EMF and RF Fields Effect on Human Health

From American Academy of Environmental Medicine

Major utility corporations across North America are insisting their customers become part of the transnational “smart grid” by allowing a “smart meter” to be placed on their homes. Those who question the safety or efficacy of such devices are condemned for relying on “false information” or otherwise exercising poor judgement in the face of overwhelming “credible” scientific research confirming the alleged safety of the apparatuses. Utilities such as Central Maine Power and Florida Power and Light are now demanding monthly fees from energy consumers who desire to “opt out” of such schemes.

The “science” offered by such utilities purporting the safety of “smart meters” is remarkably thin. When pressed for evidence that digital, RF-emitting meters are in fact safe, utility spokespersons almost uniformly revert to the Federal Communications Commission’s dated assertion that so long as the radiation released by such devices does not heat or burn one’s flesh, it cannot pose any danger to human health. A majority of customers are trusting enough to accept this explanation prima facie, even though it is a severe understatement of what is presently confirmed on the effects of RF.

The position paper below was issued in April 2012 by physicians at the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM). AAEM is an independent medical organization, and among the first to express serious concern over the widespread deployment of “smart meter” technology.

The authors draw from a substantive body of recent scientific research addressing the myriad health effects of RF/EMF to assert that the broad use of such radiation-emitting devices poses a serious threat to human health, and that advocates of such technology should proceed with a well considered knowledge of the real life implications for clientele and the broader public. “Because of the well documented studies showing adverse effects on health and the not fully understood quantum field effect,” the researchers conclude,

AAEM calls for exercising precaution with regard to EMF, RF and general frequency exposure. In an era when all society relies on the benefits of electronics, we must find ideas and technologies that do not disturb bodily function.

On March 28, after a series of exchanges following my public letter to Florida Power and Light CEO James Robo, I provided FPL’s Marketing and Communications representative David McDermitt with a copy of AAEM’s statement below. To date Mr. McDermitt has not responded to the specific concerns and phenomena addressed in the document.-JFT

Electromagnetic and Radiofrequency Fields Effect on Human Health  (PDF)

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

(April 12, 2012)

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. In the last five years with the advent of wireless devices, there has been a massive increase in radiofrequency (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.

The electromagnetic wave spectrum is divided into ionizing radiation such as ultraviolet and Xrays and non‐ionizing radiation such as ultrasound and radiofrequency (RF), which includes WiFi, cell phones, and Smart Meter wireless communication. It has long been recognized that ionizing radiation can have a negative impact on health. However, the effects of non‐ionizing radiation on human health recently have been seen. Discussions and research of non‐ionizing radiation effects centers around thermal and non‐thermal effects. According to the FCC and other regulatory agencies, only thermal effects are relevant regarding health implications and consequently, exposure limits are based on thermal effects only.1

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 WiFi, 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.

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

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 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 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

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 radiofrequencies, 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.26,27 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.

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.

Because of the well documented studies showing adverse effects on health and the not fully understood quantum field effect, AAEM calls for exercising precaution with regard to EMF, RF and general frequency exposure. 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.

Furthermore, the AAEM asks for:

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

Bibliography (Some links below have been revised/restored.-JFT)

1. California Council on Science and Technology. (Internet). (2011). Health Impacts of Radiofrequency Exposure from Smart Meters. Available from: http://www.ccst.us/publications/2011/2011smartA.pdf

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/NVEnergize/documents/EPRI_1022270_caseStudy.pdf

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 at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1241963/

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. Available at: http://avaate.org/IMG/pdf/magras_mice_study.pdf

13. Ban R, Grosse Y, Lauby‐Secretan B, et al. Carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. The Lancet Oncology. 2011; 12(7): 624‐626. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21845765

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. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15901886

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. Available at: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2889%2991996-X/fulltext

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.

25 thoughts on “EMF and RF Fields Effect on Human Health”

  1. Thank you so much for this information, I am going through this with PSEG of Long Island, NY. They wanted to replace my gas meter due to it’s age, I told them I only wanted a analog meter and I did not want a smart meter. They informed me they would have to locate a analog meter they don’t stock them any longer. It has been a few weeks and I have not heard back from them. I am so nervous they will force this meter on me. Then it will be the water and electric meters! Any suggestions anyone has for me, please let me know.
    Thank you,

    1. Your utility likely states this because accommodating anyone in an “opt out” is an inconvenience for them. This is how those dealing with the public are instructed to respond. Analog meters still exist, and the utilities also know that “smart meters” can easily have their transmitter disabled, thereby essentially making them an analog meter. If they claim this is not possible, request they send you the operator’s manual for the meter to determine its transmitter function and instruct them accordingly. I am awaiting such literature from FPL.

      1. I just read an article about a house catching fire in CA. And killing the owner within 48 hours of a Smart meter installation. The FD said the fire was due to an unknown electrical cause.

  2. Is it possible to enclose the smart meter with an inexpensive EMF shield to prevent the field transmission inside a residence?

    1. There is such metal-based shielding available at outlets like lessemf.com, and concrete structures will also deter RF. Yet neither will lessen potential dirty electricity produced by the device.

  3. Believe there is a far greater danger being dumped on us with chemical spraying and their high frequency weapons.

    After several days of witnessing the chemical trails and HAARP, much of the east coast is under severe weather attack.

    1. Kathy, I have seen videos of Dane Wigington’s lectures some time ago and was always impressed by his dedication and scholarship. Thanks for this update. It resonates with anyone who wishes to address the issue head-on. The very least we can do is pass it on. Maybe to our representatives throughout the politcal spectrum for their sober appraisal Or would that be wishful thinking????

      1. Dane Wigington certainly does have a lot of passion and gives a very informative presentation of this travesty to our world.

        There are almost 260,000 views acknowledged but it is well known youtube fudges the numbers. Hopeful that people are finally waking up, seems those in CA are much more aware than the rest of the country. Joined a facebook group on the subject and this video is quickly deleted when posted, that may be a good sign!

        This is the only subject that my representatives refuse to acknowledge, any other subject, they quickly reply with what they are doing about that concern. I will forward it with a new angle, this deluge of rain is killing our tourist industry and our boat sits idle most of the time, as the weather is normally not conducive to fishing.

        Their requests for donations come weekly with postage paid envelopes, will return with a note, no acknowledgement of my concern on weather modification, no money!

  4. About the apparent or real danger of emfields.
    I have read somewhere that it might be nocebo effects. That is genuine physical effects generated by psychological anticipations of damage from technical equipment.

  5. I’m part of a Citizen’s Petition against FP&L here in Florida. There are five people who are part of it also who have Doctor’s diagnoses as to their EM sensitivities. We have folks like me who are focusing on Property Rights issues, others on safety and privacy issues.
    All concerns other than HOW FP&L came to their opt-out fees, and the amount of those fees, have been tossed out. The Public Service Commission refuses to hear them saying that these concerns do not fall under their jurisdiction.

    1. Martha
      What is your opinion about the nocebo theory? You know if it is correct then there are ways to cure ’emf-sensitivity’ by conditioning a reverse response which can be done systematically.
      The quotation marks anticipates that the nocebo theory is correct otherwise they would be improper. Before I heard about nocebo emfsensitivity was a total mystery since even one electronics engineer had to wrap himself up in alufoil to feel better and yet there was no convincing proof of correllation between emf and symptoms.

      1. Peter..For definition,.I am assuming that by “nocebo” you mean the negative side of the ‘placebo’ effect, both of which are guided by the ‘mind’….. Certainly there may be much substance to that. There is also the possibility that many of the reported side effects, such as “foggy thinking”, “depression”, “joint pain”, etc. can also be attributed to dehydration and/or diet. (ie Chemical reactions)
        HOWEVER, there are literally hundreds of independent studies from all over the world which attribute genetic damage on a cellular level to the TYPE of frequencies, especially if they are PULSED, setting up a resonance response, in human (and animal) tissue. Just as it seems to be being proven that the vibrations of Very Low Frequency (VLFs) (such as from wind farms) are more harmful to living things than short bursts of High Frequency.
        I am fighting the Smart Meters because I believe in a Public Policy stance of the “Precautionary Principle”… that is to say, as Public Policy, it is best to err on the side of caution dealing with large populations in cases where a policy or product is NOT KNOWN to be safe.
        In the 1960’s, gasoline was allowed a level of lead that had not been tested… Within 3 or 4 years, the government decided that HALF that amount was allowed. By the early 70’s, it was then decided that NO lead is gasoline was safe. I believe that smart meters, and other frequencies will turn out to be the equivalent scenario.
        There is a fascinating study compiled:

    2. Martha
      I can believe that some folks are ultra sensitive to some things. There is a high pitched noise I occasionally hear and my husband never has. Their are some overly perfumed folks that I cannot tolerate and I must leave the area, or put my nose in my armpit if there is no escape.

      Was curious what the opt out fee is. It seems reasonable that since they have to send a person out to do a reading, there is a cost involved and those requiring the visits should pay more than those that do not. Before smart meters, they let us do our own manual readings, as they had to enter the house and required you to be there for half of a day. They came out once a year to verify. Perhaps this option could reduce the cost.

      Assume you have a land line for telephone, as cell phones also emit emf, and do not mind paying the additional cost for that. Most people have eliminated their land line access altogether.

      1. Kathy…. We have suggested that FP&L allow us “opt-outs” to read our own meters… that is a point of contention. So far not allowed.
        Also, the wonderful lady who is our “Qualified Representative” in this case is a retired CPA who has scrunced all the numbers to prove (in MY opinion) that we refusniks are not the “cost producers”, as they call us. Nor that the $95 up front fee to KEEP our Analog Meter, in addition to a monthly $13 fee, is needed.
        And yes… I have no cell phone, no microwave, no television, no laptop, etc. Insanely, I smoke.
        The point here is not necessarily the money, but I DO mind having to pay extra. The point is the heavy handed government/corporation monopoly force being used….and the fact that we are NOT ALLOWED to present ANY argument about health, or privacy, or property rights because the Board claims that none of them are within their ‘jurisdiction’…..Which means that out State Legislators are the ones who need to have the ‘guns’ aimed at them, since it IS in their jurisdiction.
        We’ll see how this goes. It’s NOT going away.

        1. Good letter. Seems there is something illegal about them giving your ‘leader’s’ personal information out, but at least you have a means of communicating to all those concerned.

          Forward it to every outlet that allows letters to the editor.

          Thank you for standing up to the police state and best wishes in your pursuits.

  6. Does anyone know the extent of the danger cell towers positioned atop CITY WATER TOWERS present? They emit RADIATION, now going into our water supply?!! Shower in it, drink it, wash your food in it…

    1. Tammie
      The documents discuss the regulations for safe levels of rw
      Typically say 1mw/cm2
      That should be compared with what happens without anything technical.
      Our bodies are totally bathing in naturally occurring teraherzwaves having an intensity of some 55mw/cm2 simply because of the temperature. Those teraherzwaves are another name of infrared radiation or heat. The wavelengths of such waves are about 0.015mm or similar to the size of living cells. And we can never escape them for as long as we live.
      Compare with microwaves for cellular and similar of 0.9 ,1.8GHz, 2.6GHz. In wavelength 0.3 to 0.1m in air and a couple of times smaller inside living tissue, say 5cm
      There ought to be more damaging resonances with the naturally occurring teraherz waves since they are similar to the size of living cells.
      And Tammie,
      radiation coming from a radio transmitter doesnt harm the water, it just heats it a littlebit. No need to worry about drinking the water.

Comments are closed.