Dr. Martin Pall, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences at Washington State University offers valuable insight into how wireless radiation impacts the electrical systems in our bodies. He has published seven studies showing that there exists exquisite sensitivity to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) in the voltage sensor in each cell, such that the force impacting our cells at the voltage sensor has massive impact on the biology in the cells of our bodies.

EMFs act by activating channels in the membrane that surrounds each of our cells, called voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs). The EMFs put forces on the voltage sensor that controls the VGCCs of about 7.2 million times greater than the forces on other charged groups in our cells.This is why weak EMFs have such large biological effects on the cells of our bodies! EMFs works this way not only on human and diverse animal cells but also in plant cells so that this is a universal or near universal mechanism of action.

 

August 7, 2017

Dear California Legislators,

I am Dr. Martin Pall, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences at Washington State University. I am a published and widely cited scientist on the biological effects of electromagnetic fields and speak internationally on this topic. I am particularly expert in how wireless radiation impacts the electrical systems in our bodies. I have published seven studies showing there exists exquisite sensitivity to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) in the voltage sensor in each cell, such that the force impacting our cells at the voltage sensor has massive impact on the biology in the cells of our bodies [1-7]. These papers are discussed in over 360,000 web sites which can be easily found by Googling (Martin Pall electromagnetic). I received my PhD at Caltech, one of the top scientific institutions in the world.

EMFs act by activating channels in the membrane that surrounds each of our cells, called voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs). The EMFs put forces on the voltage sensor that controls the VGCCs of about 7.2 million times greater than the forces on other charged groups in our cells [4,6,7]. This is why weak EMFs have such large biological effects on the cells of our bodies! EMFs works this way not only on human and diverse animal cells [1-7] but also in plant cells [7] so that this is a universal or near universal mechanism of action.

Thousands of published studies show biological and health effects from electromagnetic fields. We now know the mechanism that can explain these effects. The mechanism is a function of the electromagnetics of each cell — not solely about heating effects from the radiation (on which present FCC guidelines are based).

This new understanding [1-7] means we can debunk the claims of the Wireless industry that there cannot be a mechanism for effects produced by these weak EMFs. The 20+ years of industry propaganda claims are false. Rather the thousands of studies showing diverse health impacts of these EMFs can be explained. We now have a mechanism, one that is supported by both the biology and the physics, both of which are pointing in exactly the same direction. I am sending as a separate document a list of 134 reviews, each of which provides from 12 to over a thousand individual citations showing health impacts of low intensity EMFs, EMFs that the telecommunications industry claims cannot have such effects. These 134 reviews and thousands of primary scientific papers they cite show that the industry propaganda has no scientific support whatsoever.

The consensus among independent scientists on this is further confirmed by the 2015 (and later) appeal made to the United Nations and member states, stating that the current EMF safety guidelines are inadequate because they do not take into consideration non-thermal effects. This was signed by 225 scientists from 41 countries, each of whom had published peer reviewed studies on EMF health effects — a total of 2,000 papers published in this area by the signers, a substantial fraction of the total publications in this area.

According to industry, the forces that electromagnetic fields place on electricallycharged groups in the cell are too weak to produce biological effects. However, the unique structural properties of the voltage-gated calcium channel (VGCC) proteins can, it turns out, explain why the force on a cell’s voltage sensor from low-intensity EMFs are millions of times stronger than are the forces on singly-charged groups elsewhere in the cell.

It would be a disaster for the health of Californians to be exposed to the antennas envisioned in SB.649. The State of California would be making a grave mistake to proceed with supporting the commercial interests of the Wireless industry with this legislation. Legislators would best pause to understand the gravity of the biological effects, and the ramifications for physical and mental health, as well as consequences from continual damage to human DNA, and learn the facts from scientists who are independent of the wireless industry, not from the industry lobbyists who have a gigantic conflict of interest.

VGCC activation in cells produced by low intensity EMFs can explain long-reported findings that electromagnetic fields and a wide range of biological changes and health effects. The first six of these (see below) were well documented 46 years ago in the U.S.
Office of Naval Medical Research report, published in 1971 [8]. The others that follow have been extensively documented subsequently in the peer-reviewed scientific literature:

  1. Various neurological/neuropsychiatric effects, including changes in brain structure and function, changes in various types of psychological responses and changes in behavior.
  2. At least eight different endocrine (hormonal) effects.
  3. Cardiac effects influencing the electrical control of the heart, including changes in ECGs, producing arrhythmias, changes that can be life threatening.
  4. Chromosome breaks and other changes in chromosome structure.
  5. Histological changes in the testes.
  6. Cell death (what is now called apoptosis, a process important in neurodegenerative diseases).
  7. Lowered male fertility including lowered sperm quality and function and also lowered female fertility (less studied).
  8. Oxidative stress.
  9. Changes in calcium fluxes and calcium signaling.
  10. Cellular DNA damage including single strand breaks and double strand breaks in cellular DNA and also 8-OHdG in cellular DNA.
  11. Cancer which is likely to involve these DNA changes but also increased rates of tumor promotion-like events.
  12. Therapeutic effects including stimulation of bone growth.
  13. Cataract formation (previously thought to be thermal, now known not to be).
  14. Breakdown of the blood-brain barrier.
  15. Melatonin depletion and sleep disruption

They may be low intensity but with regard to the VGCCs, electromagnetic fields can have a tremendously powerful impact on the cells of our bodies. Furthermore, published studies showing that calcium channel blocker drugs block or greatly lower biological effects from electromagnetic fields confirm there is a VGCC activation mechanism that is causing various effects. Higher frequency electromagnetic fields from 5G technologies on the horizon pose even greater biological concern than those to which we are exposed today. We should be moving, instead, to wired technologies at every opportunity, based on what we know in science today, not expanding and supporting the proliferation of wireless.

I want to make several additional points very clear:

  1. The Physics and the Biology are both pointing in the same direction. Both show that EMFs act primarily via activating the VGCCs in the cells of our bodies.
  2. DNA damage known to be produced by these EMFs occur in human sperm and may also occur in human eggs, leading to large increases in mutation in any children born. It is thought that an increase in mutation frequency of 2.5 to 3-fold will lead to extinction because of accumulation of large numbers of damaging mutations. We may already be over this level, and if so, simply continuing our current exposures will lead to eventual extinction. Further increases in exposures will be more rapidly self-destructive.
  3. Pulsed EMFs are, in most cases, more biologically active and therefore more dangerous than are non-pulsed (continuous wave) EMFs. All wireless communication devices communicate via pulsations, because it is the pulsations that carry the information communicated. All the industry claims of safety are based on a theory (only thermal effects) that was known to be wrong back in 1971 [8] – and that was before many thousands of additional studies were published providing massive confirmation that industry claims are false.
  4. The industry is trying to move to much higher frequencies because these much higher frequencies allow much higher pulsations and therefore much higher transmission of information. However, these higher pulsation rates make these ultra-high frequency devices vastly more dangerous. This is part of the reasons why it is so important to vote down SB.649.
  5. None of our wireless communication devices are ever tested biologically for safety – not cell phone towers, not cell phones, not Wi-Fi, not cordless phones, not smart meters and certainly not 5G phones, or radar units in cars – before they are put out to irradiate an unsuspecting public.
  6. The telecommunications industry has corrupted the agencies that are supposed to be regulating them. The best example of this is that the FCC which regulates EMFs in the U.S. is a “captured agency”, captured by the industry it is supposed to regulate, according to an 8 chapter document published by the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University [9]. Is it any wonder, therefore, that the industry keeps touting that their devices are within the safety guidelines set by the FCC?

I urge you to do the right thing on behalf of the health of Californians and future generations and vote no on SB 649. Please let me know if I can provide further information: 503-232-3883.

Sincerely,

Martin Pall, PhD (Caltech, 1968)
Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences
Washington State University

Citations:
  1. Pall ML. 2013 Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects. J Cell Mol Med 17:958-965.
  2. Pall ML. 2014 Electromagnetic field activation of voltage-gated calcium channels: role in therapeutic effects. Electromagn Biol Med. 2014 Apr 8.
  3. Pall ML. 2015 Scientific evidence contradicts findings and assumptions of Canadian Safety Panel 6: microwaves act through voltage-gated calcium channel activation to induce biological impacts at non-thermal levels, supporting a paradigm shift for microwave/lower frequency electromagnetic field action. Rev Environ Health 30:99-116.
  4. Pall ML. 2015 Elektromagnetische Felder wirken über die Aktivierung spannungsabhängiger Calciumkanäle, um günstige oder ungünstige Wirkungen zu erzeugen. Umwelt-MedizinGesellshaft 28: 22-31.
  5. Pall ML. 2015 How to approach the challenge of minimizing non-thermal health effects of microwave radiation from electrical devices. International Journal of Innovative Research in Engineering & Management (IJIREM) ISSN: 2350-0557, Volume-2, Issue -5, September 2015; 71-76.
  6. Pall ML. 2016 Microwave frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produce widespread neuropsychiatric effects including depression. J Chem Neuroanat 75(Pt B):43-51. doi: 10.1016/j.jchemneu.2015.08.001. Epub 2015 Aug 21.
  7. Pall ML. 2016 Electromagnetic fields act similarly in plants as in animals: Probable activation of calcium channels via their voltage sensor. Curr Chem Biol 10: 74-82.
  8. Naval Medical Research Institute Research Report, June 1971. Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena (“Effects”) and Clinical Manifestations, Revised, ZR Glaser.
  9. Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission Is Dominated by the Industries It Presumably Regulates, by Norm Alster. Published by Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics,
    Harvard University. An e-book under the Creative Commons 4.0 License: https:/creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/
  • Link to 2017-0807-SB649-Dr-Martin-Pall-Opposition-Letter.pdf
  • Link to 2017-0807-SB649-Dr-Martin-Pall-References.pdf

List of 134 Reviews on Non-thermal Effects of Microwave Frequency Radiation and Electromagnetic Fields

Martin L. Pall, PhD

Among the scientific reviews documenting these various non-thermal health effects are 134 that follow. Each of these reviews cites at least a dozen primary literature citations showing non-thermal effects, with many citing 100 or more going up to the 3rd reference which cites over 1000 such citations. It can be seen from this that the primary literature citations supporting the existence of various non-thermal health effects cited in these reviews go into several thousands. This list is not and is not intended to be a list of all important such reviews. However it gives some measure of the size of the literature that contradicts the industry contention that there are no non-thermal effects of microwave frequency EMFs.

  • 1) Osipov YuA, 1965 [Labor hygiene and the effect of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields on workers]. Leningrad Meditsina Publishing House, 220 pp
  • 2) Pollack H, Healer J. 1967 Review of Information on Hazards to Personnel from HighFrequency Electromagnetic Radiation. Institute for Defense Analyses; Research and Engineering Support Division. IDA/HQ 67-6211, Series B, May 196
  • 3) Naval Medical Research Institute Research Report, June 1971. Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena (“Effects”) and Clinical Manifestations, Revised, ZR Glaser.
  • 4) Frey AH. 1971 Biological Function as influenced by low power modulated RF energy. IEEE Trans Microw Theory Tech 19(2): 153-164.
  • 5) Tolgskaya MS, Gordon ZV. 1973. Pathological Effects of Radio Waves, Translated from Russian by B Haigh. Consultants Bureau, New York/London, 146 pages.
  • 6) WHO Document. 1974 Biologic Effects & Health Hazards of Microwave Radiation: Proceedings of an International Symposium, Warsaw, 15-18 October, 1973. http://mistic.heig-vd.ch/taillard/microwave_effects/
  • 7) Dumanskij, J. D., and Shandala, M. G., 1974. The biologic action and hygienic significance of electromagnetic fields of super-high and ultrahigh frequencies in densely populated areas. Effects and Health Hazards of Microwave Radiation, Proceedings of an International Symposium, Warsaw, 15-18 Oct. 1973, P. Czerski et al., eds.
  • 8) Dwyer, M. J., Leeper, D. B. 1978 A Current Literature Report on the Carcinogenic Properties of Ionizing and Nonionizing Radiation. DHEW Publication (NIOSH) 78-134, March 1978.
  • 9) Bise W. 1978 Low power radio-frequency and microwave effects on human electroencephalogram and behavior. Physiol Chem Phys 10:387-398.
  • 10) Lerner, E. J. 1980. RF radiation: Biological effects. IEEE Spectrum 17(Dec 1980), 51-59.
  • 11) Leach WL. 1980 Genetic, growth and reproductive effects of microwave radiation. Bull N Y Acad Med 56:249-257.
  • 12) Adey W. R. 1981 Tissue interactions with nonionizing electromagnetic fields. Physiol. Rev. 61, 435-514.
  • 13) Raines, J. K. 1981. Electromagnetic Field Interactions with the Human Body: Observed Effects and Theories. Greenbelt, Maryland: National Aeronautics and Space Administration 1981; 116 p.
  • 14) Adey WR. 1988 Cell membranes: the electromagnetic environment and cancer promotion. Neurochem Res.13:671-677.
  • 15) Adey WR. 1990 Joint actions of environmental nonionizing electromagnetic fields and chemical pollution in cancer promotion. Environ Health Perspect 86:297-305.
  • 16) Walleczek, J. 1992. Electromagnetic field effects on cells of the immune system: the role of calcium signaling. FASEB J. 6, 3177-3185.
  • 17) Adey, WR. 1993 Biological effects of electromagnetic fields. J Cell Biochem 51:410-416.
  • 18) Bolen, S. M. 1994 Radiofrequency/Microwave Radiation Biological Effects and safety standards: a review. AD-A282 886, Rome Laboratory, U.S. Air Force Material Command, Griffiss Air Force Base, New York.
  • 19) Lai H. 1994 Neurological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation. In: Advances in Electromagnetic Fields in Living Systems, Vol. 1, J.C. Lin, Ed., Plenum Press, New York, pp. 27-88.
  • 20) Goodman EM, Greenebaum B, Marron MT. 1995 Effects of electromagnetic fields on molecules and cells. Int Rev Cytol 158:279-338.
  • 21) Grigoriev IUG. 1996 Role of modulation in biological effects of electromagnetic radiation. Radiats Biol Radioecol 36:659-670.
  • 22) Lai, H. 1997. Neurological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation relating to wireless communication technology. Paper presented at the IBC-UK Conference: “Mobile Phones – Is There a Health Risk?” http://www.mapcruzin.com/radiofrequency/henry_lai1.htm.
  • 23) Adey WR, 1997 Bioeffects of mobile communications fields: possible mechanisms for cumulative dose. In: N Kuster, Q Balzano, JC Lin (Eds), Mobile Communications Safety, New York, Chapman and Hall, pp. 95-131.
  • 24) Goldsmith JR. 1997 Epidemiologic evidence relevant to radar (microwave) effects. Env Health Perspect 105(Suppl 6):1579-1587.
  • 25) Frey, A. H. 1998. Headaches from cellular telephones: are they real and what are the implications? Environ. Health Perspect. 106, 101-103.
  • 26) Lai, H 1998 Neurological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation. www.papcruzin.com/radiofrequency/henry_lai1.htm.
  • 27) Hyland GJ. 1998 Non-thermal bioeffects induced by low-intensity microwave frequency microwave irradiation of living systems. Engineering Science Educ J 7(6):261-269.
  • 28) Ryabi JT. 1998 Clinical effects of electromagnetic fields on fracture healing. Clin Orthop Relat Res 355(Suppl. l): S205–15.
  • 29) Barnett SB. 1999 Radio-frequency radiation and birth defects: Is there a threat to human health? Cong Anom 39:59-73.
  • 30) Belyaev IY, Shcheglov VS, Alipov ED, Ushakov VD. 2000 Nonthermal Effects of Extremely High-Frequency Microwaves on Chromatin Conformation in Cells in vitro—Dependence on Physical, Physiological, and Genetic Factors. IEEE Trans Microwave Theory Tech 48:21722179.
  • 31) Betskii OV, Devyatkov ND, Kislov VV. 2000 Low intensity millimeter waves in medicine and biology. Crit Rev Biomed Eng. 2000;28(1-2):247-68.
  • 32) Banik S, Bandyopadhyay S, Ganguly S. 2003 Bioeffects of microwave–a brief review. Bioresour Technol. 2003 Apr;87(2):155-9.
  • 33) Blank M, Goodman R. 2004 Comment: a biological guide for electromagnetic safety : the stress response. Bioelectromagnetics 25(8):642-646.
  • 34) Kundi M, Kild K, Hardell L, Mattsson M. 2004 Mobile telephones and cancer – a review of the epidemiological evidence. J Toxicol Env Health, Part B 7:351-384.
  • 35) Kundi M. 2004 Mobile phone use and cancer. Occup Env Med 61:560-570.
  • 36) Aaron RK, Ciombor DM, Simon BJ. 2004 Treatment of nonunions with electric and elec- tromagnetic fields. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; 10: 579–593.
  • 37) Belyaev I. 2005 Non-thermal biological effects of microwaves: current knowledge, further perspective and urgent needs. Electromagn Biol Med 24(3):375-403.
  • 38) Belyaev I. 2005 Non-thermal biological effects of microwaves. Microwave Rev 11(2):13-29.
  • 39) Barnes FS, Greenebaum B, (eds.) 2007 Biological and medical aspects of electromagnetic fields. 3rd, ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
  • 40) Bioinitiative Working Group, Cindy Sage and David Carpenter (eds). 2007 Bioinitiative report: A rationale for a biologically-based public exposure standard for electromagnetic fields (ELF and RF). www.bioinitiative.org.
  • 41) Huss A, Egger M, Hug K, Huwiler-Müntener K, Röösli M. 2007 Source of funding and results of studies of health effects of mobile phone use: systematic review of experimental studies. Environ Health Perspect 115:1–4.
  • 42) Markov MS. 2007 Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy: History, state of the art and future. The Environmentalist 27:465-475.
  • 43) Nittby H, Grafstrom G, Eberhardt JL, Malmgren L, Brun A, Persson BR, Salford, LG. 2008 Radiofrequency and extremely low frequency electromagnetic field effects on the bloodbrain barrier. Electromag Biol Med 2008; 27:103-126.
  • 44) Hardell, L., Sage, C. 2008. Biological effects from electromagnetic field exposure and public exposure standards. Biomed. Pharmacother. 62, 104-109.
  • 45) Genuis SJ. 2008 Fielding a current idea: explring the public health impact of electromagnetic radiation. Public Health 122:113-124.
  • 46) Johansson O. 2009 Disturbance of the immune system by electromagnetic fields-A potentially underlying cause for cellular damage and tissue repair reduction which could lead to disease and impairment. Pathophysiology 16:157-177.
  • 47) Blackman C. 2009 Cell phone radiation: Evidence from ELF and RF studies supporting more inclusive risk identification and assessment. Pathophysiology. 2009 Aug;16(2-3):205-216.
  • 48) Balmori A. 2009 Electromagnetic pollution from phone masts. Effects on wildlife. Pathophysiology 16:191-199.
  • 49) Desai NR, Kesari KK, Agarwal A. 2009 Pathophysiology of cell phone radiation: oxidative stress and carcinogenesis with focus on the male reproductive system. Reproduct Biol Endocrinol 7:114.
  • 50) Khurana VG, Teo C, Kundi M, Hardell L, Carlberg M. 2009 Cell phones and brain tumors: a review including the long-term epidemiologic data. Surg Neurol 72:205-214.
  • 51) Martin Blank, Reba Goodman. 2009 Electromagnetic fields stress living cells. Pathophysiology 16:71-78.
  • 52) Phillips JL, Singh NP, Lai H. 2009 Electromagnetic fields and DNA damage. Pathophysiology 16:79-88.
  • 53) Ruediger HW. 2009 Genotoxic effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Pathophysiology. 16:89-102.
  • 54) Yakymenko I, Sidorik E. 2010 Risks of carcinogenesis from electromagnetic radiation and mobile telephony devices. Exp Oncol 32:729-736.
  • 55) Khurana, V. G., Hardell, L., Everaert, J., Bortkiewicz, A., Carlberg, M., Ahonen, M. 2010 Epidemiological evidence for a health risk from mobile phone base stations. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health 16, 263-267.
  • 56) Giuliani L, Soffriti M (Eds). 2010 NON-THERMAL EFFECTS AND MECHANISMS OF INTERACTION BETWEEN ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND LIVING MATTER, RAMAZZINI INSTITUTE EUR. J. ONCOL. LIBRARY Volume 5, National Institute for the Study and Control of Cancer and Environmental Diseases “Bernardino Ramazzini” Bologna, Italy 2010, 400 page monograph.
  • 57) Fragopoulou A, Grigoriev Y, Johansson O, Margaritis LH, Morgan L, Richter E, Sage C. Scientific panel on electromagnetic field health risks: consensus points, recommendations, and rationales. Rev. Environ. Health 25, 307-317.
  • 58) Batista Napotnik T, Reberšek M, Vernier PT, Mali B, Miklavčič D. 2010 Effects of high voltage nanosecond electric pulses on eukaryotic cells (in vitro): A systematic review. Bioelectrochemistry 110:1-12.
  • 59) Levitt, B. B., Lai, H. 2010. Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. Environ. Rev. 18, 369-395.
  • 60) Yu Y, Yao K. 2010 Non-thermal cellular effects of low power microwave radiation on the lens and lens epithelial cells. J Int Med Res 38:729-736.
  • 61) Yakymenko, I., Sidorik, E., Kyrylenko, S., Chekhun, V. 2011. Long-term exposure to microwave radiation provokes cancer growth: evidences from radars and mobile communication systems. Exp. Oncol. 33(2), 62-70.
  • 62) Kesari KK, Kuman S, Behari J. 2011 Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic wave exposure from cellular phones on reproductive pattern in male Wistar rats. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 164:546-549.
  • 63) Panagopoulos DJ. 2011 Analyzing the health impacts of modern telecommunication microwaves. Chapter 1 in Advances in Biology and Medicine, Vol. 17, Leon V. Berhardt, Ed., Nova Science Publishers.
  • 64) Schidt-Rohlfing B, Silny J, Gavenis K, et al. 2011 Electromagnetic fields, electric cur- rent and bone healing – what is the evidence? Z Orthop Unfall. 149: 265–270.
  • 65) Chalidis B, Sachinis N, Assiotis A, et al. 2011 Stimulation of bone formation and fracture healing with pulsed electromagnetic fields: biologic responses and clinical implica- tions. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol. 2011; 24(1 Suppl. 2): 17020.
  • 66) Pilla A, Fitzsimmons R, Muehsam D, et al. 2011 Electromagnetic fields as first messenger in biological signaling: application to calmodulin-dependent signaling in tissue repair. Biochim Biophys Acta 1810: 1236–1245.
  • 67) Yakimenko IL, Sidorik EP, Tsybulin AS. 2011 [Metabolic changes in cells under electromagnetic radiation of mobile communication systems]. [Article in Russian] Ukr Biokhim Zh 83:20-28.
  • 68) La Vignera, Condorelli RA, Vicari E, D’Agata R, Calogero AE. 2012 Effects of the exposure to mobile phones on male reproduction: a review of the literature. J Androl 33:350-356.
  • 69) Zhong C, Zhao TF, Xu ZJ, et al. 2012 Effects of electromagnetic fields on bone regeneration in experimental and clinical studies: a review of the literature. Chin Med J 125: 367–372.
  • 70) Biointiative Working Group, David Carpenter and Cindy Sage (eds). 2012 Bioinitiative 2012: A rationale for biologically-based exposure standards for electromagnetic radiation. http://www.bioinitiative.org/participants/why-we-care/
  • 71) Gye MC, Park CJ. 2012 Effect of electromagnetic field exposure on the reproductive system. Clin Exp Reprod Med 39:1-9.
  • 72) Consales, C., Merla, C., Marino, C., et al. (2012). Electromagnetic fields, oxidative stress, and neurodegeneration. Int. J. Cell Biol. 2012: 683897.
  • 73) Havas, M. 2013. Radiation from wireless technology affects the blood, the heart, and the autonomic nervous system. Rev. Environ. Health. 28(Nov 2013), 75-84.
  • 74) Herbert, M. R., Sage, C. 2013 Autism and EMF? Plausibility of a pathophysiological link – Part I. Pathophysiology 20, 191-209.
  • 75) Herbert, M. R., Sage, C. 2013. Autism and EMF? Plausibility of a pathophysiological link part II. Pathophysiology 20, 211-234.
  • 76) Kesari KK, Siddiqui MH, Meena R, Verma HN, Kumar S. 2013 Cell phone radiation exposure on brain and associated biological systems. Indian J Exp Biol 51:187-200.
  • 77) Warnke U, Hensinger P. 2013 Increasing incidence of burnout due to magnetic fields of cell phone networks and other wireless communication technologies. Umwelt Medizin Gesellshaft 26: 31-38.
  • 78) Panagopoulos, D. J., Johansson, O., Carlo, G. L. 2013. Evaluation of specific absorption rate as a dosimetric quantity for electromagnetic fields bioeffects. PloS ONE 8(6): e62663. doi:10:1371.
  • 79) Carpenter DO. 2013. Human disease resulting from exposure to electromagnetic fields. Rev Environ Health. 2013;28(4):159-72.
  • 80) Ledoigt G, Belpomme D. 2013 Cancer induction molecular pathways and HF-EMF irradiation. Adv Biol Chem 3:177-186.
  • 81) Pall, M. L. 2013. Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects. J. Cell. Mol. Med. 17:958-965.
  • 82) Pilla, A. A. 2013 Nonthermal electromagnetic fields: from first messenger to therapeutic applications. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 32, 123-136.
  • 83) Panagopoulos, D. J., Johansson, O., Carlo, G. L. 2013. Evaluation of specific absorption rate as a dosimetric quantity for electromagnetic fields bioeffects. PloS ONE 8(6): e62663. doi:10:1371.
  • 84) Szmigielski S. 2013 Reaction of the immune system to low-level RF/MW exposures. Sci Total Environ 2013 Jun 1;454-455:393-400.
  • 85) Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. 2013 Use of mobile phones and cordless phones is associated with increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma. Pathophysiology 2013;20(2):85-110.5
  • 86) Adams, J. A., Galloway, T. S., Mondal, D., Esteves, S. C. 2014 Effect of mobile telephones on sperm quality: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Environment. Int. 70, 106-112.
  • 87) Murbach, M., Neufeld, E., Christopoulou, M., Achermann, P., Kuster, N. 2014. Modeling of EEG electrode artifacts and thermal ripples in human radiofrequency exposure studies. Bioelectromagnetics 35, 273-283.
  • 88) Van Boxem K, Huntoon M, Van Zundert J, Patijn J, van Kleef M, Joosten EA. 2014 Pulsed radiofrequency: a review of the basic science as applied to the pathophysiology of radicular pain: a call for clinical translation. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2014 Mar-Apr;39(2):149-59.
  • 89) Liu K, Li Y, Zhang G, Liu J, Cao J, Ao L, Zhang S. 2014 Association between mobile phone use and semen quality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Andrology 2:491-501.
  • 90) Pilla, AA 2015 Pulsed electromagnetic fields: from signaling to healing. In: Markov, M. S., Ed. 2015. Electromagnetic Fields in Biology and Medicine. CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL. , pp. 29-48.
  • 91) Belyaev, I. 2015. Biophysical mechanisms for nonthermal microwave effects. In: Electromagnetic Fields in Biology and Medicine, Marko S. Markov, ed, CRC Press, New York, pp 49-67. (Please note: There are probably a dozen other reviews that from this volume that might be included here on non-thermal effects).
  • 92) Pall, M. L. 2015. Scientific evidence contradicts findings and assumptions of Canadian Safety Panel 6: microwaves act through voltage-gated calcium channel activation to induce biological impacts at non-thermal levels, supporting a paradigm shift for microwave/lower frequency electromagnetic field action. Rev. Environ. Health 3, 99-116.
  • 93) Panagopoulos, D. J., Johansson, O., Carlo, G. L. 2015. Real versus simulated mobile phone exposures in experimental studies. BioMed. Res. Int. 2015, article ID 607053, 8 pages.
  • 94) Mahdavi M, Yekta R, Tackallou SH. 2015 Positive correlation between ELF and RF electromagnetic fields on cancer risk. J Paramed Sci 6(3), ISSN 2008-4978.
  • 95) Morgan LL, Miller AB, Sasco A, Davis DL. 2015 Mobile phone radiation causes brain tumors and should be classified as a probable human carcinogen (2A). Int J Oncol 46(5): 1865-71.
  • 96) Vadalà M, Vallelunga A, Palmieri L, Palmieri B, Morales-Medina JC, Iannitti T. 2015 Mechanisms and therapeutic applications of electromagnetic therapy in Parkinson’s disease. Behav Brain Funct. 2015 Sep 7;11:26. doi: 10.1186/s12993-015-0070-z.
  • 97) Lim R, Lee SW, Tan PY, Liong ML, Yuen KH. 2015 Efficacy of electromagnetic therapy for urinary incontinence: A systematic review. Neurourol Urodyn 34(8):713-722.
  • 98) Hedendahl L, Carlberg M, Hardell L. 2015 Electromagnetic hypersensitivity – an increasing challenge to the medical profession. Rev Environ Health 30:209-215.
  • 99) Carpenter DO. 2015 The microwave syndrome or electro-hypersensitivity: historical background. Rev Environ Health. 30:217-222.
  • 100) Yakymenko I, Tsybulin O, Sidorik E, Henshel D, Kyrylenko O, Kysylenko S. 2015 Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation. Electromagnetic Biol Med: Early Online 1-16. ISSN: 1536-8378.
  • 101) Panagopoulos DJ, Johansson O, Carlo GL. 2015 Polarization: A Key Difference between Man-made and Natural Electromagnetic Fields, in regard to Biological Activity. Sci Rep. 2015 Oct 12;5:14914. doi: 10.1038/srep14914.
  • 102) Sage C. 2015 The implications of non-linear biological oscillations on human electrophysiology for electrohypersensitivity (EHS) and multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS). Rev Environ Health. 2015;30(4):293-303.
  • 103) Kaszuba-Zwoińska J, Gremba J, Gałdzińska-Calik B, Wójcik-Piotrowicz K, Thor PJ. 2015 Electromagnetic field induced biological effects in humans. Przegl Lek. 2015;72(11):636-41.
  • 104) K Sri N. 2015 Mobile Phone Radiation: Physiological & Pathophysiologcal Considerations. Indian J Physiol Pharmacol. 2015 Apr-Jun;59(2):125-35.
  • 105) Redmayne M, Johansson O. 2015 Radiofrequency exposure in young and old: different sensitivities in light of age-relevant natural differences. Rev Environ Health 30: 323-335.
  • 106) Pall, ML. 2016. Microwave frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produce widespread neuropsychiatric effects including depression. J. Chem. Neuroanat. 75(Pt B):4351.
  • 107) Warille AA, Onger ME, Turkmen AP, Deniz ÖG, Altun G, Yurt KK, Altunkaynak BZ, Kaplan S. 2016 Controversies on electromagnetic field exposure and the nervous systems of children. Histol Histopathol 31(5):461-468.
  • 108) Warille AA, Onger ME, Turkmen AP, Deniz ÖG, Altun G, Yurt KK, Altunkaynak BZ, Kaplan S. 2016 Controversies on electromagnetic field exposure and the nervous systems of children. Histol Histopathol 31(5):461-468.
  • 109) Vian A, Davies E, Gendraud M, Bonnet P. 2016 Plant Responses to High Frequency Electromagnetic Fields. Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:1830262. doi: 10.1155/2016/1830262. Epub 2016 Feb 14.
  • 110) Kaplan S, Deniz OG, Önger ME, Türkmen AP, Yurt KK, Aydın I, Altunkaynak BZ, Davis D. 2016 Electromagnetic field and brain development. J Chem Neuroanat 75(Pt B):52-61.
  • 111) Altunkaynak BZ, Altun G, Yahyazadeh A, Kaplan AA, Deniz OG, Türkmen AP, Önger ME, Kaplan S. 2016 Different methods for evaluating the effects of microwave radiation exposure on the nervous system. J Chem Neuroanat. 2016 Sep;75(Pt B):62-9.
  • 112) Dasdag S, Akdag MZ. 2016 The link between radiofrequencies emitted from wireless technologies and oxidative stress. J Chem Neuroanat. 2016 Sep;75(Pt B):85-93.
  • 113) Terzi M, Osberk B, Deniz OG, Kaplan S. 2016 The role of electromagnetic fields in neurological disorders. . J Chem Neuroanat. 2016 Sep;75(Pt B):77-84.
  • 114) Maziarz A, Kocan B, Bester M, Budzik S, Cholewa M, Ochiya T, Banas A. 2016 How electromagnetic fields can influence adult stem cells: positive and negative impacts. Stem Cell Res Ther 2016 Apr 18;7(1):54. doi: 10.1186/s13287-016-0312-5.
  • 115) Soghomonyan D, Trchounian K, Trchounian A. 2016 Millimeter waves or extremely high frequency electromagnetic fields in the environment: what are their effects on bacteria? Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 100:4761-4771.
  • 116) Maes A, Verschaeve L. 2016 Genetic damage in humans exposed to extremely lowfrequency electromagnetic fields. Arch Toxicol. 2016 Jun 23. [Epub ahead of print]
  • 117) Belyaev I, Dean A, Eger H, Hubmann G, Jandrisovits R, Johansson O, Kern M, Kundi M, Lercher P, Mosgöller W, Moshammer H, Müller K, Oberfeld G, Ohnsorge P, Pelzmann P, Scheingraber C, Thill R. 2016 EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses. Rev. Environ. Health DOI 10.1515/reveh-2016-0011.
  • 118) Pall ML. 2016 Electromagnetic fields act similarly in plants as in animals: Probable activation of calcium channels via their voltage sensor. Curr Chem Biol 10:74-82.
  • 119) Medeiros LN, Sanchez TG. 2016 Tinnitus and cell phones: the role of electromagnetic radiofrequency radiation. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2016 Jan-Feb;82(1):97104.
  • 120) Starkey SJ. 2016 Inaccurate official assessment of radiofrequency safety by the Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation. Rev Environ Health 31:493-503.
  • 121) Hecht K. 2016 Health Implications of Long-term Exposure to Electrosmog: Effects of Wireless Communication Technologies, pp 1-64. Brochure 6 of A Brochure Series of the Competence Initiative for the Protection of Humanity, the Environment and Democracy E.V. URL: http://kompetenzinitiative.net/KIT/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/KI_Brochure6_K_Hecht_web.pdf
  • 122) Asghari A, Khaki AA, Rajabzadeh A, Khaki A. 2016 A review on Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and the reproductive system. Electron Physician. 2016 Jul 25;8(7):2655-62.
  • 123) Houston BJ, Nixon B, King BV, De Iuliis GN, Aitken RJ. 2016 The effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation on sperm function. Reproduction. 2016 Dec;152(6):R263-R276.
  • 124) Halgamuge MN. 2017 Review: Weak radiofrequency radiation exposure from mobile phone radiation on plants. Electromagn Biol Med. 2017;36(2):213-235.
  • 125) Bortkiewicz A, Gadzicka E, Szymczak W. 2017 Mobile phone use and risk for intracranial tumors and salivary gland tumors – A meta-analysis. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2017 Feb 21;30(1):27-43.
  • 126) Carlberg M, Hardell L. 2017 Evaluation of Mobile Phone and Cordless Phone Use and Glioma Risk Using the Bradford Hill Viewpoints from 1965 on Association or Causation. BioMed Res Int 2017, Article ID 9218486, https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/9218486
  • 127) Bielsa-Fernández P, Rodríguez-Martín B. 2017 [Association between radiation from mobile phones and tumour risk in adults]. Gac Sanit. 2017 Apr 12. pii: S02139111(17)30083-3. doi: 10.1016/j.gaceta.2016.10.014. [Epub ahead of print]
  • 128) Alegría-Loyola MA, Galnares-Olalde JA, Mercado M. 2017 [Tumors of the central nervous system]. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc. 2017 May-Jun;55(3):330-340.
  • 129) Miah T, Kamat D. 2017 Current Understanding of the Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields. Pediatr Ann. 2017 Apr 1;46(4):e172-e174. doi: 10.3928/1938235920170316-01.
  • 130) Facchini G, Spinnato P, Guglielmi G, Albisinni U, Bazzocchi A. 2017 A c omprehensive review of pulsed radiofrequency in the treatment of pain associated with different spinal conditions. Br J Radiol. 2017 May;90(1073):20150406. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20150406. Epub 2017 Feb 10.
  • 131) Kim K, Jo D, Kim E. 2017 Pulsed Radiofrequency to the Dorsal Root Ganglion in Acute Herpes Zoster and Postherpetic Neuralgia. Pain Physician. 2017 Mar;20(3):E411E418.
  • 132) Prasad M, Kathuria P, Nair P, Kumar A, Prasad K. 2017 Mobile phone use and risk of brain tumours: a systematic review of association between study quality, source of funding, and research outcomes. Neurol Sci. 2017 Feb 17. doi: 10.1007/s10072-017-2850-8. [Epub ahead of print].
  • 133) .Mishra SK, Chowdhary R, Kumari S, Rao SB. 2017 Effect of Cell Phone Radiations on Orofacial Structures: A Systematic Review. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017 May;11(5):ZE01-ZE05. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2017/26547.9883. Epub 2017 May 1
  • 134) Hardell L. 2017 World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health – a hard nut to crack (Review). Int J Oncol 51:405-413.
Dr Martin Pall on Wireless Technology Hazards

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *