Vital Vibes - Your EMF Protection Resource

Hybrid Cars, Health & EMFs

Are you the owner of a new car?  Is it equipped with GPS, OnStar, CD, DVD, electronic everything?  Is it a hybrid?

All things powered by electricity including batteries produce an electromagnetic field (EMF).  Being in close proximity to EMFs, sitting on top of batteries or battery cables in your car especially hybrid cars, sitting under the electric ignition, in front of the GPS screen can blast the driver and other passengers with high levels of detrimental energy - EMFs. 

Testing EMFs inside the cabin of any stationary idling car or vehicle is relatively easy.  Using a Trifield Gauss meter, we've gotten readings in excess of 100mG in our Toyota truck under the steering wheel and down to the pedals and floor.  We haven't measured any hybrids though - it would make sense the batteries would produce a high EMF as well.  The "safe" EMF standard in the US is 0-3 millligauss or mG. Sweden's standard is 0-2 mG.  International measurements of EMFs are in Tesla. 1 Microtesla = 10 Milligauss and 0.1 Microtesla = 1 Milligauss.  There is much discussion around the accuracy of milligauss meters.  

Vital VIbes can help.  The Electric Strip and the Small Space Protection device offers needed protection in your car. The Electric Strip changes the detrimental EMFs from the entire electrical system to beneficial energy.  It is easy affixed to the fuse box under the dash.  It's brilliant.  The Small Space Protection device clears a spherical area with a 9 foot diameter and will transmute detrimental EMFs to beneficial energy. Keeping these in the car will keep the driver and passengers alert, protecting you and your loved ones from dangerous driving situations.  Call us at 1.772.882-7911 for more information or visit us at www.VitalVibesUSA.com.

Do you own a motorcycle?  What about EMFs, motorcycles and cancer?  For important information, see www.motorcyclecancer.com.    

Fear, but Few Facts, on Hybrid Risk

NYTimes.com, April 27, 2008

ALMOST without exception, scientists and policy makers agree that hybrid vehicles are good for the planet. To a small but insistent group of skeptics, however, there is another, more immediate question: Are hybrids healthy for drivers.

There is a legitimate scientific reason for raising the issue. The flow of electrical current to the motor that moves a hybrid vehicle at low speeds (and assists the gasoline engine on the highway) produces magnetic fields, which some studies have associated with serious health matters, including a possible risk of leukemia among children.

With the batteries and power cables in hybrids often placed close to the driver and passengers, some exposure to electromagnetic fields is unavoidable. Moreover, the exposure will be prolonged — unlike, say, using a hair dryer or electric shaver — for drivers who spend hours each day at the wheel.

Some hybrid owners have actually tested their cars for electromagnetic fields using hand-held meters, and a few say they are alarmed by the results.

Their concern is not without merit; agencies including the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Institute acknowledge the potential hazards of long-term exposure to a strong electromagnetic field, or E.M.F., and have done studies on the association of cancer risks with living near high-voltage utility lines.

While Americans live with E.M.F.’s all around — produced by everything from cellphones to electric blankets — there is no broad agreement over what level of exposure constitutes a health hazard, and there is no federal standard that sets allowable exposure levels. Government safety tests do not measure the strength of the fields in vehicles — though Honda and Toyota, the dominant hybrid makers, say their internal checks assure that their cars pose no added risk to occupants.

Researchers with expertise in hybrid-car issues say that while there may not be cause for alarm, neither should the potential health effects be ignored.

“It would be a mistake to jump to conclusions about hybrid E.M.F. dangers, as well as a mistake to outright dismiss the concern,” said Jim Kliesch, a senior engineer for the clean vehicles program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Additional research would improve our understanding of the issue.”

Charges that automobiles expose occupants to strong electromagnetic fields were made even before hybrids became popular. In 2002, a Swedish magazine claimed its tests found that three gasoline-powered Volvo models produced high E.M.F. levels. Volvo countered that the magazine had compared the measurements with stringent standards advanced by a Swedish labor organization, not the more widely accepted criteria established by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, a group of independent scientific experts based near Munich.

Much of the discussion over high E.M.F. levels has sprung from hybrid drivers making their own readings. Field-strength detectors are widely available; a common model, the TriField meter, costs about $145 online. But experts and automakers contend that it is not simple for a hybrid owner to make reliable, meaningful E.M.F. measurements.

The concern over high E.M.F. levels in hybrids has come not just from worrisome instrument readings, but also from drivers who say that their hybrids make them ill.

Neysa Linzer, 58, of Bulls Head in Staten Island, bought a new Honda Civic Hybrid in 2007 for the 200 miles a week she drove to visit grocery stores in her merchandising job for a supermarket chain. She said that the car reduced her gasoline use, but there were problems — her blood pressure rose and she fell asleep at the wheel three times, narrowly averting accidents.

“I never had a sleepiness problem before,” Ms. Linzer said, adding that it was her own conclusion, not a doctor’s, that the car was causing the symptoms.

Ms. Linzer asked Honda to provide her with shielding material for protection from the low-frequency fields, but the company declined her request last August, saying that its hybrid cars are “thoroughly evaluated” for E.M.F.’s before going into production. Ms. Linzer’s response was to have the car tested by a person she called her wellness consultant, using a TriField meter.

The TriField meter is made by AlphaLab in Salt Lake City. The company’s president, Bill Lee, defends its use for automotive testing even though the meter is set up to test alternating current fields, whereas the power moving to and from a hybrid vehicle’s battery is direct current. “Generally, an A.C. meter is accurate in detecting large electromagnetic fields or microwaves,” he said.

Testing with a TriField meter led Brian Collins of Encinitas, Calif., to sell his 2001 Honda Insight just six months after he bought it — at a loss of $7,000. He said the driver was receiving “dangerously high” E.M.F. levels of up to 135 milligauss at the hip and up to 100 milligauss at the upper torso. These figures contrasted sharply with results from his Volkswagen van, which measured one to two milligauss.

Mr. Collins said he tried to interest Honda in the problem in 2001, but was assured that his car was safe. He purchased shielding made of a nickel-iron alloy, but because of high installation costs decided to sell the car instead.

A spokesman for Honda, Chris Martin, points to the lack of a federally mandated standard for E.M.F.’s in cars. Despite this, he said, Honda takes the matter seriously. “All our tests had results that were well below the commission’s standard,” Mr. Martin said, referring to the European guidelines. And he cautions about the use of hand-held test equipment. “People have a valid concern, but they’re measuring radiation using the wrong devices,” he said.

Kent Shadwick, controller of purchasing services for the York Catholic District School Board in York, Ontario, evaluated the Toyota Prius for fleet use. Mr. Shadwick said it was tested at various speeds, and under hard braking and rapid acceleration, using a professional-quality gauss meter.

“The results that we saw were quite concerning,” he said. “We saw high levels in the vehicle for both the driver and left rear passenger, which has prompted us to explore shielding options and to consider advocating testing of different makes and models of hybrid vehicles.”

In a statement, Toyota said: “The measured electromagnetic fields inside and outside of Toyota hybrid vehicles in the 50 to 60 hertz range are at the same low levels as conventional gasoline vehicles. Therefore there are no additional health risks to drivers, passengers or bystanders.”

The statement adds that the measured E.M.F. in a Prius is 1/300th of the European guideline.

The tests conducted by hybrid owners rarely approach the level of thoroughness of those run by automakers.

Donald B. Karner, president of Electric Transportation Applications in Phoenix, who tested E.M.F. levels in battery-electric cars for the Energy Department in the 1990s, said it was hard to evaluate readings without knowing how the testing was done. He also said it was a problem to determine a danger level for low-frequency radiation, in part because dosage is determined not only by proximity to the source, but by duration of exposure. “We’re exposed to radio waves from the time we’re born, but there’s a general belief that there’s so little energy in them that they’re not dangerous,” he said.

Mr. Karner has developed a procedure for testing hybrids, but he said that the cost — about $5,000 a vehicle — had prevented its use.

Lawrence Gust of Ventura, Calif., a consultant with a specialty in E.M.F.’s and electrical sensitivity, was one of the electrical engineers who tested Mr. Collins’s Insight in 2001. He agreed that the readings were high but did not want to speculate on whether they were harmful. “There are big blocks of high-amp power being moved around in a hybrid, the equivalent of horsepower,” he said. “I get a lot of clients who ask if they should buy hybrid electric cars, and I say the jury is still out.”

Samuel Milham MD, MPH

Medical epidemiologist in occupational epidemiology.
First scientist to report increased leukemia and other cancers in electrical workers and to demonstrate that the childhood age peak in leukemia emerged in conjunction with the spread of residential electrification.

“Very recently, new research is suggesting that nearly all the human plagues which emerged in the twentieth century, like common acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children, female breast cancer, malignant melanoma and asthma, can be tied to some facet of our use of electricity.  There is an urgent need for governments and individuals to take steps to minimize community and personal EMF exposures.”

VitalVibesUSA.com has intervention devices available that you can use in your home, school, office and on your phone to transmute detrimental radiation from cell phone radiation, power lines and many other sources of electromagnetic radiation.   We use excellent cutting-edge tested technology developed to intervene and help mitigate the damage being done by EMFs.

When we became overexposed to EMFs, we bought and returned many products that didn't help.  We have a unique approach based on quantum fields and information storage.  We can test detrimental and subtle energy fields before and after correction.  Not many companies can do that!  Visit us on the web VitalVibesUSA.com, call 1-772-882-7911 or email vitalvibesweb@gmail.com.

Bioinitiative Report-Gauntlet is Thrown

"Business as Usual is Unacceptable"  David Carpenter, Co-Editor of The BioInitiative Report

An important new report on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) -the BioInitiative Report - is an international group of researchers' challenge to the EMF power structure to set much stricter exposure standards for power lines, cell phones, cell towers and other sources of electromagnetic radiation. David Carpenter, Co-Editor of the Report and the Director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at New York's University of Albany, on releasing the working group's extensive report says "Business as usual is unacceptable." 

Cindy Sage, Environmental Consultant and Co-Editor of the Report, gives a very informative interview about the Report, well worth viewing.  She was recently quoted:

"Cell and cordless phones both present health risks. The increase risk for children who start using cell phones before they are 20 is more than a five-fold (more than a 500%) increased risk for malignant glioma by the time these children are in the 20-29 age group. See Hardell and Carlberg, 2009, Int J Oncology 35: 5-17.  The annual age-adjusted incidence of astrocytoma for the age group >19 years increased significantly by +2.16%, during 2000-2007 in Sweden."

The report concludes EMFs produce many biological effects at levels well below current standards and that the "existing safety limits are inadequate to protect public health." The BioInitiative Working Group's key recommendations are: a 1mG limit for homes where children and/or pregnant women live; a "precautionary limit" of 0.1μW/cm² (0.6V/m) for RF exposures where "people live, work and go to school." These proposed levels are on the order of 1,000 times more stringent than current limits adopted by ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) and the IEEE's ICES (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers' International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety).

VitalVibesUSA.com has intervention devices available that you can use in your home, school, office, car and on your phone to transmute detrimental radiation from cell phone radiation, power lines and many other sources of electromagnetic radiation.  We use excellent cutting-edge tested technology developed to intervene and help mitigate the damage being done by wireless connections. Call today 1-772-882-7911 or email vitalvibesweb@gmail.com.

Like other EMF protection products on the market today, 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%!

A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF)

Summary and Introduction
You cannot see it, taste it or smell it, but it is one of the most pervasive environmental exposures in industrialized countries today. Electromagnetic radiation (EMR) or electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are the terms that broadly describe exposures created by the vast array of wired and wireless technologies that have altered the landscape of our lives in countless beneficial ways. However, these technologies were designed to maximize energy efficiency and convenience; not with biological effects on people in mind. Based on new studies, there is growing evidence among scientists and the public about possible health risks associated with these technologies.

Human beings are bioelectrical systems. Our hearts and brains are regulated by internal
bioelectrical signals. Environmental exposures to artificial EMFs can interact with fundamental biological processes in the human body. In some cases, this can cause discomfort and disease.  Since World War II, the background level of EMF from electrical sources has risen exponentially, most recently by the soaring popularity of wireless technologies such as cell phones (two billion and counting in 2006), cordless phones, WI-FI and WI-MAX networks. Several decades of international scientific research confirm that EMFs are biologically active in animals and in humans, which could have major public health consequences.

In today’s world, everyone is exposed to two types of EMFs: (1) extremely low frequency
electromagnetic fields (ELF) from electrical and electronic appliances and power lines and (2) radiofrequency radiation (RF) from wireless devices such as cell phones and cordless phones, cellular antennas and towers, and broadcast transmission towers. In this report we will use the term EMFs when referring to all electromagnetic fields in general; and the terms ELF and RF when referring to the specific type of exposure. They are both types of non-ionizing radiation, which means that they do not have sufficient energy to break off electrons from their orbits around atoms and ionize (charge) the atoms, as do x-rays, CT scans, and other forms of ionizing radiation.

Main Reasons for Disagreement among Experts
1) Scientists and public health policy experts use very different definitions of the standard of evidence used to judge the science, so they come to different conclusions about what to do. Scientists do have a role, but it is not exclusive and other opinions matter.
2) We are all talking about essentially the same scientific studies, but use a different
way of measuring when “enough is enough” or “proof exists”.
3) Some experts keep saying that all studies have to be consistent (turn out the same way every time) before they are comfortable saying an effect exists.
4) Some experts think that it is enough to look only at short-term, acute effects.
5) Other experts say that it is imperative we have studies over longer time (showing the
effects of chronic exposures) since that is what kind of world we live in.
6) Some experts say that everyone, including the very young, the elderly, pregnant women, and people with illnesses have to be considered – others say only the average person (or in the case of RF, a six-foot tall man) matter.
7) There is no unexposed population, making it harder to see increased risk of diseases.
8) The lack of consensus about a single biological mechanism of action.
9) The strength of human epidemiological studies reporting risks from ELF and RF
exposures, but animal studies don’t show a strong toxic effect.
10) Vested interests have a substantial influence on the health debate.

These proposals reflect the evidence that a positive assertion of safety with respect to
chronic exposure to low-intensity levels of ELF and RF cannot be made. As with many
other standards for environmental exposures, these proposed limits may not be totally
protective, but more stringent standards are not realistic at the present time. Even a
small increased risk for cancer and neurodegenerative diseases translates into an enormous public health consequence. Regulatory action for ELF and preventative actions for RF are warranted at this time to reduce exposures and inform the public of the potential for increased risk; at what levels of chronic exposure these risks may be present; and what measures may be taken to reduce risks.

Problems with Existing Public Health Standards (Safety Limits)
Today’s public exposure limits for telecommunications are based on the presumption that heating of tissue (for RF) or induced electric currents in the body (for ELF) are the only concerns when living organisms are exposed to RF. These exposures can create tissue heating that is well known to be harmful in even very short-term doses. As such, thermal limits do serve a purpose. For example, for people whose occupations require them to work around radar facilities or RF heatsealers, or for people who install and service wireless antenna tower, thermally-based limits are necessary to prevent damage from heating (or, in the case of power-frequency ELF from induced current flow in tissues).

In the past, scientists and engineers developed exposure standards for electromagnetic radiation based what we now believe are faulty assumptions that the right way to
measure how much non-ionizing energy humans can tolerate (how much exposure) without harm is to measure only the heating of tissue (RF) or induced currents in the body (ELF).  In the last few decades, it has been established beyond any reasonable doubt that bioeffects and  some adverse health effects occur at far lower levels of RF and ELF exposure where no heating (or induced currents) occurs at all; some effects are shown to occur at several hundred thousand times below the existing public safety limits where heating is an impossibility.

It appears it is the INFORMATION conveyed by electromagnetic radiation (rather than
heat) that causes biological changes - some of these biological changes may lead to loss of wellbeing, disease and even death.  Effects occur at non-thermal or low-intensity exposure levels thousands of times below the levels that federal agencies say should keep the public safe.

For many new devices operating with wireless technologies, the devices are exempt from any regulatory standards. The existing standards have been proven to be inadequate to control against harm from low-intensity, chronic exposures, based on any reasonable, independent assessment of the scientific literature. It means that an entirely new basis (a biological basis) for new exposure standards is needed. New standards need to take into account what we have learned about the effects of ELF and RF (all non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation and to design new limits based on biologically demonstrated effects that are important to proper biological function in living organisms. It is vital to do so because the explosion of new sources has created unprecedented levels of artificial electromagnetic fields that now cover all but remote areas of the habitable space on earth. Midcourse corrections are needed in the way we accept, test and deploy new technologies that expose us to ELF and RF in order to avert public health problems of a global nature.

Recent opinions by experts have documented deficiencies in current exposure standards. There is widespread discussion that thermal limits are outdated, and that biologically-based exposure standards are needed. Section 4 describes concerns expressed by WHO, 2007 in its ELF Health Criteria Monograph; the SCENIHR Report, 2006 prepared for the European Commission; the UK SAGE Report, 2007; the Health Protection Agency, United Kingdom in 2005; the NATO Advanced Research Workshop in 2005; the US Radiofrequency Interagency Working Group in 1999; the US Food and Drug Administration in 2000 and 2007; the World Health Organization in 2002; the International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC, 2001), the United Kingdom Parliament ndependent Expert Group Report on Mobile Phones – Stewart Report, 2000) and others.

A pioneer researcher, the late Dr. Ross Adey, in his last publication in Bioelectromagnetic Medicine (P. Roche and M. Markov, eds. 2004) concluded: “There are major unanswered questions about possible health risks that may arise from exposures to various man-made electromagnetic fields where these human exposures are intermittent, recurrent, and may extend over a significant portion of the lifetime of the individual.”

“Epidemiological studies have evaluated ELF and radiofrequency fields as possible risk factors for human health, with historical evidence relating rising risks of such factors as progressive rural electrification, and more recently, to methods of electrical power distribution and utilization in commercial buildings. Appropriate models describing these bioeffects are based in nonequilibrium thermodynamics, with nonlinear electrodynamics as an integral feature. Heating models, based in equilibrium thermodynamics, fail to explain an impressive new frontier of much greater significance. Though incompletely understood, tissue free radical interactions with magnetic fields may extend to zero field levels.”(2)

There may be no lower limit at which exposures do not affect us. Until we know if there is a lower limit below which bioeffects and adverse health impacts do not occur, it is unwise from a public health perspective to continue “business-as-usual” deploying new technologies that increase ELF and RF exposures, particularly involuntary exposures.

See the rest of the Bioinitiative report for more detail information concerning the following:

SECTION 5: EVIDENCE FOR EFFECTS ON GENE AND PROTEIN EXPRESSION (Transcriptomic and Proteomic Research) Dr. Xu and Dr. Chen

SECTION 6: EVIDENCE FOR GENOTOXIC EFFECTS – RFR AND ELF DNA DAMAGE Dr. Lai

SECTION 7: EVIDENCE FOR STRESS RESPONSE (STRESS PROTEINS) Dr. Blank

SECTION 8: EVIDENCE FOR EFFECTS ON IMMUNE FUNCTION Dr. Johansson

SECTION 9: EVIDENCE FOR EFFECTS ON NEUROLOGY AND BEHAVIOR Dr. Lai

SECTION 10: EVIDENCE FOR BRAIN TUMORS AND ACOUSTIC NEUROMAS
Dr. Hardell, Dr.Mild and Dr. Kundi

SECTION 11: EVIDENCE FOR CHILDHOOD CANCERS (LEUKEMIA) Dr. Kundi

SECTION 12: MAGNETIC FIELD EXPOSURE: MELATONIN PRODUCTION; ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE; BREAST CANCER Dr. Davanipour and Dr. Sobel

SECTION 13: EVIDENCE FOR BREAST CANCER PROMOTION (Melatonin links in laboratory and cell studies) Ms. Sage

SECTION 14: EVIDENCE FOR DISRUPTION BY THE MODULATING SIGNAL Dr. Blackman

SECTION 15 EVIDENCE BASED ON EMF MEDICAL THERAPEUTICS Ms. Sage

SECTION 16: THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE Mr. Gee

SECTION 17: KEY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AND PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS Dr. Carpenter and Ms. Sage

FOLLOW-UP LETTER
In December 2008, the participants of the Bioinitiative Report sent a letter to the Principle Investigators of the Interphone Study Group asking them to provide them with the four year old unpublished results/research. 

"We ask for your cooperation in publishing your study results in the very near future. We have been in recent contact with Dr. Elizabeth Cardis. She has provided contact information for each of you so we can directly obtain these results through your publication of them in the peer-reviewed literature. This will enable scientists and other experts not directly involved in the Interphone studies to get the whole pattern of results without further delay."

Exhibit 1 to the Letter - Interphone studies from 13 different countries
        No = results have not been published, Yes = results have been published
Country     Glioma     Acoustic neuroma     Meningioma
Australia     No                 No                         No
Canada         No                 No                         No
Japan         Yes                 Yes                     Yes
New Zealand No                 No                         No
Israel            No                 No                         No
Italy             No                 No                         No
France         Yes                 Yes                     Yes
Germany     Yes                 Yes                     Yes
UK                 Yes             Yes                     Yes
Denmark     Yes                 Yes                     Yes
Finland         Yes                 Yes                     Yes
Norway         Yes                 Yes                     Yes
Sweden         Yes                 Yes                     Yes

References:
S. Lönn, A. Ahlbom, P. Hall, M. Feychting, Long-term mobile phone use and brain tumor risk, Am. J. Epidemiol. 161 (2005) 526-535. Sweden

H. Christensen, J. Schüz, M. Kosteljanetz, H. Poulsen, J. Boice Jr, J. McLaughlin, et al, Cellular telephones and risk for brain tumors: a population-based, incident case-control study, Neurology 64 (2005) 1189-1195. Denmark

S. Hepworth, M. Schoemaker, K. Muir, A. Swerdlow, MJA. van Tongeren, PA. McKinney, Mobile phone use and risk of glioma in adults: case-control study, BMJ 332 (2006) 883-887 UK

J. Schüz, E. Böhler, G. Berg, B. Schlehofer, I. Hettinger, K. Schlaefer, et al.,Cellular phones, cordless phones, the risks of glioma and meningioma (Interphone Study Group, Germany), Am. J. Epidemiol. 163 (2006) 512-520.

VitalVibesUSA.com has intervention devices available that you can use in your home, school, office and on your phone to transmute detrimental radiation from cell phone radiation, power lines and many other sources of electromagnetic radiation.   We use excellent cutting-edge tested technology developed to intervene and help mitigate the damage being done by wireless connections. Call today 1-772-882-7911 or email vitalvibesweb@gmail.com.

Like other EMF protection products on the market today, 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 50%-99% are very definitive or reassuring.  I want my brain and all my body parts protected 100%!

Call today 1-772-882-7911 or email vitalvibesweb@gmail.com.

Visit us on the web VitalVibesUSA.com