The invisible threat: the impact of wireless radiation on health
We talk to Dr Kent Chamberlin, President of the Environmental Health Trust (EHT) and former Chair of the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of New Hampshire, about the impact of modern wireless technologies on human health and life.
Kent Chamberlin: Can you tell me a little bit about the news outlet which are you going to publish?
Max Fojtuch: Basically, Institute of Citizen Affairs tries to promote issues which are avoided by the mainstream media.
Perfect! Although I must say it is changing. When I will tell you my story how I got involved to give you a little bit more background. I have started 4 years ago giving presentations to the public. So far I I’ve given 70n presentation. A the beginning people got sceptical- “this is not real”, “you’re making it up” – it was then but right now people are a very well aware some of the harms, even the press is beginning to cover it accurately in this country. At the beginning the people were sceptical, the press would not tell the facts.
I am very happy that you express interest on this matters. I suspect that you are a little bit behind?
The subject came out as we have been receiving a growing number of notifications from Poles around the country that there are some strange phenomenon, in terms of their well- being, health, dynamics of mobile network towers construction around their facilities or houses. People think that there must be some effect as they started to experience some phenomenon which they never had before.
It was decided by the management of our NGO that it is a quite interesting subject so some of our readers, our members and sympathizers have sent letters to the official state institutions which should be responsible for that but in many cases the reply was indirect, misleading and basically ignored.
Sounds so familiar the same situation we have in the USA.
We think that some sort of a grassroot movement is needed to integrate individuals and organisations, occasionally we meet with specialists who share with us their knowledge so we can gather some solid information and try to disseminate topics linked to RMF among general public and policy makers. It is really tiring subject.
Well… it is one which I was battling for a while. I got a presentation which pretty much answers most of your questions. It gives you really loads of information. It is a slide show- power point show.
Please feel free to publish it on your website!
I used that slide show during my speaking tours Europe, in the Royal Society of Medicine in London. People got quite interested in this topic
When did you notice that U-turn in perception of the general public?
It is a very good question! I really have noticed that when I went to the UK. At that time people in USA were a little bit sceptical, then I was invited to the UK, presented to some groups which were very interested, they’ve paid good attention there was a good turn out on the events, they’ve asked good questions. I would say it was around June 2023. It is a fairly new thing, although yesterday (28th February 2025) we had a bill going forward in our state to prevent a wholesale rule out 5G towers in the New Hampshire state. People from telecom industry came and testified – spread lies, I was pretty much shocked to see that.
People in Poland try to obtain official answers to several questions linked to mobile networks companies and implementation of new mobile phones. It seems that some of legislation powers have been transferred to the European Union Commission (Brussels) which is responsible for execution of the same legislations within all EU states regarding the telecom industries.
Many users of old models of mobile phones say that it seems to be unfair that by law they are obliged to give up old phones of 2G generation as according to them these phones are much better in every aspect of the new ones (batteries lasting longer, no need to use smartphone, etc.)
Do you know the reason? It is simply money, the companies are very greedy. When they keep advancing technology they force you to purchase a new equipment and that equipment is not a cheap one. You are right, there is no reason why we should not use our old cell phones.
It is just happened to me. I had a smartphone – iPhone SE – it was fine, it was in a great condition. I took a good care of it. I did what I wanted to do – using GPS, making phone calls, texting and then I was to told you have to replace it. This model of iPhone won’t be supported anymore. It all about money – it is a greedy industry. They do not care about your health. They care about their profits.
I don’t want to sound conspiratorial but that how it is.
People do not know but annual energy costs of supplying one mobile network tower is extremely high. We are being told that using high tech in energy efficient like we are saving money now instead of flying to you to meet you in person ( it would be enjoyable) but the power usage for high tech is higher than the airline industry. The aviation sector has 2% in carbon footprint in the world and the high tech is about 3%. So telecoms don’t want you to know that 5G is really a energy hog.
Most of the power to run our telecom infrastructure comes from nuclear power stations or from dams from hydro power.
How do you obtain your information?
I can talk to you about any aspect of radiation and how it effects wild life, humans, I can talk about politics. I can tell you all these things and tell you why I know it. It is important as you need to concern your source. Who is telling me this? Am I some radical or a person with some wild ideology?
Maybe the best thing for me now is to have an active presentation with you. I can show you my slides and explain the meaning of each slide. You and I will be there to talk about it. This is not a lecture, it is an opportunity to discuss the content.
This is the 1st side. I just came back from California where we blocked towers as local authorities wanted to put them around the children. And that is absolutely not right. When I started this 5 years ago, when I got involved in this, I was a professor and chairman of the Department of Electronics and Computer Engineering at the University of the New Hampshire. My speciality area is biomechanical engineering and radio frequency engineering. I was working with antennas, electromagnetics, radiation my entire career. And frankly saying I thought that wireless radiation which you get from your cell phone was absolutely safe. The reason I thought that is that the industry through our trade organisations the Institute for Electric and Electronics Engineers which is probably the biggest trade organisation in the world, and they were periodically coming up with articles saying that people were claiming that 5G was harmful but it is absolutely not and the rest of the article would be why they thought it was the case.
I believed in it. Then, because of my background I was asked to serve on the state commission, I will say a little bit more about it in a moment.
Once I started serving on this commission I started to do research I discovered that wireless radiation is very harmful. There is a conflict of interest. I think that everybody you had listen to should say would say that this conflict maybe. I have served on the commission and I do feel responsibility to people and groups like yours to get word out. So you can take what I am saying now, let people know about it I will achieve my mission. I am talking to you right now as citizen of one country who speaks to a citizen of another country.
The reason this commission got formed, I live in the state of New Hampshire, was that legislators were being told by their constituents (people who voted them in) that they have been harmed by the wireless radiation and they didn’t want to have any more rule out of systems like 5G. And yet, the same legislators have been told by the telecom industry, that they needed to have more facilities and that wireless radiation was completely harmless, did not hurt you at all. So it was decided to form a commission. The legislation was wrote here you will find a hyperlink which will take you to this particular case. So they wrote bipartisan legislation which had to pass in both houses. The legislator had to sign, the governor had to sign it. It was a big deal.
The legislative said what type of expertise you have to have in this commission. I took roughly a year to get this through legislation which was pretty good. One thing which underlies this is that legislation can not keep up with technology. This is a one problem which we deal with.
But we did, we ended up with the commission. In a final analysis we had 13 members – experts from variety of specialisations like medicine, physics, electromagnetics ( that’s me), epidemiology, statistics, occupational health, public health policy. We got all expertise we needed to answer the questions which have been asked.
Did you have any experts from a business side like mobile network providers?
Yes. We got experts from CTIA (Cellular Telecommunication Industries Association). The legislation asked us questions. One of the question, probably a top one, was why the insurance companies recognize the wireless radiation as a risk but it will not insure for damage and harm. Not even Lloyds of London will insure against wireless radiation. They say it is harm but they will not insure against it. Another thing- why hundreds of peer review studies show harm from wireless radiation which was totally ignored by our Federal Communication Commission – why the guidelines are based solely on thermal effect? You know when you toss something in a microwave its runs on the same frequency as wireless you put it under high power and it will warm up. FCC and industry claim that is the only harm you get from radiation. Low frequency stuff does not bother them at all which is of course wrong.
Why World Health Organisation classifies wireless radiation as possible human cancerogenic B2 cancerogenic and this fact is completely ignored by FCC – so what is going on there? It was in legislation which has formed the state commission which addressed these questions to us.
We looked in a lot of peer review publications and commission vetted, because we all know that not all peer reviewed articles are accurate. So what we did as a commission, we looked at the articles which were brought before us and we made sure that they were accurate as I am pretty good in that. I got experience as an associated editor for IEEE transactions which is a very big publication so I am familiar with this that way and as department chair in technology I am familiar how to look at the article and look at the publication to find out is there quality or not. There is junk science (very low quality). There are really low quality journals up there. Sometimes they are referred as predatory journals because they allow their members to public but they charge a lot of money, so sometimes when faculty members need publications they go to predatory journals- these junk science journals and they pay money to get published, but nobody pays attention to these journals because it is a junk science.
I want to say that I was working with our college librarian. She is PhD in librarian science and I work with her to identify a quality articles. I want to make it clear that we went through a vetting process for the material we consider in the commission. We studied over a year. We also got information relating to the Federal Communication Commission, Food Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, we invite them to meet with us. The invitation was very formal, issued by the state commission, legislation, sign by our governor but they did not come to visit not even virtually. They really wouldn’t provide information- they totally ignored us! Their behaviour was for us a valuable piece of information. Why? You will find out in a moment. We brought outside, international experts on impact of wireless radiation on health.
We brought them outside experts in, all these international experts, for once, were providing a clear evidence that wireless radiation. All these 9 experts except 1, were providing a clear evidence that wireless radiation causes a harm and is a human and environmental threat. There was one presenter who didn’t acknowledge the that risk and it was, I presume you can guess, it was a guy from telecom industry and he was the only person who was paid to present.
So industry was paid to these guys, we call them hired guns, generally they don’t have a sufficient background to make claims they claimed. They cause a little bit of doubt in people’s minds. These guys were a source of information for our commission, we really took a deep dive. What was the outcome?
Hundreds of publications show you the harm caused by low frequency radiation exposure, whether the cell tower, the cell phone, radar, WIFI in your home, baby monitors, you name it, they identify the harms. We didn’t hunt for these articles. Most of peer reviews articles show the effects from that exposure.
I’ve heard industry claim many times the only articles which show harm of wireless radiation are those “cherry picked” from French journals. Definitely not from French journals, these are top tier review journals with faculty, researchers from top tier institutions. Most of them suggested that they weren’t “cherry picked” at all. Majority of publications that look at the issue like life oxidative stress show that there are problems.
People ask what is the mechanism for harm. Well, one of main is oxidative stress which creates free radicals in your body. Oxidative stress causes damage and many illnesses. Being exposed to wireless radiation increases level of free radicals in your body what leads to long list of diseases.
Reproductive damage – if you take sperm and divide it into two test tubes and one of them you expose to wireless radiation and second one not you will notice a difference in terms of vitality, mortality – overall quality of the sperm.
This is only one example but there are hundreds of scientific articles about the negative impact of wireless radiation on human body and health.
Now, you can ask me if there is a link between wireless and those diseases would you expect an increase in those illnesses since wireless radiation affects more people?
Here we go: Alzheimer’s death rate skyrocketed per 100 thousand people since year 2000- it more than doubled. By the way, I have not made this stuff up. It comes from Alzheimer website where that data was published.
Lets look at something else, have a look at diabetics in the USA in 2004. By 2012 there is a huge increase. What has happened between 2004 and 2012? In 2007 iPhone came out. Since then we got more and more exposure.
As you may know in the USA loads of information has been taken off from internet for organisations like the Centre for Diseases Control (CDC), it has been purged and we are looking for other places where it could be located. As you can see between 2004 and 2019 we can observe a profound increase in type 2 diabetics.
Let look at brain tumours. There are not necessary malignant and there are tumours which can kill you. This data is from Danish Cancer Registry, again you see doubling of tumours rates since 1995.
You can see tumours affect more women than men. There are many abnormalities which I am not able to explain.
Parkinsons diseases – I got friends who developed this disease at the rate which really surprises me.
This data was obtain from the Lancet- it is a medical journal. You can see that from year 2000 the rate climbs hugely.
There is a growing number of diseases which increased in recent years.
What can cause them? Let have close look at the network density. This is in the USA, when you go back to 2004 there were not so many networks around. Sometimes you had to go to hunt for a network to make a wireless phone call. In 2008 a major increase, again in 2012 – it is a lot of coverage, finally in 2019 – 6 years ago and you hardly can find places which don’t have coverage.
It shows that definitely there is a corelation between some diseases and exposure to wireless radiation.
Whether is a cause people try to debate, but there is a good, strong evidence that it is a cause- exposure to wireless radiation does cause the diseases which I have linked.
Look at the impact of wireless radiation on DNA . I got here report written by 12 scientific institutions in seven different countries which have analysed single cell gen electrophoresis – so you put a piece of DNA, don’t expose it to anything, you just run it through the common acid and you get a nice symmetric image. Then if you expose this DNA to chest X-rays (ionizing radiation) which, as we know, will cause the harm, you get this. That is to be expected.
What people did not expect what you expose DNA to mobile phone? You can see here 24 hours mobile phone exposure and you see the same type of damage to the DNA as ionizing radiation. It is pretty convincing.
What about exposing people? What we know about that?
If you go to California in 2004 somebody thought it would be a great idea to put cell towers on or nearby fire stations. It makes sense from engineering stand point. It is really easy. If you think about police department or fire department you think of people who are physically robust. You think about people who are not likely to complain.
What happened when they put these towers in? After the telecom companies put towers in and turned them on, within a week of installation, many fire fighters have developed unusual symptoms of headache, fatigue, insomnia, memory loss, confusion, nausea and weakness. One fire fighter who was on a duty in a station located very close to the cell tower has forgotten CPR and other fire fighters got lost while responding to fires in the city they were working.
It has a very profound impact. It was such a strong matter that fire fighters through their trade unions were able to put provision preventing these facilities for being placed near their stations. You should remember that American fire fighters and I suspect the same thing is in Poland will spend days (3-4 days) in the station. Maximum exposure is like 5% of the FCC units per limit 33.35. It is still fairly strong exposure but it is well below the limit so it should be safe. You may say OK, that happened, loads of the symptoms you are naming happened to us when we drink too much, while we are drinking, or when we drink too much coffee but it was replicable in the laboratory. If you go to the lab and expose people to the same type of thing you get the same type of experience.
Let have a look at the rate of deaths due to cancer for people living close to cell towers. This was done back in Brazil between 1996-2006 and the reason, it is good in my opinion, we are looking at only the impact of cell phone towers because most of people in Brazil at that time didn’t have their own cell phones. It is not like you are looking at t the effect of their own electronics. You look only at the effect of a cell tower. We are looking at the large number of cancer deaths. 7000 cancer deaths of people who lived nearby 800 towers. When you do studies of this type you want to have a large and a large number of people so you can get statistical difference and confidence in the results. You get that in this study! Researchers looked at cancer deaths, so if somebody died of cancer they would find out where they lived with a cell tower and then find a cancer rate for those people.
Another thing to point out is the maximum exposure level for the study was less than 5% of the FCC guidelines. We are not talking about great exposures but exposure over a long period of time. The results are shown in red colour for individuals who died from cancer with a distance from a cell tower, what is in blue is the cancer rate for population in general. As you expect, if you get further away from the cell tower the cancer rate adds some toes to 36.22 population cancer rate in general.
If you live closer and closer to the cell tower the likelihood that you will die from cancer increases compare to population in general.
The same things happen over 5G infrastructure just a little bit different, but in general if you get closer to the cell tower the probability of getting harm from wireless radiation is greater. But it is not the only thing. It is not the only study which was made about people living next to the cell towers. There were 38 previous studies and 17 performed meta-analysis, and these studies show similar effect for living next to the cell tower.
If you live greater than 500 meters from a cell tower it seems to be a reasonable cut off distance for adverse health effects. Still, if you go back and look at 500 meters, I still would not like to live there, the harm would be greater than for population in general.
You should live more than 1 kilometre away from a cell tower which is almost impossible.
Keep in mind that I am reporting the findings of the Commission not my theory. We came up with the value of distance people should live away from the cell towers, we thought we could sell (another words it would reasonable, it would be protective and it would be accepted by the telecom industry), of course it wasn’t. The industry said no, they wanted to be right on the tops of people homes. We were not able to pass legislation.
Here you can see how the guidelines have been set. The limits of wireless radiation have been set up in 1980 and were based on 1 hour behavioural studies on eight rats and five monkeys. Additional studies have been conducted since then but the findings in this original study had held and that’s what’s been used on us today. This was done well before mobile phones era. It is crazy I know! Any time I show this slide I am shocked by it!
Their assumption was in these studies that the only harm you can get will be heat you up! It is the only harm. They didn’t need long term tests to find out the problem not at all. The short terms effects were the only ones they needed to look at.
The way this study worked in 1980s that they had these rats and monkeys which were food deprived during the start of study and animals have been trained to push the level to get some food. You put hungry animals into a cage, push the level for food, but for the study they did the same thing – animals were deprived of food and they kept turning power up. Romping up the RMF exposure until the animals couldn’t perform their simply tasks of pushing the lever to get more food. Thet declared it as a threshold for exposure. Some of the monkeys got burns on their faces from that exposure, they just couldn’t function any longer, heat exhaustion…The researches just said that it. Then they took this value and divided by what they call “safety factor” of 50 and that is how they come up with the exposure threshold which are in place today for you and me.
Before when I was talking about 5% of over FCC limits- this is what I was talking about.
It is absolutely insane and with this arbitrary “safety factor” they didn’t have any target in terms relative risk, not at all! It was just arbitrary. So American authorities are using factor of 10 for workers. It is totally amazing for me. Right now guidelines for the exposure which you and I we are getting (lifetime exposures) are based on studies which lasted 60 minutes or less, single end point, in behavioural studies you look at temperature, at mini aspects of animal you are doing study on.
In this case they were looking only whether or not animals were able to push the level to get food.
8 rats, 5 monkeys these are very small samples. The short term studies are absolutely meaningless if you look at long-term exposure unless we pick something which was pretty robust – I can give you a full lecture about the wild life exposure.
Here you got a cell mast and 465 feet away there is a tree, back in 2008 it looked pretty good. 7 years later in 2015 you can see the degradation on the left side of the tree and finally in 2019 they had to cut the tree down. This is not a one time off example. They are loads of these. They have looked at hundreds of trees. Different trees have different responses to RMF radiation. Most of them are harmed.
I want to point out on this slide what is encircled- left side of the tree is on 0.03% of the FCC limits. It is a very small percentage of the guidelines and still you are getting damage.
So if you live nearby the cell tower what impact it will have on you over time? It won’t be a death rate which cause death instantly. The point is if it were a scientific issue we all be in agreement.
We would come to a conference, presented our data, all of this would be a straight line across. We all had the same values for exposure. In fact it is so different because we had different degrees of lobbying, different level of penetration of telecom industry to our government, other countries. If you get a country which is really interested in protecting its citizens like Switzerland, we know they are, they have far lower exposure guidelines than USA has and we have the highest. It is amazing. India is under pressure, they may change, they may go up where we are and its because the industry is so powerful.
I am not so sure about Russia, Italy and Switzerland, but we are hearing about the pressures which are on in another countries to raise the limits.
The question which we ask in the commission is “OK you have these very high 10Watts/sq.m. it is a significant amount of exposure” – how much exposure do you need to have a robust phone call? Here is the answer with an example. Here is the case where I was brought on here you can see the antenna which was boosting the mobile signal right into a school. The parents has asked me to answer several questions. I went there with a signal meter called “safe and sound pro”– I don’t know if it is available in Poland. What you can see they got there 18.000 microwatts per meter square which is 0.8% of the FCC limit. Do you need that strong signal to download videos and watch movies, make phone calls? The answer is NO! To have 4-5 signal bars on your phone you need only 6 microwatts per meter square. It is 1/1000000 of the FCC limit. To get just a good signal of 3 bars you need you will need 6 nanowatts and one nano is a billion of the Watt per meter square. Tiny, tiny signal is what you need and frankly for my iPhone SE to downloads videos with only two signal bars.
What we are looking at here is cause because if industry goes in an they put a cell tower in the middle of populated area and turn up the power to allowable maximum then they get a great coverage for their investment. So it is the matter of profit. I can tell you as a radio frequency engineer you can position tower in such a way that you do not expose people to excessive radiation and you still can get a great coverage. The best way would be to install in a given area many cell towers with much lower signal power or you can move the towers away from the town into rural areas where you don’t have a high density of population and aim energy with direction antenna in to the populated areas with poor reception. There are solutions. I know it from my own professional experience. I have done loads of tower siting in my career.
The question which we have been asking as the commission why is the Federal Communication Commission not providing us with better guidelines how to protect ourselves. Remember, they didn’t come to meet with us but we were wondering what was going on?
Here is the answer: this is a term (I am not sure are you familiar with that, we were not familiar) “captured agency”. How the Federal Communication Commission is dominated by the industries which it presumably regulates. This is not from some conspiracy theory website. It comes from the Harward University Centre for Ethics. They are saying that industry controls the FCC through nuts stranglehold that extends from its well-placed campaign spending in Congress through its control of the FCC‘s Congressional oversight committees to its persistent agency lobbying”. Thay what is going on! You have people revolving door, people run FCC, then they go run industry like CTIA, then they go back to run FCC and this report details how it happens. This is the fact that the industry has taken the government. It is simple as that! In that report they show that the industry uses the playbook some of which was used by big tobacco, getting a lot of money together, doing lobbying, paying for campaigns.
When you are probably the highest profit industry on this planet you spend loads of money to be sure that your profits are not being jeopardized. That’s what they are doing. Mobile phones manufactures, mobile network operators they are all together. They all are members of CTIA. This is their trade group. The industry pays significant dues to their CTIA, so CTIA will lobby on their behalf. That’s what we have seen before. Once you get loads of money you may buy scientists to say things like this.
Arguably, do cigarettes cause the cancer? Only 1 in 6 life time smokers gets lung cancer. Is it proven that a cigarette causes the cancer? Some people still say NO! If 100% would get cancer then people say yes it has proven, but it takes a while to prove something actually.
What we are trying to do with environmental trust is to make people aware of the wireless radiation harm, knowing about comparison with smoking and then get industry to compete on safety. At the moment the industry completely denies any harm associated with their phones and networks despite that crystal clear science it says otherwise.
We hope to compete the telecom industry on safety the same like auto industries did. Think back at the days, when you didn’t have safety glassing in cars. You didn’t have padded dashboards, no seat belts nor airbags.
So many things have been done what make automobile safer. It was pretty obvious even then they made improvement in safety but industry fought those measures.
Do you have knowledge about businesses which are trying to go against that current which is in this industry?
Yes. I have met with auto manufacturers who are looking behind the horizon and see the potential issue. In other words, making cars which have lower radiation in a cockpit. It is an issue with electric vehicles, because they have these high current engines so are there ways to shield against that and shielding people against their own cell phones. But it costs money.
What about cell phones manufacturers?
They work together. I can see the situation when you take your cell phone and put it in a closed device in a closure. You can then communicate with your cell phone, which would communicate to the outside. Don’t want to go to details but there are plenty of ways of making this happen. So, what is going inside the vehicle is load lower radiation. I can talk a lot about that… What we should talk about ways to reduce radiation in a cell phone, we can do the same what is going on for a car.
Wireless infrastructure lowers the market value of properties a lot in some cases. Wireless infrastructure can prone to serious fire hazards. Some very bad fires we had in California have been caused by telecom facilities.
Was it proven?
Yes. Cables broken loose and you got arching and it causes fires. They are very poorly design. They use a lot of power as we pointed out earlier. Telecom infrastructure needs loads of power to run it and a lot of potential for fire. If it is battery operated it is not a big problem, but when it uses a lot of high power then it will be more fire hazard.
I was working with the Department of Justice making a study about the safety of the cell towers in terms of communication during the emergency.
One of the problems is that cell towers are known to saturate during the emergency because what people do when there are emergencies? They grab their cell phone. So cell towers saturate and can not be used longer for communication.
People do not realize how easy it is to jam the cell towers. I don’t want to get to details about it right now.
Regarding this issue I have a question. As you know Poland hosts many refugees from Ukraine. On several occasions I had chats with people who came to Poland from war affected areas of Ukraine.
They told me they thought that WiFi transmitter tower can dramatically improve geolocation of a combat drone, a missile or a flying bomb to hit particular, chosen destination. Can you say something about it?
Yes. It is truth. I can tell you the science behind it but is another story…
What I advocate and I hope your Institute will advocate is to use wired connection where possible. At schools, at work places. Right now I chat with you via fibreoptic connection to my computer. Fiber optics is blindly fast, I can talk about a lot, too. That is my recommendation. I use ethernet I never had to replace anything, it is much faster that any wireless option which will ever become available. It is much more robust.
As I say there things which can be done to mitigate the problems associated with wireless radiation.
I would like to touch upon additional issue. Here is a business model why telecom industry wants to put 5G everywhere. This is the only reason they want to use it for. Most of the households are connected to the ethernet- I presume the same is in Poland. You get wired internet service provider called ISP – they provide cable, fibreoptic and twisted pair which goes to each phone. It is great! It works! But what telecom companies want is to put these 5G towers pretty regularly and to use the same devices to provide internet to those towers which we are having going to our homes. So they want to take them from our homes. Look at these TV towers and then what they can do they can sell these little devices called “5G over internet”, you go to your Verizon (US mobile network operator), T-mobile, Vodafone store, you buy this little box – it is a tiny box with one plug on it. You bring it home, you plug it in and that box connects to internet the 5G connection and it will provide Wi-Fi in your home. It is convenience because you don’t need to deal with internet service provider anymore. You can say “bye-bye” to them and at the beginning it looks like it is going to be less expensive, because internets service provider (5G home internet) will sell these devices at very low rate, charging a low monthly fee for it, but what happens it will give them a monopoly. Sure enough in future they will raise the prices.
Besides paying them monthly it will give you vulnerability as these devices are jammable, very jammable, just google put in “cell phone jammer” you will get a whole host of them, they are not expensive. You can buy these jammers and what burglars are doing, they go to those homes which have wired security devices and they put these jammers and security devices no longer work, they go to rob these houses, they leave the house and take jamming device of and people have no record what happed in their home.
We are coming to conclusion of my lecture. Here is the report of the Commission I have served on. You can see the final report there. It is 390 pages, you’ve got an essence of that just in first 20 pages or so.
Wireless radiation does pose a significant threat to human health and environment. Electro hypersensitivity syndrome (EHS)- it is a real thing affecting 3-5% of population which can’t be around operating wireless devices.
What happens to individuals who suffer from electro hypersensitivity, how they live every day life?
They can not go anywhere, they can not operate any electronic devices. I know these people, they are real. It is not made up. You can be around them but you must switch off the cell phone before you go to see them… They have no wireless connections in their homes. If you enter their premises with your phone you turn it on they will instantly feel it. They instantly get sick. They get headaches, sometimes they vomit, the impact of wireless radiation is very bad on them. This thing is going to increase in this world over time because it is like with air pollution and asthma. If you are in a very low air polluted area you will have relatively low incidents of asthma, but if you increase the background of pollution you will get higher and higher level of people who will live with these symptoms.
What is happening now is that we are getting expose to greater and greater doses of radiation. Over time percentage of people experiencing EHS is going to increase. Of course till that time as it happens we are going to have the infrastructure in place and once it is in place you won’t get in removed. It is too much cash, too much profit incentives for telecom industry…
Do you think it will be obligatory to install these new devices?
It is legislation, that what business is doing right now in the USA. They will force you to have towers near your home and people fight it. Sometimes they win. That is one of reasons I go to places like these, I travel around to give these presentations because the telecom industry is able to put towers as people don’t know about the harms until it is too late.
They are people like you who know about the harms a head of time, then they ask me can I give a presentation like one I am just giving to you. They hear that presentation and then they fight it.
We make recording of the presentation in a given area, they make it available on YouTube, and once people can see it they open arms and that is a grassroot movement you have mentioned. You will not get anywhere at state or federal level because they bail out. We get attraction at grass root level. Local politicians will act on this when enough people will raise up with petitions, affidavits, meetings.
That is the only way I see we reach much attraction. I have tried implement legislation, testified, but it is just meaningless, because industry has so much money that they have purchased our government.
It is not a scientific issue nor security issue it’s a political issue.
Remember this presentation is formal New Hampshire State Commission on 5G findings, which includes of course my own and unbiased experts – we get expertise which telecom industry does not have.
Where did you find them?
They found me! I think that these individuals are civic minded, I am a chair of a school board – I am not paid for it. The same for being unpaid for serving on the commission. It feels that you can do something for your country and for your fellow human being. That is why I did it. I have spent many, many, many hours working on the commission as did others who served on the commission. It is just we feel – hey! Here is something wrong and maybe in my small way I can make a change and I am going to serve on this commission. And I did. Since being on the commission I have made, as mentioned earlier, over 70 presentations to people like you, then I went to groups, I have done in person, I have done it to small groups, I have met with politicians, mayors of cities and it seems it does have an impact when people hear my story.
More educated people are more interested they are ready to listen to my message they understand the science. It makes sense for them, we need to get protection against it. In other places where is less education, people are swived by money so when telecom company comes to present to them and perhaps offer them to compensate some way (in the way I don’t want to get into right now) people fall for it. They say OK. All let them in. I, let say, as somebody in a political position to all install cell towers so the people who do approval say it is easy because it is easier for people who serve on for example in city councils to simply say yes to a permit than to deny it. Because if they deny there may be political ramifications, maybe the cell industry may be after them.
It takes courage to fight something as big and powerful as telecommunication industry.
I leave people with this. If you are in position to stop a tower – do it! This is your civic responsibility. I am here for what I see as my civic responsibility but if you are in the position of power to prevent these towers from going in – do it!
As you can see I have much more materials. Have a look to my appendix. There is a lot of information on it.
I am a president of the Environmental Health Trust – international NGO, we are trying and we do coordinate people around the world, we have the best actions with people in Canada, United Kingdom, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, so we have a little bit of that. We would be very receptive in working with people around including more people in our oral so to speak.
Do you have any message to Polish people from your point of view as somebody who has been involved for so long in these issues?
Yes. I do! keep yourself involved and you need to be proactive. I am not sure about your laws, but to put a cell tower in the USA you need to let people who will live next to the towers. People must be aware where the towers will go and simple they must fight these installations. It takes a lot of effort to fight these towers. We had really good luck with giving presentation like this one. People got angry, they had protests, they go to municipal, city council meetings, they go there in large numbers of people. They wear the same colour t-shirts, so it is clear what their view is: NO TOWERS! Sometimes you can buy these t-shirts. Politicians when they see that they realize that we deal with a grassroots movement. There is a way of doing that, we are pretty good in making it happen. We receive a increasing request to help people to do that?
Are you prosecuted for your actions at the state or federal level?
What we are doing we are looking for legislation and as it comes alone. It is usually telecom industry trying to make it easier for them put the facilities. Even if people protest – they don’t want it, telecoms still put towers in. We keep an eye on that, we do meet with legislators, we are active in meeting with people. As it was pointed out earlier it seems to do any good.
Our politicians spend 70% of their time to get money to fund their next electoral campaign. They are not there to help us. When I talk to these legislators about these issues, their eyes glaze over. What are you talking about?! They have no idea about the issues. It seems that you have some background. You seem to understand what I am trying to talk about! I ask very good questions but when I talk to legislators they don’t know this stuff nor do their advisers. They have a team of people who help them to understand issues like this so they can better vote on this but really it does not matter nowadays.
It is all just about can you provide me with money – if you can’t then…
That’s what we are doing now, dealing with getting the best traction at the grassroots level. We are putting effort at the upper (federal) level or state level – yesterday (27th March 20025) somebody tried to pass the legislation and industry just comes in and says – there is no issue, there is no harm and you need to put these towers in so you can be competitive. It only means they can by only more profitable. That is all they are trying to do. People fall for it. That is the only side they are hearing because the industry can bring these people like yesterday they brought two individuals from the Cellular Communication Industries Association, they brought them across the country. They paid them very well. For me I am just a lone voice “hey – this stuff is harmful” – nobody pays me for going around to give these presentations so it is very hard to compete against that.
What about the educational authorities at the state or federal level? Are they interested in any campaigns to promote your awareness program?
It is a great question and the answer is yes – we are working on it. Me, who is serving at the state commission on the health impact, is a chair in the school board, I have worked with department of education before, now we are planning a campaign. We will go in to help with policies which schools can implement to lower the radiation exposure to the students. There is a lot schools can do. It may costs money but we will low the exposures.
Education is a huge gateway because if you can go to schools, students will start recognize what is going on, then when they become adults things will change. A lot of students know it already. Their parents are aware of the problem as their kids will go to find out there are certain places where they can seat in a classroom which give them headaches if they seat around the wireless router or going to some rooms without having a headache. We hear the same thing from teachers, some teachers through their trade union are trying to bring a suit against their school to provide them accommodation (American disability accommodation act) for their wireless sensitivity.
Many American states currently are abandoning usage of smartphones at schools.
What ordinary person can do to protect him/herself from radiation? Are there any remedies, plants which could be used to minimalize a negative impact of radiation?
What I say people is to get a meter that measures the radiation exposure. What we’ve done in our country is a programme which provided meters to libraries at very reduced costs. People can go to their library and check out the meter just the same they can check out a book. By making it available, they can go through their homes to find out where the hotspots are. Sometimes it is surprising how hard it is to purchase an appliance, nowadays, which does not have some form of wireless built- in to it. It does not cost industry a much of all but it is a selling point.
Sensitive people got sometimes surprised when they buy a new refrigerator or oven and they find that when they plug in, all of the sudden, they are being sensitize and it is enough to trigger them.
If you get a meter you can figure out where the exposure coming from and then you can navigate.
Put a meter under the pillow of your kids- you don’t want have anything what is bigger than 10 microwatts per squared meter. If you observed the value bigger than that you move around, move the bed around, find out where the exposures come from. If it is from a neighbour maybe ask him to move his wireless device.
You may obtain some equipment which may shield you from that exposure like wall paintings but the problem is that they may reflect radiation so if somebody does go to the room like that and turns his cell phone and a signal spreads around and then it increases your exposure. So as long as nobody will you the cell phone in that painted room then it makes sense.
Please remember, a the moment the business is driving things, but there are solutions. One is do you really need to download a movie in seconds to your device? In my opinion 5G was a wrong way to go. Button line is that the industry has accumulated all these money and you never just seat on money. They have to spend them some where. They decided to spend it on 5G and new technology.
If you stay with 4G, and now you move cell towers a little bit, did some techniques I have mentioned earlier, you will get a great coverage for making phone calls. It will work. If you put wired connections within your homes or even something with is known as a LiFi – it is a modulate light to get a signal, to get information. Why not use that?
In schools, for example, why WiFi is used not LiFi? You can buy a device that does it, that works, it is like a router and its sends down the light information, you plug in you dongle at it does the same thing as WiFi.
What is the reason that LiFi is not promoted?
It is fairly new, it is somewhat expensive and they are still working on it, as far as I know. You can buy a LiFi / afi it is available, it may have some bugs, which you need to work out, but it works. Another thing you can do in schools is to put round tables (circular) with little plugs, you put a lot of students around them with their computers and all of them are wired. It is very low radiation. It would not cost all that much to do.
We have solutions, the solutions which would not cost much. I mean if we put in WiFi to begin with (which was pretty expensive), why we can’t find alternatives to it? Just go back to wiring which was, is probably still at schools. It is Ethernet. Probably it is still there. Just go for it and use it. I did it in my home as soon I have discovered it. I have stopped using wireless and switched to Ethernet.
What mobile phone are you using at the moment?
I get iPhone SE I am using WiFi calling. Go to settings, go to cellular and scroll down a little bit and you will see WiFi calling as being an option. You turn it on and that way whenever having trouble with receiving the mobile network signal it goes to WiFi calling. It is important and significant. The transmitter in your device has maximum of 3 watts. Ito works perfectly that what I do. In WiFi Calling mode you use much lower power transmitter. When you are going to be at you home or in a building at work and you have access to the WiFi network, use that instead while it will use much lower power – like 1/30 of exposure.
There are loads of solutions and as a radio frequency engineer I know these solutions because I worked in this area. Why you have not used that mode before? Why your phone automatically does not do that? Nobody told you about it? You shouldn’t be told. Your device should automatically pick up WiFi calling mode it the phone detects WiFi network.
Max Fojtuch
