In plain language, technical aspects of a terminal threat to life are discussed, whereby “responsible,” “safer”, and “safe” technology become oxymorons. Even cursory technical understanding could help people see more clearly through official deceit and even dubious warnings from scientists, writers and activists.
By Peter Tocci
The Physics. Electricity. Magnetism, They’re closely related. The artificial energy sent through the air to carry information to and from your phone, or for WiFi, is both electric and magnetic. It’s called electro-magnetic radiation (EMR). It comes in waves. It’s also polarized, having ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ aspects like a battery or magnet.
Special properties are added that make telecom/WiFi possible. For optimal performance, the EMR is digitized, meaning a computer can process it. For content (data) capacity and speed, a type of radiation called microwave is used. Content (voice, pictures, etc.) ‘surfs’ the carrier wave as it’s modified in two key ways, called modulation and frame repetition.
Due to polarization, waves from multiple sources can interact as they ‘meet’ in the air and in objects, including organisms. Sources include waves from all vertical antennas for commercial radio, digital TV, fire, police, and mobile-phone base stations.
The result is a highly complex, rapidly varying pattern of electric and magnetic forces.
The Biophysics. A ‘funny’ thing about life, it’s also electromagnetic. EMR disastrously interferes with the other and that’s the nuts and bolts. There is extreme biological sensitivity to the forces of artificial EMR. It’s not toxic like chemicals, but more like ‘static’ in your FM radio, and that’s called radiofrequency interference (RFI - more below).
Within biological systems, interaction also occurs between the radiation and techno-humanity’s main contribution to the environment: Toxins, especially metals. Last, but not least in the list of threats, is cumulative effect over time.
An extensive list of resulting medical conditions described in the scientific literature, is provided. Because we’re whole-body irradiated virtually non-stop, and all (charged and polar) biological elements in and out of cells are susceptible, the list is quite impressive.
Most importantly, the greatest threat is to the ecosystem, and not ‘merely’ about radiation. Rapacious, toxic mining; processing; manufacturing; and final disposition take a heavy toll (international intrigue, corporate crime, aggression and social injustice are also involved).
The sum of all ‘parts’ — the basic wave characteristics, added properties, interactions, and cumulative effect (regardless of “G” iteration or power levels below what would ‘microwave’ you) — present chaotic influence to an organism’s balanced and proper function.
Effects, detailed in the text, include the “electric chair,” cumulative effect, the ‘oscillation' of electrically charged and polar elements, and mitochondrial dysfunction (could be secondary to oscillation). Even under optimal testing conditions, all variables are not in play. It is thus impossible to establish a safe exposure level.
Other Considerations, a ‘digression.’ Digital wireless telecom/WiFi is the descendant of military stealth weapon technology and also the foundation of a meticulous data gathering, surveillance, and direct human-control system rapidly gestating in the global technosphere. This was its original main purpose, not telecom/WiFi (the ‘hook’): A nightmare of meticulous observation and control of personal and societal life.
Summary/Conclusion. Mobile telecom/WiFi is, without remedy other than termination, one of the most devastating environmental and health threats (and threats to liberty) ever created. The prospect of “responsible/safe” wireless technology is about as remote as things get. Mitigations (reducing exposure, etc) are futile. Appeal to regulators is futile, since there is no safe exposure. And they already know the threat, or are controlled by those who do.
An exceptional book by pioneer researcher Robert O. Becker, MD is entitled The Body Electric: Electromagnetism And The Foundation Of Life. With phones and WiFi, are we tampering fatally with the foundation of life?
The genuine solution for survival and the remains of liberty is for people to break the trance and quit wireless; except, disturbingly, it seems many would rather die. If the reader 'gets it' at this point, there’s no need but curiosity to read further. Please spread the word — and lose that phone if you haven’t :-)
Although the situation has improved somewhat of (too) late, the wireless ‘cautionary’ community — scientists, activists, and writers — has placed disproportionate focus on human concerns rather than the ecosystem. Sources are given here on environmental assault, but much of the text is about humans, because that’s the focus of FCC/FDA regulation, which is a boondoggle for that reason and as an insult to science.
Based on the biophysics, no routinely, even briefly, exposed living thing is exempt. A possible exception may be at least some bacteria, two of which are known to become more antibiotic resistant. Because it’s nearly impossible to escape exposure, “briefly” is relative, virtually impossible. It’s about individual response to RFI and cumulative effect — in concert with the rest of our technological barrage on health and life (pets too).
Interestingly, a precursor to wireless telecom/WiFI was research on military stealth weapons beginning in the 1950s. By the mid-1970s, the harms were well and widely understood.
Become an Activist Post Patron for just $1 per month at Patreon.
Obviously, a context for mobile telecom/WiFi is technology per se. Regardless of benefit, one thing is certain about most of that, especially advanced technology. Somewhere along the line from the acquisition of resources (extractivism), to processing, manufacture, use, and disposal, it’s chemically/energetically devastating to planet/biosphere. Wireless encompasses that entire line.
In ‘technociety,’ or the developed world, as opposed to low-tech/indigenous, destructive environmental plunder, politely called ‘natural resources,’ has long been acceptable behavior for meeting ‘human needs.’ Or is it mostly ‘wants.’ Either way, Nature pays the price. Of humans, however, most susceptible to RFI and toxins are fetuses and kids up to 21 years.
“5G” remarks are included below because the physics and biophysics make 2G-4G a quite sufficiently terminal nightmare, making opposition to “5G” per se, instead of all wireless, misguided, unscientific — and quite dangerous. Please see section Bent Wheel on the “5G” Bandwagon in “5G” Hysteria Times Corona Hysteria Equals Hysteria Squared.
Backward priorities slowly reversing of (too) late, appear in today’s surfeit of “Stop 5G!” hysteria: 1) Human emphasis, 2) traditionally, inflaming paranoia about ground infrastructure (some of it erroneous) rather than satellites; and 3) scant/no emphasis on the more imminent cumulative threat from long-term, near-constant exposure to 2G-4G (c. 28 years). This could easily erupt in an intractable cascade of eco-harm and/or illness (COVID?).
Opposition to “5G” per se squanders precious time. It implies that we can dance with the 2G-4G ‘devil’ and come away clean — but only if we (but not Earth) take (futile) precautions, like ‘reducing exposure.’ It’s rather foolishly said that “5G” must be proven safe before deployment, when none of the previous G’s have been. All harms cited when “5G” has been turned on are classic 2G-4G symptoms. Ironic is that ‘half’ of “5G” is 2G-4G frequencies, but complaint focus has been on high-frequency 5G (millimeter wave).
As clarified in the text, a radiation exposure level causing no effects, forever, for all life — even if it could exist — would simply not run the system. This was widely known and openly declared at least two decades before 2G (digital, 1G was analog). Treacherous scientific fraud followed, creating a convenient bias: Harm comes only from tissue heating. This unscientific ploy underlies today’s official criminal assurance of safety - internationally.
The Physics — Tech Talk Made Easy
This discussion may be ‘under’ the heads of some readers, but we can’t assume. If so, skip to The Biophysics (the core of the article).
As noted, electromagnetic waves is energy having electrical and magnetic ‘components’ or properties. The terms ‘electromagnetic radiation’ (EMR) and ‘electromagnetic field’ (EMF) are central to discussion of the threat of phones and WiFi. EMFs can be static, so you could say EMR is EMF in motion. As noted also, EMR used in telecom/WiFi systems is artificial (where the trouble begins).
EMR is described by its wavelength and frequency. As shown in the (very simplified) diagram, wavelength is the distance in meters between two crests, or peaks, like we see in ocean waves.
Frequency is how often the waves come. It’s measured in waves, or cycles, per second, called “hertz” (Hz). One Hz is a single cycle per second. ‘X’ number of Hz is used till we get to a thousand, then it’s kilohertz (KHz). Next is a million, megahertz (MHz). Then a billion, gigahertz (GHz). Per second - a challenge to get the mind around.
Phones and WiFi employ a type of EMR called ‘microwave, ’micro’ in this case meaning short wavelength. The microwave range exists at the upper end of a very wide range of frequencies and wavelengths collectively called radiofrequency (RF). RF range is from 3 Hz (100,000 kilometers wavelength!) to 300 GHz (1 millimeter wavelength).
The microwave range is usually said to comprise frequencies from three hundred million cycles (300 MHz/30 GHz) to three hundred billion cycles (300 GHz), and wavelengths between 1 meter and 1 millimeter respectively. As the chart shows, microwave covers the ranges named Ultra High Frequency (UHF) and Extremely High Frequency (EHF). It is used in telecom/WiFi to achieve great data capacity and speed (despite how the chart might look, transition between ranges is gradual).
The frequencies used ‘traditionally’ in telecom/WiFi (2G-4G) are sometimes referred to as “sub-6 GHz.” They provide sufficient object penetration and range for good two-way transmission. Higher - GHz - frequencies, called “millimeter wave” (MMW) due to their wavelengths, have been added, creating two ‘entities’ with different specifications, but which together are called “5G”. This is usually omitted in opposition rhetoric. Ultimately, ‘5G 4G’ will supplant pre-5G 4G. Get it? :-)
Thus, “5G” is in quotes, because generally speaking, any “5G” discussion, opposition or warning that doesn’t make the distinction between its two specifications, especially when it comes to harm, safety testing, areas of deployment, and density of antenna location, is highly suspect. It’s a complex scenario that most opposers seem to want to avoid. Much easier just to jump on the bandwagon.
The term “5G” is tossed carelessly about, causing confusion and misunderstanding. Perhaps there is fear that “Stop 5G!” might be weakened if people knew that sub-6 GHz 5G provides at least 30% more speed without MMW. What Do YOU Mean When You Say “5G”?
It’s correlative only, but no sooner did 2G (digital) arrive in the US than trouble arose. It was first revealed on a 1993 Larry King Live™ show devoted entirely to the legal case of a brain cancer in the same shape as the area of concentrated radiation immediately surrounding a phone antenna. For details on this interesting, unsavory story that became a national furor, and for more insight into the politics of wireless, please see section High-Level Deceit in Wireless Technology: Ultra Convenient. Endlessly Entertaining. Criminally Instigated. Terminally Pathological.
Unlike natural electromagnetic fields, artificial EMR is polarized, meaning it exhibits opposing qualities like a battery or magnet. This is a major factor in all harmful effects.
Constant, instantaneous change in signal characteristics inflicts impactful chaos on charged and polar biological elements. As explained below, it comes in several forms: Modulation, a process called ‘frame repetition,’ and wave interactions.
Transmitted waves are called “carrier frequencies” — for example, 1900 MHz, for cordless phones. The station numbers on your FM radio represent carrier frequencies, also in the MHz range, as the chart shows. Carriers carry and deliver the ‘mail’ (content) — text, voice, music, images, video and websites (we’ll call it all ‘data’ for simplicity).
‘FM’ stands for frequency modulation. Relatively small frequency variations in the carrier frequency represent/encode the data. Without modulation there would be nothing to see or hear. Modulating the carrier wave creates signal variability. It’s often referred to as pulsing.
Frame repetition is another form of variability for data. It’s not necessary to understand the technical details, only to know that this feature is inherent in the transmission, adding to the moment-to-moment chaos. Technically, it’s pulsing.
Interaction occurs in the field between and among waves from multiple sources (antennas), including base stations (tower antennas) and mobile devices. Interaction/synergy also occurs in biosystems between radiation and toxins. These features will be detailed later.
‘Physics-speaking,’ it comes down to this: For data capacity and speed, digital microwave is needed. Polarization arises as the wave is created, and is unavoidable. For transmitting data, modulation and frame repetition are added. And interactions have just been noted.
Before continuing, please see section History of Official Awareness in What Do YOU Mean When You Say “5G”?.
The Biophysics — Effects of Radiation
A distinction exists between biosystem effects per se, namely, disturbance of charged and polar elements on the one hand, and medical issues — symptomologies/pathologies — that may consequently arise, on the other (RF as medical treatment will be discussed later).
It should be taught as early as possible in school that life forms have critical electromagnetic elements that are highly sensitive to disruption from artificial EMR (and static fields — EMF). These elements help regulate and maintain/repair biosystems. As noted, a possible exception is at least some bacteria. Two have been shown to become more antibiotic resistant — Listeria and E. Coli.
Ecosystem. Since the early 1990s, 2G-4G has been playing a significant role in collapsing the the ecosystem. Smaller species such as insects — already in alarming decline — are most susceptible. This should be of paramount urgency. Bees, Birds and Mankind. A recent review of the literature strongly reinforces this (the “5G” hysteria on the page, except for the Space Appeal in the list, is suspect). Note the almost universal use of the politically correct ‘risk’ instead of the more accurate ‘(dire) threat.’
Consider just the fact that flowers communicate to bees with minute electrical signals. To such subtlety, EMR has the effect of very loud noise on quiet conversation. Concerning extractivism, processing, manufacturing and so on, the sibling to this one is Advanced Technology: Does Society’s Obsession Reflect a Form of Collective Mental Illness?
‘Technociety’ has long been threatening life with artificial EMR. Guglielmo Marconi developed the first “wireless” in the 1890s (it is a myth that Tesla did), and today’s wireless gadgets have evolved from devices that have been around since the 1940s.
Following the advent of digital technology in the late 1940s, microwave and weapon research gained considerable momentum in the1950s. By 1962, the severe dangers and stealth-weapon potentials of microwave were well understood by science, militaries and governments (“5G” in video title reflects a bias). As noted in the History… section linked above, in 1973, an international symposium entitled Biologic Effects and Health Hazards of Microwave Radiation was held in Warsaw, detailing the broad issue. It was reviewed in a document published in 1981 by the WHO, entitled Environmental Health Criteria 16: Radiofrequency and Microwaves.
The radiation is not ‘toxic’ like chemicals. A simplified analogy, further detailed below, is noise/static in your FM or AM radio caused by an external RF source. This is known as radiofrequency (RF) interference (RFI). It might be from an unshielded or improperly shielded external device, like a motor.
The FCC is meticulous about regulating RFI with design specifications for electrical and electronic equipment: They’re not allowed to interfere with each other’s circuits. Ironically, biological systems get no respect where the FCC heating bias reigns. No doubt, if humans were robots, we’d be better - but not sufficiently - protected.
From the 1981 WHO document cited and quoted in the History… section, we learned that the (apparently) safe exposure level - called “highly conservative” - was “close to natural background levels” (‘cosmic background,’ described in that section). This was declared “not technically feasible,” however; meaning not enough power to operate systems.
The corresponding rhetoric was, “A reasonable risk-benefit analysis has to be considered.” Long story short, that apparently became the heating bias, concocted as the baseline for establishing safety. It’s an arbitrary assertion that harm comes only if tissue heating occurs, contradicting the document’s natural-background suggestion. Did the claim arise out of risk-benefit studies/deliberations that might have taken place, but are nowhere to be found? The term for this convenience is ‘scientific fraud.’
With foreknowledge of harm, then, digital EMR technology was adapted to commercial 2G mobile telecom. As noted, no sooner did it arrive than pathology appeared. As in the case of “5Gmmw” hysteria, a number of pathological influences is in play at all times, but critically reduced to varying degrees in all testing conditions.
Should the reader have unquestioning faith in the science underlying assurances of safety from official sources, please see this article by Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet, about error in medical science. We won’t digress into evidence that it’s a bit more widespread than medicine. Four significant factors in scientific research are funding sources, author ‘connection’ to special/conflicting interests, and author “incentivisation.” And the need not to endanger job/career by challenging authority’s prevailing wisdom, or ’what everyone knows.’
Radiation power impinging on organisms, designated in watts per square area, is called ‘power density.’ The square area makes it ‘density,’ like the difference between pouring an ounce or a quart into the same area. No worry, the values shown below are used comparatively, so the reader doesn’t even need to know what a watt is to get the point.
Because 2G-4G wavelengths pass easily through living systems, the square centimeter becomes a ‘tube’ going through your body. Since we’re whole-body irradiated, the body becomes a mass of such tubes. Or, one could say, a composite tube.
It should be noted that FCC does not do testing. It’s done by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), then “filtered” through ANSI, the American National Standards Institute, a private organization funded and controlled by industry. In 1996, FCC adopted the standard identified as ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992. The latest is ANSI/IEEE C95.1-2019.
The FCC tissue heating exposure limit is expressed in milliwatts (mW - one thousandth of a watt) per square centimeter (cm, about 4 tenths of an inch). As of this writing, it’s one thousandth of a watt per square centimeter - 1 mW/cm2 (for a specific range of frequencies).
An organization called the BioInitiative Working Group (BWG) assumed the daunting task of reviewing the massive volume of science literature - many thousands of papers - discussing biological effects and pathologies from non-heating power densities, then selecting and collating 3800 studies, over two reports.
Note: The reports of the BWG are cited here only to demonstrate the existence of independent, peer-reviewed science FCC and FDA say doesn't exist or is not "consistent or credible." Unfortunately, the title of the BioInitiative Report (BR) includes A Rationale for Biologically-Based Public Exposure Standards… which, as suggested here, can’t exist.
The BR editors acknowledge that suggested values might need to be lowered (or even raised!), while the ‘cosmic confession’ and risk-benefit rhetoric in the WHO document cast doubt about safety, and the information below should help answer the question. BWG has been accused of bias and ‘cherry picking’ for effect, but this is a cheap ploy, as explained in Summary/Conclusion.
The Group’s first extensive review published in 2007 (2000 studies), suggested a non-heating exposure limit of one tenth of a microwatt (μW, a millionth of a watt) per square centimeter. One tenth of a millionth of a watt per square centimeter - .1 μW/cm2. Only ten thousand times lower than the FCC limit (no sarcasm).
By 2012 BR (1800 additional studies), it became 0.003 μW/cm2 to 0.006 μW/cm2. We’re talking three to six thousandths of a millionth of a watt! Last look in the 2014-2020 update, 0.003 μW/cm2 stands alone “for lowest observed effect level” [emphasis added]. It would seem that “lowest observed” implies possible unobserved?
To 0.003, a ten-fold safety “buffer” has been added: …for chronic exposure, if needed … 0.3 nanowatts to 0.6 nanowatts per square centimeter as a reasonable, precautionary action level for chronic exposure to pulsed RFR. That translates to .0003 to .0006 microwatts, yet still open-endedback BioInitiative 2012 – Conclusions (last two paragraphs). Such figures give a feel for the sensitivity of biological systems.
In microwatts, the FCC thermal limit is 1000 μW/cm2, about 1,670,000 to 1,333,000 times higher than the BR 2020 buffer values. But the strictest ‘biologically-based’ public power density limit proposed to date is a million billion times higher than the estimated cosmic background level. Thus, the WHO’s “highly conservative” / “close to natural background levels” statement apparently represents a wide margin indeed. It’s not strictly a sound comparison physics-speaking, but we’re talking about intention here.
A cell phone on the moon would give more background radiation than the rest of the universe. As we’ll see, however, there is still more to it biologically than mere ‘brute’ power.
As noted, the call from those recommending the 0.0003 μW/cm2 to 0.0006 μW/cm2 range (not sure if that would run the system) refers to chronic exposure “…if needed.” What else is there? Hopefully, it means for all life forever. In any case, it seems equivocal. How do you predict response to constantly varying conditions and responses even a few months ahead, never mind years. There’s no reason not to be very concerned about a sudden cascade of illness beyond remedy. Not to mention, cumulative effect is also in play.
Thus, the suggestion of constantly adjusting limits as more is learned potentially begs for disaster. Though it’s considered “precautionary,” that’s what .1 μW/cm2 was 13 years ago. And what happens in the case of lag time between the implementation of an unwittingly insufficient new standard and realization of that down the line?
Notably, the FCC Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) is based on a 30 minute exposure. From the output of a single device. It would seem likely they know the great variability and complexity posed by the sum of all factors creates an impossible situation. So they just keep it simple-y deadly.
Also based on 30 minutes is the FCC test to establish safe device output - Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), established by a procedure similar to that for MPE - irradiating fluid-filled plastic dummies called “phantoms.” A 2013 study shows that SAR is dangerously inadequate for biological systems. Various biological elements react to RF radiation differently from each other and from fluid in phantoms. For example, ions, such as sodium (Na+), the smallest charged elements, are more susceptible to the chaotic forces than are macromolecules, such as proteins, fats, and nucleic acids. Emphatically, the latter are not exempt.
Adding up, all the science presented at Warsaw and reviewed by the WHO; all the science presented in the BR and all the science not netted therein (many thousands of papers); and all the science continuing to pour out of the global scientific community by the day, has been pronounced by the FCC/FDA unworthy of consideration.
What an embarrassing situation for the EMF/R scientific community. It seems many, many scientists must go sit in the corner for creating a situation where many thousands of papers are all wrong at once.
What follows are effects produced by the various characteristics and behaviors of telecom/WiFi radiation. Effects can occur any time during or after exposure - nominally speaking, since there is normally no escape.
The “Chair”Our title here begins with Giving Life the Electric Chair. It was inspired by the fact that while there is EMF, there’s also emf, or electromotive force. It’s voltage, or electrical action generated in a conductor, like a wire, by a non-electrical source, like a changing magnetic field. It’s called induction. With telecom/WiFi, nerves and blood vessels become conductors in which voltages are induced by the radiation. See also. Thus, in addition to direct assault with radiation, we are slowly giving life ‘the chair.’
Slow electrocution is particularly interesting when it comes to smart utility meters. Smart meter opponents take note: Putting one on a building should violate wiring code by exposing occupants to what is essentially an open electrical circuit. No building occupation or insurance should be allowed in an improperly ‘wirelessed’ building. This might go for WiFI networks within as well.
Cumulative EffectEffects ‘build up’ over time and can be irreversible. It’s probably the main reason people begin to show symptoms after having been exposed for a long time without them. One aspect of irreversibility is unrelenting exposure, to which the environment and most people are subjected these days, in many cases for decades. Stories are told about overt effects abating when an offending device is removed or distance increased. Some people seem to think this means harm has stopped. This error could underlie the comforting misguidance: “Distance is your friend.” Any antenna to which you are exposed is too close.
There are some credible articles from researchers reporting that cell tower-level RF exposures (estimated to be between 0.01 and 0.5 μW/cm2) produce ill-effects in populations living up to several hundred meters from wireless antenna sites… BR 2012 PDF p.1482 (see also mast-victims.org).
A concerning example of immediate irreversibility is damage to ovarian follicle DNA. It’s irreversible and passed on to female offspring, thus potentially cumulative generationally as well, while ‘fresh’ damage is occurring. In the paper linked just below, the concern is a generation of up to 50% genetically damaged babies in the not-too-distant future.
I ask for any scientist(s) from industry / government to ‘humiliate’ me live ‘on-air’ with their expert knowledge by answering one question: ‘What is the safe level of microwave irradiation for the ovarian follicles during the first 100 days development of the embryo? - Barrie Trower, PhD, Wi-Fi – A Thalidomide in the Making. Who Cares? (Page 12)
Seven years, no takers, despite it having been sent several times to several prominent EMF scientists calling for “safer”, “safe”, or “biologically based” exposure limits. Given that sperm damage has also been shown, it’s reasonable to be concerned that chronic exposure across generations could result in total human reproductive failure — see again.
Yet, you will see it said in science papers that results are conflicting overall. The implication is we’ll take the chance until we find out. Shades of FCC/FDA. Sanity?
Mitochondrial DysfunctionA critical effect of telecom/WiFi radiation is disruption of mitochondria, the millions of tiny energy generators in the cells of all plants, animals and fungi, and having several other key functions. (An interesting aside is that evidence shows they evolved from primitive bacteria.) RFI causes disturbance of ‘membrane potential’ and ‘electron transport.’
One result is a condition called oxidative stress or excess “ROS” — Reactive Oxygen Species. They have important normal function. Too many, however, is trouble because they can damage macromolecules: lipids, proteins, carbohydrates and nucleic acids. One proffered ‘solution’ is to take anti-oxidant supplements, but one can get too much of that too. Frequent monitoring might be needed. But anything to avoid the logical solution.
Exposure Variability/PolarizationThe Abstract, Introduction and Discussion in the quite-technical paper linked below are reasonably accessible to the lay reader. The paper concerns two particular interrelated effects of polarized EMR on electrically charged or polar elements: 1) The oscillation (to and fro motion across the original position) of charged and polar elements — at the rate of the radiation’s frequency; and 2) effects of the chaos resulting from interaction in the field between and/or among multiple EMR sources.
The consequences are serious biological effects underlying numerous pathologies, because, as noted earlier, these elements are critical to normal function. The first is described in the following quote. The second will be discussed below.
All critical biomolecules are either electrically charged or polar. While natural unpolarized EMF/EMR at any intensity cannot induce any specific/coherent oscillation on these molecules, polarized man-made EMFs/EMR will induce a coherent forced-oscillation on every charged/polar molecule within biological tissue. This is fundamental to our understanding of the biological phenomena. … a coherent polarized oscillation of even millions of times smaller energy than average thermal molecular energy can initiate biological effects [emphasis added]. Polarization: A Key Difference between Man-made and Natural Electromagnetic Fields, in regard to Biological Activity
Exposure Variability/Modulation & Frame RepetitionIt is generally understood that modulated (commonly called pulsed) EMR is much more biologically active than is continuous wave (no data). Download PDF, type “pulse” in search window. As noted in the Physics section, variability/chaos arises from carrier-frequency modulation for encoding data, and from ‘frame repetition’. All we need know is that both create constant and rapidly changing forces, preventing stabilization. And both forces exacerbate the chaos created by polarization.
Note: A serious challenge exists for studies on biological effects - apart from official deceit going on - that may underlie the positive/negative disparity in results. The disparity is falsely and foolishly cited as justification for allowing wireless systems. Studies showing no effect from non-heating wireless transmissions, especially those ‘IndustryGovernment’-funded/controlled, may have questionable design, particularly in terms of using signals produced by laboratory equipment or test phones, rather than emissions from commercial devices in normal use.
…studies employing real mobile phone exposures demonstrate an almost 100% consistency in showing adverse effects. This consistency is in agreement with studies showing association with brain tumors, symptoms of unwellness, and declines in animal populations.
The validity of conventional exposure limits is further questioned in the Conclusions of Comparing DNA Damage Induced by Mobile Telephony and Other Types of Man-Made Electromagnetic Fields.
The importance of exposure variability shown in the present study implies the need to define EMF-exposures not only by frequency components and average intensity values, but by reporting maximum and minimum intensity as well, frequency variations, pulsing or continuous wave, modulation, and - of course - polarization.
Thus, the present study makes the point that once a specific EMF is polarized (and coherent), includes ELFs [meaning in this case modulation - pt], and has adequate intensity, then variability in its parameters (especially in its intensity) is of decisive importance in terms of its bioactivity.
A key point is that below heating, power becomes less important than variability — polarization, interactions, and pulsing (modulation and frame repetition). That is, if you have enough power (and without power there is no wave) to cause “bioactivity” that can manifest as potentially fatal pathologies,— especially given 24/7 exposure — there is no ‘need’ for more, even though an increase may intensify effects.
Now come what appear to be the exposure-limit coups de grâce: Wave/toxin interaction in the organism and wave/wave interaction occurring anywhere and impinging on an organism.
Exposure Variability: Wave/Toxin InteractionEMR safety testing commits a scientific fallacy similar, for example, to the EPA’s in setting ‘safe dose’ levels for single chemical toxins. Toxins are known to interact/synergize (like medical drugs do), and rarely if ever exist alone in biosystems due to environmental saturation. Like tests for radiation limits, toxicity tests are done under controlled laboratory conditions. Is there correlation with the real-world toxic mix biosystems collect?
Microwave and toxins also interact, and one can exacerbate the other’s effects. This example concerns cancer, but by no means are corresponding symptoms limited to that. How is such potential accounted for when it comes to setting radiation limits, especially when wave/wave interaction is occurring?
Strictly speaking, this isn’t wave/toxin interaction, yet a serious threat: Wireless Technology: Ultra Convenient. Delivers Mercury Vapor from Dental Fillings - Free Shipping
Exposure Variability: Wave/Wave InteractionQuotes: Interactions among fields from multiple sources can intensify effects. Several oscillating electromagnetic fields of the same polarization - such as the fields from different antennas vertically oriented - may also produce constructive interference effects and thus, amplify at certain locations the local field intensity, and the amplitude of oscillation of any charged particle within the medium (and within living tissue). At such locations, living tissue becomes more susceptible to the initiation of biological effects.
Radiation sources include …the waves from all different radio, television, and mobile telephony antennas vertically oriented. Then, the resultant fields/waves are … varying, creating momentary constructive interference at unpredictably different locations each moment. This fact may represent an extraordinary ability of man-made/polarized EMFs to trigger biological effects [emphasis added].
The bigger the number of coherent superimposed waves/fields (from the same or different sources), the higher and narrower the peaks. That situation can create very sharp peaks of wave and field intensities at certain locations, not easily detectable by field meters, where any living organism may be exposed to peak electric and magnetic field intensities. Such locations of increased field/radiation intensity, also called “hot spots”, were recently detected within urban areas, due to wave/field superposition from mobile telephony base towers [end quotes]. Polarization: A Key Difference between Man-made and Natural Electromagnetic Fields, in regard to Biological Activity
Both the polarization and DNA papers suggest that the official approach — which looks only for heating, uses test phones or lab equipment, ignores peaks by averaging values over time, ignores multiple devices/antennas, — is unscientific at best. At ‘worse,’ it’s a grim joke. At worst, its nature is implied by foreknowledge of serious harm simply being dismissed, behind a fraudulent show of integrity.
Provided commercial devices in normal use are employed in independent testing, some variability parameters — polarization exacerbated by modulation and frame repetition — will be in play for attempting to establish a level for lowest observed effects, even though it’s an open-ended scenario. As noted, levels for chronic exposure are a guess.
In what testing (or study) scenario, however, are wave/toxin interaction — variable by individual and radiation properties, and multiple radiation sources and wave/wave interaction — variable by time, location and individual reactivity — exerting influence? How can a “safe,” or even “buffered,” limit be established or even approximated (ill advised anyway), against extreme complexity changing from one moment and organism to the next?
Not to mention that cumulative effect is in play, which means organism sensitivity, also variable by individual, may constantly be on the rise, invalidating previous conclusions. If even at a very slow pace, it could amount to significantly increased susceptibility over time and over an increasing percentage of population of human and other species.
And yet, laboratory conditions are still accepted as sufficient for establishing a ‘safe’ level for…whom/what? Again, we must continue with wireless until we find it’s too late. Economics, of course. Apology for planetary assault and self-destruction?
It seems that almost all studies on EMR effects fall short in the same manner. It’s suggested, then, that studies showing no effect may therefore be invalidated, while positive lab results would most likely be even worse if all factors were in play.
OK, make appeals to (corrupted) authority and calls for new (albeit impossible) exposure standards. It’s all good for posture and publicity. But why not at least acknowledge, if not stress, the possibility there ‘might’ be no safe use, and that there’s historical and current science to that effect? No appeal I’ve seen to authority for new exposure limits brings the no-safe question. It can be said that 13 precious years have been squandered since 2007 by not unflinchingly drawing attention to this inconvenient probability.
Obviously, calling for new standards means continued existence of wireless systems, but always accompanied by various “tips” and “ways,” such as reducing exposure (including antenna distancing), protective devices, and shielding. If there is no safe ‘dose’, or no way to find one, these measures become in effect dangerous ploys. And they increase environmental threat.
Now, some people are so electrosensitive they need some protection just to be able to function day to day. Again, relief does not mean harm stops. EMR/F protection for general use, however, also implies and condones continued existence and use of wireless, with focus on humans — the environment may go to blazes, thank you. Moreover, some shielding is dangerous. A full discussion is here Shielding methods and products against man-made Electromagnetic Fields: Protection versus risk.
‘Unwittingly’ suggesting another dimension to biological effects is a fascinating, quite plausible, proposal from MIT scientist Stephanie Seneff, PhD concerning energy/electric-charge management and transfer in blood, capillaries and body cells. The video is rapid fire and gets technical in spots, but for our purpose here, a most important aspect is depicted in the diagram below, a screen shot from the video.
It’s highly unlikely, to say the least, that telecom/WiFi EMR would be a welcome addition to this environment. One of the more remarkable aspects of Seneff’s proposal is that this sub-system is so important the body will engage pathological behavior to maintain it. This implies yet another (two-pronged) pathway for radiation-induced illness.
For the technically minded, Seneff’s most recent publication at this writing, based on her review of the literature, is: Sulfate’s Critical Role for Maintaining Exclusion Zone Water: Dietary Factors Leading to Deficiencies.
Note that only one blood cell can fit through a capillary at a time. Then consider that even short-term exposure to cell phone radiation causes 1) “spiked” red blood cells and 2) red cells to cling together in a form called rouleau: Does Short-term Exposure to Cell Phone Radiation Affect the Blood?
Since any charged or polar element in or out of body cells is susceptible, the range of potential pathology is impressive. Three of the worst for humans are disruption of endocrine (hormone) balance, damaged blood/brain barrier, and, potentially, eventual species-wide reproductive failure. Just a thought on radiation-induced hormone imbalance… Could it have anything to do with the marked increase in recent times of gender ‘differences’?
The question has been asked, “If it’s so bad, why isn’t everyone sick and dying?” Simple answer, many people are sick and dying. Could it be that the connection simply isn’t (sufficiently) being made/realized? This isn’t about strange, rare, esoteric illness; it’s about everyday issues attributed to “known,” or often unknown, causes. Of humans, most susceptible overall are fetuses and the young up to about 21 years.
Here is a ‘laundry list’ of most known symptoms arising from 2G-4G radiation:
There is a far-reaching history of research on the health effects of wireless radiation …[numerous sources cited]… Kostoff et al. (2020) summarize these findings reporting that exposure to radio frequency radiation below the American Federal Communications Commission guidelines can result in the genesis of several types of cancer, DNA and chromatin damage and/or dysfunction, mutagenesis, teratogenesis, neurodegenerative and neurocognitive disorders, reproductive problems, excessive reactive oxygen species/oxidative stress, inflammation, apoptosis, blood-brain barrier disruption, pineal gland/melatonin production dysfunction, sleep disturbance, headache, irritability, fatigue, concentration difficulties, depression, dizziness, tinnitus, burning and flushed skin, digestive disturbance, tremor, cardiac irregularities, and general dysfunction of the neural, circulatory, immune, endocrine, and skeletal systems. Specific research on the health effects of 5G has been scant [emphasis added]. Nevertheless, the majority of the existing literature demonstrates that exposure to 5G has biological effects on humans which can be interpreted as adverse health effects (see Simkó & Mattsson 2019 and papers cited therein). Media manipulation of information on the health effects of 5G? A small-sample case study of the Croatian news website index.hr (April 2020).
Thus, the “Stop 5G!” Manifesto-in-Effect (MIF): “We know how harmful, even fatal, 2G-4G are, so we must stop 5G or we’ll be more dead.” The unsettling thing is that people take this seriously, which may have to do with its presentation by zealots with seemingly little passion for detail and the whole picture. It reminds one of COVID fear programming — except for the satellite issue, where, it’s suggested, all “5G” protest energy should be concentrated.
Speaking of BioInitiative, here is a list of studies on weakened immune function, which might be of particular concern these days. Studies Reporting Disrupted Immune Function from Exposure to Low-Intensity Radiofrequency Radiation (Non-thermal). Authority is careful not to mention: Way of life per se is a major threat to immunity.
Based on preliminary evidence, the possibility of radiation-induced addiction also exists. Henry Lai, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA USA said to me in a 10/10/19 email:
What I basically found was that radiofrequency radiation (RFR) activated a group of chemicals called endogenous opioids in the brain of the rat. These compounds are involved in addictive behavior. However, it needs more research to establish that RFR-activated endogenous opioids in the brain cause addiction. Activation of endogenous opioids by RFR has also been reported by other researchers.‘Biophysics-speaking,’ it comes down to this: Given extreme biological sensitivity, the basic nature of artificial microwave; the irrevocable additions for telecom/WiFi; cumulative effect; and particularly the noted interactions, all present unrelenting chaos in which biological systems cannot stabilize. The possibility of “responsible/safe” wireless tech is about as remote as it gets; and that includes dire threat to ecosystem.
Where Are the Whole-Truth Tellers?
It’s more than fair to ask, however, how key assertions made here can be true when a majority of international EMF scientists are 1) asking for safer, safe, biologically based exposure limits from regulatory authority, and 2) not disposed to mention, even as a possibility, the (dreaded) solution.
Part of the answer may lie in the hullabaloo reportage in September 2020 that in France, over 60 mayors and officials called for a “5G" moratorium. In articles about this exists an extensive, grand list of letters and official briefings on “5G”, from many scientists (most of which amount to the “Stop 5G!” MIF). To read all would be daunting, but one can scan, select a random few, and easily come up with a good indication of the answer to the two-part question.
Here are four quotes from the letters of prominent scientists. I usually have no qualms about naming names, but will refrain here (giving the source for these would counter that):
1) A major figure in the cautionary community: We are all at risk from these toxic (sic) exposures until our nation adopts biologically-based standards for radio-frequency radiation.
2) A giant in the field, with a monster CV: There is a large and growing body of scientific evidence indicating that the densification of 5G and small cells will create serious health and environmental impacts due to the increased radiofrequency radiation exposure.
3) A noteworthy compiler of research: I certainly am not advocating for abandoning all of these forms of wireless communication, as they have clear benefits to society. However I am concerned that with evidence of harm among individuals with excessive exposure to current technology we should be very cautious in expanding to new frequencies that are likely to be more dangerous.
4) Lecturer: Wireless technology should be reserved for essential mobile technology like cell phones and GPS in cars. If transmission of information on all non-mobile devices (Internet access, smart meters, wireless printers, etc.) were placed onto wires, exposures would significantly decrease and some people would be able to recover resulting in a healthier population, reduced health care costs, less time off work and off school, and a healthier environment for other living species.
One wonders how apparently intelligent folk can write such things with a ‘straight face’ and with such milquetoast understatement (one doesn’t like to imagine them smirking at the keyboard)? I wonder if #3, for example, would insist if the writer’s health and life were immediately forfeit for the “clear benefits.”
Professor We-need-a-Nobel-Prize-for-common-sense Olle Johansson, formerly of the Karolinska Institute (medical college) in Stockholm, is a prime example of what can happen to truth-tellers — ‘even’ in science. He lost his highly distinguished career in 2017 for having the audacity to speak truth to the matter of safety. He’s still taking abuse today.
Example: The “cosmic background” link above leads to: “A Comment About Health Impacts of Cell Phone Radiation”, by Johansson, which includes assertions about cosmic background, no safe ‘dose,’ the futility of “reducing” or “minimizing” exposure, and the need to quit wireless.
Four truth-tellers from other venues who have paid the price of integrity come immediately to mind: Galileo Galilei on astronomy; Peter Duesberg, PhD, for submitting a paper challenging the HIV/AIDS hypothesis; Andrew Wakefield, MD, demonized by his ‘peers’ and stripped of privilege for suggesting further research on MMR vaccine and autism (subsequently exonerated); and Judith Curry, PhD on the politics of CO2 climate science. I suggest it could, in part at least, be why EMF scientists have seemed to ‘keep their heads down.’
An unpleasant possibility is the ‘cancer’ running through the academic, research and publishing communities, which Lancet Editor Richard Horton, MD discussed in the editorial linked earlier. Although it concerned medical research per se, it could be deemed naive, to say the least, to assume the same forces are not at work in other fields where special interests roam. There are the principles of science and then there is science in human hands.
Wireless is sold as a great boon, and claimed with utter mendacity to be safe - even though it has been classified officially as a probable carcinogen. Voluminous peer-reviewed science exists, including the decades-old Warsaw/WHO documents, which clearly suggest that something other than honesty, to put it delicately, is at work.
In terms of scientific principle, however, “voluminous” is not necessarily the main point. In assurances of safety (even in warnings), the seeker might see such expressions as “weight of evidence” or “most scientists” or “balance of opinion”. They amount to ‘legal speak.’
In science - in a rational context, - although exact repeatability can be difficult to accomplish, we need, not the thousands we have, but even one sound, repeatable study showing societally unacceptable harm in order to invoke the Precautionary Principle. And depending on circumstances, forbid or revoke an offending technology.
But is a society that has brought its source of life to the brink; that has created the context for rampant illness; and that is literally poisoning its unborn and young — for money, convenience and entertainment — a rational context? Or is it one where obsession/addiction has been induced/programmed and normalized? Where controversy over harm exists in EMF science, the political decision has been and is to come down on the side of threat rather than safety.
To digress a bit, microwave can function as a weapon of two kinds. Following the advent of digital technology in the late 1940s, microwave research included military stealth weapons, which gained considerable momentum in the1950s. It’s also functioning now as the foundation of a global surveillance/tracking and monitoring system (emphatically, not just ”5G”). For example, invasive contact tracing and all invasive “Smart” city and home systems.
Wireless feeds a massive, burgeoning data aggregate destined to become ‘total information awareness,’ with even the US Air Force getting into the game (see esp. paragraph beginning “SignalFrame”) It’s about defining/cataloging/indexing/tracking all things and humans, especially ones who use wireless devices, especially phones. There is only one cybersphere privacy/liberty perspective that counts: It’s an illusion.
You can read the conclusion of this article HERE - it exceeded the HIVE bytes limit.
Peter Tocci is a retired massage therapist and wellness consultant with an abiding interest in exploring ‘managed’ history, nefarious covert agendas, and mainstream/mainstream-alternative news-media dereliction, distortion and suppression.
© 2020, Peter G Tocci. All Rights Reserved
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.