In this episode, I am speaking with Nick Pineault about the potential dangers of EMF radiation and simple tips you can do to reduce your exposure to EMFs. Nick “The EMF Guy” Pineault is the #1 bestselling author of The Non-Tinfoil Guide to EMFs and an advocate for safe technologies. Through his unconventional approach blending humor, science and common sense, he’s becoming a leading voice on the topic of electromagnetic pollution and how it affects our health.
(First, before we get into today’s podcast, make sure to download Nick’s free ebook on how to protect your family and yourself from EMFs. Download it HERE.)
In this podcast, Nick will cover
- The different types of EMFs you can be exposed to
- Can EMF radiation make me sick? (The dangers of carrying your phone on your body)
- Why your beliefs about EMFs can affect how they affect you
- How the EMF radiation from cell phones can affect your health
- The best EMF protection tips you can implement at home
Again, you can get the FREE PDF –How 5G & EMF Radiation Impact Your Health here.
Download or listen on iTunes
Listen outside iTunes
The Potential Dangers of EMF Radiation (And 3 Simple EMF Protection Tips You Can Do At Home) with Researcher Nick Pineault – Transcript
Ari Whitten: Hey Everyone. Welcome back to the Energy Blueprint podcast. I’m your host, Ari Whitten, and today I have my friend Nick Pineault, who is an investigative health journalist, number one bestselling author of The Non-Tinfoil Guide To EMFs. And through his unconventional approach to blending humor and common sense, he’s become a leading voice on the topic of electromagnetic pollution and a personal advisor to many top functional medicine doctors. He’s also launched the Electrosmog Prescription, ElectrosmogRX online course in collaboration with Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt, with the goal of educating a hundred thousand health professionals worldwide, how to help patients address EMF related symptoms and minimize their EMF exposure. His website is also theemfguy.com.
So, welcome, my friend Nick Pineault.
Nick Pineault: Thank you, Ari. Thanks for having me again. I think that the interview I did with you two years ago. Almost, a year and a half, was one of the first interviews I ever gave online about my book. It wasn’t even up on Amazon yet. So that’s incredible, to connect again.
Ari Whitten: Yeah. And, and I should mention your book is a wonderful resource. It’s pretty much the best resource at least. And I assume it’s still the best resource out there on the topic of EMFs. Even though it’s, is it a year, a year and a half old at this point?
Nick Pineault: A year and a half. Yeah. November 2017. About 150 5-star reviews on Amazon. I couldn’t be happier about the, what people are saying about it. Some people have been convinced; some people have kept their skepticism. But usually, when you read it, they understand my point of view more had been when the just see me talk for a couple of seconds and DCI and this guy is full of it. So, it’s what I encourage everyone to read first because it gives you a good background of what’s my, my point exactly about EMFs and what’s my position.
The different types of EMFs people are most commonly exposed to
Ari Whitten: Yeah. So, I want to start off by kind of giving people a background of the whole topic of what EMFs are and the different kinds of EMFs. And I know we covered this more in depth in the previous interview, so let’s do maybe a, a very superficial, quick summary version of the different kinds of EMFs that are out there. Because there are so many different terms that people throw around, there’s WIFI and there’s the microwave radiation from cell phones, and there is 4G and 5G and electric fields and magnetic fields and all these different terms and they’re all invisible and hard to see or feel or touch or anything like that.
So, I think there’s, there’s this sort of whole invisible world that is hard for a lot of people to grasp. So how can you give people a quick, like two- or five-minute overview of what are the key types of EMFs that we’re actually talking about here?
Nick Pineault: Sure. So EMF stands for electromagnetic force or field or frequency depending on whom you ask. And in the scope of my work, it really means the new frequencies that we’re exposed to. Because of EMFs… There’s an entire spectrum of frequencies that we’re exposed to. Right now, we’re getting blasted from space. And that’s the argument of some people who are skeptical. They say, well, we’ve always been exposed by EMFs, right? The spectrum goes from Zero Hertz to billions and billions of Hertz, which is in the gamma radiation and the ionizing part of the spectrum, which can break your DNA.
We know like these things are harmful and, and we have, determined or at least it was taught in the scientific consensus that non-ionizing radiation, which is just below x-rays didn’t do anything. And we’ll talk about why it’s not an assumption that I think is valid anymore. Visible light is a type of EMF. So, it’s not as… I’m the arguing that like, well, the sun is burning us or killing us or anything like that. So, I’m talking about the new frequencies though. So what is it doing to biology to introduce new frequencies at power levels that have never been seen before by human biology, for example, the average levels of radio frequency EMFs, that is your cell phones or WIFI, Bluetooth, Cell Towers in the average city is about the quintillion times higher than a hundred years ago.
So, it’s a billion, billion times higher. So, it doesn’t say it’s dangerous. It just says that we have introduced something that is tremendously different than just our grand grandparents were exposed to. So that’s just a fact that we’ll explore. And when it comes to the different types of EMFs, well you have an entire profession called the building biology profession that started in, in Germany after World War Two. And they look at many types of, let’s say, environmental stressors in homes and buildings and how to reduce them. So you have air quality, but you also have water quality and the electromagnetic spectrum. And they found that certain types of EMFs, and that’s still controversial, but their opinion is that radio frequency can affect human biology and their opinion also is, well you have [Outfields] like electrical fields from household wiring that can also impact many aspects of human biology for melatonin production.
So, in the building biology profession, it’s recommended that you turn off electricity at night to go back to ancestral levels of background exposure to these fields even though, you don’t feel them. It’s right, it’s below the threshold of sensation by a lot, by a large margin, but maybe it’s still getting picked up by some parts of your body and interfering with body processes. You have magnetic fields that instead of being six to eight feet from the wall, like electrical fields, they are near sources. So in the building biology profession, for example, they would recommend against, well they would take readings at the, let’s say at the pillar level. And I mean my bedroom right now and if my neighbor, I had a large motor like a fridge on the other side of the wall, I would be exposed to a pretty high magnetic field that’s still is considered safe by our safety limits.
But building biologists say, well when we remove this fridge from there, we moved the bed, or we don’t get exposed to these fields. Usually, people resolve their health issues or at least sleep better, which kind of starts a domino effect towards greater, greater health.
You also have the last type that I talked about in the book in the book, “The Non-Tinfoil Guide To EMFs”, which is dirty electricity. And let’s say this is the quality of the electricity in your walls. So. normally it fluctuates at 60 hertz or 50 hertz in Europe and some other parts of the world. And the reality is that it’s never exactly 60 and that there are other ways superimposed on it that can be considered noise in the, let’s say electrical engineering standpoint or understanding of things. And this noise also has biological effects or so it seems. So, the entire topic though right now, it is extremely controversial, right?
You have people, I have seen both sides of the argument completely have opposite views. You have people who say, well, I’m a top functional medicine doctor. I see people coming in, they have these symptoms and when I reduce EMF load, I see things happen. I see people sleeping better. It as a first thing, I see people recovering faster and just overall reduction in their stress levels. Let’s say they would use the kind of stress bucket analogy at as is as if their body is more able to function normally quite simply. And then I have seen a lot of people, whether they’re in the industry or just skeptical about the topic or they’re not sure they think it’s Tinfoil, right? Though it’s a conspiracy theory, it’s a little bit crazy and there’s nothing happening. So, it was zero effect crowd. And the truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but a lot of this zero-effect crowd right now it’s telling me, Nick you’re full of it. So, we’ll explore why I don’t think I am.
The most compelling evidence to support why EMF radiation is potentially harmful
Ari Whitten: Cool. So yeah, think you phrased that really well and well done on summarizing the main types. And explaining this tricky topic very succinctly. There are definitely a lot of people out there who have this perspective as you mentioned, that these things are just non-bioactive and humans are, there isn’t strong evidence to suggest that there are harmful. And I think the fact that they’re also invisible and we can’t feel or touch them or see them. And that it’s also possible for people to spend all day working on their laptop or with hours on their cell phone every day or, or things like that or in a room with Wifi and not necessarily feel anything, feel any different from it. I think that fact also leads, you know, naturally leads to a lot of skepticism of people saying, Oh yeah, that’s nonsense. That there are any effects from all the visible stuff that’s out there. So, with that in mind, what do you feel is the most compelling sort of layers of evidence that suggests that these electromagnetic fields are harming human health and human biology?
Nick Pineault: Yeah, there are multiple avenues. I think the first lane that has been the most researched and probably the most definitive is the fertility issue. A man who keep phones in the pocket or there are different, there are human studies, there are animal studies, there are in vitro studies showing that EMFs from a cell phone, for example, could impact sperm quality sperm motility, but also cause DNA breakage in sperm. And this has been repeated so many times that one of the heads of fertility, yet I’m probably misquoting this, I think it’s Yale or someone, I mean, from, from the mainstream, has sad. “Well, probably man shouldn’t keep their cell phone in their pocket”. But it’s just one aspect. There’s a lot of debate about cancer, right? Then is our EMFs a carcinogen? And I think that the strongest evidence right now is what has come since the classification of a radio frequency [EMFs] in 2011?
And in 2011, you had 36 scientists gathered from all corners of the planet that’s looked at it, that at the IARC, International Agency for research on cancer. And what they concluded is, well, we don’t know exactly. So that’s a class two B, that’s a possible carcinogen. So the classification is kind of low and not dangerous. So a lot of skeptics say, well, as the same category as pickled veggies, somehow, I don’t know how this got classified to be quite honest and I still eat pickled veggies, so I don’t know what’s up with that. But the fact is that it doesn’t seem really credible. However, I like not just looking at the facts, but also well, what is likely to happen in the next years as far as this classification goes. And when you look into it most scientists who were on this committee but are at least several scientists on let’s say, to be quite exact, uh, that I could name if you want, but it’s super technical.
But these, these people are looking at the same data with the same criteria, but they’re adding the studies that have been published 2011 to 2019. And some of them are saying it should be a class 2A probable carcinogen. And some of them are saying “well it should be a class 1, a definite carcinogen. And that would be if this has to be considered a class 1 carcinogen, it would, I mean would cause a lot of stirrup of course, because it, we’re talking about smoking and Asbestos. So, it means what we have to have restaurants free of Wifi. And I don’t exactly how that’s gonna play out, but this is huge. This is a huge societal shift that’s going to need to happen either to remove the exposures or to change the technology itself to make it safer.
There are two ways to do that. So, for the moment, the only thing that the IARC has said, which is a branch of the World Health Organization, is we’re going to look at it, we’re going to look into the reclassification. And that’s the news from a few weeks ago. They said, yes, there is enough evidence to grant relooking at it and maybe calling another committee. But in the meantime, you have several scientists. You have in fact hundreds of scientists worldwide who have been since the 2B classification decision saying, well, we do think there’s an urgency to at least tell the public and tell them to remove preventively, uh, their, their risks. For example, not talk with the cell phone on the ear, but create distance are right there. You would remove let’s say 80% of the exposure when your cell phone is on the body, put it on airplane mode or make sure you don’t keep it in the bra. or really in close proximity to well your testes if you’re a man, but also if you’re a woman, maybe the same risks apply.
So in reality, it’s still blurry. All I know is that personally looking at it and researching the topic for years, my conclusion and the conclusion of hundreds of scientists is, well, we probably should err on the safe side and reduce exposure. But unfortunately, it’s not a popular team to do going low tech these days. It’s the opposite that’s happening. So, we’re going from 3g technology to 4g that’s fourth generation to, 5g now. And more and more devices are wireless etc. So, it makes it increasingly difficult in a society where you add more and more and more wireless and more EMFs to kind of start taking this reductionistic approach.
This is happening in certain countries, I must say. It is the US and Canada let’s say it is a popular idea in North America that there’s nothing happening. Our safety limits are so permissive, right? In other countries they have limits, orders of magnitude lower and they take readings to make sure that they are not, they do not go over. And if they do, they go over, for example, in a park in [inaudible] just last week I decided to close it the park. The park is banned basically for public access and you get a 500 euro fine if you happen to go in the park and the levels of EMFs that are red, they’re well, they’re going to be equivalent to a, a lot of people’s exposure to 5g antennas. So it’s just a matter of perspective. What is a risk, what is serious and what is the interpretation of the science? In the end.
The top EMF protection steps you can take at home
So it’s really, I like the countries that are thinking it’s a little bit more dangerous just to err on the safe side because as I, I’ve read many scientific papers where scientists express their opinions. If we are wrong about EMFs, the dangers, the possible downsides of being wrong are greater than ever because everyone is exposed versus other agents or drugs or other foods, that you can recall them. You can stop giving the pill or whatever it is. In that case, it is an exposure that is worldwide and 24, seven. So it’s, it’s a little bit more risky.
Ari Whitten: Yeah. 100%. And I’ll also say my personal philosophy as far as my own and my family’s EMF exposure very much mirrors that attitude. Meaning I’m erring on the side of safety. And for example, I have a, I don’t have WIFI in my house. I’m using ethernet.
Nick Pineault: Nice. Same thing.
Ari Whitten: And I also had a building biologist come out to my house a few months ago and do an assessment and make a few recommendations and help me with a few things. In general, you know, I don’t keep my cell phone on me when I speak. I use it on speaker phone, it’s on airplane mode whenever I need to carry it anywhere. And so on, you know, basic, basic things like that. I’m far enough away from my computer right now such that I’ve measured the EMFs, I’m not getting exposed to any significant amount of electrical fields and magnetic fields.
So things like that, very easy steps to take that you do them once and then other than the cell phone carrying. But most of these things you do them once. You never have to really think about it. And so I figure why not try, you know, err on the side of safety for myself and my family. Having said that, I still do have some skepticism over some of this in the sense that a lot of it seems to be built around a linear, no-threshold model of the effects of EMFs. And I don’t know if you’re familiar with that, but I’ll define it for people listening.
So basically it’s the idea that if you take really, really high doses of something, and you can demonstrate that those very high doses are, are harmful, then you can sort of mathematically extrapolate that based on a dose at this level, let’s say a 90 out of a hundred causing this degree of harm, then we can speculate that a dose of five or 10 or 15 out of 100 would cause this proportion of that much harm.
And so that sort of logically seems to make some sense to most people and most people would think that way. And that’s actually how most people think when it comes to toxins of really any kind. We think, well, if a lot is bad, a little must also be bad, just slightly less bad. But we actually know in the literature that this is not true in the vast majority of cases that there’s something called hormesis where small doses of many things that are toxic in high doses are not harmful at all and can actually confer benefits and a lot of cases.
The big problem that EMF proponents have when it comes to proving their theories about potential EMF radiation dangers
Ari Whitten: So for example, just to use one analogy, it’s not a perfect analogy, but it gets the idea across. Exercise. Exercise can be done to the point where it is toxic. And you can, you know, if somebody tries to run an ultra-marathon and they’re not quite fit enough for it, sometimes these people drop dead. They have a stroke or a heart attack, mid-marathon and literally die because of how toxic that stressor is. And yet, at the same time, we know that much smaller doses of exercise are extraordinarily beneficial. They’re one of the most powerful medicines in existence. Same thing with sun exposure. Massively beneficial in lower doses, but you can get so much of it that you get sunburned and maybe get melanoma. So to what extent do you feel that people operating, you know, sort of within the realm of EMFs, are not aware of that linear no-threshold model or taking that into account and have examined things appropriately? Let me rephrase. So, to what extent are there studies with small doses that are sort of equivalent to what humans might get on a daily basis? Showing very clear long-term negative health effects from those doses.
Nick Pineault: There are not a lot of long-term studies. This is one of the problems. There are two problems. So the lack of long-term studies, a lot of studies are looking at a few minutes of exposures are standards are based on, acute effects to short term exposure, six to 30 minutes in the standards. So that’s part of the issue is, we, we don’t know inside it. So the, the, the science is unclear and you have nearly, you have zero studies happening in the US being funded in the US right now because the NTP study, which we chatted about a little bit the last time, year and a half ago has as came out as a final conclusion this fall. And for some, for one cancer category said it’s a clear carcinogen. So I don’t know what else people want to say.
Okay. There’s probably a problem with longterm exposure because in the end, it was a very credible study. There are some flaws with it and I’ll understand that, but we don’t have the financing necessary to look at all these questions. So it’s also part of the problem is, well, we need more data. For sure we do need more data because is there, is there an adaptive effect where people get a little bit over time and in fact it promotes health. The truth is we don’t know. It looks like there are, there are many different factors when it comes to signal characteristics of these EMFs that impact biology. For example, in many studies… well I’ll talk about one review by a researcher from Greece called Dimitris Panagopoulos. And Panagopoulos in 2015 has looked at devices that simulate and EMF exposure from a cell phone in a, in a study, in a controlled manner to look at effects, whether it’s DNA breakage, oxidative stress or order markers of inflammation in rats, for example.
And then he looked at, uh, how many studies have been published that’s used real devices, a proper cell phone that they put in a room and they tried to connect it on WIFI or Bluetooth or 3g or 4g network. And 50% of the studies that use the simulators found effects, whereas almost 100% of the studies using real devices found effects. So why is that? Well, engineers are not talking to the biologists and this multidisciplinary approach isn’t the golden standard in scientific studies. So sometimes one profession, we’ll miss factors that matters. So for example, at the EMF engineers and people from the industry that are financing the, uh, the studies with a signal, generators say, well, technically this is the same frequency and the same power as a cell phone. Therefore the effects should be the same. However, a real cell phone doesn’t have a smooth wave, a smooth signal, it’s quite erratic. And that’s called modulation.
So you have, when you connect on a call, you have extremely strong signal and then extremely low it then you start having pulses on top of that you have pulsing. So you have other signal characteristics that let’s say make it chaotic because most of these signals characteristics did not exist in nature. Polarization is another one. That’s how a wave is shaped in a 3D environment. In order to… they can do that to find it to have antennas have a certain shape and signals that match it. Pretty much like the child’s play where you had the triangle going to triangle and whatnot. So this permits the industry to have more and more cell phones connected to the same tower but without having interference. And that’s amazing on an engineering standpoint. However, in nature, nothing is polarized.
You don’t have these shapes is all it is basically emitting in all directions. This includes the sun, this includes the earth’s magnetic field. Any solar radiation that people talk about or even the, I don’t know, people talk about radiation from banana as well. These types of natural radiations have certain characteristics to them that are completely different from what we created. So when you study the right thing, you see that generally, they are more effects that are detrimental. So while we don’t know exactly, is it harmful to everyone then mechanisms are just starting to be a [elucidated)? It looks like it’s oxidative stress for everyone. Are most people able to recover from that stress? If you have proper nutrition, sun exposure, mitochondrial function, right. Your ability to deal with this oxidated stress matters by a large margin. Possibly yes. But when combined with other agents, is there a risk that it’s too much? Probably and the health span of our population is not good at the moment. And there are so many offending agents that show it in activity and nutrition, vegetable oil. I mean, we could blame a hundred things. I think it is adding to the mix and, and causing symptoms in some people for which it’s just too much.
One of the big concerns about EMF radiation in daily life
Ari Whitten: Right. If I can add one layer to that. I think also when we look at hormesis and even studies for example that have been done in animals where they expose them to things that have very known toxicity like gamma rays, for example, they’ll do studies with gamma rays is very high-intensity ionizing radiation that we know is extremely harmful in large doses. But there’s a variety of studies that show in low doses can actually extend lifespan, protect against disease, and things like that. One of the key principles of hormesis though is having a break, like having ideally a more, you know, a brief period of exposure and then removing the exposure. So I think one of the challenges that are most concerning to me when it comes to EMFs, so many people never have a break with it. They, they have their cell phone on them all times.
They have their laptop around them, there are in a room with Wifi, they have, you know, they’re magnetic fields from various devices and microwaves and all these different things coming at them at 24, seven. And they even sleep with their cell phone on, you know, next to their bed or under their pillow in some cases, and they’re wearing wearable devices that are remitting different frequencies. And I think the constant bombardment is probably also a factor.
I personally am not concerned with getting on a phone call a couple of times a day for 20 minutes and using my phone on speaker phone, but maybe having it in my hand a little bit here and there. I don’t consider that any sort of real threat. And I think that it’s very much in line with, even if there is a harmful mechanism, the duration of exposure is so short, that probably is anything, it might have a beneficial effect. And obviously, this is speculating, but, um, so is the sort of this speculation towards the direction of harm. But I do think that if there is a real concern of harm here, it is, is likely from that chronic never-ending exposure all day, every day and all night.
Nick Pineault: I think so. And the problem, the societal problem is if you lived right next to a cell phone antenna, then most of what you described as your personal practices to reduce your exposure wouldn’t matter. To some extent. Because the exposure that you can get from an intent, let’s say if you’re right next to it, which is with the 5g rollout, is the multiplication of antenna, the antenna, densification that’s happening. Then what do you do about it? Then? Can you recuperate or are you putting yourself more at risk? Because again, it’s as if I’m putting you on a treadmill of 24/7 and I say run, run, run, and after a while, and maybe we don’t know exactly what the threshold is and it might be extremely individual to each person. And that’s something that in medicine they don’t like because it’s not linear, linear the response that we’re seeing.
Some people are more sensitive than others. Clearly. Some people… it’s hard. I think that’s why the provocation studies that are often cited about electro-sensitivity it don’t quite reveal the truth according to ‘my current understanding of things. And a lot of people cite those, they say, “well, we’ve tested it. We tried acute exposure and can people tell if a cell phone is on or it’s off and it’s double-blind, placebo-controlled and they cannot tell.” Well is it how it works or is it longterm exposure over one week, two weeks, three weeks? And then the symptoms gradually start and people get exhausted. They get out of the environment. Do you feel better? Right? How do we study that? That we expose them for three weeks? Is that even ethical? It is more complicated that then what these study designs of, I’ve put it in unfortunately the studies, for example, never even screened for real signs, blood markers or something that could confirm that this person seems electro-sensitive. It was, uh, so, and these markers exist by some researchers that are very credible. Doctor Dominique Bell Palm from France, for example, has seen 1500 patients. He can identify the people who have a hyperactive or an exaggerated reaction. Their biology just goes haywire when they’re exposed to cell phones. Yeah. Has identified these biomarkers…
How people’s beliefs can affect how they react to EMF radiation
Ari Whitten: I have a few questions on that do you know blinded, double-blinded controls as far as how he did those experiments? Because yeah, and this is something I wanted to bring up, so I’m glad you brought it up. But then I want to play sort of devil’s advocate here to speak for the skeptics of this for one more minute. But there are these studies and I know that Michael Greger did a nice video on electro hypo… Hypersensitive. And basically the… and he almost does it in a mocking way and I saw that it, it actually kind of angered a lot of people read the comments below this video. But basically, there are a number of studies where they expose people to either a real source of EMFs, like a cell phone that’s turned on or a fake, a sham cell phone that has no battery and is dead and is basically emitting no EMFs.
And they expose people who claim to be electro-hypersensitive. And those people could not tell the difference, but also not only could they not tell the difference. In many cases, they reported the same negative symptoms in exposure to the sham or the placebo non-EMFs condition that they reported in exposure to the real EMFs. Which brings up another confounding variable and nuance here, which is the nocebo effect. Which is how harmful is it for people to believe that EMFs are harmful? And then to live in a world where they’re constantly being exposed to EMFs.
And I think there’s a real concern over whether it, like what is it is it turns out that it’s actually more harmful to be fearful of EMFs and to be reacting negatively with a stress response whenever you’re exposed to EMFs, then the EMFs actually are on a purely biological level.
Nick Pineault: That’s a good question. [Dominic Belkon] the way he studied these people is that people came in with self-reported hypersensitivity to either EMFs or chemicals. So they said, “I don’t know what it is. I enter a room, there’s perfume, I just drop. Like I cannot think I have all these symptoms.” Something that, that shows that this person is incapacitated by something that for other people, seems completely safe and there’s nothing happening. So then he looked at, okay, do they have something in common? He found that tree biomarkers, in particular, are present in about 80 of cases and these three are a [nitro tyrosine] blood histamine levels and then [S100B- protein], which is a sign of blood brain barrier leakage. But also he identified, I don’t remember the name of the task, but it’s a brain imaging technique that’s quite new.
I drink to a lack of blood flow to one area of the brain in particular. And I cannot remember what area, but look at this… He did a great paper in 2015 and not a one in 2018 if I’m not mistaken. So Yaz identified that pretty much someone can come in and he can sort out people who may be, have this fear and clearly they don’t have the physical effects. And people who clearly there’s something very wrong with the way their brain reacts to EMFs, or at least they have the physiology of someone who resembles another person who claims they are sensitive.
‘So at least he’s screening people who come into the studies with, with these markers are with others that have been identified, could be better than just letting people who maybe have simply, I mean, they have a fear of electricity and maybe it’s just a phobia at show up at the study and then being taken as someone who is electro-sensitive.
So it’s very unclear. All I know, and this is not, of course, this is not proof, but as far as practitioners go, I like also going in beyond studies. Studies are good. Observations are also valuable. I think it’s sometimes it’s something that says, oh, it’s just an anecdote. Well, many anecdotes become a case. Eventually in my mind. And maybe, I’m mistaken. That’s the way I see it. And when I talked to doctors who look at EMFs and say, “okay, well let’s say it’s a factor, what would I recommend my patients? I would recommend what you’re doing, Ari, basically the basics of EMF removal.” And most of them tell me that, that I connect with, that are EMF aware, tell me, “Nick, no, this is a huge factor.” Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt, for example. But we’re talking about most of the doctors treating chronic disease patients.
So it’s important to point out that in people who have such a degree of dysfunction on all levels, toxicity, I mean everything is broken, right? Now they develop these sensitivities. So is it applicable to everyone? That would be the question that remains. However, we do need to take care of people who are sick. So if you expose them to the same signals as the entire population and they cannot live in a city, we’ve got a societal problem to deal with because even if it doesn’t affect Nick here in this room or Ari, well, if it affects Nancy and she cannot live in a city and have a job anymore, we have a damn problem.
So we have to look also at individuals that are hypersensitive and find out more. And that’s the approach I would take. But unfortunately, the way things have evolved is that a lot of people kind of close this folder in their mind, and said, “Okay, well it’s settled. These guys are, they want to sound demeaning. But these guys are like ‘nut jobs'”. A lot of people use terms that I hate that even some, there are one that has passed recently who was hypersensitive. But they think is not credible. So they think it’s settled, but I don’t think it’s prudent, prudent approach because if it’s not symptoms, it is a longterm disease. That might be another problem. Right?
The cancer approach, it remains that even if we argue about sensitivity non-sensitivity. Is it in their head, is it not? Okay. Well, that’s one thing. That’s one topic. The other topic is, is it a longterm carcinogen? Because if it is, it will cost a lot to society to have it around. So we’ll need to change it or to remove it or to reduce it. So it’s remained. So I think it’s a separate topic.
Nick Pineault: I don’t think the jury is clear, let’s say, on a very mainstream scientific approach point of view. In my mind is clear that some people are extremely sensitive and it’s not in their mind. In my mind is clear that probably you have people, it’s all in their mind or partially in their mind, but a lot of people have mental sickness also in our society is just rampant. So, I mean I don’t know. Like I feel like making a joke… TLC, you see people eating rubber and I mean some people have dysfunction that they, they have bizarre things happen to them and maybe fear of electricity is one of them. Who knows? But I think that for some people it is physical and it is reversible. I’ve also seen that I talk for example in the cores that we’ve launched last year.
I talked to Dr. Zach Bush. She’s triple board certified, comes from a very mainstream background in cancer research, oncology as, I mean, he has an incredible mainstream background. And he told me, “Well, Nick, a couple of years ago, I saw my first case of someone being very electrosensitive and I did not believe the guy, I did not believe him. I said, okay, it’s probably not an issue. But when they remove the devices, something physical happened and everything started working.” And since then he is taking this seriously as another factor, but that’s him. It’s not recognized in mainstream science. But Doctor Zach Bush or other doctors that I mentioned, they don’t really feel like waiting 20 years for the debate to settle because they’re in the trenches. They want to try everything. They throw everything at a patient. If they’re really, really sick, obviously you want to save someone’s lives.
It’s a different approach than waiting for everything to be correct and to apply it to the entire population. I understand that. That’s regulators and health agencies and they’ve got to be careful about what the rollout and what these say would be doing. But that being said, it doesn’t mean it’s not true. So the indications are so strong from these doctors that it’s really convinced me that there’s something that, that at least, there are individuals that we need to save because I’m convinced that for some individuals it is 100% physical or by a large margin, I would say 100% person physical at first until you realize that you’re stuck in a world where there are EMFs everywhere and then, well, your mind explodes. I mean, imagine being in a city and you know that everything Wifi impacts you and you’re like, oh, you feel dizzy. And well, obviously after, after two days I would be freaked out. So there’s also a psychological aspect that makes it even worse after that. And I don’t know what’s the solution for, for these people. Sometimes it’s moving out into the country and getting out of the exposure.
Why erring on the side of safety can be crucial when it comes to protection from EMF radiation
Ari Whitten: Yeah. Yeah. Interesting. There are so many nuances here. I want to say, you know, first of all, I completely agree with erring on the side of safety. That’s why I, you know, have, I’m taking these actions and in my own home and I think it’s smart for everyone to whenever there’s a concern over something that may be potentially toxic. Like for example, you know, there were some studies in the last 10 years coming out showing that processed meat consumption is likely linked with cancer. Do I think it’s a good idea to err on the side of caution and avoid lots of processed meat consumption with the idea that it probably will eventually be very conclusively proven that it’s extremely harmful?. Yeah, I think that’s a good idea. But is there a possibility that it could turn out to not be very harmful?
Yes. So that’s one thing I want to mention. One more layer to the story. That’s tricky. And then I want to move on to some other stuff. I know we, we have a number of other topics that would be great to talk about here. But on this topic of, I think there’s a distinction between what may be harmful to somebody whose health is already very poor. So talking about some of these doctors, treating very ill patients versus somebody who is in the normal population. And I’ll give a couple of examples here. So if you take somebody with severe chronic fatigue syndrome for example, and you tell him to go exercise and something that is extremely beneficial, there’s a mountain of science showing it’s incredibly beneficial, they will have a horribly negative reaction to doing any sort of intense exercise and may be bedridden for three days because it’s so toxic to their bodies.
Even something like red and near-infrared light therapy, which has again a mountain of science showing benefits, sometimes you can take very ill people. And if they do that in some cases even five or 10 minutes of red and near-infrared light therapy, they can also be wiped out from it for a day. Whereas a normal healthy person is going to respond to that with only benefits and not experience any negative side effects. So I think there’s some distinction there. I wonder to what extent that applies or doesn’t apply with EMFs. And I think it time will tell. But in the meantime, I think it’s definitely smart to err on the side of safety. So with that in mind… One other thing I’ll mention from this building biologist that came to my house is there were a number of, of issues that showed up in my house.
So for example, there’s a power line that runs on the other side of my backyard, like beyond the lot next to us. So it’s like 150 feet or 200 feet that way. And there are detectable levels of magnetic fields from that line 200 feet away in my house. That’s actually in the major source of magnetic fields in my house. In addition, within my bedroom, there are electric fields coming from the circuitry in the wall. And then there’s also radio waves that he detected coming from somewhere outdoors, maybe the neighbor’s Wifi or something like that. But there are some detectable radio waves that are penetrating into the house. Now with that in mind and with that whole landscape of these different types of EMFs and also microwave’s from cell phones and you know, and that sort of thing, what do you think are the most, if you know, looking at the evidence, what do you think are the most concerning types of EMFs? And are there any of those that you think may turn out to be not harmful at all? Or do you think they’re all likely to be harmful?
Nick Pineault: Very good question. I think that for the moment what is clear and what is, I mean proven by physics is that the closer you are to the source, the more you’re exposed quite simply. So anything you put on your body. For example, when they [ipsilateral] cancer risks, so same ear that you talked on your cell phone and you have a tumor there. The link is pretty strong in, is part of the reason that may be the World Health Organizations will renew, re-classify the risk. The risk that they won’t say everything will get cancer. If you do one call a day, they will say heavy users have these cancer risks on the same side or end up different cancers, one of them being glioma that you definitely don’t want to get because you’ll possibly die. And other ones being a little bit more benign, but that can lead to a complication like acoustic neuroma or parotid gland cancer.
Thyroid cancer is also on the rise. So maybe that’s even a one that that might be linked. So cell phone very close to the body is an issue. Is it an issue if you keep it near your arm? Can you get arm cancer at? Well, I don’t know. But the idea is just to start distancing yourself. And you know, something that happened since our last conversation is the phonegate scandal. And this is a long story short, is that the French government looked at… Okay, let me backtrack. Normally you have a five to 15 millimeters separation between your, the cell phone and the test mannequin that be used to test a cell phone safety. Don’t ask me why. It still doesn’t make sense to me. There’s probably a strong engineering explanation behind that. But the fact is that the French government looked at the way our tech, our phones are tested.
And they said, well let’s test it right on the body because people put it here, put it everywhere. I mean, you see people wearing it right here with a headband all almost or I mean in their pocket or pillow. So it’s always close to the body. And so for some people, it’s five hours of screen time per day. It is crazy the way we use these devices. So the safety standards had nothing to do with the way people use them. What they found is that 90% of all cell phones fail, the already obsolete 1996 guidelines that we have, the EMF safety limits. And it has led to a couple of cell phones being recalled. Some of them are updated to lower emissions, but it’s still unsettled. This entire debate. And these things have not like no one is as common and said that these tests are not accurate is just that people are kind of staying silent since the last year and a half about that.
Because, of course, it means huge economic losses in means possible lawsuits. We don’t know exactly what’s going to happen, but the fact is that a cell phone might be bad, but one of the reason is bad is that it, most of these devices don’t even follow the safety limits that we have and they’re already 20 years old, so it’s not good. Don’t keep it on your body. Create Distance, the steps you talked about Ari are incredible. Use earbuds, air tube, headset. These even easier than better because it doesn’t conduct the RF to the wire. That’s another layer but don’t, don’t stress over it. Speakerphone, creating distance if you wear it on your body if you go on a run and you put in in a sports bra, please airplane mode, pre-download your podcasts, pre-download your songs on Spotify, you can do it.
It’s a matter of habit. My wife had a very hard time doing it at the first when she became pregnant, I let’s say being the EMF guy who was like, you need to look at this and you need to do it. And she said, yes, for sure I want to do it. It’s just that I don’t remember to do it. So after a while, through a couple of weeks, it became the new normal. And now if it’s not on an airplane mode, it’s bizarre. It doesn’t feel right. So it’s just a matter of new habits. And the second device I would talk about is a WIFI router, especially because of its proximity. So the WIFI router, most of the situations it exposes you and fills the room with coverage. So that’s well EMF radiation more than what is outside. The neighbors and to 50 WIFI signals that you see.
So a lot of people are like, okay, nick, yes, sure I cannot do anything because I see a hundred WIFI. I do see 50 plus WIFI is here in Montreal, but it doesn’t mean that my own WIFI shouldn’t it be turned off because it’s likely to be to close as to my body or at least one that has a tremendous impact. So turn it off when not in use, turn it off at night, but my real vice is, turn it off and use a wired connection. That’s, that’s my preference for sure. It’s a, it’s a larger a step to take. You might start by putting it on a Christmas light timer and turning it off at night, but I really advocate to stop using WIFI and you might find yourself spending less time on devices and more time with humans. But that’s just a side effect.
Ari Whitten: Yeah. One other layer that I think is maybe important to mention here when you talked about how these people are studying these devices five to 15 millimeters away. One of the other nuances as far as how the research is conducted as from my understanding, and you’re going to know more about this than I do, but there are a lot of industry-funded studies. Cell phone companies, funding studies on the safety of the EMFs. And then there are studies conducted by independent researchers and they seem to have oftentimes very, very different findings and different [symptoms]
Nick Pineault: Yes.
Ari Whitten: So, there’s that landscape. Can you, can you speak to that a bit?
Nick Pineault: Sure. Well, I know that a lot of people who are skeptics, when I start talking about the fact that [Ella] independent researchers say Davis and the industry people and they say, okay, conspiracy theories, snake oil. And there’s like a lot of red flags for, for people who are skeptical and, and that’s okay. But I think that one of the best videos produced on EMF biases are in biases and EMF sciences is Michael Greger. So, the video we did about it, he mentioned one study that showed that the bias in the science was 10 times worse. I know it was 2.5 times worse than big Pharma. And as the way you put it, sound like, okay, well it’s probably bad, right? So don’t forget that the telecom industry is, is huge and it’s more likely to, for example, finance a steady way a signal generator because it doesn’t, it’s not as harmful as a cell phone.
I don’t know you there, there is, I think there is… There are people that willingly do fraud. This exists in science. They are, and then there are biases. It’s a little bit more nuanced than that, but you will just, for example, grant funding to the right scientists, that, you know, maybe the scientists have already decided that EMFs are not harmful, so you’re more likely to find no effects. Right? It’s, it’s, you’re always trying to confirm what you believe to true. I’m trying to confirm that I believe EMFs are harmful and sometimes I have to stop myself in my tracks. I’m like, Nick, okay, well is this like, like take this with a grain of salt and bring, bring myself back. But that’s the way the human mind operates. The confirmation bias is, is extremely hard to fight and we have to do it to stay rational.
But the fact is that the industry is there, is affecting the regulators in a profound way. And, some journalists have looked at that, the investigative journalists from Europe, a group called investigate Europe and they have looked at [IGNERB]. [IGNERB] is basically the group that sets the standards for EMFs. And most countries on the entire planet follow the standards. And [IGNERB] has been called by this group after a year. Why don’t I, if it’s months or years? And quite the large investigation. And they had been publishing several articles in the last month. They called it an industry cartel, [IGNERB] and other regulatory agencies from all around the world, like the one in Australia, [inaudible] of the FCC in the UK and different companies. And, and they have, they have said, well, there’s a revolving door policy between people that have been heads off telecoms and then heads of the FCC and this and that.
This has been seen in the big, big Pharma. This has been seen in big chemical with Monsanto. So I think it’s important to look at the data, but it’s, it’s very important is the in this day and age to not believe everything you see because unfortunately I think with lobbying and other practices or clouding science with conclusions that are not necessarily the truth or that are influencing the no effects studies and this is something that that is seen over and over and over again in EMF science quite unfortunately. But unsurprisingly, when you think about the magnitude of how much money is there to be made, and this has the same problem in big Pharma, it was the same problem with smoking. When these corporations have a lot of financial incentive to keep the status quo. Well, there are things that happen that are very shaky and in science and that they have been found guilty.
I mean, big, big tobacco has been found guilty. Monsanto, we’re still in the midst of this huge controversy. Some people think, no, there’s nothing. I don’t know. I’m not an expert in chemicals or anything, but the fact is we got to stay very skeptical of conclusions. And even if the world that has organization and all of these, the telecoms and all the regulatory agencies on the planet say, “oh no, it’s perfectly safe.” Well, this is not a fact. This is a PR message, right? So look, you got to, you got to look at the science, got to do like I like Ari did like I did for myself and look at the actual science and say, okay, is it perfectly safe? Can we call it perfectly safe when there are, there’s a very strong link with loss of fertility? I like, I wouldn’t call it perfectly safe and we’ll call it slightly harmful at least. So it’s very an editorial guideline that in the end when you look at the science, I don’t think most people would agree with, but to open your mind to these possibilities, you have to get over the fact that it sounds like ghost haunting. And then some people are stuck there still. But I think it’s a matter of getting, getting into it than reading the science of it.
Ari Whitten: Yeah. Yeah. It’s, it’s a tricky landscape, may be trickier than anything because on the one hand you have people like let’s say Jack Cruise as an example, and some of the people who align with him and follow his work who are promoting EMFs and 5g as like basically the biggest factor of health problems, you know, and like that is the number one factor to, you know, to the extent where they would not even sort of get into nutrition or exercise or things like that. And they’ll say, you know, it’s, it’s the 5g causing these suicides and people and, you know, and then, on the other hand, you have a lot of skeptics and you know, people more aligned with the industry and hardcore evidence-based people who are saying there’s no effect. All of this is just tinfoil hat nonsense. And so it’s a tough topic and a tough landscape to sort of figure out where the truth is. I would say I’m definitely more in the middle there, of someone who’s erring on the side of caution because I’ve seen some concerning research, but I definitely haven’t seen anywhere near the level of evidence that would lead me to think this is, you know, like Jack, what Jack Kruse believes. Like this is the number one factor in why people’s health, you know, why we have so many diseases skyrocketing and such and things like that.
Nick Pineault: I, you know, Ari, it’s some, some activists will hate me for what I’m saying, but I haven’t seen it either and I’m not as savvy when it comes to reading scientific set. I don’t have your background and I want to tell everyone that, but I’m learning.
Ari Whitten: You have looked into the science and the amount…
Nick Pineault: I’ve looked for years, for years, I have looked into the science, but the truth is we lack science. That’s, that’s true. Like that’s something I agree with. However, how do we act in front of this uncertainty and most of all, who’s going to finance all of these studies that might show that we have to replace every single cell phone on the planet? Is that the telecoms? No, is it the government? Well, they’re getting trillions of dollars over time selling spectrum to the telecoms. So it’s, it’s difficult.
How countries outside the US and Canada approach EMF protection
I don’t know like, so, so that’s why I’m part of the grassroots on EMFs. I’m like, well I think we have, I don’t think that’s right. I think we have to take caution and you know, other countries they’re saying other things that the Minister of the environment in ‘the Brussels region Celine Beaumont or something like that. Sorry to butcher your name, Celine. She said recently, “well, the reason we’re, we’re not agreeing to roll 5g in Brussels for the moment is that we don’t want citizens to be guinea pigs. Like we don’t think, we think they are real concerns over health. And we think that we need to study this technology before rolling it to the population. And that’s it. That’s all. They have this, this focus. But I think they’re more in control in their decision making.
You don’t have the telecoms knocking at their door, what the hell are you doing? And so it’s in different countries you have different opinions. On that. And that’s something I, I guess I’ll, I’ll, I’ll highlight as one of our parting words here is that like don’t say stock in what people think in North America. That’s a very big mistake because throughout the world you have the head of the… and I know Russia is not necessarily the most popular topic in the US right now for a lot of political reasons. But the Russian scientists and, and the head of the equivalent of the federal communication commissions, the FCC, but in Russia says, “oh yeah, it’s a huge issue and we reduce the levels and we keep it under a certain minimum that is way lower than the US” And when asked why is it that the US and Canada have such a high limits, uh, he started laughing.
He’s like, well, these guys don’t as if I don’t know what, what is, what his thought was, is it like they don’t have serious science, which is what US scientists think about Russia sometimes. Is it, they’re stupid.? I don’t know what is this, talk about that. But I know that in other countries they simply do not agree with a lot of people in North America who think there is no effect. And they take the necessary precautionary measures. They will, for example, remove cell phone towers that would be near a school playground or a hospital. And these kinds of things…
Ari Whitten: I think I read something about some schools in Europe or in France that we’re removing WiFi in schools.
Nick Pineault: Sure, in France for example, Wifi is banned in nurseries. So there are certain places where to use it in Israel, you have to charge the iPads outside the classroom. And you’ve got to have a sign that says: non-ionizing radiation warning: or it’s crazy.
The island of Cyprus, the government finances very great videos about all the steps you’ve talked about preventative measures. The government inside of the island of Cyprus has that on, on national TV. You’ve got to create distance with your phone, turn off your Wifi at and this kind of advice. So I don’t think they’re crazier than we are. I think that they have a different view of this current situation. I like to adhere to this view just in case they’re right. That’s, but that’s me. And then if you don’t think that the science is strong enough, you can still use your cell phone. And that’s your personal choice. Where I would have a problem is with this exposure like to cell phone towers and the outside sources, which most people have no saying into. That’s something that we’ll have to deal with. And if someone, if we discover indeed that these people have physiological effects that are debilitating, well how do we accommodate these people and do we remove the tower and who loses money and what is the rule? And it’s, um, it will be a huge debate just like it was with smoking.
Ari Whitten: Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. Well on a, on a personal note, I want to say that thank you for playing along with me as I’ve played devil’s advocate a little bit in this interview. And I’m extremely impressed with how you’ve handled, you know, some of these personally from the, from the skeptics and the level of nuance and your understanding of sort of all the different perspectives around this issue. I think it’s very impressive and I just want to praise you for that and also praise you for the intellectual humility that you have. And you know, having the views that you have and also understanding the opposing perspectives and giving them credence and then speaking to why you still have these views and you disagree with them. I think it’s very, very impressive. So on a final note, I know that you have a course that you’re about to launch, which is the electrosmog prescription course. So talk to me a bit about what that is and we’re going to have a link for people to sign up you have some free videos that are going to be coming out, right? Or some, yeah, we have a free report that’s going to be there and the show notes, there’s a free report that really gives you the low down on EMFs. I think the discussion is even more thorough than anything you’d get in the free report, there’s a case study report where I taught
Nick Pineault: how [inaudible] this one is a video with about doctor Zach Bush has a patient by alluded to and what his symptoms were, how they discovered that he was affected, what they did and how we got better. So it’s a little bit looking at, this case study that is what one of the many that are cited. That was interesting, because in that case, EMF was, let’s say, a main factor of why the person was not getting better. Um, and then there’s a course, it’s a, it’s a five module course. It is very thorough on EMFs and it goes in the EMF basics. We didn’t talk about all the difference between the different kinds of EMFs and science. There are a few hours on the science, there’s also symptomology. So it does get into electrosensitivity. And the way I see it, if you’re someone who’s uh, either electro-sensitive yourself, you’re listening to that, you’d say, okay, that’s me.
I know why I’m affected. I want to learn in-depth information that’s not judge, that’s nonjudgmental. It is the right course to is it, it is the only course in the world right now that addresses EMFs in depth. There’s also the actions steps to reduce EMFs, which is based on the building biology principle. And there’s also doctor Klinghardt who shares how he was able to reverse sensitivities in certain people with supplements and certain practices. I mean, regular walking on the beach. Are we like, I, I know you’re, you’re still doing that in San Diego, are you?
Ari Whitten: Yeah, absolutely.
Nick Pineault: But so it, it helps with symptoms tremendously. And if you think about it on an electrical standpoint, grounding is your body finding the ground, right? Like it, like physically you have effects on your nervous system, you have effects on your blood flow that have been found in science in the last 20 years.
So many new papers are published on that. So I share what kind of practices seem like they’re alleviating symptoms on a very physical standpoint. And also, um, I think it’s a great tool for a help coaches also and people who want to stay at the cutting edge. If you want to add, it’s another tool in your practitioner toolbox or another tool in your health toolbox. If you’re someone who wants to have an in-depth understanding of EMFs. And there is cheat sheets and informational sheets that that can help also with your patients. There’s a Facebook group and a, I think, I think it’s a tremendous course. But that’s people who told me that they were very happy with how the information was presented. And if you like the tone, the course is not… Is I think the only thing that the course is not is something definitive because the only thing I can tell you is what is published at the moment and what it, it looks like it’s going to be in the future.
There’s no golden standard in treating disease issues and because most people think there are no issues, right? So it’s very early. It is let’s say an experimental cutting edge. But it is always evolving and it’s creating community of practitioners who are looking into these issues and a lot of people are telling me once I’m taking a course, while I’ve seen a few people for which we did these, these steps you talked about, we started reducing and they completely changed and I don’t think it’s in their head. So once you start looking into it as a factor, I think that it can open you to, uh, order means other, other things that you can add to your toolbox to be an even more effective practitioner.
Ari Whitten: Wonderful. What we’re going to have a link to sign up for that at theenergyblueprint.com/EMFs/ and again, you’re going to have a free report that you’re giving out to everyone who goes there. You can sign up for that at theenergyblueprint.com/EMFs/.
I also want to say on a personal note that I’m excited for getting your course and learning more about EMFs myself and coming to a better understanding of this. So very, very excited about this. I’m also going to be promoting it to everybody on my email list,
So that everybody gets a chance to go through this. I think it’s critical information. I’m a, I’m a big fan of what you’re doing and again, I think I’ll just on a personal note, the way that you’re approaching this and the way your mind works and you process all this information and do it with humility and do it with, you know, inserting caveats and nuances here and there I think is really impressive. And I just really appreciate what you’re doing, my friend.
Nick Pineault: Thank you, Ari. That means a lot coming from you. Thank you so much.
Ari Whitten: Yeah, thank you. Thank you again for coming on my podcast. And again, everybody listening, theenergyblueprint.com/EMFs/ you can grab that for your free report. Learn more about how to protect yourself and err on the side of safety as we talked about when it comes to this important issue. So thank you again, Nick, and have a wonderful rest of your day.
Nick Pineault: Thank you. Ari.
The Potential Dangers of EMF Radiation (And 3 Simple EMF Protection Tips You Can Do At Home) with Researcher Nick Pineault – Show Notes
The different types of EMFs people are most commonly exposed to(02:19)
The most compelling evidence to support why EMF radiation is potentially harmful (08:53)
The top EMF protection steps you can take at home (15:34)
The big problem that EMF proponents have when it comes to proving their theories about potential EMF radiation dangers (18:48)
One of the big concerns about EMF radiation in daily life (25:28)
How people’s beliefs can affect how they react to EMF radiation (30:05)
Why erring on the side of safety can be crucial when it comes to protection from EMF radiation (39:42)
How countries outside the US and Canada treat EMF protection (56:16)
Studies and articles referred to in the video
Michael Greger’s video on cell phones & cancer, and how biases influence study outcomes
Dimitri Panagopoulos’s 2015 review on cell generators VS real cell phones influence study outcome