A plea to United Auto Workers and the auto industry- please don’t go down with the ship. We need someone to exit the off ramp.

Ever-evolving tech-driven auto industry innovation has created a litany of safety issues, for example unintended accelerations, leaking ABS modules, roll aways, keyless entry hazards, fires, and issues with airbags. As well as complaints about headlights that blind bicyclists, pedestrians, and other drivers.

Can we look a little bit further down the road? At the commonalities between the history of tobacco, opioids, and automobiles? Denial – not a river in Egypt?

Tobacco, Opioids, and Autos Oh My

Many consumers are too young to remember the tobacco wars, or the decades of uninformed social behaviors, or the lawsuits, or tobacco CEOs lying to Congress, or the denial of horrific pain and suffering, or the corruption of research that resulted in the term “tobacco science.”

Tobacco Litigation

“To understand the world, you must first understand a place like Mississippi”. – William Faulkner

A year ago, Lawyerinc.com published the 10 Biggest Tobacco Lawsuits in U.S. History.

“The tobacco industry is estimated to be worth $45.4 billion in the U.S. Over the years, there has been a continuous filing of lawsuits against tobacco companies by individuals, states, and the federal government. The first wave of lawsuits started in the 1950s when plaintiffs targeted negligent manufacturing, advertising, fraud, and violating states’ consumer protection rights. The second wave came in the 1980s lawsuits tobacco companies were accused of adding ingredients into tobacco products to make them addictive. The third wave [] started in the 1990s when plaintiffs pursued health damages and recovery of health care costs, as states sued on behalf of citizens. “The 1998 Master Settlement Agreement” revolutionized the legal world of tobacco.”  (edited for clarity)

Some of the “Top 10 Lawsuits Against Tobacco“

#6 Mississippi vs. the Tobacco Companies ($3.4 billion) In May 1994, Mississippi was the first state to sue tobacco companies [] The suit was filed by the state’s Attorney General Michael Moore. The case would serve as the basis on which the subsequent lawsuits filed by Texas and Florida would succeed. After its success [] 36 other states filed similar lawsuits.

# 3 Texas vs. Big Tobacco Companies ($15 billion) were sued for compensation for treating sick smokers for more than 25 years. The Texas Attorney General had filed the case in April of 1997. In his press statement, the A.G. stated that they had decided to Make Big Tobacco change how it does business. [] They knowingly targeted teenage smokers and took deliberate steps to hide the fraudulent marketing. The settlement was applauded by the then U.S. president, Clinton, who used the opportunity and urged congress to pass stringent laws to control malpractices by tobacco companies. The state announced that the monies would be used to revamp the state’s medical program and educate teenagers on how not to misuse cigarettes.

#1 46 U.S. states, District of Columbia $ Other Five U.S. Territories vs. the Tobacco Companies ($206 billion) In 1998 all attorneys of 46 U.S. states sued the American Tobacco Companies. The companies opted for an out-of-court settlement where they were to pay $206 billion. Also for the loss of local economies. The agreement came to be referred to as “The 1998 Master Settlement Agreement”. It targeted the Philip Morris, R.J Reynolds, Brown $ Williamson, and Lorillard companies. – Lawyerinc.com

The history of settlements may seem consoling. Do not be misled.

Most Tobacco Class Action Cases Failed

Most class action cases against tobacco manufacturers failed. We know why, at least in part. An enduring negative outcome of the tobacco wars is the “health” of the notorious “product defense” industry.

During litigation, “Tobacco manufacturers responded in full force, fighting each lawsuit and refusing to settle out of court. They relied on several defense strategies, arguing that: tobacco was not harmful to smokers; smokers’ cancer was caused by other factors; and smokers assumed the risk of cancer when they decided to smoke.

The tobacco companies prevailed in all of these early lawsuits.” – Source

(Sidenote: Was it actually the tobacco plant causing harm, or the chemicals added to cigarettes? )

One Lesson? Liability litigation cannot serve as a substitute for adequate independent regulation, premarket safety testing, post market surveillance, investigation of harm, integrity and justice.

The Failure of Tobacco Master Settlements, and Opioids

Policy analysts have been making comparisons between tobacco’s “1998 Master Settlement Agreement” and opioid litigation.

As reported by Harvard.edu “Allan Brandt, history of science scholar and ‘Cigarette Century’ author, says opioid negotiators should heed lessons from tobacco settlement.

As state and local officials weigh proposed multibillion-dollar settlements to resolve cases against Purdue Pharma, Johnson & Johnson, and other drug companies in the U.S. opioid epidemic, public health experts have noted a cautionary tale contained in the past and present of an even larger agreement.

In 1998, state governments reached a 25-year, $246 billion deal with the country’s largest tobacco companies. The staggering sum was intended to hold the industry accountable for the lethal effects of smoking and provide support for anti-tobacco programs. But the reality has been a “giant disappointment,” says Harvard’s Allan M. Brandt, author of “The Cigarette Century: The Rise, Fall, and Deadly Persistence of the Product that Defined America,” a Pulitzer Prize finalist in 2008. Despite the huge payout, much of the money has been diverted into initiatives that have nothing to do with smoking.

The $246 billion was used to fill budget gaps, build roads, and for other purposes; only very rarely was it used for any form of public health, let alone reducing tobacco use, treating those who were addicted, and protecting kids from becoming smokers. It’s become a notorious example of collecting a lot of funds through litigation, but not getting those funds to those who most need or deserve them. I think a lot of people have watched the emergence of the opioid litigation with the tobacco settlement cloud hanging over the proceedings.

They also must ensure people really understand the nature of addiction.” – Source

Yes, addiction.

How Much Harm Will Unfold if the Automobile Industry Is Misled by the Federal Government Regarding the Safety of Wirelessly Connected Cars and Roadways?

The infrastructure required by automobile manufactures to support smoking in vehicles consisted of an ashtray and a cigarette lighter (Let’s not forget, later needing to address roadway fires started by the careless disposal of cigarette butts.)

Connected and especially autonomous vehicles create the demand for an exponential increase in resources, energy, and environmental impact. The risks extend beyond local economies.

(Speaking of fires let’s not dismiss new resource demands from EV fires a. damaging roadways, b. damaging parking garages, c. excessive water consumption to extinguish battery fires, d. related cell tower and antenna collapses and fires.)

Radiofrequencies in Cars

Could auto industry workers seek confirmation that wireless applications and other “green” innovations are based on sound science, before proceeding further with connectivity, especially when “safety” is being invoked to justify additional wireless? (Remembering how cigarettes ‘treated’ a scratchy throat?) Could auto industry workers also oppose industry bullying, (for example, with the FAA and 5G), and abuse of power, human rights violations, and environmental damage at home and abroad? (Mining? Disposal?)

Testing Rats and Monkeys – for One Hour

Especially because, as Dr. Kent Chamberlain explains, theoretical radio frequency microwave radiation exposure limits were established on the basis of an hour-long study on rats and monkeys.

But the monkeys and rats were not driving on connected roadways or working in 5G factories.

4.1 Million Miles

Statista reports that “At just under 6.6 million kilometers in 2020 (approximately 4.1 million miles), the United States boasted the most extended road network worldwide.”

Should consumers and the labor force sit back and watch the wireless and automotive industry transition 4.1 million miles of roadway to connected-vehicle technology, based on 1996 safety assumptions?

“The high motor vehicle demand in the country fuels an active automotive industry. With over 1.53 trillion U.S. dollars in revenue from road vehicle and parts retail trade, the sector has swiftly recovered from the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the global automotive chip shortage and rising raw material prices are a challenge to the industry.” – Statista

In 2021, Kimberly Amadeo of The Balance wrote,”The Economic Impact of the Automotive Industry.” “In 2020, the U.S. automotive industry contributed 3% to the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). That’s $627 billion out of the total $20.93 trillion U.S GDP for that year between vehicle manufacturing and sales. On average, the industry employed 4.1 million people in the United States, as of Q1 2021.“

The scale of the consequences of proceeding on the basis of a house of cards is nearly unfathomable.

Video of Signals Transmitted From Passing Vehicles

Source: MMWave Learning FREE EMF Educational Series – 5G Radiation Webinar – August 15, 2023   Topics Include: The effects of EMF and mmWaves; The Health Effects of RF and mmWave Sources; Intro to the Safe and Sound Pro mmWave Meter, Different 5G frequencies and Measurement Protocols; New Discoveries of mmWave Sources; Hunting mmWave towers in Southern California (3:49.18)  

Captured Agencies

Like Mississippi’s history with tobacco, auto industry workers could take the lead in steering themselves and society off of the collision course created by a captured agency and industry insiders, fueled by product defense.

“Concealing health risks of exposure, misinforming other industries and the public, fraud and misrepresentation, breach of implied warranty, negligence, and conspiracy“

“The Health Consequences of Smoking —50 Years of Progress” “History of Tobacco Product Litigation” notes, “Although most class action cases against tobacco manufacturers have failed, plaintiffs have achieved some significant successes [ ]. One such success was a class action suit consisting of an estimated 60,000 nonsmoking flight attendants who had been exposed to tobacco smoke at work and had suffered diseases or disorders resulting from this exposure. The class members alleged that by concealing the health risks of exposure to tobacco smoke and misinforming the aviation industry and the public about these risks, the cigarette manufacturer defendants engaged in fraud and misrepresentation, breach of implied warranty, negligence, and conspiracy (Broin v. Philip Mor[1]ris, Inc., No. 91-49738 CA [22] [Fla., Dade Cty. Oct. 31, 1994], cited in 9.5 TPLR 2.147 [1994]).”

The Road to Autonomous Vehicles is Paved with 1996 Health Guidelines: President Bill Clinton and the Telecom Act of 1996

While former President Clinton reportedly applauded efforts to address malpractice by the tobacco industry and to protect children, did the Clinton administration unleash decades of negligent manufacturing, advertising, fraud, violating states’ consumer protection rights, addiction (including children) and violation of health rights – in drafting of the Telecommunications Act of 1996?

Yes.

Safety Research and Strategies, Will the Regs Catch Up To Vehicle Autonomy?

In 2019, the highly respected Safety Research & Strategies reported, “The generally accepted wisdom that driverless cars are the future and the future is now, has presaged an influx of investor dollars and ambitious plans to level up the fleet of vehicles with no driver controls. The optimism has been as unfettered as the regulatory landscape – which is to say that this Wild West has no sheriff.

In 2016, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced that its approach to this technological transition would be the light hand of guidance, and issued a list of vague conceptual statements. Last October, the Department of Transportation released its third iteration, Preparing for the Future of Transportation: Automated Vehicles 3.0. This brightly-colored, substance-free piece of public relations affirms NHTSA’s Orwellian view that although it has the authority to regulate automated driving systems, it shouldn’t. Check out some examples of NHTSA Newspeak in AV 3.0:

“The right approach to achieving safety improvements begins with a focus on removing unnecessary barriers and issuing voluntary guidance, rather than regulations that could stifle innovation.” (Fewer regulations equal more safety.)

“ADS developers are encouraged to use these safety elements to publish safety self-assessments to describe to the public how they are identifying and addressing potential safety issues.” (Industry-promulgated transparency is truth.)

“Delaying or unduly hampering automated vehicle testing until all specific risks have been identified and eliminated means delaying the realization of global reductions in risk.” (You must put yourself at risk to reduce risk.)

Indeed, the document is remarkable for its lack of attention to the most basic mandatory protections for the motoring public.”

The FCC and NHTSA collaboration is another example of a tech marriage made in hell.

The 2021 Ruling Against the FCC

In 2021, a ruling against the FCC was rendered in a consolidated case brought by the Environmental Health Trust and Children’s Health Defense.

If this were not the Wild West, the decision would have already had significant impacts.

“The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in the historic case EHT et al. v. the FCC that the December 2019 decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to retain its 1996 safety limits for human exposure to wireless radiation was “arbitrary and capricious.”  The court held that the FCC failed to respond to “record evidence that exposure to RF radiation at levels below the Commission’s current limits may cause negative health effects unrelated to cancer.” Further, the agency demonstrated “a complete failure to respond to comments concerning environmental harm caused by RF radiation.” The court found the FCC ignored numerous organizations, scientists and medical doctors who called on them to update limits and the court found the FCC failed to address these issues:

• impacts of long term wireless exposure
• impacts to children, 
• the testimony of people injured by wireless radiation, 
• impacts to wildlife and the environment 
• impacts to the developing brain and reproduction.” – Source

Who would give a loved one a drug if safety claims were based on theories from 1996, with no subsequent oversight or regulation? With reported harm? When ‘safety tested’ on an inanimate mannequin?

Should any industry or community be barred from questioning environmental and human health safety?

Should the auto industry be conducting human experimentation on its own workforce by using 5G in factories?

11,000 Pages of Evidence

The United Auto Workers can benefit from 11,000 pages of evidence submitted in 2019 and already reviewed by the Court in the 2021 ruling. Now there is more evidence of harm.

There are many researchers and experts ready to stand with those UAW workers who do not want to play a part in manufacturing unsafe vehicles, supporting unsafe infrastructure, and working in an unsafe workplace.

40 More Years? Let’s Not Wait That Long, The Cover-up Has Already Been Going on for a Long Time

“The Health Consequences of Smoking —50 Years of Progress” notes, “When the nation’s first Surgeon General’s report on smoking and health was released in 1964, litigation against cigarette manufacturers over the health effects of their products had been ongoing for 10 years. It would take 30 more years until tobacco litigation began to have a deep impact on the landscape of tobacco control.”

Do not follow the telecom industry mantra that “more research is needed.”

The cover-up of RF harm has already been going on for a very long time.

See the outstanding article: Paul Brodeur, The Original Microwave Pioneer Setting the Record Straight A Personal Tribute, by Louis Slesin of Microwave News.

Microwave Hearing and the Blood Brain Barrier

“Perhaps the best example of the effectiveness of the cover-up is what happened with two important effects: microwave hearing and increased leakage through the blood-brain barrier. Both were first demonstrated in the 1960s/70s by Allan Frey, an independent and iconoclastic scientist. Both are discussed in Zapping. Understanding them might help explain reports of everything from headaches to brain tumors. The effects remain unresolved —and are as controversial today as they were 50 years ago.” – Microwave News

The inanimate engineering dummy used for safety testing does not predict these effects.

2023: Nearly 50 Reckless Pro-Industry Federal Telecom Bills

As recently reported by the Environmental Health Trust, “Congress is considering nearly 50 bills in both chambers that, collectively, would promote significant proliferation of wireless antennas, radiation, and infrastructure across the country and in space.

Local governments would lose virtually all control over the placement of not just cell towers, but wireless antennas of all shapes and sizes. Your neighbors will be allowed to put a 199-foot cell tower in their front yard – along with two towers in their backyard and more antennas on their roof. Any apartment building could have unlimited attenders attached to it. And every street and sidewalk in America would be automatically approved for unlimited towers. A wide range of towers, antennas, and other communications facilities would be exempted from the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act.”

CLICK HERE to tell Congress to halt these bills and require that the FCC comply with a 2021 court order to review the science on wireless radiation.

List of nearly 50 bills: https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/EHT-federal-bills-promoting-wireless-10-2-23-2.pdf

A Hail Mary Pass

We need a Hail Mary pass.

Many wireless consumers are too young to remember quarterback Doug Flutie’s historic 1984 play against Miami. “They said it could not happen but it did.”

A short stretch of road between the Natick Mall and the Shoppers World in Natick/Framingham, Massachusetts is named “Flutie Pass” in his honor. Antenna search notes that there are 57 towers and 378 antennas within a 3.0 mile radius of 22 Flutie Pass, Framingham, MA 01701, United States. Tatnuck Magnet School in Worcester has 262 towers and 408 antennas within a 3.0 mile radius.

When is enough enough? When is it too much? Who decides?

It only takes one tower or antenna to destroy lives. A young person in Pittsfield MA, driven from home for over 1000 days, has been telling decision-makers for more than 3 years that regarding the FCC and safety, the emperor has no clothes.

The first car company (or any other industry) that stops lying to itself- and stops hiring mercenary liars to lie to the public about wireless safety – wins, on all levels.

“Sometimes it falls upon a generation to be great. You be that great generation. Let your greatness blossom. Of course the task will not be easy. But not to do this would be a crime against humanity, against which I ask all humanity now to rise up.” — Nelson Mandela

Learn More:

SaferEMR.com, Hybrid and Electric Car Radiation Risks https://www.saferemr.com/2014/07/shouldnt-hybrid-and-electric-cars-be-re.html

Physicians for Safe Technology, Cars: Driverless, Hybrid and Electric Risks Physicians for Safe Technology | Cars: Driverless, Hybrid and Electric Risks (mdsafetech.org)

Slide presentation by Sarah Aminoff of Safe Tech International on why newer cars can trigger electrosensitivity and how to purchase a lower EMF vehicle. There is a glaring need to measure and rate automobiles EMF emissions from sources of wireless RF as well as magnetic fields. EMF in New Cars, Rentals and Amtrak2 Slide Presentation

See also:

CLICK HERE to tell Congress to halt these bills and require that the FCC comply with a 2021 court order to review the science on wireless radiation.

Extra Credit: Read here about the “expert” for the tobacco and chemical industry, who worked for Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds for decades denying harm, who also went to work for the wireless industry, including justifying the “safety” of smart utility meters across the country, which are causing symptom onset and disability.

The regulatory agency in question is the FCC, which essentially is the industry. Has it thrown the UAW under the bus?

By Sarah Aminoff, Kate Kheel, and Patricia Burke of Safe Tech International, Images Courtesy Flo Freshman

Kent Chamberlin’s response to Psychology Today is anything but a “tin foil hat” rebuttal. Chamberlain critiques a blog article by Joe Pierre recently published in Psychology Today entitled “Tin Foil Hats: Tired Trope or Sign of the Times?”. The article is dismissive of many health effects regarding exposures to radio frequency radiation from cellphones, Wi-Fi, or cell towers etc.

Expert Critique of “Psychology Today” Blog

As both a representative of a state commission tasked with exploring the health and environmental effects of wireless radiation, and as a well-respected expert in the field, Professor Kent Chamberlin (PhD) is well-positioned to provide insightful comments to Psychology Today’s Editor in Chief.

Tin Foil Hat – History of Science, Spoof and Fiction

The tin foil hat trope that Joe Pierre refers to in Psychology Today has been around for decades and has been used to discredit those concerned about the health impacts of wireless radiation. But what is the actual history of this term, and what purpose does it serve in shaping public sentiment?

According to the website TV tropes: “When a writer wants to establish a character as a Conspiracy Theorist, a Crazy Survivalist, or another kind of paranoidCloudcuckoolander, they usually give them hats made out of tinfoil to wear, ostensibly to protect themselves from The Government‘s Mind Control rays.”

Science Fiction Origins of Tin Foil Hats

Tin foil hats were first referenced as protection against mind interference in the 1927 science fiction short story The Tissue-Culture King by Julian Huxley, which features caps made of foil that are used by the story’s protagonist to block telepathy, according to Business Insider.

Historical Fact, Not Fiction

“Microwave hearing” was discovered in the 1960s by military researcher Alan Frey. According to the Cellular Phone Task Force, “The “hearing,” [] didn’t happen via normal sound waves perceived through the ear. It apparently occurred somewhere in the brain itself, as microwaves interacted with the brain’s cells, which generate tiny electrical fields. Frey proved also that many deaf people and animals could hear microwave radiation. This phenomenon came to be known as the Frey effect, or simply “microwave hearing.”” (Frey also later reported that microwaves could induce “leakage” in the barrier between the circulatory system and the brain.)

Microwave hearing is a widely accepted medical phenomenon associated with RF exposure.

In 1962, Allen H. Frey discovered that the microwave auditory effect can be blocked by a patch of wire mesh (rather than foil) placed above the temporal lobe.

MIT Student Researchers and Tin Foil Hats: “Clearly the government must have started the tinfoil hat craze so it could more effectively spy on its citizens?”

In 2005, a group of MIT students found that tin foil hats do shield their wearers from radio waves over most of the tested spectrum, yet amplified certain frequencies, (as listed in the MIT catalogue of hacks.)

The IHTFP Gallery is dedicated to documenting the history of hacking at MIT. “The word hack at MIT usually refers to a clever, benign, and “ethical” prank or practical joke, which is both challenging for the perpetrators and amusing to the MIT community (and sometimes even the rest of the world!). Note that this has nothing to do with computer (or phone) hacking (which we call “cracking”). – http://hacks.mit.edu/

“In February 2005, some CSAIL graduate students “Published” a paper on the effect of tinfoil hats on blocking mind control satellites. They measured the attenuation of radio signals as a function of frequency and determined that certain frequencies which are reserved for government use are actually amplified by the tinfoil hats. Clearly the government must have started the tinfoil hat craze so it could more effectively spy on its citizens.”

The empirical study can be found here. 

Tin Foil Hat Styles: The Classical, the Fez, and the Centurion

The MIT students, prodded by “a desire to play with some expensive equipment,” tested the effectiveness of foil helmets at blocking various radio frequencies,” according to this Atlantic article.  “Using two layers of Reynolds aluminum foil, they constructed three helmet designs, dubbed the Classical, the Fez, and the Centurion, and then looked at the strength of the transmissions between a radio-frequency signal generator and a receiver antenna placed on various parts of their subjects’ bare and helmet-covered heads. “

According to the Atlantic, “While the underlying concept is good, the typical foil helmet fails in design and execution. An effective Faraday cage fully encloses whatever it’s shielding, but a helmet that doesn’t fully cover the head doesn’t fully protect it. If the helmet is designed or worn with a loose fit, radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation can still get up underneath the brim from below.” 

The Atlantic article further mentions, “The helmets shielded their wearers from radio waves over most of the tested spectrum. (YouTube user Mrfixitrick likewise demonstrates the blocking power of his foil toque against his wireless modem), but to his surprise, it amplified certain frequencies: those in the 2.6 Ghz (allocated for mobile communications and broadcast satellites) and 1.2 Ghz (allocated for aeronautical radionavigation and space-to-Earth and space-to-space satellites) bands.”

Here’s an Actual Tech Update About Actual Shielding

Fast forward to 2021. Instead of tin foil hats being researched by MIT students, researchers are looking at “Electromagnetic Shielding Properties of Knitted Fabric Made from Polyamide Threads Coated with Silver.” If researchers are pouring money into investigating “a textile material of low surface mass for its protection against electromagnetic radiation (EMR)” then why exactly would concern about radio frequency exposures be ridiculed by the likes of Psychology Today?

Public Awareness and Policy Has Yet to Catch Up to The Science

The “tin foil” hat meme used by psychologist Dr. Pierre indicates that public awareness has not yet caught up to the science. EMF exposures are not science fiction, but science fact. And as Kent Chamberlin shares in his letter to Psychology Today, “There are many actions that can be taken to protect people from radiation exposure, but that will not happen until the risks are acknowledged.” 

Kent Chamberlin concludes his letter offering a helpful suggestion to Psychology Today.

“Your publication is highly regarded, and it has a broad reach.  This provides an opportunity to bring about significant changes in your field.  As an example, you might want to consider running a series of articles covering the neuropsychiatric effects of wireless radiation, approaches used by medical professionals to diagnose those effects, means for lowering wireless radiation exposure, and how to integrate radiation exposure issues into a counseling practice.”

Additional commentary was submitted to Psychology Today about the blog ridiculing individuals regarding their physiology and/or a medical diagnosis, by Magda Havas of Trent University, here.

“My objection, in addition to name calling–which is a form of bullying–is based on science as I have been working with people who have an intolerance to electromagnetic frequencies for decades.”

Fellow Canadian Frank Clegg of Canadians for Safe Technology (C4ST) also addressed the derogatory use of the term “tin foil hats” by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau earlier this year. 

“[ ] there are Canadians who are adversely affected by exposure to wireless radiation, experiencing headaches, sleep disturbances, heart abnormalities and other adverse effects when over exposed to wireless devices. Many are physician diagnosed. These include people from all walks of life and sadly, also children. Some are unable to work and have lost their homes and are on disability benefits. The term “tin foil hatters” is sometimes used for these individuals. This can only further marginalize them as well as being hurtful.”

With growing evidence of risks to safety, security, sustainability, privacy, health, environmental justice, and human rights, the tin foil hat ‘trope’ is no longer a clever, benign, ethical prank or practical joke.

The time is long overdue for science, public policy and the media to cease the ridicule – and with humility, to remove their unseemly dunce caps.

As reported in late August by Safe Tech International, Psychology Today recently published a blog post, Tin Foil Hats: Tired Trope or Sign of the Times? From clothing to electronic devices, modern-day tin foil hats are big business,’ by Joe Pierre M.D.

Request for ‘Psychology Today’ to Retract ‘Conspiracy Theory Expert’ View of ‘Electrohypersensitivity’ includes commentary by safety advocate Sharon Noble of Coalition to Stop Smart Meters in British Columbia. “How can a magazine supposedly dedicated to helping people with emotional problems, to educating and enabling communication about such important issues allow an article that mocks and ridicules science? For decades scientists have researched and reported on the biological effects of wireless radiation, yet Dr. Pierre is totally unaware of the 1000s of studies. Effects range from tinnitus and brain fog, cardiac irregularities to neurological problems and cancers.“

Kent Chamberlin

As first reported by the respected Australian site EMF Facts Consultancy, Kent Chamberlin contacted the editor-in-chief of Psychology Today.

Kent Chamberlin PhD, Professor & Chair Emeritus, Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of New Hampshire, was a member of the bipartisan commission formed in the state of New Hampshire to explore the health and environmental effects of wireless radiation. He notes that he himself was initially dismissive of concerns, before reviewing the science. The final report of the state commission is here.  

Dr. Chamberlin’s correspondence sent to the Editor-in-Chief of Psychology Today can be found here.

In the letter, Dr. Chamberlin wrote:

Facilitating the spread of information that does not accurately portray real risks, as is the case with Dr. Pierre’s article, could easily be construed as a violation of the Hippocratic Oath. The information presented in the article is misleading and incomplete and has the very real potential to result in harm.

And in conclusion:

I end this letter with a positive suggestion. Your publication is highly regarded, and it has a
broad reach. This provides an opportunity to bring about significant changes in your field.
As an example, you might want to consider running a series of articles covering: the neuropsychiatric effects of wireless radiation, approaches used by medical professionals to diagnose those effects, means for lowering wireless radiation exposure, and how to integrate radiation exposure issues into a counseling practice. I can assist in finding qualified individuals to address each of these issues, and I am happy to meet with you to discuss.

Magda Havas

Since the 1990s, Dr. Havas’s research focuses primarily on the biological effects of electromagnetic pollution including radio frequency radiation, electromagnetic fields, dirty electricity, and ground current. Dr. Havas works with diabetics as well as with individuals who have multiple sclerosis, tinnitus, chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia and those who are electrically hypersensitive. She also conducts research on sick building syndrome as it relates to power quality in schools. Dr. Magda Havas, of Trent University, Canada, received her B.Sc. in Biology and PhD in Environmental Toxicology at the University of Toronto. Her PhD was in the Canadian Arctic at the Smoking Hills, along the coast of Cape Bathurst. She is renowned for her research in acid rain, in addition the electro-smog.

Dr. Havas’s Letter to the Editor of Psychology Today is here.

In the letter Dr. Havas wrote:

My objection, in addition to name calling–which is a form of bullying–is based on science as I have been working with people who have an intolerance to electromagnetic frequencies for decades. We have also done studies with plants and, presumably, their response isn’t psychosomatic either. My research is focused on identifying objective biophysical markers of EHS (Electrohypersensitivity) and I give lectures for Continuing Medical Education (CME) credit to doctors and health care providers on this topic. Here is some of the evidence that EHS is a real biophysical/biochemical response to the stress brought on by (blinded) exposure to EMF/EMR.

Dr. Havas provided the magazine with references and resources regarding exposures and diabetes, M.S., heart rate variability, blood viscosity, and EHS.

An earlier commentary on the controversial blog post published by Psychology Today that identifies some of the subtle psychological aspects of tin foil marginalization can be found here.