We went to court on this issue and lost. WIFI was deployed, and BYOD (Bring Your Own Device – meaning using cellphones in class) was adopted.

Now everybody can see the damage, and the ministry is banning the use in middle schools.

Not just in Israel, also in Norway – https://youtu.be/DbMTfxM7npY

Articles about the ban

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-896474

https://www.ynetnews.com/article/hyifuuv1me

The post Israel ministry of Education to ban cellphones in middle schools 05-2026 appeared first on www.norad4u.com.

One month to the war Israel+USA vs IRAN

Video – https://youtu.be/kkZmIUvdqog

The post WAR UPDATE 29-3-2026 – operating almost as usual. appeared first on www.norad4u.com.

“RF PROTECTION HATS FOR EHS PEOPLE. FOR THE CAR, IN THE OFFICE, ON THE STREET, AND EVEN AT HOME”

The products are available at our store site – https://www.4ehsbyehs.com/rf-protection-hat/

The post New visual explanation about our RF Protection Hats for EHS people appeared first on www.norad4u.com.

The post Video Update 08-MAR-2026 www.norad4u.com appeared first on www.norad4u.com.

“There is no way you can detect radiation from cell phones. If you can demonstrate that you can identify whether a phone is active or not inside a closed box, it would be an incredible medical breakthrough! Has any of you ever performed such an experiment?”

My reply and explanation

First of all, I do not usually approve the entry of “EMF/EHS harm-deniers” into this group. As an exception, I have approved your membership and your comment, for the slim chance that you are truly naive and unfamiliar with the subject, haven’t experienced it yourself, and are genuinely here to learn. However, if there is any hint of denying the damages or denying Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS) in your comments, I will block you.

I suspect you are basing your opinion on flawed experiments regarding EHS published in industry-funded studies. These studies committed numerous errors in exposure testing, including exposing subjects when there was supposedly no exposure, and expecting sensitive individuals to react to every type of non-ionizing radiation—instantly, always, and to be “as good as new” after a few minutes without exposure (or with less exposure). You can read about these studies and their flaws on my website:
https://www.norad4u.com/ehs/studies-disproving-ehs/

Naturally, these studies were embraced by deniers and promoted by the industry as if they were the truth. To this day, this is what is taught in academia (without understanding the subject and without a critical look at the studies themselves). In contrast, there are many studies showing that EHS individuals react in one way or another to exposure, as well as studies showing biomarkers and neurological findings in EHS sufferers. These studies are also summarized on my site:
https://www.norad4u.com/ehs/studies-supporting-ehs/

It is possible that you simply do not want to believe that EHS is possible or caused by radiation, and it is easy and convenient for you to think we are all mentally ill. After all, you are a high-tech worker, a computer science graduate, likely a heavy cell phone user, and surrounded by radiation throughout your day. To think that you are harming yourself is a problematic thought for you. Thinking that you don’t understand or know everything might also be an inconceivable thought.

You seem to feel contempt toward those who are sensitive, and contempt toward the possibility that EHS is real, caused by radiation exposure, and that non-ionizing radiation (specifically RF radiation) has biological and health effects at exposure levels lower than those that cause heating. If that is the case, you probably won’t be able to “digest” studies showing mechanisms of harm, effects, damages, and morbidity resulting from exposure (https://www.norad4u.com/emf-science-studies/studies-lists/). This contradicts what is common in “denier” and industry circles.

Regarding whether EHS individuals can identify transmitting phones inside a box: the answer is not always, and not every person. The individual must be sensitive to the specific type of radiation being transmitted (not everyone is sensitive to all types of frequencies and transmissions. Asmart phone my be emitting UMTS, LTE, WIFI, Bluetooth, NFC, other…), and the intensity must be such that it causes a noticeable and distinct change, without harming them or worsening their condition.

I, for example, feel cell phones. In the past, when I was more sensitive and worked in high-tech, I would literally “detect” active cell phones through the drywall of my lab, and discover transmissions inside the lab or at home. Usually, I was later able to confirm this with a radiation meter and find the source. Today, I am less sensitive and can spend a little time in an environment with cell phones, so my detection ability is lower. But still, after a day of cumulative exposure that is too high for me, I will feel unwell.

For instance, this week I am conducting tests in my home lab with RF transmitters in the open air. I sit two meters away from the transmitters (a transmission weaker than the average cell phone). I don’t feel the radiation immediately, but by the end of the day, I am more tired than usual. Last week, there was one day where I overdid it with the exposure (working with an amplifier), and than I felt the radiation during the day. There was even a point in the day, as the pain accumulated, where I could actually feel every start and end of a transmission, and even an electric field from a USB cable I added near the computer. Then, and exactly then, that additional radiation was enough to trigger my “detection.” The next day, after a good night’s sleep, I no longer felt the cables.

Personally, I have had hundreds of cases where I identified radiation based on feeling and later identified the source with a meter. This includes cases where radiation shielding stopped working (e.g., a grounding wire disconnected) and I identified it by feeling worse. I assume many EHS sufferers here have similar experiences—not every time, not with every type of radiation, but with the right exposure, at the right intensities and the right type, they recognize it.

This is not something you can base a precise research protocol on that will work for everyone, everytime. But it is enough to understand that you are sensitive. Even those with mild (Low) sensitivity, who are only at the beginning of their decline, will notice that every time they talk for more than “X” amount of time on a cell phone held to their head, they get a headache afterward. This might sound delusional to addicts or industry people, but it is very common.

Beyond that, I guide many sensitive individuals, and during the process, we gradually reduce their exposure to radiation. In most cases, the improvement is significant. Furthermore, in the past, there were those who intentionally exposed me to radiation to see if I would react (without my consent or knowledge); I usually caught them fairly quickly (though not instantly). Today, as mentioned, I am less sensitive (an improvement resulting from years of reducing exposure and improving my health), and I probably wouldn’t identify it as quickly.

The post Replay on Facbook – EHS people will not be able to identify if a phone is ON or OFF appeared first on www.norad4u.com.

On September 19, 2025, I left home in one car (a 2012 Mazda 6 owned by my wife’s parents, which had served us for over 9 years and was low in radiation) and 8 hours later, I returned with a new used car. I bought a used Nissan Note after deciding that this model would suit our family’s needs as well as my needs as someone who is sensitive to radiation.

Before deciding on this model, I also tried to learn from it’s specs, that it is not likely to have any EMF-emitting devices or parts that might create high levels of EMF in the car.

The first thing I did when I saw the car was perform my own radiation measurements to make sure there was no low-frequency (magnetic field) radiation and to assess whether it would be possible to turn off all transmissions inside the car. After checking the radiation, I began examining the car in other respects (mechanic, outside, and inside conditions). A few hours were enough to finish all the checks, and then I came back home with the new car (leaving the old car with the dealer as a trade-in).

Now, two months after the purchase (as of November 20, 2025), I can make an interim summary and share what I’ve done to the car and my impressions from using and driving it. This is part of the mechanical alignment process, and part of converting it into a low-radiation vehicle suitable for someone who is radiation-sensitive like me. Overall, the process is progressing quite well and fairly quickly. The only thing preventing me from completing all the improvements is money. Therefore, I am still waiting to finish some of the changes and upgrades.

Removing Bluetooth Hands-Free & Disabling Transmissions

The car had two Bluetooth hands-free units installed — as if one wasn’t enough! One was a standalone system, the other was part of the audio-info-nav system.
On the day of the buy, I drove home with both of them active (and miraculously survived) , since I did not find a quick way to turn them off.

The next day after the purchase, I removed the standalone Bluetooth hands-free unit. It was transmitting inside the car. I also disabled all other transmissions from the vehicle’s audio-info-nav system. After checking with a fast home use radiation meter, I verified that there are no more transmissions in the cabin. The only system that still transmits briefly (right after ignition) is the tire pressure monitoring system, but I can’t measure its signal, suggesting it may be installed farther away (perhaps in the engine bay), so it doesn’t bother me.

Safety Systems – A Terrible Menace

What I can already say is that this is the first time I have driven a car with passive safety systems, and it’s simply awful. I don’t want to think about what would happen if the car had even more safety systems installed. My impression and experience is that these systems constantly warn and distract, take away my focus & desire to drive, and even interfere with driving.

When I received the car, I found it had the basic Mobileye system and also that the navigation system was always on (probably because the three previous owners didn’t know how to turn it off). It constantly notifies about speed limits, driving over the allowed speed (even 1 km/h over), speed cameras, traffic light cameras, and lots of other alerts. It was very, very annoying.

As a result, I had to drive very slowly and became a nuisance on the road, with other drivers constantly overtaking me. My reaction time increased, and I felt like I wasn’t in control of the driving. Therefore, I think that these systems are really dangerous, disruptive, and irritating. I’m a “super user” and know how to turn off and disable the systems and alerts … but most people (including those smarter than me) will continue to drive with the systems active and disruptive. As a fact, the car is over 10 years old, and all of its systems work and interfere without any of the previous drivers having tried to turn them off or change the settings to make them less intrusive.

After a few days, I learned how to turn off the navigation system so it wouldn’t activate with every trip, and adjusted its settings so it would bother me less when I chose to use it. A few days after that, I installed a kill switch for the Mobileye system. Then there was silence in the car. Finally, it’s possible to drive without interruptions, distractions, and alerts.

Stop-and-Go — Disruptive and Troubling

The next system that bothered me was the Stop-and-Go system, which shuts off the engine every time the car stops for more than a few seconds. This is especially annoying because it also stops the air conditioning (it stops working when the engine shuts off). Also, restarting the engine takes a second — sometimes that one second is needed when you want to accelerate again, especially on the busy and tense roads of Israel.

You can disable Stop-and-Go in a few ways:

1. Re-program the car’s computer — expensive.
2. Purchase an electronic component that connects to the disable button and sets the default state to OFF every time the car starts (about ~$120 on AliExpress). I haven’t found a compatible unit for the Note yet — I found options for other Nissan cars, but I’m not sure they work 100 % with my Note.
3. Short-circuit a micro-switch in the engine bay — this makes the car think the hood is open and disables the Stop-and-Go system. I chose this free solution because the system really bothered me.

Acoustics and Speakers

I also installed some acoustic insulation in parts of the car using a cheap material under the interior plastic panels. The improvement was significant: less road noise and better sound quality.

Regarding audio quality, I replaced the original speakers with new RAINBOW ones. Because I’m sensitive to radiation, I prefer not to install external amplifiers or subwoofers — so upgrading the existing speakers was important.

Mechanical Work & Maintenance

Slowly, I am completing the mechanical alignment at the garage: flushing fluids, changing the engine oil and filter, and partial AC repairs (to be completed when I have time and money).

In the future, I will also replace the transmission oil, install new tires (better ones), and perform timing belt service— all relatively expensive.

I also removed and reinstalled the front bumper and plastic parts myself, which fixed annoying rattles that occurred when parts were not connected properly.

Other Small Modifications

I made additional small improvements, like replacing the steering wheel cover, doing a deep interior cleaning, adding a purifying air fragrance, installing a center armrest, and adding an OBD2 display to show vital engine data (e.g., coolant and oil temperature) while driving — data that the factory gauge cluster does not show.

I also installed a grounding strap to reduce static electric fields on the car, replaced wipers, added a fuel additive, upgraded the rearview mirror, and more.

Experience & Interim Summary

The car proves itself as a low-radiation vehicle. I drive it and don’t feel unwell. Gradually, I’m increasing how far I drive it, and my confidence in the car is growing both mechanically and in terms of radiation exposure.

Regarding the requirements I set before purchase, the car has proven successful:

• Higher seating position
• Smaller, lighter car with good city driving dynamics
• Excellent outward visibility (much better than the Mazda 6)
• Spacious interior (larger than a Nissan Micra and similar to the Mazda 6)
• Good build quality
• Improving fuel consumption (about ~1 liter to ~11 km in city driving with many hills and short trips)

Summary

The car is not perfect — it’s used and had three previous owners, and probably none cared for it like I do — but it’s becoming perfect for me and my family (at least that’s the hope).

Most importantly, the car is low in radiation, while driving it I do not feel pain or fatigue due to radiation. It doesn’t have a smart key, and the Bluetooth or WIFI has been turned OFF or removed, and other transmissions have been disabled. In terms of low-frequency magnetic fields, it’s a normal gasoline car with low radiation levels.

The strongest impression from recent days is how bad and distracting these safety systems are, and how many RF-emitting systems people install in their cars.

The post Buying a NEW-OLD Low-EMF Radiaton Car appeared first on www.norad4u.com.

Of course, I recommend learning how to operate your device in a way that allows you to stop its wireless transmissions at any time. However, I have come to understand that there are people who find this difficult for various reasons, even if they are aware of the potential harm of radiation and want to reduce their exposure.

Exactly for them, I developed this new product: a small pouch made of radio-frequency (RF) shielding fabric. The moment a mobile phone is placed inside it, and the opening is closed, the pouch blocks all signal reception and radiation from the phone. After a few minutes, the phone “gives up” trying to connect and stops transmitting.

The principle behind this is the Faraday Cage effect—a conductive layer that prevents external radiation from entering and affecting what is inside the pouch, and likewise prevents radiation from inside from escaping outward.

Why use such a pouch/bag?

There are several main reasons for using a radio-frequency shielding pouch:

1. Stopping phone transmission and reception

When the mobile phone is inside the pouch, it cannot receive calls, messages, internet data, GPS signals, and more. This can be useful during sleep, important meetings, or any situation in which you do not want to receive or transmit wireless signals.

2. Reducing exposure to electromagnetic radiation

According to the conductive-fabric principle, radiation emitted by the phone cannot escape outward, thereby reducing exposure for people nearby.

3. Privacy and security

In certain use cases, Faraday bags are also used to prevent tracking or eavesdropping, block location signals, prevent remote access to the device, or protect against signal detection or interception devices.

Video

Link:https://youtu.be/Tj3IwA-kwTE

Radio-frequency shielding fabric pouch/bag for stopping transmission and reception from a mobile phone

What is important to know before purchasing?

Choosing a high-quality material is very important: quality pouches use conductive fabric with metal layers such as copper, nickel, or a combination of metals that provide broad-frequency shielding.
Complete signal blocking also depends on a perfect seal of the pouch—any small opening or gap can allow radiation to penetrate.

For the product page, see:
Signal and radiation blocking pouch for mobile phones – for people sensitive to radiation
https://www.4ehsbyehs.com/product/cellphone-blocking-small-bag/

We also offer a larger version suitable for more than 10 phones:
https://www.4ehsbyehs.com/product/cellphone-blocking-bag/

The post New Product – CELLPHONE BLOCKING SMALL BAG (Faraday Cage) appeared first on www.norad4u.com.

The replication studies—one Japanese and the other Korean—were both conducted with funding from government ministries (communications and economy).

The headline conclusion of the studies’ summaries was that they failed to replicate the NTP findings. In the abstracts, statements are presented that create the impression that the studies were exact replications of the NTP study and that no findings of effects, illness, or damage related to radiation were observed. However, a more thorough reading of the full articles themselves (see links below) reveals a more complex and far less unequivocal picture. Such a reading shows that the studies are not exact replications of the NTP, that their statistical power is weaker, and that findings were in fact observed, but in most cases they were labeled as “not statistically significant” or “not related to radiation.”

Abstracts

Korea – https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/advance-article/doi/10.1093/toxsci/kfag001/8428133

Japan – https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/advance-article/doi/10.1093/toxsci/kfag002/8423504

Full studies

Korea – https://watermark02.silverchair.com/kfag001.pdf

Japan – https://watermark02.silverchair.com/kfag002.pdf

Critisesm

https://microwavenews.com/short-takes-archive/ntp-lite-korea

https://microwavenews.com/short-takes-archive/ntp-lite-no-cancer-risk-seen-japan

Design to fail

Back when the “replication study” protocols were published in the past, researchers argued that the replication studies (both the Japanese and the Korean ones) were designed from the outset so that the likelihood of detecting a risk would be lower. A variety of differences, which may appear marginal or minor to those unfamiliar with the field, appeared in the protocols when the studies were being planned and launched. Now, with the publication of the studies, these differences are clear, and it is evident that they could have a decisive impact on the results. I increasingly believe that the studies were designed to fail.

The differences can also be explained in a more innocent way—not as ones intended to weaken the studies, but as stemming from the researchers’ assumption that if radiation has an effect on the health of rodents, it would be large and decisive. However, over all the years of research on this topic, the picture that emerges is of a cumulative effect, but not a decisive one. In other words, the radiation is not dangerous, but it is unhealthy.

Let me give an example. If the radiation were dangerous, we would see in the exposed group something like a 20% mortality rate from certain specific cancers—that is, out of 70 rodents, 14 would suffer from a particular disease, or in the NTP study we would have seen 18 sick animals. The replication studies were designed to detect such large increases. But if the radiation is “unhealthy” rather than outright dangerous, we would expect to see an increase of only a few percent across a range of cancers. The NTP study showed exactly this type of pattern: a modest increase across various cancers and biological markers—not on the order of 20%, but rather a few individual cases of disease out of 90 animals in the exposed group. When you are looking for a 20% effect, a relatively small number of animals per group is sufficient. When you expect a “softer” effect, you need to greatly increase the number of animals—possibly even more than in the NTP study—in order to obtain results that do not obscure the real situation.

Far fewer rodents

The first obvious difference between the NTP study and the replication studies is the number of rodents in the exposure groups and the number of exposure groups themselves. In the NTP study there were many more rodents in each group and many more groups exposed to radiation. The NTP study is larger and more robust.

For example, the number of rodents exposed to radiation in the NTP study (1,080 in the main study) is significantly higher than the number exposed in the “replication studies” (only 140 in each study).

Less radiation exposure

Another difference that immediately stands out is that in the NTP study there were three different exposure levels: 1.5 W/kg, 3 W/kg, and 6 W/kg. In the replication studies, exposure was only at 4 W/kg. This means it will not be possible to observe a dose–response relationship; in addition, the overall exposure is lower, and in practice there are far fewer groups of rodents exposed to radiation.

Only CDMA was tested, not GSM

In addition, exposure in the “replication studies” was to radiation using the CDMA transmission method. In the NTP study, exposure was to both CDMA and GSM. For those unfamiliar with second-generation mobile transmission methods: in GSM, the peak power levels (the transmission spikes) are much higher and occur more frequently per second than in CDMA. The most significant findings were דווקא in the GSM exposure groups, not in CDMA. So what exactly are they trying to replicate? The part of the NTP study that showed fewer findings?

The researchers themselves admit: “the studies are significantly weaker.”

That is, the replication studies—both the Japanese and the Korean ones—do not truly replicate the NTP study, and if they resemble it at all, they resemble the part of the NTP that found fewer effects… well, so be it.

The changes in exposure levels, the number of exposure groups, the total number of rodents exposed to radiation, the absence of GSM exposure, and more, make the replication studies very weak statistically—especially when searching for relatively rare cancers. Even the authors of the study say this themselves, on page 24, line 32 of the Japanese study.

Differences between the NTP and the NTP-LITE studies

Stages

The post The NTP-LITE studies were published – could not repeat the NTP, I wonder way? appeared first on www.norad4u.com.

Studies conducted in the past by the U.S. Department of Health determined that radiation from mobile phones alters the brain’s pattern of sugar consumption (Nora Volkow, 2012), and that rats exposed to radiation from mobile phones were at higher risk for cancers, pre-cancerous markers, oxidative stress, damage, and other effects (NTP, 2018). A follow-up study to the NTP, intended to identify the mechanisms of harm, was canceled (my guess: due to industry pressure).

Now, the Department of Health, under the leadership of Health Secretary Kennedy Jonnier, is launching a new study on the subject.

The study is expected to identify and address gaps in existing knowledge and is part of U.S. President Donald Trump’s “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) program.

At the same time, pages explaining that mobile phone radiation is not dangerous and does not interfere are gradually being removed from the websites of Department of Health agencies (such as the FDA).

The dawn of a new day?

This is happening in parallel with statements by health authorities, including the FDA, that it has still not been proven that mobile phone radiation causes cancer.

The post US health ministry to launch a study over possible health effect of cellphone radition appeared first on www.norad4u.com.

May it be a year of learning more about EMF, measuring EMF, reducing exposure to EMF, using EMF protection, feeling better, and becoming less sensitive to EMF.

The post Happy New Year 2026 appeared first on www.norad4u.com.