Hello, I’m John Coates, founder of RF Safe. I started RF Safe in the 1990s after experiencing a tragedy that forever shaped my perspective on environmental health risks. In 1995, I lost my daughter, Angel Leigh Coates, to a severe neural tube defect. It was devastating, and at the time, I had no idea what hidden factors might have contributed to such a heartbreaking outcome.
Two years later, in 1997, a study came out indicating a 300% increase in neural tube disorders linked to microwave radiation exposure. This research hit me hard—it offered a possible explanation as to why Angel’s neural tube failed to close properly. Around the same time, the U.S. government began fortifying grain with B vitamins, such as folic acid (B9) and B12, to reduce the risk of neural tube defects. While it’s not definitively proven that this fortification was a direct response to electromagnetic field (EMF) exposures or “entropic waste” in our environment, it aligns with the concept that certain nutritional interventions can help buffer against environmental stressors.
My personal story shows that the distortion of the energy and information that guide human development isn’t just an abstract worry—it can lead to severe, life-altering consequences. We’ve talked about how modern exposures like EMFs and non-ionizing radiation might subtly erode the fidelity with which traits (such as attention span, social aptitude, or gender-related characteristics) are passed down through generations. But in Angel’s case, this wasn’t about subtle changes in personality or behavior; it was about a catastrophic breakdown in the biological “instructions” that shape fetal development.
Think of it this way: There’s a kind of blueprint, a biological instruction manual, that oversees how cells divide, differentiate, and form organs. If this blueprint is corrupted—if the environment introduces too much “noise” and disrupts the bioelectric signals and molecular cues that guide development—crucial structures may not form correctly. For my daughter, this meant the neural tube didn’t close, a lethal defect. What I experienced was a tragically extreme example of what happens when environmental interference becomes overwhelming.
Dr. Martin Pall’s research helps us understand some of the underlying mechanisms. He’s shown how EMFs can activate voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs) within our cells, allowing excess calcium to flood in and triggering oxidative stress, inflammation, and other disruptions. If these processes occur during critical developmental windows, they can scramble the signals an embryo relies on. Instead of a clean transfer of life’s blueprint, we get a corrupted data stream that can lead to anything from neural tube defects to, on a less severe scale, altered attention, social cues, or gender expression as children grow up.
Importantly, this isn’t just about the risk of cancer, which many focus on when they think of radiation. The subtle, non-thermal biological effects—those we’ve too often ignored—may be at least as significant. From damaging sperm DNA (increasing the chance of harmful de novo mutations) to altering hormonal balances and interfering with bioelectric signaling, these non-thermal effects can influence the fundamental building blocks of life and heredity.
When sperm integrity is compromised by EMFs, it raises the likelihood of passing on new mutations. We know older fathers already have a higher risk of children with autism due to accumulated genetic errors in sperm. Now imagine compounding that with environmental stressors that increase mutations even further. This creates conditions where it’s not just developmental “traits” that go awry; it’s the actual genetic or epigenetic stability of future generations.
Looking at all of this together—the tragic outcome with my daughter, Dr. Pall’s research, the evidence of sperm damage, and the potential for EMFs and other exposures to interfere with the delicate signaling processes that guide development—it’s clear we are facing a far more profound issue than we once realized. Entropic waste might be quietly reshaping our biological legacy, distorting the very instructions that ensure traits pass reliably through generations.
It’s time we confronted these issues head-on. We need more independent research into non-thermal effects of EMFs, more transparent public policies that consider modern science, and a collective willingness to reevaluate the technologies we use and the exposures we tolerate. Nutritional interventions like folic acid fortification are helpful, but they may only be partial solutions if we don’t address the underlying environmental “noise.”
I share this personal story not to alarm, but to highlight the stakes. Conditions like ADHD, autism, and identity-related confusion may be subtle hints of a deeper biological scramble induced by entropic waste. In my daughter’s case, we saw the worst-case scenario—a lethal defect resulting from severely corrupted developmental signals. If we take this threat seriously, we can work toward safeguarding future generations, ensuring that the blueprints of life remain intact, and that trait continuity is preserved.
This is why RF Safe exists—to raise awareness, advocate for safer standards, and push for research that acknowledges the complex, non-thermal biological effects of our wireless world. Together, we can strive for a future where the environment supports the faithful transmission of life’s critical instructions, rather than distorting them with invisible noise.
When the Signal Gets Lost in the Noise: Rethinking Modern Development in a Wireless World
Over the last few decades, we’ve seen striking changes in how people experience and express themselves—from increasing rates of autism and ADHD to a growing number of individuals identifying as transgender or nonbinary. Alongside shifts in social acceptance and diagnostic criteria, these changes invite questions about whether environmental factors might also be at play. We live in a world saturated with wireless radiation, electromagnetic fields (EMFs), and blue light—an environment vastly different from the natural settings in which human biology evolved.
What if these modern exposures are introducing “noise” into the developmental processes that once passed traits down through generations with high fidelity? From hormone disruptions and neurological effects to the subtle bioelectric signals guiding our growth, today’s environment may be creating a low-fidelity developmental setting. In such a world, once-stable traits and instincts—ranging from attention spans and social cues to gender confidence—might not be transmitting as cleanly as before.
This isn’t about blaming environmental factors for every trend or identity. Social acceptance, cultural shifts, and improved diagnostics certainly play enormous roles. But we must also consider that phenomena like increased autism prevalence, rising ADHD diagnoses, and greater visibility of gender questioning might be influenced, at least in part, by an altered electromagnetic and chemical environment.
A Rapidly Changing Landscape of Human Development
Consider two major trends:
- Autism and ADHD Increases:
In the 1970s, autism prevalence was estimated at about 1 in 10,000 children. Today, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports approximately 1 in 36 children are on the autism spectrum. ADHD diagnoses have also soared. While some of this is due to better awareness and diagnostic tools, the scale of the increase prompts us to ask: are environmental factors amplifying or enabling these shifts? - Rising Transgender Visibility:
Recent data suggests about 1.6% of U.S. adults identify as transgender or nonbinary—a prevalence of about 1 in 62.5. This is far greater visibility than in past decades. Social acceptance explains much of this increase, as people feel freer to express their identities. But the similarity between this number and modern autism rates raises intriguing questions. Could environmental factors that impact neurodevelopment, hormonal regulation, or identity formation be subtly shaping these trends?
We know social and psychological components are crucial, but what if certain individuals are more sensitive to environmental “noise” that can affect how traits develop and manifest?
From Pristine Environments to EMF Saturation
Humans evolved in an environment rich in natural electromagnetic fields—think of the Earth’s geomagnetic field, solar radiation, and lightning-generated Schumann resonances. This was a relatively stable, low-noise backdrop for biological processes. Now, we inhabit a world flooded with man-made electromagnetic fields: Wi-Fi signals, cell towers, Bluetooth, satellite transmissions, and a plethora of wireless devices.
This exponential jump in EMF exposure is not something our biology had time to adapt to. The question is: does this altered environment introduce enough “noise” to disrupt bioelectric signaling, hormone balance, and the integrity of traits passed through generations?
Bioelectricity, Hormones, and the Developmental Matrix
Research led by scientists like Dr. Martin Pall has identified mechanisms by which EMFs affect cellular processes. One key player is the voltage-gated calcium channel (VGCC), which can be disrupted by EMFs, leading to excessive calcium influx into cells. This biochemical disturbance can generate oxidative stress, inflammation, and changes in cell signaling—all non-thermal effects that challenge the outdated assumption that only heating matters when assessing RF radiation risks.
Hormonal disruption is another piece of the puzzle. Studies have shown that exposure to wireless radiation may lower testosterone levels or affect sperm quality—clear signs that EMFs can influence the endocrine system. Since hormones like testosterone guide aspects of sexual development, confidence during puberty, and overall identity formation, disruptions here might not cause someone to identify differently, but could contribute to an environment where inherent traits don’t pass through as cleanly.
Add blue light to the mix—emitted from our screens, phones, and LED bulbs—and the problem compounds. Blue light disrupts melatonin production, affecting sleep, mood, and hormonal cycles. Poor sleep during critical developmental stages can reverberate through the endocrine and nervous systems, potentially influencing cognitive and emotional development.
Low-Fidelity Development: A New Lens for Environmental Impact
Consider a beaver that has never seen another beaver build a dam. Remarkably, it will still instinctively construct one. This innate behavior exemplifies high-fidelity transgenerational trait continuity. Traits and instincts have been reliably passed down, ensuring species survival.
Now imagine an environment so altered—so “noisy”—that this fidelity erodes. If the biological instructions that guide development, identity formation, attention, and social interaction get scrambled, we may see unexpected shifts. Autism rates rising from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 36, ADHD diagnoses proliferating, and more individuals questioning their gender identities could be partial indicators that some aspects of trait transmission or brain development aren’t proceeding as smoothly as before.
This is not to say EMFs or blue light “cause” autism or gender identity questioning outright. Human identity is complex, shaped by culture, psychology, genetics, and personal experience. Still, if modern environmental factors reduce the clarity of developmental “instructions,” they might tilt the balance in subtle ways that, over populations, become statistically visible.
Autism, ADHD, and Electro-Pollution
In animal studies, prenatal exposure to certain EMFs has led to offspring exhibiting ADHD-like symptoms—restlessness, difficulty focusing, and abnormal social behaviors. If these findings translate even partially to humans, the ubiquitous presence of wireless signals might be nudging some developmental trajectories off their natural course.
Autism involves differences in communication, social interaction, and sometimes sensory processing. Could EMF-induced oxidative stress or disrupted calcium signaling be affecting neuronal networks crucial for these functions? The lack of conclusive proof doesn’t negate the possibility; it merely underscores the need for more research.
Transgender Identification and Hormonal Disruption
Gender identity is a deeply personal and complex aspect of human experience, influenced by cultural acceptance, psychological factors, and, likely, biological foundations. If EMFs and other modern exposures subtly alter hormone levels or disrupt bioelectric patterns during puberty, could this contribute to the rising number of individuals exploring identities outside traditional binaries?
This hypothesis doesn’t diminish the authenticity of transgender identities. It simply acknowledges that environment can shape how traits are expressed. More research is needed, but ignoring the possibility closes doors to understanding how various influences—chemical, electromagnetic, and social—intersect.
From One in 10,000 to One in 36 and One in 62.5
The parallel between autism and transgender prevalence statistics is intriguing. Autism at about 1 in 36 children and transgender identification at about 1 in 62.5 adults are both far more common than anyone would have predicted decades ago. Improved recognition and acceptance explain a lot, but environmental changes might be fueling a “perfect storm.”
Imagine if we live in a world where the developmental “signal” is losing clarity due to electromagnetic noise, hormonal disruptions, and round-the-clock artificial lighting. The rapid cultural acceptance and better diagnosis simply allow previously hidden variations to surface. But without the environmental “static,” would those variations be as pronounced?
Entropic Waste: The Noise in the System
“Entropic waste” or “electro-pollution” can be thought of as introducing low-fidelity conditions. If humans evolved in a finely tuned environment where bioelectric and hormonal cues reliably guided development, today’s EMF landscape could be scrambling some instructions. Over time, this might lead to subtle increases in certain conditions and identity variations.
It’s not about assigning blame or simplifying complex identities and conditions into one root cause. It’s about recognizing that our environment is not the same as it was 50 years ago, and that these changes might influence various aspects of human life, including identity formation and neurological health.
The Necessity of Robust, Independent Research
To make progress, we must invest in thorough, unbiased research:
- Reevaluating RF Safety Standards:
The FCC’s guidelines, largely unchanged since 1996, focus solely on thermal effects. Modern science clearly shows non-thermal biological effects exist. Updating these guidelines to incorporate current knowledge is essential. - Studying Non-Thermal Bioeffects More Deeply:
Research like Dr. Martin Pall’s on VGCCs shows specific mechanisms by which EMFs could cause cellular stress. We need similar in-depth studies on hormonal and developmental impacts, especially in children. - Long-Term Developmental Studies:
We must track how prenatal and early-life EMF and blue light exposures correlate with long-term outcomes—neurological, cognitive, hormonal, and identity-related. - Public Health Policy and Precautionary Measures:
Even as we await conclusive data, precautionary approaches—like reducing EMF exposure in schools, encouraging wired connections at home, or limiting screen time for young children—could help maintain a higher-fidelity developmental environment.
Restoring Local Control and Addressing Legacy Wireless Infractions
One of the greatest obstacles to mitigating these risks is the legal and regulatory framework that prioritizes corporate convenience over public health. Section 704 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act prevents local communities from denying cell tower placements on health grounds. Parents and local leaders cannot say “no” to a tower outside a school window based on health concerns. This legal barrier ensures communities remain passive recipients of whatever infrastructure industry rolls out, no matter the scientific concerns.
Empowering local governments to consider health in their decisions would reintroduce accountability. Communities could demand safer distances for towers, encourage lower power levels, or even opt for emerging technologies (like space-based wireless) that minimize ground-level exposure.
Elon Musk’s Opportunity to Lead
Entrepreneurs like Elon Musk have disrupted legacy industries—from launching rockets into orbit and landing them upright to rethinking social media. If Musk can accept that the thermal-only paradigm is outdated and that non-thermal effects matter, he could champion changes that benefit everyone.
By supporting research and calling for updated guidelines, Musk can align SpaceX’s space-based wireless deployments with public health interests. If parents see Starlink Direct-to-Cell as not just convenient but safer than legacy towers, adoption will skyrocket. Aligning with the truth will foster trust, reduce regulatory battles, and provide a compelling market advantage.
Strengthening Human Futures Through Honest Engagement
Addressing these challenges isn’t about undermining technology or resisting progress. It’s about ensuring that progress respects human biology. A healthier relationship with technology might mean using wired connections in critical environments, reducing unnecessary exposures, and planning urban infrastructure with well-researched safety margins.
We must also communicate these ideas ethically and without fearmongering. Not everyone exposed to EMFs will experience health issues or identity changes. Societal acceptance and improved diagnostics undoubtedly explain much of what we see today. But if electromagnetic noise even subtly contributes to these trends, acknowledging that is key to making informed decisions and safeguarding future generations.
Advocacy and Public Awareness
Raising awareness involves more than scientific papers. It’s about engaging with policymakers, industry leaders, educators, and the public. By promoting education around EMF exposure, encouraging community discussions on school tower placements, and empowering parents to make more informed choices about devices and screen time, we can collectively push for healthier conditions.
Grassroots activism, bolstered by support from innovators who care about scientific integrity, can lead to policy reforms. Removing regulatory barriers like Section 704 and revising outdated safety standards would restore local rights and encourage industry to innovate in safer directions.
Embracing Complexity and Striving for High-Fidelity Futures
We find ourselves at a turning point. The modern environment—rich in EMFs, wireless radiation, and artificial lighting—could be contributing to subtle but meaningful shifts in human development. Autism, ADHD, and questions around identity may partially reflect an environment that no longer provides the same biological clarity our ancestors enjoyed.
This doesn’t diminish the valid social and cultural components of these phenomena. Rather, it highlights that environmental noise may amplify or complicate the natural variation and complexity of human life. Recognizing this possibility is not about denying identities or conditions but about seeking to understand and protect the innate blueprints that guide our growth.
Restoring a higher-fidelity environment may involve rethinking how we deploy technology, limiting unnecessary exposures, and investing in research that respects biological complexity. It also means fighting for the right of local communities to act in their best interest and pushing industry leaders to acknowledge new evidence and embrace safer designs.
Ultimately, addressing these issues could help us preserve the integrity of human development, protect future generations, and ensure that our rapidly evolving technological landscape enriches life rather than undermines it. If we accept the challenge to study, communicate, and reform, we can move toward a future where human traits continue to pass through generations with clarity and fidelity, even in the digital age.
Environmental and Biological Intersections
While diagnostic improvements and social acceptance offer a large part of the explanation, we should also consider whether environmental factors influence both sets of numbers. Conditions like autism are increasingly being examined through the lens of environmental change—think EMFs, wireless radiation, and other modern exposures that could contribute subtle “noise” to human development. Similarly, if hormonal or neurological factors play even a minor role in gender identity formation, the same environmental influences affecting neurodevelopment could also influence how traits related to identity are expressed.
This isn’t about reducing complex identities or conditions to a single cause. It’s acknowledging that we live in a world of unprecedented environmental changes—from EMFs to endocrine-disrupting chemicals—that may be shaping us in ways we don’t fully understand. As with autism, where underdiagnosis or misdiagnosis used to obscure true prevalence, current self-reported transgender rates might be just the tip of the iceberg, with more individuals finding the language and courage to identify as time passes.
It’s crucial to approach this with empathy and nuance. Feeling “confused” about one’s gender isn’t inherently negative—it can also be seen as people having the freedom to question and discover who they are, without as much stigma as in the past. At the same time, if there are environmental stressors or physiological changes nudging this confusion or broadening the spectrum of how identities manifest, it’s worth acknowledging that our modern world is more complex than ever before.
It could also be shaped by a multitude of environmental and developmental factors that we’re still trying to understand. The value lies in recognizing this complexity, keeping an open mind, and encouraging further research and dialogue.
I’m essentially describing a scenario where the once-stable transmission of certain traits and instincts across generations is being disrupted—“low-fidelity” development, so to speak. Traits like sustained attention, social cue recognition, or confident gender expression were once passed along with relative consistency, allowing children to inherit a baseline level of focus, sociability, or identity formation from their parents. Now, these traits might not be transferring as cleanly.
If the “trait” for holding attention isn’t reliably passed down, you could see that manifest as ADHD—children so hyperactive or easily distracted that they struggle to complete tasks. Similarly, if the capacity to read social cues doesn’t come through intact, it might emerge as autistic characteristics, making it harder for kids to navigate social interactions. And if the inherent sense of gender identity—whatever that might be along the spectrum—isn’t transmitted faithfully, it could lead to more adolescents and young adults feeling uncertain or confused about their gender identity.
Suggesting that gender expression in children, much like attention span or social cue recognition, arises from traits passed down through generations. If a father was distinctly “alpha” or “beta,” that tendency might have historically been transmitted to his offspring as part of a broader inherited behavioral template. Similarly, the capacity to focus (avoiding ADHD) and the ability to interpret social cues (avoiding autistic traits) were passed along as stable traits.
However, in today’s world—saturated with non-ionizing radiation, electromagnetic fields, and other environmental disruptors—this once-reliable transmission of ingrained traits seems compromised. The result is a “low-fidelity” developmental environment, where children no longer inherit or express these traits as cleanly as before. Instead of receiving a clear, intact blueprint for attention, social interaction, or gender expression, they get a muddled signal.
What’s behind this breakdown in trait continuity? I’ve pointed out that modern environmental factors—like constant exposure to non-ionizing radiation, EMFs, or even the hormone-disrupting effects of blue light—could be introducing “noise” into the developmental process. Take the Yale study: Mice exposed prenatally to cellphone radiation exhibited ADHD-like symptoms, becoming too restless to find the cheese in a maze. They were so hyperactive and unfocused that they failed a task that should have been instinctively manageable. This direct, measurable change in behavior following radiation exposure suggests that environmental pollutants can indeed alter baseline traits we take for granted.
Thirty-five years ago, conditions like ADHD or large-scale gender uncertainty at a population level were not nearly as prominent. While it’s true that changes in diagnostics, social acceptance, and awareness play enormous roles, the fact that we’re living in an environment saturated with novel stimuli—blue light altering sleep and hormone production, wireless signals interfering with cellular processes, and who knows what other “entropic waste” lurking in the background—raises the suspicion that environmental factors also matter.
My point is that it’s not just one factor. It’s a complex interplay, but these environmental disruptions could tip the scales. They may be weakening the fidelity with which certain ingrained traits—attention, social acuity, gender expression—are passed on and expressed. It’s not about assigning sole blame to EMFs or blue light; it’s about considering that these novel, ubiquitous exposures might be nudging the developmental trajectory in ways that lead more kids to struggle with focus, social understanding, or a clear sense of self.
In essence, what was once an inherited stability in critical traits is now subjected to a new, “noisy” environment, making it harder for children to maintain the baseline that previous generations enjoyed. Over time, this could explain why we now see conditions that were rare or barely recognized decades ago suddenly becoming alarmingly common.
However, in today’s world—saturated with non-ionizing radiation, electromagnetic fields, and other environmental disruptors—this once-reliable transmission of ingrained traits seems compromised. The result is a “low-fidelity” developmental environment, where children no longer inherit or express these traits as cleanly as before. Instead of receiving a clear, intact blueprint for attention, social interaction, or gender expression, they get a muddled signal.
A powerful analogy: consider a beaver that instinctively builds a dam, even if it has never seen another beaver do it. This innate behavior is a clear example of high-fidelity transgenerational trait transmission. The same goes for ants cooperating in colonies—there’s an instinctual, inherited set of behaviors guiding them, refined over countless generations.
Now, if environmental “noise”—from electromagnetic pollution to other forms of entropic waste—interferes with these developmental instructions, traits that once emerged naturally and predictably might not form correctly. Children might struggle to focus (ADHD), fail to pick up social cues (autism spectrum traits), or lack a clear, inherited sense of gender role expression (leading to more confusion or fluidity in identity).
It’s not about labeling any of these identities or conditions as “bad.” Rather, it’s about recognizing that our modern environment may be disrupting the fidelity with which certain ingrained traits pass from one generation to the next. The human organism, like the beaver or ant, depends on stable environmental cues and low “noise” to preserve these essential traits. By introducing widespread entropic waste—radiation and fields that our ancestors never experienced—we might be undermining the natural transgenerational trait continuity that shaped humanity for millennia.
In essence, these once-inherited traits—attention, social acuity, and even aspects of gender identity—aren’t being formed as reliably in this new electromagnetic landscape. Instead, we see a rise in conditions and confusions that were rare or hardly recognized in previous eras. It suggests that the “noise” from our technology-rich environment could be disrupting the very instructions life relies on to maintain certain baseline traits across generations.
Taking this idea further, there’s growing evidence that electromagnetic fields (EMFs) can influence our biology at the cellular and genetic levels, well beyond the scope of cancer. One prominent researcher in this area is Dr. Martin Pall, who has extensively documented how EMFs can activate voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs) within cells. When VGCCs are overstimulated, they allow excessive calcium ions to flood into cells, triggering oxidative stress, inflammation, and a host of downstream effects that can alter normal biological functioning.
While these mechanisms were initially explored in relation to neurological disorders and general physiological stress, the implications may be much broader. For example, consider the quality of sperm. Multiple studies have shown that exposure to cell phone radiation can reduce sperm count, motility, and overall integrity of the genetic material within sperm cells. If sperm is damaged by RF radiation—suffering DNA strand breaks or epigenetic alterations—this can increase the risk of de novo mutations in offspring.
De novo mutations are genetic changes that appear for the first time in a child, rather than being inherited from a parent’s unchanged DNA. Such mutations can contribute to conditions like autism spectrum disorders (ASD). We know that older men already have a higher likelihood of fathering a child with ASD, in part due to the natural accumulation of mutations in sperm over time. Now, introduce an environment rich in EMFs that damage sperm quality even further, and you create conditions that might amplify these risks. More mutations mean a greater chance that certain critical traits—like attention regulation, social acuity, or stable gender trait expression—won’t transfer to the next generation with the fidelity they once had.
This isn’t just about cancer, which is often the headline concern with radiation. The subtle, non-thermal biological effects—disrupting calcium channels, damaging sperm, altering hormone levels, and interfering with bioelectric signaling—could be steering developmental paths in directions we’re only beginning to grasp. ADHD, autism, and gender identity confusion might represent different facets of the same underlying issue: a developmental environment saturated with “entropic waste” that scrambles the biological instructions meant to pass from parent to child.
If the blueprint for who we are—our neural wiring, hormonal profiles, and ingrained instincts—is getting muddied at conception due to sperm damage, then we’re confronting a problem that predates birth. It sets the stage for a child’s development long before environmental exposures in infancy or childhood occur. This could explain why we’re seeing conditions that seem so alien to what was observed just a few decades ago.
Dr. Martin Pall’s research helps us understand the internal mechanisms (like VGCC activation) that EMFs disrupt. Studies on sperm damage link RF exposure to genetic and epigenetic changes that raise the risk of passing on de novo mutations. And these mutations, in turn, may contribute to a host of modern developmental challenges—an even graver concern than the cancer risks traditionally emphasized. We’re looking at a fundamental erosion in the fidelity of how traits are transmitted, a disruption that begins at the cellular and genetic level, influencing attention, social behavior, gender-related traits, and more. This paints a picture where environmental exposures, from EMFs to blue light, could be exerting a deeper biological influence than we ever imagined—one that threatens to rewire the very essence of human development and identity transmission.
Let’s consider my daughter’s condition as an extreme instance of this “low-fidelity” environment. It underscores just how critical stable energy and information fields are for guiding complex biological processes. Traits, whether related to cognition, behavior, or identity, might be thought of as lower-level manifestations of this disruption. But the failure of a neural tube to close is the system hitting a catastrophic breakpoint—a severe misinterpretation of developmental “instructions” that leads to a lethal defect rather than a more subtle shift in personality, attention, or identity.
This scenario fits into the broader concept of entropic waste and EMF exposure. If EMFs and related environmental factors can disrupt bioelectric signals, increase oxidative stress, and introduce errors into cellular communication, then the developing embryo becomes vulnerable to misinformation at a foundational level. Instead of a clean transfer of instructions and a stable morphological outcome, you get confusion in the very blueprint of life. Nutritional interventions like B12 fortification might mitigate some risk—supporting neural tube closure and DNA synthesis—but they may only be partial fixes to a deeper problem of environmental “noise” interfering with developmental signals.
They’re not just about rising rates of autism or gender identity questions, but about life-and-death matters. The same forces that might subtly erode inherited traits and push populations toward neurological and hormonal imbalances can also, in more extreme circumstances, derail entire developmental pathways, resulting in severe birth defects.
In essence, what happened with my daughter is a stark illustration of how entropic waste—this pervasive “EM noise” in our modern environment—can compromise the most fundamental biological processes. It’s the same phenomenon that may nudge attention or social interaction traits off course, but taken to a tragic extreme, it can prevent an embryo from developing critical structures necessary for life.
In developmental biology, timing and sequence are paramount. Each stage of growth and differentiation relies on the proper execution of the one before it. If something goes wrong at a critical juncture—whether due to oxidative stress, DNA damage, epigenetic shifts, or disrupted bioelectric signals—there’s no simple “do-over.” Unlike a surface wound on your skin that can scab over, heal, and eventually leave no trace, developmental processes don’t offer such second chances. Mistakes made in early fetal development, when organs and neural structures are forming, can’t just be patched up later. Instead, all subsequent steps build on whatever foundation was laid down, even if that foundation includes errors.
This is precisely what makes these environmental stressors so concerning. A subtle misalignment in the signals guiding neural tube closure, for example, can lead to a severe and permanent birth defect like what happened with my daughter. Similarly, more subtle developmental missteps—perhaps a tweak in hormone regulation, a scrambled epigenetic mark, or a malfunction in cellular communication—can alter the natural expression of traits that were once reliably passed down. Over time, these compounded, uncorrectable “mistakes” accumulate, resulting in what looks like an erosion of trait continuity: attention spans shorten, social cue recognition falters, or inherent gender expressions become less distinct and more uncertain.
The key takeaway is that the developmental timeline doesn’t hit pause or allow for repairs once the blueprint goes off-track. Every error, no matter how small, becomes embedded in the organism’s biological architecture. By the time we notice the changes—be it increased autism prevalence, ADHD diagnoses, or shifts in identity—it might be too late to “heal” in the developmental sense. This underscores the importance of preventing these disruptions at the source. Reducing environmental “noise” and entropic waste isn’t just about avoiding a single defect; it’s about preserving the integrity of the entire developmental process, ensuring that traits can pass through generations with the fidelity that nature intended.
I’m not criticizing individual identities—no one should view differences in orientation, gender expression, or any other aspect of identity as inherently “wrong.” Variation is a natural part of human diversity. The concern you’re raising is about the sheer scale and suddenness of the increase, the fact that it’s mirroring the trajectory of something we already consider alarming and worthy of investigation: autism.
Autism’s rise has led many to ask tough questions about environmental factors, diagnostic criteria, and broader societal shifts. We don’t just shrug and say, “This is normal now.” Instead, we pour research into understanding its causes, whether that’s improved diagnostics, genetic susceptibility, environmental influences, or a combination of all three. We do that because we sense that a dramatic spike in something so complex and challenging can’t be dismissed as mere coincidence. It signals underlying changes we must comprehend.
The same logic applies when we see gender dysphoria or identity questioning increasing at a similar pace. Again, the issue isn’t that these identities or expressions are invalid—far from it. People have always existed along a wide spectrum of gender and sexual identities, even if they weren’t recognized or named. But when a surge occurs rapidly over a few decades, we need to ask why.
What changed so fast? Is it purely social acceptance and the freedom to express identities that were always there but hidden? That’s undoubtedly part of it. Yet if this rapid increase tracks closely alongside other conditions we know are sensitive to environmental changes—like autism—it’s reasonable to suspect there might be more going on. Could our altered electromagnetic environment, endocrine-disrupting chemicals, or other modern stressors also be nudging developmental processes?
Being alarmed doesn’t mean rejecting or stigmatizing anyone’s identity. It means recognizing that something unusual might be happening at a population level. Just as we investigate autism’s spike to protect future generations and better support those with autism, we can investigate the environmental and developmental factors that might be contributing to increases in gender dysphoria. We do so not to force a particular identity outcome, but to ensure people have the best possible developmental conditions—clear signals, stable environments, and the freedom to become who they are without invisible “noise” skewing the process.
In other words, we shouldn’t just accept a sudden rise in complex conditions or identity variations as “normal” without asking why it’s happening so fast. Normalizing people’s individual differences is good and necessary. But normalizing the sudden environmental upheavals that might underlie some of these shifts without proper scrutiny would be a disservice. It’s not about denying anyone’s authenticity; it’s about understanding the full picture and ensuring that whatever pressures are contributing to these changes are acknowledged, studied, and addressed to preserve the continuity of human traits.
Be RF Safe To Be Sure
