An increasing body of scientific evidence suggests that the invisible manmade electromagnetic fields (“EMF”) we bathe ourselves in 24/7 may be a major contributor to current cancer rates. This despite the intensive and hugely expensive “War on Cancer” launched by President Richard Nixon in the early 70’s.
IF WE CAN GET TO THE MOON, WE CAN SOLVE CANCER
“50 years ago the oncology community bet the farm on the idea that the root cause of cancer was to be found in genetic mutations and that if we could find the mutated genes in an individual’s cancer cells or if we could find a specific mutation associated with a certain type of cancer, we would be well on our way to a cure.” (1)
As described by Dr. Thomas Cowen in his 2019 book Cancer and the New Biology of Water, President Nixon “declared” war on cancer in 1971 by signing the National Cancer Act, allocating $1.6 billion to fight the disease. At the time, researchers were trumpeting the discovery of “oncogenes” and were headed down the path to prove that genetics (not environmental factors like diet, stress, or EMF) caused cancer. (1)
YET THE WAR ON CANCER…HAS NOT BEEN WON
Fast forward 40 years. Many more billions than foreseen by Nixon have been spent on cancer research. The human genome mapping project – heralded as the study where we would finally discover WHICH human genes caused cancer– was completed in 2002 and found scant correlations between genes and the majority of cancer types.
In 2009, one of the few remaining scientifically active leaders of the original genome mapping project, Francis Collins, published a review paper in the scientific journal Nature, along with 26 other prominent geneticists. It was titled Finding the Missing Heritability of Complex Diseases. In it, the authors acknowledged that, despite more than 700 genome-scanning publications and nearly $100 billion spent, geneticists still had not found more than a fractional genetic basis for human disease.
Our collective lack of understanding of the causes of cancers results in our current inability to fight it effectively. A 2004 review of numerous randomized clinicaltrials evaluated the effectiveness of chemotherapy – considered our strongest anti-cancer weapon — in the 5-yr survival rate for 22 major malignancies among Australian and American patients. This study concluded “The overall contribution to 5-year survival in adults was estimate to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.” In other words – an arguably minuscule amount – and at the cost of a much-reduced quality of life.
So why are so many chemo drugs deemed “effective?” Most efficacy trials to prove a chemotherapy drug’s worth measure “shrinkage of tumor” – not extension (or quality) of life. And tumor shrinkage/ lengthening of life…. don’t often correlate for long. (2)
NOT ONLY ARE WE NOT WINNING THE WAR ON CANCER – WE’RE ACTIVELY LOSING IT
In a Newsweek article in 2018, Sylvie Beljanski noted that about 1 in 20 people received a cancer diagnosis as the 20th century began. By the 1940s that became 1 in 16. By the 1970s, it was one in 10. Today, one in 3 individuals will fight cancer during his or her life.
IF MOST CANCERS ARE NOT DUE TO GENETICS, WE’RE LOOKING IN THE WRONG PLACES
Given our lack of progress at understanding and treating cancer – we have clearly NOT been looking for the right culprits. If it cannot be the genes we’re born with that doom us to that frightening “1 in 3” cancer rate, it must be one or more environmental factors.
But what environmental factors have radically changed in the last 100 years to trigger such an explosive growth in cancer rates? Or indeed in the rates of all so-called “diseases of civilization?” This phrase refers to the cluster of diseases (obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc.) that tend to take off when a town or community “modernizes” their lifestyle.
Many have suggested over the past 100 years that our fast-changing “electromagnetic” environment is a major culprit. In other words: the manmade radiation (EMF) found in ever-increasing amounts in our homes and neighborhoods.
This EMF environment is invisible to us and acts slowly on us, so this possibility has been easy to miss – especially given how enamored we are with our cell phones and cost-effective LED lighting. We – frankly – don’t want this idea to be true, so ignore the whole discussion.
THE EMF RESEARCH FINDINGS – THAT WE DON’T READ ABOUT
But thousands of independent, peer-reviewed studies in the past 50 years point in this direction. Hundreds of well-qualified, independent researchers have tried to sound the alarms, but haven’t made much of a dent in our collective consciousness about EMFs. It is hard to get an article sowing doubt about the safety of our wireless communication technologies published in a large newspaper like the New York Times when high-tech firms contribute so mightily to these periodicals’ revenues and profits.
But luckily these peer-reviewed studies are easy to review and access (and are well-sorted by type of radiation/ type of health issue and in both full article OR summary formats) in books like Dr. Joseph Mercola’s new 2020 book EMF*D or at websites like Powerwatch or Bioinitiative Report.
Are there also studies showing no correlation between health and EMF? Yes – and the majority of them were designed and funded by the industries whose products create the new manmade electromagnetic fields we now live with, according to peer-reviewed research published by Egger, Hug, Huwiler-Muntener, and Roosle in 2008.
As they put it, when it comes to research on the health effects of cell phones, “We found that the studies funded exclusively by
industry were indeed substantially less likely to report statistically significant effects on a range of end points that may be relevant to health. Our findings add to the existing evidence that single-source sponsorship is associated with outcomes that favor the sponsors’ products.” (3)(4)(5)(6)
PHYSICS MATTERS – IT GOVERNS OUR BODIES TOO
At our core, our bodies are “matter” and are subject to the laws of physics. All matter behaves in certain ways when interacting with forces of nature (i.e. physical forces) like light, water, electric current and magnetism. Humans don’t really use food for energy – we use the electrons and protons which our bodies cleverly “strip” from food and use to fuel our bodies via “electron chain transport” in our mitochondria.
So it stands to reason that changing the physics of our environment could have a tangible impact on our cellular function. Humans are essentially exquisite machines which evolution honed over millions of years to be optimized to a certain set of environmental conditions (certain temperatures, light, EMF levels/ types, gravity, humidity, magnetic fields, etc.)
And when you quickly change certain aspects of the physical environment in a substantive way – like we have since the advent of electricity, radar, cellular phones, and wifi – it makes sense that the human machine doesn’t function optimally any more.
Astronauts leaving the “physics” of the earth’s biosphere behind suffer serious known health degradation and DNA damage the longer they are in space, despite space agency efforts to mimic the earth’s magnetic fields, oxygen levels, and other environmental conditions in spacecraft.
In his 2017 memoir, “Endurance,” Astronaut Scott Kelly shares his struggles after his return from space with pain, sleep, cognition, and other health issues. One night he felt as if he was “fighting through quicksand,” he wrote. His scores on cognitive tests went down, and didn’t rebound as time passed.
This makes sense. Imagine bringing a Mercedes optimized for the earth’s environment to the moon – how well would it drive??
MORE EVIDENCE FOR MANMADE RADIATION CAUSING CANCER
In 2011, the World Health Organization /International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, associated with wireless phone use.
And based upon new research published since 2011, including human and animal studies and mechanistic data funded by the US government, the IARC has recently prioritized EMF to be reviewed again in the next five years. Since many EMF scientists believe we now have sufficient evidence to consider EMF as either a probable or known human carcinogen, the IARC may well upgrade the carcinogenic potential category of EMF in the near future. (Scientific American, Joel Moskowitz, Oct 12, 2019 “We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe”)
One of the most damning new studies proving carcinogenicity of cellular radiation was a $30 million study conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP). After this significant investment of taxpayer dollars, the NTP found “clear evidence” that only two years of exposure to cell phone EMF (mostly 2G and 3G which are considered far tamer than the newer 4G and 5G) increased cancer in male rats and damaged DNA in rats and mice of both sexes.
While many scientists suggest we should act to limit exposures based on this NTP study, NTP officials did not deny the strong proof of carcinogenicity – but attempted to write off the large study’s significance.
“We believe that the link between radio frequency radiation and tumors in male rats is real, and the external experts agreed,” said John Bucher, Ph.D., NTP senior scientist. But…“The exposures used in the studies cannot be compared directly to the exposure that humans experience when using a cell phone,” said Bucher.
In other words: “don’t worry, be happy” if you’re not a male rat participating in this particular study.
But that begs the question – why spend $30MM if your experimental design won’t be useful to understand EMF effects on (or mechanisms in) humans?
In fact, animal studies are a staple in scientific research on new drugs and in basic science to reveal disease mechanisms. They are often required for proof of hypotheses or effectiveness in conjunction with epidemiological and human studies. Many top scientists signed off on the NTP study design as highly relevant, well-designed, and an important use of taxpayer funds.
As much as our government would like to sweep the carcinogenic proof from the NTP study under the rug, we certainly did not undertake the NTP studies to improve the lives of rats.
YOU CAN TAKE ACTION TO PROTECT YOURSELF FROM RADIATION HARM
We CAN take action to protect ourselves without waiting for new EMF regulations from our federal or state governments.
There are steps we can take to reduce our radiation exposures, especially at home and in the bedroom, where overnight EMF radiation can impair the body’s need to “regenerate” at a cellular level.
Some steps to clean up your environment include:
- Turning off your wifi router at night while you sleep, unplugging electric lamps and clocks on bedside tables
- Swapping wifi for corded ethernet connections
- Having a home EMF consultant check the electric, magnetic and other fields near your bed emanating from wiring in the walls, then make mitigation suggestions
- And shielding the new “Smart Meter” that was likely installed in your home in the last few years.
It can seem daunting to shift technology habits – but rest-assured you do NOT have to stop using your cell phone, electricity, or the internet to live much more safely alongside technology.
WHAT IS A “DOMESTIC RADIATION CONSULT?”
To guide your journey towards a safer environment, signing up for a home domestic radiation consultation can be a great first
step. You can’t fix what you can’t measure – and radiation is invisible, unfortunately. Each home has different issues which a
well-trained expert with proper instrumentation can measure for you.
Consults often only take 2-4 hours. Many who take advantage of this service find
they have better sleep, fewer headaches, and other symptom reduction once EMF
mitigation tactics suggested by their EMF consultants are implemented.
STEP 1: LEARN HOW YOUR HOME EMF ENVIRONMENT SUPPORTS YOU – OR NOT
We all hope to avoid becoming cancer statistics. So keep eating healthful meals, downing less sugar, getting exercise, and getting good sleep – but also reduce the strong artificial electromagnetic fields which your body hasn’t yet “evolved” to handle.
Whether you know it or not (or feel it or not – because 3% of the population CAN feel symptoms immediately), these fields are increasingly stressing you out at a cellular level, and will eventually impair your cellular function if left unchecked.
So give yourself and your family the gift of new knowledge on how to protect yourselves in some powerful new ways. Dare to lift the lid and look more deeply at the electromagnetic environment in your home and bedroom – the two places you spend the most time.
Especially if you are skeptical of this whole “EMF conspiracy theory” stuff. Dare to be skeptical…of your skepticism. Spend some time reading and researching, then draw conclusions.
Sources:
- Cancer and the New Biology of Water, Thomas Cowan, M.D., 2019, p.1
- G. Morgan, R. Ward, and M Barton, “The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy to 5-year survival in Adult Malignancies,” Clinical Oncology 16, no. 8 (Dec 2004)
- Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic
review. JAMA 2003; 289:454-465. - Davidson R. Source of funding and outcome of s. J Gen Intern Med 1986; 1:155-158.
- Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: Systematic review. BMJ 2003; 326:1167-1170.
- Stelfox H, Chua G, O’Rourke K, Detsky A. Conflict of interest in the debate over calcium-channel antagonists. N Engl J Med 1998; 338:101-106
- NTP Technical Report on the Toxicology and Carcinogeness Studies in Hsd: Sprague Dawket SD Rats Exposed to Whole-Body Radio Frequency Radiation at a Frequecy (900 MHz) and Modulations (GSM and CDMA) Used by Cell Phones National Toxicology Program, November 2018 NTP TR 595 National Institutes of Health Public Health Service U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services.
- “Scott Kelly Spent a Year in Orbit. His Body Is Not Quite the Same” Carl Zimmer, New York Times, April 11, 2019
Leave a Reply