What the mobile phone industry doesn’t want you to know about electromagnetic radiation

Can you guess the connection between Smoking, the Ozone layer and Sugar?

The connection is both amazing and terrifying, and gives us a glimpse of the the way powerful media outlets and lobbyist control the knowledge coming from the research taking place in some of the most respected institutions.

Unfortunately, history has shown that even scientific research can be swayed, highlighted and even buried as necessary for these institutions. Some examples-

When Doctors and even Santa endorsed tobacco

There is no debate today about smoking. We know it has negative effects on our body. If we see a pregnant woman smoking, we may even comment and tell her it is bad for her unborn child. How long did it take to reach this conclusion? A year, two years?

How about 50 years?

Yes, almost 50 years of testing weren’t enough to prove smoking is bad for you, some doctors even recommended it, and most disturbing to see today – they even used babies in the posters!

Click here for more great example of how advertising was used in the 50s.

But even up until the late 90s, and as recently as the year 2000, the tobacco industry financed and sponsored scientific research trying to prove that smoking isn’t bad. Even when overwhelming evidence accumulated from third party independent research, they continued to push their agenda with an incredibly strong lobby and cash flow in order to suppress the truth. Only when the trials started and they started losing money did they give up and began diverting money to research a so-called “healthier” cigarette.

Sources explaining how this was done by the tobacco industry in the USA and Germany can be found here (USA) and here (Germany)

When the ozone layer was taken for granted

Ozone is a gas in the atmosphere that protects everything living on earth from the harmful ultraviolet (UV) rays from the sun. Without the ozone layer in our atmosphere, it would be very difficult for anything to survive on earth’s surface.

On June 28, 1974, Sherry Rowland and Mario Molina, chemists at the University of California, published the first scientific paper warning that human-generated chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) could cause serious harm to earth’s protective ozone layer. They calculated that if CFC production continued to increase at the current rate of 10% per year until 1990 and then remain steady, CFCs would cause a global 5 to 7% ozone loss by 1995, and a 30 to 50% loss by 2050.

They warned that a substantial loss of ozone would significantly increase the amount of skin-damaging ultraviolet UV-B light reaching the surface of the earth, greatly increasing skin cancer and cataracts.

The loss of the stratospheric ozone could also significantly cool the stratosphere, potentially causing destructive climate change. Although no stratospheric ozone loss had been observed at the time of the research, they declared that CFCs should be banned. At the time, the CFC industry was worth about $8 billion in the U.S., employed over 600,000 people directly, and 1.4 million people indirectly (Roan, 1989).

Can you guess where this is going? You guessed right….

Critics and skeptics, primarily industry spokespeople and scientists from conservative think tanks, immediately attacked the theory. However, only 11 year later the stunning discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole in 1985 proved the skeptics wrong. Human-generated CFCs were indeed destroying earth’s protective ozone layer. In fact, the ozone depletion was far worse than Molina and Rowland had predicted. No one had imagined that ozone depletion, like the 50% losses being observed by 1987 over Antarctica, were possible so soon.

The Montreal Protocol, an international agreement to phase out ozone-destroying chemicals, was hurriedly approved in 1987 to address the threat. Only now, in 2016, are we seeing that the ozone layer is starting to heal. However, we are already struggling with the climate changes that the 30+ years of damage to the ozone layer brought upon us. Damage could have been greatly reduced if action had been taken immediately after publication of the first scientific research.

When sugar was part of a healthy diet

And now SUGAR! I love my coffee with a pile of sugar (but skinny milk ☺), and who doesn’t love a sugar-glazed donuts? In fact, some form of sugar exists in nearly every kind of industrial food that we eat daily. This of course, wasn’t always the case.

In the 1960s, the sugar industry funded research that downplayed the risks of sugar and highlighted the hazards of fat, according to a newly published article in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The article draws on internal documents to show that an industry group called the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) wanted to “refute” concerns about sugar’s possible role in heart disease. The SRF then sponsored research by Harvard scientists that did just that. The result was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1967, with no disclosure that the funding came from the sugar industry.

The sugar-funded project in question was a review of the literature, examining a variety of studies and experiments. It suggested there were major problems with all the studies that implicated sugar, and concluded that cutting fat out of American diets was the best way to address coronary heart disease.

In 1954, the researchers note, the president of the SRF gave a speech describing a great business opportunity.

If Americans could be persuaded to eat a lower-fat diet — for the sake of their health — they would need to replace that fat with something else – America’s per capita sugar consumption could go up by a third.

But in the 1960s, the SRF became aware of “reports that sugar is a less desirable dietary source of calories than other carbohydrates,” as John Hickson, SRF vice president and director of research, put it in one document.

He recommended that the industry fund its own studies, “Then we can publish the data and refute our detractors.”

The next year, after several scientific articles were published suggesting a link between sucrose and coronary heart disease, the SRF approved the literature-review project. It wound up paying for it. One of the researchers was the chairman of Harvard’s Public Health Nutrition Department, and an ad hoc member of SRF’s board.

Today we know the harmful effects of sugar, yet this discovery of the way the SRF conducted their affairs in the 50s still shocked many in the health and food industry, but you may be surprised to learn that this is often the way things are still done today.

How entire industries lobby against the truth

As we have seen, in all three of the above examples (tobacco, ozone layer, sugar), industry spokespersons used more or less the same strategies to convey their message:

Launch a public relations campaign disputing the evidence.
Find and pay a respected scientist to argue persuasively against the threat.
Proclaim discredited scientific studies and myths as scientific fact.
Point to the substantial scientific uncertainty, and the certainty of economic loss if immediate action is taken.
Use data from a local area to support their views, ignoring global evidence.
Disparage scientists, saying they are playing up uncertain predictions of doom in order to obtain research funding.
Trivialize environmentalists, claiming they are hyping environmental problems in order to further their ideological goals.
Complain that it is unfair to require regulatory action in the U.S., as it would put the nation at an economic disadvantage.
Claim that more research is needed before action should be taken.
Argue that it is less expensive to live with the effects.
Distract the public, laying the blame on other factors.

So, as a radiation-blocking accessories company, why are we bringing this up? Well, we see too many similarities in the strategies that were used in the three case studies above.

These same strategies are used today by one of the three most powerful lobbies on the U.S. – the Wireless Companies lobby.

New research shows link between cancer and cellular radiation

After the National Toxicology Program (NTP) research first published in May 2016, about the connection between cellular radiation and cancer, the Washington, D.C. based CTIA (The Wireless Association – a nonprofit organization that represents the wireless communications companies) issued a statement that the report should be considered in the context of previous research that found “there are no established health effects from radio frequency signals used in cellphones.” Despite the fact that the research concluded exactly the opposite…

In San Francisco, municipal laws have been enacted to limit cell phone use, and to add warnings in public places, etc.

CTIA has maintained that cell phones are completely safe, and has fought to block San Francisco from passing laws that would require electronics retailers to notify consumers about the proper handling of cell phones.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) – the agency that oversees the broadband internet companies and online tech industry, is controlled by the powerful industries it is meant to regulate. It is also interesting that in 1996, President Clinton signed the Telecom Act. Look at Section 704 of that Act as it pertains to the wireless communications industry and health:

Section 704 of the TCA states that “no health or environmental concern can interfere with the placement of telecom equipment such as cell towers and antennae”

More and more evidence is accumulating every day on the effects of electromagnetic radiation, and we know the effects are even more dangerous for children.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) released the following guidelines for children and adolescents using wireless devices, recommending no more than two hours per day of any type of entertainment screen time for kids ages 3 to 18, and none for children 2 or younger. The guidelines cover media such as Internet and texting as well as TV, movies and video games.

What did the government do?

The federal government and the broadband industry are teaming up to bring wi-fi connectivity to all communities and schools. The White House is also promoting classroom connectivity, 1:1 computers, Chromebook, or iPads for each child. That’s MILLIONS of classrooms full of screens, wi-fi, online curriculum, online assessments and student data all bundled together, for and by the industry.

The harmful effect of non-ionizing radiation

New evidence is showing that non-ionizing radiation supporters (people who say that wireless / cell phone, microwave radiation is not dangerous) are flat out WRONG.

Their point is that unlike ionizing radiation (high frequency radiation like x-ray and gamma ray), non-ionizing radiation does not affect our DNA and therefore cannot cause permanent damage or cancer.

Following the earlier NTP research that showed the cancer connection to wireless radiation, another part of the research was recently published, explaining that in fact this radiation does create DNA breaks. This was proven in a research study over 20 years ago (As described in this link), and discredited by major wireless companies, led at the time by Motorola, using the strategies listed above to discredit opposing research and evidence.

In addition, another study from the Weizmann Institute in Israel from 2007, explaining the effects of radiation on protein in the brain and how that can cause cancer can be found here. Again, this study was shot down by lobbyists before reaching the floor of the U.S. Congress that year. The professor who wrote it has retired since then, and is not willing to talk about the study (we reached out to speak on the record and he was not willing).

The fact is – businesses are entities that have one single goal – creating a profit. And when something research gets in the way of its profit, businesses have no choice but to fight it,

Proven effects of exposure to cell phone and WiFi radiation

A summary of some of the proven effects of exposure to radiation include:

Contributes to the development of insomnia
Damages childhood development
Affects cell growth
Derails brain function
Reduces brain activity in females
Neutralizes sperm
May impact fertility
Provokes cardiac stress
Links to cancer

The Vest Tech mission

At Vest Tech, we believe that there is overwhelming accumulating evidence, pointing out to the dangerous effects of electromagnetic radiation. We see the same narrative that was used in the tobacco, sugar and ozone layer industry being used to discredit opposing evidence and scientific research with big money and a strong government lobby, which the general public does not always have available.

EMF protection

We understand that you cannot live in this modern day and age without wireless technology, and that whether we like it or not – our children will be exposed to it from very early stages of life. We also appreciate this technology, which has brings so much advancement and convenience to our life, and we will not give it up so easily.

However, we believe that precautions MUST be taken by each and every one of us in order to limit our prolonged exposure, and that of our loved ones, to electromagnetic radiation in order to live safer and healthier lives.

EMF protection products for everyday life

So what did we do? we created Vest Tech! to bridge the gap between technology advancement and its safer use by empowering and educating the public about radiation risks and protection.

We make everyday accessories for cell phones, laptops and tablets, household appliances, pregnant women, and babies that are used to reduce the exposure to radiation and protect our users health.

Since we support both technological progress and the reduction of exposure to radiation, we design products that are both stylish and protect against the harmful effects of EMF radiation.

We urge you to take action today, do your research and limit your exposure with our products and other means. Most importantly – don’t wait until it is too late – the truth will come out like with tobacco, sugar and the ozone layer.

Sincerely,

Chen Raizman

CEO of Vest Tech USA LLC

Resources:

Smoking:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/business/media/07adco.html?_r=0
http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/welcome/features/20071114_cardio-tobacco/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2795399/
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/9/2/242.full

Ozone:

Sugar:

Radiation:

What They Don’t Want You to Know About Electromagnetic Radiation