5G: Great risk for EU, U.S. and International Health! Compelling Evidence
for Eight Distinct Types of Great Harm Caused by Electromagnetic Field(EMF) Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them
Written and Compiled by Martin L. Pall, PhD
Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences
Washington State University
Address: 638 NE 41st Ave., Portland OR 97232 USA
martin_pall@wsu.edu 503-232-3883 May 17, 2018
Summary:
We know that there is a massive literature, providing a high level of scientific certainty, for eachof eight pathophysiological effects caused by non-thermal microwave frequency EMF 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 EMFs:
1. Attack our nervous systems including our brains leading to widespreadneurological/neuropsychiatric effects and possibly many other effects. This nervous
system attack is of great concern.
2. Attack our endocrine (that is hormonal) systems. In this context, the main things thatmake us functionally different from single celled creatures are our nervous system andour endocrine systems – even a simple planaria worm needs both of these. Thus theconsequences of the disruption of these two regulatory systems is immense, such that it isa travesty to ignore these findings.
3. Produce oxidative stress and free radical damage, which have central roles in essentially
all chronic diseases.
4. 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.
5. Produce elevated levels of apoptosis (programmed cell death), events especially
important in causing both neurodegenerative diseases and infertility.
6. Lower male and female fertility, lower sex hormones, lower libido and increased levelsof spontaneous abortion and, as already stated, attack the DNA in sperm cells.
7. Produce excessive intracellular calcium [Ca2+]i and excessive calcium signaling.
8. Attack the cells of our bodies to cause cancer. Such attacks are thought to act via 15
different mechanisms during cancer causation.
There is also a substantial literature showing that EMFs also cause other effects including life
threatening cardiac effects (Chapter 3). In addition substantial evidence suggests EMF causationof very early onset dementias, including Alzheimer’s, digital and other types of dementias(Chapter 3); and there is evidence that EMF exposures in utero and shortly after birth can cause
ADHD and autism (Chapter 5).
Each of these effects is produced via the main mechanism of action of microwave/lower
frequency EMFs, activation of voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs) (Chapter 2). Each ofthem is produced via what are called downstream effects of VGCC activation. It follows fromthis that we have a good understanding not only that these effects occur, but also how they canoccur. The extraordinary sensitivity of the VGCC voltage sensor to the forces of the EMFs tells
us that the current safety guidelines allow us to be exposed to EMF levels that are something like1

7.2 million times too high. That sensitivity is predicted by the physics. Therefore, the physics
and the biology are each pointing to the same mechanism of action of non-thermal EMFs.
The different effects produced are obviously very deep concerns. They become much deeper andbecome existential threats when one considers that several of these effects are both cumulativeand eventually irreversible. There is substantial evidence for the cumulative nature and eventual
irreversibility of the neurological/neuropsychiatric effects, of the reproductive effects, themutational DNA effects, the cardiac effects, of some but not other of the hormonal effects(Chapter 3); any causation of ADHD and autism may add additional concerns (here thecumulative nature is probably limited to the perinatal period). When we know that sperm counts
have dropped by more than 50% throughout the technologically advanced countries on earth, it isdifficult to avoid the conclusion that the vast majority of the population in those countries isalready substantially impacted. The same conclusion can be made based on the widespreadnature of the neuropsychiatric effects in those countries. Both of those effects will get much
much worse even with no increase in current exposures, due to the cumulative nature andirreversibility of these effects. I expect we will see crash in human reproduction almost to zero as
happened in the Magras and Xenos mouse study which I estimate to occur within about 5 years,
without any increases in our exposures. Obviously 4G and 5G will make the situation muchworse. Similarly I expect that the deterioration in brain function that we are already seeing willseal our fate if we fail to act rapidly and vigorously. Our collective brain function may becomecompletely incapable of dealing with such a mega-crisis situation.
Now it can be argued that some of these may not develop as I expect, although those expectations
are based on the best available evidence. One may even be able to argue this for all of those
expectations. However, when we have substantial risk of multiple existential threats to every
single technologically advanced country on earth, failure to act vigorously means there is a very
high probability of complete destruction of these societies. And the chaos which would
inevitably ensue, in a world that still has nuclear weapons, may well lead to extinction. In theface of these types or risk, the only reasonable course is to move with great vigor to stop new
exposures and lower current exposures. One can still access the internet, using wired
connections. And we can lower cell phone tower and cell phone radiation substantially. Smart
meters, if needed, can work via wired connections.
Over 60% of this document (Chapters 5 & 6), is focused on the failures of statements fromSCENIHR, the telecommunications industry, the U.S. FCC and the U.S. FDA to reflect thescience. Their statements repeatedly omit much, often all of the most important science. Theirstatements are rife not only with omissions, but also with easily demonstrable falsehoods andwith false logic. These have often occurred at times where we know that they knew better. These
have occurred along with vigorous efforts by the telecommunications industry to corrupt thescience by attacking individual scientists whose only fault is that they have obtained important
findings that the industry does not like. These attacks have occurred along with vigorous efforts
to corrupt two agencies that have important regulatory roles.
There are also possible concerns about individual industry-linked research studies. All wirelesscommunication devices put out polarized EMFs that carry information via pulsations. Both thepulsations and the polarization make these EMFs much more biologically active. There are threeother factors that also influence the production of effects. Several industry-linked studies may
have used these factors, along with using very tiny numbers of individual animals in their studies,to produce studies which may have been designed to fail (Chapter 5). It is not clear at this point
whether this type of concern is quite limited or whether it is very broad.

2

The European Commission has done nothing to protect European citizens from any of these very
serious health hazards and the U.S. FDA, EPA and National Cancer Institute have done nothing
to protect American citizens. The U.S. FCC has been much worse than that, acting vigorouslywith wanton disregard for our health.
Preface
The document that follows was, in its original form, sent to many of the authorities of theEuropean Union, in conjunction with other documents sent to the same people by a group ofEuropean scientists. It was in response two documents that were, in turn, written by Mr. Ryan
and Dr. Vinciūnas responding to a large group of European and other international scientists
expressing great concern about the safety of 5G. I was asked by the leaders of the group of
scientists to write my own response to those two documents. Mr. Ryan made the statement that
“There is consistent evidence presented by national and international bodies (International
Commission on Non Ionising Radiation Protection - ICNIRP, Scientific Committee on Emerging
and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) that exposure to electromagnetic fields does not
represent a health risk, if it remains below the limits set by Council Recommendation
1999/519/EC1.” In fact, that is not either the ICNIRP or SCENIHR position – their position, andsimilar positions have been taken by the U.S. FCC, FDA and the National Cancer Institute, is thatthe evidence is inconsistent or conflicting and therefore, in their view, no conclusions can be
drawn. Some of these organization have also stated that there is no known mechanism by which
effects can be produced. What is shown below is that there is a vast amount of evidence in the
independent scientific literature that conflicts with both the conclusion about lack ofdemonstrated effects and the conclusion about lack of mechanism.
The European Commission, according to the Ryan and Vinciūnas documents and the U.S.
National Cancer Institute, according to their web site, are each depending on the SCENIHR 2015
document to make judgments about EMF effects. Consequently, the reliability of SCENIHR
2015 is an essential element in determining the reliability of both of their assessments.
The document that is presented below, differs from the document that was emailed to EU
authorities in three different ways: 1. The original document was sent as an email with multiple
attachments. In this document attachments are simply provided as citations. The current
document is a stand-alone document. 2. Some material is inserted to discuss positions taken by
the U.S. FCC, FDA and National Cancer Institure, so as to be particularly relevant to the U.S.
situation. 3. Substantial additional evidence is also provided.
The revised document contains seven chapters followed by a citation list for the entire document:
Chapter 1: Eight Extremely Well-Documented Effects of Non-Thermal EMF Exposures: Role ofPulsations, 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

3

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
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 scientific consensus of independent scientists based on
information accumulated over the last 7 decades is just the opposite of what each of themstates. I am copying into this document, at the end of Chapter 1, a series of 8 extremely welldocumented effects of such EMF exposure, together with a list of review articles, most of them
being peer reviewed articles published in well respected journals in the PubMed database, thathave each reviewed a body of evidence demonstrating the existence of each such effect.
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 infrom 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 incancer causation. Single strand breaks in cellular DNA cause aberrant recombination
events leading to copy number mutations. Oxidized bases cause point mutations. Whenthese occur in somatic cells, they can each have roles in causing cancer. When theseoccur 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 andtestosterone, 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

4

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.
8.

9.

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 technologythat is universally present in these technologically advanced countries, that we know
impacts reproduction, and reproduction has already dropped well below replacementlevels, and we may be facing a catastrophic and irreversible decline in reproduction andthere are more and more plans to expose us still further, don't you think that we shouldtake 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)
Neurological/neuropsychiatric effects (25 reviews). My own paper on this [3] and twoearlier reviews cited in it found that there are whole series of repeatedly found EMF
effects which have also become extremely widespread complaints in our technologicallyadvanced 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 iscaused EMF exposures, shouldn't we take note of this relationship?
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.
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.
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.
Increases in intracellular calcium ([Ca2+]i) levels following EMF exposure (15reviews). Calcium signaling also increases following EMF exposure.
Cancer causation (35 reviews). Brain cancer, salivary cancer, acoustic neuromas and twoother 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 sideof 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 cancause 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 incancer 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.
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 havetherapeutic 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 mostcases, much more biologically active than are non-pulsed EMFs. This is particularly importantbecause all wireless communication devices communicate via pulsations, making thempotentially much more dangerous. It follows from this that if you wish to study the effects of WiFi, cell phones, cordless phones, cell phone towers, smart meters or 5G, you had better study thereal 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 andhigher 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 ofeach of these factors is completely ignored by ICNIRP, SCENIHR, the U.S. FCC, FDA andNational Cancer Institute as well as by many other industry-friendly groups. When each of theseorganizations concludes that “results are inconsistent” they are comparing studies based onsuperficial similarities but not on these demonstrated causal factors. What is being observed,
therefore, is genuine biological heterogeneity, not inconsistency. It has been known since thebeginning of modern science in the 16th century that how you do your studies is important indetermining 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 typeand 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 andBasic 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 andoxidized 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+radiofrequency+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 underelectromagnetic 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 andpublic 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 ;36:11091117.
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 underelectromagnetic 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, 99116. 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 ofradiofrequency electromagnetic radiation on sperm function. Reproduction 152:R263R276.
17. Batista Napotnik T, Reberšek M, Vernier PT, Mali B, Miklavčič D. 2016 Effects of highvoltage 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):26552662. 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) cancause 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).
Lowered fertility, including tissue remodeling changes in the testis, lowered sperm countand 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+radiofrequency+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 ;36:11091117.
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 andmobile 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 70:106112.
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 2:491501.

8

14. K Sri N. 2015 Mobile phone radiation: physiological & pathophysiologicalconsiderations. 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 ofradiofrequency electromagnetic radiation on sperm function. Reproduction 152:R263R276
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).
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+radiofrequency+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 andpublic 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 systemselected 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_Brochure6_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/reveh2016-0011.
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.
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).
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+radiofrequency+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 andpublic 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 underelectromagnetic 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 highvoltage 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):26552662. doi: 10.19082/2655.
13. Pall ML. 2018 Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health. Environ Res 164:404416.
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 andpublic 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 underelectromagnetic 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 theliterature. 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 andmobile 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, 99116.
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 ofradiofrequency electromagnetic radiation on sperm function. Reproduction 152:R263R276.
16. Dasdag S, Akdag MZ. 2016 The link between radiofrequencies emitted from wirelesstechnologies 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 164:404416.
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+radiofrequency+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 andpublic 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, 99116.
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_Brochure6_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):26552662. 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).
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 thatsustained elevation of intracellular calcium levels produces many pathophysiological (that isdisease-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: therole of calcium signaling. FASEB J. 6, 3177-3185.
3. Adey, WR. 1993 Biological effects of electromagnetic fields. J Cell Biochem 51:410416.
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 underelectromagnetic 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: rolein 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 effectsof 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, 99116. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2015-0001.
12. Pall ML. 2016 Electromagnetic fields act similarly in plants as in animals: Probableactivation 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 highvoltage 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):26552662. 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 andbecause 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 wereno biological effects produced by such EMFs. The pulsation studies alone tell us that there aremany 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 HighFrequency Electromagnetic Radiation. Institute for Defense Analyses; Research andEngineering 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.
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 11:1329.
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 andfuture. 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 ofradicular pain: a call for clinical translation. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2014 MarApr;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, 99116. 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 highvoltage 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 andchemical 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
15. Yakymenko I, Sidorik E. 2010 Risks of carcinogenesis from electromagnetic radiationand 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.

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 andcordless 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 cordlessphones 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 andGlioma 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 frommobile phones and tumour risk in adults]. Gac Sanit. 2017 Apr 12. pii: S02139111(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 ofbrain tumours: a systematic review of association between study quality, source offunding, and research outcomes. Neurol Sci. 2017 Feb 17. doi: 10.1007/s10072-0172850-8. [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 – ahard 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 showingthat 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 isalso 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 groupsof scientists expressing great concern about this. It follows that the ICNIRP, FCC andInternational safety guidelines are completely unscientific and cannot be relied upon to protect
our safety.
Chapter 2: How Each Such EMF Effect Is Produced via Voltage-Gated Calcium Channel
Activation: Role of the Voltage Sensor in Producing the Extraordinary Sensitivity to EMF
Effects
The Pall, 2013 [4] study showed that in 24 different studies (there are now a total of 26 [5]),effects of low-intensity EMFs, both microwave frequency and also lower frequency EMFs, could
be blocked by calcium channel blockers, drugs that are specific for blocking voltage-gatedcalcium channels (VGCCs). There were 5 different types of calcium channel blockers used inthese studies each thought to be highly specific, each structurally distinct and each binding to adifferent site on the VGCCs. In studies where multiple effects were studied, all studied effects
were blocked or greatly lowered by calcium channel blockers. These studies show that EMFs
produce diverse non-thermal effects via VGCC activation in many human and animal cells andeven in plant cells where some similar calcium channels are involved [6]. Furthermore, manydifferent effects shown to be produced in repeated studies by EMF exposures, including theeffects discussed above, can each be produced by downstream effects of VGCC activation, via
increased intracellular calcium [Ca2+]i, as discussed below.
Various EMFs act via VGCC activation, as shown by calcium channel blocker studies. These
include microwave frequency EMFs, nanosecond pulse EMFs, intermediate frequency EMFs,
extremely low frequency EMFs and even static electrical fields and static magnetic fields.
It is important to discuss why the VGCCs are so sensitive to activation by these low-intensity
EMFs. Each of the VGCCs have a voltage sensor which is made up of 4 alpha helixes, each
designated as an S4 helix, in the plasma membrane. Each of these S4 helixes has 5 positive
charges on it, for a total of 20 positive charges making up the VGCC voltage sensor [5,8]. Eachof these charges is within the lipid bilayer part of the plasma membrane. The electrical forces on
the voltage sensor are extraordinarily high for three distinct reasons [5,8]. 1. The 20 charges on
the voltage sensor make the forces on voltage sensor 20 times higher than the forces on a single
charge. 2. Because these charges are within the lipid bilayer section of the membrane where thedielectric constant is about 1/120th of the dielectric constant of the aqueous parts of the cell, thelaw of physics called Coulomb’s law, predicts that the forces will be approximately 120 times
higher than the forces on charges in the aqueous parts of the cell. 3. Because the plasma
membrane has a high electrical resistance whereas the aqueous parts of the cell are highly17conductive, the electrical gradient across the plasma membrane is estimated to be concentrated
about 3000-fold. The combination of these factors means that comparing the forces on thevoltage sensor with the forces on singly charged groups in the aqueous parts of the cell, the forceson the voltage sensor are approximately 20 X 120 X 3000 = 7.2 million times higher [5,8]. The
physics predicts, therefore, extraordinarily strong forces activating the VGCCs via the voltage
sensor. It follows that the biology tells us that the VGCCs are the main target of the EMFs andthe physics tells us why they are the main target. Thus the physics and biology are pointing inexactly the same direction.
We have, then, very strong arguments that the EMFs act directly on the voltage-sensor to activate
the VGCCs. There are several other types of evidence, each providing important evidence
supporting this view:
1. In a study published by Pilla [12], it was found that pulsed EMFs produced an “instantaneous”
increase in calcium/calmodulin-dependent nitric oxide synthesis in cells in culture. What thisstudy [12] showed was that following EMF exposure, the cells in culture, must have produced alarge increase in [Ca2+]i, this in turn produced a large increase in nitric oxide synthesis, the nitricoxide diffused out of the cells and out of the aqueous medium above the cells into the gas phase,where the nitric oxide was detected by a nitric oxide electrode. This entire sequence occurred inless than 5 seconds. This eliminates almost any conceivable indirect effect, except possibly via
plasma membrane depolarization. Therefore, it is likely that the pulsed EMFs are acting directlyon the voltage sensors of the VGCCs and possibly the voltage-gated sodium channels, to produce
the [Ca2+]i increase.
2. There are also additional findings pointing to the voltage sensor as the direct target of the
EMFs. In addition to the VGCCs, there are also voltage-gated sodium, potassium and chloride
channels, with each of these having a voltage sensor similar to those found in the VGCCs. Lu etal [13] reported that voltage gated sodium channels, in addition to the VGCCs were activated by
EMFs. Tabor et al [14] found that Mauthner cells, specialized neurons with special roles intriggering rapid escape mechanisms in fish, were almost instantaneously activated by electricalpulses, which acted via voltage-gated sodium channel activation to subsequently produce large[Ca2+]i increases. Zhang et al [15] reported that in addition to the VGCCs, potassium andchloride channels were each activated by EMFs, although these other voltage-gated ion channels
had relatively modest roles, compared with the VGCCs, in producing biological effects. Each ofthese three studies [13-15] used specific blockers for these other voltage-gated ion channels todetermine their roles. The Tabor et al [14] study also used genetic probing to determine the roleof the voltage-gated sodium channels. Lu et al [13] also used whole cell patch clamp
measurements to measure the rapid influx of both sodium and calcium into the cell via thevoltage-gated channels following EMF exposure. Sodium influx, particularly in electrically
active cells, acts in the normal physiology to depolarize the plasma membrane, leading to VGCC
activation such that the voltage-gated sodium channels may act primarily via indirect activationof the VGCCs. In summary then, we have evidence that in animal including human cells, sevendistinct classes of voltage-gated ion channels are each activated by EMF exposures: From Ref.
[4], four classes of voltage-gated ion channels were shown from calcium channel blocker studies,
to be activated by EMFs, L-type, T-type, N-type and P/Q –type VGCCs. In this paragraph wehave evidence that three other channels are also activated, voltage-gated sodium channels,
voltage-gated potassium channels and voltage-gated chloride channels. Furthermore the plantstudies strongly suggest that the so called TPC channels, which contain a similar voltage sensor,
are activated in plants allowing calcium influx into plants to produce similar EMF-induced
responses [6]. In summary, then we have evidence for eight different ion channels being
activated by EMF exposure, four classes of VGCCs, one class each of voltage-gated sodium,18

potassium and chloride channels and also one class of plant channel, with each of these channels
having a similar voltage-sensor regulating its opening. One can put those observations together
with the powerful findings from the physics, that the electrical forces on the voltage-sensor are
stunningly strong, something like 7.2 million times stronger than the forces on the singly charged
groups in the aqueous phases of the cell. Now you have a stunningly powerful argument that thevoltage sensor is the predominant direct target of the EMFs.
3. The most important study on this subject, was published by Tekieh et al [16]. It showed thatmicrowave frequency EMFs directly activate the VGCCs in isolated membranes. A variety of
microwave frequencies were used in these studies and each such frequency produced VGCC
activation in a completely cell-free system. This study clearly shows that the EMF activation of
the VGCCs is direct and not due to some indirect regulatory effect.
How then does the estimated sensitivity of the voltage-sensor, about 7.2 million times greater
forces than the forces on singly charged groups, compare with previous estimates of levels of
EMF exposure needed to produce biological effects? The ICNIRP 2009 [17] safety guidelines
allowed for 2 to 10 W/m2 exposure, depending upon frequency. In contrast, the Bioinitiative
Working Group 2007 [18] proposed a precautionary target level of 3 to 6 µW/m2 or about amillion-fold lower, using a safety factor of 10. If one uses a more commonly used safety factor of
50 to 100, then the 7.2 million-fold sensitivity of the voltage-sensor, predicted by the physics,
falls right in the middle of the Bioinitiative Working Group 2007 calculations. So again, it can beargued that the physics and the biology are pointing in the same direction, in this case pointing to
the same approximate range of sensitivity.
You may be wondering why I am spending so much time and space going through each of thesestudies. The answer is that a well over a trillion dollar (or trillion euro) set of industries, thetelecommunications industry, has been putting out propaganda for over two decades, arguing that
there cannot be a mechanism of action of these non-thermal EMFs to produce biological effects;
and that these EMFs are too weak to do anything and that only thermal effects are documented. It
is essential to dot every i and cross every t with regard to the main mechanism of action of nonthermal effects. That is exactly what has been done here.
How Can the Diverse Effects of Such EMF Exposures Be Produced by VGCC Activation?

19

1
2

Cytochrome mitochondrialenergy metabolism, steroid
hormone synthesis

Microwave/Lower
Frequency EMFs

VGCC
activation

Calciumsignaling[Ca2+]i

NitricOxide (NO)NO
signaling(cGMP)

proteinkinase G

Nrf2

Therapeutic
effects

Superoxide
Peroxynitrite +/-CO2(ONOO-)+O

Free
radicals
Oxidative
stress

NF-kappaB
Inflammation

Pathophysiologicaleffects

Fig. 1 How EMFs Act via VGCC Activation to Produce Various Effects
The mechanisms by which various effects can be generated by VGCC activation are outlined inFig. 1. Going across the top of Fig. 1, it can be seen that increased intracellular calcium [Ca2+]i
can increase nitric oxide (NO) synthesis, stimulating the NO signaling pathway (going to the rightfrom top, center), to produce therapeutic effects. NO (very top) can also bind to cytochromes andinhibit their activity. NO binding to the terminal oxidase in the mitochondria inhibits energy
metabolism and lowers, therefore, ATP. NO binding to cytochrome P450s, lowers synthesis ofsteroid hormones, including estrogen, progesterone and testosterone. The P450 lowering also
lowers detoxification and vitamin D activity. Most of the pathophysiological effects are producedby the peroxynitrite/free radical/oxidative stress pathway center to lower right (Fig. 1) and also byexcessive calcium signaling pathway (slightly left of center, Fig. 1). Some of the ways these arethought to produce various well-established EMF effects are outlined in Table 1.
Table 1. How Eight Established Effects of EMFs Can Be Produced by VGCC Activation
EMF effectOxidative stress

Lowered male/female
fertility, elevatedspontaneous abortion,
lowered libido

Probable mechanism(s)Produced by elevated levels of peroxynitrite and the free radical
breakdown products of peroxynitrite and its CO2 adduct. Fourstudies of EMF exposure, cited in [4] showed that oxidative stressfollowing exposure was associated with major elevation of 3nitrotyrosine, a marker of peroxynitrite, thus confirming thisinterpretation. Two other studies each found 3-nitrotyrosine
elevation, both following 35 GHz exposures [19,20].
Both the lowered male fertility and lowered female fertility areassociated with and presumably caused by the oxidative stress in themale and female reproductive organs. Spontaneous abortion is oftencaused by chromosomal mutations, so the germ line mutations may
have a causal role. Lowered libido may be caused by lowered
estrogen, progesterone and testosterone levels. It seems likely that20

Neurological/
neuropsychiatriceffects

Apoptosis

Cellular DNA damage
Changes in non-steroid
hormone levels

Lowered steroid hormone

Calcium overload

Heat shock protein
inductionthese explanations may be oversimplified. One additional
mechanism that may be important in producing lowered fertility isthat VGCC activation and consequent high [Ca2+]i levels is known
to have a key role in avoiding polyspermy. Consequently, if this
response is triggered before any fertilization of an egg has occurred,
it may prevent any sperm from fertilizing and egg.
Of all cells in the body, the neurons have the highest densities of
VGCCs, due in part to the VGCC role and [Ca2+]i role in the releaseof every neurotransmitter in the nervous system. Calcium signaling
regulates synaptic structure and function in 5 different ways, eachlikely to be involved here. Oxidative stress and apoptosis are boththought to have important roles. Lowered sleep and increased
fatigue are likely to involve lowered nocturnal melatonin andincreased nocturnal norepinephrine.
Apoptosis can be produced by excessive Ca2+ levels in the
mitochondria and by double strand breaks in cellular DNA; it seems
likely that both of these mechanisms are involved following EMF
exposure. A third mechanism for triggering apopotosis, endoplasmic
reticulum stress (see bottom row in this Table), may also be
involved.
Cellular DNA damage is produced by the free radical breakdown
products of peroxynitrite directly attacking the DNA [7].
The release of non-steroid hormones is produced by VGCC
activation and [Ca2+]i elevation. The immediate effects of EMF
exposures is to increase hormone release and to raise, therefore,
hormone levels. However many hormone systems become“exhausted” as a consequence of chronic EMF exposures. The
mechanism of exhaustion is still uncertain, but it may involveoxidative stress and inflammation.
Steroid hormones are synthesized through the action of cytochrome
P450 enzymes; activity of these hormones is inhibited by binding ofhigh levels of nitric oxide (NO) leading to lowered hormone
synthesis.
Produced by excessive activity of the VGCCs; secondary calcium
overload is produced by oxidative stress activation of TRPV1,
TRPM2 and possibly some other TRP receptors, opening the calcium
channel of these receptors.
There is a large literature showing that excessive [Ca2+]i inducesvery large increases in heat shock proteins. This is thought to be
produced by complex calcium signaling changes involving theendoplasmic reticulum, mitochondria and the cytosol and also
involving excessive [Ca2+]i producing increasing protein misfolding[21-23]. It should be noted that some calcium is essential for proper
protein folding in the endoplasmic reticulum such that only excessive
calcium leads to misfolding and consequent endoplasmic reticulum
stress.

Each of the seven established EMF effects, discussed above, can be generated through themechanisms outlined in Fig. 1, as shown by Table 1. An eighth, heat shock protein induction
can also be so explained (Table 1). Several other such effects, including EMF causation of21

cataracts, breakdown of the blood-brain barrier, lowered nocturnal melatonin are also soexplained, as discussed earlier [5]. The primary mechanism for therapeutic effects was
discussed in [4,24,25] and was also shown to be generated via such VGCC downstream
effects. Fifteen mechanisms for EMF cancer causation are described in ref [7]; these are far
too complex to describe in this document so the reader is referred to ref [7].
It can be seen, in summary, that we are far beyond the issue whether there are non-thermal
EMF effects. Rather many researchers have identified many established effects of EMF
exposure. The main direct targets of non-thermal EMF exposure, the VGCCs have also been
identified and how these get activated by EMF exposure acting on the VGCC voltage-sensor has
also been determined. And finally we have identified how a wide variety of these effects can begenerated via downstream effects produced by such VGCC activation.
Our current safety guidelines are based only on heating (thermal) effects. Heating is produced
predominantly by forces on singly charged groups in the aqueous phases of the cell but the forceson the voltage sensor are approximately 7.2 million times higher. Therefore, our current safety
guidelines are allowing us to be exposed to EMFs that are approximately 7.2 million times toostrong. That 7.2 million figure is somewhat similar to the estimate given by the Bioinitiative
Report and by the Building Biologists, based on completely different considerations.
It should be obvious, that non-thermal EMFs:
1. Attack our nervous systems including our brains leading to widespread neuropsychiatriceffects and possibly many other effects. This nervous system attack is of great concern.
2. Attack our endocrine (that is hormonal) systems. In this context, the main things thatmake us functionally different from single celled creatures are our nervous system andour endocrine systems – even a simple planaria worm needs both of these. Thus theconsequences of the disruption of these two regulatory systems is immense, such that it isa travesty to ignore these findings.
3. Produce oxidative stress and free radical damage, which have central roles in all common
chronic diseases.
4. 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 both cancer andmutations in germ line cells with germ line mutations producing mutations impacting
future generations.
5. Produce elevated levels of apoptosis (programmed cell death), events especially
important in causing both neurodegenerative diseases and infertility.
6. Lower male and female fertility, lowered sex hormones, lowered libido, increased levelsof spontaneous abortion and, as already stated, attacks on the DNA in sperm cells.
7. Produce excessive intracellular calcium [Ca2+]i and increased calcium signaling.
8. Act in the cells of our bodies via 15 different mechanisms to cause cancer.
By attacking all of these important systems in the body, EMFs attack everything we care about
including our health (in many ways), our reproductive systems, the integrity of our genomes andour ability to produce healthy offspring.
There are 79 different reviews listed at the end of Chapter 1, with each documenting the existenceof one or more of these various non-thermal EMF effects. What, then, do the two organization
reports that the EU authorities and U.S. authorities rely upon, ICNIRP and SCENIHR 2015, haveto say about these independent reviews. The answer is absolutely nothing! Neither one of them22

uses any of these independent reviews to assess EMF effects. This whole area is discussed inmuch more detail in Chapter 5, below.
Chapter 3. Strong Evidence for Cumulative and Irreversible EMF Effects
Two questions that must be raised about the effects of these low-intensity EMFs producing
biological effects is are they cumulative and are they reversible? I am aware of several different
types of evidence for cumulative effects and also for irreversible effects.
Three of the human occupational exposure studies from the 1970’s reviewed in the Raines,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) study [26], showed that effects
increased substantially with increasing time of exposure to a particular type and intensity of EMF.
While these three studies each show cumulative effects but they provide no data on possible
irreversibility of these neurological/neuropsychiatric effects. However the largest review of suchoccupational exposures (Hecht [28]) does provide substantial evidence on the cumulative natureand irreversibility of these neurological/neuropsychiatric effects.
Hecht [28] reviewed 60 different studies of occupational exposures that were done between 1960
and 1990 in the Soviet Union and East Germany. These were occupational exposure studies ofover 3500 people, who were exposed to microwave frequency EMFs at intensities of less than
1/1000th of our safety guidelines. These studies [28] found that these EMFs produced
neuropsychiatric effects similar to those found in my much more recent study [3], listed in
Chapter 1 as well as on cardiac effects. Neither the neuropsychiatric findings nor the cardiac
findings were unique however. Similar neuropsychiatric effects have been found to be caused by
low intensity EMF exposures [27,29-34]. Cardiac effects have also been found in humans[26,29,30,32,34,35] similar to those found by Hecht [28].
Hecht [28] reports that exposures at those very low intensities for up to 3 years produced
increased sympathetic nervous system activity, apparently in response to the EMF stress,
following the classic stress sequence described by Hans Selye in 1953. No other effects wereapparent during this circa 3 year period. However longer exposure produced observableneurological/neuropsychiatric and cardiac effects as well as other effects which were initiallymodest. Exposures of 3 to 5 years typically produced effects that could be largely reversed after
2 to 3 years in a no-EMF exposure environment. Hecht states that “if detected early, effective
therapy is possible.” However longer than 4 to 5 years exposures produced more severe effects
which did not reverse when the persons were subsequently put into a no-EMF exposure
environment. These and other effects continued to worsen with 10 years of exposure or longer.
This cumulative nature of such EMF exposures was noted in two earlier reviews cited by Hecht etal [36,37]. These studies, then, provide very large amounts of evidence both for the cumulative
nature of these neuropsychiatric effects, as well as the apparent irreversibility of these effects asthey become more severe. Hecht also notes that “decline in health status increasingly amplifies
EMF effects.” This a pattern of increasing apparent sensitivity produced by previous exposure issimilar to that described in the Western literature on electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS),
something that Hecht recognizes [28]. EHS something that is discussed very briefly below in thissection.
There are strong similarities between the Hecht [28] findings on microwave frequency EMFs inhumans and the impacts of such EMFs on cellular and organ histology in rodents, as werereviewed in Tolgskaya and Gordon [38] and discussed in Pall [3]. In rodents, initially nonthermal exposures over periods of 1 to 2 months produced modest changes in structure of thebrain and of the neurons. When such exposures ceased, most of the structural changes

23disappeared – that is the changes were largely reversed when the animals were placed back into a
no-EMF environment. However more months of exposure produced much more severe impacts
on brain and neuronal structure and these were irreversible [38, 3]. More recent, Western country
and other country studies cited in [3], provide much further support for brain impacts similar to
those found in Soviet and also other country brain studies reviewed by Tolgskaya andGordon[38]. Tolgskaya and Gordon [38,3] also reported findings that in histological studies, thenervous system was the most sensitive organ in the body, followed closely by effects on the heart
and the testis, although many other organs were also impacted. Thus, the Tolgskaya and Gordon
review [38,3] provides very important support for the findings of neurological/neuropsychiatriceffects, the cardiac effects, discussed immediately above and below, and the reproductive effects
discussed in Chapter 1. By comparing the animal studies with the human studies, one can see thestriking similarities, with the major difference being that the effects in rodents are much more
rapid than the effects on humans. Given the much higher metabolic rates in rodents and much
lower life spans in rodents, the timing difference is not surprising. With regard to the issues ofcumulative nature and irreversibility, both rodent and human studies provide strong support for
both neurological and neuropsychiatric effects showing both cumulative nature and irreversibility
and show a similar pattern of cumulative effects with the cardiac effects.
What are the cardiac effects discussed briefly above, that are produced by non-thermal
microwave frequency EMF exposures? The effects include tachycardia (rapid heartbeat) wheresome people with apparent EHS, on blinded exposure to cordless phone radiation haveinstantaneous tachycardia, an effect that is also essentially instantaneously reversible on cessationof exposure [28,35,36]. So tachycardia can be an almost instantaneous response to EMFs and it
is sometimes also found with arrhythmia. Prolonged exposures produce both arrhythmias andbradycardia (slow heart beat) [26-30,32]. Similar EMF cardiac effects were seen in animalstudies, with the earliest of these going back to the late 1960s.
Some of the early studies on long-term EMF cardiac effects are listed in Table 2, below. Theyshow that such chronic exposures produce bradycardia and sometimes arrhythmia. The early
Soviet studies (labeled USSR) reported similar findings to those found in the western studies(Table 2).
Table 2. Chronic Exposure, Non-Thermal EMF Cardiac Effects from NASA Review [26]Study
Effects Reported
Schwan 1977
Cardiology changes
Dwyer 1978
Bradycardia, hypotension
Sadicikova
Bradycardia, hypo & hypertension, cardiac pain, systolic murmur(USSR)
Kalyada (USSR)“cardiovascular changes”
Sadichikova
Changes in cardiovascular system(USSR)
Pressman 1970
QRS interval in ECG increased (bradycardia), also arrhythmia
Domanski (USSR) Bradycardia, hypotension, ECG changes (shows both bradycardia andarrhythmia)
Lerner (1980)
Bradycardia
Stuchley (1978)
Bradycardia (measured in 2 ways), hyper & hypotension, cardiac pain,
systolic murmur.
Arrhythmias, especially when they are accompanied by bradycardia, are often associated withsudden cardiac death. We are having an epidemic of young, apparently healthy athletes dying in24

the middle of an athletic competition of apparent sudden cardiac death, which may, therefore be
possibly caused by EMF exposures [39]. Some of these individuals have been saved from death[39] and subsequently found to be suffering from bradycardia and arrhythmias. Another type of
cardiac effect is that when apparent EHS people are exposed to Wi-Fi, cell phone, cell phone
tower or smart meter radiation, they are reported to suffer from heart palpitations. Each of thesefour types of cardiac effects, tachycardia, arrhythmias, bradycardia and heart palpitations involve
aberrations in the electrical control of the heartbeat. How can these be produced?
The heartbeat is controlled by pacemaker cells in what is called the sino-atrial node of the heart.
Those pacemaker cells have been shown to have very high densities of the T-type VGCCs which
may make these cells particularly susceptible to direct effects of the EMFs (recall that EMFs act
via VGCC activation). The T-type and the L-type VGCCs have essential roles in controlling theheartbeat. It follows that EMF exposures, acting directly on the pacemaker cells of the heart, canproduce tachycardia responses. Furthermore, gene mutations in a VGCC gene that produce
increased VGCC activity can produce both tachycardia and arrhythmia in young babies carrying
those mutations; these young children die of sudden cardiac death at a very young age. How thendo we get bradycardia? Bradycardia is produced when EMFs chronically impact the sino-atrial
node, such that the dysfunction involved in heart failure, which is very complex, produces
dysfunction of the pacemaker cells of the heart, producing bradycardia [40].
It follows from this that EMF-produced bradycardia and chronic arrhythmias are likely to becaused by heart-failure-like changes that particularly impact the sino-atrial node of the heart,
including the tissue remodeling found in heart failure. This model has been confirmed by thefindings of Liu et al [41], who found that pulsed microwave frequency EMF produced tissue
remodeling that specifically impacted the sino-atrial node of the heart with remodeling changes
similar to those found in heart failure [40]. Heart failure develops in a cumulative fashion and,based on current medicine at least, is an irreversible process involving tissue remodeling and alarge number of other biochemical and physiological changes [41]. It seems likely, therefore, that
the EMF effects on the heart are both cumulative and irreversible.
You will recall, from the discussion at the beginning of Chapter 1, that there are 18 reviews
documenting that EMF produces lowered fertility. These act via diverse mechanisms. These
include tissue remodeling changes in the testis, lowered sperm count and sperm quality, loweredfemale fertility including ovary remodeling and oocyte apoptosis, lowered estrogen, progesterone
and testosterone levels (that is sex hormone levels), increased spontaneous abortion incidence,and lowered libido. We already have sperm count drops to below 50% of normal in every
technologically advanced country on earth [1]. We also have fertility drops to well below
replacement levels in every technologically advanced country on earth, with one exception.
Clinical observations argue that while there are sometimes technical fixes that allow some
reproduction, infertility appears to be inherently irreversible. The Magras and Xenos [2] in mice,also discussed in Chapter 1 shows that radiofrequency radiation exposures well below our safety
guidelines, produce immediate drops in mouse reproduction in the first litter. Further exposures
to the same EMF levels produced a crash in reproduction essentially to zero, a crash that appeared
to be essentially irreversible.
We don’t know that humans will behave very similarly to mice. We do know that the EMFs
produce the diverse effects on human reproduction listed in the previous paragraph. My
prediction is that even if exposures level off where they are now, we will start seeing crashes in
reproduction within about 5 years. If we go ahead with 5G, that crash may be almost
instantaneous.

25

Mutation accumulation produced by cellular DNA damage is likely to be both cumulative andirreversible, as well, because later mutations are highly unlikely to reverse previously occurring
mutations. It has been estimated that all we need to have is an increase in germ line mutation of 2
½ to 3-fold, to become over time, extinct from the very high levels of mutations in each newborn.
From the high levels of DNA damage produced in human sperm from common EMF exposures,
we may be already well above that level.
It follows from this that we already face four existential threats produced by microwave
frequency EMF exposures to the survival of every technologically advanced society on earth:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Cumulative and irreversible neurological/neuropsychiatric effects.
Cumulative and irreversible reproductive effects.
Cumulative and irreversible cardiac effects, leading to sudden cardiac death.
DNA effects in germ line, including sperm cells, leading to major impacts on our genepool and high mutation frequencies.

Any one of these can destroy us on its own and with the ever increasing exposures and especiallythe vast increases in exposure that the 5G rollout will inevitably produce, that destruction is likely
to be imminent. These don’t even take into consideration the cancer effects, the hormonal effects
or other effects produced by increased oxidative stress or increased apoptotic cell death. There is
extraordinary evidence for each of these effects of EMF exposure, which have been repeatedly
documented in the reviews listed in Chapter 1.
The following information is derived from an abstract that I used for a talk at the Neuroscience
2016 meeting in Los Angeles, a meeting that was focused on Alzheimer’s disease and similardementias. The discussion here raises the question of whether Alzheimer’s and other dementias
may be still another set of irreversible diseases where cumulative effects of microwave frequency
EMFs may have important causal roles. Dementias and other types of neurological deaths have
had unexplained rapid recent increases [42-44]. The parallel between these increases and theincreases in cell phone and other EMF exposures suggested that such exposures may cause
dementia increases [45]. Reports show people circa age 30 developing Alzheimer’s or other very
early onset dementias and even younger people are reported to develop digital dementias,
dementias caused by heavy use of digital devices [46-48]. One of the questions being raised here,
is whether digital dementias are caused, at least in part, by the EMF exposures produced by these
digital devices and the Wi-Fi fields involved in their usage, rather than solely by such things as
screen time, as is often assumed. As you have seen in chapter 2, microwave and lower frequency
EMFs act via activation of the VGCCs, leading to increases in intracellular calcium ([Ca2+]i) anddownstream effects including increased Ca2+ signaling, NO, superoxide, peroxynitrite, free
radicals, oxidative stress, NF-kappaB and mitochondrial dysfunction.
Each of these downstream effects have been shown to have important roles in causing
Alzheimer’s disease and other neurodegenerative diseases [49-51]. These all suggest plausible
mechanisms for action for EMFs causing Alzheimer’s disease. Furthermore the amyloid-beta
protein (Aβ) which has an specific role in causing Alzheimer’s disease, is produced in increasing
amounts by elevated [Ca2+]i, and small Aβ aggregates form Ca2+ channels in the plasma
membrane and aggregates also raise [Ca2+]i via increased VGCC and RYRr activity, suggestinga vicious cycle between Aβ and [Ca2+]i in Alzheimer’s disease. This argues that increased
intracellular calcium levels, produced by the EMFs increases Aβ and increased Aβ increases
intracellular calcium, in what may be the central mechanism in causing Alzheimer’s disease.

26

Four rodent studies support an EMF role in Alzheimer’s disease. A series of short pulses of
EMFs in young rats, produced the following in the equivalent of middle aged rats: elevated brain
Aβ and oxidative stress; lowered cognition and memory [52,53]. 900 MHz exposures produces
oxidative stress, increased Aβ and lowered miR-107, all found in Alzheimer’s disease brains [5255]. There are many animal studies showing roles for [Ca2+]i through both VGCCs and RYRs in
causing Alzheimer’s disease in rodent models; these include studies with calcium channel
blockers and studies of transgenic mice with varying VGCC and RYR expression. Very low
EMF exposures can produce, however, protective responses [56,57]; this is not surprising because
EMF therapy is thought to act via NO signaling and protein kinase G (see Fig.1, Chapter 2) andthis pathway is reported to protect from Alzheimer’s disease. Epidemiological studies haveshown that exposure of humans of 50/60 Hz EMFs, which also act via VGCC activation, cancause elevated Alzheimer’s disease incidence [58,59]. Interestingly, a 1997 article in Microwave
News, discussing two such epidemiological findings on EMFs and Alzheimer’s disease in
humans, found that occupational exposures to EMFs produced as much as a four-fold increase in
Alzheimer’s disease [59A]. That same article [59A] suggested a similar mechanism to themechanism suggested here, namely that increased [Ca2+]i following EMF exposure produces
increases in Aβ. In conclusion, a wide range of studies support the view that low intensity
microwave frequency exposures acting via VGCC activation and [Ca2+]i, can produce increases
in Aβ and other causal factors of Alzheimer’s disease in humans and in animals and EMFs havebeen shown to produce Alzheimer’s effects in rats.
These various findings on EMFs and Alzheimer’s disease, the increasingly early onset ofdementias and the occurrence of digital dementias, all suggest we may have another very highlevel threat caused by EMF exposures, possibly involving cumulative EMF effects and leading tosevere, irreversible brain damage.
Chapter 4 EMFs Including Wi-Fi May Be Particularly Damaging to Young People
Most arguments that have been made that microwave frequency EMFs may be much moredamaging to young children have centered on the much smaller skulls and skull thickness inyoung children, increasing the exposure of their brains to EMFs [60, 61]. However there areother arguments to be made. EMFs have been shown to be particularly active in producing
effects on embryonic stem cells [62-71]. Because such stem cells occur at much higher celldensities in children, with stem cell densities the highest in the fetus and decreasing withincreasing age [62, 63], impacts on young children are likely to be much higher than in adults.
The decreased DNA repair and increased DNA damage following EMF exposure, in conjunction
with the increased cell division in young children, strongly suggest that young children may be
increasingly susceptible to cancer following such exposures [62-64, 71]. Two reviews discussed
in the next chapter provide further evidence on higher cancer susceptibility of children. EMF
action on stem cells may also cause young children to be particularly susceptible to disruption ofbrain development [66,71], something that may be relevant to autism causation.
It is my belief that the role of [Ca2+]i in synapse development is also relevant to the possible
EMF causation of autism. The Hecht review of Soviet occupational exposure studies [28] reportsthat “younger persons show a greater sensitivity to electromagnetic fields than adults.” These areall very problematic issues and we cannot rule out the possibility that there are other problematic
issues as well. Redmayne and Johansson [72] reviewed the literature showing that there are agerelated effects, such that young people are more sensitive to EMF effects. It follows from thesevarious findings that the placement of Wi-Fi into schools around the country and the notuncommon placing of cell phone towers on schools may well both be a high level threats to thehealth of our children as well being a threat to teachers and any very sensitive fetuses teachers

27

may be carrying, as well. Mr. Barrie Trower, a retired military intelligence expert from the U.K.
has been going around the world, at his expense, speaking against Wi-Fi in schools. His
knowledge on this is based in part on classified information which he is unable to discuss, but hasgiven him great concern.
Chapter 5: The Importance of the SCENIHR 2015 Document and the Many Omissions,
Flaws and Falsehoods in That Document
One thing that I think we can all agree upon, is that the SCENIHR 2015 [73] document is an
important document. The reason for its importance is that previous industry-friendly documents,
and there have been many of them, have only reviewed very limited amounts of the literature on
EMF effects. Consequently all of these other documents are open to the criticism that they havecherry picked what little data they have chosen to discuss. SCENIHR 2015 [73] has a reference
list of almost 48 pages in length, going from page 233 to 280. So it appears that SCENIHR 2015
may have done a much more thorough and defensible review of the literature. Our assessementof SCENIHR 2015 [73] is important because of the confidence expressed in this document bothby Mr. Ryan and Dr. Vinciūnas and also by the U.S. National Cancer Institute. The question thatis being raised here is whether SCENIHR 2015 is thorough and defensible or not.
The Speit/Schwarz Controversy: How SCENIHR Has Put Out Seven Falsehoods in Support of
the Industry Progaganda Position
I am going to start by discussing a single particularly important issue from [73]. At the end of
Table 5 in [73]. there is a claim that a 2013 study by Speit et al [74] was unable to replicate thefindings of a 2008 study published by Schwarz et al [75]. In Table 5 they state further that Speitel al found “No effect on DNA integrity (MN) and DNA migration (comet); Repetition study of
Schwarz et al, 2008.” What is called loss of DNA integrity here, measured by formation of
micronuclei (MN), is caused by the formation of double strand breaks in cellular DNA. The
comet assay measures single strand breaks in cellular DNA. Schwarz et al [75] found strong
evidence that there were large increases in both single strand and double strand breaks in cellular
DNA following very low intensity exposures to a cell phone-like pulsed radiation, but SCENIHR
claims that Speit et al [74] were unable to repeat the earlier study. Elsewhere (p.89, bottom)
SCENIHR states that “By using the same exposure system and the same experimental protocols
as the authors of the original study, they failed to confirm the results. They did not find any
explanation for these conflicting results (Speit et al, 2013).”
A careful examination of both [74] and [75] finds the following: 1. Speit et al [74] used alymphocytic cell line, HL-60; Schwarz et al [75] studied human fibroblasts. This is a big
difference because, as we have already said, different cell types behave differently. 2. Speit et al[74] used 1800 MHz radiation; Schwarz et al [75] used 1950 MHz radiation (the frequency of
UMTS, also called 3G). Again we have a potentially important difference because effects are
influenced by the frequency used. 3. Speit et al [74] used a continuous wave EMF; Schwarz et al[75] used a highly pulsed EMF, with high levels of both KHz and MHz pulsations to mimic thepulsation pattern of 3G cell phones. This is expected to produce very large differences between
the two studies. 4. Speit et al [74] used a reverberation exposure chamber; Schwarz et al [75] did
not use any exposure chamber. This could be another very large difference between the twostudies, a difference that will be discussed toward the end of this chapter. 5. So where did theclaim come from that Speit was trying to repeat the Schwarz study? Speit et al [74] says in theirpaper that they were trying to repeat another study (not Schwarz) that was described in a report
but was never published. 6. Speit et al [74] do not even cite the Schwarz et al [75] paper, so
obviously they did not intend to repeat Schwarz. We have then SCENIHR 2015 stating three28

multifaceted falsehoods that Speit et al [74] tried to repeat the earlier studies of Schwarz et al[75], that they were unable to repeat those Schwarz et al [75] studies and that they used identicalmethodology to that used by Schwarz et al [75]. In addition to those three are four underlying
falsehoods – namely that the two studies used very different methodologies, notably differing in
the cell type studied, differing in the frequency used, differing widely in the in pulsations usedand differing in the use of an exposure chamber. Each of these falsehoods are SCENIHR’s not
Speit et al [74]’s, each of them can be easily seen to be false by even a superficial reading ofthese two papers.
As you might guess, there is a major story behind all of this. The very low intensity exposure
used in the Schwarz et al [75] study produced large numbers of DNA breaks, larger than that
produced by 1600 chest X-rays. This conclusion can be made by comparing the results of
Schwarz et al [75] with the earlier study of Lutz and Adlkofer [76]. From this comparison, it
seems clear that non-ionizing radiation similar to 3G radiation can be much more dangerous to
the DNA of our cells than is a similar energy of ionizing radiation. When this was found, theindustry went into attack mode, attacking the two Professors who collaborated in [75], Prof.
Franz Adlkofer in Germany and Prof. Hugo Rüdinger in Austria. The first couple of years ofthese attacks have been described in some detail on pp 117-131 in Dr. Devra Davis’ book
Disconnect [77]. Before the SCENIHR 2015 document was drafted, it was clear that the
publishers who had published Adlkofer’s and Rüdinger’s work, not just the Schwarz et al [75]study but other papers by the same research group, had long since rejected the industry
propaganda claims. In addition. Adlkofer had won a lawsuit in the German courts against his
main accuser. He has subsequently since won a second such lawsuit. The last paragraph on p.89
in SCENIHR 2015 is word for word industry propaganda. What is clear is that SCENIHR is
wittingly or unwittingly serving as a propagandist for the industry in and that process, SCENIHR
has no difficulty in putting forth seven obvious, individually important falsehoods.
One question that needs to be raised is how is it possible for microwave frequency EMFs toproduce much more cellular DNA damage than a comparable energy level of ionizing radiation?
Both ionizing radiation and microwave/lower frequency EMFs act via free radicals to attack theDNA. If you examine Fig. 1, Chapter 2, you will see how low intensity microwave frequency
EMFs can act (p. 20). The free radicals that attack the DNA are breakdown products
peroxynitrite.. The sequence of events leading to those free radicals starts, of course with theextraordinarily high sensitivity of the VGCC voltage sensor to the electrical forces of the EMFs
that open the VGCC calcium channels. Following that there are three steps in the process leading
to peroxynitrite elevation each of which have high levels of amplification. The first of these isthat when the VGCC channels are open, they allow the influx of about a million calcium ion persecond into the cell. The second amplification is that elevated intracellular calcium [Ca2+]i
activates the synthesis of both nitric oxide (NO) and superoxide. The third amplification is thatthe formation of peroxynitrite is proportional to the product of nitric oxide concentration times thesuperoxide concentration. When you have three sequential amplification mechanisms, you can
get a very large response, in this case free radical attack on cellular DNA, from a very small
initial signal. That is where much of the existential crises are coming are from, with EMFs
threatening the survival of every technologically advanced country on earth.
Going back to falsehoods perpetrated by SCENIHR regarding Speit/Schwarz, here are two
possible interpretations for those seven falsehoods. One is that SCENIHR is simply an industry
propaganda organ. The second is that we have a group of scientists (SCENIHR) who are largely
incompetent and that it is just coincidence that these seven falsehoods serve the industry
propaganda case. Either of these interpretations completely destroy the claims of confidence in29

SCENIHR that Mr. Ryan and Dr. Vinciūnas made in the documents they wrote that were referred
to in the Preface of this document.
I have written here another 27 pages critiquing the SCENIHR 2015 [73] document. If you arealready convinced that the SCENIHR claims that there are no established non-thermal EMF
effects are false and that we have eight extremely well documented effects (Chapter 1) and that
we have detailed mechanisms of how these effects are produced (Chapter 2), then I suggest you
skip to the summary of Chapter 5 starting on p. 57 and then go on to the consider the U.S.
situation in Chapter 6 and 5G in Chapter 7. If, however, you are not so convinced, you need toread the intervening 27 pages.
22 Reviews on EMF Effects, 20 of Which Are Ignored by SCENIHR, Two of Which Are
Discussed in [73] but Essentially Dismissed
Now let’s go on to consider how SCENIHR 2015 [73] considers the many independent reviews,
listed in Chapter 1, which disagree with them and also fall into the 2009 through 2013 period thatSCENIHR claims to have thoroughly considered. See Table 3.
Table 3: 2009 to 2013 Reviews that Should Have Been Cited and Discussed in SCENIHR
2015
Citation

Brief Summary[78] Khurana VG,
Teo C, Kundi M,
Hardell L, Carlberg M.
2009 Cell phones andbrain tumors: a review
including the longterm epidemiologic
data. Surg Neurol
72:205-214.

Meta-analysis study of cell phone usage and brain
cancer. The results indicate that using a cell phone for> or = 10 years approximately doubles the risk ofbeing diagnosed with a brain tumor on the same("ipsilateral") side of the head preferred for cell phoneuse. The data achieve statistical significance forglioma and acoustic neuroma but not for meningioma.
CONCLUSION: The authors conclude that there isadequate epidemiologic evidence to suggest a link
between prolonged cell phone usage and thedevelopment of an ipsilateral brain tumor.
This review identifies the plasma membrane as a targetof RF-EMW. In addition, the effects of RF-EMW on
plasma membrane structures (i.e. NADH oxidase,
phosphatidylserine, ornithine decarboxylase) andvoltage-gated calcium channels are discussed. We
explore the disturbance in reactive oxygen species(ROS) metabolism caused by RF-EMW and delineate
NADH oxidase mediated ROS formation as playing acentral role in oxidative stress (OS) due to cell phoneradiation (with a focus on the male reproductive
system). This review also addresses: 1) thecontroversial effects of RF-EMW on mammalian cells
and sperm DNA as well as its effect on apoptosis, 2)
epidemiological, in vivo animal and in vitro studies on[79] Desai NR, Kesari
KK, Agarwal A. 2009
Pathophysiology ofcell phone radiation:oxidative stress andcarcinogenesis withfocus on the male
reproductive system.
Reproduct Biol
Endocrinol 7:114.

What does
SCENIHR2015 sayabout it?
Nothing.
Review is notcited and not
discussed.

Nothing.
Review is notcited and not
discussed.

30

[80] Makker K,
Varghese A, Desai
NR, Mouradi R,
Agarwal A. 2009
Cell phones: modern
man's nemesis?
Reprod Biomed
Online 18:148-157.

[81] Ruediger HW.
2009 Genotoxic
effects ofradiofrequency
electromagnetic fields.
Pathophysiology.
16:89-102.

[82] Phillips JL, Singh
NP, Lai H. 2009
Electromagnetic fields
and DNA damage.
Pathophysiology
16:79-88.

the effect of RF-EMW on male reproductive system.
Effects of cell phone exposure on the cardiovascularsystem, sleep and cognitive function, as well as
localized and general adverse effects, genotoxicity
potential, neurohormonal secretion and tumour
induction. The proposed mechanisms by which cell
phones adversely affect various aspects of humanhealth, and male fertility in particular, are explained,
and the emerging molecular techniques andapproaches for elucidating the effects of mobile phoneradiation on cellular physiology using high-throughput
screening techniques, such as metabolomics andmicroarrays, are discussed. A novel study is described,
which is looking at changes in semen parameters,oxidative stress markers and sperm DNA damage insemen samples exposed in vitro to cell phoneradiation.
101 publications are exploited which have studied
genotoxicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields(RF-EMF) in vivo and in vitro. Of these 49 report a
genotoxic effect and 42 do not. In addition, 8 studies
failed to detect an influence on the genetic material,
but showed that RF-EMF enhanced the genotoxic
action of other chemical or physical agents. Variationin results may in part be explained by the different
cellular systems and from the variety of analyticalmethods being used. Taking altogether there is ample
evidence that RF-EMF can alter the genetic material of
exposed cells in vivo and in vitro and in more than one
way. This genotoxic action may be mediated by
microthermal effects in cellular structures, formationof free radicals, or an interaction with DNA-repair
mechanisms.
A major concern of the adverse effects of exposure to
non-ionizing electromagnetic field (EMF) is cancer
induction. Since the majority of cancers are initiatedby damage to a cell's genome, studies have been
carried out to investigate the effects of electromagnetic
fields on DNA and chromosomal structure.
Additionally, DNA damage can lead to changes incellular functions and cell death. Single cell gel
electrophoresis, also known as the 'comet assay', hasbeen widely used in EMF research to determine DNA
damage, reflected as single-strand breaks, doublestrand breaks, and crosslinks. Studies have also been
carried out to investigate chromosomal conformationalchanges and micronucleus formation in cells after
exposure to EMF. This review describes the cometassay and its utility to qualitatively and quantitatively
assess DNA damage, reviews studies that have

Nothing.
Review is notcited and not
discussed.

Nothing.
Review is notcited and not
discussed.

Nothing.
Review is notcited and not
discussed.

31

[83] Davanipour Z,
Sobel E. 2009 Longterm exposure tomagnetic fields and therisks of Alzheimer's
disease and breast
cancer: Further
biological research.
Pathophysiology
16:149-156.

[84] Yakymenko I,
Sidorik E. 2010
Risks ofcarcinogenesis fromelectromagnetic
radiation and mobile
telephony devices.
Exp Oncol 32:729736.

investigated DNA strand breaks and other changes in
DNA structure, and then discusses important lessons
learned from our work in this area.
Extremely low frequency (ELF) and radio frequency(RF) magnetic fields (MFs) pervade our environment.
Whether or not these magnetic fields are associatedwith increased risk of serious diseases, e.g., cancers
and Alzheimer's disease, is thus important whendeveloping a rational public policy. Our objective
was to provide an unbiased review of the current
knowledge and to provide our general and specificconclusions.
RESULTS: The evidence indicates that long-term
significant occupational exposure to ELF MF may
certainly increase the risk of both Alzheimer's disease
and breast cancer. There is now evidence that two
relevant biological processes (increased production ofamyloid beta and decreased production of melatonin)
are influenced by high long-term ELF MF exposurethat may lead to Alzheimer's disease. There is further
evidence that one of these biological processes(decreased melatonin production) may also lead tobreast cancer. Finally, there is evidence that exposures
to RF MF and ELF MF have similar biologicalconsequences.
CONCLUSION: It is important to mitigate ELF and
RF MF exposures through equipment design changes
and environmental placement of electrical equipment.
Latest epidemiological data reveal a significant
increase in risk of development of some types oftumors in chronic (over 10 years) users of mobile
phone. It was detected a significant increase inincidence of brain tumors (glioma, acoustic neuroma,meningioma), parotid gland tumor, seminoma in longterm users of mobile phone, especially in cases of
ipsilateral use (case-control odds ratios from 1.3 up to
6.1). Two epidemiological studies have indicated asignificant increase of cancer incidence in people
living close to the mobile telephony base station ascompared with the population from distant area. These
data raise a question of adequacy of modern safety
limits of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) exposurefor humans. For today the limits were based solely on
the conception of thermal mechanism of biologicaleffects of RF/MW radiation. Meantime the latest
experimental data indicate the significant metabolicchanges in living cell under the low-intensive (nonthermal) EMR exposure. Among reproducible
biological effects of low-intensive MWs are reactive
oxygen species overproduction, heat shock proteins

Nothing.
Review is notcited and not
discussed.

Nothing.
Review is notcited and not
discussed.

32

[85] Carpenter DO.
2010 Electromagnetic
fields and cancer: thecost of doing nothing.
Rev Environ Health
25:75-80.

[86] Giuliani L,
Soffritti M (Eds).
2010 NONTHERMAL EFFECTS
AND MECHANISMS
OF INTERACTION
BETWEEN
ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND
LIVING MATTER,RAMAZZINIINSTITUTE EUR. J.
ONCOL. LIBRARY
Volume 5, National
Institute for the Studyand Control of Cancer
and Environmental
Diseases “Bernardino
Ramazzini” Bologna,
Italy 2010, 400 page
monograph.
[87] Khurana, V. G.,
Hardell, L., Everaert,

expression, DNA damages, apoptosis. Practical steps
must be done for reasonable limitation of excessive
EMR exposure, along with the implementation of newsafety limits of mobile telephony devices radiation,and new technological decisions, which would take out
the source of radiation from human brain.
Concern of health hazards from EMFs has increased as
the use of cell phones and other wireless devices hasgrown in all segments of society, especially amongchildren. While there has been strong evidence for an
association between leukemia and residential or
occupational exposure to ELF EMFs for many years,
the standards in existence are not sufficiently stringent
to protect from an increased risk of cancer. For RF
EMFs, standards are set at levels designed to avoid
tissue heating, in spite of convincing evidence ofadverse biological effects at intensities too low tocause significant heating. Recent studies demonstrateelevations in rates of brain cancer and acoustic
neuroma only on the side of the head whereindividuals used their cell phone. Individuals who
begin exposure at younger ages are more vulnerable.
These data indicate that the existing standards forradiofrequency exposure are not adequate. While there
are many unanswered questions, the cost of doing
nothing will result in an increasing number of people,
many of them young, developing cancer.
Contains entire articles on: 1. Influence of mobile
phone radiation on cognitive function. 2. Impact of
DECT cordless phone radiation on heart ratevariability and on the autonomic nervous system. 3 &4. Two articles on the impact of radiofrequency
radiation on the blood-brain barrier. 5 & 6. Two
articles on microwave/radiofrequency radiation andcancer causation. 7. Epidemiological studies of EMF
impact on human reproduction.

We identified a total of 10 epidemiological studies thatassessed for putative health effects of mobile phone

Nothing.
Review is notcited and not
discussed.

Nothing.
Review is notcited and not
discussed.

Nothing.
Review is not33J., Bortkiewicz, A.,
Carlberg, M., Ahonen,
M. 2010
Epidemiologicalevidence for a healthrisk from mobile
phone base stations.
Int. J. Occup. Environ.
Health 16, 263-267.

[88] Levitt, B. B., Lai,
H. 2010. Biologicaleffects from exposure
to electromagnetic
radiation emitted bycell tower base stations
and other antenna
arrays. Environ. Rev.
18, 369-395.
doi.org/10.1139/A10018[89] Kang N, Shang
XJ, Huang YF. 2010
[Impact of cell phoneradiation on male
reproduction].
Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue
16:1027-1030.

[90] Yakymenko, I.,
Sidorik, E.,
Kyrylenko, S.,
Chekhun, V. 2011.
Long-term exposure to
microwave radiation
provokes cancer
growth: evidencesfrom radars andmobile communication
systems. Exp. Oncol.
33(2), 62-70.

base stations (cell phone antennae). Seven of thesestudies explored the association between base station
proximity and neurobehavioral effects and three
investigated cancer. We found that eight of the 10
studies reported increased prevalence of adverse
neurobehavioral symptoms or cancer in populations
living at distances < 500 meters from base stations.
None of the studies reported exposure above acceptedinternational guidelines, suggesting that current
guidelines may be inadequate in protecting the healthof human populations. We believe that comprehensive
epidemiological studies of long-term mobile phonebase station exposure are urgently required to moredefinitively understand its health impact.
Both anecdotal reports and some epidemiology
studies, reviewed in this study, have found headaches,skin rashes, sleep disturbances, depression, decreased
libido, increased rates of suicide, concentration
problems, dizziness, memory changes, increased riskof cancer, tremors, and other neurophysiologicaleffects in populations near base stations. Cardiac
effects were also reported. Symptoms reported may beclassic microwave sickness, first described in 1978.
Nonionizing electromagnetic fields are among thefastest growing forms of environmental pollution.
Some extrapolations can be made from research otherthan epidemiology regarding biological effects fromexposures at levels far below current exposure
guidelines.
With the popularized use cell phones, more and moreconcern has been aroused over the effects of theirradiation on human health, particularly on male
reproduction. Cell phone radiation may cause
structural and functional injuries of the testis,alteration of semen parameters, reduction of
epididymal sperm concentration and decline of malefertility. This article presents an overview on theimpact of cell phone radiation on male reproduction.
The carcinogenic effect of MW irradiation is typicallymanifested after long term (up to 10 years and more)
exposure. Nevertheless, even a year of operation of apowerful base transmitting station for mobile
communication reportedly resulted in a dramaticincrease of cancer incidence among population living
nearby. In addition, model studies in rodents unveiled
a significant increase in carcinogenesis after 17-24
months of MW exposure both in tumor-prone andintact animals. To that, such metabolic changes, as
overproduction of reactive oxygen species, 8-hydroxi2-deoxyguanosine formation, or ornithine

cited and not
discussed.

Nothing.
Review is notcited and not
discussed.

Nothing.
Review is notcited and not
discussed.

Nothing.
Review is notcited and not
discussed.

34

[91] Yakimenko IL,
Sidorik EP, Tsybulin
AS. 2011 [Metabolicchanges in cells underelectromagnetic
radiation of mobile
communication
systems]. Ukr
Biokhim Zh (1999).
2011 MarApr;83(2):20-28.

[92] Gye MC, Park
CJ. 2012 Effect ofelectromagnetic field
exposure on the
reproductive system.
Clin Exp Reprod Med
39:1-9.
doi.org/10.5653/cerm.
2012.39.1.1. Clin Exp Reprod
Med 39:1-9.
doi.org/10.5653/cerm.

decarboxylase activation under exposure to low
intensity MW confirm a stress impact of this factor on
living cells. We also address the issue of standards forassessment of biological effects of irradiation. It is
now becoming increasingly evident that assessment of
biological effects of non-ionizing radiation based on
physical (thermal) approach used in recommendationsof current regulatory bodies, including theInternational Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation
Protection (ICNIRP) Guidelines, requires urgent
reevaluation. We conclude that recent data strongly
point to the need for re-elaboration of the current
safety limits for non-ionizing radiation using recently
obtained knowledge. We also emphasize that the
everyday exposure of both occupational and generalpublic to MW radiation should be regulated based on aprecautionary principles which imply maximum
restriction of excessive exposure.
Review is devoted to the analysis of biological effectsof microwaves. The results of last years' researches
indicated the potential risks of long-term low-level
microwaves exposure for human health. The analysisof metabolic changes in living cells under the exposureof microwaves from mobile communication systems
indicates that this factor is stressful for cells. Among
the reproducible effects of low-level microwave
radiation are overexpression of heat shock proteins, anincrease of reactive oxygen species level, an increaseof intracellular Ca2+, damage of DNA, inhibition of
DNA reparation, and induction of apoptosis.
Extracellular-signal-regulated kinases ERK and stressrelated kinases p38MAPK are involved in metabolicchanges. Analysis of current data suggests that theconcept of exceptionally thermal mechanism of
biological effects of microwaves is not correct. In turn,this raises the question of the need to revaluation ofmodern electromagnetic standards based on thermal
effects of non-ionizing radiation on biological systems.
The safety of human exposure to an ever-increasing
number and diversity of electromagnetic field (EMF)
sources both at work and at home has become a publichealth issue. To date, many in vivo and in vitro studies
have revealed that EMF exposure can alter cellular
homeostasis, endocrine function, reproductivefunction, and fetal development in animal systems.
Reproductive parameters reported to be altered by
EMF exposure include male germ cell death, theestrous cycle, reproductive endocrine hormones,
reproductive organ weights, sperm motility, early
embryonic development, and pregnancy success. At

Nothing.
Review is notcited and not
discussed.

Nothing.
Review is notcited and not
discussed.

35

2012.39.1.1[93] La Vignera S,
Condorelli RA, Vicari
E, D'Agata R,
Calogero AE. 2012
Effects of the
exposure to mobile
phones on male
reproduction: areview of theliterature. J Androl
33:350-356.

[94] Biointiative
Working Group, David
Carpenter and Cindy
Sage (eds). 2012
Bioinitiative 2012: A
rationale forbiologically-based
exposure standards forelectromagnetic
radiation.
http://www.bioinitiativ
e.org/participants/whywe-care/the cellular level, an increase in free radicals and[Ca(2+)]i may mediate the effect of EMFs and lead tocell growth inhibition, protein misfolding, and DNA
breaks. The effect of EMF exposure on reproductivefunction differs according to frequency and wave,
strength (energy), and duration of exposure. In thepresent review, the effects of EMFs on reproductivefunction are summarized according to the types of
EMF, wave type, strength, and duration of exposure atcellular and organism levels.
The use of mobile phones is now widespread. A great
debate exists about the possible damage that theradiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR)
emitted by mobile phones exerts on different organs
and apparatuses. The aim of this article was to review
the existing literature exploring the effects of RF-EMR
on the male reproductive function in experimental
animals and humans. Studies have been conducted inrats, mice, and rabbits using a similar design based
upon mobile phone RF exposure for variable lengthsof time. Together, the results of these studies haveshown that RF-EMR decreases sperm count andmotility and increases oxidative stress. In humans, 2
different experimental approaches have been followed:
one has explored the effects of RF-EMR directly on
spermatozoa and the other has evaluated the sperm
parameters in men using or not using mobile phones.
The results showed that human spermatozoa exposed
to RF-EMR have decreased motility, morphometricabnormalities, and increased oxidative stress, whereas
men using mobile phones have decreased sperm
concentration, decreased motility (particularly rapid
progressive motility), normal morphology, anddecreased viability. These abnormalities seem to be
directly related to the duration of mobile phone use.
Sections on EMF effects:
SECTION 4: EVIDENCE FOR INADEQUACY OF
THE STANDARDSSECTION 5: EVIDENCE FOR EFFECTS ON GENE
AND PROTEIN EXPRESSIONSECTION 6: EVIDENCE FOR GENOTOXICEFFECTS – RFR AND ELF DNA DAMAGESECTION 7: EVIDENCE FOR STRESS RESPONSE(STRESS PROTEINS)SECTION 8: EVIDENCE FOR EFFECTS ON
IMMUNE FUNCTIONSECTION 9: EVIDENCE FOR EFFECTS ON
NEUROLOGY AND BEHAVIORSECTION 10: EFFECTS OF EMF FROMWIRELESS COMMUNICATION UPON THE

Nothing.
Review is notcited and not
discussed.

Nothing.
Review is notcited and not
discussed.

36

[4] Pall, ML. 2013.
Electromagnetic fields
act via activation ofvoltage-gated calcium
channels to produce
beneficial or adverse
effects. J Cell Mol
Med 17:958-965. doi:
10.1111/jcmm.12088.

BLOOD-BRAIN BARRIERSECTION 11: EVIDENCE FOR BRAIN TUMORSAND ACOUSTIC NEUROMASSECTION 12: EVIDENCE FOR CHILDHOOD
CANCERS (LEUKEMIA)SECTION 13: EVIDENCE FOR EFFECTS ON
MELATONIN: ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE AND
BREAST CANCERSECTION 14: EVIDENCE FOR BREAST CANCERPROMOTIONSECTION 15: EVIDENCE FOR DISRUPTION BY
THE MODULATING SIGNALSECTION 16: PLAUSIBLE GENETIC ANDMETABOLIC MECHANISMS FOR BIOEFFECTS
OF VERY WEAK ELF MAGNETIC FIELDS ON
LIVING TISSUESECTION 17 EVIDENCE BASED ON EMF
MEDICAL THERAPEUTICSSECTION 18: FERTILITY AND REPRODUCTION
EFFECTS OF EMF
SECTION 19: FETAL AND NEONATAL EFFECTS
OF EMF
SECTION 20: FINDINGS IN AUTISMCONSISTENT WITH EMF AND RFR
The direct targets of extremely low and microwave
frequency range electromagnetic fields (EMFs) in
producing non-thermal effects have not been clearly
established. However, studies in the literature,reviewed here, provide substantial support for suchdirect targets. Twenty-three studies have shown thatvoltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs) produce
these and other EMF effects, such that the L-type orother VGCC blockers block or greatly lower diverse
EMF effects. Furthermore, the voltage-gatedproperties of these channels may provide biophysicallyplausible mechanisms for EMF biological effects.
Downstream responses of such EMF exposures may
be mediated through Ca(2+) /calmodulin stimulationof nitric oxide synthesis. Potentially,physiological/therapeutic responses may be largely asa result of nitric oxide-cGMP-protein kinase G
pathway stimulation. A well-studied example of suchan apparent therapeutic response, EMF stimulation ofbone growth, appears to work along this pathway.
However, pathophysiological responses to EMFs may
be as a result of nitric oxide-peroxynitrite-oxidative
stress pathway of action. A single such welldocumented example, EMF induction of DNA singlestrand breaks in cells, as measured by alkaline cometassays, is reviewed here. Such single-strand breaks areThis wascited. Solestatement is:“(see Pall,2013 for areview ofstudiessuggesting
effectsthroughvoltage-gatedcalciumchannels).”
None of theimportant
implications
listed on theleft are usedin any way inthe rest of the
SCENIHR2015
document See
text forfurther
discussion..

37

[95] Nazıroğlu M,
Yüksel M, Köse SA,Özkaya MO. 2013
Recent reports of WiFi and mobile phoneinduced radiation onoxidative stress andreproductive signaling
pathways in females
and males. J Membr
Biol 246:869-875.

[96] Ledoigt G,
Belpomme D. 2013
Cancer induction
molecular pathwaysand HF-EMF
irradiation. Adv Biol
Chem 3:177-186.

known to be produced through the action of thispathway. Data on the mechanism of EMF induction ofsuch breaks are limited; what data are available
support this proposed mechanism. Other Ca(2+) mediated regulatory changes, independent of nitricoxide, may also have roles. This article reviews, then,a substantially supported set of targets, VGCCs, whose
stimulation produces non-thermal EMF responses byhumans/higher animals with downstream effects
involving Ca(2+) /calmodulin-dependent nitric oxide
increases, which may explain therapeutic andpathophysiological effects.
The aim of the study was to discuss the mechanisms
and risk factors of EMR changes on reproductivefunctions and membrane oxidative biology in females
and males. It was reported that even chronic exposure
to EMR did not increase the risk of reproductivefunctions such as increased levels of neoantigens
abort. However, the results of some studies indicatethat EMR induced endometriosis and inflammationand decreased the number of follicles in the ovariumor uterus of rats. In studies with male rats, exposure
caused degeneration in the seminiferous tubules,
reduction in the number of Leydig cells andtestosterone production as well as increases inluteinizing hormone levels and apoptotic cells. In somecases of male and female infertility, increased levels ofoxidative stress and lipid peroxidation and decreased
values of antioxidants such as melatonin, vitamin E
and glutathione peroxidase were reported in animals
exposed to EMR. In conclusion, the results of current
studies indicate that oxidative stress from exposure to
Wi-Fi and mobile phone-induced EMR is a significant
mechanism affecting female and male reproductive
systems.
The response of cells to different types ofelectromagnetic fields can be induced by low-level(athermal) high frequency (HF) electromagnetic fields(EMFs) exposure associated with mobile phone
technologies.
There are many examples of biological effects
involving the epigenome. EMFs could trigger protein
activation mediated by ligands, such as Ca2+, that alter
the conformation of binding proteins, especially the
NADPH plasmic membrane oxidase, so inducing
increased formation of reactive oxygen species (ROS)
that may alter proteomic functions. Classical antiapoptotic and procarcinogenic signaling pathways thatare commonly found activated in human malignancies
and in inflammation mainly involve the tran-

This waslisted on
p.285 under
Literature
identified but
not cited.
SCENIHR
chose not tocite or discuss
this paper,
although they
had identified
it.

Nothing.
Review is notcited and not
discussed.

38

[97] Hardell L,
Carlberg M. 2013
Using the Hill
viewpoints from 1965
for evaluating
strengths of evidenceof the risk for brain
tumors associated withuse of mobile andcordless phones. Rev
Environ Health 28:97106. doi:
10.1515/reveh-20130006.

[98] Hardell L,
Carlberg M, Hansson
Mild K. 2013 Use of

scription factor NF-κB. The microenvironment thatexists during chronic inflammation can contribute tocancer progression. The data support the proposition
that long term HF-EMF exposure associated withimproper use of cell phones can potentially cause
cancer.
BACKGROUND: Wireless phones, i.e., mobile
phones and cordless phones, emit radiofrequency
electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) when used. An
increased risk of brain tumors is a major concern. The
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
at the World Health Organization (WHO) evaluatedthe carcinogenic effect to humans from RF-EMF in
May 2011. It was concluded that RF-EMF is a group
2B, i.e., a "possible", human carcinogen. Bradford Hill
gave a presidential address at the British Royal Societyof Medicine in 1965 on the association or causationthat provides a helpful framework for evaluation of thebrain tumor risk from RF-EMF.
METHODS:All nine issues on causation according to
Hill were evaluated. Regarding wireless phones, only
studies with long-term use were included. In addition,
laboratory studies and data on the incidence of brain
tumors were considered.
RESULTS: The criteria on strength, consistency,
specificity, temporality, and biologic gradient forevidence of increased risk for glioma and acoustic
neuroma were fulfilled. Additional evidence camefrom plausibility and analogy based on laboratory
studies. Regarding coherence, several studies show
increasing incidence of brain tumors, especially in themost exposed area. Support for the experiment camefrom antioxidants that can alleviate the generation ofreactive oxygen species involved in biologic effects,
although a direct mechanism for brain tumor
carcinogenesis has not been shown. In addition, thefinding of no increased risk for brain tumors insubjects using the mobile phone only in a car with an
external antenna is supportive evidence. Hill did notconsider all the needed nine viewpoints to be essential
requirements.
CONCLUSION:Based on the Hill criteria, glioma andacoustic neuroma should be considered to be caused
by RF-EMF emissions from wireless phones andregarded as carcinogenic to humans, classifying it asgroup 1 according to the IARC classification. Current
guidelines for exposure need to be urgently revised.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer(IARC) at WHO evaluation of the carcinogenic effectof RF-EMF on humans took place during a 24-31 May

Nothing.
Review is notcited and not
discussed.
The Hill
criteria are
THE wellaccepted wayof analyzing
biologicalplausiblilityofepidemiologic
al evidence.
It isunacceptablefor SCENIHR
not toconsider thisreview whenattempting toanalyzeepidemiologic
al evidence of
EMF cancer
causation.

This paper iscited anddiscussed39

mobile phones andcordless phones is
associated withincreased risk forglioma and acoustic
neuroma.
Pathophysiology
2013;20(2):85-110.

[99] Davis DL, Kesari
S, Soskolne CL, Miller
AB, Stein Y. 2013
Swedish review
strengthens grounds
for concluding that2011 meeting at Lyon in France. The Working Groupconsisted of 30 scientists and categorised theradiofrequency electromagnetic fields from mobile
phones, and from other devices that emit similar nonionising electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF), as Group2B, i.e., a 'possible', human carcinogen. The decision
on mobile phones was based mainly on the Hardellgroup of studies from Sweden and the IARC
Interphone study. We give an overview of current
epidemiological evidence for an increased risk forbrain tumours including a meta-analysis of the Hardellgroup and Interphone results for mobile phone use.
Results for cordless phones are lacking in Interphone.
The meta-analysis gave for glioma in the most exposedpart of the brain, the temporal lobe, odds ratio(OR)=1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.04-2.81 inthe ≥10 years (>10 years in the Hardell group) latencygroup. Ipsilateral mobile phone use ≥1640h in total
gave OR=2.29, 95% CI=1.56-3.37. The results formeningioma were OR=1.25, 95% CI=0.31-4.98 and
OR=1.35, 95% CI=0.81-2.23, respectively. Regarding
acoustic neuroma ipsilateral mobile phone use in thelatency group ≥10 years gave OR=1.81, 95% CI=0.734.45. For ipsilateral cumulative use ≥1640h OR=2.55,
95% CI=1.50-4.40 was obtained. Also use of cordlessphones increased the risk for glioma and acoustic
neuroma in the Hardell group studies. Survival ofpatients with glioma was analysed in the Hardell groupstudies yielding in the >10 years latency period hazard
ratio (HR)=1.2, 95% CI=1.002-1.5 for use of wirelessphones. This increased HR was based on results for
astrocytoma WHO grade IV (glioblastoma
multiforme). Decreased HR was found for low-grade
astrocytoma, WHO grades I-II, which might be caused
by RF-EMF exposure leading to tumour-associatedsymptoms and earlier detection and surgery with better
prognosis. Some studies show increasing incidence ofbrain tumours whereas other studies do not. It is
concluded that one should be careful using incidence
data to dismiss results in analytical epidemiology. The
IARC carcinogenic classification does not seem tohave had any significant impact on governments'
perceptions of their responsibilities to protect publichealth from this widespread source of radiation.
Mobile phones are two-way microwave radios that
also emit low levels of electromagnetic radiation.
Inconsistent results have been published on potential
risks of brain tumors tied with mobile phone use as aresult of important methodological differences in study
design and statistical power. Some studies havevery briefly.
See text for
discussion.

Nothing.
Review is notcited and not
discussed.

40

radiation from cellularand cordless phones is
a probable humancarcinogen.
Pathophysiology
20:123-129.

examined mobile phone users for periods of time thatare too short to detect an increased risk of brain
cancer, while others have misclassified exposures byplacing those with exposures to microwave radiationfrom cordless phones in the control group, or failing toattribute such exposures in the cases. In 2011, theWorld Health Organization, International Agency for
Research on Cancer (IARC) advised thatelectromagnetic radiation from mobile phone and otherwireless devices constitutes a "possible humancarcinogen," 2B. Recent analyses not considered in the
IARC review that take into account thesemethodological shortcomings from a number ofauthors find that brain tumor risk is significantly
elevated for those who have used mobile phones for atleast a decade. Studies carried out in Sweden indicatethat those who begin using either cordless or mobile
phones regularly before age 20 have greater than afourfold increased risk of ipsilateral glioma. Given thattreatment for a single case of brain cancer can cost
between $100,000 for radiation therapy alone and up
to $1 million depending on drug costs, resources toaddress this illness are already in short supply and notuniversally available in either developing or developed
countries. Significant additional shortages in oncology
services are expected at the current growth of cancer.
No other environmental carcinogen has produced
evidence of an increased risk in just one decade.
Empirical data have shown a difference in the
dielectric properties of tissues as a function of age,mostly due to the higher water content in children's
tissues. High resolution computerized models based onhuman imaging data suggest that children are indeed
more susceptible to the effects of EMF exposure at
microwave frequencies. If the increased brain cancer
risk found in young users in these recent studies does
apply at the global level, the gap between supply anddemand for oncology services will continue to widen.
Many nations, phone manufacturers, and expert
groups, advise prevention in light of these concerns bytaking the simple precaution of "distance" to minimize
exposures to the brain and body. We note that brain
cancer is the proverbial "tip of the iceberg"; the rest of
the body is also showing effects other than cancers.

Of these 22 reviews, 19 are found in the PubMed database, the most widely used medical
database in the world, so there is no excuse for not discussing these 19, but only two of themwere discussed (see below). With regard to the eight different types of effects that I consider
established non-thermal EMF effects, each of them were reviewed in multiple studies describedin Table 3 as follows: Cancer 12 reviews [78,82,83-87,90,94,96-98]; Oxidative stress/free41radicals 8 reviews [79,80,84,90,92,-96]; Cellular DNA damage 10 review [4,79,80-82,84,9092,94]; Apoptosis/cell death 3 reviews [79,82,91]; Lowered fertility 7 reviews [80,86,89,92-95];
Neurological/neuropsychiatric effects 4 reviews [80,87,88,94]; Calcium overload 4 reviews[4,91,92,96]; Endocrine effects 2 reviews [92,95]. It is not clear why so many important reviewson effects are not found in SCENIHR 2015 [73]. What is perhaps surprising, is that these reviews
also document many other effects, none of which are clearly acknowledged by SCENIHR. These
include stress responses; breakdown of the blood-brain barrier; fetal and neonatal effects;
therapeutic effects; Alzheimer’s disease; increased nitric oxide; endometriosis; changes in protein
levels (proteomics) and changes in gene expression; NF-kappaB elevation; increased suicide;changes in protein kinase activity including ERK and p32MAPK; mechanisms associated withoxidative stress including elevated NADPH/NADH oxidase increased lipid peroxidation anddecreased enzymatic antioxidant activity, increased ornithine decarboxylase; and autism. It canbe seen from this that the SCENIHR 2015 document seems to be systematically avoiding
considering substantial bodies of evidence regarding a very large range of repeatedly reported
EMF effects, each of which challenges the SCENIHR position that no effects are established.
Three specific issues regarding apparent cancer causation by EMFs need to be discussed here.
Five of these reviews each review a body of evidence showing that cancer rates are higher on theside of the head where people use their cell phones and cordless phones, the ipsilateral side, as
opposed to the opposite side of the head, called the contralateral side [78,84,85,98,99]. These arevery important studies because they are not likely to be affccted by how complete the reporting
data are, or whether there are affects produced by chemicals, ionizing radiation or other EMFs;
each of these factors should not be specific for the side of the head impacted. The contralateralside of the head serves as a control that can be compared with the ipsilateral side of the head.
What is strange about the SCENIHR 2015 document, is that it avoids discussing all of these data
presented in these five reviews. That is even true for [98] which is discussed very briefly in
SCENIHR 2015. Only one body of evidence from [98] is discussed in SCENIHR 2015 but
several others are not discussed, including the two bodies of evidence which each findstatistically significant rises in ipsilateral cancer as compared with contralateral cancer. The
ipsilateral findings produce very strong arguments that cell phones and/or cordless phones docause brain cancer in humans. The best evidence suggests that both cell phones and cordlessphones do cause cancer. What does SCENIHR 2015 [73] say about ipsilateral cancer? [73]states, on p. 74 that “ORs for glioma were higher in subjects who reported phone use mostly on
the same side of the head (ipsilateral) as their tumour than for use on the opposite side
(contralateral). For meningioma, ORs for temporal lobe tumours were slightly lower than forother locations, while a similar pattern as for glioma of higher ipsilateral ORs compared tocontralateral ORs was seen.” On p. 76, SCENIHR states that “Afterwards, in an attempt toquantify the relationship, Interphone and the Hardell studies were analysed in a meta-analytical
approach (Hardell et al., 2013a), an OR of 1.71 (CI: 1.04-2.81) was found for temporal glioma
among ipsilateral mobile phone users of 10+ years of use….” On p. 77, regarding a study
designed to assess the reliability of self-reported cell phone usage in young brain cancer patients,
a study not designed to assess ipsilateral effects in patients whose cancer cases may likely havebeen caused by cell phone usage, the SCENIHR 2015 document states “No clear patterns wereseen when comparing ipsilateral and contralateral use.” That is not surprising. It can be seenfrom this that 2 out of 3 studies that SCENIHR discussed argue that there is increased ipsilateralcancer and argue therefore that cell phones or cordless phones do cause cancer. Furthermore,they ignore large amounts of data, cited in [78,84,85,98,99] that provide further support for thisview. When SCENIHR wishes to take the opposite position from that taken in these reviews, it isincumbent on SCENIHR to cite them, to discuss the data and opinion presented in those reviews
and then and only then can they argue for their position. Having failed to do those things,
SCENIHR loses credibility in any argument that they are doing what they can to protect our42health. The same is true for all of the other effects where they similarly fail to cite large numbersof obviously relevant reviews, each arguing for various health effects produced by EMF
exposures.
Two other findings from these reviews are important in assessing EMF cancer causation. Refs.
[85 and 99] each provide evidence that younger people are more susceptible to cancer causation
by EMFs than are adults. SCENIHR takes the opposite view but cannot argue credibly without
considering those who differ. The other finding found in [97] is that the epidemiologicalevidence on cancer causation by microwave frequency EMFs satisfies most of the Hill criteria.
The Hill criteria are THE well-accepted criteria that allow one to distinguish chance associations
from causal roles in epidemiology. Because epidemiology is the main basis for the argumentsthat SCENIHR makes against the conclusion that EMFs cause cancer, it is essential thatSCENIHR carefully examine the Hill criteria. They fail to do so. They also ignored this study
where these criteria were examined and where it was concluded that the majority of the Hill
criteria argue that EMFs do cause cancer. This again, undercuts any claim that SCENIHR has
carefully considered critically important findings with regard to EMF health effects.
There are several places in the SCENIHR 2015 document, where they state that no mechanisms
have been identified by which claimed effects of EMFs can be produced. These can be found by
searching the SCENIHR 2015 document using “mechanism” as the search term. However [4]clearly states that the VGCC activation mechanism triggered by EMF exposure can produce, via
this mechanism, cellular DNA damaging effects, can produce therapeutic effects and can produce
oxidative stress effects. It can be seen, therefore that SCENIHR has no problem making repeatedclaims that have been falsified by information that they presumably have examined. It also canbe seen from this, that even in the cases where SCENIHR cites and very briefly discusses areview that disagrees with them, one can have no assurance that the information is used by
SCENIHR in its assessment of health impacts. The causation of cellular DNA damage by EMFs
acting via VGCC activation also has important implications with regard to cancer causation.
Because almost all cases of cancer start with mutagenic DNA damage in the cell destined to
become a cancer cell, this shows how EMFs can initiate the process of carcinogenesis.
It is clear that the SCENIHR 2015 document neither cited nor discussed 20 out of 22 reviews thathave documented non-thermal effects of EMFs. In addition, the most important findings of thetwo that were cited in the document were ignored in the document as well. Therefore SCENIHR
has systematically avoided discussing the most important implications of reviews that fell into thetime frame they purport to have studied and disagreed with SCENIHR on the existence ofimportant effects. The question can be raised, however, as to whether the SCENIHR has done abetter job in its consideration of primary literature citations. To answer that question, I am using
a database of important primary literature, regarding effects of cell phone EMFs that we arecommonly exposed to.
23 Genuine Cell Phone Studies, Each of Which Should Be Discussed in SCENIHR 2015, 20 ofWhich Are Not.
Panagopoulos et al [100] showed that whereas 46 out of 48 studies on genuine cell phoneradiation showed health-related effects, the majority of studies on simulated cell phones reported
no statistically significant effects. They [100] interpreted the difference of results as having beencaused by the lowered pulsation rate of the “simulated” cell phone exposures. While I am surethat is part of the explanation, there may be other possible differences that are discussed later inthis chapter.

43

Of those 48 genuine cell phone studies, 23 fell into the time frame (Jan. 2009 through Dec. 2013)
reviewed in SCENIHR, 2015. Because of the importance of cell phones and therefore cell phoneradiation in our lives, I am using these 23 as a database of primary literature studies that should
all be covered in the SCENIHR 2015 [73] document. How many of these 23 were reviewed andcited in SCENIHR 2015? The answer is four (17%) and I will discuss how each of them werediscussed below. I have inserted 17 of these into Table 4 below, but six were left out, because
they are easy to summarize. These six are all Drosophila studies, none of which were discussed
in SCENIHR 2015 [73] but are easy to summarize. All six Drosophila studies were focused onlowered fertility following EMF exposure, with the majority of these focused on lowered female
fertility. Four of the six found increased apoptosis following cell phone EMF exposaure and fourof the six also found cellular DNA damage following exposure. These are important because of
the similarities of each of these effects to effects found in mammals. They are also importantbecause they found DNA damage in Drosophila eggs, whereas mammalian eggs no similar
studies have been done because of the difficulty in doing so. Two of these six Drosophila studies,also identified a low intensity exposure window which produced much larger effects than did
lower or higher intensities. These exposure windows make it difficult or impossible to predict
EMF effects based on EMF intensities. However, the industry and industry friendly groups such
as SCENIHR repeatedly make such false predictions.
In mammals there are many studies showing DNA damage in sperm following EMF exposure.
This DNA damage in germ line cells is particularly importance because of the importance ofmutations passed onto progeny. Table 4 summarizes the other 17 genuine cell phone radiation
findings that that SCENIHR 2015 [73] should be discussing, 15 of which were not discussed orcited in SCENIHR 2015.
Table 4: Genuine Cell Phone Studies that Fell into the 2009 through 2013 SCENIHR 2015
periodCitation studied
Cell Phone Effects Reported
SCENIHR
comments
1. Mailankot M,
The present study was designed to evaluate the effects of
ListedKunnath AP,
RF-EMR from mobile phones on free radical metabolism
under
Jayalekshmi H,
and sperm quality. MATERIALS AND METHODS:
literature
Koduru B, Valsalan
Male albino Wistar rats (10-12 weeks old) were exposed
identified
R. 2009 Radioto RF-EMR from an active GSM (0.9/1.8 GHz) mobile
but not
frequency
phone for 1 hour continuously per day for 28 days.
cited.
electromagnetic
Controls were exposed to a mobile phone without a
SCENIHR
radiation (RF-EMR)
battery for the same period. The phone was kept in a cage knew aboutfrom GSM
with a wooden bottom in order to address concerns that
this paper(0.9/1.8GHz) mobile
the effects of exposure to the phone could be due to heatbut decided
phones induces
emitted by the phone rather than to RF-EMR alone.
not tooxidative stress andAnimals were sacrificed 24 hours after the last exposure
discuss it.
reduces sperm
and tissues of interest were harvested. RESULTS: One
motility in rats.
hour of exposure to the phone did not significantly change
Clinics (Sao Paulo)
facial temperature in either group of rats. No significant
64:561-565.
difference was observed in total sperm count between
controls and RF-EMR exposed groups. However, rats
exposed to RF-EMR exhibited a significantly reduced
percentage of motile sperm. Moreover, RF-EMR exposure
resulted in a significant increase in lipid peroxidation and
low GSH content in the testis and epididymis.

44

2. Gul A, Celebi H,Uğraş S. 2009 The
effects of microwave
emitted by cellular
phones on ovarianfollicles in rats. Arch
Gynecol Obstet
280:729-733. doi:
10.1007/s00404-0090972-9.

3. Imge EB, Kiliçoğlu
B, Devrim E, Cetin R,
Durak I. 2010
Effects of mobile
phone use on brain
tissue from the rat
and a possible
protective role ofvitamin C - apreliminary study.
Int J Radiat Biol
86:1044-1049. doi:
10.3109/09553002.20
10.501838.

CONCLUSION: Given the results of the present study,
we speculate that RF-EMR from mobile phones
negatively affects semen quality and may impair malefertility.
The aim of this study was to investigate whether there
were any toxic effects of microwaves of cellular phones
on ovaries in rats. METHODS: In this study, 82 female
pups of rats, aged 21 days (43 in the study group and 39 in
the control group) were used. Pregnant rats in the study
group were exposed to mobile phones that were placed
beneath the polypropylene cages during the whole periodof pregnancy. The cage was free from all kinds ofmaterials, which could affect electromagnetic fields. A
mobile phone in a standby position for 11 h and 45 min
was turned on to speech position for 15 min every 12 h
and the battery was charged continuously. On the 21st day
after the delivery, the female rat pups were killed and theright ovaries were removed. The volumes of the ovaries
were measured and the number of follicles in every tenthsection was counted.
RESULTS: The analysis revealed that in the study group,
the number of follicles was lower than that in the control
group. The decreased number of follicles in pups exposed
to mobile phone microwaves suggest that intrauterine
exposure has toxic effects on ovaries. CONCLUSION:
We suggest that the microwaves of mobile phones might
decrease the number of follicles in rats by several known
and, no doubt, countless unknown mechanisms.
To evaluate effects of mobile phone use on brain tissue
and a possible protective role of vitamin C. MATERIALSAND METHODS: Forty female rats were divided into
four groups randomly (Control, mobile phone, mobile
phone plus vitamin C and, vitamin C alone). The mobile
phone group was exposed to a mobile phone signal(900 MHz), the mobile phone plus vitamin C group was
exposed to a mobile phone signal (900 MHz) and treatedwith vitamin C administered orally (per os). The vitamin
C group was also treated with vitamin C per os for fourweeks. Then, the animals were sacrificed and brain tissues
were dissected to be used in the analyses ofmalondialdehyde (MDA), antioxidant potential (AOP),
superoxide dismutase, catalase (CAT), glutathione
peroxidase (GSH-Px), xanthine oxidase, adenosine
deaminase (ADA) and 5'nucleotidase (5'-NT). RESULTS:
Mobile phone use caused an inhibition in 5'-NT and CAT
activities as compared to the control group. GSH-Px
activity and the MDA level were also found to be reducedin the mobile phone group but not significantly. Vitamin C
caused a significant increase in the activity of GSH-Px
and non-significant increase in the activities of 5'-NT,

Not citedand not
discussedby
SCENIHR.

Not citedand not
discussedby
SCENIHR.

45

4. Sharma VP, Kumar
NR. 2010 Changes
in honeybee behavior
under the influence ofcell phone radiation.
Curr Science 98:1376-1378.

5. Vecchio F,
Babiloni C, Ferreri F,
Buffo P, Cibelli G,
Curcio G, vanDijkman S, Melgari
JM, Giambattistelli F,
Rossini PM. 2010
Mobile phone
emission modulatesinter-hemisphericfunctional coupling of
EEG alpha rhythms inelderly compared toyoung subjects. Clin
Neurophysiol
121:163-171. doi:
10.1016/j.clinph.2009.11.002.

6. Kumar NR,

ADA and CAT enzymes. CONCLUSION: Our results
suggest that vitamin C may play a protective role against
detrimental effects of mobile phone radiation in brain
tissue.
Honeybee behaviour and biology has been affected byelectrosmog since these insects have magnetite in theirbodieswhich helps them in navigation. There are reports ofsudden disappearance of bee populations from honeybeecolonies. The reason is still not clear. We have compared
the performance of honeybees in cellphone radiation
exposed and unexposed colonies. A significant (p < 0.05)
decline in colony strength and in the egg laying rate of thequeen was observed. The behaviour of exposed foragers
was negatively influenced by the exposure, there wasneither honey nor pollen in the colony at the end of theexperiment.
It has been reported that GSM electromagnetic fields(GSM-EMFs) of mobile phones modulate--after aprolonged exposure--inter-hemispheric synchronization of
temporal and frontal resting electroencephalographic(EEG) rhythms in normal young subjects [Vecchio et al.,2007]. Here we tested the hypothesis that this effect canvary on physiological aging as a sign of changes in thefunctional organization of cortical neural synchronization.
METHODS: Eyes-closed resting EEG data were recorded
in 16 healthy elderly subjects and 5 young subjects in thetwo conditions of the previous reference study. The GSM
device was turned on (45 min) in one condition and wasturned off (45 min) in the other condition. Spectral
coherence evaluated the inter-hemispheric synchronizationof EEG rhythms at the following bands: delta (about 2-4Hz), theta (about 4-6 Hz), alpha 1 (about 6-8 Hz), alpha 2(about 8-10 Hz), and alpha 3 (about 10-12 Hz). The aging
effects were investigated comparing the inter-hemispheric
EEG coherence in the elderly subjects vs. a young groupformed by 15 young subjects (10 young subjects of thereference study; Vecchio et al., 2007). RESULTS:
Compared with the young subjects, the elderly subjects
showed a statistically significant (p<0.001) increment of
the inter-hemispheric coherence of frontal and temporalalpha rhythms (about 8-12 Hz) during the GSM condition.
CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that GSM-EMFs
of a mobile phone affect inter-hemisphericsynchronization of the dominant (alpha) EEG rhythms as afunction of the physiological aging. SIGNIFICANCE:This study provides further evidence that physiologicalaging is related to changes in the functional organizationof cortical neural synchronization.
The present study was carried out to find the effect of cell

Not citedand not
discussedby
SCENIHR.

Was citedanddiscussed –see text.

Not cited46

Sangwan S, Badotra
P. 2011 Exposure tocell phone radiations
produces biochemicalchanges in worker
honey bees. Toxicol
Int. 2011
Jan;18(1):70-2. doi:
10.4103/09716580.75869.

7. Favre D. 2011
Mobile phoneinduced honeybee
worker piping.
Apidologie 42:270279.

8. Cammaerts MC,
Debeir O, Cammaerts
R. 2011. Changes in
Paramecium
caudatum (protozoa)
near a switched-on
GSM telephone.
Electromagn Biol
Med. 2011
Mar;30(1):57-66. doi:
10.3109/15368378.20
11.566778.
9. Çam ST, Seyhan
N. 2012 Singlestrand DNA breaks inhuman hair root cells
exposed to mobile
phone radiation. Int J
Radiat Biol 88:420424. doi:
10.3109/09553002.20
12.666005.

phone radiations on various biomolecules in the adult
workers of Apis mellifera L. The results of the treatedadults were analyzed and compared with the control.
Radiation from the cell phone influences honey bees'
behavior and physiology. There was reduced motor
activity of the worker bees on the comb initially, followed
by en masse migration and movement toward "talk mode"cell phone. The initial quiet period was characterized byrise in concentration of biomolecules including proteins,carbohydrates and lipids, perhaps due to stimulation ofbody mechanism to fight the stressful condition created by
the radiations. At later stages of exposure, there was aslight decline in the concentration of biomolecules
probably because the body had adapted to the stimulus.
Electromagnetic waves originating from mobile phones
were tested for potential effects on honeybee behavior.
Mobile phone handsets were placed in the close vicinity ofhoneybees. The sound made by the bees was recorded andanalyzed. The audiograms and spectrograms revealed that
active mobile phone handsets have a dramatic impact on
the behavior of the bees, namely by inducing the worker
piping signal. In natural conditions, worker piping either
announces the swarming process of the bee colony or is asignal of a disturbed bee colony.
The protozoan Paramecium caudatum was examined
under normal conditions versus aside a switched-on GSM
telephone (900 MHz; 2 Watts). Exposed individuals
moved more slowly and more sinuously than usual. Their
physiology was affected: they became broader, theircytopharynx appeared broader, their pulse vesicles haddifficult in expelling their content outside the cell, theircilia less efficiently moved, and trichocysts became more
visible. All these effects might result from some badfunctioning or damage of the cellular membrane. The firsttarget of communication electromagnetic waves mightthus be the cellular membrane.
To analyze the short-term effects of radiofrequency
radiation (RFR) exposure on genomic deoxyribonucleic
acid (DNA) of human hair root cells. SUBJECTS AND
METHODS: Hair samples were collected from eight
healthy human subjects immediately before and afterusing a 900-MHz GSM (Global System for Mobile
Communications) mobile phone for 15 and 30 min.
Single-strand DNA breaks of hair root cells from thesamples were determined using the 'comet assay'.
RESULTS:
The data showed that talking on a mobile phone for 15 or
30 min significantly increased (p < 0.05) single-strand
DNA breaks in cells of hair roots close to the phone.
Comparing the 15-min and 30-min data using the paired t-

and not
discussedby
SCENIHR.

Not citedand not
discussedby
SCENIHR.

Listedunder
literature
identified
but not
cited.
SCENIHRknew about
this paper
but decided
not todiscuss it.
Not citedand not
discussedby
SCENIHR.

47

10. Vecchio F,
Tombini M, Buffo P,
Assenza G, Pellegrino
G, Benvenga A,
Babiloni C, Rossini
PM. 2012 Mobile
phone emission
increases interhemisphericfunctional coupling ofelectroencephalograp
hic α rhythms inepileptic patients. Int
J Psychophysiol
84:164-171. doi:
10.1016/j.ijpsycho.20
12.02.002.

11. Al-Damegh MA.
2012 Rat testicular
impairment induced
by electromagnetic
radiation from a
conventional cellular

test also showed that significantly more damages resulted
after 30 min than after 15 min of phone use.
CONCLUSIONS: A short-term exposure (15 and 30 min)to RFR (900-MHz) from a mobile phone caused asignificant increase in DNA single-strand breaks in humanhair root cells located around the ear which is used for thephone calls.
It has been reported that GSM electromagnetic fields(GSM-EMFs) of mobile phones modulate - after aprolonged exposure - inter-hemispheric synchronization of
temporal and frontal resting electroencephalographic(EEG) rhythms in normal young and elderly subjects(Vecchio et al., 2007, 2010). Here we tested the
hypothesis that this can be even more evident in epileptic
patients, who typically suffer from abnormal mechanisms
governing synchronization of rhythmic firing of corticalneurons. Eyes-closed resting EEG data were recorded inten patients affected by focal epilepsy in real and sham
exposure conditions. These data were compared withthose obtained from 15 age-matched normal subjects ofthe previous reference studies. The GSM device wasturned on (45 min) in the "GSM" condition and wasturned off (45 min) in the other condition ("sham"). The
mobile phone was always positioned on the left side inboth patients and control subjects. Spectral coherence
evaluated the inter-hemispheric synchronization of EEGrhythms at the following frequency bands: delta (about 2-4Hz), theta (about 4-6 Hz), alpha1 (about 6-8 Hz), alpha2(about 8-10 Hz), and alpha3 (about 10-12 Hz). The effects
on the patients were investigated comparing the interhemispheric EEG coherence in the epileptic patients withthe control group of subjects evaluated in the previous
reference studies. Compared with the control subjects,
epileptic patients showed a statistically significant higher
inter-hemispheric coherence of temporal and frontal alpharhythms (about 8-12 Hz) in the GSM than "Sham"condition. These results suggest that GSM-EMFs ofmobile phone may affect inter-hemisphericsynchronization of the dominant (alpha) EEG rhythms inepileptic patients. If confirmed by future studies on alarger group of epilepsy patients, the modulation of theinter-hemispheric alpha coherence due to the GSM-EMFs
could have clinical implications and be related to changes
in cognitive-motor function.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate thepossible effects of electromagnetic radiation fromconventional cellular phone use on the oxidant andantioxidant status in rat blood and testicular tissue anddetermine the possible protective role of vitamins C and E
in preventing the detrimental effects of electromagnetic

Was citedanddiscussed –see text.

Listedunder
literature
identified
but not
cited.

48

telephone and theprotective effects of
the antioxidants
vitamins C and E.
Clinics 67:785-792

12. Aldad TS, Gan G,
Gao X-B, Taylor HS.
2012 Fetal
radiofrequency
radiation from 8001900 MH-rated
cellular telephone
affects
neurodevelopment
and behavior in mice.
Scientific Rep 2,
article 312.

13. Liu C, Gao P, Xu
SC, Wang Y, Chen
CH, He MD, Yu ZP,
Zhang L, Zhou Z.
2013 Mobile phoneradiation induces
mode-dependent

radiation on the testes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The treatment groups
were exposed to an electromagnetic field, electromagnetic
field plus vitamin C (40 mg/kg/day) or electromagnetic
field plus vitamin E (2.7 mg/kg/day). All groups were
exposed to the same electromagnetic frequency for 15, 30,
and 60 min daily for two weeks. RESULTS: There was asignificant increase in the diameter of the seminiferous
tubules with a disorganized seminiferous tubule sperm
cycle interruption in the electromagnetism-exposed group.
The serum and testicular tissue conjugated diene, lipidhydroperoxide, and catalase activities increased 3-fold,whereas the total serum and testicular tissue glutathione
and glutathione peroxidase levels decreased 3-5 fold in theelectromagnetism-exposed animals.
CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that the adverse
effect of the generated electromagnetic frequency had anegative impact on testicular architecture and enzymatic
activity. This finding also indicated the possible role ofvitamins C and E in mitigating the oxidative stress
imposed on the testes and restoring normality to the testes.
Neurobehavioral disorders are increasingly prevalent inchildren, however their etiology is not well understood.
An association between prenatal cellular telephone use
and hyperactivity in children has been postulated, yet thedirect effects of radiofrequency radiation exposure on
neurodevelopment remain unknown. Here we used amouse model to demonstrate that in-utero radiofrequency
exposure from cellular telephones does affect adultbehavior. Mice exposed in-utero were hyperactive and had
impaired memory as determined using the object
recognition, light/dark box and step-down assays. Wholecell patch clamp recordings of miniature excitatory
postsynaptic currents (mEPSCs) revealed that thesebehavioral changes were due to altered neuronaldevelopmental programming. Exposed mice had doseresponsive impaired glutamatergic synaptic transmission
onto layer V pyramidal neurons of the prefrontal cortex.
We present the first experimental evidence ofneuropathology due to in-utero cellular telephoneradiation. Further experiments are needed in humans or
non-human primates to determine the risk of exposure
during pregnancy.
A mouse spermatocyte-derived GC-2 cell line was
exposed to a commercial mobile phone handset once
every 20 min in standby, listen, dialed or dialing modesfor 24 h. DNA damage was determined using an alkaline
comet assay. RESULTS: The levels of DNA damage
were significantly increased following exposure to MPR
in the listen, dialed and dialing modes. Moreover, there

SCENIHRknew about
this paper
but decided
not todiscuss it.

Was citedanddiscussed,
see text.

Not citedand not
discussedby
SCENIHR.

49

DNA damage in amouse spermatocytederived cell line: aprotective role ofmelatonin. Int J
Radiat Biol. 2013.
89: 993-1001. doi:
10.3109/09553002.20
13.811309.

14. Koca O, Gökçe
AM, Öztürk MI,
Ercan F, Yurdakul N,
Karaman MI. 2013
Effects of intensive
cell phone (Philips
Genic 900) use on the
rat kidney tissue.
Urol J. 2013
Spring;10:886-891.

15. Meo SA, Al
Rubeaan K. 2013
Effects of exposure toelectromagnetic fieldradiation (EMFR)
generated by
activated mobile

were significantly higher increases in the dialed anddialing modes than in the listen mode. Interestingly, theseresults were consistent with the radiation intensities ofthese modes. However, the DNA damage effects of MPR
in the dialing mode were efficiently attenuated bymelatonin pretreatment.
CONCLUSIONS: These results regarding modedependent DNA damage have important implications forthe safety of inappropriate mobile phone use by males ofreproductive age and also suggest a simple preventive
measure: Keeping mobile phones as far away from our
body as possible, not only during conversations but during'dialed' and 'dialing' operation modes. Since the 'dialed'mode is actually part of the standby mode, mobile phones
should be kept at a safe distance from our body evenduring standby operation. Furthermore, the protective roleof melatonin suggests that it may be a promising
pharmacological candidate for preventing mobile phone
use-related reproductive impairments.
To investigate effects of electromagnetic radiation (EMR)
emitted by cell phones on the rat kidney tissue.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one maleAlbino rats were divided into 3 groups, each comprising 7
rats. Group 1 was exposed to a cell phone in speech modefor 8 hours/day for 20 days and their kidneys were
removed. Group 2 was exposed to EMR for 20 days andthen their kidneys were removed after an interval of 20days. Cell phone used in the present study was Philips
Genie 900, which has the highest specific absorption rateon the market. RESULTS: Light microscopic
examination of the kidney tissues obtained from the firstgroup of rats revealed glomerular damage, dilatation of
Bowman's capsule, formation of large spaces between the
tubules, tubular damage, perivascular edema, andinflammatory cell infiltration. The mean severity score
was 4.64 ± 1.7 in group 1, 4.50 ± 0.8 in group 2, and 0 ingroup 3. While there was no significant difference
between group 1 and group 2 (P > .05), the mean severity
scores of groups 1 and 2 were significantly higher thanthat of the control group (P = .001 for each).
CONCLUSION: Considering the damage in rat kidney
tissue caused by EMR-emitting cell phones, high-risk
individuals should take protective measures.
Extensive use of mobile phones has been accompanied by
a common public debate about possible adverse effects onhuman health. No study has been published so far toestablish any association between the fastest growing
innovation of mobile phone and fasting blood glucose.
The aim was to determine the effects of exposure toelectromagnetic field radiation generated by mobile

Not citedand not
discussedby
SCENIHR.

Not citedand not
discussedby
SCENIHR.

50

phones on fastingblood glucose. Int J
Occup Med Environ
Health 26:235-241.
doi: 10.2478/s13382013-0107-1.

16. Tsybulin O,
Sidorik E, Brieieva O,
Buchynska L,
Kyrylenko S, Henshel
D, Yakymenko I.
2013 GSM 900 MHz
cellular phoneradiation can either
stimulate or depress
early embryogenesis
in Japanese quails
depending on the
duration of exposure.
Int J Radiat Biol
89:756-763. doi:
10.3109/09553002.20
13.791408.

phones on fasting blood glucose in Wistar Albino rats.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: 40 Male Albino rats
(Wistar Strain) were divided into 5 equally numerous
groups. Group A served as the control one, group B
received mobile phone radiation for less than 15 min/day,group C: 15-30 min/day, group D: 31-45 min/day, andgroup E: 46-60 min/day for a total period of 3 months.
Fasting blood glucose was determined by using
Spectrophotometer and serum insulin by Enzyme-linked
Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA). The Homeostatic Model(HOMA-B) was applied for the assessment of β-cellfunction and (HOMA-IR) for resistance to insulin.
RESULTS: Wister Albino rats exposed to mobile phoneradiation for longer than 15 min a day for a total period of
3 months had significantly higher fasting blood glucose (p< 0.015) and serum insulin (p < 0.01) compared to thecontrol group. HOMA-IR for insulin resistance wassignificantly increased (p < 0.003) in the groups that were
exposed for 15-30 and 46-60 min/day compared to thecontrol rats. CONCLUSION:The results of the present
study show an association between long-term exposure toactivated mobile phones and increase in fasting blood
glucose and serum insulin in Albino rats.
Our study was designed to assess the effects of low
intensity radiation of a GSM (Global System for Mobile
communication) 900 MHz cellular phone on early
embryogenesis in dependence on the duration of exposure.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Embryos of Japanese
Quails were exposed in ovo to GSM 900 MHz cellular
phone radiation during initial 38 h of brooding oralternatively during 158 h (120 h before brooding plus
initial 38 h of brooding) discontinuously with 48 sec ON(average power density 0.25 μW/cm(2), specificabsorption rate 3 μW/kg) followed by 12 sec OFFintervals. A number of differentiated somites wereassessed microscopically. Possible DNA damage evokedby irradiation was assessed by an alkaline comet assay.
RESULTS: Exposure to radiation from a GSM 900 MHz
cellular phone led to a significantly altered number ofdifferentiated somites. In embryos irradiated during 38 h
the number of differentiated somites increased (p < 0.001),
while in embryos irradiated during 158 h this number
decreased (p < 0.05). The lower duration of exposure led
to a significant (p < 0.001) decrease in a level of DNA
strand breaks in cells of 38-h embryos, while the higher
duration of exposure resulted in a significant (p < 0.001)
increase in DNA damage as compared to the control.
CONCLUSION: Effects of GSM 900 MHz cellular phoneradiation on early embryogenesis can be either stimulating
or deleterious depending on the duration of exposure.

Listedunder
literature
identified
but not
cited.
SCENIHRknew about
this paper
but decided
not todiscuss it.

51

17. Luo Q, Jiang Y,
Jin M, Xu J, Huang
HF. 2013 Proteomic
analysis on thealteration of protein
expression in theearly-stage placental
villous tissue ofelectromagnetic fields
associated with cell
phone exposure.
Reprod Sci 20:10551061. doi:
10.1177/1933719112
473660.

To explore the possible adverse effects and search for cell
phone electromagnetic field (EMF)-responsive proteins inhuman early reproduction, a proteomics approach was
employed to investigate the changes in protein expression
profile induced by cell phone EMF in human chorionictissues of early pregnancy in vivo. METHODS:
Volunteer women about 50 days pregnant were exposed to
EMF at the average absorption rate of 1.6 to 8.8 W/kg for
1 hour with the irradiation device placed 10 cm away fromthe umbilicus at the midline of the abdomen. The changes
in protein profile were examined using 2-dimensional
electrophoresis (2-DE).
RESULTS: Up to 15 spots have yielded significant change
at least 2- to 2.5-folds up or down compared to shamexposed group. Twelve proteins were identifiedprocollagen-proline, eukaryotic translation elongation
factor 1 delta, chain D crystal structure of human vitamin
D-binding protein, thioredoxin-like 3, capping protein,isocitrate dehydrogenase 3 alpha, calumenin, Catechol-Omethyltransferase protein, proteinase inhibitor 6 (PI-6;
SerpinB6) protein, 3,2-trans-enoyl-CoA isomerase
protein, chain B human erythrocyte 2,3bisphosphoglycerate mutase, and nucleoprotein.
CONCLUSION: Cell phone EMF might alter the protein
profile of chorionic tissue of early pregnancy, during themost sensitive stage of the embryos. The exposure to EMF
may cause adverse effects on cell proliferation anddevelopment of nervous system in early embryos.
Furthermore, 2-DE coupled with mass spectrometry is apromising approach to elucidate the effects and search for
new biomarkers for environmental toxic effects.

Listedunder
literature
identified
but not
cited.
SCENIHRknew about
this paper
but decided
not todiscuss it.

If you look through the studies described in Table 4, you will see multiple studies in oxidative
stress/free radical damage, on changes in tissue structure (sometimes called remodeling), on
cellular DNA damage, on male fertility (and also one on female fertility), on behavioral changes
and on neurological changes. There is also one study on insulin/type 2 diabetes (hormonal
effect). It follows from this that five of the effects that were extensively documented in large
numbers of reviews (Chapter 1) are further demonstrated, as being caused be cell phone radiation,in these studies. In addition the tissue remodeling and proteomic changes discussed in Chapter 3
are also further demonstrated here. One question that needs to be raised with regard to SCENIHR
is why so many clearly important primary literature studies of cell phone radiation (perhaps themost important source of human microwave irradiation) are not discussed in SCENIHR 2015. I
will discuss certain particular articles that I think are particularly important for particularreasons. Subsequently, I will discuss the three articles that SCENIHR does discuss.
One of the more interesting studies not discussed by SCENIHR, is #11 in Table 4. This was
published by a woman scientist in Saudi Arabia. What it shows is that 15, 30 or 60 minutes per
day of cell phone radiation disrupts the structure of the rat testis and also produces high levels ofoxidative stress as shown by measuring 5 different markers of oxidative stress. Such studies havebeen done for several decades, with oxidative stress having been shown in many different organs

52following EMF exposures. What is particularly important in this study is that high levels of two
different antioxidants, vitamin C and vitamin E, were each shown to produce substantial
protection of the testis structure from the EMF effects while partially normalizing the oxidative
stress elevation. What this clearly shows is that the oxidative stress causes the testis tissue
disruption. So we don’t just have evidence for two effects, testis disruption and oxidative stress
but we have strong evidence that one causes the other. It is exactly these connections that are
essential for the progression of the science!
# 13 is another study not discussed by SCENIHR which is particularly important. It looks at cell
phone radiation DNA damage produced in a mouse spermatocyte-derived cell line. What it finds
is that DNA damage is particularly high when the cell phone is in the dialed or dialing mode, as
opposed to a listen mode. They also state that the radiation levels in the three modes correspond,at least roughly, to the DNA damage effects seen. They also show that pretreatment withmelatonin (which is known to have antioxidant effects) greatly lowers the DNA damage producedby the cell phone EMF exposures. This is similar to the study discussed immediately above
because it again shows that one effect, DNA damage is produced by another effect, namely
oxidative stress/free radical elevation. You will recall that as discussed in Chapter 2, cellular
DNA damage following EMF exposure is produced by the attacks by on the DNA byperoxynitrite derived free radicals. This study provides confirmation for that mechanism.
#14 is another study not discussed by SCENIHR which is also particularly important. It looks at
the impact of cell phone radiation on kidney structure of rats, using six different measures ofkidney structure. There were two groups of rats that were exposed to cell phone radiation whichwere both compared with each other and with normal unexposed control rats. The two exposedgroups differed from each other in one group the kidney structure was assessed immediately
following the 20 day exposure period. The second exposure group was also exposed for 20 days
but was given 20 days subsequently with no exposure to see if the kidney structure spontaneously
recovered. There was no recovery seen in the second group, showing that the kidney damage was
effectively irreversible. In Chapter 3, several tissue remodeling type effects produced by EMF
exposure appeared to be irreversible. Study #14 may add an additional such effect to that list.
#15 is another study not discussed by SCENIHR which is also particularly important. In thisstudy control (unexposed) rats were compared with rats exposed to cell phone radiation for: lessthan 15 minutes per day, 15 to 30 minutes per day, 31 to 45 minutes per day or 45 to 60 minutes
per day. Rats exposed to over 15 minutes per day of cell phone radiation showed type 2 diabetes
onset-like effects, with higher fasting glucose levels and higher serum insulin levels. Thisappears to be, therefore a study showing important hormone dysfunction. It should be noted thatthe same research group has found similar changes in people living near cell phone towers [101].
Consequently, this is still another situation where findings in experimental animal studies appear
to be directly applicable to humans.
Of the papers that were discussed, it is my opinion that the Aldad et al paper (#12, Table 4) isperhaps the most important. The paper starts out discussing the very large increase in ADHD that
we have had in recent years, an increase which suggests that one or more environmental changes
must be involved. This paper is from a distinguished laboratory, Hugh Taylor’s laboratory at
Yale, and was published in one of the highly respected Nature journals and the paper, at thiswriting has been cited 89 times, showing a high level of scientific interest in it. The paper
showed that prenatal exposure of pregnant mice to cell phone radiation produced three highly
statistically significant changes in the adult mice. These were a decrease in measured memory
function, increase in hyperactivity and increase in anxiety. They also showed that there was adose dependent decrease in an important neurological parameter, the frequency of miniature

53

excitatory postsynaptic currents, allowing the authors to conclude “that these behavioral changes
were due to altered neuronal developmental programming.” SCENIHR states the following about
this study: “Neurodevelopment from a functional point of view was studied by Aldad et al. (2012)
who exposed mice in utero and investigated them as adults for certain behavioural traits andelectrophysiological characteristics. Exposure is poorly described but is reported to be to a muted
telephone (900-1800 MHz) during the entire gestation period. After blinded investigations, theauthors concluded that exposed animals displayed hyperactivity, memory deficiencies, decreased
anxiety, and impaired glutamatergic transmission. Although the study employs relevant biologicalend-points, it cannot be used for any conclusions regarding pre-natal mobile phone exposure andfunctional development of the brain.” SCENIHR fails to tell us why they claim the exposures
were poorly described nor do they provide any reasoning on why “it cannot be used for any
conclusions regarding pre-natal mobile phone exposure and development of the brain.” It is hard
to see how such results could be found unless there are substantial effects of pre-natal exposure.
Because the study used genuine cell phone radiation, the effects seen are disturbing. It would bereasonable for SCENIHR to call for more studies of this type to see if they can be replicated.
Having said that there have been five subsequent studies that I found where pre-natal mouse
exposure to non-thermal EMFs produced substantial and somewhat similar adult neurologicaleffects and or behavioral effects [102-106]. These five included exposures to Wi-Fi and to DECT
(cordless phone) EMFs. These studies provide, then, strong evidence that prenatal exposures to
EMFs can in animals, produce ADHD-like effects even into adulthood. They also show thatduring the late prenatal period, the developing brain is particularly sensitive to the effects of
microwave frequency EMFs and raise the issue of how long after birth such sensitivity is also
seen. It is common for SCENIHR and other industry friendly organizations to treat experimental
studies as if they had the weaknesses of epidemiological studies. They don’t because they canand do in these cases, directly demonstrate causation. In epidemiology, causation can be inferred
but not directly demonstrated. What about epidemiological evidence with regard to EMF
causation of ADHD? There are two such studies that each provide evidence for an association
between prenatal cell phone exposures and development of ADHD [107,108]. SCENIHR knew
about both of these, since it discusses one of them which is, in turn, based on the earlier one.
Why then did SCENIHR not make the connection of those two studies with at Aldad study (#12
in Table 4)? That is of course an important failure, given that the Aldad study greatly strengthens
the argument for EMF causation of ADHD.
Given the current situation where there are a total of 6 studies showing that pre-natal EMF
exposures, including cell phone, Wi-Fi and cordless phone EMFs can cause ADHD-like effects inmice and two human epidemiological studies suggesting a similar mechanism in humans and theparallel between the huge increase in ADHD in humans and the huge increase in microwave
frequency EMF exposures, is there any other type of evidence that supports a causal role for
EMFs? It turns out there is. EMFs act primarily via VGCC activation (Chapter 20. Genetic
polymorphism studies show that elevated VGCC activity has a role in causing ADHD [109],
acting to a substantial extent prenatally. This is the way real science works. It is not the way thatSCENIHR works.
The Vecchio et al 2010 paper (#5, Table 4) was discussed in SCENIHR 2015 as follows: “A
study by Vecchio et al. (2010) analysed age-dependent EMF effects on alpha activity in waking
EEGs in 16 older (47-84 years) and 15 younger subjects (20-37 years). Participants were exposed
to a GSM signal (902.40 MHz, modulation frequencies: 8.33 and 217 Hz) for 45 min with amaximum SAR of 0.5 W/kg emitted by a commercially available mobile phone which was set
using a test card in a double-blind cross-over paradigm. EEG was recorded for 5 min prior to andfollowing exposure at 19 electrodes. The authors found an increased inter-hemispheric coherenceof frontal alpha EEG activity after GSM exposure which was statistically significant for the54elderly subjects but not for the young ones. This might point to a GSM-EMF related interhemispheric synchronization of alpha rhythms as a function of physiological aging.” Anotherrelated study (#by the same research group was also cited and discussed SCENIHR 2015 [73] asfollows: “Vecchio et al. (2012a) used the same study design to investigate an exposure effect inpatients with epilepsy. Data from 10 patients were compared to results from 15 age- matched
controls from previous studies. Patients showed a statistically significant higher inter-hemisphericcoherence of temporal and frontal alpha-rhythms under exposure as compared to control subjects.
According to the authors, these results might indicate a GSM exposure effect on interhemispheric synchronization of the dominant (alpha) EEG rhythms in epileptic patients.”
What do I have to say about the two Vecchio studies? They are both based on an earlier 2007
study which showed that increased EEG coherence between the two hemispheres of the brain was
produced by genuine cell phone EMF exposure. What the 2010 study (#5 in Table 4) shows isthat the EMF-induced increased coherence is much higher in older adults than it is in younger
adults. What the 2012 study (#10 in Table 4) shows is that the EMF-induced coherence seen inpeople with epilepsy is also much higher than in people without epilepsy. These three studies
then provide large amounts of evidence for a neurological effect of cell phone radiation that is
influenced by two variables, age and epilepsy. These findings should be looked at the context ofthe 23 reviews, listed in Chapter 1, each showing that EMFs produce both neurological and/or
neuropsychiatric impacts on the brain. Here we have still another neurological effect, one that is
influenced by age and epileptic condition. There are, then three important findings in thesestudies. One is that while we have had quite lot of evidence showing that children are moresensitive to EMF effects than adults, this is the first clear finding, to my knowledge, that suggeststhat older people may be more sensitive to a neurological effect. The linkage to epilepsy should
not be surprising as some EHS people are reported to have seizures triggered by very low
intensity EMF exposures. Finally, the communication between the two hemispheres of the brain
has been known for over half a century to be through what is called the corpus callosum, astructure deeply buried in the middle of the brain, linking the two hemispheres. These effects
increasing the coherence between the two hemispheres are probably produced, therefore, throughthe impact of the EMFs on the corpus callosum. That implies, in turn, that the EMFs act much
more deeply in the brain than the industry claims is possible.
The problem with SCENIHR is that it lives in a totally fictional universe where none of those
EMF effect reviews exist or at least none of them have any relevance to the SCENIHR world.
Neither of the two Vecchio et al studies, discussed in the previous two paragraphs, are used by
SCENIHR [73] to make any conclusions about EMF effects or lack thereof – they are only citedin the quote that I gave you. We know that because because the citations are by author’s last
name and are, therefore easily searchable. Similarly, the Aldad et al (#12) study discussed twoparagraphs further up, was also never cited except in the quotation given. So none of these threepapers are used to assess any effects of EMFs or lack of effects. The same thing is true of the tworeviews from Table 3 that were cited and discussed in [73]. They also were only cited in thequoted section and are never used to assess EMF effects or the mechanism of EMF action. As
previously noted, there are several statements in SCENIHR 2015 [73] regarding lack of any
available mechanism to explain claimed EMF effects, something that is directly contradicted by
one of those cited and discussed reviews [4]. The consequence of all of that is that we have twovery large and very consequential bodies of literature, the reviews on EMF effects and theliterature on genuine cell phone radiation effects, which are entirely missing from any SCENIHR
2015 [73] conclusion.
Is There Another Systematic Effort by Industry to Corrupt the Literature that Has Been Followed
to Some Extent by SCENIHR?

55

The important roles of pulsation, window effects, frequency, cell type and polarization in
determining biological activity of EMFs were discussed in Chapter 1, where it was noted thatSCENIHR fails to pay attention to any of these roles. That failure shows up in many places in the
document. In Tables 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of SCENIHR 2015 [73], the discussion ofeach table centers on how many studies found apparent effects and how many did not. But thesenumbers are irrelevant to the issue of whether there are effects or not. In fact one can argue thatthe industry, knowing about the roles of each of these factors, could fund any number of studies
designed to give apparent negative results just by manipulating these factors to minimize
responses and by only studying tiny numbers of individuals to produce low statistical power.
This approach closely describes the approach used in seven studies of what were claimed to begenuine Wi-Fi studies that were described by Foster and Moulder [110] in Table 4 of their paper.
Those seven studies were shown [11] to all have used an EMF that was not genuine Wi-Fi,
despite claims to the contrary. They each used one of two types of reverberation exposure
chamber for their rodent exposures, with each type of chamber greatly lowering the polarizationof the EMFs [11] and also generating some level of destructive interference from variable path
lengths produced by the reverberations. Each of these changes from genuine Wi- Fi is predicted
to lower effects. Foster and Moulder [110] concluded that there was no effect in any of thesestudies. However tiny numbers of rodents were studied, between 3 and 15 in each class, such thatthese studies have very low statistical power to conclude anything substantive.
It is not possible to conclude no effect even with large studies. At most one can claim that there
is no statistically significant evidence of an effect. With tiny numbers, a claim of no effect iscomplete nonsense. This problem with “no effect” claims is documented in a section ofRothman et al., Modern Epidemiology, 3rd Edition, a highly respected source of information,cited over 19,000 times according to the Google Scholar database. It states (p. 151, bottom) that:“A common misinterpretation of significance tests is that there no difference between two
observed groups because the null test is not statistically significant, in that P is greater that thecutoff for declaring statistical significance (again, usually 0.05). This interpretation confuses a
descriptive issue (whether two observed groups differ) with an inference about thesuperpopulation. The significance test refers only to the superpopulation, not the observed
groups. To say that the difference is not statistically significant means only that one cannot reject
the null hypothesis that the superpopulation groups are the same; it does not imply that the twogroups are the same.” All such claims of “no effect” are, therefore flawed. When they are maderegarding very small studies with very low statistical power, they are particularly deeply flawed.
Were these seven studies designed to fail? I don’t think we can say for certain but they certainly
look as if they may have been. They also raise the serious question about whether the industry
may be corrupting the science, by using their knowledge of the roles of pulsation, window effects,
frequency, cell type and polarization.
The SCENIHR 2015 document has 127 places in the 221 pages of text where the term “no effect”
was found (these can be easily found by searching the document using “no effect” for the searchterms (that also picks up “no effects” statements. The first two of these 127 places are usedproperly, to describe the null hypothesis. Each of the other 125 should not be there, with each of
those 125 overstating the case and therefore, improperly supporting the industry propaganda case.
In any case, the only way to show that there are inconsistencies or conflicts in the EMF literature
is to carefully repeat studies finding such effects, not to flood the literature with studies done
under other conditions. The logic used throughout SCENIHR 2015 [73] of just counting numbersof studies is deeply flawed.

56

Summary of Flaws in SCENIHR 2015
The first set of flaws, is that SCENIHR is perfectly willing to make statements which they knowor should have known are false. The most egregious example of this is the Speit/Schwarz
controversy described at the beginning of this chapter where there are seven clear falsehoods
created by SCENIHR, each of which greatly strengthens the telecommunications industry
propaganda positions. There are many others, described in this chapter that are substantive, butless egregious than the Speit/Schwarz falsehoods.
There is a vast literature, both in the review literature and in the primary literature studies, that
disagrees strongly with the SCENIHR positions and is completely ignored by SCENIHR. In a
few cases, such studies are cited and very briefly discussed by SCENIHR but then they have no
impact on the assessments that SCENIHR makes in the SCENIHR 2015 document [73]. In mostcases, they are neither cited nor discussed. The situation here is similar to an organization thathas two sets of books, the fake books that are used in public and then a genuine set of books that
includes all of the data that are too inconvenient to be included in the fake set of books.
The finally, we have three additional considerations which interact with each other to produce thecompletely bogus logic used by SCENIHR and by other organizations that have taken positions
similar those taken by SCENIHR. One of those considerations comes from our knowledge that
pulsation pattern, cell type, polarization and frequency can all influence biological effects andthat there are exposure windows that produce much larger effects than are seen with either lower
or higher intensities. Our knowledge of these factors mean that it is possible for thetelecommunications industry to foster any number of studies where it is unlikely that statisticallysignificant evidence of effects will be seen. I have presented examples where this may have been
done. One of the most bizarre things about the SCENIHR 2015 document [73] is that there is asentence on p. 101 where they state “In some of these cases, the effect seemed to be dependent on
the cell type investigated and by the electromagnetic parameters applied (frequency,
modulation).” Modulation and pulsation are the same thing. They know about these three factors
and therefore, they know that these factors may explain differences in results obtained bydifferent studies. But they still falsely assume that such differences imply inconsistencies inresults and falsely assume that it makes sense to simply count apparent positive and apparent
negative studies as a way of assessing whether there are effects or not.
SCENIHR has often falsely stated that these studies show no effects as opposed to lack ofstatistical significance of any effects. SCENIHR 2015 document has 125 places where suchbogus claims of “no effect” are found. They repeatedly claim the literature is inconsistent but
studies done under different conditions are not inconsistent because they are more likely to be due
to genuine biological heterogeneity of responses. The false logic described here is used, in turn,to support another highly pervasive false logic. I’ve documented where SCENIHR has simply
counted numbers of studies showing so many findings of effects and some other number offindings of “no effect.” But these numbers are meaningless, when the studies are done under
different conditions and where the “no effect” numbers can easily be inflated by studies designed
to produce such results. They are also, of course, meaningless, when large numbers of studies
that show effects are eliminated by SCENIHR by the simple process of pretending they don’t
exist. You can see from this, that the entire logical framework behind the SCENIHR 2015 [73]document is completely bogus.
Lastly, before going on to the situation in the U.S. and with 5G, there is one other thing I want tostate here. In 2005, Dr. Jared Diamond published a book [111] entitled “Collapse: How

57

Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.” In it he documents how each society that “chose to fail,”chose paths that had some short term gains but also had much more severe longer-term
consequences. This is exactly what we have been doing with the EMFs, except that theconsequences are much more severe than the collapse of one society – here all of the advanced
technology societies on earth are at great risk.
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?
We in the U.S. often take great pride in our scientific research. That is, of course, especially trueof U.S. scientists, of which I am one. We have far more Nobel laureates than any other country
so we think of ourselves as being the #1 science country in the world. But we have had, over the
past 20 years, almost no scientific primary literature studies, either laboratory studies or
epidemiological studies, on non-thermal microwave frequency EMF effects. We had much moresuch research in this area 35 years ago,
In terms of non-thermal effects of microwave frequency (sometimes called radiofrequency)
EMFs, the U.S. government published documents acknowledging the existence of large numbersof such non-thermal effects. This included the 1971 U.S. Office of Naval Medical ResearchInstitute Report [30] and the 1981 report from the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) [26]. The most recent such report acknowledging widespread nonthermal EMF effects was the NCRP report [112] published in 1986. It follows that for the past 32
years, the U.S.government has been in denial on what had been repeatedly recognized by ourgovernment and is of great importance to protecting our health. 1986 turns out to be a key year
because in that year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shut down its in houseresearch program studying non-thermal EMF effects. In 1986, the U.S. Office of Naval
Research, which had been funding grants in this area, stopped funding any new grants – thealready funded grants were funded to the end of the grant period but no new grants were funded
past 1986. A few years later, I think it was in late 1994, a similar shutdown of grants went into
effect at the NIEHS, the part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) which supports
environmental health research. In 1999, the last U.S. agency that had been funding some researchin this area, The Department of Energy also shut down what little research it had been funding.
The consequences of those shutdowns is that of the 17 studies on people living near cell phone
towers, not a single study has been done in the U.S. Of the 23 studies of effects of genuine Wi-Fi
EMFs, each of them showing effects [11], not a single study was done in the U.S. Of the over 50
studies on genuine cell phone radiation effects, only single one was done in the U.S, the NTP cell
phone cancer study required by the Congress. So we have a situation where the U.S. governmentis encouraging EMF exposures and, in many cases, making it impossible to avoid EMF exposureswhile doing nothing or almost nothing to ensure our safety. There are a tiny number of studies
that somehow sneak through, such as the Aldad et al study (#12 in Table 4) discussed in thepreceding chapter, which was funded through the Child and Human Development Institute of theNIH, but these are few and far between.
How did these shutdowns happen? I don’t know about 1986 but have some useful informationfrom 1994/1995.
Attacks by the Telecommunications Industry on Two U.S. Scientists

58Dr. Henry Lai from the University of Washington and a collaborator, NP Singh were using thealkaline comet assay, discussed earlier in this document to measure single stranded breaks incellular DNA. They found a substantial elevation of the levels following low level EMF
exposure in late1994. Before that finding had even been published, they found that they weretargets of a severe attack from the telecommunications industry. A key document providing
evidence of this was what was called the “War-Gaming” memo [113], where an executive named
Norm Sandler, head of the Corporate Communications Department of Motorola (at that time thelargest cell phone company) sent the memo to Michael Kehs of a public relations campaign inWashington DC (dated Dec. 13, 1994), describing their planned response to these at that time,
unpublished findings. The memo stated that “While this work raises some interesting questions
about possible biological effects, it is our understanding that there are too many uncertainties—
related to the methodology employed, the findings that have been reported and the science that
underlies them—to draw any conclusions about its significance at this time. Without additional
work in this field, there is absolutely no basis to determine whether the researchers found what
they report finding—or that the results have anything at all to do with DNA damage or healthrisks, especially at the frequencies and power levels of power levels of wireless communication
devices.
In discussing the frequency differentiation issue, we should be able to say that Lai-Singh andSarkar were not conducted at cellular (that is cell phone) frequencies.”(My comments are as follows: It is true that Lai/Singh used a different frequency from that usedby cell phones. So the industry was correct about that. But the findings also show that theindustry claims that there cannot be any non-thermal effects are wrong, and that may be more
important. Singh had a reputation of being a genuine international expert on comet assays, so I
doubt that methodology was a problem. If this had nothing to do with DNA damage or healthrisks, Motorola would not be worrying about these findings. There were at that time (1994)
previously published studies of EMF effects on cellular DNA including the concurrent Sarkar
findings and including findings of chromosome breaks and rearrangements reported in [30]).
Further down, the memo: “I think we have sufficiently war-gamed the Lai-Singh issue, assumingthat SAG (Scientific Advisory Group, a group linked to the telecom industry) and the CTIA (theumbrella telecom lobbying, publicity and legal organization) have done their homework. We
want to run this by George Carlo and fill him in on contacts we have made.”
Under Excerpts from Confidential Working Draft #3. Question and Response:
Q. How can Motorola downplay the significance of the Lai study when one of your own expert
consultants is on record telling Microwave News that the results—if replicated—could throw
previous notions of RF safety into question?
R. It is not a question of downplaying the significance of the Lai study. In his comments to
Microwave News, Dr. Sheppard raised the key question: Can it be replicated and interpreted?
We will wait and see.”(My comments: Replication needed to be done, so that was a valid point. The interpretation was
and is clear – it is that EMF exposures produce large increases in the numbers of single strand
breaks in the cellular DNA.)“Action Planned: In addition to response materials prepared by SAG (see attached copies) we will
work with SAG to identify appropriate experts to comment in general on the science of DNA
research, in addition to any experts SAG may be able to recommend to publicly comment on one
or both of these particular studies.

59

Then they talk about Media Strategy where Motorola stays in the background with SAG and
CTIA in front.”Three important things happened to Dr. Henry Lai at about this time [114,115]. In November
1994, before the War-Gaming memo had been written, a representative of the industry called the
NIH claiming that money had been misspent from the Henry Lai grant for the DNA studies. Dr.
Lai faxed the NIH an explanation which was accepted. However, the cutoff of new NIEHS
funding appears to have occurred at this time, such that the industry pressure is likely to havebeen important. Furthermore [114] “The industry made a full-court press to discredit the DNA
break study. A consistent and coordinated message was put out to marginalize Lai and Singh.
For instance, in November 1994 (note: this was also before the War-Gaming memo was written),
Q. Balzano, then a senior Motorola executive, wrote to us (Microwave News) that “Even if it isvalidated, the effects it purports to show may be inconsequential.” (My comment is that DNA
breaks produced at intensity levels well below safety guidelines are not inconsequential. If theywere, the industry would not be worrying so much about them). Ron Nessen, the CTIA’s top
spokesman told a Florida newspaper that “It’s not very relevant.” He also tried to cast doubt on
the comet assay pioneered by Singh to measure DNA breaks. It “may not be scientifically valid.”
Quite a number of months later, the head of the WTR (successor organization to SAG) wrote a 6
page letter to the President of the University of Washington to try to get him to fire both Lai andSingh [114, 115]. Neither was fired, but this is what you face when you get results that the
telecommunications industry does not like.
(My comments: The basic findings of the Lai and Singh studies have been replicated more than
two dozen times, at this writing. There have also been many replicates of the findings ofincreased micronucleus formation and oxidized bases in the DNA following non-thermal EMF
exposures. All of that replication and the 21 reviews that were listed in Chapter 1 each showing
non-thermal cellular DNA damage have still not gotten the telecommunications industry to admitthat these DNA effects are occurring. The industry apparently does not care about the replication
but cares, rather, about having talking points. Furthermore, when the industry was trying to get
Dr. Lai’s research funding cut off or later was trying to get both Lai and Singh fired, they were
trying to prevent replication rather than encouraging it).
So Dr. Henry Lai was the first major scientist who came under vicious attack from thetelecommunications industry and their allies, but he was certainly not the last. There are manysuch scientists including Prof. Adlkofer in Germany and Prof. Rüdinger in Austria. I know ofnine others who have been attacked in the U.S. or in Europe. But here is a situation where theU.S. instead of leading world science in the right direction has been leading it into corruption.
There are others.
I want to talk about another especially important case of such an attack on a U.S. scientist, that ofProfessor Om Gandhi. Gandhi is a professor at the University of Utah who, for many years wasdoing modeling of cell phone EMF exposures on the brains of humans. He was modeling such
exposures for a substantial period of time of time based on the head of what was called standard
anthropomorphic man (SAM). SAM was modeled from a 6 foot 2 inch, 200 pound man, a man in
the upper 10% of men for head size and estimated skull thickness. He was doing such cell phonemodeling for the telecommunications industry and received an important honor for this research.
Because the safety guidelines are based only on thermal effects, the modeling was aimed atdetermining heating of the human brain by cell phone radiation.

60

Prof. Gandhi became concerned about the fact that both the head size and skull thickness of SAM
was greater than that of most men and essentially all women and children and consequently beganmodeling a typical woman and typical 10 year old child, When he did that he found that the cell
phone EMF exposures to the brain were much too high, even based on their own standards,
standards that were and are only based on heating. The timing of these events was from 1975
through 1996. I will be quoting on what occurred subsequently. I have received permission fromDr. Devra Davis to make these quotes from pages 81 through 88 of her book Disconnect [77]. I
will use a different font for those quotes so that you can see them easily.
Based on the new work he had produced, Gandhi called for a revision of the safety
standards that regulated cell phones. The industry was stunned. For years, Gandhi had
been one of those on whom they had counted. If Gandhi’s work went uncontested, itwould mean that children, women and men with smaller heads could not safely use
some electronic devices or that these devices would have to be redesigned to emit lessradio frequency radiation. The industry’s first response was to cut off all of Gandhi’s
funding.
Going to p. 86 from [77]:Gandhi explained that something has gone very wrong with standard setting in the
United States in the past few years.
“Starting in the late 1980s, I chaired the committee to set standards for radio-frequency
exposures before all cell phones ever existed. About a decade ago, C.K. Chou, then at
the City of Hope Hospital, replaced me. Within two years, Chou had moved. He
became a senior executive with Motorola—a clear conflict of interest. The committeethat advises as to cell phone standards is supposed to be independent and had neverbefore been led by someone from the very industry it advises. Under Chou’s leadership,
the committee relaxed standards for cell phones as of 2005. Having spent my entire life
developing models of the brain, I know how things work. I also know that what we havedone here is to ratchet up exposures, without actually telling people we have done so.
Today’s standards for cell phones have more than doubled the amount of radiofrequency radiation allowed into the brain.”
The next quote starts at 2002, before the more than doubling of those radiation standards (pp. 8788 from [77]).
By 2002 the gloves were off and the industry made it clear to Gandhi that they would
take him on directly. Gandhi remembers being told by an industry colleague who wasonce a student and friend, “If you insist on publishing these papers saying that children
get more exposed than adults and saying our test procedure is not valid, you can expectthat we will not fund you.”Gandhi replied, “I am a university professor. I don’t need your money.”
Next industry tried to place an article by Chou critiquing Gandhi’s models in the journal ofwhich Gandhi had been editor and chief and in which he had published dozens ofarticles, and asked that either his (that is Gandhi’s) article criticizing the grounds forsetting standards be removed, or that they be allowed to publish Chou’s rejoinder.

61

Gandhi reports that four different peer reviews of Chou’s critique of my work indicatedthat Chou’s critique of my work was ‘scientific junk.’ Only when the editor of the journal
balked did the industry finally relent. Despite this success in beating back one attempt todiscredit Gandhi’s work, the effort to increase allowable amounts of radio frequency
radiation was won on a major front. As the new chief of the standard-setting committee,
Chou masterminded changes in the standards, and the committee, which now included alarge majority of industry experts, issued new recommendations, ignoring Gandhi’sanalysis showing that these would effectively double exposures.
(I want to comment on this. I’ve published three papers on the physics of EMF action [4,5,11].
In each of them, I have taken the industry arguments about the physics seriously. Even though it
was clear that the industry arguments were wrong, because of the clear existence of so manyeffects that occur at non-thermal levels of exposure, the industry arguments claiming that there
could only be thermal effects were substantive and therefore, had to be considered. What I find,in the previous six paragraph, is that the industry itself is ready to throw out its own arguments,
when they conflict with their ability to make massive profits. The issues here are very simple.
Anyone with the most elementary understanding of the geometry of the head and a high school
knowledge or physics, will know that a person with a smaller head and thinner skull will be
exposed to higher brain levels of radiation from cell phones.)
What is obvious about this is that the industry does not care about health impacts, as long as they
can maintain some deniability. What is also obvious is that the telecommunications industry can
act to systematically corrupt an organization that, in effect, regulates the telecommunicationsindustry. That in turn means that other organizations that, in effect, regulate the industry must be
scrutinized for possible corruption. Those include ICNIRP, SCENIHR, WHO, the FCC and the
FDA.
When Have Somewhat Similar Things Happened in Other Situations in the U.S.?
Is this approach to obfuscating the science unusual? Not really, but it appears to be much more
extreme than usual, with the telecommunications industry and EMF effects. I suggest looking at
the book on “Doubt Is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your
Health” by Dr. David Michaels. I’ve cited a book review of that book here [116]. The review
starts out with the statement that “Creating doubt – at least enough to derail government
regulation – is an art form long practiced and highly perfected by some sectors of private
industry. In the book, Professor David Michaels vividly demonstrates how each such industry
channels some of its profit to ‘product defense firms’ and ‘self interested scientists’ who conduct
research designed to cast doubt on the science that supports regulation.” (I will add that it also
casts doubt on the science that may support lawsuits, as well.) “As a result of the doubt created,
regulation is long-delayed and thousands of people (or perhaps millions) suffer and die
unnecessarily.” The industries that are covered in the book include tobacco, lead, asbestos,Merck (the maker of Vioxx), global warming, chromium, beryllium, artificial butter flavoring(diacetyl, the cause of often fatal popcorn lung). I think you will see parallels with what went onwith SCENIHR (Chapter 5) and with the telecommunications industry actions (this chapter). Partof the problem with these precedents, is that nobody went to prison, despite the many deaths andinjuries that were perpetrated and in most of these cases, the industries involved ended up making
more money than they lost in the subsequent lawsuits. The precedent has been set that you can
get away with almost anything if you are big enough and powerful enough and rich enough. That62

may have been sufficient to encourage the telecommunications industry to follow a similar,
although, in my opinion, much more aggressive pathway.
One question that can be asked is whether there are any major international political figures who
appear to have a good understanding of the EMF/health issue? When I was asked that question, I
was able to come up with only one person. That person is President Vladimir Putin of Russia.
This inference comes from an interview of Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt, who practices in Seattle, by
Dr. Joseph Mercola, that occurred in December 2017, an interview that was entirely focused on
EMF health effects [117]. In that context Dr. Klinghardt states that a lecture that Putin gave to
the Russian assembly said, "We do not need to go to war with America. America is committingcollective suicide by the way they are using electricity. We just have to wait until they are all in
the psychiatric hospital." When I saw that, I asked myself whether it is plausible that Vladimir
Putin has a deep understanding of the neuropsychiatric effects of the EMFs? And then I thought,of course, Vladimir Putin was the head of the KGB when the latter studies reviewed by Dr. Karl
Hecht [28] were being done in the Soviet Union. The most important effects that were shown tobe produced by the EMFs, in those studies, were the neuropsychiatric effects. Furthermore, thePutin statement apparently shows not only a substantial understanding of those effects but also
the fact that they are cumulative and become irreversible, as shown in those studies [28] and inother studies discussed in Chapter 4. One thing that I would add is that President Putin
apparently practices what he preaches. He avoids smart phones [118].
It is my opinion, that the CIA and other international intelligence agencies should examine theseissues very carefully to assess whether they see the kinds of threats that I see. Those agencies arevery good at obtaining information from various sources and determining probable threats tonational and international security. It should not be difficult to come to an assessment, especiallybecause some of us have done much of the work that needs to be done. The threat here is selfinflicted, it is not caused by any foreign power or set of powers. But it is the most serious
national or international security threat that we have faced, in my opinion, with the exception of
nuclear annihilation.
Propaganda:
In the initial days of the controversy regarding cell phones, in 1993, the industry developed ahuge public relations effort in the face of lawsuits and adverse press reports impacting theindustry. Paul Staiano, President of Motorola General Systems stated in a 1993 ABC 20/20
interview [119] that, “Forty years of research and more than ten thousand studies have provedthat cellular phones are safe.” So I asked how many studies of cell phone safety or lack there of
had been published by the end of 1993. The way I did that was to search in the PubMed database
under (cell phones or cellular phones or mobile phones). I found about 11,000 hits, roughly 99%of them having nothing to do with health safety, and then looked at the few studies that had been
published before the end of 1993. The only study I found that had any connection with health orsafety, was one on driving safety while using a cellular phone, giving equivocal results withregard to driving safety. So there, were apparently no studies done on cell phone safety at thattime. Furthermore, even if there had been any studies, they could not possibly show that “cellular
phones are safe.” At most they might show that there was no statistically significant evidence ofan effect but that only shows that you have not proven an effect, not that you have proven the
opposite. It can be seen, therefore, that this propaganda statement is complete nonsense.
Furthermore, we know that the Panagopoulos et al [100] review, showed that 46 out of 48
genuine cell phone studies that they reviewed showed effects. So the facts are exactly opposite of
the industry propaganda on this. If this was the beginning of propaganda in the U.S. let’s look at
something much more recent.

63

Berezow and Bloom Op-Ed Document: Recommendation to Limit Maryland School Wi-Fi Is
Based on “Junk Science”
Berezow and Bloom, [120] start their 2017 op-ed with the claim that “The CEHPAC, an agency
within Maryland’s Department of Health and Mental Hygeine, has recommended that schools
reduce or eliminate students’ exposure to Wi-Fi because it believes wireless signals might cause
cancer. This is pure, unadulterated junk science. At least three separate, major areas ofscientific knowledge can unambiguously confirm that wireless radiation is completely safe (italics
added).”
They continue with the physics [120], stating that “CEHPAC fails to realize that all radiation is
not created equal. The energy of nuclear radiation, X-rays and UV light is high enough todamage our bodies and cause cancer. But other forms of radiation are energetically weak bycomparison. They cannot cause cancer.” This argument has validity with regard to individual
photons, as I stated in my first paper on the activation of VGCCs by EMFs [4], but it iscompletely bogus with regard to EMFs as a whole. It has been known for 70 years that a person
walking in front of a high powered radar machine will rapidly die, but Berezow and Bloom claimthat cannot happen because the fields are “energetically weak.” Furthermore, as discussed in
Chapter 2 and elsewhere [5,11], the voltage sensor that controls the opening of the VGCCs is
extraordinarily sensitive to electrical forces of EMFs, with the forces on the voltage sensor being
approximately 7.2 million times greater than the forces on singly charged groups in the aqueousparts of our cells and tissues. It can be seen, therefore, that Berezow and Bloom [120] while
claiming to be experts, are profoundly ignorant of the relevant physics.
Berezow and Bloom [120] state that “According to the NIH’s National Cancer Institute [121],
well performed studies that included over one million people showed no connection between cell
phone use and cancer.” There is no such statement in the NCI 2016 [121] document – I suggest
the reader look it up – it differs substantially from the op-ed characterization of it. The NCI 2016[121] document, states that “there is currently no consistent evidence that non-ionizing radiation
increases cancer risk” (sole supporting citation in NCI 2016 [121] was SCENIHR 2015 [73]). It
has been shown above in Chapter 5, that SCENIHR 2015 is not a credible source of informationon this and as shown, in Chapter 1, there are 35 different reviews that each provide strong
evidence that EMFs do cause cancer. So claiming, that EMF causation of cancer is, in Berezow& Bloom’s words, “pure, unadulterated junk science” is nonsense. What is amazing here is that
the U.S. NTP study, published by Wyde et al [122], clearly shows that cell phones do cause
cancer but it was completely left out of the Berezow & Bloom statement.
Let’s go to their third “major area of scientific knowledge” – Berezow and Bloom [120] state that“the only known health effects from Wi-Fi are due to psychosomatics.” That is, “people who
believe that something will make them sick will report feeling ill, even if nothing is happening
externally.” Some of the Wi-Fi studies (Table 1 in [11]) are cell culture studies, some are animalmodel studies where EMF exposures are compared with sham exposures. While there may be avery weak argument regarding some but not other human studies when they are not done blinded,
there is no argument that effects in any of the other studies are caused by “psychosomatics.”
Berezow and Bloom do not look at any of the 23 studies of Wi-Fi reviewed in [11], each of whichshowed effects and it is clear that most of them cannot possibly be due to psychosomatics. Whatis surprising here, is that the trillion dollar set of telecommunication industries, having beenworking on their propaganda for over a quarter of a century, is unable to produce a moreconvincing argument.

64

Have There Been Individual Research Studies Designed to Fail and Therefore Corrupt the
Scientific Literature?
The first example, that I am aware of, where false science has been produced to supposedly showthat an important EMF observation was unrepeatable also came from the U.S. It was described in
Dr. Davis’ book [77]. Dr. Allen H. Frey (pronounced Fry) published a paper in 1975 in Annals of
the New York Academy of Science showing that low intensity pulsed EMF exposures produced abreakdown of the blood-brain barrier, the barrier in the blood vessels in the brain and the brain
tissue that protects the brain from toxic chemicals and also infectious agents. The methodologythat he used was to inject the fluorescent dye fluorescein into the blood (IV) and then use its
fluorescence to detect whether and to what extent it penetrates into the brain tissue from theblood. A subsequent paper was published in 1978 [123], using similar methodology except thatthe fluorescein instead of being injected into the blood, was injected by intraperitoneal (IP)injection. When a compound is injected IP, it enters the blood only slowly over a substantial
period of time, so that when one does a short term experiment looking at penetration through theblood-brain barrier, essentially nothing is seen. This was a transparent attempt to claim that thestudies of Dr. Frey had been repeated with negative results, but the Frey studies had not be
replicated.
I am aware of many papers that were flawed like the seven studies of simulated Wi-Fi, discussed
near the end of Chapter 5 that were each touted by Foster and Moulder [110]. Let me remind youof what the flaws were in those seven studies. Firstly, each of them used EMFs that were thecorrect frequency for Wi-Fi but differed in pulsation from genuine Wi-Fi. Each of these studies
used a reverberation exposure chamber which is predicted to decrease effects by both decreasing
the polarization of the EMFs and increasing the destructive interference of the EMFs. They also
used tiny numbers of animals for each study group, such that any statistics would have very low
power. Finally, Foster and Moulder claimed each of them showed “no effect” when one can only
at best claim there was no statistically significant evidence of an effect. Given the tiny numbers,
the lack of statistical significance is of very little importance. I find that this pattern has been
followed in a substantial number of additional studies.
What I want to discuss here is a paper that had each of those four properties but had several
additional flaws, as well. I am aware of three legal proceedings in the U.S., where the industryside of that case touted the paper to be discussed, as being a particularly strong one. This paper
by Ziemann et al [124] is entitled “Absence of genotoxic potential of 902 MHz (GSM) and 1747
MHz (DCS) wireless communication signals: In vivo two-year bioassay in B6C3F1 mice. In
other words, the title claims that the 902 MHz frequency, studied and the 1747 MHz frequency
also studied in the paper cannot cause DNA damage or other types of genotoxicity.”
On p. 456 of Ziemann et al [124], the authors make clear that they are studying the effects ofsimulated cell phone radiation, not actual cell phone radiation. You will recall that Panagopoulos
et al [110] found that almost all studies of genuine cell phone radiation found effects whereas lessthan half of simulated cell phone studies showed effects. This raises an important question about
why Ziemann et al [124] opted to study simulated cell phone radiation. Much of the funding ofthe Ziemann et al paper (see pp. 462-463) came from industry sources. Funding source is not aflaw but it is a reason to look at the paper particularly closely. 2. The Ziemann et al [124] study
used a stainless steel exposure chamber similar to the reverberation chambers discussed in
Chapter 5 of this document. The chamber is predicted, to produce lower effects because oflowered polarization and increased destructive interference 3. The study is described as being a
two year study of radiation effects. However the cells examined for micronuclei (their marker for
genotoxicity (cellular DNA damage)), were mouse erythrocytes (red blood cells), and such

65

erythrocytes have a lifespan of only about 30 days; because of the inherent instability of
micronuclei in replicating cells, such micronuclei in erythrocytes may possibly be generated overat most a 30 day period. It is misleading to describe this as a two year study when only the last
30 days are relevant to generating the marker being studied. 4. In rats and humans, erythrocytes
containing micronuclei are selectively removed from circulation very quickly (see p. 459 ofZiemann et al [124]). While Ziemann et al claim that mice do not have a similar mechanism forselective rapid removal, the only citation that they provide is a study published by Chaubey et al(1993) showing that this was apparently true with Swiss mice; Ziemann et al [124] chose to use
B6C3F1/CrlBR mice, a different inbred mouse strain which may well behave quite differently
from Swiss mice. It follows from this that we have no idea whether the strain studied is similar to
Swiss mice with regard to selective removal of erythrocytes containing micronuclei.
5. Ziemann et al [124] show that male and female mice behave quite differently with regard tolevels of micronuclei (Tables I and III in [124]); however in their experimental study (Figure 2),
males and females were combined in doing the statistics. What that inevitably does is to produce
greater variations in micronuclei levels within different animal groups, making it substantiallymore difficult to detect any statistical significance among different animal groups in the study. It
also means that it is important to use similar ratios of males and females in the experimentalgroups and we have no idea whether this was done or not. 6. In section A of Figure 2, there were
only 8 animals in each group studied. In section B of Figure 2, there are only 5 to 9 animals ineach animal group studied. These tiny numbers mean that there is only extremely low statisticalpower to detect any effects of EMF exposure and therefore these tiny studies make it almost
impossible to say anything at all about the results. 7. The Ziemann et al study [124] provide
none of their raw data; consequently we are in a situation where we have no way of judging
whether their statistical analysis was done properly. We also have no way to use any such data aspart of a meta-analysis of multiple studies, which may have much more power than do any single
study (particularly such a tiny one). Consequently, the lack of statistical significance they report,cannot be properly assessed by the reader. 8. When one does a study looking at the possible
effects of some variables, in this case a couple of simulated cell phone radiation studies, the mostyou can say about an apparent negative result is that “we did not see any statistically significant
effects.” When you have tiny studies such a described under 7 above, then the lack of statisticalsignificance tells you almost nothing. But even with a very large study such as with thousands ofmice including hundreds in each experimental group, all you can say is that “we did not see any
statistically significant effects.” 9. What do Ziemann et al conclude? They state in their title
that there is an “Absence of genotoxic potential of 902 MHz (GSM) and 1747 (DCS) wirelesscommunication signals.” Did they study these EMFs in all organisms and all cell types? No ofcourse not. Did they study all possible pulsation patterns of these two frequency EMFs? No ofcourse not. Did they study all types of genotoxicity found following low-intensity EMF
exposures? No, just one, micronuclei in erythrocytes in an inbred strain of mice. This title alone
should tell any competent scientist that the paper is deeply flawed, completely apart from thepreceding 8 flaws, with each of the 8 adding substantially to the flaws in this paper.
George Carlo Letter
Dr. George Carlo is an interesting and controversial figure who has both a law degree (JD) and a
PhD in, I believe, epidemiology. He had worked in the telecommunications industry for years ashead of the SAG and then WTR research arms. Dr. Carlo wrote an important letter to the headsof the telecommunications companies on October 7, 1999. The letter he sent to the head of
AT&T is available on the internet [125]. In his book [126] Carlo lists all of the people sent theletter and also provides the text of the letter.

66

Carlo was, at that time the soon to be retiring head of the WTR, which was the
CTIA/telecommunications industry research arm. In the letters to the heads of thetelecommunications industry companies, Carlo discusses the types of evidence arguing that cell
phones do apparently cause cancer and that they do cause DNA damage to our cellular DNA.
The DNA damage, suggested that the apparent cancer causation was real. Carlo continues theletter as follows [125]:“Today, I sit here extremely frustrated and concerned that appropriate steps have not been takenby the wireless industry to protect consumers during this time of uncertainty about safety.”
Continuing further down, Carlo adds:“Alarmingly, indications are that some segments of the industry have ignored the scientificfindings suggesting potential health effects, have repeatedly and falsely claimed that wirelessphones are safe for all consumers including children, and have created an illusion of responsible
follow up by calling for and supporting more research. The most important measures of consumer
protection are missing: complete and honest factual information to allow informed judgment byconsumers about assumption of risk; the direct tracking and monitoring of what happens to
consumers who use wireless phones; and, the monitoring of changes in the technology that could
impact health.
I am especially concerned about what appear to be actions by a segment of the industry toconscript the FCC, the FDA and WHO with them in following a non-effectual course that will
likely result in a regulatory and consumer backlash.”This is an important letter for several reasons. After October 7, 1999 the heads of thetelecommunications companies or, for that matter anyone else at those companies, could nolonger legitimately claim that they did not know there were serious health concerns with cell
phones, with targeting cell phones to young children, or with increasing allowable cell phone
exposure radiation. The last of these was done a few years later, as you have already seen.
The concerns Carlo expresses about the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) and the
FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Adminstration) are particularly important in the U.S., because both the
FCC and the FDA had already been given important regulatory roles when the Carlo letter was
written. The FCC had been given the power of regulating the location of cell phone towers by the
1996 telecommunications act, which also prohibited, as I understand it, any state or local
government from protecting their people’s health by regulating cell phone tower positioning. In
other words, the 1996 telecommunications act de facto stated that the U.S. Federal government
valued telecommunication industry profits over every single health impact of microwave
frequency radiation, no matter how serious it is, to the American people. There have been several
subsequent pieces of legislation that have made the situation still worse. The FDA had been
given the power to regulate radiation emissions from cell phones and other devices that emit
microwave/radiofrequency radiation, with cell phone regulation apparently being shared with the
FCC.
What Can We Say About the FCC?
There was a very informative document about the FCC published by the Safra Institute for Ethics
at Harvard University [127] entititled “Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications
Commission Is Dominated by the Industries It Presumably Regulates.” One of the sections inthat document shows why both the FCC role and the telecommunications industry role were so
important with regard to the 1996 telecommunications act:

67

Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of the Act remarkably, and that adverb seems inescapably best
here, wrests zoning authority from local governments. Specifically, they cannot cite
health concerns about the effects of tower radiation to deny tower licenses so long as
the towers comply with FCC regulations.
Congress Silences Public
Section 322(c)(7)(B0(iv) of the Communications Act Provides:
No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement,
construction of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of environmental effectsof radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with theCommission’s regulations concerning such emissions.
In preempting local zoning authority – along with the public’s right to guard its own safety
and health, Congress unleashed an orgy of infrastructure build-out. Emboldened by thegovernment green light and the vast consumer appetite for wireless technology, industry
has had a free hand in installing more than 300,000 sites. Church steeples, schoolyards,
school rooftops, even trees can house these facilities.
What, then are the consequences of all of this? The 17 studies that have been done on people
living near cell phone towers show that many people within 300 meters (about 1000 feet) of a cell
phone tower are afflicted by six of the health effects found in those many reviews listed in
Chapter 1. Two of those effects have not been looked at. According to this literature, people
living within 300 meters of cell phone towers suffer from widespread neuropsychiatric effects,
cellular DNA damage, cancer, oxidative stress, elevated apoptosis (cell death), and hormonal
effects. They also suffer from cardiac effects like those discussed in Chapter 3 and fromhypertension and also anemia. The two extremely well documented EMF health effects that havenot been looked at are the reproductive effects and the high levels of intracellular calcium. That
does not tell us these are not also caused in people living near cell phone towers, just that no one
has looked. Roughly 30% of the people in this country live within 300 meters of a cell phone
tower so the impact on health is major. But few know about this and the media and ourgovernment, including especially the FCC and FDA are keeping it all a deep dark secret. Not asingle one of these 17 studies have been done in the U.S. Consequently, when the U.S. hasensured that we are irradiated by well over 300,000 of these cell phone towers, it has done
absolutely nothing to determine what the consequences of exposure are. Of course we are
impacted not only by cell phone towers near where we live but also near where we work or go toschool and to some extent, when we are driving around town. These high levels of exposure are
not necessary. Switzerland has safety guidelines that are 100 times more stringent than ours,
Russia has safety guidelines that are 1000 times more stringent than ours. The health effects we
see now will no doubt rise much further in the future without any increasing exposure, because
many of these effects are cumulative, eventually becoming irreversible.
I would encourage you to look at the whole FCC as a captured agency document [127] – it can be
downloaded at no cost from the internet [127]. It is very interesting and adds considerably to myshort comments here regarding corruption.
So what does the FCC have to say about EMF effects on its web site [128]? I have copied somerelevant sections as follows:68At relatively low levels of exposure to RF radiation, i.e., levels lower than those thatwould produce significant heating, the evidence for production of harmful biologicaleffects is ambiguous and unproven. Such effects, if they exist, have been referred to as"non-thermal" effects. A number of reports have appeared in the scientific literaturedescribing the observation of a range of biological effects resulting from exposure to lowlevels of RF energy. However, in most cases, further experimental research has been
unable to reproduce these effects. Furthermore, since much of the research is not doneon whole bodies (in vivo), there has been no determination that such effects constitute ahuman health hazard. It is generally agreed that further research is needed to determine
the generality of such effects and their possible relevance, if any, to human health. In
the meantime, standards-setting organizations and government agencies continue tomonitor the latest experimental findings to confirm their validity and determine whether
changes in safety limits are needed to protect human health. (Back to Index)
CAN PEOPLE BE EXPOSED TO LEVELS OF RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION THAT
COULD BE HARMFUL?
Studies have shown that environmental levels of RF energy routinely encountered by thegeneral public are typically far below levels necessary to produce significant heating andincreased body temperature. However, there may be situations, particularly inworkplace environments near high-powered RF sources, where the recommended limits
for safe exposure of human beings to RF energy could be exceeded. In such cases,
restrictive measures or mitigation actions may be necessary to ensure the safe use of
RF energy. (Back to Index)
CAN RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION CAUSE CANCER?
Some studies have also examined the possibility of a link between RF exposure andcancer. Results to date have been inconclusive. While some experimental data havesuggested a possible link between exposure and tumor formation in animals exposed
under certain specific conditions, the results have not been independently replicated.
Many other studies have failed to find evidence for a link to cancer or any related
condition. The Food and Drug Administration has further information on this topic withrespect to RF exposure from mobile phones at the following Web site: FDA RadiationEmitting Products Page . (Back to Index)
Let’s look at the first paragraph. In the third and fourth sentence, they state that there have been
non-thermal effects reported but then say that “in most cases they have not been reproduced.” Is
that true? No. The 79 reviews listed in Chapter 1 have each found repeated studies documenting
one or more of the EMF effects. You can’t get a review published without multiple studies. And
the fact that so many of these effects have been repeatedly reviewed, over many years shows thatsimilar patterns of evidence have been found over long periods of time. The FCC provides not
one iota of evidence on its claims, despite the fact that such a claim of inability to reproduce
findings absolutely requires extensive documentation to be scientifically valid. This difference indocumentation, means that any one of those 79 reviews listed in Chapter 1 is vastly morescientific in showing the falsity of the FCC statement than is the FCC statement itself, which iscompletely undocumented.

69

Let’s go on to the cancer claim at the bottom of the copied section. The FCC states that “A
number of reports have appeared in the scientific literature describing the observation of a rangeof biological effects resulting from exposure to low levels of RF energy. However, in most cases,
further experimental research has been unable to reproduce these effects. Furthermore, sincemuch of the research is not done on whole bodies (in vivo), there has been no determination thatsuch effects constitute a human health hazard.” You will note here that there are no specifics, norwere there any specifics on the section discussed in the previous paragraph. What we have here
are completely undocumented FCC claims, with no specifics whatsoever and claims that areclearly contradicted by each of the 35 reviews on cancer causation by EMF exposure. They arealso clearly contradicted by the 21 reviews on cellular DNA damage following EMF exposures,
something that the FCC says nothing about. It has been known for decades, that the process ofcarcinogenesis (cancer causation) usually starts with one or more mutations in the cellular DNA,mutations that can be caused by each of the three types of cellular DNA damage known to becaused by EMF exposure.
The sort of pattern seen here, where we have gross generalizations followed by no or completely
inadequate documentation goes on with the industry propaganda [119,120] as discussed earlier, as
well as in the Speit/Schwarz discussion from early in Chapter 5. What you see in each of thosecases is everything falls apart when you look carefully at the facts. The situation with the FCC
statements is very similar. There can be little doubt that the FCC is acting as a propaganda
organization here, as strongly suggested by the George Carlo letter [125,126] and the FCC as acaptured agency [127] document.
Three questions: Does the FCC know that these statements that it has made are not factual?
Does it know how non-thermal EMF effects actually are produced? Does it know that its safety
guidelines do not protect our health? That answer to all three of these questions is yes. How do I
know? I know because I did a PowerPoint presentation to the FCC in September 2016 which
presented findings in each of these important areas. My account of that presentation, written twodays after it occurred, follows:
Professor Emeritus Martin L. Pall presented Powerpoint presentation on the main
mechanism of action of non-thermal microwave frequency EMFs to the FCC
I met with Julius Knapp, Chief of OET, Martin Doczkat, Branch Chief, OET/TechnicalAnalysis Branch, and Ed Mantiply Engineer OET/Associate Chief at the Federal
Communications Commission on September 21, 2016 to present a Powerpoint
presentation and answer questions. The presentation showed that non-thermal
microwave and lower frequency EMFs act via voltage-gated calcium channel (VGCC)
activation. The most important findings demonstrating this mechanism are that various
effects produced by such non-thermal exposures can be blocked or greatly lowered bycalcium channel blockers, drugs that are highly specific for blocking VGCCs. The
reason why such low intensity non-thermal exposures activate the VGCCs is because
the voltage sensor of the VGCCs is exquisitely sensitive to the electrical forces producedby these EMFs. The forces on the voltage sensor are calculated to be about 7.2 million
times higher than are the forces on singly charged chemical groups in the aqueous
phases of the cell. This very high level sensitivity also predicts that the safety guidelines
allow us to be exposed to EMF intensities that are approximately 7.2 million times too
high.

70

The actions produced by such VGCC activation go mainly through the excessive
intracellular calcium levels produced by such activation. Excessive calcium acts via
three main pathways to produce effects in the body. Therapeutic effects are produced
through the nitric oxide signaling pathway whereas many pathophysiological effects areproduced by the peroxynitrite/oxidative stress pathway. Excessive calcium signaling
also produces pathophysiological effects. Numerous effects produced following nonthermal EMF exposures can be produced by these pathways including oxidative stress,
cellular DNA damage, cancer, widespread neuropsychiatric effects, breakdown of theblood brain barrier, lowered male and female fertility and various endocrine (that is
hormonal) changes.
It has long been known that pulsed EMFs are usually much more biologically active thanare non-pulsed (or continuous wave) EMFs and this difference appears to be consistent
with the VGCC mechanism. Because all wireless communication devices communicate
via pulsations, such devices may be of special concern.
Three concerns were expressed with regard to 5G: 1. The stronger absorption of thevery high frequencies involved require the setting up of vast numbers of antennae,making it essentially impossible to avoid damaging exposures. 2. The stronger
absorption suggests that these EMFs may be particularly active in activating the VGCC
voltage sensor. 3. The very high level and complexity of pulsations also may make formuch more biological damage via VGCC activation.
There was substantial discussion of the need for biological safety testing. That
discussion focused on the using cells in culture that have high densities and different
types of VGCCs. Responses can be monitored by either monitoring intracellular calcium
levels or by measuring nitric oxide production using a nitric oxide electrode.
Martin L. Pall
Professor Emeritus
martin_pall@wsu.edu
We had what would be considered in diplomatic circles a good and productive meeting, but sincethat time the FCC has doubled down on their positions, pushed much further on 5G, leading us tothe mega-crisis situation which we are faced with now. Instead of actually testing 5G radiation
biologically for safety, using the methods that were discussed in that meeting, the FCC has
instead opted to put out tens of millions of 5G antennae without any biological safety testing of
genuine 5G radiation. That is the insanity that we are in.
What About the FDA?
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was given the power to regulate devices that emit
microwave frequency EMFs. This was not an unreasonable decision, given that the FDA wasalready regulating the safety of medical devices, where one can argue that there are similar
challenges involved. The FDA was given this responsibility without any additional funding. So
obviously, it was and is distinctly limited in what it can do.
What the FDA did was to issue a Letter of Intent for Proposed Collaboration in Mobile Phone
Research between the Food and Drug Administration and the Cellular Telecommunications

71

Industry Association (CTIA), [129] Dated October 20, 1999. This would involve a Cooperative
Research and Development Agreement (CRADA). Later in their Letter of Intent, it states under
Initial Research Under the CRADA [129]: “The first study to be conducted would follow up on
the findings of studies previously conducted by WTR but not yet published using the
micronucleus assay, a test which detects structural effects on genetic material. Research data in
the literature from RF exposure studies using the micronucleus assay are conflicting, and warrant
follow-up study.” You will see here that the FDA is accepting the industry claim that thesestudies are conflicting even though, having been done under different circumstances, they are not.
The basic approach of the CRADA was that the industry would fund any research to be done anddecide what research should be done by whom and how and what information would be
published subsequently.
You may recall that Dr. George Carlo wrote a very important letter to the heads of thetelecommunications companies, described earlier. That letter was dated two weeks before thedate of the letter or intent. Carlo’s letter stated: “I am especially concerned about what appear tobe actions by a segment of the industry to conscript the FCC, the FDA and WHO… .” Carlo who
had been up to that point, an industry insider, and apparently had reason to think that the FDA
had been corrupted, or what he called conscripted by parts of the telecommunications industry
two weeks before the letter of intent was written. I don’t think this is definitive evidence that the
FDA has been corrupted, and it can even be argued that it is not evidence at all. But it doessuggest, however, that we need to look further into this issue.
Let’s go on to the results of this CRADA [130]. The FDA reports the following findings from the
CRADA: “FDA’s cooperative research and development agreement (CRADA) with the Cellular
Communication & Internet Association (CTIA) has resulted in research projects focused on two
topics - mechanistic studies related to genotoxicity and exposure assessment studies. All studies
funded through the CRADA have been completed, and no association was found between
exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation from cell phones and adverse health effects.” I havebeen unable to get copies of these studies and therefore cannot comment on them.
The CRADA also lead to a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) workshop on EMFs that lead,in turn, to a 2008 NAS report. That 2008 NAS report can be accessed from [130]. It is a usefulreport, in my view, albeit one that leaves out much of what was already known in 2008. It does
not say that there are no clear non-thermal effects and specifically calls for study of theneurological effects, suggesting that “that neural networks are a sensitive biological target.” Italso calls for much research on biophysical or biochemical molecular mechanism(s) that may leadto the non-thermal effects. It also calls for much more study on cancer. There has been a large
amount of progress in each of these three areas since 2008, including of course the identificationof VGCC activation as the most important but not necessarily the only biophysical mechanism.
The problem with regard to the FDA is that as far as one can tell, the FDA has paid no attention
to either the 2008 report or to the subsequent progress we have had in these several areas.
Let’s shift our attention to what the FDA currently says about the impacts of these EMFs? On
their web site [131], the FDA states the following:
Is there a connection between certain health problems and exposure to radiofrequency
fields via cell phone use?
The results of most studies conducted to date indicate that there is not. In addition,
attempts to replicate and confirm the few studies that did show a connection have failed.

72According to current data, the FDA believes that the weight of scientific evidence does
not show an association between exposure to radiofrequency from cell phones andadverse health outcomes. Still, there is a consensus that additional research iswarranted to address gaps in knowledge, such as the effects of cell phone use over the
long-term and on pediatric populations.
There was a similar statement made by the FCC, in previous section, and also similar statement
was made by Samsung, one of world’s largest producers of cell phones which reads a follows[132]:
Over the past 15 years, scientists have conducted hundreds of studies looking at thebiological effects of radio frequency energy emitted by cell phones. While someresearchers have reported biological changes associated with RF energy, these studies
have failed to be replicated. The majority of studies published have failed to show anassociation between between exposure to radio frequency from a cell phone and healthproblems.
Neither the FDA statement nor the Samsung statement give us any idea what possible effects arebeing considered here, what literature was used for such a consideration. These statements arecompletely undocumented and therefore must be viewed as being unscientific. In Chapter 1, 79
reviews were given that each showed the existence of one or more effects. Eignt different ofeffects were each documented in from 12 to 35 reviews. Such reviews must be extensively
documented or one cannot get them published. Any one of those reviews provides, therefore, amuch stronger argument for presence of one or more effects than do the FDA, FCC and Samsung
statements put together arguing for the opposite. One thing that is strange about the FDA
statement is that they are talking specifically about cell phones even though they are tasked withregulating safety on all such microwave/radiofrequency devices. What I have done below is to
put together the 16 reviews which are completely or largely focused on cell phone radiation
effects so that we can see what specific effects have been found to be caused by cell phoneradiation. I will summarize those effects below.
Table 5: Reviews on Cell Phone Effects and the Effects Found in Each
Review on Cell Phone Effects
Effects Found
La Vignera S, Condorelli RA, Vicari E, D'Agata R,
Multiple effects on male reproduction
Calogero AE. 2012 Effects of the exposure to mobile
phones on male reproduction: a review of the literature.
J Androl 33:350-356.
Makker K, Varghese A, Desai NR, Mouradi R, Agarwal Cellular DNA damage,neurological/neuropsychiatric effects,
A. 2009 Cell phones: modern man's nemesis? Reprod
Biomed Online 18:148-157.
apoptosis
Yakymenko IL, Sidorik EP, Tsybulin AS. 1999
Apoptosis, increased oxidative stress,[Metabolic changes in cells under electromagnetic
increased intracellular calcium
radiation of mobile communication systems]. Ukr
Biokhim Zh (1999), 2011 Mar-Apr:20-28.
K Sri N. 2015 Mobile phone radiation: physiological & Male infertility, cellular DNA
pathophysiological considerations. Indian J Physiol
damage, lowered melatonin, increased
Pharmacol 59:125-135.
stress protein expression
Nazıroğlu M, Yüksel M, Köse SA, Özkaya MO. 2013
Oxidative stress, male and female
Recent reports of Wi-Fi and mobile phone-induced
reproductive signaling dysfunction73

radiation on oxidative stress and reproductive signaling
pathways in females and males. J Membr Biol 246:869875.
Yakymenko I, Sidorik E. 2010 Risks ofcarcinogenesis from electromagnetic radiation andmobile telephony devices. Exp Oncol 32:729-736.
Zhang J, Sumich A, Wang GY. 2017 Acute effects ofradiofrequency electromagnetic field emitted by mobile
phone on brain function. Bioelectromagnetics 38:329338. doi: 10.1002/bem.22052.
Kundi M, Mild K, Hardell L, Mattsson M. 2004
Mobile telephones and cancer – a review of theepidemiological evidence. J Toxicol Env Health, Part B
7:351-384.
Hardell L, Carlberg M, Soderqvist F, Hansson Mild K.
2008 Meta-analysis of long-term mobile phone use andthe association with brain tumors. Int J Oncol 32:10971103.
Hardell L, Carlberg M. 2013 Using the Hill viewpoints
from 1965 for evaluating strengths of evidence of therisk for brain tumors associated with use of mobile andcordless phones. Rev Environ Health 28:97-106. doi:
10.1515/reveh-2013-0006.
Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. 2013 Use ofmobile phones and cordless phones is associated withincreased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma.
Pathophysiology 2013;20(2):85-110.
Davis DL, Kesari S, Soskolne CL, Miller AB, Stein Y.
2013 Swedish review strengthens grounds forconcluding that radiation from cellular and cordlessphones is a probable human carcinogen.
Pathophysiology 20:123-129.
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.
Bielsa-Fernández P, Rodríguez-Martín B. 2017
[Association between radiation from mobile phones andtumour risk in adults]. Gac Sanit. 2017 Apr 12. pii:
S0213-9111(17)30083-3. doi:
10.1016/j.gaceta.2016.10.014.
Prasad M, Kathuria P, Nair P, Kumar A, Prasad K.
2017 Mobile phone use and risk of brain tumours: asystematic review of association between study quality,source of funding, and research outcomes. Neurol Sci.
2017 Feb 17. doi: 10.1007/s10072-017-2850-8.
Miller A. 2017 References on cell phone radiation andcancer. https://ehtrust.org/references-cell-phone-radio-

Cancer, cellular DNA damage,apoptosis; higher cancer incidence on
ipsilateral side of the head, notcontralateral
Neurological dysfunction

Cancer – epidemiological review

Cancer – meta-analysis on long-term
cell phone use and brain tumors

Mobile and cordless phone radiation
caused brain cancer based on the Hill
criteria for causation (most importantcriteria for causation in epidemiology)
Mobile and cordless phone exposuresassociated with increased risk ofglioma and acoustic neuroma; higher
cancer increase on ipsilateral side of
the head
Cell phone and cordless phoneradiation are a probable carcinogens;cancer increase on ipsilateral side of
the head, not contralateral side
Mobile phone radiation causes brain
tumors and should be classified as aprobable human carcinogen
Association between mobile phonerisk and tumor risk

The association between mobile phone
use and brain cancer is higher inindependently funded studies than inindustry funded studies
This is a bibliography of studies oncell phone radiation and cancer – most74

frequency-radiation-cancer/ (Accessed Sept. 9, 2017)support the view that cell phones docause cancer

The effects of specifically cell phone radiation that have been found in these reviews (Table 5)
include: lowered male reproductive function, lowered female reproductive function, increased
cellular DNA damage, neurological/neuropsychiatric effects, increased stress protein synthesis,
increased intracellular calcium, apoptosis, lowered melatonin, oxidative stress, cancer (10reviews) and specifically increased ipsilateral cancer (3 reviews). So there are 11 different cell
phone effects where there is substantial enough evidence to warrant publication in one or morereview articles. Each of these effects has been shown to occur in response to other microwave
frequency EMFs and therefore should be considered to be caused by EMFs more broadly.
The summary of Table 4, Chapter 5, the genuine cell phone primary literature studies that fell into
the 2009-2013 time frame, started as follows: “If you look through the studies described in Table
4, you will see multiple studies in oxidative stress/free radical damage, on changes in tissue
structure (sometimes called remodeling), on cellular DNA damage, on male fertility (and also one
on female fertility), on behavioral changes and on neurological changes. There is also one study
on insulin/type 2 diabetes (hormonal effect). It follows from this that five of the effects that wereextensively documented in large numbers of reviews (Chapter 1) are further demonstrated to be
produced by cell phone radiation in these studies. In addition the tissue remodeling andproteomic changes discussed in Chapter 3 are also further demonstrated here.”
It can be seen from Tables 4 & 5 and the preceding two paragraphs, that there is a vast amount ofliterature on repeatedly found effects of cell phone radiation, effects which make a mockery of
the completely undocumented and non-specific FDA claims to the contrary.
Let’s look at another part of the FDA statement which also shows similarities to statements madeelsewhere [131]:
The biological effects of radiofrequency energy should not be confused with the effects
from other types of electromagnetic energy.
Very high levels of electromagnetic energy, such as is found in X-rays and gamma rays
can ionize biological tissues. Ionization is a process where electrons are stripped awayfrom their normal locations in atoms and molecules. It can permanently damage
biological tissues including DNA, the genetic material.
The energy levels associated with radiofrequency energy, including both radio waves
and microwaves, are not great enough to cause the ionization of atoms and molecules.
Therefore, RF energy is a type of non-ionizing radiation. Other types of non-ionizing
radiation include visible light, infrared radiation (heat) and other forms of electromagnetic
radiation with relatively low frequencies.
This is almost identical to another Samsung statement and also to an FCC statement that I havenot copied. Here is the Samsung statement [133]:
The biological effects of RF energy should not be confused with the effects from othertypes of electromagnetic energy.

75Very high levels of electromagnetic energy, such as is found in X-rays and gamma rays,
can ionize biological tissues. Ionization is a process where electrons are stripped awayfrom their normal locations in atoms and molecules. It can permanently damage
biological tissues including DNA, the genetic material.
The energy levels associated with radio frequency energy, including both radio waves
and microwaves, are not great enough to cause ionization of atoms and molecules.
Therefore, RF energy is a type of non-ionizing radiation. Other types of non-ionizing
radiation include visible light, infrared radiation (heat), and other forms ofelectromagnetic radiation with relatively low frequencies.
While RF energy does not ionize particles, large amounts can increase bodytemperatures and cause tissue damage. Two areas of the body, the eyes and the testes,
are particularly vulnerable to RF heating because there is relatively little blood flow inthem to carry away excess heat.
The three paragraphs from the FDA statement are word for word identical to the first threeparagraphs of the Samsung statement. The last paragraph in the Samsung statement was deleted
from the FDA statement. It is clear from this that either the FDA statement is derived from theearlier industry statement rather than the other way around or both are derived from a previous
statement similar to the Samsung statement.
These types of statements have given rise to shorter statements that are all something like thefollowing:
Non-ionizing radiation consists of photons that do not have enough energy to breakchemical bonds including the chemical bonds of DNA.
All of these statements are technically correct. They are also highly misleading. They are often
falsely interpreted as meaning that there cannot be any effects of non-ionizing, non-thermal EMF
exposures including indirect effects. There are many possible indirect effects that may occur,
given the complexity of biology. But our situation goes way beyond that, because we know thatmost of the effects are produced via VGCC activation which produces, as downstream effects, thefree radical breakdown products of peroxynitrite (Fig. 1, Chapter 2). Those free radical
breakdown products attack DNA, proteins and other biological constituents in ways that are very
similar to the ways in which ionizing radiation attack these same molecules. Ionizing radiation
was shown by Arthur Compton, who won the Nobel prize in physics in 1927, for showing thationizing radiation produces large numbers of free radicals through what has become known as
Compton scattering, with those free radicals being responsible for most of the biological effectsof ionizing radiation. So the often repeated industry claim that ionizing radiation is dangerous but
non-ionizing radiation is not, is wrong – both of them produce similar effects mediated throughfree radical generation. However the dangers of non-ionizing radiation may eclipse the dangers
of ionizing radiation under some conditions because of something that is discussed early in
Chapter 5, at the end of the Speit/Schwarz discussion. There are three processes which occur inthe sequence by which EMF activation leads to peroxynitrite breakdown product radicals, each ofwhich have high levels of amplification (each discussed on p. 29 in Chapter 5). Thus potentiallyand I believe actually microwave frequency EMFs can produce under suitable conditions, much
more efficient free radical production than occurs from a similar energy level of ionizing
radiation.

76

The FDA may have had a long history of playing fast and loose with the truth. For example,
Microwave News article published in 2003, provides this account of what occurred at the FDA in
1993 [134]:
1993 FDA Memo Data “Strongly Suggest” Microwaves Can Promote Cancer.
In the spring of 1993 at the height of the public concern over cell phone brain
tumor risks, the Food and Drug Adminstration (FDA) biologists concluded [134] that theavailable data “strongly suggest” that microwaves can “accelerate the development ofcancer.” This assessment is from an internal agency memo recently obtained byMicrowave News under the Freedom of Information Act.
“Of approximately eight chronic animal experiments known to us, five resulted inincreased numbers of malignancies, accelerated progression of tumors, or both” wrote
Drs. Mays Swicord and Larry Cress of FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health(CDRH) in Rockville, MD. They also pointed to other evidence from laboratory (in vitro)studies which supported cancer risk.
Yet in its public statements at that time, the agency played down these findings[134]. For instance in a Talk Paper issued in early February, the FDA stated that there
was “limited evidence that suggests that lower levels (of microwaves) might cause
adverse effects.”“A few studies suggest that (microwave) levels (from cellular phones) can
accelerate the development of cancer in laboratory animals,” the FDA added [134], “butthere is much uncertainty among scientists about whether these results apply to the useof cellular phones.”
I have three comments. Firstly, if you look at the 35 citations in the list on cancer causation in
Chapter 1, you will see that there are 8 citations (#s 2-7 & 15 & 19) which provide similar
evidence of stimulation of tumor promotion, four of which (#s 3-6) were published around 1993,
the time of the FDA memo and public statement described above. Therefore, there was asubstantial literature including peer-reviewed primary literature and review articles which
produced similar conclusions to those of the FDA internal memo. The importance of the memo isthat the FDA knew about these findings and opted to cover them up.
Secondly if you compare the rhetoric in the 1993 memo with the first quote from the current FDA
web site quoted in this section, you will see some striking similarities. They both first refer to “afew studies” which are not identified, followed by raising uncertainties and then finally raising
doubt as to whether these findings apply to cell phone radiation. The pattern of the FDA rhetoric
has not changed much in 25 years.
If one includes the middle statement also quoted from the FDA web site, we have three FDA
statements each of which downplays any biological effects and each of which are strongly
rebutted by extensive peer-reviewed independent scientific literature. I’m not sure we can say the
FDA has been corrupted by the industry, but what we can say is that it has been functioning as if
it has been corrupted for 25 years.
In mid-2009 Margaret A. Hamburg, the new commissioner of the FDA, and Joshua M.
Sharfstein, her principal deputy commissioner, published a commentary article in the New
England Journal of Medicine [135] which included the following:

77

"One of the greatest challenges facing any public health agency is that of risk
communication. … The FDA's job is to minimize risks through education, regulation, andenforcement. To be credible in all these tasks, the agency must communicate frequently
and clearly about risks and benefits—and about what organizations and individuals can
do to minimize risk. When, like the FDA, Americans must make choices about
medication, devices, foods, or nutrition in the absence of perfect information, the FDA
cannot delay in providing reasonable guidance —guidance that informs rather thancauses unnecessary anxiety. For these communications to have credibility, the publicmust trust the agency to base its decisions on science."
These were and are laudable goals. As far as I can tell, with regard to EMF effects, the FDA has
failed to base either its communications or its decisions on science.
Summary of Chapter 6
In the areas discussed in Chapter 6 what used to be the primacy of U.S. science has completely
disintegrated. It has disintegrated because of the cessation of U.S. government funding for either
experimental studies or epidemiological studies. It has disintegrated due to attacks on U.S. andInternational scientists, attacks that started in the U.S. with the attacks on Dr. Henry Lai. It has
disintegrated because of aggressive industry propaganda, propaganda that has no connection withthe real science. It has disintegrated because of the outright corruption of the committee to set
standards for radio-frequency exposures and the FCC and the possible and de facto corruption of
the FDA. The telecommunications industry has been aware of much of the problems with theirapproach since the 1999 letter to them from George Carlo. The FCC has been aware of much
more of the science since my presentation to them in September 2016. The FDA has been awareof contrary findings since 1993. Each of them has, if anything, doubled down on their fictions
since those respective times.
Many of these things are going on internationally; however the U.S. has often been leading theworld in these processes. All of the actions we have seen to corrupt the science and public
understanding of the science have the effect of making it vastly more difficult for individuals
impacted by the EMFs to protect themselves from further harm. We have many effects that are
cumulative and become irreversible as they become more severe, effects that impact at aminimum, tens of millions of Americans and hundreds of millions of people elsewhere in theworld. Industrial and regulatory organizations make it difficult or impossible for people to havescientifically valid information also make it difficult or impossible for people to protect
themselves from the accumulation of these effects, leading to severe irreversible effects. Each of
the organizations involved, both U.S. and international that collaborate in this process, haveimportant responsibility for the consequences. I think damage goes way beyond tens andhundreds of millions of people, because I think we are looking at cumulative severe impact on
our brain function, on our reproductive function and on our DNA, and that these, in turn will leadto the crash of every single technologically advanced country on earth, barring a major change incourse. That will happen fairly quickly, in my opinion, even without 5G but 5G will greatly
speed up the process and perhaps even add new egregious effects
Chapter 7: The Great Risks of 5G: What We Know and What We Don’t Know
We have already discussed two issues that are essential to understanding 5G. One is that pulsed
EMFs are, in most cases, much more biologically active than are non-pulsed (often called78continuous wave) EMFs. A second is that the EMFs act by putting forces on the voltage sensor
of the VGCCs, opening these calcium channels and allowing excessive calcium ions to flow into
the cell. The voltage sensor is extraordinarily sensitive to those electrical forces, such that thesafety guidelines are allowing us to be exposed to EMFs that are something like 7.2 million times
too high.
The reason that the industry has decided to go to the extremely high frequencies of 5G is that withsuch extremely high frequencies, it is possible to carry much more information via much morepulsation than it is possible to carry with lower frequencies even in the microwave range. We canbe assured, therefore, that 5G will involve vastly more pulsation than do EMFs that we are
currently exposed to. It follows from that, that any biological safety test of 5G must use the very
rapid pulsations including whatever very short term spikes may be present, that are to be present
in genuine 5G. There is an additional process that is planned to be used in 5G: phased arrays(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phased_array). Here multiple antenna elements act together toproduce highly pulsed fields which are designed for 5G, to produce increased penetration. 5G
will entail particularly powerful pulsations to be used, which may, therefore, be particularly
hazardous.
The only data we have, to my knowledge, on millimeter wave frequencies of 5G used non-pulsed
EMFs in the millimeter frequency range of 5G, not genuine 5G. Such millimeter waves havebeen shown to produce a number of downstream effects of VGCC activation. One millimeterwave study showed that it activated both the VGCCs and also the voltage-gated potassiumchannels, suggesting that it worked via the voltage sensor, as do other EMFs [136]. Any suchdata tells us almost nothing about how biologically active genuine very highly pulsed 5G will be.
I take it that from their statements, that both Mr. Ryan and Dr. Vinciūnas are ready to put out 10sof millions of 5G antennae to afflict every single person in the EU with 5G radiation without evena single biological test of safety of genuine 5G. In the U.S., the FCC has taken a much worse
position. The FCC is not only willing to allow such completely untested exposures but has also
been has been aggressively pushing to promote installation of 5G antennae, such that antennae
are already being installed in parts of the U.S. In a world where shocking behavior has becomeless and less shocking, I consider EU and U.S. views and actions to be shocking. The U.S.
situation is mass insanity. I would have hoped that the Europeans, who think of themselves as
being much more thoughtful than Americans, would have been genuinely more thoughtful.
Why does 5G need such high numbers of antennae? It is because the 5G radiation is much moreabsorbed as it enters various materials. The approach is to use many more antennae with one
found every few houses, such that 5G can sufficiently penetrate local walls. Such absorption
usually involves the interaction with electrically charged groups, such that such high absorption is
likely to involve placing forces on electrically charged groups. Because such forces are the way
in which EMFs activate the VGCCs, it seems highly likely, therefore, that 5G radiation will be
particularly active in VGCC activation.
In summary, then, 5G is predicted to be particularly dangerous for each of four different reasons:
1. The extraordinarily high numbers of antennae that are planned. 2. The very high energy
outputs which will be used to ensure penetration. 3. The extraordinarily high pulsation levels. 4.
The apparent high level interactions of the 5G frequency on charged groups presumably including
the voltage sensor charged groups.
Now what the telecommunications industry argues is that 5G radiation will be mostly absorbed in
the outer 1 or 2 mm of the body, such that they claim that we don’t have to worry about theeffects. There is some truth to that, but there are also some caveats that make any conclusions

79

made from that, much more suspect. In any case, these surface effects of 5G will have especiallystrong impact on organisms with much higher surface to volume ratios. Consequently, I predictthat many organisms will be much more impacted than we will. This includes insects and otherarthropods, birds and small mammals and amphibia. It includes plants including even large trees,
because trees have leaves and reproductive organs that are highly exposed. I predict there will bemajor ecological disasters as a consequence of 5G. This will include vast conflagrations because
EMF exposures make plants much more flammable.
But let’s get back to humans. The industry has also made claims that more conventional
microwave frequency EMFs are limited in effect to the outer 1 cm of the body. We know that is
not true, however because of the effects deep in the human brain, on the heart and on hormone
systems. Perhaps the most important two studies demonstrating effects deep within the body are
the studies of Professor Hässig and his colleagues in Switzerland on cataract formation in
newborn calves [137,138]. These two studies clearly show that when pregnant cows are grazingnear mobile phone base stations (also called cell phone towers), the calves are born with very
greatly increased incidences of cataracts. It follows from these findings that even though thedeveloping fetuses are very deep in the body of the mother and should be highly protected fromthe EMF exposures, they are not so protected. And because the EMF safety guidelines in
Switzerland are 100 times more stringent than are the safety guidelines in most of the rest ofEurope, in the U.S., Canada and most of the rest of the world, the more general safety guidelines
allow greatly excessive exposures and penetration of effects. The claims of industry thatmicrowave frequency EMFs only act in the outer centimeter of the body are clearly false.
How then can both conventional microwave frequency EMFs and 5G radiation act deeply within
the body? You may correctly observe that the electrical effects of the EMFs activate the voltage
sensor and that the direct electrical forces are rapidly attenuated in the body. So how can we get
deep effects? I think the answer is that the magnetic parts of the EMFs have been known for
decades to penetrate much more deeply than do the electrical parts. The magnetic fields put
forces on mobile electrically charged groups dissolved in the aqueous phases of the body andsmall individual movements of the charged groups can regenerate electric fields that are
essentially identical to the electric fields of the original EMFs, carrying the same frequency andsame pulsation pattern, although with lower intensity. An example of this is given in the Lu andUeno [139] study. Because the voltage sensor is so stunningly sensitive to electrical forces andpart of the reason for that is the very high level of amplification of the electrical field across theplasma membrane, we have an almost perfect way in which to produce EMF effects deeply
within our bodies.
I am very concerned that 5G may produce effects like those we already see produced from lower
frequency EMFs but are much more severe. I am also concerned that we will also see responses
that are qualitatively different. Let me give you three possible examples of the latter type and one
quantitative example. Each of the four types of blindness, have downstream effects of VGCC
activation as causal factors: cataracts, detached retinas, glaucoma and macular degeneration. The
aqueous and vitreous humors in the eye may be an ideal environment for the regeneration of theelectrical fields within the eye. We may, therefore have a gigantic epidemic of each of the fourtypes of blindness. Another concern focuses on kidney dysfunction, which was shown in Chapter
5 to be impacted by EMFs. The kidneys have much fluid, both blood and also what will become
urine, which may allow efficient the regeneration of electrical fields. Such regeneration may be
expected to impact both the glomerular filtration and also the reabsorption, both essential tokidney function. Does this mean that 5G will produce very large increases in kidney failure? The
only way to find out is to do biological safety testing of genuine 5G radiation. Let me give you athird example. Fetuses and very young babies have much more water in their bodies than do

80adults. Therefore, they may be a special risk for impacts of 5G, because of great increases in theregeneration of the electrical fields. Here one can think of all kinds of possibilities. Let mesuggest two. We may have a gigantic (sorry about using that word again) epidemic ofspontaneous abortion due the teratogenic effects. Another possibility is that instead of autism
being one birth in 38, however horrendous that is, it could be one out of two, or even a majorityof births. I don’t know that these will happen, but these are the kinds of risks we are taking andthere are many others one can think of. Putting in tens of millions of 5G antennae without asingle biological test of safety has got to be about the stupidest idea anyone has had in the historyof the world.
This brings us back to the earlier point. The only way to do 5G safety testing is to do genuine 5G
biological safety testing. I have published on how this can be done relatively easily at relatively
low cost and have, as you saw in the Chapter 6, told the FCC how this can be done. Those tests
must be done by organizations completely independent of industry and that leaves out both
ICNIRP and SCENIHR and a lot of other organizations.
Now we will get into the precautionary principle which is specially relevant to the EU but may
have lessons for all of us.
Dr. Vinciūnas’ last full paragraph reads as follows: “The recourse to the EU’s precautionary
principle to stop distribution of 5G products appears too drastic a measure. We need first to see
how this technology will be applied and how the scientific evidence will evolve. Please be
assured that the Commission will keep abreast of the scientific evidence in view of safeguarding
the health of European citizens at the highest level possible and in line with its mandate.”
Article 191 defines the Precautionary Principle as follows:“According to the European Commission the precautionary principle may be invoked when aphenomenon, product or process may have a dangerous effect, identified by a scientific andobjective evaluation, if this evaluation does not allow the risk to be determined with
sufficient certainty.
Recourse to the principle belongs in the general framework of risk analysis (which, besides risk
evaluation, includes risk management and risk communication), and more particularly in thecontext of risk management which corresponds to the decision-making phase.
The Commission stresses that the precautionary principle may only be invoked in the event of apotential risk and that it can never justify arbitrary decisions.
The precautionary principle may only be invoked when the three preliminary conditions aremet:
identification of potentially adverse effects;
evaluation of the scientific data available;
the extent of scientific uncertainty.”

The question now is what about 5G? We have with 5G strong suspicions of similar or much
more severe risk of effects documented elsewhere in this document. We have no biologicalsafety testing of genuine 5G radiation. Therefore, we have no risk analysis or risk management
because we have no risk assessment whatsoever on 5G. So here we have Dr. Vinciūnas arguingthat the request for precautionary principle application is premature. But it is not the request for81the use of the precautionary principle that is premature, it is the Commission’s claim that it hasdone the required risk analysis and risk assessment. This is the bizarre world that we live in.
The European Commission has done nothing to protect European citizens from the very serious
health hazards and the U.S. FDA, EPA and National Cancer Institute have done nothing to protect
U.S. citizens. The U.S. FCC has been worse than that, acting in wanton disregard for our health.
Let me close, as follows. There have been certain points in our history where people have stoodup to strong destructive forces against what often appeared to be insurmountable odds. Those
people are THE most honored people in our history. The people who failed to do so are among
the most despised people in our history. I am not at all sure we will have historians to record us
100 years from now or even 30 years from now, given the direction in which we are heading. But
if we do, rest assured that these are the standards by which we will all be judged.
Citations used in the text:[1] Levine H, Jorgensen N, Martino-Andrade A, Mendiola J, Weksler-Derri D, Mindlis I, Pinotti
R, Swan SH. 2017 Temporal trends in sperm count: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Human Reproduction Update, https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmx022[2] Magras IN, Xenos TD. 1997 RF radiation-induced changes in the prenatal development of
mice. Bioelectromagnetics 18:455-461.
[3] Pall ML. 2016 Microwave frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produce widespreadneuropsychiatric effects including depression. J Chem Neuroanat 75(Pt B):43-51. doi:
10.1016/j.jchemneu.2015.08.001.
[4] 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.
[5] 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/reveh2015-0001.
[6] Pall ML. 2016 Electromagnetic fields act similarly in plants as in animals: Probableactivation of calcium channels via their voltage sensor. Curr Chem Biol 10: 74-82.
[7] Pall, M. L., 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 inMarkov, M. S., (Ed.), Mobile Communications and Public Health, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL,
in press.
[8] Belyaev, I., 2005. Non-thermal biological effects of microwaves. Microwave Rev. 11, 1329.
[9] Belyaev, I., 2015. Biophysical mechanisms for nonthermal microwave effects. In: Markov
M.S. (Ed), Electromagnetic Fields in Biology and Medicine, CRC Press, New York, pp 49-67.
[10] Panagopoulos, D. J., Johansson, O., Carlo, G. L., 2015. Polarization: a key difference
between man-made and natural electromagnetic fields, in regard to biological activity. Sci. Rep.
2015 Oct 12;5:14914. doi: 10.1038/srep14914.
[11] Pall ML. 2018 Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health. Environ Res 164:405-416.
doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.035.
[12] Pilla, A. A., 2012. Electromagnetic fields instantaneously modulate nitric oxide signaling
in challenged biological systems. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 28, 426:330-333. doi:
10.1016/j.bbrc.2012.08.078.
[13] Lu, X. W., Du, L., Kou, L., Song, N., Zhang, Y. J., Wu, M. K., Shen, J. F., 2015. Effects of82

moderate static magnetic fields on the voltage-gated sodium and calcium channels currents intrigeminal ganglion neurons. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 34, 285-292. doi:
10.3109/15368378.2014.906448.
[14] Tabor, K. M., Bergeron, S. A., Horstick, E. J., Jordan, D. C., Aho, V., Porkka-Heiskanen,
T., Haspel, G, Burgess, H. A., 2014. Direct activation of the Mauthner cell by electric field
pulses drives ultrarapid escape responses. J Neurophysiol 112:834-844. doi:
10.1152/jn.00228.2014.
[15] Zhang, J., Li, M., Kang, E. T., Neoh, K. G., 2016. Electrical stimulation of adipose-derived
mesenchymal stem cells in conductive scaffolds and the roles of voltage-gated ion channels.
Acta Biomater. 32, 46-56. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2015.12.024.
[16] Tekieh T, Sasanpour P, Rafii-Tabar H. 2016 Effects of electromagnetic field exposure on
conduction and concentration of voltage gated calcium channels: A Brownian dynamics study.
Brain Res 1646:560-569.
[17] ICNIRP 2009 International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection. ICNIRP
statement on the “Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic andelectromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz). Health Phys 97:257-258.
[18] Bioinitiative Working Group. 2007 BioInitiative Report: A rationale for biologicallybased public exposure standard for electromagnetic fields (ELF and RF). Sage C and Carpenter
DO (Eds.), Available online: http://www.bioinitiative.org/table-of-contents/ (accessed March 19,
2018)[19] Sypniewska, R. K., Millenbaugh, N. J., Kiel, J. L., Blystone, R. V., Ringham, H. N., Mason,
P. A., Witzmann, F. A., 2010. Protein changes in macrophages induced by plasma from rats
exposed to 35 GHz millimeter waves. Bioelectromagnetics 3, 656-663. doi: 0.1002/bem.20598.
[20] Kalns, J., Ryan, K. L., Mason, P. A., Bruno, J. G., Gooden, R., Kiel, J. L., 2000. Oxidative
stress precedes circulatory failure induced by 35-GHz microwave heating. Shock 13, 52-59.
[21] Garbuz, D. G., 2017. Regulation of heat shock gene expression in response to stress. Mol.
Biol. 51, 352-367. doi: 10.1134/S0026893317020108.
[22] Park, H. K., Lee, J. E., Lim, J. F., Kang, B. H., 2014. Mitochondrial Hsp90s suppress
calcium-mediated stress signals propagating from the mitochondria to the ER in cancer cells.
Mol. Cancer 13 Article Number: 148 doi: 10.1186/1476-4598-13-148.
[23] Krebs, J., Groenendyk, J., Michalek, M., 2011. Ca2+-signaling, alternative splicing andendoplasmic reticulum stress responses. Neurochem. Res. 36, 1198-1211. doi: 10.1007/s11064011-0431-4.
[24] Pilla, A. A., 2013. Nonthermal electromagnetic fields: from first messenger to therapeutic
applications. Electromagn Biol Med 32, 123-136. doi: 10.3109/15368378.2013.776335.
[25] Pall, M. L., 2014. Electromagnetic field activation of voltage-gated calcium channels: rolein therapeutic effects. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 2014 Apr 8 doi: 10.3109/15368378.2014.906447.
[26] Raines JK. 1981. Electromagnetic Field Interactions with the Human Body: Observed
Effects and Theories. Greenbelt, Maryland: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
1981; 116 p.
[27] Goldsmith JR. 1997 Epidemiologic evidence relevant to radar (microwave) effects. Env
Health Perspect 105(Suppl 6):1579-1587.
[28] 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, theEnvironment and Democracy. http://kompetenzinitiative.net/KIT/wpcontent/uploads/2016/07/KI_Brochure-6_K_Hecht_web.pdf (accessed Feb. 11, 2018)[29] 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).
[30] 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.

83https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Glaser+naval+medical+microwave+radiofrequency+1972&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C38 (Accessed Sept. 9, 2017)[31] Bise W. 1978 Low power radio-frequency and microwave effects on human
electroencephalogram and behavior. Physiol Chem Phys 10:387-398.
[32] 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.j[33] Hedendahl L, Carlberg M, Hardell L. 2015 Electromagnetic hypersensitivity--an increasing
challenge to the medical profession. Rev Environ Health 30:209-215. doi: 10.1515/reveh-20150012.
[34] Carpenter DO. 2015 The microwave syndrome or electro-hypersensitivity: historicalbackground. Rev Environ Health 30:217-222. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2015-0016[34] Havas M. 2013 Radiation from wireless technology affects the blood, the heart and theautonomic nervous system. Rev Environ Health 82:75-84.https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-20130004[35] Havas M, Marrongelle J, Pollmer, Kelley E, Rees C, Tully S. 2010 Provocation study using
heart rate variability shows microwave radiation from 2.4 GHz cordless phone affects autonomic
nervous system. Eur J Oncol 5:273-300.
[36] Gordon, ZV. 1966 [Problems of industrial hygiene and biological effects of super highfrequency electromagne c fields.] Medizina, Moscow (in Russian)[37] Presman, AS. Electromagnetic fields and life. New York: Plenum Press, 1970.
[38] Tolgskaya MS, Gordon ZV. 1973. Pathological Effects of Radio Waves, Translated from
Russian by B Haigh. Consultants Bureau, New York/London, 146 pages.
[39] Siebert DM, Drezner JA. 2018 Sudden cardiac arrest on the field of play: turning tragedy
into a survivable event. Neth Heart J 26:115-119. doi: 10.1007/s12471-018-1084-6.
[40] Pall ML. 2013 The NO/ONOO- cycle as the central cause of heart failure. Int J Mol Sci
14:22274-22330. doi: 10.3390/ijms141122274.
[41] Liu YQ, Gao YB, Dong J, Yao BW, Zhao L, Peng RY. 2015 Pathological changes in thesinoatrial node tissues of rats caused by pulsed microwave exposure. Biomed Environ Sci 28:7275. doi: 10.3967/bes2015.007.
[42] Pritchard C, Mayers A, Baldwin D. 2013 Changing patterns of neurological mortality inthe 10 major developed countries--1979-2010. Public Health 127:357-368. doi:
10.1016/j.puhe.2012.12.018.
[43] Pritchard C, Rosenorn-Lanng E. 2015 Neurological deaths of American adults (55-74) andthe over 75's by sex compared with 20 Western countries 1989-2010: Cause for concern. Surg
Neurol Int 2015 Jul 23;6:123. doi: 10.4103/2152-7806.161420.
[44] Vieira RT, Caixeta L, Machado S, Silva AC, Nardi AE, Arias-Carrión O, Carta MG. 2013
Epidemiology of early-onset dementia: a review of the literature. Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment
Health 9:88-95. doi: 10.2174/1745017901309010088.
[45] Hallberg O, Johansson O. 2005 Alzheimer mortality—why does it increase so rapidly insparsely populated areas? Eur Biol Bioelectromag 1;1-8[46] [Dossey L. 2014 FOMO, digital dementia, and our dangerous experiment. Explore (NY)2014 Mar-Apr;10(:69-73. doi: 10.1016/j.explore.2013.12.008.
[47] Moledina S, Khoja A. 2018 Letter to the Editor: Digital Dementia-Is Smart Technology
Making Us Dumb? Ochsner J. 2018 Spring;18(1):12.
[48] Spitzer, Manfred. Digitale Demenz. Wie wir uns und unsere Kinder um den Verstandbringen. Droemer Verlag, Munich 2012.
[49] Mattson MP. 2007 Calcium and neurodegeneration. Aging Cell 6:337-350. doi:
10.1111/j.1474-9726.2007.00275.x

84

[50] Celsi F, Pizzo P, Brini M, Leo S, Fotino C, Pinton P, Rizzuto R. 2009 Mitochondria,
calcium and cell death: a deadly triad in neurodegeneration. Biochim Biophys Acta 1787:335344. doi: 10.1016/j.bbabio.2009.02.021.
[51] Carreiras MC, Mendes E, Perry MJ, Francisco AP, Marco-Contelles J. 2013 The
multifactorial nature of Alzheimer's disease for developing potential therapeutics. Curr Top Med
Chem 13:1745-1770.
[52] Jiang DP, Li J, Zhang J, Xu SL, Kuang F, Lang HY, Wang YF, An GZ, Li JH, Guo GZ.
2013 Electromagnetic pulse exposure induces overexpression of beta amyloid protein in rats.
Arch Med Res 44:178-184. doi: 10.1016/j.arcmed.2013.03.005.
[53] Jiang DP, Li JH, Zhang J, Xu SL, Kuang F, Lang HY, Wang YF, An GZ, Li J, Guo GZ.
2016 Long-term electromagnetic pulse exposure induces Abeta deposition and cognitive
dysfunction through oxidative stress and overexpression of APP and BACE1. Brain Res. 2016
Jul 1;1642:10-19. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2016.02.053.
[54] Dasdag S, Akdag MZ, Kizil G, Kizil M, Cakir DU, Yokus B. 2012 Effect of 900 MHz
radio frequency radiation on beta amyloid protein, protein carbonyl, and malondialdehyde in thebrain. Electromagn Biol Med. 2012 Mar;31(1):67-74. doi: 10.3109/15368378.2011.624654.
[55] Dasdag S, Akdag MZ, Erdal ME, Erdal N, Ay OI, Ay ME, Yilmaz SG, Tasdelen B, YeginK. 2015 Long term and excessive use of 900 MHz radiofrequency radiation alter microRNA
expression in brain. Int J Radiat Biol 91:306-311. doi: 10.3109/09553002.2015.997896.
[56] Arendash GW, Mori T, Dorsey M, Gonzalez R, Tajiri N, Borlongan C. 2012
Electromagnetic treatment to old Alzheimer's mice reverses β-amyloid deposition, modifies
cerebral blood flow, and provides selected cognitive benefit. PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e35751. doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0035751.
[57] Arendash GW. 2016 Review of the Evidence that Transcranial Electromagnetic Treatment
will be a Safe and Effective Therapeutic Against Alzheimer's Disease. J Alzheimers Dis 53:753771.
[58] García AM, Sisternas A, Hoyos SP. 2008 Occupational exposure to extremely low
frequency electric and magnetic fields and Alzheimer disease: a meta-analysis. Int J Epidemiol
37:329-340. doi: 10.1093/ije/dym295.
[59] Hug K1, Röösli M, Rapp R. 2006 Magnetic field exposure and neurodegenerative
diseases--recent epidemiological studies. Soz Praventivmed 51:210-220.
[59A] No author listed. 1997 Stronger evidence for an Alzheimer’s EMF connection.
Microwave News XVII, Jan/Feb 1997, 1,6,7.
[60] Gandhi OP, Kang G. 2001 Calculation of induced current densities for humans bymagnetic fields from electronic article surveillance devices. Phys Med Biol 46:2759-2771.
[61] Gandhi OP, Morgan LL, de Salles AA, Han YY, Herberman RB, Davis DL. 2012
Exposure Limits: The underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children.
Electromagn Biol Med 31:34-51. doi: 10.3109/15368378.2011.622827.
[62] Belyaev IY, Markovà E, Hillert L, Malmgren LO, Persson BR. 2009 Microwaves from
UMTS/GSM mobile phones induce long-lasting inhibition of 53BP1/gamma-H2AX DNA repair
foci in human lymphocytes. Bioelectromagnetics 30:129-141. doi: 10.1002/bem.20445.
[63] Markovà E, Malmgren LO, Belyaev IY. 2010 Microwaves from Mobile Phones Inhibit
53BP1 Focus Formation in Human Stem Cells More Strongly Than in Differentiated Cells:
Possible Mechanistic Link to Cancer Risk. Environ Health Perspect 118:394-399. doi:
10.1289/ehp.0900781[64] Lee SS, Kim HR, Kim MS, Park SH, Kim DW. 2014 Influence of smart phone Wi-Fi
signals on adipose-derived stem cells. Ja J Cranofac Surg 25:1902-1907. doi:
10.1097/SCS.0000000000000939.
[65] Czyz J, Guan K, Zeng Q, Nikolova T, Meister A, Schönborn F, Schuderer J, Kuster N,
Wobus AM. 2004 High frequency electromagnetic fields (GSM signals) affect gene expression85

levels in tumor suppressor p53-deficient embryonic stem cells. Bioelectromagnetic 25:296-307.
doi:10.1002/bem.10199[66] Xu F, Bai Q, Zhou K, Ma L, Duan J, Zhuang F, Xie C, Li W, Zou P, Zhu C. 2016 Agedependent acute interference with stem and progenitor cell proliferation in the hippocampus after
exposure to 1800 MHz electromagnetic radiation. Electromagn Biol Med 3:1-9. doi:
10.1080/15368378.2016.
[67] Odaci E, Bas O, Kaplan S. 2008 Effects of prenatal exposure to a 900 MHz
electromagnetic field on the dentate gyrus of rats: a stereological and histopathological study.
Brain Res 1238:224-229. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2008.08.013.
[68] Uchugonova A, Isemann A, Gorjup E, Tempea G, Bückle R, Watanabe W, König K. 2008
Optical knock out of stem cells with extremely ultrashort femtosecond laser pulses. J
Biophotonics 1(6):463-469. doi: 10.1002/jbio.200810047.
[69] Wang C, Wang X, Zhou H, Dong G, Guan X, Wang L, Xu X, Wang S, Chen P, Peng R, Hu
X. 2015 Effects of pulsed 2.856 GHz microwave exposure on BM-MSCs isolated from
C57BL/6 mice. PLoS One. 2015 Feb 6;10(2):e0117550. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117550.
[70] Teven CM, Greives M, Natale RB, Su Y, Luo Q, He BC, Shenaq D, He TC, Reid RR. 2012
Differentiation of osteoprogenitor cells is induced by high-frequency pulsed electromagnetic
fields. J Craniofac Surg 23:586-593. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0b013e31824cd6de.
[71] Bhargav H, Srinivasan TM, Varambally S, Gangadhar BN, Koka P. 2015 Effect ofMobile Phone-Induced Electromagnetic Field on Brain Hemodynamics and Human Stem Cell
Functioning: Possible Mechanistic Link to Cancer Risk and Early Diagnostic Value ofElectronphotonic Imaging. J Stem Cells 10 (4): 287-294.
[72] Redmayne M, Johansson O. 2015 Radiofrequency exposure in young and old: different
sensitivities in the light of age-relevant natural differences. Rev Environ Health 30: 323-335.
doi: 10.1515/reveh-2015-0030.
[73] SCENIHR, 2015. Health effects of EMF – 2015 Scientific Committee on Emerging and
Newly Identified Health Risks SCENIHR: opinion on potential health effects of exposure toelectromagnetic fields (EMF).
https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/scenihr_o_041.pdf (accessed
Sept. 7, 2017)[74] Speit G, Gminski R, Tauber R. 2013
Genotoxic effects of exposure to radiofrequency
electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) in HL-60 cells are not reproducible. Mutat Res Genet Toxicol
Environ Mutagen 755: 163-166.
{75] Schwarz C, Kratochvil E, Pilger A, Kuster N, Adlkofer F, Rüdiger HW. 2008
Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (UMTS, 1,950 MHz) induce genotoxic effects in vitro inhuman fibroblasts but not in lymphocytes. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 81: 755-767.
[76] J. Lutz and F. Adlkofer, 2007 Objections against current limits for microwave radiation.
Proceedings or the WFMN07, Chemnitz, Germany, pp. 119-123. http://www.mobilfunkdebatte.de/pdf/studien/Lutz_Adlkofer_WFMN07_III_A1.pdf (accessed March 36, 2018).
[77] Davis D. 2010 Disconnect: The Truth about Cell Phone Radiation, What the Industry Is
Doing to Hide It, and How to Protect Your Family. Penguin Group, New York.
[78] 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.
[79] 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.
[80] Makker K, Varghese A, Desai NR, Mouradi R, Agarwal A. 2009 Cell phones: modern
man's nemesis? Reprod Biomed Online 18:148-157.
[81] Ruediger HW. 2009 Genotoxic effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields.
Pathophysiology. 16:89-102.

86

[82] Phillips JL, Singh NP, Lai H. 2009 Electromagnetic fields and DNA damage.
Pathophysiology 16:79-88.
[83] 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.
[84] Yakymenko I, Sidorik E. 2010 Risks of carcinogenesis from electromagnetic radiation andmobile telephony devices. Exp Oncol 32:729-736.
[85] Carpenter DO. 2010 Electromagnetic fields and cancer: the cost of doing nothing. Rev
Environ Health 25:75-80.
[86] 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.
[87] 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.
[88] 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[89] Kang N, Shang XJ, Huang YF. 2010 [Impact of cell phone radiation on male
reproduction]. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue 16:1027-1030.
[90] 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.
[91] Yakimenko IL, Sidorik EP, Tsybulin AS. 2011 [Metabolic changes in cells underelectromagnetic radiation of mobile communication systems]. Ukr Biokhim Zh (1999). 2011
Mar-Apr;83(2):20-28.
[92] 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[93] 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.
[94] 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/[95} 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 andmales. J Membr Biol 246:869-875.
[96] Ledoigt G, Belpomme D. 2013 Cancer induction molecular pathways and HF-EMF
irradiation. Adv Biol Chem 3:177-186.
[97] 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 andcordless phones. Rev Environ Health 28:97-106. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2013-0006.
[98] 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.
[99} 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 humancarcinogen. Pathophysiology 20:123-129.
[100] 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.

87[101] Meo SA, Alsubaie Y, Almubarak Z, Almutawa H, AlQasem Y, Hasanato RM. 2015
Association of Exposure to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Field Radiation (RF-EMFR)
Generated by Mobile Phone Base Stations with Glycated Hemoglobin (HbA1c) and Risk of Type
2 Diabetes Mellitus. Int J Environ Res Public Health 13;12:14519-14528. doi:
10.3390/ijerph121114519.
[102] Othman, H., Ammari, M., Rtibi, K., Bensaid, N., Sakly, M., Abdelmelek, H. 2017.
Postnatal development and behavior effects of in-utero exposure of rats to radiofrequency waves
emitted from conventional WiFi devices. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 52:239-247. doi:
10.1016/j.etap.2017.04.016.
[103] Bas O, Sönmez OF, Aslan A, Ikinci A, Hanci H, Yildirim M, Kaya H, Akca M, Odaci E.
2013 Pyramidal Cell Loss in the Cornu Ammonis of 32-day-old Female Rats Following
Exposure to a 900 Megahertz Electromagnetic Field During Prenatal Days 13-21.
Neuroquantology 11: 591-599.
[104] Kumari K, Koivisto H, Myles C, Jonne N, Matti V, Heikki T, Jukka J. 2017 Behavioural
phenotypes in mice after prenatal and early postnatal exposure to intermediate frequency
magnetic fields. Environ Res 162: 27-34[105] Othman H, Ammari M, Sakly M, Abdelmelek H. 2017 Effects of prenatal exposure to
WIFI signal (2.45GHz) on postnatal development and behavior in rat: Influence of maternal
restraint. Behav Brain Res 326: 291-302.
[106] Stasinopoulou M, Fragopoulou AF, Stamatakis A, Mantziaras G, Skouroliakou K,
Papassideri IS, Stylianopoulou F, Lai H, Kostomitsopoulos N, Margaritis LH. 2016 Effects ofpre- and postnatal exposure to 1880-1900 MHz DECT base radiation on development in the rat.
Reprod Toxicol 2016; 65: 248-262.
[107] Divan HA, Kheifets L, Obel C, Olsen J. 2008 Prenatal and postnatal exposure to cell
phone use and behavioral problems in children. Epidemiology 19:523-529. doi:
10.1097/EDE.0b013e318175dd47.
[108] Divan HA, Kheifets L, Obel C, Olsen J. 2012 Cell phone use and behavioural problems
in young children. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012 Jun;66(6):524-9. doi:
10.1136/jech.2010.115402.
[109] Kabir ZD, Martínez-Rivera A, Rajadhyaksha AM. 2017 From Gene to Behavior: LType Calcium Channel Mechanisms Underlying Neuropsychiatric Symptoms.
Neurotherapeutics. 2017 Jul;14(3):588-613. doi: 10.1007/s13311-017-0532-0.
[110] Foster KR, Moulder JE. 2013 Wi-Fi and health: review of current status of research.
Health Phys 105:561-565. doi: 10.1097/HP.0b013e31829b49bb.
[111] Diamond Jared. 2005 Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. Viking Group,
New York.
[112] NCRP Report No. 86. 1986 Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency
Electromagnetic Fields. Recommendations of the National Council on Radiation Protection andMeasurements. 400 pp. Bethesda MD 20814[113] Motorala, Microwaves and DNA Breaks: “War-Gaming”the Lai-Singh Experiments. Dec.
13, 1994. Reprinted in Microwave News January/February 1997 https://www.rfsafe.com/wpcontent/uploads/2014/06/cell-phone-radiation-war-gaming-memo.pdf (Accessed April 4, 2018).
[114] WTR and betrayal of the public trust. Microwave News, March 2005.
http://microwavenews.com/docs/MWN.March-05.pdf (accessed April 4, 2018)[115] Wakeup Call Cover Story. Rob Harrill University of Washington Alumni News, March
2005. http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/march05/wakeupcall01.html (Accessed April
4, 2018)[116] Schneider, Scott. 2008 Book Review of “Doubt is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault
on Science Threatens Your Healh.” By David Michaels.

88https://www.lhsfna.org/index.cfm/lifelines/june-2008/book-review-doubt-is-their-product/(accessed April 4, 2018).
[117] Interview of Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt by Dr. Joe Mercola, December 28, 2017.
https://idocslide.com/the-philosophy-of-money.html?utm_source=interview-klinghardt-emf(Accessed April 6, 2018). Please note: There is also youtube video of this interview.
[118] http://www.newsweek.com/why-does-vladimir-putin-avoid-smartphones-801406(Accessed April 9, 2018).
[119] Goldberg RB. 1993 The cellular phone controversy: real or contrived? EMF HealthReport 1(1): 1993. EPI1793[120] Berezow A, Bloom A. 2017 Recommendation to limit Md. School Wi-Fi based on 'junkscience'. Baltimore Sun op-ed piece, March 12.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-wifi-school-20170312-story.html(Accessed June 17, 2017).
[121] NCI, 2016 National Cancer Institute Statement on Electromagnetic Fields and Cancer
May 2016. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causesprevention/risk/radiation/electromagnetic-fields-fact-sheet (accessed Sept. 7, 2017)[122] Wyde M, Cesta M, Blystone C, et al. 2016 Report of Partial findings from the National
Toxicology Program Carcinogenesis Studies of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation in Hsd:
Sprague Dawley® SD rats (Whole Body Exposure). bioRXiv doi.org/10.1101/055699[123] Merritt, JH, Chamness AF, Allen SJ. 1978 Studies on blood-brain barrier permeability
after microwave-radiation. Rad Environ Biophys 15:367-377.
[124] Ziemann C, Brockmeyer H, Reddy SB, Vijayalaxmi, Prihoda TJ, Kuster N, Tillmann T,
Dasenbrock C. 2009 Absence of genotoxic potential of 902 MHz (GSM) and 1747 MHz (DCS)
wireless communication signals: In vivo two-year bioassay in B6C3F1 mice. Int J Radiat Biol
85:454-464. doi: 10.1080/09553000902818907.
[125] Dr. George L. Carlo Letter To AT&T Chairman on Cell Phone Radiation, October 7, 1999.
https://www.rfsafe.com/dr-george-l-carlo-letter-to-att-chairman-on-cell-phone-radiation/(Accessed April 8, 2018).
[126] Carlo, George and Schram, Martin. 2001 Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the WirelessAge: An Insider's Alarming Discoveries about Cancer and Genetic Damage. Carroll and Graf,
New York.
[127] Alster, Norm. 2015 Captured Agency: How the Communications Commission Is
Dominated by the Industry It Presumably Regulates. Edmund J. Safra Institute for Ethics,
Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA[128] FCC Federal Communication RF Safety FAQ. No date given
https://www.fcc.gov/engineering-technology/electromagnetic-compatibility-division/radiofrequency-safety/faq/rf-safety#top[129] FDA Letter of Intent for Collaboration with the CTIA. October 18, 1999.
https://www.rfsafe.com/fda-letter-intent-collaboration-ctia/ (Accessed April 14, 2018).
[130] Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA). Updated on Dec. 4, 2017https://www.fda.gov/RadiationEmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/HomeBusinessandEntertainment/CellPhones/ucm116340.htm[131] fda.gov site Cell Phones > Current Research Results. No Date given.
https://www.fda.gov/RadiationEmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/HomeBusinessandEntertainment/CellPhones/ucm116335.htm[132] Samsung Health and Safety and Warrantee Guide. 2015
https://www.samsung.com/us/Legal/PHONE-HS_GUIDE_English.pdf (Accessed April 15,
2018)

89

[133] Samsung Gear S Black (AT&T) last updated July 17, 1017.
https://www.samsung.com/us/support/service/warranty/SM-R750AZKAATT (Accessed April
15, 2018).
[134] 1993 FDA Memo: Data “Strongly Suggest” Microwaves Can Promote Cancer. Jan/Feb
1993, p. 1, 5.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/776f/b8ea63bd5c3c32699e90301af123eea6c6c7.pdf (Accessed
Apr 15, 2018)[135] Hamburg MA, Sharfstein JM. 2009 The FDA as a public health agency. N Engl J Med
360:2493-2495. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp0903764[136] Alekseev SI, Ziskin MC. 1999 Effects of millimeter waves on ionic currents of Lymnaea
neurons. Bioelectromagnetics 20:24-33.
[137] Hässig M, Jud F, Naegeli H, Kupper J, Spiess BM. 2009 Prevalence of nuclear cataract inSwiss veal calves and its possible association with mobile telephone antenna base stations.
Schweiz Arch Tierheilkd 151:471-478.
[138] Hässig M, Jud F, Spiess B. 2012 [Increased occurrence of nuclear cataract in the calf after
erection of a mobile phone base station]. Schweiz Arch Tierheilkd 154:82-86.
[139] Lu M, Ueno S. 2013 Calculating the induced electromagnetic fields in real human heads
by deep transcranial magnetic stimulation. 35th Annual International Conference of the IEEE
Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Book Series. Osaka Japan, pp. 795-798.

90