EMF Cell Phone Radiation Exposure

Cell Phone Radiation, Cell Phone Radiation Protection

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff7QDjTjrKo[/youtube]

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

Lifebluetube Headset

Cell Phone Radiation Protection

Mobile Phone Radiation Protection

Trifield Electromagnetic Field Meter

Its Those Subtle Adverse Effects You Need To Watch Out For
Electrosensitivity, like any chronic disease brings with it its share of hardship and suffering. But this pales in comparison to what Steve Cooper endured.

Steve spent more than 40 hours a week building power microwave amplifiers for the base stations of cell towers. He developed numerous, seemingly unrelated, symptoms, which eventually lead to Toxic Encephalopathy (brain damage due to toxic exposure), a brain tumor and cancer.
Sadly, aged just 48 years old, Steve Cooper succumbed to his symptoms.

Desperate to determine whether a link existed between her husbands exposure and his illness, his wife Carleigh Cooper began researching the effects of cell phone radiation on the human body. She wrote a book on her findings called Cell Phones and The Dark Deception. In it she states:
“ I realize that Steve’s exposure was greater than any you might experience. Nevertheless, research reveals that even the smallest injuries resulting from this type of exposure can eliminate and progress. In other words prior to developing any permanent, recognizable damage from cell phone use, such as cancer, brain tumors, brain damage, or Alzheimer’s disease, other adverse effects slowly and subtly creep in under the radar.”

It is precisely these subtle adverse effects that we all, given that pretty much everyone on the planet is exposed in some way to EMFs, need to keep our eye on.
Here is a brief (all too) interview with Carleigh Cooper and the transcript is shown below:

Cell Phones and the Dark Deception
Gary: “Our guest’s late husband, for 16 years, tested and repaired the power microwave amplifiers for the base stations of cell towers. He developed numerous, seemingly unrelated symptoms which eventually lead to brain damage, brain tumor, cancer. Desperate to determine whether a link existed between her husband exposure and his illness, our guest Carleigh Cooper began researching the effects of cell phone radiation on the human body and what she found is the basis of an eye opening book. It’s called Cell Phones and The Dark Deception.
Nobody wants to talk about this including those of us who use the phones because we don’t want to put our phones down. Joining us today and I hope I’m pronouncing your first name right. Usually, it’s the last name I get wrong. Carleigh Cooper, welcome to News Talk online on the Paltalk News Network.

The Risks
(So do I really have to worry about the cell phone that I use constantly on the go here in New York City?) You know what Gary, yes I’m sorry to tell you that you do have to worry about your cell phone and being on it all the time, and you also need to be concerned if you are keeping your cell phone on your belt and in your pants pockets. (Well, why is that? I’m not holding it up to my head and the concern is about brain tumors, right?) Well there are a lot of deceptions and a lot of concerns. The one that seems to be most prominent all the time is the work of brain tumor and brain cancer, and I think the reason why that has always been the focus is because that may never happen for 20 even 30 years.

Early Danger Signs
I think one of the deceptions is that you are not being told what symptoms you need to look for prior to ever developing cancer. I mean, you may or you may not develop cancer. Of course the risk is greater if you use your cell phone a lot more. But there are precursors that take place as it was with my husband. Prior to ever developing damage, or brain cancer and most people don’t realize that there is a link. That 70% of cell phone users experience 1 of 7 common side effects from cell phone use.

Common Side Effects
(And what might those be, I would imagine blurred vision might be one of them?) You know what, cell phone radiation is absorbed readily in the eyes, and like you mentioned before the brain absorbs a lot of radiation. After 3 to 5 years. Well let me back up. One of the deceptions of cell phones is that you can use your cell phone; you can be on it for 15 minutes, 30 minutes, an hour and there are no responses from your body for that use. It’s a cumulative effect. So although your brain has no pain receptors, and you are not feeling any kind of response, no headache, you assume that it is safe.

Well what happens, like with other toxic exposures, is this exposure accumulates. As you continue the exposure, then adverse health effects start to occur, you just can’t relate it back to what the cause or what the source was. Just like smoking when you get cancer, you’re not thinking back to a cigarette you had necessarily or you weren’t before you were told.”

Lichtenstein, Vaduz
Bhutan, Thimphu
Amarillo, Texas
Torrance, California
City of Bankstown Australia
Antigua and Barbuda, St. John’s
Lichtenstein, Vaduz
Erie, Pennsylvania
Providence Rhode Island USA,
Al Hamriyah, United Arab Emirates, Al Hamriyah, UAE

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

 

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

 

Cell Phone Radiation Studies– Is This As Much Truth As You Can Fit On One Page?

Cell Phone Radiation, Cell Phone Radiation Protection

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

Qlink Pendant

Home Radiation Protection

Envi Headsets

Gauss Meter

by Lloyd on September 11, 2011

There is still confusion in the minds of many as to the adverse health effects of cell phone radiation.
Thanks to one of my readers,
now, here in one place,
in one little downloadable pdf file you can print out graphs and charts on 13 important cell phone studies.
Here is the link for the printout and below is my interpretation. Sometimes its nice to just let the facts speak for themselves….

Effects of Cell Phone Towers
San Francisco, Tower built in 1970s
Looking at data from 1973-1988, a study was carried out in San Francisco to investigate how the risk of cancer was associated with the distance from the Surto cell phone tower that was built in the 1970’s.

The study found that the cancer risk increased 10 fold for residents who lived less than 2kms from the tower. There was a 2 fold increase in cancer risk for residents that lived 6kms away from the tower. The study found that children who lived less than 2 km from the tower were 100 times more at risk of brain cancer. The risk of lymphoma and leukemia increased 8 times for residents that lived less than 2kms away from the Surto tower.

Salzburg, Austria Tower built 1984
A study done in Salzburg, Austria investigated the relationship between a tower built in 1984 and increased cancer risk. The study found that residents who were exposed to more than 1000 microwatts per square meter (µW/M2) were 8 times more likely to have all types of cancer, 121 times more likely to have brain cancer and 23 times more likely to have breast cancer. The study found there was no increased risk to cancer when residents were exposed to less than 10 µW/M2.

Naila, Germany Tower built in 1993
In Germany, a study was conducted to access the relative risk to cancers for residents who lived near a tower built in 1993 in Naila. The study found that after 5 years or less, there was no marked increase in cancer risk. However, after 6-10 years of exposure, there was a 3 fold increase in the cancer risk for residents who lived less than 400 meters from the tower. For residents who lived more than 400 meters away from the tower, there was no marked increase in cancer risk.

Netanya, Israel Tower built in 1996
In Netanya Israel, a study investigated the increased risk to cancer from a tower built in 1996 for men and women. They used a neighboring town with no tower as a control group. The study found that men who lived less than 350 meters from the tower had no marked increase in cancer risk. However, women who lived less than 350 meters from the tower were 10 times more likely to have cancer.

Meta-Analysis Leukemia
A meta-analysis of studies data on childhood Leukemia published in 2000 found that children were 2 times more likely to have leukemia if they had been exposed to more than 0.4 µT (microtesla) of electromagnetic frequencies. There was little or no increased risk of leukemia if the children were exposed to less than 0.2 µT of EMFs.

Effects of Cell Phone Radiation
Interphone Study
The interphone study was published in 2010 and was aimed at accessing the health effects of cell phone use. The study found that for subjects who had more than 1640 hours of cell phone use in their lifetime, whom they labeled as the “high risk group”, were 2 times more likely to develop a brain tumor in the temporal lobe. The temporal lobe is the part of the brain closest to a cell phone antenna when it’s held next to the ear. The study also found brain tumors were twice as likely to be found on the same side of the head as phone use.
How Long Before In High Risk Group?

Data published on average minutes of cell phone use per month in USA shows that it takes colored people on average 6 years to accumulate more than 1640 hours of cell phone use and enter the “high risk group.” It takes Hispanics 10 years, Asians 12 years and Whites 13 years to accumulate 1640 hrs of cell phone use.

Latency Period before Diagnosis
It takes on average 40 to 50 years from when you start smoking before you’re diagnosed with lung cancer, 30-40 years from exposure to asbestos before you are diagnosed with mesothelioma, and 20 to 30 years from exposure to occupational dyes before you’re diagnosed with bladder tumors. Infants who were exposed to radioactive radiation from the Chernobyl accident took on average 10 years before they were diagnosed with thyroid carcenoma.

Mobile Cell Subscriptions per 100 Inhabitants (World)
In the year 2000, 12% of the world population had cell phone subscriptions. In the year 2010, 78% of the world population had a cell phone subscription. It’s estimated that by the year 2030 close to 100% of the world population will have a cell phone subscription.

Meta-Analysis Cell Phone Research Bias
A study published in 2009 by Moskowitz et al in the Journal of Clinical Oncology investigated the research bias in blinded and un-blinded studies. In blinded studies, the study is done in such a way that the patients or subjects do not know what treatment they are receiving to ensure that the results are not affected by a placebo effect. In blinded studies, the meta-analysis found there was on average a 1.35 times increase in cancer risk for subjects who had more than 10 years of cell phone use. For un-blinded studies, the meta-analysis found a lower increased cancer risk.

Meta-Analysis Cell Phone Funding Bias
Another meta-analysis published in 2005 investigated the “funding bias” between industrial and independently funded research. The study found that most, if not all, independently funded research found an increase risk of gliomas. Conversely most industry funded research reported decreased risk to gliomas.

Brain Absorption of Cell Phone Radiation
Images of the brain of a 5 year old, 10 year old and an adult reveal that children absorb far more RF radiation from cell phones than adults.

US Cell Phone Subscriptions
Data collected in 2000-2004 from different States in the US revealed that there was a strong positive correlation between the number of cell phone subscriptions and the incidence of brain tumors in the States. The correlation was found to be independent of income, age and population.

Blood-Brain Barrier Leakage in Rats
A study was conducted in 2003 to investigate how SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) affected the brain barrier leakage in rats. The study found there was a marked decrease in brain barrier leakage as the SAR was reduced from 200 mW/Kg to 0 mW/Kg.

Cell Phones and Male Fertility
In January 2008, a study done on a group of men undergoing infertility evaluation that looked at the relationship between number of hours the men had a cell phone and their fertility. The study found that as the number of hours with a cell phone increased from 0 to 4, sperm count and motility decreased in all user groups. Sperm count decreased from 85million/ml to 50 million/ml and motility decreased from 67% to 44% in the 0hrs and 4hrs of cell phone usage.
120 Studies Showing The Adverse Health Affects of Cell Phone Radiation

If the above has whetted your appetite then here is another great resource. This is a listing of 120 (the heading says there are 139 but I count 120) peer-reviewed scientific studies showing biological effects from RF radiation exposure of cell phones at levels below the recommended SAR levels. Click here for the link. The actual links in the document don’t seem to work, but they are correct. You can either type in manually the URL to find the study or do a Google search.

Mali, Bamako,
Germany, Berlin
Tajikistan, Dushanbe
Micronesia, Palikir,
City of Canada Bay, Australia
Guinea-Bissau, Bissau,
Logan City, Queensland
Shepparton, Victoria
Thornton, Colorado
St. Vincent and The Grenadines, Kingstown

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

 

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

 

Cell Phone Radiation Health Effects

Cell Phone Radiation, Cell Phone Radiation Protection

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

Lifebluetube Headset

Cell Phone Radiation Protection

Mobile Phone Radiation Protection

Trifield Electromagnetic Field Meter

Senator Mark Leno: “I am Senator Mark Leno and I appreciate you joining us as we introduce this bill. It is on a new subject to be discussed here in the capital so I hope you bear with me as we walk you through the thought process that led us to the introduction of this bill. It has to do with cell phones which we know are ubiquitous. They are in our lives to stay, they have enriched our lives, they have bettered our lives in ways that we are only beginning to understand. Over 4 billion people on the planet now are using cell phones regularly and that includes over 270 million Americans. Cell phones emit radio frequency radiation which does have human health effects.

FCC SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) Standard
In 1992 the Federal Communications Commission adopted the industry designed standards of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, the IEEE, and the standard is that the maximum level of radiation emitted from a cell phone and absorbed by the human brain and body would be the Specific Absorption Rate. This is a term you will get to know. The SAR was set to be 1.6 watts per kilogram. So that is the federal standard that the FCC set. So clearly if there is a standard, there was a concern that if it is above the 1.6 there is very serious or more serious health concerns. This 1992 decision by the FCC was based on animal studies conducted in the late 1970′s and 1980′s. So we are using tests that were done many decades ago, a standard that was set almost 2 decades ago. So this standard was adopted decades before the concept of smart phones and devices so convenient that we carry them on our bodies continually and use them for hours on end and this standard has not been revisited since then.

Recent Studies On Cell Phone Radiation Dangers
Many recent studies in Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and England have shown serious concerns and health risks in both extended use and especially for children. I think we can say definitively that there are no industry studies that can prove that there are no health concerns for use extended over 10 years. So when you hear the industry say that, “no this is safe we have looked at it and all of these federal agencies have.” None of them have worked with studies that go beyond 10 years and that is the concern because we know, especially with younger people who are starting to use them at 10 or 15 years of age, they are going to be using them for 3, 4, 5 decades and clearly even people my age approaching 60 have considerably been using them a couple of decades.

The San Francisco Ordinance
As a result of all this new information there were congregational hearings held in September of 2008. Subsequent to those congressional hearings, the San Francisco department of Environment, which is represented here today, passed a resolution at the local level urging the mayor and the board of supervisors, which the mayor has now done and I want to recognize Mayor Garvin’s leadership on this issue, having introduced a local ordinance which does that which the bill we are going to discuss today will do. It will require that this SAR be disclosed to consumers at the point of purchase, both on their website and at the retail location; that this SAR will also be disclosed on the packaging, not on the cell phone itself, but on the packaging of the cell and also on all instructional materials. This is the point I want to make, if there is reason enough for the FCC to have set an SAR standard 18 years ago and require in that SAR law that manufactures must notify the FCC what that SAR is, why shouldn’t we not require also that be disclosed to the consumer? Let consumers make informed choices and if there is no health concern whatsoever the question has to be asked why 18 years ago did the FCC set a standard?

Cell Phone Legislation In Other Countries
So I want to share with you what some of these other nations have done. Nation after nation have taken steps. The Scandinavian nations, Israel, Great Britain, Germany, France, and Canada have all taken steps to inform their consumers at the Federal level in all of these countries that parents should limit cell phone use for their children. They are also have recommendations for safe cell phone use. In France there is pending legislation which would outlaw marketing of cell phones to children. So, many of our trading partners have also already taken very significant steps forward, I think what we are proposing here today is very modest.

United States National Cancer Institute Statements
And then I just want to share with you a couple of statements made by the United States National Cancer institute and this was updated in September 2009. So this is the statement of the United States National Cancer Institute: “There is concern that the radio frequency energy produced by cellular phones may affect the brain and nervous system tissue in the head because the hand held cellular telephones are usually held close to the head.” The United States National Cancer Institute also said: “cellular telephone use is increasing rapidly in children and adolescences and they are likely to accumulate many years of exposure during their lives. In addition, children maybe at a greater risk because their nervous system are still developing at the time of exposure…..”

Given the power of the cell phone lobby there is every chance that the Bill will be scuppered.
But whether it is this Bill or another one I have high hopes that legislation along the lines of SB932 to make users aware of the dangers of cell phone radiation before they buy will find its way on to the statute books.

Estonia, Tallinn
Finland, Helsinki
Augusta, Georgia
France, Paris
El Salvador, San Salvador
Zimbabwe, Hararesssss
Tajikistan, Dushanbe,
Djibouti, Djibouti
Gold Coast, Queensland
Daftah, United Arab Emirates, Daftah, UAE

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

 

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

 

Cell Phone Radiation Legislation Is Inevitable

Cell Phone Radiation, Cell Phone Radiation Protection

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

Qlink Pendant

Home Radiation Protection

Envi Headsets

Gauss Meter

by Lloyd on August 30, 2011

Cell phones emit a form of radiation called radio frequency energy. FACT.
In the US the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has established maximum exposure limits to limit the health effects from this radiation. FACT.

These exposure limits require that the cell phone must be used with a minimum of 1.5 cm (0.16 in.) separation from the body. FACT.

Cell phone users who put their phones in their pockets or hold their cell phones directly against their bodies are very likely to exceed the established safe levels. FACT.
This fact, however, is typically buried deep in the cell phone’s user manual and sealed in the retail packaging.

Senate Bill 932 requires that the safety information currently included in cell phone user manuals be posted on point-of-purchase display materials and on the manufacturer’s website.
This Bill makes sooo much sense. Will it be passed?

Gold Coast, Queensland
Korea South) Seoul, City
Palestinian State,
Townsville, Queensland
Nigeria, Abuja
Morocco, Rabat
Palmdale, California
Victorville, California
Devonport Tasmania Australia
Al Hayrah, United Arab Emirates, Al Hayrah, UAE

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

 

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

 

Health Effects Of Mobile Phone Radiation Part 1

Mobile Phone Radiation, Mobile Phone Radiation Protection

Health Effects Of Mobile Phone Radiation Part 2

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

Lifebluetube Headset

Cell Phone Radiation Protection

Mobile Phone Radiation Protection

Trifield Electromagnetic Field Meter

9/23/2011 | by SimisMisis

It’s one of the signs of the approaching food collapse our world will soon be facing: Honeybees are disappearing at a truly alarming rate all around the world. Up to 30 percent of the honeybee population is collapsing in North America every year, and there’s no end in sight to “the silence of the bees.”

Honeybees, of course, pollinate about a third of all the food consumed by first-world nations. Without them, the global food supply crashes and food prices skyrocket. The human population, not surprisingly, would plummet. Honeybees are absolutely crucial to the chain of life on planet Earth, and they are dying in record numbers.

Efforts to understand the cause of the honeybee population collapse (sometimes called “Colony Collapse Disorder”) have so far pointed to pesticides, air pollution and even GMOs. All of those are no doubt important factors, but new research carried out at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology may have unveiled the real key: Cell phone signals.

How cell towers cause honeybee hives to collapse
Researcher Daniel Favre and his colleagues performed 83 experiment recording the reaction of honeybees to cell phones in their off state, standby state or active talking state. It turns out that when cell phones are in their “active” state (sending or receiving signals), honeybees are strongly disoriented and suffer from widespread miscommunication that causes them to stop seeking out food and begin swarming.

Specifically, their “worker piping” activity increases by 1000 percent (ten times).

As Favre explains in his paper, entitled “Mobile phone-induced honeybee worker piping:”

Worker piping in a bee colony is not frequent, and when it occurs in a colony, that is not in a swarming process, no more than two bees are simultaneously active. The induction of honeybee worker piping by the electromagnetic fields of mobile phones might have dramatic consequences in terms of colony losses due to unexpected swarming.

Favre went on to tell Fast Company.

“Among other factors such as the varroa mite and pesticides, signals from mobile phones and masts could be contributing to the decline of honeybees around the world. I am calling the international scientific community for more research in this field.”

Of course, by the time additional studies are done, it may simply be too late. If the honeybee population collapse continues for just a few more years, pollination of the global food supply may become nearly impossible. That will lead to the great die-off of human beings.

Funny how that works, isn’t it? Imagine the narrative of future historians: Humans multiplied and expanded their cell phone towers to the point where the pollinators all died. Then human civilization collapsed and the cell towers went silent. Within a decade, the honeybees were once again prolific and healthy…

Honeybees don’t need humans, you see. But we need them.

The arrogance of science and technology
In Rome, the scientists manufactured the municipal water delivery canals and pipes out of lead, thereby causing the widespread lead poisoning of the population without even knowing it. Science and technology has always come with a heavy dose of arrogance and willful ignorance. Today, the pesticide chemical companies keep producing toxics that poison our planet, and they keep doing it in the name of “scientific agriculture.”

See my related documentary – The God Within – to understand just how dark and deep this abandonment of life by the scientific community reality goes: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=E3B38…

Whether it’s pesticides, cell towers, GMOs or some other technology, scientists always insist their technologies are harmless to the natural world, even while the sixth great extinction is now under way on planet Earth. But no one can deny that the collapse of the honeybees is indeed taking place, and the beauty of Mother Nature is that when so-called “scientific advancements” get completely out of balance with the natural world and actually become a threat to life on Earth, the world has a way of keeping the expansion of the human race in check. It’s called population collapse. And it’s coming soon.

If we could turn off the cell towers, halt the GMOs, stop the spraying of pesticides and end the mass pharmaceutical contamination of our planet, then our honeybees (and other important animal species) might have a chance. But human beings are too shortsighted to understand their role in causing almost anything that impacts the delicate web of life on Earth. So humans will deny any responsibility for their actions, cover up the truth about what’s really going on, and even accelerate their own global population collapse.

Science cannot turn a seed into a living food plant
It will all be led by “science” and “technology,” of course.
And yet all the science in the world can’t create one scrap of real food that will keep you alive. Only Mother Nature can grow a plant from a seed, pollinate it, produce a flower and then a vegetable or fruit. Only Mother Nature can keep us alive, not science and not technology. And in the end, when the history of our modern world is fully written, it will show how the scientists nearly wiped out the human race through their arrogance, their mass poisoning of the world, and their complete disregard for the value of life.

Syria, Damascus
Paraguay, Asuncion
Midland, Texas
Kansas City, Kansas
Clearwater, Florida
Portugal, Lisbon
Jamaica, Kingston
City of Bankstown, Australia
Rochester, Minnesota
Jackson Mississippi USA

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

 

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

 

Jerome Christenson: Cancer’s New Carcinogen: Cellphones

Cell Phone Radiation, Cell Phone Radiation Protection

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

Qlink Pendant

Home Radiation Protection

Envi Headsets

Gauss Meter

It seems we’re talking each other to death. The latest scaremaking the rounds — really, it’s just an old bugaboo revived andrefurbished — is the theory that talking on a cell phone will giveyou brain cancer.

Now, I’ve involuntarily heard enough cell phone conversations tofully believe that too much time on the cell can rot the brain — atleast the brains of the folks who discuss their intimate lives inthe checkout lanes at WalMart.
Still, the loquacious manifestation of cerebral insufficiency isa long, long stretch from glioma. one is annoying. The other isdownright scary.

Rightfully so.
Cancer can kill you.
And given half a chance, it will.
So when the New York Times starts running stories that implythat time on the phone with your brother-in-law could do more thanjust bore you to death, folks notice. and when the organizationmaking the claim advises the World Health Organization, peoplestart thinking about reinstalling land lines and writingletters.

But this is a case where reading the whole story goes a long waytoward untying the knots in your stomach. The International Agencyfor Research on Cancer has classified cell phone use as a“possible” cancer cause.

Also on that list are fuel oil, gasoline, coffee, pickledvegetables and talcum powder.
“Possible” means just that — they can’t rule it out but there’snot enough evidence to say it will, or even that it’s likely to. Inshort, it ain’t necessarily so.

Still, in a lot of ways, possibility is more frightening thancertainty. The verdict is in on cigarettes and asbestos, so we knowwell enough to avoid them. But baby powder?
That’s the spooky thing about cancer. On film, Ingmar Bergmanfamously depicted Death as a chess player. Cancer, I would venture,is closer to playing the slots: Hit on a certain combination offactors and claim the jackpot no one wants to collect.

Some diseases are easy — dodge the bug, kill the bug and you’rehome-free. keep your cholesterol down and your arteries clean andthe ticker keeps ticking. If we know the cause and can predict theeffect, we feel we understand, that we have some control, even whenthere’s little or nothing to be done.

So when the phone rings we can’t help but wonder if there isn’ta better reason not to answer than to avoid an unpleasant talk withanother bill collector. We eat broccoli and drink green tea with anappetite fueled by hope and fear in equal parts. We get scoped andprobed, irradiated and examined, hoping to tilt the scale just atad in our favor.
And just when we think we have things figured out, we read thatsomething else is “possible.”

Something else to make that daily wager more complicated. Anagging reminder that nothing in life is a sure bet.

Micronesia, Palikir,
Morocco, Rabat
Omaha, Nebraska
United Kingdom, London,
Salem, Oregon
Lebanon, Beirut
Malawi, Lilongwe
Orange, California
Swaziland, Mbabane
Dibba Al-Hisn, United Arab Emirates, Dibba Al-Hisn, UAE

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

 

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

 

Escape From The Little Habits Of Mobile Phone Radiation

Mobile Phone Radiation, Mobile Phone Radiation Protection

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

Lifebluetube Headset

Cell Phone Radiation Protection

Mobile Phone Radiation Protection

Trifield Electromagnetic Field Meter

September 21, 2011

With the popularity of mobile phones, is now basically a cell phone, but phone not leave the body, many people prefer to phone in your pocket, some people like to get suspended from the chest, and some people even sleep at night, do not shut down, but you know that cell phone radiation? how do we stay away from it, the following 10 ways to tell you a little!
steps / methodsanother phone into the bedroom to sleep, not the phone on the pillow. melatonin will reduce the radiation secretion not only affects the quality of sleep, the body will accelerate the damaging effects of free radicals, ultimately leading to cancer and other diseases.

Do not phone into his trouser pocket. The study found that often the phone on his trouser men, men whose sperm count less than the normal 25% of mobile phone radiation affect different parts of the body, most likely male testicles by mobile phone radiation injury.

call often change hands. for a long time a cell phone, it is best left and right are often used interchangeably .
not a cell phone in an enclosed space. Do not lift, train, subway and other relatively closed space, a cell phone. At this point the phone constantly trying to connect the interrupt signal, the radiation would increase the maximum.
dial-up, stretching arm. handset connected to the strongest radiation generated by the moment, so the answer or the phone call, the best stretch the arm, let the phone away from the body, wait a moment and then call.

Do not use mobile phones to burn “telephone porridge.” long talk, it is best to use landline study found that mobile phone call 2 minutes later, brain waves are affected at least will last one hour.

smart phone radiation greater. smartphone built-in wireless devices, which produces a more radiation than a cell phone, because they mainly rely on battery-powered device can receive e-mail, Internet, etc. Therefore, minimize the use of mobile Internet.

send text messages than phone radiation is small. SMS communication can greatly reduce the head and body in contact with the mobile phone radiation. men send text messages, do not put the phone in between the legs. a large number of studies have shown that mobile phone radiation may harm sperm motility, but little effect on the female ovaries.

headphones. Although we can not use headphones directly to “destroy” the radiation, but radiation can the human body and isolated. handset farther from the head, the brain affected by the radiation less. Mobile antenna farther away from the body to accept the lower amount of radiation.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Laredo, Texas
Rwanda, Kigali,
Guinea-Bissau, Bissau
Latvia, Riga,
St. Lucia, Castries
Montgomery, Alabama
Ontario, California
Columbia Missouri USA
Ash Sha’m, United Arab Emirates,Ash Sha’m, UAE

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

 

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

 

Radiation: Should Our Children Use Mobile Phones?

Cell Phone Radiation, Cell Phone Radiation Protection

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

Qlink Pendant

Home Radiation Protection

Envi Headsets

Gauss Meter

September 19, 2011

If you have a young child at the moment, then you will probably have been asked whether they can have a mobile phone or not. If you are worried about the fact that the radiation might be damaging their brains, then you should take into account the fact that not everything means that they will have radiation damage.

Firstly, if your child uses text messaging more than phone calls, then you should rest assured that this is not as dangerous. Because your child is not holding the phone near their head, the radiation is not getting to their brain so this is a much safer way to communicate with them.
Even if they wish to make phone calls, then you can buy them a hands free device which means that they won’t have to hold their phone next to their ear.

In addition to the health issues that are involved with having a mobile phone, then you should also make sure that your child is not spending too much money on their mobile phone. You should be able to set limits on their phones so that they don’t have to spend more money than you’re happy for them to spend on phone calls.

The final issue that you need to be aware of is the fact that you can get internet on most phones these days, so you should make sure that you know who your child is talking to. Encourage them to be open with you about who they’re chatting to, and you should be sure that your child can use their mobile phone healthily and safely.

So, if your child is insisting that they want a mobile phone, you can rest safely in the knowledge that you should be able to allow them to do this and stay healthy at the same time.

Liechtenstein, Vaduz
Shreveport, Louisiana
Morocco, Rabat
Worcester, Massachusetts
Wichita Falls, Texas
City of Lithgow, Australia
Bahamas, Nassau
Switzerland, Bern,
Wangaratta, Victoria
Al Jaddah, United Arab Emirates, Al Jaddah, UAE

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

 

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

 

Another Study Finds Cell Phones Affect Brain

Cell Phone Radiation, Cell Phone Radiation Protection

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

Lifebluetube Headset

Cell Phone Radiation Protection

Mobile Phone Radiation Protection

Trifield Electromagnetic Field Meter

September 19th, 2011

Another cell phone study, this one out of Turku, Finland, has revealed that cell phone use does, in fact, affect the brain. A significant finding amid the controversy surrounding the extremely popular devices.

PET measurements were taken on 13 young, healthy males who were exposed to the GSM signal for 33 minutes each, explained Science Daily. The study confirmed that glucose metabolism in the temporoparietal and anterior temporal areas of the brain hemisphere closest to the device’s antenna becomes suppressed by GSM mobile telephone electromagenetic fields, said Science Daily.

The study, initiated by Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience (CCN) at University of Turku, was described as methodologically unique in that it used both proficiency in brain imaging via the National PET-Center and CCN; measurements and modeling of radiation via the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority in Finland, STUK; and measurements of skin temperature taken by the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, TTL, noted Science Daily.

And, while definitive health risk conclusions could not be made, the study does indicate another way in which cell phones affect the brain. Study results appear in the Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism.

Recently, writing that the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified cell phone radiation as potentially carcinogenic to humans based on its review of hundreds of human and animal studies, including the the well-known 2010 INTERPHONE study. That study revealed that the heaviest cell phone users—those using a device for at least 30 minutes daily—experienced a 40 percent increased risk for gliomas, the most commonly diagnosed type of brain tumor. About 13,000 people from around the world were involved in the Interphone Study.

While much research on cell phone radiation effects has not been conclusive, experts generally agree that more research is needed. Especially given that newer research has found links between the devices and other adverse reactions, such as decreased sperm quality and motility and male fertility.

Chula Vista, California
Grand Rapids, Michigan
Bathurst, Australia
Lafayette, Louisiana
Bulgaria, Sofia
St. Kitts and Nevis, Basseterre,
Vancouver, Washington
Hervey Bay, Queensland
Flint, Michigan
Al Usayli, United Arab Emirates, Al Usayli, UAE

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

 

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

 

George M. Gray, George Washington University: Cell Phones and Cancer: Ongoing Concerns Offer Lessons in Communication

Cell Phone Radiation, Cell Phone Cancer

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

Qlink Pendant

Home Radiation Protection

Envi Headsets

Gauss Meter

September 19, 2011

Using a cellular telephone while driving or walking clearly causes accidents, yet some people may be more worried about getting brain cancer from cell phones—a concern that has been largely dispelled by public health authorities.

The U.S. National Cancer Institute has concluded that “studies thus far have not shown a consistent link between cell phone use and cancers of the brain, nerves, or other tissues of the head or neck.” Similarly, the Food and Drug Administration has found “no increased health risk due to radiofrequency energy, a form of electromagnetic radiation that is emitted by cell phones.”

But fears of cell phone-caused brain cancer have persisted for at least two reasons, risk science expert George M. Gray said 7 September during a Capitol Hill briefing organized by AAAS with support from the Dana Foundation. First, public health messages have at times been mixed. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, recently classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” That group pointed to human evidence showing an increased incidence of glioma, a malignant form of brain cancer, said Gray, a professor and director of the Center for Risk Science and Public Health at George Washington University.

At the same time, he said, people seem to be inherently fearful of unfamiliar, unseen or “man-made” risks, as well as risks beyond their control. Electromagnetic energy may thus trigger more dread than, say, a handgun. People using cell phones while driving may fear other drivers without fully recognizing that they have put themselves in harm’s way.

“People are much more concerned about radiation from nuclear power plants than they are about radiation from the sun,” Gray said. “More people die of sun-induced radiation in one year than have died in all of history from nuclear power plants.”

Scientific uncertainty obviously complicates risk communication, too. Radiofrequency energy, such as the waves emitted by cell phones, clearly does not cause damage to DNA in cells, which can in turn cause cancer. But different types of studies have offered conflicting results, said Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse at the National Institutes of Health. Some researchers have reported changes in people’s cognitive abilities before and after cell phone use, for example, while others have found no such effect. Studies based on cerebral blood flow as well as electroencephalography (EEG), a technology for measuring electrical brain signals, have been similarly inconsistent, she said.

“When we have a ‘risk,’ something that could cause harm, it automatically means we have uncertainty,” Gray noted. “If we knew exactly what happened, we would not talk about it as a ‘risk.’ It would be a ‘cause.’” In grappling with scientific uncertainty, he said, the public inevitably will want to understand both the cause of the risk and “how big a problem” they are facing.

Gray has investigated using numbers to communicate levels of risks since the public may at times be confused about terms such as “probably carcinogenic” versus “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” When the International Agency for Research on Cancer said that cell phones are “possibly carcinogenic,” that classification represented “the weakest result they could come to,” in the absence of evidence to clearly disprove a connection, Gray said.

But he added that risk assessment is highly subjective, varying significantly across cultures, and from person to person. It is well-known, for instance, that white males generally tend to worry about risks much less than women, or men or women of color.

In an effort to reconcile conflicting information, NIDA researchers recently analyzed increases in glucose metabolism within the brain following cell phone use (Journal of the American Medical Association, February 2011). Fluorescent glucose was injected into 47 research subjects who took part in the randomized study, and positron emission tomography was used to measure glucose activity after 50 minutes of exposure to cell phones that were either on or off, Volkow explained.

NIDA researchers found that when the phones were on, there was “a significant increase in brain glucose metabolism in the areas of the brain that were receiving the greatest exposure to electromagnetic radiation,” Volkow said. But she emphasized that scientists don’t know whether this increased activity is harmful in any way. Many activities, including speaking, can increase brain glucose metabolism.

Further research is needed. “If cell phones are carcinogenic, the effect is not going to be immediate, and it will require long-term exposure,” Volkow said, in conclusion. “If they do have carcinogenic effects, the effects are likely to be small.”

Meanwhile, she added, simple, common-sense steps may help to minimize or eliminate any possible risks associated with using cell phones: Take advantage of hands-free technology whenever possible, select phones with antennas located at the bottom rather than at the top of the device, send text messages rather than making calls when feasible, and limit the use of cell phones by children.

“I am very worried about cell phone use and accidents. Those are real injuries and real deaths and yet that’s not high on our national risk worry list,” Gray said. “There are real public health consequences to having a gap between the way we perceive risks and what the risks really are.”

Tajikistan, Dushanbe
Richardson, Texas
Uzbekistan, Tashkent,
Victorville, California
Taiwan, Taipei
Bhutan, Thimphu
Portugal, Lisbon,
Plano, Texas
Seattle, Washington
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

EMF Harmonization Products