Blog & Articles

Modern technology has brought a multitude of conveniences that have changed our lives to the core, and most of us would say this has improved our lives in quantifiable ways. Just as impactful to our lives is the invisible, hidden force of electricity that powers this technology. The effects of electrical energy on our health is not as obviously quantifiable as the benefits and conveniences of the technology producing it, and is definitely not at the forefront of our minds, since we cannot see this force. Many people have no idea that these fields are affecting us on a daily basis.

Manmade electromagnetic fields that most of us are now exposed to 24/7 include wireless radiation from communication equipment like cell phones, cell towers, Wifi routers, Bluetooth, and smart meters; standard AC electrical power emitted by our home wiring and appliances; radar sensors in our automobiles; and electric and magnetic fields produced by motors.

One unusual exposure source that has only become more widely known in the past decade is dirty electricity. In the past, it was widely believed that the standard 60 hertz AC power from our home wiring was the only type of EMF we were being exposed to from our home electricity, but since modern devices and appliances utilize electricity in a much more complex way than the simpler machines of the past, there are now additional exposures from this same source that have become concerning to scientists and health conscious individuals.

60 hertz alternating current (AC) electricity is part of the extremely low frequency (ELF) range of the electromagnetic spectrum, and the link between ELF fields and poor health has been studied more extensively than most other forms of EMFs. Riding on the same power lines as our 60 hertz electricity are high frequency surges and spikes, which often reach into the kilohertz and even the megahertz range, considered to be part of the microwave or radiofrequency range of the electromagnetic spectrum. This phenomenon is called by several different names, including high frequency voltage transients, line noise, power line electromagnetic interference (or line EMI), and most commonly in layman’s terms, “dirty” electricity.

If you were to examine the frequencies with an oscilloscope, you would see a smooth 60 hertz sine wave, as well as a rapidly fluctuating jagged line representing the voltage spikes and surges that are simultaneously “riding” on the line.

The reason these voltage surges and spikes exist is because many modern devices and appliances no longer use AC electricity “as-is”. Instead, the device has to change or manipulate the electric current in some way, to render it usable for more complex functions. Many devices convert AC electricity into a low voltage DC current, or a higher frequency AC, including devices that use switching power supplies like phone chargers and computers. Major sources of dirty electricity are electrical equipment designed to operate using an interrupted flow of current, such as light dimmer switches, which interrupt the current flow twice per 60 hertz cycle (or 120 times per second), and “power saving” compact fluorescent light bulbs that interrupt the current at least 20,000 times per second. Because of the interrupted flow, some of the current is rendered unusable, and is forced to recirculate back into the electrical wiring at much higher frequencies, creating line noise.

Some sources of dirty electricity include:

• Light dimmer switches
• Compact fluorescent light bulbs and tubes (CFLs)
• Battery charging devices for cell phones, tablets, etc.
• Desktop and laptop computers
• Televisions
• Refrigerators
• Multi-speed fans
• Appliances with variable speed motors (like blenders, mixers and hair dryers)
• Solar power inverters
• Wifi routers and modems
• “Smart” utility meters

The “smart” utility meters that power companies have installed on most of our houses within the past decade are a particularly insidious form of dirty electricity. Not only are they almost constantly emitting radiofrequency radiation to send information about our electric usage to the power company, the meter is also constantly gathering information about our in-house device usage. The meters use a switched mode power supply to change the voltage every time current moves between the meter and the electrical line, and since it does this every couple of seconds, this generates a significant amount of dirty electricity. You can read more about smart meters in particular in an article we wrote on the subject, which elaborates on the dangers of this EMF source:

The Health, Safety and Privacy Concerns of Smart Meters

Unfortunately, dirty electricity created at a specific outlet, from one device or appliance, does not remain localized to that area. It begins to circulate through the wiring of the home, through every room in the house, and even to neighboring houses, contaminating the quality of electricity in any structure that’s connected to yours. Dirty electricity that’s generated outside the house (usually from outside power lines) can also contaminate your indoor environment. This can be caused by power line short circuits, equipment failure, lightning strikes, outdoor objects (especially metal) coming into contact with power lines, and interference from nearby wireless communication devices, radio transmitters and industrial equipment.

Dirty electricity is also produced by cell phone towers, which use switching power supplies to operate their radiofrequency transmitters, and to charge the batteries used for backup power during grid outages. Structures located near cell towers have been measured to have high levels of dirty electricity in their electrical outlets, as well as abnormally high ambient levels in the air.

Are there documented harmful effects of dirty electricity?

Along with the electric fields generated by 60 hertz power, the high frequency voltage transients riding on the same power lines are radiated into the immediate living environment through outlets, power strips, electronic devices and cords/wires, exposing anyone in the vicinity to harmful electromagnetic fields. Once dirty electricity became widespread, it was found that many devices were sensitive to it, including computers, as well as audio recording and playback equipment like speakers and amplifiers. We now protect our sensitive equipment by using surge protectors and power conditioners, to shield it from these voltage spikes and surges. Our bodies are vastly more electrically sensitive than any device, so it’s astonishing that many have assumed for so long that it has no effect on us.

Scientists Samuel Milham, Magda Havas and David Stetzer have each published extensive materials documenting the harmful effects of dirty electricity. Their combined body of work has brought to light the health dangers of these high frequency transients that ride on our power lines.

Detrimental health effects that have been associated with dirty electricity exposure include cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, chronic stress, abnormal neurotransmitter levels (and the resultant brain and mood disorders), obesity, asthma, and electro sensitivity.

A 2013 study report authored by Sam Milham and David Stetzer, Dirty electricity, chronic stress, neurotransmitters and disease, compiled several instances of abnormal neurotransmitter levels in people exposed to high levels of dirty electricity. The areas studied were very near cell towers, and had excessively high ambient dirty electricity measurements. They hypothesize that the dirty electricity is triggering chronic oxidative stress in the body, resulting in neurotransmitter level irregularities.

This chronic stress response and neurotransmitter dysfunction was linked to serious chronic illness. One of the most alarming studies done was in 2008, where a group of teachers at a La Quinta, California middle school were diagnosed with abnormally high incidences of cancer. A single year of employment at this school increased cancer incidence by 21%, and the risk increased considerably with each year a teacher spent at that school. The types of cancer that showed up were varied, including breast, ovarian, thyroid, colon, pancreatic cancers, as well as melanoma and lymphoma. Unlike the studies on cell phone radiation within close proximity of the head, which are primarily linked to gliomas of the brain and schwannomas of the heart, cancer linked to dirty electricity seems to show up in many forms.

An elementary school in North Palm Springs, California, with a cluster of cancer cases in personnel, was investigated in 2010. This school was also in very close proximity to a cell tower, and dirty electricity measurements were highest in the room closest to the tower. Cancer cases were overrepresented in teachers who taught in that room. Dirty electricity readings became successively lower with increased distance from the tower. One teacher complained that her 4^th grade students were “hyperactive and unteachable”, and were astonished to find these behavioral issues disappear after installing dirty electricity filters in the school.

One may assume that harmful fields from dirty electricity would be contained locally in the vicinity of the walls and wiring itself. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the case, as high frequency currents tend to become ground currents, which can increase ambient radiofrequency exposure all throughout a home. Even if one is wearing shoes inside their house, these ambient fields will still try to “ground” through a human (since our bodies are conductive), turning our bodies into part of the electrical circuit. A man in Ontario was diagnosed with prostate cancer within less than a year of moving to a home with high dirty electricity readings. EKG patches were placed on his ankles while he stood in his kitchen, which showed high frequency currents oscillating up one leg and down the other, like he had become part of a ground circuit.

In 2004, Magda Havas and David Stetzer compiled five case studies of subjects with varying health complaints. The dirty electricity readings in their homes were measured, and various health metrics were recorded before and after installing dirty electricity filters to reduce the intensity of the voltage transients. Three of the subjects suffered from either EHS (electro hypersensitivity), multiple sclerosis (MS) or diabetes, and all found improvement in their conditions. The one woman in the study who initially reported “no health complaints” even found considerable improvement in the form of improved sleep, calmer mood, more energy, less stiffness and better circulation (less coldness in extremities). The final case study was a school in Canada. Teachers reported better mood and less frustration, tiredness and irritability after filters were installed, and students had more focus, better behavior and more energy, especially the younger students.

How do we get rid of dirty electricity and avoid the harmful effects?

Reducing dirty electricity exposure in modern times isn’t a simple task, and it would be impossible to eliminate completely. The only way to really avoid it would be moving to an extremely remote area, not connecting to grid electricity, and even avoiding a solar power setup. If you’re okay with an old-fashioned colonial lifestyle, and don’t mind giving up all your electrical appliances, you can probably get away from this ubiquitous pollutant. For most of us, we will need to consider other options, since it’s not usually practical or desirable for us to change our lifestyle this dramatically.

The best solution to actually remove most of the dirty electricity is to install a device directly into your electrical breaker box that will “clean up” the sine wave, removing the dirty power surges and spikes. SineTamer the best product we’ve found for this purpose. It requires being installed by an electrician.

This type of whole-house product is far more effective than the plug-in capacitive filters that are on the market. Those filters only remove the peaks of the spikes, and may actually create more issues than they resolve, by adding a strong magnetic field to the neutral line.

If you have a Blushield home device plugged into your house, this is an excellent way to protect your body from the harmful effects of dirty electricity, down to the cell level. It doesn’t affect the dirty electricity itself, but produces its own biologically coherent scalar field that the body will preferentially respond to and entrain with. Blushield emits a frequency cascade that imitates nature with its infinitely varied patterns, which is soothing and nourishing to the body. This entrainment itself protects the body by preventing it from overreacting to the foreign frequencies (including dirty electricity) by mounting an excessive immune response, like it’s fighting a foreign invader. To help even more, Blushield devices do not contribute at all to the dirty electricity load on your home electrical wiring.

Since we cannot get rid of all harmful frequencies around us, and can only reduce them to a relatively minor extent by other interventions, then adding a new healthy field that overrides the harmful ones is a highly effective strategy in modern times. When we give our body a healthier option, it will naturally “choose” that one, since it’s deeply familiar and reminiscent of the natural fields we have lived within for the entirety of our existence.

References:

• “What is Dirty Electricity?” – https://www.dirtyelectricity.org/dirty-electricity
• “Dirty Electricity: Electrification and the Diseases of Civilization” – http://www.sammilham.com/links.shtm
• Study: “A New Electromagnetic Exposure Metric: High Frequency Voltage Transients Associated With Increased Cancer Incidence in Teachers in a California School” – http://www.sammilham.com/La%20Quinta%20Middle%20school%20teachers'%20cancers.pdf
• Study: “Dirty electricity, chronic stress, neurotransmitters and disease” – http://www.sammilham.com/Milham-Stetzer-2013-Dirty-electricity,-chronic-stress,-neurotransmitters-and-disease.pdf
• Study: “Evidence that dirty electricity is causing the worldwide epidemics of obesity and diabetes” – http://www.sammilham.com/small%20islands%20diabetes%20and%20obesity%20-%20Copy%20(2).pdf
• Study: “Dirty Electricity and Electrical Hypersensitivity: Five Case Studies” – https://www.gsfilters.com/downloads/6-2004OctHavas_Stetzer_WHO04.pdf
• Study review: “Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: biological effects of dirty electricity with emphasis on diabetes and multiple sclerosis” – https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17178585/

About 15 years ago, a new kind of home electric meter with special capabilities came onto the scene, promising consumers savings on their electric bills, and convenient access to information about their electricity usage. These new meters were named smart meters (technically called advanced metering infrastructure - AMI), and were considered to be an economical and functional upgrade to the digital and analog meters that were previously used on all residences and buildings. Unlike older digital and analog meters, which required being manually read once a month by a utility company employee, smart meters transmit this information wirelessly, in the form of radio frequency electromagnetic fields.

If the creators of smart meters simply allowed the 6-millisecond pulse of an information carrying radio wave to be sent from the meter on each residence to the power company once a month, to eliminate the cost of having to physically send a worker to each residence to take meter readings, they could have stopped right there and potentially avoided the myriad of problems associated with smart meters we are seeing today. However, visions of the smart grid of the future, and of automated homes, compelled them to reach much further.

Of course, just like 5G, smart meters are advertised to mainly benefit the end user, but the truth is that the user is ultimately put at risk in several ways, and the biggest benefits are reaped by the power companies and the government.

Smart meters boast the recording of “real time information on power usage”, so that the customer can monitor their own electricity usage and see the costs in real time, to adjust power usage and save money. The truth is, people’s electricity costs have uniformly gone up, not down, since the installation of smart meters. The verdict from electricity consumers after more than a decade of smart meter use is that there have been no benefits to them, and that the majority of people do not have any interest in seeing a breakdown of their energy usage. It seems that people are generally already aware of how they are using electricity, will choose to continue using electricity the same way they were before, and are more than happy to pay for it.

Besides having no significant benefits to the end user, smart meters have brought widespread concerns over health, safety and privacy.

Health concerns revolve around the pulsed radio frequency radiation that smart meters rely on to transmit wireless information between each meter and the utility company’s headquarters. This is a similar type of non-ionizing radiation used by cell phones, cell towers and Wifi routers, all of which have been extensively studied and found to be dangerous to human health. However, smart meters in particular have a unique exposure risk, due to several factors:

• close proximity to the living areas in a home (sometimes just several feet from a sleeping area)
• the sharp, spiked radio frequency pulsations used to transmit the signal
• how frequently the signal is transmitted (up to 190,000 times per day!)
• dirty electricity created by the smart meter communicating with in-home appliances

Smart meters are often installed on the outside of the wall of a main living area or bedroom, where residents spend a lot of time. In addition to the omnidirectional, pulsed radio frequency field that’s often emitted many times per minute, the meter also produces a strong magnetic field that can radiate several feet into the house. To send data to and from the power company, this sharply pulsed RF wave is often produced every 3 to 7 seconds, and even up to 190,000 times per day.

Although utility companies claim that smart meters are within FCC guidelines regarding safe levels of RF exposure, this is not true, because what is being measured is the average reading, not the peak reading. This means that the incredibly strong RF spikes you are actually exposed to are being statistically averaged down to much lower levels by factoring in every single second where there is no RF output at all. If one were to measure the strength of the actual RF spikes, they are often 200 times the strength of the documented “average”.

Daniel Hirsch, Professor of Nuclear Policy at the University of California-Santa Cruz, calculated that the whole-body cumulative radiation exposure from wireless meters is 100–150 times higher than cell phone exposure. The graph below, from Professor Hirsch’s report, shows the cumulative bodily RF exposure of smart meters (at a distance of 3 feet), compared to cell phones, microwave ovens, Wifi routers, radio/TV broadcasts, and a smart meter from a further distance.

This graph shows why close proximity to a smart meter can be devastating to health. Cecelia Doucette, a technology safety educator and the director of Massachusetts for Safe Technology, states that, “These meters are installed directly on our homes and elsewhere with no informed consent, and people unwittingly sleep or spend time on the other side of the wall and get very, very ill.”

However, the risks of health harm from a smart meter on your home are not negated much by staying further away from it. This is because the smart meter actually communicates with your in-home electrical appliances every couple of seconds, to record specific appliance usage. This happens through the electrical wiring of your house. The meter uses something called a switched mode power supply to change the voltage every time it moves between the meter and the electrical line, and since it does this every couple of seconds, it generates an enormous amount of what is known as “voltage transients” or “line noise”, now more popularly known as dirty electricity.

Dirty electricity is a spiky, pulsed, highly variable electrical current that rides through all the circuitry of a building, and radiates a few feet into every room, near where the electrical lines run behind the wall, as well as behind each electrical outlet. It can have devastating health effects.

Unfortunately, this means that if you are lucky and persuasive enough to convince the power company to shut off the RF signal emission to and from your smart meter, or to replace it with what’s being called an “Opt-Out meter” in some places, you are not eliminating the dirty electricity problem at all. The smart meter is still actively collecting detailed data from all your appliances; it’s just not sending it via RF to the power company anymore, so only one part of your problem is solved.

This survey and report on the health effects of smart meters compiles data from a questionnaire filled out by 201 people who claim that smart meters have damaged their health. Some of these people already considered themselves electro hypersensitive (EHS) before their smart meter was installed, but the smart meter made it much worse. Others did not consider themselves EHS before the smart meter, but state that the meter exposure has made them hypersensitive to all EMF sources, including their cell phone and computer, which many did not have issues with previously.

The report also summarizes the most common symptoms the survey participants experienced from smart meter exposure. The most commonly reported symptoms that were either new or worsened from exposure were ear ringing, headaches, difficulty concentrating, insomnia, fatigue and heart arrhythmias. 42% of the survey participants actually developed their symptoms prior to the knowledge of the presence of smart meters, and before they had any awareness of RF radiation danger, which rules out psychosomatic factors.

Safety and privacy issues of smart meters

These high-tech meters are not just a risk to your health, they also come with safety and privacy issues. They have become notorious for exploding and causing house fires. EMF electrical consultant Cindy Sage explains that smart meters can create an over-current condition on the wiring and produce heat that the neutral cannot properly handle, which can lead to fires. This stress on the wiring is caused by the short, intense bursts of very high intensity radio frequency emissions, which can spike the voltage too high.

Other potential causes of smart meter explosions are incompatibilities between the old meter base and the new meter, loose connections, and defective equipment. So far, hundreds of thousands of meters have been replaced either because of an actual explosion or fire caused by the meter, or meters that were suspected to be defective and potentially unsafe. In 2015 in Stockton, California, a truck crashed into a utility pole, which caused a power surge that resulted in about 50-60 smart meters exploding and catching on fire at residential homes. Although power companies publicly deny that smart meters carry a risk of explosion and fires, they have installed voltage and heat sensors on the meters as a precautionary measure, for monitoring purposes. Actions speak louder than words.

Another major issue with smart meters is related to privacy and security. The meters collect extremely detailed data about your in-home electricity usage, including which appliances are used, how often, and when. Then this data is transmitted wirelessly, and wireless data is much easier to intercept and hack than a secure wired connection. This means that anyone with some tech know-how and bad intentions can discover what you’re doing and when you’re doing it, and may be able to use that information to harm you.

Also, it’s becoming widely known that utility providers can collect and sell your power usage data to third-party companies, as long as they withhold identifiable personal information like your name and social security number from these companies. Of course, they tell you this is for your benefit, so that they can “serve you better”. They make a lot of money selling this information, so it makes sense that we should be seeing considerable reductions in our electricity bills if we have smart meters, since the utility providers are making money from our personal usage data. Then why have electricity costs only gone up?

One of the most concerning aspects of the two-way data transmission of smart meters is the fact that our meters are now remotely controlled from the utility headquarters. This means they can turn our power off anytime, for any reason they deem necessary. If we miss our bill payment due date, they can shut off our power instantly right from the source, instead of having to send a service technician to our house to do it manually. They also have the power to control our usage, and it’s not unrealistic to imagine a so-called energy crisis moment where they decide that it’s best for the collective that our thermostats stay within a narrower range on an exceptionally cold or hot day, when the power grid is extra busy.

Can you get rid of your smart meter?

Utility companies have been busy for more than a decade replacing as many older analog and digital meters with smart meters as possible, so chances are high that you currently have a smart meter installed on your house. Can you get rid of it? If so, how do you do this, and what are the potential downsides and complications of doing so?

It depends on where you live. Since the initial rollout of smart meters, due to widespread opposition from individuals, several states have enacted statewide opt-out policies. Other states have unique policies, or case-by-case opt-out programs. State legislatures are being confronted with this issue more and more frequently, so even more opt-out policies are being considered.

You can look up the details of the smart meter opt-out policies of your state here:https://www.ncsl.org/energy/smart-meter-opt-out-policies

Unfortunately, most states that do allow opt-outs charge a one-time fee, as well as a monthly fee, to complain that you not having a smart meter is inconvenient for them. The fees vary considerably by state, ranging from single digit monthly fees to hundreds of dollars in one-time fees. Iowa now allows residents to opt-out and keep their analog meters at no charge.

New Hampshire, as usual, sets the precedent as the state to look up to: not only is there no charge to keep your old meter, but they actually have an ‘opt-in’ policy instead of opt-out, where utility companies must obtain written consent before they can install a smart meter on a home or business.

Pennsylvania, however, has a statewide requirement that utility companies deploy smart meters across their entire service area, and customers are not allowed to opt out for any reason.

The main issues with these fees concerns electro hypersensitive (EHS) individuals, and the considerable threat that smart meters pose to their health, functionality and well being. Ed Friedman, a Maine resident who filed a disability/discrimination lawsuit against a Maine power company for not agreeing to waive fees to accommodate his disability, states that his doctor recommends that he should not be exposed to any RF radiation in his home. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities from accessing government programs and services. Because of his debilitating sensitivity to RF radiation, he is being forced to pay monthly fees to use an analog electric meter that doesn’t aggravate his condition. Disabled people often have budget constraints, because they are often not able to work, so these monthly fees can be the breaking point for many of them.

Children’s Health Defense has been working towards establishing more freedom of choice when it comes to smart meter exposure. They wrote up a template letter that you can easily send to your state legislators in support of utility meter choice, and are urging everyone concerned about this issue to take this simple step towards more awareness and choice:

Tell Your State Legislators to Introduce/Support Utility Meter Choice

Some states, like Texas, allow you to request to have two-way meter communication turned off, which will solve the issue of RF radiation exposure, and will minimize the privacy and security concerns of wireless data transmission. However, as mentioned earlier, it may not affect dirty electricity exposure or meter safety issues at all.

The Smart Meter Education Network is an excellent resource for Michigan residents, but also has information that should be very useful for anyone wanting to learn more about the dangers of smart meters, and how to replace yours with a safer alternative.

Can you protect yourself from smart meter radiation?

If you currently have a smart meter, and are not able to get rid of it because of the expense involved, or limitations in your state laws, are there ways to protect yourself from its harmful radio frequency radiation and dirty electricity?

Yes! There are a few things you can do. First, make sure your smart meter is as far as possible from your main living area, and especially your bed. If your bed is on the opposite wall of your smart meter, it would be a good idea to move it somewhere else. Some people like to use a metal mesh smart meter cover to create a Faraday cage around their meter, which will block most of the measurable RF radiation emitted by the meter, but will still allow enough signal to get through to send data to the power company. You could also use dirty electricity filters on your home electrical outlets to reduce the intensity of the line noise/voltage transients caused by the meter.

Those options will likely offer some relief by reducing exposure, but if you have a smart meter on your home, we strongly recommend that you use an appropriate strength home Blushield device, which will create a stronger, biologically coherent scalar field that protects your body at the cell level. This is an effective way to internally mitigate any EMFs that are not possible or practical to remove from your space. The chaotic, stressful field produced by the smart meter’s pulsed RF, magnetic field and dirty electricity can trigger the body to mount an immune response, like it’s attacking an invader that’s never defeated. Adding a Blushield field to that space acts like a bubble of protection for your cells, calming the overactive immune response and surrounding you with a nature-based frequency field.

The home Blushield device you choose should depend on your overall EMF exposure, considering all sources like smart meters (yours and your neighbors’), Wifi routers, cell phones, smart devices, nearby cell towers, dirty electricity and more. For a straightforward and easy way to determine the best home and portable Blushield models for your needs, please read our Blushield Product Guide.

References:

• Smart Meter Education Network: Health – https://www.smartmetereducationnetwork.com/smart-meter-health-effects.php

• Smart Meter Education Network: Dirty Electricity – https://www.smartmetereducationnetwork.com/dirty-electricity-and-smart-meters.php

• Comments on the Draft Report by the California Council on Science and Technology: “Health Impacts of Radio Frequency from Smart Meters” by Daniel Hirsch1 – https://www.committeetobridgethegap.org/pdf/110212_RFrad_comments.pdf

• Smart Meter Health Effects Survey and Report – https://www.mainecoalitiontostopsmartmeters.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Exhibit-10-Smart-Meter-Health-Effects-Report-Survey2.pdf

• The Foundation for Information Policy Research: Smart Meters – https://web.archive.org/web/20160313055246/http://www.fipr.org/100110smartmeters.pdf

• Summary of Evidence on Smart Meter Fires – http://emfsafetynetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Summary-of-Evidence-on-Smart-Meter-Fires.pdf

• The Defender: “Why Smart Meters Are Good for Utility Companies, Bad for Consumers” – https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/smart-meters-health-privacy/

• National Conference of State Legislators: Smart Meter Opt-Out Policies – https://www.ncsl.org/energy/smart-meter-opt-out-policies

So far, none of the United States government commissioned studies on the health effects of cell phone radiation, contrary to their self-admitted expectations, have brought good news for the cell phone companies. The unexpectedly incriminating results of the 2018 National Toxicology Program (NTP) study on the effects of cell phone radiation on mice and rats have become widely known, despite subsequent government attempts to change the public’s perception of what the results mean, by attempting to discredit the design and methods of their very own study.

This massive 10-year-long study, funded by 30 million dollars of U.S. taxpayer money and designed and implemented by experts in the field of study design, carefully ensured that this study on rodents could be translated as seamlessly as possible to human health. One advantage of studying a possible carcinogen on mice and rats rather than on humans (besides the obvious ethical concerns) is that the rodents’ lifespans are just a small fraction of a human lifespan. This means that results can be determined within a reasonable period of time, and time is of the essence when it comes to an active, current exposure source with previously undecided health effects. The sooner we can discover serious health issues from an element we are already exposed to 24/7, the sooner action can be taken to reduce or eliminate those exposures.

The results from the NTP study found “clear evidence of carcinogenicity” of cell phone radiation on rodents. This was especially clear in male rats, where statistically significant numbers in the test group developed cancerous heart tumors (malignant schwannomas), as well as a particularly deadly type of brain tumor (malignant gliomas). They also found some evidence of adrenal gland tumors in the male rats, DNA damage in both male and female rats, and low birth weights in the offspring of the female rats born during the study. Interestingly, the rare and deadly gliomas found in this study are the same type that have been found in human epidemiological studies on cell phone use.

Two years after the study was officially completed in 2016, a peer review board assessed the study to determine the quality of the design and accuracy of the results. This board of expert pathologists and toxicologists unanimously praised the study’s design and execution, but emphasized that they feel the NTP downplayed the seriousness of the results in their initial assessment. In their own estimation, the danger was considerably higher than previously assumed.

In the following years, the FDA and FCC’s official websites tried to discredit their own study, claiming that the rodents were exposed to much higher levels of cell phone radiation, proportionally, than humans are on a daily basis, therefore the results are not applicable to humans. This is extremely contradictory, as the whole purpose of the study was so it could be applied as closely as possible to human exposure levels, and the peer review board agreed that the study was perfectly designed to this end.

Since discrediting the study didn’t really work, the government’s recent update on this matter is a more straightforward admission of the harm discovered, while still weakly downplaying its relevance to humans. You can read the 2024 report from the National Toxicology Program here:

National Toxicology Program: Cellphone Radio Frequency Radiation Studies

The most interesting thing about this report is the vague reference to subsequent studies near the end of the document, under the heading Is the NTP work on cellphone RFR completed?

Their answer is cryptic, and begs several questions:

“Yes. NIEHS scientists conducted follow-up research to better understand some of the findings seen in the earlier RFR rodent studies. A novel small-scale RFR exposure system was developed. The researchers tested the new exposure system using in vivo rodent studies. The research was technically challenging and more resource-intensive than expected. No additional RFR studies are planned.”

Our first question is, where is this follow-up research that was supposedly done? There are no links to studies published as a result of this research. Did they begin the study by creating a new exposure system, testing the system, then decided to abandon the study midway through because it was too difficult? We have a hard time believing that the U.S. government lacks resources.

What actually happened during this research period, we wonder? The end statement that no additional RFR studies are planned is quite concerning. If government agencies had already concluded that enough studies have been done to feel reasonably certain that there are, or are not, negative health effects from RFR, then ceasing plans for future studies would make more sense.

However, the FCC especially (as defendants in lawsuits on health harm from the FCC’s outdated exposure guidelines) loves to state that there isn’t enough research to clearly show harm from cell phones. If this was true, doesn’t that mean that research needs to be actively and urgently pursued, until definitive proof of harm or non-harm is found?

Devra Davis, PhD, and President of the Environmental Health Trust, shares her opinion of the 2024 NTP announcement:

“The government’s decision to stop funding research on cell phone radiation is consistent with the Chinese proverb, “If you don’t want to know, don’t ask.”

The US government has a variation of that in policy of, “don’t ask, don’t tell”. If you don’t want to know whether cell tower radiation is having a biological impact, stop doing the research!”

United States RFR exposure limits exponentially higher than numerous other countries

The obstinate and stubborn refusal to accept the large body of work showing clear evidence of radio frequency radiation harm by the U.S. government and the telecoms is almost unique to the United States. Of developed countries, only Japan’s RFR exposure level guidelines are set at the same recklessly high level as the United States, somewhat closely followed by Australia. Many other countries have limits that are 10 to 100 times lower than FCC limits, and/or have policies to reduce exposure near schools and homes designated as “sensitive” areas.

Countries leading the way in awareness and sensible laws and guidelines for the radiation exposure of their populace include France, Italy, India, Russia, Switzerland, Israel, Chile, Croatia, Ukraine, Kuwait, Belgium, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Greece, Belarus, Georgia, Serbia, Slovenia, Montenegro, Croatia, Bulgaria, Turkey India, Liechtenstein, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Kuwait, Republic of Moldova, Iraq, and surprisingly even China.

France is the best example we’ve seen of a country implementing responsible and science-based safety guidelines. In 2015, they passed a national law with several requirements for reducing their peoples’ wireless radiation exposure. This included a complete Wifi ban in nursery schools (where children under 3 are cared for), a recommendation to minimize Wifi in elementary schools by turning it off when not in use, routinely enforced cell tower emission compliance testing, and the clear labeling of public Wifi hotspots. Then in 2019, they ordered that cell phone companies widely recommend the use of the speakerphone setting to reduce radiation exposure, and every phone purchased in France comes with a user warning to keep the phone far away from the belly of pregnant women and the abdomen of adolescents.

The requirements also include a vast public information campaign on safe exposure practices. The SAR rating of cell phones must be clearly indicated on the box of all cell phones being sold, as well as information pamphlets on reducing exposure included inside every box. If the buyer of a cell phone intends to allow children under 14 to use the device, they must be provided upon request with equipment that will reduce radiation exposure to the child’s head. Any advertisements for cell phones must display equipment used to reduce exposure to the head, such as hands-free kits. Any company that fails to advertise safe use is fined 75,000 Euros.

These requirements and guidelines reflect the precautionary principle that many countries have wisely begin to implement, as evidence of harm continues to accumulate.

India dropped their exposure limits to 1/10th of the previous level after their government compiled a report of the many research studies that found damage to birds and bees from cell tower radiation.

In addition to France, several other countries have implemented complete Wifi bans in nursery schools and kindergartens, including Israel, French Polynesia, Cyprus, and various municipalities throughout Europe. There is also a big movement towards Wifi bans in elementary schools throughout Europe, or at least a sensible minimization of exposure. Much of this may be in response to a Resolution passed by the European Parliament in 2011, advising governments to take all reasonable measures to reduce EMF exposure, especially with children, who are most at risk of adverse events like head tumors. It encourages schools to give preference to wired internet connections over Wifi, and to strictly regulate the use of cell phones by schoolchildren on school premises.

Spain and Italy have been especially responsive to this resolution, and 500 municipalities in Italy have even passed resolutions to halt 5G deployment until safety research has been done. Russia has its own guidelines that minimize Wifi exposure to children in schools, and their exposure limits for cell tower and cell phone radiation are just a small fraction of the United States limits. With one of the longest histories of microwave radiation research of any country, of over 100 years, it’s no wonder that Russia respects and so strictly observes the precautionary principle in this regard. Even China’s exposure limits cite the precautionary principle, and we do not tend to think of China as a low EMF country, as they were considered our main competitor in “the race to 5G”.

Wireless radiation awareness is increasing in “the land of the free”

As you may now realize, not all countries are as resistant to acknowledging the true health harms from wireless radiation as the United States seems to be. However, that doesn’t mean we aren’t making progress. Many local municipalities are taking matters into their own hands, even when it feels like swimming upstream. New Hampshire has established a commission to study the health and environmental impact of 5G. In Maryland, the Children’s Environmental Health and Protection Advisory Council has published recommendations for safer use of Wifi in schools. Berkeley, California retail stores are required to inform buyers that keeping a cell phone in a pocket or bra may expose the user to RF levels beyond the legal limits.

We can’t afford to wait for the government to start caring about our health. The truth is that the biggest change is happening at the grassroots level, from individual humans educating themselves, then sharing their knowledge with their families, friends and local officials. This type of change is the most powerful, as we are not waiting for proclaimed authorities to tell us what’s good and bad, safe and unsafe: we are taking our health and safety into our own hands.

As this cascade of awareness grows, it’s going to put unbearable pressure on the government to acknowledge these pervasive truths. Our collective ignorance in past decades, assuming that our best interests are always represented by state and national policy, is dissolving as we wake up to our own power and inner authority.

References:

• National Toxicology Program: Cellphone Radio Frequency Radiation Studies – https://www.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/NTP_cell_phone_factsheet_jan_2024_508.pdf

• $30M National Toxicology Program Study Shows Cell Phone Radiation is Carcinogenic – https://www.blushield-us.com/blogs/education/30m-national-toxicology-program-study-shows-cell-phone-radiation-is-carcinogenic

• Environmental Health Trust: “Statement by Devra Davis PhD on the U.S. Government National Toxicology Program Ceasing Research on Cell Phone Radiation” – https://ehtrust.org/statement-by-devra-davis-phd-mph-on-the-u-s-government-national-toxicology-program-ceasing-research-on-cell-phone-radiation/

• Environmental Health Trust: “France: New National Law Bans Wifi in Nursery School” – https://ehtrust.org/france-new-national-law-bans-wifi-nursery-school/

• Environmental Health Trust: “International Policy Actions on Wireless” – https://ehtrust.org/policy/international-policy-actions-on-wireless/

• India’s study report: “Impacts of radio-frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) from cell phone towers and wireless devices on biosystem and ecosystem – a review” – https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Impacts-of-radio-freq-emf-from-cell-phone-towers-.pdf

• European Parliament Assembly: “The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment” – https://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=17994&

• Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection – https://www.scribd.com/document/182641315/RNCNIRP-Russia-Wi-Fi-Regulation-19-06-12-pdf

• Wireless Education: “Why are Some Countries Removing Wi-Fi in Schools and Others Not?” – https://www.wirelesseducation.org/1073-2/

We are living in a unique and novel time where technology is rapidly progressing, and our daily lives are becoming continuously more deeply intertwined with these emergent phenomena. A major component that enables modern technology to exist and function is the cell tower. Most of us, especially those who live in urban areas, have gotten used to cell phone towers dotting the backdrop landscape of our lives, and even those of us living in rural areas usually have at least one large, looming tower in view, off in the distance.

Even though cell towers have become commonplace in our daily lives, how much do most of us actually know about them? It’s easy to recognize the large lattice and monopole cell towers that reach as high or higher than the buildings around them, but did you know that there are several other types of radio frequency transmitting structures in the cell tower category that you may not recognize at all?

Cell towers come in so many forms (each suited for different uses) that a lot of people are astonished to find out how many cell towers are actually in their vicinity. We use a cell tower and antenna map website called Antenna Search to determine the number and location of towers and antennas in relation to a person’s home, to determine which Blushield device is best suited for their needs (which is mostly related to overall EMF density). We’ve noticed that many people are surprised to find out that the tower numbers in their area considerably exceed what they had previously assumed.

Therefore, it can be helpful to learn more about cell towers, so we can recognize them when we see them in our environment, enabling us to take appropriate precautions and protective measures while in their vicinity. It’s also good to learn how cell towers actually work to transmit signals between our phones, computers and the internet, as some may assume it’s all just a big informational cloud in the sky, which isn’t the case!

Cell towers act as intermediaries between wireless devices like cell phones, and the hardwired mobile network core that routes information to its destination, usually through another cell tower that’s nearest to the destination device. The majority of the actual data transmission happens through a hard wired connection on the ground, and the aerial transmission is only a very small portion of the journey of any given voice, text or data transmission packet.

The word “cell” is used because each tower covers a specific range, called a cell, that’s roughly hexagonal in shape for optimum coverage and transmission. Adjacent towers cover the surrounding areas, and if you could visibly see the connecting coverage areas (with the hexagonal range each tower covers), it may look similar to a honeycomb or beehive. Cell phones used within a cell that provides coverage to the mobile carrier that phone uses (Verizon, AT&T and others) will interact directly with that cell tower by transmitting and receiving wireless information packets.

How exactly does a cell tower support data transmission?

Let’s use a standard large cell tower (like a lattice or monopole tower) as an example, to learn more about how this works. The antennas on the tower each operate within a specific frequency band, often referred to as its spectrum. Each mobile carrier that leases space on a particular tower has its own antennas that operate within its own spectrum, so it won’t interfere with the transmission from other carriers. Any given spectrum is divided into separate sections for uplink and downlink transmission, to ensure that two-way communication can occur without obstruction or interference. Uplink refers to the communication path from the mobile device (such as a cell phone) to the cell tower, and downlink is the communication path from the cell tower to the mobile device. The data packets sent between a mobile device and cell tower ride on a specific carrier frequency, and the data itself is encoded onto that carrier usually by modulating the amplitude or phase of the signal in a very intricate and complex way, which “writes” the information onto the wave with exact accuracy.

When this information-carrying radio wave is picked up by a nearby antenna that’s attuned to the same frequency, the transceiver then demodulates the signal to extract the original information. The transceiver is a piece of equipment that sits next to the antenna itself, high up on the cell tower. The demodulated data is then sent down the tower through a physical cable, usually a fiber optic or coaxial copper cable, to the base station that resides at the bottom of the cell tower.

From there, the data is sent through the backhaul portion of the network. Backhaul is the wired or wireless infrastructure that connects the cell sites to the central mobile network. Most of the time, backhaul connections are wired using fiber optic cables, which are preferred for their high bandwidth and reliability, but in some cases wireless infrastructure like satellites are used instead.

As the data packet travels through the backhaul, its next stop is an aggregation point, which is where data from all the cell towers in that area pass through, to be routed further to the network core. It’s kind of like a traffic intersection near a highway, where many information streams meet in the same area to get on the highway to the big city. From there, the data packet travels to the network core.

Network cores are called different things, depending on what type of data they are responsible for handling. The predominant type of network core in the past, which is still used for voice calls, is called the mobile network switching center (MSC), and is responsible for “switching” phone calls to their final destination. For data packets used for sending texts, and processing data from internet usage on wireless devices, 4G LTE network cores involved in these processes are called Evolved Packet Cores (EPCs), and 5G ones are simply called 5G Cores.

Whichever type it is, network cores are like the central hubs (or the brains) in a complex web of mobile communication, and they play many roles. These centers are responsible for determining the rest of the route for your data packet to reach its final destination, and sending it on its way. They are also responsible for seamlessly handing off a connection from one cell to another, if the mobile device user is traveling between zones while using data or making a call. Another role the network core plays is to facilitate communication between different mobile networks, if you’re communicating with someone who uses a different carrier. The core infrastructure is housed in buildings called data centers.

After the data packet moves through the network core, the whole process essentially reverses as it moves toward its destination, which is usually a cell tower in the most suitable location to send the information wirelessly once more, to a mobile receiving device.

This whole process occurs almost instantaneously.

Macrocells, microcells, picocells – oh my!

Now let’s look at the various forms that cell towers can take. Some are very tall and large, and can be seen from miles away. These large towers include lattice, monopole and guyed towers, and are heavy duty, well supported structures. They provide service to a broad geographical area and are designed to handle a significant number of mobile users – this type of coverage size and capacity is referred to as a “macrocell”. Depending on the frequencies used by the antennas, and the transmitter power level, the maximum usable range can reach long distances of 10-25 miles (even up to 45 miles in some cases), but typically have a range of 1 to 3 miles.

• Lattice towers are open frame steel or aluminum structures with three or four legs, which taper moving upward, and can host multiple antennas at various levels on the structure. They usually range between 200 and 400 feet in height, but occasionally reach up to 1,000 feet.

• Guyed towers are very tall masts supported by many guy wires along different points on the structure, and anchored to ground foundations. They can reach anywhere from 200 feet tall, all the way up to a towering 2,000 feet. This type of tower is useful in areas with high winds, for additional support. The guy wires allow the structure to reach greater heights, making it more useful for the broader ranges used by FM and AM radio (which use lower frequencies with longer wavelengths, thus traveling farther), as well as the wider ranges of 4G and 3G cell phone signals, especially in rural areas.

• Monopole towers are single vertical poles made of galvanized steel or reinforced concrete, with antennas mounted at various levels on the exterior, and are usually between 50 and 200 feet tall. They are commonly seen in big cities, and these shorter towers have a smaller range, often using higher frequencies for more intensive data transmission. Even though they are shorter than lattice and guyed towers, they are still tall and powerful enough to provide macrocell level coverage.

• Stealth towers come in several different forms, and are designed to blend stealthily into their surroundings, as their name suggests. This may mean installing antennas on flagpoles, water towers, clock towers and church steeples, and even small towers made to look like trees. This is the type you’re least likely to notice, but if you start to look closely at the tops of water towers and other high structures, and trees that don’t quite look like trees, you may see cell antennas cleverly integrated into these common landscape features. These are most common in urban and suburban areas, and are sometimes necessary to follow zoning regulations concerned with aesthetics.

The last tower type listed above, the stealth tower, is versatile and can support either macrocell or microcell needs, depending on its size and power level. A microcell is a smaller cell, designed to cover a more limited area. Microcells overlap with the larger macrocells, and are designed to enhance capacity and coverage in certain high density or heavily trafficked areas, especially crowded urban spaces. Stealth towers that support microcell zones are often found on lamp posts, traffic light poles, and other common city infrastructure. Microcells are a type of small cell, and are integral to the denser and higher capacity coverage of the new 5G networks.

Besides some kinds of stealth towers, most small cells do not exist in a traditional tower form. The antennas and equipment are placed on other objects, as they are highly localized to a smaller area, designed to overlap other cells to enhance coverage. Small cells in general are placed between 20 and 100 feet high, depending on the type.

Even smaller than microcells are picocells and femtocells. Like a Russian nesting doll, these smallest cells rely on the base coverage of macrocells and microcells in the area, then enhance coverage even more in areas of high need, like a single building, a floor within a building, or even a single home or office. Picocell equipment is sometimes installed outdoors on lamp posts and other objects, but is more often utilized in large indoor spaces like airports, stadiums, hospitals, hotels, universities and offices. Femtocells are used exclusively indoors in smaller spaces, mainly to enhance coverage within an end user’s home or office.

4G service was the standard almost everywhere until recently, and is estimated to run on about 80% macrocells and 20% small cells. Inversely, 5G is heavily reliant on small cells, with up to 80% of 5G data transmission occurring through small cells, and only 20% through macrocells. Currently in the United States, there are over 450,000 active small cells. 5G is expected to become the dominant technology by 2030, which would require the number of small cells to more than double, up to an unbelievable 900,000 to 1 million small cells throughout the country.

The reason that 5G is so heavily reliant on small cells is because it utilizes a much higher frequency spectrum than 4G (often simply referred to as ‘millimeter waves’), and higher frequencies can’t travel as far, so require significant infrastructure densification. They are closer to the ground (where people and their devices are), and closer to each other, often existing on every street corner in populated urban areas. You can learn more about how 5G works specifically in a previous article we wrote on the topic:

5G Explained and What It Means for Health and Humanity


Here are the coverage differences between the cell zones explained above:

• Macrocells provide coverage at distances greater than 3,000 feet
• Microcells cover 600 to 3,000 foot zones
• Picocells enhance service in 300 to 1,000 foot areas
• Femtocells provide highly localized coverage within 100 feet or less

Cell towers (macrocells) and microcell antennas are owned and installed by the mobile carriers that use them, or by infrastructure operators. They are quite expensive to build, the average large cell tower costing about $250,000. Picocells and femtocells are often provided upon request by mobile carriers to their customers, usually but not always for an additional fee.

What are the different kinds of antennas?

The purpose of cell towers is to act as supportive infrastructure for the actual antennas that transmit the frequencies. Most types of antennas need to be placed on tower structures to give the antenna enough range to cover a large area. There are several different types of antennas you will see when you start looking more closely at the different types of cell towers described in this article.

One of the most common types of antennas used in 4G infrastructure are panel antennas. These appear as flat, white rectangles on monopole and lattice towers. They can be part of the way up the tower, all the way at the top, or more commonly both. Panel antennas transmit frequencies into certain sectors in the general direction they’re pointing, which is why you often see them installed on a triangular structure that surrounds the tower, with a few panel antennas on each of the three sides. This is so that there is antenna coverage in each sector within the zone of that tower, since each panel antenna can cover a section 120 degrees across, so with three sides there will be a full 360 degree coverage. They are most often found in urban and suburban locations, along highways and in densely populated regions.

Parabolic antennas, also called dish or circular antennas, are circular and concave like a dish. These are often located on monopole or lattice towers where panel antennas are also installed. Parabolic antennas are not involved in data transmission to and from mobile device users, but are used to transmit larger streams of data between nearby cell towers. The dish shape creates a focused beam in the direction it’s pointing. These antennas can be involved in the smaller percentage of backhaul that’s done wirelessly (most if it is ground based using fiber optic cables, as explained above), or other scenarios where a focused, high-gain, point-to-point signal is needed.

Omnidirectional antennas are thinner and less obvious, and often appear as metal rods in various formats. They are commonly seen at the top of tall guyed and lattice towers, and reach very long distances, which is useful in rural areas. Omnidirectional antennas can send and receive signals in all directions (360 degrees), hence their name. They provide broad coverage over a wide area.

As mentioned in the previous section, small cell antennas are not found on regular cell towers. Most often, they are installed on various urban infrastructure like street lights, traffic lights, buildings, and even on trees. 5G is completely reliant on small cells, and there need to be many of them placed close together to support the higher frequencies and larger bandwidth of 5G. They are designed to be as unobtrusive as possible, and may blend almost seamlessly into surrounding objects. They can be box-shaped, cylindrical, or even concealed within other objects, making them invisible to the eye. Small cell antenna housing contains multiple antennas arranged in an array, supporting the MIMO technology that’s central to 5G.

There are other types of antennas that are used in special, less common circumstances, but these are the main ones you will see and interact with in your environment.

Cultivating awareness of our EMF exposure

Part of becoming aware of the effects of electromagnetic fields on our bodies is learning more about the EMF sources all around us. Even those who are sensitive and reactive to EMF sources may not be educated enough to recognize a prominent source of harmful frequency fields in their environment. Being informed of our surroundings brings greater awareness and discernment into our lives, and while we cannot get away from these sources completely (and many of us don’t want to anyway), we can sensibly limit our exposure whenever possible.

This knowledge also makes it possible to ensure you are adequately protected by using an appropriate strength Blushield home device, which you can determine by factoring in your combined total of EMF exposure sources (detailed in our Blushield Product Guide). When you’re out and about, driving through the city or at the office, you may start noticing small cell equipment that you didn’t recognize before, and can make sure you’re carrying a Blushield portable with you in places that utilize small cell equipment.

It’s been over two years since a federal court case ruled that the FCC needs to reassess their outdated wireless radiation exposure guidelines. They have been tasked to set new limits based on modern exposure levels (which are exponentially higher than in 1996 when the old limits were set), as well as the increasing evidence of wireless radiation harm far below the levels that are shown to cause tissue heating. If they choose not to set new limits, they have been ordered to thoroughly explain their decision not to, backed by solid scientific evidence that current exposure levels are benign to humans and other living organisms.

Just in case they forgot about this imminent requirement to follow the law, they were reminded of their duty as a federal agency in April of this year, by a Petition to Implement the D.C. Circuit Judgment and Mandate to “perform tasks ordered by the court”. In the many weeks following, now 8 months later, there has still been no response. We have stated several times before that delay is their only viable tactic, because any other possible action on their part would inevitably incriminate them. The more time that passes with not a single word from the FCC, the more clearly we can see that they are hiding from accountability.

The FCC is not the only federal agency that is not doing its job. The FDA is responsible for actively and continually assessing the potential harm of wireless radiation on human health, per Public Law 90-602 that the United States Congress passed in 1968. Section 21, subsection 360ii of the United States Code requires the FDA to perform the following actions:

• Plan, conduct, coordinate and/or support research, development, training, and operational activities to minimize the emissions of, and the exposure of people to, unnecessary electronic product radiation.
• Study and evaluate emissions of, and conditions of exposure to, electronic product radiation and intense magnetic fields.
• Develop, test and evaluate the effectiveness of procedures and techniques for minimizing exposure to electronic product radiation.

With the rapid and unchecked proliferation of wireless radiation sources, increasing exponentially every year, the FDA has failed to actively assess exposure levels, develop techniques to reduce exposure, or warn the public about potential harm.

A formal Citizens’ Petition was filed in May 2023, by the non-profit organization Americans for Responsible Technology (ART) and other petitioners, demanding that they fulfill the clear requirements established for them by the U.S. Congress. ART reported that they finally received a response from the FDA last week. Their response essentially stated that after 6 months of deliberation, the FDA was unable to reach a decision about whether or not to perform their required duties.

More delay tactics.

The FDA’s refusal to continue studying wireless radiation dangers is unsurprising, considering the last time they attempted such a study (the National Toxicology Program study on the effects of wireless radiation on rats and mice) was a massive and shocking failure, which they had to sweep under the rug as quickly as possible. If the results of such a perfectly executed and thorough study were unacceptable to them, that says a lot about their underlying motives, and makes continuing to study the subject far too risky.

Local communities fight back

In the meantime, while we all wait for behemoth federal agencies to start caring about our health and well-being, 5G towers and antennas are being rapidly deployed all over the country. Local communities are feeling backed into a corner, and their only recourse has been to engage in time, money and energy-exhausting local battles, even with odds that are definitely not in their favor.

Amazingly, in some areas where community members have organized for a shared cause, there have been some recent wins, at least for now.

In Coeur D’Alene, Idaho, after learning of Verizon’s plans to install a 5G tower in a residential area, community members organized and fought back. Their website very clearly states that they aren’t against technological progress or new cell tower installations, just that they don’t want unsightly and dangerous towers placed right by their homes. This is not an extreme position, but a very reasonable perspective that most people would probably agree with, if they gave it some thought. They urged Verizon to reconsider the tower placement, and to choose an area further away from human habitation, such as an industrial area or commercial zone.

In October, the City received notice that Verizon had rescinded their tower application for the main site in question, at Shadduck Lane and 15^th Street. The application is officially marked as “withdrawn”. If Verizon wanted to consider that same location in the future, they would have to reapply and start the whole process over again.

Another decision to limit the deployment of 5G antennas just happened in Stamford, Connecticut. The State of Connecticut drafted a template for local municipalities to use that outlines terms for the placement of 5G equipment on city-owned utility poles. The template would give considerable power to the telecoms to determine antenna placement location, and the city would only have control over the size and appearance of the equipment.

21 Stamford city representatives rejected the state’s template application. This number represented a clear majority, who were persuaded by research presented that implicated 5G in various health risks, including brain damage, headaches, memory loss, reproductive organ and nervous system damage, DNA damage, as well as harm to trees, birds, insects and wildlife.

City attorneys urged representatives to accept the template, fearing a lawsuit if it’s rejected. Federal law states that local governments cannot legislate against wireless radiation on the grounds of health risks.

Several city representatives were appalled that fear of lawsuits should factor into their decision making process when it comes to potential health risks for local residents.

“The threat of whether we’re going to be sued is not a winning argument when a potential health concern is involved,” City Rep. Sean Boeger said. “We can’t frame our decisions off that.”

Former Stamford resident Joseph Sandri also spoke up, pointing out that the standing court ruling demanding the FCC update its wireless exposure guidelines should give the city more power to say no to new cell antennas, even on the grounds of potential health effects.

“The FCC rules are now under remand in federal court, and the FCC still has not explained why the rules have not been updated,” Sandri told the board. “The city has the right to independently monitor wireless networks for compliance with the FCC’s ancient exposure rules, so the city should be given the opportunity to object” to telecom applications to place 5G antenna on publicly owned utility poles.

Birds are being harmed and killed by wireless radiation

In related news, there have been increasing numbers of reports of unusual numbers of dead birds in the vicinity of 5G towers, and even on top of the towers themselves. People in neighborhoods where cell towers were installed nearby have reported a sudden decrease in the bird population in their area. These reports are coming in from all over the world. This was occurring long before 5G was rolled out, but has ramped up exponentially since then.

Arthur Firstenburg, President of Cellular Phone Task Force and the author of The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life, recently reported on an incident from 2019 relating to an endangered bird species in Hawaii being harmed and killed by wireless radiation.

The kiwikiu are a critically endangered bird species that live exclusively on the island of Maui. Less than 150 birds remain, and they are tiny, weighing less than one ounce each. They are considered to be an intelligent and long-lived species, so naturally, conservationists want to do whatever they can to protect and regenerate their numbers. Although they had good intentions, the Maui Forest Bird Recovery Project made the mistake of placing very high frequency (VHF) radio transmitters onto harnesses on the legs of 10 kiwikiu, intending to observe their habits and activities.

This well-intended yet ill-informed decision ended very badly. Less than 3 weeks after the birds were released into the wild, with their radio transmitters attached, all were dead – except for the 3 birds that had managed to remove their own transmitters early on.

Several of the birds who failed to remove their transmitters, although previously known to be strong and healthy, became suddenly lifeless and still, dying soon afterward. One bird ferociously attacked her transmitter, biting it apart and removing it. Later that day, the staff put another transmitter on her, after which she gave up, stopped eating and became lethargic. She was found dead two days later. Another bird managed to disable his transmitter on the first day, and to remove his harness completely a month later. He was observed again, perfectly healthy, 632 days later! That’s almost two years afterward, in line with the kiwikiu’s naturally long lifespan. Getting sick and dying suddenly just doesn’t happen with this species.

Since the transmitters allowed the birds to be tracked, this ended up being an unintentionally close-up look at how immediately and badly small life forms are affected by the strong and unnatural manmade electromagnetic fields that we are all exposed to daily. They are truly the “canaries in the coal mine” of wireless radiation.

Human rights of children in the digital age

Within the range of living organisms, birds are on the smaller and more delicate side, and we are noticing their vulnerability to wireless radiation harms at an accelerated pace, compared to larger and hardier organisms. As far as humans are concerned, our children are our own “canaries”. They are considerably smaller, and still within the vulnerable stage of development, with softer skulls and bones, and actively developing brains and nervous systems. Since they are mentally and emotionally immature, they are also less able to regulate and control their interaction with addictive stimulus, and are also much more vulnerable to the harmful effects of such stimulus.

The ubiquitous presence of wireless radiation sources is bombarding the formative years of today’s children. The current generation of children is dealing with a serious challenge never before experienced by humanity. We need to think deeply and act wisely regarding the interconnected issues of both wireless radiation’s effects on children’s health, as well as the addictive element inherent to screens, the digital world, and how that in itself is affecting their brain development and ability to function.

Thousands of medical, scientific and legal professionals around the world have created The International Declaration on the Rights of Children in the Digital Age. It is designed to bring awareness and accountability to the governments of the world, educating them on their responsibility to ensure the health and well-being of the humans that will become all of our future.

The Declaration addresses three separate and interconnected concerns: screen time addiction (and its well-documented harmful effects), involuntary exposure to non-ionizing radiation, and commercial exploitation (the harvesting and monetization of private personal information).

It then outlines several principles that can be implemented by governments to create a healthier environment for our growing children. These include creating research-backed guidelines for safe exposure levels to non-ionizing radiation sources, incentivizing engineering solutions to reduce exposure and protect health, including more vulnerable populations like children and pregnant women. It urges school administrators to create safe learning environments with minimal exposure to non-ionizing radiation, as well as educating physicians and health care providers on behavioral and physical problems associated with screen time and non-ionizing radiation harm. It also encourages broad public education campaigns on the unique health risks to children of constant exposure to addictive and harmful platforms and potentially dangerous levels of radiation, so that parents have the option of informed consent regarding the presence of these influences in the lives of their children.

The burden of proof of safety must shift to the manufacturers and purveyors of non-ionizing radiation emitting devices.

This Petition is available for anyone to sign and share. You can read the full document here:

The International Declaration on the Rights of Children in the Digital Age

As parents, it’s easy to get swept up in the trends of our time, as our own busy lives tempt us to turn our kids over to electronics as a convenient babysitter. Although most of us want our children to have technological skills, since we can’t deny it’s big part of our modern world, we need to find ways to keep it in balance with hands-on learning activities, close interaction with caregivers, and frequent exposure to the natural world. This may feel like a juggling act, and sometimes even an uphill battle, but if we work together towards increasing education and awareness, it may soon be easier for our children to have the wholesome childhood they deserve.

References:

• Americans for Responsible Technology: FDA – https://www.americansforresponsibletech.org/fda
• Americans for Responsible Technology: “CITIZEN PETITION AND REQUEST FOR LEGAL COMPLIANCE” – https://www.americansforresponsibletech.org/_files/ugd/2cea04_e1e8715fdb41466caaf767e16c16522f.pdf
• Stop the Tower CDA – https://stopthetowercda.com
• CT Examiner: “Stamford Rejects Deal Allowing 5G on City-Owned Utility Poles” – https://ctexaminer.com/2023/11/09/stamford-rejects-deal-allowing-5g-on-city-owned-utility-polls/
• Cellular Phone Task Force: “Don’t Irradiate the Birds” – https://cellphonetaskforce.org/dont-irradiate-the-birds/
• The International Declaration on the Human Rights of Children in the Digital Age – https://www.thechildrensdeclaration.org

I had the great privilege to interview Dr. Chris D'Adamo shortly after we submitted our clinical trial manuscript to a PubMed indexed medical journal.Dr. Chris D’Adamo is an epidemiologist with expertise in the synergistic effects of healthy lifestyle practices on human health and wellness. He received his Ph.D. in Epidemiology from the University of Maryland School of Medicine and is currently an Assistant Professor with dual appointments in the Center for Integrative Medicine within the Department of Family & Community Medicine as well as in the Department of Epidemiology & Public Health. Dr. D’Adamo serves as the Director of the Center for Integrative Medicine and also holds adjunct faculty position in the Gerontology Doctoral Program of the University of Maryland.​Dr. D’Adamo has served as Principal Investigator on a wide variety of observational and interventional studies of nutrition and other healthy lifestyle modalities.​Chris is also an all around great human being that has a genuine passion for helping people be as healthy as possible.​In this interview, we discuss the statistically significant data regarding the voltage-gated calcium channel gene expression, as well as improvements in composite memory, cognitive flexibility, executive function, and processing speed. Heart rate variability, blood glucose, NK cells and deep sleep also all improved with use of Blushield technology! Learn more about our study results here.

Among the many health concerns of the aging population, hearing loss is so common that past a certain age, it comes as no surprise. Around one-third of adults between ages 65 and 74 report some degree of hearing loss, and about half of elderly adults over 75 have difficulty hearing.

A related condition that often accompanies hearing loss is tinnitus, or “ringing in the ears”. The sound patterns and intensity/volume of the tinnitus experience varies widely between individuals, but the definition of the disorder is “a perception of sound that does not have an external source, so others cannot hear it”. The actual sounds may be described as ringing, buzzing, popping, clicking, hissing, humming, and even squealing or roaring. It can be mild and barely perceptible, only minimally interfering with everyday life, or may be incredibly disturbing to the point of affecting one’s ability to perform daily tasks and enjoy life. It can be experienced temporarily, or can become chronic and persistent. It usually begins between ages 40 and 60, but can occur in younger individuals and even children, as well.

Although tinnitus and hearing loss can occur separately in some cases, it’s very common to experience them together, as they are both a result of some form of damage to the delicate structures and nerves of the inner ear. This damage may have an obvious cause, like excessive and prolonged exposure to very loud noise, but it may just as likely be the result of more internal forms of damage from an overall decline in health from a variety of causes.

Modern medicine is quite undecided on the cause of tinnitus, but speculates that it could be related to nerve damage, allergies or autoimmune conditions that cause nerve and tissue inflammation and fluid buildup in the inner ear. It is often theorized to be a disruption in communication between the nerves of the inner ear and the auditory cortex of the brain that processes and interprets sound. When the nerves and brain do not communicate accurately and effectively, signals can be misinterpreted, and one may “hear” sounds that have no external source. This is a purely physiological event, and is not at all the same as the auditory hallucinations that can occur with psychological disorders like schizophrenia. Other possible causes of tinnitus include side effects from various pharmaceutical drugs, excess earwax production, ear infections that have damaged the eardrum or inner ear, head/neck/jaw issues, and other chronic issues such as Ménière’s disease (a more serious inner ear disorder), diabetes, and even tumors on the acoustic nerves.

In contrast to modern medicine’s general philosophy of dividing the body into separate parts that are thought to rarely affect each other, Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) has a simpler and more holistic take on tinnitus. Anything related to the ear and hearing is thought to be connected to the kidney system of the body, which governs the deep energy reserves, or ‘life force essence’. Tinnitus and hearing loss are usually thought to indicate a kidney yin deficiency, where life force is depleted by overwork, poor lifestyle habits, toxins, drugs and alcohol over a long period of time.

From a scientific viewpoint, this could be translated as the breakdown of organs and tissues from long term exposure to sources of oxidative stress, which raises cortisol levels and puts the body into a catabolic state, where the body is directed to break down its own tissues for use as an emergency energy source. Many external and internal stressors can produce oxidative stress in the body, including exposure to toxins (chemicals and heavy metals), the body’s own immune response from exposure to viruses, bacteria and parasites, chronic stress and overwork, drugs and alcohol, and even artificial manmade electromagnetic fields.

In the absence of adequate nutrients to help the body recover from stress, and dietary sources of antioxidants that counter the oxidative stress directly, a degradation of the body’s organs and tissues occurs. Over time, if the oxidative stress load is continuously higher than what the body can defend itself against or repair from, this results in tissue breakdown and an acceleration of the aging process.

Tinnitus is not usually indicative of a major health issue, but it can diminish the quality of life of those who suffer from it. It can result in insomnia, difficulty concentrating, moodiness, anxiety and depression, and when combined with hearing loss, interferes with social interaction, enjoyment of life, and even personal safety. Those who suffer from tinnitus and hearing loss are also far more likely to suffer from dementia and neurocognitive issues.

Are tinnitus and hearing loss caused by EMFs?

Among EHS (electrohypersensitivity) sufferers, tinnitus is one of the most commonly reported symptoms. Various population groups have been studied, and those who reported suffering from EHS had a considerably higher incidence of tinnitus (about 50%, versus only 17% of those without EHS). It seems that in EHS individuals, their nervous systems are more sensitive than most, and a sensitive system may pick up the signals from normally inaudible frequencies and interpret them as something audible to that individual. Those with sensitive nervous systems also generally have higher cortisol levels (autonomic nervous system hyperexcitability) and decreased adaptive abilities, so react more strongly to many kinds of environmental stimuli, compared to most people.

A study review that examined 165 clinically relevant studies relating to tinnitus and electromagnetic fields found evidence of a causal link between the two, including increased tinnitus incidence from talking on a cell phone regularly for more than 4 years, as well as an increase in symptoms in the preferred ear of the cell phone user, compared to the opposite ear. The study authors advise cautionary and safe use of cell phones, as there is enough reason to suspect a link between EMFs and tinnitus, as well as more serious health issues.

Links have also been established between EMFs and hearing loss. This study found significant hearing loss in the preferred ear of cell phone users, compared to the ear that was rarely or never directly exposed to the cell phone. Another study on rats showed neuronal degeneration in the auditory system from exposure to cell phone radiation.

Several studies have linked cell phone use with the growth of acoustic neuromas, which are normally benign and slow growing tumors on the nerve of the inner ear. These growths could in themselves be a cause of both tinnitus and hearing loss, and are definitively linked to electromagnetic field exposure.

Improving tinnitus and hearing loss with EMF protection, diet and herbs is possible

With the link between electromagnetic fields, tinnitus and hearing loss fairly well established, many people are looking for EMF protection that will reduce or eliminate their symptoms.

We have gotten several reports of a reduction or elimination of tinnitus symptoms from using a Blushield device, especially from those using the C1 Ultimate Cube home model. Improvements in other areas like sleep, mood, energy levels and overall well-being from using Blushield are often felt right away or after only a few weeks of use, but it’s important to remember that some conditions are much more deeply rooted, and took many years to develop in the first place. Conditions like tinnitus and hearing loss should be perceived as a type of injury, from long term or extreme exposure to some kind of external stressor. When it comes to healing injuries that were long in the making, the body’s healing process doesn’t have an “on/off switch” where a significant chronic condition is suddenly or quickly resolved. Much more realistically, healing will occur over such a long and gradual period of time that someone may not even realize that it’s happening at all, until months down the road when one day they realize their symptoms are considerably lessened or gone completely. However, some people’s bodies are more responsive and adaptable, and/or their tinnitus and hearing loss was of the more mild and recently developed type, so they may experience positive results quickly. Of course, we can’t guarantee that Blushield will help your tinnitus or hearing loss, since there are so many factors that may affect your individual condition.

Along with using an appropriate strength Blushield device for your overall EMF exposure, there are other ways you can support your body to heal damage to the auditory nerves and the brain, potentially reducing or eliminating symptoms of tinnitus, and even restoring hearing to some extent. Ensuring adequate nutrition, especially rich sources of zinc, magnesium and B vitamins, can give your body what it needs to heal. Herbs like ginkgo biloba and ginseng may be effective at improving circulation in that area, lessening symptoms and accelerating the healing process, as well as neutralizing oxidative stress due to their natural antioxidant and polyphenol content.

Nourishing the kidney system of the body, in accordance with TCM principles, can replenish the deep reserves of the body and increase vitality, which will often improve ear related issues like tinnitus and hearing loss. High quality herbal formulas that are focused on nourishing the kidney yin can be very helpful. Our top recommendations are the He Shou Wu Formula and Fire/Water Formula created by Shen Blossom, both of which contain expertly crafted blends of the highest quality herbs. Acupuncture can also increase blood and qi/chi flow to the head and ears, supporting the healing process.

Reducing exposure to triggers is also important, especially as you’re healing. This includes reducing EMF exposure by cultivating safe habits when using radiation emitting devices. Using your devices less often, and keeping them further away from you when you do use them, can go a long way. This article we wrote gives more specific ideas on how to sensibly reduce your exposure with some simple habit changes.

Interestingly, various kinds of sound therapy are some of the most effective treatments for tinnitus. Although the audible frequencies we can hear are technically mechanical waves, not electromagnetic waves, they are still frequencies. The fact that frequencies can be used to treat this issue warrants further consideration of the potential effects of electromagnetic frequencies on brain/nerve/ear disorders like tinnitus and hearing loss, as well as the potential therapeutic effect of a scalar frequency generator like Blushield.

Hearing aids – how to reduce your EMF exposure

The most common conventional treatment for both hearing loss and tinnitus is the use of hearing aids. They are not intended to heal either condition, but to provide a way of coping with the conditions, which mainstream consensus deems incurable. If you or someone you know is in a more advanced stage of hearing loss or tinnitus, hearing aids may be necessary for basic daily life functions. If you need hearing aids to stay safe and functional on a daily basis, and to enjoy life, are there any options to lower your EMF exposure from these radiation emitting devices?

Yes! While you cannot eliminate EMF exposure entirely if you’re using hearing aids, there are methods to considerably reduce it.

The first hearing aids were invented in the late 1800s, were analog in function, and consisted of a tiny microphone, an amplifier (to amplify the external sounds), and a speaker to direct the sounds into the ear or the wearer. Since analog amplification will distort sound to some extent, this method was not able to perfectly reproduce external sounds. In 1990, the invention of the digital hearing aid solved this problem, as the microphone delivers the sounds to a microchip, which then digitally reproduces the sound as a much more authentic rendition of the original source. The EMF exposure from these types of hearing aids is negligible, and only minimally harmful.

This all changed around 2010, when wireless connectivity capabilities were added to digital hearing aids. This allowed the hearing aids to communicate with each other, and to connect directly with your cell phone, computer and TV, so you can answer calls and listen to music straight from the hearing aid. These enhanced capabilities were so popular that almost all modern hearing aids now offer wireless connectivity. Unfortunately, this exposes the wearer to radio-frequency radiation right inside of the ears and dangerously close to the brain.

Short range wireless connectivity is achieved using near-field magnetic induction that operates within the 3 to 11MHz (megahertz) range, and allows the two hearing aids to be able to communicate with each other. Long range connectivity operates in the Bluetooth frequency range of 2.4 to 2.45GHz (gigahertz), and allows hearing aids to connect to other devices like your cell phone and computer. Although both of these connectivity options increase convenience and improve user experience in various ways, neither are necessary for the hearing aids to function in a basic sense, and both magnetic and radio-frequency fields so close to the brain can cause health issues.

The companies claim that the radiation level is extremely low, and well within the SAR limits for wireless radiation exposure, but these FCC regulations have considerable flaws. SAR stands for Specific Absorption Rate, and refers to the amount of EMF absorbed by the body resulting from proximity to a specific radiation source. SAR limits are only based on the thermal (heating) effects of RF exposure, even though non-thermal levels of EMFs have been consistently shown to have harmful effects on health. Another concern is that hearing aids will subject you to these EMFs consistently, as most people wear them for 16 hours per day. Long term, daily exposure, even at very low levels of power, can be considerably more harmful than short term or sporadic exposure.

If you need to use hearing aids and you’re concerned about EMF exposure, there is usually a way to turn off wireless connectivity, depending on the device. Some hearing aids do not allow it to be switched off, but most probably do, or at least allow the device to be switched to airplane mode. If you have moderate to severe hearing loss or tinnitus, you likely have prescription hearing aids. If it’s not easy for you to figure out how to turn off the wireless capability of your hearing aids, you can visit the healthcare provider who prescribed them and see if they can do it for you. If you have mild to moderate hearing difficulties, you may be able to purchase generic hearing aids online or OTC (over the counter), and you can specifically select a brand that does not include wireless connectivity, or allows it to be turned off.

If you absolutely need some aspect of the wireless functionality provided by your hearing aids, you can at least turn off Bluetooth whenever you don’t need it, by switching it off from your phone and any other device the hearing aids are coupled with. That way, at least there will be less radio-frequency activity going back and forth between the devices.

If you have moderate to severe hearing loss or tinnitus, you may decide that for you, hearing aids are in the category of “EMF exposure that you can’t control”, which is what Blushield is for. We always recommend minimizing EMF sources as much as possible, practical or desirable, and then making sure you have the appropriate strength home and portable Blushield devices to protect you from the inevitable exposures in your life.

Feeling stressed over every little bit of EMF exposure can do more harm than good, as it’s truly impossible to get away from all of it! The feeling of well being that comes from knowing you’re protected from these inevitable exposures will ensure that your mental health is protected just as much as your physical health.

References:

• Study review: “Tinnitus and cell phones: the role of electromagnetic radiofrequency radiation” – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9444668/

• Study: “Association of Tinnitus and Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: Hints for a Shared Pathophysiology?” – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2657824/

• Study: “High-Frequency Hearing Loss Among Mobile Phone Users” – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3918279/

• Study: “Effects of exposure to 2100MHz GSM-like radiofrequency electromagnetic field on auditory system of rats” – https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27865708/

• SaferEMR: “Acoustic Neuroma and Cell Phone Use” – https://www.saferemr.com/2017/04/acoustic-neuroma-and-cell-phone-use.html

Back in September of 2020, we were contacted by Tom Blue, the owner of a research company and Executive Director of the American Academy of Private Physicians.  Tom is connected with a large network of doctors.  He had recently discovered Blushield EMF protection devices, and noticed significant positive results from using the devices on himself, his wife and their son.  All three regularly track various health markers using the Oura Ring device, and the results they found in their sleep quality and heart rate variability were impressive enough to inspire Tom to reach out to us.

Tom proposed studying the health effects of our devices on humans, on a larger scale than we have done previously.  Tom and his partners, Helen Messier, MD, PhD and DeAunne Denmark, MD, PhD, had great ideas about the structure and focus of the study, a variety of health markers to track, and how to recruit participants within their network of doctors.  They had connections with independent labs that could perform the study for us.

Many months were spent ironing out seemingly infinite details, signing contracts, recruiting all our participants, and navigating the biggest worldwide slowdown of many of our lifetimes in the form of the Covid lockdowns, which kept pushing off our ideal timeline.  Finally, in March of 2022, test kits were made and sent to all the participants, as well as a Premium Ultra home device for each participant, and a Plugin and/or Premium Portable for the participants who worked away from home or traveled often, to make sure they were within the Blushield field as often as possible during the 12-week study duration.

The focus of this pilot study was to assess the feasibility and preliminary signs of efficacy of our devices on a small sample group within a fairly short time frame, to determine if a full-scale research project would be worth planning in the future.

All 25 participants worked in the health and wellness industry, including general practitioners and physical therapists, and all were self-reported to be in relatively good health at the beginning of the study.  This was a single-arm study, in this case referring to a “before and after” type study, where all participants were tested before using Blushield, then again during and after 12 weeks in the influence of the Blushield device.

100% of participants reported compliance with device usage for the study duration, meaning they remained within the Blushield field, which increases the validity of the results and the feasibility (ease and practicality) of using the devices, even for the busy professionals in our study sample.  No adverse events were reported during the 12-week study.

A variety of health markers were tested, using several methods.  These included laboratory panels assessing overall physiological health; a panel of blood markers related to inflammation, oxidative stress, DNA damage and cellular senescence; a genome-wide assessment of DNA methylation (including the voltage-gated calcium channel sites); a full neurocognitive assessment every 4 weeks of the study; the use of a wearable health tracker (the Oura Ring) to analyze changes in sleep quality, heart rate variability, and related health markers; and self-reported health questionnaires.

Analyzing and interpreting the results

Our study paper was written by Christopher D’Adamo, PhD, an epidemiologist who has served as Principal Investigator on a wide variety of observational and interventional studies of nutrition and other healthy lifestyle modalities, and his findings have been published in several well-known peer-reviewed scientific and medical journals, and publicized through several popular media outlets.

The study co-authors include the researchers involved in compiling and interpreting the data:  researchers from TruDiagnostic (the epigenetic data analysis company that provided the genome-wide DNA methylation assessment), doctors Helen Messier and DeAunne Denmark, who organized the study, and Tom Blue, who got the ball rolling initially.

In the study paper, it is stated: “Preliminary data from in vitro and agricultural animal studies suggest changes in biomarkers of health and functional status may be detectable after a period of continuous BluShield device usage.”

This refers to our prior Blushield studies from several years ago, the grassroots-style testing where we initially found impressive positive results on animals and humans, including live blood cell analysis, human urine analysis, as well as health improvements in chickens and cows.

We knew it was time for a more thorough study on a greater number of human health markers, using a newer, more powerful Blushield device, and we are so excited that our study has been completed.

So, what improvements were found in this independent review board certified pilot study?

Cognitive function improvements

The CNS Vital Signs test is a full neurocognitive assessment that each participant did once before introducing the Blushield device, then again every 4 weeks of the 12-week study, for a total of 4 times. The test records performance in areas of cognitive function, including memory, executive function and processing speed.  Statistically significant positive results were found in the areas of composite memory, cognitive flexibility, executive function, and processing speed. There were several areas where no changes were noted (visual memory and simple and complex attention), but the areas of positive change are quite notable.

Electromagnetic field exposure has been definitively linked to impairments in cognitive function, and the mechanism of harm theorized as overactivation of the voltage-gated calcium channels, as described in our previous article on the subject:

Memory, Learning & Attention Impairment From EMF Exposure

Voltage-gated calcium channel improvements

Could our positive results on cognitive function be linked to the voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs)?  The study paper states this is a valid hypothesis that warrants further exploration.  The reason it is believed there may be a link is because in the genome-wide DNA methylation assessment, they were able to identify a key VGCC gene (CACNA1G) that was hypermethylated, indicating a likely under-expression of that gene – basically, a quieting of the voltage-gated calcium channels that are chronically overactive and overstimulated in the constant presence of modern levels of EMFs.  Hypermethylation is most often associated with a downregulation of the expression of a gene, placing it into a “locked” state, whereas hypomethylation usually refers to active expression and transcription of a gene.

204 total CpG sites were found to be differentially methylated between the before and after measurements, and 94% of those genes were hypermethylated.  A considerable number of these sites were connected with the ATP-sensitive potassium channels, which are known to be influenced by EMFs.  Besides the one key VGCC gene that was hypermethylated at a level of statistical significance, 4 other VGCC-related genes were very near the threshold of significance.

CpG is short for Cytosine-phosphate-Guanine, which is the most common methylation pathway in the DNA.  DNA methylation is an incredibly important epigenetic health marker.  Epigenetics refers to the study of genes activating or silencing (commonly through methylation) in response to changing environmental factors, and can explain why family members (even identical twins) with close to or exactly the same genome can experience widely different health outcomes.  It calls upon the “nature versus nurture” question, where “nature” is the static state of the genome or genetics you were born with, and “nurture” refers to the various outside influences you have encountered throughout your life that actually switch various genes on and off, dynamically altering the trajectory of your health.

Another fascinating purpose of DNA methylation is to silence intragenomic parasites.  It’s hard to believe, but at least 35% of our genome is made up of parasite DNA.  These parasites are called transposons, and include endogenous retroviruses that have inserted themselves into human DNA over a very long period of time, long before each of our lifetimes.  DNA methylation, when it functions optimally, should keep this parasitic DNA in a quiet, dormant state for our entire lives.  When environmental influences, like toxic heavy metals and electromagnetic fields, disrupt our bodies’ ability to methylate properly, dormant retroviruses can become active, often wreaking havoc throughout our entire bodies.

Meaningful improvements in sleep quality and heart rate variability

All study participants wore an Oura Ring device throughout the entire study duration, from the pre-Blushield “before” period, and during the 12 weeks of Blushield use.  This wearable health tracking device continuously records a variety of relevant and important health markers, making it easy to track the effects of lifestyle changes in real time.

The device tracks the full sleep cycle of its wearer, and provides detailed data on the number of minutes of deep sleep, REM sleep, light sleep and awake time.  It also records heart rate variability (HRV) on an ongoing basis, which is a key marker of vitality, resilience and adaptability.  “Variability” refers to our heart’s ability to respond immediately to the demands of our environment, by speeding up or slowing down the heart rate as needed.  The body’s ease in changing the speed of the heart instantaneously is strongly linked to our overall health and vitality.

You can learn more about the complex nuances of heart rate variability in this article we wrote:

Heart Rate Variability (HRV) as an Advanced Biomarker is Affected by EMFs

Our study participants saw impressive improvements in their heart rate variability, average and lowest resting heart rate, body temperature, and deep sleep, all reaching statistical significance.  Average deep sleep time increased by 9 minutes, from 90 minutes before to 99 minutes after.  There was also an increased average awake time (by 5 minutes), which in some instances wouldn’t be desirable, but it’s a logical assumption that if you’re getting 9 extra minutes of deep sleep (the most restorative type of sleep) per night, then you may not need quite as much sleep overall.

Reduction in blood glucose

EMF exposure has been shown to be linked to elevated blood glucose, and in some cases, even prediabetes and diabetes.  This is thought to be related to the voltage-gated calcium channels, which our previous article on blood glucose and insulin elaborates on:

Blood Glucose & Insulin Negatively Affected By EMFs

All of the participants had glucose levels within a healthy range at the beginning of the study, and we still found a statistically significant reduction in blood glucose during the study.  The results may have been even more dramatic if diabetics and prediabetics had been included in the study, and is a topic of particular interest for a potential future study.

Glucose and insulin are also strongly affected by the ATP-sensitive potassium channels, so it’s possible that the positive effects on blood glucose may be linked to the hypermethylated ATP-sensitive potassium channel complex that our study recorded, as well as the VGCCs.

Changes in immune markers & self-reported health improvements

The study also found an increase in monocytes and a decrease in natural killer cells (NK cells), both within a healthy range.   Monocytes remain in their basic form in the bloodstream and organs when there are no active threats, but as soon as a threat is perceived, they differentiate into either macrophages or dendritic cells.  However, NK cells remain in their original form while fighting infection.  When monocytes differentiate into dendritic cells, this then alerts other cells (including NK cells) of the presence of an imminent threat.

There is a hypothesis that electromagnetic field exposure triggers the immune system, as our bodies perceive the foreign frequency patterns as invaders it needs to attack and defeat.  Since there is nothing physically present to attack and destroy, this can result in a chronically elevated immune response, which will eventually deplete the immune system of its power and steal vital resources from other essential processes in the body.  Our long-held theory, based on the results of our previous studies, is that being in the influence of a Blushield gives the body a healthy field to preferentially resonate with, calming and subduing the futile immune response against the perceived invasion of the harmful fields.

An increase in circulating monocytes could indicate that they are now “ready and waiting” in their natural form, and not currently in the process of fighting infection by differentiating into other forms.  A decrease in natural killer cells could signify the immune system calming down from a previously chronically overactive state, as the monocytes are not actively signaling a threat that would tell the NK cells to get to work.  More targeted and larger scale studies will be needed to confirm this hypothesis.

Also, each participant was given a self-reported health questionnaire at various times throughout the study period, and there was a statistically significant improvement in the participants’ subjective experience of overall health and well-being.

Understanding P-values and confounding factors

To fully understand the study paper, it is helpful to understand P-values, as they are the calculations used in clinical studies that determine whether a result is statistically significant, or more likely to be random and insignificant.

P-value stands for probability value, and is directly connected to a concept called the “null hypothesis”.  This refers to the potential that exists in every scientific study that the intervention (the device, drug, or other influence) being studied is not having any positive or negative effect on the participants, and therefore the results found are due to random chance.  To achieve statistically significant positive results, you want the p-value to be as low as possible.  The lower the value, the less likely the results are due to random chance, and if it’s low enough, that means it’s almost certain that the study intervention is truly affecting the study subject.  Even when the value is extremely low, there’s always still a tiny possibility that it’s due to chance, which is why the number can never reach zero.

Depending on the parameter being studied, the significance threshold of the p-value is set at a certain number.  P<0.05 is a common one, which most of our study parameters used.  0.05 means 5%, so P<0.05 means “the probability that this result is due to random chance is less than 5%”.  Any results with a lower number than that threshold will be considered statistically significant.

So if you see a study result with a p-value of p=0.01, that means there is only a 1% chance that the result was achieved randomly, and a 99% chance that the intervention (in our case, the Blushield device) directly affected the results, as we saw in our study in the area of resting heart rate. Some of our other results  got even lower p-values like p=0.0007 (our cognitive flexibility result), which means there was only a tiny fraction of a percent chance of the result being random.

Later in the study paper, there is a discussion of confounding factors.  This refers to uncontrollable factors in the study design that may have influenced the results, which are essential to consider in any study that lacks a control group.  Some confounding factors are external influences that occur during daily life, and in this case, confounding factors may include changes in physical activity or diet due to changes in the season.  Another factor to consider is a lack of diversity in the health status, education level and race of the test subjects.  All study subjects self-reported as relatively healthy, whereas if more chronic illness sufferers had been studied, there may have been even more room for improvement from baseline.

Accuracy score of our methylation results was very close to perfect

Observing changes at the DNA level is a very complex process, as you certainly can imagine.  Those performing the measurements must have specific and extensive training, and they have to create a model to factor in all the variables (age, sex, immune markers, and an infinite number of other potential variables), so that the result achieved is as accurate as possible. The theoretical goal is to set up a model that shows pure cause and effect, where variables applicable to this particular study group (called covariates) are factored into the model in a “perfect fit”. Pure cause and effect, in our case, would be results that measure exactly how Blushield use affected methylation of the CpG sites, with the model already having been adjusted to erase the impact of the covariates on the results.

There are ways for them to assess the accuracy of the model used in finding the most pure results, although it’s impossible to make a perfect fit.  The perfect score is a “1” – anything less than 1 means there are too many covariates and the results aren’t as significant as they would be in a pure model.  A number higher than 1 means there are not enough covariates, and the results are more significant than they should be.  Our study’s model was mapped on something called a Q-Q plot, which gave us a score of 1.05.  This score is almost perfect, and we were told that this is not easy to get.

This means that the methylation results we saw on the CpG sites, including the voltage-gated calcium channel genes, were almost as pure and accurate as they possibly could have been.

Final thoughts

This study was a long time in the making, involving extraordinary levels of hard work and patience.  Almost daily here at Blushield, we hear reports directly from customers (and the reviews they post voluntarily on our website) that these devices have affected their lives in positive ways, and some even call them life-changing.  Honest reports from customers are helpful for informing new potential customers of what others have experienced, to clarify their decision to invest in our EMF protection devices.

Now, with our first independent review board certified clinical study results under our belt, customers can be even more fully informed of the potential benefits this technology may have on their lives.  Although it was a fairly small-scale pilot study, in some ways this study is actually groundbreaking, as we are the first EMF protection company that we’re aware of to test the effects of our devices on the voltage-gated calcium channel genes, and find notable improvements.  This is something we will certainly be testing more extensively in future, larger scale studies.

The study paper concludes that Blushield devices appear to be feasible, safe, and associated with improvements in cognitive function, sleep, heart rate variability, voltage-gated ion channel gene normalization, blood glucose, immune response, and overall self-reported health among relatively healthy adults.  It also emphasizes that the devices “appear to be a reasonable component of a comprehensive EMF mitigation strategy to minimize RF exposure”, which is always how we encourage people to use our devices.

You are welcome to share this with anyone in your life who is concerned about the harmful effects of EMFs, and is looking for sound and researched-backed solutions.

Here is a link to our PubMed indexed study, with the full study abstract

Here is a link to the medical journal IMCJ that published our full study

References:

• “Cytosine methylation and the ecology of intragenomic parasites” – https://www.cell.com/trends/genetics/pdf/S0168-9525(97)01181-5.pdf
• “P-Value And Statistical Significance: What It Is & Why It Matters” – https://www.simplypsychology.org/p-value.html
• “Epigenetics: The Science of Change” – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1392256/
• “ATP-sensitive potassium channelopathies: focus on insulin secretion” – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1392256/

If you’re familiar with the biohacking movement that’s rapidly growing in popularity, you know that modern technology is becoming very impressive. Moving beyond just using technology to improve worldwide communication and automate many tasks to save us time and energy, forward-thinking innovators are discovering and inventing ways to utilize technology to become more informed about our state of health, and to improve it in many ways.

One of the most fascinating innovations bridging technology and health are the various types of health trackers available. They are usually wearable devices with highly sensitive instrumentation that can read and interpret the continuous fluctuations in various health biomarkers, including our sleep cycles, body temperature, resting heart rate, blood oxygen levels, and a particularly complex biomarker known as heart rate variability (HRV).

This article will focus specifically on the topic of heart rate variability, as it’s an incredibly complex measurement that requires a thorough understanding to be able to interpret accurately. Once you know how to read it, you can access a treasure trove of information about how your own personal health and well-being is affected by many internal and external factors on an hourly, daily and long-term basis.

What is heart rate variability?

Heart rate variability measurements record each beat of our heart, and the milliseconds that elapse between each heartbeat. Contrary to a common assumption, our heart should NOT beat like a metronome, at the exact same intervals all the time, if we are in optimal health. A healthy heart actually beats in a highly variable pattern, as our body responds promptly to a massive number of internal and external cues on a moment-to-moment basis. The ability of our heart to easily change its pace to adapt to these cues signifies resilience, adaptability and deep energy reserves.

Even though the pacemaker of our heart (the sinoatrial node) is programmed to keep our heart beating at a consistent pace, another bodily system directly modulates (slows down or speeds up) this otherwise steady rhythm: the autonomic nervous system (ANS). The ANS is a component of our peripheral nervous system that regulates involuntary processes in the body, including heart rate, blood pressure, respiration, digestion and arousal. It continually receives information from our body and environment, and responds by either stimulating or inhibiting various bodily processes.

The ANS consists of sympathetic and parasympathetic divisions. The sympathetic nervous system, popularly known as the “fight or flight” state, is triggered anytime our body perceives a threat in our environment. The intensity of the response exactly correlates to the severity of the perceived threat. The sympathetic nervous system increases our heart rate, constricts blood vessels, dilates our pupils and airways, stimulates sweat production and glucose utilization, and inhibits salivation and digestion (and turns off the appetite).

The parasympathetic nervous system, known as the “rest and digest” (and heal) state, does the exact opposite: it increases feelings of relaxation and well-being, slows breathing and heart rate, and stimulates normal digestive processes. The body defaults to a parasympathetic state when it perceives that it’s in a safe and secure environment, and resumes all normal and necessary bodily maintenance functions.

The nerves that control the sympathetic and parasympathetic systems are linked directly to the pacemaker of the heart, and will automatically speed up or slow down the heart rate to a small or large degree as needed to match the situation at hand.

It may be easy to oversimplify this and conclude that anything that triggers the SNS (sympathetic nervous system) is bad for our health, and anything that triggers the PSNS (parasympathetic nervous system) is good for our health, but this is not really true.

We know that short term exposure to certain types of stressors is actually good for our health, as long as it’s not in excess of what our body can effectively recover from. Exercise is a great example, as it’s a type of stress that increases our resilience and abilities by stimulating the production of additional muscle tissue. When a load is put on the muscles that the musculature is unable to bear easily, the body perceives this as a need to build additional functional mass for the next time it encounters a similar challenge. Consistently challenging the body with this type of stress actually creates micro tears in the muscle tissue, but as long as the challenge is followed by adequate rest and nutrition, the muscles are rebuilt with more strength and density. Short term, controlled exposure to certain types of stress is called hormesis, and when approached intelligently, results in considerably more resiliency and overall health.

Coming back around to the topic of heart rate variability, this is exactly why we want these variations in our heart rate over time. As we encounter a variety of stressors over the course of days, months and years, the body will always do its best to react quickly to the source of stress, and then recover fully, if given the opportunity. A quick, appropriate reaction to stress will often register an immediate increase in our heart rate, and once the stress has passed, a healthy nervous system should recover quickly, indicated by a natural slowing of the heart rate close to resting levels. In a less resilient system, the variability will not be as wide, as the system is not very adaptable, and will not be able to respond adequately to either a stressful or restful situation.

How is HRV measured?

Heart rate variability is usually measured by wearable devices that monitor and track your heart rate over time. This may be a chest strap, a smart watch, or even your phone camera, but potentially the best and most convenient device for this purpose is a ring tracker like the popular Oura Ring. It records all the biomarkers listed at the beginning of this article, and whenever you want to see the recorded data, it can be transmitted to a connected app on your phone. You can even keep the device on “airplane mode”, so it won’t be transmitting data via Bluetooth while you’re wearing it (which would increase your EMF exposure), but will still collect and store data that can be accessed as desired.

Heart rate variability is usually measured by a calculation called RMSSD, which stands for “root mean square of successive differences”. It measures the time difference of each successive heartbeat in real-time, and is very effective for transforming lists of numbers into valuable health data.

Usually, heart rate variability and heart rate are inversely correlated: a lower heart rate, since there is more time for wider variations between beats, supports a higher HRV score; whereas a higher heart rate (with less time for variation between beats) leads to a lower HRV score. Any lifestyle factor that improves your heart rate variability will almost always also lower your average resting heart rate. This means that most of the time, increased parasympathetic activity will increase the variance in your heart rate, improving your HRV score. Past a certain point, however, if parasympathetic activity dominates for too long (with very low sympathetic activity), the body and heartbeat will get “lazy” and no longer vary that much, actually decreasing HRV. This is why you can’t get a healthier heart and nervous system by relaxing all the time, and avoiding all sources of stress. Our bodies do thrive on appropriate levels of healthy stressors, balanced by adequate recovery time.

When you’re observing your heart rate variability score over time, you want to see it generally trending towards higher numbers. This doesn’t mean that occasional low numbers are bad, as that may indicate the body reacting appropriately to a short term stressor like vigorous exercise or a challenge at work. Likewise, if you see an abnormally high HRV score (compared to your average), it could also indicate the body attempting to recover from extreme stress, like an accident or very intense, prolonged physical exertion. As you can see, it isn’t a simple metric, as the body is incredibly complex and intelligent in its responses.

As all bodies are different, depending on genetic makeup, age, sex, hormones, illness, emotional state, and lifestyle factors, you can’t really compare your HRV score with anyone else’s. Average “normal” HRV scores vary between 20 to 200 milliseconds, but your personal range will be much smaller. The best way to use this information is to track your own HRV for a period of time, and get to know what’s a normal range for you. Then you can begin to discern what factors affect your score positively or negatively. Some factors known to affect HRV are sleep quality, stress levels, alcohol, stimulants, diet and hydration. You can improve your heart rate variability gradually, over time, by making better lifestyle choices and engaging in controlled forms of healthy stress (like exercise and cold exposure) to increase your resilience. Those who never train or purposely challenge themselves often have lower HRV scores, as the body has not learned resiliency.

Do EMFs affect heart rate variability?

Our body’s heart rate variability is extremely sensitive, and can pick up subtle changes in the environment that are often imperceptible to our senses. There are quite a few studies on the effects of commonly encountered types of electromagnetic fields on heart rate variability in humans and animals. Almost all the studies we have seen show statistically significant changes in heart rate variability, but interestingly, the results seem mixed: some studies show a decrease in HRV, and some actually show an increase. Why isn’t it just one or the other? This is very likely due to the complex adaptive mechanisms of the body, and the short term exposure durations of these studies (of the studies that state the duration of exposure, it was only between 15 and 150 minutes).

Due to hormetic effects (hormesis is explained earlier in this article), acute exposure may have a different effect than chronic exposure to the same stimulus, and sometimes even the opposite effect, especially on a complex biomarker like heart rate variability. If the body has enough internal resources available, the stressor may cause increased heart rate variation as the body attempts to adapt in the initial stages of exposure. If the stressor is continued for a longer period of time, the body’s resources may become exhausted, and the initial HRV increase will lead to an eventual decrease. We would like to see longer term studies on the effects of EMFs on heart rate variability (days, weeks or months), to see how the stats change over time.

All that said, the big takeaway from even these short term duration exposure studies is that the body immediately responded to this invisible, imperceptible stimulus. If EMF levels from modern devices were too low to affect biology, as claimed by the telecom industry, there would be no effect at all, one way or the other! The current body of science on EMFs and HRV is very similar to the neurocognitive studies that we detailed in this article, where the body’s complex adaptive responses sometimes demonstrated a stimulation response, and at other times an inhibitory response, but whenever the duration of exposure was continued, the biological systems tested would eventually lose resilience and show negative effects from EMF exposure.

EMF protection should improve your heart rate variability over time

Over time, and with consistent use, effective EMF protection devices and methods should improve your overall HRV scores. Many of our customers who own Blushield devices also use an Oura Ring, making it a convenient way of documenting the more subtle effects of using our technology to protect yourself from harmful EMFs.

For those who are curious, we encourage you to keep track of your heart rate variability trends, average resting heart rate, and sleep stats using a health tracking device like the Oura. It’s ideal to get your baseline stats before you begin using a Blushield, and then take note of the changes you see after you start using it. Be sure your personal study duration is of a long enough period – at least a few weeks, or ideally a few months – to reflect accurate trends and rule out other factors.

References:

• Study review: Effects of man-made electromagnetic fields on heart rate variability parameters of general public: a systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies – https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2022-0191/html?lang=en

• Study: Exposure to cell phones reduces heart rate variability in both normal-weight and obese normotensive medical students – https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1550830720300872

• Study: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field Affects Heart Rate Variability in Rabbits – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8549896/

• Study: The Influence of the Call with a Mobile Phone on Heart Rate Variability Parameters in Healthy Volunteers – https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/indhealth/46/4/46_4_409/_article

• Study: Effect of generated radiofrequency electromagnetic field to heart rate variability in students – https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8242251

• Study: Heart rate variability in workers exposed to medium-frequency electromagnetic fields – https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0165183896000094

• Study: Heart rate variability affected by radiofrequency electromagnetic field in adolescent students – https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29469164/

• Study: Heart rate variability in healthy young adults exposed to global system for mobile communication (GSM) 900-MHz radiofrequency signal from mobile phones – https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32846174/

• Study: Heart Rate Variability Components in Electromagnetic Hypersensitive Persons – https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-75479-6_54-1

• Oura Ring: Heart Rate Variability – https://support.ouraring.com/hc/en-us/articles/360025441974-Heart-Rate-Variability

• Oura Ring: What Is Heart Rate Variability (HRV)? – https://ouraring.com/blog/what-is-heart-rate-variability/

• Welltory: Mistakes during the HRV measurement and how to fix them – https://welltory.com/the-12-mistakes-when-measuring-hrv/