Friday, April 19, 2019

NPR Science Friday re; wireless - today - 2-4pm

Via Patricia Burke

Today 2-4 pm Eastern   11-2 Pacific  NPR Science Friday re; wireless

Of Science, Certainty, and the Safety of Cell Phone Radiation

NPR's Science Friday 4/20: on 5G, 11 am -1 pm PST. Includes a discussion on health effects
How to cover an issue when the stakes for human health seem so high, scientific questions still linger, and passions run so deep?

Last week, President Trump announced a new initiative to push forward the implementation of 5G, the next generation of wireless connectivity for smartphones and other devices. Under the plan, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will auction off sections of high-frequency radio spectrum, and pour more money into rural broadband connectivity—all in the name of winning an international race to build wireless networks that could be up to 100 times faster than the current generation, 4G LTE.

How is this faster speed possible, and how quickly will it become accessible to consumers? Washington Posttechnology reporter Brian Fung explains the innovations that would enable greater rates of data transmission—plus the current progress of both the U.S. and international rollout. (Read an F.A.Q. on what 5G is all about with Fung below.)

But Harold Feld, a lawyer and consumer advocate, says not everyone will benefit equally from 5G as plans currently stand—including rural communities.

One of the top technology candidates for 5G relies on higher frequencies and bringing more smaller-signal base stations much closer to the people using them. But what does research say about how it will affect human health? Researchers review what the literature has suggested so far about non-ionizing radiation from 2G and 3G, including a 2018 study from the National Toxicology Program (NTP) that found an increase in tumors for male rats. The NTP’s John Bucher and Jonathan Samet of the Colorado School of Public Health join Ira to discuss the data, and the limitations of research to date. Plus, toxicologist and epidemiologist Devra Davis of the Environmental Health Trust provides a statement on the health concerns of 5G.

sorry for short notice!

Regarding EMF "Harmonizers" - A Message from Nick Pineault

In the last year alone, I’ve received emails from inventors, doctors, and people who just want to protect themselves against EMFs. Each one claimed that they had found a “magic” solution which nullifies the effects of EMFs on the human body.
Some of these solutions were “chips” or other gizmos that you stick to your phone.
Some others are pendants that you wear around the neck, and that are said to repel EMFs by strengthening the “human biofield”.
I’ve spent countless hours contacting these companies and having them share their research with me -- the “definitive proof” that their device is protecting the user against the harmful effects of EMFs.
And so far, I have chosen to endorse NONE of them. Out of a list of 40+.
Why? To make a long story short:
1) I have seen ZERO evidence that these “EMF-harmonizing” devices are protective against EMFs.
Don’t get me wrong. Several companies who contacted me did test their devices, and people feel better wearing them.
I can say without a shadow of a doubt that some of these devices help to reduce the symptoms (not the biological effects) related to EMF exposure.
But the question that’s always in the back of my mind is… are we merely reducing the symptoms, feeling better when talking on a cell phone or being exposed to a cell tower… while the damage is still happening on a cellular level?
So far, no company has been able to show me testing which would show a reduction of oxidative stress in cells, no loss of mitochondrial function, a reduction in antioxidant loss, a reduction in DNA damage… nothing of substance.
2) The claims made by a lot (if not most) companies are LUDICROUS.
I have seen it all…
  • “Reduces EMF radiation by 99%”
  • “Protects you against EMFs”
  • “Makes your cell phone safe again”
These statements are untrue, unscientific, and might prove to be downright dangerous (if not criminal) in the near future.
I find it extremely concerning that people feel “protected” by devices that might just be providing them a reduction in symptoms. It’s like relying on Tylenol to ease your pain and hide the fact that you need knee surgery. (Which people are doing all the time, but you get the point.)
*****Summary of what I’m saying here and my current opinion on EMF-harmonizing gizmos, to be perfectly clear*****
  • These EMF-harmonizing devices have been shown to reduce the SYMPTOMS of EMF exposure.
  • We do not know if these devices are really protective against EMFs.
  • You should never rely on these devices to protect yourself against EMFs, and call it a day. Eliminating sources of EMFs and creating distance is key.
  • Using these devices as a temporary tool to help you feel better when you’re exposed to inevitable sources of EMFs (in public places, at work, at school, while traveling) is probably a good idea, as long as you understand that it’s no magic bullet.
When it comes to your cell phone, make sure to reduce your overall use and keep it on Airplane Mode (or turned off) as often as you can. Mine is pretty much always on Airplane Mode.
Create distance from your cell phone if you use it -- staying 2 feet away from it at all times if you can help it. Use an “Airtube” headset or speakerphone if you’re not in a public place. (Be respectful of other people -- using speakerphone on the subway train is so annoying...)
And when you carry your phone, Airplane Mode is also the way to go.
If you NEED to use your phone while walking or keep it on because you need your boss/kids/other people to reach you 24/7, then also make sure that you keep your phone in a Safe Sleeve case.
You put your phone in there, and it shields a good part of the EMFs that would otherwise be blasted towards your body.
It’s 3rd-party tested. It works. If I need to take a call on my phone and put my phone in my back pocket, I’m way better off using this case VS not using any case.
Also -- these cases are very affordable compared to competitors, and look super sleek.
I wish there was a chip that could magically make your cell phone safe again. Still looking for it.
But for now, I recommend shielding products that work. And this case is still my #1 recommendation:
Talk soon,


Exposure to primordial radionuclides is less harmful than exposure to manmade radiation

Message from Vic Leach and George DiCarlo regarding Lloyd Morgan's commentary on the recent Panagopoulos study

I agree with you this is a critically important paper. All background radiation is not the same. I think you can argue that exposure to the primordial radionuclides is less harmful as we have evolved with these natural radionuclides and a little bit of radiation might have an hormesis effect as it stImulates our immune system. However, artificial man-made RF is nothing like natural background and Dimitri Panagopolus clearly explains this in his paper and the talk he gave in the UK at Dr Erica Mallory- Blyth conference. I don't have access to the link as I  travelling in the country. Our ORSAA paper shows that when real mobile signals are used the ratio of Effect to No Effect studies is 85%. This a clear indication that we are dealing with a bio toxic agent. 
Warmest Regards Vic


Please circulate to your folks. This new paper by Dr. Panagopoulos clearly describes and documents the mechanistic aspects that underscore why man-made, polarized waveforms can cause so many different types of adverse biological effects. This is key. While focused on genetic outcomes, the impact triggers described in the paper apply across the board to organelles, cells, tissues, organs and organ systems. This is a foundation that will be key to any and all risk assessments as well as derivations of any and all safety standards.
Dr. George L. Carlo


Panagopoulos study....

Comparing DNA damage induced by mobile telephony and other types of man-made electromagnetic fields

Lloyd Morgan commentary

A Commentary

Comparing DNA damage induced by mobile telephony and other types of
man-made electromagnetic fields[1], by Dr. Dimitris J. Panagopoulos

We begin this commentary with a short general description of how information is transmitted.  It begins with the transmission of a precise carrier frequency of Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR) which must be modulated in order to attach information to the carrier frequency.

With each new generation the complexity of this modulation increases dramatically in order to increase the amount of attached information. And potentially also increases the carcinogenic risk to those exposed to the radiation. 

Below is an image of the third generation (3G) UMTS[2] modulated RFR where the carrier frequency is 0 Hz in this image.  UMTS modulation has 2,639 discrete frequencies of varying amplitude, ± 2.5 MHz from the carrier frequency.     

UMTS (3G) Modulation of Carrier Frequency

Mobile phones and many other devices (e.g., Wi-Fi) emit RFR which the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified as a “possible carcinogen” in May, 2011. In part, the reason RFR was classified as a “possible carcinogen,” was IARC wanted animal studies before it could be classified as a Group 1 human carcinogen. 

In late 2018 and early 2019, two large animal studies (thousands of animals each) were published.  The two studies were National Toxicology Program (NTP) an agency of United States, and Italy’s Ramazzini Institute (RI), found the same cancers found in humans was also found in the animals from both studies.

5G frequency ranges, 24 GHz to 86 GHz. A microwave oven’s frequency is 5.5 GHz.

Summary of the Panagopoulos Study
This extraordinary paper examined six forms of radiation, two forms of real-world cellphone radio frequency radiation (RFR), and three forms of magnetic field radiation, and one pulsed electric field radiation.  They are:
1.      GSM[3] 900 MHz cellphones, 6 minute every 24 hours for a total of 36 minutes exposure;[4]
2.      GSM 1800 MHz cellphones, 6 minute every 24 hours for a total of 36 minutes exposure;
3.      MF-1 (50 Hz[5], 1 Gauss[6]), 120 hour exposure;
4.      MF-2 (50 Hz, 11 Gauss); 120 hour exposure,
5.      MF-3 (50 Hz, 21 Gauss), 120 hour exposure and;
6.      PEF[7] (a pulse electric field), 400 kV/m, 30 hour exposure.
a.       Approximately the electric field that results in lightning; 1,000 m from the lightning strike sensitive humans are exposed to ~0.37 V/m which they can sense.

The two cellphone exposures are roughly the same intensity/strength exposure that cellphone users experience every day.  The magnetic fields are far higher than normal.

The study used fruit flies[8] with the above exposures.  The study examined fruit fly ovarian cells for fragmented DNA compared to “controls” that were otherwise in identical conditions except that there was no exposure.

For the cellphones, average DNA fragmentation[9] of ovarian cells was approximately 58% for GSM 900 MHz phones and approximately 43% for GSM 1800 MHz phones.  In contrast, in spite of their longer[L1]  exposures, DNA fragmentation of MF-1 was 7.52%, MF-2 was 6.71% and MF-3 was 7.52%.  For the PEF exposure the DNA fragmentation was 2.7[L2] 4%.

Clearly the resultant DNA fragmentation was far higher from the radio frequency radiation exposure than was the case for the three magnetic field exposures and the single pulsed electric field exposure[L3] . 

Many studies found similar effects.[10] , . ,[11]-,[12] Also, the “ion forced-oscillation mechanism zation”,[13],[14],[15] and the disruption of the cell’s electrochemical balance and function[16],[17].

“The validity of this mechanism has been verified by computer numerical test. Other mechanisms suggested before failed to pass the same test[18]. The same mechanism was recently applied successfully to explain health symptoms caused by atmospheric discharges (lightning) reported for decades but never explained before[19].”

“Despite many other studies that report no effects[20],[21],[22],[23],[24],[25],[26] the consistency and remarkable similarity of many of the reported effects - including the most detrimental DNA damage - and the rapidly increasing number of the studies reporting effects during the recent years is alarming. All studies from different research groups and on different biological models/endpoints cited in the Introduction of the present study exhibit mutually supportive results and this makes unlikely the possibility that these results could be wrong or due to randomness.”

“In addition to remarkable gene similarities, the basic cellular processes are identical in insect and mammalian cells. All cells in both insects (including [fruit flies]) and mammals (including humans) have the same type of cell membranes, are full with billions of identical free ions like calcium (Ca+2), potassium (K+), sodium (Na+) etc, initiating and accompanying all cellular events, and have the same intracellular organelles like mitochondria, ribosomes, endoplasmic reticulum, nucleus containing the cell’s genomic DNA with the same basic structure, chemical elements and bonds in all organisms, etc.[27]. These similarities at the cellular level between all animals are more fundamental than differences in volume, mass, shape, macroscopic functions, intelligence, etc, since all health effects are initiated at the cellular level. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that a cellular effect caused by [pulsed radio frequency radiation (RFR on fruit flies] (e.g. DNA damage) can be expected to occur also in the human organism.”


It comes that variability in the [RFR] exposure is an extremely important factor in order for the specific type of polarized [RFR] to be able to induce biological/health effects.

It seems that the bioactive parameters of [RFR] are: 1) Polarization[28] (combined with coherence), 2) [Extremely Low Frequencies[29]], 3) Intensity, 4) Variability (unexpected changes exceeding 20–30 % of average/normal intensity). Once the [RFR] is polarized, includes ‘[Extremely low frequency radiation], and has adequate intensity, the parameter that makes the difference is variability.”

“The extreme and unpredictable variability of the real-life [mobile telephone] signals that apparently seems to be the reason for the corresponding intense bioactivity, does not concern only the 2nd generation (GSM) [mobile telephone] signals tested in our experiments and in the present review, but all existing types of digital  [mobile telephone]  signals (2nd, 3rd, 4th generation), and all types of modern digital microwave telecommunication signals/[RFR] (DECT phones, Wi-Fi routers, etc.), since they all operate under the same principles combining [Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR)] carrier signals with [Extremely Low Frequency] pulsing and modulation of similar frequency bands, emitting variable information each moment which in turn makes the emission variable in intensity, frequency, waveform etc. In fact, with every new generation of telecommunication devices (e.g. 3rd, 4th, 5th generation mobile phones or base antennas[30]) the amount of information transmitted each moment (speech, text, images, video, internet, etc.) is increased, resulting in higher variability and complexity of the signals with the living cells/organisms even more unable to adapt. The result of the recent study that found a real 3rd generation (UMTS) [mobile telephone RFR] to be more bioactive than real 2nd generation (GSM) [mobile telephone] [RFR] emitted by the same device[31] is in line with this fact.

“Thus, the present study makes the point that once a specific [RFR] is polarized (and coherent), includes ELFs, and has adequate intensity, then variability in its parameters (especially in its intensity) is of decisive importance in terms of its bioactivity. In the present study this was shown, a) by the direct comparison between six different [RFRs] in terms of their ability to induce DNA fragmentation in my studies, b) by indirect comparison between the effects of real [Mobile Telephone RFRs] in my studies and simulated [Mobile Telephone RFRs] in other studies, both directly compared with corresponding effects of a 50 Hz alternating Magnetic Fields, and c) by the large difference in bioactivity between simulated [Mobile Telephone] signals with invariable parameters and real [Mobile Telephone] (highly variable) ones from a great number of reviewed studies. This important point in terms of biological activity and public health protection should be further confirmed experimentally by direct comparison of effects between simulated and real [Mobile Telephone RFR] of the same average parameters.

“The importance of exposure variability shown in the present study implies the need to define EMF-exposures not only by frequency components and average intensity values, but by reporting maximum and minimum intensity as well, frequency variations, pulsing or continuous wave[32], modulation, and - of course - polarization. Moreover, in published reviews of experimental studies employing [mobile telephone] and other types of microwave telecommunication [RFR] such as DECT[33] phones, Wi-Fi etc, it must be explicitly reported whether the exposures were real from commercially available devices or simulated from generators, test phones, etc.

“The present study further confirms my previous results and conclusions that experiments should employ real-life and not simulated [RFR], and human/animal exposure to microwave telecommunication [RFR] should be drastically reduced by prudent use, and establishment of much stringer exposure limits by the responsible health authorities.”


[1] DJ Panagopoulos.  Comparing DNA damage induced by mobile telephony and other types of . Mman-made electromagnetic fields. Mutation Research- Reviews in Mutation Research.  April 2019.
[2] Universal Mobile Telecommunications Service
[3] GSM: Global System for Mobile telecommunications; cellphone is in “Talk” mode.
[4] Radio frequency power density, ~0.389 mW/cm2; Extremely Low Frequency (ELF_ Electric field, ~19 V/m; ELF Magnetic field, 0.9 mG for GSM 900 MHz and for GSM 1800, ~ 30% lower of the RF power density, ELF electric and magnetic fields.
[5] 50 Hz:  European electricity sinusoidal oscillation of 50 times per second.
[6] Gauss:  A metric of magnetic field strength named for Johann Carl Friedrich Gauss (1 G = 0.0001 T or 100 μT).
[7] PEF: Pulsed electric field, previously found to increase fertility.
[8] Drosophila ,melanogaster
[9] A likely initiator of cancer
[10] D.J. Panagopoulos, N. Messini, A. Karabarbounis, A.L. Filippetis, L.H. Margaritis, A mechanism for action of oscillating electric fields on cells, Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 272 (3) (2000) 634–640.
[11] D.J. Panagopoulos, A. Karabarbounis, L.H. Margaritis, Mechanism for action of electromagnetic fields on cells, Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 298 (1) (2002) 95–102.
[12] D.J. Panagopoulos, O. Johansson, G.L. Carlo, Polarization: a key difference between man-made and natural electromagnetic fields, in regard to biological activity, Sci. Rep. 5 (2015)

[13] D.J. Panagopoulos, N. Messini, A. Karabarbounis, A.L. Filippetis, L.H. Margaritis, A mechanism for action of oscillating electric fields on cells, Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 272 (3) (2000) 634–640.
[14] D.J. Panagopoulos, A. Karabarbounis, L.H. Margaritis, Mechanism for action of electromagnetic fields on cells, Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 298 (1) (2002) 95–102.
[15] D.J. Panagopoulos, O. Johansson, G.L. Carlo, Polarization: a key difference between man-made and natural electromagnetic fields, in regard to biological activity, Sci. Rep. 5 (2015),
[16] M.L. Pall, Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects, J. Cell. Mol. Med. 17 (2013) 958–965.
[17] A. Barzilai, K. Yamamoto, DNA damage responses to oxidative stress, DNA Repair 3 (8-9) (2004) 1109–1115 Review.
[18] M.N. Halgamuge, C.D. Abeyrathne, Behavior of charged particles in a biological cell exposed to AC-DC electromagnetic fields, Environ. Eng. Sci. 28 (1) (2011).
[19] D.J. Panagopoulos, A. Balmori, On the biophysical mechanism of sensing atmospheric discharges by living organisms, Sci. Total Environ. 599–600 (2017) (2017) 2026–2034.
[20] E.M. Goodman, B. Greenebaum, M.T. Marron, Effects of electro- magnetic fields on molecules and cells, Int. Rev. Cytol. Suppl. 158 (1995) 279–338.
[21] D.J. Panagopoulos, A. Karabarbounis, C. Lioliousis, ELF alternating magnetic field decreases reproduction by DNA damage induction, Cell Biochem. Biophys. 67 (2013) 703–716.
[22] IARC, Non-ionizing radiation, Part 1: Static and Extremely Low-Frequency (ELF) Electric and Magnetic Fields Vol. 80 World Health Organization, 2002.
[23]IARC, Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields Vol. 102 (2013) Lyon, France.
[24] D.J. Panagopoulos, O. Johansson, G.L. Carlo, Real versus simulated mobile phone exposures in experimental studies, Biomed Res. Int. 2015 (2015) 607053.
[25] F.M. De Oliveira, A.M. Carmona, C. Ladeira, Is mobile phone radiation genotoxic? An analysis of micronucleus frequency in exfoliated buccal cells, Mutat. Res. 822 (2017) 41–46.
[26] D. Manna, R. Ghosh, Effect of radiofrequency radiation in cultured mammalian cells: a review, Electromagn. Biol. Med. 5 (3) (2016) 265–301.

[27] B. Alberts, et al., Molecular Biology of the Cell, Garland Publishing, Inc., N.Y., USA, 1994.
[28] Natural radiation is not polarized, but man-made radiation is polarized.
[29] ELF:  Typically the frequency used by electrical distribution systems.
[30] Also known as “base stations,” or “cell towers.”
[31] M.H. D’Silva, R.T. Swer, J. Anbalagan, B. Rajesh, Effect of radiofrequency radiation emitted from 2G and 3G cell phone on developing liver of chick embryo – a comparative study, J. Clin. Diagn. Res. 11 (7) (2017) 5–9.
[32] “Continuous wave” is an uninterrupted wave with unvarying amplitude (no modulation) form for RFR.
[33] DECT:  Digital Enhance Cordless Telephone

 [L1]Great addition!
 [L2]Great catch!!!