I recently listened to a podcast from Konstantin Kisin which explained well how regimes like communism always have to apply such incredible force to 'level out' humanity in order for the state to control things. It highlighted the folly and mis-use of energy to do this.
When you think about it - it's this creep of madness that would probably attempt to stop the sun coming up every morning? Or, even "carbon is really, really bad for the planet"?
Count me in. I don't know how I can help - but I'm certainly open-minded to know how I could? I had quarter of a century in technology - so I've some takes of my own on how things have 'developed' in recent times - together with a lot of reading I never had time to do when I was working in it.
I've just listened to your interview with Claus, and re-stacked it with some notes. He was bang on key with several of his observations.
I'll say it again - many people are having their heads re-calibrated to not knowing the difference between 'technology' & 'technocracy'. Easy for them to be confused as the lines are being continually blurred - especially for the young.
There is relentless (and willfully engineered) negativity around technology. Something needs to counter this - as 'governance' has as much talent for properly harnessing and growing technology as it did for the steel industry, the car industry, retail, hospitality, et al. I won't quote Adam Smith's 'Wealth of nations' again (as even I'm sick of typing it)! Besides - I think on this post - I am singing to the choir.
I am involved in a technology initiative that is not yet in the public eye. Freedom runs through everything we are doing. Would love to connect privately.
I'd like to contribute. I'm paticular concerned about these vague, multibillion deals with no oversight, democratic accountability or questioning of conflicts of interest
Tech safety is dictated by telecoms, meaning public health is at risk because of conflicts of interest at the WHO and ICNIRP (the body suggesting safety exposure guidelines) Tomorrow there is a zoom press conference on a new paper released by the ICBE-EMF or International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, which will discuss deep flaws in the recently completed 12 WHO commissioned systematic reviews on the health effects of EMFs from mobile communications. Register here: https://icbe-emf.org/new-paper-who-reviews-on-cell-phone-and-wireless-health-effects-provide-no-safety-assurance/ 7th October, 5.00pm BST. My substack has many articles with scientific references.
I appreciate that - but as the press conference on the WHO reviews is tomorrow, I thought I'd share at any opportunity. There is a huge issue for the 3.45 million electrosensitives in the UK.
As a retired senior radio and telecoms engineer, I share concerns about EMF, but there are many misconceptions and emotive arguments, especially from those with a medical background. While high-power RF fields and certain frequencies can be harmful, we can quantify relative risks by considering the frequencies, power outputs, antenna types, and path loss parameters of the multiple transmitting devices. Simple safety tips could include not sitting next to a WiFi router all day; being cautious when your mobile is at max power, usually occurring when far away or partly blocked from the cell site; using wired earbuds and mics to avoid unnecessary microwave exposure right next to our head.
Understanding of the physics allows us to provide generic guidelines for safer use of RF devices and their environments. This is not something politicians or regulator can easily fix or even want to fix; it requires education and a departure from fear and emotion. Unlike other areas, radio is a well-defined field where field strengths are easily measured. The debate often centers on the actual levels of radiation and which frequencies are more harmful. This is complicated, as what is harmful to one person may not affect another. My bio-physics research is shedding light on these issues, although these insights are seldom, if ever discussed. I would sincerely welcome any debate or discussion on these points.
But, having said all that geek speak on radio tech, the more pressing issue today is somewhat different. Digital IDs and freedom. We're currently working with several groups to help their voices be heard as well as enhancing the security of their communications, away from govt and big tech eyes and ears, which ironically, also involves reviewing their use of mobiles, from a privacy perspective. Big fan of Fiona Diamond in the UK https://massnoncompliance.com/
Your comments are very interesting. I am not a scientist, but know a great deal more needs to be researched. It is certainly true that what affects one person may not affect another, but one difficulty is the long latency of cancer and neurological disease, so that decline in health can be quite gradual and may also be attributable to other environmental factors. More is being discovered about the mechanisms by which health declines when irradiated, but if we all acknowledged that our cells communicate electromagnetically and that man-made EMFs must necessarily disrupt that, would that be a start? I A view of the body as electrical as well as chemical seems liberating to me. Do you know much about frequency medicine or electromolecular medicine (Dr. Andreas Kalcker for the latter)? I believe nations like Germany and Russia are much further ahead on these things. Have you heard of Prof. James Lin? He is a biophysicist and has strong views on the highly unscientific basis of our safety guidelines. His latest is this: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1619781/full Also the ICBE-EMF has published a paper on engineering solutions: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/7/5398 I am just about to publish a report on this recent press conference in which a critique of the 12 WHO reviews of health effects of EMFs was presented. The WHO came off rather badly! https://icbe-emf.org/new-paper-who-reviews-on-cell-phone-and-wireless-health-effects-provide-no-safety-assurance/
Software engineer and solutions architect here (30+ years) alumni of at least 1 of those you mentioned. Not sure how I can help but we need to retain our freedoms
I've been a database specialist for... 27 years now. Like you, I have two diametrically opposed takes on technology. I've loved my work, helping organisations work better by means of good data systems. And personal technology and public data can empower people. But on the other hand I'm horrified at what "technology" now means: a tool to addict, track, watch, control and enslave people. The ethics have completely disappeared.
Also a NO2ID veteran (still literally got the T-shirt from back in 2004!); based in Newcastle.
Hakeem Anwar from Take Back Our Tech is doing good work on this.
https://tbot.substack.com/about
Perhaps collaboration across various groups could be something we achieve too. Thanks for the link.
An excellent initiative Jeff, resistance is key. I hope you get a good response.
Echo that.
I know what you mean:
https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/what-the-nash-equilibrium-teaches
https://suavek1.substack.com/p/a-look-behind-the-veil-of-censorship
I recently listened to a podcast from Konstantin Kisin which explained well how regimes like communism always have to apply such incredible force to 'level out' humanity in order for the state to control things. It highlighted the folly and mis-use of energy to do this.
When you think about it - it's this creep of madness that would probably attempt to stop the sun coming up every morning? Or, even "carbon is really, really bad for the planet"?
Right on target, sir!
https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/breaking-the-algorithmic-lock-how
Count me in. I don't know how I can help - but I'm certainly open-minded to know how I could? I had quarter of a century in technology - so I've some takes of my own on how things have 'developed' in recent times - together with a lot of reading I never had time to do when I was working in it.
I've just listened to your interview with Claus, and re-stacked it with some notes. He was bang on key with several of his observations.
I'll say it again - many people are having their heads re-calibrated to not knowing the difference between 'technology' & 'technocracy'. Easy for them to be confused as the lines are being continually blurred - especially for the young.
There is relentless (and willfully engineered) negativity around technology. Something needs to counter this - as 'governance' has as much talent for properly harnessing and growing technology as it did for the steel industry, the car industry, retail, hospitality, et al. I won't quote Adam Smith's 'Wealth of nations' again (as even I'm sick of typing it)! Besides - I think on this post - I am singing to the choir.
Thanks Richard. We'll be in touch. I'm sure you will be a very valuable resource.
I am involved in a technology initiative that is not yet in the public eye. Freedom runs through everything we are doing. Would love to connect privately.
Hi Nick, just messaged you. Jeff.
Got it. Thanks. Will email you
I'd like to contribute. I'm paticular concerned about these vague, multibillion deals with no oversight, democratic accountability or questioning of conflicts of interest
Keen to help out
Thanks Michael. And you'll be a great help. Your writing and research has been superb - and inspirational.
Thank you Jeffrey. Very kind of you 🙏
Tech safety is dictated by telecoms, meaning public health is at risk because of conflicts of interest at the WHO and ICNIRP (the body suggesting safety exposure guidelines) Tomorrow there is a zoom press conference on a new paper released by the ICBE-EMF or International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, which will discuss deep flaws in the recently completed 12 WHO commissioned systematic reviews on the health effects of EMFs from mobile communications. Register here: https://icbe-emf.org/new-paper-who-reviews-on-cell-phone-and-wireless-health-effects-provide-no-safety-assurance/ 7th October, 5.00pm BST. My substack has many articles with scientific references.
It's not quite the focus for this initiative Gillian. I know that the EMF issue is out there. But here I'm focusing on digital ID systems primarily.
I appreciate that - but as the press conference on the WHO reviews is tomorrow, I thought I'd share at any opportunity. There is a huge issue for the 3.45 million electrosensitives in the UK.
As a retired senior radio and telecoms engineer, I share concerns about EMF, but there are many misconceptions and emotive arguments, especially from those with a medical background. While high-power RF fields and certain frequencies can be harmful, we can quantify relative risks by considering the frequencies, power outputs, antenna types, and path loss parameters of the multiple transmitting devices. Simple safety tips could include not sitting next to a WiFi router all day; being cautious when your mobile is at max power, usually occurring when far away or partly blocked from the cell site; using wired earbuds and mics to avoid unnecessary microwave exposure right next to our head.
Understanding of the physics allows us to provide generic guidelines for safer use of RF devices and their environments. This is not something politicians or regulator can easily fix or even want to fix; it requires education and a departure from fear and emotion. Unlike other areas, radio is a well-defined field where field strengths are easily measured. The debate often centers on the actual levels of radiation and which frequencies are more harmful. This is complicated, as what is harmful to one person may not affect another. My bio-physics research is shedding light on these issues, although these insights are seldom, if ever discussed. I would sincerely welcome any debate or discussion on these points.
But, having said all that geek speak on radio tech, the more pressing issue today is somewhat different. Digital IDs and freedom. We're currently working with several groups to help their voices be heard as well as enhancing the security of their communications, away from govt and big tech eyes and ears, which ironically, also involves reviewing their use of mobiles, from a privacy perspective. Big fan of Fiona Diamond in the UK https://massnoncompliance.com/
Your comments are very interesting. I am not a scientist, but know a great deal more needs to be researched. It is certainly true that what affects one person may not affect another, but one difficulty is the long latency of cancer and neurological disease, so that decline in health can be quite gradual and may also be attributable to other environmental factors. More is being discovered about the mechanisms by which health declines when irradiated, but if we all acknowledged that our cells communicate electromagnetically and that man-made EMFs must necessarily disrupt that, would that be a start? I A view of the body as electrical as well as chemical seems liberating to me. Do you know much about frequency medicine or electromolecular medicine (Dr. Andreas Kalcker for the latter)? I believe nations like Germany and Russia are much further ahead on these things. Have you heard of Prof. James Lin? He is a biophysicist and has strong views on the highly unscientific basis of our safety guidelines. His latest is this: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1619781/full Also the ICBE-EMF has published a paper on engineering solutions: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/7/5398 I am just about to publish a report on this recent press conference in which a critique of the 12 WHO reviews of health effects of EMFs was presented. The WHO came off rather badly! https://icbe-emf.org/new-paper-who-reviews-on-cell-phone-and-wireless-health-effects-provide-no-safety-assurance/
Yes, very definitely - please keep me in mind. Great idea. PHP/Rust developer here, making things in this arena.
Software engineer and solutions architect here (30+ years) alumni of at least 1 of those you mentioned. Not sure how I can help but we need to retain our freedoms
Count me in!
I've been a database specialist for... 27 years now. Like you, I have two diametrically opposed takes on technology. I've loved my work, helping organisations work better by means of good data systems. And personal technology and public data can empower people. But on the other hand I'm horrified at what "technology" now means: a tool to addict, track, watch, control and enslave people. The ethics have completely disappeared.
Also a NO2ID veteran (still literally got the T-shirt from back in 2004!); based in Newcastle.
Thanks Seb. I'll be in touch.
Hi Jeffrey, academic in IS here drop me a line about the initiative.
Have messaged you Eddy.