Whole Foods is selling Healthy Food, but WiFi in the Stores Is Not A Whole lot of sense!

WHOLE FOODS HAS SOLD ITS SOUL TO THE DEVIL!  The success of Whole Foods was based on Tony Harnet’s Dream, An already successful natural food chain when Whole Foods bought Harnet’s chain if stores then named,Bread and Circus. The clients who made the stores successful shopped there because of the quality of the brands being organic and or from trusted sources. The quality of the food is part of a lifestyle; so why is Whole Foods employing wireless technologies which are harmful to those who shop there?  Especially, those who are not able to be exposed to such an environment without feeling harmed?

The philosophy of healthy living is a contradiction to say the least, in supporting and profiting from it at the expense the very customers who have made you a success.  This is egregious.  You must rethink your approach to how you are choosing to do business.  You are destroying the very principles the business originally was founded on.  This is not a Whole lot of sense; just business cents.

OCT. 21, 2014

 

Apple says Apple Pay is more secure than a traditional credit card payment, because the system sends one-time codes to merchants to complete purchases rather than actual credit card numbers. Credit Eric Risberg/Associated Press

EXCERPT:  READ FULL ARTICLE AT: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/22/technology/personaltech/shopping-with-apple-pay-seamless-in-stores-but-quirky-online.html?_r=0

Any store that has a contactless terminal installed — usually a small screen where you can also swipe your credit card or enter PINs — should be able to accept a payment from an iPhone 6 or 6 Plus. Apple says more than 200,000 merchants now support contactless payments. A select few of those will actually be labeled with an “Apple Pay” sticker or other branding — you’ll notice them at Whole Foods and Macy’s, for example.

Dr R M Powell: Biological Effects from RF Radiation – Implications for Smart Meters and Smart Appliances – See more at: http://stopsmartmeters.org.uk/dr-r-m-powell-biological-effects-from-rf-radiation-implications-for-smart-meters-and-smart-appliances

Biological-Effects-Chart-Dr-R-M-PowellApplied physicist and Harvard PhD, Dr Ronald M Powell, has authored a very useful document showing the harmful effects of electromagnetic radiation in the context of Smart Meters.

Of particular note is the Biological Effects Chart which Dr. Powell presents – providing a succinct graphical representation of data taken from Bioinitiative 2012 – an extensive review of the medical research literature on the biological effects from electromagnetic fields.  The purpose of the Chart is to show the radiofrequency (RF) exposure levels at which biological effects were found in 67 studies from the RF Color Charts of the BioInitiative 2012 Report, and then to compare those exposure levels to the following:

(1) current FCC Maximum Permitted Exposure (MPE) limits that govern Smart Meters and Smart Appliances in the United States [note that by understanding that UK exposure limits are based on ICNIRP standards it is also easy to compare exposure levels from a UK perspective – Ed.]

(2) new biologically based RF exposure limits proposed in the BioInitiative 2012 Report

(3) calculated RF exposure levels produced by a single Smart Meter at various distances

(4) calculated RF exposure levels produced by a single Smart Appliance at various distances

In the report, Powell explains that the comparison indicates the following:

(1) The current FCC Maximum Permitted Exposure (MPE) limits are so high that they provide no protection for the public from the biological effects found in any of the 67 studies [by implication the UK MPE limits likewise provide no protection – Ed.]

(2) New biologically based RF exposure limits proposed in the BioInitiative 2012 Report are 1 million times lower than current FCC limits and would protect against the biological effects found in nearly all of the 67 studies.

(3) A single Smart Meter on a home can produce RF exposure levels that caused the biological effects found in either most or many of the 67 studies, depending on the distance from the Smart Meter.

(4) A single Smart Appliance in the home can produce RF exposure levels that caused the biological effects found in nearly half or fewer of the 67 studies, depending on the distance from the Smart Appliance. Multiple Smart Appliances in a home multiply the total exposure.

(5) A single Smart Meter on a nearest neighbor’s home can produce RF exposure levels that caused the biological effects found in many of the 67 studies. A given home may have one to eight nearest neighbors, each with a Smart Meter, multiplying the total exposure in the given home.

Other observations:

(1) Most biological effects of RF exposure cannot be sensed by human beings. Examples are the onset of cancer, DNA damage, and fertility effects. One category of effects that can often be sensed includes neurological effects on sleep, memory, learning and behavior.

(2) Unborn and very young children may be more affected by RF exposure than adults. This document provides background information, an explanation of each feature of the Biological Effects Chart, and a detailed discussion of each of the conclusions and observations summarized above.

The report can be downloaded here: http://marylandsmartmeterawareness.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Biological_Effects_from_RF_Radiation_and-Implications_for_Smart_Meters_June_11_2013_B.pdf