Search This Blog

Thursday, 16 January 2014

To C or not to C? To see or to not see? Those are the questions.

(The following is written without any disrespect to the growing number of wonderful researchers and medical and healthcare professionals who, for whatever reasons, are somewhere along the path of understanding and working towards solutions. You know who you are. Thank you. The rest of you, please take a step onto the path and let them know you're there.)

A researcher in the field of ethnography contacted me today. She's conducting interviews to get "the whole picture about what remains a scientific controversy in the biomedical community" regarding people who suffer due to electrosensitivity.

Opinions abound in research and clinical realms regarding oodles of biomedical topics. In the 21st century, disagreement among those experts is not unusual, and it occurs regardless if the topic and/or the disagreement is everyday, small-scale, or large-scale. 

Sure, there might be some mud-slinging among peers, but it's basically understood to be an ongoing discussion with various inputs (old, new, and future). And certainly in personal situations with a patient or impaired person, those experts would not be rude, derisive, discriminatory, nor explicitly refuse to stop harming the individual. After all: this is the 21st century.

And sure, hefty stakeholding corporations might pipe up loudly, but we know that for them there is no controversy whatsoever. In the 21st century there's supposed to be this thing called "CSR, corporate social responsibility," but I'm pretty sure my brain has realized that's just another c-word.

In my opinion, the word "controversy" is very incorrect (about most biomedical topics). It implies there are camps of "This but never That" and "That but never This," and it implies that there ought to be heated argument to result in a path going forward that is "Solely This" or "Solely That."

Not a heck of a lot of what goes on moment to moment or over time in such a complex system as a living human body is going to be predictable, detectable, reported, and with the same result -- even with each individual person the result isn't always the same and, in fact, the result can be completely different or even opposite than his/her previous result as there are so many variables to approach replication.

I also feel that labelling something a "controversy" implies that most people think there is no new knowledge necessary or welcome and that information about both "Solely This" and "Solely That" has already abundantly flowed to everyone -- and that the only acceptable activity is experts duking it out and the public pondering which "Sole" to "believe," and maybe choosing one or not or changing their choice from time to time.

In the case of electrosensitivity, the information flow beyond experts to other experts, to authorities, and to the public has been dammed. It's there in an almost untapped huge and ever-filling reservoir. If sufferers want to not suffer and not die, and if sufferers want other people to not suffer and die, sufferers are supposed to day in and day out climb up to the reservoir, scoop into it with whatever size of cup they can carry, and climb down without spilling the cup and run with it to a person who hopefully has enough thirst for knowledge, stand there being openly laughed at while the contents of the cup AND the cup are thrown into his/her face, and then the next day run back to the reservoir, repeat, and repeat until exhaustion.

Is it a "controversy" that for the same patient one heart surgeon might recommend a certain medication or a certain surgery yet another heart surgeon might recommend a different medication or surgery? Is it a "controversy" that not everyone has dropped dead after eating peanut butter? Maybe some people who would drop dead after eating it have never eaten peanut butter, yet. Is it a "controversy" if the predicted number of people newly detected during 2014 to be suffering due to lung cancer from secondhand cigarette smoke turns out to be an actual number lower? higher? are there reasons they could have been detected during 2013 and were not? will we decide to want to INCREASE everyone's exposure to secondhand smoke if the actual number is lower than predicted? (And keeping in mind that not even everyone whose body absorbs firsthand cigarette smoke is made ill from the absorbing.)

To my mind, the biggest "controversy" regarding electrosensitivity is that out of one side of their mouths medical experts mostly agree that human bodies can and do biologically react internally in quite dramatic and measurable changes and even some visible changes when artificial electromagnetic radiation is added when the source is a machine tool in the hand of a physician or other healthcare professional, however, so far, out of the other side of their mouths medical experts mostly agree that human bodies canNOT and do NOT biologically react internally in quite dramatic and measurable changes and even some visible changes when artificial electromagnetic radiation is added when the source is a machine tool that is NOT in the hand of a physician or other healthcare professional. Hmm, having written in exact parallel words like that, I can now see that "controversy" isn't the correct word for that; simply, it is nonsense that any intelligent person would say or think these opposite statements as if they can both be truths.

And in the 21st century, it's very controversial that many medical experts who don't agree with these rules of having a two-sided mouth are made to feel afraid to say so to peers or to anyone else, afraid to research it, afraid to openly ask questions about the topic, afraid to lose jobs, funding, etc. -- even if these medical experts themselves adversely suffer due to electrosensitivity!

And in the 21st century, it's very controversial that authorities and the general public will go out of their way to be kind and assistive to a sufferer (including if the sufferer is a stranger) who is impaired to any degree by anything in a shared environment -- and without asking for proof, and even in the absence of any known sufferer, and certainly without ridicule, and despite the fact that sufferers are often a relatively small number or percentage of people. In addition to informal or in-the-moment accommodations, we have laws about smoking, school regulations prohibiting peanut butter, fragrance-free instructions, and so on. Yet, the majority of authorities and the majority of the general public will refuse to go out of their way to be kind or assistive (and even are cruelly unkind, unassistive, and some even outright choose to inflict more harm) when anyone who suffers due to electrosensitivity is present and sharing the environment.

I apologize that I can't come up with a decent closing sentence here. I'm too tempted to use other unpleasant words that don't begin with C.

Wednesday, 15 January 2014

Bits fit... not puzzle bits when you know the picture

["fitbit" is a consumer product line that's extremely easy to find via internet search.]

In reaction to a recent media article, Dr. Devra Davis (Founder of Environmental Health Trust) wrote: "Fitbit is becoming fitbite. Growing reports that fitbit microwave radiating tracker produces severe skin rashes requiring medical treatment. Company explains there are no known allergens in its plastic or metal parts. Ironic that microwave emitting device transmits information using pulsed microwaves 24/7 so that people monitor their fitness level. Must be a silent epidemic of sleep-exercising sheeple who need constant feedback to learn whether they've moved enough to burn calories. What's next? A swallowable chip to record calories eaten to link with those consumed??"

The problem is that it isn't only big or small devices made of metal, glass, and plastic that transmit and receive EM radiation as an invisible electromagnetic network. Fully-accepted scientific fact: EM radiation penetrates into everyone's body. Fully-accepted scientific fact: our bodies must use EM radiation every moment in order to survive, and our bodies developed to use natural sources and natural levels of it.

Yes EM radiation is invisible - invisible doesn't mean it's nothing.

Any electronic device that can communicate wirelessly (to another component, to a separate device, to a router, to a phone, to a laptop, to a tablet, to a computer, to a network ...) is generating and emitting electromagnetic (EM) radiation - causing firsthand and secondhand exposures - into skin, bodies, brains, and throughout the environment. Because everything wireless is both firsthand and secondhand exposures to this EM radiation, you want to reduce exposures for yourself, for everyone you care about, and to be kind to other adults and kids (and pets and wildlife).

Please think about and begin and continue reducing your firsthand and secondhand exposures. Please realize that your use of a wireless device for non-urgent and other lifestyle purposes is YOU generating this EM radiation and sending it into your own body, everyone else's body, and into the near and far environment. Please realize that when your device is on and capable of receiving any type of communication, even if you aren't directly using the device it is generating and emitting this EM radiation (usually more often than once per second, or some active apps may require continuous EM radiation emission).

And the EM radiation isn't only at the electronic device you're using... your device's communications can hurtle long distances between a personal-use device and a router or network, right? And this can happen even when you're moving, right? What do you think a "coverage area" is? It's the huge volume of air where this EM radiation is constantly arriving and travelling at ultra-high speed from routers, network towers/antennas, and other equipment constantly generating and emitting the EM radiation so that if someone happens to be at a location within that air volume and wants to choose to send or receive text/voice/data wirelessly it could happen. Think about it: where are these huge volumes of air where there is coverage? Pretty much everywhere indoors and outdoors, and including throughout your home, and 24/7 so also while everyone is asleep. And how many sources are each separately but simultaneously constantly pumping EM radiation into that air?

Wireless users: please reduce your own use, for your own sakes and for others. Also, are you really okay with paying products and services that give you the "privilege" to irradiate yourself, others, and the environment? I realize that for some of you, you're not accustomed to any other way of conducting everyday life. There are plenty of modern and plenty convenient enough ways of doing so, and you'll likely find that they have other benefits you didn't realize. At the very least, as a valued consumer, ask and insist that your product and service providers give you safe modern alternatives now and ongoing. If you speak, they have to listen. History shows us that, for the most part, companies tend to survive no matter what change becomes necessary for them. Sure they'll probably try to talk you into sticking with whatever they want to promote - their priority is the "health" of their company's bank account and stockholders. You have the right to prioritize your health above that.

Some of you may want to ask and insist by contacting your government representatives. Certainly government is informed and makes choices that I won't comment on here except to say that new information is new information, and old information can be insufficient (even if it isn't wrong). Some people are of the opinion that government hears industry voices more loudly, so you might have to speak louder than you expect. You have the right to prioritize the need for industry changes in support of human health.

Regarding EM radiation pollution of people and the environment, corporate social responsibility is severely lacking. Whatever you learn about EM radiation, please inform (and continue to inform) all product and service providers that for all uses you want this artificially-generated EM radiation reduced and eliminated, not added to products and services, and not as replacement for non-wireless products and services.


on Twitter @EnergyCanaries


Monday, 6 January 2014

Reasons we need to "see" the invisible

The link at the very bottom of this post is an approximately 5-minute YouTube video that uses the senses of sight and hearing to help people understand how many sources of wireless radiation are in our environments.

One reason to understand this is because this artificial radiation is invisible yet very real electromagnetic fields that are continuously generated and emitted into outdoor and indoor air everywhere in order to enable wireless communication. 

Another reason to understand this is because this radiation penetrates into everyone's head and body - as firsthand radiation if someone is actively using a wireless electronic device, and as secondhand radiation to any users and non-users in the same area (the secondhand radiation is usually there whether or not anyone is actively using a personal device).

fyi, "area" includes much more than directly near a personal device - it's anywhere within the three-dimensional broadcast distance reach of a personal device that is on or in use, and it's anywhere within the three-dimensional coverage area of any base station (such as cordless phone, baby monitor, wifi router, cell phone network tower/antenna, game, etc.). Yes, all these layers and pools of radiation in your areas are invisible, so that's why this video is good as it sort of makes the invisible visible.

Another reason to understand all this is because as soon as you know about this, immediately you can easily choose to reduce the constant floods of firsthand and secondhand radiation exposures that are inundating you and everyone else you care about.

The video uses your sight and hearing. It's up to you to use another one of your senses to make decisions about this radiation: common sense. Your common sense can decide whether to prefer NON-wireless communication (because it's usually good enough convenience), or whether to prefer to be constantly doing physical harm by irradiating yourself, your family, your pets, other people around you, and all the natural environment for the sake of being always connected or for ultra-convenience (when ordinary convenience would be more than satisfactory).

If you actually feel it is life-sustaining and necessary for your or anyone else's moment to moment survival that you be so wirelessly connected, it might be wise to honestly look at your priorities and consider being proactive so that you avoid all the problems that cascade when safety is falsely assumed or when addiction grows. A mobile device rarely prevents danger. And addiction only cares about its own survival, not about anyone else's survival.

There are real people (unpaid volunteers) who can help you learn more at:,10,0

or ask questions and send direct messages at:

If you'd like them to, these volunteers will phone you. They use corded phones or VoIP (on a computer that has wireline/ethernet connection and corded microphone, speakers, mouse, and keyboard). #PracticeSafeTech

Thursday, 2 January 2014

Use a word to paint a thousand pictures

I'm not sure whether or not there already is one of these. I propose an "E-word." I think it's a necessary step to mention it more often, so that more people perceive the scope of the electromagnetic pollution problem and that it's a scalable problem.

For example, if "Cancer" wasn't one big "C-word," good luck to each sufferer and each support group and each set of medical professionals who would be forever trying to raise awareness and meet needs regarding each type of suffering without that label as a common thread.

I'm puzzled as to why all of the effects of human exposure to emissions of artificially generated electromagnetic fields (EMFs) aren't discussed simply as human biological reactions to EMF added into our air.

I think we need to label over-exposure to EMFs as one health concern so that it's a heck of a lot easier for everyone to explain and understand what's going on. I realize there are pros and cons to using the word "electrosensitivity," but we've got to pick a word. So I propose that "Electrosensitivity" be the "E-word." It has to get into common knowledge that "Electrosensitivity" means something.

Sure it's a long list of effects and a long list of sources, but that's the point: it's one list regarding one type of additive. [It isn't that each of these effects is a new list on its own: cancers related to electromagnetic exposures, memory difficulties, heart rate irregularities, blood-barrier permeability, oxidative stress, unexplained nausea or dizziness, dehydration, heightened chemical sensitivities, ringing in the ears, reduced fertility, behavioural disorders... (and so on). And it's one type of additive, artificial EMF emissions from: mobile phones, cordless phones, tablets, laptops, game stations, baby monitors, appliances and accessories and monitoring equipment of all sizes and purposes that can communicate wirelessly, chargers, electrical outlets, wireless network routers/boosters/infrastructure... (and so on).]

In the year 2014, a lot of artificial EMFs are often continuously being generated and pumped into our air, which makes them an air pollutant. Not a new concept: any visible or invisible air pollutant is a problem because it becomes body pollution. Not a new concept: body pollution can directly or indirectly cause a wide range of health changes for an individual or for the public—changes noticed at the time of pollution, cumulatively as exposure is repeated, or later.

Not a new concept: every medical expert knows that humans evolved using natural EMFs to survive and function moment to moment, which is why it's normal that all humans are sensitive to EMFs and therefore react to them. Not a new concept: any body's reactions to natural or artificial EMFs can vary for each individual or between individuals—exactly the same as individuals' reactions to anything in an environment can vary, and exactly the same as everyone's health status is not identical.

At every moment of life, a human body is electrosensitive and must react to EMFs—your body, my body, everyone's body evolved to function in that way. If MDs and experts would simply explain that (and remind their colleagues that they know this) then it'd be plain as a nose on a face: when a lot of extra EMFs are added in a person's environment and/or added continuously, sometimes the extra reactions triggered by the EMFs are going to cause effects that are detrimental to a person's health.

There is no controversy. A truthful MD can never say that humans aren't electrosensitive. A truthful MD can never say that reactions to EMFs wouldn't vary.