With a lot of doubt surrounding the FCC’s current SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) wireless radiation safety regulations. The next question to ask is, what is the desired intensity of the electromagnetic waves that we should avoid? At what level of intensity is the effect upon biological systems negligible, or of no known consequence?
A new study gains insight into magnetic flux density thresholds of cell phone radiation exposure which may cause molecular mechanisms responsible for a radioadaptive response to non-ionizing RF radiation and cellular damage produced by endogenous oxidative stress.
Scientist at the Environmental Resources and Technologies, Department Health and Environment, AIT Austrian Institute of Technology, Tulln, Austria grouped experimental conditions as an approach to evaluate effects of extremely low-frequency magnetic fields on oxidative response in vitro studies. Front. Public Health, 02 September 2014 http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpubh.2014.00132/full
The hypothesis, that ELF MF exposure consistently triggers oxidative responses in cultured mammalian cells. Taking the complexity of both the exposure situation (with various frequencies, waveforms, modulations, flux densities, presence of other MF, duration, exposure periodization, etc.) and the multitude of biological processes affected.
Oxidative stress describes cell damage caused by an overabundance of oxidants, including reactive oxygen species (ROS, e.g., oxygen ions, free radicals, and peroxide). ROS are harmful in excess, but some level of them is necessary for important cellular functions.
Only low quantities of ROS are produced under normal cell metabolism, but disease, numerous chemical compounds or exposure to cell phone radiation triggers massive ROS production. These species create oxidative DNA lesions, the net result is that cells promote mutation accumulation.
All available evidence suggests that ELF MF (modulated/unmodulated) has an effect on oxidative status parameters, in both directions. The strongest association between MF exposure and effects occur at or above 1 mT, although effects are noted at or below 0.10 mT. Effects are not dependent on cell type or on exposure duration.
What does an exposure of 0.10 mT mean?
The electric field and magnetic field components of cell phone radiation can be separately measured.
Electrical field strength can be measured in volts per metre (V/m) or as power density in microWatts per square meter (µW/m2) 1 V/m = 2652 µW/m2
Magnetic fields can be quantified in milligauss (mG) or Millitesla – 1 Millitesla (mT) is equal 1000 Microteslas (µT).
The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (INCIRP) has set limits of 1 mT (millitesla) for occupational exposure to ELF-EMF, and 200 μT (0.2 mT) for general public exposure
As a reference for device power output, Sage, Johansson, & Sage, Bioelectromagnetics, 2007 did a study of hand held wireless devices that reported measurements of extra-low electromagnetic frequencies emitted by PDAs when sending or receiving data streams– with peak emissions up to 0.0975 mT recorded. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17357117
In another experimental Medical/biological Study published in Int J Radiat Biol 2013; 89 (11): 993 – 1001, titled Mobile phone radiation induces mode-dependent DNA damage in a mouse spermatocyte-derived cell line: a protective role of melatonin. — DNA damage has been reported with magnetic flux density levels of 0.060728 mT, with only an exposure duration of 1 minute (continuous ) every 20 min for 24 hrs (72 minutes total). This study indicates health hazards at 1/3rd of the current INCIRP safety guidelines of 0.2 mT for general public exposure. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23952262?dopt=Abstract
The wireless industry and government regulators have had access to this peer reviewed scientific information for almost 20 years!
Measured by Electrical Field Exposure – Studies by Increasing Power Density –
From this reference, we learn of a series of studies involving electrical intensity, or power density, that range from 0.1uW / cm2 (microwatts per square centimeter) to 120uW / cm2. We see that the minimum influence of 0.1 uW/cm2 has led to reported results of altered EEG waves and that the maximum intensity of 120uW / cm2 has led to reported pathological changes in the blood brain barrier.
Note: Immune system effects where density equals 0.015 W/Kg SAR — The current FCC rules allow for 1.6 W/Kg SAR
| Power Density | Reported Biological Effects | References |
| 0.1 µW/cm2 (0.001 W/Kg SAR) |
EEG brain waves are altered when exposed to cell phone signal | Von Klitzing, 1995 |
| 0.16 µW/cm2 | Motor function, memory and attention of school children affected (Latvia) | Kolodynski, 1996 |
| 0.168 – 1.053 µW/cm2 | Irreversible infertility in mice after 5 generations of exposure to cell phone signals from antenna park | Magras & Xenos, 1997 |
| 0.2 – 8 µW/cm2 | Two-fold increase in childhood leukemia from AM-FM exposure | Hocking, 1996 |
| 1.3 – 5.7 µW/cm2 | Two-fold increase in leukemia in adults from AM RF exposure | Dolk, 1997 |
| 2.4 µW/cm2 | Interference with medical devices at least up to 1000 MHz | Joyner, 1996 |
| 2 – 4 µW/cm2 | Direct effect of RFR on ion channels in cells/opening of acetycholine channels | D’Inzeo, 1988 |
| 4 – 10 µW/cm2 | Visual reaction time in children is slowed//lower memory function in tests | Chiang, 1989 |
| 5 – 10 µW/cm2 | Impaired nervous system activity | Dumanski, 1974 |
| 10 µW/cm2 | Significant differences in visual reaction time and reduced memory function | Chiang, 1989 |
| 10 – 25 µW/cm2 | Changes in the hippocampus of the brain | Belokrinitskiy, 1982 |
| 30 µW/cm2 (0.015 W/Kg SAR) |
Immune system effects – elevation of PFC count (antibody producing cells) | Veyret, 1991 |
| 50 µW/cm2 | An 18% reduction in REM sleep (important to memory and learning functions) | Mann, 1996 |
| 100 µW/cm2 | Changes in immune system function | Elekes, 1996 |
| 100 µW/cm2 | A 26% drop in insulin | Navakatikian, 1994 |
| 120 µW/cm2 | A pathological change in the blood brain barrier (915 MHz) | Salford, 1993 |
HEALTH EFFECTS ProVEN AT UNDER ACCEPTED SAFE EXPOSURE LEVELS
Epidemiological studies demonstrate that significant harmful biological effects occur from non-thermal RF exposure levels. Genetic damage, birth 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.
Harmful effects from RF exposure, including non-thermal levels of exposure, consistently and specifically show chromosomal instability, altered gene expression, gene mutations, DNA fragmentation and DNA structural breaks. 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 from RF exposure well below safety standards. The World Health Organization has classified RF emissions as a group 2 B carcinogen. Cellular telephone use in rural areas was also shown to be associated with an increased risk for malignant brain tumors.
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. 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.
Changes associated with degenerative neurological diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) have been reported. 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.
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. Pulsed electromagnetic frequencies were shown to consistently provoke neurological symptoms in a blinded subject while exposure to continuous frequencies did not.
MORE STEPS TO REDUCE CELL PHONE RADIATION
Consumers should utilize an air tube headset as a safer alternative to wired headsets or in-ear Bluetooth headsets, use the speaker feature and keep phones away from your body unless there is RF radiation shielding between the wireless device and cell phone user.
When carrying a phone on your body, it’s highly recommended to use either an RF Safe flip cover radiation shielded phone case or pocket shield to deflect excessive radiation.
RF Radiation is very easy to measure with inexpensive testing equipment that can be purchased online for under $100. A very common personal RF exposure detection tool is the Cornet ED-15c radio-frequency meter, which can be used to measure cell phone radiation on any public/commercial wireless network — GSM, TDMA, CDMA, PCS, Wi-Fi and much more.
Watch these videos that easily prove RF Safe’s phone case radiation shields deflect harmful cell phone radiation.
RF SAFE RADIATION CASE for iPhone 5s
Cornet ED-15c testing a RF Safe flip cover radiation shield on an Apple iPhone 5
RF SAFE RADIATION CASE for Galaxy S3
Cornet ED-15c testing a RF Safe flip cover radiation shield on a Samsung Galaxy s3
The Samsung Galaxy s3 in this video is already one of the lowest radiation phones available on the market. This test measures the RF field strength in milliWatt per square metre (mW/m2). As you can see, even though this cell phone has a low SAR – when we measure the “real radiation” coming from the device we see it is still very high over ambient levels.
That is the “Actual RF Exposure” that people are exposed measuring even non-thermal levels. Measuring actual RF emissions is a much more prudent way for consumers to gauge their true levels of microwave exposure; as SAR testing only measures heating potential. ie “the by-product” of too much exposure to begin with.
