We honor our military’s role in protecting our freedom. However, if you were to pinpoint a time in history when the suppression of the scientific inquiry on EMF started – one should look no further than Project Seafarer. It appears a government-led position was reinforced by the US Navy, asserting that low-level RF Radiation exposure was “absolutely” safe. This position by the Navy was taken to calm resident concerns about a radio frequency antenna cable thousands of miles long used to communicate with subs anywhere on Earth.
The interview “60 Minutes” with Dr. Robert O. Becker, produced by Richard Clark and hosted by Dan Rather, aired on February 13, 1977, provides an insightful look into the debate and concerns surrounding Project Seafarer (also known as Project Sanguine).
The concern about electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and their potential effects on health has been a topic of scientific and public discussion for many decades.
The claim that the government declared EMFs safe as part of this project to mislead the public is a serious accusation. What does the science say? How long have they known? Why did they lie?
The government had to declare EMFs were safe (a lie) in order to access public lands to communicate with subs using ELF/EMF. However, the science was clear then, as it is now! Man-made EMFs are dangerous, but now we are taking the time to understand the bioeffects in the private research sector, and it is clear we can use this same energy to heal! Exactly as Becker claimed 40 years ago! See the full video here
In this interview, the Navy asserts the safety of the electromagnetic fields (EMFs) generated by the project, emphasizing their belief that there are no significant deleterious effects on health. However, Dr. Becker, a medical investigator and orthopedic surgeon, presents a counterpoint, expressing concerns about the potential health risks of low-level EMF exposure. He discusses his research on the biological effects of EMFs, including experiments where low-voltage currents were used to heal broken bones, and raises questions about the impact of uncontrolled electrical fields from various sources, including Project Seafarer.
The interview highlights the complexity and controversy surrounding the effects of EMFs on health. It also illustrates the challenges faced in communicating scientific findings to the public, especially when they pertain to large-scale government projects with potential health implications. The difference in opinions between the military and independent scientists like Dr. Becker underscores the need for continued research and open dialogue in the scientific community about the impact of EMFs on health.
While this interview provides historical context, it’s important to remember that our understanding of EMFs and their health implications has evolved since 1977. Ongoing research continues to investigate the potential effects of different types of electromagnetic fields, including those used in military and civilian applications.
If we could travel back in time to this 1977 interview and discuss with military officials and scientists from the era of Project Seafarer about the current state of research and technology regarding EMFs, especially at low power levels. The goal would have been to prevent the cover-up!
- Presenting Current Research and Technology: Explain the advancements in understanding EMFs, especially focusing on the non-thermal biological effects. This would include discussing treatments like TheraBionic and the Oncomagnetic device, which utilize EMFs at low power levels for medical benefits, demonstrating that EMFs can have significant biological effects beyond heating.
- Highlighting the Risks and Benefits: It’s crucial to convey that while we’ve developed uses for low-level EMFs in medicine, this also implies a potential risk for biological systems. The research suggests that even low-level EMF exposure can lead to changes at a cellular level, which were not fully understood during the era of Project Seafarer.
- Balancing Communication Needs with Health Concerns: Acknowledge the strategic importance of Project Seafarer for submarine communication, emphasizing that the need for such a system was undeniable from a defense perspective. However, urging a more cautious approach, suggests that the potential health risks, although not fully quantified at the time, should not be overlooked. This would involve recommending more extensive research and monitoring to understand and mitigate these risks.
- Recommendation for Continued Research and Monitoring: Suggesting a dual path of continuing the project while simultaneously investing in research to monitor and study the potential health impacts on both humans and the environment. This approach would ensure that the military could maintain its strategic capabilities while also being responsive to emerging scientific evidence about health risks.
- Open Dialogue and Transparency: Encouraging open dialogue between the military, scientists, and the public. Transparency about the potential risks, along with clear communication of the ongoing research findings, would be crucial for public trust and informed decision-making.
- Long-term Perspective: Finally, I would stress the importance of a long-term perspective. While the immediate strategic benefits of the project might be clear, the long-term health and environmental impacts would also be important to consider, especially as our understanding of EMFs continues to evolve.
A growing body of evidence suggests that non-ionizing radiation, such as that emitted by cell phones, can have biological effects beyond simple thermal heating. This area of research is indeed complex and evolving, with studies and treatments like TheraBionic and the Oncomagnetic device contributing to a deeper understanding of these effects.
- Major Studies on Cell Phone Radiation: The Interphone study, Hardell group studies, CERENAT study, U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) study, and the Ramazzini Institute Study have contributed significant data on the potential health risks associated with cell phone-level electromagnetic radiation. These studies have variously pointed to potential increased risks of certain types of cancer and other health effects, although the results are often subject to debate within the scientific community.
- Non-Thermal Biological Interactions: The traditional view of non-ionizing radiation, like that from cell phones, has been that it is safe at levels that do not cause heating. However, recent research, including the REFLEX Project and the BioInitiative Report, has begun to challenge this view by demonstrating biological interactions at non-thermal levels.
- FDA-Approved Therapies Using RF Radiation: Treatments like TheraBionic, which uses RF radiation at much lower power levels than cell phones to treat inoperable liver cancer, indicate that non-ionizing radiation can have therapeutic effects through mechanisms other than heating. These treatments exploit specific frequencies and exposures to target diseased cells while minimizing harm to healthy cells.
- The Oncomagnetic Device: This device uses spinning oscillating magnetic fields (sOMF) to induce cancer cell death through mechanisms like oxidative stress, which is similar to the potential damaging mechanisms proposed for cell phone radiation. The success of such treatments underscores the need for a nuanced understanding of how different frequencies and exposure levels can have varied biological effects.
- Epigenetic Impacts and Gene Expression: The emerging research suggests that RF radiation can cause changes in DNA methylation and gene expression, indicating potential epigenetic impacts. This challenges the conventional view that non-ionizing radiation is primarily a thermal threat and opens up new avenues for understanding its broader biological implications.
This evolving understanding underscores the importance of ongoing research and a careful, nuanced approach to evaluating the health risks associated with RF radiation. It also highlights the potential for leveraging these interactions in medical treatments, balancing the beneficial uses of RF radiation in therapies against the need to understand and mitigate potential risks. As with all emerging science, it’s crucial to base policy and personal choices on the best available evidence, while remaining open to new findings and interpretations.
The RF Safe Website Was Used Several Years In A Row By Navy Engineering Cadets Back In the Early 2000s. The US Navy had a keen interest in the opinions of the EMF safety community from the earliest days of RF Safe.
The archived webpage from the United States Naval Academy’s EE433 course syllabus for Fall 2001, dated August 24, does indeed reference the #RFSafe website. This indicates that the US Navy, particularly the cadets in electrical and computer engineering at the Naval Academy, were engaged with and interested in the broader EMF safety community’s perspectives and research during the early 2000s. The inclusion of such resources in their syllabus suggests a proactive approach to a persistent cover-up of EMF-related safety concerns in their educational curriculum. For more details, you can view the archived syllabus below.