Vital Vibes - Your EMF Protection Resource

Experts Express EMF Concerns

See what experts say about EMFs and the effects on human health.  With respect to wireless communications, the cell phone industry may find themselves in the same spot as Johns-Manville Corporation, manufacturer of asbestos, with thousands of lawsuits. Ronald Motley, a South Carolina attorney, said John-Manville was "the greatest corporate mass murderer in history" due to its history of hiding evidence of the ill effects of asbestos from its workers and the public. 

As of December 2008 87% of the US population had cell phones.  WiFi usage is surging ahead and so is WiMAX which is so much more powerful and detrimental than WiFi.  Cell phone tower frequencies need to keep up with and support the new generation of minicomputers - the iPhone. 

The wireless communication industry is more caught up in their greed and the consumer is in denial of any cause for concern.  People with EMF sensitivity are not getting the attention they deserve.  Doctors don't have a clue what EMF sensitivity is nevermind what to do to address it and reverse the damage to the body.  There is just as much risk and impact to the environment and the animal and insect world. 

From The Venice Resolution created by the International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (www.ICEMS.eu): "We take exception to the claim of the wireless communication industry that there is no credible scientific evidence to conclude there a risk. Recent epidemiological evidence is stronger than before, which is a further reason to justify precautions be taken to lower exposure standards in accordance with the Precautionary Principle." 

The Precautionary Principle states when there are indications of possible adverse effects, though they remain uncertain, the risks from doing nothing may be far greater than the risks of taking action to control these exposures. The Precautionary Principle shifts the burden of proof from those suspecting a risk to those who discount it.

What a minute though, cell phone radiation is just part of the problem.   Humans are surrounded by all things electric-partly by choice partly not.  Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) is a general term used to refer to the invisible energy field emitted from electrical and electronic appliances, power lines and wireless devices such as cell phones, cordless phones, PDAs, cellular antennas, towers, and broadcast transmission towers etc.  The problem is humans are relying on the government to keep us safe.  The EMF standards for safety are too high and outdated since research continues to prove harm is coming from exposures to EMFs below these standards.  It was previously thought that "high" frequencies were dangerous and "low" frequencies were not.  This is proving to be incorrect.

Camilla Rees, MBA,CEO, Wide Angle Health, LLC,Patient education and advocacy says below:“The U.S. spends over $2 trillion dollars on health care each year, of which about 78% is from people with chronic illnesses, without adequately exploring and understanding what factors—including EMF/RF—contribute to imbalances in peoples’ bodies’ in the first place.  After reading The BioInitiative Report, it should come as no surprise to policymakers, given the continually increasing levels of EMF/RF exposures in our environment, that close to 50% of Americans now live with a chronic illness."

As Paul J. Rosch, MD mentions further down the page, "All communication in the body eventually takes place via very subtle electromagnetic signaling between cells that is now being disrupted by artificial electropollution we have not had time to adapt to. As Alvin Toffler emphasized in Future Shock, too much change in too short a time produces severe stress due to adaptational failure. The adverse effects of electrosmog may take decades to be appreciated, although some, like carcinogenicity, are already starting to surface." 

Check out www.VitalVIbesUSA.com for tested, highly effective affordable solutions to overcome detrimental energies that threaten you and your family.  Call us.  We're happy to discuss your situation and solutions, 772-882-7911.  As Libby Kelley says below, "We strongly encourage consumers ... to reduce, eliminate and mitigate EMR exposure conditions..."

Scientists, Physicians, Health Policy Experts & Dangers of EMF

William Rea, MD

Founder & Director of the Environmental Health Center, Dallas Past President, American Academy of Environmental Medicine

“Sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation is the emerging health problem of the 21st century. It is imperative health practitioners, governments, schools and parents learn more about it. The human health stakes are significant”.

Martin Blank, PhD

Associate Professor, Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics, Columbia University, College of Physicians and Surgeons; Researcher in Bioelectromagnetics; Author of the BioInitiative Report’s section on Stress Proteins

“Cells in the body react to EMFs as potentially harmful, just like to other environmental toxins, including heavy metals and toxic chemicals. The DNA in living cells recognizes electromagnetic fields at very low levels of exposure; and produces a biochemical stress response. The scientific evidence tells us that our safety standards are inadequate, and that we must protect ourselves from exposure to EMF due to power lines, cell phones and the like, or risk the known consequences. The science is very strong and we should sit up and pay attention.”

Olle Johansson, Ph.D.

Associate Professor, The Experimental Dermatology Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden; Author of the BioInitiative Report’s section on the Immune System.

“It is evident that various biological alterations, including immune system modulation, are present in electrohypersensitive persons. There must be an end to the pervasive nonchalance, indifference and lack of heartfelt respect for the plight of these persons. It is clear something serious has happened and is happening. Every aspect of electrohypersensitive peoples’ lives, including the ability to work productively in society, have healthy relations and find safe, permanent housing, is at stake. The basics of life are becoming increasingly inaccessible to a growing percentage of the world’s population. I strongly advise all governments to take the issue of electromagnetic health hazards seriously and to take action while there is still time. There is too great a risk that the ever increasing RF-based communications technologies represent a real danger to humans, especially because of their exponential, ongoing and unchecked growth. Governments should act decisively to protect public health by changing the exposure standards to be biologically-based, communicating the results of the independent science on this topic and aggressively researching links with a multitude of associated medical conditions.”

David Carpenter, MD

Professor Environmental Health Sciences, and Director, Institute for Health and the Environment, School of Public Health, University of Albany, SUNY Co-Editor, The BioInitiative Report (www.BioInitiative.org)

"Electromagnetic fields are packets of energy that does not have any mass, and visible light is what we know best. X-rays are also electromagnetic fields, but they are more energetic than visible light. Our concern is for those electromagnetic fields that are less energetic than visible light, including those that are associated with electricity and those used for communications and in microwave ovens. The fields associated with electricity are commonly called “extremely low frequency” fields (ELF), while those used in communication and microwave ovens are called “radiofrequency” (RF) fields. Studies of people have shown that both ELF and RF exposures result in an increased risk of cancer, and that this occurs at intensities that are too low to cause tissue heating. Unfortunately, all of our exposure standards are based on the false assumption that there are no hazardous effects at intensities that do not cause tissue heating. Based on the existing science, many public health experts believe it is possible we will face an epidemic of cancers in the future resulting from uncontrolled use of cell phones and increased population exposure to WiFi and other wireless devices. Thus it is important that all of us, and especially children, restrict our use of cell phones, limit exposure to background levels of Wi-Fi, and that government and industry discover ways in which to allow use of wireless devices without such elevated risk of serious disease. We need to educate decision-makers that ‘business as usual’ is unacceptable. The importance of this public health issue can not be underestimated.”

How to Challenge a Proposed Cell Tower

What you need to know to challenge a proposed Cell Phone Tower

What if you find out there is a cell phone tower going up in your neighborhood or at your child's school?  The following is helpful information if you decide to challenge a proposed Cell Tower.  The EMR Policy Institute, a non-profit corporation advancing sound public policy on the use of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) provides this information.  Check out these informative videos, also provided by the EMR Policy Institute.  

"The Council on Wireless Technology Impacts commissioned (the video) "Public Exposure" to tell the people what the telecommunications and broadcast industries prefers not to discuss – that increasing reliance on wireless communications poses a major environmental health threat.

This film was produced in the year 2000, and is still in high demand worldwide. Public Exposure was the first film to explore the potential health risks and social concerns triggered by the proliferation of transmitting antennas and rapid consumer adaptation to wireless communications technology. The film evaluates the state of the science and the public policies from an international citizen's rights and consumer advocacy perspective."

Public Exposure: DNA, Democracy and the Wireless Revolution and Electromagnetic Radiation: A Scientific Overview.  Public Exposure video Part One.  Public Exposure video Part Two.

Other Important Videos from the EMR Policy Institute.

Maybe you're new to the subject of electromagnetic radiation, maybe your head is swimming trying to understand all the acronyms and technical terms.  Click here to get the dictionary version of these specific terms. 

Vital Vibes can help you understand these environmental and health concerns. Call 1-772-882-7911 or www.VitalVibesUSA.com.  Our products are powerful synergistic solutions designed to clear and protect you against health draining toxic electromagnetic fields (EMF) and other hazardous energies. Studies demonstrate and experts report that our products actually turn detrimental EMFs into beneficial energy. 

CELL TOWER SAFETY - A CITIZEN’S TOOL BOX

What You Need to Know

1. Federal law prohibits state and local agencies, including zoning boards, from basing tower/antenna siting and construction permits on the harmful environmental effects of radiofrequency (RF) radiation emissions “to the extent that facilities comply with” the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) regulations. [47 USC Sec. 332( c)(7)(iv)]. Courts and the FCC have interpreted this law to apply to “human health.”

 2. FCC RF safety standards are based on protection of humans against thermal effects from high power levels of RF radiation. The FCC radiation limits do not protect people from adverse biological effects of long term RF exposure or take into account the impact on children or other especially vulnerable citizens.

 3. Legal advocates argue that FCC RF safety standards do not extend to harmful effects on animals or wildlife. Test cases to determine this are pending in the courts.

 When to Challenge Cell Tower/Antenna Site Construction

1. When a tower/antenna site is to be constructed within 1500 feet (an internationally recognized precautionary standard) of a school, playground, daycare center or other childcare facility, homes with small children.

 2. When a tower/antenna site is to be constructed within ½ mile of a significant wildlife refuge or habitat; bird nesting area; protected or endangered species area.

 3. When a tower/antenna site is to be constructed in or near a migratory bird flyway.

Vital Vibes would like to add a fourth situation:  4. When a tower/antenna site is be constructed within 1/2 mile of personal residences.

What You Can Do – Careful Research Is Essential

1. You must be factually accurate in all your statements and arguments in opposition to any cell tower or other transmission antenna. Telecommunications company representatives fight hard and will try to show you up and embarrass you on any misstatements or mistakes you make.

 2. Visit www.emrpolicy.org. Print out copies of all relevant studies on health risks to children and threats to wildlife including (a) U.S. Supreme Court amicus curiae brief of the Healthy Schools Network on risks to school children [linked to the Case Law page]; (b) the Benevento Resolution [linked to the EMR Regulation -International page]; and (c) Statement on Harmful Effects on Migratory Birds and Endangered Species (by Janet Newton) [linked to the Case Law page]. Send an e-mail to: info@emrpolicy.org to ask further questions. .

 3. Visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/ to order a topographic map covering the tower/antenna site location. Mark the locations of schools, libraries, day care centers, playgrounds, and other children’s facilities on the map. Also parks and nature areas. Calculate actual distances. Collect data on the numbers and ages of children using each. Use map as an exhibit at any public hearing – it shows you have done your homework.

 4. Visit your State’ Department of Environmental Protection (DEP, or equivalent) web site. Look for wildlife maps, information and publications on endangered species, wetlands, bird habitats and parks in the vicinity of the proposed tower/antenna site. Order copies of materials and nature guides from the DEP bookstore. As government publications, these materials are very credible and persuasive.

5. Contact your local health department, hospital, or nearest university to see if an epidemiology study can be initiated to determine the state of health of residents living within 1500 feet of the tower/antenna site before it is built, and then a follow-up study to compare health results in the same households after the tower is operating. Contact The EMR Policy Institute for a model health questionnaire. Such a study will provide powerful evidence for news media and elected representatives to act upon.

 What You Can Do – Establish Substantial Evidence in the Written Record

1. Provide your local zoning board with documents that demonstrate their responsibility to protect the values that are delineated in the existing municipal plan and zoning regulations. The Telecommunications Acts of 1996 preserves local government authority to deny tower-antenna site zoning permits if based on “substantial evidence in a written record.” Such evidence includes:

• obtaining independent expert analysis to determine whether “adequate coverage” for mobile phone service already exists;

• exercising the zoning board’s authority to protect residential areas against property devaluation and to preserve the character of neighborhoods;

• requiring proof of liability insurance by the wireless provider to cover negative impacts of tower/antenna sites such as property devaluation and potential future adverse health impacts;

• requiring adequate set backs from tower/antenna sites to protect against falling equipment and tower collapse due to severe weather conditions as well as other safety hazards;

2. Contact The EMR Policy Institute directly for this documentation.

 What You Can Do – Involve Your Elected Representatives

1. Contact the “scheduler” or “constituent services” staff member for your:

• State Representative

• State Senator

• U. S.Congressman

 2. Ask these elected officials to appear and speak at the public hearing in opposition to the proposed tower/antenna site. Give them the results of your research on biological health risks for children and wildlife. Ask them each to contact the proper government agencies to request research into available scientific studies on risks to children and to request enforcement of wildlife protection laws.

 What You Can Do – Spread the Word

1. Speak at the official public hearing on the tower/antenna site construction. Use your best research – do not overstate anything. Make it clear that you are not opposed to cell phones per se, but want more safety precautions to make the entire systems safer, especially for young children and for ambient exposures to wildlife.

 2. Educate the editor/reporters for your local newspaper, TV and radio stations.

 3. Distribute well-written handbills at shopping centers in the area.

 4. Write letters; send out mailings; use e-mail.

What You Can Do - Educate Your Congressional Offices in Washington, D.C.

1. Check the Action Alert page at: www.emrpolicy.org on a regular basis.

2. Watch for instructions for contacting the staff members at your Congressional offices.

3. Request that they attend briefings on EMR public health policy.

 Provided by: EMR Policy Institute, A Non-Profit Corporation  www.EMRPolicy.org

            +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Electromagnetic chaos is powerful and causes disease. Reducing, eliminating, or neutralizing these powerful negative frequencies can and does result in the "curing" of symptoms and disease ... Cell phones do cause cancer. Laptop computers do cause cancer. High-definition TVs do cause cancer. Irradiating food does cause cancer when eaten. Microwaving food does cause cancer when eaten.  We cannot eliminate the electromagnetic energy around us, we can only do things to neutralize the negative effects. There are devices which I believe neutralize these negative energies. Some can be put in your home or office and neutralize all the negative energy in the space around you; others can be carried in your purse or pocket, or worn as a pendant."

Kevin Trudeau, Author of NY TImes #1 Best Seller: Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You to Know About

Interphone Study Stalemate Ending?

Commissioned by the World Health Organization, the Interphone Study is an international collaboration of 13 countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) to research radiofrequency exposure from cell phones and the risk of tumors of the head and neck (glioma, meningioma, acoustic neurinoma and salivary gland tumours). 

The study started in 2000 and ended in 2006.  To date, the results have not been published in spite of the $30 million price tag, 50 scientists and 14,000 subjects.  The results are controversial due to the study's design problems and other issues.  The Economist article "The Interphone Study: Mobile Madness" details these problems. 

For example, the definition assigned to "regular mobile phone use" was someone who used a phone once a week for six months. The kicker is the study assessed the dangers of radiation from phones that no longer exist and were analog versus digital. This was because the study was retrospective (not prospective) in that it researched people who have the specific cancers and asked them to recall their past phone usage.  Relying on the accuracy of their memory also raises concerns.  Various countries have gotten tired of waiting for the Interphone Study team to produce a final publication and have published their own version of what they believe are the results.

Vital Vibes' protects 100%, has been tested thoroughly and actually is proven to improve the DNA being tested beyond its original state. If you'd like to discuss your options give us a call at 772-882-7911. 

 Director Forces Interphone Study Compromise

Microwave News, May 11, 2009

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Director Forces Publication Of Interphone Brain Tumor Results - Much Remains To Be Done  The stalemate over Interphone is coming to an end. A project of the IARC on the possible links between mobile phones and tumors, Interphone has been bogged down for over three years while its members feuded over how to interpret their results.

Now, Microwave News has learned, a paper on brain tumor risks is about to be submitted for publication. Christopher Wild, the director of IARC, forced a compromise to resolve what had become a major embarrassment for the agency. In fact, Wild has only achieved a partial resolution. After the brain tumor paper is finally published later this year, much more work on Interphone will still need to be done.

 A draft of the brain tumor (gliomas and meningiomas) results was completed back in 2005, but the principal investigators in the 13 countries participating in the Interphone project were unable to agree on how to frame the results. Some believed that the data point to higher risks, while others dismissed these findings as artifacts. A number of further drafts were circulated over the years, but in each case a consensus could not be reached.

While the final group paper remained in limbo, teams from individual countries published their own results. Five European countries pooled their data and published them too. A number of these papers have indicated a tumor risk associated with long-term use of cell phones.

In January, when he took over as the head of IARC, Wild set out to break the impasse and bring an end to the growing criticism of his agency. For instance, the Economist ran an item last fall under the title "Mobile Madness" and declared that Interphone had "ended in chaos" (see our post of September 26, 2008). Wild established a three-person working group to revise the brain tumor paper —he himself was one of the three— and demanded that all participating project investigators accept this group's version as the final text. This latest, final draft —some say it's the fifth, others the sixth— has now been completed and is in the hands of all the Interphone groups.

One member of the project predicted that it would likely be sent to either Epidemiology or the International Journal of Epidemiology. The paper must still go through a journal's peer review which will further delay its release to the public for some months. Elisabeth Cardis, the coordinator of Interphone, declined to comment other than to say that she hoped the paper would be submitted soon.

In March 2008, Cardis left IARC to join the Center for Research in Environmental Epidemiology (CREAL) in Barcelona. Some are saying that her move to Spain has complicated the process because of difficulties in moving data from one country to another.

Acoustic Neuroma Analysis Languishes as the Feud Continues

Even when the brain tumor paper comes out, the Interphone project will be far from finished. The joint results on two other types of tumors, of the acoustic nerve (acoustic neuroma) and of the salivary gland (parotid gland), must still be completed. Microwave News has also been told that these papers have never been drafted —not even once. Indeed, one participant said that a complete set of the raw Interphone data on acoustic neuromas has yet to be circulated to all members of the Interphone project. Writing and submitting these papers for publication could well take a long time because the underlying conflicts among Interphone researchers have not been resolved.

"When the glioma paper became contentious, everything else was pushed aside," explained another source close to the project. "The whole focus was on brain tumors and the data on acoustic neuromas were moved to the back burner."

The first Interphone results on acoustic neuromas were published by the Danish team over five years ago. The Swedes followed about a year later. The Danes had only two cases that had used a cell phone for more than ten years and did not see a long-term tumor risk, while the Swedish team had 12 cases and did see an elevated risk following long-term use. At the time, Sweden's Anders Ahlbom told Microwave News that his group's results were "strong" (see our post of October 12, 2004). In 2005, five of the Interphone Northern European countries, including Sweden and Denmark, pooled their data and reported a significant 80% increased risk of acoustic neuroma on the side of the head the phone was used after ten or more years.

"That's amazing, in fact it's shocking," commented Lennart Hardell on hearing that so little progress has been made on Interphone's acoustic neuroma analysis. In his own studies, Hardell of Sweden's Öreboro University Hospital has seen an increased risk of both gliomas and acoustic neuromas after ten years of mobile phone use.

Tumor Location Analysis Also Sidelined

Another major piece of Interphone still to be completed is an investigation of the location of the tumors relative to the areas of the brain that were exposed to RF radiation from the phones. This work is crucial because it could eliminate many of problems posed by recall bias that have bedeviled cell phone studies and could bring the feud between the Interphone groups to an end. The issue here is whether people correctly recall which side of the head they used the phone or whether they simply point to where their tumor is.

In a paper published last May, Cardis and members of the Interphone exposure assessment team concluded that location analysis was "important" for the interpretation of the results, yet this work has not yet gotten underway. "This too remains undone because of the lack of cooperation among the participating epidemiologists," disclosed one Interphone source. Even if all the researchers would get along, this analysis will take time because of its complexity. (See also a related dosimetry paper from the Japanese Interphone group published just last month.)

It is not known whether IARC will seek to fast-track the papers on acoustic neuromas and on tumor location. Wild, its director, declined to be interviewed for this story.

Most people don't expect the Interphone paper to show a general increase in brain tumors among mobile phones users. One often-raised concern is the way the project protocol defines a "regular user": a person who made as little as one call a week for six months. "This is an occasional user at most," said Dariusz Leszczynski at the 5th International EMF Seminar in Hangzhou, China, last month. "This definition would dilute any effect." Leszczynski is with the Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK) in Helsinki and a visiting professor at Zhejiang University in Hangzhou. Such an argument may become moot if there are enough cases in the combined Interphone analysis to tease out a dose-response relationship, if one exists.

Though each is limited by the small number of cases with high exposures, many of the participating countries have published papers suggesting that there are higher tumor risks among those who had used a cell phone for ten years or more —most often on the side of the head the phone was used. Three different types of tumors have been implicated: glioma (brain), acoustic neuroma (acoustic nerve) and parotid gland (salivary gland). These findings have prompted a number of Interphone investigators to call for a precautionary approach to the use of phones, especially with respect to children. These include Bruce Armstrong of Australia, Siegal Sadetzki of Israel and, notably, Cardis herself (see March 9, 2009; January 30, 2008; and June 19, 2008, respectively).

Other Interphone members disagree and discount the ten-year risks, arguing that biases —primarily recall bias— are responsible. Ironically, this faction is largely composed of members from the Northern European countries who have reported significant excesses of both gliomas and acoustic neuromas. These findings have been central to triggering concerns over long-term risks. Among the members of this group are Sweden's Ahlbom and Maria Feychting, Denmark's Christoffer Johansen and Joachim Schüz, and the U.K.'s Tony Swerdlow. (Schüz is also a member of the German team.)

By last summer, as the Interphone saga continued to drag on, tensions among some of the Interphone teams had risen to the breaking point (see "Interphone Project: The Cracks Begin To Show"). This, no doubt, helped prompt Wild to intervene when he took over IARC in January. The situation has not improved since then. "Trust is still in short supply among some of the epidemiologists," said one knowledgeable source. "They can hardly agree on the time of day."

Even as so much of the Interphone project remains undone, many of its members are already working on other, related epidemiological studies. Cardis is involved with two: one looking at possible risks to workers and the other to children.  An announcement for the MOBI-Kids project was released today. Armstrong and Sadetzki, among others, are also working on MOBI-Kids. Ahlbom, Johansen and Schüz, and Finland's Anssi Auvinen, are tracking the health of phone users in the COSMOS project, a prospective epidemiological study that is slated to continue for 20-30 years. 

Vital Vibes has intervention devices available that you can use in your home, school, office and on your phone to transmute detrimental radiation from cell phone towers.  We use excellent cutting-edge tested technology developed to intervene and help mitigate the damage being done by wireless connections.

Aegis sells Wave Shield cell phone protection that "blocks 50-99% of the radiation coming through the ear piece of the phones depending on model of the phone."  Aegis does not address detrimental radiation from the phone's antenna, circuitry, battery or what circulates through the phone.  Aegis claims Wave Shield blocks 50%-99% of radiation through the earpiece.  I don't know about you but I want my brain and all my body parts protected 100%! 

Aegis does nothing to protect your nose, cheek, eye, face, head, neck, hand or parotid gland!  What about the rest of the body Aegis? Lastly Aegis seeks to "block" radiation.  Blocks and shield approaches are futile.  Radiation will impregnate the block or shield and reestablish itself especially now since microwave technology has to be stronger for the new generation of cell phones (i-Phone) with the functionality of wireless computers. 

To put it as briefly as possible, Vital Vibes protects 100%; has been tested thoroughly and actually is proven to improve the DNA being tested beyond its original state. If you'd like to discuss your options feel free to contact us at 772-882-7911. 

Cell Phone Towers - Beacons Of Harm

 Look!  Up in the sky!  It's a flag pole, it's a fir tree, it's a water tower!  No!  It's a cell phone tower!  The following is an informative article on the dangers of cell phones and cell phone antenna towers also called Masts.  Cell phone companies are getting a lot of heat not only for their toxic harmful technology but also for their ugly towers. (Cellular networks in the United States typically operate in the 800 megahertz (800 million cycles per second) or 1,900 megahertz range, whereas WiFi most commonly operates at 2.45 gigahertz or 2.45 billion hertz.)  Since cell phone companies can't admit their billion dollar technology is toxic and harming people, they're fixing the aesthetics instead.

Vital Vibes has intervention devices available that you can use in your home, school, office and on your phone to transmute detrimental radiation from cell phone towers.  We use excellent cutting-edge tested technology developed to intervene and help mitigate the damage being done by wireless connections.

Aegis sells Wave Shield cell phone protection that "blocks 50-99% of the radiation coming through the ear piece of the phones depending on model of the phone."  Aegis does not address detrimental radiation from the phone's antenna, circuitry, battery or what circulates through the phone.  Aegis claims Wave Shield blocks 50%-99% of radiation through the earpiece.  I don't know about you but I want my brain and all my body parts protected 100%! 

Aegis does nothing to protect your nose, cheek, eye, face, head, neck, hand or parotid gland!  What about the rest of the body Aegis? Lastly Aegis seeks to "block" radiation.  Blocks and shield approaches are futile.  Radiation will impregnate the block or shield and reestablish itself especially now since microwave technology has to be stronger for the new generation of cell phones with the functionality of wireless computers. 

To put it as briefly as possible, Vital Vibes' protects 100%; has been tested thoroughly and actually is proven to improve the DNA being tested beyond its original state. If you'd like to discuss your options feel free to contact us at 772-882-7911. 

Cell Phone Towers And Mobile Phone Masts - Beacons Of Harm

That's right! Cell phone towers today are being disguised in subtle ways unheard of just a few years ago. See a grain silo? Or a church steeple? You guessed it. It could very well be a cell phone tower. There's even a cell phone tower that looks just like a lighthouse...never mind that it's over two miles from the ocean. But don't let the pretty and ingenious disguises fool you. There is a real and present danger lurking behind the mask of these innocent designs.

Why the disguises? Obviously, for esthetic reasons. The cell phone companies don't want to make their neighborhood friends upset. They want to blend in. So they blend in while they blast your home and neighborhood with toxic electromagnetic radiation (EMFs). Cell phone towers, sometimes called masts, or mobile phone towers, weren't an issue years ago when they were few and far between. One could often drive miles and miles through the countryside and never see one. They were few in number and were only found in obscure locations and seen only on an occasional hilltop.

Today cell phone towers have increased dramatically in number. There are now more than 1.9 million cell phone towers and antenna towers spread throughout the U.S. (1) They are now found on churches, schools and firehouses as well as being seen on the rooftop of buildings everywhere. Did you know there is even a cell phone tower near Old Faithful in Yellowstone Park? Can't sleep well at night? It may be that there's a cell phone tower close by.  Check out Ten Unusual Cell Tower Sites.

Just why would a cell phone tower be placed on a church, school or firehouse? Why would school boards and churches agree to this? Money. It's that simple. The cell phone companies will pay these organizations, and individual property owners, handsomely to install their equipment on their properties. This "rent money" can range from a few hundred dollars a month to several thousand dollars a month. What school district or church couldn't use extra money to aid a struggling budget? By "renting" the space on an already-constructed building the cell phone industry doesn't have to purchase land, build a tower or construct a new building. It simply mounts its equipment on a structure that already exists. It's a win-win deal for the cell phone company and the new 'landlord.'

 Opposition to these cell tower installments used to go unnoticed and without question. Not so today. Neighborhoods and citizens are becoming vocally opposed. But it's not the esthetics that causes residents and property owners to oppose these structures. Communities and citizens are afraid of the potential health effects being caused by this technology as well as the adverse affect on property values.