DarkHorse Podcast #317: Is Cell Phone Radiation Good For You?

Hosts: Bret Weinstein & Heather Heying
Date: March 18, 2026

Episode Overview

In this episode, Bret and Heather—both evolutionary biologists—use their "evolutionary lens" to discuss controversial contemporary topics. The headline investigation focuses on cell phone and Bluetooth radiation and its impacts on biological health, inspired by a recent large-scale government animal study. They also dissect a recent Ninth Circuit Court decision on gender and public accommodations, explore updates in phylogenetic classification of sharks, and reflect on the problems of scientific models and public discourse. As always, their scientific background and skepticism lead to deep dives on data, methodology, and meaning, often spiced with wit and cultural criticism.

Key Discussion Points

1. The Costs and Rewards of Public Discourse

Timestamps: 00:05–04:40

• Heather reflects on the personal toll of speaking publicly about controversial topics (e.g., Israel, Iran), including recent backlash (02:00).
• Despite public vitriol, private messages from thoughtful people provide insight:

  “So much of what comes back privately is extraordinary and eye-opening and elucidating and kind and generous and human.” –Bret (02:30)

• They reinforce the idea that public shaming often intends to silence dissent (03:12).
• Heather:

  “We must not be silent ... what actually comes back includes evidence you didn’t know of, that suggests you’re on the right track ... my sense is yes, this was worth it as awful as the cost taken in isolation.” (03:12)

2. Orcas and the Restorative Power of Nature

Timestamps: 05:37–09:37

• Heather shares an uplifting ferry encounter with a pod of orcas.
• Discussion of local sea mammals (transient vs. resident orcas, environmental pressures, dialect differences).
• Personal rule:

  “Any day on which you see whales is a good day ... It’s a big gift from God, whether he exists or not.” –Heather (06:41)

3. Episode Roadmap

Timestamps: 09:37–10:52

Plans for the episode:

• Cell phone/AirPod radiation: mouse model evidence.
• Ninth Circuit decision on gender accommodations.
• New findings on shark phylogenetics (“sharks aren’t real?” as a playful tagline).

4. Deep Dive: Cell Phone Radiation – Science, Study, and Interpretation

Timestamps: 25:23–87:27

a. Study Overview

Timestamps: 27:19–30:07

• Prompted by a viral thread by Zane Koch reanalyzing a $30 million NIH study where nearly 2,000 mice and rats received high-dose cell phone radiation for two years.
• Surprisingly, the irradiated animals lived significantly longer (lower mortality hazard ratio), with variable cancer impacts.

b. Experimental Design and Complexity

Timestamps: 31:22–33:14

• The study used exposure levels 10x cell phone and 100x AirPods; different tissues, durations, and endpoints.
• Bret and Heather praise the care in the study but note layered complexities and interpretive ambiguity.

c. The Non-Ionizing Radiation Paradox

Timestamps: 35:21–42:06

• Non-ionizing radiation (cell phones, Bluetooth) is low-energy—can't ionize molecules.
• The common reassurance "non-ionizing = safe" is challenged:

  "There is evidence that there are harms of non-ionizing radiation, which is not always admitted." –Heather (36:37)

• Main concern is thermal effects: tissue heating can denature proteins, disrupt enzymes, and, over time, accelerate tissue aging.

d. Interpreting the Results: Hormesis or Mouse Model Failure?

Timestamps: 42:06–87:27

• Podcast hosts question whether the observed lifespan increase is real benefit—or an artifact of the mouse model.

• Review of prior research on telomere biology and lab mouse breeding:

  • Lab mice are bred with ultra-long telomeres and high tissue repair capacity but little cancer resistance, causing them to die of tumors at young ages—making them poor models for normal human aging/cancer risks.
  • The “reserve capacity hypothesis” (Heather’s earlier work) is revisited:

    "If you give a mouse ... a toxic insult ... you will paradoxically increase the length of its life if it doesn't kill the animal outright." –Heather (56:34)

  • This paradox happens because breeding prioritizes tissue repair (for productivity) at the expense of tumor suppression. In these mice, toxic exposures (like non-ionizing radiation) can kill cancer cells, so the mice die of cancer less often/faster, making the mice appear healthier but misleading human implications.

• Broader critique: Decades of scientific findings and regulatory standards based on these misleading mouse models.

• Key conclusion:

  “If you're a mouse where do you get AirPods, you probably want AirPods, maybe more than one set. If you're not a mouse then this is an indicator that it's actually dangerous—the fact that the mice live longer is not good news...” –Heather (86:03)

e. Notable Quotes

• “Mice lie.” –Bret (71:02): Lab mice as fundamentally misleading models for human biology.
• “What they're dying of is cancer, which they start getting in youth as a result of this madness with the breeding protocols.” –Heather (83:28)

5. Ninth Circuit Court Ruling on Korean Women's Spa and Gender Identity

Timestamps: 87:32–117:04

a. Background

A Korean women-only spa near Seattle was ordered to admit a “pre-op trans woman” (biological male), despite customer and employee objections.

b. The Court's Rationale

• State law interpreted to equate gender identity with protected sexual orientation.

• Majority dismissed the spa’s First Amendment/freedom of association claims.

  “None of them are implicated here. To begin, the spa is not an intimate association ... the price of admission [is] payment of the entrance fee and any woman, except a transgender woman who has not yet received gender confirmation surgery … can be admitted.” –Reading from the decision (94:02)

c. Dissent (Notably Judge VanDyke)

• Expresses outrage, bluntly highlights the real-world implications:

  “This is a case about swinging dicks. The Christian owners of Olympus Spa, a traditional Korean women-only nude spa, understandably don't want them in their spa ...” –Judge VanDyke (102:54)

• Criticizes the majority for being disconnected from reality and endangering women/girls for ideological reasons.

d. Hosts’ Response

• Heather:

  “The spa is being forced to participate in a perverted delusion ... you're talking about a version of misunderstanding reality that is actually materially dangerous and well understood to be one of the most terrible crimes.” (110:23)

• Bret:

  “Having judges that are not trustworthy undermines trust in the court.” (115:37)

• Discussion links language games (trans women as women) to legal confusion, policy overreach, and real harm.

6. Shark Phylogenetics Teaser

Timestamps: 117:04–118:17

• Quick aside teasing a future discussion: new findings challenge the idea that sharks are a single evolutionary group—skates and rays may be embedded within sharks rather than separate.

Memorable Quotes

• On lab mice as models:
  “Mice lie.” –Bret (71:02)

• On the problem with cell phone radiation studies:
  “The fact that the mice live longer is not good news ... it's bad news because a toxin that you will not tolerate well will function like chemotherapy or ... radiation therapy does on a cancer patient.” –Heather (86:03)

• On language, science, and reality:
  “If you allow that, ok I’ll call you what it seems like I should call you based on your presentation, then the point is ... that creates the impression that actually you agree that this person is actually a woman and ... turns it into a fact from their perspective even though it's not a biological fact.” –Heather (96:22)

• On judicial reality:
  “What undermines trust is not being trustworthy ... are you worthy of trust? No, obviously not...” –Heather (115:24)

Important Timestamps

• Public Discourse & Vitriol: 00:05–04:40
• Orca Sighting & Nature’s Impact: 05:37–09:37
• Roadmap for Episode: 09:37–10:52
• Cell Phone Radiation Study Deep Dive: 27:19–87:27
• Ninth Circuit Court Decision: 87:32–117:04
• Shark Phylogenetics Teaser: 117:04–118:17

Overall Tone

• Witty, skeptical, and deeply analytical.
• Mix of technical rigor, cultural commentary, and vibrant personal anecdotes.
• Willing to question “official” knowledge and call out failures in both science and policy.

For listeners: The episode delivers a rigorous yet accessible discussion of how scientific models (particularly lab mice) may systematically mislead our understanding of risks (e.g., cell phone radiation). The broader social segment offers a passionate, unfiltered critique of recent legal and social developments around gender identity and women’s spaces, situating legal and linguistic confusion as not just philosophical, but materially consequential.

If you have not listened, this summary delivers both the factual structure and the lively, irreverent flavor of the conversation.