Alarm Over Mobile Phone Cancer Risk

Mobile Phone Cancer, Mobile Phone Cancer Protection

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

Lifebluetube Headset

Cell Phone Radiation Protection

Mobile Phone Radiation Protection

Trifield Electromagnetic Field Meter

by Sheela Philomena on June 02, 2011

WHO warning of brain cancer risk for mobile phone users had left many people alarmed over the issue but resigned to needing the devices to do their jobs.

“It’s really scaring me. Usually, I put it on a speaker, or I only use it in an emergency. And it is really scary because of my kids,” Milite Andom, 49, a street vendor with teenaged children, told AFP.
“They talk too much on their cells (mobiles), and I was telling my kids, but they do not want to hear it,” Andom added.

The WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) announced Tuesday after meeting in France that radio-frequency electromagnetic fields generated by such devices are “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”

The IARC cautioned that current scientific evidence showed only a possible link, not a proven one, between wireless devices and cancers.

But the news was jarring to people whose lives have changed dramatically in recent years with the personal convenience of the cellphone, to the point where many spend hours with the devices pressed to their heads, day in and day out.

When setting up homes, many people forgo traditional land lines, cells pressed to the ear.

There are now about five billion mobile phones registered in the world, their use so ubiquitous that they have begun to eclipse traditional landlines. Worldwide mobile sales increased 32 percent last year, tracking firms say.

But health experts said it was still unclear what might happen with greater exposure over longer periods.

“Everything new, they just throw it out there with no real testing. And 10 years later they tell you it is all bad for you,” sighed bike messenger David Daudu, 31, who spends more than 12 hours a day on the street and on the phone.

Asked if the warning might change his habits, Daudu was clear: “I have no option, workwise.”

His sentiments were echoed by construction foreman Michael Harris, 41.

“What are you going to do?,” asked Harris, who spends hours every day receiving and relaying instructions, cell at his ear.

“You want to try to stay healthy, but this is the way business is being done today.

Some mobile users reluctant to change their phone habits said they hoped someone would hurry up and disprove the WHO findings.

“Two weeks from now, they’ll probably come out with (a study) rebutting it,” quipped bank teller Nick Bolden, 25.

The US Centers for Disease Control maintains that research so far does not lean toward a significant association between cell phone use and health effects.

Bernadette Burden, a spokeswoman for the Atlanta-based agency, said of the new report: “We take research seriously. And our experts here are going to examine it very carefully.”

Burden noted the phone-use potential risk level announced by the WHO was in the same class as that of coffee.

Yet she told AFP: “We recognize that it is a very serious issue.”

Zimbabwe, Harare
Bahamas, Nassau
Canada, Ottawa
Perth Albany, Victoria,
Clearwater Florida USA,
Colombia, Bogotá
Cambodia, Phnom Penh
Liechtenstein Vaduz
Qatar, Doha (Al-Dawhah)
Korea (North), P’yongyang

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

Potential Cell Phone Risks Going Unheeded

Cell Phone Radiation, Cell Phone Radiation Protection

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

Qlink Pendant

Home Radiation Protection

Envi Headsets

Gauss Meter

Cell phones have become such a necessity… such a part of everyday living that few of us can imagine how we’d manage without them. Surprising then that news last week of a report stating that cell phone risks related to the radiation from these popular mobile devices might indeed up the risk of cancer was met by a shrug by the phone toting American public.

Though not widely available in the U.S. until the 1990s, these essential devices are no longer deemed a luxury, estimates have us talking for around 700 minutes each month, far higher than the rest of the world.

The researchers examined dozens of peer-reviewed studies published on cell phones and cancer before coming to the decision that our favorite gadget should be classified as “possibly carcinogenic”.

The team included 31 scientists from 14 nations (including the U.S.). In case you’re wondering, that same “possibly carcinogenic” classification is home to night shift work, coffee, lead and engine exhaust.

We know cell phones do give off weak radio waves, but they can’t cause the sort of changes in cells that come from the sun or other sources of radioactivity.

While the troublesome threat might have been widely dismissed by the phone dependent public, Google searches for words like “cell phone” and “cancer” were up in the week following the May 31, 2011 announcement.

Some users are planning to switch to headsets to put some distance between the phone and themselves. Using the speakerphone feature is also a good option – when you don’t need privacy. Keeping the phone itself away from your body is also the recommendation of many manufacturers.

Part of our lukewarm reaction to the news is that many people have been using their phones for several years, so if a risk exists, we’ve all been exposed already. Shoppers for cell phones are more interested in features – clear calls and ease of texting – than they are about the potential cancer risk.

We do know that these phones give off different amounts of radiation, and there are proposals out there in a few states to have retailers display the radiation ratings of phones to customers.

The radiation that comes from a cell phone is known as non-ionizing – think of it as a weak microwave oven. Over time this effect might not just bring cancers or tumors, but possibly memory problems too, especially since the memory temporal lobes are just where most people hold their cell phones.

Research just isn’t able to totally rule out an association between cancer and cell phone use. Experts insist that if a link is indeed found, it won’t be a strong one. If you’re worried, you might consider a Bluetooth headset, though these have been reducing in popularity for a while now, mainly due to the style complaints of the wearers.

Cell phone makers point out that all phones are considered safe by current science. And until May 2011, the WHO agreed with them.

The trouble is that most environmental contributors to cancer take several decades of exposure before you can truly see the consequences in patients. The European Environmental Agency is pushing for more research, speculating that cell phones risks to health could be as big a public health concern as smoking, asbestos and leaded gas.

Lithuania, Vilnius,
Swan Hill, Victoria,
Zimbabwe, Hararesssss,
Cote d’Ivoire Yamoussoukro
Salem Oregon USA
Greece, Athens,
Portugal, Lisbon,
Cambodia, Phnom Penh,
Argentina, Buenos Aires City,
Comoros Moroni (on Grande Comoro)

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

Mobile Phone Radiation Triggers Behavioral Disorders in Children

Mobile Phone Radiation, Mobile Phone Radiation Protection

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

Lifebluetube Headset

Cell Phone Radiation Protection

Mobile Phone Radiation Protection

Trifield Electromagnetic Field Meter

July 28, 2011 by antonius tri haryadi

The controversy surrounding the negative effects of mobile phone radiation does not seem to be ending. After not been proven to increase the risk of cancer, is now alleged that radiation triggers behavioral disorders in children.

Greatest risk is experienced by the children who are accustomed to using mobile phones since a young age. Even in the womb, the fetus is affected by this if the mother is too often use cell phones during the pregnancy.

This was revealed by researchers from the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. The Research has involved 28 000 children aged 7 years and 100,000 pregnant women between the years 1996-2002.

In pregnancy, the mothers filled out a questionnaire about lifestyle, including frequency of mobile phone usage. Similar questionnaire was administered again after giving birth and when her son entered the age of 7 years, while the researchers looked at medical records relating to the child’s emotions and behavior.
The results show that the children who use mobile phones since a toddler is 50 percent more at risk of conduct disorder on entering the age of 7 years. Abnormal behavior was quite variable, one of which concentration problems and hyperactivity (GPPH).

In children who have not been accustomed to use of the mobile phone, the risk remains high if the mother’s during his pregnancy frequent use a mobile phones. Not much different from the first group, cell phone usage during the pregnancy increases the risk of behavioral disorders by 40 percent when a child is 7 years old.

Increased risk of behavioral disorders is quite high when compared with the average mobile phone usage among children respondents in the study. In their report, investigators said none of the child respondents who use mobile phones more than 1 hour / week.

The results of this research re-warm the controversy about the dangers of cell phone radiation. In May 2010, the World Health Organisation had confirmed that the increased risk of brain cancer due to mobile phone radiation is not too significant.

Jordan, Amman,
Brazil, Brasilia
Russia, Moscow
Cape Verde, Praia
Dominica, Roseau
El Salvador, San Salvador
Fiji, Suva
Costa Rica, San José
Columbia Missouri USA
Brunei Darussalam, Bandar Seri Begawan

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

Cell Phones and Cancer Risks

Cell Phone Radiation Radiation, Cell Phone Radiation Radiation Protection

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

Qlink Pendant

Home Radiation Protection

Envi Headsets

Gauss Meter

by rubyhawk | July 25, 2011

Using your cellphone is dangerous and increases your risk of brain cancer according to scientific studies. Your brain is right behind your ear and is absorbing radiation while your cellphone is against your ear. Scientific studies have been going on since the advent of cellphones but more and more evidence is accumulating to support the theory. There are some steps you can take to reduce the risk other than throwing your cellphone away, which would be the only way to avoid any risk of radiation caused cancer.

The risk of cancer from cell phone use has been going around and around for awhile now. Due to the latest study the risks are very credible and we should pay attention, especially those who are glued to their cell phone. There are some steps you can take to decrease your risks, other than throwing away your cellphone. We would be wise to protect our brains from radiation. The radiation from cell phones aren’t the same as the kind in a nuclear plant. Cell phones expose you to nonionizing radiation. It’s the same radiation produced by a microwave oven. It’s created by radio frequency that causes heating.

There is no doubt that when you hold your cell phone to your ear you are exposing your brain to radiation and cancer. There are some steps you can take to reduce the radiation. Number one, move your phone from ear to ear every few minutes to shorten the radiation in one area. Number two, shorten your conversations. If you need to talk long use your home phone, its safe. Just following these two steps will substantially shorten your exposure.

Your cellphone is a receiver and a transmitter packed in one small device. It links to a cell tower where your signal is amplified and sent to other towers. If you are far from a cell tower the phone boosts it’s own transmitting power. That means your cellphone is powering up and giving you a larger dose of radiation. So, avoid using your cellphone when you are in an area with a low signal. Wait until you are closer to towers.
Some phones require more transmitting power. Choose a cellphone that’s conservative. Look here for cellphones with power variations and shows how much each model uses. reviews.cnet.com/cell-phone-radiation-levels/

When you speak on a cellphone your ear is moving radiation to the most vulnerable part of your body, your brain. Use your speaker when you can to hold the cellphone away from your body. Even a few inches can lower the radiation.

Don’t consider clipping your cellphone to your belt. Your groin is another very vulnerable area. Also some scientists say that wired headsets serve as tiny antennas that direct signals straight to your head. But it might still be better than holding the phone against your ear. It’s risky either way.

Cuba, Havana,
Finland Helsinki
Cyprus, Nicosia,
Swaziland Mbabane
Springfield Massachusetts USA
Romania Bucharest
Ethiopia, Addis Ababa,
Lithuania Villinus
Lebanon Beirut
Bendigo Victoria Australia

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

Cell Phone Radiation Law? What’s The Risk?

Cell Phone Radiation, Cell Phone Radiation Protection

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

Lifebluetube Headset

Cell Phone Radiation Protection

Mobile Phone Radiation Protection

Trifield Electromagnetic Field Meter

Amy Gahran, CNN — On Tuesday, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a new ordinance requiring cell phone retailers to display and distribute a state-produced fact sheet that explains radio frequency emissions from cell phones and how consumers can minimize their exposure.
This ordinance amends the city’s controversial Cell Phone Right to Know Act, a similar but more cumbersome law passed last year that required cell phone retailers to post and distribute radiation information for every make and model of cell phone they sell. That would have been a significant challenge to retailers, given how many types of phones any store sells and how quickly that inventory changes.

Implementation of the original law was scuttled after the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (the lobbying arm of the wireless industry) sued the city. So far it is unknown when the new law will take effect.

The possible health risk of cell phone radiation is a hot-button topic for many people, and this controversy is definitely not just about science. In fact, it’s probably more about the perception of risk, rather than the level or nature of risk.
What does the science say? Concerns resurfaced in May when the World Health Organization classified electromagnetic fields produced by mobile phones as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” after analyzing the body of scientific research. In that announcement, WHO stated:

“A large number of studies have been performed over the last two decades to assess whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use. … While an increased risk of brain tumors is not established, the increasing use of mobile phones and the lack of data for mobile phone use over time periods longer than 15 years warrant further research of mobile phone use and brain cancer risk. … WHO will conduct a formal risk assessment of all studied health outcomes from radio frequency fields exposure by 2012.”

David Ropeik, an expert in understanding and communicating about risk and author of the book “How Risky Is It, Really?,” believes that while San Francisco’s cell phone fact sheet requirement probably won’t hurt anything, it’s unlikely to help the public understanding of this issue.

The problem, he notes, is that public fears about cell phone radiation do not appear to be supported by the preponderance of scientific research.

People should take the WHO announcement in context, he said. “By definition, that organization is required to be superprecautionary if there’s any possible hint that something might be carcinogenic. Their default is that if there’s any credible evidence whatsoever, even in just a few studies, they’ll put something on their ‘possibly carcinogenic’ list. Which only means, depending on the rating they give it, ‘Let’s keep looking.’ That’s about as high as this particular risk assessment has gotten so far.”

The new San Francisco requirement probably won’t hurt anything directly, Ropeik said. But it does provide a tacit sanction of cell phone radiation fears by a recognized authority, an important social signal.

“It feeds a responsiveness to public fears that in the long run can make us more afraid of our world than is actually warranted. That hurts us both in the choices we make and in stress we feel. Sanctioning fears that are not well founded in evidence contributes to our sense that we live in a worrying world.”
This is not to imply that people who voice concerns about cell phone radiation are misguided. Ropeik encourages people with such concerns to learn more about how science assesses health risk.

“You don’t necessarily have to read through a lot of scientific papers and journals,” he said. “You can use news coverage as a guide — but probably not the headlines. Look for articles with direct quotes from scientists or scientific organizations. The first clue is in the language they use when discussing risk. If you hear words like ‘possible,’ ‘more research is necessary,’ ‘hints,’ ‘clues,’ ‘maybe,’ and ‘uncertainty’ — or if there are no clear recommendations for people to do anything, there’s probably less need for the average person to take action.”

“Also, keep in mind that any one study is just a brick in the wall. The point is: How big is that wall? How many bricks does it have, and how firmly are they cemented together? More studies give you a fuller picture, and the consistency of their results tells you how certain the scientific evidence is.”

Scientists often use “hedge words” because they know it’s unwise to put too much stock in the results of a single study, or in mixed results from a group of related studies. But Ropeik notes that there have been cases where scientists have sounded a clear, early, public warning when warranted — such as for cancer risks associated with hormone replacement therapy.
Just be careful of putting too much faith in dire warnings sounded by a single scientist (or team of scientists) about a single study. This was the case in the widely publicized but now-discredited research by Dr. Andrew Wakefield that connected vaccines to autism. It led many parents around the world to stop vaccinating their children, something that has demonstrably harmed public health, journalist Seth Mnookin writes in his book “The Panic Virus.”

And it’s true that new science can contradict or invalidate earlier research findings, as MedPage Today recently reported. So it’s important to keep up with the current state of science for any issues that concern you greatly — and to especially listen for clear warnings, rather than faint indications of possible correlations or risks.

“People deserve credit for being reasonably intelligent about how they assess and respond to risk,” said Ropeik. “Sure we make mistakes sometimes, but this time most people’s response to this risk was proportional to the warning. The warning was a weak one. Most people have not stopped using their cell phones. They’re not putting a lead sheet between themselves and their phones. And even the media coverage included plenty of qualifications about the risk potential. Behavior tells you a lot about how people really take risk into account in their lives.”

Swaziland, Mbabane (administrative)
Hungary Budapest
Lesotho, Maseru
Ireland, Dublin,
West Covina California USA
Norway, Oslo
Kiribati, Tarawa
Gambia, Banjul
Niger, Niamey
Lobamba (legislative)

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

Dueling with Microwave Ovens Part 3

Microwave Ovens, Microwave Ovens Protection

Dueling with Microwave Ovens Part 2

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

Qlink Pendant

Home Radiation Protection

Envi Headsets

Gauss Meter

What do you do about interference from microwave ovens?

Consider the following countermeasures:

• Change access point channels. The microwave in use with this testing didnt severely degrade channels 1 through 6. As a result, avoid the use of these channels in areas of the building where microwave ovens operate. In fact, web browsing was very fast with the microwave running and the access point set to channel 1 and channel 6. Keep in mind, however, that your microwave ovens may operate at different frequencies within the 2.4GHz band. Check the label on the back of the microwave, which should provide the center operating frequency.

• Avoid using the WLAN near microwave ovens. Keep at least ten feet away from operating microwaves while actively using WLAN applications. This eliminates working from most company break rooms when the microwave is in use. The actual impacts would only be intermittent, though, when someone runs the microwave for a few minutes while heating up a burrito or cup of soup.
As you can see, microwave ovens wont completely bring down your WLAN. Just be aware of the situation, and of the applicable countermeasures.

Jim Geier provides independent consulting services to companies developing and deploying wireless network solutions. He is the author of the book, Wireless LANs and offers training focusing on WLANs.

San Marino San Marino
Albania Tirana
Detroit Michigan USA
Poland Warsaw
Eritrea, Asmara,
Ghana Accra
Estonia, Tallinn,
Inglewood California USA
Queanbeyan Australia
Russian Federation Moscow City

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

Dueling with Microwave Ovens Part 1

Microwave Ovens, Microwave Ovens Protection

Dueling with Microwave Ovens Part 2

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

Lifebluetube Headset

Cell Phone Radiation Protection

Mobile Phone Radiation Protection

Trifield Electromagnetic Field Meter

There’s been a lot of talk about microwave ovens causing interference with wireless LANs. Take a look at what was found when testing Wi-Fi in their presence.

Radio frequency (RF) interference causes wireless clients and access points to hold off transmitting, which causes delay and lower throughput. This resulting decrease in performance can make browsing websites and downloading files sluggish. In cases where interfering signals are strong enough, the wireless clients may not be able to access the LAN at all for an indefinite period of time. This is rare, but possible.

As a result, you need to be aware of potential sources of RF interference, such as cordless phones, other WLANs — and microwave ovens. In this tutorial, well focus on interference that microwave ovens create. Most microwaves emit signals that fall within the same 2.4GHz frequency band that 802.11b WLANs utilize. It’s something to think about when deploying.

Bahrain, Manama
Brazil, Brasilia,
Central African Republic, Bangui,
Uganda, Kampala
Dodoma (legislative)
Egypt, Cairo
Djibouti, Djibouti
Hungary, Budapest
Guyana, Georgetown
Brownsville Texas USA

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products