Protection designed for modern living

Only a few years have passed since the rollout of 5G, the fifth generation of wireless technology, yet the marketplace has already been transformed by a flood of smart devices. From thermostats and security cameras to refrigerators and watches, internet-connected technology is becoming the new normal.

While many people are dazzled by the new capabilities and conveniences of smart technology, and eager to adopt these “futuristic” devices into their daily lives, others are far more cautious, asking important questions about safety, health and privacy.

Smart technology has even permeated our sleeping environment. Our sleeping hours are some of the most crucial ones for our overall health, as sleep is when the body regenerates and heals (deep sleep) and integrates what we have previously learned (REM sleep). This is also the time we are most vulnerable to harmful environmental factors.

The recent increase in popularity of “smart” beds, and even smart bassinets for babies, has triggered concern over the implications to our health, safety and privacy. It has also caused many of us to think deeply about our humanity, and the inherent need for human connection and natural resilience that we have previously taken for granted. Technology has presented the option to bypass aspects of the human existence that may have felt difficult or stressful historically, but may be intricately linked to our unique resilience and innate humanity.

Smart beds bathe you in EMF while tracking health markers and regulating body temperature

An example is a smart bed offering to regulate your body temperature for you while you sleep, which is a common feature of the more advanced products available. Could having something so autonomic as the temperature of our body be controlled externally for us potentially decrease our resilience and put us at a health disadvantage in the long term?

A smart bed by Tempur-Pedic that sells for around $10,000 offers “personalized climate control” up to 30 degrees warmer or cooler, by allowing each user to adjust their side of the bed through the use of a wirelessly connected app on a smartphone.

While this temperature adjustment feature may remedy the classic husband-wife relationship disputes on the desired temperature setting of the home, even this miraculous benefit may not be worth the trade-off, which is constant exposure to electric fields and 2.4 GHz radio frequency EMFs while you sleep, as well as a long term reduction in physiological resilience from having the most basic bodily function of temperature regulation outsourced to technology.

Over many years of use, the body may become so accustomed to this feature that an unexpected power outage or a camping trip may result in excessive discomfort. Our ancestors would not be proud.

Many smart mattresses track the health data of users, including detailed information about their sleep cycles, heart rate, and even brain wave cycles, and admit that they may share this information with governmental authorities and local law enforcement.

Additionally, compared to wearable devices like the Oura Ring, tracking health data using a mattress is not likely to be very accurate, especially if the bed is shared by another person. Smaller wearables are probably far more accurate, less expensive, and subject a person to far less EMFs than a mattress that radiates Wifi spectrum frequencies all night long.

This is especially the case for wearables like the Oura that feature an airplane mode setting, turning off the EMF emissions until the user is ready to upload their data to the app.

No matter how comfortable these mattresses are designed to be, many people find that close range EMF exposure sources consistently reduce sleep quality, and a perfectly supportive mattress can’t make up for that.

Smart bassinets emit RF radiation, collect sensitive data on infants

Another example is smart bassinets for babies, which take the work of soothing and rocking away from mothers, outsourcing it to a robotic bed. The marketing promises restful, uninterrupted sleep for new mothers, while their infant sleeps alone far away, as every infant need is responded to by electronic sensors adjusting the rocking speed, white noise and swaddling sensation experienced by the infant, designed to lull them back into uninterrupted sleep.

When you take away the persuasive marketing terminology used for these products, it begins to sound almost dystopian, as if the instinctive mother-infant bonding is being stretched and almost severed, with convenience and comfort as the trade-off.

Miriam Eckenfels, director of Children’s Health Defense’s (CHD) Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) & Wireless Program, expresses the concern of many:

“During the first months of human life, a baby craves a mother’s contact. Skin to skin, touch and smell are all imperative components to healthy bonding needed for a child’s development. It’s not just about feedings or diaper changes. So outsourcing the soothing of a newborn to a machine could have long-term consequences parents should carefully consider.”

The SNOO Smart Sleeper Bassinet, a product that has been increasing in popularity, collects the name, birthday, photo, gender, premie status and sleep patterns of the babies that use the bassinet, according to its privacy policy. The policy allows the company to share this data with its affiliates and service providers, compromising the privacy of the family.

Considered to be a safety improvement over many other mattresses and beds of the same kind, this particular product is lined with metal shielding that is said to block 99.9% of wireless radiation from reaching the baby.

If you’ve read our previous material on the subject of shielding, this is a good example of the false sense of security that shielding can give, simply because an EMF meter will register an almost full reduction of EMFs. This reduction in numbers does not mean you are safe, as there are energetic or informational components linked to the physically measurable field that are not detectable by a meter, and cannot be blocked by shielding materials.

For those who buy into the “shielding is all that’s needed” viewpoint of EMF protection, choosing to use these products simply because the number on the meter went down could leave one vulnerable to long term health effects.

It is important to test any kind of EMF protection product by measuring actual health effects on the exposed living organisms, rather than simply the numbers on a meter, since health is what we are ultimately concerned with.

Of course, this smart bassinet product, just like other smart beds and all smart devices on the market, comply with FCC regulations on wireless emissions. However, these standards are outdated by decades, and the FCC is in currently in a dishonorable position by ignoring a court-ordered mandate from several years ago to review the past few decades of science on EMF harms, and update its limits to protect children, animals and the environment. The FCC limits cannot be trusted until this has been carried out.

The FDA has flagged potential health concerns with the SNOO Smart Sleeper, citing numerous regulatory violations, including selling new sleep sack sizes without approval, especially the X-Small size which has not been tested to ensure that it’s not too tight on the infant, compressing vital organs and limiting breathing.

Rental and refurbished versions of the sleep sacks have been reported to have stains, soiling, mold growth and other unsanitary conditions, potentially posing a risk of infection or allergic reaction.

While this product is clearly responding to a perceived need in the marketplace, namely convenience for working families with babies, there are considerable drawbacks to these products that should be contemplated if health and optimal child development is a priority.

WiFi Routers can now be turned into covert home tracking systems for less than $50

Another alarming development in the quickly changing technological market includes open source software, available to anyone, designed to give a home WiFi router an extra function as a covert, undetectable home tracking system, for less than $50 in materials.

The software, called RuView Ambient Intelligence, is available as a free download on GitHub. It uses the existing Wifi signal as a type of radar that sees through walls, its AI instantly mapping the posture, movements, breathing and heartbeat of inhabitants.

This may be seen as an alternative to controversial monitoring with security cameras, which can be spotted by inhabitants of a building, who are then alerted to the invasion of privacy.

On the other hand, “RuView turns commodity WiFi signals into real-time spatial intelligence, vital sign monitoring, and presence detection, all without a single pixel of video.”

It does this simply by analyzing how the body already disrupts ordinary radio waves. All one needs is open source software and several additional sensor nodes on their router, which can cost as low as $9 each.

This brings to light the constant interaction between your body and your Wifi router. Even an ordinary Wifi router without this radar sensor is interacting with the body in the exact same way; it’s just not mapping and reporting this inherent interaction.

Watch this demonstration model of the software to get a visual idea of what your Wifi router is always doing, yet not showing you.

Hotel rooms, AirBnbs, and other locations that prefer to be discreet in their monitoring of inhabitants could use this software with the right tech know-how, and since every room or house rental these days includes WiFi, there would be no way for the inhabitants to know they are being monitored.

Even the most discreetly placed security cameras can be spotted, but this tracking system is completely invisible, tied right into the internet access benefit of your rental.

You can learn the truth and still be white-pilled

Our purpose in sharing these phenomena is not to “black-pill” you: a modern term describing a worldview of inevitable dystopia and doom that can result from too much “truthful” information and not enough faith in the ultimate goodness of a higher power.

We share these strange and somewhat alarming technological developments to help you stay informed and develop more discernment.

The marketing terminology surrounding smart devices can be very exciting and appealing, as they promise convenience, comfort and automation to make your daily life easier.

It is important to also see the other side of what these products bring, and to have healthy discernment when adding new technologies to your life.

It’s good to consider whether you really need these things, to the point where you are willing to accept their downsides... or if you can accomplish the same goals with better and more efficient habits and time management, as well as assessing your true values and priorities.

Consider your priorities

Maybe sleeping full 8-hour, uninterrupted nights is not ultimately important as a mother of an infant, as this phase passes so quickly.

Maybe temporarily putting other aspects of life on hold during the infant phase, to prioritize bonding and relationship development with your child, is a better choice for you.

Maybe you can track your health in other ways, and you don’t need your mattress for this purpose, and maybe it’s healthy to regulate your own body temperature.

These are just examples of the values and priorities of some people, and only you can determine your own, but this requires contemplation on your own inner truth.

Through all of this, we hope you can find a way to stay “white-pilled”, with a worldview of hope, maturity and wisdom, an acceptance of both the good and bad realities of this world, with a resolve to continue moving forward and being a force of good.

References

• Children’s Health Defense: “Maker of ‘Smart’ Bed May Share Your Personal Data With Government, Law Enforcement”
• Children’s Health Defense: “‘Smart’ Bassinet for Babies Collects and Shares Sensitive Data”
• “RuView Ambient Intelligence: Turning invisible WiFi signals into real-time human insights, without cameras or wearables”

The Science of Stability: Why Powered EMF Protection Outperforms Passive Devices

In our increasingly hyper-connected world, the conversation around Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) has shifted from "if" we should protect ourselves to "how" we should do it. As we surround ourselves with 5G towers, Wi-Fi routers, and smart appliances, the market has been flooded with solutions ranging from stickers and crystals to sophisticated electronic resonators.

However, not all protection is created equal. To understand why some methods fail where others succeed, we have to look at the physics of signal dominance and the biological need for a coherent reference.

The Passive Problem: The Limitation of "No Power"

Passive EMF protection products such as shungite, specialized stickers, or unpowered pendants operate on the principle of attenuation or local field alteration. While these materials may have unique molecular structures that interact with frequencies, they face a fundamental "physics wall": they lack an internal energy source.

Without power, a device is purely reactive. It cannot create a signal; it can only respond to the signals already present in the room. This leads to three critical failures in a modern environment:

01. Lack of Signal Dominance

For the body to prioritize a "healing" or "balancing" frequency over the chaotic noise of a Wi-Fi router, that frequency must be dominant. Passive devices are essentially "whispering" in a room where the EMF environment is "shouting." Because they cannot project a field, their influence is limited to the near field usually just a few millimeters or inches from the object.

02. The Trap of Ambient Fluctuations

Passive devices are at the mercy of their environment. If the ambient EMF levels spike (like when you take a call or download a large file), the passive device has no way to scale its interaction. It cannot maintain a structured reference signal because it is constantly being "pushed around" by the very frequencies it is meant to harmonize.

03. No Timing or Pulse Control

Biological systems are highly sensitive to rhythm and timing. Active EMF protection often uses specific pulse-width modulation to mimic natural Earth frequencies (like the Schumann Resonance). Passive devices have no "heartbeat"; they lack the circuitry required for timing control, meaning they cannot provide the rhythmic consistency the body needs to stay grounded.

The Active Advantage: Establishing a Coherent Reference

Powered, dynamic signaling systems represent a different paradigm of protection. Instead of trying to block or absorb radiation which is nearly impossible in a modern home these devices focus on Active Resonance.

Building a "Safety Bubble"

A powered device uses a dedicated power source to emit a consistent, coherent, and structured electromagnetic field. Because this signal is generated internally, it is not dependent on the noise of the room. It creates a stable "reference point" that remains constant regardless of how many devices are active in the house.

Conclusion: Why Power Matters

In the quest for wellness in a high-tech world, we must choose tools that match the scale of the challenge. Passive materials certainly have their place in history and personal practice, but they lack the "active voice" required to compete with the high-output infrastructure of modern telecommunications.

If the goal is to create a true sanctuary a space where biology can rest independent of the changing electromagnetic tide a powered, dynamic system is not just an upgrade; it is a necessity. By establishing a dominant, coherent reference signal, we provide our bodies with the stability they need to thrive in the digital noise.

Did you know that your smart phone settings include a section that advises usage habits to reduce RF (radiofrequency) exposure?

This advice is included even though all smart phones proclaim that they are in compliance with the government’s SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) safety limits.

If the radiation emitted by cell phones was truly safe, why would they bother to tell you ways to reduce radiation exposure? Could it be because the SAR limits are outdated, and only address thermal (heating) effects of non-ionizing radiation exposure, and ignore the mounting evidence of harm from non-thermal mechanisms?

Let’s dive into this revealing topic that most people are unaware of, even though the majority of us are smart phone users.

You can check your own smart phone now. If you have an iPhone, just go into the Settings, then click General, and there should be a section called Legal and Regulatory. If you click that, and scroll all the way down, there should be a section titled RF Exposure. This may look slightly different on Android phones (like Samsung and Google Pixel), but you will find something similar if you investigate.

This section should display the results of the SAR test for your phone model, which of course will be within the “safe limits” for radiofrequency radiation exposure. If you have an iPhone, you may see something like this:

"To reduce exposure to RF energy, use a hands-free option, such as the built-in speakerphone, headphones or other similar accessories. Cases with metal parts may change the RF performance of the device, including its compliance with RF exposure guidelines, in a manner that has not been tested or certified."

Why advise reducing exposure, if the exposure level is already safe?

A Google Pixel phone we looked at, which tested at well within the SAR safety limits, even included this statement: “Keep the device away from your body to meet the distance requirement.”

What distance requirement? The SAR tests state that when the phone is placed directly against the head, or within 5mm of the torso of the body (to simulate the phone being in a pocket with a thin layer of clothing in between the phone and your skin), that you are “safe”, according to standard tests.

The Samsung S21 smart phone fine print informs that their SAR distance for safety is 15 millimeters, which is equivalent to more than half an inch. Most people place their cell phones directly against their head when making calls, as they have never been informed to do otherwise. If a Samsung S21 phone user is making calls in this way habitually, the company’s own recommendation implies that the user may be exposed to unsafe levels of RF radiation on a regular basis. Yet, this is not widespread knowledge, and is only in the fine print that most people don’t know exists!

Samsung also states, “Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) certification establishes a minimum recommended distance from a person’s body for safe operation of RF-emitting devices. Body-worn operations are restricted to belt-clips, holsters or similar accessories that have no metallic component in the assembly and must provide at least 1.5 cm (3/4 in.) separation between the device and the user's body.”

Did you ever hear any of this from a cell phone TV commercial or online advertisement? We certainly haven’t.

Pharmaceutical drugs are legally required to list their “fine print” of potential side effects, even on TV commercials. Why aren’t cell phone companies required to at least give you a brief warning about RF radiation exposure before you purchase their products, and suggest ways to reduce exposure?

It’s also important to note that having Wifi and Bluetooth enabled on your smart phone will significantly increase the RF radiation output of the device. Many people keep both of these turned on continuously or at least periodically, and do not consider the additional radiation exposure they may be getting, which may often be higher than the SAR safety limits.

The Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) limits are too high, and not healthy

Cell phone companies and the FCC seem to enjoy splitting hairs about the details of the SAR limits, and are quick to point out that the SAR test scores that phones list are at their maximum radiation output, implying that most usage is going to fall at far lower levels than the output listed on the test results.

If we’re going to argue at this level, it’s good to know that many phones may not actually be compliant at all, according to independent tests performed in 2019. If the cell phone company itself performs the tests, and the results can’t be replicated independently, then can we trust them in the first place?

However, let’s move past this type of nitpicking for now, and talk about why the SAR limits are inherently flawed and dangerous in the first place.

As stated earlier, the Specific Absorption Rate is only testing the thermal effects of cell phone radiation, meaning how much it heats localized tissue. That is the only mechanism of harm that the telecoms and FCC are willing to admit to. For a minute, let’s pretend that this is the only mechanism of harm. Even if that were true, there are significant flaws with the SAR safety limits.

The SAR safety limit was originally set in 1996 – 30 years ago. They modeled the body proportions of Army personnel, who are generally large, fully grown men, often around 6 feet tall and 200 pounds. This model does not come close to representing smaller and more developmentally vulnerable populations like children, teenagers and pregnant women. Grown men are generally the most resilient category of humans to toxic exposures of all types, whereas babies, children and developing embryos and fetuses are the most fragile. Babies and children have smaller heads, thinner skulls and rapidly developing brains that are highly vulnerable to harmful environmental influences, including wireless radiation.

The SAR rate that was set in 1996 has not been updated at all over the past 30 years, even as new cell phone technology and usage habits have evolved seemingly at light speed. The maximum distance that a phone could be tested at to achieve compliance was up to 25 millimeters, which is much further from the body than where today’s phone users keep their phones. The 25mm distance was set because in the ‘90s, people often carried their flip phones on belt clips, which were about an inch away from their body. Almost no one uses belt clips anymore, and most often, the phone is carried in a regular pocket, which is generally only 2mm away from body tissue, especially vulnerable reproductive organs like the ovaries and prostate. Guidelines have not been updated to reflect changing habits of users, nor have users been adequately warned of the potential harm of keeping their phone that close to the body.

There is also no consideration for long term exposure. Regulations are set based on immediate effects, with no thought for the many decades of consistent cell phone and other wireless radiation exposure that most modern people, especially young people, will experience in their lifetimes.

Regulations also do not acknowledge the fact that people generally no longer carry just one wireless device with them, but use multiple RF emitting devices regularly: cell phones, tablets, Bluetooth speakers and headphones, vehicle GPS devices that connect to Bluetooth, smart devices that connect to your smart phone, and much more. All of these sources multiply our RF exposure to levels that are currently unknown, and unacknowledged by official government and telecom industry sources.

We are stuck with the ancient 1996 SAR guidelines, which were created in a vastly different technological world than the one we live in today.

Thermal effects are not the only concern with wireless radiation

Lastly and most importantly, the SAR safety standards are based on the (proven erroneous) assumption that the thermal effect is the only way that cell phones can cause harm.

In the early 2000s, the National Toxicology Program, an arm of the U.S. Government’s National Institutes of Health, performed the largest, longest study on the health effects of cell phone radiation that had ever been done up to that point. Their stated intention for the study was to find out whether there were non-thermal health risks to cell phone use, since the only safety guidelines that existed at that point were the SAR safety limits, which were only based on thermal exposure risks.

This is an entire story in itself, but suffice to say that considerable harm related to cancer and DNA damage were found – results that were surprising to everyone involved in the study. After a brief period where a peer review panel of experts declared that the study was well performed and showed clear evidence of cancer and DNA damage, the government agencies involved subsequently pivoted in their opinion and decided that the study was NOT relevant to human exposure. If you haven’t yet read this whole story, you will want to, as it shows beyond any doubt how egregiously biased the United States government is towards siding with the telecom industry.

$30M National Toxicology Program Study Shows Cell Phone Radiation is Carcinogenic (full story)

The most important thing to realize is that science shows that non-ionizing radiofrequency radiation, at below-thermal levels, can be harmful to health. Whether or not a mechanism has been definitively recognized that accounts for this non-thermal harm, the harm itself has been documented in hundreds to thousands of studies, many of which you can read about here.

If you’re interested in purported mechanisms of non-thermal harm, the most probable theory at this time involves the voltage-gated ion channels of the body, and how external electrical signals trigger these highly sensitive voltage-mediated channels to flood various minerals (especially calcium) into the cells, triggering a cascade of unintended and unwanted effects. This mechanism has been extensively studied by Dr. Martin Pall, and has been discussed in at least a dozen of our other articles.

Don’t fall into the trap of blind trust – protect yourself

Ignorance of the truth won’t protect you. It is the fault of the government and telecom companies that it isn’t common knowledge that your daily wireless device usage may cause health issues over time. However, it is your responsibility to educate yourself, and to protect yourself as well as you can. Most people are not going to give up their cell phones entirely, but there are things you can do to significantly reduce your exposure:

• Never carry your cell phone in your pocket, or anywhere against your body, unless it’s turned off, or set to airplane mode.
  
  
• Never sleep with your cell phone near you, unless on airplane mode with Bluetooth and Wifi disabled, and even then be sure it’s at least a few feet away – definitely not under your pillow or near your head.
  
  
• Never hold your phone up to your head when you talk. Instead, use speaker phone or an AirTube headset (which has a tube of air instead of wires all the way to your ears) to make calls.
  
  
• Limit your children’s cell phone and tablet exposure, and be cautious during pregnancy and around babies.

To protect your body from any remaining radiation exposure, since you can’t control a lot of the RF exposure sources around you, be sure to protect your home with a stationary Blushield device of the appropriate strength for your overall EMF exposure levels, and carry a Blushield portable device with you anytime you’re on the go.

Blushield devices were demonstrated in a 2023 clinical study to calm overactivation of the voltage-gated calcium channels back to normal levels – VGCC overactivation is widely thought to be the primary mechanism of harm from EMFs, as we touched on earlier. A variety of other statistically significant health improvements were recorded, as well, showing that even if the mechanism of harm from non-thermal EMFs is more complex and nuanced than we currently know, that our EMF protection technology is broadly beneficial in regulating physiology back to a healthier state.

References:

• Apple iPhone RF Exposure Information – https://regulatoryinfo.apple.com/rfexposure/iphone18,1/en
• Samsung Galaxy S21 Radiation Levels – https://www.rfsafe.com/phone/samsung-galaxy-s21/
• Blushield: “New Proof that Cell Phones Are Not Safe” – /blogs/new-proof-that-cell-phones-are-not-safe
• Blushield: “$30M National Toxicology Program Study Shows Cell Phone Radiation is Carcinogenic” – /blogs/30m-national-toxicology-program-study-shows-cell-phone-radiation-is-carcinogenic
• Bioinitiative Report (updated in 2022) – https://bioinitiative.org/table-of-contents/

Half a year after the MAHA Report by the United States government did a preliminary assessment of toxic exposure sources in modern life that hadn’t been adequately addressed, and only briefly mentioned wireless radiofrequency (RF) radiation as a potential threat to human health, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently announced the launch of a new government commissioned study on the potential health risks of cell phone radiation.

Under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., considerable changes have taken place in the HHS and the FDA during this past year, including big shifts in government dietary and vaccine recommendations. Recently, longstanding FDA webpages asserting that cell phone radiation poses no health risks have been quietly removed, in preparation for a more comprehensive and hopefully less biased assessment of the health risks of non-ionizing radiation sources like cell phones, cell towers, Bluetooth, Wifi and smart meters, which many of us are closely and constantly exposed to in our daily lives. The FDA landing page about cell phone radiation now contains several links that reroute back to the landing page itself, after the individual pages were taken down.

"The FDA removed webpages with old conclusions about cell phone radiation while HHS undertakes a study on electromagnetic radiation and health research to identify gaps in knowledge, including on new technologies, to ensure safety and efficacy," said HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon.

Other government agencies like the FCC and CDC, however, still state on their websites that there is no evidence of health harm from wireless radiation.

At this time, no details have been shared about the study’s authors or design, indicating that the study is still in its early stages. However, the study announcement is encouraging, and seems to be a move in the right direction, especially in combination with the removal of FDA statements claiming no harm from these common radiation exposure sources.

Shocking results from a previous large government study were swept under the rug

Back in 2018, the publication of a massive government study on rats and mice by the National Toxicology Program under the National Institutes of Health (NIH) reported “clear evidence” of cancer and DNA damage from cell phone radiation. These shocking and unexpected results seemed to be inevitably leading to the U.S. government clearly stating the health dangers and taking charge of protecting public health.

Unfortunately, as we have previously detailed in our article about the NTP study, the FDA suddenly reversed their position and asserted that the expensive, well designed, perfectly executed NTP study could not apply to humans. This was a bold statement to make for a study that was specifically designed to translate to humans under the best “gold standard” scientific practices, especially after a peer review panel of experts interpreted the results as demonstrating “clear evidence” of cancer and DNA damage.

The FDA had undertaken an internal review between 2008 and 2018, concluding around the same time as the NTP study, which claimed “no consistent or credible scientific evidence” of harm from cell phone radiation. Interestingly, as Dr. Devra Davis points out, that review was never signed, which is unusual for a major public health document.

Dr. Davis’ opinion is that the review went unsigned because “no one in the FDA was willing to put their name behind such a piece of junk.”

Skepticism of the government’s motives by EMF scientist dampens enthusiasm

Some scientists who have devoted a large part of their careers to studying the harms of wireless radiation are skeptical of the U.S. government’s decision to do another study.Dr. Joel Moskowitz turned down an invitation from a Kennedy aide to participate in a literature review on wireless radiation, questioning the administration’s motives and approach by pointing out that enough research has already been done, and that waiting for yet another study would just delay regulatory change. “They’re just doing this to kick the can down the road,” he said.

Scott McCollough, lead litigator for CHD’s EMR & Wireless cases, was disappointed by Moskowitz’ position, as Moskowitz’ organization ICBE-EMF has long advocated for expert scientific recommendations to protect public health from EMFs. McCollough states that the HHS study appears to align with these goals.

The way we see it, it’s important to continue to be hopeful and optimistic about all progress in the right direction, even when it seems slow and incremental. Even though a lot of us feel fatigued by this long battle towards increased awareness and safety measures, the truth is that nothing changes quickly on a large, societal scale, especially those elements of society that permeate our daily lives so intimately. The momentum that the current iteration of wireless infrastructure has in our world is still rolling, and it may take a lot of time and effort to truly change course.

If there was a major change or breakthrough resulting in widespread admission and acceptance of the science showing harm from wireless radiation, the likely result would not be the dismantling of cell towers and people throwing their cell phones in the trash. Much more likely is a slow transition towards more reliance on wired internet connections like fiber optic and copper, phasing out unnecessary use of wireless, and widely propagated messages cautioning users to increase distance and reduce overall exposure to RF radiation sources.

Since wireless communication is still vital in our world for mobile and emergency use, the impetus for telecoms to invent and utilize new methods of transmitting wireless signals that are not harmful to living organisms could become much greater… but only IF there was an ultimatum put out by legislature that restricted their freedom to use harmful technologies. If telecoms are allowed to continue to do anything they want… well, we can already see from their past actions that money is a greater motivator than the health of humanity.

Fortunately, not everyone is waiting for the final verdict from a government study to make changes at local levels. Last year under the MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) movement, 22 states began restricting cell phone use in schools, to improve the mental and physical health of children. Our children’s health can’t wait for studies to give us 100% clear answers, and it is most vital for their current and future development to be cautious and conservative with potentially harmful exposure sources, and make changes now instead of waiting for a definitive government green light.

Swedish study shows sharp increase in sleep disorders in children and teens since 2001

A new study just released this month (January 2026) in Sweden found an astonishing 17-fold (1700%) increase in sleep disorders in teens and children since 2001. The age group that endured the most extreme increase were children and teenagers aged 5 to 19. Even young children under age 5, and young adults aged 20-29, experienced a 500% increase in sleep disorders. The study authors theorize that the exponential increase in wireless radiation exposure between 2001 and 2024, as well as blue light exposure from screens (which can disrupt melatonin and affect sleep), is primarily responsible for this sharp and unprecedented increase in sleep disorder symptoms.

The study authors, Mona Nilsson and Lennart Hardell, analyzed national health statistics on sleep disorder diagnoses during this 23-year period. Hardell is the author of more than 350 papers, around 60 of which address the topic of radiofrequency radiation, and Nilsson is the co-founder and director of the Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation. They are both concerned that major government organizations and agencies, like the WHO, FCC, and European Union, are more focused on protecting the interests of the wireless industry than people’s health.

Mainstream media has frequently reported on the increasing incidence of sleep disturbances in children and teens, but has failed to consider a possible link to wireless radiation.

Another Swedish study from last year found an increase in memory issues, which goes hand-in-hand with sleep issues. Sleep quality, length and depth is vital for cognitive function, including memory.

Nilsson shared this list of nearly 60 studies on the link between radiofrequency radiation and issues with learning and memory.

HHS study a move in the right direction, but the time to protect children is now

The announcement of the U.S. government reopening research into the harms of wireless radiation is certainly good news, but we can’t afford to wait for their conclusion, especially when it affects our children and teens who are in the midst of critical windows of development. The influences that shape them now will become hardwired into their brain, nervous system and entire body, affecting their long term health and shaping their outlook for the rest of their life.

Children who get cell phones before age 12 are at higher risk of obesity, depression and poor sleep. Reducing access to cell phones at home and at school, and waiting until a child or teen is older before owning a personal cell phone, are some ways that we can support healthy development. Balancing out academic and recreational activities on screens with physical and outdoor activities, and prioritizing healthy sleep habits, can also go a long way.

Growing up in such a heavily technological world will pose unique challenges to this generation of children. Giving them a strong, healthy foundation will fortify them so that they can meet these challenges with clarity, discernment, healthy bodies and sound minds.

References:

• Children’s Health Defense: “HHS to Study Cellphone Health Risks, as FDA Scrubs Online Safety Claims” — https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/hhs-study-cellphone-health-risks-as-fda-scrubs-online-safety-claims/
• Reuters: “US health department to launch study on cellphone radiation” — https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-health-department-launch-study-cellphone-radiation-2026-01-15/
• Study: “Increasing Numbers of Persons with Sleeping Problems in Sweden” — https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9721/14/1/25
• Children’s Health Defense: “Kids’ Sleeping Problems Linked to Wireless Radiation, Screens” — https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/kids-sleeping-problems-linked-to-wireless-radiation-screens/
• Children’s Health Defense: “Kids Who Get Cellphones Before Age 12 at Higher Risk of Obesity, Depression, Poor Sleep”— https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/kids-cellphones-before-age-12-higher-risk-obesity-depression-poor-sleep-study/
• Blushield: “$30M National Toxicology Program Study Shows Cell Phone Radiation is Carcinogenic” — /blogs/30m-national-toxicology-program-study-shows-cell-phone-radiation-is-carcinogenic
• Blushield: “Downplayed Dangers: The Missing EMF Conversation in the MAHA Report” — /blogs/downplayed-dangers-the-missing-emf-conversation-in-the-maha-report

The electricity that we use to power the devices in our homes and buildings can be produced by a variety of sources. Natural gas, coal (burned to make steam), heat from nuclear energy, hydropower (moving water) and wind (moving air) can all create motion to spin a turbine, which is connected to a generator. The movement created by any of these sources spins the rotor in the generator, pushing electrons along a conductive coil, which interact with magnets to produce alternating current (AC) electromagnetic fields. This electricity travels to our homes via the power grid, and is a resource produced far away from our homes, which we depend on for most of our household routines.

Since the invention of solar power systems, which have become more economically viable over time, we now have the option to produce our own electricity directly from sunlight. This can decrease our dependency on the external power grid, and even reduce or eliminate our electricity bill. Most of us have plenty of sunlight where we live, at least during the warmer seasons, so in recent years as the components of solar power systems have become more affordable, this has become a viable option for home electricity.

The sun is a steady and reliable resource that most of us have direct access to. While the upfront cost of the components are a significant investment, a home solar power system can be economically advantageous in the long run.

How do solar power systems work to generate electricity?

With solar power systems, sunlight directly excites electrons held in crystallize materials like silicon, generating direct current (DC) electricity. This occurs on the surface of solar panels, also known as photovoltaic (PV) panels, which are placed in sunny areas like rooftops or open fields. The term photovoltaic refers to the generation of electrical voltage when photons of light come into contact with a material.

This DC electricity needs to be converted into AC to be usable by the electrical systems in homes and buildings – this is done with a device called an inverter. Inverters take the DC electricity and rapidly switch the direction back and forth, creating an “alternating” current – AC electricity. The inverter also ensures that the resulting AC matches the grid’s voltage, frequency and phase (in the United States it’s usually 120 volts at 60 hertz), to safely integrate the electricity into the grid. The end product from the harvest of solar energy generates electricity that’s identical to what’s produced by a generator powered by natural gas, coal, nuclear, hydro or wind.

Grid-tied versus off-grid solar systems – pros and cons

If a home solar power system is tied to the grid, this has several benefits and also some downsides. Batteries are by far the most expensive component of a solar power setup. With a grid tied solar system, you don’t need a battery to store the solar energy for use at night or during rainy or cloudy days – your solar power is fed directly into the larger electric grid, giving you an electricity “credit” that you can use later when it’s needed, automatically balancing out the fluctuating and unpredictable availability of sunlight. A grid tied solar system is far more convenient and flexible.

The main downside of grid tied solar power systems is that you’re still dependent on the electrical grid, even though you’re reducing your overall electricity cost by feeding your excess power into the larger grid. If the grid goes down, your power goes out, unless you have a generator as a backup. Another downside is that you’re almost certainly required to use a smart meter (unless your local area allows you to opt out), to accurately keep track of the electricity you’re sending to the grid and receiving back from it. Smart meters produce high levels of wireless radiofrequency (RF) radiation, and contaminate your home wiring with dirty electricity.

An off-grid solar system, on the other hand, is a closed system designed to produce all the electricity needs for a given location. This design requires much more forethought and careful planning, with enough solar panels to harvest sunlight energy for all household needs, a large enough battery bank to store power for use in times of the year with limited sunlight, and usually a backup generator for “worst case scenario” situations. It also necessitates more discipline and careful timing of electricity use for those living at that location. Another downside of an off-grid system is that since all power is produced at the location of use, you could be exposed to higher levels of EMFs from the storage batteries and the potentially larger quantity of total equipment used by the system. The benefits of a well designed off-grid solar system are energy independence from the external power grid, and not needing to use a smart meter.

Solar power system EMF exposure concerns & mitigation strategies

Both types of solar power systems will expose you to some level of EMFs, but understanding the EMF hotspots generated by each type of system will give you clarity about how to reduce and mitigate these risks. Solar panels produce a small amount of low voltage direct current (DC) electricity, and since they are usually placed a good distance away from living areas, the panels themselves aren’t much of an EMF concern.

The wiring that runs from the panels to the inverter and/or battery emits EMFs, and if you’re designing a solar setup, one way to minimize EMF output from the wiring is to ensure that all the wires – positive, negative, neutral and ground – are run side-by-side, tightly paired or twisted together. If the wires are run separately, inches or feet apart from each other, a strong magnetic field will be created in the space between the wires. When they’re close together, the magnetic field is basically canceled, reducing ambient EMF readings.

Every solar power setup uses an inverter to switch the DC power from sunlight into the AC power used by the grid. Inverters create dirty electricity as a byproduct of this conversion, which enters your home wiring. However, it’s important to realize that even with a conventional power system (and no solar setup), you are still exposed to dirty electricity from devices within and outside of your home. Dirty electricity, a term that describes voltage transients, fluctuations or anomalies that “dirty up” an otherwise smooth and “clean” sine wave, is an issue for almost everyone who lives a modern, technology-rich life.

The difference in EMF exposure between grid tied and off-grid solar power systems is the presence or absence of a battery, and the presence or absence of a smart meter. Off-grid systems must use batteries, and grid tied systems almost always use smart meters.

Solar batteries produce static magnetic fields, with the highest readings right next to the battery, quickly dropping down to zero as you move further away. The extra exposure from a solar battery bank can be mitigated by having a dedicated power room or shed that’s separate from the house or living area where humans and pets spend time. Your inverter can be in this room, as well, preventing exposure to the EMFs directly around the inverter.

The EMFs from a smart meter cannot as easily be mitigated by distance. If the meter is further away from the house, on the outside of a dedicated power shed, the radiofrequency (RF) transmissions the meter produces by sending and receiving data to and from the power company will be occurring further away from people, which will reduce wireless RF exposure to lower levels. However, the smart meter will still contaminate the electrical system with dirty electricity, on top of the dirty electricity that’s already being added to your home wiring by the inverter.

We also need to touch on the different types of inverters used in solar power systems: string inverters and microinverters. Microinverters are small inverters placed underneath each panel in the solar array, designed to convert DC energy from the panel into AC at the site of energy production, each inverter controlling a separate panel. String inverters are installed at the end of a string of panels, controlling them all as one, and are usually further away from the panels, on the ground in a main solar system control area (like a power shed).

Microinverters can optimize energy production since they treat each panel as a separate system. String inverters group a whole string of panels together, where the limitations of one panel could end up affecting the entire string: for example, if one panel is in the shade, or is losing efficiency due to age or corrosion, that affects the power production from the whole group. If each panel is controlled separately with microinverters, the high functioning and/or high sun exposure panels will not be limited by panels that may be converting less sunlight into power at any given time. In installations with partial shading or panel mismatch, this can result in higher total energy production over the lifetime of a system using the same number of panels.

Using microinverters under each panel is generally considered safer, since it immediately converts DC to AC – DC power can be a bigger fire hazard under compromised conditions, whereas AC is easier to control. However, that means the wiring on your roof would be running AC power, already carrying dirty electricity through the wires, potentially exposing you to more EMFs if any of your living spaces are close to the roof. Microinverters are also more costly than string inverters.

One last note about inverters and radiofrequency (RF) radiation: if you use an EMF meter (like the Trifield meter) to measure the EMFs coming from your inverter(s), you will likely notice a reading categorized as “RF”. Radiofrequency or RF emissions are commonly assumed to only come from wireless communication devices that use frequencies in the megahertz (MHz) or gigahertz (GHz) range to transmit data wirelessly from one place to another with aerial antennas. However, EMF meters will interpret any frequency in the low kilohertz (kHz) range and above as radiofrequency.

In the case of inverters, frequencies in the kHz-MHz range are produced as a byproduct of high-frequency switching electronics, in the form of a localized noise field. These emissions are not transmitted via antennas and typically diminish rapidly with distance, often approaching background levels within a few feet of the device, similar to other localized electric or magnetic field sources.

Eliminate dirty electricity concerns by cleaning up the sine wave

Dirty electricity, or high frequency voltage transients, are bad for the health of your devices and appliances, generating high frequency spikes that wear out electronic equipment, reducing their longevity. This high frequency “line noise” is also bad for your health, being potentially linked to cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, chronic stress, brain and mood disorders, obesity, asthma, and electro hypersensitivity (EHS).

Whether you’re concerned about the effects of dirty electricity produced by your solar power system’s inverter, the smart meter that a grid tied solar system necessitates the use of, or even just dirty electricity produced by the regular electrical grid with its smart meters and devices/appliances that utilize power in complex ways, there is a way to “clean up” the sine wave.

The SineTamer device, which is wired into your main breaker panel, removes all the excess voltage transients and spikes from the sine wave, by absorbing the excess and converting it to heat to be dispersed through the ground wire. Unlike the capacitance-based, plug-in dirty electricity filters that are widely available – which shunt the dirty electricity onto the neutral line, creating a strong magnetic field with equal or even greater health harms – SineTamer removes the threat completely.

The SineTamer also acts as a surge protector, which is an important component of a solar power system.

Comprehensive EMF protection for a variety of electromagnetic threats

While the SineTamer is an excellent solution for cleaning up the sine wave and therefore reducing the effects of dirty electricity, you still need to protect yourself from the ambient electric and magnetic fields produced by a solar power system, as well as wireless radiofrequency radiation from a variety of sources: smart meters, Wifi routers, Bluetooth, cell phones, nearby cell towers, smart appliances, and more.

One additional concern that some people have is living near a commercial solar power plant, which can expose anyone living nearby to EMFs that are orders of magnitude higher than a home solar power system. This situation requires considerably more protection than the relatively moderate electric, magnetic and radiofrequency fields that a home system would normally expose you to.

Blushield home and portable EMF protection devices offer comprehensive protection from all these radiation sources. There are different models designed for differing levels of EMF exposure, whether you live in a rural area or small town, suburban area or medium city, or even a large city or metropolitan area.

If you have a solar power system with a smart meter or battery bank close to your living area, or if you live near a commercial solar production facility, a strong Blushield model like the C1 Ultimate Cube, EVO Cube or EVO Pyramid would be an excellent choice for optimal protection.

If your home solar power system is designed with plenty of distance between your living area and the strongest EMF sources – the inverter, battery and smart meter – one of our low to moderate EMF exposure models like the Phi 02 Plugin, Phi 03, or B1 Premium Cube would likely suit your needs well.

If you also need protection when you leave your house, from the EMFs in your vehicle, cell towers, and exposure sources at other locations, a Blushield portable device will ensure that you stay in your “protective bubble” no matter where you go and what you’re exposed to.

Solar power systems can be a useful and beneficial upgrade to conventional electrical systems, as long as you understand the unique EMF risks and how to mitigate them.

References:

• U.S. Department of Energy: "Solar Integration: Inverters and Grid Services Basics" - https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/solar-integration-inverters-and-grid-services-basics
  
• Renewable Energy Program Office: "Electro-Magnetic Interference
  from Solar Photovoltaic Arrays" - https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/67440.pdf
• Solar-electric.com: "How To Reduce Electromagnetic Interference in Solar Systems" - https://www.solar-electric.com/learning-center/reducing-electromagnetic-interference-pv-systems.html/
• Renewable Power for Sustainable Growth conference paper: "Solar Rooftop On-Grid Connected Net Metering System" - https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-99-6749-0_8
• IntegrateSun.com: "Do You Need a Smart Meter for Solar Panels?" - https://www.integratesun.com/post/do-you-need-a-smart-meter-for-solar-panels

In a story we have been following for months, the residents of a small Alaskan island town who have been fighting against a proposed cell tower placement in a residential area were recently given the best news they could hope for, making over half a year of hard work worth it: the proposed cell tower was officially rejected by a court decision this October.

Studying the details of this case should help other local municipalities fight proposals for inappropriately placed cell towers in their area, and the precedent set by this case could strengthen other legal battles that are fought on similar grounds.

How did Sitka, Alaska win this case, when the Telecommunications Act of 1996 only allows local governments to reject new cell tower placements under very specific conditions?

Sitka is a remote island town of roughly 8,400 residents who take pride in the spectacular scenery, wildlife and tight-knit neighborhoods. Local wireless communications provider Tidal Networks had their sights set on a building location on a hill right above a residential neighborhood on Nancy Court, in an area with R-1 residential zoning, within 150 feet of homes. They insisted that the cell tower would need to be a massive 120-foot monopole to provide the level of coverage they were targeting, even though the R-1 zoning laws restrict the height of cell towers to only 35 feet, to protect local aesthetics and property values.

Another major issue is that the proposed cell tower location is in a zone with considerable landslide risk. This neighborhood is located at the edge of town, on the base of a hill. Landslides at this location are a distinct possibility, and far more likely if the soil is disturbed through construction of a large cell tower. Not only would the addition of a cell tower destabilize the ground in this area, making landslides more likely, but a strong landslide could cause the cell tower itself to collapse. If this occurred, the tower would fall towards the neighborhood, and local residents would be in danger for not just their property, but their lives.

Aesthetics are an important subject for local residents, who specifically built their houses in this location for the breathtaking natural views of nearby mountains, thick trees of the temperate rainforest, and the ocean view below.

As soon as the local government notified residents of the planned tower, many of them became alarmed and began researching the potentially harmful health effects of living so close to a radio frequency radiation emitting cell tower. Although the Telecommunications Act of 1996 specifically prohibits the rejection of cell towers based on the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions (which is absurd, as this should be a valid concern and argument in itself), fortunately Sitka had several other solid arguments to lean on, which were supported by the Act.

Tidal Networks filed for a variance (a zoning exception) to the 35-foot tower zoning restriction, arguing that the surrounding trees would block too much of the tower’s signal. Even though the Sitka Planning Director initially recommended that the variance be granted, it ended up being denied the first time, in April, due to a lack of supporting evidence. The telecom provider did not give up, and appealed their request, but it was eventually denied once more for several reasons. R-1 residential zoning restrictions only allow cell towers up to 35 feet in height, and variances are only granted if the tower would serve a clear need in the community. Sitka is already considered to be well serviced by wireless network providers, including accessible plans for low income residents, so the Tidal Networks tower would not be filling a need that was previously absent.

Another unusual aspect of the proposal that contributed to its denial by the court is the tower would have no wired fiber optic ground connection that would allow other local providers to place antennas on it, but would exclusively connect with satellite internet providers like Starlink. This would limit the usefulness of the tower as a placement structure for other antennas, and the company provided no cost analysis plans for building out a wired ground connection, now or in the future.

One of the telecom’s arguments for being granted this tower location is that they investigated 129 different sites in the Sitka area, and the Nancy Court location was the only one providing adequate coverage. It turns out that many of these 129 sites were private property, and property owners refused to sell their land to the telecom. Since Tidal Networks intended to use grant money for this tower, and the grant required that Tidal has ownership over their building locations (instead of just leasing the land), the property owners’ refusal to sell automatically ruled out many of the other sites.

The Court Decision text states, “Public comments and letters were uniformly opposed to the variance based on concerns that construction of the tower would lower the value of nearby properties, would expose nearby residents to potentially dangerous radio emissions, destabilize landslide prone slopes in the area, and negatively impact aesthetics and land values in the area.”

The successful rejection of this tower was fully due to local residents banding together and taking quick and decisive action, both in seeking out legal assistance, as well as speaking out about the tower through letters and at local meetings throughout the entire process. Early on, as soon as residents were informed of this tower proposal and became cognizant of its potential dangers, they formed Sitka For Safe Tech, and contacted Children’s Health Defense attorney Scott McCullough, an expert attorney with extensive experience with cell tower related cases. This early action was vital to their success.

It is vastly easier to prevent a cell tower from being placed while in the early planning stages, than to cause a cell tower to be removed after it’s already been built.

Why is it so hard for local governments to reject cell towers?

The court decision document for the Sitka case included an insightful section that illustrates the heart of the problem of why rejecting cell towers is so difficult:

“Proposals to build wireless telecommunication towers invariably raise thorny issues for local zoning authorities. Much like high voltage power lines, highways, and airports, almost everyone uses the services made possible by these towers. Indeed, given the number of people and businesses who depend on the availability of reliable wireless networks, these towers are a necessity of modern life. Correspondingly, however, nobody wants a telecommunications tower constructed close to their home. If the decision to build these towers was effectively handed over to the owners of nearby properties, it seems a safe assumption that few would ever be built.”

This paragraph illustrates a classic conflict between the needs of the public and the values of the private. The document then follows up by quoting the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and how Section 704 (which is an amendment to Section 332 of the original Communications Act of 1934) intends to balance the scales between the values of the private individual and the benefits desired by the public:

“For this reason, Congress has enacted provisions within the Telecommunications Act, that limit the ability of state and local governments to deny applications for the construction of “personal wireless service facilities.” These provisions, which have been codified at 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B), provide as follows:

(i) The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof

(I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and

(II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.

(ii) A State or local government or instrumentality thereof shall act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time

(iii) Any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record.

(iv) No State or local government . . . may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions.

To the extent a local government denies an application to build a personal wireless service facility in violation of these provisions, the applicant may seek an injunction in federal court that overturns the denial.”

Overall, these rules provide a reasonable compromise between private and public needs. The main exception is subsection (iv) that prohibits the rejection of cell towers on the basis of “the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions”, which could also be construed to include health effects. At this time, as studies continue to pile up demonstrating harmful health effects (on humans, animals, trees, insects and more) from radio frequency radiation, there is a major movement towards overturning section 704 of the 1996 Act, and specifically subsection (iv).

The most vocal source of opposition is 704 No More, an initiative of the Children’s Health Defense, who have been instrumental in helping local municipalities battle inappropriate placement of cell towers. The 704 No More initiative seeks to educate people about the need for an environmental and health based defense against cell tower placement, with the intention to eventually overturn or revise Section 704.

FCC seeks to override local zoning restrictions with new rule – don’t let them!

Ironically, or perhaps intentionally, the FCC is currently seeking movement in the opposite direction. From FCC’s Docket 25-276, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is attempting to “streamline” tower placement by eliminating “regulatory burdens imposed at the state and local level”. Even with the very reasonable rules already stated in the 1996 Act, which mostly favor the telecoms and not local governments, that is not enough for them. They want to “expedite, eliminate and simplify permitting burdens”, which they argue are limiting economic development, job creation and energy production.

We don’t see what the problem is. Aren’t there enough cell towers already?

Also, it is perfectly reasonable to require a large build-out of infrastructure (like a cell tower) to go through a full permitting and approval process, and not to be granted special benefits to skip over any part of a full assessment for appropriate placement and planning at the state and local level.

Local municipalities already have limited power to prevent cell tower placement, and must base their rejection on very specific arguments (as outlined in the 1996 Act above). If a local government cannot listen to the concerns of the people they serve, and act as an intermediary between the needs of their citizens and the desires of large corporations (who may not truly have the benefit of the people in mind, over their own profits), then what fail-safe do we have to prevent unchecked growth that may be motivated by greed?

It is true that private values and public benefits can sometimes seem to be in conflict. This should be where the “scales of justice” can step in, assess the nuances of an individual situation, and decide on a solution that is truly fair. To do this successfully, the appropriate laws must be in place to act as a basic framework for these real-time decisions to be made in the courts. We cannot completely skew the law in favor of large corporations, and leave no recourse for local areas to defend the needs of their people.

If we allow this, there would be nothing left to limit and safeguard against the greed of money-hungry corporations who aren’t serving a real need to “underserved” areas, and are mainly concerned with propping up as many cell towers as they can get away with.

The FCC Proceeding is titled “Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireless Deployments”, Docket Number 25-276.

A website titled Preserve Local Control has been created as a platform to spread the word about this proposed rule, so that we can submit comments directly to the FCC’s docket within a time-sensitive window. If you want to share your opinion, please go here and read about how to submit comments, along with a sample comment, in case you need a template to start from: Preserve Local Control – https://www.25-276.org

What did Sitka, Alaska do correctly that other local areas can learn from?

Let’s go back to the successful Sitka case to close this out, and summarize what Sitka did right that other local areas fighting proposed cell tower installations could learn from.

It’s true that part of their success was situational: the Tidal Networks cell tower proposal was almost doomed to fail, due to their bravado in assuming they could take advantage of the inertia of the system and be granted an easy variance to the zoning regulation on tower height. They were also lazy in their planning, with an insufficient argument as to why they needed a 120-foot tower (instead of a more gentle compromise of a tower height somewhere between 35 and 120 feet). Another aspect of the denial was due to the telecom’s inability to show that its proposed tower “would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property nearby parcels.” This likely refers to both the landslide risk of the area, as well as the tower affecting aesthetics and property values, both of which are strong grounds for a rejection that are well supported by the 1996 Act.

However, even with all its flaws, this tower proposal would have likely been approved seamlessly if local residents didn’t take a stand against it.

The court’s verdict also stated that 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B) does not apply to the tower proposed by Tidal Networks, because it would only provide services for their fixed wireless broadband internet service subscribers, and not wider and more generic commercial mobile services “available to a substantial portion of the public” that the Act provides protection for.

Even though we currently cannot argue for the rejection of a cell tower on the grounds of environmental or health effects of RF radiation (which we are hoping will change!), there are still other arguments we can make that are strongly valid under the current laws.

The most important thing is to act quickly – as soon as you hear about plans for a proposed cell tower in your area, seek legal counsel from an experienced attorney (like Scott McCullough) to determine if your area has solid grounds on which to reject the tower placement. Since the 1996 Act requires that local governments must “act on any request within a reasonable period of time”, this means you cannot delay taking action, because your local area is required to respond as quickly as possible.

Blushield supports the EMF and cell tower initiatives of Children’s Health Defense

Every month at Blushield, we donate a portion of our profits from our EMF protection devices specifically to the EMF and cell tower related initiatives of Children’s Health Defense. This helps to fund vitally important cases against inappropriate and dangerous cell tower placements, including the recent successful case in Sitka, Alaska.

Every purchase you make to protect yourself from EMFs with Blushield home and portable devices will help fund cases that will protect the health and well-being of local families from cell towers that would be placed near homes and schools.

References:

• Children’s Health Defense: Sitka, Alaska Court Verdict – https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/Decision.pdf
• Children’s Health Defense: “Sitka Residents Block Cell Tower Project With Help From CHD’s Stop 5G Initiative” – https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/sitka-residents-block-cell-tower-project-help-from-chds-stop-5g-initiative
• Children’s Health Defense: “Alaskans Join Forces With CHD to Fight Giant Cell Tower in Residential Area” – https://childrenshealthdefense.org/community/sitka-alaska-chd-fight-giant-cell-tower-residential-area
• Children’s Health Defense: “Residents of Alaska Town Battle to Keep 120-ft Cell Tower Out of Neighborhood” – https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/residents-alaska-town-battle-to-120-ft-cell-tower-out-neighborhood-5g
• FCC.gov: Telecommunications Act of 1996 – https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.pdf (Section 704 can be found on page 117)
• Preserve Local Control – https://www.25-276.org
• FCC.gov: “Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireless Deployments” (Docket No. 25-276) – https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-67A1.pdf
• 704 No More: An Initiative of the Children’s Health Defense – https://www.704nomore.org