I've relatives who live in Sebastopol. They are in absolutely no danger of being exposed to "excessive RF exposure."
This "excessive RF exposure" is defined by existing guidelines based on stoneage science. The thermal-only paradigm of RF health effects is over, dead, finito.
If your relatives, or you, have a cordless DECT phone, a wi-fi router or live within the beam of greatest intensity of a cellphone tower - then you are subject to "excessive RF exposure" 24/7.
Question is, how long will your body cope with the stress.
My advice: offset the long-term damage by replenishing your bodies calium and anti-oxidants if you are exposed to non-stop RF exposure - especially pulsed RF.
It's not good for business if BioInitiative authors selling RF-shielding recommend exposure guidelines that eliminate the need for RF-shielding - so what's your point?
Did you even consider that these people recognize the need for protection against excessive RF exposure because they suffer from it themselves? Lorenzo's oil.
FDA does sudden U-turn on cellphone radiation stance:
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=205901611
Coming from Europe, it seems that Americans have been completely kept in the dark about health risks from weak non-ionizing radiation like that from cellphones and wireless appliances. Over here the debate is raging with new evidence of harm from wireless radiation surfacing monthly.
Look up the BioInitiative report from 2007 here: http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/
for the largest independent science review ever on the subject: 2000 peer-reviewed studies.
The conclusion: existing exposure guidelines are set 9000 times too high.
Also, see the ECOLOG report from 2000, that came to similar conclusions, here: http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/niemr/ecologsum.php
Slashdot Mirror
I've relatives who live in Sebastopol. They are in absolutely no danger of being exposed to "excessive RF exposure."
This "excessive RF exposure" is defined by existing guidelines based on stoneage science. The thermal-only paradigm of RF health effects is over, dead, finito. If your relatives, or you, have a cordless DECT phone, a wi-fi router or live within the beam of greatest intensity of a cellphone tower - then you are subject to "excessive RF exposure" 24/7. Question is, how long will your body cope with the stress. My advice: offset the long-term damage by replenishing your bodies calium and anti-oxidants if you are exposed to non-stop RF exposure - especially pulsed RF.
It's not good for business if BioInitiative authors selling RF-shielding recommend exposure guidelines that eliminate the need for RF-shielding - so what's your point? Did you even consider that these people recognize the need for protection against excessive RF exposure because they suffer from it themselves? Lorenzo's oil.
FDA does sudden U-turn on cellphone radiation stance: http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=205901611
Coming from Europe, it seems that Americans have been completely kept in the dark about health risks from weak non-ionizing radiation like that from cellphones and wireless appliances. Over here the debate is raging with new evidence of harm from wireless radiation surfacing monthly.
Look up the BioInitiative report from 2007 here:
http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/
for the largest independent science review ever on the subject: 2000 peer-reviewed studies.
The conclusion: existing exposure guidelines are set 9000 times too high.
Also, see the ECOLOG report from 2000, that came to similar conclusions, here:
http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/niemr/ecologsum.php