The Unseen EMF World
The most notable is the blanket of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation, largely microwave radiation generated for wireless communication and surveillance technologies, as mounting scientific evidence suggests that prolonged exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation has serious biological and health effects. However, public exposure regulations in most countries continue to be based on the guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection1 and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,2 which were established in the 1990s on the belief that only acute thermal effects are hazardous.
Prevention of tissue heating by radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation is now proven to be ineffective in preventing biochemical and physiological interference. For example, acute non-thermal exposure has been shown to alter human brain metabolism by NIH scientists,3 electrical activity in the brain,4 and systemic immune responses.5 Chronic exposure has been associated with increased oxidative stress and DNA damage6,7 and cancer risk.8 Laboratory studies, including large rodent studies by the US National Toxicology Program9 and Ramazzini Institute of Italy,10 confirm these biological and health effects in vivo. As we address the threats to human health from the changing environmental conditions due to human activity,11 the increasing exposure to artificial electromagnetic radiation needs to be included in this discussion.
Due to the exponential increase in the use of wireless personal communication devices (eg, mobile or cordless phones and WiFi or Bluetooth-enabled devices) and the infrastructure facilitating them, levels of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation around
the 1 GHz frequency band, which is mostly used for modern wireless communications, have increased from extremely low natural levels by about 10.⁸ times (figure).
Radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation is also used for radar, security scanners, smart meters, and medical equipment (MRI, diathermy, and radiofrequency ablation). It is plausibly the most rapidly increasing anthropogenic environmental exposure since the mid-20th century, and levels will surge considerably again, as technologies like the Internet of Things and 5G add millions more radiofrequency transmitters around us. Unprecedented human exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation from conception until death has been occurring in the past two decades.
Evidence of its effects on the CNS, including altered neurodevelopment14 and increased risk of some neurodegenerative diseases,15 is a major concern considering the steady increase in their incidence. Evidence exists for an association between neurodevelopmental or behavioural disorders in children and exposure to wireless devices,14 and experimental evidence, such as the Yale finding, shows that prenatal exposure could cause structural and functional changes in the brain associated with ADHD-like behaviour.16 These findings deserve urgent attention.
At the Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association, an independent scientific organisation, volunteering scientists have constructed the world’s largest categorised online database of peer-reviewed studies on radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation and other man-made electromagnetic fields of lower frequencies. A recent evaluation of 2266 studies
(including in-vitro and in-vivo studies in human, animal, and plant experimental systems and population studies) found that most studies (n=1546, 68∙2%) have demonstrated significant biological or health effects associated with exposure to anthropogenic electromagnetic fields.
We have published our preliminary data on radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation, which shows that 89% (216 of 242) of experimental studies that investigated oxidative stress endpoints showed significant effects.7 This weight of scientific evidence refutes the prominent claim that the deployment of wireless technologies poses no health risks at the currently permitted non-thermal radiofrequency exposure levels. Instead, the evidence supports the International EMF Scientist Appeal by 244 scientists from 41 countries who have published on the subject in peer-reviewed literature and collectively petitioned the WHO and the UN for immediate measures to reduce public exposure to artificial electromagnetic fields and radiation.
Evidence also exists of the effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation on flora and fauna. For example, the reported global reduction in bees and other insects is plausibly linked to the increased radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation in the environment.17 Honeybees are among the species that use magnetoreception, which is sensitive to anthropogenic electromagnetic fields, for navigation.
Man-made electromagnetic fields range from extremely low frequency (associated with electricity supplies and electrical appliances) to low, medium, high, and extremely high frequency (mostly associated with wireless communication). The potential effects of these anthropogenic electromagnetic fields on natural electromagnetic fields, such as the Schumann Resonance that controls the weather and climate, have not been properly studied.
Similarly, we do not adequately understand the effects of anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation on other natural and man-made atmospheric components or the ionosphere. It has been widely claimed that radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation, being nonionizing radiation, does not possess enough photon energy to cause DNA damage. This has now been proven wrong experimentally.18,19 Radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation causes DNA damage apparently through oxidative stress,7 similar to near-UV radiation, which was also long thought to be harmless.
At a time when environmental health scientists tackle serious global issues such as climate change and chemical toxicants in public health, there is an urgent need to address so-called electrosmog. A genuine evidence-based approach to the risk assessment and regulation of anthropogenic electromagnetic fields will help the health of us all, as well as that of our planetary home. Some government health authorities have recently taken steps to reduce public exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation by regulating use of wireless devices by children and recommending preferential use of wired communication devices in general, but this ought to be a coordinated international effort.
1 International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. ICNIRP
guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and
electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz). Health Phys 1998; 74: 494–522.
2 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. IEEE C95.7-2014—IEEE
recommended practice for radio frequency safety programs, 3 kHz to
300 GHz. IEEE Standards Association, 2014. https://standards.ieee.org/
standard/C95_7-2014.html (accessed Nov 6, 2018).
3 Volkow ND, Tomasi D, Wang GJ, et al. Effects of cell phone radiofrequency
signal exposure on brain glucose metabolism. JAMA 2011; 305: 808–13.
4 Schmid MR, Loughran SP, Regel SJ, et al. Sleep EEG alterations: effects of
different pulse-modulated radio frequency electromagnetic
fields. J Sleep Res 2012; 21: 50–58.
5 Kimata H. Microwave radiation from cellular phones increases
allergen-specific IgE production. Allergy 2005; 60: 838–39.
6 Zothansiama, Zosangzuali M, Lalramdinpuii M, Jagetia GC. Impact of
radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral
blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base
stations. Electromagn Biol Med 2017;36: 295–305.
7 Bandara P, Weller S. Biological effects of low-intensity radiofrequency
electromagnetic radiation—time for a paradigm shift in regulation of
public exposure. Radiat Protect Australas 2017; 34: 2–6.
8 Carlberg M, Hardell L. 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; 2017: 9218486.
9 Cell phone radio frequency radiation. National Toxicology Program,
US Department of Health and Human Services, 2018. https://ntp.niehs.nih.
gov/results/areas/cellphones/index.html (accessed Nov 8, 2018).
10 Falcioni L, Bua L, Tibaldi E, et al. Report of final results regarding brain and
heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until
natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a
1.8GHz GSM base station environmental emission. Environ Res 2018;
11 Myers SS. Planetary health: protecting human health on a rapidly changing
planet. Lancet 2018; 390: 2860–68.
12 Philips A, Lamburn G. Natural and human-activity-generated
electromagnetic fields on Earth. Childhood Cancer 2012; London;
April 24–26, 2012.
13 Raines JK. NASA-CR-166661. Electromagnetic field interactions with the
human body: observed effects and theories. NASA Technical Reports
Server, 1981. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.
gov/19810017132.pdf (accessed Oct 10, 2018).
14 Divan HA, Kheifets L, Obel C, Olsen J. Prenatal and postnatal exposure to
cell phone use and behavioral problems in children. Epidemiology 2008;
15 Zhang X, Huang WJ, Chen WW. Microwaves and Alzheimer’s disease.
Exp Ther Med 2016; 12: 1969–72.
16 Aldad TS, Gan G, Gao XB, Taylor HS. Fetal radiofrequency radiation
exposure from 800–1900 mhz-rated cellular telephones affects
neurodevelopment and behavior in mice. Sci Rep 2012; 2: 312.
17 Taye RR, Deka MK, Rahman A, Bathari M. Effect of electromagnetic
radiation of cell phone tower on foraging behaviour of Asiatic honey bee,
Apis cerana F. (Hymenoptera: Apidae). J Entomol Zool Stud 2017; 5: 1527–29.
18 Smith-Roe SL, Wyde ME, Stout MD, et al. Evaluation of the genotoxicity of
cell phone radiofrequency radiation in male and female rats and mice
following subchronic exposure. Environmental Mutagenesis and Genomics
Society Annual Conference; Raleigh, NC, USA; Sept 9–13, 2017.
19 Ruediger HW. Genotoxic effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields.
Pathophysiology 2009; 16: 89–102.