Today our CEO, R Blank, is thrilled to appear on Nick Pineault’s Smarter Tech Podcast. Can EMF-blocking cases really make your phone “safe” again? In the last years, Nick refrained from endorsing such products because of the high uncertainty around that question.
In this new two-part series, he picks the brain of technologist and entrepreneur R Blank, who has a deep understanding of EMF protection and of the academic world — his father being the famous EMF scientist Dr. Martin Blank.
Discussed during this episode:
- What it was like for R to be one of the very few software engineers who’s aware of the dangers of EMFs (his father was a very important EMF scientist, the late Dr. Martin Blank, PhD)
- R’s definition of “EMF Protection” — and do “EMF-Harmonizing” chips, pendants and other gizmos fall under that definition?
- Why most EMF-blocking phone cases are poorly designed, and why they should NEVER enclose the entire phone or block the antennas
- Always make sure to keep the EMF shielding between your body and the device, and not the opposite
Listen
Watch
Transcript
Nick Pineault 0:00
Hello, and welcome to the smarter tech Podcast. I’m here with R blank. Thanks so much for taking the time today.
R Blank 0:07
Thank you, Nick. It’s a real pleasure to be here.
Cut Your Exposure to Harmful EMF – Right Now
Grab your copy of my free guide with 5 ways to start.
Nick Pineault 0:09
So for people, people not necessarily familiar with your work, please let us know who you are, what’s your background, and how you’ve come to create also shield your body, maybe the two minute version, rather than focusing all this conversation, your bio, but it’s important because your father, Martin Blanc, PhD is a was a very important EMF scientist who was one of the first scientists that convinced me that this is an issue. So please go ahead.
R Blank 0:41
Sure, yeah, no. So as you said, I started and run a company called shield your body, or SBB. About 10 years ago, I had been working in software development for about 20 years, doing apps for companies like Apple and Microsoft and Mattel. And about 10 years ago, my father was writing a book about EMF health effects. And unlike everything he’d written in his entire career, this one was actually meant for normal, regular human beings to understand. And so he asked me for some help, because I at that point, not only was I in engineering, I taught at USC, and I’d written a book. And so he asked me for some help. And I ended up CO writing the book with him. And in the course of writing that book, I learned a few things. Now, obviously, you know, my father being who he was, I was always aware of the EMF issue. And I knew, for instance, to hold the cellphone up to my head and never had a microwave. And in the rich at times, I used one I knew to get very far away from it and things like that. But I didn’t really understand the EMF issue, until writing that book. And then that was bad experience really showed me just how much science had to say about the health effects, you know, because when it’s covered in the media, it’s often you know, it is our cell phones harmful, and there’s a debate raging, and so forth. And if you actually look at the science, the science is very clear, there’s a very, as you know, a very large body of very convincing high quality science showing that these bio effects happen from even very, very low doses. At the same time, when you sit back and think about it, you know, you realize the sources of EMF in our lives, they aren’t optional, they form the the entire underpinning of modern society in the modern economy. So whereas you could ban tobacco and cigarettes tomorrow, and the world would get on just fine. You can’t get rid of the sources of EMF. So I realized there had to be safer ways for people to use technology. And that’s where the idea for what became so I be started and launched my first product in 2013. That’s the pocket patch, which turns any pocket into a cell phone radiation shield, we still make and sell that. But now we have over 20 products that we sell through our website, as well as marketplace like Amazon, eBay, in over 30 countries around the world.
Nick Pineault 3:08
That’s, that’s incredible. And I guess my question in you started this company almost 10 years ago. 10 years ago, it wasn’t a popular topic in the news talking about cell phone. I mean, we had some controversy here and there. And even with the power lines at the beginning of the 2000s, especially here and with with Hydro Quebec, and the controversies and the lawsuits, and whatnot, but so it’s been in the news on and off. But as a software engineer, did you get weird stares? If you talked about it with colleagues? I mean, it’s not a popular topic or Yeah,
R Blank 3:41
California fringe. Yeah, California, where I was at the time is perhaps the least receptive population in the world, for this message even even today. And, you know, when when we launched the pocket patch on Amazon in 2013, and you did a search to find it, it would come up alongside ghost detectors. Fortunately, you know, that landscape has shifted, but the over time, the public response, definitely, you know, has shifted. So when I do talk to people about it, you know, at a networking event, or a party or dinner party, whatever, you know, it used to be, you know, they crack a joke, according, you know, for the title of your book, you know, about tinfoil hats. And then increasingly, and gradually but increasingly over time, the responses went from those dismissive jokes to Yeah, you know, I feel a little weird about carrying this phone in my pocket or, oh, yeah, I saw Sanjay Gupta did a special on that can are these really don’t you know, and so people were much more receptive. Not only were they more receptive, increasingly It was obvious they were already thinking about this. They just kind of buried it a little bit. And so yeah, the the the landscape for this message has definitely shifted In the last 10 years, there’s a long way to go for a variety of reasons, you know, some of which we can, you know, touch on later if you’d like. But, but it’s definitely changed in the last decade.
Nick Pineault 5:11
Yeah. And ironically, I think the landscape is, I don’t know, it’s been blurred a little bit with the pandemic, the last two years, what I saw on 5g online, unfortunately, I mean, I wrote my book, and you’ve been around for way more than I am. But five years ago, I started writing my book and writing, reading overpowered and disconnect and everything that was out there to try to make make up my mind and 5g wasn’t around. There wasn’t much in the discussion. I barely heard about the term 5g in 2016, and 17. But when the rollout started, not many people talked about the dangers at all. And in the last few years, many things have been said about about 5g, a lot of did that was so speculative, and kind of over the top to me that I felt, oh my god, it’s on one hand, it’s good for awareness, because people are Guardian start starting to think about electric pollution. But did you see this? Like, how did you go through the last two years as far as your understanding of how awareness as increased? What was it good that this happened? The whole thing about 5g? Or was detrimental? Because I’ve heard both sides from scientists and activists.
R Blank 6:26
I think both things can be true there. It was good, that there’s increased awareness. But it’s definitely harmful, that there was so much misinformation a I agree, because people need accurate information. But be because when misinformation becomes so dominant, it gives the major platforms the excuse to start censoring or D ranking, changing policies to obscure the actual real information? I mean, you have to keep in mind and again, I know, I know, a lot of things I’m saying you already know, but you have to keep your listeners have to keep in mind. Yeah, right. People like us who who want to share awareness of what science actually has to say about this stuff, and also to share solutions. You know, the way in which we share these things today, in 2021 2022, all goes through platforms, that profit off of EMF exposure. Now, they don’t actually charge people for EMF exposure. But you know, Facebook makes money off of delivering ads to you, that is done through a screen, Google makes money delivering search results to you, that is done through a screen. Increasingly, these companies are making their own hardware, the the Ray Ban, stories, I think, the new Facebook glasses with Ray Ban, the Ray Ban stories, Google Glass, I was actually I was actually a beta tester of Google Glass way back in the day. But these companies not only their funding, their basic business model relies on you being exposed to EMF, and then increasingly, they’re diversifying, into explicitly EMF emitting technology. And so these are the companies who control the platforms through which we have to communicate, which means if you’re actually interested in reaching as many people as possible, you have to be as accurate and responsible as possible in your messaging. Otherwise, you give them just the excuse to start hiding the information.
Nick Pineault 8:38
Yeah, and that’s it. That’s a great point that, unfortunately, a lot of I see people that are extremely intelligent, PhD scientists, in physics, for example, who oftentimes claim, oh, there was no damage, it doesn’t do anything. It’s non ionizing radiation. A lot of engineers do, especially people in the industry, they seem to be caught up in this line of thinking that there’s no effect whatsoever, because it’s very convenient to think that so I see, I’ve contacted you know, the heads behind life phi, for example. And I said, I want to do an interview with someone, but about the health effects. And then they stopped emailing me and I said, Well, maybe you should talk with Alex and their wounds peon PhD who was one of the most the foremost authorities on the effects of artificial light on hormones, for example, in a macular degeneration and things like that, and they didn’t answer, like didn’t want anything to do with it. They were interested to put up these conferences in France, for industry because it’s, yeah, it’s it’s as if a lot of people are washing their hands like Yeah, well, the health effects like regulatory agencies will take care of that. We are taking care of putting industry people together and thinking about The future of technology and selling products and in a very exciting, novel way with this wind of freshness to the industry, like everything is cutting edge and an exciting and they don’t want Nick Pineau R blank to kind of say, Hey guys, we should put a moratorium on even on LEDs. Like they don’t like these ideas, because these are dangerous ideas for an industry. You stop progress, you stop growth, you you stunt the entire industry with these regulations. So it’s the opposite of free market and developing these things. So
R Blank 10:38
yeah, no, I, I totally. And like I said, I was in software development in California for 20 years, I very much know from experience, the vibe that you’re talking about, yeah. Where you just get really excited by new technology and the opportunity that it offers. And at the same time, I feel like things are starting to change now, not maybe so much with the EMF. But people are that the dialogue that’s happening today is much more open to the notion that technology is harming us. Now. It’s not so much yet about EMF. But you see it now really clearly with what’s going on with Facebook. But you see it increasingly with the the laws that are being passed. In terms of personal information control, you see it an increasing number of studies about what social media is doing to people, especially teens and children. And so people today are, are much more open to the concept that technology is harmful or can’t can be harmful, has harmful aspects to it in a way where even three or four years ago, that discussion was just not happening.
Nick Pineault 11:54
I agree 100%. And with documentaries that became very mainstream on Netflix, social dilemma and surprise show. Yeah, it’s been incredible to see that. And most of them I didn’t even see I should, I should I should look at them, because I know they’ve been so so impactful. But I know most of the messages, industry insiders coming a little bit. It’s almost it’s not even whistleblowers now because it’s it’s almost it’s so many engineers that are among the first to create the iPhone or founders of Google or even even someone like the co founder of Wikipedia, who came out years ago saying, Well, you know what the information online is being manipulated by people who have certain interests. So it means that people are a little bit more prudent, I think, in how they consume information and technology these days. And it kind of opens the, the idea for me that, you know, you’re what you’re doing, analysts should have the discussion, what you’re doing is creating new technologies to combat or reduce the health effects of new technology. So it’s using technology for technology. So which which is good part of it. In my work in my life, I use a lot of healing technologies, I use red light therapy panels I use, I’ve used PMF, a pulsed electromagnetic fields. And there’s also the EMF protection world where you say, Okay, well, such and such a product should be better regulated, and there’s no denying that it’s been decades it should have been done or probably from the get go when they started introducing cellphones wasn’t done. And the rules are too permissive. And we’ve established out 1000 times on this podcast, so people are very familiar with the problem. But then you have EMF protection when you type EMF and on Amazon. Well, you used to find Nick Pineau now a little bit further down so I bummer but it’s been years from my book. So sometimes you find my book you find Lloyd Burrell you find Deborah Davis, you find overpowered Archer Furstenberg all the good books are there, but along products that I have no idea who manufactured those, you have chips, pendants, pyramids, personal product, many things that I don’t even understand what like how they’ve created them with inventors that are nameless companies that are generic or come from China or some like I can’t even find a website. So the EMF protection space is huge and unregulated and then what’s happening is I mean, I claim Well, you know, my name is name the EMF guy I tried to decipher what’s true what’s not an offer people Solutions, and I’m lost. I’m completely lost as far as what EMF protection thingies work or not. So I’ve been going back and forth on the EMF protection. Do we do I endorse a certain case does it really work was the testing and then it gets To the Engineering, so it becomes very difficult for a non engineer to read the test reports. So I rely on other people and scientists that also work with a little bit. But I, people that have your degree of credibility I want to hear from so this is really why I’m excited to have this conversation. And let’s start with the fundamental, what is EMF protection, according to you, because I think it’s important to define the terms first.
R Blank 15:28
Okay. So, I mean, so specifically, right, I know you want to focus on EMF protection products, EMF protection, is the practice or the process of reducing your exposure to EMF radiation. And before we get into the products, I just want to underscore for everybody, even I, as someone who makes and sells protection products, would really emphasize that the first step in EMF protection is reducing that exposure in the first place before investing in products. And without going into too much detail on that, you know, comes down to the two rules, which is to minimize your use of EMF emitting technology, and to maximize your distance from that technology when it is in use. So those are ultimately the best forms of protection. Now, in today’s world, those, you know, those those work well, but they aren’t a complete solution to the problem, because there are so many sources of EMF. And you know, even if you know, you shouldn’t carry your phone in your pocket, maybe it’s a requirement for your job. Or even if you know you shouldn’t use your laptop in your lap, maybe you have to work on your laptop while you’re commuting on a plane or on a bus or whatever it might be. So So there, there’s all of these sources of EMF that even once you’ve taken the basic steps to protect yourself, you then can consider investing in additional levels of protection. So that’s where EMF protection products come in. Now, as you note, EMF protection products are entirely unregulated. And that leaves the industry and consumers of the industry very susceptible to to snake oil. So there are a lot of products out there that make all sorts of kind of crazy, broad claims that are unsubstantiated. And when you get down to it unsubstantiated ball, they can’t even be verified, even if you went to that, that that that level now, the the SI B products except Except for the headsets, which work a little differently. They’re all based on EMF shielding technology. This is universally accepted technology for almost 200 years since Michael Faraday created the first Faraday cage and what he showed is if you weave conductive metals into certain patterns, you can deflect electromagnetic radiation in the opposite direction. And in the time since then, it’s become possible to create those weaves those patterns using microscopic fibers, you know, thinner than the human hair. And so you can weave the shielding fabrics and the shielding materials into into products like my phone pouch, or like a blanket or like underwear. These types of products are are based, like I said are based on universally accepted science. They are also demonstrable, they’re demonstrable, the claims that that si B makes and other companies like si B, they are verifiable in a lab. And in many cases, they’re verifiable by you at home with a meter. Now I kind of lumped shielding, everything that’s not shielding as a separate product from shielding. There are other types of EMF protection products that also have demonstrable claims. So for instance, I just heard your your interview with the gentleman from Sadek dirty electricity filters, make demonstrable claims. But then there’s, and that’s just another example. But then there are a whole sets of products out there that can make claims, but they are not verifiable. They are not testable. And these range from everything from you know, stickers, little stickers on your phone, to crystals to Harmonizers and neutralizers. pendants. And those just, I mean, I don’t know, I don’t know what to say about them, except that you can’t prove what they’re claiming they do. Now, that doesn’t mean they don’t do what they’re claiming to do. It means you can’t know one way or the other. I’ve talked to you know, some some have better reputations than others. And you know, I talked to customers all the time and some say I tried this and it worked I tried this it didn’t. And so it but it’s hard for someone like me and I imagine someone like you to sort of recommend these types of products because the claims are not demonstrable, they’re not verifiable, they’re not measurable. So that’s kind of how I view EMF protection products. I never recommend the types of products that don’t have measurable, demonstrable, verifiable claims.
And although you know, I don’t if someone’s using it, and they say it’s working for him, I certainly don’t tell him to stop. But But I only si B’s focus is on these shielding materials and these shielding products. And with these types of products, you can actually see with, you know, if you buy if you’re, if you’re willing to spend $160, on a decent meter, you can actually see the products work.
Nick Pineault 20:40
Yeah, I agree. 100%. And two of the last interviews of my previous season for smarter Tech have been focused on talking about EMF, harmonizing products with Pavel with chelski, who’s an engineer an EMF mitigation specialist from Poland. And the idea is, you’ve got some demonstratable effects on better HRV when you talk on the phone and various things, and they’ve been tested at the biome, the Bayern Institute or labs such as these where you do have scientists that review some of the evidence and small, small subject groups. So it’s not necessarily statistically significant. But the problem I have with those is the marketing really, if if they said, I saw some companies be a little bit cleaner in their claims, and I like that, where they say, Well, you, you’re exposed to electro pollution all the time. And this will remove a little bit of the stress related to electro pollution, or, you know, make you a little bit more relaxed, even in situations of AI exposures. And this is probably true, and some people feel it. And especially I know from people that are extremely electro sensitive that some of these solutions have made a difference. I talked with Peter Sullivan on this podcast, who’s a philanthropist and also ex software engineer and electro hypersensitive that has been recovering for years and is way better now. But he can feel the difference with some technologies. But he doesn’t claim his protection, his main protection is having a home completely shielded, and dirty electricity filtration. And he really understands these things. So I think using a context, they can be useful. But saying they’re protective is where my issue is, if you have a pendant or something on your person, you’re not protected, you’re maybe you have some resilience that is additional, but seeing is protective. I think for most consumers, it means okay, well, I have this, this imaginary bubble that completely protects me against these effects. But what kind of liability are these companies exposing themselves to? If they tell people to talk on the phone for hours, we know that this is linked with an increase in glioblastoma as a doubling now in UK, and and the science is kind of catching up where we’re going towards a classification two way or one. And when this happens, I mean, you can claim your pendant protects people, but you got to be careful, because what if people still get a brain tumor? It’s anyway, it’s just,
R Blank 23:24
I, I’m very concerned, I see the same thing. The I have, I share the concern, and I see the same issue playing out in the marketing materials, even for shielding companies. So companies that make products like si B’s that have lab testing that that have measurable claims, you know, they still show, you know, they’ll use wording that makes people kind of believe that they’re 100% protected, they’ll show models holding phones up to their head, in, in, in the in the product photos. And I mean, if you look through all of my products, you know, all of my photos, and we have a library of 10s of 1000s of product photos, there’s not one person holding a phone up to their head in any way. That’s good, because that is not a use case. Yeah, you know, that is not something that anyone should ever, ever do. And I feel like a lot of companies in my space are playing fast and loose with the marketing language. I mean, when it comes to marketing, you’re always playing a little bit to with with people’s emotions, because that’s what marketing is. Yeah, but you have to do it in as responsible away as possible. I mean, because you know, a company like si B we are selling protection, we are selling relief, but we are not selling complete protection. We are not selling complete relief. And there’s a lot of education that has to go around, not just how you have to use the product optimally, but other lifestyle changes that really go along with the product use To really get the most protective results that you possibly can.
Nick Pineault 25:04
Yeah, and this is this is conscious capitalism. I mean, and you’re talking to someone who I’ve been accused of being Oh, Nick Pinto is a marketer. I saw an Amazon review the other day. Nick Pinto is not that much of an author. He’s a marketer. And and I mean, I have a background in copywriting. I spent years I do online marketing, I do affiliate marketing. So sometimes I play in both worlds where I have to market my book and say, Guys, this is a very urgent and important health issue. We have math. So I write in a certain way. Yes, it raises emotions. But it’s yeah, it’s always playing with the the scientific truth, and also something that sells if you want, but, and I hate, it’s not that I hate doing it. It’s not my favorite part of but I’m a for profit guy. I’m not a nonprofit, nonprofits can do other things. But at the same time, I understand that we have to stay scientifically accurate, and then not fall into, for example, fear mongering that I see, I see other people in the EMF space kind of selling selling products, but like, then the cell fight 5g is a kill grid. And I hoped it doesn’t get banned by YouTube because like, of the of the keywords, but who cares? I don’t like I mean, these kinds of things that, to me are over the top. And I’ve been talking with people in summits and even health coaches and people that have been studying how for decades, and a lot of them are very uneasy with how EMF is being explained and sold in that way. And when they come across my work, some of them tell me, Nick, finally, I can put EMS in the environmental toxin world in my head, and not like these marketing messages around like, oh, you put a cellphone to your head, and you instantly die. And people were like, well, it doesn’t make sense, like no one is dying instantly. So why are you saying that? Well, it’s it’s over the top is to make you fearful. So this kind of messaging just doesn’t doesn’t work. And I don’t think it’s ethical. So I agree with you that otter EMF protection, companies did not get my endorsement, because exactly of those claims, 100% protection. And I think that the context is so important. And that’s something that you do differently on your videos on your website, and you explain that products need to be used in a certain context. I want to switch gears a little bit because I want to focus on the context of using a phone and having having basically it on your body as you’re walking around the city. Or maybe you’re someone your boss needs to, you need to be on call your boss says if your phone is is closed, well you lose your job, because you I want you to be available. 24/7 Okay, well, now people reach out to me saying, Well, Nick, what do I do? And then I’m a bit hesitant about the cases that claim 100% protection, because are you 100% protected? So in reality, I’ve been going back and forth on different recommendations in my mind, and not to confuse people. I’d rather not endorse anything when it comes to cell phones. And what I tell them is, okay, well, if it’s in your pocket, it’s on airplane mode, if you carry it maybe in a bag with distance, but I see that you have a lot of different options you have. And I’ll let you explain what they are. But you also explained in videos that it’s there used in a certain context. And I think that’s very important. Like it depends on how you carry your phone and such. So what options do we have when it comes to carrying a say a cell phone more safely, if you will?
R Blank 28:47
Yeah, no, that’s great. So Well, I mentioned earlier that the pocket patch was my first product back from 2013. And that is a, it’s a, it’s a patch with adhesive on it. So you put it on the inner lining of your pocket. And that applies the radiation shielding to the inner lining of your pocket. The key with all of these is that the shielding material itself needs to be positioned between the phone and your body, right, because for your phone to work, you can’t fully wrap the phone, because when you wrap the phone, you’re going to start obstructing the cell signal. So at that point, we just turn it into turn it into airplane mode, and then everyone will be happier. So and it can’t be you know, on the other side of the phone, because then more radiation will be radio reflected back into your body. So you need the shielding to be between the phone and your body. And that will deflect a big chunk of the radiation away from your body while still allowing your phone to work. So the pocket patch is great because you put it on a pocket you never have to think about it again. It’s super thin, you don’t even feel it.
The issue and limitation there is that you have to put one on every pocket that you wear you carry a phone, and so few years after that We released the phone pouch and that was actually the first EMF phone pouch. And the principle is the same. So except it’s in a pouch form instead of a pocket liner. So it’s a just a neoprene foam pouch, but the backside of it has radiation shielding, lining it. And the front side is just regular neoprene. And so that is designed to be you put your phone in that pouch, and then you put the pouch in your pocket or on your belt. And again, you can carry your phone more safely. And then the the third product in that same sort of line is the 5g phone shield, which we named the 5g phone, she’ll just because it came out in in 2019. And we thought there might be some interest around 5g But it’s actually the same shielding material that’s in the phone pouch. So the shielding material is exactly the same. The difference is it’s it’s just a card. So instead of a pouch that you have to put your phone in, it’s a card and you can slide it between your phone and your body. And you only need one, you can move it to whatever pocket you’re you’re putting your phone. And again, the key with all of these is you need the shielding in between your phone and your body. More recently, we released the sling bag, which is it’s it’s like a small backpack. I don’t know if your listeners know what sling bags are. But it’s like a small backpack that can go over either shoulder. And that was designed not just for phones, but also for other portable devices, like e readers and tablets. And you can put it in the sling bag and then carry that that happens these days to be my my favorite sci fi product, I love my sling bag, I carry it all my stuff in my sling bag, and that that has the benefit of being even a little bit further away from your body, then if you’re using any of my products in your pocket, so those are and as you note, I have multiple products for this use case for the particular issue of cell phones and pockets. Because I believe that that cell phones and pockets, even with all of the growth in sources of EMF in our environment, the proliferation of smart tech in our homes, more Wi Fi networks from our neighbors nearby cell towers, I believe that for people who carry their phones in their pockets, that can be the largest, or one of the largest sources of their own personal exposure. Because these cell phones are very, very powerful. They’re They’re designed to be able to send signals over many miles if they have to, to reach a tower. And when it’s up against your body, you are getting a full dose of what that phone has to offer. And when you’re carrying it in your pocket, it tends to be for extended periods of time. So I believe that people carrying their phones in their pockets is is a huge source of individual exposures again, even despite the proliferation and all these sources of EMF. And that’s why I focused so many different products on giving people options to help solve that. Now I believe people shouldn’t carry their phones in their pockets. Or if they do they should put them into airplane mode. But I also you know, I take a kind of a more practical perspective on this as a someone who runs a company as someone who deals with consumers as a marketer, right? People, you know, some people need to whether it’s for work, or whether it’s not even for work, but where else are they going to carry it? Right? To me, it’s not the same thing as holding a phone up to your head, holding a phone up to your head, there’s always a better option, whether that’s a headset or speakerphone, there’s always a better option than holding a phone up to your head. There’s no excuse to ever hold a phone up to your head. But carrying your phone in your pocket is still a huge source of exposure. But one that can I find more understandable that people can’t not, you know, can’t can’t avoid. And so that’s that’s why I have all those products for it.
Nick Pineault 33:53
Yeah, this is this is a great point. And one thing that I was wondering, why did you choose not to have a phone case? Because I see a lot of companies making cases and I have one of these cases that closes up. But I’m not comfortable recommending those models anymore, especially if they’re shielding on both sides because I’m really worried I saw this study let me let me open it well, while we talk real world cell phone radio frequency electromagnetic field exposures by wall and owl in environmental research 2019. What they said is they did testing in the real world to see how much cell phones can ramp up their signal. If the connectivity is very low. For example, you’re in the middle of nowhere, one, one or two bars out of four or five and you have low connectivity, then your phone can ramp up its power and I’m just saying that for the audience. Obviously you understand these things, but what he said is up to 10,000 fold increase in radiation so I’m concerned and means that it’s something that even Dr. Deborah Davis, if I, if I recall, correctly in disconnect said that cases had been tested by maybe it was Consumer Reports or another consumer group. And they said, well, we don’t recommend any case, even the plastic ones because of the potential increase in radiation. So how do you ensure that this is not a problem in your shielding solutions?
R Blank 35:26
Sure. Okay. So we’re a few questions kind of lumped in there. So I’ll start Sure. First off, yeah, I agree, you should never use a product, a cell phone radiation shield in particular, that shields on multiple sides, because then you are inviting the phone to start increasing its power output. And it could be because of the deflection angles and so forth, it could be shooting that radiation, you don’t even know where so. So shielding on multiple sides, and to the extent that it actually works, you’re just obstructing your signal. So again, just turn it into airplane mode. Now, why I don’t, because a lot of radiation cases or I should say anti radiation cases, only shield on one side. And so why don’t I make a product like that? It’s a big part of the market. There’s a lot of sales to be had there. Why don’t I do that? The reason is, because I feel like having that type of product is an encouragement to people to hold their phones up against their head. And that is a use case that I am just so strongly opposed to that that’s why I don’t SGIP has never made a phone case, it is because I fear that it encourages people to hold phones up to their head. And, again, that people should never ever do that. And the only other time in which you need a radiation shield on a phone is when you’re carrying it. And so that’s why I make several products are carrying it, but none of them are none of them help you to you know, hold the phone up to your head, you know, quote unquote, more safely because I don’t believe there that it even even if you cut some of the radiation when you’re holding the phone, it’s so much radiation right up there next to your brain next year, audio of your your, your nerves and your eyes. And it’s just so risky. And again, there’s never it’s not it’s it’s not unavoidable, there are always alternatives to holding it up to your head. Yeah. Oh, so then yeah, you asked how do I prevent that with my products? And the answer there is, is that the shielding is on one side only. And this is true for all of my electronics accessories. None of my electronics accessories are designed to surround a piece of electronics. So that’s true. For my my like I mentioned my phone pouch or the pocket patch. It’s true for my laptop pad and tablet pad. It’s true for the picture frame, which is it’s a shield, that’s your one use case is is to put it on your nightstand. So if you sleep with your phone, which is another habit that people should break, but a lot of people do it, you put your phone behind the picture frame, and and it deflects the radiation away from from your head in your body while you’re sleeping. That’s another example it does not fully surround the product, the products that I do have that create more full shields, there are first the canopies, which create a real 360 by 360, enclosed Faraday cage. And then there’s also apparel which fully shields specific parts of your body. And those are areas where I do want to cover as much as possible, because those don’t obstruct electronics, those create protective spaces for you and your body. But when it comes to electronics accessories, it’s very important to shield on one side only.
Nick Pineault 38:53
This is well you’ve just convinced me like I was waiting? Well, I was looking forward to this conversation because I’ve been completely I’ve been really feeling uneasy about my recommendation around cell phone cases because I I could not get a good answer about exactly these questions. And some of them or if you enclose the part of the antenna, I’m always concerned that with a certain angle, depending on where you’re situated visa Vita Tower, or in certain situations you’re inside, in a in a in an enclosed space or a lot of concrete walls around you. I’m like Well, are we really decreasing exposure and that’s my concern, will I be the one saying oh yes, everyone buy this product and then be it increases exposure. So just on an on an ethical or moral standpoint, I really want to make sure that a product is is sold by a manufacturer that tells you how to use it and that it’s also clear how to use it. I have one of these and I will not name companies anyway these companies are always evolving and I’m not here to kind of anyway, bash any particular companies. But when you have a flap over the problem I have with that now that I think of it, then now that after hearing your explanations around why we should shield on one side is never clear which shy with side is shielded, and which is not, it’s not. In fact, it’s not even explained in their, in their pamphlet or anything information that comes with the product. So they don’t explain unless maybe I missed it, or even it’s been years since I had it. So maybe it was there. But I tossed the entire like the little cartons and things like that. So I never even thought about it. I thought in my mind, it was shielded on two sides, I think it’s shielded on one side. But that being said, people need to know which side to use it. So if you have the phone that’s completely enclosed with these flaps, you don’t really think twice about it. And maybe you’re putting it on the wrong side. So now you’ll have shielding that is reflecting back to you, which is a shame. In reality, it kind of does the opposite of what we’re trying to achieve here. So I’m, I’m convinced and I need to get to get to get a voucher or something for my pocket. It is very rare that I use my phone in a pocket. I could take a call from time to time usually I just tried to avoid those or use a speakerphone or something like that. But I agree that just just to comment on what you said previously, phone on the head. We know this is the most dangerous use of phones at least the sciences is strongest when it comes to maybe it can be acoustic neuromas that can lead to complications including death or loss of hearing or neural function. Even even the parotid glands or thyroid cancers could be fatal also, but a glioblastoma ‘s are really something not not to be messed with. But then my concern is is this data that I keep hearing from scientist about the increase in cancers of the groin area, ovarian cancer,
testicular cancer, prostate cancer and in the youth so makes me wonder Randall, colorectal also. And jeez, I’m, I’m very concerned that we’re we’ve just shifted the problem. Most mostly young people these days, if you call them the field were weirded out, like, Oh, why are you calling me you should text me right there, you should. Like it’s always a running gag in people like 30 and younger, even my generation, like, I’m 34 like, Oh, you’re calling me like, people are like, Oh my god, I haven’t called someone in years. But now the problem is shifting its phone in the pocket, streaming Spotify, or podcasts, and with very high intensity, right, because the streaming services are always going going going. But now we’re not talking about using the phone on the ear of 30 minutes per day as a defined as a heavy user in science, which is nonsensical in itself. But we’re talking about sometimes 15 hours per day. So it’s also the time of use in the pocket that is tremendous. So I agree with you. In your statement that probably this is the highest level of exposure and I wouldn’t be interested to see a scientific study with with a kind of the scimitar or something like that to see where is the strongest exposure coming from in age ranges? Because I think the younger you are the most likely you are to maybe not talk on the ear but just move the problem away to another organ which is if it’s bad here, do you think it’s bad there on the pocket? We’ll probably it is and even right in the bra. Something I’ve been telling for years is my god you don’t want to like choose choose where you want cancer, basically, unfortunately, I mean, and it’s not guaranteed obviously, I don’t want to make that overstatement. But yeah, it’s it’s not good. Choose where you want risks to your health, basically. So yeah, it’s very interesting, important,
R Blank 44:00
I feel to remind people, which again, I know, you know, but something doesn’t have to cause cancer for it to really mess with your health and there’s a whole wide range of negative health effects linked convincingly linked to these types of exposures, you know, that are far short of cancer, but you still want to avoid from you know, pardon me at the low end, you know, sleep disruption anxiety up through infertility sub fertility, birth defects miscarriage, there’s there’s just such a whole wide range of health effects linked to these types of exposures. Cancer obviously gets a lot of the attention because it is such a terrifying condition. But the the basically EMF and again I know you know this, but it any system that you measure, you see that EMF affects that system, and it does something doesn’t have to cause cancer for for you for it to be causing a lot of damage to your body.
Nick Pineault 45:00
I agree 100%, then I’m glad that we tackled the cellphone issue. So what I’m and let me know if I, my summary is good. My understanding right now is, of course, don’t use it on the head if or just in extreme emergencies, but it shouldn’t, it should not be something. And I’ve been telling that to my dad. And if he’s listening, he’s still not listening to me. He’s a realtor, my my brother also. And they’re both still using it on the air. And they had and I see them though, they started, like talking like this. So they kind of think about it. And it’s true that at 270 meters, it’s good that they’re doing that, but just change your habits, guys anyway. So if you’re having it in the pocket, shielding one side, so the shield near your body, and the phone reflecting away from you, right. So that’s Is that correct? Yes. Yes. So now, in part of this interview, we’re going to dive into the wired earbuds and when you create that distance, can it can we have a problem with the cell phone signal going up the wire? That’s something I’ve been hearing for years, it was in my book, and I’m still not convinced. So we’re going to dive into part two. And in the meantime, you can visit shield your body.com that’s the right URL, is that correct?
R Blank 46:17
Sure. Your body. Okay. Well,
Nick Pineault 46:19
thank you. I’m going to see you in part two and people just listening to this as it comes out. It’s gonna come up in two weeks, so stay tuned for that. Our thank you so much for this conversation.
R Blank 46:29
Thank you. It’s been a great pleasure.
Transcribed by https://otter.ai
