Causa Stoa: Fragen zur Auftragsvergabe an Fiorella Belpoggi (Allgemein)

H. Lamarr , München, Freitag, 29.10.2021, 00:03 (vor 930 Tagen) @ H. Lamarr

Diesmal klappte es. Am 30. September 2021 traf Antwort aus Brüssel ein (anschließend Originaltext in Englisch, Übersetzung ins Deutsche hier). Zur Bewertung der Antwort sollte man sich in Erinnerung rufen, was ich von Stoa eigentlich wissen wollte.

Da Theo Karapiperis weniger auf meine Fragen einging und mehr die unbestrittene Reputation von Fiorella Belpoggi hervorhob, wurde ich mit seiner Antwort nicht so recht glücklich. Am 11. Oktober 2021 erhielten deshalb er und der gesamte Stoa-Vorstand von mir einen zweiten etwas ausgefeilteren Fragenkatalog. Wahrscheinlich habe ich mich bei Stoa damit nicht beliebt gemacht.

Andererseits meine ich, dass die Öffentlichkeit ein Recht hat zu erfahren, wie genau die Beauftragung von Belpoggi mit einer Review über die Gesundheitsrisiken von 5G zustande gekommen ist. Schließlich ist Stoa nicht irgendwer, sondern soll die fundierte Meinungsbildung alle Mitglieder des EU-Parlaments mit wissenschaftlichen Studien über aktuelle Reizthemen unterstützen.

Da dürfen aus meiner Sicht hohe Ansprüche an das Prozedere einer systematischen Auftragsvergabe für Studien gestellt werden. Über eben dieses Prozedere aber hüllt Stoa sich (trotz Anfrage) in Schweigen. Wurde z.B. der Auftrag für die 5G-Gesundheitsreview, wie es bei Behörden üblich ist, öffentlich ausgeschrieben oder bekam die Italienerin diesen direkt auf Empfehlung der beiden mobilfunkkritischen Stoa-Projektleiter überreicht? Floss ein Honorar oder arbeitete die Autorin ehrenamtlich? Und: Wusste Stoa vor Auftragsvergabe über die langjährigen Aktivitäten Belpoggis als aktive Mobilfunkkritikerin Bescheid? Insgesamt stelle ich acht Fragen.

Antwort aus Brüssel traf bislang nicht ein. Über die Gründe mag ich jetzt nicht spekulieren. Stattdessen kann sich mit dem anschließenden Text meiner Nachfrage jetzt jeder ein Bild davon machen, wie der aktuelle Stand in der "Causa Stoa" ist:

Dear Mr Karapiperis,

Thank you very much for your information. I appreciate that you took the trouble to reply to me at 00:30 at night after a long day at work.

However, I am afraid there has been a misunderstanding. I am in no way questioning Ms Belpoggi's scientific qualifications or her integrity. In the same way, I do not object to her exercising her right to freedom of expression and considering mobile phone radiation below the currently applicable limits to be probably harmful to health.

The reason for my enquiry relates exclusively to STOA's decision-making in commissioning Ms Belpoggi, of all people, with a 5G review.

In my email of 19 September 2021, I provided sufficient evidence to support my assertion that Ms Belpoggi has considered mobile phone technologies (2G, 3G, 4G and 5G) to pose a high risk to public health since 2002. She thus represents the opinion of a scientific minority. The majority of bioelectromagnetics scientists and national expert commissions do not share this opinion. Who will be right in the end is still open. In view of this situation, STOA has a great responsibility to inform the Members of the European Parliament without bias about the current state of scientific knowledge as stipulated in Article 1 of the STOA Rules of Procedure. This cannot be achieved with the review of a biased author.

In my view, STOA has already violated its own Rules of Procedure by commissioning Ms Belpoggi. If a convinced critic of the current wireless technology is commissioned with a review of the risks of 5G technology, the result can be predicted with a high degree of accuracy. Especially if the review is narrative (subjective) and not systematic (objective). And in the case of the narrative Belpoggi review, exactly what was to be expected did indeed occur (see Belpoggi's presentation at the STOA online event on 31 May 2021). But is this still open-ended science if I can accurately predict the outcome of a review? No, certainly not, we probably agree on that.

How it is possible that in the controversial debate about the risks of electromagnetic fields (EMF), all participants have the same facts, but their interpretations can turn out completely different, depends strongly on the convictions, quality claims and interests of the participants in the discussion. In 2016, the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection had the background of these influencing factors systematically analysed, especially for the EMF debate, in an informative research report (German, summary also in English).

With my explanations, I want to clarify why the awarding of the contract by STOA to Ms Belpoggi concerns me so much and why I am therefore asking for further information with the following list of questions:

1. Was STOA aware during the awarding of the contract that Ms Belpoggi considers EMF below the limits to be risky to health and that she has been actively campaigning publicly since 2002, e.g. for limit value reductions?

2. Am I correct in assuming that the awarding of contracts for STOA studies involves a public call for tenders and the submission of bids by potential contractors? If I am correct: What was the wording of the project description and where was it published? If I am wrong: What is the procedure then?

3. How many applications or bids for the 5G Health Review were received by STOA?

4. Was the 5G health review done for a fee or purely on a voluntary basis (without a fee)?

5. On the basis of what quality criteria does STOA decide which candidate is awarded the contract? What is the procedure, does one person decide based on the bids submitted, or does a panel decide on a democratic basis?

6. Did the STOA project leaders (in the specific case Ms Rivasi and Mr Hristov) propose Ms Belpoggi as the author?

7. What is the total annual budget available to STOA for external studies?

8. Because of the author's bias, STOA should, in my view, withdraw the 5G health review as soon as possible. What are your views on this proposal?

You probably already guess what prompted my questions: I fear that STOA may have been misled by interested parties into awarding the review to a scientist who could be expected to come to the desired conclusion.

Personal details

I studied communications engineering at the University of Applied Sciences in Munich, graduating with a degree in engineering (Dipl.-Ing. (FH)), was an editor for electronics journals and a technical editor for a manufacturer of radio communication test sets. In 1996 I started my own business as a technical editor. Since 2002, I have been dealing with the risks of EMF out of private interest, because a cell tower was erected a few meters from my flat. The visible result of this occupation is the website https://izgmf.de. Apart from occasional journalistic enquiries on technical issues, I have no direct or indirect connection with the telcos. However, I too have a mobile phone and a contract (paid for by me) with a network operator.

Yours sincerely,

Stephan Schall

--
Jedes komplexe Problem hat eine Lösung, die einfach, naheliegend, plausibel – und falsch ist.
– Frei nach Henry Louis Mencken (1880–1956) –

Tags:
Anfrage, STOA, Stellungnahme, Rivasi, Ramazzini, Belpoggi, Karapiperis, Auftragsvergabe, 5G Health Review