Smartphones: How Hazardous are they Really? - Speech by Dr. Martin Pall - Short Version

28.12.2025 | www.kla.tv/39902

One of the things about biology, including medicine, is that it is incredibly complex. Because of its complexity, people can tell you all kinds of things about them, and you often do not have the slightest idea whether they are right or not. So what you really need in biology, including medicine, are certain things that are really solid and understood, and go from there to work your way out into understanding things. And that's what we're going to do today with the biology of electromagnetic fields. And so, electronically generated electromagnetic fields (E.M.F.s), are quite different from most natural E.M.F.s. The electronically generated E.M.F.s are produced by electric currents, and those currents then generate an electromagnetic field around them. This was first shown by the great British physicist Michael Faraday in 1831. And since then, there have been, of course, a lot of studies on this, and there is a whole chapter in one of the important electricity and magnetism textbooks on how this occurs and the consequences of it. The importance of this is that electronically generated E.M.F.s produced by electric currents are coherent. That is, they are put out in a particular vector direction with a particular polarity, phase, and frequency, whereas most natural E.M.F.s are incoherent. And they go off in different directions with different polarity phases and often frequencies, so they are incoherent. The coherent E.M.F.s produce strong electric and magnetic forces, whereas the incoherent ones do not. And that is the crucial thing that is different about them: they produce effects through those electric and magnetic forces. The point is that, all wireless communication goes through electronically generated E.M.F.s. Those are the things we get exposed to from all of this stuff. And yet, the industry and the agencies that are supposed to be protecting our health pay no attention to any of this. Now, what do these forces do? What has been shown is that they work primarily by putting forces onto voltage-gated ion channels. These ion channels have a structure called the voltage sensor, which has a bunch of electric chargers in it. It is the forces on that voltage sensor that then activate these channels, open them up and produce biological effects. Now, the voltage sensors that are most important are the voltage sensors on the voltage-gated calcium channels. And the reason for that is that calcium has major effects on the body. Under most circumstances, it is very important that intracellular calcium levels are low. So, when you activate these channels, they open up, and you get huge amounts of calcium flowing in the cell. Why is that? Well, there is something like 10,000 times more calcium outside the cell than inside the cell. […] Now, I.C.N.I.R.P., that is, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, was an organization that was set up by the industry to suggest what kind of safety guidelines we should have to help protect us. And what I have here is a table of the 1998 I.C.N.I.R.P Safety Guidelines, which were the first ones they brought out. But the more recent ones are almost identical to this. So, there has not really been much change. And these safety guidelines have basically been used by all kinds of radiation protection organizations that are supposed to be protecting us from this radiation. So, essentially, all of these so-called protective guidelines are of this sort. So, what is their structure ? First and foremost, they are all based on average intensities over either a six-minute or a 30-minute period. And secondly, the allowable levels—the levels they claim are safe—are based only on having thermal effects. That is heating the body. And so all of these effects that are produced by electric forces and time-varying magnetic forces in the body are completely ignored by these safety guidelines. And so that is an absolutely crucial issue here. So what do we have here, then? What we have here is that, first, the allowable levels for whole-body exposures are much lower than for partial-body exposures. That really does not make any sense when you are talking about a mechanism that acts at the level of individual cells. Because that cell is going to respond the same way, whether the whole body is exposed or only that part of the body is exposed. So that makes no sense. The second thing that makes no sense is that occupational exposures are much higher— about five times higher than our public exposures. But the people in these occupations are never informed about what effects are going to be produced, and they are never given any way of protecting themselves. So that does not make any sense either. […] The whole structure of the safety guidelines is, in fact, bogus. And I think it is particularly bogus with regard to the exposures we actually have from wireless communication E.M.F.s, and that is crucial. There are a whole series of other things here that I do not have time to talk about. There are nanosecond pulses that have been studied a lot, where you have a pure pulse that goes up and down. These are not modulating pulses. They are just E.M.F.s that go up They are quite strong. A nanosecond pulse is defined as There is quite a range of times. and down very quickly. a pulse between one nanosecond and one microsecond. But when you take these, and they produce effects over and over again, when you average them over either a six-minute period or a 30-minute period, the average intensity then drops by a factor. Something like a million times a million times lower. And of course, then the safety guidelines predict you can not get any effects, but you do over and over and over again. That is another thing that falsifies the safety guidelines. We also have intensity windows. These are specific ranges of intensity of a particular E.M.F. that produce maximum effects. But when you go lower or higher, they drop way down. What does that tell you? Firstly, they are totally nonlinear. They do not always increase with increasing exposure. They can see a big decrease with increasing exposure. Using averages only makes sense if you have linear dose-response curves. And these are not only totally nonlinear, they are non-monotone. They do not always increase with increasing exposure. The whole structure of the safety guidelines is bogus. It simply makes no sense. There are a number of other things, which I am not going to talk about, that also falsify the safety guidelines. But basically, the whole structure of them is bogus. As I said before, falsification is the strongest thing in science. When you falsify those safety guidelines, you have to throw them out. But these are the things that are used to expose almost every single man, woman, and child on Earth to E.M.F.s, it is just insane. […] And now I am going to get into the second part, which has to do with what kinds of effects we see. And so the effects that we see involve a lot of neurological and neuropsychiatric effects. These have been shown in about 40 different reviews on neurological effects, but only about a third of those are on the neuropsychiatric effects, which I am going to focus on. So you got about, I do not know, 14 different reviews that have reported similar effects in the body. One of them is mine. And what do you get? You get insomnia, fatigue, depression, headaches, a lack of concentration, cognitive dysfunction, anxiety, stress, agitation, and memory dysfunction. Major structural brain changes are seen in animals from these E.M.F.s. And those, by the way, look very much like neurodegenerative effects. I will talk about those later. Now, you also get effects on the electrical activity in the brain. These have been shown experimentally in humans to occur from various kinds of E.M.F.s impacting the human brain, changing the electrical activity in the human brain. So what does that tell you? And some of these, by the way, are millimeter-wave frequency things, which the industry claims can not produce penetrating effects but obviously are penetrating through the skull into the brain and changing the electrical activity in the brain. And that is important because, you know, a lot of the stuff the industry says is wrong. But these effects are seen all over the world. We know that. Everybody knows that. We know that huge numbers of people are having problems with insomnia and fatigue. We know that depression and anxiety are very important, very common, and very particular problems. And interestingly, when we put Wi-Fi in schools, what happens? You have students who have great difficulty focusing. So you have a lack of concentration and cognitive dysfunction. We have seen large increases in suicides among college and high school students. And these can be explained by this. That does not tell you for certain that that explanation is correct. But what is absolutely insane is simply ignoring all this stuff. And that is pretty much going on now. We have lowered fertility. And let me say that I am going to talk about male fertility because it has been the most studied. It is easier to study male fertility than female fertility. But almost everything having to do with fertility is impacted by E.M.F.s. There is a lower libido. There are lower levels of hormones. And specifically, there is lowered activity in the testis, which has an impact on human sperm. They have been shown experimentally. You can take sperm samples, you know, ejaculate, split them up into two parts, and irradiate one with E.M.F.s and not the other. You see huge changes. And all this stuff is denied by the industry. I mean, it is just absolutely incredible. I mean, we are talking about the effects of cell phone radiation, of Wi-Fi, and of various other kinds of radiation that we are exposed to all the time and that can affect human sperm. What happens? You have lowered motility. [Motility: the ability of an organism to move independently] You get lower amounts of normal morphology. [Less normal morphology: less organisms have normal shape, structure and features] It is very common now in human populations that only 2% to 4% of the sperm are normal. Now, I am not saying that the ones that are abnormal are completely ineffective. They are not, but you do get lowered. You know, this does affect real reproductive activity. So, you know, motility is obviously crucial for fertilization. You also get increases in apoptosis, or programmed cell death, in the sperm. And then you also get a lower sperm count in human populations. We have seen that all over the world. That is probably affected more by the test and what is going on in the testes than by the direct effects on human sperm. But both of them are occurring. And so we are. Let me just say there was a paper published about 30 years ago by Magris and Zenos, a couple of Greek researchers, where they took young pairs of mice and put them on the ground in little cages in an antenna park. And of course, they fed them and saw what they were doing in terms of reproduction. What they found was that the numbers of pups in the first litter were down, in the second litter they were down, and in the third litter they were down. At the highest level of exposure that they studied, again, in this antenna park, there was no fourth litter. They went off the reproductive cliff to zero. And if you took them out of the E.M.F., you would get almost no recovery. So, these were pretty much permanent, irreversible effects. Now, we are seeing fertility problems all over the world. One question is: how long is it going to take for us to fall off the reproductive cliff that Magris and Zenos saw in those mice? I do not know the answer to that, but it could be quite quick, especially when you introduce new things like 5G into the system. So, that is an issue. […] You get cancer. 44 different published reviews argue that E.M.F.s cause cancer. And yet we are still arguing about it. Why? Because the industry has so much money and so much power. It makes absolutely no sense. And let me just say something about this, specifically with regard to cell phones. Cell phones, and probably cordless phones as well, have shown that brain cancer is much higher on the ipsilateral side of the brain, the side of the head where you use your cell phone, than on the opposite side. And so there you have it—almost perfect control. What you are seeing is that you are getting higher levels of brain cancer from the way people use their cell phones. It seems to me that is pretty close to definitive evidence that these things are causing cancer, as you are likely to find. And yet, again, it is being ignored. It is being ignored. It is being denied. But that is what the data shows. […] Now, let me go on to Alzheimer's. I published a paper last year on 18 distinct types of evidence, which collectively show that E.M.F.s cause Alzheimer's disease, including extremely early-onset Alzheimer's disease. Some of these studies are on animals. Some of them are humans. And, you know, you really have to read this paper to go through all 18 of them, to show, what is most important here. But, you know, what I have done is to focus here on just five of them because we do not have time to talk about 18. But number one, we have seen in recent years a decrease in the age of onset of Alzheimer's. And in addition to that, young people who use their cell phones for many hours a day and who are on high-powered Wi-Fi for many hours a day develop what is called digital dementia. So we are talking about, you know, teenagers, sort of. Developing dementia from these long exposures. And, you know, now we do not know what the physiology is going on there. But we know that there are very serious problems going on there. So, is this extremely early-onset Alzheimer's? It could be, maybe. So, there are a lot of studies that have been done in animals on E.M.F.s producing neurodegeneration [neurodegeneration: loss of nerve cells in the central nervous system incl. brain] , including Alzheimer's disease. And I am going to talk to you about two or three of these studies. One of them is a study that I only discovered recently, even though it was published in 2008, which I think is probably the most important study that has ever been done on E.M.F.s. Experimental study. It was published by El Swefi et. al, a group in Egypt. And what they found was that rats develop severe neurodegeneration from exposures to mobile phone base station radiation. So, these are things that we are exposed to all the time. These animals were exposed to very low intensities - this was 3G mobile phone base station radiation - two hours a day, developed severe neurodegeneration in four weeks. Four weeks, four weeks is obviously a very short time for us. It is also a very short time for rats. Rats live about 36 months. So, this is about 2.7% of their lifespan. They are developing severe neurodegeneration from E.M.F. exposures that obviously are not occurring in their controls in animals that are not exposed. And so, what is happening? Approximately 34% of the brain cells are dead after four weeks, I mean, absolutely incredible. Now, the interesting thing about the El Swefi studies is that they measured 11 different changes in the brains. […] But there was another group. This was a group in China that looked at Alzheimer's-specific things. And they found that if you used it, you gave them pulses every day. Well, firstly, they found that if you just gave them pulses one day, and this was the two-month-old rats, which are basically adolescent rats, and rats develop very quickly. If you give them the pulses just in one day, at two months of age, and even in one second of one day, you develop Alzheimer's at 18 months. So, these 20-month-old rats—they said rats typically live 36 months— So, this is very early-onset Alzheimer's. Alzheimer's from E.M.F. pulses given in one day and even one second of one day, absolutely stunning. Now, if instead of giving them pulses one day, you give them pulses on the same day, but you give them pulse once a day. Then, they develop Alzheimer's six months later, rather than 18 months later, so three times faster, roughly. And in fact, they did much more intensive studies to show that this was Alzheimer's. So they looked at a number of different Alzheimer's-specific responses in the hippocampus, which is the part of the brain that is specifically impacted by Alzheimer's disease and is involved in memory. So, it is not surprising. These are absolutely stunning effects. […] So in summary, the incidences of each of these E.M.F. effects that I have discussed are going up in many places around the world. We see an increase in sudden cardiac deaths. We see the early onset of Alzheimer's disease occurring. We see many of the different neuropsychiatric effects that we talked about. And each of those is important. And the stupidity of all of this is that we do not pay any attention to these things. It is just incredible. I mean, when we introduced Wi-Fi in schools in various places in the world, I know this is true in North America, but I believe it is true in Europe and other places. And what do you see? You see all kinds of problems with students, with learning, lack of concentration, fatigue, depression, and often, large increases in suicide rates. I mean, we are still not paying any attention to this. It is just incredible. So, let me say, it is my belief, and I have not documented this for a number of these things, but it is my belief, that E.M.F.s are very important for almost every single thing that we see going on in the world over the last 25 years or so. And I am not saying you should take that as gospel truth. You should not. But what I am saying is that we need to take these things with extraordinary seriousness. Otherwise, we are in trouble, and I believe we are already in deep trouble. Thank you.

from Dr. Martin Pall

Sources/Links: Dr. Martin Pall’s research: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jcmm.12088
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891061815000599
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300355
https://www.radiationresearch.org/research/dr-martin-palls-latest-compilation-of-emf-medical-research-literature/
Other Professors: https://research.radiation.dk/
https://neilcherry.nz/
https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/07/01/health-risks-of-cell-phone-radiation
EMF-Portal: https://www.emf-portal.org/en
Film: “Remembering Nearfield” https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/remembering-nearfield-film-electromagnetic-hypersensitivity/
https://vimeo.com/810958040
More information: https://www.kla.tv/5G-WirelessCommunication-en
How is an electromagnetic field produced? [1] https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/en/electromagnetic-
fields/l-2/1-electromagnetic- fields.htm#:~:text=They%20are%20generated%20by%20natural,equipment%20that%20generates%2 0electromagnetic%20fields.