By Reza Ganjavi, MBA

Regarding: NY Times article of 5 November 2022: "What Are Those Mysterious New Towers Looming Over New York’s Sidewalks?"

New York Times reporter Dodai Steward sings the song of the wicked wireless industry and quotes the ignorant, idiotic, or intentionally wicket comments of Alexander Wyglinski who helps the New York Times effectively brainwash people into believing 5G cell masts are safe.

I do not believe for a moment this wicket and unethical journalistic disaster of an article was out of ignorance -- unless Dodai Steward was given the task and conclusions and who to interview and she acted robotically without exercising any investigative skills. Funny that Wyglinski is a robotics guy so maybe that was the point of attraction, haha!

NYT has a history of being very comfortable in bed with Verizon, and has promoted wireless industry's lies many times, which in my view has only one purpose: to manipulate people into believing exposure to genotoxic pulsed microwave is safe -- while ignoring thousands of scientific studies that indicate otherwise.

While Wyglinski appears to have zero expertise or education in the field of biological impacts of RF-EMF, I bet he knows how to use Google before he tells the press nonsense - or intentional lies. How could Wyglinski not know about these important scientific petitions which reflect views of specialists in the field?

Wyglinski's stupid, ignorant, or intentionally misleading remarks can be very damaging to people who read his remarks and believe his nonsense. He tells NYT: "residents need not worry" -- so if they get cancer from these cell masts and they listened to you telling them it's safe, will you take responsibility Alex?!

He goes on to say the reason these cell masts are safe is because they're non-ionizing, which is 100% false. Where have you been Alex? Did you get out of the basement in the last 20 years and looked at the research in the field that clearly shows non-ionizing RF-EMF can have significant biological effect?!

And if you knew that, which you should have, and still lied to people because of some creepy conflict of interest or believing in some dogmatic lies the industry fed you, then you'd be acting highly unethically. Let's hope you propagated this disinformation out of ignorance, for which there's no excuse -- that would show you have no intellectual agility to examine peripheral fields to electrical engineering like biological effects of the radiation electrical devices produces -- that would make you a myopic professor and I'd never want to be in your class.

Wyglinski shamelessly goes on to say people will just get used to the view of these ugly cancer sticks sticking up in front of their bedroom window. So New York Times just promoted Worcester Polytechnic Institute electrical engineer to a fake expert in psychology of urban design, and fake expert in biological impacts of microwave radiation! Only such a shameless, dishonorable journal could pull something like this off.

And notice NYT did not bother interviewing any of the real experts in the field. That would shatter their propaganda intention. Out of hundreds of EMF scientists who know the topic extremely well, NYT decided to interview an obscure electrical engineer who would tell them exactly what they wanted to hear to fit their wicked agenda. This is my opinion based on experience of seeing NYT do this before, and their creepy collaboration with Verizon.

I'd be interested to know what your funding sources are Alex. Your management should read this important paper by an expert in the field, regarding conflict of interest in this area:

Dodai Steward: it's not too late. Act ethically and issue an update to your pathetic disaster article and interview Dr. Joel MOSKOWITZ <> for example or any of the other hundreds of real experts in this field. You can contact me if you need some names. Or contact the director of Environmental Health Trust, Theodora Scarato <>

Lastly, you can read this and weep Alex. The lies (or ignorant falsehoods) you tell people has consequences. You tell people not to worry -- science says otherwise. Shame on you Alex Wyglinski.

  • What about the observance of cognitive decline in students near cell tower study? “Mobile Phone Base Station Tower Settings Adjacent to School Buildings: Impact on Students’ Cognitive Health. Mao SA et al. American Journal of Men’s Health.

  • What about blood cell abnormalities? The Zothansiama et al found significant increase blood cell damage in those living within 80 meters of a cell tower versus those living greater than 300 meters from a cell tower. The author concluded “The present study demonstrated that staying near the mobile base stations and continuous use of mobile phones damage the DNA, and it may have an adverse effect in the long run. The persistence of DNA unrepaired damage leads to genomic instability which may lead to several health disorders including the induction of cancer."

  • What about Wolf and Wolf study which found the rate of cancer incidence was 129 cases per 10,000 persons per year in those living within 350 meters of a cell tower versus a rate of 16-31/10,000 in those living greater than 350 meters from the cell tower.

  • What about the Eger study which found an increase in the development of new cancer cases within a 10 year period if residents lived within 400 meters of a cell tower. Their results revealed that within 5 years of operation of a transmitting station the relative risk of cancer development tripled in residents near the cell towers compared to residents outside the area.

  • What about the Dode study which found a highly significant increase in cancers in those living within 500 meters of the cell tower.

  • What about the Ghandi study which used comet assays to determine genetic damage in those living in the vicinity of mobile base stations. Genetic damage was elevated in the sample group.


This reeks like rotten fish: Verizon's Gift to Alexander Wyglinski who helps Verizon partner New York Times brainwash people of New York to believe 5G masts are safe

Oh the sucker gets gifts from Verizon. Puzzle solved. NY Times is in bed with Verizon - they decide to do an article to manipulate people of NY to believe these cancer sticks are safe - so they need to quote someone - who with credentials could sing Verizon's song? Someone Verizon gives corporate gifts or awards or... to.

"Dr. Wyglinski has successfully secured numerous awards, grants, contracts, and corporate gifts from sponsors including the National Science Foundation, Verizon, MIT Lincoln Laboratory, MathWorks, Toyota InfoTechnology Center U.S.A., Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Naval Research Laboratory, MITRE Corporation, Office of Naval Research, Air Force Research Laboratory, and Analog Devices."

So Alex, what did you exactly get from Verizon? A corporate gift - or was it a financial "award" ? How much? Your boss should know you're telling New York Times GARBAGE as facts, which mislead people, and that garbage you're spewing benefit a company you got a gift from.

So it's no coincidence that New York Times decided to quote Wyglinski who is Verizon friendly and possibly "implicitly impregnated" by rewards from Verizon.

This stinks like rotten fish, in my view.


Wyglinski's conflict of interest. The plot gets thicker.

I came across a video where Wyglinski is vehemently pushing driverless cars -- an idea you don't hear about much any more -- it was pushed heavily by the wicked, dishonest* industry and its puppets a couple of years ago as it was pushing its 5G stupid usecases like "low latency for mobile gamers" -- let's expose the population to constant radiation from DNA-damaging, toxic radiation so some gamers can have low latency on the go. Driverless cars was another bad idea.

Now it's clear that Alex Wyglinski is cozy with Verizon and some applications that Verizon and its lover, New York Times are pushing -- so Wyglinski should know perfectly well that this radiation is not safe, especially as an academician he should be aware of research in this area. So in my opinion, he lied to readers of New York, about cell masts being safe because they're non-ionizing!

Alex, I'm going to make a big publication out of this and make sure the academic and scientific community knows what you're about. If I've misunderstood something let me know -- I'm happy to have a call. You can reach me on 213-207-6535.

*The industry is on the record for lying to people about biological effects of radiation exposure.


Wyglinski exposed by his own words

Check out this video Go to minute 35:20

Wyglinski addresses the safety of 5G. Listen to his disclaimer "DISCLAIMER: I'm just a humble wireless communication system researcher and prototyper. So I don't do any research on the biological effects..."

He goes on to say he looked for sources, and he found many sources within the industry -- GREAT -- maybe he also found out that most of the studies funded by the industry get the results the industry wants. "I did my homework. I looked online" (see, I told you he knows how to Google so he surely must have landed on and numerous other sites that discuss what Verizon and Wyglinski and New York Times don't want to hear), "based on my references as a wireless [repeated blah blah] trying to find reputable and credible sources... what happened was as a wireless [blah blah -- incredible in this one simple answer he has to repeat multiple times what he is -- which was the start of his DISCLAIMER -- so what he's really saying is that there are biological effects -- I know it -- I've seen it -- but it doesn't make Verizon happy if I say it -- and that could jeopardize any potential gifts and more gifts industry wants to give me -- so I keep repeating the boring disclaimer of I'm just a blah blah - what do I know about biological effects!

YET, he tells people who read New York Times "don't worry" as though he knows -- and without a disclaimer!

"I go to a variety of peer-reviewed sources, I know people in the industry who are credible, who are reputable who do great work blah blah ...."

What peer-reviewed sources did you look at Alex? Did you look at the National Toxicology report? Did you look at any of the numerous peer-reviewed sources that indicate there IS biological effect?

I suspect you probably did and you just decided to ignore them because admitting it would mean less gifts from Verizon/industry, and thus, lying to readers of New York Times.

Did I get this wrong Alex? I'm all ears.


New York Post Joins In To Help Manipulate The Public To Accept 5G As Safe

Surprising that at the same time NY Post comes up with a similar

manipulative, disgustingly incorrect article to influence people to

accept 5G cell towers as safe. To rationalize there's no cancer risk

(which there is) they use an article from 2002 !! Hello !! Would you fly

an airplane that was running based on 20 year old safety measures which

have been proven to be totally outdated? The thermal standards in use

today are over 25 years old and totally ignore biological effect. And NY

Post's tabloid-quality article forgot that since 2002 a ton of new

studies have shown biological effect and cancer risk.


Email to New York Times By A Key Activist

What Are Those Mysterious New Towers Looming Over New York’s Sidewalks?

1. The NYT should clarify the industry support for Wyglinski as well as the Wireless Innovation Laboratory (WILab) at Worcester Polytechnic Institute

Verizon's relationship with the Institute goes way back

Student Work | Future remote control concepts | ID: g445ch03p | Hyrax

2. NYT Statement is Unverified: “In addition, Dr. Wyglinski said, the tower “cannot just blast energy everywhere. It’s going to be hyper-focused points of energy going directly to your cellphone.”

Response: There is no factual basis to say the antenna in front of Ms. Formica’s home or in NYC are “hyperfocused points of energy” This statement is not based in fact. The antenna could be low or midband frequencies. While it is true for some antennas, it is not necessarily the case for this installation.

So far there is zero information on what frequencies, modulations or type of antenna system the equipment will be emitting. The families have requested it and so far have never received it.

3. NYT Statement: “York City streetscape, people seem startled by the large structures — and some have expressed unfounded fears about 5G.”

Health issues related to 5G are not unfounded and Broads article is filled with inaccuracies that the NYT has yet to correct.

Response: First, the NYT article links to another NYT article by Bill Broad that has documented inaccuracies.

See The Miseducation of America. What explains major omissions from the… | by Devra Davis

And Microwave News | Fact-Free Hit on a 5G Critic

Second, how can the determination “unfounded” be made as hundreds of scientists are warning that 5G poses health risks?

In 2022, international experts, who formed the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields published a paper in the journal Environmental Health calling for an immediate moratorium on further rollout of 5G wireless technologies until safety is demonstrated, and not simply assumed.

a. “Based on lessons that should have been learned from studies on RFR at frequencies below 6 GHz, we should no longer rely on the untested assumption that current or future wireless technology, including 5G, is safe without adequate testing. To do otherwise is not in the best interest of either public or environmental health.”

2. 255 scientists who have published in the field of bioelectromagnetics signed the EMF Scientists Appeal which states “numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.”

  • 419 scientists and doctors have signed the European Union 5G Appeal which states “5G will substantially increase exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields [RF-EMF] on top of the 2G, 3G, 4G, Wi-Fi, etc. for telecommunications already in place. RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment.”

There have been appeals and position statements for decades, read a full list here.

  • Numerous expert policy reports conclude that safety is not assured, for example

1. The New Hampshire State Commission 5G Report has 15 recommendations to protect the public.

2. The Pittsburgh Law Review: The FCC Keeps Letting Me Be: Why Radiofrequency Radiation Standards Have Failed to Keep Up With Technology explains how the FCC and FDA have failed to develop adequate safety limits.

3. The Harvard Press Book “Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission is Dominated by the Industries it Presumably Regulates” details how wireless companies are using the Big Tobacco playbook and how the FCC is a captured agency.