Your Wireless Router Might Be as Dangerous as This Toxin!

Additional Details
Time: 
12:16
Views: 
13,407
Published Date:
11/04/2015
Embed:
Video Transcript
Transcript

Scott: You deal a lot with EMFs and we talked about it a little bit earlier.  You can't see them, can't hear 'em, touch them, taste them, anything like that.  How do we know that they often pose a threat to our health?

Oram Miller: EMFs are the hidden, a hidden source of toxicity as you mentioned.  The analogy that we use is cigarettes.  And we, I say, my colleagues and I say and the EMF safety community world-wide says, consider a router that has wi-fi enabled for your internet service or cordless phone base unit, like an ash tray with burning, lit cigarettes.  The only difference like you say is you can't smell it or see it.  Now there are people, that comprise the bulk of my clientele who feel these things.  I don't, but they do.  I can sense that there's something going on there but it doesn't bother me, I'm not made ill.  But two thirds of my sensitive clients, which is 70 percent of my practice, so two thirds of them are symptomatic.  That's half my clientele.  They actually are made ill when these things are turned on.  So I have to help them to connect to the world through their internet, through their telephone service in a hard wired way.  So we're going full circle now, back to using cables again in these homes when everyone in America, builders and audio visual technologists are putting in wireless.  And major manufacturers are saying cords are ugly so go wireless for everything.  Thermostats, security systems, home automation and central control systems are all wirelessly connected and that's the direction and the drive of technology now.  In fact, the consumer electronic show every January in Las Vegas which is covered very closely by the Los Angeles Times.  I love reading those articles every January.  Because in the last two years they're saying we've entered the age of what they call the internet of everything, or the internet of things.  Both terms are used. Which makes it difficult for me and for my clients because these are the people that are sensitive.  And they are not acknowledged by manufacturers, by regulators, by academia, by industry, by anybody in American.  However, in Europe, they had a conference in Brussels, I believe it was in May, on electrical hypersensitivity.  Talking about the medical underpinnings of this and why do certain people have this hypersensitivity to these fields?  And there are reasons for it.  It has to do with voltage gated calcium channels, it has to do with oxidase dismutase, and other enzyme pathways and there are genetic reasons for this, there are also causes from prior exposure to either chemicals or EMFs that produce or precipitate this change in the sensitivity of the individual.  So that this person is sensitive, but their spouse and their family are not, which causes all sorts of friction in the family.  So I come in and I'm  like a mediator here in a battle of people who live under the same roof and are married and parents and children of each other.  And it's really havoc.  Because someone in the family, often times the wife and the mother is very compromised.  She is so sensitive that others have to vary their way of communicating with the world.  And either they win or she wins.  If she wins, they're frustrated, if they win, she can't be in the home.  I've had this.  When one client, their daughters came home from college, they just turn on the wi-fi.  And she has to stay in the guest house.  And they don't understand this.  They don't think it's real, they think she's making this up. 

So it turns out, that these individuals, representatives from the US, Canada and Europe, who attended this gathering in Paris, again I believe it was in May, have now created an appeal, they've written an appeal which they are presenting to the United Nations and to member countries, to implore the governments to take this issue to heart and to create, especially in the World Health Organization, international classification of diseases, the ICD, electrical hypersensitivity and chemical sensitivity as full fledged diseases in that classification system.  So they will be recognized by insurance companies and also be grounds for disability, which is true in Sweden, but not here and not other countries.

Another interesting step, is that Martin Blank, who is a professor at Colombia University, he's retired from Colombia, he lives in Vancouver now.  But he spoke here, at the Cancer Control Society last year and then two years before that, he was one of our speakers at the Building Biology Conference we had in Washington D.C. in 2012.  I was the chairman of the program, planning committee and stage manager at the time so I got to know him and met him here again, heard him speak last year and he said, 'I was a skeptic, until I did the research on the DNA, on the effects that these wireless devices have on DNA.'  And he said I'm not a skeptic anymore.  He said, every cell is affected by this and two thirds of the population, I mean he didn't use that term... that's the number that we estimate can repair the damage.  He said a percentage can repair the damage, they never develop symptoms.  Just like people who smoked and never developed disease.  But a third of the population in the world has symptoms from these devices today.  And the countries in the world, outside of the United States, that pay for the healthcare of their people, that pay for the healthcare delivery in their countries are taking notice of this.  They see the writing on the wall, they see the developing health crisis, the fourth one in 60 years.  The first three being tobacco, lead in gasoline and asbestos.   And they know what happened then.  They had to overspend, more than their budget, to deal with it.  And they see that looming now, so they're trying to pull back, and take wi-fi out of schools, and recommend hard wired connections again.  Coming back full circle.  In France, Germany, Switzerland, Ireland, Austria, Belgium, Israel, India, Russia and Australia.  So I say, what do these countries know that we don't?Why did France vote in January, to ban wi-fi in all daycare centers and nurseries?  And in the same law, they now require all grade school teachers to turn wi-fi off on the routers when they're not in use.  So they can't be on standby in the classroom.  They, manufacturers of cell phones cannot target children under 12 in their advertising in France.  And mayors have to alert citizens when a cell phone company wants, is petitioning for a permit to put up a cell phone tower, so they can protest if they want to. 

In America, the cell phone trade organization, put a provision into the Telecommunications Act of 1996, prohibiting health being brought up or being considered as a reason for approving or disapproving a cell tower permit by a city council.  So we have a situation where we know that the cell phone trade industry has hired the same PR firms that the tobacco companies did 50 years ago.  They're amassing a war chest for the inevitable class action lawsuits that they know are coming.  They have a product that they know is harmful and they're silencing, as much as possible the evidence in this country. They're keeping it under wraps.  The FCC is not independent.  It's told what to do by congresspeople who are funded by corporations, who then come in... because the assistants say we don't know all the technical details of this issue, help us write this legislation.  And so that's what happens with all these industries.  And so there is this notion in American that whatever, that the level the FCC said is the safe exposure level is the threshold that is safe and anything below is not harmful.  Well the truth is, that is dependent upon, or based upon research that was done with rats.  My understanding was that one of the largest contributors to this is... studies that were done with rats in cages where they turned up a radio transmitter.  And they waited until they stopped pressing a bar for food.  At that point, they said this is our safe level. Anything below this is safe.  And they sacrificed the rats, and they found heat shock proteins and evidence, other evidence of damage to the mitochondria and the cell contents.  They completely ignored the non heating biological effects at lower levels.  So it turns out, in the discussion of this over the decades that have transpired since then, in 1997, the FCC issued its position paper on radio frequency EMFs, where they said one milliwatt per square centimeter, is a safe level.  But if you look at what that equates to unit of measurement used by Europeans, they don't use milliwatts per square centimeter, which is a half inch by half inch, they use microwatts, which is a thousand times less, per square meter, which is 10 thousand times bigger.  So if you do the math, that one becomes ten million.  And there's a table which is in the presentation I'm going to give later tonight, and it's on my website, createhealthyhomes dot com, under EMF lecture schedule you'll see that PDF of the slide that's in my presentation.  And there 10 million is at the top of the list and there's all these other countries and this is from Power Watch in the UK, other countries that have either legal or recommended levels that are much lower than that.

So the dilemma that we have is the average cell phone conversation, cordless phone conversation, tablet, e-reader, laptop that has these technologies enabled, they're either continuous like the cell phone, excuse me, the cordless phone base unit or the router, which is like an ash try putting out smoke all the time.  Or intermittent, which is the nature of the transmission from these other devices which we have close to us.  And the exposure level can be tens of thousands of microwatts per square meter, which is below the ten million, so it's point zero, zero, zero... you know, microwatt per square centimeter.  But it's enough to cause harm and there are thousands of studies that prove this.  So 200 scientists, led by Dr. Martin Blank, have put together an appeal, and this is separate from the one for the children's group.  This group has put together an appeal to the UN that was released in May, encouraging the Secretary General of the UN, all member countries of the UN and the World Health Organization to take action on this because of the consequences to the human population.  

So it's a real dilemma, we love our technology, we need alternatives and that's being recommended by the Europeans.  And there is a technology called li-fi, which uses light based, infrared frequencies.  It's wireless, cordless, but it's not radio and there's no harm to human health.  So and in your home, what we recommend is increased distance, reduce use and favor hard wired technologies.  So I tell my clients, tell your friends and family to call your home number first.  Keep your land line.  Use corded telephones and then, for portability, you're going to be tethered, but you have a long cord.  Not as much portability as you're used to now, but it's safe.  And with internet, we recommend ethernet cables, it's faster, more secure and more stable and also safer from an EMF standpoint.

 

Information

Oram Miller helps people build and transform their residences into safer, healthier places. In this video, he discusses the danger of electromagnetic frequencies. He compares them to something else that is toxic. You might think of these common devices much differently after this!

RATE THIS VIDEO: powered by mojirater

In order to keep our content free, some of the links may be affiliate links to trusted websites. Shopping through them will bring a small commission to iHealthTube.com. Read our full affiliate disclaimer for more info.