Disclaimer: Safe Tech International is comprised of a diverse group of people from various countries who have come together to advocate for safer digital technologies. We do not have a uniform stance on all global political issues, nor do we feel this is necessary in advocacy for safer internet and telecommunications technologies. We support diversity of thought, and feel that well-researched blogs and outreach materials that both awaken and inspire others to seek the greater good are essential in our times. In light of that, please note that all members of Safe Tech International do not necessarily agree with every political statement made in the following excellent and well-researched blog.

The world would be a different place without smart technology, which is personified by the ubiquitous smart phone. However, more than that, the world would be a different place if smart technology didn’t come first – in every political decision.

These technologies have helped to create the police state of today. It is nurtured by the political climate in which Digital ID is being sold to us. Governments are digitally dividing society into an “us and them” equation – through AI-driven smart technology. In that world, the smart phone – a data-mining surveillance tool for the police state – is made conveniently mandatory.

Digital surveillance and Digital ID

The potential of the smart phone to disempower society, piece by piece, is no secret – phones are being tracked and personal information is leaking via Bluetooth and Wi-Fi. It may shock people to realise that Wi-Fi “sensing” enables AI to see us through walls and monitor our movements in real time with 5G.

Our data, in a multiplicity of forms commonly derived from routine smart phone activity, is the prized possession of government agencies and, the corporations and organisations that profit from it, who are lobbying for Digital ID, which enables more intrusive data-mining. There are numerous consequences of this vast “data-mining”, proving that the smart phone is anything but an “empowering” device.

Some social groups more than others received a taste of this reality during the “pandemic” – notably activists, journalists and other campaigning professionals using social media and smart phones to raise political awareness when human rights were under assault. Reliance on smart phones exposed their data to increased scrutiny, left them open to international government, military and police efforts to target social media, control information, monitor persons of interest and deter protests. Society witnessed a hike in intrusive data-driven surveillance and algorithmic censorship, as well as calls for Digital ID in the form of digital “Vaccine Passports”, all of which could now be empowered by AI and 5G wireless infrastructure.

Climate of social and racial manipulation

Among the targets in the climate of social unrest was the “Woke” organisation Black Lives Matter (BLM), protesting in 2020, and invested in “smart phone activism”. However, soon BLM discovered that their smart phones were an “Achilles Heel”. Big Tech had been aiding the police, with social media surveillance and facial recognition technologies (FRTs), targeting protesters.

BLM had known social media surveillance for many years (targeted by police through the social media intelligence platform Geofeedia). However, they had never highlighted this technological side of “colonialism” in their midst.

In September 2020 – according to the BBC – officers at a [Black Lives Matter] protest in Washington’s Lafayette Square “…requested a “heat ray” weapon for possible use against protesters in a park next to the White House…The heat ray weapon [Active Denial System] uses a microwave beam [millimeter wave energy] to make human skin feel like it is burning.” That same month, Facial Recognition Technologies (FRTs) had also been deployed against the protesters.

BLM supporters toppling colonialist statues in recent times, have liberally targeted the past. However, they didn’t target the Big Tech companies, Big Tech figureheads or smart phones/smart surveillance technology, or microwave weapons of the present. An opportunity to highlight digital/electronic colonialism as the threat of contemporary Imperialism – exemplified by the symbiosis of Big Tech and the police to target and ID protesters with data-driven technologies – was ominously missed when unprecedented global attention was on the organisation in 2020.

BLM, it can be argued, avoided the technological “elephants in the room” and thus seemed to change very little for civil rights, because policing is inseparable from microwave and smart technologies.

A technological, data-gathering warzone

Predatory, data-driven policing is today at the heart of recent anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles, as are identity politics. The surveillance of and confrontations with protesters are portrayed as a crackdown on those in the US who may not have the necessary Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) documents that prove their identity.

Police brutality (with military tactics and manpower) aligned to “technological supremacism” characterises the “sweeps” on the streets of LA, which are fuelled by data from smart surveillance infrastructure and tools.

Biometric Update author Anthony Kimery, in the article “Police, federal video surveillance of anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles raise alarms”, observes that, “In the wake of escalating protests in Los Angeles over U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids and broader immigration enforcement policies, civil liberties advocates and technologists are sounding the alarm over the scale and scope of surveillance that’s been deployed against demonstrators…While aerial footage and law enforcement presence dominate the visible landscape of the protests, a quieter form of monitoring is unfolding in the digital realm where facial recognition tools, [Amazon] Ring camera footage, and social media surveillance intersect to create a sprawling matrix of protester identification.”

Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) has made significant investments in wireless Internet of Things (IoT) technologies – as admitted by Deputy Chief John McMahon who believes, “Virtual reality and technologies like the [wearable] Apple Vision Pro goggles, which double as a computer, offer endless possibilities for enhancing law enforcement operations.”

(The same has been said about smart glasses, wearables that are currently being used by law enforcement in China and the Middle East, and will be coming to a town near you, with facial recognition technology built in. According to Greenbot, “facial recognition in wearables may soon become common despite ethical concerns.” As Harvard Technology Review observes, “…while European regulations have restricted the use of real-time facial recognition, no such protections exist in the United States.”)

Smart technology automates much of policing, and supports the militarisation of the police, which has continued since 9/11 when “surplus combat equipment [was] procured and assigned to local police departments”. Source. The trend has seen units that “mimic Special Forces”. According to stopspying.org, in the US amidst anti-ICE demonstrations, “federal immigration enforcement have flown Predator drones, Black Hawk helicopters, and other military aircraft typically deployed in warzones overseas above the protests.”

Reports of “masked, unmarked agents” assigned to work with ICE that are targeting demonstrators and others reinforce the “Special Forces” dimension to the technologically assisted ICE policing. Arguably this is a terrorising tactic, and one that is challenging legal frameworks, undermining transparency and creating fear.

In a discussion in bylinetimes.com concerning the “militarisation of police departments, and the domestic deployments of armed units trained and staffed by Special Forces soldiers to our cities”, Professor Timothy Snyder of Yale – author of On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons From the Twentieth Century – is quoted as saying, “This is a classic way that violence happens in authoritarian regimes… The people who are getting used to committing violence on the border are then brought in to commit violence against people in the interior.” Source.

MSN reported that, “Some city and Police Commission leaders have called on the LAPD to do more to identify masked individuals who are taking part in immigration sweeps.” The streets are becoming a technological, data-gathering warzone.

Smart technology for health, or authenticating ID?

As this “militarised” climate of fear over “proving identity” is raised to fever pitch, I’m sure it won’t be long before the subject of Digital ID becomes centre stage issue the US – targeting Americans with smart phones. Digital ID in the US is sold as “more convenient, secure, privacy-protective, and usable than a physical ID”.

A centralised database built by Big Tech data-mining firm Palantir is already proving more than attractive to the Trump government – which would support a Digital ID framework, and, ICE deportations. As Vice observes, “In a CNBC interview at Davos, Palantir CEO Alex Karp admitted that his company “[finds] people in our country who are undocumented.” Source.

For Digital ID to be a success, biometrics are a key dataset. Currently, “Palantir gathers biometric and behavioral data for removal operations“. The function-creep of smart phones has ensured this dataset can be obtained with ease, “conveniently”, for biometrics capture is hardwired into the technology – as it is in fashionable smart “wearables”.

In the US, health secretary RFK Junior recommends that all citizens own wearables, “envisioning that every American will use them within four years“. Like smart phones, wearable devices are a desirable “data-mine” for the police, and governments – and such data would greatly assist Palantir. Wearables offer many opportunities for “tapping” rich sets of data.

The safety of sensitive, personal health data remains in question, however, when Big Tech is greedy for it and is prepared to breech data guidelines. Fines seem inconsequential. For example, facial recognition company Clearview AI “was fined just over €30M (close to $32M) by the Netherlands’ data protection authority in September 2024. In 2022 it was also fined the maximum possible (€20M or around $22M, based on its revenue at that time) a full three times by DPAs in Italy, Greece and France.” Source.

AI-driven smart technology: who wants your data?

Influencers who are outspoken on social issues, like RFKJnr and Patrisse Marie Khan-Cullors Brignac (formerly of BLM), must see that smart technologies are invasive surveillance tools. However, RFKJnr believes that wearables are vital for health, which is questionable. Meanwhile, former Black Lives Matter (BLM) leader Patrisse Marie Khan-Cullors Brignac helped empower a movement against colonialism in the 21st century yet the movement hasn’t spoken out against targeted smart phone surveillance, Facial Recognition Technologies (FRTs) Digital ID, or AI algorithms that can be inherently racist or disciminatory, (proven in study after study).

Failing to politically highlight the invasive data-driven surveillance underway courtesy of smart technology has consequences. A centralised database of Americans is now on the cards whether US citizens of any colour agree or not. Murals of 2020 supporting BLM are torn up and military installations are renamed in support of the Ku Klux Klan, as the Whitehouse makes deals with Big Tech and data-mining company, Palantir. Meanwhile, wearables for every American is promoted as a mantra.

There is a deep political desire to control the public’s data, and to keep mining it, intrusively though smart technologies – something the police are relying on more and more. The “terrorising” policing tactics and data-driven technologies being rolled out at demonstrations today take on a different dimension when we realise that the US and UK police alike are being trained in Israel, a country that reinforces apartheid through surveillance technologies, and is engaged in ethnic cleansing in Gaza.

According to Amnesty International, “Public or private funds spent to train our domestic police in Israel should concern all of us.” Yet how many of us know that the police are adopting Israeli tactics? Consider also, that Israeli technologies like those made by Israeli spytech company Cellebrite – a digital forensics company that sells tools to access and extract data from smartphones – which has “contracts with the British police” may access “police and security surveillance data”, because they are part of the “The 2030 roadmap for UK-Israel bilateral relations” signed off by the British Government.

Concerningly, Cellebrite has a “disastrous human rights record” and assists repressive regimes. For example, in 2021, as the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre reported, “Evidence of surveillance technology being used by the Myanmar state [formerly Burma]…was revealed when it surfaced that the military used phone-hacking technology from Israeli spyware firm Cellebrite to arrest two Reuters journalists for investigating a military massacre of ten Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine State in 2017.”

Cellebrite is interested in more than access to and data from smart phones, however. According to Cellebrite, “Digital wearables, such as Fitbit, record seemingly mundane activities — the number of steps we take in a day, our heartbeats, sleep schedules, locations, and distance traveled. To the trained eyes of criminal investigators, the data from wearables can be used to document our daily lives, right down to the last footstep and heartbeat. This data can prove invaluable when investigating crimes….extraction of data from wearable devices [has] led to arrests and prosecutions.”

Techno-anarchy in the UK

Clearly smart phones and wearables enable a society governed by Digital ID, underpinned by AI. It’s the direction the US, and UK, is headed, with the tragedy of racial unrest continuing, driven by technology that promotes over-policing and racially biased targeting.

In the UK as in the US, Palantir are at the centre of data-mining activities. According to Liberty, the “…controversial US spy tech firm [Palantir] has landed a contract with UK police to develop a surveillance network that will incorporate data about citizens’ political opinions, philosophical beliefs, health records and other sensitive personal information.”

In the UK, Digital ID is increasingly in the news. As the political dimensions around it are comparable with those of the US in so many ways, they deserve our attention.

The UK government launched “Gov.uk Wallet, a digital identity system that will consolidate government-issued credentials into a centralized mobile application. The initiative marks a significant advancement in the UK’s broader digitization strategy, following the country’s recent engagement with private sector stakeholders on digital identity solutions…The technical implementation will use facial recognition capabilities available on most contemporary smartphones for identity verification.” This offers clues as to how the UK’s vision of Digital ID will look.

The Digital ID initiative progresses as racial unrest in the form of Gaza protests and continuing immigration-related “troubles” spark police controntations where facial recognition technologies (FRTs) and smart phone surveillance are hastily rushed out (without ethical regulations) and serve to deter public demonstrations and “dissent”.

Regarding the Gaza demonstrations, these events are democratic rights that communicate to us all how unpopular Israel’s “genocidal” war is, and also show us that predominantly in the media, protesting against the killing of Palestinians and waving their flags in demonstrations is being sold as “anti-Israel” as if that type of protesting were “antisemitic”. UK Foreign Office “staff officials [questioning] the UK’s continued arms sales and what they called a “stark… disregard for international law” by Israel,” have been warned that they should consider resigning if they “disagree” over Gaza.

Citizens opposing Israel’s “genocide” can be labelled antisemitic for expressing alarm, or demonstrating – though when 100,000 Israelis take to the streets to oppose the war, the popular media either has no name for it, or avoids highlighting it. “Antisemitism” describes “bigotry, prejudice or discrimination against Jews“. “Bigotry, prejudice or discrimination against Palestinians” who are also “semitic” people is defended by the British State. In Israel the oppression of Palestinians has been progressed over decades of the authorities collecting biometric data on Palestinians (and even Jews) to control both populations, helped by growing smart phone use, and the rise of facial recognition technologies being developed in Israel.

Britcard: for silencing voices?

In the UK a Digital ID could equally be employed to silence criticism to the government line. “Government officials have suggested that digital IDs could be linked to facial recognition technology and biometric data, creating a system that closely monitors every citizen’s movements and interactions.”

In the context of this “autocratic” UK government stance, where political divides arise over Israel/Gaza and immigration-fuelled controversies, we’re seeing a biometric Digital ID emerge with the proposition of “Britcard”.

It is a proposition progressing from a speculative and “voluntary” status towards being pushed as mandatory – on the back of Britain’s infamous “Immigration” and protesting problems.

Immigration problems in the UK have fuelled protests and dissatisifaction for some time – but only after protests against wars (that have been causing the refugee crisis) failed, falling on the deaf ears of governments determined to support or wage them. Deterring protest with AI’s assistance has since become a priority of governments and the police. Silkie Carlo, director of Big Brother Watch (BBW), believes “…AI surveillance turns members of the public into walking ID cards, is dangerously inaccurate and has no explicit legal basis in the UK.” BBW found that “Over 60% of UK residents are concerned about the use of facial recognition in public spaces.”

Britcard should be viewed as an extension of this desire to control, for who would protest if their data could instantly be assigned to a “watch list” courtesy of an AI driven app and deprive one of essential services? It is an existential threat, along with the growing arsenal of FRTs and Drones to support the program.

“Britcard”, is presented as a proposition for a national Digital ID, and is being advertised a solution for “immigration out of control” though deserves closer scrutiny. As CCN reports, Britcard is touted as a way to “help Britain control illegal migration and secure its borders.”

“What else could Britcard be used for?” is a question everyone should be asking. What about backing a national conscription program? National ID cards introduced in 1939 assisted in conscription – the last time a mandatory ID system was introduced in the UK. Could that happen with Digital IDs? Its happening in Europe which seeks to conscript 300,000 troops as a deterrent to Russia.

Beyond the obvious and advertised

Talk of resuming UK conscription was in the air recently, concerning Vladimir Putin who is seen as a threat because “Britain sees its number of soldiers dwindling“. Europe also appears to be preparing populations for conflict aimed at Putin.

However, according to inews.co.uk, “Downing Street has dismissed a warning from the head of the British Army that members of the public could be called up to fight in the event of a war with Russia.” Governments have been known to U-turn. The UK government seems desperate to implement national Digital ID. Any war might help achieve that, from the “immigation war” to the world war three scenario suggested by the spectre of Putin.

War is spoken of a lot today, though some seek to create it casually through their influence. Big Tech attempted to fan the flames of immigration discontent in the guise of Elon Musk, partner in the techno-eugenecist rebrand of politics under President Donald Trump who is deliberately engineering a racially tense atmosphere in the US, in every way possible (while Elon promotes the idea of “Smart-people” enhanced by smart technology). “Sir Keir Starmer [became] embroiled in a war of words with Elon Musk, after the tech billionaire suggested that “civil war is inevitable” following violent unrest in the UK”, as the BBC reported in 2024.

Britcard remains a politically divisive “us and them” type of proposition. CITIZENS vs IMMIGRATION is currently the main narrative to convince people to accept a life where digital proof of ID permits access to private and public sector services digitally. Fear and “othering” are the UK government’s usual tried and tested ways of introducing more surveillance on the population, and biased AI algorithms ensure that will continue be the case.

No doubt “othering” comes into play in conscription as well, as it did in the UK in 1939 when ID Cards were forced on the population, and resisting conscription was frowned upon. In a similar way, Digital ID could be used as a coercive tool for purposes beyond the obvious and advertised, empowering governments in gaining the compliance of citizens for a multiplicity of political goals.

The UK and US governments are funding energy guzzling data centres and utilise Real Time Crime Centres (RTCC) (spearheaded by Fusus “the most widely used and trusted real-time crime center platform in US public safety”). Here police use all the latest bells and whistles of surveillance technology and data analytics, so we are seeing the foundations of a Digital ID being built.

The RTCC system brings together the smart technology platforms of Big Tech to policing to carry out the State’s divide and rule political and strategic tactics on society. Digital ID will be a critical data-driven tool linking to these systems. According to breechmedia, “While creating the centres, police forces have sought out advice and technology from major corporations like Motorola, IBM, and Palantir, many with controversial ties to military and spy agencies.”

The UK’s future – who is allowed to join it?

We’re at the threshold of the QR code society, which is a surveillance economy – where you are the product, giving your profitable data through every digital transaction with a smart phone Digital ID app. Like a product on a shelf, a human acquires an ID number and barcode (QR code), to be tracked anywhere like a pet or a prisoner with a GPS bracelet. Wearables can only assist in the “progressive” Digital ID world.

A think tank closely aligned with the government called Labour Together believes that “For a progressive society to work, it needs to be able to collectively agree who is allowed to join it. Because it will exclude those who cannot join it, it needs to give its members proof that they belong.” This is the logic behind the UK’s Digital ID scheme “Britcard”.

According to The Week, “Number 10 appears to be…rolling out [the] voluntary scheme that could become mandatory at a future date. Labour Together has estimated the BritCard system would cost up to £400 million to build and around £10 million a year to administer as a free-to-use app.”

State in a Smart Phone

A Digital ID is already being used in the UK-backed Ukraine as the country endeavours to achieve a state of technological supremacy, and guard against Russia. A Digital ID backed by a government app drives the Ukraine into deeper autocracy, and an “us and them” world. The “State in a Smartphone” project handled by the Ukrainian Ministry of Digital Transformation passed a Digital ID law and now all authorities and private business are equipped “to be able to scan the relevant QR-code of the New Digital IDs” to verify identities.

Ukraine, by adopting Digital ID places itself on a par with other repressive regimes that have imposed the same with the aid of profit hungry Big Tech companies like Palantir. “Currently, Diia, the national government’s app which is used by over 20 million people.

Today, nearly all of Kyiv’s adult population relies on the apps”. This ensures complete digital dependency, meaning that with immediacy, access to healthcare, resources, and vital services can be refused and withheld, on the basis of the political control of a person’s data. Victoria Itskovych, Chief Information Officer of Kyiv City (CIO) said: “For any emergency – be it floods, earthquakes, or pandemics –…cities need a trusted channel of communication that cannot be hijacked to spread fear and panic.” Clearly only the voice of the State matters, when State-driven apps come into town.

Digital ID, for the Ukraine, establishes a questionable form of technology for a questionable “democracy” that has faced massive protests over government corruption, and brought “draconian” anti-protest laws that curb protest rights, free speech and NGO involvement in these processes. Deterring protest is also an agenda in the UK and US, today, with governments employing Facial Recognition Technologies (FRTs) and social media surveillance to build watch lists and target protesters or “dissidents” – a police state gaining power.

Can a Digital ID promote “Humanness”?

This interpenetrating Digital ID surveillance system, wherever it is implemented, UK or Ukraine, requires sustaining fast wireless networks (5G for example) and massively expanding data-centres, a drain on earth’s resources – fundamentally in the name of mass surveillance – and, it means sacrificing our freedom and “humanness” to “belong”, when our existence is digitally organised by AI algorithms.

Firmin DeBrabander, the Cambridge University Press author of Life after Privacy: Reclaiming Democracy in a Surveillance Society, believes that, “In the digital net that envelops our everyday lives, it will become increasingly more difficult and rare to perform any task without revealing ourselves, and opening our lives to spying eyes. And our spies are not content to watch us from without; they will install sentinels in our very bodies, and monitor us from within.” Source.

This is the future being constructed. Digital ID is a political choice, and it advertises that a fascist surveillance state is the preferred existence, above all other possibilities. Where is that future going to lead us?

Moonshot R&D calls the intensely surveilled future we’re heading towards a new world of inspiration “where people, robots, and biological cyborgs collaborate and co-evolve”. It’s the so-called “fifth stage of human evolution”, a prospect Japan is embracing, where a “Super-smart” Society 5.0 (an agenda evolved since the advent of 5G in 2016) represents “a visionary roadmap for the future of human civilization”, as described by innovaromorir.com.

Sounds like the endgame of the “Great Reset” which advances the Fourth Industrial Revolution, and, dictates technological evolution. How does that work? Sociable.co asserts that, “…the unelected globalists at the World Economic Forum (WEF) are envisioning an “augmented society” ruled by digital identity and transhumanism via the Internet of Bodies….They want digital identity…embedded into every aspect of our lives — even under our skin…” where sensors on or inside the body “monitor, analyze, and even modify human bodies and behavior.”

Such views and observations no longer seem outlandish. Smart technology, and in particular wearables and implants, are posing many ethical questions, though Big Tech companies are banking on what Klaus Schwab calls “a fusion of our physical, our digital, and our biological identities” while no ethical oversight can prevent any movement in that direction.

Put in this light, we can see how an acceptance of Digital ID is like throwing “humanness” onto the trash heap in favour of inhabiting a “post-human society” (discussed by the Global Posthuman Network) where people are, through new markets like smart dust and implants, technologically augemented (which in today’s parlance means people are being “progressive”).

People accepting of a Digital ID are trading any other alternative life for a digitally “remastered” and reinforced “self” (as populations under repressive regimes have discovered) consenting to centralised surveillance, and technologically targeted control over individuals, using health data (digital health), and mental health status or any other data of strategic value that can set limits and reinforce Big Tech monopolies and government policies.

Digital ID is not about setting anyone free, but nudging the population to a place where AI comes to dominate life more. Government has a revolving door with Big Tech companies which accelerates the pace of digital surveillance transformations, which are about implementing AI for profit and control.

AI and the lens of repression

Keir Starmer of the UK Labour government said, with AI “…there are huge opportunities and risks, and we need to marry the two…We need to push it through”. Today, the UK like everywhere we know, is a surveillance economy, being pushed through, which can be measured in the sheer density of data-collecting CCTV cameras alone which are, to be clear, a technology invented by the Nazi regime.

CCTV cameras are now enhanced by AI, and are the eyes of the AI-data-driven State today, using facial recognition and other algorithmic surveilance tools – biased towards destroying dissent and activism, while proving inherently “racist”.

Speaking out on the issue of AI’s racist interpretations and language models, Timnit Gebru was fired by Google in 2020. She had been “supporting rigorous research on AI ethics and algorithmic auditing” while the company romanced Black Lives Matter (BLM), Diversity politics, and Civil Rights to bask in “political correctness”, to promote products to a wider audience. This is a road that Big Tech in general has walked profitably, though now distances itself from as the political climate changes towards one of technologically assisted intolerance, a climate which Big Tech arguably now exploits, and assists.

Google’s credibility to “Do No Evil” has waned immensely with the development of Project Nimbus, which is enabling data-driven AI surveillance for Israel. As Middle East Monitor explains, “Beyond the sphere of social media, Google and Amazon’s collaboration with the Israeli military under Project Nimbus casts an even darker shadow over the tech industry’s role in this conflict [the war in Gaza]. The $1.2 billion cloud computing contract…provides critical infrastructure to power Israel’s AI-driven Lavender and Gospel targeting systems – systems that are directly linked to the mass civilian casualties in Gaza [and use facial recognition].” It’s a lesson for us all, especially when it is clear that Israel has a grip on our police and governments, and seeks to influence strategies and technologies.

Israel’s grip on Western police forces

In April 2025, aoav.org.uk reported that “In a delayed response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request submitted by Action on Armed Violence (AOAV)”, Essex Police in the UK “…refused to confirm or deny whether any of their officers have met with representatives from Corsight AI, a controversial Israeli facial recognition technology company whose software has reportedly been used in IDF military operations in Gaza….a practice that human rights organisations have condemned as constituting “automated apartheid”.

This lack of transparency is similar to the US government refusing to be open about its facial recognition agenda, a policy of secrecy that raises concerns. The UK appears reliant on intrusive surveillance tactics and tools from Israel. It is worth asking, to what extent?

What power do Israeli tech firms have over police in the UK?

According to Inside Telecom, “Over 500 Israeli tech and non-tech companies operate in the United Kingdom (UK), and the UK Israel Tech Hub is located within the British Embassy in Israel…This raises multiple questions about the relationship between the UK and Israel. The main aim of the organization is to secure private and public sector contracts for Israeli technology companies in the UK. Earlier reports from Palestine have also suggested that several Israeli tech firms act as fronts for Zionist intelligence agencies.”

Further, “…NICE Systems, [is] another Israeli company with a contract with the British police to handle parts of their investigations. NICE Systems also holds a contract in Scotland for facial recognition in CCTV.”

A freedom of information request asking “Has the Met Police run training or exchange programmes with Israel’s police or military from 2020 to present?” received the following reply from the government:

“Confirming or denying that…information is held relating to the types of training, meetings and exchange programmes provided to other countries between The Metropolitan Police Service and the Israeli Police, Israeli Civil Administration or Israeli Defence Forces between 2014-present, would provide terrorists with a greater understanding of where specific training and exchange programmes are provided…In a partial answer to your first and third answer, On Wednesday 18 May 2022, the Met’s Central East Command Unit hosted an Israeli police delegation.”

Further information reveals that “The purpose of the visit from the Israeli Police delegation was so they could learn from the MPS about how we work with communities…Policing authorities rely on international co-operation when combatting crime, particularly that which is cross-border in scope.” A meeting was held at Stoke Newington Police Station. An official redacted PDF disclosed an agenda concerning the policing of “Faith and Hate Crime” and “Policing COVID” and centred on “Community Key stakeholders and partners”. Stoke Newington (an area in the northwest part of the London Borough of Hackney) has a high white demographic with black and other ethnic minorities, and a history of police brutality against minorities, suspicious deaths, and alleged police cover-ups. “Stoke Newington Police Station in Hackney, east London, was infamous in the 1980s and 1990s for police corruption and racism,..” according to Socialist Worker in a very revealing article where the behaviour London police forces echoes violent law enforcement tactics of Israel that for years has brutalised Jews and Palestinians.

Further involvements with Israel have been disclosed by aoav.org.uk. “The UK government has confirmed it is actively training Israeli soldiers on British soil…[casting] fresh light on Britain’s ongoing military relationship with Israel amid continued conflict in Gaza and military escalation in southern Lebanon….Dr Iain Overton, Executive Director of Action on Armed Violence (AOAV), said: “The UK’s training of Israeli forces during a period of alleged war crimes raises serious questions of moral complicity. The British public deserves transparency when our armed forces are directly engaged with a military accused of violations that have left thousands of civilians dead.”

Other links to Israel influencing UK police are reflected in a report by Global Research, concerning the policing of 7/7 bombings in London, which can be read here.

What power do Israeli tech firms have over police in the US?

According to Forbes, “If you’re in New York City today, there’s a very good chance your face will be captured by surveillance cameras and run through facial recognition software. If you’re in a predominantly Black, Asian or Hispanic community in New York City, that chance is even greater.” Forbes also highlights “…the NYPD’s purchase of more than $277 million in secret surveillance equipment that had previously been hidden from the public.” According to incarcernation.com, since 2012, the NYPD has a “strategic partnership” with Israel, “…focused on counterterrorism, urban warfare, and crowd control.”

truthlytics.com goes further, “The NYPD, one of the largest and most well-funded police departments in the world, has long faced criticism for its use of excessive force and discriminatory policing, particularly in communities of color. These patterns of behavior, critics argue, echo the tactics used by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) in the occupied West Bank and Gaza—ranging from mass surveillance to brutal crowd control techniques.”

NYPD: employing Israeli technologies and approaches

In the US, policing approaches are influenced by Israel. We may recall that Israel’s NICE Systems has a contract with the British police to handle parts of their investigations and holds a contract in Scotland for facial recognition in CCTV. Supply Chain Market in 2007 reported that “NICE Systems Ltd., the global provider of advanced solutions that enable organizations to extract Insight from Interactions to drive performance, recently announced that it has won a $9M contract from the City of New York (NYC), on behalf of the New York Police Department (NYPD) for NICE Inform, multimedia incident information management solution for its next generation 9-1-1 emergency call centers…NICE Inform will enable the City to capture, manage, analyze and reconstruct multimedia incidents.”

According to haaretz.com, in 2023, “New York City Mayor Eric Adams lauded security technology developed by Israel Police…vowing to bring Israeli tech to the New York Police Department.” moguldom.com reported in 2022 that, “Crime has increased by 23.5 percent in New York City during New York City Mayor Eric Adams’ first year in office, and the former cop-turned-mayor — a fan of facial recognition technology — is promising to implement new policing technology that he said more accurately identifies common criminal patterns and develops profiles of perpetrators….Adams has promoted the use of cameras and championed facial recognition devices…“

Adams said in an interview with Politico. “…Big Brother is protecting you.” Albert Fox Cahn, head of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, said, “The NYPD has a decade-long history of abusing its surveillance operations to target Black New Yorkers, Muslim New Yorkers, political protests and every aspect of dissent,” Cahn said. “These are technologies that would be chilling in anyone’s hands. But to give an agency with such a horrifying record of surveillance abuse even more power, at a time when they face dwindling oversight, is a recipe for disaster.” Source.

Howard syndrome and rejection of technological tyranny

It is interesting to hear a Jewish perspective concerning the brutality of Israel’s regime (now influencing our governments and police). In Israel as any society, there are those who are authoritarian and corrupt, and those who want peace and to denounce tyranny. The Israeli historian Shlomo Sand asks, “Is not the very fact of defining oneself as a Jew within the State of Israel an act of affiliation to a privileged caste which creates intolerable injustices around itself?” Source.

Sand’s observation of a “priveleged caste” that “creates intolerable injustices around itself” evokes the actions of our governments too, which are always employing deeper surveillance and eroding human rights, which can lead to brutality and racism.

In the UK, we are experiencing technological authoritarianism through the new Labour Party. It is almost a replay of the authoritarian zeal exhibited by the UK’s Home Office under Conservative Home Secretary Michael Howard, an authoritarian figure who imposed expensive CCTV installations all over the UK, pursued a National ID card scheme, and established controversial DNA databases in the 1990’s.

Britain, under successive Labour governments, interestingly, has inherited that “vision”, which takes on a notable complexion through Starmer’s “vision” of “Putting AI into the veins of Britain“. What did Howard do that Starmer continues to ardently pursue? He pursues a CCTV, ID-based police state.

Howard believed in cutting edge CCTV surveillance technology, operating with racial biases, at the expense of eroding privacy and human rights for society at large, reinforcing the vulnerabilities of minorities in the process. He used technology as a solution, without tackling first the underlying problems influencing crime, like rising unemployment. Technology seemed to be the priority, as now.

Howard established, while neglectful of privacy concerns and consequences for human rights, an intrusive police state in the midst of soaring unemployment and social unrest, which spied on people and held as much information on guilty and innocent alike. Howard, like many progressive politicians and futurists felt human rights policies, an obstacle to his ideals.

Howard felt that the Human Rights Act (which passed in UK law in 1998) and the the Regulations of Investigating Power Act (RIPA) of 2000, (affecting powers of surveillance and communications interception) placed “inhibitions on the ability of the police to tackle crime effectively” and thought adjustments should be made.

The Home Secretary didn’t entirely get his own way, and some of his policies were successfully legally challenged by the public. An ID card was passionately advocated by Howard, though despite his campaigning, became voluntary, not mandatory.

National ID had faced immense public resistance (a wartime card was abolished in 1952). CCN reports that “In the past, when the government tried to centralize the U.K.’s national identity system, it was met with stiff opposition.” From 2006 to 2010 as more mandatory ID card schemes were being planned, thankfully, public resistance stopped them.

Resurfacing, over and over

The ID card idea constantly resurfaces. The government has been keen to calm fears concerning the Digital ID agenda. According to www.gov.uk, “No, there are no plans to introduce national digital ID cards…Using a digital identity will be voluntary. People will be in control of their data and who it is shared with…People will still be able to prove their identity using physical documents if they choose.”

However, according to enablingdigitalidentity.blog.gov.uk, “On 19 June [2025], the Data (Use and Access) Act received Royal Assent. As well as putting the National Underground Asset Register on a statutory footing and supporting the future of smart data schemes…The new UK legislation formalises the system that is currently operating as a pilot. This will pave the way for trusted digital identities to be used in more places.” According to thinkdigitalpartners.com, “and has set digital ID as a key focus area for 2024. It will be a critical part of the UK’s national infrastructure.”

Labour Together have stated, Britcard “could lay the foundations for a fully-functioning digital identity system…building on the existing One Login and Gov.UK Wallet. Our polling suggests it would be immensely popular; around 80% of the public support use of digital identity for a range of use cases.” The aim is to “…rebrand the Gov.UK App and Gov.UK Wallet as the “BritCard app””. That is, to make Britcard from an existing placeholder entity, the Gov.UK App and Gov.UK Wallet being the “Trojan Horse” that was always meant to bring in a mandatory Digital ID.

Criticism

“Britcard”, was criticised by David Frost (who served as a Minister of State at the Cabinet Office between March and December 2021) who believes, “A normal ID card, bad as it is, is proof of your identity and status. A digital ID is also an instrument of control – because it can shape-shift according to the government’s wishes. That’s why introducing digital ID is to cross a Rubicon. It changes forever the relationship between government and citizen….Think back.

Have we forgotten the lessons of the pandemic, when we all had to have proof of our Covid test status on our phone before we could go certain places or access certain buildings? Briefly, at the end of 2021 – the issue that finally forced me to resign from the Cabinet – we introduced a “vaccine passport” system, which actually denied you access to certain environments unless you had a full vaccination record. This was all done via an app – in effect a digital ID. The government could change the conditions at will and you had no choice but to comply.”

Frost has a point, and as the World Health Organisation and other “Stakeholders” in the smart future relish achieving more gains with more powers, from mining our data, including the police and governments dismissive of concerns over AI ethics and the insecurity of our data.

A stake in the heart of freedom and privacy

People must not forget how controlling governments can be, obsessively, ideologically. With xenophobic overtones, Britcard has been sold in the UK on the basis of an “us and them” proposition, reinforcing “discrimination” to help “sort out” a persistent problem, namely the UK’s problematic Immigration crisis, that feasibly could have been prevented or managed in other ways beyond the scope of a “Digital ID solution”. Certainly, all the CCTV money could buy wasn’t enough.

“Today, police surveillance cameras disproportionately installed in Black and Brown neighborhoods [in the US] keep a constant watch” just as do they in the UK. According to National News, the “United Kingdom has the dubious honour of having the most CCTV cameras per head of any country in the world; the British Security Industry Authority has claimed that there is one camera for every 11-14 people.”

According to Liberty, the UK is “most intrusive mass surveillance regime of any democratic country.” With smart phones requiring mandatory status to make a national, mandatory Digital ID function, one smart phone to every person linking them to their digital self, would spell a definitive blow against freedom.

Big Tech and countless other corporate entities want your data, more of it than you can imagine, and Digital ID would serve it up without any problems through every QR code scanned to prove you exist. This enhanced data grab will not solve immigration and will more likely exclude large swathes of the population who rightfully live here, as happens in repressive regimes where any individual, or minority, suspected of dissent or any not acting as the government demands can be digitally disempowered, or, disappeared.

As salzburgglobal.org observes, “…the developing world has seen the rise of….national digital identity systems, promoted by the World Bank…not enough is done to shield privacy, embed protection safeguards…The implementation of Digital ID is a high risk territory for human rights.” This article lists some excellent cases that describe why. It covers developing countries and Digital ID issues, but could the same “issues” happen in the UK? Or US?

Most likely, they will. Because, “Digital IDs, especially those that integrate biometric data, can be used to track individuals’ movements, purchases, and online activities without their knowledge or consent. Governments may also unduly target specific individuals, using Digital ID blockage or other methods as a weapon against political opponents or vulnerable groups such as migrants.” We know this is happening already.

Collecting information without limits

As the UK government becomes increasingly autocratic and presents technology as the solution for everything, UK citizens should thoroughly question the motivations behind any Digital ID proposition, especially as the government goes to great lengths to erode data privacy, and becomes more repressive.

The UK now has the “Snooper’s Charter” to assist in massive datamining. As Liberty asserts, the Snooper’s Charter allows “State authorities to collect information about everything we do and say online and order private companies to store it…[with] wide-ranging powers to scoop up and store all of our emails, texts, calls, location data and internet history. They can also hack into our phones and computers and create large ‘personal datasets’ on us – all without needing to suspect us of any criminal wrongdoing.” It has many implications for UK citizens, leaving nothing private.

A Digital ID system can only add to this concerted effort for government and corporate stakeholders to control and own data on the population. Clearly this goes well beyond any Immigration policies and drives a stake into the heart of freedom and privacy for all.

That our governments and police enlist the tactical help of Israel (viewed by many as an ideological, repressive regime) has been revealed and can’t be left out of the current political technological situation in which we find ourselves.

The Jewish historian Schlomo Sand is critical of that regime. Of it, he says Zionism, “…was an ideology deeply rooted in a European vision of the nation-state, one which had a racial dimension, required a demographic majority and was permeated by European colonialism and orientalist thinking.”

Arguably, Israel is marred by exlusionist politics, with colonialist baggage. Exclusionist politics reinforce the “digital colonialism” at work in Israel and across the world, which includes campaigns involving smart technologies and biometrics databases, moving towards achieving Digital ID. Politicians and the media so often highlighting border control and other immigration issues seek to drive support of Digital ID, often in divisive language. Keir Starmer, for instance, in relation to immigration issues warned of an “island of strangers“.

Digital ID is being implemented at scale in the EU “mandating compliance from Big Tech and member countries in supporting the EU Digital Identity (EUDI) Wallet”) Source. “Many countries have already announced wallet project and pilots, and some have even rolled out production digital ID wallets at population scale.” Source.

Digital IDs can bring many risks worth noting. According to Reclaim the Net, “…these IDs are susceptible to hacking and identity theft, placing individuals at risk of financial and reputation damage. Often, citizens are coerced into participating without genuine consent, and the lack of transparency and oversight in these systems increases the risk of misuse.”

Digital colonialism

Michael Kwet, observing the strategies of domination waged through digital technologies, states, “…just as they did in 20th-century South Africa, today’s largest U.S.-based technology corporations see an opportunity to profit from Israeli apartheid—a by-product of U.S.-driven digital colonialism.”

Author Renata Avila, also recognises that we are living in times of “digital colonialism” “referring to the deployment of imperial power over a vast number of people, which takes the form of rules, designs, languages, cultures and belief systems serving the interests of dominant powers. In the past, empires expanded their power through the control of critical assets, from trade routes to precious metals.”

Big Tech has long been under scrutiny over its “conflict minerals” supply chains from oppressed, developing colonies in countries like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, South Sudan, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Tanzania, Zambia and Angola. Big Tech companies have regularly been accused of complicity in slavery and abuse of ethnic labour forces, as well as fuelling conflict, and assisting repressive regimes. This represents racial abuse in order to achieve infrastructure targets, and technological supremacy in global geopolitics.

Author Renata Avila, asserts that, “Today, it is not states but technology empires that dominate the world through the control of critical digital infrastructures, data and the ownership of computational power. By collecting the personal data of citizens on a scale unprecedented in human history, companies can serve as conduits of misinformation campaigns that can alter the flow of global geopolitics and even change the outcome of elections.”

According to www.europeandatajournalism.eu, “Far from the free and open platforms they were upon their inception, Big Tech companies and social networks have risen to an unprecedented level of power from which they play an active role in politics through vested financial and political motives, exerting influence through algorithmic alterations, subjective censorship and calls to action on their platforms.”

For control of everyone’s data

The “….emerging trend of data colonialism (Couldry & Mejias, 2019) is of critical importance given the fundamental reliance of AI technologies on data, and because organizations gain access to, control data, and develop algorithms in ways which not only emphasize the digital divide but increase data inequality (Zheng & Walsham, 2021). Source.

“Data colonialism” according to Ulises A. Mejias and Nick Couldry in their book Data Grab is “the continuation of colonialism’s inherited inequalities and colonialism’s acquisition of new tools that potentially affects human life in radically new ways…” This “toolset” which exploits data-driven surveillance enables the companies to “explore, expand, exploit, and exterminate.” As lawfaremedia.org highlights from Mejias and Couldry’s research, data colonialism facilitates “the [harmful] classification of people into disadvantageous categories”.

Today, the UK government is arguably advancing data colonialism’s harms by pushing ahead with a Digital ID “with major financial and tech companies, government agencies and regulators and the likes of the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, among the prominent forces behind the push…”, according to Reclaim The Net.

The UK government sees digital identity as “one of the cornerstones of a modern digital economy [a surveillance economy]” and seeks to promote adoption of “these secure and trusted [data-mining] technologies.” Digital ID remains a controversial idea, for many reasons. As Rebecca Vincent of Big Brother Watch points out, “The debate about digital ID isn’t really about immigration; it’s about access to, and control of everyone’s data.” Source.

Case of digitally-assisted genocide

We know now that the UK’s ID initiative is called “Britcard”. Marketing an ID system to the public has always been a challenge of governments, and in recent times the public has become divided over immigration which relates to UK government inolvement in more overseas war efforts (colonialism) whicle the public reaps the refugee crisis (fuelling data-driven suerveillance at home).

With datamining becoming so expansive and intrusive, and, with governments and other agencies like the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change and Big Tech pushing for Digital IDs in the UK (which can link together numerous datasets including biometric data), are any of these corporate political actors really acting in our best interests, and, if not, are they able to be held legally accountable if found aiding and abetting genocide, through abuse of our data, for example? Is a Big Tech company able to be held accountable if discovered complicit in the killing of citizens?

You might be shocked to know the answer…

Michael J. Kelly, Professor of Law at Creighton University School of Law states in “Prosecuting Corporations for Genocide”, that, “While corporations can realize enormous profits from such complicity [in genocide], they are immune from international prosecution in The Hague…As key participants in the world economy, corporations have been accorded tremendous latitude and granted extensive rights…If a state or a person commits genocide, they are punished. International law demands such. But corporate actors have successfully avoided this through an array of legal arguments…”



Kelly makes it clear that, “while multinational corporations have been complicit in genocides over many years, none have been prosecuted.” Source.

Today Big Tech companies, assisted by US and UK support, together are an asset to Israel supplying high-tech data driven systems and weapons. International condemnation grows over what is clearly a case of AI fuelled, biometrical oriented techno-genocide against the Palestinian people – demonstrating that this could, and most likely will, happen again.

There is plenty of historical precedence for utmost caution regarding National ID programs, and especially regarding trusting Big Tech with any data on the population.

Blast from the past

According to the British Medical Journal, “Eugenics is too frequently overlooked in histories of both the United States and Europe, even though the story is a fascinating and important one.” Social changes brought about by Eugenics and “Big Tech” in the US fascinated the Nazi regime which aquired IBM’s Hollerith Machines, (punch card computer systems) being used in America (which gave the US government important population data and assisted in evolving “the quantified self” (a being defined by computers and collected data)).

Collecting population data with Hollerith Machines, the US of the 1930s was steeped in eugenics (a “racist” pseudo-science). At this time Americans performed the “Bellamy salute” that inspired the Nazi salute, and sought to oppress black communities, (leading to discrimination and sterilisation programs inflicted on Blacks and minorities which ultimately gave rise to pushback and the civil rights movement years after the Second World War).

With IBM’s assistance, the fascist government of Nazi Germany exploited stratified datasets on the public sorting people into groups. According to historian Edwin Black, “IBM technology was used to organize nearly everything in Germany and then Nazi Europe, from the identification of the Jews in censuses, registrations, and ancestral tracing programs to the running of railroads and organizing of concentration camp slave labor.”

In Nazi Germany, segments of the populace simply had no right to live and were considered by the eugenicist technocracy as “life unworthy of life”. Nazism fuelled social divides, fanned flames of hate, and facilitated euthanasia programs like Aktion T4, organised round-ups of targeted populations, and “discretely” sterilising selected groups. All was the result of enforced structural racism by “supremacists” using eugenics and technology hand in hand to re-organise society along technocratic lines – with much of it financed by US corporations. Nothing has changed, today Big Tech still assists and profits from apartheid regimes and exploiting data in ways that create harmful discrimination, which conforms with a technocratic, eugenicist outlook.

Dehumanisation into data points

We may remember the Rwandan genocide, characterised by the use of data to eliminate people. As KTPress reports, Rwanda saw genocide facilitated by National ID data. Despite the “hard lesson”, today, as reported by Biometric Update, “The government of Rwanda is investing 12.2 billion Rwandan francs (approximately US$8.5 million) in the upcoming 2025-2026 fiscal year to advance the rollout of the nation’s digital identity program, including fingerprint and iris biometrics enrollment.” KTPress reports that, “At the World Economic Forum, Minister Ingabire announced that Rwanda expects AI to contribute up to 6% of GDP in the near future.” Turning people into data points is the future, in the context of the Internet of Things (IoT), a system connecting everyone to an infrastructure of smart technology.

Anasuya Sengupta, Fellow at the Robert Bosch Academy and co-director and co-founder of “Whose Knowledge?” addressing issues of power, privilege, and accessibility, states that, “…the Internet not only helps to promote solidarity and connect people in different places, but also reinforces existing injustice, discrimination, and violence. Technology and algorithms are not neutral, they are political. Technology follows a certain architecture, which is why it reinforces discrimination and prejudice – depending on who designs it…the majority of the world is not represented on the Internet…People have turned from consumers into data points – and therefore into products.”

Ulises A. Mejias and Professor Nick Couldry from the State University of New York in their book “Data Grab” show that little has really changed since the Nazis or Rwandan governments exploited machine data, as technological empires utlising the IoT “…explore, expand, exploit, and exterminate”. In an interview with the London School of Economics (LSE) Couldry explained that, “human experience, potentially every layer and aspect of it, is becoming the target of profitable extraction.”

Demand the end of Digital ID

From the UK to Ukraine, and from the past to the present, we can see what is becoming of our world. Through intrusive forms of smart surveillance allied to military-style policing, the streets of some cities are becoming technological, data-gathering warzones.

In this authoritarian atmosphere, of technological “supremacism” smart phones – as demanded by industry and governments, for Digital ID-based digital transformations – are gravitating towards becoming mandatory devices. This is to guarantee one’s very existence, and, extract the profitability of one’s identity, with AI algorithms that contain uncomfortable biases and are known to be highly discriminatory.

This trajectory, devoid of any ethical oversight, promotes the predatory data-mining environment of the Big Tech companies and other corporate “stakeholders” exploiting the unfettered digital monitoring of everyone’s lives. This is life in a “surveillance economy” powered by “Digital Colonialism” – which operates to the benefit of dominant powers while limiting individual autonomy.

This AI-driven digital colonialism amounts to unprecedented surveillance of the population, or “datafication” driven by profit, where corporations and governments claim ownership of data generated by individuals. Nobody owns their data, or knows for sure how it may ultimately affect their lives.

As I said at the start, the prospect of a national Digital ID should amplify myriad questions, highlighting, in addition to any notions of convenience, the inescapable darker sides, that we dismiss at our peril.

With wireless radiation still posing a threat to black and white communities alike – in terms of posing a health risk – as well as being the means by which data is conveyed to empower the AI-surveillance society we never wanted, we have every reason to challenge the erosion of our rights and demand the end of Digital ID which, if made mandatory, brings huge potential to disempower more of our freedoms, choices, and human rights, including activism and protest itself, which will push us further into darkness.

Smart wearables, associated with “Digital Health”, are body-monitoring, data-collecting, wireless devices that interface with the internet and Big Tech companies.

We have learned to our cost that the internet isn’t neutral. It “…weaponises neuroscience by using the brain’s reward system to drive continuous engagement” Source. All internet-connecting devices (generally referred to as smart devices) promote addictive behaviours, functioning to inflict a deep, biologically induced, reliance on internet connectivity so we can be isolated and targeted for our data by corporations, government agencies and, often, hackers.

The internet has enabled a culture of digital dependency and further, digital addiction – centered on smart technology. Comforting convenience is part of the addiction and AI automation is further accelerating society’s “dependency” on smart technology, as the virtual reality and wearables industries know.

“Health” move?

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in the US is promoting such a dependency, recently advocating all US citizens invest in wearables to improve health. This type of initiative chimes with the World Health Organisation (WHO), which has a “Digital Health” agenda that encourages smartphones and wearables, devices that give up troves of health and other data to corporations. The US is withdrawing from the WHO but seems determined to take advantage of digital health. But is it about health? As startus-insights.com reports, wearables are “biometric technologies [that have] become integral to security, authentication, and identity…”

Kennedy’s move draws attention to data privacy issues, as well as the health issue of radiofrequency exposure. We can only wonder what has led to his advocacy of technology that enables wireless body area network (WBAN) architecture and sensor-based human activity recognition (HAR) which are integral to the growth of the Internet of Things (IoT) and wireless technology markets associated with the Internet of Bodies (IoB). These frameworks for smart technology promote deep data acquisition through implants and smart dust, and includes “…electronic sensors and computer chips embedded in edible pills“.

Data sharing

Grand View Research reports that “This industry is expected to rise as a result of a number of factors, including strong government initiatives, growing use of contactless biometric in context of the pandemic, and expanding usage of face recognition in both public and private sectors.”

Speaking about facial recognition technology to Politico, Albert Fox Cahn, head of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, said, “The NYPD has a decade-long history of abusing its surveillance operations to target Black New Yorkers, Muslim New Yorkers, political protests and every aspect of dissent,” Cahn said. “These are technologies that would be chilling in anyone’s hands. But to give an agency with such a horrifying record of surveillance abuse even more power, at a time when they face dwindling oversight, is a recipe for disaster.”

There are biometric data sharing schemes between police forces and the private sector. Can we imagine wearables data landing in the hands of the NYPD, for example, adding to their surveillance data?

Has Kennedy been lobbied? After all, stakes are high and it’s a big year for Big Tech companies, and the wearables industry which catalyses other industries like AR and even, Neuralink – Elon Musk’s company. Meta’s Reality Labs, according to The Verge, is working on all kinds of wearables, boasting that, “If there’s a part of your body that could potentially host a wearable that could do AI, there’s a good chance we’ve had a team run that down.”

2025 is the year AI is set to transform wearables with “predictive analytics,” and generative AI features. Altogether wearables represents a multi-billion dollar industry that is a critical part of “automating” society, supporting smart cities and harvesting data to influence behaviour as well as health choices.

The data we leave behind, cannot be left behind

Battery-free wearables (smartwatches, fitness trackers, smart rings, and smartglasses) are a class of smart technology that can interface with smart phones and personal computers to collect a variety of data, which is a security concern, especially with data synchronization. According to Stetson Law, “owners may be unaware that the data collected by these devices is discoverable [and admissible in court].”

Wearables empower smart dust technology (tiny sensors using nanotechnology), and 5 GHz backscatter technology that is “a way for a device to communicate with a WiFi router [or a 5G cellular network] by reflecting the very signals it sends out back at it….to send data back and forth” for energy harvesting and efficiency.

Wearables technology is rapidly evolving and collects biometric data, which is highly valued by Big Tech firms and governments that can use these datasets, working in concert, to support controversial immigration policies, for example. Today, Palantir’s reach into biometric and personal data has become unprecedented, and is raising concerns. According to The Debrief, “the enigmatic tech company Palantir, co-founded by entrepreneur and venture capitalist Peter Thiel…has reportedly been contracted to assist in building a centralized database that will contain sensitive personal information on American citizens.”

People have come to believe that smart devices like wearables can improve wellbeing and may even make people ”smarter”. Though, as Economic Journal suggests, “Whether technology makes us smarter or just plain stupid is an ongoing debate. It is a fact that current technology changes us – the way we function, perform tasks and think. It also changes the way we obtain and retain knowledge.” As a result, ”…memorising, critical thinking and contemplation are skills we seem to lose.”

This raises additional concerns about reliance on wearables and smart phones, and so we can appreciate that these technologies contradict, in some significant ways, the idea that health, wellbeing or “smartness” are ultimately being reinforced. Only the dependency on such technology is being reinforced, beyond doubt, which is a boon to the smart technology economy. Whether lives are “improved” is a sticky question.

RFK Jr’s recommendation of wearables to citizens is likely to profit Big Tech companies, including the wireless industry, not just in traditional economic terms, but from amassing data and from the ability to monitor populations.

Surprising move

This potentially huge data-grab relating to Digital Health and manouevres towards a “centralized surveillance infrastructure” involving Big Tech firms like Palantir, represents a surprising move for RFK Jr, whose recommendation of smart wearables also reinforces the idea – challenged by an immense body of research and science – that exposure to radiofrequency emitting devices 24/7 is not a health risk. All of this seems to represent a massive U-turn for him politically.

Stepping toward Digital ID

A wearable for everyone can also function as a stepping stone to Digital ID, something many Western governments are now obsessed with implementing, and a big reason 5G was implemented. Needless to say, further intrusions into our privacy are on the horizon.

RFK Jr is a political figure who formerly chaired The Children’s Health Defense who had this to say about wearables:

“We agree that people should be able to monitor their health in innovative ways using the technology they choose. But we do not think the federal government should try to push wearables on every American…We do not share this vision,” said Miriam Eckenfels, director of the Children’s Health Defense (CHD) Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) & Wireless Program. “Quite the contrary, we oppose governmental pressure to incentivize the widespread use of wearables. They pose serious health risks, especially to children, and they threaten privacy.””

Kennedy has been well-regarded for challenging Big Pharma and the predations of the tech industry. That he is now encouraging 5G smart technology as a health enhancement for all is a development that raises many questions.

RFK Jr, who according to pcmag.com, “wants everyone to wear a smartwatch, fitness tracker, or other piece of wearable health tech as part of his “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) agenda”, is in the “vipers nest” so to speak, immersed in a government culture obsessive about surveillance and now fully infiltrated by Big Tech in the guise of Elon Musk.

Surveillance

There is likely more to Kennedy’s politics than first meets the eye and we can continue to observe. The Trump government certainly has a technological agenda, which reaches all of the way to Israel, and, despite tussles with Musk, the Trump administration continues to “deify” Big Tech as an instrument of American Imperialist domination putting it at the top of the agenda. Since 9/11 and the War on Terror, with the Snowden disclosures following, from the PATRIOT Act, to Facial Recognition Technology (FRTs) rollouts more recently, the US government’s agenda to “dominate” and surveil populations is relentlessly assisted by Big Tech.

Wearables exemplify Big Tech’s desire to make smart technology in various guises addictive and ubiquitous in the extraction of data. With Digital Addiction at an all time high and statesmen siding with Big Tech to promote a society controlled by smart technology from dawn to dusk, there is every indicator that a new Cold War is being waged from inside the White House against citizens who are not onboard with the smart technology agenda, or the political agendas in flow, such as the ICE controversy, which is also bad news for those on the wrong side of the digital divide.

Technological smart surveillance, which wearable technologies promote, is giving governments and corporations unprecedented powers over populations. We are reminded of the wisdom of Edward Thurlow, who said, “Corporations have neither bodies to be punished, nor souls to be condemned, they therefore do as they like.”

Corporations and statesmen alike believe they can support Big Tech and “…therefore do as they like.” This is deeply concerning and surveillance agendas have been called out from within the Big Tech companies by employees over recent years.

“I refuse to build technology that powers genocide, apartheid or surveillance.”
– Google Cloud employee (protesting at Google’s role in Project Nimbus)

Conclusion

Society is becoming very digitally divided. However, we all have an interest in unifying over the issues concerning digitally enabled erosion of privacy and the misuse of data through wearables and other technologies. We must decide what kind of society we are building.

Supporting the proliferation of smart technology is a sure way to entrench surveillance and deter democracy, as well as exacerbate racial discrimination. Is that the future we want?

“Emerging digital technologies driven by big data and artificial intelligence are entrenching racial inequality, discrimination and intolerance.”
– Tendayi Achiume, UN Special Rapporteur on racism

When we are now being told by government officials that biometrics-collecting wearables technology provides an effective means of caring for our health in the 21st century, we have every reason to be cautious. “Racial biases in the science behind wearable tech” can prevent “equitable health care for certain segments of the population“, as wesleyan.edu reports.

Nothing from Big Tech is “neutral”. Digital health is not neutral. Governments are not being transparent on the issues surrounding Digital Health. We should consider the ultimate consequences of adopting wireless smart technology and wearables, which not only enable further technological agendas for control, they also expose us to wireless radiation, can promote digital addiction, and may expose us to considerable data risks and algorithmic biases that are anything but “healthy”.

Moss Landing Image credit: https://www.facebook.com/groups/652815133743333
https://neveragainmosslanding.org

Moss Landing, California:  Did you know a huge environmental disaster is unfolding in Northern California which may impact our food supply and wildlife, and is poisoning locals? 

Dubbed by Forbes magazine Tech’s “Three-Mile Island” moment, Moss Landing Lithium Power Plant caught on fire January 16, 2025. Moss Landing, which houses the world’s largest battery storage facility, burned for five days leaving a toxic plume that reached into agricultural and farmland in Monterey and into two other counties.

After the fire, Dr. Ivano Aiello, Department Chair at San Jose State University, home of Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, discovered at Elkhorn Slough (two miles from the plant) heavy metal toxins at levels 100 to 1,000 times greater than normal soil levels.  

80 Percent of 100,000 Batteries Ignited – Not a “Little Fire”

“These fires are not done yet that they keep reigniting, even just the smallest one can still put toxins in the air,” – warns one local.

 When lithium batteries burned for a week, smoldered for a month, and then reignited, many began questioning why the world’s largest lithium battery power plant was approved near Elkhorn Slough State Marine Conservation area, an area with the highest marine biodiversity in California (see San Jose State blog) and home of 150 endangered sea otters­­­­­­. What will be the impacts of this contamination given these sea otters, when healthy, birth a single pup every other year?

Heather Higgens, who kayaks at Elkhorn, stated in an interview with Tina Berg from Status Coup News:  

“50 sea otters gather in rafters at a time and hold hands, and you have sea lions to the entrance, we were all in shock, we couldn’t believe this [the fire] would happen.”

Filming Sea Otters at Moss Landing

Is Moss Landing Fire the Result of Unexamined and Reckless Sustainability Measures?

“If you can’t easily extinguish one battery, how are you expected to extinguish tens of thousands?  You can’t. You have to let the batteries burn themselves out” – Comment at the Monterey Board Meeting

The Battery storage at Moss Landing with frequent toxic fires is in violation of California Environmental Quality ACT (CEQA) §30240.

Locals didn’t know:

• These fires cannot be controlled, thermal runaway is a “phenomenon in which lithium-ion cells start uncontrollably heating up.“ Bay Nature Magazine
• Battery fires can severely impact human health from toxic corrosive gasses: hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen cyanide (a toxic compound), and heavy metals, all of which require a respirator when in proximity.
• Prior to the January 2025, Vistra Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) fire, both agencies and the public were not informed how often BESS facilities catch on fire – nor were they alerted to the potential for hazardous toxins to be released after a thermal runaway event.
• There are 93 reported BESS failures worldwide, a veritable ticking time bomb.

Batteries Continue To Smolder, Risk of Another Fire Remains High as Moss Landing has Remaining Batteries Yet To Be Disconnected

Fallout from Moss Landing fires on January 16 and February 18 flare-up, included worsened symptom for locals residents: metallic taste, skin rashes, burns, bloody noses, difficulty breathing, severe headaches and more. Salinas Valley, known as the “salad bowl” of America, is situated a mere twelve miles from the power plant. It’s common sense not to consume vegetables or fruit that potentially have been affected by heavy metal fallout including impacts to the soil and water?

“These heavy metals will chemically transform as they move through the environments and potentially through the food web, affecting local aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems,” according to San Jose University  

Salinas Valley in Monterey County produces 70 percent of the United States lettuce as well as artichokes, strawberries, broccoli, wine grapes, cauliflower, celery, and spinach. Monterey County supplies our nation’s school lunches, and supermarkets such as Sprouts, Trader Joes and Whole Foods. With locals and animals in the area getting sick, people are now questioning the quality of local produce despite Monterey County assurances of safety.

The Erin Brockovich Lawsuit

Renown environmental activist, Erin Brockovich, is a spokesperson for the Moss Landing lawsuit against PG&E, Vistra, and LG.

“I am concerned with lithium power storage facilities so close to farmland and …communities because these accidents happen.  There didn’t seem to be any preparedness. People were going to the emergency room, having respiratory problems, sore throats and getting no answers. Every single situation seems to start like this. What concerns me is that it just feels like somebody knew. They did. They’ve got infrastructure inside there. Did they jerry rig something? Did they allow it to happen? The truth’s not coming out. So, my concern is that information is being concealed.”

– Erin Brockovich, Mercury News 

Knut Johnson, an attorney from Singleton Schreiber who is suing Moss Landing, reported seeing pictures of people with “horrible rashes and clients with toxic substances on their property.” 

While local scientists are checking the soil and finding toxic pollutants, and Hunterbrook New Data shows elevated heavy metal exposure 20 miles from Moss Landing including agricultural land, the EPA is minimizing the impacts assuring locals and farmers there is no problem for humans or wildlife,see report here and here. 

Vistra issued a statement in response to Erin Brockovich’s comments:

 “Air quality monitoring, which has been ongoing since the start of the fire and continues today, has been conducted by the U.S. EPA, Monterey Bay Air Resources District, and others and has not detected risks to public health at any time. Additionally, soil and water testing conducted by Cal EPA/Department of Toxic Substances Control, Monterey County, and Santa Cruz County have not detected risks to public water supplies or soil in the community.”

Norm Groot with Monterey County Farm Bureau has assured constituents that Moss Landing “product” didn’t enter the food supply, (see letter here), yet this position differs from scientifically validated heavy metal toxicity which includes Hunterbrook results of 150 surface wipe samples of the area.

Image credit: Hunterbrook New Data

Locals are calling for further real time, transparent testing, of air, water, and agricultural products across the Monterey Bay, including Santa Cruz, and inland – and to be informed of battery pile conditions, flare-ups and off-gassing.  As of March 8, local residents shared multiple reports of the same sulfur and chlorine tastes/smells once again and noticed the Slough devoid of birds. 

Sick and Dead Banana Slugs the California State Icon?

“I collected a couple of sick or dead banana slugs up here which is quite unusual. So the impacts are very real far and wide, wherever the wind pattern, fog pattern takes the blend of particulates and they are part of the atmosphere. So much worse than CO2 emissions as even the trees can’t absorb the chemicals in the air.”
– local reporting on Moss Landing Fire from Moss Landing Environmental FB group. 

Never Again Moss Landing

“Never Again Moss Landing is a fast-response grass-roots all-volunteer resident group which advocates for our community’s voice and interests in response to the Moss Landing BESS Fire.”
See Moss Landing News:

Image credit: https://neveragainmosslanding.org/news/#local

Brian Roeder from Never Again Moss Landing shares that a lot of folks are reporting terrible symptoms since the reignited fire from Feb 18^th.  However this KSBW News report does not acknowledge people’s symptoms nor the testing that showed elevated heavy metals in Elkhorn slough and surrounding communities.

Following are some of what locals are sharing on the Moss Landing Vistra Power Plant/Fire Symptoms Facebook page:

“The last couple days have been extremely bad with coughing up blood and the metallic taste in my mouth and my tongue being numb hard to talk.”

 “I was out at Elkhorn Slough reserve for 10 minutes – so impacted that my sinus flared up, my eyes are burning.”  

According to Dr. Calvin Luther Martin, those who live and work near Moss Landing could have been inhaling caustic hydrofluoric acid and hydrochloric acid.Locals comfort each other offering advice on first aid such as eye drops or suggesting the use of blood pressure cuffs, as many are experiencing eye and blood pressure issues from long-term continual exposure. 

The following image is a map of 647 individuals who reported unusual and often severe symptoms from the Vistra fire.

N.B.: The location of individuals reporting symptoms extends from Santa Cruz to Carmel.  Locals are asking for oversight: for the California Coastal Commission to be involved in overseeing demolition and cleanup at Moss Landing, an analysis of the burn pile, and for Agricultural Inspectors to share knowledge and to be fully transparent on what is happening in the fields. 

Following is additional information from Brian Roeder of Never Again Moss Landing.

Thousands within 10 miles of this battery fire disaster need help. The Moss Landing Power Plan/Vistra Fire Symptoms Facebook page has hundreds of personal entries testifying to injuries, fear, and broken lives.  (20+) Moss Landing Power Plant/Vistra Fire Symptoms | Facebook

Few are listening. Patients and in particular women are being dismissed as hysterical when they go to their doctors.

The critical next step is to call State Senator John Laird’s three offices. Laird is a huge proponent of BESS plants.  He has a direct line to the Governor’s office.  Laird can request critical state resources that have not been on the ground.  Testing. Toxicology.  Financial assistance for families.  Medical and environmental guidance.  Help for the agricultural community and school district.  Fire mitigation strategies and wildlife impacts.

What is so tragic is that families have been and are continuing to be injured after (February’s) follow-on fire. The county authorities have gotten very little direction or resources from the State. The state toxicologist has dismissed the attached scientifically validated data and has stated publicly that he has not even looked at it. 

Please call Senator Laird and demand that he get involved:  Capital Office: (916) 651-4017, or Monterey District: (831) 657-6315, San Luis Obispo District: (805) 549-3784, Santa Cruz District: (831) 425-0401

Website: www.neveragainmosslanding.org. 

When a cybertruck is imported to Europe, it has to be modified in order to adhere with safety regulations not in force in the United States.

From an energy medicine perspective, allowing intimidating vehicles on the roads, and instinct-injured piercing devoid of recognition of the body’s energy anatomy, are related issues.

When we don’t understand the risks of ‘overcharge’ in ourselves and others, and we don’t understand when and how our subtle energies are being exploited, or how to protect ourselves, we are flying blind.”

I recently read a quote by Substack author Tijn Tjoelker of The Mycelium in his post Lessons from Zen and The Art of Saving The Planet.

This article is about his quote.

We are at the point where every mundane choice that we make throughout the day and night – about what we do with our time and attention, and whether or not we invoke a machine or device, large and small – either does or does not regenerate life.

Unexamined choices via our technology use and consumer habits have taken us beyond the edge of reason. We need a new roadmap,

A Short Historical Narrative of Feedback Loops: The Startle Response vs. Desensitization

I remember when cars were first outfitted with remote door locks. Car lights would blink and the horn would beep loudly, so that the driver could confirm that they had locked the vehicle – from across the street.

Initially, I jumped out of my skin on more than one occasion in parking lots, startled by the unexpected noise from an empty vehicle. How did we come to change our expectations and behavior regarding when and where and how we lock our vehicles – creating the demand for more sensors and expensive key fobs, with cars generating data? Should we celebrate that Meta’s glasses will remember for us where we parked the car? Or should we question that we would need the assist, because we have been empowered to not pay attention to what we are doing?

Mindless or Mindful?

Over time, the horn honking volume was adjusted. My energetic immune system and nervous system adapted to the sound, and now I rarely experience that startle response. I am desensitized.

We have not considered that in many cases, our desensitization not an adaptation. It is degenerative, especially regarding our relationships with technology, with the built environment, with authoritarian structures, and with each other.

We could instead be paying more attention to what the European Environmental Agency has coined, “Late Lessons from Early Warnings” by heeding more of our own physicality, as well as reports of harm being experienced by others.

This extends far beyond overuse injuries and postural problems caused by tech; by screen blue light harm; by epidemic myopia, including in children; and including unacknowledged damage to nature. The harm is preventable, and caused by failure to course correct in the face of evidence of maladaptation to misguided social norms.

Trauma expert Peter Levine noted, “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.”

If we are going to address any of the current challenges facing humanity, we need to recognize and recover our relationship with our own independent sensory feedback systems. We need to hold ourselves accountable for ensuring that our man-made inventions, including AI, do not destroy our biology, or each other, or the nature environment with which we have co-evolved for thousands of years.

Tech is enabling us to adopt mindlessness and disconnect, when we need to be going in the opposite direction. We are treating the planet and ourselves – frivolously, while outsourcing harm from the Global North to the South, including mining and waste.

Some antidotes include self-awareness, simplicity, mindfulness, wonder, presence, community, compassion for others, reverence, and openness to accumulated wisdom from other cultures.

We have access to maps that can guide us back to an integrated, healthy and balanced relationship with one another and with our own energy fields, via energy intelligence, much of which has been codified by Eastern traditions, thousands of years ago. Many Westerners are already reaping benefits of Eastern teachings; we could incorporate much more wisdom regarding balance, and embodiment. We don’t have to continue traveling this road. We can change the GPS coordinates to conscious awareness.

A Short Comparision Study of an Energetic Exchange: Shopping

Here are 3 different scenarios describing a cashier processing a customer’s purchases in a store, relative to studying energy anatomy.

1. In the first scenario, the cashier displays basic social skills and interacts courteously with staff and the customers. Friendly smiles are exchanged. The cashier is ‘present.’

2. In the second scenario, the cashier is wearing revealing clothing, with a phone visibly tucked in her bra. She does not make eye contact with anyone. She is sending mixed signals indicating that she is distracted with her mind elsewhere, while at the same time drawing attention to her appearance.

3. In the third scenario, the cashier has pasty unhealthy-looking skin, wearing clothing that obscures her physicality, with extreme prominent piercings on her face. She avoids eye contact. Again, the unconscious messaging is that while acting like she doesn’t care, she desperately wants to draw attention to herself.

If we could perceive the energetic dynamics occurring in each exchange, before we became desensitized, what would we see?

What does this have to do with a cybertruck? Everything.

Strange Flows, Radiant Circuits, and The Penetrating Flow

Thousands of years ago, Chinese seers mapped out the electromagnetic pathways that sustain the invisible subtle energy field. This includes both Meridians and ‘Strange Flows.’

Some surmise that the name ‘Strange Flow’ may have been sourced from the idea that the behavior of these energies appeared unusual and unpredictable, until their functions were understood. For example, if we were to suddenly fall through ice into freezing water, the Strange Flows responsible for managing body temperature would take the helm and re-organize our physiology to help insure survival, faster than the process of conscious thought. This would include the Regulator Flow.

Energy Medicine teacher and author Donna Eden, who can ‘see energy’, describes the Strange Flows as “Radiant Circuits” because of the way they appear to her, as they flash “on” when needed, illuminating like Christmas lights. This contrasts with the action of Meridians, which are choreographed in a constant flow by the changing frequencies of the sun, over the course of the day and night.

Eden Energy Medicine explains, “The radiant circuits function to ensure that all the other energy systems are working for the common good. They redistribute energies to where they are most needed, responding to any health challenge the body might encounter. In terms of evolution, the radiant circuits have been around longer than the meridians. Primitive organisms such as insects move their energies via the radiant circuits rather than through a meridian system, and the radiant circuits can be seen in the embryo before the meridians develop. As in the way that riverbeds are formed, it is as if radiant energies that habitually followed the same course became meridians. Where the meridians are tied to fixed pathways and specific organs, the radiant energies operate as fluid fields, embodying a distinct spontaneous intelligence. Like hyperlinks on a website, they jump instantly to wherever they are needed, bringing revitalization, joy, and spiritual connection. If triple warmer mobilizes your inner militia, the radiant circuits mobilize your inner mom, showering you with healing energy, providing life-sustaining resources, and lifting your morale.” – Eden Energy Medicine

The Chinese seers and Indian sages devoted themselves to understanding and cultivating their electromagnetic energies through simple, eloquent, sustainable practices including mindfulness, exercise, herbs, meditation, visualization, and massage, as the foundation for a healthy, conscious life.

The Penetrating Flow is one of the “Strange Flows” of Oriental Medicine. The Penetrating Flow has a number of functions, and one is to rewire the body for reproduction. It is partly responsible for the re-distribution of circulation to the sexual zones of the body. Its action has been described as the gentle feeling of butterflies in the stomach associated with falling in love, which can evolve to a warm feeling in the vicinity of the underwear, (but humans can attach many diverse emotional expressions and experiences to physical intimacy, including violence.)

In a remarkable irony, the same deeply internal energy field that wires humans for intimacy also manifests the survival strategy of disgust and repulsion, for example, when we smell rotten meat.

The body literally reorganizes its energy to prevent us from ingesting something harmful. This aspect of the Penetrating Flow can also be activated in cases of overwhelming shock and emotional upset, for example, witnessing a gruesome accident, or hearing emotionally traumatic news that overwhelms our ability to integrate and assimilate. We lose our appetite, literally.

The Penetrating Flow should not be actively engaged all the time. We do not want to be in a constant state of either disgust or sexual arousal, because in either state, the body’s energetic, spatial, mechanical, and bio-chemical constitution has been altered, intelligently, for a reason, but not for prolonged application.

Seeking to Impact the Audience – Social Media, Telecommunications, and Politics as an Unprecedented Force Multiplier of Arousal, Disgust, and/or Disharmony

When disgust, shock, stress or arousal is running the show, other capacities are diminished.

For example, we need to be able to digest food.

But we are living in an age where the advertising industry, media, and entertainment industry are constantly attempting to activate and direct energies of either arousal or disgust within us, and/or to get us to eat or buy something – often at the wrong time, in the wrong place, and for the wrong reasons.

Divisiveness was stoked during the pandemic and fueled a misunderstood sense of power. Intolerance and hatred is not power. The dynamic can be re-assessed and addressed as a lower interfering energy, rather than sustained and amplified. Without question, our current political process is being driven by disgust towards those who don’t agree with us, from both sides of the political aisle, in different ways.

The underlying economic and political paradigm is one of exploitation, and “taking” from another, including subtle energy, data, self-governance, and the right to ‘the Commons,” now including space and the health of the oceans.

Who is Minding the Store?

The passage through adolescence and into adulthood can be viewed as learning to manage one’s own sense of personal power and self-mastery including one’s sexual energy, which includes the Penetrating Flow. The three scenarios above describing a cashier in a store can be interpreted via the dynamics of the Penetrating Flow.

The first transaction with an attentive cashier is neutral and does not seek to draw energy from one party to the other.

The second example of the cashier with the phone visible in the bra is less neutral. While seeking to appear not to be interested in others, dressing provocatively relative to cultural norms generally seeks attention from “the audience.”

Technology, social media, the internet, and ‘likes’ have exponentially amplified the negatives of seeking attention from ‘an audience,’ and the dangers inherent in an economic system and mass culture cultivating imbalance, energy illiteracy, and addiction.

Instinct Injured Power Dynamics vs. Intention

The third dynamic of piercing the face is more complex, and this is where we find the link to the cybertruck and displays of power.

Many cultures, past and present, have incorporated body piercing and tattooing for any number of reasons, including beauty, and preparing for war. For example, it has been reported that some Native American cultures tattooed Stomach 36, recognizing that activating and massaging the electromagnetic point known as 3-mile leg on the Stomach Meridian would increase endurance.

This is not a commentary on all manifestations of tattooing and piercing, throughout time.

This is about unconscious and unskilled manipulation and alteration of bioenergy, including non-benefiting and non-consensual impacts on others.

Discernment regarding tattooing and piercing has to do with intention, and with literacy (or lack of literacy) regarding the body’s energy fields.

When we don’t know what we are doing relative to these energies, we are lost in space and time, with unanticipated results, including the possibility of long-term health damage.

A ‘witness’ with a strong intuitional body will recoil with an inborn aversion to harmful piercings on the face, for example, those that activate the start and endpoints of the Meridians, even without any formal training in energy medicine. This is because our intuitional bodies carry intelligences far beyond the conscious mind.

One teacher calls this his “spiny sense” of heightened alert, when we need to pay more attention to our gut instincts.

When our inborn energy intelligence is operational and not desensitized, we cringe and recoil at the sight of a painful-looking metal stake impaling the face because the resulting overcharged energy field in an individual or group subconsciously transmits risks. The intuitional body registers danger.

The practice of activating ‘overcharge’ in the military in order to drive them into battle has been practiced in many cultures. One of the most horrific examples of loss of control occurred with the My Lai massacre, during the Vietnam War. (There may have been others, including in 2002, when four wives were slain by their soldier husbands in 6 weeks at Fort Bragg.)

Back at the store, the instinct-injured individual with the pierced eyebrows may experience the recoil of the observer’s aura as ‘power over another.’ This dynamic unconsciously feeds the ego of the individual with the piercings. The energy exchange between the two individuals is distorted and polluted by power dynamics, (although there are energy medicine strategies available for protection from metabolizing unwanted energies, including ‘zipping up’ the Central Meridian.)

This dynamic may be why the piercing was done in the first place – for attention. We will never be able to figure out if piercing and tattooing can be used for healing, until we look.

When we give a wide berth to the metal cybertruck with its blackened windows, we experience the same invasive expression of power-over-another.

We know why a Chechen warlord was driving a gun-mounted Tesla cybertruck.

We also know that Europeans have taken steps to make their roads safer. In a recent letter, the European Transport Safety Council, Eurocities, Clean Cities, Transport & Environment, POLIS – Cities and Regions for Transport Innovation, International Federation of Pedestrians, and the European Cyclists’ Federation opposed the approval of a cybertruck on the roads in the Czech Republic.

Carscoops reported, “Despite the required modifications, they sent a letter to the local government expressing serious concerns about the electric truck’s shape, weight, and size. Apparently, they believe that having a vehicle shaped like a giant, unyielding wedge might not be the safest choice on the roads. [] To gain approval as a privately imported vehicle, the Cybertruck’s infamous sharp edges were reluctantly dressed with rubber moldings, an attempt to make it slightly less dangerous for pedestrians—though one wonders if anyone actually feels safer. Additionally, the LED headlights and taillights were tweaked with yellow indicators to align with European regulations. [] Campaigners argue that even at this seemingly deflated weight, the truck fails to meet regulations for the N1 category when fully loaded. European laws require heavy vehicles to be fitted with speed limiters, a rule that seems to have been overlooked in this case. The letter doesn’t stop there. It highlights the truck’s enormous footprint, expansive blind spots, lack of crumple zones, and extreme acceleration, all of which they say pose a real danger to pedestrians and other road users. For these reasons, campaigners argue that the Tesla Cybertrucks currently on European roads should be de-registered and removed from public streets.Even With Rubber Edges, Critics Want Tesla’s Cybertruck Off Europe’s Roads (msn.com)

What we don’t know is why America ignores the implications of these armored cars,

Is it possible that the quest for self-mastery could eclipse monetizing – beyond the planet’s limits – the need for power imbalances? Can self-esteem be expressed as a force for good?

The Iceman’s Medicinal Herbs and Genetics

The story of Ötzi implies that 5,300 years ago, the practice of tattooing certain acupuncture points was linked to sophisticated, individualized health care.

Image Courtesy Flo Freshman

In 1991 “a spectacularly preserved mummy of a man who was murdered about 5,300 years ago” was unearthed. “The iceman, the oldest glacier-bound mummy ever discovered, was found by hikers in Italy’s Ötztal Alps in 1991, and since then, scientists have scrutinized almost every aspect of the man’s life,” as reported by Live Science. “Genetic analysis revealed that the iceman had a host of ailments at the time of his murder (by a blow to the head). For instance, Ötzi was a heart attack waiting to happen, with narrowed arteries, and he had arthritic knees and rotten teeth, a likely case of Lyme disease, and signs of stomach ulcers.” – Live Science

Possible evidence for care and treatment in the Tyrolean Iceman was published in the International Journal of Paleopathology Volume 25, June 2019, Pages 110-117. The article discussed findings about what he had eaten, and outlined genetic findings.

The Mummy and the Meridians: “Ötzi the Iceman’s Tattoos May Have Been a Primitive Form of Acupuncture”

One of the most fascinating aspects of the story is that the international community was able to discern that “Ötzi the Iceman’s Tattoos May Have Been a Primitive Form of Acupuncture.” “In addition, the iceman was inked; Ötzi was covered in 61 tattoos. The tattoos were all simple stripes with two crosses, so they didn’t seem to be decorative. Given the look and location of these tattoos, the researchers think the markings were a form of medical treatment.” “The tattoos are all located at body regions where the iceman had some health issues and probably experienced periods of pain. For example, he had degenerative diseases of his hip, knee, ankle joints and lower back. Most of the tattoos are located [on] the legs and the lower back,” Zink said.”[] “chest tattoos may have been used to soothe belly discomfort; he had intestinal parasites and a Helicobacter pylori infection. And some of the inked spots corresponded to traditional acupuncture “pressure points,” suggesting to some researchers that the iceman underwent a form of acupuncture, Zink said. (Most scientists believe acupuncture first arose in China, and the first written description of it derives from 2,200 years ago, but it could have arisen earlier in some other location, like Europe, Zink said.) At the time of his death, the iceman had a “medicinal mushroom” known as birch polypore in his digestive system. Birch polypore is thought to have anti-inflammatory and fever-reducing properties, Zink said. Ötzi had also consumed ferns, which could have been either a primitive food wrapper that Ötzi mistakenly ate or a treatment to kill off the parasitic worms that plagued the iceman, Zink said.” – Live Science

Smithsonian Magazine reported “What Ötzi the Iceman’s Tattoos Reveal About Copper Age Medical Practices. New study argues that the 5,300-year-old Iceman’s community boasted surprisingly advanced health care techniques.” The article’s lead photo caption reads, “The Iceman’s tattoos align with classic acupuncture points, and the plants found amongst his belongings have well-known medical applications.”

Science Magazine also stated,” 5000-year-old ‘Iceman’ may have benefited from a sophisticated health care system, New look at Ötzi’s tattoos and medicines suggest complex medical culture,” also linking to locations of his 61 tattoos to the healing science of acupuncture.

“Previous studies have found that Ötzi carried a number of suspected medicines either on him or in him. Fastened to leather bands in his equipment, researchers found the birch polypore fungus, which the Iceman may have used to calm inflammation or as an antibiotic. Scientists also found bracken fern in his stomach, which can be used to treat intestinal parasites such as tapeworm. And Ötzi was covered with 61 tattoos [] including dotlike points around joints, which some researchers believe may have been used as pain treatment akin to an early form of acupuncture.

In the new study, scientists took a closer look at Ötzi’s tattoos. Some lines and dots were directly over his wrist and ankles which suffered from degenerative diseases, and many correspond to traditional acupuncture points, they report in the International Journal of Paleopathology. The markings would have taken a long time to produce, and this sophisticated practice—along with the variety of herbs and medicines—would have likely been developed through a dedicated, systematic trial-and-error approach that was passed down through generations in the society in which Ötzi lived, the team concludes. All of this—combined with the sophisticated use of plants and fungi to treat ailments—suggests Ötzi was part of a culture with some knowledge of anatomy, how diseases arise, and how to treat them, the scientists say. What they don’t know is whether any of these treatments actually worked.” – Science.org

“What they don’t know is whether any of these treatments actually worked” Reflects that Our Current Mass Consumer Culture and For-profit Medical Culture is Sustained by Our ‘Not Knowing’ and Our Unwillingness to Look

Scientists were able to examine a 5,300-year-old corpse and recognize the direct connection with acupuncture maps. But “Science.org” reported that “we don’t know whether any of these treatments worked.” It wasn’t because the Western mainstream medical industry is not aware that Chinese medicine has mapped out the electromagnetic pathways in the body, as the foundation of both self-care and healing, designed to harmonize the organism with the Cosmic Current that choreographs all of life on Earth.

It also was not because scientists had no idea where the points or pathways are, or what capacities they might carry. A simple search online will offer links to images of the Meridian pathways and their point applications, available to all.

It is related to the fact that we do not want to evaluate the effects of our wireless devices and technologies on our electromagnetic energies, because if we did, we would have to address the harm. The centralized power structure does not want to let go of the top-down power, control, and concentrated wealth enabled by data, and the consumers do not want to let go of the convenience, sense of personal power and control, and the 24/7 dopamine drip.

The dismissive conclusion by Science.org is related to entrenched economic interests that foster insidious intellectual arrogance.

For example, in 2021, Psychology Today published, “Believing Acupuncture Works Doesn’t Mean It Actually Does, Acupuncture is alluring pseudoscience.’ In 2024, No, Washington Post, Acupuncture Still Doesn’t Work, was published by Forbes. In July of 2024, Science-Based Medicine published “Acupuncture and Evidence Based Medicine” The plausibility of acupuncture is very low, because there is no known mechanism, and outside of short-term pain and nausea reduction, for any medical application of acupuncture there is no plausible even theoretical mechanism.

We can assume that none of these organizations humbled themselves to attempt to understand the science that underlies Chinese Medicine. Recognition is power.

Albert Eistein observed, “No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.”

Piercing the Energy Pathways

When we overlay piercings with available maps of the Meridian pathways and electromagnetic energies, we can see that the woman with the metal embedded in the inside corner of her eyes may be causing harm to her Bladder Meridian and the associated resonant field. The woman with the piercing on the outer edges of the Eyebrow may be adversely impacting the Gall Bladder and Triple Heater meridian energies. Indiscriminately activating these Yang meridians is most likely not without consequence.

Understanding and balancing these energies could instead become the basis of a healing and self-care renaissance.

When Things Don’t Look the Way They Should

My friend’s dog is miserable each October when the neighborhood is decorated for Halloween and monsters and goblins are flapping in the wind. His inborn alarm system is registering risk, because things don’t look the way that they should.

There are too many things in our environment that don’t look the way that they should look, that have been normalized by our unrelenting exposures and desensitization, as well as addictions.

One of the most alarming issues is the inescapable transmission of ubiquitous layers of artificial manmade EMF/RF/5G frequencies into the airwaves, juxtaposed with the practice of instinct-injured metal piercings, because metal acts as an antenna. Piercings can become unintentional antennas for harmful internalized exposures

International RF regulations regarding exposures do not account for metal in the body, including implants.

There should be an open debate about the safety of radio frequency and microwave radiation. – Home – RFInfo

Confronting ‘Overcharge’

Warriors have used various strategies to place themselves into a state of frenzied overdrive in order to inflict pain on others in battle, and our Penetrating Flows understand this mechanism. Our energy intelligence recognizes the risks and the imbalance, even if we do not possess conscious awareness.

We can’t come to understand or even study the actions of the Radiant Circuits by examining cadavers, or by studying laboratory animals under controlled conditions.

Our current science paradigm can’t support the level of integration that is needed to return each individual to self-mastery and self-sovereignty.

Insight and change can come from the choices of individuals, everywhere, to stop riding an unexamined, distorted technology wave.

We need to re-sensitize ourselves to our inborn wisdom; and to use our energetic capacities as good medicine for one another and our home planet. For example, the physical body has the ability to provide individual feedback about a particular food or medication. Our ‘scientific’ method of conducting double blind testing drugs against a placebo on groups is a gamble at best, and manslaughter in far too many cases.

Energy Intelligence in Action

We can redirect our focus to the still quiet sensory system inside that recoils at the sight of the unexamined juxtapositions of technology and biology… including earbuds near the brain, a person eating GMO altered industrialized junk food, a cellphone held against the head, a transmitter on a whale, a rocket laden with weapons and antennas heading into space, a cell tower next to a home or nursery school, a teen with low self-esteem encountering pornography or bullying on the internet, a child in the Congo mining cobalt, a connected vehicle spewing RF; a cell phone carried over the heart in a shirt pocket, tucked in a bra, or near the reproductive organs; a child throwing a tantrum and being soothed by a device, thousands of satellites filling the Low Earth atmosphere for which we have no trash pick-up.

Meta-studies by compromised experts and industry will not give us the right answers.

Many of these technologies have unleashed unspeakable harm on those who are more sensitive to artificial frequencies, especially women and children.

We need a new litmus test to determine whether a new invention, technology, or consumer product is designed to serve the greater good.

For example, the clean energy community indicted itself when it ignored the profound suffering and disability caused by wireless smart utility meters, installed under the guise of sustainability while enabling massive surveillance. If a manufacturer or government does not conduct appropriate pre-market testing, and does not address reported harm, claims regarding benefits are not legitimate. When those experiencing damage are on the receiving end of the disgust, marginalization, and ridicule that is powered by the Penetrating Flow and the manipulation of the media, dual use technologies causing harm don’t receive appropriate scrutiny.

Like the helix that represents our DNA, our inventiveness has been traveling away from the laws that govern our biology and our internal and external environment. We are at the bending, the point of tension where we need to shift our trajectory.

When we hit the sharp turn, we need to slow down. If you are at the fork in the road choosing between mastering more tech or learning from nature, chose nature.

“You, whose day it is, get out your rainbow colors and make it beautiful.” – Traditional Nootra Song

Resources:

Tracing Meridians with Donna Eden! YOUTUBE 7 1/2 MINUTES

Donna’s Daily Energy Routine “This is a quick and easy routine that you can do in just a few minutes to build your immune system, gain energy, feel younger, and relieve pain.”

Learn to Trace the Radiant Circuits: Tracing the Radiant Circuits with Prune Harris 6-minute video

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

Learn About Sensitivity to Electromagnetic Fields: Dr. Courtney Snyder: Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity in Children & Adults Symptoms, Brain Impacts, Factors That Increase Vulnerability, Diagnosis, Treatment, MTHFR, COMT, & Why Children Are Especially Susceptible (24-minute audio) (Biomarkers that have been used: Blood pressure and heart rate (to assess change in the autonomic nervous system) are also expected to increase; Salivary cortisol levels are expected to increase after exposure; Blood glucose levels are expected to increase after exposure. 

Learn About Sensitivity to Electromagnetic Fields from a Chinese Medicine Perspective: In May of 2002, “TCM Treatments for EMF Sensitivity | Acupuncture CEU Course” was taught by Wisconsin acupuncturist and functional medicine practitioner Michelle Meramour, Dipl.Ac. An introductory overview (1 hour 18 minutes) of the interactive day-long professional CEU training is available free online here. Michele created a body feedback system rooted in TCM acupuncture that uses Six Level Theory to diagnose and treat EHS.From Michele’s feedback system, in the first stage, EMF infiltrates the body via two meridian pathways: Small Intestine, and Urinary Bladder.   In Traditional Chinese Medicine, the Small Intestine is associated with the entire enteric nervous system, ie the ‘gut. Michelle Meramour explains “In the Body-Feedback system, the tai yang meridians (Small intestine and Urinary Bladder) correspond with the hypothalamus, which determines how information is processed through the autonomic nervous system. The hypothalamus then creates hormones via the pituitary gland and endocrine system connection. Symptoms of EMFs affecting tai yang include poor quality sleep, general hypersensitivity, ANS dysfunction, weak immune function, and moodiness.” As she addresses the other five levels of disharmony associated with the five additional meridian pairs, she discusses histamines, allergies, MAST cell activation, chronic inflammation, and manifestations of deeper levels of imbalance that are very familiar to the EHS patient and practitioner population, including cardiac conditions.

Fact Checking Endnotes:

The origins of acupuncture are implied to have been derived from “trial and error” by the Science.org. However, it is known there are individuals who have the ability to “see energy.” An alternative history indicates that the sages could ‘see’ energy and codified the knowledge for all. The alternative narrative also implies that many indigenous groups had/have the capability to ‘see’ energy, providing the ability to identify beneficial herbs, etc. even without use of the written word, but were reluctant to explain to conquerors how they accessed their expertise. His-story is his story…interpreted by the dominator culture, and subject to further evolution. Yours, mine, everyone’s.

Introduction:

Sensing the Zeitgeist of the times, our team at Safe Tech International felt perhaps a renewed and internationally coordinated initiative focusing on local communities might be timely.

The idea was to invite people around the world to simultaneously send a letter to their local officials communicating strong dissent to the proliferation of EMFs in their community or city.  

We considered two possibilities: A Notice of Liability (NOL), or perhaps a more cordial but firm awareness raising letter. 

What emerged, while still a “letter” so to speak, could more aptly be called an ode to a simpler and saner way of life, with a special emphasis on the role of technology in our lives. A kind of invitation for ourselves, elected reps, and others to hold in our mind’s eye and heart the innate desire we humans share:

A desire for a life of health, well-being, wholesome relationships, a humble place to call home, a modest livelihood, and a way to contribute to the local and global family of life…and of course, all to the backdrop of world peace.   

The letter, or ode, has a very different style from how we usually communicate with our elected reps. This was intentional as for our civilization to open to the changes that life seems to be thirsting for, we must be authentic. No pretenses, role playing, or hierarchy. Just honest and open connections. 

The letter offers specific suggestions, many about technology, but also about education, the commons, healthy food, the skies, the ocean, and peace. Suggestions that emanate from common sense and a life centric perspective. 

If the letter resonates with you, please consider sending it as is, or edited, to your local officials or to anyone else you think may be interested. A link to both a PDF and Word version of the letter are provided at the end. An audio and video reading of the letter are provided as well.

I would like to acknowledge some of the many authors, podcasters, and speakers who have deeply informed my thinking: These include Nate Hagens, Vanessa Andreotti, Iain McGilchrist, Daniel Christian Wahl, Jeremy Lent, Helena Norberg-Hodge, Daniel Schmachtenberger, and Charles Eisenstein, among many others.  

And now…the letter. (To read, click on Page 2 directly below.)

Audio only – (Recommended as it’s far less energy and data consumptive than video) 
Video – 12:58 

Geoengineering, the artificial modification of earth’s climate, is an issue that concerns us all. In this article we’ll discover what it has to do with expanding wireless technologies and the international drive to transform our society, our atmosphere – and our world.

A technology for modifying our planet

Geoengineering has a propensity to cause confusion and division, as well as misunderstanding. Yet, in the era of Net Zero (a political drive for net zero CO2 by 2050) ever more extreme climate modification methods are being considered.

If you are familiar with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which demand “climate action”, you might already know that geoengineering programs are hastily being rolled out by governments of member states in “climate action” policies and mandates related to the SDG agenda.

More than ever before, geoengineering and weather modification programs are receiving coverage in the news. However, for all the reporting, is there enough transparency about geoengineering – which concerns artificial and speculative measures (of more political than scientific value), for “fixing the climate”?

Governments around the world are taking baby steps towards officially justifying using aerosolised particulates (like sulphur dioxide, silica, and silver iodide) to support “climate change action” Such stratospheric geoengineering can generate synthetic cloud formations in our skies, which proponents believe will bring benefits. New cloud formations (noticed over the last 30 years) have now been officially documented by the UN, are covered by various publications, and are being classified with new features, behaviours and properties – all while the controversial subject of geoengineering is carefully managed by the media.

Some “climate” solutions may involve “nano-materials” to modify the atmosphere and environment. Nanomaterials present environmental and health risks, and are a problematic issue for law. Yet, they are sold as part of “a sustainable future”.

These types of “climate” projects undoubtedly present opportunities for wireless and nano-scale technological transformations of our environment through Industry 4.0 so that the Internet of Things (IoT) can make deeper roots to transform society. Climate action is often being sold alongside a concept known as “Society 5.0, where all people and things are connected with the Internet of Things (IoT).”

The message couldn’t be clearer that climate ideology and smart technology developments go hand in hand to transform our society, and in the end, us. We shouldn’t be surprised, because the UN’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation spells it all out and aims for “Universal Connectivity by 2030.“

As governments digitally and chemically transform our lives in the name of tackling “climate change” and at the same time hasten the Internet of Things (IoT) into being, the remarkable pace of geoengineering research and technological developments gravitates into controversial territories, gambling with the future, diversity and sanctity of life on earth.

Every breath we take

There is without question an international political-industrial desire to enhance the atmosphere (and environment) with highly conductive, aerosolised particulate matter that evidently promotes electromagnetic transmission. At the same time, carbon is “vilified” as our biggest “climate problem” and is being removed from the atmosphere and environment.

A highly conspicuous fact, in the context of all of this, is that Carbon is not considered a good electromagnetic conductor. We find it is being removed (often buried) in rapid “climate change action”. This is part of a geoengineering process which helps to produce an anthropogenically modified atmosphere favouring an emerging wireless, sensing environment. Such changes to the quality of our atmosphere will also inevitably alter our bodies, and impact our health (especially our respiratory health).

All of this hastened “modification” is integral to fully achieving the IoT – a goal of the UN and various corporate stakeholders who are rapidly rolling out smart technologies, and nano-technologies, supported by Industry 4.0 (a.k.a. The Fourth Industrial Revolution, as coined by Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF)).

In the context of ensuing IoT developments, Geoengineering fulfils more than the generally understood, mainstreamed purpose of tackling “climate change” so it is important to consider the implications for our world.

A change of atmosphere

Some say “Life on planet Earth is under siege” because of “climate emergency.” Weather events such as the “unusual storm” of the Atlantic, the “category five” Hurricane Beryl, come to dominate the media and these unusual weather events are portrayed as the inevitabilities of climate change as defined in climate agendas and politics of the UN. The BBC reports that, “only two other Atlantic hurricanes in history have intensified more rapidly – Felix in 2007, and Wilma in 2005 – and only 4.5% of named storms in the Atlantic have grown to a category five in the past decade.” There is a history of ongoing weather modification in hurricane hotspots (and UN member states in general) that is being ignored while we hear more about “cases of rapid intensification as the climate continues to warm.”

The Guardian, for example, has reported with “Cloud spraying and hurricane slaying: how ocean geoengineering became the frontier of the climate crisis” that “around the world, dozens of ingenious projects are trying to ‘trick’ the ocean into absorbing more CO₂…[and] Nobody knows if these concepts will work, or what consequences there could be.”

Meanwhile, the very golden sun that heats our world, gives life, is now so often vilified as an existential threat within the narrative of “climate change.” In thrall of technology and witnesses to the intergovernmental wars against nature, the too-often pixelated face of the human family turns away from the radiance of our natural world to the radiation of screens in Wi-Fi saturated “smart technology” environments.

Not just the sun, but the human race itself is vilified as an equal threat within the politics of “human-caused climate change” guided by UN officials, stately figures, celebrities, politicians and industry magnates today, often in the same breath that human-caused AI and smart technology is praised by them.

Owing to the sun’s political reputation as a radiation force to be technologically tamed, the sky above us becomes the target of copiously funded research to alter the climate and reduce earth’s atmospheric sunlight by chemical and other means – a process which may irrevocably alter our climate and life on earth as we know it, “forever”.

On this controversial issue a report from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in the US called Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth, was published in 2015. This review of “peer-reviewed literature” was compiled for “leaders to be far more knowledgeable about the consequences of albedo modification approaches before they face a decision whether to use them.”

The publication covers technologies for reflecting sunlight away from earth and it can be read here. It focuses on utilising aerosols of known toxic pollutants (associated with respiratory health problems and carcinogenesis) and releasing the payloads from high altitude aircraft into the stratosphere (where the ozone layer is formed from incoming solar radiation). This is a highly controversial approach to altering the course of so-called “anthropogenic climate change” and in terms of it being considered a “climate solution”, beggars belief.

Chemical weather/climate modification (a.k.a. atmospheric modification) is nothing new, yet is something the public knows very little about. Most of us are very familiar with so-called “chemtrails”, however. We might, after perusing the aforementioned publication, find no distinction between the concept of “albedo modification” in the stratosphere and the concept of “chemtrails” (which the media regularly describes in terms of a “conspiracy theory”).

As aerosolised chemical “spraying” to alter our atmosphere is a real issue, and no longer is tethered in the realm of fantasy or so-called “conspiracy theories.” We all deserve to be more informed about it. The potential for irreversible damage from such “radical” geoengineering methods cannot be underestimated.

On the trail of climate impacts

The Met Office in the UK introduces the public to the concept of “atmospheric modification”, but stresses that it does not “promote any atmospheric interventions” such as aircraft “…injecting aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight back into space.”

Many of us will be familiar with the idea that illegitimately, certain controversial aerial geoengineering programs may have been happening for years. What does the Met Office think? “There is misinformation on social media suggesting the condensation trails (contrails) from high-altitude aircraft are…attempts to alter the atmosphere…” It is an expected refutation of the possibility of weather modification and serves to inhibit the ongoing conversation about the issue.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO), an agency of the United Nations (UN), classifies contrails as new clouds called Cirrus homogenitus in its Cloud Atlas. According to an article published in the journal Reviews on Environmental Health, “Persistent aircraft trails seem to be a “natural” and unavoidable consequence of aviation. However, other documents referring to a weather modification technology must be taken into account in order to better understand the problem as a whole.”

The Met Office, a trusted source, has disputed the possibility weather modification as a consequence of aviation. However, it cannot always be trusted. Weather modification has a history, and the Met Office has played a part in denying it – and possibly still does.

As the UK’s DevonLive news resource reports, “Operation Cumulus was the name of the experiment being carried out by the RAF and an international team of scientists in August 1952. On…August 15 1952, the cloud seeding [weather modification] experiments came to a sudden end, official documents have confirmed. It was also the same day that Devon experienced the biggest, most tragic, flooding event the region has seen in more than 300 years….[in which] thirty four people died…Witnesses described the ‘purple black’ clouds that accumulated over Exmoor – some even said the threatening skies had a weird greenish tinge….The meteorological office [Met Office] had previously denied there were any rainmaking experiments conducted before 1955, but a BBC Radio 4 history investigation, broadcast in August 2001, unearthed documents at the public record office showing that they were going on from 1949 to 1955. RAF logbooks and personnel corroborate the evidence.”

Today, Google’s “Project Contrails” states that aircraft contrails are produced “…when water vapor in the air condenses around tiny particles of soot” and “…contrails can persist as cirrus clouds for minutes or hours, depending on the conditions…At night natural clouds and airline contrails trap heat. During the day, they also reflect back incoming sunlight and warmth.” We are clearly given the impression that aircraft emissions are altering the climate.

Google – a start up funded by the US Department of Defense (long involved in experimental weather modification programs) – shares with us the idea that the contrails we’re seeing in the sky are generated “only…when planes fly through humid regions” and believes Artificial Intelligence (AI) can help pilots avoid flying through them and creating more contrails (which Google states contribute to global warming). Working with American Airlines, Google wants to strategically influence commercial flight paths, by integrating AI insights into pilot workflow, with plans to “extend our models to geostationary satellites over Europe, Africa, the Indian Ocean (Meteosat Third Generation), East Asia and Western Australia (Himawari).” Interesting that Google wants to prevent global warming but relies on satellites that contribute massively to GHG pollution!

Fuelling climate modification

Google’s line of thinking is based on “A recent IPCC report [which] noted that clouds created by contrails account for roughly 35% of aviation’s global warming impact.” It is interesting to note that Google’s long time sponsor, “The US military has been at the forefront of aviation fuels development“, and also weather manipulation research.

We could say that the military has been responsible for the climate impacts caused by aircraft contrails all along, tailoring the chemical composition of jet fuel. What can Google get from all of this contrail concern? Public image enhancement (after Project Maven controversy, etc), climate action kudos, more applied and profitable data-generating AI surveillance (via satellite imagery, weather and flight path data) and the greenwashing of Google’s “carbon footprint.” (According to Statista, “Google’s total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions increased by 13 percent in 2023, to 14.31 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO₂e).”)

The following studies suggest that, despite the exciting cover story of Google’s “green” efforts, the continuing pollution from jet fuel and communications satellite launches will most likely sustain the very global warming that they claim AI technology in Project Contrails can help to reduce.

Led by scientists at Imperial College London, a study published in August 2024 found that “Modern commercial aircraft [such as Airbus A350 and Boeing 787 Airliners] flying at high altitudes create longer-lived planet-warming contrails than older aircraft…[and]…private jets produce more contrails than previously thought, potentially leading to outsized impacts on climate warming.” The study is published here.

That newer aircraft create longer-lived planet-warming contrails than older aircraft is an interesting finding for it means they are influencing the weather and climate against public expectations. Newer passenger aircraft are using the latest sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs), which we’d assume are mean’t to assuage further damage to the climate – though it would appear not – even though the public is told they are modified to reduce CO2 and are supposed to be more effective against global warming.

As Robyn Schofield, Associate Professor and Associate Dean (Environment and Sustainability), The University of Melbourne writing for sciencealert.com points out, it isn’t just aircraft contrails that can “geoengineer” and impact climate. A 2024 study has confirmed that contrails from satellites “could facilitate ozone-destroying chemical reactions.” Satellites such as those from communications companies like Starlink, reaching the end of their useful and short lives will fall to the earth and “along the way, they will leave a trail of tiny metallic particles. According to [ the 2024 study ] by a team of American researchers, this satellite rain may dump 360 tonnes of tiny aluminium oxide particles in the atmosphere each year. The aluminium will mostly be injected at altitudes between 50 and 85 kilometres, but it will then drift down to the stratosphere – home to Earth’s protective ozone layer.”

Researchers have also found that as a result of satellite launches and their inevitable falling to earth, around 10% the stratosphere’s aerosol composition “…already contain[s] aluminium [oxides], and [have] predicted this will increase to 50 percent over the next 10–30 years.” There is concern about what these metals will do when they reach polar regions, especially as “…By some estimates, more than 50,000 satellites may be launched between now and 2030.”

Weather/climate manipulation happens due to a variety of anthropogenic influences. It has most certainly been achieved deliberately, and this continues that way with geoengineering, for example. Deliberate manipulations of the weather/climate were once highly experimental, secret, and confined to military operations, illustrated by the Vietnam War, for example, when Operation Popeye, was launched to make the weather a tactical weapon to disrupt Vietcong operations over areas of the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

Strategic “operations” to change the climate are gathering pace today, this time not just by the military, but by corporations, start ups, universities, and governments in the name of “climate research”.

As we can see, the compulsive launching of satellites for wireless communications are also playing a role in altering the atmosphere, and the ozone layer, through aluminium oxide and other emissions. The abuse of the ozone layer, on an industrial scale, is as relentless as ever.

To drive home the point, aluminium oxide, the pollutant being added to the atmosphere by satellites, has also been proposed as a geoengineering aerosol to be injected into the lower stratosphere “to mitigate the global warming aspect of climate change.” This has been highlighted as a serious health threat as the British Medical Journal reports in a letter to the editor in 2022 (by Giovanni Ghirga, Pediatrician, International Society of Doctors for the Environment ISDE, Italy). Ghirga’s letter also states that “Worldwide land precipitation of aluminium following aerosol spraying into the lower stratosphere would increase human body exposure and seriously threaten Global Mental Health.”

Directed microwave energy

The electromagnetic realms of the sky are the target of other research which may also affect the climate. Today scientific research has extended well beyond chemically influencing the weather – the capability exists (in research facilities such as the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), located in Alaska) to modify the ionosphere by directing immense energy from an array of antennae to artificially heat it (using high intensity radio-waves). As your-physicist.com reports, “The process is similar to how a microwave oven heats up food by exciting its molecules.”

This heating process affects “the complex dynamics of the ionospheric plasma, a gas of electrons and ions enveloping our planet.” The ionosphere consists of charged and neutral gases and absorbs harmful radiation from the sun, a buffer protecting us from “space weather” and solar radiation. It reflects and modifies radiowaves used for communication and navigation allowing the propagation of radiowaves and GPS signals across the globe, and is where many communications satellites orbit. The influence of weather, including space weather (as well as the directed microwave energy from ionospheric heaters) changes how the ionosphere behaves, and can interfere with radio communications.

There are many ionospheric heaters on earth and you can view them here. These antennae arrays “can create temporary radio mirrors that can reflect radio waves back to the ground over long distances.”

Whether HAARP’s influence on the ionosphere (creating artificial plasma waves) has implications for upper-atmospheric influences on climate is not explored in this article, however the existence of HAARP shows us that anthropogenic modification of the earth’s atmospheric layers extends far beyond the skyscape we are familiar with, to the threshold of space.

“While ionospheric heaters are not currently used for weather modification on a large scale, some scientists have proposed using them to modify the ionosphere to mitigate the effects of solar storms or to reduce the risk of climate-related disasters.” Source.

However, we are reminded this is a military intallation, and the reality is that the military does not study anything that it does not intend to weaponise, and it has certainly weaponised microwaves, has an interest in weaponising weather, and continues to develop electromagnetic warfare.

HAARP, the most well-known ionospheric heater of the Department of Defense (DOD) has gained mixed reports and certainly raises concerns about the use of directed energy (microwaves) and the potential of ionospheric heaters to modify weather. Is blasting through the ozone layer with powerful electromagnetic radiation really a good idea (even if it is presented in the name of scientific and military research)? Ionising Solar blasts, for example are reported to “devastate the ozone layer.”

As we can appreciate, compared with Operation Popeye’s context and goals during the Vietnam War, the reasoning behind deploying climate/weather modification and research strategies today is related to the public in the socially acceptable dialogue of climate change, which helps politicians manufacture consent as they justify the roll out of the geoengineering technologies.

Governments want to change the climate

Chemical-based weather modification in our time arises from a commercial and political desire, rooted in questionable military research, and is marketed into the mainstream through the UN-sponsored narratives of “Climate Change” and “sustainability”.

Spurring fears about global warming is a catalyst to normalising the adoption of weather/climate modification technology and public expectations about global warming interventions. Vilifying the sun’s influence on our planet while the military industrial complex pours chemicals (and microwaves) into the deepest realms of the sky illustrates a certain absurdity and hypocrisy in motion – but the public’s focus sees not folly, and is kept locked on political personalities and celebrities applauding the power of science and technology working against the clock to “fight the climate enemy”.

Governments across the world, whether we see their hypocrisy or not, are currently involved in various weather manipulation research programs, some known to the public, with others so controversial and played down that they are yet become officially promoted, or enshrined in policies.

At this moment, research and lobbying continues internationally to gain permissions to release huge quantities of acrid sulphur dioxide (SO2) – a chemical that has a long history in chemical warfare – into the earth’s upper atmosphere, which proponents believe will over time artificially alter earth’s temperature as part of a strategy for adjusting the climate.

The recurrent idea – which has scientists divided, and inspires zealous adherents invested in the gamble – requires that payloads of SO2 are released in sustained and massive quantities from aircraft. The SO2 released forms an aerosol barrier in the stratosphere (when the atmosphere converts the SO2 to sulphate particles – a salt of sulphuric acid). The aim of doing this is to lower earth’s temperature by reflecting the sun’s radiation back into space. The aerial “spraying” of SO2 must be done relentlessly. New research suggests such geoengineering “climate action” could “cause worse climate anomalies than burning greenhouse gases as usual.”

Experimentation, and “research” into such controversial “climate management” concepts requires lots of money from those interested, which includes the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)  (which will feedback data to the UK government), and private interests, like Bill Gates who supports The Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx), launched by Harvard University (cancelled in 2024). Much of the “conversation” involves data from modelling, as outlined by an NGO called the Degrees Initiative.

Geoengineering and Solar Radiation Management (SRM)

The concept of altering the earth’s climate through artificial means is called Geoengineering, and today its becoming a huge investment, believed to “offset” climate change. As Geoengineeringmonitor.org has reported, “In March 2022, the European Commission announced that it is spending € 1.1 billion co-funding seven large-scale climate projects. Among them are five geoengineering projects, which will cost € 880 million.”

While much of the media focus is on Carbon Capture, the EC believes that “…in most of the scenarios and modelled pathways considered in the IPCC, it is now more likely than not that global warming will exceed 1.5°C, at least temporarily by the end of this century. Therefore, additional climate responses such as SRM [Solar Radiation Management] are gaining more attention.”

SRM is the specific Geoengineering process of blocking the sun and dimming the earth, a type of “albedo modification”. As the EC states, “SRM technology options include stratospheric aerosol interventions (SAI – the most studied option), marine cloud brightening (MCB), ground-based albedo modifications (GBAM), ocean albedo change (OAC) and cirrus cloud thinning (CCT). Modelling studies have shown SRM could potentially offset some climate change risks, including the increase in frequency and intensity of extremes of temperature and precipitation. However, it could also introduce a range of new risks related to the change of global weather patterns.”

We can understand how SRM is a highly controversial research area – essentially a troublesome topic concerning a toxic “fix.” SRM causes many scientists alarm, and also, no end of skepticism in their ranks. But it is not without its supporters.

According to carbonbrief.org, “The idea of engineering the climate in order to limit sunlight has been debated by scientists and politicians for more than 50 years, but – apart from studies based on computer simulations – very little field research has been carried out.”

Owing to a lack of transparency and public discussion, the matter of SRM is something of a taboo subject, mostly off limits, despite the promotion of other geoengineering techniques such as Carbon Capture. Yet, SRM is not off the table concerning the international climate agenda and seems destined to emerge from the shadows as governments and start-up industries (that make weather modification their business), are irresistibly drawn to SRM techniques, and aspire to be on the cutting edge of climate action.

Concerns about geoengineering projects like SRM have been highlighted by Former climate advisor to the UN Secretary-General and the President of the General Assembly Tracy Raczek writing for Chatham House in 2022: “The Arctic Ice Project, an NGO, intends to deploy small hollow glass beads, composed of silicon dioxide [used in the microelectronics of wireless/digital devices], across parts of the Arctic Sea’s ice and in the Arctic Ocean to increase reflectivity and slow global warming. Australian universities are piloting a salt spray over the Great Barrier Reef to reflect more of the sun’s heat in an attempt to conserve the reef.” In the science journal Nature, we discover “artificial clouds” are also being used by Australian scientists to block sunlight.

What impacts will artificial clouds bring to the Great Barrier Reef? And, can the synthetic process involving experimental “microspheres” promoted by The Arctic Ice Project (AIP) (partnered with NASA Earth Exchange) really restore the Arctic, or is it more suitable for the Internet of Oceans? Silica Microspheres lend themselves to “biotechnology applications such as biosensing” and could be ingested by sea life.

The AIP project describes the microspheres of silicon as safe, yet if they are microspheres they must resemble silica dust which is known to impact the immune system. “Breathing in very small (“respirable”) crystalline silica particles, causes multiple diseases, including silicosis, an incurable lung disease that leads to disability and death” according to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). One hopes the project isn’t just more toxic pollution damaging health and wildlife, discarded for future generations to inherit, however as we can see, scrolling down this supplier description, the signal word for silica microspheres is “danger”.

Synthetic clouds: what is the real cost?

Reflecting the sun’s radiation back off the earth seems to involve toxic substances. Aircraft-based SRM techniques utilise the stratospheric spraying of corrosive SO2 into the atmosphere, a process that presents serious risks to the climate, environment, and life on earth. SO2 will inevitably fall to earth and become part of our breathable atmosphere. It seems incomprehensible that SRM is being considered when it can contribute to air pollution which is recognised by The World Health Organisation (WHO) “as a risk factor for noncommunicable diseases such as ischaemic heart disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma and cancer, and the economic toll they take.”

Many of us maybe unaware that SO2 is a corrosive irritant. It is more at home in the plumes of a volcanic eruption. Yet it is regarded as the chemical of choice in a 24/7 “climate” operation that is touted to cool the planet.

We might be surprised that the UK and other governments are spending millions on researching controversial SRM as a “climate” manipulation strategy. A prolonged and profitable global spraying spree is what the proponents of SRM have in mind, and they compare it with a “natural phenomenon” – though blanketing the earth for countless years with SO2 is far from natural.

The “logic” behind SRM is based on the assertion that massive volcanic eruptions that blanket the skies in SO2 and other aerosols may have cooled the planet. The outpouring of SO2 and other pollution from Mt Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991 which is believed cooled the earth by 0.5 degrees celsius is hailed as just one example by those in pursuit of dimming our skies indefinitely through SRM geoengineering. 

SRM requires a relentless, targeted injection of SO2 into the atmosphere. According to CNN, because “the aerosol particles do not tend to remain in the atmosphere for more than about a year, solar geoengineering would have to be continuously maintained.” And what of the consequences should it stop? Raymond Pierrehumbert, professor of physics at Oxford University, told CNN that “termination shock” would unleash “all the pent-up warming “ready to slap the Earth in the face”.

“Termination Shock” has been described in an open access article by Andy Parker and Peter J. Irvine. who state that, “If solar geoengineering were to be deployed so as to mask a high level of global warming, and then stopped suddenly, there would be a rapid and damaging rise in temperatures. This effect is often referred to as termination shock, and it is an influential concept.”

In addition we learn that “Termination shock could be very damaging for natural and human systems as the rate of warming would probably be much higher than that otherwise expected under anthropogenic climate change (Irvine et al., 2012; Llanillo et al., 2010; Matthews & Caldeira, 2007; McCusker et al., 2014), meaning that both ecosystems and human societies would have less time to adapt to the rapidly changing new conditions (McCormack et al., 2016; Trisos et al., 2018).”

The article also informs us that, “SRM only masks the warming effects of GHGs and is not designed to reduce their concentrations in the atmosphere.”

Is there sufficient transparency?

Many of us maybe unaware of our own government’s sustained interest in the SRM Geoengineering process. It shows how little transparency there is about it, and this hasn’t changed in over 75 years or so. Now that such taboo technologies have been recently rebranded as “last chance” climate solutions (without any proof that they ever can be, but plenty of predictive computer modelling), more mainstream reporting of Geoengineering has ensued.

However, that is not an indicator of sufficient transparency. Showing us that the climate can be modified with “contrails” and “aerosols” from planes after all, has been approached in the media like a public relations exercise to reassure the population that geoengineering is about “climate solutions” rather than whatever the derogatory sounding (yet somewhat accurate) “chemtrails” might suggest, as governments exhibit a “flurry of interest globally” in SRM.

It is quite alarming, but not necessarily alarmist, to contemplate the implications of blanketing our skies with SO2 to create a climatic shift in temperature for the sake of theoretically tackling global warming. We must ask – as I hope the governments permitting SRM research are doing – whether putting the health of the global population at stake is worth the weight of the climate theories in hand. It shouldn’t be.

More than meets the eye?

As our planet’s health burden of air pollution shows no signs of slowing, surely the answer isn’t to fill the air with particulates that further challenge our health, and our boundaries?

The miniaturisation of wireless telecommunications (to nano-scale technologies) gains momentum with the development of smart dust and nano-scale wireless antennae while the Internet of Things (IoT) and the Internet of Underwater Things (IoUT) accelerates in earnest intending to “a world-wide network of smart interconnected underwater objects with a digital identity”.

It is known that nanobot sensors (required for the IoT in all its facets) can be aerosolised, just like geoengineering payloads. Would they ever be combined, is the question.

In the journal Health Security in 2019, Jennifer Snow and James Giordano alert us to how “the development of aerosolizable nanomaterials and devices also poses defined risks to public health and biosecurity that warrant consideration, address, and constraint. Aerosolized nanobots could be used to sidestep extant proscriptions of the current Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC) or Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).”

Payloads of micro/nano-materials and nano-mites to advance wireless telecommunications will need to cover the earth. Nanotechnology capable of self-assembling into intelligent networks also requires energy, and is increasingly developed to draw energy (sustainably) from the environment, whether that be the sea, or a blood vessel.

This is also out in the open, has been for a while and is most certainly on the cards. We should keep in mind that inorganic SO2 used in SRM is also electrically conductive and has thermal properties (when mixed with water/precipitation) and would proliferate in skies and fall/rain down into the environment, making it a carrier like a semiconductor that could help drive nano-technologies relevant to the IoT and wireless innovations.

Diamond doped-silica (another conductor) has been proposed for SRM, as well, and microspheres of silica (more at home in technology and cutting edge medical applications) is the material being used by the Arctic Ice Project (AIP). Is there more scope to geoengineering developments, and materials, than first meets the eye?

Why our health hangs in the balance

What do we know about the long term health implications of living beneath a sky seeded with SO2 from relentless daily aircraft runs? Scientists theorise but do not conclusively know the health outcome of a sustained SRM program on the global population.

Scientists and governments do know, however, that exposure to SO2 can cause inflammation, and serious damage to the respiratory airways and lungs. Sulphur dioxide rapidly enters the bloodstream through the lungs and even short-term exposures can be life-threatening. According to the UK government’s Statement on the differential toxicity of particulate matter according to source or constituents: 2022, sulphates in the atmosphere “…show associations with adverse effects in epidemiological studies.” To be clear, sulphates can cause organ toxicity, reproductive toxicity and cancer.

The California Air Resources Board (ARB) asserts that “sulfates contribute to acidification of surface water and soil, and contribute to acid rain and fog that damage ecosystems, forests and plants” – further, blocking the sun with SRM reduces carbon dioxide uptake in plants, and therefore reduces the production of oxygen.

Sulphates have ” health effects similar to those from exposure to PM2.5. These include reduced lung function, aggravated asthmatic symptoms, and increased risk of emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and death in people who have chronic heart or lung diseases.”

The ARB adds, “Because sulfates are light colored, they reflect energy from sunlight back into space. This means that sulfates have a cooling influence on climate change…Sulfates are particularly effective in degrading visibility by scattering light before it reaches an observer. This light scattering reduces visual clarity, mutes colors, and reduces the distance one can see.”

Who is most vulnerable? Children are much more vulnerable to SO2 exposures than adults as they breathe more voluminously for their size and weight than adults. However, as the American Lung Association reports, adults share certain vulnerabilities that increase their risk manifold. “Short exposures to peak levels of SO2 in the air can make it difficult for people with asthma to breathe when they are active outdoors.” Other vulnerable groups include older adults with chronic heart or lung diseases, and people with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) are very sensitive to low level exposures of chemicals in the environment putting them at higher risk, too. MCS is often discussed in tandem with electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), a debilitating heightened sensitivity to industrialised electromagnetic fields (EMFs) in the environment which has overlaps with MCS.

It is known that “…in the last few decades MCS [like EHS] has received considerable scientific and governmental attention in light of the many persons reporting this illness…A number of countries and health care communities have recognized MCS or similar entities as a debilitating illness.” The unavoidable reality is that we are all vulnerable to SO2 exposures, and from such pollution may develop asthma, MCS and chronic diseases as a result.

Industrially, Sulphur dioxide has various uses and careful handling and safety protocols are necessary, as it can increase asthma in those regularly exposed (like a population subjected to SRM?) You can learn more about the health impacts of SO2 here. It can exacerbate existing health problems well beyond asthma.

We can think of SO2 as potently corrosive bleach. Owing to such properties SO2 is used as a fungicide, a disinfectant, and is a problematic air pollutant. This should make it clear to us the potential catastrophic results that could arise from our governments applying SRM in our skies. Spraying SO2 in our skies is asking for trouble. Encountering precipitation, the aerosol application of SO2 will result in acid rain.

SO2 also inhibits photosynthesis and causes plants to lose water. Imagine the impact on gardens, crops and food supply. According to an article published in Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, “The cumulative effect of sulferous pollution is to reduce the quantity and quality of plant yield. Generally, its impact is more severe when in combination with other pollutants such as oxides of nitrogen, fluorides, and ozone. At the ecosystem level, sulfur dioxide affects species composition by eliminating more sensitive species.“

Imagining SRM to be a potential “healer” of the earth’s climate seems incomprehensible when the governments interested in SRM also claim to be concerned about global warming, ocean acidification and the preservation of ecosystems. Scientists know that sulphur dioxide presents very real and well-known health and environmental risks. Despite all of this, the money, research and planning in the direction of SRM deployment continues.

Confronting reality

SRM is a very taboo subject for the public. However, to transcend the taboo, we must confront the reality that our climate can be altered in a calculated way through methods known to our governments, in ways that could bring catastrophe.

To think our governments might be or possibly intend to release chemical toxins (often described as “chemtrails”) into our atmosphere from aircraft deliberately has long drawn public skepticism. Yet the UK government has not dismissed the toxic approach to climate intervention promised by SRM. Anyone can read the UK government’s position on geoengineering which states:

“The Government is not deploying SRM, and has no plans to do so. The UK Government has commissioned research into the effects of SRM on climate, and monitors research in this area. The World Climate Research Programme’s (WCRP’s) Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP), is investigating, using computer modelling, the effects which SRM would have on the climate.”

Why spend millions on researching something with no plans to use it? Having no plans, is not the same as stating it will never be used. The door has been kept open for SRM.

Global interest in SRM

In 2018 it was reported by carbonbrief.org that “…interest in SRM appears to be growing. In October of last year, scientists met in Berlin to discuss the future of geoengineering. Last November, the US House of Representatives held a subcommittee meeting on geoengineering, with SRM dominating the conversation.”

In 2023, MIT Technology Review reported that “researchers launched a solar geoengineering test flight in the UK.” Not only does this “test flight” set a terrible precedent, it seems incomprehensible that the UK (or any other) government should ever consider permitting the deliberate spraying of toxic particulates (which erode the immune system and is rapidly absorbed into the bloodstream through inhalation). The world was recently locked down by governments in the name of protecting the respiratory health of the population. Do we really want to walk down that road again? Further SRM research that could result in more global respiratory health crises is attracting the attention of governments fixated on Net Zero and other climate strategies. Darkening our world with particulate matter (PM) to reach “climate targets” rather than focusing on the health repercussions for the global population should not be the priority.

The MIT in the US continues to push a Solar Geoengineering agenda and the pressure on governments across the globe to adopt SRM seems to grow. However, not all geoengineering projects survive. In 2024 Nature reported that “Harvard University researchers announced the cancellation of a high-profile solar geoengineering experiment, frustrating the project’s supporters. But advocates say that all is not lost, and that momentum for evaluating ways to artificially cool the planet is building internationally.”

Contradictions

The UK government is not alone in financing solar Geoengineering research. According to CNN, in 2022 the Biden Administration committed $4 million towards exploring solar geoengineering. A Harvard study of 2018 estimated that a sustained solar engineering project will probably cost $2.25 billion a year over a 15-year period, with 4000 flights necessary in year one alone. The process is estimated to possible take “several generations“. Only specially adapted planes are able to deliver the payloads, from altitudes “as high as 20 km” into the lower stratosphere.

We can instantly appreciate how such a project would contradict the global measure to tackle aviation emissions, a measure that the UK government for example fully supports. It is no theory that the UK government is collaborating with, and is being influenced by, scientists, institutions and industries working out how to best move forward with SRM (also called SAI – stratospheric aerosol injection), even though it presents a long term risk to public health and will likely bring more respiratory problems for us all.

There is little transparency about SRM, and no consensus that it should ever be done. We are told that the real-world effects of a large scale SRM intervention are unknown. It is understood that deep geopolitical conflicts could arise as a result of altering climates with SRM.

Cloud seeding: Rain-making and rain-stealing

Another form of geoengineering known as “cloud seeding” has already brought this consequence to the fore. As Tracy Raczek writing for Chatham House states, such climate “interventions can cross borders and what may be good for one country may not be good for its neighbours… This is not a hypothetical problem. Iran has already accused Israel of stealing its water by using cloud-seeding that reduces rainfall over its territory. China, which already artificially alters its weather over major cities, plans to be able to modify weather over half its territory by 2025, to the alarm of neighbours including India. And two Middle East rivals – the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia – are scaling up rain-making operations.”

The Diplomat, in the article “How China uses Geoengineering to Pursue a Hybrid Warfare Strategy” reports that, “the country is committed to bringing about 5.5 million square kilometers of its land area under its weather modification program by 2025.” The consequences of implementing weather modification (“rain-making”) as Raczek highlighted “can cross borders.” The Diplomat states that in the context of China’s program, “….the impact of cloud seeding can be seen beyond China’s borders, [and] may disrupt the normal monsoon in neighboring countries such as India, Myanmar, Vietnam, etc. This would have an adverse impact on the agriculture in these countries, rising potentially to a form of “rain stealing.””

The Diplomat singles out China for using “geoengineering techniques to manipulate and jeopardize the rules relevant to maintaining the international order”, though neglects the reality that many countries are engaged in cloud seeding programs (as well as other types of geonegineering). Sadly, The Diplomat doesn’t acknowledge this and believes China could “sabotage global climate change efforts” by operating outside of the United Nations (UN) Framework Convention on Climate Change and Convention on Biological Diversity, which is evidently not moving fast enough for China.

In truth, there are no formally agreed “rules” being broken by China, for there is “no formal agreement or convention regarding geoengineering” at this time. Creating artificial rain, as theadvocatepost.org states that “legal frameworks face considerable challenges, concerning their scope, coordination, and enforcement. This is because cloud seeding can cross international borders and it can involve multiple stakeholders with varying interests.” advocatepost also highlights how, although Article 5 of the UN Conventions on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses and Article 7 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (and the Nagoya Protocol) attempt to “regulate” aspects of cloud seeding, “the biggest challenge at hand is the lack of any universal definition of cloud seeding or artificial rain.”

Kunal Sharma who created The Diplomat article lives in India where the monsoon may be influenced by China’s geoengineering activities. Sharma, however, doesn’t want to stop the cloud seeding experiments. Instead, Sharma highlights how it is “rogue” to do such things while the UN still seeks standards to shape the development of geoengineering projects – so believes the geoengineering projects should still be happening, just not on India’s doorstep. We can’t really blame Sharma for condemning China’s “rogue” weather modification experiments, though, even if they had the UN’s blessing, it wouldn’t alter the fact that such experiments involve aerosolised toxic carcinogens and bring a number of potentially devastating environmental costs.

Organisations like the Weather Modification Association (WMA) believes cloud seeding is a risk worth taking believing there is no toxic impact of concern after examining literature that embodies “tens of thousands of samples collected from cloud seeding program areas over a thirty-year period.”

Cloud seeding certainly has been going on a long time, and without the UN being particularly bothered about its practice, or the potential harms. I include the screenshot of the the Weather Modification Association which can be shared with anyone who doubts that weather modification is possible or happening.

The “Our Corporate Members” list at the bottom of the WMA’s “About us” page shows an array of corporate interests in weather modification including the North Dakota Atmospheric Resource Board which works to improve cloud seeding because in its opinion “CLOUD SEEDING HAS SIGNIFICANT POSITIVE EFFECTS ON CROP YIELDS AND IMPROVED LOSS RATIOS”.

This all illustrates an epidemic of hypocrisy. China’s geoengineering activity is condemned as “rogue” and a possible threat to climate/weather, while the rest of the “international order” escapes criticism for executing cloud seeding programs of their own.

SRM without laws or borders 

The risks are many, and are being neglected. An ambitious start-up company called Making Sunsets infamously epitomises the hubris of zealous SRM “climate action.” In 2022, through private funding, the company launched a series of weather balloons full of SO2 inside of Mexico in what was broadly perceived as a provocative rogue act of climate intervention. The US based company, which regards itself as a “cult” with a mission to blanket the earth through SRM Geoengineering as a matter of pride, vowed to release huge payloads of SO2 above Mexico continuously into 2023 – without any governmental approval, scientific oversight or transparency with the public.

Such behaviour has raised environmental and humanitarian concerns. In January 2023 it was reported that Mexico had banned solar geo-engineering experiments. (It should be noted that the Mexican government prohibited the further deployment of Geoengineering acting on the precautionary principle laid out in a 2010 moratorium on SRM technology developed at a UN conference on biodiversity).

Various fact checkers jumped on the “Mexico/Making Sunsets” issue to quickly assert that Mexico didn’t ban “chemtrails” because they don’t exist. However, whether we call them “contrails” or “chemtrails” or clouds of sulphur dioxide being poured from weather balloons over Mexico, it adds up to the same controversy: the anthropogenic release of chemicals into the stratosphere to reduce solar influence on the earth.

Over seventy five years of artificial clouds

In 2023, Mexico suffered extreme droughts and turned to another climate altering technology called “cloud seeding” which uses aircraft to deposit aerosols of silver iodide into the stratosphere to artificially stimulate rainfall.

This is a weather modification project which according to CNN has been approved by the Mexican government since 2020. The operation is run by a company called Startup Renaissance. The technology of cloud seeding dates back to the 1940s and as CNN reports “Since then, it has been used in around 50 countries, including in the United States and China. Mexico has been experimenting with weather modification for more than seven decades.”

What about the UK? The UK funded cloud seeding experiments in the 1950s as the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has confirmed following a freedom of information request. The DECC confirmed that although the experiments were carried out, the “DECC does not hold information on these experiments” and the DECC “does not undertake any cloud seeding activities”, and “does not hold information about the amount of chemicals used annually for cloud seeding purposes.”

Already we can see that anthropogenic climate interventions, through chemical emissions such as silver iodide and sulphur dioxide, have a long history, and with that history, questions arise regarding transparency and public health, air quality, and biodiversity.

It is already acknowledged that contrails typically released from aircraft are responsible for creating sustained blanketing of the skies with vapour that traps heat. Whatever way we look at it, aerosol pollution from aviation is a means of influencing the climate. It is inevitable that they also influence health. As noted by scientists, “Aviation emissions [which contain sulphur dioxide (SO2)] are responsible for an estimated 24,000 premature mortalities annually and 3.5% of anthropogenic radiative forcing (RF).” 

Radiative forcing (RF) refers to changes in the earth’s atmosphere owing to natural and human-caused concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHCs), aerosols and changes in solar radiation. According to climateworks.org, “Non-CO2 effects make up two-thirds of aviation’s climate impact.”

SO2: A polluting emission

SO2 for SRM, a chemical deployed to change solar radiation on earth is a polluting anthropogenic emission, and ironically, is also a component in aviation fuel today which relates to the aforementioned mortalities.

Like the global cloud-seeding deployments of silver iodide, (another toxin, and one which can cause reproductive disorders, developmental defects and cancer) prepared for international geoengineering requirements, SO2 in aviation fuel is a form of particulate matter (PM) that increases the global health burden.

SO2 is responsible for aviation-induced PM2.5 illnesses. So why should any government, or company, propose adding more of this to the atmosphere – especially when the government is at the same time, as in Europe and elsewhere, grappling with the reduction of sulphur in aviation fuel because of its alleged “climate impact”?

It should come as no surprise to us that SRM is regarded as an “extreme intervention” for mitigating solar radiation. Yet as mentioned, it is not off the table as governments reach for climate technologies to do battle with “climate change”.

SRM: projects and research that we know about

In February 2024 a new 10.5m five-year programme to independently risk assess and model impacts of SRM for policymakers was announced by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), interestingly to assess “existing data” on SRM and “engage with international activity in SRM.” NERC states that SRM “can reduce negative effects of climate change” – but at what price?

The detrimental side effects of SRM deserve to be known. I have touched upon the health implications of changing our atmosphere with SO2. But what else is there to be concerned about?  SRM changes climate, which is what computer modelling is concerned with. Asking a computer to model our future is a risk in itself, but let’s be clear about what we could be facing from SRM. Rainfall patterns could become dramatically altered increasing drought and risk of floods. The ozone layer will become more severely impacted by SRM. We may see threats to biodiversity, possibly driving extinction events, eroding ecosystems and human health.

The methods of SRM being proposed internationally include Stratospheric Aerosol Injections (SAI), Marine cloud brightening (MCB) and cirrus cloud thinning (CCT) all of which alter cloud cover and usher in the catastrophic effects already discussed. Perhaps the governments toying with SRM should consider the words of Dietmar Dommenget, an associate professor at the School of Earth Atmosphere and Environment at Monash University, who asserts “climate is quite chaotic – we should be assuming the worst – we don’t know if it will happen, but we should assume the worst.“

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations (UN) with its huge influence on climate attitudes regards SRM as an unnecessary type of treatment that doesn’t address “the root cause of climate change”, which in its opinion is CO2. Yet, governments who are members of the UN are involved in SRM and expansive cloud-seeding projects. For example, according to geoengineeringmonitor.org, “In December 2020, the Chinese government revealed plans to enlarge its weather modification activities, covering an area of more than 6 million km²…” and by 2023 “…hopes to deploy an effective program, e.g., to battle droughts, control rainfall in agricultural lands or minimize losses from natural disasters. The program will be achieved by seeding clouds with particles of AgI [silver iodide] or other chemicals to induce precipitation.”

Why is the spraying of SO2 above our heads even being considered when there is no evidence it will change climate for the better, and presents a health and environmental risk that could cause irreversible damage to human beings and the natural world?

Beyond the exploits of “Making Sunsets” in Mexico recently, other known companies who have deployed SRM across the globe from 2020 onwards include: SCoPEx (Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment) organised by Harvard University [and supported by Bill Gates, but cancelled in 2024], Great Barrier Reef Marine Cloud Brightening trial(s)by a research team led by Southern Cross University, MCBP (Marine Cloud Brightening Project) led by Washington University & research partners, MCB (Marine Cloud Brightening) with sea water led by Stephen Salter (Edinburgh University) & Centre of Climate Repair (CCRC), Iron Salt Aerosol Method led by gM-Engineering. Details on the projects in 2022 were not available to the public. www.geoengineeringmonitor.org has more on this.

At the time of writing, according to a very useful, detailed interactive online map (prepared by ETC Group (a technology watchdog group) and the Heinrich Boell Foundation), 10 Solar Radiation Management projects which include stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) and other chemical interventions in the earth’s stratosphere, are underway with 5 completed and 2 cancelled. 2 of the SRM projects are happening in the UK. According to ETC Group and the Heinrich Boell Foundation, to date “…more than 1,700 [geoengineering] projects have been identified.”

As we might now appreciate, a deeply concerning picture of the expansive nature of global climate modification is revealed. The tampering of our atmosphere in the UK, and elsewhere, is not limited to SRM, but many Carbon Capture and Storage projects are also ongoing. All are believed to mitigate what the IPCC defines as anthropogenic climate change, yet necessitate anthropogenic climate changing solutions.

Regardless of the risks to our planet, largely covert and risky interventions are happening in our skies and around us. As Jack Doughty has confirmed in Past forays into SRM field research and implications for future governance (2018) “Outdoor field research studies self-identifying as or closely related to solar radiation management (SRM) technology have already been carried out by scientists.”

What will be the ultimate effect on our health (particularly our respiratory health) as the greatest experiment on our atmosphere continues? As Dietmar Dommenget suggested, we should “assume the worst”.

SRM: Resistance from scientists, campaigners and documentary filmmakers

There are countless articles on the internet, both supporting and debunking chemtrails. The BBC tries to assure us that spraying the country with chemicals, though done “once upon a time, long, long ago, isn’t something we should expect any time soon. As the BBC reminds us, “In the 1950s and 1960s, decades before the conspiracy theories were born, much of Britain was sprayed with airborne chemicals in a series of secret germ warfare tests. And in 1950, San Francisco was sprayed with a chemical agent from a ship to gauge the effects of a bioweapon attack on a populated area.” It’s as if we all live in a changed world now. Can we really say that we are, knowing what plans are afoot in the name of Geoengineering?

The privately planned and funded spraying of sulphur dioxide (SO2) from aircraft (to theoretically avert temperature increases for years to come) that has been described in this article, isn’t that different in principle from what the BBC has described concerning experimental aerial chemical payloads in the 1950s and 1960s.

The public has a right to be concerned about it, regardless of whether they see a contrail or a chemtrail in the sky – SRM isn’t a fiction, it’s a “transboundary technology” threat any way we look at it.

There is credible resistance against SRM worthy of note. As Geoengineering Monitor observes, “In January 2022, a group of more than 60 concerned senior climate scientists from around the world called for an international solar-geoengineering non-use agreement, as SRM poses unacceptable risks if ever implemented. This global call has since been endorsed by more than 320 scientists from the Global South and the Global North. The non-use agreement calls for banning SRM funding, prohibiting SRM outdoor experiments and restricting research on SRM technologies, including supporting technologies.” By comparison it was reported by the Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative’s report on the “Global status of activities relating to Solar Radiation Modification and its governance” in 2023 that “90+ scientists published a letter supporting more research into atmospheric aerosol-based SRM.”

Campaigners have issues with geoengineering, as this document from etc GROUP makes plain. It makes some excellent points, and states: “If deployed, SRM has the potential to cause significant environmental damage. It is not possible to know with any certainty how altering the amount of incoming heat to the planet could affect ecosystems, since it will create an entirely new ecological balance (or disturbance) that could diminish biodiversity and disrupt ecosystems. The energy from incoming sunlight is an essential resource for life on the planet.”

Clouds, whether we think of them as modified or natural, are being referred to as a species of their own. According to sciencealert.com new species of cloud are appearing causing “the International Cloud Atlas – the official reference work on all things cloud, as published by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) [the UN’s official weather body]” to be updated for the first time in 30 years. “The WMO has also recognised five new supplementary features – distinctive cloud structures that attach to other kinds of clouds…The updated Cloud Atlas recognises a new accessory cloud – the name for features that merge with another cloud – called a flumen, which is associated with severe convective storms.

The updates to the WMO’s cloud atlas (which was first published in 1896) seem to have been prompted after “the founder and president of the US-based Cloud Appreciation Society, Gavin Pretor-Pinney in 2006…noticed members of the organisation posting images of clouds that didn’t quite look like anything he’d seen before.” There are now “special clouds“, which describe localised conditions where clouds are generated due to either natural causes or human activity [ie, contrails, geoengineering].”

Four eye-opening documentary films, Frankenskies, The Dimming, UNconventional Grey and the acclaimed Forecast make interesting points regarding the artificial transformation of our skies and highlight a range of environmental and ethical concerns about geoengineering and weather modification technologies.

Are we protected from geoengineering practices?

SRM is among many climate technologies influenced by military research programs, that is, from research into weather modification for tactical purposes. HAARP, as mentioned earlier, can be considered a climate technology. Because it is an ionospheric heater, it can artificially modify a region of the earth’s ionosphere, and therefore its behaviour, using beamed microwave radiation. Manipulating the ionosphere presents risks, and may result in destructive events on earth. Scientists know that changes in the ionosphere are observable ahead of seismic activity, and as NASA has highlighted, there are deep connections between the ionosphere and weather on earth.

Because it has immense destructive capacities, HAARP has all the characteristics of a Directed Energy Weapon (DEW). Yet although this invention (of Bernard J. Eastlund), is patented and classified as a DEW, it is presented in the media as the research tool of scientists experimenting on the ionosphere “as it pertains to surveillance, military and civilian communications, as well as radar and navigation systems.” [Source]

HAARP can mimic the effects of space weather and affect the physical and electromagnetic behaviours of earth’s atmosphere by “heating up the heavens.” HAARP has 3.6 megawatts of power at its command. It uses high frequency phased arrays of 180 antennas (that direct and shape beams of focused electromagnetic radiation – like 5G phased array infrastructure does). Both of these technologies are branded as “progress” not as weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) or DEWs capable of biological and environmental devastation. (You can download the related patent PDF here.)

Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) a.k.a. Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI), for many reasons, is raising concerns. Its potential to be weaponised is well recognised by governments – yet, today, the aerial spraying of SO2 and other toxic chemicals is often positively approached as a “valuable” research opportunity and mitigation tool within the narrative of “climate change”.

According to the Arms Control Association, “A chemical weapon is any toxic chemical that can cause death, injury, incapacitation, and sensory irritation, deployed via a delivery system…” and stresses that, “The use and possession of chemical weapons is prohibited under international law.” There are calls for SRM to be banned. It employs harmful toxic chemical agents that, like a chemical weapon, “can cause death, injury, incapacitation, and sensory irritation.” But we notice how all of that seems perfectly acceptable when it is being sold as a solution in the context of “climate action,” research, and “mitigation”. As we have seen, there is sustained opposition, but also rising interest from international governments and sectors of industry in SRM, and they are guided by the UN’s ideological discourse on climate change and sustainable development which is rolling out geoengineering “mitigations” as solutions. However, it has been observed that, “SRM techniques do not fall within the usual definitions of mitigation” as laid out by the IPCC.

In a review article titled Solar geoengineering to reduce climate change: a review of governance proposals, published in 2019 by The Royal Society, the author Jesse L. Reynolds (of the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, University of California, Los Angeles School of Law,) states that “[as] solar geoengineering would presumably affect all countries, widespread if not universal consent is needed for its deployment to be legitimate.”

According to Alexander Proelss, author of Geoengineering and International Law, “Despite persisting legal uncertainties, there is a good case to argue that a general prohibition of geoengineering does not exist in international law. Furthermore, a closer examination of individual geoengineering technologies supports the conclusion that carbon dioxide removal tends to meet with fewer legal objections than solar radiation management.”

As etc GROUP observes, “193 countries at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) established a de facto moratorium against most forms of geoengineering including all forms of SRM. The landmark decision was reaffirmed in 2012 and 2016. However, promoters of
geoengineering – the most vocal of whom are based in Northern high GHG-emitting countries – have been attempting to ignore the CBD decision and to move toward initiating experimental trials of SRM technologies.”

Governing Solar Radiation Modification Under The Vienna Convention states: “Article 2(1) of the Vienna Convention has a wide scope and covers all human activities which “modify or are likely to modify the ozone layer”. This will include SAI as it will likely modify the ozone layer.” Source.

The UK government declared in “The Regulation of Geoengineering” of 2009-10 that “the UN is the route by which, eventually, we envisage the regulatory framework operating but first the UK and other governments need to push geoengineering up the international agenda and get processes moving.”

Some officials at the UN see the risks inherent in SRM and are pushing for regulatory frameworks warning that “We only have one atmosphere. We cannot risk further damaging it…” However, in the same breath they also support additional research of SRM.

Despite recognising that “while SRM techniques may be theoretically reducing some climate hazards, the risks or benefits they pose are poorly understood and relevant governance is weak or missing” the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – as stated in a report called “Global status of activities relating to Solar Radiation Modification and its governance – supports ongoing research before drawing conclusions for a regulatory framework. The IPCC is encouraged that “the international discussion about SRM and its governance is now firmly emerging on the international agenda.”

Thus SRM as a geoengineering solution within the context of the “climate change” agenda (which is justified by science – largely based on theories, predictions, and computer modelling about which there is no scientific consensus) stays on the table. As a consequence, any country deploying SRM may unilaterally affect the climate whenever they like. As we know, countries are currently permitted to deliberately affect the climate with SRM experiments, and in particular, “trusted” cloud seeding programs and rampant carbon capture, to name but a few climate modification programs are in motion. New “species” of clouds with novel features and behaviours have been well-documented. How ongoing geoengineering activity has influenced unusual and extreme weather events that are reported by the media is worth bearing in mind before accepting the theories, opinions, and predictions promoted by the scientists, politicians and popular culture figures invested in the micromanaged narrative of human-caused “climate change”.

Will effective “geoengineering” regulations ever be resolved, be relevant for safeguarding the health of populations, or even adhered to? Will they serve the public interest and safeguard life on earth, or be tailored to perpetuate the existing Net Zero climate narrative, benefit industry and politically profitable agendas invested in it? And, how will the possible intrusion of nano-materials or even nano-technologies be properly regulated in any emerging framework? People have a range of concerns regarding geoengineering and are voicing them widely on the internet. There is widespread criticism of the political and ethical role – as well as the scientific opinions, and attitudes – of both the UN and the IPCC who push governments forward with questionable climate policies and national climate plans and contrive “transparency” as a political tool functioning to progress Net Zero, and not as an opportunity to face the public about the destructive geoengineering programs that for years have been impacting the climate and are able to cause unusual and extreme weather, as documentary and eye witness accounts covered in this article attest. Weather and climate modification is surely a neglected and critical aspect of the “climate narrative.”

There has been plenty of posturing, and plenty of time for politicians to be upfront with the public about the artificial and chemical means of climate modification happening around us (essentially happening without the knowledge, awareness or consent of the population). The consequences of unregulated climate modification have been long known and officially debated – behind closed doors. Today the very mention of “chemtrails” stirs censorious reactions, when the public has every right to label SRM, military-influenced contrails, and ongoing stratospheric aerosol events as such. Regulations, transparency, and open debate are long overdue, especially when there is the propensity for climate altering technologies such as SRM to cause mass destruction, just like a weapon. The problem is that public perception, discourse generally, and law as it stands, predominantly recognises SRM more as geoengineering than a chemical weapon capable of “ecocide” (and possibly genocide) from the chequered history of military “innovations”, assigning it the status of a “mitigation”, no matter how inaccurate and wholly inadequate that designation actually is.

The Environmental Modification Convention (ENMOD) signed by 48 states prohibits the military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques. As Tracy Raczek, Former climate advisor to the UN Secretary-General and the President of the General Assembly, advises, we “need to attend to the security implications of geoengineering and weather modification. Dusting off ENMOD is the place to start.”

As a penultimate point, the legal definition of “ecocide” was developed by international lawyers in 2021. Work is underway to add environmental damage to the list of international crimes at the International Criminal Court. The “expert panel’s definition of ecocide is: “unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts”.

By recognising ecocide as a “crime” (a “crime” now recognised in 11 countries) some believe this will “transform the fight against climate change.” How such a legal framework is crafted is critical. Would SRM fall within the new definition of “ecocide”, the crime of “killing the environment”? It may take a while, as “climate engineering…”, according to Jesse L. Reynolds (in Geoengineering Our Climate?) “…is such a challenge for international environmental law and its scholars.”

Whether the concept of ecocide serves only the predominant political view of “climate change” and “climate science”, or will equally serve to bring justice when pertinent anthropogenic climate threats – such as aluminium and GHG pollution from communications satellite launches, international cloud seeding programs using silver iodide particles to increase rainfall, the pollution potentials of nanotechnology and nanomaterials, the toxic threats from carbon capture geoengineering, the toxicity and climate impacts of SRM, as well as deforestation in the name of erecting wind farms – are happening, remains a question.

These neglected environmental issues seriously threaten the quality of our breathable atmosphere, and our physical and mental health, but they continue to be “spun” by the perpetrators and their supporters as “research”, or “solutions” integral to “climate action” deemed necessary to “save our planet”.

However, profit, and not just politics, may be a significant motivator, putting wealth before populations – as Time magazine reports, “Billionaires are obsessed with blocking out the sun…Among the world’s ultra-rich, plans to swat back the sun’s rays like they’re capital gains taxes (to, as it were, apply a generous helping of sunblock to the earth’s atmosphere) have seemingly been all the rage.” George Soros, Bill Gates, Dustin Moskovitz – are among the SRM supportive figures discussed, set to profit from economies driven by globalist political agendas that include technologies pertaining to an AI-driven smart future, climate change “mitigations” and sustainability.

We shouldn’t underestimate how important a political and economic tool UN-defined “climate change” is. “…The effects of climate change are increasingly being looked at through the lens of national security and intelligence,” according to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which has had great interest in the possibility of “modifying storms” with cloud seeding technology.

While Google seeks to monitor and guide aircraft contrail distribution with AI, the Met Office seeks to hypocritically police social media discourse to discourage discussion of “chemtrails” (as if chemical climate modification programs like cloud seeding and SAI/SRM aren’t happening). Meanwhile, over 350 academics including Frank Biermann (professor of Global Sustainability Governance at Utrecht University, director of the ERC GlobalGoals project, founder of the Earth System Governance Project, and editor of the Earth System Governance journal) are urging an international non-use agreement on solar geoengineering.

You can sign an open letter calling for an international non-use agreement on Solar Geoengineering at solargeoeng.org.

We all have our concerns about geoengineering and the motivations behind adopting climate modification technologies, and we should give a voice to those concerns. Writing to your government, as zerogeoengineering.com suggests is a good way to register your opposition to SRM and other toxic geoengineering experiments. The web site is also a good source of information.

Indigenous groups like the Sámi people of Northern Sweden have spurred objections to “blocking out the sun with reflective particles to cool the earth” stopping the the SCoPEx project’s progress there. Swedish solidarity against the technology shows us protest can be powerful.

Blogging, making films, journalling our observations of the skies, presenting evidence, informing ourselves and our communities, making it clear we don’t consent to geoengineering programs, we improve our awareness and consciousness about our environment and make the urgent topic of geoengineering more visible. We also become part of the debate instead of feeling outside of it.

If you are in the medical profession, or a scientist, you can highlight the issues, in your societies and journals, as Giovanni Ghirga did in the British Medical Journal. Whatever our background, by informing ourselves we can be articulate, and act to confront the problems. By uniting across borders in opposition to destructive geoengineering, we can be a powerful force protecting our collective health, environment and future.

Featured image: designed by Sean Alexander Carney

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