Ayana Young For The Wild is brought to you in part by the Kalliopeia Foundation who support reconnecting ecology, culture and spirituality. We are grateful for their continued support and the support of grassroots contributions from listeners like you. Learn more at Kalliopeia.org. To make a donation, visit ForTheWild.world/donate, or find us on Patreon. If you’d like to support us in other ways, consider sharing our episodes through social media or leaving us a review wherever you listen to the podcast.

Hello and welcome to For The Wild Podcast, I’m Ayana Young and today I’m speaking with Dr. Devra Davis.

Devra L. Davis Even the United States Government Accountability Office issued a report last month on Gg and they concluded that it's been marketed as this great energy saving technology, but that because of the tremendous increase in demand that comes about with 5G, that there will be no gain in real efficiency. In other words, that the increase in demand will swamp any increase in efficiency that might be created.

Ayana Young Dr. Davis is an internationally acclaimed award-winning scientist and author of more than 220 scientific publications and 3 popular books, including When Smoke Ran Like Water and Disconnect. She was the U.S. Senate confirmed Presidential appointee to the National Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board and served as an advisor to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the World Health Organization, Dr. Davis was formerly a professor at the University of Pittsburgh and was the founding director of the world’s first Center for Environmental Oncology. She is currently the President of the Environmental Health Trust.

Well Dr. Davis, thank you so much for joining me today. The topics we're about to cover are things that go through my mind often but have yet to find somebody to really go in depth with, so thank you so much for being with us.

Devra L. Davis I'm delighted to be with you.

Ayana Young Wonderful. Well Dr. Davis, your work with Environmental Health Trust on cell phone radiation, environmental pollutants, and disease is so vital and also incredibly overwhelming - there is so much to discuss. I’d like to begin by recognizing the United States is somewhat of an anomaly when it comes to attitudes towards technology. For example, France has banned the advertising of cell phones aimed towards children under the age of 14, South Korea has formally established “internet addiction camps” and agencies in Australia and Wales have formally recommended that children text rather than talk on the phone to mitigate their exposure to cell phone radiation. Comparatively, the United States has embraced almost every call to digitize our life beyond recognition. There are more cell phones in the United States than there are people. So as an entrance point into discussing the impacts of radiation and the threat of 5G, can you share how the United States’ differs in its attitude towards technology?

Devra L. Davis I think the United States is governed by a technological imperative which says if we can do something technically then we should do it and there's never been any consideration of its impact on the environment or public health. So in the United States today for example, some schools encourage children to use their phones in school -that is illegal in France, and Israel, and many other high tech countries so we have drunk the kool aid completely when it comes to the way cellphones are being used, particularly by young children, and especially by very young children. We understand that when phones were first marketed they were frankly quite expensive, they used to cost the equivalent of say $3,000 for a phone today and it cost us over $1,000 a month just to operate one, so the early phones in the early 1990s were used chiefly by medical and military people, very limited and controlled uses. No one ever imagined that we'd see what we have today where children as young as six are getting phones and little ones are using them kind of like pacifiers they were never tested for this they were never designed for this and industry experts tell me some of them are just horrified by some of the uses and exposures that we see taking place with young children today because few people understand that a cell phone is a two way microwave radio.

Ayana Young Thank you so much for that introduction, Dr. Davis. Now in preparing for our conversation, I looked at much of the published research on cell phone radiation, and the science is portrayed as being very erratic. From 2003 to 2009 there were a series of studies on cell phone exposure and male fertility, and each one seemed to contradict the other. Similarly, the World Health Organization research project titled “Interphone” took 10 years, and cost $30 million dollars, and ultimately produced contradictory conclusions. So I’d like to ask why research on cell phone exposure has been so unreliable, and if this is a reflection of the wide discrepancies between independent studies on cell phone radiation versus that of industry-funded studies in order to prevent any sort of meaningful regulation?

Devra L. Davis Well, the answer for why there's such inconsistent results is that there is something called the manufacturing of doubt. And we have seen that when it comes to climate science, we've seen that when it comes to a lot of environmental studies on pesticide impacts, and we have it here as well, that is to say that when you look at who has funded research, you'll find that the majority of studies that say that there's no problem have been funded by industry. And that is, by the way, the majority of studies, because there's very little money to support groups like ours, which is the only independent group of its kind doing research in this field, we do not take money from industry and we are trying to create independent, scientifically credible information. But you're absolutely right, when you look at the evidence, you see a mix of evidence, and the reason is that a lot of those studies have been manufactured, and they are inconclusive by design, or they're designed to find no problem whether there is one or not. 

Let me give you one example, that you can see on our website as well, since 2017, there were reports that American diplomats in Cuba and China and Russia experienced strange effects on their brain and brain damage, that the people reporting these said they felt like they had been targeted by some sort of weapon, and they were frankly at first dismissed as kooks. Just last week, the National Academies of Sciences issued a report in which he concluded that these diplomats have suffered permanent brain damage that we're likely caused by pulsed microwave weapons. And yet for three years, the people suffering from these effects were basically denied support from the federal government. And they were made to feel like there was something wrong with them. The reality is that this is a very rare and terrible thing that happened, that microwaves at a high power can damage the brain. So the question we have to ask is, what about microwaves at a lower power? A cell phone after all is very weak, but the signal from the cell phone is pulsed microwave radiation. And what we have to ask ourselves is what are we doing to our children, and our grandchildren, some of them are growing up with levels of microwave radiation that did not exist, even three years ago.

And I think if you look at the totality of the independently produced evidence, which we have available on our website, you will see clear indications that cell phone radiation can suppress sperm count. In fact, experiments done on sperm are quite compelling, because you can take two test tubes of sperm collected from a human, one test tube gets exposed to cell phone radiation under controlled conditions, and the other doesn't have anything happening to it at all. It's the control tube. And after a few hours, you can evaluate the quantity of sperm, how well it swims, and what DNA damage there is to it. And these studies, which have been replicated by some of the top researchers in the world, consistently find that sperm that is exposed to cell phone radiation has three times more damage to its DNA, and a much lower sperm count.

Ayana Young Wow. That is frightening. And I’ve heard that, overall, rates of many types of cancer are in decline, except within certain age demographics, namely under the age of 50, a group whose rates of cancer diagnoses, like colon and rectal, are actually doubling. I understand this can't be attributed to cell phone radiation alone, but it certainly plays a role in it, doesn’t it? Can you share why you think we are seeing such a freighting increase in these diagnoses among young people, and how they correlate with parts of our bodies that are especially susceptible to radio-frequency radiation?

Devra L. Davis My colleague Anthony B. Miller and I have published an article in a peer reviewed journal that does report on this extraordinary growth in colorectal cancer, and in particular the quadrupling of rectal cancer in people under the age of 30 in the past decade. Now, this is a rare cancer, but because it's seldom looked for when people first complain of tummy aches or discomfort. Unfortunately, some of these young people who develop this rare disease will die from it, because you never think of someone age 30 having rectal cancer. We are seeing an increase in certain types of cancer plausibly associated with cell phone radiation, or with CAT scans, the computerized tomography exams, which we have done many more of them than are needed according to the radiologists. And the bottom line is that exposure to x-rays, ionizing radiation, as well as exposure to microwaves, non-ionizing radiation can damage colorectal cells, can damage thyroid cells, and we are seeing unexplained increases in these types of cancer now in younger people. 

The reason why there's a general decline in cancer in the United States and many countries is largely for one reason, and that is fewer people are smoking. And smoking has been such a predominant cause of many different types of cancer and heart disease, that when more people have stopped smoking, that has an overwhelmingly beneficial effect, and cancer rates drop, that's a good thing, people should not smoke. However, if you look at cancers that are not related to smoking, and not related to improve diagnosis, like you get with the prostate specific antigen test, the blood test for prostate cancer, or with mammographic screening for breast cancer, if you look at all the cancers that have nothing to do with screening, and nothing to do with smoking, you find that there has been a continuing increase in those cancers. And we've published analyses of this increased generational risk, where we show that the generations born since the 1990s, compared to those born earlier, have a much higher risk of cancer not related to smoking, or diagnostic ascertainment. Now, we can't tell you why these cancers are increasing. But here's what we can say, studies that we've done with our colleagues in Brazil at the Federal University of Porto Alegre show that the parts of the body that absorb the most radiation when the phone is in the pocket would be, of course, the colorectal area, the reproductive area for men and women. And if you're talking on a phone, of course, the thyroid is going to get the highest exposure. And recently, Lennart Hardell and colleagues in Sweden have reported on a tripling of thyroid cancer that they believe is not explainable solely by an improved ascertainment and diagnosis. They believe that this increase in thyroid cancer is also in part due to the increased use of cell phone microwave radiation.

Ayana Young Wow, that is just horrifying. And I’d like to ask you about what cell phones are doing to our brains, and a lot of people like to brush this off, but, I read that Swedish Neurosurgeon Leif Salford found that with just 2-hour exposure to a cell phone, rats displayed neuronal damage in the cortex, hippocampus, and basal ganglia…How does cell phone usage increase our likelihood of brain tumors?

Devra L. Davis Well, brain tumors take unfortunately, up to 40 years to develop. And so that is why there are many different relevant factors, including a history of use of x-rays, dental x-rays and others. But the process by which cancer starts, can involve a weakening of membranes. And in my book, Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation, I tell the story of Alan Frey, who in the 1970s worked for the Office of Naval Research in the United States. And he showed that if you took an animal and exposed it to microwave radiation, and remember there were no cell phones when he did this work, that it would weaken the membrane of the brain, now the brain has a blood brain barrier. And it's designed to protect us from poisons that might be circulating in the body. And normally, it works to keep those poisons from getting into the bloodstream. And Alan Fray’s work clearly showed that exposure to microwave radiation, just like that we use today in cell phones, weakens the blood brain barrier, and that weakening of the blood brain barrier means that any toxic agent that might be circulating in the body can get more deeply into the brain. And over the long haul, that could certainly increase the risk of brain cancer.

Ayana Young It’s now understood that exposure to smartphones, not necessarily through radiation alone, is responsible for something called “lop-sided brain development” in children who are using technology heavily during their developmental stages. And even the American Academy of Pediatrics encourages families to reduce wireless radiation exposure. How do cell phones affect children in terms of toxic exposure, digital dementia, and radiation? And, not to get too apocalyptic, but realistically what will future generations act like if we continue to raise them off of smartphones?

Devra L. Davis Well, that's a very, very good question. And I think the answer is that we don't know, but we have good reasons for concern right now. Because we know that children who do spend more time on phones do have this unequal development in their brain, in fact, in studies in Korea, have diagnosed what they call digital dementia in children as young as eight. And that means that their brains are not developing fully, so that there's a large body of evidence that’s showing things from memory damage to balance problems and hearing problems in those who use cell phones the most. The Russian National Committee for Protection Against Non-Ionizing Radiation, which is not a government committee, has also recommended that children limit their overall screen time, and that they use wired rather than wireless connections. And again, information on how to wire your home office, especially how to wire things for your child can be found on our website, at ehtrust.org.

Ayana Young I’d like to ask about wired versus wireless headsets. I know initially, it was encouraged to wear wired headphones when on the phone to give our bodies a buffer from the radiation, but I’ve read that testing done by the Consumers’ Association in the UK showed that using a wired headset actually tripled the radiation to the brain? Is this true? Do wired headsets provide safety? And then if they do, how do we reckon with wireless headsets and how they’ve been pushed as a trend really...Do AirPods and the like increase high levels of radio-frequency radiation because of Bluetooth technology and their position in the ear canal?

Devra L. Davis First of all, I am not aware of any independent studies showing a tripling of radiation into the brain, from a wired headset, I've not seen any such studies, what I can tell you is if you have a wired headset, and it's draped on your body and your phone is in your pocket, then you are in fact extending the exposure because you're having your body in touch with it. Ideally, a wired headset should be used with wires running with an air tube between the wire and the ear, and then not on the body, but to have as my phone right now happens to be on airplane mode and is on my desk. I never keep it in my pocket. And I think that this is a question of changing people's habits and understanding that you don't want to have a two way microwave radio next to your body. And so if you put a wired headset, and by the way, it's getting harder and harder to use a wired headset because the latest phones, they don't even have a jack, so there are ways to get around that. But we need major public education about what the reasons are for using wired networks, such as what they've done in parts of Italy and in Israel.

Ayana Young Do you mind describing that a bit more of what they are doing in Italy in Israel and then also going into the issue with wearing Bluetooth earpods because of course we all know they're getting very popular. 

Devra L. Davis Think about it, Bluetooth is a 1000 times weaker than the WiFi from your phone. It is okay. That's good. However, if you are keeping these things as I've seen some children with them in their head 10 hours a day, it's like a fashion statement, then even though it's much weaker radiation, you are getting that directly into the ear canal and your brain as you correctly just said. So the Mayor of the town of 

Borgofranco d’Ivrea, in Piedmont, Mayor Livio Tola, instructed the town's high school and elementary school, to use cables and to turn off the WiFi, because of their concerns that there was enough evidence of harm, that they didn't want to run the risk of treating their children, like lab rats in an experiment with no controls. 

Now, Italy happens to be the home of professor Fiorella Belpoggi, and she has led in the conduct of some very important research showing that animals exposed to levels of wireless radiation that you might get from a router develop very rare, highly malignant tumors. And aware of this problem, some of the mayor's in Italy have said that they have to reduce exposures as much as possible, especially for children. Now, this is not being met with, you know, unanimous enthusiasm, but the fact of the matter is, that's one town in Italy, and there are many others, where steps have been taken to try to reduce the burden on kids and others. For example, in Israel, and in France, you cannot have wireless routers in kindergartens or nursery schools. And Israel has banned the use of cell phones in classrooms for several reasons, one of which has to do with bullying, but another which has to do with radiation exposure, the same in France, teachers have wired computers for Internet access. And they have major public health initiatives to educate people about why and how to reduce your exposures.

Ayana Young Now, of course, routers may seem different to folks than the earpods, and I don't mean to keep harping on this Bluetooth headset question, but I just see personally, all of my friends were Bluetooth wireless headsets, because one, you know, their phone can be across the room, the wire doesn't need to be connected to the phone. So maybe some people are thinking that it's healthier, because the phone can be far away while you're wearing these Bluetooth headphones, whether they're Apple AirPods or some other brand, but for those of us who are listening, saying “But wait, I think these Bluetooth headphones are better.” And maybe people think that Bluetooth isn't radiation? I know, I'm very-

Devra L. Davis Okay, it is radiation. There's no question about it. And the question you have to ask yourself is this? What kind of proof do you want? Do you want sick people and dead bodies? Or do you want to pay attention to animal research, take a step back for a minute. Those drugs that we take, they're tested on animals. And the animal tests just inform whether or not it's safe to do it and people, we've just gone through this now with the vaccine development, they first are tested in animals, then they're tested in people, then data are collected, and then then they are released. Right now. What we have is backwards, we are being asked to prove that the technology is harmful before taking steps to reduce exposure. I think that's backwards. I think we should first say, do we have valid animal studies indicating risk? And there the answer is, from Belpoggi and others, “yes, we do”. And not only that, you have a security risk with Bluetooth because they're very, very easy to to hack. But leaving aside that security risk. Dr. Joel Moskowitz in Berkeley has a website with lots of information about the problems that Bluetooth headphones can constitute and again, links to that can be found on our website. Several doctors have reported, although the FDA tells you everything's fine, the reality is the FDA has been a captured agency along with the Federal Communications Commission when it comes to this issue.

Ayana Young Well thank you for all of that, Dr. Davis. And now I’d now like to transition our conversation to discuss 5G, and to begin, I’d like to read a quote from Brussel’s Environment Minister, Celine Fremault, who, in 2019, said “The people of Brussels are not guinea pigs whose health I can sell at a profit. We cannot leave anything to doubt,” when asked about implementing 5G. Comparatively here in the United States, all we see are advertisements for the power and possibilities of 5G. For listeners, can you explain what is 5G, and perhaps clarify that consumer’s don’t need 5G at all, this is really just being driven by manufacturers who want to make a lot of money, and governments who see an opportunity to forge through the technological frontier and could really care less about the wellbeing of their population?

Devra L. Davis Well, it is, you know, it's complicated, right? First of all, what you see marketed today as 5G is not using the true 5G millimeter frequency that it will be able to use in another four years. And so I have to take a moment and explain, 3G and 4G operate on 900 million to 2.4 billion cycles a second. That's what they work on, and they often have the antennas on towers, miles away from where people live. Now, in the urban environment, it can be highly problematic, and people can get exposed to much higher levels where antennas are located closer to people, but in general, they have been further away from human populations. 5G faster frequency will allow you to download a movie to your phone in a few seconds. That's true. I'm not sure I would actually recommend watching a movie on your phone or on your wristwatch. But people are doing it nowadays. And the market for 5G is not about improving your phone reception at all. In fact, you will be using 4G LTE for voice for the foreseeable future. What 5G does is it can improve the speed with which to download information. However, in order for it to work because the frequencies are so much faster and shorter, they have to cut down trees and move other large objects so that every 100 meters or less, there's a new 5G antenna located sometimes outside your bedroom window. But you're absolutely right Ayana, in order for 5G to be a commercial success, and that's what's driving this, you will need A 5G router, a 5G phone, a 5G computer, a 5G baby monitor, a 5G refrigerator, a 5G coffee pot and on and on. Now I don't want my coffee pot to talk to my refrigerator or be able to turn on my washing machine with my phone. And if I did, I could do it right now with 4G by the way. But the whole promise of 5G, to connect 50 billion devices for the internet of things, is being rethought, including, by the way in China. 

You've probably heard that we're in a fierce battle with China over commercializing 5G. But in fact, I recently wrote in the International Business Times that that conflict is more hype than reality. And it's designed to kind of goad the American appetite for competition with China, the former Finance Minister of China, Lou Jiwei, warned last month in a publication that I have verified, that existing 5G technology in China is immature, very expensive, and doesn't work very well. In addition, the electricity costs for 5G are 10 times the profit. That's what he said. And therefore, of course, the state telecom company is asking for a subsidy for electricity, because of course, in China, the government in the business are kind of one, but it doesn't make any sense. And that's why they warned that the cost cannot be justified. In fact, a Chinese academy of information and communications technology, concluded a white paper, which said that they couldn't justify the long term benefits and rewards of 5G. So there's been a lot of hype. And I think it's really been a mirage. In China, three out of every four people polled said they didn't think they needed 5G phones. And I think that they're right.

Ayana Young Wow, hearing those details was fascinating in a kind of sick way. But that's really, yeah, I'm seeing it now, the infrastructure, the development, the cash flow.

Devra L. Davis Yeah, part of our problem is, frankly, the complexity of the technology, and it really is complicated. The complexity of technology makes it really easy for people to get confused very, very easily. And it's really, really important to keep focused on what we do know. And what we know is, is we have wired broadband cables, which are the backbone of the internet, it's safer, it's faster, and it's more secure. And that's what we need. Wireless is always going to have the problem of connectivity, security, and safety, you're not going to get rid of those problems. If you want, you can have a faster speed by putting it wired to and through the premises, you can have a wired cable that goes right to the premises and several cities in the United States are starting to treat wired broadband as a public utility, and that means that the city is providing access. 

Recently in New York City, they gave 500,000 people access to wired broadband, so that they would not be on the other side of the digital divide. And wired broadband is a way to be faster and more secure. Even the United States Government Accountability Office issued a report last month on 5G and they concluded that it's been marketed as this great energy saving technology. But that because of the tremendous increase in demand that comes about with 5G that there will be no gain in real efficiency. In other words, that the increase in demand will swamp any increase in efficiency that might be created with it. That's pretty important and damning. So when you look at the next stimulus package, which we know they're working on now, and they should have it done. It should contain billions of dollars to build out municipal fiber optic broadband cable and not more wireless, because right now in Lake Tahoe region, in order to put up more wireless, they're cutting down trees, cutting down trees, because they're inconvenient. And some of these are ancient forests. This is really unacceptable.

Ayana Young I understand that Europe has covered the substantial body of science that talks about the potential hazards of wireless radiation on the body and environment, while our media here hasn’t. Why is this? What is the connection between the U.S media and the 5G rollout?

Devra L. Davis Well, I think it's pretty straightforward. Just as with the pharmaceutical industry, if you look at ads on television, when we don't have a national election, the majority of ads right now are paid for by the telecom industry and the pharmaceutical industry, you know, money talks, and it really is hard to beat, they have a lot of influence over over content. And some of the major newspapers like the New York Times, some of its owners are heavily invested in the telecom industry. So I think it's really important for the public to be better informed. Yes, we want access to the internet. Yes, it has transformed our lives and improved our ability to respond to emergencies. But if we have an overall push for municipal fiber optic broadband cable, this will substantially improve our public health. It will also allow an investment in infrastructure and building what needs to be built here without endangering migrating animals, the honeybee as well as human health.

Ayana Young And there is an overwhelming amount of research on global 5G wireless networks and how they threaten ecological systems. For example, a review published in Environmental International found that 70% of 113 studies showed that RF-EMFs affect birds, insects, and plants. Similarly, it’s been proven that electromagnetic pulses from wireless devices can disrupt migrating creatures’ internal compasses, and there is even research that shows how trees that are in close proximity to mobile phone base stations suffer high levels of damage. And, I really want to encourage listeners to visit the Environmental Health Trust’s website, which lists all of these published studies. But Devra, I wonder if in layman’s terms you can share what you know about 5G’s effect on the Earth and how it might permanently change the behavior and physiology of our more-than-human kin?

Devra L. Davis I'm so glad that you're bringing attention to this. It's really, you know, it's a dark time of year, but I want to thank you for bringing light to this issue. And I hope that others in the media will follow your lead, because you are one of the few voices that's asking these very important questions. And I really appreciate it. What we know is that all migrating animals that have been studied so far, have a protein near the eye called the cryptochrome, meaning hidden and chrome meaning color, and that cryptochrome is believed to be essential to migration. What we don't fully understand is exactly its role in perceiving the Earth's magnetic field. But no one can explain how the hummingbird or the butterfly gets to go 1000s of miles during cloudy dark nights and manages to migrate to the same place year after year. The explanation appears to be that the cryptochrome is what allows these migrating animals to sense changes in the Earth's magnetic field and work as a kind of inborn GPS. This cryptochrome, which has been identified in some birds, butterflies and insects, can be disturbed by changes in the Earth's magnetic field that are induced by electromagnetic radiation. That's a big deal. 

We also know from studies that have been done on trees, and these are on our website at ehtrust.org, that observing trees over periods of years, if you look at a tree, and you look at the density of the crown, closest to a cell phone antenna, compared to the density of the crown of the same tree furthest away, you see significant damage, damage to leaf growth and to the crown. That is a tree which takes years to grow. Actually, one of the things that we're interested in is inviting people to send us pictures of trees where they can see evidence of this kind of damage, because it takes looking carefully. And observing where these antennas are, where the tree is. And some of the pictures you can almost see, it almost looks like the tree is trying to flee away from the antenna. And obviously they can't, but it's growing away from the antenna. And this is again, an indication of the fact that the cell tower radiation is toxic to the growth of these large trees, which after all, are the lungs of the planet. And if you can interfere with tree growth, then also they're having effects on smaller plants. And one set of studies has been done by our colleagues in Switzerland, where they built a three dimensional model of the honeybee. And they showed that the honeybees body resonates exactly with the 5g type signal so that it would disturb the ability of the honeybee to make honey to do its job and to succeed in protecting the hive. Another study took three hives and put cell phones in two of them. In one of the hives, the phone was turned on. In one, it was just left there, and the other had no hive at all. And after a short period of having the phone turned on, for two hours a day over a period of I think two weeks, the hive where the phone was turned on, many of those bees left and did not return. And they certainly stopped making honey in the way that they should.

Ayana Young This is just horrifying and so important to hear. I really appreciate all the work that you've put into learning and sharing this information. And- 

Devra L. Davis Well, let me tell you some things that are not, that are less horrifying, we have studies that have been done with cell cultures, and we show that even though there is damage from cell phone radiation, if you have a diet that is full of green tea, garlic, and you get a good night's sleep, these things actually can reverse whatever damage might have been done by this kind of radiation. So what I want to say to all of your listeners is, even if you have in the past, kept your phone in your pocket, the damage that might have happened can be fixed through some of the nutritional things that you know about, and they include a diet that's high in sources of vitamin C, and that includes green tea, and other sources that are antioxidants, that repair damage. And we can actually show this experimentally in repairing damage that has been produced. So it's not all doom and gloom. And whatever damage might have occurred. One of the benefits we have is, our DNA has repair enzymes, and those can be brought to bear when it comes to whatever damage might have occurred here as well. And always remember that distance is your friend. And that if you keep things off your body and limit your use, it's going to be beneficial to you and reduce any damage that you might have incurred.

Ayana Young Well, that's great to hear, because I was going to ask, what are the threats of 5G when it comes to the human body? And do these higher frequencies pose a different threat when it comes to our organs and immune systems? And of course, it seems like it does, but also that there are things we can do to remedy this. But if there are any other pieces you want to add about how our human bodies are being affected, and what to look out for. I'd be happy to hear more of that.

Devra L. Davis Well, we certainly know that young women should not keep phones in their bra because the breast is very sensitive to radiation. And there's information on that again on our website as well. And that many who want to make healthy babies should get the phone out of their pockets. That's what the Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic have told men trying to make babies for some time. And I think that generally we have to understand that technology can be life saving, but it creates a sense that we're all living under an emergency all the time. And we don't have to be living like that anymore. And I think as 2020 it comes to a close many of us will be glad that we don't have to be constantly looking for the next terrible piece of news. And hopefully we'll be able to pull together with better news to come. 

Ayana Young I'm with you there. Now, I know we spoke about this briefly before. But I'm wondering if countries that do transition to 5G, what happens to 4G and 3G? Does 5G rely on the existing 4G infrastructure? And if so, does this contribute to a surplus of radiation?

Devra L. Davis That's a really good question. And the answer is, we're not sure. But yes, 5G has to rely on 3G and 4G, otherwise, all these devices would not work, it has to do so and probably for the foreseeable future, it's going to be using 4G, because the voice alone will require it. So right now, what's being marketed as 5G across the country is really taking advantage of the existing networks, and just putting a little bit faster signal on top of it. But what's what's planned in the future, is something much more vast, that will require a million new antennas in the United States.

Ayana Young Gosh, just imagining that and the infrastructure, and like you were saying, the trees and just the pathways that will have to be cleared. And also, what it reminds me of is, whenever we see these antennas go up, not only are trees and plants cleared from the path, they're also sprayed with a lot of poisons, to keep things from growing up in those pathways and those easements that the antennas go on. So it's not just that the plants and trees are cleared, it's also poisoned so that plants don't continue to grow in that area. And yeah, well, Devra, as we come to a close I’d like to ask you about the future of 5G, for many, I think it feels like a futile project to resist it. But I want to open this as a space to remind listeners that we can live slow lives, we deserve that. We don’t have to live in a world with the fastest transmission of data, we can function without having our beings digitized. And so, I’m curious to hear your projections for 5G, as well as some practical tools on how we can mitigate the risks of radiation, as well as experiment with just slowing down.

Devra L. Davis Yes, I'd certainly applaud the idea that we all need to take a little more time to breathe. And I think that those of us who have survived or have avoided COVID should have a renewed appreciation of what the breath really means. You know, of course, that forest bathing is a recommended medical prescription in Japan, that people are told when they are stressed to go out into the forests. And they're written prescriptions to do that. So the idea that we need to slow it down and smell the roses. It's been around for quite some time. 

I think that when you start to look at the barriers to 5G that are emerging around the world, one of them is a shortage of workers, another is a shortage of equipment. But a more important one is that many more people in our culture today are saying, “No, I don't want it. I don't need to be able to watch a movie on my wrist. I don't want to be able to have my dishwasher turned on by my cell phone.” And so I think that we're getting a more thoughtful rebellion at this point about 5G. And it's going to require the industry to step forward and come up with safer technologies that are designed with human beings in mind. Right now, technologies are approved depending on whether or not they do not interfere with one another. In other words, your cell phone and your laptop are approved, so that their signals don't interfere with each other. But they're not approved with a question of what do they do to the human heart or the human brain? So I know that there are more and more people within the industry that are asking this question, and I feel pretty confident that because there are so many from industry itself, we will be making a lot of progress.

Ayana Young And before we say goodbye, Devra, I'd like to just open the floor to you, and if there's any resources that you would like to share with us, or just anything that we may not have covered in our time together that you'd like to share at this time, I would love to hear that.

Devra L. Davis Thank you. If you go to our website, we have safety cards that you can print out, or hand out to children and their parents about why and how to practice safe technology. We have resources on 5G and other aspects of this question, including information about air pollution and other environmental health hazards that are avoidable. And right now, we are in the fight of our lives, because we have filed a lawsuit against the FCC. The FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, issued a report toward the end of last year, the end of this past year that said, “We believe that we can safely test phones and other devices with standards that are 24 years old.” Now, that sounds like a joke, doesn't it? 24 years ago, gas cost about little more than a buck a gallon. There were no cell phones, there were very, very few devices at all. And the standards that were developed in the 20th century, are really not relevant to what's going on in the 21st century when it comes to these devices. As I mentioned before, these devices were used mostly by medical and military people, mostly men. And no one ever dreamed that there would be more than a billion children regularly using these two way microwave radios. So that's why we, Environmental Health Trust, have mounted this lawsuit, and we said “Wait a minute, you cannot seriously maintain that it's safe for us to use these devices that only look at these old standards.” And the old standards are only based on avoiding heat. They don't even take into account the fact that cell phone radiation can damage sperm, and cause some people to get very, very sick, who are very sensitive to this exposure. So we have a lawsuit before the FCC, oral arguments will be made on January 25. And this case is hugely precedential. It requires a tremendous amount of resources, financial resources, of course. And we welcome any support that your listeners might be able to provide to us as we finalize our preparations for this lawsuit. 

Ayana Young Well, thank you so much for taking that on. And for researching these hidden agendas that so many of us are completely unaware of, and for being a watchdog and for trying to hold these people accountable who get away with so much. It's really incredible work. And yeah, I'm totally blown away and definitely feel like I need to shift my lifestyle choices after this interview I knew was coming. I knew that after this call that I was going to be making changes. And it just makes sense. Like why wouldn't we? Why would we put ourselves at risk, we live in such a toxic world, we don't need more assaults on our body or on the Earth, there already are so many to deal with, for the assaults that we can say no to and shift. And not even really that hard. I mean, so when we can make changes that are in our control that aren't that difficult. I really believe we need to do that. Not just for ourselves personally, but for the entire project of 5G and smartphone. You know, the future of smartphones because it doesn't, you know, when we decide to make changes, it impacts us but it also impacts the industry at large. And I think we have to really remember those two things.

Devra L. Davis That's very well said. And I really, really appreciate it and I thank you for taking the time to let your listeners know about this important issue.

Francesca Glaspell Thank you for listening to For The Wild Podcast. The music you heard today was by “Release Technique III” by Jeremy Harris, “Sorted World” by Shay Roselip, and “Strange God” by Tan Cologne. For The Wild is created by Ayana Young, Erica Ekrem, Francesca Glaspell, and Melanie Younger.