Update: 22 November 2024

EMFs and Human Health

For decades, the public has been assured that there is no evidence wireless technology is harmful. The warnings 5G harm are either disallowed or dismissed as "conspiracy theory." In a landmark case against the FCC (with 11,000 pages of scientific evidence) environmental and health advocacy organizations assert that 5G harm is proven, and that an epidemic of sickness exists. Landmark 5G Case Against the FCC Children's Health Defense

Contents

  1. EMF Effects on Human Health — American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM)
  2. 5G Concerns
  3. Interaction between Electromagnetic Fields and Living Matter
  4. Prioritize, Measure and Mitigate
  5. The Body Electric: EMFs and Subliminal Stress
  6. Managing EMF Stress with hTMA
  7. Resources
How much more radiation penetrates your body today compared to ten years ago? A quintillion times more (that's 1 with 18 zeros). Olle Johansson, PhD., Assoc. Prof. Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Sweden

Understand EMF

Unraveling the confusing, complex, and contentious EMF issue is a tangled challenge.

You can simplify and streamline the learning curve can by reading Overpowered, Dirty Electricity and the Invisible Rainbow. All of the author's credentials are impeccable and all are accomplished communicators. Their books are engaging, interesting, exceptionally well-researched, and easy for even nonexperts to understand.

Overpowered

Overpowered

Author Martin Blank has PhDs from Columbia University and Cambridge University. He is a Special Lecturer in the Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics, Columbia University, where he served as Associate Professor for forty years. He is editor of twelve books and has published over two hundred papers on the biological effects of EMF.

Dr Blank is an organizer of the Bioinitiave Report, and authored its section on stress proteins. Also, he served as President of the Bioelectromagnetics Society.

Dr Blank organized two World Congresses on Electricity and Magnetism in Biology and Medicine, and the Gordon Research Conference on Bioelectrochemistry. He is frequently an expert witness on legal cases involving the effects of EMF. In addition, Dr Blank served on the editorial boards of the Journal of Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, as well as edited the Pathophysiology on Biological Effects of EMF.

Dirty Electricity

Dirty Electricity

Dr Samuel Milham, received his MD from Albany Medical College, a MPH from Johns Hopkins University and is board certified in Public Health For fifty years he worked as a chronic disease epidemiologist. Also, he is a published author of over one hundred peer-reviewed articles. Special interests include: congenital defects, occupational and environmental illness, methods in occupational and environmental studies, and EMF epidemiology.

EMFs are chronic stressors that are directly responsible for many ‘diseases of civilization,’ including; cardiovascular, malignant neoplasms (cancer), diabetes, and suicide. We can easily predict that when the latency periods for mobile phone-induced brain tumors has been reached — we will suffer an unpresidented brain-cancer epidemic. There are reasonable ways to eliminate or reduce EMF hazards and make life far safer and much better for all life-forms.

The main difficulty is that the financial influence of industry and special interests has co-opted and corrupted the research process itself, as well as politicians and government. And, public media is motivated by profit. Ultimately, we need to rethink how we distribute electricity and communicate. Eliminating high fequency wireless technology is a crucial first step forward. The time to act is now — it's up to us!

The Invisible Rainbow

The Invisible Rainbow

Author Arthur Firstenberg graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Cornell University with a degree in mathematics and attended the Irvine School of Medicine, UC. He lecturers widely on the health and environmental effects of electromagnetic radiation. He also authored Microwaving Our Planet: The Environmental Impact of the Wireless Revolution.

Firstenberg founded the Cellular Phone Task Force, an information and support network for those disabled by the cellular industrrial complex. He co-founded the Santa Fe Alliance for Public Health and Safety to oppose citywide WiFi. He is president of New Mexicans for Utility Safety, which halted the deployment of ‘Smart’ Meters in their cities. Mr Firstenberg co-founded the Global Union Against Radiation Deployment from Space (GUARDS) and co-authored the International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space.

EMF Effects on Human Health

Authors: Amy L. Dean, DO, William J. Rea, MD, Cyril W. Smith, PhD, Alvis L. Barrier, MD

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine is an international association of physicians and other professionals interested in the clinical aspects of humans and their environment. The AAEM provides research and education in the recognition, treatment and prevention of illnesses induced by exposures to biological and chemical agents encountered in air, food and water.

In the last five years with the advent of wireless devices, there has been a massive increase in radio frequency (RF) exposure from wireless devices as well as reports of hypersensitivity and diseases related to electromagnetic field and RF exposure. Multiple studies correlate RF exposure with diseases such as cancer, neurological disease, reproductive disorders, immune dysfunction, and electromagnetic hypersensitivity.

While it was practical to regulate thermal bioeffects, it was also stated that non-thermal effects are not well understood and no conclusive scientific evidence points to non-thermal based negative health effects.1 Further arguments are made with respect to RF exposure from Wi-fi, cell towers and smart meters that due to distance, exposure to these wavelengths are negligible.2 However, many in vitro, in vivo and epidemiological studies demonstrate that significant harmful biological effects occur from non-thermal RF exposure and satisfy Hill's criteria of causality.3 Genetic damage, reproductive defects, cancer, neurological degeneration and nervous system dysfunction, immune system dysfunction, cognitive effects, protein and peptide damage, kidney damage, and developmental effects have all been reported in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

em spectrum

The electromagnetic wave spectrum is divided into ionizing radiation (i.e., ultraviolet and X-rays) and non-ionizing radiation (RF) which include wifi, mobile phones and Smart Meter wireless communication. It is recognized that ionizing radiation can have a negative impact on health. Negative health effects of non-ionizing radiation are beginnig to be studied and understood. Typically discussion and research of non-ionizing radiation effects centers around thermal and non-thermal effects. According to the FCC, only thermal effects are relevant regarding health implications. Consequently current FCC exposure limits are based on thermal effects alone.1

Genotoxic Effects from RF Exposure

Genotoxic effects from RF exposure, including studies of non-thermal levels of exposure, consistently and specifically show chromosomal instability, altered gene expression, gene mutations, DNA fragmentation and DNA structural breaks.4 - 11 A statistically significant dose response effect was demonstrated by Maschevich et al., who reported a linear increase in aneuploidy as a function of the Specific Absorption Rate(SAR) of RF exposure.11 Genotoxic effects are documented to occur in neurons, blood lymphocytes, sperm, red blood cells, epithelial cells, hematopoietic tissue, lung cells and bone marrow. Adverse developmental effects due to non-thermal RF exposure have been shown with decreased litter size in mice from RF exposure well below safety standards.12 The World Health Organization has classified RF emissions as a group 2 B carcinogen.13 Cellular telephone use in rural areas was also shown to be associated with an increased risk for malignant brain tumors.14

RF Exposure Causes Neurological Damage

The fact that RF exposure causes neurological damage has been documented repeatedly. Increased blood-brain barrier permeability and oxidative damage, which are associated with brain cancer and neurodegenerative diseases, have been found.4 7 15-17 Nittby et al. demonstrated a statistically significant dose-response effect between non-thermal RF exposure and occurrence of albumin leak across the blood-brain barrier.15 Changes associated with degenerative neurological diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) have been reported.4 10 Other neurological and cognitive disorders such as headaches, dizziness, tremors, decreased memory and attention, autonomic nervous system dysfunction, decreased reaction times, sleep disturbances and visual disruption have been reported to be statistically significant in multiple epidemiological studies with RF exposure occurring non-locally.18-21

Nephrotoxic Effects from RF Exposure

Nephrotoxic effects from RF exposure also have been reported. A dose response effect was observed by Ingole and Ghosh in which RF exposure resulted in mild to extensive degenerative changes in chick embryo kidneys based on duration of RF exposure.24 RF emissions have also been shown to cause isomeric changes in amino acids that can result in nephrotoxicity as well as hepatotoxicity.25

Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Hypersensitivity

Electromagnetic field (EMF) hypersensitivity has been documented in controlled and double blind studies with exposure to various EMF frequencies. Rea et al. demonstrated that under double blind placebo controlled conditions, 100% of subjects showed reproducible reactions to that frequency to which they were most sensitive.22 Pulsed electromagnetic frequencies were shown to consistently provoke neurological symptoms in a blinded subject while exposure to continuous frequencies did not.23

Current Safety Standards are Based on Obsolete, Incomplete Analysis

Although these studies clearly show causality and disprove the claim that health effects from RF exposure are uncertain, there is another mechanism that proves electromagnetic frequencies, including radio frequencies, can negatively impact human health.

Government agencies and industry set safety standards based on the narrow scope of Newtonian or "classical" physics, reasoning that the effects of atoms and molecules are confined in space and time. This model supports the theory that a mechanical force acts on a physical object and thus, long-range exposure to EMF and RF cannot have an impact on health if no significant heating occurs. However, this is an incomplete model.

A quantum physics model is necessary to fully understand and appreciate how and why EMF and RF fields are harmful to humans.2627 In quantum physics and quantum field theory, matter can behave as a particle or as a wave with wave-like properties. Matter and electromagnetic fields encompass quantum fields that fluctuate in space and time. These interactions can have long-range effects which cannot be shielded, are non-linear and by their quantum nature have uncertainty. Living systems, including the human body, interact with the magnetic vector potential component of an electromagnetic field such as the field near a toroidal coil.26 28 29 The magnetic vector potential is the coupling pathway between biological systems and electromagnetic fields.26 27 Once a patient's specific threshold of intensity has been exceeded, it is the frequency which triggers the patient's reactions.

Quantum Electrodynamic Effects

Long range EMF or RF forces can act over large distances setting a biological system oscillating in phase with the frequency of the electromagnetic field so it adapts with consequences to other body systems. This also may produce an electromagnetic frequency imprint into the living system that can be long lasting.26 27 30 Research using objective instrumentation has shown that even passive resonant circuits can imprint a frequency into water and biological systems.31 These quantum electrodynamic effects do exist and may explain the adverse health effects seen with EMF and RF exposure. These EMF and RF quantum field effects have not been adequately studied and are not fully understood regarding human health.

Eliminate, Avoid, Mitigate EMF Exposure

AAEM recommends precaution regarding EMF, RF and all frequency exposure. All of the high quality (non-industry) studies showing adverse effects on health, as well as the quantum field effect, support the AAEM recommendation. In an era when all society relies on the benefits of electronics, we must find ideas and technologies that do not disturb bodily function. It is clear that the human body uses electricity from the chemical bond to the nerve impulse and obviously this orderly sequence can be disturbed by an individual-specific electromagnetic frequency environment. Neighbors and whole communities are already exercising precaution, demanding abstention from wireless in their homes and businesses.

Recommendations - American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM)

  1. An immediate caution on Smart Meter installation due to potentially harmful RF exposure.
  2. Accommodation for health considerations regarding EMF and RF exposure, including exposure to wireless Smart Meter technology.
  3. Independent studies to further understand the health effects from EMF and RF exposure.
  4. Recognition that electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a growing problem worldwide.
  5. Understanding and control of this electrical environmental bombardment for the protection of society.
  6. Consideration and independent research regarding the quantum effects of EMF and RF on human health.
  7. Use of safer technology, including for Smart Meters, such as hard-wiring, fiber optics or other non-harmful methods of data transmission.

For over 50 years, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has been studying and treating the effects of the environment on human health. In the last 20 years, our physicians began seeing patients who reported that electric power lines, televisions and other electrical devices caused a wide variety of symptoms. By the mid 1990's, it became clear that patients were adversely affected by electromagnetic fields and becoming more electrically sensitive.

Source (section above): https://aaemonline.org/ American Academy of Environmental Medicine

Back to Top

5G Concerns

New 5G wireless technology — promises before proof.

With the first 5G-NR standard officially announced (2018), network operators all over the world are conducting trials with the objective to deploy the technology commercially sometime in the next 2-3 years. Different countries have proposed and are working on different frequency bands that range all the way from 600 MHz to 71 GHz. The specific 5G Frequency Bands chosen for deployment vary by country. There is no research demonstrating that 5G is safe.

Communities across the U.S. are being told by wireless telecommunication corporations that in order for 5G to work, widespread deployment of vast numbers of small cell transponders is necessary. The devices will be placed on streetlight and utility poles, and elsewhere throughout their neighborhoods. But because so little is understood regarding 5G, scientists are very concerned about the unstudied effects — and the breakneck pace of what is essentially becoming an unregulated rollout of 5G tech.

  1. There Is No Research Demonstrating That 5G Is Safe
  2. Scientists Warn of Potential Serious Health Effects
  3. Cell Towers to Be Built in Front of Homes
  4. 5G Would Irradiate Everyone
  5. Public Health Is at Risk
  6. 5G Can lead to Major Ecological Disaster
Numerous scientific publications show EMF affects living organisms at levels well below national, international and industry-directed guidelines. Effects include; increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life. The International EMF Scientist Appeal

Towers & Antennas

Excerpt from OVERPOWERED ©2014
What Science Tells Us about the Dangers of Cell Phones and Other WiFi-Age Devices, by Martin Blank, PhD

While the devices with which we surround ourselves and the grid that powers them are both significant sources of electromagnetic radiation,there is another major source—one that is frequently hidden and easily ignored: the network of powerful antennas that we use to make our cell phones, televisions, and radios work.

Building a functional cell phone prototype and selling a finished, consumer-ready cell phone to the public were two very different accomplishments. Indeed, turning inventor Martin Cooper's 1973 prototype into Motorola's 1983 DynaTAC 8000X involved a staggering number of engineering breakthroughs, not the least of which involved producing an infrastructure. Mobile cell phones require a network of broadcast antennas, or cell towers, in order to make and receive telephone calls wirelessly. Cooper made the first cell phone call in 1973 using two antennas that Motorola built specifically for the project. For the public to use this new technology, however, many, many more would have to be erected. This would prove to be such a costly and time-consuming process that many doubted cell phones would ever become a viable business.

These naysayers were, of course, proven quite wrong, as the globe is now dotted with these cell network antennas, often mounted on towers (typically over 200 feet tall), which can house multiple cell antennas each. Antennas are also positioned on top of offices, hospitals, apartment buildings, churches, light poles, and signs. In 1985, just two years after Motorola's release of the first public cell phones, the United States saw approximately 900 cellular towers erected (making for some pretty poor network performance). By 2005, that number had grown to 175,725.17 As of July 1, 2012, the website AntennaSearch.com noted 480,058 cell phone towers and 1,535,883 cell phone antennas in the United States alone. Accurate global statistics on towers and antennas can be difficult to find, but there are millions worldwide, their numbers growing apace with the increase in cell phone ownership and the increasing data-flow requirements that we, as users, are placing on these networks.

Each of these towers and antennas continually sends and receives EMF radiation. This is how you are able to make and receive cell phone calls at any time, as long as you are in service range of your cell provider's network. Regardless of whether your phone is on or if you even own a cell phone at all, you are exposed to radiation from these towers, which broadcast EMF into the environment.

Increasingly, we find more and more ‘hidden’ antennas, so-called because they are designed to blend into the environment. These are even more difficult to avoid, as they are designed to be hidden. I encourage all of you to visit Antenna Search.com; input the address of your home, office, or child's school; and see how many antennas exist within a four-mile radius. The results may well surprise you. If you have a cell signal, you are being exposed to radiation from at least one tower (and likely more than that).

Like cell phones, televisions and radios can function properly only when supported by a network of powerful communication antennas that relay RF/MW communication signals. These are usually mounted on towers or tall buildings, and can transmit 50 kW (that's 50,000 watts) of energy. That is a tremendous amount of energy, and it explains why exposures are so high in areas close to radio and television broadcast antennas.

antennasearch.com

Visit the AntennaSearch website for a searchable database containing detailed information on towers and antennas within the US (i.e., location, ownership, contact info, frequencies, etc). Towers typically have multiple antennas to support the communication agendas of corporations and government. Antenna can transmit and/or receive RF signals for radio services, including cellular (4G, 5G, etc), and microwave frequency.

Back to Top

Electromagnetic Fields and Living Matter

Safety guidelines and testing methods are woefully inadequate.

report cover

The guidelines on EMF safety from IEEE and ICNIRP (endorsed by the EU) are only based on short term EMF exposures that are high enough to cause thermal effects. These are inadequate to provide protection to the public against long term effects from lower levels of exposure. Neither do they account for the pulse-like exposures modulated at low frequencies that are common from the modern 2G and 3G appliances.

The biological evidence concerning the non thermal effects of EMF (indications of head cancer, permeability of the brain/blood barrier); expression of shock proteins; genotoxic damage, neurological, and possibly reproductive effects), though still limited and controversial, is sufficient, on a precautionary basis, to justify biologically based and lower safety limits for the public. Such evidence also justifies more realistic test methods for RF absorption from RF.

Recommendations for such lower limits have been proposed by the Bio Intiative group; the Selatun Scientific Pane, and others. These have been adopted in some cities and regions of Europe. Whilst the state of the science does not predict obvious choices of particular lower limits it does allow the choice of pragmatically based and more biologically relevant limits which would provide better protection of health.

Current safety standards rely primarily on biological responses to intensities within arbitrarily defined (engineering-based) frequency bands, not biologically based frequency bands, and are based solely on ion energy deposition determinations. Current standards have ignored modulation as a factor in human health impacts and thus are inadequate in the protection of the public in terms of chronic exposure to some forms of ELF modulated RF signals …particularly new technologies that are pulse modulated and heavily used in cellular telephony. Carl F. Blackman - Research Biologist, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), RTP, NC, USA · Integrated Systems Toxicology Division
Back to Top

Prioritize, Measure and Mitigate

Beginning to really understand the EMF threat can have an emotional impact. At first many of us feel shock and outrage, distress, even despair. All of these feelings are reasonable, natural reactions. Informed intelligent response, not ‘lack of moral fiber."

Threats have always been a part of Life. Today the magnitude of in-your-face extinction level challenges can feel overwhelming. So, because EMF threats are invisible to us they are easier to ignore or dismiss. To further complicate things, most people are personally responsible for creating EMFs with the technologies that we enjoy and depend on for many of things of modern civilization.

Keep in mind that we are victims of deliberate misdirection, that is — profit motive. Conventional media coverage strongly influences the public's perception of EMF risk. For decades, powerful industry-supported lobbying and PR stratedgies have contributed to a public-wide underassessment of the risks of EMF exposure.

Consider what matters most, what are our principal values?

We are responsible for those who are more vunerable, like our children and our elders. But it's complicated. Each individual has distinct needs and desires, so a personal risk-benefit calculation is necessary for you to determine what exactly you are willing to compromise. What is more important — to you?

EMF is a problem that can be addressed pragmatically.

The planet's broken environment urgently requires massive investment, coordinated global-scale effort and commitment. You cannot fix it by yourself. But you can protect yourself and your loved ones from avoidable EMF exposure. For example, when we think about the statistically significant risk of driving a car we choose to fasten our seat belt and drive defensively, reducing the risk. Likewise, if we reduce unnecessary EMF exposure as much as possible, we also reduce (not eliminate) the associated risk.

Evaluating the electromagnetic fields that you personally encounter is a necessary first step to help you decide what steps to take to protect yourself and your family. An EMF measurment device and a systematic documentation proceedure is needed for this (there is a learning curve). The data that you collect will inform your EMF mitigation plan.

EMF Protection Guiding Principles

  1. Learn how to recognize EMF sources (measurement). Maximize the distance between you and those EMF sources when they are in use.
  2. Minimize use of EMF-generating technology. Stay as far away as possible for as long as you can. Distance is your friend!

Many building biologists are well trained in EMF identification and knowledgeable about effective mitigation techniques. If you cannot find a building biologist in your area, an option is to purchase an EMF meter and take measurements yourself. You may be able to work remotely with a bio-building professional by providing the readings to them. In any event, with the increasing electromagnetic exposures in our environment, it is a good idea to have an EMF/EMR meter in every healthy home tool box.

Choosing an EMF Meter

There are many EMF measurement products to choose from, ranging greatly in their capabilities and price. The frequency (Hz) range of the electromagnetic spectrum is vast. A single meter cannot test for everything within the EMF spectrum. That's okay, because we are interested in measuring only those EMFs which can negatively impact health (as understood by current unbiased science). This includes AC magnetic and electric fields, radio frequency and microwave transmissions.

The Trifield EMF Meter (photo below) measures magnetic and electric frequencies (EMF) and provides radio/microwave detection (RF). With it, you can detect and measure the environmental electrosmog threats in your home, at school and at work.

trifield meter

Cornet Microsystems, Inc. Electrosmog Meter ED88TPlus5G (0.1-8GHz) is a tri-mode RF/LF Electrosmog field strength power meter with build-in Gauss meter, Electric Field meter, Frequency counter and Data Logging/Recording/USB interface to PC.

trifield meter
Back to Top

The Body Electric: Electromagnetism And The Foundation of Life

EMFs and Subliminal Stress

Excerpt from The Body Electric: Electromagnetism And The Foundation of Life (p.276-278). Authors Robert Becker MD, and Gary Seldon describe how subliminal stress affects animals (including humans) even if they are unaware they are stressed.

Subliminal Stress

After Howard Friedman, Charlie Bachman, and I had found evidence that "abnormal natural" fields from solar magnetic storms were affecting the human mind as reflected in psychiatric hospital admissions, we decided the time had come for direct experiments with people. We exposed volunteers to magnetic fields placed so the lines of force passed through the brain from ear to ear, cutting across the brainstem-frontal current. The fields were 5 to 11 gauss, not much compared with the 3,000 gauss needed to put a salamander to sleep, but ten to twenty times earth's background and well above the level of most magnetic storms. We measured their influence on a standard test of reaction time-having subjects press a button as fast as possible in response to a red light. Steady fields produced no effect, but when we modulated the field with a slow pulse of a cycle every five seconds (one of the delta-wave frequencies we'd observed in salamander brains during a change from one level of consciousness to another), people's reactions slowed down. We found no changes in the EEG or the front-to-back voltage from fields up to 100 gauss, but these indicators reflect major alterations in awareness, so we didn't really expect them to shift.

We were excited, eagerly planning experiments that would tell us more, when we came upon a frightening Russian report. Yuri Kholodov had administered steady magnetic fields of 100 and 200 gauss to rabbits and found areas of cell death in their brains during autopsy. Although his fields were ten times as strong as ours, we stopped all human experiments immediately.

Friedman decided to duplicate Kholodov's experiment with a more detailed analysis of the brain tissue. He made the slides and sent them to an expert on rabbit brain diseases, but coded them so no one knew which were which until later.

The report showed that all the animals had been infected with a brain parasite that was peculiar to rabbits and common throughout the world. However, in half the animals the protozoa had been under control by the immune system, whereas in the other half they'd routed the defenders and destroyed parts of the brain. The expert suggested that we must have done something to undermine resistance of the rabbits in the experimental group. The code confirmed that most of the brain damage had occurred in animals subjected to the magnetic fields. Later, Friedman did biochemical rests on another series of rabbits and found that the fields were causing a generalized stress reaction marked by large amounts of cortisone in the bloodstream. This is the response called forth by a prolonged stress, like a disease, that isn't an immediate threat to life, as opposed to the fight-or-flight response generated by adrenaline.

Soon thereafter, Friedman measured cortisone levels in monkeys exposed to a 200-gauss magnetic field for four hours a day. They showed the stress response for six days, but it then subsided, suggesting adaptation to the field. Such seeming tolerance of continued stress is illusory, however. In his pioneering lifework on stress, Dr. Hans Selye has clearly drawn the invariable pattern: Initially, the stress activates the hormonal and/or immune systems to a higher-than-normal level, enabling the animal to escape danger or combat disease. If the stress continues, hormone levels and immune reactivity gradually decline to normal. If you stop your experiment at this point, you're apparently justified in saying, "The animal has adapted; the stress is doing it no harm." Nevertheless, if the stressful condition persists, hormone and immune levels decline further, well below normal. In medical terms, stress decompensation has set in, and the animal is now more susceptible to other stressors, including malignant growth and infectious diseases.

In the mid-1970s, two Russian groups found stress hormones released in rats exposed to microwaves, even if they were irradiated only briefly by minute amounts of energy. Other Eastern European work found the same reaction to 50-hertz electric fields. Several Russian and Polish groups have since established that after prolonged exposure the activation of the stress system changes to a depression of it in the familiar pattern, indicating exhaustion of the adrenal cortex. There has even been one report of hemorrhage and cell damage in the adrenal cortex from a month's exposure to a 50-hertz, 130-gauss magnetic field.

Soviet biophysicist N. A. Udintsev has systematically studied the effects of one ELF magnetic field (200 gauss at 50 hertz) on the endocrine system. In addition to the "slow" stress response we've been discussing, he found activation of the "fast" fight-or-flight hormones centering on adrenaline from the adrenal medulla. This response was triggered in rats by just one day in Udintsev's field, and hormone levels didn't return to normal for one or two weeks. Udintsev also documented an insulin insufficiency and rise in blood sugar from the same field.

One aspect of the syndrome was very puzzling. When undergoing these hormonal changes, an animal would normally be aware that its body was under attack, yet, as far as we could tell, the rabbits were not. They showed no outward signs of fear, agitation, or illness. Most humans certainly wouldn't be able to detect a 100-gauss magnetic field, at least not consciously. Only several years after Friedman's work did anyone find out how this was happening.

In 1976 a group under J. J. Naval at the Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory at Pensacola, Florida, found the slow stress response in rats from very weak electric fields, as low as five thousandths of a volt per centimeter. They discovered that when such fields vibrated in the ELF range, they increased levels of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine in the brainstem, apparently in a way that activated a distress signal subliminally, without the animal's becoming aware of it. The scariest part was that the fields Naval used were well within the background levels of a typical office, with its overhead lighting, typewriters, computers, and other equipment. Workers in such an environment are exposed to electric fields between a hundredth and a tenth of a volt per centimeter and magnetic fields between a hundredth and a tenth of a gauss.

Back to Top

Managing EMF Stress with hTMA

When asked directly, many people say that do not feel stressed. They are mentally unaware that their biology is under duress from EMF exposures, however, when scientifically assessed, their physiology tells quite a different story. Scientifically and medically it is well understood that the biologically harmful effects of electromagnetic radiation include cellular and DNA damage. In addition, the assault on sensitive brain chemistry and neurological processes can result in dysfunction of cognitive capabilities and emotional health. hTMA mineral balancing has multiple benefits with regard to EMF pathologies. It is a safe, gentle form of chelation therapy which uses preferred minerals to support cellular detoxification processes. Also, hTMA data is used to guide supportive nutritional recommendations based on your individual biochemical profile. hTMA Mineral balancing optimizes biochemistry to maximize cellular energy production and human performance (stress response-ability).

In addition, hTMA data can identify toxic exposure effects on biochemistry and monitor an individual's detoxification progress. Balanced biochemistry means having the optimal mineral levels and ratios necessary to support each cell's specialized function, including communication, nourishment and waste (toxin) removal. Decades of hTMA research has led to significant advancements in the understanding of mineral interrelationships and their biological effects. With hTMA mineral balancing you can provide the minerals and nutrition your body needs to protect yourself from the assorted harmful effects of an increasingly toxic environment.

Back to Top
References
  1. California Council on Science and Technology. (Internet). (2011). Health Impacts of Radio frequency Exposure from Smart Meters. Available from: https://www.ccst.us/
  2. Electric Power Research Institute. (Internet). (2011). Radio-Frequency Exposure Levels from Smart Meters: A Case Study of One Model. Available from: https://www.nvenergy.com/
  3. Hill, AB. The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation? Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine. 1965; 58: 295-300.
  4. Xu S, Zhou Z, Zhang L, et al. Exposure to 1800 MHZ radiofrequency radiation induces oxidative damage to mitochondrial DNA in primary cultured neurons. Brain Research. 2010; 1311: 189-196.
  5. Phillips JL, Singh NP, Lai H. Electromagnetic fields and DNA damage. Pathophysiology. 2009; 16: 79-88.
  6. Ruediger HW. Genotoxic effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Pathophysiology. 2009; 16(2): 89-102.
  7. Zhao T, Zou S, Knapp P. Exposure to cell phone radiation up-regulates apoptosis genes in primary cultures of neurons and astrocytes. Neurosci Lett. 2007; 412(1): 34-38.
  8. Lee S, Johnson D, Dunbar K. 2.45 GHz radiofrequency fields alter gene expression on cultured human cells. FEBS Letters. 2005; 579: 4829-4836.
  9. Demsia G, Vlastos D, Matthopoulos DP. Effect of 910-MHz electromagnetic field on rat bone marrow. The Scientific World Journal. 2004; 4(S2): 48-54.
  10. Lai H, Singh NP. Magnetic-field-induced DNA strand breaks in brain cells of the rat. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2004; 112(6): 687-694. Available from: https://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/
  11. Mashevich M, Foldman D, Kesar, et al. Exposure of human peripheral blood lymphocytes to electromagnetic fields associated with cellular phones leads to chromosomal instability. Bioelectromagnetics. 2003; 24: 82-90.
  12. Magras IN, Xenos TD. RF radiation-induced changes in the prenatal development of mice. Bioelectromagnetics. 1997; 18:455-461.
  13. Ban R, Grosse Y, Lauby-Secretan B, et al. Carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. The Lancet Oncology. 2011; 12(7): 624-626. Available from: https://www.thelancet.com/
  14. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. Use of cellular telephones and brain tumour risk in urban and rural areas. Occup. Environ. Med. 2005; 62: 390-394.
  15. Nittby H, Brun A, Eberhardt J, et al. Increased blood-brain barrier permeability in mammalian brain 7 days after exposure to the radiation from a GSM-900 mobile phone. Pathophysiology. 2009; 16: 103-112.
  16. Awad SM, Hassan NS. Health Risks of electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone on brain of rats. J. Appl. Sci. Res. 2008; 4(12): 1994-2000.
  17. Leszczynski D, Joenvaara S. Non-thermal activation of the hsp27/p38MAPK stress pathway by mobile phone radiation in human endothelial cells: Molecular mechanism for cancer - and blood-brain barrier - related effects. Differentiation. 2002; 70: 120-129.
  18. Santini R, Santini P, Danze JM, et al. Study of the health of people living in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations: 1. Influences of distance and sex. Pathol Biol. 2002; 50: 369-373.
  19. Abdel-Rassoul G, Abou El-Fateh O, Abou Salem M, et al. Neurobehavioral effects among inhabitants around mobile phone base stations. Neurotox. 2007; 28(2): 434-440.
  20. Hutter HP, Moshammer H, Wallner P, Kundi M. Subjective symptoms, sleeping problems, and cognitive performance in subjects living near mobile phone base stations. Occup. Environ. Med. 2006; 63: 307-313.
  21. Kolodynski AA, Kolodynska VV. Motor and psychological functions of school children living in the area of the Skrunda Radio Location Station in Latvia. Sci. Total Environ. 1996; 180: 87-93.
  22. Rea WJ, Pan Y, Fenyves EJ, et al. Electromagnetic field sensitivity. Journal of Bioelectricity. 1991; 10(1 &2): 243-256.
  23. McCarty DE, Carrubba S, Chesson AL, et al. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: Evidence for a novel neurological syndrome. Int. J. Neurosci. 2011; 121(12): 670-676.
  24. Ingole IV, Ghosh SK. Cell phone radiation and developing tissues in chick embryo - a light microscopic study of kidneys. J. Anat. Soc. India. 2006; 55(2): 19-23.
  25. Lubec G, Wolf C. Bartosch B. Amino acid isomerisation and microwave exposure. Lancet. 1989; 334: 1392-1393.
  26. Smith CW. Quanta and coherence effects in water and living systems. Journal of Alternative and Complimentary Medicine. 2004; 10(1): 69-78.
  27. Smith CW (2008) Fröhlich's Interpretation of Biology through Theoretical Physics. In: Hyland GJ and Rowlands P (Eds.) Herbert Fröhlich FRS: A physicist ahead of his time. Liverpool: University of Liverpool, 2nd edition, pp 107-154.
  28. Del Giudice E, Doglia S, Milani M, et al. Magnetic flux quantization and Josephson behavior in living systems. Physica Scripta. 1989; 40: 786-791.
  29. Tonomura A, Osakabe N, Matsuda T, et al. Evidence for Aharonov-Bohm effect with magnetic field completely shielded from electron wave. Phys. Rev. Let. 1986; 56(8):792-75.
  30. Del Giudice E, De Ninno A, Fleischmann, et al. Coherent quantum electrodynamics in living matter. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 2005; 24: 199-210.
  31. Cardella C, de Magistris L, Florio E, Smith C. Permanent changes in the physic-chemical properties of water following exposure to resonant circuits. Journal of Scientific Exploration. 2001; 15(4): 501-518.
Back to Top

Resources

Book
Download
Article
Video
Website
Back to Top Find a hTMA Practitioner

Editor's note: This article may or may not contain minor editing from the original document. Editing is done for one or more reasons: technical issues, layout or space considerations, content accuracy and/or clarity. © Copyrighted content is owned by the author. Please contact the author if you have any questions or would like to use any of their content for any reason whatsoever. Thank you.