Major Breadcrumbs To Pay Attention To

With a palpable lack of coverage on the subject of EMFs in our environment, the silence by the government, universities, scientists and institutions, lends itself to the ostrich burying its head in the sand analogy. No one person or group of importance wants to come forward to bang the drum on the devastating effects that are very well known and published about electromagnetic fields on human health, animal and insect health, in fact on the very health of the Earth.

Unfortunately for the proverbial ostrich the breadcrumbs the globalists leave behind all lead back to the same understanding. Unnatural EMF’s effect life.

Let’s dive into some of the biggest breadcrumbs that have appeared over the last 90 years.

1. History shows us that the first gathering of information to create ‘standards’ around radio frequency exposure come from a gentleman called Herman P Schwann. Now uncle Herman was one of those fellows that worked happily alongside the Nazi regime over in Germany during the second world war and with the open relocation of Nazi scientists through Operation Paperclip, he appears on US soil working in the microwave radiation space. This guy basically created the first assemblage of exposure standards that world wide groups still use to this day. So back in the late 1940’s, the work they undertook with understanding radio frequency and microwave radiation, created the ridiculously high levels of RF we experience today. In the background, Russia had already undertaken work in this space from scientists like Georges Lakhovsky had arrived at much different conclusions about their effects. In short, they created lower upper limits for exposure. This created contention with the US and still to this day pressure is mounted to challenge countries like Russia on their exposure limits.

   
   

2. The delusional World Health Organisation unsurprisingly has an EMF group which over the years swaps and changes its leaders with the telecommunications industry. It is known in EMF circles that they would often put pressure on biophysicist Yuri Grigoriev who was responsible for the electromagnetic health limits in Russia in order to force them into accepting the EMF exposure standards they have aligned with ICNIRP. 

   
   

3. In 2011, the WHO classified RF exposure as a class 2B carcinogen, linking the possibility of cancer to radio frequency exposure. One of the members of this 2011 panel was Dr Arthur Miller who wanted a higher classification. Since this time Dr Miller has been requested the WHO to reconvene the meeting to reclassify RF exposure as a class 1 - actual carcinogen. To date, the WHO have not yet readdressed this reclassification meeting. https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf 

   
   

4. ICNIRP which is the International Commission for Non Ionising Radiation and Protection are domiciled in Switzerland which, likely for legal reasons also holds other worldwide business headquarters. Why do countries like New Zealand and Australia bend to swiss groups they have zero control over or input into regarding standards covering EMF exposures? ICNIRP is a private organisation, funded by telecommunications and other big businesses. Appointees are selected from these industries and the revolving door across telecoms is traceable. ICNIRP over the last few years have refused to acknowledge repeated requests to increased safety standards.

   
   

5. In 2018 a major US study undertaken by NTP the National Toxicology Program on Cancer concluded after 10 years and $30 million dollars that RF radiation from 2G and 3G frequencies showed clear evidence of cancer in rats and mice. The same year, the Ramazzini institute in Italy finalised a similar long term study this time with 4G with the exact same conclusion. ICNIRP was presented with this information but declined to address any concerns citing that there was not enough evidence to affect their standards. https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/cell_phone_radiofrequency_radiation_studies_508-2.pdf 

   
   

6. In the last 10 years, thousands of scientists from around the world including New Zealand have petitioned the United Nations and the World Health Organisation over decreasing upper limits of exposure to EMF, 5G and the proliferation of satellites. To date, there has been no action taken to address the concerns of the petitioners. www.5gappeal.eu 

   
   

7. The grouping of terms for ionising and non ionising radiation are used as the first major argument across those that benefit from protectionism of their technology. This single stance basically states that non ionising radiation doesn't have enough energy to liberate electrons from the atomic structure and therefore only thermal (heating) effects on human skin are noteworthy. This argument utterly fails at the first hurdle as heating of the skin during RF exposure has an immediate effect and causes non thermal reactions. All arguments about effects of RF only focus on creation of end state diseases like cancer thereby ignoring quantum biological changes that trigger unnatural responses like the well documented VGCC (voltage gated calcium channels) effects. https://www.emfanalysis.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/EMF-Effects-via-Voltage-Gated-Calcium-Channels-Dr-Martin-Pall.pdf 

   
   

8. In the insurance world, the largest underwriters in the world, organisations like Lloyds of London and Swiss RE, will not provide insurance for RF exposure or Electro Magnetic exposure. Try getting your health insurance to cover you for damage done with a cell phone tower outside your bedroom window or your car insurance to cover you for magnetic field exposure from an electric car. 

   
   

9. In the large telecommunications companies shareholder and board reports, you can find subtle breathtaking admissions in their risk analyses that they are aware of issues pertaining to exposure to radio frequency and microwave radiation from cell phone transmitters. They note that, risks exists that may impact their financial reporting due to rising awareness, resistance and injury from RF exposure. 

   
   

10. The big cell phone manufactures have RF exposure guidelines in their terms and conditions. For instance, my personal IPhone states ‘“To reduce exposure to RF energy, use a hands-free options, such as the built in speakerphone, headphones or other similar accessories. Cases with metal parts may change the RF performance of the device including its compliance with RF exposure guidelines, in a manner that has not been tested or certified.” One would need to ask the question, why are cell phone manufacturers concerned with reducing our RF exposure?

    
    

11. The international classification coding system are standardised codes used to classify and code diagnoses and symptoms. They are used by the global ‘healthcare’ industry to provide knowledge on the causes and consequences of human disease. In the list of ICD codes are ones for Radio frequency exposure and ELF (extreme low frequency ie electricity) exposure.  

    
    

12. In France a doctor named Marc Arazi started what became known as #Phonegate where he learnt that the french authority for radiation protection (ASNR) had undertaken RF radiation checks of 400 common brand cell phones. He requested the data only to be denied. This created a movement in France called ‘Phonegate’. After lots of pressure from public groups, the ASNR released some of their findings. What it showed was that the vast majority of all common brand phones emitted more radiation than the manufacturers stated at the time. This has since lead to various models of cell phones being banned in France. https://phonegatealert.org/en/ 

    
    

13. The New Zealand standard that covers exposure to radio frequency is NZS2772:1999. This standard, is now over 25 years old and bears no resemblance to the reality of how individuals are exposed to radio frequency particularly from cell phone transmitters or WiFi. There are extremely high limits of RF exposure that are permissible under this standard which is based on ICNIRP recommendations. The NZ standard has no consideration towards variables from exposure in daily activities like sleeping 50m from a 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G cell phone tower. The standard does not account for RF intensity, duration, proximity to transmitters, frequency modulation, power density, destructive interference, reflection, frequency variations, orientation of transmitters and numerous other considerations. Cell phone transmitters or base stations are only randomly checked, and no testing on private grounds, schools, factories, retirement villages, shopping areas, or inside any other populated environment is undertaken by authorities.

    
    

14. Levels of WiFi and overall radio frequency radiation in schools is unmonitored. With growing numbers of connected devices in schools, routers and transmitting equipment using more power to manage demand, the RF radiation in schools is increasing. A comprehensive study conducted in May 2025 in Brasil demonstrates the high levels of RF radiation students are exposed to in their hands, torso and head. https://www.scielo.br/j/jmoea/a/hS9VJvKddrTsTtyqLrVdNZx/?format=pdf&lang=en 

    
    

15. In NZ in 2018, the government got on the front foot recognising that we the people weren't happy with 5G rolling out, so they used their Interagency Committee to get ahead of the resistance. The conclusion of this report was that no change to exposure standards was necessary. Since this time, RF radiation levels have continued to increase and more people are being directly exposed for longer periods. https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/2018-11/interagency-committee-health-effects-non-ionising-fields-report-ministers-2018.pdf 

These are just a snapshot of the big stepping stones that lead to the questions of safety concerning radio frequency radiation. Intertwined within each of these points are other back stories and history leading us to this position. We have many independent groups across the world seeking better safety standards for RF exposure. Meanwhile, the captured and embedded world agencies that control the narrative resist the mountains of evidence gathered over the last 90 years. It is now time to separate intuition from authority and work out for yourself which side of the evidence you prefer.