPs working in Germany. 1,867 doctors received a long version of a self-administered postal questionnaire about EMF and health (response rate 23.3%), 928 doctors received a short version (response rate 49.1%). RESULTS: 37.3% of responders to the short and 57.5% of responders to the long questionnaire agreed "that there are persons whose health complaints are caused by EMF when legal limit values are met". A late responder analysis for the survey with the short questionnaire led to a still lower estimate of 29% for GPs believing in health-relevant effects of EMF. CONCLUSION: About a third of German GPs associate EMF with health complaints and thus deviate considerably from current scientific knowledge. To avoid a strong selection bias in the surveys of the perception of EMF risks, use of short questionnaires and late responder analysis are recommended.

PMID: 20020175 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

Available in full here


I am grateful for this chance to provide some input into this very timely conference. This event and the related Senate Hearings[1] yesterday, have been, in part, stimulated by the BioIntiative Report[2], (2007), which helped increase public awareness of the potential hazards of electromagnetic fields, not least from mobile phones.

The European Parliament[3] responded to this debate with its resolution earlier this year which, among other things, called for lowering exposure to electromagnetic fields and for new exposure limits that would better protect the public. We fully share these recommendations.

Today I would like briefly:

·        to describe the role and mandate of the EEA; 

·        to summarise our views about some of the benefits and potential costs to health of mobile phones;

·        and to conclude with what we see as the most important practical implications of the current evidence on the cancer risks from using mobile phones, especially for children and young adults.

The role of EEA and past work on the precautionary principle

The EEA provides data, information and knowledge on the environment, including its impacts on public health, to EU institutions (the European  Parliament, European Commission, and European Council of Ministers), to the 32 Member Countries of the EEA, and to the general public.  

The EEA does not routinely carry out specific risk assessments on individual hazardous agents, such as radio frequencies from mobile phones. However, the EEA does have relevant knowledge and expertise about the way in which the overall scientific evidence on hazards and risks is evaluated.

Some of this knowledge is to be found in the EEA Report, 'Late Lessons from Early Warnings: the Precautionary Principle 1896–2000' published in 2001. This report reviews the histories of a selection of public and environmental hazards, such as asbestos, benzene, acid rain, and PCBs. These histories run from the first scientifically based early warnings about potential harm to subsequent inactions, or to precautionary, and then preventative measures.

The EEA sees the precautionary principle as central to public policymaking where there is scientific uncertainty and high stakes — precisely the situation that characterises EMF at this point in its history. Waiting for high levels of proof before taking action to prevent well known risks can lead to very high health and economic costs, as it did with asbestos, leaded petrol and smoking.

For example, taking effective precautionary action to avoid the plausible hazards of smoking in the late 1950s or the early 1960s would have saved much harm, health treatment costs, and productivity losses from smoking. Waiting to prevent the known risks of smoking in the 1990s, which most countries did, led to these health and economic costs. Both the precautionary and preventative principles, along with the polluter pays principle and the reduction of hazards at source, are part of the EU Treaty: all are applicable  to health, consumer, and environmental issues.

Benefits of mobile phones and potential hazards of EMF

The EEA greatly appreciates the benefits of mobile phone telephony. Indeed, the Agency is actively encouraging it as a means of communicating environmental and related information to the public.

We have ambitious plans, for example, to encourage ‘citizen scientists’ to collect data on environmental parameters, such as bird movements, fish stocks, water quality, and the flowering season, and store the information on their mobile phones.

The intention of the EEA to promote the use of mobile telephony in this way increases its responsibility to provide information that can help ensure the safety of the publicwhen using mobile phones, especially vulnerable groups such as children, the elderly, and the immuno-compromised. This is the reason why the EEA issued an early warning about the potential hazards of EMF on 17 September 2007.

In this we drew attention to the BioInitiative report and to the other main references relevant to this debate (from the EU, the WHO, and the UK National Radiological Protection Board) which, taken together, provided the basis for our early warning on EMF.

Specifically, we noted that:

 'There are many examples of the failure to use the precautionary principle in the past, which have resulted in serious and often irreversible damage to health and environments. Appropriate, precautionary and proportionate actions taken now to avoid plausible and potentially serious threats to health from EMF are likely to be seen as prudent and wise from future perspectives”.

The Washington conference on cell phones has just reviewed the current evidence on the potential hazards of mobile phones, particularly the possible head tumour risks. Much of this evidence has been recently summarised in the special issue on EMF of the journal of The International Society for Pathophysiology[4].

The evidence for a head tumour risk from mobile phones, although still very limited, and much contested, is, unfortunately, stronger than two years ago when we first issued our early warning.

Recommendations based on current evidence

The evidence is now strong enough, using the precautionary principle,  to justify the following steps: 

1.                 For governments, the mobile phone industry, and the public to take all reasonable measures to reduce exposures to EMF, especially to radio frequencies from mobile phones, and particularly the exposures to children and young adults who seem to be most at risk from head tumours. Such measures would include stopping the use of a mobile phone by placing it next to the brain. This can be achieved by the use of  texting; hands free sets;  and by the use of phones of an improved design which could generate less radiation and make it convenient to use hands free sets.

2.                 To reconsider the scientific basis for the present EMF exposure standards which have serious limitations such as reliance on the contested thermal effects paradigm;  and simplistic assumptions about the complexities of radio frequency exposures.

3.                  To provide effective labelling and warnings about potential risks for users of mobile phones[5].

4.                 To generate the funds needed to finance and organise the urgently needed research into the health effects of phones and associated masts. Such funds could include grants from industry and possibly a small levy on the purchase and or  use of mobile phones. This idea of a research levy is a practice that we think the US pioneered in the rubber industry with a research levy on rubber industry activities in the 1970s when lung and stomach cancer was an emerging problem for that industry. The research funds would be used by independent bodies.

In addition, we have noted from previous health hazard histories such as that of lead in petrol, and methyl mercury, that ‘early warning’ scientists frequently suffer from discrimination, from loss of research funds, and from unduly personal attacks on their scientific integrity. It would be surprising if this is not already a feature of the present EMF controversy as it seems to be still a common practice as has been recently reported in Nature.

Scientific associations, lawyers, and politicians should therefore consider ways in which societies could provide greater protection for early warning scientists. An interesting precedent has been set in Germany, where the Federation of German Scientists[6] has been recognising the contribution that ’whistleblowing’ scientists and others can make to robust and transparent democracies.

Finally, we hope that there turns out to be  no cancer risk, or indeed any risk  from using mobile phones and that our early warnings (which some might  say are already a decade or so too late)  will be proven unnecessary. However, we would rather be wrong in issuing an unnecessary warning than be wrong in failing to alert the public about potentially serious, irreversible harm in time to avoid such harm.    

Thank you for your attention.

Professor Jacquie McGlade, Executive Director of the European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, 15 September 2009.

Read more: JMG Statement on Mobile Phones for Conference on Cell Phones and Health: Science and Public Policy...

N.B. This is an Industry Commentary by the UK Mobile Operators' Association - Contrast this with the Environmental Scientists view above.

The Precautionary Principle in the Context of Mobile Phone and Base Station Radiofrequency Exposures

Mike Dolan and Jack Rowley
Mobile Operators Association, London, UK; 2GSM Association, London, United Kingdom


Background: No health hazard has been established from exposure to radiofrequency fields up to the levels recommended by the International
Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. However, in response to public concern and the perceived level of scientific uncertainty, there are
continuing calls for the application of the precautionary principle to radiofrequency exposures from mobile phones and base stations.

Objective: We examined the international evolution of calls for precautionary measures in relation to mobile phones and base stations, with
particular focus on Australia and the United Kingdom.

Results: The precautionary principle is difficult to define, and there is no widespread agreement as to how it should be implemented. However, there is a strong argument that precautionary measures should not be implemented in the absence of reliable scientific data and logical reasoning pointing to a possible health hazard. There is also experimental evidence that precautionary advice may increase public concern.

Conclusion: We argue that conservative exposure standards, technical features that minimize unnecessary exposures, ongoing research, regular
review of standards, and availability of consumer information make mobile communications inherently precautionary. Commonsense measures can be adopted by individuals, governments, and industry to address public concern while ensuring that mobile networks are developed for the benefit of society.

Key words: electromagnetic fields, precautionary approach, precautionary principle, public concern, scientific uncertainty, technology. Environ
Health Perspect 117:1329–1332 (2009) . doi:10.1289/ehp.0900727 available via [Online 18 May 2009]

Informationen für Mitglieder und Interessierte


Information for Members of the Kompetenzinitiative and Interested Parties


Durchführung der Konferenz gesichert! Helfen Sie mit, den noch offenen Betrag zu schultern!

The conference can take place! Please, help us to raise the still necessary funds!

WASHINGTON, USA 13-15.09.2009

Die Kompetenzinitiative e. V. wiederholt hiermit ihren Spendenaufruf zur Unterstützung der wissenschaftlich, politisch und juristisch wichtigen Expert Conference on Cell Phones and Health: Science and Public Policy Questions in Washington mit folgenden ergänzenden Informationen: The non-profit Competence Initiative repeats its appeal for funds to support the scientifically, politically and legally important "Expert Conference on Cell Phones and Health: Science and Public Policy Questions" in Washington D.C. with the following new information:
  • Die Kompetenzinitiative hat den Veranstaltern der Konferenz in der Zwischenzeit eine verbindliche finanzielle Unterstützung in Höhe von mindestens 15000 Euro zugesagt, um die Durchführung der Konferenz zu gewährleisten.
  • Unterstützt wird der Spendenaufruf mittlerweile auch durch den Arbeitskreis Elektro-Biologie (AEB) und durch die Umweltorganisation Diagnose-Funk.
  • Auf unserer eigens eingerichteten Webseite
  • In the meantime, the non-profit Competence Initative did promise the organizers of the conference a financial support of at least 15,000 Euro to ensure that the conference can take place.
  • In the meantime, our appeal for funds is also supported by the Arbeitskreis Elektrobiologie ("Study Group Electrobiology") and the Swiss   environmetal organisation "Diagnose-Funk".
  • From now on, you will find all information about the conference on our special website

können künftig alle Informationen zur Konferenz abgerufen werden.

Wir danken allen bisherigen Spendern, deren Hilfe bereits einen Teil der versprochenen Summe deckt! Um den zugesagten Betrag in voller Höhe schultern zu können, brauchen wir jedoch noch viel an weiterer Unterstützung. Wir dürfen mit diesem zweiten Aufruf deshalb den Kreis angeschriebener Adressaten vergrößern und um Weiterverbreitung der Information bitten.

Der Vorstand der Kompetenzinitiative e. V.

Prof. K. Richter - Uwe Dinger -  Prof. K. Hecht - Dr. med. M. Kern -  Prof. Dr. G. Zimmer

We would like to thank all those who donated in the meantime and whose contribution covers already part of the promised funds! However, to raise the full amount of the promised funds we still need a lot more support. With this second appeal, we take the liberty to widen the number of addressees and to ask for a further spread of this appeal.

The Board of the Competence Intitiative for the Protection of Humanity, Environment and Democracy e.V.

Prof. K. Richter - Uwe Dinger -  Prof. K. Hecht - Dr. med. M. Kern -  Prof. Dr. G. Zimmer

Kompetenzinitiative e.V.
Raiffeisenbank Kempten
BLZ:  733 699 02
Konto-Nr:  101020102
IBAN:  DE86733699020101020102
KENNWORT: Washingtonkonferenz
Kompetenzinitiative e.V.
BLZ:   733 699 02
Konto-Nr:   101020102
IBAN:   DE86733699020101020102
REFERENCE: Washingtonconference
Washington-Konferenz: Aufruf zur Unterstützung >>> Washington-Conferences: An appeal to support >>>


Kompetenzinitiative zum Schutz von Mensch, Umwelt und Demokratie e.V.

Die Nachrichten der Kompetenzinitiative werden von den Leitern der drei Arbeitsstellen zusammengestellt und herausgegeben:

Prof. Dr. Karl Richter , Erster Vorsitzender, 66386 St. Ingbert, Preußenstr.11, Tel. 06894/87469, Fax 06894/889946, Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Dr. med. Markus Kern, Stellvertretender Vorsitzender, Beim Floßerhäusle 8, 87439 Kempten, Tel. 0831 / 5208248, Fax: 0831 / 520 82 68 | Email: markus.kern  

Uwe Dinger , Stellvertretender Vorsitzender, Goetheanumstrasse 18, CH 4143 Dornach Tel: 0041(0)617020779, Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.