CFL LIGHT BULBS DANGERS

CFL light bulbs represent a triple threat your health rather than the loeveable energy friendly devices that industry and government would have you believe. 

Three Toxins You Don't Want in Your Home
  • They contain enough mercury to poison your home and 20 000 gallons of water!
  • They emit EMF's at  a high level in a 4 -6ft area where they operate. They also create high voltage transients, Dirty Electricity, which contaminates your electrical system and your neighbours!
  • Very High UV Radiation Levels, 

Read Below for the Whole Story: 



How Dirty Electricity is Created:

These Diagrams clearly show the difference between a regular incandescent bulb and CFL bulbs.  

An oscilloscope was hooked up to booth bulbs. The second picture clearly shows the massive creation  high frequency transients. These transients create  dirty electricity in your home and electrical system and move into the air. All electronics in your home have an electronic field around them which extends several feet on average(sometimes it is much larger). When you sit by a lamp or sleep by a clock radio you are absorbing these transients which unleash damage at the cellular level!

The more dirty electricity in your home and your neighbourhood(yes it comes in on your main power line from your neighbours) the higher the impact on your health when you are close to any electronics, appliances or even your wiring and outlets. 

The solutions:

Eliminate all CFL bulbs and install dirty electricity filters to clean your electricity in your home. Also unplug electronics when not in use, go to battery operated devices where possible ie clocks and try to eliminate devices with transformers which create dirty electricity!




 What if the bulbs break? Mercury, A Toxin Loose in  Your Home!

On top of that, it’s a sad fact of life that light bulbs break. How do you clean up the mercury after a bulb breaks? The Institute for Molecular and Nanoscale Innovation measured the release of mercury vapour from broken compact fluorescent bulbs. They recorded concentrations near the bulb of up to 800 mcg/m3, which is eight times the average eight-hour occupational exposure limit allowed by OSHA (100 mcg/m3).

Even more shocking, the recommended limit for children is a mere 0.2 mcg/m3. A child exposed to a broken CFL bulb will receive eight thousand times the recommended amount of mercury vapour!

A broken 13-watt CFL bulb will only have released 30% of its mercury a full four days after it is broken – the remainder is trapped in the bulb. So picking up shards with your bare hands or leaving them in poorly ventilated room while you ponder the best disposal method is a particularly bad idea.

Unfortunately, there is no good solution for cleaning up after a broken CFL bulb. Researchers at Brown are testing a cloth made with a nanomaterial (nanoselim) that can capture mercury emissions for proper disposal. But until this is commercially available, it is best to avoid CFLs altogether. And how will we dispose of the clean-up cloth?

We’re happy that the U.S. government is tackling environmental problems, but this “solution” is especially short-sighted – and not unlike the national smart meter push, is creating serious health risks in the long-term.

Worse, soon consumers won’t have the option to buy incandescent lights – they simply won’t be available. The government hasn’t placed an outright ban on incandescent light bulbs. Section 321 of EISA mandates higher efficiency standards for general service lamps. But these standards are high enough that most commonly used incandescent bulbs just won’t meet the new requirements. EISA will effectively eliminate 40-, 60-, 75-, and 100-watt incandescent bulbs. The new efficiency levels will be in full force by 2014.

The good news is that CFLs are not the only energy-efficient bulbs out there. There are also light-emitting diodes (LEDs), which are mercury-free – though LEDs emit blue light, which can be disruptive to sleep, as we noted in our 2012 article. Please contact your legislators immediately and call for a repeal of the ban on incandescent lights. Tell them about the cancer risks and the lack of proper disposal methods. Please take action today!

For more information, or to subscribe to ANH-USA’s free newsletter, visit: http://www.anh-usa.org/ write: Alliance for Natural Health USA, 6931 Arlington Road, Suite 304, Bethesda, MD 20814  Toll-Free Phone: 1.800.230.2762




UV Radiation  At High Levels:


In every bulb the researchers tested, they found that the protective phosphor coating of the light bulb was cracked, allowing dangerous UV rays to escape. Healthy skin cells exposed to CFLs showed a decrease in their proliferation rate, an increase in the production of reactive oxygen species, and a decrease in ability to contract collagen.Sounds good – until you realize that CFL bulbs contain mercury, and mercury poses a significant cancer risk. A new study (find it at http://bit.ly/W74NRk) shows that CFL bulbs also emit high levels of ultraviolet radiation – specifically, UVC and UVA rays. In fact, the UV rays are so strong that they can actually burn skin and skin cells.

EMF Radiation Shielding

Radiation Shielding Solutions

Experts say the radiation could initiate cell death and cause skin cancer in its deadliest form – melanoma.

General Electric claims that CFLs don’t produce a hazardous amount of UV radiation, and that UV is far less than the amount produced by natural daylight. The truth is that all compact fluorescent lights bulbs contain mercury vapour. Once that vapour is hit with an electric current, it emits a great number of UV rays. UV rays are theoretically absorbed by the layer of phosphor that coats the bulbs – but the signature twisted spiral shape makes these bulbs more prone to cracks in the phosphor, which dramatically increases UV/mercury exposure. Researchers found cracks in almost all bulbs purchased from retail stores, indicating that it is a standard design flaw of these bulbs.
CFL bulbs contain other cancer-causing chemicals as well. German scientists found that several different chemicals and toxins are released when CFLs are turned on, including naphthalene (which has been linked to cancer in animals) and styrene (which has been declared “a likely human carcinogen”). A sort of electrical smog develops around these lamps, which could be dangerous. (Find research results at: http://bit.ly/15zz3pM)

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) has mandated the phase-out of incandescent light bulbs, and favours energy-efficient compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs instead. CFLs are supposedly better for the environment, but according to the Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers, 98% of CFLs end up in landfills – creating a mercury build-up that can escape into our soil and waterways. (See: http://1.usa.gov/1398lEJ)

Press Release Courtesy Alliance for Natural Health USA



CFL LIGHT BULBS AND DIRTY ELECTRICITY STUDIES:


June 2008

Health Concerns associated with Energy Efficient Lighting and their Electromagnetic Emissions

Dr. Magda Havas, Trent University.

Associate Professor, Environmental and Resource Studies Trent University, Peterborough, ON, Canada mhavas@trentu.ca

I write this mini report in response to your request for information about Light Sensitivity as it relates to energy efficient light bulbs. It is based on research we are currently conducting that has not yet been peer-reviewed. For this reason I am able to share only a small portion of our results with you at this time.

Governments around the world are banning energy inefficient light bulbs in an attempt to reduce consumption of fossil fuels and the emission of greenhouse gases. However, the energy efficient light bulbs that are currently available may be harming both the environment (mercury content of bulbs is high) and human health (electromagnetic pollution).

The main function of light bulbs is to generate light, which is part of the electromagnetic spectrum (see Figure 1). The original incandescent light bulbs also generate heat (infrared radiation, also part of the EM2 spectrum), which makes them energy inefficient. The newer compact fluorescent light bulbs generate radio frequency radiation as well as ultraviolet radiation (see Figure 1) and many still generate heat although less of it.

These frequencies (RF3 and UV4) have been associated with adverse health in numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies and a growing number of people are complaining that these bulbs make them ill.

Instead of promoting compact fluorescent light bulbs, governments should be insisting that manufacturers produce light bulbs that do not produce radio frequency or UV radiation and that are safe for the environment and for human health. Alternative light bulbs are available that are much more energy efficient than CFL, do not contain mercury, do not produce radio frequencies or UV radiation, and do not make people sick. Unfortunately these bulbs are still too expensive for residential use (CLED lights produced by www.realuvcorp.com).

1 For a biographical sketch of the author please refer to Appendix A. 2 EM: electromagnetic
3 RF: radio frequency
4 UV: ultraviolet

page2image20672
page2image20944

SCENIHR & Light Sensitivity

Figure 1. Electromagnetic frequencies generated by various types of light bulbs.

UV Radiation:

Fluorescent light bulbs contain mercury, which emits UV radiation when it is electrically excited. This UV radiation then interacts with the chemicals on the inside of the bulb to generate light. Tube fluorescent bulbs have diffusers that filter the UV radiation. The new compact fluorescent light bulbs do not have these diffusers and hence people using CFL are exposed to UV radiation. UV radiation has been linked to skin cancer and

mhavas@trentu.ca page 3/11

SCENIHR & Light Sensitivity

various skin disorders. Those who have skin problems may be particularly sensitive to this radiation.

Global News in Canada did a Special Report in April 2008 on energy efficient light bulbs. Health Canada provided them with some information about these bulbs (see Appendix 2). According to Philippe Laroche, Media Relations Officer for Health Canada, compact fluorescent light bulbs, unlike tube fluorescent bulbs, do not have prismatic diffusers to filter UV radiation. “Therefore, there may be skin sensitivity issues, especially in people with certain skin diseases.”

Health Canada and other government agencies responsible for ensuring that products sold have no adverse health effects need to make this information readily available to the public.

Radio Frequency Radiation:

According to General Electric (GE) their typical electronically-ballasted CFL operate in the 24-100 kHz frequency range. This range is within the radio frequency band of the electromagnetic spectrum (Figure 1) and is classified as Intermediate Frequency (IF5) by the World Health Organization. There is concern about electromagnetic interference (EMI) associated with IF and recently studies have shown that IF are biologically active and can have adverse health effects (1,2).

We used a Fluke Scope meter to measure the waveform generated by light bulbs through the air (at a distance of 0.5 meters) and on the wire (after it had passed through a ubiquitous filter to remove the 60 Hz cycle). We also measured power quality using a microsurge meter, which measure the frequency range between 4 and 100 kHz.

Figure 2 shows the waveform through the air (blue) and on the wire (red) for a Sylvania 60 watt incandescent light bulb and for a 15 watt CFL produced by General Electric. The GE bulb emits radio frequencies directly through the air (blue) and generates IF on wires which causes dirty electricity. Background values for power quality (dirty electricity) were between 63 and 67 GS units. The incandescent bulb did not contribute to dirty electricity but the CFL did and raised the readings to 298 GS units. This was not the “dirtiest” light bulb we tested. Several gave readings above 1000 GS units.

A recent study of cancer clusters in a school in California associated the increased risk of cancer among teachers to dirty electricity (2). Teachers who taught in classrooms where the dirty electricity was above 2000 GS units had a 5-fold increase risk of cancer (risk ratio 5.1) that was statistically significant. Teachers who never taught in those classrooms had a risk ratio of 1.8.

5 IF: Intermediate Frequencies within the Radio Frequency band of the electromagnetic spectrum. Generally in the kHz range (thousands of cycles per second).

page4image23376

mhavas@trentu.ca page 4/11

SCENIHR & Light Sensitivity

In a different school study in Toronto, improvement in power quality was associated with improved health among teachers and improved behaviour among their students (3). This study has been repeated at 3 Minnesota schools with similar results (4). Dirty electricity in schools contributes to ill health of teachers and behavioural problems among students.

We have conducted studies with diabetics and people who have multiple sclerosis and found that when the dirty electricity in their home is reduced their symptoms diminish. Both type 1 and type 2 diabetics have lower blood sugar and type 1 diabetics require less insulin when they are in an electromagnetically clean environment. People with MS have fewer tremors, improved balance, less fatigue, and several have been able to walk unassisted after the dirty electricity in their home was reduced (5).

Figure 2. Intermediate frequencies generated by an incandescent light bulb and a compact fluorescent light bulb. Input A: 0.5 meters from bulb. Input B: on wire after passing through a ubiquitous filter that removes the 60-Hz cycle.

mhavas@trentu.ca page 5/11

SCENIHR & Light Sensitivity

ElectroHyperSensitivity (EHS)

According to the Swedish Association for the ElectroSensitive (www.feb.se) approximately 3% of the population have severe symptoms of electrohypersensitivity. These symptoms include sleep disorders, chronic fatigue, chronic pain, cognitive dysfunction, dizziness, skin disorders, among others (see Table 1). The Swedish government recognizes EHS as a functional impairment rather than a disease (6).

Table 1. Symptoms of Electrohypersensitivity or Radio Wave Sickness (7).

Neurological: headaches, dizziness, nausea, difficulty concentrating, memory loss, irritability, depression, anxiety, insomnia, fatigue, weakness, tremors, muscle spasms, numbness, tingling, altered reflexes, muscle and joint paint, leg/foot pain, flu-like symptoms, fever. More severe reactions can include seizures, paralysis, psychosis and stroke.

Cardiac: palpitations, arrhythmias, pain or pressure in the chest, low or high blood pressure, slow or fast heart rate, shortness of breath

Respiratory: sinusitis, bronchitis, pneumonia, and asthma Dermatological: skin rash, itching, burning, and facial flushing

Ophthalmologic: pain or burning in the eyes, pressure in/behind the eyes, deteriorating vision, floaters, and cataracts

Others: digestive problems; abdominal pain; enlarged thyroid, testicular/ovarian pain; dryness of lips, tongue, mouth, eyes; great thirst; dehydration; nosebleeds; internal bleeding; altered sugar metabolism; immune abnormalities; redistribution of metals within the body; hair loss; pain in the teeth; deteriorating fillings; impaired sense of smell; ringing in the ears.

We conducted a survey on line to determine how electrically sensitive people respond to different types of lighting. This survey was circulated among different groups include those with electrohypersensitivity, migraines, lupus and other health concerns. Since migraine sufferers respond to bright light we eliminated them from this part of the analysis.

We asked participants to identify their degree of electrohypersensitivity and to identify their symptoms when they were exposed to various types of lighting. Figure 3 shows their results for headaches. The highest percentage of headaches was reported for exposure to both tube and compact fluorescent light bulbs among those who classify themselves as either moderate sensitive to extremely sensitive. Results for other symptoms were similar.




Pess Release Courtesy Alliance for Natural Health USA

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) has mandated the phase-out of incandescent light bulbs, and favours energy-efficient compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs instead.


In every bulb the researchers tested, they found that the protective phosphor coating of the light bulb was cracked, allowing dangerous UV rays to escape. Healthy skin cells exposed to CFLs showed a decrease in their proliferation rate, an increase in the production of reactive oxygen species, and a decrease in ability to contract collagen.Sounds good – until you realize that CFL bulbs contain mercury, and mercury poses a significant cancer risk. A new study (find it at http://bit.ly/W74NRk) shows that CFL bulbs also emit high levels of ultraviolet radiation – specifically, UVC and UVA rays. In fact, the UV rays are so strong that they can actually burn skin and skin cells. Experts say the radiation could initiate cell death and cause skin cancer in its deadliest form – melanoma.

General Electric claims that CFLs don’t produce a hazardous amount of UV radiation, and that UV is far less than the amount produced by natural daylight. The truth is that all compact fluorescent lights bulbs contain mercury vapour. Once that vapour is hit with an electric current, it emits a great number of UV rays. UV rays are theoretically absorbed by the layer of phosphor that coats the bulbs – but the signature twisted spiral shape makes these bulbs more prone to cracks in the phosphor, which dramatically increases UV/mercury exposure. Researchers found cracks in almost all bulbs purchased from retail stores, indicating that it is a standard design flaw of these bulbs.
CFL bulbs contain other cancer-causing chemicals as well. German scientists found that several different chemicals and toxins are released when CFLs are turned on, including naphthalene (which has been linked to cancer in animals) and styrene (which has been declared “a likely human carcinogen”). A sort of electrical smog develops around these lamps, which could be dangerous. (Find research results at: http://bit.ly/15zz3pM)

CFLs are supposedly better for the environment, but according to the Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers, 98% of CFLs end up in landfills – creating a mercury build-up that can escape into our soil and waterways. (See: http://1.usa.gov/1398lEJ)





page6image18736
page6image19008
page6image19280

Fluorescent Light Bulbs Emit High Levels Of UV Radiation

The above was the headline in an article published on losangeles.cbslocal.com this week. The article reports:

- that our much vaunted eco and budget friendly fluorescent light bulbs actually emit high levels of harmful ultraviolet radiation, according to a new study

- researchers at Stony Brook University randomly tested the bulbs and found the rays were so strong that they could burn your skin on the cellular level.

- according to Marcia Simon, professor of dermatology at Stony Brook “The results were that you could actually initiate cell death

What Does UV Exposure From CFLs Mean?

To put it bluntly, premature aging and cancer. The Health Protection Agency (HPA) in the UK already highlighted the dangers of UVs from CFLs back in 2008.

“It can also cause skin cancer in the deadliest form, and that’s melanoma,” says dermatologist Rebecca Tung.

The HPA also highlighted that many CFLs generate flicker at about 100Hz. Whilst most people are unable to perceive this flicker, there are believed to be health consequences.

This is not to mention the potential of these bulbs for introducing high frequency noise,dirty electricity, into your house wiring, or the 5 or so milligrams of mercury found in each CFL.

So whats the solution?

Figure 3. Responses to an electronic survey on self-proclaimed electrohypersensitivity and to various types of lighting n=168.

The World Health Organization held an international seminar on EHS in Prague, October 25-27, 2004 and at that seminar they defined EHS as follows:

“. . . a phenomenon where individuals experience adverse health effects while using or being in the vicinity of devices emanating electric, magnetic, or electromagnetic fields (EMFs). . . . Whatever its cause, EHS is a real and sometimes a debilitating problem for the affected persons . . . Their exposures are generally several orders of magnitude under the limits in internationally accepted standards.”

Medical doctors and scientists around the world are asking governments to establish stricter guidelines for electromagnetic exposure. These guidelines are for both extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic fields and for radio frequency radiation (RFR) (8). We also need stricter guidelines for Intermediate Frequencies.

These appeals include:

2002: Freiburger Appeal: German Physicians request tougher guidelines for radio frequency exposure, endorsed by 6,500 practioners.

2004: World Health Organization, EHS Workshop, Czech Republic, Oct 2004.

mhavas@trentu.ca page 7/11

Percent of Response (per EHS category)

SCENIHR & Light Sensitivity

2005: Irish Doctors’ Environmental Association (IDEA): EHS increasing.
2005: Helsinki Appeal: Finland, call for new safety standards, reject ICNIRP, apply

Precautionary Principle to EMFs.

2006: Benevento Resolution: International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS), Italy, Precautionary Approach.

2007: Bioinitiatives Report: reviewed 2000 studies, calling for biologically based exposure guidelines. www.bioinitiative.org

While 3% of the population may be severely affected by EHS, another 35% of the population in developed countries has many of the symptoms of EHS (5). With continued exposure this number is likely to increase.

If we extend these percentages to the population of Europe (728 million as of 2005), then approximately 21.8 million people in the EU are severely affect by EHS and another 254 million have moderate symptoms of EHS. Even if these values are in error by more than 50% we have a serious emerging and newly identified health risk that requires immediate attention.

Conclusion

The energy efficient compact fluorescent lights that are commercial available generate radio frequency radiation and ultraviolet radiation, they contain mercury-a known neurotoxin, and they are making some people ill. Instead of promoting these light bulbs governments around the world should be insisting that manufactures produces light bulbs that are electromagnetically clean and contain no toxic chemicals. Some of these are already available (CLED) but are too expensive for regular use. With a growing number of people developing electrohypersensitivity we have a serious emerging and newly identified health risk that is likely to get worse until regulations restricting our exposure to electromagnetic pollutants are enforced. Since everyone uses light bulbs and since the incandescent light bulbs are being phased out this is an area that requires immediate attention.

page8image15968

mhavas@trentu.ca page 8/11

SCENIHR & Light Sensitivity

References Cited:

1. Havas, M. and D. Stetzer. 2004. Dirty electricity and electrical hypersensitivity: Five case studies. World Health Organization Workshop on Electricity Hypersensitivity, WHO, Prague, Czech Republic, 25-26 October, 2004.

2. Milham, S. and L.L. Morgan. 2008. A New Electromagnetic Exposure Metric: High Frequency Voltage Transients Associated With Increased Cancer Incidence in Teachers in a California School. American Journal of Industrial Medicine. 8 pp.

3. Havas, M., M. Illiatovitch, and C. Proctor. 2004. Teacher and student response to the removal of dirty electricity by the Graham/Stetzer filter at Willow Wood School in Toronto, Canada. Biological Effects of EMFs, 3rd International Workshop, Kos, Greece, 4-8 October, 2004, pp. 311-317.

4. Havas, M. and A. Olstad. 2008. Power quality affects teacher wellbeing and student behavior in three Minnesota Schools. Science of the Total Environment, in press.

5. Havas, M. 2006. Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: Biological effects of dirty electricity with emphasis on diabetes and multiple sclerosis. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 25: 259-268, 2006

6. Johansson, O. 2006. Electrohypersensitivity: State-of-the-Art of a Functional Impairment. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 25: 245–258, 2006

7. Firstenberg, A. (Editor). 2001. “No Place To Hide” vol. 3, no. 1, April 2001, “Special Issue on Russian and Ukrainian Research”, The Cellular Phone Taskforce.

8. Havas, M. 2007. Analysis of Health and Environmental Effects of Proposed San Francisco Earthlink Wi-Fi Network, Commissioned by SNAFU (San Francisco Neighborhood Antenna Free Union) and presented to Board of Supervisors, City and Country of San Francisco, 51 pp.

mhavas@trentu.ca page 9/11

SCENIHR & Light Sensitivity

Appendix A: Biographical Sketch of Author

Magda Havas is Associate Professor of Environmental and Resource Studies at Trent University where she teaches and does research on the biological effects of electromagnetic fields, dirty electricity, ground current, radio frequency radiation and electrical hypersensitivity. She is working with diabetics and those with multiple sclerosis who are responding adversely to power quality issues in their homes. Dr. Havas received her B.Sc. and Ph.D. from the University of Toronto and did Post-Doctoral Research at Cornell University before returning to Canada. She has co-edited 3 books and has more than 100 publications.

Dr. Havas provides advice to the public and expert testimony on radio frequency radiation from wireless telecommunication antennas and electromagnetic fields from power lines in the United States and Canada. She helped draft Resolution 15 for the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) cell phone antennas on fire halls. She also helped draft the Private Member’s Bill on Ground Current Pollution in Ontario that received unanimous approval at its Second Reading in the House. The Ontario Energy Board is currently reviewing that Bill.

Magda Havas is science advisor on EMF-related issues to non-profit organizations including: WEEP Initiative in Canada; the Council on Wireless Technology Impacts and the EMR Policy Institute in the US; HESE and the EM Radiation Trust in the UK; and the Nationaal Platform Stralingscrisico’s in the Netherlands.

mhavas@trentu.ca page 10/11

SCENIHR & Light Sensitivity

Appendix 2: Health Canada and UV Radiation

Here are Health Canada's answers given to Allison Vuchnich (avuchnich@globaltv.com) of Global TV: What enquiries has Health Canada received regarding the bulbs?
On 08-04-11, at 15:10, Philippe Laroche philippe_laroche@hc-sc.gc.ca wrote:

Since 2002, the Department has received 31 consumer complaints surrounding CFLs. The majority of these complaints are with regards to the bulbs’ end-of-life failure, which can include flickering, a bright orange or red glow, popping sounds, an odour or browning of the ballast enclosure.

The following Web sites include additional information on this process:

http://www.esainspection.net/pdf/Safety_Alerts/07-03-AL.pdf http://www.esainspection.net/pdf/Safety_Alerts/06-03-AL.pdf

As well, Health Canada’s Consumer and Clinical Radiation Protection Bureau has received questions about increased UV and colour rendering from CFLs use in the Canadian household environment. Contrary to ordinary fluorescent tubes used in luminaires, the CFLs are not provided with a prismatic diffuser that filters ultraviolet radiation out. Therefore, there may be skin sensitivity issues, especially in people with certain skin diseases.

According to the Canadian Electrical Code, CFLs are required to be certified by testing and certification organizations such as Underwriters’ Laboratories Canada (ULC) or the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) to ensure they meet their requirements for safety. If consumers have a safety-related concern with a CFL, that is marked by a certification body such as ULC or CSA, they can report the details directly to these bodies by contacting them at the following:

Underwriters’ Laboratories of Canada: Tel: 1-866-937-3852 Email: customerservice@ulc.ca
Canadian Standards Association: Tel: 1-800-463-6727

The Canadian Advisory Council on Electrical Safety also notes that Regional Electrical Safety Associations are able to follow up on any incidents where there is no information on the certifying body.

Je vais recommuniquer sous peu avec vous concernant votre requête pour une entrevue avec un expert. Merci.

Philippe Laroche
Media Relations Officer/Conseiller, Relations avec les médias Health Canada/Santé Canada
Tel.: (613) 946-4250
Fax.: (613) 952-7747
philippe_laroche@hc-sc.gc.ca www.healthcanada.gc.ca/www.santecanada.gc.ca Gouvernment of Canada/Gouvernement du Canada

page11image18768
page11image19040
page11image19312
page11image19584
page11image19856

mhavas@trentu.ca

page 11/11 

Cell Radiation, Mobile Radiation, Cell shields, Cell Tower radiation, EMF Radiation News, Radiation Shielding, Cell Phone safety, Cell Radiation, Dirty Electricity Filters, Stetzerizers Filters, Shielded Cell Cases, Defenders Pads, Cell Radiation News, EMF dangers, EMF News, EMF Studies, Mobile Phone Dangers, cell tower dangers, cell phone cancer, cell phones and cancer, cell phones and brain tumours, Shielded Laptop Pads. Phone Shields,tubes, EchoTubez-wired-Air-tube-headset, RadBlocker-Anti-radiation-case, RadBlocker-Tray, hara- pad, defender pad, RadBlocker Tray, air tube headset, Life Blue Tube Air Radiation Free Headset, Life Blue Tube Air, rf3 envi

Comments