Guest Post: Personal Protection Against Electromagnetic Waves

Another danger from wireless technology,  discussed a bit here in the BioInitiative Report is that of electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) /aka electromagnetic sensitivity, or one of the many potentially disabling “sensitivities” falling under the broader term Environmental Sensitivities (ES).

As the use of wireless technology increases, more and more people around the world are becoming disabled by, or “sensitive” to electromagnetic waves, and must find ways to survive and cope in the world, since safe sanctuaries are not yet available and life of some sort must go on. Some people are discovering special materials that can be used to make protective clothing, hoods, capes etc. Note that care must be taken to keep the waves from bouncing around inside the material.

Ryozo posted this account of what he must wear to his fb page and he agreed to share it here.

He lives in Japan and has MCS and EHS. He was a teacher by profession and now works to raise awareness about these conditions whenever he is able. He is a member of the Japanese organization CACP – Citizens Against Chemicals Pollution.

My way to protect from electromagnetic waves

by Ryozo Tamakoshi

Points to keep in mind

The causes and the conditions of chemical sensitivity or electromagnetic hypersensitivity are very various. My method is not always effective for all people. Ultimately, it may be important to find your own way. Please note that metal allergy could affect ability to use these protective clothes. Summer is so hot, this way is impossible. (This is only the protection from electromagnetic waves.)

Clothes are all cotton to protect from static electricity. Blue Clothes are called SAMUE (a monk’s working clothes).


Under SAMUE my body is protected by the four-layer electromagnetic wave shield cloth. Material: Copper and nickel-coated polyethylene terephthalate (PET). Shield rate:40dB – 99%, 60dB – 99.9%


Wear the vest and the scarf of 8- layer shield cloth to protect my chest and neck.


Wear electromagnetic wave protection suit. (MS750) Material: Thin silver coating parachute nylon fabric. High-frequency electromagnetic wave shield cloth. Microwave attenuation rate:in 800MHz ~ 18GHz, more than 10dB (90%). Production: Germany Sewing: Germany or Japan


Next, another vest made with the former material. (When you go out, especially) And mask containing activated carbon.


Where electromagnetic waves are stronger, wear a hood and 8- layer shawl.


Where very strong, at last, I’m inside of a sleeping-bag.


Ryozo shared the translation of a presentation he gave about MCS here:

MCS in Japan – A Lecture at the House of Representatives of Japan

For more information about EHS and the problems with wireless:

Citizens for Safe Technology Society (CST)

Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: Fact or Fiction?

The BioInitiative 2012 Report

Diagnosing Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity and “The effects of invisible waves”

A Survival Guide

Practical Tips for Coping with Electrical Hypersensitivity

Extensive selection of conductive and shielding fabrics
Some ready made clothing

Note that Your Mileage May Vary with any solutions offered.

There is no One Size Fits All with this… other than avoidance…

8 responses to “Guest Post: Personal Protection Against Electromagnetic Waves

  1. As someone who used to work with those frequencies, I’d say that is a very effective defense across a wide range of the electromagnetic spectrum. It is, however, incomplete. Although it will probably block 95% or more of the frequencies that attack our bodies everyday (and for some that may itself be enough of a relief), the brain is still exposed to those frequencies that come from the front and the reflective nature of the metallic shield in this case works against the wearer’s favor. Wearing a metallic hood with nothing to block/deflect the waves coming in from the front will create a parabola that redirects the incoming waves through the brain and kind of creates a pinball situation where the waves bounce back and forth inside the hood. The metal shields the wearer from waves coming from the back and sides because the most waves bounce of the metal like light in a mirror. Unfortunately, that means the waves that pass through the face bounce off the inner section of the hood, which means the waves travel through our brain at least twice (the frequency plays a factor because some frequencies are absorbed by the water in our brain more readily than others, and higher frequencies “bounce” more but travels shorter distances compared to lower frequency waves). The hood will shield the brain from the majority of the waves from the overall environment like the sides and front, but the inner section of the hood becomes a dome for the waves that can access it unhindered through the front. A fine mesh metallic screen to fit over the front, like the screen a competitive fencer wears would block all but the lowest frequencies and still allow the person inside to see.

    • Thanks! I’ve heard we have to be very careful about this. I appreciate the explanation and hope it helps others protect themselves better.

  2. Having only just yesterday really found out about this condition, my initial response was “WOW! That sounds like something out of science fiction!” and this outfit really drives that idea home. I had heard, years ago, that cell phones were dangerous, but I had thought that was quickly de-bunked. I wish the media would get on this again, I think it’s important news!

    • I just found this comment now – wordpress didn’t send me a notification…?

      The media does have the occasional story hidden in their life sections, often with a few disparaging comments, but when new research comes out (like in the BioInitiative/Wireless Warnings post I also just put up) they remain mysteriously quiet, or allow naysayers as much space to create the appearance of controversy. Just like what happened with tobacco and climate change. Industry is very powerful and write many of the regulations, so they can say they are in complete regulatory compliance. They spend millions lobbying against any changes. Meanwhile, people get sick and die.

      Do you know that you need to keep your laptop at least 8″ away from your body? And most cell-phones need to be about an inch away? That info is usually buried somewhere in the manuals…

      These days, the economy is worshipped, and very little else matters. We have to figure out a way to bring quality of life back into the picture.

  3. I myself am an EHS person. I manufacture and sell RF protection clothing on I also use some of them daily.

    As said before, RF protective clothing are not for every one. EHS people may actually fell worse when wearing them. The fabric contains metals ( i recommend to use fabrics that are based on silver or stainless steel), and some may reacts to that. Some types of EMR may get through the clothing and in some conditions may cause problems. In addition the clothing can in some case block the body own made EMR (yes, we make EMR) and cause discomfort.

    But with all these down-points (and I write them in my site) for some people the clothing relay helps. I for example use a RF protection baseball cap where ever I go, it protect me from RF coming from above (cellphone antenna on the street and micro cell and WIFI routers on the walls and ceiling of shopping malls . I also use a legionnaire hat and a RF protection jacket when driving outside. Without them I can’t drive for long since the cellphone antennas on the way are very strong and there are a lot of them.

    I recommend to all of you how want to use RF protective cloth to first try one item, see how it works for you.


  4. Beau Binder wrote in a forum I am part of:

    If someone gets relief from it, I’m all for it. However, the majority of those with EHS that I know have incurred more harm to themselves from using something like this.

    I think we’ve discussed this issue in this forum before, so I’ll only give a brief response. Designing and fabricating a metallic enclosure to correctly shield against HF EM waves is an engineering exercise. And it must be an enclosure that completely isolates, else HF pathways that can amplify signals into the interior are present. And though one may succeed in shielding HF, they will be introducing electrical/LF EM issues from the presence of such highly conductive material. Also, many EHS react to a sharp change in field strength, either in time or space; in this case the boundary creates a sharp RF field gradient in space right next to (and all around) the person’s body. And, as shown by Smith et al, many with EHS react to at least one scalar field type associated with EMR that isn’t shieldable by these means, the magnetic vector potential.

    With the exception of the basic constituents used, e.g. conductive fabrics and their RF attenuation characteristics, it needs to be pointed out that exacting tests on these finished products is not usually done. Therefore, the characteristics of the finished products in a variety of EMF environments, their biological effects, and quality control isn’t something provided. This is the very criticism our advocacy groups rightly level at the purveyors of RF-based technologies, and we should expect to meet the same stringencies ourselves.

    As I said above, LF and HF field mitigation are complex and exacting exercises. To be done well in complex situations — for example, the mobile human body in a variety of RF settings and environmental conditions — requires extremely high levels of technical expertise. Things offered as solutions that are not designed, tested, and manufactured with sufficient expertise should be approached with great caution.

    Let’s take the now common example of a baseball cap made with conductive fabric. While the wearer may be provided with some RF reflectivity away from her body of sources above the cap, emissions from sources below can actually come through the body and be reflected back into the body. As well, the antenna-like characteristics of the material can pick up and re-radiate ambient frequencies into all the surrounding space, part of which is inhabited by the wearer, regardless of the direction of the source(s). Another issue is that the surface conductivity of the wearer is altered by the cap and low-resistance EM pathways are promoted on the person’s head, a crucial piece of the human body. Issues of humidity and precipitation, both environmental (like fog and rain) and wearer-based (various degrees of sweating) in origin, are also factors that can change and increase problematic aspects of the situation.

    And we haven’t even discussed what long-term exposure to the conditions created by the cap may cause in the wearer, especially if she is EHS. Short-term relief from something that doesn’t actually provide comprehensive protection may in fact create long-term problems due to new sensitization avenues that the manufacturer nor the wearer are aware of or have taken into account.

    Again, I’m not saying don’t try to protect yourself or get relief. I’m just saying people would be well-served to educate themselves about the significant complexities of this issue and be advised that unforeseen consequences may result from those complexities. Who knew at the outset some in the populace would get sensitized to electricity and RF emissions and the various contributing factors to it? Add these products into the equation and the situation becomes even more complex, something persons with EHS should be very careful with before experimenting with their already compromised and hypersensitive systems.

    Good luck and best of health to everyone.

  5. “Electrosmog: how to protect yourself”
    André Fauteux | 15 mars 2013
    La Maison du 21e siècle magazine

    “Last December 12, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) made history. The non-profit group representing more than 60 000 physicians supported H.R. 6358, the Cell Phone Right to Know Act, introduced by Ohio Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). It hence became the first major American medical body to state : “It is essential that any new standards for cell phones or other wireless devices be based on protecting the youngest and most vulnerable populations to ensure they are safeguarded through their lifetimes.’’

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.