5G Explained and What It Means for Health and Humanity

Article by  Blushield

May 6, 2021

Toc Heading
Share article

The fifth generation technology standard for broadband cellular networks, commonly called 5G, is on a lot of people’s minds these days. Ever since it was announced several years ago that it would be coming our way, there has been both excitement and apprehension about its proposed benefits and any unintended, unanticipated consequences.

Many people don’t really know what 5G truly is, how it’s different than previous generations of wireless technology, and what its implementation means for humanity and our planet. You may have heard of some of its perks through the extensive marketing campaign that ramped up last year, but may not understand the inner workings. Most importantly of all, the potential deleterious health effects of 5G have started to circulate all throughout the internet, but many do not understand the mechanism of harm upon living organisms, and what they can do to protect themselves.

With this article, we intend to explain 5G in as much detail as possible, without getting unnecessarily technical and missing or diluting the main points.

We will discuss how it’s different, the proposed uses for the technology and the way that many imagine it will change society, the potential downsides and negative consequences of its implementation, the current studies that point towards damaging health effects of extremely high frequencies (microwaves, as well as centimeter and millimeter waves), and what you can do to protect yourself as this technology ushers in huge change to the fabric of society and exposes us to exponentially increased levels of radiofrequency radiation.


The History of Wireless Technology

Let’s briefly cover the history of cellular networks and broadband technology, from 0G to 4G, to provide some background information.

In the 1970’s, the “mobile radio telephone”, which before this point was mainly a large installation in vehicles that required switchboard operators to connect your calls, became a smaller device that was possible to carry with you and no longer required switchboard operators. At the time, this was pretty revolutionary, as I’m sure you can imagine. This is referred to as 0G (Zero G).

In 1981 was when 1G came on the scene. This meant large cell phones that could only make phone calls, but were smaller and more manageable than 0G devices. Like 0G, they still used only analog signals, but were more compact and didn’t have protruding wires, making them more mobile. This new wireless technology meant you could make wireless calls on the go, whenever you wanted, bringing a level of long distance connectivity that began to change the function of human society.

2G standards were reached in 1992. Cell phones became even smaller and more affordable, making the technology more accessible and widespread. This was the beginning of the “mobile phone revolution”. Speeds increased, and text messaging became possible, as it used a combination of analog and digital signals.

3G came about in 2001, and integrated video, data and voice. This was the first time you could access the internet from a mobile device. Wireless devices became even more popular, especially among younger people.

4G standards were announced and begun implementation in 2011. From 3G, 4G has mostly brought with it a drastic increase in speed and bandwidth, making it possible to transfer much more and different types of information, such as video streaming. The term “LTE” stands for Long Term Evolution, which refers to the way they planned to increase 4G capabilities over the following decade. It means that 4G hadn’t reached its potential yet, and had a long way to go to achieve the speeds and bandwidth that was possible for the technology.

4G is still being improved, and it’s actually instrumental as a backbone for 5G technology. This means that 4G will NOT be abandoned as 5G is implemented. Rather, 5G stacks on top of 4G and they work together. This also means that none of the 4G infrastructure will be removed, but they will just add 5G antennas and repeaters along with the current infrastructure, therefore not removing any EMF sources, and actually adding considerably more.


How Is 5G Different, and What Are the Implications?

The actual software for the 5G antennas that are being installed is very different than the 4G software. What are the main differences?

First of all, a much wider range of frequencies is going to be used for 5G. Generally, 4G used frequencies up to 900 MHz. 5G will also use these lower frequencies (even down to 400 MHz) when attempting to transmit signals over very long distances. This is because lower frequencies travel considerably further, and since the waveforms are so large, they also have the advantage of being able to travel around obstructions like trees, buildings and through inclement weather conditions. However, using these lower frequencies that overlap the 4G spectrum will not allow 5G to reach its proposed capabilities. To achieve the speeds that are possible with 5G, much higher frequencies need to be used.

Current “high band” 5G infrastructure (as of mid 2021 when this article was written) is mostly operating between 5 GHz and 28 GHz, with some rare instances of up to 39 GHz. These are popularly referred to as millimeter waves, but they are actually centimeter waves. Centimeter waves are technically 3 – 30 GHz, while millimeter waves’ official definition is between 30 and 300 GHz.

We do not know of any instances where true millimeter waves have yet been utilized for 5G technology, although that is bound to change soon, with some of the 5G satellite companies that plan on activating their services later this year, but we will go more into that later in this article!

Higher frequencies can carry exponentially more data than lower frequencies. The supposed implications for this are capabilities that could change society in big ways. This includes nearly instantaneous movie downloads, extremely fast upload speeds, autonomous vehicles (self-driving cars), and the so-called Internet of Things (IoT).

The Internet of Things describes what are called “Smart” devices, appliances and utilities, which are being released on the retail market in droves. This could mean a video camera with sensors that points at your baby while they’re napping, notifying you when they make enough movement and sound to indicate waking. It could mean you have a wireless oven and a corresponding app on your phone, so you can preheat your oven for dinner on your way home from work. You could have a wireless doorbell that captures video of your visitors and sends it to your phone, letting you see who’s at the door without having to get off your couch. You could even have a “smart” refrigerator that lets you know when you’re out of butter, or even orders it for you without you having to do anything!

The Internet of Things is basically a staff of tiny robotic servants that are supposed to make our lives easier and more convenient. If you don’t like getting too much physical activity or participating in the mundane, manual aspects of life as a human being, you might love this idealized future. If you’re pretty self-sufficient and value the “chop wood, carry water” humble mentality and moving meditation practice of washing your own dishes and turning your oven on manually, you probably just see it as a waste of resources and a pointless invisible soup of wireless radiation permeating the resting space that’s supposed to support your health and well being.

All that philosophy aside, the Internet of Things is one of the main drivers and goals of 5G technology. It will also enable augmented and virtual reality, which certainly could have some valuable uses, one big one being a safe way to train people who are entering dangerous professions like surgeons, truck drivers and pilots. It’s a way for them to physically master the skills beforehand, reducing the likelihood of them endangering the lives of themselves and others due to lack of skill and experience.

However, widespread access to augmented and virtual reality, for the average person, could present serious problems. Once again, this depends on your philosophy of life, and many people are actually excited about the idea of transhumanism, a.k.a. the merging of man with machine. Many people would gladly install their mind into a machine and shed the mortal body, if it meant they could live forever and without the limitations of the natural human organism.

Whatever your philosophy, immersion into a digital and mental life could cause a serious deficiency of the necessities for human health, including physical contact with other humans, time in the outdoors and nature, natural vitamin D production from exposure to sunshine, physical activity, metabolic efficiency and uptake of nutrients. Not to mention the vital but underrated mental “free time” we need to let our minds wander and contemplate existence, without the distractions that come from our overstimulating technocratic world. Even with the current level of digital connectivity we have today, children are spending less time than ever playing outdoors and interacting with real life humans, and more time than ever staring into their smartphones and ignoring their physical surroundings, which is negatively impacting their health and development in many ways.


Other Features of 5G Technology

Getting back to the technical side for a moment, there a few other aspects of 5G technology that work differently than 4G. 3G and 4G cell towers are usually very tall and large, and the emitted signals radiate into the environment around the tower for miles. The signal permeates the air space, and any receiving device within that “cloud” can pick up and utilize the signal.

5G uses an antenna technique called beamforming, which goes along with the higher frequency, much shorter and smaller wavelengths that 5G utilizes. Via beamforming from phased array antennas, these very small wavelengths are directionally focused, depending on where the receiving devices are that are requesting the signal, rather than a cloud that permeates the area. It is so precise that it can even bounce signals off walls (since they generally can’t go through walls), exactly targeting the receiving devices, so that direct line of sight isn’t always required, which increases versatility and usefulness.

The beamforming aspect itself, since it concentrates a beam in a particular direction, could potentially be far more damaging to the health of anyone holding a receiving device (or in the direct path of one), and less damaging to anyone lucky enough to not be in the firing path at that time. As we detailed before, 4G is a “cloud” of radiation, permeating the vicinity and every living organism within that cloud. One may think that in this way, 4G could be more damaging than 5G, since the amount of time within direct 5G firing beams will probably be less overall than the time we spend in the 4G cloud, but the focused intensity of the 5G beams likely more than makes up for it. Additionally, as we stated before, 5G will be built on top of 4G infrastructure, so we will still be exposed to the same 4G, with the added intensity of 5G to boot!

Another feature that 5G brings is called Massive MIMO. MIMO is short for “multiple input, multiple output”, and refers to the nature and function of the antenna arrays on each base station. MIMO is used with 4G, where each antenna array contains between 8 and 12 antennas. With 5G, “massive” is added because there can be hundreds of antennas per base station, up to 256. This is specifically designed for crowded indoor areas where the number of devices demanding data is extremely high, like in sports stadiums, at concerts and in airports. If there are enough available antennas, it’s much more likely a data channel will be available in the exact moment you go to send a text or upload a photo to social media from your phone. Because of the sheer number of signals bouncing back and forth at all times, the beamforming technology explained above is absolutely essential for Massive MIMO to work effectively, without the signals bouncing off each other and canceling each other out.

For 5G to be utilized by receiving devices, like phones and computers, these devices actually need more antennas themselves. This means your current wireless devices won’t work with 5G. You need to buy a new cell phone that’s “5G enabled”, with different software and more antennas that are designed to receive the special 5G signals. All new cell phone models being released now are 5G enabled. If you want a 5G service, you will need a new phone, and likewise, if you want to AVOID 5G, make sure you stick with an older version that doesn’t have 5G capabilities!

We could essentially summarize the ways 5G is designed to improve wireless technology as:

  • faster speeds: due to higher frequencies and more antennas available to transmit each data stream
  • lower latency: also known as “lag time”, latency is the time it takes for an action to be executed following the instruction
  • bandwidth: bandwidth is how large each data channel is, controlling the amount of information sent and received, and the greater frequency spectrum usage of 5G means each channel will be larger
  • energy consumption: beamforming is more direct and efficient because it only sends information when and where it’s needed


Millions of Small Cells

The large, looming cell towers of the 3G and 4G days that reach many miles won’t work with the 5G vision, except as supporting infrastructure for long distance transmission. Because the higher frequencies can’t travel nearly as far, and are even obstructed by the atmosphere itself, the antennas need to be almost within line of sight of any receiving device. This means far more antennas need to be installed everywhere to make this a reality. This is called densification. These 5G antenna base stations are called small cells, because they are small, numerous, and low to the ground, compared to 4G cell towers. Because of the densification required to make the technology work in a seamless way, they will be installed on almost anything they can get away with. This includes lamp posts, trees, and top of buildings; indoors on desks, walls and ceilings; and even mobile small cells that are transported by drones to areas of high demand!

This is bringing up some major issues within some local communities who object to the placement of the new antennas. Since the viability of the technology relies on dense antenna placements, the FCC has passed laws and regulations that override the jurisdiction of local municipalities about where antennas are placed. According to their regulations, which are designed to allow the 5G rollout to happen as quickly as possible with the least objections, local areas and their citizens cannot contest the placement of antennas on public property. To expand their coverage even further, they are even trying to override personal and property rights by allowing a telecom to contract directly with a property owner to place a 5G repeater on their house (in exchange for monetary compensation or a discount on their service), without being required to notify neighbors. You can read more about this new rule in our article on the subject: FCC Changes Rule to Allow 5G Repeaters on Private Properties Without Neighbors’ Consent


Security & Surveillance Concerns

One major concern that many people have with 5G and the increase in artificial intelligence (AI) enabled devices in our lives is our security and privacy. This includes both security of sensitive personal information (like credit cards and identifying information) from those who intend to take advantage of it, and privacy from prying eyes into our personal lives.

An automated world could lead to technology that controls access to our basic necessities based on arbitrary standards, like a sort of “social credit score” that communist first world countries like China are already implementing. This could mean that if you say anything dissenting, or not approved by the State, on social media (or even in private email or text messages), the system itself could block your access to international travel, property rental, or even access to food. This may sound far fetched, but many believe that this potential reality is much closer than we can imagine. With the way that 5G is slated to drastically change society in fundamental ways, who is to say that it will always be used for “good” purposes, and won’t ever be an abuse of power by authoritarian governments who want tighter reins to control their citizens with? Just because technology is getting more advanced doesn’t mean that human morality and ethics are getting better alongside it.

Even more immediately realistic (and already happening) is the increased likelihood of the larger numbers of internet connected devices opening up more access than ever to your personal life by hackers. If someone wanted to burn your house down, they could turn on your stove and turn your thermostat all the way up remotely. If someone wanted to break into your house, they could remotely monitor your wireless cameras to study your daily routines and access points.

The truth is, the more of your life that’s on the internet, the more accessible your personal information and actions are to others. No matter how many security improvements are made to a wireless system, someone will find a way around them to get what they want.


Studies on Millimeter Wave Health Effects

In a U.S. Senate hearing in 2019 about the future of 5G technology, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal asked two Federal Communications Commission (FCC) representatives if any studies have been done on the effects of 5G technology on human health, and if they haven’t been done, if they plan to do any studies. Their answer was basically (and very awkwardly), no, there are no current studies, nor plans to do any studies in the future.

The strategy of the FCC and the telecoms is to rely on the highly outdated thermal-based exposure regulations that were established in 1996, the meager list of industry-funded studies that show no effect on biology, and misinterpreting, downplaying or ignoring several thousand additional studies that DO show negative effects on living biology from microwave radiation.

Obviously, no studies have been done on 5G itself, because 5G has not existed until now. However, there are studies on millimeter waves and their biological effects, because millimeter waves have been used since the 1950s for radar, the ‘60s for radio astronomy and the ‘70s for military applications. Russia has been researching the biological effects of millimeter waves since the ‘70s.

One argument that the industry makes for the supposed “safety” of millimeter waves in comparison to the lower frequencies is because the higher the frequency, the less the frequency will penetrate past the skin. However, this absolutely does NOT indicate safety. Vastly higher frequencies, such as ultraviolet and x-rays, also do not easily penetrate the skin, but everyone knows that an excess of these frequencies can do considerable damage.

The main reason why their argument is invalid, from currently available studies, is because these millimeter waves have a particular affinity for sweat ducts on human skin. It has been shown that these sweat ducts actually act as helical antennas for millimeter wave radiation, channeling it deep into the body. You can read the full study here.

Additionally, skin contains capillaries and nerve endings, and since millimeter waves primarily target the skin (and other surface body tissues), the effects can be transmitted through molecular mechanisms by the skin or through the nervous system.

One way that the military uses millimeter waves, and its implications, is particularly alarming. The military developed a non-lethal weapon that uses 95 GHz millimeter waves to inflict an unbearable burning sensation on the skin, causing the person to immediately move away by reflex. It was designed as a crowd-control method to disperse protesters and rioters. This is a form of Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) called the Active Denial System (ADS). Of course, the beams they use are at a much higher power than 5G will use, but instead of just a couple seconds of exposure, 5G will be a continuous exposure for anyone in the vicinity of an antenna.

Obviously, we don’t know if this low powered, continuous exposure will have similar effects as a high powered exposure that only lasts a couple of seconds, but why should we assume that it won’t have any negative effects? Potential negative side effects of the military weapon include redness of the skin and blisters, and that’s just for brief seconds of exposure. There have been two documented cases of injuries from ADS weapons, both second degree burns that required medical attention. Being targeted by this beam of millimeter waves has been described as making you feel like your body is on fire.

Barrie Trower, a former microwave weapons expert for the Royal Navy and British Secret Service, has extensive knowledge on the subject of microwave radiation. He states that pulsed microwave radiation, which now includes 5G, is considerably more bioactive at lower power levels than non-pulsed radiation. He strongly cautions against allowing children to be exposed to Wifi and cell phones, due to their sensitive developmental stage and the risk of permanent damage.

Doesn’t it sound sensible that we should at least do some more research on these high frequencies, as well as the combined effect of all the RF radiation we are about to be regularly exposed to, before we unleash it on all of society?


5G Satellites

So far we have just covered the ground-based aspect of 5G, which in itself is vast, but this is not even close to all that’s about to change. Several companies in the United States and around the world are in the process of launching tens of thousands of satellites into the low and very-low Earth orbit part of the atmosphere, all designed to provide 5G service from space, especially to rural and low-coverage areas. Even just SpaceX has been approved to launch 42,000 satellites, and up to one million Earth-based satellite uplinks (ground hubs) to connect them to ground users!

These satellites are set to operate up into the true millimeter wave spectrum, from 12 GHz to 75 GHz. This is a considerably higher frequency range than the current ground antennas. The intention to provide coverage to “rural and underserved” areas is concerning, as many EMF sensitive people who have gotten sick from RF radiation have had to move to rural areas to save their health. We currently do not know how much these satellites are going to affect people in the vicinity of 5G satellite service users, or if you will have to be using the service yourself to be affected by it.

There are even more issues with these satellites. One major issue is the massive increase of moving parts within the Earth’s orbit, which will exponentially increase the already high likelihood of collisions. Even one collision between two satellites can create thousands of pieces of “space junk” that circulates through the atmosphere and adds to the already terrible “debris belt” that exists from past collisions. Each piece of space debris, in turn, increases the chances of another collision happening again! Even a tiny object like a screwdriver, orbiting the Earth at an extremely high speed, can render a functioning satellite useless after a collision. Read more about this in our article about 5G satellites and space debris.

Besides this imminent danger, the more satellites and debris we have within Earth orbit, the less access we have to space. This deals a painful blow to astronomy, and even just to any person who enjoys viewing the night sky. Too many satellites in the night sky can brighten it enough to make it hard or impossible to view more distant objects, such as other stars and galaxies. Astronomers are pleading these satellite companies and the FCC to rethink all these satellite launches, voicing warnings of the consequences it will have on space observation and discovery.

An even more serious concern is the unknown effect that this many satellites, emitting their high frequencies, will have on the ionosphere itself. The ionosphere of the Earth holds a very specific and delicate electrical charge, which keeps the balance of all life on Earth. In ways we are just starting to understand, humans and all other life forms rely on this natural electromagnetism to hold and maintain the complex symphony of life on Earth.


How Can Blushield Technology Help?

Here at Blushield, we have been studying and following the plans for 5G for many years now. All our current stationary home and portable devices emit a dual band signal for optimal protection from more intense EMFs like 5G. This updated algorithm (compared to our older mono band products from years ago), which contains an additional microprocessor that emits continuous Phi ratio based frequency patterns, is designed to create a regenerative effect in the body if you’re dealing with close range and/or millimeter wave 5G. Read more here about the Phi ratio and why these frequency patterns are significant when it comes to healing and regeneration.

Close range means you are in direct line of sight of a 5G antenna or small cell, or less than 350 feet. This means you’re more likely to be in the “line of fire” of the 5G data beams at any given time, which can be a source of significant stress on the body.

The design of our current product line is also for exposure to the higher frequencies of millimeter wave 5G, between 40 and 300 GHz. While these frequencies are not currently being widely used, we do know that’s in their future plans, and we do know that the satellites will be operating in this spectrum.

If you are not sure if you’re close to a 5G antenna, or what frequencies your local 5G antennas emit, stay tuned for our next article where we walk you through how to find this information with exacting accuracy.




EMF Spectrum Cheat Sheet

EMF Spectrum Cheat Sheet




References:

“5G: Everything You Need to Know” – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhECDSuXRDs&t=1105s “Scientific American Warns: 5G Is Unsafe” – https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/11/joseph-mercola/scientific-american-warns-5g-is-unsafe/

“5G Wireless Technology: Millimeter Wave Health Effects” – https://www.saferemr.com/2017/08/5g-wireless-technology-millimeter-wave.html

“What You Should Know About 5G Satellites—How Musk’s Sci-Fi Dreams Are Becoming Our Living Nightmare” – https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/what-you-should-know-about-5g-satellites-how-musks-sci-fi-dreams-are-becoming-our-living-nightmare/

Study: “Human sweat ducts as helical antennas in the sub-THz frequency range - an overview” – http://www.tstnetwork.org/June2018/tst-v11n2-43Human.pdf

Study: “Modelling millimetre wave propagation and absorption in a high resolution skin model: the effect of sweat glands” – https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0031-9155/56/5/007/meta

“Elonx: Starlink Compendium” – https://www.elonx.net/starlink-compendium/ “U.S. DoD: Active Denial System FAQs” – https://jnlwp.defense.gov/About/Frequently-Asked-Questions/Active-Denial-System-FAQs/

“Millimeter Wave Radar – Advantages And Challenges” – https://legendkings.com/millimeter-wave-radar-advantages-and-challenges/

Latest Articles

Active vs. Passive EMF Protection: Can a Non-Powered Device Truly Impact an Entire Room?

Read more

If Phones Are ‘Safe,’ Why Do They Tell You to Keep Your Distance?

Read more

Federal Health Agencies Revisit Cell Phone Radiation Risks After Years of Dismissal

Read more

This post copyright ©2020–2026 Blushield USA. All rights reserved.
Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission is strictly prohibited.

Explore more Articles

Solar Power Systems: How To Reduce EMF Exposure Risks

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

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

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


How do solar power systems work to generate electricity?

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

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


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

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

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

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


Solar power system EMF exposure concerns & mitigation strategies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Eliminate dirty electricity concerns by cleaning up the sine wave

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

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

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

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


Comprehensive EMF protection for a variety of electromagnetic threats

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

Read more

Small Town Pulls Plug on Cell Tower: A Lesson from Sitka, Alaska

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


References:

Read more

Downplayed Dangers: The Missing EMF Conversation in the MAHA Report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EMF section of the MAHA report misses the mark

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

References:

Read more

Stay Informed, Stay Protected

  • Product updates

  • Practical tips for low-EMF living

  • New releases

  • Exclusive promotions

Frequently asked questions

Invisible forces are part of modern life, but their impact doesn’t have to define you. Blushield works quietly in the background, supporting a more stable, balanced internal state so you can focus, rest, and perform at your best.

What does a Blushield device actually do?

It doesn't block or shield EMF. Instead, Blushield is designed to support the body's natural response to everyday electromagnetic exposure. By focusing on biological support rather than altering environmental signals, it takes a different approach to EMF protection.

Which device is right for me?

Plug-in units (Premium, Ultimate, Phi) cover your home. Portables cover you when you leave it. Most people start with one of each: a plug-in for the house and a portable for travel, work, and the car. If you're not sure, use our Find Your Device tool or message us.

What's your return and warranty policy?

30-day limited money-back guarantee on every device (restocking fee applies - see our full return policy). Stationary and portable units carry a 1-year warranty. If anything extends past that, contact us.

Do I still need it if I have low EMF readings at home?

Yes. EMF meters measure intensity, not biological impact. Even low-level exposure from Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, smart meters, cell towers, and nearby homes accumulates 24/7. Blushield works on the body's response, so it helps regardless of what a meter reads.

How long until I feel a difference?

Some people feel calmer or sleep better within the first night. For others it's a few weeks of gradual change - better focus, deeper sleep, and less fatigue. A small number notice a short adjustment period as the body recalibrates. Everyone responds differently, so give it time to become part of your daily environment and let the benefits build naturally.

Is there science behind this?

Yes. Blushield is built on decades of research into how the body responds to coherent vs. incoherent electromagnetic signals. We have independent studies, HRV data, and live-blood analyses on our Science page. We don't make medical claims. We point you to the data and let you decide.

Read all FAQs
Explore Products