Paused at 0:00.
[music] You are listening to WMRW-LP, Warren, 95.1 FM. The following program presents the views of its participants and producers. It does not necessarily represent the views of WMRW or its license holder, RootsWork. All right. Lisa, keep community radio going. Call 496-4951. Click on the pig at WMRW.org. Give what you can. Give what you can. Yes. Hey, everyone, and welcome to Politics and Science. I'm your host, John Barkhausen. This week, we return to the archives of my Ray Peat interviews. This is from WGDR in Plainfield, Vermont, part of Goddard College.
And these interviews were done between, I think, 1999 and about 2003. This particular one's about radiation, different types of radiation, RF radiation mostly. I think we also mentioned ionizing radiation as in nuclear power and nuclear industrial military radiation. But he also talks about some interesting scientists, Yuri Kholodov, Tromp, and some things you won't hear from anybody else. It's pretty interesting, I think, but then I'm a little bit biased about this. But I hope you enjoy it. And Ray Peat has a website. He's still teaching out in Eugene, Oregon.
He also does nutritional consulting. And on his website, he has, I think, maybe 90 articles. There were former newsletters of his that you can also subscribe to. But if you want to read archived newsletters, they're fantastic. They have full references, so you can look up where he gets his ideas and how he reaches his conclusions. And you can go to raypeat.com to browse through his site and look up issues that are interesting to you. That's r-a-y-p-e-a-t dot com. And now we pick up in mid-program Dr. Raymond Peat. He's a physiologist and endocrinologist from Eugene, Oregon.
And we start talking about radiation. I hope you enjoy it. So, should we go on to a totally different subject? Okay. And it's cell phones. Yeah. And I was wondering, I'm confused about what the difference is between cell phones, and then you have remote phones, which I have in my house. And then there's also radio frequencies, you know, like associated with this radio station. The remote phone just has a weak transmitter and receiver. The transmitter doesn't have to go more than 100 feet or something like that. Right.
I think they're called 900 megahertz or some of them. Yeah, the strength of the field is so much lower, it isn't much of a worry. But the cell phone produces really not quite a brain-melting field, but definitely a biologically significant field. So they have to be much more powerful to go further. Yeah. They have to transmit your signals, not just your home telephone, but have to transmit it to wherever the receiver is, the relay station. Is that considered a microwave? Yeah. It's a very high frequency? Yeah.
Radar is, you know, they used to talk about radar range. I think that was the brand of microwave oven. Right. That range, it's short for radio waves, like a shortwave radio is in a few meters length. Radar is in the centimeter length, a few inches. And television, the television band overlaps a little bit with the shortwave band. Television is a fairly shortwave. A few feet or something? Yeah, like I noticed that my body would resonate with one of the channels, and the cat's body would resonate with, I think it was channel 11,
so that the TV would go out of tune when the cat walked near it on channel 12 and out of tune on, I think it was channel 6 for me. So you can visualize the way the waves resonate with an animal of a certain length. I see. And after the Second World War, they had killed a few people. A few sailors would walk in front of a radar antenna, and so they would die and they would find that they had been cooked, their brain would be cooked. And so they did experiments on monkeys,
and they found that the size of the organ or brain would determine how hot that organ got in a field of a given wavelength, so that a monkey with a little brain would have its brain cooked by a shorter wave, higher frequency radar. That's interesting. My brother-in-law had an experience of, I think he'd seen seagulls explode when he was in the Navy when they flew too close to a radar. And I think he also had an experience of being on a tower, you know, he was an E.T., an electronic technician,
and he was trying to fix the radar. And there was some point where it was turned on accidentally when he was up there and he should have been cooked, but it didn't cook him, and he never could figure out why it didn't. Well, if it's the wrong frequency, you don't resonate very well. It's like the difference between the cat and me and the different channels of TV. Theoretically, you could design a frequency of microwaves that would cook a tumor selectively. People have tried to use microwaves. They're still doing it to kill tumors,
but generally it's something about the anti-scientific mind of the medical people. They don't get very subtle, and so they'll treat a breast cancer by jamming an antenna through the person's chest or really gross ways of applying the microwave frequency where it is at least theoretically possible to tune the microwave to a solid tumor. The MRI, molecular resonance imaging, uses a very fine version of this. You can tune in to one type of molecule rather than another type. The resonance can distinguish one kind of atom from another kind of atom. Wow.
That involves just having a strong, steady magnetic field and scanning a microwave. You can distinguish water from drier tissues, how much water a tissue has in it, and so on. Since cancers are wetter, they're young, and so the cells are, if they're growing faster, they're younger and more water-loaded than mature cells. So you can visualize a cancer very easily by this microwave absorbing ability of their water molecules. Some people have suggested that just because of the high water content, you could selectively heat and kill tumors. That hasn't been developed as far as I know,
but the solidity and size of a round tumor can allow it to be selectively heated. The heating effect is one in which water molecules, for example infrared rays, selectively resonate with water molecules. The rotation and vibration of water is fairly specific for infrared so that infrared doesn't go through water very far. Water molecules have different degrees of association with proteins and fats in the living cell, and so different wavelengths and different energies will select out different conditions of the water molecules with which they resonate.
So you can distinguish the looseness or the freeness of the water molecule by how it resonates to the microwaves. These effects have been known as long as the technique of molecular resonance has been known, so there's no big mystery to why cells should be able to detect and respond to and be harmed by microwaves far below the strength at which they would be cooked to death because they resonate to really very weak environmental fields. In a steady magnetic field, they tend to align their electrons and nuclei with that field,
and then the alignment with that field governs how they're going to interact with a microwave coming through. So you have competing alignments basically between the oscillating field and the steady field. And while this is the alignment of the nucleus of the atom and the electrons, in some situations the electrons are relatively free to resonate, and the living state is full of these relatively free electrons, like free radical electrons. But all of our metabolic processes depend on some relatively free electrons, and these are very susceptible to electromagnetic field interference.
Changing their alignment changes their ability to associate or resonate with each other. Since they have to resonate with each other to perform the biological functions, then external fields interfere with the ways that they interact with each other. Right. So they can't function properly. Yeah. So that's a very subtle biological response that you can see in animal experiments. You can train animals to respond to a microwave field, for example, that is very far below the heating threshold. In 1968, I had been reading the work of Yuri Kholodov on sensing magnetic fields,
and I went to Moscow to visit him, and he gave me a reading list and told me about his work. And he knew more about the sensitivity of cells to electric fields, the work that was being done in the United States, than my nerve biology and physiology professors at the university knew. He just had tremendous access to world research, which my professors didn't even want to hear about. Right. They already knew everything. Yeah. In, I think it was 1960, Linus Pauling proposed a theory to explain how anesthetics work.
He called it the clathrate theory of anesthesia, in which it's analogous to something that happens in deep sea areas where methane is being produced. Methane causes freezing of the water. It orders the water molecules so that ice forms even above the freezing temperature of water. And this same phenomenon sometimes causes sludging in natural gas pipelines. Ice forms even at room temperature. And corn plants can form ice crystals above the freezing temperature of water. The clathrate principle is well established, but Linus Pauling just said, "Well, maybe this will explain anesthesia because..."
They didn't know how it works? No, they still don't know how anything works. They being the medical establishment and the science establishment. But Linus Pauling being an alert person said, "Well, why not use this established physical principle for explaining how a similar chemical..." He said, "You can't even conceive or theorize about how the noble gases create anesthesia." At high pressure, nitrogen will anesthetize you as in deep sea divers. But that functions as a noble or inert gas. At extremely high pressure, helium will do the same thing.
And as you approach atmospheric pressure, the heavier noble gases are anesthetic so that neon, krypton, xenon, xenon and krypton are anesthetic close to atmospheric pressures. He said, "These are not chemically reactive. How are you going to explain anesthesia by xenon and krypton?" Right. And he showed that the Clathrate principle explains this perfectly that the noble gases work just like the natural gas, methane and organic molecules in general that immobilize water molecules. And he said, "Maybe this is simply intensifying a process that normally occurs in the resting cell
and it locks cells into the resting relatively insensitive state." And two of the researchers that Yuri Kholodov referred me to had books published in English, but their books were fairly unknown. Madeleine Barnothy and her husband published some books on biomagnetism. And the founder of the science of biometeorology was named Salco Tromp. He was in Holland and he wrote some very impressive books in English. As early as, I think, 1940 or so, his first book, he surveyed the physical world looking for ways in which the environment interacts with organisms.
And liquid crystals were known way back in the '20s and '30s, but no one knew what to do with them. Salco Tromp, looking the way Linus Pauling did for physical principles that explain interactions between such things as atmospheric pressure and electromagnetic fields, he saw the phenomenon of liquid crystals and said, "The cells behave in many ways like liquid crystals, organized but liquid." And if people had read his books on biometeorology, they would have come up with liquid crystal display screens about 30 years earlier because he was explaining the same things, the same biological events,
that Madeleine Barnothy and her husband demonstrated that people and other animals can detect a change even in a steady magnetic field at a very low level. And the facts are there, the methods are there, liquid crystals and clathrates and organized cell structures respond to these very low energy fields. But the Navy physicists and medical people didn't want to have their draftees worrying about subtle effects, so they said that radar will only hurt you if it cooks your brain or your liver. And that propaganda put out by the government in the 1950s
to say that microwaves will only hurt you if they cook you, that fits in with what the government was saying about low-level radiation from nuclear fallout, that if it doesn't blister you, it won't hurt you at all. There's a threshold of harm. Basically, it's an interlocking system in which the government's lies about nuclear radiation meshed with the lies about microwave and radar radiation. And then it created a culture in which doctors who didn't want to get sued for treating dandruff and acne with deadly doses of x-rays, they had a very powerful motive.
They really did that? Yeah, I knew people whose faces collapsed because they had had such intense doses of radiation. I had never heard that. The bones simply disappeared in their faces. And they treated dandruff and ringworm with x-ray. And the brain, Yuri Kholodov showed that the brain and the testicle are the two organs most sensitive to radiation of any sort, ionizing or magnetic or microwave. That's disgusting if they did that. So the medical community had this, starting at the turn of the century,
had this very strong built-in motive not to be held liable for damages or murder. And so they loved the government's stories about radiation and microwaves. And so the medical scientific community from the '50s on built up this idea that if it doesn't cook you or if it doesn't ionize your cells, then it's harmless. It's below the threshold of harm. But people are still saying this. I saw recent articles in which they said microwaves don't have enough energy to ionize anything, so therefore they can't do anything to you. Yeah, and now we have towers going up.
I just drove back from the Midwest and I was really impressed. Along the highway there seems like this giant 120-foot tower with what I believe are microwaves with Peters on top for all the cell phone traffic. And I know in the city it's even worse because I believe you have to have one in every corner of every block so that you can have uninterrupted phone service as you walk down the street. And I believe that's very close. It's not very high off the ground and people are walking right under it.
I don't know, how do you feel about the exposure from the towers themselves? Well, most cities now downtown, they have such a high field intensity from microwaves, telephone microwaves especially, they're way up in the danger range known to produce leukemia and mutations. In the '70s and '80s they knew that quail eggs, for example, that hatched near power lines, the sex ratio of the hatchlings was grossly distorted. It was practically all females. The males died or were modified. And someone who knew about that looked at the children of telephone linemen
and saw that they had children with an extremely distorted sex ratio. The Y chromosome sperm cell seems to be more fragile and microwaves can break chromosomes among other things on the grosser level. So how do you feel about microwave ovens? They used to put out leakage that would be harmful at three or four feet, but I think the government standards coming in in the '80s clamped down on those leakers. And I've measured the field around them and beyond three feet I think they're nowadays safe.
So you don't want to stand there reading a book while you're... Not right up against them. Coffee's heating up. Yeah. So do you think the remote phones that people use in their houses, the 900 megahertz phones, do you think those are fairly safe? I know there's quite a difference between the cell phones also. Yeah, I think the little remote phones that only transmit 100 feet, I think those aren't enough to worry about because walking downtown, on the downtown streets you're getting much higher intensity radiation. Just from the cell phones? Yeah, from the repeater stations. Yeah.
And radio waves like this FM station right here we're sitting inside of this... Yeah, I hope your tower isn't near you. It's about 50 feet away I'd say. Really, the transmitting tower? Yeah. That's not probably safe. Yeah, I've heard there's an apartment complex right near it too. I had a friend living there and he said even his toaster couldn't receive the dotted radio signal. So how far do you think the transmitter... It's a 1,000 watt station. It's got three bays. I think it ought to be hundreds of yards away.
And you could maybe shield yourself from that possibly? Yeah. You can ground a big screen or a metal roof that's grounded. Yeah. There are many reasons for having a tin roof, but electromagnetic shielding is an important reason. Yeah, I've noticed it does affect my phone at home and the radio reception. How about cinder block? Is that a block? No, that doesn't do anything. But if you have a cinder block with a tin roof and ground tin roof, then you're pretty good. I'm not sure what the roof is in this building.
So basically very small magnetic fields affect your cell resonance. Yeah. Did you get that little news item I sent you, email? Yeah. I didn't bring it with me, but it looked like the exposure to the people in Poland that the study was on basically doubled their cancer rate. Yeah, some types of cancer six or eight times. I think one was 13 times higher. Wow. And they said they broke it down into different age groups, and I don't think that was in there, what the results were. No, I haven't seen the article. Just the abstract. Right.
Yeah, that sounded pretty condemning of it. And this Englishman, Sir Richard Dahl, was denying it for a long time, but has now affirmed that leukemia is caused by electromagnetic fields. Huh. The story of how John Goffman went from being the government's main apologist for low-level radiation in the '50s, he went around lecturing against Linus Pauling, who was warning about the dangers of fallout. The government took Pauling's passport away for disloyalty because he wanted to protect the American public. And John Goffman was the AEC's counter-Linus Pauling leader. And he describes what happened to him.
He says while he was giving a lecture, saying that if we can't prove that these low levels are causing harm to the population, we shouldn't. And at that point he realized what he had been saying for 10 years was insane. Yeah. And since then he's shifted and has become the leader of the anti-radiation movement. Yeah. But he was fired as soon as he had that moment of sanity. Right. Yeah, well, there was a show on this station earlier in the week,
and I believe they were talking about how they poison us first and then they track it. But that's the way the industry works. I think they were talking about the drug industry. They can get away with anything. Yeah, food industry and drug industry and radiation and telephone industry, all of these industries have bought the appropriate agency of the government. Right. And then that agency basically becomes their PR arm and absorbs all their liability. Yeah. That was an interesting thing also. You sent another article talking about locking up all the scientific information
so it's not allowed to be circulated, that the publishers of scientific journals are charging outrageous fees and trying to basically counteract, it sounds like, the new ability we have of correlating information with search engines. Mm-hmm. In the '90s when the economy was booming more than any economy ever in history, university libraries were canceling journal subscriptions, not just in science but hundreds of journals were canceled here at the University Library in Oregon. And I've heard the same sort of thing happens all across the country. Because of the expense? Yeah, supposedly the expense.
I don't know what it is that institutions like libraries are having to be cut back so radically in a time of such a booming economy. But I used to spend every day in the library for decades and my favorite journals one by one in the last several years were canceled. And they happened to be the journals that I most counted on because they were not pushing a party line. Yeah. Now the library pretty much is just reinforcing the official scientific lines because they've canceled so many of the journals
that were open to scientific discussion and criticism. Yeah, it sounds like they're trying to take away the public's ability to review any of the information that we're getting from the government basically. Yeah, and the government runs Medline and the National Library of Medicine. I didn't know that. Well, now they have changed it to PubMed. But years ago I used to look up a given subject and I would check Index Medicus, which was the same indexing system that became Medline and then PubMed. And I would check to see if they had anything that I hadn't found
in chemical abstracts or biological abstracts. And I would generally find that something that had been researched for 10 or 20 or 30 years and had abundant information in biological or chemical abstracts, there would be nothing in Index Medicus. And then after about 20 years, something might start showing up in Index Medicus. After the animal research had established something, then a generation later a little bit would show up in the medical index. That is slow. Yeah, and basically our librarian posted a sign when they got a computer that would search Medline or PubMed.
They put a big card sign on top of the monitor that said, "Medline is not a science database." And so librarians have known that fact that if you're looking for science, you don't go to Medline or PubMed. But even though librarians know it, anyone who has tried to look for information seriously finds it out very quickly. Several years ago, some professor wrote to a magazine, Townsend Letter for Doctors, that had published one of my newsletters and said that he had searched Medline and couldn't find anything similar. And he was a university professor
who thought he had searched the database because he looked in Medline. And for professors to think that they're doing science when they look in Medline, it's like a brain surgeon looked in a podiatry database. It's just really depressing that professors think they're doing science by looking on the computer for what the library of medicine has. Yeah, we were, Steve has been reading the Probiazin book, and it just sounds like what the AMA was trying to do back then was basically control all of the information that was getting out about anything.
They don't want the public to know unless they screen it first. Yeah, that book has, I think, the story of the fraudulent article published in JAMA that they would never retract. Right, so it's been going on a long time. Yeah. It sounds like it's just getting more consolidated. You must use search engines to search on the Internet. Are any of the journals online? Well, I subscribed for a while to a thing called Current Contents. A subscription to biological abstracts costs $4,000 or $7,000 a year or something like that.
But for a few hundred dollars, you can get Current Contents, and you can select a broader spectrum of science journals, biology journals, than you get on the PubMed. But the only way to really do it is to go to a library that, if you want to only go back 30 years, libraries will have computers that go back. I'm not sure how far back the computers go in chemical abstracts, which they have good nutrition references and a lot of medical references in chemical abstracts and biological abstracts.
But if you're really going to want to know what's going on in the subject, you have to use the bound volumes. And the books are big, and so you get your exercise by taking down these 10-pound books. Yeah. So that stuff hasn't been edited to the computer yet? No, and I don't think anyone is going to do it because the whole trend is away from making information available, but making people think it's available. Right. So you have the PubMed to just make you think you have access. Yeah. Stuff leaks through into PubMed,
but it's a matter of leakage rather than being sought. We have a guest in the studio here, our station manager. I'm not sure what he's up to, but we'll let him come on. Oh, wait a sec. I've got to turn him on here. There we go. Can you hear me over there? Yeah. All right. I've been listening to the show, because it's such an interesting topic, and at the same time so important, the knowing how RF affects us in our daily lives. When it came down to GDR and what you were asking,
I thought, "Oh, well, I'd rather pull out our files." And the station is required to go through some studies, and the EFCC sets the guidelines for that. And we go through those studies in a cycle of every four years. Conclusions, the above calculations show that WGDR-FM facility is in compliance with the guidelines with respect to areas accessible to general public. So that's why we have the tower gated so that people won't get into the tower so that then they won't start climbing up the tower because the higher exposure occurs on the tower
as you're closer to the antenna base. So below that point, which is ground level, and where we are even more so, we're safe according to the FCC guidelines that they establish for measuring the type of RF exposure. I think what Ray is saying is that FCC guidelines perhaps don't attune to the fact that cells are a little more sensitive than they think. But we're legal, Ray. Yeah, how many milliwatts did they say? Zero point how many? 0.0327. That is at 7.2 meters above ground. Oh, above the ground. Right, right.
Because that's how you would start getting closer to the actual antenna base. Right. Does that reading mean anything to you? Oh, knowing what it's doing at where you are is the significant thing. You can get these little meters for $30 or $40. The RF meters? Yeah. Yeah. You can find out what it's really doing exactly where you are and then compare it to power lines and the published research. Right. Of course, our government has always maintained that power lines are perfectly harmless, I believe, right? Yeah, but they aren't. If they make quails hatch, no-mail quails,
they're definitely not harmless. Yeah. That's been known for 15 years or so, and the studies of power line workers who have abnormal reproductive patterns, infertility, or not having male children, really the reasoning is that if it doesn't ionize you or cook you, then it's harmless. Right. Well, it is warm in here. I wonder why I was always warm even during winter, right? Yeah, the heat's never on. I wonder why my hands would not need gloves when I was working on the antenna base, right? Our coffee always stays hot. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Well, thank you as far as I go in my participation. I just wanted to throw my two cents in. Yeah, thanks for reassuring us, Carlos. In the short run, microwaves and radio waves can be used. You can touch an antenna and feel that it's warm, and doctors use radio waves of many different frequencies. Shortwave bands have, I don't know if they still do it, but they used to a lot, a diathermy band, so that chiropractors and such could emit pretty intense signals into the knees of their arthritic patients to heat the joint,
and it would show up as a funny sound on the shortwave band. But they do have therapeutic value in the short run, but the problem is that if it's a constant factor in your life, it biases those subtle electronic and molecular processes, the way water is organized in relation to the proteins, and has a chronically disorganizing influence. Yeah. I know some people, I think if you talk on a cell phone for long enough, it gets warm. Is that true? Yeah? Oh, yeah, then that's definitely causing biological damage,
because the distance between the warming energy and the biologically harming range, once you get up in the warming range, then you know it's biologically harmful. I see. And some of the bands I've heard are much better than others. Some emit far less radiation than others. I don't know how they achieve that. Well, just tilting the antenna is one way to do it. Just move the field, basically. Yeah, and they found that having the antenna on your belt and just the receiver connected by a wire,
that turned out to be even worse because the field traveled up the wire and got your head anyway. You get total coverage. Yeah. And the car phones which are wired into the car, I would think that would be better. So, you know, you're on a speaker phone. Oh, yeah, I think if your antenna is outside the car, then that's much safer. Right. Well, you're probably driving down the freeway now, right? Talking on a cell phone? I should mention that beans and cell phones aren't completely unrelated subjects. Is that right?
You get some of the same kinds of damage from eating beans that you do from radiation. Wow. You actually connected the two subjects. I didn't think that was possible. So what is the similar damage to cellular? Cellular communications are disrupted and the immune system is the most sensitive to both of them. Ionizing radiation kills your white blood cells very easily, but at lower levels of radiation will disrupt your immune system if they're chronic. And that's what the PHA and other lectins do. They first mess up your immune system,
but then gradually they will cause growth abnormalities in your liver, thymus, and pancreas and intestine and different organs. And I was curious, on the political front, how you feel about the new push for nuclear power. They're really cranking it up here. Yeah, it's the same people coming back. Three Mile Island wasn't the first disaster. Ernest Sternglass is in a league with Linus Pauling and John Goffman as people who were punished by the government and the industry for telling the truth. Ernest Sternglass wrote Secret Fallout, I think was the title of his first book.
I happened to get a copy of it, but it was withdrawn from publication. I forget how many, it was 90% of the copies, something like that, were destroyed. What was it called? Secret Fallout, low-level radiation. He came out years later with a new version of it, but the book was almost completely suppressed in the first edition. People in the nuclear industry had seminars in which Goffman and Templin and Pauling and Sternglass were the devils in which they were, without reading or allowing their employees to know anything, that Sternglass or the others were saying.
They trained, basically brainwashed their employees to say, "These are stupid, incompetent people who are saying things that are not scientific." But in fact, if you look at what they're saying, they're strictly, actually a very conservative interpretation. Goffman always takes the most conservative interpretation of the facts, and he doesn't want to be accused of being an alarmist, so he takes the most conservative scientific interpretation and then says that medical x-rays cause 75% of the breast cancers. Yeah, that is amazing. And Ernest Sternglass was one of the people who studied Three Mile Island,
but he had been studying other reactor leaks that we never heard much about and found just from ordinary emissions, so-called ordinary emissions, that horrendous amounts of isotopes were being released. And it's the normal releases that the government allows the nuclear industry, which everyone should be worried about, not just the mining and the storage problems, but the legal releases that the industry is always doing. Yeah, I would not want to live near a nuclear plant myself. I don't feel like they're honest in where they communicate with the public,
and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is certainly not looking out for the public interest. Yeah, even Linus Pauling was misled by the propagandists of the industry and the government. Their favorite argument was, "If you fly in an airplane or live in Denver, you get so much radiation, why do you want to worry about the radiation that comes from nuclear fallout or the nuclear industry?" And Linus Pauling was convinced that living at high altitude or flying in an airplane was carcinogenic because it increased your radiation exposure.
But in fact, high altitude gives you a different kind of cosmic ray. It increases the higher you are, the more primaries you get, and the fewer secondaries and tertiaries. Basically, it's like one beam coming in producing a shower which produces another shower, and the third shower is the one that's most carcinogenic, and that's what happens at ground level. I see. So the industry was comparing totally unrelated things. Yeah. So one isotope basically produces one cancer because it is 100% absorbed because it is produced inside your body. And I know that the nuclear industry wouldn't exist
if Congress hadn't passed the Price-Anderson Act, I think it was called, which absolved them of all liability, or at least up to a certain point. And so the whole thing is just totally propped up by money and politics, I guess. Yeah. Norman Solomon's newspaper column yesterday was about the role of the journalism schools training liars. Oh, yeah. He said they used to train people in journalism to find out the truth. Now they're training public relations people to help industry and government distort the truth. Yeah, that makes sense. It seems like that's what we're getting.
I mean, the media seems to be dropping the ball more and more. There are very few reporters I trust at this point. So I guess it pays to get your information from a variety of sources, cross-reference it. Yeah, and your station can't have too many programs like this. No. But we have more than the normal radio, I think, mostly just because it's individuals from the community doing shows. It doesn't really go through much of a screening. So if you're interested in something, you can do the show. Yeah, the government has been making its policy official
that community-controlled radio isn't really to be promoted. It's to be displaced by corporate radio. That's exactly right, and that's what's going on here. I've been trying to start a low-power radio station, which is tiny. It's only got a six-mile diameter, I think. And supposedly it was something that the last FCC commissioner, Kennard, was bringing out. And at the last minute, believe it or not, NPR campaigned against it because they were afraid it would cut into the-- well, they said they were afraid it was going to interfere with handicapped broadcasts, hearing impaired and stuff.
But that was really a red herring. I think they're really afraid it's going to cut into the market because what could be more community radio than something within 10 miles of your home? And again, speaking of radio emissions and the beans, ABM is a major funder of NPR. What is? Soybean Monopoly. Oh, is that right? The vitamin E and saving the world by growing soybeans advertisements. Wow, yeah, that's right. ABM, you hear that, marketplace to the world. Yeah, they seem pretty compromised, most of their reporting. It's pretty wishy-washy, I feel like.
Every once in a while they have a good news report, but for the most part they seem to be towing a corporate line. Yeah, the government and the bean monopoly controlling radio broadcasts. The bean millionaires. I know, and we've been trying to apply for this license for this low-power radio station down where I live, and it's very hard to get a frequency. All the frequencies have been taken up by religious stations. I guess if you apply for one, that takes it off the available list. Yeah, it's too bad someone doesn't have a religion
of true scientific information. That is too bad. Well, maybe we can start a cult. And that's going to have to conclude our episode of Politics and Science for this week. You've been listening to Dr. Raymond Peat, interviewed back probably around 2003 at WGDR in Plainfield, Vermont, on the campus of Goddard College. I had a radio show up there back then, a great station. Dr. Raymond Peat is still teaching. He's out in Eugene, Oregon. You can reach him through his website, Raypeat.com, R-A-Y-P-E-A-T dot com. He has 90 articles or so there, newsletters,
and you can research the issues that are important to you by using the Google search option on his web page. Thanks for listening, everyone. I hope you have a great week, and please tune in again next week for another edition of Politics and Science. *music*