EMF Protection Cellphone Radiation Mobile Phone SAR Electromagnetic Prevention EMF Qlink Protect EMF Cell Phone Radiation

cell phone radiation research, hyperelectrosensitivity from cell phone radiation

Home  |  STORE  |  EMF METERS  |  EHS  |  FAQ  |  PRODUCTS  |  Contact UsView Cart



Facts About the EarthCalm® Home Protection System:

home radiation protection

Sale Price $298.00

Read the Earthcalm® FAQ to learn more



Specialty Air Tube Headset



airtube headset, bluetube headset, anit-radiation headset for driving


Airtube Headset info



 Are Mobile Phones Represent A Health Risk?


Qlink Pendant

Home Radiation Protection

Aircom Headsets

The companies are now spending millions trying to discredit me because, basically, they didn’t like what I told them.... They have shown total disregard for mobile phone users,” Dr. Carlo stated in an October 1999 interview with the British newspaper, The Express.

The Begich/Roderick article mentions that the industry has largely put forward studies that “looked at the effects of radio waves outside the cellular frequency, or at exposure levels that are different from those experienced by cellular phone users....Very limited information has been available to the public about the risks of cell phones or various electromagnetic fields outside of some obscure research and academic circles. The fact is that increasing evidence has been mounting and the true risks of these energy fields are becoming well known.”

The authors criticize the Federal Drug Administration and the United States government for being reluctant to take action against the risks of cell phone usage and blame this reluctance on “lobby efforts, public relations gimmicks and the manipulation of the facts.”
But as the cell phone industry and US government agencies are downplaying these risks, Begich and Roderick write that “[t]he risks associated with cell phones are being considered too risky even by the biggest risk takers in the insurance industry.” Underwriters from big insurers like Lloyd’s and Stirling have refused “to cover manufacturers against the risk of being sued if mobiles turn out to cause long-term damage,” according to the April 11, 1999 issue of The Observer.

The Begich/Roderick article concludes: “The research continues and the health effects mount. With over 1.3 billion people projected to be using these devices in the year 2005 the risks must be understood and addressed. Perhaps we will see the litigation of the 21st century overtake the incredible tobacco settlements as the record holder for ‘damage by industry when its head’s in the sand.’”

Another indication of the possible dangers in cell phone usage involves the cell phone industry itself. Patents taken out by the industry contain revelations of health hazards connected to their products. Baltimore attorney Joanne Suder has recently filed a high-profile lawsuit against the cell phone industry and is considering 36 more suits. Her contention that cell phone are dangerous is based on the “dozens and dozens” of patents filed by the industry to create radiation-shielding technology.

For example, a Nokia patent for a shield layer between the antenna and the user to reduce the electromagnetic irradiation of the user, received on July 28, 1998, states: “[I]t has been suggested that modulated radio-frequency radiation induces changes in the electrical status, i.e., in the ion balance of nerves. A continuous localized exposure to radio-frequency irradiation has been suggested to weaken myelin sheets of cells and to eventually lead to an impairment of hearing capability, vertigo, etc. It has been suggested that radio-frequency irradiation may stimulate extra growth among supportive cells in the nerve system, which in the worst case it has been suggested could [lead] to a development of malignant tumors, e.g., glioma.... Although the consequences described above have not been scientifically verified, the uncertainty has some effects by reducing the speed of growth of the market of radiophones.”

Motorola, Ericsson and other handset manufacturers own similar patents, Suder said.
The degree and magnitude of the health risks involved in cell phone usage have yet to be determined in a comprehensive manner. It is not clear whether the risk is comparable to that posed by smoking (potentially fatal), for example, or by passing through a metal detector in an airport (minor, with an offsetting benefit). A factor making it more difficult to ascertain the potential hazards has clearly been the influence of the firms with enormous amounts of money invested in cell phone production. Can anyone doubt that without this big business influence the true facts about cellular phone usage could be established by a coordinated scientific effort in relatively short order?
However, the cell phone manufacturers, telecommunications companies and those who profit enormously from this new and booming industry, would apparently rather use 1.3 billion people as human guinea pigs in a radiological experiment than investigate any potentially life-threatening “consequence.”

Do cellular phones represent a health risk? Part 2

Vietnam, Hanoi
Bosnia, Sarajevo
Penrith, Australia
Latvia, Riga
Israel, Jerusalem,
Norway, Oslo
Solomon Islands, Honiara
Spain, Madrid
Russia, Moscow
Paterson, New Jersey, USA


"Revolutionary New Technologiess
Protect You from the Harmful Effects of Cell Phone Radiation,

Computers, Bluetooth Headsets, Microwave Ovens,

Cordless Phones, and other Wireless Technologies."


Click on any of the pictures below to learn more

Research Center For Wireless Technology



Copyright 2006-2015 All rights reserved

| Privacy | Disclaimer | Returns

Try any Q-Link or cell chip for 3 months, absolutely  RISK-FREE If you do not feel Q-Link improves your focus, energy, or well-being, simply return it for a full refund. Airtube headsets have 30  a day refund.


Home  |  STORE  |  EMF METERS  |  EHS  |   FAQ  |  PRODUCTS  |  Directory |  Contact Us | View Cart

Other Language Tools