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.

By Patricia Burke of Safe Tech International, with Sharon Noble

Psychology Today (‘Health, Help, Happiness, and Find a Therapist’) recently published a blog “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.

B.N. Frank responded with “Mental Health Magazine Mocks Federally Recognized Disability and “Havana Syndrome” Victims Receiving Gov’t Compensation” at Activist Post.

“EMF/RF/5G & Psychology Today: Humanity Must Take A Stand Against Ridiculing, Patriarchal, Discriminatory ‘HealthCare’ pointed to some of the subtle psychological tools used in the Psychology Today article and was published by Natural Blaze.

Sharon Noble also reached out to Psychology Today.

Sharon Noble Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Sharon Noble is a highly respected leader working on the issues of ‘Smart Meters, Cell Towers, Smart Phones, 5G and all things that radiate RF Radiation’ in Canada and worldwide with her colleagues at Coalition to Stop Smart Meters in British Columbia.

Her independent, non-industry investigations into smart meter fires and her research concerning smart meter opt out fees are highly valued ‘citizen science’ resources. She is a frequent guest on Canada’s “the Goddard Report.”

VIDEO: Few Health Studies Done on 5 G Risk. Sharon Noble – January 25, 2018

Sharon Noble Response to Psychology Today

“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.

And, yes, even electromagnetic sensitivity. How can a medical doctor purport to have expertise sufficient to write an article for such a prestigious journal and be so ignorant about the subject? How can Psychology Today publish it without having confirmed both his qualifications and the accuracy of the information about which he writes with such authority?

May I suggest that a redaction occur and in its place an article by a true expert on the topic such as Dr. Devra Davis (www.ehtrust.org) or Dr. Dominique Belpomme.

See his recent report “Why electrohypersensitivity and related symptoms are caused by non-ionizing man-made electromagnetic fields: An overview and medical assessment”

For your edification, here is a spreadsheet with hundreds of studies published and peer-reviewed since 2015 https://preventcancernow.ca/hundreds-of-recent-scientific-reports-show-harms-from-radiofrequency-radiation/

An immediate retraction of this blog would demonstrate a good faith effort to amend this seriously flawed article. – Sharon Noble

Are False Narratives Being Projected Onto 5G Opponents?

“Projection” has been identified in the psychology field as a defense mechanism.

‘Tin foil hats’ is an example.

Projection can be intentionally weaponized offensively, including scapegoating, for any number of reasons – for example, when monopoly industries fund academic researchers, when shareholders of media outlets own telecom stock, and when the media is dominated by telecom industry advertising.

Those raising questions and reporting harm associated with increasing juxtaposed exposures to artificial, man-made frequencies have previously been the recipients of earlier waves of projection and scape-goating, for example during the covid lockdowns. The narrative:

• portrayed 5G opponents as destructive, irrational extremists engaged in property destruction (burning telecommunications towers)
• made the claim that 5G opponents were afraid that the “5G waves were spreading covid” while diverting attention away from legitimate health and environmental concerns about RF exposure, including 5G millimeter wave technology
• implied that 5G activists were recklessly threatening health and public safety by interfering with emergency communications
• Implied that foreign, hostile interests were responsible for stoking unfounded fears

The media and official government channels provided no evidence that those responsible for reported fires had any previous connection to 5G opposition, for example, by participating in protest actions, or being involved in any established 5G opposition communities. As noted by Devra Davis in “Burning 5G Towers Across Europe is Harming Health, Wildlife And The Climate” “Without question, burning private property is a crime. This should be stopped. So should the degradation of our environment by untested technologies.”

The narrative that activist groups set fire to telecommunications infrastructure over fears about 5G spreading covid is an urban myth for which there has never been an independent review or investigation. Activist groups did, however, light candles during a day of action at the solstice during lockdown.

Why have false beliefs and conspiracy theories become so powerful?

On Sept. 1, the author of the Psychology Today article, Dr. Joe Pierre, will be giving a talk on the topic “Why have false beliefs and conspiracy theories become so powerful?” at the Commonwealth Club of California, which is supported by AT&T and the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, among others.

“False narratives pose a real danger to democracy, to our health, and to society.”  “In this first part of our series, Dr. Joe Pierre, health sciences clinical professor at UCLA and specialist in delusional thinking and conspiracy theories, will discuss the age-old psychological reasons that conspiracy theories and other false narratives have been successful throughout human history. He will also look at how false narratives have been noticeably empowered and accelerated during the past few years by COVID isolation and modern technologies, among other factors.”

It is unlikely that he will be discussing the case history of ridicule and discrimination towards individuals questioning prevailing narratives about radio frequencies and 5G, including the covid-fire narrative.

It is also unlikely that he will address the fact that during covid, connectivity became conflated with wireless and 5G, when hard-wired connections are safer, faster, more secure.

The delusional thinking behind current ‘safety testing’ for frequency-based technologies won’t be included, nor will the fact that increased energy consumption is required to support ‘faster. more powerful connections.

The recent study, “Evidence For A Health Risk By RF On Humans Living Around Mobile Phone Base Stations” most likely will not be addressed.

Nor will the French court order requiring a 4G antenna to be turned over cow health concerns, after milk production had dropped by 15-20% in the days following the antenna installation, and 40 of his 200 cows had died. “Philippe Molhérat, the mayor of Mazeyrat-d’Allier, who had previously authorised the antenna’s installation, testified in favour of the farmer.  He said that he feared “a catastrophe on a human level” and that his “concerns” were growing for the 1,500 inhabitants of his village.”

The August 2022 Court Ruling in the United Kingdom requiring an Education Health Care Plan (EHCP) for UK child on the basis of Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS) probably won’t be mentioned either.

Citizen Science Identifying Regulatory Gaps

In her presentation, ”Citizen Science as Key Components for Identifying Regulatory Gaps: Lessons from Love Canal, Exxon Valdez, Deepwater Horizon & Other Man‐Made Disasters,” Prof. Elizabeth Glass Geltman explained,

”In the past few years, a robust debate erupted within the scientific community as to the appropriate role of citizens in gathering and presenting scientific data for use in policy development. Most modern citizen science projects are designed by scientists and ask citizens to take part in gathering data using protocols established by the scientists. Citizen participation is used as a means to expand the number of subjects or samples while at the same time saving costs. While this model of citizen science is relatively new, the concept of citizenry gathering data to present to government and academic scientists because of health and other concerns in order to influence policy is not new.

For example, in 1979 the Love Canal Homeowners Association (LCHA) embarked on a study to present evidence of health concerns due to improper disposal of hazardous waste in their neighborhood. This study examines historical health studies conducted by citizen groups to present to government in order to identify regulatory gaps. The study compares the data gathered by citizens to the studies designed by experts in a variety of emergency settings including Love Canal, Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon. The study concludes that while citizens groups may have an inherent bias in gathering data, scientific bias also presented challenges from experts in ultimate study designs. In certain events such as the LCHA study in response to Love Canal, the citizen science was closer to real environmental health concerns than the study developed by the experts. The paper concludes by putting citizen science in a new context.”

As Sharon Noble noted, “Dr. Pierre is a psychologist and does not claim to have any education or experience relevant to the information he promoted in his blog. Psychology Today should be held responsible for allowing this to go under their banner. It seriously threatens their credibility.”

Scrutiny is advised about the weaponizing of terms used in the Psychology Today article, including ‘irrational,’ ‘conspiracy,’ ‘tin foil hat,’ ‘paranoia,’ ‘ mistrustful,’ and ‘vulnerable to misinformation,’ to dismiss citizen science.

Tremendous caution is required in an environment where decisions are being made to protect economic concerns, rather than human health and the environment, as was the case with the Berkeley Right to Know legal decision. “The Court said that the argument all comes down to dealing with the fact the FCC has to consider both the health and safety of people buying cellphones and the health and safety of the cellphone industry.”

As the Sesame Street song goes, “One of these things is not like the others.”