Conference PaperPDF Available

Wireless technology is an environmental stressor and there are engineering solutions that can reduce exposure.

Authors:
  • Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Assocaition

Abstract and Figures

Wireless technology is an environmental stressor and there are engineering solutions that can reduce exposure.
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
RadiationProtectioninAustralasia(2024)Vol.41,No.1 2023ConferencePaper
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
1RadiationProtectionConsultantApp.Physics (RMIT)
MSc (Melb.) MARPS, MORSAA (Member of the
Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory
Association Inc. (ORSAA) Correspondence:
victor.leach@orsaa.org
2B.Sc. (Monash)Microbiology andBiochemistry,PhD
student (Griffith University), MARPS, MORSAA,
recipientoftheBruceRoweORSAAPhDscholarship.
3PsychologyresearcherPhD, MemberoftheOceania
Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association Inc.
(ORSAA).
Electromagnetic signals from everyday
wireless technologies are an everpresent
environmental stressor affecting biological
systems. More specifically, the experiments
investigating exposures from realworld 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
showingeffectswascomparedwiththoseshowing
no effects.The results showed that twothirds of
the experimental and epidemiological papers
foundsignificantbiologicaleffects.Thebreadthof
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 solutionsto limit exposure using the
ICRPapproachofJustification,Optimisation,and
Limitation shouldbe considered. Applyingan As
Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA)
philosophy to wireless technology could make
personaldevicessaferbyreducingradiofrequency
exposures and biological interference from low
frequencypulsing.
INTRODUCTION
Thispapercommunicatesthemainpointsfrom
tworecentlypublishedpapers:
1. Wireless technology is an environmental
stressor requiring new understanding and
approachesinhealthcare1.
2.Arethereengineeringsolutionsthatcanreduce
exposure(ALARA)2?
The current state of affairs concerning
bioeffectsresearchinvestigatingwirelessradiation
signalsisunknownto manymembersofradiation
protectionsocieties.Thisarticleaimstosummarise
theresearchforthisaudienceand tointroducethe
mainconcepts,issuesandpossiblewaysforward.
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 EMFPORTAL4, which
researchers widely use. These broadbase
databases include scientific literature on medical
applications, diathermy applications and
occupational exposure studies investigating
incidents such aselectrocution and overexposure.
Searching these databases for specific
experimental types, biological endpoints, and
signal types can betimeconsuming because they
providelimitedcategorisationofinformation.
Key Words
environmental toxins, environmental health,
environmental illness, electromagnetic
hypersensitivity, wireless technology in health
care.
13
Leach, Weller & McCredden
The Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific
AdvisoryAssociationDatabaseofEMFBioeffects
(ODEB)5,6 focuses on shortterm and longterm
biological effects that may result from non
thermal and thermalbased exposures to
electromagnetic fields (EMF); in particular,
exposuretofieldsinthefrequencyrangeof3Khz
to 300GHz (RF). While current safety standards
are predominantly based on thermal effects only,
the literature has established that some non
thermalbioeffectsoccur,suchascellularoxidative
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,andsignaltype,allofwhichhavebeen
comprehensively categorised. This database is
freelyavailableonline6.
As of January 2024, there were over 5000
(peerreviewed) publications in the ODEB. The
maincategorisedgroupsareasfollows;
•invitro(cell)studie
•invivo(animal)studies;
•Epidemiology(humandisease)studies;
•Humanprovocationstudies;and
•Nonexperimental Scientific Studies (NESS).
(consisting of review, measurement,
dosimetry, commentary, opinion articles,
etc.).
AnexampleODEB screenshowingtheabove
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,usingseveralAND&ORqueries.The
queryresultincludesthestoredinformationforthe
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
traininginformationfromtheORSAAwebsite8.
A recent search on ODEB for experimental
papers reveals that over 51% of all the stored
papers are either in vivoor in vitro experimental
papers (Figure 2). While no attempt has been
madetocategorisethequalityofthesepapers,this
ORSAA Database of EMF Bioeffects (ODEB).
Figure 1. Study Categories used in ODEB
14
variabilityin intensity and modulations that occur
in signals from realworld wireless devices 10.
Most simulatedsignals use a 217 Hz modulation,
which is used in GSM 2G signals. However, 3G
and4Gsignalsusealowfrequencymodulationof
100Hz,whileWIFIuses10Hz,respectively.Real
mobile phone signalsare complex and have been
showntobemorebioactivethancontinuouswaves
of the same frequency 10.Table 1 illustrates how
experimental studies using real mobile phone
signals have produced many more "Effect"
outcomesthan "NoEffect"outcomescomparedto
studies using simulated signals from a signal
generator5.
Lowfrequency pulsations can interfere with
neurological systems. Brain wave frequencies are
asfollows:
•Gammawaves(30100Hz)DeepFocus;
•Betawaves(1230Hz)Thinking;
•Alphawaves(812Hz)Awake;
•Thetawaves(48Hz)DayDreaming;
•Deltawaves(0.54Hz)Asleep
Simulated vs Real Mobile Phone Signals.
In vivoor in vitroexperimentscan userealor
simulatedsignals.Realmobilephonesignalscycle
through the call sequence, such as dialling,
answering or talking. Simulated signals usually
use an RF signalgenerator set to produce carrier
waves at a nominated frequency with or without
lowfrequency 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
interestedinconductingasystematicreview.
Figure2shows that therearecurrentlypapers
in the in vivo category. Within these, 128 have
been deemed by their authors as providing
evidence that some microwave exposures are
usefulfor possibletherapeuticapplications(rather
than having a detrimental effect). For example,
promising researchinto the breakup of amyloid
betaproteinsin thebraincouldlead to treatments
using microwaves for degenerative diseases such
asAlzheimer's9.
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)
andcleanupplaque(gammawaves) in the brain.
It is clearfrom EEG studies that changes due to
mobile phone exposures interfere with brain
waveswhilesleeping11.Disturbedsleephasbeen
linkedtopoorerhealthandwellbeing.
Mostoftheexperimentalworkhasusedsignal
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 FrequencyDivision
Multiplexing (OFDM) and have a lower
frequency subcarrierin the 15 to 120 kHz range
12. OFDM signals are called “New Radio” (NR).
Theyareverycomplexandarebeingrolledoutin
threestagesasfollows:
•FR1stagesub7.125GHz;
•FR21 mmWaves (millimetre waves) 24, 25
52.6GHz;
•FR22mmWaves52.671GHz.
This manmade radiation is unpredictable
(becauseit isconnectionor eventdriven)and can
cause constructive and destructive interference,
even resulting in everpresent hot spots.It differs
from natural radiation because it is totally
polarised, resulting in a substantial total EMF
force.Forexample,consider a situation wherean
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
contactingasurfaceofonesquaremeterwouldbe
1.5 x 1021 photons fluctuating in synchrony per
second.Thisis1017 photonspersquarecentimeter
(100,000,000,000,000,000) fluctuating in
synchrony 13. The totalflux is not trivial because
thephonicenergyissynchronised,andthe overall
forceis summative.Thisexampleby Vriensgives
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
biologicaldamage.
Bioeffects at non-thermal exposures are far
from trivial.
Mostknown human diseasesarecharacterised
bycellarsystems understress.Aswell as thermal
stress, there aremany 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 oxygenreactive 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 frommorbidities or genetic deficiencies
can have problems eliminating toxins. This can
leadtoatypeofChronicFatigueSyndrome(CFS)
or Electrohypersensitivity (EHS) which can be
diagnosed using biomarkers for oxidative stress
15,16. EHS was also called "microwave sickness"
byWW2radaroperators.
Othernonthermal effectsresultingfromEMF
exposures are observed in a broad range of
experimental studies stored in ODEB (see Figure
3)asfollows:
•Digestivedisorders;
•Memorylossandlackofconcentration;
•Jointpainandinflammation;
•Prematureageing;
•Headachesandsensitivitytonoise;
•Decliningfertility/infertility;
•Histopathologicalchanges;
•Neuraldegeneration;
•Cancerinmoreextremescenarios.
Table 2 shows the outcome of a search of
papers from ODEB using realwireless signals in
experimental studies at nonthermal exposures,
whichresultedin68.4%ofalltheresultantstudies
showing biological effects. The current trend of
companyfunded 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
IRPAcongressinMontrealin199218.Sincethen,
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
hasnotbeenconducted.TheICNIRPviolationsof
thecharterthathavegoneuncheckedareshownin
Table3.
Therehavebeenmanyexamplesofinactionin
the face of health risks from introduced
carcinogenicagents,asshowninFigure4.Ineach
case, the conflict between government revenue
raisinginterestsandtheescalationofpublichealth
Figure 4: Early Warning Examples (derived from Gee, 2009 20)
principleiswellfounded.Thisprincipleshouldbe
followed until the data on the longterm health
effectsmaterialise.
17
Table 3: Non-Compliance of ICNIRP with IRPA charter (May 1992)
Leach, Weller & McCredden
18
effectsfromsuchagentshaslastedforoverhalfa
century.
Thehistoricalprecedence for actionshownin
Figure5suggeststhatthelongtermhealtheffects
due to everincreasing 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
healtheffectssimilarto chronic fatiguesyndrome
that are being dismissed as psychological effects
16,19.
The European Union recommended that the
triggerpointforPrecautionaryaction besetatthe
point where the balance of evidence becomes
greater than 33%, which equates to a medium
likelihood of cause and effect 20, as shown in
Figure5.
Thecurrentneedby ICNIRPandGovernment
regulators to confirm evidence of harm before
takingactionisarecipeforapublichealthcrisis
in the future. Given the size of the population
being exposed, telecommunications companies
and government agencies need to take
precautionary action now. Another potential
stumblingblockthatneedstobe overcomeisthat
if telecommunication companies and government
agencies choose not to adopt a precautionary
approachandapplyradiationhygiene,thismaybe
Applying ALARA to wireless technology
2. Modifying the antennaso the emission pattern
is more hemispherical and radiates away from
theheadandthebody;
3. Limiting call durations according to an
estimation of the effective radiated power
emittedbythedevice.
Figure 5: The trigger point for Precautionary Action (adapted from Gee (2009) 20)
Toexposethepopulationtolevels that areAs
Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA),
several engineering strategies can be used to
reduceexposure2,forexample:
1.Blockingthephone’sRFRemissions,butnotits
reception,whenitispositionedclosetothehead
orbody;
CONCLUSIONS
Currentinternationalguidelines recommended
byICNIRParenotfitforpurposeasevidencedby
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
potentialliabilityandlegalaction.
19
REFERENCES
1. McCredden J, Cook N, Weller S, Leach V.
Wireless technology is an environmental
stressor requiring new understanding and
approaches in healthcare. Frontiers in Public
Health. 2022;10:4893. https://
www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/
fpubh.2022.986315/full
2.HérouxP, BelyaevI,ChamberlinK, et al. Cell
Phone Radiation Exposure Limits and
Engineering Solutions. International Journal
ofEnvironmentalResearchandPublicHealth.
2023;20(7):5398. https://www.mdpi.com/
16604601/20/7/5398
3. PubMed. 2024;https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubmed/
4. Research Center for Bioelectromagnetic
Interaction working group. EMFPortal.
2024;https://www.emfportal.org/en
5. Leach V, Weller S, Redmayne M. A novel
database of bioeffects from nonionizing
radiation. Reviews on environmental health.
2018;33(3):273280. https://
www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/
reveh20180017/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
frompotentialharm,withaspecialfocusonlong
term chronic exposures and vulnerable
populations.
The following additional points should be
consideredwhen writing new guidelinesforman
madewirelessradiation;
■The precautionary principle, as detailed in
ICRP,needstobeadopted21;
■Current ICNIRP guidelines do not consider
the environmental impacts of this form of
radiationonanylifeformsotherthanhumans;
■Given the rapid increase in background
levels of wireless exposures and as these
exposuresare,inmostcases,nonconsensual
fromthecradleto thegrave,ensuringalllife
isadequatelyprotectedisimportant;
■Current ICNIRP guidelines only consider
shortterm acute exposures (unlike real
worldexposures,which are continuous for a
lifetime). They also only protect against
known thermal damage.Nonthermal effects
arenotconsideredorprotectedagainst;
■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,
makingthemespeciallyvulnerable;
■As radiation protection practitioners, we
must discuss methods to make this form of
manmade nonionising radiation more bio
compatible22;
■We recommend that ICNIRP follow best
practicesfor radiation protectionandliveup
to the original charter established between
IRPAandICNIRPin1992.
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/14220067/22/7/3772/pdf
8. ORSAA Database Training Video https://
www.orsaa.org/orsaadatabasetraining
webinar.html. https://www.orsaa.org/orsaa
databasetrainingwebinar.html
9.Arendash G, MoriT, Dorsey M, Gonzalez R,
Tajiri N, Borlongan C. Electromagnetic
treatment to old Alzheimer's mice reverses
betaamyloid deposition, modifies cerebral
blood flow, and provides selected cognitive
benefit.PLoSOne.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, LowdenA,
KusterN,WiholmC.TheEffectsof884MHz
GSM Wireless Communication Signals on
Selfreported Symptomand Sleep (EEG)An
Experimental Provocation Study. PIERS
Online. 2007;3 (7):11481150. https://
www.emfportal.org/en/article/15274
12. 5G NR is the foundation to what’s next.
https://www.qualcomm.com/research/5g/5gnr
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
oftheswissexpertgroupon
electromagneticfieldsa.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
electromagnetichypersensitivity be
exacerbating this case of chronic fatigue
syndrome? Journal of the Australasian
College of Nutritional and Environmental
Medicine. 2020;39(3):4047. 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 CarrotandaStick.
Radiation Research. 2021;196(4):417422.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34270779/
18. Charter of the International Commission on
Nonionizing 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
foramedicaldiscussioninAustraliaandNew
Zealand. Journal of theAustralasian College
of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine.
2020;39(2):2734. https://
www.researchgate.net/publication/343416307
20. Gee D. Late Lessons from Early Warnings:
Towards realism and precaution with EMF?
Pathophysiology. 2009;16(23):217231.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
abs/pii/S092846800900008X
21. Touzet R, González AJ. Protection against
ionizingradiationvisàvis.Protectionagainst
nonionizing 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
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
In the 1990s, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) restricted its risk assessment for human exposure to radiofrequency radiation (RFR) in seven ways: (1) Inappropriate focus on heat, ignoring sub-thermal effects. (2) Reliance on exposure experiments performed over very short times. (3) Overlooking time/amplitude characteristics of RFR signals. (4) Ignoring carcinogenicity, hypersensitivity, and other health conditions connected with RFR. (5) Measuring cellphone Specific Absorption Rates (SAR) at arbitrary distances from the head. (6) Averaging SAR doses at volumetric/mass scales irrelevant to health. (7) Using unrealistic simulations for cell phone SAR estimations. Low-cost software and hardware modifications are proposed here for cellular phone RFR exposure mitigation: (1) inhibiting RFR emissions in contact with the body, (2) use of antenna patterns reducing the Percent of Power absorbed in the Head (PPHead) and body and increasing the Percent of Power Radiated for communications (PPR), and (3) automated protocol-based reductions of the number of RFR emissions, their duration, or integrated dose. These inexpensive measures do not fundamentally alter cell phone functions or communications quality. A health threat is scientifically documented at many levels and acknowledged by industries. Yet mitigation of RFR exposures to users does not appear as a priority with most cell phone manufacturers.
Article
Full-text available
Electromagnetic signals from everyday wireless technologies are an ever-present environmental stressor, affecting biological systems. In this article, we substantiate this statement based on the weight of evidence from papers collated within the ORSAA database (ODEB), focusing on the biological and health effects of electromagnetic fields and radiation. More specifically, the experiments investigating exposures from real-world devices and the epidemiology studies examining the effects of living near mobile phone base stations were extracted from ODEB and the number of papers showing effects was compared with the number showing no effects. The results showed that two-thirds of the experimental and epidemiological papers found significant biological effects. The breadth of 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 protein damage, biochemical changes and oxidative stress. This understanding is targeted toward health professionals and policy makers who have not been exposed to this issue during training. To inform this readership, some of the major biological effect categories and plausible mechanisms of action from the reviewed literature are described. Also presented are a set of best practice guidelines for treating patients affected by electromagnetic exposures and for using technology safely in health care settings. In conclusion, there is an extensive evidence base revealing that significant stress to human biological systems is being imposed by exposure to everyday wireless communication devices and supporting infrastructure. This evidence is compelling enough to warrant an update in medical education and practice.
Article
Full-text available
This commentary considers research needs for radiofrequency (RF) energy above 6 GHz, including in the "high band" of 5G New Radio (NR) communications systems that exists just beneath the mm-wave band (30-300 GHz). As of late 2020, approximately 100 RF bioeffects studies have been published involving exposures above 6 GHz, encompassing a wide range of exposure levels and frequencies. A majority of these studies report statistically significant effects of exposure, many at exposures within international safety limits. This commentary examines 31 genetic damage studies involving RF exposures above 6 GHz in the context of two sets of quality-assessment criteria: 1. "Risk of bias" (RoB) criteria used for systematic reviews of health-related studies; and 2. a broader set of criteria for research quality from a different scholarly approach (metascience). The 31 studies report several statistically significant effects of exposure on different markers for genetic damage. These effects, if real, would have great potential significance for carcinogen risk assessment. However, the studies as a group have significant technical weaknesses, including small size, failure to meet multiple RoB criteria, naïve use of statistics, and lack of prespecified hypotheses and methods of analysis, all of which increase the chances of false discovery. Here we propose a "carrot" (adequate funding to support high-quality research) and a "stick" (more stringent review of bioeffects manuscripts, including explicit instructions to reviewers to assess study quality) approach to increase the reliability of RF bioeffects studies to facilitate health agency reviews of this socially controversial topic.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
The purpose of this paper is to explore an apparent dichotomy between the protection against ionizing radiation (IR) and the protection against no ionizing radiation (NIR). The international and intergovernmental radiation safety system for IR is: universal and consensual; founded on internationally accepted science accorded at the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR); based on a universally accepted paradigm developed over the years by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP); resulted in an intergovernmental regime of standards co-sponsored by all relevant international agencies under the aegis of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); enforced by obligations undertaken by States; and, including provisions for practical applications supported by all relevant international agencies. For the protection against NIR., the proxy is the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), created by IRPA on 1992. After 30 years its work is not replacing the combined effort of UNSCEAR, ICRP and the intergovernmental agencies. Such differences in protection approaches between IR and NIR are against the fundamental bases of IRPA. The interest of IRPA, its constituting societies and their thousand professional members, is to resolve the gap. They need clear answers to such basic questions as: What is the internationally endorsed consensual science on NIR? What is the ethical basis of the protection paradigm and the factual protection principles being used for NIR? What is the intergovernmental regime of safety standards and obligations for NIR? What are the provisions for the global application of such standards? The paper concludes that the time seems to be ripe for closing the gape between protection against IR and protection against NIR.
Article
Full-text available
Abstract Carcinogenesis fits in a frequency pattern of electromagnetic field (EMF) waves, in which a gradual loss of cellular organization occurs. Such generation of cancer features can be inhibited by adequate exposure to coherent electromagnetic frequencies. However, cancer can also be initiated and promoted at other distinct frequencies of electromagnetic waves. Both observations were revealed by analyzing 100 different EMF frequency data reported in meta-analyses of 123 different, earlier published, biomedical studies. The studied EM frequencies showed a fractal pattern of 12 beneficial (anti-cancer) frequencies, and 12 detrimental (cancer promoting) frequencies, that form the central pattern of a much wider self-similar EMF spectrum of cancer inhibiting or promoting activities. Inhibiting of the cancer process, and even curing of the disease, can thus be considered through exposure to the coherent type of EM fields. Stabilization of the disease can be understood by constructive resonance of macromolecules in the cancer cell with the externally appied coherent EMF field frequencies, called solitons/polarons. The latter, for instance, have been shown earlier to induce repair in DNA/RNA conformation and/or epigenetic changes. The field of EMF treatment of cancer disorders is rapidly expanding and our studies may invite further experimental and clinical studies in which systematically various potential EMF treatment protocols could be applied, with combined and modulated frequencies, to obtain even more efficient EMF anti-cancer therapies.
Article
Full-text available
In the current study we assessed possible effects of prolonged (3 hours) exposure to 884 MHz GSM wireless communication signals on self-reported symptoms, cognitive function, and electroencephalographically (EEG) recorded sleep. The study group consisted of 36 women and 35 men. Twenty-two women and sixteen men reported symptoms they specifically related to mobile phone use (SG). The rest of the participants reported no mobile phone-related symptoms (NG). Potential participants volunteering for the study were evaluated by physicians, including some biochemical assessments, to rule out medical conditions that could interfere with study variables of interest. Once selected, participants spent three different sessions in the laboratory. The ha-bituation session was followed by two subsequent sessions. In these subsequent sessions, subjects were either exposed to sham exposure (sham) or 884 MHz GSM wireless communication signals for 3 hours (an average of 1.4 W/kg including periods of DTX and Non-DTX. Exposure directed to the left hemisphere). Data was collected before, during and following the exposure/sham ses-sions. Data collected included self-reported symptoms, including headache, cognitive function, mood, and electroencephalographic recordings. During actual exposure, as compared to sham exposure, sleep initiated one hour after exposure was affected. There was a prolonged latency to reach the first cycle of deep sleep (stage 3). The amount of stage 4 sleep was also decreased in exposed subjects. NG subjects reported more headaches during exposures vs. sham exposure. Neither group (SG and NG) was able to detect the true exposure status more frequently than by chance alone. The study indicates that during laboratory exposure to 884 MHz wireless signals, components of sleep, believed to be important for recovery from daily wear and tear, are adversely affected. Moreover, participants that otherwise have no self-reported symptoms related to mobile phone use, appear to have more headaches during actual radiofrequency exposure as compared to sham exposure. However, subjects were not able to detect the true exposure status more often than would have been expected by statistical chance alone. Additional self-reported findings, biochemical, performance and electrophysiological data are currently being analyzed. Possible health implications from the findings will also be further explored.
Article
This case report describes the diagnosis and management of a female who, in her mid-30’s, suddenly began to experience a cluster of symptoms and signs that were eventually diagnosed as chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Five years on, a rapidly growing benign, follicular thyroid nodule was also identified. Her health continued to deteriorate. A partial thyroidectomy was performed, and thyroxine therapy commenced. However, postoperatively, new rapidly growing thyroid ‘cold’ nodules were identified in the other lobe. She was advised to prepare for a full thyroidectomy. The onset of illness coincided with the person moving into an apartment in one of Sydney’s inner-city suburbs. Following surgery, an environmental health researcher measured the levels of anthropogenic electromagnetic radiation/fields (EMR/EMF) levels in her apartment. The radiofrequency (RF) EMR readings were within the limits set by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), yet high according to the independent scientific guidelines. The findings prompted a trial relocation into accommodation that would reduce her night-time RF-EMR exposure by at least 16,000-fold. Except for a longer commute to work, no other changes were made. Within a few weeks, her health began to improve, and this continued over the next ten months. Objective signs included ultrasound confirmation that the thyroid nodules were now stable. Following another relocation 10-months later, her CFS became considerably worse. As with the first presentation, this coincided with a dramatic increase in EMR/EMF exposure at home. The possibility of electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) was considered. Management has since focused on minimizing unnatural EMR/EMF in line with EUROPAEM 2016 guidelines along with more targeted pharmacological, nutritional and lifestyle support. A gradual improvement in her health has ensued, yet, symptom exacerbation continues to most closely correlate with RF-EMR exposure. The potential underlying mechanisms and pathogenesis of CFS are complex, with considerable overlay with other chronic conditions. Contention surrounding the legitimacy of EHS continues. Whether EMR/EMF is common underlying exacerbator of CFS, is yet to be determined. The challenges with navigating these controversial and unresolved issues are discussed.
Article
This article addresses the currently lacking medical discussion on the safety of the new fifth generation wireless (5G) and the need to start one with input from medical scientists and clinicians given the scientific evidence of biological/health effects some of which is highlighted.
Article
The histories of some well-known public and environmental hazards, from the first scientifically based early warnings about potential harm, to the subsequent precautionary and preventive measures, have been reviewed by the European Environment Agency in their report "Late Lessons from Early Warnings: The Precautionary Principle 1896-2000". This paper summarises some of the definitional and other issues that arise from the report and subsequent debates, such as the contingent nature of knowledge; the definitions of precaution, prevention, risk, uncertainty, and ignorance; the use of different strengths of evidence for different purposes; the nature and main direction of the methodological and cultural biases within the environmental health sciences; the need for transparency in evaluating risks; and public participation in risk analysis. These issues are relevant to the risk assessment of electro-magnetic fields (EMF). Some implications of these issues and of the "late lessons" for the evaluation and reduction of risks from EMF are indicated.
A novel database of bioeffects from nonionizing radiation
  • V Leach
  • S Weller
  • M Redmayne
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