EMF Journal

awareness … acceptance … action

Microwave Radiation – Do We Have to Be Worried

Microwave Radiation – Do We Have to Be Worried

Posted: 31 Aug 2010 03:36 PM PDT

A “microwave” is a wave of electromagnetic radiation. These waves are shorter than radio waves, and, besides their use in microwaves ovens, are used in radar and transmitting data. In a microwave oven, these waves pass through the food, which is heated via dielectric heating. This basically means that the molecules in [...] Related posts:  CONTINUE READING

  1. Cooking With A Solar Oven
  2. Best Ways to Avoid Mercury
  3. What to Consider before Buying Sunglasses

SOURCE:  http://AGreenLiving.net

September 1, 2010 Posted by CSea Perkins | appliances, electromagnetic radiation, environment, pollution | , , , , | Leave a Comment

New EMF Dangers – Type 3 Diabetes and Heart Disease

Offering you, with confidence, another installment of Dr. Mercola’s wisdom and proof of the worsening dangers of EMF.

……………………………………………………..

One symptom of electrohypersensitivity is altered sugar metabolism similar to diabetes. In addition to type 1 and type 2 diabetes, the first video above shows that some diabetics may be electromagnetically sensitive, as shown by changes in their blood sugar when exposed to electromagnetic triggers.

One astonishing finding showed that in diabetic patients who exercised by walking outdoors, blood sugar went down as expected — but in those who exercised on a treadmill, impacted by electromagnetic fields, the blood sugar went up.

Dr. Magda Havas suggests there may not just be a type I diabetes and a type II diabetes, but also a new ‘Type III’ Diabetes related to external environmental factors.

EMF and Your Heart

In the second video above, a study has provided unequivocal evidence that the radiation from a cordless (DECT) phone interferes with your heart. This video provides evidence that electrohypersensitivity is real, is physical, and may be life threatening.

It also shows that non-thermal exposure, at levels well below federal guidelines in most countries (0.3 percent of the 1000 microW/cm2), has biological and health effects.

Next Post

Previous Post

See All Mercola Videos

Sources

September 1, 2010 Posted by CSea Perkins | EMF, WiFi, cancer, cell phone, children, disease, electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electrosmog, environment, family | , , , , , , | Leave a Comment

International Coalition for an (EMF) Electromagnetic-Safe Planet

Thank you Paul Doyon for your next installment of EMF education.

EMR-Updates August 15th, 2010

Education! Awareness! Support! Action!

(From denial to acceptance, from ignorance to awareness, from apathy to action, from selfishness to compassion.)

August 23, 2010 Posted by CSea Perkins | EMF, EMR, awareness, cancer, cell phone, cell tower, children, environment | , , | Leave a Comment

What do graphene and EMF have in common?

University of southern California experts indicate a more efficient use of graphene solar panels

Is it possible to imagine people powering their cellphone or music/video device while jogging on a sunny day?

A University of Southern California team has produced flexible transparent carbon atom films that may have great potential for a brand new breed of solar cells.

Inside a paper recently published by the journal ACS Nano, researchers stated that organic photovoltaic (OPV) cells have been proposed as an approach to achieve low cost energy due to their ease of manufacture, light-weight, and compatibility with flexible substrates.

The new work shows that graphene, a highly conductive and highly transparent form of carbon made up of atoms-thick sheets of carbon atoms, has high possibility to fill this role.

While graphene’s existence has been known for decades, it has only been studied extensively since 2004 due to the difficulty of manufacturing it in high quality and quantity.

The University of southern California team has produced graphene / polymer sheets ranging in sizes about 150 square centimeters that in turn may be used to create dense arrays of flexible organic photovoltaic (OPV) cells.

These organic photovoltaic (OPV) devices convert solar radiation to electricity, but not as efficiently as silicon cells.

The power provided by sunlight on a sunny day is about 1,000 watts per meter square, for every 1,000 watts of sunlight that hits a square meter area of the standard silicon solar cell, 14 watts of electricity will be generated, Organic solar cells are less efficient; their conversion rate for that same 1,000 watts of sunlight in the graphene-based solar cell could be only 1.3 watts.

But what graphene organic photovoltaic (OPV) lack in efficiency, can potentially be compensated by its lower price and, greater physical flexibility.

Researchers think it may eventually be possible to cover with inexpensive solar cell layers extensive areas like newspapers, magazines or power generating clothing.

In the meanwhile Prof. Ruoff and his colleagues of the mechanical engineering department at the University of Texas at Austin, are studying the basic science in the introduction of graphene-based ultracapacitors for use in electronics and various fields.

Prof. Ruoff says batteries are relatively slow, they can store energy but take a while to charge up, and then they distribute energy slowly, as time passes.

Ultracapacitors can be charged rapidly, in seconds, and discharge rapidly, but, today, they can’t store very much electrical energy.

The development of stable and less expensive ultracapacitors is seen as a key step in using wind or solar-generated power, particularly if researchers can discover ways to enable capacitors to store energy longer, which is not yet possible.

Even with their current storage capacity, the graphene devices could provide quick energy when needed in certain situations on the green way.

They could be used, as an example, to absorb heat generated in braking a car or train, and store it for a short time, and then employ it for the electrical needs of the vehicle (i.e. starting the automobile or acceleration)

The author - Sophia H. Walker writes for the <a href=”http://solarcharger.org.uk/”>solar power charger</a> blog, her personal hobby blog focused entirely on tips to help individuals save electricity using solar power for small accessories.

July 30, 2010 Posted by CSea Perkins | electromagnetic radiation, electrosmog, environment, pollution, power | , , , , , | Leave a Comment

EMR-Updates

July 23, 2010 by Paul Doyon

International Coalition for an Electromagnetic-Safe Planet (IC-ESP)

Education! Awareness! Support! Action!

(From denial to acceptance, from ignorance to awareness, from apathy to action, from selfishness to compassion.)

July 26, 2010 Posted by CSea Perkins | electromagnetic radiation, electrosmog, environment | , , , , , | Leave a Comment

FCC Raises the Red Flag about Cell Phone Hazards

Grateful to Paul Doyon for posting Dr. Mercola’s installation.  The FCC has allowed all these manufacturers to exceed safe levels; now what?

Posted by Dr. Mercola | April 27 2010 | 21,820 views

On November 5, 2009, the FCC released their Consumer Facts on “Wireless Devices and Health Concerns.” In this document, the FCC recommends precautions for the use of cell phones.

According to the FCC, “Recent reports by some health and safety interest groups have suggested that wireless device use can be linked to cancer and other illnesses. These questions have become more pressing as more and younger people are using the devices, and for longer periods of time.”

They now recommend the following steps:

  • Use an earpiece or headset
  • If possible, keep wireless devices away from your body when they are on, mainly by not attaching them to belts or carrying them in pockets
  • Use the cell phone speaker to reduce exposure to your head
  • Consider texting rather than talking
  • Buy a wireless device with lower Specific Absorption Rate (SAR)

Sources:

FCC November 5, 2009

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

Public health agencies cannot continue to keep their heads in the sand while millions of people, including children, are unknowingly being exposed to radiation at levels that are putting their health at risk.

Warning Labels Should be Added to All Cell Phones

The issue has been heating up recently, and a bill introduced in Maine, which would make it the first to mandate warning labels on all cell phones, created a flurry of national attention. I suspect and sincerely hope it will not be much longer before cell phones are outed as the cigarettes of the 21st century, and this bill would be a first step toward that.

It calls for the following statement to be prominently placed on every cell phone and all related packaging, on a non-removable label:

“Warning, this device emits electromagnetic radiation, exposure to which may cause brain cancer. Users, especially children and pregnant women, should keep this device away from the head and body.”

In addition, the bill, as currently written, requires the label to include the color graphic showing the electromagnetic absorption of a 5-year old child’s brain, as depicted in a 1996 study published by the IEEE on the effect of cell phone microwave emissions on the neck and head.

Why You Can’t Trust Current FCC Cell Phone Standards

You may find it hard to believe that the FCC would allow cell phones on the market if they were unsafe. Well, the FCC does, in fact, require wireless devices to meet minimum safety guidelines for human use.

Unfortunately, these guidelines are based on exposure limits in terms of Specific Absorption Rate, otherwise known as the SAR value. The SAR value is a measure of the power of the cell phone and its potential for heating tissues.

But simply choosing a phone with a lower SAR value does not at all mean the phone is safe. Camilla Rees, founder of www.Electromagnetichealth.org and co-author with Magda Havas, PhD of Public Health SOS: The Shadow Side of the Wireless Revolution, explains:

“It is important consumers realize that the SAR value, while providing information for comparison purposes between phones, is very limited in its usefulness as a measure of ‘safety.’ We are greatly concerned that people may be turning to the EWG database in droves not understanding just how limited a measure the SAR value is.”

Why is the SAR value not an accurate measure of safety?

  1. The SAR value is only comparing the isolated heating effect of different phones and does not give an indication that a cell phone is ‘safe.’
  2. The power, or heating effect, of the phone is only one of many possible factors impacting cell phone ‘safety.’ Exposures to the radiation from the cell phone at non-heating levels have been linked to many serious biological effects, and the SAR value is not capturing anything about these harmful non-thermal exposures.
  3. SAR values are reported to the FCC by the manufacturer and have been known to vary from the reported number by a factor of two across models of the same phone.
  4. The SAR value varies with the source of exposure and the person using the phone. For example, if you are in a rural area or in an elevator or a car, where the cell phone uses more power, your brain will get a greater exposure from the higher power required in these instances. Under certain conditions, the SAR value can be 10-100 times higher than reported.
  5. Holding the phone in a slightly different way can actually render the worst SAR value phone better than the best SAR value phone.
  6. SAR values have been created based on simulations of exposure in a plexiglass head filled with fluid, not a human head, and many scientists consider them to be inaccurate and irrelevant at determining actual biological effects.

One of the worst deficiencies of the SAR value is that it only considers the thermal impact of cell phone usage, and it is very likely that the non-thermal effects of chronic cell phone exposure are more biologically damaging.

Even the FCC acknowledged this concern in their FCC Consumer Facts:

“Some experts think that low frequency magnetic fields rather than RF energy measured by the SAR possibly are responsible for any potential risk associated with wireless devices.”

Have You Heard? Cell Phones are Dangerous …

In case you haven’t yet heard, there’s a reason why the FCC finally issued cell phone “precautions” despite the industry’s assurances to the contrary.

For starters, the 2009 special EMF issue of the Journal of Pathophysiology contains over a dozen different studies on the health effects of electromagnetic fields and wireless technology

In addition, a review of 11 long-term epidemiologic studies published in the journal Surgical Neurology revealed that using a cell phone for 10 or more years approximately doubles the risk of being diagnosed with a brain tumor on the same side of the head where the cell phone is typically held.

You should also know that:

  • A study by Dr. Siegal Sadetzki linked cell phone use to salivary gland tumors
  • Wearing a cell phone on your hip — either on your belt or in a pocket — has been linked to decreased bone density in the pelvic region. (All the other vital organs located in your pelvic region — your liver, kidney, bladder, colon and reproductive organs — are also susceptible to radiation damage).
  • Proximity to cell phone towers causes an increase in the symptoms of electromagnetic hypersensitivity, including fatigue, sleep disturbances, visual and auditory disturbances, and cardiovascular effects
  • The BioInitiative Report includes studies showing evidence for:
    • Effects on Gene and Protein Expression (Transcriptomic and Proteomic Research)
    • Genotoxic Effects – RFR and ELF DNA Damage
    • Stress Response (Stress Proteins)
    • Effects on Immune Function
    • Effects on Neurology and Behavior
    • Brain Tumors, Acoustic Neuromas, and childhood cancers like leukemia
    • And much more

I’ve barely scratched the surface with the examples I listed above. There are many, many more out there, and if you’re interested to learn more the Web site ElectromagneticHealth.org offers 10 free eye-opening audio interviews with some of the world’s leading experts in the field of EMF.

What Can You do to Stay Safe?

I urge you to take action now to protect yourself and your family from the dangerous effects of cell phones and other wireless devices. Please do not wait for the FCC to make a more serious warning or ban the phones altogether.

I believe this issue is so important I’ve created an entire web site dedicated to EMF education and information. Feel free to bookmark EMF.mercola.com and check back on occasion for the latest news and updates.

If you are not ready to give up your cell phone just yet, at the very least don’t let your young children use one, and avoid cell phone exposure while pregnant or carrying your infant. Children are FAR more susceptible to harm from microwave radiation than adults.

Further, you can at least minimize exposure by heeding the following advice:

  • Reduce your cell phone use: Turn your cell phone off more often. Reserve it for emergencies or important matters. As long as your cell phone is on, it emits radiation intermittently, even when you are not actually making a call.
  • Use a land line at home and at work: Although more and more people are switching to using cell phones as their exclusive phone contact, it is a dangerous trend and you can choose to opt out of the madness.
  • Reduce or eliminate your use of other wireless devices: You would be wise to cut down your use of these devices. Just as with cell phones, it is important to ask yourself whether or not you really need to use them every single time.
  • If you must use a portable home phone, use the older kind that operates at 900 MHz. They are no safer during calls, but at least many of them do not broadcast constantly even when no call is being made.

Note the only way to truly be sure if there is an exposure from your cordless phone is to measure with an electrosmog meter, and it must be one that goes up to the frequency of your portable phone (so old meters will not be of much use). You can find meters at www.emfsafetystore.com.

As a general rule of thumb, you can pretty much be sure your portable phone is a problem if the technology is DECT, or digitally enhanced cordless technology.

  • Use your cell phone only where reception is good: The weaker the reception, the more power your phone must use to transmit, and the more power it uses, the more radiation it emits, and the deeper the dangerous radio waves penetrate into your body. Ideally, you should only use your phone with full bars and good reception.
  • Don’t assume one cell phone is safer than another: Please understand that despite assurances, there’s still no such thing as a “safe” cell phone.
  • Keep your cell phone away from your body when it’s on: The most dangerous place to be, in terms of radiation exposure, is within about six inches of the emitting antenna. You do not want any part of your body within that area (so do not carry your cell phone on your belt, either).
  • Use safer headset technology: Wired headsets will certainly allow you to keep the cell phone farther away from your body. However, if a wired headset is not well-shielded — and most of them are not — the wire itself acts as an antenna attracting ambient information carrying radio waves and transmitting radiation directly to your brain.

Make sure that the wire used to transmit the signal to your ear is shielded.

The best kind of headset to use is a combination shielded wire and air-tube headset. These operate like a stethoscope, transmitting the information to your head as an actual sound wave; although there are wires that still must be shielded, there is no wire that goes all the way up to your head.

Related Links:

The Big “Hidden Cell Phone Lie” Companies Will Never Admit

New Law May Slow Cell Phone Cancer Epidemic

Cell Phones are the Cigarettes of the 21st Century

April 29, 2010 Posted by CSea Perkins | EMF, cancer, cell phone, electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electrosmog, environment, greenhouse emissions | , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment

Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern

PRESS RELEASE

Contact:  USA – Lloyd Morgan Tel. 510 841 4362 E-mail: bilovsky@aol.com

UK - Alasdair Philips Tel. 01353 778422   E-mail: alasdair@powerwatch.org.uk

Cellphones Cause Brain Tumors, Says New Report by International EMF Collaborative

You Tube Introduction:

August 25, 2009. A new report, “Cellphones and Brain Tumors:  15 Reasons for Concern,Science, Spin and the Truth Behind Interphone,” was released today by a collaborative of international EMF activists. Groups affiliated with the report include Powerwatch and the Radiation Research Trust in the U.K., and in the U.S., EMR Policy Institute, ElectromagneticHealth.org and The Peoples Initiative Foundation. Download the report.    (http://www.radiationresearch.org/pdfs/15reasons.asp )

The exposé discusses research on cellphones and brain tumors and concludes:

·      There is a risk of brain tumors from cellphone use;

·      Telecom funded studies underestimate the risk of brain tumors, and;

·      Children have larger risks than adults for brain tumors.

This report, sent to government leaders and media today, details eleven design flaws of the 13-country, Telecom-funded Interphone study. The Interphone study, begun in 1999, was intended to determine the risks of brain tumors, but its full publication has been held up for years. Components of this study published to date reveal what the authors call a ‘systemic-skew’, greatly underestimating brain tumor risk.

The design flaws include categorizing subjects who used portable phones (which emit the same microwave radiation as cellphones,) as ‘unexposed’; exclusion of many types of brain tumors; exclusion of people who had died, or were too ill to be interviewed, as a consequence of their brain tumor; and exclusion of children and young adults, who are more vulnerable.

Lloyd Morgan, lead author and member of the Bioelectromagnetics Society says, “Exposure to cellphone radiation is the largest human health experiment ever undertaken, without informed consent, and has some 4 billion participants enrolled.  Science has shown increased risk of brain tumors from use of cellphones, as well as increased risk of eye cancer, salivary gland tumors, testicular cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and leukemia. The public must be informed.”

International scientists endorsing “Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern” include Ronald B. Herberman, MD, Director Emeritus, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute; David Carpenter, MD, Director, Institute for Health and the Environment, University at Albany; Martin Blank, PhD, Associate Professor of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics, Columbia University;Professor Yury Grigoriev, Chairman of Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, and many others.

August 25, 2009 Posted by CSea Perkins | EMF, EMR, awareness, cancer, cell phone, children, disease, electrohypersensitivity, electromagnetic fields, electrosmog, environment, global warming, mast, mobile, tower | , , | Leave a Comment

Dr. Martin Blank in Toronto – EMF Fields and Health

August 22, 2009 Posted by CSea Perkins | EMF, EMR, WiFi, awareness, cancer, cell phone, electrohypersensitivity, electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electrosmog, environment, mobile | , , , , , , | Leave a Comment

$25,000 RF Safety Case

http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2009/db0603/DA-09-1208A1.pdf

Adopted: May 28, 2009 Released: June 3, 2009

By the Regional Director, Northeast Region, Enforcement Bureau:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. In this Forfeiture Order (“Order”), we issue a monetary forfeiture in the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) to Minority Business & Housing Development, Inc. (“MBHD”), licensee of FM radio station WYGG in Asbury Park, New Jersey, for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 1.1310 of the Commission’s Rules (“Rules), by failing to comply with radio frequency radiation (“RFR”) maximum permissible exposure (“MPE”) limits applicable to facilities, operations, or transmitters; 1 Section 73.1350(a) of the Rules, by operating with an excessive antenna height from an unauthorized location; 2 and Section 73.3527(a) of the Rules, by failing to maintain a public inspection.

After identifying the station’s location, the FCC agent then entered the building located at 601 Bangs Avenue and identified himself to the front desk clerk. The clerk indicated that he had a key to the roof and contacted the building manager, who escorted the agent to the roof. To access the roof, it was necessary to unlock a padlocked door that led into a poorly illuminated elevator equipment room, which was followed by an unlocked door leading outside to the lower level of the roof. The roof had an upper level, which could only be accessed by climbing a ladder mounted on the side wall. The agent observed WYGG’s transmitting antenna approximately 8 feet above the upper roof level mounted on a pole approximately 3 feet away from the top of the ladder. The agent also observed a set of cellular antennas mounted on the side wall around the edges of the upper roof, and a set of 8 thick cables laid across the upper roof within several feet of WYGG’s antenna. Using a personal RF safety monitor, the agent determined that there was an area near the top of the ladder leading to the upper roof that met or exceeded the general population RFR MPE limits. There were no warning signs or barriers on the rooftop to prevent access to the area in question. In response to questions, the building manager stated that workers routinely gain access to the roof by obtaining a key from the front desk or the office on the 11th floor and that workers recently accessed the roof to work on the cellular equipment. She also stated that she was unaware of any RFR hazards on the roof. the agents observed two small, inconspicuous signs near the unlocked door that led to the rooftop. One was a small RFR sign posted to the left of the door by a wireless service provider indicating that the RFR levels may exceed FCC Standards for general public exposure. The sign did not indicate which areas on the roof exceeded the public or general population limits. The second was a small white paper sign glued to the right of the access door advising of a “radio frequency hazard” and that “anyone who has to climb the ladder to the top out of this door please contact the radio station on 7th floor suite 705.” Two phone numbers for the station were listed on the sign. Neither warning sign was clearly visible because the elevator equipment room was not illuminated. The view of the small white sign to the right of the access door was blocked by a large piece of electrical equipment.

The agents then proceeded to the upper rooftop to conduct RFR measurements. There were still no warning signs or barriers on the rooftop to prevent access to hazardous areas. Using a calibrated RFR meter, the agents determined that the occupational and general population limits were exceeded in an area about 5 feet around WYGG’s antenna support pole. The agents made a total of 12 spatially averaged measurements one foot from WYGG’s antenna support pole at a single location where the highest RFR levels were detected. The measurements showed that the RFR level was 158% of RFR MPE occupational limit, and 790% of the general population RFR MPE limit, or 1.58 mW/cm2

7. Immediately after making the RFR measurements, an agent contacted the station manager at one of the numbers listed on the warning sign. The agent stated to the station manager that workers were about to go on the roof and asked the manager if there were any hazards for persons working on the upper level roof (note: without RF safety training). The manager indicated that there were no hazards on the roof but that the workers should not go too close to the antenna. The agent repeatedly informed the manager that men would be working near the antenna on the upper roof and asked if there would be a problem. The manager stated that the antenna has been up there for 5 or 6 years and that people had worked on the roof before and nothing happened. The agent called the manager back about 10 minutes later, explained that he was still concerned about RFR from the antenna, and asked if it would be possible to temporarily turn off the power to the station so that the men could work safely on the roof. The manager said that he would ask the station operators to turn off the station. A few minutes later, the manager called the agent back and said he was going to the station himself to turn off the station. Shortly thereafter, the manager called the agent again, stating that he was at the studio and was turning off the station for 30 minutes. The agent asked the manager if it would be safe for the men to go to the upper roof, and the manager said that it would. The agents then observed that the radio transmitter for station WYGG was still operating.

8. Several minutes later, the station manager came to the rooftop. When agents asked why the power to the station was not turned off after he agreed to do so, the manager explained that he thought that turning off the audio to the radio station was sufficient. The agents explained that the transmitter itself must be turned off in order to eliminate the RFR emanating from the antenna. After the WYGG transmitter was turned off, the agents conducted additional RFR measurements in the same location under WYGG’s antenna with the calibrated RFR meter. No RFR emissions were detected when station WYGG was off the air, which indicated that WYGG was responsible for 100% of the emissions measured earlier. Therefore, the RFR emissions from WYGG were 158% of RFR MPE occupational limit, and 790% of the general population RFR MPE limit, or 1.58 mW/cm2. The agents explained to the manager that the RFR levels due to WYGG’s transmission exceeded the occupational and general population MPE limits, creating an RFR hazard, and that the problem should be addressed as soon as possible. The agents also advised the manager that, in addition to the RFR violations, the station was still in violation for operating at an unauthorized location and height.

Forfeiture Amount

We (The FCC) find that MBHD’s request for a “significant reduction” in the forfeiture amount is without merit. First, we decline to reduce the forfeiture amount based on MBHD’s claim that it did not intend to violate the rules. The Commission has long held that violations resulting from inadvertent error or failure to become familiar with the FCC’s requirements are willful violations and that “willful” does not require a finding that the rule violation was intentional.20 Rather, the term “willful” means that the violator knew that it was taking (or not taking) the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate the rules. In any event, because we find here that MBHD’s violations of Section 1.1310, Section 73.1350(a), and Section 73.3527(a) were repeated, we do not also need to make a determination that they were willful.21 We likewise decline to take into consideration the “ongoing efforts that WYGG has made to become FCC compliant.” The Commission has consistently held that a licensee is expected to correct errors when they are brought to the licensee’s attention and that such correction is not grounds for a downward adjustment in the forfeiture.22

18. In sum, we have examined MBHD’s response to the NAL pursuant to the statutory factors above, and in conjunction with the Forfeiture Policy Statement. As a result of our review, we conclude that MBHD willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.1310, Section 73.1350(a), and Section 73.3527(a) of the Rules and that the $25,000 forfeiture proposed in the NAL is warranted.

August 16, 2009 Posted by CSea Perkins | EMF, EMR, electrohypersensitivity, electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electrosmog, environment | , | Leave a Comment

Sign Petition – MCS / EMF / EMS

READ THIS

READ THIS

National Petition 101 | Mitigate America Dr. Rhoda Zione Alale, Founder

Tax Credits for those who mitigate their homes, schools, offices, public space, public transportation vehicles, airplanes, trains, buses, trucks , subway systems, etc.

Testing and Mitigation of all Real Estate Properties before they can be leased, sold, or occupied.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/national-petition-101-mitigate-america

August 16, 2009 Posted by CSea Perkins | awareness, cancer, disease, electrohypersensitivity, electromagnetic radiation, electrosmog, environment, harmonizer | , , , , , , | Leave a Comment