The Truth Expedition Podcast – EMF-The Dangers and How to Mitigate Risk: A live conversation about neural‑tube defects, autism, the S4–Mito–Spin framework, and why we are devolving one calcium‑ion burst at a time until policy finally catches up with physics.
EMF, Biology, and the Law: Inside The Truth Expedition’s Conversation with RF Safe Founder John Coates
Posted December 3, 2025 · Episode recap of “EMF: The Dangers and How to Mitigate Risk”
On a recent live episode of The Truth Expedition, hosts Mark and Gunnar welcomed RF Safe founder John Coates for an in‑depth discussion on electromagnetic fields (EMFs), biology, and public policy.
The conversation, titled “EMF: The Dangers and How to Mitigate Risk”, built on themes from Coates’ earlier appearance in “The Silent Signal”, exploring how invisible electromagnetic exposures may interact with human physiology – and why he believes the current regulatory framework has not kept pace with modern physics and biology.
The episode weaves together engineering, developmental biology, immunology, and telecom law into a single central argument: EMF policy is no longer just about wireless convenience – it increasingly shapes the biological landscape in which humans develop, live, and age.
From Personal Loss to a Lifetime in EMF Safety
RF Safe did not begin as a product idea. For Coates, it began with a tragedy.
In 1995, his firstborn daughter, Angel Leigh, died with a neural‑tube defect. At the time, the most actionable factor in the literature was folate, so Coates, an engineer by training, began funding newspaper campaigns urging women of child‑bearing age to ensure adequate folic acid and B‑vitamin intake before and during early pregnancy.
A few years later, he encountered embryo research suggesting that electromagnetic fields could induce neural‑tube anomalies in chick embryos. Coming from an electrical‑engineering background and still processing his loss, the idea that non‑native EMFs could disturb the timing of key developmental events hit close to home.
RF Safe formally launched in 1998, but the work effectively began the day Coates promised that he would “fight whatever took Angel’s life.”
Today, RF Safe operates at the intersection of research, transparency, and mitigation. The organization:
-
Maintains a research library of thousands of EMF‑related studies
-
Provides open SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) comparison tools
-
Designs physics‑focused mitigation products such as TruthCase™, aimed at reducing user exposure without forcing devices to transmit harder
These pillars sit on top of a conceptual model Coates calls the S4–Mito–Spin framework.
The S4–Mito–Spin Framework: Why Certain Tissues Are EMF “Hotspots”
A central portion of the podcast was dedicated to explaining how weak, non‑ionizing fields might translate into biologically meaningful effects. Coates organizes this into three layers: S4, Mito, and Spin.
1. S4: Voltage Sensors in Ion Channels
Every excitable cell – neurons, heart muscle, endocrine cells, immune cells – depends on voltage‑gated ion channels. These channels rely on a positively charged “S4” segment that senses changes in membrane voltage and triggers opening or closing of the channel.
According to Coates, polarized RF and ELF fields do not need to heat tissue to matter. Instead, they can add timing noise to these voltage sensors, subtly changing when channels open or close.
In critical windows of development, he argues, even small perturbations may influence whether a neural tube closes correctly or whether synaptic connections wire properly.
2. Mito: Mitochondria as Feedback Amplifiers
Downstream of these ion pulses are mitochondria – the cell’s redox and energy hubs. They interpret calcium and sodium spikes as signals to adjust ATP production, initiate repair, or trigger inflammatory and apoptotic pathways.
In Coates’ view, if the S4 layer becomes noisy, mitochondrial signaling becomes noisy as well. Over time, this could mean:
-
Elevated reactive oxygen species (ROS)
-
Impaired repair mechanisms
-
Gradual deviation from healthy set‑points in sensitive tissues such as the brain, heart, testes, pancreas, and immune system
3. Spin: Radical Pairs and Red Blood Cells
The final layer in the framework involves spin chemistry – radical‑pair reactions in heme and flavin cofactors. Even cells without mitochondria or classic voltage‑gated channels, such as mature red blood cells, contain dense heme and flavin structures.
Coates points to evidence that weak fields may bias these radical‑pair reactions, altering cell membrane charge (zeta potential) and redox balance. He suggests this could help explain why red blood cells sometimes appear to stack or clump under certain RF exposure conditions, potentially slowing microcirculation and making it harder for the body to move oxygen and clear metabolic waste.
Taken together, the S4–Mito–Spin framework is Coates’ attempt to provide mechanistic plausibility for:
-
Why certain tissues behave like EMF “hotspots”
-
Why autoimmune and inflammatory conditions tend to cluster at the EMF intersection
-
Why red blood cells may lose their repulsive charge and form stacks (“rouleaux”) under some field conditions
EMF as a Candidate Driver in Immune, Autoimmune, and Inflammatory Disease
The conversation then broadened from mechanisms to potential implications.
Coates positions non‑native EMFs not as a minor irritant, but as a candidate etiological factor in conditions where immune signaling, inflammation, and cell‑to‑cell communication go off track. He highlights several areas of concern:
-
Autoimmune drift – Noisy calcium signaling in immune cells may, in his view, blur the distinction between “self” and “danger,” nudging the system toward chronic activation.
-
Neuroinflammation – Glial cells exposed to ongoing EMF “noise” may respond with persistent ROS and inflammatory cytokines, subtly shifting the brain’s baseline over time.
-
Endocrine and fertility effects – Leydig cells, germ cells, and pancreatic β‑cells are all high‑channel, high‑mitochondria tissues. Within the S4–Mito–Spin map, Coates places these cells at the higher‑risk end of the spectrum.
His through‑line is succinct: non‑ionizing does not mean non‑interactive. Electric and magnetic fields couple to charges, and charges reside in ion channels and redox systems. When the environment continuously injects timing noise, he argues, “we devolve one calcium‑ion burst at a time.”
Engineering, Interferometry, and the Limits of Thermal‑Only Standards
Mark and Gunnar also provided space for Coates to put his engineering hat on and critique current safety metrics.
Modern regulatory frameworks still largely revolve around average SAR and bulk heating. Coates contends that this approach ignores real‑world field behavior, especially:
-
Interferometric patterns – Waves reflect, refract, and interact, creating complex patterns of local intensity. Tiny regions of tissue may experience much higher peak fields than the average suggests.
-
Pulsed and modulated signals – Digital communications rely on modulation schemes that can drive forced oscillations of ions and charges near cell membranes, even when average power is low.
-
Tissue micro‑architecture – Vulnerable tissues are not homogenous “bags of water”; they are densely packed with ion channels, mitochondria, and spin‑sensitive cofactors.
From Coates’ perspective, the challenge is not mysterious biology but out‑of‑date physics in the rulebook.
Section 704, Public Law 90‑602, and a Mandate for Action
A significant segment of the episode examined the legal and regulatory scaffolding that shapes how EMF risks are managed – or sidelined.
Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act (1996)
Section 704 restricts local governments from denying permits for wireless infrastructure based on health or environmental concerns, as long as installations meet FCC RF limits. Coates argues that this effectively gags communities, preventing them from acting on emerging science or local health concerns even when residents demand caution.
Public Law 90‑602 (1968)
Public Law 90‑602 gave the federal government, including agencies such as FDA and HHS, a clear mandate to minimize unnecessary electronic product radiation, including non‑ionizing emissions.
According to Coates, this mandate has not been meaningfully enforced in the RF domain. Standards have remained anchored in thermal‑only assumptions, while long‑term research that once signaled potential risks has often been deprioritized or siloed.
Leadership and Accountability
The conversation also touched on political leadership and responsibility. Coates notes that some contemporary leaders have built their reputations on environmental and children’s health issues and now sit closer to the levers of power. He contends that proximity brings a duty to:
-
Enforce existing laws such as Public Law 90‑602
-
Re‑evaluate legacy assumptions in RF standards
-
Move beyond the notion that unseen EMFs are automatically inconsequential
Through the RF Safe Action Hub, Coates and collaborators advocate for:
-
Enforcement of Public Law 90‑602
-
Repair or repeal of Section 704
-
A transition toward wired networks and optical systems like LiFi as default infrastructure
Technology Is Ready. Policy Is Not.
One of the core messages of the episode is that technology is not the bottleneck. Coates notes that practical tools to reduce RF burden already exist:
-
Fibre to the home and ethernet inside buildings
-
LiFi and other optical systems for high‑speed local connectivity
-
Smarter outdoor architectures with lower duty cycles and more targeted coverage
-
Accessories designed with antenna physics in mind, so devices are not forced to “scream” for a signal
In his view, what stands in the way is policy inertia, regulatory capture, and the continuing reliance on SAR as a sufficient yardstick for safety.
Practical Steps Highlighted in the Episode
The hosts closed the conversation by steering toward practical action – what individuals, communities, and decision‑makers can do now, even as policy change lags.
1. Personal Habits
The discussion emphasized several low‑cost behavioral shifts:
-
Keep phones and tablets off the body whenever possible; use speakerphone or wired headsets.
-
Turn off Wi‑Fi and Bluetooth when not needed, especially overnight.
-
Avoid sleeping near routers or large EMF sources.
-
Use physics‑aware shielding solutions such as TruthCase™ that reduce exposure without forcing the phone to increase transmit power.
2. Rewiring Homes, Schools, and Workspaces
To reduce long‑duration exposures, the episode encouraged:
-
Favoring wired connections for stationary devices and children’s screens.
-
Designing schools and offices around wired‑first layouts rather than dense Wi‑Fi meshes.
-
Exploring LiFi and other optical alternatives where high bandwidth is needed in fixed spaces.
3. Policy Engagement
For those ready to engage civically, the conversation outlined several avenues:
-
Support reforms to Section 704 that restore local authority to consider health in siting decisions.
-
Press HHS, FDA, and related agencies to enforce Public Law 90‑602 in the RF context and to fund robust, long‑term research.
-
Encourage policymakers to consider mechanisms like S4–Mito–Spin when evaluating safety, rather than relying solely on thermal averages.
4. Sharing and Education
Finally, the episode underscored the importance of awareness:
-
Share the Truth Expedition episodes with friends, family, and colleagues who have never heard a mechanistic case for non‑thermal EMF effects.
-
Use the RF Safe research library and SAR comparison tools as starting points for independent exploration.
One Calcium‑Ion Burst at a Time
Throughout the conversation, Coates returns to a central metaphor: biology is being nudged “one calcium‑ion burst at a time” by an omnipresent EMF environment that never fully turns off. Other insults – infections, toxins, drugs – tend to be episodic. Wireless exposure is continuous.
From his perspective, conditions such as neural‑tube defects, autism, autoimmune drift, and metabolic collapse may represent different faces of a deeper, bioelectric dissonance in a field‑saturated world.
The Truth Expedition episode does not claim to settle these debates, but it does offer a structured, mechanistic argument for taking EMF policy seriously – and for aligning our laws and infrastructure with what modern physics and biology suggest may be at stake.
For those who wish to explore further, the full conversation is available on Rumble under “EMF: The Dangers and How to Mitigate Risk”, along with the earlier companion episode “The Silent Signal.”
Be RF Safe to be sure.
