Outdated SAR Safety Guidelines – Reclassification of RFR Health Risks Is Needed Now

The thermal and non-thermal dividing line currently used as the basis for safety standards of radio frequency radiation exposures (SAR) is nothing more than a ‘red herring.’ It distracts the public from understanding the actual health effects of microwave radiofrequency radiation, thereby undermining our ability to protect the public. It increasingly appears invalid to distinguish between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation concerning their health effects.

Bottom line… Cell phone radiation is not safe for everyone! We genuinely don’t know who will be affected by cell phone microwave RF radiation exposure because everyone’s DNA is different. However, we do know that some people are affected even today! Just as some individuals can die from bee stings while others do not, we cannot guarantee that using a cell phone will be safe for you, nor can the FCC, FDA, cell phone manufacturers, or any of the ‘so-called experts.’

After all, how many other products have we been told were ‘safe’ by industries and governments alike, only to later find out they were toxic, dangerous, or even fatal?

Will cell phones join these killers on the ‘Gee, we thought it was safe’ list? We believe so. Furthermore, no one can prove to RF Safe that cell phones are not one of the largest and fastest-growing health threats we face today. It may take years, even decades, before all of the research is accumulated and the truth becomes widely known.

Is the clock ticking for cell phone users? It may very well be. Please, don’t allow yourself to become a statistic!

Do your best to stay up-to-date on the wireless EMF hazards we face today!

PLEASE Be RF Safe to Be Sure!

Key Points Supporting the Reclassification of RFR Health Risks:

  1. Outdated Safety Guidelines:
    • The current safety standards were established decades ago and focus solely on the thermal effects of RFR. This ignores the potential biological effects that occur without a significant rise in temperature.
    • The FCC’s guidelines are based on the assumption that non-ionizing radiation, such as that emitted by cell phones, is only harmful if it causes heating. This fails to consider non-thermal biological effects that have been demonstrated in numerous studies.
  2. Scientific Studies Highlighting Non-Thermal Effects:
    • The Interphone Study: Found an increased risk of glioma (a type of brain tumor) among heavy cell phone users, suggesting that prolonged exposure to RFR can have carcinogenic effects.
    • Hardell Group Studies: These studies also indicated an association between long-term mobile phone use and an increased risk of glioma and acoustic neuroma, particularly in individuals who started using cell phones before the age of 20.
    • National Toxicology Program (NTP) Study: A large-scale animal study by the NTP found “clear evidence” of carcinogenic activity in rats exposed to high levels of RFR, leading to tumors in the heart and brain.
    • Ramazzini Institute Study: Showed increased rates of brain and heart tumors in rats exposed to RFR at levels lower than those deemed safe for humans.
    • BioInitiative Report: A comprehensive review of over 1,800 studies concluded that RFR exposure is associated with increased risks of brain cancer, neurological effects, and other health issues.
    • TheraBionic Treatment: Demonstrates that non-thermal RF radiation can be used therapeutically to treat inoperable liver cancer, indicating biological interactions at the cellular or molecular level.
  3. Evidence of Biological Interactions Beyond Thermal Effects:
    • Non-thermal effects such as DNA damage, oxidative stress, and disruption of cellular signaling have been observed in laboratory studies, indicating that RFR can have biological impacts at the cellular level.
    • The use of RF radiation in medical treatments, such as the TheraBionic device, shows that these frequencies can interact with biological tissues in ways that are not related to heating. This challenges the current assumption that non-ionizing radiation is only harmful if it causes thermal effects.
  4. Legal and Regulatory Failures:
    • The FCC has faced lawsuits for failing to update its safety standards in light of new scientific evidence. A significant court ruling ordered the FCC to review the latest research and provide a more comprehensive evaluation of the risks.
    • The Environmental Health Trust, among other organizations, challenged the FCC guidelines, arguing that they fail to account for the non-thermal effects of RFR exposure, especially on children.
  5. Public Awareness and Misclassification:
    • There is a lack of public awareness about the potential health risks associated with cell phone radiation. The debate is often clouded by industry interests and regulatory inertia.
    • The misclassification of RFR risks has led to a false sense of security among the public. Many people are unaware of the potential dangers and how to minimize their exposure.

The Call for Reclassification and Stricter Guidelines:

Given the accumulating evidence, there is an urgent need for regulatory bodies to reclassify RFR health risks and establish guidelines that protect against both thermal and non-thermal effects. This involves:

The evidence strongly suggests that the current safety standards for cell phone radiation are inadequate and fail to account for the non-thermal effects of RFR exposure. The debate over whether RFR is harmful is no longer a question of “if” but “how much and in what ways.” It is crucial for regulatory bodies to update their guidelines to protect public health and for individuals to take proactive measures to reduce their exposure.

Remember: Staying informed and taking steps to minimize exposure can help safeguard your health in a world increasingly dominated by wireless technology.

References:

https://www.rfsafe.com/articles/cell-phone-radiation/sar-safety-guidelines-outdated-reclassification-of-rfr-health-risks-is-needed-now.html