by Dr. Olle Johansson. DEBATE: An international team of doctors and scientific experts, along with non-profit organisations, on the 3rd July, 2014, called pregnant women to limit their exposure to wireless radiation from cell phones and other devices by taking simple steps to protect themselves and their unborn children, writes Associate Professor Olle Johansson -- whose article SvD (Svenska Dagbladet) and DN (Dagens Nyheter) refused to publish.
  • 93
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    93
    Shares
…But we humans are mostly just standing around talking about this, whereas ants and bees are fleeing the field!
by Dr. Olle Johansson, Associate Professor, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm | translated from original article on newsvoice.se
wireless-radiation-harms-children-pregnant-mothers
DEBATE: On  July 3, 2014, an international team of doctors, scientific experts, and non-profit organizations called for pregnant women to limit exposure to wireless radiation from cell phones and other devices, by taking simple steps to protect themselves and their unborn children, writes Associate Professor Olle Johansson — whose article SvD (Svenska Dagbladet) and DN (Dagens Nyheter) refused to publish.

TProf. Olle Johanssonhe information campaign entitled The Babysafe Project is coordinated by The Grassroots Environmental Education and Environmental Health Trust, and is based on independent, scientific research which links exposure to wireless radiation from cell phones during pregnancy to neurological problems and behavioral disorders similar to ADHD/ADD in children.

Already in 2010, after a consensus meeting 2009 in Seletun, Norway, myself and a group of scientists voiced strong warnings and recommendations about wireless dangers in the Seletun report, which subsequently became the basis for the Council of Europe’s resolution No. 1815 in 2011.

A team of researchers in California conducted a major study of cell phone use among pregnant women. For one year the team looked at all the kids who were born in Denmark, and interviewed the mothers about their cell phone use during pregnancy, as well as the child’s later cell phone usage and behavior pattern. As it turned out, to the scientists’ surprise, the mothers who had the most frequent cell phone use during their pregnancy consequently had the greatest risk of having children with behavioral difficulties.

This included both autism and ADHD/ADD-like behaviors. The greater risk was statistically significant and increased with further cell phone use by the child. [Divan H A, Kheifets L, Obel C, Olsen J (2008) “Prenatal and postnatal exposure to cell phone use and behavioral problems in children”, Epidemiology 2008; 19: 523-529.]

Fetuses are affected

Make no mistake, this is not limited to just children: even fetuses are significantly affected. A team of researchers, lead by Mr. Jing, of the Department of Public Health, Shandong University in China, has studied the effects of cell phone radiation on pregnant, rat’s fetuses. [Jing J, Yuhua Z, Xiao-Qian Y, Rongping J, Dong-Mei G, Xi C, “The influence of microwave radiation from cellular phone on fetal rat brain”, Biol Electromagn by 2012; Jan 23.].

The researchers measured changes in neuronal signal substances and effects on antioxidant enzyme which will protect our cells from oxidative stress. The conclusion was that cell phone radiation during pregnancy gave rise to damage in the fetus’ brains! The rat babies were already born with brain injuries. What parent would want that for its offspring?

Insects and animals are adversely affected: placebo effect is excluded

A survey carried out in 2011 in Lausanne, Switzerland, has shown that the signal from the cell phones may not only confuse bees, but also cause their death. When researchers exposed beehives to cell phone radiation, the bees occupying the hive simply choose to move away and never return. This is exactly the behavior that beekeepers worldwide call CCD, Colony Collapse Disorder, a phenomenon that involves an abrupt disappearance of bees from their hives. We do not know why this is happening, but the authorities have chosen to ignore the above research findings — as cell phones and wireless iPads surely cannot be called into question.

In order to achieve pollination, there are now on the market handheld electric pollinators which via high-frequency sound mimic the bee’s wing vibrations. Pollen is caught in a plastic cup and transferred to other flowers. Other companies are selling robotic bees, that is real “drones”, and little robot birds. In China, workers have been forced out in the fields with brushes in their hands to do the job that former natural pollinators have done for millennia. Is this the development that we want??

A Belgian-Swedish study on ants [Cammaerts M-C, Johansson O, “Ants can be used as bio-indicators to reveal biological effects of electromagnetic waves from some wireless apparatus”, Electromag Biol 2013; early online: 1-7. DOI: 10.3109/15368378.2013.817336] who were made unable to leave their artificial laboratory home, revealed that when exposed to cell phone radiation, they chose to move themselves and their eggs away from the radiation source.

When a cell phone was place beneath the part of the ant home where the ant eggs were stored, the eggs were immediately moved diagonally as far away as possible — and the ants established their toilet area over where the cell phone was placed. The adult ants displayed obvious behavioral disorders, with more disruption in their daily activities and increasingly scanning of their local environment. It was clear that something concerned them.

French researchers, under the direction of Alain Vian at the Equipe de Recherche Transduction et Autosurveillance Cellulaire, Universite Blaise Pascal in Aubière, have shown that tomato plants react to the damage from the relatively weak 900 MHz radiation from cell towers. The scientists believe they found an environmental factor that instantly impacts the genetic material in the tomato cells, which in turn resulted in the tomato plant cells reacting with a chemical damage sequence, involving the molecule calmodulin. The effect was described as “exactly as if we had crushed them with a hammer,” by the scientists.”

It was enough to expose a few leaves of the plant for the entire plant to react. The damage was lessened however, on the parts of the plant that were shielded from the radiation [Roux D, Vian A, Girard S, Bonnet P, Paladian F, Davies E, G Ledoigt, “High frequency (900 MHz) low amplitude (5 V/m) electromagnetic field: a genuine environmental stimulus that affects transcription, translation, calcium and energy charge in tomato”, Planta 2008; 227: 883-891].

The interesting thing about tomatoes is that they cannot cheat or be swayed by emotions or expectations

  • They have no conscience.
  • They cannot move.
  • They do not cheat the insurance company for money.
  • They are not imagining things.
  • The don’t blame their workplace problems on alleged “electrical over-sensitivity”.
  • They don’t read newspapers (they can’t fall victim for media psychosis).
  • They are instead very sensitive to their surrounding environment and are fussy when it comes to conditions for their survival.

Had the French tomato plants been able to escape, they obviously would have done so.

Gadgets, not essentials

What I discuss are basically toys — not life essentials such as clean water, clean air, food that you can eat without risk, nursing, care, love and respect. Children who do not receive these essentials will not make it. Children who do not receive wireless tablets and mobile phones will still grow up to become responsible and loving citizens – this you do not have to be worried about.

Today, various wireless devices are literally flooding our homes, schools and workplaces. And there is a lot to be concerned about. Common people are not at all sure that this radiation is harmless; they are not at all sure that wireless technology is without risk. To this we can add a massive number of studies and reports, expert opinions and statements which in summary say there is a “strong suspicion of possible damage”.

The Precautionary Principle and market-matched guidelines

sar plastic head
Our “safety” agencies ignore thousands of published studies – and use this instead.

These texts also point out the urgent need to use the “Precautionary Principle” — and even more so since 2011 when the WHO has classified “radiofrequency electromagnetic fields” as a possible carcinogen (2B). So, we can immediately exclude that all of this technology is safe, since the WHO does not believe so either. (There is a classification for such exposures; “Class 4 – proven non-human-carcinogen”.) The question is: just how big is the risk, and what do we believe this risk may cost us in the form of medical care, disability and premature death.

In biomedical research, we could very quickly find that the current limits do not meet the requirements for protection of the population. The current “limits” are solely based on “acute thermal effects” and conducted in laboratories with “phantom heads”, i.e. fluid-filled plastic dummy heads.

At a meeting in London in 2008 at the venerable Royal Society (the world’s premier scientific society) professor Paolo Vecchia, head of the ICNIRP, the body that launched these recommended “limits”, said that they were never intended as medical or health safety limits.

He said what the “exposure guidelines” are not, and I quote:

“They are not mandatory prescriptions for safety”…
“They are not the last word on the issue”…
“They are not defensive walls for industry or others.”

It is a shame that the world’s radiation protection authorities, health authorities, parliaments and governments do not understand this simple and clear answer, but persist to refer to the ICNIRP technical recommendations when alleging “safety”.

Biologically adapted regulation codes are non-existent

We scientists have — since long ago — demanded biological-based regulatory codes and regulations, and I also demanded an investigation into the safe exposure limitations (i.e. actual safety guidelines). One could equally early say that “low-intensity (non-thermal) bio-effects and adverse health effects do occur at levels significantly below the existing safety limits. And that “the current recommendations for the general population are inadequate and obsolete with respect to prolonged low-intensity exposures.”

We also demanded that the Precautionary Principle must be adopted to protect life, this foremost for our children. Should it, on the other hand, have appeared that this principle had been abundantly applied, no harm would have been made. (On the contrary, one dare not even think of the opposite scenario.) And please note, I do not suggest that food is taken from the children, nor their drinking water or the air they breathe — only that we should be cautious in dealing with strong radiation sources.

Both the European Parliament and the Council of Europe have listened to this. In 2011, the European Council, in its Resolution No. 1815: The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment, noted the following:

“The precautionary principle should be applied when scientific evaluation does not allow the risk to be determined with sufficient certainty. Given the context of growing exposure of the population, in particular that of vulnerable groups such as young people and children, there could be extremely high human and economic costs if early warnings are neglected.”

The resolution goes on to say:

“…for children in general, and particularly in schools and classrooms, give preference to the wired Internet connections, and strictly regulate the use of mobile phones by school children on school premises.”

Various so-called “official expert reports” have been presented. These conclude that there is no cause for concern. It makes me very worried. This would mean that all the thousands of papers published on very serious side-effects of electromagnetic radiation fields — in fully accredited scientific journals — must then all be wrong. Can this be true?

Unlikely that all cautionary scientists are wrong

That 10 separate research results are wrong has a probability factor of less than 1/10,000,000,000.  That everyone is wrong has such a small probability range that we even lack an everyday math term for it — but the different “expert groups” do not pay attention to this fact. They have instead rejected all of the science produced by all of these publishers, reviewers, and hard-working scientists.

I would welcome a public examination where each rejected publication is accounted for and explained, bit-by-bit, line-by-line, where the risk deniers show us all exactly where and in what way the scientist teams have made a mistake. (A few years ago, I asked the then respective Swedish ministers responsible to send me such a briefing, paper-by-paper. However, I received no information back, whatsoever.)

I am extremely concerned by the fact that critically-examining research rarely receives grants anymore. Since the so-called “experts” claim there is zero risk, it is reasonable to expect this claim to withstand scrutiny. In research, all roads leads to Rome – so in that case, will eventually all researchers then, including the so-called ‘ whistleblowers ‘, conclude that it is safe to live your entire life with a 24-hours-per-day, full-body radiation exposure wherever you are?

Until the scientific community comes to truth, we must be aware and vigilant. We are exposed to radiation a million billion (1,000,000,000,000,000) times (or more!) stronger than our natural background radiation. And the results published in the biomedical literature are, in many cases, extremely scary. It is obvious that bees and ants understand this and therefore flee when exposed. But why do not us humans do the same? Why do we just stay put, talking about it?

Children are the most important resource to every generation. We all have a shared responsibility to protect children. We also have an equal responsibility for all ants, bees and tomato plants — now and in the future. No one can renounce his or her personal responsibility. One cannot refer to various official reports or set up so-called “defensive walls”, and believe that this would protect from present or future moral-ethical responsibility. Never!

Every man and woman must stand up for life. If we do not, the consequences can be dire. Things are moving quickly, for it seems that bees and ants have already given up. It is serious. We need them. And we need to protect all life.

Source article: http://newsvoice.se/2014/10/14/experter-och-lakare-varnar-gravida-kvinnor-och-barn-bor-ej-utsattas-for-mobiltelefoni-och-wifi/
Text: Dr. Olle Johansson, Associate Professor, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm
Translation: Dr. Olle Johansson, Sven-Albert: Olofsson and Josh del Sol

Josh del Sol Beaulieu

Josh del Sol Beaulieu is the creator of Take Back Your Power, a documentary about 'smart' meters which won the AwareGuide Transformational Film of the Year, the Indie Fest Annual Humanitarian Award, and a Leo Award. In 2017, Josh co-founded InPower Movement, pioneering a process using commercial liability to halt harmful technology such as 'smart' meters, 5G and mandatory vaccinations. Josh is passionate about human rights, consciousness, decentralized energy, safe technology and being a dad.

View all posts

35 comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • Olle is quite obviously mistaken in his belief that observations of purported effects on flies and tomatoes can be extrapolated into adverse health effects on human beings. Furthermore, anyone who is aware on the effects of an electric chair and observed a kitchen microwave oven, can certainly understand that electrical energy has biological effects. With sufficient energy, this can be harmful or even deadly. This is not a controversial question. At the same time, typical exposures in moderation – from appliances, artificial light, wireless devices and THE SUN, are not known to cause harm. And, of course even thinking causes biological effects. So, this on it’s own is proof of nothing!

    There is no conspiracy to hide the ‘truth’ that Olle preaches about. The real truth is well known by mainstream science authorities. His opinion on hypothetical harmful effects of EMF – built on a weak foundation of outlier studies from other fringe researchers – while not impossible – is certainly quite implausible.

    Get back to us when you have better evidence that includes large samples, well matched controls, appropriate exposure assessment, a dose-response relationship and a proven mechanism.

    Scaremongering rhetoric is not science!

    • OH LOOK We found Derek Ward’s partner in crime. If the American Cancer Society tell us WIRELESS RADIATION BRINGS BACK CANCER, or DT is telling RF is 100% safe, WHO WOULD YOU BELIEVE?
      We proved BC Hydro lied to the BC Center for Disease Control on the June 9th 2011 report with BC Hydro. Who are we going to believe? The doctors at the American Cancer Society or the LIARS at the BCCDC?
      http://www.statimc.ca/downloads/rf-emissions.pdf
      Where are your links DUMMY?????

      How come you won’t stand up for the rights of disabled folks THOMAS?

    • Cancer Shield for Cellphones – June 11, 2001
      http://bit.ly/1h9vDk8

      An article from The Province, a leading Vancouver, B. C. newspaper exposing the fact that cellphone manufacturers have been “quietly” patenting devices to reduce risk of brain tumours. Apparently the project hasn’t been too successful.

      Cell Phone Radiation Lawsuits
      http://bit.ly/1wDLb8q

      Mobile phones can cause brain tumours, court rules
      http://bit.ly/1ehZCqC

      LAWSUIT: Cell Phones Cause Brain Cancer
      http://bit.ly/1DlFsCZ

      Using Cell Phone Causes Up to 30 Times Cancer Risk
      http://bit.ly/1DlGNcS

      NEW Urgent Warning to All Cell Phone Users
      http://bit.ly/1jM42YB

      You Don’t Deserve Brain Cancer. You Deserve The Facts.
      http://bit.ly/10vwiYL

    • Ignorance and corruption leads to scaremongering.There is not one,i repeat,not one independent study that says cellphones are safe.

    • Bring me ONE,i repeat ONE independent study that says cellphones are safe.
      Answer the following:why are the brain tumor stats in Denmark/Sweden wrong?
      Why was Professor Hardell’s research blocked from being forwarded to the WHO?
      Are their any persons on the advisoray boards to the WHO that have major conflicts of interest?
      Are their any persons on the advisory boards to WHO that have always been staunch deniers of the fact that cellphones cause brain cancer?
      Do these people have major conflict of interest?
      Were these people working in Sweden/Denmark-where the brain tumors cases were under-reported?
      Are you aware that there is a class action suit underway in Columbia USA,that the industry has managed to stall for almost a decade?It is finally going to trial,and it is a benchmark case.It is the first time EVER that a USA judge has allowed expert witnesses to testify on behalf of the plaintiffs.
      Why is there so little media coverage about this?Are the telecommunication companies concerned that people might start asking questions?


    • The Sun: The radiation emitted by the sun is a natural part of our universe, to which human bodies have adapted over eons. Man-made wireless signals in the microwave range are pulsed, ultra-high frequency emissions, released in bursts, at regular intervals, in very rapid succession. The sun’s radiation does not penetrate buildings, allowing escape from its heat or damaging effects. Further, we can take many precautions to protect ourselves from the sun. Man-made radiation does penetrate buildings, and bodies, leaving no refuge from its damaging effects. The sun goes down at night, allowing the body time to recover and rest whereas microwave radiation from wireless communications in most cases is 24/7.

  • “this on it’s own”…. You mean “its own” not “it’s” …. “it’s” is short for “it is” and does not indicate the possessive.

  • I know another Doubting Thomas and I wonder, why do you call it scaremongering when people raise concerns that are precautionary? Precautionary means to take steps to avoid possible harm before it happens. The purpose is not to be scared or worrisome, it’s to avoid harm to vulnerable people. (= “taking action”, not “being fearful”)

    • Both Derek Ward and DOUBTING THOMAS get paid to use words like.

      If you really think otherwise, you need professional help for your cognitive dysfunction
      So, clearly – talking to yourself is not an issue!
      I have never seen anyone hang in there with that mental midget Zug this long. You’ve earned a tip of the tinfoil hat for your endurance.
      MaybeYes = Idiot.
      Also in the same category is nickel, vinyl, coffee, engine exhaust, talc, carpentry and dozens of other agents that people are in contact with every day. So, what’s your point? Fear and ignorance stands in the way of your understanding that this does not constitute some kind of threat to
      human health.
      Too crazy for words!
      You may want to consider voluntary commitment before you get any worse. I hear there are treatments that offer some hope for folks with your disability.
      Your conclusion of nut case has been quite convincingly confirmed by the most recent incoherent tirade. As if more evidence was really needed!
      I’m guesing a cognitive dysfunction with an unknown cause that they want
      desperately to attribute to something, and focussed on EMF due to the
      extensive anti-wireless propaganda currently in the media. But, this
      person deserves pity rather than scorn – because of their disablity.

      Have a look at DT’s past history. 100% BS and 0% truth. Kind of reminds me of the folks at BC Hydro. Can anyone show me anything that BC Hydro put to print that is even 5% right?

      • Pls go read all the comments on this: Wi-Fi, cellular radiation fears lead to divorce: report
        mybroadband.co.za They also have 2 other articles-cancer is not caused by cellphones,and another one about wi-fi and Coke.
        They also state that contrary to what “certain groups in South Africa are saying’,cellphones do not cause cancer.
        Well,these certain groups in South Africa have informed the South African President ,the Public Protector,etc ,about the following:
        Professor Hardell’s latest research clearly states:cellphones cause brain cancer.
        The South African government has now been informed- the liability lies with them.
        WHO, ICNIRP and the regulating bodies have been informed-the liability lies with them.
        There are no more excuses left.
        The 2 young girls that recently died in America because of brain tumors,had gliomas.Coincidence?
        Read Professor Hardell’s latest research.
        I have requested that the newspaper that published the degrading article about EHS,apologises to all EHS sufferers,including this lady.
        I have seen 3 articles lately depicting EHS sufferers as nuts.Are the telecommunication companies that desperate?

        .

    • Derek Ward and Doubting Thomas;picky,go read their comments on the articles i posted below.Feel free to get in contact with me.

  • Hi DT I have a few questions that you might answer for us.

    #1 What is the distance to compliance from the center of an AMI7 antenna? See, simple questions
    #2 What is the do not install distance for an AMI7 transmitter?
    #3 Why right does the power company have to install a commercial unlicensed radio transmitter on private property?
    #4 What is the maximum E.I.R.P. allowed in the I.S.M. Band.
    #5 What is the maximum transmission range of an AMI7 transmitter.
    #6 How many times does a meshed network smart meter transmit in one day when a truck is blocking the signal.(24 Hours)
    #7 What is the Power Rating (KW) of a 200 amp smart meter?
    #8 Why does a smart meter measure Inrush Current at a higher rate than your old meter?
    #9 How come a smart meter can turn off the customers power for non-payment, yet it doesn’t know when its own ass is on fire and stop the fire?
    #10 How come a smart meter can not detect an electrical bypass?
    #11 How come smart meters “trip” UL approved GFI and AFCI breakers?
    #12 According to the American Cancer Society, *why does a smart meter cause the cancer to return in little children?*
    #13 At what distance is the radiation from a smart meter safe for a homeowner with a deep wire brain implant?
    #14 True or false? A cell phone is 1 watt and a smart meter is 4 watts.
    #15 Why are there no warnings for homeowners with medical implants? Is it *RISK MANAGEMENT?*
    #16 Why is the US Congress worried about our lack of privacy from smart meters?
    #17 Why do power company managers surf the internet and laugh and call
    truthful folks names? (tin foil hat etc)
    #18 Why are only Schneider Electric USA Inc. and Triacta Power Technologies
    smart meters UL approved?
    #19 Why do smart meters come with an FCC warning?
    #20 Why are most meter swaps done *HOT* ?
    #21 Which is safer, a hot swap or with the main breaker turned off?
    I have to stop, I don’t want you to feel overwhelmed, so why don’t you start
    with these simple questions.

  • Quote from Doubting Thomas —————->
    “Get back to us when you have better evidence that includes large samples, well matched controls, appropriate exposure assessment, a dose-response relationship and a proven mechanism.”
    “Scaremongering rhetoric is not science!”

    Why don’t we look at the American Cancer Society and the Scare mongers doctors that work their.

    http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/smart-meters
    Could smart meters cause health problems in cancer survivors?
    While RF exposure might not cause cancer directly, there is concern that cells
    in the body that have been damaged by exposure to some other substance might somehow be more likely to become cancerous when exposed to RF waves. In theory, this might be a concern for cancer patients being treated with ionizing radiation and/or medicines that might cause cancer themselves.

  • Derek ward is a Councillor on Denman Island BC.
    His persona is featured on just about every site that is against anything WiFi or cellular.You really want to wonder why he is so intent on dissing those who object to this recent avalanche of tech that invades all our lives without having a say.

    • I noticed Derek Ward has no brains, just a ton of insults. I have proven BC Hydro has forced the BCCDC to LIE in the June 9th 2011 report and he will never answered me. I wonder why?
      Do I wonder why he is so intent? Who do you think pays for his retirement? The same morons that forced these plastic flammable, spying sources of radiation that KILL disabled folks ON US. How else do you think they got the BCCDC to put that pack of LIES on their website? Did you ever wonder why that pack of lies got pulled? They got caught.

      Have a look for yourself. Go to this web address and download a copy for your own records. NOW you can play a little game I call where is Waldo.
      It is a simple little game played by the LIARS at BC Hydro and the BC Center for Disease Control.
      Many, many other power companies have paid BC Hydro for reports that
      are not 100%, correct, probably not even 5% correct. If BC Hydro will LIE to the doctors, then who else would they LIE to?

      Ge a copy of the original BCCDC report of June 9th 2011.
      http://www.statimc.ca/downloads/rf-emissions.pdf

      Now where is Waldo? Where is Waldo suppose to be? (BC Hydro works yard?) Read what kind of test set did they say he is using, then look at the picture and compare test models.
      Check out the tables of RF levels. Waldo places the test set probe on the
      smart meter and gets NO RF READINGS. NO READINGS, REALLY? Did you look at the trace on his test set? That looks like 1 watt to me.
      Now, download this copy http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId=000000000001021126
      Now jump to page 9-17
      YAAAA, We found Waldo. Same test set, same smart meter same display
      readings on both the test set and Smart meter. EPRI report was dated
      Dec 2010 and the BCCDC report is dated June 9th, 2011 6 months later and the power consumption is the SAME????
      Can you spot how may other mistakes there are?

      Why would BC Hydro force the BCCDC to test a smart meter with the transmitter TURNED OFF??
      I think there should be criminal charge for lying to the citizens of BC. What do you think?

    • How did I get involved in this discussion? Until now I have made no comments here.I am so glad to hear I am a councillor on Denman Island? Wrong island and wrong job – close though – I live on Hornby Island and walk dogs in my retirement. I often counsel the dogs to behave though. You are a typical anti technology nutter though – can’t get even the simplest facts straight.

        • Frederique, we’ll have to moderate that last comment. Please refrain from ad hominem or personal attacks. In ALL cases, especially when trying to spread awareness, we’ve found such communications don’t do any good.

          • Did you catch the fact BC Hydro and the BCCDC were caught using a wrong test set to measure the radiation from a smart meter? Did you catch the fact they allowed others to use this false document? Did you catch the facts the doctors in BC were fed this false document? Why did they do that?

            Fix the link
            tinyurl dot com forward slash pq9e4ok

            Table 1 readings Smart meter
            Front of meter, 20 cm from surface = NO READINGS
            Front of meter, 100cm from the surface = NO READINGS
            Top of meter at contact = NO READINGS
            West, at contact = NO READINGS
            East, at contact = NO READINGS
            Table 1 readings COLLECTORS
            Peak of the antenna = NO READINGS
            Middle of antenna = NO READINGS
            Bottom of the antenna = NO READINGS

            Check the specs for Raham Model #40 and see if it will measure a FHSS signal?

          • You only moderated one of his comments? Must have been really bad considering some of his other comments. FZ is the latest alias of a well known troll.

          • Well well Derek Ward Have you come back again to confirm BC Hydro and the BCCDC tech’s are soo stupid, they used a Raham model 40 test set? Care to debate the June 9th, 2011 report where both parties LIED to the citizens of BC.
            You think you are an expert, perhaps we can have your side TROLL? You did well on the Broadband story in South Africa. What was the headlines you had to comment on? Wi-Fi, cellular radiation fears lead to divorce: report A Cape Town businessman is divorcing his wife because of her massive fear of Wi-Fi and cellular radiation.
            May I reprint some of you comments? These comments really shine on your sunnier side?

            Derek Ward responds to Ranting Rapter Liew “It is also called Idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF). It is the latest fad in the psychosomatic self diagnosed diseases.”
            Derek Ward responds to Veronica “So do you make your kids sleep in a box covered in tin foil too? “
            Derek Ward reponds to Wilma Miles “The truth is valid defense to libel – she IS mad.”
            Derek Ward responds to Wilam Miles “Think of the children, think of the children – silly argument.”
            Derek Ward responds to Wilma Miles “What other nutbar conspiracy theories do you subscribe to?”

          • Derek Ward said, ” Must have been really bad considering some of his other comments.” Yes Derek, having BC Hydro and the BCCDC file the report of June 9th 2011 to the doctors in BC and the citizens of BC is “REALLY BAD”
            How about the words CRIMINAL?
            Jump in and debate with me Derek Ward, can you do that Derek????????????

  • A friend used the cornet RF meter to check her baby monitor. The wireless monitor readings were as bad or worse than her cordless phone. Bad enough to put the baby down the hall alone in a room, but now its being subjected to high levels of radiation as you “monitor” it.

    • YES Zavier They are not good. Let’s have a quick look.
      Baby monitors have a ranger of 60 meters.
      Cordless phones have a range of 60 meters.
      BC Hydro’s smart meter has a ranger of 27,000 meters.
      BUT distance also plays into this equation. Think of RF radiation as a campfire. What happens if the campfire is 10cm’s from your hand? It burns.
      What happens if the campfire is 2 kilometers away, nothing happens.

      Why do you think it is so dangerous for a homeowner with an implanted medical device and be near a smart meter? That is why the manufacture has issued a DO NOT INSTALL distance of 20cm’s. Did you know that? Just remember, the danger lessens when the distance is increased. So be careful out there.

  • Rather than argue points regarding the tin foil hat trick and other slap shots offered by a failed and confused economic paradigm, let’s just focus on this quote from the PubMed Abstract sited: [“Ants can be used as bio-indicators to reveal biological effects of electromagnetic waves from some wireless apparatus.”]

    Here’s the comment: [“At present, it is not realistic to expect that wireless communication will decrease or disappear within the near future.”]

    Question: Why not??? Answer: A dangerous and demented military/industrial complex is now in control of our planet’s future. Plenty of cash flow and “communications” excitement all around, but we still have tens of millions of human beings dying from STARVATION every year.

    Question: Could something be wrong with this picture??? Erm…

    Well… We obviously need more air travel, military geniuses, World Health and Death Organizations, and enhanced industrial output to balance out the extinctions mentioned in this recent study:

    [“To provide perspective on how far along we are regarding runaway ACD, another recent study shows that the planet’s wildlife population is less than half the size it was four decades ago. The culprits are both ACD and unsustainable human consumption, coupling to destroy habitats faster than previously thought, as biodiversity loss has now reached “critical levels,” according to the report. More than half of the vertebrate population on the planet has been annihilated in just four decades.”]
    http://truth-out.org/news/item/26909-as-casualties-mount-scientists-say-global-warming-has-been-hugely-underestimated

    Maybe all these technological glory hounds and corporate/mafia types have kinda lost the thread of what human survival actually entails, eh???

    There is still an off switch on most electronic devices, and geoengineering is not a good idea for things that want to stay alive. Turn the off switch on. Throw ALL electronic trash away. Ground all nonessential aircraft. Buy a good quality hoe and a shovel. Gift it to the next jerk who tries to sell you some stupid electronic widget from their failing Chinese widget factory. Maybe they could learn how to grow tomatoes, instead of enslaving their own children for profit…

    • See the comments on this Wi-Fi, cellular radiation fears lead to divorce: report
      mybroadband.co.za:Also see their articles stating cellphones do not cause cancer,and their article about Coke and wi-fi.Feel free to inbox me.

  • Thanks for any other informative blog. The place else may
    just I am getting that kind of information written in such an ideal method?
    I’ve a project that I am simply now running on,
    and I have been at the look out for such info.