List of Articles In This Series

1. Introduction / Who Do You Trust?
2. Destroying the Non Ionizing Argument (Current Article)
3. Effects of EMFs on Sexual Organs and Reproductive Health
4. Effects of EMFs on the Cardiovascular System and Heart
5. Effects of EMFs on Oxidation and Reactive Oxygen Species
6. Effects of EMFs on Genotoxicity and DNA / Do EMFs Really Cause Apoptosis?
7. How EMFs Can Destroy Your Immune System
8. How EMFs Affect Brain Health & Development
9. How EMFs are Destroying Future Generations (Effects on Neurology and Psychology)
10. Conclusions and Final Thoughts

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored"

If you read part 1 of this 10-part expose on the dangers of cell phones and Electromagnetic Radiation, then you know that I have already gone into great detail about the massive cover up that has been taking place within the telecommunications industry over the past few decades. Anyone who has read that article, or even spent a few hours of their time looking into this matter themselves could easily confirm this. Now after learning about this incredible conspiracy against the human race, you might be extremely eager to spread the news (as I was and still am). You are going to want to tell your friends, your family, and anyone else you come into contact with.

This is juicy stuff, after all.

However, when you actually do go to tell people about this conspiracy and the fact that our cell phones are, indeed, a potentially huge risk to the overall health of the human race...you'll quickly find that almost no one will believe you.

In fact, they will most likely ridicule you.

Now there are many reasons for this (most of which I will go over in the 9th article dealing with the psychology behind cellphone addiction), but the only thing you really need to keep in mind for right now is the fact that there is a huge psychological component to this whole thing. Many people take an attack on the cell phone industry very personally. Because of this, it's almost impossible to even enter a civil dialogue with most people on this subject, because to question the potential negative health implications of heavy cell phone use would be to question the very health & lifestyle of the person themselves. Attempting to do this would be like trying to explain to a crack addict why consuming the drug might not be in their best self interest.

In fact...that's exactly what you are trying to do.

There are some people who will never hear a word you say, because they are much more comfortable living in what they perceive to be their familiar comfy cozy reality they have been living in their entire lives. The won't face the facts, because at the end of the day...they simply don't want to. The last thing an addict wants to hear is that the thing their life revolves around is bad for their health. This is something I have spent a ton of time thinking about, and let me assure you right now...it's not worth it. Just accept it and move on.

There is indeed such a thing as a helpless soul.

Now I don't want to discourage you from spreading this information...and I definitely don't want you to stop using your cellphone completely (There are ways to use it safely which I will go over in the final article in this series). In fact, that's the completely opposite purpose of this article series. The first and foremost goal is to educate you. The second is to inspire you to spread the news. However, I thought it would be important to preface the rest of this article series by discussing this, because it's going to be a very critical component of any debate you enter on this subject from here on out. It really is something you are going to have to deal with.

But whenever people burst out laughing at you...or when they give you that "know-it-all" smirk...or when they call you a "conspiracy theorist" (a term invented by the CIA after the Kennedy assassination to discredit anyone questioning the official story), just remember this:

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." - Aldous Huxley

There are Two Types of People In This World...

Pseudo-Intellectuals. They are everywhere in modern society. As much as I love technology and how it has placed a thousand years of wisdom and knowledge into the hands of the everyday-man (very few actually use it to further their wisdom or knowledge), it has definitely has its downsides. One of these is the absolutely unprecedented outbreak of pseudo-intellectualism that has plagued the world ever since smartphones became mainstream. Even the word "smartphone" seemed to unironically predict this. People seem to think that just by holding a "smartphone" they have somehow transcended the matrix to become this all-knowing supreme being.

It's a marketing gimmick, and it works beautifully.

As a result, we have become a society obsessed with fact checking. Through the combined efforts of Google and various social media platforms, we as a society have grown and nurtured the absolutely insatiable desire to be heard and to be right. No matter what the cost.

Now in theory, this sounds good. It sounds like a society where people are held in check for what they say and what they claim to be true...however once you realize the depths to which the main sources of information on the internet have been infiltrated and corrupted, you begin to understand the nightmare reality it has created.

This new nightmare reality is chalk-full of parrots simply repeating the information they absorbed from the first relevant google search result they could find. In fact, according to Google, less than 10% of the population even navigate past the first page of search results for any given query...and much fewer actually deeply research the information the receive to make sure it is actually true. This is why having a serious debate with anyone nowadays is extremely frustrating.

Before the "information age", if you didn't know anything about the subject, you would simply refrain from talking about it...and at the very best, you would actually listen to what people had to say because at least then you could learn something. On the contrary, people nowadays seem to think they know everything about anything you might want to discuss with them...simply because they read something somewhere on the internet, or read a couple of threads on twitter. This is particularly bad when it comes to the biological effects of wireless radiation stemming from cell phones.

Although a vast majority of people will refuse to believe that their smartphones are potentially killing them and/or their health, they really only fall into one of two categories:

1. The willfully ignorant who will refuse to believe you simply because it would be a huge inconvenience to their lifestyle. These people will most likely do anything they can to avoid/dismiss the subject, so they can continue living their lives in comfort.

2. The pseudo-intellectual who will most likely try spitting out seemingly random and inaccurate statements stemming from mainstream-media sources. I would also include "mainstream-science", but "mainstream-science" isn't really science at all. It's just another form of media consumption that has been completely corrupted and funded by the industry related to their "research". (I hold and maintain the belief that the only true science can come from 3rd party/independent researchers not funded or tied to any industry).

The first group of people, although depressing to behold, are quite easy to deal with. You simply give them the facts and leave them to chew on it for a while.

The second group, however, are a little more challenging, because they think they have the perfect rebuttal to your claims, when in reality their argument is extremely simplified and completely inaccurate.

This "rebuttal" is extremely common and it will sound something a little like this:

"...But the radiation coming from cell towers, cell phones, etc. is non-ionizing. At these frequencies, the only real way to cause any significant physical change/damage to the human body is to heat the tissue by using a sufficient power density...and since the FCC regulates this power density to very low levels of intensity, no heating can occur, and therefore no real significant damage can be caused as a result of it"

Now that may seem very "scientific-sounding" and if worded this way, it very well could trick an uneducated bloke into admitting defeat...but I assure you, even that was perhaps a little more in-depth of a rebuttal than the average person would venture to give. Most likely they will just blurt out something about the radiation being "Non-ionizing" without any idea what non-ionizing radiation actually is or how it interacts at even the basic level of biological systems. That's the first and only sign you need to know that this guy/gal doesn't really know anything about Electromagnetic Fields and he/she most likely got what little information they have from the mainstream media or the telecom industry themselves.

I know this because I have firsthand experience dealing with these people. When I used to have a Twitter account, I would often tweet about the dangers of 5G, and 10 times out of 10, a pseudo-intellectual would find his way into the comments and stupidly blurt out something relating to non-ionizing radiation not being powerful enough to harm us, and when I asked them to explain to me what non-ionizing radiation actually was, they couldn't do it. Not accurately anyways.

But here's the thing: The problem with this argument isn't the argument itself...it's that the FCC agrees with them...and as I showed in my previous article, the FCC is about as corrupt as you can get. So the two hurdles you need to get over in any debate featuring this argument are:

1. Proving without a shadow of a doubt that the FCC is corrupt
2. Proving that their standards are inadequate, outdated, and incomplete.

If you can get past these two hurdles, and if they are still miraculously listening to you, then you have the all-clear to lay out all of the studies showing significant damage being done by EMFs at various frequencies and power densities. If all of this is done correctly, you should be able to successfully break their conditioning and get through to them. Even if they don't admit defeat, you can assume victory, and I assure you, they will eventually gather enough courage to hop online and look at the references you gave and it is at that moment where they will finally see the light.

Now you start to see why I formatted this article series the way I did, and why I decided to carefully spend an entire article on these two first crucial subjects. Without them, it's very hard to convince people of what is really going on here.

I already gave you the tools to show that the FCC is corrupt, and now I will give you the information you need to prove that their standards are indeed inadequate. Doing this will also simultaneously crush the "Non-Ionizing argument", since the two are so intimately intertwined.

From there, we will dissect the effects one by one.

What exactly is Non-Ionizing Radiation?

So before I calmly decimate the "Non-Ionizing Argument", it would be helpful to explain exactly what Non-Ionizing radiation is (at least how it's used in the argument) so you can completely understand where they are coming from.

The electromagnetic spectrum is exactly what it sounds like. It is a spectrum that encompasses the entire span of electromagnetic radiation and is comprised of the following:

• Ionizing Radiation: Gamma Rays, X-Rays, Extreme Ultraviolet (Frequencies above 3E15 Hz)

• Visible Non-Ionizing Radiation: (Frequencies between 4.2E14 Hz and 7.7E14 Hz)

• Invisible Non-Ionizing Radiation: Short Wavelength Radio Waves and Microwaves with Frequencies Between 3E11 and 3 Hz

  • The Lower Frequencies (3Hz - 300 KHz) are used for electrical power line transmission (60 Hz in the US) as well as maritime and submarine navigation

  • Medium Frequencies (300 KHz - 900 MHz) are used for AM/FM/TV broadcasts (North America)

  • Lower Microwave Frequencies (900 MHz - 5 GHz) are used for telecommunications such as microwave communications, radio astronomy, mobile/cell phones, and wireless LANs.

  • Higher Microwave Frequencies (5 GHz - 300 GHz) are used for radar and the new proposed microwave Wi-Fi/cell towers (5G).

  • Terahertz frequencies (300 GHz - 3000 GHz) are being used more and more to supplement X-Rays some medical and security scaning devices and applications

For a visual representation of this spectrum, see the graph below:

For all intents and purposes, we will be mainly focusing on the health effects of Non-Ionizing EMF radiation (3 Hz - 300 GHz) since this is what we are most exposed to.

Why Do Many Studies Seem To Suggest The Contrary?

One of the questions I get asked the most when talking to skeptics, is:

"If the evidence is so conclusive that EMFs are harmful, then why do so many scientific studies seem to suggest the contrary"

And that's a very good question that deserves to be answered.

There are actually many reasons why a study might not find a strong correlation between increased EMF exposure and a decline in overall health, but I think I have been able to lump all of them together in two main categories:

1. There are the studies that were funded (either partially, or in whole) by the industry itself and therefore is immediately exposed to extreme bias, and control over how they test and what they publish is held exclusively by the industry with an iron fist.

2. The experiments performed in the study, for whatever reason, are incomplete, innacurate, and downright lazy to the point of neglegence. They leave out many important factors like the presence of a second or third environmental stressor/toxin, as well as the pulsation and modulation of a carrier frequency. Making mistakes like this is not uncommon in the scientific community, and can often lead to skewed and often downright wrong results.

---

Now it's important to note that never, in the history of mankind, has the human body been exposed to so many EMFs and RFs as consistently as it is today. Think about how new cellphones are in comparison to even our grandparents...let alone the entire history of the human race. In ancient times, the sun and the moon delivered the bulk of the visible spectrum to humans (In addition to fires and lamps, although these can be considered negligible in comparison to the sun and moon). Now, artificial lighting has replaced the sun and moon as the main sources of light for human civilization. (Incandescent, fluorescent, and LED).

In addition to these artificial light sources, other frequencies on the EMF spectrum have become ingrained into the very fabric of our being...with it being near impossible to escape the nearly-constant EMFs of the inner city without driving out to the countryside.

Things like:

• Power Lines (Industrial and Residential)
• Cell Towers (The number is increasing by the day)
• "Dirty" Electricity (Has also been shown to be potentially very harmful)
• AM/FM Radio Waves
• Household Appliances (Microwaves, Electric Stoves, Etc.)
• Light bulbs
• Laptops
• Cellphones
• Desktop Computers
• Wi-Fi/Wi-Fi Routers (Home, School, Work, Retail Stores, Coffee Shops, etc.)
• Television (Appliance and Signal Modulation/Transmission)
• Wires/Wired Routing
• and much more

all contribute to the ever-increasing amount of EMF radiation that our bodies are being exposed to...and this is something many of the scientific studies completely ignore (even the ones that prove a connection between EMF radiation and various biological effects). People just tend to focus on radiation coming from cellphones or other singular entities, and they cherry pick sources of EMF radiation...single them out...and proceed to try and discuss the effects they have on biology without considering the syngergistic effects that additional stressors/toxins in the environment might have, as well as the accumulation effect of such radiation + additional stressors/toxins over the course of a lifetime of exposure.

While that may be necessary to conduct concise & controlled scientific studies, it fails to accurately simulate the levels of toxic exposure that the everyday person normally has to deal with and which has been accumulating over the years. In other words, these controlled & isolated scientific studies are good at helping us understand how EMFs interact with our biological structures, but relatively bad at predicting how these EMFs will actually affect our health & well-being in the real world. That's not to say that these types of studies can't predict the harmful effects EMFs might have on humans. They certainly can...and they have as you'll see in this article and the rest down the road. However, if you leave out the presence of a second or third toxin...and if you leave out the pulsation and modulation of the carrier frequency...and if you conduct your reaserach in such a way as to please the people funding it...of course you won't find a correlation between increasing EMF exposure and decreasing health.

Even worse, is the fact that many studies (again...even the ones that find a definite correlation between increased EMF exposure and negative health effects) fail to include pulsing and modulation of the carrier signal...which is an extremely important contributor to adverse health effects. This furthers the distance between the experimental levels of exposure, and the much more dangerous levels of exposure that our bodies are constantly exposed to daily.

As Panagopoulos states:

“It is important to note that except for the RF/microwave carrier frequency, Extremely
Low Frequencies - ELFs (0–3000Hz) are always present in all telecommunication
EMFs in the form of pulsing and modulation. There is significant evidence indicating that the effects of telecommunication EMFs on living organisms are
mainly due to the included ELFs…. While ∼50% of the studies employing
simulated exposures do not find any effects, studies employing real-life exposures
from commercially available devices display an almost 100% consistency in
showing adverse effects”

He goes on to state how future generations (5G) will only enhance these effects:

“with every new generation of telecommunication devices….the amount of information transmitted each moment…..is increased,resulting in higher variability and complexity of the signals with the living cells/organisms even more unable to adapt"
[Panogopoulos, 2019]

Incredibly, however, even with these crucial factors being left out of the equation in so many studies, they still overwhelmingly provide ample evidence that EMFs are indeed harmful.

As Ronald Kostoff (Ph.D) puts it:

"However, even in the absence of the real-life missing components (which tend to enhance the adverse effects of the wireless radiation), the literature shows there is much valid reason for concern about potential adverse health effects from both 4G and 5G technology. The studies reported in the literature should be viewed as extremely conservative, underestimating the adverse impacts substantially"

Kostoff RN. Adverse Effects of Wireless Radiation. . 2019. PDF.
http://hdl.handle.net/1853/61946.

Now although the lack of comprehensive testing & research in this arena is indeed shocking and a bit frightening, there is, I think, an adequate solution. You see, most of the independent/third-party studies in the area of EMF biological research can be placed in one of two categories:

1. Laboratory Studies (Which was covered in a bit of detail above)
2. Epidemiological Studies

Where the Lab studies are much more controlled and lack many of the main contributors to declining physical health, the Epidemiological studies look at how humans react to EMFs in the real world...filled with all sorts of toxins and stressors that one would normally expect in modern society. However, although these studies do include all of the stuff normally left out of lab studies (multiple toxins, carrier frequencies, etc.) they do so at a completely unknowable and uncontrollable level. Therefore, it is hard to know how much exactly the EMFs are contributing to the decline in health of the test subjects. I would assert that the solution to dealing with these issues, is to use a healthy combination of lab and epidemiological studies and draw conclusions from the adequate analysis of both. In addition, more lab studies need to be conducted where second, third, and even fourth environmental stressors/toxins are introduced to the subjects in order to adequately observe the synergistic relationship between them. At this point, we know that they do indeed behave synergistically, but we are unaware to what extent.

So again, I propose that the solution to this lack of testing be the subsequent combination of three separate kinds of studies:

1. Lab Studies where EMF (with the carrier frequency) is the only stressor/toxin
2. Lab Studies where EMF (with the carrier frequency) is not the only stressor/toxin & are controlled
3. Epidemiological Studies where subjects are observed in various locations and scenarios.

If we would only implement the combination of these three distinct forms of study, I think we could ultimately enhance our already growing understanding of EMFs and the threats they pose on the greater health of the human population.

However, we do already know quite a bit about EMFs. Scientists and various Governments of the world have been researching them for decades....and even then, the dangers that EMFs pose were present and known all those years ago.

Allow me to explain.

Destroying The "Non-Ionizing Argument"

So currently, the existing exposure guidelines (I stress the word guidelines) are based on protection from acute injury from thermal effects of RFR exposure and are not protective against any non-thermal effects of chronic exposure. These guidelines were designed to protect against the adverse effects the might occur due to increases in tissue or body temperature of about 1 degree centigrade (And just to clarify...when someone uses the "Non-Ionizing Argument" they are referring to the thermal effects of EMFs.).

However, we know that there are an incredible variety of ways for EMFs to interact with biology...more than just the heating of tissue. So when discussing the harmful effects of Electromagnetic Radiation, there are multiple factors that need to be taken into consideration. One of these crucial elements is what an Electromagnetic Wave actually is and what it is comprised of...as well as how these individual elements could potentially interact with human biology in a negative way.

The many properties that comprise a signal are as follows:

• Frequency
• Amplitude
• Pulse
• Intensity (Power)
• Polarity
• Information Content

and these properties can (and have been shown to) have biological effects on humans, and these effects can differ based on:

• Sex
• Age
• Genetics
• Cell Type
• Overall Nutritional Habits
• Position Relative to Signals and Towers/Emitters

Now that is a ton of variables to consider, and when skeptics use the "Non-Ionizing Argument", they are basically getting rid of all the variables except for one: Intensity (Power Density). They completely ignore all the other properties of the signal and dismiss them as harmless when that is just simply not the case.

The World Health Organization defines ionizing radiation as:

"...radiation with enough energy so that during an interaction with an atom, it can remove tightly bound electrons from the orbit of an atom, causing the atom to become charged or ionized."

Now while the radiation coming from cell towers, power lines, and your cellphone are indeed not powerful enough to dislodge electrons from the atom...that doesn't mean that the radiation can't harm you in other ways.

That is the real reason why this argument is so infuriating to anyone reading the research on this stuff. It singles out one of many ways to damage someone using EMFs while also claiming it to be the only way to harm someone, and this simply isn't true. Simply saying this would be enough to stump anyone using this argument, because if they are still using this argument...chances aren't informed enough to discuss the science anyways.

However, there will still be the ones who still have enough common sense to know what you say is true, but still argue nevertheless for whatever reason...whether it be pride, denial, or some combination of the two. Well, if they don't believe you or me...then perhaps the National Institute of Health's National Toxicology Program could convince them.

NTP Study

In 2018, the NTP concluded a 30 million dollar study that looked into the potential carcinogenicity of radiation stemming from cell phones. They exposed both Rats and Mice to cellphone radiation that complied with the federal guidelines for exposure to Radio-frequencies and Electromagnetic fields, and to say the results were shocking would be a sore understatement.

The two main objectives of these 30-million-dollar studies were to:

1. Test & Challenge the hypothesis/assumption that cell phone RF radiation at Non-Thermal exposure intensities is incapable of inducing adverse health effects

2. Provide data on tissue dose and incidence of response that can be used to assess potential human halth risks for any detected adverse effects

So this study's main objectives were to directly confront the notion that non-ionizing radiation is perfectly safe as the FCC claims it is...and again the results were shocking. The main conclusions taken from they study is that Cell Phone Radiation Caused:

• Cancers and pre-neoplastic lesions in the heart and brain
• DNA damage in brain cells of rats and mice
• Heart muscle disease
• Reduced Birth weights

with the official conclusion of the NTP being:

"THE ASSUMPTION THAT NON-IONIZING RADIATION CANNOT CAUSE CANCER OR OTHER HEALTH EFFECTS, OTHER THAN BY TISSUE HEATING IS WRONG"

You can read and download the full studies by clicking on the hyperlinks below:

NTP TECHNICAL REPORT ON THE TOXICOLOGY AND CARCINOGENESIS STUDIES IN Hsd:SPRAGUE DAWLEY SD RATS EXPOSED TO WHOLE-BODY RADIO FREQUENCY RADIATION AT A FREQUENCY (900 MHz) AND MODULATIONS (GSM AND CDMA) USED BY CELL PHONES

NTP TECHNICAL REPORT ON THE TOXICOLOGY AND CARCINOGENESIS STUDIES IN B6C3F1/N MICE EXPOSED TO WHOLE-BODY RADIO FREQUENCY RADIATION AT A FREQUENCY (1,900 MHz) AND MODULATIONS (GSM AND CDMA) USED BY CELL PHONES

Or if reading 80-page-long studies isn't your cup of tea, you can watch the lead researcher, Dr. Melnick, present the NTP findings in the videos below:

and here is a longer interview with Dr. Melnick about the NTP and the study he helped run:

Dr. Melnick Responds to the FDA's rejection of Clear Scientific Evidence that Cell Phone Radiation Can Cause Cancer. He also reinforces the validity and accuracy of the study:

So there you have it. The National Institute of Health...one of the world's leading authorities in the world of human health literally tells us that the FCC regulations are inadequate, and this completely unravels the Non-Ionizing argument.

I could just stop here, but I won't. In fact, there is so much evidence of these non-thermal effects, that I literally have pledged to write eight more articles that dive deeply into these effects.

Dr. Henry Lai

In my previous article, I briefly mentioned Dr. Henry Lai, and his experience with the smear campaign that was run against him by the Telecommunications industry in order to get him fired and ruin his reputation.

Why him? Why was the industry so adamant on shutting him and his research down? What major threat could he have possibly posed?

Well quite a big threat, it would seem.

In the late 90's, Dr. Lai helped develope a groundbreaking method for observing DNA strand breaks when exposed to magnetic fields, Radio-frequencies, and electromagnetic fields. This was done using a microgel eletrophoresis assay (comet assay) to measure single and double strand DNA breaks in the brain cells of a rat.

What Dr. Lai and his research team found, was that exposing the microgel assay to 2450-MHz RFR at an average of 1.2 W/kg for 2 hours produced a similar DNA migration in brain cells that is normally caused by 25 cGy of X-Rays (an average of 250 strand breaks per cell).

In addition, Dr. Lai found that exposure to RFR at 2450-MHz at a SAR of 0.6 and 1.2 W/kg for 2 hours cased a definite increase in both single and double strand breaks in the DNA of brain cells in the rat under observation. He also makes sure to point out the fact that the average human can get a SAR of 6-8 W/kg per gram of tissue in the head when talking on the cellphone while holding it up to your head.

In additional studies, Dr. Lai and his team found that rats who were given or exposed to "free radical scavengers" blocked the effects of EMF (both ELF-EMF and RFR) on DNA damage...which seems to suggest that EMF actually enhances the amount of free radical activity within the cell, which very well could lead to the DNA damage he was observing.

In a 1998 study, he also found that EMF exposure caused DNA-protein and DNA-DNA crosslinks, which are very dangerous and can interfere with various processes of cellular metabolism such as DNA replication and the triggering of cell death. Because of this induced-cross-linking, Dr. Lai observed an increase in apoptosis (programmed cell death) and necrosis in the brain cells of the rat under observation. He also figured out that by administering an iron-chelator to the rats, he could block the effects of EMF exposure on the DNA.

Here is Dr. Lai's summary of his studies into the harmful effects of EMF and RF on DNA:

"From the results of the above research, we hypothesize that EMF initiates an ironmediated process (Fenton reaction) that increases hydroxy free radical formation in cells, leading
to DNA strand breaks and cell death. Cells with high rates of iron intake, e.g., proliferating cells,
cells infected by DNA virus, and cells with high metabolic rates such as brain cells, would be
more susceptible to the effects of EMF. For proliferating cells, the most vulnerable time should
be during the G1/S phases of the cell cycle, when transferrin receptors are expressed and iron
influx is high. Hydroxy radicals are generated from hydrogen peroxide via the Fenton reaction in
the presence of iron. Cells with high metabolic rate generate high amount of hydrogen peroxide
via the mitochondrial electron transport pathway and thus are more vulnerable to EMF. On the
other hand, possible harmful effect of EMF exposure could also depend on the capability of cells
to store iron in ferritin. For example, liver cells would be less susceptible to EMF, even though
they have high iron influx, because they contain high amount of ferritin."

and here is what that Comet-Assay looks like when compared to 1600 Chest X-Rays and a Sham (No radiation):

credit: J.Lutz and F. Adlekofer, Objections against current limits for microwave radiation

So as you can see, the telecommunications industry fears this man and his reasearch more than any other, becuase not only does his research clearly show that EMF and RF compliant with the federal guidelines can be extremely harmful (even acutely), but he also offers an explanation as to why this is happening, and what could possibly be done to stop it.

Dr. Martin Pall

Now not only do we know that EMFs can cause single and double strand breaks in DNA, but we also have a mechanism for how this could possibly happen...and that is through the manipulation of Voltage-Gated Calcium Channels. This is something Dr. Martin Pall (Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences Washington State University) has spent quite a bit of time discussing. When referencing a 2015 appeal to the United Nations, which was signed by 206 scientists from 40 countries (2000+ published peer reviewed papers on the subject between them), Dr. Pall said this:

"There is absolutely no question that there is an international scientific consensus on the existence of non-thermal health effects and the inadequacy of saftety guidelines/standards."

So yes...Dr. Pall (like a majority of the scientists in this field) has come to the conclusion that it an absolute scientific fact that EMFs can cause massive damage to the human body...but he recognized that the question has evolved from "Does it affect our biology" to "How does it affect our biology"...and he has an answer for this.

You see, as stated earlier, the industry basically tells us that these lower-intensity microwaves are too weak to to anything, and that the only effects they could possibly produce in our bodies would need to stem from heating. For example, in a microwave oven, these waves, at a high power density, combined with their high frequencies produce a force which acts upon the charged groups in your food...therefore exciting them and causing a heating effect which cooks your food (this is why you are told never to get anywhere near a microwave while it's on and cooking).

Furthermore, the industry claims that the EMFs coming to and from mobile devices are even weaker...with the power being kept far below the heating threshold. Therefore, we shouldn't need to worry about them at all because they are harmless. Now they do admit that the microwave lower frequency EMFs do indeed place forces on the positively and negatively charged groups, but they ultimately claim that these forces are too weak to produce any significant biological effect...and because of this, they are completely safe.

Now that notion is obviously blatantly false. Not only because there are alternative ways that these waves can damage cells...but because the force on those negatively and positively charged groups are much higher than they are leading us to believe...and can, in fact, produce biological effects. This is where Dr. Pall comes in.

Dr. Pall asserts that these forces can effectively act upon the Voltage-Gated Calcium Channels of the cell. VGCCs, as their name suggests, respond to any sort of electrical activity (we are, in fact electrical beings). He explains how VGCCs are unique, in that they hold charge...and are actually embedded within the membrane of the cell and contain about 20 charges per voltage sensor, which are completely separated from the aqueous part of the cell (which contains the rest of the charges). Now we do know that the VGCCs are impacted by EMFs because there have been studies done on the impact that certain medications called "Calcium Channel Blockers" have on the biological effects of EMFs. In these studies, 5 different types of calcium channel blockers were used...each having different chemical structures, but all behaving the similar ways to block the calcium channels. What was found was that, when these medications were used, the biological effects of EMFs were either greatly reduced, or blocked althogether. This tells us that EMFs do, in fact, act upon these VGCCs.

Note: Dr. Pall asserts that EMFs actually act upon as many as 8 gated ion channels...each with similar voltage sensors...but that the most significant seems to be the Calcium channel.

This is a model of what VGCCs look like when unraveled

Now one of the most popular laws of physics is Coulomb's Law. This is one of those all-encompassing and deified laws of science that we were beat over the head with for 5 years at the engineering college. The significance of this law cannot be overstated...mainly because it describes much about what we know about electrical behavior. Coulomb's law states that the forces on any charged group is inversely proportional to the dielectric constant of the medium that they reside in.

Now when it pertains to the cell, the dielectric constant of the membrane of the cell (where the VGCC is embedded) is about 1/120th of the dielectric constant of the water in the aqueous portion of the cell. Therefore, Dr. Pall asserts that the forces on the membrane are about 120 times higher than the forces on the water. In addition, the membrane has a very high electrical resistance, and because of this ultra-high resistance, any given charge tends to concentrate over the plasma membrane. His analysis of various calculations of how large this concentration actually is, has led him to believe that it is roughly 3000x.

Now using these numbers and a simple calculation, you can roughly estimate the forces being applied to the membrane of the cell (which the FCC completely ignores in it's estimation on the forces acting upon the cell. They only consider the aqueous portion of the cell).

Force on the VGCC = 20 (charges) x 120 (dielectric constant) x 3000 (concentration due to electrical resistance) = 7.2 million. So if these numbers are indeed correct (they are), this calculation would seem to suggest that the force upon these VGCCs is about 7.2 million times higher than the forces being acted upon the aqueous portion of the cell...7.2 million times higher than the FCC is leading us to believe.

So what Dr. Pall is ultimately saying here, is that EMFs act upon the cells by activating the VCGGs...allowing calcium ions to flow into the cell. This is extremely significant, because most if not all of the biological effects asscociated with excessive EMF exposure are produced by excessive calcium presence within the cell. The presence of this excess calcium is the catalyst for an incredible amount of cascading biological processes that lead to an equally incredible amount of Physiological effects, including oxidative stress which can cause cancer. Here is Dr. Pall's simplified diagram detailing this chain of events:

Credit: Dr. Pall

Credit: Dr. Pall

Now this revelation being spread by Dr. Pall is extremely important, because it's the last piece of the puzzle. The only thing members of the industry and any remaining skeptics can say after hearing the evidence provided throughout this article, is that there is "no mechanism" for these effects to be taking place...and this effectively destroys that argument, because it shows that yes, indeed there is at least one mechanism, and that it's probably not the only mechanism either.

Now we will be diving a bit deeper into these effects in later articles, however, if you would like a deep dive into Dr. Pall's research right now, then check out this fantastic presentation he gave on his findings:

So there you have it. The "Non-Ionizing Argument"...in all of it's glory...completely torn apart and decimated. I have presented a study which clearly dismisses the claim that Non-thermal effects of low-powered EMFs don't exist (The NTP study). I have provided one of the many significant biological effects of EMFs (DNA single and double strand breaks) and I have provided the mechanism for how these breaks would take place (VGCC activation)...which also happens to be the mechanism for most of the harmful effects produced by EMFs. In fact, you will find that by the end of this article series, the argument will just seem silly...if it doesn't already. If you had your doubts before, there literally is no reason for you to doubt it now. We have long been past the point where we question whether these effects actually exist. Now we are just trying to calculate the potential damage it has caused and will cause if we continue to ramp up production of wireless technology...

So What About 5G?

5G will entail using much higher frequencies than current microwave frequency devices. This allows 5G to carry much higher pulsations and thus carry much more information per second. However, the 5G millimetre wave EMFs are absorbed by buildings and other materials including our bodies. In addition, vast increases in both frequency and pulsation predict that 5G will be much more active in activating the VGCC voltage sensor we discussed earlier.

Because 5G millimetre wave radiation is much more absorbed by buildings and other materials, it also means that 5G does not travel very well and will entail tens of millions of antennae widely distributed making it essentially impossible to avoid high level exposures. Because of this, 5G has been predicted by hundreds of scientists across the world to be vastly more dangerous than our already existing exposures...which are already extremely dangerous as you have seen me demonstrate throughout this article.

The industry claims that 5G will only largely be absorbed in the outer 1 mm of the skin, and although there is indeed some truth to that claim...it's a far cry from the whole picture. This claim isn't as harmless as it sounds. First of all, this means that insects, birds, trees, and other organisms will be greatly impacted by these new millimetre waves. In fact, there have been many scientists who point the finger at EMFs for the current collapse of the honey bee colonies of the world. Since honey bees rely on the earths natural EMF for navigation, their natural lives have been greatly disrupted by this increase in artificial and extreme levels of EMF, and as a result, they have been dying in incredible numbers, and as we know...without the bees, we wouldn't have much of a food supply. Now with the exponential increase in exposure that will be experienced with the rollout of millions of 5G mini-cell towers, these plants and animals will not be able to escape it and WILL die. Dr. Pall briefly talks about this in his presentation above, and makes the prediction of total ecological collapse of certain ecosystems should this technology be permitted. Not only that, but EMFs have been shown to make plants much more flammable...and this could result in massive wildfire breakouts...especially in states like California where there is an incredible amount of EMF exposure already present.

Now as for the industry claims about penetration depth...they simply aren't true. There have been a multitude of studies that show that the penetration depth of EMFs are much deeper than the first centimetre of tissue, however we only need to discuss the extreme sensitivity of the VGCC to see that these pulsed EMFs are capable of producing effects deeply within the body. Furthermore, decades of research have shown that the magnetic portion of the EMF are incredibly more penetrating than the electrical portion. These magnetic fields place forces on the free electrically charged groups in the body, and small individual movements of these charged groups can actually recreate and regenerate electric fields within the body that mimic the same frequencies and pulsations of the original EMFs (although they are much less intense). However, given the incredible sensitivity of the VGCCs (as we have already calculated and discussed earlier), this actually produces exactly the mechanism needed to produce these biological effects.

Because of this, 5G will only vastly increase the number and frequency of these biological effects that have been observed over the course of the past few decades, and will, in fact, be much more severe. These severe effects on the collective human race include but are not limited to:

• Severe deterioration and eventual collapse of the collective brain function of mankind (already taking place and highly observable)

• Severe decline and eventual collapse in reproductive health of mankind (Male fertility is down over 40% in the past decade)

• Mutations in our DNA stemming from the incredible amount of single and double strand breaks (Sharp and exponential increase in autism and ADHD over the past few decades)

• Severe decline in average hormone function (already highly observable...depression alone has skyrocketed among youths in the past decade)

• Severe deterioration and eventual collapse of a multitude of different ecosystems (already taking place and highly observable...especially with honey bees)

• and much MUCH more

Now obviously I will be going into further detail on these effects in the next 6-7 articles, but I just thought I would highlight how these effects will accumulate and increase to numbers that would eventually predict the collapse of civilization. It is an extreme case, but a case nonetheless. And the fact that scenarios like this are even possible should be enough to warrant a halt on the rollout of 5G and to kickstart a serious review of our current safety standards which are built on completely false and innacurate statements on the non-thermal effects of EMFs, and are currently being monitored by perhaps the most corrupt industry in the history of mankind...who has also completely infiltrated and compromised the highest levels of our Government.

But sadly it's not. And if 5G is allowed to roll out without a single biological safety test (as it is currently)...then I fear the risk is infinitely higher than the potential reward.

....and we will pay dearly.

Until next time...

-SAF

Google Drive with all the relevant studies used to make this article:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1YarfRGYOEp18voaCmz_8wtP-3Z0d7vEm