Your Phone Is Rewriting Your Biology — Daniel DeBaun (Former Bell Labs Engineer)

What if the single device you hold closest to your body for 10+ hours a day is quietly rewriting your biology — and your grandchildren's?

In this episode of Health Longevity Secrets, Robert Lufkin MD sits down with Daniel DeBaun — a former Bell Labs and AT&T telecom engineer who helped build the very wireless standards the industry still runs on, then walked away to warn us about them. He is the founder and CEO of DefenderShield and co-author of "Radiation Nation," and he pulls back the curtain on what 4G, 5G and the coming 6G are actually doing to the human body, the gut microbiome, fertility, and the developing child.

CHAPTERS:
00:00 — Introduction
02:18 — Daniel's Bell Labs Origin Story
03:36 — The Laptop Incident That Changed Everything
05:51 — EMF 101: What You Need to Know
08:36 — Ionizing vs Non-Ionizing Radiation
11:53 — Blue Light and Eye Damage
17:46 — Why 5G and 6G Are Different
18:41 — The Gut Microbiome RF Connection
20:47 — DNA Damage and Calcium Channels
21:43 — The Electro-Hypersensitivity Epidemic
25:12 — Frontal Lobe Cancer in Heavy Phone Users
27:34 — Big Tech Ignores These Animal Studies
32:55 — Will My Cellphone Kill Me?
34:56 — Outdated FCC Standards From 1990
36:16 — RFK Jr. Won His FCC Lawsuit
37:58 — DefenderShield and How Shielding Works
39:41 — Why Kids Are Most at Risk
45:05 — Where to Learn More
47:14 — Final Takeaway: You Are the Architect

KEY TAKEAWAYS:
• Heavy cellphone users (1+ hrs/day for 10+ years) face up to 3× the risk of frontal-lobe cancer
• Non-ionizing EMFs damage cells through calcium-channel disruption, not just heat
• The gut microbiome is directly altered by radio-frequency exposure
• Up to 50% of people now report symptoms of electro-hypersensitivity (headaches, nausea, stress)
• Current FCC safety standards were written in 1990 for a 6-foot male soldier — with the phone held 1 inch from the head
• Simple home changes — wired internet, phone off the body, distance from routers — cut most exposure

STUDIES & SOURCES MENTIONED:

• National Toxicology Program cell phone radiation study (2018) — "clear evidence" of heart tumors and DNA damage in rats
• Ramazzini Institute base-station study (2018) — malignant heart schwannomas at non-thermal levels
• Dr. Joel Moskowitz — SaferEMR
• Dr. Devr

⭐ Enjoying the show? Please leave a 5-star review on Apple Podcasts — it takes 30 seconds and helps more people discover the science of health and longevity. Thank you!

New episodes every Tuesday & Thursday. Subscribe so you don't miss one.

Continue this conversation on Substack: https://robertlufkinmd.substack.com
Lies I Taught In Medical School — Free sample chapter: https://www.robertlufkinmd.com/lies/

Web: https://www.robertlufkinmd.com
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/robertlufkinmd
X: https://x.com/robertlufkinmd
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/robertlufkinmd/
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@robertlufkin
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/robertlufkinmd/

Transcript

The Bees In The Room

SPEAKER_02 0:00

In fact, I talk about it as bees in the room. One bee uh won't kill you, a thousand will. And the more you use cell phones that have three to four transmitters in it, and other devices doing the same, there's an accumulation that's occurring in your environment, and that could be harmful.

SPEAKER_00 0:23

Welcome back to the Health Longevity Secrets Show, where we push the limits of human potential and unlock the secrets to our health and longevity with your host, Dr. Robert Lovkin.

SPEAKER_04 0:34

What if the single device you hold closest to your body for 10 hours a day is quietly rewriting your biology and your grandchildren? Today's guest is David Devon, a 30-year-old telecom engineer from Bell Labs and ATT, who helped build the very standards the wireless industry still runs on. And then walked away to warn us about them. He's the founder and CEO of Defender Shield and the co-author of Radiation Nation. And in this episode, he pulls back the curtain on what 4G, 5G, and the coming 6G are actually doing to the human body, the gut microbiome fertility, and the developing child. We get into frontal lobe cancer risk in heavy phone users, the explosion of electro hypersensitivity, why current FCC standards were written for six-foot soldiers in 1990, and the simple changes you can make in your own home tonight. Stick around. This one will change how you live with your phone.

SPEAKER_00 1:36

And now, please enjoy this week's episode.

SPEAKER_02 1:40

Hey Daniel, welcome to the program. Robert, thanks so much for inviting me. I'm excited about chatting with your audience today because it's exciting information to know about when you're worried about your health.

SPEAKER_04 1:53

Yeah, this is going to be so much fun. I mean, you're you're the founder and CEO of uh Defender Shield and author of an amazing best-selling book with a killer title named Radiation Nation. Um but before we get into that, maybe let's rewind the clock a little bit and tell us your career started in telecommunications engineering, uh, Bell Labs, ATT, those blue label uh companies like that back in the day. And you you have literally decades of work in the EMF uh field, electromagnetic frequency field, which which we'll also dive into. But uh can you take us back to the moment when you realize that this wasn't just a technical curiosity, but actually a health issue that maybe is worth dedicating your life to?

SPEAKER_02 2:49

So um I did start my career in Bell Labs. Um, I was uh responsible for developing the standards and testing the technology at the time. So for years, I uh developed um the skill set and understanding of the scientific side of all electronics we have today, including wireless, believe it or not. One of the things I was always worried about is the communications interference with other communicating products, and that is electromagnetic uh interference, is what it's called. Um fast forward to about 15, 18 years ago, um my sons, who were adult men at the time, had their laptops on their lap. And my wife, a sociologist, said get them off your lap. That can't be good for you. And I said, the power levels of this stuff is too low. There's no way there's any influence to the human body because of the uh power levels at that level. But out of curiosity, we all looked around at each other and said, Well, let's look around at the science and see if there's any scientific evidence that there may be impacts. And back then, even it was known that after about three or four hours, the mobility of the sperm, male sperm, is was reduced up to 25%. I was in the industry developing the standards in the industry, and I didn't know that. So it always sort of dawned on me that the scientific communities, the the technology side of telecommunications, and the scientific community related to the human body, they weren't communicating because neither one of us knew about the problems of the other. And so we began thinking about maybe we should do something about it. I was a mechanical engineer by trade. And we developed some standard uh products that a product that shielded the device. And that started my journey of um becoming the expert, both the bridge to the scientific community in the the in the in the uh as it related to the health of the human body and as it related to the evolution of technology that we see today, including 5 and 6G.

EMF 101 And The Spectrum

SPEAKER_04 5:14

Yeah, I want to I want to get into those and and but before we do, as a as a deep expert in electromagnetic frequencies and also their health effects, let's step back and let's let's go through EMF 101 with our audience. Kind of basically, you know, for listeners who'd never heard the term breakdown, what exactly is an electromagnetic field? Are we talking radiation, energy waves? Uh, how is it different from ultrasound, sound waves?

SPEAKER_02 5:44

Uh uh great question. So I'll tell it by story. When I was in Bell Labs, there was a mainframe that was uh 50 feet away from me, and it had enormous electromagnetic radiation emitting from the electronics, but it was 50 feet away. It wasn't in my in my office, it wasn't in my room. You take that same capacity of that mainframe back then, it's now in a cell phone and it's in your pocket. So all of a sudden, things began evolving where things got closer and closer. They've always existed. When you had um when you listen to your radio, you're listening to electromagnetic radiation transmissions from an AM antenna that's 50 50 miles away. Um but your your your your your um radio didn't transmit it, it just received it. Um uh but today we have a cell phone that transmits to a cell tower. And so there's two forms of electromagnetic radiation. The first is the power we use in our house, the AC alternating current, when that runs through your wiring in your house, and there's power running through it to keep it the light bulb on, electromagnetic electromagnetic radiation, ELF, extremely low frequency electromagnetic, is being emitted out of the walls, literally, of your house. Um, and then up a bit higher than that is the RF or radio frequency signal or or also the microwave signal. When you cook something in a microwave, you're cooking at around 2.3 to 2.4 gigahertz, which is a RF microwave signal. So those are different than the X-ray, because you're going from non-ionized radiation to ionized radiation. So the general understanding uh of the public has been that the X-ray can hurt you, and the way the X-ray hurts you is by taking and knocking out the electron, rotating around the the nucleus of the of the uh of the uh cell, and uh it puts it into a positive state, thus they call it ionized radiation. It ionizes the uh the the uh cell. Non-ionizing radiation is different because the power levels are not the same, but through lots and lots of years of experience, we've learned that that non-ionizing radiation actually can take a toll on the human body as well. So it's not just ionized that takes the toll, it's non-ionizing as well, and the mechanics are different. So that's a whole general, and now I'll describe a little bit more about when you have a transmission.

SPEAKER_04 9:07

Let me let me uh let me stop you there. Just hesitate one second and reframe just what you said and summarize, let people get caught up. So um, if I understood you correctly, there's a there's uh this electromagnetic spectrum, which is kind of like you put it on a graph, and it and if you graph frequency on that spectrum and and energy levels, you'll have like high energy radiation at one end, low energy radiation at the other end, and and in the middle is actually visible light, which we which I know we're gonna get to that. Oh, okay. You're gonna talk about that. Okay, so we see we see that, uh, I guess. And then um, but it but it's all radiation. So just the fact that you we use the word radiation, that does in itself doesn't mean it's bad, because visible light is radiation, right? But but science agrees there's there's no question that ionizing radiation, in other words, the kind of radiation that uses X-rays, that X-rays use, like you mentioned, is harmful. And there are all sorts of precautions, and you know, radiologists uh they wear lead vests and you know radiation meters, and when astronauts go into space, they you know they worry about ionizing radiation. But what we're gonna talk about now is non-ionizing radiation, which you know you you you'll be going into, but things like radio waves and microwaves, which which don't ionize things necessarily and and break chemical bonds and uh cause the DNA problems that ionizing radiation does. But they but what we're gonna what we're gonna talk about and focus on is possibly a whole nother set of problems that to a large part is missed by the scientific community or certainly underestimated, correct? Did I did I kind of frame that together?

SPEAKER_02 10:59

It's fairly close, but it does damage DNA. Okay, good. All right, cells. Yeah. Um there's mechanical breakdowns of a cell with calcium penetrations of the cell. So there's there's there's a different set of breakdowns with uh non-ionized than there is with ionized. But you're you're right. Um the his the historically people think of ionized as the danger and non-onized not. It's just a different breakdown of the cell. Uh but they both break down the cell.

SPEAKER_04 11:32

So so we'll we'll we'll put ionizing aside because everybody agrees they're harmful and there are precautions in place. Um, and that's a whole nother discussion. And visible light is, you know, a whole nother discussion, you know, whether it's blue versus red light, and you know well, actually, we'll talk about that as well.

SPEAKER_02 11:52

Will we? Okay.

SPEAKER_04 11:53

Yeah.

4G 5G 6G And Unknowns

SPEAKER_02 11:53

Because blue light is a powerful enough energy level to damage the the um the um the the the eye, uh the the uh back of the eye. It uh impacts the cryptochrome protein. It there's a lot of things that it does to the back of the eye that you wear blue light glasses for. That's why you use them. You're filtering out the blue light of that spectrum.

SPEAKER_04 12:21

Yeah, all right. So we'll be focusing on visible light and then then the other non-ionizing end of the spectrum, which is radio waves, microwaves, and very high frequency uh uh radiation in there, right? So, okay, so sorry, sorry for the interruption. No, it's good. Please proceed.

SPEAKER_02 12:44

So, I mean, as you you were asking, summarizing the the spectrum, it's it's broad, it goes from 60 gig uh hertz up to terahertz spaces, which is which is the x-ray space. And we're gonna concentrate a bit on the lower end, the extremely low frequency, which is the lowest on the uh the left side of the spectrum, and the RF microwave space. Uh that's where the typical telecommunications occurs, and that's the typically the exposures uh that potentially have danger to the human body.

SPEAKER_04 13:23

Great. Yeah, yeah. So so uh we'll be on the the lower lower end lower energy end um and lower frequency end, correct?

SPEAKER_02 13:35

Correct, except when you start getting up to the 6G level. Right. The energy can change independently of the Yeah, as it turns out that X-rays in the terahertz space, um 6G is up to two terahertz. So all of a sudden you're getting extremely, extremely high speeds that never been um in in in our in our environment. Our ambient will not typically have that kind of uh energy at frequency rates at that levels. So yeah, it was talk a little bit about that too.

SPEAKER_04 14:09

Okay, yeah, great. I was always interested. It was interesting in medical school, they talk about um using light to image things, whether with x-rays or visible light, and literally the wavelength of the light um is related to the resolution, the spatial resolution of the imaging system look looking at it. And that's why that's why light microscopes have a finite limit of resolution because the wavelength of light limits it. But if you want to increase the resolution, you go from light microscopy to electron microscopy, where it has a much smaller wavelength, and you can now see particles and resolve things spatially that you can't with light microscopy, and you can get smaller and smaller and smaller. Right. And that was, and everybody understood that. Everybody, it was physics, you know, 101, everybody knew that. And then and then in the 1980s, magnetic resonance imaging comes along, right? It's you know, the MR scanners that we're all familiar with, and they use they use magnets, but their wavelength, their their great advantage, unlike X-rays and C T scans, is they don't use ionizing radiation. Yeah, exactly. But they use low, they use uh the low energy radiation like the radio wave range, and in fact, the wavelength of a of these waves turn out to be you know 12 feet or so, or meet you know, meters, and suddenly people are going, well, how can you resolve anything spatially with a you know 12 meter, 18 meter wavelength if wavelength is the way that we resolve things with electromagnetic radiation? And of course, the the the the short answer is because we don't use wavelength with MR, we use resonance and spins and other things, which is another conversation we'll talk about exactly. Exactly. But please please continue. So so now talking about visible light and then and then the wavelengths of radio waves and and microwaves.

SPEAKER_02 16:20

Yeah, and then actually from the uh as we mentioned, the the microwave oven is around 2.3 gigahertz uh gigahertz. Let me explain the gigahertz first, though. When you talk about the very low end, it's the AC alternating current in a house, it's at 60 cycles, 60 hertz. That's 60 cycles per second that passes from one point to the next. When you get into the microwave space or the um RF radio frequency space, you're talking about roughly a billion cycles per second. A billion cycles passing in one second at a power level that's different than what the power level would be at 60 Hertz. So all of a sudden you have all of this change in the evolution of the communications that we have with uh microwaves, and they have their own class of problems that we may or may not understand. When you talk about um the current up to 4G generation of technologies that are existing, you're talking about up to roughly about 10 gigahertz. When you start talking about fifth generation, it goes up to 300 gigahertz, 300 billion cycles per second. And that's where we don't understand very much about that speed at that rate, at that amplitude, because it doesn't exist in the environment that we live in, and it's an introduction of things that changes. I'll give you an example. When you talk about RF signals, we know that the the the uh brain barrier, the uh um blood brain barrier that's in the brain is depressed, suppressed when you have an RF signal going through your head. So when you take and it becomes higher, we have very little experience on what it does. We know it does the gut, the microbiome of the stomach loves RF. And we know that for sure. And typically people who are electro-hypersensitive have higher levels of def C as a result of that exposure, typically. And so it turns out that when you start talking about fifth generation technologies, you're talking about up to 300 gigahertz. And I've seen some studies that show it 20 gigahertz, it's the same effect as one gigahertz, is that it increases the uh bad bacterium growth within the microbiome. And uh there's so much concern about what fifth generation and sixth generation technology is doing. We don't really know. We we just don't have any research that shows us.

SPEAKER_04 19:29

And and when you when you say 4G and 5G, just for the audience, those refer to the uh cell phone uh technology levels that we we hear uh knocked around.

SPEAKER_02 19:42

Like you could you can remember when you first got a cell phone, first cell phone came on, you picked it up and answered it and you talked to someone, and then it began evolving beyond that, where you could pass data across, you could text each other, and all of a sudden you're doing all your communications. All those evolutions occurred up to 4G. With 5G, by and large, the the changes is ultimately the rates that are being applied to transmit those functionalities of our cell phones.

SPEAKER_04 20:14

Yeah. And so in in in science surfing circles, well, we're talking about the biological impact of these of these non-ionizing EMFs, the the 4G phones, the 5G phones, and other other stuff out there. So, what are some examples of what the data says about how these fields interact with cells and tissues and harmful effects?

SPEAKER_02 20:36

So we have some science that talks about uh DNA damaged cells, uh mutated cells, and it occurs because of uh calcium penetration of the cell. Uh, Dr. Um Powell has been leading that scientific study for uh for the uh many years. Um and that's one form of impact. There's actually a breakdown of the cell in some form. I'm not as much concerned about that, or we should not be as much concerned about that, because it's a very low probability event that you're gonna find a direct correlation to a cancer experience or some uh DNA damaged cell. It's more likely you're gonna have neurological, physiological uh impacts. Eyes can hurt, you're you you there's stress and uh burning sensations uh that occur. You have allergy-like symptoms, those are typically uh related to electromagnetic radiation exposures and is referred to as electro hypersensitivity. And when you talk about electric hypersensitivity, you talk about the evolution of that over the last 10 years. When we began looking at this research, we found that as much as up to 20% of the Population would have some form of response to their the exposures. So they were electric hypersensitive. They would walk next to a router and they could feel it in some way. They would know that they were close to something they shouldn't be. And so that was where it was 10, 15 years ago. Today, well, I've seen studies that show it up to 50%. In other words, you're getting a headache, you're getting nauseous, you're getting as you get closer. And for some people it's very severe. To the extent that severity can be you can be um debilitated to the point where you can't walk. We've actually seen clinics that had cases in which very, very high levels of exposure occurred. And um when they isolated the environment that the patient lived in, they found very high levels of exposure that were really debilitating the human body. It's not just in uh infertility, uh it's not behavioral issues. It can get more extreme with certain people that predisposed to that, um, the to the uh those problems.

SPEAKER_04 23:16

Can we make certain can are there can we are there generalizations possible? In other words, are there specific frequencies like 5G, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth that we should worry about more? Or is it the energy levels, which is another variable, or is it the cumulative exposure across the board of a lifetime or a period of time?

SPEAKER_02 23:36

It's all the above. And let me explain. Um, it turns out that when you're a heavy user, you're using it more than an hour or two a day, a cell phone, for example, um, and and um you use it for 10 years, you're three more times likely to get frontal lobe cancer as a result. Um if you're using it a couple of minutes a day, it will never likely impact your human body. So the amount of time you use technology around you does impact the potential likelihood of problems with the cell. Um the more you use it, the worse it gets.

SPEAKER_04 24:20

Um, well, and then so instead of using the phone, now I'm using Bluetooth, you know, or Wi-Fi. That's that's a whole nother issue, right?

SPEAKER_02 24:30

I mean, uh So you you would understand this. Uh uh, I was I was um watching a um an a video um from a researcher talking about the impact to the frontal lobe cell. And they were talking about what was the power level that it took to influence that cell. A cell phone is 1.6 watts per kilogram. It's it's a power level of of this amount. Um a they found in their research that 15 times less a power level, dot one watts, was sufficient to uh influence the cell of a frontal lobe. So the question is what's the power levels that what what what is the concern about the power level? We don't really know. There's not enough breakdown of the power levels in testing to know what that actually is. So for me, it's avoid any exposure if you can, because we don't know what power levels nor durations will actually influence the breakdown of the cell. And science really does not know much. And these these researchers, they're up to, as I said, 10 gigahertz. That's only been the only dominant typically it's actually about one gigahertz. You'll you but your router is 2.4, 4.8, 9.6. So you have up to 10 gigahertz within your normal environment today, but nothing much more than that. So everything I've spoken about is about that space, not the 5G space, which is also in that space, but also go beyond that space up to 300 gigahertz, as I said.

Evidence Limits And Industry Debate

SPEAKER_04 26:21

So the concern is we realize these EMFs have biological effects, things like stress affecting the gut, affecting the brain and all. And then the concern is we're going to higher and higher levels in the environment for all sorts of reasons. So we expect that the the health dangers are going to increase even more. Why is there why isn't this embraced more with the health community? In other words, um uh, you know, people are critical of the brain tumor studies and they you know they push back on that and they push back on other things. Why, why is the scientific community not more behind this? Is this like uh are cell phone makers uh, you know, is it lobbying like big pharma, you know, or what what do you think is going on here? I mean, everybody just wants the truth at some level, but why why aren't people shouting this from the hills? And what what kind of pushback do you get?

SPEAKER_02 27:24

Well, that's a multidimensional problem, if you just asked me, but I'll try to explain it. It's like there was a recent study, um, actually two Ramazani Institute, and there was another for the National Toxicity Program, what's epidemiology studies, and you'll appreciate this. They had very large populations that were in the study, and they found that there was direct correlation between exposure and um tumor. So that was clear evidence, statistically sound study, but it was with animals. And so, what's the correlation to the human cell? Um, that's been a debate in science for many, many, many years. So the debate for the trillion-dollar industry is that there's no correlation, but science says otherwise. That's between me and science.

SPEAKER_04 28:22

Yeah, definitely the the correlation is there. And I guess you know, the the problem with correlation is it's correlation, not causation. In other words, uh shark attacks are positively correlated with ice cream sales, but they're not causal, they have a common cause in warm weather or something. So um the fact that that EMF is correlated with brain tumors is very concerning, but it doesn't necessarily mean there may be a third uh underlying factor. Have there been controlled prospective, you know, randomized studies that would then show causality with this? What's the evidence uh on that side, either in animals or in humans?

SPEAKER_02 29:09

And uh and animals, as I said, the Ramazani and the NTP were clearly well-structured studies that showed um the correlations and some level of evidence to um to uh causal effect. Um so but when it comes to humans, they're very, very finite. Um why? Because you're not gonna kill off a large group of people just to prove a point about uh correlation, right? But Yale five years ago showed if there was um uh fluoride, 2.4 gigahertz RF signal, and you had a mutated uh generational um cell, you were three times more likely to have uh cancer of the uh pineal gland as a result of that exposure. But it was a limited population that they looked at. There was only a couple dozen people that they actually uh made the study on. So in in the scientific world, that's not enough to make a statement about that uh finding because it's just not statistically significant. And that's sort of the problem we have. So what happens in this EMF side is they look at uh metadata, they look at looking at many studies that draw conclusions in a space, and they try to summarize that space. And and many of the metadata studies seem to indicate that there are uh cause uh two exposures that they should be concerned about.

SPEAKER_04 31:00

Um you mentioned um uh stress that the EMF causes stress on the cells and other effects on the brain cells. Is there a common mechanism for damage from ENF, EMF that's hypothesized, or is it different for different cell types, like it, you know, it does one thing to brain cells, it does another thing to gut cells, et cetera, et cetera, or or is there one underlying mechanism that we can look at sort of like ionizing radiation with x-rays and stuff?

Cell Danger Response And Stressor Model

SPEAKER_02 31:31

Actually, I don't think there's any attempt to take look at the differences, different types of cells to look at the different impacts. The closest I I've seen in study work that makes some sense is Dr. Navio. I don't know if you know about his work. Uh he talks about cell danger response. And he talks about the impact of the cell under a stressor. So actually, turns out that one of the subjects I want to talk a time a bit about is that exposure is a stressor to the human body. And even though you don't feel like it, you're hurting there, your cell is responding to an external stressor. And that stressor is impacting that cell and its communications and how it and how it functions and disrupts that function. And if you know Navio, he talks about the stages of recovery from that function. Uh and and that is happening more likely, more often than you think. And I love Navio's conversation because he really talks about the mechanics of the breakdown and the mechanics of the repair. One of which is removing the stressor.

SPEAKER_04 32:47

Yeah, uh I want to dive into that a little bit. But before we do, maybe just a simple question. What would you say to a uh a naive, a naive person who just comes up and asks you, will my cell phone kill me?

SPEAKER_02 33:04

I use a precautionary measure. So my I'm always conservatively suggesting what you may want to do. Minimize exposures, uh, minimize time domains and the and the use of the technologies. There's lots of things you can do to avoid um potential dangers to the cell. Um, just common knowledge stuff you can do. And with someone with a cell, I would say there's less than a half a percent, probably even less than that, that is going to have a serious impact of a cell phone in your in your hand impacting the frontal lobe cells. However, studies show that over the last 20 years, I saw research on the brain actually, and it turned out they say that the average impact of cancers to the brain have been the same over that 20-year period. But it also turns out that it was the average, not the individual parts of the brain. And when you look at the study uh research, you'll see the frontal lobe has grown 2% per year, compounding every year as a result of that. Can you say it's from a cell phone? No. But is it possible? The answer is yes.

Practical Steps To Reduce Exposure

SPEAKER_04 34:26

Well, from a from a preventative standpoint, like if someone wanted to treat EMF exposure like a like a modifiable risk factor, what's the lowest hanging fruit?

SPEAKER_02 34:38

Um the the likeliest lowest hanging fruit is the cell phone to the head. Uh it's because of proximity. The standards were created, and I mentioned it before, 1.6 watts per kilogram was created 30 years ago. It was based on six-foot males in the army, and it talked about penetration of a 1.6 watts through a male head, and they only concerned themselves with heat. What's the thermal impact of that to the brain or to the head? And 1.6 watts represented a penetration of one to two inches into the head with an increased thermal of one to two degrees. So that's where the standard evolved 30-something years ago. Well, it turned out you didn't have a phone or cell phone 30 years ago. I didn't have one. And if you did, you didn't have anybody to call, so you weren't on it very often today. It represents that standard, represents about 3% of the population. Because mom had it, her daughter has it, the grandchild has it. Everyone is using the phone so intimately part of our lives that almost the standard is outdated because it only worried about the thermal, and everything we've been talking about is the biological impacts. And so, um, in fact, Kennedy uh junior um three three or four years ago actually brought the FCC to court. And they they won in court because the FCC did not do their fiduciary obligation of uh researching current research about the subject. Um, and so we probably have outdated standards uh for the uses, and it was typically one inch away from your head when they created the standards. And when was the last time you used your phone one inch away? Most people don't.

SPEAKER_04 36:53

Well, based on that, then do you think there's a case for maybe like personalized exposure limits based on age, genetics, health status? How would you figure that out? And do you think that would ever happen?

SPEAKER_02 37:05

But it turns out that I think, and science hasn't proved it, I think we have predisposition. Some of us will never be worried about it, some will be based on biological uh composition. So I think there's not enough science to be able to say with accuracy what are the things you can do. Um, so it's a general rule that we talk about that makes most sense.

Shielding Products And Soft Tissue Risk

SPEAKER_04 37:36

And and so, in in a basic level, obviously, would be to avoid avoid the source of radiation, but in today's world it's harder and harder. But we could, you know, don't sleep with your cell phone on your nightstand, uh, you know, and some things like that. But I want to I want to talk a little bit in our remaining minutes, uh your you have a company, Defender Shield, that actually makes products that will shield EMF. So even if I'm in a even if I'm in the real world where you know it's all over, how would I use what are what are some of these products and what what it how do they work to shield EMF?

SPEAKER_02 38:16

So when we were talking about what is EMF, uh one of the things we didn't talk about is uh a cell phone when they transmit to talk to a cell tower, it's omnidirectional. It goes in all directions. And it goes for several miles when you use a cell phone. You can't stop all of that and and continue to communicate. So you stop what is most important to stop, and that's the signal passing through to the human body. So, in general, everything you worry about is preventing a signal from passing through to the human body. So we have shielding devices on all of our personal devices that we sell that shields that direction. It allows the uh signal to go to the cell tower, but doesn't allow it to go into your human body. And that's for all the types of products we have.

SPEAKER_04 39:18

Huh. So so mainly for the cell phone, that's the that's the the device that everybody has. And that would be the that would be where you'd start if you wanted to do that. Get a cell phone uh.

SPEAKER_02 39:32

Oh, I I would say, yeah, absolutely. But also remember, in general, the most susceptible cells of the human body are in soft tissue. The the frontal lobe is soft tissue, the groin area is soft tissue. So um, you know, there's some argument about um the impact of a cell to an exposure from a cell phone in your back pocket. If you're a child of 12 years old and you have a frontal and you have a cell phone in your back pocket, um Dr. Powell would suggest that there could be a mutated cell in the womb, the egg of the womb. And that would become more apparent as the as the child ages and have children. In fact, he shows examples of that. Um, so the other part is not just the head, but it's also the womb itself. You got to be careful at the soft tissue being exposed.

Future Protection Research Funding And Resources

SPEAKER_04 40:33

So so looking forward, we're seeing increasing power levels, we're seeing increasing sources, we're going 4G, 5G, 6G, on and on and on. The EMF is increasing. So, what innovations or or research do you see looking forward in EMF protection and health that you're most excited about in the next, you know, next three to five years? What can we look forward to?

SPEAKER_02 40:59

Well, Robert, one of the things that I I was in Bell Labs and I was in the research side of Bell Labs for so many years. I appreciated the value of evolving the technologies. And in our case with Defender Shield, for example, we knew several years ago that all the current technologies we were using could not shield a 20 gigahertz signal, could not shield a 300 gigahertz signal. Right now, today, we've been working with laboratories and actually military laboratories because they're the only ones that really have this challenge right now. And we're up to a hundred and 110 gigahertz in testing and have shielding that shield up to 110 gigahertz. So anything out in the marketplace we can shield. So I'm I'm very excited about that because that's where technology is going, and we're in place to actually attempt to protect this the human body from those exposures.

SPEAKER_04 42:08

If if money were no object, um, what's one experiment you'd love the the scientific community to run that would that would forever change the conversation around EMFs, if you could think of one?

SPEAKER_02 42:23

Um that's sort of the problem, is that there's been no research money in the EMF space for for 15 years. Um, and we lost our scientific knowledge base based on research, unless it was done privately, which is the universities. And and um we haven't opened up enough money available to do enough scientific research that would bring these questions we have. The this conflict in the marketplace is it a problem or is it not a problem? And get better foundation to moving forward with knowledge. And uh that means study work that's large enough and funded enough that brings substantive understanding. I mean, I I was looking at a research today from uh a country, I'm not gonna say who it is, and they looked at metadata that looked at metadata. And as if you've ever been involved with uh research and metadata, there's data that's thrown out, there's data that's been compromised within a study, and that's basically all we've had access to is metadata on metadata. And that's not a good foundation for understanding uh the scientific impacts. But this is traditionally a problem where anytime you introduce uh Trans fats. Trans fats were banned in Europe 10 years ago. It was only five years ago that we we did. Why? We had it 30 years in our environment, but there was one lowly biochemist who said it was a problem 30 years ago, and it took them 20 years to convince the government that that was the case. And it's just not enough research in the study work. That's all it was.

SPEAKER_04 44:25

Yeah, I mean, you say the same thing about glyphosates and things, too.

SPEAKER_02 44:30

All the same stuff. Yeah.

SPEAKER_04 44:35

Yeah. Well, for we've covered a lot of complex uh concepts here, and I want to shout out to our audience for staying with us. We've covered some some deep, challenging material. So maybe for people, people who want to dig even deeper after this episode, what's a what are some good places for them to start? Like books, courses, data sets. Obviously, your book, Radiation Nation, is is a great, a great place. What else, what else would you recommend?

SPEAKER_02 45:03

I would suggest you go to Safer EMR. Uh Dr. Joel Muskowitz has been um documenting current research in real time for the last several years. So you can see unbiased views of what science is saying simply by going to, say, for EMR. And then you may know about Deborah Davis. Dr. Deborah Davis has been doing work for years, um, government work as well as her own um her own environmental health trust work. And she uh has similar content where she tracks in um environmental health trust's website. And if you're looking for up-to-date information, she can provide that for you. And then, of course, I don't know if you're familiar with um the bioinitiative. Uh, that was um Ollie, Dr. Ollie Johansson and Dr. Carpenter, uh Sidney Sage, and they've been doing this for the last 10 years, where they're actually looking at the science and um bringing structure to that science so people can understand. The problem historically has been no one knew what was the problem. And now today uh we're getting to know it, and that's the sources you would want to go to.

Final Advice Subscribe Review Disclaimer

SPEAKER_04 46:34

Well, we've covered a lot of material, and as as we sort of wrap up in the final question, is there anything you'd like, anything we haven't covered or any final comments you'd like to make today? I do have a comment.

SPEAKER_02 46:47

You know, in the in the in this environment, um as in any environment that we live in, you you you you're the architect of that, your own destiny in this space. And so if you're hoping that the government's going to protect you, or that um there's gonna be a standard that ensures your safety, that's not necessarily true. And as the architect of your own, you really need to understand the environment you're in, your ambient environment, your house environment. Um, should you worry about all these exposures coming from everywhere in the world? No, because you can't control a lot of it. But you do control your house. So if you want to start somewhere, try to minimize the wireless communications within the home, use wire communications in the home. You take the actions to try to minimize the exposure. In fact, I I talk about it as bees in the room. Um, one bee uh won't kill you, a thousand will. And the more you use cell phones that have three to four transmitters in it, and other devices doing the same, there's an accumulation that's occurring in your environment, and that could be harmful.

SPEAKER_04 48:04

Well, thank you very much, Daniel, for this conversation. This is this has been fascinating. And like like we were saying offline beforehand, uh next, we want to have you back and and talk more about this. Maybe next time we'll have you join us in LA for our new studio, face to face. I would love to do this uh I would love to that way. But uh thanks again. This is this has been great. Thanks for for what you're doing and sharing your knowledge with us today. Thanks so much for inviting me. Thank you very much. If you are enjoying this program, please hit that subscribe button or even better, leave a review. Your support makes it possible for us to create the quality programming that we're continually striving for.

SPEAKER_01 48:49

Can I start?

SPEAKER_04 48:51

It's already recorded.

SPEAKER_01 48:52

I'm sorry. This is for general information and educational purposes only, and it's not intended to prostitute or substitute for medical advice or counseling. The practice of medicine or the provision of healthcare diagnostics or treatment, or the creation of a specific patient or a clinical relationship. The use of this information is of their own users' risk. If you find this to be on the value, please hit that like button to subscribe to support the work that we do on this channel. And we take the your suggestions and advice very seriously, so please let us know what you'd like to see on this channel. You should say that.

SPEAKER_03 49:41

That's good. That's very good. Do you like it? Do you want to do it one more time or say good? I think that was good.