“Köhler is the content of a layman”: ZDF exposes the limit-skeptics
The debate about the limits of nitrogen oxide and fine dust. The ZDF-show “Frontal 21” has looked at the critics. The realization of the Research: Many of the more than 100 physicians, to give, to have scientifically with the topic. In addition, there is a barrage of colleagues to berate for lung doctor Dieter Köhler.
The Diesel discussions have become a science in dispute – at least on the surface. Behind it is a political issue is mainly around the diesel driving bans, which is a passion discussed. In many cities, diesel drivers are angry. You Dieter köhler’s arguments. The lung specialist calls for, together with more than 100 colleagues to abolish the limits.
And yet the technical Expertise you lack. The research of the political magazine “Frontal 21”.
Of the vertebrae to the fine dust
How harmful dust and nitrogen oxide for the health are fine? The U.S. environmental protection Agency has summarized three years ago, about 1,500 studies and documents with the result: nitrogen oxides endanger the health in different ways. Ongoing studies of the health authority (WHO) in addition, for the World is the basis for the current limit value of 40 micrograms. The WHO even discussed to reduce this even further.
Köhler, however, is of quite a different opinion, and thinks his attitude will deliberately hushed. He knew from insiders that scientists in their research work should always only convey a message: “fine dust and NO2 must be dangerous! And so the studies were evaluated extremely one-sided,“ he says in the ZDF-show.
In a public opinion on the question of “Frontal 21”-editors Köhler and three of his colleagues to write your doubts to the current limit values based “primarily on the results of extensive measuring data analysis, based on which, among other things, it has been demonstrated that the measured concentrations of respirable dust are to be allocated to the majority of natural sources.”
It was, therefore, fine dust, significantly influenced by the solar radiation and meteorological processes. In order for humanity to have lived “practically always.”
The journalists of “Frontal 21” check how much limit-critics of Köhler has published on epidemiological pollutant hazards scientifically and find “nothing”.
Köhler’s claim is “unethical”
“I can judge that it is factually and technically to questions of the impact of air pollution on the health of the people is an absolute layman,” says Nino Künzli Swiss tropical and Public Health Institute. The President of the Swiss Federal Commission for air hygiene, for 30 years, epidemiologist and Environmental medicine. He doesn’t understand why a doctor come now to the population and say that you have to cancel, for scientific reasons, the limits. “That’s unethical.”
The Expertise of the physicians who have signed köhler’s opinion, questioned the shipment as well. The journalists are looking for in the largest public database for medical articles to Work to fine dust and nitrogen dioxide, the Tenured professors and professors, including Matthias Griese or, Carl-Peter Criee. The result: “nothing”.
Please contact the signatory to the signature list, 76 of them. It answers 25 – and: None of them has dealt scientifically with exactly this topic.
In the opinion of Köhler and his colleagues write, the question of “Frontal 21”-editors, which gives the impression as if they are the “Suitability of the researcher in question. Against this type of subordination the undersigned vigorously protest.“ A majority of the signatories have well over a “wide range of scientific Peer-reviewed publications in relevant areas of expertise of the formation of Emissions, immissions and measurement technologies to medicine.”
Fee study criticism “is frivolous”
Colleagues Dieter Köhler conceded. regardless of the program “Frontal 21” on the part of the children’s pulmonologist. The Board of Directors of the society for pediatric pneumology indicates that particularly vulnerable groups such as children and adolescents, pregnant women, the elderly, and patients of all age groups with chronic pulmonary disorders, special health care need. This is not mentioned in the current debate often.
The Board writes: “to make Scientific statements in a lump sum in question, without evidence, is frivolous. He who sows the pollutants public doubt on the health-damaging Potential of air, to quote without the need for scientific Work that violates the principles of medical-scientific activity.“