Comments under story titled
Why CNET compiles cell phone radiation charts
Biron_1 says ”
RFSafe — I’m somewhat familiar rfsafe. You sell devices that “protect” people from radiation. I will not visit your website which promotes these dubious devices. I am extremely concerned about potential bias and conflict of interest.
If you have links to studies, provide direct links. I WILL NOT generate hits on your website.”
– John Coates’ Reply –
Yes Biron_1, I sell devices that “protect” people from radiation. How can you say my products are “dubious devices” when you’re not even willing to visit the website.
I use only scientifically proven ways to reduce RF radiation exposure and had you taken time to visit the website you’d see that too. Anyone (RF meter testing RF Safe Case) can see how effective and easy it is to keep a deflective barrier in-between the user and device.
There is nothing magical or difficult about shielding your body from radio frequency radiation. It’s a choice informed cell phone users can make, and their concerns for safety will ultimately lead to safer technologies replacing outdated ones. (suspicion you work for the outdated ones? *wink*)
So, we have a different stance on the need for RF safety. While I certainly feel there is more than enough proof to take action,you feel there is none. To play that “blind-eyed” makes me question all your assertions. I can accept your opinion, we are different people, different experiences with different motivations.
It’s very timely that it is Father’s day today! The only interest I have in RF/EMF safety is that I am a Father to a child that died in my hands. I believe the birth defect was attributed to occupational radiation exposure where my wife was setting 8 hrs a day in front of three different two-way 5 watt microwave radios.
I was a much younger man in 1995, and the pain I felt that day I can remember like it was yesterday. Her last breath is an image clearly burned into my mind forever. But, let’s keep this in perspective, my website rfsafe wasn’t created because of the cell phone radiation issues at hand today. It was my wife’s occupational environment. In 1995 when my daughter passed there were less than 33 million cell phones activated in the USA, roughly 300 million less than today.
However in-light of studies that came out in the years after her death, research showed RF/EMF exposure could have increased the incidence rate of the very same type of birth defect that claimed the life of my child Angel Leigh Coates 1995-1995.
The very first radio frequency radiation shielding I ever made (17 yrs ago) were garments for pregnant women that were in similar high RF/EMF occupational environments.
Those studies, among several other things prompted me in this direction and in 1998 I created my first online post, on rfsafe.com and it’s been online ever since. 16yrs ago I saw the possibility of using the internet to reach people everywhere with a message of RF/EMF caution and expanded from my small town of 5000 just outside Aspen Colorado to the world-wide-web. At this point my only bias was I felt like my life, and Angel’s life, no matter how short it was, had a very important purpose on earth – to help prevent this from happening to other families.
Right about that time, in 1998, the Nokia 6160 was the cell phone everyday people were rushing out to buy, and carrying it on their bodies all day long. I was concerned that women carrying these devices in a purse, handbag or pocket were exposing their baby to microwave radiation. And yes, I am strong in my stance that the fetus should NOT EVER be exposed to your gadgets microwave radiation.
So you have to put yourself in my shoes, and realize it won’t matter how much you downplay the need for RF safety, or belittle those researching RF hazards. The company I founded RF SAFE, will continue to provide viable solutions that are easy to use for reducing RF exposure.
The only harm that can be done is not to “err on the side of caution”! Otherwise it could lead to a lot of pain and heartache. Not saying it will, but I’m telling you from firsthand experience – even if the odds were 1 in a million or 1 in a billion and simply shielding rf exposure could have avoided it, (which takes less effort than putting on a seatbelt) – it’s worth the effort to be RF Safe to be sure!
Trust me when I say, the last thing any parent wants to do is bury their child remotely thinking something could have been done to avoid it. If you do ever find yourself in that position rest assured you don’t become a finger pointer, you’re in a league of your own,you get busy and take action.
For me, today that is providing people with the best ways to shield themselves from as much RF radiation as possible; without effecting the power output of the device, or other parameters considered relevant for safety and device performance.
Quite frankly, I really don’t care how you wish to construe my intentions, or my website. I’ll leave that for people to judge that actually visit rfsafe.com :)
I’m just a Father that loves his children, and will do what it takes to protect them!
Happy Father’s Day!
Founder of RF Safe Corporation