Saturday, October 31, 2009

Comments on ICNIRP Guidelines / European robins 'see' Earth's magnetic field / Cell tower & cell phone safety / The Perfect Storm

Comments on ICNIRP Guidelines

October 29, 2009

I sit here surrounded by mountains of boxes, packed to move away from the recently upgraded 230 kV x 1,200 MW power lines installed 20 m away from our home, as well as 147 other residential homes, schools and nurseries. While, the BC government in Canada cites that the WHO's EMF position that power line EMFs are safe, I am providing the following comments on the ICNIRP's Draft EMF Guidelines. Thirty years after the Wertheimer Report correlated power line EMFs with childhood leukemia, the WHO and ICNIRP still adamantly refuse to recognize power line health hazards, arguing that plausible mechanisms are not found and replications of positive reports are hard to achieve. I hereby present the facts about how low-level EMFs affect biological organisms, based on scientific principles that have been grossly ignored. Contrary to Line 727 of the draft, which found no causal effects, I list seven fundamental mistakes that may obscure the harmful effects of power line EMFs.

  1. Using the Root Mean Square (RMS) (Line 573) instead of the peak-to-peak is incorrect. Most Gauss meters measure RMS value, which is equivalent to the DC amplitude that can deliver the same amount of thermal energy to a resistive load. However, to a living cell in our body, the peak-to-peak amplitude is more meaningful than the RMS value. For a power frequency (PF) sine wave, the peak is equal to 1.414 times the RMS value and the peak-to-peak is twice the peak value. For example, 150 mG RMS under the power line will translate into a 424.2 mG swing (+150 x 1.414) ( Accordingly, if 833 mG RMS is the limit for acute exposure, it should be logical to adjust down to 589 mG RMS (833 / 1.414) or 833 mG peak for chronic exposure because cells experience 833 mG pulses 120 times per minute.


    These Peaks will affect the cell more RMS affect less

    Fig. 1 Average, RMS, Peak and Peak-to-Peak Values. (Root Mean Square)

  2. Ignoring geomagnetic field (GMF) (no mention in draft) is incorrect. The GMF has been thought to minimally affect living organisms. However, many symptoms related to the combination of power frequency magnetic field (PFMF) and GMF are reported in Geomagnetic Fields. Also the risk of childhood leukemia may be related to the combinations of AC and GMF. (Hypothesis: the risk of childhood leukemia). Due to the GMF, the PFMF oscillation becomes lopsided as shown in Fig. 2. As magnetic fields add vectorially when the power line magnetic field is parallel to the GMF (500 mG), the resulting magnetic field is 712.1 mG (500 mG + 212.1 mG), and 287.9 mG (500 mG – 212.1 mG) in the antiparallel direction. (Dip angle or other factors are not considered here). These elevated and lopsided pulses will act on the cells 60 times per minute; therefore the chronic exposure limit should be adjusted down to 295 mG (833 / 1.414 / 2) RMS (833 mG peak).

    Fig 2. Interaction Between GMF and Power Line EMFs: Above the Wire - Antiparallel,

    Below the Wire – Parallel (Fundamentals of Physics, p717)

  3. Ignoring high frequency (HF) noises on PF (no mention in draft) is incorrect.
    The HF noises on power lines are caused by: power line carriers; corona discharge; HF inductions from radio, TV, cell phone signals and equipment operations; lightning; power line radiation amplified (~1000 times) by magnetosphere and ionosphere; and so on. These noise waves are aggregated to generate amplitudes much higher than individual amplitudes (ICNIRP Statement GUIDANCE). To denote the nature of a wave, crest factor (CF), defined as peak value divided by RMS value, is used. Because of the pulsed nature of HF noises, the CF can be much larger than that of a sine wave posing health hazards. Assuming HF RMS is 0.2 mG and CF is 16, the peak value is 16 x 0.2 mG = 3.2 mG. Adding this to GMF + PF EMF, 715.3 mG and 284.7 mG are obtained.

Affect More
RMS affect less

Fig. 3 Pulsed Wave - Crest Factor, Peak / RMS (Crest Factor)

  1. The WHO uses a flawed assumption (Line 579). The WHO assumes that for any incoming EMF signal to affect cell functions, it must have a signal-to-intrinsic noise ratio (S/N) greater than one. (Intrinsic noises in the cell are thermal, shot and 1/f noises. (EHC 238 Ch. 4)). Their claim even contradicts the ICNIRP Statement that explains the summation of EMFs. (ICNIRP Statement; and ICNIRP Statement GUIDANCE). The cell is not an electronic device designed to retrieve useful signals and does not need to discriminate between signals and noises. In fact, it is quite the contrary: amplified and lopsided signals coming into the cell will add to intrinsic noises, most likely resulting in super-threshold EMFs that affect the biological system. The intrinsic noises generated by the cell will be elevated by 715 mG in the GMF direction and deflated by 285 mG in the opposite direction. Therefore, S/N ratio should not be the issue. Further downward adjustment in chronic exposure limit is needed.

    Threshold (Cell Homeostasis)

    Signal (Power line EMFs)

    Resulting Super-threshold EMFs: Body EMF

    noises combined with power line EMFs

    Fig.4. Signal (sub-threshold power line EMFs) + Noise (sub-threshold body EMFs) = Super-threshold EMFs

  2. Faraday induction of electric fields by power line EMFs should not be used as absolute measurement of biological interaction. (Lines 126 – 128, as well as many other lines). The cell plasma membranes exhibit more than 200 kV/m electric fields, shielding the nucleus and cytoplasm from the majority of influence from outside electric fields. The induced electric field caused by ion deflections due to magnetic field is mostly confined in the cell and out of the direction of the induced electric field. Therefore, measurement of induced electric field is mainly dealing with the surface charges and the intercellular matrix, ignoring the electric field rearrangement in the cells.

  3. Ion deflection in the cell should be the main concern. (No line reference). Ordinary Gauss meters cannot detect the elevated and lopsided field explained before, but the body's cells will detect it very well because ions in it will deflect to one side much more than the other. It takes only 10 mG to sufficiently deflect the electron beam of a video display unit and cause the picture to wobble. The generally accepted childhood leukemia onset threshold of 4 mG RMS translates into a greater than 19 mG peak-to-peak swing - enough to deflect electrons or ions away from the target area in a cell. (Protein targeting ). Even 2 mG RMS will deflect the ions a few nanometers to make them miss the targeted intracellular mouth of a channel, which is several angstrom in diameter. Many scientists believe that ion motions in the cell are dictated by the random Brownian motion but the contrary is reported by many researchers (Electrochemical structure ). It is unbelievable that the highest organisms rely on random motions of ions for life, no matter how they are evolved or created. Consequently, the elevated and lopsided magnetic fields combined with the body noises may help explain many biological mechanisms at very low sub-guideline EMFs including reduced adenosine triphosphate (ATP) production in mitochondrial electron transport chain (ETC) (Microwave effects on energy metabolism of rat brain), direct effect on DNA (Electromagnetic), DNA fragmentation (IngentaConnect Bioenergetic aspects ), the dislodge of structurally important calcium ions from the cell membrane causing a leakage of toxic materials, (The Cell Phone and The Cell:), caused leakage of albumin across the blood-brain barrier (EMFacts Consultancy), and other such effects. Accordingly, the exposure limit should be adjusted down to 1-2 mG RMS.
  4. Replication (Lines 237 and 269) and well established Criteria (Line 100). Without considering genetic variations in selected test animals (Microwave News ~ It's Genetics Stupid) and GMF influence on AC magnetic fields in designing experiments, the study results cannot be easily replicated and high-quality reports cannot be produced. With the exception of a small number of researchers, the majority of scientists seemed to have ignored such important factors in their study. Does ICNIRP believe all peer-reviewed papers - many which do not consider genetic variation nor GMF influence - to be high quality reports that provide well established criteria?



Based on the above information, the WHO and ICNIRP should recognize EMF interaction mechanisms with biological organelles, and understand the harmful effects of EMF exposure. In doing so, the WHO and ICNIRP should adjust EMF guidelines to reflect a lower maximum level of 1 – 2 mG RMS, as recommended in the BioInitiative report.



Dr. Kyong H. Nam

Ph.D. (High Power Laser) and P. Eng. (Alberta)

Surrey, BC, Canada Resident



European robins 'see' Earth's magnetic field

[Date: 2009-10-30]

Illustration of this article

European robins use part of their visual centre for magnetic compass orientation during their migration, according to new research by scientists from Germany and New Zealand. Published in the journal Nature for the first time, the research proves that a brain region called 'cluster N' is responsible for the birds' magnetic sensitivity. The findings could help protect migratory birds and other animal species, and further our understanding of the effects of magnetic fields on organisms in general, including humans.

The researchers of the University of Oldenburg in Germany and the University of Auckland in New Zealand identified cluster N as playing a key role in magnetic compass orientation by deactivating it in the birds through surgery. When testing the birds' orientation again, they found that magnetic field information could no longer be processed. Instead, the robins had to rely on the Sun or stars to navigate.

'These data show that cluster N is required for magnetic compass orientation in this species and indicate that it may be specifically involved in processing of magnetic compass information,' the study reads.

A second hypothesis had assumed that magnetic compass orientation might depend on magnetoreceptors (iron mineral crystals) in the upper beak of the birds, with the information being passed on to the brain by the trigeminal nerve. Cutting the trigeminal connection of those magnetoreceptors to the brain, however, did not have an impact on the robins' magnetic compass orientation skills.

'Furthermore, the data strongly suggest that a vision-mediated mechanism underlies the magnetic compass in this migratory songbird,' the paper continues, 'and that the putative iron-mineral-based receptors in the upper beak connected to the brain by the trigeminal nerve are neither necessary nor sufficient for magnetic compass orientation in European robins.'

Talking about a milestone in sensory biology, the researchers emphasise that their discovery could help protect migratory birds. A better understanding of their orientation mechanisms could make it possible to successfully relocate endangered populations to new breeding grounds, for instance, a feat that has often failed in the past.

At the same time, the researchers believe their findings could ultimately result in a more precise understanding of the impact of magnetic fields on molecules, proteins and cells in other organisms, including the exposure of humans to electromagnetic radiation from mobile phones or imaging techniques in a diagnostic context.

The European robin is found across Europe, its distribution area reaching as far east as western Siberia and as far south as northern Africa. In some regions, robins are resident and will stay in one place during the winter months. Others will migrate to southern Europe to avoid colder temperatures.

For further information, please visit:


University of Oldenburg

Related stories: 31031, 31420

Category: Miscellaneous
Data Source Provider: Nature; University of Oldenburg
Document Reference: Zapka, M et al. (2009) Visual but not trigeminal mediation of magnetic compass information in a migratory bird. Nature, published on 29 October 2009. DOI:10.1038/nature08528.
Subject Index: Life Sciences; Scientific Research




The Island Park News Cell tower & cell phone safety
October 29, 2009: Cell tower & cell phone safety, from our Caldera Community ... No communication tower or antenna shall be located where the center of the ...
The Perfect Storm | Lyme Disease Insights Blog
By Bryan Rosner
The side chain coming off this histidine is a protein fragment known as beta-casomorphin-7 (BCM 7). The negative health effects of this fragment can be devastating because it is a powerful opiate or narcotic as well as an oxidant. .... We also know that the use of cell phones and other WiFi equipment has exploded, and according to some experts, like Dr. Klinghardt, EMF exposure increases the toxicity of many already hazardous substances. For example, ...
Lyme Disease Insights Blog -