Latest / The Reverse Aging Club with Meredith Oke / 122: Nick Pineault - EMFs & Your Health: What the Science is Really Saying

Transcript

122: Nick Pineault - EMFs & Your Health: What the Science is Really Saying · The Reverse Aging Club with Meredith Oke

5:00
Meredith Oke: All right, Nick Pineault, welcome back to the QVC
5:03
podcast.
5:04
Nick Pineault: Thanks for having me.
5:05
Meredith Oke: It's my pleasure. And I'm really excited to talk
5:08
to you because I've really been wanting to talk
5:10
to someone about what's going on in the United
5:14
States in terms of the Health and Human Services
5:18
situation. I know that you have interviewed
5:22
Robert F. Kennedy and are following that very
5:25
closely. So I'm like, perfect. I can talk to Nick
5:27
about it. I think we're good people to talk about
5:32
this because we're both Canadian, so we didn't
5:36
vote no.
5:38
Nick Pineault: Exactly.
5:39
Meredith Oke: We are just here to talk about what the current
5:41
situation is. So how. How that happened and what
5:45
your politics are, I think are sort of beside the
5:47
point. If you know our audience, really, their
5:52
fundamental priority is, is health and wellness
5:55
and taking care of the human energy system in all
5:59
the ways that matter. And I think Robert F.
6:04
Kennedy being confirmed, like, I have a hard time
6:09
even saying it because it seemed so impossible
6:12
even just six months ago, being confirmed as the
6:16
Director of Secretary of Health and Human
6:19
Services for the federal government in the United
6:22
States. Could you just speak to the monumental
6:27
moment that this represents and also what you
6:31
think could be possible with someone like rfk, or
6:35
not even someone like rfk, because there's no one
6:36
else like him. Like, there's really no one else
6:38
in the world with that level of understanding and
6:41
experience. So I'd love your thoughts.
6:44
Nick Pineault: Well, that's, in fact, one of the most exciting
6:47
questions I've received in the last. In the last
6:50
years in interviews, because things are very
6:52
exciting. So there's a lot of possibility there.
6:55
Of course, RFK Jr. First is an environmental
7:00
attorney who fought and won against many
7:05
industries that have been found to poison people
7:09
or to hide the fact that they were poisoning
7:13
people. So industries that really kind of engage
7:18
in this sort of savage or dangerous form of
7:22
capitalism where, okay, we're here to make money
7:25
and, oh, if we get caught, we're going to pay a
7:28
little bit, a few millions in compensation, but
7:31
it's still worth it, right? So we have dupont, we
7:34
have Monsanto, and pretty much the most evil
7:38
companies. And that's not, you know, something
7:40
religious. It's more. It's even something that
7:43
in. In science magazines has been like, they had
7:46
a chart of the most evil companies in the world,
7:49
and Monsanto was up there because they deny.
7:52
They. They use all this, the tactics to try to
7:57
change scientific opinions and try to minimize
8:00
the problem. And yet we know what they're doing.
8:02
And then, of course, it take decades before we
8:05
can finally see justice. The same is happening
8:08
with telecoms to some extent because of the
8:11
denial that's been installed in the industry
8:14
since the 1990s, when the first controversies
8:19
around cell phones and potential brain tumors
8:22
were seen, especially that one Larry King
8:25
interview. I cannot recall the year, but it was.
8:28
It was a big moment in mainstream media in the
8:30
U.S. and after that, the industry really decided
8:34
to systematically quit. All the era. The efforts
8:38
that had been put to try to work with scientists
8:42
and with government to try to make sense of cell
8:45
phone safety and how to put, you know, safety
8:47
guardrails. They abandoned all that and they
8:50
decided to say no instead. What we're going to
8:52
say is, there's no effect whatsoever. Everything
8:55
is safe. So they decided on a message that is
8:59
essentially like, you know, those tobacco
9:01
executives that have a hand on the Bible and that
9:04
say, oh, no, you know, there's no damage from
9:07
smoking, there's nothing there. And nicotine, by
9:10
the way, is not addictive. So is the equivalent.
9:12
They decided on a PR message that is, of course,
9:16
completely fabric. Complete fabrication, a
9:18
complete lie. And that's. We're still going
9:21
through the consequences of that. When we have an
9:25
attorney like RFK Jr that has fought and won
9:28
against other corporate giants, and he has also
9:31
fought and won against the fcc, the Federal
9:34
Communication Commission in the US that's
9:37
supposed to regulate the industry of wireless and
9:40
wireless safety. But what they're really doing is
9:44
they're so completely captured by these interests
9:47
that all they're doing is helping telecoms buy
9:51
spectrum, which is, you know, you're buying the
9:53
right to emit at a certain frequency with your
9:56
towers and with your wireless infrastructure. So
10:00
they're really more like helping industry roll
10:03
out new technologies. So how can they both be
10:06
supposed to stop the industry from rolling out
10:09
5G, for example, the fifth generation of cell
10:12
towers, and also enable 5G. So it's kind of the
10:17
wrong organization at this point to determine
10:20
health, and we're in a very, very bad spot. But
10:24
the reality is that there's lawsuits against the
10:29
industry at many levels. RFK Jr. Was representing
10:32
many of these lawsuits. In fact, he told me many
10:35
dozens of lawsuits that we don't hear about
10:37
because they're not publicized. All right?
10:39
There's no media attention around them, around
10:42
people who claim they've had all sorts of
10:44
different tumors because of their phone. And this
10:48
is not an isolated incident. You have other
10:51
countries where there has been decisions in favor
10:56
of cell phone users that have had massive
10:59
compensation. In Italy, there are a few cases,
11:02
for example, but it's tough because even judges,
11:06
I think, and most people representing the law are
11:09
in this belief that this could be true. So
11:12
there's, you know, on a societal level, if
11:14
everyone thinks this is crazy talk and there's no
11:16
effect, it will convince the entire like all
11:20
levels of government and policymakers and even
11:24
lawmakers that there's no issue. So how can
11:27
someone claim that their cell phone caused a
11:29
tumor for example? Right. So the moment is huge
11:32
because now you have RFK Jr. Head of HHS in the
11:36
United States. HHS Health and Human Services is
11:39
at the top of overlooking the fda. The FDA is
11:43
consumer products. Cell phones fell under
11:46
consumer products for a while and then they
11:49
didn't know what to do about it. So they send
11:50
that to ntp. NTP is also part of, you know, under
11:55
hhs. NTP is the National Toxicology Program. And
11:59
they did cell phone studies, they did find
12:01
effects. It was published in 2018. And then all
12:04
of a sudden all the follow up studies to these
12:07
rat studies that showed that cell phone radiation
12:10
can be a carcinogen were abandoned quietly. We
12:13
don't know why to this day. But they think it's a
12:16
lot of industry pressure and systematic kind of,
12:19
you know, the industry trying to do all sorts of
12:23
shenanigans to prevent the real independent
12:26
scientists that have citizens health in mind to
12:29
do their job. And then there's also the FCC that
12:32
is under hhs. So now will we see a change in who
12:37
is chosen at the FCC as the head of fcc? That
12:41
would be a nice first step and something that RFK
12:44
Jr told me in the, in, in the interview that's
12:47
going to be part of the bonuses for the 2025 EMF
12:49
Hazard Summit is that he would literally look at
12:53
the top half of all FCC employee and let them go.
12:57
So there's a bit cleanup that needs to happen
12:59
because in his mind if the FCC in the end we
13:03
decide, okay, let's, let's make sure the FCC does
13:07
its job when it comes to health. We have to let
13:10
go of a culture of no effect. And a culture of
13:14
this is, you know, tinfoil hatter stuff. This is
13:17
not serious and we don't want to study it and
13:20
it's not our job. And we, it's perfectly fine to
13:25
have the heads of the FCC always be ex telecom
13:29
executives or ex CTIA executive, which is the
13:33
lobbying group for the telecom industry. So I
13:37
would say for the first time we have a politician
13:40
that in his first day at HHS said we're going to
13:44
study the impact of certain Childhood injections,
13:49
I'll say it that way. So there's that, that
13:51
controversy over that. There's a controversy over
13:53
pesticides, there's a controversy over fluoride
13:56
and water and all sorts of things that could be
14:00
behind the chronic disease epidemic. But he also
14:03
mentioned, the second item he mentioned is
14:04
electromagnetic radiation. So on a public
14:07
awareness standpoint, it could be massive. And I
14:11
was talking with someone else, another interview
14:13
I did right before this recording, and you know,
14:17
the person said, I, I don't know if RFK Jr. Is
14:21
going to change everything. And the reality is
14:24
maybe it won't, but the possibility is there. It
14:29
doesn't mean we should change course, stop
14:32
spreading awareness. Maybe the change is going to
14:35
not come in four years. Maybe it's going to take
14:37
still 24 years. I have no idea, to tell you the
14:41
truth. But the possibility is there. And at least
14:44
we have a politician for the first time that has
14:47
litigated for EMFs, knows that it's unsafe and
14:50
knows that the safety limits need to change. Will
14:53
it change? We'll see. But in the meantime, you
14:55
know, I'm just still waking up every day. I'm
14:59
doing my work for the moment. You know, I cannot
15:01
retire.
15:03
Meredith Oke: Absolutely. And I would argue that this is the
15:06
moment to double down. This is the moment for us
15:08
all to, to spread the message more clearly and
15:14
louder because we have this opening and who
15:17
knows, perhaps the embedded nature of all of
15:24
these different organizations that make decisions
15:27
that end up affecting our lives, like the
15:30
companies are, the agencies are captured by the
15:33
companies and the, the people are going back and
15:37
forth from company to government and back again.
15:41
And so nobody has any accountability and nobody
15:44
has any liability. So, yes, he has. It's
15:48
definitely a, you know, a big mess to untangle,
15:51
but the fact that the will is there and that it's
15:54
being acknowledged, because to your point, their
15:57
strategy so far has to been to just completely
16:01
deny there's even a problem. Yes.
16:04
Nick Pineault: Yeah.
16:05
Meredith Oke: And. And I think that's why some people, you
16:10
know, feel so strongly that RFK is crazy. Right.
16:14
And I watched the commentary on him very closely
16:16
during the confirmation hearing, and I could not
16:19
find one person who hated him, who had any
16:25
understanding of the issues that he represented.
16:27
Like, and so it's like he's so far down the
16:32
rabbit hole, as you were saying, he sees all of
16:35
these cases, so he sees all of the evidence, and
16:39
he's, he lives and breathes that every day and
16:41
comes to conclusions and then says those
16:44
conclusions to a public that's been told that
16:48
there's no problem. So, of course he sounds
16:50
crazy, but it's because he has all the context
16:53
and the public has none.
16:56
Nick Pineault: I agree with you. And someone who put it in the
17:00
best way possible, I have to give him credit, is
17:03
Brett Weinstein from the Dark Horse podcast. I. I
17:06
love that podcast. He's a deep thinker, but it's
17:10
also ironic. I'll tell you why in a second. But I
17:13
think he said that you have early. You have
17:16
people that are sort of alarm sounders, that are
17:20
kind of 30 years before their time, and they.
17:23
They have a position that is informed, that is
17:27
not just, you know, their gut feeling or
17:29
anything. I'm included in that. But of course,
17:32
before me, there were people in the 1980s that I
17:35
know that were already saying, you know, power
17:37
lines that we install that are these huge lines
17:42
of electricity. We have to be careful because if
17:44
we live too close to them, we're going to have
17:46
massive problems based on what we understand of
17:49
biology. Everyone was kind of scoffing at that.
17:52
What are you talking about? Electricity. I mean,
17:55
electricity is safe as long as you don't, you
17:57
know, shock yourself to death. And now we're
18:00
starting to see, yes, it was a problem, but it
18:02
was a small problem compared to all the other
18:04
problems we're creating with modern tech so close
18:07
to our body, cell towers, et cetera. And these
18:11
early adopters have a position that sounds so
18:14
crazy because it is so far from what the average
18:20
layperson knows and even the average, you know,
18:23
intellectual or academic thinks or knows for
18:28
sure. But yet that's. That's kind of their gut
18:30
feeling and uninformed position. For example, you
18:35
would have. The academic. Most people would think
18:38
that cell phones are completely safe. They. They
18:42
think, well, it's been studied. There's no
18:44
effect. And they read the cancer society website.
18:48
It says the same thing. Okay. It confirms my
18:50
understanding. And then I read who. Oh, there's
18:55
no effect. Cool. Thank God there's no effect. I
18:58
read the fcc. Thank God, there's no effect. So
19:00
they've been convinced their entire life that
19:02
there's no effect. So when they're presented with
19:04
evidence, it sounds so big, it sounds so shocking
19:11
that it couldn't possibly be true. And that's
19:15
what the point of Bret Weinstein was when he gets
19:19
into new topics, like something that he learned
19:21
about in the last several years was the impact of
19:25
blue light. It couldn't be that we rolled out all
19:30
these screens and yet were destroying the health
19:35
of the population to some degree at least, or to
19:38
some would say a Large degree, at least in a
19:40
quantum biology field, because the screens emit
19:44
all the wrong frequencies. And no one took care
19:47
of making sure that at least the spectrum is
19:50
balanced, that we try to minimize these risks.
19:53
And essentially this is a big experiment. And he
19:56
was shocked when he realized, my God, yes, blue
20:00
light is a big problem. Because he talks about
20:02
hypernovelty. He's a evolutionary biologist, so
20:06
he says, well, this is new. Our mitochondria are
20:09
not used to this artificial light. Our cells is
20:13
not used to this artificial light. But the thing
20:16
is where Brett Weinstein falls short and I think,
20:21
I apologize to Brett if he knows, but I don't
20:24
think he's aware, that invisible light, right,
20:27
this part of the EMF spectrum that communicates
20:30
with each other, the cell towers and your phone
20:32
and wi Fi and Bluetooth. This radio frequency
20:34
radiation also has the same characteristics. It's
20:38
hypernovel. We have levels right now of exposure
20:43
that is a quintillion times the ancestral
20:46
background levels. So that's 10 to the 18th or a
20:50
billion times a billion. That's the increase of
20:54
radio frequency radiation in the last hundred
20:57
years. So the average. And that's not a peak
21:02
exposure level from your phone, that's background
21:05
level in a city around 0.2 volts per meter. So
21:11
the reality is that we have a new agent. It's
21:14
tremendously higher, so, so much higher than back
21:17
in three, four generations ago that we cannot
21:20
even understand the number. There's too many
21:23
zeros. So there's that. And then we have the
21:26
position in society. Everyone keeps repeating,
21:29
everything is safe. And yet when you look into
21:32
it, if, if Brett Weinstein looked into it, he
21:36
would say, my God, the safety studies are shoddy.
21:39
This is very bad science from the get go. The
21:43
standards are based on adults, short term
21:46
exposure. So where are the standards for kids?
21:49
Like if we have kids that use the technology?
21:52
Makes no sense. So it makes so little sense when
21:56
you start looking into it that just like me, just
21:59
like I did in 2016 when I dove into it, it makes
22:03
no sense. It's almost impossible to fathom that
22:06
it could be that bad. And yet it is.
22:12
Meredith Oke: Yeah, and it is. And it's also, as you were
22:16
talking about the, the exposure times
22:20
quintillion, you know, I was thinking how
22:23
resilient the human body is that you know, our
22:25
biology, the fact that we're not even sicker than
22:28
we are is amazing considering what we've. We're
22:31
asking our biology to deal with on a day to day
22:34
basis. And you're talking about the safety
22:37
studies. So it's looking at adults, short term
22:42
exposure and in reality we have children,
22:47
including in some cases infants with long term
22:51
exposure. I mean my children go to public school,
22:55
they are in a WI fi environment all day long. And
22:59
so we have it turned off in our house on a timer
23:03
and we have no WI fi in our house when they're
23:05
sleeping. But that's not short term exposure. And
23:09
are they even looking at WI fi or are they just
23:11
looking at cell phones? Because then you know,
23:13
you're in a classroom and well, depending what
23:17
grade you're in. But for sure in middle and high
23:19
school every child in that room has a phone
23:22
turned on, probably Bluetooth and WI fi and data
23:28
like that is, that is not short term exposure,
23:33
that is prolonged daily exposure to, to
23:36
developing bodies and minds.
23:38
Nick Pineault: Exactly. And we have. So basically the very
23:42
foundation of EMF wireless safety relies on short
23:47
term experiments. 40 to 60 minute of exposures,
23:51
if I recall correctly, to five monkeys and eight
23:54
rats. That's in a paper published in, by a group
23:57
called ICB, EMF. And Dr. Paul Hirou, who's in a,
24:01
in the Summit, he's from McGill University, he's
24:04
a professor of, he has a background in biology
24:08
and electrical engineering. So that's why he got
24:10
it, that's why he understood that when he was
24:13
mandated by Hydro Quebec, a utility company for
24:17
electricity that is owned by the state here in
24:19
Quebec in Canada, when he was asked to look at
24:23
the potential health impacts of power lines on
24:27
citizens and whether they should build these
24:29
power lines close to people's home or in even in
24:32
certain cases they wanted to have the power lines
24:34
over people's homes. So you're right underneath
24:37
and you're exposed to massive levels of
24:40
electricity in the form of a magnetic field that
24:44
is always present. So you're living in this,
24:47
let's say electricity bubble. And he found health
24:51
impacts. That's why he eventually lost his job.
24:53
Of course that's kind of what happens to honest
24:56
scientists these days in many industries or when
24:58
your finding goes against industry. But basically
25:00
what he said is that look, these are fantasies or
25:05
he called them fairy tales that the industry is
25:08
saying about safety. The initial studies were bad
25:11
enough that it should have never been rolled out.
25:15
This technology or at least the pre market
25:18
studying should have taken 10 years. But how can
25:21
you stop this technological boom? It was part of
25:25
the, the dot com Internet boom. And then towards
25:29
the 90s and the early 2000s it was like it was
25:33
almost a sort of unstoppable force. So who Are
25:37
you to stop this? Great technological advances
25:41
and things went very, very fast. And of course in
25:44
the midst of all this we still rely on safety
25:48
standards that are not even appropriate for
25:51
adults. But based on, on a mannequin head that is
25:55
the equivalent of a six foot two men, 220 pounds.
25:59
So maybe it's hard to tell, but I'm not six foot,
26:02
I'm five, four. I'm a small guy, you know, I'm
26:04
like the smaller population. So even those
26:07
standards are not even appropriate for my brain.
26:10
So if I use a phone to my head, I'm even going
26:13
over the limit that has been determined in safety
26:17
testing. So it makes so little sense on so many
26:22
level that it's hard to fathom. But then of
26:24
course you have certain engineers that said,
26:27
well, what happens if you have a 10 year old?
26:29
Well, the 10 year old has a different type of
26:31
head, it's smaller than mine, I can tell you
26:34
that. And then not only that, but the smaller
26:36
children are, the more water content they have in
26:39
their body, so they absorb more of this
26:42
radiation. So in fact in some studies they, their
26:47
spinal Cord will absorb 10 times more radiation
26:51
than adults just because of the morphology. And
26:54
then their brain will absorb 150 to 200% so
26:58
almost twice as much compared to adults. So none
27:02
of the safety standards take that into account.
27:05
But that's just for phones, right? We have no
27:08
safety standards that look at cumulative
27:10
exposures from all the sources you mentioned wi
27:13
fi in school and then another device that's maybe
27:17
in a pocket and maybe I have a Apple watch or
27:20
other wireless thing here and I have AirPods on
27:24
every day and then I go back home and the phone
27:27
is on under my pillow and all this cumulative
27:30
exposure, there's big radio silence on it because
27:33
again, everything that's being repeated is,
27:36
everything is safe. Everything is safe. Not, not
27:39
of this matter. Like we don't need the studies
27:41
about cumulative exposure because a cumulative
27:44
exposure to something that is harmless doesn't
27:47
need to be measured. Right? That's right. That's
27:49
the.
27:50
Meredith Oke: Why would we study cumulative exposure when the,
27:53
when it's completely harmless? It's like how many
27:56
breaths did you take today? Exactly. Breathing's
27:59
harmless.
28:00
Nick Pineault: Exactly, exactly.
28:04
Meredith Oke: Because it's the other piece that is so tricky
28:07
about the non native EMF situation is that, you
28:14
know, if I want my family to eat a certain type
28:18
of food that's within my control, you know, if I
28:21
want to say no to certain big pharma products and
28:25
make, you know, have informed consent on all the
28:29
you know, when I have to make a medical decision,
28:32
especially involving taking drugs or injections,
28:34
like that's still relatively within my control.
28:38
But as we've been talking about the non native
28:40
EMFs, that is like a society level problem. And
28:46
aside from having what happens inside my own
28:49
home, it just, and this is, it just is so, it's
28:55
so daunting, right, to acknowledge the level of
28:58
harm that is happening. But at the same time it
29:03
is something that we literally can't do anything
29:05
about outside of our homes. And even then we're
29:09
still depending where our house is located, we
29:11
might still be picking up other stuff. And so
29:14
that's why I wanted to come back to RFK for a
29:17
minute. You know, like I'm just a big proponent
29:20
of light, of build the life you want to live,
29:22
create the future you want to live in, surround
29:24
yourself with people on the same page and like,
29:26
who cares what everyone else is doing? But this
29:30
has, you know, on a spiritual level, challenging
29:34
that approach because we cannot change this
29:38
without acknowledging the larger society system
29:42
that we live in. And so I just to have someone in
29:49
charge who sees that I hope is going to be able
29:54
to have a cascading effect on some of this
29:56
because it seems to me that as long as the people
29:59
in charge have a vested interest in lying to us
30:04
about the effects of technology on our bodies,
30:09
we're kind of screwed.
30:11
Nick Pineault: Yeah, we are, we are in a sense. So let's think
30:15
about this thing, this entire problem in two
30:18
different categories. One of them, and let's use
30:22
the example of massive use of pesticides, there's
30:27
a worldwide problem with pesticide use. We are
30:31
destroying species, ecosystems, plants, humans,
30:36
everything. We're, you know, dumping I don't know
30:39
how many billions of tons of pesticides
30:43
everywhere every year. So there's a global
30:46
problem we need to think about. And even if you
30:49
decide to read Consumer Reports or whatever blog
30:54
and you discover, oh my God, there's a ton of
30:56
pesticides in my Cheerios glyphosate, so
31:00
therefore I will stop eating Cheerios. You're
31:03
doing great. You're doing great for consumer
31:06
awareness in a sense that if Cheerios loses
31:08
market shares, maybe they're going to clean their
31:10
act and make sure that throughout their supply
31:13
chain everything will be pesticide free. Or
31:16
maybe, you know, rely on other sources for their
31:19
oats and wheat and whatever ingredients they have
31:22
on there. And then of course you're going to have
31:24
fewer pesticides in your body. So that's good.
31:26
But there's a global problem of pesticides and
31:29
there's individual problem of pesticides. The
31:32
individual problem of pesticides is okay. What do
31:35
I feed my family? What do I feed myself with?
31:37
Emfs is the same. You have the global problem you
31:40
have there. I mean, it's daunting on me. The
31:43
moment I wake up, I have to. I kind of, I think
31:47
I'm able to survive in this space because I'm an
31:49
eternal optimist. I think things like, I kind of
31:53
still believe in fairy tales and I wake up in the
31:56
morning and oh, I feel like, you know, EMF
31:58
awareness is gonna explode. And it's so nice in
32:00
reality, we're really moving in the wrong
32:03
direction and we're installing all, all sorts of
32:07
satellites around the earth. And now there's
32:10
massive problems. The satellites are beaming down
32:12
on us. What is it doing, Nick? I get emails,
32:15
people very concerned. Should I go outside? Even
32:18
someone told me, well, you know, there's
32:21
widespread pollution of the air. There's the
32:24
satellites now that are blasting me, and there's
32:27
this little park in my city. Should I go outside
32:30
or stay inside? And I'm like, oh my God. I mean,
32:33
this is first. We don't know. But we cannot stop
32:38
going outside. That's, that's the crazy part of
32:40
it, right? We cannot stop having sunshine and
32:44
earthing and, you know, all these things that on
32:47
a quantum health level are kind of the
32:49
foundations. You still need to get outside and
32:54
get natural frequencies. And the irony is, I
32:59
think that the more natural frequencies you have
33:01
and your body reads this information is going to
33:04
help you cope with the chaos out there. That is
33:07
the bad information in the environment. So I
33:10
would say continue, by all means, continue. Go
33:13
outside and go by how you feel. Do you feel
33:16
better outside? I do. I still do. Even in
33:18
Montreal, even in a city. And I know if I go to a
33:20
park, even if that park has been sprayed with
33:23
pesticides, turns out I feel even better than in
33:26
my home. So somehow, you know, there's good
33:29
things that are coming out of it. So global
33:31
problem of emf, daunting. We can talk about it in
33:35
a political level, policy level, where to place
33:38
the towers. We should know. We should roll out
33:41
5G. We shouldn't roll out 5G. What to do about
33:45
your neighbors and how to change all of society.
33:48
But if I tell a parent, that's how, that's what
33:51
you have to think about tonight at 7pm after a
33:54
kids go to bed, they're going to freak out.
33:55
They're going to say, well, my God, I cannot
33:57
think about that. Like how Things are going to
33:59
change, but it's going to take a lot of time.
34:01
Then you have your individual EMF exposure that
34:05
you do have, I'd say a decent amount of control
34:08
over. Right, because you decide like you as an
34:12
adult, not your kids, that's another part of the
34:14
discussion. But you as an adult, you can control
34:17
what you expose yourself to. If you want to use
34:20
technology, there are safer ways to use it. You
34:23
can use wires instead of wireless. You can create
34:26
distance between the devices and your body. You
34:29
can minimize your time of use. And then if you
34:32
have control over your kids exposures because
34:34
they're younger, then of course you should do it.
34:38
And you should try to learn more tips that we
34:41
share in the summit, for example, or you know,
34:43
just trying to use more ethernet cables. Try to
34:47
minimize the time of exposure. Like you said,
34:49
turning off the WI fi at night is a great step
34:51
because it doesn't interfere with anyone's
34:53
business. And yet you are cutting down exposure
34:56
for a good seven to eight hours. So right there
34:59
you are cutting down how much of this stress
35:02
you're getting. Just like if you are cleaning up
35:05
your diet. And you know these Cheerios have
35:08
pesticides because I read Consumer Reports, I
35:11
know better. So now we've switched to an organic
35:13
brand and that's a pesticide free brand. But then
35:17
you come across an apple that your husband
35:20
purchased at the grocery store. Oh no, it's not
35:23
organic. There's 50 types of pesticide residue on
35:26
there. What do I do? I'm hungry. Well, maybe you
35:29
eat apple, right, but so you are still exposed to
35:33
some stuff. But maybe then you tell your husband,
35:35
okay, well you know what, apples should be
35:37
purchased organic from now on and we'll see if
35:40
our budget allows it. So all this negotiation
35:44
needs to happen with EMFs. It's not either you're
35:48
super exposed or unexposed. There's nuances in
35:52
there and you have to think about all the
35:55
different sources you're exposed to, focusing on
35:59
which you have control over and which are you
36:02
exposed for not a few minutes here and there, but
36:05
hours every day. So for a lot of people it would
36:09
be their phone, laptop, workstation, WI fi router
36:14
in the home. For a lot of parents and towards
36:17
their kids exposure, it will be the tablet that
36:19
they hand them or smartphone that they hand them.
36:22
And there are a lot of ways that they can
36:25
minimize the amount of radiation that this body
36:28
is subjected to at a close range. That's really
36:31
the key to dangers that are identified in the, in
36:35
the medical research is yes, the cell phone
36:38
towers have an impact. I cannot tell you. They
36:40
don't have an impact. But what are you to do
36:43
about it, right? It's, it's difficult, it's a
36:46
long term battle. The short term battle is, let's
36:49
say you hand your kid a tablet or let me give an
36:52
example from you know, we took a trip last
36:54
summer, it was to the Outer Banks, we left
36:56
Montreal. It took way too many hours of driving,
37:00
I cannot recall if it was like 14 or maybe 16
37:04
hours. And stopping at many different types of
37:07
convenience stores to go to the bathroom and buy
37:12
snacks. And it was like a never ending trip. Of
37:14
course I used a tablet. But what did I do prior
37:17
to that trip? I connected the tablet. I use an
37:20
ethernet cable, but you could use WI fi, there's
37:23
really no difference. You leave it in the corner
37:25
where no one is exposed and, and you pre download
37:28
all the movies you can, you pre download series,
37:31
you pre download games that can be played
37:33
offline. You can, even if you use Spotify or
37:36
other music apps, most of them allow you to pre
37:39
download playlists. In fact on Spotify, even on
37:42
the average tablet nowadays you could have
37:44
thousands of songs pre downloaded so much that
37:48
Even during these 16 hours to go and 16 hours to
37:51
come back, you would still be able to listen to
37:54
unique songs and never repeat it, repeat a single
37:57
song twice. So it's just an example of, you know,
38:02
a simple, almost stupid, stupidly simple habit
38:08
that would make all the difference because
38:09
instead of streaming all this content for 32
38:12
hours where you would be connected to a 4G tower
38:15
and the tablet in front of you, kid in the car
38:18
would be emitting, emitting, emitting. And
38:20
throughout the car, the car is metal on top of
38:22
that, it would be bouncing everywhere and
38:24
everyone would feel probably more fatigued, more
38:27
stress, more oxidative, oxidative stress. So
38:33
lower antioxidant, everyone would be, would feel
38:35
more stressed overall. That's, this is really
38:38
what it's doing to your biology. Instead of that
38:40
you have none, zero exposure from that tablet for
38:44
two to 32 hours. So it's just a change, a slight
38:48
change of habit that makes you say okay, well you
38:51
know, it's, I could do that, right? That, that's
38:53
how I want parents to feel. Focus on the things
38:56
that you, that make you say, okay, I could do
38:58
that. And I will not ask the average parent to
39:02
please find a way to stop the satellites from
39:04
going in the sky, right? Take a rocket ship and
39:07
bring them down. I mean it really, that's what
39:10
people seem to be focused on, when in reality,
39:14
they should focus on their immediate surroundings.
39:18
Meredith Oke: And focusing on that does make a difference.
39:22
Nick Pineault: It does.
39:23
Meredith Oke: Yeah. It's like getting sunshine. Even, you know,
39:26
five minutes is better than no minutes. Every
39:28
little help. So what I'm hearing you say is that
39:31
any way that we can find to mitigate our
39:36
exposure, especially by the things that are
39:39
closest to our bodies, is going to be helpful.
39:42
Even though there are larger issues that we don't
39:47
have control over, the things that we do have
39:49
control over are going to make a difference. And
39:51
so it's like that. That balance of having enough
39:55
awareness of the true dangers to being willing to
39:58
make even small changes without getting
40:01
overwhelmed and feeling defeated and depressed,
40:05
for sure.
40:06
Nick Pineault: And just focusing on areas that really matter. So
40:10
here's another example I get from concerned
40:14
parents. I have a trip coming up, and I'm going
40:18
to bring a tablet, and I have no idea how to turn
40:21
off the WI fi in a hotel room. We're going to be
40:25
staying there one night. And my answer is. This
40:28
is. Well, you know, maybe you can overstress over
40:33
these details, but I feel like maybe you should
40:36
start looking into where is the WI fi router in
40:40
your Airbnb apartment You're going to be renting
40:42
for two weeks. Right. That would matter more than
40:45
the one night in the hotel room. And if the
40:48
Airbnb apartment. Oh, I don't. I cannot even find
40:51
that router. I have no access to it. Forget about
40:54
it. Like, literally ignore it. Try to live your
40:58
life. But back home, when this is not your two
41:02
weeks of vacation, it's your 50 weeks of living
41:05
with your kids and husband and family. Do
41:08
something about the WI fi. Maybe you turn it off
41:10
when not in use, or maybe you turn off WI fi
41:12
permanently, like I did, and use Ethernet cables
41:15
to connect your devices. Whatever you choose to
41:17
do, this is where you can have the biggest
41:20
impact. So, again, it's the same framework as
41:24
food, toxins, or even diet overall, if you are
41:27
extremely concerned. Oh, Nick, you know, in 1994,
41:31
I had a sundae with pasteurized milk and cheap
41:34
ice cream and corn syrup on it. Like, how much of
41:38
an impact is it having on my epigenetics? I don't
41:42
know, but it's in the past, and now you can do
41:45
better. And if you want to have a Sunday once per
41:47
year, I have a hard time believing that this will
41:51
make or break your health. Except, of course, if
41:54
you're deadly allergic to certain ingredients or
41:56
your body is in very poor health and you have no
41:59
resilience of course you know what you're able to
42:02
handle. But the reality is that your food
42:04
decisions are, you know, over a thousand meals
42:08
per year. If you have three per day, focus on the
42:11
999 and not the one. Right? So we have, instead
42:16
of being neurotic, we have to be practical about
42:19
it. And I know it is overwhelming. It is
42:21
overwhelming because of the shock that people
42:23
feel when they discover EMFs. It is overwhelming,
42:26
I would say because of some of the marketing
42:29
online that is like, oh, 5G will destroy you.
42:33
You're in trouble. And sometimes I want to talk
42:37
this way, but I try to just keep it reasonable. I
42:42
am concerned over satellites. I am concerned
42:46
over, over 5G. I am concerned about new devices
42:49
that are stronger and even more disruptive. But
42:52
the message always remains the same. It's really
42:55
to kind of take a deep breath, try to do your
42:58
best and at least don't act or don't believe that
43:03
this is a non issue. That would be my problem if
43:05
you tell me, oh no, no, it's perfectly safe. I
43:08
read who and I read the Cancer Society and I read
43:11
the fcc. I would say, well, good luck. But I beg
43:15
to differ. Try to minimize exposure. And what
43:18
people feel after just minimizing One source of
43:23
EMFs is sometimes is surprising. I had this quick
43:29
anecdote. I rent cars at, I used to rent car at
43:32
Avis manufacturer here in Montreal. And I talked
43:36
with Claudi, who is the clerk there and I told
43:39
her about my work and of course we start talking
43:42
as the months go by. And she said, oh, you know
43:44
what you told me about EMFs, you know, and
43:46
turning off phone at night. I didn't tell my
43:49
husband, but I turned off our phones at night for
43:54
a few nights. And the first night is the first
43:57
night my husband slept through the night without
43:59
having to go and pee in the middle of the night.
44:03
It's the first time in 20 years, something like
44:07
that. And I'm like, oh my God. And they didn't
44:11
change their neighbors habits. They live in a
44:15
city so they are exposed to all sorts of things.
44:17
So imagine this is the impact from two phones in
44:21
your bedroom. The reality is that your body will
44:26
accommodate for these exposures and try to find
44:29
what is the best sleep I can get given these
44:31
exposures. If you remove the exposures, it might
44:35
find a new situation that is even more
44:37
advantageous for your biology. Okay, well now we
44:40
have to kind of modify brain wave patterns and
44:43
we're going to slightly tweak things and how
44:46
neurotransmitters are emitted and how melatonin
44:49
and your biology is going to change very rapidly
44:52
within one night. It's going to find, okay, what
44:54
is the best situation now? I'm sensing the
44:56
environment. It's kind of a little bit calmer.
44:58
We're going to try to get deeper tonight. And
45:01
turns out they had better sleep. Deeper sleep. So
45:04
the reality is that you can get benefits. And
45:08
this is what gives me hope is the confirmation
45:11
that when you turn off only a few sources, some
45:14
people start feeling better. It is an indication
45:17
for me that you can get benefits. No matter the
45:22
overwhelm around you and these external factors,
45:25
you can get benefits when you minimize your own
45:28
exposures. And that's, that's good news in a
45:31
sense in a, in a topic that is very daunting. You
45:34
can make a difference and it does make a
45:37
difference even each time you take these small
45:39
decisions.
45:41
Meredith Oke: Yes, absolutely. And I, I love the way that you
45:44
deliver this message because being a hyper purist
45:50
extremist is, is stressful long term. And it also
45:55
makes people not want to listen because they're
45:58
like, well, I'm not doing all those crazy things
46:00
you do. Right. So what I see happen with people
46:04
with myself and all the people that, whose
46:06
stories I hear and people I work with. Right.
46:08
It's like when you're integrating new habits and
46:11
new changes. Yes. You are going to be hyper
46:13
focused on that issue for a period of time.
46:16
Whether it's aligning your circadian rhythms or
46:18
lowering your, mitigating your EMF or figuring
46:21
out how to feed your family, it will require
46:24
extra attention. But once it's integrated as a,
46:28
as a normal habit, it's okay to relax and enjoy
46:34
life and be optimistic. Speaking of things that
46:39
we have control over, something that I wanted to
46:42
talk to you about that I think is just such low
46:47
hanging fruit in terms of what industry could
46:52
potentially maybe I would prefer, I would like
46:56
them to be outlawed but you know, have some put
46:59
out some information on to warn people is EarPods.
47:07
Nick Pineault: AirPods. Oh yes. Oh yeah.
47:10
Meredith Oke: So talk to me about EarPods because they, you
47:16
know, they're small, they go in your ear like
47:19
right. Like as close to your brain as possible.
47:21
Like they seem to be breaking every rule you've
47:23
just outlined. They in terms of how to mitigate
47:27
emf and all the kids use them. My kids show up
47:31
places with their wired, their wired things and
47:36
people are like, oh, you guys too cool for
47:38
earbuds? You're going retro. And they're like no,
47:40
we want EarPods. Our mom won't let us.
47:43
Nick Pineault: Yeah, yeah, well, it would almost be cooler to
47:46
say, oh yeah, I'm going like super retro and
47:49
have, I don't know, old Walkman, you know,
47:53
yellow, yellow Walkman, like wired headset just
47:58
for the sake of it. But you know, the difficulty
48:01
is that I tried two years ago, my Bose QC35 I
48:08
think is the model wired earbuds like these that
48:12
are very nice and they have like a feature where
48:16
you have, you have a button and you have a noise
48:21
canceling function that I like, especially on
48:23
airplanes or if you're in loud environments. It's
48:26
pretty nice. But these have been completely
48:28
discontinued years ago and I had to purchase
48:31
these knockoffs, which I realized is probably
48:34
not, I think I got sold like a scam because they
48:37
don't sound the same. But it was on ebay, so of
48:40
course I was kind of asking for it and they were
48:43
very cheap. So they were straight from China.
48:46
They do the job. But all that to say that society
48:49
is moving in a direction where it's tough to find
48:52
wired solutions. So I'll give you that it's tough
48:56
Even, you know, the average people that don't
49:01
have a ton of money would be tempted to go with
49:03
wireless earbuds and just to record a video on my
49:08
Instagram. I wanted to purchase AirPods to show
49:12
them, to show people not to use them. But I found
49:16
that an expensive marketing expenses because it
49:20
was like two, three hundred dollars. So I went on
49:22
Amazon and said, okay, what kind of alternatives
49:24
are there for like AirPods? You can find some for
49:27
like 29.99 or $40 USD. So very, very cheap. So
49:33
all that to say that even kids that are not
49:36
necessarily part of a wealthy family or have a
49:38
lot of money will be able to have these Bluetooth
49:42
earbuds in their ears for extended periods of
49:46
time, for hours on end. So of course they're to
49:52
be avoided. Now a lot of people will kind of
49:54
laugh at that statement, like, okay, well it's
49:57
cool that you tell me that, but my kids will not
50:00
listen to me, especially if they're older
50:02
teenagers. And let's say I completely understand
50:05
if the battle is so much that it's going to
50:08
disconnect you from your kid, then it becomes a
50:11
big issue. Like it cannot be a fight where it
50:14
puts you in, it puts your relationship in
50:16
jeopardy. So what can you do? Well, there are
50:19
some solutions that can be installed on the
50:22
AirPod to block 90% of the radiation. That's
50:26
called wave block. It has merits, but again is
50:30
reducing the problem by 90%, sufficient to assure
50:33
safety. We don't, we don't have an answer. We
50:36
don't even know. What is the safe level of
50:38
wireless exposure right next to the brain? For
50:41
all I know, it could be close to zero, which is,
50:45
you know, the equivalent of what happened with
50:47
certain very toxic substances like lead, for
50:51
example, a heavy metal. At one point, lead
50:55
exposure was thought to be, you know, slightly
50:58
dangerous. Eventually it was very dangerous.
51:01
Eventually it was extremely dangerous. And now
51:04
even, you know, everyone is kind of admitting,
51:07
well, the safe level is zero, right? Ideally. And
51:11
we don't have zero. In fact, I found I have
51:14
massive levels of lead in my body somehow,
51:16
because I don't even know where that's coming
51:18
from. But all that to say that, you know, the
51:22
more we're going to research this technology and
51:24
the more concerning the results will be. I have
51:27
no doubt about that. So reducing time of use
51:31
might be a strategy to use. So for example, if
51:35
your teenagers or kids are still use them behind
51:39
your back and they want to use them, at least you
51:41
can say, well, when you're home, you use the
51:43
wired solutions. That's something. So maybe when
51:46
they're home, you know, it might be 12 hours per
51:47
day they use the wires or when you're studying,
51:50
you're in one place, you're at your office,
51:52
you're at your computer, just have a different
51:54
pair that is wired at the computer. Why would you
51:57
use wireless if you're not, you know, doing a
52:00
workout or dancing or moving around? Right. So it
52:03
makes no sense to have wireless in these
52:05
situations. So try to have, you know, minimize
52:09
time of use and try to minimize, help them
52:12
minimize their use as much as possible. That's
52:14
what I would say. And of course we don't know
52:17
what it's doing. But for certain teenagers and
52:22
younger patients, from some of the doctors I
52:24
interviewed in a summit, they realized that they
52:28
had massive problems with airpods in particular,
52:31
where they had weird sensations on the skin that
52:34
lasted for several days after wearing them. And
52:38
for some of them it's tinnitus. They have a
52:40
ringing in one ear or even I heard about a
52:44
reduction in hearing quality or hearing loss,
52:46
partial hearing loss from radio frequency
52:49
radiation. It's plausible that it could be
52:52
happening. It's certainly not happening with
52:54
everyone. And we probably need further studies to
52:57
verify. Is it radio frequency radiation or is it,
53:00
you know, loud music and things like that that
53:03
are other factors that could affect hearing. But
53:06
it's plausible to think that hearing could be
53:09
impacted. In fact, you have neuroscientist Dr.
53:12
Andrew Uberman, that is very popular online and
53:15
did touch a little bit about EMS at the beginning
53:18
of 2023. And what he said is that one of the main
53:21
reasons he decided to go against Bluetooth is
53:25
that he knows very, very deeply the biology of
53:29
the brain and especially the inner ear and how
53:32
hearing happens. And he said there's no way these
53:36
structures are not impacted by radio frequency
53:38
radiation because these structures are delicate.
53:41
So I guess he just has a, a deep understanding
53:44
and in his mind he can picture how small the
53:47
internal inner ear apparatus is and how delicate
53:51
it is and how magnificently complex it is. And he
53:56
said, no, I won't put Bluetooth near it. As if,
53:59
you know, for him it's sort of something that
54:03
just didn't make sense. It's probably impacting
54:06
it even if the studies are not there. Right. So
54:08
it depends on your personal background. But I
54:10
would say, you know, for, for sure there are,
54:13
there are health impacts. And if you have
54:15
teenagers and they're in an age where you feel
54:19
they know about what you do for health and they
54:23
might be open to the possibility of, you know,
54:25
you have headaches. Have you thought about the
54:28
fact that, you know, some people have headaches
54:30
with cell phones or these, these wireless
54:33
earbuds? Why don't we do a test instead of
54:36
saying, no, they're forbidden. Right. Why don't
54:38
we do a test together? Let's use Wired solutions
54:41
for a week and see how you feel. And maybe
54:44
they're going to have curiosity towards that and
54:47
say, yeah, I hate to admit it, but the headaches
54:52
are gone. If you can find this type of effect,
54:55
well, first it's going to help them their entire
54:58
life because getting headaches or then relying on
55:01
Tylenol and these pharmaceutical products that
55:04
are quite harsh on, on the body and especially
55:07
toxic to the body in large quantities and over
55:10
time, if you can avoid that, that's good. But
55:13
also it's going to teach them a lesson that, yes,
55:16
the effects might be subtle for some people, but
55:19
for some other people they're going to get
55:20
symptoms and maybe you should be prudent towards
55:24
these exposures. So of course, if you can feel
55:26
it, it makes it very, very real for you. So
55:29
that's why one of the strategies I recommend for
55:32
all families and something we probably repeat a
55:34
thousand times during the summit is turning off
55:37
WI fi at night, turning off phones. And if you
55:39
only do that and you have a few family members
55:42
that say, wait a minute, I think my sleep is
55:45
better. Well, if they have just a Hint of, wait a
55:51
minute, something is off here. I sleep way better
55:54
than before or slightly better than before, then
55:57
maybe you're gonna be able to have at least this
56:01
conversation is going to open their mind to the
56:04
possibility that all these sources might have an
56:08
impact on their body somehow.
56:11
Meredith Oke: Yes. And that's true. What I see as most helps
56:18
people the most is when they have a personal
56:21
experience of sleeping better or feeling better.
56:23
Right. That's the best motivator. So, one last
56:27
thing I wanted to. To talk about staying on the
56:30
topic of teenagers is the anxiety epidemic that
56:36
teens are experiencing. And to this day, all of
56:40
the literature and all of the documentaries that
56:43
are doing the rounds amongst the parenting groups
56:46
and the schools are entirely focused on the
56:50
content of children's lives. So the content of
56:54
social media, the content of what people are
56:57
saying to them or not saying to them, and the
57:02
conversation hasn't quite shifted to not just
57:06
what they're looking at on these devices, but the
57:08
effects of the devices themselves. So before we
57:11
just to wrap up, could you highlight the
57:16
connection to our mental health and specifically
57:20
why children and teenagers are experiencing such
57:24
high levels of anxiety and insomnia?
57:27
Nick Pineault: Yeah. There is a very good session on EMF
57:32
impacts, especially on teenagers, and especially
57:35
focused on children's cognition and behavior by
57:39
Bonnie Tucker in the Summit. And she. I did not
57:42
know Bonnie. A few months ago she wrote to me,
57:45
she said, I'm a public health researcher. I've
57:48
done basically an entire review of the scientific
57:51
literature. And it's very bad. Like, we know for
57:56
sure that there's something there when it comes
57:59
to the link between exposure and then the
58:04
impacts, like add, adhd, but also depression,
58:08
anxiety, panic attacks and that whole mental
58:12
health crisis. So what she shared with me, for
58:14
example, in the interview, is that we have 96% of
58:17
children have cell phones. So this is a complete
58:22
shift of the patterns of exposures compared to 20
58:27
years ago, or let's say even going back 30 years
58:30
ago. I remember my dad in 1994, or let's say
58:35
1995, 30 years ago, as we're speaking, he used
58:39
these big brick phones from Nokia, if you can
58:42
recall them. It's completely, it's almost, it's
58:46
almost funny how they look because they, they
58:48
weighed like a thousand pounds or something and
58:52
you couldn't move them around. And yet this was
58:54
like the bulk of our exposure back then was
58:56
adults, of course, and business people. But now
58:59
we have children that have these exposures. And
59:02
when she talked a little bit about the science,
59:05
for her, it was very, very clear that there's a
59:09
link between EMFs and then cognition. So, for
59:14
example, she examined around 50 studies from
59:18
around the world. 12 were focused on cognitive
59:20
impact and 38 on behavioral and health impacts.
59:24
And out of the cognition studies, 10 out of 11
59:29
showed a statistical significance between EMF
59:33
exposure and cognitive decline in teenagers. And
59:36
it was like, it was almost like, you know, I know
59:39
these things. But I said, wait a minute, it's
59:42
like the vast majority of studies are showing
59:45
problems. And she said, well, not only that, when
59:48
I looked at the behavioral and health impact
59:52
studies, 34 out of 38 studies showed statistical
59:56
significance between higher exposure groups and
1:00:00
various symptoms. She talked about inattention
1:00:03
issues, behavioral problems of all sorts,
1:00:06
hyperactivities, headaches, sleep problems. And
1:00:10
she said that the odds ratio, what she says here,
1:00:15
I'm just reading from the transcript, not to
1:00:17
butcher it, the odds ratio in these studies are
1:00:19
particularly striking. She said, for example,
1:00:22
with sleep problems, the odds range from 1.9 to
1:00:25
5.9. So, right. You have almost six times more
1:00:30
likely that people are going to get problems with
1:00:32
higher exposures compared to control. So for her,
1:00:36
it was very, very shocking that, you know, how,
1:00:40
how come this is not communicated with the
1:00:42
public? It's not like we have something to prove
1:00:45
anymore. And it's, it's a good, you know, it's
1:00:48
quite dense because we go through all the
1:00:50
studies, but also it's important because it's not
1:00:54
the topic of emf. Again, it goes back to Bret
1:00:57
Weinstein and why were, why it's almost tough to
1:01:01
get into EMFs and to review the literature is
1:01:04
that the evidence is so clear that there's a
1:01:07
problem for children, for teenagers, for brain
1:01:11
tumors, for fertility, for impacts on nature. I
1:01:16
could give you 12 to 15 different research silos
1:01:20
where the level of evidence is so high that we
1:01:23
are like, wait a minute, why, why isn't that in
1:01:26
the news? Or why isn't there, you know, massive
1:01:31
urgent action being done? It should be a scandal
1:01:34
on so many levels. And yet, you know, for all the
1:01:38
reasons we discussed, it's like pushed to the
1:01:42
wayside or, oh, well, we need more studies. Do
1:01:46
we, do we need more? We do need more studies to
1:01:48
elicit some things, but we don't need. Most
1:01:52
scientists would tell me, we don't need more
1:01:54
studies to show harm. Right? We know the harm is
1:01:57
happening. And that's before 5G, even before Wi
1:02:01
Fi, and even at 2G and 3G and barely any WI fi,
1:02:05
we had already early indications. What we need to
1:02:10
do is to start reducing Global exposure at a
1:02:15
societal level that I talked about and also
1:02:17
individual level. The individual level would
1:02:22
already is communicated by certain governments
1:02:25
that tell citizens to. Well, if you can, they can
1:02:30
be very soft about it. If you can, try to
1:02:32
minimize exposure by doing the following. Have
1:02:35
wired solutions, try to turn off devices when not
1:02:38
in use, try not to carry a phone in the pocket,
1:02:41
things like that, so that could be communicated
1:02:43
with citizens. In fact, some scientists tried to
1:02:47
have at the point of sale in Berkeley,
1:02:49
California, a warning that said, if you want to
1:02:53
minimize your EMF exposure, not even the cell
1:02:55
phone is dangerous or anything like that. It was
1:02:57
very soft, it was very laid back. If you want to
1:03:00
minimize RF exposure, radio frequency exposure,
1:03:03
do the following things. And the signs were up
1:03:06
for, I think over a year. And eventually the
1:03:09
industry sued the OR tried to go against this
1:03:15
ordinance from the Berkeley Public Health. And
1:03:18
they won. And they won, saying that you are kind
1:03:24
of making our consumers fearful over these
1:03:29
exposures that are perfectly safe and therefore
1:03:34
you're kind of talking in a way that is
1:03:38
detrimental to our bottom line. And they won.
1:03:41
They won.
1:03:42
Meredith Oke: Wow.
1:03:43
Nick Pineault: It was ludicrous. It was ludicrous that they won
1:03:46
because these are precautionary measures. This is
1:03:50
preventative health. You're not saying your cell
1:03:53
phone will kill you. You're not saying your cell
1:03:55
phone will give you cancer. Maybe we should. But
1:03:58
anyway, that's not what they're saying. They're
1:04:00
saying if you want to minimize your exposure, do
1:04:04
the following things. And it was even that was
1:04:07
too threatening to the industry. So that's the
1:04:11
level of aggressivity we're going to see in the
1:04:14
next decades as we try to take this beast of an
1:04:19
industry and then put them back, give them
1:04:22
guardrails. Now you're going to move towers away
1:04:25
from people's home. Now you're going to make your
1:04:27
cell phones emit 10,000 times less within 10
1:04:31
years by doing the following engineering things
1:04:35
that probably could be done, by the way, all of
1:04:38
this could be made safer. Now what's going to
1:04:40
happen is that if you have no users connected to
1:04:43
a cell tower in the middle of nowhere, the cell
1:04:46
tower will completely turn off or emit a beacon
1:04:49
signal that is so small that it's almost
1:04:51
undetectable. Now, the WI fi routers will emit
1:04:57
the minimum amount possible of radiation rather
1:05:00
than the maximum. All of these things can be
1:05:03
done. But at the moment, they hold on for their
1:05:07
dear life to this story, this fairy tale of no
1:05:12
impact, no effect. Everything is safe, and that
1:05:15
way they don't have to redesign cell phones. They
1:05:19
don't have to move the towers away. They don't
1:05:21
have to think about safety. They don't have to
1:05:24
start competing on safety with other phone
1:05:28
manufacturers or telecoms. So it's very
1:05:31
convenient to keep things the same. It's so
1:05:34
convenient and in fact each year that they are
1:05:37
able to prevent us from changing safety
1:05:41
guidelines. They make trillions of dollars that
1:05:45
they would have lost in lost opportunity or in
1:05:49
being forced to do better research and
1:05:51
development. So that's how costly will be to
1:05:54
these industries to rethink the wireless
1:05:59
infrastructure, rethink the technology, the
1:06:02
consumer products, the. Everything needs to be
1:06:06
scrapped in some sense and redone. Imagine what
1:06:12
this represents or probably I don't even know how
1:06:14
many trillions of dollars it will cost to and
1:06:17
who's going to pay for it. And then not talking
1:06:21
about maybe the trillions of dollars that are
1:06:24
going to be given away in compensation if they
1:06:28
admit their guilt. So there's many, many levels
1:06:33
to this story. But if they start admitting that
1:06:38
things are not safe, it's a whole another story
1:06:43
and kind of worms for the industry. And so far
1:06:46
this is why I see, see this is why I think that
1:06:50
the culture of no effect is so important to them.
1:06:54
It's a matter of liability and of keeping
1:06:59
themselves in the dark is so convenient on a
1:07:01
human standpoint. Many people in the industry
1:07:05
don't want to think about it, they don't want to
1:07:07
hear about it and they wouldn't feel good working
1:07:10
for the industry if they admitted to themselves
1:07:13
that, that this is harmful.
1:07:17
Meredith Oke: Yeah, there's, there's a lot to change, but it
1:07:20
sounds like, you know, the science is there, the
1:07:23
evidence is there. It's, I think now just up to
1:07:26
the people to, to, you know, we need a paradigm
1:07:30
shift. It's like 100% and I, I think it can
1:07:34
happen. And I feel, I truly feel on an energetic
1:07:38
level that we're on the cusp of, of things
1:07:40
shifting and becoming very, very different. And I
1:07:44
really appreciate all the work you've done over
1:07:46
the last eight years, Nick, to make this
1:07:48
information available, accessible, digestible,
1:07:52
actionable. It's a behemoth and bless you for
1:07:56
taking it on. And I encourage everyone to attend
1:08:01
the EMF Hazard Summits this year. EMF hazard
1:08:05
summer it's 2025. The link is in the show notes.
1:08:08
I'll be emailing out links to sign up. It's just
1:08:13
such an important topic and I feel like the more
1:08:15
of us that are somewhat informed, we just need to
1:08:21
reach A critical mass and change will be
1:08:25
forthcoming. Especially since we now have a
1:08:28
sympathetic figure in a decision making role,
1:08:31
which is just incredible. As you said, the world
1:08:35
is filled with infinite possibilities.
1:08:37
Nick Pineault: I agree 100%. And I'm going to say this in
1:08:40
closing. I was very, very emotional when I heard
1:08:45
RFK Jr talk about electromagnetic radiation. But
1:08:49
I was even. I rarely get emotional about my work
1:08:52
in that way. There are certain things that touch
1:08:54
me, like people that are getting very sick from
1:08:57
the technology, of course, and some of them write
1:08:59
to me and sometimes I just tear up. It's just
1:09:02
part of it. I'm a human being, you know, and
1:09:04
it's, it's, it's tough to see people that are
1:09:06
struggling. But also one moment was especially
1:09:10
important for me two years ago. Elaine O'Connor
1:09:13
from the EM Radiation Trust, if I recall
1:09:17
correctly, she is someone who has been an
1:09:20
activist for, I think it's probably closer to 30
1:09:24
years, so way longer than me. You know, in the
1:09:28
very early days of cell phone safety and these
1:09:30
things in the UK, she told me that in the early
1:09:33
2000s she put together a conference with industry
1:09:37
people, with scientists, with Dr. And she was
1:09:41
very hopeful that things would change. It was
1:09:44
massive. You know, people meeting in the UK with
1:09:47
government officials and she lobbied in the UK
1:09:51
government. And she spent years trying to make
1:09:53
things happen and all of a sudden nothing
1:09:57
happened. And it was heartbreaking to hear it
1:10:01
from her that, you know, she tried to go that
1:10:05
route of not the grassroots movement but more
1:10:09
like doing, you know, trying to convince
1:10:12
governments and going through committees and
1:10:15
things like that, and nothing of substance
1:10:18
happened. And it was, you know, all that time
1:10:22
that she spent, I have no doubt that it led to
1:10:24
something, but not nearly enough to her liking,
1:10:27
like where it couldn't move the needle. And then
1:10:30
she said this, she said, what you're doing with
1:10:32
the EMF Hazard Summit is what I should have done
1:10:35
at the beginning because now I realize, geez,
1:10:38
it's one of these topics. It looks like it's only
1:10:41
going to be grassroots that can move the needle.
1:10:44
I feel like maybe she was undermining herself
1:10:47
saying that. And I think it's going to be legal
1:10:50
activism, lobbying. But consumers, people
1:10:55
listening to the MF Hazard Summit, people
1:10:57
listening to this interview, whether you purchase
1:11:00
something or not is irrelevant. People that have
1:11:02
conversations with their family members, that
1:11:05
have conversations that are sometimes very
1:11:07
difficult, let's admit this will change things
1:11:11
faster or more likely to make a big change
1:11:14
compared to people trying to lobby the government
1:11:18
and things like that. Maybe with RFK Jr. Is going
1:11:20
to change. But either way, let's not wait on one
1:11:24
savior to, you know, fix the entire thing. We
1:11:27
need to continue the conversation and like you
1:11:29
said, double down on how motivated we feel to
1:11:34
raise awareness, to protect ourselves and then to
1:11:37
talk about it. And to make it a normal topic of
1:11:40
conversation, I think is also important. A topic
1:11:43
that is quite often, you know, a side issue that
1:11:47
is considered fringe. Tinfoil Hatter there's no
1:11:51
serious scientists that have ever said there's
1:11:53
EMF dangers kind of thing. And all the BS I see
1:11:56
online because people are really convinced that
1:11:59
there's no effect. This is what they're being
1:12:01
told and what they've been told their entire
1:12:03
life. So let's put an end to this and at least
1:12:06
recognize that there are concerns we can argue
1:12:09
about. How big is the concern? I would say pretty
1:12:12
big. So some others would say, oh, it's slight,
1:12:15
you know, a small concern, but at least there is
1:12:18
a concern. There is something that needs to be
1:12:20
fixed and it's through awareness and spreading
1:12:24
this information that things are going to change.
1:12:26
And that's my angle on this. That's why I put
1:12:29
this summit together. I'm going to continue to be
1:12:31
here for years. Because we're very far from at
1:12:35
least a very decent fraction of the population,
1:12:39
at least in the western world that understand
1:12:42
these things and then demand from the companies
1:12:45
that they change their act and they put safer
1:12:48
options on the market.
1:12:50
Meredith Oke: Absolutely. Just like if you, if you're health
1:12:53
minded and someone walks in and sees your
1:12:56
cupboards filled with Oreos and Fruit Loops,
1:12:58
they're going to be like, I thought you were into
1:12:59
health. We just got to live it.
1:13:01
Nick Pineault: Yeah.
1:13:01
Meredith Oke: And yeah, absolutely. Every voice matters, every
1:13:04
person listening. You matter. Please go to the
1:13:06
summit, listen to that. And even if you just take
1:13:09
away a few insights that you are then able to
1:13:13
talk about with your community, with your
1:13:16
friends, with your family, with people you know,
1:13:18
it all makes a difference. It's the. Yes, it's
1:13:21
that ripple out from the people that is going to
1:13:24
tip things over and support at the top is
1:13:26
amazing. But I'm totally with you, Nick, so let's
1:13:29
keep going everyone. It's a, it's an amazing
1:13:32
timeline we're living in. I wonder what's going
1:13:34
to happen next.
1:13:36
Nick Pineault: For sure. I'm watching it like a movie. You know,
1:13:38
I have popcorn every day these days with hearings
1:13:41
and politics and controversies and all of this.
1:13:44
And I'm like, oh my God, what a media frenzy we
1:13:49
are in. It's maddening and sometimes I have to
1:13:51
just turn up the computer and go sit on my sofa
1:13:54
and relax. And I'm like, oh, my God, this is too
1:13:56
much. There's so much happening. But I hope that
1:13:58
in the midst of it all, you can find a little bit
1:14:00
of time for the EMF Hazard Summit. Find a few
1:14:02
talks to watch, and I know you're going to get a
1:14:06
ton of value from it. It is my hope, at least.
1:14:09
Meredith Oke: Yeah, no, it's fantastic. I really, really
1:14:12
recommend everyone go and sign up for it. Nick,
1:14:16
thank you so much. It's always a pleasure to talk
1:14:18
to you. I really, really enjoy your work and our
1:14:21
conversations. Thanks for being here.
1:14:23
Nick Pineault: Thanks for having me. It's been a blast. Thank
1:14:25
you.