Why wireless radiation is dangerous and why the safety guidelines urgently need updating

Print Friendly

laptop-cell-phone(NaturalHealth365) After water, gas, and electricity, wireless has become the fourth utility. Everything is being ‘wified’ to death.  Phones, watches, TVs, iPads, DVD players, coffee machines, refrigerators, you name it!

Even schools, hospitals, businesses and coffee shops have WiFi – it’s literally everywhere. In fact, some would say, ‘we can’t live without it.’ But what if wireless was not as safe as we are led to believe?

Do you know what the experts say about wireless technology and your health?

Wireless devices emit radio frequency radiation or microwave radiation at the rate of billions of cycles per second. Thousands of peer-reviewed studies point to the link between these exposures and a long list of adverse biological health effects and very serious diseases, including brain tumors, cancer and cardiovascular disease.

Of course there are safety guidelines, but do these guidelines protect us?  Absolutely not!  You see, that’s because scientists and engineers are being relied upon to set exposure limits not biologists or medically qualified professionals.

In the United States the safety guidelines for wireless are set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC has various responsibilities. They oversee the allotment of broadcast frequencies across the spectrum, they mediate competition between service providers, they maintain communications in emergencies and they punish celebrities and other people who swear on the radio or take their clothes off on TV.

But the FCC was never supposed to look after your health; it’s not their job. The FCC relies on scientists, engineers and organizations (including the IEEE) to set its ‘proper exposure limits’ – and the doctors are never given an opportunity to offer an opinion.

Current ‘safety’ guidelines don’t take into account the adverse biological effects of EMF exposures

The current FCC guidelines only take into account the thermal effects of these wireless exposures they fail to take into account the adverse biological effects. What this means is that if the exposures aren’t cooking you, they are safe. But the studies detail thousands of adverse biological effects which occur at levels well below that required to heat tissue.

Here’s the blunt truth: EMF exposure guidelines are based on outdated science.

The FCC requires that all wireless communications devices sold in the United States meet its minimum guidelines for safe human exposure to radio frequency (RF) energy. These guidelines are backed up by the Telecommunications Act (TCA) of 1996 – which is nearly 20 years old.

In terms of advances in digital technology, 20 years is a very long time ago. There has been no review of the matter by the FCC despite massive changes in technology and consumer behavior.

As Amy O’Hair of StopSmartMeters.org explains, “established in the 1970s based on 1950s science, and firmed up in the Telecommunications Act (TCA) of 1996, (just as cellular networks were going up), the guidelines have not been reviewed since then – even as usage patterns have changed drastically”.

Accumulated radiation exposure levels may be more than 100 times higher than official exposure limits

The current guidelines specify exposure limits for hand-held wireless devices in terms of the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR). The SAR is a measure of the rate that radio frequency (RF) radiation is absorbed by the body.

For exposure to RF radiation from wireless devices, the allowable FCC SAR limit is 1.6 watts per kilogram (W/kg), as averaged over one gram of tissue. All wireless devices sold in the U.S. have to be approved by the FCC to ensure that they do not exceed the maximum allowable SAR level when operating at the device’s highest possible power level.

In truth this guideline does very little to protect us because it fails to take into account that most people today are exposed to multiple wireless radiation exposures.

Let’s get real: Many people now have wireless connectivity with not only their phone but also their laptop, watch and tablet, to name a few. In addition, many people live in proximity to a very large number of actively transmitting WiFi routers, smart meters and other wireless devices.

So, in reality, accumulated radiation exposure levels may be more than 100 times higher than official exposure limits – particularly in places like schools and offices.

Tips on how to take action and safeguard your health

Here are some simple steps you can take to safeguard your health from wireless radiation and other electromagnetic field exposures:

  • Replace your wireless devices with wired versions – replace wireless DECT phones and wireless modems with wired versions.
  • Practice safe cell phone use – distance is your friend, avoid using your cell phone next to your ear.
  • Create a low EMF sleep sanctuary where you sleep – rid your bedroom of all electrical devices.
  • Measure the EMF readings in your home with a simple to use EMF meter. Here is a review of an EMF meter that measures radio frequency radiation and magnetic fields.

Time for change: The FCC guidelines need updating now

Clearly the FCC guidelines need updating, here are some suggestions:

1. The regulations need to take into account the biological effects of these exposures not just the heating effect.
2. FCC regulations should be based on the maximum power of each transmitting wireless device based on the number of wireless devices in proximity.
3. In places such as schools and businesses all wireless devices should have automatic maximum power reduction based capability based on the number of wireless devices in proximity.

We need to spread the word about these issues because, ultimately, if the public remains unaware – nothing can improve.

About the author: Lloyd Burrell is the founder of ElectricSense.com. His website offers solutions to the growing number of people whose health is being compromised by exposure to wireless and similar technologies. Download his free EMF Health Report today!



Gain INSTANT Access:

  • » Vaccine World Summit
  • » 7-Day Juice Cleanse
  • » FREE Newsletter

Keep Reading:

  • Melvin Rubin

    No government agency or industry is looking out for us. It is up to us to know the facts, even when they aren’t reaching the mass media. I frequent places on the internet to inform and enlighten me. This article is a wake-up call for those of us living in the 21st century.

  • Gail Tilden

    I really don’t know where to start. This is a bigger job than it seems. Getting kids to give up some of the newest devices isn’t easy. What they don’t have at home they find in schools, after school clubs and at friends houses.

    They are adapt at using the newest gadgets and pride themselves on their ability to do so. We have the media encouraging the buying and using of these products. All work environments, which this young generation will be entering will rely on wireless technology.

  • Kristin Welch

    I work for a large corporation and i can tell you this company watches the bottom line. The computers are old and there is plenty of indoor lighting as the windows are small and do not open. We have land line phones, yet everyone has their cell phone on them.

    We have a microwave in the conference room and they are used for just about everything. The employees warm their lunches and coffee they forgot to drink. There are wireless computers used at meetings.

    Most of the work is done on computers and they are in use from when the employee gets in until they leave. This kind of work place is widespread and does not help the employee stay well.

  • Morris Schulte

    Will guidelines be enforceable? They usually leave plenty of wiggle room. It seems some are never enforced. This means they may not be strong enough to safe guard the public.

  • abinico

    I have argued many times, EMF exposure is not a problem. We have been living in a virtual EMF ocean for over 50 years and there are no documented/proven ill effects. Yes, EMF can cause problems at high wattage levels, but not the levels that are omnipresent. I see these EMF fear mongers as shilsl for Monsanto – GMO is a real problem and health threat – not EMF.

  • At the height of the home theater movement I chose to take the ISF color calibrating course and got into resetting older TV’s. Color matching involves turning tiny pots to adjust for the aging elements of the set, and ideally exactly matching the distortion output of each of three lenses to produce an perfect grid. Once the lines are sharp, the rear projector TV actually was a behold to own. But, doing this exposed me to greater than average radiation, I felt I had arthritis in my hands, Loss of sleep was a key indicator that I had worked too closely with the pots for one day.

  • Gaby Stein

    I can’t believe parents buy these devices for their children without any knowledge of these dangers. It is a shame that these hazards aren’t reported in the publications. Just like pharmaceuticals advertisements on the television have to report all the possible side effects they should also.

  • Guy Rocky

    kids a re totally addicted to their smart devices.

  • Sandy

    As a radio-frequency with 20 years’ experience and direct involvement in the early development of the cellular infrastructure in the USA, I want to weigh in here.

    I concur with the article’s main point, and want to emphasize the author’s point about exposures being cumulative. We can make choices about personal cellphone use, but we have less control over our exposure to workplace-related WiFi and other RF/EMF exposures.

    Worse, the electric utilities are forcing upon the populace constant RF/EMF exposure in the guise of “smart meters,” which are mostly about eliminating people’s jobs (meter readers) and selling our very private information (which appliances we use and when) to the deep data-mining industry. Smart meters promise profits, so the electrical utilities are only too happy to thrown the health of the populace under the bus. “It’s just business.”

    I encourage readers of this article to raise awareness of the CUMULATIVE nature of RF/EMF exposure among your co-workers and/or colleagues. If you have influence regarding technologies of choice in your workplace, choose wired technologies wherever practicable. I am well aware that buckets of money can be saved by using wireless rather than wired technologies, but consider the high cost of health care for sick employees and factor that into your business case.

    Share this article with your local politicians and decision-makers who have the clout to say “no” to smart meters. Utilities are banking on the extra profits from smart meters and will not give up their new toy without major push-back from several sources simultaneously. Those who suffer the most from smart meter RF/EMF exposures are those who can least defend or shield themselves from it: Poor, urban apartment-dwellers who can afford neither lawyers nor shielding systems, not to mention doctors and rehabilitation after they become debilitated from excessive exposure.

  • Jeanna Clifford

    You’re welcome! There is a gift certificate special running until the 24th of this month to get 20% off all products but you have to call the company in order to get this, there is also a way to get an additional 20% off on top of that if you’re interested, just let me know!

  • KK

    This article is really full of arguments, why 100 times come from? don’t you know the distance factor is a major key to decrease our exposure?