Blog & Articles

Did you know that your smart phone settings include a section that advises usage habits to reduce RF (radiofrequency) exposure?

This advice is included even though all smart phones proclaim that they are in compliance with the government’s SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) safety limits.

If the radiation emitted by cell phones was truly safe, why would they bother to tell you ways to reduce radiation exposure? Could it be because the SAR limits are outdated, and only address thermal (heating) effects of non-ionizing radiation exposure, and ignore the mounting evidence of harm from non-thermal mechanisms?

Let’s dive into this revealing topic that most people are unaware of, even though the majority of us are smart phone users.

You can check your own smart phone now. If you have an iPhone, just go into the Settings, then click General, and there should be a section called Legal and Regulatory. If you click that, and scroll all the way down, there should be a section titled RF Exposure. This may look slightly different on Android phones (like Samsung and Google Pixel), but you will find something similar if you investigate.

This section should display the results of the SAR test for your phone model, which of course will be within the “safe limits” for radiofrequency radiation exposure. If you have an iPhone, you may see something like this:

"To reduce exposure to RF energy, use a hands-free option, such as the built-in speakerphone, headphones or other similar accessories. Cases with metal parts may change the RF performance of the device, including its compliance with RF exposure guidelines, in a manner that has not been tested or certified."

Why advise reducing exposure, if the exposure level is already safe?

A Google Pixel phone we looked at, which tested at well within the SAR safety limits, even included this statement: “Keep the device away from your body to meet the distance requirement.”

What distance requirement? The SAR tests state that when the phone is placed directly against the head, or within 5mm of the torso of the body (to simulate the phone being in a pocket with a thin layer of clothing in between the phone and your skin), that you are “safe”, according to standard tests.

The Samsung S21 smart phone fine print informs that their SAR distance for safety is 15 millimeters, which is equivalent to more than half an inch. Most people place their cell phones directly against their head when making calls, as they have never been informed to do otherwise. If a Samsung S21 phone user is making calls in this way habitually, the company’s own recommendation implies that the user may be exposed to unsafe levels of RF radiation on a regular basis. Yet, this is not widespread knowledge, and is only in the fine print that most people don’t know exists!

Samsung also states, “Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) certification establishes a minimum recommended distance from a person’s body for safe operation of RF-emitting devices. Body-worn operations are restricted to belt-clips, holsters or similar accessories that have no metallic component in the assembly and must provide at least 1.5 cm (3/4 in.) separation between the device and the user's body.”

Did you ever hear any of this from a cell phone TV commercial or online advertisement? We certainly haven’t.

Pharmaceutical drugs are legally required to list their “fine print” of potential side effects, even on TV commercials. Why aren’t cell phone companies required to at least give you a brief warning about RF radiation exposure before you purchase their products, and suggest ways to reduce exposure?

It’s also important to note that having Wifi and Bluetooth enabled on your smart phone will significantly increase the RF radiation output of the device. Many people keep both of these turned on continuously or at least periodically, and do not consider the additional radiation exposure they may be getting, which may often be higher than the SAR safety limits.

The Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) limits are too high, and not healthy

Cell phone companies and the FCC seem to enjoy splitting hairs about the details of the SAR limits, and are quick to point out that the SAR test scores that phones list are at their maximum radiation output, implying that most usage is going to fall at far lower levels than the output listed on the test results.

If we’re going to argue at this level, it’s good to know that many phones may not actually be compliant at all, according to independent tests performed in 2019. If the cell phone company itself performs the tests, and the results can’t be replicated independently, then can we trust them in the first place?

However, let’s move past this type of nitpicking for now, and talk about why the SAR limits are inherently flawed and dangerous in the first place.

As stated earlier, the Specific Absorption Rate is only testing the thermal effects of cell phone radiation, meaning how much it heats localized tissue. That is the only mechanism of harm that the telecoms and FCC are willing to admit to. For a minute, let’s pretend that this is the only mechanism of harm. Even if that were true, there are significant flaws with the SAR safety limits.

The SAR safety limit was originally set in 1996 – 30 years ago. They modeled the body proportions of Army personnel, who are generally large, fully grown men, often around 6 feet tall and 200 pounds. This model does not come close to representing smaller and more developmentally vulnerable populations like children, teenagers and pregnant women. Grown men are generally the most resilient category of humans to toxic exposures of all types, whereas babies, children and developing embryos and fetuses are the most fragile. Babies and children have smaller heads, thinner skulls and rapidly developing brains that are highly vulnerable to harmful environmental influences, including wireless radiation.

The SAR rate that was set in 1996 has not been updated at all over the past 30 years, even as new cell phone technology and usage habits have evolved seemingly at light speed. The maximum distance that a phone could be tested at to achieve compliance was up to 25 millimeters, which is much further from the body than where today’s phone users keep their phones. The 25mm distance was set because in the ‘90s, people often carried their flip phones on belt clips, which were about an inch away from their body. Almost no one uses belt clips anymore, and most often, the phone is carried in a regular pocket, which is generally only 2mm away from body tissue, especially vulnerable reproductive organs like the ovaries and prostate. Guidelines have not been updated to reflect changing habits of users, nor have users been adequately warned of the potential harm of keeping their phone that close to the body.

There is also no consideration for long term exposure. Regulations are set based on immediate effects, with no thought for the many decades of consistent cell phone and other wireless radiation exposure that most modern people, especially young people, will experience in their lifetimes.

Regulations also do not acknowledge the fact that people generally no longer carry just one wireless device with them, but use multiple RF emitting devices regularly: cell phones, tablets, Bluetooth speakers and headphones, vehicle GPS devices that connect to Bluetooth, smart devices that connect to your smart phone, and much more. All of these sources multiply our RF exposure to levels that are currently unknown, and unacknowledged by official government and telecom industry sources.

We are stuck with the ancient 1996 SAR guidelines, which were created in a vastly different technological world than the one we live in today.

Thermal effects are not the only concern with wireless radiation

Lastly and most importantly, the SAR safety standards are based on the (proven erroneous) assumption that the thermal effect is the only way that cell phones can cause harm.

In the early 2000s, the National Toxicology Program, an arm of the U.S. Government’s National Institutes of Health, performed the largest, longest study on the health effects of cell phone radiation that had ever been done up to that point. Their stated intention for the study was to find out whether there were non-thermal health risks to cell phone use, since the only safety guidelines that existed at that point were the SAR safety limits, which were only based on thermal exposure risks.

This is an entire story in itself, but suffice to say that considerable harm related to cancer and DNA damage were found – results that were surprising to everyone involved in the study. After a brief period where a peer review panel of experts declared that the study was well performed and showed clear evidence of cancer and DNA damage, the government agencies involved subsequently pivoted in their opinion and decided that the study was NOT relevant to human exposure. If you haven’t yet read this whole story, you will want to, as it shows beyond any doubt how egregiously biased the United States government is towards siding with the telecom industry.

$30M National Toxicology Program Study Shows Cell Phone Radiation is Carcinogenic (full story)

The most important thing to realize is that science shows that non-ionizing radiofrequency radiation, at below-thermal levels, can be harmful to health. Whether or not a mechanism has been definitively recognized that accounts for this non-thermal harm, the harm itself has been documented in hundreds to thousands of studies, many of which you can read about here.

If you’re interested in purported mechanisms of non-thermal harm, the most probable theory at this time involves the voltage-gated ion channels of the body, and how external electrical signals trigger these highly sensitive voltage-mediated channels to flood various minerals (especially calcium) into the cells, triggering a cascade of unintended and unwanted effects. This mechanism has been extensively studied by Dr. Martin Pall, and has been discussed in at least a dozen of our other articles.

Don’t fall into the trap of blind trust – protect yourself

Ignorance of the truth won’t protect you. It is the fault of the government and telecom companies that it isn’t common knowledge that your daily wireless device usage may cause health issues over time. However, it is your responsibility to educate yourself, and to protect yourself as well as you can. Most people are not going to give up their cell phones entirely, but there are things you can do to significantly reduce your exposure:

• Never carry your cell phone in your pocket, or anywhere against your body, unless it’s turned off, or set to airplane mode.
  
  
• Never sleep with your cell phone near you, unless on airplane mode with Bluetooth and Wifi disabled, and even then be sure it’s at least a few feet away – definitely not under your pillow or near your head.
  
  
• Never hold your phone up to your head when you talk. Instead, use speaker phone or an AirTube headset (which has a tube of air instead of wires all the way to your ears) to make calls.
  
  
• Limit your children’s cell phone and tablet exposure, and be cautious during pregnancy and around babies.

To protect your body from any remaining radiation exposure, since you can’t control a lot of the RF exposure sources around you, be sure to protect your home with a stationary Blushield device of the appropriate strength for your overall EMF exposure levels, and carry a Blushield portable device with you anytime you’re on the go.

Blushield devices were demonstrated in a 2023 clinical study to calm overactivation of the voltage-gated calcium channels back to normal levels – VGCC overactivation is widely thought to be the primary mechanism of harm from EMFs, as we touched on earlier. A variety of other statistically significant health improvements were recorded, as well, showing that even if the mechanism of harm from non-thermal EMFs is more complex and nuanced than we currently know, that our EMF protection technology is broadly beneficial in regulating physiology back to a healthier state.

References:

• Apple iPhone RF Exposure Information – https://regulatoryinfo.apple.com/rfexposure/iphone18,1/en
• Samsung Galaxy S21 Radiation Levels – https://www.rfsafe.com/phone/samsung-galaxy-s21/
• Blushield: “New Proof that Cell Phones Are Not Safe” – https://blushield.com/blogs/education/new-proof-that-cell-phones-are-not-safe
• Blushield: “$30M National Toxicology Program Study Shows Cell Phone Radiation is Carcinogenic” – https://blushield.com/blogs/education/30m-national-toxicology-program-study-shows-cell-phone-radiation-is-carcinogenic
• Bioinitiative Report (updated in 2022) – https://bioinitiative.org/table-of-contents/

Half a year after the MAHA Report by the United States government did a preliminary assessment of toxic exposure sources in modern life that hadn’t been adequately addressed, and only briefly mentioned wireless radiofrequency (RF) radiation as a potential threat to human health, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently announced the launch of a new government commissioned study on the potential health risks of cell phone radiation.

Under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., considerable changes have taken place in the HHS and the FDA during this past year, including big shifts in government dietary and vaccine recommendations. Recently, longstanding FDA webpages asserting that cell phone radiation poses no health risks have been quietly removed, in preparation for a more comprehensive and hopefully less biased assessment of the health risks of non-ionizing radiation sources like cell phones, cell towers, Bluetooth, Wifi and smart meters, which many of us are closely and constantly exposed to in our daily lives. The FDA landing page about cell phone radiation now contains several links that reroute back to the landing page itself, after the individual pages were taken down.

"The FDA removed webpages with old conclusions about cell phone radiation while HHS undertakes a study on electromagnetic radiation and health research to identify gaps in knowledge, including on new technologies, to ensure safety and efficacy," said HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon.

Other government agencies like the FCC and CDC, however, still state on their websites that there is no evidence of health harm from wireless radiation.

At this time, no details have been shared about the study’s authors or design, indicating that the study is still in its early stages. However, the study announcement is encouraging, and seems to be a move in the right direction, especially in combination with the removal of FDA statements claiming no harm from these common radiation exposure sources.

Shocking results from a previous large government study were swept under the rug

Back in 2018, the publication of a massive government study on rats and mice by the National Toxicology Program under the National Institutes of Health (NIH) reported “clear evidence” of cancer and DNA damage from cell phone radiation. These shocking and unexpected results seemed to be inevitably leading to the U.S. government clearly stating the health dangers and taking charge of protecting public health.

Unfortunately, as we have previously detailed in our article about the NTP study, the FDA suddenly reversed their position and asserted that the expensive, well designed, perfectly executed NTP study could not apply to humans. This was a bold statement to make for a study that was specifically designed to translate to humans under the best “gold standard” scientific practices, especially after a peer review panel of experts interpreted the results as demonstrating “clear evidence” of cancer and DNA damage.

The FDA had undertaken an internal review between 2008 and 2018, concluding around the same time as the NTP study, which claimed “no consistent or credible scientific evidence” of harm from cell phone radiation. Interestingly, as Dr. Devra Davis points out, that review was never signed, which is unusual for a major public health document.

Dr. Davis’ opinion is that the review went unsigned because “no one in the FDA was willing to put their name behind such a piece of junk.”

Skepticism of the government’s motives by EMF scientist dampens enthusiasm

Some scientists who have devoted a large part of their careers to studying the harms of wireless radiation are skeptical of the U.S. government’s decision to do another study.Dr. Joel Moskowitz turned down an invitation from a Kennedy aide to participate in a literature review on wireless radiation, questioning the administration’s motives and approach by pointing out that enough research has already been done, and that waiting for yet another study would just delay regulatory change. “They’re just doing this to kick the can down the road,” he said.

Scott McCollough, lead litigator for CHD’s EMR & Wireless cases, was disappointed by Moskowitz’ position, as Moskowitz’ organization ICBE-EMF has long advocated for expert scientific recommendations to protect public health from EMFs. McCollough states that the HHS study appears to align with these goals.

The way we see it, it’s important to continue to be hopeful and optimistic about all progress in the right direction, even when it seems slow and incremental. Even though a lot of us feel fatigued by this long battle towards increased awareness and safety measures, the truth is that nothing changes quickly on a large, societal scale, especially those elements of society that permeate our daily lives so intimately. The momentum that the current iteration of wireless infrastructure has in our world is still rolling, and it may take a lot of time and effort to truly change course.

If there was a major change or breakthrough resulting in widespread admission and acceptance of the science showing harm from wireless radiation, the likely result would not be the dismantling of cell towers and people throwing their cell phones in the trash. Much more likely is a slow transition towards more reliance on wired internet connections like fiber optic and copper, phasing out unnecessary use of wireless, and widely propagated messages cautioning users to increase distance and reduce overall exposure to RF radiation sources.

Since wireless communication is still vital in our world for mobile and emergency use, the impetus for telecoms to invent and utilize new methods of transmitting wireless signals that are not harmful to living organisms could become much greater… but only IF there was an ultimatum put out by legislature that restricted their freedom to use harmful technologies. If telecoms are allowed to continue to do anything they want… well, we can already see from their past actions that money is a greater motivator than the health of humanity.

Fortunately, not everyone is waiting for the final verdict from a government study to make changes at local levels. Last year under the MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) movement, 22 states began restricting cell phone use in schools, to improve the mental and physical health of children. Our children’s health can’t wait for studies to give us 100% clear answers, and it is most vital for their current and future development to be cautious and conservative with potentially harmful exposure sources, and make changes now instead of waiting for a definitive government green light.

Swedish study shows sharp increase in sleep disorders in children and teens since 2001

A new study just released this month (January 2026) in Sweden found an astonishing 17-fold (1700%) increase in sleep disorders in teens and children since 2001. The age group that endured the most extreme increase were children and teenagers aged 5 to 19. Even young children under age 5, and young adults aged 20-29, experienced a 500% increase in sleep disorders. The study authors theorize that the exponential increase in wireless radiation exposure between 2001 and 2024, as well as blue light exposure from screens (which can disrupt melatonin and affect sleep), is primarily responsible for this sharp and unprecedented increase in sleep disorder symptoms.

The study authors, Mona Nilsson and Lennart Hardell, analyzed national health statistics on sleep disorder diagnoses during this 23-year period. Hardell is the author of more than 350 papers, around 60 of which address the topic of radiofrequency radiation, and Nilsson is the co-founder and director of the Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation. They are both concerned that major government organizations and agencies, like the WHO, FCC, and European Union, are more focused on protecting the interests of the wireless industry than people’s health.

Mainstream media has frequently reported on the increasing incidence of sleep disturbances in children and teens, but has failed to consider a possible link to wireless radiation.

Another Swedish study from last year found an increase in memory issues, which goes hand-in-hand with sleep issues. Sleep quality, length and depth is vital for cognitive function, including memory.

Nilsson shared this list of nearly 60 studies on the link between radiofrequency radiation and issues with learning and memory.

HHS study a move in the right direction, but the time to protect children is now

The announcement of the U.S. government reopening research into the harms of wireless radiation is certainly good news, but we can’t afford to wait for their conclusion, especially when it affects our children and teens who are in the midst of critical windows of development. The influences that shape them now will become hardwired into their brain, nervous system and entire body, affecting their long term health and shaping their outlook for the rest of their life.

Children who get cell phones before age 12 are at higher risk of obesity, depression and poor sleep. Reducing access to cell phones at home and at school, and waiting until a child or teen is older before owning a personal cell phone, are some ways that we can support healthy development. Balancing out academic and recreational activities on screens with physical and outdoor activities, and prioritizing healthy sleep habits, can also go a long way.

Growing up in such a heavily technological world will pose unique challenges to this generation of children. Giving them a strong, healthy foundation will fortify them so that they can meet these challenges with clarity, discernment, healthy bodies and sound minds.

References:

• Children’s Health Defense: “HHS to Study Cellphone Health Risks, as FDA Scrubs Online Safety Claims” — https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/hhs-study-cellphone-health-risks-as-fda-scrubs-online-safety-claims/
• Reuters: “US health department to launch study on cellphone radiation” — https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-health-department-launch-study-cellphone-radiation-2026-01-15/
• Study: “Increasing Numbers of Persons with Sleeping Problems in Sweden” — https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9721/14/1/25
• Children’s Health Defense: “Kids’ Sleeping Problems Linked to Wireless Radiation, Screens” — https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/kids-sleeping-problems-linked-to-wireless-radiation-screens/
• Children’s Health Defense: “Kids Who Get Cellphones Before Age 12 at Higher Risk of Obesity, Depression, Poor Sleep”— https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/kids-cellphones-before-age-12-higher-risk-obesity-depression-poor-sleep-study/
• Blushield: “$30M National Toxicology Program Study Shows Cell Phone Radiation is Carcinogenic” — https://blushield.com/blogs/education/30m-national-toxicology-program-study-shows-cell-phone-radiation-is-carcinogenic
• Blushield: “Downplayed Dangers: The Missing EMF Conversation in the MAHA Report” — https://blushield.com/blogs/education/downplayed-dangers-the-missing-emf-conversation-in-the-maha-report

The electricity that we use to power the devices in our homes and buildings can be produced by a variety of sources. Natural gas, coal (burned to make steam), heat from nuclear energy, hydropower (moving water) and wind (moving air) can all create motion to spin a turbine, which is connected to a generator. The movement created by any of these sources spins the rotor in the generator, pushing electrons along a conductive coil, which interact with magnets to produce alternating current (AC) electromagnetic fields. This electricity travels to our homes via the power grid, and is a resource produced far away from our homes, which we depend on for most of our household routines.

Since the invention of solar power systems, which have become more economically viable over time, we now have the option to produce our own electricity directly from sunlight. This can decrease our dependency on the external power grid, and even reduce or eliminate our electricity bill. Most of us have plenty of sunlight where we live, at least during the warmer seasons, so in recent years as the components of solar power systems have become more affordable, this has become a viable option for home electricity.

The sun is a steady and reliable resource that most of us have direct access to. While the upfront cost of the components are a significant investment, a home solar power system can be economically advantageous in the long run.

How do solar power systems work to generate electricity?

With solar power systems, sunlight directly excites electrons held in crystallize materials like silicon, generating direct current (DC) electricity. This occurs on the surface of solar panels, also known as photovoltaic (PV) panels, which are placed in sunny areas like rooftops or open fields. The term photovoltaic refers to the generation of electrical voltage when photons of light come into contact with a material.

This DC electricity needs to be converted into AC to be usable by the electrical systems in homes and buildings – this is done with a device called an inverter. Inverters take the DC electricity and rapidly switch the direction back and forth, creating an “alternating” current – AC electricity. The inverter also ensures that the resulting AC matches the grid’s voltage, frequency and phase (in the United States it’s usually 120 volts at 60 hertz), to safely integrate the electricity into the grid. The end product from the harvest of solar energy generates electricity that’s identical to what’s produced by a generator powered by natural gas, coal, nuclear, hydro or wind.

Grid-tied versus off-grid solar systems – pros and cons

If a home solar power system is tied to the grid, this has several benefits and also some downsides. Batteries are by far the most expensive component of a solar power setup. With a grid tied solar system, you don’t need a battery to store the solar energy for use at night or during rainy or cloudy days – your solar power is fed directly into the larger electric grid, giving you an electricity “credit” that you can use later when it’s needed, automatically balancing out the fluctuating and unpredictable availability of sunlight. A grid tied solar system is far more convenient and flexible.

The main downside of grid tied solar power systems is that you’re still dependent on the electrical grid, even though you’re reducing your overall electricity cost by feeding your excess power into the larger grid. If the grid goes down, your power goes out, unless you have a generator as a backup. Another downside is that you’re almost certainly required to use a smart meter (unless your local area allows you to opt out), to accurately keep track of the electricity you’re sending to the grid and receiving back from it. Smart meters produce high levels of wireless radiofrequency (RF) radiation, and contaminate your home wiring with dirty electricity.

An off-grid solar system, on the other hand, is a closed system designed to produce all the electricity needs for a given location. This design requires much more forethought and careful planning, with enough solar panels to harvest sunlight energy for all household needs, a large enough battery bank to store power for use in times of the year with limited sunlight, and usually a backup generator for “worst case scenario” situations. It also necessitates more discipline and careful timing of electricity use for those living at that location. Another downside of an off-grid system is that since all power is produced at the location of use, you could be exposed to higher levels of EMFs from the storage batteries and the potentially larger quantity of total equipment used by the system. The benefits of a well designed off-grid solar system are energy independence from the external power grid, and not needing to use a smart meter.

Solar power system EMF exposure concerns & mitigation strategies

Both types of solar power systems will expose you to some level of EMFs, but understanding the EMF hotspots generated by each type of system will give you clarity about how to reduce and mitigate these risks. Solar panels produce a small amount of low voltage direct current (DC) electricity, and since they are usually placed a good distance away from living areas, the panels themselves aren’t much of an EMF concern.

The wiring that runs from the panels to the inverter and/or battery emits EMFs, and if you’re designing a solar setup, one way to minimize EMF output from the wiring is to ensure that all the wires – positive, negative, neutral and ground – are run side-by-side, tightly paired or twisted together. If the wires are run separately, inches or feet apart from each other, a strong magnetic field will be created in the space between the wires. When they’re close together, the magnetic field is basically canceled, reducing ambient EMF readings.

Every solar power setup uses an inverter to switch the DC power from sunlight into the AC power used by the grid. Inverters create dirty electricity as a byproduct of this conversion, which enters your home wiring. However, it’s important to realize that even with a conventional power system (and no solar setup), you are still exposed to dirty electricity from devices within and outside of your home. Dirty electricity, a term that describes voltage transients, fluctuations or anomalies that “dirty up” an otherwise smooth and “clean” sine wave, is an issue for almost everyone who lives a modern, technology-rich life.

The difference in EMF exposure between grid tied and off-grid solar power systems is the presence or absence of a battery, and the presence or absence of a smart meter. Off-grid systems must use batteries, and grid tied systems almost always use smart meters.

Solar batteries produce static magnetic fields, with the highest readings right next to the battery, quickly dropping down to zero as you move further away. The extra exposure from a solar battery bank can be mitigated by having a dedicated power room or shed that’s separate from the house or living area where humans and pets spend time. Your inverter can be in this room, as well, preventing exposure to the EMFs directly around the inverter.

The EMFs from a smart meter cannot as easily be mitigated by distance. If the meter is further away from the house, on the outside of a dedicated power shed, the radiofrequency (RF) transmissions the meter produces by sending and receiving data to and from the power company will be occurring further away from people, which will reduce wireless RF exposure to lower levels. However, the smart meter will still contaminate the electrical system with dirty electricity, on top of the dirty electricity that’s already being added to your home wiring by the inverter.

We also need to touch on the different types of inverters used in solar power systems: string inverters and microinverters. Microinverters are small inverters placed underneath each panel in the solar array, designed to convert DC energy from the panel into AC at the site of energy production, each inverter controlling a separate panel. String inverters are installed at the end of a string of panels, controlling them all as one, and are usually further away from the panels, on the ground in a main solar system control area (like a power shed).

Microinverters can optimize energy production since they treat each panel as a separate system. String inverters group a whole string of panels together, where the limitations of one panel could end up affecting the entire string: for example, if one panel is in the shade, or is losing efficiency due to age or corrosion, that affects the power production from the whole group. If each panel is controlled separately with microinverters, the high functioning and/or high sun exposure panels will not be limited by panels that may be converting less sunlight into power at any given time. In installations with partial shading or panel mismatch, this can result in higher total energy production over the lifetime of a system using the same number of panels.

Using microinverters under each panel is generally considered safer, since it immediately converts DC to AC – DC power can be a bigger fire hazard under compromised conditions, whereas AC is easier to control. However, that means the wiring on your roof would be running AC power, already carrying dirty electricity through the wires, potentially exposing you to more EMFs if any of your living spaces are close to the roof. Microinverters are also more costly than string inverters.

One last note about inverters and radiofrequency (RF) radiation: if you use an EMF meter (like the Trifield meter) to measure the EMFs coming from your inverter(s), you will likely notice a reading categorized as “RF”. Radiofrequency or RF emissions are commonly assumed to only come from wireless communication devices that use frequencies in the megahertz (MHz) or gigahertz (GHz) range to transmit data wirelessly from one place to another with aerial antennas. However, EMF meters will interpret any frequency in the low kilohertz (kHz) range and above as radiofrequency.

In the case of inverters, frequencies in the kHz-MHz range are produced as a byproduct of high-frequency switching electronics, in the form of a localized noise field. These emissions are not transmitted via antennas and typically diminish rapidly with distance, often approaching background levels within a few feet of the device, similar to other localized electric or magnetic field sources.

Eliminate dirty electricity concerns by cleaning up the sine wave

Dirty electricity, or high frequency voltage transients, are bad for the health of your devices and appliances, generating high frequency spikes that wear out electronic equipment, reducing their longevity. This high frequency “line noise” is also bad for your health, being potentially linked to cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, chronic stress, brain and mood disorders, obesity, asthma, and electro hypersensitivity (EHS).

Whether you’re concerned about the effects of dirty electricity produced by your solar power system’s inverter, the smart meter that a grid tied solar system necessitates the use of, or even just dirty electricity produced by the regular electrical grid with its smart meters and devices/appliances that utilize power in complex ways, there is a way to “clean up” the sine wave.

The SineTamer device, which is wired into your main breaker panel, removes all the excess voltage transients and spikes from the sine wave, by absorbing the excess and converting it to heat to be dispersed through the ground wire. Unlike the capacitance-based, plug-in dirty electricity filters that are widely available – which shunt the dirty electricity onto the neutral line, creating a strong magnetic field with equal or even greater health harms – SineTamer removes the threat completely.

The SineTamer also acts as a surge protector, which is an important component of a solar power system.

Comprehensive EMF protection for a variety of electromagnetic threats

While the SineTamer is an excellent solution for cleaning up the sine wave and therefore reducing the effects of dirty electricity, you still need to protect yourself from the ambient electric and magnetic fields produced by a solar power system, as well as wireless radiofrequency radiation from a variety of sources: smart meters, Wifi routers, Bluetooth, cell phones, nearby cell towers, smart appliances, and more.

One additional concern that some people have is living near a commercial solar power plant, which can expose anyone living nearby to EMFs that are orders of magnitude higher than a home solar power system. This situation requires considerably more protection than the relatively moderate electric, magnetic and radiofrequency fields that a home system would normally expose you to.

Blushield home and portable EMF protection devices offer comprehensive protection from all these radiation sources. There are different models designed for differing levels of EMF exposure, whether you live in a rural area or small town, suburban area or medium city, or even a large city or metropolitan area.

If you have a solar power system with a smart meter or battery bank close to your living area, or if you live near a commercial solar production facility, a strong Blushield model like the C1 Ultimate Cube, EVO Cube or EVO Pyramid would be an excellent choice for optimal protection.

If your home solar power system is designed with plenty of distance between your living area and the strongest EMF sources – the inverter, battery and smart meter – one of our low to moderate EMF exposure models like the Phi 02 Plugin, Phi 03, or B1 Premium Cube would likely suit your needs well.

If you also need protection when you leave your house, from the EMFs in your vehicle, cell towers, and exposure sources at other locations, a Blushield portable device will ensure that you stay in your “protective bubble” no matter where you go and what you’re exposed to.

Solar power systems can be a useful and beneficial upgrade to conventional electrical systems, as long as you understand the unique EMF risks and how to mitigate them.

References:

• U.S. Department of Energy: "Solar Integration: Inverters and Grid Services Basics" - https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/solar-integration-inverters-and-grid-services-basics
  
• Renewable Energy Program Office: "Electro-Magnetic Interference
  from Solar Photovoltaic Arrays" - https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/67440.pdf
• Solar-electric.com: "How To Reduce Electromagnetic Interference in Solar Systems" - https://www.solar-electric.com/learning-center/reducing-electromagnetic-interference-pv-systems.html/
• Renewable Power for Sustainable Growth conference paper: "Solar Rooftop On-Grid Connected Net Metering System" - https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-99-6749-0_8
• IntegrateSun.com: "Do You Need a Smart Meter for Solar Panels?" - https://www.integratesun.com/post/do-you-need-a-smart-meter-for-solar-panels

In a story we have been following for months, the residents of a small Alaskan island town who have been fighting against a proposed cell tower placement in a residential area were recently given the best news they could hope for, making over half a year of hard work worth it: the proposed cell tower was officially rejected by a court decision this October.

Studying the details of this case should help other local municipalities fight proposals for inappropriately placed cell towers in their area, and the precedent set by this case could strengthen other legal battles that are fought on similar grounds.

How did Sitka, Alaska win this case, when the Telecommunications Act of 1996 only allows local governments to reject new cell tower placements under very specific conditions?

Sitka is a remote island town of roughly 8,400 residents who take pride in the spectacular scenery, wildlife and tight-knit neighborhoods. Local wireless communications provider Tidal Networks had their sights set on a building location on a hill right above a residential neighborhood on Nancy Court, in an area with R-1 residential zoning, within 150 feet of homes. They insisted that the cell tower would need to be a massive 120-foot monopole to provide the level of coverage they were targeting, even though the R-1 zoning laws restrict the height of cell towers to only 35 feet, to protect local aesthetics and property values.

Another major issue is that the proposed cell tower location is in a zone with considerable landslide risk. This neighborhood is located at the edge of town, on the base of a hill. Landslides at this location are a distinct possibility, and far more likely if the soil is disturbed through construction of a large cell tower. Not only would the addition of a cell tower destabilize the ground in this area, making landslides more likely, but a strong landslide could cause the cell tower itself to collapse. If this occurred, the tower would fall towards the neighborhood, and local residents would be in danger for not just their property, but their lives.

Aesthetics are an important subject for local residents, who specifically built their houses in this location for the breathtaking natural views of nearby mountains, thick trees of the temperate rainforest, and the ocean view below.

As soon as the local government notified residents of the planned tower, many of them became alarmed and began researching the potentially harmful health effects of living so close to a radio frequency radiation emitting cell tower. Although the Telecommunications Act of 1996 specifically prohibits the rejection of cell towers based on the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions (which is absurd, as this should be a valid concern and argument in itself), fortunately Sitka had several other solid arguments to lean on, which were supported by the Act.

Tidal Networks filed for a variance (a zoning exception) to the 35-foot tower zoning restriction, arguing that the surrounding trees would block too much of the tower’s signal. Even though the Sitka Planning Director initially recommended that the variance be granted, it ended up being denied the first time, in April, due to a lack of supporting evidence. The telecom provider did not give up, and appealed their request, but it was eventually denied once more for several reasons. R-1 residential zoning restrictions only allow cell towers up to 35 feet in height, and variances are only granted if the tower would serve a clear need in the community. Sitka is already considered to be well serviced by wireless network providers, including accessible plans for low income residents, so the Tidal Networks tower would not be filling a need that was previously absent.

Another unusual aspect of the proposal that contributed to its denial by the court is the tower would have no wired fiber optic ground connection that would allow other local providers to place antennas on it, but would exclusively connect with satellite internet providers like Starlink. This would limit the usefulness of the tower as a placement structure for other antennas, and the company provided no cost analysis plans for building out a wired ground connection, now or in the future.

One of the telecom’s arguments for being granted this tower location is that they investigated 129 different sites in the Sitka area, and the Nancy Court location was the only one providing adequate coverage. It turns out that many of these 129 sites were private property, and property owners refused to sell their land to the telecom. Since Tidal Networks intended to use grant money for this tower, and the grant required that Tidal has ownership over their building locations (instead of just leasing the land), the property owners’ refusal to sell automatically ruled out many of the other sites.

The Court Decision text states, “Public comments and letters were uniformly opposed to the variance based on concerns that construction of the tower would lower the value of nearby properties, would expose nearby residents to potentially dangerous radio emissions, destabilize landslide prone slopes in the area, and negatively impact aesthetics and land values in the area.”

The successful rejection of this tower was fully due to local residents banding together and taking quick and decisive action, both in seeking out legal assistance, as well as speaking out about the tower through letters and at local meetings throughout the entire process. Early on, as soon as residents were informed of this tower proposal and became cognizant of its potential dangers, they formed Sitka For Safe Tech, and contacted Children’s Health Defense attorney Scott McCullough, an expert attorney with extensive experience with cell tower related cases. This early action was vital to their success.

It is vastly easier to prevent a cell tower from being placed while in the early planning stages, than to cause a cell tower to be removed after it’s already been built.

Why is it so hard for local governments to reject cell towers?

The court decision document for the Sitka case included an insightful section that illustrates the heart of the problem of why rejecting cell towers is so difficult:

“Proposals to build wireless telecommunication towers invariably raise thorny issues for local zoning authorities. Much like high voltage power lines, highways, and airports, almost everyone uses the services made possible by these towers. Indeed, given the number of people and businesses who depend on the availability of reliable wireless networks, these towers are a necessity of modern life. Correspondingly, however, nobody wants a telecommunications tower constructed close to their home. If the decision to build these towers was effectively handed over to the owners of nearby properties, it seems a safe assumption that few would ever be built.”

This paragraph illustrates a classic conflict between the needs of the public and the values of the private. The document then follows up by quoting the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and how Section 704 (which is an amendment to Section 332 of the original Communications Act of 1934) intends to balance the scales between the values of the private individual and the benefits desired by the public:

“For this reason, Congress has enacted provisions within the Telecommunications Act, that limit the ability of state and local governments to deny applications for the construction of “personal wireless service facilities.” These provisions, which have been codified at 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B), provide as follows:

(i) The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof

(I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and

(II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.

(ii) A State or local government or instrumentality thereof shall act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time

(iii) Any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record.

(iv) No State or local government . . . may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions.

To the extent a local government denies an application to build a personal wireless service facility in violation of these provisions, the applicant may seek an injunction in federal court that overturns the denial.”

Overall, these rules provide a reasonable compromise between private and public needs. The main exception is subsection (iv) that prohibits the rejection of cell towers on the basis of “the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions”, which could also be construed to include health effects. At this time, as studies continue to pile up demonstrating harmful health effects (on humans, animals, trees, insects and more) from radio frequency radiation, there is a major movement towards overturning section 704 of the 1996 Act, and specifically subsection (iv).

The most vocal source of opposition is 704 No More, an initiative of the Children’s Health Defense, who have been instrumental in helping local municipalities battle inappropriate placement of cell towers. The 704 No More initiative seeks to educate people about the need for an environmental and health based defense against cell tower placement, with the intention to eventually overturn or revise Section 704.

FCC seeks to override local zoning restrictions with new rule – don’t let them!

Ironically, or perhaps intentionally, the FCC is currently seeking movement in the opposite direction. From FCC’s Docket 25-276, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is attempting to “streamline” tower placement by eliminating “regulatory burdens imposed at the state and local level”. Even with the very reasonable rules already stated in the 1996 Act, which mostly favor the telecoms and not local governments, that is not enough for them. They want to “expedite, eliminate and simplify permitting burdens”, which they argue are limiting economic development, job creation and energy production.

We don’t see what the problem is. Aren’t there enough cell towers already?

Also, it is perfectly reasonable to require a large build-out of infrastructure (like a cell tower) to go through a full permitting and approval process, and not to be granted special benefits to skip over any part of a full assessment for appropriate placement and planning at the state and local level.

Local municipalities already have limited power to prevent cell tower placement, and must base their rejection on very specific arguments (as outlined in the 1996 Act above). If a local government cannot listen to the concerns of the people they serve, and act as an intermediary between the needs of their citizens and the desires of large corporations (who may not truly have the benefit of the people in mind, over their own profits), then what fail-safe do we have to prevent unchecked growth that may be motivated by greed?

It is true that private values and public benefits can sometimes seem to be in conflict. This should be where the “scales of justice” can step in, assess the nuances of an individual situation, and decide on a solution that is truly fair. To do this successfully, the appropriate laws must be in place to act as a basic framework for these real-time decisions to be made in the courts. We cannot completely skew the law in favor of large corporations, and leave no recourse for local areas to defend the needs of their people.

If we allow this, there would be nothing left to limit and safeguard against the greed of money-hungry corporations who aren’t serving a real need to “underserved” areas, and are mainly concerned with propping up as many cell towers as they can get away with.

The FCC Proceeding is titled “Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireless Deployments”, Docket Number 25-276.

A website titled Preserve Local Control has been created as a platform to spread the word about this proposed rule, so that we can submit comments directly to the FCC’s docket within a time-sensitive window. If you want to share your opinion, please go here and read about how to submit comments, along with a sample comment, in case you need a template to start from: Preserve Local Control – https://www.25-276.org

What did Sitka, Alaska do correctly that other local areas can learn from?

Let’s go back to the successful Sitka case to close this out, and summarize what Sitka did right that other local areas fighting proposed cell tower installations could learn from.

It’s true that part of their success was situational: the Tidal Networks cell tower proposal was almost doomed to fail, due to their bravado in assuming they could take advantage of the inertia of the system and be granted an easy variance to the zoning regulation on tower height. They were also lazy in their planning, with an insufficient argument as to why they needed a 120-foot tower (instead of a more gentle compromise of a tower height somewhere between 35 and 120 feet). Another aspect of the denial was due to the telecom’s inability to show that its proposed tower “would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property nearby parcels.” This likely refers to both the landslide risk of the area, as well as the tower affecting aesthetics and property values, both of which are strong grounds for a rejection that are well supported by the 1996 Act.

However, even with all its flaws, this tower proposal would have likely been approved seamlessly if local residents didn’t take a stand against it.

The court’s verdict also stated that 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B) does not apply to the tower proposed by Tidal Networks, because it would only provide services for their fixed wireless broadband internet service subscribers, and not wider and more generic commercial mobile services “available to a substantial portion of the public” that the Act provides protection for.

Even though we currently cannot argue for the rejection of a cell tower on the grounds of environmental or health effects of RF radiation (which we are hoping will change!), there are still other arguments we can make that are strongly valid under the current laws.

The most important thing is to act quickly – as soon as you hear about plans for a proposed cell tower in your area, seek legal counsel from an experienced attorney (like Scott McCullough) to determine if your area has solid grounds on which to reject the tower placement. Since the 1996 Act requires that local governments must “act on any request within a reasonable period of time”, this means you cannot delay taking action, because your local area is required to respond as quickly as possible.

Blushield supports the EMF and cell tower initiatives of Children’s Health Defense

Every month at Blushield, we donate a portion of our profits from our EMF protection devices specifically to the EMF and cell tower related initiatives of Children’s Health Defense. This helps to fund vitally important cases against inappropriate and dangerous cell tower placements, including the recent successful case in Sitka, Alaska.

Every purchase you make to protect yourself from EMFs with Blushield home and portable devices will help fund cases that will protect the health and well-being of local families from cell towers that would be placed near homes and schools.

References:

• Children’s Health Defense: Sitka, Alaska Court Verdict – https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/Decision.pdf
• Children’s Health Defense: “Sitka Residents Block Cell Tower Project With Help From CHD’s Stop 5G Initiative” – https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/sitka-residents-block-cell-tower-project-help-from-chds-stop-5g-initiative
• Children’s Health Defense: “Alaskans Join Forces With CHD to Fight Giant Cell Tower in Residential Area” – https://childrenshealthdefense.org/community/sitka-alaska-chd-fight-giant-cell-tower-residential-area
• Children’s Health Defense: “Residents of Alaska Town Battle to Keep 120-ft Cell Tower Out of Neighborhood” – https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/residents-alaska-town-battle-to-120-ft-cell-tower-out-neighborhood-5g
• FCC.gov: Telecommunications Act of 1996 – https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.pdf (Section 704 can be found on page 117)
• Preserve Local Control – https://www.25-276.org
• FCC.gov: “Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireless Deployments” (Docket No. 25-276) – https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-67A1.pdf
• 704 No More: An Initiative of the Children’s Health Defense – https://www.704nomore.org

First let’s start with the good news:  the recently published Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) report is the first official acknowledgment by the executive branch of the United States government that electromagnetic fields (EMFs) pose health risks even below the FCC exposure level guidelines.  In itself, this is a groundbreaking step towards broader public awareness and action steps to protect humans, animals and the environment from ever increasing EMF exposure from a wide variety of manmade sources.

However, there has been much criticism about how the report significantly downplays the harms of EMFs, and made statements that were watered down, misleading and even erroneous, to lead the public to believe that the potential problem isn’t nearly as bad as it actually is.

Let’s break it down to see what the report does say, and what it leaves out.

The MAHA Report, published on May 22^nd, 2025, is a very extensive and detailed 73-page document.  The report focuses on the effects of ultra processed foods, environmental toxins, the childhood vaccination schedule, overmedicalization, a sedentary lifestyle, and corporate lobbying, considering all of these to be heavily influential factors in the chronic disease epidemic in the United States, especially in children.

The contents are groundbreaking and significant, and could create a wave of positive policy change that supports human health.  The majority of subjects this report addresses have been considered taboo in the past, and are concerns of a growing percentage of the population that have been continually ignored by the government and their corporate lobbyists.  These lobbyists represent the industries that control the widespread acceptance of these harmful lifestyle factors, which strongly influence our culture and habits, to all of our detriment.

The report points out that over 40% of U.S. children have at least one chronic health condition, making this generation of children the sickest in American history. These trends have consistently worsened each year, according to the report, “posing a threat to our nation’s health, economy, and military readiness.”

In particular, childhood cancer, obesity and autism have increased by alarming rates since the 1970s. It is predicted that children growing up today are likely to have shorter lifespans than their parents.

Health & Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., calls this report a “diagnosis”, and says “the prescription will follow in 100 days”, likely sometime in August.

This report is truly the first of its kind, and we want to give it the credit that is due, especially if the action steps taken based on this report’s findings are truly enough to result in significant positive change.

Unfortunately, although EMFs were mentioned in the report, it was only one brief paragraph that touched on the potential harms – and the dangers were disappointingly downplayed.

EMF section of the MAHA report misses the mark

Throughout the otherwise comprehensive 73-page MAHA report, which extensively explores several influences and elements considered harmful to children today, only one short paragraph was dedicated to EMFs, on page 44.  It was tucked into a broader section addressing environmental chemicals, but many critics say that there should have been a full section of the report dedicated to EMFs as one of the main drivers of chronic health issues in children.

This is the full statement concerning EMF exposure in the MAHA report, along with several numerical citations:

“Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR): an exposure due to the proliferation of cell phones, WiFi routers, cell towers, and wearables. Some studies have linked EMR exposure to reduced sperm counts and motility but not quality. The NIH’s National Toxicology Program identified “clear evidence” of DNA damage and increased cancer risk in rats. However, a recent systematic review of over 50 studies found low to inadequate evidence on impact in children and called for more high-quality research.”

In comparison with the dedicated work that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. himself, who spearheaded the MAHA report, has done to bring awareness to the imminent and extensive dangers of EMFs, the casual and light nature of this paragraph is both confusing and frustrating.  There is much speculation that this statement was written or heavily doctored by a telecom industry representative infiltrating the government with corporate lobbying money – which is quite ironic, considering that the report devotes a whole section to the serious issue of corporate lobbyists and their influence on public health policy.

This paragraph selectively cites a 2022 systematic review that found “low to inadequate evidence of impact on children”, calling for “more research”, which is a well known delaying tactic by polluting industries of all types.  The report ignores larger, more recent and incriminating study reviews, including a systematic review from the World Health Organization (WHO) from 2025 that concluded there is “high certainty” evidence that cell phone radiation causes two types of cancer in animals.  There are several more recent study reviews, as well as an extensive body of well designed and executed scientific research, that the MAHA report completely fails to mention.

The EMF paragraph also contains an erroneous statement about the effects of EMFs on sperm quality.  It stated that sperm counts and motility were negatively affected by EMFs, but not sperm quality. However, in the medical field, sperm quality is assessed by looking at a combination of several factors, including sperm motility.  If sperm motility was negatively affected by EMFs, that automatically means overall sperm quality had to have been affected by EMFs as well.

Dr. Robert Brown, a diagnostic radiologist with more than 30 years of experience, points out that the statement doesn’t make sense, and was likely added by someone without a background in the biomedical research field.

“By affecting sperm counts and motility, sperm quality is affected,” Brown pointed out, then goes on further to state, “I wonder who added this erroneous phrase, and find it interesting that it was added in the same document in which a separate section discusses corporate capture and the revolving door.”

The report’s silence on the influence of corporate capture as applied to EMF dangers definitely raises questions.  A 2021 court ruling in the Environmental Health Trust vs. FCC case declared the FCC’s decision not to reevaluate their 1996 wireless exposure guidelines to be “arbitrary and capricious,” and an order by the judge compels the FCC to revise these grossly outdated guidelines, which they have still failed to do several years after the ruling.

It seems quite clear that the telecom industry and the governmental branches that presumably regulate this industry are using tactics of delay and dismissal to avert the public’s eyes to the problem, even while other timely public health issues are finally being addressed in the MAHA report.

Multiple recent bills by the current administration have focused on expanding wireless proliferation even more, including a newly approved spectrum auction in the 600 MHz range, as well as a new bill proposing to grant the FCC even more authority:  Section 40002 of HR 1 would trigger provisions that allow telecoms to place an unlimited number of antennas on existing antenna structures without notice or approval.

Here is a letter you can print out and send to your local officials, urging them to reject Section 40002 of HR 1 on the argument that the FCC still hasn’t complied with a 2021 court order compelling them to update their outdated wireless exposure guidelines from 1996:

Printable document urging rejection of HR 1 § 40002 FCC Spectrum Auction Authority

Children’s Health Defense fights back with the 704 No More initiative

An organization dedicated to protecting children from harmful environmental and medical exposures, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) is committed to ending the rise in childhood health epidemics by holding corporations and regulatory agencies accountable, and pushing for stronger safety standards.

One of CHD’s recent initiatives directly addresses the weak link in the law that is responsible for allowing telecoms to get away with unchecked placement of cell towers in populated areas, especially in neighborhoods and near schools:  Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

This law prevents local regulation of wireless infrastructure based on health and environmental effects, and is widely considered to be unconstitutional, because the law deprives states of their traditional police powers designed to protect the health and welfare of their citizens.  The 704 No More initiative seeks to overturn this law, restoring the legal ability of local governments to have a say in the placement of cell towers within their communities.

Section 704 undermines public health, environmental protections, and individual rights.  It allows for the enforcement of the FCC’s outdated RF radiation guidelines, ignoring mounting evidence of harm, particularly to children.

As one of the causes Blushield supports with monthly donations, a portion of your Blushield EMF protection purchase is donated to support the 704 No More initiative, as well as CHD’s Stop 5G initiative.

704 No More is a powerful initiative that gets right to the heart of the issue, as Section 704 currently grants legal protection to the telecom industry from any individual and local community seeking to challenge the inappropriate and dangerous placement of cell towers near residences and schools.

The initiative argues that this legal framework must be dismantled because:

• RF radiation below FCC limits has been shown to harm children’s health and the environment.
• Children harmed by RF radiation exposure are left without remedies or compensation.
• FCC guidelines are outdated, do not take children into account, and fail to consider current scientific evidence.
• Excessive FCC authority overrides local control and judicial oversight.

Led by expert attorney Scott McCollough, the actions being implemented by 704 No More include strategic litigation, public education, grassroots mobilization, and legislative advocacy.

Updating FCC standards and curtailing federal overreach are critical steps toward protecting our children’s well-being. By restoring local authority and individual rights, we can build a healthier, safer future for our children.

References:

• The MAHA Report – https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/MAHA-Report-The-White-House.pdf
• Children’s Health Defense: “MAHA Report ‘Falls Short’ on Linking Wireless Radiation to Chronic Disease, Experts Say” – https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/maha-report-falls-short-wireless-radiation-chronic-disease-emr/
• Children’s Health Defense: “RFK Jr.: MAHA Report a ‘Clarion Call’ to End the Chronic Disease Epidemic” – https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/rfk-jr-the-maha-report-end-chronic-disease-epidemic/
• 704 No More: An Initiative of Children’s Health Defense – https://www.704nomore.org/about
• Quantadose: “The MAHA Report’s Dangerous Blind Spot: Ignoring EMF Radiation Endangers Our Children’s Future” – https://www.quantadose.com/the-maha-reports-dangerous-blind-spot-ignoring-emf-radiation-endangers-our-childrens-future/

Lloyd Burrell from ElectricSense, a prominent international EMF educator, has been a Blushield user and fan for years now. He recently interviewed Brandon Amalani about Blushield, including diving deep into the fascinating science of scalar, and discussing Blushield's new clinical trial on humans that found statistically significant improvements across a variety of health markers.

This interview is now only viewable on Lloyd's membership site, but they were gracious enough to allow us to post it on our website as well, so our customers can benefit from this insightful and inspiring interview!

Just click play on the video below, and enjoy! See underneath the video for some timestamps of important talking points that were covered.

Here are a few timestamps from the FULL interview to support you:

• [04:30] Why blocking EMFs is often a “terrible idea”
• [09:46] What really happens when your body encounters EMFs? (It's probably not what you think)
• [10:34] How the nervous system responds to chaotic vs. coherent signals—this is CRUCIAL
• [15:48] What is scalar energy? How does it relate to healing and EMF protection?
• [21:14] A man-made field your body can sympathetically resonate with
• [30:00] How early animal studies show clear benefits with Blushield technology—this CANNOT be just placebo
• [36:33] How Blushield creates a beneficial health outcome in so many, many ways—here’s the peer-reviewed science to PROVE it.
• [44:35] Does Blushield work for everyone? (what the SCIENCE says)
• [49:43] How it's critical to know the noise-to-signal ratio on the sine wave coming into your house—many EMF experts overlook this
• [56:46] Ultimately the most important thing is working on your consciousness—how Blushield technology can help you in that goal

In previous articles, we have explored the rapidly accumulating body of science that demonstrates a connection between electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure and voltage-gated calcium channel (VGCC) overactivation, leading to a cascade of detrimental health effects, especially throughout the brain and nervous system. The downstream effects of this “calcium channel flooding” can potentially produce many diverse symptoms and illnesses, including serious conditions like strokes, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, heart disease, and various neurological conditions.

The scientist who established the novel connection between these causes and effects, based on many previous studies, is Dr. Martin Pall. His ResearchGate.net profile summarizes his extensive work on these topics:

“Since 1998, I have focused on the mechanisms of chronic inflammatory diseases and how various stressors initiate cases of such diseases. The local mechanism involved in such many such diseases, called the NO/ONOO- cycle, has been confirmed in a recent 57-page paper on heart failure, and to a lesser extent in a recent paper in pulmonary hypertension. I have focused in recent years on how stressors cause human disease, with special emphasis on electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and also chemicals. Non-ionizing, low-intensity EMFs act primarily via activation of voltage-gate calcium channels (VGCCs) and to a lesser extent activation of other voltage-gated ion channels via forces on their voltage sensor. VGCCs act via calcium signaling and the peroxynitrite pathway.”

Just last year, Dr. Pall published a new study review, this one focusing on a hot topic in recent times: the sharp rise in autism, and autism spectrum disorders (ASDs), over the past 30-40 years, and potential environmental factors that may be associated with its causation. Autism incidence is thought to have increased by 55 times since the 1980s, averaging around 1 in every 2,000 children in the ‘80s, whereas in 2023, up to 1 in 36 children were considered to be autistic.

Many argue that autism hasn’t increased at all, but only appears to have increased due to vastly improved diagnostic practices. They claim that many children and teens (and even adults) who would have previously been undiagnosed, or diagnosed with another condition like “intellectual disability” or ADHD, would get an autism diagnosis in modern times.

It is true that autism, with its full spectrum of attributes and possible expressions, has become more widely recognized in the mainstream than it was in the past. Since autism is considered to be a spectrum, there are those on the upper end of the spectrum considered ‘high functioning’, who can live seemingly normal lives, but just have a ‘neurodivergent’ way of thinking and operating. Those at the lower end of the spectrum cannot live normal lives at all, and require caretakers even throughout their adult years. They suffer from a myriad of debilitating symptoms and health issues. It is clear that the spectrum that is autism varies widely, and the upper end really cannot even be compared to the lower end of the spectrum.

While it seems obvious that diagnostic procedures have improved considerably, this does not rule out an actual increase in autistic individuals, or the likelihood that various environmental factors that have increased in modern times may have a causal role in the development of autism. A 55-fold increase in diagnostic accuracy and practices does not seem very likely, so there must be more pieces to this puzzle.

Also, autism is often thought to be purely genetic, but it’s not possible for genes in themselves to change that drastically over just a couple generations. However, interactions between genes and the environment, described by the term ‘epigenetics’, could certainly explain such a sharp rise (while also factoring in improved diagnostics). Epigenetics is the link between genetic risk, and certain environmental factors that turn susceptible genes on or off, controlling the presence or absence of symptoms associated with autism.

Various environmental or developmental factors can determine whether a genetic tendency is actually expressed and active in a child, or whether it stays dormant and never plays out. These factors include prenatal conditions like stress, infection, chemical and heavy metal exposure, deficiency of key nutrients, and even EMFs (as you will learn more about below). If these stressors are high enough to overwhelm the pregnant mother or the child’s system during vitally important developmental windows, especially in utero or in the postnatal/infancy period, brain development could be delayed or altered.

At the heart of the widespread concern over autism is not an inability to accept different ways of thinking and processing (neurodivergence), but a deep desire for our children to thrive – to function well in life, to be happy, and to be self-sufficient in adulthood.

This is why it’s important to keep an open mind, and to encourage the continuance of deep research into the function of the human body, how our bodies interact with various potentially harmful elements in our environment, and how to prevent, reduce, and remedy these harms as much as we can.

Study review links excessive intracellular calcium to dysfunctions in synaptogenesis

Dr. Martin Pall’s 2024 study review is titled Central Causation of Autism/ASDs via Excessive [Ca2+]i Impacting Six Mechanisms Controlling Synaptogenesis during the Perinatal Period: The Role of Electromagnetic Fields and Chemicals and the NO/ONOO(-) Cycle, as Well as Specific Mutations.

Some foundational concepts first need to be understood to realize the significance of Dr. Pall’s findings, which will hopefully lead to further research to definitively prove or disprove the connections he has established in this review.

The voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs) are basically “gates” located on the cellular membranes, which are opened and closed by changes in voltage. Our bodies are electrochemical, which means weak electrical signals produced by ions – like calcium, sodium and potassium – affect the movement of biochemicals. Normally, there is a charge (electrical difference) between the inside and outside of the cells, called polarization, where there’s a lot of calcium outside the cell, and very little inside of it. If there’s a voltage change caused by either an internal or environmental cue, these gates open, allowing a controlled amount of calcium to enter the cell. This temporarily depolarizes the cell membrane and triggers a cascade of intracellular signaling events that influence numerous physiological processes, including neurotransmission, gene expression, muscle contraction, and more.

When too much calcium is allowed to enter the cell, such as when the voltage stimulus is too strong or prolonged – which may be caused by manmade EMFs, which have vastly higher power levels than the weak electric signals in our bodies – this excessive intracellular calcium can overstimulate the body, especially neuron-rich areas like the brain, nervous system and heart.

The downstream effects of excessive, prolonged calcium release result in the production of free radicals, including nitric oxide and superoxide, which then combine to produce a highly unstable free radical called peroxynitrite. Without the presence of sufficient levels of antioxidants to keep this process in check, peroxynitrite becomes one of the most destructive molecules in the body. It can oxidize lipids, derange proteins, and damage DNA. It can also trigger a chain reaction by decomposing into other highly reactive molecules (like hydroxyl radical), which in turn damage more molecules and create even more free radicals. All of this becomes a vicious cycle, resulting in DNA and mitochondrial damage.

This cascade of damage is implicated in chronic fatigue syndrome, neurodegenerative disorders (e.g. Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s), inflammatory and autoimmune diseases, electrosensitivity, and even autism.

Definitions of intracellular calcium, the peroxynitrite pathway, and synaptogenesis

To make the study more understandable, let’s define some key terms:

The scientific notation [Ca2+]i means intracellular calcium, or more specifically, a concentration of calcium ions inside the cell. You will see this term throughout this study and others.

The NO/ONOO(-) cycle refers to the peroxynitrite pathway, the self-amplifying biochemical cascade described previously. This is where nitric oxide (NO) and superoxide (O2-) combine to produce peroxynitrite (ONOO), with cascading downstream effects involving several more damaging free radicals. Since this phenomenon is central to the theories proposed in this paper, you will see it a lot.

You will also want to know the definition of synaptogenesis. This refers to the process by which neurons form synapses with each other, allowing them to communicate via electrical or chemical signals. It is a crucial part of brain development, as well as plasticity – changes in the brain throughout life to support memory and learning. Synaptogenesis is especially active in the prenatal (in utero) and early postnatal (infancy) stages, collectively referred to as the perinatal period.

EMFs & chemicals act through two separate calcium signaling pathways

Dr. Pall’s paper cites a total of 287 related studies to support his main theory, which is that excessive intracellular calcium during the perinatal period disrupts the six mechanisms controlling synaptogenesis, therefore resulting in aberrant or dysfunctional brain development. He details a variety of environmental stimuli that are known to cause excessive intracellular calcium production, including electromagnetic fields (EMFs), as well as various autism-implicated classes of environmental chemicals and heavy metals.

Most of these stimuli act either through the VGCCs, or through another plasma membrane calcium channel class, referred to as the NMDA (N-Methyl-D-Aspartate) receptors. While VGCCs respond purely to changes in membrane voltage, NMDA receptors require both chemical and electrical signals to activate. NMDA receptors allow calcium to enter the cell when the neurotransmitter glutamate (derived from the amino acid glutamic acid) binds to the receptor along with a co-agonist – either glycine or D-serine. At the same time, membrane depolarization is required to dislodge a magnesium ion that normally blocks the channel, allowing ion flow through the receptor.

You may have heard of glutamate excitotoxicity, which is known to be caused by consuming monosodium glutamate (MSG) in certain foods, potentially leading to neurological symptoms, especially in sensitive individuals. This occurs through the NMDA receptors described above. Less well known is that many other chemicals can overactivate these same receptors, causing similar types of symptoms and conditions.

The chemicals that have been found to activate the NMDA receptors, which Dr. Pall highlights in his paper, include various classes of pesticides (including glyphosate, organophosphates, carbamates, organochlorines and pyrethroids), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), mercury, bisphenol A (BPA), phthalates, acetaminophen, and valproic acid (a seizure medication). These chemicals have been found in other studies to cause the release of excessive intracellular calcium, and when the toxicity of several of these were tested, the toxic effects were greatly lowered by administering an NMDA antagonist compound, proving that the chemicals were acting through the NMDA pathway.

It is interesting that EMFs and various synthetic chemicals, both of which are vastly more widespread in our environment in modern times than in the past, could affect brain development, and brain and nervous system function, in similar ways. This supports our observation that those who have multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS) are very often also electrically hypersensitive (EHS). It seems that these two separate types of environmental stimuli, acting through different pathways to the same destructive end, likely combine in their deleterious effects in sensitive or genetically prone individuals, both child and adult.

Causal and epidemiological links between EMFs, excessive [Ca2+]i, and autism

Numerous scientists and research groups have suggested that increased autism/ASD incidence is associated with, and may be caused by, electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure. Some of these suggestions are based on correlations between increased EMF exposure and increased ASD incidence.

Since the 1980s, when autism was barely known, technology has become substantially more prevalent and powerful over the subsequent decades. Higher frequencies are being used, requiring a higher density of wireless equipment than before, increasing exposure exponentially. Pulse modulation is now used in all wireless communications devices, which is thought to be highly bioactive because the peaks of the pulses are many times stronger than the average strength of a non-pulsed EMF. The intensity of these peaks are far more likely to trigger the voltage sensors on our cells than non-pulsed (continuous wave) EMFs.

Dozens of studies have shown several measurable elements of the peroxynitrite cycle to be elevated in autistic humans or animals, relative to controls. Two mechanisms that can slow the momentum of (or even reverse) the peroxynitrite cycle – activating Nrf2 or AMPK – have been found to improve conditions caused by the cycle, including ASD. Numerous studies have shown that activating the Nrf2 pathway, which is antagonistic to the peroxynitrite pathway, reduces autism symptom severity in animals and humans.

Dr. Pall also summarizes several epidemiological studies, which are studies that document humans exposed to a specific stimulus, and how this stimulus (the cause) is correlated with increasing incidences of certain conditions (the effect). While this cannot prove cause and effect, it can correlate the two, providing more evidence to support an already sound theory.

One such study found an elevated prevalence of autism in a town on the New Jersey coast, where an important military radar station was located. Another study measured the EMF exposure levels of pregnant women who gave birth to babies with autism, compared to normal babies, and found that the EMF exposure in the sleeping areas of the mothers of autistic babies was greatly elevated. Another study linked maternal mobile phone usage with speech problems in children.

There are also at least six different animal studies establishing a link between prenatal EMF exposure and long-lasting neurological changes, some of which are considered to be symptoms of autism. These include lack of normal sociability, lack of preference for social novelty, and decreased exploratory activity. One study recorded both behavioral and biochemical changes, noting that three proteins that have important roles in synaptogenesis, which have been shown elsewhere to play a role in preventing ASDs, were found to have lowered levels in three parts of the brains of EMF exposed rats. The rats also displayed behavioral changes indicating a potential autistic type condition.

Overactivation of the VGCCs causes excessive intracellular calcium, which has directly detrimental effects on brain function and synaptogenesis, even without the peroxynitrite pathway in the equation. When peroxynitrite becomes part of the picture (as a downstream effect of excessive intracellular calcium), which is always the case when inadequate levels of antioxidants are present, the vicious cycle caused by this dangerous cascade of free radicals could potentially explain why the associated neurological conditions become chronic and sustained, instead of just acute and temporary.

The good news is that in some of these studies, moving the animals to an enriched environment – a place with mentally and physically stimulating activities – resulted in a significant (but not complete) reversal of the neurological dysfunction.

Can you prevent, reduce and remedy autism spectrum disorders?

One very intriguing aspect of the voltage-gated calcium channel activation caused by EMFs is that not every pathway results in pathophysiological (harmful) effects. There is one pathway called the nitric oxide signaling pathway, usually activated by low intensity, short duration EMF exposure of specific types – pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) devices and red/infrared light therapy (photobiomodulation) are the most well known – that actually results in therapeutic effects.

The nitric oxide signaling pathway has a downstream effect of activating Nrf2, which controls the transcription of a large number of genes encoding cell protective enzymes. It raises many antioxidant enzymes, including superoxide dismutase and catalase, as well as the body’s ‘master antioxidant’, glutathione. These endogenous antioxidants actually bind to and lower peroxynitrite levels, and also lowers the two precursors of peroxynitrite: superoxide and nitric oxide. This interrupts the vicious peroxynitrite cycle, resulting in lowered inflammation, increased detoxification mechanisms, improved mitochondrial function, and more.

Nrf2 isn’t just activated by short duration therapeutic EMFs; it is also improved by various foods, nutrients and phytochemicals. These include substances contained in cruciferous vegetables, garlic and onions, berries, turmeric, chocolate, green tea, and many other whole foods and herbs.

Dr. Pall references quite a few studies using Nrf2-activating substances to successfully reduce the symptoms of autism. Resveratrol, a polyphenol known for its antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties, which is especially concentrated in the skins of dark colored grapes, and in blueberries and mulberries, is a common substance used in these studies.

Another regulatory system that interrupts the peroxynitrite cycle is AMPK, a protein kinase best known for improving mitochondrial function and lowering inflammation. AMPK can be boosted naturally by fasting, caloric restriction, exercise, cold exposure, and various nutrients including resveratrol, berberine, curcumin, and alpha-lipoic acid. When it comes to food substances, many of these double as both Nrf2 and AMPK activators, making them extra beneficial!

In the final section of Dr. Pall’s paper, he details what he believes to be the most effective ways to reduce the most severe symptoms of autism, based on all the studies he has reviewed. He strongly emphasizes EMF avoidance, especially for pregnant women. He states that magnesium supplementation, as well as vitamin D and folate are reported as helpful for prevention and treatment.

He also recommends putting the person with ASD into an enriched environment, with plenty of the beneficial kinds of mental and physical stimulation that are healthy and necessary for development.

Avoiding chemical exposure is also important, and he recommends eating organically grown food to avoid glyphosate and other pesticides. Purifying drinking water to avoid heavy metals, PCBs and PFAS can be helpful, and avoiding medicines, medical interventions, cosmetics and cleaning products that contain any of the substances on the NMDA-R activating list.

Blushield EMF protection devices may potentially have a beneficial effect, as well. Blushield’s independent review board certified, peer reviewed, PubMex-indexed study found that using our home and portable EMF protection devices resulted in hypermethylation (a quieting or calming) of the CpG sites on some key VGCC-related genes. You can read more about Blushield’s pilot study, and the VGCC effects that were found, here.

One last thing we want to share on this subject is to be kind to yourself and others. Having an autism diagnosis could mean so many things, and your quality of life may still be very good. If you are (or someone you know is) neurodivergent, and your mind just seems to work differently than people around you, that can be a great thing. If you know someone like this, try to understand them better, so that you can support their needs and help them feel seen and heard.

On the other hand, if you know anyone with autism who is suffering from severe symptoms that are harming their quality of life, we really hope this article is helpful for you, and that it leads you towards answers and solutions that can change their lives for the better.

Here at Blushield, we believe that having a comprehensive understanding of your EMF exposure sources is a great place to start when it comes to protecting yourself from EMF harms. This is why we have decided to partner with a unique and brilliant family-owned business that we trust to do the job right when it comes to helping you identify, measure and mitigate the EMF sources in your home.

Most building biologists have a toolkit full of gadgets they use to find and measure EMF sources, because they aren’t capable of detecting EMFs without these meters. However, the two guys we recently met have truly taken this industry by storm, and operate on a whole different level that blows their competition out of the water.

The Ornithor Brothers Building Biology, Inc., are in a league of their own. While most building biologists are only human, this talented dynamic duo are platypuses.

These two brothers have a special gift that others in the industry are sorely lacking: the amazingly sensitive and unique bill of the platypus has the power of electroreception! What’s more, this innate ability is incredibly sensitive, and can detect EMFs at far more subtle levels than any tool or meter currently available. They are able to scour your home and find every EMF source, leaving no stone unturned. The greatest EMF threats are the ones you aren’t aware of, and they will ensure that every source has been accounted for, followed by comprehensive recommendations for mitigation and protection.

The platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus), sometimes referred to as the duck-billed platypus, is native to Australia, and is in a special class of mammals called monotremes, which are the only group of living mammals that lay eggs, rather than bearing live young. The scientific name is Greek for 'duck-like bird-snout', and this unusual physical feature is responsible for their unique power of electroreception.

The platypus has an astonishing 40,000 receptors in stripes along their bill, originally used to detect weak electrical signals underwater to locate their prey. When the platypus dives into the water to find food, it closes its eyes, ears and nose, and relies almost completely on its ability to sense the tiny electric currents generated by the muscular contractions of nearby prey. It also has mechanoreceptors that detect mechanical waves generated from tiny movements of the living food sources it seeks.

They are particularly sensitive to frequencies between 50 and 100 hertz, in the extremely low frequency (ELF) range, and modern man’s home electrical grids happen to operate exactly within this range.

We were so lucky to meet these guys in Kansas City, Missouri, the site of Blushield USA’s very own headquarters. The Ornithor brothers migrated from Australia early in life, catching a ride on a human-led freight ship. They came here on a special mission: to share their innate gift of electroreception with the human species, to help us become aware of the electricity that surrounds us on a daily basis, although this subtle energy is invisible and undetectable to most humans. They are instinctively aware that all living organisms are electrochemical, and therefore highly sensitive to external sources of electromagnetic fields, and they want us to know that this affects our health and well-being on a daily basis.

When they come into your house, you will be fascinated by their special procedure for detecting electric fields. They close their eyes and begin sweeping their bill from side to side as they move around your house, receiving detailed feedback on the precise location of your most insidious EMF sources. After a thorough examination, they will provide a comprehensive report of all your exposures, with recommendations that include:

• Rearranging furniture to increase distance from EMF hotspots
• Step-by-step instructions for improving your EMF hygiene by implementing lower EMF appliances and lighting
• Installing a landline phone
• Hardwiring your computers with ethernet cables
• Acquiring plug timers to shut your Wifi router off at night

They do not usually recommend shielding as a primary solution, as they recognize the potential harms of blocking the beneficial natural fields from the Earth and nature, which they believe are immeasurably important for our health, since they personally live outside on the Earth.

The Ornithor brothers have found Blushield to be an excellent well-rounded solution by creating a beneficial field that acts as a biological “safety bubble” from the EMF sources that aren’t possible or practical to mitigate in other ways. When we first showed them one of our Blushield home devices, and plugged it in, they were very excited and said it really reminded them of their home in the wilderness back in Australia!

Now they carry Blushield portable devices with them during every home assessment visit, to protect their own sensitive biological systems. Previously, they reported feeling very tired and “zapped” after a day on the job, being around so much manmade electricity. Carrying their portable protection with them has changed the game completely, and they have shared with us how grateful they are to still feel energetic even after a long day.

One of their other favorite solutions, this one being specific for dirty electricity from smart meters and many home appliances, is the SineTamer wire-in dirty electricity surge suppression and frequency attenuation technology. When attached to your breaker box, this device cleans up the harmful spikes and transients on the sine wave flowing through our wires almost completely, which dramatically reduces the harmful byproducts of dirty electricity, both to our health and the longevity of our devices and appliances.

Last but not least, they provide these services at a price that can’t be beat, since they don’t even want your money! Platypus are carnivores that require a great deal of food (they eat about 20% of their weight in food daily), so all they ask is that you provide them with their favorite foods at very frequent intervals during their visit. Their requests include worms, insect larvae, shrimp and crayfish, which you should be able to find pretty cheap at a local market, or for free from a nearby creek or river.

As an important side note, you will want to be aware that the male platypus is actually venomous, inflicted through their back ankle spurs. Although their sting isn’t lethal to humans, it can cause weeks of agony. Just make sure you have a steady supply of food for these guys while they’re working hard for you, so as to avoid angering them, and you should be just fine.

Of course, you have probably realized by now that today is April 1st, and that no platypus were harmed in the writing of this post!

We just wanted to have a little bit of fun today, and most importantly, to spread the word about the amazing abilities of this animal. When European explorers first heard reports of this Australian animal, they actually thought it was a joke. The platypus is no joke, and should be celebrated as one of the only animals with innate, fully functional electroreception! There are plenty of animals and insects with magnetoreception, including birds, bees, turtles, sharks and lobsters, which give them the ability to sense and respond to the Earth's magnetic field, often used for navigation and orientation. However, the ability to detect electric fields is unique to monotremes, and especially strongly developed in the platypus.

Because of this, we think the platypus should be the mascot of the EMF awareness movement. Some may laugh at the unconventional appearance of this animal, just like how those lacking awareness of subtle energies often doubt the harms of EMFs, dismissing those of us who spread the word about the harms of EMFs, and the need for mitigation and protection.

The encouraging truth is that societal awareness of EMFs is steadily increasing, leading to the discovery and creation of multi-faceted, comprehensive solutions and strategies to regain and maintain our health in the modern world.

We are wishing you a fun-filled day, and hope that you learned something new today :-)

We are sad to report that EMF activist, researcher and author Arthur Firstenburg passed away recently, at age 74. After months of enduring an undiagnosed illness, he died at home, surrounded by family and friends, on February 25th, 2025.

We want to take the time right now to remember and honor his life, and his accomplishments in bringing awareness to the harms of electromagnetic fields. He is especially remembered as a spokesperson for EMF hypersensitive individuals, as he struggled with extreme sensitivity to common EMF sources, and could not tolerate them without severe reactions. Although he went through many hardships in life, due to his sensitivity, he was also a prolific and studious researcher. He continuously studied the subject of the biological harms of EMFs for 30 years, and is known to have thoroughly read each study he cited in his newsletters and published works.

Many consider his crowning achievement to be his book, The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life, originally published in 2017, with a second edition released in 2020. The publisher states that 100,000 copies of his book have been sold, marking its significant impact on EMF awareness. This extensively researched, 576-page volume explores the effects that electricity has had on human health and the environment, all the way back to early electricity experiments in the 18th century. Firstenburg suggests that as humans began experimenting with continuous electricity, they unknowingly introduced new biological stressors.

As technology use became more widespread, chronic illness has increased at similar rates. Firstenburg’s book goes through the history of our implementation of electricity and wireless radiation sources, and links the widespread adoption of new technologies to outbreaks of viral illness and disease epidemics. While he has correlated these patterns of events in human history very well, causation itself cannot be established for certain, and that is likely why many of his theories have fallen on deaf ears in mainstream scientific circles. Even though this is the case, finding such a direct correlation stresses the value and importance of prioritizing more extensive studies on the topic, as that is how causation is determined. It also urges caution when using devices that emit wireless radiation, taking a “wait-and-see” stance by limiting exposure.

Of course, many of us are now aware of Dr. Martin Pall’s work, which has established
causation by linking EMFs to the voltage-gated calcium channels in all living organisms, and how this directly results in the harmful health effects of EMFs that have been discovered by many previous studies.

Firstenburg was the founder of the independent campaign group the Cellular Phone Task Force, a nonprofit membership organization created in 1996. This was in response to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which granted the United States government considerable power to implement wireless technologies throughout the country at a fast pace, by dramatically limiting opposition based on health or environmental concerns.

The Cellular Phone Task Force website has cataloged Firstenburg’s extensive library of newsletters full of research, and his calls to action. He also continually compiled anecdotal reports from all over the world from people who are have noticed health and environmental effects from new sources of wireless radiation and electricity in their area.

Firstenburg’s struggle with electromagnetic hypersensitivity

Arthur Firstenburg was born on May 28th, 1950, in Brooklyn, New York. He studied
mathematics at Cornell University in 1971, then went on to medical school from 1978 to 1982. He did not complete medical school, however, due to illness that he attributed to extreme electromagnetic hypersensitivity, which began to appear after undergoing several diagnostic dental x-rays. He began to experience nausea, headaches, insomnia, and heart arrhythmia in the presence of appliances, computers, wireless routers and other common electronics. His symptoms increased in severity to the point where he was compelled to leave his home to seek a refuge away from electrical pollution, even sleeping in his car at times, because living in a house was too risky.

In a 2008 article in Mother Jones magazine, he was quoted as saying, “Your neighbor could get wifi, and then you have to leave and hunt for a new home.” His condition became so debilitating that he even filed a lawsuit against a neighbor, attempting to force her to turn off her Wifi router, stop using her cell phone (and replace it with a landline), and even to replace dimmer switches and unplug her computer at night. He offered her $10,000 to comply, and when she refused, he saw no other option than to leave his house.

He eventually settled in Santa Fe, New Mexico, a relatively low EMF city, and one of the last refuges from 5G and smart meters. Since settling in Santa Fe, he became very active in protesting cell tower and smart meter installations in his area, regularly attending city council meetings. He filed eight lawsuits since 2010 against various entities, including the city of Santa Fe and several cell service providers. All were unsuccessful.

You can’t change the whole world, but you can create zones of health and safety

Unfortunately, trying to change the patterns of the entire world around you is exhausting and discouraging, as Arthur found. Mother Jones magazine states:

“Of course, if you’re really worried, you could ditch your cell phone for a quaint landline. Just don’t expect the rest of the world to follow suit. Firstenburg has found that it’s almost impossible to avoid the mobile-wielding masses. He used to ask strangers—politely—to stop talking on their phones in his presence until he got reprimanded in a grocery store for harassing a customer. “People get offended,” he says. “They just don’t know about microwave radiation.”

Modern society’s excitement and acceptance of wireless technology already has too much momentum, and the time to turn back is long past, if there was ever a chance of halting these massive technological trends in the first place. The best we can hope for us to bring awareness of safe usage and habits, and to push for safer designs and standards for these products over time, as more people wake up to the harms of our electronic and wireless devices and infrastructure.

Since we cannot change the behavior and choices of the masses of society, we need to focus on improving our own health and resilience in every way we can. Living a healthy lifestyle connected to nature – the electrons from the Earth, fresh air and sunshine – and eating a nutrient rich diet high in antioxidants, can go a long way in increasing our resilience to life’s inevitable stressors, including pervasive EMFs.

We can reduce our EMF exposure as much as possible or practical, without overlycompromising our lifestyle and our ability to work and connect with others.

Developing “EMF hygiene”, or an awareness of the EMF sources around us and how we interact with them, is foundational. We can reduce so much of our acute exposure simply with more awareness of our proximity to wireless radiation, and the duration of our exposure periods.

For all the exposure sources we cannot control or eliminate, we can utilize effective, clinically tested EMF protection devices, like our Blushield home and portable units. Our clinical trial demonstrated statistically significant improvements across a variety of health markers, especially in areas that are commonly affected by EMFs like cognitive function, sleep, blood glucose, immune markers and heart rate variability, all the way down to a quieting of overactive voltage-gated calcium channel genes, which are now considered to be at the very
foundation of the biological harm from EMFs.

All of these strategies combined could make the difference between suffering and being comfortable and healthy, especially if we consider ourselves to be EMF hypersensitive.

We want to honor Arthur’s life by sharing his research and accomplishments, and take the conversation further by exploring sophisticated and effective solutions to the EMF dilemma that all of us are facing in these modern times.

References:

• Cellular Phone Task Force – https://cellphonetaskforce.org
• “In Memoriam: Arthur Firstenberg, Champion of EMF Awareness, May 28, 1950 - February 25, 2025” – https://reinettesenumsfoghornexpress.substack.com/p/in-memoriam-arthur-firstenberg-champion
• “Remembering Arthur Firstenberg: Local anti-wireless activist was a regular at City Hall” – https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/remembering-arthur-firstenberg-local-anti-wireless-activist-was-a-regular-at-city-hall/article_716a755a-f617-11ef-873f-9fd839113d51.html
• Mother Jones magazine: “This Is Your Brain on Cell Phones” –
  https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/07/your-brain-cell-phones