Quite often, when one learns about potential harm from wi-fi radiation, the first reaction is, "Surely if this were an issue I would know about it!" This has been the sentiment of doctors, scientists, legislators, colleagues, the neighbors, family members and others when they first join the conversation.
Unfortunately, in the United States, Canada and elsewhere, much of our information is filtered by the companies that own mainstream media channels. I experienced this first-hand.
Media Filtering of News
A lawsuit was served to a private school in Massachusetts where a boy had been diagnosed with electrical sensitivities (ES) and the school refused to provide reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. When Fox TV researchers looked into the issue, they came up with my name as Senator Karen Spilka had introduced a bill on my behalf to raise awareness of wi-fi radiation. I was contacted by a journalist who asked if she could bring a cameraman to my house for an interview.
I spent an hour educating them on potential harm from wi-fi radiation, and measured their devices. They indicated that the evening's story would only be one minute long and would focus on the Fay School lawsuit, but the journalist wanted to have her network do a bigger story on wi-fi radiation in the future. I looped back in with her sometime later, and she said she pitched the story a couple of times but her network was not responding.
I let her know when I looked up the initial school lawsuit story on-line, I had to sit through an advertisement before the story would play. The ad was from Sprint, a telecommunications company. I let the journalist know that since the telecom companies were paying a lot of the operating costs for the station through advertising dollars, it is unlikely the network would run a truly investigative story on wi-fi radiation as it would shine an unfavorable light on major advertisers.
I have since clicked on the link below to the story, and had to sit through other ads. One day it was Comcast Xfinity, and another it was Capital One speaking about having free wi-fi in their stores:
The story itself, brief as it was, did not highlight the thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies showing evidence of harm. Rather, it featured a 16-study draft report from 2014 that concluded more scientific study is needed. That may have been true back in 2007, but since then, thousands of additional studies have been done and reported out through the BioInitiative Report. The FCC put its standards under formal review when the BioInitiative Report was released in early 2013, but has not updated its information to the public. See The Science page for details.
The FCC and Powerful Industries Control the Media
In 2015, Harvard University published the Captured Agency report, which details how the FCC is not giving the public important information on wi-fi radiation. Basically, the FCC is being run by the telecom industry which puts corporate profit above public health. The telecom industry funds our mainstream media, and so our citizens are kept in the dark. Take note of the advertisements you hear on television, radio, the internet, etc. http://ethics.harvard.edu/files/center-for-ethics/files/capturedagency_alster.pdf
As reported by The Defender in 2020, "The “unfair market practices” of technology giants Google and Facebook have decimated local journalism, threatening “America’s most trusted news sources,” according to a new report from the office of Sen. Maria Cantwell." https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/senator-slams-google-facebook-local-news/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=b4e0967b-b2fc-4452-bb86-01cf1be86f55
Long-time PC Magazine journalist John Dvorak wrote in 2018, 5G Got Me Fired: https://scientists4wiredtech.com/2018/09/5g-got-me-fired/
Non-Mainstream Media
Non-mainstream channels will often produce more fact-based reporting and allow for freedom of speech.
The Society of Environmental Journalists published Katie Alvord's article, "Is Wireless Technology an Environmental Health Risk?" This is a good article to give to local journalists to help them learn about this issue and identify a stream of reporting angles: https://www.sej.org/publications/features/wireless-technology-environmental-health-risk
Below is an example of O'Dwyer's reporting on this subject. Jack O'Dwyer was an independent veteran journalist who covered the press conference in 1964 when the U.S. Surgeon General informed the public that cigarette smoking was bad for our health. Mr. O'Dwyer knew the science on tobacco had been done decades before, but the tobacco industry was very effective in suppressing evidence of harm and creating doubt. Creating doubt leaves consumers uncertain, so they continue to buy toxic products. Mr. O'Dwyer understood that telecom and energy industries are using the tobacco playbook today. A quick search on O'Dwyer's using the keyword 'wi-fi' brings up many articles he has written to inform the public: http://www.odwyerpr.com/search_results.html?q=wi-fi
Local cable stations often allow community members to discuss important issues. WCCA in Worcester, MA, for example, invited me and a smart meter opt-out advocate to educate the public on a half-hour show called Soapbox:
http://www.wccatv.com/video/soapbox/SOAPBOX1052
Public Broadcasting Stations (PBS) often cover issues too that are not discussed in mainstream media. WGBY in Springfield, MA asked me to come in for a six-minute segment that aired in March 2016:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE5FLQJX6bA
While PBS was intended to be non-commercial, funding constraints have now made PBS open to commercial interests. Understanding Media and Culture: An Introduction to Mass Communication offers a chapter on Issues and Trends in the Television Industry that provides the history of media funding and corporate influence on content: https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_understanding-media-and-culture-an-introduction-to-mass-communication/s12-03-issues-and-trends-in-the-telev.html
A search on PBS funders on November 1, 2020 shows corporate sponsorship of the news: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders
Other Countries
Some countries are more proactive about providing information to protect their citizens. Australia, for example, ran a Wi-Fried story in 2016 -- but was later made to take it down:
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/4494933.htm
... also look at Italy, France, Greece, Russia, etc., on the World Response page. Perhaps it will take stories about America in other media outlets for the truth to come out.
Note: The information provided here is publicly available on the Internet.
It is intended to provide a starting point to inform you of EMF dangers.
Please do your own research, draw your own conclusions, and act accordingly to protect those you love.