Saturday, September 29, 2012

Opinion: Cell Phone Health Risk?


Opinion: Cell Phone Health Risk?

Security concerns during the Cold War may have led to the generation of misinformation on the physiological effects of microwave radiation from mobile phones.

By Allan H. Frey | September 25, 2012



Recently, Congress tasked its investigative arm, the General Accountability Office (GAO), to consider the health risks of mobile phones and to report back to Congress. While a previous report published in May 2010 by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) stated that there was no evidence of increased health risk resulting from exposure to the radiofrequency (microwave) energy emitted by cell phones, the World Health Organization reported the following year that cell phone radiation may be carcinogenic. Also in 2011, the director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse published a paper in JAMA reporting that 50 minutes of cell phone use by people altered glucose metabolism in the part of the brain closest to where the cell phone antennas were located. This summer, the GAO completed the task and sent a report to Congress stating that the risks were unclear and deserved greater scrutiny from the government.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC)  “should formally reassess and, if appropriate, change its current RF energy (microwave) exposure limit and mobile phone testing requirements related to likely usage configurations, particularly when phones are held against the body,” the GAO wrote.
The controversy over whether the technology poses a risk to human health is substantial. And while much of science could be considered controversial, what has, and is, happening in microwave research is not a routine scientific dispute. Concerns about the health risks of cell phones, confusion regarding the evidence for or against such risks, and even misinformation in the scientific literature may all be collateral damage of the Cold War between the USSR and the United States. This was a time when the use of microwave-generating equipment, such as radar, was seen by some as critical to the security of the United States, and efforts were taken to ensure that such innovations were not suppressed by findings that suggested such technology to be unsafe.
Hiding data
During the Cold War, a group at Brooks Air Force Base (AFB) was tasked with reassuring residents when the Air Force wanted to install radar (microwaves) in their neighborhood. To meet that responsibility, the Brooks group hired contractors to write Environmental Impact Statements to justify the placing of the radars—an obvious conflict of interest. Even worse, when a scientist did publish findings that might indicate a risk, Brooks selected contractors to do experiments that suggested the scientist’s research was invalid or not relevant to the safety of Air Force radar.
For example, after my colleagues and I published in 1975 that exposure to very weak microwave radiation opens the regulatory interface known as the blood brain barrier (bbb), a critical protection for the brain, the Brooks AFB group selected a contractor to supposedly replicate our experiment. For 2 years, this contractor presented data at scientific conferences stating that microwave radiation had no effect on the bbb. After much pressure from the scientific community, he finally revealed that he had not, in fact, replicated our work. We had injected dye into the femoral vein of lab rats after exposure to microwaves and observed the dye in the brain within 5 minutes. The Brooks contractor had stuck a needle into the animals’ bellies and sprayed the dye onto their intestines. Thus it is no surprise that when he looked at the brain 5 minutes later, he did not see any dye; the dye had yet to make it into the circulatory system.
Another Brooks AFB responsibility that further incentivized the spreading of misinformation was to lead a lab on a classified microwave-bio weapons program. Competition between this effort and the microwave-bio research programs undoubtedly going on in other nations at the time would explain the Brooks group’s attempts to block and discredit unclassified research in the microwave area and the subsequent publication of the results: it did not want advances in knowledge to appear in the scientific literature where the USSR could benefit from it. This is not unlike the recent uproar over whether bird flu results should be published—or even done at all—because of the fear that they may help terrorists develop biological weapons.
Stalling funding
In addition to actively suppressing results of microwave-bio research, the Brooks group also attempted to block funding for such research in the first place—and largely succeeded. For example, after we and others published the first papers in the mid- to late-’70s showing that very low intensity microwaves could open the bbb, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a report, written by a psychologist at a Kansas Veterans Administration hospital who was neither trained nor experienced in research on the bbb, that concluded “…if a real potential for catastrophic effects exists, it would be evident from the research already reported in the literature.” (An original draft of the report also noted that “DOD funding of research evaluating the effects of microwaves on the bbb should be of low priority,” though this statement was removed before the report was released to the public.)
Largely as a consequence of this report, funding for open microwave-bio research in the United States was essentially shut down. Several months after the report was released, I requested renewal of government funding, which in part supported research on the bbb. I received a letter stating that funding would not be granted unless I dropped the bbb part of the proposal. And in a September 1981 article in Microwave News, 2 years later, the editor wrote, “Surprisingly, no new [bbb] work was reported this year.”
Even now, the recent GAO report states, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) “is the only federal agency we interviewed that is directly funding ongoing studies on health effects of RF energy (microwave radiation) from mobile phone use.” And the NIH funded only one relevant completed experiment, by an in-house researcher, during the time the GAO did its assessment. For many years now most of the published microwave research—what little that has been done—has been conducted in other countries. And as I noted in a recent paper, many, if not most, of those have been epidemiological studies looking for health problems associated with outdated technologies that are not relevant to the phones used today or that will be used in the future.
Thus, the shutdown of normal open microwave research in the U.S. and the misinformation placed in the literature appears to be collateral damage of the actions of people who saw themselves as fighting a war. And since the research was not allowed to proceed in the normal fashion, we don’t have the set of data needed to determine if there is a health hazard of mobile phone use—and, if so, how serious the hazard is.  This suppression of research has now made hundreds of millions of people subjects in a grand experiment that may involve their health, without their informed consent, and the outcome of which can have substantial medical, legal, and economic consequences.
Allan H. Frey (allan@freys.us) is a semi-retired scientist in Potomac, Maryland, who was Technical Director of Randomline, Inc., a consulting and research firm. Read about more unsavory actions that I and others have observed in my chapter of bioethicist Nicholas Steneck’s Risk Benefit Analysis: The Microwave Case.
http://the-scientist.com/2012/09/25/opinion-cell-phone-health-risk/

Cellphones And Their Dangers


Cellphones And Their Dangers

Published: Tuesday | September 11, 2012


By Dr Tony Vendryes
LESS THAN a century ago, it was not uncommon for doctors to advise patients to use cigarette smoking as an aid in weight control. The idea that inhaling tobacco smoke was harmful was regarded as alarmist, ridiculous, and almost superstitious. Now,...


In a short time, a technological and cultural revolution called the Wireless Age has exploded worldwide. In 2011, there were over 5.6 billion cellular telephones in use by almost 80 per cent of the world's inhabitants. Not to be left out, Jamaica ranks high in its addiction to the use of this electronic marvel. Here, everyone seems to have at least one cellphone. But are cellphones safe, or are they the cigarettes of the new millennium?
At last, after years of denial, in 2011, no less an authority than the World Health Organisation (WHO) admitted that mobile phone use can be dangerous to your health. Yes, an active cellphone held next to your head can give you brain cancer. A special WHO team, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, reached this conclusion after reviewing several studies on cellphone safety. It found evidence of an increased incidence of brain cancer in mobile phone users. Sadly, cancer is not the only danger that cellphone users face.
Cellphones are highly compact ultrahigh-frequency transceivers that just happen to be situated directly at your head when the device is in use. Two decades ago, Dr George Carlo, a public health scientist, was commissioned by the cellphone industry to conduct research that would reassure the public about the safety of their products. His studies, however, began revealing worrying dangers, and he was dismissed, and the project stopped.
Early studies in North America and Europe of people exposed to radio-frequency radiation indicate an increased risk of brain, lung, and blood cancers. Although there is conclusive evidence from several researchers that the radiation from cellphones causes genetic damage to human cells, and that this damage leads to an increased risk of cancer, the experts argued that more research was needed. Now, at last, the issue has become clear in the eyes of the WHO.
Damage to the brain
The brain is extremely sensitive to chemicals. To survive and maintain brain function, humans have evolved special protections for the brain. One such protection is a filter that keeps harmful chemicals from entering the brain. It is called the blood brain barrier. Radio-frequency radiation emitted from mobile phones interferes with the blood brain barrier and allows toxic substances access to the tissues of the brain.
The more one uses a cellphone, the greater the occurrence of headaches, dizziness, and general feelings of discomfort in the head. Increasing the use of these instruments from less than two minutes to more than 60 minutes per day, for example, intensifies these symptoms by over 600 per cent.
Motor vehicle accidents
There is a statistically significant increase in the risk of death because of motor vehicle accidents among users of mobile phones. Operating a motor vehicle while using a cellphone is extremely dangerous, and this practice is now illegal in several countries.
Children at high risk
The radiation that emanates from a cellphone penetrates much deeper into the heads of children than adults. Once it penetrates a child's skull, it enters the brain and eyes at a far greater rate of absorption than it does in adults. This suggests even more serious health risks to children. Sadly, this has not prevented the cellphone industry from mounting major advertisement campaigns targeting children. Proposals are currently being made in the European Union to ban the use of cellphones by students in schools.
Safer use of cellphones
Because cellphones are such an important part of modern life and modern communication, and are so widely used, we need to find ways to coexist with them at minimal risk to our health. Here are some recommendations for doing so:
Restrict cellphone use
Add up the number of minutes you spend using a cellphone each day and try to cut back by 30 per cent or more. Keep the instrument away from your body by using a phone with an earpiece or headset. Everyone should routinely use a headset. I believe that cellphone manufacturers should provide everyone who buys a cellphone a free headset.
When you use the modern cellphone without an earpiece, the instrument functions as a receiver and transmitter of radiation that is emitted from the entire phone into a wide area around your head, neck, and hand. Children under the age of 10 should not use wireless devices of any type. When the signal strength is low, for example, inside some buildings, do not use your phone. The lower the signal strength, the greater the radiation emitted.
Protect yourself against radiation
Optimise your nutrition and eat lots of fresh vegetables and fruit daily. I use the Cellular Nutrition Programme for optimal nutritional support. Supplement with the antioxidant vitamins A, C, E, the mineral selenium, as well as the herbs schizandra, rosemary, ginkgo biloba, pycnogenol, and garlic. All of these have powerful antioxidant properties.
Avoid cigarette smoke, alcohol, chemical pollutants, and other sources of radiation like microwave ovens and other electronic devices. Get lots of fresh air, clean water, and sunshine - natural healing tools - and do an internal cleansing programme every three to four months.
Finally, please realise that cellphones are not the only source of unhealthy radiation. Invisible electromagnetic radiation - emanating from diverse sources such as power lines, home wiring, computers, televisions, microwave ovens, photocopy machines - surrounds us each day.
You may email Dr Tony Vendryes at tonyvendryes@gmail.com, or listen to 'An Ounce of Prevention' on POWER 106FM on Fridays at 8 p.m. His new book, 'An Ounce of Prevention, Especially for Women' , is available locally and on the Internet.
http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20120911/news/news5.html

Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt - Smart Meters & EMR: The Health Crisis Of Our TIme


Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt - Smart Meters & EMR: The Health Crisis Of Our TIme


This permanently destroys and alters the manufacturing of these proteins, meaning that it completely changes the human organism permanently. The DNA inside the cell is a booklet, an instruction booklet of how to make proteins and we have about 20 to 200 thousand different proteins that are in the cell or in the cell wall, the receptors, you know how the cell wall communicates with the outside environment is through proteins and inside the cell the manufacturing that each cell does of antibodies, of neuropeptides, of hormones, of cholesterol, of building blocks that the body needs to replace used by body parts -- that is all done by proteins. Even the physical structure of your body changes. We`ve seen hoards of people that had normal body weight for 40 years or 50 years and suddenly their weight exploded when the phone company put up the cell phone tower 200 yards from the house -- not even that close, 300 yards from their house. We`ve seen cancer rates shoot up the moment the network of cell phone towers was established... 

A Unified Theory of Weak Magnetic Field Action


A Unified Theory of Weak Magnetic Field Action

September 27, 2012

 McGill University Professor Proposes Radical New Outlook

Paul Héroux has a problem. He believes he has identified a way to control the growth of cancer cells, but he can't get his ideas into print. "We think we have the Rosetta Stone that will allow us to unravel the intricacies of cancer physiology," says Héroux, a professor at McGill University in Montreal. Yet, one scientific journal after another has refused to publish what he has found.
Part of Héroux's problem is that his argument is based on an even more controversial proposition than a possible cure for cancer: That extremely weak magnetic fields can bring about major changes in DNA. That is a tough sell. Héroux ups the ante another notch by claiming to show that those changes are so easy to spot that you don't need hi-tech instruments to see them, just a standard issue microscope. All you have to do is count chromosomes, admittedly with close attention to detail.
And that's not all. Héroux says he has pinpointed where and how the magnetic field acts on the cell.
Héroux is in McGill's Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health and runs the InVitroPlus Lab at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal.
Counting Excess Chromosomes
Héroux and his former graduate student, now postdoc, Ying Li have been counting the numbers of chromosomes in cancer cells before and after they are exposed to miniscule magnetic fields, much less than a 0.1 µT or a milligauss. The science is called karyology, the study of chromosomes— the karyotype, as they are collectively called. Karyology has been around for close to a hundred years, but it long ago lost favor as a research tool to more sophisticated techniques of modern molecular biology. A change in the number of chromosomes may be a somewhat gross measure of genetic changes, but it does have the advantage of being easy to see.
Unlike normal human cells, which have 46 chromosomes, cancer cells can have a larger —and variable— number of chromosomes. (Having more than 46 chromosomes, known as hyperploidy, is usually a sign of trouble, as in Down's syndrome.)
A type of breast cancer cell, known as MCF-7, has an average of 74 chromosomes. When exposed to a 60 Hz magnetic field of as low as 25-50 nT (0.025-0.05 µT or 0.25-0.5 mG) for six days, the cells lose more than 10% of their chromosomes, according to Héroux and Li. They call the effect karyotype contraction and say that the change is highly statistically significant.
They repeated the same experiment with four other cell lines —those of lung and colon cancer and two different types of leukemia— and found essentially the same effect every time. The cells exposed to magnetic fields show a number of remarkable properties:
• After three weeks in the field, the number of chromosomes returns to baseline numbers;
• Once adapted to the magnetic field, the cells become exquisitely sensitive to further variations of the magnetic field. An increase or decrease of only 10 nT (0.01 µT, 0.1 mG) will prompt another round of karyotype contractions.
• The karyotype contractions vary very little over a wide range of field intensities —from 100 to 500 nT (0.1-0.5 µT, 1-5 mG). That is, there’s no dose-response.
Héroux and Li concede that much of this behavior is “unusual” and runs counter to "classical toxicology and epidemiology." They say that they're in unchartered territory that's "unforeseen by conventional toxicological principles."
In all five cell lines, the effects “are strikingly similar," they write, and this suggests a "common, basic mechanism."
ATPS: A Molecular Engine That Pumps Energy into a Cell
Héroux and Li propose that the magnetic field acts on ATP synthase (ATPS), an enzyme that catalyzes the production of adenosine triphosphate or ATP, the energy source for all living cells (see figure below).
ATPS model
ATPS is a large molecule that spans the cell membrane and functions like a tiny engine. Protons (hydrogen ions) tunnel through the narrow channels within ATPS into the interior of the cell and, in the process, generate ATP. The efficiency of the process helps determine the energy balance inside the cell.
Here's a useful analogy from David Marcey of California Lutheran University:
Think of ATPS as a hydroelectric turbine that converts the kinetic energy of flowing water into electricity. The slower the water flows, the less electricity is generated, and vice versa. (Marcey has made an animated model which shows how ATPS works.)
According to Héroux , the magnetic fields can speed up or slow down the movement of the protons through the ATPS water channels and that this is what eventually leads to more or fewer chromosomes.
In a paper published last year in Tumor Biology, Li and Héroux showed that oligomycin, an antibiotic that can impair the action of ATPS, leads to karyotype contraction (as does a mix of melatonin and vitamin C). In their new paper, using this and other experimental evidence, Héroux and Li maintain that magnetic fields and oligomycin "share a common mode of action" and it takes place in ATPS.
The Russian Connection
Their new theory prompts the usual question: What biophysical force can explain how extremely weak magnetic fields can affect a biological system, in this case ATPS? Most mainstream scientists maintain that nanoTesla magnetic fields are much too small to overcome the random motion of molecules within living systems. Héroux and Li offer an answer—though it's based on some obscure and largely forgotten Russian studies.
More than 20 years ago, Lyudmila Petrovna Semikhina and her thesis advisor Professor Vsevolod Kiselev at Moscow State University found evidence that magnetic fields can alter the structure of water at levels as low as 25 nT.
It may be hard to believe, but scientific understanding of the properties of water is still a work in progress. Take, for instance, a press release issued a few weeks ago by the University of California, San Diego, describing some new twists to the molecular structure of water. It includes this statement: "Water in the active sites of enzymes affects their catalytic power." This is exactly the argument that the McGill scientists are making —with magnetic fields affecting the structure of water in the enzyme ATPS.
Here's how Héroux explained what's going on to Microwave News: "If the structure of the water in the proton channels within ATPS changes, the protons have a harder time tunneling through the membrane and this affects the efficiency of the rotor. This in turn leads to changes in the concentration of ATP which, in turn, triggers changes in the karyotype."
"Extraordinarily Impressive Work"
Héroux and Li summarize all this in their paper: The experimental data showing karyotype contraction in the five different cell lines, the parallels between the action of magnetic fields and biologically important chemicals on ATPS and the effects of magnetic fields on the structure of water.
It's not hard to see why journals might be reluctant to publish a paper that requires knowledge of cell biology, molecular biophysics and quantum electrodynamics. And they certainly have been. The McGill paper has been rejected by specialty radiation journals (Bioelectromagnetics and Radiation Research), more general scientific journals(Environmental Health Perspectives and Carcinogenesis) and broad interest journals (PLoSOne), Li said.
David Carpenter, the director of the Institute for Health and Environment at the University of Albany, took a close look at the all these results when he served as the outside reviewer for Li's doctoral dissertation at McGill. In an interview, Carpenter showered the cell line work with one superlative after another. "It is extraordinarily impressive," he said in a telephone interview. "I was blown away when I read it. It's first rate and deserves major attention."
Two long-time researchers on the effects of weak magnetic fields with backgrounds in engineering and physics are reserving judgment until they learn more about how the experiments were carried out. "The results are interesting, but I have concerns about the exposure system and the underlying theory," said Frank Barnes, a distinguished professor at the University of Colorado in Boulder, who was elected to the National Academy of Engineering in 2001. "The experimental results are much more likely to be right than the theory," he said. For more than 15 years, Barnes has been working on weak field effects with Russian scientists, notably Mikhail Zhadin of the Institute of Cell Biophysics in Pushchino.
Like Barnes, Abe Liboff, a retired professor of physics who is writing a book on Biological Sensitivity to the Earth's Magnetic Field, is more impressed with the biology than the rest of the paper. "Some of it is very naïve, but obviously the experiments were carried out very carefully," he said in an interview from Boca Raton, FL, where he now lives.
But possibly the best indicator that Héroux and Li are onto something important is that IREQ, the research arm of Hydro-Québec, the giant electrical utility is helping them to continue and extend this line of research. Michel Bourdages, a senior manager at IREQ, is supplying some big-ticket equipment which will allow them to do more sophisticated experiments. He is also providing funds to support Ying Li's post-doctoral work in Héroux's laboratory. Bourdages declined to be interviewed for this story.
Héroux worked at IREQ before joining McGill in 1987. While there, he designed the Positron meter, which was used in a set of influential epidemiological studies on worker exposures to EMFs. The Positron was the first meter that measured high-frequency transients that are ubiquitous in the distribution of electricity. Today, these transients are better known as dirty electricity. IREQ's backing comes with a large measure of irony; we'll come back to that a little later.
Can NanoTesla Fields Have Biological Effects?
All this raises another question: Is it even possible for nanoTesla (nT) magnetic fields to bring about biological effects? Liboff believes the answer is yes. "These very small fields are biologically active," he said, "there's no doubt about it." Liboff points to the ability of birds and bees to be guided by the Earth's static field. "Other than God's little creatures," he said, "three or four European groups have published reports of seeing effects at 40nT for time-varying fields." Liboff regrets that there is so little interest in these weak field interactions in the U.S. "It's completely different in Europe," he said.
For his part, Barnes is more conservative. He said that he's comfortable that there are effects in the tens of µT's —which is 1,000 higher than the nT fields used in the Heroux-Li experiments.
As for the Russian work by Semikhina pointing to a 25 nT threshold that lies at the heart of Heroux's grand theory, it's obscure by any measure. No one we talked to had heard of it except for Vladimir Binhi, the head of the radiobiology lab at the General Physics Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow and the author of Magnetobiology. Binhi told us that others had tried and failed to repeat her experiments. "There are strong suspicions that her results are unreliable," he said. Semikhina now teaches at Tyumen State University in western Siberia. She did not respond to a request for comment.
Although effects at nT field levels may fly in the face of current orthodoxy, they are not unheard of. For instance, last year, a group of Canadians from Laurentian University —Michael Persinger among them— reported that 1 to 5 nT magnetic fields suppressed the growth of melanoma cells in mice. The paper, though published in a mainstream journal, theInternational Journal of Radiation Biology, passed relatively unnoticed.
McGill University: A Center of Skepticism of EMF Health Effects
That Héroux, a long-time professor at McGill, is championing such a radical theory of weak-field interactions promises to lead to open conflict on campus. The university is a hotbed of EMF skepticism, promoted in large part by Lorne Trottier, a successful Canadian businessman and McGill graduate. Trottier made a fortune in the computer industry and has given vast sums to his alma mater. He is the largest donor to McGill's Faculty of Science.
Trottier has paid for new buildings, endowed professorships and last year he gave McGill C$5.5 million to bring "legitimate science to a mainstream audience." Trottier sponsors the university's Office for Science and Society, run by a close associate, Joe Schwarcz, a chemistry professor who writes popular books on science and health.
On the side, Trottier and Schwarcz run the EMF & Health Web site, which, they say, is "dedicated to real science." Their primary objective is dismissing any paper, report or presentation that might suggest low-level effects. They are all, without exception, attributed to pseudoscience and alarmist chatter. Trottier and Schwarcz have no doubt that cell phones, smart meters and power lines present no cancer risk or any health risk at all.  
Another contributor to EMF & Health is Michel Plante, a medical doctor at Hydro-Québec. Plante, Trottier's point man on power line health risks, believes that the link between magnetic fields and childhood leukemia is "likely a false alarm," despite the fact that it has been repeatedly found in a large number of epidemiological studies.
Plante has a dubious history in EMF-health research. He played a central role in covering up one of the most intriguing epidemiological studies ever carried out on EMFs. That study was done at McGill under the direction of Gilles Thériault, the then chair of its Department of Occupational Health. Plante served as Hydro-Québec's liaison to the McGill team.
Thériault's results, which were published in 1994, showed a strong association between exposure to transients and the incidence of cancer among Hydro-Québec workers. Thériault found that the cancer risks among those most highly exposed were up to 15 times the expected rate (see MWN, N/D94, p.4). That study used the Positron meter to measure the workers' exposures to power line EMFs and to high-frequency transients. This is the meter which Paul Héroux helped design back in the 1980s.
Hydro-Québec was furious that Thériault had published his findings and immediately confiscated the raw data, which had been collected at a cost of millions of dollars (see MWN,N/D94, p.1). Further access was barred and all further research stopped. Thériault's paper is now largely forgotten. The work was never followed up.
Héroux Publishes, Bypassing Further Peer Review
Héroux is now stepping back into the EMF cauldron.
After a handful of rejection letters for his and Ying Li's paper, Héroux decided to bypass further peer review and publish the paper on the arXiv Web site, an open access archive for scientific research run by Cornell University that serves primarily the physics, math, and quantitative biology communities. (The paper was posted today, September 27.)
arXiv.p.1
Much of what is in the paper would probably have been published without too much trouble had Héroux been willing to break down his grand theory into its component parts and publish them separately.  All those who have looked at the cell biology results have been impressed. In addition to those we interviewed, an anonymous peer reviewer for PloSOne called them "exceptionally interesting" and "very important," adding that the "effect of magnetic fields on cancer karyotype is striking" and that "the lack of a dose-response curve and the clear evidence that the effect is not secondary to induced currents is convincing." A second reviewer was equally positive. "Data presented in the manuscript show that there is a definite effect of magnetic fields on karyotype contraction," he or she wrote.
Indeed, the first reviewer suggested that Héroux and Li work would be "better served" if they would break it down into several manuscripts. Asked why he did not do this, Héroux replied that he did not want to dilute his findings by slicing them up like salami.
If Héroux's grand new theory is even partly right, he will have offered a number of testable ideas that might shed light on how to control cancer —as well as diabetes and other metabolic diseases. The cells' sensitivity to magnetic fields following repeated exposure could also lead to a breakthrough in explaining the physiological basis for electromagnetic hypersensitivity. After all, as Héroux told us, "We have no reason to believe that the ATPS of normal cells is not affected by the fields, though we think that cancer cells are more susceptible because of their enhanced metabolism."
Paul Héroux and Ying Li will now face a public peer review and, given the past history of the EMF debacle, it's likely to be quite a ride.
http://microwavenews.com/news-center/unified-theory-magnetic-field-action