EMF Protection – The Truth About Chips, Diodes, Neutralizers, Pendants, Amulets Etc.

There’s hardly a day goes by that someone doesn’t send me a message saying, “have you seen the xxx EMF harmonizer, does it work?” Or, “have you seen the xxx cell phone chip, does it work?” Or, “have you seen the xxx resonator?” And so on.

I reply and people then say “are you sure you don’t recommend it they’ve got research on their website, can you check their research?” They say “are you sure it doesn’t work there are lots of people that say it does.”

If you’re asking these kinds of questions and want to know what my answer is, then read on.

Why I’m Speaking Out About This

In the beginning ElectricSense was about me blowing steam off on a subject I believed in strongly (and still do). My health had suffered badly from supposedly “harmless” EMF exposures. It disgusted me to think of other people succumbing to ill health in the same way I had, having to live what I’d lived (particularly kids), when I could do something about it.

What disgusted me even more were the companies selling fake EMF protection devices seeking to make a quick buck out of all this. I’ve been taken in by the slick talk, the promises, over and over again. The bracelets, pendants, stickers, plug in harmonizers, USB resonators, software, etc that can somehow make my symptoms go away. Well here’s the thing. None of these solutions worked for me. That’s why I’m speaking out about this.

The Question On Everybody’s Lips

When people visit my website the number one question everybody has about EMF protection is “what works?” Some people are just curious, they want to safeguard their health. Others are desperate for a solution because they already have symptoms.

To answer this question and lay out what works I wrote an EMF protection Free Report. And to help people who already have symptoms I wrote a book on how to deal with electrical sensitivity.  Do you know what? Neither in my Free Report nor in my book do I recommend using these EMF gadgets.

Are These EMF Protection Gadgets Scams?

The Merriam Webster dictionary defines a scam as “a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation”. Are these companies intending to defraud or deceive? Well, none of the gadgets I’ve tried worked, and I’ve tried many.

There are literally hundreds of these products now on the market. The companies that are selling them say they work and they’ve got some very clever marketing surrounding these devices. Generally their claims are “backed-up” by research. They have to have the research, because without it they wouldn’t sell anything. So they pay to have the research done, but in reality they pay for a desired result. And they put testimonials on their website from people who sing the praises of what they’re selling.

Why Do People Say These Gadgets Work?

Ask yourself which people say they work. Do you know anyone that say they work? And how do you know the testimonials are real? Unscrupulous companies think nothing of using false testimonials or paying people to give positive testimonials.

And then there’s the placebo effect. People buy these devices with a very strong belief that they will work. Because they believe they work, sometimes they do. But in reality they don’t. It’s what’s known as the placebo effect. The beneficial effect of the fake EMF protection device is derived entirely from the expectations that the person has about the gadget working.

There are a lot of people that have reported apparent improved health when they first bought one of these gadgets (myself included) but then over time their health has deteriorated again.

What Do All These EMF Gadgets Have In Common?

What all these devices have in common is there’s virtually no way of knowing for sure if they work. Trying to measure with an EMF meter or similar will tell you nothing. All you’ve got is the company that’s selling them assurance that it works.

Compare this with classic (or direct) EMF protection which relies on taking measurable action. You buy an EMF meter, it gives a reading. Whatever you do to reduce these exposures you can then measure in a very concrete way by using your EMF meter to measure again. If necessary you shield some more and then you measure again. And so on and so forth.

There’s another thing. When you buy an EMF meter it tells you your exposure levels. When you do this you’re not just acknowledging the problem, you’re making an important first step towards facing up to reality. You’re saying “these are the EMFs in my environment”. You can’t kid yourself that this or that resonator or harmonizer has made things safer, your meter will tell you if it’s safer.

When you buy an EMF protection gadget the internal dialogue is completely different. You might be acknowledging the problem but you think can cheat it with a “money can solve anything approach.” But you can’t.

Are These Devices Dangerous?

They can be. It usually works something like this: You go out and buy your EMF protection gadget. You assume it works so you increase your use of EMF technologies. Which increases your EMF exposure. Eventually you fall ill.

For millions of years our bodies have evolved in an environment where the only significant EMFs present were those emanating from the earth itself. Our bodies haven’t evolved to deal with the man-made EMFs which have been thrust upon us in the last few decades or so.

Get Clear

There’s one thing you must get absolutely 100% clear on - the ONLY way to achieve true EMF protection is by respecting your body and respecting nature. You can’t cheat or outsmart nature.

The foundation of true EMF protection is measurement, avoidance and protection. It means minimizing your exposure to EMFs while simultaneously supporting your body with the raw materials it needs to protect and repair itself. It mean’s looking at the big picture. It’s what I call direct and indirect protection.

If anybody tells you any different view their motives with suspicion. No doubt they’re trying to sell you something.

If my motivations were monetary I’d just strike a deal with one of the companies selling these gadgets, tell my website visitors to buy xyz gadget and then live of the profits. It’s not about the money for me. I want people to know the truth.

Where Does That Leave Us?

I take a firm line on this issue, that’s where it leaves me. This firm line is borne out of my own hard gained experience and research. Above all it’s borne out of my desire to do the right thing.

Where it leaves you is with a choice. You can go the EMF protection gadget route, that’s your choice. And I respect that.

I created this website to help people and share EMF protection solutions that I know work, not to debate the relative merits of these devices. So if you put a question to me on the website citing an EMF protection product name and asking my opinion, don’t be offended if I don’t answer.

Why This Firm Line?

There are several reasons:

• I know there are people that ask me genuine questions about these devices. But I’ve noticed that many comments made are just thinly veiled attempts at trying to sell a product: “hey I’ve tried this new sticker www.websiteaddress and it really works”. Because of the way the Internet works any lip service (comment of any kind) I give to these devices, even if it’s to advise people against the use of them, will give them free publicity – so please don’t cite EMF gadget product names in your comments.
• Most of these gadgets are about somehow making these EMFs safe. It’s the principle that’s wrong. High EMF exposures cannot be tampered with and made safe. EMF protection should not about artificially devising ways of enabling your body to endure higher and higher doses of EMF exposure. It goes against the laws of nature. Instead, focus on respecting and being in harmony with nature.
• studies say EMF exposures are cumulative. An EMF protection gadget that makes you feel as though you can’t feel these exposures might sound attractive. But even if its stops you from feeling the effects of these exposures what about their biological effects? Does it also stop the adverse bio effects of these EMF exposures? No it doesn’t – in any case there are no studies to support it does.
• its the whole philosophy of these EMF gadgets which is wrong. We’re back to the band-aid approach of masking symptoms. It’s much better to deal with these symptoms openly and honestly.

Above all because I have to do what I believe in. If I start to endorse EMF protection gadgets I don’t believe in this makes me no better than the people that are making zillions from peddling the wireless and other EMF technology when they know full well the harm they’re inflicting.

If you’ve sent me a question asking my opinion on this or that sticker, diode, resonator or harmonizer and I’ve directed you to this page, you now understand why I’ve sent you here.

source

UK introduces obligatory Smart Metering via backdoor

UK introduces obligatory Smart Metering via backdoor

• New licensing conditions for Suppliers means “No Backwards Step” once Smart Meters installed
• Conditions will prohibit suppliers from replacing Smart Meters with safer, more secure analogue meters, e.g. when a customer has moved house
• Government has now reneged on repeated commitments that Smart Meters would be “voluntary”
• Customers may be left with no choice but to use provisions of existing Gas & Electricity Acts to outmanoeuvre stealth restriction on free choice

LONDON, ENGLAND (23 May, 2013)   Early last week, Edward Davey’s Parliamentary Undersecretary, Baroness Verma, made an announcement in the House of Lords that the UK’s Smart Meter programme would be delayed by at least “one year”.  The announcement gained much attention and media exposure across the UK, but a crucial component of her announcement was seemingly omitted from all popular reports and commentary.

According to the recordings of the Baroness’s statement in Hansard (the official report of the proceedings in parliament), she revealed a second major shift in Government policy regarding Smart Meters which went unnoticed as admissions regarding delays overtook the media glare.

In a stunning and outrageous Government u-turn, Ministers have decided that from the end of this year, UK energy suppliers will be BLOCKED from fulfilling customer wishes to replace a pre-existing Smart Meter with a more safe and secure analogue alternative.  This change will be enforced through modifications to supplier licensing conditions on 14 July 2013, meaning that from the end of the year, if an energy customer moves house and finds one or more Smart Meters in situ, their supplier will not be allowed to offer analogue replacements.

From Hansard, 13 May 2013, Baroness Verma:

“We have decided that from the end of this year, when a customer switches from a supplier who has provided them with a compliant smart meter, the new supplier cannot replace that smart meter with a dumb meter and must either rent the previous supplier’s meter or install their own new smart meter… We are also proposing for consultation that, when a customer with a compliant smart meter switches supplier,the new supplier must continue to provide remote meter readings.”

If you are left wondering why this generous concession has been made for Big Energy’s Smart Metering programme at your expense, the Baroness – drawing on a newly published Consultation Response document – added the following:

“This will give greater confidence to early movers over their investments… this package of proposals will give consumers and industry the confidence they need for a successful rollout.  Subject to the successful completion of the parliamentary process, the licence conditions will come into force on 14 July 2013.”

This breach of public trust not only reflects a cowardly u-turn on commitments that the Government has made repeatedly that Smart Meters will be ‘voluntary’, but sends a clear message to consumers that free-choice is not compatible with the UK’s Orwellian energy policy.  It also serves to reveal the long-term, ‘war of attrition’-style intentions for Smart Metering and exposes the lie that Smart Metering is primarily aimed at serving consumers.

What’s more is that these new rules for suppliers lay the foundation for ‘ripping-and-replacing’ Smart Meters when changing suppliers – as there will be an obligation on suppliers to either “pay rent” to a competitor or take the decision to rip-and-replace the meter with their own.  In this light, it becomes impossible to resolve the contention that this programme will serve as a means of reducing energy and makes a mockery of Smart Meters making it “easier” to switch suppliers.

What may be of some interest, however, is how two pre-existing pieces of UK legislation might impact on DECC’s attempt to curtail freedom of metering choice.

In 1986 and then in 1989, the UK’s Gas and Electricity Acts were respectively brought into being.  Amongst other provisions, these Acts enshrined into law the right for individuals to have their own gas and electricity meters installed on their property.

To explain specifically in relation to electricity, for example, Schedule 7 of the Electricity Act 1989,ss.1(2) &(2A) outlines the following:

[(2) If the [authorised supplier] agrees, the meter may be provided by the customer [(who may provide a meter which belongs to him or is made available otherwise than in pursuance of arrangements made by the supplier)]; but otherwise it shall be provided by the [authorised supplier] [(who may provide a meter which belongs to him or to any person other than the customer)].
(2A) [An authorised supplier] may refuse to allow one of his customers to provide a meter only if there are reasonable grounds for his refusal.] [You can check the UK Association of Meter Operator’s website for more information.]

Our interpretation of this provision is that, so long as one’s own choice of non-smart/analogue meter complies with regulations and the supplier has no reasonable grounds for saying otherwise, any in situ Smart Meters can be sent back to the supplier.  The only reasonable grounds for the supplier refusing this request that we can envisage would be if the meter is not compliant with safety or accuracy regulation.  The issue of whether your own meter is “smart” or not seems irrelevant, and would certainly appear to have nothing to do with the Government’s “No Backward Step” policy nor its supplier-oriented licensing changes.

Source: http://stopsmartmeters.org.uk/uk-introduces-obligatory-smart-metering-via-backdoor/

The Great Smart Meter Return

CAPITOLA, Calif-- About a dozen SmartMeter opponents lined up to return the controversial device, Wednesday, and when they showed up, PG&E called police.

"This is not a protest," said Joshua Hart, Stopsmartmeter.org. "This was simply returning PG&E's property to them. Property that was not wanted on people's homes."
And about a dozen people did just that at PG&E's pay center at the Capitola Mall. Joshua Hart, who is leading the push against SmartMeters said the digital meters made these people sick and were put on their property illegally, so they took them off.

"When PG&E refused to remove these devices which they never had permission to install in the first place, these people have taken matters into their own hands, hired a professional electrician or contractor to replace the SmartMeter with an analog meter," said Hart.
Bianca Carn was one of PG&E's customers who returned a SmartMeter, Wednesday.

"The bottom line is, they can't come on private property," said Carn. "I own the house, I didn't give them permission and they didn't send me a certified letter, and as you can see, we've been kicked off private property. We're not even allowed to go in there. They wanted us to come out so we did and I just feel like I wish we had the same rights."

When this group went inside to return their SmartMeters, the Capitola Police Department showed up and ordered everyone out. PG&E even closed up shop.

"I think it's disturbing that simply utility customers looking out for the health and safety of their families have to be intimidated in such a way with this turnout of police when people were happy to comply with the request to leave the offices," said Hart.

PG&E released the following statement: 

"As a matter of personal and public safety, our customers must never tamper with utility equipment. We urge our customers to call us at 1-800-743-5000 if they have questions about their gas and electric service.  We want to prevent our customers from facing the risks associated with SmartMeter removal which could result in serious harm.  Fires, burns and electrocution could occur from attempting to remove a SmartMeter.  In any instance where PG&E equipment has been tampered with or removed PG&E is obligated to end service until the situation is made safe and proper equipment is installed by a PG&E representative."

Smart meter health concerns in Australia

They call them smart meters but a growing number of homeowners disagree. They’re claiming the new power monitoring devices are actually bad for your health.

Meet the woman allergic to electricity

A British woman cannot use an electric kettle, keeps her washing machine in a concrete outhouse and cannot have neighbours with wireless internet because she is allergic to electricity.

Janice Tunnicliffe spends every night playing Scrabble by candlelight with her husband because she claims to have a rare condition called electrosensitivity.

She cannot bear to be anywhere near electromagnetic fields of any kind and, as a result, she cannot watch television, listen to the radio or talk on a mobile phone and has been left completely isolated from the modern world by her condition.

Mrs Tunnicliffe, 55, was struck down with the illness after receiving chemotherapy for bowel cancer three years ago.

Since then she has suffered constant headaches, chest pains, nausea and tingling in her arms and legs whenever she is near electrical devices or items that emit a signal.

Her only relief in this time was when her village, near Mansfield in rural Nottinghamshire, suffered a temporary power cut.

She said: "Different things give me different feelings but it's mostly headaches and nausea. iPhones make feel really sick within about 20 minutes of being near one so even though I might not realise someone has one straightaway, I soon find out.

"Wifi makes me feel like I have a clamp at the back of my head which is squeezing the life out of me. It's completely draining and a home hub can totally immobilise me - I'm left unable to move my arms and legs."

Mrs Tunnicliffe’s normal existence was turned upside down when in February 2008 she was admitted to hospital with severe abdominal pains and vomiting.

After three days of tests, it was discovered she was suffering from cancer and surgeons operated immediately to remove a six-inch tumour from her bowel, plus 14 lymph nodes.

Fortunately, despite the size of the tumour, her cancer had not spread, but it was decided that she should have chemotherapy after the surgery as a precautionary measure.

But it was then that her unusual problem started and she began to feel ill whenever she was near the myriad electrical and wireless items in her home.

She said: “Personally, I think there must be a link with the chemotherapy and the ES, but no one is going to admit that.

“I used to go for long walks every day and while I was out of the house I would be okay. But when I came back I would start to feel unwell again very quickly and slowly I started to put two and two together.

"After the cancer, the doctors recommended we enjoy a nice holiday somewhere and the whole family went to the Greek island of Kos for two weeks in September 2008.

"While I was there was I was fine, but when I got home I felt ill again almost straightaway. It wasn't until afterwards that I considered it might have been because of all the 'electrosmog' we were experiencing at home.”

Mrs Tunnicliffe has even had to cover her windows with a special metallic material to deflect errant electromagnetic waves.

Graham Lamburn, technical manager at Powerwatch, an independent organisation which promotes safer environments, said so far the medical profession has been slow to recognise electrosensitivity as an illness as its causes are as yet unknown.

The Council of Europe Committee on Monday called for a dramatic reduction in exposure to phones and other wireless devices.

Source: 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/8520405/Meet-the-woman-allergic-to-electricity.html

FCC & Cell Phone Industry: A Cozy Relationship

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has never levied a fine against a cell phone company for exceeding its RF exposure limits from a base station antenna.

That's not because all of the 300,000 cell sites in the U.S. comply with the FCC rules, according to an Industry Insider with years of training and experience measuring RF radiation. He told us that he has found RF levels higher than those allowed under the FCC rules at sites across the country. The real reason there have been no fines, he said, is "because there's collusion between the companies and the government." The insider, an RF engineer, calls himself "EMF Expert"; he asked that his real name not be used.

"The carriers and the FCC have an extremely cozy relationship," said the engineer. "Whenever there's a problem, someone in the FCC's RF safety office warns the carrier and the company then puts the 'fire' out."

Over the last two years, the RF engineer and the EMR Policy Institute, based in Marshfield, VT, have identified more than 100 rooftops in 23 states where the FCC's limits have been exceeded. Back in December 2011, the Institute described the situation to the chairman of the FCC, Julius Genachowksi, and the other commissioners. These findings are "shocking," the leaders of the Institute wrote, and point to "a systematic pattern of non-compliance" by the country's largest providers of cell phone service. Nothing much has changed since then.

When the radiation limits are exceeded, it's most likely close to the transmitting antenna. The strength of RF signals, like all types of electromagnetic radiation, decreases quickly with distance from the source (the inverse square law). For most freestanding cell antenna towers, the "hot" zone —where RF levels are higher than the exposure limits— is usually inaccessible, but for roof-mounted antennas, public access is not uncommon. The FCC requires that such hot zones be roped off and warning signs posted. Most cell sites are composed of multiple antennas, with some pointing in different directions. Different carriers will often place their antennas on the same site, a process called colocation.

The people most at risk of RF overexposure are those working on rooftops close to the cell phone antennas. As the EMR Policy Institute wrote to the FCC commissioners:

Workers such as roofers, window washers, painters, HV/AC technicians, building engineers and superintendents, firefighters, wireless industry workers, and others have been and continue to be concerned that their safety and health have been and continue to be compromised by exposure to RF radiation in excess of lawful limits. 

Enforcement Is a “Total Illusion”

"Enforcement at the FCC is a total illusion," Deb Carney, a director of the Institute, toldMicrowave News. "The public is not being protected." Carney is an attorney practicing law in Golden, CO.

More than 100 instances of antennas exceeding the FCC limits have been reported toMichele Ellison, the head of the FCC's Enforcement Bureau, according to Janet Newton, the Institute's president. "To the best of my knowledge, the FCC has not taken any enforcement action," Newton said, "Neither Ms. Ellison nor anyone from her office has ever even acknowledged our complaints."

Ellison declined to comment, referring questions to Mark Wigfield in the FCC media office. "We routinely investigate RF complaints," Wigfield told us, "We take action where warranted by the facts and the commission's RF standards." When asked about the 100 violations reported by the EMR Policy Institute, Wigfield did not respond.

(In fact, in the last dozen years, the FCC has taken few enforcement actions for any type of RF source, including the much more powerful antennas broadcasting radio and TV signals, as shown in this list compiled by the FCC.)

The Industry Insider estimates that about 10% of all cell sites are on rooftops (the fraction differs from one carrier to another). And of that 10%, about 10% are out of compliance. This works out to about 1% of all cell sites being non-compliant. "It's a small percentage," he said, "but when you consider that there are some 300,000 sites out there, it is a significant number."

Asked why he was blowing the whistle on the cell phone industry for which he has long worked, the Insider replied: "Nobody is enforcing the law. You can argue about thermal and non-thermal effects until the cows come home, but these violations are not lawful and the rules should be enforced."

"Without enforcement, there can be no compliance," he said.

The Insider does not see the package of rules and proposals issued by the FCC last week as sufficient to deal with the lack of compliance on rooftops. "The section on mitigation is too ambiguous," he said. "The FCC appears to be only interested in making changes that do not add new costs for the carriers, he added, but that will not solve the problem."

"They can fix this if they want to, it's not that hard," said the Insider. "The situation is completely different in Canada and Europe. They take this seriously."

Noel Gail’s Roof in Queens New York

The EMR Policy Institute points to what happened on a rooftop owned by Mr. Noel Gail as an example of the cozy relationship between the FCC and the cell phone carriers. The story begins about three years ago, in March 2010, when Gail wanted to repair the roof on his two-storey building in Queens Village, New York City. On seeing cell phone antennas on the roof of an adjoining building, he called the toll-free number he spotted on a warning sign posted by AT&T. "I called that 800 number a few times, but it was a dead end," he told Microwave Newsnot long ago.

The Roofop Next to Noel Gail’s in Queens Village, NY

Gail then started calling the FCC. "After six or seven calls, I left a message on an FCC answering machine saying that I was going to call a local TV station and my attorney," he said. "But I was bluffing, I did not know any reporters and I did not have a lawyer. I just said that to get their attention." The bluff worked. Two months later, on May 11, a five-man team from the FCC made a site visit. They found the RF levels on Gail's roof near an antenna operated byMetro PCS, which was also located on his neighbor's roof, to exceed the FCC limit by 60%.

On November 10, 2010, the FCC issued Metro PCS a formal Notice of Violation. This is theonly NOV that the FCC has ever issued for an RF violation from a cell phone antenna. The AT&T antennas were found to comply with the RF rules and the company was not cited by the FCC.

Even though AT&T had not responded to Gail's calls, it moved quickly once alerted by the FCC. Microwave News has learned that soon after Gail left that message on the FCC's voice mail about contacting the media, word reached Donald Campbell in the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology. The EMR Policy Institute calls Campbell, "The Gatekeeper," the one who decides who gets the agency's attention. Gail must have passed the test. Campbell sent a message to AT&T, and the company sprung into action as the antennas on Gail's roof rose to a priority issue.

We asked Michele Ellison, the FCC enforcement chief whether anyone from the FCC had ever gone back to Mr. Gail's roof to check whether Metro PCS was now in compliance with the FCC rules. Ellison did not respond, nor did Mark Wigfield of the FCC media office. 

The FCC did not fine Metro PCS for exceeding the commission's RF radiation limits. No one has explained why.

The EMR Policy Institute returned to Gail's roof with an experienced RF engineer about a year after the FCC issued the notice of violation. They found that the RF levels near the Metro PCS antenna were close to three times the FCC limit and the RF levels near the AT&T antenna were more than five times the allowable limit.

"I am not an engineer and I can't prove it," Gail told us, "but my feeling is that AT&T lowered the power on the antennas before the FCC arrived and then boosted it after they left."

Evie Hantzopoulos, the executive director of a New York City non-profit and a sometime cell antenna activist, tells a similar story about dealing with the FCC over a rooftop antenna some years ago. “T-Mobile constructed antennas directly facing the adjacent roof of a property next door. You could go up to the roof and walk right up to them,” she told us. “It took calls, emails, letters and more to get the FCC to inspect the site. Once a date was set, T-Mobile was notified. Then, two days before the visit, the antennas were taken down. That was the end of the story, even though we had pictures of the violation.”

“The FCC's approach to enforcement is so laissez-faire, it amounts to incompetence,” Hantzopoulos said.

No Help from the Carriers’ Toll-Free Help Lines

The EMR Policy Institute has posted two videos that describe the rooftop RF problem on YouTube ("Wireless Safety Failure Part I" and "Wireless Safety Failure Part II"). Each is about 15 minutes long; the second includes footage filmed on Gail's rooftop.

Some of the most striking parts of the videos are what workers are told when they call the toll-free numbers posted on warning signs near cell phone antennas. Most of the operators responding to the calls appear to be ill prepared to answer the workers' questions. All too often they are quick to reassure the workers that there is nothing for them to worry about.

Richard Tell, a consultant with extensive RF experience, was not surprised by what he heard on the videos. "It happens over and over again," he said in interview from his office in Colville, WA. "The telephone operators don't know diddly-squat about the RF problem."

In a December 11, 2001 letter to the FCC's Ellison, the Policy Institute urged the Enforcement Bureau to "investigate the type and veracity of the information provided to those who called."

Last July, David Dombrowski of the FCC's Enforcement Bureau in Philadelphia wrote to Janet Newton of the Policy Institute asking about operator responses to the toll-free numbers. She then sent him recordings, which the Institute had made from calls to AT&T, Metro PCS, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon. "That was the last I heard from him," Newton said. When contacted byMicrowave News, Dombrowski wrote back that he could not comment because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

The Institute's Deb Carney wants the FCC to get tough with the industry. "The problem is that the FCC is colluding with the cell phone carriers and the result is lax enforcement," she said.

Source: http://microwavenews.com/news-center/cell-phone-carriers-fcc-cozy

Australia's Research Shows Interphone Flaws

Professor Bruce Armstrong

Another Interphone researcher is expressing concern over the tumor risks associated with the long-term use of mobile phones. "I think the evidence that is accumulating is pointing towards an effect of mobile phones on tumors," Professor Bruce Armstrong of the University of Sydney School of Public Health told "TodayTonight," an Australian current affairs show on Channel 7, a national network.

"I would not want to be a heavy user of a mobile phone," Armstrong said. "People might be shocked to hear that the evidence does seem to be coming more strongly in support of harmful effects."

The ten-year Interphone data has clearly changed Armstrong's outlook. A few years ago, he told the Sydney Morning Herald that "there is no consistent evidence that there is an increased risk of cancer," but even then he allowed that "it could be 15 years before we see an effect."

Armstrong, who is leading the Australian component of the Interphone project, is the second principal investigator of the 13 country teams to urge precaution. Last December, Siegal Sadetzki of the Chaim Sheba Medical Center in Israel told Haaretz, a national newspaper, that, "The time is past when it could be said that this technology does not cause damage; apparently it damages health."

Elisabeth Cardis

Neither the Australian nor the Israeli results on brain tumor or acoustic neuroma risks have yet been made public. Sadetzki has reported a significant increase of parotid gland tumors after ten years of cell phone use. Her paper appeared in the February 15th issue of theAmerican Journal of Epidemiology.

Meanwhile, the final Interphone paper is still not finished. Just a few days ago, Elisabeth Cardis, who leads the overall Interphone study, told Microwave News that she hopes that the combined results from all 13 countries will be submitted for publication "in the not too distant future." Cardis recently left IARC to join the Center for Research in Environmental Epidemiology (CREAL) in Barcelona.

The nine-minute piece also features an interview with Chris Zombolas, the technical director of EMC Technologies. In measurements commissioned by the TV show, Zombolas found that a number of cell phones do not meet the 2 W/Kg SAR standard when placed in a pocket and used with a hands-free set or a BlueTooth transmitter. The worst of the four phones tested was a Nokia E65. Zombolas measured an SAR of 3.35 W/Kg at 1800 MHz and an SAR of 5.84 W/Kg at 2100 MHz. The Australian SAR standard is 2 W/Kg.

EMF - What The Professionals Think

Professional Concern

What the Leading Experts Say about Electromagnetic Pollution

“The problem is, man-made electromagnetic exposures aren't “normal.” They are artificial artifacts, with unusual intensities, signaling characteristics, pulsing patterns, and wave forms, that don’t exist in nature. And they can misdirect cells in myriad ways. Every aspect of the ecosystem may be affected, including all living species from animals, humans, plants and even microorganisms in water and soil.”
B. Blake Levitt Former New York Times journalist and author Electromagnetic Fields, A Consumer’s Guide to the Issues and How to Protect Ourselves and Editor of Cell Towers, Wireless Convenience? Or Environmental Hazard?

“Very recently, new research is suggesting that nearly all the human plagues which emerged in the twentieth century, like common acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children, female breast cancer, malignant melanoma and asthma, can be tied to some facet of our use of electricity.  There is an urgent need for governments and individuals to take steps to minimize community and personal EMF exposures.”

Samuel Milham MD, MPH Medical epidemiologist in occupational epidemiology.
Researcher The first scientist to report increased cancers in electrical workers and to link childhood leukemia with the spread of residential electrification.

“Federal and State public heath agencies are not officially addressing what many concerned scientists and medical doctors now see as an emerging public health problem. There are no health surveillance or remedial response systems in place to advise citizens about electromagnetic radiation  exposure (EMR). As wireless technology evolves, ambient background levels increase, creating electrical pollution conditions which are becoming ubiquitous and more invasive.”
Libby Kelley, MA Managing Secretariat International Commission For Electromagnetic Safety; Founder, Council on Wireless Technology Impacts; EMF environmental consultant,
Co-Producer of documentary, “Public Exposure: DNA, Democracy and the Wireless Revolution”; 

The January 2008 report issued by the National Academy of Sciences committee whose task was to examine the needs and gaps in the research on the biological effects of exposure to these antennas points out that the research studies to date do not adequately represent exposure realities. … A federal research strategy to address these very serious inadequacies in the science on which our government is basing health policy is sorely needed now.”

Janet Newton President, The EMR Policy Institute www.EMRPolicy.org

“We are compelled to confirm the existence of non-thermal effects of electromagnetic fields on living matter, which seem to occur at every level of investigation from molecular to epidemiological. Recent epidemiological evidence is stronger than before. We recognize the growing public health problem known as electrohypersensitivity. We strongly advise limited use of cell phones, and other similar devices, by young children and teenagers, and we call upon governments to apply the Precautionary Principle as an interim measure while more biologically relevant exposure standards are developed.” (partial statement)
The Venice Resolution, initiated by the International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS) on June 6, 2008, and now signed by nearly 50 peer reviewed scientists worldwide

We are constantly being bathed in an increasing sea of radiation from exposure to the above, as well as electrical appliances, computers, Bluetooth devices, Wi-Fi installations and over 2,000 communications satellites in outer space that shower us with signals to GPS receivers. New WiMax transmitters on cell phone towers that have a range of up to two square miles compared to Wi-Fi’s 300 feet will soon turn the core of North America into one huge electromagnetic hot spot. Children are more severely affected because their brains are developing and their skulls are thinner.”
Paul J. Rosch, MD Clinical Professor of Medicine and Psychiatry, New York Medical College; Honorary Vice President International Stress Management Association; Diplomate, National Board of Medical Examiners; Full Member, Russian Academy of Medical Sciences; Fellow, The Royal Society of Medicine; Emeritus Member, The Bioelectromagnetics Society

“Radio frequency radiation and other forms of electromagnetic pollution are harmful at orders of magnitude well below existing guidelines. Science is one of the tools society uses to decide health policy. In the case of telecommunications equipment, such as cell phones, wireless networks, cell phone antennas, PDAs, and portable phones, the science is being ignored.
Magda Havas, PhD Associate Professor, Environment & Resource Studies, Trent University, Canada.

“Sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation is the emerging health problem of the 21st century.  It is imperative health practitioners, governments, schools and parents learn more about it. The human health stakes are significant”. 
William Rea, MD Founder & Director of the Environmental Health Center, Dallas Past President, American Academy of Environmental Medicine

“There is no question EMF's have a major effect on neurological functioning. They slow our brain waves and affect our long-term mental clarity. We should minimize exposures as much as possible to optimize neurotransmitter levels and prevent deterioration of health”.
Eric Braverman, MD Brain researcher, Author The Edge Effect, and Director of Path Medical in New York City and The PATH Foundation.


Source: http://www.safespaceprotection.com/EMF-News-and-Info-Article/news-public-and-professional-concern-about-electromagnetic-pollution.aspx