You can watch the video online at https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1vAxRDZkaMRGl
Hello, testing one, two. Testing one, two. You’ve found Spirit for City Limits once again. My name is John Dale, broadcasting from the corner of Canyon and Jackson in sunny Spiritfor, South Dakota. And yes, it actually is sunny today—so that’s the truth this time around.
We’ve been dealing with some crazy cold weather up here in South Dakota, and I’m sure that’ll make its way across the rest of the country soon. You’re welcome.
Spirit for City Limits is a production of PlainsTribune.com. If you’d like to support this independent broadcast from Western South Dakota, visit PlainsTribune.com and click the subscribe button. Gotta promote—if we don’t, it’s tough to win, isn’t it?
This is a special episode: Spirit for City Limits Presents… and I have Mr. John Coates with us today. He’s out of Florida with an outfit called RF Safe. John has a pretty storied history—he’s an inventor, which I think is pretty cool. I’m an inventor myself, and here in the entrepreneurial desert of Western South Dakota, we really appreciate innovation.
I’m excited to speak with John today. Let’s see—can you hear me, John?
John Coates: Yes, sir!
Great! Why don’t you introduce yourself to the audience, give us a brief overview of your background—maybe 30 seconds to a minute—and then we’ll jump into the finer points of RF safety, which we’ve studied in-depth and published on regularly.
John Coates: You bet.
I’ve been in this industry for nearly 30 years now. My involvement didn’t start due to hypersensitivity or anything like that—though honestly, I wish I had been hypersensitive. Instead, my journey began when my wife worked in front of three five-watt microwave radios. Our child was born with a neural tube disorder, which tragically cut her life short.
This was in 1995. Then, in 1997, a study came out showing that microwave radiation—at the same frequency my wife was exposed to at work—was linked to a 300% increase in neural tube disorders. This had nothing to do with cell phones or today’s modern technology. It was from an older two-way radio system used for workplace communication.
After learning about this, I founded RF Safe in 1998. My engineering background allowed me to dive into research and innovation. One of my first major projects was inventing the Interferometric Ray Antenna, which challenged the FCC’s isotropic rules.
At the time, there was a regulation designed to keep the playing field level among carriers when only a few towers existed nationwide. This rule made my antenna illegal to use, so no one would adopt it.
Then I met Jim Johnson, who saw a prototype video on my website. He realized that my antenna, originally designed to reduce radiation exposure to the head, could also solve the hearing aid compatibility issue—which meant it could stop hearing aids from buzzing.
Jim used the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to challenge the FCC’s rule. By aligning with hearing aid advocacy groups, he successfully got the isotropic rule changed in 2003. This was a silent but significant breakthrough for EMF safety—something most people don’t even know about.
Since then, I’ve developed numerous technologies. Most recently, I patented a Li-Fi network with a biodefense mode, using 219-nanometer far-UV light. I believe this is a key solution for moving away from microwave radiation—especially in schools and indoor environments.
Instead of Wi-Fi, we could have Li-Fi, where data is transmitted via light. Light waves carry far more data than radio waves and offer multiple benefits. Imagine stepping into a Tesla and instead of being bombarded with microwave radiation, you’re exposed to therapeutic light waves.
We need more research to determine which wavelengths of light are healthiest, but in theory, we could transmit data while only exposing ourselves to the most beneficial frequencies.
There’s been a lot of innovation in this field, but major challenges still lie ahead. Thankfully, we now have RFK Jr., who has already made progress by challenging the FCC’s outdated safety guidelines in court—and winning. That lawsuit proved that current regulations fail to account for non-thermal health effects of RF radiation.
Now, the biggest legal hurdle is Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act…
Everybody should have Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act on their radar. Even if you don’t believe in the health risks, this law took away your First and Tenth Amendment rights—and that should concern everyone.
If you don’t have the ability to protest a potential health hazard—like a cell tower 400 feet from your child’s school—then what kind of freedom do we really have? The BioInitiative Report recommends a minimum safe distance of 1,500 feet (500 meters), and this report is backed by scientists who have analyzed all the available studies.
For example, my own daughter—who is seven years old—is within 465 feet of a cell tower. And there’s nothing I can do about it. That’s because of a law passed in 1996 under Bill Clinton, the same year the fraudulent FCC safety guidelines were implemented. This was no coincidence—an unconstitutional law and fraudulent safety standards were pushed through simultaneously.
And I say fraudulent because people often call them outdated, but that’s misleading. There was already plenty of evidence before 1996 proving non-thermal risks from RF radiation. For instance, the CTIA’s own $25 million industry-funded study, led by Dr. George Carlo, was intended to prove that cell phones were safe. Instead, they found evidence of cancer.
You can go even further back:
- 1984: U.S. Air Force studies on RF exposure
- 1995: Dr. Henry Lai’s research on RF-induced DNA damage
All of this was known before 1996—which means the FCC guidelines weren’t just outdated, they were knowingly fraudulent.
And that brings us back to Section 704. This law forbids parents and communities from saying, “Hey, I don’t want this cell tower near my home because of health risks.” Courts simply rule that you can’t challenge it on health grounds—as long as the tower meets FCC guidelines.
But those FCC guidelines are fraudulent, and we should have never taken regulatory control away from the EPA, which used to oversee non-ionizing radiation. The EPA was quietly defunded, and all authority was handed to the FCC—an agency with zero medical expertise. They don’t have epidemiologists, bioelectric researchers, or anyone qualified to assess non-thermal health risks.
That’s why Section 704 should be on everyone’s radar. If local governments can’t decide what’s safe for their communities—and if people themselves can’t make that decision—then we’re dealing with an unconstitutional law.
Think about it: you can’t even protest it. If you can’t protest a potential public health issue in America, how can we call that freedom?
And then look at the chronic health crisis we’re facing today. Thirty years of forced RF exposure, and people wonder why they haven’t heard more about it. Well, you can’t challenge it in court. You can’t bring in expert witnesses, independent scientists, or legal pressure to force change.
But we need to evolve—just like we did with the automotive industry. Once it was clear that vehicle emissions were dangerous, what did we do? We mandated emission standards. The same needs to happen with wireless technology.
And it’s easy—because safer technologies already exist.
For instance, Li-Fi (light-based communication) has been in development for years. Apple has been working on integrating Li-Fi into iOS software since 2016—you can look it up.
All it takes is a leader like President Trump to mandate safer wireless technology. We could become global leaders in faster, more secure, and healthier wireless communications by pushing Li-Fi and space-based broadband.
But none of that can happen if we don’t repeal Section 704 and demand real safety regulations.
John Dale: That’s quite all right. First of all, I want to sincerely thank you for taking the time to come on Spirit for City Limits and share your insights.
Let’s take a step back. You mentioned earlier—has your wife passed away?
John Coates: No, no—it was my daughter, Angelique Coates. She passed away shortly after birth from a neural tube disorder.
That was devastating. At the time, we didn’t know what caused it, and neither did the doctors. We knew the odds and risk factors, but we didn’t have a clear answer.
Then, in 1997, a study came out—just a year and a half later—showing that the same RF frequencies my wife was exposed to at work were linked to a 300% increase in neural tube disorders. That was enough for me. I knew I had to take this research seriously.
And the deeper I dug, the worse it got. It was never a case of “the science isn’t settled yet.” That’s the big lie. Even today, some still say, “Oh, it’s a scientific debate.” But when thousands of studies show non-thermal risks, and the FCC still insists there are none, that’s not a debate—that’s denial.
It’s like the geocentric universe argument centuries ago. The authorities insisted the Earth was the center of the universe—even as scientific evidence piled up proving otherwise.
That’s exactly what’s happening today with RF radiation. The scientific data overwhelmingly shows non-thermal risks, yet regulatory agencies are holding on to an outdated illusion. And if you challenge them, you’re treated like a heretic.
John Dale:
Yeah, okay. So, regarding your beautiful daughter, Angel—can you talk about the technology that was in use at the time? What do you know about it?
By the way, not bad for a heating and cooling guy—you’re doing a great job here. Can you walk us through what you believe caused this and how it ultimately affected your daughter?
John Coates:
Sure.
It’s easy to think of biology purely as biochemical processes, but there’s another layer beneath that—a bioelectric layer. This layer governs everything at a more fundamental level. We aren’t just chemical reactions; we’re primarily energy.
During early fetal development, bioelectric signals drive cell differentiation and the formation of vital structures. Neural tube disorders happen very early in pregnancy—I believe it’s within the first three to four weeks. That’s a critical window where any disruption in bioelectric signaling can lead to devastating consequences.
My wife was working in front of three five-watt microwave radios all day. These operated at 800 MHz, a deep-penetrating frequency. That’s one of the key differences between microwaves and light waves—microwaves have longer wavelengths that can penetrate deep into tissues.
People often say, “Only ionizing radiation is dangerous,” which is partially true—but short-wavelength, high-frequency radiation doesn’t penetrate deeply. Microwaves do.
When microwaves penetrate deep into biological tissue, they introduce what I call entropic waste, which disrupts natural bioelectric functions. This leads to biological dissonance, confusing the body’s developmental “machinery.”
And in those first few weeks of pregnancy, even a tiny disruption in bioelectric signaling can have catastrophic effects. That’s what I believe happened in my case. I believe this disruption led to the neural tube disorder that took my daughter’s life.
John Dale:
That seems like the most obvious proximate cause. We need to study cases like yours, learn from them, and correct the way we deploy technology. These devices are sold to us as convenient and safe, but they can be incredibly dangerous.
By the way, I looked it up while you were speaking—neural tube defects (NTDs) typically occur between the third and fourth week of pregnancy.
Tell me more about the devices that were in use. Was your wife working at a job where she was constantly exposed to them? Are these devices still used today?
John Coates:
That’s a great question, and actually, there’s a bright side to all of this. Innovation has created safer alternatives, and we can continue to move in that direction.
Think about how lighting a home used to be dangerous—you had to use candles and oil lamps. Today, electric lights have made homes far safer. The same kind of technological evolution needs to happen with wireless communication.
The devices my wife was exposed to were long-wavelength radios, used in an occupational environment in the mid-1990s. Back then, cell phones were too expensive for businesses to use for everyday workplace communication, so companies relied on two-way radio systems instead.
But those radios are obsolete now—completely replaced by cell phones.
In fact, when I first started RF Safe, cell phones weren’t even my primary concern. My first priority was protecting babies, so I developed belly bands with microwave-shielding materials.
But as I watched cell phones become more common, I knew I had to act fast.
At the time, I was running Coates Tire & Auto and Aspen Limousine in the Roaring Fork Valley. Many of my regular customers—wealthy businesspeople and celebrities—were among the first adopters of cell phones in the early ‘90s.
Seeing so many people start using these devices made me realize that we needed solutions—fast.
That’s when I developed the Interferometric Ray Antenna.
The idea came from a simple thought experiment:
- If you drop two pebbles into a pond, their waves interfere with each other.
- Could we do the same thing with microwaves?
- Could we create wave interference that cancels out harmful radiation?
The answer was yes—and surprisingly, it wasn’t even that hard to do.
John Dale:
That’s incredible.
John Coates:
Yeah, there’s been a lot of innovation since then, and that’s why I don’t think we need to fear progress.
What we should fear is being stuck with dangerous, outdated technology. That’s the real threat.
Moving forward, we need to phase out harmful technologies and adopt safer alternatives—like Li-Fi and space-based broadband.
But we must keep researching. We can’t repeat the mistake we made with Section 704, where we made it illegal to question the health and safety of RF technology.
That’s not science—that’s censorship.
And at its core, this isn’t just a public health crisis—it’s a constitutional crisis.
If we want to fix the root cause, we must repeal Section 704 and restore our right to question the safety of the technology we’re exposed to.
Because in America, no one should be forbidden from asking, “Is this safe for my family?”
John Dale:
Our culture is one of self-healing—if we’re allowed to, we can fix most of these problems ourselves.
Now, was your wife involved in anything military or police-related, or was her job in a different field?
John Coates:
No, nothing military or law enforcement-related. She worked for a construction company in Aspen that kept in touch with workers in the field—guys who were literally bulldozing mountains to build homes. There wasn’t much flat land in Aspen unless you were in the valley. If you were building, you were building in the mountains.
Her job was just keeping communication open with those workers. The company used radios to stay in contact, and that’s what exposed her to the microwave radiation.
John Dale:
Incredible. I’m so sorry you had to go through that. I can’t imagine how devastating it must have been.
You sound like a good man, a good father, and a good husband. Watching something like that unfold in slow motion must have been heartbreaking. No one should ever have to bury their child.
John Coates:
Yeah, it was tough.
John Dale:
So, that experience became the catalyst for your work in RF safety. Are you formally trained in this, or are you mostly self-taught?
John Coates:
Well, I started studying engineering at 15. Not because I was a genius or anything—I just got lucky and had the opportunity to take real engineering classes at Tidewater Community College.
I’ve always been in environments where I was learning from experts, whether it was working with Dr. Myron Evans or others with incredible skill sets. I’ve been crazy blessed in that regard.
I’ve also programmed in multiple languages, though that’s not as necessary today as it used to be. But back in the early days of the internet, being able to code was a super useful skill.
What’s mattered most, though, is getting the message out there—reaching people, raising awareness, and getting support for safer technologies.
Because RF radiation doesn’t have to be dangerous.
If we’re allowed to question it, we can fix it—just like we did with car emissions.
If we mandate technologies like Li-Fi, interferometry-based antennas, and space-based towers, we can drastically reduce exposure.
Now, I understand concerns from the EMF safety community about space-based towers. I agree—there’s been zero pre-testing, so we can’t claim it’s 100% safe.
But when you look at the physics, there’s a strong argument that space-based towers would be far safer than ground-based ones.
Think about the radios that harmed my child. Yes, we still have RF-emitting devices like cell phones, but at least they’re not as powerful and not as close to babies as those old radios were.
Little by little, things are getting safer—just like how lighting your house went from using fire hazards (candles, oil lamps) to safe electric lights.
There’s still work to do, but it can be made safer.
And honestly, President Trump could get it done with a single executive order.
Imagine if we mandated Li-Fi—so that whenever you’re indoors, your devices automatically switch to light-based communication, completely eliminating microwave exposure inside.
Most people spend most of their time indoors, so this alone would drastically reduce exposure.
And if we moved cell towers into space, the inverse square law would make a huge difference.
Instead of having a cell tower on top of an apartment building or right next to a school, we could put them in space, where their effects on ground-level exposure would be minimized.
People are worried about space-based towers, but they’re going to happen anyway. So the goal should be to minimize ground-level exposure and bring it back as close as possible to natural levels—especially indoors, where we have full control over the environment.
We could make indoor spaces incredibly safe, practically radiation-free, if we just committed to it.
John Dale:
So, if we eliminate Wi-Fi and other wireless radiation indoors and move cell towers into space, we could drastically reduce exposure. That would be a huge step forward compared to what we have today.
Let’s drill down into the non-thermal risks and the distinction between non-ionizing and ionizing radiation.
You mentioned 800 MHz as the frequency your wife was exposed to. 900 MHz is used in cordless phones, right?
John Coates:
Yeah, exactly—900 MHz was common for cordless phones back in the day. 800 MHz was used for low-power applications like workplace radios.
John Dale:
Right. So, 800 MHz is considered low power, but the reason it’s still biologically significant is that it penetrates deeply and doesn’t attenuate as easily through different materials.
But as you move to higher frequencies, the problem changes. Even though higher frequencies are non-ionizing, they require much more power to be practical for widespread use. The industry has to increase power levels to maintain range and connectivity, which creates its own risks.
The non-thermal risks—the ones that affect DNA directly—are what Henry Lai and George Carlo warned about.
And what happened to George Carlo was criminal—the wireless industry treated him in a stunningly grotesque way. They ignored his warnings, and as a result, millions of people have been harmed over the years.
Now, the wireless industry has accumulated a legacy of harm—a debt to society—that may never be fully repaid.
At the end of the day, no amount of money can make you whole after something like this.
But let’s put it in perspective. Let’s say we live to be 90 years old.
At that age, what would one more week of life be worth?
Even with non-ionizing radiation, the genetic damage accumulates. Over time, it accelerates mutations in cell turnover, affecting aging, cancer rates, and chronic disease.
So, do you see this same pattern playing out at higher frequencies? In theory, higher power + higher frequency should make wireless signals weaker, but that’s not what’s happening. The industry is cranking up the power to make it practical.
Can you speak on that?
John Coates:
Absolutely.
For example, light waves have far higher photonic energy than microwaves, but we can still generate them efficiently using very little power.
And you’re right—higher frequencies don’t penetrate as deeply. In fact, at very high frequencies, signals can’t even pass through clear glass, which makes them ideal for secure quantum environments.
But people don’t see the bigger picture when it comes to non-thermal hazards.
It’s not just an issue for when you’re 90 years old. Look at rectal cancers, colon cancers, and sperm damage—these are happening in young people.
Just the other day, Microwave News reported on increasing cancer cases linked to keeping cell phones in your pocket.
Now, back to my daughter, Angelique Coates—she taught me something critical about the thermal vs. non-thermal debate.
She was inside her mother’s womb, protected by a constant body temperature.
That means the microwaves she was exposed to never heated her body.
So, the damage wasn’t from temperature—it was from electromagnetic interference disrupting her development.
That’s the non-thermal effect in action.
And when you break it down, the mechanism isn’t just heat—it’s things like:
- Calcium ion channels being thrown off balance
- Voltage regulation at the cellular level
- Disruptions in bioelectric signaling
I’ve developed a theory called ceLLM (Cellular Latent Learning Model), which describes how cells act like Bayesian systems, constantly updating their probabilities based on bioelectric feedback.
This affects all plasticity in the body, not just neural tube closure.
And when you look at autism, I think people are missing the bigger picture by only blaming vaccines.
Entropic waste can come in many forms—
- It can be injected (like vaccines).
- It can be ingested (through food).
- It can be absorbed (like radiation exposure).
The key issue is constant exposure.
The human body can handle temporary assaults—if it gets time to recover and reset, it can restore its genetic baseline.
But with wireless radiation, the exposure is 24/7—there’s no break, no time to recover.
That’s why this is so serious.
John Coates:
You can’t recover your baseline if you’re constantly exposed to entropic waste.
Think about it—when you get a vaccine, your body experiences a shock-and-awe response. The same applies to any foreign substance you introduce into your body:
- A medicine
- A vaccine
- A food or nutrient
- Radiation
Everything affects the body’s bioelectric system. It’s not just about chemistry—we are bioelectric beings, and every external input shifts our bioelectric balance.
And this can lead to profound changes, far beyond just cancer.
Take autism, for example. Some people say, “What happened in 1989? What changed in the early 1990s?”
Yes, you can point to vaccine schedule changes, but if you destabilize the baseline bioelectricity first—through RF exposure—then introduce another assault (like a vaccine), the body can’t recover.
Why? Because it’s already in a constant state of bioelectric imbalance—it’s drowning in entropic waste.
So when a child is already exposed to RF radiation from the womb, then receives another stressor, it can push them over the edge.
It’s like what happened to my daughter—her neural tube failed to close. That was a bioelectric disruption caused by RF exposure during a critical stage of development.
Other kinds of developmental disruptions, including epigenetic changes, could also happen due to continuous exposure. Some of these changes never return to baseline.
John Dale:
So, regarding Li-Fi—are we talking about regular LED light or something else?
John Coates:
No, not regular visible light LEDs.
Li-Fi is available right now—you can purchase Li-Fi units today. They’re not super user-friendly yet, but neither were computers when they first came out.
For people who are highly electrosensitive, I highly recommend checking out the Li-Fi Max system. There’s even a unit that comes with a tablet designed for low-EMF environments.
Every smart device—your TV, phone, laptop, tablet—could operate on Li-Fi instead of Wi-Fi. If we implemented this fully, we wouldn’t need microwaves radiating us all day.
John Dale:
Let’s go deeper into this.
I need to brush up on physics, but I remember the inverse square law—which explains how light and RF energy dissipate as you move farther from the source.
It’s not logarithmic, but it’s non-linear—meaning intensity drops off dramatically with distance.
Now, with Li-Fi, it doesn’t function like a point-to-point laser—so how does that affect the inverse square law?
Li-Fi emitters are man-made sources of radiation, and while we can analyze the spectrum, they’re still not the same as natural sunlight.
Does Li-Fi defy the inverse square law, or does it still follow that principle?
John Coates:
Good question.
Li-Fi does follow the inverse square law, just like regular LED lighting or thermal radiation from your phone.
However, lasers are a different case.
With regular light, intensity drops off as expected. But lasers? Not always. They can stay collimated over long distances, which can alter the expected dissipation pattern.
That said, whether it’s Li-Fi, lasers, or RF radiation, it’s always better to have the source farther away from you.
And Li-Fi has exponentially lower oxidative stress and less entropic waste than RF-based systems.
Let’s not forget—RF technology evolved from military radar.
Back in the 1970s, the U.S. Navy published studies showing serious health risks for sailors working near radar emitters.
That’s where the thermal safety guidelines originated—because their only concern was how much RF energy it takes to cook you.
But we’ve known since at least the 1970s that RF exposure has non-thermal biological effects.
My uncle David was stationed in Korea, working with military communications antennas—similar to what you see in MASH*.
He had strict safety protocols to prevent RF exposure.
Yet today, we’re drowning in wireless signals, and the industry tells us it’s perfectly safe—despite decades of research proving otherwise.
John Dale:
So with these new LED light poles, it seems like they could be designed to:
- Emit 5G
- Emit Li-Fi
- Function as regular streetlights
- House remote sensing equipment
These are basically industrial-grade computers disguised as streetlights.
And while Li-Fi isn’t practical everywhere, could it still be used outdoors in some cases—maybe for vehicle-to-vehicle communication?
Wouldn’t that be safer than 5G?
John Coates:
Exactly.
But here’s something important to consider.
My father was in aviation during the Vietnam War, so he was exposed to tons of radar. Yet he’s still healthy today.
That brings up a key finding from a 2025 RF sperm study—I’ll send you the link so you can post it.
This study revealed a critical insight about RF exposure:
RF radiation doesn’t always have a linear dose-response relationship.
This is a big problem for current safety guidelines, which are only based on thermal effects.
But real-world biological responses to RF exposure don’t follow linear patterns—and that’s why these guidelines are completely inadequate.
John Coates:
People assume RF exposure follows a linear dose-response—more power means more harm, less power means less harm.
But the truth is, it’s not that simple.
Take the 2025 sperm study—they found that the most damage occurred at four hours of exposure. But after eight and twelve hours, the effects were almost undetectable.
Why?
Because during longer exposures, the body had time to activate protective mechanisms.
But in shorter exposures, the damage was enough to trigger oxidation and ROS buildup, but not long enough for the body to deploy its defenses.
So that’s one example of how RF exposure doesn’t follow a linear pattern.
Now, let’s talk about power levels.
People always reference the National Toxicology Program (NTP) study, but they rarely mention one of its most important findings—the non-linear dosage response.
Here’s how the study was structured:
- 0 watts (control group)
- 1.5 watts/kg SAR (lower than most cell phones, which must be under 1.6 W/kg)
- 3 watts/kg SAR
- 6 watts/kg SAR
Now, based on thermal guidelines, you’d expect the 6-watt group to show the most damage.
But that’s not what happened.
The 1.5-watt group actually had way more cancer cases than the 6-watt group.
So this tells us that RF exposure doesn’t behave predictably—higher power doesn’t always mean higher risk, and lower power doesn’t always mean lower risk.
Without massive ongoing research, we’re flying blind.
And this could also explain why some radar operators—who were bathed in RF—ended up healthier than those who had intermittent exposure.
It’s a biological puzzle we still don’t fully understand.
John Dale:
That’s a fascinating insight—essentially, if you do get exposed, you need enough exposure to trigger your body’s self-repair mechanisms.
But ideally, you’d want to shield yourself altogether.
So let’s get into shielding.
For people in the audience who want to protect themselves, what can they do?
They don’t want to take unnecessary hits from RF exposure, and they certainly don’t want to increase their exposure just to trigger a defense response.
Let’s look at a specific example—motorcycles.
Most motorcycles have their electronics housed under the seat. If you measure EMF levels there, it’s alarming.
Where does that energy go? Right into the lower body—the colon, rectum, reproductive organs, testicles, ovaries.
Now, we’re in motorcycle country—we have Sturgis right up the road.
Do you think there’s a correlation between prolonged motorcycle riding and higher rates of colorectal and testicular cancer?
And most importantly—can we shield against this?
John Coates:
Absolutely.
The key is knowing which fields you’re trying to shield.
- If it’s magnetic fields, you’d use Mu metals.
- If it’s microwave radiation, you’d use conductive shielding fabric.
You could easily integrate shielding into a motorcycle seat—just layering the right materials under the seat covering would block a significant amount of radiation.
So yes, you could absolutely make a shielded motorcycle seat.
John Dale:
I actually know someone who patented a shielded motorcycle seat, but when I reached out, he had no product available.
I suspect that’s because his invention was seen as a threat to the industry.
Think about it—if a huge cancer scare emerged from motorcycle riding, it could cripple the industry.
Most riders wouldn’t retrofit their bikes, they’d just stop riding.
We see this pattern all the time—industries fight against scientific findings that threaten their profits.
So, would you be willing to work with me on developing better shielding solutions?
John Coates:
Absolutely.
That’s exactly what I do.
My phone number has been publicly available since day one so that anyone can call me directly.
I’ve always been focused on helping people figure it out, whether it’s individuals or manufacturers.
I also open-source all of my designs. I’ve never been interested in capitalizing on them to the extreme—I’ve always wanted to create prior art so that no one else could patent these ideas and lock them away.
But that decision backfired a little.
Companies like SafeSleeve and DefenderShield came along and made the products wrong.
It’s frustrating because anti-radiation shielding is all about first principles—if you don’t follow the basic rules, you can actually increase exposure instead of reducing it.
So yes—I’d love to work with you on motorcycle shielding.
John Dale:
So, are you a wealthy man right now? If you don’t mind me asking.
John Coates:
Oh, no. Trust me, it’s very hard to make money in this industry.
To have real credibility, there are certain things you just can’t sell—things that other companies push out without concern. That really limits what you can do.
I divide my time between different organizations, always working on engineering solutions to make the future safer.
But no, this isn’t an easy industry.
For example, during the pandemic, I started working on far-UV light—one of the most incredible innovations for indoor safety.
Far-UV light could have made environments safe for people by continuously disinfecting air and surfaces.
But then I got hit with a lawsuit from a guy named Edward Nester, from a company called Far UV Sterilray.
He was trying to claim ownership of far-UV light technology.
And this wasn’t about innovation—it was about control.
He told me, “Give me $1 million, and you can buy my bulbs and license them. Give me $2 million, and you can put them in your own products.”
I was stunned.
This was a life-saving technology, and here he was holding it hostage for profit.
These far-UV lights could have been installed in nursing homes—they could have saved lives.
Far-UV is way more effective than traditional UVC light and is completely safe for humans because it’s absorbed by the outer layer of skin and doesn’t penetrate living cells.
This means it can eliminate airborne pathogens without harming people.
But because of Nester’s legal threats, I had to pivot.
John Dale:
Edward Nester. Bad guy.
John Coates:
Yeah, bad guy for sure.
But in a way, I owe him.
Since I couldn’t use bulbs to create 222-nanometer light, I had to find another way.
That’s when I found NS Nanotech, a Silicon Valley company working on next-gen screen displays.
They had solid-state emitters that could generate 219-nanometer light—a narrow-spectrum far-UV light.
The lifespan was shorter, but they worked.
So I developed a prototype that didn’t just purify the air—it could also transmit data.
This proved that photons can do double duty—they can carry data and sanitize the environment at the same time.
So, in the end, I wouldn’t have invented that if it weren’t for a bad guy.
John Dale:
So why did you switch to tire work instead of staying in the scientific field full-time?
John Coates:
Oh, you mean Coates Tire & Auto?
That was in my 20s.
John Dale:
Right. So was that before your engineering work?
John Coates:
No, I already had engineering experience.
I wasn’t just changing oil—we could fix anything in that shop.
People would drive 150 miles just to get work done there.
I had some of the best mechanics and machinists working with me.
It was actually a great business, and in Aspen, it made good money.
But being young, I made a mistake.
I shut down the business because I thought I was going to change the world with my Interferometric Ray Antenna.
And, in a way, I did—that invention forced the FCC to change its rules.
But I also thought it would be easier to make money again—and I quickly learned that EMF safety is not an easy path.
John Dale:
You’ve generated a lot of value with your work.
Let’s roll back for a second—let’s talk about 222-nanometer light.
If you increase the power, does it become more intense and more penetrating? Is that the right way to think about it, or the wrong way?
John Coates:
That’s the wrong way to think about it.
The beauty of 222-nanometer light is that you don’t need to increase the power.
It’s a God-given frequency that’s amazingly effective at disinfection while remaining safe for humans.
Here’s why:
Just like UVC waves, far-UV light is naturally absorbed in the upper atmosphere. That’s why we don’t have natural UVC exposure at the Earth’s surface—it used to reach us millions of years ago, before the oceans were filled with algae that produced oxygen and created the ozone layer.
Today, 222-nanometer light is absorbed by the water layer of the eye or the dead layer of skin, which means it never reaches living cells.
But despite that, it still carries a lot of energy.
As frequency increases, so does photon energy. The photon voltage of far-UV is almost a full volt higher than regular UVC.
And when this high-energy light hits something as small as a virus, it destroys it instantly.
With traditional UVC, when you irradiate a virus, it still looks intact under an electron microscope, even though it’s been disabled.
But when you hit a virus with 222-nanometer light, it explodes into shrapnel.
That’s real, high-efficiency disinfection.
John Dale:
That’s incredible. But here’s the big question—if you inject more energy into that frequency, can it be weaponized?
Can it become dangerous or penetrate further?
John Coates:
No, not with this wavelength.
Even if you cranked up the power, it still wouldn’t penetrate further. The wavelength itself is what determines penetration depth.
And from a technological standpoint, we don’t even have the ability to generate far-UV at high power in a solid-state form.
Right now, we can only produce it in microwatt levels.
There’s no realistic way to turn it into a weapon with current technology.
John Dale:
Can this technology—or even infrared light—be used for mind control applications?
John Coates:
Of course.
Even basic things like video games have been shown to trigger seizures in some children.
If you understand what frequencies affect the brain, you can manipulate responses.
I personally don’t work with that kind of research, but the potential is absolutely there.
John Dale:
Are there affordable consumer-grade RF detectors that operate above 10 GHz right now?
John Coates:
Yes, I believe so.
Some of my Gigahertz Solutions meters measure higher frequencies. There are plenty of high-end meters on the market now.
The GQ RF-390 is one option, but I can check my equipment to confirm which models work best.
John Dale:
So the GQ RF-390 detects up to 10 GHz, which covers 8 GHz into the 5G band.
But above 10 GHz, where Elon Musk’s Starlink and other high-frequency systems operate, there’s nothing remotely affordable. Even the RF-390 is out of reach for most people at $280.
For tech-savvy tinkerers—people who work with Raspberry Pi, Arduino, and various sensors—is it practical to build a DIY RF detector?
John Coates:
Oh, yeah. I could make one with a couple of germanium diodes, no problem.
John Dale:
Would it meet industry standards, be reliable, and hold up in court?
John Coates:
No, but I could build one for under a dollar with just a soldering iron.
John Dale:
Let’s talk about that. I’d love to see how that works.
John Coates:
I’ll send you one. I had a bunch of them made because I used to think they were a great way to detect RF.
The problem with commercial RF meters is that they’re all calibrated like a metal detector—they just beep or make a noise based on what they detect.
Some of them are really good, but a lot of them are overpriced.
Like you said, they’re not accessible to the people who need them most—and they don’t need to be so expensive, because the electronics inside them are not that costly.
John Dale:
Is anyone running a crowdsourced citizen-science project to collect RF exposure data?
John Coates:
What kind of RF data?
John Dale:
I mean collecting RF intensity, frequency overlap, and hot zone mapping—basically a geospatial analysis of RF exposure, then publishing that data.
John Coates:
There are some studies and websites that track this, but there’s nothing large-scale or ubiquitous—not like the crowdsourced weather sensor networks people use for tracking temperature, humidity, wind speed, and pressure.
John Dale:
It seems like there’s a huge need for that.
Right now, we’re stuck in a reactive position—we can’t even run proper studies until harm has already occurred.
So all we can do is play the statistics, mitigate risks, and gather real-world data—but to my knowledge, that data isn’t being collected.
And as soon as you start collecting RF exposure data, it makes people nervous.
There’s room for a citizen-science project to map RF hotspots.
And in the same way that you can’t have a marijuana dispensary within 100 feet of a school, there should be laws preventing excessive RF emissions near schools.
John Coates:
That’s exactly right.
If you want to write something up about it, I’ll help publish it through RF Safe.
This is critical—especially if RFK Jr. succeeds in getting the FCC to update its safety guidelines to include non-thermal risks.
John Coates:
If the FCC updates its safety guidelines to include non-thermal risks, that could mean millions of cell towers worldwide suddenly become non-compliant.
Many countries mirror U.S. guidelines, so once we change ours, they’ll have to follow suit.
And that’s where we need exactly what you just described—a way to identify and isolate the most dangerous RF exposure zones.
Honestly, this is something the government should be funding.
As soon as the guidelines are ruled inadequate—which is a matter of when, not if—there should be a national commission that:
✅ Puts Americans to work
✅ Maps out high-risk RF exposure areas
✅ Identifies the most dangerous towers
We cannot rely on the wireless industry to regulate itself.
Remember, the Wall Street Journal reported back in 2014 that, out of 30,000 cell towers, only 1 in 10 was found to be compliant.
That’s unacceptable.
John Dale:
That’s incredible.
You mentioned earlier that your daughter is just 465 feet from a cell tower?
John Coates:
Yeah, and it blows me away.
The BioInitiative Report says the safe distance should be at least 500 meters (1,640 feet).
That means my daughter is less than one-third of a safe distance away.
John Dale:
I know you’ll work with me on this.
I’m already making notes to reach out to my contacts to figure out how to get this started.
This would be a massive win:
✅ For the American people
✅ For politicians willing to take up the cause
✅ For the remote sensing industry, which could sell devices and build a large-scale RF monitoring system for public safety
This is too important to ignore.
And that brings me to my final point:
#TrumpRepeal704
We need President Trump to repeal Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act—the same unconstitutional law that Bill Clinton signed in 1996, preventing us from challenging cell tower placements on health grounds.
It will take a president to undo it.
And if there’s one thing we know about Trump, it’s that he listens to the people.
So, if everyone starts tweeting #TrumpRepeal704 along with @realDonaldTrump, we might just get his attention.
And if we put in the effort, I believe God will make sure that message reaches him.
John Dale:
I love it.
Absolutely love it.
John, thank you so much.
I’ll be following up with you, because this is not the end—this is just the beginning.
You’ve graced our show with your knowledge and presence, and I truly appreciate you taking the time to do this.
This is Spirit for City Limits, and we’ll be back with more soon.
John Dale:
We’re going to keep working hard on this issue, making sure we’re tracking in the right direction.
Thank you for joining me on Spirit for City Limits, coming to you from the corner of Canyon and Jackson in sunny Spiritfor, South Dakota.
You’ve been listening to Mr. John Coates—you’re in Florida now, right?
John Coates:
That’s right.
John Dale:
Thank you for making time to join us from Florida. It’s pretty cold here in South Dakota right now—I’m guessing it’s not quite as chilly where you are. Give us a quick weather report.
John Coates:
Oh, it’s always beautiful down here.
I’m in Madeira Beach, but we actually took a direct hit from the recent hurricanes. It got pretty rough—I had to scavenge gas from old vehicles for a while because the area got hit hard.
I really feel for the people up north who weren’t prepared for a hurricane. At least here, we had plenty of time to get ready.
But overall, yeah, it’s beautiful weather—just every now and then, things get rough.
John Dale:
Well, with that—thank you, John. I’ll be in touch soon, and have a great day.
John Coates:
Thank you, sir. God bless.
John Dale:
Likewise. Take care.
John Dale (Closing Statement):
That was Mr. John Coates, joining us from Florida—a very knowledgeable individual in this field.
Here at Spirit for City Limits, we’ve been doing our own RF research, and what I loved most about John’s approach was that he wasn’t just a complainer.
He didn’t just whine about the problem—he brought real, practical solutions to improve the situation.
That’s what we do here.
We solve problems—we don’t just bitch and moan.
Spirit for City Limits is a production of PlainsTribune.com.
If you like what you hear, visit PlainsTribune.com now and contribute however you can—time, talent, or treasure.
Thank you for listening.
We’ll be back soon with more great content, insight, and analysis.
And tomorrow—it’s our Friday show. It’s going to be a dilly.
I think I’ve got a little more spoonful of sugar in this one—so get ready for the medicine.
Have a great day, everybody!
