Dr. Paul Heroux discusses the dangers of Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) and cell phones with Robert F. Kennedy Jr in this episode. You do not want to miss this episode for the health of you and your family, especially the Q&A at the end.
Cell phones emit radiation in the radiofrequency region of the electromagnetic spectrum. Second-, third-, and fourth-generation cell phones (2G, 3G, 4G) emit radiofrequency in the frequency range of 0.7–2.7 GHz. Fifth-generation (5G) cell phones are anticipated to use the frequency spectrum up to 80 GHz.
Dr. Paul Héroux is one of the world's leading experts on EMR. He is a scientist with experience in physics (BSc, MSc and PhD), engineering, and the health sciences. He started his research career at Institut de Recherche d'Hydro-Québec in Varennes, Québec, an internationally reputed electro-technical laboratory. After rounding out his formation with courses in Biology and Medicine, he became interested in public health, and was appointed Associate Professor at McGill University's Faculty of Medicine, where he is the current Occupational Health program Director, and also Medical Scientist in the Department of Surgery of the McGill University Health Center.
Only about 20% of their radiation goes for communication.
The rest is diffused into your body, which explains a lot of things.
Children, of course, are very vulnerable to these things because their brains are developing.
Are there some cell phones that are better than others?
The Apple phones are the worst.
We need somebody like yourself to put a bit of order in the house, in my opinion.
Hey everybody, my guest today, Dr.
Paul Herro is probably the top expert in the field of bioelectric physics and radio frequency radiation and the impacts of radio frequency radiation on nature and human beings.
Dr.
Polaro is a scientist with experience in physics.
He has a PhD in physics and engineering and the health sciences.
He started his research career at the Institut des Récherches of Hydro-Quebec in Veronese, Quebec, an internationally reputed electrotechnical laboratory, the biggest electric company in Canada.
After rounding out his formation with courses in biology and medicine, he became interested in public health and was appointed associate professor at McGill University's Faculty of Medicine, where he is the current occupational health program director.
He is, as I said, an expert in toxicology and electromagnetic radiation.
And I won a lawsuit About cell phone radiation, suing FCC, the Federal Communications Commission in 2021.
And we sued FCC because of the science that they were using to defend their lack of regulation of cell phone, Wi-Fi radiation.
The science had overwhelmed it.
There was no science behind it.
Their assumption was That until that radiation began to raise the temperature of your body or your organs, in other words, you wanted microwaving you and cooking you, that there were no subternal effects.
And this is wrong, and there are literally, I was shocked, And Polaro can tell us whether this is hyperbole, but there were over 10,000 studies out there over the years raising concerns about Wi-Fi radiation and showing that indeed there are some thermal impacts that the cells in your body Act as little antennas that are regulating electric
currents and energy currents and flow between all the functions of your body.
And the way that you think, the way that you feel, the way that your immune system works, the way that you move, it's all regulated by electrical impulses that your cells regulate and that the cell tower near you It disrupts that and does a lot of other bad stuff,
but in all the So we won that lawsuit and FCC has, this was during the Trump administration, the head of the FCC at that time was a Verizon lobbyist and they have ever since then blocked anything from happening.
So they're required, essentially required, they're implied in this What lawsuit was in the decision by the Federal Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., was that they need to start a new rulemaking.
They need to do a real assessment of what Wi-Fi radiation.
There are solutions to it, and we're going to talk about those, but that's where we are in the federal case.
I wanted to bring Paul, I'm here because he, better than anybody else that I know, can explain what happens to radiofrequency radiation inside the human body.
So, Paul, welcome to my podcast.
It's a delight to finally meet you in person.
Thank you.
Tell us, what does...
What does Wi-Fi radiation, radio frequency radiation, do when it gets into the human body?
Why should we be concerned about this?
Well, the 10,000 studies that you mentioned are not there by luck.
They are there because there are actually health effects of electromagnetic radiation.
The reason why so many governments would believe that there are no effects It can seem to be a mystery, but it's not a mystery to me, because I'm a fairly old man, as you can see, and I was there when all of these, I would say, these strategies were being developed.
In other words, industry desperately wanted to have very high standards.
And this was done in the days of the microwave ovens, when this was the new wonder application.
But industry realized that electromagnetic radiation had tremendous potential for commercial applications.
So, you'll have to consult the law to determine whether this was done, I would say, in a In an underhanded way or not.
But what they came up with is that this radiation is not dangerous.
And they had three great arguments that they could present to the public and to politicians, who, as you know, don't have too much time to deal with things like that.
They said, well, you know, this radiation is non-ionizing.
Secondly, they said the radiation levels that we emit are too weak.
And thirdly, they said there are no mechanisms to explain the action of these fields on the body.
Unfortunately, all three of these arguments are completely false from the scientific point of view.
And the thing that I came up with relatively recently is that they should have known better, and they did not.
And if you look at the science, basically the problem is, can this radiation trigger certain reactions in human bodies that could interfere or make them sick?
And so we call this essentially the concept of energy of activation.
What does it take to make changes in the human body from radiation?
And what they use, in fact, are concepts that date to 1889.
It's called the Arrhenius equation.
And what this says is that you have to break a certain amount of energy in order to trigger a chemical reaction.
The thinking is simple.
You have to break something before it can come back together in a different way.
So they use this concept to say that it's non-ionizing because indeed the radiation is non-ionizing.
So they thought this is a really good thing to present to the public.
And then they said the radiation is too weak.
In other words, it cannot ionize, so consequently it can't do anything.
And then, show us the mechanisms that allow these reactions to occur.
Well, there's something very interesting about the human body.
The human body has as its first characteristic that it organizes things.
And this is a bit hard to digest from the second law of thermodynamics, which is universally accepted in physics.
If you organize things, you have in a corresponding way to generate disorganization.
This disorganization occurs in all living systems and it's called reactive oxygen species or unstable molecules.
Now, once you understand this, that living systems have to generate free radicals, then they become vulnerable to fields that are extremely weak.
And so what this means is that the argument of radiation is too weak no longer holds.
And then there are no mechanisms.
I can describe in detail at least two mechanisms that are able to alter your rate of cancer and that are able to enter your rate of diabetes.
So, in other words, industry had no science to stand on, but they fed these stories to politicians and to the public.
You know, many years ago, I had a radio show called Ring on Fire.
This was back in the, I think, mid-2000s, or early 2000s, but I had a guy on that time I met, and I've met many times since, named Dr.
George Carlo.
And Dr.
George Carlo was what we would call an industry biostitute.
He was a guy...
Who had good credentials, but he was a mercenary scientist, and he would be hired by industry to reach certain preordained results that the industry wanted to have a scientific study that validated some profit-taking enterprise that they had already determined they wanted to do.
And they hired George Carlow to look at cell phone radiation because, as you know, back around 2013, Congress and the GAO were putting tremendous pressure on FCC to start doing real science and regulating cell phone radiation, which they were doing in Russia and other countries.
Russia had this tremendous...
I'm out of science, early science, in this area.
And they are very, very strict in their regulations over there.
And Congress was getting worried about it.
There were people coming in sick.
Americans were complaining about it.
And they started pressuring the industry.
So the industry, in order to defend itself, hired George Carlow.
George Carlin and they wanted him to do a report, clearing it all and saying that it was all as safe as can be.
And he was a guy who was capable of doing that stuff, but he started, but he had a conscience.
And he started reading the science.
And the science was so overwhelming.
He was finding studies, rat studies from Europe, that they put a cell phone next to a rat for even a couple of minutes.
And the EEGs of that rat would not turn back to normal for days.
The same thing with children.
And that there was evidence then that it was opening up the permeability of the blood-brain barrier in people's brains.
And, you know, he started finding this.
They'd given him $26 million to do this study, and he gave the money back, and he said, I can't do it, and then he went public.
And he shocked the industry.
And, you know, he turned out to be a very brave man, and he's been working, I think, ever since to expose it.
But that was my first exposure to how bad this is and how overwhelming the science was on it.
Yes, I think your description is very, very accurate.
The fact is that when industry was confronted with this problem, you're dealing essentially with the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
They didn't really have any indigenous expertise.
And the people that they acquired naturally seemed pressure to tell the industry what it wanted to hear.
So, essentially, what happened is that in this process, in the end, industry avoided the problem and Tried to find arguments so that the public and even their own constituency, I mean, you're talking about 400,000 engineers, that they would all believe that this radiation is an offensive.
And if you start to broadcast these ideas, you know, amongst engineers, with 400,000 people, it's very powerful.
And they are the ones who hold the expertise on electromagnetism.
But of course, their assessment of science was extremely superficial.
They didn't want to get into it.
They felt it was not their venue.
And what Carlo dealt with is all this health evidence coming from epidemiologists and so on.
But one thing that I know is that when epidemiologists talk to engineers, it's very difficult to find a common ground.
They don't understand each other.
And so consequently, even today, we are in a situation in which industry is resting on very, very non-existent science, really.
And you want to know how the tests were conducted to determine that this radiation was safe.
Well, they were very short-term tests.
Essentially, the military wanted to know if we have a pilot in an F-16, and this pilot is obviously subjected to the radiation of his radar, does the radiation impair his function, his ability to understand situations, his ability to follow his ability to understand situations, his ability to follow orders?
And so they ran very short-term tests on a series of rats and monkeys.
That's 40 to 60 minutes on monkeys like five monkeys, 10 rats, things like that.
And the criterion that they used to determine the safety level was, are these animals reducing their ability to feed themselves?
Because they would have a pellet that they could press, and that would deliver a morsel of food to them.
So they increased the radiation until these animals reduced their intake of food.
And so on the basis of these very simplistic tests, the industry ran away and said, this is what we're going to use.
You have to ask yourself, can a test that lasts 40 to 60 minutes represent, you know, the span of human life of 70 years or the effect on humans over many generations?
So it's rather humiliating to think how all of this was done and was arranged.
And so now we also have...
Test showing that this is hurting people, that, you know, animals, that wildlife, that even trees are affected by it.
Tell us, you know, what is the bad news?
I mean, how bad is this?
There's people getting, you know, I'm representing a lot of people who have what they call cell phone tumors, who are Of glioblastomas in their brains.
And my uncle, Ted Kennedy, died of one of those tumors.
And the people who were getting these tumors, my colleague, Johnny Cochran, another attorney, had what he thought he understood to be a cell phone tumor that he died from.
And you're seeing people get these tumors right behind the ears that they favor with their cell phones.
But so far, we're not seeing the science come out to support it.
We're seeing a lot of anecdotal evidence and some science on the cancer issues.
But on the other issues, the science is pretty overwhelming, isn't it?
Yes.
For example, in the case of cancer, Imagine that you have one cell that is mutated in your body.
It's very well known that in a normal human body, you have full of mutations that do not develop into cancer.
You know, for years and years and years.
But imagine that you have an agent like electromagnetic radiation that is applied to this cell.
What does the radiation do?
It changes the level of metabolism in cells.
In other words, when you apply it, the metabolism goes down.
And when you release the radiation, the metabolism goes back up.
Now, if you culture cells and you You expose them to various levels of radiation, you will find that from one cancer cell of one type, this kind of electromagnetic treatment will increase the diversity of cells that you have.
Some will have more chromosomes than the first original cell, some will have fewer, and so on and so forth.
By increasing the diversity of cancer cells within the body, you increase the malignancy Of the tumor itself.
And you can trigger its appearance.
And so there's plenty of evidence that an agent like electromagnetic radiation, which is a modulator of metabolism, can have these effects on cancer specifically.
And this evidence has been around for a long, long time, but as you know, industry has fought the evidence and claimed that the science isn't good.
Science is always complicated at the best of times, but when you survey the whole thing, some conclusions can be reached, just in the case, the legal case that you mentioned.
Another impact was to increase the permeability of the blood-brain barrier.
Can you talk a little bit about that?
Absolutely.
The brain is a special organ in the body.
It's responsible for so many things.
And by and large...
The perfusion of blood into the brain is highly controlled.
In certain regions, like the hypothalamus and the pituitary gland, it's rather permeable because you want the brain to get proper messaging from what happens in the body.
But overall in the brain, it's hard to get from the blood into neural tissue.
Well, plenty of evidence showed that when you are subjected to even non-thermal levels of electromagnetic radiation that are perfectly fine with the FCC, you increase the permeability of the blood-brain barrier.
This was documented usually by penetration of albumin, which is a protein that you have in large amounts in your blood.
But the problem with albumin is that albumin is a buffer against all the toxicants in your body.
Basically, when you have an acute exposure to high concentrations of a toxicant, albumin gobbles up most of it.
In order to release it to your tissues progressively, thereby lowering the shock.
When you allow albumin to penetrate into your nervous tissue, all of these toxins that are accumulated by albumin have access to your brain as well.
So, it's obvious physiologically that this type of permeation of the blood-brain barrier is a fundamental risk to the brain itself.
And what happens to the brain when you allow toxics into the brain?
Well, I think any toxicology specialist can tell you, you know, the brain is supposed to be relatively immune to these chemicals, and all of a sudden you allow entry into a delicate tissue.
This tissue, the brain is very dependent on supplies of ATP. You know that if you stop breathing right now, you will lose consciousness very, very rapidly because your nervous system depends on the high amount of ATP being generated continuously by the supply of oxygen into your brain.
So this is a highly delicate tissue.
And if you start allowing all sorts of toxicants, and these toxicants can be almost anything, because whatever you were exposed to, that the brain did not allow into neural tissue, whatever your exposure, now can get around neurons that actually are the functioning part of your brain.
And will that interfere with...
that will cause inflammation or interfere with brain function at some point?
These toxicants that are allowed into the brain can do that by themselves.
But we also know that the radiation itself is well known to increase reactive oxygen species.
You know, in tissues.
And these reactive oxygen species are essentially molecules that have been activated to be, I would say, hostile to tissue that is healthy.
So, when you suppress metabolism in any cell, it's a little bit like you have a garden hose and you are...
You're watering your lawn, and then you take the hose and you bend it so that the water can't come out anymore.
Well, behind you, if there are any leaks on your hose, they will quickly spurt some water.
You know, the spurt that weren't there before.
And so those are the losses.
of metabolism and we know exactly where they occur in complex 1 and complex 3 of oxidative phosphorylation so you suppress metabolism you are going to increase reactive oxygen species in tissues this has been repeatedly demonstrated in relation to radiofrequency radiation exposure so these reactive oxygen species by their very nature are hostile when they are in excessive quantities And when
they're present in the brain, of course, they can do damage.
Now, all of these chronic diseases can be linked to excesses ROS. We're talking about what things like diabetes, things like Alzheimer's, things like Parkinson's, amyotropic lateral cirrhosis, all of these chronic neurological diseases are connected with ROS. And Microwave radiation can produce an increased concentration of these things.
You know, the woman...
Who originally brought this lawsuit to me, the federal lawsuit, was a woman named Dafna Takover.
And you may have met her.
She was an officer in the Israeli Defense Force for a long time.
And it was a cyber warfare expert.
So she was basically in a compartment.
That was filled with electronics and getting radiated all the time, and at some point— She developed literally overnight a sensitivity to it.
And after that, she had to move to the Catskills.
She couldn't be around.
It's very, very hard to get away from a radiofrequency radiation nowadays because they're saturating the globe with it.
There are cell towers everywhere.
It's coming from satellites now.
And so she had to move to a remote area of the Catskills.
But she can come into rooms in my house and say, this room is heavily radiated.
And I had to meet her, and every time that she said that, she was absolutely accurate.
I've since then met many, many people who have this kind of sensitivity, including a lot of children, who get very, very sick.
Even small exposures to cell phones or to radiation, and it's very much complicated their lives.
Can you explain that and talk about that, your own experience with people who are sensitive, how many people are like that?
People believe that it's between 2 and 3% of people who are aware of it and take defensive measures in order to combat these environmental exposures.
Now, the mechanisms are probably exactly the same as the one that we discussed.
Essentially, when you generate reactive oxygen species, your nervous system and your immunity can become sensitized to it, and the nervous system will react.
Now, I know of cases where children who are electrosensitive would find in a classroom the one spot.
Where the radiation was lowest.
And I would go in with my instrument and I would realize, oh, this is where he sits, right?
And these people know spontaneously how to defend themselves against the radiation.
But indeed, they become ostracized from society.
And some people are very sensitive, not only to Radio frequency radiation, but also to radiation from power systems and even from static electricity.
So, it can become a very, very disturbing syndrome that changes your life completely.
And the fear that us, you know, public health people have, is that as we increase the level of radiation, are we going to magnify and increase correspondingly the number of people who are afflicted by this?
And nobody wants that to happen.
Now, the mechanisms of increases in reactive oxygen species is a mechanism that can, I would say, solicit many physiological processes.
And that explains why all people who are electromagnetically sensitive don't have exactly the same symptoms.
I know a woman whose left eye closes each time there is radiation, and very reliably, for other people, they will get a headache.
That depends on individual physiology and sometimes on the variables of the exposure, because as you know, our electric environment is extremely complicated.
It's a mixture of all sorts of ingredients.
And for this reason, it has been very difficult to unravel.
Another aspect is that when people try to do experiments, they are rarely in a position in which they can provide a completely radiation-free environment as a baseline in their research.
This has made the whole field of bioelectromagnetics very complicated.
I would say the reactive oxygen species is a dominant mechanism, also changes in metabolism, and that is essentially happening.
There's also a third mechanism that I know of.
This is less known.
It's called the Rathus mechanism.
This is a mechanism by which radiation changes the pH in the fluid, even in water.
And so all of these things together can create extremely complicated effects and syndromes.
And these EHS people, Come with all sorts of symptoms regularly and phone me and ask for help.
Now, you've said, and this is very, very well established in the science, that the principal exposure to most people from radiation is, one, cell towers that are near your home or near your place of business, and then also, probably the worst, putting a cell phone next to your head.
Can you talk about that?
And can you talk about particularly children, you know, that are now, we've got a generation of kids.
That he had to wake up, sleeping inches from their cell phones, and their cell phones in bed with them at night.
I tell my kids this, you know, because I'm involved in those issues.
I read the science and I'm alarmed.
But I can't convey my alarm to my kids.
They just don't believe it.
And, you know, I have to go in their rooms at night from when they were little and take the cell phone out of the beds if they sleep with them next to their pillows.
What is this doing and what a year, you know, what a year of feelings about that.
Well, what you're fighting is something very powerful.
People instinctively believe that if government allows something on the market, it must be fine.
And they don't realize that there's intimate connections between government and industry.
And so if industry is given too much leeway, you're looking for catastrophes.
Remember this guy Adam Smith, right?
1776, he is the father of capitalism.
Capitalism, yes.
But in The Wealth of Nations, he warns us, he says, do not let the merchants take the control of the laws.
These people have in the past harmed populations.
But in the United States, apparently, the FCC has been labeled a captured agency, and it is not the only one.
So we need somebody like yourself to put a bit of order in the house, in my opinion.
And so, in view of your experience with corporate corporations generally, I think you would be a great man to do that.
I wish you the best of luck.
I want to point out that that lug for me was not rearranged.
It's very spontaneous.
I admire a lot some of the statements that you make about government.
We need government, but government should not be a substitute for the people.
And in some ways, this is exactly what it is trying to do.
In most industrial nations, governments now control the majority.
of the money flow in a country.
That means that government changes its own ideas about itself.
But going back to the exposure, depending on whether you consider that high-intensity exposures or chronic exposures, which over a long period of time, are the most important, some people would say that the cell phone is the dominant exposure because it radiates into your head at very high intensities.
In fact, when you put a cell phone against your head, only about 20% of the radiation goes for communication.
The rest is diffused into your body, which explains a lot of things.
So, intense exposures from cell phones, but cell phone towers are active all the time.
So, they contribute smaller levels, but if you multiply them by the time of exposure for most people, unless you use a cell phone professionally, they would be the strongest source of exposure.
So all of these things together will get worse over time as engineers who have no limits in their imagination think up things like the Internet of Things, the Internet of Bodies.
They would like everything to communicate with everything else.
But this is, in my opinion, a philosophy that is wrong-headed.
We don't need every grain of sand to communicate with every other grain of sand.
And we need privacy.
We need a decent environment to live in that is protected from the invasions of the engineers who feel that whatever they can do is appropriate.
What would you tell a parent about, you know, who's got kids sleeping with their cell phones and putting them next to their heads?
What advice would you give them?
You know, what's the best way to minimize that?
And what would you do to scare, to frighten them about, you know, appropriately?
Well, I would tell them, please protect their sleeping environment.
Because you may not have control over what happens in schools and elsewhere.
but you can at least control their bedrooms.
You have to make sure that in their bedrooms, both Low-frequency magnetic fields from baseboard heaters are low, as well as the radio frequencies from the routers or something like that.
These should be extinguished at night.
And how do I scare them?
Well, you know, dying from cancer or from any chronic disease at a very, very low age is a very dramatic thing.
And being impaired in your learning.
Because after all, this radiation is known to have impacts on the brain.
It alters memory in some ways.
Ways that are subtle, but that are nonetheless there.
Experiments on animals confirm this extensively.
So, if you want to protect the future of your child and remember that they will be exposed to this radiation a lot longer than us adults were, because for us, it's certainly recent invention.
For them, it will be lifelong exposure.
And the danger is that we will get used to new rates of cancer, new rates of diabetes, new rates of Alzheimer's, new rates of Parkinson's that will become entirely normal because practically the whole population is being exposed.
In other words, there are no controls left.
So wire your house for internet wiring and reduce your use of wireless.
I don't think we'll get use of wireless completely.
It will still be around, but it simply has to be managed in such a way that we reduced risk in particular to chronic diseases.
I want to get to that solution because you actually have a pretty elegant and workable solution, which is a future in fiber optic.
Cable, which is better for our privacy.
It's better for ending the surveillance state.
It will protect nature, protect our bodies, protect our children's health.
It will protect us against chronic disease, all of that.
I want to get into that in a minute, but tell me first, tell us, What are other countries doing?
You know, how do you see U.S. compared to European countries?
I know in some of the European countries, they're restricting cell phones for kids and schools.
And what Russia is doing, Russia knows a lot about this because they tried to develop it as a weapon originally.
And I use radiofrequency radiation, and it appears that people are using it as a weapon.
You know, we're seeing the Havana Syndrome, and there's a lot of Speculation about whether that's radiofrequency weaponry.
But talk about that, about what's happening in other countries, and also, if you can, about the use of it as a weapon.
As far as other countries in France, They discourage the use of wireless in kindergarten.
And in schools, they ask the children to leave their cell phones at the door.
And it's that simple.
And I think they're doing this because they apprehend the risk of the radiation, but also because they believe that it's not conducive to proper learning.
I mean, I've always wondered.
I'm a professor in a university, and I am in front of class, and all of these students in front of me have their laptops open with Wi-Fi provided by the university.
Are they doing some homework, you know, from the previous class?
What are they doing exactly?
I do want them to look up information that would be relevant to the discussion in class.
But what it means is that essentially you are curtailing, diminishing, you know, attenuating any discussion that could happen in class normally because essentially everybody can go their own way and Socially, this is a catastrophe.
You see it even in very simple countries where people used to meet in the public place on Sundays and talk.
And after the advent of cell phones, everybody's on their cell phone.
These are addictive devices that have to be controlled because you have a science that's being developed to capture attention.
And this attention is subtracted from family life and from intellectual life.
So I never understood, personally, why in a class you don't want all the students to be attentive to what's happening.
And we encourage people, on the basis of what?
I have no idea.
On the basis of laissez faire, that a salesman told you that this will be a boon to our education.
And children, of course, are very vulnerable to these things because their brains are developing.
And so any signs, and there are many, that the brain does not all develop in the same way when it's subjected to this radiation are quite alarming.
All right, let's talk about solutions.
What is the solution?
You know, one of the things that you've talked a lot about is fiber optic cables.
And what is, you know, how would that solve the problem?
Clinton promised the US population that they would get fiber to the home, didn't he?
And what happened instead is that the industry took in the money and developed wireless.
So the promise that President Clinton had made perfect technical sense.
You want to provide people with speed and with access to the world through the Internet.
And essentially, when industry took that contract up, They perverted it to a wireless, I would say, deployment simply because they thought that they could make more money that way.
And so, I believe myself that businesses and private households should have wired optical fiber, which has a potential for speed that is enormously higher than what wireless has.
And secondly, it is energy- Very, very efficient.
We have to think in terms of the energy that we need to spend per bit or a byte of data that we're transmitting, because apparently the appetite of people for data is very, very large.
So we have to be thoughtful of how we transmit information, lest You know, a large proportion of U.S. electrical power is completely absorbed by, you know, telecommunications devices.
So this is very, very important.
So fiber to businesses and to the home is one thing.
A second thing that is coming up that may become very important is Li-Fi.
We believe that the frequencies of radiation that are visible or very near to the infrared might be less physiologically hazardous because living systems have had a very long time to adapt to this radiation.
Whereas the microwave and radio frequency radiations are entirely new, To the environment.
In other words, there was none of this before the development of radio frequency techniques.
So, by using infrared and Li-Fi, we could potentially restore our ability to have wireless wireless At much, much, much reduced risks.
So I'm not saying that Li-Fi will not be found one day to have some risks, but we have been using Li-Fi for some applications for some time.
We've used headsets that are using infrared, for example.
And I don't believe that there are reports that this has been found to be deleterious.
We have had remote controls for television for a long time that were also infrared.
So there is this belief that infrared radiation will be much less dangerous than radio frequencies, simply because we have had about 3 billion years to get used to this type of radiation.
In terms of personal use, you know, my practice is that I never put the cell phone next to my head.
I keep it on the speaker all the time.
And I hold it away from my body.
Do headsets work?
Or earphones?
Well, if you're using an air tube, it is a very good installation, of course.
Now, if you're using a normal ear set, well, this has a wire that's leading into your ear, so it's not quite as good insulation as an air tube, which is entirely non-electrical.
But there's many alterations that could be made.
You could have a cell phone that emits infrared radiation, and you could have something on your head that receives this infrared radiation, and that would be a big gain.
Because in a cell phone, you indeed have a lot of radio frequency radiation that is funneled right into your head.
How about earpods?
Well, the problem with those is that they're not very, very powerful, but you stick them right into your ear.
So the dose that you get from such devices is very hard to measure for a couple of reasons.
Since they are low power, they get an exemption when they're approved.
So you're not obligated to investigate how they irradiate your tissues.
And Making measurements inside your ear while you're using an AirPod is even more difficult than assessing the radiation from a cell phone.
For a cell phone, you know how they do it generally.
They use a mixture of water, salt, and sugar.
That they sort of stir together and they put the cell phone above this solution and they determine how much it heats up the solution.
This is very, very crude and simple.
At least it's something.
In the case of an earpod, it's very hard to know.
There is no requirement to specify it.
So we're being more and more Inundated with these devices that are assumed on the basis of a bunch of monkeys and rats for 40 to 60 minutes to have no effect on you for your lifetime.
How nice is that?
Okay, apps.
I remember just reading what I was preparing for the case, for the argument, and the Court of Appeals case, reading some studies that show that the more apps you have on the phone, the more radiation that's coming out.
And in the same question, are there some cell phones that are better than others?
Yeah, the Apple phones are the worst.
That's very, very clear.
Yeah, the Apple phones are the worst.
Yes.
And you notice that all these electrical devices have something in common.
The computer initially, you know, they used an operating system called DOS. DOS answered the commands of the user.
And then some more sophisticated operating systems came into being, like Windows, for example.
And what you notice of them is that the operating system took a lot of initiatives.
On its own, it did things.
And over time, progressively, we have lost control of computers.
In other words, you feel that they're owned by the people who sold them to you.
They have these updates and these inevitable, I would say, Appendages to the software that provide you with publicity and exactly the same thing is happening to cell phones.
You place them on airplane mode yet they will still emit radiation because the owner is actually the company who programs them and who updates the software in it automatically.
So it is an invasion because With electronics and programming, it is possible to do that.
And the more apps that you have on your cell phone, the more radiation you're getting.
They're all little individuals that have their own desires to communicate with the outside.
So, if it's a weather service, how often do you want the weather?
I think, in my opinion, cell phones should...
Let they'll be yours.
They should respond to your desires and your commands and not push information to you and not suggest things to you about your behavior or wake you up at one moment or another unless you want to.
So you're being relieved of control by artificial intelligence devices that are under the control and the interests of others.
Okay, weaponization.
The Afghanistan syndrome, is that coming from Wi-Fi weapons?
Well, you all know about this application that is very, very open about using, say, 100 gigahertz radiation to heat up the skin of protesters so that they flee away from a location.
This is a very, very simple application based on heat only.
But for this kind of application, you need essentially, I would say, large emitters.
You need antennas that are fairly cumbersome to carry around.
So when you see these things appearing at the site of your manifestation, you will not miss them.
Now, the more subtle effects Of mind control with the radiation.
In my opinion, mind control, as it very happens in science, this is a bit of an exaggeration.
I think they can probably disrupt your mind with it.
The view that the government takes control of your mind in this way, I think, is a little bit fantasy.
But if you're really willing to do it, you can probably make people sicker by simply exposing them to radiation in excessive levels.
I mean, that's totally in the realm of possibilities.
I don't think we have...
Could that be targeted to, like, a single apartment where a single person...
So that you could remotely, you know, have a weapon that would direct like a ray towards one apartment or any individual if you wanted to harm that person rather than, you know, the general public.
There are probably some frequencies that are more appropriate for this.
You've all probably heard that with 5G, for example, you have what we call beamforming.
What this means is that instead of having an antenna that broadcasts in a very, very general way, say, in a third of the space around it, it forms a beam that is really focused.
And this beam, of course, can also be very intense because it's a result of an antenna that has many, many small elements that are coordinated in order to achieve such an effect.
Once you try to beam it into an apartment, you have to consider, does this radiation go through the apartment, the walls of the apartment, the windows of the apartment?
Once it gets in there, is the target in direct line of sight or is it Going to have to bounce around.
And if it does bounce around, does it represent a little bit of a microwave oven-like, you know, situation?
Or is it going to be quickly attenuated?
So it requires a certain level of skill to be able to, I would say, pinpoint and target somebody.
But just to cause damage, the requirements are much, much, much lower in terms of knowledge.
Okay, driverless cars.
Do we need 5G for driverless cars?
You can't do that with fiber optics.
I never thought for the life of me that there was need in any way for driverless cars to have wireless.
I think driverless cars can be built with cameras that are very fast and look around them the same way that the driver does.
I think it's simply a habit or a mannerism of the industry to want to implant radiation and networking in everything.
Basically, the dealer wants to know ahead of the car driving into the garage who he is and what his scheduled maintenance is.
Very, very nice.
But I think that to drive on a highway, you need to see the highway.
And I think that the image analysis that is necessary for this is not quite within our reach.
You would have to have roads that are specially designed.
And if you have a big system of out route, probably it's possible to do this.
But...
It could be entirely done with vision as opposed to being done with wireless and creating a huge network which makes your car a spy wherever you need to leave it on the street.
Because after all, once it's wired and in communication, you have a fleet of vehicles that can probably hear things and probably see things.
What's your hope for the future?
You're not a pessimistic man.
You're a happy man and very idealistic.
And what do you see as the good future for us?
May I be honest?
Yeah.
I think you are the hope for the future because you are one of these few politicians that doesn't seem tied to all sorts of interests.
And I think you see the government process and the processes of society more clearly than certainly all the other candidates in the United States and possibly Better than all the politicians of the world.
I really respect the work that you are doing, and I have high hopes for your future.
All right.
Well, I want to tell everybody I was not fishing for that, but thank you very much.
And then tell us where people can reach you.
Dr.
Paul O'Roe, where do they reach you?
Oh, by the way, it's H-E-R-O-U-X. That's right.
And they can reach me by email at paul.heroux at mcgill.ca.
McGill is the university where I teach in Montreal.
