Content uploaded by Steve Weller
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Steve Weller on Jun 12, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Victor Leach
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Victor Leach on Jun 11, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Radiation
Protection
In
Australasia
A Joint Publication of the Journal and Newsletter of the
Australasian Radiation Protection Society Inc.
May 2024, Vol, 41, No. 1
Incorporating Newsletter No. 70
ISSN 1444 – 2752
12
RadiationProtectioninAustralasia(2024)Vol.41,No.1 2023ConferencePaper
by
Victor Leach1, Steven Weller2, and Julie McCredden3
Wireless technology is an environmental stressor and there are
engineering solutions that can reduce exposure.
Submitted:03/02/2024 Accepted:29/02/2024
Abstract
1RadiationProtectionConsultantApp.Physics (RMIT)
MSc (Melb.) MARPS, MORSAA (Member of the
Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory
Association Inc. (ORSAA) Correspondence:
victor.leach@orsaa.org
2B.Sc. (Monash)Microbiology andBiochemistry,PhD
student (Griffith University), MARPS, MORSAA,
recipientoftheBruceRoweORSAAPhDscholarship.
3PsychologyresearcherPhD, MemberoftheOceania
Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association Inc.
(ORSAA).
Electromagnetic signals from everyday
wireless technologies are an everpresent
environmental stressor affecting biological
systems. More specifically, the experiments
investigating exposures from realworld devices
and the epidemiology studies examining the
effects of living near mobile phone base stations
were extracted from the ORSAA Database of
EMF Bioeffects (ODEB). The number of papers
showingeffectswascomparedwiththoseshowing
no effects.The results showed that twothirds of
the experimental and epidemiological papers
foundsignificantbiologicaleffects.Thebreadthof
biological and health categories where effects
have been found was subsequently explored,
revealing hundreds of papers showing
fundamental biological processes that are
impacted, such as damage to proteins, lipids and
DNA, biochemical changes and oxidative stress.
Engineering solutionsto limit exposure using the
ICRPapproachofJustification,Optimisation,and
Limitation shouldbe considered. Applyingan As
Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA)
philosophy to wireless technology could make
personaldevicessaferbyreducingradiofrequency
exposures and biological interference from low
frequencypulsing.
INTRODUCTION
Thispapercommunicatesthemainpointsfrom
tworecentlypublishedpapers:
1. Wireless technology is an environmental
stressor requiring new understanding and
approachesinhealthcare1.
2.Arethereengineeringsolutionsthatcanreduce
exposure(ALARA)2?
The current state of affairs concerning
bioeffectsresearchinvestigatingwirelessradiation
signalsisunknownto manymembersofradiation
protectionsocieties.Thisarticleaimstosummarise
theresearchforthisaudienceand tointroducethe
mainconcepts,issuesandpossiblewaysforward.
The literature regarding bioeffects of wireless
radiation is dominated by animal experiments,
mainly on rats and mice. There are several
publicly accessible research databases, including
PUBMED3 and EMFPORTAL4, which
researchers widely use. These broadbase
databases include scientific literature on medical
applications, diathermy applications and
occupational exposure studies investigating
incidents such aselectrocution and overexposure.
Searching these databases for specific
experimental types, biological endpoints, and
signal types can betimeconsuming because they
providelimitedcategorisationofinformation.
Key Words
environmental toxins, environmental health,
environmental illness, electromagnetic
hypersensitivity, wireless technology in health
care.
13
Leach, Weller & McCredden
The Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific
AdvisoryAssociationDatabaseofEMFBioeffects
(ODEB)5,6 focuses on shortterm and longterm
biological effects that may result from non
thermal and thermalbased exposures to
electromagnetic fields (EMF); in particular,
exposuretofieldsinthefrequencyrangeof3Khz
to 300GHz (RF). While current safety standards
are predominantly based on thermal effects only,
the literature has established that some non
thermalbioeffectsoccur,suchascellularoxidative
stress7 which is linked to disease pathways (e.g.
allergies, atopic dermatitis, diabetes, eye
conditions, and fertility effects). ODEB also
includes fields for experiment type, biological
endpoints,andsignaltype,allofwhichhavebeen
comprehensively categorised. This database is
freelyavailableonline6.
As of January 2024, there were over 5000
(peerreviewed) publications in the ODEB. The
maincategorisedgroupsareasfollows;
•invitro(cell)studies;
•invivo(animal)studies;
•Epidemiology(humandisease)studies;
•Humanprovocationstudies;and
•Nonexperimental Scientific Studies (NESS).
(consisting of review, measurement,
dosimetry, commentary, opinion articles,
etc.).
AnexampleODEB screenshowingtheabove
categorisation scheme is depicted in Figure 1,
which shows how studies are further categorised
into exposed species types (plants, birds, insects,
etc.). Each field or combination of fields is
searchable,usingseveralAND&ORqueries.The
queryresultincludesthestoredinformationforthe
selected arguments (Unique ID Number, Title,
Authors, Result (Effect / No Effect / Uncertain
Effect), URL, Date, Abstract) and can be
downloaded in summary form to a CSV file.To
appreciate the full capabilities of the database, a
recorded webinar is available as part of the
traininginformationfromtheORSAAwebsite8.
A recent search on ODEB for experimental
papers reveals that over 51% of all the stored
papers are either in vivoor in vitro experimental
papers (Figure 2). While no attempt has been
madetocategorisethequalityofthesepapers,this
ORSAA Database of EMF Bioeffects (ODEB).
Figure 1. Study Categories used in ODEB
14
variabilityin intensity and modulations that occur
in signals from realworld wireless devices 10.
Most simulatedsignals use a 217 Hz modulation,
which is used in GSM 2G signals. However, 3G
and4Gsignalsusealowfrequencymodulationof
100Hz,whileWIFIuses10Hz,respectively.Real
mobile phone signalsare complex and have been
showntobemorebioactivethancontinuouswaves
of the same frequency 10.Table 1 illustrates how
experimental studies using real mobile phone
signals have produced many more "Effect"
outcomesthan "NoEffect"outcomescomparedto
studies using simulated signals from a signal
generator5.
Lowfrequency pulsations can interfere with
neurological systems. Brain wave frequencies are
asfollows:
•Gammawaves(30100Hz)DeepFocus;
•Betawaves(1230Hz)Thinking;
•Alphawaves(812Hz)Awake;
•Thetawaves(48Hz)DayDreaming;
•Deltawaves(0.54Hz)Asleep
Simulated vs Real Mobile Phone Signals.
In vivoor in vitroexperimentscan userealor
simulatedsignals.Realmobilephonesignalscycle
through the call sequence, such as dialling,
answering or talking. Simulated signals usually
use an RF signalgenerator set to produce carrier
waves at a nominated frequency with or without
lowfrequency modulations.Experimenters prefer
simulated signals because they are easily
reproducible and the intensity can be fixed;
however, such an exposure regime lacks the
database is a good starting point for those
interestedinconductingasystematicreview.
Figure2shows that therearecurrentlypapers
in the in vivo category. Within these, 128 have
been deemed by their authors as providing
evidence that some microwave exposures are
usefulfor possibletherapeuticapplications(rather
than having a detrimental effect). For example,
promising researchinto the breakup of amyloid
betaproteinsin thebraincouldlead to treatments
using microwaves for degenerative diseases such
asAlzheimer's9.
Figure 2. The relative proportion of study types found in in ODEB (October 2023)
Table 1: Number of bio-effect Mobile phone studies according to Signal Type and Wave-form12
15
The types of neural oscillations that can
change biology are unique to individuals and
affect memory in the hippocampus (beta waves)
andcleanupplaque(gammawaves) in the brain.
It is clearfrom EEG studies that changes due to
mobile phone exposures interfere with brain
waveswhilesleeping11.Disturbedsleephasbeen
linkedtopoorerhealthandwellbeing.
Mostoftheexperimentalworkhasusedsignal
modulations related to outdated technology (2G),
so research must catch up to the current
technology. No biological experiments have used
real 5G signals, which are very complex. 5G
signals use Orthogonal FrequencyDivision
Multiplexing (OFDM) and have a lower
frequency subcarrierin the 15 to 120 kHz range
12. OFDM signals are called “New Radio” (NR).
Theyareverycomplexandarebeingrolledoutin
threestagesasfollows:
•FR1stagesub7.125GHz;
•FR21 mmWaves (millimetre waves) 24, 25
52.6GHz;
•FR22mmWaves52.671GHz.
This manmade radiation is unpredictable
(becauseit isconnectionor eventdriven)and can
cause constructive and destructive interference,
even resulting in everpresent hot spots.It differs
from natural radiation because it is totally
polarised, resulting in a substantial total EMF
force.Forexample,consider a situation wherean
Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) signal of 1.0
mW/m2 intensity emanates from an antenna
composed of 1 GHz photons. In the far field
(where a receiver is greater than one wavelength
away from the source), these photons act in
synchrony so that the number of photons
contactingasurfaceofonesquaremeterwouldbe
1.5 x 1021 photons fluctuating in synchrony per
second.Thisis1017 photonspersquarecentimeter
(100,000,000,000,000,000) fluctuating in
synchrony 13. The totalflux is not trivial because
thephonicenergyissynchronised,andthe overall
forceis summative.Thisexampleby Vriensgives
an understanding of why an EMR wave can
Leach, Weller & McCredden
Wireless signals are complex and totally
polarised.
produce a significant force, thus dispelling the
myth that only ionising radiation can cause
biologicaldamage.
Bioeffects at non-thermal exposures are far
from trivial.
Mostknown human diseasesarecharacterised
bycellarsystems understress.Aswell as thermal
stress, there aremany other forms of stress, such
as mechanical and biochemical, one example
being “oxidative stress”. This is caused by an
imbalance between the production and
accumulation of reactive oxygenreactive species
(ROS) in cells and tissues and the inability of a
biological system to detoxify these reactive
products. Oxidative stress is a significant stressor
resulting from exposure to EMFs 14. People
suffering frommorbidities or genetic deficiencies
can have problems eliminating toxins. This can
leadtoatypeofChronicFatigueSyndrome(CFS)
or Electrohypersensitivity (EHS) which can be
diagnosed using biomarkers for oxidative stress
15,16. EHS was also called "microwave sickness"
byWW2radaroperators.
Othernonthermal effectsresultingfromEMF
exposures are observed in a broad range of
experimental studies stored in ODEB (see Figure
3)asfollows:
•Digestivedisorders;
•Memorylossandlackofconcentration;
•Jointpainandinflammation;
•Prematureageing;
•Headachesandsensitivitytonoise;
•Decliningfertility/infertility;
•Histopathologicalchanges;
•Neuraldegeneration;
•Cancerinmoreextremescenarios.
Table 2 shows the outcome of a search of
papers from ODEB using realwireless signals in
experimental studies at nonthermal exposures,
whichresultedin68.4%ofalltheresultantstudies
showing biological effects. The current trend of
companyfunded studies is to claim that most
studies are of poor quality and to diminish those
experimental studies that show biological effects
that may be harmful e.g., 17. Most biological
experimental studies have their weaknesses, but
these are not fatal, so applying the precautionary
16
An International Radiation Protection
Association (IRPA) charter formed ICNIRP at an
IRPAcongressinMontrealin199218.Sincethen,
the IRPA NIR working group should have been
Table 2: Outcomes for selected experimental (in vitro and in vivo) studies 1.
Figure 3: The number of experimental papers using real-world signals showing effects in each
ODEB bioeffects category1.
International Radiation Protection Association
(IRPA) ICNIRP Charter
monitoring ICNIRP’s implementation of the
requirements of this charter, but this monitoring
hasnotbeenconducted.TheICNIRPviolationsof
thecharterthathavegoneuncheckedareshownin
Table3.
Therehavebeenmanyexamplesofinactionin
the face of health risks from introduced
carcinogenicagents,asshowninFigure4.Ineach
case, the conflict between government revenue
raisinginterestsandtheescalationofpublichealth
Figure 4: Early Warning Examples (derived from Gee, 2009 20)
principleiswellfounded.Thisprincipleshouldbe
followed until the data on the longterm health
effectsmaterialise.
17
Table 3: Non-Compliance of ICNIRP with IRPA charter (May 1992)
Leach, Weller & McCredden
18
effectsfromsuchagentshaslastedforoverhalfa
century.
Thehistoricalprecedence for actionshownin
Figure5suggeststhatthelongtermhealtheffects
due to everincreasing exposures, including
current trends in cancer statistics, will likely be
viewed with scepticism for another 30 years.
Besides the cancer risks, there are also trends in
healtheffectssimilarto chronic fatiguesyndrome
that are being dismissed as psychological effects
16,19.
The European Union recommended that the
triggerpointforPrecautionaryaction besetatthe
point where the balance of evidence becomes
greater than 33%, which equates to a medium
likelihood of cause and effect 20, as shown in
Figure5.
Thecurrentneedby ICNIRPandGovernment
regulators to confirm evidence of harm before
takingactionisarecipeforapublichealthcrisis
in the future. Given the size of the population
being exposed, telecommunications companies
and government agencies need to take
precautionary action now. Another potential
stumblingblockthatneedstobe overcomeisthat
if telecommunication companies and government
agencies choose not to adopt a precautionary
approachandapplyradiationhygiene,thismaybe
Applying ALARA to wireless technology
2. Modifying the antennaso the emission pattern
is more hemispherical and radiates away from
theheadandthebody;
3. Limiting call durations according to an
estimation of the effective radiated power
emittedbythedevice.
Figure 5: The trigger point for Precautionary Action (adapted from Gee (2009) 20)
Toexposethepopulationtolevels that areAs
Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA),
several engineering strategies can be used to
reduceexposure2,forexample:
1.Blockingthephone’sRFRemissions,butnotits
reception,whenitispositionedclosetothehead
orbody;
CONCLUSIONS
Currentinternationalguidelines recommended
byICNIRParenotfitforpurposeasevidencedby
the broad range of biological effects, some with
health implications found in research and
seen as tacit admission to there being a problem.
Admission of risk of harm thus equates to
government and industry opening themselves
potentialliabilityandlegalaction.
19
REFERENCES
1. McCredden J, Cook N, Weller S, Leach V.
Wireless technology is an environmental
stressor requiring new understanding and
approaches in healthcare. Frontiers in Public
Health. 2022;10:4893. https://
www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/
fpubh.2022.986315/full
2.HérouxP, BelyaevI,ChamberlinK, et al. Cell
Phone Radiation Exposure Limits and
Engineering Solutions. International Journal
ofEnvironmentalResearchandPublicHealth.
2023;20(7):5398. https://www.mdpi.com/
16604601/20/7/5398
3. PubMed. 2024;https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubmed/
4. Research Center for Bioelectromagnetic
Interaction working group. EMFPortal.
2024;https://www.emfportal.org/en
5. Leach V, Weller S, Redmayne M. A novel
database of bioeffects from nonionizing
radiation. Reviews on environmental health.
2018;33(3):273280. https://
www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/
reveh20180017/html
6. Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory
Association. ORSAA Database of
Electromagnetic Bioeffects (ODEB).
occurring below existing public exposure limits.
There is a need to provide newly updated
guidelines that protect humans and all species
frompotentialharm,withaspecialfocusonlong
term chronic exposures and vulnerable
populations.
The following additional points should be
consideredwhen writing new guidelinesforman
madewirelessradiation;
■The precautionary principle, as detailed in
ICRP,needstobeadopted21;
■Current ICNIRP guidelines do not consider
the environmental impacts of this form of
radiationonanylifeformsotherthanhumans;
■Given the rapid increase in background
levels of wireless exposures and as these
exposuresare,inmostcases,nonconsensual
fromthecradleto thegrave,ensuringalllife
isadequatelyprotectedisimportant;
■Current ICNIRP guidelines only consider
shortterm acute exposures (unlike real
worldexposures,which are continuous for a
lifetime). They also only protect against
known thermal damage.Nonthermal effects
arenotconsideredorprotectedagainst;
■Exposure limits set for members of the
public need special consideration as not all
members have the same health status, and
many individuals carry a burden of disease,
makingthemespeciallyvulnerable;
■As radiation protection practitioners, we
must discuss methods to make this form of
manmade nonionising radiation more bio
compatible22;
■We recommend that ICNIRP follow best
practicesfor radiation protectionandliveup
to the original charter established between
IRPAandICNIRPin1992.
2024;https://a037613.fmphost.com/fmi/webd/
Research_Review_V4
7. Schuermann D, Mevissen M. Manmade
electromagnetic fields and oxidative stress
—biological effects and consequences for
health. International journal of molecular
sciences. 2021;22(7):3772. https://
www.mdpi.com/14220067/22/7/3772/pdf
8. ORSAA Database Training Video https://
www.orsaa.org/orsaadatabasetraining
webinar.html. https://www.orsaa.org/orsaa
databasetrainingwebinar.html
9.Arendash G, MoriT, Dorsey M, Gonzalez R,
Tajiri N, Borlongan C. Electromagnetic
treatment to old Alzheimer's mice reverses
betaamyloid deposition, modifies cerebral
blood flow, and provides selected cognitive
benefit.PLoSOne.2012;7(4):e35751.https://
journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?
id=10.1371/
journal.pone.0035751&type=printable
10. Panagopoulos DJ, Johansson O, Carlo GL.
Real versus simulated mobile phone
exposures in experimental studies. BioMed
research international. 2015;2015 https://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC4539441/
Leach, Weller & McCredden
20
11.Arnetz B,Akerstedt T, Hillert L, LowdenA,
KusterN,WiholmC.TheEffectsof884MHz
GSM Wireless Communication Signals on
Selfreported Symptomand Sleep (EEG)An
Experimental Provocation Study. PIERS
Online. 2007;3 (7):11481150. https://
www.emfportal.org/en/article/15274
12. 5G NR is the foundation to what’s next.
https://www.qualcomm.com/research/5g/5gnr
13. Vriens L. On the Difference Between Man
Made and Natural Electromagnetic Fields/
Radiation, in Regard to Biological Activity.
2018;https://www.stopumts.nl/pdf/Man
made%20and%20Natural%20EMF%20EMR.
pdf
14. Is there evidence for oxidative stress caused
by electromagnetic fields? Department of
Epidemiology and Public
HealthEnvironmental Exposures and Health
Unit;2021,2021.https://www.bafu.admin.ch/
bafu/en/home/topics/electrosmog/newsletter
oftheswissexpertgroupon
electromagneticfieldsa.html
15. Belpomme D, Irigaray P.
Electrohypersensitivity as a newly identified
and characterized neurologic pathological
disorder: how to diagnose, treat, and prevent
it. International Journal of Molecular
Sciences. 2020;21(6):1915. doi:10.3390/
ijms21061915. https://www.mdpi.com/1422
0067/21/6/1915/pdf
16. Bandara P, Hunter J. Case study: Could
electromagnetichypersensitivity be
exacerbating this case of chronic fatigue
syndrome? Journal of the Australasian
College of Nutritional and Environmental
Medicine. 2020;39(3):4047. https://
search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/
informit.813198782782413
17. Vijayalaxmi, Foster KR. Improving the
Quality of Radiofrequency Bioeffects
Research:The Need for a CarrotandaStick.
Radiation Research. 2021;196(4):417422.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34270779/
18. Charter of the International Commission on
Nonionizing Radiation (ICNIRP) adopted at
the general assembly of the International
Radiation Protection Association (IRPA)
Montreal, May, 1992. https://www.icnirp.org/
cms/upload/doc/charter.pdf
19. Bandara P, Chandler T, Kelly R, et al. 5G
wireless deployment and health risks: Time
foramedicaldiscussioninAustraliaandNew
Zealand. Journal of theAustralasian College
of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine.
2020;39(2):2734. https://
www.researchgate.net/publication/343416307
20. Gee D. Late Lessons from Early Warnings:
Towards realism and precaution with EMF?
Pathophysiology. 2009;16(23):217231.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
abs/pii/S092846800900008X
21. Touzet R, González AJ. Protection against
ionizingradiationvisàvis.Protectionagainst
nonionizing radiation: different approaches.
2021;https://inis.iaea.org/collection/
NCLCollectionStore/_Public/
53/059/53059619.pdf
22. Meijer DK, Geesink HJ. Favourable and
Unfavourable EMF frequency patterns in
Cancer: perspectives for improved therapy
and prevention. Journal of Cancer Therapy.
2018;9(03):188. https://www.scirp.org/html/2
8902709_82944.htm
TAKE NOTE OF THE DETAILS OF THE NEXT ARPS CONFERENCE.
I HOPE TO SEE YOU THERE