Do you ever wonder what our knowledge on RF-EMF and health would be if some promising science projects would not be terminated…
Every now and then, one can hear about scientists whose projects were terminated prematurely, for a variety of reasons, not always scientific. I was one of such scientists where my progressing project on effects of RF-EMF exposure on proteome of human volunteers was terminated, first by telecom’s dislike of it and later by my colleagues’ dislike of it… We may speculate that the knowledge of RF-EMF-induced changes in expression and activity of proteins in human body would be much further now if our pilot project published in 2008 that was assured by my then bosses to have institutional funding guaranteed, would be permitted to continue till now instead to be abruptly terminated in 2012 (via e-mail to me while working at Swinburne UT in Australia… Nice to dream and wonder and… get annoyed and upset at the scientific small-mindedness of some people…
Another similar story is this… Following publication of my review of the to-date performed research on electromagnetic hyper-sensitivity (EHS) I have received an interesting message from Quirino Balzano, ( known for friends as “Q” (no relation to 007’s Q).
Q wrote today, July 10, 2021, to me (published with permission from Q):
“…
Hi Dariusz.
I agree with you that there is a need to explore the cause(s) of EMF hypersensitivity. I started looking in the matter in the early 1990’s by locking myself and a hypersensitive person in a Faraday cage with 140 dB attenuation. My cell phone could not receive any signals, but my test person continued to hear or feel the RF EMF. Had to abandon this research, shortly after the first trial, because of pressing cell phone technology issues.
The matter should be investigated for two reasons:
- It could disturb the mental health of some people.
- If these persons can detect such small signals, we should find their physical-biological receivers, if they exist, and use them in the cell phones.
The overall RF in the environment could be dropped by a factor of 100 dB, an enormous saving of emitted RF power and costs to the cell phone industry”
I have no additional information to share as the project was short lived.
Take care, Q.
…”
For those curious, as per the CV of Q on the website of the IT’IS Foundation, in 1990’s Q was working for Motorola in USA:
“…In 1974, he [Q] joined Motorola, Inc., Plantation, FL. In 1987 he became Vice President of the technical staff and in 1993 Corporate Vice President and Director of the Florida Research Laboratories. He retired from Motorola in February, 2001…”
Let us again speculate, in our minds, where the knowledge on human sensitivity to RF-EMF would be if the Faraday’s cage experiments of Q would have continued…
Sweet dreams and bitter regrets to all of us…
BRHP - Between a Rock and a Hard Place 
This seems relevant here. The matrix of “experts” and their conflicting involvement in all the major decision groups. There is a clear revolving door phenomenon here that you cannot simply ignore. It means the opinions of all these institutions are controlled by the same small group of people.
https://i.imgur.com/lxITeuY.png
From Hardell’s publication “Aspects on the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) 2020 Guidelines on Radiofrequency Radiation”:
https://lennarthardellenglish.wordpress.com/2021/07/17/aspects-on-the-international-commission-on-non-ionizing-radiation-protection-icnirp-2020-guidelines-on-radiofrequency-radiation/
1) There is a way to determine if there is causality or not, and it is by applying the 9 criteria of Sir Bradford Hills and this is exactly what 2 IARC experts such as Hardell and Portier have done. and the results were very strong (do you still have any doubts?) What do you need more ?
2) On the other hand, there is absolutely no evidence that ionizing radiation is carcinogenic. They are only carcinogenic at values 1000 times higher than the established limits..!! and yet they are categorized by IARC as 1. Can you explain why?
3) Non-ionizing radiation has a carcinogenic power 1000 greater than ionizing radiation at authorized levels and they are also co-carcinogenic so they should be in a higher category than non-ionizing (may be 2?)
I wonder what it would take for independent research to proceed unencumbered and honestly when it contradicts the agenda of industry and government. Is it even possible to ethically research under such circumstances? The military-industrial complex is driving technological applications to an uncertain destination and we all are going along for the ride, like it or not. Society is burdened with the true, hidden costs that CEO’s and shareholders defer and from which they capitalize. We have the symptoms of a sick and endangered society. Our lack of ethics in science, our disregard for the whole truth, for the welfare of others and even ourselves is racing us down a very dark road. Our technology and it’s implications have exceeded the intellectual capacity of most people, maybe all of us. Even scientists generally understand the technology only in the language of their own disciplines. Some not even, hence all of the doctors holding cell phones to their heads, giving hospitalized children iPads to play with, etc. etc. etc. Most people don’t even realize there is a lack of ethics, or that there is even an ethical issue at all. They only know that the devices work better and better than before. Is it psychological conditioning, some sociological phenomena? How can things change? That is the real question for me. Ethics is a soft science, but a moral precept. Can we get on a holistically sustainable course or are we already too deeply corrupted?
Yes, indeed. However, Q is retired and doesn’t do EHS research anymore…
Thanks a lot, That’s would be great if Q confirm
I only follow what my eyes see and my ears hear.
Dr. Jerry L. Phillips experience with Motorola:
“I don’t have any faith in [the research] that comes out at this point. Absolutely none. Not with my experience dealing with the industry.”
Timestamp 1:00:52 for your reference:
Perhaps you can empathize with that researcher’s thoughts, since you seems you have been affected by similar attitudes towards your own research.
You are being funny or sarcastic… however, remember that correlation doesn’t automatically equal causation.
It would also be an interesting experiment to see how much cognitive dissonance in various scientists RF-EMFs produce. I think this metric has a very high correlation with the amount of RF-EMFs present in the environment. Probably a very high correlation with revenue, profits, grant funds, and inverse to degrees of separation from ICNIRP and the FCC.