Culture, Technology & Radiofrequency Effects

Fascinating insights from Dr Andrew Tresidder that we really shouldn't ignore

Technology is wonderful and can benefit mankind greatly. The story of the last 5000 years is of incremental technological advances, success and the progressive empowerment of humanity with the opportunity to raise human consciousness.

We have seen the clearing of forests for agriculture with iron tools, then the wheel, next straight roads to communicate with Rome, aqueducts and bridges. Further revolutions (periods of rapid evolution) have followed. In the Middle Ages, literacy and the printing press, then agricultural, industrial, power generation (wood, coal, oil and electricity), transport (railways then roads on land, ships on sea and air travel), electricity, communication, all allowing communication and personal travel and the projection of power and will. Recent advances in information technology have allowed amazing leaps forward. Great!

All these human advances allow better, more fulfilled lives for many. It seems as though mankind has mastered external use of the elements of earth, fire, air and water. If the purpose of technological advance is purely to have more comfortable lives, then technology has served us well, despite setbacks. However, if the purpose is to serve the fulfillment of personal potential – that is, the growth of human consciousness, then we may be missing a trick.

The Roman Emperors knew how to control the restless million inhabitants of Rome – by giving panem et circenses – a free corn supply, for bread and circuses. Perhaps our modern equivalent is plenty of refined carbohydrate and 24 hour screen time…

There are three important aspects that apply to potential problems with Radiofrequency and Electromagnetic (RF or microwave) Field technology:

1. Safety always lags behind technology

We have seen this time and again – on the first day of a public railway in Britain, the Liverpool and Manchester MP, William Huskisson, was run down by a train. Improvements in safety stopped trains travelling towards each other on the same stretch of track, then signaling became more sophisticated, and so on.

The highest rate of road fatalities per mile travelled was in the 1920's. Lack of driving skills, unsafe cars and poor road surfaces all contributed to this.

Resistance to safety always comes from the industries. The railways had to be cajoled by the Railway Inspectorate (HMRI) and on roads in the 1960's the introduction of safety belts was resisted by libertarians, anxious to allow people the right to exit a motor car via the front windscreen and by the manufacturers, because of cost. However, unit costs always reduce with increased production.

2. Safety limits are set – but by whom, and for whose benefit?

Current Electro Magnet Field (EMF) safety limits in much of the Western world are based on the assumption that only thermal (heating, power) effects are hazardous to health. Safety limits set by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) are six minute thermal effects only. If the source heats biological tissue by over 1 degree Celsius within six minutes, there is deemed to be a problem. If it takes 7 minutes, 60 minutes or six hours, then this is not covered by the safety limits.

However, biological systems react to extremely low power signals – our eyes can react to a single photon with a cascade of biochemical reactions, whilst our ears can detect a billionth of a watt when in silence - these are neither power nor thermal effects. Living systems are affected by signal at a power many orders of magnitude below thermal effects. Mechanisms include effects on the voltage gated calcium channels amongst others, which affect fertility and many other systems.

Many governments have chosen to follow ICNIRP, which favours industrial output rather than the biological limits that protect human health, bees, insects and nature. This is despite thousands of scientific studies showing harm at levels well below thermal. Non-thermal does NOT equal non-harmful.

Furthermore, much of the insurance industry describes Electro Magnetic (EM) and Radio Frequency (RF) fields as ‘pollutants’ and declines to provide indemnity cover. What does this say? Also, exposures are often ‘talked down’ as part of a ‘spin’ approach. For example, one company claims that its smart meters only transmit for six seconds a day yet the truth is that meters transmit 14000 times a day for a few microseconds and we know that 14000 blood curdling screams do not average out as silence.

3. Sadly, society can be led astray, even into danger

Many people use devices, whether mobile phones, IPads, tablets, home WiFi, smart meters and so on, on the basis that “they wouldn’t let us use them if they weren’t safe, would they?” Many of us, especially the young, are addicted to our devices and treat them as comfort blankets – in fact some of the algorithms in the software are designed to hook our attention.

Once the hazards of any new technology become apparent, there is always a slow movement from denial. From “there isn’t a problem, there isn’t a problem” and “there are a few mad people who say there’s a problem” to grudging acceptance, “there’s only a small problem and it’s completely under control” to “Houston, we have a problem”, the realisation of the major significance of the issue.

We’ve seen this with tobacco, asbestos, lead in petrol, radiation in pregnancy and other issues, all advised as SAFE by the industries involved and often by health advisers. It is so much easier to blame the messenger than listen to the message but as they say in the airline industry, " safety may be expensive, but the cost of a mid-air collision…"

In summary

Technological advances can be wonderful and bring great benefits.
Safety always lags technology and those who profit frequently resist the safety costs
Current safety limits are six minute thermal only. This does not respect human biology and is based on the false assumption that non-thermal equals non-harmful
Harms are often not initially apparent and are then denied – often using vociferous active denial, by those who have vested interests, whether financial or from a belief system
Technology should be used wisely and serve, not master human development.

The future is hopeful – but ONLY if harms are recognised and mitigated and humanity survives the technology! Barrie Trower writes about incremental fertility failure, because a girl’s oocytes (immature ovums, or egg cells) can be damaged by RF from laptops etc and mitochondria (the ‘power houses’ of the cell) are affected, whilst we know that sperm quality is degraded by RF.

Where next for humanity? Do we use the advances in technology to raise our consciousness, and learn more about humans as Beings, transcending our own software needs of nurture and development? Or do we just palliate these needs with plenty of carbohydrate and lots of potentially high risk entertainment?

Society’s real challenge for a safer future is to transcend our fears, resolve our hurts and listen more to our hearts and the human soul, as well as using the cleverness of our heads.

Will humanity go where it needs – to raise the level of consciousness, awareness and connection? Or just travel where it wants to?

Dr Andrew Tresidder

For more information visit www.ignir.org and/or www.es-uk.info

Report abuse