This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit jonathanroseland.substack.com

You've probably heard before that the EMFs from smartphones, Wifi, and blazing-fast 5G networks are dangerous to your health. You've also probably heard that this is just a "crazy conspiracy theory" and that all this wireless radiation is fine.

EMF*D thoroughly breaks down the real science on this controversial issue, it's the latest title from Dr. Mercola, a titan in the health freedom movement.

I'll address the "skeptics" first

You might be saying to yourself...

Cellphones causing brain cancer? Hasn't this notion been thoroughly debunked along with chemtrails and the flat earth movement? I defer to scientific authority on these kinds of matters. I BELIEVE in science. if it was really bad for us there would be credentialed scientists on the nightly news letting us know!

First of all, thanks for even considering arguments against EMFs and 5G! Too many people just mindlessly accept what their television tells them to convince them to buy a product. A few important points...

* If you're a respecter of science, you should read this book because it's full of science, it's a very thorough documentation of the significant body of science that underlies the EMF threat to our health.

* Unless you're an experienced scientist yourself, evaluate contentious issues (vaccines, climate change, etc) first with critical thinking about human nature and economic incentives and then look at the science. Here's why, science is corruptible, scientists are more like politicians than they are like priests, because of the perverse system that many of them have to operate in, don't place unquestioning faith in them. You can read scientific papers on Pubmed but understand that there is a huge noise vs signal issue in science; the federal funding of science to the tune of $30 billion turns science into a very political game. Unfortunately, a lot of science is tantamount to a propaganda article published in Pravda, the Soviet Union's state-run newspaper. You'll need to be very adroit with science to differentiate between real science and propaganda masquerading as science. You'll need to read long boring studies and pick out potential errors in their statistical analysis. And this all assumes that the scientists publishing a paper aren't simply lying and fabricating their data.

* Industry funding of science is also problematic because corporations fund science to make money, NOT for the public good. You may not be able to scrutinize myriad data and evidence supporting a scientific claim, but you are capable of asking "Cui Bono" - who benefits here? If there are big, greedy corporations funding science, that will result in them profiting millions or billions, you should be very suspicious of that "science". If there is science done by scientists who don't stand to gain much that's a lot more credible. On almost any contentious science issue, you can ask which side is going to profit a vast fortune from winning this debate? And who is just concerned about human wellbeing?

* A lot of naive people think if something is really bad for us, then they would tell us on the nightly news. Or they think that a simple Google search or a Wikipedia article will reveal the truth. Again, you have to think about the massive economic incentives; the mainstream media makes billions in advertising revenue from Big Telecom, as do Google and the rest of Big Tech. Wikipedia is a little more independent, but they enjoy a very privileged position with their articles appearing in the most authoritative position in Google searches, they aren't going to allow articles critical of Big Telecom to achieve prominence.

If you're still skeptical of the danger of EMFs, consider that...

The most consistent voice of reason has come from the scientific community. In 2015, 190 EMF scientists from 39 countries issued the International EMF Scientist Appeal to the United Nations calling for the WHO to adopt “more protective exposure guidelines for non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) in the face of increasing exposures from many sources.” (p. 79)