Snoop Dogg needs no introduction. He is well-known: a worldwide music and culture celebrity, ever exploring new projects and partnerships, and reaching new audiences.

Last year Snoop Dogg joined the television show “The Voice” as a judge. On the show. he projected a spiritual, supportive, collaborative, tender, genuine, family-oriented persona. That is the image he wants the public to “buy”.

The problem is he has become a spokesman for T-Mobile and appears in their television ads. and T-Mobile is selling services and devices that it knows, at a minimum, can cause serious health damage to the users, and may even cause death.

Snoop Dogg did not exercise his due diligence.

T-Mobile has known of the harms for at least 25 years, since 2000, when the company commissioned the ECOLOG Institute in Austria to review the scientific literature on microwave radiation and its biological effects. The public and Snoop Dogg can read what ECOLOG found and reported to T-Mobile here:

https://electromagnetichealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/ecolog2000.pdf (86 pages)

T-Mobile’s response to that report? They buried it and continued selling their wireless service and products to the public, including to children, and building their cell towers next to homes, schools, and workplaces. It’s highly profitable, after all, as long as the public buy

Snoop Dogg is their new and very appealing salesman, but he is representing and promoting products which thousands of studies have shown to cause harms ranging from oxidative stress and free radical formation, to cancer and tumors, DNA damage, neurological, reproductive and immune damage, children’s special vulnerability, electromagnetic sensitivity, and devastating impacts to birds, bees, trees, and other wildlife.

His alliance with the wireless industry will most certainly affect his image, his brand, and his credibility, and may even incur liability claims.

Will Snoop Dogg evaluate whether he wishes to associate his brand and himself with this industry? Or will he continue to represent and profit from an industry that uses and abuses people as mere commodities, valuing corporate profit above all else, without regard for the safety of its products and service, without regard for people, their children, or the Earth?

What will Snoop Dogg do?

More information at:

Physicians for Safe Technology www.mdsafetech.org

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety www.SaferEMR.com

Environmental Health Trust www.ehtrust.org

Healthy Tech at Home Project www.healthytechhome.org

Safe Tech International Safe Tech International – Uniting to Protect Life on Earth

Warning: Your Cell Phone May Be Hazardous to Your Health, Christopher Ketcham, GQ, January 25, 2010

https://www.gq.com/story/warning-cell-phone-radiation

State of New Hampshire: Final Report on Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology

5G final report.pdf

“Increasing incidence of burnout due to magnetic and electromagnetic fields of cell phone networks and other wireless communication technologies” Isabel Wilke, Peter Hensinger

https://www.diagnose-funk.org/download.php?field=filename&id=389&class=DownloadItem

Cellular Telephone Russian Roulette, Robert Kane

https://www.icems.eu/docs/Robert_C_Kane.pdf

Environmental Pollution by Microwave Radiation – A Potential Threat to Human Health, John A. Tanner, Romero-Sierra, Bigu del Blanco, NRC Canada, (National Research Council of Canada), Division of Mechanical Engineering report, 1973

https://smartmeterharm.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/nrc-canada-1973-report.pdf

Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena (‘Effects’) and Clinical Manifestations attributed to Microwave and Radio-Frequency Radiation, for Naval Medical Research Institute, Compiled by,Zorach Glaser, 1972

https://www.magdahavas.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Navy_Radiowave_Brief.pdf

Safety of Wireless Technologies: The Scientific View, Richard Lear, Camilla Rees, 2025 –

“Of the 36 chronic diseases and conditions that more than doubled (1990-2015), the U.S. Navy study warned us of the connection between wireless radiation and twenty-three of those chronic diseases, predicting what has indeed happened to the health of Americans…

By ignoring the earlier science, U.S. regulators failed to protect the American people from the dangers of wireless technologies. In doing so, they imposed millions of unnecessary chronic exposure conditions on the American public. By 2015, the 23 diseases the U.S. Navy predicted may have added more than $2 trillion in annual health care costs to the U.S. economy due to their negligence.”

(PDF) Safety of Wireless Technologies: The Scientific View

EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27454111

How the Impact of Electromagnetic Fields on Plants Can Greatly Increase Severity of and Even Occurrence of “Wildfires”: A Four-Part Structure, Martin Pall

https://juniperpublishers.com/ecoa/pdf/ECOA.MS.ID.555631.pdf

Birds, Bees and Mankind: Destroying Nature by Electrosmog

https://kompetenzinitiative.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ki_beesbirdsandmankind_screen.pdf

U.S. Department of Interior letter on communication towers impacts to birds, to Dept. of Commerce, 2-7-14

us_doi_comments.pdf

Freiburg Appeal, October 9, 2002

FREIBURGER APPEAL

Santa Clara County Medical Association articles on wireless radiation

Overloading of Towns and Cities with Radio Transmitters (Cellular Transmitter): a hazard for the human health and a disturbance of eco-ethics, Hecht and Savoley IRCHET International Research Centre of Healthy and Ecological Technology, 2007

https://smartmeterharm.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/hecht-overloading-towns.pdf

Bioinitiative Report 2012

BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF) (updated 2014-2022)

Nina Beety is a researcher, writer, and public speaker on public policy, the environment, and wireless radiation hazards. Her 2012 and 2019 reports for public officials “Smart Meter and Smart Grid Problems: Legislative Solutions” and “Fire and Electrical Hazards from ‘Smart’, Wireless, PLC, and Digital Utility Meters” are on her website www.smartmeterharm.org. She lives in California.

In the 1990’s, when I ran an interdisciplinary yoga studio, one of the teachers had a catch phrase ‘Yoga for Everybody.’ We designed a post card with photos of a toddler and a yoga teacher, and a student supplied a picture of her golden retriever. They were each performing inspiring, instinctual and heart-warming expressions of Adho Mukha Svanasana – Downward Dog Pose.  

Yogajala reports that there are 10 benefits of Downward Dog:  1. Stretches the entire body, 2. Eases back pain and promotes good posture 3. Strengthens the upper body 4. Improves stability and balance 5. Full body strength building 6. Calms the mind 7. Boosts mental clarity and focus 8. Supports the digestive system 9. Regulates the nervous system 10. Alleviates tension headaches and migraines.

Full Disclosure: In my mind, I compare these benefits with issues associated with increased screen time, especially for children. By far, I am not alone. (For example, see: The EdTech Revolution Has Failed The case against student use of computers, tablets, and smartphones in the classroom from John Haidt’s Substack After Babel)

It’s Always Inflammation

But the point of my story is that soon after we created our downward dog postcard, the student who owned the golden retriever stopped in. She had recently taken the dog to the vet, and his inflammatory markers were sky high.

We had been using his image to promote concepts of stress reduction and mind-body balance, and his nerves were, in fact, on fire.

We were broken-hearted.

I was reminded of the story of her beloved pet when I listened, again, to a recent podcast with Dr. Tom O’Bryan and Nathan Crane about the difference between Healthspan and Lifespan, or Biological Age and Chronological Age.

We are older than our chronological age. We are living longer, but we are spending a greater portion of our lives in poor health. (This includes children, and mounting autism, ADHA, asthma, obesity, and auto-immune issues.) We are headed in the wrong direction.

I know that I am in the same boat as that dog, along with many others. The difference is that I have been fortunate enough to recognize that something is wrong.

According to Dr. Tom O’Bryan, others might be traversing through 30 years of Alzheimer’s development and not know it. The problem is that if we don’t recognize, assess, and address risks while harm is unfolding, invisibly, below the surface, – we can’t respond.

As Dr. O’Bryan stated, we keep throwing gas on the fire, and the fire is in the brain.

How do we make the invisible visible? The answer is: We look at the progression of inflammation. If we are courageous enough, we address the cause.

Telomeres

Regarding aging, I had previously heard Dr. Zach Bush raise a question about the possibility of adverse effects of RF and 5G exposure on the length of telomeres. Healthline explains: “Your DNA is located within the nuclei of your cells, where it’s bundled within structures called chromosomes. Each chromosome carries specific genetic information in the form of genes. As the cells in your body divide, your chromosomes need to replicate so that each cell contains a complete set of chromosomes in its nucleus. At the ends of each of your chromosomes are stretches of DNA called telomeres. Telomeres help protect the ends of your chromosomes from damage or fusing with nearby chromosomes. Keep reading to learn more about these tiny but important structures and why they could unlock the door to preventing disease and reducing the effects of aging.”

Non-repairable, Permanent Indicators of Genotoxic Effects

I also remember reading about a recent study about cell towers and chromosomal damage. “A newly published study found people who lived near telecommunications base station antennas (such as cell towers and telecommunications network antennas) with higher exposure to radio-frequency (RF) radiation from the antennas had significantly higher chromosomal aberrations s (non-repairable, permanent indicators of genotoxic effects) in their blood.  The peer reviewed study entitled “Evaluation of oxidative stress and genetic instability among residents near mobile phone base stations in Germany” was published in the journal Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety by renowned European experts of the Cancer Research Institute, Biomedical Research Centre, Slovak Academy of Sciences in Bratislava, Slovak Republic, Germany, and the Cancer Research Centre, Medical University of Vienna.  – Enviromental Health Trust (Jun 13, 2024)

Chromosome abnormalities can be inherited from a parent (such as a translocation) or be “de novo” (new to the individual). This is why, when a child is found to have an abnormality, chromosome studies are often performed on the parents. -Source

At times, I have wondered how my life would have turned out if I had not ended up needing to learn about comet assay indices and de novo chromosome abnormalities, and was studying Sanskrit instead. I know the answer. I have an environmental illness progressing towards a disease diagnosis that could possibly have been prevented or mitigated against, but remains beyond my control due to an uncontrolled environment. But had I not been accurately informed about lifestyle choices that are harmful to me, I could be in much worse health, or already deceased, or making choices that are harmful to others.

I would rather know.

I wonder when we will consider the impact of a polluted EMF/RF environment, and genetic damage affecting younger populations, that is not inherited.

How Does Information Translate into Behavioral Change?

When I was in my late teens, ‘Russian Tea’ was all the rage. At the time, the processed food empire was heavily influenced by the patriotism of the Space Race. ‘Russian Tea’ was created by mixing powdered diet iced tea mix with Tang – the astronaut’s drink.

(Wikipedia notes that Kraft Heinz owns the Tang brand in North America. Sales of Tang were poor until NASA used it on John Glenn‘s Mercury flight in February 1962,^[5] and on subsequent Gemini missions.^[6] Since then it has been closely associated with the U.S. human spaceflight program, which created the misconception that Tang was invented for the space program.^[7][8] Tang continues to be used on NASA missions in the present day, over 50 years after its introduction.^[9] – Wikipedia)

I loved concocting Russian Tea, and I loved drinking it. At the time, the diet drink Tab was also advertised as nutritious for women because calcium was being added. Chemistry was king,

When the summer ended, I realized that Russian Tea was also delicious as a hot drink/hot tea.

Then I read that when the artificial sweetener was heated, it caused direct harm – to the brain. It was the last time that I drank Russian Tea or its components.

The experience changed my relationship with the authorities who regulate the food supply. I saw how a chemical product could be brought to market, then classified as carcinogenic, and then re-classified as safe, for example saccharin, or vinyl chloride.

I also know about the unscrupulous product defense field, and mercenary science, and compromised politicians and regulators.

Regarding sweeteners, I started to feel the discomfort that reveals itself when our beliefs are challenged, and when we feel that the societal structures that are supposed to protect us are not reliable or accountable.

Rather than avoiding the discomfort and gravitating back into denial, deep in my cells, when I looked at certain products, I was repelled. I leaned into it.

Regulatory authorities are not revising their science in response to real world conditions. Therefore. the public has to move and evolve faster. We are already witnessing a revolution is behaviors in regard to children and social media, led by parents, driving policy change. That revolution is sparking evolution, and we need it, because we are traversing a de-evolutionary, instinct-injured pathway.

I believe that if everyone had the chance to learn about inflammation progression that the world could shift on a dime. In fact, it can.

Nathan Crane and Dr. Tom O’Bryan

The interview with Nathan Crane and Dr. Tom O’Bryan is Shocking: Why Alzheimer’s and Dementia Diagnoses Are Rising, Dr. Tom O’Bryan | Nathan Crane Podcast

It is Time to Remove the Covid-Colored Glasses

As Dr. O’Bryan noted, pre-covid, in 2017, Blue Cross Blue Shield published an alarming report about increasing rates of early onset dementia in ages 30 to 64.

Reference: Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. “Early-Onset Dementia and Alzheimer’s Rates Grow for Younger American Adults.” The Health of America Report, 2017. Click here to read this issue. – Image from healthspan-vs-lifespan – theDr®

Sky-rocketing Neurological Death Rates

Prior to the Blue Cross Blue Shield report, before Covid, in 2015, Bournemouth University (U.K) researchers Colin Pritchard and Emily Rosenorn-Lanng published their study, Neurological deaths of American adults (55–74) and the over 75’s by sex compared with 20 Western countries 1989–2010: Cause for concern

The researchers showed that deaths due to neurological diseases like Alzheimer’s and dementia were, in fact, rising in the twenty-one Western countries, with especially alarming increases for women in the United States. In August of 2015, the Washington Post reported,” The study [] found that the disease is now being regularly diagnosed in people in their late 40s and that death rates are soaring. [] The problem was particularly acute in the United States, where neurological deaths in men aged over 75 have nearly tripled and in women risen more than fivefold.”

“Total Neurological Deaths include such disparate conditions as Parkinson’s disease, motor neuron disease (MND), hereditary neuromuscular conditions, prion disorders, degenerative diseases, including Creutzfeldt Jacob’s disease (CJD), and new variant CJD[50] though the incidence of the later appears to have relatively stabilized, returning close to pre‑2000 levels.[9,30,41] Earlier research found that dementia morbidity was occurring earlier and had disproportionately increased in some Western countries in people aged 45–74 years, with relatively larger increases in women[26,38,40] as women’s TND rates had risen relatively more than male rates in every country.”

” [] apart from Portugal, over the 20 years the USA had statistically significant greater rises in Total Neurological Deaths than 16 other countries, indicating disproportionate changes in neurological morbidity and mortality in American adults (55–74) and the over 75’s“

“Moreover, the extent of “early dementias,” often seen in people under 60, was virtually unknown 30 or more years ago and the more than doubling of the over 75’s Total neurological Deaths in the US within just 20 years, suggests that interactive multiple environmental and lifestyle factors are operating.

“Neurological diseases are considered to be “diseases of the elderly”[37] and that possibly the rises are essentially due to the “Gompertzian effect”‑that is, that as people live longer, they have diseases that previously they would not have lived long enough to develop.[7,14,43] This appears to have some validity, but the question is whether such substantial changes, occurring over a relatively short period, are mainly due to the Gompertzian effect? However, international changes in regard to cancer deaths[41,42] do not accord with a Gompertzian prediction, nor does this explanation account for changes between countries and gender especially in the USA, as other studies, while acknowledging an element of Gompertzian process, have suggested that environmental factors play a larger part.[2,24,25,”

“CONCLUSIONS The Gompertzian explanation appears limited, not least because it does not explain the USA position, but we avoid the temptation to speculate but point toward a number of studies indicating possible epigenetic factors influencing neurological morbidity,[3‑5,15,22,24‑26,32,36,44] suggesting that possible nongenetic influences on gene expression, may be entertained.[4‑6,10,12,13,16,20,32,41] The nature of any environmental factors are uncertain but there have been major environmental changes; including increased population, economic activity, substantial rises in road and air travel; increased home technology involving background electromagnetic fields (mobile phones, microwave ovens, computers), which are unique to these later years and these possible environmental factors cannot be ignored, especially as they probably interact.[6,10,27,28,33] This list of possible features might be described as “modern living” and the USA is the epitome of “modern living.””

In the study, death rates for cancer and cardio-vascular diseases were used as controls and compared with neurological deaths. (Note: Unfortunately, the World Health Organization modified their data categories to 20-year cohorts, instead of the previous practice of sorting by decades, further obscuring patterns of earlier neurological damage. There is a difference between dying of dementia at 55 vs. 74. He who controls the data controls the narrative.)

Several points discussed in the podcast with Nathan Crane and Dr. O’Bryan:

1. 14 of the 15 leading causes of death are chronic inflammatory diseases
2. Growing evidence suggests that autoantibodies precede the onset of symptomatic autoimmune disease by many years
3. During the podcast, Dr O’Bryan discusses research published in 2003, conducted on military veterans, demonstrating that biomarkers were present in stored blood in individuals who were subsequently diagnosed with Lupus, that follow a predictable course, years before the disease manifested.
4. Dr. O’Bryan describes the progression from normal immunity to benign immunity to pathogenic autoimmunity to clinical illness.
5. The predomal period is when a disease mechanism can be identified, before specific symptoms appear.
6. Individuals who are at risk to developing an autoimmune disease should be advised to refrain from activities and lifestyle which endangers their health and quality of life.

Although the interview with Dr. O’Bryan and Nathan Crane does not mention reducing exposures to radio frequency radiation powering wireless devices and infrastructure, a portion of the population has been reporting harm, for decades. And independent researchers have been swimming against the tide, validating symptoms and disability.

We need to backtrack to what we were learning about the damage to the brain, and the blood brain barrier, years before covid, and before the arguments about whether covid or vaccines are to blame for health harm.

The testing now available to evaluate biomarkers of brain inflammation leading to specific diseases could be conducted on those experiencing ‘Havana Syndrome;’ on those who comprise the Targeted Justice community; and those reporting Electromagnetic Radiation Syndrome, also known as EHS.

In particular, smart meters have unleashed significant neurological damage in some individuals, and further installations should be stopped pending independent investigation.

The Elimination Challenge – Keith Cutter

Keith Cutter of EMF Remedy has proposed an “EMF Elimination Challenge: A Vision to Change Lives and Heal the World Strategic Initiative #1”

“In my work, I constantly meet people who are on the path to becoming survivors of chronic synthetic EMF exposure. The pattern is always the same: a sudden realization that life is better without synthetic EMF. The specifics vary, but the stories follow a familiar theme. A school teacher falls ill when WiFi is installed in her classroom. A man gets sick after setting up a WiFi router meant for a warehouse in his small apartment. A homeowner moves to a beautiful country home, only to have her health instantly depleted by radar sweeping the area. A woman’s life is forever changed after solar panels are installed on her roof. These are just a few of the many stories I’ve heard from my clients.

In each case, lives are transformed in obvious ways upon exposure to synthetic EMF. Nothing teaches like this kind of experience—a clear and undeniable contrast between life with and without synthetic EMF exposure.

An elimination challenge or trial involves removing one or more potential triggers from a person’s environment, diet, or routine to observe whether symptoms improve or resolve. This approach is commonly used for suspected food intolerances, allergies, chemical sensitivities, or other conditions where specific exposures may be causing harm.“

Dr. William Rea

The late Dr. William Rea of the Environmental Health Center developed a protocol to determine which of his patients were actually sensitive to wireless frequencies. In a 2011 presentation to Building Biologists, he discussed “Solutions for Creating Healthy Buildings”

As part of is protocol, he began by eliminating RF exposure and establishing homeostasis in his patients, and then employing provocation testing.

Researchers involved in manufacturing science to deny the adverse effects of RF exposure are fond of invoking the nocebo effect and claiming that patients cannot determine whether or not they are being exposed to radio frequencies under laboratory conditions.

But if Dr. O’Bryan is telling us that harm can be occurring for 30 years before a disease is detected, and also telling us that predictive biomarkers are present even if we do not yet have a disease diagnosis, and if a portion of the population is reporting harm, and if other researchers including Dr. Magda Havas have provided evidence of changes in heart rate in some patients, isn’t it time for us to stop breaking our own heads and hearts?

Those who are far enough declining towards the development of disease to feel pain when exposed to cell towers, cellphones, and Wi-Fi and who may have already developed harm to tissue are “canaries in the coal mine.”

“And now here is my secret, a very simple secret: It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.”
― Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, The Little Prince

Until, of course, it isn’t.

Want to take action?

Sign The International Declaration on the Human Rights of Children in the Digital Age

The dramatic transformation of our world into one increasingly enmeshed with digital technology is having a significant, and often negative, impact on the lives of our children.
In this International Declaration, we posit three fundamental legal rights of children regarding the deployment and use of technology: their right to be free from intentionally addictive devices, platforms and apps; their right to be free from excessive exposure to wireless radiation; and their right to be free from commercial exploitation. HERE

For entertainment and informational purposes only, not to be construed as medical advice.

Note: The names of the Chinese Medicine meridians are capitalized, as is customary, to differentiate the Meridians from underlying organs with the same name.

“The consequences are profound if the American Cancer Society and others are getting it wrong regarding the dramatic increase in cancer in young people.”

Science Diplomacy?

Science diplomacy is a relatively new term, referring to the benefits of both diplomatic relationships, and cross-border shared science, especially relative to global challenges.

Nonetheless, the United States has systematically denied the implications of Russian EMF research, as well as some of its own recent and historical studies of radio frequency radiation and electromagnetic fields, including implications for cancer.

Agreement signed in 1976 by the United States to ignore Russian research and health findings in favor of military and industrial output:

“If the more advanced nations of the West were strict in the enforcement of stringent exposure standards, there could be unfavorable effects on industrial output and military functions.”

Speaking of Cancer

The American Cancer Society has just referenced a report identifying alarming increases in cancers, including deaths, in Millennials and GenXers.

The American Cancer Society points to obesity as a possible underlying cause.

What if they have it all wrong?

What if we are overlooking something obvious, right in front of us, right at the tips of our fingers?

What if Chinese Medicine could help us end this health disaster?

Missing the Message of Olympic Massage: Energy Pathways

There are a few articles “making the rounds” in the mainstream media about round bruises clearly visible on the bodies of Olympic swimmers. The bruising is explained by the press as being caused by an Asian massage technique known as “cupping.” Swimmer Michael Phelps brought widespread attention to the phenomenon during the Rio Olympics in 2016.  

(See photographs here: https://talksport.com/olympics/1986450/dark-circles-athletes-swimmers-bodies-back-marks-bruises-cupping/ )

But in the last 8 years, since Rio, Western society still has not learned much about the practice and its implications, as exemplified in an article by Eurosport.

The article quotes ‘health experts’ who imply that the benefits may be “in the head” “because it makes the athletes feel better.”

“Despite anecdotal evidence from athletes, the scientific community remains divided on the benefits of cupping. Studies have shown mixed results, with some suggesting minor improvements for conditions like neck or back pain, while others find no significant impact. Harvard Medical School said the evidence is too limited to make any firm conclusions. Pharmacologist professor David Colquhoun, from University College London, dismissed the technique to the BBC as just a bit of skin pulling that wouldn’t affect the muscle much. He said: “It’s what [British physician] Ben Goldacre would call – a voluntary tax on the gullible.” But many athletes along with celebrities like Gwenyth Paltrow, Justin Bieber and Jennifer Anniston seem to publicly endorse this form of massage therapy. And if Olympians think cupping makes them feel better, it could. The mind is one of the most powerful tools an athlete can wield during the Games. – SOURCE

What if it is Not ‘in the Head’ But in Unseen Electromagnetic Pathways?

Individuals with some background in the Meridian System of Chinese Medicine may be aware that cupping is not “in the mind/head,” nor would it be appropriately evaluated “in the muscles.”  Cupping has a foundation in an ancient science-based paradigm that mapped out electromagnetic pathways and activation points in the human energy field (and in animals as well) that we in the West have yet to understand.

Swimmers Shoulders

‘Experts’ Harvard Medical School, Pharmacologist professor David Colquhoun, and British physician Ben Goldacre (quoted in the cupping article) imply that the effects of cupping are either non-existent or imaginary.

Are Western experts quoted in the media not consulting the correct science-based paradigm?

And, is this an enduring expression of intellectual arrogance and cultural prejudice towards accumulated wisdom for which the West has no knowledge?

Small Intestine 11: Shoulder Blade

If the photographs of the cupping locations in swimmers are compared to the pathway of the Small Intestine Meridian in Chinese medicine, do new understandings arise?  

Activation of Small Intestine 11 for Olympic swimmers is a case in point.

A detailed explanation (including the evocative name, and applications for points) is available to Westerners, in reference books, and on –line, for example, here, for each point location on the Small Intestine’s pathway. Point locations possess specific qualities.

The acupuncture point “SI 11” , 天宗, is represented by “Tian Zong” in pinyin and “Celestial Gathering” in English, The acupuncture point “SI 11” , 天宗, is represented by “Tian Zong” in pinyin and “Celestial Gathering” in English. Of many possible clinical applications, it may be considered to influence the following issues/symptoms: Breast problems, mastitis, insufficient lactation, breast pain. Emotional issues, anxiety that presents with asthma, expands and relaxes the chest, asthma generally. Local point for channel pain within the shoulder, scapula region, elbow, arm, face and jaw.  A single acupuncture point is not commonly thought of as an empirical way to influence a TCM diagnostic pattern. SI11, however, is a strong candidate to be incorporated into an acupuncture protocol for patients who exhibit: Liver Qi Stagnation and/or Lung Qi Deficiency.  SOURCE

It seems obvious that activating the Lungs would support athletic prowess, but what is a Meridian?

How is it that a point on the Small Intestine Meridian would affect the Lungs?

Generally speaking, in the Western mainstream medical model and media, and in our daily lives, we have no idea. Yet. For householders in many Asian cultures, this is not the case.

Applying Expertise in Energy Medicine

The ancient Chinese seers were not focused on cultivating Olympic athletes. Although point description translations apply to symptom treatment, if one views the lines of energy that correlate to these pathways and to the related energetic fields, it is not difficult to imagine that they might help to activate, enhance, and stimulate athletic power – if we knew how.

Systems Analysis: Yoga

When Indian yoga was brought to the West, in many cases, it was taken out of its context and assimilated only in parts, primarily the physical exercises. Increased flexibility was the perceived result.

Despite the fact that yoga was providing benefits to many practitioners, an understanding of the overall energetic framework was missing in many American traditions. Posture flows were prescribed in an autocratic method by Indian masters without explanation, and/or teachers developed their own styles.  

When my colleague Daniel Orlansky began juxtaposing Indian yoga poses with the Meridians of Chinese Medicine, the connection between the ancient paradigms revealed itself. The poses could be classified by the meridians activated, and the poses could be practiced in an orderly and intentional fashion for increased benefit, to bring harmony to the entire energy system. 

The science behind the exercise forms came alive. (This experience of pattern recognition and transcendent thinking via one’s own direct experience, in fact, alters brain development in a beneficial way, as described in this study.)  

What does all of this have to do with cancer?

The Energetic Implications of 17 Increasing Cancers

It might seem insignificant to the mass culture that some competitive athletes have accessed an unusual, foreign, bruising form of bodywork that may have an impact on their performance, especially with the media implying that it’s “In their heads.”

But the consequences are profound if the American Cancer Society and others are getting it completely wrong regarding the dramatic increase in cancer in young people.

MSNBC: “Cancer rates in millennials, Gen X-ers have risen starkly in recent years, study finds. Experts have 1 prime suspect.”

“Experts are sounding the alarm as rates of 17 types of cancer in millennials and Gen X-ers have risen dramatically in recent years, a new study shows. For certain cancers, people born in 1990 face two-to-three times the risks that those born in 1955 did, according to the research published in the journal Lancet Public Health. The findings echo the recent worrying rise in young people developing colorectal cancer, but add more forms of the disease to the list of concerns.” []

Researchers with the American Cancer Society (ACS) assessed rates of 34 different cancers among those born between 1920 and 1990, based on how many were diagnosed with or died of the disease from 2000 to 2019.

On average, the rates of 17 types of cancer, including pancreatic, breast and gastric cancer, have risen with each new generation since 1920, the study found. Previous ACS research had shown that rates of 11 cancers, including pancreatic, colorectal, kidney, uterine and testicular cancer, had been increasing among young adults. The new study added eight more types of cancer to that list:

Gastric cardia cancer (a cancer of the stomach lining)

Cancer of the small intestine

Estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer

Ovarian cancer

Liver and bile duct cancer

Non-HPV-associated oral and pharynx cancer (only in women)

Anal cancer (only in men)

Kaposi sarcoma (a cancer of the blood vessel lining and lymph nodes, only in men)

Rates doubled or even tripled for some of these cancers, including kidney, pancreatic and small intestine cancers, in people of either gender. For women, liver cancer incidence has increased two- to threefold since the 1920s. Even cancers that seemed to be in decline for baby boomers and other older generations — including some breast cancers and testicular cancer — are now a greater risk again to millennials and Gen X-ers, the study found.

More young people are dying of some of these cancers as well; mortality from colorectal, gallbladder, testicular and uterine cancers has increased over the generations, as has the fatality rate of liver cancer, but only for women. “That really stood out because the concurrent increase in mortality [and diagnoses] suggests that what we see is not just an artifact due to potentially more frequent screening and diagnosis,” lead study author and senior principal scientist of surveillance and health equity science with ACS, Hyuna Sung, tells Yahoo Life. “Instead, it indicates a genuine increase in risk, with the increases in incidence sufficient to outpace improvements” in diagnostics and treatment.

While the new study doesn’t answer why this is happening, Sung and other experts have a prime suspect in their sights: obesity. Ten out of 17 of the cancers that are becoming more common over the generations have been linked to obesity, the study authors noted.” – SOURCE  

NBC News reported, “Gen X, millennials face higher risk of 17 cancers than older generations Researchers aren’t sure why but say a combination of factors, including obesity, more sedentary behavior, common medications or chemical exposures, is possible.”

“A study published Wednesday in Lancet Public Health found that Gen X and millennials are more likely to be diagnosed with 17 types of cancer, including nine that had been declining in older adults. Researchers aren’t sure why, but say obesity is likely a leading cause.”

“Rates of colorectal cancer — one of the 17 types — have been rising among younger people for decades, a troubling trend that sparked investigation into other types of cancer.”

Sung and her colleagues used cancer diagnosis and mortality data from two databases –– the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries and the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics –– to analyze cancer trends in people born between 1920 and 1990, who were diagnosed with cancer between 2000 and 2019.

The data included 34 types of cancer, nearly 24 million diagnoses and more than 7 million deaths. To get a better view of how cancer diagnoses and mortality rates changed in groups of people born around the same year — called a birth cohort — the researchers grouped people by birth year in five-year intervals. For example, people born in 1920 through 1924 were all one birth cohort.

Seventeen of the 34 cancers had increasing incidence in younger people. The risk was two to three times higher in people born in 1990 for pancreatic, kidney and small intestine cancers, compared to people born in 1955. Liver cancer diagnoses in women followed the same pattern.

“The most important thing it tells us is there is something that changed for the group of individuals born after this period of time. They have been exposed to some environmental or lifestyle factor that is leading to this shift,” said Dr. Andrea Cercek, a gastrointestinal medical oncologist at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, who was not involved with the research.  []

“All of these cancers are linked to the obesity epidemic. We know that’s the second-leading cause of cancer right now, behind tobacco use,” said Dr. Otis Brawley, Bloomberg Distinguished Professor of Oncology and Epidemiology Johns Hopkins University, who was not involved with the new study.

About 20% of cancer diagnoses in the U.S. are linked to excess body weight, according to the American Cancer Society. Obesity rates in the nation changed little in the 1960s and 1970s but increased sharply after that. About 13% of adults had obesity in 1980, compared to 34% in 2008, according to data from the Surgeon General. []

If obesity is a culprit, it’s likely one of several lifestyle and environmental factors that is leading to the rise. Other factors could be more sedentary behavior or something in the food or the water, common medications or chemical exposures or chemical agents, the experts said.” – SOURCE

Study: Lancet Public Health Differences in cancer rates among adults born between 1920 and 1990 in the USA: an analysis of population-based cancer registry data, Open Access Published: August, 2024 DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(24)00156-7 HERE

The Promise of Applying Meridian Science to Cancer (and Neurological Deaths, and Childhood Illnesses)

We have the potential to reconsider the rise in certain cancers, including and especially impacting individuals of reproductive ages, within the context of knowledge that is available to us regarding meridians and electromagnetic fields, from both China and Russia.  

We have the blueprints.

It seems logical that in order to determine if manmade artificial electromagnetic fields are interfering with health, that we would want to monitor the Meridians.

Looking at the image of the Large Intestine Meridian and the issue of colon cancer, are there implications for the meridian starting at the tip of the index finger, and the electromagnetic fields that are being introduced into the body via texting and using a computer mouse?

See #1 on the image. There may be no connection, but we have not bothered to ask.

Pulsed electromagnetic fields are being explored to treat cancer, in part because of the impact on the cell walls, as noted here.  Why have ubiquitous exposures not been studied or regulated for adverse effects on human health and the environment, despite reported harm?

We are holding an unsubstantiated assumption about safety.

Obesity as a Symptom and Not as a Cause?

The Spleen/Pancreas, which is responsible for distributing chi to the different organ systems, may be one of the most vulnerable to electromagnetic pollution, along with the Kidneys, which are akin to batteries.

How does this relate to cancer rates?

The study’s authors propose that obesity may be contributing to the dramatic rise in cancer rates, (although only linked in 20% of the cancer cases)

There is another possibility – that obesity is a symptom, related to Spleen/Pancreas electrical pollution, and not a cause. Dr. Jack Kruse is one of the experts who proposes that obesity as well as blood sugar alterations are being caused by exposures to artificial electromagnetic fields, perhaps in an effort to insulate and protect the body? (Wide-ranging interview with Dr. Jack Kruse and the Power Couple here).

Attorney Dafna Tachover also spoke of the phenomenon nearly a decade ago when she became EMF injured.

Not all “in the Head” – and the Derogatory Use of the Word

Cupping wasn’t codified to support Olympic athletes, and the benefits of cupping can’t be quantified by using an overlay of the West’s limited understanding of massage.

The mainstream media and medical experts have downplayed the idea that cupping actually provides any benefit to athletes, implying that it may be “all in their heads.”

Unfortunately, this is not the only example of this dismissive attitude. Complaints of injury caused by exposures to wireless exposures, dirty electricity, electric fields, and magnetic fields have been denied and ignored for decades, in favor of the military industrial complex that has increasingly turned in on its own citizens via surveillance, akin to an auto-immune disease.

The Gall Bladder Meridian and Health

When I look at an image of an Olympic track and field sprinter at the starting blocks, I immediately envision the Gall Bladder Meridian in a deep contraction. The Gall Bladder meridian’s energy enables a hockey player or soccer player to anticipate which way the opponent is going to move, from right to left.  The reaction is faster than the speed of a thought processed through the conscious mind.

It operates on the same energy that allows a school of fish to move together.

In the West we have failed to recognize the need to recognize, cultivate and safeguard these frameworks.

Gall Bladder Meridian and Health Damages

When I look at the Gall Bladder Meridian image and note the way that the pathway wraps around the skull, I also see the basis for the many symptoms being reported due to technological overreach, in this case, harm associated with smart meters.

I see hip and knee pain, and headaches, and brain fog, and eye pressure, and a brain that is unable to detoxify – all of which can lead to disease, dysfunction, and the demand for medications and surgeries that do not address the underlying cause.

I also see breast tumors on the right side, in addition to colon cancers, perhaps because of so much right-handed mouse use.

I see major postural deviations from individuals hunched over devices, compressing the lungs and heart.

Why have so many people need to have their Gall Bladder surgically removed? Is this any wiser than the routine removal of tonsils in the 1960s? Or, is removing the organ akin to taking the light bulb out of the car’s dashboard warning light?

Another View of Fight or Flight

I have a theory, which is that the Gall Bladder is an electrical bodyguard, designed to directionally detect a hazard found in nature – a lightning strike.

The alarm system is worn out.

The term “fight or flight” was coined as a response to war (and studying male soldiers.)

Early Western studies of stress did not emerge from mystics seeking to determine how to become more efficient and effective conduits of the Cosmic Current.

A chronically over-charged, time-stressed society is not aware of the balance between the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system, nor does it possess a roadmap for recognizing symptoms of imbalance. 

Cancer and infertility are “late lessons from early warnings.”

The ancient Chinese culture developed expertise in Meridians for self-care and householder use and identified and addressed energetic imbalances before they manifested as illnesses. They used natural methods including massage, pressure points, meridian tracing, herbs, medicinal foods, stretching, visualization, and meditation, and accessed care via experts only when needed.

Recognition of the brain’s glymphatic system, and chronobiology, are only in their infancy in the West, but were recognized thousands of years ago in the East.

An Eastern based mind -body practice can offer self-diagnostic and self-corrective strategies, through embodied observation.

Self-care and skilled care of loved ones, without technology, can be reclaimed.

Do we line up behind the promise of life on Mars via extreme resource consumption and artificial energy expenditure, or do we decide to learn how to harmonize our bodies with the Cosmos, here on Earth, using our inborn lifeforce and birthright, to master the lessons and receive the gifts of our own unique incarnation?

As Peter Levine observed, “In a herd of deer, we need some super-sensitive ones. They are the ones that will hear that teeniest little crack or smell the one or two molecules of scent from the mountain lion that’s stalking them. Their job is to use their hyper-sensitivity to alert the whole group.” Some individuals are like the dogs who warned sheep herders of an approaching storm.

Seventeen increasing cancers in younger generations is more than an alert, It’s an emergency.

Will we rethink our wireless dependencies and resulting demands on the environment?

In my opinion, if we are not willing to look at the RF/EMF issue, relative to cancer, to the Gall Bladder, to obesity, to childhood diseases and device addictions, to chronic illness, and to skyrocketing neurological death rates, we need to have our heads examined.

Learn more about EMF here:

The Need for Synthetic EMF Exposure Guidelines by Keith Cutter of EMF Remedy

Musicians today must be “Jacks of all trades” when it comes to navigating the predominantly internet-connected world of technology. They interact with complex stage rigs that include wireless products, are involved in digital music production and must sustain social media engagement with fans. Musicians use an array of digital technologies to survive in the music industry. The question that is beginning to be asked as they are increasingly exposed to the technological demands of the music industry is “how is this affecting health and wellbeing?”

It is a vitally important question, especially as stage performances have grown in both stature and scale and have become resonant electromagnetically driven events and environments that are not without their risks to audiences and musicians. On stage wireless devices can remove the need for cables and are appealing to musicians who believe they remove onstage hazards and promote mobility. Audiences continue their social media pursuits and technological voyeurism through their wireless smart phones. Wireless stage lighting rigs utilise electromagnetically powerful LED systems where spotlights shine brighter than ever and stage atmospherics are remotely controllable. These technological realities are sold as progress – sold as “better.” Yet, as this article reveals, such technologies create hazards kept out of the marketing and hype, leaving professionals and consumers neglectful of technological radiation and its health impacts.

Powerful wireless devices from “smart” stage lighting apparatus to wireless microphones, guitars and amplification systems introduce man-made electromagnetic fields (EMFs) into performances which are a form of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) and electromagnetic interference (EMI).

The dense cocktail of wireless radiation from digital devices can interfere with guitar signal quality and microphone latency, for example, and from a health perspective actively alters us at the cellular electrochemical level when we are exposed to it. EMR also has bearing on mental health.

Wireless devices have both analogue and digital variants that emit radiofrequency radiation (RFR) that has a non-native electrical charge that is absorbed into the body. The digital systems transmit coherent digitally pulsed RFR, like Blutooth and Wi-Fi does. Scientists note that “An internal EM field is induced in the tissue when a biological tissue is exposed to RF waves” from electronic devices. This can cause physiological as well as “mental and psychological effects.”

As digital wireless technology infiltrates the professional and consumer markets of amplification and musical instrument systems the potential to sustain physiological and neurological injury amidst the densification of legacy and novel wireless technologies in our environment increases. Macular degeneration, Alzheimer’s Disease, Cancer, electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) and harmful digital addiction are just a few of the potential consequences of working in today’s electromagnetically intensified digital environments.

With awareness of the problems faced in today’s technological landscape informed choices concerning technological implementations onstage (and in the home or studio) can be made to avert serious miscalculations that could impact the health and wellbeing of consumers, audiences, musicians, road crews, event staff and stage performers.

The Potential Impacts of Digital Stage Lighting on Health

Stage lighting has always had an important function. It directs audience attention and can captivate the eye and imagination to create “immersive experiences” that deeply affect an audience’s emotions.

However, recent digital lighting developments can affect our experiences in other ways. LED stage lighting, like the powerfully “blinding” LED headlights of cars, can cause visual and cognitive disturbances. The most common impacts experienced are from “discomfort glare.” Optical radiation from LEDs “could potentially damage the eyes and skin depending on many variables like the duration of exposure, the wavelength and the intensity of the light.”

“…discomfort glare occurs in the presence of uncomfortable luminance contrasts in the visual field. It is experienced as visual discomfort without necessarily an impaired ability to see. Discomfort glare has been associated with fluctuations in pupil size…as well as contractions in the muscles surrounding the eye that may cause pain effects…. It is believed that the pupil, lens, facial and extra-ocular muscles are engaged in a constant pursuit of retinal image clarity, and this continuous muscle readjustment can cause discomfort, tension and pain….Discomfort glare can manifest itself through annoyance, irritability, distraction and visual fatigue or eyestrain. Typical symptoms include soreness of the eyes, dry or watery eyes, itchiness, blurred or double vision, difficulty to focus on objects, irritation of the eyes and lids, tense muscles, as well as headaches and other forms of discomfort such as neck- and backache….Discomfort glare has also been linked with adverse effects on mood and wellbeing….Notwithstanding that discomfort glare varies within the same space depending on the position and direction of view….there are also significant individual differences in sensitivity. Some people may be unaware of, or undisturbed by, glaring lighting, whilst others in the same space may experience discomfort symptoms….People suffering from migraines are more sensitive to light than other people, even when they are not experiencing a headache, and hence they are more likely to experience glare or not tolerate bright light….”

Source: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/14771535211021064

Everyone understands LEDs have exceptional brightness; it is generally perceived as an advantage because of persuasive marketing. They emit optical radiation from a flat semi-conductive “chip” that converts electricity into high energy light through a process called electroluminescence. Such bright light can cause eye strain and eye damage, headaches and disturb sleep owing to the intensity of the semiconductor-generated short-wave artificial blue light.

This artificially produced optical radiation is so powerful it effectively suppresses melatonin (a hormone promoting sleep), while it dramatically raises melanopsin ( a hormone promoting alertness). The effects of artificial blue light exposure on sleep are more obvious at night, so performers shouldn’t be surprised if disturbed sleep becomes an issue. Children and teenagers are more sensitive to electronic blue light (as are people with light hypersensitivity, a.k.a. photophobia). This type of blue light can trigger mania in people suffering with bipolar disorder.

Many professional musicians have been diagnosed bipolar (which also increases their risk of developing Parkinson’s disease, according to a longitudinal study published in Neurology). In the scientific article titled “Shedding Light on Light”: A Review on the Effects on Mental Health of Exposure to Optical Radiation, it’s observed that, “…light pollution may play a role in the genesis of bipolar disorder.” A further article published in Nature further emphasises the correlation of artificial light’s influence on mental health and bipolar disorder. The study, published in 2023, found that, “Greater night-time light exposure was associated with increased risk for major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, PTSD, psychosis, bipolar disorder, and self-harm behavior.”

Anxiety, depression and sleep orders are commonly experienced by musicians and performers. Electromagnetic radiation/optical radiation from LED lighting (used on stage, in smart phone and computer screens) is an extremely common environmental factor that can play a role in sleep and mental health issues as described. A study published in 2021 called “Medical phenome of musicians: an investigation of health records collected on 9803 musically active individuals” reminds us that, “the health risks and benefits of music participation and professional music activities has not yet been studied comprehensively…therefore, our understanding of the scope and prevalence of physical and mental health problems in musicians is limited.” The role of electromagnetic radiation in understanding that “scope and prevalence” shouldn’t be excluded from a truly comprehensive investigation.

With musicians and stage performers encountering heightened exposures to LED lighting, eye and mental health become major concerns. LED optical radiation with its characteristic blue light frequency range ages retinal cells. “Excessive exposure of the eye to blue light tends to cause a series of alterations, such as oxidative stress, mitochondrial apoptosis, inflammatory apoptosis, mitochondrial apoptosis and DNA damage, resulting in the development of dry eye disease, glaucoma, and keratitis.” Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343440541_Mechanisms_of_blue_light-induced_eye_hazard_and_protective_measures_a_review

Even for the musician at home or on the road, the “evening darkness is more illuminated by blue light emitting diodes. These blue lights come from energy efficient bulbs and flat-screen computers, phones, and TVs” influencing potential circadian dysfunction and eyesight problems. Stage performers can be exposed to excessive amounts of high contrast artificial lighting from light rig setups, night after night in some cases. Many of the stage lighting systems, such as LED Pixel Tube Lights, and moving head lights for example, can be wirelessly operated using apps such as “Stagelight“, for example, so obviously will result in more wireless radiation in a stage performance.

The phenomenal glare from LED flood lights with high-intensity beams can cause immense discomfort, especially for people suffering with glaucoma. Stage performer Bono from the band U2 wears light filtering shades because he has developed glaucoma (a progressive eye disease caused by damage to the optic nerve). Glaucoma endangers sight from a buildup of pressure in the eyeball (intraoccular pressure) impacting the optic nerve. The condition can lead to blindness if left untreated. Photophobia (extreme light sensitivity) is experienced by people with glaucoma which can be caused by LED light, including the LED glare from digital device screens which is rich in artificial blue light (which can eventually change the shape of the eyeball). According to a study published in 2018, “Because of blue light’s short wavelength, the focus is not located in the center of the retina but rather in the front of the retina, so that the long exposure time to blue light causes a worsening of visual fatigue and nearsightedness [myopia].”

The impact of digital LED lighting is greatly amplified against surrounding darkness, bringing visual discomfort. When added to screen exposure in daily life this all becomes a considerable health burden. Yellow tinted shades or photochromic glasses are thought to be effective at filtering out blue light and these are often worn by Bono, as we know. However, as Cleveland Health Clinic reports, “a 2019 report from the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (ANSES) warned of the “phototoxic effects” of blue light exposure, including an increased risk for age-related macular degeneration. The report also noted that blue light blocking glasses and filters may not protect against these and other harmful effects.”

LED lighting poses a health risk to performers and audiences. Looking at high energy stage lighting, digital signage and smart phone screens presents risks to eyesight. The glare from bright digital lighting and smart phone screens can also trigger migraine symptoms. Smart phones are regarded as a significant “public health hazard” according to John Gottlieb, Clinical Assistant Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine.

The largely imperceptible flicker of LED lights (which is also a feature of digital device screens) also presents a health risk, for “research suggests that it can have detrimental effects on health and safety.” The deliberate use of repetitive strobing with intense rhythmic glare at performances, takes this health and safety risk to another level. Flicker and strobing of LED lighting can potentially cause seizures or dizziness (especially at 3–50 Hz), particularly in people with photosensitive epilepsy.

(As a side note, the strobing of LED lighting has been weaponised for Homeland Security, for flicker rates can be calibrated. They are a form of supposedly non-lethal “active denial” system (ADS) and have made the consumer market too). They are a reminder that the intensity of LED lighting radiation can have a dramatic impact on us, but not only that, we gain a sense of the ethically debauched market for LED light-based products.

As a second side note, lasers (semiconductor radiation like LEDs) have also made an appearance on stage for dramatic and high-tech effects using narrowly focused (collimated) beams of coherent light. Laser beams have hit the consumer market too. Laser pointers are an example and remarkably these instruments are deemed “legal and safe to use.” In a music festival incident it was reported that a pilot was blinded by such a device as the audience pointed their devices at the sky. Yet lasers continue to be pointed towards the sky at many public events, regardless.

Intense light whether it comes from lasers or related products like LEDs is a health issue that affects everyone according to their individual sensitivity. “Flashing, flickering and repetitive patterns cause the visual cortex to be overloaded with images and this can cause a seizure in people who are sensitive to this trigger.” People with photophobia are also susceptible to painful reactions when exposed to high energy digital lighting.

Powerful lighting can also negatively impact people with electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) especially as high output LED lights (used in outdoor lighting or on stage) can produce “dirty electricity”, a type of EMF pollution. A stage, and even a production studio can be awash with electromagnetic frequencies from amplifiers, guitars, wireless equipment (especially badly grounded equipment) influencing dirty electricity levels (electrical pollution) that can affect sound quality and has the potential to impact the health of performers over time.

You can learn more about health risks of high LED light from excellent resources here and here. As you will discover, the optical radiation is toxic and their ingredients are too. Impacts of falling lights on stage present a health hazard based on contact with or ingestion of their ingredients in particular.

Performers strike back

Performers are voicing their displeasure concerning the visibility of digital devices for they can impact a performance. A sea of glowing smart devices can be very distracting to music industry artists seeking to make an emotional connection with the audience. In 2014, the artist Kate Bush, “put out a message on her website asking fans to refrain from taking photographs or videos during the show: “I very much want to have contact with you as an audience, not with iPhones, iPads or cameras.”” It was a message that clearly worked as the reviewer reported “…it’s hard to know whether it was the lack of phones…but the connection was unlike other gig experiences.” Bush’s frustrations are shared by other performers.

Other performers are more frustrated. The BBC reported that, “A leading composer has called for people who use mobile phones during concerts to be fined” calling the use of smart phones at performances “distracting and discourteous”. The composer’s “…view of discourteous mobile users is widely-shared within the classical music community.”

The tenor Ian Bostridge shocked Symphony Hall Birmingham when he “requested that audience members turn off their phone cameras. He said taking photographs was ‘extremely distracting’ for a performer.”

What is it like for people in the audience grappling with this issue? You can read more on that perspective in “Smartphones are ruining concerts” published in The Washington Post.

Wireless radiation from microphones and guitar systems

There are digital and analogue wireless systems, for guitars and microphones. Both are different and “untether” a performer from cables allowing for freedom of movement, removal of trip hazards and enhanced audience interactions.

Analogue wireless systems work differently from digital and incur extra expense as they require a bandwidth license, so are not as popular as digital ones nowadays, which predominantly use the same bandwidth as consumer Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. Many high-end microphone manufacturers still offer analogue systems, which still have certain advantages over digital systems.

Analogue systems use a compression system called “companding” which utilises a larger bandwidth (UHF frequency band) than digital counterparts. For this reason they don’t suffer the same latency or signal deficiency issues plaguing many digital systems and have a wide dynamic range. In stage performances since the 1970’s these types of analogue systems were pioneered by artists such as Angus Young, guitarist in the band AC/DC and artist Kate Bush, for example with countless stage performers following suit. (You can read about Angus Young’s wireless system here.)

Analogue microphone systems were liberally utilised by the broadcasting corporations where analogue wireless lavalier microphones were worn on talk shows, for example, by the host and the guest performers.

Most digital wireless microphones and guitar systems used today operate within the frequency band of 2.4 GHz (similar to Wi-Fi) and 5.8 GHz (high frequency). These digital products emit pulsed radiofrequency radiation (RFR), “and encode sound as a digital signal—zeroes and ones—that modulate a radio carrier signal, which is then sent over the air and picked up by a receiver, where that signal is converted back to sound.”

You can invest in a dedicated wireless microphone system, or you can convert an existing standard microphone into a digital wireless microphone. Wireless digital transmitter accessories are available that plug right into the microphone’s XLR socket.

The 2.4 GHz –5.8 GHz used by digital microphone and guitar systems is an oversubscribed bandwidth so latency and quality issues can become an issue sometimes, especially for more affordable systems aimed at the consumer. This is the high frequency unlicensed consumer bandwidth in which many scientific studies concerning the influence of man-made electromagnetic fields on dementia and cancer have been performed.

The fact remains that the digital frequencies are more impacting to health the closer you are to the emitting radiating source, for example, a Wi-Fi router in the home, transmitter in a smart phone, or a wireless microphone transmitter, or any other wireless transmitter plugged into a guitar system or other stage equipment.

Are wireless microphone headsets and earphone systems harmful?

As mentioned there are quality trade offs between digital and analogue microphone systems. Wireless microphone headsets are being worn by some performers on stage to enhance mobility. They are particularly useful for guitarists that sing backing vocals in a band. For example, since 2009 the guitarist from U2, the Edge, has used a “wireless headset mic so he can sing and work the stage.”

For a high-end digital wireless headset, the radiofrequency band ranges from 2.4 GHz – 5 GHz which is similar to widely available Bluetooth headsets. The wireless headsets used in the music industry often have an omnidirectional condenser earset microphone and use a rackmount receiver unit and the headset is wired to a body-pack transmitter unit that accepts a battery. The musician is exposed to the resulting EM fields.

Some disturbing findings have come to light concerning radiation from headsets. Like regular mobile phones, digital wireless headsets focus RF radiation on the body where it is absorbed into tissues in the near field (close range). Depending on the headset, this is focused on the head or the body, where the transmitter is broadcasting. Any electrically active device on the head, even if wired to the transmitter pack, also creates an electromagnetic field absorbed into the skull and surrounding tissues.

In 2024 neuroscientist Dr. Andrew Huberman from Stanford University brought “significant attention to the potential health implications of Bluetooth technology” after he discontinued use of Bluetooth headphones, prompting “both the public and the scientific community to reexamine the risks associated with these everyday gadgets.” His concern is over the thermal sensations and the EMF emissions, observing the correlation of recurrent lymph cysts appearing behind his ears following use. As Headphonesty reports, “The issue subsided when he stopped using the headphones, but recurred when he resumed their use. This cycle led him to conclude a potential link between the headphones and the cysts, prompting him to abandon them altogether…“Heat and neural tissue are not friends,” he stated, emphasizing the potential risks of exposing such sensitive areas to continuous warmth.”

Airpods are another form of wireless headphone unit. “If one uses AirPods many hours a day, the cumulative exposure to the brain from this microwave radiation could be substantial,” Joel Moskowitz, Director of UC Berkeley’s Center for Family and Community Health stated.”

RF radiation from any wireless headset or ear-set is absorbed into tissues at very close range. Thermal effects can become noticeable during use. Biological impacts are inevitable, and may become problematic for health over time. DNA damage can be induced by daily use of radiofrequency devices and some scientific uncertainty remains about the latency periods of RFR-induced health effects such as cancer.

The concerned public and hundreds of scientists are beginning to speak out about the radiation impacts from devices such as wireless headsets and earphones, which can only be a good thing. Precautionary principles and independent research are important when it comes to weighing up whether RFR-emitting gear is necessarily worthwhile, or healthy. If your health is more important than having unlimited mobility across the expanse of the stage, studio, or home, you might want to stick with cables and ditch the idea of a wireless headset.

Keeping RFR away from your head

As Environmental Health Trust (EHT) reports, “Over one dozen governments and numerous medical organizations warn you to keep this type of radiation called radiofrequency radiation [RFR] away from your head.“

Studies of the health impacts from RFR have been widely published, but the wireless industry gives very limited information regarding biologically pertinent wireless risks to professionals and consumers alike, even when such frequencies are demonstrated to cause “a statistically significant increase in tumors of the heart (schwannomas), brain (malignant gliomas) and adrenal gland (pheochromocytomas), Increases in other organ tumors compared to controls (not statistically significant but noteworthy) for pancreas, prostate, pituitary, liver and lung, DNA damage in rodents, Cardiomyopathy similar to aging, Adverse perinatal effects in some groups.”

Those are the findings of the NTP (National Toxicology Program) in the US, “…the world’s largest, most well-designed study of its type, at a cost of $25 million” which found clear evidence of carcinogenicity from commonly encountered digital radiofrequency radiation (RFR).

“The NTP research, combined with basic cellular science, epidemiological research, prospective studies and other longitudinal studies showing adverse biological effects from radiofrequency radiation (RFR), strongly indicates that our current [exposure] safety guidelines urgently need reevaluation to protect public health.” What has happened since? The NTP’s research into radiofrequency radiation (RFR) health, which found “that RFR exposure was associated with an increase in DNA damage” effects has been de-funded and closed down.

“For the first time in more than 50 years, U.S. civilian agencies have no ongoing research on the health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation.” This is quite a scandal considering recently rolled out 5G technology has been insufficiently studied and is still regarded as a significant health risk to the public.

Cancer is not the only concern arising from society’s increasing use of wireless transmitters in the professional and consumer domains. Neurodegenerative diseases including Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease are also of deep concern and are affecting well-known stage performers.

According to the World Health Organisation, “Currently more than 55 million people have dementia worldwide, over 60% of whom live in low-and middle-income countries. Every year, there are nearly 10 million new cases. Dementia results from a variety of diseases and injuries that affect the brain. Alzheimers disease is the most common form of dementia and may contribute to 60–70% of cases.”

Source: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/dementia

The correlation of electronically generated electromagnetic fields to range of cognitive injuries and neurodegenerative diseases is stark in current research.

Scientists have discovered that:

“Pulsed electronically generated electromagnetic fields (EMFs) used for wireless communication are coherent producing strong electric and magnetic forces that act in the cells of our bodies primarily via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs). VGCC activation produces rapid increases in intracellular calcium levels. Therefore, EMF exposures produce changes with lead to excessive intracellular calcium. This buildup explains the effects on the brain in Alzheimer’s disease….These EMF induced changes to intracellular calcium levels have been demonstrated in animal models of Alzheimer’s disease. Research has shown the involvement of two pathways that lead to Alzheimer’s disease. Each of the two pathways producing pathophysiological effects following EMF exposure are important in Alzheimer’s causation: the excessive calcium signaling pathway and the peroxynitrite/oxidative stress/inflammation pathway.”

Researchers “El-Swefy and Jiang found massive neurodegeneration in young rats simply from exposing them to EMF pulses.” More research needs to be done including “EMF exposures assessments for pre-diagnosis environments for people aged 30 to 40 who have been diagnosed with early onset Alzheimer’s disease. These assessments should compare phone and cell phone tower radiation, Wi-Fi radiation, smart meter and dirty electricity radiation levels with normal controls.” Why not add wireless microphones, headsets and wireless guitar equipment to that list?

Source: https://www.news-medical.net/news/20220426/New-insights-into-the-link-between-EMFs-calcium-and-Alzheimere28099s-disease.aspx

“Charged ions such as sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium are present in all tissues of the body. Most of the biomolecules possess charges and therefore they can be directly influenced by electric fields [40, 41]. “ Again, we are reminded that EMF influences excessive intracellular calcium levels which advance neurological damage and can cause dementia.

Source:https://www.imrpress.com/journal/FBS/13/2/10.52586/S561/htm

“The evidence indicates that long-term significant occupational exposure to ELF [extremely low frequency] magnetic fields may increase the risk of Alzheimer’s disease (Davanipour 2007, García 2008), high frequency magnetic fields have similar consequences (Davanipour & Sobel 2009).”

https://www.powerwatch.org.uk/library/downloads/dementia-2012-01.pdf

Click here for more information about man-made electromagnetic fields.

When a guitar is like a phone

The three principles for radiation safety are: time, distance, and shielding. Yet there is no such hope of that in a packed crowd or contexts in which your instrument device, whether it be an RF-emitting microphone pack, wireless guitar system or smart phone, is close to or on the body for extended periods. For a performer, and public alike, radiation exposure becomes an issue and sensible interventions a priority.

So-called “non-ionising radiation”, the commonly encountered definition of man-made electromagnetic fields, including radiofrequency radiation (RFR) has an impact over time that can both cause and influence the trajectory of chronic diseases.

Increasing distance from the radiation source can effectively reduce radiation exposure and has long been advised, even by the The Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Shielding in its various applications may have an influence on exposure or even mitigate it. There are devices, paints and shielded clothing that can assist in this regard. “Electrically conductive materials, such as metals, reflect high-frequency electromagnetic fields. Metal foils or metal mesh, but also metal-coated window panes (for thermal insulation) can thus completely or partially shield high-frequency electromagnetic fields.” 

Performers and consumers often shield their guitars, which is to “enclose the electronics in sort of a ‘cage’, which rejects stray radio frequency interference. You can do this a few ways: copper or aluminum tape, or graphite shielding paint.”

Electric guitars have long been barometers of ambient electromagnetic radiation (EMR) such as radiowaves and microwaves which manifest as electromagnetic interference (EMI) and can affect the sound quality, or tone. This is because an electric guitar contains pick-ups which consist of electromagnetically charged poles which act like an antenna.

When you pluck a string the vibration tone is picked up. “This vibration disturbs the magnetic field and, due to electromagnetic induction, an electric current is generated within the coil. Your guitar’s pickups capture this current, which is then sent to an amplifier that boosts the signal and produces the sound you hear through the speakers.” “Electromagnetic induction is a process by which a magnetic field interacts with an electrical conductor, generating an electrical current.” Electromagnetic induction was discovered by Michael Faraday (22 September 1791 – 25 August 1867).

It was mentioned in a BBC article on the development of the electric guitar that Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones had described the ensuing invention of the electric guitar, as he was holding his own acoustic guitar, and said,“I mean, all they did was put a phone in it!”

Richards makes an interesting analogy in referencing a mobile phone and we can understand where he’s coming from. Pick-ups are like electromagnetic antennae that allow us to hear the electric guitar, but also can apprise us of inaudible radiofrequencies, through an amplifier, especially if you put a smart phone near it and it is searching for a signal, for example.

An electric guitar is even more like a mobile phone if it has a wireless pack, for then it becomes a transmitting device on the body and like a mobile phone, has increased health implications for the user. Experimental and observational studies ragarding exposure to radiofrequency radiation suggest, “current knowledge provides justification for governments, public health authorities, and physicians/allied health professionals to warn the population that having a cell phone next to the body is harmful, and to support measures to reduce all exposures to RFR.” 

When playing a wirelessly broadcasting guitar low on the body keep in mind that, “Experimental and observational studies…suggest that men who keep cell phones in their trouser pockets have significantly lower sperm counts and significantly impaired sperm motility and morphology, including mitochondrial DNA damage.”

For sure, wireless electric guitars are more like phones, because of the wireless transmitters worn close to or on the body, or even attached to a belt that make wireless playability possible.

Picking up interference

The wiring and components of electric guitars have changed little over the years. 50’s wiring is still used, as are potentiometers, capacitors and resistors. Central to the tonal possibilities of any electric guitar are the pick-ups. These are passive systems of alnico magnets. If these are not wired or grounded correctly there is danger of becoming either electrocuted or absorbing dirty electricity. A noticeable hum which cancels when you touch the strings will give it away. Take the instrument to a professional to correct the problem.

In an electric guitar, electromagnetic radiation is emitted by two common types of pick up, which are called Humbuckers and Single Coils. Each are normally powered by capacitors in the guitar and are called passive pick ups. The Single Coils are more prone to hum from electromagnetic influences.

“A single-coil pickup essentially works as an antenna. It picks up electromagnetic interference. This results in unwanted noise which manifests as hum and buzz.” Conversely, [passive] Humbuckers, which contain two single coils in opposition, cancel the hum, hence their name.

Certain electromagnetic influences can still disrupt them, especially in the home. “Humbuckers themselves don’t hum. But get them near light dimmers, fluorescent or neon lights, and dubious club wiring, and all sorts of buzzing happens. Shielding will never get rid of that 60-cycle hum that is present with single coils. Single coils have their own unique, beautiful sound, and part of that…is that hum. What shielding will do is prevent the wiring inside your guitar from acting like antennae and picking up stray signals floating around. If you want to get rid of hum in single coil guitars, you might have to switch to stacked single-coil sized humbuckers.”

There is another type of electric guitar pick up called active pick-ups (solid state systems powered by a battery), having stronger ceramic magnets, which have a preamp system boosting the output generating a stronger electromagnetic field. They sound louder than more sustained than regular pick ups. As active pick-ups generate a greater electromagnetic output, some wireless systems do not work with these types of pick-ups. Humbuckers are also available as active pick-ups.

Much more rapidly than the electrical circuitry of the electric guitar, the technology of amplification has moved ahead. Tube amplification that has driven most rock music from the 50’s to present day still has its place. The technology has become hybridised or replaced in some amplifier models that are more digitally adapted, such as solid state amplifiers that model sound digitally with semiconductor technology.

Digital wireless technology, made possible with semiconductors, is now transforming amplification possibilities further. This is being heavily marketed to consumers, whereas it was used in stadium and large venue contexts to enhance mobility across the stage and enhance audience engagement at shows. Whether such amplification is used on stage or in the home, health and safety precautions always matter regarding wireless radiation from EMF-radiating sources.

Even more like a phone: wireless Smart Guitars

Smart guitars are a new development which dispense with cables offering a portable digital technology package resembling an electric or acoustic guitar that operates in much the same way as a smart phone does.

The price is much higher than an entry-level traditional electric guitar. The device can connect wirelessly to the internet and other digital devices, download apps and play tunes through a bluetooth speaker. You can loop, record and share your work to social media.

Many effects are built in, including a drum machine, and it has midi capability for connecting to a computer for more software integration and recording possibilities. The guitars can work seamlessly with a smart phone on which you can customise the guitar. There are many different models and have accessories like a wireless headset, wireless pedal and of course, a charging stand. These guitars are not recommended for a professional setting, and have an educational theme because they contain “intelligent” learning software.

“Some can even be played through an amp like a conventional six-string, making them attractive choices for beginners, veterans, touring musicians, and even recording artists…Some smart guitars don’t have strings. Instead, these models have pressure-sensitive pads that connect to apps or recording software. Stringless models don’t produce any sound naturally, but they’re extremely low maintenance and great for learning…A feature that’s unique to smart guitars is the suite of learning tools. These tools are meant to educate new players about chord shapes, scales, and basic theory using a companion app to do so. Simply connect the guitar to the app (either wirelessly or with the included cable), and access a variety of interactive lessons, exercises, and games reminiscent of Guitar Hero and Rock Band. Depending on the smart guitar, it may have LED lights on the fretboard that synchronize with the app, aiding players in finding the correct finger position.”

Ultimate Guitar tested out a smart guitar and states, “It still feels somewhat like a novelty overall,…you’re paying a few extra hundred for the novelty and built-in features instead of necessarily getting a higher-end guitar.”

Bluetooth connectivity puts the device Between 2.402 and 2.480 GHz, similar to Wi-Fi in the unlicensed frequency band of consumer wireless devices. Unlike conventional guitars they considerably add to the global burden of e-waste, and expose you to wireless radiation, just like the smart phones they are inspired by.

Digital radiation pollution: Distance matters

In the music industry, radiofrequency radiation (RFR) is recognisable as electromagnetic interference (EMI) and also radiofrequency interference (RFI) which affect stage and studio sound quality. The radiation activity degrades the signal from the microphone or instrument because of “dirty” electrical interactions. In the studio, balanced power is sought to eliminate the EMI problems for a “pure” current.

Electromagnetic fields from professional and consumer wireless devices, as the small print in their manuals are compelled to point out, are more likely to cause health issues if distance isn’t maintained. Bodily contact with the radiating transmitter must be prevented or significantly reduced to prevent damage to living tissue. The intracellular biological impacts of electromagnetic fields on, or close to the body are scientifically proven, and are cautiously referenced by industry who are keen to de-emphasise them. Noticeably, distancing (from the wireless product’s transmitter) is recommended but the manufacturers don’t elaborate on why. It is not profitable for a wireless vendor to educate the public that wireless radiation is a real and present danger to them.

According to Environmental Health Trust (EHT), “All manufacturers of wireless devices from cell phones to Wi-Fi Speakers To Wi-Fi toys have warnings which describe the minimum distance devices must be kept away from users in order to not exceed the as-tested radiofrequency radiation limits for exposure to wireless radiation.” How many professional performers or consumers follow these guidelines that could protect them from the intensity of the radiating source? 

EHT illustrates the risks of ignoring such recommendations, which are also the recommendations of the World Health Organisation (WHO): “Because of the inverse square law if devices are used closer than 8 inches to the body, exposures grow exponentially. Thus, at 5 inches it could increase 16-fold, and at less than one inch (i.e. on your lap) it could increase 100-fold.”

The FCC and other regulatory bodies who advise on such notices at the same time play down the health risks based on proximity to the radiating source. However contradictory their position on the health issues may seem, these agencies point out the precautionary principle of distancing radiofrequency transmitting devices from the body as a way to significantly reduce radiation exposure from a wireless device.

Society at large ignores such advice because the media promotes the idea wireless devices are harmless, and manufacturer literature doesn’t elaborate beyond mentioning “distancing” briefly in tiny print in a manual. Electromagnetic radiation from wireless products is capable of inducing thermal and biological effects even at the so-called “safe” levels that agencies like the FCC or ICNIRP prescribe on behalf of industry.

According to Spanish biologist, Alfonso Balmori BSc, “Under the current circumstances… the media, responsible organisations (World Health Organization, 2015) and governments do not pass on…crucial information to the population, which thus remains uninformed. For these reasons, the current situation is likely to end in a crisis not only for health, but also for the technology itself, as it is unsustainable and harmful to the environment and people.” 

Wireless technology and Dementia

The Lancet states that more interventions are needed and investment in research on biological mechanisms for addressing the expected increases in the number of individuals affected by dementia.

If we are to recognise what is advancing dementia in our society towards the projected astronomical increases by 2050, we can’t afford to dismiss wireless radiation as an influence on public health.

Scientists recognise that, “electromagnetic radiation (EMR) has become a substantial new pollution source in modern civilization. The biological effects of EMR have attracted considerable attention worldwide. The possible interaction of EMR with human organs, especially the brain, is currently where the most attention is focused. Many studies have shown that the nervous system is an important target organ system sensitive to EMR.” It is recognised that EMR causes neurotransmitter disorders, altering behaviour and causing neurophysiological changes.

Mainstream handling of the issue of dementia has been very unhelpful in excluding technological influences, for EMR has been scientifically studied as part of the problem. According to this report, published in Electron Physician, “people who spend more than 50 minutes a day using a cell phone could have early dementia or other thermal damage due to the burning of glucose in the brain.” The study used “data from the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)…to verify the simulation.”

Today, according to Musicianwave.com “many musicians feel they need to heavily engage with social media platforms which is time-consuming and can be poor for mental health.” Musicians are thus compelled towards overuse of their smartphones or other internet-connected devices. Wireless radiation and screen radiation present considerable risks to public health and no musician should ignore that.

Dementia charities and the media equally ignoring EMR as a factor in the public health crisis is a veil over the eyes of the public concerning understanding why neurodegenerative disease is so prevalent – not just in the old, but the young are getting the symptoms, too.

So-called “digital dementia” in the “internet generation” from excessive screen-time has been highlighted amidst skyrocketing Alzheimer’s disease, because, “Converging evidence from biopsychosocial research in humans and animals demonstrates that chronic sensory stimulation (via excessive screen exposure) affects brain development increasing the risk of cognitive, emotional, and behavioural disorders in adolescents and young adults. Emerging evidence suggests that some of these effects are similar to those seen in adults with symptoms of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in the early stages of dementia, including impaired concentration, orientation, acquisition of recent memories (anterograde amnesia), recall of past memories (retrograde amnesia), social functioning, and self-care.”

EMR, (a.k.a. wireless radiation, radiofrequency radiation, microwave radiation), not just inflated screen time, accelerates neurodegnerative activity, for radiofrequency transmission delivers content and wireless functionality to digital devices but this artificial pulse-modulated radiation also an influence on developing and adult brains, interfering with the human body’s biological mechanisms that are there to sustain health.

A paper titled “Risks to Health and Well-Being From Radio-Frequency Radiation Emitted by Cell Phones and Other Wireless Devices” published in Frontiers in Public Health in 2019 recognises, “The incidence of neuro-epithelial brain cancers has significantly increased in all children, adolescent, and young adult age groupings from birth to 24 years in the United States (14, 15). A sustained and statistically significant rise in glioblastoma multiforme across all ages has been described in the UK (16).” In addition, “The increasing use of cell phones in children, which can be regarded as a form of addictive behavior (40), has been shown to be associated with emotional and behavioral disorders.”

Professional wireless products, used by consumers and performers alike, use the same frequency bands as Wi-Fi and cell phones, which are undoubtedly negatively influencing the body’s biological mechanisms, and this can be said about their influence on rising cancer and dementia cases too.

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) a precursor to Parkinson’s Disease

Music production and performances may eventually sensitise the performer to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) which results in a condition known as electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). While the World Health Organisation recognises that “more than 55 million people have dementia worldwide” what isn’t known by the public is that over 350 million people are reported suffering with EHS. (The prevalence of EHS is unknown, but various reports suggest that it is between 1 and 10% of the population (Hallberg and Oberfeld, 2006; Huang et al., 2018.).

How is EHS impacting musicians? The music journal NME notes that, in 1995, Ricky Gardiner, the former guitarist with Iggy Pop who “worked on Iggy’s ‘Lust For Life’ album in 1977, co-writing ‘The Passenger’, ‘Success’ and ‘Neighbourhood Threat’ … playing lead guitar on such tracks as ‘Lust For Life’” fell ill with EHS a stigmatised form of functional impairment caused electromagnetic radiation “which restricted the amount of time he could spend with computer devices while recording music.”

Throughout his career his passion to play music had immersed his body in the electromagnetic radiation associated with his music-making. Ricky Gardiner admitted “struggling with electrosensitivity in 2006, which made it harder to produce his electronic works.” Some press sources also confirm that “the guitarist had been living with Parkinson’s disease.” He died in 2022 aged 73.

The problem we have is that a case like Gardiner’s, though mentioned in the press, doesn’t get much coverage, and when it does, mentions his EHS in passing without highlighting its true significance. With 5% of the population (equivalent to more than the entire population of the US) now reporting EHS, the problem is bigger than many people assume.

It is striking that Ricky Gardiner is described as having both EHS and Parkinson’s disease. According to a paper published in the Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy, “Severe oxidative stress can cause imbalances in reactive oxygen species, which may trigger neurodegeneration.” Oxidative stress is induced by electromagnetic fields which cause EHS.

The paper confirms that conditions such as electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) are likely an underlying factor in the development of Parkinson’s and other neurodegenerative disorders:

“Sensitivity to EMF exposure may be a common underlying effect in the CNS in regards to neurodegenerative disorders. In the literature, the main sensitization syndrome seems to be a pathophysiological change such as migraines, irritable bowel and bladder, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue, or chronic pain. The IARC characterized the radiation of mobile phones as Group 2B (possibly carcinogenic) in 2011. Most studies show that the carcinogenic and genotoxic effects of EMFs also evidence a correlation.”

Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0891061816300576

Reducing or removing EMR risks

As a performer or consumer involved with wireless systems for the guitar or wireless microphone systems, distancing yourself from the transmitter and receiver are paramount to avoiding harmful exposures. How that is achieved depends on a knowledge of the particular system. Distancing oneself from intense digital lighting is also effective but may not always be achievable, so eyewear might be an effective option, and seems to reduce optical glare for Bono who has glaucoma and photophobia.

If using a wireless guitar system know that you have options about the placement of the transmitters and receivers so that your distance from either can be increased to avoid near field exposures of wireless radiation.

In terms of guitar usage, “Wireless guitar systems use radio frequencies or digital transmissions to send the audio signal…The [plug-in] transmitter [type, for example,] is connected to the guitar’s output jack, and the receiver is connected to the amplifier or audio system. The transmitter sends the guitar’s signal to the receiver, which then sends it to the amplifier or audio system.”

According to guitarriver.com, “Affordable [wireless guitar] systems operate on common wireless frequencies–2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz. Your home wi-fi, cordless phones, baby monitors, and other household wireless devices transmit on these frequencies. The 2.4 GHz frequency band has been around longer and may be more crowded than 5.8 GHz, but will have a longer range. “…”Professional systems operate on different frequency bands altogether. Some run on the 600 MHz and 700 MHz bands, although these systems are being phased out by the FCC. Refer to the FCC documentation for wireless microphones if you are curious.”

What are the different types of transmitter packs for wireless guitar systems? Plug-in transmitters plug into the guitar’s output jack. Belt pack transmitters can be clipped to your belt or guitar strap. Some guitars come with built-in transmitters and are limited to use with compatible wireless receivers.

As we can see, the transmitters are predominantly placed close to the body and therefore increase the musician’s burden of exposure to electromagnetic radiation.

Types of receivers for digital wireless guitar systems include: “Plug-in receivers that…plug directly into the pedal board, amplifier, or wherever you would normally plug in the other end of the cable coming from your guitar. Pedalboard receivers: These receivers are designed to fit on a guitarist’s pedalboard, making them convenient and easy to integrate into an existing setup…and can be powered by a standard pedalboard power supply. Rackmount receivers…are designed to be mounted in a standard 19-inch equipment rack, making them suitable for larger or more complex setups [and] are commonly used in professional touring rigs, larger venues, or recording studios. Tabletop receivers…have a compact design that can be placed on a table or other flat surfaces. They are usually smaller and more portable [so are] suitable for smaller venues, rehearsals, or home use.“

These radiofrequency receivers also present options for placement that can increase our distance from them, but this can’t be of much benefit if the transmitter is near or on the body and is exposing you to near field radiation for the duration of the performance, which over time could add up to health problems down the road.

A wireless microphone may have the transmitter at the base of the handle. Remember, if wireless devices are used closer than 8 inches to the body, exposures to EMR grow exponentially. A microphone stand may help, but why not just have it wired in the first place? As a guitar signal is also optimum through a wired rig with an amplifier unit, why not keep it that way, too, potentially keeping the band safer from EMR on stage?

Reliable wired performance over wireless risks

Wired connections are never likely to be phased out because they are so reliable, (as is the case with wired internet connections, too). Just as gamers and many other users of internet connected devices prefer wired connections for speed, reliability and security, many musicians and performers choose cables because they convey a signal reliably, have optimum sound quality and have zero latency. A conventional microphone is also more reliable, latency-free and safer using a wired connection. Wired connections remove the hazard of pulse modulated wireless radiation in the working environment.

Professionals understand that the drawbacks of wireless microphone systems which make the advantages of wired connections even more obvious. “Nearby radio signals and other wireless devices can cause interference with your wireless system. Make sure that no radio transmitters come as close to 10-15 ft. to your wireless receiving antennas…Objects blocking your signal may also cause issues. Make sure to have a clear path between your transmitters and receivers.”

Wireless mics and guitar systems also use batteries too, and issues of compression and latency can be introduced in both systems. Why risk increased radiation exposure or quality issues when “The overall reliability of wireless microphones doesn’t come close to the reliability of a decent wired microphone set-up”? And that goes for guitars too!

Source: https://www.musicianport.com/wired-microphone-vs-wireless-microphone

An unethical industry partnership fuelling health degradation and wireless exposure

Adding to the radiation health burden of audiences and stage performers today are the invisible collimated beams of high frequency pulsed electromagnetic radiation (EMR) utilised in “phase distribution” in 5G wireless technology. 5G technology (currently using a mixture of 4G LTE and compressed millimeter waves) now dominates post-pandemic music festivals aiming to reach pre-pandemic profitability at all costs.

Smart phone charging stations and 5G antennae are now routinely erected at major music events to fuel the endemic social media addiction that is now “part of the show.” These festivals are a major source of revenue and continue to dominate the market, predominantly attracting telecom industry sponsorship.

Using novel microwave propagation systems and under-researched modulated microwave ranges 5G adoption is a whole new ball game of EMR exposure lacking sufficient research to guarantee public safety.

Internationally, EMR guidelines offer no real guarantees about public safety from 5G and governments mired in debt and open to bribery explain more about economic positives than enlightening the public about health impacts – like the industries lobbying for the technology’s wide adoption. Legal actions, scientific outrage and controversies continue leaving communities embattled with local authorities and network providers to stop masts and installations being erected near schools and within communities. (The following Hardell, Nilsson studies and summary concerning exposures of men, women and children to 5G base stations are worth reading).

As the music industry “faces a “major threat from strong economic headwinds” 5G controversies must seem like a sideshow to working musicians and performers (who may know little of the scientific research that contradicts industry and governments’ safety claims). However, it is clear that music events are now operating within a technological “wild west” where profits trump safety concerns. The concerns of festival goers and public alike are ignored.

The telecoms network providers partner with the music festivals to exploit musical performances and massive crowds to access the artists’ lucrative fanbases to market 5G services using “exclusive content.”

In this context, festival organisers and network providers alike are lacking in any ethical responsibility as they evolve music shows into digital technology exhibitions and “smartphone fests” playing down legitimate health issues. They do this in the face of ZERO evidence that can show that 5G’s novel microwave technology and beam-forming capabilities are innocuous and fit for purpose. 5G’s capacity to gather data quickly and in huge quantities seems to drive the “uptake”evolution”, but is it to the benefit of musicians and consumers? It leaves the public doubly vulnerable, from cover-ups of data breaches concerning wireless technology to the remarkably widespread and naiive dismissal of possible radiation related health impacts. None of this can benefit anyone.

Data harvesting and wireless technology have become enduring facets of the music industry’s profit machine. According to sgeworldwide.com, the music industry has been “transformed by the use of data and analytics…[which has] enabled record labels and music publishers to gain insights into consumer behavior and trends, allowing them to make more informed decisions about which artists to sign and which songs to promote….with record labels and publishers using data to identify new talent and create more effective marketing campaigns.”

Gathering data and fuelling social media frenzy for sustained profits is what the music industry and telecoms companies both have in common. “Many promotional practices in the music industry that were useful in the past are no longer effective or relevant” and this means ceaseless promotion of internet-connected experiences that also encourage sustained exposures to wireless radiation emitting technologies may be considered among the music industry’s “unethical tactics.” Network providers and big tech have a stranglehold on the music industry’s economic and ethical trajectories – the fans and performances seem like background noise.

As Musicianwave reports, “stranglehold monopolies and unethical means undermine a free and fair market” and “…musicians only gained 12% of the $43 billion generated in the industry in 2017…It’s a vicious game of chance, and some musicians practice unethical promotion tactics to get ahead….[for example]…major artists have been revealed to have bought fake Twitter followers to the point where it’s almost standard industry practice now.” According to sgeworldwide.com, in addition, “…the use of algorithms in music streaming services to recommend music to listeners has become a controversial topic” and there is a “lack of transparency in how these algorithms work.”

As the BBC reports, “The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) said more than 80% of recorded music was now listened to via streaming….[and]…a million streams per month would earn an artist only about £12,000 per year…The number of artists streaming music rose from about 200,000 to 400,000 between 2014 and 2020.” With no-one “fully sure how they will sustain a creative career as the landscape of the industry changes so dramatically” extra pressure to adopt and exploit digital technologies (particularly wireless) is driving commercial music’s increasingly precarious existence, but also its current survival and relationships with wireless interests.

We can appreciate that wireless connectivity and internet-led goals not only encourage a range of unethical practices but also promote sustained unethical exposures to technological radiation (excessive optical radiation, Blutooth, Wi-Fi, RFR, 5G, millimeter waves, etc) which impacts the physical and mental health of the “pawns” that bring the industry such massive profits: the musicians and their fanbases.

Health clearly has long been a side show to industry. Profits are the overriding industry concern. However, today some industry-induced health concerns are beginning to be highlighted. As sgeworldwide.com reports, “Mental health is a growing concern in the music industry, with many artists struggling with anxiety, depression, and other mental health issues.” When will chronic levels of EMR exposure and screen time be factored into the health equation?

In the era of digital transformation professionals and consumers have some serious choices to make. Making the right choices for health and wellbeing are perhaps more vital than ever before.

Weighing up the cost

Musicians have always faced health impacts that come with the territory, but sadly they have been sparsely studied. As digital technology transforms the profession its influence must be taken into account in future studies. Many scientific studies regarding the optical radiation for digital lighting and the health impacts from radiofrequency radiation (RFR) can be referenced.

Musicians on stage, in transit, at home or in production studio contexts encounter and utilise digital technologies in a variety of ways. Issues arising from exposures to man-made electromagnetic radiation may not have plagued performers in the hey-day of legendary American record producers like Quincy Jones (1933-present), for example, but today they have become more pronounced. Performers are being struck by cancer, bipolar disorder, Parkinson’s Disease, and Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS), for example, and digital technologies can play a toxic role. The number of people in the population reporting EHS would appear to outweigh the number with dementia and bipolar disorder combined.

WIth the democratisation of digital music production tools and wireless devices, the general population is still unaware of the risks they are taking on. Some health impacts from technological radiation were being observed before the advent of now ubiquitous EMR and radiofrequency emitting digital devices such as modern computers, and smart phones. As this excerpt from “Electromagnetic hypersensitivity means Peter Lloyd can’t leave his house… or enjoy any modern pleasures inside” by Martin Shipton, Wales Online, Oct 16, 2014, reveals: “As early as the 1930s…EHS symptoms were observed in people working with radio and electricity, and with military radar in the 1940s…Environmental EHS appeared in the general population from the 1970s with computers.” Whether or not the emergence of EHS can be pinpointed as described, clearly EHS is an advancing health issue of our times. It remains ominously taboo and stigmatised in our digital culture.

Quincy Jones’ daughter, Jolie Jones Levine, who is vice president of the Take It Back Foundation, and an actress, vocalist, model, producer, author and the wife of renowned record producer Stewart Levine, has electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). Her experience of the condition is described in an interview with Olle Johansson Ph.D. titled, “I’m Not The Only One!”. https://www.jolietalks.com

She is certainly not the only one. Other performers from guitarist and music producer Ricky Gardiner, Kim De’Atta, a British actress and singer, to Johan Söderberg, a Swedish musician and member of the band The Hives, and many other performers in the public eye have developed EHS and have spoken out about it.

As consumers and performers are presented with more wireless products, and are marketed more incentives to acquire them and stay connected to the internet, EMR becomes a monumental problem across the spectrum of daily life, fuelling potential cases of EHS and other conditions. Wireless instrument and microphone systems are becoming normalised through consumerism and “cable-free” stage performances where performers utilising wireless headsets and equipment are emphasised in exciting content and marketing to make a snappy sale. In reality all adds up increased EMR exposure for a public mostly neglectful of the health implications.

And…it all adds up to more expense. Wireless systems for the professional musician or vocalist are seriously expensive for a high quality outfit, where as kits for the home vocalist or guitar player are more economical, and, can even operate in some of the same frequency ranges too (2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz).

Such frequency ranges will cover a person walking across a stadium stage but how many people need that kind of range in their home, a studio, or at a small gig? How many other frequencies are brought to your performance from your other electrical or wireless devices, neighbours’ wireless products, smartmeters, phones, and adjacent electrical and wireless infrastructure? The risk to your health clearly increases with wireless components added in your immediate vicinity, and from closer proximity.

Skyrocketing wireless radiation over the past 20+ years can be considered a real and present occupational risk for professional performers engaging with digital technologies on and off-stage, from powerful LED lighting to powerful wireless systems and computer/smart phone screens. Smart guitars emerging on the market further encourage uptake of novelty wireless “smart” devices that are portable and offer convenience, but still, they emit unhealthy optical and radiofrequency radiation.

Crowding the home, studio or stage with wireless devices (radiofrequency transmitters and receivers that generate electromagnetic radiation) isn’t a good idea if you plan to avoid EMI, and further, the myriad EMR-induced health consequences which include cancer and dementia. No matter how inconvenient, we cannot escape the correlation of digital technology to the epidemic of chronic and debilitating health conditions.

Press coverage of professional musician Ricky Gardiner’s tragic death alerted us to his battle with electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS – also known as Microwave Syndrome) from man-made EMR. Sustained EMR exposure can kickstart neurodegenerative diseases, which can also become a consequence of developing EHS, and bipolar disorder, the latter which is regularly spoken of by musicians suffering from the condition and deemed positive for removing the condition’s “stigma”. By comparison EHS receives less positive public attention, and also carries more stigma.

Musicians are not immune to EMR. A stage rig and other industry lifestyle choices that saturate a performer in man-made electromagnetic radiation puts a performer at risk of developing EHS over time. Olle Johansson, Ph.D, a scientist with expertise regarding EMF exposure impacts and EHS, reminds us, “EMFs [electromagnetic fields] disturb immune function through stimulation of various allergic and inflammatory responses, as well as effects on tissue repair processes. Such disturbances increase the risks for various diseases, including cancer. These and the EMF effects on other biological processes (e.g. DNA damage, neurological effects, etc.) are now widely reported to occur at exposure levels significantly below most current national and international safety limits [e.g. FCC, ICNIRP].”

Every performer, whether professional or starting out on the journey of musical and technological integration should ask whether adding wireless functionality is necessary or advantageous, and whether the capacity in your case has the potential to exacerbate the effects of your exposure to occupational electromagnetic fields (or exacerbate any pre-existing health conditions you may already have). In the contexts of home and schools consider that wireless radiation has more impact on developing children who absorb the radiation like sponges for “their brain tissue is more conductive, RF penetration is greater relative to head size, and they will have a longer lifetime of exposure than adults. (Pediatrics, volume 116, Issue 2, August 2005)” Do developing children learning an instrument really need wireless functionality, as offered by plug in transmitters or a “smart guitar”?

Consider that your decisions could eventually affect the progress of yours and others’ careers. Radiation from digital technologies may significantly increase your chances of developing photophobia, EHS or even Parkinson’s Disease, as a result of occupational or recreational exposure. Consider also that music festivals have become seas of wireless radiation as the audiences all carry and use their mobile devices (a radiofrequency transmitter-receiver) creating a level of collective radiation exposure that has surprisingly gone unmonitored and unmentioned. Social media addiction now endemic in audiences’ and musicians’ lives also has immense implications for the physical and mental health of both demographics.

The cumulative impacts of all of these influences, from optical to wireless radiation from digital technologies become part of future health outcomes. Fuelling the silent health crisis are 5G digital developments, where the radiation impact hasn’t been sufficiently studied for its long-term health and safety implications. 5G microwave radiation emissions interfere with human health as studies are showing, but also interferes with wireless microphones, as the “frequency bands can overlap with the ones used by wireless microphones, especially in unlicensed frequency ranges, causing interference,” as sonicfunction.com explains.

We can’t ignore the pressing issue of health impacts from digital technology on musicians and their public. Ask the serious question as a music consumer, or a professional in the music business, is it really necessary to incorporate a wireless system in your current rig, (especially when wired connections are in the main more than adequate for many professional applications) and are the potential risks to your future (and the health of others exposed to your wireless digital systems) worth the ultimate price of doing so?

Image credit: Illustration by Sean Alexander Carney