1) It seems that all of the agencies, ANFR in France, ISED in Canada, and FCC in the USA, are guilty of protecting the telecoms while putting the health of cellphone users at risk. The evidence is clear — they ignore scientific evidence that the SAR levels are not protective and fail to enforce even these inadequate SAR limits they’ve established. EHT released this press release today.
Environmental Health Trust Reveals Concealed FCC Cell Phone Tests Showing Human Radiation Exposure Limits “Were Exceeded”
“The Environmental Health Trust (EHT) revealed today that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) hid test results showing that radiation exceeded federal limits when smartphones were in close proximity to the human body, such as in a pants pocket. The FCC apparently failed to disclose this information to the U.S Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.”
Article on this topic by CHD:
FCC Knew Phones Exceeded Radiation Limits, Hid Info From Public and Courts
“It is outrageous that the U.S. allows phones to be tested with whatever separation distance the companies want. Phones should be tested the way they are used,” she said in a press release.
“Children and adults use and carry phones pressed to their body for hours every day. … It is time for a new approach to cell phone testing, one that reflects the way people use phones today,” Scarato said.
FCC Knew Phones Exceeded Radiation Limits, Hid Info From Public and Courts
2) Dariusz Leszczynski will be gathering studies and reports in an effort to determine why some people are more sensitive than others to wireless radiation.
‘Research Topic’ on individual sensitivity to wireless radiation will be published by the Radiation and Health section of the Frontiers in Public Health journal
” Target molecules, found to be responding to the exposures, may indicate what physiological processes might be affected, and if so subsequently targeted assessments of specific physiological functions of the human body may potentially enable the identification of sensitive individuals.
The proposed Research Topic will present the ongoing research, review published research studies, provide viewpoints and debates, and suggest directions for further physiological/psychological research.”
3) In my April 22 update, I provided information from the EMF Summit suggesting what could be done when living near a cell tower.
One suggestion is that a Building Biologist be hired to do measurements to determine the levels and sources of RF in your home. This is good advice but a member added to it:
(click on photos to enlarge)
“Further to the comments on hiring a “Hiring a Building Biologist or EMF mitigation specialist”, I have run across enough self proclaimed Building Biologists to realise not all are sufficiently qualified and capable to deserve the title – I always recommend people go to: https://buildingbiologyinstitute.org/.
At the top of the page is “find an expert“. I work on the principle that if the person has taken the time and effort to go though a formal program and receive certification, they will be more inclined to do a good job and be knowledgeable. One of the biggest issues I see is a person focuses on just a small part of the spectrum or just magnetic flux and declares if their particular area of interest is good/bad or whatever, then that applies across the board.”
Sharon Noble, Director, Citizens for Safer Tech
“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.” Richard P. Feynman
Sent from my wired laptop with no wireless components. PLEASE Practice Safe Tech.