Search This Blog

Wednesday 1 October 2014

Stop pretending

If you assume that I hate Internet or hate “technology,” you’re wrong. I use Internet and technology in the same way that I choose to use any *thing*: voluntarily and with respect. Internet and technology can be beneficial tools or detrimental tools. It’s that I’m against people being used as tools by or via Internet or technology. Two definitions of “tool” belong in that previous sentence. In my opinion, Internet and technology (and the people behind them) tend to insult my and your intelligence, as they assume we are both types of tool. Planned or unplanned, this assumption is insulting, abusive, and discriminatory. Pretending those principles are to be tolerated in civil society is not acceptable for any reason. Hint: stop pretending.

And I’m against natural human thought being directly or indirectly controlled or otherwise abused by a tool. Think … think outside the box … think outside the flat-ish electronic boxes of all sizes (tiniest nanochip to largest computer). Hint: stop pretending.

And I’m against uninformed or non-consensual pollution of Earth and all existence (that includes us) that happens when too many people continue to pretend there aren’t good enough reasons to actively choose less polluting ways to fulfill human desires for survival, comfort, love, fun, communication, and “winning.” Huge and newer in that discussion is the increasing dense swamp of “e-smog” that is the visible or invisible artificial electromagnetic radiation manufactured and spewed into the air everywhere as fuel for and emissions from electric and electronic tools. Hint: stop pretending.

Stop pretending. Think. Be authentic. I hope it isn’t already too late to use the word "authentic." I sense that it’s already clinging to the rim of the vortex where principles that morph into the opposite of their definition go. Hint: don't hurl it into the vortex.

Stop pretending. Think. Be authentic.

Monday 8 September 2014

This is your brain on EMFs

Electromagnetic fields is what is being continuously pumped through all indoor and outdoor airspaces and all living and non-living things in those airspaces at the speed of light to constitute a near or far wireless network coverage area, and/or an active or standby wireless connection, and/or unsuccessful connection attempts by wireless-enabled devices. That's what wireless coverage areas and wireless connections are: artificially-generated electromagnetic fields.

Here again, we have The New England Journal of Medicine (link is after the next two paragraphs).

Research repeatedly confirms electromagnetic fields can alter brain and nervous system, and cause side effects and affect other areas of the body and body functions. And this is understood and considered accepted by all authorities even though the same authorities equally admit that, so far, despite several decades of research, they don't know the exact underpinning biology and mechanisms. And it's accepted that different doses and different types of doses result in various and serious effects that are always purposely doing some degree of biological damage in order to, hopefully, cause an alteration that might reduce some other pre-existing serious biological problem. Damage is always done, and successful alteration is not always achieved.

Manufacturers of wireless devices somewhere in fineprint (that most users don't read) specifically direct device users to not use these machines held against the head, to not use these machines held against the body. WHEN will people consistently listen? WHEN will authorities consistently speak? Yes, all the medical possibilities are fascinating; those are controlled situations, controlled and evaluated doses that are administered only when there is no other option BECAUSE the medical folks know that it IS dangerous to do so. Who controls and/or evaluates the doses of wireless electromagnetic fields saturating your brain and body parts (and those of your loved one) all-day and all-night every day? Firsthand and secondhand doses in most built and unbuilt environments are now continuous and, against the advice of leading scientific experts, ever increasing—increasing with legal and authoritative permission and even when resultant illness is clearly evident. Do something about your firsthand exposures—there are many non-wireless satisfactory and enjoyable and plenty convenient enough ways to connect and do life. Do something about your secondhand exposures—you wouldn't be okay with another person or a company spewing smoke at you or your loved ones, so why would you be okay with them spewing electromagnetic fields at you? Of course your conscious reaction may be that the smoke is unpleasant, but what does unpleasant mean? You may cough, your eyes might bother you, you might feel nauseous, and maybe you'll become ill from carcinogens in the smoke—those are all biological reactions that happen caused by the presence of the smoke. The presence of electromagnetic fields also causes biological reactions.

"Although the biology and mechanisms underpinning DBS therapy remain unclear, we now know that normal human brain function is largely mediated through rhythmic oscillations that continuously repeat. These oscillations can change and modulate, ultimately affecting cognitive, behavioral, and motor function. If an oscillation goes bad, it can cause a disabling tremor or other symptom .... Rogue brain circuits stuck in states of abnormal oscillation in many diseases have become candidates for DBS therapy. Changes in neurophysiology, neurochemistry, neurovascular structures, and neurogenesis may also underpin the benefits of DBS therapy."

"... DBS has had an enormous effect on the treatment of Parkinson's disease. It has also been used to treat essential tremor, dystonia, and epilepsy and in experimental treatments of obsessive–compulsive disorder, depression, Alzheimer's disease, and Tourette's syndrome ...."

"Thanks in large part to the contributions of two extraordinary scientists, we have entered the era of human neural-network modulation."

Tuesday 5 August 2014

Petition against CELL TOWERS AT 73 SCHOOLS in Washington DC area needs you

A Washington, DC suburb in the U.S. -- Prince George's County in the state of Maryland -- is organizing to stop a cell tower deal to site towers at 73 schools in the County. They also are about to upgrade the wireless infrastructure in all the schools now that they enacted a Bring-Your-Own-Device policy and are adding more access points inside every building.

This group will really push the issue, hoping to spotlight it especially because it's in the Washington, DC area.

They have a website:

Please sign the petition that already has over 800 -- the more signatures, the more media coverage. This group is about to start a huge campaign, and if they can get over 1,000 signatures it will help move some mountains. If they get signatures from all over the world it shows the international support and adds a lot to their efforts.

Please consider signing the petition and passing along this information and request to other people.

You could also share this from my posts at:

Friday 25 July 2014

Paying for the right to make kids RMOs (radiation-modified organisms)

What is it that's going on? Is there some socio-cultural trend for decision-makers to purposely WANT to be recognized and revered as members of some cult equivalent to flat-Earth believers? In the year 2014, for any person to claim regarding chronic or acute wireless radiation exposures “I’ve read the research and I understand there are no real health issues" shows very much a lack of understanding and/or lack of modern facts. That quote is from a recent news article about a contract for installing cell towers on school property at dozens of schools in a U.S. county.

Oh, the person making the claim is a representative of the cell tower company. (Do I have to say it: Duh?!)

And why do media outlets continue to let such falsehoods repeatedly be in their reporting? Is this yet another example of a trend away from "truth in reporting" if something other than truth sells newspapers, subscriptions, or advertising?

Were English comprehension skills (i.e., ability to read and understand the published research studies or at least the Abstracts, Conclusions, or expert commentaries about the studies) not taught properly in the school system to the people who are now making these non-informed claims and the decisions based on them? Or are these people's English comprehension skills rusty?

Or is it that people who are entrusted with the safety and wellbeing and nurturing of children couldn't be bothered to actually READ about stuff that does directly and every day impact the health, safety, and wellbeing of the kids entrusted to them? There are thousands of research studies and plenty of them report findings of adverse biological effects, so it's a fact that none of these claimants has read and/or understood "the research". Plus, if there were no real health issues, why are more and more research studies being conducted and published every month with also plenty of them finding adverse biological effects?

I'm not a parent and I'm not a grandparent. I cannot fathom how any parent or grandparent (or anyone interested in the indoor and outdoor environment at schools) could decide that it's okay to continuously dose everyone in a school, all day every day of their school lives, with more of ANY type of artificial electromagnetic radiation pollution. We're all supposed to be cutting down on firsthand and secondhand exposures to this stuff, not increasing the exposures and not cramming more of this type of radiation emissions into kids' bodies. And to decide that money will change hands for the right to do that to kids is something beyond disgusting.

If you think this isn't planned for your school or other schools in your community, maybe you better ask to make sure AND to insist that it never happens.

National Association for Children and Safe Technology




Wednesday 11 June 2014

Too much of a "good" thing

The progressive way to use technology is to do it in a way that does not increase risk to health of humans and the environment. When any technology's use grows in such a way that ongoing increased risk to human or environmental health results, then that technology is no longer a technological advance, and it becomes the opposite of progress. Knowledge that there is ongoing increased risk requires that everyone actively encourage reduction in use of that technology, increased use of safer existing technology, and perhaps development of newer safer technology. Opting to instead encourage the status quo and stifle public awareness of risk is, at the very least, irresponsible. Opting to further and knowingly increase risk by encouraging increasing the use of the now unprogressive technology is inhumane, absurd, and grossly irresponsible. What are advances in technology? Isn't the root goal that hopefully they advance our lives? I certain don't want the definition of the word "advance" in the phrase "advance our lives" to be that the end of your life, my life, or anyone else's life is on an advanced timeline that ends sooner!

A perfect example of a technology that began as an advance and has become unprogressive is our present-day method of wireless one-way and two-way communications. In 2014, there are enumerable electricity-gobbling wireless connections and coverage areas that are at every moment and at ultra-high speeds multiply flooding into every nook and cranny of our indoor and outdoor airspaces—both everywhere we are and everywhere we aren't, and regardless whether or not any person or machine is using them. The invisible connections and coverage areas exist only because machines were invented that can consume the type of non-ionizing radiation called electricity (that we restrict inside wires and batteries), transform it into another type of non-ionizing radiation called radiofrequency, and spew that out in engineered densities to fill volumes of air. Engineers will tell you that radiofrequency energy cannot alter a living human; medical authorities will tell you that medical experts use radiofrequency radiation to purposely physically alter a human body or its functioning in cases where the medical expert feels some certainty or strong hope that the alteration will result in a benefit that outweighs risks.

Wireless communication radiation is an active polluter of our indoor and outdoor air; it isn't a by-product of some other activity. Millions or billions of times per second, and relentlessly, this radiation pollution floods into all our indoor and outdoor airspaces. This artifically-generated radiation enters into machines via specific engineered pathways, and the machines are programmed to react to the presence of this radiation in specific ways. The problem is that this artificially-generated radiation also enters any and all parts of a living body, not via specific pathways; and living bodies are born programmed to react to natural forms of this type of radiation, and in fact our survival depends on that always present natural radiation. So each moment that the artificially-generated radiation is entering a living body—at any and every area of the body that is being swamped—is some degree of radiation-overload. With such dense and relentless radiation-overloads, in each moment and/or over time, microscopic parts of a living body, or a living body as a whole, is undergoing these overloads and reacting to it. The point being that because that artificial radiation is relentlessly entering your body, your body must perform zillions more reactions than if that artificial radiation wasn't there. This is relentlessly onerous physical work for anyone's body—physical stress added to your body over and over and over again during every moment you're awake or asleep, at every moment you're alive.

Whose decision is it to continue to not encourage, and even further to discourage, the spread of common beneficial habits such as powering off personal wireless gear and networks when they are not in use? The waste of electricity, especially when everyone is asleep, is absurd. To want to inundate your own or anyone else's body with radiation pollution continuously while sleeping is also absurd. Further absurdity is to want to pay the price of the electricity and to want to pay it in order to needlessly irradiate your body and everyone else's while you're sleeping. All wireless connections are users generating both firsthand and secondhand radiation exposures, controllable by the user; all controllable coverage areas (indoors and outdoors; personal, private, and public) are sources of secondhand exposures, sometimes controllable by the user; other and bigger scale coverage areas and infrastructure are sources of secondhand exposures. Secondhand exposures are to users, non-users, and the environment.

So far, it is intended that these radiation pollution emissions be maximized to fill as much volume of air as possible and in unlimited numbers of overlapping densities. So far, there seems to be intention to maximize firsthand and secondhand exposures to this radiation for humans and the environment. This is now the opposite of progress. Continued use of this technology is irresponsible. Stifling public awareness of what "wireless" actually is in regard to firsthand and secondhand exposures is irresponsible. Expanding its use is the opposite of progress and is beyond irresponsible.

Friday 16 May 2014

21st century poet speaks


I'm so bored of my ceaseless mortality
I'm so bored of my tireless humanity
Weariness already weighs on my shoulders
Indifference has seeped into my marrow
My blood thick with static
I'm sick to my stomach of this constructed realism
Of these plasticized people we are fed
My mouth is constantly sour
My ears are full
Check the checkbox it won't check itself
As we are sold
A hundred different ways to fake genuineness
And I'm tired
Tired tired
These constants need to cease
These ceaseless constants need to change
I want the earthy crush of dirt between my teeth
And the brutal roughness
Of grit and stones and sand lined fingernails
What happened to flaws? And all the filthy realness that came with them?
Dragged and dropped into the trash
With the rest of our human experience
Suckled on outlets and incubated by wires
Such a thin brew we are fed so young

But who cares? Who needs it.
Reality is for suckers.
There's probably an app for it by now

by Bryn McCutcheon ©2014

Tuesday 29 April 2014

TOP 5 +1 e-HYGIENE super-smart HABITS (click on the image below to see larger size)

This is an image of a two-sided postcard. If you click anywhere on the image, it will let you choose to look at the front or the back of the postcard at a bigger size.

Saturday 19 April 2014


Not solely regarding the electro-smog pollution topic (i.e., all body/water/air/food/earth pollution problems), I think it's important to get out of our habits of using phrases that include words implying that if people don't smarten up then IN THE FUTURE bad things will result. Because it's NOW that the bad things are happening: the pollution IS the "bad thing." Whether or not there are latency periods until "more bad things" become individually or publicly noticeable/detectible, whether or not there are "enough" cumulative or acute exposures to be individually or synergistically identified as problematic, the over-exposures ("bad things") are happening TODAY, NOW, at this moment.

To me, regarding all pollution topics, this is the crux of why (most? many?) people do nothing with the knowledge. Why should they do anything when everyone is saying that there's gonna be a problem in the future if there are no changes made—as if there is no problem right now!! It's that pollution right now must be reduced/eliminated. Certainly all my colleagues (and other public and expert persons urging attention to environment/pollution), and certainly me too, all of us often fall into that future-doom habit. Maybe it's because we aren't dropping dead as we're standing there talking to someone about it. Sure we aren't dropping dead at this moment but actually we are dropping; collectively, we have already been pushed off the cliff. It's merely that we haven't hit bottom (yet) and don't know where bottom is. And gee, in the meantime most/many people are experiencing this risky free-fall as something that feels okay-ish, and even can be a rush, and even for many people seems like mostly fun and goodtimes!

Would we prefer to right now be back on solid ground and having just as much fun and goodtimes there? Yes, I think so. So why do we talk as if now doesn't matter? I think when we talk like that we're doing a giant disservice and disrespecting all those who came before us—people like Rachel Carson and innumerable other people. In fact, I think that "future bad" style of language is, in a way, spreading disrespect and confusion like a virus, which is the opposite of what we hope and intend.

It isn't that today's baby or child (or anyone) in 2 or 5 or 10 years from now would be a poster-child for a resultant illness or catastrophe. It's the face of each and every baby and child you see right now, today, who already are right now the poster-children because they already have been exposed and harmed and continue right now to be exposed and harmed (whether or not their suffering is "enough" to notice).

Maybe it's sort of like when humans became able to look down from space at a view of Earth they hadn't previously seen. Some observers claim this visual shoved environment/ecology thoughts more into public prominence. It wasn't that everyone had to see a smoggy, filthy, polluted, sick, nasty-looking planet in order to react. They saw this wondrous, big, mostly blue ball and instinctively wanted to do whatever it takes to help it.

I'm not a parent, however, I'm pretty sure parents care about their kids' thriving right now. So why does anyone talk about a now-problem in words that imply it doesn't exist but yes indeedy it's for sure going to be an uh-oh at some mystery time in their kids' future? Non-reaction to that doesn't surprise me. I think everyone must stop inadvertently implying that there is presently no problem.

And I'm pretty sure that most of us are not in this for the purpose of being able to say, years from now, "Dr. Havas was right, Dr. Davis was right, whoever else was right...." It's the opposite: we want to NOT have to say that. How's it working out for us with those buttons that say, "Rachel Carson was right"?

Monday 7 April 2014

Some Suggested Videos & Books

This collection was handed out at the annual Total Health Show April 4-6, 2014 in Toronto, Canada. My apologies if the links are not all clickable (I will attempt to fix any that are not, but you may have to copy-paste into your internet browser). If you would like a print copy of the file (it prints nicely on a single sheet double-sided), please ask me for it via email to


electroSMOG awareness • Total Health Show April 2014 •


VIDEOS Recommended for Parents, Teachers & Other Adults

Global News: 16:9 with Carol Jarvis (14 min)  WiFi causes heart problems, headaches and other neurological disorders in children. Canadian Documentary exposes the truth.

Safe & Smart 4 r Kids: reduce wireless radiation (9 min)  Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency’s advice (ARPNSA)
is equivalent to Health Canada that sets a maximum for exposure limits for radiofrequency, microwave radiation exposure.

WiFi in Schools: The Facts (18 min)  Around the world an increasing number of governments and authorities have banned or warned against the use of wifi in schools. Many experts, scientists and doctors are warning the public to take a precautionary approach.

Dr. Anthony Miller to Toronto City Council: RF Exposure (4 min)  Dr. Miller is at University of Toronto's Dalla Lana School of Public Health. He presents to Council that RF exposure should be classified as a 2A (probable carcinogen), not a 2B (possible carcinogen).

Radiofrequency Radiation: Hidden Health & Environmental
Effects, by B. Blake Levitt, Congressional Staff Briefing (11 min)

Wi-Fi in Schools: Dr. Stephen Sinatra M.D. (8 min)  Dr. Sinatra cautions “this exposure is the greatest medical threat of our time.” Students in WiFi schools experience unexplainable cardiac and other symptoms.

Strong evidence for hazards of RF in brain cancer (2 min)
David Carpenter, MD: "A whole generation may be very much at risk."

Dr. Magda Havas: WiFi in Schools is Safe. True or False? (24 min)
Learn about studies that have documented adverse effects of this radiation on rats, blood cells, the heart, cancer; learn about alternatives to wireless routers that are cost effective, energy efficient, and don't emit microwave radiation.

Resonance – Beings of Frequency (1 hr 28 min)  A sensational eye-opening documentary reveals the harm we are doing by existing in an ocean of manmade wireless frequencies.

Take Back Your Power (1 hr 41 min) Whistleblowers, researchers, environmentalists, doctors, and others take us on a journey to expose erosion of rights in the name of “smart” and “green.”

         BOOKS Recommended

by Martin Blank

Dirty Electricity: Electrification and the Diseases of Civilization
by Sam Milham

Public Health SOS: The Shadow Side of the Wireless Revolution
by Camilla Rees and Magda Havas

A Wellness Guide for The Digital Age
by Kerry Crofton

by Ann Louise Gittleman

Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation
by Devra Davis

Wiresless Radiation Rescue
by Kerry Crofton, PhD

by Clinton Ober, Stephen T. Sinatra, Martin Zucker

#lightwebdarkweb: Three Reasons to Reform Social Media Be4 It Re-Forms Us
by Raffi Cavoukian @Raffi_RC

The Body Electric
by Robert O. Becker and Gary Selden

Geopathic Stress: How Earth Energies Affect Our Lives
by Jane Thurnell-Read

Sunday 30 March 2014


If you want to use the below as a sign, it should print well on a landscape 8.5" x 11" page. It's simple on purpose. No clutter ... other than the DIS- TRAC TION part, which is, umm, supposed to be distracting. If you want to receive it as an attachment instead of grabbing it from here, please email and tell me if you want a pdf or jpg.

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.