Living among the Waves  – a multipart series focusing on the electromagnetic environment and what that means for our health and well being.

Living among the waves series will heighten your awareness of the invisible, but real, affects of radio frequency radiation (RF).  We pass through countless electromagnetic fields (EMF) daily and perceive nothing.  Does that mean RF has no effect on our bodies and the bodies of our children either born or developing?  Is there a causal link between RF, EMF and illness?  If we want to make lifestyle changes to limit exposure, what should those changes be?

To answer these questions and more, it behooves us to understand what Electromagnetic fields (EMF) are and how they have become so prevalent in our lives.  Perhaps our embracing of this suite of technologies was a bit hasty.  Just because we can doesn’t mean that we should.

There are numerous serious biological effects associated with EMF on both male and female reproductive ability.  These effects are not associated with heating of tissue, and are not part of the SAR testing method used by the FCC and technology manufacturers to determine deleterious effects of EMF exposure.

Myung Chan Gye et al. in their paper on the effects of electromagnetic field exposure on the reproductive system, confirmed that EMF exposure can alter cellular homeostasis, endocrine function, reproductive function, and fetal development in animal systems. Reproductive parameters reported to be altered by EMF exposure include male germ cell death, the estrous cycle, reproductive endocrine hormones, reproductive organ weights, sperm motility, early embryonic development, and pregnancy success. At the cellular level, an increase in free radicals and [Ca²⁺]i may mediate the effect of EMFs and lead to cell growth inhibition, protein misfolding, and DNA breaks.

Possible human diseases related with EMF exposure obtained from epidemiological studies include life threatening diseases such as leukemia in children and adults, brain cancer in adults, Lou Gehrig’s disease, depression, suicide, and Alzheimer’s disease.

Non-ionizing nonthermal EMF exposure can alter cellular homeostasis, endocrine function, reproductive function, and fetal development.  This impacts both male and female reproductive systems including: male germ cell apoptosis, the estrous cycle, reproductive endocrine hormones,, reproductive organ weights, sperm motility, early embryonic development, and overall pregnancy success.

There is a robust body of research pertaining to the male reproductive system and EMF.  Several studies have determined a significant decrease in testosterone, sperm viability, motility, and morphology all resulting from increased EMF radiation sourced from cell phones, other wireless devices and their use.

Chronic exposure to EMF can inhibit cell apoptosis (cell death), thereby promoting survival of damaged cells and carcinogenesis (cancer development).  Additional effects can be seen in the increase of permeability of the blood-testes barrier resulting in male infertility.

Experimental and epidemiological studies have now demonstrated that EMF exposure is linked with impaired development of brain structures and functions of the fetus.  Additionally, EMF exposure has now been shown to have deleterious effects on the reproductive organs and reproductive capacity of children yet to be born.

Experimental evidence now demonstrates prenatal effects could range from impaired oogenesis and spermatogenesis to reduced number of brain pyramidal cells, neuronal impairments, and ovarian dysfunction.  Studies are tying increased DNA damage in multiple organs to EMF exposure in the 900Mhz-2.1Ghz frequency bands.  These happen to be the bands used by cell phone carriers.  They may be better known as 3G, 4G 5G.

Experiments now show daily exposure for as little as 1-2 hrs to EMF produces inflammation and impairment of ovarian function that is surprisingly consistent with endometritis – a problem that seems to be growing in the young adolescent population.

The effects of exposure to EMF enjoys two decades of research that has found EMF negatively affects both the structure and the function of the prenatal and adult central nervous system.

The environmental action plan take away for women who are pregnant or are trying to become pregnant is to take notice of your home, work, and play environments. learn to identify sources of EMF and then avoid them.

Whenever possible there should be at least a meter between yourself and any wireless device.  It is preferable that you have even greater distances between you and any wireless device.  Turn off the cellular radio in your laptop or desktop computer.  In like manner turn off the wireless LAN radio in your equipment as well.  Remember that your printer, if it is wireless, has a radio transmitting just like a laptop.

Install a wired LAN with drops in the rooms that you occupy.

Keep in mind that there is no level of microwave radiation which is safe.  Look around your home and work for where wireless products may be located.  Think twice before you purchase a wireless baby monitor.  These devices transmit continuously when on and flood your infant with EMF.

If your employer requires you use wireless equipment, inquire as to any alternative devices that might be available for your use.  If you are in or near a building with a cell phone antenna array consider relocating your office to a location as far from the array as possible.  If you cant get away from the antenna array consider a new job.

Remember that cellular damage from EMF is more often than not permanent damage.

Living among the Waves  – a multipart series focusing on the electromagnetic environment and what that means for our health and well being.

Living among the waves series will heighten your awareness of the invisible, but real, affects of radio frequency radiation (RF).  We pass through countless electromagnetic fields (EMF) daily and perceive nothing.  Does that mean RF has no effect on our bodies and the bodies of our children either born or developing?  Is there a causal link between RF, EMF and illness?  If we want to make lifestyle changes to limit exposure, what should those changes be?

To answer these questions and more, it behooves us to understand what Electromagnetic fields (EMF) are and how they have become so prevalent in our lives.  Perhaps our embracing of this suite of technologies was a bit hasty.  Just because we can doesn’t mean that we should.

There are many biological pathways that are affected by non-ionizing EMF.  Voltage Controlled Calcium Gates (VCCG) that are perturbed by pulsed EMF is one of the more accepted pathways for damage.  VCCG’s are responsible for actively transporting Calcium ions across cellular membranes in support of signalling and regulation of cellular homeostasis.

Panagopoulos et al. in 2000 established repeated irregular gating of electro-sensitive ion channels disrupts the cellular electrochemical balance and homeostasis.  This leads to overproduction of reactive oxygen species(ROS).  He found that repeated exposure cascaded into numerous biological affects to include cell membrane weakening.  Ultimately ROS lead to the pathological state of oxidative stress essential in regulation of cancer progression.

This was not an unexpected finding, in that ROS are well understood to regulate every step of tumorigenesis and have been found to be upregulated in tumors and aberrant signaling.  Likewise, ROS, plays a significant role in the onset of diabetes and other neurodegenerative disease.  Repeated animal studies are consistent in their finding EMF exposure at very low ionization levels result in ROS.

The level of concern was amplified when it was determined that children with developing immune systems are more sensitive and consequently more vulnerable to ROS.

In 2020 the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences conducted research into the toxicology associated with Cellular radiation.  Stephanie L. Smith-Roe et al. tested two common radiofrequency modulations emitted by cellular telephones in a 2-year study.  Their study findings demonstrated exposure to EMF radiation is associated with an increase in DNA damage.

It comes as no surprise that children are more sensitive to environmental pollutants.  EMF radiation can be counted as one of those pollutants to which children are particularly sensitive.  As a population group their sensitivity begins in the womb where they are bombarded with EMF from their mother’s laptop, cell phone, and wireless networks that she moves between both at work and at home.

As a group, the present generation and future generations will be in an ever increasing bath of EMF radiation.  What effect this is having for the current generation can be measured and reported.  However, future generations in the Womb or yet-to-be conceived remain in a gray area of impact, due to the unknown policies that may be affected to protect against childhood EMF radiation.

Children should never be considered small adults.  They are uniquely children with a physiology that occupies a developing body.  Their bodies proportionately absorb greater amounts of EMF radiation.  One of the distinguishing differences between adults and children is the size of their heads.  Children have smaller heads with a developing cranium which results in shorter distances for EMF to travel to reach critical brain regions.

The pediatric cerebellum as it’s developing contains more fluid which enables it to absorb relatively more EMF radiation.  Simulations indicate a 10-fold increase in absorption of cell phone radiation in the cerebellum, the bone marrow of the skull, and up to a 30-fold greater absorption in the hippocampus.

The times when a child is most susceptible to EMF is during pregnancy, infancy, and childhood.  These are the times when the brain is growing rapidly.  Neuronal cell growth continues at a rapid pace until mid-life when the protective myelin sheath finally ceases its formation.  Mary Redmayne et al. in their study of EMF field exposure against the myelin sheath determined:

Overall, evidence from in vivo and in vitro and epidemiological studies suggests an association between RF-EMF exposure and either myelin deterioration or a direct impact on neuronal conduction, which may account for many electrohypersensitivity symptoms.

The impairment of myelin sheath development can have lifelong implications for neurodevelopment.

The emission tests of wireless devices use two methods to ascertain strength of the EMF.  These are discussed earlier.  The penetrating aspect of the wireless device is markedly different when considering an adult skull v. a child’s skull.  As mentioned above the child’s skull has a multi-fold increase in absorption as opposed to the adult skull.

The diagram shows 4 positions of skulls A,B,C,D, each position shows an adult male and a male child.  The grey rectangle shows the position of the cellphone to the skull.  Notice the intensity and coverage of the brain with EMF radiation.  The intensity and coverage of the entire cranium is more pronounced in the child than in the adult.

When considering the overall radiation absorption of a 6 year old using a tablet on a WiFi network the degree to which the face is bathed in EMF radiation is concerning.  In this diagram the wireless device is broadcasting using a 2.45 Ghz WiFi enabled tablet.  Notice the entire face is lit up as is the frontal lobe of the brain.

Prior to the pandemic research studies were conducted at the School of Public Health at UCLA.  The studies were focused on cell phones and behavioral problems in young children.  The studies found that exposure prenatally, and to a lesser degree postnatally was associated with behavioral difficulties including emotional and hyperactivity difficulties at school entry ages.

The effects of EMF on children in both the prenatal and postnatal periods are difficult to take in.  Especially when considering that it is us who might have adversely affected our most prized treasure.  Yet, it is never too late to take action.

First step if you are trying to get pregnant or are already pregnant – toss the wireless devices.   Devices like a laptop, cell phone, printer, and tablet are shown to adversely affect your baby.  If you need these devices to earn an income there are alternatives configurations you can explore.

Step one: wire the house for Ethernet.  add a network drop wherever you need to connect a computer or printer or phone.

Step two: turn off the radio portion of your network router.  If you are going to add network drops in rooms where you live and work, you don’t need the wireless portion of the router enabled.

Step three: turn off the wireless radio on your laptop and, if needed, purchase an Ethernet dongle to attach to your laptop.

Step four: buy an ip phone and contact 1-voip.com to buy or configure a phone you purchase.  You can use any ip phone service.  Do your research on quality of service before you commit.

Step five: Take notice of the wireless network at work.  If your employer requires you to use wireless equipment, have a chat with them and express your concerns about general health and the health of your baby.  Chances your employer isn’t aware of the health problems associated with wireless communications.

Step six: If you work in a building with cell phone antenna mounted  on it consider leaving or asking to work from home.  There is no safe place in the building where microwaves from the antenna cant find you.

Step seven: take notice of your friends and their phones and chat with them about what you have learned.  Educate educate educate.  Your friends will thank you.

Living among the Waves  – a multipart series focusing on the electromagnetic environment and what that means for our health and well being.

Living among the waves series will heighten your awareness of the invisible, but real, affects of radio frequency radiation (RF).  We pass through countless electromagnetic fields (EMF) daily and perceive nothing.  Does that mean RF has no effect on our bodies and the bodies of our children either born or developing?  Is there a causal link between RF, EMF and illness?  If we want to make lifestyle changes to limit exposure, what should those changes be?

To answer these questions and more, it behooves us to understand what Electromagnetic fields (EMF) are and how they have become so prevalent in our lives.  Perhaps our embracing of this suite of technologies was a bit hasty.  Just because we can doesn’t mean that we should.

We exist in a society where breakthroughs are common place and advances in most fields occur with such rapidity that no individual can possibly entertain any hope of keeping track of them.  It’s also apparent that no matter the field in question, wireless communication has in some measure made itself indispensable.

In our collective effort to be the best, have the best, and invest in the best, we seem to have abandoned our ability to reason and discern.  As a consumer society, we are increasingly dependent upon marketers/influencers to define our needs and wants.  Their responsibility is to imbue a desire in our minds with sufficient repetition that it becomes second nature to assume the story is true.

The Svengalis of new technologies want us to accept without question their technology imperative: because something can technically be done, then it should be done.  To a large extent they have succeeded, and we don’t seem to possess the will to transcend the Svengali moment, courageously looking future in the eye and  opting for a moment of pause and perhaps thoughtful contemplation.  Our children bear the brunt of our unquenchable thirst, a thirst we satisfy without regard to the many effects observed both now and yet to be revealed in the future.

When new technologies are introduced we are compelled to implement them.  Consider cellphone frequency labels of 3G, 4G, 5G.  These labels describe enhancements to frequencies and data rates.  Adoption of new frequencies requires new hardware be designed and old hardware replaced.  If we want the new features provided by  new frequencies then we must acquire new transceivers (cell phones) that can make use of the new frequencies.

What is driving our decision to upgrade our cell phones? is it a set of features and the overarching health implications of ownership or the inability to acquire a replacement device with the older frequencies.  Stated more succinctly, am I making the conscious decision to adopt new features or are new frequencies imposed on me by manufacturers (Svengalis) of equipment.

The same situation plays itself out in the purchase of laptops, PDA’s, PC’s, access points, wireless network gear, and other wireless enabled products.  The decision to acquire technology items is less to do with health than to establish or maintain a work/home environment that is less costly to support and less complicated to implement.

Often when confronted with sudden changes or overwhelmingly complicated situations, the tendency is to defer, relegate, or follow another’s example from someone we trust.  When acquiring new technology it is very difficult to be the expert on the many descriptive elements found listed on packaging.  It is even more difficult to maintain effective levels of knowledge pertaining to the health implications of use.

Effective management in any organization, including the home, comes down to making straightforward decisions based on the best information available.  This relatively simple approach streamlines the decision-making process and limits any confusion.  Establishing guidelines is a natural outcome of the decision-making process.  The best available information is used in making a guideline.  The guideline is then available to be applied whenever it is needed.

The use of guidelines is nothing new for any parent of a child.  It is a time-honored truth that parents universally seem to have an innate ability to establish guidelines for safe conduct, within which their children live and learn.  This is played out by the parental indifference to yearning by children at the grocery store.  It is also seen when a guideline becomes the condition by which play can occur.  Take for example the parental guidance regarding skateboarding.  It’s okay to go skateboarding, but it is not okay to skateboard without a helmet and safety pads.

A parent has a much broader frame of reference  from which discerning judgments can be made.   However, Just having a broader frame of reference does not translate to having knowledge that can be used to set a safety guideline.  To establish home/work guidance regarding EMF some research is needed.  Continue reading and begin/continue building your knowledge base.

When considering wireless technologies, children are surrounded by transmitters and receivers from the time they are infants onward.  Only recently have efforts been made to perform research on the effects of Electromagnetic Fields  (EMF) on children.  What is becoming apparent is that wireless technologies when used at an early stage of life can interfere with social development, learning, socialization, and have a demonstrable health affect on a child that can have lifelong potentially irreversible adverse biological effects.

In correspondence from the American Academy of Pediatrics to the Federal Trade Comission, the President of the academy articulated that “Children are not little adults and are disproportionately impacted by all environmental exposures, including cell phone radiation.”  [McInerny T.K.. Letter from President of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Thomas K. McInerny, MD, FAAP to the FCC. August 2013.]

For a decade or more the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry have advised that children two and under have no screen time.  Sadly infant and toddler use of devices is skyrocketing.

According to PEW research Children’s engagement with electronic digital devices is significant.  As a child matures their use of electronic devices grows.  Of particular concern are the tablet and smartphone columns.  These columns show a surprisingly high number of  children with exposure to EMF at a very vulnerable age.

Regulatory agencies like the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation (ICNIRP) hold that low level EMF exposure is non tissue heating and therefore safe.  The difficulty with the regulatory stance is the singular focus on tissue heating.  Recent studies are demonstrating non-thermal tissue levels of EMF can cause adverse effects.  The list of effects include induction of reactive oxygen species (ROS), cardiomyopathy, sperm damage, DNA damage, carcinogenecity, and neurological effects to include memory damage.

[I. Belyaev, C. Blackman, K. Chamberlin, et al. Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G. Environ Health, 21 (1) (2022), p. 92]

Concern surrounding health effects of radiation have been present since the mid 1930’s when Marie Curie’s death was associated with prolonged exposure to radiation during her research.  More recently, member states of the European Union and the U.S. FCC have relied upon the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and others, for their guidance on occupational exposure from EMF  from all sources.

The standard upon which the IEEE bases their guidance is keyed to tissue thermal effects of EMF.  Generally speaking the IEEE position is, excessive heating is to be avoided.

According to other research-based organizations like the Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Assessment Association (ORSAA), the IEEE guidance is lacking and only addressing a singular effect associated with EMF exposure.  ORSAA and others suggest the standards for evaluating wireless devices are not in keeping with the advancements in the supporting technologies.  Consequently, the FCC standards are not representative of standards necessary to adequately evaluate health effects of EMF and do not adequately protect the public from adverse health effects.

To set a standard for comparison and evaluation a reproducible effect had to be determined with regard to EMF.  The metric that was established was called the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR).  It became the guage by which a rate of electromagnetic energy absorption could be quantified.  The SAR is measured in watts per kilogram (W/kg).  The energy is measured over time at 6 minutes and 30 minute time frame.  The measurement is taken in a 1g or 10g volume placed within a 12-pound area containing homogenous fluid shaped as a human head.  A similar 220 pound plastic body is also used to represent the human torso.

A SAR of 1.6W/kg is the allowable head and torso absorption rate, whereas 4.0W/kg is permissible in the extremities (including the ear).

The measurement is taken in a 1g or 10g volume placed within a 12-pound area containing homogenous fluid shaped as a human head.  A similar 220 pound plastic body is also used to represent the human torso.

A SAR of 1.6W/kg is the allowable head and torso absorption rate, whereas 4.0W/kg is permissible in the extremities (including the ear).

The difficulties with this method of measurement are painfully apparent.  While we applaud the FCC and others for having and enforcing a standard, we also expect the FCC to remain current with regard to research and amend established standards to reflect the domestic and international peer reviewed research.

The one size fits all approach fails in many ways to address the variability in body mass present in the population.  Likewise, the constant salinity of the homogeneous test fluid does not adequately account for the varying densities of internal organic structures found within each body and the varying conductivity of different tissues.

The base assumption, upon which the SAR is based, is faulty.  The assumption is that harm to the body can only be caused by a heating effect to the brain or torso that causes a 1 degree Celsius rise.  Lower heating is safe and considered non-hazardous.

A complementary test method to the SAR is the Ambient Power Density (APD) method.  This measure uses watts per square meter as the metric.  Since a meter is a large area to measure the metric is reduced to a measurable milliwatts per square centimeter.  APD is used to measure the flow of electromagnetic waves in the sample size and it is typically a measurement taken at a distance from the source.

We can thank the NAVY and US ARMY for these measures of electromagnetic energy. In the late 1950’s there was a concern for radar operators.  Eye damage and epithelial tissue burns were evident, and the exposure limit was set at 10W/m.  This value became the standard and was adopted by the American Standard Association and the IEEE.  The measurement standard value has not changed in the past 70 years and is still in effect.

In 1996 the FCC established guidelines for allowable EMF RF for frequencies in the 300KHz – 100GHz range for the public.  These frequencies are inclusive of the widely known 3G and 5G cellphone frequency range labels.  Their guidelines were based on a 1986 report from the National Council on Radiation Protection & Measurement (NCRP) – a professionally troubled organization and the IEEE.

It is concerning that the ICNIRP and the IEEE do not consider non-thermal effects of EMF RF as significantly relevant.  This is particularly troubling when considering other professional organizations like the ICBE-EMF and ORSAA  have widely differing views which run counter to the official guidance.

The battle against the FCC guidance position has included in excess of 11,000 pages of published scientific studies supporting and recommending the FCC strengthen their guidelines.  The FCC largely ignored the submitted science and in 2021 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a judgement in Environmental Health Trust et al v. FCC.

The court found the agency negligent in providing a rational record of review and had failed to show evidence of examination of studies on the greater vulnerability of children to include long term exposure impacts.

The international regulatory bodies have been listening, and the once mighty FCC has, to some extent, lost footing in RF emissions standards governance.   Other countries have established significantly lower emission thresholds for the public, and the use of wireless communications.

The most interesting takeaway from the lower emissions standards is the ability of the population to continue using wireless technology, albeit at significantly lower power levels.

The knowledge base is growing and it is becoming increasingly more difficult for agencies like the FCC to justify their positions regarding EMF strength and the public health.  To what extent politics play a role is poorly understood.  Yet, there must be industry influencers that are pushing back against change, wanting to keep power levels where they are.

Keep in mind that it is in industries’ best interest to keep power levels high.  Higher signal levels translates directly into better device performance and overall satisfaction.  There is a real cost to circuit redesign and re-certification can be a lengthy process.  Unfortunately, when trying to introduce lower power technology into the high power wireless device marketplace, the matter of one device overshadowing all lower power devices is real.  To overcome the dampening effect, the FCC would have to issue new guidance to force low power adoption in all wireless devices.

The action for all is simple and straightforward.  Continue to bring this matter to the forefront of policy-makers’ minds.  Do this by asking questions of employers regarding potential health effects of wireless technology.  Let your doctor know you are aware of the health effects and ask their opinion on the matter.  Have conversations with school leadership personnel.  If you are fortunate to have contact with governmental policy makers, speak with them and share your knowledge.

This topic is a hard one for all involved.  We all use the wireless technologies, and to some extent, have become dependent.  So, what to do personally as an action plan.

Fall back on the skateboard guidance paradigm.  It’s okay to skateboard, but it is not okay to do so without a helmet and pads.  It’s okay to use wireless devices, but it is not okay to continually keep wireless devices near your body.  The most important first step is to distance yourself from wireless devices. Act on those things over which you have a modicum of control.

Take a proactive approach to removing cell phones from sleeping areas, and out of pockets.  It is proximity to the originating signal that causes harm.  A meter is about as close as you want to be to a cell phone or other wireless device.

Separate yourself from your cellphone.  Start with keeping the cell phone away from your body as much as possible.

Look into wiring your house for ethernet.  Having a network installed in the house is not as difficult as it sounds.  A good installer can usually accomplish the task in a day and have you up and running in short order.

There are many actions you can take to push back against the wireless effect on your health and to live among the waves.  Be sure to read our next article to learn even more about cellphone radiation and your health.