The following section of Leo Laporte’s popular This Week in Tech podcast perpetuates misinformation about pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) by conflating ionizing radiation and RF-EMR non-ionizing radiation, which are entirely separate phenomena, each with its own separate and distinct ways of causing harm to biological organisms.
August 25, 2019: This Week in Tech 773
One innacurate theme discussed here is that ionizing radiation can cause harm to biological organisms, but non-ionizing radiation from 24/7 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) and use of wireless devices cannot cause biological harm. Such a claim is not supported by the peer-reviewed science from the last 75 years. Both forms of radiation cause biological harm. RF-EMR exposures cause biological harm at levels around 100,000 times lower than the FCC far-field RF-EMR maximum public exposure guideline.
As explained here, the non-ionizing radiation from RF-EMR exposures arises from the self-propagation of radio waves from source antennas. RF-EMR waves are produced whenever charged particles are accelerated. In the near-field region (within 3-4 wavelengths from the source antenna charges), waves are incoherent, erratic and choppy with high micro-second peaks of Electric and Magnetic fields. These peaks of power interrupt the sensitive electrical signals of our body and causes DNA and neurological damage, suppress the immune system, and interrupt hormone production and regulation.
In the far-field, the Electric Field (E, in blue) and Magnetic Field (B, in red) orient themselves at a 90 degree angle from each other.
In the far-field region (beyond 3-4 wavelengths from the source antenna charges), RF-EMR waves become coherent and radiate as self-propagating, transverse, oscillating waves of Electric Fields and Magnetic Fields, as depicted in the diagram, above. The diagram shows an EMR wave propagating in the far-field region from left to right along the X axis. The Electric Field (E) in blue is in a vertical plane (along the Z axis) and the Magnetic Field (B) in red is in a horizontal plane (along the Y axis). Radiating Electric and Magnetic Fields in the far-field region are always in phase and oriented at 90 degrees to each other.
In short, non-ionizing RF-EMR is this self-propagating characteristic of radio waves. It is a completely different phenomenon from ionizing radiation which knocks electrons out of an atom’s orbit. The mechanisms of harm from each form of radiation are distinct and separate. The harms from non-ionizing radiation are caused by the strong pulses of modulated, data-carrying radio waves, which adversely affects our cells’ DNA and the electrochemical cellular control mechanisms of our neurological and hormonal systems — described in three recent posts by Joel M. Moskowitz, which you can read here: Cities Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics and FCC Bullying:
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.
Director, Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley
[The FCC’s] assertions do not reflect the state of the scientific literature regarding RF health effects, nor do they adequately reflect the public comment received by the FCC over the past six years regarding RF exposure limits for Proceeding Number 13-84.
The FCC has no health expertise and relies upon Federal health agencies, especially the FDA, for advice about RF exposure limits. However, these agencies have lacked the requisite expertise to provide this guidance as their RF health experts retired or took industry jobs. In the past decade, these agencies have failed to monitor the vast and growing body of peer-reviewed research that documents adverse health effects from low-intensity exposure to radio-frequency radiation. Rather, the Federal government has increasingly relied upon advice from engineers and scientists with conflicts of interest and industry lobbyists.
Link to Part I: Why We Need Stronger Cell Phone Radiation Regulations — Key Testimony Submitted to the FCC
Link to Part II: Why We Need Stronger Cell Phone Radiation Regulations — Key Research Papers Submitted to the FCC
Link to Part III: Why We Need Stronger Cell Phone Radiation Regulations — 98 Scientific Experts Who Signed Resolutions
- Brain Cancer Rising in Youth: According to the American Brain Tumor Association (ABTA) brain tumors are now the most common cancer in youth ages 0-19, followed by testes and leukemia. (Ostrom et al, 2015). Inskip (2010) indicates brain tumors are on the rise in 20-29 year olds. A 2016 report by emarketer reveals that about 75% of teens 12-17 owned a smartphone. Redmayne (2013) analyzed the cell phone and cordless phone use of youth in New Zealand. She found that in 4 years about 6% of participants reached the 1640 hour threshold that would increase the risk for brain tumors by about 3.77 fold. She based her analysis on the Interphone study results after 10 years of use and also looked at Hardell’s case-controlled glioma studies which indicate a 3 to 4 fold increase in risk for brain tumors with long term use.
- 5G Telecommunications Science: The first reported injury of 5G in a news report comes from Switzerland, where 5G has been launched in 102 locations. The weekly French-language Swiss magazine L’Illustré interviewed people living in Geneva after the 5G rollout with alarming details of illness. As soon as the antennas were installed, several residents and entire families in the heart of Geneva reported similar unusual symptoms of loud ringing in the ear, intense headaches, unbearable earaches, insomnia, chest pain, fatigue and not feeling well in the house. 29-year-old Geneva resident, Johan Perruchoud, called up Swisscom and was told that indeed the 5G cell towers were activated on the same day he began to feel the symptoms.
- Cell Tower Health Effects: The majority of published studies in different countries have shown a relationship between distance from base stations and a variety of health complaints. They have found that the closer to the towers people live there is an increase incidence of reported physical symptoms including those below. These are the same symptoms that military personnel working on radar have experienced, people who have microwave illness, also known as electromagnetic sensitivity (EMS) and similar to what Cuban and Chinese Diplomats reported in unusual attacks in 2017.
- May 17, 2018
- Written and Compiled by Martin L. Pall, PhD
- Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences
- Washington State University
- Address: 638 NE 41stAve., Portland OR 97232
Other excellent sources of peer-reviewed scientific studies on the hazards of RF-EMR exposures can be found at Physicians for Safe Technology and the work of Martin Pall, PhD.
Physicians for Safe Technology
Martin Pall, PhD
Hazards of Wireless 4G/5G Densification and Wi-Fi — Lack of Risk Assessment
4G/5G Densification: Great risk for EU, U.S. and International Health
Compelling Evidence for Eight Distinct Types of Great Harm Caused by Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them
Summary: We know that there is a massive literature, providing a high level of scientific certainty, for each of eight pathophysiological effects caused by non-thermal Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) exposures. This is shown in from 12 to 35 reviews on each specific effect, with each review listed in Chapter 1, providing a substantial body of evidence on the existence of each effect. Such RF-EMF exposures include:
Attack our nervous systems including our brains leading to widespread neurological/neuropsychiatric effects and possibly many other effects.
Attack our endocrine (that is our hormonal) systems. In this context, the main things that make us functionally different from single-celled creatures are our nervous system and our endocrine systems — even a simple planaria worm needs both of these. The consequences of the disruption of these two regulatory systems is immense.
Produce oxidative stress and free radical damage, which have central roles in essentially all chronic diseases.
Attack the DNA of our cells, producing single strand and double strand breaks in cellular DNA and oxidized bases in our cellular DNA. These in turn produce cancer and also mutations in germ line cells which produce mutations in future generations.
Produce elevated levels of apoptosis (programmed cell death), events especially important in causing both neurodegenerative diseases and infertility, including very early onset dementias and Alzheimer’s disease
Lower male and female fertility, lower sex hormones, lower libido and increased levels of spontaneous abortion and, as already stated, attack the DNA in sperm cells. RF-EMR exposures in utero and shortly after birth can cause ADHD and autism.
Produce excessive intra-cellular calcium [Ca2+], excessive calcium signaling and opens up Volted Gated Calcium Channels, letting too much Calcium into your cells
Attack the cells of our bodies to cause cancer. Such attacks are thought to act via 15 different mechanisms during cancer causation.
The details can be read here:
Note: EMF = Electromagnetic Fields
Chapter 1: Eight Extremely Well-Documented Effects of Non-Thermal EMF Exposures: Role of Pulsations, Other Factors that Influence EMF Effects, pp. 4-17
Chapter 2: How Each Such EMF Effect Is Directly Produced via Voltage-Gated Calcium Channel Activation: Role of the Voltage Sensor in Producing the Extraordinary Sensitivity to EMF Effects, pp. 17-23
Chapter 3. Strong Evidence for Cumulative and Irreversible EMF Effects, pp. 23-27
Chapter 4. EMFs Including Wi-Fi May Be Particularly Damaging to Young People, pp. 27-28
Chapter 5: The Importance of the SCENIHR 2015 Document and the Many Omissions, Flaws and Falsehoods in That Document pp. 28-58
Chapter 6: The U.S. Early Role in Recognizing Non-Thermal EMF Effects and How This Was Abandoned Starting in 1986: U.S. Failure to Research Health Impacts of Cell Phone Towers, Cell Phones, Wi-Fi, Smart Meters and Now 5G. What Is the Current Position of U.S. Government Agencies? pp. 58-78
Chapter 7: The Great Risks of 5G: What We Know and What We Don’t Know, pp. 78-82