Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution News26 October 2011
Mobile phone radiation could be detected by the human brain.
Denis L Henshaw, Emeritus Professor of Human Radiation Effects
School of Chemistry University of Bristol Cantocks Close, Bristol, BS8 1TS
Re: Use of mobile phones and risk of brain tumours: update of Danish cohort study. Frei, et al. 343:doi:10.1136/bmj.d6387
In their introduction, Frei et al.  state: "So far, the mechanism of potential non-thermal interaction between radio frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and living systems is unknown." This statement does not concur with scientific knowledge.
Mobile phones typically have three types of EMF emissions associated with them: in the GSM system a 900 MHz radio frequency, a 217 Hz pulsing signal and an extremely low frequency magnetic field (ELF MF) associated with the battery . The ELF component has so far been ignored in all epidemiological studies of mobile phone exposure and cancer. During phone use, this ELF component exposures the whole brain to MFs ranging from a few to tens of micro-tesla, above the intensity of power frequency ELF-MFs that have been repeatedly associated with increased risk of brain tumours in adults [3,4].
Animals across a wide range of species detect small changes in the Earth's magnetic field, which is exploited for navigation. Homing pigeons and newts are estimated to have a limiting magnetic detection sensitivity of 0.01 micro-tesla and magnetic compass sensitivity below 0.2 degrees . Two types of magneto-receptor are widely discussed [6, 7], one based on structures of magnetite particles, the other on a chemical compass exploiting the radical pair mechanism, RPM in which low intensity MFs alter the quantum spin state of the unpaired electrons in a free radical pair. Both mechanisms are relevant to the interaction of mobile phone EMFs in humans.
Thus, the human brain contains magnetite particles , some up to 600 nm in size, capable at body temperature of transducing both low intensity ELF MFs and microwave EMFs [9, 10].
The RPM forms part of basic spin chemistry  in which low intensity MFs can increase the lifetime of free radical pairs by singlet- to-triplet, S-T, interconversion of their quantum spin states. The increased lifetime of free radicals allows increased availability to cause biological damage, for example to DNA. The energy levels involved are some ten million times below thermal energy, the action being of the nature of a quantum mechanical switch.
There is compelling evidence that the avian magnetic compass utilises the RPM acting in the eye on cryptochromes protein molecules , best known for their function in controlling circadian rhythms. The magnetic compass can be disrupted by radio frequency fields. In the American cockroach disruption was seen by 1.2 MHz fields at 0.018 micro-telsa , well below current ICNIRP public exposure guidelines . There is evidence that human cryptochromes are magneto-sensitive  and that ELF MFs disrupt circadian rhythms in man .
IARC has recently classifieds radio frequency EMFs as a 2B possible carcinogen, based on the main body of case-control epidemiology and accumulated exposure to mobile phone radiation and increased risk of brain tumours in heavy users . Research into the possible health effects of mobile phones should now concentrate on designing epidemiological studies with more relevant exposure metrics and at investigating further the mechanistic pathways by which exposure may increase the risk of brain tumours and other adverse health outcomes. Meanwhile, precaution against undue exposure is warranted and should be encouraged.
1. Frei P, Poulsen AH, Olsen JH, Schuz J. 2011 Use of mobile phones and risk of brain tumours:update of Danish cohort study. BMJ 2011;343:d6387 doi: 10.1136/bmj.d6387
2. Tuor M, Ebert S, Schuderer J, Kuster N. Assessment of ELF Exposure from GSM Handsets and Development of an Optimized RF/ELF Exposure Setup for Studies of Human Volunteers. Foundation for Research on Information Technologies in Society, Report: BAG Reg. No. 2.23.02.-18/02.001778, Zurich, January 2005.
3. O'Carroll MJ, Henshaw DL. 2008. Aggregating epidemiological evidence: comparing two seminal EMF reviews. Risk Anal 28:225-234.
4. Kheifets L, Monroe J, Vergara X, Mezei G, Afifi AA. 2008. Occupational electromagnetic fields and leukaemia and brain cancer: An update to two meta-analyses. JOEM 50:677-688.
5. Gould JL. 2010 Animal Navigation: Longitude at Last. Curr Biol 21;R226 DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2011.01.063
6. Lohmann KJ. 2010. Magnetic-field perception. Nature 464:1140-1142.
7. Phillips JB, Muheim R, Jorge PE. 2110. A behavioral perspective on the biophysics of the light-dependent magnetic compass: a link between directional and spatial perception? J Exp Biol 213, 3247-3255. doi:10.1242/jeb.020792.
8. Kirschvink JL, Kobayashi-Kirschvink A, Woodford BJ. 1992. Magnetite biomineralization in the human brain. PNAS USA 89:7683-7687.
9. Vanderstraeten J, Gillis P. 2010. Theoretical Evaluation of Magnetoreception of Power-Frequency Fields. Bioelectromagnetics 31:371- 379.
10. Kirschvink JL. 1996. Microwave Absorption by Magnetite: A Possible Mechanism for Coupling Nonthermal Levels of Radiation to Biological Systems. Bioelectromagnetics 17:187-194.
11. Brocklehurst R, McLauchlan KA 1996. Free radical mechanism for the effects of environmental electromagnetic fields on biological systems. Int J Radiat Biol. 69:3-34.
12. Ritz T, Wiltschko R, Hore PJ, Rodgers CT, Stapput K, Thalau P, Timmel CR, Wiltschko W. 2009. Magnetic compass of birds is based on a molecule with optimal directional sensitivity. Biophys J. 96, 3451-3457. (doi:10. 1016/j.bpj.2008.11.072)
13. V?cha M, P??ov? T,and Mark?ta Kv??alov? M. 2009. Radio frequency magnetic fields disrupt magnetoreception in American cockroach. J Exp Biol. 212;3473-3477.
14. ICNIRP Guidelines 1998: International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection: Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic field (up to 300 GHz). Health Phys 74(4):494-522.
15. Foley LE, Gegear1 RJ, Reppert SM. 2011. Human cryptochrome exhibits light-dependent magnetosensitivity. Nature Comm. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms1364
16. Henshaw DL, Reiter RJ. 2005. Do magnetic fields cause increased risk of childhood leukaemia via melatonin disruption? Bioelectromagnetics Suppl 7:S86-S97.
17. WHO IARC Monograph Working Group, Carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Lancet Oncol. 2011 Jul;12(7):624-6.
Competing interests: None declared
Submit rapid response
Published 23 October 2011
October 25, 2011.
Open Letter to the Honourable Aglukkaq (Federal Minister of Health) and Ms Pieterson (Director General, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate)
Dear Honourable Aglukkaq and Ms Pieterson,
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my letter, dated October 8, 2011.
It seems that we disagree on many issues related to the health effects of radio frequency (RF) radiation. But we are making progress. We agree on the following three points, that:
(1) proximityhow close the transmitter is to the body;
(2) duration of exposure; and
(3) age (hence sensitivity) of the person exposed
are all important when it comes to the amount of RF radiation absorbed by the human body.
I come to this conclusion based on information you provided in your October 24, 2011 letter (see below) and based on the statement from the October 4th 2011 document entitled, "Health Canada offers practical advice on safe cell phone use: regarding cell phone use."
In the Oct 24th letter Ms Pieterson stated:
Unlike cellular phones, where the transmitter is held close to the head and much of the absorbed RF energy is deposited in a localized area, RF energy from wireless devices such as Wi-Fi is typically transmitted at a greater distance from the human body [indicating that proximity is important].
In the October 4, 2011 document, Health Canada stated the following:
The department also encourages parents to reduce their children's RF exposure from cell phones since children are typically more sensitive to a variety of environmental agents [indicating that age/sensitivity of person exposed is important].
The advice to consumers was:
- Limit the length of cell phone calls
- Replace cell phone calls with text messages or use "hands-free" devices
- Encourage children under the age of 18 to limit their cell phone usage [indicating that age and duration of exposure are important]
By the way, activists have been advocating this for years. Even cell phone manufacturers recommend keeping the phone away from the body. However, I digress.
Surely what applies to cell phones also applies to wireless baby monitors!
A wireless baby monitor consists of two parts, the part that is placed near the infant or child and the part that is kept with the caregiver. The most popular baby monitors in North America use DECT technology and operate at 2.4 GHz, the same frequency used for microwave ovens, cordless phones, and Wi-Fi routers. These DECT baby monitorsjust like the DECT cordless phones and Wi-Fi routersconstantly emit RF radiation. This includes both the transmitter near the infant and the transmitter with the caregiver.
To read more: visit www.magdahavas.com