Shop by Collection
Link to your individual collections by creating a new linklist in the Navigation section of the admin.
You can then have it appear here by choosing your new linklist under Customize Theme / Sidebar.
Some countries in the world have established new, low-intensity based
exposure standards that respond to studies reporting effects that do not rely on heating.
Consequently, new exposure guidelines are hundreds or thousands of times lower than
those of IEEE and ICNIRP! Alarmingly, some of the countries that have lowered
their limits, for example, in the cell phone frequency range of 800 MHz to 900 MHz.
The levels range from 10 microwatts per centimeter squared in Italy and Russia to 4.2
microwatts per centimeter squared in Switzerland. In comparison, the United States and
Canada limit such exposures to only 580 microwatts per centimeter squared (at 870
MHz) and then averaged over a time period (meaning that higher exposures are allowed
for shorter times, but over a 30 minute period, the average must be 580 microwatts per
centimeter squared or less at this frequency). The United Kingdom allows one hundred
times this level, or 5800 microwatts per centimeter squared! Higher frequencies have
higher safety limits, so that at 1000 MHz, for example, the limit is 1000 microwatts per
centimeter squared (in the United States). Each individual frequency in the
radiofrequency radiation range needs to be calculated. These should be considered as reference
points only. Emerging scientific evidence has encouraged some countries to respond by
adopting planning targets, but the public MUST understand that this is simply not enough nor are these standards adequate. EMF Safety Levels are not where they should be and our governments should be adopting exposure standards that keep us safe.
Professional bodies like technical societies like IEEE and ICNIRP continue to support
“thermal-only” guidelines routinely defend doing so by omitting or ignoring study
results reporting bioeffects and adverse impacts to health and wellbeing from a very large
body of peer-reviewed, published science because it is not yet “proof” according to their
definitions and by defining the proof of “adverse effects” at an impossibly high a bar
(scientific proof or causal evidence) so as to freeze action. They also defend their stance by requiring a conclusive demonstration of both “adverse effect” and risk before admitting low-intensity effects
should be taken into account and by ignoring low-intensity studies that report bioeffects
and health impacts due to modulation. An informed person must consider these items and what these entities have to gain from not implementing proper EMF Safety Standards.
Much of the criticism of the existing standard-setting organizations comes because their
contributions are perceived as industry-friendly (more aligned with technology
investment and dissemination of new technologies) rather than public health oriented.
(Statistics courtesy of the BioInitiative Report.)