Chapter 1. Eight Extremely Well-Documented Effects of Non-Thermal EMF Exposures: Role of Pulsations, Other Factors that Influence EMF Effects
Both the earlier Ryan document and the more recent Arūnas document each fail to pay any attention to the extensive scientific literature that has been accumulated on non-thermal electromagnetic field (EMF) effects. The
What are the effects produced by non-thermal exposures to microwave frequency EMFs, where we have an extensive scientific literature? Each of the following effects has been documented in from 12 to 34 reviews, listed at the end of Chapter 1.
1.
Three types of cellular
DNA attacks, producing single strand breaks in the cellular DNA, double strand
breaks in cellular DNA and oxidized bases in cellular DNA. Each of these DNA
changes have roles in cancer causation and in producing the most important
mutational changes in humans and diverse animals. Double stranded DNA breaks
produce chromosomal breaks, rearrangements, deletions and duplications and copy
number mutations; they also produce gene amplification, an important mechanism
in cancer causation. Single strand breaks in cellular DNA cause aberrant
recombination events leading to copy number mutations. Oxidized bases cause
point mutations. When these occur in somatic cells, they can each have roles in
causing cancer. When these occur in germ line cells (and they have be shown to
occur in sperm following EMF exposures), they cause the three most important
types of mutations in future generations, chromosomal mutations, copy number
mutations and point mutations. (21 different reviews documenting these types of
cellular DNA damage)
2.
A wide variety of
changes leading to lowered male fertility, lowered female fertility, increased
spontaneous abortion, lowered levels of estrogen, progesterone and
testosterone, lowered libido (18 reviews). Human sperm count has dropped to
below 50% of what used to be considered normal throughout the technologically
advanced countries of the world [1]. Reproductive rates have fallen below
replacement levels
in every technologically advanced country of the world, with a single exception. These include every EU country, the U.S., Canada, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand. Reproduction averages, in these countries, about 73% of replacement levels according to 2015 or 2016 data. A study on mouse reproduction [2] showed that radio/microwave frequency EMF exposure at doses well within our current safety guidelines produced substantial dose-dependent decreases in reproduction within
in every technologically advanced country of the world, with a single exception. These include every EU country, the U.S., Canada, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand. Reproduction averages, in these countries, about 73% of replacement levels according to 2015 or 2016 data. A study on mouse reproduction [2] showed that radio/microwave frequency EMF exposure at doses well within our current safety guidelines produced substantial dose-dependent decreases in reproduction within
4
the first
set of litters; further exposure produced dose-dependent complete or almost
complete sterility that was found to be largely irreversible. When we have a
technology that is universally present in these technologically advanced
countries, that we know impacts reproduction, and reproduction has already
dropped well below replacement levels, and we may be facing a catastrophic and
irreversible decline in reproduction and there are more and more plans to expose
us still further, don't you think that we should take note of the science? Mr.
Ryan and Dr. Vinciūnas seem to be saying not at all. (Please note that the U.S.
FCC and FDA also completely ignore this existential threat)
3.
Neurological/neuropsychiatric
effects (25 reviews). My own paper on this [3] and two earlier reviews cited in
it found that there are whole series of repeatedly found EMF effects which have
also become extremely widespread complaints in our technologically advanced
societies, namely: sleep disturbance/insomnia; fatigue/tiredness; headache;
depression/depressive symptoms; lack of concentration/attention/cognitive
dysfunction; dizziness/vertigo; memory changes;
restlessness/tension/anxiety/stress/agitation; irritability. These findings are
not just based on epidemiological findings but are also based on profound
impacts of EMFs, at levels well within our safety guidelines, on brain
structure and function and also on the mechanism of non-thermal EMF action
discussed below. When we have these neuropsychiatric effects becoming more and
more common in technologically advanced societies all over the world, and we know each of these is caused EMF
exposures, shouldn't we take note of this relationship?
4.
Apoptosis/cell death
(13 reviews). The two most important consequences of large increases in
apoptosis (programmed cell death) are in causation of the neurodegenerative
diseases and lowered reproduction although there are others.
5.
Oxidative stress/free
radical damage (19 reviews). Oxidative stress has roles in all or almost all
chronic diseases. It is reported to have essential roles in producing the
reproductive effects and the attacks on cellular DNA and may also have roles in
producing the neurological effects and some of the cancer-causing effects shown
to be produced here by EMF exposures.
6.
Widespread endocrine
(that is hormonal) effects (12 reviews). The steroid hormone levels drop with
EMF exposure, whereas other hormone levels increase with initial exposure. The
neuroendocrine hormones and insulin levels often drop with prolonged EMF
exposure, possibly due to endocrine exhaustion.
7.
Increases in
intracellular calcium ([Ca2+]i) levels following EMF exposure (15 reviews).
Calcium signaling also increases following EMF exposure.
8.
Cancer causation (35
reviews). Brain cancer, salivary cancer, acoustic neuromas and two other types
of cancer go up with cell phone use. People living near cell phone towers have
increased cancer rates. Other types of EMFs are each implicated. Short wave
radio, radio ham operators and people exposed to radar all are reported to have
increased cancer incidence. Perhaps most telling, heavy-long term cell phone
users have the highest incidence of brain cancer and have predominantly cancer increases
on the ipsilateral side of the head (the side they use their cell phones), as
opposed to the contralateral side. I have a paper [7], focused not on whether
EMFs cause cancer but rather on how they can cause cancer. The paper
shows that "downstream effects" of the main target of the EMFs in the
cells of our bodies, can cause cancer in 15 different ways, including increases
in cancer initiation, promotion and progression. Progression effects include
both tissue invasion and metastasis. Each of these cancer causation effects are
caused via mechanisms produced by downstream effects of the main non-thermal
EMF mechanism, as discussed in Chapter 2.
9.
Therapeutic effects of
such EMFs. Such EMFs when focused on a specific region of the body where there is
some dysfunction and when used at specific intensities, can have therapeutic
effects. In my 2013 paper [4], I cited 12 different reviews where EMF
5
stimulation
of bone growth was used therapeutically. There are something like 4000 papers
on various therapeutic effects. Strangely, the telecommunications industry does
not acknowledge these therapeutic effects, preferring rather to maintain the
fiction that there are no non-thermal effects.
There is another set of reviews, 13 in this case, with each showing that pulsed EMFs are, in most cases, much more biologically active than are non-pulsed EMFs. This is particularly important because all wireless communication devices communicate via pulsations, making them potentially much more dangerous. It follows from this that if you wish to study the effects of Wi- Fi, cell phones, cordless phones, cell phone towers, smart meters or 5G, you had better study the real thing or at least something that pulses very much like the real thing. There are many studies that don't do this, but falsely claim to be genuine Wi-Fi, cell phone or cordless phone studies. Other factors that influence the occurrence of non-thermal EMF effects include the frequency being used, the polarization of the EMFs and the cell type being studied [4,5,8-11]. Furthermore there are intensity “windows” that produce maximum biological effects, such that both lower and higher intensities produce much less effect [5,8,9]. These window effect studies clearly show that dose-response curves are both non-linear and non-monotone, such that it is difficult or impossible to predict effects based on relative intensity even when all other factors are the same. The role of each of these factors is completely ignored by ICNIRP, SCENIHR, the U.S. FCC, FDA and National Cancer Institute as well as by many other industry-friendly groups. When each of these organizations concludes that “results are inconsistent” they are comparing studies based on superficial similarities but not on these demonstrated causal factors. What is being observed, therefore, is genuine biological heterogeneity, not inconsistency. It has been known since the beginning of modern science in the 16th century that how you do your studies is important in determining what results are obtained. How is it possible that ICNIRP, SCENIHR, the U.S. FCC, FDA and National Cancer Institute have forgotten this important fact?
The primary literature studies demonstrating roles of pulsation, frequency, polarization, cell type and intensity windows in determining biological effects are entirely dependent on having genuine effects to study. None of these studies could have been done without an effect to study. Consequently, the claims that there are no well-documented EMF effects are nonsense, based not only on the eight extremely well-documented effects summarized above, but also on the entire literature demonstrating the role of pulsation, frequency, polarization, cell type and intensity windows.
Now I haven't said anything about how these non-thermal EMF effects are produced. I am taking much of Chapter 2 from a recent paper [11].
Reviews each showing important health-related non-thermal effects of microwave frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs).
These review lists were prepared by Dr. Martin L. Pall, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences, Washington State University. martin_pall@wsu.edu
BA degree in Physics, Phi Beta Kappa, with honors, Johns Hopkins University; PhD in Biochemistry & Genetics, Caltech.
Specific effects and reviews each reporting the effect in multiple primary literature studies:
Cellular DNA damage: Single strand and double strand breaks in cellular DNA and oxidized bases in cellular DNA, leading to chromosomal and other mutational changes:
There is another set of reviews, 13 in this case, with each showing that pulsed EMFs are, in most cases, much more biologically active than are non-pulsed EMFs. This is particularly important because all wireless communication devices communicate via pulsations, making them potentially much more dangerous. It follows from this that if you wish to study the effects of Wi- Fi, cell phones, cordless phones, cell phone towers, smart meters or 5G, you had better study the real thing or at least something that pulses very much like the real thing. There are many studies that don't do this, but falsely claim to be genuine Wi-Fi, cell phone or cordless phone studies. Other factors that influence the occurrence of non-thermal EMF effects include the frequency being used, the polarization of the EMFs and the cell type being studied [4,5,8-11]. Furthermore there are intensity “windows” that produce maximum biological effects, such that both lower and higher intensities produce much less effect [5,8,9]. These window effect studies clearly show that dose-response curves are both non-linear and non-monotone, such that it is difficult or impossible to predict effects based on relative intensity even when all other factors are the same. The role of each of these factors is completely ignored by ICNIRP, SCENIHR, the U.S. FCC, FDA and National Cancer Institute as well as by many other industry-friendly groups. When each of these organizations concludes that “results are inconsistent” they are comparing studies based on superficial similarities but not on these demonstrated causal factors. What is being observed, therefore, is genuine biological heterogeneity, not inconsistency. It has been known since the beginning of modern science in the 16th century that how you do your studies is important in determining what results are obtained. How is it possible that ICNIRP, SCENIHR, the U.S. FCC, FDA and National Cancer Institute have forgotten this important fact?
The primary literature studies demonstrating roles of pulsation, frequency, polarization, cell type and intensity windows in determining biological effects are entirely dependent on having genuine effects to study. None of these studies could have been done without an effect to study. Consequently, the claims that there are no well-documented EMF effects are nonsense, based not only on the eight extremely well-documented effects summarized above, but also on the entire literature demonstrating the role of pulsation, frequency, polarization, cell type and intensity windows.
Now I haven't said anything about how these non-thermal EMF effects are produced. I am taking much of Chapter 2 from a recent paper [11].
Reviews each showing important health-related non-thermal effects of microwave frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs).
These review lists were prepared by Dr. Martin L. Pall, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences, Washington State University. martin_pall@wsu.edu
BA degree in Physics, Phi Beta Kappa, with honors, Johns Hopkins University; PhD in Biochemistry & Genetics, Caltech.
Specific effects and reviews each reporting the effect in multiple primary literature studies:
Cellular DNA damage: Single strand and double strand breaks in cellular DNA and oxidized bases in cellular DNA, leading to chromosomal and other mutational changes:
6
1.
Glaser
ZR, PhD. 1971 Naval Medical Research Institute Research Report, June 1971.
Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena (“Effects”) and Clinical
Manifestations Attributed to Microwave and Radio-Frequency Radiation. Report
No. 2 Revised. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Glaser+naval+medical+microwave+radio-
frequency+1972&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C38 (Accessed Sept. 9,
2017)
2.
Goldsmith
JR. 1997 Epidemiologic evidence relevant to radar (microwave) effects. Environ
Health Perspect 105(Suppl 6):1579-1587.
3.
Yakymenko IL,
Sidorik EP, Tsybulin AS. 1999 [Metabolic changes in cells under electromagnetic
radiation of mobile communication systems]. Ukr Biokhim Zh (1999), 2011
Mar-Apr:20-28.
4.
Aitken
RJ, De Iuliis GN. 2007 Origins and consequences of DNA damage in male germ
cells. Reprod Biomed Online 14:727-733.
5.
Hardell,
L., Sage, C. 2008. Biological effects from electromagnetic field exposure and
public exposure standards. Biomed. Pharmacother. 62, 104-109.
6.
Hazout
A, Menezo Y, Madelenat P, Yazbeck C, Selva J, Cohen-Bacrie P. 2008 [Causes and
clinical implications of sperm DNA damages]. Gynecol Obstet Fertil ;36:1109-
1117.
7.
Phillips
JL, Singh NP, Lai H. 2009 Electromagnetic fields and DNA damage.
Pathophysiology 16:79-88.
8.
Ruediger
HW. 2009 Genotoxic effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields.
Pathophysiology. 16:89-102.
9.
Makker
K, Varghese A, Desai NR, Mouradi R, Agarwal A. 2009 Cell phones: modern man's
nemesis? Reprod Biomed Online 18:148-157.
10.
Yakymenko I,
Sidorik E. 2010 Risks of carcinogenesis from electromagnetic radiation and
mobile telephony devices. Exp Oncol 32:729-736.
11.
Yakimenko
IL, Sidorik EP, Tsybulin AS. 2011 [Metabolic changes in cells under
electromagnetic radiation of mobile communication systems]. Ukr Biokhim Zh
(1999). 2011 Mar-Apr;83(2):20-28.
12.
Gye
MC, Park CJ. 2012 Effect of electromagnetic field exposure on the reproductive
system. Clin Exp Reprod Med 39:1-9. doi.org/10.5653/cerm.2012.39.1.1
13.
Pall,
ML. 2013. Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium
channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects. J Cell Mol Med 17:958-965.
doi: 10.1111/jcmm.12088.
14.
Pall,
M. L. 2015 Scientific evidence contradicts findings and assumptions of Canadian
Safety Panel 6: microwaves act through voltage-gated calcium channel activation
to induce biological impacts at non-thermal levels, supporting a paradigm shift
for microwave/lower frequency electromagnetic field action. Rev. Environ.
Health 3, 99- 116. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2015-0001.
15.
Hensinger P,
Wilke E. 2016. Mobilfunk-Studienergebnisse bestätigen Risiken Studienrecherche
2016-4 veröffentlicht. Umwelt Medizin Gesellshaft 29:3/2016.
16.
Houston
BJ, Nixon B, King BV, De Iuliis GN, Aitken RJ. 2016 The effects of
radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation on sperm function. Reproduction
152:R263- R276.
17.
Batista
Napotnik T, Reberšek M, Vernier PT, Mali B, Miklavčič D. 2016 Effects
of high voltage nanosecond electric pulses on eukaryotic cells (in vitro): A
systematic review. Bioelectrochemistry. 2016 Aug;110:1-12. doi:
10.1016/j.bioelechem.2016.02.011.
18.
Asghari
A, Khaki AA, Rajabzadeh A, Khaki A. 2016 A review on Electromagnetic fields
(EMFs) and the reproductive system. Electron Physician. 2016 Jul 25;8(7):2655-
2662. doi: 10.19082/2655.
7
19.
Pall
ML. 2018 How cancer can be caused by microwave frequency electromagnetic field
(EMF) exposures: EMF activation of voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs) can
cause cancer including tumor promotion, tissue invasion and metastasis via 15
mechanisms. Chapter 7 in Mobile Communications and Public Health, Marko Markov,
Ed., CRC press, pp 163-184.
20.
Pall
ML. 2018 Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health. Environ Res 164:404-416.
21.
Wilke I. 2018
Biological and pathological effects of 2.45 GHz on cells, fertility, brain
and behavior. Umwelt Medizin Gesselshaft 2018 Feb 31 (1).
and behavior. Umwelt Medizin Gesselshaft 2018 Feb 31 (1).
Lowered fertility,
including tissue remodeling changes in the testis, lowered sperm count and
sperm quality, lowered female fertility including ovarian remodeling, oocyte
(follicle) loss, lowered estrogen, progesterone and testosterone levels (that
is sex hormone levels), increased spontaneous abortion incidence, lowered
libido:
1.
Glaser
ZR, PhD. 1971 Naval Medical Research Institute Research Report, June 1971.
Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena (“Effects”) and Clinical
Manifestations Attributed to Microwave and Radio-Frequency Radiation. Report
No. 2 Revised.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Glaser+naval+medical+microwave+radio-
frequency+1972&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C38 (Accessed Sept. 9, 2017)
2.
Tolgskaya
MS, Gordon ZV. 1973. Pathological Effects of Radio Waves, Translated from
Russian by B Haigh. Consultants Bureau, New York/London, 146 pages.
3.
Goldsmith
JR. 1997 Epidemiological evidence relevant to radar (microwave) effects.
Environ Health Perspect 105(Suppl 6):1579-1587.
4.
Aitken
RJ, De Iuliis GN. 2007 Origins and consequences of DNA damage in male germ
cells. Reprod Biomed Online 14:727-733.
5.
Hazout
A, Menezo Y, Madelenat P, Yazbeck C, Selva J, Cohen-Bacrie P. 2008 [Causes and
clinical implications of sperm DNA damages]. Gynecol Obstet Fertil ;36:1109-
1117.
6.
Makker
K, Varghese A, Desai NR, Mouradi R, Agarwal A. 2009 Cell phones: modern man's
nemesis? Reprod Biomed Online 18:148-157.
7.
Kang
N, Shang XJ, Huang YF. 2010 [Impact of cell phone radiation on male
reproduction]. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue 16:1027-1030.
8.
Gye
MC, Park CJ. 2012 Effect of electromagnetic field exposure on the reproductive
system. Clin Exp Reprod Med 39:1-9. doi.org/10.5653/cerm.2012.39.1.1
9.
La
Vignera S, Condorelli RA, Vicari E, D'Agata R, Calogero AE. 2012 Effects of the
exposure to mobile phones on male reproduction: a review of the literature. J
Androl 33:350-356.
10.
Carpenter
DO. 2013 Human disease resulting from exposure to electromagnetic fields. Rev
Environ Health 2013;28:159-172.
11.
Nazıroğlu M, Yüksel M,
Köse SA, Özkaya MO. 2013 Recent reports of Wi-Fi and mobile phone-induced
radiation on oxidative stress and reproductive signaling pathways in females
and males. J Membr Biol 246:869-875.
12.
Adams
JA, Galloway TS, Mondal D, Esteves SC, Mathews F. 2014 Effect of mobile
telephones on sperm quality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Int
70:106- 112.
13.
Liu
K, Li Y, Zhang G, Liu J, Cao J, Ao L, Zhang S. 2014 Association between mobile
phone use and semen quality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Andrology
2:491- 501.
8
14.
K
Sri N. 2015 Mobile phone radiation: physiological & pathophysiological
considerations. Indian J Physiol Pharmacol 59:125-135.
15.
Hensinger P,
Wilke E. 2016. Mobilfunk-Studienergebnisse bestätigen Risiken Studienrecherche
2016-4 veröffentlicht. Umwelt Medizin Gesellshaft 29:3/2016.
16.
Houston
BJ, Nixon B, King BV, De Iuliis GN, Aitken RJ. 2016 The effects of radiofrequency
electromagnetic radiation on sperm function. Reproduction 152:R263- R276
17.
Pall
ML. 2018 Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health. Environ Res 164:404-416.
18.
Wilke I. 2018
Biological and pathological effects of 2.45 GHz on cells, fertility, brain
and behavior. Umwelt Medizin Gesselshaft 2018 Feb 31 (1).
and behavior. Umwelt Medizin Gesselshaft 2018 Feb 31 (1).
Neurological/neuropsychiatric
effects:
1.
Marha K. 1966
Biological Effects of High-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields (Translation). ATD
Report 66-92. July 13, 1966 (ATD Work Assignment No. 78, Task 11). http://www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/AD0642029 (accessed
March 12, 2018)
2.
Glaser
ZR, PhD. 1971 Naval Medical Research Institute Research Report, June 1971.
Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena (“Effects”) and Clinical
Manifestations Attributed to Microwave and Radio-Frequency Radiation. Report
No. 2 Revised.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Glaser+naval+medical+microwave+radio-
frequency+1972&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C38 (Accessed Sept. 9, 2017)
3.
Tolgskaya
MS, Gordon ZV. 1973. Pathological Effects of Radio Waves, Translated from
Russian by by Haigh. Consultants Bureau, New York/London, 146 pages.
4.
Bise
W. 1978 Low power radio-frequency and microwave effects on human
electroencephalogram and behavior. Physiol Chem Phys 10:387-398.
5.
Raines,
J. K. 1981. Electromagnetic Field Interactions with the Human Body: Observed
Effects and Theories. Greenbelt, Maryland: National Aeronautics and Space
Administration 1981; 116 p.
6.
Frey
AH. 1993 Electromagnetic field interactions with biological systems. FASEB J
7:272-281.
7.
Lai
H. 1994 Neurological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation. In:
Advances in Electromagnetic Fields in Living Systems, Vol. 1, J.C. Lin, Ed.,
Plenum Press, New York, pp. 27-88.
8.
Grigor'ev
IuG. 1996 [Role of modulation in biological effects of electromagnetic
radiation]. Radiats Biol Radioecol 36:659-670.
9.
Lai,
H 1998 Neurological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation. http://www.mapcruzin.com/radiofrequency/henry_lai2.htm.
10.
Aitken
RJ, De Iuliis GN. 2007 Origins and consequences of DNA damage in male germ
cells. Reprod Biomed Online 14:727-733.
11.
Hardell,
L., Sage, C. 2008. Biological effects from electromagnetic field exposure and
public exposure standards. Biomed. Pharmacother. 62, 104-109.
12.
Makker
K, Varghese A, Desai NR, Mouradi R, Agarwal A. 2009 Cell phones: modern man's
nemesis? Reprod Biomed Online 18:148-157.
13.
Khurana
VG, Hardell L, Everaert J, Bortkiewicz A, Carlberg M, Ahonen M. 2010
Epidemiological evidence for a health risk from mobile phone base stations. Int
J Occup Environ Health 16:263-267.
9
14.
Levitt,
B. B., Lai, H. 2010. Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic
radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays.
Environ. Rev. 18, 369-395. doi.org/10.1139/A10-018
15.
Carpenter
DO. 2013 Human disease resulting from exposure to electromagnetic fields. Rev
Environ Health 2013;28:159-172.
16.
Politański P,
Bortkiewicz A, Zmyślony M. 2016
[Effects of radio- and microwaves emitted by wireless communication devices on
the functions of the nervous system selected elements]. Med Pr 67:411-421.
17.
Hensinger P,
Wilke E. 2016. Mobilfunk-Studienergebnisse bestätigen Risiken Studienrecherche
2016-4 veröffentlicht. Umwelt Medizin Gesellshaft 29:3/2016.
18.
Pall
ML. 2016 Microwave frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produce widespread
neuropsychiatric effects including depression. J Chem Neuroanat 75(Pt B):43-51.
doi: 10.1016/j.jchemneu.2015.08.001.
19.
Hecht, Karl.
2016 Health Implications of Long-Term Exposures to Electrosmog. Brochure 6 of A
Brochure Series of the Competence Initiative for the Protection of Humanity,
the Environment and Democracy.
http://kompetenzinitiative.net/KIT/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/KI_Brochure-
6_K_Hecht_web.pdf (accessed Feb. 11, 2018)
20.
Sangün
Ö, Dündar B, Çömlekçi S, Büyükgebiz A. 2016 The Effects of Electromagnetic
Field on the Endocrine System in Children and Adolescents. Pediatr Endocrinol
Rev 13:531-545.
21.
Belyaev
I, Dean A, Eger H, Hubmann G, Jandrisovits R, Kern M, Kundi M, Moshammer H,
Lercher P, Müller K, Oberfeld G, Ohnsorge P, Pelzmann P, Scheingraber C, Thill
R. 2016 EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment
of EMF-related health problems and illnesses. Rev Environ Health DOI
10.1515/reveh- 2016-0011.
22.
Zhang
J, Sumich A, Wang GY. 2017 Acute effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic
field emitted by mobile phone on brain function. Bioelectromagnetics
38:329-338. doi: 10.1002/bem.22052.
23.
Lai
H. 2018. A Summary of Recent Literature (2007–2017) on Neurological
Effects of Radio Frequency Radiation. Chapter 8 in Mobile Communications and Public Health, Marko Markov, Ed., CRC press, pp 185-220.
Effects of Radio Frequency Radiation. Chapter 8 in Mobile Communications and Public Health, Marko Markov, Ed., CRC press, pp 185-220.
24.
Pall
ML. 2018 Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health. Environ Res 164:404-416.
25.
Wilke I. 2018
Biological and pathological effects of 2.45 GHz on cells, fertility, brain
and behavior. Umwelt Medizin Gesselshaft 2018 Feb 31 (1).
and behavior. Umwelt Medizin Gesselshaft 2018 Feb 31 (1).
Apoptosis/cell
death (an
important process in production of neurodegenerative diseases that is also
important in producing infertility responses):
1.
Glaser
ZR, PhD. 1971 Naval Medical Research Institute Research Report, June 1971.
Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena (“Effects”) and Clinical
Manifestations Attributed to Microwave and Radio-Frequency Radiation. Report
No. 2 Revised.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Glaser+naval+medical+microwave+radio-
frequency+1972&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C38 (Accessed Sept. 9, 2017)
2.
Tolgskaya
MS, Gordon ZV. 1973. Pathological Effects of Radio Waves, Translated from
Russian by B Haigh. Consultants Bureau, New York/London, 146 pages.
3.
Raines,
J. K. 1981. Electromagnetic Field Interactions with the Human Body: Observed
Effects and Theories. Greenbelt, Maryland: National Aeronautics and Space
Administration 1981; 116 p.
10
4.
Hardell
L, Sage C. 2008. Biological effects from electromagnetic field exposure and
public exposure standards. Biomed. Pharmacother. 62:104-109. doi:
10.1016/j.biopha.2007.12.004.
5.
Makker
K, Varghese A, Desai NR, Mouradi R, Agarwal A. 2009 Cell phones: modern man's
nemesis? Reprod Biomed Online 18:148-157.
6.
Levitt,
B. B., Lai, H. 2010. Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic
radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays.
Environ. Rev. 18, 369-395. doi.org/10.1139/A10-018
7.
Yakymenko I,
Sidorik E. 2010 Risks of carcinogenesis from electromagnetic radiation and
mobile telephony devices. Exp Oncol 32:729-736.
8.
Yakimenko
IL, Sidorik EP, Tsybulin AS. 2011 [Metabolic changes in cells under
electromagnetic radiation of mobile communication systems]. Ukr Biokhim Zh
(1999). 2011 Mar-Apr;83(2):20-28.
9.
Pall,
ML. 2013. Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium
channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects. J Cell Mol Med 17:958-965.
doi: 10.1111/jcmm.12088.
10.
Pall
ML. 2016 Microwave frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produce widespread
neuropsychiatric effects including depression. J Chem Neuroanat 75(Pt B):43-51.
doi: 10.1016/j.jchemneu.2015.08.001.
11.
Batista
Napotnik T, Reberšek M, Vernier PT, Mali B, Miklavčič D. 2016 Effects
of high voltage nanosecond electric pulses on eukaryotic cells (in vitro): A
systematic review. Bioelectrochemistry. 2016 Aug;110:1-12. doi: 10.1016/j.bioelechem.2016.02.011.
12.
Asghari
A, Khaki AA, Rajabzadeh A, Khaki A. 2016 A review on Electromagnetic fields
(EMFs) and the reproductive system. Electron Physician. 2016 Jul 25;8(7):2655-
2662. doi: 10.19082/2655.
13.
Pall ML. 2018
Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health. Environ Res 164:404- 416.
Oxidative
stress/free radical damage (important mechanisms involved in almost all chronic
diseases; direct cause of cellular DNA damage):
1.
Raines,
J. K. 1981. Electromagnetic Field Interactions with the Human Body: Observed
Effects and Theories. Greenbelt, Maryland: National Aeronautics and Space
Administration 1981; 116 p.
2.
Hardell,
L., Sage, C. 2008. Biological effects from electromagnetic field exposure and
public exposure standards. Biomed. Pharmacother. 62, 104-109.
3.
Hazout
A, Menezo Y, Madelenat P, Yazbeck C, Selva J, Cohen-Bacrie P. 2008 [Causes and
clinical implications of sperm DNA damages]. Gynecol Obstet Fertil
;36:1109-1117
4.
Makker
K, Varghese A, Desai NR, Mouradi R, Agarwal A. 2009 Cell phones: modern man's
nemesis? Reprod Biomed Online 18:148-157.
5.
Desai
NR, Kesari KK, Agarwal A. 2009 Pathophysiology of cell phone radiation:
oxidative stress and carcinogenesis with focus on the male reproductive system.
Reproduct Biol Endocrinol 7:114.
6.
Yakymenko I,
Sidorik E. 2010 Risks of carcinogenesis from electromagnetic radiation and
mobile telephony devices. Exp Oncol 32:729-736.
7.
Yakimenko
IL, Sidorik EP, Tsybulin AS. 2011 [Metabolic changes in cells under
electromagnetic radiation of mobile communication systems]. Ukr Biokhim Zh
(1999). 2011 Mar-Apr;83(2):20-28.
8.
Consales,
C., Merla, C., Marino, C., et al. 2012. Electromagnetic fields, oxidative
stress, and neurodegeneration. Int. J. Cell Biol. 2012: 683897.
11
9.
LaVignera
et al 2012 La Vignera S, Condorelli RA, Vicari E, D'Agata R, Calogero AE. 2012
Effects of the exposure to mobile phones on male reproduction: a review of the
literature. J Androl 33:350-356.
10.
Pall,
ML. 2013. Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium
channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects. J Cell Mol Med 17:958-965.
doi: 10.1111/jcmm.12088.
11.
Nazıroğlu M, Yüksel M,
Köse SA, Özkaya MO. 2013 Recent reports of Wi-Fi and mobile phone-induced
radiation on oxidative stress and reproductive signaling pathways in females
and males. J Membr Biol 246:869-875.
12.
Pall,
M. L. 2015. Scientific evidence contradicts findings and assumptions of
Canadian Safety Panel 6: microwaves act through voltage-gated calcium channel
activation to induce biological impacts at non-thermal levels, supporting a
paradigm shift for microwave/lower frequency electromagnetic field action. Rev.
Environ. Health 3, 99- 116.
13.
Yakymenko
I, Tsybulin O, Sidorik E, Henshel D, Kyrylenko O, Kysylenko S. 2015 Oxidative
mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation.
Electromagnetic Biol Med: Early Online 1-16. ISSN: 1536-8378.
14.
Hensinger P,
Wilke E. 2016. Mobilfunk-Studienergebnisse bestätigen Risiken Studienrecherche
2016-4 veröffentlicht. Umwelt Medizin Gesellshaft 29:3/2016.
15.
Houston
BJ, Nixon B, King BV, De Iuliis GN, Aitken RJ. 2016 The effects of
radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation on sperm function. Reproduction
152:R263- R276.
16.
Dasdag
S, Akdag MZ. 2016 The link between radiofrequencies emitted from wireless
technologies and oxidative stress. J Chem Neuroanat 75(Pt B):85-93.
17.
Wang
H, Zhang X. 2017 Magnetic fields and reactive oxygen species. Int J Mol Sci.
2017 Oct 18;18(10). pii: E2175. doi: 10.3390/ijms18102175.
18.
Pall ML. 2018
Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health. Environ Res 164:404- 416.
19.
Wilke I. 2018
Biological and pathological effects of 2.45 GHz on cells, fertility, brain and
behavior. Umwelt Medizin Gesselshaft 2018 Feb 31 (1).
Endocrine, that is
hormonal effects:
1.
Glaser
ZR, PhD. 1971 Naval Medical Research Institute Research Report, June 1971.
Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena (“Effects”) and Clinical
Manifestations Attributed to Microwave and Radio-Frequency Radiation. Report
No. 2 Revised. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Glaser+naval+medical+microwave+radio-
frequency+1972&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C38 (Accessed Sept. 9, 2017)
2.
Tolgskaya
MS, Gordon ZV. 1973. Pathological Effects of Radio Waves, Translated from
Russian by B Haigh. Consultants Bureau, New York/London, 146 pages.
3.
Raines,
J. K. 1981. Electromagnetic Field Interactions with the Human Body: Observed
Effects and Theories. Greenbelt, Maryland: National Aeronautics and Space
Administration 1981; 116 p.
4.
Hardell,
L., Sage, C. 2008. Biological effects from electromagnetic field exposure and
public exposure standards. Biomed. Pharmacother. 62, 104-109.
5.
Makker
K, Varghese A, Desai NR, Mouradi R, Agarwal A. 2009 Cell phones: modern man's
nemesis? Reprod Biomed Online 18:148-157.
6.
Gye
MC, Park CJ. 2012 Effect of electromagnetic field exposure on the reproductive
system. Clin Exp Reprod Med 39:1-9. doi.org/10.5653/cerm.2012.39.1.1
12
7.
Pall,
M. L. 2015. Scientific evidence contradicts findings and assumptions of
Canadian Safety Panel 6: microwaves act through voltage-gated calcium channel
activation to induce biological impacts at non-thermal levels, supporting a
paradigm shift for microwave/lower frequency electromagnetic field action. Rev.
Environ. Health 3, 99- 116.
8.
Sangün
Ö, Dündar B, Çömlekçi S, Büyükgebiz A. 2016 The Effects of Electromagnetic
Field on the Endocrine System in Children and Adolescents. Pediatr Endocrinol
Rev 13:531-545.
9.
Hecht, Karl.
2016 Health Implications of Long-Term Exposures to Electrosmog. Brochure 6 of A
Brochure Series of the Competence Initiative for the Protection of Humanity,
the Environment and Democracy.
http://kompetenzinitiative.net/KIT/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/KI_Brochure-
6_K_Hecht_web.pdf (accessed Feb. 11, 2018)
10.
Asghari
A, Khaki AA, Rajabzadeh A, Khaki A. 2016 A review on Electromagnetic fields
(EMFs) and the reproductive system. Electron Physician. 2016 Jul 25;8(7):2655-
2662. doi: 10.19082/2655.
11.
Pall
ML. 2018 Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health. Environ Res 164:404-416.
12.
Wilke I. 2018
Biological and pathological effects of 2.45 GHz on cells, fertility, brain
and behavior. Umwelt Medizin Gesselshaft 2018 Feb 31 (1).
and behavior. Umwelt Medizin Gesselshaft 2018 Feb 31 (1).
Increased
intracellular calcium: intracellular calcium is maintained at very low
levels (typically about 2 X 10-9 M) except for brief increases used to produce
regulatory responses, such that sustained elevation of intracellular calcium
levels produces many pathophysiological (that is disease-causing) responses).
1.
Adey WR. 1988
Cell membranes: the electromagnetic environment and cancer promotion. Neurochem
Res.13:671-677.
2.
Walleczek,
J. 1992. Electromagnetic field effects on cells of the immune system: the role
of calcium signaling. FASEB J. 6, 3177-3185.
3.
Adey,
WR. 1993 Biological effects of electromagnetic fields. J Cell Biochem 51:410-
416.
4.
Frey
AH. 1993 Electromagnetic field interactions with biological systems. FASEB J
7:272-281.
5.
Funk
RHW, Monsees T, Özkucur N. 2009 Electromagnetic effects—Form cell biology to
medicine. Prog Histochem Cytochem 43:177-264.
6.
Yakymenko IL,
Sidorik EP, Tsybulin AS. 1999 [Metabolic changes in cells under electromagnetic
radiation of mobile communication systems]. Ukr Biokhim Zh (1999), 2011
Mar-Apr:20-28.
7.
Gye
MC, Park CJ. 2012 Effect of electromagnetic field exposure on the reproductive
system. Clin Exp Reprod Med 39:1-9. doi.org/10.5653/cerm.2012.39.1.1
8.
Pall,
ML. 2013. Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium
channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects. J Cell Mol Med 17:958-965.
doi: 10.1111/jcmm.12088.
9.
Pall
ML. 2014 Electromagnetic field activation of voltage-gated calcium channels:
role in therapeutic effects. Electromagn Biol Med. 2014 Apr 8 doi:
10.3109/15368378.2014.906447.
10.
Pall
ML. 2015 How to approach the challenge of minimizing non-thermal health effects
of microwave radiation from electrical devices. International Journal of
Innovative Research in Engineering & Management (IJIREM) ISSN: 2350-0557,
Volume-2, Issue - 5, September 2015; 71-76.
13
11.
Pall,
M. L. 2015 Scientific evidence contradicts findings and assumptions of Canadian
Safety Panel 6: microwaves act through voltage-gated calcium channel activation
to induce biological impacts at non-thermal levels, supporting a paradigm shift
for microwave/lower frequency electromagnetic field action. Rev. Environ.
Health 3, 99- 116. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2015-0001.
12.
Pall
ML. 2016 Electromagnetic fields act similarly in plants as in animals: Probable
activation of calcium channels via their voltage sensor. Curr Chem Biol 10:
74-82.
13.
Pall
ML. 2016 Microwave frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produce widespread
neuropsychiatric effects including depression. J Chem Neuroanat 75(Pt B):43-51.
doi: 10.1016/j.jchemneu.2015.08.001.
14.
Batista
Napotnik T, Reberšek M, Vernier PT, Mali B, Miklavčič D. 2016 Effects
of high voltage nanosecond electric pulses on eukaryotic cells (in vitro): A
systematic review. Bioelectrochemistry. 2016 Aug;110:1-12. doi:
10.1016/j.bioelechem.2016.02.011.
15.
Asghari
A, Khaki AA, Rajabzadeh A, Khaki A. 2016 A review on electromagnetic fields
(EMFs) and the reproductive system. Electron Physician. 2016 Jul 25;8(7):2655-
2662. doi: 10.19082/2655.
Pulsed EMFs are,
in most cases much more biologically active than are non-pulsed EMFs.
This is important because all wireless communication devices communicate via pulsations and because the “smarter” the devices are, the more they pulse because the pulsations convey the information. What should be obvious is that you cannot study such pulsation roles if there were no biological effects produced by such EMFs. The pulsation studies alone tell us that there are many such EMF effects.
This is important because all wireless communication devices communicate via pulsations and because the “smarter” the devices are, the more they pulse because the pulsations convey the information. What should be obvious is that you cannot study such pulsation roles if there were no biological effects produced by such EMFs. The pulsation studies alone tell us that there are many such EMF effects.
1.
Osipov
YuA, 1965 [Labor hygiene and the effect of radiofrequency electromagnetic
fields on workers]. Leningrad Meditsina Publishing House, 220 pp.
2.
Pollack
H, Healer J. 1967 Review of Information on Hazards to Personnel from High-
Frequency Electromagnetic Radiation. Institute for Defense Analyses; Research
and Engineering Support Division. IDA/HQ 67-6211, Series B, May 1967.
3.
Frey AH. 1974
Differential biologic effects of pulsed and continuous electromagnetic fields
and mechanisms of effect. Ann N Y Acad Sci 238: 273-279.
4.
Creighton
MO, Larsen LE, Stewart-DeHaan PJ, Jacobi JH, Sanwal M, Baskerville JC,
Bassen HE, Brown DO, Trevithick JR. 1987 In vitro studies of microwave-induced cataract. II. Comparison of damage observed for continuous wave and pulsed microwaves. Exp Eye Res 45:357-373.
Bassen HE, Brown DO, Trevithick JR. 1987 In vitro studies of microwave-induced cataract. II. Comparison of damage observed for continuous wave and pulsed microwaves. Exp Eye Res 45:357-373.
5.
Grigor'ev
IuG. 1996 [Role of modulation in biological effects of electromagnetic
radiation]. Radiats Biol Radioecol 36:659-670.
6.
Belyaev
I. 2005 Non-thermal biological effects of microwaves. Microwave Rev 11:13- 29.
7.
Belyaev
I. 2005 Non-thermal biological effects of microwaves: current knowledge,
further perspective and urgent needs. Electromagn Biol Med 24(3):375-403.
8.
Markov
MS. 2007 Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy: History, state of the art and
future. The Environmentalist 27:465-475.
9.
Van
Boxem K, Huntoon M, Van Zundert J, Patijn J, van Kleef M, Joosten EA. 2014
Pulsed radiofrequency: a review of the basic science as applied to the
pathophysiology of radicular pain: a call for clinical translation. Reg Anesth
Pain Med. 2014 Mar- Apr;39(2):149-59.
10.
Belyaev,
I. 2015. Biophysical mechanisms for nonthermal microwave effects. In:
Electromagnetic Fields in Biology and Medicine, Marko S. Markov, ed, CRC Press,
New York, pp 49-67.
14
11.
Pall,
M. L. 2015 Scientific evidence contradicts findings and assumptions of Canadian
Safety Panel 6: microwaves act through voltage-gated calcium channel activation
to induce biological impacts at non-thermal levels, supporting a paradigm shift
for microwave/lower frequency electromagnetic field action. Rev. Environ.
Health 3, 99- 116. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2015-0001.
12.
Panagopoulos
DJ, Johansson O, Carlo GL. 2015 Real versus simulated mobile phone exposures in
experimental studies. BioMed. Res. Int. 2015, article ID 607053, 8 pages. doi:
10.1155/2015/607053.
13.
Batista
Napotnik T, Reberšek M, Vernier PT, Mali B, Miklavčič D. 2016 Effects
of high voltage nanosecond electric pulses on eukaryotic cells (in vitro): A
systematic review. Bioelectrochemistry. 2016 Aug;110:1-12. doi:
10.1016/j.bioelechem.2016.02.011.
Cancer causation
by EMF exposures:
1.
Dwyer,
M. J., Leeper, D. B. 1978 A Current Literature Report on the Carcinogenic
Properties of Ionizing and Nonionizing Radiation. DHEW Publication (NIOSH)
78-134, March 1978.
2.
Marino
AA, Morris DH. 1985 Chronic electromagnetic stressors in the environment. A
risk factor in human cancer. J environ sci health C3:189-219.
3.
Adey
WR. 1988 Cell membranes: the electromagnetic environment and cancer promotion.
Neurochem Res.13:671-677.
4.
Adey
WR. 1990 Joint actions of environmental nonionizing electromagnetic fields and
chemical pollution in cancer promotion. Environ Health Perspect 86:297-305.
5.
Frey AH. 1993
Electromagnetic field interactions with biological systems. FASEB J 7:272-281.
6.
Goldsmith
JR. 1995 Epidemiological evidence of radiofrequency radiation (microwave)
effects on health in military, broadcasting and occupational settings. Int J
Occup Environ Health 1:47-57.
7.
Goldsmith
JR. 1997 Epidemiologic evidence relevant to radar (microwave) effects. Env
Health Perspect 105(Suppl 6):1579-1587.
8.
Kundi
M, Mild K, Hardell L, Mattsson M. 2004 Mobile telephones and cancer – a review
of the epidemiological evidence. J Toxicol Env Health, Part B 7:351-384.
9.
Kundi
M. 2004 Mobile phone use and cancer. Occup Env Med 61:560-570.
10.
Behari
J, Paulraj R. 2007 Biomarkers of induced electromagnetic field and cancer.
Indian J Exp Biol 45:77-85.
Indian J Exp Biol 45:77-85.
11.
Hardell
L, Carlberg M, Soderqvist F, Hansson Mild K. 2008 Meta-analysis of long-term
mobile phone use and the association with brain tumors. Int J Oncol 32:1097-1103.
mobile phone use and the association with brain tumors. Int J Oncol 32:1097-1103.
12.
Khurana
VG, Teo C, Kundi M, Hardell L, Carlberg M. 2009 Cell phones and brain
tumors: a review including the long-term epidemiologic data. Surg Neurol 72:205-214.
tumors: a review including the long-term epidemiologic data. Surg Neurol 72:205-214.
13.
Desai
NR, Kesari KK, Agarwal A. 2009 Pathophysiology of cell phone radiation:
oxidative stress and carcinogenesis with focus on the male reproductive system.
Reproduct Biol Endocrinol 7:114.
oxidative stress and carcinogenesis with focus on the male reproductive system.
Reproduct Biol Endocrinol 7:114.
14.
Davanipour
Z, Sobel E. 2009 Long-term exposure to magnetic fields and the risks of
Alzheimer's disease and breast cancer: Further biological research. Pathophysiology
16:149-156.
Alzheimer's disease and breast cancer: Further biological research. Pathophysiology
16:149-156.
15.
Yakymenko
I, Sidorik E. 2010 Risks of carcinogenesis from electromagnetic radiation
and mobile telephony devices. Exp Oncol 32:729-736.
and mobile telephony devices. Exp Oncol 32:729-736.
16.
Carpenter
DO. 2010 Electromagnetic fields and cancer: the cost of doing nothing. Rev
Environ Health 25:75-80.
Environ Health 25:75-80.
15
17.
Giuliani
L, Soffriti M (Eds). 2010 NON-THERMAL EFFECTS AND MECHANISMS OF INTERACTION
BETWEEN ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND LIVING MATTER, RAMAZZINI INSTITUTE EUR. J.
ONCOL. LIBRARY Volume 5, National Institute for the Study and Control of Cancer
and Environmental Diseases “Bernardino Ramazzini” Bologna, Italy 2010, 400 page
monograph.
18.
Khurana,
V. G., Hardell, L., Everaert, J., Bortkiewicz, A., Carlberg, M., Ahonen, M.
2010 Epidemiological evidence for a health risk from mobile phone base stations.
Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health 16, 263-267.
19.
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.
20.
Biointiative
Working Group, David Carpenter and Cindy Sage (eds). 2012 Bioinitiative 2012: A
rationale for biologically-based exposure standards for electromagnetic
radiation. http://www.bioinitiative.org/participants/why-we-care/
21.
Ledoigt
G, Belpomme D. 2013 Cancer induction molecular pathways and HF-EMF irradiation.
Adv Biol Chem 3:177-186.
22.
Hardell L, Carlberg M.
2013 Using the Hill viewpoints from 1965 for evaluating strengths of evidence
of the risk for brain tumors associated with use of mobile and cordless phones.
Rev Environ Health 28:97-106. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2013-0006.
23.
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
2013;20(2):85-110.
24.
Carpenter
DO. 2013 Human disease resulting from exposure to electromagnetic fields. Rev
Environ Health 2013;28:159-172.gj
25.
Davis
DL, Kesari S, Soskolne CL, Miller AB, Stein Y. 2013 Swedish review strengthens
grounds for concluding that radiation from cellular and cordless phones is a
probable human carcinogen. Pathophysiology 20:123-129.
26.
Morgan
LL, Miller AB, Sasco A, Davis DL. 2015 Mobile phone radiation causes brain
tumors and should be classified as a probable human carcinogen (2A). Int J
Oncol 46(5): 1865-1871.
27.
Mahdavi
M, Yekta R, Tackallou SH. 2015 Positive correlation between ELF and RF
electromagnetic fields on cancer risk. J Paramed Sci 6(3), ISSN 2008-4978.
28.
Carlberg
M, Hardell L. 2017 Evaluation of Mobile Phone and Cordless Phone Use and Glioma
Risk Using the Bradford Hill Viewpoints from 1965 on Association or Causation.
BioMed Res Int 2017, Article ID 9218486, https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/9218486
29.
Bortkiewicz
A, Gadzicka E, Szymczak W. 2017 Mobile phone use and risk for intracranial
tumors and salivary gland tumors - A meta-analysis. Int J Occup Med Environ
Health 30:27-43.
30.
Bielsa-Fernández
P, Rodríguez-Martín B. 2017 [Association between radiation from mobile phones
and tumour risk in adults]. Gac Sanit. 2017 Apr 12. pii: S0213- 9111(17)30083-3.
doi: 10.1016/j.gaceta.2016.10.014. [Epub ahead of print]
31.
Alegría-Loyola
MA, Galnares-Olalde JA, Mercado M. 2017 [Tumors of the central nervous system].
Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc 55:330-334.
32.
Prasad
M, Kathuria P, Nair P, Kumar A, Prasad K. 2017 Mobile phone use and risk of
brain tumours: a systematic review of association between study quality, source
of funding, and research outcomes. Neurol Sci. 2017 Feb 17. doi:
10.1007/s10072-017- 2850-8. [Epub ahead of print].
33.
Miller
A. 2017 References on cell phone radiation and cancer. https://ehtrust.org/references-cell-phone-radio-frequency-radiation-cancer/
(Accessed Sept. 9, 2017)
16
34.
Hardell
L. 2017 World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health – a hard
nut to crack (Review). Int J Oncol 51:405-413.
35.
Pall ML. 2018
How cancer can be caused by microwave frequency electromagnetic field (EMF)
exposures: EMF activation of voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs) can cause
cancer including tumor promotion, tissue invasion and metastasis via 15
mechanisms. Chapter 7 in: Mobile Communications and Public Health, Marko
Markov, Ed., CRC Press, pp
163-184.
Each
of these reviews, typically cite from 5 to over 100 primary literature
citations, each showing that non-thermal EMF exposures produce the effect under
which they are listed. It follows from this, that there are not only 11 or more
reviews documenting each of these effects, but there is also a massive primary
literature documenting these effects as well. It follows from this that the
ICNIRP, FCC and International Safety Guidelines, which are entirely based only
on thermal effects are inadequate and there have been petitions and other
statements of international groups of scientists expressing great concern about
this. It follows that the ICNIRP, FCC and
International safety guidelines are completely unscientific and cannot be
relied upon to protect our safety.
No comments:
Post a Comment