Cell Phone Radiation News

May 13th, 2012

Introduction by Stephanie Relfe

Many people have talked about the danger of living or working near cell phone towers due to electromagnetic pollution. Our bodies use electrical signals. They rely on NATURAL energies. Muscle testing can show that the effects of cell phone towers are negative to our bodies.

But, there is another side to cell towers that is even more dangerous, that even less people know about. The fact is that the tower is not the problem. It is the electronic circuits that are placed on that tower. Many people believe that once a tower is set up for cell phones, other instruments are being added that are being used, or will be used, for electronic mind control. The technology for this has been with us for decades, and only gets more efficient as time goes by. A good reference for this is http://www.raven1.net

Don Croft has come up with a new wonderful device, a “Tower Buster”. Small and cheap, you can easily make these to join in the war to fight negative energy on earth. To understand how the following device is so powerful, you will need an understanding of Don Croft’s technology, which was developed from the technology of genius Wilhelm Reich.

Please read “Chembuster” at: www.metatech.org/cloudbuster_&_orgone_generator.html

The following is by Don Croft

After hearing from Tara, a young mother who has made a cloudbuster, boosted some key energy sites, and neutralized many transmitters where she lives, north of Chicago, I was sort of jolted on Tuesday into the realization that the Holy Handgrenades may be overkill for the martial law transmitters (Editors’ note: This is Don’s term for the technology that is believed to be added to the cell phone towers), so after Carol got back from her adventure this week I quickly made up what I consider to be the minimal orgonite (the 50% resin, 50% metal filings mix described at Chembuster) in device for neutralizing these damned things.

By ‘overkill’ of course, I only mean that the HHg is more powerful than it needs to be just to neutralize a primary or secondary martial law transmitter. I bet a lot of my readers follow the principle of ‘appropriate technology’ already.

Our efforts are better spent making many more of the appropriate Tower Busters for the vast number of the new martial law transmitters, and save our HHgs for multiple arrays, vile vortices, masonic temples, satanic murder sites, our in-laws’ shrubberies, etc., for which they’re more appropriate.

The Tower Buster is a 3oz paper cup, like the ones for bathroom dispensers, filled with a half/half mix of resin and metal particles into which I insert a single, funky quartz crystal. Like the Ugly Duckling, these lonely crystals are dear to me because they demonstrate that our devices work extremely well with an absolute minimum of attention to quality and refinement.

My objective from day one has been to enable the most unholy, non-psychic of folks (not unlike myself) to be empowered by achieving miraculous results, and I still advocate waging spiritual war on the regime which is poisoning our lovely planet.

Here’s some evidence that I’ve struck a nerve of the planetary regime by telling the world about this tower-busting trick: In early May, I wrote a short article about the purpose of the martial law transmitters and about how one can easily neutralize them. I sent that article out to a network of hundreds of e-groups made up of people who typically resonate to new information like this.

At the same time, I posted it on the cloudbuster forum and sent it to my friend, Ken Adachi, who posted the article, along with some photos of typical ‘mind control towers,’ on his very well attended site, www.educate-yourself.org. Within two days, I was prevented from posting or moderating any more in the original cloudbuster forum, hosted on Yahoo, and my huge address book was erased by someone at Earthlink, my server.

Yesterday Carol and I drove by the remaining martial law transmitter in our county which has not been neutralized and she tossed the tower buster into the brush by the side of the road. That’s our ‘drive by’ technique. We weren’t close enough to the enclosure to risk detection of the device–we feel certain that anywhere within a quarter mile (slightly less than .3 kilometer) is sufficient, and it’s best to shallowly bury it.

Even though Carol advised me after I’d made the prototype that four hematite beads would have made it work better, I opted to test the one I’d made, since many of you don’t have easy access to hematite beads. She says this grounds the energy faster so that the orgone field will build up more quickly in case the transmitter gets turned on full blast right away.

She did allow, though, that the field was instantly sufficient to cancel out the nasty energy coming out of that transmitter, which is a primary one, by the way, apparently controlled through a satellite, and that it would easily eat up the stuff even if/when the traitorous feds turn it on full blast this fall.

Many folks are saying that the orgonite devices all seem to be operating intelligently, and I got an uncharacteristic telepathic message concerning that first tower buster that went something like this, ‘Don’t worry about it, Bub, I can handle it.’

As you probably guessed, the reason I did this is so that more towers will get busted in time to prevent the high treason being referred to as ‘martial law’ from being attempted at all.

I admit that the prospect of making 300 HHgs next week, which is what will be needed to neutralize all of the primary transmitters, HAARP arrays, underground bases, etc, in my part of the country, was daunting, but I can easily make 250 Tower Busters and 50 HHGs (for hard targets). I found four brand new HAARP arrays along the interstate on my last trip to Seattle from Spokane—300 miles..

The internet has amply demonstrated that the trend in the emerging paradigm is away from centralized power toward more responsibility and freedom for the individual and each community is a montage of elegantly unique individuals with boundless potential..

As consolation to those who fundamentally hate to look at evil and are inclined to punish those of us who do, the presence of so many orgonite devices, spread across the landscape at each primary transmitter location, will uplift humanity in these regions for two reasons:

1) they are synergistically neutralizing a primary producer of dead orgone

2) they are spinning the good orgone out into the atmosphere in direct proportion to the feds’ efforts to produce the bad, ugly stuff. Of course, the fonts of dead orgone are all operating at about 15% now to keep everyone from integrating the emerging paradigm information, so I guess that would be reason number three to bust them right now.

The main reason for these transmitters is to enforce compliance to the planned, potentially imminent worldwide tyranny, which is determined to decimate the world’s population back to the numbers that existed before the industrial revolution so that they can more efficiently manage humanity, whom they have always considered their chattel (See The Georgian Guidestones)

Nobody wants to think about an overt, global tyranny that would make Hitler, Robespierre, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot pale into historical insignificance, but this has been the cherished hope of the Illuminati for perhaps six millennia, in the studied opinions of some people. Let’s deprive those old farts in the White Brotherhood of their long-cherished goals, okay? After that, we’ll be looking at a very bright future, beyond our fondest hopes.

That’s right—I said, ‘White Brotherhood.’ Why do you think Lucis Trust (formerly Lucifer Trust) is the only institution that refers officially to them as the ‘saviors and benevolent guides’ of humanity. Yikes. Have you ever read some of the UN literature written and published by that trust? If you do, you’re in for a rough ride if you have a tender heart. They’re the official publishers for the United Nations, which now formally promotes a ‘population reduction’ policy instead of it’s former ‘zero population growth’ recommendations. Actually, only the terminology has changed, becoming more blatant and revealing lately. The policy has always been the same as it is now.

The Lucis Trust’s other big interest is the new age movement, which it claims to foster and shepherd. Can you see why I cringe a bit every time someone signs a note to me with ‘Love and Light?’ Words are important and revealing, no matter how enlightened and holy we believe we are.

Belarus, Minsk
Lebanon, Beirut
Miami, Florida
Round Rock, Texas
Pomona, California
Macedonia, Skjope
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
The Netherlands, Amsterdam
Cary, North Carolina
Kawr Fakkan, United Arab Emirates, Kawr Fakkan, UAE

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

Q-Link Products

EMF Harmonization Products

Mobile Tower Radiation Hazards and Solutions Proposed to Government

admin — Wed, 16 May 2012 10:46:17 +0000

May 13, 2012

Mobile Tower Radiation Hazards and Solutions Proposed to Government.

Following presentation was made to Shri Milind Deora, honorable Minister of State for IT and Communication and Department of Telecommunications (DOT), India on 1 May 2012 in Delhi

Prof. Girish Kumar from IIT Bombay has written down some simple solutions to reduce radiation hazard from cell phones.

Step 1 – Convince the operators to reduce the transmitted power from current 20W/carrier to max. 1 to 2 W especially in the dense urban area.

It is very simple to implement – all they have to do is to remove the power amplifier or reduce the gain of the amplifier.

Lots of other benefits of reducing the power – cooling of the amplifier will not be required, then it may not require Air conditioner. Total power requirement will be reduced, so Diesel Generator is not required and solar panel can meet this requirement. Operators can claim carbon
credit and it truely leads to Green Telecom. You can see the attached TRAI-Green-Telecom-openho use-GKreport.pdf

Disadvantage of reducing the power – range will reduce. So people living at larger distance may have signal problem initially.
Operators have to install more number of towers or they can provide low power repeaters/boosters/signal enhancers, which will cost them more money.

Step 2 – Radiation measurements have to be done at residences, offices,schools, hospitals. If the power density level is still high (i.e,more than 0.1 to 1 milliwatts/sq.m after reduction of the transmitted power, then either towers have to be relocated or height of the towers has to be increased or direction of the antenna has to be hanged. Again, any of these steps will require additional investment.

People have to decide
1. Health versus wealth.
2. Good cell phone connectivity at the expense of health of people living near cell tower or somewhat poor connectivity for the people living at larger distance from the tower.

Belarus Minsk
Oman, Muscat
Guinea Conakry
Yugoslavia, Belgrade
Malawi Lilongwe
Malaysia Kuala Lumpur
Mesa Arizona USA
Egypt Cairo: city limits
Burundi Bujumbura
Palmerston Northern Territory Australia

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

Q-Link Products

EMF Harmonization Products

Cell Phone Radiation And Cancer

admin — Tue, 15 May 2012 17:09:21 +0000

May 13, 2012

The “”Interphone Study”" is the name of a multi-country analysis on mobile phones and associated cancer risk (May 17, 2010). The combined examination and results of the 13 countries participating in the Interphone Study are published in the “”International Journal of Epidemiology”". Find out why you are more likely to get brain cancer after using a cell phone.

The study summarizes the data on mobile phone radiation and associated cancer risk. It reviews brain tumors, including acoustic neuroma (a tumor formed of nerve tissue) and tumors of the parotid gland. The data linked “”heavy”" cell phone use to a 40% increased risk of Glioma (brain cancer). The tumor would usually start on the side of the head that people hold their mobile phone. If the person was right-handed, it would start behind the right ear. If the person was left-handed, it would start behind the left ear.

However, the “”Interphone Study”" definition of “”heavy”" cell phone use is only ½ hour per day. The average usage for people today is well over ½ hour. Some people have their cell phone with them for 8-10 hours per day or more. Furthermore, the cell phone does not have to be “”in use”" for this length of time. The fact that it is turned on, and in your bio-field, means that it is affecting your body frequency and your immune system.
People have become accustomed to surfing the net, using social media, and even watching television on their smart phone. More and more apps are being developed for smart phone users. Many people are cancelling land line use and switching to cell phone use only. This means that as the usage of cell phones and smart phones increases, so does the risk of brain cancer.

Another cause for concern is the amount of radiation we are subjected to from laptop and desktop computer monitors, hand-held e-readers, playbooks and i-pads. Radiation Safety standards are higher in most European countries. For example, the Swedish safety standard is a maximum of 0.25 milligauss at 50 cm (about 20 inches) from your display screen. Many US and Canadian screens emit 5-100 milligauss at that distance. There is some disagreement as to what a “”safe”" reading is. Sweden has suggested a background reading of 2 milligauss. Other countries suggest 1 milligauss or less. The average time spent on computers, e-readers, playbooks and i-pads has increased exponentially, just like the usage of cell phones. Children are more susceptible because their brains and immune systems are still developing. As the usage of computers and hand-held devices increases, so does the risk of cancer.

In 1989 the US Department of Energy reported that “”it has now become generally accepted that there are, indeed, biological effects due to field exposure”" from EMFs. It is not just the short-term effects that are evident. Long-term studies are now surfacing showing a higher risk of various cancers due to EMF exposure.

Short-term exposure to EMF can produce headaches, dizziness, lack of concentration, fatigue, heart palpitations, compromise immune function, affect sleep, decrease the effectiveness of therapeutic drug treatment, cause skin rashes and decrease mental and physical well-being.

Long-term exposure to EMF can produce mutations, brain cancer and degenerative brain diseases.
We are all living in a world that is contaminated with Electropollution. Isn’t it about time that we find radiation protection for ourselves and our children?

Spain, Madrid
Ireland, Dublin
St. Paul, Minnesota
Rochester, New York
Russia, Moscow,
The Hague, Netherlands
Logan City, Queensland
City of Hurstville Australia
Yugoslavia, Belgrade
Turkmenistan, Ashgabat

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

Q-Link Products

EMF Harmonization Products

Telcom Companies Afraid to Find Link Bbetween Mobile, Brain Cancer

admin — Tue, 15 May 2012 17:06:31 +0000

May 13, 2012

Microwave – and other forms of electromagnetic radiation are major (but conveniently disregarded, ignored, and overlooked) factors in many modern unexplained disease states. Insomnia, anxiety, vision problems, swollen lymph, headaches, extreme thirst, night sweats, fatigue, memory and concentration problems, muscle pain, weakened immunity, allergies, heart problems, and intestinal disturbances are all symptoms found in a disease process originally described in the 1970s as Microwave Sickness.

While fatal brain cancer is on the rise, questions have been raised whether it is caused by radiations from mobile phones.

Some studies have found there is no link between mobiles and brain cancer. Others have found a link.

Now, Dr Charlie Teo, one of Australia’s top neurosurgeons, claimed that some people are too afraid to find out because of the enormous consequences.

Dr Teo told News.com.au that studies that found no link were usually at least partly funded by telecommunications companies and that the telcos have in the past refused to release records of phone usage that would allow a more robust study to be done.
The largest study done, the international and partly telco-funded Interphone study, found phones were safe unless you are a “heavy user”, or a child (children were not included in the study).

“(Brain cancer) is a terrible disease, it’s the most lethal cancer known to mankind. It kills young people and it appears to be affecting more people than it did ten years ago. I believe there may be a link between mobile phones and brain cancer,” Dr Teo said.
“Finding a definite link would be devastating” and the telecommunications companies are too afraid to find out,” he stated.

Dr Teo, whose opinion is published in full on The Punch on Monday thinks we need to find out for sure, and soon.

“Why wait until half the world’s population has brain cancer?” he asked.

He also went to great pains to emphasise that there may not be a link; that he is not a radiation expert, and that he is not a zealot who wants to get rid of mobile phones. But he has looked at all the available evidence, at least a third of his patients’ tumours are in the area of the brain near the ear, and he wants to find out what is going on.

Dr Teo said he personally minimises his usage and always uses a hands-free kit.

The World Health Organisation says the non-ionising radiation emitted by phones is possibly carcinogenic and recommends hands-free or texting.

And in the instructions for iPhones and Blackberries lurks a warning to keep phones slightly away from your body.

Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association Chief Executive Officer Chris Althaus said AMTA rejected “Dr Teo’s baseless claims of alleged improper industry influence over research into mobile phone health and safety”.

He said while they respected his work and acknowledged his right to express his opinion, expert opinion and the weight of evidence showed, there were no adverse health effects from mobile phone use.

He said the industry was committed to supporting expert research to help consumers make informed choices, that funding was provided under strict protocols and that sometimes governments made funding conditional on some funds coming from industry.
Althaus also said the industry had cooperated fully with researchers.

Subiaco, Victoria
Croatia Zagreb
El Salvador, San Salvador
Garden Grove, California
St. Louis Missouri USA
Perth Albany, Victoria
Luxembourg Luxembourg City
Solomon Islands, Honiara
United States Washington, D.C.
City of Lake Macquarie, Australia

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

Q-Link Products

EMF Harmonization Products

Mobile Phones And Brain Cancer. Are You Worried?

admin — Sat, 12 May 2012 11:46:05 +0000

8 May 2012

Dr Charlie Teo isn’t a kook. He is the best brain surgeon in the country. He knows the inside of your head like you know the back of your hand. He’s seen the rise in a certain type of brain cancer.

And he’s worried.

Here’s what some of what he wrote on The Punch yesterday :

“There are three undisputed facts about the link between mobile phones and brain tumours. Firstly, the jury is still out. Secondly, the number of mobile phone users is increasing rapidly and currently stands at over five billion worldwide. Thirdly, IF there is a causal link between exposure to non-ionising radiation and brain tumours, then the social and financial consequences would be devastating and on a scale never before witnessed in history.

With over twenty one million mobile phones in use in Australia, why are we not spending the resources on finding the answer? Perhaps the answer is one that all of us would rather not imagine. Could those with a vested interest be misguiding us?

The other, less divisive explanation is that epidemiologists and scientists truly believe that the jury is no longer out and that there is absolutely no link.

But allow me to be blunt for a moment. One of the strongest criticisms of studies that show a link is that they have required the users to rely on their memory and recollect their usage times from years before. How many of us could accurately remember their phone usage? This criticism would be addressed definitively if the telcos would give access to phone usage records – but no telcos have allowed scientists access to their records for these large studies.

I see 10 to 20 new patients each week and at least one third of those patients’ tumours are in the area of the brain around the ear. As a neurosurgeon I cannot ignore this fact and while I may personally believe there is a link between brain tumours and EMR exposure, I need evidence to support it and evidence takes careful planning and funds.”

It’s easy enough to swat away concerns like these as unbridled paranoia from the tinfoil hat brigade. And for a while, that’s what many of us did. And then earlier this year the World Health Organisation did something it had never done before.

It admitted mobile phones were ‘possibly carcinogenic’ . That’s an admission that would put mobile phones in the same category as lead, the pesticide DDT and car exhausts. And most of us use one every day.

Last year, Mamamia spoke to international health campaigner Dr Devra Davis about the mobile phone debate. She’s a veteran of Big Tobacco campaigns from an era when tobacco was still cool and definitely not ‘unhealthy’.

Here’s what Dr Davis had to say then:

“Frankly, the risks of not acting on what we know today about mobile phone use are horrifying,” she says. “We know enough to take precautions and we should.”

“To my mind, we are watching an epidemic in slow motion.”

But where’s the evidence that something is amiss?

Dr Davis sets the scene first.

“Let me paint you a picture. When I was having these discussions with scientists and the tobacco companies regarding smoking, all the skeptics demanded of me to ‘show them the bodies’ but of course, we couldn’t. Well, we couldn’t directly and with 100 per cent certainty link them to smoking. We still can’t most of the time, but we now know we were silly to ignore the warnings,” Dr Davis says.

“This is not a simple conspiracy; it is far more complicated.

“Scientists study and love picking arguments with other scientists so that on any given issue there will always, always be legitimate uncertainty as some take different sides.

“But the mobile phone companies are very quick to exploit this and yell ‘the science is uncertain, therefore mobile phones are safe’. If we had acted in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s when we first knew about the hints of problems with tobacco, the incidence of lung cancer and other illnesses in the following decades would have been dramatically lower.

“The same will be said of mobile phone use. We, as a civilised world, didn’t even start using phones en masse until 1998, which means the lag time for cancers and tumours will be 10 to 20 years at least.

“Do you really think we can afford to wait? If we wait 40 years, we are treating our grandchildren as experiments.”

The problem, of course, that there is no link in the evidence. As Dr Teo notes, all the studies that show there might be one were conducted independent of telecommunications companies. All those that show things are fine were wholly or partly funded by the telcos.

Here’s some of the more interesting data:

Of studies of people who have been heavy cellphone users (defined as someone who has made a half-hour call a day for 10 years), there is a 50 percent increase in brain cancer overall. And among the heaviest users there’s a two- to fourfold increased risk.
An Australian researcher Dr John Aitken has performed experiments on sperm (replicated by peers around the world) that show sperm live three times longer when not kept near mobile phone radiation.
Children are more at risk as their brains are not yet encased in myelin, says Dr Davis, which is a fatty barrier that coats neurons and helps dim the impacts of radiation. Their skulls are also thinner.
Warnings in mobile phone brochures are at odds with the public message that these phones are safe. The iPhone 4 warning, for example, says the phone should be kept at least 15mm from the body at all times . Does anybody?
So, if any of that makes you think twice there’s a few simple things you can do. Keep the phone 5cm away from your body as often as possible, avoid using your phone when the signal is weak or when driving at high speed (as the phone tries harder to pick up a signal), keep switching sides when using the phone and purchase handsets with the lowest SAR ratings.

SAR stands for ‘Specific Absorption Rate’ and is a measure what your body may absorb from an electromagnetic field.

Abilene, Texas
Latvia, Riga,
Lewisville Texas USA
Dubbo, Australia
Bangladesh, Dhaka City
Yonkers, New York
Cameroon, Yaounde
Moreno Valley, California
Toowoomba Queensland Australia
Dhadna, United Arab Emirates, Dhadna, UAE

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

Q-Link Products

EMF Harmonization Products

Risks of the Biggest Technological Experiment in the History of Our Species

admin — Sat, 12 May 2012 11:44:26 +0000

May 7, 2012

The biggest experiment of our species’: With five billion mobile users in the world, conference calls for research into potential brain cancer risks

* Scientists at London conference call for independent research into potential links between using a mobile phone and brain cancer
* Figures from ONS show 50 per cent increase in brain tumours since 1999
* Studies ‘are split 50/50′ in conclusions, leaving the issue open for debate
* But believers fear fall-out from the ‘biggest technological experiment in the history of our species’

A scientific conference starting in London today will urge governments across the world to support independent research into the possibility that using mobile phones encourages the growth of head cancers.

The Children with Cancer conference will highlight figures just published by the Office of National Statistics, which show a 50 per cent increase in frontal and temporal lobe tumours between 1999 and 2009.

The ONS figures show that the incident rate has risen from two to three per 100,000 people since 1999, while figures from Bordeaux Segalen University show a one to two per cent annual increase in brain cancers in children.

Scientists and academics have long argued over the suggestion that radiation from mobile phones causes cancers. Those who believe there is a link say that – with five billion mobile phones being used worldwide – urgent research must be carried out to establish the risk.

But not everyone agrees. While governments, phone companies, and health agencies give precautionary advice about minimising mobile phone use, the Health Protection Agency is likely to conclude in a report due on Thursday that the only established risk when using a mobile is crashing a car due to being distracted by a call or text.

Professor Denis Henshaw, emeritus professor of human radiation effects at Bristol University, is opening the three-day conference in Westminster today.

He has previously advocated cigarette-style warnings on mobile phone packets and urges more independent research.

Professor Henshaw said: ‘Vast numbers of people are using mobile phones and they could be a time bomb of health problems – not just brain tumours, but also fertility, which would be a serious public health issue.

‘The health effects of smoking alcohol and air pollution are well known and well talked about, and it’s entirely reasonable we should be openly discussing the evidence for this, but it is not happening.

‘We want to close the door before the horse has bolted.’

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) rang alarm bells last year when it classified mobile phones as ‘possibly carginogenic’.

Professor Darius Leszczynski, of the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority in Finland, said: ‘For the first time a very prominent evaluation report states it so openly and clearly: RF-EMF [radio frequency electromagnetic field] is possibly carcinogenic to humans.

CANCER IN CHILDREN ON THE RISE
Speaker Dr Annie Sasco, from the Epidemiology for Cancer Prevention unit at Bordeaux Segalen University, will highlight the one to two per cent annual increase in brain cancers in children. She has concerns over the effect of radiation on children’s brains.

She said: ‘If the penetration of the electromagnetic waves goes for four centimetres into the brain, four centimetres into the adult brain is just the temporal lobe.

‘There are not too many important functions in the temporal lobe – but in a child the more central brain structures are going to be exposed.

‘In addition kids have a skull which is thinner, less protective, they have a higher content of water in the brain, so there are many reasons that they absorb more of the same radiation.’

Speaking to the Independent about the rise in brain cancer in children, she said: ‘It’s not age, it’s too fast to be genetic, and it isn’t all down to lifestyle, so what in the environment can it be?

‘We now live in an electro-smog and people are exposed to wireless devices that we have shown in the lab to have a biological impact.

‘It is totally unethical that experimental studies are not being done very fast, in big numbers, by independently funded scientists.

‘The industry is just doing their job, I am more preoccupied with the so called independent scientists and institutions saying there is no problem.’

‘One has to remember that IARC monographs are considered as “”gold standard”" in evaluation of carcinogenicity of physical and chemical agents.
‘If IARC says it so clearly then there must be sufficient scientific reason for it, or IARC would not put its reputation behind such claim.’
However not everyone believes there is a significant risk from mobile phone radiation.
Ken Foster, professor of bio-engineering at the University of Philadelphia, downplayed the IARC’s classification.
He is quoted on Science Based Medicine as saying: ‘Saying that something is a “”possible carcinogen”" is a bit like saying that someone is a “”possible shoplifter”" because he was in the store when the watch was stolen.
‘The real question is what is the evidence that cell phones actually cause cancer, and the answer is – none that would persuade a health agency.’
The Independent said the research is split almost 50:50 on whether mobile phones pose a health hazard or not, but pointed out research from Joel Moskowitz, director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, who said that the balance changes if funding sources are considered, with around three quarters of studies implying no health risks being funded by the mobile phone industry.
He told the paper: ‘The mantra that “”we need more research”" is true, but there is already enough evidence to warrant better safety information, tighter regulation, mass public education and independently funded research carried out by teams of specialists who are not beholden to industry.
‘This is the largest technological experiment in the history of our species and we’re trying to bury our head in sand about the potential risks to cells, organs, reproduction, the immune system, behaviour, risks we still know next to nothing about.’
Governments and mobile phone companies often play down the risks and the UK’s Mobile Operators Association says there is ‘no credible evidence of adverse health effects’.
The Department of Health says: ‘As a precaution children should only use mobile phones for essential purposes and keep all calls short. We keep all scientific evidence under review.’
The NHS also advises children under 16 to minimise their use of mobile phones.
The iPhone, Apple’s smartphone which popularised mobile computing, comes with the advice that you should keep your phone at least 15mm away from your body at all times – which may come as a surprise to those who keep the phone in their pockets at all times.
The guide that comes with the phone warns: ‘When using the iPhone near your body for voice calls or wireless data transmissions over a cellular network, keep it at least 15mm away from the body, and only use carrying cases, belt clips or holders that do not have metal parts and that maintain at least 15mm separation between iPhone and the body.’

Other guides, such as the one that comes with a BlackBerry, have similar warnings. The BlackBerry guide suggests that users, particularly pregnant women and teenagers, keep their phone 25mm from their body.

WHAT IS THE RISK? STUDY OF 350,000 PEOPLE FAILS TO FIND CANCER LINK
A study held in Denmark last October compared medical records against phone records of around 358,000 people.

They correlated the data to see how long people owned their phones, and how many of these people developed brain cancer.

Some users had owned mobile phones for more than 20 years. In total, the group had owned their phones for ’3.8 million years’, and suffered 10,729 cases of tumours.

When compared to the average population, they found no indication of ‘dose-response’ relation either by years since first subscription for a mobile phone or by anatomical location of the tumour – that is, in regions of the brain closest to where the handset is usually held to the head.

They concluded ‘there were no increased risks of tumours of the central nervous system, providing little evidence for a causal association’.

The guide, almost ironically, also suggest that users ‘reduce the amount of time spent on calls’.
Professor Leszczynski will use the conference to urge for a stronger IARC classification – ‘probably carginogenic’.
He told the Independent: ‘Since 2001 I have continuously spoken about the need for precautionary measures, especially for children. We have had enough evidence to call for that for a long time.’
The conference will also discuss other reasons for childhood cancer, such as chemical toxins in the air, food and water, and infection and genetic effects.
But the main message coming from the Children with Cancer conference is: more independent research is needed.
Professor Denis Henshaw told the Independent: ‘The public have a right to know this information.
‘We cannot and do not say there is a causal link between brain cancer and mobile phones, but we are right to consider them as one possible explanation for the increase and the public have the right to expect that this is properly investigated.

‘Even if the risk is still only one in a million, with 5 billion phone users, it means a lot of extra brain cancers.’

Belize Belmopan
Tajikistan, Dushanbe
Niger, Niamey
Palau, Koror
Armenia Yerevan
Plano Texas USA
Mexico, Mexico City City
Kalgoorlie, Victoria
City of Greater Taree, Australia
As Sur, United Arab Emirates, As Sur, UAE

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

Q-Link Products

EMF Harmonization Products

Telcos Too Afraid To Find Link Between Mobiles And Brain Cancer, Says Neurosurgeon

admin — Fri, 11 May 2012 16:17:38 +0000

May 07, 2012

Melbourne – While fatal brain cancer is on the rise, questions have been raised whether it is caused by radiations from mobile phones.

Some studies have found there is no link between mobiles and brain cancer. Others have found a link.

Now, Dr Charlie Teo, one of Australia’s top neurosurgeons, has claimed that some people are too afraid to find out because of the enormous consequences.

Dr Teo told News.com.au that studies that found no link were usually at least partly funded by telecommunications companies – and that the telcos have in the past refused to release records of phone usage that would allow a more robust study to be done.

The largest study done, the international and partly telco-funded Interphone study, found phones were safe – unless you are a “heavy user”, or a child (children were not included in the study).

“Finding a definite link would be devastating – and the telecommunications companies are too afraid to find out,” he stated.

Dr Teo – whose opinion is published in full on The Punch today – thinks we need to find out for sure, and soon.

“Why wait until half the world’s population has brain cancer?” he asked.

Dr Teo said he personally minimises his usage and always uses a hands-free kit.

The World Health Organisation says the non-ionising radiation emitted by phones is possibly carcinogenic and recommends hands-free or texting.

And in the instructions for iPhones and Blackberries lurks a warning to keep phones slightly away from your body.

He said while they respected his work and acknowledged his right to express his opinion, expert opinion and the weight of evidence showed there were no adverse health effects from mobile phone use.

He said the industry was committed to supporting expert research to help consumers make informed choices, that funding was provided under strict protocols – and that sometimes governments made funding conditional on some funds coming from industry.

Althaus also said the industry had cooperated fully with researchers.

Iran, Teheran
Czech Rep, Prague,
Kenya Nairobi
Columbia, South Carolina
Djibouti, Djibouti
Guinea-Bissau Bissau
Elizabeth, New Jersey
Burkina Faso, Ouagadougou
San Jose California USA
Umm al-Qaiwain, United Arab Emirates, Umm al-Qaiwain, UAE

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

Q-Link Products

EMF Harmonization Products

Is Your Phone Hazardous to Your Health?

admin — Fri, 11 May 2012 16:16:52 +0000

By Riasharon
May 7th, 2012

No, I’m not talking about the cancerous tumor that’s growing in your brain from sleeping with your cell phone under your pillow every night! That’s old news. I’m talking about your everyday, pedestrian strains of parasites and bacteria transmitted through poo.

No s___! Actually, there probably is s___. According to a study by the University of London, one in six mobile phones in Britain is contaminated with fecal matter. Of course, they say “faecal” but hey, tomato-tomahto, right?

16% of hands and 16% of cell phones were found to harbor E.coli, which causes stomach upset, food poisoning, and has been the cause of several serious outbreaks in the last few years, including the one in Germany last summer that killed 157 people! Didn’t we have to boycott lettuce or lemons at some point?

The article says, “Every year, 3.5m children under the age of five are killed by pneumonia and diarrhoeal diseases – and the simple action of washing hands with soap is one of the most effective ways of preventing these illnesses. In developed countries, handwashing with soap helps to prevent the spread of viral infections, such as norovirus, rotavirus and influenza.”

All we have to do is wash our hands. With soap. Generally speaking, it seems like the U.S. has become so germaphobic that it’s an accepted ritual to wipe down the handles of your grocery cart as you enter the store. I’ve seen automatic dispensers of hand sanitizer strategically positioned RIGHT NEXT to the elevator button in the lobby. And what mom does not have a little bottle of it in her diaper bag or purse these days? Mine doubles as moisturizer. However, I wonder how many of us go through all these lengths but decide to skip the basic hand-washing-with-soap ritual?

Consider the irony with the great lengths we go through to keep the germs at bay, our most-prized and treasured item, the one we keep close to us at all times, the one that has a permanent reserved parking spot on our kitchen counters as we make breakfast, lunch and dinner, the one that actually makes it into our beds and for some, into our toddler’s eager mouths, is F-I-L-T-H-Y. It’s a petri dish of every microscopic vile creature you can imagine!

Don’t even pretend you don’t bring your phone to the bathroom, you bloggers! How else are you going to maximize that time?! I’ve polled you and I know.

When I read this article, I had so many follow-up questions. Where to begin? Who’s poo is it? Is it mine? Or, is it some stranger’s I picked up from not hand-sanitizing when I pushed the UP button? Should I be sanitizing before or after I push the button? And, how often should I be I be sanitizing my phone, for goodness sake?

While we’re scrutinizing our cell phones, why not take a look at that keyboard. Or, don’t.

Italy, Rome
Maldives, Male
Poland Warsaw
Solomon Islands, Honiara
Pasadena, California
Barbados, Bridgetown
Australia Canberra
El Salvador, San Salvador
City of Griffith Australia
Lancaster California USA

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

Q-Link Products

EMF Harmonization Products

Do Cellphones Damage Your Health?

admin — Thu, 10 May 2012 13:40:30 +0000

May 6, 2012

The United Kingdom’s Health Protection Agency (HPA) issued a report last month that said studies haven’t shown convincing evidence that cellphones increase the risk of brain tumors or any other type of cancer. But they added a word of caution stating: “”However, as this is a relatively new technology, the HPA will continue to advise a precautionary approach and keep the science under close review.”"

The British report followed a Danish study released last year that found no increased risk for acoustic neuromas — noncancerous brain tumors — in people who had used cellphones for 11 to 15 years. The study was especially important because of its size: It included the entire Danish population.
But doubts remain. Figures just published by the U.K.’s Office of National Statistics found a 50 percent increase in frontal and temporal lobe tumors in children between 1999 and 2009. Did cellphones cause the increase? The jury’s still out, but some researchers point to the radiation cellphones emit.

The results of studies on whether or not cellphones cause cancer are about 50/50 until you consider the funding sources, says Joel Moskowitz, director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, Berkley, in a story in London’s Independent newspaper. About 75 percent of the studies that found no health risks were funded by industry.

“”This is the largest technological experiment in the history of our species and we’re trying to bury our head in sand about the potential risks to cells, organs, reproduction, the immune system, behavior, and risks we still know next to nothing about,”" Moskowitz said.

The results of many studies are disturbing. A report published last October in the journal Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine said that due to the process for evaluating microwave radiation from phones — which was designed by the cellphone industry and is based on a large man whose brain tissue is supposedly homogeneous — the amount of radiation being absorbed by many adults is being underestimated.
The problem is much worse for children who absorb twice as much microwave radiation from phones as adults. The report says that the hippocampus and hypothalamus of children absorb up to triple the amounts of radiation, and their bone marrow absorbs as much as 10 times more than adults.

Although a study from the National Institutes of Health didn’t find that cellphones increased cancer risk, it did discover that having a 50-minute conversation with the cellphone next to an ear changes brain activity in the area of the brain closest to the phone.

After reviewing dozens of cellphone studies, the International Agency for Research on Cancer issued a statement in 2011 that said cellphones may cause cancer in humans. They based their findings on studies that found that using a cellphone for 10 years doubles the risk of developing a glioma (cancerous brain tumor — the type that killed Ted Kennedy). In addition, an Israeli study found people who used cellphones frequently had a 58 percent increase in parotid tumors, cancer of a salivary gland near the ear.

Researchers at the University of Washington discovered that two hours of exposure to the levels of radiation emitted by cellphones splintered the DNA of brain cells in rats, making them appear similar to cells found in cancerous tumors. Other research has suggested that cellphone use causes changes in the body, and that their use should, at least, be limited.

A Russian study found that children who used cellphones had poorer memories than those children who didn’t. In addition, an animal study released in March by researchers at Yale University linked the radiation from cellphones to changes in brain development that could cause hyperactivity. “We have shown that behavioral problems in mice that resemble ADHD are caused by cellphone exposure in the womb,” said senior researcher Dr. Hugh S. Taylor, a reproductive specialist. “The rise in behavioral disorders in human children may be in part due to fetal cellular telephone irradiation exposure.”"

The effect of cellphone radiation on male fertility is especially troubling. Research in seven countries found that young men who are heavy users of cellphones drastically lower their sperm count. “”All the research shows the same thing,”" award-winning scientist Devra Davis told the Daily Mail. “”If you take young men who are trying to become fathers, those who use mobile phones at least four hours a day have about half the sperm count of others. Sperm exposed to mobile phone radiation in the lab is sicker, thinner, and less capable of swimming.”"

Neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock, editor of The Blaylock Wellness Report, is likewise unconvinced that cellphones are harmless. “”There is considerable evidence that cellphones damage the brain as well as other tissues and organs,”" he says. “”Many studies have shown that the microwave radiation from cellphones damages tissues and especially DNA. In fact, two of the scientists cellphone companies backed to do these studies were fired when their studies demonstrated DNA damage in all cells exposed to the wavelengths and energy from cellphones.”"

Estonia, Tallin
Italy, Rome
UK, London
Horsham, Victoria
Miami, Florida
Senegal Dakar
Wichita Falls, Texas
Korea, (South), Seoul, City
Birmingham, Alabama
San Jose California USA

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

Q-Link Products

EMF Harmonization Products

Is Your Mobile Phone REALLY Killing Your Brain?

admin — Thu, 10 May 2012 13:21:04 +0000