Study, ‘LOW SAR’ Non-Thermal Wireless Radiation Levels Can Be MORE Dangerous.


FCC GUIDELINES  “SAR LEVELS” ARE HELPING TO PERPETUATE THE BIGGEST SCAMS OF ALL TIME!

The cell phone industry’s lack of trustworthy oversight allows — wireless corporations, investment bankers and world’s largest technology friendly law-firms behind cell phone case manufactures like the Pong Case to claim — legitimacy in specific absorption rate testing.  Lining their pockets while hiding the truth!

But, there is absolutely NO evidence that reducing SAR levels will reduce health hazards!  More alarming is the most recent news to be buried online proves just the opposite.  This means that much lower intensities at high frequencies promote faster tumor growth.

This isn’t ‘Pseudoscience’, this is the latest research out from just two weeks ago, published, replicated and peer reviewed research that clearly shows that by lowering SAR Levels to below acceptable FCC guidelines DOES NOT keep your family safe from body-worn or hand-held devices that emit wireless radiation.  RFR hazards are now very evident at below thermal levels!

This latest research further supports why over the last 17 years, RF Safe has strongly been against this awful red herring fallacy being used as a safety standard by the FCC to regulate wireless devices that transmit wireless radiation in close proximity to a persons body.

This includes all wireless devices, and the newest wearable computers too.  For instance after New York Times writer, Nick Bilton, published this weeks most proactive, yet provocative headline “Could Wearable Computers Be as Harmful as Cigarettes?“.  The pro-wireless industry “profits before people columnist”, attacked the NYT writer’s quoted source and most quack-pot naysayers relied heavily on wearable computers being less a risk because they emit lower radiation levels within the FCC safety guidelines.

It’s presumable that all this recent controversy was started by the wireless industry to bury the real news. News on research that proves in all reality comparing wireless radiation to smoking has substantial creditability.

Ok, let’s bring naysayers and pro-wireless industry “profits before people” columnist back to reality.

YES, REAL SCIENCE SUGGEST WEARABLE COMPUTERS COULD BE AS HARMFUL AS CIGARETTES!

As it turns out, the newest peer reviewed study, available online March 6 2015, published in The Journal Of Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, titled “Tumor promotion by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields below exposure limits for humans” , (Study Excerpt) is a replication of an earlier experiment, also from Germany, that found weaker cell phone radiation signals can promote a much faster growth of tumors in mice.

This replicated research PROVES that wireless radiation levels DO NOT have to cause cellular heating (thermal vs non-thermal radiation) to show causation of cancer.  The latest peer reviewed study used SARs of 0.04 W/Kg which falls far below current safety standards in every country in the entire world and equates closer to cell phone tower exposure than direct high intensity microwave radiation exposure from a Smartphone handset or wearable wireless device.

The USA’s maximum SAR is 1.60 W/Kg, and now keep in mind that these studies were done with SAR levels at 0.04 W/Kg.  The lowest SAR phones on the market still emit thousands of time more radiation than in these control studies and one of the most popular smartphone’s in the world today, the iPhone 6 Plus has a Simultaneous Usage Rating SAR of 1.59 – that’s only .01 under the legal limit.

“NO” SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) RATING Can Be Called Safe!

To Do So Is Bad Science, Bad Judgment & Recklessly Endangering Lives!

“Complicating matters even further, lower doses were often found to be more effective tumor promoters than higher levels; in effect, turning the conventional concept of a linear dose-response on its head.” – Alex Lerchl

Microwave News point out that the lead author of this study, Alex Lerchl, has been very skeptical of any science showing low level RF effects, but has since changed his stance. “Once accused of being an industry lackey Lerchl is now being hailed as a hero”.  He’s being hail a hero, because people like Jimmy Gonzalez only spent 30 minutes a day on cell phones rated as safe under today’s outdated SAR standards.  We highly recommend you watch this video.

“Lerchl has shown that mice exposed in the womb with a known cancer agent, ENU, and then exposed to a UMTS cell phone signal had significantly higher rates of tumors of the liver and the lung, as well as of lymphoma than with ENU alone.”

In 2010 Thomas Tillman did a study, the predecessor of Lerchl’s own study, and the results found that 3G radiation promotes tumors. The study was regarded as significant, but largely forgotten about and ignored. Lerchl’s study which included a larger testing group offers us an insight into the technology we mistakenly regard as safe.

“Lerchl found higher rates of cancer among mice exposed to SARs of 0.04 W/Kg, 0.4 W/Kg and 2 W/Kg —and in some cases, the lower the dose, the more cancer. For instance, he saw a higher incidence of lymphoma at the two lower doses than at 2 W/Kg, as shown in the histogram taken from his paper, which has been accepted for publication in Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications: Lerchl Lymhoma.

Image from Lerchl’s BBRC paper, Figure 1; “**” indicates that the result is significant at p<0.01.

“Our results show that electromagnetic fields obviously enhance the growth of tumors,” says Lerchl in a press release issued by Jacobs University in Bremen, where he is a professor of biology.

For years Lerchl was at the forefront of the big industry propaganda machine saying that RF radiation did not cause cancer, or have any ill health effects. Now, Lerchl’s study has become one of the biggest problems for the telecom industry.  A once skeptic and denouncer of RF hazards, Lerchl has catapulted the notion that we only have “limited evidence” right to the forefront of science.  We, most undoubtedly now, have evidence that even small doses of radiation can cause harm – and this doesn’t exclude wearable computers.

This study, along with many others that are coming, or those that have already shown dangers relating to RF exposure, will help change the industry sooner than later.   At the moment the current standards of safety in the cellular communications industry are unacceptable and borderline criminal. The consumer and their children should not be used as guinea pigs the same way big tobacco used American citizens.

The lack of true humanitarianism by big tobacco should not be the standards by which we allow the wireless industry to follow. We the people will not stand for anything less than the absolute truth and we will continue to fight for REAL safety regulations and the safest wireless technology that protects humanity from excessive RF exposure FCC GUIDELINES “SAR LEVELS” ARE HELPING TO PERPETUATE THE BIGGEST SCAMS OF ALL TIME!

The cell phone industry’s lack of trustworthy oversight allows — wireless corporations, investment bankers and world’s largest technology friendly law-firms behind cell phone case manufactures like the Pong Case to claim — legitimacy in specific absorption rate testing. Lining their pockets while hiding the truth!

But, there is absolutely NO evidence that reducing SAR levels will reduce health hazards! More alarming is the most recent news to be buried online proves just the opposite. This means that much lower intensities at high frequencies promote faster tumor growth.

This isn’t ‘Pseudoscience’, this is the latest research out from just two weeks ago, published, replicated and peer reviewed research that clearly shows that by lowering SAR Levels to below acceptable FCC guidelines DOES NOT keep your family safe from body-worn or hand-held devices that emit wireless radiation. RFR hazards are now very evident at below thermal levels!

This latest research further supports why over the last 17 years, RF Safe has strongly been against this awful red herring fallacy being used as a safety standard by the FCC to regulate wireless devices that transmit wireless radiation in close proximity to a person’s body.

This includes all wireless devices, and the newest wearable computers too. For instance after New York Times writer, Nick Bilton, published this week’s most proactive, yet provocative headline “Could Wearable Computers Be as Harmful as Cigarettes?“. The pro-wireless industry “profits before people columnist”, attacked the NYT writer’s quoted source and most quack-pot naysayers relied heavily on wearable computers being less a risk because they emit lower radiation levels within the FCC safety guidelines.

It’s presumable that all this recent controversy was started by the wireless industry to bury the real news. News on research that proves in all reality comparing wireless radiation to smoking has substantial creditability.

Ok, let’s bring naysayers and pro-wireless industry “profits before people” columnist back to reality.

YES, REAL SCIENCE SUGGEST WEARABLE COMPUTERS COULD BE AS HARMFUL AS CIGARETTES!

As it turns out, the newest peer reviewed study, available online March 6 2015, published in The Journal Of Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, titled “Tumor promotion by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields below exposure limits for humans” , (Study Excerpt) is a replication of an earlier experiment, also from Germany, that found weaker cell phone radiation signals can promote a much faster growth of tumors in mice.

This replicated research PROVES that wireless radiation levels DO NOT have to cause cellular heating (thermal vs non-thermal radiation) to show causation of cancer. The latest peer reviewed study used SARs of 0.04 W/Kg which falls far below current safety standards in every country in the entire world and equates closer to cell phone tower exposure than direct high intensity microwave radiation exposure from a Smartphone handset or wearable wireless device.

The USA’s maximum SAR is 1.60 W/Kg, and now keep in mind that these studies were done with SAR levels at 0.04 W/Kg. The lowest SAR phones on the market still emit thousands of time more radiation than in these control studies and one of the most popular smartphone’s in the world today, the iPhone 6 Plus has a Simultaneous Usage Rating SAR of 1.59 – that’s only .01 under the legal limit.

“NO” SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) RATING Can Be Called Safe!
To Do So Is Bad Science, Bad Judgment & Recklessly Endangering Lives!

“Complicating matters even further, lower doses were often found to be more effective tumor promoters than higher levels; in effect, turning the conventional concept of a linear dose-response on its head.” – Alex Lerchl

Microwave News point out that the lead author of this study, Alex Lerchl, has been very skeptical of any science showing low level RF effects, but has since changed his stance. “Once accused of being an industry lackey Lerchl is now being hailed as a hero”. He’s being hail a hero, because people like Jimmy Gonzalez only spent 30 minutes a day on cell phones rated as safe under today’s outdated SAR standards.

“Lerchl has shown that mice exposed in the womb with a known cancer agent, ENU, and then exposed to a UMTS cell phone signal had significantly higher rates of tumors of the liver and the lung, as well as of lymphoma than with ENU alone.”

In 2010 Thomas Tillman did a study, the predecessor of Lerchl’s own study, and the results found that 3G radiation promotes tumors. The study was regarded as significant, but largely forgotten about and ignored. Lerchl’s study which included a larger testing group offers us an insight into the technology we mistakenly regard as safe.

“Lerchl found higher rates of cancer among mice exposed to SARs of 0.04 W/Kg, 0.4 W/Kg and 2 W/Kg —and in some cases, the lower the dose, the more cancer. For instance, he saw a higher incidence of lymphoma at the two lower doses than at 2 W/Kg, as shown in the histogram taken from his paper, which has been accepted for publication in Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications: Lerchl Lymhoma.

Image from Lerchl’s BBRC paper, Figure 1; “**” indicates that the result is significant at p<0.01.

“Our results show that electromagnetic fields obviously enhance the growth of tumors,” says Lerchl in a press release issued by Jacobs University in Bremen, where he is a professor of biology.

For years Lerchl was at the forefront of the big industry propaganda machine saying that RF radiation did not cause cancer, or have any ill health effects. Now, Lerchl’s study has become one of the biggest problems for the telecom industry. A once skeptic and denouncer of RF hazards, Lerchl has catapulted the notion that we only have “limited evidence” right to the forefront of science. We, most undoubtedly now, have evidence that even small doses of radiation can cause harm – and this doesn’t exclude wearable computers.

This study, along with many others that are coming, or those that have already shown dangers relating to RF exposure, will help change the industry sooner than later. At the moment the current standards of safety in the cellular communications industry are unacceptable and borderline criminal. The consumer and their children should not be used as guinea pigs the same way big tobacco used American citizens.

The lack of true humanitarianism by big tobacco should not be the standards by which we allow the wireless industry to follow. We the people will not stand for anything less than the absolute truth and we will continue to fight for REAL safety regulations and the safest wireless technology that protects humanity from excessive RF exposure.

NYT Can Wireless Wearable Computers Be As Harmful As Cigarettes? Science Says ‘YES’!


The New York Times Folds To Pressure From Trillion Dollar Wireless Industry!

On MARCH 18, 2015 – When the brave award-winning technology columnist, reporter and author of the Disruptions column and New York Times writer, Nick Bilton, compared two by-products, cigarette smoke and wireless radiation from wearable computers, he was instantly deemed a fear monger.

What’s more shocking is the wireless industry’s smear campaign against the NYT based off solely off the writers choice of sources for quotation, which could have been replaced with highly accredited and peer viewed research.

If you follow NYT on Twitter – You might have been shocked by a recent title, but in reality the New York Times did the world a favor releasing an article that suggested wearable electronics like the new Apple Watch might be has harmful as smoking:

TWEET DELETED, WIRELESS INDUSTRY HIDES THE TRUTH AGAIN!

Could Wearable Computers Be as Harmful as Cigarettes?

— NYT Styles (@NYTStyles) March 18, 2015

(Tweet has since been deleted, and no mention of title or story edit)

Seriously?!

But, what was Bilton really trying to tell us prior to the wireless industry pressuring the New York Times into changing the title of the story from — “Could Wearable Computers Be as Harmful as Cigarettes?” to “The Health Concerns in Wearable Tech”.

Well, smart watchers of wireless health hazards from wearable computers, such as Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D. School of Public Health University of California, Berkeley have been keeping an eye on radiation levels from Google Glass (which exceeds SAR levels of some smartphones) and Apple’s soon to be released iWatch announced to compete with Samsung’s Smartwatch is under close watch as well.

RF Safety watchdogs have real scientific evidence, both experimentally and epidemically, to back up the growing concerns from the public’s protest of FCC officials and victim testimony by Florida Attorney Jimmy Gonzalez to elected government officials of dire health effects being linked to low level microwave radiation from wearable wireless devices which may cause tremendous harm to our future generation.

Laws are already warning residents in many cities.  Berkeley CA is the most recent to join a growing number of government officials around the world taking action to protect its citizens.  Canada’s new proposal for wireless radiation safety warnings and France banning WiFi in daycare centers are both good examples of this movement supported by government wireless radiation warnings has gained a lot of traction in 2015.

The comparison has been seen as anti-technology, or speculative based on insignificant evidence. What kind of evidence do we need as humans?

In 2015, if you turn on your television, you may find an advertisement trying to convince you that if you smoke your chances of dying from cancer, or another disease, greatly increases.  The process of warning people about the dangers of cigarettes is non-stop and ongoing, and while cigarettes are a Group 1 carcinogen people still buy, buy, buy… That’s how big money works.  Follow the money, big industry hooks you and then does everything possible to hide the truth of any adverse side effects!

The standard safety measure used by the FCC for cell phones and products the transmit microwaves close to your body goes by the Acronym of SAR  (specific absorption rate), which is critically 17 years outdated.   It has taken less than 10 years for Smartphones to find their way into the hands of almost every human being in the world.  SAR levels are nothing to put faith in — however when shopping for the lowest SAR cell phone — Samsung is the undisputed leader when compared to the almost illegal RF exposure limits pushed by Apple’s iPhone 6 Plus.

There are over 6 billion cell phone subscriptions in the world and today cell phones are pressed to our heads, in our pockets, or in the palm of our hand for most of the day.   More and more cancer victim’s scars are matching the location of their cellphone, and some individuals have had cancer in all three of these common places that a phone makes contact with your body.  Smartphones and their supporting wireless accessories emit radiation which all wireless manufactures warn about in small print to NEVER hold a phone directly against your body in use.

OK, Now Let’s Expose Some Of Industry Spun News Release Sites Used To Confuse Consumers About NYT Story!

Why does slate.com writer Phil Plait call Bilton a fear monger?  Bilton’s initial comparison to the cigarette industry is on point and obviously has people thinking. Well, most people are thinking, but not likely Phil Plait, whose article is negative and uninformative to any reader, one that offers no insight into the modern times we live in. Phil, did you know that children absorb 5 times the amount of radiation as adults?  Quite the difference between facts and fear mongering Phil.   Great job helping the wireless industry mindfully violate the Nuremberg treaty.  Phil Plait, you’re the type of propagandist Hitler would have loved in his quest to perform experimentation on our children.

Children cell phone radiation exposure

One of the last paragraphs, in Bilton’s article, directly informs the reader that children are a high risk group when it comes to all the radiation our products are pouring into the atmosphere.

More Disinformation and Paid for Science

The fact that popularscience.com (or should we say paid for science) references specific absorption rates (SAR) in regards to cell phone products and the new wearable electronics coming to market already makes their case a bit obsolete. SAR rates do not equate to any guaranteed level of safety, Further more SAR test aren’t designed for vulnerabilities unique to unborn babies, women or children, the FCC even admits this in public disclosure of a review comments of its current RF safety guidelines.

The writer, Alexandra Ossola says, “People have been using cell phones for somewhere around 15 years–if they were a strong carcinogen, epidemiologists would have expected to see an uptick in the frequency of brain cancer by now, like they did with lung cancer 15 years after World War I when cigarettes became more common.”

Does she not know that in the year 1900 Buck Duke sold 4.4 billion cigarettes? By the time epidemiologists figured out cigarettes cause cancer the tobacco industry had a paid group of doctors, lawyers, advertising agencies, and government lobbyists. By then it was all too late.

500,000 People will die of lung cancer in 2015 from smoking, but lets look at the trend over the last 100 years that got us to this point and respectfully there isn’t a better analogy for wireless radiation exposure.

■ 1900: RESEARCH: Brosch experiments with tobacco carcinogenesis on guinea pigs

■ 1900: REGULATION: Washington, Iowa, Tennessee and North Dakota have outlawed the sale of cigarettes.

■ 1900: CONSUMPTION: 4.4 billion cigarettes are sold this year.  Buck Duke is selling 9 out of 10 cigarettes in the US.

When viewing the chart below, one must consider we are in a time very similar to 1914 statistics related to deaths attributed to smoking when compared to deaths from cell phone radiation exposure today. But what about a 100 years from now?

Reported Deaths From Smoking In The US Only!

 Year: Deaths

1914: 400

1930: 3,000

1940: 7,000

1950: 18,000

1960: 36,000

1965: 50,000

1975: 81,000

Cell phones emit radiation. We need to study the effects of this radiation, as low or insignificant as some would have us believe, while companies like Apple push their products to consumers like doctors once did for cigarettes.

Nick Bilton wasn’t far off in his article. There needs to be more studies in regards to the amount of time we spend with our products, and the effects they have on our bodies. We can’t sit back and be the guinea pigs of the cellular industry, while poor writers spend their time discrediting real journalists, diverting our attention from real issues that we encounter every day.

RF Safe commends Nick Bilton for voicing concern over products that can possibly harm us. We all want to be safe when we use technology, and it’s about time we give a realistic look into all the RF waves we pump into our environment and body.

Lessons from History

Remember that it took decades for the government to respond to the early warnings about tobacco, asbestos, and X-Rays.

However, it may benefit us to take a quick look back at history and learn a lesson.

The tobacco time line:

■ The health effects of tobacco were first debated in 1856 in the medical journal The Lancet

■ Dr. Isaac Adler suggested lung cancer was related to smoking in 1912

■ A British medical journal published a study in 1950 finding that smokers were 50 times more likely to get lung cancer

■ It wasn’t until 1997 that tobacco companies agreed to fund healthcare costs from smoking

The X-Ray time line:

■ Thomas Edison noted injuries from X-Rays in 1896

■ Edison’s assistant died from X-Ray exposure in 1904

■ Fluoroscopes were used in shoe stores to see through shoes to aid proper fitting in 1930

■ The deaths of over 200 radiologists from radioactive cancer were published in 1934

■ Radiation levels of fluoroscopes were questioned in 1949

■ In 1990 the risk of cancer from radiation was found to be five times greater than previously thought

The Asbestos time line:

■ A British factory inspector warned of asbestos harm in 1898

■ Rat studies raised questions about harmful effects of asbestos dust in 1911

■ U.S. insurers refused to cover asbestos worker’s claims in 1918

■ From 1935 to 1949 lung cancer was reported in asbestos workers

■ Asbestos was finally banned in the U.S. in 1989

There is no question that EMR and cell phone radiation is a potential carcinogen.

Lloyd’s of London Insurance Won’t Cover Smartphones – WiFi – Smart Meters – Cell Phone Towers by Excluding ALL Wireless Radiation Hazards


Letter to Government from Sharon Noble – Director of Coalition to Stop Smart Meters in BC Premier Clark, Mr. Bennett and Mr. Reimer

 RE: Lloyd’s of London excludes coverage for claims caused by exposure to non-ionizing radiation.

“Based on inaccurate information provided by ITRON, Health Canada and Dr. Perry Kendall, you have been telling people that there is no health risk due to prolonged exposure to radiation from smart meters on homes and wifi in school — this despite your having received 100s of studies by independent researchers and many letters from scientists and doctors to the contrary.

“I am now forwarding information that should concern you even if the potential health problems these devices cause British Columbians doesn’t. Even though I know that the province and BC Hydro self insure their insurance coverage, I suspect you have a stop loss agreement with protection for catastrophic claims. If this stop loss agreement doesn’t already contain this waiver, soon it no doubt will exclude any claims associated with exposure to radiation from wireless devices such as cell phones, smart meters or wifi. Premier Clark, Mr. Bennett and Mr. Reimer,

“Lloyd’s of London is one of the largest insurers in the world and often leads the way in protection, taking on risks that no one else will. Attached is a recent renewal policy which, as of Feb. 7, 2015, excludes any coverage associated with exposure to non-ionizing radiation. In response to clarification, this response was received on Feb. 18, 2015 from CFC Underwriting LTD, London, UK agent for Lloyd’s:

“‘The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionising radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage.”

Lloyds-Insurance-No-Coverage-For-Wireless-Radiation-Hazards-2015

“This means that the Province (that is we, the taxpayer) will be held liable for claims from teachers and parents of children suffering biological effects from wifi in schools, from homeowners exposed to RF from mandated smart meters on homes, and from employees forced to use cell phones or exposed to wifi at work. Lawsuits in other countries have resulted in huge payments already, and it is only a matter of time before similar lawsuits are filed and won in Canada.

“Potentially those who allow such devices, after having been fully informed about the dangers, could be held liable for negligence, and directors’ insurance may not provide financial protection. Directors’ insurance applies when people are performing their duties “in good faith”. It is hard to argue they are acting “in good faith” after having been warned by true scientific experts and by a well-respected insurer.

“Consider yourself notified once again that you could be held legally responsible for the decisions you have made.”

Yours truly,
Sharon Noble
Victoria, BC.

This is why in other parts of the world, companies like Telstra have taken a very proactive approach to inform millions of their customers on cell phone radiation dangers.  It boils down to the cost involved to insure against health effects!

Telstra reports insurance problems over electromagnetic radiation health hazards.

Sends This Text Message to Millions Of Customers (Full Report)

Telstra reminder message text mobile phone radiation safety tips

Telstra has warned that insurance against any risk associated with electromagnetic radiation exposure is becoming more difficult to obtain as insurers either become less willing to provide cover or charge prohibitive prices.

Telstra acknowledged the insurance issue in the risks section of its annual report, which was released to the public. The company said “while to date we have been able to obtain limited insurance against these risks, the preparedness of insurers to give this type of insurance cover is reducing and even this limited insurance cover may not continue to be economically viable.

“There is actually a risk therefore that an actual or perceived health risk associated with mobile telecommunications equipment could:

■ Lead to litigation against us;

■ Adversely affect us by reducing the number or the growth rate of mobile telecommunications services or lowering usage per customer;

■ Precipitate the imposition of more onerous applicable legal requirements which are more difficult or costly to comply with; or

■ Hinder us in installing new mobile telecommunications equipment and facilities.

Telstra said in a section of the report dealing with information on the company’s operations that it based its position on electromagnetic energy on advice from authorities such as the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency and the World Health Organization.

The insurance debacle over radiation health hazards started over 15 years ago and wireless consumers still haven’t been informed.

Insurers Balk at Risks of Phone Health Hazards

The Observer
Journalist: Sarah Ryle
April 11, 1999

Concern about the safety of mobile phones has prompted a leading Lloyd’s underwriter to refuse to insure phone manufacturers against the risk of damage to users’ health. The move comes amid mounting concern about the industry’s influence on research into the long-term effects of using a mobile. The London market provides insurance for everything from aircraft to footballers’ legs. But fears that mobile phones will be linked to illnesses such as cancer and Alzheimer’s disease have prompted John Fenn, of underwriting group Stirling, to refuse to cover manufacturers against the risk of being sued if mobiles turn out to cause long-term damage.

New research published last week by Bristol University scientist Dr. Alan Preece showed a ‘highly significant’ effect from mobile phone signals on brain function. Some previous studies linked mobiles to increased tumors in rodents, but they have been contradicted by other research. The Government has ordered the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) – responsible for monitoring radiation safety standards in everything from Sellafield to sunlight – to set up an independent group to identify possible areas for research.

Did Cell Phone Radiation Cause Brain Tumor of VP Joe Biden’s Son Beau Biden?


The tragic death of Joseph Robinette “Beau” Biden III, the son of Vice President Biden and former attorney general of Delaware, has put attention on a strong feeling of dejavu when the obvious — that “cell phone radiation does cause brain cancer” — could be responsible for taking the life of another great American public servant.

Cell phone radiation is most likely the source for America’s surge in Brain cancer among politicians who have died at alarming rates since the explosion of wireless communications.

It only took one Google search to reveal 23 potential political occupational brain tumor victims that have died since 1995, the source itself makes a disclaimer it is still incomplete from 1922-2010.  The list separated for comparison (1995) is the year RF Safe’s Founder last held his daughter as a result of a birth defect attributed to RF Radiation exposure.

That’s at least 23 political figures in 15 years that have died from brain cancer during the vast expansion into the wireless age we live today.

But what about the oldest records of political figures that died prior to 1995 of brain tumors before cell phones were standard issue in every Senator’s car, toting their briefcase phones that evolved into today’s common place pocket gadgets and wearable computers – COMPLETELY untested for human safety.

OK, now let’s take into consideration that over the course of 73 years prior to 1995 there were only 13 political deaths related to brain tumors found while two of them may have also been cell phone users in the very late 80’s , early 90’s.

MAKE THE RIGHT CALL! PAY ATTENTION TO THE TRUTH NOT WIRELESS FUNDED PROPAGANDA!

From 1922 to 1995 political figures died of brain cancer at an average rate of 0.178 per year.

From 1995 to date political figures are dying at a rate greater than 1.533 per year.

Single site source, however it’s the largest reference available, simply because the government is not funding wireless researchers — the wireless industry says it isn’t needed and will scare consumers.

Recently Doctors found that people who use cell phones for more than a year had a 70 percent greater risk of brain cancer than those who used the wireless devices for less than a year. The study, published in the International Journal of Oncology, found that people who used mobile phones for more than 25 years had a 300 percent greater risk of developing the dreaded disease than those who used mobile phones for one year or less. The study’s authors concluded that “glioma and also acoustic neuroma are caused by RF-EMF emissions from wireless phones.” EVERY SINGLE ONE of the world’s largest studies – Interphone, Hardell and the recently concluded CERENAT studies have all pointed towards a common risk to increased brain cancer!

WHY NO CELL PHONE WARNINGS AT A FEDERAL LEVEL?

Washington has lost control of the FCC, this is clear from the statements made in-behalf of the CTIA in recent opposition to Berkeley’s Right to Know law to inform consumers of the risk of RF Radiation exposure, passed on May 12th 2015. It is no assumption (see video) that the current FCC chairman and former longtime CEO of the same CTIA organization holds the same position on hiding the truth about cell phone radiation hazards.

America’s political figures were some of the first to adopt wireless technology as a part of their daily lives, and continue to average more minutes of usage than the average cell phone users even today – thus putting them at more risk in a shorter time.

It’s very possible the real numbers of this wireless political graveyard caused from excessive RFR radiation exposure is likely 10 to 100x higher than the list of political figures below whose death’s may have been a direct result of cell phone radiation exposure.

The loss of Beau Biden ever being attributed to cell phone radiation won’t come from any White House press releases – as mentioned the former leader of the wireless industry, Tom Wheeler is now the FCC chairman – appointed by Obama after Wheeler raised a reported 700k plus for Obama/Biden’s reelection.

The son of Vice President Joe Biden had a glioblastoma multiform, or GBM. This all-too-common tumor has been linked to cell phone use.

Another courageous Brain Tumor victim who passed only months ago to the same brain cancer, Jimmy Gonzalez, was also an Attorney like Beau Biden, and they both died of the same cell phone induced brain cancer.  However, campaign contributions weren’t a factor in Jimmy Gonzalez’s life – it was the TRUTH that mattered to him!!

He had the courage to stand up for what was right for the American people — and everyone else around the world!

Hear his full testimony that has forever changed the world’s perception on the safety of wireless technology!

Political Brian Tumor stats seem to speak for themselves, may they all rest in peace, and the truth be revealed!

■ Lucille Moore (Died from Brain Tumor in 1995) – Candidate for mayor of El Cajon, Calif

■ Michael Lynn Synar (Died from Brain Tumor in 1996) — also known as Mike Synar – U.S. Representative from Oklahoma 2nd District, 1979-95

■ Lucille Maurer (Died from Brain Tumor in 1996) — also known as Lucy Maurer; Lucille Shirley Darvin – Maryland state treasurer, 1987-96

■ Frank Mariano Tejeda (Died from Brain Tumor in 1997) — also known as Frank Tejeda – U.S. Representative from Texas 28th District, 1993-97; died in office 1997

■ Ellis Barkett Bodron (Died from Brain Tumor in 1997) – Member of Mississippi state house of representatives

■ Patrick Layton Paulsen (Died from Brain Tumor in 1997) — also known as Pat Paulsen – candidate for Democratic nomination for President, 1996

■ Grace Mary Stern (Died from Brain Tumor in 1998) — also known as Grace Mary Dain – member of Illinois state house of representatives, 1985-93; member of Illinois state senate, 1993-95

■ Frank Xavier Altimari (Died from Brain Tumor in 1998) — also known as Frank X. Altimari – 1982-85; Judge of U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, 1985-96; took senior status 1996.

■ Jeanne Hurley Simon (Died from Brain Tumor in 2000) — also known as Jeanne C. Hurley – member of Illinois state house of representatives

■ Benjamin P. Bettridge (Died from Brain Tumor in 2000) — also known as Ben Bettridge – Washington Republican state chair, 1992

■ David B. Hermelin (Died from Brain Tumor in 2000) – U.S. Ambassador to Norway, 1997-2000

■ Italo S. Cappabianca (Died from Brain Tumor in 2001) — Member of Pennsylvania state house of representatives 2nd District, 1979-2001; died in office 2001.

■ Irma Lerma Rangel (Died from Brain Tumor in 2003) — also known as Irma Rangel – member of Texas state house of representatives, 1977-2003 (49th District 1977-82, 37th District 1983-92, 35th District 1993-2002, 43rd District 2003); died in office 2003

■ Paul Harold Boeker (Died from Brain Tumor in 2003) — also known as Paul H. Boeker — U.S. Ambassador to Jordan, 1984-87

■ E. Carlyle Smith, Jr. (Died from Brain Tumor in 2003) — Texas state house of representatives

■ Robert James Harris (Died from Brain Tumor in 2005) — mayor of Ann Arbor, Mich.

■ Robert E. O’Connor, Jr. (Died from Brain Tumor in 2006) — also known as Bob O’Connor – Mayor of Pittsburgh, Pa., 2006; defeated in primary, 1997, 2001; died in office 2006

■ Robin Leo Beard, Jr. (Died from Brain Tumor in 2007) — also known as Robin L. Beard, Jr. — U.S. Representative from Tennessee 6th District

■ Robert Evander McNair (Died from Brain Tumor in 2007) — also known as Robert E. McNair — South Carolina state house of representatives

■ Elijah Pat Larkins (Died from Brain Tumor in 2009) — also known as E. Pat Larkins — Mayor of Pompano Beach, Fla.

■ Helen Boosalis (Died from Brain Tumor in 2009) – Mayor of Lincoln, Neb., 1975-83; candidate for Governor of Nebraska, 1986

■ Edward Moore Kennedy (Died from Brain Tumor in 2009) — also known as Edward M. Kennedy; Ted Kennedy; “Lion of the Senate” — Senator from Massachusetts, 1962-2009; died in office 2009

■ Edward W. Cahill (Died from Brain Tumor in 2010) — also known as Ed Cahill — Mayor of Valley Stream, N.Y., 1999-2010; died in office 2010

Brain cancer claimed Beau Biden’s life, but there is speculation that he may have had glioblastoma multiform, a very aggressive and often fatal tumor linked to cell phone usage. Glioblastoma has an estimated two-year survival rate of around 17 percent for patients between 40 and 65 years old. Beau Biden was 46. The cause of GBM is officially unknown but it is thought to arise from astrocytes, the support cells of the brain, and is typically found in the cerebral hemispheres. Most cases of GBM arise directly from mutations in healthy cells. However, a small number may transform into GBM from a previously existing tumor.

 

Translate »