New Product – Solid Copper Bracelet Designer Style

Order HERE.
Beautiful Solid Copper Bracelet for Men or Women.
Pure Copper Bracelet
Two Tone
Bangle Cuff Style
One Size Fits All
High Quality
About 3/4″ Wide
Wear it all day and night, simply connect to the included cable when you want to ground and recharge.

Includes (Please select when adding to cart):

  • One (1) 5 meter long copper cable 14AWG (41 strands)
  • One (1) Banana plugs
  • One (1) Ground Plug Adapter
  • One (1) Alligator Clip (2″)


  • One (1) 5 meter long copper cable 14AWG (41 strands)
  • One (1) Alligator Clip (2″)
  • One (1) pre-wired Heavy Duty Plug

A very simple yet effective way to alleviate the problems associated with free radicals present in our bodies today.
Quickly neutralize the free radicals by grounding yourself while working at your desk, watching TV, sleeping or during any other activities or rest periods.
Use at home, in an apartment building or condominium, at a friend’s house, even in a hotel or motel room.
You can even wear it while practising Yoga at home.
In fact, you can use it anywhere a grounded plug is available.

All of our Personal Grounding Devices are assembled in Canada from the finest components available.
Each component is individually tested with stringent Quality Control guidelines before shipping.
Resistance measurements typically read less than 1 OHM with all components connected and included in the test, i.e. device, cable and ground plug.

Easy to use (more detailed instructions can be found HERE):
1) Test the wall power receptacle, with our Receptacle Tester. Only the two (2) Yellow lights should come on. If any other combination of lights come on, DO NOT use that receptacle until it is repaired.
2) Plug the Banana Plug at the other end of the Personal Grounding Device cable into the ground Socket of a 3-prong receptacle or into our Ground Plug Adapter.

3) Plug your Personal Grounding Device into the Ground Plug Adapter and wear your device while resting, watching a movie sleeping, etc.


That was easy!
Enjoy the immediate benefits, such as the anti-oxidant effects and elimination of free radicals in your body, by being connected to Earth Ground!
Product Code: 2g-B10
Brand: 2Ground
Product Condition: New

The EMF Controversy – Common Misconceptions

The EMF Controversy – Common Misconceptions

That EMF harms one’s health is NOT a myth. There are, however, many misunderstandings which lead people to believe in the false dogma that nonionizing nonthermal radiation is safe.

Common Misconceptions

Common Misconceptions Did you know?
Myth: Despite the rise of wireless technologies, brain cancer has not been on the increase.. Studies that look at 10 or more years of use, such as the Leonnart Hardell studies and the Interphone study, do in fact show an increased risk of brain cancer. It has been reported that the heavy use category in the Interphone study included usage as little as 30 minutes a day.

Studies that look at less than ten years are not looking long enough. Cancer from environmental causes often has latencies that take several decades. Dr. Devra Davis explains that it can take decades before cancer becomes apparent in the population. Compare an average of 2 decades for smoking and lung cancer. Thus, the worst is yet to come. She explains that widespread heavy useonly began a few years ago. All the same, brain cancers are happening to people at much younger ages than before, and have been increasing in the last 10 years for young adults, in particular 20-29 year-olds. According to Leonnart Hardell’s studies, children may have a risk that is much greater than adults. British neurosurgeon Kevin O’Neill, MD reports in April 2009 that brain tumours are increasing at approximately 2% per year (and in particular have doubled for his unit in the last year). See also what other neurosurgeons are saying. The Danish Cancer Registry indicates an increase in brain tumors between 2001 and 2010.

Dr. Devra Davis also points out that there are other cancers besides brain cancer that may be related to cell phone use, such as salivary gland tumors, since the salivary gland is close to where the cell phone is held. Women who keep their cell phones between their breasts seem to be having higher breast cancer rates. For more information, see the Environmental Working Group’s Executive Summary.

Myth: Only ionizing radiation and thermal levels of microwaves can cause damage There are now many studies showing biological effects from nonionizing nonthermal radiation. See a list of thousands of studies summarized by as well as a summary of studies by power level. It is time to listen to the science, rather than sticking to outdated dogmas.

Graham Philips explains that even for ionizing radiation, 25% of DNA breaks are caused by direct damage, but another 75% is caused by ionizing radiation’s ability to form free radicals. Since non-ionizing radiation can also produce free radicals, as shown in multiple studies, this is one of the mechanism(s) by which it can affect DNA. For more mechanisms, refer to Genotoxic Effects and Cancer.

Myth: We’ve had TV and radio towers broadcast microwaves for years, and they have been safe.. Epidemiological and survey studies find cancer & other health issues near TV and radio broadcasting towers in addition to cell towers. One of the latest high profile cases is the court-ordered epidemiological study for the Vatican radio tower and cancer. Increased risks of cancer were reported within a 5.5 mile radius.
Myth: We get more radiation from cosmic radiation than from wireless technologies.. Cosmic microwave radiation is relatively negligible, (<0.000001 μW/m2, MAES 2000) since the sources are so distant. Even for ionizing radiation, radon in homes is said to be a greater source of ionizing radiation than cosmic radiation. Even at the EPA limit for radon of 4pCi/L, it has been compared to the equivalent of 200 chest X-rays a year. Local sources are usually a more significant concern than cosmic sources, which by the inverse square law, become less of a threat over distance.
There is no consistent evidence that wireless radiation is harmful..

Misleading: The weight of the evidence points towards no harm.

Many of the adverse biological effects of wireless technologies have been confirmed by more than one scientific group, including DNA breaks, the increase of free radicals, and the opening of the blood brain barrier. Oftentimes, such findings are followed with an attempt to discredit the scientists involved. However, other scientists confirm the findings.

While the majority of industry-funded studies do not find health effects, the majority of independent studies do. The same thing had happened for the Tobacco industry. Anyone studying the research must be careful to “follow the money trail.” Read more.

When we talk about the “weight of the evidence”, we cannot just compare the number of studies finding an effect versus the number of studies not finding an effect. It’s very easy to design a study so that it does not find an effect, e.g., by limiting the time period of the study, but this does not “balance out” the studies that do find an effect. See Study Design Variables which may be Manipulated by Science.

Myth: The wattage of a cell tower is not more than a light bulb, so it must be safe.. There is a recent study on electrosensitivity which suggests that it is the on/off and off/on transitions that may be causing biological effects. Hence, this pulsing quality of the signal, is one differentiating quality between pulsed wireless radiation and a regular light bulb. It is interesting to note, however, that some people do in fact respond to light which flashes at a certain frequency, e.g., Photosensitive Epilepsy. This might also be why modulated wireless radiation may be more biologically active than umodulated wireless radiation. Devra Davis compares pulsing radiation to a car that lurches to a halt and then continues again, and then lurches to a halt again. This on-off-on-off sequence may be more disruptive than steady radiation, just as it would be disruptive to passengers on such a car trying to read.

Microwaves are also different from light in that they can penetrate walls that are opaque to light, and go right through our clothes and skin.

Myth: The authorities say there is no known health effect at this time..
Myth: If it were dangerous, people would have known a long time ago..
While not all authorities say there are health effects from wireless technologies, an increasing number of government health organizations are now calling for precautions in light of the growing scientific concerns. This is remarkable given conflicts of interest.

Industry-funded scientists have had their funding taken away when they found biological health effects, and industry has lobbied to reverse judgments on electromagnetic fields’ danger. In the media, management sometimes intervenes because of advertisement money that is at stake. SeeConflicts of Interest.

Nevertheless, the truth is making its way into official government recommendations despite all the efforts to the contrary. In the last 5 years, many countries’ governments have made wireless health recommendations calling for precautions.

Myth: Double-blind studies show that people who claim to be sensitive, cannot tell whether the signal is on or off.. Therefore, it must be a psychological “nocebo” effect — Otherwise, it is a real, but unrelated health problem. In one study funded by industry, some of the most sensitive people in the double-blinded studies, were extremely accurate, but had to drop out of the study before its conclusion because of severe health issues. Many design flaws have also been pointed out in industry-funded double-blind studies.

We are now beginning to see independent double-blind studies showing objective effects from EMF like arrhythmia and high blood pressure. Even animals, plants, and microbes are reacting to the radiation, and more than one in vitro study has found an increase in DNA double-strand breaks, which can lead eventually to cancer. Studies show that microwaves can open the blood-brain barrierand trigger arrhythmia in animals. These findings are not satisfactorily explained by psychology alone.

Overviews by Dr. Devra Davis and Dr. Martin Blank

Cell Phone Radiation and Your Health (from EON)
Devra Davis is former director of the Center for Environmental
Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh and part of the
group winning the Nobel Prize with Al Gore. She is an
epidemiologist and a toxicologist and recently wrote,
“Disconnect: The Truth about Cell Phone Radiation”
Electromagnetic Fields and Health Risk (from TheEMRRT)
Martin Blank is Associate Professor of Physiology and
Cellular Biophysics at Columbia University.
He is also the past president of the Bioelectromagnetics Society.

Conflicts of Interest in Science, Media, Government, and Health Advisory Committees

Funding Effect No Effect
Industry 27(32%) 57(68%)
Non-Industry 96(70%) 41(30%)
Total 123(56%) 98(44%)

Source: Prof. Henry Lai, Univ. Washington
(Table from Dr. Martin Blank on Electromagnetic Fields).

An analysis of the scientific studies found that the majority of industry-funded studies found no effects, whereas the majority of independent studies did find effects. This is the same thing that had happened for the tobacco and lung cancer studies. It is important, therefore, not only to consider the conclusions of a study, but also its sources of funding.

The media typically presents an undecided viewpoint, one moment raising concerns, and the next moment saying that those concerns are unfounded. Stories are sometimes altered to soften the blow to the wireless industry. When Fortune magazine first reported on electromagnetic hypersensitivity in 1993, Motorola stopped advertising with Fortune magazine for a long time, resulting in hundreds of thousands of dollars of lost income, according to Microwave News. The media can also have a conflict of interest.

Similarly, the government suffers from a conflict of interest. The wireless industry is reported to be the government’s #2 source of revenue, and has reportedly spent $2.3 billion in political lobbying. (Public Health SOS, The Shadow Side of the Wireless Revolution). Billions of dollars are paid for the allocation of the wireless spectrum.

Even health organizations like the World Health Organization suffer from conflicts of interest, and industry sometimes works to reverse judgments on the danger of electromagnetic fields. See Don Maisch’s article, Conflict of Interest & Bias in Health Advisory Committees. Conflicts of interest can prevent health advisory bodies from sounding the alarm on health hazards.

Scientists Challenged

There are many scientists who have had their funding or positions threatened because they found or spoke out on harmful effects from wireless radiation. These scientists include Henry Lai of University of Washington, Allan Frey, Robert Santini, Carl Blackman of the EPA, Ross Adey, Olle Johansson, Gerald Hyland, Olle Johansson, Annie Sasco, Dimitris J. Panagopoulos, and others. Although their credibility has been challenged, their findings have in many cases been reproduced by other scientists.

For example, Henry Lai, who found DNA effects in response to microwaves, was challenged and threatened. However, similar effects on DNA were later observed by the 7-nation European REFLEX study and by the University of Vienna. There is another interesting story shared by Devra Davis that the Adlkofer study was called a fraud in Science magazine, but that this story of fraud was later ruled to be a fraud itself. There are now approximately 11 studies now pointing towards DNA breaks.

Similarly, Allan Frey discovered blood-brain barrier leakage as a result of microwave radiation, which was challenged. However, Leif Salford expanded upon the work, and also showed that rodents’ brain cells were dying as a result of microwave radiation.

Deceptions in Science

Study design is often manipulated in a way such that effects are not found. For example, children and heavy business users may be omitted from a study due to their increased vulnerability, or the study length is sometimes shortened, knowing that the average time lag can be over 10 years before cancer occurs. (For reference, the approximate time lag for lung cancer with respect to cigarette smoking is 20 years.) For more examples of study design flaws, see:

For examples of deceptions in science, listen to an interview with Magda Havas, “Deceptions with Science”, where she discusses deception through study design, interpretation, and presentation.

Study Design Variables Which May Be Manipulated By Science

The following are some ways in which science can be manipulated:

  • Defining a regular cell phone user as at least one call per week for at least 6 months (Interphone)–thus failing to study the difference between heavy users and light users. See “Heavy mobile users risk cancer”.
  • Reducing the time of the study, knowing that the normal latency for cancer is over a decade.
  • Not controlling for other wireless exposures, such as DECT cordless phones, mobile phone base stations, and Wi-Fi. Users of these technologies may be counted as controls.
  • Removing more vulnerable populations (business users in the Danish study, and children in Interphone). Business users are likely to be the heaviest users, and children are vulnerable for reasons mentioned in The Greater Vulnerability of Children.
  • Only studying brain tumors and not other diseases (e.g., studies suggest higher salivary gland cancer risks, higher prostate cancer for men wearing mobile phones on their belt, symptoms related to infertility in men, and anecdotes are indicating breast cancer for women who hide their cell phone near their breasts).
  • Testing with unmodulated wireless exposures when modulated wireless exposures are believed to be worse.
  • Using sub-groups of animals or cell types with lower levels of susceptibility.
  • Avoiding particular power density windows found in which calcium would be removed from brain tissue.
  • Not taking into account different cell phones with different exposure levels.

Common Deficiencies of Double-blind Studies on Electrosensitivity

Studies trying to disprove electrosensitivity often suffer from the following deficiencies:

  • Insufficient population size and poor adherence of selection criteria as a result
  • Excluding subjects who had to drop out because of health reasons (they were made too ill to continue)
  • Not properly accounting for the time lags between initial exposure and onset of symptoms, e.g., some symptoms last for days. Other symptoms take time to appear.
  • Not taking into account the individualized nature of responses. It was found that different people may react to different signal types and power density levels with different symptoms, just as people react to allergens differently.
  • Not controlling for other exposures such as power line magnetic fields and chemicals, which electrosensitive people sometimes suffer in addition to microwaves. The microwaves may even contribute to their weakened resistance.
  • Not acknowledging that nocebo effects can happen, but do not disprove an effect. Similarly, placebo effects do happen, but do not disprove that a medicine really helps.
  • Not acknowledging that survey studies do find that people are affected with subjective symptoms, even when they do not believe the cell tower is related Even people who do not think they are affected often show higher symptoms around wireless technologies, even though they cannot detect it.
  • Not acknowledging the objective biological effects that have been found by scientific studies.

More Information

  • Watch: A Radiant Day (Norwegian) – Who are the industry and military stakeholders in the issue of mobile phone safety? Do you believe that it is making some people ill? The argument against this is about the double-blind studies that show that people cannot accurately detect wireless technologies. However, these double-blind studies suffer from design flaws as well, similar to the studies on cell phones and brain tumors.
  • Read://

Electrohypersensitivity (EHS): Is It Real? Does it Exist?

Electrohypersensitivity (EHS): Is It Real? Does it Exist?

By Evelyn Savarin | Cellular Phone Task Force |

EHS was first identified in the Russian research of 1950s and 60s under the term ‘Microwave syndrome’. The term described a litany of symptoms and illnesses observed in Russian workers occupationally exposed to higher levels of electromagnetic/microwave radiation.

The first of many subsequent critiques and reports on the Russian Studies was the Dodge Report 1969 and later by Glaser, 1971. Their reports documented over 2,300 Russian studies and references that identified a plethora of symptoms and illnesses ranging from those frequently ascribed to EMF exposure as sleep disorders, headaches, depression, dizziness, nervousness, memory problems, digestion, heart irregularities, tinnitus, to the more obscure, such as trembling eyelids, changes in olfactory sensitivity, loss of hair as well as many bio-chemical effects. 1,2

Based on many of those early studies, most East European countries, Russia and China adopted RF emission standards 1,000 to 10,000 times lower than the West. The Eastern Countries believed lower emission thresholds were justified in order to protect the population from the Biological effects that was evidenced in the Eastern research at the time. Meanwhile the West justified their higher RF safety thresholds simply using a safety factor from the physical heating health effects of RF/microwave emission. According to Western science, physical heating was the only definitive health risk from RF /microwave emission observed in the research up to that time. 3

Reports generated by Western governments have been critical of the Russian and Eurasian lower safety standards and the efficacy of their original research. The West’s assessment of the Russian studies did not demonstrate a rationale for the 1,000 times lower Eastern Emission Standards. 4 However a later 1979 more obscure government paper, the McCree Report, did in fact confirm Euro-Soviet research was valid. 5 Despite that confirmation, American and Western countries never found a justification to change to our 1,000 times higher RF emission standards.4 Interestingly, while US and other Western countries held dear to the higher emission standards based on the ‘Heating’ of tissue rationale, the US Military at the same time was conveniently looking into offensive RF — electromagnetic weaponry that could disrupt bodily functions and alter behavior at below heating thresholds. 5
In recent years conflicting evidence has pitted Industry against independently-sponsored research as to whether Electrohypersensitivity (EHS) is a real or imagined disorder. In industry-supported research, EHS is considered an idiopathic disorder. Essentially, a series of health complaints looking for a cause.This research conveys the opinion that patients reporting EHS have wrongly associated electromagnetic fields (EMFs) as the cause of their symptoms and disabilities. Instead those scientists subscribe it to psychosomatic reasons. 6

From a series of provocation studies,industry-supported scientists have come to the conclusion that individuals self reporting EHS cannot detect whether an RF signal is on or off with any degree of accuracy, and do not show any biological differences from non-reporting individuals during exposure.6 The scientists conducting the studies automatically assumed that to be legitimately designated a select rohypersensitive, self proclaimed EHS patients should show a clear response distinction in those two areas from the non-reporting group.

Much of those provocation studies were heavily funded by Mobile Telephone carriers 7 and led by James Rubin PhD, a psychologist teaching at King’s College in London. 6

Closer examination on the methodology of these studies shows a disregard for science, common sense and a clear obfuscation and misinterpretation of the results

Common sense dictates that after prolonged or repeated exposure to a stimulant or depressant the body reduces its initial ability to respond or detect the stimulus in the same original manner., i.e. smoking, alcohol, drugs, smells etc. Instead, with continued and greater exposure, we find the body may begin to adapt, or experience changes and disorders very different and potentially more debilitating to health than the original physical reaction to the exposure, i.e..cirrhoses of the liver, lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, violent behavior, etc.

The Russian studies of the 1960s clearly lay out how the process EHS develops over time. It begins with periods of stimulation and heightened awareness, followed by a period of adaptation and eventually followed by a period of organism decline. However if EMFs are removed during
the stages of stimulation and adaptation, the organism can potentially recover from many of the disabling symptoms experienced throughout the exposures. Reintroduction of EMFs and increasing exposure can often lead to more acute and fatal illnesses. 8

In a series of provocation studies performed between 2005 and 2009, Langrebe& Frick found EHS individuals were NOT capable of detecting a magnetic stimulating device (on/off), while, in contrast, non-EHS test subjects were able to detect the device emissions with great percent of accuracy. The researchers concluded EHS individuals’ lack of accuracy was probably due to ‘‘dysfunctional cortical process leading to reduced adaption’’. 9 This is an interesting conclusion which clearly contradicts Dr. Rubins’s original premise that EHS people should theoretically be able to detect the signal/EMF stimulus, while non-EHS individuals should not.

In Dr. Rubin’s review he states that the cause of headaches during a cell phone call is psychological and probably caused by the more neurotic, fearful responses observed in EHS individuals. Then he proceeds to attribute the neurotic behavior to perhaps a lack of sleep, implying that headaches should be symptomatic of EHS reporting individuals, while loss of sleep is NOT related! 6 This is blatant ignorance of EHS science which repeatedly identifies sleep disorders as a primary bioeffect of EMF-RF exposure. (see studies above). (unfortunately this should have some citations but I don’t have time to provide. This piece was part of a larger report I created which had those citations)

A review of the literature of the following four provocation electrohypersensitivity studies, rather than less, one finds more similarity between EHS individuals and non-reporting test subjects exposed to RFs(10,11,12,13)

  • Both groups shared sleep problems, headaches, stress related cellular changes, and cognitive performance changes when exposed to cell phone simulation signals.
  • The interesting distinction between the two groups is the timing and the magnitude of reactions that was reported and observed by the two groups.

Dr Paul Dart M.D, a distinguished Oregon naturopathic medical physician and author who has treated many EHS individuals in his practice, clearly lays out in a 2013 report the misleading methods and conclusions of industry-funded provocation studies. He does an extensive research review that clearly shows the many biochemical changes experienced by a percentage of population exposed to current levels of RF emissions.14

Perhaps the greatest distinction between EHS reporting individuals and the non-reporting group can be summarized by saying that EHS individuals may be more non-conforming as they seek out causes and solutions to their physical problems. Rather than accept the popularly prescribed ways to resolve, suppress or dismiss their physical symptoms, they feel compelled to search deeper and wider into their environment for causes and solutions.

Studies & References on Electrohypersensitivity

1) Dodge, Christopher; “Clinical and Hygenic Aspects of Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation”; Bioscience Division of US Navy, 1969.


3) Cleary, Stephen; “Biological Effects and Health Implications of Microwave Radiation”; Symposium proceedings Edited by Stephen F. Cleary, Dept of Biophysics, Virginia Commonwealth University, US Dept of Health, Education and Welfare, June 1970.Report documenting the state of the art of international research and controversies on the biologicaleffects of low-intensity microwave emissions.

4) Foster, Kenneth R.; “Criteria for EMF Standards Harmonization; Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania

5) McCree, Donald; “REVIEW OF SOVIET/EASTERN EUROPEAN RESEARCH ON HEALTH ASPECTS OF MICROWAVE RADIATION”; National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Research Triangle Park, North Carolina;Presented at the Symposium on the Health Aspects of Nonionizing Radiation heldat the NY Academy of Medicine April 9 and 10, 1979. Published in the Bulletin of the NY Academy of Medicine, Vol.55, No. 11, December 1979

6) Rubin, G James; “Electrosensitivity: A Case for Caution with Precaution”; King’s College London, Institute of Psychiatry

7) International Scientific Conference on EMF and Health, 2011; sponsored by the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR), P.4”James Rubin

8) Troyanskiy, M P; “HYGIENIC PROBLEMS OF THE EFFECT OF MICROWAVE, ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS ON THE BODY”; Russian-language journal GIGIYENA I SANITARlYA, No 8, 1972, Moscow; translation by Joint Publication Services of the Dept of Commerce

9) Shows our inability to distinguish when signals occur may be a result of dysfunctional cortical processes that cannot adapt to on/off situations. Showed more tinnitus (ringing of the ears) from exposure conditions. Langrebe M, Frick U; “ELF exposure to hypersensitive individuals and analysis of hypersensitivity, perception, effects on motor skills, and tinnitus”; Psychiatric University Hospital in Regensburg, Germany 2005-2009;

10) Improved performance on cognitive tasks by EHS as exposure continued. Wiholm, C et al.; “900 (GSM) exposure to humans and analysis of cognitive function (working memory in a virtual water maze)”; WHO Database on Electromagnetic Radiation, ID # 256; Bioelectromagnetics, (2008)

11) Both groups reported headache symptoms to cell frequency exposure, however it appears the non-EHS group had slightly more reported headaches and lasted longer after exposure turned off. Both groups showed dermatological symptoms when the exposures were on. Hillert L1, Akerstedt T, et al: “The effects of 884 MHz GSM wireless communication signals on headache and other symptoms: an experimental provocation study”; Department of Public Health Sciences, Division of Occupational Medicine, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.; Bioelectromagnetics. 2008 Apr;29(3):185-96.

12) Both non-EHS group & ES group experienced headaches when phones were turned on, and could detect the signal with the same degree percentage of accuracy. Rubin GJ et al; “Are some people sensitive to mobile phone signals? Within participants double blind randomized provocation study.”; King’s College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Department of Psychological Medicine; BMJ. 2006 Apr 15;332(7546):886-91. Epub2006 Mar 6.

13) Similar sleep brain wave disturbances by both hypersensitive and non-EHS group under similar exposure conditions. Slight differences in amount of brain wave changes between groups. Lowden A1, Akerstedt T , Ingre M, Wiholm C, Hillert L, Kuster N, Nilsson JP, ArnetzB ; “Sleep after mobile phone exposure in subjects with mobile phone-related symptoms.”; Stress Research Institute, Stockholm University, Sweden: Bioelectromagnetics. 2011Jan;32(1):4-14.

14) Dart P. MD, Cordes K. MD, Elliott A. ND, Knackstedt J. MD, Morgan J. MD, Wible P. MD, Baker S.;“BIOLOGICAL AND HEALTH EFFECTS OF MICROWAVE RADIOFREQUENCY TRANSMISSIONS: A REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH LITERATURE“; A report to the Eugene Water and Electric Board, Eugene, Oregon, June 2013

15) THE ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM IN LOW-INTENSITY CONFLICT, By Capt Paul E Tyler MC USN; Center for Aerospace Doctrine, Research and Education; Maxwell Air Force Base Alabama Original Document:
Clearer Version

FACT: DNA Damage at below safe Cell Phone Radiation Levels

Readers are probably familiar with the idea of electrophoresis, although they may not know the term. The technique is used for DNA fingerprinting to determine paternity.

In television documentaries we often see forensic scientists holding a small X-ray film with lines of bar-codes. These bars are the physical locations of the genetic material after the DNA strands have been chemically separated, broken up and dragged through a viscous gel towards an anode. The bars mark the cumulative lodging place of many identical DNA pieces from many different cells.

We have the same DNA in every cell of our bodies, and DNA molecules are negatively charged. Each piece has a different physical resistance, so these bars mark the cumulative lodging place of many identical DNA genetic parts.

During the years of childhood and growth cells are constantly dividing and duplicating by a process called ‘mitosis’, so it is especially important that the DNA replicates accurately and that the gene sequences remain in order; these two-metre helical strands of paired molecules contain the basic blueprint for constructing and maintaining viable life.

There are 50,000 billion cells in the body, and even in older people the body is still actively creating another billion new cells every hour, so the incorruptibility of DNA is all-important in our health and survival.

Despite this constant manufacture of new cells, we don’t keep growing in size after adulthood. A few die from normal wear and tear (‘necrosis’) but, to maintain the balance, mis-copied or unwanted cells are instructed to suicide (‘apoptosis’) by the cells nearby.

Programmed cell death is an essential part of life, and, if this euthanasic message fails to trigger suicide and the cell goes into a phase of uncontrolled division, tumors and cancers result.

The cells of the heart muscle, and those of the nerves and brain neurones don’t replicate, but all others are reproducing regularly over your lifetime. So at the molecular-cell level there’s a new you about every five years.

This raises the question: Why do we get cancer? Cancer is slow in onset; it generally takes between ten and twenty years to incubate. Why do we get it at all if most cells are only five years old?

Obviously the defects which cause uncontrolled cell growth are often (but not always) transmitted from mother-cells to daughter-cells during mitosis. Defects like these are called ‘mutations’ Ñ however, not all mutations are disruptive or dangerous to our health. DNA in our cells constantly comes under attack from many sources, and the normal body processes ignore or handle most of the defects.

External messages are also transmitted across cell boundaries and between cells to initiate apoptosis (programmed cell death), but these may similarly be short-circuited or distorted in some way. These messages are carried by electrically-oriented flows of ions and by more complex protein and enzyme molecules.

The point is, that at the molecular level, humans cell functions are very dynamic, very regenerative, constantly being disrupted and repaired, highly tolerant of defects, and very much affected by electrical influences.

Recently the biomedical researchers have begun using a technique similar to DNA fingerprinting to investigate damage to DNA. This is called single-cell gel (SCG) electrophoresis or ‘comet assay’, and it is capable of finding defects in single cell exposed to toxic chemicals or ionizing radiation.

Our interest here is in whether this technique can detect damage to cell functions or DNA viability from low level radio waves. Classical radio theory says radio waves can’t damage molecules, because their energy is not sufficient to break chemical bonds.

The technique gets its name from the comet-and-tail appearance which results from broken genetic material being dragged through the gel by electrical attraction ahead of the more-resistant DNA bundles.

Think of this as towing a very old car through a few miles of deep mud, then counting the bits and pieces that fall off in the process. But here the car (the DNA ball) drags behind and the broken bits move out ahead.

Fig.1 Unexposed control. The bundle is simply DNA. 

Fig.3 X-ray calibration: After 25.6 rads.
DNA strand breaks are now very obvious.Figure 2 and 3 shows the comets from immune cells which were subject to various levels of X-rays exposure for calibration purposes. This sequence establishes the fact that the breaks in the DNA are dose-related: higher exposures produce more and therefore longer and more complex comet tails.

Comet assay techniques were developed by Swedish scientists Östling and Johannson in 1984, and then later refined by Narendra Pal (‘NP’) Singh in 1988 (with other improvements later). At that time Dr Singh was a research scientist at the US National Institute on Aging.

Chemical processes are employed to digest and remove all the lipids and proteins from the cell to express the DNA breaks, and Singh’s alkaline separation techniques are now widely recognized for their sensitivity and reliability. Alternative ‘neutral’ approaches are applied also in some research laboratories.

Comet assays reveal damage to DNA from air and water pollution, food additives, diet and smoking, etc. and they always require very highly developed laboratory skills and strict attention to detail. Unfortunately they lack a recognized form of objective measurement.

Back in 1994, Singh joined biomedical scientist Dr Henry Lai at the Bioelectromagnetics Research Laboratory, University of Washington in Seattle. The work originally conducted at this university was funded by the US Navy and Air Force, but that source of funding has long evaporated. Under Henry Lai, the US government’s National Institutes of Health has been responsible for most of the funding.

In a ground-breaking series of experiments between 1994 and 1998 they demonstrated convincingly that moderate levels of microwave (2.45GHz) radiation, ( Below that of cell phone radiation levels)for exposures of only two hours, could increase the frequency of single-strand DNA breaks in the brain cells of live rats.


Fig.4 Assay showing effect of 2 hrs of microwave exposure (2.45GHz) at a SAR (absorption) level of 0.6 W/kg [about cell phone radiation levels] DNA strand breaks are also obvious.These images result from fluorescent molecules attached to the end of each DNA strand at a break point, and so are best seen in the negative.

Figure 4 was captured by Dr Lai and Singh, and it shows the results of a comet assay at power densities about one-fifth those previously thought to cause adverse biological effects. These exposures were only for a short time, and they used radio power-densities well below those said to be ‘ionizing’ (having the power to break chemical/material bonds).

In this research, Dr Lai and Singh have used microwave frequencies which are higher than cellphones (at 0.9GHz), but not much above those used by the cellphone cousins, the new handheld PCS phones (1.9GHz).

DNA strands tend to break all the time, but they repair themselves constantly, so these comet-tail images need to be compared with the unexposed control DNA bundle in Figure 1. The cell bundles in Figure 4 have the classic comet tail of particles indicating extensive DNA damage, well above the spontaneous DNA damage levels of the controls.

Spontaneous breaks in the DNA are relatively common in all cells (6.00-radical attacks seem to be responsible) and most are quickly repaired by normal cell processes — generally within minutes or hours. But any form of increased disruption to the DNA is worrying. Nerve cells in particular have a low capability for DNA repair and so the effects of additional breaks could accumulate.

The DNA strands form a spiral-staircase-like helix, and so breaks on only one side of the ladder are much easier to repair than those where both sides are broken. But in later experiments Lai and Singh found double-strand DNA breaks after similar exposures times and levels.

It is possible for the cell to make mistakes when repairing single-strand breaks, but the likelihood of serious mistakes (mutations) increases substantially with double-strand breaks.

Fortunately, only certain genes are ‘expressed’ (activated) within each organ, so less than one percent of the DNA is essential in any one cell. Most mutations will cause no harm, and those that are very disruptive will probably lead to programmed cell death.

This introduces a paradox; small problems accumulating over time may be more dangerous than large defects. Cells that suffer gross disturbances to their critical genes are also more likely be programmed to suicide; therefore the larger DNA disruptions may be self-annihilating.

Over the years the DNA in human cells constantly suffer attack, some of which is never repaired. Given enough time, the accumulation of minor (but jointly critical) problems can cause cancer to develop. There is rarely a single cause of cancer.

This is also why cancer is a mostly a condition of age. It’s probably that older people have many per-cancerous cells, even though only a few suffer the critical mutations that lead to uncontrolled cell proliferation. These are just the straws that finally broke the camel’s back.

This raises the distinct possibility that cumulative low level RF exposures could be more harmful than higher critical exposures.

And since nerve cells don’t divide and proliferate, this damage could equally contribute to degenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. Cancers and age-associated degenerative conditions may be closely related.

Another aspect of the Lai-Singh research (with pulsed microwave similar to GSM cellphones and radar) was also disturbing. Rat brains which were excised and prepared quickly for the assay showed fewer breaks, while those which were checked four hours after exposure revealed much higher levels. This suggests that both the damage and the repair-initiation are not simple and immediate processes, and supports the thesis that DNA damage from repeated uses of a cellphone could be cumulative.

Dr Jerry Phillips, working in a research facility outside Los Angeles, made a similar finding. His research showed that DNA breaks actually decreased in some RF exposure conditions, sometimes with different wave-forms, suggesting that there’s a more complex causal link than expected, and a delicate balance between the break and repair-rates.

Phillips work also suggests that there may be some type of rough feedback control mechanism — something like a sticky fly-wheel governor on a steam boiler which makes the engine-rate hunt between slow and fast. The DNA-repair feedback might lead to mistakes and mutation and increase the chance of destructive cancer.

This work is highly controversial, as you’d imagine. Lai and Singh have reported finding of DNA strand breaks at levels of only one-fifth the American RF safety limits — but they’ve since also found that they can use the pineal hormone melatonin and other anti-oxidants to countering the RF effect. So the research is not only producing negative results.

This points to the importance of free-radicals as the intermediary which actually damages the DNA, which doesn’t come as a surprise to most researchers. free-radicals have often been implicated in DNA problems.

Although the Lai-Singh research hasn’t been faithfully replicated, other scientists have found similar DNA strand breaks in parallel radio research projects, and a number of live-animal tests have confirmed increased tumor rates resulting from long exposures over the life of the animals. There is also evidence that radio-wave exposures can influence the short term memory.

Currently, the Lai-Singh research has been stymied for lack of funding from the US government which has its attention focused on other matters, while the cellular phone industry has preferred to invest in less disturbing projects.

Dr. Devra Davis’s presentation

Dr. Devra Davis: In this Dean’s Lecture, epidemiologist and electromagnetic radiation expert Dr. Devra Davis, outlines the evolution of the mobile phone and smartphone, and provides a background to the current nineteen year old radiation safety standards (SAR), policy developments and international legislation. New global studies on the health consequences of mobile/wireless radiation are also presented, including children’s exposure and risks. Click the frame here below to Dr. Davis’s presentation in its entirety.


Upon his discovery of the Earth’s healing energy, Clint Ober partnered with Polish Drs. Pawel and Karol Sokal to establish scientific proof.

Their Earthing research produced fascinating evidence of the Earth’s ability to generate a positive effect on the electrical state of the human body. Their studies laid the groundwork for subsequent studies that echoed the same result: that Earthing allows for the free flow of the Earth’s electrons into our system, and electrons are the source of the neutralizing power of antioxidants.

Studies also point to a reduction of pain and chronic inflammation in multiple patients suffering from chronic pain or disease. Here are some highlights from the most significant Earthing research.

Earthing and Blood Viscosity

As far as health benefits go, Earthing has been known to have a significant impact on blood viscosity.

For this study, Earthing experts Dr. Stephen Sinatra and Dr. James Oschman recruited three individuals suffering from chronic inflammation-related pain. They measured the subjects’ blood viscosity with a method called zeta potential, which is a measure of how quickly your red blood cells migrate in an electrical field.

While grounding, your zeta potential rapidly elevates, causing your red blood cells to develop more charge on their surface and distance themselves from each other. In turn, your blood viscosity improves. They used a darkfield microscope to capture their results (right).

The images on the left are before Earthing, and the ones on the right are 45 minutes after Earthing. The pictures demonstrate a significant thinning and decoupling of the blood cells.


Medical Thermography Case Studies

Dr. William Amalu, President of the International Academy of Clinical Thermography, conducted clinical Earthing case studies on 20 subjects suffering from chronic pain. Some subjects were provided with Earthing bed sheets, others were given Earthing patches to use as treatment. All of the subjects were followed over time, and with the use of infrared technology, their results were record. They were assessed for both inflammatory and neurophysiological improvements to their pain levels. These are some of the groundbreaking results.

Earthing and Chronic Knee Pain


For the above case study, a 48-year-old female with significant chronic bilateral knee pain (resulting from a 6-year-old injury) used an Earthing patch for 30 minutes. The above thermographic images from before and after the treatment show a drastic reduction in chronic inflammation. After the initial exposure to Earthing, the patient reported a 20% reduction in pain and after 12 weeks of regular Earthing, she reported an incredible 90% reduction in pain.

Earthing and Chronic Foot & Ankle Pain


The 57-year-old male patient in this case study suffered from chronic bilateral foot and ankle pain. After 2 nights of sleeping grounded, he reported a pain reduction of more than 80%. After 4 weeks, the patient said his pain had vanished with only occasional stiffness. The before (left) and after (right) images above show a pronounced improvement in circulation and a decrease in inflammation. Note that his toes are not visible initially due to poor circulation and room temperature levels.

Earthing and Chronic Back Pain


The top images are from a case study of a 44-year-old female with chronic middle back pain. After 4 nights of sleeping grounded, she reported a 30% reduction in pain and after 8 weeks, the pain was completely resolved. The bottom images are of an 85-year-old male with chronic lower back pain and recurring shoulder pain. After 2 nights of sleeping grounded, he reported a 50% reduction in pain and after 4 weeks, he reported a resolution of pain and improved sleep.

Earthing and Chronic Hand Pain


For this case study, a a 49-year-old woman suffering from sleeplessness and chronic pain slept grounded on Earthing bed sheets for 4 consecutive nights. The arrows in the top thermographic images (before) denote areas of poor circulation, and the bottom images (after) show the return of proper circulation and decreased inflammation. The patient reported a drastic reduction in pain and improved sleep, with steady continued improvement upon follow-up.