List of Articles In This Series

1) Introduction / Who Do You Trust? 2) Destroying the Non Ionizing Argument (Current Article) 3) Effects of EMFs on Sexual Organs and Reproductive Health 4) Effects of EMFs on the Cardiovascular System and Heart 5) Effects of EMFs on Oxidation and Reactive Oxygen Species 6) Effects of EMFs on Genotoxicity and DNA / Do EMFs Really Cause Apoptosis? 7) How EMFs Can Destroy Your Immune System 8) How EMFs Affect Brain Health & Development 9) How EMFs are Destroying Future Generations (Effects on Neurology and Psychology) 10) Conclusions and Final Thoughts

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored"

If you read part 1 of this 10-part expose on the dangers of cell phones and Electromagnetic Radiation, then you know that I have already gone into great detail about the massive cover up that has been taking place within the telecommunications industry over the past few decades. Anyone who has read that article, or even spent a few hours of their time looking into this matter themselves could easily confirm this. Now after learning about this incredible conspiracy against the human race, you might be extremely eager to spread the news (as I was and still am). You are going to want to tell your friends, your family, and anyone else you come into contact with.

This is juicy stuff, after all.

However, when you actually do go to tell people about this conspiracy and the fact that our cell phones are, indeed, a potentially huge risk to the overall health of the human race...you'll quickly find that almost no one will believe you.

In fact, they will most likely ridicule you.

Now there are many reasons for this (most of which I will go over in the 9th article dealing with the psychology behind cellphone addiction), but the only thing you really need to keep in mind for right now is the fact that there is a huge psychological component to this whole thing. Many people take an attack on the cell phone industry very personally. Because of this, it's almost impossible to even enter a civil dialogue with most people on this subject, because to question the potential negative health implications of heavy cell phone use would be to question the very health & lifestyle of the person themselves. Attempting to do this would be like trying to explain to a crack addict why consuming the drug might not be in their best self interest.

In fact...that's exactly what you are trying to do.

There are some people who will never hear a word you say, because they are much more comfortable living in what they perceive to be their familiar comfy cozy reality they have been living in their entire lives. The won't face the facts, because at the end of the day...they simply don't want to. The last thing an addict wants to hear is that the thing their life revolves around is bad for their health. This is something I have spent a ton of time thinking about, and let me assure you right now...it's not worth it. Just accept it and move on.

There is indeed such a thing as a helpless soul.

Now I don't want to discourage you from spreading this information...and I definitely don't want you to stop using your cellphone completely (There are ways to use it safely which I will go over in the final article in this series). In fact, that's the completely opposite purpose of this article series. The first and foremost goal is to educate you. The second is to inspire you to spread the news. However, I thought it would be important to preface the rest of this article series by discussing this, because it's going to be a very critical component of any debate you enter on this subject from here on out. It really is something you are going to have to deal with.

But whenever people burst out laughing at you...or when they give you that "know-it-all" smirk...or when they call you a "conspiracy theorist" (a term invented by the CIA after the Kennedy assassination to discredit anyone questioning the official story), just remember this:

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." - Aldous Huxley

There are Two Types of People In This World...

Pseudo-Intellectuals. They are everywhere in modern society. As much as I love technology and how it has placed a thousand years of wisdom and knowledge into the hands of the everyday-man (very few actually use it to further their wisdom or knowledge), it has definitely has its downsides. One of these is the absolutely unprecedented outbreak of pseudo-intellectualism that has plagued the world ever since smartphones became mainstream. Even the word "smartphone" seemed to unironically predict this. People seem to think that just by holding a "smartphone" they have somehow transcended the matrix to become this all-knowing supreme being.

It's a marketing gimmick, and it works beautifully.

As a result, we have become a society obsessed with fact checking. Through the combined efforts of Google and various social media platforms, we as a society have grown and nurtured the absolutely insatiable desire to be heard and to be right. No matter what the cost.

Now in theory, this sounds good. It sounds like a society where people are held in check for what they say and what they claim to be true...however once you realize the depths to which the main sources of information on the internet have been infiltrated and corrupted, you begin to understand the nightmare reality it has created.

This new nightmare reality is chalk-full of parrots simply repeating the information they absorbed from the first relevant google search result they could find. In fact, according to Google, less than 10% of the population even navigate past the first page of search results for any given query...and much fewer actually deeply research the information the receive to make sure it is actually true. This is why having a serious debate with anyone nowadays is extremely frustrating.

Before the "information age", if you didn't know anything about the subject, you would simply refrain from talking about it...and at the very best, you would actually listen to what people had to say because at least then you could learn something. On the contrary, people nowadays seem to think they know everything about anything you might want to discuss with them...simply because they read something somewhere on the internet, or read a couple of threads on twitter. This is particularly bad when it comes to the biological effects of wireless radiation stemming from cell phones.

Although a vast majority of people will refuse to believe that their smartphones are potentially killing them and/or their health, they really only fall into one of two categories:

1) The willfully ignorant who will refuse to believe you simply because it would be a huge inconvenience to their lifestyle. These people will most likely do anything they can to avoid/dismiss the subject, so they can continue living their lives in comfort.

2) The pseudo-intellectual who will most likely try spitting out seemingly random and inaccurate statements stemming from mainstream-media sources. I would also include "mainstream-science", but "mainstream-science" isn't really science at all. It's just another form of media consumption that has been completely corrupted and funded by the industry related to their "research". (I hold and maintain the belief that the only true science can come from 3rd party/independent researchers not funded or tied to any industry).

The first group of people, although depressing to behold, are quite easy to deal with. You simply give them the facts and leave them to chew on it for a while.

The second group, however, are a little more challenging, because they think they have the perfect rebuttal to your claims, when in reality their argument is extremely simplified and completely inaccurate.

This "rebuttal" is extremely common and it will sound something a little like this:

"...But the radiation coming from cell towers, cell phones, etc. is non-ionizing. At these frequencies, the only real way to cause any significant physical change/damage to the human body is to heat the tissue by using a sufficient power density...and since the FCC regulates this power density to very low levels of intensity, no heating can occur, and therefore no real significant damage can be caused as a result of it"

Now that may seem very "scientific-sounding" and if worded this way, it very well could trick an uneducated bloke into admitting defeat...but I assure you, even that was perhaps a little more in-depth of a rebuttal than the average person would venture to give. Most likely they will just blurt out something about the radiation being "Non-ionizing" without any idea what non-ionizing radiation actually is or how it interacts at even the basic level of biological systems. That's the first and only sign you need to know that this guy/gal doesn't really know anything about Electromagnetic Fields and he/she most likely got what little information they have from the mainstream media or the telecom industry themselves.

I know this because I have firsthand experience dealing with these people. When I used to have a Twitter account, I would often tweet about the dangers of 5G, and 10 times out of 10, a pseudo-intellectual would find his way into the comments and stupidly blurt out something relating to non-ionizing radiation not being powerful enough to harm us, and when I asked them to explain to me what non-ionizing radiation actually was, they couldn't do it. Not accurately anyways.

But here's the thing: The problem with this argument isn't the argument itself...it's that the FCC agrees with them...and as I showed in my previous article, the FCC is about as corrupt as you can get. So the two hurdles you need to get over in any debate featuring this argument are: 1) Proving without a shadow of a doubt that the FCC is corrupt 2) Proving that their standards are inadequate, outdated, and incomplete.

If you can get past these two hurdles, and if they are still miraculously listening to you, then you have the all-clear to lay out all of the studies showing significant damage being done by EMFs at various frequencies and power densities. If all of this is done correctly, you should be able to successfully break their conditioning and get through to them. Even if they don't admit defeat, you can assume victory, and I assure you, they will eventually gather enough courage to hop online and look at the references you gave and it is at that moment where they will finally see the light.

Now you start to see why I formatted this article series the way I did, and why I decided to carefully spend an entire article on these two first crucial subjects. Without them, it's very hard to convince people of what is really going on here.

I already gave you the tools to show that the FCC is corrupt, and now I will give you the information you need to prove that their standards are indeed inadequate. Doing this will also simultaneously crush the "Non-Ionizing argument", since the two are so intimately intertwined.

From there, we will dissect the effects one by one.

What exactly is Non-Ionizing Radiation?

So before I calmly decimate the "Non-Ionizing Argument", it would be helpful to explain exactly what Non-Ionizing radiation is (at least how it's used in the argument) so you can completely understand where they are coming from.

The electromagnetic spectrum is exactly what it sounds like. It is a spectrum that encompasses the entire span of electromagnetic radiation and is comprised of the following:

• Ionizing Radiation: Gamma Rays, X-Rays, Extreme Ultraviolet (Frequencies above 3E15 Hz)
• Visible Non-Ionizing Radiation: (Frequencies between 4.2E14 Hz and 7.7E14 Hz)

• Invisible Non-Ionizing Radiation: Short Wavelength Radio Waves and Microwaves with Frequencies Between 3E11 and 3 Hz

  • The Lower Frequencies (3Hz - 300 KHz) are used for electrical power line transmission (60 Hz in the US) as well as maritime and submarine navigation

  • Medium Frequencies (300 KHz - 900 MHz) are used for AM/FM/TV broadcasts (North America)

  • Lower Microwave Frequencies (900 MHz - 5 GHz) are used for telecommunications such as microwave communications, radio astronomy, mobile/cell phones, and wireless LANs.

  • Higher Microwave Frequencies (5 GHz - 300 GHz) are used for radar and the new proposed microwave Wi-Fi/cell towers (5G).

  • Terahertz frequencies (300 GHz - 3000 GHz) are being used more and more to supplement X-Rays some medical and security scaning devices and applications

For a visual representation of this spectrum, see the graph below:

For all intents and purposes, we will be mainly focusing on the health effects of Non-Ionizing EMF radiation (3 Hz - 300 GHz) since this is what we are most exposed to.

Why Do Many Studies Seem To Suggest The Contrary?

One of the questions I get asked the most when talking to skeptics, is:

"If the evidence is so conclusive that EMFs are harmful, then why do so many scientific studies seem to suggest the contrary"

And that's a very good question that deserves to be answered.

There are actually many reasons why a study might not find a strong correlation between increased EMF exposure and a decline in overall health, but I think I have been able to lump all of them together in two main categories:

1) There are the studies that were funded (either partially, or in whole) by the industry itself and therefore is immediately exposed to extreme bias, and control over how they test and what they publish is held exclusively by the industry with an iron fist.

2) The experiments performed in the study, for whatever reason, are incomplete, innacurate, and downright lazy to the point of neglegence. They leave out many important factors like the presence of a second or third environmental stressor/toxin, as well as the pulsation and modulation of a carrier frequency. Making mistakes like this is not uncommon in the scientific community, and can often lead to skewed and often downright wrong results.

Now it's important to note that never, in the history of mankind, has the human body been exposed to so many EMFs and RFs as consistently as it is today. Think about how new cellphones are in comparison to even our grandparents...let alone the entire history of the human race. In ancient times, the sun and the moon delivered the bulk of the visible spectrum to humans (In addition to fires and lamps, although these can be considered negligible in comparison to the sun and moon). Now, artificial lighting has replaced the sun and moon as the main sources of light for human civilization. (Incandescent, fluorescent, and LED).

In addition to these artificial light sources, other frequencies on the EMF spectrum have become ingrained into the very fabric of our being...with it being near impossible to escape the nearly-constant EMFs of the inner city without driving out to the countryside.

Things like:

• Power Lines (Industrial and Residential)
• Cell Towers (The number is increasing by the day)
• "Dirty" Electricity (Has also been shown to be potentially very harmful)
• AM/FM Radio Waves
• Household Appliances (Microwaves, Electric Stoves, Etc.)
• Light bulbs
• Laptops
• Cellphones
• Desktop Computers
• Wi-Fi/Wi-Fi Routers (Home, School, Work, Retail Stores, Coffee Shops, etc.)
• Television (Appliance and Signal Modulation/Transmission)
• Wires/Wired Routing
• and much more

all contribute to the ever-increasing amount of EMF radiation that our bodies are being exposed to...and this is something many of the scientific studies completely ignore (even the ones that prove a connection between EMF radiation and various biological effects). People just tend to focus on radiation coming from cellphones or other singular entities, and they cherry pick sources of EMF radiation...single them out...and proceed to try and discuss the effects they have on biology without considering the syngergistic effects that additional stressors/toxins in the environment might have, as well as the accumulation effect of such radiation + additional stressors/toxins over the course of a lifetime of exposure.

While that may be necessary to conduct concise & controlled scientific studies, it fails to accurately simulate the levels of toxic exposure that the everyday person normally has to deal with and which has been accumulating over the years. In other words, these controlled & isolated scientific studies are good at helping us understand how EMFs interact with our biological structures, but relatively bad at predicting how these EMFs will actually affect our health & well-being in the real world. That's not to say that these types of studies can't predict the harmful effects EMFs might have on humans. They certainly can...and they have as you'll see in this article and the rest down the road. However, if you leave out the presence of a second or third toxin...and if you leave out the pulsation and modulation of the carrier frequency...and if you conduct your reaserach in such a way as to please the people funding it...of course you won't find a correlation between increasing EMF exposure and decreasing health.

Even worse, is the fact that many studies (again...even the ones that find a definite correlation between increased EMF exposure and negative health effects) fail to include pulsing and modulation of the carrier signal...which is an extremely important contributor to adverse health effects. This furthers the distance between the experimental levels of exposure, and the much more dangerous levels of exposure that our bodies are constantly exposed to daily.

As Panagopoulos states:

“It is important to note that except for the RF/microwave carrier frequency, Extremely Low Frequencies - ELFs (0–3000Hz) are always present in all telecommunication EMFs in the form of pulsing and modulation. There is significant evidence indicating that the effects of telecommunication EMFs on living organisms are mainly due to the included ELFs…. While ∼50% of the studies employing simulated exposures do not find any effects, studies employing real-life exposures from commercially available devices display an almost 100% consistency in showing adverse effects”

He goes on to state how future generations (5G) will only enhance these effects:

“with every new generation of telecommunication devices….the amount of information transmitted each moment…..is increased,resulting in higher variability and complexity of the signals with the living cells/organisms even more unable to adapt" [Panogopoulos, 2019]

Incredibly, however, even with these crucial factors being left out of the equation in so many studies, they still overwhelmingly provide ample evidence that EMFs are indeed harmful.

As Ronald Kostoff (Ph.D) puts it:

"However, even in the absence of the real-life missing components (which tend to enhance the adverse effects of the wireless radiation), the literature shows there is much valid reason for concern about potential adverse health effects from both 4G and 5G technology. The studies reported in the literature should be viewed as extremely conservative, underestimating the adverse impacts substantially"

Kostoff RN. Adverse Effects of Wireless Radiation. . 2019. PDF. http://hdl.handle.net/1853/61946.

Now although the lack of comprehensive testing & research in this