Wireless Harm - Biological Effects of Wireless Technology

In the US, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is the regulatory body for radio frequency/microwave (RF/MW) radiation.  This includes radiation from cell phones, pagers and their transmitting antennas, TV and radio towers, wireless computer networks, etc.  The current standards only took into account the effect of microwaves to heat up tissue (so called thermal effect), while ignoring a large body of scientific evidence pointing to non-thermal effects on living organisms.

According to this position letter from US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "The FCC's current (radio frequency/microwave) exposure guidelines ... are thermally based, and do not apply to chronic, nonthermal exposure situations.  They are believed to protect against injury that may be caused by acute exposures that result in tissue heating or electric shock and burn."  "The FCC's exposure guideline is considered protective of effects arising from a thermal mechanism but not from all possible mechanisms.  Therefore, the generalization by many that the guidelines protect human beings from harm by any or all mechanisms is not justified".  "Federal health and safety agencies have not yet developed policies concerning possible risk from long-term, nonthermal exposures".

This June 17, 1999 letter from the scientific experts at the US federal health agencies (including EPA, FDA. OSHA, etc.) who comprise the Radiofrequency Interagency work Group (RFIAWG) identified 14 specific issues in the current US RF safety policy that, “we believe need to be addressed to provide a strong and credible rationale to support RF exposure guidelines”, and conveyed it to the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) RF standards setting subcommittee.  To date these issues have not been addressed in any federal research program.  They constitute a comprehensive list of gaps and needs in RF radiation research.  There is no government funding for any research, and FCC doesn't even have funding for enforcing the already extremely insufficient regulations.

The European Environment Agency (EEA) recommends precautionary principle, citing the 2007 Bioinitiative Report, compiled by the BioInitiative Working Group, an international consortium of scientists, researchers and public health policy professionals who reviewed over 2,000 independent research studies on the biological effects of Electrosmog, and concluded definitively that current exposure standards do not adequately protect public health.  The EEA has contributed to this new report with a chapter drawn from the EEA study 'Late lessons from early warnings…’, which draws lessons from asbestos, benzene and PCBs, as well as tobacco smoking and lead in petrol.

In 2007 the German Federal Government recommends its citizens to take precaution and use landlines instead of wireless technology whenever possible.

Fundamentally, it is time for a paradigm shift in society from embracing new technologies (devices and chemicals) until proven UNSAFE, to withholding large scale deployment until proven SAFE.

Update: since this page was written, a new excellent report came out, endorsed by many experts in the field:
http://www.radiationresearch.org/pdfs/reasons_us.pdf


Introduction

Since the passing of the mammoth sized Telecommunications Bill by congress during Christmas season 1996, which, through a little preemption clause contained within, took away any US local government's right to deny proposed telecommunication antenna construction, cell phone antennas and other wireless technology has spread like wild fire.  We're now saturating our ambient environment with artificially created electromagnetic (EMF) radiation of all sorts of unnatural waveforms, very high intensities for some frequencies, and with propagation characteristics like digital signaling and modulation that simply do not exist in nature.  No living organisms have ever been exposed to any of these in our evolutionary history.  The sources of exposure include cell phones and their base stations (towers, masts and simply antennas), bluetooth, blackberry, wireless computer networks at work, schools and homes, cordless phones in most homes, even wireless baby monitors and a whole array of new products coming into the market everyday that may or may not be apparent in their wirelessness.  The amount of RF energy transmitted in the air at any given point on the surface of earth is also continuously increasing due to the ever increasing amount of data now being exchanged wirelessly – photos, music, videos, books.  Amazon’s wireless reading device, called “amazonkindle”, currently allows access to 130,000 books, blogs, newspapers, magazines, etc., as of June 2008.

Living organisms generate electromagnetic fields by the movement of calcium, magnesium and other ions.  Nerve and muscle impulses are all about bioelectricity.  External electromagnetic fields can interfere with our bodies, and vise versa.  One common phenomenon of the latter is the interference of TV reception when we move close to the TV set.

Around 2000-3000 research papers have been published pertaining to safety and biological effects of radio frequency/microwave (RF/MW) radiation resulting from wireless technology.  Roughly half the research found disturbing biological and/or health disruptive effects of microwave radiation at or way below intensities used by various wireless technologies.  What about the other half?  The wireless industry has been accused of manipulating research results that they directly or indirectly fund, and thereby contaminating the pool of scientific database in order to muddy the water in the field.  See the section “Telecom Industry: Disinformation and Deceit” below.

Watch this BBC Panorama program.  Go to the right side of that page and click on 'Watch program: WiFi: a warning signal'.  It is quite revealing.  The regulatory standards are similar in USA and UK, except in the US there wasn't even any government committee recommending caution when siting cell phone towers with regard to schools and children.

Sometimes it may be years before the devastating effects of a hazardous substance is fully recognized, and beyond the efforts of denial by special interest groups and industries.  Such was the case of tobacco smoking, of asbestos, and of some notorious pesticides and drugs.  Even the atom bombs that fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't significantly increase cancer rates until a decade later.  Many scientists consider the immersion of the entire population in this wireless smog today to be the biggest human experiment ever.  The question is, will we emerge from it largely unscathed, or...?

About myself: I have a PhD in genetics.  My graduate research was mostly in the fields of molecular biology/biochemistry.  Later I became a bioinformaticist (aka. computational biologist), studying protein functions, gene expression and genetic pathways.  When I encountered an article regarding the perils of wireless technology (especially after seeing the graphs of RF signals progressively penetrating deeper into the skulls of adult, 10 and 5 year olds1,2), and upon discovering that my daughter's preschool was using a wireless computer network with the wireless router in close proximity to the children, I embarked on an extensive reading of the scientific literature concerning the subject, and became more and more concerned that the microwave radiation that we are now bathing ourselves and our children in, day in and day out, is unsafe.

References:

  1. Gandhi, O.P.G. Lazzi, and C.M. Furse, Electromagnetic Absorption in the Human Head and Neck for Mobile Telephones at 835 and 1900 MHz. IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, 1996. 44(10): p. 1884-1897.
  2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18451464?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum  Cardis, E., et al., Distribution of RF energy emitted by mobile phones in anatomical structures of the brain. Physics in Medicine and Biology, 2008 Jun 7;53(11):2771-83. Epub 2008 May 1.


The red flag: indemnity insurance and liability shifting

In 1996, “EPA’s Dr. Carl Blackman and a number of others became so concerned over what they perceived as improprieties in the subcommittee’s work (referring to the IEEE’s SCC28 subcommittee, which industry and the military effectively dominate) —for instance, deciding on proposed limits before the scientific data had been reviewed—that they refused to vote, stalling progress on the standard. The impasse was finally cleared when the IEEE stepped in and indemnified all those working on the standard against future liability.” (Microwave News, Mar/Apr. 1996, page 1 &12)

The possibility of future litigation also concerned the scientists working for the research arm of the telecom industry, the U.S. Wireless Technology Research (WTR). They went on strike for nearly a year until their parent body, the CTIA (the Cellular Telephone Industry Association) agreed to indemnify them against possible future claims. The WTR was paid US $ 938,000 to fund indemnity insurance coverage. (Microwave News, March/April 1997)

“Most ominously for our churches and towns, this industry has consistently tried to shift all liability onto the site owners and away from themselves as providers of the service.  Using third-party tower builders – vertical real estate companies – is another way of shifting liability. The service providers get an extra layer in between themselves and the community.  And the tower companies understand the RF risks only too well.  They are set up as holding companies with their assets tied up in subsidiary companies, meaning most of their assets are untouchable in lawsuits.  High-risk companies always do this.” (The New Milford (CT) Times, Mar3, 2000)

Indeed, as asked in this Special Health Report I found on the internet: “If manufacturers genuinely believe that their mobile phones are completely safe then why: Do many of them suggest in their handbook that users may wish to reduce their exposure by spending less time on the phone? Why would three manufacturers have lodged their own patents to reduce radiation emissions which in the word of the patent abstracts are to "prevent the health of the user from being damaged"? Why has one manufacturer just launched a new low radiation mobile phone? Why are many manufacturers developing antenna which point away from the head? Why is the mobile phone industry spending millions of dollars on medical research looking for evidence of a problem which they categorically assure people doesn't exist and why have they refused funding to independent scientists whose research looks as if it might reveal damning conclusions?”

What is radio frequency/microwave (RF/MW) radiation?

They both fall in the non-ionizing frequencies of the electromagnetic frequency (EMF) spectrum.  RF is from 3 kilohertz (3000 cycles per second) to 300 gigahertz, and MW is from 300 megahertz to 300 GHz, though the boundaries for the latter is quite arbitrary and varies with fields of study.

What RF frequencies are harmful, and what frequencies are used by wireless technologies?

Frequencies all over the electromagnetic spectrum from 0-300 GHz, have been found to cause harm by various studies.

The extreme low frequencies (ELF), including power line frequencies at 50-60 Hz, where the common sources include electricity power lines and all kinds of household electric appliances, has been well established (acknowledged by the US National Institute of Health, the European Environment Agency, and WHO) to cause a wide range of health problems, with the most consistent evidence to date concerning childhood leukaemia.  These were based on a large number of epidemiological, animal and in vitro studies(1).  Of importance is also the fact that for many years, the same agencies had told the public that the power frequencies of EMF radiation was safe and posed no health hazard.

For RF frequencies, which range from a few kilohertz, all the way to just below the infrared spectrum, a large body of research has found an association with various biological effects and health problems.

The human anatomy resonates and reaches peak whole-body absorption between 70-100 MHz in the FM radio bands(2), because the wavelengths of those bands are about our body height.  That's why the FCC standards are more stringent there (but still by far not stringent enough).  Specific organs reach peak absorption in different frequencies. Human brain tissue is maximally resonant in the Ultra High Frequency (UHF) bands between around 800 MHz-3 GHz -- right where all telecommunications technologies function.  Wireless computers (WiFi, WLANS. etc.) function around 2.45 GHz, same as microwave ovens for cooking.  Cell phones (and their antenna) are around 900MHz and 1800 MHz.  Some researchers think that a worse frequency could not have been chosen for the wireless technology regarding the human anatomy.

References:

  1. WHO (World Health Organization), 2002. Establishing a dialogue on risks from electromagnetic fields. Geneva.
  2. See Robert Cleveland's chapter in: Cell Towers: Wireless Convenience? or Environmental Hazard? Proceedings of the "Cell Towers Forum" State of the Science/State of the Law (Safe Goods/New Century Publishing, 2000) Edited by B. Blake Levitt.

Major biological/health effects from low level (below thermal-intensity) RF radiation

For a more detailed description of some of these see here and here.

  • Calcium ion dumping, the loss of some of the calcium that normally strengthens cell membranes (see here for a simple explanation). This results in an increased leakage of materials through cell membranes that can affect many aspects of metabolism, including damage to DNA, digestive enzymes leaking from lysosomes (tiny membrane-bound structures in living cells that normally recycle waste), apoptosis (cell death), and the generation of false nerve impulses from calcium leakage in brain cells (causing hyperactivity, impairing normal mental function and generating many of the known symptoms of electromagnetic hypersensitivity)
  • Both double- and single- stand DNA breaks, and chromosomal aberrations.  Double-strand breaks are not known to be repairable by the cell, thus causing mutations that can lead to cancer and other diseases.
  • In 1996, Dr. Michael Repacholi found a significant increase in B-cell lymphomas in test mice exposed to long-term, low-level pulsed MW in the cell phone and PCS range.  Changes in B-cells in the immune system are implicated in roughly 85% of all cancers.
  • Studies on microwave and radar personnel found sharp increases in cancers - including lymphomas, melanomas, leukemias and brain tumors - as well as high blood pressure, headaches, memory loss, brain damage, and immune system suppression.
  • Increase in malignant endocrine gland tumors and benign adrenal gland tumors in test animals.
  • Increase in the permeability of the blood-brain barrier, which protects the brain from access by viruses, bacteria and toxins that the rest of the body may be exposed to.
  • Alterations in human electroencephalograms (EEG).  Entrainment of the test subjects' brain waves with the external exposures were documented, along with radical changes in mood and behavior.
  • The pulsing factor of RF alone - such as that used in the newer digital PCS, cell phones and High Definition Television (HDTV) technologies - has been found to be a significant variable in adverse effects.  It appears that the pulsed information, rather than the actual energy load that the RF radiation carries, may be the key to some of its effects on living organisms.  Dr Gerard Hyland of the Department of Physics at Warwick University is among those stressing that brain activity and the neuroendocrine system could be adversely affected by pulsed signals(1).
  • Effects on the brain's dopamine-opiate systems (which is known to be involved in headaches).
  • Effects involving free radicals (known to be associated with genotoxicity and cancer), since free radical scavengers such as melatonin and PBN were found to block RF induced DNA damage in experimental animals.
  • In December 2004 a pan-European study named REFLEX (Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards from Low Energy Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods), funded by the EU, involving 12 collaborating laboratories in several countries, showed some compelling evidence of DNA damage (significant increase in single and double strand DNA breaks and in micronuclei frequency, as well as chromosomal aberrations) of cells in in-vitro cultures, when exposed between 0.3 to 2 watts/kg, whole-sample average.  Gene expression as well as protein expression and phosphorylation were also affected.  "...the results of the whole genome cDNA micro-array and proteomic analyses indicated that EMF may activate several groups of genes that play a role in cell division, cell proliferation and cell differentiation."  "The main goal of the REFLEX project was to investigate the effects of EMF on single cells in vitro at the molecular level below the energy density reflected by the present safety levels." "The strengths of REFLEX are based firstly on the adoption of a common technological platform for ELF-EMF and RF-EMF exposures that allow the replication of positive findings between the collaborating partners. Secondly, on the adoption of the post-genomic technologies (DNA micro-arrays and proteomics) that enables very large numbers of potential cellular effects to be examined simultaneously without prejudice as to mechanisms."
  • Other molecular changes include: changes in DNA secondary structure (helical structure) (2), protein folding and denaturation(3,4), and conformation of membrane lipids and the permeability of the lipid membrane bilayer(5)
  • Brain tumors among long-term or heavy cell phone users.  The INTERPHONE Study, a series of multinational case–control studies set-up to determine whether cell phone use increases risk of 4 major types of brain and head cancer, is the largest epidemiological study of these tumours to date and combines data from 13 countries.  Their nearly completed results can be found here (Feb 2008).  For each of the tumors, 10 years or more cell phone usage or heavy usage were found to correlate to increased risk of cancer, consistent with long latency periods for cancer development (30 years is the typical length of exposure for tobacco users developing lung cancer).  Many critics point out that the INTERPHONE Study was partially funded by telecom industry, and several study results were played down by the authors.  US brain surgeon Vini G. Khurana undertook a 14-month unfunded and independent investigation into the link between heavy, long-term use of mobile telephones and the development of malignant brain tumours, reviewing more than 100 international studies on the subject.  His report is well worth reading.  In particular, he wrote “Notably, the lead authors of some negative or “no link” studies have recently published findings to the contrary, including S. Lonn and the authors of the two of the most substantial “no link” publications to date, namely, J. Schuz and A. Lahkola”.  It is also important to notice that the strongest link of cell phone use and brain tumors was from Sweden, the first country to deploy mobile phones and their networks, in 1981.  Mass deployment was present in Sweden by 1985.
  • In 1997, I.N. Magras and T.D. Xenos, two researchers in Greece, placed mice at different locations around a cell phone "antenna park", with power densities 1,000-10,000 times lower than FCC guidelines in the USA.  After 5 generations of exposure, the mice reached irreversible infertility.  I compiled US human fertility data from CDC's periodic National Survey of Family Growth.  Briefly, in 2002, 11.8% of US women aged 15-44 had impaired fecundity, a physical difficulty with getting pregnant or carrying a baby to term.  In 1995 the figure was 10.2%, and in 1988 and 1982 it was 8.4%Details of my analysis on this subject is here.
  • Massive deaths around cell phone masts and TV/radio towers of migratory birds, leading to the extinction of some species.  Birds are often observed to circle frantically around these masts, then slam into it head on, presumably due to the disruption of their magnetically based orientation mechanisms by the RF signals from these towers (See the section on mechanisms of EMF biological effects).  It is also possible that the same cause contributes to the massive disappearance of bees (colony collapse syndrome) that the bee farmers say have started around 15 years ago.  This 2006 letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listing preliminary research results that demonstrate RF radiation effects from cell phone towers, etc on avian fertility and nesting behavior is alarming.
  • EMF is also linked to neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and Huntington's diseases, as well as other neurological disorder such as autism and attention deficit hyperactivity syndrome (ADHA).  Current FCC regulatory standards officially took only research before 1985 into consideration, but in 1992, magnetite was discovered in human brain and head (previously only thought to exist in birds, bees and so on).  All regulatory guidelines of EMF exposure presume humans don't have magnetite, and thus won't be magnetically affected by EMF.  More on this subject here.
  • Apparently MW can even be heard by humans, via what's widely known as the "microwave auditory phenomenon".  It does not arise from an interaction of microwave pulses directly with the auditory nerves or neurons along the auditory neurophysiological pathways of the central nervous system. Instead, the microwave pulse, upon absorption by soft tissues in the head, launches a thermoelastic wave of acoustic pressure that travels by bone conduction to the inner ear. There, it activates the cochlear receptors via the same process involved for normal hearing(6).

References:

  1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11117927?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum  Lancet. 2000 Nov 25;356(9244):1833-6.  Physics and biology of mobile telephony.  Hyland GJ.
  2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=7719429&query_hl=41&itool=pubmed_docsum  To see English translation of its abstract: http://www.microwavenews.com/docs/MW.genotoxabstracts.pdf  Radiats Biol Radioecol. 1995 Jan-Feb;35(1):36-41.  [Changes in the secondary structure of DNA under the influence of external low-intensity electromagnetic field] [Article in Russian]  Semin IuA, Shvartsburg LK, Dubovik BV.
  3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=15352175  J Cell Biochem. 2004 Sep 1;93(1):188-96.  Non-thermal effects of electromagnetic fields at mobile phone frequency on the refolding of an intracellular protein: myoglobin.  Mancinelli F, Caraglia M, Abbruzzese A, d'Ambrosio G, Massa R, Bismuto E.
  4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=11088227&query_hl=41&itool=pubmed_docsum  Phys Rev E Stat Phys Plasmas Fluids Relat Interdiscip Topics. 2000 Apr;61(4 Pt B):4310-4.  Microwave-enhanced folding and denaturation of globular proteins.  Bohr H, Bohr J.
  5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=15768431  Bioelectromagnetics. 2005 Apr;26(3):194-200.  Effect of microwave radiation on the biophysical properties of liposomes.  Gaber MH, Abd El Halim N, Khalil WA.
  6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17495664?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum  Health Phys. 2007 Jun;92(6):621-8.  Hearing of microwave pulses by humans and animals: effects, mechanism, and thresholds.  Lin JC, Wang Z.

What are the mechanisms with which EMF affects human/animal organisms?

We know a number of ways in which EMFs alter cell physiology and function, as detailed in various chapters in the Bioinitiative Report (and in the biological effects section above).  EMFs affect gene transcription, cause the synthesis of stress proteins and cause breakage of DNA, probably through generation of reactive oxygen species.  Some of the exact biophysical mechanisms that lead to these biochemical and physiological changes are still under investigation.  Just like there are many carcinogenic substances that we do not know the mechanisms of action of, this should not be reason to negate the evidence that EMFs cause cancer.

The human body is an electrochemical instrument of exquisite sensitivity whose orderly functioning and control are underpinned by oscillatory electrical processes of various kinds, each characterized by a specific frequency, some of which happen to be close to those used in GSM (Global System for Mobile communication) and other wireless technologies(1).  Thus, some endogenous biological electrical activities can be interfered with via “oscillatory similitude” between the radiation and the living organism, which occurs orders of magnitude below the energy levels required to cause thermal effects (the dead has flat electroencephalograms, and no bioelectrical activities to be interfered with).  Non-thermal effects thus depend on “aliveness” and on the state of the living organism when exposed to the radiation – i.e. these effects are non-linear, and not everyone can be expected to be affected in the same way by identical exposure to the same radiation.  An example of this is the ability of a light flashing at about 15 Hz to induce seizures in people with photosensitive epilepsy.  It is not the amount of energy absorbed from the light that provoked the seizures, but rather the information transmitted to the brain by the frequency of its flashing, which matches or is close to the frequency utilized by the brain itself.  Here is a good discussion of non-linearity and Dose-response in toxins, pharmaceutical drugs and EMF.  Also see slides “Non-linearity in biological systems: how can physics help?

For pulsed signals, as explained in "biological effects" section, the mechanism may be interference with the brain signaling and the neuroendocrine system, through some kind of entrainment due to closeness in frequency(1).

For carrier microwaves (the high frequency waves that “carries” the low frequency pulsed signals), as in the case of cell phone and wi-fi signals, an effect called “coherent excitation of dielectric biomolecules and biomolecular structures” originally postulated by Frohlich(2-4) as an elegant, natural mechanism with which intracellular communication at molecular level takes place, is thought to be directly interfered by external MW radiation at gigahertz to terahertz range at extremely low intensities(5.6).  Many biomolecular structures are dipolar, i.e. having both a positively and a negatively charged end.  E.g. regions of the cell membranes separated by embedded proteins, these proteins themselves and other cytoplasmic biomolecules.  Frohlich showed - provided certain nonlinear interactions are admitted between the dipolar elements (of a given kind) and their heat bath environment - that within a certain window of metabolic energy supply rate, s0<s<s1, the incoming metabolic energy is not completely thermalised – part of it being channeled instead into the lowest frequency (collective) vibrational mode associated with the entire system constituted by these identical electric dipoles.  After a certain time, this single mode of electric polarization becomes very strongly excited mechanically, the individual dipolar units vibrate together in phase, i.e. coherently, so that the entire system of dipoles itself behaves as a macroscopic replica of any one of them, and thus oscillates (collectively) as a single ‘giant’ electric dipole.  The notion of the triggering of fundamental biological processes by the excitation of such a coherent mode has stimulated a variety of hypotheses(4-9), and received some experimental support(5,10-16).  It is hypothesized(5), for example, that in this state of coherent excitation, enzymes emit differing GHz/THz frequencies of radiation depending on whether they are active or not; these emissions are received by the chromosomes and the probability is increased that the promoter regions of the genes encoding these enzymes will open.   Furthermore, the emission from one enzyme could stimulate the synthesis of other, complementary, enzymes (and possibly inhibit the synthesis of non-complementary ones).  There would be a limited number of these electromagnetic spectra, and each would help to create a particular state of the cell.  This powerful cellular mechanism for integrating metabolic requirements and gene transcription is interfered with, hijacked, if you will, by external electromagnetic stimuli of the corresponding frequencies.  In other words, the endogenous coherent excitation effectively ‘tunes’ the biosystem to be receptive to weak external electromagnetic stimuli in much the same way as an energized radio receiver is.

Ferromagnetic transduction models have been proposed as a potential mechanism for RF bioeffects(17). These models are based on the coupling of RF and pulsed electromagnetic emissions to biogenic magnetite (Fe3O4) present in the human brain via either ferromagnetic resonance or mechanical activation of cellular ion channels.

The radical pair model, first proposed by Schulten and Windemuth(18) and later detailed by Ritz et al.(19), postulates a "chemical compass" based on direction-specific interactions of radical pairs with the ambient magnetic field. It is supported by experimental evidence in birds and amphibians.  A crucial component of this mechanism is a specialized photopigment that absorbs a photon and forms a radical pair.  This photopigment is thought to be cryptochromes, first known from plants, but recently also discovered in animals.  It has been found in the retina of vertebrates, first in mammals(20), but also in chicken, and recently in migrating passerine birds.  A key process in this mechanism, namely the interconversion of singlet-triplet radical pairs, can be significantly affected by oscillating fields of specific frequencies in the MegaHertz range of RF(19). The intensities required for these resonance effects are so low that they would not affect any of the magnetite-based mechanisms currently considered.  Tests with a weak broad band noise field of frequencies from 0.1 MHz to 10 MHz added to the geomagnetic field indeed showed that this disrupted the orientation of migratory birds(21).  Further tests clearly shows that the observed effect of high-frequency field is a specific one(22).  Our modern day ambient environment has many sources of RF in this range.  See the FCC frequency allocation table.

Buchachenko et al.(23) pointed out that, the production of ATP in mitochondria depends on the magnesium nuclear spin and the magnetic moment of a Mg2+ ion in creatine kinase and ATPase. They suggested that enzymatic synthesis of ATP is an ion-radical process and thus depends on the external magnetic field (magnetobiology originates from this fact) and microwave fields, which control the spin states of ion-radical pairs and affect the ATP synthesis.

An Israeli group reported(24,25) that low intensity, intermediate frequency (specifically at 100, 150 and 200 KHz) RF radiation has an inhibitory effect on cancerous cell lines they tested, as well as being effective in a small pilot trial of recurrent glioblastoma patients.  Some dividing cells were slowed down, while others disintegrated in the late stages of dividing.  They found that the basis of the inhibitory effect on cell division was the unidirectional forces induced by the inhomogeneous fields at the bridge separating the daughter cells that interfere with spindle tubulin orientation and induce dielectrophoresis.  Similar inhibitory effect on cell division was found by Cucullo et al with low intensity, extremely low frequency (50Hz) electric fields(26).

References

  1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11117927?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum  Lancet. 2000 Nov 25;356(9244):1833-6.  Physics and biology of mobile telephony.  Hyland GJ.
  2. Frohlich, 1968, Int J Quantum Chem 2: 641-649.
  3. Frohlich, 1980, Adv Electronics Electron Phys 53: 85-152.
  4. Frohlich, 1986, The Fluctuating Enzyme. Welch, G.R. (ed.), John Wiley and Sons, pp. 421-449.
  5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9194714?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum  Mol Microbiol. 1997 May;24(4):879-80. Do bacteria sing? Sonic intercellular communication between bacteria may reflect electromagnetic intracellular communication involving coherent collective vibrational modes that could integrate enzyme activities and gene expression.  Norris V, Hyland GJ.
  6. IEEE Eng Sci and Edu J. 1998 Dec;7(6): 261-269.  Non-thermal bioeffects induced by low-intensity microwave irradiation of living systems.  Hyland, G.J.
  7. Lauck et al., 1992, J Theoret Biol 158: 1-13.
  8. Ho, 1993, The Rainbow and the Worm: the Physics of Organisms. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.
  9. Penrose, 1994, Shadows of the Mind. London: Oxford University Press.
  10. Matsuhashi et al., 1995, J Bacteriol 177: 688-693
  11. Matsuhashi et al., 1996, Microb Drug Resist 2: 91-93
  12. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=11088227&query_hl=41&itool=pubmed_docsum  Phys Rev E Stat Phys Plasmas Fluids Relat Interdiscip Topics. 2000 Apr;61(4 Pt B):4310-4.  Microwave-enhanced folding and denaturation of globular proteins.  Bohr H, Bohr J.
  13. Berteaud et al., 1975, C R Acad Sci 281: 843-846.
  14. Grundler, 1981, Collective Phenomena 3: 181-186
  15. Webb, 1979, Phys Lett A 73: 145.
  16. Volkov and Kosevich, 1991, J Biomol Struct Dyn 8:1069-1083
  17. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15382422?ordinalpos=16&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum  IEEE Trans Nanobioscience. 2003 Mar;2(1):40-3.  Preliminary evaluation of nanoscale biogenic magnetite-based ferromagnetic transduction mechanisms for mobile phone bioeffects.  Cranfield C, Wieser HG, Al Madan J, Dobson J.
  18. Schulten K, Windemuth A (1986) Model for a physiological magnetic compass. In: Maret G, Boccara N, Kiepenheuer J (eds). Biophysical effects of steady magnetic fields. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 99�106
  19. Ritz T, Adem S, Schulten K (2000) A model for vision-based magnetoreception in birds. Biophys J 78:707�718
  20. Miyamoto Y, Sancar A (1998) Vitamin B2-based blue-light photoreceptors in the retinohypothalamic tract as the photoactive pigments for setting the circadian clock in mammals. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:6097�6102
  21. Ritz T, Thalau P, Phillips JB, Wiltschko R, Wiltschko W (2004) Resonance effects indicate a radical-pair mechanism for avian magnetic compass. Nature 429:177�180
  22. Thalau P, Ritz T, Stapput K, Wiltschko R, Wiltschko W (2005) Magnetic compass orientation of migratory birds in the presence of a 1.315 MHz oscillating field. Naturwissenschaften 92:86�90
  23. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16808357?ordinalpos=8&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum  Biofizika. 2006 May-Jun;51(3):545-52.  [New mechanisms of biological effects of electromagnetic fields] (Russian)  Buchachenko AL, Kuznetsov DA, Berdinskiĭ VL.
  24. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17551011?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Jun 12;104(24):10152-7. Epub 2007 Jun 5.  Alternating electric fields arrest cell proliferation in animal tumor models and human brain tumors.  Kirson et al.
  25. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15126372?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum  Cancer Res. 2004 May 1;64(9):3288-95.  Disruption of cancer cell replication by alternating electric fields.  Kirson et al.
  26. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15779084?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum  Glia. 2005 Jul;51(1):65-72.  Very low intensity alternating current decreases cell proliferation.  Cucullo et al.

Current US government regulation is grossly insufficient

Electromagnetic radiation has profound effects on living organisms, quite aside from the well known thermal effect (heating of the tissue, living or dead), which is the only effect that the current FCC safety guidelines for RF emissions address.  The maximum allowable “specific absorption rate (SAR)” was based on levels of per kilogram heating that a 6 ft male human body could withstand and dissipate through metabolism without causing a 1°C rise in body temperature.  In other words, under the emission limits of these guidelines, any one source of wireless technology employed around us (of which there could be many) will not cook us whole – like in a microwave oven – but we are not at all guaranteed to be safe from all the non-thermal effects of the RF radiation, for which a large body of scientific evidence has already been accumulated, but which the FCC guidelines, drawn up by standard setting bodies composed almost entirely of engineers and physicists (many from the military and industry), but not biologists and M.D.s, have entirely ignored so far.  In fact, as some of the research shows, part of the non-thermal effects may just be a microscopic thermal effect, due to the inhomogeneity of living tissues and the sensitivity of living processes at molecular level (biochemical and biophysical) to the microwave energy many magnitudes below current standards.

The current FCC standards were based on a set of short-exposure, animal behavior experiments in early 1980s(1,2).  After rats and monkeys were trained to do certain tasks, they exposed the animals to various frequencies of RF for 30-60 minutes, and found that at around 4 W/kg of specific absorption rate (SAR), the animals' body temperature increased by 1 degree C, and their trained task performance was disrupted.

The FCC then used 1/10 of that SAR level for human long-term occupational exposure (0.4 W/kg), and reduced another 5 fold for uncontrolled general public long-term exposure (0.08 W/kg), such as living near a cell phone tower.  For maximum allowed exposure from cell phone conversations, all cell phones sold in the US need only to meet a SAR of below 1.6 W/kg, since it is considered short exposure.

But in 1986, investigators from the same group reported two series of animal experiments on the effects of long-term exposure.  They found that when rats were exposed to 2.45 GHz RFR for 7 hours/day, 7 days/wk, for 14 weeks, disruption of behavior occured at SAR of 0.7 W/kg(3).  And in another experiment, after exposing rats to the same RFR for 7 hours/day, 7 days/wk, for 90 days, at a SAR of only 0.14 W/kg, they found a small but significant disruption of behavior(4).  So the authors concluded that "the threshold for behavioral and physiological effects of chronic RFR exposure in the rat occurs between 0.5 mW/cm2 (0.14 W/kg) and 2.5 mW/cm2 (0.7 W/kg)."

As you can see, the "safety margin" built in to protect us based on the original animal short-term exposure experiments was already taken away in as early as 1986.  But the FCC standards adopted in 1996 and are currently in place officially took no studies past 1985 into review and consideration.  In fact, Whitney North Seymour Jr., former federal prosecutor, author, and co-founder of The Natural Resources Defense Council, has twice tried to sue the FCC into updating their standards.

And the fact that the FCC standards were modeled on a 6 ft male human body means that it offers even less assurance for children, the elderly, pregnant women, and the sick.  Children's skulls are thinner, and radiation penetrates deeper.  Their cells have more water content, thus the microwave thermal effect is stronger.  Their cells and nervous system is still growing.  Rapid cell division means there is less time to repair DNA damage that normally only occurs at a low rate in our cells but now at a higher rate from MW radiation.  Children also have more time left in their life to accumulate the several steps of mutations/epigenetic changes that can in the end lead to diseases like cancer.

Furthermore, FCC’s emission guidelines assume that public exposure is only relevant at ground level, away from the main beam of RF radiation in the horizontal plane coming from the antennas, but in reality many people live and work in high rise buildings and on hills.  In fact, according to FCC bulletin #65, “routine environmental evaluation” is required only of those antennas that are non-building-mounted AND has less than 10 meters (~30 ft) from lowest point of antenna to ground level.  Any multi-level apartment building or house (especially on a hill) can easily expose residents to the main beam of an antennae that’s 10 m above ground.

Also, FCC's emission guidelines only consider emissions from ONE antenna site at a time, while in reality many antennas by different operators are emitting RF radiation in close spatial proximity, since competing networks each have their own frequencies and wireless grids
.  As a result the public is exposed to many times that provisioned by FCC from one transmitter site.  A quick search on AntennaSearch.com using my own home address in Arlington, MA found 25 tower structures (a typical tower may easily hold over 10 antennas for various companies) and 429 other antennas within a 4 mile radius as of June 2008, and this only covers commercial telecom structures (non-military), and not even a complete list at that, by the admission of the search host through email.  Of these 25 towers, only 9 are registered with FCC!  A senior engineer at FCC told me that there are probably as many unregistered antennas out there as there are registered ones, and they don’t have any funding to reinforce what regulatory rules that do exist, however lenient the rules are.

Two EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) letters plainly explain the inadequacy of the FCC’s RF radiation exposure guidelines for long-term, non-thermal exposures.  "The FCC's current exposure guidelines ... are thermally based, and do not apply to chronic, nonthermal exposure situations.  They are believed to protect against injury that may be caused by acute exposures that result in tissue heating or electric shock and burn."  “The FCC’s exposure guideline is considered protective of effects arising from a thermal mechanism but not from all possible mechanisms.  Therefore, the generalization by many that the guidelines protect human beings from harm by any or all mechanisms is not justified”.  Federal health and safety agencies have not yet developed policies concerning possible risk from long-term, nonthermal exposures”.

This June 17, 1999 letter from the scientific experts at the US federal health agencies (including EPA, FDA. OSHA, etc.) who comprise the Radiofrequency Interagency work Group (RFIAWG) identified 14 specific issues in the current US RF safety policy that, “we believe need to be addressed to provide a strong and credible rationale to support RF exposure guidelines”, and conveyed it to the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) RF standards setting subcommittee.  To date these issues have not been addressed in any federal research program.  They constitute a comprehensive list of gaps and needs in RF radiation research.  There is no government funding for any research, and FCC doesn't even have funding for enforcing the already extremely insufficient regulations.  When I reported RF measurements in multiple sites in Arlington, MA that are much higher than expected, and requested for them to send someone to verify, they said they simply have no funding for such things at all!  The senior engineer at FCC told me they know about the gaps, but no funding, no research, keeps status quo.  "It's all politics".

The bottom line is, the current regulations assume that the only thing RF can do to living beings is to heat up our tissues, which it can do whether we are alive or dead.  But a huge body of evidence has been accumulated that points to the fact that living organisms are affected by low level RF in non-thermal ways, where the “coherence” component of the electromagnetic waves is discerned by the living organism and the oscillatory similitude of such waves interferes with the biological endogenous rhythms of the organism, akin to the electromagnetic interference phenomena occurring while turning on a cell phone inside an aircraft.  See a number of scientific reviews(5-8).

Check out this article "Serious Flaws with the FCC RF/MW Safety Standards," by B. Blake Levitt, award-winning science author, written in 1995.  I verified with the FCC on the current standards, the licensing requirements, and whether they now keep a better inventory list of actual wireless installations, whether they still issue licenses blanketing entire cities and markets, whether they do more actual measurements instead of manufacturer’s emission level claims.  Nothing has changed since this article was written.

Here is sworn testimony of physicians, research scientists, engineers and attorneys in a 1999 and a 2003 Colorado court cases that explain how federal policy in the United States is not protecting people from adverse health effects of electromagnetic radiation in the radiofrequency range (RF). The Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Policy on Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields does not protect against long-term, low-intensity exposure.

You may also find it informative to read this 2006 US Supreme Court Amicus Brief: Brief of Amicus Curiae Healthy Schools Network, Inc. in support of requiring the FCC to produce an Environmental Impact Statement on human health effects of EMF's prior to auctioning off cell tower licenses.  The question is asked "Should the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”), in launching a major new program that will risk biological harm to vulnerable children, be able to continue to ignore the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) requirement that an environmental impact statement (“EIS”) be prepared for all major governmental undertakings simply because scientific warnings of health hazards have not reached the stage of definitively establishing harm to humans?"  "All studies approaching reasonable latencies found an increased cancer risk associated with mobile phone use." (9)

References:

  1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=6732879&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum  Bioelectromagnetics. 1984;5(2):233-46.  Operant behavior and colonic temperature of Macaca mulatta exposed to radio frequency fields at and above resonant frequencies.  de Lorge JO.
  2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=7284023&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum  Bioelectromagnetics. 1980;1(2):183-98.  Observing-responses of rats exposed to 1.28- and 5.62-GHz microwaves.  de Lorge JO, Ezell CS.
  3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=3753534&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum  Bioelectromagnetics. 1986;7(3):315-28.  Intermittent exposure of rats to 2450 MHz microwaves at 2.5 mW cm2: behavioral and physiological effects.  D'Andrea JA, DeWitt JR, Emmerson RY, Bailey C, Stensaas S, Gandhi OP.
  4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=3730001&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum  Bioelectromagnetics. 1986;7(1):45-56.  Behavioral and physiological effects of chronic 2,450-MHz microwave irradiation of the rat at 0.5 mW/cm2.  D'Andrea JA, DeWitt JR, Gandhi OP, Stensaas S, Lords JL, Nielson HC.
  5. http://www.who.int/peh-emf/meetings/archive/en/paper03nageswari.pdf  Proceedings of the International Conference on Non-Ionizing Radiation at UNITEN (ICNIR 2003)  Electromagnetic Fields and Our Health  20th – 22nd October 2003  Biological Effects of Microwaves and Mobile Telephony.  K. Sri Nageswari
  6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11117927?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum  Lancet. 2000 Nov 25;356(9244):1833-6.  Physics and biology of mobile telephony.  Hyland GJ.
  7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18242044?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum  Biomed Pharmacother. 2008 Feb;62(2):104-9. Epub 2007 Dec 31.  Biological effects from electromagnetic field exposure and public exposure standards.  Hardell L, Sage C.
  8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16617378?ordinalpos=11&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum  Magy Onkol. 2006;50(1):5-18. Epub 2006 Apr 17.  [The role of chemical and physical factors in cancer development] (Hungarian)  Gundy S.
  9. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B 351-84 (2004).  Mobile Telephones and Cancer: A Review of Epidemiological Evidence.  Kundi M, Mild KJ, Hardell L, Mattsson M.


What are other countries doing?

The European Environment Agency (EEA) recommends precautionary principle, citing the 2007 Bioinitiative Report, compiled by the BioInitiative Working Group, an international consortium of scientists, researchers and public health policy professionals who reviewed over 2,000 independent research studies on the biological effects of Electrosmog, and concluded definitively that current exposure standards do not adequately protect public health.  The EEA has contributed to this new report with a chapter drawn from the EEA study 'Late lessons from early warnings…’, which draws lessons from asbestos, benzene and PCBs, as well as tobacco smoking and lead in petrol.

In 2007 the German Federal Government recommends its citizens to take precaution and use landlines instead of wireless technology whenever possible.

Many countries are now recommending precaution to be applied in RF exposure, in the face of uncertainty.  Among them is Russia, whose emission limits are much stricter than that of US, due to their long research history recognizing the non-thermal effects of low intensity RF radiation(1-3).  Some countries and regions within countries, like Italy, Greece, Belgium, Switzerland, China, Russia, Australia, Luxembourg, Salzburg, Paris and parts of Spain has exposure limits sometimes several orders of magnitude lower than current US standards.

The Precautionary Principle, adopted by the United Nations in 1992 through the Rio Declaration, which the United States signed, states that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing precautionary action, including seeking safer alternatives.

In 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended that the precautionary principle be adopted in managing potential risks of EMF.  “The Precautionary Principle is a risk management policy applied in circumstances with a high degree of scientific uncertainty, reflecting the need to take action for a potentially serious risk without awaiting the results of scientific research.”  They recommended “Prudent Avoidance” and “ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable)” with regards to electromagnetic radiation.

References:

  1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16209190&query_hl=34&itool=pubmed_docsum  Radiats Biol Radioecol. 2005 Jul-Aug;45(4):442-50.  [The electromagnetic fields of cellular phones and the health of children and of teenagers (the situation requiring to take an urgent measure)] [Article in Russian]  Grigor'ev IuG.
  2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16353621&query_hl=34&itool=pubmed_docsum  Aviakosm Ekolog Med. 2005 Jul-Aug;39(4):3-18.  [Biological effects of microwave radiation of low nonthermal intensity (regarding the maximal admissible values)] [Article in Russian]  Grigor'ev IuG, Shafirkin AV, Vasin AL.
  3. http://www.emrpolicy.org/faq/liakouris.pdf  Arch Environ Health. 1998 May-Jun;53(3):236-8.  Radiofrequency (RF) sickness in the Lilienfeld Study: an effect of modulated microwaves?  Johnson Liakouris AG.

RF exposure standards recommended by The BioInitiative Report, and by other international scientific authorities

The current US FCC standards for general population/uncontrolled exposure for RF between 1.5-100 GHz (which includes some cell phones, wifi, WLAN, etc.), is 1 mW/cm2 (or 1000 µW/cm2) per antenna site (see Fig1 of FCC bulletin #65).  Between 300MHz-1.5GHz it increases linearly from 0.2-1 mW/cm2 (200-1000 µW/cm2).

The recommendations from the 2007 Bioinitiative Report compiled by the BioInitiative Working Group, an international group of scientists, researchers and public health policy professionals who reviewed a large body of scientific evidence, suggest the following limit: 0.1 µW/cm2 for outdoor, cumulative exposure, and 0.01 µW/cm2 for indoor exposure.  This is 10,000 times more stringent than the FCC standards, even if there is only one antenna site or other sources nearby.  In fact, they state in their report that: “No lower limit for bioeffects and adverse health effects from RF has been established, so the possible health risks of wireless WLAN and WI-FI systems, for example, will require further research and no assertion of safety at any level of wireless exposure (chronic exposure) can be made at this time… The entire basis for safety standards is called into question, and it is not unreasonable to question the safety of RF at any level.”

The Salzburg Resolution from the June 2000 International Conference on Cell Tower Siting in Salzburg, and later strengthened in 2002 based on more sobering scientific evidence, recommended a limit of 1 nW/cm² for long-term outdoor exposure, and 0.1 nW/cm² for indoor exposure.  This is another 100 times more stringent than even that recommended by the Bioinitiative Report.

Without specifically searching for it, I have come across Six resolutions/appeals from recent years from various international scientific conferences/meetings where concerned/desperate researchers and physicians alike write a formal statement to try to alert the public and the decision makers to the growing body of evidence on the dangers of RF/MW, pleading that governments need to adopt much stricter EMF safety guidelines that reflect the Precautionary Principle, that non-industry funding for EMF safety research has been grossly inadequate, and that the public should be informed about potential health risks, and should preferably use wired technology over wireless technology whenever possible.  Here are the 6 resolutions/appeals I’ve seen:

Freiburger Appeal (2002)

Catania Resolution (2002)

Benevento Resolution (2006, endorsing and extending the 2002 Catania Resolution)

Salzburg Resolution (2000)

Vienna EMF-Resolution (1998)

Venice Resolution (2008) issued by International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety


Why mobile phone masts can be more dangerous than the phones?

In this 2008 article, Dr. Andrew Goldsworthy of the Imperial College London presents convincing reasons why long term low level exposure such as from living or working close to mobile phone masts can be even more dangerous than short term, high level exposure such as from a cell phone conversation.

He argues that, because of the extreme sensitivity of at least some living cells to weak non-ionising radiation (see Bioinitiative), the question is not why the weak radiation from a distant mast does so much damage, it is why a handset next to the ear doesn’t do very much more.  (This ties back to the non-linearity discussion in the “Mechanisms” section above.)

He explains that the answer lies in our own negative feedback systems. The body is well able to detect the radiation and the resulting damage. It then puts into action a range of negative feedback measures to mitigate the effects.  These include Calcium expulsion (which pumps surplus calcium from electromagnetically-induced membrane leakage out of the cell), the activation of the enzyme ornithine decarboxylase (which leads to the production of chemicals called polyamines that help protect DNA, and the other nucleic acids needed for protein synthesis from damage, including that from digestive enzymes leaking from lysosomes), and the production of stress-response proteins (who acts as molecular cheparons that protect vital biomolecules from damage, but this also stops them from working properly).  The collective role of these negative feedback mechanisms is to try to limit the damage, but they cannot completely eliminate it without disrupting the cell’s normal functions.  Consequently, they will be programmed not to cut in until the damage approaches intolerable levels. This effect will maintain the damage and observable symptoms close to the levels at which they cut in over a wide range of radiation intensities.  So, while any adverse effects and observable symptoms from low and high intensity exposure may be approximately the same in the short term, the high intensity, short exposures such as from using a cell phone allows the body a chance to recover in between usage, while the low intensity, long term exposure such as that from mobile phone masts do not.  This could increase the likelihood of chronic fatigue, serious immune dysfunction (leading to an increased risk of diseases including cancer), etc.

Actual measurements taken in Arlington & Lexington, MA

In 2007 I bought a Spectran HF-6080 spectrum analyzer from Aaronia, a German company.  With the functionalities I selected, plus shipping, it costed nearly $3000.  I went around Arlington and Lexington, MA and measured RF radiation at a number of playgrounds where my daughter likes, some preschools, our home, and downtown Arlington Center.  The numbers (see table below) were way larger than I expected, and certainly thousands of times higher than that recommended by the BioInitiative Report.  When I called FCC to report about this, a senior engineer at FCC told me these numbers were much, much higher than they had expected, so he suspected my instrument was not up to snuff.  But when I asked for them to send someone to verify with their own instrument, he said they simply have no resources to do such a thing.  I emailed them a number of times again over many months, and never got another reply.

Remember that the current US FCC standards for general population/uncontrolled exposure for RF between 1.5-100 GHz is 1 mW/cm2 (or 1000 µW/cm2) per antenna site (see Fig1 of FCC bulletin #65).  Between 300MHz-1.5GHz it increases linearly from 0.2-1 mW/cm2 (200-1000 µW/cm2).  The FCC stresses on their website that although these are the “Maximum Permissible Exposure” levels, in reality transmitter emissions are going to be orders of magnitude lower than these levels, and it appears that they are basically counting on this expectation to ensure that public exposure is not excessive.

Also remember that the BioInitiative Report recommends a limit of .1 µW/cm2 for outdoor exposure summed over all sources and frequencies, and 0.01 µW/cm2 for indoor exposure.

Here is what the HF-6080 spectrum analyzer can measure.  Between 1MHz-7GHz it can provide readings of power flux density (e.g. µW/cm2) as well as the frequency of the radiation in 1MHz resolution.  It also has a broadband detector mode that allows for measurement of highest RF power (in dBm, or Decibel milliWatts) up to 10GHz, but in that mode information about frequency and power density is not available (meaning, you’ll know that this highest power is detected somewhere between 1MHz-10GHz, but you won’t know where).

Decibel milliWatts (dBm) is a measure of transmission power in the logarithmic scale with base 10, relative to 1mWatt.  So if the actual power P is 10µWatt, in dBm it is expressed as:

10*log10 (P/1 mWatt) = -20dBm

Every 10 dBm corresponds to 10 fold difference of power.  100µWatt = -10dBm, and 1mW = 0dBm.  Obviously, the less negative the dBm value is, the stronger the power!

The conversion between power (dBm) and power density (nW/cm2) requires knowledge of the specific transmitter frequency, and the antenna gain of the used antenna.  That’s why when using the broadband detector mode, only dBm is read and I can’t convert that directly to nW/cm2, but by comparing with dBm values obtained from spectrum analysis mode where nW/cm2 values were also available, one can sort of get an idea of the absolute minimum power density involved.  But since power density is proportional to the square of frequency (meaning, if the frequency is twice as much, the same dBm corresponds to about 4 times as much power density), if the highest dBm reading comes from between 7GHz-10GHz, this dBm reading will correspond to a much, much higher nW/cm2 reading than that obtained below 7GHz, had one been able to read it.

Here are the measurements I got in various sites in Arlington and Lexington, MA during summer 2007, when trees were providing more shielding wherever they grew.  For most places I did not do an extensive scanning.  I was just trying to get a sampling of the significant signals of each location at one time point that’s within my instrument’s measuring frequency range (which is only a small portion of the entire frequency range that the FCC has allocated/auctioned off which goes to 1000GHz!).  Also, since the display is refreshed after each scan, and I could only write down so fast, I only wrote down a fraction of the numbers displayed, and often I skipped the nW/cm2 value or the dBm value.

Two things I found was: the higher you go, generally the more RF radiation you are exposed to, presumably from the antenna structures that are all above ground and whose main beams radiate out in the horizontal plane.  The Robins Farm Park (a.k.a. Skyline Park), a favorite of many kids around Arlington, is a good example, where the big slide facing the beautiful Boston skyline is also a site of fantastically high RF exposure, I suppose thanks to the thousands of antennas in the city.  The other thing was that, in many places such as the Learn to Grow Preschool, and in our home, I found whole ranges of frequencies, such as 4900-6100 MHz, that are saturated with peaks (as many as the spectrum display pixels would allow), and they each measured >300 nW/cm2.  Since the frequency resolution of this instrument is 1MHz, even if there is only one channel per MHz (there are actually presumably many channels/MHz), this would mean (6100-4900)*300=360000 nW/cm2=360 µW/cm2, which is 36% of the official maximum permissible exposure.  If each MHz range has 100 channels, this would mean 36 mW/cm2, 36 times the FCC limit.  All this from just one range of the spectrum from 4.9-6.1GHz.


Note: 1 mW = 1,000 µW = 1,000,000 nW

 

Stongest Broadband dBm

spectrum analyzer reading

 

frequency (MHz)

dBm

nW/cm2

Spy pond, near playground

-7 to -10

723

-22

 

 

 

2.9GHz

-23

 

 

 

many peaks around 6990

-23

1000-2000 each

Mystic Lake beach

-17

723

-23

 

 

 

2923

-22

211

Skyline (Robbin's Farm) Park, foot of big slide

-17

795

-23

15

 

 

2995

-18

597

 

 

3000

-30

36

 

 

6409

-34

76

Playground @ ice-skating rink

-22

 

 

 

Playground behind Robins Library

-26

2836

-26

97

 

 

many peaks 6900-7000

-28

~440 each

Symmes Hospital parking lot, pointing at the Symmes antenna

-17

 

 

 

Our house, 1st floor (indoors)

-26 to -35

 

 

 

Our house, 2nd flr bdrm (indoors)

-17 to -21

many peaks 5750-6200

-26 to -33

100-500 each

A Place To Grow (Heights) (outside, Park Ave sidewalk)

-29

5962

-35

71

A Place To Grow (Heights) (outside, close to wall)

-24

 

 

 

A Place To Grow (Heights) (outside, playground)

-40

6600, several bands

 

~5 each

A Place To Grow (Heights) (in classroom)

-40 (-38 at window level)

 

 

 

Arlington Infant & Toddler Center (front lawn)

-31

2995

-31

32

 

 

5000-6100

-33

>100 each

Great Expectations Preschool

-34

5750-6100

-36

35 each

Learn to Grow (front of building)

-21

2995

-23

223

 

 

4900-6100

-27

>300 each

Leslie Ellis school (front of building)

-30

 

 

 

Menotomy Preschool (outside)

-34

 

 

 

Sunshine Nursery School

-25

 

 

 

First Circle (80 Maple St, Lexington) (inside)

-38 (brief signal of -16!)

 

 

 

French for Kids (755 Mass Ave, Lexington)

-19

 

 

 

Leap School (210 Marrett Rd, Lexington)

-29

 

 

 

Pilgrim Nursery School (the school is directly under church-mounted antenna)

-27

1800

-34

 

 

 

2900

-30

 

Six Acres Nursery School, Lexington, playground

-27

5650-6100

-30

 

Six Acres Nursery School, Lexington, classroom

-36

5650-6100

-40

17 each


Clusters of cancer and other illness

There are many reports of cancer clusters and clusters of other illnesses near mobile phone masts, radio and TV broadcasting stations, and high voltage power lines.  Here are just a few of them I happened to take notes on:

http://www.alternet.org/story/58354/ (July, 2007)
“Last year, the RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia closed off the top two floors of its 17-story business school for a time because five employees working on its upper floors had been diagnosed with brain tumors in a single month, and seven since 1999. Cell phone towers had been placed on the building's roof a decade earlier…”

"The Death Village" from Yediot Ahronot, [the most distributed Israei newspaper], 14/3/2003
The villages near the Israeli radio station Hillel were plagued by cancer.  Half of the 91 farms in one of the villages, Porat, had cancer, most frequently brain cancer and leukemia.  Also bleeding in the brain.  "It's like the death angle visited here house after house, and left ruin and destruction".  Many villagers also reported singing metal strings and columns, abnormal plants...

In the fall of 2007, the mayor of Paris decided to unplug the wireless network in six public libraries where the clerks got sick since the wireless network was installed in the summer, with symptoms like headaches, sore eyes or muscles, dizziness or vertigo.  The figure circulating on the internet was that 40% of the clerks got sick, but I couldn’t quickly find an original news source with that figure.


Telecom Industry: Disinformation and Deceit. Also US military.

The US government has effectively shut down funding for EMR research, and there apparently has been a huge industry sponsored effort to muddy the water for research in the area of RF non-thermal biological effects, due to obvious conflict of interest, through suppression of their own positive association findings, through “money laundering” by funding and influencing research projects in seemingly independent academic institutions, through manipulating results, and intentionally altering key parameters to avoid successful replication of positive findings from other labs.

And the US military has maintained equally aggressive official position in denying the existence of any non-thermal effects, despite many findings of non-thermal effects by its own researchers.

Industry:

The BioInitiative Report section II F: “Vested Interests: How They Shape the Public Health Debate”.

Dr George Carlo, who had previously maintained the Industry line that mobile phones were safe, and who headed the Wireless Technology Research (WTR) program set up by the Cellular Telephone Industry Association (CTIA), stunned the industry with a report that he presented to the annual convention of the CTIA in California in 1999, reporting that his program found “a near tripling in the risk (of) neuroepithelial tumors and a correlation between the side of the head where the phones were used and the side of the head where the tumor was located that were both statistically significant”.  Here is a summary of his charges and experiences adapted from an apparently well researched article written by Don Maisch and published in the Journal of the Australasian College of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine in 2001.  His own account of the deceit and manipulation by the industry can be found at the lower portion of this webpage.

Here is another story of an industry funded researcher accusing the industry of cover-up.

B. Blake Levitt, an award winning author, reveals the dirty tricks of the telecom industry (preempting state and local governments, trying to shift all future liabilities) in Telecom Towers Tsunami.  Her more detailed accounts of the appalling industry maneuvering as well as how FCC acted like “a cheering squad for the industry it supposedly regulates” can be found here.


From the University of Washington Alumni Association Magazine Columns, March 2005, on-line edition - Cover Story - "Wake-up Call"
Can Radiation from Cell Phones Damage DNA in Our Brains? When One UW Researcher Found Disturbing Data, Funding Became Tight and One Industry Leader Threatened Legal Action

This cover story article chronicles the experience of University of Washington alumnus Henry Lai, PhD (a leading expert in EMR biological effect research) and his research partner N.P. Singh, MD as they studied the effects of microwave radiation on the brain and in the process learned first-hand about the politics of big science.


This article, by  Dr. Allan H. Frey, one of the pioneer researchers in this field, explained multiple lines of data all supporting the findings that the blood-brain barrier breaks down with exposure to low intensity telecommunication frequency microwave energy, and also gave an interesting account of how two separate researchers claiming the opposite for a long period of time, went around for 2 years spreading confusion in the field by giving oral presentations about “not able to replicate”, while in the end were told by editors of their submitted manuscripts and independent reviewers that their results actually supported the effect they claimed to disprove, when proper analysis of their data was done.

From http://www.alternet.org/story/58354/ (July, 2007):

Michael Kundi, professor at the Medical University of Vienna, Austria and an EM researcher, has issued a warning about distortions of the concept of cause-and-effect, particularly when a scientific study concludes that "there is no evidence for a causal relationship" between environmental factors and human health. Noting that science is rarely able to prove that A did or did not "cause" B, he wrote that such statements can be "readily misused by interested parties to claim that exposure is not associated with adverse health effects."

A paper published in January in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives found that when studies of cell phone use and health problems were funded by industry, they were much less likely to find a statistically significant relationship than were publicly funded studies.

The authors categorized the titles of the papers they surveyed as either negative (as in "Cellular phones have no effect on sleep patterns"), or neutral (e.g., "Sleep patterns of adolescents using cellular phones"), or positive, (e.g., "Cellular phones disrupt sleep"). Fully 42 percent of the privately funded studies had negative titles and none had positive ones. In public or nonprofit studies, titles were 18 percent negative and 46 percent positive.

A year ago, Microwave News also reported that approximately one-half of all studies looking into possible damage to DNA by communication-frequency EM fields found no effect. But three-fourths of those negative studies were industry- or military-funded; indeed, only 3 of 35 industry or military papers found an effect, whereas 32 of 37 publicly funded studies found effects.


Here is a bit of my own counting on the effects on the DNA.  I obtained a file containing research articles (both positive results and negative results) on possible genotoxic effects of RF compiled at some point in 2005, and counted that out of a total of 59 articles, 30 found various genotoxic effects, and 29 didn’t find convincing evidence.  I noticed that 12 of the 29 negative papers came from the lab of the same Roti Roti JL, and quite a number of other negative papers in the 29 came from researchers who co-published the 12 papers with this Dr. Roti Roti JL.  I later learned that this Roti-Roti has been funded by the telecom industry for years, such as by Motorola.  Many people who know this area do not trust certain work, because one can design the studies from the start to reach a negative conclusion.  One has to say it is a very successful strategy to contaminate the scientific database in this way.


Military:

Dr. William Ross Adey was a world renowned expert in EMF and biological effects.  His many honors included Distinguished Visiting Professor of the Royal Society of Medicine, the D’Arsonval Medal and Hans Selye Award.  While he was the director of the Space Biology Laboratory (1961-1974) at the UCLA Brain Research Institute during the cold war era, he worked with the Department of Defense on Project Pandora, the super-secret program that sought a way to use electromagnetic radiation for mind control. (Microwave News, May 2004)  In this letter by Dr. Adey to the National Academy of Sciences on PAVE PAWS, a pulsed radar system by the US Air Force, he described how the US Air Force has aggressively denied non-thermal effects of microwave fields for over 20 years, and “to ensure interservice conformity with this policy, the USAF sought and obtained Pentagon approval to physically uproot the separate microwave medical research facilities of the US Army at Walter Reed Army Institute of Research in Washington DC and the US Navy’s facility at the Aeromedical Laboratory at Pensacola, FL.”  At the same time the USAF personnel “heavily indoctrinated NATO member countries with their thermal doctrine in a series of military conferences.  This may be attributed to their operation of high-powered radars at overseas locations and the pragmatic political imperative of assuring foreign governments and their populations that, on the basis of thermal models, these operations did not pose a health threat.”  The USAF personnel “have been equally aggressive in dominating development of the US civilian safety guidelines.  IEEE subcommittee 28 is charged with preparing draft guidelines for submission to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).”  Dr. Eleanor Adair was a Chief Scientist at Brooks Air Force Base, who became chairperson of IEEE SCC28, and who “appointed a significant number of like-minded scientists and engineers to the committee…”  Yet the following conference announcement by the USAF, which read: “Third International Symposium on Nonthermal Medical/Biological Treatments Using Electromagnetic Fields and Ionized Gases, Hosted by USAF Research Laboratory, Radio Frequency Radiation Branch, Brooks AFB, Texas, June11-13, 2003”, completely betrays the Air Force’s unwavering position that nonthermal effects do not exist.  “If, in the eyes of the USAF, nonthermal interactions with environmental electromagnetic fields can be the basis of therapeutic interventions, why might they not occur as the result of exposure to pulsed radar fields?”, asked Dr. Adey.


My comments on the science of EMF/RF research

Those opposed to stricter regulatory standards of RF exposure insists on the “deploy until proven unsafe” philosophy, which imposes involuntary, chronic exposure on the general public by means of cell phone base stations, wireless networks, etc.

Their biggest argument against the scientific body of evidence that points to the harm of RF radiation is that “non-thermal effects are not independently reproducible”.  Here are my counter arguments:

  1. For most of the observed non-thermal effects, there have actually been (sometimes many) successful attempts at independently verifying them.  But it is the existence of reports of unsuccessful attempts at independently verifying them, which opponents of more stringent regulatory standards like to focus on.
  2. As detailed in “Telecom Industry: Disinformation and Deceit” section above, many industry funded (direct or indirect) research actually intentionally alter key parameters to avoid successful replication of positive findings from other labs.  And, as anyone familiar with the field can tell you, this is indeed very easy to do, and whole experiments can be designed from the onset to avoid a positive finding.
  3. As Dr Gerard Hyland explained in the “Mechanisms” section above, the mechanisms of non-thermal effects on living organisms, unlike the thermal effects on tissues irrespective of living or dead, most likely depend on “aliveness” and on the physiological state of the organism when exposed to the radiation.  I.e., the particular biochemical and biophysical situation of the biomolecule or cell involved will determine the effect of the particular RF radiation on that entity.  This is why not every attempt at replicating a positive effect can be successful.  One example that seems to illustrate this is a group in Italy that in 2003 published a paper(1) that said they didn’t find any changes in the  conformation or the ligand binding properties of myoglobin, a globular protein, at neutral pH, after microwave radiation.  Then in 2004 they published another paper(2) that said that when using myoglobin solutions at pH 3.0, they found evidence suggesting that MW-EMF could affect the propensity of myoglobin to populate specific conformational substates among which myoglobin molecules fluctuate, and this shift in substate dominance could lead to protein misfolding.  In this in vitro experiment, whether they observed the effect or not seemed to be determined by the pH (acidity) of the myoglobin solution.  One could very well extrapolate that, when an in vivo experiment is to be replicated, quite possibly at least some of the times the physiological microenvironment of the RF affected molecule is not exactly reproduced, so the once observed effect may not be observed every time.
  4. I also noticed in my survey of literature on genotoxic effects, that it would appear that more studies than not that positively showed genotoxic effects were done by first exposing live animals to RF, then analyzing the molecular/macromolecular/cellular/sub-cellular changes in their cells/tissues.  In contrast, most of the negative studies were done by exposing isolated cell lines to RF radiation.  Conceivably, any RF effect on the organism that might involve system-wide activity, such as through influencing certain bioelectrical mechanisms of the body, could be lost in the latter approach.  This may help explain some of the controversies in the results.

Many studies looked for, particularly in vitro in cultured cell lines, dramatic effects like apoptosis (cell death), altered cell proliferation rate, and DNA strand breaks, etc.  While some observed it, some did not.  These are all gross consequences that should only occur as a result of severe insult on the cell, the absence of which doesn’t necessarily mean no harm (but many papers did observe these effects).  Very conceivably RF induced changes in cells occur at molecular level, e.g., increasing mutation rate/interfering with mutation repair, or causing other more subtle structural or conformational changes in DNA, RNA, protein and lipid molecules that could nevertheless have a profound effect on their function, or causing epigenetic changes, or interfering with some tissues more than others due to their different physical/chemical properties, or interfering with specific organelle or macromolecular structures or complexes in and outside of the cells.  I have encountered studies (and none of my searches were exhaustive, having limited time on my hands) showing MW causing changes in DNA secondary structure (helical structure) (3), protein folding and denaturation(2,4), and conformation of membrane lipids and the permeability of the lipid membrane bilayer(5).

Regarding epidemiologic studies, I found it astonishing that I haven’t encountered a single study that takes all sources of a person’s RF/EMF exposure into consideration.  Each study so far generally examines only 1 type of exposure while allowing all other exposure contributions to interfere with their results as uncontrolled noise, such as: cell phone usage, proximity to cordless phone base station (e.g., is it next to the bed), proximity to cell phone base stations (cell phone masts and antennas), proximity to power lines, or occupational exposure to radars and other high EMF emitting sources, etc.  The true effect of the exposure type under study could be completely muffled by the effects of all the other exposure types.  This makes the studies highly sensitive to sample size, which, given the now omnipresence of wireless smog around us, would mean that even thousands each in case and control groups wouldn’t be enough.  Also, many other factors of course, such as genetic predisposition, smoking, eating habits, exercising, etc, can all confound the results, when the sample size is not sufficiently large.

But even so, as discussed above in the “Major biological/health effects” section, all 4 major types of brain and head cancers examined by the 13 nations, case–control studies in the INTERPHONE Project found that 10 years or more cell phone usage or heavy usage were correlated with statistically significant increases in risk of cancer, consistent with long latency periods for cancer development.  And, the strongest link of cell phone use and brain tumors was from Sweden, the first country to deploy mobile phones and their networks, in 1981.  I also saw a smaller study that found 3-4 found increase of uveal melanoma associated with RF radiation(6), not surprising since the eye is one of the most sensitive organs to RF probably due to low circulation.

"We know from smoking and from the bomb falling in Hiroshima that nothing was seen for ten years," Professor Lawrence Challis, head of the U.K. research effort on mobile phones and health, known as MTHR, told the BBC(7).

It is also worth mentioning that, a study dedicated to “the effects of recall errors and of (subject) selection bias in epidemiologic studies of mobile phone use and cancer risk” (8) using existing INTERPHONE data and computer simulations, found that “random recall errors of plausible levels can lead to a LARGE UNDERESTIMATION in the risk of brain cancer associated with mobile phone use.” “Selection bias resulting from underselection of unexposed controls led to J-shaped exposure-response patterns, with risk apparently decreasing at low to moderate exposure levels.”

Finally, we need to understand that most studies by design can only try to ascertain an association, not to try to prove a definitive causal relationship, which is far more difficult to study (and the industry of course distorts the results of many studies by saying they “found not to cause cancer”).  And to establish an association, one can only claim statistical significance when one is >95% (or even >99%) certain that the association is real.  Anything below that, and one could not reject the null hypotheses that there is no association, i.e., one has not found proof to the contrary of the null hypotheses.  This is why it is so wrong to make the burden of proof of an association (let alone a causal relationship) be born by those who argue against mass deployment of a new technology/chemical.  When public safety (particularly involving children, the elderly and the sick) is at stake, the burden of proof should squarely have been put on the proponents of the new technology/chemical to show that it is beyond reasonable doubt that it is safe.

References:

  1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=12811431 Eur Biophys J. 2003 Nov;32(7):628-34. Epub 2003 Jun 13.  Are the conformational dynamics and the ligand binding properties of myoglobin affected by exposure to microwave radiation?  Bismuto E, Mancinelli F, d'Ambrosio G, Massa R.
  2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=15352175  J Cell Biochem. 2004 Sep 1;93(1):188-96.  Non-thermal effects of electromagnetic fields at mobile phone frequency on the refolding of an intracellular protein: myoglobin.  Mancinelli F, Caraglia M, Abbruzzese A, d'Ambrosio G, Massa R, Bismuto E.
  3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=7719429&query_hl=41&itool=pubmed_docsum  To see English translation of its abstract: http://www.microwavenews.com/docs/MW.genotoxabstracts.pdf  Radiats Biol Radioecol. 1995 Jan-Feb;35(1):36-41.  [Changes in the secondary structure of DNA under the influence of external low-intensity electromagnetic field] [Article in Russian]  Semin IuA, Shvartsburg LK, Dubovik BV.
  4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=11088227&query_hl=41&itool=pubmed_docsum  Phys Rev E Stat Phys Plasmas Fluids Relat Interdiscip Topics. 2000 Apr;61(4 Pt B):4310-4.  Microwave-enhanced folding and denaturation of globular proteins.  Bohr H, Bohr J.
  5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=15768431  Bioelectromagnetics. 2005 Apr;26(3):194-200.  Effect of microwave radiation on the biophysical properties of liposomes.  Gaber MH, Abd El Halim N, Khalil WA.
  6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=11138823&query_hl=31&itool=pubmed_docsum  Epidemiology. 2001 Jan;12(1):7-12.  Comment in: Epidemiology. 2001 Jan;12(1):1-4.  The possible role of radiofrequency radiation in the development of uveal melanoma.  Stang A, Anastassiou G, Ahrens W, Bromen K, Bornfeld N, Jockel KH.
  7. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6281695.stm
  8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16773122&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum  J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2006 Jul;16(4):371-84. Epub 2006 Jun 14.  The effects of recall errors and of selection bias in epidemiologic studies of mobile phone use and cancer risk.  Vrijheid M, Deltour I, Krewski D, Sanchez M, Cardis E.

Links & Resources

  1. The h.e.s.e. project (the international scientific Internet platform on topical issues) is a loose union of scientists and scientific institutions with different fields of specialization as well as informed laymen – from all over the world – working interdisciplinarily together under the premises: “Human Ecological Social Economic”  The English language site of this project currently focuses mainly on issues around the exponential increase in electromagnetic radiation.
  2. The BioInitiative Report, compiled by the BioInitiative Working Group, an international group of scientists, researchers and public health policy professionals.
  3. Microwave News
  4. Buergerwelle e.V.
  5. The EMR Network
  6. The EMR Polity Institute

Create a Free Website