Paul Polaro is a scientist with experience in physics and engineering. He has a PhD in Physics and Engineering and the Health Sciences. He started his research career at the Institut des Reunions de Hydro-Quebec in Veronese, Quebec, an internationally reputed electrotechnical laboratory. After rounding out his formation with courses in Biology and Medicine, he became interested in Public Health and was appointed Associate Professor at McGill University s Faculty of Medicine, where he is the current Occupational Health Program Director. He is an expert in Toxicology and Electromagnetic Radiation. He won a lawsuit about cell phone radiation, suing the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, in 2021. In this episode, he talks about how he won the case, why Wi-Fi radiation is dangerous, and why we should all be worried about it. He also talks about the dangers of radiation from Wi-fi and other wireless devices, and how we can prevent them from getting into our bodies. This is a must listen episode for anyone who is concerned about the impact of electromagnetic radiation on our bodies and our health, or who wants to know if they are safe to use them or if they should be allowed to do so. Listen to this episode to learn more about the science behind the case and why you should be concerned about them. Thank you for listening and share it with your friends, family, colleagues, and the ones you care about them! and don t forget to subscribe to the podcast! and spread the word to your friends about it! . You can get a copy of this podcast wherever you get your favourite podcast on the internet. You won't want to miss it. It's free and it'll help spread it around the world! ...and it'll make us spread it to the word about it everywhere else! It's better than that we can spread it everywhere. - Tom's words are better than it's possible to do that. Thank you, Tom's saying it, right? thank you, and we're listening to it, too, and it's more than that, right here, right there in the rest of it, in the whole world, right across the internet, everywhere, everywhere else, right everywhere, right at the world, everywhere...we'll get it, no matter where we listen to it? -- Tom's podcasting it's everywhere, no more so than that's right, right in the world?
00:00:32.000Paul Herro is probably the top expert in the field of bioelectric physics and radio frequency radiation and the impacts of radio frequency radiation on nature and human beings.
00:00:51.000Polaro is a scientist with experience in physics.
00:00:55.000He has a PhD in physics and engineering and the health sciences.
00:01:01.000He started his research career at the Institut des Récherches of Hydro-Quebec in Veronese, Quebec, an internationally reputed electrotechnical laboratory, the biggest electric company in Canada.
00:01:18.000After rounding out his formation with courses in biology and medicine, he became interested in public health and was appointed associate professor at McGill University's Faculty of Medicine, where he is the current occupational health program director.
00:01:34.000He is, as I said, an expert in toxicology and electromagnetic radiation.
00:01:44.000And I won a lawsuit About cell phone radiation, suing FCC, the Federal Communications Commission in 2021.
00:01:58.000And we sued FCC because of the science that they were using to defend their lack of regulation of cell phone, Wi-Fi radiation.
00:02:16.000Their assumption was That until that radiation began to raise the temperature of your body or your organs, in other words, you wanted microwaving you and cooking you, that there were no subternal effects.
00:02:33.000And this is wrong, and there are literally, I was shocked, And Polaro can tell us whether this is hyperbole, but there were over 10,000 studies out there over the years raising concerns about Wi-Fi radiation and showing that indeed there are some thermal impacts that the cells in your body Act as little antennas that are regulating electric
00:03:04.000currents and energy currents and flow between all the functions of your body.
00:03:10.000And the way that you think, the way that you feel, the way that your immune system works, the way that you move, it's all regulated by electrical impulses that your cells regulate and that the cell tower near you It disrupts that and does a lot of other bad stuff,
00:03:33.000but in all the So we won that lawsuit and FCC has, this was during the Trump administration, the head of the FCC at that time was a Verizon lobbyist and they have ever since then blocked anything from happening.
00:03:56.000So they're required, essentially required, they're implied in this What lawsuit was in the decision by the Federal Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., was that they need to start a new rulemaking.
00:04:11.000They need to do a real assessment of what Wi-Fi radiation.
00:04:14.000There are solutions to it, and we're going to talk about those, but that's where we are in the federal case.
00:04:21.000I wanted to bring Paul, I'm here because he, better than anybody else that I know, can explain what happens to radiofrequency radiation inside the human body.
00:04:47.000What does Wi-Fi radiation, radio frequency radiation, do when it gets into the human body?
00:04:54.000Why should we be concerned about this?
00:04:56.000Well, the 10,000 studies that you mentioned are not there by luck.
00:05:02.000They are there because there are actually health effects of electromagnetic radiation.
00:05:08.000The reason why so many governments would believe that there are no effects It can seem to be a mystery, but it's not a mystery to me, because I'm a fairly old man, as you can see, and I was there when all of these, I would say, these strategies were being developed.
00:05:30.000In other words, industry desperately wanted to have very high standards.
00:05:37.000And this was done in the days of the microwave ovens, when this was the new wonder application.
00:05:43.000But industry realized that electromagnetic radiation had tremendous potential for commercial applications.
00:05:52.000So, you'll have to consult the law to determine whether this was done, I would say, in a In an underhanded way or not.
00:06:05.000But what they came up with is that this radiation is not dangerous.
00:06:10.000And they had three great arguments that they could present to the public and to politicians, who, as you know, don't have too much time to deal with things like that.
00:06:20.000They said, well, you know, this radiation is non-ionizing.
00:06:24.000Secondly, they said the radiation levels that we emit are too weak.
00:06:29.000And thirdly, they said there are no mechanisms to explain the action of these fields on the body.
00:06:36.000Unfortunately, all three of these arguments are completely false from the scientific point of view.
00:06:44.000And the thing that I came up with relatively recently is that they should have known better, and they did not.
00:06:54.000And if you look at the science, basically the problem is, can this radiation trigger certain reactions in human bodies that could interfere or make them sick?
00:07:09.000And so we call this essentially the concept of energy of activation.
00:07:13.000What does it take to make changes in the human body from radiation?
00:07:19.000And what they use, in fact, are concepts that date to 1889.
00:07:37.000You have to break something before it can come back together in a different way.
00:07:43.000So they use this concept to say that it's non-ionizing because indeed the radiation is non-ionizing.
00:07:51.000So they thought this is a really good thing to present to the public.
00:07:56.000And then they said the radiation is too weak.
00:07:58.000In other words, it cannot ionize, so consequently it can't do anything.
00:08:02.000And then, show us the mechanisms that allow these reactions to occur.
00:08:08.000Well, there's something very interesting about the human body.
00:08:11.000The human body has as its first characteristic that it organizes things.
00:08:18.000And this is a bit hard to digest from the second law of thermodynamics, which is universally accepted in physics.
00:08:28.000If you organize things, you have in a corresponding way to generate disorganization.
00:08:36.000This disorganization occurs in all living systems and it's called reactive oxygen species or unstable molecules.
00:08:45.000Now, once you understand this, that living systems have to generate free radicals, then they become vulnerable to fields that are extremely weak.
00:08:58.000And so what this means is that the argument of radiation is too weak no longer holds.
00:09:06.000I can describe in detail at least two mechanisms that are able to alter your rate of cancer and that are able to enter your rate of diabetes.
00:09:20.000So, in other words, industry had no science to stand on, but they fed these stories to politicians and to the public.
00:09:32.000You know, many years ago, I had a radio show called Ring on Fire.
00:09:38.000This was back in the, I think, mid-2000s, or early 2000s, but I had a guy on that time I met, and I've met many times since, named Dr.
00:09:59.000Who had good credentials, but he was a mercenary scientist, and he would be hired by industry to reach certain preordained results that the industry wanted to have a scientific study that validated some profit-taking enterprise that they had already determined they wanted to do.
00:10:27.000And they hired George Carlow to look at cell phone radiation because, as you know, back around 2013, Congress and the GAO were putting tremendous pressure on FCC to start doing real science and regulating cell phone radiation, which they were doing in Russia and other countries.
00:12:16.000And, you know, he turned out to be a very brave man, and he's been working, I think, ever since to expose it.
00:12:23.000But that was my first exposure to how bad this is and how overwhelming the science was on it.
00:12:32.000Yes, I think your description is very, very accurate.
00:12:39.000The fact is that when industry was confronted with this problem, you're dealing essentially with the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
00:12:48.000They didn't really have any indigenous expertise.
00:12:52.000And the people that they acquired naturally seemed pressure to tell the industry what it wanted to hear.
00:13:01.000So, essentially, what happened is that in this process, in the end, industry avoided the problem and Tried to find arguments so that the public and even their own constituency, I mean, you're talking about 400,000 engineers, that they would all believe that this radiation is an offensive.
00:13:26.000And if you start to broadcast these ideas, you know, amongst engineers, with 400,000 people, it's very powerful.
00:13:35.000And they are the ones who hold the expertise on electromagnetism.
00:13:40.000But of course, their assessment of science was extremely superficial.
00:14:06.000And so consequently, even today, we are in a situation in which industry is resting on very, very non-existent science, really.
00:14:17.000And you want to know how the tests were conducted to determine that this radiation was safe.
00:14:27.000Well, they were very short-term tests.
00:14:30.000Essentially, the military wanted to know if we have a pilot in an F-16, and this pilot is obviously subjected to the radiation of his radar, does the radiation impair his function, his ability to understand situations, his ability to follow his ability to understand situations, his ability to follow orders?
00:14:49.000And so they ran very short-term tests on a series of rats and monkeys.
00:14:56.000That's 40 to 60 minutes on monkeys like five monkeys, 10 rats, things like that.
00:15:03.000And the criterion that they used to determine the safety level was, are these animals reducing their ability to feed themselves?
00:15:15.000Because they would have a pellet that they could press, and that would deliver a morsel of food to them.
00:15:23.000So they increased the radiation until these animals reduced their intake of food.
00:15:31.000And so on the basis of these very simplistic tests, the industry ran away and said, this is what we're going to use.
00:15:40.000You have to ask yourself, can a test that lasts 40 to 60 minutes represent, you know, the span of human life of 70 years or the effect on humans over many generations?
00:15:54.000So it's rather humiliating to think how all of this was done and was arranged.
00:16:25.000There's people getting, you know, I'm representing a lot of people who have what they call cell phone tumors, who are Of glioblastomas in their brains.
00:16:37.000And my uncle, Ted Kennedy, died of one of those tumors.
00:16:42.000And the people who were getting these tumors, my colleague, Johnny Cochran, another attorney, had what he thought he understood to be a cell phone tumor that he died from.
00:16:54.000And you're seeing people get these tumors right behind the ears that they favor with their cell phones.
00:17:02.000But so far, we're not seeing the science come out to support it.
00:17:07.000We're seeing a lot of anecdotal evidence and some science on the cancer issues.
00:17:13.000But on the other issues, the science is pretty overwhelming, isn't it?
00:17:47.000It changes the level of metabolism in cells.
00:17:51.000In other words, when you apply it, the metabolism goes down.
00:17:55.000And when you release the radiation, the metabolism goes back up.
00:17:59.000Now, if you culture cells and you You expose them to various levels of radiation, you will find that from one cancer cell of one type, this kind of electromagnetic treatment will increase the diversity of cells that you have.
00:18:18.000Some will have more chromosomes than the first original cell, some will have fewer, and so on and so forth.
00:18:25.000By increasing the diversity of cancer cells within the body, you increase the malignancy Of the tumor itself.
00:18:38.000And so there's plenty of evidence that an agent like electromagnetic radiation, which is a modulator of metabolism, can have these effects on cancer specifically.
00:18:50.000And this evidence has been around for a long, long time, but as you know, industry has fought the evidence and claimed that the science isn't good.
00:18:59.000Science is always complicated at the best of times, but when you survey the whole thing, some conclusions can be reached, just in the case, the legal case that you mentioned.
00:19:13.000Another impact was to increase the permeability of the blood-brain barrier.
00:19:30.000The perfusion of blood into the brain is highly controlled.
00:19:34.000In certain regions, like the hypothalamus and the pituitary gland, it's rather permeable because you want the brain to get proper messaging from what happens in the body.
00:19:46.000But overall in the brain, it's hard to get from the blood into neural tissue.
00:19:54.000Well, plenty of evidence showed that when you are subjected to even non-thermal levels of electromagnetic radiation that are perfectly fine with the FCC, you increase the permeability of the blood-brain barrier.
00:20:11.000This was documented usually by penetration of albumin, which is a protein that you have in large amounts in your blood.
00:20:20.000But the problem with albumin is that albumin is a buffer against all the toxicants in your body.
00:20:27.000Basically, when you have an acute exposure to high concentrations of a toxicant, albumin gobbles up most of it.
00:20:36.000In order to release it to your tissues progressively, thereby lowering the shock.
00:20:43.000When you allow albumin to penetrate into your nervous tissue, all of these toxins that are accumulated by albumin have access to your brain as well.
00:20:54.000So, it's obvious physiologically that this type of permeation of the blood-brain barrier is a fundamental risk to the brain itself.
00:21:06.000And what happens to the brain when you allow toxics into the brain?
00:21:12.000Well, I think any toxicology specialist can tell you, you know, the brain is supposed to be relatively immune to these chemicals, and all of a sudden you allow entry into a delicate tissue.
00:21:26.000This tissue, the brain is very dependent on supplies of ATP. You know that if you stop breathing right now, you will lose consciousness very, very rapidly because your nervous system depends on the high amount of ATP being generated continuously by the supply of oxygen into your brain.
00:21:50.000And if you start allowing all sorts of toxicants, and these toxicants can be almost anything, because whatever you were exposed to, that the brain did not allow into neural tissue, whatever your exposure, now can get around neurons that actually are the functioning part of your brain.
00:22:38.000And these reactive oxygen species are essentially molecules that have been activated to be, I would say, hostile to tissue that is healthy.
00:22:50.000So, when you suppress metabolism in any cell, it's a little bit like you have a garden hose and you are...
00:22:59.000You're watering your lawn, and then you take the hose and you bend it so that the water can't come out anymore.
00:23:06.000Well, behind you, if there are any leaks on your hose, they will quickly spurt some water.
00:23:12.000You know, the spurt that weren't there before.
00:23:17.000of metabolism and we know exactly where they occur in complex 1 and complex 3 of oxidative phosphorylation so you suppress metabolism you are going to increase reactive oxygen species in tissues this has been repeatedly demonstrated in relation to radiofrequency radiation exposure so these reactive oxygen species by their very nature are hostile when they are in excessive quantities And when
00:23:47.000they're present in the brain, of course, they can do damage.
00:23:50.000Now, all of these chronic diseases can be linked to excesses ROS. We're talking about what things like diabetes, things like Alzheimer's, things like Parkinson's, amyotropic lateral cirrhosis, all of these chronic neurological diseases are connected with ROS. And Microwave radiation can produce an increased concentration of these things.
00:24:44.000So she was basically in a compartment.
00:24:49.000That was filled with electronics and getting radiated all the time, and at some point— She developed literally overnight a sensitivity to it.
00:25:02.000And after that, she had to move to the Catskills.
00:25:23.000And so she had to move to a remote area of the Catskills.
00:25:28.000But she can come into rooms in my house and say, this room is heavily radiated.
00:25:34.000And I had to meet her, and every time that she said that, she was absolutely accurate.
00:25:43.000I've since then met many, many people who have this kind of sensitivity, including a lot of children, who get very, very sick.
00:25:51.000Even small exposures to cell phones or to radiation, and it's very much complicated their lives.
00:25:59.000Can you explain that and talk about that, your own experience with people who are sensitive, how many people are like that?
00:26:10.000People believe that it's between 2 and 3% of people who are aware of it and take defensive measures in order to combat these environmental exposures.
00:26:23.000Now, the mechanisms are probably exactly the same as the one that we discussed.
00:26:29.000Essentially, when you generate reactive oxygen species, your nervous system and your immunity can become sensitized to it, and the nervous system will react.
00:26:42.000Now, I know of cases where children who are electrosensitive would find in a classroom the one spot.
00:26:53.000And I would go in with my instrument and I would realize, oh, this is where he sits, right?
00:26:58.000And these people know spontaneously how to defend themselves against the radiation.
00:27:04.000But indeed, they become ostracized from society.
00:27:08.000And some people are very sensitive, not only to Radio frequency radiation, but also to radiation from power systems and even from static electricity.
00:27:21.000So, it can become a very, very disturbing syndrome that changes your life completely.
00:27:29.000And the fear that us, you know, public health people have, is that as we increase the level of radiation, are we going to magnify and increase correspondingly the number of people who are afflicted by this?
00:27:47.000Now, the mechanisms of increases in reactive oxygen species is a mechanism that can, I would say, solicit many physiological processes.
00:28:00.000And that explains why all people who are electromagnetically sensitive don't have exactly the same symptoms.
00:28:08.000I know a woman whose left eye closes each time there is radiation, and very reliably, for other people, they will get a headache.
00:28:17.000That depends on individual physiology and sometimes on the variables of the exposure, because as you know, our electric environment is extremely complicated.
00:28:28.000It's a mixture of all sorts of ingredients.
00:28:31.000And for this reason, it has been very difficult to unravel.
00:28:37.000Another aspect is that when people try to do experiments, they are rarely in a position in which they can provide a completely radiation-free environment as a baseline in their research.
00:28:52.000This has made the whole field of bioelectromagnetics very complicated.
00:28:58.000I would say the reactive oxygen species is a dominant mechanism, also changes in metabolism, and that is essentially happening.
00:29:07.000There's also a third mechanism that I know of.
00:29:13.000This is a mechanism by which radiation changes the pH in the fluid, even in water.
00:29:19.000And so all of these things together can create extremely complicated effects and syndromes.
00:29:25.000And these EHS people, Come with all sorts of symptoms regularly and phone me and ask for help.
00:29:35.000Now, you've said, and this is very, very well established in the science, that the principal exposure to most people from radiation is, one, cell towers that are near your home or near your place of business, and then also, probably the worst, putting a cell phone next to your head.
00:30:22.000And, you know, I have to go in their rooms at night from when they were little and take the cell phone out of the beds if they sleep with them next to their pillows.
00:30:35.000What is this doing and what a year, you know, what a year of feelings about that.
00:30:40.000Well, what you're fighting is something very powerful.
00:30:43.000People instinctively believe that if government allows something on the market, it must be fine.
00:30:51.000And they don't realize that there's intimate connections between government and industry.
00:30:56.000And so if industry is given too much leeway, you're looking for catastrophes.
00:32:29.000That means that government changes its own ideas about itself.
00:32:34.000But going back to the exposure, depending on whether you consider that high-intensity exposures or chronic exposures, which over a long period of time, are the most important, some people would say that the cell phone is the dominant exposure because it radiates into your head at very high intensities.
00:32:57.000In fact, when you put a cell phone against your head, only about 20% of the radiation goes for communication.
00:33:04.000The rest is diffused into your body, which explains a lot of things.
00:33:09.000So, intense exposures from cell phones, but cell phone towers are active all the time.
00:33:17.000So, they contribute smaller levels, but if you multiply them by the time of exposure for most people, unless you use a cell phone professionally, they would be the strongest source of exposure.
00:33:31.000So all of these things together will get worse over time as engineers who have no limits in their imagination think up things like the Internet of Things, the Internet of Bodies.
00:33:44.000They would like everything to communicate with everything else.
00:33:48.000But this is, in my opinion, a philosophy that is wrong-headed.
00:33:54.000We don't need every grain of sand to communicate with every other grain of sand.
00:34:03.000We need a decent environment to live in that is protected from the invasions of the engineers who feel that whatever they can do is appropriate.
00:34:18.000What would you tell a parent about, you know, who's got kids sleeping with their cell phones and putting them next to their heads?
00:34:29.000You know, what's the best way to minimize that?
00:34:31.000And what would you do to scare, to frighten them about, you know, appropriately?
00:34:36.000Well, I would tell them, please protect their sleeping environment.
00:34:41.000Because you may not have control over what happens in schools and elsewhere.
00:34:47.000but you can at least control their bedrooms.
00:34:50.000You have to make sure that in their bedrooms, both Low-frequency magnetic fields from baseboard heaters are low, as well as the radio frequencies from the routers or something like that.
00:35:02.000These should be extinguished at night.
00:35:31.000Ways that are subtle, but that are nonetheless there.
00:35:34.000Experiments on animals confirm this extensively.
00:35:38.000So, if you want to protect the future of your child and remember that they will be exposed to this radiation a lot longer than us adults were, because for us, it's certainly recent invention.
00:35:51.000For them, it will be lifelong exposure.
00:35:55.000And the danger is that we will get used to new rates of cancer, new rates of diabetes, new rates of Alzheimer's, new rates of Parkinson's that will become entirely normal because practically the whole population is being exposed.
00:36:13.000In other words, there are no controls left.
00:36:16.000So wire your house for internet wiring and reduce your use of wireless.
00:36:26.000I don't think we'll get use of wireless completely.
00:36:29.000It will still be around, but it simply has to be managed in such a way that we reduced risk in particular to chronic diseases.
00:36:41.000I want to get to that solution because you actually have a pretty elegant and workable solution, which is a future in fiber optic.
00:36:54.000Cable, which is better for our privacy.
00:36:58.000It's better for ending the surveillance state.
00:38:21.000And I think they're doing this because they apprehend the risk of the radiation, but also because they believe that it's not conducive to proper learning.
00:38:35.000I'm a professor in a university, and I am in front of class, and all of these students in front of me have their laptops open with Wi-Fi provided by the university.
00:38:49.000Are they doing some homework, you know, from the previous class?
00:38:55.000I do want them to look up information that would be relevant to the discussion in class.
00:39:01.000But what it means is that essentially you are curtailing, diminishing, you know, attenuating any discussion that could happen in class normally because essentially everybody can go their own way and Socially, this is a catastrophe.
00:39:19.000You see it even in very simple countries where people used to meet in the public place on Sundays and talk.
00:39:30.000And after the advent of cell phones, everybody's on their cell phone.
00:39:35.000These are addictive devices that have to be controlled because you have a science that's being developed to capture attention.
00:39:46.000And this attention is subtracted from family life and from intellectual life.
00:39:53.000So I never understood, personally, why in a class you don't want all the students to be attentive to what's happening.
00:40:01.000And we encourage people, on the basis of what?
00:40:06.000On the basis of laissez faire, that a salesman told you that this will be a boon to our education.
00:40:13.000And children, of course, are very vulnerable to these things because their brains are developing.
00:40:20.000And so any signs, and there are many, that the brain does not all develop in the same way when it's subjected to this radiation are quite alarming.
00:40:32.000All right, let's talk about solutions.
00:40:37.000You know, one of the things that you've talked a lot about is fiber optic cables.
00:40:41.000And what is, you know, how would that solve the problem?
00:40:45.000Clinton promised the US population that they would get fiber to the home, didn't he?
00:40:53.000And what happened instead is that the industry took in the money and developed wireless.
00:41:00.000So the promise that President Clinton had made perfect technical sense.
00:41:06.000You want to provide people with speed and with access to the world through the Internet.
00:41:12.000And essentially, when industry took that contract up, They perverted it to a wireless, I would say, deployment simply because they thought that they could make more money that way.
00:41:30.000And so, I believe myself that businesses and private households should have wired optical fiber, which has a potential for speed that is enormously higher than what wireless has.
00:41:47.000And secondly, it is energy- Very, very efficient.
00:41:51.000We have to think in terms of the energy that we need to spend per bit or a byte of data that we're transmitting, because apparently the appetite of people for data is very, very large.
00:42:06.000So we have to be thoughtful of how we transmit information, lest You know, a large proportion of U.S. electrical power is completely absorbed by, you know, telecommunications devices.
00:42:23.000So fiber to businesses and to the home is one thing.
00:42:26.000A second thing that is coming up that may become very important is Li-Fi.
00:42:32.000We believe that the frequencies of radiation that are visible or very near to the infrared might be less physiologically hazardous because living systems have had a very long time to adapt to this radiation.
00:42:49.000Whereas the microwave and radio frequency radiations are entirely new, To the environment.
00:42:57.000In other words, there was none of this before the development of radio frequency techniques.
00:43:04.000So, by using infrared and Li-Fi, we could potentially restore our ability to have wireless wireless At much, much, much reduced risks.
00:43:16.000So I'm not saying that Li-Fi will not be found one day to have some risks, but we have been using Li-Fi for some applications for some time.
00:43:27.000We've used headsets that are using infrared, for example.
00:43:34.000And I don't believe that there are reports that this has been found to be deleterious.
00:43:39.000We have had remote controls for television for a long time that were also infrared.
00:43:44.000So there is this belief that infrared radiation will be much less dangerous than radio frequencies, simply because we have had about 3 billion years to get used to this type of radiation.
00:43:58.000In terms of personal use, you know, my practice is that I never put the cell phone next to my head.
00:44:07.000I keep it on the speaker all the time.
00:44:18.000Well, if you're using an air tube, it is a very good installation, of course.
00:44:24.000Now, if you're using a normal ear set, well, this has a wire that's leading into your ear, so it's not quite as good insulation as an air tube, which is entirely non-electrical.
00:44:43.000But there's many alterations that could be made.
00:44:46.000You could have a cell phone that emits infrared radiation, and you could have something on your head that receives this infrared radiation, and that would be a big gain.
00:44:59.000Because in a cell phone, you indeed have a lot of radio frequency radiation that is funneled right into your head.
00:45:10.000Well, the problem with those is that they're not very, very powerful, but you stick them right into your ear.
00:45:16.000So the dose that you get from such devices is very hard to measure for a couple of reasons.
00:45:24.000Since they are low power, they get an exemption when they're approved.
00:45:29.000So you're not obligated to investigate how they irradiate your tissues.
00:45:36.000And Making measurements inside your ear while you're using an AirPod is even more difficult than assessing the radiation from a cell phone.
00:45:46.000For a cell phone, you know how they do it generally.
00:45:49.000They use a mixture of water, salt, and sugar.
00:45:54.000That they sort of stir together and they put the cell phone above this solution and they determine how much it heats up the solution.
00:46:06.000In the case of an earpod, it's very hard to know.
00:46:09.000There is no requirement to specify it.
00:46:12.000So we're being more and more Inundated with these devices that are assumed on the basis of a bunch of monkeys and rats for 40 to 60 minutes to have no effect on you for your lifetime.
00:46:33.000I remember just reading what I was preparing for the case, for the argument, and the Court of Appeals case, reading some studies that show that the more apps you have on the phone, the more radiation that's coming out.
00:46:49.000And in the same question, are there some cell phones that are better than others?
00:47:30.000And over time, progressively, we have lost control of computers.
00:47:36.000In other words, you feel that they're owned by the people who sold them to you.
00:47:41.000They have these updates and these inevitable, I would say, Appendages to the software that provide you with publicity and exactly the same thing is happening to cell phones.
00:47:55.000You place them on airplane mode yet they will still emit radiation because the owner is actually the company who programs them and who updates the software in it automatically.
00:48:12.000So it is an invasion because With electronics and programming, it is possible to do that.
00:48:21.000And the more apps that you have on your cell phone, the more radiation you're getting.
00:48:26.000They're all little individuals that have their own desires to communicate with the outside.
00:48:33.000So, if it's a weather service, how often do you want the weather?
00:48:37.000I think, in my opinion, cell phones should...
00:48:43.000They should respond to your desires and your commands and not push information to you and not suggest things to you about your behavior or wake you up at one moment or another unless you want to.
00:48:58.000So you're being relieved of control by artificial intelligence devices that are under the control and the interests of others.
00:49:15.000The Afghanistan syndrome, is that coming from Wi-Fi weapons?
00:49:20.000Well, you all know about this application that is very, very open about using, say, 100 gigahertz radiation to heat up the skin of protesters so that they flee away from a location.
00:49:36.000This is a very, very simple application based on heat only.
00:49:40.000But for this kind of application, you need essentially, I would say, large emitters.
00:49:48.000You need antennas that are fairly cumbersome to carry around.
00:49:53.000So when you see these things appearing at the site of your manifestation, you will not miss them.
00:50:01.000Now, the more subtle effects Of mind control with the radiation.
00:50:08.000In my opinion, mind control, as it very happens in science, this is a bit of an exaggeration.
00:50:15.000I think they can probably disrupt your mind with it.
00:50:21.000The view that the government takes control of your mind in this way, I think, is a little bit fantasy.
00:50:29.000But if you're really willing to do it, you can probably make people sicker by simply exposing them to radiation in excessive levels.
00:50:41.000I mean, that's totally in the realm of possibilities.
00:50:45.000Could that be targeted to, like, a single apartment where a single person...
00:50:50.000So that you could remotely, you know, have a weapon that would direct like a ray towards one apartment or any individual if you wanted to harm that person rather than, you know, the general public.
00:51:07.000There are probably some frequencies that are more appropriate for this.
00:51:11.000You've all probably heard that with 5G, for example, you have what we call beamforming.
00:51:17.000What this means is that instead of having an antenna that broadcasts in a very, very general way, say, in a third of the space around it, it forms a beam that is really focused.
00:51:31.000And this beam, of course, can also be very intense because it's a result of an antenna that has many, many small elements that are coordinated in order to achieve such an effect.
00:51:44.000Once you try to beam it into an apartment, you have to consider, does this radiation go through the apartment, the walls of the apartment, the windows of the apartment?
00:51:54.000Once it gets in there, is the target in direct line of sight or is it Going to have to bounce around.
00:52:03.000And if it does bounce around, does it represent a little bit of a microwave oven-like, you know, situation?
00:52:11.000Or is it going to be quickly attenuated?
00:52:13.000So it requires a certain level of skill to be able to, I would say, pinpoint and target somebody.
00:52:21.000But just to cause damage, the requirements are much, much, much lower in terms of knowledge.
00:53:41.000It could be entirely done with vision as opposed to being done with wireless and creating a huge network which makes your car a spy wherever you need to leave it on the street.
00:53:54.000Because after all, once it's wired and in communication, you have a fleet of vehicles that can probably hear things and probably see things.
00:54:32.000I think you are the hope for the future because you are one of these few politicians that doesn't seem tied to all sorts of interests.
00:54:43.000And I think you see the government process and the processes of society more clearly than certainly all the other candidates in the United States and possibly Better than all the politicians of the world.
00:54:59.000I really respect the work that you are doing, and I have high hopes for your future.