The Shocking Truth About EMF Radiation Risks | Children Health Defense DSH #1349

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.
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. 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.
Thank you. Thanks for having us.
Yeah. Could you explain what the Children's Health Defense is, what you guys are about? 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 business practices essentially and the oftentimes lack of government regulations impact children's health. So we look at big pharma, pharmaceutical product.
And in our group, more specifically, we look at big tech and telecom. We also look at big food, agriculture.
So sort of like the big picture. Got it.
And a big thing you guys are aware of right now is the EMF stuff, right? That's a big issue. Yeah, it is.
I mean, it's really, we feel like one of the most important and 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 and it's it's it's

pretty concerning that is concerning have there been any repercussions for emf stuff yet from

companies or anyone that's one for you scott if you mean repercussions to them, no. No, they've been basically declared immune.
Wow. 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.
That's insane. So they could just put up these towers wherever they want.
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 Stop 5G.
What's the Stop 5G Near Me? Stop5G.org. Yeah.
Social media is at Stop 5G Near Me. Yeah.
And what we do is we help people who, when they learn something is planned nearby, they may object to for whatever reason. It's not always help.
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 concern. Huh.
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. Right.
But at the same time, the real problem. 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 Ares 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.

It's 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. The problem 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 concerns. We're here today, and 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. There's increasing evidence, for example,

that it hurts bees and all other pollinators

because it interferes with how they navigate.

Wow.

There's some studies indicating it isn't contributing

to colony 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's property value, but they can't do it for the real reason, which is it'll kill all his people.
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.
And I think it's important to understand that 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 would just vomit and be dizzy until they leave for school the next day.
And as soon as they're outside of the cell tower radius, they're fine. Right.
And so it's just 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. It's 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 500 feet from each other. So that's where they're putting them on utility poles.
That's where they're 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. So, 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 this space, in the EMR space, two thirds of independently funded studies show harm. And two thirds of industry funded studies show no harm at all.
There's just like this thing, right? Where people are, I think, A, unaware. They're getting increasingly aware, but people are getting sick.
And I think it's important that we talk about it. Yeah.
So right now, the FCC is in charge of EMF safety? That's correct, yeah. And that's a government organization? It's a Federal Communications Commission.
Do you want to talk about how it's set up and why it's so flawed? The FCC was created in 1934. 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 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 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.

And that's the exposure standard.

That's the exposure.

The cap of how much RF exposure is considered safe by the FCC. Interesting.
If it doesn't burn your skin, it's safe. Wow.
Well, haven't you used your phone for a long time? It gets hot, doesn't it? Yeah. Okay.
That's because of all of the energy in there. Well, 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 radiofrequency radiation beyond just that which increases the temperature of your skin.
And we know, you just heard a whole bunch about it, I'm sure, 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. It's much different.
There is a biological response. Sometimes it can be beneficial.
Sometimes it can be harmful. I mean, I was on the phone for five minutes and it messed up all my levels.
Yes, it did. Just from a five-minute phone call.
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 task is finding out what part of it is harmful and at what level, and what is causing the harm.
Right. 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. Yep.
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 it. 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.

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, OK, 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? 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 eat 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 Scotch has said, right? How much is safe and where does the threshold lie 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. And I 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 this uncontrolled rollout of technology that is sold as like, you know, only having benefits. And there's no such thing.
We're in the middle of a grand experiment. Oh, yeah.
For which we are all the subjects. and once it 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 immune That is crazy because now these kids are running around with iPads when they're five years old.
Yeah. They're exposed to it in utero.
And some of the studies have indicated that exposure to babies while in utero or soon after they're born is one of the contributing causes to things like autism. I mean, you're seeing these alarming autism rates in kids right now.
Kids in Cali. 1 in 31.
Yeah. Well, I just saw an updated one from RFK.
It's 1 in 12 in Cali. That's insane.
Yeah. It's insane.
Crazy, right? When you guys were growing up, it was probably 1 out of like 100. Probably even less.
Yeah, it probably was. 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 may not be able to do anything about the cell tower outside your house, but you can control your own environment. You can not sleep with your phone.

That's a hard one.

That's what John learned today.

I'm starting tonight.

Don't sleep with your phone.

Program your Wi-Fi router so that it turns off at night.

I need to figure that out too.

I was unplugged.

I just unplugged it. There are ways to make it so that it puts out less energy.

When you get this thing from the factory,

the default settings are really, really high.

I bet, yeah.

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.

Wow.

It doesn't need to do that.

It can 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.

Yeah.

Right.

But we also need the FCC to finally start doing its job and the FDA.

Do you think that'll happen under the new administration?

Because you guys sued the FCC in 2021, right?

Yeah. Well, in 2021 the the decision came down um 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 um 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 lead attorney on the case. Nice.
And they have done absolutely nothing since. Really? Yeah.
Wow. You think they would have done at least one rule change or something by now? Well, they have a practical problem.
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 doesn't regulate in the public's interest anymore.
It regulates in the 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 patron.
I mean, we're talking about an FCC whose current chairman was a lawyer for Verizon Wireless. Wow.
That's an ongoing thing. It's like this revolving door between the FCC and telecom.
That's crazy. And once they're done with their jobs at FCC, they go straight back to telecom.
Like, it's just. That shouldn't even be legal.
That's crazy to me. That's a conflict.
It is. But they call them, they say they have a unique expertise.
That's insane.

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 stations, radio stations.

Then it was the telephone companies.

And now it's the wireless companies.

They are indeed a study in agency capture. There's been books about this.
There have 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 they can and as close to each other as they can for many different reasons. It's not like they're intentionally trying to kill us.

It's 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 is going to kill us.

Yeah.

And they're immune for it.

So we try to educate people, and, of course, we advocate.

Right. And then our third leg is litigation.
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?

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 um admit that um 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'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, you know advertising machinery um 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 yeah people don't really want to hear it well when i post stuff like this a lot of the EMS stuff gets censored on social media, unfortunately.

So it will get like 1% of the views I normally get.

Have you ever wondered, have you ever looked at who actually owns these companies?

I haven't.

Well, it's the same ones that own pharma.

That doesn't surprise me.

Own the big media.

You look at the major share owners, it's the same foundations. 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. 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? Exactly. Well, that's why forums like this one are so important.
Yeah. Alternative media, yeah.
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 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, 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 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 pression 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 Programme, 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.

So 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 to upper pressure on the FCC.
Quite the contrary. They have recently decided that the NTP 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't 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 um you know relationship to technology but we also really need to hold our government accountable for not doing its job yeah at all 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? They have yet to go to the FCC. Interesting, right? Hopefully they do.
Yes, there are many programs over there that could stand a good scrubbing. Right.
We'll leave it at that. Well, you know, 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, it's not something I like to talk about because the way the sausage is made is really, really ugly. That's not good.
You guys think this is a U.S. problem, or you think this is worldwide with the EMF towers and everything? I mean, I think countries like the U.S.
or like the Anglo-Saxon countries like the U.S., Canada, U.K., 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.

We did an article once in Defender about that cows in France are more protected than people in the US.

Wow.

Because they used wireless technology, cell towers or otherwise, in farming farming and they realized that it impacts the quality of the milk and so um they immediately reacted something you know that's unheard of over here um 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 um was banned in france for a while because it exceeded the radiation um uh the radiation limits yeah i remember that um and then funnily enough right like apple was doing an upgrade and they were able to through an update um reduce the exposure and i mean so it's. 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 outlawed.

And I think so, 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 um in european countries um it was also a time when people could not participate in democracy right like because

they were all um everything was disrupted and they were cooped up at home um but i think the

awareness is bigger in a lot of european countries the regulatory system is better, um, in, in, in a lot of other countries and the standards are lower. So we are really, um, we're leading and not in a good way.
Um, when it comes to RF exposure. What a shame, right? Yeah.
One of the wealthiest countries and we're struggling with stuff like this.

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 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 going to have food if you have no pollinators pollinating? Right. And it's are bills in congress like advocating for more violence in farming for more violence in national parks for more violence 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.
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.
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? Well, 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 legal construct.
I mentioned the federal statute that says local jurisdictions can't say no based on health and environmental. 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 being vaccinated. Well, in the RF space, there's nothing like that at all.
You're just, there's no remedy. You're on your own.
You're on your own. There's nothing.
Go die somewhere. I mean, basically, that's it.
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 directionally so with things like beamforming 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.

Yeah.

I'm going to look up if there's a tower near my house when I get home.

This has me really thinking.

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.
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. 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 federal framework.
I think it's important that local authorities and local communities have a say because that's where democracy happens, right? You never meet your federal representative in the supermarket. They 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 failed, like in everything we tried.
You can't use state health laws. 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 Stop 5G 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 Stop 5G initiative, it's at stop5g.org, 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. 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, et cetera, et cetera. 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're putting together a broad coalition. I think so far we have over 60 safe tech organizations from all over the country who signed on to 704 and 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 the same time that education and that pushback on the

community level is really really important so those are the two um really big initiatives that

we want to um push uh over the next three years beautiful we'll include a link to those in the

video any anything else people can do to support you guys uh children's health defense you guys

you have a website for that too we do it's it's children's health defense.org and then um the um

Thank you. people can do to support you guys uh children's health defense you guys you have a website for that too we do it's it's children's health defense.org and then um the um the wireless pages they have lots of information on the regulatory framework as well as the the all the studies all the health impacts um is at children's health defense.org forward slash wireless um i think you know 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.

I love that.

Anything else you want to close off with, 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 wanted 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.

No, it doesn't.

How can it hurt you?

But I took the case just because I needed some business.

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.
And so if an old industry grunt like me, who was really enthused about the whole thing and wanted towers everywhere, can be converted, then anyone can be.

And the thing that changed my mind was I actually had to read the 11,000 pages that we gave to the court.

And by the time I was done, I went, oh, my God, everything I know is wrong.

Thank you. I actually had to read the 11,000 pages that we 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. 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.
I feel like that's a big step for a lot of people. Well, no.
Go out and go camping for a while. No phones.
Yeah. 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 100% better. You will be astounded at the difference.
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 speaker phones, like those kinds of hardwire your computer right use an ethernet cable instead of

turn the wi-fi off those things make a huge difference and i think it's also um 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.

Okay, print The Defender and go camping. And read it by the campfire there you go guys all right thanks for

coming on we'll link everything below it was a pleasure guys thank you so much for having check

them out guys