Are EMF Dangers A Conspiracy Theory?

Image of a magnifying glass focused on a bulletin board full of paper with strings connecting various papers with others
The term conspiracy theory has likely been in use for more than a century, but in the past couple decades and especially these past few years, the term has become widely known. When someone first hears about how the manmade electromagnetic fields that now permeate our living spaces more than ever can cause harm to human bodies and other living organisms, but then find out that the government, tech industry and mainstream media claim they are completely harmless, many will wonder…

Are EMF dangers just another conspiracy theory?

First of all, since “conspiracy theory” is commonly used as an insult to dismiss a claim without investing energy into a thoroughly educated counter-argument, it’s important to examine what this term actually means. It’s fairly self-evident that in a modern context, it applies to the suspicion, based on evidence that “just doesn’t add up”, that the official narrative of any big event or big issue is purposely concealing or falsely reporting the truth of what happened, for the purpose of furthering an agenda. By “official narrative”, we mean the version of an event reported by the mainstream media, the government, or any other powerful organization capable of influencing a notable percentage of human minds.

When an individual who is concerned with knowing the true version of an event “theorizes” that groups of people or organizations are “conspiring” for a particular outcome, technically they could be referred to as a conspiracy theorist, and the term itself isn’t inherently insulting. Generally, when people make decisions together in secret (a conspiracy), it is because the potentially affected parties wouldn’t like or agree with the plan, if they knew about it. So to some extent, conspiracies always have ill intent. A sensible, discerning “conspiracy theorist” has seen evidence that arouses suspicion that something is being wrongly reported, and tries to investigate the matter more thoroughly to get to the bottom of it. Much like a detective, solving mysteries.

However, the term has been turned into a derogatory one, by those who don’t want to admit that conspiracies are actually possible and happen regularly. If you study history, you will find out that conspiracies exist, and even large scale conspiracies are possible if only a few people at the top know the truth and everyone further down the line just believes the lie and follows along. Why would our modern society be exempt from the conspiracies that groups of humans concerned with maintaining or increasing their power have been engaging in for all of documented history?

After the JFK assassination in 1963, a significant portion of the population questioned the official story of how it happened and who was involved. This mass suspicion was so concerning to the United States government at the time that the CIA wrote a 53-page document full of instructions on how to dismiss and debunk the questions brought up by these “conspiracy theorists”, to restore faith in the official story published by the Warren Report, to be used by influential voices such as journalists of large publications. This CIA document was not publicly available until a FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act) request was filed over 10 years later. The JFK assassination is still widely questioned to this day.

A more refreshing title for sensible individuals that question official narratives would be a “truth seeker”. The pursuit of (sometimes hidden) truth has always been, and always will be, a vital task in any society. As long as any human engages in deception, truth seeking will be relevant and noble. However, discernment and open mindedness are of critical importance – just because someone has posited a conspiracy theory, that does not make it automatically true.  

How to be a sensible, discerning truth seeker

The stigma and distaste towards truth seekers in modern times can be seen all over social media by so-called “skeptics” who are busy defending official narratives. Part of this stigma is because of the many social media voices who postulate long conspiracy theories using alarming language, expressing a level of certainty without any solid evidence to back it up. These people aren’t exhibiting real truth seeking, and could be called “alarmists”. All over social media, you will see arguments between the alarmists and the skeptics. Both are totally convinced of their views, rarely open to new information or having a civilized debate.

Part of the problem is that the internet is an endless gauntlet of information, and it’s very difficult to determine what’s true and what’s completely made up. Which information is legitimate, and what is just smoke and mirrors? It’s actually extremely challenging and time consuming to verify information and come to an absolutely correct conclusion, and there is so much information available that no matter what someone is inclined to believe, they can find “information” to support their viewpoint. The most important quality to cultivate in the Age of Information is an open, curious, questioning mind. There are some things we will never be able to find out for sure, so maintaining an open mind is paramount.

This is where instinct and personal experience come in. There are many people who just know, instinctively or through personal experience, that EMF saturated environments are not healthy for them. They may feel it physically in their bodies as pain or impaired functioning, or their mental clarity or mood will worsen. They may get headaches on the side of their head they hold their phone up to while they’re using it, then the headache switches sides if they change ears (or subsides when the call is done). For those who consistently experience a decline in well-being and performance around EMFs, the studies and proof don’t even matter, because the end goal is to feel good and be healthy.

Overemphasis on hard truths and having absolute, definitive proof can keep you in a state of uncertainty and inaction. If you wait for a hundred definitive studies to be published that absolutely, without a doubt declare that something is harmful, instead of trusting your instincts and taking action in the meantime, you may end up with health issues from assuming that something is “safe until proven harmful”.

The tech industry takes advantage of this uncertainty – their declaration for many years now, no matter how many studies come out on the harm of EMFs, has been, “We don’t have enough information; more studies will need to be done.” In the meantime, while science is impotent because there’s “never enough” studies, the tech industry continues to roll out new technology, add more cell towers and sell the public on every kind of “smart” appliance imaginable. You can bet that if regulatory committees had strict safety requirements, where the product safety studies have to be completed and publicly reviewed before the product is ever on the market, these tech companies would shape up really quick.  

Fact checkers don’t help

A phenomenon that has risen up in response to the continuous increase of available (and conflicting) information is websites known as “fact checkers”. There are several popular ones in use right now, and they all insist they are completely neutral and unbiased, and claim to reliably get to the bottom of issues and clear up misinformation and “fake news”. Basically, they are claiming that among the mass of conflicting information on the internet, we can rely on them for the truth.

The inherent problem with fact checkers is that a lot of things can’t be easily verified with absolute certainty, and their commitment to labeling something True or False necessitates that they rush to a conclusion as soon as possible after a story hits public awareness. The truth is almost always more nuanced, and less available, than people would like it to be. Since they are in such haste to be the source of the ultimate truth, the appropriate depth of research cannot be done, and conclusions are premature and often skewed subconsciously towards the writer’s personal bias.

Critics of the popular fact checker websites claim that they are politically biased, and this is likely true to an extent. What is definitely true is that they are biased towards the official narrative – partially because it’s the most readily available version of the “truth”, and also because in mainstream society, having a view that conflicts with the official story tarnishes your credibility and reputation. It’s peer pressure, and for these writers to be seen by their colleagues as credible, they generally need to agree with the most popular version of an event (or slight variations that are socially acceptable).

This bias towards the official story can sometimes favor left-wing views, as for example, the left is more likely to believe that vaccines are safe and effective, and with the government making increasingly authoritarian laws. Sometimes it favors the right, who are more likely to accept pesticide use on crops and using genetically modified seeds, and are more likely to side with the telecommunications industry about cell phone radiation being harmless. So it’s not as much about taking political sides, and it is now widely believed that the mainstream left and the mainstream right are both distractions from larger prevailing issues that are still widely ignored.  

Compilations of studies on the harms of EMFs

Contrary to the telecommunications industry’s constant pronouncement of “we don’t have enough definitive studies” to know whether EMFs are harmful, there are plenty of studies showing the harms of electromagnetic fields from various artificial sources of various frequencies and amplitudes. However, most people don’t know how to read and interpret studies, and mostly look to conventional news sources or government agencies to deliver the verdicts to them, which is absolutely not happening in an honest way, or at all.

The most condemning example to date is the government commissioned, 10-year long, $30 million dollar National Toxicology Program cell phone radiation study. It was done on rodents, because in scientific experiments, rodents are especially useful because they respond in very similar ways to external stimulus as humans, but you can see results much more quickly since their lifespans are shorter and therefore accelerated. The study, and the official peer review panel, unsurprisingly found “clear evidence” of certain types of cancers and DNA damage in a notable percentage of the rodents. The government agencies that commissioned the study initially seemed stunned and caught off guard at the results, and admitted needing to look more into this. A couple years later, their tune had changed. Now they state they are not concerned, because the study was done on rodents and the results can’t be accurately transferred to humans, which is a blatantly contradictory statement, as the study was specifically designed in the first place so that it could be clearly interpreted as relevant to humans!

Read our article on the $30 million government funded NTP study here, for more details on exactly how this went down. It’s very telling, and reeks of conspiracy.

A couple years ago, results from another large, long-term study at the Ramazzini Institute in Italy were published that replicate the results of the NTP study. This study on over 2,400 rodents also found central and peripheral nervous system cancers (specifically gliomas and schwannomas) from exposure to radiofrequency radiation. Scientists aware of the results of both studies are strongly recommending that the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) reclassify radiofrequency radiation from “possible” to a “probable” human carcinogen.

Although these are the most obvious examples we know of, there are plenty more. Notably, independent studies tend to show a higher percentage of incriminating results against EMFs than industry- and government-funded studies. This shows that even scientific studies can be manipulated by the results that the funders most want to see, and the scientists themselves have only some control over how they design their studies and report their findings. A few studies show debatably positive effects (mainly anti-inflammatory effects due to suppression of immune response) of certain types of EMFs, which points out that the biological response to electromagnetics is complex and depends on many factors (such as frequency and duration of exposure), but it also shows that whether positive or negative, we are definitely affected by them.

There are several websites with compilations and summaries of EMF studies. EMF Portal is a great resource, and is continually updated with new studies. The Bioinitiative Report summarizes EMF studies in categories of their various affects on health. 23 studies have confirmed Dr. Martin Pall’s findings that one major mechanism of (mostly harmful) biological effects from EMFs is their action on the voltage-gated calcium channels in each of our cells, causing calcium channel flooding which can cause a myriad of health issues. A recent article by Children’s Health Defense elaborates thoroughly on studies showing EMF harm, and how the FCC is ignoring and disregarding this information vital to the health of the world’s population.  


Electromagnetic fields absolutely can and do have harmful effects on humans and other life forms. We think this is mainly because of their repetitive oscillating frequencies, which overstimulate our cells. Nature produces its own EMFs, but they are a constantly varying symphony of different frequencies at different amplitudes, never repeating themselves exactly. Blushield devices also work this way, designed after the intricate patterns of nature. Our bodies have evolved with this type of stimulus, which is vastly different than the very new barrage of repetitive frequencies we are now exposed to almost anywhere we live.

Whether EMF dangers are a conspiracy theory depends on if government and industry have been purposely working together to promote EMF emitting devices as safe, and hide knowledge of harmful effects. From what we know about the FCC and how close of contact they have with industry (as detailed by Harvard University's Center for Ethics report, “Captured Agency”), this is an easily believable theory. If this is a conspiracy theory, it’s a pretty easy one to validate as being mostly or completely true.

Being a sensible, discerning truth seeker is a brave and noble act, and necessary for Americans who value their liberty. “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance” is a famous quote from the 1800’s that has been repeated so many times that no one knows exactly who said it first. When human societies allow pacification and unquestioned belief in authority seep into their peoples’ minds, this is just asking for large scale abuses of power to take advantage of a weak minded populace and steer their fate in a dangerous direction.

Let’s not let our minds weaken and allow America to fall from the liberty-minded values it was founded on, and into a dominating and authoritarian police state. Have eternal vigilance.  

References & recommended reading:

Bioinitiative Report: A Rationale for Biologically-based Exposure Standards for Low-Intensity Electromagnetic Radiation –

EMF Portal –

“Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage‐gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects” –

Microwave News: “More Than a Coincidence: New Large Animal Study, Like NTP’s, Links RF to Schwannoma of the Heart” –

Children’s Health Defense: “Whose Conspiracy Is It, Mr. Johnson? CHD’s Response to FCC General Counsel’s Op-Ed in the Washington Post” –

CIA Document 1035-960: “Countering Criticism of the Warren Report” –

“Dangerous Machinery: “Conspiracy Theorist” as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion” –

"Conspiracy Theories and the Conventional Wisdom” by Charles R. Pigden –

“The Conspiracy Myth” by Charles Eisenstein –

Older post Newer post

This post copyright ©2020-2023 Blushield USA. All rights reserved.

Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission is strictly prohibited.