Dr. Martin Pall, Ph.D.: Electromagnetic Field Exposure – The Cellular Effect on Humans

January 29th, 2018

I’d like for someone to convince me that Dr. Pall is wrong, or making a mountain out of a molehill, etc.

Does anyone out there want to attempt to refute what he’s saying?

Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects by Martin L Pall

Research Credit: Pookie

15 Responses to “Dr. Martin Pall, Ph.D.: Electromagnetic Field Exposure – The Cellular Effect on Humans”

  1. spiralbinder Says:

    Check out Jack Kruse. jackkruse.com

    His Vermont 2016 and 2017 for WAPF on Youtube will let you know he’s on the right track.

  2. Miraculix Says:

    Sorry to disappoint, but Dr. Pall’s work dovetails VERY nicely with what I’ve learned over the years, much of it in professional environments. What I find massively ironic is that over 30 years ago now, the US military was showing me 20 year old safety films explaining the dangers of EMF exposure — and nasty pictures showing the results of different types of accidents. Similarly gory reels depicting the results of direct microwave exposure, etc. ALL made it quite clear that human tissues don’t tolerate such exposure well. Still haven’t forgotten those mental images. Once back on the civilian side, I immediately began to notice the *completely* different set of messages emanating from industrial & commercial concerns about such technologies. At this stage, what would evolve into “cell phones” were still referred to as “car phones”, by way of historical context. In other words, the truth of the matter has been laying there the entire time — and still is.

  3. Kevin Says:

    But everyone out there needs to keep this very clear: The danger isn’t in the heating effects. That’s the trick the industry has been pulling for years, trying to get everyone to focus on how low the power levels are, and the lack of heating effects.

    I never gave much thought to wifi, because the power is so low. Zero point hardly anything of a watt isn’t much… What harm could that possibly cause? *groan*

    The danger is in the free radicals that result from the calcium flow into cells that Pall has documented. The EMF safety levels are off my many orders of magnitude, if one considers the voltage-gated calcium channels that he talks about, rather than the heating effects.

    I shut my wi-fi radio off about 20 minutes into that first video. And that was after ten minutes of telling myself, “This isn’t happening.” haha

    The fact that I haven’t heard anything from anyone with a .edu, .mil or .gov email address on this is beyond astonishing. There are doctors, physicists, people with multiple PhDs who work in underground vaults, etc. who read this site who should have provided a sanity check by now.

    But there’s nothing. Nobody is trying to say Pall is wrong, and that’s pretty terrifying.

    Are there any rebuttals to Pall anywhere? Even from industry PR shills or compromised, corporate grant swindling quacks?

    Anything?

    Bueller?

    If Pall is 5% right, this makes the whole vaccine thing look like tiddlywinks.

  4. djc Says:

    ha, I’m constantly on at my wife to keep her cell phone away from our 5yo girl. The “stuff” is everywhere – cellphone towers, wifi in the city, smart meters not to mention the wiring in buildings. Never site solar panels on your roof or near your house & keep any inverters right away – why not go 12 or 24 volt in your house. I always thought you were a bit to liberal with your use of electronic gadgets & the exposure of children. So, how do you wean your oldest of the computer ? Let him use a laptop not plugged into the mains and with the internet delivered by a cable. Shit, life suddenly becomes tough doesn’t it. Shielding measures are available for inside & outside houses, at a huge cost, Anyway, check out this excellent item http://www.greenmedinfo.com/bl.....ne-disease.

    And, here’s something else you can follow up …
    https://en.geovital.com/grand-designs-features-emf-radiation-shielded-new-built-hemp-home-in-new-zealand-episode-2-season-2/

  5. mangrove Says:

    Thanks for the information from Dr. Pall. The people I learned from regarding EMFs were primarily Dr. Magda Havas and Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt. Assuming they are even partially correct, I made the decision to ditch the wi-fi here at home, and also to install devices to get rid of dirty electricity. Not a big expense or sacrifice. I also purchased a meter to measure the EMFs and rarely use the microwave now, after seeing the extreme frequencies emitting from that unnecessary modern convenience. And I successfully kept a smart meter off my house. But with 5G just around the corner, god knows what we’re in store for.

  6. Dennis Says:

    About 5 years ago, I was catching the bus into Sydney at rush hour one morning. Usually I’d just sit there and look out the window, but on this day I had my laptop open to prepare something for work. While we were stopped at the lights on the main street, the WIFI settings showed well over 60 networks in range. It struck me that I was sitting in the middle of a sort of EMF fog. Now the bus has its own WIFI and I pick up 30 networks from my apartment building. What will it be like when 5G comes along?

  7. Kevin Says:

    My boys only get 30 minutes per weekday of screen time.

    Then 1.5 hours on Saturday and Sunday, assuming homeschooling was done.

    No weaning necessary. A timer does the job by cutting them off automatically.

    This is freakishly low screen time compared to the norm:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/n.....d=11818905

    At the local public school, bored children are routinely left with Chromebooks for watching cartoons on YouTube. So… Yeah. Not too sure what you mean about being liberal with gadgets, as we’re pretty much the opposite.

    The main use of wifi here was to monitor the solar system, and for my wife to use her laptop at night. Not too much of a pain to get rid of wifi. Just running some more ethernet cables.

    As for solar panels on the roof, that’s a DC source, which I’m far less concerned with than AC. Also, our house is made of of steel which shields the inside from anything outside. I’ve always thought that AC in the walls was worse than something like wi-fi. The thing is that getting rid of AC is not trivial. Since most devices won’t run on DC, you’d have to invert it anyway. So… *shrug shoulders* If you want to live exclusively on DC, go for it and good luck to you.

  8. pookie Says:

    @spiralbinder Thank you for the Jack Kruse links.

  9. Kevin Says:

    An anonymous reader sent this:

    Exposure to GSM RF Fields Does Not Affect Calcium Homeostasis in Human Endothelial Cells, Rat Pheocromocytoma Cells or Rat Hippocampal Neurons

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2910734/#!po=0.390625

    While I’m certainly not breathing a sigh of relief, at least it’s something!

    I’ve actually reached out to Dr. Pall to see what he thinks of this. If he writes back, I’ll post his comments.

  10. pookie Says:

    I don’t have much time as I’m in the middle of a relocation, but it didn’t take much digging to “follow the money” regarding the research that “an anonymous reader” sent in to Cryptogon. IT IS FUNDED BY THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY. Look at the authors of the journal article — they are from The Brabaham Institute, which is funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC). (The BBSRC is also the largest funder of Rothamsted Research, a leading developer of GMO technologies.)

    According to the Guardian, who was at the time researching the BBSRC’s funding of honeybee studies, the BBSRC doesn’t reveal who its committee members are and how they allocate money, but in 2003 this information was publicly available on their website and listed executives from Syngenta, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Genetix plc, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Celltech and Unilever.

    Scroll down the linked research article, which “did not detect any consequence of RF exposure” to find this:

    “Funding: This work was supported by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council and the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme.”

    No surprise, but The Babraham Institute partners with industry, via its commercialisation arm called Babraham Institute Enterprise (BIE) and, according to its website “collaborates extensively with” “around 60 biomedical companies on the Babraham Research Campus”. How convenient to have industry just down the hall from the labs …

    Notice that the hotlink is dead for the “60 biomedical companies”:

    https://www.babraham.ac.uk/about-us/impact/industry

  11. Kevin Says:

    haha

    “Are there any rebuttals to Pall anywhere? Even from industry PR shills or compromised, corporate grant swindling quacks?”

    Well, I asked for it.

  12. Dennis Says:

    I imagine this could get very complicated. I had a bit of a dig into this…

    Mobile frequencies can be as low as 380 (rare), but bands are usually 800 to 2700 MHz. Bluetooth’s in the upper range of that.

    Microwave ovens, WiFi and cordless phones are 2.4+ GHz, but some WiFi is now 5 GHz. Baby monitors are usually only 49 MHz.

    Comparing that to something we’ve never worried about much, AM radio signals are in the 300 to 3000 KHz range, and FM is 30 to 300 MHz.

    I think the frequencies being considered for 5G range from 5 to 100 GHz, so with 5G we’re looking at using frequencies that are 300,000 times higher than those picked up by the old valve radios (on top of the stuff we’re already using) and at a guess increasing the number of concurrent signals transmitting in an urban high-tech environment by 100x or more. An interesting experiment.

    Then there’s the issue of digital vs analogue, (bang-bang-bang versus waves) though perhaps that’s irrelevant since everything’s digital now.

    http://globalmicrowave.org/mic.....equencies/

  13. Dennis Says:

    (10,000 to 100,000 are more accurate as that 300,000 figure is based on the lowest AM frequency and the highest possible 5G frequency.)

  14. Homebody Says:

    I am building a house and have wrapped it in aluminum screen wire, 20M .016 diameter. It is very stiff and heavy and very expensive and hard to get if you’re not using it for commercial purposes. I did it because we have a fly problem in my area and I wanted to keep them and all other bugs out for sure, and I read that rodents won’t chew through aluminum screen wire.
    It completely encloses the house, except for the windows which are double-pane with argon in between. It goes under the first floor, up all the exterior walls and over the attic floor. The exterior doors are all steel, but one has a double-pane glass window in it. Also, the house has a steel standing-seam roof.
    Before this new house had any elec wiring, I went inside, pulled out my cell phone, and called someone who was waiting outside. I expected the screen wire to block the cell signals, but the call went through with no problem. Yet my house was more completely wrapped than the one referenced in one of the earlier comments, about a metal-infused plastic mesh wrap product that supposedly blocks emf’s.
    My immediate area has about 12 people per square mile. We do have cell towers, but not on every rooftop as in big cities. Everyone has a cell phone, but maybe 20,000 phones total over 250 sq mi, not millions like in a big city. There is no industry or wide swaths of elec power lines anywhere near me, either.
    I wonder why the screen wire didn’t block the cell signal? What else is it not blocking?

  15. Loveandlight Says:

    @Homebody: I’m certainly no expert, but it sounds like the house you constructed comes about as close to being a “Faraday Box” as a modern residential structure can possibly be. If it doesn’t really block cellphone transmissions in an area with relatively light signal-coverage as you say, then I can’t help but doubt the efficacy of a lot of the EM pollution-mitigation devices that are sold on the Internet. Perhaps these devices can somewhat reduce your exposure, but there’s probably no 100% getting away from exposure unless one goes totally “off-grid” in a very remote area.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.