Community Spotlight
Andrew Goldsworthy, PhD
MCS
Volume 2, Issue 12,
December 2007
What are electromagnetic fields?
An electromagnetic field is a combination of an electrical and a
magnetic field. An electrical field is what enables you to pick up small pieces
of paper with a plastic comb after combing your hair on a dry day. A magnetic
field is what lets you to pick up pieces of iron with a magnet. When an
electric current flows through a wire it generates both kinds, so we call it an
electromagnetic field. The electrical part depends on the voltage and the
distance over which it is acting and is measured in volts per metre. The
magnetic part depends on the current flowing and is measured in tesla. If you
were to stand under a power line, you would be exposed to an electrical field
corresponding to the difference in voltage between the line (which is set by
the power company) and the ground. You would also be exposed to a magnetic
field due to the current actually flowing, which depends on how much
electricity people are using. Both kinds
of field can produce biological effects, but the magnetic fields are generally
considered to be more dangerous because they penetrate living tissues more
easily.
Electromagnetic
fields can be very useful because, when they change direction or strength; they
can transmit energy. For example, the
rapidly changing fields in the antenna of a radio transmitter transmit energy
as electromagnetic waves at the speed of light to the antenna of a receiver.
Here they generate a similar pattern of current-flow, which is amplified by the
radio and converted to sound. Unfortunately, they also make similar currents
flow in the human body and these can give a whole range of unwanted biological
effects.
How
prevalent is human exposure to electromagnetic fields?
They are very prevalent, for example, visible light and radiant heat
from the sun are both electromagnetic waves that we have evolved to live with
and are relatively harmless. Others with a much shorter wavelength such as
X-rays and gamma rays can split molecules into fragments and ions. These are
called ionizing radiations and everyone agrees that they can be harmful to
life. But we now know that non-ionizing radiation with much longer wavelengths
than light can also have biological effects. It was originally thought that
this was because they heated the tissue, so safety guidelines were drawn up to
limit our exposure to levels that caused no significant heating. But since then,
many non-thermal effects have been discovered (see www.bioinitiative.org) where there
seem to be direct electrical effects on the tissues at levels that may be
hundreds of times below the official guidelines. However, the very existence of
these non-thermal effects is hotly contested by the cell phone industry and
even governments, possibly because they feel that they have a lot to lose if
the general public were to discover that some of them were harmful. Unfortunately,
most of us cannot escape this sort of radiation. It comes from overhead power
lines, radio and television transmitters, domestic appliances and even the
wiring in our own homes. But perhaps the most dangerous come from cell and
cordless phones, which we hold to our heads, and from their respective base
stations.
What non-thermal biological effects have been observed
in relation to weak non-ionizing electromagnetic fields? At what exposure
level do these effects occur?
Effects that have been published in peer reviewed scientific journals
include changes in the growth patterns of plants, changes in the rate of
multiplication of yeast, the loss of calcium from animal cell membranes, the
breakdown of the blood-brain barrier that normally prevents toxins from
entering the brain, the destruction of DNA in human and animal cell cultures by
cell phone radiation, reduced fertility in heavy cell phone users, increased
incidence of cancer in people living near power lines, and various very
unpleasant symptoms in people suffering from electromagnetic hypersensitivity.
I can’t give a precise figure for the levels of radiation at which these
phenomena occur since there is considerable variation in the sensitivity of
different individuals and even in the sensitivity of the different cell types
in their bodies. However, to give you a rough idea of the range, effects have
been reported for alternating electrical fields between one hundredth of a volt
per metre and 10 volts per metre. The effects of alternating magnetic fields
occur typically in and around the region of one millionth of a tesla, which is
about one fiftieth of the Earth’s steady magnetic field.
Why did you become interested in this topic?
First let me explain where I am coming from. My father was a ship’s
radio officer and I was an amateur radio enthusiast when I was a
university student, so I am not a technophobe and you could even say that
wireless is in my blood. But ever since
I was a kid, I wanted to be a biologist to see how living things worked and
what part electricity played in this. I was too soft-hearted to do experiments
on animals so I studied plants instead. When I became a university lecturer, I
initially researched in several different areas but ended up looking at the
roles of electricity in plants.
What are these roles?
Electricity, which is carried by the flow of ions (electrically charged
atoms and molecules) in living tissues, plays a major role in both animal and
plant cells. There is quite an extensive and detailed amount of literature on
this, but put very simply, energy is used to pump specific ions across cell
membranes, which often generates a voltage (usually just a fraction of a volt)
across them. They are then allowed back via a different route to complete the
circuit, but as they go back, they can do some useful things. Hydrogen ions can
generate ATP, which is a vital source of energy for the cell. Another important
one is calcium. This is continuously pumped out of the main part of the cell
but it is then let back in in carefully regulated amounts. The amount getting back can then control
the activity of many enzyme systems and genes. Also, small differences between
the activity of the flow and return pathways at either end of the cell
generates a voltage gradient along the cell’s length that can control its speed
and direction of growth. It follows that externally applied artificial
currents, or treatments that made these membranes leak can cause quite
significant effects on metabolism.
What are the effects on plants then?
Work on this has been going on for over a hundred years. As early as
1904 Karl Lemström published well-replicated studies showing increases in crop
yield of up to 40 percent when cereals were grown under high voltage overhead
wires. He attributed this to weak electric currents carried by air ions to the
plants and, via the plants, to the soil. This work was continued in the 1920s
by Vernon Blackman of Imperial College, who found that AC was more effective
than DC and that growth was inhibited if the current was too strong. In
particular, he discovered that after just a very short exposure, the growth
rate of seedlings continued to increase long after the current was switched
off. Nowadays, we might interpret this as meaning that the current had
activated genes for growth, which then remained active.
I found similar results when weak electric currents (one millionth of an
amp) were passed directly through plant tissue cultures. They not only grew
faster but also showed a much greater tendency to regenerate into new plants.
This also suggests that the effects were due to the activation of genes. But
this too was inhibited if the current was too strong, suggesting that an
overdose is harmful. Effects of slowly alternating electromagnetic fields on
metabolism have been found not only in higher plants, but also in single celled
micro-organisms such as diatoms, where they affect their rate of locomotion,
and yeast, where they affect the rate of cell division.
Relatively little has been published on the effects of radio frequency
radiation on plants, but an often quoted example is pine trees around the
Skrunda radar station in Latvia that showed severe growth inhibition (as
measured by their annual rings) following the installation of the station. There
was also evidence of additional stress (as measured by increased resin
production) in trees having higher exposures to the radiation. All of these effects are non-thermal and are
certainly not psychosomatic.
What made you turn your attention to animals?
From my own work on plants and yeast and the classic studies of Suzanne
Bawin et al. on the electromagnetically-induced release of calcium from brain
tissue, I guessed that at least some of the electromagnetic effects on plants
were due to the loss of structurally important calcium ions from cell
membranes. This made them leak and allowed free calcium ions into their cells,
which affected the rate of metabolism, activated genes and changed the speed
and pattern of growth.
To check on this, I looked more deeply at the literature on the effects
of electromagnetic radiation on animals. I found that everything seemed to fit
with my theories. The basic effects of weak electromagnetic fields on plants
and animals were broadly similar and both could be explained by membrane
leakage. It all fitted; it explained the changes in metabolism and gene
expression found in animal tissue cultures and also the accelerations of
healing following some electromagnetic therapies. But there was a darker side;
it also explained the fragmentation of DNA, the loss of fertility, the rise in
allergy-related conditions and the increased risk of cancer associated with
prolonged electromagnetic exposure. All of these could also be due to membrane
leakage. It was a eureka moment in reverse. Instead of feeling elated, I felt
gutted. What were we doing to ourselves? Was our insatiable, but blind, love of
electrical and electromagnetic gadgets slowly poisoning us all? It was like a bad dream and I felt I might
wake up at any moment; but, that was not to be. I didn’t want to believe them,
but the scientific facts were staring me in the face. Having a logical
explanation just made it worse.
So what could be done? If even I
did not want to believe what was happening, what chance would I have of
convincing others without my inside knowledge of the very real dangers of over
exposure to electromagnetic pollution? Nevertheless, I had to try. I felt I
could not live with myself if I did not publish my discoveries as widely as
possible in a form that could be understood by the layman. I did it directly on
the Internet rather than in specialist scientific journals, to which most
people have no access. If anyone thought the ideas to be interesting, useful or
relevant to a friend, they could be passed on at the click of a mouse and so
spread naturally.
The main work can be found at http://tinyurl.com/28lo82
and in the links at the end of that article. They describe in simple terms how
I think weak electromagnetic fields produce their non-thermal effects on cell
membranes and they explain virtually all of the known biological responses to
non-ionizing radiation, including those that are detrimental to health. They
complement the excellent experimental work published in hundreds of papers in
peer reviewed scientific journals, many of which have now been put in the
public domain at www.bioinitiative.org.
Taken together, they are a warning to us all.
What is the principal mechanism by
which electromagnetic fields produce these non-thermal biological effects?
A good
way to illustrate this is by analogy with an imaginary machine for harvesting
ripe apples. It goes as follows:
John
is proud of his machine for harvesting ripe apples. It works by shaking the
tree with just the right force. If it is too weak, no apples fall off, if it is
too strong, they all fall off, but if it is just right, only the ripe ones fall
off and can be harvested.
If you can follow this, you will also be able to follow how weak
electromagnetic fields can give biological effects without generating
significant heat. They selectively “shake out” calcium ions from the
delicate membranes that both surround living cells and divide them into
compartments. These membranes are made mostly of negatively charged molecules
interspersed with positively-charged ions that help to bind them together.
Divalent ions (ions with two charges) such as calcium are better at binding
than monovalent ions such as potassium, which have only one charge. Suzanne Bawin and her co-workers in 1975
showed that weak electromagnetic fields can selectively remove calcium ions
from cell membranes, which we now know would reduce their stability. This work
has been repeated in other laboratories and has been found to occur only with
very weak radiation and is restricted to certain “windows” for field strength,
above and below which there is little or no effect.
The explanation is simple if we remember John’s apple harvester. The
alternating electromagnetic fields “shake” the cell membranes, with the
negatively-charged structural components and the positive binding ions moving
in opposite directions. If the field is too weak, nothing happens. If it is too
strong, all the ions are driven off and then back onto the membrane with each
cycle. But if it is “just right” only the more strongly charged ions (such as
divalent calcium) are affected and are selectively removed. Their place is then
taken by less-affected monovalent ions such as potassium. This occurs mainly
with low frequency alternating fields or radio-frequency fields that are
amplitude-modulated or pulsed at a low frequency.
This
loss of calcium ions is important because it weakens the membranes so that they
are more likely to tear and develop temporary holes, especially when they are
adjacent to moving cell contents. This can make them permeable even to large
molecules such as enzymes. The leakage of digestive enzymes from lysosomes
(membrane-bound particles that normally digest waste) into the rest of the cell
is almost certainly responsible for the fragmentation of DNA in human and
animal cell cultures seen after prolonged exposure to cell phone radiation.
This genetic damage has been reported in several studies and is likely to cause
cancer, a reduction in fertility (both of which are now becoming apparent) and
possible mutations in future generations.
There is no reason to believe that WiFi is any safer. Although the signal
is weaker, this does not necessarily mean it is safer. Because biological
effects occur in specific “windows” for signal strength, there is no linear
relationship between signal strength and physiological effects. If it fell
within a window, a weaker signal could even be more dangerous than a
stronger one. We must also remember that the router radiation is continuous,
regardless of whether it is talking to a computer, so our exposure is chronic.
This is serious because studies on mobile phone radiation show that the damage
to DNA is dependent on the duration of the exposure and peaks in less than 24
hours.
Do our bodies have any defences against these
electromagnetic onslaughts?
The human race, like other living organisms, has evolved some pretty
good defence mechanisms to protect itself from natural non-ionizing
radiation, but most of this, such as the “static” from thunderstorms, is weak
and intermittent. One protection mechanism is the production of heat-shock
proteins, which despite their name, can be triggered by electromagnetic
radiation that is far too weak to generate significant heat. According to
Martin Blank and his co-workers, they are produced by the direct activation of
known base sequences in DNA. Their function is to combine with important
proteins and enzymes in living cells to prevent them being destroyed by the
digestive enzymes leaking from damaged lysosomes. Unfortunately, this also
stops them working properly so that metabolic efficiency is reduced. It’s
rather like running a computer in “safe mode” when not all functions are
available. This may be all right for as long as a thunderstorm normally lasts,
but might be expected to give a more permanent and harmful reduction in
metabolic efficiency with continuous exposure, e.g. from a cell tower or WiFi
router.
In
addition to the heat-shock proteins, there is an increased activity of the
enzyme ornithine decarboxylase, which can be triggered by calcium
leaking through damaged membranes. This enzyme is the starting point for a
metabolic pathway leading to the production of polyamines, which protect
DNA. However, these and other defence
measures require metabolic energy and resources, which have to come from
somewhere. They may be diverted from our physical energy so we have chronic
symptoms of fatigue. They could also be diverted from the immune system, which
would reduce our resistance to disease. In addition, these resources may not
always be fully available, for example if we are ill. This could set up a
vicious cycle in which illness increases our susceptibility to electromagnetic
radiation, which in turn makes us more likely to be ill.
There are
many things that governments could do if they put their minds to it. Probably the worst offenders are cell phones,
digital cordless phones and Wifi. They should all carry government health
warnings against prolonged use and WiFi (like smoking) should be banned in
schools and public places until it can be proven unequivocally to be safe.
There could be incentives to make us use these devices sparingly. For example,
all cell phone tariffs other than pay-as-you-go could be withdrawn and
increased rates charged for calls lasting over a few minutes. Hopefully, this
would also reduce the number of cell phone base stations (cell towers) needed
as well as the power that they radiate. These base stations are a major problem
since, unlike cell phone handsets, they are in continuous operation and expose
people living nearby to chronic biologically-active microwave radiation. Many
people report suffering dizziness and other symptoms when exposed to the
radiation from cell towers and there are anecdotal indications of clusters of
cancer cases forming around them. It would therefore not be unreasonable to ask
that they should not be located close to homes or places where people spend a
great deal of their time. If this is not possible, the phone company should pay
for adequate screening. The polluter should pay.
The
electromagnetic safety of mains wiring could also be improved. Apart from not
building houses near power lines, we should look at our domestic wiring. The
trend to replace earthed metal conduit with plastic is a retrograde step. We
should look in future to be using screened cable for domestic wiring and
appliance cords. The trend to use un-earthed double insulated appliances should
also be discouraged. While they offer little risk of electric shock, the lack
of an earthed chassis makes them prone to emit stronger electromagnetic fields.
Keep the double insulation by all means, but retain the earthed chassis.
How
would you recommend approaching officials with this concern to bring about
positive community change?
This is a
difficult question since the cell phone companies, as well as most governments,
have a huge stake in mobile communications and usually deny that there are any
biological effects of radiation that is below their official safety guidelines
(these are based only on heating effects). This is untrue and you can refer
them to the wealth of information to the contrary that can be found at www.bioinitiative.org.
The fact
is that the safety guidelines need to be revised in line with modern research.
A further
point is that the costs of treating electromagnetically related illnesses such
as MCS, allergies and reduced fertility, almost certainly exceeds the tax
revenue from the cell phone industries (see http://tinyurl.com/32nu71
) and may be expected to get worse as a predicted increase in cancer from DNA
fragmentation becomes more apparent. In
other words, the continued expansion in mobile communications using present
technology is already causing a net financial loss to the nation. On present trends, this is likely to get
worse. We must devise newer and safer methods of wireless communication as a
matter of urgency; and until this happens, the expansion and use of the present
systems should be severely restricted.
Is
there a way to reduce electromagnetic pollution without losing our access to
cell phones, WiFi and other modern day technology?
It is
perfectly possible (although more expensive) to produce cell phones and base
stations that work at lower power by using the latest low-noise technology and
larger base-station antennae to collect weaker signals more efficiently. It may
also be possible to encode the signals or use different frequencies so that the
transmissions are less hazardous. How they do this is a matter for the
engineers, but whatever the solutions, they should be tested for biological safety
before going into production. The bottom line is that very few people would
want to give up their cell phones entirely, and this may not even be necessary
so long as they keep their phone calls short and relatively infrequent.
However, the cell phone industry still has a duty of care not to poison us with
their products and we should not be encouraged by advertising and offers of
free airtime to make excessive use of them.
Is
there anything that individual’s can do on their own to protect themselves from
electromagnetic pollution?
There is
a great deal we can do ourselves to minimise our exposure.
Cell
phones
Very few
people would be willing to give up their cell phones; even I have one, although
mine stays switched off and is only used in emergencies. If you have it
switched on, even if you are not using it, it sends out regular signals at full
power so that the phone company can keep track of where you are. If you must
use one, use text messages, which need much less airtime, rather than voice calls. Any voice calls should be kept short,
preferably to no more than a few minutes, and made from a good reception area;
if reception is poor, the phone turns the power of its transmissions up to
compensate. Do not use one in a car, even if you are not driving; reception
inside its metal body is usually bad, so the phone will be transmitting at full
power. Definitely do not use one while driving, not even a hands-free type,
since the radiation from both sorts appears to interfere with normal brain
function and makes you about four times more likely to have an accident.
Cordless
phones
Do not
use digital cordless phones when it is possible to use a landline. I know they
give you the freedom to wander around with them and still continue with the
cooking, but they can be even more dangerous than cell phones. Although the handset is not as powerful as a
cell phone and is completely inactive when not in use, the villain of the piece
is the base station. This will be irradiating you with microwaves all day, every
day, regardless of whether you are making a call. If you really must have a
cordless phone, get a modern low radiation type such as the Orchid Low
Radiation Phone, where the base station can be placed well away from the
handsets, is only active when making a call, and the handset power is reduced
when reception is good.
Cordless
baby alarms
Be
extremely careful in your choice of these since many of them work on the same
principle as digital cordless phones and will be continuously irradiating your
baby with pulsed microwaves. Not only could this be bad for the baby’s health
and development but, by interfering with melatonin production, it may even
delay the onset of sleep.
WiFi
We should
not use WiFi to connect our computers. Ethernet cables are not only safer but
also much faster and more reliable. However, if you don’t fancy drilling holes
in walls or running patch leads under carpets, good alternatives are the
various versions of “Homeplug”. These send the information from computer to
computer in an encoded form via your normal mains wiring. The best ones are now
as fast as Ethernet. If you are out and about, try to avoid WiFi hotspots such
as WiFi-enabled restaurants, hotels etc. If sufficient people do this, the
proprietors will soon get the message and switch it off.
Microwave
cookers
Most of
us in the developed world have one, but even the best of them leak at least
some microwave radiation, so try not to get too close when they are in use.
Screening
Some
people, such as those with electromagnetic hypersensitivity, suffer very
badly. If moving to a less polluted area
is not an option, they might consider screening their homes. This can be done
with aluminium foil or an electrically conducting paint, together with
electrically conducting net over the windows. More details of these can be
found at www.powerwatch.org.uk But don’t forget, these measures will only
protect you from external radiation. If you generate any inside, it could even
make matters worse by reflecting it back at you.
Electromagnetic exposure coupled to simultaneous illness is likely to be
a major risk factor in developing cancer since it would leave our bodies even
more poorly defended against electromagnetic radiation, and so increase the
risk of DNA damage and all that ensues. After all, no one can guarantee that
all of the trillions of cells in their bodies will be 100 percent healthy all
of the time and very few genetically damaged cells may be needed to initiate a
tumour. It seems likely that other electromagnetically induced conditions such
as some forms of acquired EHS and MCS may also be triggered more easily by
simultaneous illness. I know of at least one case where a perfectly healthy
individual suffered a prolonged attack of ME, which was immediately followed by
extreme electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Perhaps you may know of others. It
might be a reasonable prediction that the longer the electromagnetic exposure
and the longer the duration of illness the greater is the theoretical risk of
doing permanent damage.
Where do allergies and MCS come into your thinking?
Apart from the damage to DNA and the consequent risk of cancer in future
years, there is a much more immediate threat to the various “tight-junction
barriers” that restrict the entry of foreign materials into our bodies. These
barriers are layers of cells joined by impermeable substances (tight junctions)
which prevent unwanted materials leaking in around their sides. They protect
all of our body surfaces, including the skin, gut, lungs and respiratory tract.
There is now very strong evidence that the increase in the permeability of cell
membranes brought about by weak electromagnetic radiation allows some of these
unwanted substances, including various allergens and a whole range of foreign chemicals, to enter the body by going
straight through the cells and/or disrupting the tight junctions themselves. It
seems likely that the present increase in allergies and allergy-related
illnesses such as multiple chemical sensitivities, asthma, irritable bowel
syndrome and even type-1 diabetes is due to our increasing exposure to
electromagnetic fields. For more information and references, please visit http://tinyurl.com/32nu71
What
steps would be necessary to protect individuals in the community from these
effects?
We have
become heavily dependent on equipment that generates electromagnetic fields and
few of us would want to do without them. Think of it; no washing machines, no
electric light, no automobiles, no cell phones, the list goes on. We cannot
turn the clock all the way back without destroying our civilisation. All we can
do is try to exploit as many as possible of our technological advances without
unduly compromising our own health and safety.
Where
do we go from here?
For the
time being there may be little we can do except to reduce our own personal
exposure to non-ionizing radiation and keep up the pressure on governments to
revise their official safety guidelines, which are at present far too lenient.
We should
draw their attention, not just to the risk of cancer from excessive cell phone
use (which may not become really apparent for several years) but to the loss of
fertility and the rise in allergy-related illnesses that can now be linked to
electromagnetic exposure. These are happening here; they are happening now and
should be the subject of immediate and independent scientific
investigation. In that the cost of these illnesses almost certainly exceeds the
tax revenue from the cell phone industry, there may now be more of an incentive
for them to do this.
Much of
the necessary research could be just number crunching using existing data. Cell
phone use, as determined from the phone company’s records and living near cell
towers could be correlated with the incidence of specific illnesses or
allergies. This may be easier in countries such as the
-Andrew
Goldsworthy
Copyrighted
© 2007 MCS