← Digital Social Hour
Digital Social Hour
The Shocking Truth About EMF Radiation Risks | Children Health Defense DSH #1349
00:51:11
Loading summary
Transcript155 lines
- [00:00]
Miriam
To protect us. But that's not the case because our government agencies are captured by the very industry that they're supposed to regulate.
- [00:08]
Scott
It inherited regulation of the spectrum from a different agency. It was all consolidated in there. They've been regulating telecommunications by wire and by radio ever since.
- [00:27]
Host
All right, guys, Scott and Miriam here today from the Children's Health Defense. Thanks for joining us, guys. Really important mission you two are on.
- [00:34]
Miriam
Hi. Thank you. Thanks for having us.
- [00:35]
Host
Yeah. Could you explain what the Children's Health Defense is what you guys are about?
- [00:39]
Miriam
Yeah, sure. So we are a nonprofit organization that, you know, at the very core is dedicated to stopping the chronic disease epidemic that's currently plaguing American children. And we litigate, we educate, and we advocate. We also have a science department, and we sort of, like, look at different big industries and how their. Their. Their business practices, essentially, and that oftentimes lack of government regulations impact children's health. So we look at big pharma, pharmaceutical product, and in our group, more specifically, we. We look at big tech and big telecom. We also look at big food, agriculture. So sort of like the big picture.
- [01:28]
Host
Got it. And a big thing you guys are aware of right now is the EMF stuff, right? That's a big issue.
- [01:34]
Miriam
Yeah, it is. I mean, it's really. We feel like one of the most important, the most pressing public health issues just because of the way technology has developed over the past 20 years and the way this industry grew and the way it has captured government agencies that are supposed to protect people and public health. And it's sort of like the opposite is happening. Right. Government is captured, and the industry is really in sort of like a space where they can do whatever they want and at the expenses of people's health, children's health, and the environment. It's pretty concerning.
- [02:16]
Host
That is concerning. Have there been any repercussions for EMF stuff yet from companies or anyone?
- [02:23]
Miriam
That's one for you, Scott.
- [02:26]
Scott
If you mean repercussions to them. No. No. They've been basically declared immune.
- [02:33]
Host
Wow.
- [02:34]
Scott
They can put their stuff up, destroy people's views, destroy the property values of the nearby residents, destroy their health, and bear no liability for it.
- [02:52]
Host
That's insane. So they could just put up these towers wherever they want?
- [02:57]
Scott
Well, there is a process they have to go through, and many people don't know that. Oftentimes a permit is required from your local zoning authority, and people can be very involved in that. We have a program called Stop5G. What's the Stop5G?
- [03:21]
Miriam
Nearby.org? yeah. Social media is at Stop5G near me. Yeah.
- [03:27]
Scott
And what we do is we help people who, when they learn something is planned nearby that they may object to for whatever reason, it's not always healthy. But if they want to try to oppose it, then we have a team of folks who help them come up with the reasons that are still allowed for objecting, whether it be aesthetics, property values, fitness, with the rest of the character of the community, other things. The big problem is the elephant in the room is that a lot of times a cell tower put sometimes within feet of people's windows begins to make them sick. And because of a federal statute, the local jurisdiction right now is not able to say no based on potential health or environmental concerns.
- [04:27]
Host
Huh.
- [04:28]
Scott
So if somebody who already knows that they get sick from EMR says, please don't put this right outside my window, it will make me sick, it may kill me. The local jurisdiction can't say no on account of that. You have to come up with other reasons. Wow. And we help people do that. There are other reasons that a local jurisdiction can legitimately use under the federal law to deny placement at a particular place. So we have a team of folks who help people articulate those reasons.
- [04:57]
Miriam
Right.
- [04:58]
Scott
But at the same time, the real problem.
- [05:00]
Host
Ever thought about how much EMF and radiation your body is exposed to every single day? From smartphones to WI Fi, modern technology never stops emitting invisible stressors that could disrupt brain function, hormone balance, and cellular health. That's where Aries comes in. The only scientifically validated solution designed to help your body adapt to today's technology. It's trusted by elite athletes, used by the ufc, WWE Canada basketball, and the Minnesota Timberwolves. It's backed by science. 100 plus scientists and 40 plus institutions confirm its effectiveness. Its patented, peer reviewed, clinically proven and publicly traded WI Fi is the most tested, researched and validated EMF solution on the market. Upgrade your biology to keep up with modern technology. Protect yourself with Aries today. Click the link below to learn more.
- [05:47]
Miriam
Right.
- [05:52]
Scott
Here is the fact that the federal statute says that local zoning authorities cannot regulate on the basis of environmental effects. And that's been interpreted to mean you can't regulate based on health concerns or environmental concern. You know, we're here today and you, you had a segment earlier about how this all affects people, and it does. We can get into that a lot further too, because we have folks all over the country, but it really also impacts the rest of the environment.
- [06:22]
Miriam
Right.
- [06:23]
Scott
There's increasing evidence, for example, that it hurts bees and all other pollinators because it interferes with how they navigate.
- [06:34]
Host
Wow.
- [06:35]
Scott
There's some studies indicating it is contributing to calling a collapse disorder. And a local jurisdiction cannot say, wait a minute, this is right on top of a beekeeper. No, we can't deny this because it will kill all those bees. They can say it'll be ugly, it'll reduce the beekeeper property value, but they can't do it for the real reason, which is it'll kill all his bees. It's a crazy situation. So one of the other things that we are doing is called 704, no more. And that's named after the federal statute that basically says local jurisdictions can't protect the people in their community. We are working on a challenge to the statute itself. We believe it's unconstitutional for many different reasons. And we're mounting a direct challenge to the federal statute. At the same time, there are a host of just federal court decisions. The statute talks about local zoning, but there are just judicial rulings that have said if you use a cell phone for 20 years and you get brain cancer, even if you can prove it was the phone that did it to you, you can't sue the phone company or the cell phone manufacturer for the brain cancer that they caused. It's a judicially created immunity. And we are going, at the same time that we're challenging the statute, we're going to try to get the courts to reconsider the judicial immunity that they have conferred. That's why I said there's really nothing so far that folks have been able to do. Once a cell tower goes up, it's pretty much over. Wow.
- [08:25]
Miriam
And I think it's important to understand that we, we're not talking about hypotheticals. Right. Like we've seen in cases over and over again, people get sick when they live close to a cell tower. Like one of the communities that we've been working with and litigating on behalf of is in Pittsfield, Massachusetts. They had a tower go up in a residential area and like almost the entire block got sick within a year. Like multiple cancer cases. Like people had to leave their homes. Right. Like, children will come home from school and, and would just vomit and be dizzy until they leave for school the next day. And as soon as they're outside of the, the, the, the cell tower radius, they're fine. Right. And so it's just this, this, this very, you know, industry driven space where particularly as part of the 5G rollout, which is why we're calling it sort of like stop 5G is not just geared towards 5G technology, but the higher frequencies you use, like, the more streaming you do, the closer the infrastructure itself has to move to the end user. Right. Because those waves can travel very far. And so you really need like these small cells or these towers, like within 500ft from each other. So that's where they're putting them on utility poles. That's where they are putting them, like, close to homes, on schools, on playgrounds, on offices, everywhere. And we see case study after case study, and there's so much science out there by now of people just getting sick at an increasing speed, you know, and that's not even taking into consideration the exposure that you're having from your cell phone and your WI fi and your computer and all of that stuff. Right. So it's really just like this rapidly accelerating situation. And, you know, people always think like, oh, if it were really that bad, our government agencies would do something to protect us. But that's not the case because our government agencies are captured by the very industry that they're supposed to regulate. Wow. You know, they capture the government, they capture the science. They conduct studies that they already know the outcome. And it's interesting because in, in. In the, in this space, in the EMR space, 2/3 of independently funded studies show harm, and 2/3 of industry funded studies show no harm at all.
- [10:43]
Host
Huh.
- [10:44]
Miriam
There's just like this thing, right, Where. And people are. Are, I think, unaware. They're getting increasingly aware, but people are getting sick. And I think it's important that we talk about it.
- [10:57]
Host
Yeah. So right now the FCC is in charge of EMF safety.
- [11:01]
Miriam
That's correct. Yeah.
- [11:02]
Host
And that's the. That's a government organization.
- [11:05]
Miriam
It's a federal. Federal Communications Commission. It's. You want to talk about how, how it's set up and why it's so flawed?
- [11:12]
Scott
Yeah. The FCC was created in 1934.
- [11:16]
Host
Okay.
- [11:18]
Scott
It inherited regulation of the spectrum from a different agency. It was all consolidated in there. They've been regulating telecommunications by wire and by radio ever since. Things were a lot different back in the 30s, especially on the radio side. You had a completely different method of transmitting intelligence by radio. It was a lot less of the infrastructure. People certainly weren't carrying this thing in their pocket that had six different radios in it all the time. And so the, the regulatory regime still much resembles from the before time. The FCC actually did not begin to regulate for health safety until the late 70s, and they only did so because it was a federal statute, the National Environmental Policy act, which Requires all federal agencies to look at the environmental impacts of the things that they do and regulate. They were not concerned with it before then because like industry thought, and indeed like I thought when I was representing folks in the industry until, you know, just five years ago, oh, this stuff is safe. How can it hurt you? You can't see it, you can't touch it, you can't feel it, you can't taste it. How can it hurt you? The standards that exist today were actually created in the 70s and they are entirely based on the assumption that the only kind of RF harms that can occur is if it actually increases the temperature of your skin.
- [13:17]
Miriam
And that's the exposure standards. So, like the cap of how much RF exposure is considered safe by the fcc.
- [13:26]
Host
Interesting.
- [13:26]
Scott
If it doesn't burn your skin, it's safe.
- [13:29]
Host
Wow.
- [13:30]
Scott
Well, haven't you used your phone for a long time? It gets hot, doesn't it?
- [13:35]
Host
Yeah.
- [13:35]
Scott
Okay. That's because of all of the energy in there. Well, the, the RF itself is also energy and it certainly can get powerful enough to where just the energy itself will raise the temperature of your skin and indeed burn you. And that is what they regulate against. The FCC has never recognized that there can be a biological response to radio frequency radiation beyond just that which increases the temperature of your skin. And we know you, you just heard a whole bunch about it, I'm sure. Yeah, that, that is not true. There are very significant biological responses that occur. You get exposed to this stuff, which is not what we evolved to deal with. Mh, it's much different. There is a biological response. Sometimes it can be beneficial, sometimes it can be harmful.
- [14:33]
Host
I mean, I was on the phone for five minutes and it messed up all my levels.
- [14:37]
Scott
Yes, it did.
- [14:38]
Host
Just from a five minute phone call.
- [14:39]
Scott
Yes. On the other hand, there are products which use RF to stimulate blood flow and stimulate bone growth. So there is a biological response. The, the task is finding out what part of it is harmful and at what level and what is causing the harm.
- [15:05]
Host
Right.
- [15:06]
Scott
Like many other environmental toxins, the main culprit appears to be our response, which creates free radicals and it's called oxidative stress. I'm sure most of the folks in your audience know, you know, take your antioxidants.
- [15:21]
Host
Yep.
- [15:22]
Scott
Well, most people have the ability to clear these free radicals or they can take enough antioxidants to where they can actually heal if they are not constantly bombarded. Some people, and it's a significant proportion of the population, some think up to 30% actually cannot clear yet. And that is the point at which you begin to become sick. And this is a progressive condition. It only gets worse. Once you cross that threshold, there's no going back, and it only gets worse.
- [16:05]
Miriam
Okay, right. And then, you know, aside from the fact that the FCC only takes the thermal effect into consideration, they've also super poorly tested that, right? They tested it on like a plastic dummy for, I don't know, five minutes, five millimeters away from your head, and then said, okay, great, like the plastic dummy didn't heat up. A, we're not plastic dummies, and B, most people hold their phone to their heads for much longer than five minutes, right? That the average phone use is like, what, between six and eight hours where you have this thing in front of your face. And then there's also, you know, the standards have not been updated in over 30 years. And so back when everybody still had flip phones, right? Like, we could talk about, like, okay, do flip phones heat tissues? They caused cancer then, but now we are in an entirely different environment, and now we are exposed to a much different technology. And it would be the job of the FCC to now conduct rigorous studies and really find out exactly what Scott just said, right? How much is safe and where does the, the, the, the, the, the threshold life for most people. And then that information has to be disseminated to the people so that you can make the decision like, hey, I'd rather use my phone on speakerphone. I'd rather, you know, only use it two hours a day instead of eight hours a day, right? Like, but unless you have this information, you can really, it's really an, a forced exposure because nobody knows how dangerous that is. And it's interesting because, like, even your iPhone itself, like in the regulatory disclosures of RF radiation says that you should hold it away from your body. You should not put it on your body. Now think about all of the kids, like, you know, wearing their phone in their pockets, wearing their phone in their bras. Like, we already know that it impacts fertility rates, right? Like, we already know that it can cause cellular disruptions that can lead to cancer. And yet there's like, no warning, no whatever, right? It's just, it's just this uncontrolled, an uncontrolled rollout of technology that is sold as like, you know, only having benefits. And there's no such.
- [18:19]
Scott
We're in the middle of a grand experiment.
- [18:22]
Host
Oh yeah.
- [18:22]
Scott
For which we are all the subjects. And once it becomes evident all of the damage that has been done, the industry will get away scot free. Because what the courts have said is if they operate within these insane FCC limits, if they're below the limits, they're men.
- [18:45]
Host
That is crazy, because now these kids are running around with iPads when they're five years old.
- [18:49]
Miriam
Yeah.
- [18:50]
Scott
They're exposed to it in. In Euro utero.
- [18:54]
Miriam
Yeah.
- [18:54]
Scott
And some of the studies have indicated that exposure to. To. To babies while in utero or soon after they're born is one of the contributing causes to things like autism.
- [19:10]
Host
I mean, you're seeing these alarming autism rates in kids right now.
- [19:12]
Miriam
Kids in Cal 31.
- [19:14]
Host
Yeah. Well, I just saw an updated one from RFK. It's 1 in 12 in Cali.
- [19:18]
Miriam
That's insane. Yeah, it's insane.
- [19:20]
Host
Crazy, right? When you guys were growing up, it was probably one out of like, a.
- [19:23]
Miriam
Hundred, probably even less.
- [19:26]
Scott
Yeah, it probably was. The. The other thing that the science is showing is that even for those who may be on the autism spectrum for other reasons, getting kids out of exposed areas really addresses some behavioral issues. They get better. And so one of the things that we always try to educate people is control your own environment. No, you can't. May not be able to do anything about the cell phone. Cell tower outside your house, but you can control your own environment. You can not sleep with your phone.
- [20:06]
Host
That's a hard one.
- [20:07]
Miriam
Learn today.
- [20:08]
Host
Yeah. I'm starting tonight with your phone.
- [20:12]
Scott
Program your WI FI router so that it turns off at night.
- [20:15]
Host
I need to figure that out too.
- [20:17]
Miriam
You know, unplug it. I just.
- [20:19]
Scott
There are ways to make it so that it puts out less energy. You know, when you get this thing from the factory, the default settings are really, really high.
- [20:30]
Host
I bet. Yeah.
- [20:31]
Scott
And one of the signals that comes out is called the beacon, and it's going off every, you know, couple hundredths of a second.
- [20:40]
Host
Wow.
- [20:40]
Scott
It doesn't need to do that. It could go every three seconds. And so there are ways that you can adjust the things you can control to minimize your exposure. The science, again, is telling us that the most important time, so that normal people, folks who may not be sensitive yet can heal, is during sleep. So if you can get out of this supercharged RF environment while you're sleeping, you're much less likely to suffer some of the more serious effects later on.
- [21:13]
Host
Yeah.
- [21:13]
Miriam
Right. But we also need the FCC to finally start doing its job, and the fda, like, do you think that'll happen.
- [21:20]
Host
Under the new administration? Because you guys sued the FCC in 2021. Right?
- [21:25]
Miriam
Yeah. Well, in 2021, the. The decision came down, and it's it's actually an interesting case. I mean, Scott can talk more about it, but there was a federal court essentially held that the FCC has. Has failed to explain and is arbitrary and capricious because they have not updated their standards. And they have failed to explain how exactly the current exposure limits adequately protect particularly children and the environment. And they have failed to take into consideration, I think, somewhat 11,000 pages of science that suggests harm to children and the environment. And it's interesting because that court ruling came down in 2021. Scott was the. The lead attorney on the case.
- [22:13]
Host
Nice.
- [22:13]
Miriam
And they have done absolutely nothing since.
- [22:16]
Host
Really?
- [22:17]
Miriam
Yeah.
- [22:17]
Scott
Wow.
- [22:17]
Host
You think they would have done at least one rule change or something by now?
- [22:21]
Scott
Well, they have a practical problem. They, you know, the Federal Communications Commission, like many agencies over time, becomes convinced that its job is to protect the industry that it's supposed to be regulating. It's doesn't regulate in the public's interest anymore. It regulates in the private, public utility interests. So they can't do what the court said because if they meaningfully try to comply with what the court said, which is take a look at this stuff again and tell us one more time why you think this is a good idea. They would have to admit that their current standards are just simply inadequate. They're just not rational, and they would have to do something, and that would hurt their industry patrons. We're talking about an FCC whose current chairman was a lawyer for Verizon Wireless. Wow.
- [23:21]
Miriam
That's an ongoing thing. There's like this revolving door between the FCC and, And. And telecom. Right.
- [23:29]
Host
Crazy.
- [23:29]
Miriam
And once they're done with their jobs at fcc, they go straight back to telecom. Like, it's just.
- [23:35]
Host
That shouldn't even be legal. That's crazy to me. That's a conflict.
- [23:38]
Miriam
It is. But they, they call them. They say they have a unique expertise.
- [23:43]
Host
You know, that's insane.
- [23:46]
Scott
Well, the FCC in particular has been a model for what's called agency capture for 40, 50 years. Long ago, it was a broadcast industry, you know, the big TV station, radio stations. Then it was the telephone companies, and now it's the wireless companies. They are indeed a study in agency capture.
- [24:10]
Miriam
There's been books about this, There have.
- [24:12]
Scott
Been books written about it, and very many articles. But here we are today, you know, trying to deal with a situation where there's a federal statute that says you can't do anything if these people are operating within the FCC exposure limits. And what. Everything we try to do is to try to help people negotiate within that space how to deal with it at the personal level and how to respond to it. With this increasing pressure, as all of this infrastructure gets closer and closer. Like I said earlier, I used to represent the industry, and I know what their business plan is, and that is basically to get this stuff as close to people as it can, as they can, and as close to each other as they can for many different reasons. It's not like they. They're intentionally trying to kill us. Is that their business plan requires that they set up the infrastructure so that they can do what they want to do with the byproduct that it's going to kill us.
- [25:18]
Host
Yeah.
- [25:18]
Scott
And they are. They're immune from. So we try to educate people and of course, we advocate.
- [25:25]
Miriam
Right.
- [25:25]
Scott
And then our third leg is litigation.
- [25:31]
Miriam
So can I just say something about, like, education and advocacy? Because I feel like that's a really crucial point. Right? Like, can we force the FCC to do anything? No, because we, A, you know, they're captured, B, we already won the court case. Right. They have a mandate. They know what they're supposed to do. There's very little you can do to actually force them to comply with that until and unless the pressure by the public becomes so big that things are going to change. Right. Like, so the pressure of the people needs to be greater than the pressure of the industry. And I think there's a window now with the current administration to sort of like, you know, get these issues talked about in the broader public. However, like, I think particularly when it comes to technology, there is this. This space where, like, we all love our technology. Right? Like, you don't want to necessarily admit that, you know, the thing that you rely on so much also has the potential to really harm you or your children. And I think there's just a very subtle and very important process that needs to happen where we all sort of, like, take a step back and say, you know, yeah, we love technology, but we also want to be able to give informed consent when it comes to the use of that technology. And we want to be able to decide for ourselves and our children how we want to engage with technology. And I think we. We're just still stuck and have been for a number of years in this space where, like, you know, we need a groundswell, we need more people to pay attention to, particularly younger folks. And that is just, we're up against this, this, you know, advertising machinery, you know, by. By. By big industry that has, like, all mainstream media, all social media. So it's really hard to break through with a message that's not that popular. People don't really want to hear it.
- [27:20]
Host
Well, when I post stuff like this, a lot of the EMF stuff gets censored, you know, on social media, unfortunately. So it will get like 1% of the views I normally get, you know.
- [27:29]
Scott
Have you ever wondered, have you ever looked at who actually owns these companies?
- [27:34]
Host
I haven't.
- [27:35]
Scott
Well, it's the same ones that own pharma.
- [27:38]
Host
Doesn't surprise me.
- [27:40]
Scott
Own the big media. You look at the major share owners. It's the same foundations. Yeah. It's the same companies. And behind all of that are the same people that were in Big Tobacco. Indeed. They all play the same game, they all have the same playbook.
- [27:59]
Host
And that's why it's so hard, because if you want to rally the troops, you need their platforms to rally the troops. But you get censored when you talk about it. So it's like, how do you do that? You know?
- [28:08]
Miriam
Exactly.
- [28:08]
Scott
Well, that's why forums like this one are so important.
- [28:11]
Host
Yeah. Alternative media. Yeah.
- [28:14]
Scott
Because, and this is why I believe messages like this are finally beginning to break through. Because the mainstream media has had a lockdown on this for a very long time, but they don't completely control now. And so this is great. I mean we, we like to come on shows like this so that we can start trying to help people understand a little bit more and hopefully exercise a little bit more self determination about how they use the technology, but at the same time begin communicating to their elected representatives what their preferences are. Look, I'd like to have a little bit more choice about where this tower is. And yes, it's, I'd like to be able to go to my local zoning authority and say, please don't put this right outside my window because I get sick from it, or I might get.
- [29:14]
Miriam
Sick from it, or we don't know what's going to happen in 10, 15, 20 years. And once it's there, it's never going to go away. But also we want our government and we need to pressure our government agencies to be more transparent. Like, it's not like the government never did follow up studies after, you know, the original standards. Right. They did. The National Toxicology Program, for example, did a study, a rat study over like, I think 10 years. And it was like massively expensive. And they looked at how 2G and 3G technology impacts, you know, the health of rats. And they found neurological damage, they found cancer, they found a drop in reproductive rates, it was like damaging the sperm activity, et cetera. And they came out with this finding and the FDA, the government, they had that since, I think, 2016 or 2018. And they have done absolutely nothing afterwards. Right. To adjust the standards or put pressure on the fcc. Quite the contrary. They have recently decided that the NCP will no longer look into the link between cell phones and cancer because this research is too burdensome. Right. Like too expensive and too burdensome. And it's just like, absolutely not. Right. We have to have higher expectations from the agencies that we fund with our taxpayer money to protect us from potential harm. And I think, you know, they use arguments like, oh, we can't really use the results of the NTP study because it was rats, and you can compare rats to humans, but we use rats for like, every other study. Right. Whether it's pharmaceutical. The standards itself were tested on rats, like five rats and three monkeys or whatever, like a ridiculously small sample size of animals. And so it's just like, it's a paradox. And I feel like not only do we need to, like, have a more sensible, you know, relationship to technology, but we also really need to hold our government accountable for not doing its job.
- [31:18]
Host
Yeah.
- [31:18]
Miriam
At all.
- [31:19]
Host
That's why I think DOGE is good. I don't know if they've looked into the FCC at all, but they seem to be good with other ones. Right.
- [31:24]
Scott
They have yet to go to the fcc.
- [31:27]
Host
Interesting, right? Hopefully they do.
- [31:30]
Scott
Yes. There are many programs over there that could stand a good scrubbing.
- [31:35]
Miriam
Right.
- [31:36]
Host
We'll leave it at that.
- [31:38]
Scott
Well, you know, I, I was practicing in front of the FCC for a very long time, and I was representing people who were in those programs. Trust me, I, it. It's not something I like to talk about because the way the sausage is made is really, really ugly.
- [31:57]
Host
That's not good. You guys think this is a US problem or you think this is worldwide with the, the EMF towers and everything?
- [32:05]
Miriam
I mean, I think countries like the U.S. there's like the Anglo Saxon countries like the U.S. canada, UK, Australia, have particularly high exposure standards. I think the U.S. is pretty much the highest. Like, almost all European countries, as well as Russia and China have lower exposure limits. Considerably lower. European countries have been better. Like, we used, we. We did an article once in Defender about that. Cows in FR are more protected than people in the U.S. wow. Because if we like cells, they used wireless technology. Cell towers are otherwise in, like, farming, and they realized that it impacts the quality of the milk, and so they immediately react. It's something, you know, that's unheard of over here and sort of like we're like, yeah, you can do that. That. That, you know, exceeds the exposure limits. Same with, with iPhones. The iPhone 12, I think, had to be. Was banned in France for a while because it exceeded the radiation. The radiation limits.
- [33:11]
Host
Yeah, I remember that.
- [33:12]
Miriam
And then, funnily enough, right, Like, Apple was doing an upgrade, and they were able to, through an update, reduce the exposure. And I'm like, so it's that easy. Like, why are we being exposed to, like, way higher levels? It's the same with food, right? Like, why are you using chemicals in our food that you are not using in other countries? Because it's, you know, it's. It's. It's outlawed, and I think so We. I. I do see it as, like, a global problem. Particularly during COVID when, like, a lot of people were working from home, you saw a very drastic and very fast rollout of 5G technology in European countries. It was also a time when people could not participate in democracy, right? Like, because they were all. Everything was disrupted and they were cooped up at home. But I think the awareness is bigger in a lot of European countries. The regulatory system is better in a lot of other countries, and the standards are lower. So we are really. We're leading, not in a good way when it comes to RF exposure.
- [34:20]
Host
What a shame, right? Yeah. One of the wealthiest countries, and we're struggling with stuff like this.
- [34:25]
Miriam
And I mean, I think it's just, like, people are not aware of, like, the magnitude of this issue. Right. Like, what Scott mentioned early on on was, like, the impact on bees. Like, if you think about just the fact that pollinators can't navigate in a dense RF environment, like, they can't. They can't find home, it decreases the colony strength of bees considerably. A nationwide dense 5G rollout would have the capacity to collapse the entire food chain. Like, how are you gonna have food if you have no pollinators pollinating, Right? And it's just there are bills in Congress, like, advocating for more wildness in farming, for more violence in national parks, for more wireless, like, everywhere. And it just, It's. It's. It's not taking into consideration any of the risks. And even for someone who's saying, like, oh, I don't believe that, right? Like, I don't. I don't think it's really that bad. Like, at the very least, there is smoke. Like, if you can't see the fire or you don't want to see the fire, there's a lot of smoke. And where there's smoke, there's usually a fire somewhere. So we should at the very least apply the precautionary principle and sort of like take a step back and really look at what's going on before we just plow forward with a rollout that you can never take back.
- [35:47]
Host
Yeah, what's the next big legal fight for you guys? Are you going to go after the FCC again or go after a different target?
- [35:54]
Scott
What we do intend to go back and try one more time to get the FCC to honor the court mandate, probably sometime this fall. But frankly, as bad as the FCC is, it's just another bad federal agency. The bigger problem is the, the legal construction. I mentioned the federal statute that says local jurisdictions can't say no based on health and environmental effects. I mentioned the judicial decisions that just conferred immunity. I mean, as bad as it is, even in the vaccine world, there's a vaccine compensation system for people who are injured by vaccine by being vaccinated. Well, in the RF space, there's nothing like that at all. You're just, there's no remedy.
- [36:54]
Host
You're on your own.
- [36:55]
Scott
You're on your own.
- [36:56]
Miriam
There's nothing.
- [36:57]
Scott
Go die somewhere. I mean, basically, that's it. Geez, you're, you know, collateral damage. So we intend to just directly attack the whole underlying premise that the federal government can even do this to the people. We have individual rights. We were all taught to say, I own my own body. I have the right to informed consent. As Miriam has said several times, we don't have informed consent because we are not informed. But even those who are informed and want to say no, cannot. If you think about, again, a cell tower right next to your property line, they're basically beaming energy. Again, this is what this is. You heard about all that earlier. It's just high powered energy being beamed in your direction. Increasingly direct, directionally. So with things like beam forming for 5G and it's coming across your property line. Well, in my world, that's my property. I have the right to exclude others from my property, but it's taking away that right. So we intend to challenge the proposition that the federal government has the power to tell me I can't keep this stuff off of my property.
- [38:26]
Host
Yeah, I'm gonna look up if there's a tower near my house when I get home. This, this has me really thinking.
- [38:31]
Scott
We are going to challenge the basic proposition behind the legal decisions that say there is no remedy. Our position is there has to be a remedy. There has to be a remedy. And that remedy is informed consent. If I want it More power to you. You know, tell people about it, advise them of the risks. We know there are benefits. Let people make their own balancing choice. Right now, we do not have a meaningful choice. It's just being forced on us. And our legal theory and our belief is that's not the way things are supposed to work in the United States. We have individual rights. We have the right to say no to a bodily insult such as this.
- [39:24]
Miriam
And we call this initiative 704, no more because 704 and people can learn more about it. We have a website, it's called 704nomore.org and it's essentially, you know, what Scott just outlined, like this, this attack on like the entire, the entire federal framework. I think it's important that local authorities and, and local communities have a say because that's where democracy happens, right? You never meet your federal representative in the supermarket that just never met my senator anywhere close to where I live. And even if you write to them, it's of limited, it's of limited impact. However, like you meet your school board, your zoning board, your planning commission, your county commissioner, right? Like they live in the communities where they serve. And I think it's important that we give some control back to those communities. That if there is a cell tower installation and the community says no, this is not what we want, right? Like, then there has to be, there has to be a way for them to say no. And so currently, like While we're launching 704, no more like we've done a lot of litigation over the past couple of years trying to explore where are the holes in this federal preemption system, right? And we, we failed, like in everything we tried. You can't use state health laws, you can't, you can't use state environmental laws, you can't use state due process laws, you can't use, you know, everything, disability, federal disability laws, everything is sort of like under, you know, what telecom wants. And that's why we started the Stop5G initiative, because we want to get in earlier. Like, we're in the middle of this 5G rollout. Cell towers are proposed everywhere, right? Small cells are proposed everywhere. And during the permitting process, you can interfere and you have power on the local level. And so the sub 5G initiative, it's at sub 5G. Dawg is essentially a step by step guide for communities what steps they have to take if there is a cell tower proposed in their neighborhood. And they don't want that, right? How to organize, how to mobilize, how to show up at commission hearings, what's the evidence that you can present that allows your local authority to deny a cell tower application legally, that holds up in court, etcetera, etcetera. Because we really. And it's also has a lot of. Lots of educational tools and flyers and scripts on the website so that people can start having these conversations with their neighbors, with their friends, with their school boards. Right. Because we need both. We sort of, like, feel well equipped to. We were putting together a broad coalition. I think so far we have over 60 safety organizations from all over the country who signed on to 704, no more. And we really want this to be a broad coalition effort, and we think now is the time to do that. But at the same time that education and that pushback on the community level is really, really important. So those are the two really big initiatives that we want to push over the next three years.
- [42:37]
Scott
Beautiful.
- [42:37]
Host
We'll include a link to those in the video. Any. Anything else people can do to support you guys. Children's Health Defense, you got. You have a website for that, too?
- [42:45]
Miriam
We do. It's. It's children's health defense.org and then the. The wireless pages that have lots of information on the regulatory framework as well as the. The. All the studies, all the health impacts is@childrenshealth defense.org wireless. I think, you know, if people. If people just start getting curious about the issue and if people start sort of, like, looking into, you know, their own voluntary exposure, the things that they can do, try to get engaged in that conversation with your friends. Right. Like, do we want to have dinner together or do we want to stare into our phones? And, like, just in general, like, talk more about how we interact with technology and go to the websites, like, actually learn about what the science says, not just what industry says and what you see in your Apple commercial on tv. Right. Like, but actually what the science says, and then I think we can start having more informed conversations.
- [43:50]
Host
I love that. Anything else you want to close off with, Scott?
- [43:54]
Scott
Well, I, you know, I started out representing the industry, and in 1999, folks from Children's Health Defense called me. I was just doing appeals from agencies at the time, asked me if I want to take a case. I said, sure. I asked what it was about, and they said it was about wireless harms. This stuff hurts you. I went, no, it doesn't. Oh, it doesn't. How can it hurt you? But I took the case just because I needed some business.
- [44:26]
Host
Yeah.
- [44:28]
Scott
We ended up winning that case. And by the time it was over. I was a convert, whereas before I was an evangelist for all of this, I thought there was absolutely nothing that could be wrong with it. And so if an old industry grunt like me, who was really enthused about the whole thing and wanted towers everywhere can be converted than anyone can be. And the thing that changed my mind was I actually had to read the 11, 000 pages that he gave to the court. And by the time I was done, I went, oh, my God, everything I know is wrong. So I would challenge your audience to actually look at the science that we've been talking about. You heard about it earlier, too? No, it's basically the same science. Inform yourself about this. You will be shocked at what you find. And if you take better care of yourself, if you exercise a little bit more discipline about your exposure, don't sleep with this thing right next to you. Get a good night's sleep. You're going to feel better. Let me challenge everybody in your audience. Take two days without your phone, go out and go camping.
- [45:48]
Miriam
I feel like that's a big step for a lot of people.
- [45:51]
Scott
Well, no, go out and go camping for a while. No phones, okay? And then at the day you're supposed to leave, check yourself, see how you feel. I will guarantee to everybody in your audience you'll feel a hundred percent better. You will be astounded at the difference.
- [46:08]
Miriam
I mean, I absolutely agree. If people can do that, I think it's great. But I think, like, smaller challenges work as well, right? Shut your phone off at night, turn it into airplane mode, turn your WI fi off. Like, start using speakerphones, like those kind of hardwire your computer, use an ethernet cable instead of turn the WI fi off. Those things make a huge difference. And I think it's also, you know, be conscious about, like, what information you consume. And that's actually a plug that I want to put in because Children's Health Defense has a daily newsletter. It's called the Defender. And the Defender puts out a lot of science investigative reporting, like, just news on all the big industries that we're working on. Big pharma, big food, big ag, big oil, big telecom, big tech. And everything is sourced and hyperlinked. So you can, like, look up all the studies, you can look up all the links. And that is also astonishing. Like, when you start reading the Defender, you're like, wait, how did I not know about any of this, right? Like, whether it's pfas or whether it's, you know, technology, there's just so much out there that mainstream media doesn't talk about. And I think that would also be a great challenge, like, read the Defender and not mainstream news for, like, a week.
- [47:24]
Scott
Okay. Print the Defender and go camp and read it by the campfire.
- [47:28]
Host
There you go, guys. All right. Thanks for coming on. We'll link everything below. It was a pleasure, guys.
- [47:33]
Miriam
Thank you so much for having us.
- [47:34]
Host
Check them out, guys.