CHECK OUT OUR SPECIAL OFFER

PAGE

What is RF/EMF radiation and how big is the danger

  • 9 min read

What is RF/EMF radiation and how big is the danger

If you're here, you’ve probably already heard about cell phone radiation, but you may not know what RF/EMF radiation is. This is perfectly normal, and we applaud you for wanting to learn and take responsibility for your own health, moreover, we’re here to help you in that very endeavor.

Radio waves and microwaves are forms of electromagnetic energy that are collectively described by the term “radiofrequency” (“RF”). The phenomenon of radio waves and microwaves moving through space is described as “RF radiation. We often associate the term “radiation” with the term “radioactivity.” “Radioactivity,” however, refers only to the emission of radiation with enough energy to strip electrons from atoms.

That kind of radiation is called “ionizing radiation.” It can produce molecular changes and damage biological tissue and DNA. Fortunately, RF radiation is “non-ionizing,” meaning that it is not sufficiently energetic to strip electrons from atoms. It can, however, heat certain kinds of materials, like food in your microwave oven or, at sufficiently high levels, human body tissue.

Biological effects that result from the heating of body tissue by RF energy are referred to as “thermal” effects and are known to be harmful. Exposure to lower levels of RF radiation might also cause other, “non-thermal” biological effects. Phones transmit tiny electromagnetic radiation waves when you make a call, send an SMS, check emails or search for directions.

RADIATION ISSUE TAKEN TO THE COURT

It s very disappointing that The Federal Communications Commission last updated its limits for RF exposure in 1996. These limits are designed to protect against “thermal effects” of exposure to RF radiation, but not “non-thermal” effects. In March 2013, the Commission issued a notice of inquiry regarding the adequacy of its 1996 guidelines. The Commission divided its notice of inquiry into sections:

  1. It sought comment on the propriety of its exposure limits for RF radiation, particularly as they relate to device use by children.
  2. The Commission sought comments on how to better provide information to consumers and the public about exposure to RF radiation and methods for reducing exposure.
  3. The Commission sought comment on whether it should impose additional precautionary restrictions on devices and facilities that are unlikely to expose people to RF radiation over the limits set by the Commission’s guidelines.
  4. The Commission sought comment on whether it should change its methods for determining whether devices and facilities comply with the Commission’s guidelines.

The Commission explained that it was issuing the notice of inquiry in response to changes in the use of wireless devices and scientific standards and research since 1996.

The Commission noted that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (“IARC”) had classified RF radiation as possibly carcinogenic to humans, and was likely to release a detailed monograph regarding that classification before the resolution of the notice of inquiry.

Despite this, the Commission issued a final decision in December 2019, concluding its 2013 notice of inquiry and refusing to implement any of the measures outlined in the notice of inquiry. Why go to all this trouble in order to end up changing absolutely nothing? This is a question that concerned many...

In January 2020, Petitioners Environmental Health Trust, Consumers for Safe Cell Phones, Elizabeth Barris, and Theodora Scarato timely petitioned the US Court of Appeals For The District of Columbia Circuit for a review of the Commission’s 2019 final order. They were followed by many others who were not happy with the order.

Petitioners argued that

  1. The order fails to acknowledge evidence of negative health effects caused by exposure to RF radiation at levels below the limits set by the Commission’s 1996 guidelines, including evidence of cancer, radiation sickness, and adverse effects on sleep, memory, learning, perception, motor abilities, prenatal and reproductive health, and children’s health.
  2. The order fails to respond to comments concerning environmental harm caused by RF Radiation.
  3. The order fails to discuss the implications of long-term exposure to RF radiation, exposure to RF pulsation or modulation (two methods of imbuing radio waves with information), and the implications of technological developments that have occurred since 1996, including the ubiquity of wireless devices and Wi-Fi, and the emergence of “5G” technology.
  4. The order fails to adequately explain the Commission’s refusal to modify its procedures for determining whether cell phones comply with its RF limits.
  5. The order fails to respond to various “additional legal considerations.”

Petitioners cite numerous studies and reports that were released after 1996 and are included in the administrative record, claiming that they demonstrate that RF radiation at levels below the Commission's current limits causes adverse health effects unrelated to cancer, like reproductive issues and neurological issues that range from effects on memory to motor skills. They also mention the 200 or so comments made by individuals who told the Commission that they or a member of their family had radiation sickness, which is defined as “a constellation of mainly neurological symptoms that manifest as a result of RF exposure.”

The FDA's conclusion that RF radiation exposure at levels below the Commission's current limitations has no harmful effects on health is used by the Commission to support its claim that its order sufficiently addressed this evidence.

One of the FDA statements from the order is as follows:

“As part of our commitment to protecting the public health, the FDA has reviewed and will continue to review many sources of scientific and medical evidence related to the possibility of adverse health effects from radiofrequency energy exposure in both humans and animals and will continue to do so as new scientific data are published. Based on our ongoing evaluation of the issue, the totality of the available scientific evidence continues to not support adverse health effects in humans caused by exposures at or under the current radiofrequency energy exposure limits.”

In their August 13, 2021 decision, The United States Court of Appeals for the district of the Columbia circuit states:

“We do not agree that these statements provide a reasoned explanation for the Commission’s decision to terminate its notice of inquiry. Rather, we find them to be of the conclusory variety that we have previously rejected as insufficient to sustain an agency’s refusal to initiate a rulemaking.”

The Commission also argues that its order provided a reasoned explanation for its decision to terminate the notice of inquiry, despite Petitioners’ evidence, by observing that “no expert health agency expressed concern about the Commission’s RF exposure limits” and that “no evidence has moved our sister health and safety agencies to issue substantive policy recommendations for strengthening RF exposure regulation.”

The court, however, thought that the silence of other expert agencies does not constitute a reasoned explanation for the Commission’s decision to terminate its notice of inquiry for the same reason that the FDA’s conclusory statements do not constitute a reasoned explanation: silence does not indicate why the expert agencies determined, in light of evidence suggesting to the contrary, that exposure to RF radiation at levels below the Commission’s current limits does not cause negative health effects unrelated to cancer. Silence does not even indicate whether the expert agencies made any such determination, or whether they considered any of the evidence in the record.

THE FINAL STATEMENT OF THE JUDGE

WILKINS, Circuit Judge: “For the reasons given above, we grant the petitions in part and remand to the Commission to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation unrelated to cancer. It must, in particular, provide a reasoned explanation for its decision to retain its testing procedures for determining whether cell phones and other portable electronic devices comply with its guidelines, addresses the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure to RF radiation, the ubiquity of wireless devices, and other technological developments that have occurred since the Commission last updated its guidelines, and address the impacts of RF radiation on the environment.”

Although the court was unable to assist the petitioners in receiving their answers, it did begin a discussion that has been thought about by many but forgotten quickly, because our day-to-day conveniences lay within our cell phones, and we’re not ready to give that up yet, even for our health.

But what if we don’t have to give them up? What if there’s a way to use our cell phones safely? Well, before I respond, let's take a deeper look at the risks posed by RF/EMF radiation since, believe it or not, many people will still be skeptical at this point.

THE INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER

You might have noticed IARC aka the International Agency for Research on Cancer come up before in this article. We must examine what the scientists had to say in light of their experiments and study, as their opinions in this matter are far more important than those of the politicians and the court.

In May 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) evaluated cancer risks from radiofrequency (RF) radiation. Studies on human epidemiology have shown an elevated risk for gliomas and acoustic neuromas. RF radiation was identified as a Group 2B carcinogen that may cause human cancer. Additional animal, mechanistic, and epidemiological investigations have strengthened the relationship. The working group came to the conclusion that Group 2B, or a "potential," human carcinogen, status applies to RF radiation from sources that emit non-ionizing RF radiation in the frequency range of 30 kHz to 300 GHz. These results have been supported by further research, which strengthens the case.

Several laboratory studies have indicated mechanisms of action for RF radiation carcinogeneses such as DNA repair, oxidative stress, down-regulation of mRNA, and DNA damage with single strand breaks. A report was released from The National Toxicology Program (NTP) under the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the USA on the largest ever animal study on cell phone RF radiation and cancer. An increased incidence of glioma in the brain and malignant schwannoma in the heart was found in rats. Acoustic neuroma or vestibular schwannoma is a similar type of tumor as the one found in the heart, although benign. Thus, this animal study supported human epidemiological findings on RF radiation and brain tumor risk.

The IARC cancer classification includes all sources of RF radiation. The exposure from mobile phone base stations, Wi-Fi access points, smartphones, laptops, and tablets can be long-term, sometimes around the clock, both at home and at school. For children, this risk may be accentuated because of a cumulative effect during a long lifetime of use. Developing and immature cells can also be more sensitive to exposure to RF radiation.

Despite the IARC evaluation, little has happened to reduce exposure to RF fields in most countries. On the contrary, with new technology increasing environmental exposure levels are found in measurements of ambient RF radiation.

The basis for limiting exposure according to ICNIRP: 'Only established effects were used as the basis for the proposed exposure restrictions. Induction of cancer from long-term EMF exposure was not considered to be established, and so these guidelines are based on short-term, immediate health effects such as stimulation of peripheral nerves and muscles, shocks and burns caused by touching conducting objects, and elevated tissue temperatures resulting from absorption of energy during exposure to EMF. In the case of potential long-term effects of exposure, such as an increased risk of cancer.

Now, let’s get back to the question the answer to which can give us hope:

WHAT IF THERE’S A WAY TO USE OUR CELL PHONES SAFELY?



We're delighted to let you know that there is a solution, and it comes in the form of a chip that you can easily attach to the back of your phone, cover with a case, and completely forget about. However, the chip won't forget about you and will give you the only protection available. This chip is called Bodywell.

You’ve probably seen some anti-radiation phone cases, emf sleeves, or stickers that claim to block radiation and shield you from it. However, none of them can be supported by scientific evidence. The only cell phone radiation mitigation method that has been proved by science is the Bodywell Chip. And rather than blocking, it has been shown to significantly lessen the body's absorption of cell phone radiation without affecting your phone's reception.

A trade secret technology (Mobiletek) was used to make the Bodywell chip. It is the only technological advancement in existence that consistently reduces radiation absorption in the body. The precise parts that make up the chip are all created and produced in Switzerland at the highest standards. The chip is tested to consistently deliver effective results, much like a high-end timepiece that demands an extraordinary level of precision.

HOW DOES THE BODYWELL CHIP WORK?

As you can see, this chip uses a revolutionary technique to offer you maximal safety.

In order to demonstrate the capability of the Bodywell Chip, measurements were conducted in the reputable “RF Exposure Lab” in accordance with FCC regulations. In this experiment, the SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) was measured using different phones. The Bodywell Chip was then attached to these tested phones and the measurement was repeated. The difference between the measurements is then presented as the reduction of radiation obtained by the chip. 

Radiation reduction ranged from 60% to 80% among different phones. It is important to note that the Bodywell Chip didn’t influence the phones’ communication performance.

Additional experiments were done with a placebo chip with the same characteristics as the Bodywell Chip without implementing the Bodywell technology. In these experiments, the SAR measurements remained as if no chip was attached.

The experiment shows that simply attaching the Bodywell Chip to the phone will significantly reduce radiation absorption to the head.



In conclusion: The danger of RF/EMF radiation is quite big and those of us who can’t afford to wait for the world to catch up on this information, need to act now. But let's use this knowledge carefully and refrain from pursuing solutions that have no proven track record of success. As you now know, the Bodywell Chip is the only device that has been scientifically shown to be capable of protecting your body from radiation. Use it to protect yourself and your family today!

Search