This section of the website features concepts for reducing daily exposure to electro-magnetic radiation, or EMR. They have been selected according to anecdotal reports of what may be worth further investigation, subject to advice from a licensed health practitioner. Most are compatible with the benefits and enjoyment of a contemporary lifestyle. It is not anticipated that readers will apply all of them, but instead mix and match to individual circumstances while still retaining essential services. In doing so, one no longer feels powerless to take meaningful action when facing the growing challenges of electro-pollution.
An estimated 10-30% of the global population is believed to be electro-hypersensitive (EHS). In addition to an acquired allergy-like response, sufferers may exhibit acute clinical symptoms, even during exposure to relatively low levels of radiation. Not so apparent are the provoked biological mechanisms documented in thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies. These suggest that anyone can be adversely affected to a varying degree, based upon a range of exposure and lifestyle factors.
Overt disability can take years or decades to appear. Yet, in the interim, wellbeing and quality of life may progressively deteriorate. Because EMR is imperceptible, direct cause and effect is easy to overlook and difficult to regulate. Proposed precautionary approaches to exposure are routinely suppressed by a conglomerate of corporate and public-sector interests that prioritizes revenue, data collection and mass surveillance. All planetary lifeforms are thus being involuntarily subjected to an open air experiment, the repercussions of which may be impossible to repair.
Radiation is “Natural”?
There are biologically significant differences between naturally occurring and man-made EMR. The latter is now exponentially stronger in most populated areas. It is comprised primarily of pulse-modulated phone and wireless transmissions within the microwave spectrum, and lower frequency radiation emitted by wiring and appliances connected to the electrical power grid.
Due to their recent introduction, such influences have not raised an evolutionary adaptive response in humans, and may thus be intrinsically antagonistic to normal life processes. Hence, there are few possible remedies, apart from reinstating a pre-electronic lifestyle. One is for technologies to emit only frequencies and wave forms proven to be biologically compatible. Since benefits accrued from not doing this at the outset, there is presently little incentive for changing tack.
How Much is Safe?
In spite of warnings by researchers worldwide, new electro-technologies are rolled out at an unprecedented rate with little else than a broad assumption of safety, or token warnings in fine print. This industry-friendly stance, upheld by the WHO and ICNIRP, relies upon an historical prejudice against any reported abnormality not attributable to thermal effects. None in authority advocate to tighten safety standards for fear of economic or consumer backlash. Individuals seeking control over their energetic environment are thus left to explore prudent levels of precaution.
Moving on to practical response, nearby sources of EMR are to be identified, prioritized in terms of their respective output intensities and then countered with simple solutions. It helps to first understand what electromagnetic waves are. When current is applied to a metal object or antenna, electrons within its constituent atoms expand in orbit. When current is removed, the electrons spring back, emitting a burst of EMR. The rate of alternation determines the “frequency” of the emitted wave peaks, expressed in cycles per second, or “Hertz” (abbr. Hz).
The Human Antenna
The above process also works in reverse. An antenna exposed to EMR, particularly at its resonant wavelength, will convert it back into current. Conductive pathways within living organisms behave in much the same way, thereby absorbing internally the dynamic of the applied signal with largely unpredictable short and long term consequences.
The frequencies typical to any category of technology reflect both the applicable laws of electrodynamics and intended scope of operation. A few examples are given below.
- Power grid, wiring and appliances – 50 or 60Hz
- Inverters and switching supplies – 10,000-300,000Hz
- Electricity smart meters – 90,000,000Hz
- Bluetooth devices – 240,000,000Hz
- Wi-Fi – 240,000,000 and 580,000,000Hz
- 3G, 4G mobile phones and towers – 700,000,000 to 2,400,000,000Hz
- 5G network – 3,5000,000,000 to 26,500,000,000Hz (projected)
- Airport millimeter wave scanners – 30,000,000,000Hz
The contour of the wave is also significant, digital technologies having greater impact due to their highly inductive rectilinear pulses. Unlike natural sources, technological EMR is not diffuse but instead highly polarized. Official safety standards fail to rigorously account for, or keep abreast of, such complex and cumulative aspects of public exposure.
Click on the “Precautions” heading to access categories of electro-technology from which a person may wish to limit exposure, and the relevant methods to consider. Scroll through the bulleted lists to see which apply to your individual circumstances, keeping in mind the retention of any services you deem to be essential. None are intended to replace or delay professional advice, or imply that any particular product is unsafe when used according to existing safety regulations.
“It just so happens that the frequencies and modulations of our mobile phones seem to be the frequencies that humans are particularly sensitive to. If we had looked into it a little more, if we had done the real science, we could have allocated spectrums that the body can’t feel. The public should know if they are taking a risk with cell phones. What we are doing is a grand world experiment without informed consent.”