Paper 2: Fifty years down the line Tobacco industry strives for a cigarette which doesn’t cause cancer and when we have cancer epidemiology, experiment and testable models for genetic interaction does this or should this inform our attitude to amplitude and pulse modulated electromagnetic emissions such as TV and mobile phones? By Dr Chris Barnes, Bangor Scientific and Educational Consultants email firstname.lastname@example.org
A literature of some 5000 papers has been condensed to what in the author's view represents what is known and understood about the interaction of pulsed UHF and microwave EMF with tissue in terms of cancer epidemiology, in vitro studies and state of the art mechanism. A greater and greater proportion of the population are now being exposed to pulsed UHF and microwaves at levels which would have previously been described as 'occupational'. Of extra concern is the explosion of use of laptops, tablets, mobile phones and DECT systems. Emergency service personnel are also exposed to TETRA emissions. People may be exposed to these fields for up to several hours a day. People who use a mobile for even a few minutes a day have higher saliva oxidative stress. Pulsed RF also causes sleep distance and lesser levels of REM sleep depressing melatonin levels and its powerful protective effect against many cancers. It would seem always that pulsed and amplitude modulated emissions, in particular those with low or very low or sub-audio modulation frequencies such as those of frame synchronisation pulses in TV transmission or those of DECT and GSM telephone systems are biologically most damaging. Previous scientific panels have dismissed an association between pulsed microwave radiation and cancer choosing instead only to home in on thermal hazards.The present author believes it has been shown here that the situation has certainly moved on somewhat. Results of experiments are here compounded in a logical manner to show historic and present conclusions. By considering some of the conditions in this plethora of experimentation it is possible to see how epidemiology would be somewhat randomised. Eperimentation shows pulsed UHF and/or microwave radiation either to be genotoxic, or a least a co-initiator, a promoter or a co-promoter of cancer . The TV Broadcasters, Mobile Phone operators and WIFI Laptop manufacturers of World clearly make huge profits from their product, otherwise they would not be in business. One would think that, rather than fuel bad science and scepticism, they would take the lead from the Tobacco industry in seeking ways of improving safety. For instance digital and multiplexed FM modulation schemes are possible. One would further think they would be proud to fund cutting edge medical research since there is also the possibility that appropriately manipulated pulsed microwave fields might be able to cure as well as cause human disease.
Public domain documents suggest that the Tobacco industry knew the dangers of its products for some fifty years yet persistently chose to deny them. Tobacco products, especially cigarettes were proved to be dangerous and carcinogenic by epidemiological studies and animal models. Eventually the biochemical pathways for DNA damage were also discovered and accepted.
TV broadcasting has been going since the 1922, but only in earnest since 1946. UHF TV began in the UK a couple of decades later and by 1987 all companies and channels had engaged in 24 hour broadcasting. Analogue mobile phones went live in 1985 and the first GSM network in the UK went live in 1992.
By epidemiological relative risk context alone the absolute worst context is that exposure to medium and low level TV emissions could be as bad as the risk due to smoking i.e. highly significant (1). Other studies show much lower relative risks for various cancers between 1.5 and 4 . Barnes (2013)(2) has recently suggested that some of the risk of childhood and adult cancers in North Wales the former previously ascribed entirely to Nuclear Radiation form ocean silt could indeed instead or additionally be due to TV broadcasting. General cancer risk has also been shown to be three times higher than normal within 400m proximity to mobile phone base stations Eger at al (2004) (3). Other risks of RF and various transmitters are covered by references (4-13).
Maskarinec (1994) – AM radio transmitters and leukemia (4)
Hocking (1996) – TV towers and brain cancer and leukemia (5)
Dolk (1997a) – Radio and TV transmitters and brain cancer and leukemia (6)
Dolk (1997b) – High power Radio and TV transmitters and brain cancer and leukemia (7)
McKenzie (1998) – TV towers and brain cancer and leukemia (8)
Cooper (2001) - Radio and TV transmitters and brain cancer and leukemia (9)
Michelozzi (2002) – Radio transmitter and risk of leukemia (10)
Park (2004) – AM radio transmitters brain cancer and leukemia (11)
Ha (2007) - Radio transmitters brain cancer and leukemia (12)
Merzenich (2008) – Radio and TV transmitters and risk of leukemia (13)
Although only leukaemia and brain cancer have been evaluated in the above studies, there are
occupational epidemiology studies which associate RF radiation with other types of cancer. For
example, female breast cancer, see Tynes et al (1996) (14) who shows an excess risk was seen for breast
cancer (SIR=1.5) for female telegraphy operators using radio transmitters but with potential exposure to
light at night, radio frequency (405 kHz-25 MHz), and, to some extent, extremely low frequency fields
(50 Hz). As a note of caution, it should be noted that exposure to light at night reduces the hormone
melatonin, known to protect against cancer, see Schlernhammer and Schulmeister Brit J. cancer 2004
Mar 8;90(5):941- (15).
Other interesting cancer trends in Sweden have been linked to RF emissions, see
Milham 2009 (17) has suggested that recent reviews and reports of cancer incidence and mortality in fire-fighters conclude that they are at an increased risk of a number of cancers. These include leukemia, multiple myeloma, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, male breast cancer, malignant melanoma, and cancers of the brain, stomach, colon, rectum, prostate, urinary bladder, testes, and thyroid. Fire-fighters are exposed to a long list of recognized or probable carcinogens in combustion products and the presumed route of exposure to these carcinogens is by inhalation. Curiously, respiratory system cancers and diseases are usually not increased in fire-fighters as they are in workers exposed to known inhaled carcinogens. The list of cancers with increased risk in fire fighters strongly overlaps the list of cancers at increased risk in workers exposed to electromagnetic fields (EMF) and radio-frequency radiation (RFR). Fire-fighters have increased exposure to RFR in the course of their work, from the mobile two-way radio communications devices which they routinely use while fighting fires, and at times from fire house and fire vehicle radio transmitters. He further suggested that some of the increased cancer risk in fire fighters is caused by RFR exposure, and is therefore preventable and that a precautionary principle should be applied to reduce the risk of cancer in fire-fighters, and workman’s compensation rules will necessarily need to be modified.
The present author feels that Milham may be missing a key point. Most fire fighters who would otherwise be exposed to dense atmospheric smoke and hence carcinogens are more likely to be wearing protective breathing apparatus.
Hallberg and Johanssen show a strong correlation between malignant melanoma and the introduction of the TV transmission era (18).
Human populations are increasingly exposed to microwave/radio-frequency (RF) emissions from
wireless communication technology, including mobile phones and their base stations. By searching
PubMed, it can be seen that 10 epidemiological studies that assessed for putative health effects of mobile
phone base stations. Seven of these studies explored the association between base station proximity and
behavioural effects and three investigated cancer. Eight of the 10 studies reported increased
prevalence of adverse behavioural symptoms or cancer in populations living at distances < 500
meters from base stations. None of the studies reported exposure above accepted international guidelines,
suggesting that current guidelines may be inadequate in protecting the health of human populations.
Of the 30 047 participants in a recent German study (response rate 58.6%), 18.7% of participants were concerned about adverse health effects of mobile phone base stations, while an additional 10.3% attributed their personal adverse health effects to the exposure from them. Participants who were concerned about or attributed adverse health effects to mobile phone base stations and those living in the vicinity of a mobile phone base station (500 m) reported slightly more health complaints than others.
Of extra concern is the explosion of use of laptops, tablets, mobile phones and DECT systems. Emergency service personnel are also exposed to TETRA emissions. People may be exposed to these fields for up to several hours a day. People who use a mobile for even a few minutes a day have higher saliva oxidative stress (19).
In other words a greater and greater proportion of the population are now being exposed to pulsed UHF
and microwaves at levels which would have previously been described as 'occupational'.
Despite the growing body of evidence suggesting an epidemiological connection of pulsed UHF and
microwave emissions with blood, brain, breast, prostrate, and lymphatic cancers visits to the public
information websites of TV and mobile phone broadcasters suggest that there is absolutely no danger
from emissions from their infrastructure outside their perimeter fences.
It is uncertain as to which, if any, scientific advisers these organisations use but they are certainly
propagating bad science for at the very least misunderstood reasons.
Reasons why some don’t accept UHF/microwave bio- interaction:
1. Field quantum is non-ionising, usually only energy and dielectric heating effects considered
2. SAR is often low and does not cause measurable heating of tissue
3. Non-linearity is either very weak or non-existent in tissues at these frequencies for example brain or ear does not demodulate AM transmissions, cells or nerves do not have response times approaching single cycle
4. Skin penetration depths would apparently prevent whole organism interaction
Reasons why 1 and 2 above are invalid and 3 and 4 are irrelevant given alternative argument and reasons to expect interaction, see for instance Mae Wan Ho (2011) and Goldsworthy (2012) and Barnes (2013).
1. With near fields i.e. close to laptop or mobile phone electric and magnetic fields can be regarded as acting separately.
2. Biological systems operate outside of thermal equilibrium and create negative entropy
3. Biological systems operate in both space and time and often create quantum coherence which can be disturbed by the most subtle physical and chemical changes via hydrogen bonds in both free and bound water
4. Biological systems create and utilise fields of of MHz and THz frequency (bio-photons)
5. Biological systems are at least 70% water which has its own magnetic and physical-chemical magnetic memory storage capacity
6. Biological systems have developed since primordial times in the presence of ultra weak microwave fields from ionosphere and beyond
7. Water ions and electrolytic chemistry generate magnetic fields under some conditions and respond to magnetic fields under others
8. Biological systems contain natural magnetite in the form of magnetosomes.
Magnetic effects in electro-chemistry are now commonly understood, see Fahidy (2002) (20) so why not in Bio- chemistry
9. The microwave hearing or microwave acoustic effect provides absolute incontrovertible evidence that human beings and laboratory animals respond to weak or moderately strong pulsed or amplitude modulated microwave fields in the low GHz region.
10. Further there is evidence that the human nervous system makes involuntary motor reactions to step changes in the amplitude of a VHF standing wave field.
11. Electromagnetic radiation carries momentum as well as energy
12. Quantum mechanical effects related to the electromagnetic AB have been observed
13. Certain organs, glands and body components could act as dielectric antennas
Bio- interactions already observed to date
Including epidemiology papers, experimental papers and mechanistic papers there are approaching 5000 papers in the scientific literature of the last 5 decades on the interaction of tissue and bio- systems with radio frequency fields. The number of epidemiology papers has been far more limited than the experiential tissue exposure/interaction classification of papers but non-the-less some of the results appear worrying and significant.
It would seem always that pulsed and amplitude modulated emissions, in particular those with low or very low or sub-audio modulation frequencies such as those of frame synchronisation pulses in TV transmission or those of DECT and GSM telephone systems are biologically most damaging.
Besides Epidemiological Studies for showing significant and positive cancer associations for TV transmitters and mobile phone base stations, there are numerous studies showing influence on cellular calcium channels particularly in the brains of experimental animals, see El-Swefy et al 2008 (21). Sleep is also affected, see Mann and Roschke (1996) (22) . Besides a hypnotic effect with shortening of sleep onset latency, a REM suppressive effect with reduction of duration and percentage of REM sleep was found. Moreover, spectral analysis revealed qualitative alterations of the EEG signal during REM sleep with an increased spectral power density. Knowing the relevance of REM sleep for adequate information processing in the brain, especially concerning mnestic functions and learning processes, the results emphasize the necessity to carry out further investigations on the interaction of this type of electromagnetic fields and the human organism. The microwave auditory effect also occurs (23). Numerous studies show genetic effects and DNA damage and/or cellular proliferation, several hundred are to be found at( http://www.electricwords.emfacts.com/index-vitro.html) (24). The site also contains some studies which produce negative results.
When looked at in more detail it is seen that most but not all of these are ones associated with either CW(continuous wave emission) (Acute radio frequency irradiation does not affect cell cycle, cellular migration, and invasion, (Lee JJ, Kwak HJ, Lee YM, Lee JW, Park MJ, Ko YG, Choi HD, Kim N, Pack JK, Hong SI, Lee JSBioelectromagnetics, 29(8):615-625, 2008) or CDMA exposure (Characterization of biological effect of 1763 MHz radio-frequency exposure on auditory hair cells. Huang TQ, Lee MS, Oh EH, Kalinec F, Zhang BT, Seo JS, Park WY
Int J Radiat Biol. 84(11):909-915, 2008). CDMA is known to produce an emission with an almost random modulation bandwidth up to a few KHz.
Phosphorylation and gene expression of p53 are not affected in human cells exposed to 2,1425 GHz band CW or W-CDMA Hirose H, Sakuma N, Kaji N, Suhara T, Sekijima M, Nojima T, Miyakoshi J,Bioelectromagnetics, May 19; 2006.
Again Laslo et al (2005) failed to detect any increase in the DNA-binding ability of HSF in cultured mammalian cells as a consequence of any exposure tested, within the sensitivity of our assay. Our results do not support the notion that the stress response is activated as a consequence of exposure to CW microwaves of frequencies associated with mobile communication devices.
This helps confirm the notion that the mechanism of interaction biological systems is one in which they don't seem to follow or 'detect' individual excitation cycles but rather only amplitude envelope for certain types of pulse modulation.
Several of the studies refer to the production of reactive oxygen species, for example Enhancement of chemically induced reactive oxygen species production and DNA damage in human SH-SY5Y neuroblastoma cells by 872MHz RFR Luukkonen J, Hakulinen P, MŠki-Paakkanen J, Juutilainen J, Naarala Mutat Res. 662(1-2):54-58, 2009 and Acute exposure to 930 MHz CW EMR in vitro affects reactive oxygen species level in rat lymphocytes treated by iron ions. Zmyslony M, Politanski P, Rajkowska E, Szymczak W, Jajte J Bioelectromagnetics. 25(5):324-328, 2004 and to the production of heat shock proteins even under non-thermal conditions
Based on the epidemiological studies, it would seem that bio- effect is caused by signal amplitude step functions rather than the system responding to each individual cycle.
Thermo-acoustic expansion has been shown to be a measurable phenomenon when microwave pulses interact with water to create sound. Only minute temperature changes occur. If this is duplicated in tissue, microwave hearing can be explained.
There are known receptors in skin, the mechano- receptors of which the cochlea hair cells are specialised examples which elicit step responses upon step pressure changes but wherein the response ceases under steady state conditions. It is reckoned by the present author that a general interaction mechanism is along these or similar lines.
The problem remains, thermo- acoustic expansion does not account prima- fascia account for cancer, or does it, or could it? Also, water and body electrolyte contains micro gas bubbles which when appropriately triggered by low frequency mechanical pulses either by thermo-acoustic mechanism or via radiation pressure from moving components of bio-dielectrics can release reactive oxygen species (ROS) known to interfere with calcium metabolism and to cause membrane lipid peroxidation, both of which can cause catastrophic consequences for cellular function and in some cases initiate or promote carcinogenesis. French et al (2006) propose that repeated cellular stress from RF radiation can uprate heat shock protein production and hence lead to cancer.
It will be hard or difficult for some to comprehend or accept that such subtle interaction could be so significant but a clue to the correctness of the assumptions comes from links with ELF and infrasound (IS) and whole body vibration (WBV) studies all of which trigger damage due to ROS in various cell lines, see Barnes 2013 (25).
Pulsed microwave and UHF emissions are generally more potent than with ELF alone because at ELF ionic conductivity tends to short circuit the E -field and mainly the H-field can cause subtle (water) effects, resulting in mainly blood and lymphatic cancers. At higher frequencies specific body parts and ( small ) glands and organs can act as dielectric resonators to deliver more momentum 'punch' to their component cells and electrolyte. This is seen in that pulsed UHF and microwaves have been associated with significantly more types of different organ and body part specific cancers.
Additional or concurrent mechanism, not often considered by others.
Pulsed radio emissions are known to cause sleep disturbances. Sleep disturbances and disruption result in lowered melatonin levels. Melatonin is known to be protective not only against female breast cancers but also against reproductive cancers and brain cancer and skin cancer (26) and may also be protective against lymphoma (27) and indeed against virtually all cancers ( 28). Melatonin is a powerful antioxidant and free radical scavenger, see Tan at al 2002. ( 29). Thus cancer risks may be increased due to the secondary effect of reduced melatonin after sleep disturbance.
The present author has reviewed and part summarised a few of the most relevant publications from a very extensive literature spanning back some 5 decades.
Previous scientific panels have dismissed an association between pulsed microwave radiation and cancer choosing instead only to home in on thermal hazards.
The present author believes it has been shown here that the situation has certainly moved on somewhat.
Results of experiments have been compounded in a logical manner to show historic and present conclusions. By considering some of the conditions in this plethora of experimentation it is possible to see how epidemiology would be somewhat randomised.
For example experimentation shows pulsed UHF and/or microwave radiation either to be genotoxic, or a least a co-initiator, a promoter or a co-promoter of cancer . Following from this, one would expect to see different epidemiology in different geographical areas according to, for example, local dominant socio-economic status and air pollution etc. This is exactly what was seen by the present author when recently re-evaluating the epidemiological effects of TV transmitters as first visited by Dolk II, see (Barnes 2013) (30).
A common thread in all types of EMR exposure is that exogenous ROS brings about membrane per-oxidation and altered calcium ion mobility.
Given all of the above it is hardly surprising then that epidemiological evidence is limited and much weaker, for example, then that associated with Cancer and Cigarette Smoking.
The TV Broadcasters, Mobile Phone operators and WIFI Laptop manufacturers of World clearly make huge profits from their product, otherwise they would not be in business. One would think that, rather than fuel bad science and scepticism, they would take the lead from the Tobacco industry in seeking ways of improving safety. For instance digital and multiplexed FM modulation schemes are possible. For example, the present author has some evidence to suggest that Tetra base stations and the US 8SVB TV system may in fact be cancer neutral or even anti-cancer and this will be discussed in more detail and in the near future elsewhere. Further one would think they would be proud to fund cutting edge medical research since there is also the possibility that appropriately manipulated pulsed microwave fields might be able to cure as well as cause human disease.
It is apparent that electromagnetic manipulation might become an important tool of tomorrow's genetic engineers and of medicine in general. General interest websites would suggest that Russian scientists are extremely enthusiastic in this direction. It would be a tragedy if British Science were to miss out on such an opportunity.
A recent study of the author has produced some very disturbing results. It has been found that the background VHF/UHF/Microwave without fail measures higher than average outside the premises of newly diagnosed cancer victims. The author has previously published articles urging caution in the use of all forms of RF energy (31).
This work only serves to reinforce that belief. Laptops, Tablets, Blue Tooth, DECT and mobile phones too emit pulsed microwaves, the fear remains that there might be an explosion of medically related problems within the near to mid-term future associated with the use of these devices. Thus additionally, it may be necessary to consider alternative modulation schemes or modes of communication for these devices.
To sum up:
1. Most epidemiological studies of pulsed RF and cancer have associations which are moderately weak but are much significant when co-factors or quantum effects are taken into account
2 ROS is reported common factor in bio-damage. ROS will also be increased if melatonin is decreased due to pulsed RF sleep disturbance.
4. These mechanisms have now been tested in model agents
5. Pulsed RF can be either genotoxic, a co-initiator, a promoter or a co-promoter of Cancer
6 Once properly understood pulsed microwave emissions have the potential to be use as a powerful biomedical tool, tremendous future opportunities for UK exploitation exist
8. Our present views of UHF/Microwave safety with regard to TV, Mobile Phone and similar AM and/Pulsed emissions is inadequate and needs to be revised
Evidence to suggest that UHF and microwave signals amplitude and pulse modulated at ELF or sub-audio frequencies might be more biologically damaging then ELF alone has been vindicated in terms of the model presented. New and novel use will be made of the latest Cancer statistics from ONS to support authors of existing epidemiological studies and noted associations with certain types of cancer and a striking revelation concerning relationships between certain cancer prevalence over the last half century and the emergence of TV and pulsed emission technologies will follow.
taken from the Sutro study http://www.neilcherry.com/documents/90_r3_EMR_Sutro_Paper_09-02.pdf )
Maskarinec (1994) – AM radio transmitters and leukemiahttp://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfcom.ca%2Fyoung%2Fexposure.pdf&ei=cXnlUqPhGdKVhQeHm4CwBw&usg=AFQjCNH4WZso0RzAHF0vvTP8BFi0KvtDJQ
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8985435 Hocking (1996) – TV towers and brain cancer and leukemia
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8982016 Dolk (1997a) – Radio and TV transmitters and brain cancer and leukemia
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8982017 Dolk (1997b) – High power Radio and TV transmitters and brain cancer and leukemia
McKenzie (1998) – TV towers and brain cancer and leukemia
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfcom.ca%2Fyoung%2Fexposure.pdf&ei=Y3rlUuCKDM-ThQfdqYFY&usg=AFQjCNH4WZso0RzAHF0vvTP8BFi0KvtDJQ Cooper (2001) - Radio and TV transmitters and brain cancer and leukemia
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Faje.oxfordjournals.org%2Fcontent%2F155%2F12%2F1096.full.pdf&ei=nnrlUrRF0ZGFB7qagagB&usg=AFQjCNHPa4wgDIn7VXoWbllUUBC4f6p4BA Michelozzi 2002) – Radio transmitter and risk of leukemia
http://www.emf-portal.de/viewer.php?aid=11231&l=e Park (2004) – AM radio transmitters brain cancer and leukemia
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/6279674_Radio-frequency_radiation_exposure_from_AM_radio_transmitters_and_childhood_leukemia_and_brain_cancer Ha (2007) - Radio transmitters brain cancer and leukemia
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/168/10/1169.full Merzenich (2008) – Radio and TV transmitters and risk of leukemia