EMF Material Worth Reading

How Safe is your CELL Phone?
Taken from the January/February 2010 issue of Natural Solutions Magazine
By Sarah Tolland

Cell phones enhance our social lives, but these mobile marvels may not be so beneficial for our brains or bodies. Several studies show that using cell phones for more than 10 years can cause or increase risk of brain cancer, salivary-gland tumors, Alzheimer’s disease, and behavioral problems. But not all cell phones are created equal – some brands and models emit more electromagnetic radiation than others, and a device can have different radiation levels when paired with different service providers. To see how your cell stacks up, check out the Environmental Working Group’s ranking of more than 1,000 phones by how much radiation each emits (ewg.org/cellphone-radiation). Last time we looked, the Motorola MOTO, T-Mobile myTouch, and BlackBerry Curve were among the highest emitters, while several Samsung models, a few Nokias, and the BlackBerry Storm had the lowest radiation. Along with switching to a safer phone, limit exposure by using a headset, holding the phone away from your head when talking, and toting your cell in a purse instead of a pocket, says the EWG. And score one for the teenagers: Texting emits far fewer waves than talking.


Cell Phone, Tumor Link Bolstered
By Shari Roan, Los Angeles Times

The answer to the question of whether cell phones increase the risk of brain, head and neck tumors is truly a matter of whom you ask.

A scientific analysis published Tuesday grouped data from 23 epidemiological studies and found no connection between cell phone use and the development of cancerous or benign tumors. However, when the investigators analyzed eight of the studies that were conducted with the most scientific rigor, cell phone users had a 10 percent to 30 percent increased risk of tumors compared with people who rarely or never used the phones. The risk was highest among people who had used cell phones for 10 years or longer. "The other group of 15 studies were not as high-quality," said study co-author Joel Moskowitz, director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, Berkeley. "They either found no association or a negative association or a protective effect – which I don’t think anyone would have predicted."

The main message of the analysis, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, is that studies should be conducted so that findings are harder to refute, Moskowitz said. In recent years, concerns have arisen that the radiofrequency energy emitted by cell phones may cause tumors and other health problems over time. But those risks are hotly debated.

"I went into this really dubious that anything was going on," Moskowitz said. "Overall, you find no difference. But when you start teasing the studies apart and doing these subgroup analyses, you do find there is reason to be concerned."

All of the studies were case control studies, which means researchers interviewed people on their past use of cell phones. Some of the individuals, referred to as controls, had no history of brain tumors; other participants, referred to as cases, had been diagnosed with brain tumors. The studies encompassed 37, 916 people.

Eight of the studies were judged to be of high methodological quality because the researchers were not told which people had developed tumors and because the studies were not supported by money from the mobile-phone industry. However, seven of the eight studies were conducted by a single researcher, Dr. Lennart Hardell, an oncologist in Sweden.

Some of the lower-methodological-quality studies were part of the Interphone project, research coordinated by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer. Interphone is funded in part by the Mobile Manufacturers Forum and the Global System for Mobile Communication Association.

"Hardell had the higher-quality studies in which he was blinded to the cases and controls," Moskowitz said. "Presumably, he would have less opportunity to bias the results. But was it better methodology? Or was it something about Sweden? More people there live in rural communities, and maybe they were exposed to higher levels of energy."

More radiofrequency energy is typically needed to operate cell phones in rural areas.

Interphone study investigators are not influenced by the funding source, said Michael Milligan, secretary general of the Mobile Manufacturers Forum, based in Hong Kong.

"The Mobile Manufacturers Forum has provided part funding for the Interphone study that has complemented other public sources of funding – such as the European Commission and other national bodies," Milligan said in an e-mail. "In providing funding, we have done so on terms that guarantee Interphone’s complete scientific independence."

The bulk of all scientific studies, Milligan said, reveals no increased risk of head and neck tumors. However, conclusions should await higher-quality studies that follow diverse groups of people, both phone users and nonusers, over a long period of time, said Dr. Seung-Kwon Myung, lead author of the meta-analysis.


WI–FI – Too Hot to Handle
By Phyllis Light

With the right equipment (a Wi–Fi card in your computer), you can no connect to the Internet anywhere you are, without needing a physical hook-up. Wi–Fi (wireless fidelity) is yet another advancement in our ever–expanding world of technology, and while it is certainly convenient, is it safe? Maybe not.

It is not yet clear how Wi–Fi is affecting us energetically. As human beings we not only have a physical body but a "subtle energy body" that both surrounds the physical body and provides a specific blueprint for it. What no one realizes is that everyone exposed to Wi–Fi is vulnerable to the negative effects of the frequencies bombarding the subtle energy field, which can weaken the physical body over time. In our high–tech world, we are already getting blasted by cell phones, TV, radio, microwave and satellite frequencies in which we live.

Normally, when you shut off your computer and walk away from it, you are no longer bombarded by the intense electromagnetic frequencies that the computer generates. However, with Wi–Fi, you are now at risk anywhere you go where Wi–Fi is present, whether you are aware of it or not. Many places of business provide Wi–Fi for their customers. Entire cities, like San Francisco, are now broadcasting Wi–Fi frequencies to everyone as a public service. State parks in Texas offer visitors Internet access via Wi–Fi, which has also been installed on many college campuses as a convenience for students.

With the advent of Wi–Fi being transmitted from our friendly neighborhood coffee shops and grocery stores, and even from our neighbor’s house (allowing us to be bombarded by the frequencies at no extra charge), it is quite unbelievable what the human energy field is being asked to withstand.

Many illnesses have been linked to exposure to electromagnetic fields: weakened endocrine and immune systems which, in turn, lead to more allergies, asthma, cancer, chronic fatigue syndrome, headaches, fibromyalgia, sleep disorders, ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder), autism, Alzheimer’s , Parkinson’s, environmental illness, and an accelerated aging process (Becker, 1990). In Germany, the government has officially condemned the use of Wi–Fi and has pulled it out of all schools due to potential health hazards.

If that is not enough, there is a new version of Wi–Fi that is currently being installed in U.S. cities, call "WIMAX." WIMAX is an even more powerful wireless Internet system, which some have likened to "Wi–Fi on steroids." The industry plans a nationwide rollout of WIMAX which would turn the entire U.S. into one huge "hotspot."

This system was tested in a small town in Sweden a year and a half ago. Once the system was powered up, people started reporting to hospitals with blurred vision, dizziness and nausea; there were a couple of cases of heart arrhythmia as well. All these symptoms disappeared once the people were outside the range of these frequencies.

Turning the whole U.S. into one giant hotspot could make life here energetically intolerable, especially for sensitive people. Everyone’s health could be adversely affected regardless of their sensitivity; however, not everyone will be able to feel what is happening to them. Our ability to fill the air with electronic signals can be compared to the use of lead pipes in Roman times. Lead pipes allowed the Romans to bring water to their homes, which revolutionized their way of living. Yet, because of the toxicity of the lead, it was also the worst thing they could have possibly done from a health perspective. Some historians speculate that this could ultimately have been a major cause of the decline of the Roman Empire. Technological advancements do have their price.
See our EMF Protector for Wi-Fi


The danger of EMF pollution is being increasingly recognized as significant and growing. Another useful and informative article can be found in the MERCOLA e-zine, at: http://emf.mercola.com/sites/emf/emf-dangers.aspx

 

Listed below are some links for additional resources on EMF (electromagnetic frequencies). We hope the articles will help you understand the dangers of EMF.

http://www.emfandhealth.com/index.html

http://www.who.int/peh-emf/en/

http://www.electricsense.com/1365/websites-and-organizations-you-can-turn-to-for-support-on-the-emf-issue/

http://emf.epri.com/