Cell-Phone Cancer Warning Met with a Shrug

Cell Phone Cancer, Cell Phone Cancer Protection

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

Lifebluetube Headset

Cell Phone Radiation Protection

Mobile Phone Radiation Protection

Trifield Electromagnetic Field Meter

http://www.emfnews.org/store/home-cell-phone-and-mobile-tower-radiation-meters.html

By Peter Svensson
A mostly lackadaisical attitude greeted the World Health Organization’s warning that cell phones may be carcinogenic. Some people vowed to get headsets to shield themselves from radiation, but most seemed to either dismiss the warning as too vague, or reason that if the most useful device in modern life poses a slight health risk, then so be it.

News last week that an arm of the World Health Organization said cell phones might raise the risk of brain cancer has been greeted by Americans mostly with a shrug of the shoulder — one that’s pinning a cell phone to the ear.
Google searches for “cancer” and “cell phones” spiked this week. And some people vowed to get headsets to shield themselves from radiation. But most seemed to either dismiss the warning as too vague, or reason that if the most useful device in modern life poses a slight health risk, then so be it.

“I was watching the news about it, and I thought, `I’m already screwed because I’ve been talking on the phone for seven years,'” said Genevieve Chamorro, a 31-year-old New Yorker who was shopping for a phone.
John Gottani, a manager at a cell phone store in New York, said he’s been selling phones for six years and has never heard anyone ask if they cause cancer. The only things customers really care about, Gottani said, are “if it works, and if it texts.”

The International Agency for Research on Cancer reviewed dozens of published studies on cell phones and cancer before classifying cell phones as “possibly carcinogenic” on Tuesday. It’s a risk category that includes night-shift work, engine exhaust and coffee.
Studies haven’t been able to rule out a link between cell phones and cancer. But experts say that if there is a link, it’s unlikely to be strong. Cell phones emit weak radio waves, which, under the conventional understanding of physics, can’t wreak the same sort of cellular changes that sunlight and radioactivity can.

A common tip offered to those who want to reduce their exposure to cell phone radiation is to use a headset. Even wireless Bluetooth headsets reduce radiation exposure. Though they emit radio signals of their own, they’re much weaker than cell phone signals.
But there seems to be little rush to get Bluetooth headsets. They’ve been declining in popularity for at least four years, according to research firm Strategy Analytics. It’s also found that most headset owners don’t intend to replace the one they have when it wears out.
According to Strategy Analytics analyst Chris Schreiner, the main reason is that when you’re wearing a Bluetooth headset, you look like a person who’s wearing a Bluetooth headset.
“Style has always been a huge issue in terms of Bluetooth headsets,” Schreiner said.

On Twitter this week, the most common posts mentioning “headset” and “cancer” have been repeats of a joke from humor site Someecards.com: “I can’t decide between being seen wearing a Bluetooth headset or just getting brain cancer.”
Cell phones differ in how much radiation they emit. Proposals in a few states would force cell phone stores to display these radiation ratings.
But CTIA-The Wireless Association, the cell phone industry trade group, is fighting these moves. It says there’s no evidence the measured ratings have any correlation with risks. And cell phone manufacturers and carriers are showing no sign of breaking ranks with each other to use the ratings to their advantage — for instance, by touting “low-radiation phones.”

Spokesman John Walls said CTIA wouldn’t fight a manufacturer that wanted to market a “low-radiation phone.” But claiming a phone to be safer than any other would cross the line, he said.
“They’re all deemed safe by science,” Walls said.
Americans on average talk about 700 minutes a month on their cell phones, making them some of the most talkative people in the world, well ahead of Europeans.

In San Francisco, Chuck Luter, 42, said he doesn’t plan to change his habits as a result of the radiation warning. When the advertising-shoot prop stylist talks on his Sidekick phone, he usually uses the speakerphone, so it’s not close to his head. ‘
And in any case, he texts more than he talks. Besides, he added, there are few alternatives to owning a cell phone.
“What are the other options? To not have one? To try to keep it all in your head? There are so many bad things for you — just add this to the pile.”‘

Somalia, Mogadishu,
Swaziland, Mbabane,
Sweden, Stockholm,
Tanzania, Dar es Salaam,
Dodoma,
Thailand, Bangkok,
Togo, Lome,
Lubbock Texas USA,
Tonga, Nuku’alofa,
Cessnock Australia

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

Cell-Phone Use Not Related To Increased Brain Cancer Risk

Cell Phone Cancer, Cell Phone Cancer Protection

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

Qlink Pendant

Home Radiation Protection

Envi Headsets

Gauss Meter

http://www.emfnews.org/store/home-cell-phone-and-mobile-tower-radiation-meters.html

Radio frequency exposure from cell phone use does not appear to increase the risk of developing brain cancers by any significant amount, a study by University of Manchester scientists suggests.
The researchers used publically available data from the UK Office of National Statistics to look at trends in rates of newly diagnosed brain cancers in England between 1998 and 2007.

The study, published in the journal Bioelectromagnetics, reported no statistically significant change in the incidence of brain cancers in men or women during the nine-year time period under observation.
“Cell phone use in the United Kingdom and other countries has risen steeply since the early 1990s when the first digital cell phones were introduced,” said lead researcher Dr Frank de Vocht, an expert in occupational and environmental health in the University of Manchester’s School of Community-Based Medicine.

“There is an on-going controversy about whether radio frequency exposure from cell phones increases the risk of brain cancer. Our findings indicate that a causal link between cell phone use and cancer is unlikely because there is no evidence of any significant increase in the disease since their introduction and rapid proliferation”
The authors say that because there is no plausible biological mechanism for radio waves to damage our genes directly, thereby causing cells to become cancerous, radio frequency exposure, they argue, if related to cancer is more likely to promote growth in an existing brain tumour.

As such, the researchers say they would expect an increase in the number of diagnosed cases within five to 10 years of the introduction of cell phones and for this increase to continue as cell phone use became more widespread. The 1998 to 2007 study period would therefore relate to the period 1990 to 2002 when cell phone use in the UK increased from zero to 65% of households.

The team, which included researchers from the Institute of Occupational Medicine in Edinburgh and Drexel University, Philadelphia, found a small increase in the incidence of cancers in the temporal lobe of 0.6 cases per 100,000 people or 31 extra cases per year in a population of 52 million. Brain cancers of the parietal lobe, cerebrum and cerebellum in men actually fell slightly between 1998 and 2007.
“Our research suggests that the increased and widespread use of cell phones, which in some studies was associated to increased brain cancer risk, has not led to a noticeable increase in the incidence of brain cancer in England between 1998 and 2007,” said Dr de Vocht.

“It is very unlikely that we are at the forefront of a brain cancer epidemic related to cell phones, as some have suggested, although we did observe a small increased rate of brain cancers in the temporal lobe corresponding to the time period when cell phone use rose from zero to 65% of households. However, to put this into perspective, if this specific rise in tumour incidence was caused by cell phone use, it would contribute to less than one additional case per 100,000 population in a decade.

“We cannot exclude the possibility that there are people who are susceptible to radio-frequency exposure or that some rare brain cancers are associated with it but we interpret our data as not indicating a pressing need to implement public health measures to reduce radio-frequency exposure from cell phones.”

Lebanon Beirut
The Netherlands Amsterdam
Finland Helsinki
India New Delhi
Lesotho Maseru
Boise Idaho USA
Springfield Illinois USA
Luxembourg Luxembourg
Palau Koror
Mauritius Port Louis

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

WHO Declares Cellphones “Possibly Carcinogenic” Envi Headsets

Cellphone Cancer, Cell Phone Protection

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

Lifebluetube Headset

Cell Phone Radiation Protection

Mobile Phone Radiation Protection

Trifield Electromagnetic Field Meter

By John Timmer
Those who are worried about the possible health risks of cellphones just received some backing from a significant source: the World Health Organization. A group within the organization, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, has announced it is listing the electromagnetic radiation produced by cell phones as “”possibly carcinogenic.”” The IARC’s use of the term “”possibly”” is key to the decision, as its expert panel determined that the information available is too limited to say anything with a greater degree of certainty, but is sufficient to warrant careful monitoring.

The designation is the result of a meeting held last week that brought 31 health researchers together to evaluate the conclusions that can be drawn from current research, including unpublished information from the Interphone study. The conclusions will eventually appear in The Lancet Oncology, but the IARC has issued a press release ahead of publication.

As we recently discussed, the wavelengths used for cellular communications are only known to influence human tissue via heating, and the researchers involved with the designation do not propose anything new here. The panel also recognizes that most of the epidemiological research involving human exposure to radio frequencies is ambiguous; for all but two types of cancer, the current state of information is officially deemed “”inadequate.””

For those two types of cancer, glioma and acoustic neuroma, the committee considered the evidence to be somewhat stronger, rising to the level of “”limited.”” According to the IARC, this means that “”A positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer,”” but “”chance, bias or confounding could not be ruled out with reasonable confidence.”” One of the members of the group, USC’s Jonathan Samet, said that this designation means that “”There could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk.””

For these types of tumor, there is some evidence that those users who self-report as being among the heaviest cell phone users have a higher rate of incidence at longer time points. However, there’s no clear trend in risks with increasing use, and self-reported behavior can often be unreliable, hence the caution expressed by the report and its authors.

So if everyone involved is being cautious about our limited state of knowledge, why the worrisome designation? Officially, the IARC places cell phones in Category 2B of their classification of cancer risks, and that’s a pretty broad category:
This category is used for agents for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. It may also be used when there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. In some instances, an agent for which there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals together with supporting evidence from mechanistic and other relevant data may be placed in this group. An agent may be classified in this category solely on the basis of strong evidence from mechanistic and other relevant data.
All indications are that cell phones fall into the first of these categories: limited evidence of risk in humans, and nothing significant from laboratory animals. Samet’s suggestion—that we need to keep a close watch in the form of further studies—makes a great deal of sense but is probably superfluous; there’s no doubt those studies are in progress.

Even if our knowledge hasn’t changed, the fact that the World Health Organization has weighed is sure to shift the debate. Although few people are likely to end up reading The Lancet Oncology in order to get a firm grasp on the limitations of our current knowledge, the mere use of the term “”carcinogen”” will probably have a potent effect on both the public’s imagination and the ability of legislators to enact limits on the exposure to wireless radiation.

Portugal Lisbon
Brazil Brasilia
Salem Oregon USA
Burundi Bujumbura
Laredo Texas USA
Comoros Moroni (on Grande Comoro)
Costa Rica San Jose
Ballarat Victoria Australia
Norway Oslo
Benin, Porto-Novo

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

Cell Phone Radiation ‘Possibly Carcinogenic,’ Experts Say Life Blue Tube Headsets

Cell Phone Radiation, Cell Phone Protection

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

Lifebluetube Headset

Cell Phone Radiation Protection

Mobile Phone Radiation Protection

Trifield Electromagnetic Field Meter

A group of experts from the World Health Organization has classified the radiation emitted from cell phones as a possible cancer-causing agent, concluding that cell phones could be associated with an increased risk for glioma, a type of brain tumor.

The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) convened a group of 31 scientists from 14 countries to look at the health risks associated with radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. They spent a week in Lyon, France, reviewing hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific studies on the issue.
“”The evidence, while still accumulating, is strong enough to support a conclusion and the 2B classification,”” Dr. Jonathan Samet, a University of Southern California scientist who chaired the working group, said in a statement.

The IARC classifies carcinogenic agents according to different degrees, from “”carcinogenic to humans”” to “”probably not carcinogenic.”” Group 2B — the group that will now include radiofrequency electromagnetic fields — is defined as “”possibly carcinogenic to humans.”” It also contains lead, DDT, engine exhaust, and chloroform, among other substances.

Dr. Samet explained that the classification means that there could be some risk — a risk that warrants continued study. The IARC group did not quantify the radiation risk of cell phone use, but did consider a study that showed the highest risk of brain tumors among the heaviest users.

“”Given the potential consequences for public health on this classification and fidings, it is important that additional research be conducted into the long-term, heavy use of mobile phones,”” IARC Director Christopher Wild said.

Until then, measures should be taken to reduce exposure, including use of hands-free devices or texting, Wild added. Many cell phone manufacturers put out safety manuals that encourage users to keep the devices several millimeters from their body.

Macedonia Skjope
Worcester Massachusetts USA
Bosnia Sarajevo
China Beijing
San Marino San Marino
Albania Tirana
Detroit Michigan USA
Poland Warsaw
Czech Republic Prague
City of Coffs Harbour Australia”

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

World Health Organization Classifies Cell Phone Radiation as “Possibly Carcinogenic”

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

by Matthew L. Schafer
(Note: This article originally appeared on the media website LWR.
On Tuesday, with almost 91% of Americans now using cell phones, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radio-frequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic” to humans. About 5 million people worldwide have cell phone subscriptions.

“[T]he evidence, while still accumulating, is strong enough to support a [the conclusion that cell phone use may cause cancer],” Dr. Jonathan Samet, Chairman of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, said in the report. “The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk.”

According to the report, mobile phone use may increase the risk of developing glioma and acoustic neuroma. Glioma is a type of cancer that attack the brain’s glial cells, which normally act to protect the brains neurons. Acoustic neuroma affects cells that are responsible for the protective the myelin sheath around nerves outside the brain.
Just last May, the WHO stated that “no adverse health effects have been established for mobile phone use.” It also noted that the results of the studies as of 2010 “have too many limitations to completely rule out an association.”

“IARC conducts numerous reviews and in the past has given the same score to, for example, pickled vegetables and coffee,” John Walls, Vice President of Public Affairs for the industry group The Wireless Association, said. “This IARC classification does not mean cellphones cause cancer.”

The IARC classified the electromagnetic frequency given off by cell phones as a “Group 2b” carcinogen. Some other Group 2b carcinogens include: DDT (the controversal pesticide), lead, and gasoline. Group 2b is the lowest level of confidence that the IARC uses when classifying something as carcinogenic, followed by Group 2a (“probably carcinogenic to humans”), and Group 1 (“carcinogenic to humans”).
The IARC, which met from May 24-May 31, reviewed hundreds of previous studies to come to its conclusion of the possible link between cell phones and cancer. It did not conduct any new research. IARC has also been criticized in the past for its lack of transparency in classifying chemicals and other compounds as carcinogenic.
This recent classification adds to a growing swell of controversy surrounding cell phone use and cancer. Just last June, the City of San Francisco passed its widely publicized “Cell Phone Right to Know” ordinance.

The ordinance required cell phone retailers to disclose the phone’s “SAR” rating, which is short for specific absorbtion rate and measures how much radiation is absorbed by the body. Just days after San Francisco passed the law, The Wireless Association filed a lawsuit claiming that the law would cause “consumer confusion.” Ironically, after the long controversy over the law, San Francisco finally gave up fighting the suit just three weeks ago, and discontinued the legislation.
While it’s still unclear whether cell phones do, in fact, cause cancer, it is clear that people likely won’t stop using cell phones no matter the science. As Maureen Dowd said of society’s love affair with technology, “We don’t yet really know the physical and psychological impact of being slaves to technology… We’re living in the cloud, in a force field, so afraid of being disconnected and plunged into a world of silence and stillness that even if scientists told us our computers would make our arms fall off, we’d probably keep typing.”

Paterson New Jersey USA
Lichtenstein Vaduz
Guatemala Guatemala City
Malta Valetta
Dominica Roseau
Kiribati South Tarawa
Zambia Lusaka
Iceland Rekyavik
Italy Rome
Dominican Republic Santo Domingo

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

Cell Phone Use May Cause Cancer: WHO

Cell Phone Cancer, Cell Phone Protection

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

Qlink Pendant

Home Radiation Protection

Envi Headsets

Gauss Meter

by Marlowe Hood
PARIS (AFP) – Mobile phone users may be at increased risk from brain cancer and should use texting and free-hands devices to reduce exposure, the World Health Organisation’s cancer experts said Tuesday.
Radio-frequency electromagnetic fields generated by such devices are “”possibly carcinogenic to humans,”” the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) announced at the end of an eight-day meeting in Lyon, France.

Experts “”reached this classification based on review of the human evidence coming from epidemiological studies”” pointing to an increased incidence of glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, said Jonathan Samet, president of the work group.
Two studies in particular, the largest conducted over the last decade, showed a higher risk “”in those that had the most intensive use of such phones,”” he said in a telephone news conference.
Some individuals tracked in the studies had used their phones for an average of 30 minutes per day over a period of 10 years.
“”We simply don’t know what might happen as people use their phones over longer time periods, possibly over a lifetime,”” Samet said.
There are about five billion mobile phones registered in the world. The number of phones and the average time spent using them have both climbed steadily in recent years.

The IARC cautioned that current scientific evidence showed only a possible link, not a proven one, between wireless devices and cancers.
“”There is some evidence of increased risk of glioma”” and another form of non-malignant tumour called acoustic neuroma, said Kurt Straif, the scientist in charge of editing the IARC reports on potentially carcinogenic agents.
“”But it is not at the moment clearly established that the use of mobile phones does in fact cause cancer in humans,”” he said.
The IARC does not issue formal recommendations, but experts pointed to a number of ways consumers can reduce risk.
“”What probably entails some of the highest exposure is using your mobile for voice calls,”” Straif said.
“”If you use it for texting, or as a hands-free set for voice calls, this is clearly lowering the exposure by at least an order of magnitude,”” or by tenfold, he said.
A year ago the IARC concluded that there was no link between cell phones and brain cancer, but that earlier report was criticised as based on data that was out of date.

The new review, conducted by a panel of 31 scientists from 14 countries, was reached on the basis of a “”full consensus,”” said Robert Baan, in charge of the written report, yet to be released.
“”This is the first scientific evaluation of all the literature published on the topic with regard to increased risk of cancer,”” he said.
But the panel stressed the need for more research, pointing to incomplete data, evolving technology and changing consumer habits.
“”There’s an improvement in the technology in terms of lower emissions but at the same time we see increased use, so it is hard to know how the two balance out,”” Baan noted.
The IARC ranks potentially cancer-causing elements as carcinogenic, probably carcinogenic, possibly carcinogenic or “”probably not carcinogenic””. It can also determine that a material is “”not classifiable””.
Cigarettes, sunbeds and asbestos, for example, fall in “”Group 1″”, the top threat category.
Cell phones now join glass wool and gasoline exhaust in Group 2B as “”possibly carcinogenic””.
Industry groups reacted cautiously, pointing to other common consumer items — including coffee and vegetables pickled in chemicals — that are included in the same category.
“”In France, the health ministry already applies a precautionary approach to cell phones because it considers that no danger has been established, that doubts remain and, thus, that more research is needed,”” the French Federation of Telecoms said in a statement.
Some consumer advocacy groups said the new classification was overdue.

“”As of today, no one can say the risk does not exist, and now everyone — politicians, telecoms, employers, consumers and parents — have to take this into account,”” said Janine Le Calvez, head of PRIARTEM, a consumer advocacy group concerned with cell phone safety.

Iraq Baghdad
Nauru Yaren
Killeen Texas USA
Denmark Copenhagen
Ethiopia Addis Ababa
Austria Vienna
Seychelles Victoria
Swaziland Mbabane
Bendigo Victoria Australia
Reno Nevada USA

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

Fresh Fears Over Mobile Phones

Mobile Phone Radiation, Mobile Phones Protection

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

Qlink Pendant

Home Radiation Protection

Envi Headsets

Gauss Meter

A major study into the safety of mobile phones has concluded that they may affect the health of people who use them.
Research carried out by scientists in Finland suggests radiation from mobile phones causes changes in the brain.
It is the first time that scientists have looked at the effects of mobile phone radiation on human cells rather than those of rats.
The two-year study concluded that even low-level emissions from handsets are damaging.

Scientists from the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority found that exposing human cells to mobile phone radiation damaged the blood-brain barrier – a safety barrier in the body that stops harmful substances in blood from entering the brain.
They discovered that the exposure caused the cells in blood vessel walls to shrink which enabled molecules to pass into brain tissue.
Lab tests
Professor Darius Leszcynski, who carried out the study, said the results came from laboratory tests on human cells and that further research was needed to see if the same effect actually happened in humans.

But speaking to BBC News Online, he said: “The blood-brain barrier has been shown to be affected by radiation in animal studies.
“There is a lot of uncertainty about whether this happens in humans. We have shown some biological effects.”
Prof Leszcynski said these changes could have a serious impact on a person’s health if they were found to happen in humans.
“If it did happen it could lead to disturbances, such as headaches, feeling tired or problems with sleeping. A study by a Swedish research group even suggested it could lead to Alzheimer’s disease.”
However, he added: “It is important to remember that our study has been done in the laboratory where we can detect even the smallest changes.

“We cannot say whether it happens in humans. We need further study looking at real people to see if the blood-brain barrier is affected.
“What is happening in the human brain is an absolute enigma. We don’t know at all.”
‘Still safe’
Prof Leszcynski said mobile phones were still safe to use.
“At the moment, there is no scientific support for introducing any sort of limitation either on use of mobile phones or setting new safety limits.

“There is no need because we don’t have any science to support it. All the guidelines in place at the moment are fine.”
Prof Leszcynski will present his findings at a conference in Quebec, Canada, next week.
He said a study by French scientists, which will also be presented at the conference, found similar results in rats.
Dr Michael Clark, science spokesman at the National Radiological Protection Board, said the research did not show any impact on people’s health.

“This is demonstrating a biological effect in cells in the lab.”
Speaking to the BBC, he said: “It doesn’t relate to a health effect. You can’t go from a biological effect in a Petri dish to say that’s a health effect.”
He added: “The authors themselves are saying that this doesn’t mean that mobile phones are unsafe or the guidelines are wrong.”
The Consumers’ Association said there was still insufficient evidence to say whether or not mobile phones were safe.
A spokesman said: “At the moment, it’s too soon to reach a definitive verdict on health risks from mobile phones, but neither has research given it the all clear.”

The National Consumers’ Council said mobile phone users were reaching their own conclusions about the risks.
“The people who feel that mobile phones are very important and essential in their lives would attach less weight to this new information than those who are already concerned about the risk,” said a spokeswoman.
More than 40 million people in Britain have mobile phones, many of them children.

Government studies
Two years ago a government inquiry led by Sir William Stewart concluded that mobile phones posed no provable health risk.
But its report urged caution over the use of mobile phones by children until more was known about their impact on health.
In January, a new £7.4 million research programme was announced, backed by the government and the mobile phone industry, to be managed by an international committee of experts led by Sir William.
The programme includes 15 studies which will seek clear conclusions about the health hazards of mobile phones, in particular fears of an association between mobile phone radiation and brain cancer.
The main purpose of the research will be to see whether “subtle biological changes” already known to be caused by mobile phones pose a risk.

Croatia Zagreb
Cape Verde Praia
Lithuania Villinus
Latvia Riga
Alexandria Virginia USA
Belgium Brussels
Oman Muscat
Central African Republic Bangui
Romania Bucharest
Malaysia Kuala Lumpur

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

How Hot is Your Cell Phone?

Mobile Phone Radiation, Cell Phone Radiation Protection

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

Qlink Pendant

Home Radiation Protection

Envi Headsets

Gauss Meter

One bit of regulation that exists in the U.S. to protect us is the FCC’s rule that cell phones may have a Standard Absorption Rate (SAR) of no more than 1.6 watts per KG. Here’s the low-down on which phones are closer to max or min:

HIGHEST

Motorola models V195S, ZN5, VU204, W385, Deluxe ic902, i335 — ranging from 1.6 to 1.53

RIM Blackberry Curve models 8330 Sprint, U Cellular and Verizon Wireless — 1.54 to 1.53

T-Mobile Shadow (HTC) — 1.53

LOWEST

Samsung models SGH-G800, Soul, Innov8, SGH-T229, SGH-i450, Rugby SGH-A837, SLM SGH-A747, Access SGH-A827 — 0.23 to 0.486

Motorola RazrZv8 — 0.383

Nokia 6263 — 0.43

This guide is available at CNET.com. Powerwatch.org also recommends choosing a phone with low SAR, but with the awareness that some high SAR phones normally work at low power, while low SAR phones may be inefficient and must work at high power. Powerwatch states that in general, smaller phones have higher SARs. Also, the phones with external antenna keep radiation further from your head.

At Our House

Writing this article prompted me to assess my own family’s home, and a rash of illness we have had this fall. I’m a mom who likes to be thorough… and while I don’t avoid our allopathic doctors, I may just as easily call an alternative healer, massage therapist, counselor or psychically sensitive person. Often, the answer lies between the various specialities.

With the education this article has afforded me, I can add EMFs as a potential villain when an apparent immune system conspiracy hits my family. This is a significant challenge, as our home office rivals the control deck of the Starship Enterprise (except way messier) and we do love to be mobile. Koetting Media Limited is captain of our house, and we are ever grateful for the income it provides. However, we are nothing without our health and I like to promote that we are too smart to be slaves to convenience. And so this family has decided to compromise a few things.

We will unplug the amazing home WiFi. While it is uniquely entertaining to do virtual tours of homes in Tasmania from our bed, the number of times we would like to access the internet away from our office may not be worth the constant pulses the system must make. This will be most challenging for my husband, who loves nothing more than to whip out his laptop and consult Wikipedia to lay to rest questions at the dinner table or parties.

Next comes my rough challenge: Life with as little use of the microwave oven as possible. Ours is a high-power brushed steel model, which I got to choose on move-in. Now I’m to consider it as an attractive ornament that fits the space over the range. This means we’ll reheat coffee with a plug-in coil, warm soup in a pot we have to wash, and steam vegetables the “old-fashioned” way. I am putting a ribbon on the handle of the microwave oven to remind us to at least think before deciding to use it. And when I see that ribbon, I’ll remember the noise — way on the other side of the room — that 1,700 watts made on an electropollution measuring device.

I moved our bedside phone to the floor, just far enough away from the bed to be able to reach it if a call comes in the night. Previously, it was about a foot away from my husband’s sleeping head. I also am moving the phone in my office away from head level.

Moving the phones is a mean-time measure while I search for corded phones to replace our corded system. EMFields.org offers a “safer” cordless phone, but I’m not inclined to purchase something I can’t easily return to a box store when it malfunctions (as ours always do). Trying to find the old-fashioned phones is like trying to find rap music on vinyl. And when I do make us a tethered home again, there goes my ritual of catching up with a girlfriend while I mop the kitchen floor.

Perhaps in time, after a long stretch of vitality for everyone in our house, if we still haven’t become thoroughly adjusted to the lifestyle changes, I may consider reintroducing these conveniences, one at a time.

Lithuania Vilnius

Burkina Faso Ouagadougou

Hungary Budapest

Latvia Riga

Uruguay Montevideo

New Haven Connecticut USA

Zimbabwe Hararesssss

Germany Berlin

Rwanda Kigali

Kazakhstan Astana

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

Cell Phones Radiation Hazards

Cell Phones Radiation, Cell Phones Radiation Protection

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

Lifebluetube Headset

Cell Phone Radiation Protection

Mobile Phone Radiation Protection

Trifield Electromagnetic Field Meter

Healing Path magazine assigned me this piece, coincidentally at a time when I was seeking anything that could help reverse a rash of poor health my family was experiencing. We’re doing better now, possibly in part by the awareness and lifestyle adjustments brought by my research. It is published in the Jan-Feb ‘09 issue.

by Sonia Koetting

It’s easy to agree that cell phones are exceptionally useful devices, and most of us use them at least occasionally. The American Cancer Society and the FDA continue to tell us that no evidence has been found linking the electromagnetic frequencies (EMFs) of phones and other electronic devices to cancer. In 2004, a spokeswoman for the Mobile Operators Association said, “…the weight of scientific evidence to date suggests that exposure to radio waves from mobile phone handsets and base stations… do not cause adverse health effects.”

Then why have Germany, France, Sweden, Ontario and Israel issued warnings to their citizens about exposure to EMFs?

On September 25, 2008, a domestic policy subcommittee of our own government hosted a panel of interested parties to consider the veracity and urgency of this public health threat. At that meeting, Dr. David Carpenter, Dean of the School of Public Health at the University of Albany, said that the expansion of wireless technology is enormous in its implications. He believes the FCC (in charge of regulating this technology) is unduly conservative in the favor of the industries they represent, and fails to protect public health. Chief of the FCC’s office of Technology, Julius Knapp, was also present at the meeting. Knapp admitted that the FCC is comprised of engineers, not biologists, and that he knows of no studies being done by the FCC with collaboration of the FDA. Committee Chair Rep. Dennis Kucinich vowed that the committee will not let this issue of public safety rest.

While Dr. Carpenter and others claim EMFs are implicated in numerous health effects like fatigue, headaches and learning disabilities — diverse symptoms for which the causes are difficult to ferret out — the data most strongly points to a link between mobile device radiation and 3 types of rare tumors:

• Glioma (Senator Ted Kennedy was recently diagnosed with this)

• cancer of the parotid (a salivary gland near the ear) and

• acoustic neuroma (a non-cancerous growth where the ear meets the brain, sometimes called a “schwannoma”).

The risk of these cancers seemed to double after 10 years of heavy use. The FDA admits that the average length of previous studies was only 3 years, and cumulative effects over such long periods have not been exhaustively researched.

With more than 3 billion cell phone users worldwide and growing, a steady increase of wireless technologies, and length of exposure growing with each passing year, even a miniscule risk is a significant public health issue.

That risk is the worst menace to children. A study in July 2008 by Devia Davis at the Center for Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh points to the fact that children absorb more radiation from their phones because their skulls are thinner, and the protective myelin sheath of a brain isn’t fully developed until age 20. Images from the study show how cell phone radiation reaches a small portion of an adult brain, but penetrates nearly the entire head of a child.

In 2006, The New York Times reported that the mobile industry had begun super-sizing marketing efforts toward tweens, and was introducing darling phone products to be cuddled by the 5-year-old age group. Parents perceive a safety benefit of their kids carrying cell phones, while perhaps overlooking the potential threat to the health of their child. Children of the world are now raging toward cell phones in numbers that shame Tickle Me Elmo and Cabbage Patch dolls. What is the outlook for a child who may well face 70 years of cell phone usage?

Because cell phone technology is one of the most lucrative and powerful businesses on the planet, some consumer advocates are labeling this a communication conspiracy: “Big Tobacco 2.0”. The consequences may dim statistics associated with public health disasters like asbestos and cigarettes.

In June 2008, the New York Times reported that an association with cancer does exist. The report cites a highly respected research effort of 13 European countries, the Interphone Study, which showed that radio waves do affect body cells and damage DNA. Definitive research to discover at what point this damage renders a serious health defect will take another 4 to 5 years, according to the German leaders of the research.

Perhaps we shouldn’t wait for industry advocates to agree a risk exists.

It takes too long to get answers from science, according to Ronald B. Herberman, Director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute. He is one who calls for action now, especially in protecting children.

When two new cell phone towers were recently erected in Northern Colorado, it didn’t escape the notice of Longmont resident Debbie Kankiewicz, whose experience with natural alternatives to health led her to multi-national company BioPro. She cites over 350 cell phone antenna and 61 towers in a 4-mile radius centered over Fort Collins alone (check AntennaSearch.com for your address). Technology can’t reverse, but products are marketed with the intent of protecting humans from the increasing effects of EMF exposure.

BioPro representatives like Kankiewicz believe even our smallest electrical appliances negatively affect us, though many scientists will point out a difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. It also is fair to say that some people are much more sensitive than average to the effects of electropollution, and this condition may change in a lifetime. The variables are so great that — like many potential health issues — people tend to cut the chase to the dire question of cancer.

But before cancer becomes an end result, Kankiewicz and others claim that consistent exposure to EMFs at any level affects the adrenal glands, and can manifest into disease such as fibromyalgia, chronic headaches, anxiety and even autism. Changing the bio-fields around her, she said, “totally affected my being, like a blanket of calm settled in front of me.” Her home is liberally sprinkled with BioPro “chips” on appliances and a “whole-house harmonizer”.

On the other hand, Powerwatch.org, a website produced in the U.K., warns against relying on “gizmos” to give protection. Afterall, your doctor and dentist trust only distance and lead aprons to keep bodies safe from ionizing x-rays.

As long as humans have been on earth, they’ve been exposed to naturally occuring sources of ionizing radiation from the soil, space and atmosphere. Technology escalates that environmental negative, though science has yet to agree on what degree. Meanwhile, on the heels of the rage toward a wireless world, comes businesses like BioPro, whose dealers sell stick-on devices to protect us from EMFs; and EMFields.org, which sell metal mesh and carbon paint as physical barriers to get relief from the constant bombardment.

While the U.S. government wrestles with the issue of illness related to cell phones, we each must decide for ourselves and our children — with consideration of individual factors like proximity to multiple sources of EMFs, overall health and integrity of immune systems — what we will do to minimize the risk of the increasing invisible pollution that’s part of the electronic modern world.

Peru Lima City
France Paris
Morocco Rabat
Gambia Banjul
Austria Vienna
Pueblo Colorado USA
Solomon Islands Honiara
Afghanistan Kabul
Liechtenstein Vaduz
Port Augusta South Australia

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

Dr. Carlo Offers Wireless Radiation Solutions At Three Levels

Wireless Radiation, Wireless Radiation Protection

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

Qlink Pendant

Home Radiation Protection

Envi Headsets

Gauss Meter

1) primary solutions that prevent damage;
2) secondary solutions that reduce the effects of the damage;
3) tertiary solutions that repair the damage.

Primary solutions include using a hands-free headset to keep the phone away from your body. However, this doesn’t reduce your background exposure to wireless hotspots, and even worse, wire-antenna and Bluetooth headsets may act as antennas to attract ambient or background wireless signals to your head. Dr. Carlo suggests using “air-based” head sets, although they won’t prevent second-hand electropollution.

The best solution is to reduce background radiation by moving to an older, but better, technology: fibre-optic cables that transport the signal to the curbsides of our schools, cafes, offices and homes, after which we can either plug-in to the signals or use short distance or air-based wireless. It’s expensive in that it involves digging trenches to keep the cables straight and protected, but the technology is ready to go and the insulation around them is very effective; the radiation is almost nil.

Dr. Carlo suggests combining primary solutions with secondary and tertiary solutions. Secondary solutions include working with the subtle energies of our cells, which have their own natural electromagnetic fields. Tertiary solutions include enhancing people’s overall health to foster the repair of cell membranes. Boosting our health by improving the immune system’s ability to stimulate cellular repair may help with both of these solutions. However, in our cities with widespread, blanket wireless systems, as in Toronto where background radiation is already 500,000 times higher than it was five years ago, it’s hard to imagine that merely boosting our immune systems could completely counter the harmful effects.

Lastly, Dr. Carlo talked about abstinence. He confessed that while abstinence works, it is not really practical. Try getting teens off their cell phones! One study showed that 91 percent of 12 year olds use cell phones, and in Buffalo teens were clocking in 2,600 to 7,000 minutes per month on their phones.

With cheap packages going for as little as $150 for 5,000 minutes, it’s unlikely teens will abstain any time soon. Among males, there’s even the belief that carrying their phone in their front pocket, where it is known to reduce sperm count, is the greatest thing ever, good birth control! Abstinence doesn’t work for cell phones any more than it works for teens and sex. In fact, Dr. Carlo himself uses a cell phone, albeit, with an air-based headset.

Marketing campaigns for mobile phones and wireless technology capitalize on our need to fill the empty spaces in our urban landscape. They are irresistible because they facilitate community. Despite the damage they cause, we like the feeling of the grassroots empowerment and interconnectedness they provide.
If this connection is real, let’s harness it now to spread the truth about these hazards and work together on solutions.

South Africa,
Spain, Madrid,
Sri Lanka, Colombo,
Sri Jayawardenepura Kotte,
Sudan, Khartoum,
Suriname, Paramaribo,
Stamford Connecticut USA
Fiji Suva
Tamworth Australia
Sale Victoria Australia

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products