A Case Against Microwave Science

Science is the hallmark of everything – supposedly, except when it’s out to lunch in its hypotheses or when it is downright fraudulent, as is the case with vaccinology in order to protect vested Pharma interests.

Even the U.S. CDC and FDA cover Big Pharma’s derriere when it comes to chanting the slogan “vaccines are safe.” So much science in the peer review realm is out there published stating totally opposite documented scientific facts, but still U.S. federal health agencies function on the ‘flat earth’ concept regarding human health safety!

Such obstinate scientific posture also prevails in the field of microwave technology regarding EMF/RF/ELF and the various rays emitted by microwaves and their intensities. The only waves recognized by microwave industry giants and vested interests relative to human exposures are thermal (heat) waves, which were identified back in the 1940s and ’50s when radar science was in its infancy. We now live in 2019! Microwave technology has progressed to the point where it wants 5GHz and above capabilities, but still emphasizes 1940s’ safety principles! What’s not making sense?

What’s not making sense is this: If the microwave industry were to admit what’s been scientifically proven since the 1930s, i.e., non-thermal radiation adverse waves affect human biology (bio electromagnetics), then their emission regulations for every ‘smart’ gadget invention would have to be revised and corrected to the point where they could not implement safety standards because it would be too costly to implement.

Consequently, the industry and its mouthpieces – industrial professional societies, e.g., IEEE, ICNIPR, etc., keep pushing smart gadgets as ‘safe’ they know consumers get addicted to, but do little to protect consumers from non-thermal radiation waves, since they adamantly refuse to acknowledge them, even when 32 percent of microwave industry studies found non-thermal adverse effects.

That sounds a little bit like what happens in the vaccine industry. Big Pharma pushes out more vaccines – almost 300 new vaccines in the pipeline now – and persuades government agencies to mandate those vaccines by law while not protecting healthcare consumers from fraudulent science and technology, including totally neurotoxic ingredients in vaccines.

If non-thermal radiation wave adverse effects aren’t real or recognized, why, then, does the World Health Organization (WHO) designate them as “idiopathic environmental intolerance” or “IEI,” a medical diagnostic term, which physicians use? IEI also encompasses “multiple chemical sensitivities” (MCS), another adverse health problem previously disavowed for many years until it became recognized as “sick building syndrome.” Nowadays there are “Sick Building Syndrome Contractors and Design Professionals”.

An impressive percentage of the global population is affected by IEI or electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). Here are some statistics:
• 26 percent of the USA population (Caress & Steinemann, 2003)
• 19 percent of the Swedish population (Johansson et al, 2005)
• 27 percent of the Danish population (Berg et al, 2008)
• 32 percent of the German population (Hausteiner et al, 2005).

More and more individuals are becoming electrosmog sensitive daily due to all the ‘smart’ appliances and gadgets humans have become addicted to. The most sinister is Wi-Fi in schools and the work place. Wi-Fi channels and frequencies begin around 2.4 GHz, which is overcrowded, so now they want access to 5 GHz and higher.

However, there’s something few folks realize: Wi-Fi and microwave ovens operate in the same GHz-wave lengths, so being in a Wi-Fi environment at work or school is comparable to leaving your operating microwave oven door open with exposure for hours on end. Few people realize that’s a reality when exposed to Wi-Fi.

In 2014 an exceptional clinical study research paper titled “Metabolic and Genetic Screening of Electromagnetic Hypersensitive Subjects as a Feasible Tool for Diagnostics and Intervention” was published in Mediators of Inflammation, Volume 2014, by seven international co-authors. The following is taken from the Introduction of that paper:
“The term electromagnetic hypersensitivity or electrosensitivity (EHS) referred to a clinical condition characterized by a complex array of symptoms typically occurring following exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) even below recommended reference levels and is followed by remission through the complete isolation.

The most frequently claimed trigger factors include video display units, radio, televisions, electrical installations, extremely low-frequency ranges of electromagnetic fields or radio-frequencies – including the so-called dirty electricity due to poor isolation of electric wires and telephonic lines, wireless devices, and wi-fi – fluorescent lamps and low-energy lights, appliances with motors, photocopiers, microwave transmitters, and high tension power lines.

EHS is characterized by a broad range of nonspecific multiple-organ symptoms implying both acute and chronic inflammatory processes, involving mainly skin and nervous, respiratory, cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, and gastrointestinal systems, in most cases self-reported in absence of organic pathological signs except skin manifestations.ˮ

Notation should be made that AMI smart utility meters (electric, natural gas and water) are wireless devices and, therefore, are guilty on several fronts, i.e., including dirty electricity and ZigBee radio GHz waves.

Clinical similarities and frequent comorbidity between EHS and the other medically unexplained multisystem conditions of environmental origin, like multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), fibromyalgia (FM), chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), sick building syndrome, Persian Gulf War veteran syndrome, and amalgam disease, to which EHS is often associated, have induced many authors to hypothesize that these so-called idiopathic environmental intolerances (IEI), more extensively also defined as sensitivity-related illnesses (SRI), may share common genetic and/or metabolic molecular determinants connected with an impaired capability to detoxify xenobiotics.

Children on the Autism Spectrum seem to be impacted more disproportionately than children who have no neurodevelopmental problems.

Interestingly, the Viewpoint in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published a timely piece, “The Emerging Market of Smartphone-Integrated Infant Physiologic Monitors” where on their webpage to purchase that published article it states:
“A new class of infant physiologic monitors marketed to parents for use in the home has emerged. Smartphone applications (apps) integrated with sensors built into socks, onesies, buttons, leg bands, and diaper clips have the capability to display infants’ respirations, pulse rate, and blood oxygen saturation, and to generate alarms for apnea, tachycardia, bradycardia, and desaturation (Table).

Despite the lack of publicly available evidence supporting the safety, accuracy, effectiveness, or role of these monitors in the care of well infants, sales of these products are brisk and the market is expanding. For example, the makers of a smart sock monitor (Owlet Baby Care) that claims to alert parents if their infant stops breathing – 1 reported sales of 40.000 units at $250 each.

Note sensors have transmitting devices of some type in them to send alarms, which are exposing infants to EMFs/RFs/ELFs depending upon the type of transmitter involved, possibly a ZigBee radio chip, which may transmit at GHz wave length.

It is my opinion, as someone who has researched EMFs, etc., you never want to wear wearable microwave technology, just like you should keep a live cell phone off your body. Take live cell phones out of pants pockets, bras and off belts. Do your research, please.ˮ

And yet, with all the above stated, the microwave industry refuses to make its technology safe! But read the fine print on cell phone agreements! Safety guidelines are infinitely outdated and inadequate. Basically, we’re living in a sea of microwaves and being slow cooked – literally, body organs, especially the human brain.

Another development in microwave technology is “flying cell towers.” AT&T tested that idea and “it could change everything”. What about the legal culpabilities, plus financial liabilities, for assault and battery offenses filed against operators for perpetrating experiments on humans.

The only way the microwave industry wakens up to making safe its business operations and products will happen is when consumers refuse to buy into the addiction of being obsessed and ‘owned’ by electromagnetic technology ‘smart’ gadgets and devices. Until then, consumers really don’t understand the huge trade off health-wise they find themselves in, as current safety standards are totally inadequate and irresponsible, in my and other researchers’ findings and opinions.

In the BioInitiative2012 Report, a 1557-page report about 1800 studies regarding low-intensity electromagnetic fields and wireless technology (radiofrequency radiation including microwave radiation) were discussed. In the Preface to that report, it states:
“The great strength of the BioInitiative Report (www.bioinitiative.org)is that it has been done independent of governments, existing bodies and industry professional societies that have clung to old standards. Precisely because of this, the BioInitiative Report presents a solid scientific and public health policy assessment that is evidence-based.ˮ

Non-thermal waves adverse effects are something no one in the microwave industrial professional societies, ICNIRP in particular, wants to hear, or even acknowledges, exist! Industrial societies program the U.S. Federal Communications Commission ‘safety’ standards, though.

The FCC does not have the expertise or the capabilities to determine the safety of electromagnetic fields. FCC stated “Because the Commission does not claim expertise as a de facto health agency, it necessarily considers the views of federal health and safety agencies and institutes that continue to address RF exposure issues in formulating such judgments” in the Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules.

“Basically, the FCC takes no responsibility for the science.ˮ Frompovich Brief Jan. 25, 2017, Pg. 39.

yogaesoteric

March 14, 2019