Insightful comment from Carl Blackman

Comment below has been submitted last night by Carl Blackman in response to my yesterday’s post “*Censorship in plain sight* by the mainstream news media“. I am posting this comment as stand-alone post because of the high scientific status of Carl within the EMF community.

Carl Blackman is one of the Founding Members of the Bioelectromagnetics Society. He was also the President of the Society in 1990/91 and, in 2014, Carl was awarded the highest scientific prize of the Society – the d’Arsonval Award.


Comment from Carl Blackman

Thank you for your persistence, Dariusz. I think it is important to have independent scientists in universities and government labs do some sensitive biological tests to determine if 5G radiation can alter biological processes, and follow up to determine if any changes are harmful to organisms. This is what NASA did when a manager was concerned that the increased presence of EMF fields in space vehicles that would circle the earth carrying astronauts; they had research done at the Brain Research Institute at UCLA to test reaction times after a warning light was energized. The concern was that humans might have slower responses in the large EMF inside the vehicle and not respond appropriately. In their case, it was found that the time between a warning light and the pressing of a button was not lengthen in the higher electric field environment, but rather that people responded more rapidly, compared to normal electric field environment. These results caused others to examine this phenomenon (including myself).

It would seem that with all the money that is going into this 5G development, some funds should be awarded to independent scientists to do tests to determine what if any biological changes might occur in humans, and/or animal surrogates, before the fields are placed into the human environment. This is such a simple thing to do as a logical precaution, that in concerns me that it hasn’t been done.

3 thoughts on “Insightful comment from Carl Blackman

  1. Dr. Blackman, I was so glad to come across your guest comment here because I had just been reading about your work as presented by Neil Cherry, 2002, in regard to questions I have about emf exposure, calcium ion flux, and health effects. I would very much appreciate any insight you have and will share on those matters. Do you believe our constant emf exposures from wireless tech and their infrastructure are affecting cellular calcium flux, causing dis-regulation and diseases in at least some people–animals, plants, etc? If so, could you briefly explain how and say whether or not you think the exposure is limited to only particular windows of exposure? In general, do oscillating emf’s exert a forced vibration on a living person’s cells and ions which disrupts or can disrupt the cell membrane, balance and function? Is it generally accepted that emf’s can and do generate reactive oxygen species in the body? If so, is calcium ion flux a precursor and/or effect of that generation? Finally or foremost, is there an important part of this process that I am missing or not asking that would better help me understand the process as a whole and it’s implications for all living things? Thank you for your consideration.

  2. To Dr. Blackman:

    Thanks for your most interesting insight from the world of space mission engineering at NASA of how a safety concern raised, lead to research that uncovered a real effect on reaction time.

    I do maintain however, that comparing concern-to-research process within a public space programme, to the private telecommunications industry, has important differences well outside the scientific arena that unfortunately impede this common-sense concern-to-research process.

    There are multiple facets to this, but to me the most obvious one is that safety issues arising from EMF exposure in a tightly controlled environment like a space vehicle, will upon inspection be traced back to the causal device itself: the source of EMF exposure and its biological effect. Unexplored, it will eventually be identified in a most spectacular way with a crash/explosion/catastrophe and impossible to obscure from the public. Thus, it will be mitigated under intense scrutiny and those in charge of safety will most likely be held personally accountable. Also, people with astronaut qualities are extremely hard to find and expensive to train, so their health and safety is treated with utmost caution. You can’t have astronauts who imagine things, so nocebo and psychosomatic explanations are out of the question, by design.

    In contrast, the space within which telecoms operate is completely uncontrolled and people (paying customers) who are willing to hold microwave transmitters up to their heads and near their gonads for prolonged periods, are in abundant supply and there is usually a new one born each minute. Even though it is often said that every mobile telephone user carries in their pocket a technology vastly more powerful than what landed NASA astronauts on the moon, no actual training is required in order to operate this complex and potentially hazardous technology. Nor is there any required psych or medical evaluation prior to handing a person such a device. Once in possession of a device, hardly anyone reads the instruction manual and even if they did, they’d probably miss the most important part – at the back in tiny font: the mention of the operational safety concern that seemingly doesn’t get translated into research funding.

    In a totally uncontrolled space, the chance of a problem being traced back to the causal device is of course impeded by the chaos of using such devices in the absence of any safety training. Even with the most controlled environment offered by telecom operations: the chronic exposure from telecoms infrastructure, the WHO and public health agencies have favoured the chaos instead and telecoms refuse to do post-market health surveillance, so detrimental effects of operating the technology are obscured from the public.

    Health agencies don’t relax that way with other toxicity concerns.

    So why EMF?

    Ask a tort lawyer.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.