Cell Phone SAR is Not an Indication of Safety

http://www.emfnews.org http://www.emfnews.org/cell-phone-radiation-book.html Although the National Research Council's report states that Specific Absorption Rates (SAR) for children are likely to be higher than for adults, let's not get confused. Because the danger from most land-based portable phones, cell phones and WiFi routers is NOT from the magnetic radiation or the microwave carrier wave for which typical SAR ratings are given on phones. Unless you have massive exposures like you might expect in a microwave oven, these thermal effects are insignificant. So simply lowering the allowable SAR will NOT make cell phones safer. Instead, nearly all the biological damage comes from the modulated signals that are carried ON the carrier microwave. These modulated information carrying radio waves resonate in biological frequencies of a few to a few hundred cycles per second, and can stimulate your cellular receptors causing a whole cascade of pathological consequences that can culminate in fatigue, anxiety, neurological decline, and ultimately cancers. The density of your child's skull is also far less than yours, and therefore their brain is far more susceptible to these information-carrying radio waves. This Deserves Your SERIOUS Attention The studies showing the long-term risks of cell phone use are just beginning to come in because cell phone use didn't become widespread until the late 1990s. It typically takes at least 10 to 20 years for cancers to show up, so now is the time when these risks will become apparent. It is almost as if NO ONE was smoking and then all of a sudden nearly 90 percent of the planet started. Of course, we would not see any spectacular increase in major damage for more than 10 years. It takes time for this damage to accumulate and be noticed. Unfortunately, most people fail to correlate common symptoms and health problems to their exposure to cell phones and other radio frequencies, perhaps because these conditions can so easily be attributed to other causes (including so-called "unknown" causes) as well. http://www.emfnews.org/qlinks.html Take a look at these common illnesses and ailments, which have all been scientifically linked to cell phone information carrying radio waves: • Alzheimer's, senility and dementia Parkinson's Autism Fatigue Headaches Sleep disruptions • Altered memory function, poor concentration and spatial awareness Although cancer and brain tumors are most often cited as the potential health risks from cell phone radiation, as you can see, cancer is not the only, or most common danger that you and your children face. To learn more go to http://www.emfnews.org/cell-phone-radiation-book.html

Cell Phone Tower Power or Cellphone Deception.

http://www.CellphoneLies.com Every day, we're swimming in a sea of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) produced by electrical appliances, power lines, wiring in buildings, and a slew of other technologies that are part of modern life. From the dishwasher and microwave oven in the kitchen and the clock radio next to your bed, to the cellular phone you hold to your ear—sometimes for hours each day—exposure to EMR is growing and becoming a serious health threat. But there's a huge public health crisis looming from one particular threat: EMR from cellular phones—both the radiation from the handsets and from the tower-based antennas carrying the signals—which studies have linked to development of brain tumors, genetic damage, and other exposure-related conditions.1-9 Yet the government and a well-funded cell phone industry media machine continue to mislead the unwary public about the dangers of a product used by billions of people. Most recently, a Danish epidemiological study announced to great fanfare the inaccurate conclusion that cell phone use is completely safe.10 George Carlo, PhD, JD, is an epidemiologist and medical scientist who, from 1993 to 1999, headed the first telecommunications industry-backed studies into the dangers of cell phone use. That program remains the largest in the history of the issue. But he ran afoul of the very industry that hired him when his work revealed preventable health hazards associated with cell phone use. In this article, we look at why cell phones are dangerous; Dr. Carlo's years-long battle to bring the truth about cell phone dangers to the public; the industry's campaign to discredit him and other scientists in the field; and what you can do to protect yourself now emf radiation emf dangers cellphone radiation dangers computer electro hypersensitivy EMF protection EMF Protection Shield Dangers of the wireless cell phone, wi-fi and emf age http://www.emfnews.org

Dangers of cell phone wi-fi radiation Georg Carlo Part1

Cell Phones Reach the Market without Safety Testing To learn more go to http://www.CellphoneLies.com http://www.emfnews.org The cellular phone industry was born in the early 1980s, when communications technology that had been developed for the Department of Defense was put into commerce by companies focusing on profits. This group, with big ideas but limited resources, pressured government regulatory agencies—particularly the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)—to allow cell phones to be sold without pre-market testing. The rationale, known as the "low power exclusion," distinguished cell phones from dangerous microwave ovens based on the amount of power used to push the microwaves. At that time, the only health effect seen from microwaves involved high power strong enough to heat human tissue. The pressure worked, and cell phones were exempted from any type of regulatory oversight, an exemption that continues today. An eager public grabbed up the cell phones, but according to Dr. George Carlo, "Those phones were slowly prompting a host of health problems." Today there are more than two billion cell phone users being exposed every day to the dangers of electromagnetic radiation (EMR)—dangers government regulators and the cell phone industry refuse to admit exist. Included are: genetic damage, brain dysfunction, brain tumors, and other conditions such as sleep disorders and headaches.1-9 The amount of time spent on the phone is irrelevant, according to Dr. Carlo, as the danger mechanism is triggered within seconds. Researchers say if there is a safe level of exposure to EMR, it's so low that we can't detect it. The cell phone industry is fully aware of the dangers. In fact, enough scientific evidence exists that some companies' service contracts prohibit suing the cell phone manufacturer or service provider, or joining a class action lawsuit. Still, the public is largely ignorant of the dangers, while the media regularly trumpets new studies showing cell phones are completely safe to use. Yet, Dr. Carlo points out, "None of those studies can prove safety, no matter how well they're conducted or who's conducting them." What's going on here? While the answer in itself is simplistic, how we got to this point is complex. To learn more go to http://www.CellphoneLies.com http://www.emfnews.org

Dr. George Carlo EMF Cell Phone Dangers Interview

TV Interview with Dr. Carlo (Campbell Live, TV3)Dr. Carlo talks about the cell phone industry's marketing towards children and the epidemic projections from cell phone use.George Carlo and Martin Schram are aiming to become information-age Ralph Naders. They ask a question that ought to concern America's 103 million mobile phone users, as well as those who merely come within earshot of these popular devices: Is the wireless future a threat to public health? "Visit any public building, college classroom, courthouse, or commuter train, and look around: You'll see people using not just wireless phones but also wireless laptop computers and miniature palm tops," write Carlo and Schram. "What you won't see are the microwaves that are criss-crossing a confined space where a number of people who are not even using these instruments are bombarded by these waves." It sounds creepy. And Carlo, an epidemiologist who once oversaw a multimillion-dollar research project on health for the cellular industry, believes the news is not good: there may be a link between cell phone use and brain tumors. The research is not conclusive, but Carlo and Schram think it's disturbing enough to warrant government action. Needless to say, the industry that once backed Carlo's work now considers him persona non grata. Due largely to Carlo's coauthorship, Cell Phones is unavoidably a one-sided story. Key business figures didn't agree to interviews. In fact, this might have been a better book if it were written by Schram, with Carlo as one of several major characters rather than a collaborator. Then again, it would lack the passionate advocacy that will draw many readers to it. And even the most skeptical may want to take a few of the simple safety precautions the authors recommend in a concluding chapter, such as wearing a headset or earpiece when using a cell phone, in order to keep a distance from the radiation-emitting antennae. One look at the x-ray photos reproduced in the book, which show how radiation easily penetrates skulls, will give even the most impervious observer second thoughts. One thing is probably certain: This book is a harbinger of litigation. If Carlo and Schram are correct about their concerns, the cellular industry--as unbelievable as it sounds--may go the way of Big Tobacco. --John J. Miller --This text refers to the Hardcover edition. From Publishers WeeklyIn 1993, when the cell phone industry's chief lobbyist hired epidemiologist and pathologist Carlo to refute claims that cell phones, which had never been subjected to premarket testing, cause cancer, no one thought he would discover otherwise. But after six years of exhaustive analysis and scrupulous peer review, the results proved, according to this report, that radiation from a cell phone's antenna can cause the formation of micronuclei red flags for cancer in the brain. Children in particular are more susceptible to the radiation than adults. Carlo reported his findings to the industry and the FDA and advocated for continued research, but both parties still maintain that cell phones are safe. Here, Carlo and syndicated columnist Schram retrace Carlo's scientific undertaking and what they cast as a sinister web of corporate greed and masterful PR "spin" that choked his efforts. Schram provides the primary narrative, with Carlo's insights and recollections scattered throughout, a format that grows repetitive. Despite the captivating story, many consumers won't want to slog through the detailed scientific explanations to get to the bottom-line safety recommendations. Journalists, policymakers and consumer advocacy groups, however, will find this no-holds-barred book extraordinarily informative as they continue investigations of the industry. Agent, Ronald L. Goldfarb. http://www.emfnews.org/cell-phone-radiation-book.html

Penetration of Skull with Cell Phone Radiation in Children

Scientific Proof Cell Phone Radiation Penetrates a Child's Skull 75% through the Brain Tissue. A cellular phone is basically a radio that sends signals on waves to a base station. The carrier signal generates two types of radiation fields: a near-field plume and a far-field plume. Living organisms, too, generate electromagnetic fields at the cellular, tissue, organ, and organism level; this is called the biofield. Both the near-field and far-field plumes from cell phones and in the environment can wreak havoc with the human biofield, and when the biofield is compromised in any way, says Dr. Carlo, so is metabolism and physiology. "The near field plume is the one we're most concerned with. This plume that's generated within five or six inches of the center of a cell phone's antenna is determined by the amount of power necessary to carry the signal to the base station," he explains. "The more power there is, the farther the plume radiates the dangerous information-carrying radio waves." A carrier wave oscillates at 1900 megahertz (MHz) in most phones, which is mostly invisible to our biological tissue and doesn't do damage. The information-carrying secondary wave necessary to interpret voice or data is the problem, says Dr. Carlo. That wave cycles in a hertz (Hz) range familiar to the body. Your heart, for example, beats at two cycles per second, or two Hz. Our bodies recognize the information-carrying wave as an "invader," setting in place protective biochemical reactions that alter physiology and cause biological problems that include intracellular free-radical buildup, leakage in the blood-brain barrier, genetic damage, disruption of intercellular communication, and an increase in the risk of tumors. The health dangers of recognizing the signal, therefore, aren't from direct damage, but rather are due to the biochemical responses in the cell. Here's what happens: Cellular energy is now used for protection rather than metabolism. Cell membranes harden, keeping nutrients out and waste products in. Waste accumulating inside the cells creates a higher concentration of free radicals, leading to both disruption of DNA repair (micronuclei) and cellular dysfunction. Unwanted cell death occurs, releasing the micronuclei from the disrupted DNA repair into the fluid between cells (interstitial fluid), where they are free to replicate and proliferate. This, says Dr. Carlo, is the most likely mechanism that contributes to cancer. Damage occurs to proteins on the cell membrane, resulting in disruption of intercellular communication. When cells can't communicate with each other, the result is impaired tissue, organ, and organism function. In the blood-brain barrier, for example, cells can't keep dangerous chemicals from reaching the brain tissue, which results in damage. http://www.CELLphoneLIES.COM

Radiation from Cell Phones Protecting Yourself and Your Children

Will Europe Ban Cell Phones for "Under-age" Use? The Vienna Medical Association is demanding the removal of zero tariffs and the banning of mobile phone advertising targeting children and adolescents. Says Erik Huber, environment advisor for the association: "Children under the age of 16 should never use a mobile phone." Many scientists and government agencies in Europe have already accepted that EMF from cell phones does pose health risks, reflected in Huber's statement, "Scientists do not argue anymore whether mobile phones are harmful, but how harmful they are." The best way to protect yourself would be to simply not use a cell phone and revert back to a corded phone. At the very least I would urge you to not let your kids use them or severely limit their use. Their developing nervous systems and thinner skulls are simply too vulnerable to cell phone damage. If you choose to keep your cell phone, make sure you use a non-Blue Tooth headset. Also remember, even when you're not using your phone, keep it as far away from your body as possible. Do not keep it on your belt or in your pocket as the radiation WILL penetrate your body wherever the phone is attached. According to a scientific study published in Fertility and Sterility in May 2007, statistically significant changes were found in men's sperm count and health of the sperm, based on cell phone use. Their conclusion? "Use of cell phones decreases the semen quality in men by decreasing the sperm count, motility, viability and normal morphology. The decrease in sperm parameters was dependent on the duration of daily exposure to cell phones, and independent of the initial semen quality." So, make sure you stow your cell phone in a bag, briefcase, or your car's glove compartment. To learn more go to

http://www.emfnews.org

Cell Phones Reach the Market without Safety Testing

The cellular phone industry was born in the early 1980s, when communications technology that had been developed for the Department of Defense was put into commerce by companies focusing on profits. This group, with big ideas but limited resources, pressured government regulatory agencies—particularly the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)—to allow cell phones to be sold without pre-market testing. The rationale, known as the "low power exclusion," distinguished cell phones from dangerous microwave ovens based on the amount of power used to push the microwaves. At that time, the only health effect seen from microwaves involved high power strong enough to heat human tissue. The pressure worked, and cell phones were exempted from any type of regulatory oversight, an exemption that continues today. An eager public grabbed up the cell phones, but according to Dr. George Carlo, "Those phones were slowly prompting a host of health problems."Today there are more than two billion cell phone users being exposed every day to the dangers of electromagnetic radiation (EMR)—dangers government regulators and the cell phone industry refuse to admit exist. Included are: genetic damage, brain dysfunction, brain tumors, and other conditions such as sleep disorders and headaches.1-9 The amount of time spent on the phone is irrelevant, according to Dr. Carlo, as the danger mechanism is triggered within seconds. Researchers say if there is a safe level of exposure to EMR, it's so low that we can't detect it.The cell phone industry is fully aware of the dangers. In fact, enough scientific evidence exists that some companies' service contracts prohibit suing the cell phone manufacturer or service provider, or joining a class action lawsuit. Still, the public is largely ignorant of the dangers, while the media regularly trumpets new studies showing cell phones are completely safe to use. Yet, Dr. Carlo points out, "None of those studies can prove safety, no matter how well they're conducted or who's conducting them." What's going on here? While the answer in itself is simplistic, how we got to this point is complex.To learn more go to http://www.CellphoneLies.com http://www.emfnews.org

NORTH AMERICAN UNION & RFID CHIP TRUTH

NORTH AMERICAN UNION & RFID CHIP TRUTH Radio-frequency identification (RFID) is an automatic identification method, relying on storing and remotely retrieving data using devices called RFID tags or transponders. An RFID tag is an object that can be applied to or incorporated into a product, animal, or person for the purpose of identification using radiowaves. Some tags can be read from several meters away and beyond the line of sight of the reader. Most RFID tags contain at least two parts. One is an integrated circuit for storing and processing information, modulating and demodulating a (RF) signal, and other specialized functions. The second is an antenna for receiving and transmitting the signal. A technology called chipless RFID allows for discrete identification of tags without an integrated circuit, thereby allowing tags to be printed directly onto assets at a lower cost than traditional tags. Today, a significant thrust in RFID use is in enterprise supply chain management, improving the efficiency of inventory tracking and management. However, a threat is looming that the current growth and adoption in enterprise supply chain market will not be sustainable. A fair cost-sharing mechanism, rational motives and justified returns from RFID technology investments are the key ingredients to achieve long-term and sustainable RFID technology adoption An RFID tag used for electronic toll collection In 1946 L�on Theremin invented an espionage tool for the Soviet Union which retransmitted incident radio waves with audio information. Sound waves vibrated a diaphragm which slightly altered the shape of the resonator, which modulated the reflected radio frequency. Even though this device was a passive covert listening device, not an identification tag, it has been attributed as the first known device and a predecessor to RFID technology. The technology used in RFID has been around since the early 1920s according to one source (although the same source states that RFID systems have been around just since the late 1960s).[2][3][4][5] Similar technology, such as the IFF transponder invented by the United Kingdom in 1939, was routinely used by the allies in World War II to identify airplanes as friend or foe। Transponders are still used by military and commercial aircraft to this day.

http://www.cellphonelies.com/ http://www.emfnews.org/

Sprint T-mobile Wireless Companies pull school cell phone antennas

Sprint Nextel and T-Mobile have disconnected cell antennas at St. Mel School. Parishioners of a Queens church and parents of its parochial school pupils were jubilant last week after two cellular phone companies unplugged 23 antenna towers from the school's roof. The years-long tug of war between the community and the companies finally ended after Sprint Nextel removed its towers from Flushing's St. Mel School, which had signed a contract in 2000 to lease roof space. The company had shared the space at 154-24 26th Ave. with T-Mobile. T-Mobile also agreed to discontinue using its antenna towers after Sprint Nextel made the first move, said City Councilman Tony Avella (D-Bayside). "They went out the same day [Dec. 27] and turned off the system," he said. "Within the past week they've begun to remove the equipment." The church and school had attempted to annul the contracts for nearly two years. "It's a major victory for all of us, and the parents are thrilled," Avella said. A Sprint Nextel official said the company agreed to move out on the school's request. "We made the decision in the best interest of serving our customers and the community," said spokesman Mark Elliott. "That was our sole reasoning for removing the equipment." T-Mobile did not return calls for comment, but a spokesman, Wayne Leuck, e-mailed a written statement saying only that "Parents at St. Mel's School and throughout the area deserve the peace of mind that comes with high quality wireless coverage." Church leaders began fighting the companies in March 2006 after parents raised concerns that children were being exposed to possibly harmful radio waves. In recent weeks, the Diocese of Brooklyn, which includes Queens as well, turned up the heat on the two companies to terminate the contracts, which originally had been a way to raise money for the church and school. "The situation runs akin to the asbestos issue - 30 years ago nobody thought asbestos was dangerous," Avella said. Public schools are prohibited from erecting antennas by federal law.

Cellphone radiation may ruin a good night's sleep

http://www.Cellphonelies.com http://www.emfnews.org CTV.ca News Staff A small study in Sweden and the United States finds that using a cellphone just before bedtime interferes with sleep patterns. Scientists at the Karolinska Institute and Uppsala University and Wayne State University in Detroit studied 35 men and 36 women. Thirty-eight of the volunteers said they had symptoms that they attributed to cellphone use, such as trouble concentrating and sleep problems. The other 33 volunteers reported no "mobile-related symptoms". Half were exposed to 884 MHz wireless signals like that emitted by cellphones for three hours, while the others thought they were being exposed to it. The participants did not know which exposure they were receiving. Those who were actually exposed to the radiation took longer to get into deep sleep. They also spent less time in the deepest part of sleep. The participants took an average of about six minutes longer to reach the deep stage of sleep than when they had received the "sham" exposure. They also spent an average eight minutes less time in the deepest "stage 4" sleep. Reports of headaches were greater during radio wave exposure than during sham exposure in the subjects who had previously not reported mobile-related symptoms. However, in those who were symptomatic, there was no difference in the reporting of headache between the two exposures. Neither group was able to detect with accuracy whether they were being exposed to the true radio waves or to sham exposure. The study is published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Progress in Electromagnetics Research Symposium (PIERS). It was funded by the Mobile Manufacturers Forum, which called the results "inconclusive." One of the study's researchers, Dr. Bengt Arnetz, says it appears that cellphones affect the areas of the brain responsible for activating and co-ordinating the stress system. It's also possible that radio waves disrupt production of the hormone melatonin, which controls the body's internal circadian rhythms. Sleep expert Dr. Jeffrey Lipsitz says he finds the study's results disturbing. "Aside from the sleep aspects, honestly, it's a little worrisome that you could measure any significant difference in people just because they've been exposed to radio waves that simulate cellphone use," he told Canada AM Monday. "So you kind of wonder what else might be going on to the brain as a result of extended cellphone use, and what does that mean for all of us?... It certainly cries out for more research." Lipsitz says the results of the study might have the greatest implications for teenages, who tend to use cellphones more in the evening and tend to talk for long periods of time. "So if they're using cellphones for long hours in the evening and then going to sleep and their sleep is disturbed -- and they're the ones who probably need more sleep than the rest of us anyways and not getting it -- this may have implications with regard to health and development and functioning in school and so on. So there are some serious implications to this." http://www.Cellphonelies.com http://www.emfnews.org

Wireless Technology Brain Tumor Patient

The truth of cell phones and wireless technology has been buried by the industry, the health officials and governments. http://www.CellphoneLies.com Watch as this man uses special device to measure dangers of cell phones and office equipment. A cellular phone is basically a radio that sends signals on waves to a base station. The carrier signal generates two types of radiation fields: a near-field plume and a far-field plume. Living organisms, too, generate electromagnetic fields at the cellular, tissue, organ, and organism level; this is called the biofield. Both the near-field and far-field plumes from cell phones and in the environment can wreak havoc with the human biofield, and when the biofield is compromised in any way, says Dr. Carlo, so is metabolism and physiology. "The near field plume is the one we're most concerned with. This plume that's generated within five or six inches of the center of a cell phone's antenna is determined by the amount of power necessary to carry the signal to the base station," he explains. "The more power there is, the farther the plume radiates the dangerous information-carrying radio waves." A carrier wave oscillates at 1900 megahertz (MHz) in most phones, which is mostly invisible to our biological tissue and doesn't do damage. The information-carrying secondary wave necessary to interpret voice or data is the problem, says Dr. Carlo. That wave cycles in a hertz (Hz) range familiar to the body. Your heart, for example, beats at two cycles per second, or two Hz. Our bodies recognize the information-carrying wave as an "invader," setting in place protective biochemical reactions that alter physiology and cause biological problems that include intracellular free-radical buildup, leakage in the blood-brain barrier, genetic damage, disruption of intercellular communication, and an increase in the risk of tumors. The health dangers of recognizing the signal, therefore, aren't from direct damage, but rather are due to the biochemical responses in the cell. Here's what happens: Cellular energy is now used for protection rather than metabolism. Cell membranes harden, keeping nutrients out and waste products in. Waste accumulating inside the cells creates a higher concentration of free radicals, leading to both disruption of DNA repair (micronuclei) and cellular dysfunction. Unwanted cell death occurs, releasing the micronuclei from the disrupted DNA repair into the fluid between cells (interstitial fluid), where they are free to replicate and proliferate. This, says Dr. Carlo, is the most likely mechanism that contributes to cancer. With the background levels of information-carrying radio waves dramatically increasing because of the widespread use of cell phones,Wi-Fi, and other wireless communication, the effects from the near and far-fields are very similar. Overall, says Dr. Carlo, almost all of the acute and chronic symptoms seen in electrosensitive patients can be explained in some part by disrupted intercellular communication. These symptoms of electrosensitivity include inability to sleep, general malaise, and headaches. Could this explain the increase in recent years of conditions such as attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, and anxiety disorder? "One thing all these conditions have in common is a disruption, to varying degrees, of intercellular communication. When we were growing up, TV antennas were on top of our houses and such waves were up in the sky. Cell phones and Wi-Fi have brought those things down to the street, integrated them into the environment, and that's absolutely new. The recognition mechanism, where protein vibration sensors on the cell membrane pick up a signal and interpret it as an invader, only works because the body recognizes something it's never seen before." As to increases in brain tumors tied to cell phone use, it's too early to tell due to a lack of hard data, says Dr. Carlo. "We're never going to see that in time to have it matter. Here in the US, we're six years behind in getting the brain tumor database completed, and currently the best data are from 1999. By the time you see any data showing an increase, the ticking time bomb is set." Epidemic curve projections, however, indicate that in 2006, we can expect to see 40,000 to 50,000 cases of brain and eye cancer. This is based on published peer-reviewed studies that allow calculation of risk and construction of epidemic curves. By 2010, says Dr. Carlo, expect that number to be between 400,000 and 500,000 new cases worldwide. "This means we're on the beginning curve of an epidemic, with epidemic defined as a change in the occurrence of a disease that is so dramatic in its increase that it portends serious public health consequences," says Dr. Carlo. "This is what's not being told to the public. One of the things that I suggest to people who use a cell phone is to use an air tube headset. If you use a wired headset, the current moving through the wire of the headset attracts ambient informational carrying radio waves and thereby increases your exposure."

read more | digg story