Saturday, 28 March 2009

In Conclusion...

In Conclusion...
Scandalously despite undeniable evidence of ill health caused by pulsed microwave radiation....
Precautionary Approach In 2000
Sir William Stewart, now chairman of the Health Protection Agency, headed the government's inquiry into the safety of mobile phone masts and health. He felt the scientific research was sufficient to apply a precautionary approach when siting masts near schools. During that same year, the government sold off the 3G licences for £22.5bn. Sir William recalls: "We recommended, because we were sensitive about children... that masts should not necessarily impact directly on areas where children were exposed, like playgrounds and that." But what about Wi-Fi? The technology is similar to mobile phone masts and in use in 70 percent of secondary schools and 50 percent of primary schools. Panorama visited a school in Norwich, with more than 1,000 pupils, to compare the level of radiation from a typical mobile phone mast with that of Wi-Fi in the classroom. Radiation readings taken during a radiation survey taken for the programme showed the height of signal strength to be three times higher in the school classroom using Wi-Fi than the main beam of radiation intensity from a mobile phone mast. The findings are particularly significant because children's skulls are thinner and still forming and tests have shown they absorb more radiation than adults.
Safety Limits
The readings were well beneath the government's safety limits - as much as 600 times below - but some scientists suspect the whole basis of our safety limits may be wrong. Panorama spoke to a number of scientists who questioned the safety limits and were concerned about the possible health effects of such radiation. "If you look in the literature, you have a large number of various effects like chromosome damage, you have impact on the concentration capacity and decrease in short term memory, increases in the number of cancer incidences," said Professor Olle Johansson of the Karolinska Institute in Sweden. Another scientist, Dr Gerd Oberfeld, from Salzburg is now calling for Wi-Fi to be removed from schools. He said: "If you go into the data you can see a very very clear picture - it is like a puzzle and everything fits together from DNA break ups to the animal studies and up to the epidemiological evidence; that shows for example increased symptoms as well as increased cancer rates." The clear advice from Sir William Stewart to the government on mobile phone masts was that the beam of greatest intensity should not fall on any part of the school grounds, unless the school and parents agreed to it. Yet the levels tested in the classroom from Wi-Fi were much higher - three times the highest level of the mast. Panorama contacted 50 schools at random - and found only one had been warned of possible health effects. Philip Parkin, general secretary of the Professional Association of Teachers said: "I think schools and parents will be very worried about it..” "I am asking schools to consider very seriously whether they should be installing Wi-Fi networks now and this will make them think twice or three times before they do it.” "I think the precautionary approach doesn't seem to have worked because it is being rolled out so rapidly...” "It's a bit like King Canute. We can't stop the tide and I am afraid if schools are told that there is a serious health implication for having these networks in schools, it is going to be a very serious matter to say to schools, you have to switch them off."
Low Power
At Washington State University, Professor Henry Lai, a biologist respected by both sides of the argument says he has found health effects at similar levels of radiation to Wi-Fi. He estimates that of the two to three thousand studies carried out over the last 30 years, there is a 50-50 split - half finding an effect with the other half finding no effect at all. But the Health Protection Agency has said Wi-Fi devices are of very low power - much lower than mobile phones. The Government says there is no risk and is backed up by the World Health Organisation which is robust in its language saying there are "no adverse health effects from low level, long-term exposure". The scientist responsible for WHO's position is Dr Mike Repacholi, who headed up the health organisation's research programme into radio frequency radiation. He was also the founder of the International Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). He said the statement of "no adverse health effects" was based on the weight of evidence. In order for a health effect to be established it must mean it has been repeated in a number of laboratories using very good study techniques. The findings of any published studies had been put in the mix before reaching a conclusion, he said. "It is called a weight of evidence approach - and if that weight of evidence is not for there being an effect or not being an effect that is the only way you can tell whether there really is an adverse health effect," he said.
In Conclusion
You can believe Repacholi is genuine and that the mobile operators wouldn’t lie cheat and sanction the slow murdering of innocent children for the sake of profit You can believe that Governments around the world wouldn’t allow themselves to be hoodwinked by the operators or worse procrastinate due to the inevitable economic consequences of owning up to the problem This site is not here as an educational resource or a campaigning protest body it is here to offer you products to detect and protect you and yours from Electrosmog and some safer alternatives to Wifi for those addicted to wireless gadgets .

The Approach of Other Countries...

World governments are not sure what to say or do anymore
Let’s take a quick world tour and see what governments are doing.
GERMANYA study encouraged by the German Federal Agency for Radiation Protection by Eger, Hagen, Lucas, Vogel & Voit, examined whether people living within 400 metres of a mobile phone mast were more at risk of developing cancer than those who lived further away. Case histories of 1,000 patients between 1994 and 2004 were evaluated for the study. Newly diagnosed cancers were significantly higher among those who had lived for 10 years within 400 metres of the mast, in operation since 1993, compared with those living further away, and the patients had fallen ill on average 8 years earlier. People living within 400 metres of the mast in Naila had three times the risk of developing cancer than those living further away. This seems to be an undeniable clustering of cancer cases. The project in Germany is to continue in the form of a register. In other words the study they encouraged came back with the wrong answers.
SWEDENIn Sweden people suffering from Electrosensitivity (susceptibility to radio frequency radiation and other forms of electrical pollution known now in Europe as electrosmog) are recognized and treated by their doctors on the National Health Service.
UNITED KINGDOMWell generally speaking in this country we are in denial but lets look at some of the thoughts and comments from one of this country’s most respected media outlets Panorama on the subject. Their program in May 2007 focused on wireless networks in Schools. The Government insists Wi-Fi is safe, but a Panorama investigation shows that radio frequency radiation levels in some schools are up to three times the level found in the main beam of intensity from mobile phone masts. There have been no studies on the health effects of Wi-Fi equipment, but thousands on mobile phones and masts. The radiation Wi-Fi emits is similar to that from mobile phone masts. It is an unavoidable by-product of going wireless. In the last 18 months another two million of us in the UK have begun using Wi-Fi. Entire cities have become what are known as wireless hotspots.

National Research Centre Bologna report on mobiles and cancer

Mobile Phones & Cancer... more
spate of reports during 2002 is confirming links between electromagnetic radiation from mobile phones and cancer. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho reports.
The complete document with references, is available in the ISIS members site. Full details here
In October, 2002, cell biologist Fiorenzo Marinelli and his team at the National Research Council in Bologna, Italy, reported that radio waves from mobile phones could promote the growth of cancer cells.
The team exposed leukaemia cells to 900-megahertz radio waves at a power density level of 1 milliwatt per squared centimetre (mW/cm2).
After 24 hours of continuous exposure to the radio waves, the researchers found that certain ‘suicide genes’ were turned on in far more leukaemia cells than in a control cell population that had not been exposed, and 20 per cent more exposed cells had died than in the controls.
But after 48 hours exposure to the radio waves, the apparently lethal effect of the radiation went into reverse. Instead of more cells dying, the exposed cells were replicating furiously compared to the controls. Three genes that trigger cells to multiply were turned on in a high proportion of the cells. The cancer, although briefly beaten back, had become more aggressive.
Marinelli presented the results at the International Workshop on Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on the Greek island of Rhodes.
He suspects that the radiation may initially damage DNA, and that this interferes with the biochemical signals in a way that ultimately triggers the cells to multiply more rapidly.
Meanwhile, a research team in the University of Florence reported that normal human skin fibroblasts, placed over an active cell phone for 1 h, also showed significant changes. The fibroblasts shrivelled up, and several genes indicative of stress response became expressed, that are involved in cell proliferation, growth inhibition and cell death. There was a significant increase in DNA synthesis and in key molecules that signal cell division. These findings are similar to those reported earlier from yet another laboratory.
Dariusz Leszczynski at the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority in Helsinki found that one-hour exposure to mobile phone radiation caused cultured human cells to shrink.
Leszczynski believes this happens when a cell is damaged. In a person, such changes could destroy the ‘blood-brain barrier’ that normally prevents harmful substances in the bloodstream from entering the brain and damaging it.
Radiation-induced changes in the cells could also interfere with normal cell death when the cell is damaged. If cells that are ‘marked’ to die do not, tumours can form.
This research is particularly important, Leszczynski said, because it demonstrates that mobile phone radiation too weak to heat up the cells can still affect them.
David de Pomerai, molecular toxicologist at the University of Nottingham, provided the first clear evidence on such non-thermal effects of mobile phone radiation. He found that nematode worms exposed to radio waves had an increase in fertility - the opposite effect from what would be expected from heating.
De Pomerai also insisted that a consensus is emerging that electromagnetic waves such as those used in mobile phones can indirectly damage DNA by affecting its repair system without heating the cell. "Cells with unrepaired DNA damage are likely to be far more aggressively cancerous," he said.
Non-thermal effects due to weak electromagnetic radiation are at the heart of the debate on the health hazards of mobile phones and other electrical installations in the environment.
These recent results should be seen in the light of the report released in March 2002 by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), which concluded that children exposed to high levels of electromagnetic radiation in the home could be doubling their risk of leukaemia (see "Electromagnetic fields double leukaemia risk". This series).
One doesn’t have to be a cell-phone user to become exposed to the radiation. You could be living near a base-station that’s beaming the radio waves at you (see Box 1). Or you could be exposed as a passenger on a crowded train full of mobile phone users.
Tsuyoshi Hondou, a physicist from Tohoku University in Sendai, Japan, currently working at the Curie Institute in Paris, calculated that in a typical Japanese railway carriage with mobile phone users surfing the net, the radio waves rebounding from the metal wall of the carriage would give an electromagnetic field that could exceed the maximum exposure level recommended by the International Committee for Non-Ionising Radiation (ICNIRP), even when the train is not crowded.
Hondou’s calculations show that it is possible to exceed ICNIRP exposure limit if 30 people, each with a mobile phone that emits radio waves at a power of 0.4 watts, all use their phones at the same time.
The ICNIRP limits have already been severely criticised for being set far too high, and are aimed at protecting people from acute heating effects only, and take no account of non-thermal effects.
An inquiry in April 2000 by the British government found no evidence of any health risks from mobile phones. But the report nevertheless recommended a precautionary approach until further evidence emerged. In particular, it suggested children should not use mobile phones excessively.
Box 1
How do mobile phones work?
Mobile telephony is based on radio communication between a portable handset and the nearest base-station. Every base-station serves a ‘cell’, varying in radius from hundreds of metres in densely populated areas to kilometres in rural areas, and is connected both to the conventional landline telephone network, and by tightly focused microwave links to neighbouring stations. As the mobile-phone user moves from cell to cell, the call is transferred from one base-station to the next without interruption.
The radio communication depends on microwaves at 900 or 1800 megahertz (MHz) (a million cycles per second) to carry voice information via small modulations of the wave’s frequency. A base-station antenna typically radiates 60W and a handset between 1 and 2 W (peak). The antenna of a handset radiates equally in all directions, but a base-station produces a beam that is much more directional. In addition, the stations have subsidiary beams called side-lobes, into which a small fraction of the emitted power is channelled. Unlike the main beam, the side-lobes are located in the immediate vicinity of the mast, and, despite their low power, the power density can be comparable with that of the main beam much further away from the mast. At 150 to 200m, the power density in the main beam near the ground level is typically tenths of microWatt/cm2.
A handset in operation also has a low-frequency magnetic field associated, not with the emitted microwaves, but with surges of electric current from the battery that’s necessary to implement ‘time division multiple access’, the system used to increase the number of people who can simultaneously communicate with the base-station. Every communication channel has 8 time slots (thus the average power of a handset is 1/8 of the peak values, ie, beween 0.125 and 0.25W), which are transmitted as 576 microsecond bursts. Together, the 8 slots define a frame, the repetition of which is 217 Hz. The frames transmitted by both handsets and base-stations are groups into ‘multi-frames’ of 25 by the absence of every 26th frame. This results in an additional low frequency pulsing of the signal at 8.34Hz, which, unlike that at 217 Hz, is unaffected by call density, and is thus a permanent feature of the emission. With handsets that have an energy-saving discontinuous transmission mode (DTX), there is an even lower frequency pulsing at 2 Hz, which occurs when the user is listening but not speaking.
Thus, the fields to which users are exposed can be quite complex.
A review published in The Lancet the same year by Gerard Hyland, physicist at Warwick University, listed numerous studies over the past 30 years that showed microwaves do have a range of non-thermal effects (see Box 1 and Box 2).
Some of the findings, such as increases in chromosome aberrations, DNA single- and double-strand breaks, promotion of cancer in cells, and in transgenic mice, are all consistent with the recent reports. Hyland is extremely critical of the current exposure limits set by the ICNIRP.
Box 2
In vitro nonthermal effects of microwaves
· Elicits epileptic activity in rat brain slices in conjunction with certain drugs.
· Affects cell division of yeast and on the genome conformation of E. coli.
· Synchronises cell division in yeast, S. carisbergenis.
· Switches on l-phage and colicin synthesis in bacteria.
· Alters ornithine decarboxylase activity in cultured cell line.
· Reduces T lymphocyte cytotoxicity.
· Increases permeability of red blood cell membrane.
· Affects calcium efflux in brain cells.
· Increases chromosome aberrations and micronuclei in human blood lymphocytes.
· Promotes cancer synergistically with cancer-promoting drugs such as phorbol esters.

Box 3
In vivo non-thermal effects of microwaves
· Causes epileptic activity in rats, in conjunction with certain drugs.
· Depresses chicken immune systems (melatonin, corticosterone and IgG levels).
· Increases mortality of chick embryos.
· Affects brain electrochemistry (dopamine, opiates).
· Increases DNA single- and double-strand breaks in rat brain.
· Promotes lymphomas in transgenic mice.
· Synergeistic effects with certain psychoactive drugs.
· A delayed increase in spectral power density (particularly in the alpha band) corroborated in the awake EEG of adults exposed to mobile phone radiation. Influences on the asleep EEG include a shortening of rem sleep during which the power density in the alpha band increases, and effects on non-REM sleep.
· Exposure to mobile phone radiation also decreases the preparatory slow potentials in certain regions of the brain and affects memory tasks.
· Resting blood pressure was found to increase during exposure to radiofrequencies.
Dr Zenon Sienkiewicz, a radiation biologist at the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), told BBC News Online that there was still no hard evidence that showed mobile phones causing harm in real humans, rather than human cells in a test tube.
He said: "The bottom line is there are no known mechanisms by which mobile phone radiation can increase the risk of cancer."
Hyland disagrees. He points out that mobile phone radiation has been found to affect a wide variety of brain functions - such as electrical activity (EEG) electrochemistry and the permeability of the blood/brain barrier - and to undermine the immune system.
Although the precise mechanisms are unclear, Hyland pointed to an "undeniable consistency between some of these non-thermal influences and the nature of many of the health problems reported", such as headache, sleep disruption, impairment of short term memory, increases in the frequency of seizures in some epileptic children when exposed to Base-station radiation, and of brain tumours amongst users of mobile phones.
Thus, reports of headache are consistent with the effect observed on the dopamine–opiate system of the brain, and the increase in permeability of the blood-brain barrier, both of which have been medically connected with headache. The reports of sleep disruption are consistent with the observed effect of the radiation on rapid eye movement (REM) sleep and on melatonin levels; whilst memory impairment is consistent with the finding that microwave radiation targets the hippocampus. Epileptic seizures are known to be induced by visible light flashing at a certain low frequency, and there is no reason to suppose that microwave radiation, which can access the brain directly through the skull, flashing at a similar frequency, cannot cause the effect. Indeed, exposure to such microwave radiation is known to induce epileptic activity in certain animals; and there have been reports of increased seizures in some children suffering from epilepsy that were exposed to base-station radiation.
Finally, mobile phone users show statistically significant increase (by a factor of between 2 and 3) in the incidence of a rather rare kind of tumour (epithelial neuroma) on the side of the brain nearest the mobile phone.
What then is the appropriate exposure limit? Hyland points out that some experiments are indicating non-thermal thresholds for biological effects of the order of microwatt/cm2. Adverse effects have been reported, however, at power densities a few tenths of that value at distances of 150-200m from a typical 15m high Base-station mast and within the range of the more localised side-lobes in the immediate vicinity of a mast. Incorporating a further safety factor of 10 to allow for the possibility of long-term exposure, the power densities should not exceed 10 nanoW (billionth of a Watt)/cm2.

Friday, 27 March 2009

Low energy bulbs will save you money but at what cost?

Low energy bulbs and dirty electricity

We are seeing a dramatic increase in illness reported by people after the installation of low energy bulbs (CFL’s) in their home or office environment and now many GPs agree there does seem to be a connection between CFL’s and certain illnesses. This relatively new technology we know from our electro pulse filter research and development program creates dirty electricity like nothing else and this would seem to be still further evidence to support the dramatic linkage being made in the States by Havas, Stetzer and Millham, et al with exponential climbs in diabetes, autism, ADHD and even cancer and ever dirtier electricity.

Mainstream media is focusing on the mercury danger from broken bulbs and attributing sudden illness after CFL installation to the ultra violet light or mercury exposure, even though the vast majority have yet to break or dispose of a CFL and therefore experience any exposure to mercury from this source.

In our opinion it would seem clear that people are actually responding adversely to the increased levels of dirty electricity created by these bulbs.

Fluorescent lamps will only run on an alternating current. They also need a pulse of high voltage and heated filaments at either end to start the electrical discharge to illuminate them. After that, the current must be limited externally, otherwise too much would flow causing the lamp to burn out. In a traditional fluorescent strip light, this is accomplished by the starter switch and the choke (a coil of wire wound around an iron core).

Once started, the current flows through the tube as a smooth sine wave at mains frequency, which is 50 Hz (50 cycles per second) in Europe and 60 Hz in America. This makes the light flash on and off with each half cycle (i.e. 100 or 120 times a second) and some people, such as epileptics and migraine sufferers find this disturbing.

However, almost all CFLs use electronic control gear. This usually incorporates a switched-mode power supply in the base of the lamp itself. It rectifies the AC from the mains to convert it to DC and then chops it electronically into a series of sharp rectangular alternating pulses, which then light the lamp. However, the new frequency, which is usually about 40 kHz (40,000 cycles per second), is so high and the gaps between pulses are so short that the relatively slow response of the phosphors can fill them easily. Consequently, these lamps do not flash.
Biological effects
Despite the absence of flashing, many people have reported ill effects when using CFLs. Typical symptoms include dizziness, nausea, tinnitus (ringing or buzzing in the ears), headaches and various skin disorders. In particular, many migraine and epilepsy sufferers have found that they aggravate their conditions

The effects may be due to pulsed electromagnetic radiation.
The symptoms of exposure to CFL radiation are remarkably similar to those reported by electrosensitive individuals when exposed to pulsed electromagnetic fields. Since the lamps do not flash, it seems probable that they are a direct effect of the pulsed radiation on the brain and nervous system. The magnetic component of the radiation is the more dangerous because it can penetrate deep into the human body where it generates electrical voltages proportional to its rate of change. The rapid rise and fall times of these magnetic pulses can therefore give relatively massive and potentially damaging voltage spikes both in living cells and across their membranes.

Contamination of the mains
Poor quality CFLs often allow these pulses to leak back into the mains wiring to contribute to “dirty electricity” and increase the range of their effects to neighbouring rooms or houses. You should be able to detect these by holding a portable radio tuned between stations on an AM band near the wiring. This is because pulses, by their very nature, also contain harmonics (multiples of the original frequency) that can extend well into the radio frequency spectrum. If you hear a buzzing sound from the set, it means that pulses are leaking into the mains and you should replace the offending lamp by another of better quality.

Contamination of the mains to give “dirty electricity” can come from many sources, not just CFLs. Measurements made by David Stetzer in the library of an American school showed it to consist of hundreds of sharp spikes that could be up to hundreds of millivolts high, superimposed on each cycle of the 120 volt mains supply. Although the largest of them was
only a tiny fraction of the overall mains voltage, their rapid rise and fall times give them biological activity. The sharp magnetic spikes they generate penetrate living tissue easily, where their sudden changes in field-strength induce large voltage spikes.

Several studies by Dr Magda Havas of Trent University in Canada and various co-workers have shown that simply removing these spikes from the mains with “Graham/Stetzer” filters has resulted in improvements in the health, learning ability and behaviour of schoolchildren, reductions in the insulin needed to treat diabetics and an alleviation of the symptoms of electrosensitivity.

WiFi in Schools

Scandalously despite undeniable evidence of ill health caused by pulsed microwave radiation....

The Mobile Oporators and UK government continue to ignore what is basically undeniable evidence that Radio Frequency Radiation cuases serious health problems not least of which is Cancer and our Education department continues to roll out it's wireless network programe in schools. What do they have to reasure worried and angry parents? As you can see below not a lot.
Let’s look now at what those with the most financial gain have to say on the subject of phone masts and health: The Mobile Operators Association (funded primarily by the mobile phone networks) say:
“Mobile phones are part of our way of life.”
Today in the UK, there are around 70 million mobile phone subscriptions, compared to 9 million in 1997/8. However, this rapid growth has been accompanied by a perception that exposures to radio waves from mobile phones and base stations may pose a health risk. The balance of evidence from research to date suggests this is not the case.
However, gaps in scientific knowledge have prompted calls for further study to be conducted. This is happening in the UK and around the world.
Orange answer the burning question on their website; can you ‘prove’ that the orange network is safe. Their answer was ‘no’ but nobody can prove anything is safe and in desperation they site the fact that drinking water is dangerous if taken the wrong way.

Body Voltage is this the explanation for Autism explosion?

The electric wiring in your home can have any negative effect on your wellbeing and health. High levels of electric fields generated by the electrical wiring in your home can result in high levels of Body Voltage which causes discomfort and severely disturbs your sleep according to research emerging from Europe.
What kind of problems can those electric fields actually cause? The human nervous system is working with low-voltage electric impulses. The electric fields are a stress factor for your nervous system, which explains the wide variety of symptoms they can cause, most prominently a general lack of wellbeing and the ever increasing insomnia. Many people describe that they feel restless and anxious when exposed to high levels of electric fields. When you wake up in the morning feeling more exhausted than you were when you went to sleep at night, electric fields may well be the cause.
Where do those fields that increase your body voltage come from? Usually most of the electric fields that we are exposed to originate from the wiring in the walls of our own home or office, from extension cords, and from the electric appliances we use. Another prominent source of electric fields is the wiring in the floors, especially when the floor construction is made from timber. The wiring of the ceiling lights in the storey below may well cause strong electric fields for the next level of the building. Another possible source of electric fields are power lines, railway lines, streetcars and transformer substations.
Dietrich Klinghardt, MD, PhD of the Klinghardt Academy of Neurobiology has this to say about body voltage
What research has been carried out in the field of EMFS and autism?
Research shows that all children healthy or otherwise have increased levels of gene mutations and more kids have gene abnormalities. All genetic changes found in children are thought to be from toxic exposure alone. Research shows the same changes seen in autistic kids can also be explained based on early EMR exposure whilst the child is in the womb.

A pilot investigation measured two parameters commonly done in electro biology. Body voltage is a measure based on how much voltage the body builds up against ground in an environment.
The second parameter measured the effect of microwave radiation on the body. We investigated a group of healthy kids and compared the findings on a group of autistic kids.

These two parameters were measured in the sleeping location of the mother when she was pregnant. Where high levels of body voltage were found in bed where mother was sleeping, the child became autistic later in life. The body voltage in this position was far higher than that found in the position of the mother who went on to bear a healthy child. These same locations were re- visited and measurements were still high from those levels taken after conception. The difference was so significant that I can now predict whether the mother will give birth to a healthy child or one who is autistic by measuring body voltage of sleeping position of the mother from conception.

The microwave exposure in sleeping location of the mother giving birth to an autistic child was significantly higher than exposure in sleeping location of the mothers who gave birth to normal children. These findings are so significant that I can go into any home where a woman is planning to fall pregnant, or she has just conceived and predictions can be made on how healthy that child will be, based on the environment they sleep in.

What are the Statistics on Autism?
Recent statistics are 1 in 50 a year ago in the media. Prior to that it was 1 in 150 based on a study published in 2002 where the data study was concluded by 2000 (therefore there is a period of 8 years between the two studies). It would seem therefore, every 4 -5 years the numbers double. It is estimated between 2013 and 2020 to reach a point where no American woman will give birth to a child who isn’t autistic!

What is the blood brain barrier?
In children, development of the blood brain barrier isn’t complete until they are 18 months old, before then they have no defences. Contaminants in food such as mercury add to this build up of exposure to EMFs which has the effect of paralysing astrocytes which are responsible for forming the blood brain barrier and so the blood brain barrier ends up leaking. Obviously this is more devastating in young children than older children and grownups because of their development process. Exposure to household EMFs and RFR disrupt the function of the blood brain barrier leaving it open to toxins, altering brain function.

In the same way, a leaky gut is contributed to or caused by exposure to EMFS. However, when we reduce the exposure to EMFs and RFR, many of these illnesses go away. A combination of leaky gut and brain has a devastating influence on our health.

In general we find that our little ones are an early indicator of what we might suffer ourselves after elongated exposure and we believe for our own and our children’s sake we need to measure the body voltage in our sleeping environment. Go to link below for Body Volt Meter details.