Content uploaded by Dimitris J. Panagopoulos
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dimitris J. Panagopoulos on Jun 06, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
17
1 Defining Wireless
Communication (WC)
Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs):
A. Polarization Is a Principal
Property of All Man-made EMFs
B. Modulation, Pulsation, and
Variability Are Inherent Parameters
of WC EMFs
C. Most Man-made EMF Exposures
Are Non-thermal
D. Measuring Incident EMFs Is
More Relevant than Specific
Absorption Rate (SAR)
E. All Man-made EMFs Emit
Continuous Waves, Not Photons
F. Differences from Natural
EMFs. Interaction with Matter
Dimitris J. Panagopoulos1,2,3, Andreas Karabarbounis4,
and Constantinos Lioliousis5
1National Center for Scientific Research “Demokritos”, Athens, Greece
2Choremeion Research Laboratory, Medical School, National
and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
3Electromagnetic Field-Biophysics Research Laboratory, Athens, Greece
DOI: 10.1201/9781003201052-3
18 Biological and Heath Effects of WC EMFs
4Physics Department, Section of Nuclear and Particle Physics,
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
5Physics Department, Section of Applied Physics, Electronics Laboratory,
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
CONTENTS
Abstract............................................................................................................................................ 19
1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 19
1.2 Polarization Is a Principal Property of All Man-made EMFs................................................ 27
1.2.1 Dening Polarization. Why Man-made Polarized EMFs Are More Adversely
Bioactive than Natural Non-polarized EMFs.............................................................27
1.2.2 Field Intensity and Radiation Intensity....................................................................... 29
1.2.3 Superposition of Non-polarized EMR/EMFs............................................................. 31
1.2.4 Superposition of Polarized and Coherent EMR/EMFs: Constructive and
Destructive Interference ............................................................................................. 32
1.2.5 Polarization Combined with Variability Is the Trigger for Biological/Health
Effects .........................................................................................................................34
1.3 Modulation, Pulsation, and Variability Are Inherent Parameters of WC EMFs.................... 35
1.3.1 Information-Carrying WC EMFs. Combination of Frequency Bands .......................35
1.3.2 Modulation, Pulsation, and Random Variability........................................................37
1.4 Most Man-made EMF exposures Are Non-thermal............................................................... 43
1.4.1 Energy of EMF-Induced Molecular Oscillations ....................................................... 43
1.4.2 Non-thermal Exposures. A New Biophysical Constant.............................................. 43
1.4.3 Thermal Exposures..................................................................................................... 45
1.5 Measuring Incident EMFs Is More Relevant than SAR.........................................................46
1.5.1 Analysis of the SAR ...................................................................................................46
1.5.2 SAR Estimation Methods ........................................................................................... 49
1.5.3 Incident EMF.............................................................................................................. 50
1.6 All Man-made EMFs Emit Continuous Waves Not Photons ................................................. 51
1.6.1 Misleading Assessment of EMF Bioactivity Based on Photon Energy...................... 51
1.6.2 Quantized States Produce Quantized Emissions (Photons) and Line Spectra........... 52
1.6.3 Continuous States Produce Continuous Waves and Continuous Spectra................... 53
1.6.4 How Causality Was Abandoned in Modern Quantum Physics .................................. 55
1.6.5 The Mathematical “Quantization” of EMF/EMR......................................................56
1.6.6 No Evidence of Photons at Frequencies below Infrared in Environmental
Conditions................................................................................................................... 58
1.7 Differences from Natural EMFs. Interaction with Matter .....................................................60
1.7.1 Differences between Natural and Man-made EMFs/EMR........................................60
1.7.2 Basic Concepts of Interaction of EMFs/EMR with Matter ........................................ 61
1.8 Discussion and Conclusions.................................................................................................... 63
References........................................................................................................................................ 67
Keywords: electromagnetic elds, non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation, physical properties,
extremely low frequency, radio frequency, non-thermal biological effects, health effects.
Abbreviations: AM: amplitude modulation. CDMA: Code Division Multiple Access. DECT:
Digitally Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications. DTX: Discontinuous Transmission Mode. EEG:
electro-encephalogram. EHS: electro-hypersensitivity. ELF: Extremely Low Frequency. EMF:
19 Defining Wireless Communication Electromagnetic Fields
electromagnetic eld. EMR: electromagnetic radiation. ESR: electron spin resonance. FDTD: Finite
Difference Time Domain. FM: frequency modulation. GMSK: Gaussian Minimum Shift Keying
modulation. GSM: Global System for Mobile Telecommunications. LF: Low Frequency. LTE: Long-
Term Evolution. MT: mobile telephony. MW: Microwaves. NMR: nuclear magnetic resonance. NR:
New Radio. OS: oxidative stress. PM: phase modulation. QED: quantum electrodynamics. QEM:
quantum electromagnetism. RADAR: radio detection and ranging. RF: Radio Frequency. SAR:
Specic Absorption Rate. SCN: supra-chiasmatic nucleus. SD: Standard Deviation. SES: seismic
electric signals. TDMA: Time Division Multiple Access. ULF: Ultra Low Frequency. UMTS:
Universal Mobile Telecommunications System. VGIC: voltage-gated ion channel. VLF: Very Low
Frequency. WC: wireless communications. Wi-Fi: Wireless Fidelity. WLAN: Wireless Local Area
Network. 1G/2G/3G/4G/5G: rst/second/third/fourth/fth generation of MT.
ABSTRACT
All types of man-made electromagnetic elds (EMFs) and corresponding non-ionizing electro-
magnetic radiation (EMR) produced by electric/electronic circuits and antennas – in contrast to
natural EMFs/EMR – are totally polarized and coherent. Polarized/coherent EMFs/waves can
produce constructive interference and amplify their intensities at certain locations. Moreover,
they induce parallel/coherent forced oscillations of charged/polar molecules – especially mobile
ions – in living cells/tissues, which can trigger biological effects. The most bioactive man-made
EMFs are those employed in wireless communications (WC). They are usually referred to simply
as Radio Frequency (RF) or Microwave (MW) EMFs/EMR because they emit carrier signals in
the RF/MW band. Yet, WC EMFs contain emissions in the Extremely Low Frequency (ELF),
Ultra Low Frequency (ULF), and Very Low Frequency (VLF) bands as well in the form of
modulation, pulsing, and variability. This complexity and variability of WC EMFs, combined
with polarization, is what makes them even more bioactive. Man-made EMFs (including WC)
at environmentally existing intensities do not induce signicant heating in living tissues. The
Specic Absorption Rate (SAR) was introduced by health agencies as the principal metric for the
bioactivity of RF/microwave EMFs. Estimation of SAR from tissue conductivity is inaccurate,
and estimation from tissue specic heat is possible only for thermal effects. Thus, SAR is of little
relevance, and EMF exposures should better be dened by their incident radiation/eld intensity
at the included frequency bands, exposure duration, and other eld parameters. The present chap-
ter also explains that man-made EMFs/EMR, in contrast to light and ionizing electromagnetic
emissions, do not consist of photons but of continuous “classical” waves and, thus, do not obey
Planck’s formula connecting photon energy (ϵ) with frequency (
ν
), ϵ = h
ν
. Apart from polariza-
tion, man-made EMFs differ from natural EMFs in frequency bands and emission sources. Basic
concepts of interaction with living tissue are discussed.
1.1 INTRODUCTION
To address the bioactivity of electromagnetic elds (EMFs) and corresponding electromagnetic
radiation (EMR) emitted by wireless communication (WC) devices/antennas, we must rst know
their physical properties. Applying various types of EMFs in biological experiments without good
knowledge of their physical properties/parameters, or without good knowledge of the exposed bio-
logical model, will most likely lead to misinterpreted effects and misleading conclusions. Thus, the
aim of this chapter is to dene WC EMFs, the most complex type of man-made EMFs, by analyzing
and describing their various physical parameters. This may provide a basis for future studies on the
biological/health effects of WC EMFs.
Among the most important parameters of EMFs, in general, are frequency bands and corre-
sponding intensities, polarization, waveform of the emitted waves/signals, and modulation/variabil-
ity with a general meaning, which may include pulsations and different types of signal variability.
20 Biological and Heath Effects of WC EMFs
Apart from the eld characteristics, the exposure duration is an additional important parameter for
the induced effects (Panagopoulos 2011; 2017; 2019a).
The whole part of the electromagnetic spectrum from 0 Hz (static electric and magnetic elds)
up to the low limit of infrared (approximately (~) 300 GHz = 3 × 1011 Hz) is, today, mainly occupied
by anthropogenic/technical/articial/man-made EMFs. They are produced by electric/electronic
circuits and antennas of human technology. Applied voltages on those circuits force all free elec-
trons in the metallic conductors to move back and forth in phase (coherently). As a basic principle of
electromagnetism summarized in the Maxwell equations, EMR is produced when electric charges
are accelerating (Tesla 1905; Alonso and Finn 1967; Reitz and Milford 1967; Alexopoulos 1973;
Jackson 1975; Panagopoulos 2013). In this case, we have a continuous coherent acceleration (and
deceleration) of free electrons. Due to the xed position, geometry, and orientation of the circuits/
antennas, all articial (man-made) electromagnetic emissions are totally polarized, meaning their
electric and magnetic elds oscillate on single planes (while being perpendicular to each other).
This makes them particularly bioactive as discussed in Section 1.2 (and originally in Panagopoulos
et al. 2015a; Panagopoulos 2017).
The velocity of any electromagnetic wave is the velocity of light c, as light consists of electro-
magnetic wave-packets called photons. In the vacuum or in the air, c ≈ 3 × 108 m/s, as measured
experimentally by Heinrich Hertz in 1888. This represents an upper limit for all known velocities
(Alonso and Finn 1967; Jackson 1975; Panagopoulos 2013). The velocity of EMR/light is an abso-
lute, universal constant independent of any reference system (Beiser 1987).
The velocity of any wave in any medium is expressed as the product of its wavelength (λ) times
its frequency (
ν
). Accordingly, the velocity of an electromagnetic wave is:
c
˜°
˛˝
[1.1]
The part of the man-made electromagnetic spectrum with the highest frequencies is called Radio
Frequency (RF) band (300 kHz–300 GHz). RF EMFs are produced by electromagnetic oscillation
circuits/antennas and are mainly used as carriers for transmitting information. Microwaves (MWs)
are called the highest part of the RF band, with frequencies (300 MHz–300 GHz) higher than those
which can be reected by the ionosphere and transmitted over long distances around the Earth. This
inability to travel long distances in the atmosphere is due to their smaller wavelengths, as described
by the Rayleigh law (Eq. 1.2), which declares that the intensity of scattered EMR in any material
medium is inversely proportional to λ4 (λ the wavelength of EMR) or equivalently proportional to
ν
4
(
ν
the frequency), when the dimensions of the scattering particles are smaller than the wavelength
(Alexopoulos 1966; Jackson 1975) (which is the case for man-made EMFs):
14
J
scat
˜
or
J
scat
˜
˛
[1.2]
4
°
Since scattering increases with increasing frequencies, penetration into a material decreases.
Because MWs are unable to travel long distances, unlike the electromagnetic waves of lower fre-
quencies, and cannot be reected by the ionosphere to go practically everywhere, their receiving
and emitting antennas need to have optical contact between them or be close to each other, as
with the antennas of mobile telephony (MT). This is why, while radio and television broadcast-
ing antennas are restricted within antenna parks on top of mountains, WC antennas are excluded
from this restriction. This, in turn, shows that health concerns are not taken into account by
health authorities and national/international laws. The continuous demand for increasing the
amount of transmitted information by MW antennas leads to the continuous increase in the MW
frequencies, and the consequent approximation toward the low limit of infrared (Lioliousis 1979;
1997; 2009; Panagopoulos 2017).
21 Defining Wireless Communication Electromagnetic Fields
In all information-carrying electromagnetic waves there is an RF/MW frequency carrier wave
and a modulation eld/wave which is, in most cases, of Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) (3–3000
Hz) (mostly) or Very Low Frequency (VLF) (3–30 kHz) and includes the information to be trans-
mitted by the carrier. The frequency and the amplitude of the modulation eld/signal vary con-
tinuously, depending on the varying information this signal includes (speech, text, images, etc.).
In older analog radio, television broadcasting signals, or rst-generation (1G) mobile phone sig-
nals, the RF carrier was a continuous-wave amplitude modulated (AM), or frequency modulated
(FM), or phase modulated (PM) by the ELF/VLF information signal. In modern digital WC, the
emissions are in the form of “on/off” pulses, repeated with a namely standard frequency in the
ELF/VLF band which actually varies as well. The pulses are most usually rectangular with fast
rise and fall times and variable intensity. Each rectangular pulse is an “envelope” containing
the RF carrier wave/signal modulated by the information signal (ELF/VLF). Radio detection
and ranging (RADAR) emissions/signals are also pulsed for energy-saving reasons with “on/
off” pulses, but in this case, the pulses are invariable (Puranen and Jokela 1996). The pulses
are, in most cases, emitted at rates of tens, or hundreds, or thousands per second (ELF). In WC
signals, the pulses are used not only for energy saving but also mainly for increasing the number
of users communicating each moment with the same antenna and exchanging different types of
information (speech, text, images, etc.). This is called “multiplexing”. The variable pulsations in
combination with the modulation and other factors create an additional variability of the nal
signal, which is usually in the Ultra Low Frequency (ULF) (0–3 Hz) band (Alonso and Finn 1967;
Alexopoulos 1973; Jackson 1975; Schwartz 1990; Holma and Toskala 2004; Panagopoulos 2011;
2013; 2017; 2019a; Pirard and Vatovez).
A single WC device (e.g., mobile or cordless phone) emits pulses for a single user. Groups of
thousands of such pulses emitted by MT base antennas, or Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN)
also called Wireless Fidelity (Wi-Fi) routers for Internet access, carry the transmitted information
of many users simultaneously assigning a single pulse-type, or pulse-timing, or code to each user,
differing slightly in position/frequency/code from other pulse types of other users. When a “smart”
mobile phone, with its multiple antennas, is simultaneously connected to telephony, Internet, or/and
other devices (e.g., printers) via local (“Bluetooth”) connections, different types of pulses from dif-
ferent antennas with different carrier/modulation/pulsing frequencies and intensities, etc., accom-
modate each connection, making the overall eld/signal extremely complicated and unpredictably
varying each moment.
Thus, WC EMF emissions, except for the RF/MW carrier signal, always include ELF/ULF
(0–3000 Hz) emissions in the form of modulation, pulsing, and random variability. The intensity,
frequency, and shape of these ELF/ULF components are not invariable/predictable as in non-infor-
mation-carrying RF emissions (e.g., from radars or MW ovens) but unpredictably varying each
moment (Pedersen 1997; Hyland 2000; 2008; Zwamborn et al. 2003; Holma and Toskala 2004;
Curwen and Whalley 2008; Pirard and Vatovez). This high complexity and variability of the WC
EMFs makes them signicantly more bioactive than other types of man-made EMFs, as living
organisms cannot adapt to unpredictably varying stressors (Panagopoulos 2019a).
A careful examination of the so-called “RF” EMF exposures employed in the vast majority
of experimental EMF bioeffects studies would reveal that these were not purely RF but complex
EMFs like those employed in WC and, in most cases, simulated MT EMFs, or real-life MT EMFs
from commercially available mobile/cordless phones, combining RF and ELF components (Azanza
et al. 2002; Panagopoulos et al. 2004; 2007a; 2007b; 2015b; 2021; Belyaev 2005; Behari 2010;
Yakymenko et al. 2016; Wust et al. 2021; Bertagna et al. 2021). The combined frequency bands and
variability in WC EMFs are discussed in Section 1.3 of this chapter (and originally in Panagopoulos
et al. 2015b; Panagopoulos 2017; 2019a).
Living organisms have developed effective protection mechanisms against natural stress of dif-
ferent types (heat, cold, starvation, natural chemical toxicity, solar ultraviolet radiation, natural
radioactivity, etc.). Moreover, it seems they can adapt to stressors which are predictable (invariable).
22 Biological and Heath Effects of WC EMFs
They are adapted to the presence of the signicantly/locally polarized static terrestrial EMFs (geo-
electric and geomagnetic eld), but only when these elds are kept relatively constant despite their
normal small ELF variations. When such elds vary by ~ 20% of their normal average intensities
during magnetic storms taking place on Earth every several years due to increased solar activ-
ity, adverse health effects initiate in humans/animals (Presman 1977; Dubrov 1978; Panagopoulos
2013). Thus, the combination of polarization and signicant ELF variability of EMF exposure is a
natural trigger of biological effects (Panagopoulos 2019a). This bioactive combination in maximum
levels is the case in WC EMFs. In the present chapter, we shall examine this systematically.
Man-made EMFs and corresponding non-ionizing EMR are actually very different and much
more adversely bioactive than natural EMFs. Natural EMFs on Earth (such as natural light, the
geoelectric and geomagnetic elds, and the atmospheric “Schumann” oscillations) are vital, as all
living creatures have evolved in their presence, and no life would exist without them. The 24-hour
(h) day–night periodicity of natural light attunes the central nervous system of all animals on Earth.
In mammals, this is accomplished via the supra-chiasmatic nucleus (SCN) a group of neurons above
the optic chiasm (Panagopoulos 2013). Atmospheric electromagnetic ELF oscillations created by
lightning discharges, called Schumann resonances, play a most vital role in attuning the brain’s elec-
trical activity in all animals. It is no chance that the basic frequency of the alpha rhythms of animal/
human brain oscillations (7.83 Hz) coincides with the basic frequency of the atmospheric Schumann
resonances (Berger 1929; Schumann 1952; Wever 1974; 1979; Panagopoulos and Balmori 2017;
Panagopoulos and Chrousos 2019). Similar vital action is exerted by the natural EMFs in all living
creatures (trees, plants, etc.) (Presman 1977; Dubrov 1978; Alberts et al. 1994).
By contrast, man-made EMFs have an adverse action on living organisms, except for specic
therapeutic applications when they are specically designed to amplify/restore endogenous elec-
tric currents in cells and tissues or simulate natural exogenous EMFs such as the Schumann reso-
nances (Wever 1974; 1979; Nuccitelli 1992; 2003; Panagopoulos 2013). Indeed, externally applied
static electric elds of similar intensities and directions with endogenous elds controlling, e.g., cell
proliferation, have been found to stimulate mammalian and amphibian nerve regeneration, nerve
sprouting at wounds, wound healing, or spinal cord injury healing (Borgens 1988; Nuccitelli 2003;
Wang and Zhao 2010). Accordingly, pulsing ELF EMFs have been found to accelerate bone regen-
eration and bone fracture healing in mammals (Bassett et al. 1964; Brighton et al. 1979; 1987; 1989).
Apart from the specic therapeutic effects when weak static or ELF technical EMFs mimic natu-
ral/endogenous EMFs, thousands of studies during the past ve decades have indicated a variety
of adverse biological effects induced in a variety of organisms/cell types by exposure to man-made
EMFs, especially ELF and complex “RF” (including ELF modulation/pulsation/variability). The
recorded biological and health effects range from alterations in the synthesis rates of critical bio-
molecules such as proteins, RNA, DNA, etc., alterations in enzymatic activity, in intracellular ionic
concentrations (Ca+2, Na+, K+, Cl−, etc.), or in cell proliferation rates, to oxidative stress (OS), DNA
and protein damage, chromosome damage, cell death, infertility, electro-hypersensitivity (EHS),
and cancer (Marino and Becker 1977; Wertheimer and Leeper 1979; Adey 1981; 1993; Goodman
et al. 1995; Santini et al. 2005; Diem et al. 2005; Hardell et al. 2007; 2013; Phillips et al. 2009;
Khurana et al. 2009; Blackman 2009; Johansson 2009; De Iuliis et al. 2009; Yakymenko et al. 2011;
2016; 2018; Houston et al. 2016; Panagopoulos 2011; 2017; 2019a; 2019b; 2020; Panagopoulos et al.
2007a; 2007b; 2010; 2013a; Chavdoula et al. 2010; Miller et al. 2018; 2019; Belpomme and Irigaray
2020). All these reported effects are not accompanied by heating of the exposed biological tissues.
Under the weight of this accumulating evidence, especially on genotoxic effects and carcinogenicity,
the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization
(WHO), has classied both ELF and RF EMFs as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) (IARC
2002; 2013). Recent carcinogenicity updates advocate that WC EMFs containing both RF and ELF
should be categorized as “probably carcinogenic” or “carcinogenic” (Miller et al. 2018; NTP 2018;
Falcioni et al. 2018; Hardell and Nyberg 2020). The eld/radiation intensities and exposure durations in
the majority of published man-made EMF studies are signicantly smaller than those of exposures to
23 Defining Wireless Communication Electromagnetic Fields
natural EMFs in the terrestrial environment, even though in different frequency bands (Panagopoulos
2015a; 2019a).
Solar EMR intensity incident upon a human body ranges normally between 8 and 24 mW/cm2
(depending on seasons, atmospheric conditions, geographical location, etc.) (Roller and Goldman
1968; Parsons 1993; Panagopoulos 2017), while corresponding intensity from a digital second or
third, or fourth generation (2G/3G/4G) mobile phone handset upon a human head (even in contact)
during a usual phone-call in “talk” mode is normally less than 0.2 mW/cm2 (Tabl e 1.1). Similarly,
infrared radiation, from every human body at normal temperature has signicantly greater incident
intensities and exposure durations on any human than most articial EMF sources (Presman 1977;
Dubrov 1978; Gulyaev et al. 1995). How, then, can natural EMFs be benecial, while man-made
EMFs are detrimental?
The unique property that makes human-made EMFs so much more adversely bioactive compared
to natural EMFs and natural light is polarization (combined with coherence) (Panagopoulos et al.
2015a; Panagopoulos 2017). Polarized and coherent EMFs/EMR are specically bioactive because
they can induce parallel and coherent forced oscillations of electrically charged and polar molecules
which constitute the vast majority of molecules in living tissues. Moreover, they can interfere with
each other and amplify their intensities at certain locations, (Panagopoulos et al. 2015a). The combi-
nation of polarization/coherence and the extreme complexity/variability of the WC EMF exposures
is what makes them extremely bioactive and, thus, dangerous to all living organisms (Panagopoulos
2019a). Before the past ~120 years (and intensely the past ~25 years), living organisms had never
been exposed to anything similar to man-made polarized/coherent and oscillating/pulsing EMFs
and, thus, have not developed any defense mechanisms against this new unphysical type of stress.
Modulated (especially in amplitude) or pulsed RF EMFs are repeatedly found to be more bioac-
tive than non-modulated or non-pulsing elds of the same carrier frequency and of the same aver-
age intensity (Bawin et al. 1975; 1978; Blackman et al. 1980; 1982; Lin-Liu and Adey 1982; Byus
et al. 1984; 1988; Frei et al. 1988; Somosy et al. 1991; Veyret et al. 1991; Bolshakov and Alekseev
1992; Litovitz et al. 1993; Thuroczy et al. 1994; Goodman et al. 1995; Penael et al. 1997; Huber
et al. 2002; Höytö et al. 2008; Hinrikus et al. 2008; Franzellitti et al. 2010; Campisi et al. 2010;
Mohammed et al. 2013). Frei et al. (1988) found that a 2.8 GHz RF EMF pulsed at 500 Hz was
signicantly more effective in increasing heart rate in rats than the corresponding non-pulsed RF
2.8 GHz EMF with the same average intensity and exposure duration. Huber et al. (2002) and
Mohammed et al. (2013) found that exposure to 900 MHz RF EMF pulse-modulated with various
ELF pulsations induced changes in the human and rat electro-encephalograms (EEG), while the
corresponding non-pulsed EMF (same RF frequency without any pulsation) with the same exposure
duration did not. Similarly, Franzellitti et al. (2010) found that a 1.8 GHz RF signal amplitude-
modulated by ELF pulsations induced DNA damage in cultured human trophoblast cells, while
the corresponding non-modulated signal with the same exposure duration was ineffective. In all
the above cases, the reported effects were not accompanied by any signicant tissue heating. This
signicant evidence indicates that the non-thermal effects of WC EMFs on living organisms are
mainly due to the included ELFs.
Moreover, ELF EMFs alone are found independently to be bioactive, as are RF EMFs modu-
lated or pulsed by ELFs (Bawin and Adey 1976; Blackman et al. 1982; Walleczek 1992; Ma et al.
1993; Goodman et al. 1995; Azanza et al. 2002; Ivancsits et al. 2002; 2003; Santini et al. 2005;
Panagopoulos et al. 2013a). Bawin and Adey (1976) found that the ELF sinusoidal signals previ-
ously used to modulate an RF carrier EMF (Bawin et al. 1975; 1978), induced alone (without the
RF carrier) alterations in Ca2+ concentration in chicken and cat brain cells as did the modulated RF
EMF, while the RF carrier alone (non-modulated) was ineffective. Azanza et al. (2002) found that
the ELF pulsations employed in 2G MT at 8.3 and 217 Hz could, by themselves (without the carrier
RF signal), induce changes in the spontaneous bioelectric activity of neurons. Again, in all cases,
the described effects were non-thermal.
24 Biological and Heath Effects of WC EMFs
Thus, in the absence of the ELF/ULF components, the effects usually disappear, as several stu-
dies have shown (Bawin et al. 1975; 1978; Blackman et al. 1980; 1982; Goodman et al. 1995; Huber
et al. 2002; Belyaev 2005; Franzellitti et al. 2010; Mohammed et al. 2013; Panagopoulos 2019a), and
purely RF EMFs, without ELF pulsing or modulation, usually do not induce the above reported non-
thermal effects. By contrast, ELF EMFs alone induce non-thermal effects, alike the RF EMFs mod-
ulated or pulsed by ELFs (Bawin and Adey 1976; Blackman et al. 1982; Walleczek 1992; Goodman
et al. 1995; Ivancsits et al. 2002; 2003; Santini et al. 2005; Panagopoulos et al. 2013a). The fact that
a variety of biological systems/living tissues respond differently to pure RF exposures than to those
including ELF modulation/pulsation/variability shows that living tissue responds specically to
the ELF components of a complex RF signal containing both RF and ELF components. This is of
great signicance. Whether living tissue has the ability to “demodulate” the ELF components from
the complex signal (Blackman et al. 1982) or these components are already independent within the
signal is not the case.
The above experimental ndings showing the unique ability of ELF EMFs to induce bioef-
fects are well explained by the “ion forced-oscillation mechanism” for irregular gating of electro-
sensitive ion channels in cell membranes which predicts that pulsing EMFs are more bioactive than
non-pulsing EMFs of the same other parameters and that the biological activity of any specic type
of EMF is inversely proportional to its frequency and proportional to its intensity (Panagopoulos et
al. 2000; 2002; 2015a; 2020; 2021).
As reported already, the above-described effects induced only in the presence of ELF EMFs
are non-thermal. The only EMF exposures that cause heating (thermal effects) in living tissues are
those to high frequency (of the order of GHz or higher) and high intensity/power EMR (≥0.1 mW/
cm2), in other words to intense RF/MW EMFs and, in this case, the presence of ELF components is
not necessary. This is a well-known effect called “microwave heating” (Metaxas 1991; Walleczek
1992; Creasey and Goldberg 2001; Belyaev 2005; Panagopoulos 2011; 2017; Wust et al. 2021).
Therefore, polarized ELF EMFs at environmental intensities induce non-thermal adverse effects
in living organisms, while polarized intense RF EMFs induce only heating (just like the infrared
or visible light) in both inanimate and living matter. Thermal and non-thermal effects and related
mechanisms are analyzed in Section 1.4.
In addition, real-life, highly varying WC EMFs have been found to be more bioactive than corre-
sponding simulated WC EMFs with invariable parameters produced by generators or “test” phones
(Panagopoulos et al. 2015b; Panagopoulos 2017; 2019a; Leach et al. 2018; Kostoff et al. 2020). This
shows that unpredictable, intense variability of an EMF exposure is an additional bioactive factor.
The International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) is a private,
non-governmental organization (NGO) that sets EMF exposure standards and claims that the only
biological effects induced by EMFs are those due to tissue heating (thermal effects) in the case of
RF EMFs, and denies any non-thermal effects (ICNIRP 1998; 2020; Hardell and Carlberg 2021).
Facts show that only RF exposures with frequencies at the GHz range or higher and intensities
greater than 0.1 mW/cm2 may induce tissue heating, usually of the order of 0.1–0.3°C, and, thus,
the vast majority of EMF exposures at environmentally existing intensities, mainly due to ELF
EMFs alone or combined with RF, are non-thermal (Panagopoulos et al. 2013b). Yet, the thermal
effects are expected to become more signicant with the higher frequencies of 5G (up to 100 GHz)
(Neufeld and Kuster 2018). Even though ICNIRP accepts (only) the thermal effects of RF EMFs,
it has recently increased the average 6-minute (min) exposure limit for 2–6 GHz from 1 mW/cm2
to 4 mW/cm2 (ICNIRP 2020). Thus, not even thermal effects are prevented by the ICNIRP limits
anymore.
The IARC (2002; 2013) accepts the non-thermal biological effects recorded by thousands of
experimental studies at different frequencies and intensities; however, like the ICNIRP, it does not
recognize that what are called simply “RF” EMFs are actually, in most cases, complex WC EMFs,
including both RF and ELF/ULF components. Moreover, the IARC (2013) adopts metrics pertain-
ing exclusively to thermal effects such as the Specic Absorption Rate (SAR) and suggests that
25 Defining Wireless Communication Electromagnetic Fields
experimental studies should be performed with simulated MT EMFs with invariable eld parame-
ters emitted by generators, while real-life WC (including MT) EMFs are highly variable. The result
is that about 50% of the studies performed with simulated signals nd “no effects”, while more than
95% of the studies using real-life exposures from mobile phones, cordless domestic phones, Wi-Fi
routers, etc., nd effects (Panagopoulos et al. 2015b; Panagopoulos 2017; 2019a; Leach et al. 2018;
Kostoff et al. 2020). Thus, even though the IARC accepts the non-thermal effects, it does not recog-
nize the combined RF–ELF character of the complex WC EMFs, evaluating them simply as “RF”,
adopts a thermal metric for their evaluation, and overlooks the fact that it is the intense variability
that makes real-life WC EMF exposures so bioactive, accepting only studies employing simulated
WC exposures with no signal variability in order for the exposures to be “determined” (accurately
measured). Thus, both the ICNIRP and the IARC bear great responsibility for the continuing confu-
sion and underestimation of the health risks of WC EMFs by scientists, physicians, health authori-
ties, and the general population.
Health agencies introduced SAR as a principal metric for the bioactivity of RF/MW EMFs/non-
ionizing radiation. It expresses the rate of energy absorption (power) per unit of mass of exposed
living tissue (in W/kg) in accordance with the rate of absorbed dose in the case of exposure to ioni-
zing radiation (NCRP 1986; Coggle 1983).
But there is a signicant difference between RF EMFs/EMR and ionizing electromagnetic radia-
tion regarding their biological/health effects: The biological effects of ionizing EMR (from vacuum
ultraviolet to gamma rays with frequencies ranging from ~3 × 1016 to ~3 × 1022 Hz) depend largely
on the high energies of ionizing photons absorbed completely by electrons or nuclei. Such pho-
tons are capable of causing direct ionization by breaking chemical bonds, expelling electrons from
atoms, or even breaking nuclei in the case of gamma rays, etc. The amounts of energy deposited
in exposed single molecules, even in the softest ionizing case of vacuum ultraviolet (>10 eV ≈ 1.6
× 10−18 J), are great enough to ionize them. By contrast, the corresponding amounts of absorbed
energy by single molecules (mobile ions), in the case of man-made EMF exposures, are millions of
times smaller than the average thermal energy of the same molecules at human body temperature
(kT ≈ 4.3 × 10−21 J) (as analyzed in Section 1.4) and, thus, are billions of times smaller than in the
softest case of ionizing exposures. In fact, in most cases, ionizing exposures are of several orders of
magnitude greater photonic energy than 10 eV (vacuum ultraviolet), as x-rays have energies around
1–100 keV and gamma rays100 keV–100 MeV (Alexopoulos 1963; Gautreau and Savin 1978; Coggle
1983; Prasad 1995). Thus, evaluating man-made EMF exposures by metrics similar to those used
for ionizing radiations is neither very relevant nor useful.
As shown in Section 1.5, SAR actually accounts only for thermal effects (heating), while the
effects of man-made EMFs (frequencies lower than infrared) do not usually induce any signicant
(or even measurable) heating in living tissues.
Moreover, there are other parameters of an EMF exposure more important for the induced bio-
logical effects, such as polarization, the eld/radiation intensity at the various included frequencies
(carrier, pulsing, etc.), the variability of the eld, the duration, intermittence, and timing of the
exposure (Diem et al. 2005; Belyaev 2005; Chavdoula et al. 2010; Panagopoulos and Margaritis
2010a; Panagopoulos et al. 2007a; 2007b; 2010; 2015a; 2015b; Panagopoulos 2017; 2019a). These
important parameters are not included in the absorbed power (SAR).
Today, there are hundreds of studies that correspond specic biological effects to specic inci-
dent radiation/eld intensities at different frequency bands which can be measured much more
easily and reliably than SAR (see Panagopoulos et al. 2010, and reviews Adey 1981; 1993; Goodman
et al. 1995; Santini et al. 2005; Phillips et al. 2009; Panagopoulos and Margaritis 2009; Manna
and Gosh 2016; Leach et al. 2018; Panagopoulos 2019a). Thus, we can predict the expected effect
by knowing the incident radiation/eld intensity plus the other parameters of the eld/exposure
(Panagopoulos et al. 2013b).
Another important parameter for the denition of a particular type of EMF/EMR and conse-
quently, for its predicted bioactivity, is whether its emitted waves are continuous waves as those
26 Biological and Heath Effects of WC EMFs
described by classical electromagnetism, or discrete wave-packets (photons). It is well documented
that natural light (infrared, visible, ultraviolet), x-rays, and gamma radiation are emitted in the form
of discrete wave-packets (or “particles” of light) called quanta or photons, each having a discrete
frequency, phase, and polarization, and its energy (∈) is given by the Planck formula:
-
˜° h
˛
or
˜° h
˝
[1.3]
(h = 6.625 × 10−34 J·s is called Planck’s constant, ħ = h/2π,
ν
is the frequency of the wave-packet,
and ω = 2π
ν
is the circular frequency).
An unphysical postulate of modern quantum physics called quantum electromagnetism (QEM)
or quantum electrodynamics (QED) is that not only light, x-, and gamma radiation, but also every
form of EMF/EMR is quantized, i.e., consists of quanta (photons) (Panagopoulos 2015; 2018). This
was established around 1925–1930 when the founders of QED/QEM (Heisenberg, Dirac, Born, and
others) mathematically transformed the energy of the EMF into a Fourier series of discrete terms
which were arbitrarily attributed to photons. This was not dictated or even implied by experimental
facts and was based on the simplistic hypothesis that any EMF/EMR is a periodic function of time
(Panagopoulos 2018).
It was already shown by Planck, Einstein, Bohr, and others that natural light is quantized, i.e.,
consists of photons, and the physics community considered that any form of EMF/EMR should,
therefore, consist of photons. That was a awed and arbitrary extrapolation. Technical (man-made
EMFs) were still very new at that time and not explored in depth with regard to their differences
from natural light or other types of natural EMR, which had not been discovered yet, such as the
Schumann oscillations or the cosmic “microwaves”. Possibly, the founders of QEM/QED did not
mean that their “quantization” applies to every form of EMF/EMR that was to be discovered or pro-
duced in the future. But the physics community of that time and during the next decades (Feynman
1950), apart from a few exceptions, took for granted that this was the case.
The “ofcial” opinion is that “electromagnetic signals are always composed of photons, although
in the circuit domain those signals are carried as voltages and currents on wires, and the discreteness
of the photon’s energy is usually not evident” (Schuster et al. 2007). While they take for granted the
existence of photons in man-made EMFs/EMR and especially in the RF/MW band, they admit that
single MW photons have not been detected: “Verifying the single-photon output is a substantial chal-
lenge in on-chip microwave experiments. The simplest approach, that of looking for a photon each
time one is created, is not currently possible; no detectors can yet resolve single MW photon events in
a single shot” (Houck et al. 2007). While the alleged evidence for the existence of RF/MW photons is
highly questionable, there is absolutely no evidence of photons in lower frequency bands such as VLF/
LF (3–300 kHz), or ELF/ULF (0–3000 Hz). Several quantum physicists have objected to QEM/QED
(Jaynes 1966; 1978; 1980; Lamb and Scully 1969; Hunter and Wadlinger 1987; Vistnes and Gjoetterud
2001; Roychoudhuri et al. 2008; Roychoudhuri 2014). Vistnes and Gjoetterud (2001) have argued that
considering ELF EMFs as consisting of photons is highly misleading.
The following facts contradict the existence of photons for frequencies below infrared (0–3 ×
1011 Hz): 1) There is no experimental proof nor explanation based on physical phenomena for the
existence of such photons in environmental conditions; 2) there are no discrete lines in ELF, VLF,
LF, RF antennae spectra; 3) all interactions of man-made EMFs (from ELF to RF) with matter
(both biological and inanimate) are very successfully studied by classical electromagnetism; and 4)
the “quantization” of the EMF was a mathematical transformation based on simplistic hypotheses.
Today, those who claim that man-made EMFs are harmless to life argue that their frequen-
cies and, consequently, their “photon energies” are smaller than those of visible light (according
to Eq. 1.3) and, thus, are unable to induce any adverse effect in living organisms (Valberg et al.
1997; Sheppard et al. 2008; Levitt et al. 2021). We shall show that this argument is awed because:
a) man-made EMFs/EMR produced by electric/electronic circuits/antennas consist of continuous/
uninterrupted waves like those described by classical electromagnetism, not photons (Section 1.6);
27 Defining Wireless Communication Electromagnetic Fields
b) man-made EMFs are totally polarized and coherent, while natural light is not (Section 1.2); c)
most biological/health effects of man-made (including WC) EMFs are not accompanied by any
signicant heating of the exposed living tissues, in contrast to those of natural light, and are due to
ELF, not to the RF or the even higher frequencies of natural light (Section 1.4); and, most impor-
tantly, d) thousands of experimental studies have already shown a plethora of effects induced by
man-made EMFs which cannot be denied.
The IARC (2013) has correctly avoided mentioning the alleged “photonic” nature of man-made
EMFs/EMR, noting that “the photon energy is generally referred to in the x-ray and gamma-ray
regions, and also to some extent in the ultraviolet range, because the particle-like properties of the
EMFs become more obvious in these spectral regions” and points out that RF EMFs are described
by Maxwell’s equations (classical electromagnetism) (pages 37–38).
The important differences among natural and man-made EMFs/EMR in the non-ionizing band
(from 0 Hz up to ultraviolet) are summarized in Section 1.7. The differences are specied in polariza-
tion, frequency bands, and emission sources (bound versus unbound charged microparticles). The
basic concepts of interaction of natural and man-made EMFs/EMR with matter, such as excitation/
de-excitation and forced oscillation of charged/polar particles, are also discussed in the same section.
In Sections 1.2–1.7, the above briey described important issues regarding the denition of man-
made EMFs, and particularly WC EMFs, are specically examined. As already noted, the purpose
of this chapter is to increase knowledge, awareness, and debate among scientists on the complexity
of these new types of man-made EMFs which have already overowed the planet, exposing every
living creature for the rst time within the billions of years of biological evolution. Understanding
the properties and complexity of these man-made EMFs and clarifying confusing diverse informa-
tion is the rst necessary step to understanding their impacts on life.
1.2 POLARIZATION IS A PRINCIPAL PROPERTY OF ALL MAN-MADE EMFs
1.2.1 DEFINING POLARIZATION. WHY MAN-MADE POLARIZED EMFS ARE MORE
ADVERSELY BIOACTIVE THAN NATURAL NON-POLARIZED EMFS
Here, we shall explain theoretically that the increased adverse biological action of man-made EMFs is,
rst of all, due to polarization, a property that only partially and occasionally exists in natural EMFs
(Panagopoulos et al. 2015a; Panagopoulos 2017). Man-made EMFs are produced by electric/electronic
circuits, and the corresponding EMR is emitted by the acceleration of free electrons forced to oscillate
back and forth along the metallic conductors of such circuits. Because the electronic oscillations take
place macroscopically in specic directions/orientations determined by the geometry/orientation of the
circuit/antenna, the corresponding oscillating elds and generated waves oscillate on a single plane,
and thus, they are totally polarized (in most cases linearly polarized) In contrast, natural electromag-
netic emissions (cosmic microwaves/infrared, visible, ultraviolet, x-, and gamma radiation) produced by
molecular/atomic/nuclear events are not polarized, and only in specic occasions may light be partially
polarized. First, we must provide some denitions and equations on polarization, eld intensity, wave
intensity, and superposition/interference of EMFs/EMR, which will be necessary for understanding why
polarized EMFs are so much more bioactive than non-polarized.
A eld/wave is called linearly polarized when it oscillates on a single plane, which is called the
“polarization plane”. While the intensity of a non-polarized eld at any point in space oscillates in
every possible direction, the intensity of a linearly polarized eld at any specic point oscillates
on one line (Figure 1.1). Linearly polarized waves are also called “plane waves”. A combination of
linearly polarized elds/waves with certain phase differences among them can give circularly or
elliptically polarized elds/waves. Specically, superposition of two identical elds with a phase
difference of 90° among them creates a circularly polarized eld. Superposition of three identical
elds with a phase difference of 120° among each two of them also creates a circularly polarized
eld. The same conditions with unequal amplitudes create elliptically polarized elds. Circularly
28 Biological and Heath Effects of WC EMFs
and elliptically polarized 50–60 Hz sinusoidal alternating electric and magnetic elds produced
by three-phase electric power transmission lines (120° phase difference among each two phases)
are accused for association with cancer, while linearly polarized such elds produced in the lab
are repeatedly found to induce DNA damage, cell death, infertility, alterations in DNA synthesis,
and cell proliferation rates, and a variety of other adverse effects in experimental animals and cell
cultures (Marino and Becker 1977; Wertheimer and Leeper 1979; Adey 1981; 1993; Schimmelpfeng
and Dertinger 1993; Goodman et al. 1995; IARC 2002; Ivancsits et al. 2002; 2003; Santini et al.
2005; Phillips et al. 2009; Panagopoulos et al. 2013a).
Natural EMR/EMFs (atmospheric “Schumann” oscillations, cosmic MWs, infrared, visible light,
ultraviolet, gamma rays) and several forms of articially triggered natural electromagnetic emis-
sions (such as from incandescent lamps, gas discharge lamps, x-rays, lasers, etc.) are not polarized,
meaning that their electric and magnetic elds oscillate on any possible random plane while being
perpendicular to each other. Light (infrared, visible, ultraviolet), x, and gamma rays are produced by
great numbers of molecular, atomic, or nuclear transitions of random orientation and random phase
difference among them (except for lasers, which are coherent). These transitions are excitations/
de-excitations of molecules, atoms, or atomic nuclei. During each such transition, a single photon
is emitted (Beiser 1987). Each photon (i.e., wave-packet) oscillates on a distinct random plane, and,
therefore, it has a distinct different polarization. Moreover, the different photons are not produced
simultaneously, but they have random phase differences among them (Panagopoulos et al. 2015a;
Panagopoulos 2018). Schumann oscillations in the Earth’s atmosphere are non-polarized station-
ary waves generated by atmospheric discharges (lightning) during thunderstorms that occur any
moment on Earth. The above natural EMFs are oscillating and non-polarized.
The geoelectric and geomagnetic elds (with average intensities ~ 130 V/m and ~ 0.5 G = 0.05
mT, respectively) and the electric elds of cell membranes in all living organisms (~107 V/m) are
locally polarized, accepting that their eld lines are practically parallel among them at a certain
location. These are examples of locally polarized natural EMFs. All three of them are basically
static (invariable in their polarities and average intensities). There are also transient polarized sig-
nals associated with certain natural phenomena. The strongest lightning discharges from clouds to
ground during thunderstorms can be considered as ~ 70% straight lines with a reasonable approxi-
mation, and thus, their emitted EMFs (called “sferics”) can be considered as being ~ 70% polarized.
Seismic electric signals (SES) emitted a few days or weeks prior to major earthquakes are weak, sig-
nicantly polarized pulses. Both of these natural EMFs, due to their signicantly polarized nature,
can be sensed by sensitive animals/individuals (Panagopoulos and Balmori 2017; Panagopoulos et
al. 2020), and this is probably a way for protection of the living organisms against intense natural
phenomena developed during the biological evolution.
a
b
E E
FIGURE 1.1 (a) Non-polarized eld, (b) Linearly polarized eld.
29 Defining Wireless Communication Electromagnetic Fields
The effect of light interference discovered by Thomas Young in the early 1800s takes place
among waves (photons) having identical polarization and frequency (Arago and Fresnel 1819;
Panagopoulos 2015). In his experiments, natural light from a single source passes through two
identical small slits at equal distances from the source which, in turn, become two identical coher-
ent secondary sources, according to the Huygens principle, and the light from the two secondary
sources forms standing luminous and dark parallel fringes on a screen behind the slits (Pohl 1960;
Alonso and Finn 1967). As became clear from subsequent experiments in the following years, and
summarized in the Arago-Fresnel experimental laws, only coherent polarized elds/waves of iden-
tical polarization and frequency are able to produce clear standing interference effects (fringes of
maximum and minimum light intensity) (Arago and Fresnel 1819). [An explanation of how natural
non-polarized and incoherent light in the Young experiments produces standing interference is
given in Panagopoulos (2015) and is based on the fact that each single photon of natural light has
a distinct polarization, frequency, and phase, though different than those of the other photons. Two
parts of each single photon pass simultaneously through the two slits and then interfere with each
other.] What is important, here, is that only polarized EMFs/EMR of the same polarization can
produce constructive or destructive interference with each other, and amplify or cancel their intensi-
ties respectively, at the specic locations where two or more waves are superimposed on each other
with the same or opposite phases. The ability of constructive or destructive interference is a unique
property of polarized waves/elds with great signicance in their bioactivity.
Apart from polarization, when the EMFs are in addition of the same frequency, the interference
fringes are standing at certain locations (when the sources are also standing). This is called standing
interference. When the polarization is xed (e.g., vertically oriented antennas), but there are differ-
ences in frequency among the sources, the interference effects are not standing at xed locations
but, instead, change with time, creating instantaneous peaks at changing locations. Several oscil-
lating EMFs of the same polarization, such as the elds from different antennas vertically oriented,
may also produce transient constructive interference effects and instantly amplify the local eld
intensity at different locations. At such locations, any living organism can be instantly exposed to
signicantly higher intensities and become more vulnerable to the adverse action of these elds
(Sangeetha et al. 2014; Panagopoulos et al. 2015a).
In addition, oscillating polarized (and coherent) EMFs/EMR (in contrast to non-polarized) have
the ability to induce parallel and coherent forced oscillations on any charged/polar particles within
a medium. In case the medium is biological tissue, the result is that all charged (bio)molecules will
be forced to oscillate in parallel and in phase with the eld. These parallel and coherent forced oscil-
lations can trigger biological effects (Panagopoulos et al. 2000; 2002; 2015a; 2020; 2021).
Non-polarized EMR can become polarized when it passes through anisotropic media with spe-
cic molecular orientations, as are certain crystals. In uids (gases and liquids), the molecules are
randomly oriented and, macroscopically, are considered isotropic, inducing no polarization in the
electromagnetic waves transmitted through them. Non-polarized and incoherent natural light can
become partially polarized to a small degree after diffraction on atmospheric molecules or reection
on water, mirrors, metallic surfaces, etc. In contrast, a polarized beam cannot be unpolarized but
may only be absorbed by a medium (Alonso and Finn 1967). Thus, living organisms, exposed to
natural radiation throughout biological evolution, have been exposed to incoherent, partially polar-
ized to a small degree light, under certain circumstances, but have never been exposed to totally
polarized and coherent radiation, such as the EMR/EMFs of the human technology (Chen and Rao
1968; Cronin et al. 2006; Panagopoulos et al. 2015a).
1.2.2 FIELD INTENSITY AND RADIATION INTENSITY
Any harmonically oscillating physical quantity A propagating along a direction r with velocity u, is
described by the classical harmonic plane wave equation:
30 Biological and Heath Effects of WC EMFs
AA
o
sin
˛
˙
tk
° w
r
˝
˜
[1.4]
where Αο is the amplitude (max value) of the oscillating quantity, r the distance of propagation in
time t, kw(=2π/λ) is the wave number (λ the wavelength), and ω = 2π
ν
= kwu is the circular frequency
of the wave (
ν
the frequency). The product kwr is the phase difference of the oscillation at distance
r from the oscillation at the source.
The oscillating quantity Acan be an elastic/mechanical disturbance transmitted in a material
medium or a time-varying electric/magnetic eld transmitted in any medium (including vacuum).
The rst is an elastic wave like the sound waves or the ripples on water. The latter is an electromag-
netic wave.
Any time-varying (oscillating) electric eld generates a time-varying magnetic eld of the same
time variations (frequency, waveform) and vice versa. The two of them constitute an electromagnetic
wave. The intensities-vectors of the two elds are always vertical to each other, and both are vertical to
the direction of the wave. This is described by classical electromagnetism, which is summarized in the
Maxwell equations (Tesla 1905; Alonso and Finn 1967; Reitz and Milford 1967; Alexopoulos 1973;
Jackson 1975; Panagopoulos 2013). Almost all electromagnetic technological applications, including
WC, are based on classical electromagnetism. Electromagnetic waves do not need a material medium
to accommodate their transmission and can be transmitted in the void as well due to some inherent
property which is not yet entirely understood. We shall simply accept that EMFs/EMR can be transmit-
ted by themselves in the void (and in material media) with the velocity of light c(which is smaller in
the material media than in the vacuum/air depending on the permittivity of each medium).
In electromagnetic waves, the oscillating–propagating quantities are the electric and the mag-
netic eld intensities (the electric and magnetic components of the electromagnetic wave). A plane
harmonic electromagnetic wave is the simplest form of such a wave with electric (E) and magnetic
eld (B) intensities (vertical to each other and to the direction of propagation r) described by Eq. 1.4:
EE
o
sin
˛
˙
tk
° w
r
˝
˜
[1.5]
BB
o
sin
˛
˙
tk
° w
r
˝
˜
[1.6]
Eo, Bo are the amplitudes of electric and magnetic eld intensities. In this case, the velocity of the
wave is the velocity of light c.
The energy density (energy per unit volume) (in J/m3) of a plane harmonic EMF/EMR in a
medium is connected to its electric eld intensity according to the equation:
W
˜
°°
oE
2
where E(in V/m) is the intensity of the electric eld or the electric component of the wave in the
medium, ε is the relative permittivity of the medium (ε = 1 in the vacuum and in the air), and
εο = 8.854 × 10−12 C2/N·m2 the vacuum permittivity.
˜
The radiation intensity
J
in the medium (also called wave intensity, power density, or “Poynting
vector”) dened as the incident power per unit surface (in W/m2, and more often in mW/cm2, or
μW/cm2) is the product of the energy density with the velocity of the wave:
˜˜ ˜˜
JcWc
2
˛˛
oEB
° [1.7] ˜ ˜
For plane harmonic waves, the wave intensity becomes:
˜
2
Jc E˜
˜
°°
o [1.8],
31 Defining Wireless Communication Electromagnetic Fields
and the average value of its magnitude is:
12
J
av
e
˜
c
°°
o
Eo [1.9]
2
where c is the velocity of electromagnetic waves in the medium with relative permittivity, ε (Alonso
and Finn 1967). [The labeling (→ ) on the vectors A, kw, r, λ, u, ω, E, B, J, is omitted for simplicity
in most cases.]
Equations 1.7 and 1.8 show that the wave/radiation intensity (having the direction of the wave
propagation) is vertical to both the electric and the magnetic elds (1.7), and in the case of plane
harmonic waves it depends upon the square of the electric eld intensity (1.8) (Alonso and Finn
1967; Panagopoulos et al. 2015a).
1.2.3 SUPERPOSITION OF NON-POLARIZED EMR/EMFS
Consider two incoherent, non-polarized electromagnetic beams with resultant electric components
E1, E2, reaching a certain point, P, in space at a certain moment, t, in time. Each beam consists of a
great number of individual plane harmonic waves (e.g., photons) of random but discrete polariza-
tions and phases transmitted toward the same direction. For the sake of simplicity, let us pick two
˜
˜
individual plane harmonic waves, one from each beam. The two vectors, E
1
, E2 due to the different
polarizations, oscillate on different planes. Because the two beams are not polarized, the polariza-
tions of their constituent plane harmonic elementary waves vary randomly at point P each moment.
The total angle ϕ between the two vectors each moment at point P is determined by the different
polarizations, plus the different phases, and varies randomly in time.
˜
The magnitude of the resultant electric eld
E
(electric component of the resultant electromag-
netic wave) of the two elementary plane harmonic waves each moment at point P is given by the
˜
˜
equation describing the superposition of the two vectors E
1
and E2 :
E ˜ E2 ° E2 ° 2EE cos
˛
[1.10]
1 2 12
E varies with time due to the temporal variations of E1, E2, cosϕ. The average value of cosϕ is zero:
12
˜
2
cos
°°
d ˛0, and the averages of E2, E1
2, and E2 are Eo
2/2, Eo1
2 /2, and Eo2
2 /2, respectively (Eo,
2
˜
˝0
Eo1, and Eo2 are the amplitudes of E, E1, and E2).
The magnitude of the average resultant electric eld is then:
12 2 2 2 2
Eave
˜ 2
˛
Eo1 ° Eo2
˝
or Eo ˜ Eo1 ° Eo2
(
˜ constant
)
and (according to Eq. 1.9):
Jave
˜
J1,ave
°
J2,ave
(˜
constant
)
[1.11]
Even when the two component waves have the same frequency and phase, due to the randomly
changing polarizations, the result is still the same.
Thus, the total time average radiation intensity due to the superposition of two (or more) rays
consisting of individual plane harmonic waves of random polarizations (natural EMR/EMFs) is
the sum of the two individual average intensities, and it is constant at every point. In other words,
macroscopically, there is no local variation in the resultant radiation intensity, meaning there are
no locations of increased or decreased intensity (Panagopoulos et al. 2015a; Panagopoulos 2017).
32 Biological and Heath Effects of WC EMFs
Radiation Intensity Versus Field Intensity of Non-polarized EMR
Although the sum average radiation/wave intensity due to superposition of natural non-polar-
ized rays is the sum of individual average intensities, each one depending on the square ampli-
tude of individual electric eld (Eq. 1.11), the sum electric eld intensity from innite number
of individual elementary waves constituting each ray (as e.g., with natural light), at any moment,
approaches zero:
n ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜
ˆ ˜
lim E
i
˛ E1 ˝ E2 ˝ E3 ˝˙˝ E
n
˛ 0 [1.12]
n
˜° i˛1
Let us explain this in more detail: Consider many photons of natural non-polarized light super-
posed on each other at a particular point in space. Let us assume, for simplicity, that these
photons have equal amplitudes and are of the same frequency but have different polarizations,
meaning that their electric vectors have all possible orientations forming angles among each
two of them from 0° to 360°. Since all possible orientations have equal probabilities, the super-
position of a large number of such equal vectors applied on the same point in space will be the
sum of vectors applied on the center of a sphere with their ends equally distributed around the
surface of the sphere. The sum of an innite number of such vectors (all applied on the same
point – center of the sphere – and with their ends evenly distributed at all points of the spheric
surface) tends to be zero.
In other words, at any given location at any moment, the sum electric eld of a great number of
incident photons of random polarization tends to zero because the individual vectors are in all pos-
sible directions with equal probabilities, diminishing each other when superimposed (destructive
˝
n ˜
interference of electric vectors). Similarly, for the sum magnetic eld: lim Bi ˛ 0
n
˜° i˛1
Thus, the result of superposition of a great number of incident natural waves is increased radia-
tion intensity, but negligible electric and magnetic elds approaching zero with innite number of
individual waves/photons. Since the electric forces on charged particles depend only upon the elec-
˜
˜
˜
tric and magnetic eld intensities (
E
,
B
), and not upon the wave intensity J , non-polarized (and/or
incoherent) EMFs/EMR cannot induce any net forced oscillations on any charged or polar particles
(e.g., biological molecules). They may only induce heat, i.e., random oscillations in all possible
directions due to momentary non-zero eld intensities, but this does not result to any net electric
or magnetic eld or to any net forced oscillation of charged/polar molecules. This is an important
point of our whole reasoning.
1.2.4 SUPERPOSITION OF POLARIZED AND COHERENT EMR/EMFS:
CONSTRUCTIVE AND DESTRUCTIVE INTERFERENCE
When two or more waves/elds of the same polarization and frequency are coherent, in other words,
when their phase difference at the location of superposition is:
˜
˛ 2n
°
,(with n ˛ ,, ,,˝)012 3
[1.13],
the result is constructive interference, meaning that the resultant wave has an amplitude (max
intensity) equal to the sum of amplitudes of the single waves that interfere at the particular
location.
33 Defining Wireless Communication Electromagnetic Fields
When two waves of the same polarization have opposite phases at another location, in other
words, when their phase difference is:
˜
˛ (2n˝1)
°
[1.14],
then the result of their superposition is destructive interference, i.e., a wave of the same polarization
but with diminished intensity (or even zero when the two amplitudes are equal).
The electrical components of two such waves (plane harmonic waves of the same polarization
and frequency) reaching a certain location after having traveled different distances, r1, and r2, from
their two coherent sources are given by the equations:
E1
˜
E
o
1sin
˛
˙
tk
w
r1
˝
°
[1.15]
E2
˜
E
o
2sin
˙
tk
w
2
˛
°
r
˝
[1.16]
˜
Again, the amplitude, Eo, of the resultant electric eld,
E
, (electric component of the resultant elec-
tromagnetic wave) is:
E˜ E2 ° E2 ° 2EEcos
˛
[1.17 ]
o o1 o2 o1 o2
where the phase difference among the two vectors is:
˜
˝
2
°
ˆ
rr
1˙ 2
ˇ
depending, in this case, only
˛
upon the difference in the distances traveled by the two waves.
At any location where: φ = 2nπ, Eq. 1.17 gives:
2 2
E˜ E° E
°
2EE
˛
˜
˝
[1.18]
o o 1 o2 o1 o 2 Eo
1
° Eo
2
At these locations, we have constructive interference.
At any location where: φ = (2n+1)π, Eq. 1.17 gives:
2 2
˙
[1.19]
E
o˜
E
o1 ° Eo2
˛
2EE
o1
o
2
˝
˜
E
o1
˛ Eo
2
At these locations, we have destructive interference.
The intensity of the resultant wave at any location is:
˜ ˜ ˜
JJ
˜ 1 °
J
2
[1.20]
The amplitude of the resultant wave intensity will be, correspondingly:
2
Jo
˜
c
˙˙
o
˛
Eo1 ° Eo2
˝
[1. 21]
2
Jo
˜
c
˙˙
o
˛
Eo1 ° Eo2
˝
[1.22]
(at the locations of constructive interference and at the locations of destructive interference,
re spe ctively).
Thus, at the locations of constructive interference, the electric eld vectors of the two waves/
elds are parallel and in the same direction, and both the resultant eld and the resultant wave
intensity are maximum (Eqs. 1.18 and 1.21).
34 Biological and Heath Effects of WC EMFs
For two identical sources (Eo1 = Eo2): Eo = 2Eo1 and Jo = 4 cεεoEo1
2 = 4 Jo1
For N identical sources: [1.23]
ENE
o
=
o1
and: J
o
= N2J
o1
[1.24]
This is why a series of parallel RF/MW antennas can be used to produce high-intensity beams in
certain directions (Alonso and Finn 1967), which is the case with the so-called “antenna arrays” in
5G MT technology.
At the locations of destructive interference, the electric eld vectors of the two waves are anti-
parallel, and thus, both the resultant eld and the resultant wave intensity are minimum (Eqs. 1.19
and 1.22). For identical sources (Eo1 = Eo2): E = 0, J = 0.
Thus, at the locations of constructive interference, the resultant electric eld from N number
of polarized coherent electromagnetic sources of the same polarization, frequency, and different
intensities E1, E2, … , EN, is the sum electric eld from all the individual sources (e.g., antennas):
EE
˜ 1 °
E
2 °
E
3 °˛°
E
N
[1.25]
The greater the number of coherent superimposed waves/elds (from the same or different sources),
the higher and narrower the peaks (Alonso and Finn 1967). That situation can create very sharp
peaks of wave and eld intensities at certain locations that are not easily detectable by eld meters
where any living organism may be exposed to peak electric and magnetic eld intensities.
Therefore, the difference between superposition of non-polarized and polarized electromagnetic
waves/elds is that, in the rst case, we have increased average radiation intensity but zeroed net
elds at any location, while in the second case we have increased both radiation intensity and elds
at certain locations where constructive interference occurs. This difference is of crucial importance
for understanding the differences in biological activity between natural (non-polarized and incoher-
ent) and man-made (polarized and coherent) EMFs/non-ionizing EMR.
Thus, polarized and coherent (man-made) EMFs (in contrast to non-polarized) possess a net
electric and magnetic eld at any point in space, apart from radiation/wave intensity, and this is the
key point for their increased biological activity. They can produce interference effects increasing
their intensities at certain locations and induce coherent and parallel forced oscillations/rotations on
charged/polar molecules in living tissues (Panagopoulos et al. 2015a). For this reason, comparing
man-made EMFs with natural EMFs, in terms of their bioactivity, is a awed methodology, result-
ing in misleading conclusions.
1.2.5 POLARIZATION COMBINED WITH VARIABILITY IS THE
TRIGGER FOR BIOLOGICAL/HEALTH EFFECTS
Throughout biological evolution, living organisms have been constantly exposed to the geoelectric
and geomagnetic elds which, as already mentioned, are static and locally polarized with average
intensities ~ 130 V/m and ~ 0.5 G (0.05 mT), respectively. While no adverse health effects are con-
nected to normal exposure to these natural ambient elds, variations in their intensities of the order
of ~ 20% during “magnetic storms” or “geomagnetic pulsations” due to increased solar activity,
with an average periodicity of about 11 years and lasting for a few days or weeks, are connected
with increased rates of animal/human health implications, including nervous and psychic diseases,
hypertensive crises, heart attacks, cerebral accidents, and mortality (Presman 1977; Dubrov 1978;
Panagopoulos 2013; 2019a).
All cells and intra-cellular organelles, such as nuclei, mitochondria, etc., are protected by cell
membranes, and across all cell membranes there is an intense transmembrane static and locally
35 Defining Wireless Communication Electromagnetic Fields
polarized electric eld of the order of ~ 107 V/m (average membrane width is ~ 10 nm and average
transmembrane voltage ~ 100 mV). All physiological cellular functions are initiated and accom-
panied by endogenous electric currents consisting of ion ows through the cytoplasm and the cell
membranes with corresponding changes in the intracellular ionic concentrations. These vital ionic
currents and concentration changes are mediated by ion channel gating (opening and closing) in
the cell membranes. Voltage-gated ion channels (VGICs) in all cell membranes switch between
open and closed state whenever a change exceeding ~ 30% in the transmembrane voltage/eld
takes place. It is known that ~ 30 mV changes in the normal ~ 100 mV transmembrane voltage
are required to change the status of the VGICs in cell membranes (from opened to closed and vice
versa). Obviously no life, as we know it, could exist without proper functioning of ion channels
(Weisenseel 1983; Liman et al. 1991; Nuccitelli 1992; 2003; Alberts et al. 1994; McGaig and Zhao
1997; Panagopoulos and Margaritis 2003; Panagopoulos 2013).
There are important similarities in the above two classes of natural EMFs, the terrestrial (geo-
electric and geomagnetic) and the cell membrane elds: They are both static and almost totally
polarized at any certain location. The terrestrial (geo)electric eld and the cell plasma membrane
electric eld both have a direction vertical to the curved surface and toward its internal (earth, cell).
Under normal/usual conditions, these elds do not induce any biological/health effects in the living
organisms.
During magnetic storms, there are changes in the terrestrial static elds of the order of 20% of
their normal intensities (electric and magnetic), and when the transmembrane electric eld under-
goes changes of the order of 30% of its normal value, the VGICs of the membrane get activated or
deactivated (change their status from closed to opened and vice versa), ion ows are properly con-
trolled, and physiological cellular effects are initiated (Panagopoulos 2013; 2019a).
A conclusion we can draw from these two natural phenomena is that biological and health effects
initiate when polarized elds undergo changes of the order of 20%–30% of their normal intensities.
Thus, these two similar natural phenomena provide an important clue for the bioactivity of EMFs
in general: It is the combination of polarization and variability exceeding a threshold of about
20%–30% in normal average intensity that triggers biological and health effects.
1.3 MODULATION, PULSATION, AND VARIABILITY
ARE INHERENT PARAMETERS OF WC EMFs
1.3.1 INFORMATION-CARRYING WC EMFS. COMBINATION OF FREQUENCY BANDS
WC EMFs are not simply RF/MW EMFs. They do have an RF signal, like in emissions from radars
or MW ovens, but in addition, the RF carrier signal is digitally modulated, pulsed (it is included
within on/off pulses), and highly variable each moment. Even when emissions from radars include
on/off pulsations as well, because their power supply has to be turned on and off for energy-saving
reasons, their emissions like those from MW heating devices, do not carry information, they are
invariable in time and totally repetitive/predictable. In contrast, WC EMFs carry variable informa-
tion (speech, text, music, images, etc.) in the form of ELF/VLF digital modulation (bits). Moreover,
their pulsations are not invariable, as in radars, but are affected by many network/communication
factors making the overall signal unpredictably varying in intensity, frequency, and waveform. All
this creates a random variability of the nal signal each moment that makes WC EMF signals
totally unpredictable in their intensity and other parameters. This whole variability lies in the ELF/
ULF band (0–3000 Hz) and is always present in all WC EMFs.
Indicative RF/MW (radiation intensity) and ELF (E-eld and B-eld) emission measurements
±Standard Deviation (SD), at different distances from Universal Mobile Telecommunication System
(UMTS) and Global System for Mobile Telecommunications (GSM) 900 and 1800 mobile phones
while operating in “talk” mode and under similar conditions and signal reception, are shown in
Table 1.1. We note that, while UMTS (3G/4G) in the MW band is somehow lower than both GSM
36 Biological and Heath Effects of WC EMFs
TABLE 1.1
Intensity Measurements in the MW and ELF Bands above Background Levels of UMTS (3G/4G), and 2G (GSM 900, GSM 1800), According
to Distance from Source (Mobile Phone)
UMTS GSM 900 GSM 1800
Rad. Int. UMTS UMTS Rad. Int. GSM 900 GSM 900 Rad. Int. GSM 1800 GSM 1800
Distance from 1.95 GHz ELF E-Field ELF B-Field 0.9GHz ELF E-Field ELF B-Field 1.8GHz ELF E-Field ELF B-Field
source (cm) (μW/cm2) (V/m) (mG) (μW/cm2) (V/m) (mG) (μW/cm2) (V/m) (mG)
0 232 ± 89 33 ± 8.2 3.8 ± 1.3 378 ± 59 19 ± 2.5 0.9 ± 0.15 252 ± 50 13 ± 2.1 0.6 ± 0.08
1 33 ± 10 22 ± 5.9 3.0 ± 0.7 262 ± 46 12 ± 1.7 0.7 ± 0.13 65 ± 15 6 ± 0.8 0.4± 0.07
10 19 ± 7.1 12 ± 3.1 1.5 ± 0.4 62 ± 20 7 ± 0.8 0.3 ± 0.05 29 ± 5 2.7 ± 0.5 0.2± 0.05
20 9 ± 4.1 5.3 ± 2.0 0.8 ± 0.2 32 ± 8 2.8 ± 0.4 0.2 ± 0.04 11 ± 3 0.6 ± 0.12 0.1± 0.02
30 6 ± 2.3 3.2 ± 1.1 0.4 ± 0.1 10 ± 2 0.7 ± 0.09 0.1 ± 0.02 7 ± 1 0.3 ± 0.06 0.06± 0.01
40 4 ± 1.3 2.4 ± 0.7 0.3 ± 0.1 6 ± 1 0.2 ± 0.03 0.05 ± 0.01 4 ± 0.7 0.1 ± 0.04 –
50 3 ± 1.1 1.6 ± 0.4 0.2 ± 0.05 4 ± 0.6 0.1 ± 0.02 – 2 ± 0.3 – –
60 2.1 ± 0.8 1.0 ± 0.3 0.1 ± 0.03 2 ± 0.3 – – 1.6 ± 0.2 – –
70 1.8 ± 0.6 0.4 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.02 1.7 ± 0.2 – – 1.3 ± 0.2 – –
80 1.3 ± 0.4 0.1 ± 0.04 – 1.2 ± 0.2 – – 1.1 ± 0.2 – –
90 0.8 ± 0.3 – – 1.0 ± 0.1 – – 0.5 ± 0.1 – –
100 0.5 ± 0.2 – – 0.4 ± 0.1 – – 0.2 ± 0.1 – –
37 Defining Wireless Communication Electromagnetic Fields
900 and 1800 (2G), its corresponding emissions in the ELF band are stronger. While ELF emissions
from GSM 900 and 1800 mobile phones fall within the background of the stray 50 Hz elds for
distances longer than 30–50 cm from the source, the corresponding UMTS emissions fall within
the same background for distances longer than 70 cm. As MT base antennas are usually ~ 100 times
stronger than corresponding mobile phones with similar radiation patterns in response to distance,
the EMF levels in Table 1.1 correspond to base antenna emissions at ~ 100 times longer distances. For
example, power density ~ 10 μW/cm2 usually measured at 20–30 cm distances from mobile phones is
usually measured at 20–30 m from corresponding base station antennas. After the installation of the
4G “UMTS Long Term Evolution” (LTE) system, base antennas and devices emit signals not only for
MT but also for the Internet simultaneously, making EMF emission patterns even more complicated
(and adversely bioactive). As noted, the EMF measurements in Table 1.1 are only indicative because
they depend strongly on signal reception/availability, weather conditions, etc. Within metallic cham-
bers (e.g., cars, elevators, etc.), mobile phone emissions can be signicantly stronger.
Next, we shall explain the role of each parameter in the variability of the WC EMF signals.
1.3.2 MODULATION, PULSATION, AND RANDOM VARIABILITY
Modulation
The simplest form of electromagnetic emission that can be manufactured is a single harmonic (sinu-
soidal) electromagnetic wave (described by Eqs. 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6). However, no information, such as
voice, pictures, and other data, can be transmitted by such a signal alone. In order to convey infor-
mation, the single-frequency signal – called a “carrier wave” – must be “modulated” by another
signal which contains the information to be sent. Modulation of the RF signal by a signal containing
the information (voice, message, pictures, video, data, etc.) is apparently the case in all WC EMF
emissions. We may say that modulation is the information signal “loaded” on the RF carrier. The
modulation signal is, in most cases, an ELF/VLF signal. There are three basic types of modulation,
according to the physical parameters which characterize the carrier signal: Amplitude, frequency,
and phase (Alexopoulos 1973; Lioliousis 1979; Schwartz 1990).
Amplitude modulation (AM) means that the amplitude (max intensity) of the carrier varies
according to the modulating signal. The curve of the amplitude variations depicts the modulating
signal. When the modulating signal can take any value in a given range, the AM is called analog.
The AM radio broadcasting or the rst-generation (1G) mobile phones are analog AM applica-
tions. When the modulating signal can only take discrete values, the modulation is called “digital”.
Usually, the modulating signal has a rectangular shape which takes the values “1” or “0” (binary
system). With value “1”, the carrier is emitted, while with value “0”, it is not. This is the simplest
case of digital amplitude modulation, called “OOK” (on-off keying). Another type of digital ampli-
tude modulation is the Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) applied in 2G (GSM) MT and in
cordless domestic phones, referred to as Digitally Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications (DECT)
phones (Schwartz 1990; Pedersen 1997; Tisal 1998; Pirard and Vatovez).
Frequency modulation (FM) means that the frequency of the carrier varies within a given range
according to the modulating signal. Respectively, FM can be analog when the carrier frequency can
take any value of the given range (such as in the older FM broadcasting) or digital when the carrier
frequency can take only discrete values. FSK (frequency-shift keying) is a simple case of digital
frequency modulation in which the carrier frequency can take only two values: One corresponding
to 0, and the other to 1 of the modulating signal (Schwartz 1990; Pirard and Vatovez).
Phase modulation (PM) accordingly means that the phase of the carrier signal varies according
to the modulating signal. As with AM and FM, it is analog when the carrier phase takes any value
within a given range or digital when it takes only discrete values. A simple type of digital phase
modulation is the binary phase-shift keying (BPSK) modulation for which the phase becomes 0°
or 180° corresponding to 0 or 1 values of the modulating signal. Another type is the Gaussian
38 Biological and Heath Effects of WC EMFs
217 Hz pulses
FIGURE 1.2 217 Hz pulses from a GSM mobile phone (adapted from Andersen and Pedersen 1997).
Minimum Shift Keying (GMSK) modulation applied in 2G MT and in DECT phones. GSM and
DECT phones/antennas combine GMSK phase modulation with TDMA amplitude modulation
(Schwartz 1990; Pedersen 1997; Tisal 1998).
In all three types of modulation, the envelope of the radiated (nal) signal (amplitude, shape, and
content) is modied according to the modulating signal.
Pulsation
Apart from modulation, all modern digital WC EMFs are pulsed in order to increase the density of
information conveyed by the WC signal and the number of subscribers communicating simultane-
ously via the same antenna and occupying the same frequency band. This is called multiplexing in
WC terminology. The pulses are usually (but not necessarily) rectangular with a pulse repetition
rate in the ELF band, always variable in intensity and frequency, and their number increases with
increasing amount of transmitted information and number of subscribers simultaneously using the
same base antenna. Because the information is variable each moment (speech, text, music, images,
video, Internet, etc.), and the number of users is also variable, the nal signal is variable as well. For
these reasons, WC EMFs are not like other RF emissions which do not carry variable information,
such as pure RF signals from signal generators, or radar signals with invariable pulsations (Puranen
and Jokela 1996; Pedersen 1997; Tisal 1998; Hyland 2000; 2008; Zwamborn et al. 2003; Holma and
Toskala 2004; Tuor et al. 2005; Curwen and Whalley 2008; Zhou et al. 2010; Sauter 2011; Shim et
al. 2013; Pirard and Vatovez; Panagopoulos 2019a).
Thus, all types of modern WC EMFs, such as from MT, DECT phones, Wi-Fi, wireless commu-
nication among electronic devices (Bluetooth), combine MW elds (with frequency usually around
~ 1–3 GHz and increasing with newer systems) as the carrier signals, with variable ELF (in most
cases) elds to modulate the carrier and to increase the number of users, and the amount of transmit-
ted information by pulsing the signals.
More specically, 2G GSM MT EMFs, emitted by mobile phones and base antennas, except for
their MW carrier signal, (900, 1800, or 1900 MHz) include a pulse repetition frequency ~ 217 Hz
(Fig ure 1.2) plus other ELF pulsations, such as the multi-frame repetition frequency of ~ 8.34 Hz,
and the Discontinuous Transmission Mode (DTX) frequency ~ 2 Hz (only in mobile phones) when
the user does not speak (“listening mode”). See recorded pulsations from GSM mobile phones in
Figure 1.2 and in Pedersen (1997). GSM uses the TDMA AM for the pulse amplitude, and the
39 Defining Wireless Communication Electromagnetic Fields
radiation is emitted in frames of 4.615 ms duration at a repetition rate of ~ 217 Hz. Each frame
consists of eight “time slots”, and each user occupies one of them. Within each time slot, the RF
carrier is phase modulated by GMSK modulation (Pedersen 1997; Tisal 1998; Hyland 2000; 2008;
Zwamborn et al. 2003; Tuor et al. 2005; Curwen and Whalley 2008).
3G (UMTS) MT EMFs from mobile phones and base station antennas emit a MW carrier signal
at 1950–2150 MHz with basic ELF pulsations at ~ 100 Hz (frame repetition called “Time Division
Duplex”), and ~ 1500 Hz (called “Adaptive Power Control”). See recorded UMTS pulsations in
Figure 1.3 and in Zwamborn et al. (2003). UMTS uses the Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA)
technology for multiplexing, which assigns a special code to each user (Zwamborn et al. 2003;
Holma and Toskala 2004; Hyland 2008; Curwen and Whalley 2008).
The GSM (2G) and UMTS (3G) technologies are retained also in the 4G (LTE) MT system which
still uses UMTS or GSM for telephony (voice) and LTE for internet connection and other applications.
A newer version of 4G called VοLTE (Voice over LTE) uses the LTE system for telephony as well,
being able to handle data services and voice calls concurrently. The LTE carrier frequencies (mostly
1800–2600 MHz) differ in different countries. The 100 Hz on/off (frame) pulsations of UMTS are
also used in the pure LTE (4G), and there are additional 1000 Hz (subframe), 200 Hz (synchroniza-
tion signals), plus other ELF synchronization and reference pulsations (Sesia et al. 2011; Sauter 2011;
Shim et al. 2013). Various LTE pulsations and random signal variability are shown in Figures 1.4–1.6.
In the 5G or New Radio (NR) system which is being deployed, the carrier frequencies are extend-
ing up to 80–100 GHz with two basic frequency ranges: 1) existing MT bands ≤6 GHz, and 2)
24.25–52.6 GHz with a tendency to increase. Moreover, 5G uses new technologies such as Multiple-
Input Multiple-Output (MIMO) for multi-stream transmission and high data rates, and adaptive
beam-forming by use of antenna arrays (which can be used to amplify beam intensity – see Section
1.2.4 equations 1.23, 1.24). The 100 Hz and 1000 Hz pulsations (frame, subframe) are retained, and
there are synchronization and reference pulsations at ~ 6–200 Hz called Synchronization Signal
Blocks (SSB) (Rappaport et al. 2013; Dahlman et al. 2018).
WLAN (Wi-Fi) and Bluetooth signals used for connection to the internet and communication
among devices (portable computers/laptops, “smart” phones, printers, etc.), respectively, have main
carrier frequencies around 2.45 GHz (with a tendency to increase in newer devices) and pulsa-
tions at ~ 10 Hz called beacons which are synchronization signals (Figure 1.7). DECT phones and
their corresponding domestic bases emit a carrier signal of around 1880 MHz with two basic ELF
100 Hz pulses
FIGURE 1.3 100 Hz “frame” pulses of a UMTS (3G/4G) mobile phone signal. Each vertical line is a pulse
containing the carrier signal (adapted from Holma and Toskala 2004).
40 Biological and Heath Effects of WC EMFs
200 Hz pulses
FIGURE 1.4 200 Hz pulses plus random variability in LTE (4G) signal. The variability exists also within the
pulses. It seems that the synchronization signals (200 Hz) have boosted the whole corresponding subframes
(subframe duration in the gure is the time among successive vertical lines) (adapted from High Performance
Solutions).
3-5 kHz pulses
FIGURE 1.5 3–5 kHz pulses plus random pulsations from an LTE (4G) base station antenna with no trafc
(adapted from Pirard and Vatovez).
FIGURE 1.6 Random variability/pulsations of LTE (4G) base station antenna emission while communicat-
ing (downloading) (adapted from Pirard and Vatovez).
41 Defining Wireless Communication Electromagnetic Fields
pulsations (frame repetition at ~ 100 and an additional on/off pulsation at ~ 200 Hz) (Figure 1.8).
Terrestrial Trunked Radio (TETRA) antennas/devices used by emergency services emit a carrier
signal of around 400 MHz with ELF/ULF pulsations at ~ 0.98, ~ 17.64, and ~ 70.4 Hz (Pedersen
1997; Hyland 2008; Curwen and Whalley 2008; Zhou et al. 2010).
The carrier (RF) and pulsing (ELF/ULF) frequencies of GSM, UMTS, LTE, DECT, Wi-Fi/
Bluetooth, and TETRA are shown in Table 1.2. Both carrier and pulsing frequencies are variable
in all systems. Figures 1.2–1.8 show ELF pulsations and random variability of GSM, UMTS, LTE,
Wi-Fi, and DECT signals.
Random Variability
In addition to modulation and pulsing, in all modern digital WC EMFs, the envelope (nal signal)
is further modied (in amplitude/intensity, pulse repetition frequency, shape, etc.) due to various
10 Hz pulses
FIGURE 1.7 10 Hz pulses of WLAN (Wi-Fi) (adapted from Zhou et al. 2010).
100 Hz pulses
200 Hz pulses
FIGURE 1.8 100 Hz and 200 Hz pulsations from a DECT phone (adapted from Andersen and Pedersen 1997).
42 Biological and Heath Effects of WC EMFs
TABLE 1.2
Basic Carrier Frequencies and ELF Pulsations of Most Common WC EMFs
WC EMF Type Carrier Frequencies (RF) Pulsing Frequencies (ELF/ULF)
GSM (2G MT) 900 MHz, 1800 MHz, 1900 MHz 217 Hz (frame repetition), 8.34 Hz (multi-frame
repetition), 2 Hz (DTX mode)
UMTS (3G, 4G MT) 1950 MHz, 2150 MHz 100 Hz (Time Division Duplex), 1500 Hz (Adaptive
Power Control)
LTE (4G MT/WC) 1.8 - 2.6 GHz (in most cases) 100 Hz (frame repetition), 1000 Hz (subframe
repetition), 200 Hz (synchronization pulses)
NR (5G MT/WC) Frequency range 1: ~0.7–6 GHz 100 Hz (frame repetition), 1000 Hz (subframe),
Frequency range 2: 24.25–52.6 GHz 6–200Hz (synchronization pulses)
DECT 1880 MHz 100 Hz (frame repetition), 200 Hz (energy saving on/off)
WLAN (Wi-Fi), 2450 MHz 10 Hz (beacons)
Bluetooth
TETRA 400 MHz 17.64 Hz (frame repetition), 0.98 Hz (multi-frame
repetition), 70.4 Hz (burst repetition)
physical imperfections in the electronic circuits and other parameters such as heat, noise, interfer-
ence with various other electromagnetic sources, etc., plus multiple other variable physical parame-
ters during transmission. Each moment when the number of users performing different tasks (voice,
data, etc.) increases, more pulses are emitted, each one accommodating a different user or task.
The nal signal from both base antennas and devices depends also on additional uncontrollable
parameters, such as the position of each user with respect to the base antenna, air conductivity,
signal availability/reception at the specic place and time, etc. All these functions and uncontrol-
lable parameters result in intense unpredictable variability of the nal signal with variable fre-
quency, mainly in the ELF/ULF band (see Figures 1.2–1.7). This random ELF/ULF variability is
perhaps the most intense and bioactive parameter of the WC EMF emissions (in combination with
the fact that the signals are totally polarized) (Holma and Toskala 2004; Panagopoulos et al. 2015b;
Panagopoulos 2019a; Pirard and Vatovez).
Thus, apart from the ELF/VLF pulsing and modulation frequencies always included in the WC
EMFs, during any signal transmission, there are additional continuous unpredictable changes due
to the varying physical parameters, the varying information transmitted each moment, the varying
number of users at various locations, environmental factors, etc. Especially with mobile phones/
antennas, there are continuous sudden unexpected changes in intensity due to changes in location,
number of subscribers using the network each moment, air conductivity changes, etc. These sudden
unexpected changes in the nal signal may exceed by 100% and even more the average intensity.
Finally, for energy-saving reasons, when GSM handsets operate in DTX (“listening”) mode, the
average emitted power is much less (about one tenth) than when the user speaks (“speaking mode”)
(Pedersen 1997; Panagopoulos et al. 2004; Hyland 2008). The described nal random variability
of WC signals can be easily recorded by any RF eld meter measuring power density in any urban
environment or close to any WC device. The reading of the instrument shows continuous unex-
pected changes in the measured power density, usually ranging in urban environments between
0.01 and 1 μW/cm2 and reaching ~ 10 μW/cm2 in closer proximity to antennas. This variability lies
mainly in the ULF band (0–3 Hz). The random variability of the nal signal can be seen in Figures
1.3 and 1.6 for UMTS (3G/4G) mobile phones and LTE (4G) base antennas, respectively.
Due to the above inherent variability of all WC EMFs, any EMF/EMR measurements can only
be representative for average or peak values. The variability becomes more intense in the near
eld of the emitting devices/antennas (Panagopoulos et al. 2016; Panagopoulos and Karabarbounis
2020). For this reason, health organizations such as the IARC (2013) have recommended that exper-
imental studies on the effects of WC EMFs should be performed with invariable simulated signals
43 Defining Wireless Communication Electromagnetic Fields
emitted by generators or test phones. But exactly because of this inherent variability, it is impos-
sible to simulate the real emissions by use of invariable emissions of xed parameters (such as
xed intensity, frequency, and pulsation), and when such simulated EMFs are used in experiments,
they are signicantly less bioactive than real-life WC EMFs. Thus, the simulated signals are very
different and much less effective in inducing adverse biological/health effects (Panagopoulos et al.
2015b; Panagopoulos 2017; 2019a; Pall 2018; Leach et al. 2018; Kostoff et al. 2020). Even though the
measurements of real WC signals can only be representative, there is actually no need for “exact”
measurements. Average and peak measurements are enough to predict bioactivity (Panagopoulos et
al. 2016; Panagopoulos and Karabarbounis 2020).
In fact, health agencies’, including the IARC, acceptance of simulated exposures with xed parame-
ters for studying the effects of WC EMFs and the exclusion of the studies having used real-life exposures
is one of the most serious aws in the evaluation of WC EMF bioactivity by these agencies, resulting
in the underestimation of the adverse effects (Panagopoulos et al. 2015b). As a result, about 50% of the
experimental studies having employed simulated WC signals (in line with IARC’s recommendation) do
not nd any effects, while more than 95% of the studies employing real-life WC exposures from com-
mercially available devices or antennas nd effects (Panagopoulos et al. 2015b; Panagopoulos 2017;
2019a; Gulati et al. 2016; Zothansiama et al. 2017; Leach et al. 2018; Kostoff et al. 2020).
1.4 MOST MAN-MADE EMF EXPOSURES ARE NON-THERMAL
1.4.1 ENERGY OF EMF-INDUCED MOLECULAR OSCILLATIONS
In living tissue, most (bio)molecules are polar, (meaning they have a positive side and a negative
side separated by some distance of atomic/molecular dimensions, as e.g., water molecules) or carry
a net electric charge. Thus, any man-made (polarized) oscillating EMF (and corresponding EMR)
induces a forced oscillation on each of these charged/polar molecules and transfers to each of them a
tiny part of its energy. This forced oscillation is linear in the case of molecules bearing a net electric
charge or rotational in the case of polar molecules.
It seems that a main mechanism of action for both ELF and purely RF man-made (polarized)
EMFs is this forced oscillation/rotation of charged/polar particles (Metaxas 1991; Panagopoulos et
al. 2000; 2002; 2015a; 2020; 2021).
This induced oscillation will be of greatest amplitude on the smallest (and lightest) mobile par-
ticles which carry a net electric charge, i.e., the mobile (“free”) ions that exist in large concentra-
tions in all types of cells and extracellular aqueous solutions determining practically all cellular/
biological functions (Alberts et al. 1994; Panagopoulos and Margaritis 2003). The induced oscil-
lation will be much smaller on the polar water molecules and even of negligible amplitude on the
much larger polar biological macromolecules such as proteins, lipids, nucleic acids, etc., which are,
in most cases, bound with other molecules.
The amount of energy absorbed by a single mobile ion in biological tissue will manifest itself as
kinetic energy of the forced oscillation induced on that particle. The maximum kinetic energy of
such an oscillation is:
12
˜
(max)
°
mu
io
[1.26]
2
where, mi is the ion mass (e.g., for Na+ ions mi ≅ 3.8 × 10−26 kg), and uo is the particle’s maximum
velocity acquired by the forced oscillation.
1.4.2 NON-THERMAL EXPOSURES. A NEW BIOPHYSICAL CONSTANT
Signicant experiments in the mid-1970s with, what was at the time, a novel technique called “patch-
clamp” allowed the measurement of ion currents through open ion channels in cell membranes
44 Biological and Heath Effects of WC EMFs
(Neher and Sakmann 1992; Stryer 1996). This technique is widely used today in the study of ion
channels (Cecchetto et al. 2020; Zheng et al. 2021). It was found that the electric current through an
open sodium channel is of the order of 4 × 10−12 A when the transmembrane voltage is around 100
mV. That means 2.5 × 107 Νa+ ions per s ow through an open channel. Taking the channel’s length
equal to the membrane’s width ≅ 10 nm = 10−8 m and accepting that the ions pass through the chan-
nel in single le (Palmer 1986; Panagopoulos et al. 2000), we nd that the transit time of every Νa+
ion through the Νa+ channel is ~ 0.4 × 10−7 s, and thus, the ion velocity through the channel is: u =
2.5 × 107 × 10−8 m/s ⇒ u = 0.25 m/s (see also Chapter 11).
Considering that this velocity is acquired under the force of the transmembrane electric eld,
which is a huge eld (~ 107 V/m), any other velocity acquired by any charged particle/molecule
within biological tissue due to any externally applied EMF will normally be several orders of mag-
nitude smaller than that. Thus, we can reasonably accept that this ion drift velocity through an open
ion channel represents an upper limit for the maximum velocity an ion can acquire within living
tissue. Indeed, the velocity of an oscillating ion, according to the ion forced oscillation mechanism,
is found for all frequencies and for all possible eld intensities of environmentally existing polar-
ized EMFs to be much smaller than 0.25 m/s (see Chapter 11 and Panagopoulos et al. 2021). Thus,
the max ion velocity in biological tissue is:
uo
=
025
ms
[1.27] .
This maximum velocity (and corresponding kinetic energy) of the mobile ion was calculated inde-
pendently of any externally applied EMF, and it is similar for any living system because cells in
most organisms (e.g. in all animals) have identical cell membranes and ion channels. It, thus, rep-
resents a biophysical constant which is important for electromagnetic interactions in living tissues.
From Eq. 1.26, we get that the maximum kinetic energy corresponding to uo, is: ∈(max) ≈ 1.2 ×
10−27 J. This is respectively an upper limit for the energy that may be absorbed by a single sodium ion
due to the interaction with an applied EMF (which is usually several orders of magnitude smaller).
The Thermal Energy
The average kinetic energy of a mobile ion (and of any free molecule) of mass, mi, and velocity ukT
due to thermal motion for tissue temperature T is (Alexopoulos 1962; Mandl 1988; Panagopoulos
et al. 2013b):
1 2 3
˜°
mu ° kT [1.28]
kT ikT
2 2
which gives:
3kT
u
kT = [1.29]
mi
(T the tissue absolute temperature in K, and k = 1.381 × 10−23 J·K−1 the Boltzmann’s constant). For
Na+ ions (mi ≅ 3.8 × 10−26 kg) and T = 310 K (human body temperature 37°C) we get: ∈kT ≅ 6.4 ×
10−21 J, and ukT ≅ 0.58 × 103 m/s.
It follows that the thermal velocity and energy of a sodium ion in living tissue at human body tem-
perature are ~ 2.3 × 103 times and ~ 5.3 × 106 times greater, respectively, than the maximum veloc-
ity and kinetic energy that could ever be acquired by this ion due to any expected applied EMF. In
fact, as explained, the differences are several orders of magnitude greater in the case of environmental
EMF exposures. This result is in agreement with experimental studies showing that the vast majority
of recorded EMF bioeffects are non-thermal (Carpenter and Livstone 1968; Adey 1981; 1993; Gründler
1992; Kwee and Raskmark 1998; Velizarov et al. 1999; Panagopoulos et al. 2007a; 2007b; 2010; and
reviews Walleczek 1992; Goodman et al. 1995; Creasey and Goldberg 2001; Belyaev 2005; Panagopoulos
and Margaritis 2009; Phillips et al. 2009; Behari 2010; Panagopoulos 2011; 2017; 2019a; 2019b; 2020;
45 Defining Wireless Communication Electromagnetic Fields
Wust et al. 2021). Moreover, the above result is in agreement with the suggested mechanism of action of
EMFs on cells (Panagopoulos et al. 2000; 2002; 2015; 2020; 2021). Thus, environmental EMF exposures
(even in today’s EMF-polluted environment) do not normally result in increasing tissue temperature.
1.4.3 THERMAL EXPOSURES
Naturally, heating of any material occurs when the absorbed radiation has a frequency close to the
infrared band (~ 3 × 1011 – 3 × 1014 Hz). This comes from the fact that the emission and absorption
spectrum of a “black body” has a peak mainly in the infrared and, secondarily, in the visible band of
the electromagnetic spectrum. According to Kirchhoff’s theorem, any material body of temperature
T absorbs and emits radiation at the same frequencies/wavelengths as a “black body” at the same
temperature (Alexopoulos 1962; Alonso and Finn 1967; Panagopoulos and Margaritis 2003).
Heating of materials occurs also by articial exposures to MWs of high intensity/power (≥0.1
mW/cm2) and frequency (≥1 GHz), such as in MW ovens, which emit MW EMR at 2.45 GHz with
a power of ~ 1000 W focused within the metal cavity of the oven. This is a well-established phe-
nomenon in physics called “microwave heating” (Metaxas 1991; Clark et al. 2000; Olaniyi 2017).
Man-made MW radiations used in WC and other applications with frequencies 1–10 GHz may start
inducing slight temperature increases in living tissue when their power density increases more than
~ 0.1 mW/cm2 (Panagopoulos and Margaritis 2003; Panagopoulos et al. 2013b). Environmentally
existing MW exposures mainly due to mobile/cordless phones and corresponding antennas, Wi-Fi,
wireless connections (Bluetooth), etc., range between 0.001 μW/cm2 and ~200 μW/cm2 (very close to
mobile phones) (Panagopoulos et al. 2010; Panagopoulos 2017; 2019b; Wongkasem 2021).
The induction of small temperature increases of the order of 0.15–0.3°C has been reported after
exposure of biological samples (Caenorhabditis elegans) to continuous-wave 1 W, 1 GHz emitted
by a generator within an exposure chamber (Dawe et al. 2006). In real exposure conditions, a GSM
mobile phone in “talk” mode at 0–1 cm distance (0.2–0.3 mW/cm2, 0.9, or 1.8 GHz) was not found
to induce heating at a 0.05°C level within the mass of food for fruit ies in exposed glass vials
(Panagopoulos et al. 2004; 2007a; 2007b; 2010). Similar non-thermal ndings are also presented by
many studies referenced above (Carpenter and Livstone 1968; Kwee and Raskmark 1998; Velizarov
et al. 1999; Belyaev 2005; Wust et al. 2021). A UMTS mobile phone at 1–2 cm distance in “talk”
mode (~ 0.1 mW/cm2, ~1.95 GHz) was found to increase the temperature in 5.6 ml blood cultures
after 25 min exposure by 0.1–0.2 °C (Panagopoulos 2019b; 2020). Human exposures from base sta-
tion antennas at distances ≥10 m are normally of signicantly lower power densities than a mobile
phone at 0–1 cm proximity. Thus, in most cases, man-made EMFs at environmentally existing lev-
els are unlikely to induce signicant temperature increases in biological tissue, not even at the level
of 0.1–0.3°C; however, newer WC technologies and especially 5G with higher MW frequencies and
intensities may do (Neufeld and Kuster 2018; Thielens et al. 2018; 2020).
In order for the EMF exposures to cause heating, they should be millions of times more powerful than
most environmental ELF EMFs and signicantly more intense than environmentally existing RF EMFs,
such as, for example, the ELF elds in close proximity to high-voltage/power transformers or power lines
or the RF elds within a MW oven focusing all of its radiating power within its cavity. GSM (2G), UMTS
(3G/4G), or LTE (4G) mobile phones (with average radiating power ~ 0.1–1 W) at a few cm distance or
more, or even a corresponding base station antenna (~ 10–100 W) distributing their power in all direc-
tions within wide angles, would not cause any heating apart from 0–0.3°C when used in contact or very
close proximity during “talk” mode (or video calling) and after several min of exposure.
The mechanism of heating biological tissues is as follows: Due to friction during the induced
forced oscillation of the charged/polar molecules (and especially mobile ions), a part of the particle’s
kinetic energy is converted to heat. The damping coefcient of electrolytes increases (conductivity
decreases) with higher (MW) frequencies (Chandra and Bagchi 2000). This results in increased
friction of the oscillating molecules and slight tissue heating which may become signicant for
increasing frequency and power. While with 2G, 3G, 4G mobile phones (
ν
~ 1–2 GHz), the heating
46 Biological and Heath Effects of WC EMFs
effect, even with the device in close proximity to the body, ranges from 0°C to 0.2°C; newer WC
radiation types, with increasing frequencies and especially 5G combining signicantly higher fre-
quencies (up to 80–100 GHz) and denser radiation beams of anticipated greater intensity, may pro-
duce signicant thermal effects in addition to the already existing non-thermal induced by the
ELF pulsation, modulation, and variability (Neufeld and Kuster 2018; Thielens et al. 2018; 2020;
Panagopoulos 2020; Wongkasem 2021). Thus, RF/MW EMF exposures with frequencies approach-
ing infrared and with high enough power density (≥0.1 mW/cm2) may cause tissue heating.
The absorbed power per unit volume can be written according to tissue specic conductivity (σ)
and electric eld intensity (E) as, (see Section 1.5, Eq. 1.34):
dP 2
˜
°
E [1.30]
dV
As the specic conductivity of tissue depends on the frequency
ν
of the eld, the absorbed power
P by living tissue will also depend on frequency. In MW heating, the absorbed power by a mate-
rial (e.g., living tissue) per unit volume dP/dV increases with increasing wave/eld frequency
ν
, the
dielectric loss factor ε΄ of the material, and the electric eld within the material E according to the
equation (Metaxas 1991; Clark et al. 2000; Olaniyi 2017):
dP ˜2
˛˝˝
v
o °
E2
[1.31]
dV
Thus, the MW heating effect increases as the EMF frequency (
ν
) increases approaching the low
limit of infrared, and as the EMF power density (depending on E2 according to Eq. 1.8) increases,
resulting in measurable heating. Apart from the forced oscillation of charged/polar molecules, the
MW heating effect seems to be related with some kind of not yet fully explored resonant absorption
mechanism when the MW EMF frequency approaches the low limit of infrared (and accordingly
the wavelength reduces to a few mm – “mm-waves”). The more the EMF frequency approaches
infrared and the EMF power density increases, the more signicant becomes the effect, resulting in
measurable heating. This is probably related to the natural phenomenon expressed by Kirchhoff’s
law that any material body absorbs EMR at the same wavelengths/frequencies at which this body
emits electromagnetic radiation. These wavelengths/frequencies for all bodies are mainly in the
infrared and, secondarily, in the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum, as described above
(Alexopoulos 1962; Panagopoulos and Margaritis 2003).
5G MT employs higher MW carrier frequencies (called mm-waves) in order to accomplish higher
quality of simulations (data transfer). But with higher frequencies, the heating of exposed living tissues
increases (Eq. 1.31), while penetration through different materials (e.g., air, buildings, etc.) decreases
(Eq. 1.2). In order to overcome the low penetration, the number of antennas must be signicantly
increased, and the intensity of the emissions as well. Under such conditions, thermal effects in exposed
humans cannot be excluded in addition to the already existing non-thermal effects. Studies have theo-
retically predicted the induction of signicant thermal effects (Neufeld and Kuster 2018; Thielens et
al. 2018; 2020). These facts further justify the concerns expressed by the scientic community against
the installation of 5G (Hardell and Nyberg 2020; Kostoff et al. 2020; Panagopoulos 2020).
1.5 MEASURING INCIDENT EMFs IS MORE RELEVANT THAN SAR
1.5.1 ANALYSIS OF THE SAR
SAR (in W/kg) is dened as the incremental power dP absorbed by an incremental mass of tissue
dm contained in a volume element dV of a given density ρ = dm/dV (in kg/m3) (NCRP 1986):
dP
SA
R = [1.32]
dm
47 Defining Wireless Communication Electromagnetic Fields
Eq. 1.32 can be expressed according to tissue conductivity, density, and internal electric eld, or
according to tissue specic heat and temperature increase.
SAR According to Tissue Conductivity
By use of the Ohm’s law:
j ˜
°
E
[1.33]
where j is the electric current density (in A/m2) within the tissue due to the internal electric eld
E, and σ is the tissue specic conductivity (in S/m) and assuming certain quantities to be constant
within the tissue, Eq. 1.32, after operations, becomes:
˛
° E2
SA
R ˜ [1.34]
˝
which is equivalent to Eq. 1.30.
Eq. 1.34 is frequently reported in papers for dening and estimating SAR, but its derivation is
never described or considered. Actually, Eq. 1.34 cannot be derived unless certain physical quanti-
ties are assumed to be constant. This, of course, is a simplication that minimizes its validity. To
address these issues, we must see how this formula is derived.
Derivation of Eq. 1.34
Neglecting thermal losses, the absorbed electric power dP can be expressed as the power of an
electric current i (generated within the tissue by the applied EMF) owing vertically across an area
S, dP = dΨ ·i, where dΨ is an incremental voltage induced by the EMF exposure. Then, Eq. 1.32
d˛°°i
S
d˛°°
j
S
˜
becomes: SARd
˛ °
idm, which can be written as:
SA
R ˜ , or SAR ˜ , where
dm °S
dm
j= i/S is the current density across the area S. Since dΨ = E dr, where E is the generated electric eld
within the tissue and dr is a displacement of electric charge as part of the current i, we get:
Edrj
°
S
°°
SA
R ˜ . Considering that dr·S is the volume dV dened by the area S and the charge
dm
displacement dr containing tissue mass dm, and
dm
dV is the tissue density ρ, assuming it is con-
˜ jE
°
stant within the volume dV, the previous relation becomes SAR
˛
, and replacing j with σ Ε
˛
°
due to Ohm’s law (Eq. 1.33), we reach the desired formula (Eq. 1.34): SAR ˜
It is obvious that in the above operations, the quantities i, j, S, E, ρ, and σ were assumed
to be constant within the incremental volume dV, and, moreover, it is obvious that Eq. 1.34
refers to this volume only. In any other volume outside dV, SAR has a different value and
must be calculated separately. By applying Eq. 1.34 to the whole volume of an animal, organ
(e.g., eye), a group of organs (e.g., head), or even a single cell, it is assumed that j, E, ρ, and σ
are constant within those volumes. This, of course, is an oversimplication, as every organ or
group of organs consists of many different tissues, and all the above quantities vary signi-
cantly between different tissues and even within a single type of tissue and within a single cell
(Panagopoulos et al. 2013b).
In particular, specic conductivity varies signicantly among different tissues. For example, at a
frequency of 1 GHz, specic conductivity in different tissues of the human body varies from about
0.04 S/m (bone marrow) to about 2.45 S/m (cerebrospinal uid). Even within a single cell, specic
conductivity can have huge variations from 10−7 S/m in the cell membrane to 0.5–1 S/m in the cyto-
plasm (Foster and Schwan 1989; Fear and Stuchly 1998).
E
˝
2 .
48 Biological and Heath Effects of WC EMFs
In addition, the available data on tissue conductivity are collected from measurements on dead
animals (Schwan 1957; 1963; Gabriel et al. 1996a; 1996b). The variations become signicantly
greater in live animals. Conductivity values in the ELF band of up to ~ 300% higher than those
previously reported by Schwan (1957; 1963) were measured in porcine organs of just sacriced ani-
mals. The differences from the previously known corresponding conductivity values were attributed
to the fact that the organs were still alive and lled with blood during the measurements in contrast
to the previous studies which were performed on dead organs. It was found that within an hour
from animal sacrice, the conductivities of different organs/tissues decreased by up to 50% of their
original values in the alive animal (Spottorno et al. 2008; 2012), which is absolutely reasonable.
These ndings raise serious questions about the validity of tissue conductivity data measured before
and their dependence on frequency. Moreover, the conductivity of the various organs – especially
of the brain – in all animals changes with age. The conductivity of a young child’s brain is almost
double the conductivity of an adult’s brain, resulting in almost double radiation absorption and SAR
(Peyman et al. 2001; Christ et al. 2010).
Finally, human tissue density varies from about 900 kg/m3 (fat) to about 1200 kg/m3 (tumor)
between different soft tissue types and reaches a value of about 1800 kg/m3 for bones (Gabriel etal.
1996 b).
Thereby, Eq. 1.34 provides a poor expression/denition of SAR because of the large variations
of the related quantities, and any estimating method for SAR based on Eq. 1.34 includes very large
uncertainty. Eq. 1.34 actually applies only within incremental volumes dV signicantly smaller than
single cells. Applying Eq. 1.34 on whole organs (e.g., heart, spleen, eye, etc.), groups of organs (e.g.,
head), or on whole animals by using average conductivity, density, and internal eld values can be
very misleading, as it grossly underestimates the local microscopic variations of these parameters
which determine the potential biological effects.
SAR According to Tissue Specific Heat
For a homogeneous medium (thus, neglecting density and tissue-type variations) with specic heat
ch, [in J/(kg·K)] (thus, neglecting also any variations in specic heat) and by use of a form of the
calorimetry law,
dQ dT
˜
mch
°
[1.35]
dt dt
Eq. 1.32 becomes:
dT
SA
Rc [1.36] ˜°
h
dt
where dQ/dt is the radiation power transformed into an amount of heat dQ within the tissue mass m,
producing a temperature increase dT during an incremental time interval dt.
For a measurable temperature increase δT during a measurable time interval δt, Eq. 1.36 would
be written as:
˛
T
SA
Rc
h [1.37] ˜°
˛
t
Since variations in specic heat within living tissue are much smaller than corresponding variations
in conductivity (Gabriel et al. 1996a; 1996b; Haemmerich et al. 2005), resulting in much more uni-
form temperature than electric eld distribution, Eq. 1.37 provides a better way for SAR estimation
and, therefore, denition (Panagopoulos et al. 2013b).
In addition, while differences in internal electric eld intensity are retained during the whole
exposure period as they depend on tissue permittivity, which has large variations even within a
49 Defining Wireless Communication Electromagnetic Fields
single cell, differences in temperature between different parts of a tissue or organ disappear a short
time after the beginning of a constant exposure, and temperature gets evenly distributed within
a whole organ or even body. Moreover, while tissue conductivity and permittivity/internal elec-
tric eld are reported to change signicantly with different frequencies of the applied EMF/EMR
(Gabriel et al. 1996a; 1996b), specic heat is independent from the applied eld and depends only
on tissue properties. In case of exposure to WC EMFs, which include several different frequencies
(carrier, pulsing, modulation), conductivity and internal eld intensity become even more variable,
and their accurate estimation even more complicated, while specic heat is constant.
Even if we consider a single frequency and additionally neglect internal eld intensity and density
differences, spatial conductivity variations alone result in considerably greater variability of SAR
when calculated by Eq. 1.34 than by Eq. 1.37. For example, most organs/parts of the human/animal
body contain both muscle and fat tissues. While at 1 GHz muscle specic conductivity (~ 1.006
S/m) is about 1,760% higher than fat specic conductivity (~ 0.054 S/m), muscle specic heat (~ 3.5
kJ/kg·K) is only 56% higher than fat specic heat (~ 2.3 kJ/kg·K). This would result to a ~ 1,700%
larger variability in the SAR of this specic organ or part of the animal body when estimated by
Eq. 1.34 than when estimated by Eq. 1.37. At lower frequencies, conductivity variations increase
considerably, resulting in an even larger variability in the SAR calculation, while specic heat
has the same value. For example, at 10 MHz, the above difference in SAR variability (~ 1,700%)
between Eq. 1.34 and Eq. 1.37 becomes ~ 2,125% (or 21.25 times greater according to Eq. 1.34 than
according to Eq. 1.37) (Leonard et al. 1984; IEEE 2002). If we add variations in internal electric
eld intensity and tissue density we may have hundreds of times greater variability in SAR values
according to Eq. 1.34 than according to Eq. 1.37. Thus, while variation in SAR calculation accord-
ing to Eq. 1.37 is restricted to measurement errors and the assumption that ch has the same value
throughout the tissue, which somehow can be tolerated, corresponding variation in SAR according
to Eq. 1.34 includes similar errors plus tenths or even hundreds of times greater variability. This
shows that the only way to reliably estimate SAR is by macroscopically measuring the temperature
increases – if any – within biological tissue according to Eq. 1.37 (Panagopoulos et al. 2013b).
In fact, Eqs. 1.36 and 1.37 are also inaccurate, as it is assumed that all power absorbed by the
exposed biological tissue is converted into heat, which, of course, is not true either. In the non-
thermal effects, the power absorbed by mobile ions that are forced to oscillate in phase with the
external eld can be converted to gate electrosensitive ion channels (VGICs) by exerting electric
forces on their channel sensors (Panagopoulos et al. 2000; 2002; 2015a; 2020; 2021). But, as we
showed that the absorbed energy of these forced oscillations is more than millions of times smaller
than the thermal energy of the same particles, once we have measurable heating, we may assume
that this is by far greater than any other non-thermal energy absorption.
From the above analysis, it follows that SAR actually applies only to thermal effects, and it actu-
ally expresses the rate by which electromagnetic energy from an incident electromagnetic wave/
eld is converted into heat within living tissue. But, as already explained (Section 1.4), man-made
electromagnetic elds at environmentally existing intensities do not normally induce measurable
heating within exposed living tissue. Thus, SAR is not a proper metric to describe the biological
activity of man-made electromagnetic elds at environmental intensities.
1.5.2 SAR ESTIMATION METHODS
SAR is estimated by 1) insertion of micro-antennas/probes into the tissue to detect the internal elec-
tric eld. Assuming the conductivity and the density of the tissue to be constant, SAR is computed
by Eq. 1.34; 2) insertion of miniature thermal probes into the tissue to detect changes δΤ in the
temperature caused by the exposure during a time interval δt, assuming the tissue is homogeneous
with known specic heat. Then SAR is computed by Eq. 1.37; 3) numerical modeling, such as the
Finite Difference Time Domain (FDTD) method, simulating the spatial distribution of the absorbed
energy within an object and computing SAR by Eq. 1.34 (Moulder et al. 1999).
50 Biological and Heath Effects of WC EMFs
Apart from the disadvantage of the rst method regarding oversimplication of Eq. 1.34, in both
the rst and second methods, the insertion of needles/probes in living tissue disturbs its physiologi-
cal function and distorts its physical properties in unpredictable ways. Moreover, in the case of live
animals, it causes trauma and pain. Such methods are improper to be used in live animals and may
only be used in in vitro experiments with cell cultures.
Numerical modeling, such as the FDTD method, which is considered the best, numerically simu-
lates the energy absorption within the tissue by use of special computer programs, dividing the
tissue volume into cubes (voxels), and assigning each of them certain values of conductivity, permit-
tivity, and density. Then SAR is (again) computed by Eq. 1.34. Because conductivity, permittivity,
and density are assumed to be constant within each voxel, this method, like the rst one, is a simpli-
cation. This explains why earlier SAR estimates used in the currently accepted criteria for whole
body average SAR (ICNIRP 1998; 2020) are questioned by more recent and more accurate FDTD
calculations (Wang et al. 2006; Flyckt et al. 2007; Gandhi et al. 2012).
All methods of simulation, no matter how much improved, will always be highly simplied
compared to the complexity of living tissue because they can never take into account the countless
microscopic variations in its physical parameters. Modeling living tissue by attributing average
dielectric values in whole animals or organs has been a method applied by engineers treating living
tissue as an inanimate material. Such methods highly underestimate the potential biological effects
which depend on signicant variations of dielectric properties at microscopic level and are not taken
into account by average values. Unfortunately, such simplistic methods continue to dominate in
EMF dosimetry (ICNIRP 1998; 2020; Behari 2010; IARC 2013; Wongkasem 2021).
In conclusion, all the existing methods for SAR estimation, especially those based on Eq. 1.34,
have serious deciencies. Actually, only the second method, which is based on measurable tissue
heating, is reliable to be applied only in cell cultures. Finally, all methods for SAR estimation are
highly complicated and time-consuming, so that SAR cannot be readily measured/calculated by use
of the equipment of an ordinary EMF laboratory. In other words, SAR is not only a awed metric
but impractical as well.
1.5.3 INCIDENT EMF
A more precise and practical EMF exposure metric than SAR is the incident radiation/eld intensi-
ties on the surface of the exposed biological tissue at the various frequency bands (RF, ELF, VLF,
etc.) plus the additional physical parameters of the eld and the exposure which can readily and
accurately be known, such as pulse and carrier frequency, exposure duration, modulation, wave-
form, etc., as measured by reliable radiation/eld meters, frequency meters, and spectrum analyz-
ers. (Panagopoulos et al. 2013b)
As already explained, today there are thousands of studies corresponding specic biological
effects to specic radiation/eld intensities at the different frequency bands plus the other exposure
parameters. Therefore, one can approximately predict the biological effect by knowing these eld/
exposure parameters, which can be readily and objectively measured. An example of different GSM
intensities inducing DNA fragmentation in fruit y ovarian cells for 6 min exposure is found in
Panagopoulos et al. (2010).
Any inaccuracy in the intensity measurement, especially of the highly variable WC EMFs,
and especially in the near elds, would be further increased in a corresponding SAR estimation.
More specically, if the electric eld intensity E varies signicantly, the corresponding SAR value
depending on E2 (according to Eq. 1.34) will include the square of this variation plus the varia-
tion in the conductivity and density of the biological tissue. Moreover, the SAR will refer to the
absorbed eld, which introduces an additional error in its estimation than in the incident eld which
is directly measured by any reliable instrument.
Intensity measurements of incident WC EMFs, and especially in the near eld, may, indeed,
include errors due to the described increased variability (see Section 1.3) and even possible capacitive
51 Defining Wireless Communication Electromagnetic Fields
coupling between the antenna/device and the sensor of the eld meter. The error can be effectively
minimized by a) using near-eld probes that are now available in the market, b) increasing the num-
ber of measurements and reporting average intensity and SD and even excluding certain unrealisti-
cally high measurements which could possibly be attributed to capacitive coupling. This provides a
representative estimation of the incident eld. “Accurate” estimation of the instant intensity of WC
EMFs, especially in the near eld, has no meaning, as these EMFs are highly varying any moment
due to the reasons described above (and in Panagopoulos et al. 2015b; 2016; Panagopoulos and
Karabarbounis 2020). Similarly, accurately calculating the SAR or internal elds within organ-
isms exposed by WC antennas/devices and especially in the near elds is actually impossible and
introduces signicantly greater errors than measuring the incident elds. While average and peak
intensity values can be representatively measured, SAR corresponding values still carry the aws
described above (Sections 1.5.1 and 1.5.2).
For taking into account possible eld distortion by the exposed object due to possible resonance
phenomena and areas of increased radiation absorption, although such phenomena are not expected
to cause any signicant alterations, radiation/eld intensity measurements should be carried out
both in the presence and in absence of the object and in different locations corresponding to differ-
ent parts of its surface. If the measured values in the presence and in the absence of the object are
signicantly different, both sets of measurements should be reported.
Certainly, due to the usually encountered non-linearity in the response of living organisms to
different environmental stimuli and especially EMFs, not even radiation/eld intensity (along with
the rest eld parameters) is expected to be precise predictor of the expected biological effect at all
frequency/intensity areas. Non-linear effects in which the dose-response relation is not a straight
line, such as intensity or frequency “windows” reported occasionally in the EMF bioeffects lit-
erature (Bawin et al. 1975; 1978; Blackmann et al. 1980; Liboff 2003; Panagopoulos et al. 2010;
Panagopoulos and Margaritis 2010b), cannot be predicted by either intensity or SAR dosimetry. At
the very least, radiation/eld intensity can be readily and more accurately measured than SAR in
any case.
As there is today overwhelming evidence on the intense adverse biological activity of man-
made EMFs, and especially WC EMFs, with detrimental effects on human/animal health and the
natural environment, the need for fast and reliable EMF monitoring has become necessary on a
regular basis, especially at residential, social, and working places. EMF measurements should be
readily performed by EMF laboratories around the world by proper use of reliable eld/radiation
meters and spectrum analyzers. Today, such instruments are widely available in the market, rela-
tively cheap, and easily used by qualied and experienced scientists/engineers and trained individu-
als. EMF dosimetry should not be based on complicated, time-consuming, and largely inaccurate
methods of SAR estimation. [The problems with the SAR versus incident EMFs were originally
analyzed in Panagopoulos et al. 2013b.]
1.6 ALL MAN-MADE EMFs EMIT CONTINUOUS WAVES NOT PHOTONS
1.6.1 MISLEADING ASSESSMENT OF EMF BIOACTIVITY BASED ON PHOTON ENERGY
The physics community has accepted that all EMFs (including man-made) and all corresponding
types of EMR consist of photons (Alonso and Finn 1967; Beiser 1987; Walleczek 1992; Valberg
et al. 1997; Pall 2013; Levitt et al. 2021). According to this postulate, man-made EMFs having
frequencies in the subinfrared range (0–3 × 1011 Hz) cannot induce any biological effects because
their “photon energies” (according to Planck’s law – Eq. 1.3) are lower than those of natural light
(Valberg et al. 1997; ICNIRP 1998; 2020; Balzano and Sheppard 2003), which is not harmful at
normal intensities but vital. But then, what about the thousands of studies showing a plethora of
biological and health effects at man-made frequencies? Is it possible that all these ndings corrobo-
rating each other are wrong and should be ruled out? The experimental/epidemiological ndings
52 Biological and Heath Effects of WC EMFs
are scientic facts and cannot be ruled out. Therefore, obviously, the hypothesis must be ruled out.
The hypothesis, here, is that all EMFs (including man-made) consist of photons, and, thus, any
effect is due to photon absorption. This hypothesis was not based on experimental facts in the case
of man-made EMFs, but on the mathematical “quantization of the EMF” performed by the founders
of QED. We shall show here that this hypothesis is awed in the case of man-made EMFs because
spectral data show otherwise, and because the mathematical “quantization” offered by QED/QEM
was actually based on the simplistic assumption that all EMFs are periodic in time.
1.6.2 QUANTIZED STATES PRODUCE QUANTIZED EMISSIONS (PHOTONS) AND LINE SPECTRA
There is an intrinsic property of matter that the energy of its elementary particles in a bound state
can only take discrete values; in other words, their energy is quantized. It is actually a hypothesis
that atoms bound in molecules, electrons bound in atoms, and nucleons bound in nuclei are in
perpetual periodic motions at stationary states (discrete energy levels) without emitting radiation,
despite their accelerated motion. Radiation is only emitted during transitions from one discrete
energy level to another. Such transitions are very fast (of the order of ~ 10−9 s for electrons), and,
during this time, a wave-packet of certain frequency, phase, polarization, and length (~ 30 cm) is
emitted/absorbed (Alexopoulos 1963; 1966; Beiser 1987; Panagopoulos 2015; 2018). These nano-
second wave-packets are the photons. Photons produced by specic transitions (molecular/atomic/
nuclear) have discrete frequencies and, thus, give discrete lines in molecular/atomic/nuclear emis-
sion spectra. It is well-known in physics that individual sources of quantized emissions (molecules/
atoms/nuclei) produce spectra with discrete lines (Herzberg 1944; 1950; Alexopoulos 1963; 1966;
Klimov 1975; Burcham and Jobes 1995).
This general hypothesis for the quantization of the electronic energies in all atoms was made by
Bohr (1913a; 1913b; 1914; 1928) in the study of the hydrogen atom and was extended by Wilson (1915)
and Sommerfeld (1916) for any periodic motion in a single-electron atom. The Bohr-Sommerfeld-
Wilson quantization rules allowed the calculation of the stationary energy levels in the hydrogen
atom and in single-electron ions, which really corresponded to the observed frequency lines of the
atomic spectra. This fact proved correct Bohr’s hypothesis for the energy quantization of electrons
bound in atoms, and soon it was found that similar quantization rules apply to all bound micro-
particles not only in atoms but also in molecules and nuclei (Gautreau and Savin 1978; Beiser 1987).
The energy quantization of all molecules, atoms, and nuclei explains their stability and this,
in turn, explains the stability of matter. The quantization implies that bound micro-particles in
molecules/atoms/nuclei cannot spontaneously jump from one stationary state to another, as that
would require the absorption/emission of energy amounts corresponding to the energy differences
between different stationary states. If bound electrons’ energies were to take not only discrete val-
ues, the electrons would constantly lose energy due to their acceleration around the nuclei (with
consequent emission of EMR), and, inevitably, they would collapse and fall on the nuclei. In such a
case, no matter would exist in the form of the chemical elements we know (Panagopoulos 2018). A
direct consequence of this is that molecules/atoms/nuclei emit and absorb only discrete amounts of
energy (photons) corresponding to transitions between discrete energy levels. It was found that the
energy differences between such levels in molecules/atoms/nuclei correspond to frequency bands
from infrared to gamma rays. More specically, transitions between different molecular oscillation
energy levels correspond to the emission/absorption of photons in the infrared band; electronic
transitions in atoms correspond to photons in the visible, ultraviolet; and x-ray bands; and nuclear
transitions correspond to photons in the gamma-ray band (Gautreau and Savin 1978; Beiser 1987).
Moreover, these quantized transitions correspond to discrete frequencies, and this is why all molec-
ular, atomic, and nuclear spectra are line spectra consisting of discrete lines (Herzberg 1944; 1950;
Alexopoulos 1963; 1966).
No transitions were found to correspond to photon energies/frequencies below infrared except
for the rare case of photons in the RF/MW band emitted after articial excitation and/or in the
53 Defining Wireless Communication Electromagnetic Fields
presence of a strong static magnetic eld (usually of the order of ~ 0.1–1 T), as in the Stern-Gerlach
experiment, in the nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy, the electron spin resonance
(ESR) spectroscopy, and the maser MW ampliers (see Section 1.6.6). But such strong static mag-
netic elds do not exist in the environment. The intensity of the terrestrial static magnetic eld is ~
0.5 G = 0.5 × 10−4 T, which is much smaller (~ 2000–20,000 times) than the magnetic eld in NMR/
ESR spectroscopy (Panagopoulos 2018).
Cosmic MW radiation is known to be of originally higher frequency (infrared/visible) which
reaches the Earth reduced due to the Doppler effect taking place because of the cosmic expansion
(Durrer 2008; Panagopoulos 2018). Thus, cosmic MWs, indeed, consist of photons, but they are not
actually MWs. They are infrared radiation shifted toward lower frequencies. Moreover, they are
not polarized or coherent in contrast to man-made MWs which are totally polarized and coherent.
Thereby, the argument that living organisms on Earth have always been exposed to MW radiation
of cosmic origin does not stand.
In conclusion, all quantized (photonic) emissions occurring spontaneously in our natural and
daily environments correspond to discrete frequencies which are, in all cases, higher than the low
limit of infrared.
1.6.3 CONTINUOUS STATES PRODUCE CONTINUOUS WAVES AND CONTINUOUS SPECTRA
In contrast to the time-nite emissions from bound micro-particles, free charged particles emit
EMR continuously during acceleration, as predicted by classical electromagnetism (Alonso and
Finn 1967; Alexopoulos 1973; Jackson 1975). A continuous emission generates continuous waves
of length increasing with the duration of the emission. This is fundamentally different from a time-
nite quantized emission. It is obvious that such a continuous emission cannot correspond to dis-
crete energy/frequency transitions but to a continuous range of energies/frequencies.
The intensity J of EMR (in the vacuum or in the air) emitted by an accelerating particle of charge
q, with non-relativistic velocity (as is the case with free electrons accelerating in the metallic con-
ductors of all electric/electronic circuits/antennas), at any angle θ with the direction of motion, and
at distance r from the charged particle, is described by the equation
22
qa 2
J()
˜
˝ ˙
sin
˜
[1.38]
2 3 2
16
°˛
ocr
where α is the acceleration/retardation of the charged particle, εo is the vacuum permittivity, and c
is the speed of light in the vacuum/air (Alonso and Finn 1967; Panagopoulos 2018).
The frequency range of the emitted radiation is determined by the curves in the free electron
trajectories, which, in turn, are determined by the frequency and amplitude of the applied alter-
nating voltage, the electron velocity, and the collision parameters with the ions of the metal. This
frequency range extends within a narrow band around the main frequency of the applied voltage
(Jackson 1975). When direct (non-alternating) voltages are applied in the circuit, the frequency of
the emission is determined by the velocity and the collision parameters only.
Thus, radiation emitted by accelerating/decelerating free electrons in circuits/antennas, or ions and
electrons in air discharges, etc., depends upon the square of the acceleration/deceleration α2. Because the
acceleration α can take any possible value (within a range determined by the applied forces), the emitted
radiation can also take any possible value within a corresponding range. The emission is not time-nite,
and the emitted electromagnetic waves do not consist of discrete wave-packets of nite length but of
continuous waves like those described by classical electromagnetism, containing a continuous range of
frequencies around the main frequency of the applied voltage in the circuit.
The continuous part of x-ray spectra emitted by retarding free electrons impinging on a metallic
surface consists of continuous “classical” waves not photons. Parts of the energy of the continuous
waves are absorbed by inner bound electrons in the metal atoms, which get excited to higher energy
54 Biological and Heath Effects of WC EMFs
states, and emit discrete frequencies by de-excitation providing the discrete spectral lines in the
nal x-ray spectra. The discrete lines correspond to photons, while the continuous part of the spec-
tra corresponds to continuous waves.
Ionic oscillations discovered in all living cells with ULF frequencies of the order of 0.01–0.2 Hz
are continuous oscillations and, thus, emit continuous waves not photons. Similarly, atmospheric
discharges in the VLF and ELF bands and their resulting Schumann resonances are continuous
emissions of accelerating charges (electrons, ions) taking place for as long as the discharge lasts.
Finally, all forms of EMR produced by all man-made electric/electronic circuits (e.g., power lines,
antennas, etc.) are continuous emissions of accelerating free electrons within the metallic conduc-
tors (Panagopoulos 2013; 2018; Panagopoulos and Balmori 2017).
The continuous emission spectra of “black body” radiation, sunlight, light from lamps, hot solid
bodies, x-rays, RF/MW antennas, cosmic MWs, and atmospheric discharges are, at least in part, due to
accelerating free charged particles such as free electrons/ions (and even neutral molecules in thermal
motion) existing in all the above EMR sources and not exclusively to quantized transitions (photons).
Any continuous emission spectrum may be attributed either to a) acceleration of unbound charged
microparticles such as free electrons/ions accelerated by an applied electric eld and uncharged
particles in thermal motion, or b) to transitions of bound microparticles corresponding to a continu-
ous range of photon frequencies, resulting in a seemingly continuous spectrum that even a spectrum
analyzer with the highest resolution cannot discriminate the individual spectral lines; or c) to a
combination of both a and b cases.
One could, undoubtedly, clarify whether a certain continuous emission spectrum is due to accel-
erating free microparticles or quantized transitions (photons) of a continuous frequency range were
it, indeed, possible to detect discrete photons from the emission source, but it is not. Single photons
have not been detected, in spite of opposite claims. In fact, what are really detected are “clicks”
in photomultipliers (detectors). Each “click” represents the emission of a discrete photoelectron,
and this is interpreted as corresponding to the absorption of a discrete photon (Roychoudhuri and
Tirfessa 2008). But highly accurate photon counting experiments have more recently shown that
actually the simultaneous detection of multiple photons (“multiple units of h
ν
”) is necessary for the
emission of a single photoelectron, and, thus, the production of a single “click” on a detector does
not correspond to the detection of a single photon (Panarella 2008). Thus, in reality, single photons
have not been detected, in spite of the widely spread impression for the opposite (Roychoudhuri et
al. 2008; Roychoudhuri 2014). Since photoelectron emission could also, hypothetically, be triggered
by partial absorption of a (divisible) continuous wave, there is no way to verify beyond any doubt
the existence of photons by use of photomultipliers.
Therefore, we cannot undoubtedly verify the existence of photons in the continuous spectra, and
it is actually only the line spectra that show the existence of photons with discrete frequencies emit-
ted by bound microparticles. As for the continuous spectra of free electron emissions in all man-
made EMFs, similarly, there is no proof nor any indication that they consist of photons.
A single charged free microparticle accelerating in the vacuum due to an alternating applied
voltage may move periodically, and then its emission spectrum would (theoretically) contain only
discrete lines/frequencies. But in electric/electronic circuits, we do not have a single microparticle
accelerating in the vacuum due to a perfectly alternating applied voltage. Instead, we have innumer-
able microparticles (free electrons) moving not periodically (even in case of a perfectly alternating
eld), with each one’s individual period/frequency slightly differing from all others’ due to the
chaotic friction forces which are different for each individual microparticle, plus their random ther-
mal motion, which is also different for each one. This is why EMR produced by accelerating free
charged microparticles gives continuous emission spectra and why all antennae spectra are continu-
ous spectra (Panagopoulos 2018).
In conclusion, bound charged microparticles produce photons with discrete frequencies/energies
and line spectra, while free charged microparticles produce continuous waves and continuous spec-
tra. This distinction is fundamental for understanding the arguments presented here.
55 Defining Wireless Communication Electromagnetic Fields
1.6.4 HOW CAUSALITY WAS ABANDONED IN MODERN QUANTUM PHYSICS
According to the Fourier theory, all periodic motions of any frequency can be represented as a sum
of discrete harmonic oscillations with a basic frequency
ν
and its harmonic frequencies 2
ν
, 3
ν
, …,
etc. Non-periodic functions/motions may also be developed into Fourier series, but, in this case, the
Fourier series do not approach the initial functions. One of the three Dirichlet conditions in order
for a Fourier series to approach the initial function is that the initial function must be periodic.
Therefore, non-periodic undulations cannot be represented as a sum of discrete harmonic terms.
Except for the Fourier series, any continuous and integrable function, periodic or not, can be trans-
formed by the Fourier integral/transform into another continuous function consisting of innite
number of (non-discrete) harmonic terms (Stephenson 1973; Spiegel 1974; Panagopoulos 2018). But
a continuous function with no discrete terms cannot be considered as “quantized”. It is most strange
that these simple facts were overlooked by the founders of QEM/QED and their successors. Let us
see briey how this happened.
De Broglie (1924) ascribed a wavelength (λ) on elementary particles. such as electrons, accepting
that they possess a wave-like nature and called these waves “matter-waves”:
h p
˜
°
or k
°
[1.39]
mu
˜
(m, u, and p are the particle’s mass, velocity, and momentum, respectively, and k is the wave num-
ber). His hypothesis was soon conrmed experimentally when it was shown that electrons produce
diffraction patterns just like x-rays (Davisson and Germer 1927).
In his attempt to nd an equation to describe the energy of the electronic “matter-waves” in the
many-electron atoms, Schroedinger (1926) took the classical wave-function,
it
(
°
˝kr
)
˜
(, )˛ ert [1.40]
which describes a plane harmonic wave of circular frequency ω = 2π
ν
(
ν
the frequency) and wave
number k = 2π/λ (λ the wavelength) at distance r from its source along the direction of propagation
[i is the imaginary unit (i2 = −1)] (Alonso and Finn 1967). [The fact that Eq. 1.40 describes a plane
harmonic wave comes from the Euler formula, eiθ = cosθ + isinθ (Stephenson 1973), with the con-
vention that physical quantities are obtained by taking the real parts of complex quantities (Jackson
1975). Thus, a physical wave described by Eq. 1.40 depends solely upon cos(ωt-kr) (which is a har-
monic function of time) and, therefore, it is a plane harmonic wave.]
Then he substituted ω and k by their corresponding quantum mechanical expressions (derived
directly from Planck’s and De Broglie’s Eqs. 1.3 and 1.39, respectively, ω = ∈/ħ and k = p/ħ) and
derived what he called the quantum mechanical “wave-function” in direct analogy with the classical
wave-function (Schroedinger 1926; Tarasov 1980; Trachanas 1981):
it
(
˛˝pr
)
/˜
˜
(, )°ert [1. 41]
The square of the wave-function ψ2 supposedly describes the probability for the electron to be found
at distance r from the nucleus at a given time. That was arbitrarily accepted also in analogy with
classical wave physics in which the square of the oscillating quantity (wave-function) is proportional
to the energy density of the wave. Thus, Schroedinger identied the energy density of the matter
wave associated with the electron at a specic location around the nucleus, as the probability of
nding the electron at this location (Panagopoulos 2018).
Differentiating Eq. 1.41 with respect to r and t, he found the operator –iħ(∂ /∂ r) corresponding to
the momentum and the operator iħ(∂ /∂ t) corresponding to the energy of the particle, respectively.
56 Biological and Heath Effects of WC EMFs
In classical physics, the total (conserved) energy value ∈ of a particle with mass m and momen-
tum p moving with potential energy V(r) is the sum of its kinetic and potential energy. The equation
∈ = p2/2m + V(r) expresses the energy conservation law.
Since the wave-function ψ(r, t) was introduced to represent the wave associated with the particle
under study, Schroedinger demanded a priori that it must satisfy the equation:
˛p2 ˆ
˜°
˙ ˘
Vr [1.42]
()
2m
˝ ˇ
Substituting in the last equation the energy and momentum by their corresponding operators, we get:
°
2
ˇ˘
t r
˜
In three dimensions, the equation, describing the energy conservation law for a “matter-wave”,
becomes:
˜
ˆ
˜22
i
˜ °˛ ˝
ˆ
˙Vr()
ˆ
[1.44]
˙
ˆ
˜t 2m
˜
2°˙ ˙
˜˜
°˜
˜ [1.43] i Vr()
˝
˛ ˝
˛
ˇ
ˆ ˇ
ˆ
˝
˛2
2m
˛2 2 2
˛ ˛
2
(
˜°
˝ ˝ is the Laplace operator)
2 2 2
x z
Despite the arbitrary assumptions made by Schroedinger in order to derive his equation (Eq.
1.44), there was a causal reasoning in his methodology up to this point, and this is probably the
reason why this equation seems to really work in describing the electronic states in atoms. But cau-
˛
sality was abandoned in the next step.
Although the Schroedinger equation was originally written to describe the energy of electrons
bound in atoms, since they were described by harmonic wave functions with quantized energy, it
was arbitrarily extrapolated for the case of a free electron/particle with zero potential energy [V(r)
˛
= 0] when it was also written by Schroedinger himself as,
˜
˙
˜22
i
˜ °˛ ˝
˙
[1.45]
˜t 2m
But in such a case, how can a harmonic wave-function (Eq. 1.41) with quantized energy be attrib-
uted to a free particle? By doing this, it was automatically accepted that any free particle can only
have discrete energy values by itself, even when it is not in periodic motion. That was an unphysical
extrapolation, and the start of a wrong direction that was to be followed. Causality was ruined by
this step.
This unphysical extrapolation made by Schroedinger (1926) was blindly followed by Klein,
Gordon, Dirac, Heisenberg, and everybody else at that time, when they all adopted this equation
to describe a free particle (!), and this was surprisingly accepted by everyone else in the quantum
physics community until today without any objections (Panagopoulos 2018).
1.6.5 THE MATHEMATICAL “QUANTIZATION” OF EMF/EMR
The reasoning of “quantization” of an EMF/EMR is described by Dirac (1927): “Resolving the
radiation into its Fourier components, we can consider the energy and phase of each of the com-
ponents to be dynamical variables describing the radiation eld”. But according to the Fourier
˛y
57 Defining Wireless Communication Electromagnetic Fields
theory, a non-periodic function (such as any random emission of radiation) cannot be represented/
approached by Fourier components.
Let us see in brief how Heisenberg, Born, Jordan, Pauli, and Dirac “quantized” the EMF/EMR,
starting from its classical description by Maxwell’s equations. In the vacuum or the air and consi-
dering the free elds (without electric charges or currents), Maxwell’s equations (Alonso and Finn
1967) are written as:
˜°E˛0
[1.46]
˜°B˛0
[1.47]
˝
B
˜°E˛- [1.48]
˝
t
˝
E
˜°B˛
˙ˆ
[1.49]
oo
˝t
They introduced a vector potential A(r, t) which should, a priori, satisfy both the constraint ∇·A= 0
and the equations:
B˜°˛A
[1.50]
˛
A
E˜° [1.51]
˛
t
[vector labeling (→) on E, B, A, is omitted for simplicity]
After such a fabrication, substituting Eqs. 1.50 and 1.51 into Eq. 1.49, it comes that A(r, t) satis-
es the classical wave equation (to be transmitted along the direction r with velocity c, just like the
electric and magnetic components of an electromagnetic undulation):
˜2 Ar t 2
(,) 2
°˛Art [1.52] c (, )
˜t
2
1
with
c
˜ the velocity of the electromagnetic wave.
°˛
oo
Then they demanded the vector potential to be a periodic function of time and separated it into
a sum of two conjugate complex terms:
()
°
()
˛
(,) rt [1.53]
Art
˜
A (,)rt
°
A (, )
(+)(r (−)(rwhere A , t) contains all amplitudes which vary as e−iωt for ω > 0, and A , t) contains all
amplitudes which vary as eiωt, and A(−) = A(+)*. Thus, they fabricated A(r, t) in such a way that a)
satises the wave equation and b) is a periodic function of time and, thus, contains only harmoni-
cally varying terms.
Since they accepted that A(r, t) is periodic in time, they developed its terms into Fourier
series of harmonic terms, according to the Fourier theorem, with a set of vector “mode” func-
tions uk(r) satisfying the wave equation, (∇2+ ωk
2/c2) uk(r) = 0 for harmonic waves, correspond-
ing to the frequencies ωk, describing the eld restricted in a volume V in space (with ckthe
Fourier coefcients):
58 Biological and Heath Effects of WC EMFs
˜ °
i
˙
kt
A()
(,rt
)
˛
˝
ckk
ur
(
)e [1.54]
k
Finally, after additional arbitrary requirements and operations, the vector potential is trans-
formed as:
ˆ it
k
† * it
k
˘
(,)
ko ˙ kk
() kk e [1.55] Ar t˜
°
˜ /2
˛
12/ aure ˝aur() ˇ
k
The Fourier amplitudes ak, and ak
†, were arbitrarily chosen to mutually adjoint operators which
satisfy the commutation relations: [a, a] = [a†, a†] = 0, [a, a†] = δkkkk' kk' kk' '
[δkk' = 1 for k= k', and 0 for k≠ k' (the “Kronecker’s delta” function)]
Replacing A(r, t) into Eq. 1.51, the electric eld becomes:
it
k
† *
it
˝
k
(,)
2
˛
12/ ˙
ˆau re
kk ˇ
˘ [1.56] Ert˜ i
°
˜
k/
o () ˝ au re
kk
()
k
and a similar expression is found for the magnetic eld. These nally transform the Hamiltonian
(total energy) of the EMF as:
˛ † 1
ˆ
H˜
˜
k˙
a
k k
a
°˘
[1.57]
k ˝ 2
ˇ
[For details see Mandel and Wolf (1995), Walls and Milburn (2008), and Panagopoulos (2018)]
Eq. 1.57 represents the total energy of the EMF as the sum of the number of photons in each
1
mode ak
†ak, multiplied by the photon energy in this mode ħωk, plus ħωk representing the energy of
2
the “vacuum uctuations” in each mode.
Thus, the famous “EMF quantization” is nothing more than mathematically transforming a peri-
odic EMF into a sum of discrete terms by use of the Fourier series. But in nature, most forms of
EMFs are not periodic and cannot be approximated as such. Finally, the fact that they mathemati-
cally transformed a periodic EMF into a sum of discrete terms does not mean that these terms
represent photons. There should be facts supporting this “quantization”, and such facts do not exist
for man-made EMFs or for the other EMF continuous emissions with frequencies below infrared
described above (see Section 1.6.3).
1.6.6 NO EVIDENCE OF PHOTONS AT FREQUENCIES BELOW
INFRARED IN ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Let us now examine what are referred to as “microwave photons” and the ways they are generated
(originally discussed in Panagopoulos 2018). As for lower frequency bands (lower RF, LF, VLF,
ELF, ULF), there is not even a mention in the physics literature regarding actual evidence of photon
existence.
MW Generators
MWs are produced articially by generators such as the magnetron, the klystron, and the masers
(Lioliousis 1979). The magnetron and the klystron produce electron beams emitted by a cathode
and directed to pass through a series of positively charged metal cavities called “cavity resonators”.
The frequency of the produced oscillations in the electron beam is determined by the cavities’
59 Defining Wireless Communication Electromagnetic Fields
dimensions and the beam’s speed. Such MW generators are used in radars and in MW ovens. The
produced MWs last for as long as the electrons accelerate within the cavities and are, thus, con-
tinuous/uninterrupted waves. They are produced by unbound electrons accelerated by an applied
voltage just like in every electric/electronic circuit, and there is no reason to assume that they are
quantized. There are no time-nite emissions to correspond to quanta (photons).
In the case of masers (microwave amplication by stimulated emission of radiation), the continu-
ous MWs produced by a klystron or magnetron are amplied by MW photons produced by some
paramagnetic material, such as NH3 or crystals such as silicon (Si), after excitation by the continu-
ous MWs and in the presence of a strong static and spatially inhomogeneous magnetic eld with
intensity of the order of ~ 1T, like in the Stern-Gerlach experiment. This, indeed, describes condi-
tions of photon production in the RF/MW band. It is related to the splitting of spin energy levels of
uncoupled electrons or nucleons within a strong static magnetic eld B (~ 1T) (Gautreau and Savin
1978), which is the underlying effect in the ESR and NMR spectroscopies. Uncoupled particles may
jump between the two separated spin levels with corresponding emission/absorption of photons in
the MW band. Thus, such photons may exist under the specic conditions.
But such strong static magnetic elds (~ 1T) do not exist in human environments. Moreover, the
production of MW photons cannot take place without excitation by the articial (continuous) MWs.
Thus, we do not expect to have MW photons due to this mechanism in environmental conditions.
Atomic Transitions in the RF/MW Band
There are atomic transitions due to the hyperne splitting of electronic energy levels in atoms, cor-
responding to photon energy in the RF/MW band (typically of a few GHz). The hyperne splitting
is due to the interaction of the nuclear magnetic moment with the electron magnetic moment. The
function of “atomic clocks” is based on this effect. Such hyperne transitions do not occur naturally/
spontaneously and need to be excited articially. In atomic clocks, excitation of cesium atoms is
achieved by periodic laser signals in a chamber at superconductive conditions (extremely low tem-
perature very close to absolute zero, -273°C). By de-excitation, the cesium atoms emit photons of
precise MW frequency. Other ways to excite MW transitions in atoms involve magnetic resonance
by an externally applied magnetic eld (of the order of ~ 0.1–1 T) and articial MW radiation (see
above). The resulting magnetic resonance is observed by changing the frequency and magnitude of
the applied RF eld. Again, such conditions do not exist environmentally, and the described hyper-
ne transitions do not occur naturally (Major 2014; Kraus et al. 2014; Panagopoulos 2018).
MWs Produced by “Qubits”
In practice, the devices that are currently being developed to produce MW “photons” need to be
operated at temperatures below 0.1K (or -272.9°C) (Houck et al. 2007; Inomata et al. 2016). Until
recently, this would have meant using cryostats with liquid helium for cooling, which is generally
not possible in conditions outside of research labs. Rapid progress in cryogenics has already pro-
duced dry mechanical systems that only require a source of electricity to operate (Radebaugh 2009),
but still, such conditions do not exist environmentally.
Recent claims that MW/RF photons can be generated in electronic circuits also involve super-
conductive/cryogenic conditions. The so-called “microwave photons”, generated by special MW
oscillation circuits, called quantum bits (“qubits”), are manifested as electromagnetic pulses. Qubits
are integrated micro-circuits made by lithography and containing capacitors (C) and inductors/coils
(L) forming LC harmonic oscillators. They are the basic units of the so-called “quantum comput-
ers” (Houck et al. 2007). A large amplitude trigger pulse generated by a conventional MW pulse
generator in the “in” port excites the qubit which, a few tens of nanoseconds later, decays into the
“out” port by emitting a second pulse which is interpreted as a MW “photon”. With the circuit resis-
tance approaching to zero in superconductive conditions, the generated pulses (interpreted as “pho-
tons”) are practically harmonic (Houck et al. 2007; Schuster et al. 2007; Clarke and Wilhelm 2008).
60 Biological and Heath Effects of WC EMFs
Thus, the so-called MW “photons” emitted by qubits are not quantized transitions of bound
micro-particles but pulses of a continuous carrier wave at MW frequency produced by the LC arti-
cial micro-circuits. Even if we interpreted these articial MW pulses as photons, which is denitely
not the case, they could not exist in the environment (without superconductive/cryogenic conditions
and without articial excitation) (Panagopoulos 2018).
In conclusion, all present day “quantum” MW emitters a) need to be triggered by articial pulses
and b) are cooled down to extremely low temperatures (Houck et al. 2007; Kraus et al. 2014).
Antennae Spectra
If man-made EMR types were indeed quantized, according to QEM/QED hypothesis, then all
antennae emission spectra anywhere in the whole band below infrared (0–3 × 1011 Hz) would be
line spectra consisting of discrete lines corresponding to the basic carrier frequency emitted by the
antenna and its harmonics plus the modulation frequencies. Although spectra may be very compli-
cated, and discrete lines may broaden due to a variety of reasons, as is usually the case in molecu-
lar, x-ray, and gamma-ray spectra, acquiring these spectra with increased resolution reveals their
discrete lines. In contrast, all antennae emission spectra do not display discrete lines regardless of
resolution, but they do display continuous frequency bands around the main emission frequencies.
This is because, even though macroscopically the free electron cloud in the antenna circuit may per-
form a periodic motion at a certain carrier frequency
ν
, the motion of each individual free electron
is not periodic due to the chaotic friction forces which are different for each individual free electron
plus the individual random thermal motion, as explained. The result is that, instead of an individual
emitted frequency, we have a continuous range of frequencies ±Δ
ν
around the carrier frequency
ν
of the alternating voltage applied on the antenna circuit. In other words, instead of single lines, we
have continuous frequency bands with peaks on the main frequencies (Panagopoulos 2018).
Thus, antennae spectra are continuous spectra, even though antennas in most (almost all) cases
emit a periodic carrier signal, and this is an additional indication that all man-made EMR types do
not consist of photons but of continuous waves.
In conclusion, there is actually no evidence showing photon existence at frequencies below infra-
red, in environmental conditions, or showing that man-made MW radiation types transmitted by
WC antennas/devices, radars, satellites, etc., consist of photons.
1.7 DIFFERENCES FROM NATURAL EMFs. INTERACTION WITH MATTER
1.7.1 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NATURAL AND MAN-MADE EMFS/EMR
Many people, including scientists, are not aware of the differences in the physical properties and
the consequent differences in biological activity between natural and man-made EMFs/EMR, com-
ing to the erroneous conclusion that since natural light, which is of signicantly higher intensity
and frequency, does not induce adverse health effects, man-made EMFs/EMR should not induce
adverse effects either. Let us summarize the differences between natural and man-made EMFs/
EMR which were analyzed in the previous sections (and originally in Panagopoulos 2018).
A. Polarization: All man-made EMFs/EMR emitted by circuits/antennas are totally polar-
ized (and coherent), in most cases linearly polarized, oscillating on a certain plane deter-
mined by the orientation/geometry of the antenna/circuit. By contrast, natural EMFs/
EMR (such as Schumann resonances, cosmic MW, infrared, visible, ultraviolet, gamma)
are never totally polarized (nor coherent) and may only be partially polarized in a small
degree under certain conditions. Exceptions are the geomagnetic and geoelectric elds and
the cell membrane electric elds, which are locally polarized but static.
B. Frequency bands: Man-made EMFs/EMR occupy the lower frequency bands, from 0 Hz up
to the low limit of infrared (~ 3 × 1011 Hz). Natural EMFs/EMR occupy the higher frequency
61 Defining Wireless Communication Electromagnetic Fields
bands of the electromagnetic spectrum, from infrared to gamma rays (3 × 1011–3 × 1022 Hz).
Exceptions include a) the VLF/ELF EMFs of atmospheric discharges (lightning) and
consequent Schumann resonances; b) the geoelectric, geomagnetic, and cell membrane
electric elds which are basically static with ELF variations (Presman 1977; Dubrov
1978; Panagopoulos 2013; Panagopoulos and Balmori 2017); c) the preseismic ULF/ELF/
VLF pulsations (including SES) recorded a few days or weeks before major earthquakes
(Panagopoulos et al. 2020); and d) the ULF ionic oscillations in all living cells.
C. Bound versus unbound emission sources: Natural EMR is produced by time-nite
transitions (excitations/de-excitations) of bound charged microparticles (i.e., atoms/ions,
electrons, or nucleons, in molecules, atoms and nuclei respectively), between quantized
energy levels, and for this reason it consists of time-nite wave-packets (photons). By
contrast, man-made EMR types (and the above-mentioned exceptions of the atmospheric/
terrestrial/biological natural ULF/ELF/VLF EMFs), are produced by continuous (uninter-
rupted) acceleration of free electrons/ions due to an applied EMF, and for this reason they
consist of continuous “classical” waves.
The above fundamental differences indicate that man-made EMFs should not be confused or com-
pared with the natural ones without addressing these differences, and they should not be evaluated
for their biological activity by the same criteria (Panagopoulos and Margaritis 2003; Panagopoulos
2011; 2013; 2018).
1.7.2 BASIC CONCEPTS OF INTERACTION OF EMFS/EMR WITH MATTER
Natural EMR (from infrared to gamma) passing through inanimate matter can be absorbed by
bound charged atoms/ions in molecules (infrared), electrons in atoms (visible, ultraviolet, x), or
nucleons in nuclei (gamma) in all materials and by free electrons in metals. The main mechanisms
of interaction are:
A. Excitations: They take place when the frequency of the radiation is close to the frequen-
cies of the molecular/atomic/nuclear spectra in the corresponding bands. Bound charged
atoms and electrons absorb the necessary amount of energy in order to jump to a higher
stationary energy level. The excited molecules/atoms/nuclei are unstable, re-emit the
absorbed energy in the form of time-nite emissions (photons) in random directions, and
get back to their initial energy levels.
B. Ionizations: For higher frequencies (vacuum ultraviolet, x-rays, gamma rays) the absorbed
energy is adequate to ionize the atoms by expelling electrons and even excite or break
nuclei (in the case of gamma radiation). These are known effects of ionizing radiations
(Alexopoulos 1963; Klimov 1975; Gautreau and Savin 1978; Beiser 1987; Burcham and
Jobes 1995).
C. Forced oscillations: Bound charged atoms and electrons in all materials and free elec-
trons in metals are forced to oscillate at the frequency of the radiation in addition to their
initial motions. The energy of the forced oscillation is subtracted from the radiation and
re-emitted by the charged particles in all directions. This causes scattering of the initial
waves (Alonso and Finn 1967; Alexopoulos 1963; Klimov 1975; Panagopoulos 2018). In all
cases, the initial EMR is left with the same frequency but reduced intensity.
Man-made EMR has several orders of magnitude lower frequency than the frequencies of the
molecular/atomic/nuclear spectra (ranging from the infrared to the gamma-ray band), and thus, it
is not expected to induce excitations or forced oscillations on bound microparticles and certainly
not ionizations.
62 Biological and Heath Effects of WC EMFs
Forced-oscillation of free electron clouds on metallic surfaces is the mechanism by which metals
absorb man-made EMFs/EMR. In this case, the absorption is so intense as to practically eliminate
EMR in the interior of the metallic object and shield other objects behind the metallic surface
(e.g., “Faraday cage”). This is how metals can insulate space from EMFs/EMR (Alexopoulos 1973;
Panagopoulos 2018; Panagopoulos and Chrousos 2019).
The situation is different when the continuous polarized waves of man-made EMFs/EMR pass
through living tissue. Living tissue consists of biological cells, and in all types of cells (and in the
extracellular uids), except for the bound electrons in atoms/molecules, there are trillions of mobile
ions, water polar molecules, and polar macromolecules. The vast majority of biological molecules
such as proteins, lipids, nucleic acids, etc., are either polar or carry a net electric charge (Alberts et al.
1994; Stryer 1996). Therefore, except for the above mechanisms of energy loss on bound electrons,
there are induced forced oscillations on every charged or polar molecule of the biological tissue (as
described in Section 1.4). These forced oscillations of ions and polar (macro)molecules absorb much
more energy than the induced oscillations on the bound electrons of the biological molecules because
the masses of the charged/polar particles are now several orders of magnitude (more than 104 times)
bigger. The forced oscillations induced by man-made EMFs/EMR in biological tissue are parallel and
coherent oscillations since, as explained, these elds are totally polarized and coherent.
The induced oscillations will be most intense on the mobile ions which carry a net electric charge
and have smaller mass and higher mobility than other charged or polar molecules (Alberts et al.
1994; Panagopoulos 2013). The induced oscillations will be much smaller or even negligible on the
polar macromolecules that do not carry a net electric charge, they have much greater masses, and
they are usually chemically bound to other molecules. Forced oscillations of mobile ions can trigger
biological effects (Panagopoulos et al. 2000; 2002; 2015; 2020; 2021).
After induction of forced oscillations by the continuous polarized waves on the charged/polar
molecules of living tissue and consequent abstraction of energy from the initial wave, the remaining
wave continues its way through the tissue with the same frequency but reduced amplitude/intensity.
After countless numbers of such events, depending on the tissue’s mass, density, and the number of
polar/charged molecules, any remaining wave leaves the tissue scattered and with reduced ampli-
tude/intensity (Panagopoulos et al. 2013b).
The wave intensity J (as in the simplest case of a plane harmonic electromagnetic wave described
by Eq. 1.7) decreases with decreasing amplitude/intensity E of the oscillating eld/wave within the
tissue after interaction with the charged/polar molecules. Thus, the amplitude and energy of each
individual continuous wave decrease.
The energy loss of the man-made electromagnetic waves may be manifested as heating of the
exposed material (e.g., MW heating) without any frequency reduction as, e.g., in the Compton
effect. Information-carrying MWs do not change their frequency when passing through matter, but
they can cause heating when they have sufcient intensity and frequency (MWs in the GHz range
with intensity ≥ 0.1 mW/cm2).
Thus, man-made EMF/EMR types lose energy not by losing a number of photons absorbed by the
medium or by decreasing their frequency as in the Compton effect (by getting absorbed and giving
rise to scattered photons of decreased frequency). This might explain why MW radiation can cause
greater temperature increases than ionizing radiation when absorbed by matter, although it has consid-
erably lower frequency. Ionizing radiation is quantized (photonic) and described by Planck’s equation
(Eq. 1.3) in terms of its energy, while man-made radiation (including MWs) consists of continuous
waves, and described by Eq. 1.7, in which the energy loss is not dependent on quantized (all or nothing)
absorption but on partial absorption from a continuous/uninterrupted wave, inducing a continuous
forced oscillation on charged/polar particles. In this case, the energy loss transformed into heat may
be greater, even though the frequency is several orders of magnitude smaller.
Natural non-ionizing quantized EMR (infrared, visible light) also decreases in intensity (number
of photons) when passing through biological matter by causing forced oscillations on charged/polar
particles. But these oscillations are in random directions (each photon oscillates on a different plane)
63 Defining Wireless Communication Electromagnetic Fields
and not coherent. For this reason, they only cause heating (increase in molecular random thermal
motion) which is tolerated by living organisms if it is not excessive. Important adverse biological
effects and cancer may be caused by (natural quantized) ionizing radiations through the breakage
of chemical bonds in biological molecules. Thus, the mechanisms of interaction with living tissue
are quite different between quantized and not quantized EMR, even though they may nally result
in the same effects (e.g., genetic damage, cell death, cancer, etc.).
1.8 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
In this chapter we described the physical properties that characterize WC EMFs. Some of these
properties (polarization/coherence, non-thermal energies, and emission of continuous waves instead
of photons) account not only for WC EMFs but for all types of man-made EMFs. The combination
of polarization/coherence with the intense variability of the WC signals, the combination of differ-
ent frequency bands, and the ULF/ELF components in the form of pulsing, modulation, and random
variability, are specic properties of the WC EMFs. Although WC EMFs are usually referred to in
the literature simply as “RF” EMFs, this is not only inaccurate but also misleading, as these elds/
radiations necessarily combine RF carrier signals with ELF/VLF modulation and pulsing plus ELF/
ULF random variability. These ELF/ULF components are the most bioactive, not the RF carrier,
which is usually responsible only for heating.
We explained the property of polarization which (combined with coherence) is inherent in all
technical/articial/man-made EMF/EMR emissions, including those of WC. We showed how this
property is necessary for the induction of biological effects through the phenomena of construc-
tive interference and most importantly the induced forced oscillations on every charged particle
in biological tissue and especially mobile ions. We showed that the biological effects of man-
made EMFs arise from their unique property of being totally polarized (and coherent) capable of
inducing parallel and coherent forced oscillations/rotations on charged/polar molecules which are
the vast majority of molecules in living tissue.
We underscored that polarization alone is not enough for the induction of biological effects but
low frequency (ULF/ELF/VLF) variability of the EMF exposure is also necessary. In a compari-
son study, 36 min total exposure to real-life GSM (2G) EMF emitted by a mobile phone induced
DNA damage in fruit y ovarian cells in a much higher degree than 120 h total exposure to 50 Hz
alternating EMF signicantly stronger than those of high-voltage power lines. The crucial differ-
ence between the two exposures was found to be the intense variability of the real-life GSM EMF
(Panagopoulos 2019a). The importance of eld variability, especially in intensity, is also indicated
by the recorded health effects in human populations during magnetic storms, the nerve impulses
which are voltage changes in the membranes of nerve cells, and the gating of VGICs in all cell
membranes. These effects do not occur while the static polarized terrestrial or cell membrane elds
retain their regular eld intensities but initiate once their intensities undergo changes of the order
of 20%–30% of their regular values. This bioactive variability lies mainly in the ELF/ULF band.
In addition, a plethora of experimental ndings show the increased ability of ELF/ULF man-made
(polarized) EMFs to induce biological effects.
We noted the similarity between the terrestrial elds and the cell membrane elds. They are both
locally polarized and static and normally not bioactive. Effects are triggered whenever changes of
~ 20%–30% of their regular eld intensities occur. This observation is important for the explana-
tion of the biological/health effects of EMFs in general and shows that polarization, combined with
variability, is the trigger for EMF bioeffects (Panagopoulos 2019a).
We explained that all WC EMFs necessarily contain ULF/ELF/VLF components in the form
of modulation, pulsing, and random variability, and thus, they combine polarization with ELF/
ULF variations. Although information regarding the ELF pulsations of WC EMFs (especially of
LTE, 5G, and Wi-Fi) is limited in the literature and not easily accessible for reasons unknown to
us, we provided measurements of the ELF components (Table 1.1), and we showed pulsations of the
64 Biological and Heath Effects of WC EMFs
most common forms of such emissions, such as GSM (2G MT), UMTS (3G/4G MT), LTE (4G),
DECT, and Wi-Fi/Bluetooth, (Figures 1.2 –1.8) collected from the available specialized studies on
this topic. The difculty in nding information in the literature regarding the ELF pulsations of
WC EMFs (summarized in Table 1.2), in spite of the fact that the pulsing character of these EMFs/
radiations is their most important technical feature and their most bioactive component, shows the
degree of misinformation prevailing today in science.
In a recent review of studies of the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS 2021)
(authored by Thielens and reviewed by Vacha and Vian) regarding environmental impacts of 5G,
there is no mention of pulsations or any other ELF components, and the only examined frequency
band of the radiation is the carrier (MW) frequency. Moreover, the importance of the inherent
variability of the real WC exposures in inducing biological/health effects is not even mentioned,
and studies are criticized for having used real-life emissions from mobile phones for the expo-
sures, which, as explained, is the only realistic exposure method (Panagopoulos et al. 2015b; 2016;
Panagopoulos 2017; 2019a; Leach et al. 2018; Kostoff et al. 2020). Thus, the most important parame-
ters of WC EMFs (low frequency components, variability) were completely ignored. They criticized
the real-life exposures and the EMF measurements in our and others’ studies, based on Verschaeve
(2014) and do not mention our published comments on Verschaeve’s paper (Panagopoulos et al.
2016). Reproducing the criticism expressed in a paper without referring to the peer-reviewed pub-
lished response to this criticism is a major aw. Verschaeve is known for attempting to discredit
every study that has found effects from man-made EMFs. His “arguments” collapsed in our com-
ments (Panagopoulos et al. 2016). As a result, he did not comment on our studies again (Verschaeve
2017). Now EPRS (2021) reproduce Verschaeve’s (2014) “arguments” as if they were not rebutted.
This is not a way for science to move forward.
Another recent review of 107 experimental and 31 epidemiological studies with “RF” EMFs
above 6 GHz (in order to assess bioactivity of 5G) by members of the Australian Radiation Protection
and Nuclear Safety Agency again makes no mention of pulsations or any other ELF components
in the 5G or in the examined studies, and no mention whether there is any similarity of the sig-
nals produced by generators in the studies with those of the 5G apart from the carrier frequency.
Although most of the reviewed studies had reported genotoxic and various other effects, the authors
of the review found “no conrmed evidence” of adverse effects on human health and criticized the
studies for not being “independently replicated” and for employing “low quality methods of expo-
sure assessment and control” (Karipidis et al. 2021). The same authors also made a “meta-analysis”
of the same 107 experimental studies and found that the studies “do not conrm an association
between low-level mm-waves and biological effects” (Wood et al. 2021). They also estimated the
“effect size” (an arbitrary measure of bioactivity) among studies that reported “continuous wave”
and “modulated” “RF” EMFs and found “non-signicant difference”. But the “effect size” of the
studies reporting modulation was found to be almost double (4.3 ± 1.6) than that of the studies
reporting “continuous wave” (2.2 ± 0.6), and it is strange how this difference was reported as “non-
signicant”. Moreover, as explained in the present chapter and in Panagopoulos (2021), it is unlikely
that any MW generator does not contain on/off pulsations, even only for energy-saving reasons, as
in radars. Even the onset and removal of an EMF exposure alone may produce the greatest effects
(Goodman et al. 1995).
The fact that these two publications and the EPRS (2021) ignore the presence of ELF components
and whether the reviewed studies employed simulated signals or real-life WC signals, shows that
they are not reliable for investigating the health issues of these types of EMFs. Such publications
attempt to present 5G radiation as harmless to health and environment, which is clearly not the case.
A part of the scientic community believes that the ELF/ULF components of WC EMFs do not
exist independently of the RF carrier and need to be “demodulated” in order to affect living organ-
isms (Goldsworthy 2006; Sheppard et al. 2008; Wust et al. 2021). Demodulation of a modulated RF
signal is accomplished by “non-linear” electronic elements in the RF receivers in electronics, such
as diodes, transistors, etc. (Alexopoulos 1973; Schwartz 1990). Studies have clearly shown that the
65 Defining Wireless Communication Electromagnetic Fields
ELF elements exist and can be recorded independently of the RF carrier, as shown in Section 1.3.2
(Pedersen 1997; Holma and Toskala 2004; Zhou et al. 2010; Pirard and Vatovez). “Demodulated”
or not, the fact is that both ELF meters and living organisms detect them and are affected by them.
This is why modulated and pulsed RF EMFs by ELF are shown by plethora of studies (cited in
the Introduction of this chapter) to be bioactive, while the corresponding non-modulated and non-
pulsed signals are not.
We analyzed the physics of non-thermal effects of man-made EMFs in biological tissue, which
constitute the vast majority of effects at environmental conditions and the physics of thermal effects
(the known phenomenon of MW heating). We calculated the velocity of an ion passing through
an open channel in a cell membrane (Eq. 1.27), which represents an upper limit for any velocity
of a mobile ion in living tissue under the inuence of an applied EMF. This velocity is of major
importance for the estimation of physical effects in living cells (see also Chapter 11) and represents
a biophysical constant. We calculated the corresponding maximum kinetic energy and compared
it with the average thermal energy of the same particle. We showed that this upper limit energy of
an ion is millions of times smaller than the average thermal energy of the same particle, and this
explains why the vast majority of the recorded biological/health effects of man-made EMF expo-
sures are non-thermal. The available evidence shows that these non-thermal effects are due to the
ELF EMFs included in almost all articial EMFs in combination with their totally polarized and
coherent character.
In recent publications, Wust et al. (2020; 2021) (Table 1.1 in both papers) provide ion velocities
though opened channels about four orders of magnitude smaller (~ 10,000 times). They estimated
these as being due to an applied RF eld supposedly “rectied” by the membrane and superimposed
to the transmembrane eld. But how can an externally applied eld be rectied by a cell membrane?
Ions (both positive and negative) ow in and out of the membrane through the channels all the
time. If the membranes were “rectiers”, they would only allow ion ows in one direction. They
“estimated” this “rectied” voltage to be of the order of 1 μV while the transmembrane voltage is ~
100 mV. This is completely hypothetical and not based on measurements (in contrast to Eq. 1.27).
Moreover, it can be very misleading, as readers may think that the ion velocities through open chan-
nels may be of such magnitude.
Recently, due to the higher MW frequencies (“mm-waves”) included in 5G, certain Russian
studies came to light reporting “non-thermal effects of MW/mm-wave EMFs”. Three reviews of
such studies in English are Pakhomov et al. (1998), Betskii and Lebedeva (2004), and Belyaev
(2005). In several studies reviewed in Pakhomov et al. (1998), and in Belyaev (2005), ULF/ELF,
and VLF components were reported to be present in the form of pulsing, and/or modulation/inter-
mittence/variability, while for the rest of the reviewed studies, no information on possible exis-
tence of such components was provided, and thus, their presence is not excluded. In the Betskii and
Lebedeva (2004) review paper, information on the possible existence of low frequency components
(ULF/ELF/VLF) is totally missing throughout the paper, and thus, their presence is again not
excluded. Since, as explained, it is unlikely that any MW electronic circuit/generator is not turned
on and off even only for energy-saving reasons, the existence of ULF/ELF/VLF components and
the separate roles of the low and high frequencies in the biological effects need to be carefully
investigated in order to prevent misleading conclusions. In this context, speaking of “non-thermal
MW effects” without having claried whether these effects are indeed due to the MWs or to their
low frequency components can be very misleading. Systematic attempts by Gandhi and coworkers
to reproduce “non-thermal biological effects” induced by pure MW carrier signals without modu-
lation or pulsations as reported by Russian and German researchers were unsuccessful, and only
thermal effects could be elicited by such exposures at higher power densities (Bush et al. 1981;
Stensaas et al. 1981; Gandhi 1983; Furia et al. 1986). Wust et al. (2020; 2021) also speak of “non-
thermal effects of RF elds” without reporting any measurements in the low frequencies (ULF/
ELF/VLF) for the emissions of the device they used. Speaking of “RF” effects without having
66 Biological and Heath Effects of WC EMFs
explored the possible coexistence of low frequencies (which unfortunately is the common case in
many publications) is very misleading.
As reported earlier in this chapter, in most of the studies which compared a pulsed and/or
modulated complex RF EMF with the same EMF without pulsation/modulation, it was found
that it was the low frequency (ULF/ELF/VLF) pulsation/modulation and not the carrier alone
that produced the non-thermal biological effects. As correctly summarized by Goldsworthy
(2006), “Radio waves can also give biological effects, but only if they are pulsed or amplitude
modulated at biologically active low frequencies”. These facts are fully explained by the ion
forced oscillation mechanism (Panagopoulos et al. 2000; 2002; 2015a; 2020; 2021), and there
is no corresponding mechanism to explain non-thermal effects by high frequencies (RF/MW)
alone (see Chapter 11).
Polarized and coherent ELF EMFs induce parallel and coherent forced oscillations on any
charged/polar particle with energy well below the thermal level. The oscillating ions exert forces
on the sensors of electrosensitive ion channels (VGICs) in cell membranes causing their irregu-
lar opening or closing with consequent disruption of the intracellular ionic concentrations and the
electrochemical balance in all types of cells. This biophysical mechanism, known as “ion forced-
oscillation mechanism” (described in Chapter 11 of this book), provides the basis for the explana-
tion of the non-thermal effects of all man-made EMFs (Panagopoulos et al. 2000; 2002; 2015a;
2020; 2021). Today, the unique ability of ELF polarized EMFs to irregularly gate VGICs is widely
recognized, verifying the aforementioned mechanism (Liburdy 1992; Walleczeck 1992; Pall 2013;
Ceccetto et al. 2020; Zheng et al. 2021; Bertagna et al. 2021). Because of these unique properties
of the man-made EMFs, EMF exposure by a mobile phone with average intensity ~ 10 μW/cm2 on
a human body may initiate adverse non-thermal biological effects, while ~ 10 mW/cm2 (1000 times
stronger) solar EMR with signicantly longer exposure during the day does not (Panagopoulos
2017; Panagopoulos et al. 2015a).
While the vast majority of EMF-induced recorded bioeffects are non-thermal, heating increases
with increasing RF frequency, as shown by Eq. 1.31, and may become signicant with the higher
frequencies employed in 5G MT technology. As, at the same time, penetration of the EMR decreases
with increasing frequency (Eq. 1.2), it will likely become necessary to increase the intensity of the
5G signals in addition to the installation of huge number of additional base stations, antennas, and
satellites. The existence of antenna arrays in 5G technology provides the ability of stronger and
focused radiation/eld beams (Eqs. 1.23–1.24). It is noteworthy that just before the massive deploy-
ment of 5G, the ICNIRP (2020) increased the limit for 6 min average exposure at 2–6 GHz from 1
to 4 mW/cm2 (ICNIRP 1998; 2020; Panagopoulos 2020). While the older limit (1 mW/cm2) provided
limited protection against heating, the new one does not. A combination of non-thermal and thermal
biological effects can be far more dangerous than non-thermal effects alone.
We discussed how WC emissions should be better described according to incident EMF than
according to SAR. The argument that we need to know the power absorbed by the tissue in order
to predict the biological effect has been disproven by the plethora of published peer-reviewed
experimental studies, which correspond specic eld/radiation intensities, frequencies, expo-
sure durations, etc., to specic biological effects. For example, we know that WC EMF exposure
with intensities ≥1 μW/cm2 may initiate biological effects within minutes, and the effects increase
with increasing intensity and exposure duration (Panagopoulos et al. 2004; 2007a; 2007b; 2010;
Panagopoulos and Margaritis 2010a). We do not need to calculate the SAR by complicated methods
to know this. We can predict the effect by knowing the incident radiation intensity, frequency, expo-
sure duration, etc. We showed that a) when SAR is estimated from tissue conductivity and internal
electric eld, important microscopic variations in tissue conductivity are overlooked, and b) when
SAR is estimated from tissue specic heat and increased temperature is signicantly more accu-
rate, but most environmental EMF exposures do not cause measurable tissue heating. Moreover,
this method cannot be used in experiments with live animals, as needles/thermal probes need to be
inserted, but only in experiments with cell cultures. Thus, SAR is rendered useless for the majority
67 Defining Wireless Communication Electromagnetic Fields
of EMF exposures which are non-thermal and for those involving live animals. Although, at higher
MW frequencies of newer technologies (≥2 GHz) and high intensities (≥0.1 mW/cm2) (such as 3G,
4G), there may be temperature increases at 0.1–0.3°C level (which will likely become more signi-
cant with the 5G) the biological effect of man-made EMFs is determined by eld parameters not
directly (or at all) included in SAR such as polarization, frequency, pulsing, modulation, variability,
exposure duration, etc. Moreover, the biological effect depends on microscopic power absorption
by specic biomolecules (e.g., DNA), which is not easy to estimate. Thus, SAR is of very limited
value to describe bioactivity of EMF exposures. Instead, the incident radiation/eld intensity at the
included frequency bands should be reported along with the other eld parameters, the exposure
duration, variability (SD) of the measured intensity values, etc. SAR may be used complementarily
in experiments with cell cultures exposed to high frequency/power MWs causing measurable heat-
ing (Panagopoulos et al. 2013b). Marino et al. (2016) have expressed similar views: “To provide
an objective basis for follow-up studies, the power density of the incident radiation, which was the
independent variable in the study, was characterized by direct measurement rather than by employ-
ing model-dependent dosimetry parameters, such as the specic absorption rate”.
Similarly, Baker et al. (2004), even though they explored thermal effects in magnetic resonance
(MR) imaging, concluded: “using SAR to guide MR safety recommendations for neuro-stimulation
systems or other similar implants across different MR systems is unreliable and, therefore, poten-
tially dangerous. Better, more universal, measures are required in order to ensure patient safety”.
We analyzed the important issue of whether man-made EMFs/EMR consist of photons or con-
tinuous “classical” waves and the mathematical “quantization” of the EMF/EMR by the founders of
QED/QEM. We showed that the mathematical “quantization” was based on the simplistic assump-
tion that any EMF is periodic in time, allowing them to transform it into a Fourier series of discrete
terms. The discrete terms were then interpreted as the “photons” of the EMF/EMR. But any random
EMF is not periodic in time and, thus, cannot be transformed by application of the Fourier series.
This simplistic approach started by Schroedinger, who used a harmonic wave-function to describe
a free particle (Eq. 1.45). By application of the Fourier integral (Spiegel 1974), a randomly varying
EMF could be theoretically transformed into a continuous of an innite number of (non-discrete)
harmonic oscillators. But this is not a “quantization”. Thus, the argument that man-made (including
WC) EMFs cannot induce any biological/health effects due to their small “photon energy” col-
lapses simply because there are no such “photons”, and this is in agreement with the thousands of
experimental and epidemiological studies showing a vast number of adverse effects on a variety of
organisms/tissues/cells.
Finally, we summarized the important differences between natural and man-made EMFs/EMR
which imply that these two categories of EMFs should not be evaluated by the same criteria for their
bioactivity. General concepts for the interaction of both natural and man-made EMFs/EMR with
inanimate matter and biological tissue were discussed as well. We hope the presented chapter is use-
ful in clarifying important aspects of the physical properties of man-made EMFs and, in particular,
WC EMFs, which, in turn, determine their increased adverse biological activity and explain the
plethora of experimental and epidemiological ndings. We hope the present chapter forms a basis
for the systematic study of WC EMFs and the health risks associated with exposures to these EMFs.
“This work is valuable to the society. Among many other details, it correctly identies that ‘low
photon energy’ must not be used to justify that microwaves are benign to living organisms. That is
an irresponsible scientic thinking”.
(Dr. Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri, Photonics Laboratory, Physics Department, University of
Connecticut, US)
REFERENCES
Adey WR, (1981). Tissue interactions with non-ionizing electromagnetic elds. Physiol Rev. 61:435–514.
68 Biological and Heath Effects of WC EMFs
Adey WR, (1993). Biological effects of electromagnetic elds. J Cell Biochem. 51:410–416.
Alberts B, Bray D, Lewis J, Raff M, Roberts K, Watson JD, (1994). Molecular Biology of the Cell. Garland
Publishing, Inc., New York.
Alexopoulos CD, (1962). Heat. Papazisis Publ., Athens [Αλεξόπουλος ΚΔ, Θερμότης, Εκδ. Παπαζήση,
Αθήνα 1962].
Alexopoulos CD, (1963). Atomic and Nuclear Physics. Papazisis Publ., Athens [Αλεξόπουλος ΚΔ, Ατομική
και Πυρηνική φυσική, Εκδ. Παπαζήση, Αθήνα 1963].
Alexopoulos CD, (1966). Optics. Papazisis Publ., Athens [Αλεξόπουλος ΚΔ, Οπτική, Εκδ. Παπαζήση, Αθήνα
1966].
Alexopoulos CD, (1973). Electricity. Papazisis Publ., Athens [Αλεξόπουλος ΚΔ, Ηλεκτρισμός, Εκδ.
Παπαζήση, Αθήνα 1973].
Alonso M, Finn EJ, (1967). Fundamental University Physics, Vol. 2: Fields and Waves. Addison-Wesley,
USA.
Andersen JB, Pedersen GF, (1997). The technology of mobile telephone systems relevant for risk assessment.
Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 3–4(72):249–257.
Arago DFJ, Fresnel AJ, (1819). On the action of rays of polarized light upon each other. Ann Chim Phys.
2:288–304.
Azanza MJ, Perez Bruzon RN, Lederer D, et al, (2002). Reversibility of the effects induced on the spontaneous
bioelectric activity of neurons under exposure to 8.3 and 217.0 Hz low intensity magnetic elds. 2nd Int.
Workshop Biol. Effects of EMFs, Rhodes, Grece, 651–659.
Baker KB, Tkach JA, Nyenhuis JA, Phillips M, Shellock FG, et al, (2004). Evaluation of specic absorption
rate as a dosimeter of MRI-related implant heating. J Magn Reson Imaging. 20:315–320.
Balzano Q, Sheppard A, (2003). RF nonlinear interactions in living cells I: nonequilibrium thermodynamic
the or y. Bioelectromagnetics. 24:473–482.
Bassett CAL, Pawluk RJ, Becker RO, (1964). Effect of electric currents on bone in vivo. Nature. 204:652–654.
Bawin SM, Kaczmarek LK, Adey WR, (1975). Effects of modulated VMF elds, on the central nervous sys-
tem. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2 47:74 –81.
Bawin SM, Adey WR, Sabbot IM, (1978). Ionic factors in release of 45Ca 2+ from chick cerebral tissue by elec-
tromagnetic elds. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 75:6314–6318.
Bawin SM, Adey WR, (1976). Sensitivity of calcium binding in cerebral tissue to weak environmental electric
elds oscillating at low frequency. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 73:1999–2003.
Behari J, (2010). Biological responses of mobile phone frequency exposure. Ind J Exp Biol. 48:959–981.
Beiser A, (1987). Concepts of Modern Physics. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.
Belpomme D, Irigaray P, (2020). Electrohypersensitivity as a newly identied and characterized neuro-
logic pathological disorder: how to diagnose, treat, and prevent it. Int J Mol Sci. 21:1915; doi:10.3390/
ijms21061915
Belyaev I, (2005). Non-thermal biological effects of microwaves. Microwave Rev. 11(2):13–29.
Berger H, (1929). Ueber das Elektrenkephalogramm des Menschen (On the human electroencephalogram).
Archiv f. Psychiatrie u. Nervenkrankheiten. 87:527–570.
Bertagna F, Lewis R, Silva SRP, McFadden J, Jeevaratnam K, (2021). Effects of electromagnetic elds on
neuronal ion channels: a systematic review. Ann NY Acad Sci. 1499(1):82–103.
Betskii OV, Lebedeva NN, (2004). Low-intensity millimeter waves in biology and medicine. In Clinical
Application of Bioelectromagnetic Medicine. Marcel Decker, New York, 30–61.
Blackman CF., Benane SG, Elder JA, House DE, Lampe JA, Faulk JM, (1980). Induction of calcium - ion
efux from brain tissue by radiofrequency radiation: effect of sample number and modulation frequency
on the power - density window. Bioelectromagnetics. 1:35–43.
Blackman CF, Benane SG, Kinney LS, Joines WT, House DE, (1982). Effects of ELF elds on calcium-ion
efux from brain tissue in vitro. Radiat Res. 92(3):510–20.
Blackman C, (2009). Cell phone radiation: evidence from ELF and RF studies supporting more inclusive risk
identication and assessment. Pathophysiology. 16:205–16.
Bohr N, (1913a). On the constitution of atoms and molecules, part I. Philos Mag. 26:1–2 4.
Bohr N, (1913b). On the constitution of atoms and molecules, part II systems containing only a single nucleus.
Philos Mag. 26:476–502.
Bohr N, (1914). The spectra of helium and hydrogen. Nature. 92:231–232.
Bohr N, (1928). The quantum postulate and the recent development of atomic theory. Nature 121:580–590.
Bolshakov MA, Alekseev SI, (1992). Bursting responses of Lymnea neurons to microwave radiation.
Bioelectromagnetics. 13(2):119 –129.
69 Defining Wireless Communication Electromagnetic Fields
Borgens RB, (1988). Stimulation of neuronal regeneration and development by steady electrical elds.
Advances in Neurology. 47; Functional Recovery in Neurological Disease, SG Waxman (Ed), Raven
Press, New York.
Brighton CT, Friedenberg ZB, Black J, (1979). Evaluation of the use of constant direct current in the treatment
of non-union. In CT Brighton (Ed), Electrical Properties of Bone and Cartilage. Plenum Press, New
York, 519–545.
Brighton CT, McClusky WP, (1987). Response of cultured bone cells to capacitively coupled electrical eld:
inhibition of cAMP response to parathyroid hormone. J Orthop Res. 6:567–571.
Brighton CT, Jensen L, Pollack SR, Tolin BS, Clark CC, (1989). Proliferative and synthetic response of
bovine growth plate chondrocytes to various capacitively coupled electrical elds. J Orthop Res.
7:759 –765.
Burcham WE, Jobes M, (1995). Nuclear and Particle Physics. Prentice Hall, England.
Bush LG, Hill DW, Riazi A, Stensaas LJ, Partlow LM, Gandhi OP, (1981). Effects of millimeter wave
radiation on monolayer cell cultures III: a search for frequency-specic effects on protein synthesis.
Bioelectromagnetics. 2:151–160.
Byus CV, Lundak RL, Fletcher RM, Adey WR, (1984). Alterations in protein Kinase activity follow-
ing exposure of cultured lymphocytes to modulated microwave elds. Bioelectromagnetics (N.Y.).
5:3 41–351.
Byus CV, Kartum K, Pieper SE, Adey WR, (1988). Ornithine decarboxylase activity in liver cells is enhanced
by low-level amplitude modulated microwave elds. Cancer Res. 48:4222–4226.
Campisi A, Gulino M, Acquaviva R, Bellia P, Raciti G, et al., (2010). Reactive oxygen species levels and DNA
fragmentation on astrocytes in primary culture after acute exposure to low intensity microwave electro-
magnetic eld. Neurosci Lett. 473(1):52–55.
Carpenter RL, Livstone EM, (1968). Evidence for nonthermal effects of microwave radiation: abnormal devel-
opment of irradiated insect pupae. IEEE Trans Microwave Theory Tech. 19(2):173 –178.
Cecchetto C, Maschietto M, Boccaccio P, Vassanelli S, (2020). Electromagnetic eld affects the voltage-
dependent potassium channel Kv1.3. Electromagn Biol Med. 39(4):316 –322.
Chandra A, Bagchi B, (2000). Frequency dependence of ionic conductivity of electrolyte solutions. J Chem
Phys. 112:1876–1886.
Chavdoula ED, Panagopoulos DJ, Margaritis LH, (2010). Comparison of biological effects between continu-
ous and intermittent exposure to GSM-900 MHz mobile phone radiation. Detection of apoptotic cell
death features. Mut Res. 70 0:51– 61.
Chen HS, Rao CRN, (1968). Polarization of light on reection by some natural surfaces. Brit J Appl Phys.
1:1191 –120 0.
Christ A, Gosselin M-C, Christopoulou M, et al. (2010). Age-dependent tissue-specic exposure of cell phone
users. Phys Med Biol. 55:1767–1783.
Clark DE, Folz DC, West JK, (2000). Processing materials with microwave energy. Adv Mater Sci Eng.
287:153–158.
Clarke J, Wilhelm FK, (2008). Superconducting quantum bits. Nature. 453:1031–1042.
Coggle JE, (1983). Biological Effects of Radiation. Taylor & Francis.
Creasey WA, Goldberg RB, (2001). A new twist on an old mechanism for EMF bioeffects?, EMF Health Rep.
9(2):1–11. https://www.emfsa.co.za/research-and-studies/creasey-wa-goldberg-rb-2001-a-new-twist-on
-an-old-mechanism-for-emf/
Cronin TW, Warrant EJ, Greiner B, (2006). Celestial polarization patterns during twilight. Applied Optics.
22:5582–5589.
Curwen P, Whalley J, (2008). Mobile Communications in the 21st century, In AC Harper, RV Buress (Eds),
Mobile Telephones: Networks, Applications and Performance. Nova Science Publishers, New York,
29–75.
Dahlman E, Parkvall S, Skoeld J, (2018). 5G NR: The Next Generation Wireless Access Technology. Academic
Press, Elsevier, London.
Davisson C, Germer L, (1927). Reection of electrons by a crystal of nickel. Nature. 119:558–560.
Dawe AS, Smith B, Thomas DW, Greedy S, Vasic N, et al., (2006). A small temperature rise may con-
tribute towards the apparent induction by microwaves of heat-shock gene expression in the nematode
Caenorhabditis elegans. Bioelectromagnetics. 2 7(2):88–9 7.
De Broglie L, (1924). Recherches sur la théorie des quanta, doctoral thesis, Paris.
De Iuliis GN, Newey RJ, King BV, Aitken RJ, (2009). Mobile phone radiation induces reactive oxygen species
production and DNA damage in human spermatozoa in vitro. PLoS One. 4(7):e6446.
70 Biological and Heath Effects of WC EMFs
Diem E, Schwarz C, Adlkofer F, Jahn O, Rudiger H., (2005). Non-thermal DNA breakage by mobile-phone
radiation (1800 MHz) in human broblasts and in transformed GFSH-R17 rat granulosa cells in vitro.
Mutat Res. 583(2):178–83.
Dirac PAM. (1927). The quantum theory of the emission and absorption of radiation. Proc R Soc London.
114:243–256.
Dubrov AP, (1978). The Geomagnetic Field and Life. Plenum Press, New York.
Durrer R, (2008). The Cosmic Microwave Background. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
EPRS, (2021). Environmental impacts of 5G. A literature review of effects of radio-frequency electromagnetic
eld exposure of non-human vertebrates, invertebrates and plants. Scientic Foresight Unit (STOA), PE
690.021, June 2021.
Falcioni L, Bua L, Tibaldi E, et al. (2018). Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-
Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field repre-
sentative of a 1.8GHz GSM base station environmental emission. Environ Res. 165:496–503.
Fear EC, Stuchly MA, (1998). A novel equivalent circuit model for gap connected cells. Phys Med Biol.
43:1439–1448.
Feynman RP, (1950). Mathematical formulation of the quantum theory of electromagnetic interaction. Phys
Rev. 8 0:4 40 – 457.
Flyckt VM, Raaymakers BW, Kroeze H, Lagendijk JJ, (2007). Calculation of SAR and temperature rise in a
high-resolution vascularized model of the human eye and orbit when exposed to a dipole antenna at 900,
1500 and 1800 MHz. Phys Med Biol. 52(10):2691–701.
Foster KR, Schwan HP, (1989). Dielectric properties of tissues and biological materials: a critical review, Crit
Rev Biomed Eng. 17(1):25–103.
Franzellitti S, Valbonesi P, Ciancaglini N, Biondi C, Contin A, et al., (2010). Transient DNA damage induced
by high-frequency electromagnetic elds (GSM 1.8 GHz) in the human trophoblast HTR-8/SVneo cell
line evaluated with the alkaline comet assay. Mutat Res. 683(1–2):35–42.
Frei M., Jauchem J, Heinmets F, (1988). Physiological effects of 2.8 GHz radio-frequency radiation: a com-
parison of pulsed and continuous-wave radiation. J Microwave Power Electromagn. 23:2.
Furia L, Hill DW, Gandhi OP, (1986). Effect of millimeter wave irradiation on growth of saccaromyces cere-
visiae. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 33:993–999.
Gabriel S, Lau RW, Gabriel C, (1996a). The dielectric properties of biological tissues: II. measurements in the
frequency range 10 Hz to 20 GHz. Phys Med Biol. 41:2251–2269.
Gabriel S, Lau RW, Gabriel C, (1996b). The dielectric properties of biological tissues: III. parametric models
for the dielectric spectrum of tissues. Phys Med Biol. 41:2271–93.
Gandhi OP, (1983). Some basic properties of biological tissues for potential biomedical applications of mil-
limeter waves. J Microwave Power. 18:295–304.
Gandhi OP, Morgan LL, de Salles A A, Han Y-Y, Herberman RB, Davis DL, (2012). Exposure lim its: the under-
estimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children. Electromagn Biol Med. 31(1):34–51.
Gautreau R, Savin W, (1978). Theory and Problems of Modern Physics. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Goldsworthy A, (2006). Effects of electrical and electromagnetic elds on plants and related topics, In Volkov
(Ed), Plant Electrophysiology–Theory & Methods. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg.
Goodman EM, Greenebaum B, Marron MT, (1995). Effects of electro- magnetic elds on molecules and cells.
Int Rev Cytol. 158:279–338.
Gründler W, (1992). Intensity- and frequency-dependent effects of microwaves on cell growth rates.
Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg. 27:361–365,
Gulati S, Yadav A, Kumar N, Kanupriya ANK, et al, (2016). Effect of GSTM1 and GSTT1 polymorphisms on
genetic damage in humans populations exposed to radiation from mobile towers. Arch Environ Contam
Toxicol. 70(3):615–625.
Gulyaev YuV, Markov AG, Koreneva LG, Zakharov PV. (1995). Dynamical infrared thermography in humans.
Eng Med Biol Mag IEEE. 14:766 –771.
Haemmerich D, Schutt DJ, dos Santos I, Webster JG, Mahvi DM, (2005). Measurement of temperature-depen-
dent specic heat of biological tissues. Physiol. Meas. 26(1):59 –67.
Hardell L, Carlberg M, Söderqvist F, Mild KH, Morgan LL. (2007). Long-term use of cellular phones and
brain tumours: increased risk associated with use for > or =10 years. Occup Environ Med. 64(9):626–32.
Review.
Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K, (2013). Use of mobile phones and cordless phones is associated with
increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma. Pathophysiology. 20:85–110.
Hardell L, Nyberg R, (2020). Appeals that matter or not on a moratorium on the deployment of the fth gen-
eration, 5G, for microwave radiation. Mol Clin Oncol. doi:10.3892/mco.2020.1984
71 Defining Wireless Communication Electromagnetic Fields
Hardell L, Carlberg M, (2021). Lost opportunities for cancer prevention: historical evidence on early warnings
with emphasis on radiofrequency radiation. Rev Environ Health. doi:10.1515/reveh-2020-0168. Online
ahead of print.
Herzberg G, (1944). Atomic Spectra and Atomic Structure. Dover publications, USA.
Herzberg G, (1950). Molecular Spectra and Molecular Structure. D Van Nostrand company Inc, USA.
High performance solutions for peak and average power measurements. https://emin.com.mm/high-perfor-
mance-solutions-for-peak-and-average-power-measurements-myanmar-83633/pr.html.
Hinrikus H, Bachmann M, Lass J, Tomson R, Tuulik V, (2008). Effect of 7, 14 and 21 Hz modulated 450 MHz
microwave radiation on human electroencephalographic rhythms. Int J Radiat Biol. 84(1):6 9–79.
Holma H, Toskala A, (2004). WCDMA for UMTS , Radio Access for Third Generati on Mobile Communica tions.
John Wiley & Sons Inc., Chichester, England.
Houck AA, Schuster DI, Gambetta JM, Schreier JA, Johnson BR, Chow JM, Frunzio L., Majer J., Devoret
MH, Girvin SM, Schoelkopf RJ, (2007). Generating single microwave photons in a circuit. Nature
449:328–331.
Houston BJ, Nixon B, King BV, De Iuliis GN, Aitken RJ, (2016). The effects of radiofrequency electromag-
netic radiation on sperm function. Reproduction. 152(6):R263–R276.
Höytö A, Luukkonen J, Juutilainen J, Naarala J, (2008). Proliferation, oxidative stress and cell death in cells
exposed to 872 MHz radiofrequency radiation and oxidants. Radiat Res. 170(2):235–243.
Huber R, Treyer V, Borbely AA, Schuderer J, Gottselig JM, Landolt HP, Werth E, Berthold T, Kuster N, Buck
A, Achermann P, (2002). Electromagnetic elds, such as those from mobile phones, alter regional cere-
bral blood ow and sleep and waking EEG. J Sleep Res. 11(4):289–95.
Hunter G, Wadlinger RLP, (1987). Physical photons: theory, experiment, interpretation. In Quantum
Uncertainties: Recent and Future Experiments and Interpretations: Proceedings of tile NATO
Workshop, University of Bridgeport, CT, 1986, NATO ASI Series B, Vol.162, Plenum Press.
Hyland GJ, (2000). Physics and biology of mobile telephony. Lancet. 356:1833–36.
Hyland GJ, (2008). Physical basis of adverse and therapeutic effects of low intensity microwave radiation. Ind
J Exp Biol. 46:403 – 419.
IARC, (2002). Non-ionizing radiation, part 1: static and extremely low-frequency (ELF) electric and magnetic
elds. Vol. 80. World Health Organization.
IARC, (2013). Non-ionizing radiation, part 2: radiofrequency electromagnetic elds. Vol. 102. Lyon, France.
ICNIRP, (1998). Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic
elds (up to 300GHz). Health Phys. 74:494 –522.
ICNIRP, (2020). Guidelines for limiting exposure to electromagnetic elds (100 kHz to 300GHz). Health
Phys. [Published ahead of print].
IEEE, (2002). IEEE recommended practice for measurements and computations of radio frequency electro-
magnetic elds with respect to human exposure to such elds, 100 kHz–300 GHz, IEEE Std C95.3™-
2002 (R2008).
Inomata K., Lin Z., Koshino K., Oliver WD, Tsai JS, Yamamoto T., Nakamura Y, (2016). Single microwave-
photon detector using an articial [Lambda]-type three-level system. Nat. Commun. 7.
Ivancsits S, Diem E, Pilger A, Rüdiger HW, Jahn, (2002). Induction of DNA strand breaks by intermittent
exposure to extremely-low-frequency electromagnetic elds in human diploid broblasts. Mutat Res.
519(1–2):1–13.
Ivancsits S, Diem E, Jahn O, Rüdiger HW, (2003). Intermittent extremely low frequency electromagnetic elds
cause DNA damage in a dose-dependent way. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 76(6):431–6.
Jackson JD, (1975). Classical Electrodynamics. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York.
Jaynes ET, (1966). Is QED necessary?. In L Mandel, E Wolf (Eds), Proceedings of the Second Rochester
Conference on Coherence and Quantum Optics. Plenum, New York, 21.
Jaynes ET, (1978). Electrodynamics today. In L Mandel, E Wolf (Eds), Coherence and Quantum Optics IV.
Plenum Press, New York, 495.
Jaynes ET, (1980). Quantum Beats. http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/ quantum. beats.pdf.
Johansson O, (2009). Disturbance of the immune system by electromagnetic elds-A potentially underly-
ing cause for cellular damage and tissue repair reduction which could lead to disease and impairment.
Pathophysiology. 16:157–77.
Karipidis K, Mate R, Urban D, Tinker R, Wood A, (2021). 5G mobile networks and health—a state-of-the-
science review of the research into low-level RF elds above 6 GHz. J Exposure Sci Environ Epidemiol.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-021-00307-7
Khurana VG, Teo C, Kundi M, Hardell L, Carlberg M, (2009). Cell phones and brain tumors: a review includ-
ing the long-term epidemiologic data. Surg Neurol. 72(3):205–14.
72 Biological and Heath Effects of WC EMFs
Klimov A., (1975). Nuclear Physics and Nuclear Reactors. Mir Publishers, Moscow.
Kostoff RN, Heroux P, Aschner M, Tsatsakis A, (2020). Adverse health effects of 5G mobile networking
technology under real-life conditions. Toxicol Lett. 323:35 –40.
Kraus H., Soltamov VA, Riedel D., Väth S., Fuchs F., Sperlich A., Baranov PG, Dyakonov V., Astakhov GV,
(2014). Room-temperature quantum microwave emitters based on spin defects in silicon carbide. Nat
Phys.10:157–162.
Kwee S, Raskmark P, (1998). Changes in cell proliferation due to environmental non-ionizing radiation 2.
Microwave radiation. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg. 44:251–255.
Lamb WE, Scully MO, (1969). The photoelectric effect without photons. In Polarization, Matter and
Radiation. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 363–369.
Leach V, Weller S, Redmayne M, (2018). A novel database of bio-effects from non-ionizing radiation. Rev
Environ Health. 33(3):1–8.
Leonard J, Foster K, Athey TW, (1984). Thermal properties of tissue equivalent phantom materials. IEEE
Trans Biomed Eng. 31:533–536.
Levitt BB,. Lai HC, Manville AM, (2021). Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic elds on ora and fauna,
part 1. Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment. Rev Environ Health. doi.org/10.1515/reveh-202
1-0026
Liboff AR, (2003). Ion cyclotron resonance in biological systems: experimental evidence. In Stavroulakis P
(Ed), Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, Springer, Berlin, 76–113.
Liburdy RP, (1992). Calcium signalling in lymphocytes and ELF elds: Evidence for an electric eld metric
and a site of interaction involving the calcium ion channel. FEBS Lett. 301: 53–59.
Liman ER, Hess P, Weaver F, Koren G, (1991). Voltage sensing residues in the S4 region of a mammalian K+
channel. Nature. 353:752 –756.
Lin-Liu S, Adey WR, (1982). Low frequency amplitude modulated microwave elds change calcium efux
rates from synaptosomes. Bioelectromagnetics. 3(3):309–22.6.
Lioliousis C, (1979). Microwaves, Athens. [Λιολιούσης Κ, Μικροκύματα, Αθήνα 1979]
Lioliousis C, (1997). Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation. Diavlos, Athens. [Λιολιούσης Κ,
Βιολογικές επιδράσεις της ηλεκτρομαγνητικής ακτινοβολίας, Δίαυλος, Αθήνα 1997]
Lioliousis C, (2009). Mobile Phone and Health. Diavlos, Athens. [Λιολιούσης Κ, Κινητό τηλέφωνο και
υγεία, Δίαυλος, Αθήνα 2009]
Litovitz TA, Krause D, Penael M, Elson EC, Mullins JM, (1993). The role of coherence time in the effect of
microwaves on ornithine decarboxylase activity. Bioelectromagnetics. 14:395 – 403.
Ma TH, Chu KC. (1993). Effect of the extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic eld (EMF) on devel-
oping embryos of the fruit y (Drosophila melanogaster L.). Mutat Res, 303(1):35–9.
Major FG, (2014). The classical atomic clocks. In Quo Vadis: Evolution of Modern Navigation. Springer, New
York, NY, 151–180.
Manna D, Ghosh R, (2016). Effect of radiofrequency radiation in cultured mammalian cells: a review.
Electromagn Biol Med. 35(3):265–301.
Mandel L, Wolf E. (1995). Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics. Cambridge University Press.
Mandl F, (1988). Statistical Physics. Wiley, Chichester, 2nd edition.
Marino AA, Becker RO, (1977). Biological effects of extremely low frequency electric and magnetic elds: a
re vie w. Physiol Chem Phys. 9:131–147.
Marino AA, Kim PY, Frilot C, (2016). Trigeminal neurons detect cellphone radiation: thermal or nonthermal
is not the question. Electromagn Biol Med. 36(2):123–131.
McCaig CD, Zhao M, (1997). Physiological electric elds modify cell behaviour. Bioessays. 19(9):819–826.
Metaxas AC, (1991). Microwave heating. Power Eng. 5(5):237 –247.
Miller AB, Morgan LL, Udasin I, Davis DL, (2018). Cancer epidemiology update, following the 2011 IARC
evaluation of radiofrequency electromagnetic elds (Monograph 102). Environ Res. 167:673–683.
Miller AB, Sears ME, Morgan LL, Davis DL, Hardell L, et al, (2019). Risks to health and well-being from
radio-frequency radiation emitted by cell phones and other wireless devices. Front Public Health. 7:223.
doi:10.3389/fpubh.2019.00223.
Mohammed HS, Fahmy HM, Radwan NM, Elsayed AA, (2013). Non-thermal continuous and modulated
electromagnetic radiation elds effects on sleep EEG of rats. J Adv Res. 4(2):181–7.
Moulder JE, Erdreich LS, Malyapa RS, Merritt J, Pickard WF et al, (1999). Cell phones and cancer. what is
the evidence for a connection?. Radiat Res. 151:513 –531. 60.
NCRP, (1986). Biological effects and exposure criteria for radiofrequency electromagnetic elds. Properties,
quantities and units, biophysical interaction and measurements. National Council on Radiation
Protection and Measurements, Report No 86, Bethesda, MD.
73 Defining Wireless Communication Electromagnetic Fields
Neher E, Sakmann B, (1992). The patch clamp technique. Sci Am. 266:28–35.
Neufeld E, Kuster N, (2018). Systematic derivation of safety limits for time-varying 5G radiofrequency expo-
sure based on analytical models and thermal dose. Health Phys. 115(6):705 –711.
NTP (National Toxicology Program), (2018) Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies in HSD: sprague
dawley SD rats exposed to whole-body radio frequency radiation at a frequency (900 MHz) and
modulations (GSM and CDMA) used by cell phones. NTP TR 595, Department of Health and
Human Services, USA.
Nuccitelli R, (1992). Endogenous ionic currents and DC electric elds in multicellular animal tissues.
Bioelectromagnetics. Suppl 1:147–157.
Nuccitelli R, (2003). Endogenous electric elds in embryos during development, regeneration and wound
healing. Radiat Prot Dosimetry.10 6(4):3 75–83.
Olaniyi IJ, (2017). Microwave heating in food processing. BAOJ Nutr. 3:02 7.
Pakhomov AG, Akyel Y, Pakhomova ON, Stuck BE, Murphy MR, (1998). Current state and implications
of research on biological effects of millimeter waves: a review of the literature. Bioelectromagnetics.
19: 393 –413.
Pall ML, (2013). Electromagnetic elds act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce ben-
ecial or adverse effects. J Cell Mol Med. 17(8):958–9 65.
Pall ML, (2018). Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health. Environ Res. 164:405–416.
Palmer LG, (1986) New Insights into Cell and Membrane Transport Processes. G Poste, ST Crooke, Eds.,
Plenum, New York, 331.
Panagopoulos DJ, Messini N, Karabarbounis A, Philippetis AL, Margaritis LH, (2000). A mechanism for
action of oscillating electric elds on cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 272:634–640.
Panagopoulos DJ, Karabarbounis A, Margaritis LH, (2002). Mechanism for action of electromagnetic elds
on cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 298(1):95–102.
Panagopoulos DJ, Margaritis LH, (2003). Theoretical considerations for the biological effects of elec-
tromagnetic elds. In P Stavroulakis (Ed), Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields. Springer,
Berlin, 5–33.
Panagopoulos DJ, Karabarbounis A, Margaritis LH, (2004). Effect of GSM 900-MHz mobile phone radiation
on the reproductive capacity of drosophila melanogaster. Electromagn Biol Med. 23(1):29–43.
Panagopoulos DJ, Chavdoula ED, Nezis IP, Margaritis LH, (2007a). Cell death induced by GSM 900MHz and
DCS 1800MHz mobile telephony radiation. Mutat Res. 626:69–78.
Panagopoulos DJ, Chavdoula ED, Karabarbounis A, Margaritis LH, (2007b). Comparison of bioactivity
between GSM 900 MHz and DCS 1800 MHz mobile telephony radiation. Electromagn Biol Med.
26 (1):3 3– 44 .
Panagopoulos DJ, Margaritis LH, (2009). Biological and health effects of mobile telephony radiations. Int J
Med Biol Front. 15(1/2):33–76.
Panagopoulos DJ, Chavdoula ED, Margaritis LH, (2010). Bioeffects of mobile telephony radiation in relation
to its intensity or distance from the antenna. Int J Radiat Biol. 86(5):345–357.
Panagopoulos DJ, Margaritis LH, (2010a). The effect of exposure duration on the biological activity of mobile
telephony radiation. Mutat Res. 699(1/2):17–22.
Panagopoulos DJ, Margaritis LH, (2010b). The identication of an intensity “window” on the bioeffects of
mobile telephony radiation. Int J Rad Biol. 86(5):358–366.
Panagopoulos DJ, (2011). Biological impacts, action mechanisms, dosimetry and protection issues of mobile
telephony radiation. In MC Barnes, NP Meyers (Eds), Mobile Phones: Technology, Networks and User
Issues. Nova Science Publishers, Inc., New York, 1–54.
Panagopoulos DJ, (2013). Electromagnetic interaction between environmental elds and living systems deter-
mines health and well-being. In MH Kwang and SO Yoon (Eds), Electromagnetic Fields: Principles,
Engineering Applications and Biophysical Effects. Nova Science Publishers, New York, 87–130.
Panagopoulos DJ, Karabarbounis A, Lioliousis C, (2013a). ELF alternating magnetic eld decreases reproduc-
tion by DNA damage induction. Cell Biochem Biophys. 67:703–716.
Panagopoulos DJ, Johansson O, Carlo GL, (2013b). Evaluation of specic absorption rate as a dosimetric quan-
tity for electromagnetic elds bioeffects. PLoS One. 8(6):e62663. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0062663.
Panagopoulos DJ, Johansson O, Carlo GL, (2015a). Polarization: a key difference between man-made and
natural electromagnetic elds, in regard to biological activity. Sci Rep. 5:14914
Panagopoulos DJ, Johansson O, Carlo GL, (2015b). Real versus simulated mobile phone exposures in experi-
mental studies. BioMed Res Int. 2015:607053.
Panagopoulos DJ, (2015). Considering photons as spatially conned wave-packets. In A Reimer (Ed), Horizons
in World Physics. Vol. 285, Nova Science Publishers, New York.
74 Biological and Heath Effects of WC EMFs
Panagopoulos DJ, Cammaerts MC, Favre D, Balmori A, (2016). Comments on environmental impact of radio-
frequency elds from mobile phone base stations. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol. 46(9):885–903.
Panagopoulos DJ, Balmori A, (2017). On the biophysical mechanism of sensing atmospheric discharges by
living organisms. Sci Total Environ. 599–600(2017):2026–2034.
Panagopoulos DJ, (2017). Mobile telephony radiation effects on insect ovarian cells. the necessity for real
exposures bioactivity assessment. the key role of polarization, and the ion forced-oscillation mecha-
nism. In CD Geddes (Ed), Microwave Effects on DNA and Proteins. Springer, Cham, Switzerland,
1–48.
Panagopoulos DJ, (2018). Man-made electromagnetic radiation is not quantized. In A Reimer (Ed), Horizons
in World Physics. Vol. 296, Nova Science Publishers, New York.
Panagopoulos DJ, Chrousos GP, (2019). Shielding methods and products against man-made electromagnetic
elds: protection versus risk. Sci Total Environ. 667C:255–262.
Panagopoulos DJ, (2019a). Comparing DNA damage induced by mobile telephony and other types of man-
made electromagnetic elds. Mutat Res Rev. 781:53 – 62.
Panagopoulos DJ, (2019b). Chromosome damage in human cells induced by UMTS mobile telephony radia-
tion. Gen Physiol Biophys. 38:445– 454
Panagopoulos DJ, (2020). Comparing chromosome damage induced by mobile telephony radiation and a high
caffeine dose: effect of combination and exposure duration, Gen Physiol Biophys. 39:531–544.
Panagopoulos DJ, Balmori A, Chrousos GP, (2020). On the biophysical mechanism of sensing upcoming
earthquakes by animals. Sci Total Environ. 717(2020):136989.
Panagopoulos DJ, Karabarbounis A, (2020). Comments on “diverse radiofrequency sensitivity and radio-
frequency effects of mobile or cordless phone near elds exposure in drosophila melanogaster. Adv
Environ Stud. 4(1):271–276.
Panagopoulos DJ, Karabarbounis A, Yakymenko I, Chrousos GP, (2021). Human-made electromagnetic
elds: ion forced-oscillation and voltage-gated ion channel dysfunction: oxidative stress and DNA dam-
age. Int J Oncol, 59: 92.
Panarella E, (2008). Single photons have not been detected: the alternative photon clump model. In C
Roychoudhuri, AF Kracklauer, K Creath (Ed), The Nature of Light. What Is a Photon? CRC Press,
Taylor & Francis, USA.
Parsons KC, (1993). Human Thermal Environments. Taylor and Francis, London.
Pedersen GF, (1997). Amplitude modulated RF elds stemming from a GSM/DCS-1800 phone. Wireless
Networks. 3:489–498.
Penael LM, Litovitz T, Krause D, Desta A, Mullins MJ, (1997). Role of modulation on the effect of micro-
waves on ornithine decarboxylase activity in L929 cells. Bioelectromagnetics. 18(2):132– 41.
Peyman A, Rezazadeh AA, Gabriel C, (2001). Changes in the dielectric properties of rat tissue as a function
of age at microwave frequencies. Phys Med Biol. 4 6(6):1617–1629.
Phillips JL, Singh NP, Lai H., (2009). Electromagnetic elds and DNA damage. Pathophysiology.
16(2–3):79–88.
Pirard W, Vatovez B. Study of pulsed character of radiation emitted by wireless telecommunication sys-
tems. Institut scientique de service public, Liège, Belgium. https://www.issep.be/wp-content/uploads
/7IWSBEEMF_B-Vatovez_W-Pirard.pdf.
Pohl R, (1960). Discovery of interference by Thomas Young. Am J Phys. 28:530.
Prasad KN, (1995). Handbook of Radiobiology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, USA, 2nd edition.
Presman AS, (1977). Electromagnetic Fields and Life. Plenum Press, New York.
Puranen L, Jokela K, (1996). Radiation hazard assessment of pulsed microwave radars. J Microwave Power
Electromagn Energy. 31(3):165–177.
Radebaugh R, (2009). Cryocoolers: the state of the art and recent developments. J Phys Conden Matt.
21(16):164219.
Rappaport, TS, Sun, S, Mayzus, R, et al. (2013). Millimeter wave mobile communications for 5G cellular: it
will work! IEEE Access. 1:335–349.
Reitz JR, Milford FJ, (1967). Foundations of Electromagnetic Theory. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company,
Inc, Boston, MA.
Roller WL, Goldman RF, (1968). Prediction of solar heat load on man. J Appl Physiol. 25:717–721.
Roychoudhuri C., Kracklauer AF, Creath K, (2008). The Nature of Light. What Is a Photon? CRC Press,
Taylor & Francis, USA.
Roychoudhuri C., Tirfessa N, (2008). Do we count indivisible photons or discrete quantum events experienced
by detectors?. In Roychoudhuri, Kracklauer, Creath (Eds), The Nature of Light. What Is a Photon?. CRC
Press, Taylor & Francis, USA.
75 Defining Wireless Communication Electromagnetic Fields
Roychoudhuri C., (2014). Causal Physics – Photon Model by Non-Interaction of Waves. CRC Press, Taylor
and Francis, Boca Raton, USA.
Sangeetha M, Purushothaman BM, Suresh Babu S, (2014). Estimating cell phone signal intensity and identi-
fying radiation hotspot area for tirunel veli taluk using RS and GIS. Int J Res Eng Technol. 3:412–418.
Santini MT, Ferrante A, Rainaldi G, Indovina P, Indovina PL, (2005). Extremely low frequency (ELF) mag-
netic elds and apoptosis: a review. Int J Radiat Biol. 81(1):1–11.
Sauter M, (2011). From GSM to LTE: An Introduction to Mobile Networks and Mobile Broadband. John
Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.
Schimmelpfeng J, Dertinger H, (1993). The action of 50Hz magnetic and electric elds upon cell proliferation
and cyclic AMP content of cultured mammalian cells. Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg. 30:143–150.
Schroedinger E, (1926). An undulatory theory of the mechanics of atoms and molecules. Physical Review.
28(6):1049–1070.
Schumann WO, (1952). Uber die strah lunglosen eigenschwingungen einer leitenden Kugel, die von einer Luftschicht
und einer Ionospharenhulle umgeben ist (On the characteristic oscillations of a conducting sphere which is
surrounded by an air layer and an ionospheric shell). Zeitschrift Naturforschung. 7A:149–154.
Schuster DI, Houck AA, Schreier JA, Wallraff A, Gambetta JM, Blais A, Frunzio L, Majer J, Johnson B,
Devoret MH, Girvin SM, Schoelkopf RJ, (2007). Resolving photon number states in a superconducting
circuit. Nature. 445:515–518.
Schwan HP, (1957). Electrical properties of tissues and cell suspensions. Adv Phys Med Biol. 5:147–209.
Schwan HP, (1963). Determination of biological impedances. In Nastuk WL (Ed), Physical Techniques in
Biological Research, Vol. 6. New York: Academic Press, 323–407.
Schwartz M, (1990). Information Transmission, Modulation, and Noise, McGraw-Hill, New York, 4th edition.
Sesia S, Touk I, Baker M (Eds), (2011). LTE – The UMTS Long Term Evolution. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.,
West Sussex, UK.
Sheppard AR, Swicord ML, Balzano Q, (2008). Quantitative evaluations of mechanisms of radiofrequency
interactions with biological molecules and processes. Health Phys. 93(4):365–396.
Shim Y, Lee I, Park S, (2013). The impact of LTE UE on audio devices. ETRI J. 35(2):332–335.
Sommerfeld A, (1916). Zur Quantentheorie der Spektrallinien. Ann D Phys. 51:1.
Somosy Z, Thuroczy G, Kubasova T, Kovacs J, Szabo LD, (1991). Effects of modulated and continuous
microwave irradiation on the morphology and cell surface negative charge of 3T3 broblasts. Scanning
Microsc. 5(4):1145 –1155.
Spiegel MR, (1974). Fourier Analysis with Applications to Boundary Value Problems. McGraw-Hill, New
York .
Spottorno J, Multigner M, Rivero G, Alvarez L, de la Venta J, Santos M, (2008). Time dependence of electri-
cal bioimpedance on porcine liver and kidney under a 50 Hz ac current. Phys Med Biol. 53:1701–1713.
Spottorno J, Multigner M, R ivero G, Alvarez L , de la Venta J, Santos M, (2012). In vivo measurements of elect ri-
cal conductivity of porcine organs at low frequency: new method of measurement. Bioelectromagnetics.
33(7):61 2–9.
Stensaas LJ, Partlow LM, Bush LG, Iversen PL, Hill DW, Hagmann MJ, Gandhi OP, (1981). Effects of mil-
limeter-wave radiation on monolayer cell cultures. II. Scanning and transmission electron microscopy.
Bioelecytromagnetics. 2(2):141–150.
Stephenson G, (1973). Mathematical Methods for Science Students. Longman Group, London, 2nd edition.
Stryer L, (1996). Biochemistry. W.H. Freeman and Co, New York, 4th edition.
Tarasov LV, (1980). Basic Concepts of Quantum Mechanics. Mir Publishers, Moscow.
Tesla N, (1905). The transmission of electrical energy without wires as a means of furthering world peace.
Electrical World and Engineer. 7:21–24.
Thielens A, Bell D, Mortimore DB, Greco MK, Martens L, Joseph W, (2018). Exposure of insects to radio-
frequency electromagnetic elds from 2 to 120 GHz. Sci Rep. 8:3924. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-22271-3.
Thielens A, Greco MK, Verloock L, Martens L, Joseph W, (2020). Radio-frequency electromagnetic eld
exposure of western honey bees. Sci Rep. 10:461. doi:org/10.1038/s41598- 019-56948-0.
Thuroczy G, Kubinyi G, Bodo M, Bakos J, Szabo LD, (1994). Simultaneous response of brain electrical
activity (EEG) and cerebral circulation (REG) to microwave exposure in rats. Rev Environ Health.
10(2):135–148 .
Tisal J, (1998). GSM Cellular Radio Telephony. J.Wiley & Sons, West Sussex, England.
Trachanas SL, (1981). Quantum Mechanics. Athens. [Τραχανάς Σ.Λ., «Κβαντομηχανική», Εκδ. Σύγχρονες
Επιστήμες, Αθήνα 1981].
Tuor M, Ebert S, Schuderer J, Kuster N, (2005). Assessment of ELF exposure from GSM handsets and
development of an optimized RF/ELF exposure setup for studies of human volunteers. BAG Reg. No.
2.23.02.-18/02.001778, IT’IS Foundation.
76 Biological and Heath Effects of WC EMFs
Valberg PA, Kavet R, Rafferty CN, (1997). Can low-level 50/60Hz electric and magnetic elds cause biologi-
cal effects? Rad Res. 148:2–21.
Velizarov S, Raskmark P, Kwee S, (1999). The effects of radiofrequency elds on cell proliferation are non-
thermal. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg. 48:177–180.
Verschaeve L, (2014). Environmental impact of radiofrequency elds from mobile phone base stations. Crit
Rev Environ Sci Technol. 44:1313–1369.
Verschaeve L, (2017). Misleading scientic papers on health effects from wireless communication devices. In
CD Geddes (Ed), Microwave Effects on DNA and Proteins, Springer, Cham, Switzerland.
Veyret B, Bouthet C, Deschaux P, de Seze R, Geffard M, et al., (1991). Antibody responses of mice exposed
to low-power microwaves under combined, pulse-and-amplitude modulation. Bioelectromagnetics.
2(1):47–56.
Vistnes AI, Gjoetterud K, (2001). Why arguments based on photon energy may be highly misleading for
power line frequency electromagnetic elds. Bioelectromagnetics. 22:200 –204.
Walleczek J, (1992). Electromagnetic eld effects on cells of the immune system: the role of calcium signaling.
FASEB J. 6: 3177–3185.
Walls DF, Milburn GL (2008). Quantum Optics, Springer.
Wang ET, Zhao M, (2010). Regulation of tissue repair and regeneration by electric elds. Chin J Traumatol.
13(1):55 –61.
Wang J., Fujiwara O., Kodera S., Watanabe S., (2006). FDTD calculation of whole-body average SAR in adult
and child models for frequencies from 30 MHz to 3 GHz. Phys Med Biol. 51(17):4119–27.
Weisenseel MH, (1983). Control of differentiation and growth by endogenous electric currents. In W Hoppe,
W Lohmann, H Markl, H Ziegler (Eds), Biophysics, Springer–Verlag, Berlin, 460–465.
Wertheimer N, Leeper E, (1979). Electrical wiring congurations and childhood cancer. Am J Epidemiol. 109.
Wever R, (1974). ELF effects on human circadian rhythms. In MA Persinger (Ed), ELF and VLF
Electromagnetic Fields. Plenum Press, New York.
Wever R, (1979). The Circadian System of Man: Results of Experiments under Temporal Isolation. Springer-
Verlag, New York.
Wilson W, (1915). The quantum theory of radiation and line spectra. Phil Mag 29:795–802.
Wongkasem N, (2021). Electromagnetic pollution alert: microwave radiation and absorption in human organs and
tissues. Electromag Biol Med. Feb 10:1–18. doi:10.1080/15368378.2021.1874976. Online ahead of print.
Wood A, Mate R, Karipidis K, (2021). Meta-analysis of in vitro and in vivo studies of the biological effects
of low-level millimetre waves. J Exposure Sci Environ Epidemiol. htt ps://doi.org /10.1038/s41370- 021
-00307-7.
Wust P, Kortüm B, Strauss U, et al, (2020). Non-thermal effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic elds. Sci
Rep. 10(1):13488. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-69561-3.
Wust P, Stein U, Ghadjar P, (2021). Non-thermal membrane effects of electromagnetic elds and therapeutic
applications in oncology. Int J Hyperthermia. 38(1):715 –731.
Yakymenko I, Sidorik E, Kyrylenko S, Chekhun V, (2011). Long-term exposure to microwave radiation
provokes cancer growth: evidences from radars and mobile communication systems. Exp Oncol.
33(2):62–70.
Yakymenko I, Tsybulin O, Sidorik E, Henshel D, Kyrylenko O, et al, (2016). Oxidative mechanisms of biologi-
cal activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation. Electromagn Biol Med. 35(2):186–202.
Yakymenko I, Burlaka A, Tsybulin I, Brieieva I, Buchynska L, et al, (2018). Oxidative and mutagenic effects
of low intensity GSM 1800 MHz microwave radiation. Exp Oncol. 40(4):282–287.
Zheng Y, Xia P, Dong L, Tian L, Xiong C, (2021). Effects of modulation on sodium and potassium channel
currents by extremely low frequency electromagnetic elds stimulation on hippocampal CA1 pyramidal
cells. Electromagn Biol Med. 17:1–12.
Zhou R, Xiong Y, Xing G, Sun L, Ma J, (2010). ZiFi: wireless LAN Discovery via ZigBee Interference
Signatures MobiCom’10, September 20–24, Chicago, IL.
Zothansiama, ZM, Lalramdinpuii M, Jagetia GC, (2017). Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage
and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone
base stations. Electromagn Biol Med. 36(3):295–305.
Zwamborn APM, Vossen SHJA, van Leersum BJAM, Ouwens MA, Mäkel WN. (2003). Effects of global
communication system radio-frequency elds on well being and cognitive functions of human sub-
jects with and without subjective complaints. FEL- 03- C148. TNO Physics and Electronics Laboratory,
The Hague, the Netherlands. http://home.tiscali.be/milieugezondheid/dossiers/gsm/TNO_rapport
_Nederland_sept_2003.pdf.
