Written by Christopher Kelly
Sept. 25, 2019
Christopher: Well, Nick, thank you so much for joining me this morning. I very much appreciate you, and I've very much been appreciating your published book and online training course, as has Tommy. Tommy did a podcast with Dr. Joseph Mercola a few months ago. Your work was what inspired Tommy to look into this more closely We think you did some excellent work, so thank you so much for that.
Nick: Thank you. Thanks for having me. I'm looking forward to this discussion, for sure.
Christopher: Can you talk about how you became interested in EMFs? Perhaps first you should define what EMF is. You people using that acronym. I'm not sure that everybody knows what it means. So, can you define the acronym and then talk about why you became interested in EMFs?
Nick: Sure. EMF stands for electromagnetic fields. It's a bit of a misnomer in the sense how I use it and how people use it online because really an EMF is an entire spectrum. There's a lot of things that could be called an EMF without being part of the spectrum. Anything from the electricity you're running in your wall at 50 to 60 hertz, depending on where you live on the world, to nuclear radiation and visible spectrum of light or the invisible, different colors or infrared or UV light that you can't see, all these are EMFs. It doesn't really make sense.
In the scope of my work, I'm really talking about the new electromagnetic frequencies that we've introduced since the last decades and let's say 100 years for electrification of civilization, so this includes electricity in the walls. So these new man-made EMFs and their effects on human health, this is really what I would mean by EMFs.
We know that certain types of EMFs in nature can hurt us. Well, nuclear radiations found in nature can hurt us for sure, X-rays that you get also from space or gamma rays from space, but also sun radiation can hurt us. They can burn your skin. UV radiation is associated with skin cancer when you get too much, et cetera, and yet these rays are invisible. The same thing can be said for your cellphones, for Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and different man-made frequencies that we've introduced and that our ancestors were never really exposed to at these levels.
So, what got me into it is really the controversy around the science. You have a lot of people that say there's no effect. I read that from a journalist and I cannot remember what media outlet, but they were really, let's say, very angrily dismissing the issue and said you could tape 20 phones to your face all day and you would literally never have a health effect. I don't think that's the scientific thing to do at all because there's a lot of uncertainty, but this is how they framed it. On the other end, you've got people and scientists, a lot of credible people, PhD level people that say, no, there's a huge issue. The answer is probably somewhere in between.
I've been writing about health just educating myself. I have a communication background. I have an advertising background as a copywriter, and I was always very interested in, let's say, citizen journalism and really reporting on my findings on diets, nutrition and different aspects of living a healthy life. I've been doing that for almost ten years now but really in the last three years, I just delved deeper into EMFs because of this polarity in opinion.
Once I started reading one book after another on the topic, I realized that, oh, my God, there's actually real scientists and not just people who, let's say, do fear-mongering online about EMFs that are actually credible and that claim it's a problem. I hope it's not a problem, but let me go deeper down this rabbit hole and discover for myself if it's a problem or not. It shocked me to the core because in the end, I realized, wow, okay, I'm going to test these things myself. I realized myself I was getting affected a little bit. My sleep quality was different if the Wi-Fi router was on. I could verify my assumptions. I felt different working on Wi-Fi versus not working on the Wi-Fi.
I think what reinforced my idea even after writing my book is really talking to practitioners in the functional medicine space and asking them, do you think it's an issue for your patients or your clients, whether it's those clients that are already athletes like you or people listening to this and are at a very high level? Do you see a difference if they turn off their Wi-Fi at night, remove the cellphone from their bed stand? Do you see them recuperating faster if they don't have a cellphone in the pocket all day? Their answer was, "Yes, yes, for sure."
When it comes to people who are under chronic conditions, the answer was even more positive from them, Dr. Klinghardt, Dr. Dan Pompa, Dr. Zach Bush, Dr. Zach Bush who is a triple board-certified practitioner, medical doctor. He has a very, very conventional background, studying oncology and doing research on new chemotherapy approaches. Eventually he just switched his entire direction to developing Restore and whatnot, but when I asked Zach Bush, "Do you think EMFs can be a problem," and he says, "Yeah, I see it all day, this sensitivity to these signals, and you have certain individuals that are more sensitive than others."
This happened really after writing my book, I realized that the problem runs even deeper in the sense that, yes, it might not be recognized on a governmental level or even on a medical level, but functional medicine practitioners, whether they are MDs, naturopathic doctors, osteopaths or chiropractors, they look at things that work. They do read the science a little bit. You want to make sure your approach is based on something sane, but if there's even a hint that something might be a factor, they test it. They test their assumptions, and what they see in their clientele is immediate effects when you reduce these fields.
So, this is really my direction has only been reinforced towards it's probably affecting us even though at the moment we don't have the science to quantify how it compares to other, let's say, environmental factors that we're facing.
Christopher: I'd like, for this episode, to be a rather practical guide. I think that Tommy and Dr. Mercola use lots of really technical terms like NADPH and peroxynitrite and 8-Hydroxy-2-deoxyguanosine and all this mitochondrial stuff. The mechanisms, they do exist, but I would really like for this episode to be more of a practical guide for people who are interested in learning more about the science and the mechanisms. Are there any real life academics who are doing research in this field that I can refer people to?
Nick: Sure, there's a lot of them. I think that Dr. Martin Pall is a great researcher when it comes to the mechanisms on a cellular level. How can it be that such low level, low exposure, low voltage, non-ionizing radiation can affect the cell? The answer is not that there's enough energy to break the bonds, the molecular bonds or else that will be called ionizing radiations. The entire argument is no, ionizing does nothing.
In reality, Dr. Martin Pall's work, and also Dr. Paul Heroux from the McGill University here in Montreal, Quebec, he has also explained this but with another angle which is changing the water structure around mitochondria and slowing down your energy production or increasing the amount of free radicals that is created. So, these two researchers for really the technical aspects to it but, of course, we'll know more. In the next ten years, we'll discover more than the last 50 because these things evolve and the science is getting developed.
Other researchers, maybe Dr. Magda Havas from the Trent University in Ontario, but there are several good researchers. Dr. Joel Moskowitz who is in California in Berkeley, he is really working on the policy level. If you want to know a little bit about what's happening. They're trying to pass more regulations, for example, to have proper labeling like do not put the cellphone in your pocket. It's the beginning of the tobacco thing. There are a lot of different good researchers. In my book I talk about the work of a lot of them. There's good science. There's good, solid science, and there's debate. There's always scientific debate.
There are around 250 scientists that have independently published and appealed to the UN in 2015, the EMF Scientist Appeal. It's not the only appeal that happened, the BioInitiative Report. There are hundreds of scientists that, yes, they might be renegade or at least the media try to depict them as, oh, only a few scientists. Well, it's the few scientists that work in EMFs. You don't have a lot of people who want to work in this field, and you don't have a lot of financing.
So, this is really the state of the science is that we're learning more and more and more but if you go on EMF-Portal, I think it's dot com. I don't want to butcher this. EMF-Portal, that's a German website. It's dot org. EMF-Portal is a German-owned website that publishes -- they have 28,000 publications on EMF. Some of it is no effect. Some of it is detrimental effect. Some of it is positive effect when it comes to, let's say, therapies based on EMFs. That's a good resource for people who want to look at the paper themselves.
Christopher: Yeah, I wonder if some of what is going on here is what Malcolm Kendrick -- I recently interviewed Malcolm Kendrick for a second time, and he recently cited Richard Feynman who says, "I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned." I think that's very applicable here with this, the dangers of EMF. When I talk to engineers, in particular telecoms engineers, they say, "Well it's not ionizing radiation. There's no localized heating. Therefore, even though these are new, there's no danger." Anybody that questions that is just bonkers. I wonder whether that's part of the appeal for you as a journalist and an investigator.
Nick: Well, for sure. To me it's just crazy that the industry is not looking into this. I think it's a matter of different expertise. Engineers, even microwave engineers have been taught in their training that this stuff does nothing. The reality is that maybe we used to think that, but dating back from the '70s, the military was publishing the effects of non-ionizing radiation. They were especially in the east -- so this is, well, after the Cold War and everything, let's say that Russian-funded research is not the most popular thing these days in, I think, the Second Cold War that we're living through.
The Russians, the Soviet, in the '70s, knew about these dangers, and they were reducing the radar operators, the amount of time and power density that they could be exposed to. When you look at these documents, you have exposures that we're making people sick at the time. These are either workers near military bases or operators. Well, these are similar levels as what we could get exposed to these days with similar technologies, possibly even more biologically active.
So when you look into it, you discover that, yeah, it's more like a belief than a fact that these things do nothing. Of course as long as they maintain this belief, we continue thinking that the protection levels or the EMF guidelines we have in at least North America and several other countries, they're protective. We feel good about ourselves. We also believe that we can create wireless technologies without any hindrance because we are below these limits. That's very convenient.
We're in the age with 5G and Internet and things that everyone is focused in the tech space and want more and more wireless, so imagine accepting that the signal can do something. It's going to slow down technological development or at least it's going to change the way we do things tremendously. So, people down want to look at it is the bottom line.
Christopher: Yeah, I can remember that we didn't want to look at it when I worked as an electronics engineer for a company that made instruments to measure ionizing radiation, different type of radiation from what we're talking about now. Still, we were subjected to the electromagnetic compatibility directive that came out whilst I was working as an electronics engineer. I ended up spending a bunch of time working inside of a Faraday cage, testing electric devices for the electromagnetic compatibility. I had a look on the EU website this morning, and the first page, the first sentence of the first page says, "All electric devices or installations implement each other when interconnected or close to each other."
Now, in the previous podcast with Mercola and Tommy, Tommy said that human biology is about moving charged particles around. So, could you consider a human to be an electric device or installation, and how can these other things not be having an effect? I don't know what that effect is or whether it's necessarily bad, but there must be an effect. To say, oh, well there's no localized heating or no double strand bonds being broken through ionizing radiation is a bit of a stretch to brush me off with that.
Nick: This view that the human is a bioelectrical device is both like meat and electricity, is still fairly new. This is not recognized, and most people are not looking at these potential effects. Of course we know that the heart works electrically. Our mitochondria works electrically. There's such thing as the charge in the cell membrane. So many aspects need to be considered in how these EMFs that we create could impact the EMFs in our body.
This is not how the standards have been done. This is not how the industry thinks. This is not how medical science thinks or the medical mainstream. They don't think about these things. When they do -- I have several engineers that I know, one of which is Pawel Wypychowski. I interviewed him on my YouTube channel. He's an electrical engineer. He has designed antennas for the military and Secret Services in Poland, so he has a huge background where he understands the technology but also he understands biology.
He also suffered from these exposures because he has been tremendously overexposed in his career. He says, "Well now I'm working on bio -- how does he call it. It's electromagnetic biocompatibility. The new science of, okay, heat is one thing but what are the other interactions that could happen? He's working on the fundamentals right now, and he's launching a Patreon blog.
So, engineers, they want to do good in the world. Some people put evil in these things. I think it's easy to do that, to fall into us versus them. Oh, the tech industry is trying to do something, or there's evil at play. Maybe there is. I'm not sure of that. What I see is engineers trying to create magical things. Once they see that it's a problem, I think that we put our minds together, we're going to create low EMF technologies, eventually extremely low EMF technology and maybe even technology that can be compatible with human biology. It's a question of time, and it's a question of putting our minds there. Of course the first step to getting there is recognizing the problem.
Christopher: Yeah, well part of what piqued my interest was my interview with Cal Newport where Cal talked about the possible harms of social media and the solitude-deficiency, shall we call it, where you're constantly connected to some device and the notifications are coming thick and fast. This might be detracting from people's ability to do deep work. I think he's really onto something.
I think that that should be part of this cost-benefit analysis, like I said, while introducing this new technology. What are the benefits? What are costs? I think that Cal's work should be counted in, okay, so not just the biology of the electromagnetic fields themselves but then also at the application level, what is being delivered by these new frequencies because I'm not sure that it's always good.
Nick: You're totally right. I started off as someone looking at the EMF problem. My book is about the problem, also solutions. We're going to get into this because you want this interview to be practical. I don't want to forget our angle here. At the same time, now my work is turning a little bit more as, I want to call myself and position myself as an advocate for safe technologies.
What does this mean? Well it means that the tech giants have been creating technology because it looks cool and because they know, unfortunately, this is the same thing as what we did with food when we developed Oreos or these very addictive sugar-laden foods, is we know that users will be attracted to this. In other words, we know they're going to be addicted. Even worse than that, on the ethic standpoint is we know children are going to be addicted. They hired the best psychologists.
If I wanted to increase my bottom line as a techcompany, this is what I would do. I would create a product that's irresistible. The downside of that, after, let's say, ten -- it has been 12 years since the advent of the iPhone -- we realize that society is now addicted to these devices. Some people in the tech space, a lot of them are saying, "Well, that's not what I had envisioned."
Yeah, you want to create great products. You want to create the iPhone and these machines, but now they're starting to disconnect society or to cause postural problems because people have the text neck. Or people have sleep problems not necessarily because of the EMF, that doesn't have, but because of the blue light or because people have notifications at night, useless notifications about you have a newsletter from Gap or from Amazon.com that tells you product recommendations at 3 am and people wake up.
It's really, our use of technology has been unabated so far, and we need to go back to the drawing board. This is what some people in the tech space have been doing, and I'm glad that I'm seeing that because my next step is trying to work with them and say, yes, EMF is problem. You don't want to look at it. Let's look at it together.
Also other things. Screen time itself is detrimental. If you spend your entire life on a blue-lit screen, hunched over, I don't think it's compatible with what we want the population to be at when it comes to health, also to rationality and to being part of the democratic process. I don't think it's healthy technology that we've developed because the main criteria to develop it has been profit and just making it irresistible.
Christopher: Right, so we just need to optimize the new metrics other than financial gain.
Christopher: Investors and shareholders are humans too, and they have children. So I'm hoping that eventually the message will spread. Tell us about what's coming. I wondered what you might know about the fifth generation of mobile telephony and what good, if any, will come of it.
Nick: Again, there's some good, there's some bad. The good news is some technological developments can be exciting, self-driving cars, we can reduce pollution on the road. We can maybe not even own a car. I'm following technologists such as Peter Diamandis and other technologists that are predicting the future in the next ten years, and some of this stuff is very exciting to me. I read about it. I'm interested.
The problem, again, is how fast this is being developed. I think this is being developed way faster than our ability to understand the consequences on a biological standpoint of these new EMFs. Also, when it comes to privacy and to the ability of these things to be hacked, so Internet security is also another angle that I'm not an expert about that.
I've got a friend who works in Internet security, and I know he doesn't use any Google products anymore and doesn't use Facebook. To me he sounds a little bit over the top, but probably if I knew what he knows, that everything is unsecured. It's probably a mess also when it comes to how these things can be hacked.
5G is the fifth generation of wireless signal. It's really an entirely new infrastructure that they want to install everywhere. That's already been launched in 30-plus US cities. The difference is multiplefold. It's a new iteration of the technology, but it requires small cell antennas. For example in Montreal, the announcement was made that instead of having -- what's the number again? I think we're going to have 50 times more antennas compared to what we had for the four generation, 4G.
It's really antenna densification because you're going to install an antenna every three to 12 homes in residential areas and pretty much every block, if not multiple antennas every block in downtown areas. Why is that? It's because the use of millimeter waves in the mix of frequencies. These frequencies go higher. They're the same frequencies pretty much that are used by the airport scanners that a lot of people prefer to avoid. Well, it's going to be stronger than that.
The 5G technology is more beam-formed, and this is really what's going to enable them to send data at a lightning speed. You could download a 4K movie in a few seconds or a few minutes. It's not comparable to old technologies. It will be way faster and more exciting. It's really about a bandwidth mainly for people to watch streaming videos which is the main demand right now for more bandwidth.
It's highly directional but also it makes it so that people are going to be more exposed to, let's say, the unavoidable exposures of EMF. Of course if we think EMFs do nothing, nothing to look at. If we think they do something then it's a matter, on a societal standpoint, well you can avoid your own cellphone, but what can you do about an antenna being installed close to your bedroom? In a situation where you multiply the number of antennas by many fold in Montreal, chances are I'll be exposed to an antenna that if it does something to me, maybe I have no say over.
The regulations are really pro-telecoms right now in North America. They are protected against health defects, and you cannot really argue that a cell antenna should be moved over health defects, or you've got to sue. It's really pro industry right now, the situation. So 5G, a lot of people are waking up to the fact that they're going to have antennas in front of their home.
What's funny in a very twisted way is that most people are exposed more by their own cellphone than the tower. Everyone wants the cellphone. They're addicted to it, but they don't want a tower. The only way the cellphone works is if they have the tower. So, I want the tower, but not in front of my home, in front of this guy's home. The other guy says, "No, not in front of my home." Where do we put the towers?
It's bizarre because people have not recognized that their own cellphone is a problem. They put it in their pocket all day, they sleep with it but then the tower is a huge issue. It's true that the tower is unavoidable exposure. The 5G towers will only be activated, from what I could gather from a building biology document, when users are near. In other words, the 5G tower will be idle, and that's good.
I'm glad they did that if that's what they're going to do. It keeps idle if you don't have a 5G phone connected nearby, which probably won't happen because everyone will be on their 5G phone. If it's in front of your home and only your neighbor uses it, it's going to point towards your neighbor. On top of the 5G antenna, there's going to be also 4G and LTE antenna, other previous generations that are going to backs up. These are always on.
It's a complicated matter but in the end, 5G, what it means for people is more exposure. Very simply put, it's more exposure, again, for profit and for better connectivity. What's the stop to this madness? If you recognize that there are health defects to EMFs, what's the stop here? I think it's Finland, they had a meeting a few months back about 6G. 6G doesn't officially exist until Trump tweeted about it. We want 5G, 6G. The industry went crazy because of that. Oh, we've got to work on it now because Trump wants to push it.
What's happening is that these engineers are meeting because of course is going to okay, 6G, well maybe in 20 years but maybe in ten. How are we going to be ahead of the curve, be the first country to do it or be the highest paid engineers or tech companies, how to really tackle this opportunity? Again there's no one looking at health effects in this team of engineers. If there were, they would think the technology otherwise.
I've mentioned autonomous vehicles and other technologies. It turns out that other wireless technologies such as infrared wavelengths or other iterations of these EMFs or different technologies could be used to make it happen. The message right now from the industry is we need 5G to make it happen. That's probably more of a marketing PR message from what I could gather than real facts. There are telecom experts that say it's all smokes and mirrors. They're selling to the public that we need 5G when in the end it's something that's more imposed to the public to have people replace their phone every year.
There's a lot of subtopics we could go into, but I want to get into practical aspects if you want me.
Christopher: Of course. I was going to ask you whether you thought that the precautionary principle would apply, so whether potential for harm is catastrophic. Tommy cited some rodent studies in the last episode where after four, five generations, all of the males are sterile, and the potential benefits are marginal at best, possibly even deleterious for reasons that Cal Newport discussed in the previous episode. Should, therefore, the precautionary principle apply? That is, don't do it unless you can show that it's safe.
Nick: This is the question. Some scientists would say, well the precautionary principle has not been applied. It's too late for that. It has not been applied for 2Gs. It has not been applied for 3G, for 4G, for LTE and then for 5G.
Christopher: Yeah, good point.
Nick: 5G is being rolled out without one single biological study to study, let's say, how cells or rats or something else reacts to these set of frequencies. This set of frequencies, this particular type of signal that's going to be sent out. We're really flying blind is how Senator, I think it was Blumenthal, it was in a congressional hearing. He was really grilling the industry about that, and he said, "Well, where are the studies? Do you tell us it's safe?" In the end they said there's no study. He said, "Well, conclusion, we're flying blind." We don't know -- we're going to know eventually. Epidemiology is going to tell us that in three years, and we're going to say --
Christopher: Well, will it though? Tommy talks about that. Where's the control group? You need a control group for epidemiology to work.
Nick: We're going to get -- yeah, that's another question of course. It's going to be complicated to decipher what was from 4G, from 5G. it gets more and more complicated. The more we roll this out without safety testing first, the more we're going to have bad surprises and confusion from a scientific standpoint, very, very hard to pinpoint the culprit and to roll back to what used to be, a population that was healthier.
This entire debate about EMFs needs to be understood in a society where children have chronic diseases. It's important because if everyone was healthy, I would probably not be pursuing EMFs but in my mind, we have to recognize that we have a critical problem. If everyone is sick and we don't know why and we're trying to just treat them, we're going to treat them when they're sick; why are they getting sick in the first place? Some people would say, oh, it's GMOs. It's pesticides. It's lack of exercise. It's nutrient deficiency.
EMFs though, I found is really a missing factor in the equation. That's for sure, something that has changed tremendously in the last 50 years, especially the last 20, especially the last ten and especially the last five because it is constantly increasing. For sure, we don't need another factor disrupting biology because people are getting sick already because of multiple factors in our society. We don't need this financial and emotional and human burden on our mind anymore. It's already pretty bad what's happening.
For sure, we should adopt something, the precautionary principle which states that, yeah, of course it could be a disaster because these things are rolled out to an entire population. We should at least do some testing beforehand. Unfortunately that's not how the regulators think. The regulators want to sell this 5G spectrum. They have a lot of interest to roll this faster and faster. I'm talking about the FCC here in the States. The race to 5G is more important than being cautious. Of course this entire mindset is of course based on the false premise that EMFs are really safe.
You feel good about yourself if everything is perfectly safe and you just roll out another technology that's a better iteration than the last one. If the 4G was very concerning and you're all 5G then you're in a very bad spot. It's definitely something that should not be rolled out right now. For the moment this is what's happening. We'll see if political pressure and financial pressure will get the best out of them anyway. Other people think differently in other sides of the planet is what I'm getting at.
Christopher: Okay, I promised people a practical guide and as you just alluded to that, we should really give that to people.
Nick: Let's go.
Christopher: Yeah, so my first question is where does this fit in on the grand scheme of things? Recently, our performance psychologist, Simon Marshall, talked about the SEEDS framework, which I think is just fantastic. It's a very memorable acronym and also a metaphor. SEEDS is sleep, exercise, eating, drinking, stress management. Those are the pillars of good health. I don't think that's very controversial. Maybe you would disagree with drinking. I'm not sure. It's probably an individual thing. Where do EMFs fit in with the pillars of good health? I'm not exactly sure where I'd put that in. My question for you is where does this fit in the grand scheme of things?
Nick: Sure. So, EMFs, first thing I would argue, sleep. There are not enough studies unfortunately to prove that, oh, yeah, a cellphone next to the pillow does lead to a reduction of 22% of deep sleep or REM or any of that data. What I can tell you is there are studies about EMFs and melatonin. There are some researchers looking at, okay, how exactly does cellphone radiation impact the sleep? It might be a change in brainwaves. Your brain is trying to have this entire schedule and these sleep cycles and then everything is a little bit more blurry. The transition between different states aren't as smooth or maybe it really just wakes you up when it shouldn't.
What I can tell you is that almost 100% of people I've talked to in the last three years, whether they feel sensitive or not, whether they're athletes or someone who knows they're sensitive to EMFs, it makes a difference turning off the cellphone at night and removing any wireless device from near their bed stand. So, the first step would be that because if you're an athlete, you perform at a high level and you could add 5% to your sleep quality, probably you could increase your -- I don't know, reduce your race time by a few seconds. I think this is minutiae that is really worth it especially because it's just a single click. You just hit airplane mode. I think there's a low-hanging fruit for those.
When it comes to people who suffer from chronic disease, it's even more important that they sleep properly. Their entire body is going through a marathon every hour, and their recuperation ability is next to none because they're under all this stress, whether they're recovering from cancer or just have autoimmunity, or overall everything is going wrong with their body. They need to repair. Dr. Klinghardt, for example, who is a pioneer in treatment of chronic disease, for him, it's critical that EMFs are addressed as a first line of defense when he sees people because if he applies everything that he knows, he has been learning in his 40 years of medical experience, if the patient fails to comply with removing Wi-Fi at night, removing the cellphone and removing these sources then he doesn't see it working that much.
It's counteracting what he's trying to do because, yes, you might take supplements, you might do this and that but if you don't sleep, you still feel drunk in the morning. Or you still get prediabetic because of your blood sugar that's all over the place. We know how much bad sleep can harm us. Sleep is really the key. So if you look at your bedroom and you wouldn't put chemicals in there. Some people have very healthy beds. They look at all aspects of their sleep. Adding EMFs in is very simple and is very important.
In my opinion and the opinion also of people who do EMF mitigation at home, these EMF survey professionals, building biologists, you have Geovital consultants and other class of professionals called Shielded Healing in the United States, from my friend, Brian Hoyer; these professionals, what they do is they come in your home and they help you clean the bedroom first. Because once they clean the bedroom, they see the biggest results. If you can sleep 50% better, your health is going to transform. Of course people feel completely different. They can think clearly. We know that the magic of repair happens during the sleep.
The second thing I would say on your framework, the SEEDS framework is stress. A lot of people are experiencing, well of course, stress talking on the cellphone because just of the topic or the person they're talking to, the fact that they have to be on 24/7, but there's also [0:35:05] [Indiscernible].
Christopher: I'm more worried about the connection part. Cal Newport made this distinction between the hard analog communication and the soft digital connection. It's like one bit of information that communicates with another human, the like or the heart button or whatever it is. That's not a substitute for the hard analog conversations. So I'm less worried about people talking on the phone than I am trying to communicate using Whats App.
Nick: Exactly, and if it's not that, it's numbing your brain because you're always scrolling, scrolling, scrolling to an endless -- and now it looks like every news outlet now, when you finish something, is just infinite. The websites are infinite really.
Christopher: Infinite scrolls.
Nick: You become a robot, so there's one aspect of it, I think, is stress, adding to your stress. It's like getting nonstop bad news or notifications. Also there are studies about EEG changes or HRV changes in people that clearly show that a lot of people have a stress response, if not everyone has a stress response to cellphone signals or Wi-Fi and whatnot.
I think that it's part of the mix of what's increasing your stress response and putting you in really this sympathetic fight or flight response that a lot of people are constantly on. When you add traffic and caffeine and worry and credit cards that are going to explode, you have the perfect mix for someone who never gets out of this state even at night, and you don't recovery. So I think it's a huge part of this.
Another aspect that I would say for athletes is really the effect of cellphone on sperm and possibly on testosterone production which is really an aspect that needs to be illustrated more in research, but we do know that sperm count or quality or motility is affected by cellphones and is so established that the head of the -- well, let's say the top fertility guy at the Cleveland Clinic is saying you should probably not put a phone in your pocket.
They're comfortable saying that now because of the overwhelming proof in the last 20 years that putting a cellphone in your pocket will probably lead to reduction in sperm quality. We know that the sperm count levels and all aspects of sperm health have been declining so fast in our society. It's probably part of the reason, probably along with certain chemicals and other stress factors.
I've been to the Onnit Gym in Austin, Texas. I've seen these high level athletes. I was looking left and right, and I saw just supermodels and NFL players. All of them had a cellphone in their pocket. They train with the cellphone. The cellphone was glued to them. They were texting with the trainer. So, the new generation of athletes is always on these devices. I'm wondering if they even could get an extra edge if they stop being exposed to those.
You pre-download your music. You pre-download your podcasts. Then you use your cellphone just the same way except you put it in airplane mode. That's what I do when I work out or when I go for a walk. I just use my cellphone differently, and I make sure that everything is pre-downloaded. So, that's a choice. It's really a choice to make in a different way that you want to use your technology in the end.
Christopher: So if there was a Pareto principle here, if there was 80% of the benefit from 20% of the stuff then it probably would be related to cellphone usage, put the damn thing in airplane mode, keep it away from your body. Certainly I've seen Tommy do that. He doesn't keep a cellphone in his pocket and it has talked about it explicitly. I certainly don't do that. I'm lucky enough to live somewhere where there is no cellphone coverage. That's not safety thing. That's population density thing. This is not enough people here for it to be worth their while putting cell coverage where I live. So, if I don't leave my phone in airplane mode then it's just going to zap the back tree in no time whatsoever as it looks for a cellphone. I leave mine in airplane mode all the time.
What else? Talk about Bluetooth. I'm really interested in Bluetooth. It's so damn convenient. It could be so annoying as well. I just wonder about how many hours of human life have been wasted with people messing around with Bluetooth devices not connecting properly.
Nick: You're trying to connect your device and all of a sudden you hear a conversation from another phone. I don't know. It's crazy.
Christopher: Oh, my God, I've never had that. Usually it just won't connect but when it works, it's so beautifully convenient. If I can just get into my car and the podcast just keeps on playing on the speakers in the car rather than in my headphones, that's awesome. I love that, but is there a downside to Bluetooth?
Nick: The power levels of Bluetooth are generally lower than a cellphone, however if you have, let's say, the Apple ear buds that are Bluetooth now or any other competitor -- it's not to bash on Apple. Every company in their right mind now sells Bluetooth-enabled headphones because it's what people want. It's deeper in your ear, so the actual exposure to the brain is probably comparable to the cellphone except that maybe a lot of people don't talk in the cellphone that much these days. They text or they scroll. They rarely have long phone calls, but they will likely have hours and hours on the Bluetooth-enabled headphones. That's very common.
It's really the cumulative exposure that you get from Bluetooth devices. If you can help it, for sure, I would recommend to avoid Bluetooth and at least go back to the wired stuff. It's not as convenient. That's something I talk about in my book. Some people, let's say, that are more extreme, told me, "Nick, you're not ethical." I was using a wireless keyboard and a wireless mouse writing a book about EMF. I said, right, that's ironic, but at the same time I was writing it, I'm like, well I don't know what this stuff does in my body. I had a real curiosity. Since then I realized that change takes time because, okay, I sold the keyboard. I got rid of the mouse. I got something wired.
Eventually it is a hard hit to take for people. Well I just purchased these headphones, Nick, for $500. You're telling me I'm going to -- if my message would be get rid of everything, a lot of people would disconnect, so I prefer being a little bit more on the human standpoint.
Nick: Be tactical about it. Do baby steps. So if you have Bluetooth devices and you're planning to replace your headphones, consider something wired, same thing for any technology that you replace. Because at the moment I do not believe that a single wireless device we can really call safe because, again, the industry and the standards have nothing to do with really how these things affect us on a biological standpoint. It's very hard to quantify.
What scientists say is really the cumulative exposure matters just like when it comes to X-rays. We know that the risks of having adverse effects or future cancer risks from X-rays, well they accumulate. If you have one X-ray is not the same thing as having 100 and 101, so we're trying to minimize exposure to X-rays only when the benefits outweigh the risks.
I think the same framework can be used for EMFs. Okay, well maybe I use the Bluetooth ear buds for now, but at least I'm going to do these other things. It's like cleaning up a diet. I think it's the same thing. If you want to go extreme, you can, and probably there are benefits going extreme when it comes to EMF. When people have shielded homes, living in the middle of the woods, if you have no cellphone signal, you're in an extreme low EMF detox compared to other people.
Christopher: I've met a local woman. The reason she's here in Bonny Doon is because she experienced electromagnetic sensitivity.
Nick: There we go.
Christopher: It's the only place she can find where she could live.
Nick: It's a matter of cumulative exposure. So if you're hypersensitive -- I would have different advice -- if you're hypersensitive, it's like being someone with Celiac disease who is eating bread only on the weekends. Sometimes it just doesn't work. It keeps you symptomatic. You have to find your sweet spot and see if you can stay healthy even if you live in LA. Some people cannot.
If you have hypersensitivity, we don't know exactly how it's caused. It's probably a storm of different conditions and inflammatory conditions that make the body overreact to a single cellphone, and the person cannot operate anymore. These are really extreme symptoms that I had even a friend go through. Unfortunately she passed away from the symptoms at a very young age. She had a slew of things. One thing was sure, even living in the middle of the wood was not enough for her because there were cellphone towers. She didn't have zero coverage. It wasn't a zero EMF zone. For some people, they're sick. They're so sick.
Unfortunately, again, some people listening to this conversation will say, "Well I thought that we had proven that electrohypersensitivity is not a thing. It's all in the head." Well, don't conclude that. The study design of this is pretty shaky. If you read Professor Darius Leszczynski's blog, he's a scientist and has been working on EMFs for decades, really identifies that in the end, we didn't even know in the first place if these individuals who had the sham exposure versus a real cellphone were indeed electrosensitive. Maybe it was more like we don't screen for real electrosensitivity.
How could we have done that? Well, it's through blood markers and different markers in urine that have been identified by some other researchers. So, we could do better studies on electrosensitivity, and I don't believe it's all in the head. The evidence coming from functional medicine practitioners that tell me, yeah, in my patients', it's day and night. First, we identify that they feel sick. Then we identify that they feel sick at a certain point or certain physical location in their home, and it happens to be in front of their computer. Okay, then we stop exposing them to Wi-Fi and then they heal.
It's not a placebo effect. It's not a nocebo effect. It's more like, okay, we find something that really ails them. This comes back to me over and over and over, and I cannot believe that it's all in the head. For some people it might be, but overall it looks like a lot of people are being affected with different symptoms right now but don't recognize them.
I guess my point, because I'm digressing a little bit, but whether you feel it or not, whether or you are in the middle of the woods and you're feeling sickened, or you're in a city in LA feeling great, on top of your game, I'm an athlete, I don't -- well it's probably better that you reduce exposure, just like it's better if you avoid X-rays as much as possible unless medically necessary.
So, reducing your overall load is just for everyone, just like it's for everyone to eat real food. Maybe you can handle McDonald's if you're an athlete, but --
Christopher: Especially if you've got all your other pillars dialed, right?
Nick: Well, exactly, maybe you can handle it, but I don't think life is about seeing how much you can handle. For sure you can have occasional things. That's not the debate. If you can handle McDonald's all day, it doesn't mean you should do it because eventually it's going to hack away at all the efforts that you're doing for your health.
Christopher: Yeah, I think you raised an important point there with the compounded exposure. You're reminding me, I watched a BBC documentary on the plane back from London recently, and they had a university professor from Brunel, I believe, that was showing the toxicology of some pesticide. They didn't say Round Up. I'm pretty sure that's what it was. I think I might even know the studies that they're talking about where they're required to show the safety of the individual ingredients. Really, it's the compounded effect of all of them that led to infertility in rodents at least.
This doesn't lend itself very well to the types of clinical trials that we do today. Probably the same is true here with your EMFs. Okay, I just exposed you to this one thing, but really it's the compounded effect that's causing the problem. So you need to think about all your exposures.
So, we talked about the cellphone. We talked about Bluetooth which is potentially something you can avoid. In my situation, it's really easy. There's a USB link right there. I could plug my phone in. I just can't be bothered. It's easier just to throw my phone onto the seat and just let the Bluetooth play the podcast in the car.
What else should we be worried about? I wonder about grounding with my computer in particular. They seem not to like the third earth pin in the US. I can actually feel it. Where's the earth for this? I can feel the tingling. I've got a MacBook Pro from four, five years ago, and I can actually feel it tingling through the track pad sometimes. Oh, I'm the earth. I get it. I wonder whether that should be of concern and that people should be going to extra lengths to make sure they're using that third pin because it is an option in the US.
Nick: I would always use it because of course the electricity runs through your body. I've had a lot of people tell me that, when I told them, "Well just use the extension on your MacBook charger where you have the third prong," and they felt -- oh, my God, I actually feel less fatigued at the end of the workday in front of my computer, because they feel the tingling sensation.
I was in Thailand. They have, I think it's 250 volts, but I don't know what their electric [0:48:39] [Indiscernible].
Christopher: Oh, it's way worse in the UK, yeah, if you've managed to figure out how to plug a two-prong connector into a three-prong socket in the UK. Especially when the computer is charging, you can really feel a strong current.
Nick: Yeah, I was like buzzing, bzzz. Oh, wow, I'm not sure that's natural or that should happen.
Christopher: I'm not entirely sure it's how it's supposed to be used either.
Nick: No, exactly. The entire case is metal, so it does conduct. If you want to go to further lengths, you could even use an external keyboard that's USB. I do that because I have a stand in front of me for my laptop or else I always develop neck problems. I'm working with a chiro. My entire spine was, like the T3, T4, it was horrible, and the C3, C -- anyway, the text neck. I had everything, basically, and always pain in my right trap. So I use that and I use what's called a roost stand. That's an adjustable stand for your laptop. Then I use an external keyboard.
This setup helps you, two-prong. It's postural but also you don't get exposed to these fields directly on your computer. Also, you create distance from your computer. If you're on Wi-Fi, which I don't use at home at least. I use it sometimes in rare occasions, in airports and whatnot, but at home I'm on Ethernet cable which of course I recommend. If you're on Wi-Fi, every inch that you distance yourself from the computer is better because the exposure will drop exponentially with distance.
That's very important if you can create distance with your computer, with any device. If you use a cellphone, some people use it like this, right next to their body. Well if you can have the habit to create a bit of distance, it's better. It's not perfect, but it's way better, same thing for an iPad, same thing for anything that's wireless that you hold in your hands.
Something I need to mention also is just Wi-Fi at home. If you don't need Wi-Fi, you can have Wi-Fi if that's your choice. A lot of people that are aware of EMFs, try to [0:50:37] [Indiscernible] their talk, and myself included. I have killed Wi-Fi at home, and I have Ethernet cable running all over the place. Eventually it's going to make its way into the walls, but we get a higher [0:50:47] [Indiscernible] for that. We're going to do it. It's super stable, and you get exposed to zero. That's of course the best option.
People who a Wi-Fi router, I want you to do a few things. First, it needs to be turned off at night. You don't need it. Even if you see 100 Wi-Fis from neighbors, yours is most likely to affect you if it's closer to your body, so it's a matter of distance, even if it's, oh, it's just in the other room. You have coverage right here in this room, in your bedroom, do you think you're not exposed? Yes. Coverage is radiation. It's the Wi-Fi coming here, being able to go through certain materials. So, you want to turn it off at night and then you also want to turn it off when not in use.That's not a habit that's easy to develop, but it can be done.
If you, overall, use the Wi-Fi one hour per day, open the Wi-Fi when you need it and keep it closed. It's the opposite of how most people use technology these days. Most people, it's always on. Sometimes they turn it off. Oh, I'm going to turn off my cellphone because I want to have dinner and be quiet and not have notifications. Instead, always off. My cellphone is always in airplane mode. When I need it for Uber or for something else, I open it for five seconds and I'm done.
It's really switching around how you use it. Your W-iFi router is going to survive just fine. I know there's a lady who emailed me a few years back. "Nick, can I turn my WiFi router, and will it open back -- will it break it, basically? Will I lose the Internet when I open it back? I found that funny. Some people think, because technology is always on, that maybe they're going to break something just turning off the WiFi router. It's going to be just fine even though the tech guy might not like it.
Christopher It's funny. My dad said the same thing. I think what he was saying was grounded in some truth. Probably somebody in the UK knows more about this because I think it's a UK thing. I think it might be an ADSL thing where they're trying to run Internet over existing copper lines and if you keep turning off the router, it's going to think that there's a problem. It's going to back off on the connection speed. I'm pretty sure my dad read that in a magazine somewhere like a consumer magazine. You shouldn't turn it off. I don't know whether that's true, and I certainly don't know if it's true over a fiber or coax connection.
Nick: Yeah. Well hopefully you won't get into trouble for turning off your Wi-Fi. I still think it's a good idea to do it. If you can help it, there's also a third thing you could do with Wi-Fi is really to reduce the power of your connection. A lot of people have now these Wi-Fi routers, three or five antennas that can literally give coverage to the entire neighborhood. You don't need that. Of course you're going to have great coverage if you have a large home and maybe you're in the basement, but there's a price to that which is tremendous exposure at home, in the entire household.
So, if you don't need that and you just need good enough connection, you can put your router inside -- there are different products, let's say, Faraday, miniature Faraday cages. They're basically just metal sheets that are pierced with little holes, and you put your Wi-Fi router in there. One of them is called a WaveCage from lessemf.com, and it will basically just silence a little bit. You will still have a connection, maybe 90 to 99% less powerful but then the speed and coverage will reduce. A lot of people find that, oh, well --
Christopher: It's good enough.
Nick: -- it's good enough for me. If I need the extra connectivity, let's say, oh, no, I need to download something real quick, you open the thing and that's it. Oh, it's like the turbo button on old computers. Maybe you have seen those because you've been around.
Christopher: You're showing your age now, Nick.
Nick: Yeah, exactly. I'm like, oh, my God, this is the first reference that I did that showed that I'm in my 30s.
Christopher: Okay, so we talked about cellphone usage. We talked about Bluetooth. We talked about Wi-Fi and perhaps ethernet wiring. We talked about grounding for the computer. What would be the next level? I've heard lots of people talk about purchasing a meter. I do like the idea of that because it makes the invisible visible, and it gives me important feedback on how I'm doing. That's something that's often missing from health and performance is sometimes I never find out how I'm doing.
You drop dead of a heart attack. That's your first symptom of cardiovascular disease. That's not good. I want to find out that I'm not doing the right thing before I drop dead of it. So the meter seems to me like a really good way of getting that rapid feedback, but is that a step too far? Is that a ticket to crazy town? Do you recommend people purchase their own meter?
Nick: I know that a lot of people who are getting into EMFs, purchase a meter. I think it helps tremendously. The most annoying thing is not knowing if a certain machine emits these EMFs or not. That's so annoying. When you have your computer connected this way or that way or my phone on airplane mode but then I open Wi-Fi and Blue -- you don't know exactly because if you don't feel it, well you're just left to guess. That's pretty annoying.
You could discover without a meter that a lot of machines that you thought were not emitting anything are still emitting because they're looking for a device. A good example, I was in a hotel room and the moment -- well, of course, the EMF guy, I enter the room, I put all my meters on the bed. I'm like, okay, let's get started. I did a little video of that in Austin, Texas. I found a cordless phone. That was the base station. The charging station was emitting a lot, unplug it, and I see the levels drop. Okay, cool.
I went around with my meter. I'm like, oh, my God, right next to the pillow, what is that disrupting my sleep? I wasn't happy. It turns out it was an alarm clock but that had the capability to be Bluetooth. Even if it was not connected to my phone, it was looking for something to connect to. It was literally every second, bing, bing, bing, bing, bing,bing. Again, I would have the equivalent of having my phone on at night. My own phone is on airplane mode, and I know I need to tackle this. With this meter I was able to find, oh, there's this other source.
There's a lot of sources at home that could also be a culprit. There are the baby monitors which I recommend putting as far away from children and using it very sparingly, which I've been doing, just when we go away on vacation or to the grandparents' home that's larger, but I put it 12 feet away from the children.
Christopher: I'm sorry to interrupt you. I've never understood baby monitors. Why the fuck would you leave your child where you wouldn't hear -- we've got two kids, and we've never had one. They cry. You just leave the door open, and you'd hear them.
Nick: Yeah. Well, it was, let's say, a huge debate with my wife, and I ended up saying, okay, we're going to get it, but here's how we're going to use it. Some parents put it in the crib. Even manufacturers say you shouldn't do that, choking hazards and whatnot. Put it in the other side of the room and it will still technically hear it. You can test it of course to make sure. You don't want your children to cry for hours and not know they're there. I have a 15-month-old, so I know what the feeling is like but, yeah, using sparingly.
You can have other techniques like I'm going to check on the kid every 15 minutes. It's better because, again, it's just another source, another source, another source that we use. It's a little bit of convenience for possibly a lot of exposure. So there's that, the cordless phones and then there are all the sensors that we put inside our homes.
If you have a smart home and you listen to that, you probably want to tune out or else you're going to get frustrated with me. You install all these devices at home. Every Bluetooth thermostat, every Bluetooth light, some people can control everything electronic in their home including their dishwasher and start their toast while they're driving or anything. You can control everything. Well there's a cost to that. There's wireless connectivity, and most of these sensors, again, they connect 24/7.
So, having a meter, it helps you identify these sources then you can have more advanced meters that help you quantify these sources. Okay, this one emits one unit of radiation. This one is a thousand, so I'm going to eliminate the thousand one because, of course, it's the biggest priority. It gets a little bit technical and then you have to invest a few hundred dollars more.
In those cases, if you're not very interested in learning this stuff, EMF stuff, I recommend having an EMF professional come. There are a lot of doctors that I know, Dr. Ben Lunch, Dr. Mercola, a lot of them had had these professionals go into their homes. They said, "Oh, wow, it was incredible because my sleep has improved tremendously. After applying what was found, we reduced exposure."
This is really how you reduce exposure from various sources that you're really -- with a little meter, a beginner level meter, and I can tell you the brand is called ENV RD-10 and on the site radmeters.com, is the one I recommend because it's $140. So it's the most affordable meter that's just good enough for beginners, in my mind.
Let' say, if you're in the middle of the room, in your bedroom, there's nothing that could be a source. You see on this meter, the red zone. What does it mean? Well, it might be a cellphone tower. If it's a cellphone tower, how do you protect yourself against it? You cannot turn it off. In these cases, if you have a professional come at your home, they could recommend EMF-blocking curtain. They could recommend EMF-shielded paint. These are more advanced solutions. If you want to stay in the same home but you want your sleep, you need these advanced solutions, or if you suffer from this hypersensitivity.
In these cases I would go to either a building biologist,Geovital consultants. You can Google that profession, and you'll find probably a practitioner or a consultant around your area. They're all over in the world. In North America there's a lot of them. I told you one was shieldedhealing.com, Brian Hoyer. They're doing a great job. They're building a team that basically roams around the US.
So, this is really what I would do. I'd grab a simple meter. It's super useful. At one point, if you don't want to become an engineer in this stuff, hire a professional. They will come at your home. It's going to take a few hours and then you'll have a good portrait. You're going to know, for example, does your neighbor expose you to EMF a lot? Maybe they have their Wi-Fi router under your bed, in the other room. You never know what the situation is.
With a simple meter, you wouldn't be able to tell that much what direction it comes from and how to quantify these things. It's a profession in itself. So I would hire someone and then have the ease of mind that comes with it or the fear that comes with it if you realize, oh, my God. There's always something you can do to some extent.
Christopher: It's flexible.
Nick: You can shield yourself, and you can shield the home. It's just the matter of budget. Maybe you'll choose to move. Maybe you'll choose to apply something. Maybe you just need to turn off certain devices that you're the one who pays for and you're the one who put inside your home. It's just like chemicals when you learn about cleaning products that might be detrimental or leaching or contributing to bad air in your home.
You look under your cabinet. You're like, oops, I paid probably $200 for all these things, and they're slowly --
Christopher: Killing me.
Nick: -- packing in my house. But once you know better, you do better. Really, the order of operation here, you start with a few things that we've said about cellphones, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and you go from there. You go to, okay, a meter is a little bit more advanced. If you wan to go there, I do recommend it.
A lot of people who are, let's say, self-proclaimed health geeks or athletes or biohackers or health practitioners, want to go there. They want to know the numbers. Then of course you can travel with it. If you go to a hotel room, you can know just like I did. That's on my YouTube channel, the video where I ended up finding there was a Wi-Fi router under the bed, literally. Yeah, that's just ridiculous. That's just ridiculous. I could unplug it and then my night of sleep was okay. Because it's Austin and the levels from outside were tremendous.
The third step is you go to a professional and really to assess your EMF environment.
Christopher: I think that's a great place to wrap up. Just one quick question about that meter that you mentioned. There are many different types of fields. There are four that you mentioned specifically in your book, The Non-Tinfoil Hat Guide. Would a meter like the one you just mentioned, would that detect all four types of fields?
Nick: It looks at three different types of fields. That's radio frequency which is let's say the most talked about EMF these days, cellphone, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. You have magnetic fields that could indicate that there's a wiring problem in the home or maybe you're very, very close to a high voltage power line or even just conventional voltage power line that is too close. These emit a field that just stays there. If you live in it, maybe you have a problem. Unfortunately these fields are very hard to shield against. I get a little bit into that in the book. The third type is electrical field.
So they do look at the three types. The goal of this meter isn't to assess really and to quantify very precisely but to find and identify problems. When it comes to magnetic fields, for example, you could find that if you sleep next to your charging phone, on top of the radio frequency -- well if it's in airplane mode and you say, oh, there are no EMFs anymore. Well there's an electrical field, and there's also magnetic field. In other words, you're also getting zapped wirelessly by the fact that your phone has electricity in it. It's not contained inside the phone. It irradiates from the phone.
So if you charge your phone at night, even though it's in airplane mode, I would charge it a few feet away from your head actually. That's something a lot of people do at night because it's on their bed stand. Charge it on the floor, for example, three feet away. Again, these are steps that are going to help you reduce your exposure.
Christopher: That's great. Well let's help people remember what we told them. You talked about mobile phone usage, and you talked about airplane mode and not keeping your phone on your person. You certainly don't want it in your bedroom at night. You don't even want to charge it in your room. You want it out the room completely. You talked about turning Wi-Fi off at night. You talked about using Bluetooth and Wi-Fi deliberately. We're not saying cast out all of these technologies that are no good. We're just saying be very mindful and deliberate and intentional about their usage.
We talked about grounding your computer using the MacBook extension lead. I'm sure other computers have equivalents where you're probably grounded rather than using you, a human as the ground. What else did you talk about? You talked about --
Nick: The WiFi router, making sure it's off at night for sure. If you want to automate that, you can have it on a Christmas light timer, or even when it's not in use. Christmas light timer is something super practical for families and a lot of people love this advice. My top advice would be to just remove the Wi-fi and have an ethernet cable. That's a personal choice. A lot of people end up doing it and they feel better.
It's also identifying the different other devices that are wireless in your home, anything, Bluetooth, the cordless phone, base stations, and try to reduce your use of those. A lot of them can be replaced. The cordless phones can be replaced with good old analog wireless phones that cost like $10. So they can be replaced, not as convenient. You've got to trade convenience for a little bit less of the bad stuff.
The same thing as diet. Going to McDonald's is convenient. It's right there. It's drive-thru. Preparing your meal is long and tedious. You've got to think about it. Well, but you have the benefit, so the same applies here.
Christopher: Right, right. Okay, that has been really helpful. Thank you so much, Nick. So, for users like me, you may enjoy The Non-Tinfoil Hat Guide to EMFs. It's a fantastic resource and online book that you can purchase. I guess also like me, for practitioners, people interested in diving into this a bit more, you've got the Electrosmog RX -- did I get that right -- an online course.
Nick: That's right, yeah, electrosmogrx.com. That's our professional level course. I teamed up with Dr. Klinghardt and also multiple international collaborators, and we try to put together what is the best medical science on how to teach this stuff to your clients or patients. A lot of people also take the course for themselves because they're just interested in, let's say, elevated content.
There's about four to six hours on EMF science alone, so it's a good summary. It's, by no means, let's say, a review of everything EMF-related. Just the science could take 100 hours. It's crazy rich, but it's a good summary of the issue, the problems and the solutions. Let's say it's the version of my book that really goes to another step in understanding and in sophistication.
Christopher: Thank you so much. I very much appreciate you, both for recording this interview with me and for being brave enough to create these resources. The fact that I think that you were brave tells me that maybe there's a problem. Nevertheless I'm very grateful to you.
I will of course link to everything that mentioned. Elaine does an amazing job of scouring the Internet to find all of the references for everything you mentioned in this podcast. They will be available over at nourishbalancethrive.com/podcast. If you poke around your podcast tab, you'll surely find the show notes for this episode.
Is there anything else that you would like to link to for the show notes for this episode, Nick?
Nick: Just my new website that's coming out before the end of the year. Right now I have just the website where there's all my resources, my links, links to Facebook and YouTube and whatnot. That's just theemfguy.com.
Christopher: That's excellent. Thank you very much, Nick. I very much appreciate you.
Nick: Thank you, Chris, appreciate it.
[1:08:21] End of Audio