Remembering Nearfield: A review by Karen Churchill

The audio-visual impact of gates suddenly slamming shut shortly after the harmonious and beautiful piano recital introducing the film makes for a powerful and pertinent introduction to a vitally important story about electrohypersensitivity (EHS).

The text bubbles bracketing this early scene jumped out, clearly depicting a core dilemma doctors across the world face, to research, acknowledge and diagnose or deny? To what extent does the industry hype influence professional objectivity? 

These elements appearing together early in the film strongly commanded my attention and I felt inspired and encouraged at how the filmmaker, Sean A. Carney, established focus on this disabling health condition with his precise story telling in a digestible and contemporary form. The film offers vital corroboration and support to all those still in the process of connecting their debilitating symptoms to “near-field” exposure from wireless radiation and dirty electricity. 

I have personally observed my dear friend experiencing EHS cycle through phases of tentative acceptance back into denial with accompanying relapses of unbearable symptoms, before fully embracing the precautionary changes necessary to avoid EMF exposures, as best as he can, in his efforts to secure a modicum of health. This process was devastating to him, as he, like the main character in “Remembering Nearfield”, had no choice but to leave his well-loved job and seek an alternative career to his much loved role in technology in order to continue to support his family, whilst grieving the his loss of freedom to engage fully in life. 

The denial of electrohypersensitivity by the public but particularly from officials is tragic. Many of the over four thousand donors to the Actionagainst5g Judicial Review legal case, which is challenging to the UK government’s failure to inform the public of the risks of wireless radiation, report that they obtain impersonal, robotic, disengaged replies from officials. These cold dismissals of their painful experience of electrohypersensitivity exacerbates their personal suffering and amplifies their concern for the collective. This film could serve to comfort them and reduce their sense of isolation. I think the civil servants, judges, and regulators should see this film and for they may become stirred to rethink before penning yet another template letter of detached denial of the condition.

“Remembering Nearfield” excellently portrays the invisible toxin – man-made EMFs ­– at work; the staccato and cloudy overlays effectively evoke the environmental electro-smog and sense of brain fog and disconnected thinking. The pulsing red rings upon the body and vignettes of clumping blood invite further questioning as to what exactly the effects of the radiation are at the cellular level. 97% of all studies show that radiofrequency radiation causes oxidative stress, an important fact ready to discover amongst many others which validate the toxic impact of anthropogenic EMFs on the nervous system.

The film styling and clever simplicity will appeal to a wide age-range including teens and twenties which is significant as the younger generations are particularly vulnerable; they may have no memory of life without the blanket coverage of EMFs and so cannot make a sensory comparison between an environment soaked in the so-called non-ionising radtiation and one without.

Many people may, up until viewing this film, be completely unaware that there can be negative consequences of exposure to the radiation emissions from their mobile devices. Many may not have easy access to accurate information about EHS, or know how they might personally contribute to caring for those suffering from it. Such information is not available via the school curriculum nor sufficiently obvious in the Google search results which are unfortunately peppered with industry propaganda and in some cases, support ridicule of the condition. Simple adjustments can reduce the near-field exposures that can harm, such as turning off a mobile phone during shared activities, a gesture that could mean inclusion rather than exclusion for those sensitive to the electromagnetic fields.

Industry and governments worldwide continue to promote suspicion and doubts over the science which reveals the physiological foundation of electrohypersensitivity, which sadly was a tactic used to neutralise public anxieties about the dangers of smoking. 

“Remembering Nearfield” relates true documentary experience of exposure to this EMF toxin and highlights the true state of the current science. With the potential to catalyse awareness of the risks the film could potentially save many from undue suffering.

The audience, if inspired to research further, will discover peer reviewed scientific studies indicating harms to fertility and immunity, mechanisms of DNA breaks, altered cellular membrane permeability, and nerve damage, all of which have been effectively downplayed. Positive provocation studies exist proving electro-sensitives can “sense” wireless radiation in double blind conditions, but these studies are ring-fenced by lengthy complicated statements by regulators emphasising cherry picked research to support their preferred claims of safety.

Electrosensitives, our canaries in the coal mine, could be respected and cared for, like other disabled people in our society, but instead they are incarcerated in limited lives. Their life limitations are fully and succinctly conveyed by Carney in this film, as is the need for low and no EMF environments, such as white zones.

I hope the ambulance siren near the end of the film, which well illustrates the point that antenna hosted on hospitals flips their function to disaster zones for electro-sensitives, will also serve as a general siren call to the pierce through the industry illusion that “faster” wireless tech is “better” and safe.

“Remembering Nearfield” relates valuable information that complements resources accessible from Safe Tech International and phiremedical.org which both invite precaution and contemplation in the pursuit of technological progress, and spell out the multiple detriments of wireless radiation.

Congratulations Sean A. Carney for bringing this urgent issue to the fore.

Karen Churchill

Second Claimant UK Judicial Review Actionagainst5G

Karens bio

After completing a degree in psychology, astronomy and physiology, I worked as a computer systems analyst for nine years but had to take early retirement due to a diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome. I later completed training in vibrational medicine. I do not know to what extent the office environment surrounded by computer equipment contributed to my diagnosis, but I very much align with the scientist and doctor signatories on the EMF Appeal who advocate for precaution and for reconsideration of relying solely on the ICNIRP guideline for public health protection. I am very moved by the plight of those whose lives are severely curtailed due to debilitating symptoms in the presence of wireless radiation. After having advocated locally for them to be considered in decision making re 5G mast siting, I realised how the policy to press ahead was domineering any true democratic process. This inspired me to team up with two co-claimants to challenge the UK government about their legal obligations in relation to managing and communicating the risks of wireless radiation.