Blog & Articles

Last year, Josh del Sol interviewed our CEO Brandon Amalani, and lead researcher and writer Courtney Taylor. This is one of our favorite Blushield interviews, because of Josh's very insightful series of questions.

We went into extensive detail about our independent review board certified, peer reviewed and PubMed indexed clinical study, and especially the findings related to methylation of the voltage-gated calcium channel (VGCC) genes, which is thought to be directly related to the primary causal mechanism of EMF harm.

We also covered how Blushield works, and read through some testimonials from customers (especially the EMF hypersensitive ones) about how Blushield has changed their life. We also get into deep philosophical topics about energy, consciousness, and taking an approach where we can healthfully live and engage with the world instead of hiding from it, and how Blushield technology supports that philosophy when used to protect from the ever present harms of EMFs in the modern world.

Click play on the video below to check it out.

We hope you enjoy this one as much as we did!

Join us for an in-depth conversation with Sayer ji & Brandon Amalani about cutting-edge EMF protection technology and its impact on health. Discover the revolutionary Blushield device, its roots in advanced electromagnetic theory, and how it offers unparalleled protection against harmful EMF exposure.

In this interview, we explore:

• The science behind coherent vs. non-coherent EMF and its effects on the body.
• Insights from new peer-reviewed clinical research supporting Blushield’s effectiveness.
• How the device leverages principles like scalar fields and sympathetic resonance for natural balance.

Learn how to safeguard your health while embracing innovative solutions grounded in natural principles. Don’t miss this fascinating discussion on wellness and technology!

Click here to watch this video on Substack

It has been definitively established that our bodies are primarily electromagnetic in nature. Electric and magnetic energy is produced at all times by our own bodies, and this energy controls the production, use, and inhibition of the thousands of natural chemicals our bodies use to carry out all necessary processes for the continuation of life. In that way, you could say we’re electrochemical. The minerals inside our body have the ability to carry various levels of electrical charge, and the buildup and movement of this charge can be seen as the causal agent of all the material processes our bodies undergo, all the way down to the atomic level.

Human bodies aren’t unique in having electromagnetic properties, though – all other life forms, the entirety of the living planet around us, and the furthest reaches of the known universe all produce and respond to electromagnetic fields. One may even say that life itself is the dance of a continuous, yet infinitely varied and ever changing electromagnetic symphony.

You may have heard that electromagnetic fields can be harmful to our health. You may have also heard about the therapeutic benefits of electromagnetic fields. Both are true… but how are they true simultaneously?

Foundationally, both of these truths are based on a single fact: we are profoundly, constantly affected by external sources of electromagnetic fields – known as EMFs, for short.

As electromagnetic beings, we are finely tuned to the subtle changes happening in all the fields around us. The tricky part is, we cannot actually see or hear most of the EMFs we are exposed to and affected by. There are some exceptions, like the visible light from the sun, fire, and artificial light sources that harness electromagnetic energy and express it visibly. Another related exception is audible sounds, which are primarily mechanical longitudinal waves that result from an object vibrating, creating disturbances in the surrounding medium (usually the air), and are not technically electromagnetic, but are still considered frequencies. Also, we can feel some kinds of EMFs in the form of heat, mainly in the infrared spectrum.

That said, the vast majority of frequencies around us cannot be perceived by our five physical senses. Since the living body is a highly tuned electrochemical system, our cells perceive and respond to the entire electromagnetic spectrum, even frequency bands that are completely invisible, inaudible and undetectable to our five physical senses.

Okay, so we are definitely affected by EMFs. If that’s the case, then why do some frequency fields harm our bodies, and others help us heal?

It’s all determined by the structure of the fields themselves.

This includes the actual frequencies emitted, whether they’re repetitive (like a car alarm) or constantly varied (like a symphony), whether or not there is incoherent noise riding on the carrier signal, the duration of exposure to a particular field, as well as the finer details of the field’s structure; whether it’s pulsed, oscillating, modulated in phase, frequency or amplitude, and especially the quality and type of information the field is carrying.

These are a lot of variables, which is why EMFs can be so intensely harmful and so profoundly healing.

Voltage-gated calcium channels: the Nrf2 and peroxynitrite pathways

This is a good time to dive into some of the science on harmful versus healing EMFs. For a long time, people knew that EMFs affected us, but no one knew of any biological mechanism to explain these effects. In the past, this lack of an established mechanism reduced the enthusiasm of the scientific community to further study the health effects of EMFs. This all changed when Dr. Martin Pall, a retired Professor of Biochemistry and Medical Sciences at Washington State University, linked electromagnetic field effects to our voltage-gated calcium channels (often abbreviated as VGCCs).

The voltage-gated ion channels (each of which utilize either calcium, potassium, sodium or chloride) are a major component of the body’s electrochemical control system. Ionic minerals in our bodies will alter their charge in response to how our sensory neurons perceive external cues (such as light, movement and heat), which then elicits electrical changes in our cell membranes. These changes trigger voltage sensors in one or more of the voltage-gated ion channels, which are like guardians of the cell membranes, to open their gates and allow minerals to enter the inside of the cell to perform highly specific functions.

Of the voltage-gated ion channels, the calcium channels specifically were found to be extraordinarily sensitive to external EMF sources, and especially to manmade polarized and pulse-modulated radiofrequency and microwave radiation. This kind of radiation is emitted by cell phones, cell towers, Wifi routers, smart meters and many other modern EMF sources, and causes a literal flood of calcium to enter our cells, wreaking havoc at the cell level. Through Dr. Pall’s research, which compiled and evaluated data from hundreds of studies on the subject, the effect of external EMFs on our electrosensitive VGCCs is now widely accepted as a primary causal mechanism of harm.

Interestingly, other studies on the health effects of electromagnetic fields have actually shown beneficial effects. Why the mixed results? The telecom industry-funded portion of the scientific community likes to conclude that because some studies show harmful effects, and some show beneficial effects, this can somehow be “zeroed out” to no effects. Of course, this conclusion is wholly unscientific, but is convenient for the telecom industry.

What true scientists should be asking is if there are nuances to this subject that cause EMFs to be harmful in some instances, and helpful in other instances. Martin Pall discovered a fascinating phenomenon that may give a great deal of clarity to this looming question.

What was found is that at any given time when the calcium channels are activated, one of two main pathways will be intiated, depending on the nature of the electromagnetic stimulus. The first primary pathway is called the nitric oxide signaling pathway, which has downstream effects of activating Nrf2. Nrf2 has systemic cell protective, antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and lifespan lengthening effects. In many studies, beneficial EMF effects are connected to short exposure durations, where the EMF may act as a kind of hormetic stress, resulting in a healing response in the body – summed up in the saying “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger” (and healthier). Hormesis is often seen in the beneficial effects of exercise, where the breakdown of muscle tissue creates new, stronger tissue; and fasting, where deprivation of nutrients causes the body to “eat” unhealthy, damaged cells as fuel and become more finely tuned and efficient to more easily survive anticipated future instances of nutrient deprivation. Since the Nrf2 pathway is considered to be a cellular defense mechanism against oxidative stress and inflammation, it’s clearly a big part of the body’s adaptive capacity in the face of hormetic stress. The Nrf2 pathway can also be activated by antioxidant-rich food substances like berries, green tea, onions, chocolate and other fruits and herbs.

The Nrf2 pathway likely plays a major role in the health promoting effects of some types of electrotherapy devices, especially the kind that produce “destructive” frequencies like Rife machines. This kind of technology is designed to target and eliminate viral, bacterial and parasitic activity in the body by matching and hitting the resonant frequencies of these organisms.

On the other hand, long exposure durations of the wrong kind of EMFs goes beyond healthy stress, and activates the other main calcium channel pathway, referred to as the peroxynitrite pathway. This pathway is purely destructive to the body’s healthy cells, and results in a snowball effect of oxidative stress, free radicals and eventually DNA damage. The destruction and derangement of healthy cells can result in cell mutation, and allow opportunistic organisms like bacteria, viruses and parasites to proliferate. All of the common unpleasant symptoms that have been attributed to EMFs could potentially be traced to the peroxynitrite pathway of the VGCCs, including heart and nervous system issues, fatigue, insomnia, headaches, dizziness, and many more.

Now, this is just one mechanism that’s been discovered, and more will likely be found over time.

Healing and therapeutic electromagnetic fields

Throughout history, especially in the past couple hundred years, the therapeutic applications of electromagnetic fields have been explored by many brilliant scientists, engineers and physicians. Since ancient times, electricity has been used for pain relief, at first utilizing live electric fish on a patient’s body as a healing stimulus. In the 18^th century, this practice was discontinued after frictionless machines were found to produce electrostatic fields. Therapeutic use of electrostatic and/or electromagnetic fields became known as electrotherapy.

Since our living bodies are highly sensitive to external fields, the healing potential of targeted electrotherapy is vast and possibly almost endless. It has the potential to go far beyond dietary and other lifestyle interventions as a powerful healing modality, because electrotherapy works directly on the electrical systems of the body, rather than indirectly in the form of food, drugs, herbs and other modalities. These modalities also affect our electrical system, but in a less direct and efficient way. In modern times, we even hear rumors of so-called “Med beds” that can restore our bodies to their original healthy state, said to potentially be capable of healing injuries and illnesses that are considered permanent and incurable.

In the 1800s, Nikola Tesla made significant progress into the study of electrotherapy, using his Tesla coils and “magnifying transmitters” to excite the surrounding atmosphere into producing a similar energy to lightning, which Tesla hypothesized could have beneficial effects on human health from its uniquely structured electric fields and negative ions. These high frequency devices would produce fantastic streams of blue light, and several scientists during and after Tesla’s time continued and expanded upon his experiments, finding highly beneficial results on human health. These machines were thought to act as systemic vitality boosters, allowing the body to throw off diseased states simply by increasing the overall vitality of the system as a whole.

Other notable men who built on Tesla’s electrotherapy work in the 1900s were Georges Lakhovsky, Royal Raymond Rife, Guy Obolensky and Antoine Priore. All were having major success reversing serious chronic illness with Tesla-inspired electrotherapy machines. However, the mechanism of action was not discovered at that time, and this void in knowledge discouraged scientists of the past, just as much as it kills the motivation of modern scientists.

There are always exceptions, however, as there is a special type of mind that’s not discouraged by the unknown, but deeply inspired by it.

Two powerful healing modalities – plasma electrotherapy and PEMF

Paul Harris, inventor of the modern plasma electrotherapy machines Theraphi and Quantaphi, has been devoted to discovering the potential of electrotherapy from an early age. Antoine Priore’s system, in particular, had to be pieced together almost from scratch, as Priore left very little records and no intact, functional electrotherapy machines by the time of his death in the early ‘80s. The healing effects of his machine were found to be extraordinary in Priore’s time, but research was abandoned and experiments ceased because no one, not even Priore himself, could figure out why it worked so well.

Priore didn’t know at the time, but his machine was utilizing a principle discovered in the field of optics in the 1960s, known as phase conjugation. American Lt. Colonel Thomas Bearden figured this out and shared it widely in the 1990s, and placed 20 years of research into the public domain to stimulate redevelopment of this type of electrotherapy, which became known as scalar electromagnetic therapy. Applying phase conjugation to an EM field creates coherence by causing a wave to mirror itself exactly (in a phase conjugate mirror model), compared to a regular mirror that further scatters the wave and decreases coherence, increasing entropy and breakdown of the field’s orderly structure. The opposite of entropy is known as negentropy, referring to an increase in order, coherent structure, and an expression of the pure, original state of the field. In a sense, it’s a form of time reversal, where something is restored to its original, closer-to-perfect state.

This process has profound implications on living biology, by applying time reversal on a biological cell level, where a cell structure exposed to a phase conjugate field reverts back to its original state (which is programmed into our DNA, and always remembered there), before disease, disorder and entropy set in.

Theraphi and Quantaphi utilize this principle in the most powerful and advanced form yet created. Some electrotherapy devices, like the Rife machine, operate using “destructive” fields, meant to promote health through the destruction of anything present in the body that inhibits health (like a chronic viral or bacterial load). These likely work through the hormetic Nrf2 pathway explained earlier, where the body is exposed to some amount of stress to stimulate healing. Rife machines use a continuous, repetitive, square wave frequency to accomplish this.

Theraphi and Quantaphi operate on quite another level, where the entirety of the frequency field is considered “constructive”. It does not produce stress on any part of the body, and almost transcends the “progress through adversity” path that other methods take, by bathing the body in a coherent field of time-reversed waves. Instead of targeting and destroying a misaligned cell, in most cases the cell is simply “time-reversed” into its younger, previously healthy state. The concept itself is clean, harmonious and gentle. It may sound contradictory, but this is a subtle energy device that’s massively powerful in its potential effects.

Another powerful electrotherapy modality is called PEMF (pulsed electromagnetic fields). The first PEMF machines were invented over a century ago, inspired by Tesla’s research and experimentation with the healing effects of certain types of electromagnetic fields. PEMF devices gained popularity and became more formally recognized by the medical field around 50 years ago. Therapeutic uses of PEMF include bone healing, pain management, inflammation reduction, and overall wellness.

The most powerful and effective PEMF machine we have found is called ARC (Advanced Resonant Charge). It was specially developed by acupuncturists and electrical engineers to provide maximum magnetic penetration into the deep tissues and bones of the body. Where the magnetic fields of many modern machines have a tendency to bounce off the body or have little long term effects, the ARC provides deep, therapeutic levels of raw, magnetic energy to the cells, without the issues that come along with repetitive signal devices. Compared to solid state PEMF devices, the analog ARC device delivers strong, coherent, point source magnetic fields to the body, with unparalleled tissue penetration.

ARC constantly changes the amplitude and pulse rate so that the body never adapts to the magnetic flux, resulting in the body never getting used to the energy, increasing the long term benefits. Although the magnetic pulse patterns are ever changing, you can change both the intensity and the pulse rate on the ARC. This gives you the most control possible in a totally analog package. You will find that as your needs change, settings on the ARC can easily and intuitively be adjusted and adapted for what the body or application requires.

It has long been known in acupuncture that the human body produces its own electrical current within each cell. The magnetic field and currents in the body play a critical role in regeneration, healing, growth, and cellular energy production. Pulsed magnetic fields can be used to energize and stimulate the meridians and tissues of the body, which can give the body the raw energy it needs to create health and balance.

Pulsed magnetic therapy produced by the ARC will support circulation, pain mitigation, lymphatic flow, reduce anxiety, enhance blood flow, charge the blood and cells, and reduce inflammation and stress.

Analog technology is old school, but we feel it has far better effects biologically speaking. The ARC has evolved analog PEMF technology to a level that we feel is currently unmatched in the industry. This is the most natural form of intense magnetic fields… like having lightning in a box.

The Theraphi and the ARC are practitioner grade devices, mainly used in healing centers by holistic practitioners. Even if you don’t run a healing center, if you have the space in your home and have a serious interest in healing technology, you can acquire either of these devices for yourself and your family (as well as the Quantaphi, which is sized and priced more for home users), here:


Theraphi & Quantaphi Plasma Electrotherapy

ARC (Advanced Resonant Charge) PEMF machines

Doing sessions on the ARC (used first) followed by the Theraphi is the ultimate energy healing and biohacking device “stack” that we have found yet.

One of our primary goals with Blushield’s online presence, besides providing highly effective EMF protection devices, is to share valuable EMF-related information to help our audience become more educated and well-versed in all subjects related to electromagnetic fields.

An important part of this education is to share with you any and all progress on the front of EMF activism:  men and women, just like you, standing up for their right to be free from forced exposure to harmful sources of electromagnetic fields, especially inside their very own homes.

Over the decades, there have been consistent attempts to take a stand against government and corporate policies that are not designed to protect our health, but instead prioritize government and corporate power and profits.  Protests, speaking up at city council meetings, educating neighbors and rallying community members to get on board, and even expensive lawsuits are what many EMF-aware and especially EMF-sensitive men and women have invested their energy into each time a new harmful exposure source is thrust upon us, without our full knowledge of the potential harms involved, and without our explicit consent.

Unfortunately, many who fight these hard battles have found their attempts to be hard won, or thwarted entirely by an often corrupt legal system.  Many of us have realized that government agencies are working alongside corporations, primarily motivated by money.  There is a “revolving door” between individuals working for corporations (such as the telecom industry), and those working for the government agencies that supposedly regulate the industries these corporations are involved in.  The most relevant example when it comes to EMFs is the shady association between the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) and the telecoms it is responsible for regulating.

To understand the depths of this alarming situation, you can read a 2015 publication from Harvard University’s Center for Ethics, titled Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission Is Dominated by the Industries It Presumably Regulates.

The sad truth is that corporate entities and governments (which are also corporations) are primarily motivated by money.  When they see small groups of angry citizens complaining about a new 5G tower going up in their neighborhood, or protesting that their old but perfectly functional analog electricity, gas or water meter got quickly swapped for a so-called “smart” meter, what they see is simply a threat to their bottom line.

While some individual men or women who work for government agencies may personally believe they care about human health, and may have the motivation of influencing policy in the direction of what’s “good for the people”, these intentions are undermined by the powerful momentum of Goliath governments who have entirely different motives.  They see these groups of protesters as annoying flies that need to be swatted away and quieted as quickly as possible.  Large corporate entities happen to be the primary lobbyists for government agencies, which quietly influence policy decisions towards the interests of these corporations.

What if there was a method of advocating for policy changes that support the health and well-being of living men and women, in a way that could more effectively get government and corporate attention, and create urgency through consequences involving money and personal liability?

Notice of Liability movement brings EMF activism to a new level of effectiveness

In 2015, a new movement and method of activism was born, initially in response to unwanted “smart” meter installations on homes.  It is referred to as the Notice of Liability (NoL) movement, started by InPower co-founders Cal Washington and Josh del Sol.  The techniques utilize a sophisticated understanding of the laws that all governments of the world abide by, which most common people are not currently versed in.  Because of our lack of awareness, we unwittingly fall victim to the will of the corporate government, and unconsciously waive our own rights and power.

However, there are ways that we can play their game by following their own rules, which we were not taught in school or by our society.  The Notice of Liability is a formal written document that can be sent in response to a harmful offer, and is the first of a series of documents.  These documents are private contract negotiations utilizing the same principles used by corporations and governments to get you to agree to offers.

You may not be aware that when your utility company first sends you a letter telling you they’re planning to install a smart meter on your house, that is actually an offer to contract.  However, because of clever wording, most of us interpret their letter as a statement of what they will do, rather than an offer awaiting our agreement.  Because of this, most of us will not respond to this letter properly and honorably, and many will not respond at all, believing we have no power of choice over the matter.

In accordance with commercial law, our lack of response is interpreted as our agreement to the terms of their offer:  this is legally called tacit agreement, and is a form of implied consent.  A party's failure to object to certain actions may be seen as an implicit agreement.

Contracts are the lifeblood of the world of commerce.  In accordance with the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which is the “rule book” for all commercial interactions, there are four steps essential to forming the simplest version of a contract.

The first step is the offer, which in this case could be a notice, or even a website, announcing a “meter upgrade”.

The second step is a mutual assent (or a meeting of the minds), which must include full disclosure of the relevant facts and terms, including the potential health and privacy consequences to the recipient of the offer.  If there is not full disclosure, the contract is not legally valid.

The third step is unconditional acceptance.  This means that both parties have agreed to every part of the contract – if there are any objections to any part of the contract, they should be presented through a conditional acceptance (or counter-offer), and the negotiations must continue until all conditions are agreed to by both parties.  It’s important to note that consent can be gained tacitly, meaning silence or a lack of response is considered to be an unconditional acceptance to all terms of the contract.

The fourth and final step is ratification, which refers to the formal approval or confirmation of an agreement.  This is gained by performance (the act of doing something based on the contract), which can involve monetary exchange, signing a document, through a statement of approval, or accepting the benefits of the contract.  In this example, ratification can happen when a smart meter is installed on a property after the initial notice (offer) was sent directly to the individual or posted publicly, and the recipient tacitly agreed to it (did not respond properly, or at all).

There is another element essential to a contract, called consideration.  This means each party must offer something of value (consideration) in return for the other party’s promise or action.  The utility providers try to convince you that by installing a “smart” meter on your house, they are providing you with the benefit of frequent meter readings so you can monitor your own energy usage in “real time”.  They will try to sell you on this, but surveys have suggested that most people do not want or need this.  Also, the risks to our health, safety and privacy far outweigh this single proposed benefit, as we outline in our article all about smart meters.

To negotiate the conditions of the contract, we need to know how to speak their language to get what we want.  We can respond to their offer with a Notice of Liability, which recognizes that a utility’s desire to install a “smart” meter is a contractual offer.  We conditionally accept their offer in a written notice, but only on the condition that they provide definitive proof that the device is not harmful to human health, and does not violate privacy laws protected by the U.S. Constitution.  This would require them to disprove, point-by-point, facts outlined in our affidavit (a document that we verify is true), with an affidavit of their own.

We can then go on to state that if they cannot provide this proof (which they won’t be able to), then we will allow them to install this meter, but require that they pay us on a fee schedule of a specific dollar amount (such as $10,000) per day to offset the potential harm to our health, safety and privacy caused by the meter’s presence on our house.  Since you are the one negotiating the contract, you can choose the conditions you are willing to accept.

By sending an NoL, you are putting officials and executives on notice that they are involved with something that is causing harm towards you and your loved ones, and that you do not agree to it.  Once they receive your NoL, they can no longer claim they did not know they were causing you harm.

The NoL process implements Contract Law, Common Law and Commercial Law (outlined by the Uniform Commercial Code).  It is multi-faceted and operates in multiple jurisdictions.  The power of this private contract negotiation is that it holds individuals who are enforcing or allowing the enforcement of this technology as personally liable for harm that may be caused by it.  When this is not done, these people hide behind their governmental or corporate positions, with no “skin in the game” personally.

What happens when government officials receive your NoL?

According to commercial Notice of Liability processes, there are two more types of letters that can be sent to remind the recipient to respond: the Notice of Fault and Notice of Default.  If there is no response (or an insufficient response to your conditional terms), and the action is taken anyway (the “smart” meter installed on your house), billing and enforcement can begin.  Since the NoL is a private contractual agreement, it cannot be taken to public courts, but liens and debt collectors are options for enforcing the contract.

What has often happened since this movement began in 2015 is that a public official, after receiving one or more NoLs, has resigned or stepped down from their position immediately.  Many officials do not want to be in a position where they may be personally financially liable for harm.  Another common result of sending NoL letters is they do not go through with their offer – meaning no “smart” meter on your house.  This is even more likely to happen when groups of people under the same utility district get together and all send NoL notices around the same time.  There is strength in numbers!

Whereas petitions, protesting, attending public hearings, costly class action lawsuits, hiring attorneys or writing letters are often ineffective, the NoL process may be able to accomplish more.  

When you read the examples below, keep in mind that in cases where public officials resigned after receiving an NoL, those may be cases of "correlation does not equal causation", and no one can be absolutely sure that their resignations were a direct result of the NoL process; just that both events occurred very near the same time, indicating the possibility of a link.

• One of the first groups to send NoLs to a local utility in Seattle, Washington were all able to keep their analog meters (although there was another group who were protesting just by bringing awareness to the issue who were also able to keep their analog meters).
• In Kelowna, British Columbia, more than 100 residents sent Notices of Liability to Corix Utilities’ CEO Brett Hodson.  A few days later, immediately after receiving a Notice of Default, Hodson resigned from office.
• Len Kelsey, the chair of the BC Utilities Commission, resigned in 2015 after receiving NoLs.
• After being sent Notices of Default from 21 people, three of nine Seattle City Council members announced that they would not be seeking re-election.
• After being defaulted by 21 individuals, the Michigan attorney general began calling for free smart meter opt-outs.
• Four of the eight Michigan Public Services Commission officers being held liable are no longer listed on the Commission’s website.
• Michigan city attorney David Greim resigned after receiving NoLs, after informing one of the claimants that the utility company had a budget of $21 million set aside for paying off state legislators – more evidence supporting the financial connection between corporations and governments.
• Recent international successes include resignations from Scotland’s First Minister, as well as Ireland’s Chief Medical Officer, after receiving NoLs.

InPower has also received many direct reports of success from men and women using the NoL processes in being able to prevent “smart” meters from being installed on their homes.  As of the time this article was written, the community has collectively served a combined total of 18 billion dollars worth of bills of exchange (negotiable instruments) to corporations and governments.

The InPower community also recently began utilizing the same processes to prevent the installation of 5G towers in residential areas.

InPower has a membership community for a low monthly fee that supports members in creating custom documents using templates, finding others in their area to work with to increase the impact of their NoL processes, and for further education on how all of this works.  You can even join the community just to read and learn more about the processes, to get familiar and comfortable with how it works before taking action.  You can read about the successes that others in your area have had, and communities throughout the world who are taking action.

All the InPower staff are volunteers, and the membership fees go towards maintaining the website.

One of the strengths of Blushield EMF protection is to create a bubble of safety around you and your family while you work to fight the bigger fight, if you are personally inspired toward activism.  We think this particular strategy has considerable potential, as you are stepping more fully into your true power as a living man or woman, transcending older forms of activism that rely on pleading, complaints, and over-reliance on the court system.

This documentary is an excellent watch, to get a full overview of this movement:‍

‍‍InPower is a worldwide movement securing life, liberty, and property for all through accountability.  The InPower community is culturally, governmentally, and geographically diverse, but has a common bond: the need to have authority over one's health and home. Regardless of where you live in the world today, people have fewer choices when it comes to certain technology and services, and often have no choices when it comes to medical interventions with no recourse for bodily harm.

A systematic study review published in October of 2024 by South Korean researchers, which analyzed 24 relevant studies, found significant evidence of a higher risk of malignant brain tumors, glioma and meningioma on the side of the head where cell phones were held.

They also found an increased risk of glioma, the most deadly type of brain tumor, in long-term, heavy cell phone users.

This is the seventh peer-reviewed systematic meta-analysis published between 2016 and 2024 that has found statistically significant connections between cell phone use and brain cancer.

The recent study review was published in Environmental Health, and authored by Jinyoung Moon, Jungmin Kwon and Yongseok Mun, researchers associated with the Departments of Environmental Health Science, Occupation and Environmental Medicine, as well as universities and hospitals in South Korea.

This most recent study on this subject is an important one to analyze in the wake of several highly biased WHO-sponsored study reviews on the health effects of cell phone radiation, which concluded there to be no significant link between EMFs and ill health effects, including cancerous tumors.

Let’s analyze this systematic review, why its results are significant, and then break down the reasons why many EMF-literate scientists have found the WHO-sponsored reviews to be unscientifically manipulated to create the illusion of inconclusive health effects from EMF exposure.

Every one of these recent study review authors, both independent and WHO-sponsored, publicly agrees that the risks of health effects from cell phone exposure need to be comprehensively reevaluated, based on the rapidly changing exposure levels and technology usage habits of modern populations, compared with the 1990s and early 2000s when the international and United States-based exposure “safety” guidelines were originally set.

These exposure guidelines have not been updated since 1996 in the US, and 1998 internationally. If you think about your own life in the late ‘90s, and how drastically different your use of wireless radiation emitting technology was at that time, you will understand the urgency of the need to reevaluate these heavily outdated safety guidelines.

However, the conclusions each group has come to differ dramatically. The independent researchers have concluded that modern cell phone radiation exposure is indeed a pressing concern, compiling and analyzing data from a growing body of scientific research finding a connection between cell phone radiation and cancer. The WHO-sponsored researchers’ findings conveniently support the previous exposure limits set by the same organizations that many of the researchers themselves work for.

South Korean meta-analysis finds evidence of brain tumors connected to cell phone use

In the October 2024 meta-analysis by South Korean researchers, 19 case-control studies and 5 cohort studies were included. Case-control and cohort studies are observational studies used in epidemiology and medical research.

Case-control studies are used to investigate whether exposure to a specific factor is associated with the outcome, in this case cell phone use and various types of brain cancer. They use two groups: the “case” group already has the outcome (the cancer diagnosis) and the “control” group does not have the outcome (no cancer diagnosis). The researchers look back into the past to compare exposure to the risk factor (cell phone radiation) in both groups, to determine if the outcome is uniformly associated with higher exposure to the risk factor. One advantage of case-control studies is that they’re retrospective, looking into the past to find results, which is useful to find results more quickly. One disadvantage of this study type is the “recall bias” factor, where it can be difficult for participants to recall their past exposures accurately. To correct this as much as possible for cell phone radiation studies, phone call records from phone companies are acquired to collect exact data on usage.

Cohort studies are slightly different, as they are not retrospective, but prospective, following participants over a period of time to see who develops the outcome. In this case, researchers would record data in real time of participants’ cell phone use, and over time will find out who becomes diagnosed with brain cancer. Cohort studies are less prone to recall bias or misreporting (since data is being collected in real time), but the disadvantage is that chronic degenerative disease like cancer can have a long latency period, so fully accurate results can only be obtained by following participants over a very long period of time, which is time-consuming and expensive.

Here is an excerpt from the results of the meta-analysis:

“Ipsilateral users reported a pooled odds ratio (OR) of 1.40 (95% CI 1.21–1.62) compared to non-regular users. Users with years of use over 10 years reported a pooled OR of 1.27 (95% CI 1.08–1.48). When stratified by each type of brain tumor, only meningioma (OR 1.20 (95% CI 1.04–1.39)), glioma (OR 1.45 (95% CI 1.16–1.82)), and malignant brain tumors (OR 1.93 (95% CI 1.55–2.39)) showed an increased OR with statistical significance for ipsilateral users. For users with years of use over 10 years, only glioma (OR 1.32 (95% CI 1.01–1.71)) showed an increased OR with statistical significance.”

Ipsilateral is a term used in anatomy and medicine to describe something found on the same side of the body. In contrast, contralateral means something found on the opposite side of the body. The use of ipsilateral in this context refers to cell phones held against the same side of the head where a tumor was found, compared to tumors that were found on the opposite side of where the cell phone was routinely used.

A pooled odds ratio (OR) is a statistical summary that refers to the combined results of all the studies analyzed, and the odds of the outcome occurring in one group (such as the “case” group) compared to the odds of it occurring in another group (the “control” group). A number higher than 1 means the ratio leans in the favor of the case group, which in this instance refers to the participants diagnosed with brain tumors in the case-control studies. For the results to be statistically significant, meaning the outcome (cancer) is very likely to be associated with the exposure factor (cell phone use), you also want the “95% CI” to be higher than 1. CI stands for Confidence Interval, which gives us a realistic span of the probability of the association.

Let’s take the first statistic quoted above, the pooled OR data for ipsilateral users vs. non-regular users as an example: The OR is 1.40, which means the odds of brain cancer being diagnosed on the side of the head where the cell phone was regularly used is 40% higher than in “non-regular users” who only use cell phones infrequently, not regularly. The following data, (95% CI 1.21–1.62), means that the realistic percentage increase (adjusting for potential covariates and inaccuracies) would be somewhere between 21% and 62%. This remains a statistically significant increase. If the lower number range of the CI goes below the number 1, the result is not considered to be statistically significant.

The next finding shows that those who have regularly used cell phones for more than 10 years have 27% higher odds (with a possible range of 8% to 48%) of being diagnosed with brain tumors, compared with those who have used cell phones for less than 10 years overall.

After that, the analysis goes on to compare specific tumor types for ipsilateral users. Meningioma, a tumor that forms in the protective layers of tissue surrounding the brain and spinal cord, has a 20% higher odds of developing. Glioma, a particularly aggressive, fast-growing and deadly type of brain tumor, was found to be 45% more likely to occur on the same side of the head as regular cell phone use. Finally, when they only compared malignant versus non-malignant tumors, they found a 93% increase in occurrence, which is quite alarming.

These three types – malignant tumors, glioma, and meningioma – were found to be connected with regular ipsilateral cell phone use, at statistical significance. There were also increased odds of glioma by 32% for long-term cell phone users (10+ years of regular use).

Further in the analysis, and we won’t include all the excerpts here, 11 studies that recorded over 896 cumulative hours of cell phone use found a 59% increased chance of brain tumors. In this group of heavy, long-term cell phone users, glioma, meningioma and acoustic neuromas were found to be increased by 66%, 29% and 84% respectively. Acoustic neuromas in particular were found to occur much more often with heavy and long-term cell phone use.

The introduction to this systematic study paper emphasizes that the associated between cell phone radiation and brain tumors found in these studies is likely conservative, compared to the real time modern cell phone exposure that most of us have today. Therefore, these results, although they were found to be statistically significant, may not be reflective of the actual risk of exposure we have today.

“In recent years, the pattern of mobile phone use has changed rapidly. With the introduction of 3G phones for data transmission (so-called ‘smartphones’ such as iPhones or Android phones), people started using their mobile phones for other purposes than mere calling: web surfing, watching movies and videos through YouTube or other applications, connecting to social network services like Facebook or Twitter, text messaging, morning alarm, recording schedules, catching a taxi, etc. This change increases the exposure time to RF-EMR from mobile phones and makes the exposure irregular according to a person’s characteristics of mobile phone use…. Therefore, RF-EMR exposure patterns are becoming more complicated for researchers to anticipate than before.”

Another systematic review from 2017 by Carlberg and Hardell found similar results as the recent South Korean study, with a thought-provoking introduction about the weakness of using short-term epidemiological studies to measure long latency chronic illnesses like cancer. A classic epidemiology paper from 1965, written at the height of the tobacco and lung cancer controversy, cautions making quick assumptions that no clear association means no link, as statistical significance can change dramatically after just a few extra years of exposure to the disease-causing stimulus.

“None of the today's established carcinogens, including tobacco, could have been firmly identified as increasing risk in the first 10 years or so since first exposure.”

WHO-sponsored study review finds no link between cell phone use and brain cancer

Back in May of 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) evaluated the studies published on the link between cell phone radiation and brain cancer (specifically glioma and acoustic neuroma), and classified radiofrequency radiation as a Group 2B “possible human carcinogen”.

Very soon afterward, in June of 2011, the WHO issued a fact sheet stating that “to date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use”. Issuing a statement that directly contradicted the IARC evaluation, and only a month later, is highly suspect. Since that time, and with much evidence to the contrary continually being produced in the scientific sphere, the WHO and other government organizations have been strongly emphasizing the complete, definitive absence of a link between cell phones and cancer.

At that time, the WHO also stated that “two international bodies have developed exposure guidelines for workers and the general public… based on a detailed assessment of available scientific evidence.” These two organizations are the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).

ICNIRP is a private organization based in Germany that selects its own members, and IEEE is the world’s most powerful group of engineers, whose members are employed in companies that produce or use technology that depends on radiofrequency radiation, such as power companies, the telecom industry and military organizations.

In 1998, ICNIRP established wireless radiation exposure guidelines that are based only on thermal (heating) effects from wireless radiation, and ignoring the large body of science showing non-thermal biological effects. These guidelines have been adopted by most countries in the world, based on the archaic assumption that tissue heating (thermal effects) are the only way that radiation could possibly negatively affect living organisms. This is commonly referred to by EMF-literate scientists as “the thermal-only paradigm”.

In 2009, they provided an update to their guidelines, stating that the established limits from way back in 1998 are still protective, even from the considerably increased modern day exposure levels.

Most of the WHO Monograph core group, a specialized team responsible for assessing scientific research to inform WHO recommendations, are also members of the ICNIRP, so cannot be considered independent, unbiased researchers.

Joel Moskowitz, PhD, Director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the School of Public Health, UC Berkeley, stated that in 2019, investigative journalists from eight European countries published 22 articles in major news media that exposed conflicts of interest in this ‘ICNIRP cartel.’ The journalists argue that the cartel promotes the ICNIRP guidelines by conducting biased reviews of the scientific literature that minimize health risks from EMF exposure. By preserving the ICNIRP exposure guidelines favored by industry, the cartel ensures that the cellular industry will continue to fund their research.

As just one of a series of study reviews commissioned by the WHO, a systematic review specifically focused on human cell phone use and brain cancer was published in August of 2024 in Environmental International. The study’s highlights state that exposure to RF from mobile phone use likely does not increase the risk of brain cancer or childhood cancer. The methodology used in this study review has been extensively criticized in the past few months since it was published, including by Joel Moskowitz on his website, SaferEMR.com.

Moskowitz’s criticisms of the WHO study include:

• crude exposure measures and inadequate follow-up time for the cohort studies
• they defined “regular cell phone use” as at least one cell phone call weekly, which is very low
• incorrect methods for dealing with differences in the original studies’ methods and results (heterogeneity), which can skew the overall findings
• the cumulative call time analyses that did find increased risk of glioma and meningioma with increased call time, but assessed only a small sample size so it was unable to achieve statistical significance

The language used by the lead study author in a news release reveals their bias:

"This systematic review provides the strongest evidence to date that radio waves from wireless technologies are not a hazard to human health."

"Overall, the results are very reassuring. They mean that our national and international safety limits are protective. Mobile phones emit low-level radio waves below these safety limits, and there is no evidence exposure to these has an impact on human health."

"There remains no evidence of any established health effects from exposures related to mobile phones, and that is a good thing."

In truth, for the past couple decades, substantial disagreement has existed among experts who study wireless radiation. Unfortunately, these recent WHO study reviews are only going to increase the rift, as the panel of researchers involved in these studies are from the WHO’s own core group, most of whom have significant past or present ties with ICNIRP and other regulatory organizations.

The sad truth is this has become a political battle on the world stage, with the pursuit of money and power at its core, and all of humanity as collateral damage.

The best we can do as this plays out is educate ourselves on the risks of EMFs, protect ourselves, and raise awareness within our community, so that as a species, we can eventually win this battle of humanity’s health over corporate power.

References:

• Study review: “Relationship between radiofrequency-electromagnetic radiation from cellular phones and brain tumor: meta-analyses using various proxies for RF-EMR exposure-outcome assessment” – https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-024-01117-8
• Children’s Health Defense: “New Report Adds to Evidence That Cellphone Radiation May Cause Brain Cancer” – https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/cellphone-radiation-may-cause-brain-cancer-south-korea-report/
• Children’s Health Defense: “Biased? WHO-Backed Study Finds No Link Between Cellphones and Cancer” – https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/brain-cancer-cellphones-who-study/
• Study review: “Evaluation of Mobile Phone and Cordless Phone Use and Glioma Risk Using the Bradford Hill Viewpoints from 1965 on Association or Causation” – https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5376454/
• SaferEMR.com: “Biased WHO-commissioned review claims no cancer link to cellphone use” – https://www.saferemr.com/2024/09/biased-who-commissioned-review-claims.html
• SaferEMR.com: “WHO Radiofrequency EMF Health Risk Assessment Monograph (EHC series)” – https://www.saferemr.com/2021/09/who-radiofrequency-emf-health-risk.html
• Study review: “The effect of exposure to radiofrequency fields on cancer risk in the general and working population: A systematic review of human observational studies – Part I: Most researched outcomes” – https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412024005695
• Study analysis: “WHO to build neglect of RF-EMF exposure hazards on flawed EHC reviews? Case study demonstrates how “no hazards” conclusion is drawn from data showing hazards” – https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2024-0089/html
• Study analysis: “Self-referencing authorships behind the ICNIRP 2020 radiation protection guidelines” – https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2022-0037/html

Oxidative stress from free radical production in the body is a pervasive issue that can significantly impact our lives and our health, and potentially cause or contribute to degenerative disease, especially in modern times.

Through our normal metabolic processes (the conversion of food into energy through oxygen), our bodies naturally produce a small but consistent amount of free radicals as a byproduct. Our immune system also creates free radicals intentionally to destroy harmful elements that have invaded the body, such as viruses and bacteria, by oxidizing their cell membranes. Free radicals are essential to cell signaling and wound healing, as well as degrading and recycling damaged cells. In the right amounts and applied in the right situations, free radicals serve a vitally important function in maintaining the health and survival of the body. The danger lies in the excessive amounts triggered by the many modern sources of toxic exposure, which overwhelm the body's antioxidant defense system, leaving us vulnerable to chronic illness.

Free radicals are highly reactive molecules with unpaired electrons in their outer electron shell, making them unstable and prompting them to ‘steal’ electrons from nearby molecules to stabilize themselves, which causes oxidative stress. If there are not enough molecules in the area with extra electrons and the ability to donate them to subdue the unstable free radicals, they will grab electrons from the membranes of healthy cells, creating a vulnerability and damaging the cell.

Types of free radicals include reactive oxygen species (ROS) like superoxide, hydroxyl radical and hydrogen peroxide; and reactive nitrogen species (RNS) like nitric oxide. These can even combine to produce more highly reactive and harmful substances, such as peroxynitrite, which is created when nitric oxide interacts with superoxide.

Molecules in the body that effectively neutralize free radicals by donating or receiving an electron to protect the body from the harmful effects of oxidative stress are called antioxidants.

Antioxidants are defined as substances with the ability to donate or receive electrons to stabilize free radicals, without becoming destabilized themselves. Some types of antioxidants are endogenous, meaning they are produced from within the body. These include glutathione, melatonin, catalase, and superoxide dismutase. Endogenous antioxidants are the body’s internal defense against being harmed by the chain reaction of free radicals, which would otherwise proliferate unchecked, causing significant cell damage and cell death.

Additionally, many antioxidants come from dietary sources, including some that are considered essential nutrients. These include vitamin C, vitamin E, selenium, magnesium, zinc, beta carotene, folic acid/folate, and various flavonoids and polyphenols, including lycopene, quercetin and catechins. Some of these (including vitamins C and E) act as antioxidants on their own, while others support the enzymes involved in the body’s antioxidant system. Selenium is an essential component of the enzymes that produce glutathione peroxidase, while magnesium is necessary for the activation of the enzyme superoxide dismutase (SOD).

Some of the most important and biologically active dietary antioxidants are vitamin C and vitamin E. They work together synergistically, as they function in different areas of the body, together scavenging free radicals throughout the entirety of the organism.

Vitamin E is fat soluble, and protects the lipids of the cell membranes from oxidation. Cell membranes are rich in polyunsatured fatty acids (PUFAs), which are highly susceptible to oxidative damage. This process of lipid peroxidation is prevented by adequate vitamin E levels in the body, which is especially important in areas with a high fat content, like the brain, nervous system, heart, lungs and skin.

Vitamin C is water soluble, so it works in the watery parts of the body, including the bloodstream and the cytosol, the fluid portion of the cell between its outer membrane and nucleus/core. It is particularly important for optimal immune system function, as well as wound healing, collagen production, and utilizing iron from plant foods.

After vitamin E has donated an electron to neutralize a free radical, it then becomes oxidized itself. The oxidized form of vitamin E is called tocopheryl radical. However, unlike free radical molecules, vitamin E remains relatively stable in its oxidized form. The only problem is it’s no longer useful as an antioxidant.

This is where vitamin C comes in. Vitamin C has the ability to regenerate oxidized vitamin E back into its active form, so it can continue its protective role in lipid-rich environments. Vitamin C will then become oxidized by donating an electron to regenerate vitamin E (oxidized vitamin C is called dehydroascorbate), but it’s easily regenerated back into its active form by endogenous processes, usually involving glutathione.

This a powerfully synergistic combination that can significantly assist the body in defending itself from excess oxidative stress and the harm it can cause to our overall health.

The overall process of transferring electrons between substances, which changes their oxidation state, is called the redox reaction (short for reduction-oxidation). A substance that donates electrons (such as an antioxidant) is called the reducing agent, and a substance that accepts electrons is called the oxidizing agent (such as a free radical when interacting with an antioxidant).

A perfect example of a redox reaction is how hydrogen and oxygen combine to produce water (H2O). Two hydrogen molecules each donate their sole electrons to one oxygen molecule, which contains six electrons in its outer shell and readily seeks two more to fill all eight spaces available in its electron shell, which is its most stable form. In this example, hydrogen is the reducing agent (the electron donor) and oxygen is the oxidizing agent (the receiver).

The inherent instability of the oxygen molecule explains why oxygen so frequently and easily turns into water, and it also explains why the oxygen molecule itself can act as a free radical in the body, if antioxidant levels are insufficient. Excess oxygen in the body, beyond what is needed for cellular energy production, is converted into H2O by our internal antioxidant defense system.

Without antioxidants, free radicals create a path of destruction by stealing an electron, which creates a new free radical that finds another electron to steal, resulting in a chain reaction that can wreak havoc on the healthy cells of the body. As soon as an antioxidant like vitamin E neutralizes one free radical in the chain, the whole process of destruction grinds to a halt.

Oxidative stress occurs if the antioxidant defense system is unable to prevent the harmful effects of free radicals, which can happen if free radical levels in the body exceed the capabilities of the antioxidants we have available. If our diet is deficient in antioxidant sources, we are more susceptible to damage from oxidative stress, as our antioxidant defense system won’t be as fully equipped.

The health risks of oxidative stress, and the many modern exposure sources

Since excessive oxidative stress damages cells, proteins, and even DNA itself, the potential harm affects every system of the body, and can contribute to various diseases and conditions. It affects the cardiovascular system, increasing the risk of atherosclerosis, hypertension, heart attacks and strokes.

Free radicals can cause DNA mutations and DNA damage, which may lead to cancer development. They damage neurons and promote the formation of amyloid plaque, implicated in neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.

Free radicals contribute to diabetes by impairing insulin signaling pathways, and exacerbating complications of the disease, like neuropathy. Oxidative stress can cause chronic inflammation through the overproduction of inflammatory cytokines, which can result in autoimmune conditions like rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease.

Oxidative stress also accelerates the aging process and overall health decline, impairs the immune system, and can cause eye disorders like macular degeneration and cataracts.

Why is oxidative stress far more of a health concern in modern times than it was for our ancestors?

It relates to the cumulative effect of the numerous exposure sources we are faced with today.

Air pollution triggers the production of free radicals in the lungs and bloodstream. Long-term exposure from living in polluted, population dense urban areas can contribute to respiratory diseases, cardiovascular problems and even cancer. This includes excessive smoke inhalation from cigarettes and other sources. Excessive ultraviolet (UV) radiation from sun exposure can cause oxidative damage to skin cells. Chemical exposure (including pesticides, heavy metals and industrial pollutants, all of which are invisible and pervasive) generates oxidative stress that causes cell and tissue damage and chronic disease.

Unhealthy diets that contain a lot of processed food, additives, preservatives and alcohol, especially combined with a poor intake of fruits, vegetables and herbs (which are dietary antioxidant sources), can cause oxidative stress.

Excessive stress beyond what the body can recover from, whether it’s physical, mental or emotional, can increase cortisol, which produces oxidative stress.

Another well known source of oxidative stress is radiation exposure. Typically this refers to ionizing radiation, which vibrates at a high enough frequency to instantly knock electrons out of atoms, creating unstable free radicals. Ionizing radiation sources include x-rays, medical imaging, industrial accidents and environmental contamination.

There is an increasingly large body of science that also links non-ionizing radiation with free radical production and oxidative stress-related harmful health effects. Previously, people believed that since electromagnetic frequencies under the threshold of ‘ionizing’ are not strong enough to instantly dislodge an electron from an atom, that they must have no health effects. Science has overwhelmingly convinced us otherwise, and shown us that the effects may take a little longer, but that this form of radiation is equally dangerous because of our constant exposure to it.

In the past decade, the primary mechanism believed to cause the health effects of EMFs involves the voltage-gated ion channels of cells (calcium, potassium, sodium and chloride), particularly the voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs). Basically, excessive or inappropriate activation of the VGCCs, which are highly electrically sensitive (readily responding to external EMFs as well as our internal electrochemical signaling), creates a cascade of damaging effects. Excessive calcium signaling on its own results in pathophysiological effects of various kinds, but what also occurs is an overproduction of nitric oxide and superoxide (both free radicals), which combine to produce a highly toxic and reactive free radical called peroxynitrite. This research was spearheaded by Dr. Martin Pall, who has been compiling this groundbreaking information since around 2016.

Dr. Pall also established the role of the VGCCs in the therapeutic effects of specific EMFs, dependent on the frequency, intensity and duration of exposure. EMFs found to have beneficial effects trigger a different part of the VGCC pathway called the nitric oxide signaling pathway, with a downstream effect of activating Nrf2, resulting in hormetic, therapeutic effects.

Here is a summary of several studies that not only implicate electromagnetic field exposure with free radical production and oxidative stress, but demonstrate the protective effects of vitamin C and E supplementation in neutralizing the harm. Most of these were done using cell phone frequencies, to study one of the most common EMF exposure sources in the daily lives of modern humans.

Studies demonstrating oxidative stress from EMF exposure, and protection from vitamins C & E

A study review from Turkey in 2017 assessed several studies showing that exposure to EMF results in oxidative stress in many tissues in the body, increases free radical production, and impacts the antioxidant defense system of the body. Reported findings from these studies include stress, headache, tiredness, anxiety, decreased learning potential, impairment in cognitive functions and poor concentration as a result of exposure to microwave radiation emitted from cell phones.

The review elaborates on how non-ionizing radiation generates reactive oxygen species (ROS), which is extremely toxic to cell membranes. It describes the antioxidant defense system of the body and all of its components, and how EMF exposure compromises this defense system.

It points out that the brain has a high metabolic rate, making it more prone to oxidative damage compared to other organs, since our metabolic processes themselves produce oxidative stress. We know from many studies that the brain and nervous system are particularly affected by EMFs.

Malondialdehyde (MDA) is a highly reactive compound that results from lipid peroxidation of polyunsaturated fatty acids. It is used as a marker of lipid oxidative damage, and is the final product of the lipid peroxidation process. Vitamin E is the most important antioxidant which inhibits the LPO process. One of the reviewed studies reported that 50-day exposure to EMF causes oxidative stress by increasing MDA levels and reducing SOD (superoxide dismutase) activity, and observed that treatment with vitamin E prevented oxidative stress and lipid peroxidation. Several other studies corroborated the finding that exposure to EMF led to oxidative stress by reducing SOD activity, and reported that treatment with vitamin E prevents lipid peroxidation.

The review paper advises the use of various antioxidants such as vitamin E, melatonin and folic acid to reduce the adverse effects of EMF exposure.

In the study that did the 50-day exposure, the rats in the experimental group were exposed to EMF for 4 hours per day, and the second experimental group was exposed to the same EMFs but with vitamin E supplementation of 200 milligrams per kilogram of body weight.

Note that this particular dosage would be difficult or impractical to replicate for a human – the same dosage for a 150 pound human would equal 13,600 milligrams of vitamin E per day! A similar dosage was used in a 2013 study on rats, but this time using vitamin C. They found excellent protective effects from vitamin C, compared to the EMF-only group, but once again, this would be impractical to replicate in humans on a daily basis.

A 60-day study from 2019 that tested the effects of vitamin E supplementation on rats exposed to cell phone radiation, and observed before and after health markers in their testes, was another story. The dosage used was quite low (1.35 mg per kilo of body weight), and would be easy to replicate with the normal recommended daily dosages of vitamin E. These rats were exposed to cell phones ringing continuously for 120 minutes per day, and the vitamin E was only given 3 times per week, two hours before exposure to the EMFs. It was found that vitamin E protected sperm from oxidative damage, and enhanced sperm motility and performance.

Another study from 2012 on rats also used reasonable dosages. One group was exposed to EMFs without supplementation, the second group exposed to EMFs along with vitamin C (40 mg per kilo of body weight per day), and the third group exposed to EMFs along with vitamin E (2.7 mg/kg/day). This one also tested sperm quality, and both of the groups that were supplemented with the two different antioxidant vitamins were in much better shape than the EMF-only group.

These studies that found good results at lower dosages may indicate that even though the dosages used in the other studies mentioned are quite high, that this high amount may not be necessary to achieve optimal results. Since both vitamins are considered safe to consume at much higher levels than the recommended daily allowance, best results may be achieved by finding a happy medium between the low and high doses used in these studies.

How effective are antioxidants like vitamin C & E for EMF protection?

The studies listed above give a convincing argument that antioxidant nutrients, including the essential vitamins C and E, may be a powerful addition to your EMF protection strategy. Do we want to rely on them as our only form of EMF protection? In our opinion, no, we shouldn’t.

One reason is because of the dosage inconsistencies in these studies. Some studies used extremely high dosages, and although these dosages are likely safe, it would be impractical and expensive to maintain this level of consumption as a daily routine. We could assume that the lower levels used in some studies are adequate, but if we want to be very thorough in protecting our bodies from EMFs, it’s best to do whatever we can to reduce the harm as much as possible.

Another reason is that EMFs are not our only source of oxidative stress. We are also exposed to air pollution, chemicals, carcinogenic food byproducts and additives, stress, and possibly excessive sunlight, cigarette smoke and ionizing radiation. All of these exposure sources have to be neutralized by the antioxidants available in our body, lowering the total amount and leaving less available antioxidants dedicated to neutralizing EMF effects.

Every source of oxidative stress we're exposed to increases our nutrient burn rate, increasing the amount of each nutrient we need to consume to remain at a healthy baseline. If our EMF exposure is excessive, and we use vitamins as our only EMF protection strategy, to remain healthy we would need to take very large quantities of these antioxidant nutrients every single day.

Since there's no way to exactly measure our personal daily exposure to every source of oxidative stress, and calculate the exact amount of vitamins C & E needed to neutralize it, we would be guessing at best. Underestimating would leave us unprotected and vulnerable, and overestimating would leave us with a stomach full of pills and a very expensive monthly supplement bill.

What we believe to be the most sensible strategy is to minimize your EMF exposure as much as possible or practical, then to use an effective, clinically tested EMF protection device, like our Blushield home and portable units, as the foundation of your protection for the exposure sources you cannot control or eliminate. Blushield prevents oxidative stress from EMFs by creating a biologically coherent field that your body preferentially entrains with, which stops the body from attempting to “attack” the invisible, intangible EMFs 24/7. This constant attack exhausts the immune system’s energy reserves, and the excessive cytokine production from the immune activation directly produces free radicals.

While antioxidants can neutralize free radicals that have already been produced and begun to damage the body, entraining with a beneficial field can prevent free radical production before it even starts.

Where we really see antioxidants like vitamin C and E shining, when it comes to their role in EMF protection, is as an extra protection strategy – the icing on the cake!

Blushield devices come with various field strengths, depending on the model, and the one you choose should depend on your overall EMF exposure levels. Since nothing in nature is 100% efficient, there will likely always be a little bit of EMF that gets through and affects you anyway, even if you have the ideal strength Blushield for your needs. If you have plenty of antioxidants in your daily diet, and regularly supplement with vitamins C and E, this little bit of exposure that’s still affecting you can be mitigated by these antioxidants, rounding out your EMF protection strategy.

Another use for vitamins C and E is to assist highly sensitive folks, those with hyper-reactive bodies or chronic illness, in acclimating to the Blushield field. These people can sometimes take longer to adapt to the protective field, because their bodies are more guarded and resistant to change – and very understandably so, being burdened by trauma and illness for so long. Nutritional reinforcement of just the right kind could make all the difference.

When it comes to nutrient sources, there’s no replacement for getting these vitamins in their natural form, from the foods you eat. Eating plenty of fruits, vegetables, and raw nuts and seeds (cooking destroys vitamins C and E) will give you an excellent baseline of essential nutrients, polyphenols and flavonoids. Since our world is not ideal, and most food is deficient in nutrients to some extent, it is also sensible to supplement strategically.

You can take food-based supplements, like concentrates of vitamin C and E rich powders, which are highly bioavailable. You can also use concentrated synthetic forms for a more therapeutic effect, especially if you’re already deficient, or wanting to target sources of oxidative stress in your life, including EMFs.

Here are some of our favorite sources of vitamin C and E. If you feel called to add more of these two powerhouse nutrients into your life, pick the options that resonate with you most!

-

Rice Sprouts Powder by Shen Blossom (use coupon code EMF at checkout to save 15%) – a delicious, creamy whole food powder you can add to your food, for a big burst of flavor and nutrition. Not only does it provide the full spectrum of vitamin E complexes, but it contains all the B vitamins, all essential amino acids, CoQ10, folic acid (also protective against oxidative stress), silica, GABA, and a variety of other polyphenols, vitamins and minerals.

Potent-C by Shen Blossom (use coupon code EMF at checkout to save 15%) – our favorite “whole food vitamin C” product, which combines collagen-producing peptides derived from fermented seaweed with potent sources of vitamin C from high quality food concentrates. The vitamin C sources are incredibly unique, from traditional Japanese cultivated and wild harvested foods and herbs, including umeboshi plum, Japanese gooseberry, Shishito pepper, Japanese wood sorrel and watercress.

You can also find synthetic versions of both vitamins C and E. These can be strategic for therapeutic use if one is really deficient, or wants to cover all their bases.

Our favorite concentrated vitamin E is the AC Grace Vitamin E Mixed Tocopherols, which has been considered the standard in the industry for vitamin E supplementation for the past 50 years.

References:

• Study review: Effects of electromagnetic fields exposure on the antioxidant defense system – https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213879X17300731
• Study: Protective Effects of Vitamin E Consumption against 3MT Electromagnetic Field Effects on Oxidative Parameters in Substantia Nigra in Rats – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102560/
• Study: Vitamin C protects rat cerebellum and encephalon from oxidative stress following exposure to radiofrequency wave generated by a BTS antenna model – https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/15376516.2014.910852?needAccess=true
• Study: Influence of an Extremely Low Frequency Magnetic Field (ELF-EMF) on Antioxidative Vitamin E Properties in AT478 Murine Squamous Cell Carcinoma Culture In Vitro - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1091581809352011
• Study: Rat testicular impairment induced by electromagnetic radiation from a conventional cellular telephone and the protective effects of the antioxidants vitamins C and E – https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1807593222017732
• Study: Effect of electromagnetic field on body weight and blood indices in albino rats and the therapeutic action of vitamin C or E – https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228373771_EFFECT_OF_ELECTROMAGNETIC_FIELD_ON_BODY_WEIGHT_AND_BLOOD_INDICES_IN_ALBINO_RATS_AND_THE_THERAPEUTIC_ACTION_OF_VITAMIN_C_OR_E
• Study: Influence of Pulsed Magnetic field on RBCs and ‎therapeutic action of vitamins C and E – https://japer.in/article/influence-of-pulsed-magnetic-field-on-rbcs-and-therapeutic-action-of-vitamins-c-and-e
• Study: The possible protective effect of vitamin E on adult albino rat’s testes exposed to electromagnetic field emitted from a conventional cellular phone – https://ejhm.journals.ekb.eg/article_25267_3aed9b7784acb4b443cec598ca185523.pdf

Life in the twenty-first century is a wild ride.  It sure seems like there was never before a time when our environment was changing as rapidly as it is now.  Even in the span of just a few years, daily life can take on new and often unrecognizable forms, most of this change due to the extremely rapid expansion of technology and its role in our lives.  Although many people are nostalgic for the simpler times of the past, this emergent phenomenon has its own momentum, and seems to have taken on a life of its own, which certainly has benefits as well as downsides.

As humans who are living out our lives during this unique time on Earth, our job is to become aware of what’s happening around us, so that we are capable of choosing how we want to participate in these changes.  Our biological forms, which are innately skilled at adapting to gradual changes in our environment, may be considerably challenged by the unprecedented pace of change occurring at this time.

Even just the flood of “information at our fingertips”, being able to instantly discover events happening worldwide, and view snapshots of the lives of billions of other humans at any moment via social media and the internet, may sometimes feel like too much for our brains and bodies to handle.

Then when you add in the influence of the invisible and imperceptible electromagnetic fields that power this entire technological movement, and consider the effects the fields themselves have on our bodies and minds (which most people are still entirely unaware of), you can have more compassion for yourself and any struggles you may be experiencing.

To calm and balance our senses and nervous system, awareness of our surroundings and the subsequent ability to choose how we want to engage can make a huge difference in our health and well-being.

You live within a sea of electromagnetic fields, to a greater or lesser extent, depending on where you live and the lifestyle choices you have made.

Are you fully aware of your EMF exposure sources?

Assessing your home exposure sources

The most important place to become aware of your environment and its potentially hidden influences is your own home.  Your home should be a safe haven where you can rest, regenerate and integrate your experiences in the world.  Your nightly rest is the time when your body does the majority of its cellular repair, and when your brain consolidates memories of experiences into usable information.  Sleep is vitally important, and your environment has a major impact on your sleep quality.

Your home environment also affects your family dynamics, and the harmony or discord you experience in your close relationships.  Intentionally creating a space for your family to feel safe and healthy will likely impact your life more than anything else.

The EMF sources in our homes will affect us the most, since we spend the most vulnerable parts of our lives there, and the most time overall.  What are the EMF sources in our homes that are likely to impact us the most?

Our houses are powered by 60 hertz (in the United States) home electricity, which runs through conductive copper wires in our walls and emerges from outlets and wired-in appliances, to be used for many different purposes.  60 hertz is in the extremely low frequency (ELF) part of the electromagnetic spectrum, and is one of the most well studied EMF sources known to affect human health.  If you have an EMF reading device like the Trifield meter (a good meter for everyday home use), you can measure the electric and magnetic fields being emitted from the wires inside your walls, your outlets, appliances and devices.  If you do this, you will notice that the electric field is highly concentrated right next to the power source, and loses power exponentially as you move further away from the source, often dropping off to zero on the meter about 2-3 feet away.  Some appliances will produce higher readings than others, but even an empty outlet with live power will emit an electric field.  Appliances and devices with motors, like fans, heaters, air purifiers and many others, will also emit a measurable magnetic field, sometimes with very high readings.

Getting your own EMF meter and measuring the fields in your house is quite educational, because since the field itself is invisible, the readings allow you to “see” the fields to visualize the areas of your home (and the people and pets) that will be affected by them.  This gives you the power to adjust your beds, chairs, couches and other parts of your home where you spend a lot of time to be further away from the most intense electric and magnetic field zones.   It’s best to spend your time in a “zero” field, but since that is an ideal and is not always practical, Trifield recommends keeping electric fields below 50 V/m (volts per meter), and magnetic fields under 3mG (milligauss) where you spend most of your time, although they admit that “absolute safe levels have not been established”.

This meter also measures radiofrequency (RF) fields.  Radiofrequency radiation is emitted by wireless communication devices, including:

• cell phones
• Wifi routers
• “smart” electric meters
• “smart” home devices
• Bluetooth devices (like wireless headphones and speakers)

Measuring RF with a meter will look a lot different than the way electric and magnetic fields read.  If you’re near an RF source (or somewhere in its path anywhere in your house) and you have the meter tuned to the RF setting, you will notice rapid “spikes” when these pulses of radiation are emitted between connected devices.  Sometimes the numbers will be relatively low, but you will probably also see spikes that exceed the levels the meter can pick up.  If you stand next to an active Wifi router, these spikes will be continually “off the charts”.  This indicates an area of your home where you do not want to be sitting for hours per day.

Trifield’s recommended “safer” levels of RF are field measurements under 0.200 mW/m² (milliwatts per meter squared) average field reading, and measurements under 1.000 mW/m² for the peak measurements.  You will likely find that close proximity to RF emitting devices vastly exceeds these levels.

If you use so-called “smart” devices in your home, such as wireless doorbells, ovens, beds, baby monitors, wireless voice assistants like Alexa and Siri, and so many more gadgets that are flooding the markets these days, those devices are occasionally or constantly producing wireless radiation so they can transmit and receive information from other wireless devices, like your cell phone.

Another wireless radiation source that affects the majority of homes at this time are “smart” meters.  These are a type of electric meter that transmits information about your electricity use to and from the electric utility company, and also communicates with other in-home “smart” devices.  For a more detailed look at exactly how these meters work, check out our article on the health, safety and privacy concerns of smart meters.

Smart meters, as well as many other modern devices (including fluorescent lighting and dimmer switches), also produce what has been popularly termed dirty electricity.  This refers to high-frequency voltage transients that contaminate the 60 hertz AC power of our home electricity, due to the inability of certain devices to use 60 hertz power as-is.  Anytime a device or appliance has to convert 60 hertz AC power to another form so it can function properly, power inefficiencies occur, which remain inside the power lines and actually circulate throughout the house.  These can be measured by a device called a line EMI meter (EMI means electromagnetic interference).

Wifi is a networking technology that uses radiofrequency radiation to provide wireless high-speed internet access. If you and your neighbors use Wifi in your homes, you will likely notice that your phone and computers are able to pick up several Wifi signals.

Most often, Wifi operates at 2.4 GHz (gigahertz), which is right around the UHF (ultra high frequency) portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.  However, many companies are now also using 5 GHz and even 6 GHz signals to improve speed and data transmission. If you see a Wifi connection on your phone, you may see the name of the network, then an identical one with “5G” or “6G” at the end. This means 5 or 6 gigahertz, and is not the same 5G that refers to 5th generation wireless technology, or the marketing term 6G that is the proposed next generation of this tech.  However, a lot of the current 5G cell deployments are close to the same frequencies of all of these Wifi bands, and the 6 GHz to 24 GHz bands are currently being widely used for 5G.

The amount and type of these devices you utilize in your home will influence the total load of electromagnetic fields you’re exposed to.

Strong radiofrequency and electric fields from sources outside your home will affect you, as well.  This includes power lines and electricity transformers near your house (and especially high voltage power lines), as well as nearby cell phone towers and antennas.  The density of cell towers and antennas in the vicinity of your house is directly correlated with the population density of where you live.  Higher population centers require higher numbers of cell towers, installed closer together, to support the wireless communication use of larger numbers of people.  You will also have higher exposures if you live within a couple miles of an airport, because of the large number of radar communication towers used by air traffic control.

One way that we help people determine which Blushield home device will best suit their living situation and needs is by assessing the overall EMF density of where they live.  The tool we use for United States addresses is the Antenna Search database.  If you haven’t already, go to this website and plug in your address, and it will show you all of the cell towers and antennas within a 3-mile radius of your home, including the exact location of each tower and antenna, details about what it’s used for, who owns it, and exactly which frequencies it’s emitting.

You may be surprised by the number of cell towers near your house that you weren’t aware of at all!  Cell towers and antennas are often cleverly hidden or disguised, so people often aren’t aware of these massive RF exposure sources.

If you want to learn more about how to recognize cell towers and antennas in your environment, even the hidden ones, you may find our Anatomy and Function of a Cell Tower article to be very informative.

Electromagnetic field hazards when you’re out and about

When you leave your house, you are exposed to a new set of electromagnetic fields.  For many people, their vehicle may be the main EMF source to consider.  This is especially the case with modern cars, most of which use high frequency radar sensors for various safety features, like advanced driver assistance and autonomous driving.  These radar sensors operate in the extremely high frequency (EHF) millimeter wave spectrum, the same frequency band as the more intense and high powered 5G transmitters.  Although they operate at fairly low power levels compared to 5G phones and antennas, their close proximity to your body while driving warrants some concern.

Most vehicles produce high levels of electric and magnetic fields from the internal combustion engine, the effects of which are exacerbated by the fact that you’re basically sitting inside of a Faraday cage (the metal frame of the car), which concentrates EMF sources within the vehicle and doesn’t allow them to dissipate as easily.  This is especially a concern when using your cell phone inside your vehicle.  Because of the metal cage of the car, the phone needs to try harder to make a connection, so it will ramp up its power levels to effectively maintain contact with the nearest tower.  One study found that the EMFs from cell phone use inside of vehicles were three times higher than the same sources used outside the vehicle, because of the Faraday cage effect.

If you drive an electric vehicle (EV), you’re adding a whole extra exposure source to the ones we already discussed.  The large battery that runs the car emits static electric fields, and the inverters and motors that convert DC from the battery to the AC needed to power the electric drivetrain produce both electric and magnetic fields during operation.  When EVs are being charged, the interaction between the battery and the charger (especially high powered fast chargers) produces high levels of EMFs.  The electric control system and computerized components of an EV (as well as other modern vehicles) also emit EMFs.

Most people now use GPS (Global Positioning System) services from their smart phones to navigate on the roadways.  GPS connects to satellites to provide real-time navigation, using radiofrequency signals that are usually around 1500 Mhz (megahertz) in the microwave spectrum.  These radio waves follow your vehicle for the duration of the trip, to continuously read your current location.

Every time you pass a cell phone tower while you’re driving, you’re moving within close proximity of its strongest radiation zone.  In cities, we usually pass by many cell towers even while running the most routine errands.

Consider that every vehicle around you is also emitting EMFs from radar sensors, cell phone use, Bluetooth connections, calling upon GPS satellites, and emanating from the vehicle itself.  The roadways are basically an EMF soup.

If you work outside the home, especially around a lot of computer equipment, your workplace is probably a stronger EMF source than your home.  Often, workplaces are in higher population areas than living spaces, making them more concentrated overall exposure sources.

Choosing the best Blushield home and portable devices for your exposure levels

Our EMF protection product line includes several options for stationary home and portable devices.  Choosing a device based on your overall EMF exposure levels will give you the best results, as we have different strength models for different exposure levels.

If you start by learning the total number of cell towers and antennas within a 3-mile radius of your home (to determine the EMF density of your area), then add in any unusually high exposure sources inside your house, you will be able to choose the most effective EMF protection for your needs.

Carrying a portable device (like the Ultimate, Sensitive or EVO Portable) will go a long way in protecting you from the high levels of road travel EMFs.  If you spend more time than usual in your vehicle (for your work or leisure), you may consider plugging a strong Blushield stationary device (like the Phi 03) into your car by getting an Auto Adapter Cord to use instead of the wall plug the device comes with.  These devices fit very well in the center console of most vehicles, and will emit a strong, biologically coherent field to protect you from the worst of your travel exposures.

For step-by-step instructions on choosing the best home and portable devices for your needs, check out our Blushield Product Guide.

One frequency exposure source we don’t often consider is diagnostic ultrasonography, and specifically ultrasound procedures used during pregnancy and labor. Ultrasound is considered to be one of the most common routine prenatal care procedures, and has increased in frequency of use as well as intensity over the past decades, many women having ultrasounds performed several times throughout the duration of pregnancy. Another exposure source is continuous electronic fetal monitoring using Doppler ultrasound, which has become increasingly routine even in low-risk pregnancies, to monitor the fetal heartbeat and uterine contractions during labor.

Although fetal ultrasound is widely thought to be “safe and effective”, how much has this common procedure actually been studied, and are there any potential risks to the baby in utero during this delicate developmental stage?

The first thing to understand about ultrasound is that it utilizes high-frequency waves, but that these frequencies are not electromagnetic in nature. They are a type of sound wave, or mechanical vibration, which moves in a purely longitudinal orientation. They are not electromagnetic waves like electricity, cell phones and Wifi, and they are not a type of ionizing radiation like x-rays. However, they still have a considerable effect on the body through thermal and mechanical means.

The “ultra” in ultrasound refers to frequencies above the range of human hearing, around 20,000 hertz (or 20 kilohertz) and higher. In contrast, infrasound frequencies vibrate below the range of human hearing, and occur from natural phenomena like earthquakes, ocean waves and volcanic eruptions, as well as long-distance communication used by animals like whales and elephants. Audible sound is the range between infrasound and ultrasound, and refers to sound waves that vibrate between 20 and 20,000 hertz, the frequency range that can be heard by the average human ear.

Sound waves always propagate through a medium, such as air, water or solid objects, causing the particles of the medium to vibrate. The vibrations cause alternating regions of compression (where particles are closer together) and rarefaction (where particles are further apart). This longitudinal disturbance of the medium creates friction that our ears can perceive within a certain range. Outside of the range of hearing, the disturbance still creates friction, but we cannot perceive it audibly.

The way that ultrasound technology works begins with a transducer containing piezoelectric crystals, which generates high-frequency sound waves when an electric current is applied to the crystals. The transducer is placed on the skin, in this case on the belly of a pregnant woman, and the ultrasonic waves penetrate the body, bouncing off tissues of varying densities inside, creating echoes. The different ways that the waves bounce off tissues of greater and lesser density, including bone, skin, muscle, blood and other fluids, is then converted into digital data that is then used to produce an image of the inside of the body.

This image is called a sonogram, which loosely translates to “sound writing”, since the sound waves basically “write” the image that’s produced. In the image below you can see the sound waves at the bottom of the sonogram, and the image that it is "writing" above it.

Pregnant woman may undergo ultrasound procedures to generate sonograms of the growing fetus, usually for precautionary medical reasons, to assess the baby’s development and health.

Fetal ultrasound utilizes frequencies between 2 and 18 megahertz (MHz), equivalent to 2,000,000 to 18,000,000 hertz. Although these are mechanical waves and not electromagnetic waves, the oscillations move at about the same speed as Wifi signals and 5G wireless technology.

Since ultrasounds do not directly expose the body to electromagnetic radiation, are usually non-invasive, and are generally comfortable for the mother, they have been widely thought to be a safe procedure.

However, there are issues with the available body of research on fetal ultrasounds that are worth examining.

Studies caution excessive or unnecessary fetal ultrasound use due to potential & unknown harms

A systematic study done by the World Health Organization in 2009 examined 61 publications reporting data from 41 different studies on fetal ultrasound use. Although most of the studies appeared to conclude that ultrasound procedures during pregnancy are likely harmless, several warnings are noted at the end of the study review.

One limitation is that none of the analyzed studies had the objective of assessing potential adverse biological effects. Ultrasound procedures were introduced in the 1970s, and the study review states that very little research has been done on possible adverse effects in humans. It’s often the case with studies that if you aren’t looking for something, you won’t find it.

Also, around 90% of the included studies did not record the intensity or duration of exposure. When assessing any exposure source for potential harm, the dose-response gradient is critically important. Participants in many of these studies only received one or two ultrasounds, which is very low compared to common obstetric practices today. If ultrasound exposure were to have a cumulative effect similar to radiation exposure, recording the intensity and duration is completely necessary to assess potential harm.

Another major limitation of this review is the studies mostly included exposures from before 1995, when the acoustic potency of the machines was much lower. Modern ultrasound equipment has advanced considerably, and due to the lack of exposure regulations, current equipment can be eight times more powerful than the machines studied in the ‘90s, although they are used in the same way. Therefore, studies from this time period cannot automatically apply to modern day use.

The absence of studies geared toward the safety of fetal ultrasound use, combined with the wide availability of ultrasound equipment, has created a potentially dangerous situation. Fetal ultrasound scans are widely prescribed by doctors, and requested by mothers, even for non-medical purposes (such as for “keepsake” photos). This directly contradicts the cautionary advice of the Association for Medical Ultrasound, which “advocates the responsible use of diagnostic ultrasound and strongly discourages the nonmedical use of ultrasound.” The Association cites a few studies that recorded harmful effects from pregnancy ultrasound exposure, including low birth weight, delayed speech and dyslexia, and states that there is not enough research to say for sure that it’s safe. They go on to list very specific protocols that medical professionals should follow to ensure minimal harm.

The WHO study analysis states:

“There is a clear need for adequately designed large studies to investigate the safety of ultrasound scans performed with the newer equipment currently in use. However, because prenatal ultrasound is now commonplace, it may be difficult to perform randomized controlled trials without significant crossover. Particularly in developed countries, it would be difficult to recruit women willing to be randomized to a possible non-exposed control group.”

This is a good point, and is one reason why it would have been ideal for the studies to be done several decades ago, before the practice was widely employed. Now, with the vast majority of pregnant women in modern times undergoing regular prenatal ultrasound, there is virtually no more “control group” available. Most of the women who abstain from ultrasounds are choosing to birth outside of the system, often at home with midwives and doulas, with little to no medical interventions. Most of these women would not want to participate in an intensely monitored clinical study.

How ultrasound affects the body – thermal and mechanical

Ultrasound frequencies can affect the body in several ways. As stated earlier, mechanical waves moving through a medium (in this case, human tissue) cause a type of disturbance and friction. The vibrations are absorbed to some extent by the tissues they pass through, creating a thermal effect, which can increase tissue temperature. For sensitive tissues (like fetal tissue), this temperature rise can cause harm if the heightened temperature is sustained for a period of time.

In addition to thermal effects, there are also mechanical effects caused by the physical vibration of the tissues. At higher intensities, this can result in a complication called cavitation, where gas bubbles within tissue begin oscillating, and either growing in size or collapsing, resulting in sudden and significant tissue heating. This is not considered to be a potential danger in fetal ultrasound, since the baby’s body does not contain gases in the lungs or intestines, since they haven’t yet been exposed to the gaseous environment outside the womb. However, it is still considered to be a rare possibility, and at the higher intensities used in therapeutic procedures, ultrasound is known to cause DNA double-strand breaks.

Modern ultrasound machines are designed to guard against these potential side effects by monitoring the thermal index (TI) and mechanical index (MI), which help gauge the potential for thermal effects and cavitation, and medical practitioners should be trained to keep these at low levels. Fetal ultrasound procedures are not considered to be high risk for these complications, due to relatively short exposure durations (usually 15-45 minutes per session), as well as non-continuous exposure where the beam is moved around often, and not focused on the same part of the baby’s body for very long.

Unfortunately, common labor and delivery procedures in hospitals in modern times bring another, much longer duration exposure source: continuous electronic fetal monitoring (EFM). This is where a Doppler ultrasound device is attached to the laboring woman’s belly for the entire duration of her labor, to monitor her uterine contractions and the baby’s heartbeat. Combined with longer average labor durations in modern women, this means that the baby can be exposed to ultrasound frequencies continuously for 7-18 hours or longer. Although this practice is now common, even in low-risk pregnancies, there is almost no evidence that it increases positive outcomes in low-risk or even high-risk pregnancies.

A research paper published in 2020 hypothesizes that continuous electronic fetal monitoring during prolonged labors may increase the incidence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in children. The routine use of EFM does seem to correlate with the unexplained increase in autistic symptoms in babies and children, and is worthy of consideration as one potential cause, most likely in combination with the increase of other types of interventions and toxic exposure sources.

A few more ultrasound risks to consider

Another considerable risk of both prenatal ultrasound and continuous electronic fetal monitoring is the potential for inaccuracies, and the unnecessary interventions that may follow.

Fetal ultrasound during pregnancy can sometimes result in incorrect interpretations and diagnostic inaccuracies. This can cause a lot of stress for the parents, and even inappropriate medical interventions like premature induction or C-section. If an ultrasound detects a potential abnormality, this can cause significant anxiety for the parents, even if the finding later turns out to be benign or incorrect. Ultrasounds are especially notorious for misjudging the size or weight of the baby, which may cause the parents to worry if the baby is said to be too small for its gestational age, or too large for a natural vaginal birth.

Electronic fetal monitoring can be affected by maternal movement or obesity, leading to inaccurate readings. If a reading falsely detects signs of fetal distress, it may result in an unnecessary C-section or other intervention that interrupts the natural progression of labor and birth, resulting in stress and trauma for the mother and baby.

One final risk that’s important to note is exposure to actual electromagnetic fields from fetal ultrasound. Although the frequencies that directly penetrate the body are mechanical waves, the transducer generates these waves from an electric current. If this transducer is placed on the mother’s body, she and her baby are being exposed to these ambient electric fields, which will penetrate to some extent. We know that babies, especially in utero, are highly sensitive to EMFs, and close exposure may impact their development. Each prenatal ultrasound will expose the very young fetus to 15-45 minutes of electric fields, which will compound the stress from the mechanical waves themselves. Then if continuous EFM is used during labor, that’s a major EMF exposure source during the sensitive and delicate window of labor and birth, during which the mother and baby are already stressed to the max.

Undoubtedly, there are legitimate medical reasons why you may want to use ultrasound during pregnancy and labor, and it has surely saved lives when used in medically necessary instances. That fact does not negate the need to utilize the precautionary principle with all procedures that have inadequate safety testing, and that clearly have biological effects.

References:

• Study review: “Safety of ultrasonography in pregnancy: WHO systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis” – https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/uog.6328

• Research article: “Ethical Analysis of Non-Medical Fetal Ultrasound” – https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0969733009106655

• Research article: “Benefits and risks of ultrasound in pregnancy” – https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0146000513000694

• Medical hypothesis: “Continuous electronic fetal monitoring during prolonged labor may be a risk factor for having a child diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder” – https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987720327389

• Association for Medical Ultrasound: “Prudent Use and Safety of Diagnostic Ultrasound in Pregnancy” – https://www.aium.org/resources/official-statements/view/prudent-use-and-safety-of-diagnostic-ultrasound-in-pregnancy

• Association for Medical Ultrasound: “As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) Principle” – https://www.aium.org/resources/official-statements/view/as-low-as-reasonably-achievable-(alara)-principle

Shielding or blocking electromagnetic fields is one of the most commonly used methods of EMF protection. Since EMFs are a threat that is invisible and intangible to our senses, it has taken a long time for many people to realize that they are harmful at all, since the harm may not be immediately apparent and can take a period of time to manifest. Likewise, EMF protection methods utilizing subtle energy techniques, like the scalar field emitted by Blushield devices that the body entrains with via sympathetic resonance, are difficult to measure with instruments (but can be measured by effects on living organisms, as our studies demonstrate).

We theorize that the popularity of EMF shielding is largely due to the mental satisfaction of seeing the numbers on an EMF meter go down when a shielding method is used, giving the user a tangible sense of it “doing something”. However, the actual effectiveness of shielding is considerably more nuanced than what an EMF meter can measure, as we detail in our full article on shielding and blocking EMFs:

EMF Shielding & Faraday Cages

The various drawbacks and inefficiencies of shielding outlined in the article linked above include:

• Incomplete shielding can cause the radiation source to ricochet to other areas and create “hot spots” of greater intensity
• Using a cell phone in a partially shielded area will ramp up its power (and EMF output) to compensate for the weaker signal, to maintain a connection with a cell tower
• Full shielding (which is difficult and expensive to achieve) blocks the signal transmission of your cell phone and Wifi, so you have to leave your shielded area to use your devices at all
• The scalar component, which is part of all EMFs and contains the information signature that is most harmful to the body, is not blocked at all by shielding methods
• Shielding will reduce or eliminate your connection to beneficial frequencies emitted by the Earth itself

This article will mainly focus on the final point on that list: the potential harm that being disconnected from the Earth’s beneficial frequencies can have on your health in the long term.

From what we know about scalar energy, nature is a rich source of these types of fields, often referred to as “bio scalar”. Shielding methods will not block out any scalar fields emanated by natural sources, which is good. However, an important part of the Earth’s natural frequencies, including the Schumann resonances, are measurable frequencies (if you’re using a highly sensitive meter), which means they contain a transverse component that can be blocked by shielding materials.

Electromagnetic fields generally consist of both a transverse and scalar component. The transverse fields are measurable, and can also be blocked by conductive materials like metal, which is how shielding is accomplished. Scalar fields are produced when two electromagnetic fields meet each other at exactly the same frequency but in the opposite phase, appearing to result in a “canceled” field, but in reality creating a non-measurable field with considerably different properties. The generation of scalar fields occurs naturally as a byproduct of electromagnetic field emission. To understand this phenomenon in more depth, you can read our articles on scalar energy.

Can shielding be harmful to your health?

A study review was written in 2019, titled Shielding methods and products against man-made Electromagnetic Fields: Protection versus risk, by Dimitris Panagopoulos and George Chrousos. It found that using shielding methods in an attempt to block harmful EMF sources can actually be harmful in itself. The harm was found to be directly related to blocking the Schumann resonances, which is an ambient natural field we are constantly exposed to that regulates our circadian rhythms, maintaining our homeostasis and our health.

A series of pioneering experiments were conducted in the 1960’s and 1970’s by Ruetger A. Wever, a biophysicist at the Max Planck institute in Germany, over a period of many years. A total of 232 study participants stayed for several weeks in two underground apartments. One apartment was equipped with metal shielding in the walls (unknown to the participants), and the walls of the other apartment were built normally, without any shielding. The walls in the shielded apartment prohibited the natural atmospheric electromagnetic fields from the Schumann resonances (as well as the static terrestrial electric field of the Earth) from penetrating the interior of the apartment, so anyone inside was not being exposed to these fields.

The circadian rhythms of the study participants living in the shielded apartment began to desynchronize over a period of time. It did not happen immediately, but gradually, and continued to deviate more dramatically from normal, natural rhythms the longer the subjects lived in the apartment. Our circadian rhythms govern our activity levels, body temperature, sleep/wake cycles, and other rhythmic factors that affect our health and well-being. The circadian cycle of the study subjects gradually shifted from the normal 24 hour cycle to 28.5 hours, and was independent of exposure to natural or artificial lighting, as the subjects were allowed to leave the apartment at any point during the day (but slept in the apartment at night). The control subjects, living in the apartment without shielding (but identical in every other way), did not experience this internal desynchronization at all.

Interestingly, turning on an electric pulse generator in the shielded apartment, which emitted a 10 hertz electric field (close to the base Schumann resonance frequency) restored biological synchronization, which would again become desynchronized if the device was turned off. The study concluded that the Schumann resonances act as a pacemaker for human and animal biological rhythms, independent of the light and dark cues of day and night.

The problem of thick, closed metal walls blocking the Schumann resonances may also affect the health of submarine, ship and aircraft personnel. There are several factors that are known to negatively impact the health of these individuals, but circadian rhythm disruption from disconnection with the Earth’s natural fields are very likely to be an additional contributing factor.

It’s common for electro hypersensitive (EHS) individuals to experience an initial relief of their symptoms by using shielding methods, and then to experience a relapse of their symptoms (often even worse than before) if they stay inside shielded environments for long periods of time. The initial improvement is likely due to the removal of the stressful influence of the harmful EMFs, but then the body becomes dysregulated over time from an absence of natural, healthy electromagnetic fields, and symptoms return.

The paper also touches on the ineffectiveness of EMF protection methods that attempt to “harmonize” the harmful EMFs, by “altering the radiation into a form that does not produce adverse health effects”. Most of these products are patches or stickers placed on a cell phone or other radiation-emitting device, or passive devices that claim to alter the environmental EMFs through various means. The paper explains why these methods cannot work as they claim to:

“One cannot modify the radiation (frequency, waveform) once it has been emitted by a device. One can only attenuate it (reduce its intensity). Modification would only be possible by modifying the electronic circuits within the devices. Even if that were the case with these products, which is not, once the emitted signal is modified or attenuated, the device (mobile phone, etc.) would lose its ability to connect with the network and communicate. If one simply attenuates the signal without modifying it, which is possible, the mobile phone again will have difficulty in establishing connection with the base antennas and automatically will emit a stronger signal/radiation/EMF in order to be able to connect/communicate.”

This statement sums up why we do not recommend these types of products as an effective or legitimate form of EMF protection.

Non-shielding solutions to protect from harmful EMF exposure

After reviewing these studies from the ‘60s and ‘70s, and explaining why some other types of “harmonizing” EMF protection devices can’t work the way they claim, the 2019 paper attempts to propose potential solutions for reducing EMF harm. The paper concludes that constant use of full or partial shielding has significant risks that outweigh its benefits, and also lacks legitimate studies on its effectiveness.

The paper proposes that intermittent shielding may have some benefits with lower risks, but does not express confidence in short-term shielding as a primary EMF protection solution, due to its inherent limitations that leave one still exposed to harmful EMFs for the majority of the time.

The authors move towards the conclusion that the only solution to EMF protection they are currently aware of is reducing exposure to EMF sources. We agree that minimizing exposure to overt and strong EMF sources should always be your first line of defense. This can mean that instead of holding your cell phone up to your head when you make a call, you use speakerphone or an AirTube headset instead, to keep the phone at a safer distance from your head. It can also mean turning off your Wifi router at night, or even better, wiring your internet with ethernet cables. There are quite a few other ways to cultivate better “EMF hygiene”, which refers to being conscious of your proximity and use of EMF emitting devices.

Unfortunately, reducing EMFs is not a fully satisfactory solution. In today’s world, it’s impossible to eliminate them completely, or even minimize them to a safe level. We cannot control the device usage of people around us, our neighbors’ Wifi routers and smart meters, our vehicle’s EMFs, the electrical grid of our home, or the ambient levels we are exposed to from many sources while traveling outside our home. Some of us have the option, and desire, to move to a rural area where EMFs are lower in general, but many of us either don’t have that option, or prefer to live in a city for personal reasons. Even if you move to the country, in 99.9% of cases you will still be exposed to 5G radiation from satellites. We literally cannot get rid of all of it, and it can require considerable personal sacrifice to our finances and/or lifestyle to get rid of even just a percentage of it.

If we can come to terms with the EMF bubble we currently live in as modern humans, we can then acquire tools to help us handle it much better. Blushield devices produce a strong scalar field that’s biologically harmonious, like the fields emitted by nature. Just like the natural fields we need to thrive, Blushield produces infinitely and subtly varying waveforms at different frequencies and amplitudes, but in a stronger form. This allows our bodies to perceive and entrain with this healthy field, even though the other fields still exist around us. We have just created a “bubble of protection” in the midst of the chaotic repetitive frequencies, protecting us at the cell level.

When combined with a sensible reduction in EMF sources that we can control, Blushield fills in the gaps to give us the protection we need from the exposure sources we cannot control.

References:

Study review: “Shielding methods and products against man-made Electromagnetic Fields: Protection versus risk” – https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969719308526