The Proven Dangers of Microwaves Part 2

Microwave Radiation, Microwaves

http://www.emfnews.org/qlinks.html

Qlink Pendant

Gauss Meter

Home Radiation Protection

Valentine published the results of this study in Search for Health in the Spring of 1992. But the follow-up information is available only in a later edition, and also in Acres, USA. In intervals of two to five days, the volunteers in the study received one of the food variants on an empty stomach. The food variants were:
• raw milk from a biofarm
• the same milk conventionally cooked
• pasteurized milk from Intermilk Berne
• the same raw milk cooked in a microwave oven
• raw vegetables from an organic farm
• the same vegetables cooked conventionally
• the same vegetables frozen and defrosted in the microwave oven
• and the same vegetables cooked in the microwave oven

The overall experiment had some of the earmarks of the Pottenger cat studies, except that now human beings were test objects, the experiment’s time-frame was shorter, and a new heat form was tested. Once the volunteers were isolated at the resort hotel, the test began. Blood samples were taken from every volunteer immediately before eating.
Then blood samples were taken at defined intervals after eating from the above-numbered milk or vegetable preparations. Significant changes were discovered in the blood of the volunteers who consumed foods cooked in the microwave oven. These changes included a decrease in all hemoglobin values and cholesterol values, especially the HDL (good cholesterol) and LDL (bad cholesterol) values and ratio.

Lymphocytes (white blood cells) showed a more distinct short-term decrease following the intake of microwaved food than after the intake of all the other variants. Each of these indicators point in a direction away from robust health and toward degeneration. Additionally, there was a highly significant association between the amount of microwave energy in the test foods and the luminous power of luminescent bacteria exposed to serum from test persons who ate that food.
This led Hertel to the conclusion that such technically derived energies may, indeed, be passed along to man inductively via consumption of microwaved food. “This process is based on physical principles and has already been confirmed in the literature,” Hertel explained. The apparent additional energy exhibited by the luminescent bacteria was merely extra confirmation.

“There is extensive scientific literature concerning the hazardous effects of direct microwave radiation on living systems,” Hertel continued. “It is astonishing, therefore, to realise how little effort has been made to replace this detrimental technique of microwaves with technology more in accordance with nature. “Technically produced microwaves are based on the principle of alternating current.

Atoms, molecules and cells hit by this hard electromagnetic radiation are forced to reverse polarity 1 to 100 billion times a second. There are no atoms, molecules or cells of any organic system able to withstand such a violent, destructive power for any extended period of time, not even in the low energy range of milliwatts.”Of all the natural substances-which are polar-the oxygen of water molecules reacts most sensitively. This is how microwave cooking heat is generated-friction from this violence in water molecules. Structures of molecules are torn apart, molecules are forcefully deformed (called structural isomerism) and thus become impaired in quality.

HEATING FOOD
“This is contrary to conventional heating of food, in which heat transfers convectionally from without to within. Cooking by microwaves begins within the cells and molecules where water is present and where the energy is transformed into frictional heat.” The question naturally arises: What about microwaves from the sun? Aren’t they harmful? Hertel responded: “The microwaves from the Sun are based on principles of pulsed direct current.

These rays create no frictional heat in organic substance.” In addition to violent frictional heat effects (called thermic effects), there are also athermic effects which have hardly ever been taken into account, Hertel added. “These athermic effects are not presently measurable, but they can also deform the structures of molecules and have qualitative consequences.

For example, the weakening of cell membranes by microwaves is used in the field of gene altering technology. Because of the force involved, the cells are actually broken, thereby neutralizing the electrical potentials-the very life of the cells-between the outer and inner sides of the cell membranes. Impaired cells become easy prey for viruses, fungi and other micro-organisms.

The natural repair mechanisms are suppressed, and cells are forced to adapt to a state of energy emergency: they switch from aerobic to anaerobic respiration. Instead of water and carbon dioxide, hydrogen peroxide and carbon monoxide are produced.” It has long been pointed out in the literature that any reversal of healthy cell processes may occur because of a number of reasons, and our cells then revert from a “robust oxidation” to an unhealthy “fermentation”.

The same violent friction and athermic deformations that can occur in our bodies when we are subjected to radar or microwaves, happens to the molecules in the food cooked in a microwave oven. In fact, when anyone microwaves food, the oven exerts a power input of about 1,000 watts or more. This radiation results in destruction and deformation of molecules of food, and in the formation of new compounds (called radiolytic compounds) unknown to man and nature.
Today’s established science and technology argues forcefully that microwaved food and irradiated foods do not have any significantly higher “radiolytic compounds” than do broiled, baked or other conventionally cooked foods-but microwaving does produce more of these critters. Curiously, neither established science nor our ever-protective government has conducted tests-on the blood of the eaters-of the effects of eating various kinds of cooked foods. Hertel and his group did test it, and the indication is clear that something is amiss and that larger studies should be funded.

The apparently toxic effects of microwave cooking is another in a long list of unnatural additives in our daily diets. However, the establishment has not taken kindly to this work. “The first drawing of blood samples took place on an empty stomach at 7.45 each morning,” Hertel explained. “The second drawing of blood took place 15 minutes after the food intake. The third drawing was two hours later.” >From each sample, 50 ml of blood was used for the chemistry and five millimetres for the hematology and the luminescence. The hematological examinations took place immediately after drawing the samples.

Erythrocytes, hemoglobin, mean hemoglobin concentration, mean hemoglobin content, leukocytes and lymphocytes were measured. The chemical analysis consisted of iron, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol and LDL cholesterol. The results of erythrocyte, hemoglobin, hematocrit and leukocyte determinations were at the “lower limits of normal” in those tested following the eating of the microwaved samples. “These results show anaemic tendencies. The situation became even more pronounced during the second month of the study,” Hertel added.

“And with those decreasing values, there was a corresponding increase of cholesterol values.” Hertel admits that stress factors, from getting punctured for the blood samples so often each day, for example, cannot be ruled out, but the established baseline for each individual became the “zero values” marker, and only changes from the zero values were statistically determined. With only one round of test substances completed, the different effects between conventionally prepared food and microwaved food were marginal-although noticed as definite “tendencies”.

As the test continued, the differences in the blood markers became “statistically significant”. The changes are generally considered to be signs of stress on the body. For example, erythrocytes tended to increase after eating vegetables from the microwave oven. Haemoglobin and both of the mean concentration and content haemoglobin markers also tended to decrease significantly after eating the microwaved substances.

Seychelles Victoria
Waco Texas USA,
Plano, Texas
Blue Mountains Australia
Bahamas Nassau
Germany Berlin
Guyana, Georgetown
Qatar Doha
Egypt, Cairo: city limits
Tulsa Oklahoma USA

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

The Proven Dangers of Microwaves Part 1

Microwaves, Microwave Oven Danger

http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html

Lifebluetube Headset

Cell Phone Radiation Protection

Mobile Phone Radiation Protection

Trifield Electromagnetic Field Meter

Back in May of 1989, after Tom Valentine first moved to St Paul, Minnesota, he heard on the car radio a short announcement that bolted him upright in the driver’s seat. The announcement was sponsored by Young Families, the Minnesota Extension Service of the University of Minnesota: “Although microwaves heat food quickly, they are not recommended for heating a baby’s bottle,” the announcement said.

The bottle may seem cool to the touch, but the liquid inside may become extremely hot and could burn the baby’s mouth and throat. Also, the buildup of steam in a closed container such as a baby’s bottle could cause it to explode. “Heating the bottle in a microwave can cause slight changes in the milk. In infant formulas, there may be a loss of some vitamins. In expressed breast milk, some protective properties may be destroyed.” http://www.mercola.com/article/microwave/hazards2.htm

The report went on. “Warming a bottle by holding it under tap water or by setting it in a bowl of warm water, then testing it on your wrist before feeding, may take a few minutes longer, but it is much safer.” Valentine asked himself: If an established institution like the University of Minnesota can warn about the loss of particular nutrient qualities in microwaved baby formula or mother’s milk, then somebody must know something about microwaving they are not telling everybody.

A LAW SUIT
In early 1991, word leaked out about a lawsuit in Oklahoma. A woman named Norma Levitt had hip surgery, only to be killed by a simple blood transfusion when a nurse “warmed the blood for the transfusion in a microwave oven”! Logic suggests that if heating or cooking is all there is to it, then it doesn’t matter what mode of heating technology one uses. However, it is quite apparent that there is more to ‘heating’ with microwaves than we’ve been led to believe.
Blood for transfusions is routinely warmed-but not in microwave ovens! In the case of Mrs Levitt, the microwaving altered the blood and it killed her. Does it not therefore follow that this form of heating does, indeed, do ‘something different’ to the substances being heated? Is it not prudent to determine what that ‘something different’ might do? A funny thing happened on the way to the bank with all that microwave oven revenue: nobody thought about the obvious. Only ‘health nuts’ who are constantly aware of the value of quality nutrition discerned a problem with the widespread ‘denaturing’ of our food. Enter Hans Hertel.

HANS HERTEL
In the tiny town of Wattenwil, near Basel in Switzerland, there lives a scientist who is alarmed at the lack of purity and naturalness in the many pursuits of modern mankind. He worked as a food scientist for several years with one of the many major Swiss food companies that do business on a global scale. A few years ago, he was fired from his job for questioning procedures in processing food because they denatured it. “The world needs our help,”

Hans Hertel told Tom Valentine as they shared a fine meal at a resort hotel in Todtmoss, Germany. “We, the scientists, carry the main responsibility for the present unacceptable conditions. It is therefore our job to correct the situation and bring the remedy to the world. I am striving to bring man and techniques back into harmony with nature. We can have wonderful technologies without violating nature.” Hans is an intense man, driven by personal knowledge of violations of nature by corporate man and his state-supported monopolies in science, technology and education.

At the same time, as the two talked, his intensity shattered into a warm smile and he spoke of the way things could be if mankind’s immense talent were to work with nature and not against her. Hans Hertel is the first scientist to conceive of and carry out a quality study on the effects of microwaved nutrients on the blood and physiology of human beings. This small but well-controlled study pointed the firm finger at a degenerative force of microwave ovens and the food produced in them.

The conclusion was clear: microwave cooking changed the nutrients so that changes took place in the participants’ blood; these were not healthy changes but were changes that could cause deterioration in the human systems. Working with Bernard H. Blanc of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and the University Institute for Biochemistry, Hertel not only conceived of the study and carried it out, he was one of eight participants. “To control as many variables as possible, we selected eight individuals who were strict macrobiotic diet participants from the Macrobiotic Institute at Kientel, Switzerland,” Hertel explained. “We were all housed in the same hotel environment for eight weeks. There was no smoking, no alcohol and no sex.” One can readily see that this protocol makes sense.

After all, how could you tell about subtle changes in a human’s blood from eating microwaved food if smoking, booze, junk food, pollution, pesticides, hormones, antibiotics and everything else in the common environment were also present? “We had one American, one Canadian and six Europeans in the group. I was the oldest at 64 years, the others were in their 20s and 30s,” Hertel added.

New York City New York USA
Albania Tirana
Gosnells Victoria Australia
Midland, Texas
Greece Athens
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
Rwanda Kigali
Gabon, Libreville
Fort Collins, Colorado
Papua New Guinea, Port Moresby

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

Cell Phones May Cause Hearing Loss Part 1

Cell phones, Cell phone towers

Cell Phones May Cause Hearing Loss Part 2

http://www.emfnews.org/qlinks.html

Qlink Pendant

Home Radiation Protection

Envi Headsets

Gauss Meter

Sept. 19, 2007 — Long-time mobile phone users who talk more than an hour a day on the devices may be may be more likely to have high-frequency hearing loss, researchers say.

“Our intention is not to scare the public,” says Naresh K. Panda, MS, DNB, chairman of the department of ear, nose, and throat at the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research in Chandigarh, India, and researcher for the study. The study, he tells WebMD, is preliminary and small. “We need to study a larger number of patients.”
He presented the findings Wednesday at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Otolaryngology — Head and Neck Surgery in Washington.

His team found that people who had talked on cell phones for more than four years and those who talked more than an hour daily were more likely to have these high-frequency losses. These losses can make it difficult to hear consonants such as s, f, t and z, making it hard to understand words.

But another hearing expert familiar with the study says there is as yet no cause for alarm.

Hearing Loss Study
Panda and his colleagues evaluated 100 people, aged 18 to 45, who had used mobile phones for at least a year, dividing them into three groups according to length of use. One group of 35 had used phones for one to two years; another group of 35 had used them for two to four years, and a group of 30 had used them for more than four years.
“We asked them if they had been using the phones less than 60 minutes or more than 60 minutes per day,” Panda tells WebMD. They compared the phone users with 50 people who had never used cell phones and served as a control group. The study was conducted in India.

Those who used the mobile phones for more than four years had more hearing loss in high-frequency ranges in their right ear, the ear most held the phone to, than those who used the mobile phone for one to two years.
“When we compared high-frequency thresholds (the level at which the sound is first detected) between the one- to two-year [users] and more than four years; there was a significant difference in the thresholds between these two groups,” he says.

One- to two-year users had a 16.48 decibel loss in the high-frequency range, he says, while those who used the phones more than four years had a 24.54 decibel loss.

That decrease in hearing over a relatively brief period may not be noticeable to mobile phone users but would be of concern to a hearing expert, says Andy Vermiglio, AuD, a research audiologist at House Ear Institute in Los Angeles.
Mobile phone users who had symptoms such as a warm sensation, fullness in the ears, or ringing were more likely to have the high-frequency hearing loss, Panda also says.

Long-term mobile phone use may result in inner ear damage, Panda speculates. And symptoms such as ear warmth or fullness could be early warning signs of that damage.

The research is too preliminary to warrant alarm, says Chester Griffiths, MD, chairman of the surgery department at Santa Monica — UCLA Medical Center and Orthopaedic Hospital and assistant clinical professor at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California Los Angeles. He was not involved in the study but reviewed the findings for WebMD.
“Based on this study, I would not advise any change at the point, but I would caution people if they have any symptoms to stop using a cell phone or to reduce use.”

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Nigeria, Abuja
Portugal, Lisbon
Jamaica, Kingston
Lebanon, Beirut
Niger, Niamey
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Turkey, Ankara
City of Hawkesbury Australia
Bidiyah, United Arab Emirates, Bidiyah, UAE

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

Why a Microwave Oven Is Bad for Your Health Part 1

Microwave Oven, Microwaves Danger

Why a Microwave Oven Is Bad for Your Health Part 2

http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html

Lifebluetube Headset

Cell Phone Towers Health Effects

Cell Phone Sensitivity

EM Field Meter

First, let me state that I don’t walk around with aluminum foil wrapped around my head in an effort to shield my thoughts from the aliens. And I’m not trying to spread fear or perpetuate a hoax. What I want to do here is present scientific facts explaining exactly why cooking in the microwave is worse than cooking over the traditional cave-man fire, or your GE stove at home.

I was instantly skeptical the first time I heard that microwaving your food was bad. I read about a study that measured nutrients in cooked broccoli [1], comparing it cooked on the stove vs. in the microwave oven. I figured there was something biased about the study, like only cooking on high. Or maybe they were using the same cook time for both the stove and the microwave oven. Or maybe the microwave oven was heating the food hotter than the stove. I was in disbelief. After all, a microwave oven shortens cooking times, and that’s good, right? http://www.naturalnews.com/022015.html

I thought that all a microwave oven did was heat the food by moving the molecules faster. I was ignoring one very important characteristic of radio waves. Eventually, I put two and two together and realized something important.

But first, I need to explain how a microwave oven works. A microwave oven creates radio waves at a frequency of about 2.45 GHz [2, 3]. All radio waves are electromagnetic radiation.

When a polar molecule is placed in an electric field, it lines up with that field. It is similar to how a compass needle lines up with a magnetic field. Depending on the strength of the electric field, it will even stretch the polar molecule. But it will spring back as soon as the electric field is removed. So, the way a microwave works is, the rapidly oscillating electric field causes the polar molecules to move back and forth, increasing their kinetic energy (or heat). When matter is heated, the atoms and molecules start to vibrate faster. So far, it sounds like the heat from microwaves is no different than the stove. But there is one major difference. Microwaves have a strong electric field.

Electromagnetic radiation is a self-propagating wave composed of two components: an electric field, and a magnetic field. The two fields expand and collapse as they propagate through space. As the electric field collapses, it produces an expanding magnetic field. Conversely, as the magnetic field collapses, it produces an expanding electric field [4]. This is a simple explanation, and there are more details involved.

If the electric field is strong enough, not only will it stretch the molecule, it can also separate the charges enough so that an atom loses an electron. This is ionizing. Or it can separate a molecule. This is similar to electrolysis.

Port Pirie South Australia
Grenada, St. George’s
Lexington, Kentucky
Myanmar, Rangoon
Campbelltown Australia
Latvia Riga
Darwin, Northern Territory
Gabon Libreville
St. Paul, Minnesota
St. Louis Missouri USA

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

Scientific Dangers Of Wireless Cell Phones And Driving

Wireless Cell Phones, Wireless Danger

http://www.emfnews.org/qlinks.html

Qlink Pendant

Home Radiation Protection

Envi Headsets

Gauss Meter

The drive-safe Ontario cell phone legislation ban has been effective for exactly a month now making mobile cell talk illegal in Toronto.. but are Torontonians listening?

The new ‘distracted driving law’ (eyes on the road and hands on the wheel – bill 118) makes it law for drivers not to use certain digital wireless systems unless they have safely pulled over. The law has varying definitions from province to province and state to state but the main point being made here is very specific: Toronto citizens are not to use any sort of hand held electronic communication devices while driving, in a traffic jam and even while stopped at a red light (iPod, blackberrys, portable dvds, mp3 players, laptops, handheld games, devices for emailing and texting inclusive) or face the penalties that cost $500. Exempt are hands free devices and dash-mounted global positioning systems (GPS), however, if a driver is using a hands free device ‘while putting others at risk’ it can cost up to a $1000 fine, 6 demerit points, license suspension and possible jail.

A Canadian based technology in Vancouver has recently developed a way to block wireless signals inside a moving vehicle. The company that developed the technology to block wireless signals claims in its advertising that it was designed primarily to minimize preventable accidents from driver distraction. However, earlier this year the World Health Organization (WHO) had recommended to radiation advisory authorities to find ways to minimize exposure to users before year end therefore this new in-vehicle technological tool can also be banking on the progressive change to deter addicted cell phone users from being compelled to use their electronic communication devices while driving as a means to prevent accidents but to also lower radiation exposure for drivers and passengers that are confined in a small space, that being the vehicle cabin. http://www.rfsafe.com/article4025-cell_talk__the_scientific_danger_of_wireless_mobile_telephony_and_driving.html

The health concerns over mobile phones comes from how the phones operate: cellular technology functions in the microwave range using electromagnetic radiation; some scientific research stipulates that this may be harmful to the human brain and human health in general, with technology around us working in a similar way the effects become cumulative, the exposure excessive. These concerns have increased with the enormous growth in wireless device usage the past couple of years as wireless mobile telephony alone has over 2 billion users world wide.

With the long term health risks aside, the even more immediate danger of cellular technology is surfacing in driver distraction as safety statistics reported many deaths from texting and cell talking while driving. In human brain psychological experiments, studies have shown that speaking and ‘planning to speak’ can deplete the brain’s resources more than listening. Measurements of the attention span levels demonstrated that subjects were more likely to be distracted while preparing to speak than when listening to speech at a ratio of 4:1 (thus drivers four times more likely distracted while talking than every time one listened). Even though an in-vehicle conversational passenger or the car radio may audibly distract the driver, transportation test simulations found that drivers carrying out a conversation on a cell phone were more likely to overlook traffic and road signs. It is believed that an in-vehicle conversation(s) can be in alignment with the driving conditions whereas cell talk can be more distracting with perhaps the underlined emotional response(s) to an outside issue that may displace the driver’s thinking further from the task at hand hence adding to the distraction factor.

In safety studies and accident statistics text messaging had the greatest relative risk since texting entices the driver to glance away from the road (forcing the eyes to refocus adds to the danger) causing up to six folds to traffic safety hazards. According to traffic safety studies it is 20 times more likely probable for a driver to experience a safety-critical event when texting.

In conclusion, even though legal in-vehicle hands free devices (like dash-mounted GPS that can provide en route guidance) allow steadier steering and keep radiation at arms length.. from a scientific perspective, by not focusing completely on the driving, even hands free devices make no exception on the cognitive workings involved in brain function, producing an overall increased risk on the road that is ultimately very parallel to the risks of cell talk conversations. http://www.emfnews.org/Car-Radiation-Cell-Phones-Faraday-Cage-and-Cancer.html

Costa Mesa California USA
Pembroke Pines, Florida
Germany, Berlin
Greece, Athens
Spain, Madrid
Bahrain Manama
Huntington Beach California USA
Moe Victoria Australia
Palau Koror
United States Washington, D.C.

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

RF Exposure Measurements & Testing Cell Towers Part 2

RF Exposure, Cell Towers

RF Exposure Measurements & Testing Cell Towers Part 3

http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html

Lifebluetube Headset

Cell Phone Towers Health Effects

Cell Phone Sensitivity

EM Field Meter

Standards vs. Guidelines – The Rationale for Testing

Regulations adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1996, and fully implemented in 2000, limit human exposure to electromagnetic radiation from cell phone, broadcast, and other radio communication systems. Both U.S. and international standards governing exposure to radio frequency (RF) fields have long existed, and the FCC regulations were adapted from a pre-existing standard. They establish Maximum Permissible Exposures, or MPEs, for the full range of frequencies encountered near transmitting equipment, towers, and antennas. These are the formal exposure standards in the U.S., and have full regulatory force.

For cellular antennas on towers, the level of RF energy that one would realistically be exposed to is usually less than 1% of the MPE. For broadcast towers and building mounted cellular antennas, much higher exposures are possible, although the MPEs are still unlikely to be exceeded in areas accessible to the public. So why are people concerned about cell towers, or RF exposure in general? Is some caution warranted? Three reasons for this concern are recognized:

1. Some people don’t trust the cell phone companies or the government to act with the public’s best interest in mind.

2. Many people equate the potential adverse health effects of cell phone use, which has received a lot of media coverage, with the presence of cell towers. (In reality, the energy that one is exposed to while holding a cell phone to the head is far greater than one is exposed to in the vicinity of a cell tower.)

3. The existing exposure limitations are based primarily on the avoidance of energy deposition in the body sufficient to cause heating of tissue. More recent research data indicates that some types of radio frequency fields influence cellular function through mechanisms that do not involve heating. Therefore, the existing limitations may be based upon incomplete and outdated science, and thus not fully protective. http://www.emfnews.org/store/home-cell-phone-and-mobile-tower-radiation-meters.html

Bosnia, Sarajevo,

Korea, (South), Seoul, City

Ghana, Accra

Birmingham, Alabama

Portugal, Lisbon

Miami, Florida

Washington, District of Columbia

Murfreesboro, Tennessee

Ghana, Accra

Joliet Illinois USA

Chula Vista, California

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

RF Exposure Measurements & Testing Cell Towers Part 1

Cell Towers, RF Exposure

http://www.emfnews.org/qlinks.html

Qlink Pendant

Home Radiation Protection

Envi Headsets

Gauss Meter

The popularity of cell phones and wireless communication devices has resulted in a proliferation of cell towers across the American landscape. Opposition to the placement of these towers has sometimes developed among segments of the population, usually based upon aesthetics, concern over the electromagnetic radiation, or both. http://www.emfnews.org/store/home-cell-phone-and-mobile-tower-radiation-meters.html

EMF Services can conduct testing and site assessments for individuals, schools, businesses, or municipalities who wish to become aware of the RF levels at a location near cell phone or broadcast towers. The report that we provide will permit comparison of measured levels with FCC Maximum Permissible Exposures (MPEs), precautionary guidelines, and routine background levels for comparable environments. If new antennas or towers are planned for your location, our site survey can be used to establish a baseline RF level for later comparison (before and after testing). Follow-up readings are provided at substantially reduced cost compared to the initial survey.

The purpose of this testing is to empower you to make responsible, fact-based decisions about the RF environment surrounding your community, facility, home, or school. We use advanced equipment to perform the most accurate and comprehensive RF exposure assessments in the industry. All services are delivered by personnel with several years of experience in planning and directing the installation of radio communication facilities, using equipment with current factory calibration certificates. If exposure reduction measures are desired, recommendations will be included in the report. The greatest advantage of our surveys over that of other providers is the ability to address the issue of low-level, long-term, non-thermal exposures, and to articulate the scientific rationale for a precautionary exposure guideline.

EMF Services no longer performs standard RF compliance surveys. We provide only enhanced testing services that involve more detailed data collection, and a more extensive and broader coverage report, than a conventional compliance survey. Our surveys incorporate procedures and equipment to separately measure cellular power density, in addition to the composite power density (the combination of all RF signals present). We use top quality professional equipment, and extensive procedural safeguards, to ensure the highest degree of RF measurement accuracy.

The purpose of our testing services is not to provide a basis for contesting the siting of cell phone towers or to seek their removal once sited. This position is not the result of an alliance between EMF Services and the cellular service providers. They are not our clients. Rather, it represents an effort to avoid leading you down the path toward a disappointing result. The RF levels near a cell tower will not approach Maximum Permissible Exposures at ground level where people are present. Therefore, from a legal perspective, grounds for such an action do not exist. Further, a court of law is not the best venue for a challenge to the science on which existing standards are based. The likely result is disappointment and a wasted financial expenditure. The best reason for testing and measurement services is to understand the field levels that exist, and what can be done to reduce them.

Fremont California USA
Djibouti, Djibouti
Bhutan Thimphu
Seychelles, Victoria
El Monte, California
Ghana, Accra
City of Coffs Harbour Australia
Romania Bucharest
Uruguay, Montevideo
Luxembourg Luxembourg City

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

4 Factors That Can Reduce Cell Phone Radiation Part 1

Cell Phone Radiation, Cell Phone Radiation Protection

4 Factors That Can Reduce Cell Phone Radiation Part 2

http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html

Lifebluetube Headset

Cell Phone Towers Health Effects

Cell Phone Sensitivity

EM Field Meter

By Amy Rosenthal / EWG Enviroblog

Research is not yet settled on exactly how dangerous cell phone radiation is to your health. But we at Environmental Working Group have seen enough studies with enough troubling results that we think it’s worth your while to reduce your exposure to cell phone radiation. http://www.emfnews.org/store/home-cell-phone-and-mobile-tower-radiation-meters.html

When we talked a few weeks ago about insufficient government cell phone regulations, we discussed “SAR” values and the legal limits the government has set for the amount of radiation a phone can emit. But SAR values aren’t always easy to pin down – so today we’re going to look closely at what they are and how they can vary by phone.

What does SAR mean, anyway?

“SAR” stands for “specific absorption rate” – it’s a measure of how much radiation is absorbed by your body, given in Watts per kilogram (W/kg). Scientists test for SAR values using models of the human body filled with viscous fluid designed to mimic human tissue. The phone is placed next to the mold, and while the phone transmits a signal, a probe inside the human model measures the absorbed energy levels. The phone’s SAR value is designated as the highest amount of radiation detected during these tests.

What determines a phone’s emission level?

A phone’s SAR value is largely determined by the design of its inner hardware and antenna. But, since the SAR measures how much radiation is absorbed by your body (heartening, huh?), the value is determined by both a) the amount of radiation emitted by the phone, and b) what body part is doing the absorbing (yes, some absorb radiation more than others).

SAR values for an individual phone can vary, based on several factors:

Network & frequency

Most phones sold today can operate on several networks (e.g. 2G v. 3G) and at different frequencies (which band of the network the phone is using to send and receive signals). The same phone can emit different levels of radiation depending on which network and which frequency it’s being used on at any given time.

Where you’re using it

Phones emit radiation when they’re transmitting signals from your handset to a base station (cell tower), so the harder a phone has to work to send a signal, the more radiation it will emit. As a result, when you’re using your phone far from a base station (say, in a rural area) or if there are physical obstacles in the way, the SAR value would be higher.

How you’re using it

A phone also uses more power to transmit a voice signal, so texting emits less radiation than talking.
Where you’re holding it Originally, SAR measurements focused primarily on values when held at the head. But over time, cell phone use has changed – now we’re carrying phones in our pockets and often leaving them there while talking on a headset or not using them.

This means less radiation to the brain (that’s good) but more to the lower torso. SAR values vary based on the type of body tissue absorbing the radiation, and research has shown that skin and muscles absorb more radiation than fat and bones. This raises concern about exposures at the waist, particularly to reproductive organs that don’t have a protective layer of bone (like a skull provides the brain) shielding them from cell phone radiation. http://www.emfnews.org/store/home-cell-phone-and-mobile-tower-radiation-meters.html

Poland, Warsaw,
Ethiopia, Addis Ababa
Seattle, Washington
Peoria Arizona USA
Solomon Islands, Honiara
Chad, N’Djamena
Pompano Beach, Florida
Columbia, Missouri
Santa Clarita California USA
Columbia, South Carolina

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

Wireless Radiation Creates Concern Over Frequency Pollution Part 1

Wireless Radiation, Frequency Pollution

http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html

Lifebluetube Headset

Cell Phone Towers Health Effects

Cell Phone Sensitivity

EM Field Meter

There’s something lonely about parties. Especially if you’re one of the few who isn’t celebrating. And as laptop lovers citywide rejoice in the announcement that downtown Toronto will be a wireless Internet hot spot by the fall, critics worry that we may be feeding a new form of smog that hangs in the air without a trace and makes a growing number of us sick: electrical pollution.

Whether it’s fluorescent lights, cellphones or computer screens, more and more of us are realizing that the technology we’ve welcomed into our homes and offices is making us ill. According to stats from Sweden and Britain, about 2 or 3 per cent of the population suffers from potentially debilitating electro-hypersensitivity, or EHS. Symptoms are all over the map, and include nausea, headaches, chronic fatigue, chronic pain, tinnitus and rashes, to name a few.

Researchers also say that many more, over a third of us, are a little electro-sensitive and just don’t know it, blaming restless nights, office brain fog and Motrin moments on everything but our electrified environment.

While the biological effects of cellphones keep getting slammed in studies and researchers continue to examine the impact of electromagnetic fields on health, few people talk about the impact of Wi-Fi with any real specifics.

“Show me the studies that prove it is safe,” says David Fancy, co-founder of the St. Catharines-based SWEEP (Safe Wireless Electric and Electromagnetic Policy) Initiative, a network for EHS sufferers across Canada.

“I’ve never seen anything from industry except blanket assurances from their PR departments,” says the Brock U prof. “This is the identical strategy used by the tobacco industry in the 50s and 60s.”

Indeed, Toronto Hydro, which is bringing the hot zone project to the table, is full of comforting messages. “I can assure you that the health and safety of our employees and customers is the number-one most important thing to this corporation,” says president David Dobbin.

But even he can sound a little shaky on the data. “I understand where people are coming from. When you stand back and look at it, hey, there may be a concern,” says Dobbin, “but at this point in time we don’t have any conclusive evidence that it’s a health concern.” Just inconclusive evidence, then? Dobbin says not to worry, the signal is about as weak as that from a baby monitor or a cordless phone.

But Dave Stetzer, a Wisconsin-based electrical engineer, says cordless phones make plenty of people sick. In fact, the consultant recommends people with sensitivities not only get rid of their cordless phones, but also toss their dimmer switches, energy-efficient fluorescent bulbs, halogen lights and, yes, baby monitors.

The link between them all? Radio frequencies. We know that wireless technology like cellphones and Wi-Fi emit such frequencies. But Stetzer explains that radio frequency surges created by appliances are also riding the electrical wiring in your home when they shouldn’t be.

Luxembourg, Luxembourg City
Sweden, Stockholm,
Chandler, Arizona
Aurora, Colorado
El Monte, California
Palau, Koror
Pembroke Pines, Florida
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Bulgaria, Sofia,
The Netherlands, Amsterdam

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

Wireless Radiation Creates Concern Over Frequency Pollution Part 2

Wireless Radiation, Frequency Pollution

http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html

Lifebluetube Headset

Cell Phone Radiation Protection

Mobile Phone Radiation Protection

Trifield Electromagnetic Field Meter

A few years ago, if you had a computer and you didn’t have a power bar surge suppressor, when a surge came though it could shut off your computer or destroy it,” he says. That surge is dirty electricity. “We know it affects electrical equipment, but what our research is showing is that it’s also having an effect on humans.”

Magda Havas, an environmental science professor at Trent, has been studying just that. Havas teaches a course on the biological impact of electromagnetic radiation and radio frequencies – the only one of its kind in Canada.

Her work with people with MS, diabetes and other illnesses documents how many found their symptoms improved when their environments were electrically cleaned, so to speak, by placing capacitators (filters) throughout their homes. Brad Blumbergs has progressive multiple sclerosis and says he walked with a cane until he volunteered for Havas’s experiment. Michelle Illiatovitch’s daughter suffered from chronic fatigue from the time she was eight and saw her energy return once an electrician fixed some faulty wiring in their home and filters were put in her North York school.

Explains Havas,”We can take a person who is diabetic and put them in an [electrically] dirty environment, and their blood sugar levels rise. We then put them into a clean environment, and within half an hour their blood sugar levels are lower. It becomes a barometer.”

Why diabetes? Scientists have long known stress affects the disease. But what researchers like Columbia cellular biophysics prof Martin Blank say is that electromagnetic waves and radio frequencies actually trigger stress responses in cells.

“If you need any more evidence that the body is telling you, ‘I’m hurting,’ this is it,” says Blank. “That’s what the stress response is – it’s the testimony of the cells.” And that response, he adds, is activated by very weak fields, not just the kinds emitted by major transmission lines, but the kind inundating your home.

“Who knows what being exposed to [multiple sources] simultaneously does? You’ve got TV broadcasting outside, you’ve got cellphones broadcasting outside. God knows what’s going on with all these things coming and going together. There’s no attempt to deal with it except in the vaguest way.” And Wi-Fi? Blank says he wouldn’t want it in his home.

Bottom line, says the prof, “the guys who say they’re protecting us with these standards are not protecting us.”
Health Canada, on the other hand, insists our exposure to all this stuff is safe. Says spokesperson Paul Duchesne, “We’ve conducted four studies since 2000 assessing the impact of radio frequency fields’ [ability] to cause DNA damage and affect gene expression, and there’s been no effect. We haven’t seen any, anyway.”

Still, Duchesne says, “we recommend that if people are experiencing any symptoms they should contact a physician so that treatment can happen.” It’s hard to imagine what kind of treatment the department expects doctors to give when both Health Canada and the World Health Organization discourage doctors from fuelling speculation about a connection between electrical pollution and EHS and suggest a psychological assessment be given.

“I wonder how many people out there are being misdiagnosed,” asks Martin Weatherall, a retired Toronto cop who started developing a ringing in his ears and headaches when he moved into a new home. “They’re being harmed by their electrical environments, and doctors are just sending them to a psychiatrist.”

Even casual acceptance of the connection by official sources seems to be frowned on. A report released by Britain’s Health Protection Agency’s radiation division last fall was publicly smeared by the Department of Health there for suggesting that those with EHS stay away from electrical appliances. Nonetheless, Toronto Hydro’s website encourages anyone concerned to move clock radios away from their bed and to air dry for a few minutes after bathing to cut down on hair dryer time. Kind of strange for a company that says there’s nothing to worry about.

It seems both industry and regulators are seriously covering their asses. You know, just in case.

Austria, Vienna
Belgium, Brussels,
Norway, Oslo,
Serbia, Belgrade
Hobart Burnie, Tasmania,
Micronesia, Palikir,
Portugal, Lisbon,
Malta, Valetta
Slovakia, Bratislava,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products