|
Cell Phone
Radiation Is Dangerous – You Need To listen To The Right
Scientists Part 1
Life Bluetube Headset
Cell Phone Radiation Protection
Mobile Phone Radiation Protection
Trifield Electromagnetic Field Meter
Today I would like to share with you a UK documentary on the
electromagnetic pollution debate. It’s a great little film.
I enjoyed watching it as much today as when it came out a
few years ago.
In this film you will learn:
- how an electrosensitive person from Stockholm, Sylvia,
lives her daily life under the protection of various
shielding materials and anti radiation paint
- how the Swedish government have a very different approach
to the use of WiFi in schools, to that of the UK and the US.
Even if only one person is affected in a classroom the WiFi
is immediately removed.
- how the UK government spurned the advice of Sir William
Stuart the chairman of their own advisory group. He clearly
states that there are adverse health effects from using cell
phones
- that governments around the world are basing their safety
levels on the advice of the world health organization. But
the chief scientist at the WHO, Dr. Michael Repacholi, was
formerly on the payroll of the cellphone industry!
Let there be no doubt the current safety standards offer
little protection from the wireless onslaught. You need to
take your own steps to protect you and your family from EMFs.
Heres the video.
Interviewer: Three percent of the population suffer from
this disability. Translate that to the UK, and it’s about 2
million people. Yes, as far as our government’s concerned,
there are none.
We set off for Stockholm and Swedish Sylvia’s city center
flat. She’s plotted a route to avoid all the masts. She
wants to show us just how seriously her government takes her
condition. Like the UK, this is a place where more and more
people are acquiring WiFi, but there’s a key difference.
Woman: Okay, Sylvia, this is my living room, and today the
painter has been here. And you see he has started painting
black.
Interviewer: And this is anti-radiation paint?
Woman: Yes. It’s very expensive.
Interviewer: Anti-radiation paint – paid for by the local
authority. It shields her from neighbors’ WiFi and from
nearby phone masts.
So, the Swedes have the same scientific evidence, but they
recognize sufferers. In Swedish schools, even if there’s
only one person apparently affected by WiFi, the system’s
removed and the classroom shielded.
You’d think our government would base its decisions on the
advice of their top man, the one who’s employed to protect
our health, Sir William Stuart. But instead, it seems to
have turned to others. First, the World Health Organization
– it’s robust in its language, saying there are no adverse
health effects from low-level, long-term exposure.
Is that an accurate reflection of the science, do you think?
Sir Wm. Stuart: I think they’re wrong.
Interviewer: How are they wrong?
Stuart: Because there’s evidence.
Interviewer: So, why do you think the WHO, one of the most
influential public health bodies in the world continues to
put out that message?
Stuart: I think they’ve got to review the statement that
they’re making. I think it’s not an accurate reflection.
Interviewer: Then, there’s this – it’s unlikely that you’ll
have heard of ICNIRP, but it’s an international group of
scientists which our government relies on to set our
radiation limits. But, here’s the problem – it doesn’t
recognize any biologic effects, so it bases our exposure
limits on a thermal effect. In other words, the radiation
has to be so strong that it heats our organs before it’s
restricted. That’s why our safety limits are so high.
How responsible do you think it is for governments to set
limits for this form of radiation according only to a
thermal effect?
Professor Henry Lai: Well, I think it’s irresponsible to
just set standards using a thermal standard. If you just set
it based on a thermal effect, you’re ignoring a large amount
of danger.
Interviewer: Most countries, including the UK, set their
radiation limits according to the ICNIRP guidelines. They
can’t be wrong, can they?
Professor Olle Johanssen: Well, hopefully not, because as
you say, governments, and in that way whole countries, the
entire populations rely upon them. And I do hope they
deliver the right and correct message. However, I know also
that they are heavily industry funded. Their basic message
is that if you’re below a certain thermal level, then it’s
all right.
Interviewer: Are they right to set their guidelines only
according to thermal effect?
Johanssen: No, no, no. That’s just rubbish. You cannot put
any emphasis on such guidelines.
Cell Phone Radiation Is Dangerous -
You Need To listen To The Right Scientists Part 2
Namibia, Windhoek
Erie, Pennsylvania
Logan City, Queensland
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Davenport, Iowa
Slovakia, Bratislava
Oceanside, California
Cockburn, Victoria
Antigua and Barbuda, St. John's
Dhadna, United Arab Emirates, Dhadna, UAE
http://www.emfnews.org/storeee |
