Manuals Warn: Keep Cell Phones And Wi-Fi AWAY From Body But Industry Silent On Dangers

Manuals Warn: Keep Cell Phones And Wi-Fi AWAY From Body But Industry Silent On Dangers | cell-phone-radiation-warning-1024x682-1-1024x682 | General Health Medical & Health Science & Technology Sleuth Journal Special Interests

By Brandon Turbeville, Natural Blaze

If you haven’t read the manual to your cell phone, Wi-Fi router, or other Wi-Fi device, don’t worry, you can consider yourself a normal person. Clearly, most device owners don’t even glance at their manuals and, when they do, they are looking for instructions on how to operate the device or warranty information. Most are not looking at the “safety guidelines” for Wi-Fi radiation and Wi-Fi radiation-emitting products, however.

This is despite the fact that manufacturers are obligated to provide copies of safety guidelines for the devices they sell. Even CNN covered these guidelines in 2011, highlighting a number of examples during the course of their report. In addition, the World Health Organization itself has classified Wi-Fi and cell phone radiation as a “possible carcinogen.”

Despite attempts by the Telecom industry and mainstream media to hide the connection between adverse health effects and cellphone/Wi-Fi radiation, the manufacturers’ own statements contradict themselves and their media mouthpieces in their own guidelines. As B.N. Frank writes, “How Would You Know That You’re Safely Using Your Cell Phone and Other WiFi Devices If You Haven’t Read the Manuals?

Manufacturers of many popular cell phones already warn consumers to keep their device away from their body…

The Apple iPhone 4 safety manual says…”When using iPhone near your body for voice calls or for wireless data transmission over a cellular network, keep iPhone at least 15 millimeters (5/8 inch) away from the body.

BlackBerry Bold advises users to “keep the BlackBerry device at least 0.98 inch (25 millimeters) from your body when the BlackBerry device is transmitting.”

The logic behind such recommendations is that the further the phone is from the body, the less radiation is absorbed.

Finally, cell phones emit the most radiation when they are attempting to connect to cellular towers. A moving phone, or a phone in an area with a weak signal, has to work harder, giving of more radiation. So users can avoid using their cell phones in elevators, buildings and rural areas if they want to reduce their exposure, experts say.

The California Public Health Department has provided additional guidelines and warnings.

Surprisingly, CBS News has even produced its own report regarding the dangerous of Wi-Fi/cellphone radiation.

The Family Survival System – Free Book (Ad)

And it’s not just cell phones, Wi-Fi routers are a problem also. For instance, the FCC recently approved the Samsung 5G Wi-Fi router for home use. As a result, Samsung is drawing attention to the safety guidelines which state that users should keep the devices at least eight inches away from themselves. These guidelines come via FCC RF exposure guidelines.

Notice that the guidelines are in reference to humans while animals, petswildlife, and the natural environment can be damaged by the radiation also.

Even though the risks of Wi-Fi and cellphone radiation have been downplayed by the mainstream press for years, more and more evidence is being produced which demonstrates their danger. As Frank writes,

Increasing concerns about radiation exposure from WiFi operating products and infrastructure (cell towers, digital and wireless utility “Smart” meters, etc.) have been reported by various media sources.

Sometimes these sources make mistakes and/or omit noteworthy information. For example, earlier this year, a Forbes contributor provided a list of smartphones that emit the most radiation. However, he was not correct when he stated that there was no conclusive scientific research on the impact of cell phone radiation. He also didn’t mention the WHO Possible Carcinogen classification in 2011 and that many experts feel it should be reclassified as a Carcinogen. 

What makes little sense is that Fitbits and other activity trackers are made to be worn on the body despite the fact that they operate using WiFi radiation. Many users have complained of rashes and more and some Fitbits have already been recalled.

Of course, current federal “Safety” guidelines, laws, and standards make little sense anymore because they were written over 20 years ago long before these products were made and marketed to be used 24/7 by almost everyone from cradle to grave.

These outdated guidelines, laws, and standards are how The Telecom Industry continues to divide and confuse us about research, regulations, safety guidelines, testing, and harm from exposure to cell phone and WiFi technology. Many elected officials and government employees are in no hurry to correct this.

Current marketing campaigns, films, and TV shows also display these products being used in ways that violate safety standards.

  Secret blueprint for surviving the economic collapse (Ad)

It should also be noted that Wi-Fi radiation is now being emitted from ubiquitous devices that fly under the radar (pardon the pun) such as GPS devices that are also known to produce harmful radiation.

Environmental Health Trust, an organization dedicated to alerting the public to environmental health risks, has honed in on the issue with outdated safety standards when it comes to Wi-Fi and cellphone radiation.

Environmental Health Trust writes,

Fact: There Are No Safety Standards

Currently there are no national or international “standards” for safe levels of the radiation emitted by wireless or microwave devices. Instead, the US government adopted “guidelines” developed by industry based on decades old research. Guidelines have a much lower certainty than a “standard” as proper long term safety testing was not done to ensure the public was protected from all possible harm.

In fact, no “safe” level has been scientifically determined for children or pregnant women. Therefore, the claim that a device “meets government standards” or that radiation levels are “FCC compliant” gives a false impression of safety.

The FCC guidelines rest on five fallacies (false assumptions) and therefore renders FCC guidelines obsolete. Compliance with “federal safety standards” does not assure your nor your family’s safety. In fact, our federal safety limits are in essence meaningless when it comes to our health.

Fallacy 1: The only adverse biological effect from exposure to electromagnetic radiation (EMR) is heating.

Fact: Heating is not the issue. Hundreds if not thousands of studies show adverse health effects from headaches and sperm damage to many types of cancer including brain cancer.

Fallacy 2: Only immediate (acute) adverse biological effects are important to consider; long-term (chronic) effects are not a concern.

Fact: The FCC’s exposure limits did not consider the health effects to people if they are exposed to hours and hours of this radiation over several years. Cancers can have long latency periods, and several significant research studies show links between long-term exposure and brain tumors..

Fallacy 3: Measuring radiation power levels by averaging over time allows us to understand the impact to our health. Peak radiation exposures are not necessary to measure to understand the potential impact from an exposure.

Fact: Peak millisecond radiation bursts impact our bodies at the cellular level. FCC’s exposure limits average the radiation exposures for 30 minutes, rather than consider the intense pulses that people are exposed to. Many scientists are concerned that it is the erratic nature of the wireless signal that can cause the harmful biological effects. If you report averages then those are numbers determined by calculation instead of reporting the actual peak levels. How much lower are the averages than the peaks? Averages can report numbers that appear to be far lower than peak levels.

Background: In the U.S., the FCC regulations (mostly for IEEE C95.1-1991) averaged exposure to the public over a 30 minute time period, and for workers a 6 minute time period. ICNIRP defines the averaged exposure to the public and to workers over a 6 minute time period.

Fallacy 4: Assessments of the unique vulnerability of children and the fetus is not necessary—only the radiation absorption into a large man is important.

Fact: FCC compliance testing utilizes a model of a 220 pound male head. Research repeatedly indicates that the radiation penetrates deeper into children’s smaller bodies and brains. The current FCC exposure limits did not consider the higher energy absorption in fetuses, children and women.

Fallacy 5: All body tissue uniformly absorbs radio frequency radiation. The ability of radiofrequency radiation to be absorbed differently into different body tissues and to have different biological effects due to the unique makeup of different body tissues and organs is not important to consider in understanding risks to public health.

Fact: The FCC’s exposure limits do not consider how this radiation is differentially absorbed by various body tissues.

Some other examples of how FCC exposure limits have not kept up with the times:

FCC exposure limits are based on the assumption that wireless signals at a human body from a distance are from only one transmitter antenna.

In the 21st century, we are not exposed to one Wi-Fi transmitter antenna. One typical school classroom might have dozens of radiation streams from dozens of transmitting antennas: 30 laptops, 30 cell phones, a wireless printer, a wireless security system, an overhead internet access point and a cell tower located in line of sight outside the window.

FCC “standard operating positions” do not reflect the way we use our devices today.

FCC regulations specify what are called consumer “standard operating positions”, such as that laptops are distanced at least 20 cm (8 inches) from the user. Placing a laptop on the lap is then in violation of this “standard operating position”. Devices are radiation tested at these distances, and when we violate these “standard operating positions” we can be exposed to radiation levels in excess of the FCC exposure limits.

Skip the Grocery Store – Grow 100 lbs of Food on 4×4 Plot! (Ad)

In the article “CBS News is The Latest to Report Health Concerns Regarding 5G Small Cell Tower Installation” B.N. Frank lists a number of websites to visit when researching the harmful effects of cellphone/Wi-Fi radiation. I’d recommend giving them a visit also.

Center For Safer Wireless
Center For Electrosmog Prevention
Citizens for Safe Technology
Clear Light Ventures
Dr. Sam Milham
Electricsense
Environmental Health Trust
Generation Zapped
In Power Movement
National Association for Children and Safe Technology
Parents for Safe Technology
SaferEMR
Scientists for Wired Tech
StopSmartMeters.org
We Are The Evidence
Whatis5G.Info

Please help us out by sharing!

This article (Manuals Warn: Keep Cell Phones and Wi-Fi AWAY from Body But Industry Silent on Dangers) was created by and appeared first at Natural BlazeIt can be reshared with attribution but MUST include link to homepage, bio, intact links and this message. Get a nifty FREE eBook – Like at Facebook, Twitter and Instagram


Manuals Warn: Keep Cell Phones And Wi-Fi AWAY From Body But Industry Silent On Dangers | brandon | General Health Medical & Health Science & Technology Sleuth Journal Special Interests Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He is the author of six books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom7 Real Conspiracies,Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria,and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Turbeville has published over 1,000 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


About The Author

Related posts