The little-known factor doing most of the damage...
It's the Information...
Arthur, what you state below is very important. It is the ability for RFR to interfere with cellular and subcellular communication that is doing most of the damage. We have focused on energy too long, based on a misguided understanding using either ionizing radiation or chemical toxicology, to try to understand the mechanisms of non-ionizing radiation (NIR). Neither IR (ionizing radiation) nor chemicals provide a useful model for NIR.
Now the challenge arises. Knowing that it is “information” that is causing the problem (similar to radio reception interference) how do we deal with the following questions:
- How does the government regulate this radiation if they don’t use power density or intensity?
- How can manufacturers produce “safer” products?
- How can we help people heal from this exposure?
Some of the research being done on devices that can “protect” you against this radiation generate subtle energy (whatever that is) to keep your body working coherently and thus being able to minimize response to the chaotic frequencies generated by wireless devices (also wired devices that produce dirty power).
How else can we apply our understanding that we are discussing “information interferences” rather than “intensity” of RFR?
- Magda Havas, October 2019
Associate Professor Magda Havas in the 1990s became interested in the biological effects of electromagnetic pollution (electrosmog) and began to work with people who had electrohypersensitivity (EHS). Regarded as one of the top leading EMF experts in the world, Magda lectures on EMF in several courses at Trent University, Canada and supervises Reading Courses and Honours Thesis Projects. With over 360 presentations at medical and environmental conferences in more than 30 countries and at more than 24 universities/colleges and medical conferences, Magda also provides expert testimony in legal issues on the health effects of electromagnetic pollution as they relate to occupational exposure, high voltage transmission lines, magnetic fields, and both cell phone and broadcast antennas.
Founder of the Cellular Phone Task Force (1996), which launched the International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space in 2018, Arthur Firstenberg is the author of Microwaving Our Planet: The Environmental Impact of the Wireless Revolution (1997), and The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life (2017).
What everyone is still missing, including building biologists who measure RF radiation for a living, is that the harm does NOT depend on the exposure level. There is NOT a dose response. Not even for symptoms. I am sorry to have to keep repeating it. Just as an example, the 1973 Symposium that Peter referred to (“Biologic Effects and Health Hazards of Microwave Radiation”) contains a clinical study by Sadchikova of 1180 workers occupationally exposed to RF radiation. Workers exposed to lower intensities had more frequent symptoms than workers exposed to higher intensities. This was a consistent finding in the old Soviet literature.
The reason is that the toxicity model is the wrong model. Allan Frey pointed this out a long time ago. EMFs are not a foreign, toxic substance. The proper model is radio frequency interference. As Ross Adey also pointed out a long time ago, our cells “whisper” to each other in the radio frequency range. The closer an artificial signal matches the tiny power levels at which our cells communicate, the more interference it causes with bodily functions. The matter is highly complex, but conceptually, you can think of it this way: the higher the exposure level, the greater the thermal damage; the lower the exposure level, the greater the informational damage. Besides those two types of effects, there are many other types of effects, including a direct effect on electron transport in mitochondria, which leads directly to cancer, heart disease and diabetes, and which may well have a dose response (i.e. the greater the power the greater the effect). And there are other effects, such as calcium influx and efflux in brain cells, which have power “windows” of maximal effect, i.e. increasing the power decreases the effect and also decreasing the power decreases the effect.
When concerned people measure power levels only, or when building biologists measure power levels only, that is a big mistake, because power alone tells you nothing. What you want to know is whether the signal is continuous or pulsed, the shape of the pulsations, the rise time, fall time and duration of the pulsations, the type and depth of modulation, the frequencies, the bandwidth, and the degree of coherence, among other properties. Exposure level is often a proxy for coherence: the further you are from the source, the more interference there is from reflected and refracted signals, and the less coherent is the radiation that you experience.
I also caution that shielding is a two-edged sword. Most shielding materials reflect RF radiation, and they reflect it from both sides. If you paint an external wall with reflective paint, for example, it will keep out radiation coming from one direction, but it will amplify radiation coming into your house from the other direction. If you wear a reflective hat, it will keep out radiation that comes from above, but it will amplify radiation that reflects off the ground and gets under the hat. The only way to prevent this is to wear a fullbody suit, i.e. walk around in a Faraday cage. Or sleep in a Faraday cage.
The other problem with shielding is that, again, it is ignoring the electronic nature of the human body. Any reflective material will not only reflect incoming radiation but will also reflect your body’s own electric and RF fields back at you, i.e. it will distort your own body’s electromagnetic fields. This is why living in a Faraday cage is not healthy.
Arthur Firstenberg, 20 October 2019