Evaluating the Merits of the Blushield EMF Protection Device
By Truman W. Idso, B.S. Applied Physics · 26 April 2025
Understanding the Study
A simple pilot study was conducted in which 25 healthy adults used the Blushield device for 12 weeks in order to determine the effect on "various physiological and patient-reported outcomes commonly affected by excessive RF exposure". The primary claim is that the Blushield device provides "resonance-based electromagnetic field protection," although the exact physical operating principle is unclear.
The Case for Concern
The authors make several valid and sincere arguments in favor of the case for concern. They correctly point out that, although "human beings have always been exposed to low levels of RF [radiofrequency] emanating from [several natural sources]," exposure has "increased dramatically in recent decades" with very little scientific data to reassure us of the negligible impact of such high exposure. It is, indeed, concerning that the modern man is surrounded at all times by a multitude of "smart" devices that permeate all aspects of his life. Specifically, the authors discuss the effects of chronic RF exposure on "decreases in sperm count, viability, and motility, sleep disruption, cognitive dysfunction, and increased risk of cancers."
The Case for Confidence
Unfortunately for Blushield, these evidences are correlative at best. Certainly it is true that such effects have been observed in recent years. However, it seems far more probable that something like sleep disruption would be caused by staying up too late scrolling social media, not by pervasive RF exposure. Similarly, decreases in male fertility may credibly be attributed to the modern diet rather than electromagnetic fields. That being said, the case for cancer risk is more complex, so we will address it separately in a future editorial.
Final Analysis
The authors reported some improvement "in markers of sleep, cognitive function, and overall health" at the end of the 12 week pilot study. However, these improvements represents a snapshot in time as the full 12-week data are not provided. On any given day, an individual's health markers will fluctuate. Thus, it is not possible to know, given the data presented in the paper, if these markers were on an upward trend or simply better on that one day.
Another issue with this study (one that the authors acknowledge honestly) is the lack of a control group and blinding. Perhaps a placebo would provide similar outcomes, or perhaps overall health in the region of the study improved over the course of these 12 weeks. Overall, there are many plausible explanations for the slight improvements seen, none of which credit the Blushield device.
Most important to this paper is the Blushield device itself. The authors claim that it provides a "resonance-based electromagnetic field protection" by emitting "omnidirectional scalar longitudinal waves... to compete with non-native ambient EMFs." This explanation is extremely lacking in credibility and borders on pseudoscience. "Scalar" refers to something with a magnitude only, no direction (e.g., temperature). Combining the words "scalar" and "waves" is oxymoronic in physics. There is simply no experimental evidence of such scalar waves; they have never been observed. Thus, Blushield claims to be using a type of wave that does not exist in order to counter the effects of ambient electromagnetic fields. In our opinion, their device either does nothing at all, or it emits its own electromagnetic waves which defeats the point of the device entirely.
Although we strongly respect those who are concerned by chronic EMF exposure (at EMF Physics we have our own questions), the underlying physics of the Blushield device appear to be scientifically dubious. We urge our readers to consider other solutions.
References
C. R. D’Adamo, D. Denmark, N. Carreras-Gallo, V. Dwaraka, R. Smith, T. Blue, and H. Messier, Integr. Med. (Encinitas)23, 23 (2024).
Evaluating the Merits of the Blushield EMF Protection Device
By Truman W. Idso, B.S. Applied Physics · 26 April 2025
Understanding the Study
A simple pilot study was conducted in which 25 healthy adults used the Blushield device for 12 weeks in order to determine the effect on "various physiological and patient-reported outcomes commonly affected by excessive RF exposure". The primary claim is that the Blushield device provides "resonance-based electromagnetic field protection," although the exact physical operating principle is unclear.
The Case for Concern
The authors make several valid and sincere arguments in favor of the case for concern. They correctly point out that, although "human beings have always been exposed to low levels of RF [radiofrequency] emanating from [several natural sources]," exposure has "increased dramatically in recent decades" with very little scientific data to reassure us of the negligible impact of such high exposure. It is, indeed, concerning that the modern man is surrounded at all times by a multitude of "smart" devices that permeate all aspects of his life. Specifically, the authors discuss the effects of chronic RF exposure on "decreases in sperm count, viability, and motility, sleep disruption, cognitive dysfunction, and increased risk of cancers."
The Case for Confidence
Unfortunately for Blushield, these evidences are correlative at best. Certainly it is true that such effects have been observed in recent years. However, it seems far more probable that something like sleep disruption would be caused by staying up too late scrolling social media, not by pervasive RF exposure. Similarly, decreases in male fertility may credibly be attributed to the modern diet rather than electromagnetic fields. That being said, the case for cancer risk is more complex, so we will address it separately in a future editorial.
Final Analysis
The authors reported some improvement "in markers of sleep, cognitive function, and overall health" at the end of the 12 week pilot study. However, these improvements represents a snapshot in time as the full 12-week data are not provided. On any given day, an individual's health markers will fluctuate. Thus, it is not possible to know, given the data presented in the paper, if these markers were on an upward trend or simply better on that one day.
Another issue with this study (one that the authors acknowledge honestly) is the lack of a control group and blinding. Perhaps a placebo would provide similar outcomes, or perhaps overall health in the region of the study improved over the course of these 12 weeks. Overall, there are many plausible explanations for the slight improvements seen, none of which credit the Blushield device.
Most important to this paper is the Blushield device itself. The authors claim that it provides a "resonance-based electromagnetic field protection" by emitting "omnidirectional scalar longitudinal waves... to compete with non-native ambient EMFs." This explanation is extremely lacking in credibility and borders on pseudoscience. "Scalar" refers to something with a magnitude only, no direction (e.g., temperature). Combining the words "scalar" and "waves" is oxymoronic in physics. There is simply no experimental evidence of such scalar waves; they have never been observed. Thus, Blushield claims to be using a type of wave that does not exist in order to counter the effects of ambient electromagnetic fields. In our opinion, their device either does nothing at all, or it emits its own electromagnetic waves which defeats the point of the device entirely.
Although we strongly respect those who are concerned by chronic EMF exposure (at EMF Physics we have our own questions), the underlying physics of the Blushield device appear to be scientifically dubious. We urge our readers to consider other solutions.
References
C. R. D’Adamo, D. Denmark, N. Carreras-Gallo, V. Dwaraka, R. Smith, T. Blue, and H. Messier, Integr. Med. (Encinitas) 23, 23 (2024).