The Bluetooth Headset That Uses a Wireless Micro

Microwave Radiation, Microwave frequencies

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

Lifebluetube Headset

Microwave Radiation

Trifield Electromagnetic Field Meter

January 4, 2012

All Bluetooth headsets and Technology wireless emit microwave radiation. Microwave frequencies have shorter wavelengths and the rapid rate of oscillation. This is what allows them to travel long distances without the need to bring information contained in the wire.

Short wavelength oscillation frequency microwave and quickly also makes them adept is able to penetrate living tissue to the level of cell Bluetooth Headset. This characteristic is to use microwave frequencies for weapons. By beaming microwave radiation. Using this type of wireless technology Bluetooth headsets put themselves in the field microwave radiation. Effects of exposure to microwave radiation on the body long term has been documented in countless studies over several decades.

Microwave radiation has been shown to affect biological changes in the body. These biological changes occur at the cellular level and their effects can be passed on to offspring through genetic damage (DNA, RNA). In using the Bluetooth Headset shows the brain, ear and eye for a strong field of microwave radiation. Bluetooth technology uses the same microwave radiation as cell phones to transmit data to do to receive calls. The only difference is the range. A cell phone antenna to capture signals from cell phone towers and satellites, while receiving radiation Bluetooth Headset technology from a few feet away you are using. Bluetooth radiation has been even less tested than the existing mobile phone radiation on you and you are using. The absences of formal studies have been possible that Bluetooth radiation is safe.

Bluetooth headset is not based on research that proves Bluetooth radiation is safe, but rather on the lack of research that proves it is not safe. This type of hollow safety is a technique used by companies to buy time for new technologies because time equals money in your daily life. Bluetooth Headset technology for use by consumers without regulatory or premarket testing, which is exactly how the phone has been approved. However, apparently felt the need to review the agreement on the phone as a replacement to a recent study conducted by the life work that shows mobile phone users have a greater risk of developing the same side where they use their phone. Bluetooth Headset functions in the same radio frequency as mobile phones.

Bluetooth technology (wireless keyboards, printers, etc.) emit microwave radiation the same as headsets and pose similar health problems. Bluetooth headsets are very popular now been largely for the transmission of voice and other applications such as listening to music. And although there are mobile phones more and more mobile that also offered which is also Bluetooth capable, this headset is still quite expensive. But here at Bluetooth Headset offers you a super cheap Bluetooth headset.

Bluetooth wireless headsets we meet the high standards of all other Bluetooth headset that is why you are certain that they are very capable and very efficient. Get your Bluetooth wireless headset is now only at sites that have been available and at very cheap prices. We also offer free shipping for all your orders.

Ecuador, Quito
Romania, Bucharest
Elizabeth, New Jersey
Peoria, Arizona
Thailand, Bangkok,
Gladstone, Queensland,
Moreno Valley, California
Sweden, Stockholm
Birmingham, Alabama
City of Randwick, Australia

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

 

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

 

The Wireless Industry has Never Said that their Technology is Safe

Cell Phone Radiation, Wireless Radiation Protection

http://www.emfnews.org/store/

Qlink Pendant

Home Radiation Protection

Envi Headsets

Electromagnetic Field Meter

Here is an excellent article from the Safe School Committee, “Warnings from Industry” which says that manufacturers of wireless devices emitting microwave radiation have never said that this technology is safe. Unfortunately, most governments continue to downplay the risks or tell us that there is no risk at all. This article cites manufacturers’ manuals (Motorola and Blackberry) which warn about the serious dangers of their devices. See also this article from the Daily Mail, UK, “Hidden Health Risk in Mobiles: Phone Giants Accused of Burying Warnings in Small Print””.

It also includes two videoclips. One is the chief spokesperson for cellphone manufacturers (CTIA) saying, “”I want to be very clear. Industry has not said once — not once — that cell phones are safe. The federal government and various interagency working groups have said it is safe.”” The other is a brief report from the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) about insurance companies. Most of these companies consider cell phone technology an incalculable health risk they are not willing to take (see my article “Swiss Re does not Re-insure Mobile Phones for Health Risks””).

Finally, here is the paper from one of the major telecoms operators in Switzerland, Swisscom, concerning a 2004 patent application, which clearly describes the elevated risk of cancer and genetic damage from the constant low level microwave/RF exposure from Wi-Fi.

Sweden, Stockholm,
South Africa,
Monaco Monaco
Orange Australia
Fiji, Suva,
Barbados Bridgetown
Egypt, Cairo: city limits,
Bahrain, Manama,
Cotonou (de facto capital),
Sri Jayawardenepura Kotte

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

 

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

 

How to Avoid Cell Phone Dangers

Cell Phone Radiation Protection, Cell Phone Danger

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

Lifebluetube Headset

Cell Phone Radiation Danger

Trifield Electromagnetic Field Meter

Mehmet Oz, MD, explains how to avoid cell phone dangers.

I got my first wireless handheld in 1990. It was as big and clunky as a brick, but the mobility it offered made it indispensable. There are now more than 270 million cell phone subscribers in America, and on average we spend about 11 hours a month with the gadgets glued to our heads. But as we’ve become more reliant on cell phones, experts have grown concerned about the health implications of heavy exposure—specifically, the radiation that the devices emit.

Cell phones expose us to a form of electromagnetic radiation called radiofrequency (RF) energy. Scientists have suspected that this radiation might increase the risk of brain cell damage leading to tumors, and in 1995 they found this to be the case in rats. Most studies since then have failed to show a similar correlation in humans, and last December the Danish Cancer Society released results from a 29-year study that found no solid association between increasing cell phone use and brain tumors. Yet just months earlier, an analysis of the most rigorous studies found convincing evidence linking the use of handheld phones to brain tumors, especially in users of a decade or longer.

The medical community is paying attention, and so is the U.S. government. Last fall a Senate hearing on cell phones and health coincided with an international conference on the same subject. While more conclusive evidence is needed before we start clamoring for the return of pay phones, there are some simple ways you and your family can limit exposure to the radiation:

Use a Headset or Speakerphone

No reliable data exist on the upper limit of safe talk time, but corded headsets can reduce any potential risk. These emit much less RF energy, and allow you to move the phone away from your body. One study shows that using a headset lowers radiation exposure eightfold.

Keep Your Phone Out of Your Pocket

A study published last year in the Journal of Craniofacial Surgery linked cell phone radiation to decreased bone density in the pelvis, and a 2008 study conducted by the Cleveland Clinic found that it lowers fertility in men.

Limit Children’s Use

Kids have a thinner skull, and their brains are still developing—which may make them more vulnerable to any potential harmful effects of RF radiation.

Stop Talking While Driving

In addition to creating a potentially deadly distraction, using your phone in the car forces your cell signal to jump between wireless towers. Since RF is highest when a connection with a tower is first established, talking while traveling can increase exposure.

Don’t Chat with a Poor Signal

The harder your phone has to work to get reception, the more radiation it emits. This is the reason you should avoid using so-called radiation shields (the shiny stickers that claim to block radiation); they actually force the phone to transmit at a higher power.

Don’t Wear Wireless Headsets As If They Were Jewelry

Earpieces don’t emit as much radiation as a phone, but they release some—even after your call ends. Remove the device between conversations.

Chad, N’Djamena
Ballarat, Victoria,
Slovakia, Bratislava
Los Angeles, California
Birmingham Alabama USA
Broken Hill, Australia
Traralgon, Victoria
Corpus Christi, Texas
Djibouti, Djibouti
Al Haybah, United Arab Emirates, Al Haybah, UAE

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

 

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

 

Microwave Radiation Affects The Heart

Microwave Radiation, Microwave Radiation Protection

http://www.emfnews.org/store/

Qlink Pendant

Home Radiation Protection

Envi Headsets

Electromagnetic Field Meters

January 7, 2012

Microwave Radiation Affects The Heart: Are The Results Real Or Are They Due To Interference?

We heard from many people who acknowledged that they experience heart palpitations in certain environments and are unable to use mobile phones and be near cell phone antennas and Wi-Fi routers. We also learned that some students in schools with Wi-Fi experience a racing heart. Cardiologist, Dr. Stephen Sinatra, believes that those who have undiagnosed heart conditions may be particularly vulnerable to radio frequency radiation.

In the past we were concerned about the radiation from a microwave oven affecting heart monitors. Those heart monitors have been improved and are now shielded against radio frequency radiation. Our hearts are NOT shielded and our exposure to radio frequency radiation includes not only microwave ovens but mobile phones, cell phone antennas, wireless routers, smart meters, wireless computer games, blue tooth, and wireless baby monitors.
Our study was criticized and the claim was made that our results were due to electromagnetic interference (EMI).

EMI refers to disruption of an electronic circuit with an electromagnetic signal. A common example is the static you hear as you drive under high voltage transmission lines with your radio tuned to an AM station. The static on the radio is EMI.

In our experiment the radiation from the cordless phone may have affected the receiver, placed near the heart, creating spurious results. If this were the case, the signal would interfere each time but that did not happen. We were convinced our results were real (i.e. that we were recording changes in the heart rather than changes in the equipment) but the criticism of EMI was worth testing.
Was there a critical distance where the radiation from the cordless phone interfered with the equipment we were using?

So we designed an experiment to test for EMI. The results are in our new video. Click here to watch the video.

Spain, Madrid,
Laos, Vientiane,
Brazil Brasilia
Iceland, Reykjavik,
Serbia, Belgrade,
Belgium, Brussels,
Western Sahara, El Aaiun,
Hungary, Budapest,
Barbados, Bridgetown,
Rochester New York USA

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

 

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

 

EMF Year in Review — Good but not Great, Too Little Too Late

EMF Radiation, EMF Radiation Protection

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

Lifebluetube Headset

Cell Phone Protection

Electromagnetic Field Meters

January 8, 2012

The year 2011 was an amazing year from the standpoint of official recognition of EMF hazards–
1. The World Health Organization classified radio frequency radiation as a class 2B (possible) carcinogen, in the same category as lead and DDT.
2. The Council of Europe recognized of the potential dangers of EMF, from mobile telephones to mobile phone towers to cordless telephones to WiFi/WLAN to baby monitors to anything emitting continuous pulse waves.
3. From Canada to Russia to Spain and to the UK, came official warnings aboutchildren’s use of cell phones, children being amongst one of the most vulnerable population groups.
4. The battle against wireless smart meters has grown, with grassroots efforts in many states and in many countries worldwide. Most notably, there were at least 47 cities or counties in California and 26 cities in Canada opposed to smart meters. The right to opt-out was achieved in Maine.
5. The Council of Europe even called for special measures to protect electrosensitivepersons, acknowledging the research of Dominique Belpomme on over 200 electrosensitive persons.

At the same time, a future more ominous than ever before lies ahead.
1. At least 9 million wireless smart meters have been installed by PG&E in California alone, with approximately 85,000 customers on the list to avoid the installation, according to ABC News. That’s not to mention the other utility companies in California, the other US states, and the other countries in the world which are now getting smart meters, and those to come for 2012. How many more millions of smart meters will be deployed in 2012? With so few customers calling for opt-out, what will happen to the 99% exposed to this 24×7 radiation?

2. The new Federal wireless broadband initiative will put many more at stake. SeeThe EMR Policy Institute for more information.
3. The latest consumer wireless devices are more popular than ever before, and many are radiating more continually than before with a potentially more dangerous pulsed radiation than before. Despite official proclamations, most people are still in the dark about the dangers of EMF. 25 million tablets were sold in 2011, according to USA today. 6.8 million android and iOS devices were activated on Christmas day alone, compared to 2.8 million the year before. Stories of babies playing with iPads are not uncommon. There is still a gaping disconnect between science and public perception.

4. Wi-Fi has been deployed in increasing numbers of schools. Although some schools have removed Wi-Fi out of health concerns and public attention to the health issues have increased, e.g., in Canada, many more schools can be expected to add Wi-Fi.

5. Misleading studies continue to be advertised in the media:
A. Cell phones & brain tumors: A report on a Danish study claiming to show no link is criticized for the same gaping flaws present in the original Danish study.

B. Smart meter radiation: Again and again is the utilities’ deceptive message is that the smart meter radiation is less than typical home wireless appliances, despite a utility report which has now conceded a whopping 2.5 Watts and an average of almost 10,000 signals per day.
C. Electrosensitivity: Most stories that raise awareness of electrosensitivity are followed by a counter-response with a deceptive note, for example, stating that studies show individuals are unable to detect radiation in double-blind experiments. This is done without providing the critique of such studies, which may be industry-funded.
Although a small group of EMF activists knows the truth and continues to debunk study after study, and although they have accomplished increasing government awareness, the prospects for government regulation & reform, and mass education of the public to see past all the deception is daunting.

Will 2012 be a year of promise or a year of despair?

El Paso, Texas
Lakewood, Colorado
Russia, Moscow
Traralgon, Victoria
Gabon, Libreville
Bhutan, Thimphu
The Netherlands, Amsterdam
Saudi Arabia, Riyadh
Equatorial Guinea, Malabo,
Omaha, Nebraska

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

 

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

 

Cellphone And Wireless Risks – Experts Criticize The Economist’s Coverage

Cellphone Radiation, Wireless Risks

http://www.emfnews.org/store/

Qlink Pendant

Radiation Protection Products

Envi Headsets

Electromagnetic Field Detector

04 Jan 2012
Written by Grace Rattue

A critique, entitled “”The Economist – and the Truth About Microwave Radiation Emitted from Wireless Technologies””, of a report published in the The Economist (9/3/11), “”Worrying about Wireless””, has been published by experts in public health, neurosurgery, toxicology, oncology, electronic engineering, epidemiology, and cardiology from the USA, the UK, Sweden, Austria, Finland, Slovak Republic and Australia.

According to the experts, the Economist did not include vital data regarding the materializing public health issue associated to wireless technologies and cell phones and should provide its readers with a better understanding of the science.

Ronald B. Herberman, MD, Founding Director Emeritus of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Chairman of Environmental Health Trust and a distinguished cancer researcher, explains of the Economist report, “”The public the world over has been misled by this reporting.””

In 2008, Dr. Herberman, Chief Medical Officer of Intrexon Corporation, who served as Professor of Medicine and Pathology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Hillman Professor of Oncology and Vice Chancellor for Cancer Research at the University of Pittsburgh, issued an advisory to his staff and faculty advising a range of simple steps in order to lower the possible health risks from using cell phones.
Dr. Herberman, explained:

“”A disservice has been done in inaccurately depicting the body of science, which actually indicates that there are biological effects from the radiation emitted by wireless devices, including damage to DNA, and evidence for increased risk of cancer and other substantial health consequences.

It would behoove The Economist to publicly correct the errors made in this unsigned opinion piece by publishing a retraction – and investigating how such inaccurate and unbalanced scientific reporting could have occurred in the first place.””

According to Dr. Lennart Hardell, Professor of Oncology, Orebro Medical Center, Orebro, Sweden, and a widely published, internationally renowned neuro-oncologist:

“”The Economist has misrepresented the science indicating biological effects, links to cancers, and damage to DNA and male fertility from exposures to microwave radiation emitted by wireless technologies. Given the wide scale use of cell phones and other wireless devices globally, for the sake of public health I consider it essential that The Economist’s reporting be corrected to adequately advise readers of the risks.””

In Dr. Hardell’s studies, he has frequently discovered that individuals who use their cell phones and/or cordless phones regularly for more than 10 years have an increased risk of developing brain cancers. In May, Dr. Hardell’s investigation was noted in the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) landmark decision to classify wireless radiation as a Class 2B ‘Possible Carcinogen’.

Policy advocate Deborah Kopald, MBA explains:

“”It is exceedingly difficult to convince policy-makers to act in the public interest and parents and educators to give their charges proper guidance when they can point to a prestigious publication that provides false reassurance that not enough science exists to compel immediate behavior changes with wireless use.””

Mona Nilsson, a Swedish investigative journalist, states:

“”The publication of The Economist article “”Worrying about Wireless”” was a sad day in journalism. If we cannot trust the media to accurately report the science on such an important subject in a balanced way, then who can we trust?””

Nilsson broke the news that Anders Ahlbom did not reveal he was a member of the board of his brother’s consulting firm, Gunnar Anlbom AB, with connections with the telecom industry to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Last May the IARC removed Ahlbom of the Karolinska Institute from its panel of experts.

Experts from the “”The Economist – and the Truth About Microwave Radiation Emitted from Wireless Technologies”” critique, include leading physician’s, oncologists and scientists from seven nations. They are calling for the Economist to correct its unsigned opinion piece so that it more accurately reflects the range of known biological effects and potential health risks from wireless radiation.

Chad N’Djamena
Jordan, Amman,
Tunisia, Tunis,
Lithuania, Villinus,
Malawi, Lilongwe,
Peru, Lima, City,
Macedonia, Skjope,
Canada, Ottawa, Ontario,
Moldova Chisinau
Grand Rapids Michigan USA

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

 

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

 

The Economist and the Truth About Microwave Radiation Emitted from Wireless Technologies

Microwave Radiation Emitted, Wireless Technologies

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

Lifebluetube Headset

Cell Phone Radiation Shield

Magnetic Field Meters

28.12.2011 by Emily
A Critique by Scientific Experts, Physicians and Oncologists

In its unsigned commentary on September 3, 2011, “Worrying about Wireless”, The Economist makes a number of technical errors and misleading statements about microwave radiation that we write to correct. The governments of more than a dozen nations have issued precautionary advice and policies about wireless devices, including restricting cellphone use by children in France, India and Israel (See Worldwide Advisories at www.saferphonezone.com). The Economist would do well to consult with experts in these and other tech-savvy nations to learn the science behind these countries’ decisions so that it can provide accurate reporting on wireless safety and health matters.

The Economist states:

“Let it be said, once and for all, that no matter how powerful a radio transmitter–whether an over-the-horizon radar station or a microwave tower–radio waves simply cannot produce ionising radiation. The only possible effect they can have on human tissue is to raise its temperature slightly.”

This is a red herring. Of course microwave radiation is non-ionizing radiation. It has insufficient energy to directly break chemical bonds including mutating DNA. Independent studies show that microwave radiation from cellphones can damage genetic material and disrupt DNA repair without inducing heat. Microwave radiation from cellphones can also increase the production of damaging free radicals, which can also indirectly damage DNA. [1a,b,c]

In 2000 the cellphone companies T-Mobil and DeTeMobil Deutsche Telekom Mobilnet commissioned the ECOLOG report. This report acknowledged that microwave radiation damages genes, living cells, and the immune system. Since then, the evidence base suggesting that prolonged cellphone use can harm human health has grown substantially. In May 2011, after a rigorous review of the evidence, the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiation emitted by wireless devices including cellphones as “possibly carcinogenic.”

In addition, scientific studies carried out in Russia in the 1950s and 1960s and corroborated by European researchers more recently show that microwave radiation affects the heart, brain and liver, as well as the production of hormones and male human and animal fertility.

The Economist states:

“In the real world…sources of ionising radiation…are the sole sources energetic enough to knock electrons out of atoms–breaking chemical bonds and producing dangerous free radicals in the process…that can damage a person’s DNA and cause mutation, radiation sickness and even death.”

Growing evidence demonstrates that cancer and other types of illness do not only derive from direct damage to the ionic bonds that hold together our DNA. Researchers at the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) have shown that 2 out of every 5 known causes of cancer do not directly damage DNA.

In addition, several investigators have shown in animal experiments that microwaves can damage the blood-brain barrier (BBB), a vital biological mechanism for protecting the brain from toxins. In fact, radiation similar to that of cellphones forms the foundation for important new uses of microwave and other non-ionizing radiation to treat brain, breast and liver tumors. Given these therapeutic uses of microwave radiation, it would be folly to assume that other exposures have no biological consequences.

Furthermore, a 2011 NIH Study showed that simply placing a phone that is turned on next to the ear for just fifty minutes can significantly increase the metabolism of the brain’s main fuel—glucose. The long-term impact of this change is not known, but altered glucose metabolism is one hallmark of Alzheimer’s and other neurodegenerative diseases. [2] Other studies show that rabbits exposed prenatally to cellphone radiation produce offspring with damaged brains, liver and skin. [3] Experiments have confirmed that cellphone-exposed rodents that have been trained to run mazes lose the capacity to find food or a hidden platform or recognize objects with some speculation that these are form of dementia. [4a,b,c] Case-control studies report that those who use cellphones regularly for a decade have increased rates of malignant tumors of the brain, cheek (parotid gland), and hearing nerve (acoustic neuroma)—in areas of the head that receive the highest exposures to cellphone radiation.[5-6]

Recognizing the scientific foundation for this damage, Austrian workers’ compensation cases have provided remuneration for cellphone-related workplace damages. An Italian Court recognized that cellphones and cordless phones may cause adverse health effects and awarded full disability to a heavy user of both types of phones.

The Economist states:

“…radio waves do not pack anywhere near enough energy to produce free radicals. The “quanta” of energy (i.e. photons) carried by radio waves in, say, the UHF band used by television, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, cordless phones, mobile phones,…have energy levels of a few millionths of an electron-volt. That is less than a millionth of the energy needed to cause ionisation.”

The Economist is practicing the cliché, “Beating a dead horse” by continuing to harp that this is not ionizing radiation. No one disagrees! While cellphone signals are weak, their fluctuating nature (highly complex modulation) may explain why they are so biologically active. Furthermore, long-term exposure to the fields from electrical power distribution frequencies, specifically those associated with the 50 and 60 hertz power grids, have been linked to leukemia and neurological diseases, such as Lou Gehrig’s disease and Alzheimer’s, in scientific studies and in official reports from the states of New York and California. A decade previous to the recent IARC declaration, IARC declared Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) electromagnetic fields as a Class 2B Possible Carcinogen in 2001. In addition to microwave emissions, cellphones also expose users to these ELF fields from the phone’s battery. Four milli-Gauss (mG) is linked to a doubling of incidence of childhood leukemia, and a 2005 study of phones on the market found fields of 47 to 146 mG at 5 mm from the surface of the phones. [7]

The Economist states:

“A year earlier, after a landmark, decade-long study undertaken by teams in 13 countries, the IARC had reported that no adverse health effects associated with the use of mobile phones could be found.”

In fact, within the 13-country Interphone study organized by IARC, those with the highest use for a decade had a doubled risk of brain tumors. The study reported no overall increased risk when looking at all those who had made one call a week for 6 months. But, when researchers reviewed evidence on those subjects who had used cellphones for ten years or more, they found a statistically significant doubling in the risk of glioma (190 cases, OR=2.18, 95 % CI=1.43-3.31) for long-term users in comparison to short-term users who used a phone for 1.0-1.9 years. [8] Interphone also reported significantly increased risk for acoustic neuromas and parotid gland tumors. [5,9]

The Economist states:

“The Group 2B classification…rates the health hazard posed by mobile phones as similar to the chance of getting cancer from coffee, petrol fumes and false teeth.”

The Economist fails to note that many nations have taken serious regulatory actions regarding other substances placed in this classification, including some pesticides that are banned around the world today such as DDT, engine exhausts, and toxic and persistent brominated or fluorinated flame retardants. There are numerous examples of substances first classified as Class 2B that were later moved into Class 2A (probably carcinogenic) or Class 1 (carcinogenic). Given the short time for which cellphones have been used relative to the induction periods of many cancers, the current evidence base can only hint at the extent of the evidence that will ultimately materialize. In this respect, cellphone radiation is quite unlike coffee (coffee does slightly increase the risk of bladder cancer, while reducing that of colon cancer) or false teeth.

The Economist states:

“…by classifying mobile phones as a Group 2B risk, what the IARC was effectively saying…was that, even if such a health risk exists, there is no way of ever ruling out bias, chance or other confounding circumstance with any reasonable degree of confidence.”

This misreads the intent of the IARC review. The purpose of an IARC evaluation is to anticipate harm and prevent or reduce danger. In looking at experimental evidence along with human data, IARC indicated that data on long-term incidence of brain cancer will ultimately clarify the nature of the hazard. In fact, there were relatively few regular cellphone users in the Interphone study (which completed data collection in 2004) who had more than ten years use. Three other studies have carried out meta-analyses of all published data on people with over ten years of cellphone use [10-12]. All of these reported a significant risk in gliomas (cancer of the brain). One of these also found an approximate doubling of the risk of being diagnosed with a glioma on the same (“ipsilateral”) side of the head as that preferred for long-term (>10 years) cellphone use (118 cases, OR=1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.4). [11]

If a 2-fold risk occurs in the world’s 5.6 billion cellphone users, this could conservatively result in 250,000 avoidable brain tumors every year. In addition to the devastating health consequences (half of those diagnosed die within two years) a single case of brain cancer costs nearly $500,000 to treat in one year. The economic impact of such an illness around the globe could be staggering. Phone use is expanding rapidly in developing countries that lack personnel, resources and the infrastructure to provide cancer surgery and treatment.

Brain and other cancers are not the sole health impact of concern from cellphones, which have been linked in a number of separate peer-reviewed published studies to serious health problems including reproductive and neurological damage. The potential social and economic impacts of these other chronic health threats has led many governments and health organizations, including the IARC experts, to advocate sensible cellphone use (e.g. texting holding phone away from lap, use of the speaker mode or a wired hands-free headset, and use of a land-line in the home or office, especially by children, etc.).

The Economist states:

“…the number of text messages sent and received by [older] Americans…rose by 75%…Over the same period the number of phone calls made and received by adults of all ages fell by 25%.”

Many people speak on the phone for durations exceeding those of past years, and while texting is removing the locus of radiation from the brain, data intensive texts create radiation bursts directed at other parts of the body. People who repeatedly text are getting frequent, intermittent high doses of this radiation.

Adults are not the only age groups using cellphones today. Children’s use of cellphones has grown dramatically in many nations. Several peer-reviewed published studies indicate that the risks for children are significantly higher than for adults. This is not surprising as children’s brains are less well protected (due to thinner skulls and less myelin covering the nerve fibers).

The Economist states:

“The whole brouhaha over mobile phones causing brain cancer is a monumental irrelevance compared with scofflaws who insist on using their handsets to text or talk while driving.”

There is no doubt that texting while driving is dangerous and should be banned. The personal and economic costs of treating the potential brain tumors and other serious illnesses that could occur from the long-term impact of frequent cellphone use could very well dwarf those of texting while driving.

History is replete with failures to control highly profitable carcinogenic substances, ranging from tobacco to asbestos, until proof of harm became irrefutable. We can ill afford to go through that same course with cellphones today, given the long latency involved with brain cancer and their ubiquity. The Economist owes its staff and readers better than to rehash outdated physics and hollow reassurances of safety.

Readers are left to wonder whether the significant advertising revenues generated from cellphones may account for The Economist’s lopsided and misleading editorial. One analysis of U.S. newspaper advertising conducted by ElectromagneticHealth.org in 2010 showed that print ad space from telecommunications businesses was estimated to be between 1.77% and 11.40% of total print advertising space during the sample period.

How much advertising revenue does The Economist and its related entities receive from telecommunications advertising, and what steps has The Economist taken to ensure balanced reporting on this vitally important industry?

With this unsigned opinion piece (which appeared to be a news article) containing so many technical errors and misleading statements, The Economist has undermined its reputation for independent and probing analysis. The Economist owes its readers a better accounting of the science on this important public health issue.

The fact that questions remain is undeniable, but to state that all is fine in the face of growing evidence that it is not, fails to provide critical information about this important public health challenge. We need to promote safer wireless device use and public health policies for our children and ourselves.

Fremont, California
Hollywood, Florida
Sri Lanka, Colombo
San Antonio, Texas
Portugal, Lisbon
Memphis, Tennessee
Croatia, Zagreb
Wodonga, Victoria
Queanbeyan, Australia
Cedar Rapids, Iowa

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

 

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

 

Scientist Warn Of Cellphone Health Risks

Cellphone Health Risks, Cellphone Health Protection

http://www.emfnews.org/store/

Qlink Pendant

Home Radiation Protection

Envi Headsets

Electromagnetic Field Meter

21.02.2011 Kerry Cullinan

Children and pregnant women should avoid using cell phones, cordless phones and other wireless devices.
This is according to a panel of influential scientists, which believes that much stricter safety measures are needed to protect people from being harmed by electromagnetic radiation from devices including cellphones, cellphone towers, powerlines and wireless internet.
The scientists met to consider all the evidence linking wireless devices to cancer, neurological diseases and infertility, and concluded that there was evidence of “serious disruptions to biological systems”. http://www.healthe.org.za/news/article.php?uid=20033087

The panel’s findings and recommendations have recently been published in the scientific journal, “Reviews on Environmental Health”.
But Vodacom spokesperson Richard Boorman says there is no cause for alarm:
“There have been thousands of scientific studies into the effects of radio frequency on health. There is no evidence to convince experts that exposure below the guidelines set by International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) carries any health risks, for adults or children.”

But according to the Swedish Karolinska Institute, which took part in the panel: “Many researchers now believe the existing safety limits are inadequate to protect public health because they do not consider prolonged exposure to lower emission levels that are now widespread”.
Panellist Professor Elihu Richter from the Hebrew University-Hadassah School of Medicine in Israel said there was already “an increase in cancer and neuro-behavioural impairments, even though these wireless technologies are fairly new. This finding suggests that the exposures are already too high to protect people from health harm”.

Professor Yuri Grigoriev, Chair of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, said simply: “”Pregnant women and children of all ages should avoid using cell and cordless phones given the health effects we are seeing already.””

The panel recommends that government should greatly reduce the exposure limits for electromagnetic radiation. It also called for the establishment of an international registry to track the incidence and mortality rates for cancers and neurological and immune diseases over time.

It also proposes that the producers of new wireless technologies needed to prove that these are safe and that there should be compulsory testing of electromagnetic emissions levels before these were introduced.

Boorman agreed that there were “still some gaps in scientific knowledge, and more research is being carried out to fill these” and that the World Health Organisation set the priorities for global research

“However,” added Boorman, “people who personally want to can take simple steps to reduce their exposure as a precaution by keeping the mobile device away from the head and body during use, by using an earpiece, using the loudspeaker function, placing the device on a surface when sending data files and texting instead of calling”.

Pakistan, Islamabad,
Swaziland, Mbabane,
Bolivia, Sucre,
Iraq, Baghdad,
Finland, Helsinki,
Ghana, Accra,
Germany, Berlin,
Indonesia, Jakarta City,
Micronesia, Palikir,
Escondido California USA

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

 

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

 

Prospective Cell Phone Hazards Heading Unheeded

Cell Phone Hazards, Cell Phone Hazards Protection

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

Lifebluetube Headset

Cell Phone Radiation Protection

Trifield Electromagnetic Field Meter

January 2, 2012
by: Kelly

Cell mobile phones have become this kind of requirement… this kind of a part of day to day living in which a smattering of us can imagine just how we might handle without them. Uk prom dresses cheapAstonishing then in which media the other day of the report stating that cell phone hazards associated with rays from all of these popular mobile phones might without a doubt up the chance of most cancers has been met by way of a wave from the mobile phone carrying U.S open public.

Though not necessarily widely accessible in the You.Utes. until the The nineteen nineties, these kinds of essential tools are will no longer deemed a luxury, estimations possess all of us talking for approximately 700 moments monthly, much higher than the rest of the globe. http://545mainst.com/2012/01/02/prospective-cell-phone-hazards-heading-unheeded/

The research workers examined a large number of peer-reviewed studies printed about cell phones and also most cancers before coming to the decision our favored device should be labeled since “possibly carcinogenic”.

The group included 31 experts from 18 nations around the world (like the You.Utes.). In case you’re asking yourself, in which same “possibly carcinogenic” classification is home to night shift work, java, lead and also powerplant wear out.

We realize cell phones do give off fragile radio stations surf, nevertheless they can’t cause the type of modifications in cells that can come in the sunlight or another reasons for radioactivity.
While the problematic danger may have been extensively terminated from the mobile phone centered open public, Google pursuit of words like “cell phone” and also “cancer” had been up in the week pursuing the May possibly 31, 2011 headline.prom dresses 2012

Some users are planning to change to earphones to place far between your mobile phone and also themselveswedding gowns. With all the speakerphone feature is another good option – when you have no need for level of privacy. Maintaining the telephone by itself out of your person is additionally the recommendation of several producers.
Part in our cold reaction to this news is always that many individuals have used their own mobile phones for quite a while, so if any risk exists, everyone’s already been uncovered already. Consumers regarding cell phones are more interested in features – apparent calls and also easy texting – compared to what they tend to be in regards to the potential most cancers risk.

We do know these mobile phones give off various amounts of radiation, there tend to be proposals out there using some states to possess merchants exhibit rays rankings of mobile phones in order to clients.
The radiation which comes from the cell phone is called non-ionizing – consider it an inadequate microwave oven. With time this impact may well not simply deliver cancers or tumors, but possibly memory space issues also, especially because the memory space temporary lobes are only in which many people hold their own cell phones.

Research is just not able to completely rule out a link between most cancers and also cell phone use. Experts demand that when a link is definitely found, it will not be a solid a single. If you’re concerned, you might think about a Bluetooth headset, though these kinds of happen to be decreasing in reputation for some time right now, primarily as a result of style issues of the wearers.
Cell mobile phone manufacturers explain that mobile phones are thought safe through current research. As well as until May possibly 2011, the That arranged using them.

The trouble is that many ecological contributing factors in order to most cancers get numerous years of publicity one which just truly begin to see the consequences in individuals. The ecu Environmental Organization is pressing for additional investigation, taking a chance in which cell phones hazards in order to health could be since huge any open public health concern since smoking cigarettes, asbestos fiber and also leaded gasoline.

Malta, Valetta
Downey, California
Columbia, Missouri
Gilbert, Arizona
Cameroon, Yaounde,
Tacoma, Washington
McKinney, Texas
Abilene, Texas
City of Maitland Australia
Al Qir, United Arab Emirates, Al Qir, UAE

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

 

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

 

Did You Know That Your Skin Problems May Be Due To Your Cellphone?

Mobile Phone Radiation, Mobile Phone Radiation Protection

http://www.emfnews.org/store/

Qlink Pendant

Home Radiation Protection

Envi Headsets

Electromagnetic Field Meter

02 Jan 2012

Mobiles have been indispensable today- we just cannot function without them. Do you remember the last time you left home and forgot your mobile phone? You probably had a sinking feeling in your belly when you noticed that you were incommunicado. But as helpful and convenient as mobiles are, they also come with some health risks. Mobile phones may cause everything from skin problems to cancer, so some cares must be taken.

Skin Problems Due to Cell-phones

Folk who talk on their cellular phones a lot and hold their phones up to their faces can get something by the name of cell telephone rash. This is a genuine condition and has been studied by the UK Organization of Rash and consists of a rash on the jaw, ears or cheeks. It is due to the nickel in numerous phones, which a large amount of people are allergic to. This difficulty can be especially abundant in folk who don’t switch which side they talk on the telephone. If the telephone is constantly on one side of your face, there’s more of a chance that your skin will be irritated by it. http://citeyes.com/2012/01/did-you-know-that-your-skin-problems-may-be-due-to-your-cellphone/

Paths to Forestall Skin Problems

There are few different things folks can do to stop irritated skin from their telephones. The 1st is to utilise an earbud or Bluetooth head-set. If the phone isn’t touching your face, then it can’t cause issues on your skin. Another option is to check with the telephone makers and find cellular phones that don’t contain nickel. And obviously reducing the quantity of time that you talk on your mobile phone will help.

Mobile Radiation

There’s been a lot of back and forth in the medical community pertaining to whether or not cell phones are safe. A Danish study back in 2006 claimed it was completely safe to use mobiles, but recently the study has been criticized as being flawed. There is no doubt that in our existing technological world, we are exposed to huge amounts of electro-magnetic radiation (EMR) from our appliances, devices and power lines. Cell phones are no exception, and the threat comes from both the handsets as well as the cell towers. Studies have connected brain cancers and genetic damage to cellphone radiation.

So what are you able to do? Luckily some of the solutions for reducing mobile radiation are the same as the ones to reduce epidermal irritation from cellular telephones. The very first thing to do is to get an ear bud or earphone set. This puts real physical gap between your head and the radiation, so defending you. There are special earphones built to reduce radiation, so search for these.

There is also a thing by the name of ferrite beads which you are able to add to regular wired ear buds to help absorb radiation. It isn’t endorsed to get a Bluetooth headphone set if your goal is reduce radiation, since it’ll emit its own sort of radiation. Also, never use your phone when the signal is bad. Your phone will use a lot more power attempting to get a signal tough enough to talk on, and although it does this, it is releasing more radiation.

Naturally getting off your cell telephone is probably the best way to reduce radiation. The less time that your cellphone is on and close to your head, the better off you will be apropos reducing your likelihood of illness due to radiation. Also buying organic skin care is a good start.

Liberia, Monrovia,
Samoa, Apia,
Haiti, Port-au-Prince,
Algeria Algiers
Libya, Tripoli,
Israel, Jerusalem,
Hialeah Florida USA
Hamilton Victoria Australia
Mauritania Nouakchott
Venezuela, Caracas

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

 

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products