Firstenberg on thermal versus informational EMF damage

zaterdag, 26 oktober 2019 - Categorie: Artikelen

Conversation between Dr. Magda Havas and author Arthur Firstenberg (with additional comments)

Source: Andre Fauteux, editor / publisher, La Maison du 21e siècle Magazine
October 2019

On Oct 20, 2019, at 6:28 PM, Arthur Firstenberg wrote:

What everyone is still missing, including building biologists who measure RF radiation for a living, is that the harm does NOT depend on the exposure level. There is NOT a dose response. Not even for symptoms. I am sorry to have to keep repeating it.

Just as an example, the 1973 Symposium that Peter referred to (''Biologic Effects and Health Hazards of Microwave Radiation'') contains a clinical study by Sadchikova of 1180 workers occupationally exposed to RF radiation. Workers exposed to lower intensities had more frequent symptoms than workers exposed to higher intensities.
This was a consistent finding in the old Soviet literature.

The reason is that the toxicity model is the wrong model. Allan Frey pointed this out a long time ago. EMFs are not a foreign, toxic substance. The proper model is radio frequency interference. As Ross Adey also pointed out a long time ago, our cells ''whisper'' to each other in the radio frequency range. The closer an artificial signal matches the tiny power levels at which our cells communicate, the more interference it causes with bodily functions. The matter is highly complex, but conceptually, you can think of it this way:
the higher the exposure level, the greater the thermal damage; the lower the exposure level, the greater the informational damage.
Besides those two types of effects, there are many other types of effects, including a direct effect on electron transport in mitochondria, which leads directly to cancer, heart disease and diabetes, and which may well have a dose response (i.e. the greater the power the greater the effect). And there are other effects, such as calcium influx and efflux in brain cells, which have power ''windows'' of maximal effect, i.e. increasing the power decreases the effect and also decreasing the power decreases the effect.

When concerned people measure power levels only, or when building biologists measure power levels only, that is a big mistake, because power alone tells you nothing. What you want to know is whether the signal is continuous or pulsed, the shape of the pulsations, the rise time, fall time and duration of the pulsations, the type and depth of modulation, the frequencies, the bandwidth, and the degree of coherence, among other properties. Exposure level is often a proxy for coherence: the further you are from the source, the more interference there is from reflected and refracted signals, and the less coherent is the radiation that you experience.

I also caution that shielding is a two-edged sword. Most shielding materials reflect RF radiation, and they reflect it from both sides. If you paint an external wall with reflective paint, for example, it will keep out radiation coming from one direction, but it will amplify radiation coming into your house from other other direction. If you wear a reflective hat, it will keep out radiation that comes from above, but it will amplify radiation that reflects off the ground and gets under the hat. The only way to prevent this is to wear a full-body suit, i.e. walk around in a Faraday cage. Or sleep in a Faraday cage.
The other problem with shielding is that, again, it is ignoring the electronic nature of the human body. Any reflective material will not only reflect incoming radiation, but will also reflect your body's own electric and RF fields back at you, i.e. it will distort your own body's electromagnetic fields. This is why living in a Faraday cage is not healthy.

Response by Dr. Magda Havas

What you state below is very important. It is the ability for RFR to interfere with cellular and sub cellular communication that is doing most of the damage. We have focus on energy too long based on a misguided understanding using either ionizing radiation or chemical toxicology to try to understand the mechanisms of non-ionizing radiation (NIR). Neither IR (ionizing radiation) nor chemicals provide a useful model for NIR.
Now the challenge arises. Knowing that it is “information” that is causing the problem (similar to radio reception interference) how do we deal with the following questions:

1. How does the government regulate this radiation if they don’t use power density or intensity?
2. How can manufacturers produce “safer” products?
3. How can we help people heal from this exposure?

Some of the research being done on devices that can “protect” you against this radiation generate subtle energy (whatever that is) to keep your body working coherently and thus being able to minimize response to the chaotic frequencies generated by wireless devices (also wired devices that produce dirty power).
How else can we apply our understanding that we are discussing ''information interferences'' rather than “intensity'' of RFR?

To the above I like to add some comments.
I fully agree with Firstenberg's statement about the importance of information content in the EMF signal and possible interference with bodily processes. I have also been stressing this point already for some years, see:

Being a physicist that is not surprising, we are more used to electromagnetic interference between electrical apparatus than most scientists from other disciplines. We humans are electromagnetic beings with in some respects a resemblance with electrical apparatus,
so we can be disturbed in a similar way.
For an introduction to this field of 'Electromagnetic compatibility' (EMC) see: .

Firstenberg further noted a problem with shielding:
'that it is ignoring the electronic nature of the human body. Any reflective material will not only reflect incoming radiation, but will also reflect your body's own electric and RF fields back at you, i.e. it will distort your own body's electromagnetic fields. This is why living in a Faraday cage is not healthy.'

I agree to some extent. Wearing protective clothing is not so good as shielding by painting walls. In the first case the shielding is much more close to the body and will distort your own EMF much more, but in going outdoor, protective clothing can still be much better than being exposed to an external EMF.

Leendert Vriens

Lees verder in de categorie Artikelen | Terug naar homepage | Lees de introductie