Exit humans, enter robots?

Drones and humanoid robotic machines equipped with Artificial Intelligence (AI) are on the rise. At the same time a significant population crisis is on the horizon. This investigation recognises how the penetration of “intelligent” technologies, role of population planning, and post-pandemic policy implementations – serving the rapid development of data-driven “smart” societies based on sustainability politics – are all contributing to an unfolding population crisis and health impacts that favours the rise of robots.

According to demographers at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) this population crisis could “completely reconfigure the global economy and international balance of power – and will necessitate the reorganising of societies”. It has been suggested that, as this is a population replacement crisis, technology will be a part of the replacement crisis “solution.” It is anticipated that “AI and automation will…pick up the slack”, as the Financial Times puts it.

5G networks integrating cloud and AI digitalisation are already creating the foundations for artificial life to bloom and assert its influence on our populations – but at what cost? Is all of the “blue sky” thinking concerning implementations of robots and artificial intelligence really for solving society’s problems, or to sustain mega-profits and questionable political gains that ultimately fragment the populace and, quite possibly, dismantle democracies? Significant issues deserve our attention, as our future’s trajectory becomes massively influenced by the politics of AI and robotics.

Robots and the workplace

Replacing humans with robots is becoming a norm. Artificial Intelligence (AI) fuels forms of robotics that are displacing humans across the spectrum of employment. MIT researcher and economist Daron Acemoglu’s finding that adding a robot to the workforce can replace around 6 people represents a concerning prospect. The increasing abilities of robots, is also driving the replacement factor.

Goldman Sachs Research “…points out that there’s been significant progress in end-to-end AI, through which models can train themselves, removing the need for a human engineer to code everything by hand. That’s speeding up robot development, allowing these devices to do more tasks and adapt to new situations (such as working outside of factories) more quickly.” You can see the 2024 Goldman Sachs report on Global Automation, here.

Supporters in favour boosting robot numbers and responsibilities in the workplace often spin the developments as a “good thing” for society. For instance, the World Economic Forum reports that many “…robots are managing jobs that have high-accident rates or long-term health consequences for humans.” While it is recognised there may be positives to robots handling dangerous tasks, the comprehensive deployment of robots and automation in other areas of employment accelerates the process of replacing people with technology.

According to The Conversation, “…surveys show AI researchers overwhelmingly agree AI will achieve human-level “thinking” within this century.” It becomes ever more apparent that the replacement of humans in various roles will be continually reinforced.

Robots and AI automation may help many manufacturers streamline production, and save a fortune in insurance and benefits and other relative “human” costs. However, from factory workers, to teachers, to drivers and surgeons, to the fields of agriculture, medicine, and environmental management, for example, the reality is that automation will not only exponentially increase unemployment, but threaten a range of skills (including the emotional and social skills that make us human). Beyond the seductive scenarios advanced by industry, robotic automation spells trouble for society with humans gradually left unable to compete with this technology in many sectors.

According to Future Learn, the business network PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited (PwC) predicts that up to 30% of jobs could be automated by robots by the mid-2030s. Recently, entrepreneur Elon Musk announced that he wants 1 billion humanoid robots in the workforce by 2040. If actualised, that would mean that around 6 billion jobs would disappear, based on what is suggested by the research finding of MIT’s economist, Acemoglu.

As AI increasingly impacts the workplace and is poised to “pick up the slack” for a declining population, wouldn’t that feasibly sustain lower populations – indefinitely in developed countries? And, possibly even sustain further population decline? After all, a robot doesn’t have human costs, needs or limits, and are considered assets that defy illnesses and mortality as they replace human labour. Generally, in the political climate of “sustainability” governments in progressive Western technological societies aren’t encouraging larger native human populations, with the “demographic shifts” happening, trends are towards artificial population replacement (elevating the influx of migrants, refugees, and strategic deployments of AI / robots, for example).

Challenges of depopulation, social transformation, and the rise of robots

The UN, which deeply guides policies of its member states to pursue technological goals, believes, “…high population densities accelerate disease spread and strain already overburdened health services” – according to populationmatters.org. The UN encourages lower populations, which has been more successfully achieved in developed countries. It’s the bitter “logic” of the UN’s sustainability drive that populations are now creating more robots than people to facilitate increased automation.

The United Nations (UN) now guides developed societies with shrinking populations to transition into robotised smart cities monitored and automated by AI. According to earth.org, “Since the Sustainable Development Goals’ (SDGs) establishment in 2015, numerous engineers have developed robots to help nations accomplish their sustainability goals.”

The alignment of technology to sustainability goals gives a green light to industry to help the UN and its specialised agency for information and communication technologies, the ITU (International Telecommunication Union) realise a digital future dominated by robots that assist in managing the population.

Automation may eventually destroy the social fabric of our society over time. As Monash University (MU) states, “After liberating us from “uncreative”, routine work and rote repetition, digital automation promises to relieve us of creativity and sociality itself – of the decisions that embody and reproduce our social and political commitments.“

MU also observes that, as society embraces increased AI automation, decision-making processes are becoming centralised and controlled. As “the decision-making process itself is being automated, we should be wary of the concentration of power in the hands of those who control the databases and write the algorithms. They’ll be deciding not just how products get built, but how society runs.“

The UN is deciding how society “runs” through the policy-building 2030 Agenda that sustains this politically motivated trajectory towards digital automation, bringing “together experts, policy-makers and business leaders”.

It is interesting how the UN’s Population Division has influenced population reduction in developed member states (which are rapidly developing digital technologies and AI powered robots – with some robots becoming almost “human-like” in their “biomimicry”) yet in underdeveloped countries, like Africa, the populations are above replacement levels with a population enjoying improved mortality rates.

“The [UN’s] Population Division has created and maintains a comprehensive World Population Policies Database , going back to the mid-1970s….Monitoring of government views and policies on population issues is important for tracking progress in the implementation of the Programme of Action of the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development, and other internationally agreed development goals that are related to population, including the Sustainable Development Goals.”

The Hoover Institute posits that Africa will “be the source of virtually all labor force growth in the world, and by far the youngest region, in the 21^st century.” The population may “reach 2.5 billion by 2050….growing to 4.5 billion by 2100.”

A significant population decline by comparison is expected to impact developing countries where supplementing native populations with “displaced peoples” and “replacement migration” – as well as synthetic appropriations – to help manage society, is on the cards.

It is also expected that the UK’s natural population is expected to start declining by 2025 according to the Office of National Statistics (ONS), where “deaths will surpass births two decades earlier than expected….” as reported in the Financial Times in 2022. In this climate of population decline it is worth noting that robotisation in society brings further social and demographic repercussions.

A study published by The Journal of Human Resources has found that, in “regions that were more exposed to robots…marital fertility declined” for there was a decrease in the number of marriages. It was highlighted that this occurred because robots reduce gender wage gaps and so diminish the value of men in the marriage market by increasing the relative economic status of women. A study published by Elsevier titled Robots, gender economic opportunities and household adjustment: Evidence from China clarifies that, “These technologies [robots, AI, Automation] primarily replace low-skilled, physically demanding jobs traditionally held by men, thereby improving employment opportunities for women….[which] correspondingly diminishes their satisfaction with the economic and domestic contributions of men within the household, thereby shifting their priorities toward career advancement rather than marriage and childbirth.”

Such studies show that populations exposed to robots experience a significant lowering the fertility rate (which drives population reduction). The role of robot technology in global depopulation, and also fertility enhancement, cannot be underestimated.

Researchers at the Institute for Integrative Nanosciences at IFW Dresden has developed a technology called “Spermbots” which they want to replicate inside the human body to propel sperm using “tiny robot suits that can help sperm become more mobile”. The technology is classified as “assisted reproduction” and targets couples struggling to conceive. According to ScienceAlert “These ‘spermbots’ are miniature metal helixes just large enough to completely wrap around the tail of a single sperm and help it along its way towards the egg. The bots are powered with the assistance of a magnetic field controlled by the scientists.”

Such innovations, which also pave the way for the development of “robotic micro-systems”, are sold as helping solve population issues. However, introducing nanotechnology into the reproduction process attached to cells in the reproduction cycle represents increasing steps towards the infiltration of electromagnetically powered nano-robots into the human body that sets disquieting precedents, and are not without risks.

The hazards of nanobots in the body are being studied. Man-made electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from wireless infrastructure and devices are known to negatively affect sperm motility, and fertility. Ironically, motility, and fertility are the problems “being addressed” by these “wireless” nanobots. Introducing artificial electromagnetic fields for propulsion and monitoring of the bots clearly represents a health risk.

Other risks have been highlighted in a study titled Environmental and health risks of nanorobots: an early review, including “…(i) the use of hazardous materials and UV light in nanorobots, and (ii) the loss of propulsion/targeting control.” The long term health impacts of nanorobots and robotic micro-systems on human populations are unknown, yet the impacts could be significant, and push humanity towards a transhuman existence with AI and nanobots being used to constantly monitor human bodies.

Ray Kurzweil, Google’s Director of Engineering believes, “One application of these medical nanorobots will be to extend our immune systems. These robots will also go into the brain and provide virtual and augmented reality from within the nervous system rather than from devices attached to the outside of our bodies.” Source.

A race to robotise society: The dawn of humanoid robots and Society 5.0

According to McKinsey & Company, “The AI revolution is not in its infancy, but most of its economic impact is yet to come.” Some societies are more economically predisposed to welcome the rise of robots (or even biosynthetic life), like Japan for example which has suffered economic decline since the 1990s, and more recently this has been exacerbated owing to natural disasters, political problems and a worsening demographic situation.

As population prospects worsen, the concept for a “better” future has been developed, focusing on the Japan’s alignment with the UN’s sustainable development goals (SDGs) to transition the country to a digitalised “Society 5.0”.

The “sustainability” pathway believed essential for Japan’s economic “recovery” is also a road to a post-human future which buys into technological augmentation and the data-driven “smart” society promoted by the UN, a symbol of humanity’s closer alignment with technology, blurring the lines between cyberspace and physical existence.

With robot penetration into society heralding problems for marriage (already a problem in Japan, with the value and identity of men in crisis) and sustaining demographic problems (with increasing numbers of Japanese men migrating as a result), Society 5.0 could lead Japan into deeper social and economic upheavals. However, the “blue sky” message of “sustainability” has been effective in drawing Japanese society into the UN’s vision of the globalist, robotised future.

Society 5.0, according to UNESCO is the “super-smart society…as it envisions a complete transformation of our way of life….Society 5.0 will help to overcome chronic social challenges such as an ageing population, social polarization, depopulation and constraints related to energy and the environment….autonomous vehicles and drones will bring goods and services to people in depopulated areas.” That is a very polite way of saying that “cyber-physical” systems and other technologies will replace face-to-face human interactions, while replacing vast numbers of human beings and human labour. Cyber-physical systems refers to robots and automation, both controlled by wireless networks and real-time data processing.

With technology expected to drive economies in need of “post-pandemic” recovery, Japan won’t be the only society embracing accelerated technological transformations. The ultimate consequences of societal transformation could push humans closer to a “transhuman” existence, the ultimate biosynthetic merging of society with the machine “nervous system”. Integrated Information Theory (IIT) already posits that humans are heading for a “hive mind” resulting from a merging of all minds and data, which has been called a “singularity.” As The Conversation notes, “Hypothetically, if a hive mind were to emerge, one could imagine it would mark the end of individuality and the institutions that rely on it, including democracy.”

All of this is possible, and societies following the UN’s lead (through accepting the stipulations of the “sustainability” goals and “climate change” narrative) are on track to that future.

Humanoid robots for the world

What is a robot is in today’s terms, and, what developments are under way to “sustain” them in the “smart city” society?

According to Future Learn, today’s “Robotic systems can be defined as interconnected, interactive, cognitive and physical tools that are able to perceive the environment using sensors, reason about events, make plans using algorithms implemented in computer programs, and perform actions enabled by actuators.’ 

The “humanising” of robots matters in tomorrow’s world. Developments in China have resulted in “human-like” robots with nuanced facial expressions becoming almost indistinguishable from human citizens in the near future.

Already, “Companies across the world are in a tight race to develop the best suitable robot that can give us human-like feel” according to Interesting Engineering. It’s the perfect camouflage for robots to bend into society, but will humanoid biomimicry bring more acceptance of robots in our midst?

As populations are set to decline, and as robots are politically elevated for an increasing role in our world, so-called “bio-inspired” robots (with some developments now incorporating human skin) seem likely to proliferate and are likely candidates to supplement the original human population seamlessly. Their convincing human appearance may overcome the intimidating appearance of the rigid metallic humanoids that resemble something like “Terminator”.

5G and emerging 6G wireless infrastructure (sensors and networks – the nervous system of AI) promises to give robots (including devices and appliances) a shared electronic consciousness (hive mind) courtesy of the internet and the cloud, making real-time analyses of data possible, where robots and devices make independent decisions.

Data-driven “smart” societies like Communist China politically operate like a “hive mind” as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) regards individuality as a threat. This “threat” is largely neutralised by China’s utilisation of AI technology and automation to manage society. China intends to lead the current technological race towards a robotised society. Can we expect anything other than the domination of robots?

Prospects of this seem likely in technological societies where fertility rates have been lowered and a population crisis is playing out. China has an “irreversible” fertility decline, one that could more than halve the population. As ABC reports “the population is aging mainly because the birth rate is falling.” China’s economy is set to weaken, and “this weakness will present challenges to the world’s economic recovery”. China’s answer to the potential challenges? Robots.

China is aggressively pursuing labour automation to raise productivity despite a shrinking population, and is set to supply the world with “humanoid” robots and the components for building them. Source.

Fortune Business Insights has its eye on the global market and says “the market for humanoid robots is projected to grow from USD 3.28 billion in 2024 to USD 66.0 billion by 2032.” These robots are “entering into the real world for various applications such as research, space exploration, personal assistance caregiving, education and entertainment, among others.”

According to the centre for International Governance Innovation, “… robots are now increasingly capable of…complex human tasks. Unlike specialized industrial robots, humanoid robots can be designed for general purpose application across a range of working environments. This includes agriculture, manufacturing, mining, health care, education, entertainment and even defence…Chinese planners hope to control the global supply of core components for the robotics industry by 2025 and achieve global dominance in the manufacture of humanoid robots by 2027.”

A world made for robots, or of robots?

We are witnessing the emergence of forms of artificial life relying on “data.” Known generically as robots they are also referred to as “cyber-physical” systems (CPS). Martin Rees (Emeritus Professor of Cosmology and Astrophysics at the University of Cambridge) states, when asked if robots will take over the world, “…we are increasingly dependent on computer networks…” and “…these could behave like a single ‘brain’ with a mind of its own, and with goals that may be contrary to human welfare.”

Katherine Richardson PhD, an anthropologist of robots believes, “…as a culture we tend to imagine they [autonomous machines, robots] are greater and more powerful than they really are and subsequently they become so.” Source.

It is always being suggested to us, especially by the media, that digitalisation, AI, and robots empower society for a “sustainable future”, or “economic growth”, for example – but it is also reasonable to assume that they may also disempower society. AI experts have warned us of the non-negligible chance that human extinction could be caused by AI.

This existential risk hasn’t discouraged the appetite for “robotic ecosystems” that are changing our world, driven by entrepreneurship, wealth and investment. As Built In reports, “In light of recent investments, the dawn of complex humanoid robots may come sooner than later. AI robotics company Figure and ChatGPT-maker OpenAI formed a partnership that’s backed by investors like Jeff Bezos. Under the deal, OpenAI will likely adapt its GPT language models to suit the needs of Figure’s robots. And microchip manufacturer Nvidia revealed plans for Project GR00T, the goal of which is to develop a general-purpose foundation model for humanoid robots. These announcements come in the wake of Elon Musk and Tesla introducing the humanoid robot Optimus in 2022, although the robot is still being trained.” Musk anticipates selling the “Tesla Optimus Robots” for an estimated $20,000 per unit – according to Fox Business. 

If it seems that our world is made for robots. Another factor drives the appetite for robotic ecosystems. The International Federation for Robotics (IFR) highlights that “…the integration of robots and robotics technologies is emerging as a powerful tool in contributing to the achievement of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).”

This situation was being prepared for, politically, decades ago. The UN’s Brundtland Report of 1987 (a.k.a. Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development) urged a “global agenda for change.” This document gave birth to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of UN Agenda 2030. It described various crises that would afflict society and how technology would be aspirational, yet also prove to be a double-edged sword for humanity.

A section of the report titled “The Interlocking Crises” expounds the familiar idea that technology is here to save the planet. The report also acknowledges that technology is also a gamble with our planet’s future. It stated that, “A mainspring of economic growth is new technology, and while this technology offers the potential for slowing the dangerously rapid consumption of finite resources, it also entails high risks, including new forms of pollution and the introduction to the planet of new variations of life forms that could change evolutionary pathways.”

Changing evolutionary pathways

Technology advancements since the Brundtland Report of 1987 have connected half of the global population to a wireless-powered artificial ecosystem of telecommunications networks and data servers referred to as “the cloud”. Some have called it a “nervous system for the earth.” This evolving synthetic organism (of multiple networks of automation and cyber-physical systems) may eventually eclipse the native spectrum of life on our planet.

Today, the earth, oceans and skies are being drawn into the data-gathering “nervous system.” The Internet of Underwater Things (IoUT) and the Internet of Flying Things (IoFT) and Internet of Space Things (IoST) are in progress as component projects within the “mother” datafication project, the Internet of Things (IoT). Space X is launching 250 5G satellites to assist in the transformation of our world into a wireless taxonomy of trackable objects and lifeforms.

The earth’s atmosphere is under artificial transformation. Its native electromagnetic fields are infringed upon by artificial industrialised ones (like 5G) which are powering the wireless digitalised surveillance economy dependent on the IoT for Big Data and Machine Learning. ALAN (Artificial Light At Night) is a global disruptor causing significant ecological impacts. These significant, widespread artificial adjustments caused by digital technology are registered by the earth’s native life forms, playing havoc with their biological sensitivities as the world caters increasingly to the prospect of introducing more and more digital devices and intelligent machines – predominantly in countries facing the prospect of sharp population declines.

Collectively we might call these artificial biological and ecological impacts an act of concerted modification, the effect of which has been to reduce and weaken native species (including humans) with unprecedented exposures to radiofrequency transmitting devices, CO2-reducing geoengineering projects, and LED radiation pollution – all of which are scientifically known to change the longevity, behaviour and fertility of ecosystems, and populations, yet persist in the public imagination as “sustainable” technologies.

The unfolding side-effects, such as the declination of species and a plethora of other negatives, continue to be widely neglected, remaining at the periphery of societal consciousness. Light pollution, exacerbated by the excessive light spill and glare from LED street lights, car headlamps and electronic screens, affects us in very specific ways. It targets hormone levels, ultimately destroying sleep, and fertility, by hampering reproduction. Source. Similar effects take their toll in the natural world’s ecosystems. In insect ecosystems, for example, light pollution is a recognised driver of species decline.

“Sustainable Development” goals drive not the emancipation of societies, but dependency on technologies that will modify and take-over societies, even reduce their populations. Yet, society believes all of these technological changes are the product of eco-wisdom guiding us to a sustainable utopia. However, society is in danger, and 5G and LED lighting is only the tip of the iceberg.

No-one knows this more than Gro Harlem Brundtland who chaired the Brundtland Report. She helped introduce society to the concept of “sustainable development” in 1987, paving the way for our current digital paradigm and its acceleration. However, she has discovered that the EMF radiation from technology brings unexpected consequences, and has come to accept that the wireless radiation powering the “sustainable” technological paradigm is a significant threat to her health.

Brundtland is a medical doctor and Master of Public Health (MPH), who faired as Prime Minister of Norway (1981–1996), as well as becoming director-general of the World Health Organization. She is convinced “of the link between health and the environment.” She has openly challenged WHO’s conclusions about harm from wireless radiation.

According to Physicians for Safe Technology, while still heading the WHO “…she went public with her self-diagnosis of EHS [electromagnetic hypersensitivity]…while the agency was refusing to acknowledge that EHS symptoms were directly caused by EMF exposure.”

In her 2012 speech at the opening of a new School of Public Health and Health Systems at the University of Waterloo in Ontario she responded to questions by Dr. Magda Havas PhD. where she “…cautioned about the overuse of cell phones and went on to explain how she became allergic to microwave radiation.” Brundtland also stated that “…the environment needs to be modified to reduce electrosmog exposure in order to protect health.”

EHS, also referred to by researchers as “Microwave Syndrome”, is aggravated by electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from cell phones and other artificial EMFs in the environment and is affecting over 5% of the population. Evidence points to this number increasing with the roll out of 5G, a new modulation of the electromagnetic spectrum utilising barely researched millimetre waves for the advancement of a “sustainable” robotised digital paradigm that necessitates a latency free bandwidth for real-time data processing for the IoT.

The novel deployment of “robot pollinators”, automated animal surveillance, and impacts of 5G on fertility and food security

A health report compiled for the European Parliament (EP) called the “Health Impact of 5G” suggests there is more than meets the eye concerning fertility issues in the population. There is “sufficient evidence of adverse effects on fertility in men and limited evidence of adverse effects on fertility in women” from wireless radiation in the range of 450MHz to 6GHz, which covers the history of DECT phones and mobile phones up to more recent models using 5G infrastructure.

It’s an arresting finding, especially when it is becoming clear that many countries won’t sustain the human populations they’ll need for growth and security in the years ahead. Demographers anticipate fertility rates dropping below replacement levels earlier than expected – possibly by 2030.

Predictably demographers attribute the population’s precarious status to “factors such as higher education levels among people who give birth, rising incomes, and expanded access to contraceptives.” However, on the road to digitalisation, other factors come into play and wireless radiation continues to be one of them as “The Health Impact of 5G” strongly suggests.

Some countries are beginning to act, realising that wireless radiation poses a threat to populations. According to a report by Environmental Health trust, “India dropped their RF limits by 1/10th after a research review documented the majority of research studies found adverse effects to wildlife, birds and bees.” This is the precautionary principle (PP) in action, mostly ignored by the rest of the world in pursuit of digitalisation.

The World Wildlife Fund’s (WWF) “Living Planet Report” illustrates severe population decline in the natural world. In the report, the WWF issues a “climate change” alert urging action in the language of the UN’s sustainability goals, suggesting that wildlife is being decimated because of human populations causing global warming. At the same time, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) promotes AI, and automated wireless devices, for the surveillance of animal populations. Projects called “Eyes on Recovery” and “Wildlife Insights” supported by Google, rely on motion sensor activated camera traps. These operate continuously with powerful LED flashes taking millions of images to collect species data. This activity could be disrupting ecosystems with ALAN (Artificial Light At Night which is recognised as a significant impact on ecology). These projects are executed in the name of protecting animals, so that “scientists, land managers and other stakeholders can better anticipate threats“. Technological ecological disruption is arguably a threat.

WWF’s Living Planet Report highlights threats to ecology, yet not all. It neglects the influences of technologies on wildlife, including the wireless expansionism in recent decades (which creates ecologically impacting electrosmog emissions), and, the modalities of extraction that serve the appetites of the semiconductor and lithium battery industries. It emphasises a UN-friendly conception of how the world should quantifiably change without acknowledging how digital wireless technologies represent a threat to wildlife populations.

The UN advocates wireless technology to solve problems, and advocates smaller populations – and demands a radically different society, one where wireless technology and robots will systematically monitor populations, and be used to replace wildlife species, just as humans are being “replaced”. This is playing out to extraordinary degrees across the world.

While bees and other pollinators are dying from EMF exposure causing colony collapse disorder (CCD) – very commonly blamed on “climate change” – action to support ecosystems today includes deploying wireless robots to make a difference. According to howtorobot.com robotic pollinators are being despatched to replace pollinators (population replacement), which as we know, are averse to exposure from the wireless transmitters powering wireless robots systems like these.

It is believed that, “these robots, designed to mimic the actions of bees, can help maintain plant populations and genetic diversity within ecosystems…[though] there are concerns about its effectiveness and potential impacts on natural pollinator populations.”

In a similar vein, as the BBC reports, “…new Biotracks technology tracks the harmonic radar tags attached to bees with a receiver carried on a drone in a bid to improve understanding of what is happening to pollinators” in research led by a team at The University of Oxford in the UK.

Despite research that suggests bees are not at all benefiting from man-made EMFs, such novel “science” projects gain publicity and support while they promote IoT technologies like drones and wireless devices.

According the the website beeing.it, a “study conducted at the Beekeeping Application Centre of the University of Bayburt offers valuable insights into the disturbing effect of electromagnetic radiation on bee behaviour….Implications of these findings go beyond bees’ welfare. As crucial beings for pollination, bees play a vital role in agriculture, contributing to the fertilization of numerous crops, including fruits, vegetables and nuts. The loss of their ability to navigate accurately could lead to a decrease in crop yields, affecting food production and threatening global food security.” New Scientist has also acknowledged the negative influences of EMFs on the bee populations asserting that “Electromagnetic fields…are messing with honeybees…Transmission towers emit electromagnetic fields that can disrupt honeybees’ ability to pollinate nearby plants, which could reduce biodiversity in these areas”.

Sadly, the vulnerability of earth’s species to EMFs – which are decimating pollinators and adding to growing food insecurity – may drive increased demand for “solutions” such as the aforementioned robotic pollinators. We live in a politicised technological climate, which is biased towards implementing wireless technology in mainstream research and in solving environmental problems – even to replace pollinators. Concerns about EMF radiation impacts on wildlife (or human populations) are hastily being dismissed, and this is not in the best interests of the environment or declining populations.

Mass die-offs: another decline of populations, amidst the rise of wireless robots

The global technological “arms race” that now depletes our world of life was known by the original architects of the UN’s sustainability project as entailing “high risks, including new forms of pollution and the introduction to the planet of new variations of life forms that could change evolutionary pathways.”

Society’s technology consumption now heralds populations pushed to the limits, and declining across the spectrum of life on earth, presenting security issues and widening global disparities. Within this unfolding scenario AI-powered robots are guaranteed a starring role in managing the fall-out as the natural order of things is increasingly infiltrated by synthetic life forms, on queue for population replacement and other duties.

As wireless robot ecosystems expand, we are also facing the daunting reality of “mass die-offs” in the natural world which “…can reshape the ecological and evolutionary trajectories of life on Earth” as discussed in National Geographic, where “…Researchers reviewed historical records of 727 mass die-offs from 1940 to 2012 and found that over that time, these events have become more common for birds, marine invertebrates, and fish.”

Scientists researching the publicised die-offs cannot say for certain why this is happening, and when offering hypotheses, commonly assume it must be “climate change” related. That’s a predominant theory with a broad sweep, but it does not put the problem in the context of the rapid technological developments that are taking their toll on earth’s ecosystems.

The die-offs continue. In 2020 in Mexico “hundreds of dead birds were discovered in numerous spots across the New Mexican landscape. With each new, grim find, researchers began to realise these clumps of carcasses were not isolated incidents.” Martha Desmond from New Mexico State University (NMSU) told Las Cruces Sun News “We’re losing probably hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of migratory birds.” According to the researchers “the birds seemed “to act strangely before their deaths, spending more time on the ground than perched in trees, and generally appearing dazed, sleepy, and lethargic…the affected birds also look different.”

According to The Independent, the “dead birds were found in states including New Mexico, Colorado, Texas, Arizona and Nebraska.” Scientists could only speculate as to the cause. This is only an example of a widespread (and sudden) “die-off”. Another bird population event in Mexico was filmed by a security camera, as blackbirds fell dead from the sky in mid flight. Watch here.

Another infamous case in the Netherlands offered the same theory as for the birds grounding in Mexico, that a hunting bird may have frightened them. The Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy (which encourages cooperation between research institutes and businesses to invest in a powerful, sustainable country) were quick to point out that it “wasn’t 5G”.

However, it is fully acknowledged that EMFs disrupt bird navigation though it is never offered even a possibility in relation these events when it most likely should. Scientists believe the effect of EMFs on birds “…is greatest when birds fly over urban areas”, as reported by the BBC in 2014. As we know, in recent times the sources of EMF have multiplied dramatically to accommodate global wireless expansion, and cell towers with a high-density population produce high EMF radiation emissions affecting birds. The position of the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy, allied with the wireless industry was most likely political rather than scientifically defensible.

Amidst the mushrooming of uncharacteristic syndromes and mortality rates in the earth’s ecosystems, notably, the military is developing an arsenal of autonomous robotic weapons (specifically drones) and is studying the swarming behaviours of birds, as well as fish and marine creatures so that wireless drones have the “ability to act in concert, combined with the inherent adaptability and versatility of individual drones, results in a force that can swiftly respond to changing conditions on the battlefield….enhanced by AI and space technology.” Source.

5G infrastructure has been rolled out on earth, in the seas and in the skies to make way for drones and other synthetic life forms at are now infiltrating the habitats of native life forms in a big way. As a side effect of the 5G technological agenda, ecosystem levels of ambient electromagnetic radiation are affected, with man-made electromagnetic radiation (electrosmog) becoming an increasing burden on wildlife around the world – including swarming birds, fish and marine animals.

According to a scientific report in Nature, it is recognised that “Anthropogenic EMFs, represent a poorly understood, yet potentially important and increasing emission into the marine environment, which may disrupt or mask vital environmental cues to EM-sensitive species….Ubiquitous anthropogenic sources of marine EMFs include ships, bridges and subsea cables^1,14.” As the Internet of Underwater Things (IoUWT) develops to drive the monitoring and robotisation of the oceans, this problem will become severely exacerbated. You can become acquainted with the implications in an MDPI report called “Recent Advances, Future Trends, Applications and Challenges of Internet of Underwater Things (IoUT): A Comprehensive Review” which states that “The key enabler technology for the IoUT is the underwater wireless sensor network (UWSN).”

There is no question that the comprehensive wireless sensor networks advancing the Internet of Things (IoT) present a danger to the sensitive species of our planet. A landmark “150 page study of over 1,200 peer reviewed studies finds that birds, insects and animals are uniquely sensitive to wireless radiation. It identifies low-level wireless as a pollutant and warns against escalating radiation levels with 5G technologies.”

Man-made radiofrequency modulations experienced by birds and fish can interfere with their navigational behaviours, and health, which are tied to the native electromagnetic resonances of the earth. Radiofrequency radiation is scientifically acknowledged to be causing species decline, so plausibly could be influencing mass die offs. Our skies and seas will be subject to more radiation pollution in the years ahead, from the political and economic drive to accommodate robots while displacing populations of native species as the “wireless nervous system” of 5G networks and sensors grows.

The Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency (DARPA) is advancing research in biomimetics (also known as biomimicry) where robotic weapon systems imitate animals. According to Drone XL, “Northrop Grumman has built the Manta Ray, a mysterious 
Underwater drone for…DARPA”. It’s described as an “…innovative craft, reportedly four years in the making, [that] could revolutionize long-range military missions by hiding in plain sight and harvesting energy from the seas.”

Meanwhile DARPA’s “…OFFensive Swarm-Enabled Tactics (OFFSET) programme is another “biomimicry” project aimed at enabling small-unit infantry forces to use swarms of small weaponised drones – 250 robots or more – to complete complex missions.” Source. Swarms of wireless drones resemble shape-shifting bird formations and murmurations but are used to remotely kill. In imitation of nature, autonomous weapons systems are being created that defy the principles of international humanitarian law – representing a “paradigm shift in warfare.” Another imminent threat to populations.

From here to Africa – A world to be dominated by robots?

All of these developments pave the way for a world dominated by robots – especially as earth’s native populations are being politically manipulated into accommodating them, and accepting them. In doing so society gives the green light to become further dominated by technologies that may not, after all, serve their best interests.

Unprecedented animal population reductions and mass “die offs” that coincide with our rapidly accelerating digital era of cyber-physical transformations leave our population ever more vulnerable to industrial-political manipulations and troubling prospects for our species if we don’t alter our path. We find ourselves in a situation eerily predicted by the Brundtland Report’s architects of “sustainability” – for we are on the road that politically prioritises the technological economy, which “entails high risks, including new forms of pollution and the introduction to the planet of new variations of life forms that could change evolutionary pathways.”

The UN’s Agenda 2030 is an influential political tool for supporting industry goals, and securing society’s support in advancing technology to support questionable globalist projects. With the developed world suffering population decline and accelerated technological output, Africa by contrast is still developing and has averted a population crisis. Africa is proving fertile ground to continue the “globalist project” – and to roll out 5G. Much development in this direction is being done in the name of “philanthropy” and under the guise of “sustainability goals” but ultimately is an agenda and an investment.

The Rockefeller Foundation, for example, is branding infrastructure projects in Africa as “sustainable development” with an initiative called Mission 300, which anticipates a case for 5G in Sub-Saharan Africa where electricity is an issue. According to intelligentcio.com, “Africa’s lack of infrastructure, expensive hardware, and limited technological background are all issues impacting IoT deployment.” Mission 300 is an “ambitious initiative to connect 300 million people to electricity in Sub-Saharan Africa by 2030” while opening the door to 5G wireless developments that will assist the robot revolution in Africa.

According to, 5G in Africa: realising the potential “Operators and tower companies operating in the region have pointed to the following as the main barriers to using more solar: high upfront cost for solar panels and batteries; theft and vandalism, especially in remote locations; and space limitation on cell sites to assemble the solar components.”

The Rockefeller Foundation is actively invested in resolving these solar energy supply issues, a process that fits with the “green communications and networking paradigm” where solar/renewables assist the 5G infrastructure roll out. The Rockefeller Foundation is laying the groundwork for 5G networks and the IoT as part of “doubling down on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)” prompted by the “pandemic”.

This ultimately opens the door to “…a broad set of industry stakeholders, including Google Cloud, EdgeQ, Gigabyte, Marvell, Nvidia, NXP, Qualcomm Technologies, Dish Network, Vodafone, Accelleran, Mavenir, Parallel Wireless, Radisys, Saankhya Labs and Tech Mahindra.” Source: 5G in Africa: realising the potential, PDF.

Africa Center Senior Fellow Aleksandra Gadzala acknowledges in “Coming to Life: Artificial Intelligence in Africa” that “many African nations still lack the statistical capacity, infrastructure, and good governance necessary to see AI take off. However, in a select handful of countries, AI solutions are already being successfully deployed at scale….what African governments need to do to strengthen the ecosystem necessary to see these technologies flourish…to advance sustainable development and inclusive growth.” It is only a matter of time before the robot ecosystem emerges in Africa in the name of “sustainability”, of course.

The social, political, and economic “terraforming” of earth for a robotised future dominated by AI continues at remarkable pace. What this all really means for the diversity, distribution and longevity of earth’s native species remains a big, and urgent, question as our world continues to be transformed by a political-industrial imperative that artificially alters our atmosphere – and existence – to accommodate a burgeoning ecosystem of synthetic life on our planet.

Leading illustration by Sean Alexander Carney.

Screenshots have been used in this article for non-commercial educational purposes. The sources are credited, and links are supplied. The Copyright Act of 1976 outlines the statutory framework for determining and identifying Fair Use and when one can use copyrighted material without permission. Teaching, criticism, reporting, commenting, and researching are all activities that often qualify as fair use.

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