Shielding or blocking electromagnetic fields is one of the most commonly used methods of EMF protection. Since EMFs are a threat that is invisible and intangible to our senses, it has taken a long time for many people to realize that they are harmful at all, since the harm may not be immediately apparent and can take a period of time to manifest. Likewise, EMF protection methods utilizing subtle energy techniques, like the scalar field emitted by Blushield devices that the body entrains with via sympathetic resonance, are difficult to measure with instruments (but can be measured by effects on living organisms, as our studies demonstrate).
We theorize that the popularity of EMF shielding is largely due to the mental satisfaction of seeing the numbers on an EMF meter go down when a shielding method is used, giving the user a tangible sense of it “doing something”. However, the actual effectiveness of shielding is considerably more nuanced than what an EMF meter can measure, as we detail in our full article on shielding and blocking EMFs:
The various drawbacks and inefficiencies of shielding outlined in the article linked above include:
- Incomplete shielding can cause the radiation source to ricochet to other areas and create “hot spots” of greater intensity
- Using a cell phone in a partially shielded area will ramp up its power (and EMF output) to compensate for the weaker signal, to maintain a connection with a cell tower
- Full shielding (which is difficult and expensive to achieve) blocks the signal transmission of your cell phone and Wifi, so you have to leave your shielded area to use your devices at all
- The scalar component, which is part of all EMFs and contains the information signature that is most harmful to the body, is not blocked at all by shielding methods
- Shielding will reduce or eliminate your connection to beneficial frequencies emitted by the Earth itself
This article will mainly focus on the final point on that list: the potential harm that being disconnected from the Earth’s beneficial frequencies can have on your health in the long term.
From what we know about scalar energy, nature is a rich source of these types of fields, often referred to as “bio scalar”. Shielding methods will not block out any scalar fields emanated by natural sources, which is good. However, an important part of the Earth’s natural frequencies, including the Schumann resonances, are measurable frequencies (if you’re using a highly sensitive meter), which means they contain a transverse component that can be blocked by shielding materials.
Electromagnetic fields generally consist of both a transverse and scalar component. The transverse fields are measurable, and can also be blocked by conductive materials like metal, which is how shielding is accomplished. Scalar fields are produced when two electromagnetic fields meet each other at exactly the same frequency but in the opposite phase, appearing to result in a “canceled” field, but in reality creating a non-measurable field with considerably different properties. The generation of scalar fields occurs naturally as a byproduct of electromagnetic field emission. To understand this phenomenon in more depth, you can read our articles on scalar energy.
Can shielding be harmful to your health?
A study review was written in 2019, titled Shielding methods and products against man-made Electromagnetic Fields: Protection versus risk, by Dimitris Panagopoulos and George Chrousos. It found that using shielding methods in an attempt to block harmful EMF sources can actually be harmful in itself. The harm was found to be directly related to blocking the Schumann resonances, which is an ambient natural field we are constantly exposed to that regulates our circadian rhythms, maintaining our homeostasis and our health.
A series of pioneering experiments were conducted in the 1960’s and 1970’s by Ruetger A. Wever, a biophysicist at the Max Planck institute in Germany, over a period of many years. A total of 232 study participants stayed for several weeks in two underground apartments. One apartment was equipped with metal shielding in the walls (unknown to the participants), and the walls of the other apartment were built normally, without any shielding. The walls in the shielded apartment prohibited the natural atmospheric electromagnetic fields from the Schumann resonances (as well as the static terrestrial electric field of the Earth) from penetrating the interior of the apartment, so anyone inside was not being exposed to these fields.
The circadian rhythms of the study participants living in the shielded apartment began to desynchronize over a period of time. It did not happen immediately, but gradually, and continued to deviate more dramatically from normal, natural rhythms the longer the subjects lived in the apartment. Our circadian rhythms govern our activity levels, body temperature, sleep/wake cycles, and other rhythmic factors that affect our health and well-being. The circadian cycle of the study subjects gradually shifted from the normal 24 hour cycle to 28.5 hours, and was independent of exposure to natural or artificial lighting, as the subjects were allowed to leave the apartment at any point during the day (but slept in the apartment at night). The control subjects, living in the apartment without shielding (but identical in every other way), did not experience this internal desynchronization at all.
Interestingly, turning on an electric pulse generator in the shielded apartment, which emitted a 10 hertz electric field (close to the base Schumann resonance frequency) restored biological synchronization, which would again become desynchronized if the device was turned off. The study concluded that the Schumann resonances act as a pacemaker for human and animal biological rhythms, independent of the light and dark cues of day and night.
The problem of thick, closed metal walls blocking the Schumann resonances may also affect the health of submarine, ship and aircraft personnel. There are several factors that are known to negatively impact the health of these individuals, but circadian rhythm disruption from disconnection with the Earth’s natural fields are very likely to be an additional contributing factor.
It’s common for electro hypersensitive (EHS) individuals to experience an initial relief of their symptoms by using shielding methods, and then to experience a relapse of their symptoms (often even worse than before) if they stay inside shielded environments for long periods of time. The initial improvement is likely due to the removal of the stressful influence of the harmful EMFs, but then the body becomes dysregulated over time from an absence of natural, healthy electromagnetic fields, and symptoms return.
The paper also touches on the ineffectiveness of EMF protection methods that attempt to “harmonize” the harmful EMFs, by “altering the radiation into a form that does not produce adverse health effects”. Most of these products are patches or stickers placed on a cell phone or other radiation-emitting device, or passive devices that claim to alter the environmental EMFs through various means. The paper explains why these methods cannot work as they claim to:
“One cannot modify the radiation (frequency, waveform) once it has been emitted by a device. One can only attenuate it (reduce its intensity). Modification would only be possible by modifying the electroniccircuits within the devices. Even if that were the case with these products, which is not, once the emitted signal is modified or attenuated, the device (mobile phone, etc.) would lose its ability to connect with the network and communicate. If one simply attenuates the signal without modifying it, which is possible, the mobile phone again will have difficulty in establishing connection with the base antennas and automatically will emit a stronger signal/radiation/EMF in order to be able to connect/communicate.”
This statement sums up why we do not recommend these types of products as an effective or legitimate form of EMF protection.
Non-shielding solutions to protect from harmful EMF exposure
After reviewing these studies from the ‘60s and ‘70s, and explaining why some other types of “harmonizing” EMF protection devices can’t work the way they claim, the 2019 paper attempts to propose potential solutions for reducing EMF harm. The paper concludes that constant use of full or partial shielding has significant risks that outweigh its benefits, and also lacks legitimate studies on its effectiveness.
The paper proposes that intermittent shielding may have some benefits with lower risks, but does not express confidence in short-term shielding as a primary EMF protection solution, due to its inherent limitations that leave one still exposed to harmful EMFs for the majority of the time.
The authors move towards the conclusion that the only solution to EMF protection they are currently aware of is reducing exposure to EMF sources. We agree that minimizing exposure to overt and strong EMF sources should always be your first line of defense. This can mean that instead of holding your cell phone up to your head when you make a call, you use speakerphone or an AirTube headset instead, to keep the phone at a safer distance from your head. It can also mean turning off your Wifi router at night, or even better, wiring your internet with ethernet cables. There are quite a few other ways to cultivate better “EMF hygiene”, which refers to being conscious of your proximity and use of EMF emitting devices.
Unfortunately, reducing EMFs is not a fully satisfactory solution. In today’s world, it’s impossible to eliminate them completely, or even minimize them to a safe level. We cannot control the device usage of people around us, our neighbors’ Wifi routers and smart meters, our vehicle’s EMFs, the electrical grid of our home, or the ambient levels we are exposed to from many sources while traveling outside our home. Some of us have the option, and desire, to move to a rural area where EMFs are lower in general, but many of us either don’t have that option, or prefer to live in a city for personal reasons. Even if you move to the country, in 99.9% of cases you will still be exposed to 5G radiation from satellites. We literally cannot get rid of all of it, and it can require considerable personal sacrifice to our finances and/or lifestyle to get rid of even just a percentage of it.
If we can come to terms with the EMF bubble we currently live in as modern humans, we can then acquire tools to help us handle it much better. Blushield devices produce a strong scalar field that’s biologically harmonious, like the fields emitted by nature. Just like the natural fields we need to thrive, Blushield produces infinitely and subtly varying waveforms at different frequencies and amplitudes, but in a stronger form. This allows our bodies to perceive and entrain with this healthy field, even though the other fields still exist around us. We have just created a “bubble of protection” in the midst of the chaotic repetitive frequencies, protecting us at the cell level.
When combined with a sensible reduction in EMF sources that we can control, Blushield fills in the gaps to give us the protection we need from the exposure sources we cannot control.
References:
Study review: “Shielding methods and products against man-made Electromagnetic Fields: Protection versus risk” – https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969719308526
