<a href="http://www.emfnews.org/chipcategory.html">EMF Protection Products</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html">Airtube Headsets</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/qlinks.html">Cell Tower Protection</a> We are conducting research and development in the field of materials science, and discovering ways to use novel molecular oscillators to generate higher degrees of clarification and conversion. In the years ahead, this will allow us to gain a higher quality of refined subtle energy effects. This will allow us to have more precision and power with respect to target system matching and performance gains. Using these basic principles, we match a specific sympathetic resonator to the desired energy or performance state of the target system. We take our core SRTechnology and adjust it for the specific requirements of each system. In this way, we make our resonant technology "sympathetic" with the specific subtle energy requirements or constitution of that system. A CD is not a human. A CD is different from a human in terms of class, kind and also in terms of subtle energies. That is why we make a specific type of resonator that is sympathetic to a CD's functioning, and another one that is sympathetic to a human being's functioning. The key is to identify the specifics of each type of system, then engineer a specific sympathetic resonator to match its unique characteristics and desired parameters for functioning. Once a sympathetic resonator is activated, it stimulates or catalyzes condensed flows of clarified subtle energies into the local space in which the target system is located. Our resonator energetically couples with the target system, and both systems energetically reinforce each other in an additive positive feedback process. This occurs when two resonant systems are tuned to each other. <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/chipcategory.html">EMF Protection Products</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html">Airtube Headsets</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/qlinks.html">Cell Tower Protection</a>

<a href="http://www.emfnews.org/chipcategory.html">EMF Protection Products</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html">Airtube Headsets</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/qlinks.html">Cell Tower Protection</a> Where are subtle energies converted from? Where are they conducted to? Dr. William Tiller hypothesizes that subtle energies may be a type of energy or energies within the vacuum state. Dr. Tiller hypothesizes that their energy is possibly converted through the magnetic vector potentials identified in quantum physics. These potentials are the parent field for all electromagnetic phenomena. This conversion process is taking place all the time, though in a raw, relatively chaotic state. Other scientists postulate that subtle energies are part of quantum fields (Dr. Glen Rein). Subtle energies may play a role in string theory. The string theory interpretation implies that subtle energies are part of dimensional structures that underlay the phenomena of both matter and energy wave packets. If a technology could be engineered that more systematically clarified, converted and conducted subtle energies from the vacuum state into the realm of currently measurable energies, such as classical electromagnetics - that is, into the realm of common forces and matter and thus into any physical, chemical or biological system - the implications would be enormous. If a technological process could be successfully developed, then, in general, the following would be expected: 1. electron and photon flows would be more efficient 2. electromagnetic interactions would be more efficient 3. valence shell bonding process would happen faster and would be more energy efficient (ionic bonding processes would be more energy efficient giving rise to more stable bonds) In theory, the technological ability to convert raw subtle energies into condensed specific vector energies implies that any system would become more refined, more stabilized and energy efficient - i.e. more clarified. <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/chipcategory.html">EMF Protection Products</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html">Airtube Headsets</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/qlinks.html">Cell Tower Protection</a>

<a href="http://www.emfnews.org/chipcategory.html">EMF Protection Products</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html">Airtube Headsets</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/qlinks.html">Cell Tower Protection</a> Blood Quality Improves with QLink! Stress can deteriorate the condition of blood. Two different studies by microbiologist Robert Young stronglly suggest that as the QLink increases resistance to stress, blood quality improves. The conclusions of this remarkable study support the experiences of QLink users who consistently report enhanced abilities to cope with physical, mental, emotional and environmental stress. This increased stress resistance strongly correlates to improved focus and performance. "My study on live and dried blood cells involved 14 individuals. In 100% of the test group, the QLink Pendant demonstrated the ability to provide a favorable context for normal organization of blood cells which were visually showing multiple negative conditions. I perceive these negative conditions are attributable to years of stressful lifestyles. "After wearing the QLink Pendant for only 72 hours, each participant showed a significant improvement in the quality of their blood. "The blood of the test group wearing the QLink Pendant showed a visual, normal blood profile that I see in only 1 out of every 10,000 people. In my opinion, any person whose blood is improved to this degree will significantly improve their performance and quality of life." - Robert O. Young, Ph.D., D.Sc. Microbiologist <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/chipcategory.html">EMF Protection Products</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html">Airtube Headsets</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/qlinks.html">Cell Tower Protection</a>

<a href="http://www.emfnews.org/chipcategory.html">EMF Protection Products</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html">Airtube Headsets</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/qlinks.html">Cell Tower Protection</a> In 1994, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) established the term "Biofield." A Biofield is an ensemble or matrix of different energies that extend outward from each person's body. According to the latest theories and research in biophysics, the Biofield comprises many of the life energies to human wellness. These Biofield energies regulate and balance multiple systems that range from the cellular to the whole person. Metaphorically, the Biofield functions as both the musical orchestra and the music of overall vitality, ensuring the harmonious performance necessary for well-being. Prominent scientists believe the Biofield may provide a scientific foundation for complementary and alternative medicine modalities such as vitalistic chiropractic, acupuncture, acupressure, electrodermal screening, homeopathy, magnet therapy and phototherapy. The Biofled explains many phenomena critical to wellness that cannot be explained in the traditional biological model. For example, the multiple studies that have documented energy healng can best be explained using the Biofield hypothesis. What is the BIOFIELD? The Biofield is essential to health. Dr. Beverly Rubik, PhD, BioPhysicist and Advisory Panel Member to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) was instrumental in helping name the Biofield in 1994 and in recognizing it as being critical to life. "Biofield: the complex, extremely weak electromagnetic field of the organism hypothesized to involve electromagnetic bioinformation for regulating homeodynamics. The biofield is a useful construct consistent with bioelectromagnetics and the physics of nonlinear, dynamical, nonequilibrium living systems. <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/chipcategory.html">EMF Protection Products</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html">Airtube Headsets</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/qlinks.html">Cell Tower Protection</a>

<a href="http://www.emfnews.org/chipcategory.html">EMF Protection Products</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html">Airtube Headsets</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/qlinks.html">Cell Tower Protection</a> Reduces Stress and Improves Performance!An MSA Meridian Stress Assessment test at the September, 2000 PGA International Show of over 200 participants was done by Steve McGregor of BioMeridian International, Inc. McGregor stated, "I've conducted thousands of tests using the BioMeridian system in every industry and I've never seen anything like the QLink results. Whether the QLink was worn for two minutes or two days, every subject exhibited a dramatic increase in measurable energy, a strengthened resistance to the effects of stress, and a shift to their ideal performance state." The same MSA test was repeated on the practice tee of the SBC Senior Classic in LA in October, 2000 using 60% of the field of professionals. Every player tested showed an improvement with the QLink, and the vast majority showed a huge improvement. With the QLink, players were nearly five times more likely to reach the ideal target zone, than without it, when measured on the FDA approved BioMeridian system. http://www.emfnews.org/productinfo.html The QLink helps regulate homeostasis and boosts resistance to the effects of stress. Studies conducted at the University of California at Irvine, Imperial College at London, University of Vienna's Institute of Cancer, University of Vienna's Institute of Environmental Health, and independent clinics have persuaded researchers of the QLink's benefits. Blood Quality Improves with QLink! Stress can deteriorate the condition of blood. Two different studies by microbiologist Robert Young stronglly suggest that as the QLink increases resistance to stress, blood quality improves. http://www.emfnews.org/chipcategory.html The conclusions of this remarkable study support the experiences of QLink users who consistently report enhanced abilities to cope with physical, mental, emotional and environmental stress. This increased stress resistance strongly correlates to improved focus and performance. <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/chipcategory.html">EMF Protection Products</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html">Airtube Headsets</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/qlinks.html">Cell Tower Protection</a>

<a href="http://www.emfnews.org/chipcategory.html">EMF Protection Products</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html">Airtube Headsets</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/qlinks.html">Cell Tower Protection</a> "Find out why over 300 Tour Professionals depend on this amazing device for increased focus, reduced stress and anxiety, and lower scores..." http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html A two month study of players on the regular PGA Tour in 1999 was conducted to determine if use of the QLink would result in lower golf scores. Known users of the QLink were identified, confirmed, and a statistical analysis of their cuts made was conducted. The percentage of cuts made by each player in the five months prior to wearing the QLink was calculated for each player, and then again for the two month period wearing the QLink. An astounding 77% of known QLink users made a higher percentage of cuts with the QLink! http://www.emfnews.org/chipcategory.html The October, 2000 testing of the QLink at the SBC Senior Tour Classic resulted in 11 of the top 15 tournament contestants having taken part in our study, including the top three finishers. This group of 11 represented 14% of the field, yet they took home 53% of the prize money. In referring first to the SBC Classic, and then the Senior Tour Championship, The Golf Channel reported that "For the record, new QLink wearers finished 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and one tied for 5th, and two ties for 7th in Los Angeles. And the next week at the tour championship in Myrtle Beach, QLink wearers finished 2nd, with three more QLink wearers finished tied for 3rd place. As reporters, we don't of course endorse products, we only report facts. And the facts here, are what we report." http://www.emfnews.org/productinfo.html There's no question about it. If you want to: • Reduce first tee jitters • Reduce anxiety • Reduce stress • Reduce bad shots • Control emotions • and lower your scores... Then you owe it to yourself to try the Q-Link® Pendant. Still want more proof? Look at the following studies that show how effective this amazing device really is... <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/chipcategory.html">EMF Protection Products</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html">Airtube Headsets</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/qlinks.html">Cell Tower Protection</a>

<a href="http://www.emfnews.org/chipcategory.html">EMF Protection Products</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html">Airtube Headsets</a> <a href="http://<a href="http://www.emfnews.org/qlinks.html">Cell Tower Protection</a> A sympathetic resonator creates a coupling circuit between subtle energies and classical electromagnetic energies. This coupling circuit does 3 important things. http://www.emfnews.org/productinfo.html 1. It converts raw subtle energies into clarified, highly-delineated and highly-concentrated subtle energies. In the sense used here, "raw" is equivalent to raw materials that are converted from a relatively chaotic state into a more ordered, more refined state. After conversion, the subtle energies are, in effect, postulated to be more intensified and condensed. http://www.emfnews.org/chipcategory.html 2. It conducts these converted subtle energies into an environmental space. The size of the space can range from a 3 foot spherical radius to a 50 foot spherical radius. When the converted subtle energies are conducted into an environment, they act more directly than diffused or raw subtle energies on the systems they both comprise and influence. 3. This conversion and conduction actively effects the performance of phenomena in the influenced space - especially phenomena which employs electromagnetic fields. Clarus makes 2 types of sympathetic resonators. Each type is composed of hardware which is treated and imprinted by a master manufacturing device that conducts super-refined subtle energies. One type is the sympathetic resonator used in the QLink Pendant. It is engineered using 3 components: a resonating cell, the Sympathetic Resonance Technology (SRT-3) and an amplifying coil. The main component, the resonating cell containing a proprietary formula of pure crystalline elements, works as an oscillator that converts and conducts subtle energy into more coherent energy states. The SRT-3 tunes the cell's vibrations for the wearer's Biofield . The amplifying coil shapes and strengthens the size of the energy field that is conducted.It extends the power of the sympathetic resonance into a 3-dimensional field. www.emfnews.org <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/chipcategory.html">EMF Protection Products</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html">Airtube Headsets</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/qlinks.html">Cell Tower Protection</a>

<a href="http://www.emfnews.org/chipcategory.html">EMF Protection Products</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html">Airtube Headsets</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/qlinks.html">Cell Tower Protection</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/cell-phone-radiation-book.html">Educational Cell Phone Ebook</a> We live in a world of matter, which we experience as solid, and a world of forces, which act upon these solid things. But quantum physics is clear that what we call solid matter is composed of oscillating matter wave packets, and what we call forces are composed of oscillating energy wave packets. In reality, everything is composed of oscillating wave packets of one type or another. http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html Scientists have long puzzled over force field phenomena that do not fit the four known forces: electromagnetic, gravity, weak and strong forces. These force field that do not fall into the classical four are sometimes labeled "subtle energies." They are called "subtle" because they cannot be observed or measured by any known instrumentation. Dr. William Tiller, Professor Emeritus of Stanford University, has spent decades studying subtle energy phenomena. He accepts subtle energies as real, and as providing explanatory power for scientifically documented phenomena that cannot be explained by the four known forces. Much of these documented phenomena describe the particular influence that subtle energies have on classical electromagnetic fields. Electromagnetic fields are composed of two basic types of energy wave packets: electrons and photons. Dr. Tiller asserts that a significant relationship exists between subtle energies and electromagnetic fields. Evidence points to a strong relationship. Evidence also indicates that, if subtle energies can be acted upon in specific ways, they will yield specific results in electromagnetic phenomena - perhaps acting directly on the wave packet states. According to Dr. Tiller, this action may take place through the magnetic vector potentials. <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/chipcategory.html">EMF Protection Products</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html">Airtube Headsets</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/qlinks.html">Cell Tower Protection</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/cell-phone-radiation-book.html">Educational Cell Phone Ebook</a>

<a href="http://www.emfnews.org/chipcategory.html">EMF Protection Products</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html">Airtube Headsets</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/qlinks.html">Cell Tower Protection</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/cell-phone-radiation-book.html">Educational Cell Phone Ebook</a> How do Wireless Telephone Systems Work? Wireless telephone systems work on a different concept from radio transmission systems most people are familiar with, such as television and radio stations. In most types of radio transmission systems, the object is to transmit your signal as far as possible, in order to maximize the amount of listeners or viewers you may have. In cellular systems, the object is to transmit a controlled signal. This is done to maximize the amount of channels that are given to each cellular provider for use. Cellular systems are assigned a set number of channels for a given area, usually around 400. In order to maximize the amount of calls/channels per given geographic area, they break the coverage area into a series of cells. Each cell can cover anywhere from a one mile radius from the base station in the city and urban areas to a 10 mile radius in the countryside and rural areas. Usually an arrangement of seven repeating cells is used, with 50 or 60 channels used per cell. As you move a mobile phone between these cells, the mobile phone is 'handed off' between the cell sites and channels, being controlled by the mobile telephone switching office (MTSO), or mobile switching center (MSC). This makes use of the most important part of the cellular system, frequency re-use. There are only a limited amount of channels available in any cellular system, and this system makes the same channel available in different geographic parts of the system, to different users. Signals are sent back and forth between the MTSO and the cell site over high capacity circuits (DS3) or microwave links. This is known as backhaul, or the process of bringing the signal from the switch to and from the individual cell site. There are two main frequencies used for wireless telephone communications in the United States. These are 1.9 Ghz (1900 Mhz) and 800 Mhz. All systems using 1.9 Ghz utilize digital technology and are referred to as PCS

<a href="http://www.emfnews.org/chipcategory.html">EMF Protection Products</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html">Airtube Headsets</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/qlinks.html">Cell Tower Protection</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/cell-phone-radiation-book.html">Educational Cell Phone Ebook</a> Radio-frequency identification (RFID) is an automatic identification method, relying on storing and remotely retrieving data using devices called RFID tags or transponders. An RFID tag is an object that can be applied to or incorporated into a product, animal, or person for the purpose of identification using radiowaves. Some tags can be read from several meters away and beyond the line of sight of the reader. Most RFID tags contain at least two parts. One is an integrated circuit for storing and processing information, modulating and demodulating a (RF) signal, and other specialized functions. The second is an antenna for receiving and transmitting the signal. A technology called chipless RFID allows for discrete identification of tags without an integrated circuit, thereby allowing tags to be printed directly onto assets at a lower cost than traditional tags. Today, a significant thrust in RFID use is in enterprise supply chain management, improving the efficiency of inventory tracking and management. However, a threat is looming that the current growth and adoption in enterprise supply chain market will not be sustainable. A fair cost-sharing mechanism, rational motives and justified returns from RFID technology investments are the key ingredients to achieve long-term and sustainable RFID technology adoption An RFID tag used for electronic toll collection In 1946 Lon Theremin invented an espionage tool for the Soviet Union which retransmitted incident radio waves with audio information. Sound waves vibrated a diaphragm which slightly altered the shape of the resonator, which modulated the reflected radio frequency. Even though this device was a passive covert listening device, not an identification tag, it has been attributed as the first known device and a predecessor to RFID technology. The technology used in RFID has been around since the early 1920s according to one source (although the same source states that RFID systems have been around just since the late 1960s).[2][3][4][5] Similar technology, such as the IFF transponder invented by the United Kingdom in 1939, was routinely used by the allies in World War II to identify airplanes as friend or foe. Transponders are still used by military and commercial aircraft to this day. To learn more go to http://www.CellphoneLies.com http://www.emfnews.org

<a href="http://www.emfnews.org/chipcategory.html">EMF Protection Products</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html">Airtube Headsets</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/qlinks.html">Cell Tower Protection</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/cell-phone-radiation-book.html">Educational Cell Phone Ebook</a> The U.S. National Research Council has advised that researchers should study children and pregnant women in order to determine if cell phones or other wireless devices could be causing health damage. The U.S. FDA had asked the National Research Council, which advises the federal government on scientific matters, to recommend some future lines of study. Most studies of cell phones to date have looked only at short-term effects on healthy adults. The Council noted that, "Although it is unknown whether children are more susceptible to RF exposure, they may be at increased risk because of their developing organ and tissue systems." The Council also identified a number of other overarching issues that merit further study, such as differences between long- and short-term exposure, and possible biological mechanisms, other than simple heating, by which wireless radiation could affect cells. Will Europe Ban Cell Phones for Under-age Use? The Vienna Medical Association is demanding the removal of zero tariffs and the banning of mobile phone advertising targeting children and adolescents. Says Erik Huber, environment advisor for the association: Children under the age of 16 should never use a mobile phone. Many scientists and government agencies in Europe have already accepted that EMF from cell phones does pose health risks, reflected in Hubers statement, Scientists do not argue anymore whether mobile phones are harmful, but how harmful they are. To learn more go to http://www.CellphoneLies.com http://www.emfnews.org

<a href="http://www.emfnews.org/chipcategory.html">EMF Protection Products</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html">Airtube Headsets</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/qlinks.html">Cell Tower Protection</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/cell-phone-radiation-book.html">Educational Cell Phone Ebook</a> In 1993, the cell phone industry was pressured by Congress to invest $28 million into studying cell phone safety. The cause of this sudden concern was massive publicity about a lawsuit filed by Florida businessman David Reynard against cell phone manufacturer NEC. Reynards wife, Susan, died of a brain tumor, and he blamed cell phones for her death. Reynard revealed the suit to the public on the Larry King Live show, complete with dramatic x-rays showing the tumor close to where Susan held her cell phone to her head for hours each day. The next day, telecommunications stocks took a big hit on Wall Street and the media had a field day. The industry trade association at the time, the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA), went into crisis mode, claiming thousands of studies proved cell phones were safe and what Reynard and his attorney said was bunk. TIA reassured the public that the government had approved cell phones, so that meant they were safe. The media demanded to see the studies, but, says Dr. Carlo, The industry had lied. The only studies in existence then were on microwave ovens. At that time, 15 million people were using cell phones, a product that had never been tested for safety. Dr. Carlo Heads Cell Phone Research CELL PHONE RADIATION: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW Originally developed for the Department of Defense, cell phones devices were never tested for safety. They entered the marketplace due to a regulatory loophole. Questions about cell phone safety arose in the early 1990s, when a businessman filed a lawsuit alleging that cell phones caused his wifes death due to brain cancer. To address the questions surrounding cell phone safety, the cell phone industry set up a non-profit organization, Wireless Technology Research (WTR). Dr. George Carlo was appointed to head WTRs research efforts. Under Dr. Carlos direction, scientists found that cell phone radiation caused DNA damage, impaired DNA repair, and interfered with cardiac pacemakers. European research confirmed Dr. Carlos findings. Studies suggest that cell phone radiation contributes to brain dysfunction, tumors, and potentially to conditions such as autism, attention deficit disorder, neurodegenerative disease, and behavioral and psychological problems. Dr. Carlo brought safety information about cell phones to the public through his book, Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age, and by creating the Safe Wireless Initiative and the Mobile Telephone Health Concerns Registry. The best protection against cell phone radiation is keeping a safe distance. Always use a headset to minimize exposure to harmful cell phone radiation. To learn more go to http://www.CellphoneLies.com http://www.emfnews.org

<a href="http://www.emfnews.org/chipcategory.html">EMF Protection Products</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html">Airtube Headsets</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/qlinks.html">Cell Tower Protection</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/cell-phone-radiation-book.html">Educational Cell Phone Ebook</a> Industry Seeks to Discredit Findings, Scientists But manipulation by the industry had begun almost immediately at the start of research. While Dr. Carlo and his team had never defined their research as being done to prove the safety of cell phones, the industry internally defined it as an insurance policy to prove that phones were safe. From the outset, what was being said by the cell phone industry in public was different from what was being said by the scientists behind closed doors. The pacemaker studies were a harbinger of bad things to come. Results showed that cell phones do indeed interfere with pacemakers, but moving the phone away from the pacemaker would correct the problem. Amazingly, the industry was extremely upset with the report, complaining that the researchers went off target. When Dr. Carlo and his colleagues published their findings in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1997,11 the industry promptly cut off funding for the overall program. It took nine months for the FDA and the industry to agree on a scaled-down version of the program to continue going forward. Dr. Carlo had volunteered to step down, since he was clearly not seeing eye-to-eye with the industry, but his contract was extended instead, as no one wanted to look bad from a public relations standpoint. The research continued, and what it uncovered would be a dire warning to cell phone users and the industrys worst nightmare. When the findings were ready for release in 1998, the scientists were suddenly confronted with another challenge: the industry wanted to take over public dissemination of the information, and it tried everything it could to do so. It was faced with disaster and had a lot to lose. Fearing the industry would selectively release research results at best, or hold them back at worst, Dr. Carlo and his colleagues took the information public on their own, creating a highly visible war between the scientists and the industry. An ABC News expose on the subject increased the wrath of the industry. According to Dr. Carlo, The industry played dirty. It actually hired people to put negative things about me and the other scientists who found problems on the internet, while it tried to distance itself from the program. Auditors were brought in to say we misspent money, but none of that ever held up. They tried every angle possible. This included discussions with Dr. Carlos ex-wife to try to figure out ways to put pressure on him, he says. Threats to his career came from all directions, and Dr. Carlo learned from Congressional insiders that the word around Washington was that he was unstable. But all the character assassination paled in comparison to what happened next. Toward the end of 1998, Dr. Carlos house mysteriously burned down. Public records show that authorities determined the cause of the blaze was arson, but the case was never solved. Dr. Carlo refuses to discuss the incident and will only confirm that it happened. By this time, enough was enough. Dr. Carlo soon went underground, shunning the public eye and purposely making himself difficult to find. To learn more go to http://www.CellphoneLies.com http://www.emfnews.org

<a href="http://www.emfnews.org/chipcategory.html">EMF Protection Products</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html">Airtube Headsets</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/qlinks.html">Cell Tower Protection</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/cell-phone-radiation-book.html">Educational Cell Phone Ebook</a> Protecting Yourself from Cell Phone and Wireless Radiation The most effective technique for protecting yourself against the dangers of cell phone radiation is keeping the phone at a distance from the body. Simply using a hands-free headset is a big step. Headsets keep the cell phones antenna at a distance of six to seven inches away from the body, thus eliminating near-field exposure. Wired headsets can act as an antenna to draw some ambient EMR, but not much, so using one is still preferable to holding the phone to your head. Wireless headsets should be avoided, as they draw much more far-field EMR. The safest headsets have hollow air tubes, similar to those used in stethoscopes, instead of wires.They offer protection against both near-field and far-field exposure. If possible, avoid wearing the phone at your waist, which exposes the hip bones to radiation. Eighty percent of red blood cells are formed in the hip bones. There are also newer cell phones available capable of functioning in speaker phone mode. This enables you to talk on the phone while keeping it at a safe distance from your body. If you are able to conduct most of your conversations using a speaker phone, this could enable you to use a cell phone without encountering the intense radiation exposure that occurs when holding it to your ear. To learn more go to http://www.CellphoneLies.com http://www.emfnews.org

<a href="http://www.emfnews.org/chipcategory.html">EMF Protection Products</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html">Airtube Headsets</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/qlinks.html">Cell Tower Protection</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/cell-phone-radiation-book.html">Educational Cell Phone Ebook</a> In 1993, the cell phone industry was pressured by Dr. Carlos Continuing Work To learn more go to http://www.CellphoneLies.com http://www.emfnews.org Following the loss of his home, Dr. Carlo collaborated with Washington columnist Martin Schramwho in the course of the work did his own research to corroborate Dr. Carlos view on thingsto write Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age (Carroll & Graf, 2001). He wrote his book as what he thought would be a last volley at the cell phone industry. I needed to tell the whole story in one place. I didnt have the resources or the manpower to match what the cell phone industry was doing to try to discredit the work, says Dr. Carlo. Based on the book, a number of lawsuits were brought against the industry, and insurance carriers began excluding cell phone-related health risks in their coverage. It created a very difficult situation in the industry and for myself. I was worn out fighting that battle. In 2002, after Id done my book tour, I just decided to take a break for a couple of years. Instead of taking a break, however, Dr. Carlo ended up working behind the scenes, setting up an organization and a registry for the benefit of consumers. It was a creative solution as part of the settlement of a lawsuit brought by a Illinois citizen against the cell phone industry, WTR, and Dr. Carlo personally. The lawsuit alleged that the cell phone industry, WTR, and Dr. Carlo were conspiring to hide the dangers of cell phones. Dr. Carlo was offered a way out of the suit because his book had made it clear he wasnt on the same page as the industry. I wanted to make sure the litigation brought at least some value to consumers. We created the Safe Wireless Initiative (www.safewireless.org) for disseminating information on the dangers and on prevention, and the Mobile Telephone Health Concerns Registry (www.health-concerns.org) to track information voluntarily provided by cell phone users, particularly those who believe theyre experiencing health effects. Post-market surveillance hadnt been done before, and the registry does that. It will help direct future research of potential health effects related to cell phone use. In the end, we did the best we could to get some benefit for consumers. To learn more go to http://www.CellphoneLies.com http://www.emfnews.org

To learn more go to http://www.CellphoneLies.com http://www.emfnews.org A cellular phone is basically a radio that sends signals on waves to a base station. The carrier signal generates two types of radiation fields: a near-field plume and a far-field plume. Living organisms, too, generate electromagnetic fields at the cellular, tissue, organ, and organism level; this is called the biofield. Both the near-field and far-field plumes from cell phones and in the environment can wreak havoc with the human biofield, and when the biofield is compromised in any way, says Dr. Carlo, so is metabolism and physiology. The near field plume is the one were most concerned with. This plume thats generated within five or six inches of the center of a cell phones antenna is determined by the amount of power necessary to carry the signal to the base station, he explains. The more power there is, the farther the plume radiates the dangerous information-carrying radio waves. A carrier wave oscillates at 1900 megahertz (MHz) in most phones, which is mostly invisible to our biological tissue and doesnt do damage. The information-carrying secondary wave necessary to interpret voice or data is the problem, says Dr. Carlo. That wave cycles in a hertz (Hz) range familiar to the body. Your heart, for example, beats at two cycles per second, or two Hz. Our bodies recognize the information-carrying wave as an invader, setting in place protective biochemical reactions that alter physiology and cause biological problems that include intracellular free-radical buildup, leakage in the blood-brain barrier, genetic damage, disruption of intercellular communication, and an increase in the risk of tumors. The health dangers of recognizing the signal, therefore, arent from direct damage, but rather are due to the biochemical responses in the cell. Heres what happens: &#61607; Cellular energy is now used for protection rather than metabolism. Cell membranes harden, keeping nutrients out and waste products in. &#61607; Waste accumulating inside the cells creates a higher concentration of free radicals, leading to both disruption of DNA repair (micronuclei) and cellular dysfunction. &#61607; Unwanted cell death occurs, releasing the micronuclei from the disrupted DNA repair into the fluid between cells (interstitial fluid), where they are free to replicate and proliferate. This, says Dr. Carlo, is the most likely mechanism that contributes to cancer. &#61607; Damage occurs to proteins on the cell membrane, resulting in disruption of intercellular communication. When cells cant communicate with each other, the result is impaired tissue, organ, and organism function. In the blood-brain barrier, for example, cells cant keep dangerous chemicals from reaching the brain tissue, which results in damage. With the background levels of information-carrying radio waves dramatically increasing because of the widespread use of cell phones,Wi-Fi, and other wireless communication, the effects from the near and far-fields are very similar. Overall, says Dr. Carlo, almost all of the acute and chronic symptoms seen in electrosensitive patients can be explained in some part by disrupted intercellular communication. These symptoms of electrosensitivity include inability to sleep, general malaise, and headaches. Could this explain the increase in recent years of conditions such as attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, and anxiety disorder?To learn more go to http://www.CellphoneLies.com http://www.emfnews.org

<a href="http://www.emfnews.org/chipcategory.html">EMF Protection Products</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html">Airtube Headsets</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/qlinks.html">Cell Tower Protection</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/cell-phone-radiation-book.html">Educational Cell Phone Ebook</a> In 1993, the cell phone industry was pressured by Congress to invest $28 million into studying cell phone safety. The cause of this sudden concern was massive publicity about a lawsuit filed by Florida businessman David Reynard against cell phone manufacturer NEC. Reynards wife, Susan, died of a brain tumor, and he blamed cell phones for her death. Reynard revealed the suit to the public on the Larry King Live show, complete with dramatic x-rays showing the tumor close to where Susan held her cell phone to her head for hours each day. The next day, telecommunications stocks took a big hit on Wall Street and the media had a field day. The industry trade association at the time, the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA), went into crisis mode, claiming thousands of studies proved cell phones were safe and what Reynard and his attorney said was bunk. TIA reassured the public that the government had approved cell phones, so that meant they were safe. The media demanded to see the studies, but, says Dr. Carlo, The industry had lied. The only studies in existence then were on microwave ovens. At that time, 15 million people were using cell phones, a product that had never been tested for safety. Dr. Carlo Heads Cell Phone Research CELL PHONE RADIATION: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW Originally developed for the Department of Defense, cell phones devices were never tested for safety. They entered the marketplace due to a regulatory loophole. Questions about cell phone safety arose in the early 1990s, when a businessman filed a lawsuit alleging that cell phones caused his wifes death due to brain cancer. To address the questions surrounding cell phone safety, the cell phone industry set up a non-profit organization, Wireless Technology Research (WTR). Dr. George Carlo was appointed to head WTRs research efforts. Under Dr. Carlos direction, scientists found that cell phone radiation caused DNA damage, impaired DNA repair, and interfered with cardiac pacemakers. European research confirmed Dr. Carlos findings. Studies suggest that cell phone radiation contributes to brain dysfunction, tumors, and potentially to conditions such as autism, attention deficit disorder, neurodegenerative disease, and behavioral and psychological problems. Dr. Carlo brought safety information about cell phones to the public through his book, Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age, and by creating the Safe Wireless Initiative and the Mobile Telephone Health Concerns Registry. The best protection against cell phone radiation is keeping a safe distance. Always use a headset to minimize exposure to harmful cell phone radiation. To learn more go to http://www.CellphoneLies.com http://www.emfnews.org

<a href="http://www.emfnews.org/chipcategory.html">EMF Protection Products</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html">Airtube Headsets</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/qlinks.html">Cell Tower Protection</a> <a href="http://www.emfnews.org/cell-phone-radiation-book.html">Educational Cell Phone Ebook</a> In December, 2006, an epidemiological study on cell phone dangers published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute sent the media into a frenzy.10 Newspaper headlines blared: Danish Study Shows Cell Phone Use is Safe, while TV newscasters proclaimed, Go ahead and talk all you wantits safe! The news seemed to be a holiday gift for cell phone users. But unfortunately, its a flawed study, funded by the cell phone industry and designed to bring a positive result. The industrys public relations machine is working in overdrive to assure that the study get top-billing in the media worldwide. According to Dr. George Carlo, the study, by its design, could not identify even a very large risk. Therefore, any claim that it proves theres no risk from cell phones is a blatant misrepresentation of the data that will give consumers a very dangerous false sense of security. Epidemiological studies are targets for fixing the outcome because theyre observational in nature instead of experimental, Dr. Carlo explains. Its possible to design studies with pre-determined outcomesthat still fall within the range of acceptable science. Thus, even highly flawed epidemiological studies can be published in peer-reviewed journals because theyre judged against a pragmatic set of standards that assume the highest integrity among the investigators. Key problems with the study are: 1. There are few discernable differences between who was defined as cell phone users and who wasnt. Thus, people defined as exposed to radiation were pretty much the same as those defined as not exposed to radiation. With few differences, its nearly impossible to find a risk. 2. Users were defined as anyone who made at least one phone call per week for six months between 1982 and 1995. So any person who made 26 calls was a cell phone user and therefore considered exposed to radiation. Those with less than 26 calls were non-users. In reality, the radiation exposure between users and non-users defined in this manner is not discernable. 3. The exposed people used ancient cell phone technology bearing little resemblance to cell phones used today. The results, even if reliable, have no relevance to the 2 billion cell phone users today. 4. From 1982 to 1995, cell phone minutes cost much more than today and people used their phones much less. Thus there was very little radiation exposure. 5. During the studys time frame, people likely to use their cell phones the most were commercial subscribers. Yet this highest exposed group, in whom risk would most easily be identified, was specifically excluded from the study. 6. There were no biological hypotheses tested in the study. It was therefore only a numbers game. Ignored were mechanisms of disease found in other studies of cell phone radiation effects, including genetic damage, blood-brain barrier leakage, and disrupted intercellular communication. The study did not discuss any research supporting the notion that cell phones could cause problems in users. 7. The study itself was inconsistent with cancer statistics published worldwide addressing the Danish population. This study showed a low risk of cancer overall, when in fact Denmark has some of the highest cancer rates in the world. This inconsistency suggested that something in the data does not add up. The cell phone industry constantly guards its financial interests, but unfortunately, an unwitting public can be harmed in the process, says Dr. Carlo. Industry-funded studies in many cases now produce industry-desired outcomes. By tampering with the integrity of scientists, scientific systems and public information steps over the lines of propriety that