“I’m shouting, but no-one is listening!” How to talk to people about wireless radiation.

Rachel Gaunt has an extensive 20 year background in advertising, marketing and social activism. Rachel has written this article, “I’m shouting, but no-one is listening! How to talk to people about wireless radiation so they can hear…and care” to help EMF activists.

She writes, “Why is it that our earnest explanations about the dangers of wireless radiation so often fall on deaf ears? Why in the face of so much science are people not rushing to protect themselves?

I have long been an observer of humans and how they behave, and have spent a long time puzzling the resistance and denial that conversations about wireless radiation can generate.  Recently, a meeting with behavior expert, Matthew Wilcox, author of The Business of Choice, helped to provide the final pieces of the puzzle.

When you look at the way humans make decisions, it turns out that there are three major factors working against us when it comes to shifting beliefs about wireless radiation.

Three factors working against us

First and foremost there is the “It will never happen to me,” response to anything bad that may happen to us in the future. This is especially true among young people.

“It will never happen to me. I am never going to die. It might happen to someone else but not to me.”…

Read Rachel Gaunt’s full article here: I’m shouting but no-one is listening!”

Changing the conversation on wireless in schools

Palo Alto is in the heart of Silicon Valley, home to tech giants like Google, Apple and HP.  In December 2016 the Palo Alto Unified School District discussed the need to mitigate the health risks of wireless as they plan to renew their internet technology systems.

Medical doctor Ann Lee talks to the board about her son who was diagnosed with a heart murmur at age five, and has chest pain in the library where there are seven wi-fi routers. Dr. Lee reviews the science supporting the connection between health effects and wi-fi.  Peter Sullivan of Clear Light Ventures suggests strategies for reducing wireless, like eco-wi-fi and using a wired computer system.

One board member said, “We have had medical experience with electromagnetic hypersensitivity and it’s quite a real phenomenon”. Another spoke in support of precautionary moves away from wireless, and a third asked for a safety plan.

This school board has been educated over time, which allows them the knowledge to speak out in favor of safety.  What every school board needs: more education.

Watch from 2:59:19 to 3:13:36 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UapcQ29ciro&start=10745&width=420&height=315

Dangers of EMF radiation


Psychic and author Joseph Martin interviews Building Biologist and EMF specialist Eric Windheim on electromagnetic fields and radiation (EMF) hazards. Joseph and Eric bring a candid and humorous approach to the discussion of the science and risk of harm from everyday EMF exposure in the modern world.

We don’t have plastic heads


Everything wireless is tested on a plastic head
Designed by engineers back in 1996
They put salty fluid in it – set their timers for six minutes and if at six minutes
The temperature hasn’t risen more than 2 degrees
They declare the product safe for you and for me
Who don’t have plastic heads – We don’t have plastic heads.

Harmful effects of smart meters, cell phones and wireless by Jerry Flynn, military radio expert

Jerry Flynn is retired Captain in the Communications Electronics Engineering Branch from the Canadian Armed Forces. He extensively studied radio communications, including radio and antenna theory, the radio frequency spectrum, radar and telephone systems, electronic warfare, signals intelligence, and more.

Scientists Challenge SCENIHR

Cindy SageWe are in an era of unprecedented psychological manipulation of the science on potential health effects of EMF and RFR.

Over the last few years, the BioInitiative Working Group has worked many hours on the European Commission’s science reviews of EMF and RFR.  What they say matters.  It’s the expert committee for the European Union (EU) recommending whether EMF and RFR public safety limits are okay, or need substantial revision.  You know where we stand on this.  The limits are grossly inadequate in Europe and the US.

The European Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) did a bad job of it in 2009, and has unsurprisingly disappointed us again in 2015.  Through deceptive language tactics, the Committee has deliberately put out misinformation to erase what should have been clear findings of potential health effects of electromagnetic fields.  Health effects that matter greatly to millions of regular people who want to know about EMF.

What’s their NAME?

The Scientific Committee for Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks, right?  Emerging (not proven).  Newly identified (not conclusively demonstrated).

What is the NAME OF THEIR REPORT?  

“Final opinion on Potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF)”  Not conclusively proven health effects.

What did they conclude?

That there are no conclusively proven biological effects.

How Could That Happen?

” While the scope of the Opinion [SCENIHR, 2015a] did include potential health effects, it was not SCENIHR’s objective to decide whether the possibility of an effect exists, as erroneously suggested by Sage et al. It should be noted that the term “risk” already accounts for probability of a harmful effect and that various levels”. (SCENIHR Leitgeb, 2015)

WHAT?

It would be just an academic farce if our lives didn’t depend on the outcome.  But, we do.  All around the planet, we depend on good advice from educated experts that are supposed to be independent thinkers and good analysts of what is a ‘potential health effect’. No amount of dust-kicking can obscure the basic fact that the SCENIHR failed to do what it was directed to do.

Read for yourselves. This is double-speak.  The SCENIHR’S science review that has failed to carry out the central question asked of this Committee. This is an assessment on which the fate of billions of human beings depends, and upon which global health rests.

For SCENIHR to issue an unwarranted finding of  ‘all clear’ by redefining the reporting terms and misreporting the evidence is bad for science, bad for the public and intensely bad for school children who are sitting in classrooms with WiFi all day, required to use wireless tablets for schoolwork. Read more: http://www.bioinitiative.org/rebuttal-emf-effects/

Cindy Sage