http://www.emfnews.org cell tower systems.
How do Wireless Telephone Systems Work?
Wire
http://www.emfnews.org cell tower systems.
How do Wireless Telephone Systems Work?
Wireless telephone systems work on a different concept from radio transmission systems most people are familiar with, such as television and radio stations. In most types of radio transmission systems, the object is to transmit your signal as far as possible, in order to maximize the amount of listeners or viewers you may have.
In cellular systems, the object is to transmit a controlled signal. This is done to maximize the amount of channels that are given to each cellular provider for use. Cellular systems are assigned a set number of channels for a given area, usually around 400. In order to maximize the amount of calls/channels per given geographic area, they break the coverage area into a series of cells. Each cell can cover anywhere from a one mile radius from the base station in the city and urban areas to a 10 mile radius in the countryside and rural areas. Usually an arrangement of seven repeating cells is used, with 50 or 60 channels used per cell. As you move a mobile phone between these cells, the mobile phone is 'handed off' between the cell sites and channels, being controlled by the mobile telephone switching office (MTSO), or mobile switching center (MSC). This makes use of the most important part of the cellular system, frequency re-use. There are only a limited amount of channels available in any cellular system, and this system makes the same channel available in different geographic parts of the system, to different users.
Signals are sent back and forth between the MTSO and the cell site over high capacity circuits (DS3) or microwave links. This is known as backhaul, or the process of bringing the signal from the switch to and from the individual cell site.
There are two main frequencies used for wireless telephone communications in the United States. These are 1.9 Ghz (1900 Mhz) and 800 Mhz. All systems using 1.9 Ghz utilize digital technology and are referred to as PCS http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html
(more)
(less)
Added: 3 months ago
Views: 1,728
To learn more go to http://www.emfnews.org/cell-phone-radiation-book.html http://www.emf
To learn more go to http://www.emfnews.org/cell-phone-radiation-book.html http://www.emfnews.org
Among researchers who study the effects of electromagnetic emissions from mobile phones and towers, the prevailing wisdom is that it's too early to conclude that they are harmless to humans. "At the moment, there are too few properly controlled scientific studies to draw any strong conclusions," said Elaine Fox, a professor in the psychology department at the University of Essex who is studying whether the electromagnetic fields emitted from mobile-phone base stations have a direct effect on human health. Fox's project is one of several that received funding last month from the United Kingdom's Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research program, a group formed in 2001 to report on whether exposure to cell-phone radiation adversely affects people's health. The group formed following the publication of a report that failed to find evidence of health risks, but noted that research to date was not expansive enough to conclude that no dangers exist. Topics of past research include the potential link between brain tumors and mobile-phone use, effects of mobile-phone radiation on blood pressure, and the possible link between cancer incidence in early childhood and proximity to mobile-phone base stations. As part of the current studies, researchers are examining the scientific basis of "electrical sensitivity," a collection of symptoms, such as headaches and fatigue, that some people believe is caused by exposure to wireless phones and towers. Fox's research, an extension of a volunteer study that begun in January, will investigate whether some people are particularly sensitive to cell-phone electromagnetic fields. In the first stage of the project, Fox collected survey results from 4,000 participants, about 6 percent of whom indicated some degree of symptoms, such as headaches or burning skin, that they attributed to electromagnetic fields. The second part of the project, launched in November, involves testing people who identify themselves as hypersensitive to electromagnetic fields alongside people who are not, to establish whether mobile-phone base stations really are affecting health and well-being. Another research group, based at King's College in London, is testing 120 people, half of whom consider themselves hypersensitive to mobile-phone emissions. James Rubin, a research fellow at King's College who is overseeing the project, is hoping to submit findings for publication by the end of next year, provided he finds enough volunteers (.pdf). "People who report being hypersensitive to mobiles are often understandably cautious about taking part in a study which involves exposure to a mobile-phone signal," he said. The study will examine whether mobile-phone signals cause such symptoms as headaches, nausea, dizziness and fatigue, and whether they affect the levels of certain hormones that are important in regulating metabolism. Since cell-phone adoption reached critical mass in the mid-1990s, research into the effects of long-term mobile-phone usage has also become more feasible. However, representatives of the cell-phone industry say they have yet to see any findings that should give mobile users reason for alarm. "There is no conclusive evidence that wireless phones contribute to health risks, and the same goes for towers," said Erin McGee, a spokeswoman for the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration takes a similar position on health risks caused by mobile-phone base stations. "Measurements made near cellular and PCS base-station antennas mounted on towers have confirmed that ground-level exposures are typically thousands of times less than the exposure limits adopted by the (Federal Communications Commission)," the agency states on its website. The FDA also maintains that there's no scientific evidence to link any health problems to mobile-phone use. On the other hand, the agency says there is no proof that they are absolutely safe. http://www.emfnews.org/qlinks.html
The World Health Organization, meanwhile, expects to complete health-risk assessments in 2007 under its International EMF Project, which examines effects of exposure to electric and magnetic fields up to 300 GHz in frequency, which includes cellular-phone emissions. Libby Kelly, executive director of the Council on Wireless Technology Impacts, an activist group favoring greater regulation of electromagnetic emissions, believes health agencies are understating the risks posed by wireless phones and towers. She cited a study released in October by Sweden's Karolinska Institute, which found that 10 or more years of mobile-phone use increases the risk of acoustic neuroma -- a benign tumor on the auditory nerve. To learn more go to http://www.emfnews.org/cell-phone-radiation-book.html http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html http://www.cellphonelies.com
(more)
(less)
Added: 4 months ago
Views: 1,562
http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html
TV Interview with Dr. Carlo (Campbell Live, TV3)
Dr.
http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html
TV Interview with Dr. Carlo (Campbell Live, TV3)
Dr. Carlo talks about the cell phone industry's marketing towards children and the epidemic projections from cell phone use.George Carlo and Martin Schram are aiming to become information-age Ralph Naders. They ask a question that ought to concern America's 103 million mobile phone users, as well as those who merely come within earshot of these popular devices: Is the wireless future a threat to public health? "Visit any public building, college classroom, courthouse, or commuter train, and look around: You'll see people using not just wireless phones but also wireless laptop computers and miniature palm tops," write Carlo and Schram. "What you won't see are the microwaves that are criss-crossing a confined space where a number of people who are not even using these instruments are bombarded by these waves." It sounds creepy. And Carlo, an epidemiologist who once oversaw a multimillion-dollar research project on health for the cellular industry, believes the news is not good: there may be a link between cell phone use and brain tumors. The research is not conclusive, but Carlo and Schram think it's disturbing enough to warrant government action. Needless to say, the industry that once backed Carlo's work now considers him persona non grata.
Due largely to Carlo's coauthorship, Cell Phones is unavoidably a one-sided story. Key business figures didn't agree to interviews. In fact, this might have been a better book if it were written by Schram, with Carlo as one of several major characters rather than a collaborator. Then again, it would lack the passionate advocacy that will draw many readers to it. And even the most skeptical may want to take a few of the simple safety precautions the authors recommend in a concluding chapter, such as wearing a headset or earpiece when using a cell phone, in order to keep a distance from the radiation-emitting antennae. One look at the x-ray photos reproduced in the book, which show how radiation easily penetrates skulls, will give even the most impervious observer second thoughts. One thing is probably certain: This book is a harbinger of litigation. If Carlo and Schram are correct about their concerns, the cellular industry--as unbelievable as it sounds--may go the way of Big Tobacco. --John J. Miller --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
From Publishers Weekly
In 1993, when the cell phone industry's chief lobbyist hired epidemiologist and pathologist Carlo to refute claims that cell phones, which had never been subjected to premarket testing, cause cancer, no one thought he would discover otherwise. But after six years of exhaustive analysis and scrupulous peer review, the results proved, according to this report, that radiation from a cell phone's antenna can cause the formation of micronuclei red flags for cancer in the brain. Children in particular are more susceptible to the radiation than adults. Carlo reported his findings to the industry and the FDA and advocated for continued research, but both parties still maintain that cell phones are safe. Here, Carlo and syndicated columnist Schram retrace Carlo's scientific undertaking and what they cast as a sinister web of corporate greed and masterful PR "spin" that choked his efforts. Schram provides the primary narrative, with Carlo's insights and recollections scattered throughout, a format that grows repetitive. Despite the captivating story, many consumers won't want to slog through the detailed scientific explanations to get to the bottom-line safety recommendations. Journalists, policymakers and consumer advocacy groups, however, will find this no-holds-barred book extraordinarily informative as they continue investigations of the industry. Agent, Ronald L. Goldfarb.
http://www.emfnews.org/qlinks.html
(more)
(less)
Added: 1 year ago
Views: 20,360
|
http://www.emfnews.org/qlinks.html
How the QLinks Works
We live in a world of matter,
http://www.emfnews.org/qlinks.html
How the QLinks Works
We live in a world of matter, which we experience as solid, and a world of forces, which act upon these solid things. But quantum physics is clear that what we call solid matter is composed of oscillating matter wave packets, and what we call forces are composed of oscillating energy wave packets. In reality, everything is composed of oscillating wave packets of one type or another.
Scientists have long puzzled over force field phenomena that do not fit the four known forces: electromagnetic, gravity, weak and strong forces. These force field that do not fall into the classical four are sometimes labeled "subtle energies." They are called "subtle" because they cannot be observed or measured by any known instrumentation.
Dr. William Tiller, Professor Emeritus of Stanford University, has spent decades studying subtle energy phenomena. He accepts subtle energies as real, and as providing explanatory power for scientifically documented phenomena that cannot be explained by the four known forces. Much of these documented phenomena describe the particular influence that subtle energies have on classical electromagnetic fields. Electromagnetic fields are composed of two basic types of energy wave packets: electrons and photons.
Dr. Tiller asserts that a significant relationship exists between subtle energies and electromagnetic fields. Evidence points to a strong relationship. Evidence also indicates that, if subtle energies can be acted upon in specific ways, they will yield specific results in electromagnetic phenomena - perhaps acting directly on the wave packet states. According to Dr. Tiller, this action may take place through the magnetic vector potentials.
What does Clarus engineer?
Clarus invents and manufactures new types of consumer and industrial products called sympathetic resonators. A sympathetic resonator creates a coupling circuit between subtle energies and classical electromagnetic energies. This coupling circuit does 3 important things. 1. It converts raw subtle energies into clarified, highly-delineated and highly-concentrated subtle energies. In the sense used here, "raw" is equivalent to raw materials that are converted from a relatively chaotic state into a more ordered, more refined state. After conversion, the subtle energies are, in effect, postulated to be more intensified and condensed.
2. It conducts these converted subtle energies into an environmental space. The size of the space can range from a 3 foot spherical radius to a 50 foot spherical radius. When the converted subtle energies are conducted into an environment, they act more directly than diffused or raw subtle energies on the systems they both comprise and influence.
3. This conversion and conduction actively effects the performance of phenomena in the influenced space - especially phenomena which employs electromagnetic fields.
Clarus makes 2 types of sympathetic resonators. Each type is composed of hardware which is treated and imprinted by a master manufacturing device that conducts super-refined subtle energies.
One type is the sympathetic resonator used in the QLink Pendant. It is engineered using 3 components: a resonating cell, the Sympathetic Resonance Technology (SRT-3) and an amplifying coil.
The main component, the resonating cell containing a proprietary formula of pure crystalline elements, works as an oscillator that converts and conducts subtle energy into more coherent energy states. The SRT-3 tunes the cell's vibrations for the wearer's Biofield . The amplifying coil shapes and strengthens the size of the energy field that is conducted. It extends the power of the sympathetic resonance into a 3-dimensional field. This entire process clarifies the user's energy states, and thereby strengthens the internal power and resilience of the wearer, allowing him to more effectively filter out chaotic type energies.
Electrical energy is not required for this resonator since it is powered by the energy of the person wearing it. Because electrical power is not applied, and because of the unique way a sympathetic resonator works, the cell, SRT-3 and amplifying coil do not have to be physically wired as they would with a normal Hertzian electronic circuit. A second type is the circuit boards used in the QLink ClearWaves and Ally. These are not traditional electrical engineering-type circuit boards, but are designed for their own purpose to convert and conduct subtle energies. These circuit boards use an actively-powered oscillator to extend the influential range of the instrument
http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html
(more)
(less)
Added: 1 year ago
Views: 5,102
http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html
Are Cell Phones Dangerous? What about power lines an
http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html
Are Cell Phones Dangerous? What about power lines and cell towers? Blue tooth headsets?
adiation exposure limits for electromagnetic fields were reduced by 80 per cent yesterday in response to concerns that vulnerable people might be at risk.
The National Radiation Protection Board (NRPB) said the safety thresholds for exposure to power lines, mobile phones and radio transmitters should be reduced to bring Britain into line with international guidelines.
The agency also called on the Government to investigate the puzzling link between high electromagnetic fields in the home and childhood leukaemia.
Electromagnetic fields (EMF) are produced by mobile phone masts, mobile phones, power lines, magnets and domestic appliances such as microwaves or televisions.
Some campaigners claim the new limits are still not stringent enough and have called for even lower thresholds.
The new advice follows a review of more than 1,000 scientific papers on the risks of EMF in the home and at work. It found no evidence that British thresholds were unsafe, but because of "uncertainties" in the data it concluded that domestic limits should be lowered "on a precautionary principle". The thresholds for industrial exposure remain unchanged.
Dr Alastair McKinlay, of the NRPB, said: "This reflects the cautious approach we have taken in looking at what the differences might be between a healthy working population and a general population which has all age groups and disabilities within it."
http://www.emfnews.org
(more)
(less)
Added: 1 year ago
Views: 3,765
http://www.Cellphonelies.com EMF pollution causes a different type of environmental pollut
http://www.Cellphonelies.com EMF pollution causes a different type of environmental pollution which can be more risky to ones health than the usual air pollution we can easily detect and protect ourselves from. EMF radiation is a major stressor of the body and we get a fair amount of it every day, everywhere. Yet, we cant see it, we cant hear it, we cant smell it.
Conflicting results
Some researches seem to suggest that the increased incidence of brain tumors during the last decade or so is attributable to cell phone use. Preliminary data would show that the brain tumor is usually located on the side where the patient would use his/her cell phone.
But results from studies have been conflicting. Last year, the Dutch Health Council, reviewing all available data from all over the world, found no conclusive evidence that radiation from mobile phones and TV towers was harmful. A four-year British survey released early this year also showed no link between regular, long-term use of cell phones and brain tumor.
These earlier publications seemed reassuring to cell phone users until researchers at the Swedish National Institute for Working Life observed in their study that the use of mobile phones over a long period of time can raise the risk for brain tumors, contradicting the conclusions of earlier researches.
The Swedish researchers looked at the mobile phone use of 905 people between the age of 20 and 80 who had been diagnosed with a cancerous brain tumor, and they found a link with their cell phone use.
The study noted that 85 of these 905 cases were so-called high users of mobile phones, that is they began early to use mobile and/or wireless telephones and used them a lot. Similar to the observations of previous studies, the tumors were more prevalent on the side of the head where the phone was said to be used.
Increased risk
Dr. Kjell Mild, head investigator of the study, said the figures meant that heavy users of mobile phones, accumulating 2,000 hours or more of cell phone use in their life, had a 240 percent increased risk for a malignant tumor on the side of the head the phone is used. In practical terms, if one uses cell phones an average of one hour a day (total daily use), he would have a 240 percent risk of developing a brain tumor in 5.4 years compared to nonusers of cell phones.
Dr. Mild suggested that to get the risk down, one should use hands-free phones but other experts dont seem to agree. They hypothesize that hands-free devices even serve as an antenna that attract more EMF radiation.
Another important observation in some of these studies is that children and younger people are more vulnerable to EMF waves due to their relatively thinner skulls, which are still maturing and growing. With the unlimited text and call promos available in our country, many youngsters spend minutes and sometimes hours making telebabad on their cell phones. This can pose a potential problem later on. Inadequate disclosure
Since hands-free devices dont seem to offer any protection, the only safeguard I can think of at this point to minimize EMF radiation from cell phones is to use it only when its necessary. If a landline is available, then we should use it instead of the cell phone.
And just like the cigarette manufacturers, the network providers (Globe, Smart, and Sun) should also have a line at the bottom of their advertisements stating something like: Preliminary evidence suggests that accumulated exposure to cell phone radiation might increase the risk of brain tumors. This should free them from any liability of inadequate disclosure which cell phone users who eventually develop brain tumors might file against them.
http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html
(more)
(less)
Added: 8 months ago
Views: 3,535
|
Sprint Nextel and T-Mobile have disconnected cell antennas at St. Mel School.
Parishioner
Sprint Nextel and T-Mobile have disconnected cell antennas at St. Mel School.
Parishioners of a Queens church and parents of its parochial school pupils were jubilant last week after two cellular phone companies unplugged 23 antenna towers from the school's roof.
The years-long tug of war between the community and the companies finally ended after Sprint Nextel removed its towers from Flushing's St. Mel School, which had signed a contract in 2000 to lease roof space.
The company had shared the space at 154-24 26th Ave. with T-Mobile.
T-Mobile also agreed to discontinue using its antenna towers after Sprint Nextel made the first move, said City Councilman Tony Avella (D-Bayside).
"They went out the same day [Dec. 27] and turned off the system," he said. "Within the past week they've begun to remove the equipment."
The church and school had attempted to annul the contracts for nearly two years.
"It's a major victory for all of us, and the parents are thrilled," Avella said.
A Sprint Nextel official said the company agreed to move out on the school's request.
"We made the decision in the best interest of serving our customers and the community," said spokesman Mark Elliott. "That was our sole reasoning for removing the equipment."
T-Mobile did not return calls for comment, but a spokesman, Wayne Leuck, e-mailed a written statement saying only that "Parents at St. Mel's School and throughout the area deserve the peace of mind that comes with high quality wireless coverage."
Church leaders began fighting the companies in March 2006 after parents raised concerns that children were being exposed to possibly harmful radio waves.
In recent weeks, the Diocese of Brooklyn, which includes Queens as well, turned up the heat on the two companies to terminate the contracts, which originally had been a way to raise money for the church and school. "The situation runs akin to the asbestos issue - 30 years ago nobody thought asbestos was dangerous," Avella said. Public schools are prohibited from erecting antennas by federal law.
(more)
(less)
Added: 5 months ago
Views: 1,122
http://www.emfnews.org/qlinks.html Watch as this man uses special device to measure danger
http://www.emfnews.org/qlinks.html Watch as this man uses special device to measure dangers of cell phones and office equipment.
A cellular phone is basically a radio that sends signals on waves to a base station. The carrier signal generates two types of radiation fields: a near-field plume and a far-field plume. Living organisms, too, generate electromagnetic fields at the cellular, tissue, organ, and organism level; this is called the biofield. Both the near-field and far-field plumes from cell phones and in the environment can wreak havoc with the human biofield, and when the biofield is compromised in any way, says Dr. Carlo, so is metabolism and physiology.
"The near field plume is the one we're most concerned with. This plume that's generated within five or six inches of the center of a cell phone's antenna is determined by the amount of power necessary to carry the signal to the base station," he explains. "The more power there is, the farther the plume radiates the dangerous information-carrying radio waves."
A carrier wave oscillates at 1900 megahertz (MHz) in most phones, which is mostly invisible to our biological tissue and doesn't do damage. The information-carrying secondary wave necessary to interpret voice or data is the problem, says Dr. Carlo. That wave cycles in a hertz (Hz) range familiar to the body. Your heart, for example, beats at two cycles per second, or two Hz. Our bodies recognize the information-carrying wave as an "invader," setting in place protective biochemical reactions that alter physiology and cause biological problems that include intracellular free-radical buildup, leakage in the blood-brain barrier, genetic damage, disruption of intercellular communication, and an increase in the risk of tumors. The health dangers of recognizing the signal, therefore, aren't from direct damage, but rather are due to the biochemical responses in the cell.
Here's what happens:
Cellular energy is now used for protection rather than metabolism. Cell membranes harden, keeping nutrients out and waste products in.
Waste accumulating inside the cells creates a higher concentration of free radicals, leading to both disruption of DNA repair (micronuclei) and cellular dysfunction.
Unwanted cell death occurs, releasing the micronuclei from the disrupted DNA repair into the fluid between cells (interstitial fluid), where they are free to replicate and proliferate. This, says Dr. Carlo, is the most likely mechanism that contributes to cancer.
With the background levels of information-carrying radio waves dramatically increasing because of the widespread use of cell phones,Wi-Fi, and other wireless communication, the effects from the near and far-fields are very similar. Overall, says Dr. Carlo, almost all of the acute and chronic symptoms seen in electrosensitive patients can be explained in some part by disrupted intercellular communication. These symptoms of electrosensitivity include inability to sleep, general malaise, and headaches. Could this explain the increase in recent years of conditions such as ADHD), autism, and anxiety disorder?
"One thing all these conditions have in common is a disruption, to varying degrees, of intercellular communication. When we were growing up, TV antennas were on top of our houses and such waves were up in the sky. Cell phones and Wi-Fi have brought those things down to the street, integrated them into the environment, and that's absolutely new. The recognition mechanism, where protein vibration sensors on the cell membrane pick up a signal and interpret it as an invader, only works because the body recognizes something it's never seen before."
As to increases in brain tumors tied to cell phone use, it's too early to tell due to a lack of hard data, says Dr. Carlo. "We're never going to see that in time to have it matter. Here in the US, we're six years behind in getting the brain tumor database completed, and currently the best data are from 1999. By the time you see any data showing an increase, the ticking time bomb is set."
Epidemic curve projections, however, indicate that in 2006, we can expect to see 40,000 to 50,000 cases of brain and eye cancer. This is based on published peer-reviewed studies that allow calculation of risk and construction of epidemic curves. By 2010, says Dr. Carlo, expect that number to be between 400,000 and 500,000 new cases worldwide.
"This means we're on the beginning curve of an epidemic, with epidemic defined as a change in the occurrence of a disease that is so dramatic in its increase that it portends serious public health consequences," says Dr. Carlo. "This is what's not being told to the public. One of the things that I suggest to people who use a cell phone is to use an air tube headset. If you use a wired headset, the current moving through the wire of the headset attracts ambient informational carrying radio waves and thereby increases your exposure." http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html
(more)
(less)
Added: 1 year ago
Views: 21,211
http://www.emfnews.org/cell-phone-radiation-book.html
Scientific Proof Cell Phone Radiati
http://www.emfnews.org/cell-phone-radiation-book.html
Scientific Proof Cell Phone Radiation Penetrates a Child's Skull 75% through the Brain Tissue.
http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html
A cellular phone is basically a radio that sends signals on waves to a base station. The carrier signal generates two types of radiation fields: a near-field plume and a far-field plume. Living organisms, too, generate electromagnetic fields at the cellular, tissue, organ, and organism level; this is called the biofield. Both the near-field and far-field plumes from cell phones and in the environment can wreak havoc with the human biofield, and when the biofield is compromised in any way, says Dr. Carlo, so is metabolism and physiology.
"The near field plume is the one we're most concerned with. This plume that's generated within five or six inches of the center of a cell phone's antenna is determined by the amount of power necessary to carry the signal to the base station," he explains. "The more power there is, the farther the plume radiates the dangerous information-carrying radio waves."
A carrier wave oscillates at 1900 megahertz (MHz) in most phones, which is mostly invisible to our biological tissue and doesn't do damage. The information-carrying secondary wave necessary to interpret voice or data is the problem, says Dr. Carlo. That wave cycles in a hertz (Hz) range familiar to the body. Your heart, for example, beats at two cycles per second, or two Hz. Our bodies recognize the information-carrying wave as an "invader," setting in place protective biochemical reactions that alter physiology and cause biological problems that include intracellular free-radical buildup, leakage in the blood-brain barrier, genetic damage, disruption of intercellular communication, and an increase in the risk of tumors. The health dangers of recognizing the signal, therefore, aren't from direct damage, but rather are due to the biochemical responses in the cell.
Here's what happens:
Cellular energy is now used for protection rather than metabolism. Cell membranes harden, keeping nutrients out and waste products in.
Waste accumulating inside the cells creates a higher concentration of free radicals, leading to both disruption of DNA repair (micronuclei) and cellular dysfunction.
Unwanted cell death occurs, releasing the micronuclei from the disrupted DNA repair into the fluid between cells (interstitial fluid), where they are free to replicate and proliferate. This, says Dr. Carlo, is the most likely mechanism that contributes to cancer.
Damage occurs to proteins on the cell membrane, resulting in disruption of intercellular communication. When cells can't communicate with each other, the result is impaired tissue, organ, and organism function. In the blood-brain barrier, for example, cells can't keep dangerous chemicals from reaching the brain tissue, which results in damage.
http://www.danger911.com
http://www.emfnews.org/qlinks.html
(more)
(less)
Added: 1 year ago
Views: 16,019
|
|
See All 107 Videos
|
