56. Health Harms of 5G Telecommunication Technology & non-native EMFs with Tristan Scott

Fifth generation (5G) telecommunications technology is now everywhere, but what are the effects on human health? This is a question I explore with electrical engineer and EMF expert Tristan Scott. 

We cover the difference between 5G and previous bands, the science behind radiofrequency (RF) impacts on biology, how non-native electromagnetic fields (nnEMF) affect the mitochondria, practical steps to mitigate health harms, and much more.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Join my private MEMBERS Q&A Group (USD20/month) to discuss this podcast with me
✅ https://www.skool.com/dr-maxs-circadian-reset

LEARN how to optimise your Circadian Rhythm
✅ Dr Max's Optimal Circadian Health course 🌞
https://drmaxgulhane.com/collections/courses

SUPPORT the Regenerative Health Podcast by purchasing though these affiliate links:

Bon Charge. Blue blockers, EMF laptop pads, circadian friendly lighting, and more.
Code DRMAX for 15% off. https://boncharge.com/?rfsn=7170569.687e6d

Midwest Red Light Therapy for blue light glasses and lights.
Code DRMAX for 10% off. https://midwestredlighttherapy.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------
TIMESTAMPS

00:03:42 The Electromagnetic Spectrum and Natural Exposure
00:09:51 Understanding Non-Native EMFs and the Different Types
00:18:38 Introduction to 5G and its Infrastructure
00:25:29 Beamforming and the Directionality of 5G Waves
00:43:43 The Overwhelming Evidence of Harmful Effects
00:52:04 The NTP Study and the Ramazzini Study
00:54:30 Evidence of Harmful Effects on Pregnancy
00:58:27 Lack of Warning Labels and Education
00:59:26 Absence of Evidence vs. Evidence of Absence
01:00:50 Transgenerational Effects and Precautionary Principle
01:04:55 Cell Oscillation and Water Disruption
01:11:54 Cumulative Effects of Mitochondrial Toxins
01:12:38 Effects of EMFs on Voltage-Gated Calcium Channels
01:15:06 Practical Steps to Mitigate 5G

FOLLOW TRISTAN
EMF Courses: https://decentralizedhealth.io/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/bitcoinand_beef
IG: https://www.instagram.com/tristan_health/ 
Tristan’s EMF Consulting service: https://tristanhealth.com/
Decentralizd Radio: https://www.youtube.com/@decentralizedradio

Follow DR MAX
Website: https://drmaxgulhane.com/
Private Group: https://www.skool.com/dr-maxs-circadian-reset
Courses: https://drmaxgulhane.com/collections/courses
Twitter: https://twitter.com/MaxGulhaneMD
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/dr_max_gulhane/
Apple Podcasts:  https://podcasts.apple.com/podcast/id1661751206
Spotify:  https://open.spotify.com/show/6edRmG3IFafTYnwQiJjhwR
Linktree: https://linktr.ee/maxgulhanemd

DISCLAIMER: The content in this podcast is purely for informational purposes and is not a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something YouTube channel.

Secure your REGENERATE Albury Tickets
Livestream - https://www.regenerateaus.com/products/livestream-ticket-regenerate-albury
Golden Ticket  - https://www.regenerateaus.com/

Wolki Farm pastured beef & lamb code DRMAX for 10% off - https://wolkifarm.com.au/DRMAX

Circadian Reset Course -  https://www.drmaxgulhane.com/offers/UTPDSGUV/checkout

Bon Charge blue blockers & bulbs - https://boncharge.com/?rfsn=7170569.687e6d

Transcript

Speaker 1: 4:19

Okay, welcome back to the regenerative health podcast. I'm sitting down again with Tristan Scott, who is an electrical engineer and EMF expert. He has extensively researched the effects that non-native electromagnetic fields are having on human biology and really fitting that into a health optimizing paradigm. Tristan, thanks for coming back on the show.

Speaker 2: 4:45

Yeah, thanks for having Max, Great to be back and excited to talk about this topic again in more depth.

Speaker 1: 4:52

There is so much to go in terms of EMF, but I really want to address the topic of 5G. This is an area that has been the domain of, might I say, quacks, more fringe and health areas, but the relevance to human health is becoming more and more apparent to me, especially as I'm putting now more and more the mitochondria at the center of this kind of disease and sickness paradigm. I think that non-native EMF really makes more sense when we are prioritizing our mitochondria as the determinant of sickness and disease. Maybe, to start the interview often and this is some topics that you covered really well in your EMF 101 course, and I'll put the links to that in the show notes afterwards Maybe we can start the discussion before we even talk about 5G, about what is the electromagnetic spectrum that we as humans evolved with and what we are expecting from an ancestral point of view.

Speaker 2: 6:04

Yeah, that's a great way to start and I think that's important context for talking about modern EMFs that are non-native origin. The electromagnetic spectrum is vast and this is basically anything that we would consider light, both non-visible and visible light. And visible light to humans is like a tiny fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum, but it's all comprised of a photonic energy. These waves have both an electric field component and a magnetic field component, and the difference between any area on the spectrum is the frequency that it's oscillating at and the wavelength of that wave. And what we would be exposed to naturally is predominantly what's coming from sunlight that's reaching the Earth's surface, so that's going to be visible light, the full rainbow, from violet to red light, and then above and below that, in terms of energy levels as well, where we get UV radiation UVA and UVB which makes it to the Earth's surface UVC does not really and then infrared light, so near-infrared, mid-infrared actually gets eaten up by the ionosphere a little bit and then we get some far infrared that passes through. So this is the predominant electromagnetic radiation that we're exposed to on a daily basis as humans. What our biology is really programmed, quote-unquote, to work with Like this is the stimulus, this is the energy from a photon perspective that we're designed for and it's quite vast but it's not nearly encompassing the entire electromagnetic spectrum and that has both a higher energy component to it and a lower energy component and lower frequency component to it. So above the visible and ultraviolet spectrum in terms of frequency and energy, is what we call ionizing radiation. So that includes ultraviolet, it includes x-rays, it includes gamma-rays and sometimes there is a very small, very low intensity amount of ionizing x-ray radiation, for example. That'll make it down to the Earth's surface for very small amounts. And again, we can be exposed to these things at a higher level on flights because we're going tens of thousands of feet above the Earth's surface and that's why you get a little bit higher exposure on transatlantic or trans-consonant flights and those are ionizing radiation. So they have enough energy from a photon perspective to knock an electron completely out of its orbital, making it ionized, so removing it from the atom completely, and this is dangerous for DNA damage and things like that. It's known to cause things like cancer and that's why we have to be careful with x-rays. And then gamma-rays are even higher energy photons above that, below that, below infrared is the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum you could say, and this is where most of our technology is operating at.

Speaker 2: 9:35

We have the radio frequency realm, we have the microwave frequency realm, which is pretty much within the radio frequency spectrum, it's just named different because different applications. And then we have kind of the lower frequency band, and the lower frequency band is also where we use our power electrical grid at 50 hertz internationally or 60 hertz in the US, and this is also where there's some native electromagnetic radiation that we're exposed to as well. So we have the infrared visible ultraviolet exposure from sunlight, and then we also have some exposure to low frequency magnetic fields and electric fields, naturally from the Earth. So the Earth has a magnetic field that is a result of the molten iron core. The moving charges in the iron core generate a magnetic field, so magnetic fields are generated from moving charged particles or current. And then there's also the Schumann's residence, which is a result of lightning strikes on the Earth, and this is also in the low frequency range, around 7.83 hertz for the first harmonic. So these are natural native electromagnetic radiation that we are exposed to, that we would have been exposed to for the existence of humanity and this is what you could say our biology is kind of tuned to work with.

Speaker 2: 11:13

Everything else is coming from our technology, coming from non-native sources, and one of the biggest differences, especially in the low frequency electromagnetic fields from the Earth that are natural, is the intensity.

Speaker 2: 11:29

The intensity is very, very, very small compared to, say, our electrical grid, what we're exposed to on a daily basis and this is stuff that I talk about quite often, and you could argue as well that there's a very, very tiny amount of radio frequencies that also pass through the atmospheric window, but again from, I think one quote I read online from a researcher said that if you put one cell phone on the moon, it would surpass all the radio frequency intensity that we would quote unquote naturally receive. So yeah, it's kind of the gauntlet of the vast electromagnetic spectrum. The argument that people make is that non-ionizing radiation is not harmful to our biology, it only has a quote unquote thermal effect and that we're exposed to far higher levels of EMFs from the sun, which is the second part of that is true we are from an energy perspective, the EMF from the sun is far higher than radio waves. It's far higher than power frequencies, but it is something our biology is programmed to use and has been for millions of years.

Speaker 1: 12:42

Yeah, great summary. And I think that there's very convenient ways of passing off or ignoring or minimizing the novelty of this environmental exposure, which is non-native electromagnetic fields. And I think that when we can obviously go in depth in the rest of the podcast about why that is the case but if something is tasteless, colorless, can't be seen, can't be felt well, can obviously felt viscerally, then it can be easy to pass it off as not being significant. But when we realize that the, not only the wavelengths that we're being exposed to, but also the intensity of the energy, is like nothing that any ancestral human had to deal with, then I think it's a very good way of framing this as an abnormal thing. So maybe talk about the, maybe a quick distinction between these three types of non-native EMFs, because 5G is obviously a radio frequency, but you mentioned briefly magnetic and electric. So just give a brief overview of those three before we dive into 5G.

Speaker 2: 14:10

Yeah, so any electromagnetic wave is going to have an electric field component and a magnetic field component and they're oscillating 90 degrees out of phase, or will they're in phase 90 degrees with each other? So the frequency is determining the amount of oscillation. So, for example, wi-fi is typically 2.4 gigahertz, which is 2.4 billion wave cycles or oscillations per second. So that electric magnetic field component is oscillating at that speed and a microwave works at a very similar frequency and that oscillation is how it's heating up your food, which is a great example to discuss on biological impacts is when you just look at a microwave. But for the most part when people measure EMFs with an EMF meter, they often see that there's an electric field component, there's a magnetic field component of the thing and they're separated. And then there's a radio frequency measurement as well. So radio frequencies are still comprised of the same exact components. They're still electromagnetic waves, they're just measured a bit differently. So the radio frequency is typically measured in a power density reading and that's taking both the magnetic and the electric field component into consideration. When you're measuring the electric field of a power outlet or transmission line, you're typically isolating on just the electric field component, which is measured in volts per meter and then the magnetic field component be measured separately in typically micro-tessalus or milligalus, which is a measure of magnetic flux density actually. So it's just kind of how things are measured. And the radio frequencies are kind of lower in intensity, so they take the power measurement of them to quantify them. So that's pretty much the difference and when you have an EMF meter that's how they're typically separated.

Speaker 2: 16:16

But it's important to understand that the electric field component is a measure of voltage over area, volts per meter. So voltage and electric fields are being created from charges that are just power, just voltage in general, potential charge, potential difference. So the best way to create an analogy for this is if you just have a lamp plugged into your outlet but it's not turned on, you will still have an electric field being generated from that because there's power to it. There would be no magnetic field generated from the lamp itself until it's turned on and current is flying, because magnetic fields are generated from moving charges and that's described by current. So the measurement of magnetic fields is taking that into account. And then, yeah, radio frequencies are measuring the power density. They're typically far weaker, so they're taking a power density component of it. They're far weaker in intensity in terms of a power perspective, but their photons are far higher energy than the low frequency power outlet electric and magnetic fields. So it's a bit of nuance there, but I think that's important for people to understand.

Speaker 1: 17:34

Yes, and I also want to make the point that blue light isolated blue light itself can be conceived of as a non-native EMF, because the light that you get from the LED in your kitchen as you're trying to maybe cook dinner and it is not blue light that is terrestrial, the form that you would get from terrestrial sunlight.

Speaker 1: 17:58

So this idea of non-native EMF spans this visible and non-visible spectrum and artificial blue light, wi-fi, radio frequency 5G, what we're about to talk about. They're all equally foreign to our biology. The next point I want to make is that the paradigm that we are existing in is important because To use an understanding to understand what's going on here, we need to be talking in a language that relates to biology, and before the field of quantum biology there wasn't I don't believe there was a coherent way of framework of understanding the health effects of non-native EMF. If you're at the level of biochemistry, if you're talking about merely hormones and hormonal action and biochemical reactions, yes, you can have a little bit of explanatory power, but I really feel like the quantum biology lens is what is actually needed to really truly understand these biological effects. Do you have any thoughts on that?

Speaker 2: 19:09

Yeah, I think well you could debate when quantum biology really started. But I mean 100% right, it's this overlap of disciplines from a biophysics perspective that's really needed to understand, because electrical engineers, physicists, they understand electromagnetism, they understand technology very well, but they don't understand anything about biology. So they can't really make the gap of knowledge that's needed, the jump, I should say, to use their knowledge on the technology, the EM side of things, and then apply that to how our body actually functions. And then the same goes for traditional people in the biology realm. They don't have the physics or engineering background to understand how this may have a detrimental effect on our biology. And I see that as one of the biggest gaps in the world right now and that's why I have taken, I guess you could say, a stance, and I want to help kind of communicate between these two worlds, and I'm no expert in biology or even the most knowledgeable person from an engineering or EMF perspective. There's PhD physicists and electrical engineers and then biologists who know way more than me, but almost none of them pretty much none of them, talk about or understand the relationship between the two, and you really have to look at some of the standout researchers from the past 50 years, like Robert O Becker and Gilbert Ling and Alan Frey and Emilio del Giudice and a lot of these people that are kind of like their anomalies, right, there's a handful of them in the past 50 years.

Speaker 2: 20:50

And then, if you want to dive really into the quantum side of things, well, it's also because quantum physics has, you know this, it's the black sheep of science, right, like it's this. It's this realm of science where we've made such little progress after a tremendous amount of initial progress, because it's so abstract, it's so mind bending that you know, we're kind of still like inching along in terms of our understanding. So it's, it's fascinating, but we need more people focusing on these disciplines and taking a holistic perspective across, you know, all of the areas of science to. You know, push, push it forward, but then simultaneously, I think a big reason for that as well is because of the centralized clause of science and academia that has really regulated where funding goes, and I talk about that quite a bit. So that's something you know a more decentralized lens or decentralized approach to science, health and everything will hopefully benefit going forward.

Speaker 1: 21:57

Yeah, and fundamentally, scientific breakthroughs occur when intelligent people straddle fields. They straddle fields of knowledge and scientific endeavor and they make connections that no one else has made. So I agree that the future is going to be more people using multiple disciplinary approaches in these fields, and I really do share your optimism that a decentralized approach is how we're going to get there. But I'm really insistent in the point that we're anchoring this conversation in physics and biophysics and quantum biology, because this is how we push back on this idea that these non-native EMFs are benign or not harmful for human health. So just don't want to emphasize that point. So let's talk about 5G and let's talk about what it is and how it's different to existing sources of radiofrequency pollution maybe, if you want to use that word and why it's so problematic.

Speaker 2: 23:05

Yeah for sure, 5g has been heavily discussed. I feel like it was very heavily discussed around the COVID inception and then it's kind of tapered off and it's actually been surprising just doing a lot of research in the past three to six months. There's not a lot of new information out there and that's because there's not a lot of people really studying this. There's not a lot of people talking about it anymore. But really, what 5G is? It's fifth generation wireless technology. So that's what the 5G stands for. It doesn't stand for the frequency being used Like. 5g does not mean 5 GHz, although there are some similarities there and we'll talk about that. And every generation we had 2G, we had 3G, we had 4G, now we have 5G.

Speaker 2: 23:53

The main difference between each generation and technology is really speed and latency improvements and that gives way to more, I guess, usability. From a technology perspective. 4g was big on streaming and hotspotting and now 5G is taking that to another level and potentially setting up the infrastructure for smart cities, smart homes, far more connected devices to the internet, potentially the bridge to autonomous vehicles. That might be more of a 6G thing, but it's basically pushing the next level of speed and latency and typically it's around a factor of 10 improvement from generation to generation at least. So we're talking about for 5G targeted peak speeds of 20 Gbps or 2.5 Gbps, and network latency is low as 1 ms, which is nothing, and it's really the name of the game.

Speaker 2: 25:03

But every time they have to do that, there's drastic differences in the infrastructure, the way they are engineering the radio frequency waves and the whole 9 yard. So that's where 5G really stands out is how they achieve these higher speeds and lower latency times to enable all of these new technologies and 4G coming from 3G. It wasn't like that crazy of a difference. I mean, they incorporated some things. So 5G is tremendously different from an infrastructure from a frequency and waveform perspective, and that's where a lot of the engineering and that's where a lot of the concern for our health comes in, because we're charting into newfound territories again, once again.

Speaker 1: 25:59

Yeah, and you specifically mentioned in the past this layering effect and how you think about the harm of 5G, which is the fact that we're simply layering this new technology on top of existing, pre-existing sources of radio frequency emission, which we already rely on in our daily life. So talk about how you conceive of that particularly.

Speaker 2: 26:28

Yeah, I mean every generation is really just building on top of the previous generation in terms of how it's structured. So just because we have 5G doesn't mean that 3G, 4g, infrastructure and any of that is going away. It's just kind of adding on top. And especially for 5G, it means it really, by definition, is a much more targeted approach. It's definitely not like the base layer of communication Actually, the base layers is probably going to stay very similar to 4G but then there's going to be hot spots and just entirely new engineering design, entirely new ways of communication that we can get into. That makes it so different. But yeah, it's just adding on top. So there's no subtraction in terms of our exposure, it's only addition.

Speaker 2: 27:24

And this is resulting in just an ever-increasing and up-and-to-the-right exposure that's probably going to be exponential for years to come. And this is my biggest concern is that we can talk a lot about environmental toxic exposures and, if you look across the board, we're actually making pretty significant headway in getting people aware of food that they eat. Exercise that's been covered, even sunlight People are more aware. But EMFs mostly even from a technology perspective, but also from a blue light perspective is just ever-increasing because our use of technology is so ubiquitous in society, and it's also happening at a younger and younger age, which is a major concern. So this, to me, is the biggest environmental toxin that has yet to be fully addressed, and it's probably never going to be, because it's propping up our entire fiat economy, and that's why I find it so necessary to talk about and educate about.

Speaker 1: 28:34

Yeah, it's the paradigm that we're existing in is not incentivized to talk about the harm of technology which, as you say, is propping up the function of society and the fact that telecommunications networks rely on quick transport of data. There's always going to be an ever pushing incentive to develop this faster and faster technology so you can walk down the street streaming, you know, 4k, 3d visual headset devices. It's going to be relentless and the as long as the incentive system doesn't account for human health impacts, then to me that it's going to again can just continue because there's no incentive to prioritize or consider human health. But before we talk about the human and the biological impacts of 5g, talk a little bit about this beam and the beam forming aspects of this technology, because I think that's relevant when we're talking about hot spots in terms of where you don't want to live with respect to 5g exposure.

Speaker 2: 29:48

Yeah, no, definitely, it's spot on and yeah, that's why it's so important what we do here. But yeah, why is 5g so different from a technology perspective? What? What makes it able to be so much faster? And it comes down to three things from the electromagnetic waves that are used, and then the infrastructure and and how they're using them. And that's the frequency of the waves, what you mentioned, the beam forming of the waves and then how they're setting up the antennas in what's called a massive multiple input, multiple output array. And the frequency is really important because that's what most people get, I guess, interested in, that's what most people are aware of and that's where we can dive into the biology, biological consequences of as well.

Speaker 2: 30:36

So 5g is a bit unique because it's using multiple different frequency bands as it pushes to use higher frequencies. So the goal is to use higher frequencies in the millimeter wave spectra of 20 to 50 gigahertz. So this would be the first time that we're ever using radio frequencies widespread for public telecommunications. In this frequency band it's, you know, 10x higher than where your Wi-Fi is that. So this is a pretty big deal. And why do they want to do that? Because higher frequency allows for higher data throughput. However, there's a trade off to be made with higher frequencies, which is actually a good thing for folks like us, because it actually makes 5g kind of easier to avoid, in my opinion. But there's a lot of trade off because of the higher frequency. There's terrible range because there's high free space loss due to atmospheric gas absorption from oxygen and water vapor, which we can talk about, you know, foliage blockage. There's precipitation, attenuation, diffraction scattering all across the board. Physical barriers, even buildings, can dissipate the 5g millimeter waves quite a bit. So really they need to be much more clever with the engineering in order to implement this. So that's why, first off, the millimeter waves probably only going to be used in cities. But even with all this being said, and that's why you see so many towers being installed, the repeater towers this is a hallmark of 5g. You maybe wonder why they installing so many towers everywhere, like literally every couple hundred meters, few hundred, like every couple city blocks, and that's because some of the signals they literally can't go further than that. So they need a constant tower, repeater tower, to keep the signal going. So that's the millimeter wave aspect.

Speaker 2: 32:41

We're talking again 20 to 50 gigahertz and that's called the high band frequency range for 5g. They have a mid band and then they also have a low band. So the low band frequency is kind of in the, you know, 800 megahertz to one one and a half gigahertz range, which is where actually most of our cellular communication is being used today for 4g or was being used for 4g. So this is kind of almost the same stuff. They're just calling it 5g and implementing a slightly different way of using that, but it's very similar to 4g. And then there's mid band, which is kind of this in between of like two to four gigahertz for cellular communication, and this is, I think, as of right now, the most heavily used, or at least by some of the carriers are trying to use mid band frequency more and more. And this is like the sweet spot between performance and, you know, range, I guess you could say. And that's kind of in that two, three, three and a half gigahertz range. Now again, we have used this frequency for things like Wi-Fi, bluetooth, microwaves are all at like 2.4, 2.5 gigahertz. So it's not entirely different. But again, you have to remember that cell phones are, you know, the largest source of RF radiation by far on a daily basis. They're much stronger than Wi-Fi. They're, you know, 100 times plus stronger than Bluetooth. You know your microwave oven, you know you think that often. So it's a big deal when it's a cell phone bumping up a frequency and thus energy level, and we know that we're pretty much inseparable from our cell phones. That's kind of the difference in the frequency, but again, there's a lot of these limitations in terms of the range, in terms of how far it can go.

Speaker 2: 34:37

So the engineers had to you know, they had to come up with a completely different way of implementing this, and what they're using is called beamforming. So 4G is a very omnidirectional wave. So the antenna is spitting out the 4G signal pretty much like 360 degrees all around, all the time. There's no specificity of it, it's just there. And 5G they can't really do that because it's not going to work as well. There's going to be a lot of signal interference, there's going to be a lot of range issues.

Speaker 2: 35:12

So they're using what's called beamforming, which is when they stack beams for precision and higher power and then they use a targeted wave that's very narrow in its diameter to the receiver. So your cell phone is the receiver, so if you have 5G on, you're making a call. That wave is basically just coming right at you, right at your cell phone, and if you're 50 feet away or something like that, you wouldn't be exposed to this 5G signal that if I'm standing 50 feet away from you, you make a call, I'm not being exposed to that unless I'm in the line of sight of the wave exactly. So that's kind of the difference and it overcomes some of the challenges with higher frequency waves because they can be made finer and more precise, increasing that frequency, but the result is they're far, far higher power because of that. And then the infrastructure that I mentioned earlier a massive multiple input, multiple output arrays is basically taking antenna arrays operating in identical conditions to create that very precise narrow beam which targets the end user directly and that also helps. It kind of works hand in hand with the beam forming to be able to use these higher frequencies.

Speaker 2: 36:43

And the massive or the multiple input, multiple output was used in 4G, but just not at the scale it's being used for 5G and this is kind of how they're going about doing it, and to me it's a blessing and a curse, because if you do live in a city and you're using 5G and everyone around you is using 5G, you're going to be in that path of the higher powered beam, that higher frequency wave. You're going to be exposed to that unavoidably. However, if you don't and you make a deliberate action to not have 5G on your phone, to live in the suburbs or in rural areas, you're pretty much not going to be exposed to 5G because if you don't let it in, it's not going to get into your house or to your phone or anything like that. So to me it really creates a completely different scenario for folks living in major cities and being in downtown areas, being in airports, being in entertainment venues, like large groups of people all on 5G all at the same time.

Speaker 2: 37:55

To me it's like a major, major increase in exposure compared to, you know, if you're just living in the suburbs and have a couple neighbors and most of you are using 4G and they're also never going to probably roll out millimeter waves in the middle of nowhere.

Speaker 2: 38:12

So that's kind of the difference and, yeah, just looking at what they want to do with smart cities and the fact that millimeter waves haven't even been rolled out yet, like really nobody's really using them. It's only been kind of like tests here still in 2024. It's actually been underwhelming, for I think the telecom companies Like, I think people are actually pretty disappointed in how much millimeter waves have been used, but it's almost giving folks more time to get out of the city and escape before it gets really bad. And then you can look into what's coming with things like 6G and just the infrastructure of autonomous vehicles, smart cities, smart homes, smart everything. I mean I just really there's no way I think living in a city after the next couple years will be a net positive for your health at all. It just won't even be possible.

Speaker 1: 39:14

It's an interesting concept to think that cities are going to be increasingly inhabitable from a health point of view, compared to, say, new York in the 1980s, compared to New York in 2026. It's going to be a different kettle of fish, based on the EMF environment, based on the density of these repeater towers and based on everything that we're talking about. So it's a concept that I don't think a lot of people are thinking about, which is, as technology advances, the degree to which your health could be impacted is also basically accelerating, and it needs to do more and more to mitigate or to avoid those impacts. A question about the device usage. With 5G, say, I have a phone that's 5G enabled. If I turn off the 5G functionality and decide to opt only for 4G communications, am I preventing that beam from essentially being invited into my apartment or home? Is that how it works?

Speaker 2: 40:22

From my understanding it should be. I don't see why not, because if you're turning off the 5G network, then, yeah, your phone is not acting as the receiver. So, again, it's hard to measure and they don't really even use the millimeter waves yet. But I do that. I've been doing that for I don't know a year and a half now before I even took a deep dive because I'm like might as well, and why do you? Don't even need these download speeds and pretty much the only time I'm even using cellular data is if I'm not at my home and I really need to go on the internet or something, if I'm traveling. But on a day-to-day basis I'm almost never using cellular data. So something I recommend everyone do Even if you just have Wi-Fi at your house, turn your phone on airplane mode and then only use the Wi-Fi. Why would you have both on? But definitely, yeah, turn the 5G off. I don't see why you would need it and especially given the targeted approach to the wave, I would, yeah, I definitely recommend keeping that off.

Speaker 1: 41:28

You made a point about the absorption of certain frequencies by oxygen in the atmosphere and in your podcast with Dr Jacuz which I invite everyone to have a listen to if you want to delve into the technicals even more than this podcast he mentioned that there is possibility that the absorption of these terrestrially generated non-native EMFs is being absorbed in the atmosphere and therefore affecting the basically the penetration of the solar radiation to the ground, implying that if you live in an area that has a massive density of EMF emissions say Los Angeles, california then it might even be possible that you're getting less ultraviolet yield in that area compared to somewhere without the same amount of EMF basically pollution in the area. Can you speak to that point?

Speaker 2: 42:32

Yeah, it's a really interesting hypothesis and I think it makes sense. Again, it's kind of all just like things we theorize. But I mentioned as well about the fundamental characteristics of 5G and why they are so challenging from an engineering perspective and it's because they're extremely high dissipation and absorption from atmospheric gases like oxygen and water vapor, and specifically at certain frequencies like 24 GHz for water vapor, 60 GHz for oxygen, and it goes up from there into the 150 GHz range and then you can approach the Terahertz range and it keeps increasing, which for 6G is even scarier as we continue to push that higher and higher. So it's a major deterrent for these technologies and why they have to use or why they had to engineer the beams the way they did. But yeah, I certainly think it's plausible because it's all like a competition for electromagnetic waves and if the atmospheric gases are kind of absorbing all of that electromagnetic energy from 5G, from millimeter waves, because once they're bouncing around the atmosphere potentially that could lead to lower UV yield and I think it's very plausible. I think in general it's just going to be a concern from all facets of how that affects our biology and to me. I'm even concerned about what is the impact on the oxygen and the water in our biology, because obviously those are extremely important for our mitochondria, for cellular health across the board. So if these gases are absorbing electromagnetic waves in this frequency range at such a high level, or even a far higher level compared to, say, 3g and 4G waves, what is that doing to the oxygen and water in our biology? And that's where I get really concerned.

Speaker 2: 44:49

And again goes back to the argument that non-ionizing radiation has an effect on our biology. But we just don't really understand it. And it's not at the same level that sunlight is having on our biology. Because photon, you know exciting electrons it's a very specific biological process and interaction where the energy level has to be exact to excite an electron. So now we have all these photons that are lower energy levels.

Speaker 2: 45:22

Now, people that have no understanding of biology would say that they would have zero impact. But then how come? There's thousands of research studies showing impact. And then you can simply go back to the microwave, right, like, how does a microwave heat our food? Because the 2.45 gigahertz oscillation or frequency is jostling the water molecules in the food and that's due to the dipole moment of the water, right? Well, what is happening in our body. What is our body made of? You know, 60%, 75% water, and that, to me, is the more important area to really dive down and it's something that everybody in the central eyes, like any of these YouTube physicists, these people with big platforms, they dismiss right off the bat and it's fair, but they're just not considering the entire other aspect of how our biology functions, from an oscillation, from a frequency, from an EMF perspective, that it doesn't necessarily have to be the direct route of, like photon, excitation of electrons.

Speaker 1: 46:30

Yeah, and I'm going to single out Neil deGrasse, tyson and I told my god yeah I recorded with Scott Zimmerman again recently, who's a an optics engineer and an expert in the effect of in near infrared and infrared light, on on biology, and Neil deGrasse Tyson, basically, was smugly and self congratulating the progress of human technology, that we managed to create a light and popularized light that gets rid of this highly inefficient band of sunlight called infrared, because we don't need it and it's unnecessary.

Speaker 1: 47:06

When he is, you know, it's a bit done in Kruger moment, because he has just no concept of how critical infrared light is for mitochondrial biology and melatonin production and and all these things and and the arrogance of not knowing what he doesn't know is that's the most galling part of it all. I mean, have some humble you know some some humility about it. But yeah, that's the problem with centralized science and, if you are, funding relies on having a certain set of beliefs or asking a certain set of bounded questions, and then that's what's going to get researched and that's what's going to get published. So and Maybe let's talk about the health effects of of radio frequency and 5g. How do you think about what is happening? And and we'll come back to this idea of the effect of them on the water pickers I'm gonna make a point about that, but talk about in general what's going on with health and 5g.

Speaker 2: 48:02

Yeah, the Neil deGrasse Tyson stuff is is so frustrating. I don't know why I always get recommended these clowns on like YouTube. That's just like always in my feed and I watched some last night on On microwaves and him explaining to Joe Rogan about how a microwave is like completely safe and it's just frequency, it's just oscillation and it's so funny. But you know you don't know what you don't know. But when you're arrogant about it, Yep, that's how it goes, and.

Speaker 1: 48:30

But the reason why I take such exception is because if you have that attitude of medicine, then people get hurt. Oh, yeah.

Speaker 1: 48:36

I remember the. You know, one of my most Confrontational clinical learning experiences when I was a medical student was a, an old surgeon and he was asking me a question and I Came up with some wild guess of kind of almost an arrogant guess, pretending that I knew more than I did. And he pulled me up and he said to me if you don't know, then say you don't know because and we all make mistakes and Everyone makes makes mistakes, no matter what your level is but if you're not acknowledging the limits of your knowledge, then that's how people get hurt and that's how Adverse events happen. So after that point and and I had a concept of it before but even after that point I've been Incredibly mindful of when I don't know something because and that is when we can do E atrogenic harm as doctors and, I think collectively, scientists too we really have to be mindful of the limits of our knowledge.

Speaker 2: 49:30

Yeah, yeah, but the problem is that they think they know. So, like you said, it's even more harmful. But yeah, it's, it's sad, but you know, we can try and just keep trying to educate folks and bring them over and it's Getting right into the health stuff. For me what's crazy is that there's so much data, ever all these centralized people are so evidence-based but they're ignoring so much evidence. I mean, there is dr Henry lie has 2500 studies on the effects of non-AtoB MF exposure on biology, on our biology well, or on the biology of life on this planet, and a lot of that is Based in the radio frequency range. And you know, I always point to this is like the first thing that I always tell people is like this guy has a database of like 2500 studies that are showing harmful effects. Like 80 to 90 percent of them are showing a harmful biological effects. Most of them are a quite fair bit, have far lower Power intensities than the safety limits and we can get into that that are imposed by the United States, australia, most Western countries. So that's a huge concern. But this is all ignored. Every study has been like debunked for maybe one specific reason. But when there's such an overwhelming body of evidence. You know how can you possibly ignore this? And this goes back to the children's health defense which Robert F Kennedy Jr is a part of presiding attorneys suing the FCC for their outdated guidelines on Radio frequency Limits which they haven't updated since the mid 90s basically since like my entire lifetime and they were set even before then. So it's pretty crazy. But you know, when you talk about 5g, there's very limited research on on 5g and we'll get into that and you kind of have to extrapolate. But if there's so many studies on 2g, 3g or just similar frequency, radio frequency or radio frequency radiation exposure, you know you could make the educated assumption that 5g is going to be Similarly harmful or if not more harmful, due to its higher energy photons and directed high-power beam that we just discussed. So yeah, dr Henry lie, highly recommend checking his work. He, you know, has this collection and the summary. Let's see. You know, 90% of over 300 studies that looked at the effects of radio frequency on oxidative stress found significant biological effects and 96% of those studies that had a specific absorption rate below 0.4 watts per kilogram found significant effects. So that's one fourth the SAR limit that is imposed in the United States and almost no cell phones are below 0.4 watts per kilogram. Some are better than others, but the limit is 1.6 watts per kilogram. So that's one I always point to.

Speaker 2: 52:37

One we talked about in the Jack Cruz podcast is the national toxicology program study, or the NTP study. And again, what dr Henry lies work before I talk about NTP is big on oxidative stress. It's big on, you know, the jet, genetic effects, gene expression, neurological effects, cardiovascular effects and then reproduction and development, or, you know, fertility. So these are the big areas where EMF has a tremendous impact on our biology is, you know, at the mitochondrial level, at the cardiovascular level, the neurological level and the reproductive system levels. Why? Because those are the most energy intensive areas of our body. That's where we have the most mitochondria, it's the biggest priority, and we know that mitochondrial function is, you know, based in electromagnetism. So it's no surprise to me why these are kind of the most common side effects and also the most common, you know, chronic diseases as well in Modern society.

Speaker 2: 53:44

But getting to the NTP study, this one is really interesting and again it's impossible to ignore because they spent 10 years and 30 million dollars studying, studying cell phone radiation of 2g and 3g origin in the Frequency range of 700 megahertz to 2.7 gigahertz on rats and mice, specifically looking at like cancer and and DNA damage risks. And yeah, they found. Well, they exposed these rats and mice for for two years, around nine hours a day, and they found clear evidence of association with tumors in the hearts of rats. Some evidence of association again you know how like this wording works with association and evidence In with tumors and in the brains and adrenal glands, significant increase in DNA damage in the brains and blood cells of rice and or sorry, mice and rats. And yeah, this was, this has been out for a few years now and pretty much is a big deal In terms of cementing the cancer risk and DNA damage risk of cell phone radiation. But again, you'll always have your Detractors of the study saying you know, the power intensity was, you know, far higher than what we're exposed to on a daily basis, which isn't entirely true.

Speaker 2: 55:09

It's like it was like slightly higher. So then there's another Study called the Ramazzini study, which was done in Italy by this Institute, that basically wanted to replicate what the NTP study did, except at a lower power intensity. So far field exposure to radio frequencies instead of near field, using 1.8 gigahertz, same, you know, rats being used looking at cancer tumor risk, and they found also a statistically significant increase in incident of heart Schwannomas. And that's at a lower, frequent, or sorry, a lower power intensity. And Again, it basically just reiterated the findings of the NTP study. So you know, I Don't understand how, even if the power intensity is like slightly higher, even if the duration might be slightly longer it depends how much you use a cell phone how could you ignore this body of evidence?

Speaker 2: 56:09

How could you, you know, be so confident that there's no health risk when there is clear evidence of, you know, increased cancer risk, increased DNA damage, reproductive issues, neurological issues, oxidative stress, and even if it's not exactly Studied in how you would use it or you know how often you would use it, there's clear evidence that this stuff is very detrimental for biology of mammals and there are some studies in humans which are more epidemiological based. So we know the issues there. And why would you not at least want to use Caution with technology? That's all we're really asking. Is that be more skeptical, skeptical, and then maybe we could have even better research, or maybe we could even design technology, engineer technology in a better way so that the radiation is lower and we don't even have to have these debates. We could just have safer technology. But that would be a very inconvenient truth for a lot of people and that's why all this research has been swept under the rug, even though to me it's pretty much undeniable.

Speaker 1: 57:21

Yeah, and I'm going to quickly read out one of the abstracts of one of the papers in Henry Lye's database and I'm also going to include this link so that people can read this. But in his list of papers that include the effects of radiofrequency radiation on oxidative stress. So it seems like most of these studies are done in rats and mice and that makes sense because they are an animal model, they're easy to experiment on and you can address more hard endpoints. So just one of the titles of one of these papers is comparison of effects of 2.4 gigahertz Wi-Fi and mobile phone exposure on human placenta and cord blood. Oh, sorry that one is that one is on an extractive of cord blood and what they found in conclusion? The results of this study indicated that mobile phone exposure during pregnancy could have important potential to cause oxidative stress and DNA damage in cord blood and placenta. The results of this study also indicated that combined effects of Wi-Fi plus mobile phone exposure have a higher potential to cause synergistic harmful effects. I mean, if we're thinking about complications that occur in pregnancy from the first trimester, first trimester, miscarriage, all the way through to third trimester, preeclampsia, all kinds of complications that occur you wonder to what degree, that simple oxidative stress from mom sitting with a 5G enabled device next to the Wi-Fi router, next to a pregnant belly, what that could be having.

Speaker 1: 59:00

So the fact is that there is a lot of evidence in this list and even if it is in rats or non-human mammals, I think we need to use this precautionary principle to realize that it's going to be having this similar effect in humans.

Speaker 1: 59:18

And the key point that I want to make is that an absence of evidence of harm is not evidence of absence of harm.

Speaker 1: 59:24

So just because we lack a specific gospel chiseled tablet carried down from the mountain by Moses saying that 5G is harmful, we don't need that. We can infer the damage by extrapolating the harmful effects of lower frequency technology in mammals and then realizing, well, if you jack it up in the form of 5G, then it's just going to have a more damaging effect. But the point here also, tristan, is that it's common for industry to use obfuscating techniques, and the seminal book on this tactics was Merchants of Doubt, where it explained how the tobacco industry was using specific techniques regarding this, creating this idea that there's a lack of consensus, and they used that to kind of obfuscate what was going on and dilute out the message. But as for anyone who is concerned about their health, I agree with you that there's more than enough evidence from an oxidative stress point of view in these mitochondrial rich organs that we need to be being very, very careful with our exposures.

Speaker 2: 1:00:39

Yeah, it's just like crazy. In my EMF 101 course I go over some of these studies and there's reviews on Wi-Fi, there's reviews all over the place. It's just so undeniable and, like you said, the obfuscation is real and it's like if we had a safety limit of like 8 or 10 alcoholic drinks per day and then all the research that people are kind of condemning as not convincing is because it's at 11 or 12 drinks per day and then 5 to 7 drinks per day is no issue, and there is research that is way lower than the safety limits as well. So I mentioned that and you can look at the database there. I want to give credit to these researchers as well Dr Martin Powell, dr Henry Lye actually, dr Henry Lye, I'm pretty sure got in some issues with industry, because he was just a guy who stumbled upon this and was like oh my God, this is insane that there's so much evidence and nobody's talking about this, and I'm pretty sure he got some, you know, knocked on his door.

Speaker 2: 1:01:50

Yeah, he got some knocks on his door because he exposed a lot of this and it is overwhelming. And then, yeah, you get people like RFK talking about on Joe Rogan, and still there's nothing. There's winning lawsuits and there's still no change. And again, if I know, like Jack said this on our podcast and people probably would agree, you know, if there was better warning labels, if there was better education, it would be. At least you know they did their due diligence of letting us know. But acting in this state of ignorance is wild. And they actually do have manufacturing warning labels on all cell phones that you should never hold them up against your body directly and that you should always use hands-free speakerphone or wired headphones, but they don't publicize that and nobody really takes that with any merit. So it's just, it's delusion on all levels.

Speaker 1: 1:02:45

Yeah, and not only the funding is not there to research human effects, but I wonder to what degree some of these studies would be confounded by the fact that even your controls are going to be exposed to a fair bit of background radiation. And you know Tucker Goodrich makes the point when he's specifically talking about the harm of seed oils is, if you compare the harm, hypothetically speaking, if you compare someone smoking two packs of cigarettes a day to someone smoking five cigarettes a day, but the threshold effect is, you know, one cigarette a day, then how are you going to be able to necessarily detect a difference between those groups? So I think there's a class of people that seem to lab called intellectual, yet idiots. And if anyone hasn't read the Black Swan by an assim to lab or any of the same clubs work, I would highly recommend reading it.

Speaker 1: 1:03:36

But there's a class of people who essentially believe that an absence of evidence equals the evidence of absence.

Speaker 1: 1:03:44

And they're the type of people you know, the kid that sits at the front of the class and putting this hand up all the time who are enforcing this, these narratives about you know it's safe to continue, and not only with with EMFs, but a whole bunch of other topics, like the harm of glyphosate in health and maybe some other topics that we're not going to talk about on this podcast.

Speaker 1: 1:04:15

But the fact is that when you conflate those key points, when you think that just because we don't have some degree arbitrary degree of evidence quality and maybe that's an randomized control trial before we can act, then you really missing a lot and you're potentially missing massive harm and you just to wait for some kind of piece of evidence that will satisfy you. So I just want to make that point that when it comes to reproductive health and transgenerational epigenetics, the, in my mind, the threshold of evidence to act is so low that it's this is all moot. We have more than enough evidence to act based on the fact that when you screw this up, you can have these transgenerational effects.

Speaker 2: 1:05:09

Yeah, yeah, I mean there's no incentive to change anything, so it doesn't even matter. We could have a thousand more studies and I don't think it would matter until until there's lawsuits. There's people suing people and there's like extreme. I mean, you see it. You mentioned the glyphosate. You see it with with that, because the only people that have been successful in that realm is the non Hodgkin's lymphoma with the at home glyphosate use.

Speaker 2: 1:05:36

But because of all the confounding factors in you know, ag use of herbicides and pesticides, there's no way they can prove causality, so there's no chance it would ever be banned in like a judicial setting. And yeah, it's the problem with everything. And you could argue that any research, you know, you see all these research studies. You see, like the Lane Norton's and those folks of the world talking about all these studies Well, are they controlling for EMFs and blue light and all of this stuff? No, so, like we always say, you know you could pry, toss out 90 to 95% of research, but you have to, you know, pick and choose where some of the information is helpful and realize the greater picture, the greater flaws with, with centralized science.

Speaker 1: 1:06:22

Yeah, and that that you know.

Speaker 1: 1:06:24

They know, and that's a great example of someone who is semiopically focused on, you know, what is written in a, in a piece of research and is unable to critically appraise the, the drawbacks or the methodological flaws and or see things in the context of, I think, an ancestral lens, because if you assume that whatever we evolved with, what is an sexually appropriate, is biologically necessary and programmed, then I think that provides, in the absence of certainty, that provides you a very good fallback, heuristic about what to do and how to expose ourselves to and what to avoid exposing ourselves to. But this intellectual yet idiot mindset which is scientism, it's scientism and, to make that point, it's the almost worship of of science is this kind of quasi religious practice without critically and very skeptically combing through it? You were just. You know you're misleading yourself and misleading others. So I really like your approach, tristan, I think we're on the exact same page about the limits of knowledge, the limits of science and what should be our default position in the absence of knowledge, and that's the evolutionary principle in my mind.

Speaker 2: 1:07:41

Yeah, I mean we just yield caution, right, like I mean anyone listening to this. It's your life, like you know. That's the decentralized model as well. Like we, I'm not going to tell you what to do. You can use your technology however you want, but you should be entitled to having some sort of information that this may be harmful, and then you can read the research and make your own conclusions about what's best for you and your family. But at least understanding that this exists is very important.

Speaker 1: 1:08:12

Before, and thank you for the listeners for listening to us both, matt, on this, on this very important topic. But maybe, before we move on about some practical steps to mitigating 5G, let's talk about this mitochondria, and I want to make the point in a way that maybe my medical colleagues who listen to this podcast can relate to, which is the fact that radio frequency alters the spin of hydrogen and the reason why they will in one way that they can understand, that is the MRI machine and the fact that using a radio frequency pulse basically causes those protons. It would affect the way that they they spin so, and that's how we use, when you harness that technology to capture MRI imaging for diagnosis and treatment. So talk a little bit about what do you think, what you think is occurring on a molecular level when, when we think about RF and EMF, yeah, it's it.

Speaker 2: 1:09:14

This is a tricky one and it's one that's like, yeah, like almost groundbreaking research. I watched some videos in the past week actually that new research has come out. It's based, proving that all of our cells are oscillating at specific frequencies. Right, and I know Doug Wallace has talked about, you know, 100 Hertz being like a very important oscillation frequency for the mitochondria. But the video I watched was talking about breast cells is actually what they used in this study and they found that I think they're oscillating at 10 to 30 kilohertz and some of them as high as in the megahertz range.

Speaker 2: 1:09:52

So our biology is innately based in oscillation and frequency and, going back to the microwave example, radio frequencies will disturb that, they will alter that, and you know so much of our biology is rooted in water and we know that water has these coherent domains as well from judice's work that emit and absorb, basically acting like an antenna for electromagnetic fields. So any exposure to non native EMFs, to radio frequencies, is going to alter that oscillation, alter the coherent domain of the water, which is going to affect a lot of things. And one of the main you know aspects that people can easily attest to is that EMFs, especially high EMF areas, radio frequencies they cause dehydration. I mean, if you ever take a flight, you know that you get super dehydrated. That's why so many people are always reaching for the next glass of water. It doesn't help that they're drinking garbage water as well, but it's because Alcohol.

Speaker 2: 1:11:02

Yeah, or alcohol, or so much caffeine just to have enough to get through the day, because they have just such dysfunctional mitochondria. But this is really disrupting how water is functioning in our biology. It's disrupting the production of metabolic water at complex four, like you mentioned. It's altering proton interactions. It's altering the ability for exclusion zone to be formed Gerald Pollock has talked about how Wi-Fi can collapse the exclusion zone. And then when we don't have proper hydration, we don't have properly functioning semiconductors, because our biological semiconductors all need to be hydrated to function very well.

Speaker 2: 1:11:47

And it's all kind of this synergistic approach.

Speaker 2: 1:11:51

And again it goes back to the fact that these are all areas of our biology that centralized medicine has no clue about, no interest in researching, and that is really imperative.

Speaker 2: 1:12:04

And it's completely a different effect than the direct impact of photons, exciting electrons, like we know from the photoelectric effect from sunlight and then ionizing radiation as well, from Compton scattering and things like that. But to me that's really where a lot of this dysfunction is happening is its effect on water. And then from Dr Martin Powell's work, who's one of the other fantastic researchers, we have this effect on the voltage-gated channels, which he thinks is kind of like the voltage-gated calcium channels is the most upstream impact on how EMFs are affecting our biology. I think it's multifaceted and it's. A big part of that is the water story, but it all comes back to kind of a multifaceted approach. Jack mentioned on our podcast it's ending the life where it's causing dysfunction in our semiconductor functions and the ability to have proper redox potential and hydration, which is all synergistic in how our body needs to optimally function, and that's all rooted in the mitochondria as well.

Speaker 1: 1:13:22

Yeah, the Martin-Paul and the voltage-gated calcium channel story. That's just one aspect to it and maybe more of a biochemical kind of aspect to what's going on and this idea that these EMFs are inducing basically constitutive opening of the voltage-gated calcium channels and causing a very inappropriately raised amount of intracellular calcium. And mitochondria know and they sense that they rely on calcium as a critical signal to modulate pathways like apoptosis of the cell. It's all a very, very intricately linked homostatic mechanism to do with the cell and its mitochondria and signals. So mess that up with something like the EMF and there you go, you've got more propensity for the cell to apoptose. The other aspect I liked your summary of what's going on with water.

Speaker 1: 1:14:21

Dr Doug Wallace has talked about and Cruz as well have talked about this idea of mitochondria's environmental senses and it makes complete sense to me in my mind that if they were bacteria, we know that they were ancestral bacteria. They've been on this planet for billions of years and don't think for a moment that they haven't evolved to adapt to the background electromagnetic environment. I mean of course they have and of course they're able to sense that. I mean that makes intuitive sense to me that they're adapted and sensing the human resonance, the obviously the terrestrial sunlight, the difference between night and day and the effect that, say, infrared light has on the melatonin production. But I think that when you chuck in these profoundly different EMF signature, these man-made sources, then the mitochondria are sensing them.

Speaker 1: 1:15:20

There's no, the way that they're not, and I think it's therefore just moot to be exactly how they're disrupting and to what degree is that combining with other things? And to zoom out, I want to put this in context. We've got all these other mitochondrial toxins attacking us at the same time. We've got the isolated blue light and the lack of outside sunlight. We've got things like deuterium, excess deuterium in our food and glyphosate contamination that's preventing us from deplete the deuterium. And we've got high carb seed oil, high fructose corn syrup diet. That again is plant wrecking havoc on mitochondrial function. So to layer the EMF environment on top of everything else. I think that's why you're getting a disproportionate effect in today's day and age when it comes to these complex diseases like Alzheimer's, neurodegeneration, cancer, autoimmunity and metabolic disease, because the mitochondria are basically getting kicked on the ground in a sack from all angles.

Speaker 2: 1:16:29

You just can't get away with it anymore with the electrosmog environment that we live in and I don't know if I've just come to that conclusion it's too much. And actually one cool example and yeah, I'm not discounted, but the voltage gate of calcium channel stuff I was kind of like, yeah, it's not super interesting, but you actually dive deeper into it and there's a great example of exactly that. So the EMFs, activating the voltage sensor, causing calcium e-flex into the cell, causes nitric oxide release and nitric oxide has a very interesting role in our biology. It can be good, it can be bad. It can form with superoxide and things like proxenitrite, which is really bad, or it can be beneficial for certain things. But for an example, affecting complex four in the mitochondria, nitric oxide can either be kind of like a neutral effect on complex four or it can be a very detrimental effect if the environment does not have enough oxygen.

Speaker 2: 1:17:30

So if we're in this pseudo-hypoxic environment and then nitric oxide is introduced to complex four, in what would that be? A reduced state? Then it competes for the same binding site and eventually leads to this massive accumulation of nitric oxide, increased reactive oxygen species and eventual inhibition. And what is produced at complex four, is metabolic water right? So it's all kind of this negative feedback loop and that just goes to show it's like maybe some EMF exposure.

Speaker 2: 1:18:04

Then there's higher nitric oxide production and that's fine if you have high oxygen levels, oxidized cytochrome C oxidase. But if you're already in an artificially lit environment I mean not getting proper sunlight so hemoglobin transfer of oxygen is lowered there's this whole onslaught and then it's kind of like, oh, that's when everything really goes bad. So pseudo-hypoxia plus like EMF exposure is not good and it just goes to show that our biology is actually like very resilient, like there's all these backup mechanisms, there's all these like alternative ways to deal with problems. But when you overwhelm it to such a degree with the toxic super world we live in, there's just no way you're not going to have dysfunction at all levels, especially in the mitochondria.

Speaker 1: 1:18:56

Yeah, well, let's talk about what people can do, because that is the hope. I like to leave my podcasts on some actionable advice. So you mentioned that getting out of the city makes the most sense and I think that finding out where these 5G towers are and kind of probably moving as far away as you can after you've done things like affect your own indoor environment because that's another point If you're worried about you move away from the 5G tower but you've got again your phone on next to you, sleeping next to your head, then we've got to get in the order of operations correct first. But talk about what you suggest for people that can move and for both people that can't move.

Speaker 2: 1:19:48

Yeah, if you can get out of high population areas, obviously that's ideal. I think even moving from a downtown area to a suburb like 20 minute move, you could say you just work in the same place. But instead of living downtown in a high rise or an apartment, apartment complexes are. I stayed at a friend's house the other day when I was skiing in Utah and you just flip on the wife and I was getting him on board. He's like, yeah, I'll turn the Wi-Fi off, sure thing. He's like I trust you. But then I go and look at the Wi-Fi and there's like 15 Wi-Fi networks within my area, whereas in my house in Wyoming there's just my network and that's it. Yeah, so getting out of an apartment complex, high rise downtown area is huge. I think it's even going to be more important in two years, three years, when they really start rolling out millimeter waves, as mentioned. They're not really in use at all yet, but that's coming. I don't know if it's next year, I don't know if it's this year or in three to five years when it really becomes like a normal everyday thing. Maybe it'll only be for big events downtown, but for 5G, as mentioned, with the targeted beam, the higher power beam. You just want to be avoiding high trafficked areas on a regular basis. To me, the best way to avoid a high level of exposure and I noticed as well is when you go to these areas you just don't feel as good and it's not like a coincidence. Even moving to a single level apartment instead of like a massive complex or 10 minutes outside of downtown, I think could be a drastic improvement. If you can move, obviously, wherever you want, then rural areas are always better. You're going to have less EMFs. Less people means less EMFs. That's the way to go about it.

Speaker 2: 1:21:45

The other thing is how you use technology. Recently I've overhauled my home internet environment. I'm hardwired in. I turned my Wi-Fi off at night or I was turning it off at night. If you have apartments or you have roommates, you can use things like an outlet timer. Hardwiring internet, even if you have a Wi-Fi network, will be helpful because, again, if you're working on a laptop, the laptop is the receiver, so that's pinging a signal, whereas if you hardwired in, even with Wi-Fi on say, your roommates don't want to keep the Wi-Fi off during the day, or whoever you have tenants or something like that, even if you hardwire your laptop, you're going to get a reduction in exposure because you're removing that receiver from being like one foot away from you all the time. That's important. That's a big step. You can hardwire your phone if you want as well. That's a little bit more inconvenient, but I've tried that Again.

Speaker 2: 1:22:49

Keeping your phone on airplane mode as much as you can, using it especially in low signal environments, your cell phone will boost its radiation output two to four times to get a signal out. Avoiding using your phone in very poor reception areas is a good one. Then distance Distance is always your best friend in terms of mitigation of EMF exposure. Keeping your phone always on speaker Listen to Apple, they're the ones that tell you. Never hold it against your head and always use it on speaker. Always use it on with headphones. If you want to use air tube headphones, they're better than wired. Wired or far better than Bluetooth.

Speaker 2: 1:23:36

Again, it's this toxic accumulation of exposure. Any sort of reduction that you can implement in your daily life will be a benefit. Turning the Wi-Fi off for four hours a night is better than zero hours. It's better than 24, seven exposure. But if you can turn off for six or eight, that's even better. If you can turn your phone on airplane mode for X amount of time. It's all about just improvements on any level and really just striving for that.

Speaker 2: 1:24:10

Of course, all the lifestyle habits that you preach, that I preach getting outside as much as possible, leaving your phone. Especially, I used to be into tracking my runs or things like that. Now, whenever I exercised, I leave my phone at home. If I want to time myself, I bring a really crappy DC battery powered watch and just use that, because I really am trying to be deliberate about just breaking a connection for at least one to two hours a day where I'm not even near my phone, I'm not even near technology because it is so challenging.

Speaker 2: 1:24:51

As we are on technology so much, there are good companies out there where you can buy Ethernet cables and all this sort of set of like techwellnesscom, electra Health, I think I've bought stuff from in terms of shielding products and things like that. I'm not a huge fan, as you know, of like harmonizers and all that nonsense. I talk about a lot of that in my EMF course and then I'm also working on a whole curriculum for EMF stuff. I don't know when this will be released, but I'm building one on modern tech which is going to be EMF 201, which pretty much talks all about 5G, 6g, 4g electric vehicles, all the above traveling, and that will all be covered in that course, so you can check that out. I think we need to support companies that are trying to build technology better. I've podcasted, and definitely you need to podcast, with Anjan from Daylight Computer Support that that's a really cool venture that they've got going on down there or over there in Silicon Valley and it's cool to see that solutions are potentially starting to pop up.

Speaker 2: 1:26:11

And then we need to embrace that. We need to educate people on the harmful effects and kind of just have an opt out, because if people have an alternative they will use it. If they don't, a lot of these things are inconvenient. But again, any reduction in exposure can be helpful, especially, I would say Number one priority, number one recommendation is for children. They are far more susceptible to harmful effects from EMFs because of their developing biology, because of their smaller body size and this is really where I get passionate about it, because this is really sad and they're getting mitochondrial hetero plasmia at such earlier ages and that's why we see chronic disease at such earlier ages, and especially if that's starting in the womb. So pregnancy, fertility, again, huge EMF issues. I would say almost that's the biggest issue really. And, yeah, making that a priority for your children, if not yourself.

Speaker 1: 1:27:15

Yeah, great summer interest and I'll underline a couple points. And there's no role for these gimmicky devices that you can stick on your iPhone or wear around your neck. That's a scam and just avoid that. This is about distance and the inverse square law, as you've talked about at length here in previous discussions. So it's just about getting distance.

Speaker 1: 1:27:38

The nature thing is so important because it seems like when we just get back to nature, all these minor problems kind of solve for themselves. And trees, they're blocking the 5G signal. They're also concentrating the infrared photons, which are the beneficial sunlight non-visible sunlight. So there's even more reasons to live in a place that's surrounded by trees and has good tree cover. So that is a great summary and if anyone wants to delve deeper into these topics then, yeah, I would really encourage checking out Tristan's course EMF 101 and the rest of his courses which he's going to be building, and hopefully we can raise the awareness of the health impacts of non-native EMF, starting with, obviously, with blue light, which I've talked about at length, but continuing with Wi-Fi, with 5G, with all these other forms of energy and radiation that your biology did not evolve with. So I will include all these links in the show notes for everyone.

Speaker 1: 1:28:42

And, yes again, if you have more questions, then do Tristan's course and they will hopefully give you the tools to mitigate this environment. I've also talked about in my course. The circadian reset is about how you can also get back to nature in a bunch of ways, and optimizing I think your circadian health is also part of basically crushing your mitochondria through this toxic environment that we find ourselves in. So, tristan, thank you so much for coming on and sharing all this amazing knowledge. I think you're really piecing together areas of science and biology that no one else sees, and that is what we need. We need multidisciplinary thinkers, we need engineers coming into health and biology, so I think together we can make a difference. So thanks again.

Speaker 2: 1:29:34

Thanks for having me again, max. It's always a pleasure, cheers.