Undoctrinate Yourself - #49 - Tristan Scott

Episode Date: April 26, 2026

Tristan Scott is an Electrical Engineer (M.S.) and current Head of Operations, Hardware, & Marketing at Daylight Computer Co: the maker of America's first circadian-friendly, blue light free tablet. Purchase your Daylight Computer by⁠ clicking here⁠ (they've just been restocked and are actively shipping!): https://daylightcomputer.com?sca_ref=...Follow Tristan on IG ⁠@tristan_health⁠: www.instagram.com/tristan_healthand on X ⁠@bitcoinand_beef⁠: www.x.com/bitcoinand_beefFollow Dr. Alexis on Instagram ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@dralexisjazmyn⁠⁠:https://www.instagram.com/dralexisjaz...Follow Dr. Alexis on X @dralexisjazmyn:https://x.com/dralexisjazmynSupport the podcast on Patreon:https://www.patreon.com/c/UndoctrinateYourselfPodcast/homeJoin QuantumU:https://dralexisjazmyn.thinkific.com/courses/quantumuJoin ⁠The Incubator⁠ Book Club and Think Tank:https://dralexisjazmyn.thinkific.com/courses/theincubator

Hello, everyone. Welcome back to Undoctrinate Yourself. Today, I'm sitting down with Tristan Scott. He's an electrical engineer and head of operations at Daylight Computer. The world's first, you know, incredible blue light free tablet that's not only like a normal e-ink device, but also has an incredibly high refresh rate. It feels like you're using a computer. And we absolutely love it because we can use it outdoors with natural light and leverage that natural light instead of having to blast ourselves with artificial light to see a screen, you can leverage the natural light in the environment. And also there's an amber backlight for when you do want to use it inside, indoors, and gives us kind of the best of both worlds, and also gives me a ton of hope that, like, we can still have our cake and eat at two to a certain extent. If we're just honest about the issues that these technologies are giving us, we could be creative and, you know, be able to create solutions that allow us to engage with technology in a way that's safe and supportive to our help as well.

But, you know, we're going to get into, of course, daylight and end your journey. me to joining that team and what's coming down the pipeline there. But I want to just welcome you on first. And thank you so much for joining me. Yeah, thanks for having me, Alexis. Great to, chat. Yes, I feel like it's been a long time coming. We've definitely been chatting for a while. And I actually remember listening to your podcast with Jack. Gosh, I don't remember when it was. It must have been pre. A year and a half. Yeah. That was like December, 23, I think. Yeah. And that was before I had, I guess that, yeah, that was before I interviewed him for the first time. So I remember hearing your podcast with him and I'm just like, this is so great. And it's really

nice to be able to talk about circadian and light biology with somebody with an electrical engineering background who has an understanding of what the tech is actually, like, how it's working and what it's doing to her biology. So I feel like you have a very unique perspective. And I'm excited to pick your brain. Yeah. And it's funny you say that because that podcast with Jack was pretty much like how I how I got introduced to daylight because he was like oh you're an electrical engineer who knows about this you need to talk to ungin from daylight computer and like literally podcast with ungeon the next week and then from there it was like oh this is this is what i'm meant to do because yeah there's there's very few people that have kind of have a you know somewhat of a physics electrical engineering

or technical background and i'm not even the most technical but then also i've gone down like the health the biological rabbit hole and, you know, live in synergy with nature to the best of, you know, their ability, which is what I do. So it's, yeah, it's a match made in heaven, I guess. But it's really exciting because I think you touched upon it is, you know, we, I mean, I would say, sometimes I feel like going back to the caves or living in the mountains would be nice, but we really need to actually continue to progress as a society. And technology is obviously a big part of that. And there are, clearly, simple things that can be done from an engineering perspective that have a major impact in terms of the biological effect and relationship we have with technology. Absolutely. I mean,

I'm just curious maybe to set the tone of the conversation. When did you fall down the light biology rabbit hole? Was it through Jack's work? And like when did you come across, you know, whatever the impetus was? Yeah, no, it wasn't through Jack. I basically suffered one too many concussions in, December 2017 was the last one. And then 2018, I was pretty much out of it. Like I, I post-concussive syndrome. I couldn't exercise. I was sleeping 12, 13 hours. I could barely do class work. So I was, my health was taken away from me. And yeah, I quickly did not get any answers from like the centralized health care systems, seeing neurologists. They're just like, oh, take it easy. Invisible injuries are a challenge, especially back then. And I just became really,

frustrated. I'm pretty stubborn. I was like, I'm 22. There's no way this is going to be like my new normal. So I started to research stuff, you know, brain healing books, um, meditation was big for me. The podcast like Ben Greenfield on Joe Rogan was like profound for me like getting into the, the biohacking space, I guess you can call it. And then I just started trying stuff. You know, I was wearing blue light blockers, very not great ones like barely tinted yellow. But they did have an impact in 2018, turning my phone on airplane mode, grounding. I think I got a grounding map for my birthday in 2019. So a lot of those things I was doing and then I really, you know, dove down the rabbit hole, the food system as well, got into regenerative agriculture and and wrote about that

and got really into Bitcoin as well simultaneously. So it was just on that path. And throughout the years, I just kept learning more and more. And after, you know, a certain point, I think, was around 2022, 23, after I kind of like felt like I knew enough about food and about that area of health and wanted to dive deeper. And I realized these things that I was doing like grounding, being cognizant of EMFs, I was watching the morning sunrise for a couple of years. And I was spending as much time outside as possible. And I was feeling way better. And then I would get online, you know, I started to build a little social media brand talking about some of these stuff. And, promoting my book that I wrote Bitcoin and Beef in 2020 early 2023 and I realized quickly that

there was people talking about like light and EMFs and they didn't really know what they were talking about. I was like, this doesn't make sense. This is pretty complex. I was like, oh, I have a background here that could be really helpful. And then it was at that point, like simultaneously I came across some of Jack's podcast and I was like, oh, okay. And then this is, This is what I want to like really dive into and started reading a lot of the research on melatonin and kind of the deeper EMFs, reading body electric, all of these books and just material information that's been out for a while, but has kind of been suppressed. And I quickly realized that I had this opportunity to gather a deep knowledge on this subject because I had been very passionate about improving my own health. And then I had this foundational knowledge of electromagnetism, I guess you could say, from my degree. And that's kind of where I've been in the past few years and just have gone deeper and deeper.

And it's really fun. And now I feel like the light, the MF's technology being cognizant of these things has really like proliferated and is much bigger percentage of what people talk about in the health space. Whereas, you know, four or five years ago, it was mostly about food and seed oils. and, you know, occasional blue light blockers at the primitive level, I would say, which is, which is cool. Yeah, I think, I feel like the pandemic really accelerated people's questioning of just general the normalization of a variety of different things in society, which was a major asset for, I think, our like general awakening.

It's so interesting that you kind of fell down the decentralized science and Bitcoin rabbit hole independently of Jack. and then I'm sure when you found Jack, you're like, wow, there's like somebody who's like really into this, like, let me absorb this information. And did you ever like get into his blogs when you were like early on and just be like, whoa, like, what is this? Yeah, no. I mean, actually because he talked about Bitcoin was the reason why I like kind of trusted him at first. Because I was like, oh, yeah, he's got a lot to say. This is really cool. But he's a Bitcoiner. So he's, he must have done his homework. He must be living by proof of work. Like that's just like the limit test, right? And why I

think it's it's cool to be connected with those type of people but no in reality i i i never subscribed to any of jack's stuff i really never read his blogs um because i i was just so fascinated and i like to just go find and find research like try and prove people wrong i'm like okay i'm going to go like read zimmerman's work and all these other people and like is this actually the conclusion i'm going to come to as well and and later on um you know i read a few of his blogs and try to connect some more dots but mostly just listen to all his podcast because i think that's a great way to try and like see if you can understand something on a on a deeper level and then put your own kind of spin on it as well or whatever unique perspective you may have or experience anecdotally or based on your own

education path so yeah that's kind of how i went about it and it was profound like the amount of research or the amount of people that jack like lays out that you can go and just like read all their work and book. I mean, there's so many books I haven't even read and I keep finding new ones from like the 60s and the 70s on on EMF specifically. And you know, it's just John Ott, like for example, like all these people that just it's been around. And some of the work is even first half of the 20th century, right, which is, which is crazy. So yeah, that's kind of how how I went about it. And then, you know, had my own podcast. So I was like, okay, now I get to ask some of these people questions. And that just like really accelerated my own learning and comprehension of these topics.

Yeah, I have to say when I fell down the rabbit hole on this stuff, I was so alarmed and like frankly pissed off that I had not heard about any of it. Like, you know, I got a PhD at like a top institution in the world and like I don't know about any of this stuff. And like I didn't even get brought up. And so I was very taking it back in some ways, but mostly just excited that there's like a whole new world to learn about that, uh, you know, because I think it's very easy to become very kind of jaded in the centralized system where it's like, we know everything, we've got it all figured out. It's like, that's not a very helpful way to live life or to like push society forward in a positive direction. So I think being able to have humility, but then also referencing

all of this work that like you alluded to has been, there's a corpus of literature going back to the early 1900s. And even before that, around the role of light and old hospitals used to have sunning decks on, you know, the roof. And there was a lot of like photo biology and photo medicine and used, you know, back in the day that got scrapped probably around the time of the Flexner report, I'm guessing. But I, you know, speaking of EMFs, Becker's work and also Fry's work was just so impactful for me when I was, you know, learning about the conclusions that they were both coming to back in like the 50, 60, 70s that completely aren't on people's radar today, but have such profound implications given the amount of technology and EMFs were exposed to. Like I was thinking

about Fry's work and showing that specific EMFs at specific pulse frequencies can increase blood-brain barrier permeability and also just barrier permeability throughout the body in general. And like people at the time, like Jack talks about, didn't necessarily resonate with the whole EMF story like when Becker blew the whistle in 77 because they didn't really have that technology around them to like to understand the context for that. But now we're like all bathed in at 24-7 and people are starting to wake up to the issues that can come as a result. old of that, but it's like it seems almost like our technology has been engineered to specifically harm us. Yeah, it's crazy going back to those guys in the 60s 70s. For me, I actually feel

fortunate because I didn't, you know, have like some biology like undergrad or, you know, medical undergrad. So I didn't have any like preconditioning, really. It was purely like just electrical engineering. And I don't even remember that. I don't think they mentioned anything. Maybe non-ionizing radiation is not harmful and then that was it like here's one sentence in like five years of undergrad and grad um but mostly i just did math all day and like yeah um so it was kind of good because my foundation wasn't like biased or coming from a specific direction my bot biological knowledge is purely from like just reading stuff online and then trying to connect the dots um from the electrical or electromagnetic perspective, which is fun. And then my own anecdotal experience as well, which really is where it

clicked for me with just being in nature more. Yeah, I love that. So, I mean, with regards to EMFs, maybe we can talk about some, some technical things. I mean, most people who are listening to the podcast will know that, like, the electromagnetic spectrum is very vast from, you know, the radio waves, up through gamma radiation. And when we're talking about non-native AMFs, it's typically in reference to like radio frequencies that are used in, you know, 5G, 4G, 3G, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, these types of things. But not only are they radio frequencies, but they're pulse radio frequencies, which adds another layer of, let's say, issues when it comes to our biology because it's able to penetrate more deeply. Do you want to just give us a little overview of what EMFs are

and what the potential issues are with regards to how they're interacting with our biology? and maybe some solutions that people can incorporate to reduce their exposure. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, your audience probably has heard some of this, so that's great, so it doesn't have to be super basic. And you mentioned already a few really important points there about the pulse nature. But yeah, EMFs, electromagnetic fields, the electromagnetic spectrum, electromagnetic radiation. It's called it's all like you could say the same thing. It's photons kind of oscillating in this way.

There's a magnetic field component. There's an electric field component. They're usually, or they're in phase 90 degrees apart. And yeah, the non-native piece that you're mentioning from technology or from, you know, man-made creation is typically grouped into radio frequencies, which is everything it's used for telecommunication, satellite communication, radar, things, sensors. There's a lot. And then there's power frequencies, which is electrical power, which is very low. in terms of the frequency and the energy of the wavelength. And that is 60 Hertz for the U.S., 50 Hertz for most international folks.

And I think those are important because they're both non-ionizing radiation, but they are vastly different in their characteristics of the electromagnetic waves themselves. The power frequencies are, they're much higher power because it's, you know, we're talking about hundreds of volts or thousands and thousands of, volts at a, you know, transmission line perspective, but the wave itself is very low energy. And the important characteristics to take away from EMFs and EM waves is that there is a frequency, there's a wavelength, and then there's energy of that wave. And the frequency and the energy are directly proportional, the higher the frequency, the

higher the energy. And then the wavelength is inversely proportional to that. So what most people say that I kind of already mentioned is that non-ionizing radiation has no biological effects, like this blanket statement that everyone says. And it's, it's comical to me because even, you know, the visible light spectrum, we're talking, you know, 400 nanometers, the 750, even infrared, which gets into the tens of microns, is non-ionizing, but clearly it has a massive biological effect. And it's quite obvious as well from the thousands and thousands of studies that the radio frequencies, which are even lower energy, have a biological

effect, power frequencies as well. And there's some nuance there. And I think what our community likes to nerd out on is like, why? What are the biological effects? Like, why does this happen? And I think there's a lot of reasons. But in general, acknowledging that we're at a high level like electromagnetic beings, which you probably talked about at length on this podcast.

And something that in electrical engineering is just a high level frame is electromagnetic interference is a very important thing. You know, I used to work in the semiconductor industry, and that was like one of the most important specs for every chip design is what are the electromagnetic interference signals that we have to worry about. And what's the signal to noise ratio? It's another term that I love to use because for me, when you look at the native electromagnetic inputs that we should be exposed to, that we naturally would have been, you know, before the late 19th century, early 20th century, when there was no. man-made electromagnetic signals. It would have been just a visible spectrum of light from sun, IR, UV, and then the low-frequency natural magnetic field, native magnetic field of the earth, which is as a result of the iron core, the moving charges, and also is then protecting the earth

from a lot of the ionizing radiation that doesn't make it to the surface. So we are innately like electromagnetic beings and designed to take all those inputs but now we pretty much so that's a vast difference from like the low frequency earth natural magnetic field the schumann's resonance at 7.8 hertz first harmonic there's an electric field component there and then we have so that's you know low frequency we're talking either dc static or 8 10 20 maybe 40 hertz at higher harmonics which are just kind of reciprocal frequencies at lower intensity. And then we're talking visible light, our IRR is terrahertz, hundreds of terrahertz.

So hundreds of trillions of wave cycles per second. So insane difference. And there's some random things in between, like from lightning strikes that are not as important. But now we've pretty much colored in the entire electromagnetic spectrum with radio frequencies, the first radio frequencies started like 27 megahertz at a GE plant, I think in the 1920s. And immediately everyone got like sick and they had really high fevers.

And a doctor recommended they stop operating. And then they were like, wait, this is causing fevers. That's good because fevers is actually how we treat people in the 1920s. So then actually became a therapy for like 20 years. And then World War II happened. And of course, radio communication proliferated. And from there, we've just gone up and up and up in the hundreds of megahertz range to now the gigahertz, Wi-Fi, 4G, 3G, 2, 3G, gigahertz, and 5G millimeter waves pushing that to the tens of gigahertz. So we just keep going up and filling in this spectrum even more.

And going back to kind of what I was saying, signal to noise ratio. That is really a measure of what is the amount of noise you have in a system that, is diluting the signal, the input that you want. And I think as an engineer of our biology, our bodies as a system, right? We have inputs and we have outputs. And if you have a very high signal to noise ratio from the inputs that you're getting, they're the ones you want, your outputs are going to be optimized. You're going to have high energy, you're going to have vitality, hormonal health, fertility across the board.

And that's how biology operates because you have such a complex system of cells and things that are being executed, it's really important. So now we have all these non-native inputs. We've colored in the whole spectrum. The signal to noise ratio really has never been lower. And we have such an absurd amount of electromagnetic interference. And if you go to the cellular level, which where you live in terms of expertise, you know how important electromagnetic signaling is. So if you have all this noise, you have all this interference on the line, you're going to get miscommunication. You're going to get chaos at the biological level. your outputs of the system are really going to be kind of dysfunctional. And that to me is the

high level frame of why EMFs can be detrimental even at very low intensities. The crazy thing about magnetic fields in the power frequency range is they found that weaker, sometimes lower intensity actually has a stronger biological effect. And we're talking about, you know, statistical increased risk of childhood leukemia at like the same. magnetic field exposure you get from sitting in the driver's seat of your car from the alternator. It's like very, very, very low. And you think of how that could be possible, but then you think of how weak the Earth's natural magnetic field is. And you think of how important that is for so much life on this planet and that it would make sense that we are

fine-tuned to these native signals. And because of that, we're very susceptible to even weak and low-energy non-native electromagnetic inputs. And they are not, as you mentioned, only differing from a frequency perspective. So if I take my EMF meter, my RF meter into the wilderness where I go hunting here in Wyoming, and it's measuring things like 200 megahertz to 8 gigahertz, which is where pretty much 90% of telecommunication exists except for 5G millimeter waves. And it's zero. The reading is zero when I go out to the wilderness.

There's nothing. So it's not only, and some professors have said, like, it's a trillion-fold increase in exposure. It's infinite. Like, it's zero. You put zero in the equation in the denominator, and it's infinite. So that's the amount of increased exposure we have. But not only is it different frequencies, as you said, they're very pulsed. And really, the better word there is they're modulated waves.

and Frey has studied this. Martin Powell has studied this. They take the same exact wave or field, let's say, 2.4 gigahertz, 2.45, which is a lot of, Frey's research was 2.45 for microwaves. Again, funny that he's studied all this stuff in the 70s for microwaves for like radar, and now it's the exact same frequency we use for telecommunications. And Martin Powell has studied this for Wi-Fi. And they both found in other researchers that if you just take the continuations, continuous wave like 2.4 gigahertz, let's say, it has a biological effect, not drastic, but then if you take that same wave and it's pulsed or it's modulated with data or information, actually being more indicative of how the exposures we have in our environment are from a Wi-Fi or

a 4G or 5G signal perspective, it's far worse and it's far greater. And to me, that's something that clicked more recently because I'm investigating at daylight, How do we reinvent wireless technology? And it's like, does the frequency matter as much as the fact that it's so heavily modulated? It has data and it's a very pulsed and engineered wave. And I think that's an important takeaway because people can get hung up on the frequencies, which are completely alien, but there's a lot there. So I'll pause there.

That's kind of high level. And there's a lot you can do and there's a lot we can do from a tech or engineering perspective. but to me it's really distorting the signals that we're meant to consume. And because we're designed that way, we're extremely sensitive as electromagnetic beings. And you realize that when you get your health back is you actually become more sensitive, you're more connected. But then unfortunately, you feel the, I guess, electro pollution or electrosmog, people like to say, to a higher degree.

Yeah. And I mean, that makes sense also if we think about the photo reception in the body. if you're around a lot of artificial light and non-native EMFs, those photoreceptors can start to break down. And so that's inherently you're losing sensitivity. You're losing a sense for your environment, essentially. And when you put yourself in the right environment and conditions to repair those photoreceptors,

now you're sensing things that maybe you didn't sense before that because those receptors weren't, you know, active. They had been severed from their, you know, retinal bonds. So I think mechanistically it makes sense that we become more sensitive as we heal and regenerate our bodies. but there is like that catch 22 which is ultimately a good thing because then it allows you to navigate environments more effectively to support your health. I was also thinking of what you were saying with regards to like the Schumann resonance like roughly around 10 hertz 7.8 hertz how it's like very low frequency and like you mentioned if you're also operating you said I think 50 to 60 hertz for the was it the power grid. Yeah yeah.

Yeah. So it's like pretty close. Like it's not even a full order of magnitude different. So I think in the body electric, Becker alluded to this how if you're operating too close to a natural frequency that your body's expecting to receive that it can create interference with that signal reaching the body and can create more noise, for example. And he cited some studies that were done with people who were basically put in bunkers that were like blocked, they blocked out all light and like sound. So they didn't know what time of day it was. And one group wasn't a bunker that was completely shielded from EMFs as well. And the other one wasn't. And the people who were in the shielded from EMFs as well. And the other one wasn't. And the people who were in the shielded. fielded bunker had a lot of issues in a short period of time relative to the people who were still receiving that that pulsed low frequency wave from the earth. And it just was a really good testament to the fact that, yeah, there are these things that, you know, we can't see or necessarily sense, but they're having these very profound effects on our biology. I was curious when you were talking about, like, pulse frequencies and navigating the tech space to create better tech. Are you familiar with, like, the guys at the, like, Li-Fi, they're working on, like, UV through IR, are basic telecommunications. Do you have any thoughts on that? Yeah. I'm actually supposed to talk to

one of those guys this week. I was trying to get, I was trying to get them on the phone before this podcast. But yeah, I mean, I've been thinking about Li-Fi for since I joined, day late. And we've been kind of just having a lot of thought experiments and what we can do to really reinvent wireless technology. Because to be honest, you know, I have my internet hardwired right now with Ethernet and it's really annoying. Like it's actually insanely inconvenient. I'm not going to lie. Even I can't even turn the antennas on my router off at the buy like a custom router

or basically just Faraday vacuum my router so there's no wireless signal. And it's still a benefit to hardwire in a laptop and turn the transceivers off because as we can talk about, distance is the most important item in terms of EMF mitigation. But yeah, I think Li-Fi, Life Fidelity. data transmission is is powerful and I think there's an interesting frame there right because the premise is that our body is used to taking UV or infrared or whatever the wavelength is where it's not as far into our biology and I think that's very that's true I don't think there's enough data yet to be like if you took the exact same you know signal and you know blast the human body at 2.4 gig

Hertz and then did it in the infrared range and then did it at UVC, it would be drastically better. I don't know. I don't think we have enough data. And I don't think that matters because what's more important is when you get to these very, very high frequencies. And this is kind of the good thing about 5G millimeter waves is that when you get to these higher frequencies, these higher energy waves, actually the throughput, the data throughput is is higher, but the range, the transmission, I guess resilience, if you want to call it, is very,

very poor. And that's why they had to install these repeater towers literally everywhere, because a 5G millimeter wave, like, say 20 to 40 gigahertz, it's going to drop out in like 100 yards. It's not going to get into buildings. It's going to be blocked by trees. If you have Starlink, you know, like if you set it up and there's trees, like you're not going to get the downlink, which is also in like that millimeter wave range, because it's, it's very susceptible to interference. And what they did was they kind of came up with all these technologies and ways to steer the beam and make it more concentrated. So if you think of like 2G, 3G, 4G, it's kind of being blasted out like almost everywhere, omnidirectionally. And you're just

like tapping into that. 5G millimeter waves, the higher frequency, ones are more of like they're more of a laser they're more of like a narrow beam path um still being engineered and controlled the downside is it's higher power because it's more concentrated the good thing is if you don't have 5g like on your phone or making a call or are in a downtown area entertainment center you're probably not going to get blasted with a millimeter wave um it it just depends and then you talk about li-fi i mean li-fi is quite literally like lasers um in that in that range where it'd be a narrow beam path or beam width and very directed very very much specific so if you think about that that's amazing because then you can just set up at least at home some sort of system to where you are never

physically in the path of that beam so you could almost have zero exposure because it'd be like ethernet but in terms of it's instead of the wire it's it's a laser and you know think about if your Wi-Fi router is like on your ceiling and then you just have a little thing coming off of your laptop and it's just, you know, straight beaming down. You're not in the way and bam, you have like zero exposure. So I think I am bullish on that and I'm going to investigate that. We're going to investigate that at daylight pretty heavily. Probably take a bit of time. I think for our ad home use, I think it would be profound. I think we could make new Wi-Fi routers. We could make the ad-home set up like very much dialed in to be RF, EMF free or minimize.

The challenging part would of course be on the go if you're traveling. And again, this is why like 5G millimeter waves, they don't exist outside of urban areas because it's way too inconvenient from an infrastructure perspective. And that's where the omnidirectional lower frequency waves and fields like 3G, 4G, they're much better. So there is something to say about that being a major barrier if you're traveling, you know, cell phones when you're not on a home network. But I think LiFi could be really profound in improving the at home setup without having to hardwire everything, which is a massive inconvenience. So I'm excited.

I don't know how challenging yet would be from an engineering perspective, but it seems like there's been a lot of groundwork already done, some patents that exist. I think it's really interesting that they're exploring like UVC as well. But I'm all for it. And this is the way we need to think at daylight. How do we completely like change the paradigm of a certain technology or how we do thing? You know, we've been talking back and forth about phones. Like that's to me a big one. It's like when and if we're going to do a phone.

Like what how should we actually think about this from the ground up being like very much different and very deliberate and intentional? because that is the number one source. People are always asking, like I've podcasted Danny Jones, and he's like, dude, there's a tower right outside our studio. I'm like, we can measure it. I'm going to tell you right now that tower does not matter compared to like if your phone is on you 24-7, it's, you know, blasting Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and cellular data. That's way more important than your cell tower a quarter mile away,

even a few hundred yards away because it's so much closer. and we're using it all the time, and it's irradiating not just one frequency. It's debatably a dozen depending on the networks you're connected to. You're making me think of there were some studies done in 2015. I want to say in Saudi or somewhere in the Middle East where they were looking at school children in a school that was about 200 meters away from a cell tower at the time. I guess it was probably like 4G or LTE maybe. And then they were looking at school children.

another school that were not near a cell tower and they saw increased incidents of type 2 diabetes and higher hba 1c levels and kids that were next to the cell tower and now i'm thinking like post-pandemic all the kids in the schools are on chromebooks all day they're around Wi-Fi all day and then they go home and they're on their computers and they're playing games and it's like now they're completely bathed in these frequencies 24-7 basically and so i'm just thinking from that study's perspective if they were to complete that study today they probably wouldn't be able to do it because everybody's just being bathed in Wi-Fi all the time. That's such a great point. The context of these things matters so much. And I know you've read,

I love that study. I've read so many of these studies. And the main reason why studies have not like made it happen for EMFs as like a societal conclusion is because there's so many nuances like this for starters. They've quite literally industry has funded so many studies like, you know, Dr. Henry Lai talked about this. He has this whole database where, and, you know, Mercola and Martin Blank, and these guys have also highlighted in literature that the industry just basically pours money into these very shoddy studies as it's not indicative of how we're using technology today at all.

So there's like, oh, yeah, 30, 40 percent, 50 percent of studies are not showing harmful effects. Well, they're not even using real cell phones. They're using simulated frequencies. and it's very much controlled. And even the ones that are good from, let's say, 10 years ago now, it's a completely different world. And that's what I'm concerned about. And people always ask, they always focus on 5G,

but it's really, just think of this, we have this base layer exposure from 3G, 4G, the Wi-Fi. Like, almost nobody is actually going a prolonged period of time without being exposed to some radio frequency at a level. low level intensity because they don't turn their Wi-Fi off. They don't get out of it. And then they're making calls. They're doing, you know, higher exposure tasks throughout the day, which is just layering on top of that. And if you look at a lot of these studies as well, they don't say that, you know, a 10-minute phone call exposure is like drastically harmful.

It's always the duration. It's chronic exposure. It's, you know, 24, 36 hours. It's years and years of exposure. high intensity for a specific amount of time. And that's what we're in. And we just keep adding on layers to this toxic electromagnetic cake that we're exposed to. And then as you probably highlight often, uh, at nighttime because of the light, the circadian health and also just being exposed to these non-native EMFs at at nighttime. We're not repairing. We're not restoring. So we're getting this mitochondrial dysfunction and heteroplasmia far sooner. And then even scarier, we're passing that down generationally. And that to me is, it's a tragedy where setting up children really for failure at the earliest ages. And they're far more sensitive. Their bodies are far smaller. So the intensity

of exposure is the same and it's impacting them a far greater level. They've higher water content. I'm sure you've interviewed Pollock and talked about how water is basically an electromagnetic antenna and surrounds every cell in our body. So the children really, really are so susceptible and then they're being handed, you know, higher heteroplasmia when they're born because their parents are exposed to all these toxins as well. So we need to change that trajectory or I don't know what's going to happen, but I don't think people are going to be able to reproduce and autism is going to keep skyrocketing. All these chronic diseases are just going to keep happening younger and younger.

Yeah, and I can't help but see like a parallel between like the COVID job studies and EMF studies because it's basically like we don't have a control group anymore, right? So like who are you comparing to when you're trying to look for these outcomes? Like that's a big problem. And it's also convenient if you don't want to find any effects that there is no control group. So there's, you're not going to see much of a difference necessarily between exposure and control. If your control group is also receiving frequencies when there are other, in other parts of, you know, their life outside of the lab environment, for example.

And but there's also the added issue of like, okay, let's say you put your control group in like a Faraday cage, well, now you're blocking naturally MF, so it's creating another issue. It's challenging. It's, I'm not going to lie. I think light, visible light, let's say sunlight, improving your light environment as you normally perceive it, to me is really easy. It's, you know, just try and copy the sun. Get outside as much as you possibly can. Block blue light after sun, you know, get the sunrise in your eyes. And for your lighting environment bulbs and screens and devices, just emulate, how can we emulate that as best as possible? The rest of the electromagnetic spectrum, EMFs, is far more complex.

And there is so much we don't know. And something Becker talked about a little bit, something I've read more about, is the resonance effect of how these fields and waves, it's not just like some, you know, we like to simplify and I'm like, yeah, it's just a laser. It's like hitting your body, ping, ping, It doesn't work like that. Like the direction, the polarity, the intensity, all of this stuff matters. It's not just about the frequency.

It's everything. And fields and waves, they interact with each other. They have resonance effect. And the Earth's natural magnetic field is not some like linear thing. At the equator, if you're in El Salvador, you're getting a far different electromagnetic footprint than here in Wyoming or in New Jersey or in Sweden. or in Sweden, completely different. And it's different from an intensity perspective.

It's different from how it's coming out of the earth from a directional perspective as well. And then because of that, that is like your baseline. And what Becker would talk about is those, that field is interacting with other fields in the environment. And the one study that blew my mind that he cited in, I think it was in cross currents, which if anyone hasn't read the other good book that he wrote cross currents, I highly recommend. It's more about electromagnetism, less about semiconductor currents.

I'm reading it at my book club next. There you go. It's so great. I mean, some of it is, it's actually easier to understand, I think, than body electric. But he talks about this study the Navy did looking into this in the 80s, that basically, depending where this DC magnetic field intensity was, if that was interacting with other fields in the environment, specifically low power or sorry, low frequency power fields from electrical power, it would actually have a resonance with certain minerals in your body. And some of them were with calcium, potassium, but the one they looked at was at 60 hertz at like 0.3 or 0.3 gals or 30 microtestal,

let's say, Earth's magnetic field, which is like an average reading, probably if you're somewhere in the U.S. it would have this that 60 hertz and DC magnetic field of the earth that three galser 30 micro tesla would actually resonate with lithium in the body so it actually made rats in this study more passive and more docile which is yeah if you want to talk about conspiracy theory sure you can go down that route but for me that just blew my mind because the complexity of these fields and wave interactions is so immense that we can't possibly conceive the the effects it's telling me that the locality and environment that you're in is completely unique to your situation and what you do across the world and what you do

in your place of living is different and then you talk about like minerals and cells and functions in the body it's not just about what you consume it's about the electromagnetic signaling that's going on in the environment completely and it makes total sense because if you think about a place like Sweden, let's say two extremes, Sweden versus El Salvador, you know, the solar spectrum is extremely consistent. The magnetic field in El Salvador is lower intensity and has a more horizontal directional component to it because it's at the equator. And Sweden is the exact opposite. Total cyclicality and massive light cycle swings and a far higher magnetic field intensity and vertical directionality.

So it's like how that's interacting with our biology is far different. And that is just an insight of we know nothing about electromagnetism and how it's affecting our biology. And the research will never capture that nuance. But I would be very much remiss to say I'm not excited about the promise of like trying to figure these things out. But I would tell people that there is a lot we don't know about electromagnetic fields and how they're impacting us. But it's clear that we're designed to be very sensitive.

And the more you connect into your environment and the less you uproot yourself, the more you're giving your body a chance to really fine-tune its systems and processes at the cellular level to thrive in that environment. Yeah, I love that. And I think most of the researchers, from my perspective, at least, who are working on, on non-native VMFs don't really necessarily have as technical of a background as you would like, like from an engineering perspective, for example. So I feel like this area of science is like rife for collaboration across field. I think that's what's really required in order to make some progress.

And I think it's very interesting to think about how little we know. And whenever there's a field that's like that, I'm like, yeah, I think that's so important, you know, especially given that we're all guinea pigs in this experiment and nobody is consented to any of this at the same time we have by like buying the devices and stuff and like supporting the industries but i mean even if you decided to opt out of that you're still going to have you know towers around you or whatever assuming you live somewhere suburban or urban so you know at this point in our society we don't really have an option whether we're exposed it's just a matter of being cognizant of how we can mitigate our exposure and you alluded to like the versus square a lot earlier, how about how your distance from the source of the EMFs is going to be a large factor in determining your dose received? Do you want to talk about that a little bit? Yeah, yeah. The consent piece is huge, right? And that's where I'm always like, hey, if we're distrusting of the FDA and big pharma and big food, like, please, big tech and the FCC should be even higher on your list because guess what? I can choose, well, I mean, not.

Not all of us, but a lot of us at least had somewhat of a decision to take certain pharmaceuticals and go to the grocery store, you choose what you're eating. We don't get to always choose what electromagnetic smog or pollution were exposed to. And yeah, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 I recently discovered is the reason why they can pretty much put cellular infrastructure anywhere. And that was like the most lobbied bill at the time in history, like $50 million. I mean, that was 29 years ago. So it's all, there's these roots that have been kind of spread in order for this really to have taken hold in the way it has. And it's, it's tough because it is so pervasive. It's inconvenient, right?

We use this technology all day, every day. It's wonderful in a lot of capacities. I mean, we're speaking face to face virtually on other sides of the country about an important topic, educating people. But we, you know, are using technology that if we're not deliberate about how we use it, it can be very harmful and add on to the toxic soup exposure of a world we live in. So that's for me the takeaway, right, is understanding that perfection or optimizing to the highest level is not the goal here. It's actually impossible.

You can't do that anymore. There's no going back. And that's all right, because the two things I would say you can do is mitigate exposure to the non-native inputs. And inverse square law is extremely important. So distance is your best friend. Electromagnetic waves decay at a square intensity factor for every unit of distance you put between it. So using your laptop like on a table in front of you like I have now, if you need it on your lap, putting a pillow in between you and the device.

If you're going to use your cell phone, try and use wired headphones or speaker phone, thankfully we don't actually many people hold their phone to their head anymore. And even more, thankfully, which is a fun thought experiment is the battery, the limitations of battery technology is actually a reason why RF signals are not as strong as they should be from, or would be from cell phones. If we were all using brick phones that had, you know, half a pound batteries in them, I would say we might all have brain cancer by now if we were still using them. So that's, that's another interesting rabbit hole to think about is that we've actually been kind of saved. from some limitations in battery technology. But still, yeah, don't hold it next to your most sensitive organs, right? We're talking about electromagnetism. What are the most electromagnetically sensitive, important areas of our body,

the brain, your heart, your reproductive organs, have the most, you know, dense tissue in terms of mitochondria. That's why there are always these studies are highlighting oxidative stress in those areas, cardiovascular, neuropsychiatric, and then fertility, huge one. That's where I think even Huberman has talked about fertility and EMF. So that one's almost agreed upon now, which is hilarious. So we can't apply that to the rest of the body. But getting it away from your body is the best using distance as your friend,

thinking about duration, as I mentioned. So I like to say setting up a sleep sanctuary. If you can't control what you're doing during the day, yeah, if you can hardwire, if you can reduce, you know, the exposure during the day, that's amazing. But really think about it at nighttime, do you need your Wi-Fi on? Do you need your phone in your bedroom? Turn your phone on airplane mode as much as you can and get it out of the bedroom and allow yourselves to restore and repair at nighttime. And that's going to at least help you in terms of the cellular battle that's going on during the day. Some easy things that people don't think about is, as I mentioned, your phone at any point might be, it's a fractal antenna to where.

these devices can communicate in various different frequency bands. And you can look up, you just ask Google or chatGBT, your favorite outsourced brain thinking tool to what frequency bands is my cell phone work in? And it'll list off like 20 different bands. So your phone has this ability depending on the network to communicate in many different channels. And oftentimes it's happening simultaneously. So you often have cellular data on. You have Wi-Fi on. And and you have Bluetooth. Cellular data and Wi-Fi, nowadays, they actually do pretty much the exact same thing. So if you're not going to hardwire your internet and you're just at home and you have your Wi-Fi on,

turn your cellular data off, turn that on airplane mode, your phone, and only use Wi-Fi because it's a bit lower intensity. And then again, you're not communicating on all these different channels, which would be kind of an additive exposure effect. And same thing for your Wi-Fi router. Most Wi-Fi routers now have two bands. They have 2.4 gigahertz and they have 5Ghertz. That's why you always see the 2.4G 5G on your Wi-Fi network name. If you can, you can try and turn one of those off so you just have one channel.

And now I think they're adding 6 gigahertz on the newer Wi-Fi routers and networks. And then something that I've done is I have my Wi-Fi router. Again, it's hardwired. But in order to reduce the exposure, you could buy a Faraday bag on the internet for like on Amazon. on for 30 bucks and it'll reduce the Wi-Fi output around like 70 to 80%. You could technically also use tinfoil if you want. Yeah, I tried that. You could measure that.

You could buy one of these Faraday beanies that exist from these companies. I have tried all of these. They all work. And the cool thing is they don't work 100% because it's not fully encapsulated. And they're just reflecting it back and forth and then it's kind of mitigating. But it's good because if you don't need like an absurd data throughput, or your Wi-Fi router is really close to where you're working, you don't need 100% output.

And that's kind of what I recommend to people. Or if you're at nighttime, you can't turn it off because you have a roommate, you have family members that think you're insane. You could just decrease the exposure by 80%. And that's going to make a large impact as well. And these things cost $0 or very little dollars. Aluminum foil doesn't cost a lot. $30 Faraday bag.

turning your phone off, using it more intentionally, it doesn't cost anything. Wired headphones, air tube, people always ask me about headphones. The air tube ones are definitely the best because they don't use any kind of digital communication. They're the worst audio experience, but if that's okay with you, I would use those wired headphones. Even Apple ones are still good. AirPods is a frequently asked question. They're using Bluetooth. tooth, it's in your ears, zero distance from your brain.

So of course, that's not ideal. You could make the argument that if you had your phone on a phone call and it was, you know, you have the phone up to your head compared to if you had the phone on the table in front of you and using AirPods, I would choose the AirPods in that situation. That's where the nuance is important. And yeah, I think those are good ways to mitigate exposure. I turn my circuit breaker off in my bedroom. at nighttime because actually at all times and that's because i don't need power in my bedroom

the low frequency electric and magnetic fields as mentioned very very sensitive to our body and if you want to go down the radical paramachism research hole that's a fun one but yeah if i don't need power in my bedroom i can sleep better i'm allowing for that cell restoration you can get what EMF safe Anthony and Dan over there are great. They make like custom relays to install on your circuit breaker so that you can just remote button, turn it off at night because you don't want to be flicking breakers every night just to turn off the power in your bedroom, especially if you have an old house like I do. That's the other one. So that's mitigating exposure. Obviously, if you live right next to high voltage transmission lines, if you live near a substation, if you live near an airport, a military base,

If you have a cell tower like really close and you want to measure it, that would be a concern. I would say if you can move. But I would say that how you use your phone and your devices is probably going to be more important. And then that's the mitigation piece. So that's reducing the noise. That's reducing the non-native impact. And then the other side is augmenting the natural field exposure. So getting outside as much as possible, grounding.

touching the earth, getting in nature, camping on the weekends, that's all going to give you a higher signal. And then if you're simultaneously reducing the noise, you're going to be attacking it from both ends, I would say. So that's how I go about it, how I think about it. And the best part is maybe the inconvenient part is that there is no magic fix. There's no tool or patch or sticker crystal, but it's all lifestyle. It's all accessible, or at least from a, making a decent impact on your day-to-day. It's really lifestyle and having intention around it. And it's not asking a lot, I don't think.

But the cool part is how do we bake in some of these fundamentals to make it even easier in the device suite? And that's what we're thinking about at daylight to make it even easier for people. Yeah, I have so many thoughts. I mean, for one, any kid that's going to public school is just a victim to that circumstance. and it's, I mean, I have a stepson who's 13 in public school and it like kills me to have to send him there right now. And it's like there's, we don't have any, you know, autonomy over what those exposures are like at this point. I am going up to New Hampshire to give a talk to all of the superintendents and principles about light biology.

So I'm going to be talking about non-Avia maths. We will be there too. Oh, good. You're going to go. Great. I knew that was like in the works. Yeah, we will be there. Wonderful.

Yeah. So I'm really, really hoping that we can make some headway. And that would be great if like that state could be a beacon for what's possible and really start to like spread awareness. And it would be great if we could even get some maybe like basic biomarkers from some of the kids in like at least a couple of the schools, you know, just a baseline. And then when they start to change things, we could see how things develop. It would be awesome to have that data like in the background in case we ever want to mine it. But yeah, I'm just thinking about so many kids that are exposed to all this stuff and they don't really have a say in it. But like you said, outside of those eight hours a day, they're spending insolns.

school, they're going to be spending the rest of their days at home. And so the most, you know, the most that you can do to mitigate that at home is still going to provide an immense benefit to two thirds of their day or whatever. So the more you can do that, especially during sleep, like you said, because you're not using any of that tech while you're sleeping. So the more you can do to mitigate exposure while you're, you know, unconscious, the better, uh, since that's also a third of your day. Um, I was thinking about the telecommunications act of 96 and I kind of got stuck when you said that it was like 29 years ago and I was like shit I'm getting old like no way how was that 20 years ago crazy um but I yeah was also very alarmed to learn in that act like oh this is why

they can put cell towers like next to hospitals and schools and daycares and it's like literally nobody can tell them they can't put a tower anywhere it's absolutely insane I didn't realize about the lobbying for that but like kind of makes sense but it's also very grim and kind of uh you know dark to consider that that's, you know, a thing that people are advocating for. I was also thinking about the FCC and how there's this push to just say, okay, there's only thermal effects from non-native EMFs. Outside of the thermal effects, there's, you know, no evidence to suggest that there are any non-thermal effects. And meanwhile, there's like hundreds of studies, despite this field not being that well-funded. There are still hundreds of studies

from around the world showing non-thermal effects on ion channels and calcium movement between cells and cancer, and we think about the NTP toxicity study. I mean, they showed multiple cancer types in rodent models, but it also makes me think of Becker's work in the body electric. He mentions how the shape and size of the body will also dictate how it's interacting with the fields. And so, studying rodents, you know, it's one way to study it, but it doesn't necessarily reflect what we're going to see in humans. It could be worse or not as bad in humans. It's just hard to say, but we also can't really have very fine-tuned mechanistic studies in humans because we can't dissect humans and like get down to like the

nitty-gritty of what's going on in the body most times unless you can get a biopsy of a certain tissue but it's like very invasive so it's an interesting problem that I think everybody should just use the precautionary principle whenever you can and reduce your dose reduce your exposure whenever possible to at least you know thwart off that as being a potential issue and of course that's combined in the real world we're combining that with fluorescent and LED lights with device screens with processed foods, with sedentary lifestyles. And it's like all of this is just a cacophony of, of, like maladaptive inputs that's creating disease in the body.

And so anytime you can make progress on one front, it's going to be better than doing nothing at all. Yeah, yeah. I mean, you nailed it, right? It's like the research, although there is a large quantity, it certainly has its pitfalls because this is such a complex thing. And that's what we're talking about. And studying humans is very challenging.

And there's so many independent variables that go into this equation, you can never isolate it. And if you do isolate it, then you end up like, you know, researchers thinking that UV light is just horrible and the sun should never go outside because we just brought it into a lab-based setting. So that's the conundrum that we're in. But if you use kind of logical thinking and reasoning and look at what's already been shown, whether it be in humans or in rodents or in, you know, frogs and salamanders, I think it's very compelling. We all have mitochondria. We're all electromagnetic beings at the end of the day.

And there's clearly a profound impact that warrants concern. And if you are a parent, if you are someone who is trying to raise the next generation to be healthy and fruitful, then thinking about how we use technology is a big one. And advocating for change, which is why, you know, RFK and the MAHA movement is really exciting. Agreed. Other things that I'm thinking about that you might roll your eyes, but a lot of people ask me about this stuff, like the harmonizers and stuff, and like, okay, I have mixed feelings about it because we do have our whole house biogeometryed, and I have

done subjective testing with like their pendulums, and it seems to be doing something that I can't wrap my logical mind around, like, I can literally take this pendulum that's detecting a certain energetic frequency, and it will spin in the clockwise direction, and then I'll change the exposure, and it starts spinning the other direction, and I'm not changing it. And it's like, okay, something is happening here maybe i can't quantify it rationally in my left brain so i don't usually talk about it very much because i don't have hard evidence to back up that it's working but do you have any thoughts on harmonizers like biodeometry or errors tech or any of those things yeah i definitely have a lot of thoughts and i would say i'm happy to talk about it because there's no yeah there to me

it's it's very inconclusive i would say if you're just going to if i'm putting my like concrete like engineering brain on Newtonian physics, let's say that. Even classical, sorry, classical physics, I should say. There is no way that these devices should work. Why? Because they're saying that they can harmonize and neutralize the entire electromagnetic spectrum. We just talked about your power is 60 hertz. Wi-Fi is 2.4 billion hertz wave cycles a second.

What happens to the other good frequencies, visible light, it's all part of that. there there is no like classical physics way to explain that as as being effective and to be honest you look at these research articles they put on their website and i've looked at all of them they're all like you know Alexis like cut her foot and then with this device it healed like far faster than it would have if like it wasn't like it's it's not real research either but then um at the same time there is this door of like we don't know much about energy, about electromagnetism, about, you know, quantum like interactions, you know, scalar waves and things that we think are just totally out there because where, where we live right now with like physics and electromagnetism, energy, spirituality, like this is

all like a culmination, a confrontation of these fields. And that's where people dismiss a lot of these things as woo-woo. They dismiss classical electromagnetism as woo-woo. So I open the door that some of these devices, modalities could work. I mean, you talk about something as simple as like feng shui and water dowsing. These are all related to electromagnetism, geopathic stress lines, energetic rifts, and kind of ebbs and flows and how the earth is set up. That's real. I mean, if you want to get a well dug in your house some some people just come out with you know uh the tuning forks and actually that works and there's a reason your cat sits in a certain place and your dog sits in another place and these devices they maybe work um from some sort of energetic perspective that

we can't conceptualize my concern is they heavily market their products they pay people they pay a lot of influencers every time they've reached out to me i always ask for like in-depth information like show me the physics show me like it's always some swiss proprietary like thing that no one's ever heard of and i'm like okay but then i have friends that so good friend told me last week soama vedic or whatever that one's called i got one of those yeah he's like i just feel it it works maybe it's placebo. Maybe it's some energetic exchange that we don't know about. I interviewed Gaetan Chivalier on my podcast, the grounding guy. I did a lot of research. And he's pretty esoteric. And he was like, we tested all of those devices, stickers, pendants. And he said 95 to 98%

of them did not work. And they tested it with some like Japanese energetic, I don't know, like something that is not like mainstream quantification. And he said like, one or two of them did work somehow. So he was like, again, just like that door is open to the possibilities. I would like these companies to be more transparent so that we could actually understand. But hey, if you have the means, you want to pay for something that is going to make you feel better, I think that's great. But I think the problem is they give people a false sense of security and then they can get away with it.

Like the AresTech, like literally I think they have an Instagram video showing like, you can use your AirPods and have this on. I'm like, no, like, don't do that. Like, that's where I get pissed off because it's giving people a false sense of security on what is 100% proven to be real in terms of classical physics and measuring direct impact. But I do leave the door open that there is an energetic component. There's quantum interactions. There's so much that we don't know.

And of course, some of these things. And maybe it's shungite. Maybe it's. something that a Swiss guy came out with in a lab, I'm not sure. But if you, if someone sends it to you and you want to use it, like, go for it. Yeah, that's always my perspective as well. Whenever anybody asked me about it. I'm like, sure, like, you know, go for it. Try it. But don't also like sleep on the inverse square law. Like, make sure that you're also incorporating distance between you and the source and turning off your Wi-Fi at night and still mitigating your exposures. And if you want to use these other things on top of that, fine. Like, I'm cool with that. but I exactly I don't want that people sense of security to fall into place and then maybe you're hurting yourself and you're not realizing it because I mean you can placebo yourself to a certain extent but like on some level you're still going to get harmed if you're exposed to certain things that's just you know a fact and with regards to the somavadic I actually it is doing something so like I can smell like the negative ions coming off of it so I have like a electro wand for my for like my face skin and it also makes ozone as it's working and it smells the same coming off of that so something's going on in there? I don't know exactly what's going on. They say it makes negative ion. So I think it's at least doing that. I don't know the effects on the non-AVMFs though.

And it actually, when I test it with my tri-field meter, it's like, it's giving off a lot. Yeah. For RF or what? No, it was for the electric field strength. Okay. Low frequency electric. That's very interesting. I'll have to get them to send me one too and I'll, I'll investigate. But yeah. And then the other, the other ones are right, the there's like PEMF and then there's also like tensor rings yeah there's that there's the magneto co oh magnetico pad

yeah yeah again these are all I think we don't know we don't know they could certainly work there is a lot of studies showing like again hormetic there could be a hormetic response to a electromagnetic field there are like quote unquote healing frequencies but I would yield caution again that depending on where you are in the world, this could change the impact because the magnetic field environment, the electric field environment could be vastly different from, you know, where

you live, you're on the southern hemisphere, northern hemisphere. And the really fun studies to look at these like weak magnetic fields affecting biology, they usually study plenarium and this is getting into the radical paramachanism research, is that, you know, a certain frequency, a certain polarity, like they shift it like a little bit and it actually has a different impact. So depending on your environment, that specific frequency, the intensity, that could all be different. It could just be completely different outcomes. So I think it's just, to be honest, premature.

But if it works for you, I mean, send it. I don't know. If you feel better, like, that's all on you. But I would say there's a lot of data that suggests we should be very careful and we should study a lot of this. But those research articles are very cool in how stem cell regeneration. And that's getting into the whole conversation as well about how important radical oxygen species are in general for cellular communication and taking a bunch of antioxidants. That really clicked for me is like, oh, this is how we're communicating and having this electromagnetic sensory organ, really. And if we just, yeah, take a bunch of methylene blue or vitamin C all day, you're just blunt.

you're muting. You're muting the input signals that you want. But if you know that and you're traveling or, you know, doing something very, very stressful, it could be. So what are we saying here? We're saying all these topics are extremely complex and nuanced, which is the antithesis of what people want to hear on social media and short form content because they're so dopamine desensitized. That's right. That's right. Actually, speaking of PMF, whenever anybody asked me about that, I'm like, well, technically it's a non-native EMF, right? Because it's not coming from Earth. It's coming from some device that somebody made.

So, like, you can play with it and like, sure, like, go ahead. But, I mean, I personally wouldn't, I would rather just go outside and get my bare feet on the earth and, like, leverage nature's EMFs. That's what I know is a safe bet versus something that somebody made. So, like, that's my perspective on that one. And do you know anything about the tensor coils? Somebody just asked me about them yesterday. I don't even know how they work. There's also, like, cloud busters, like, that people.

I don't know. I'm not as familiar with that. I'll have to look into that. Yeah, they seem very interesting and, like, esoteric as well. There's a lot of copper. They're just like copper, right? And that's where I see these guys on Instagram as well. They're like, yeah, copper is protecting me. And I'm like, yeah, but it's also a conductive material, which is going to absorb the non-native EMFs in your environment, too. So that's where you have to be careful, because if you were, let's say you wore bunch of copper and all this stuff like in the wilderness, you'd be probably augmenting the effect of the native EMFs, which would be good. But if you're wearing that in like, you know, downtown city,

you're just going to be absorbing more of the bad ones because that's what's present. So it's totally contextual. And I would be, I would be careful about that as well, because things can act as antennas, I mean, glasses, braces, necklaces. And there's a fine line, of course. But that's, that's how it works. Yep, that's true. And I'm actually, actually circling back to the PMFs briefly. I know in the body electric, Becker talked about his concerns around them and potentially being oncogenic in certain settings. And he also mentioned something really interesting towards the end of the book, how speaking of copper, that there were, I guess some Tibetan monks that like could develop clairvoyance and completely, complete novices. And they would take them into like a very pitch black room, sit them on a glass plate across from a copper. like a sheet of cup, like a shiny copper foil, and they would have them like sit there and meditate in that environment. And somehow that would trigger some, you know, activity in their, let's say, third eye or like their inner knowing that would be developed. And I was like, wow, that's like very specific and very intriguing. There's a lot. James Oshman's book, Energy Medicine also has a lot of

great kind of case studies about, you know, pure high level like Chi Gong practitioners. they can actually measure the electromagnetic output, like from their hands. It talks about the heart being able to measure the natural magnetic field. We emit from the heart and feet outward. So who you're interacting with, that's going to alter your electromagnetic environment, biological kind of cadence as well. So it's very fascinating. And it is fun to live in that world of where the energy, the spirituality, the woo-woo,

and then the concrete physics all comes together. And I think people are more open to that now. And yeah, we just need to, yeah, get some research that is real and think about how we can actually augment our knowledge without being so biased and sidelined. But I think we have a good path forward for that, at least the initial momentum. Yeah, I agree.

So what's coming down the pipeline for daylight? What are you guys working on? You mentioned phones. I think you mentioned desktop monitors to me before. What's going on over there? Yeah. We're thinking about a lot of products for sure. The monitor has been heavily requested.

So we're thinking about how we can have a large impact. I think the phone will come eventually. It's longer term. It's very challenging. You get into data and carriers. And yeah, we need to make sure we do that right because trillion-dollar companies have failed at doing that. So, and again, I don't know the form factor for the phone exactly.

There's has so much thought that needs to go into that. But yeah, we're bullish on a monitor investigating that further. And I think that unlocks a lot for, you know, being able to use your software that is native to like your ecosystem, whether it's Apple or Windows or you talk about corporate settings, getting into schools. We're just trying to think of how we can have a really large. impact, especially for the next generation, making the tablet a bit more friendly for kids, getting some cases, getting bundles set up so that parents can really have this as a healthier

iPad option. And there's a lot. So we're super excited improving the light spectrum. We're in contact with our LED manufacturers. Can we get a little infrared in the bezel or even violet light so that you can have some potential myopia reversal or at least preventing progression, which is a fascinating rabbit hole as well, UVA, violet. And yeah, so that the device not only is, let's say right now, it's neutral from a light biological impact to where it can become actually net positive, where all tech is net negative right now. So, and then the EMFs.

Yeah, we have software updates coming soon. That's going to unveil like smart airplane mode to where in standby, it'll be. will just go in airplane mode. You don't have to think about it and do it manually. Can we play around with the firmware? Certainly on next generation products, we're going to really optimize the firmware, the software to think about what is the peak power output

of the radio frequency transmission to where maybe if you're just doing basic browsing or searching, you don't really need that peak output transmission. And then if you're going, or it could just be like low EMF mode to where, you really only need the lowest level and the most infrequent transmissions just to, you know, scroll on Twitter or write an email, whereas if you're actually downloading something, you might need to have a higher throughput.

So just getting smart about that and configuring that automatically. There's an idea to have directional antenna control. I don't know if that's going to be possible in the near term or long term, but it's, you know, they're, like I mentioned, with beam forming and 5G has this ability to where, where the antennas can be physically moved around so that the direction of the output wave can be controlled. So if you imagine your device, whether it's a tablet or a phone,

has a sensor, proximity, position sensor, detecting where you are at in space and then where the tablet is at in space. And then the output to Wi-Fi, let's say, would only be away from the device. So it would never actually be beaming towards you. And since Wi-Fi is omnidirectional and kind of floating around your house,

everywhere and bouncing off stuff, it would not change the data throughput capability. That's an idea. These are all ideas. And the cool thing is no one, I don't think maybe some people would debate this. I don't think people, especially in the large consumer electronics companies, have ever intentionally thought about these things. I think they have thought about them from like a technical tradeoffs perspective or benefit or performance.

But they've never thought about it where they're like, hey, this is purely for like the biological impact on the end user and that's where we're coming from and that's cool like it's it's so exciting i talk to rf engineers you know former apple people's this li-fi people and i'm just like trying to gather the information that's out there and experience that's out there and how can we really reinvent this from the ground up to be less invasive and kind of less toxic for for the end users awesome so exciting two questions because i've got this question from other people and I'm also curious myself, would you ever consider making a tablet with a camera option? Yeah, yeah, certainly. I think that's been debated internally. I'd be curious

to hear feedback on the camera. The case for the camera, I would say for me, I just, I would love to be able to use either a direct camera or accessory that has a camera so that I could use it for meetings. And actually a firmware update we're doing. So right now the DC1 is like not compatible with third party webcams. I think we actually just fixed that. Oh, awesome. Yeah, we'll post some content and I'll let you know. But yeah, I think we should be able to buy for sure this summer have like, you know,

get some logitech or webcam that you can just hook up and set it on the top and take meetings. And then I think in the future products, we'd either do a camera or we'd have like a keyboard case or some accessory that has a camera built into it because I do think a lot of people appreciate that there's no camera but I think like myself and yourself if I can take meetings on the daylight that's like I mean I'm in like eight to ten meetings a day so that's like that'd be amazing and then outside so yeah thinking about that that will be a big unlock as well great that's awesome and then the second question is with regards to the monitor so my my partner is like he's a gamer unfortunately. I mean, he's kind of growing out of it, but probably not fully.

Anyway, he's concerned about the frame rate. So do you have any, like, thoughts on, like, what that's going to be like? Is it going to be comparable to other monitors out there, or is there going to be some lag involved? I think the refresh rate will be, it'll be similar to the daylight. The goal is for it to be similar to the daylight, the DC one now, the tablet is where it has a great refresh rate, 60 to 120 frames per second. It's still going to be monochrome to start. And the good thing about the monitor is if you think about like your your corporate, you know, Joe is they have multiple monitors. So or if you're at home, you know, power set up is like you can have a daylight monitor and you can have a normal monitor.

And email, doc, sheets, like almost as much as you can do, you do on your daylight monitor. But then if you do need color, if you're going to play a game or design something, you just have your other monitor. and then you kind of can get the best of both worlds. So that's, to me, what's really exciting because, and I think the amount of people that just stare at their displays all day long is insane. And I know we've been going back and forth on Flickr. And that's just one that is like, that to me is just blown my mind to an even higher degree. And especially for the phone.

So I think when we can get people off of their phone, in terms of. of hey can you just use a daylight monitor like tablet and you only use your phone for when you're traveling or like you absolutely have to make a call that to me is like where the future is is at because the flicker on the phone is so much worse the form factor it's just making you so much more susceptible to scrolling and it's so much worse ergonomically the distance is way closer so the intensity is stronger it's the word it's demonic i think phones are like the worst thing that could, they're so good for so many reasons, of course, but they're too good. And I think combining that with the algorithms that are now too good as well, there's no chance.

I mean, I don't have social media on my phones anymore. I just can't. I like, there's no, I'll lose. I will lose the game of trying to not get sucked in. And I think everyone can relate to that. So if we can kind of push people away from it and have solutions in the ecosystem surrounding that, that'll be really helpful. Oh, yeah, that's that's so true. And actually speaking of Flickr, maybe before we wrap up, we can just touch on this briefly. Do you want to share what you share with regards to like which iPhone models are like better than others with regards to Flickr? Yeah, yeah. And we're releasing a Flickr like in-depth guide article next week. We got some cool content coming. This is the one that will blow your mind because you can you can just videotape it.

You can get slow motion cameras. And basically, the way that we control brightness on modern electronic devices is not by changing the current or the voltage across the diodes because that would make too much sense and actually can result in some like quote unquote color inconsistency. The way we change it instead is by switching the LED on and and off at varying rates. So if you want a super low brightness screen, I'll put in terms of luminance, it's actually just going to be off for longer.

So instead of it being lower current, you're just switching on and off on and off. And at low brightness, the off time is increased. It's called pulse with modulation. And they use pulse with modulation control for a lot of things, such as radio frequencies and other electronics controls as well, Which is funny because I knew about this. Like we used to use them in our chip designs.

And now I'm like, oh, that's how they control LEDs as well. That's terrible. And my concussion and the symptoms I get, I always was so much more sensitive to my phone. And I thought it was the light. I thought it was the form factor. But I recently switched to an iPhone 11, which is the last iPhone that doesn't use PWM because it's a liquid crystal LCD display. instead of an OLED, OLED, O-led display.

And it doesn't use PWM. It just uses DC dimming, which is actually changing the voltage of the current across the diode. And I can actually look at my phone all day now. I mean, it's not ideal. I still get sucked in, and the form factor is not great. But I now look at my iPhone 13, and I get a headache in five minutes because I've removed that completely.

And the reason why your phone, feels so much worse than everything else if you have an iPhone 12 or later compared to like your MacBook your MacBook uses PWM but the because it's an it's still a liquid crystal display they the frequency that's being used is way way higher so your MacBook is switching PWM frequency at around like 15,000 or 20,000 Hertz so at that point it's almost a DC signal like it's so fast that your brain can't even perceive it. The problem is with phones, they're switching at like 240 hertz or 480 hertz, typically if they're O LAD, like newer iPhones, Google Pixel. And the lower the frequency is the actually worse it is, because it's still above where your brain can perceive it visually, but it feels it regardless of being able to see it.

And they have quite literally an index, the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, I-Tri-E, this is not some like, woo-woo thing. It's agreed upon that flickering LEDs causes ice strain. It causes migraines, headaches, aggravates symptoms in ASD children, panic attacks, anxiety. This is like, it's not a debate. This has been written and agreed upon in the engineering literature. So they have something called a flicker index. And states like California have a law where if you are 200 hertz or below, you cannot use LEDs that flicker. at a greater than a 30% rate. And then you look at the Google pixel and some of these phones,

some of the older iPhones, they're at 240 hertz and they're flickering at like 70, 80, 90%. So they're like just above it. And it is really bad. I would say if you stare at your phone all day and get a headache or get eye strain, get fatigued, become irritable, anxious, that flicker is a real reason, a large reason, debatably, I think the most under-discussed issue with our devices, especially the phones.

And it literally does not have to be that way. The daylight, we did DC dimming, it doesn't flicker. There's other, you know, pixel level reasons why something might flicker that people with extreme eye strain are sensitive to. But for your average person, the PWN dimming is a major problem. And it's just so, it just highlights the display. between biology and the health of the end user and then like engineering, manufacturing, tech production is so isolated.

They're just, there's no real concern because they just don't know. And engineers like, okay, let's do this the most efficient way possible. Let's get the best color possible. Let's get the best processor possible. And there's just no regard for the biological impact. And it's interesting because even Apple, like, that I told you the iPhone SE, it was another one that people loved because it was like basic and more friendly on the eyes. And then they just discontinued it.

Even though people in many forums have said like don't get rid of your only like DC dimming line that's left. And there's other phone companies in Asia coming out that are specifically higher PWM frequencies to be more eye friendly. So it's not like this isn't known. People know that this is real, but they're just choosing to optimize for color, rendering and performance as opposed to the end user's well-being. And it's fine because at daylight, we're going to do the opposite. And I think we're going to be very successful because of that.

That's true. Yeah, my stepson has an S.E. And he's currently been begging for a new phone for his birthday. And I'm like, I just found out this is like the best one you can have. You're not upgrading. It's not happening. But I'm just thinking like, would the PWM dimming, would that actually like reserve You're basically wasting more energy, right? So, like, even if you have your backlight down, you're not going to conserve battery life relative to DC dimming, or is that not the case? I don't think it would have a huge impact.

That's a good question, actually. I don't know because you are, it's interesting, right? Because on DC dimming, you are actually reducing the, like, intensity of the diode, which is obviously reducing power consumption. Yeah. Whereas on the PWM dimming, the peak output is the same, which is another reason why, like, at nighttime, you're getting peak luminance. That's not changing. It's just, it's changing whether it's on or off. So, you know,

think about that. That's actually worse from an eye health perspective as well, especially if it's blue dominant, you know, affecting those those retinal cells and mitochondria in there, because the peak output is the same. They're just cycling it on and off. So I don't, I don't know from the battery. That'd be a measurement to do a research. I'll get back to you. But that's where I think about it from the concern of the fact that the peak output of the light is not only flickering, but the peak output is the same as whether you be at full brightness pretty much. And at nighttime, that would be especially problematic. And just for retinal health. Yeah, I know there's like a subreddit that has like 7,000 people or like 10,000 people in it that are, it's like PWM sensitivity. And they're all

talking about different phone models and computers and things. Like, what can I use to prevent myself from getting migraines? And just for clarity. So if you have a device that uses PWM dimming, having it on the maximum brightness will reduce the flicker rate? In theory, yes, especially on some of the older phones. But I've measured this. And I think it's tough. I think even on full on brightness, the flicker rate is still pretty high.

think it's just the nature of the OLED displays, but in theory, yes, that would be true. But it's kind of a catch-22 then because you're getting like you're getting way more, especially at nighttime, right? You want to turn the brightness down. So you could be potentially getting more flicker at low brightness. Yeah, I would say just, yeah, don't look at your phone at night. Yeah, that's a good recommendation. What do you do?

But hopefully, hopefully we can just get more options in this space. I think it is becoming a thing. But yeah. That would be good. What do you use to test Flickr? Besides like slow-moid mode? Yeah. So the spectrometer I have, like the UPR tech, it does measure Flickr,

measures Flickr index, percentage. It gives you the whole thing. That's where I get official measurements. But then what we're doing is a daylight, our team is taking very slow motion videos like 960 frames per second to actually show the PWM in real time. And you can look at our guide. our content by the time this is out will be up there's also youtube videos if you google or youtube like

pwm dimming on a smartphone there's a couple on there that are you know similar slow motion um i think you have to get a special phone i think some new samsung phones have like this ultra slow mo mode i don't think you can capture it on the the slow mo on a normal iPhone i tried yeah yeah it's you need like you need like 500 plus frames per second so if you have a a nice camera or something you could you could test it out but that's cool but guess what there's no debate like hey this is what you're looking at all day does your eyes hurt like this might be why it's not like hey this paper says this right where i love i love the the engineering background that i have in the physics because you can't debate physics and you know i can go measure grounding like

in my front yard like i can measure that this stuff works with a multimeter i don't care what the paper say like this is a real transfer of electrons or this is a a real like flicker pulse light that's going on I can show you it and I think that's what's compelling and what people are more ready for especially online because there's just so much out there and they're being inundated they're being so over saturated with with stuff especially stuff that's bad for them and I kind of feel bad to be like hey not to be the bearer bad news but yeah your tech is probably like making your life a lot worse and daylight we struggle with that a little bit Because we want to be educating on the issue and the problem at hand without being so fear mongering that you just kind of get depressed because it's easy to be blackfilled in the world today.

Whereas like, hey, no, this is this is a ray of hope. Like we're building solutions, but also you can go outside. Decentralized Health 101 is like all these things you need are in nature and accessible to you. Yes, beautiful. So I think that's maybe a good place to wrap it up. Where can people find you in daylight? And I can include links, of course, to everything in the show notes, but just, you know, for their reference. Yeah, the pleasure coming on.

Thanks so much. It's been a lot of fun. I think daylight. You can find us at daylightcom. Is our website. We're at Daylightco on socials. And personally, I'm at Tristan underscore Health on Instagram at Bitcoin and underscore beef on Twitter still.

And yeah, so you can find us. And if you have feedback, let us know. If you have questions, you can email us, hello at daylightcom. We're really looking for people's feedback, what they want to see, monitor, kids, software, anything. We really want this to be like a community movement and provide solutions for people because we do need to be on technology. I love it. I love it. Such important work.

I've absolutely enjoyed the daylight computer so much and I recommend it to everybody I know. So I'm just really grateful to have to have this conversation with you today. I think it was very educational. And I'll see you in New Hampshire, I guess, in like, two months or so. There we go. Thanks, Alexis. Thank you. Bye.