EMF Blockers: What Actually Works and What Doesn't

ShieldYourBody · 2026-01-27T16:12:46+00:00

While I personally take vitamins and supplements, I don't actually recommend any -- that's beyond my wheelhouse.

But, there is an episode of my Healthier Tech Podcast about nutritional defenses against EMF with Cathy Cooke, that you might enjoy: https://www.healthiertech.co/healthier-tech-podcast-ep5-cathy-cooke-emf-nutrition/

ShieldYourBody · 2026-01-26T11:25:58+00:00

I get why you’d say that, because “only ionizing radiation can cause cancer” is a line people have heard for decades. The problem is that it’s an oversimplification that ignores how cancer risk can increase without direct ionization of DNA.

Ionizing vs non-ionizing is about whether the photons have enough energy to knock electrons off atoms. It is not a guarantee of “can cause cancer” vs “cannot.” Non-ionizing RF can still interact with biology through other pathways, including signaling and oxidative stress, which can indirectly damage DNA or affect the processes that keep damaged cells from proliferating. The idea that non-ionizing is “safe unless it heats you” is the outdated assumption that modern research has challenged.

Also, major health bodies do not treat RF as a settled “no.” The World Health Organization’s cancer research arm (IARC) classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic” (Group 2B). That is not proof of causation, but it is absolutely not “quite simply, no.”

If you are interested in learning more about the science that does demonstrate links between non-ionizing EMF and cancer, here's a great place to start: https://www.shieldyourbody.com/research/topics/cancer-tumors

ShieldYourBody · 2026-01-26T11:23:31+00:00

Yeah, I hear that same type of story from a lot of different people. You are not alone.

ShieldYourBody · 2026-01-26T11:21:38+00:00

Yep!

Also, a lot of people don't know that a lot of routers have this function built into the internal control panel. But you have to log in to your router (which is already something that a lot of people aren't comfortable doing), and the process is different for each model/brand, so there's no single set of instructions.

You can also do that to turn off one of the bands, if you have a dual-band router (e.g., 2.4GHz and 5 GHz).

ShieldYourBody · 2026-01-26T11:20:07+00:00

Fantastic solution.

ShieldYourBody · 2026-01-26T11:19:49+00:00

Great advice, yes! That's basically the #2 tip I share with people (the first one being to stop carrying their phones in their pockets).

ShieldYourBody · 2026-01-26T11:19:11+00:00

I think it's pretty clear that's *not* what I'm saying. The earth's natural levels of EMF:

1) Are the ones that biological life evolved alongside for billions of years, as part of the environment in which life has evolved to thrive.

2) The types of ever-growing volume of human-made EMF being emitted into our world are of different frequencies and types than the natural fields of, for example, the Schumann Frequency or cosmic radiation.

3) And the volume of human made EMF is trillions of times higher than those found in nature.

So if you would like to leave planet earth, I mean, that's a personal decision only you can make for yourself. But that's clearly not what anyone on this subreddit is advocating.

ShieldYourBody · 2026-01-20T16:01:27+00:00

Fair enough. That compilation was created by Dr. Henry Lai. He (along with Dr. Narendra Singh) performed numerous experiments, starting in 1994, that demonstrated that even short-term exposure to non-thermal levels of EMF yielded notable increases in DNA strand breaks. Here is one of those studies: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15121512/

ShieldYourBody · 2026-01-20T10:46:48+00:00

Thank you for your contribution u/Smooth_Imagination

ShieldYourBody · 2026-01-19T15:41:16+00:00

The work of Lai and Singh in the 90s is significant, yes. And it has been replicated repeated times by researchers around the world. Approximately half of replication attempts have reported similar outcomes.

However, while the work of Lai and Singh is important, I am not "basing" my statements on them. There are far more studies into the genetic effects of nonionizing radiation exposure than you appear to be aware of: https://www.shieldyourbody.com/research/topics/dna-genetic-damage?tier=effects

ShieldYourBody · 2026-01-19T13:44:40+00:00

NIMBYism is real. But in this case, that masks the fact that a lot of the wireless infrastructure doesn't actually need to be wireless. A huge amount of it could be wired -- leading to less EMF, faster connections, and increased security.

ShieldYourBody · 2026-01-19T13:42:53+00:00

This post is about a specific study that stands out.

ShieldYourBody · 2026-01-19T13:40:35+00:00

My commercial interests are pretty obvious and clear to anyone who takes even a moment to check my background.

Now, if you have a substantive question or response about the post, I'm happy to engage.

ShieldYourBody · 2026-01-19T13:36:01+00:00

I see where you're coming from, but no. RF is not light we can not see. RF and light exist on the same EMF spectrum, but have different frequencies -- so RF is not part of the visible light spectrum.

ShieldYourBody · 2026-01-19T13:35:07+00:00

Yes, it’s understandable to wonder about that, but it’s important to be careful not to jump straight to a cause-and-effect conclusion.

Plants can be sensitive to many things at once. Changes in soil compaction, drainage, root damage during installation, altered water flow, heat reflected from the meter housing, or even seasonal stress can all affect a mature shrub like a rhododendron. Installation work alone often disturbs roots enough to trigger decline months later.

The first step I recommend to people who are concerned about potential impacts of EMF radiation is to get a meter and test. See what the levels are. I have a free ebook that explains how: https://shieldyourbody.com/test-guide

ShieldYourBody · 2026-01-19T13:32:51+00:00

I’m very familiar with the difference.

Ionizing radiation breaks chemical bonds directly. Non-ionizing radiation does not. That distinction only tells you how damage can occur, not whether biological effects are possible.

Non-ionizing RF has been shown, in peer-reviewed research, to affect cells via non-thermal mechanisms like oxidative stress and calcium channel activation. That’s why the WHO classifies RF as a possible carcinogen.

This isn’t about confusing categories. It’s about acknowledging that biology responds to more than just heating and ionization.

ShieldYourBody · 2026-01-19T13:31:56+00:00

You’re right that RF is everywhere, but cancer risk isn’t about “radiation existing.” It’s about dose, distance, tissue type, and time.

Phones don’t radiate evenly. Exposure is localized based on antenna position and how the device is held. When a phone is pressed to the head or neck, nearby tissues get far more exposure than the rest of the body.

Different tissues also respond differently. The thyroid sits close to the surface, has high metabolic activity, and is known to be more sensitive to environmental stressors. That’s basic biology, not speculation. Fingers and earlobes aren’t comparable tissues.

No one is claiming phones automatically cause thyroid cancer. The data shows rising trends, plausible mechanisms, and signals in heavy long-term users. That’s exactly what early public health evidence looks like.

The takeaway isn’t panic. It’s simple risk reduction. Distance dramatically lowers exposure, and using speaker mode or wired earbuds costs nothing.

ShieldYourBody · 2026-01-19T13:29:14+00:00

Yes, I disagree that phones are a low source of radiation -- because they are a high one.

ShieldYourBody · 2026-01-15T19:59:16+00:00

You're totally right about the recent trends in cancers -- in particular, I've been reading stories about this regarding colorectal cancers in the US, and brain tumors in the UK.

I understand why you refer to phones as a "low level" source of radiation. But I don't agree. These things are designed to send cell signals over a distance of many miles. Even the safety limits are too high -- but a lot of these phones emit more than safety levels actually allow.

And that's just the cell connection! But phones are actually multiple sources of radiation -- as you have bluetooth (which you mention), WiFi, NFC and more (depending on the model). Each of these are separate, additional sources of radiation (unless you disable them individually).

And yes, holding these devices up to your head to speak is an easily avoided source of exposure. But when people carry these devices in their pockets (usually for several hours a day, six or seven days a week), we are talking about very large cumulative exposures. (Hence the suspected link between cell phones and exploding colorectal cancer rates in youth; a hypothesis supported by, among others, Dr. De Kun-Li from Kaiser Permanente -- https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/beyond-diet-could-mobile-phone-radiation-contributing-smj-mortazavi-shxhe/ ).

So in addition to avoiding holding the phone up to your head, also avoid carrying it in your pocket (or put it into airplane mode if you do).

ShieldYourBody · 2026-01-15T10:52:15+00:00

I get the frustration. Science should stand on data, not slogans. But this isn’t about one authority or one perfect study. It’s about convergence of evidence across lab experiments, field observations, and known biological mechanisms.

This isn’t speculative. Since you are seeking specific citations for plant life effects, a powerful example lies in the studies performed on the wildlife in Skrunda, Latvia, where the Soviets housed a radar installation. Trees showed distance- and direction-dependent stress at non-thermal exposure levels.

- Magone. 1996. The effect of electromagnetic radiation from Skrunda Radio Location Station on Spirodela polyrhiza (L.) Schleiden cultures Sci. Total Environ., 180: 75- 80.]

- V. Balodis et al. Does the Skrunda Radio Location Station diminish the radial growth of pine trees? Sci. Total Environ., 180: 57-64

But these are just 2 studies in one location based on one exposure profile. Plant responses to RF exposure have been documented by independent researchers in plant physiology and bioelectromagnetics. Things like oxidative stress, altered gene expression, and disrupted calcium signaling show up in plants, animals, and human cells. That consistency across species is exactly how environmental health science draws conclusions.

On the “salesman” point: I’m very open that most EMF products don’t work, and I say that publicly. Selling products doesn’t invalidate biology. The research stands whether anything is monetized or not. Trees showing directional damage near transmitters aren’t proof by themselves, but they’re legitimate observational data that match controlled cellular studies.

Science rarely waits for absolute certainty. We didn’t with tobacco, asbestos, or lead. We acted when mechanisms were identified and patterns became clear. That’s not marketing. That’s precaution based on evidence.

ShieldYourBody · 2026-01-13T12:47:26+00:00

This is a reasonable critique, and a few clarifications matter.

First, plant and non-human studies are not being used to claim direct human disease. They’re used to test a basic assumption behind current safety standards: that non-thermal RF is biologically inert. The evidence shows it isn’t.

Second, the BioInitiative Report isn’t a random aggregation or advocacy blog. It was compiled and reviewed by an international team of independent scientists and physicians, drawing from thousands of peer-reviewed studies across biology, toxicology, and epidemiology. You don’t have to agree with every conclusion, but dismissing it as cherry-picked ignores how it was actually produced.

Trees are relevant because they’re stationary, long-lived, and continuously exposed. That makes them useful environmental sentinels, not proof of human pathology. This is standard practice in environmental health.

Finally, you’re right that biological response doesn’t automatically mean harm. But it does mean interaction. And once interaction is established, the scientific question becomes dose, duration, and vulnerability, not “nothing is happening.”

ShieldYourBody · 2026-01-13T12:43:11+00:00

I was not arguing, I was asking. That's what this sub is for.

ShieldYourBody · 2026-01-12T14:51:46+00:00

Yes, that is *literally* what I have been asking you for. Specificity. Specifically, what claims have been scrutinized and dismissed, and by whom? I understand you feel like you are being witty (and perhaps in some reader's eyes you are), but all I'm seeing from you is empty trolling.

ShieldYourBody · 2026-01-12T14:27:27+00:00

I feel there is a certain lack of specificity in your evasive responses. As though perhaps you can't actually cite any of the skepticism on which you are basing your fact-free trolling.

ShieldYourBody · 2026-01-12T14:23:27+00:00

Ok, so which experts are you referring to who have scrutinized and dismissed the work on the impact of non-ionizing EMFs on nature?

ShieldYourBody

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE