Can Wireless Radiation Be As Harmful As Cigarettes?


New York Times: Can Wireless Wearable Computers Be As Harmful As Cigarettes?  Science Says ‘YES’! The New York Times Folds To Pressure From Trillion Dollar Wireless Industry!

When the brave award-winning technology columnist, reporter and author of the Disruptions column and New York Times writer, Nick Bilton, compared two by-products, cigarette smoke and wireless radiation from wearable computers, he was instantly deemed a fear monger.

What’s more shocking is the wireless industry’s smear campaign against the NYT based off solely off the writer’s choice of sources for quotation, which could have been replaced with highly accredited and peer viewed research.

But, what was Bilton really trying to tell us prior to the wireless industry pressuring the New York Times into changing the title of the story from — “Could Wearable Computers Be as Harmful as Cigarettes?” to “The Health Concerns in Wearable Tech”.

Well, smart watchers of wireless health hazards from wearable computers, such as Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D. School of Public Health University of California, Berkeley has been keeping an eye on radiation levels from Google Glass (which exceeds SAR levels of some smartphones) and Apple’s iWatch announced to compete with Samsung’s Smartwatch is under close watch as well.


RF Safety watchdogs have real scientific evidence, both experimentally and epidemically, to back up the growing concerns from the public’s protest of FCC officials and victim testimony by Florida Attorney Jimmy Gonzalez to elected government officials of dire health effects being linked to low level microwave radiation from wearable wireless devices which may cause tremendous harm to our future generation.

Laws are already warning residents in many cities.  Berkeley CA is the most recent to join a growing number of government officials around the world taking action to protect its citizens.  Canada’s new proposal for wireless radiation safety warnings and France banning WiFi in daycare centers are both good examples of this movement supported by government wireless radiation warnings has gained a lot of traction in 2015.

The comparison has been seen as anti-technology, or speculative based on insignificant evidence. What kind of evidence do we need as humans?

In 2015, if you turned on your television, you might have watched an advertisement trying to convince you that if you smoked, your chances of dying from cancer, or another disease, greatly increases.  The process of warning people about the dangers of cigarettes is non-stop and ongoing, and while cigarettes are a Group 1 carcinogen people still buy, buy, buy.

The standard safety measure used by the FCC for cell phones and products that transmit microwaves close to your body goes by the Acronym of SAR  (specific absorption rate), which is critically more than 17 years outdated.   It has taken less than 10 years for Smartphones to find their way into the hands of almost every human being in the world.  SAR levels are nothing to put faith in — however when shopping for the lowest SAR cell phone — Samsung is the undisputed leader when compared to the almost illegal RF exposure limits pushed by Apple’s iPhone 6 Plus.

There are over 6 billion cell phone subscriptions in the world and today cell phones are pressed to our heads, in our pockets, or in the palm of our hand for most of the day.   More and more cancer victim’s scars are matching the location of their cellphone, and some individuals have had cancer in all three of these common places that a phone makes contact with your body.  Smartphones and their supporting wireless accessories emit radiation which all wireless manufacturers warn about in small print to NEVER hold a phone directly against your body in use.


Children cell phone radiation exposure

One of the last paragraphs, in Bilton’s article, directly informs the reader that children are a high-risk group when it comes to all the radiation our products are pouring into the atmosphere.

More Disinformation and Paid for Science

The fact that (or should we say paid for science) references specific absorption rates (SAR) in regards to cell phone products and the new wearable electronics coming to market already makes their case a bit obsolete. SAR rates do not equate to any guaranteed level of safety, Furthermore SAR test aren’t designed for vulnerabilities unique to unborn babies, women or children, the FCC even admits this in public disclosure of a review comments of its current RF safety guidelines.

The writer, Alexandra Ossola says, “People have been using cell phones for somewhere around 15 years–if they were a strong carcinogen, epidemiologists would have expected to see an uptick in the frequency of brain cancer by now, like they did with lung cancer 15 years after World War I when cigarettes became more common.”

Does she not know that in the year 1900 Buck Duke sold 4.4 billion cigarettes? By the time epidemiologists figured out cigarettes cause cancer the tobacco industry had a paid group of doctors, lawyers, advertising agencies, and government lobbyists. By then it was all too late.

500,000 People will die of lung cancer in 2015 from smoking, but lets look at the trend over the last 100 years that got us to this point and respectfully there isn’t a better analogy for wireless radiation exposure.

1900: RESEARCH: Brosch experiments with tobacco carcinogenesis on guinea pigs

1900: REGULATION: Washington, Iowa, Tennessee and North Dakota have outlawed the sale of cigarettes.

1900: CONSUMPTION: 4.4 billion cigarettes are sold this year.  Buck Duke is selling 9 out of 10 cigarettes in the US.

When viewing the chart below, one must consider we are in a time very similar to 1914 statistics related to deaths attributed to smoking when compared to deaths from cell phone radiation exposure today. But what about a 100 year from now?

Reported Deaths from Smoking In The US

  • 1914: 400
  • 1930: 3,000
  • 1940: 7,000
  • 1950: 18,000
  • 1960: 36,000
  • 1965: 50,000
  • 1975: 81,000

smoking-vs- wireless-risk

Cell phones emit radiation. We need to study the effects of this radiation, as low or insignificant as some would have us believe, while companies like Apple push their products to consumers like doctors once did for cigarettes.

Nick Bilton wasn’t far off in his article. There needs to be more studies in regards to the amount of time we spend with our products, and the effects they have on our bodies. We can’t sit back and be the guinea pigs of the cellular industry, while poor writers spend their time discrediting real journalists, diverting our attention from real issues that we encounter every day.

RF Safe commends Nick Bilton for voicing concern over products that can possibly harm us. We all want to be safe when we use technology, and it’s about time we give a realistic look into all the RF waves we pump into our environment and body.

Lessons from History

Remember that it took decades for the government to respond to the early warnings about tobacco, asbestos, and X-Rays.  However, it may benefit us to take a quick look back at history and learn a lesson.

The tobacco time line:

  • The health effects of tobacco were first debated in 1856 in the medical journal The Lancet
  • Isaac Adler suggested lung cancer was related to smoking in 1912
  • A British medical journal published a study in 1950 finding that smokers were 50 times more likely to get lung cancer
  • It wasn’t until 1997 that tobacco companies agreed to fund healthcare costs from smoking

The X-Ray time line:

  • Thomas Edison noted injuries from X-Rays in 1896
  • Edison’s assistant died from X-Ray exposure in 1904
  • Fluoroscopes were used in shoe stores to see through shoes to aid proper fitting in 1930
  • The deaths of over 200 radiologists from radioactive cancer were published in 1934
  • Radiation levels of fluoroscopes were questioned in 1949
  • In 1990 the risk of cancer from radiation was found to be five times greater than previously thought

The Asbestos time line:

    • A British factory inspector warned of asbestos harm in 1898
    • Rat studies raised questions about the harmful effects of asbestos dust in 1911
    • S. insurers refused to cover asbestos worker’s claims in 1918
    • From 1935 to 1949 lung cancer was reported in asbestos workers
    • Asbestos was finally banned in the U.S. in 1989

There is no question that EMR and cell phone radiation is a potential carcinogen.


Wireless Radiation Shields For Cellphones

Find It Here


Subscribe to our happiness Newsletter

Receive random but always interesting and inspiring emails from Stella Frances.

All about the Tourmaline Blanket and so much more

Tourmaline Blanket Gray-w
Tourmaline Blanket

Tourmaline Facts

Some Interesting Facts about Tourmaline The name Tourmaline comes from the Singhalese word (from northern India) “touramalli” which means “mixed colored

Read More »
Dr Ren and her baby
Tourmaline Blanket

Dr. Ren’s Testimonial

“…our baby calms down much quicker when we wrap him in his tourmaline-blanket…” – Dr. Lauren Ren, America’s Holistic Sweetheart

Read More »
Tourmaline Blanket

Tourmaline FAQs

Frequently Asked Questions What is Tourmaline? Tourmaline is not a single mineral, but a group of minerals with a similar

Read More »
Tourmaline Blanket

Our Tourmaline Guarantee

Re-energize wrapped in a crystal blanket The smallest tourmaline particles that can be currently produced, which are nanometer-sized particles are used

Read More »

Share this article with your friends

Scroll to Top