|
RF Safe Mailbag Post
Skepticism Vs Stupidity
It's always a pleasure to answer all
of your questions. But, If you think your questions will get this in-depth
please give us a call toll free 1-866-696-SAFE (7233) LOL :-)
Please send me your comments
on this months Skinny
Below is the response to an email
sent to us by one skeptical "MIT Robotics Engineer"
Starting E-mail To Kailas:
I'm
not sure why my position is hard to understand? I’m not an MIT graduate like
you, but I’ll do my best to explain. My education in EMF safety was driven by a
fathers will to understand what could have been responsible for the Neural Tube
Defect (NTD) that did not allow my child to live. I’m no dummy and my entire
life I’ve always been willing to take on any challenge, no matter what the risk
when it’s the right thing to do!
My businesses outside Aspen CO.
provided me time and money to research deeply into many of my questions that had
not been answered.
NTD's "Birth Defects" was on the top of my list! It seem like my whole life
had been created to revolve around this question.
After tons of research and divine guidance I began to attribute EMF's as a
contributing factor to my child's birth defect.
Knowing how short life on earth is, I knew it would take an entire organization
of professionals their full time attention to bring about needed changes in the
wireless industry! So, I Founded RF Safe to support my full time research, unite
the professionals, and supply the public solutions for safety!
Now with 6 years of Dailey RF safety
research under by belt, I'd say I'm covered on every angle of my claims!
Q&A's addressed in your first email
Kailas: Hey. I can't
believe that you pride yourself on not selling the earpiece radiation shields,
John: Well not only do
we pride ourselves, we also claim total responsibility for being the first to
expose them as scams! When
Bob
from Good Housekeeping first contacted me about them testing cell phone
safety products, we must had talked nearly 2 hours. We talked in detail about
how safety was a
system of usage. But most importantly I stressed the concern for stopping
the companies that were putting the public in more danger by misleading them on
their level of protection! Thanks to Good Housekeeping's independent testing
these companies are
now being sued by the FTC! These products can be found in our pro's and
con's section as "NOT
RF Safe Approved!"
Kailas: but you do sell
a $30 device to reduce radiation transmitted by the wire to the earpiece.
John: No, we
sell accessories and we promote a system of safe cell phone usage!
The
SCP System! It's been clear from the beginning that no "ONE" cell phone
accessory can provide cell phone users the level of protection they need! So
being safe truly depends on a persons education in using a cell phone safely,
just as education plays it's roll in motor vehicle safety or hand gun safety for
that matter.
This is why I've posted thousands of
pages and plead with everyone to explore all the topics and products posted
online in their entirety. You should also return to
www.rfsafe.com monthly for updates on this
controversial subject matter.
Details on why we sell a device to
reduce radiation transmitted by the wire to the earpiece is answered in your own
statement below posted in red.
Kailas: The reason cell
phone radiation is bad is because it's stuck up right against your head.
John: I have 2
points to make about this statement!
1 No, cell phone
radiation is bad because of it's ability to create resonance within molecular
structures, which destroys mechanisms that create enzymes and other biological
molecules unique to maintaining a living organism. It's extremely critical to
completely understand the full nature of electromagnetic fields and their health
effects. When it's understood medicine will advance to eradicate disease and
genetic dysfunction's.
2 We're definitely at odds here!
Come on now Kailas your a smart guy, right? Lets think about what happens to a
fat T-Bone stake when you cook it in a microwave oven, say 2 minutes at full
power. The first thing you will notice is its cold surrounding the bone. This
is because dense bone matter absorbs the microwave energy with little molecular
disturbance. The meat around the bone is not subjected to the same even
distribution of microwaves as the meat further away from the bone. Thus it
absorbs less energy!
The point is, at least when you hold the
phone to your head your skull absorbs most of the energy at microwave
frequencies. I'm not saying that its safer to use the phone against your head,
but when a cell phone user is using a headset to reduce radiation to the head,
they don't account for when the phone is worn on your belt your only
exposing many more vital organs in the torso area with much greater
intensities, because no bone is protecting them.
Kailas: the energy
in radiation drops as the square of the distance, so over the length of the wire
it's no problem. the wire acts like a big antenna if anything
John: Exactly!
The wire of a headset does act as an antenna! It's for this reason we sell small
wire ferrite suppressors, so the rf will drop off with the square of distance
once the wire is "NOT" acting as a "Big antenna"
Kailas: so although the
magnitude of the radiation may be cut by 99%, it was tiny to begin with!
John: "Tiny to
begin with" is a good way of putting it! A persons tolerance to health effects
purely depends on ones genetic makeup. "NOT THE LEVEL OF DOSAGE!"
A very good example would be a bee
sting. The amount of poison a bee can deliver with a sting is "Tiny to begin
with", and lucky for me it's not a hazard. However this is not the case for
everyone, as "Tiny" bee stings can most certainly be life threatening to
many people
Kailas: you also claim
that radiation becomes "trapped in the car with you" on the page about external
antennas. it's a nice fat lie. at a frequency of 2.5GHz, it's going to get out
your car window just fine.
John: This really
becomes a common sense thing. I feel it's a great comparison especially in
light of recent university studies proving a Faraday effect.
Kailas: again, with all
this stuff, you neglect to mention that people are subject to fields of this
same magnitude other places in their life so this really doesn't make a
difference.
John: We do
address this concern and our point is clear that one must avoid excessive RF/EMF
exposure in all environments home or work.
Below is a statement in blue is posted
online!
Recent US
studies are showing more significant bio-effects at lower and lower power
densities. (See
Study) Dr. Henry Lai has reported DNA single and double strand breaks
at levels below the current FCC exposure standard. Magras & Xenos have reported
irreversible sterility in mice after 5 generations of exposure to .168 to 1.053
microwatts per square centimeter in an "antenna park." Note that the current,
applicable US exposure standard would be 579 microwatts per square centimeter,
-- 500 times higher! -- and that this very low exposure level would relate more
to a person living near a cellular tower, than a cell phone user.
We do dedicate many sections of RF
Safe's site to other environmental RF Hazards! We make a point to cover
cell phone tower issues,
power line
issues and computer workstation issues as well.
Kailas: finally, you
sell the antenna signal booster.. that is the ultimate scam. i can't belive the
ftc hasn't shut that down yet.
John: I refused to
offer them for the longest long time. I must also be truthful in telling you I
don't use my phone enough in low signal areas to give you any personal feed back
on the antenna booster. It's was not until I saw a phone actually increase "One"
signal bar after installing it on a friends phone that I started offering them.
This was about a year after they came on the market. I clearly state on every
page "the manufacture make the claims" and for only a S&H charge it's worth a
try! Second "No-one" that has gotten a booster from us has complained yet.
Kailas: all this crap
is a scam. you should be ashamed.
John: I value your
skepticism, if more people were more skeptical, corruption would be a tenth of
what it is today and businesses that promote such practices would be a thing of
the past! However don't confuse skepticism with stupidity, as a wise choice for
even the most skeptical person is to use prudent avoidance.
Q&A Addressed in your second
email
Kailas: I see alot of
plots and graphs that look good, but have little analytical value.
John: Thank you for the
complement on plots and
graphs, and for the average viewer they appreciate graphical elements to
understand content dealing with power level densities and for conceptual
guidance. So their analytical value depends on one level of education. I
personally find them very useful and in some cases like the
pictures of DNA from studies by Dr. Henry Lai seem to be indisputable
evidence of RF Hazards.
Kailas: So you claim my car is a farady cage for 2.5GHz
signals. I agree that
the body of the car is a cage, but the windows?
John: It's
pointed out that the windows are
reflective when some tints are used. By no means are we saying rf is
reflected by clear glass that has no tint.
Kailas: You even say
on your page that "... radio waves cannot penetrate a Faraday cage". If my car
was "... amplifying RF density like a microwave oven, not letting the RF
radiation escape through the metal body and tinted glass, and then concentrating
the microwaves into your body at much higher EM intensities", i wouldn't be able
to get any signal on the inside either, eh?
John: As stated in our
site there are exceptions to the rule, like if you own a convertible. However it
also depends on what type of car you own if you get a signal at all. Vehicles
such as some Volvo sedans with dark lead crystal tint rarely allow a call to be
received with the windows rolled up. Many manufactures now warn owners to use
an external antenna right along with hands free kits.
Kailas: So, since the car isn't a farady cage (by definition),
there is no amplification and concentration that occurs. I agree that the
radiation levels will be higher than an antenna outside of your car (i don't
believe 10x), but you comparing the phone in the car to a
microwave oven is rediculous!
John: Our
claims of (x10 the RF) can be justified simply by taking in consideration the
software regulating phone output power. The cell phones software can not tell
the difference between the roof of your car from tall buildings, trees or just
plain distance from a cell phone tower. When the signal gets weak for any
reason, your cell phones transmitter will increase power out to compensate.
Reflections from surrounding metal can only increase ambient rf levels only
further substantiating our claims.
Claims of faraday effect is proven by university studies
Kailas: On your overview of hands free safety, you claim "not
to mention using an unshielded hands free headset is no different than sticking
the antenna in your ear! ". That is a huge lie! the radiation from my cell
phone comes from the transmission to the cell tower. that radiation goes to the
antenna and is carried in high power analog electronics. whatever high frequency
energy that is carried in your headset wire is picked up by it's antenna
properties, NOT because energy is pumped into it actively by the cell phone!
John: As you have
mentioned yourself the wire acts as an antenna, so if you put an unshielded
headset wire in your ear via the ear bud speaker you have done just that. With
that in mind we can truthfully use the analogy of the " antenna in ear". It is
the source of RF "Radio Frequency" that provides energy to the antenna system.
This source in a cell phone is it's transmitter which is located in the handset
itself! This is why RF shielding must always be used between a cell phone
handset and user along with antenna control if the phone is held near the body!
Kailas: finally, the
way the sound gets to me is by a speaker, which is unable to radiate high
frequencies due to it's physics (look at the frequency response of cheap
speakers. they don't go over 20Khz). the clip on "radiation clamp" you sell
is an inline filter (i don't see how they can get a patent on it since it's been
around forever, that's probably why it's patent pending). high tech talk like "a
saturation free core" is silly since saturating a core at those frequencies is
not a problem. all this clip on thing does is keep the
earpiece wire from acting like an antenna, by providing series inductance and
discouraging the flow of current. my guess is that the capaciance and
inductance in the wires themselves would be enough to inhibit most of it, but
maybe not. either way, your antenna in ear" claim is a complete lie.
John: It's true
much "Lower frequencies" are responsible for delivering sound to a headset
speaker. Without question the ferrite technology we use
has been around forever! Using it provides impedance to only the higher
frequencies, effectively shielding a large band of microwaves while letting
lower audible frequencies work the headset speaker.
Kailas: i've done my
homework. have you?
John: My homework
is never done! As long as mankind doesn't understand all apparent Non-Thermal
effects of RF/EMF Radiation it's purely a race for enlightenment. It wouldn't
be scientific or morally correct not to keep in mind that all the processes of
current microwave transmission, even reflections and refractions, when absorbed
into
living cells will cause macroscopic manifestations of scattering effects on
the
atomic and subatomic levels of your genetic make-up!
See
"DNA And The Microwave Effect".
Kailas: all your "resarch"
pages are just marketing ploys from the manufactuers, and links to sites with
fundamentals of electrodynamics.
John: You may
want to look a little deeper, over the past 6 years I've posted thousands of
pages online. RF Safe's web content is one of the most diversified resources in
the world with regards to RF Safety. Furthermore we will NEVER compromise our
integrity to satisfy any manufacturers claims. Nearly every EMF Safety product
manufacture in the world has threatened me with litigation. Because I stand up
for the publics best interest, and trust me its not me posting what they want me
to that introduces me to their legal counsel. Second to understand EMF hazards
one must become acquainted with the fundamentals of electrodynamics.
Our goals are to provide factual education and solutions that work. This
is another reason to check back often as we continually strive to better educate
and provide better safety solutions.
Kailas: Your
description of relfection has nothing to do with why a microwave door reflects
radiation! do you even know why? an electromagnetic wave has two components,
an electrical and magnetic wave, both are orthogonal. when you short one out,
you stop propegation.
John: While it is true
for a radio frequency to exist it needs both electric and magnetic properties. "One
of the basic characteristics of
microwave energy is that it is reflected by metal. The extent to which
microwaves are reflected varies with the type of metal. For example, aluminum
and stainless steel reflect microwaves, while certain compositions of
cold-rolled steel will absorb microwave energy to some extent. However, for all
practical purposes, it may be said that metal reflects microwave energy"
My description of reflection is what happens inside a microwave oven's cooking
cavity.
See How a Microwave oven works
or
http://www.gallawa.com/microtech/metal_arc.html
Kailas: the reason the
microwave works, is because the holes are too small for radiation of that
frequency to go through. my car windows are huge and there's no simliar effect.
John: Yes, these
are electromagnetic principles discovered by Dr Faraday. It's also the reason
for the exception to the rule. Like if you own a convertible! However if your
roof is made of metal,
reflection of microwaves will occur. This promotes unwanted side effects
such as, increases in ambient RF exposure, increased power output by the cell
phone, decreased battery life, and decreased signal strength. See lots of
reasons support using a cell phone with RF disabling port to allow maximum
performance from external car antennas.
Kailas: I'm
interested to hear your reply. i'm willing to accept i'm wrong,but i want to
know what's wrong in my argument.
John:
I apologize for the reply you received from my customer service.
Below is the response from my customer
service,
Sorry about that, but in light of the matter I find it acceptable.
"Look a little closer GENIUS
before you start running your fingers on what you have no clue about. Please
do your homework before you even think about replying! p.s. stick to your
robots! Thank You, Lou Hendrix"
Accusing us of selling scams
topping it off with insults doesn't get you far with Lou!
I am lucky enough to say my employees
take this job very seriously and support both my sincerity and compassion for
doing the right thing. My staff has seen the struggles I’ve endured and
continue to face in order for us to exist. It maybe hard for you to comprehend a
company was truly constructed to help bring awareness and solutions to a problem
unseen by billions. BUT IT IS TRUE & I WILL SUCCEED!
God Bless
John Coates
VP RF Safe
| 
