Mese: Ottobre 2015

Mobilfunk: Brustkrebs, Impotenz und verkrüppelte Tiere

[Le terribili condizioni di vita degli abitanti di Volturino (FG) a causa dello spaventoso inquinamento elettromagnetico generato da una moltitudine di ripetitori siti in prossimità del paese, raccontate nel servizio di una tv tedesca.]

Caricato il 06 mar 2011

Bürgerinitiative in Italien in dem verstrahltesten Dorf Voltorino

Weitere Details zum Thema Mobilfunk unter

Expert Docs Urge U.S. Secretary of Education: Play it Safe With Kids—Go Wired Not WiFi

October 2015 – “Environmental Health Trust”

[Eminenti scienziati e medici consiglieri della Environmental Health Trust (EHT), hanno inviato una lettera aperta al Segretario dell’Istruzione degli Stati Uniti Arne Duncan e al Segretario entrante John King, spiegando nei dettagli la vulnerabilità specifica dei bambini nei confronti dei danni alla salute derivanti dall’uso della tecnologia wireless.]

Top medical experts advise schools to stop experimenting on our children. WiFi in Schools is Risky Business that has never been evaluated for safety.

Leading expert scientists and doctors who are advisors of the Environmental Health Trust (EHT) have sent an open letter to U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and incoming acting Secretary John King detailing children’s unique vulnerability to the health risks of wireless technology. The scientists outline specific steps the U.S. Department of Education can take to safeguard children’s health in the 21st century, such as choosing safe corded (non-wireless) technology and creating a national education program for students. The scientists applaud the fact that such efforts are already well implemented in several schools and countries and call on the United States to take a leadership role.

The letter cites how over 20 countries have taken a precautionary approach to the issue of wireless and are educating citizens on how to reduce exposures with many recommending against wireless in schools. Early in 2015, France passed a national law banning wifi from nursery schools and mandating that schools turn off wifi whenever it is not in use, and Israel has established a new national institute to review scientific evidence and recommends wired computers for teachers. In the United States, both public and private schools are taking steps to reduce and remove wireless exposures. EHT maintains an updated list of these policy actions.

In 2013, the American Academy of Pediatrics wrote to the FCC calling for more protective wireless RF-EMF radiation exposure standards and stated, “Children are not little adults and are disproportionately impacted by all environmental exposures, including cellphone radiation. Current FCC standards do not account for the unique vulnerability and use patterns specific to pregnant women and children.”

“Considering that no research documents long-term exposure to low-intensity microwave radiation as safe for children, the best approach is precautionary.” The letter references the accumulated scientific research showing that wireless radiation, also known as radio-frequency (RF) radiation or microwave radiation, could increase cancer risk and has been shown to damage the reproductive system and alter neurological development.

The letter cites the research of Yale Professor Dr. Hugh Taylor that showed prenatal exposure resulted in decreased memory and hyperactivity in offspring. This study joins a growing list of experimental research showing neurotoxic effects which has informed the BabySafe Project of over 100 physicians who recommend reduced wireless exposures for pregnant women in order to mitigate the risk of fetal brain damage.

Professor Martha Herbert, MD PhD, a Harvard pediatric neurologist, is quoted: “RF radiation from wifi and cell towers can exert a disorganizing effect on the ability to learn and remember, and can also be destabilizing to immune and metabolic function.”

The scientists made the following recommendations to the U.S. Department of Education:

1. Raise school community awareness through new educational curriculum:Students, teachers, and their families should be given information on wireless health risks and simple precautionary steps they can take to protect their health. It is important to teach children how to use technology both safely and more responsibly in order to protect their health and wellbeing.

2.  Install a safe communication and information technology infrastructure in schools to meet educational needs: Solutions exist to reduce exposures to wireless emissions and mitigate the health risk. Low-EMF Best Practices have been developed allowing educational needs to be met with safer hard-wired Internet connections, which are also faster and more secure.

“A 21st century classroom must bridge the digital divide in the safest way possible. The United States of America can thoughtfully integrate safe technology into every classroom while safeguarding the health of generations to come by installing safe and secure wired internet connections.” stated Dr. Davis, President of the EHT and Visiting Professor, The Hebrew University Medical School.

Please download the letter at this link.

In fall 2014, the EHT wrote to several educational organizations—including the National Education Association, the National Association of Independent Schools and the National Parent Teacher Association—informing them of the health risks of wireless installations. Letters are available on the EHT Schools and Safe Technology webpage.

This new letter calls on the U.S. Department of Education to provide leadership on common sense technology steps to safeguard children’s health just as classrooms across the country are upgrading their technology systems. EHT applauds the Collaborative for High Performance Schools Low EMF criteria which provides the detailed steps schools can take to reduce EMF exposures.

Scientists have long been cautioning against wireless networks in schools and, most recently, new letters from scientists to a Massachusetts school were included in a federal complaint filed by parents alleging the school’s upgraded wireless network made their child ill.

In 2014, an independent group of 29 international expert scientists of the Bioinitiative Report wrote a letter to the CEOs of wireless technology education companies such as Google, Dell, Apple, Adobe and Facebook stating that, “It does not reflect well on the ethics of your corporations to encourage the FCC to provide $2 billion dollars for new wireless classroom infrastructure and devices for school children, knowing that wireless emissions have been classified as a Possible Human Carcinogen by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (2011). To promote wireless technologies in schools is to deliberately and knowingly disregard current health warnings from international science and public health experts.” These scientists have long made clear recommendations for Low-EMF Best Practices in schools based on the published scientific research.

Recently, a group of over 200 scientists (who have collectively published over 2,000 peer-reviewed papers on non-ionizing radiation)appealed to the United Nations for immediate action on this issue in order to protect public health and the environment.

Over 20 countries now take a precautionary stance towards wireless radiation. As an example, former Microsoft President Frank Clegg heads a safe technology organization C4ST calling on federal election candidates in Canada to develop an awareness campaign related to the safe use of information and communication technologies in schools after the Canadian Parliamentary Health Committee unanimously voted for 12 recommendations concerning wireless radiation and public health.


Anthony B. Miller, MD FACE , Professor Emeritus at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, is a physician and epidemiologist specializing in cancer etiology, prevention and screening. He has conducted research on ionizing radiation and electromagnetic fields and cancer, and other aspects of cancer causation. He has served on many expert committees assessing the carcinogenicity of various exposures, including working groups of the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Devra Davis, PhD MPH, is President of the Environmental Health Trust, a non-profit scientific and policy think tank. She was the founding director of the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology of the U.S. National Research Council and Founding Director, Center for Environmental Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute. President Clinton appointed Dr. Davis to the newly established Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, and she is a former Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary for Health in the Department of Health and Human Services.

Priyanka Bandara, BSc, PhD, is an Australian researcher/educator in environmental health. She has worked as a clinical researcher at Westmead and Royal Prince Alfred Hospitals and University of Sydney Medicine and as a research scientist (biochemistry and molecular pharmacology) at the University of NSW.

Gunnar Heuser MD PhD FACP, is a practicing physician and clinical toxicologist who has coauthored several books, scientific papers and abstracts with a special emphasis on neurotoxicology and immunotoxicology. He has given expert comments to the EPA and served on advisory committees and testified to the U.S. Congress on toxic chemicals and human health.

Beatrice Alexandra Golomb, MD PhD, is a Professor of Medicine at University of California San Diego School of Medicine. She has worked as Chief Scientist for the Department of Veterans Affairs Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses. She has published numerous scientific research papers and coauthored books with a focus on chemical exposures, toxicity and neurobiology.

Robert D. Morris, MD, PhD, is a physician and an environmental epidemiologist. He has taught at Tufts University School of Medicine, Harvard University School of Public Health and the Medical College of Wisconsin and has served as an advisor to the EPA, CDC, NIH, the President’s Cancer Panel and worked with the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Environmental Epidemiology and with the National Cancer Institute.

Annie Sasco, MD DrPH, has served 22 years as Unit Chief of Epidemiology for Cancer Prevention at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in Lyon, France and served as Acting Chief of the Cancer Control Programme of the World Health Organization (WHO). She specializes in cancer research and epidemiology and holds two Masters plus a Doctoral degree from Harvard University.


Environmental Health Trust (EHT) educates individuals, health professionals and communities about controllable environmental health risks and policy changes needed to reduce those risks. Currently, EHT is raising health concerns about wireless in schools and recommending safer hardwired internet connection installations. The Environmental Health Trust maintains a regularly updateddatabase of worldwide precautionary policies on wireless related to children and schools. Please visit and on Facebook.


Download the October 13, 2015 Letter here

Letters by Scientifc Experts Against Wireless Networks to Fay School Trustees

Collaborative for High Performance Schools Low-EMF Best Practices


Dr. Devra Davis and Dr. Sharma Lecture at George Washington University on Wireless and Health June 2015

Dr. Devra Davis lectures at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)

Excerpt from Q and A at George Washington University on the issue of wireless in school


Is cell phone radiation actually dangerous? We asked an expert

21 Aprile 2015 – “”, by Simon Hill

“It’s looking increasingly likely that cellular phones (mostly smartphones these days) are harmful in terms of cancer risk, particularly to the head and neck,” says Joel M. Moskowitz, Director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California at Berkeley. “A lot of scientists have come round to the view that radiofrequency radiation is probably carcinogenic because of new research that has emerged since 2011.”

That was the year the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” A panel of 31 expert scientists from 14 different countries concluded radiofrequency radiation, which is emitted by cell phones and other wireless communication devices should be placed in Group 2B alongside a fairly long list of other substances that includes lead, coffee, nickel, and gasoline.

But is it really so dangerous? Despite the passionate views espoused by many experts, others are confident that the risk is overblown, or at least reluctant to push for sweeping societal changes. So should you be afraid, or gab away as usual? We asked a few experts to find out the truth.

Independent studies are showing danger

Cell phone emissions were classified as “possibly carcinogenic” based on an increased risk of glioma, which is the most common form of brain cancer, but they were also strongly linked with another type of tumor, benign acoustic neuromas. A lot of the available evidence back in 2011 came from a series of studies known as the Interphone studies, which were partly funded by the wireless communications industry.

“I’ve been tracking the research for five years now and the evidence of the effect is growing stronger,” Moskowitz told Digital Trends. “This is perhaps in part because the new studies are independent, not funded by the wireless industry.”

Back in 2006, Henry Lai, a professor at the University of Washington analyzed all available studies on cell phone radiation from 1990 to 2006. He found that 50 percent of the 326 studies showed a biological effect from radio-frequency radiation, but when he divided them into independently funded studies and those funded by the wireless industry he found the split was 70 – 30.

“Even if you accept all the industry studies, you still end up with 50-50,” Lai told Seattle Mag in 2011. “How could 50 percent all be garbage? People always start with the statement ‘hundreds of studies have been done on this topic, and no effect has been found’ — but this is a very misleading statement.”

Another potentially telling revelation is that the industry can’t get product liability insurance for mobile devices. Some people within the insurance industry feel that there’s a real risk of a wave of lawsuits related to brain tumors and other conditions caused by cell phones over the next couple of decades. Insurance giant the Swiss Re Group included “unforeseen consequences of electromagnetic fields” in its Emerging Risk Insights report.

“Governments are flying blind on this, they’re either ignorant or they’re in denial,” Moskowitz says. “In part it’s ignorance, but in part they’re getting pressure from an industry that dwarfs big tobacco. It’s just too profitable, about a sixth of your cell phone bill in the U.S. goes to government in fees or taxes.”

Do we all have our heads in the sand? This is a controversial topic and it’s hard to get definitive answers. We decided to speak to Dr. Kurt Straif, Head of the World Health Organization program that classified RF electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic” back in 2011. And in Straif’s eyes, the situation is far muddier.

“We don’t know for sure if it’s causing cancer or not.”

“We’ve done almost 1,000 different agent assessments,” Dr. Straif told Digital Trends, “and this is probably the most heated controversy in terms of strong believers — scientists in the field that say we already know it’s causing cancer to the other extreme that says every additional cent spent on research is wasted because we know it can never cause cancer.”

The IARC Monographs program Straif headed up was formed with the backing of the World Health Organization and the United Nations, at the request of member states looking to identify substances and circumstances that are known to cause cancer in humans, and to make that information available for cancer prevention.

An independent advisory group suggests topics and the Monographs group decides what to pursue. It gathers all the published research, identifies the best experts in the world for each topic, and they draft working papers, and then there is an 8 day meeting to classify each possible carcinogen and create a volume of Monographs.

Dr. Kurt Straif, left, led the World Health Organization program that classified cell phone radiation as "possibly carcinogenic to humans".
Dr. Kurt Straif, left, led the World Health Organization program that classified cell phone radiation as “possibly carcinogenic to humans”.

“The Monographs are the most authoritative program in cancer-hazard identification, running for the longest time, looking at all types of environmental exposure, but also known for being the strongest program in terms of a very strict policy to exclude conflicts of interest,” Straif explains. “Scientists with a link to industry, or on the other hand, scientists with a very strong link to advocacy groups, would not be eligible to serve on the working group.”

He points out that, though the Interphone study was partly funded by industry, there was a very strict firewall in place overseen by the Union for International Cancer Control.

“I did not sense any strong orchestrated efforts by industry to influence the outcome of the 2011 meeting,” he told us.

We can safely say that the IARC group is impartial. It’s no stranger to controversy and it does not bend to big business. Take for example the recent classification of glyphosate — the main chemical in the pesticide Roundup — as “probably carcinogenic,” a move that incurred the wrath of Monsanto, the pesticide’s maker. Glyphosate is in group 2A, which is still one step down from Group 1, “carcinogenic to humans.” Radiofrequency EMF radiation was placed in Group 2B, largely based on cell phone studies. So what does the “possibly carcinogenic” classification actually mean?

The IARC, headquartered in Lyon, France, conducts reserach without funding form the wireless industry.
The IARC, headquartered in Lyon, France, conducts reserach without funding form the wireless industry.

“It means that there is scientific evidence, in this case limited evidence from the human studies, that it could cause cancer in humans,” says Straif. “There is also limited evidence from animal studies, and there is weak mechanistic data. These three things together result in the evaluation of possibly carcinogenic.”

There is currently no firm plan to reassess radiofrequency EMF radiation, but Dr. Straif says it is on the radar, and if important new evidence was to emerge, the IARC Monographs group could make it a priority.

“Knowing about the studies that have been published since 2011, I think that the epidemiological evidence is still limited,” says Straif, making it clear that this is his personal opinion and not that of the IARC group. “It has not changed in the one or the other direction. There are lots of different scientific groups out there. Some think with the new publications that the human evidence is now sufficient to result in a Group 1 classification as a known human carcinogen. I don’t think these studies would change the current overall evaluation of 2B.”

Articolo originale al seguente link:

Significant Decrease of Clinical Symptoms after Mobile Phone Base Station Removal – Signifikanter Rückgang klinischer Symptome nach Senderabbau

[Lavoro interessantissimo dal quale risulta evidente l’aumento dei sintomi con l’aumento della frequenza utilizzata per le trasmissioni radio. Ugualmente esiste una chiara correlazione tra lo spegnimento dei segnali radio e la scomparsa dei sintomi.]

Shinjyo, T. & Shinjyo, A. (2014), Signifikanter Rückgang klinischer Symptome nach Senderabbau – eine Interventionsstudie. Umwelt-Medizin-Gesellschaft, 27(4), S. 294-301.

Significant Decrease of Clinical Symptoms after Mobile Phone Base Station Removal –
An Intervention Study
Tetsuharu Shinjyo and Akemi Shinjyo


Article history
Received: 25 September 2014
Accepted: 16 October 2014

Mobile phone
Base station
Radiofrequency (RF)
Electromagnetic field (EMF)
Health problems

This research was undertaken to investigate the validity of concerns about whether chronic exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs) emitted from mobile phone base station antennas could cause adverse health effects. The aim of this study was to identify possible adverse health effects among the residents of a condominium on which a mobile phone base station with sets of antennas operating at two different frequencies had been mounted. This research was conducted without outside funds in order to maintain neutrality and avoid pressures from external sources.

Methods: We investigated possible adverse effects on the health of condominium inhabitants who were exposed from 1998 to 2009 to the radiation from mobile phone base station antennas installed on top of their condominium. To accomplish this, in January and November 2009, 107 of 122 inhabitants were interviewed and underwent medical examinations. The first examination was carried out while the base station was in operation, the second examination three months after the base station antennas were removed once and for all. Based on the health examination results, the residents’ health and its changes during the operation of the antennas and after their removal were compared.

Results: In several cases, significant effects on the inhabitants’ health could be proven. The health of these inhabitants was shown to improve after the removal of the antennas, and the researchers could identify no other factors that could explain this health improvement. These examinations and interviews suggest that there are possible adverse health effects related to RF-EMF exposure among people living under mobile phone base stations.

Conclusions and recommendations: The results of these examinations and interviews indicate a connection between adverse health effects and electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone base stations. Further research and studies are recommended regarding the possible adverse health effects of RF-EMFs. These results lead us to question the construction of mobile phone base stations on top of buildings such as condominiums or houses.


In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a subsidiary body of the World Health Organization (WHO), officially declared radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs) as possibly carcinogenic and a potential risk factor for gliomas and acoustic neuromas (IARC 2011). Moreover, it recommended taking precautionary measures to reduce exposure during mobile phone use, such as texting and the use of hands-free devices instead of holding the mobile phone next to the ear when talking.

However, the WHO has not issued any recommendation yet regarding adverse health effects of RF-EMFs emitted from mobile phone base stations. If there are health problems related to RF-EMF emitted from mobile phones, would the RF-EMFs from a mobile phone base station have the same effect? Mobile phone base stations constantly send signals to many mobile phones. Because of that, people living near base stations can be exposed to RF-EMFs 24 hours a day all the year (Khurana 2009). Today, there are a number of published studies concerning the impact of RF-EMFs emitted by base stations (Berg-Beckhoff et al. 2009, Blettner et al. 2009, Abdel-Rassoul 2007, Hutter et al. 2006, Eger et al. 2004, Wolf & Wolf 2004, Navarro et al. 2003, Santini et al. 2003). Some of these studies indicate possible health hazard to those living close to base stations (Berg-Beckhoff 2009, Blettner et al. 2009, Navarro et al. 2003, Santini et al. 2003). Some show a higher incidence of cancer (Eger et al. 2004, Wolf & Wolf 2004) or a higher cancer mortality (Dode et al. 2011). Hutter et al. (2006) reported that the stronger the RF-EMFs are, the higher the incidence of headaches and attention deficit disorders. Reduced cognition has also been documented (Abdel-Rassoul et al. 2007).

However, when studies like these are conducted on base stations, biases such as low frequency radiation (LF-EMF) and RF-EMF from the domestic living environment arise. Therefore, the more meticulous the research methodology is, the less significant the results indicated by the research. To get more precise results, it is necessary to eliminate biases as much as possible and to use double-blind procedures. However, conducting such research is difficult in reality.

The Situation in Japan

In Japan, there is presently little concern about the possibility of adverse health effects from mobile phones and mobile phone base stations. With the exception of a small number of cases, existing worries about mobile phones and mobile phone base stations have been ignored there (Sato et al. 2011). The reasons for this lack of attention are:

In Japan, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications does not recognise any non-thermal effects from non-ionising radiation.

Furthermore, the possibility of adverse health effects is not accepted by that Ministry when power densities are below 1000 μW/cm2 (1.8-5 GHz) (MIC 2011).
There are no official reports on the possible adverse health effects of RF-EMF emitted from mobile phone base stations in Japan. Risks and hazardous effects associated with these stations are not officially recognised in Japan. Reports about the risks of mobile phone base stations are seldom in the Japanese print and broadcast media. A reason for this could be the mobile phone companies’ media sponsorship.

Materials and Method

In 1998, a mobile phone base station was installed for the first time on the roof of the condominium in Naha City, Okinawa, Japan that is being investigated. Its antennas had an 800 MHz operational frequency [800 MHz code division multiple access (CDMA One)]. At the end of 2007, a further set of antennas with an operational frequency of 2 GHz (CDMA 2000) was installed. These were activated in March 2008. Figures 1A-D show the antenna installations on the condominium roof from different perspectives.

After the company owning the condominium withdrew its consent, the base station had to be removed. In June 2009, the 800 MHz installation was deactivated. It had been in operation for 11 years. The 2 GHz (CDMA 2000) antennas were deactivated in February 2009. They had an RF-EMF emission period of 11 months. The final removal of both the 0.8 and the 2 GHz antennas took place in August 2009. So there are two comparable time periods for comparing the symptoms before and after the residents’ exposure to the 2 GHz radiation.

Figure 2 shows the chronological sequence from the erection of the base station to the removal of both sets of antennas and the timings of the medical examinations.

In January 2009, the first medical examinations and interviews with the inhabitants were carried out whilst the base station was fully operational. A second set of examinations was conducted in August 2009 after the removal of the base station. These examinations and interviews compared the health of 107 residents during the base station’s operation and after its removal. The residents had no prior knowledge about possible adverse health effects of RF-EMFs.

Shinjyo 2014 Significant Decrease of Clinical Symptoms after Mobile Phone Base Station Removal  (1)-page-001
Shinjyo 2014 Significant Decrease of Clinical Symptoms after Mobile Phone Base Station Removal  (1)1-page-001 (1)
Examination of the Condominium Residents’ Health Problems

A physician and a nurse, who had both more than 20 years of clinical experience, conducted face-to-face health examinations. Before the interviews, the residents had filled out health questionnaires distributed by the physician. Inhabitants of 39 out of 47 apartments participated. Vacant apartments and inhabitants who refused to participate were excluded from the study. 107 out of the 122 individuals who answered the questionnaires were interviewed. When interviewing the inhabitants about symptoms, the time of the first appearance of symptoms was taken into account. Health problems appearing between 1998 and March 2008, shortly before the installation of the 2 GHz antennas, were recorded as symptoms associated with radiation emitted from the 800 MHz antennas. Health problems appearing after the activation of the 2 GHz antennas, i.e. after March 2008 until the first examination in January 2009, were recorded as symptoms possibly affected by radiation emitted from the 2 GHz antennas.

Measurement of the Mobile Phone Base Station Power Density

After receiving a request from the condominium association board members, the mobile phone company operating the antennas undertook power density measurements of the RF-EMFs emitted by the mobile phone base station. Two technicians employed by the mobile phone company conducted the measurements.
The measuring device was an SRM-3000 (Narda Safety Test Solutions GmbH, Sandwiesenstrasse, Pfullingen, Germany). The technicians did not explain in detail to the residents how the measurements were taken. Figure 3 shows the 15 places where power density was measured. Three locations were assessed on the roof of the condominium and one on the balcony of the top (tenth) floor. Three rooms and the entrance area on that floor were also assessed, as were the entrance areas of rooms on the 8th, 6th, 4th, and 1st floor, the ground floor entrance area of the condominium and two locations within the parking lot. Before each measurement, the technicians called the operation centre. A few days later, the results of the measurements were sent to the board members of the condominium association.


Measurement of RF-EMF Emissions from the Mobile Phone Base Station

Two technicians from the mobile phone company measured the power densities at 15 different locations around the condominium to assess RF-EMF emissions from the mobile phone station on 24th December 2008 (Figures 3A and 3B). The RF-EMFs from the 800 MHz and 2 GHz antennas were measured and recorded separately. Table 1 shows the results of the measurements, which were between 0.0001 and 0.0286 μW/cm2 (equivalent to 0.02 to 0.28 V/m).

The measurements taken at RF1 and RF3 indicated a relatively high power density. Interestingly, the power density measurements for the 2 GHz antennas showed lower values on the roof (RF2: 0.00278 μW/cm2) than on the balcony (Bal: 0.00316 μW/cm2). The distance between balcony and antenna was only slightly greater than the distance between RF2 and antenna. This result could be attributed to the fact that RF2 was behind the location of the base station’s ancillary operational equipment.

Subjects of the Health Examination

The health examinations were conducted twice – in January 2009 and in November 2009 – among 107 out of 122 residents. This represented a participation rate of 87.7 %. 56 participants were male and 51 female. The average age was 37.2 years for male and 38.6 years for female participants. The average time period of RF-EMF exposure from the 800 MHz antennas was 5.60 years for the males and 6.64 years for the females. Regarding the 2 GHz RF-EMF exposure, the average exposure period was 11 months for both male and female residents. Table 2 provides an overview of the residents’ age and gender distributions, as well as the periods of exposure time.

Health problems of the residents after installation of the 800 MHz antennas

34 residents said they had health problems after the 800 MHz antennas had been installed. They mentioned 66 individual symptoms, which are listed in Table 3. The health problem symptoms included: tinnitus, myodesopsia, arthralgia, shoulder stiffness, headache, and nasal bleeding. For tinnitus and arthralgia, the difference was shown to be statistically significant.

Health problems of the residents after installation of the 2 GHz antennas

After installation of the 2 GHz antennas, 41 individuals showed symptoms. 26 of these 41 participants had already exhibited symptoms after installation of the 800 MHz antennas. The subjects mentioned a total of 158 cases of symptoms. These are documented in Table 4. The most frequent symptoms were fatigue and loss of motivation, eye pain, astigmatism, deteriorated eyesight, insomnia, sleep problems, sleep disturbances, dizziness, jitteriness, tachycardia, palpitation, numbness and others. The number of these symptoms – except for astigmatism, deteriorated eyesight, tachycardia, and palpitations – decreased significantly after the removal of the mobile phone station. The symptoms that were recognised during the operation of both the 800 MHz and the 2 GHz antennas are printed in bold font. Health problems that appeared after the installation of the 2 GHz antennas were greater in number than those appearing after installation of the 800 MHz antennas. A comparison of the number of symptoms before and after removal of the mobile phone base station shows significant differences.

Comparison of the number of residents with health problems before and after removal of the mobile phone base station

A total of 34 residents suffered from health problems after installation of the 800 MHz antennas. Three months after their removal this number decreased to 13. There were 41 residents who had health problems after installation of the 2 GHz antennas, and this number decreased to 15 after removal of the 2 GHz antennas. In total 49 residents suffered from health problems during operation of both the 800 MHz and the 2 GHz antennas. However, this number decreased to 25 after removal of both sets of antennas.
These results showed significant differences using the chi-square test (Table 5).


The power density values read by the mobile phone company are extremely low, suspiciously low, compared with measurements taken near other base stations (Abdel-Rassoul et al. 2006). Furthermore, the power density was measured only once by the mobile phone company, whereas this kind of measurement should be conducted several times. Although the power density, as measured by the mobile phone company, was too low to be considered relevant in aggravating the health problems experienced by residents, we have used these measurements as reference levels in this case study.

The RF-EMF values were highest at RF1 and RF3, two locations adjacent to the antennas. The RF-EMF power density values at RF2 were lower. It is possible that RF2’s location behind the shelter accounts for these lower values. The power density of Bal, the balcony on the 10th floor, was higher than the power density at RF2. Theoretically, the RF-EMFs emitted from the antennas are not directed vertically downwards. However, it is likely that RF-EMFs were emitted downwards in the form of a side lobe. The power density measurement values clearly indicated that the 2 GHz antennas gave off more energy than the 800 MHz antennas. The number of individual health problems the residents suffered from after installation of the 800 MHz antennas was 66, and rose to 158 after installation of the 2 GHz antennas. It is possible that the health problems the residents suffered from after installation of the 2 GHz antennas were related to their high power output.

This health investigation diagnosed 34 residents with health problems appearing during operation of the 800 MHz antennas; out of these residents, 26 suffered even worse health problems after the installation of the 2 GHz antennas. Considering the fact that these residents had already recognised their health problems as related to the 800 MHz antennas, they could possibly have become more sensitive to RF-EMFs emitted from the 2 GHz antennas. Hypersensitisation could have occurred among these residents. The incidence of health problems among 26 residents out of 34 is apparently more frequent than that of electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) patients (Hillert et al. 2002, Johansson 2006, Kato & Johansson 2012, Levallois et al. 2002, Schreier et al. 2006, Schröttner & Leitgeb 2008).

Moreover, it is considered that the acute symptoms could have occurred whilst those residents were exposed to the higher energy of RF-EMFs emitted by the 2 GHz antennas.

Recent studies suggest that the pattern and angle of radiation emission, the effects of modulation and the power density all need to be taken into account. An experiment using baboons revealed that the melatonin concentration in the pineal gland decreased significantly while the baboons were exposed to different modulations of EMF in a sudden onset/offset environment (Rogers et al. 1995). Furthermore, a report examining the stress hormone levels of residents living close to a mobile phone base station showed that an abnormal amount of stress hormones was secreted over the period of one year (Buchner & Eger 2011). Because of such findings, it is important to conduct longitudinal studies on stress hormone secretion under the influence of RF-EMFs. Our research examines symptoms from the installation of the 800 MHz RF-EMF emitting antennas up to the period after their removal, a total time of 11 years. Examining long-term changes of the residents’ health problems has enabled us to prove that the residents’ health showed significant differences before and after the removal of the mobile phone base station.

In 2000, the European Commission decided to adopt a precautionary approach as a basic principle in environmental issues. In this decision, the EU pledged to take precautionary measures to deal with environmental issues, so that irreversible consequences could be anticipated even if the risk was not scientifically proven European Union (2010). However, the Japanese Government has issued an Electromagnetic Wave Protection Guidance which states that RF-EMFs do not affect health if they are below 1000 μW/cm2 in the 1800 MHz to 5 GHz frequency range. (MIC 2011). The value 800 MHz range permitted by the Japanese Government is 530 μW/cm2 calculated by the following formula: f (MHz)/1500 (between the frequency is 800 to 1500 MHz) (MIC 2000). As a result, an increasing number of mobile phone towers and base stations have been erected, without any regulation, on the roofs of condominium buildings. Moreover, media coverage of non-ionising radiation is in Japan much rarer than in Europe and the USA. Because of this, it is difficult for this issue to be recognised by the Japanese general public.


Our intention was to examine whether there were health impacts on residents from RF-EMFs emitted by the mobile phone base station erected on the roof of their condominium building. We conducted thorough research on whether there were any other factors to account for the improvements of the residents’ health other than the removal of the base station.
The results of this case report indicate that health problems of the residents were associated with the operation of the mobile phone base station and that these problems improved after its removal. Although this report is not a double-blind study, it can be used as an example indicating the potential effects of RF-EMFs emitted from mobile phone base stations erected on the roofs of condominium buildings on human health. It is imperative that further detailed research is conducted regarding the impact of RF-EMFs on human health.

This research and the corresponding data collection were conducted without outside funds in order to maintain neutrality and avoid pressures from external sources.
The original translation into the German language was made possible by a donation from the registered association “Netzwerk Risiko Mobilfunk Oberfranken e.V. (NRMO)” (= “Network Risk of Mobile Telephony in Upper Franconia”) (for further information please refer to:

Editor’s Note
This article is marked as an original scientific publication and has been subject to a special peer-review procedure by the Scientific Advisory Board of Umwelt-Medizin-Gesellschaft. – The Editor

Abdel-Rassoul, G., Abou El-Fateh, O., Abou Salem, M. et al. (2007), Neurobehavioral effects among inhabitants around mobile phone base stations. Neurotoxicology, 28(2), 434-440.

Berg-Beckhoff, G., Blettner, M., Kowall, B. et al. (2009), Mobile phone base stations and adverse health effects: phase 2 of a cross-sectional study with measured radio frequency electromagnetic fields. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 66(2), 124-130.

Blettner, M., Schlehofer, B., Breckenkamp, J. et al. (2009), Mobile phone base stations and adverse health effects: phase 1 of a population-based, cross-sectional study in Germany. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 66(2), 118-123.

Buchner, K. & Eger, H. (2011), Changes of Clinically Important Neurotransmitters under the Influence of Modulated RF Fields – A Long-term Study under Real-life Conditions (Original scientific publication). English translation of: Buchner, K. & Eger, H. (2011), Veränderung klinisch bedeutsamer Neurotransmitter unter dem Einfluss modulierter hochfrequenter Felder – Eine Langzeiterhebung unter lebensnahen Bedingungen (Wissenschaftlicher Originalbeitrag), Umwelt-Medizin-Gesellschaft, 24(1), 44-57.

Dode, A.C., Leão, M.M., Tejo, F. de A.F. et al. (2011), Mortality by neoplasia and cellular telephone base stations in the Belo Horizonte municipality, Minas Gerais state, Brazil. Science of The Total Environment, 409(19), 3649-3665.

Eger, H., Hagen, K.U., Lucas, B. et al. (2004), The Influence of Being Physically Near to a Cell Phone Transmission Mast on the Incidence of Cancer. Original scientific study. English translation of: Eger, H., Hagen, K.U., Lucas, B. et al. (2004), Einfluss der räumlichen Nähe von Mobilfunksendeanlagen auf die Krebsinzidenz, Wissenschaftliche Originalarbeit. Umwelt-Medizin-Gesellschaft, 17(4), 326-335.

European Union (2010), Notice Number 2010/C 83/01: Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Official Journal of the European Union C 83, 53, 132.

Hillert, L., Berglind, N., Arnets, B.B. & Bellander, T. (2002), Prevalence of self reported hypersensitivity to electric or magnetic fields in a population based questionnaire survey. Scandanavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 28(1), 33-41.

Hutter, H.P., Moshammer, H., Wallner, P. & Kundi, M. (2006), Subjective symptoms, sleeping problems, and cognitive performance in subjects living near mobile phone base stations. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 63(5), 307-313.

IARC (2011), IARC classifies Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields as Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans. Press Release No. 208, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 31st May 2011, Lyon, France. [ . Accessed 15th October 2014]

Johansson, O. (2006), Electrohypersensitivity: state-of-the-art of a functional impairment. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 25, 245-258.

Kato, Y. & Johansson, O. (2012), Reported functional impairments of electrohypersensitive Japanese: A questionnaire survey, Pathophysiology, 19(2), 95-100.

Khurana V.G., Teo, C., Kundi, M. et al. (2009), Cell phones and brain tumors: a review including the long-term epidemiologic data. Surgical Neurology, 72(3), 205-214.

Levallois, P., Neutra, R., Lee, G. & Hristova, L. (2002), Study of Self reported hypersensitivity to electromagnetic fields in California. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110(Supplement 4), 619-623.

Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication (MIC) (2000), Telecommunications Technology Council Report 2000., Japan.

MIC (2011), Radio Radiation Protection Guidelines for Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields, Japan Electromagnetic fields (EMF) Information Center, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications of Japan (MIC). [, accessed: 15th October 2014].

Navarro, E.A., Segura, J., Portolés, M. & Gómez-Perretta, C. (2003), The Microwave Syndrome: A Preliminary Study in Spain. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 22(2-3), 161-169.

Rogers, W.R., Reiter, R.J., Smith, H.D. & Barlow-Walden, L. (1995), Rapid-onset/offset, variably scheduled 60 Hz electric and magnetic field exposure reduces nocturnal serum melatonin concentration in nonhuman primates, Bioelectromagnetics, 16, Supplement 3, 119-122.

Santini, R., Santini, P., Le Ruz, P. et al. (2003), Survey Study of People Living in the Vicinity of Cellular Phone Base Stations. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 22(1), 41-49.

Sato, Y., Akiba, S., Kubo, O. & Yamaguchi, N. (2011), A case-case study of mobile phone use and acoustic neuroma risk in Japan. Bioelectromagnetics, 32(2), 85-93.

Schreier, N., Huss, A. & Röösli, M. (2006), The prevalence of symptoms attributed to electromagnetic field exposure: a cross-sectional representative survey in Switzerland. Sozial- und Präventivmedicine, 51(4), 202-209.

Schröttner, J. & Leitgeb, N. (2008), Sensitivity to electricity – Temporal changes in Austria. BMC Public Health, 8, 310.
Wolf, R. & Wolf, D. (2004), Increased incidence of cancer near a cell-phone transmitter station. International Journal of Cancer Prevention, 1(2), 1-19.

PDF del lavoro integrale (originale in Tedesco e tradotto in Inglese) scaricabili ai seguenti link:

umg-4 14-Shinjyo

Shinjyo 2014 Significant Decrease of Clinical Symptoms after Mobile Phone Base Station Removal (1)


Polarization: A Key Difference between Man-made and Natural Electromagnetic Fields, in regard to Biological Activity

[Articolo molto interessante ed estremamente tecnico.]

Scientific Reports 5, Article number: 14914 (2015)

Dimitris J. Panagopoulos, Olle Johansson, George L. Carlo


Article history
Received: 24 February 2015
Accepted: 07 September 2015
Published online: 12 October 2015


In the present study we analyze the role of polarization in the biological activity of Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs)/Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR). All types of man-made EMFs/EMR – in contrast to natural EMFs/EMR – are polarized. Polarized EMFs/EMR can have increased biological activity, due to: 1) Ability to produce constructive interference effects and amplify their intensities at many locations. 2) Ability to force all charged/polar molecules and especially free ions within and around all living cells to oscillate on parallel planes and in phase with the applied polarized field. Such ionic forced-oscillations exert additive electrostatic forces on the sensors of cell membrane electro-sensitive ion channels, resulting in their irregular gating and consequent disruption of the cell’s electrochemical balance. These features render man-made EMFs/EMR more bioactive than natural non-ionizing EMFs/EMR. This explains the increasing number of biological effects discovered during the past few decades to be induced by man-made EMFs, in contrast to natural EMFs in the terrestrial environment which have always been present throughout evolution, although human exposure to the latter ones is normally of significantly higher intensities/energy and longer durations. Thus, polarization seems to be a trigger that significantly increases the probability for the initiation of biological/health effects.


Man-Made EMR is more Active biologically than Natural Non-Ionizing EMR

A large and increasing number of studies during the past few decades have indicated a variety of adverse biological effects to be triggered by exposure to man-made EMFs, especially of radio frequency (RF)/microwaves, and extremely low frequency (ELF). The recorded biological effects range from alterations in the synthesis rates and intracellular concentrations of different biomolecules, to DNA and protein damage, which may result in cell death, reproductive declines, or even cancer1,2,3,4,5,6,7. Under the weight of this evidence the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified both ELF magnetic fields and RF EMFs as possibly carcinogenic to humans8,9. The intensities of radiation and durations of exposure in all these studies were significantly smaller than those of corresponding exposures from natural EMFs in the terrestrial environment. Moreover, the field intensities applied in the studies were several orders of magnitude smaller than physiological fields in cell membranes, or fields generated by nerve and muscle excitations10,11.

Solar EMR intensity incident upon a human body ranges normally between 8 and 24 mW/cm2 (depending on season, atmospheric conditions, geographical location, etc) while corresponding intensity from a digital mobile phone handset upon a human head during “talk” emission is normally less than 0.2 mW/cm2  (Refs.  6,12,13). Similarly, terrestrial electric and magnetic fields, or infrared radiation from every human body at normal temperature, have significantly larger incident intensities and exposure durations on any human than most artificial EMF sources14,15,16. Why is then the first beneficial while the latter seem to be detrimental? In the present study we shall attempt to explain theoretically that the increased adverse biological action of man-made EMFs is due to the fact that they are polarized in contrast to the natural ones.

Man-Made EMR is Polarized, while Natural EMR is not

A field/wave is called linearly polarized when it oscillates on a certain plane which is called the “polarization plane”. A combination of linearly polarized fields/waves can give circularly or elliptically polarized fields/waves.

Natural EMR/EMFs (cosmic microwaves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, gamma rays) and several forms of artificially triggered electromagnetic emissions (such as from light bulbs with thermal filaments, gas discharge lamps, x-rays, lasers, etc.) are not polarized. They are produced by large numbers of molecular, atomic, or nuclear transitions of random orientation and random phase difference between them (except for the lasers which are coherent). These are de-excitations of molecules, atoms, or atomic nuclei17. Each photon they consist of oscillates on a distinct random plane, and therefore it has a different polarization. Moreover the different photons are not produced simultaneously but they have random phase differences among them.

In contrast, man-made electromagnetic waves are produced by electromagnetic oscillation circuits (“Thomson” circuits), forcing free electrons to oscillate back and forth along a metal wire (electric circuit). Thus, they are not produced by excitations/de-excitations of molecules, atoms, or nuclei, and because the electronic oscillations take place in specific directions/orientations they are polarized (most usually linearly polarized). The plane of polarization is determined by the geometry of the circuit. [Lasers are coherent light emissions, not necessarily polarized, and condensed within a narrow beam with high intensity, but they may also be polarized]. Superposition of two fields of identical frequency and linear polarizations, equal amplitudes, and a phase difference 90° between them, or superposition of three such fields with a phase difference 120° between each two of them, and with specific geometrical arrangement, results in a circularly polarized field of the same frequency. The above combinations with unequal amplitudes results in elliptically polarized field of the same frequency18. Circularly and elliptically polarized 50–60 Hz electric and magnetic fields are formed around 3-phase electric power transmission lines. These fields are accused for an association with cancer7,8.

Oscillating polarized EMFs/EMR (in contrast to unpolarized) have the ability to induce coherent forced-oscillations on charged/polar molecules within a medium. In case that the medium is biological tissue, the result is that all charged molecules will be forced to oscillate in phase with the field and on planes parallel to its polarization19,20. Several oscillating electromagnetic fields of the same polarization – such as the fields from different antennas vertically oriented – may also produce constructive interference effects and thus, amplify at certain locations the local field intensity, and the amplitude of oscillation of any charged particle within the medium (and within living tissue). At such locations, living tissue becomes more susceptible to the initiation of biological effects21.

Only coherent polarized fields/waves of the same polarization and frequency are able to produce standing interference effects (fringes of maximum and minimum intensity)22. When the polarization is fixed (e.g. vertically oriented antennas) but there are differences in coherence and/or frequency between the sources, the interference effects are not standing at fixed locations, but change with time creating transient peaks at changing locations.

Natural light from two or more different sources does not produce interference effects, except under the specific conditions of the Young experiment, where the light from a single source passes through two identical slits which – in turn – become two identical-coherent secondary sources18,23.

Unpolarized electromagnetic radiation can become polarized when it passes through anisotropic media, as are certain crystals. In fluids (gases and liquids) the molecules are randomly oriented, and macroscopically are considered isotropic inducing no polarization in the electromagnetic waves transmitted through them. Unpolarized natural light can become partly polarized to a small average degree after diffraction on atmospheric molecules, or reflection on water, mirrors, metallic surfaces, etc.18. Thus, living creatures exposed to natural radiation since the beginning of life on Earth, although have been exposed to partially polarized light at a small average degree under certain circumstances24,25, have never been exposed to totally polarized radiation as is EMR/EMFs of modern human technology.

Field Intensity versus Wave Intensity of electromagnetic waves

A plane harmonic electromagnetic wave in the vacuum or the air has electric and magnetic field intensity components, given by the equations:

r is the distance from the source, t is the time, ω = 2πν = kw · c, is the circular frequency of the wave (ν the frequency), and kw(=2π/λ) is the wave number (λ the wavelength).

The velocity of the electromagnetic wave (and of any wave), is:

The wave intensity (“Poynting vector”), is:

And the average value of its amplitude:

Thus, the wave intensity depends upon the square of the electric field intensity.


Superposition of Unpolarized EMR/EMFs

Consider two incoherent, unpolarized electromagnetic rays with electric components E1, E2, reaching a certain point P in space at a certain moment t in time. Let us assume for simplicity that the two waves are plane harmonic. The two vectors , due to the different polarizations oscillate on different planes. Since the two waves are not polarized, their polarizations vary randomly with time. The total angle ϕbetween the two vectors each moment is determined by the different polarizations, plus the different phases, and varies randomly in time.

The resultant electric field (electric component of the resultant electromagnetic wave) each moment at point P, is given by the equation:

E varies with time due to the temporal variations of E1, E2, cos ϕ. But the average value of cos ϕ is zero:

and the averages of E2, , and are , and respectively (E0, E01, E02 the amplitudes of E, E1, E2).

The average resultant electric field is then:

and (according to Eq. 5):

Even when the two component waves have the same frequency and phase, due to the randomly changing polarizations, the result is still the same.

Thus, the total time average wave intensity due to the superposition of two (or more) rays of random polarizations (natural EMR/EMFs) is the sum of the two individual average intensities, and it is constant at every point and – macroscopically – there is no local variation in the resultant intensity, i.e. no interference effects.

Wave Intensity versus Field Intensity of Unpolarized EMR

Although the sum average wave intensity due to superposition of natural unpolarized waves is the sum of individual average intensities each one depending on the square amplitude of individual electric field (Eq. 7), the sum electric field from an infinite number of individual waves (as e.g. with natural light), is zero:

Let us explain this in more detail: Consider many photons of natural unpolarized light superposed on each other at a particular point in space. Let us assume for simplicity that these photons have equal amplitudes and are of the same frequency but have different polarizations meaning that their electric vectors have all possible orientations forming angles between each two of them from 0° to 360°. Since all possible orientations have equal probabilities, the superposition of a large number of such equal vectors applied on the same point in space will be the sum of vectors applied on the centre of a sphere with their ends equally distributed around the surface of the sphere. The sum of an infinite number of such vectors (all applied on the same point – centre of the sphere – and with their ends evenly distributed at all points of the sphere surface) tends to become zero.

In other words, at any given location, any moment, the sum electric field of a large number of incident photons of random polarization tends to be null, since the individual vectors are in all possible directions diminishing each other when superimposed (destructive interference of electric vectors). Similarly for the sum magnetic field:

Thus, the result of superposition of a large number of incident natural waves is increased wave intensity, but negligible electric and magnetic fields approaching zero with infinite number of individual waves/photons. Since the electric forces on charged particles depend directly on electric and magnetic field intensities , but not on the wave intensity , unpolarized EMFs/EMR cannot induce any net forced-oscillations on any charged particles (e.g. biological molecules). They may only induce heat, i.e. random oscillations in all possible directions due to momentary non-zero field intensities, but this does not result to any net electric or magnetic field, or to any net forced-oscillation of charged molecules.

Superposition of Coherent Polarized Waves/Fields of the same polarization

When two or more waves/fields of the same polarization and frequency are in addition coherent, in other words, when their phase difference at the location of superposition is:

the result is constructive interference, meaning that the resultant wave has an amplitude (intensity) equal to the sum of amplitudes of the single waves that interfere at the particular location.

When two waves of same polarization have opposite phases at another location, in other words, when their phase difference is:

then the result of their superposition is destructive interference, i.e. a wave of the same polarization but with diminished intensity.

The electrical components of two such waves (plane harmonic waves of the same polarization and frequency) reaching a certain location after having run different distances r1, and r2 from their two coherent sources, are given by the equations:

Again, the amplitude E0 of the resultant electric field (electric component of the resultant electromagnetic wave), is:

where depending in this case only upon the difference in the distances run by the two waves, and not upon polarization.

At any location where: φ = 2, Eq. 13 gives:

At these locations we have constructive interference.

At any location where: φ = (2n + 1)π, Eq. 13 gives:

At these locations we have destructive interference.

The intensity of the resultant wave at any location is:

The amplitude of the resultant wave intensity will be, correspondingly:

(at the locations of constructive interference), and

(at the locations of destructive interference).

Thus, at the locations of constructive interference, the electric field vectors of the two waves/fields are parallel and in the same direction, and both the resultant field and the resultant wave intensity are maximum (Eqs. 14 and 17).

For two identical sources (E01 = E02): E0 = 2E01 and

For N identical sources:


This is why series of parallel RF/microwave antennas are often used to produce high-intensity beams in certain directions18.

At the locations of destructive interference the electric field vectors of the two waves are anti-parallel, and thus, both the resultant field and the resultant wave intensity are minimum (Eqs. 15 and 18). For identical sources (E01 = E02): E = 0, J = 0.

Thus, for N number of polarized coherent electromagnetic sources of the same polarization, frequency, and different intensities, with electric components E1, E2, …, EN, it comes that at the locations of constructive interference, the resultant electric field is the sum electric field from all the individual sources (e.g. antennas):

The bigger the number of coherent superimposed waves/fields (from the same or different sources), the higher and narrower the peaks18. That situation can create very sharp peaks of wave and field intensities at certain locations, not easily detectable by field meters, where any living organism may be exposed to peak electric and magnetic field intensities. Such locations of increased field/radiation intensity, also called “hot spots”, were recently detected within urban areas, due to wave/field superposition from mobile telephony base towers21. Any location along the midperpendicular to the distance d between two antennas is a location of constructive interference in the case of two identical antennas.

Thus, the difference between superposition of unpolarized and polarized electromagnetic waves/fields, is that while in the first case we have increased average wave intensity but zeroed net fields at any location, in the second case we have increased both wave intensity and fields at certain locations where constructive interference occurs. This difference is of crucial importance for understanding the differences in biological activity between natural and man-made EMFs/non-ionizing EMR.


All critical biomolecules are either electrically charged or polar11. While natural unpolarised EMF/EMR at any intensity cannot induce any specific/coherent oscillation on these molecules, polarized man-made EMFs/EMR will induce a coherent forced-oscillation on every charged/polar molecule within biological tissue. This is fundamental to our understanding of the biological phenomena. This oscillation will be most evident on the free (mobile) ions which carry a net electric charge and exist in large concentrations in all types of cells or extracellular tissue determining practically all cellular/biological functions11. Although all molecules oscillate randomly with much higher velocities due to thermal motion, this has no biological effect other than increase in tissue temperature. But a coherent polarized oscillation of even millions of times smaller energy than average thermal molecular energy26 can initiate biological effects.

A forced-oscillation of mobile ions, induced by an external polarized EMF, can result in irregular gating of electrosensitive ion channels on the cell membranes. That was described in detail in Panagopoulos et al.19,20. According to this theory – the plausibility of which in actual biological conditions was verified by numerical test27 – the forced-oscillation of ions in the vicinity of the voltage-sensors of voltage-gated ion channels can exert forces on these sensors equal to or greater than the forces known to physiologically gate these channels. Irregular gating of these channels can potentially disrupt any cell’s electrochemical balance and function11, leading to a variety of biological/health effects including the most detrimental ones, such as DNA damage, cell death, or cancer28.

Most cation channels (Ca+2, K+, Na+, etc) on the membranes of all animal cells, are voltage-gated11. They interconvert between open and closed state, when the electrostatic force on the electric charges of their voltage sensors due to transmembrane voltage changes, transcends some critical value. The voltage sensors of these channels are four symmetrically arranged, transmembrane, positively charged helical domains, each one designated S4. Changes in the transmembrane potential on the order of 30 mV are normally required to gate electrosensitive channels29,30. Several ions may interact simultaneously each moment with an S4 domain from a distance on the order of 1 nm, since – except for the single ion that may be passing through the channel pore when the channel is opened – a few more ions are bound close to the pore of the channel at specific ion-binding sites (e.g. three in potassium channels)31. Details on the structure and function of cation electrosensitive channels can be found in11,29,31.

Consider e.g. four potassium ions at distances on the order of 1 nm from the channel-sensors (S4), and an externally applied oscillating EMF/EMR. The electric (and the magnetic) force on each ion due to any unpolarized field is zero (Eq. 8). In contrast, the force due to a polarized field with an electrical component E, is F = Ezqe. For a sinusoidal alternating field Ε = Ε0 sin ωt, the movement equation of a free ion of mass mi, is19,20:

where r is the ion displacement due to the forced-oscillation, z is the ion’s valence (z = 1 for potassium ions), qe = 1.6×10−19 C the elementary charge, λ the damping coefficient for the ion displacement (calculated to have a value within a channel ), ω0 = 2πν0  (ν0  the ion’s oscillation self-frequency taken equal to the ion’s recorded spontaneous intracellular oscillation frequency on the order of 0.1 Hz),ω = 2πν (ν the frequency of the field/radiation), and E0 the amplitude of the field19,20.

The general solution of Eq. 22, is19,20:

The term in the solution, represents a constant displacement, but has no effect on the oscillating term . This constant displacement doubles the amplitude of the forced-oscillation at the moment when the field is applied or interrupted, or during its first and last periods, and the ion’s displacement will be twice the amplitude of the forced-oscillation. For pulsed fields (such as most fields of modern digital telecommunications) this will be taking place constantly with every repeated pulse. Thus, pulsed fields are – theoretically – twice more drastic than continuous/non-interrupted fields of the same other parameters, in agreement with several experimental data1,32.

The amplitude of the forced-oscillation (ignoring the constant term in Eq. 23), is:

The force acting on the effective charge q of an S4 domain, via an oscillating single-valence free cation, is: , (r is the distance of the free ion from the effective charge of S4). Each oscillating cation displaced by dr, induces a force on each S4 sensor:

While in the case of a non-polarized applied field , and , in the case of a polarized applied field, the sum force on the channel sensor from all four cations, is:

This is an even more crucial difference between polarized and unpolarized EMFs in regard to biological activity than the ability of interference.

The effective charge of each S4 domain is found to be: q = 1.7 qe30. The minimum force on this charge required normally to gate the channel – equal to the force generated by a change of 30 mV in the membrane potential30 – is calculated19 to be:

The displacement of one single-valence cation within the channel, necessary to exert this minimum force is calculated from Eq. 25 to be:

For 4 cations oscillating in phase and on parallel planes due to an external polarized field/radiation, the minimum displacement is decreased to: dr = 10−12 m.

Therefore, any external polarized oscillating EMF able to force free ions to oscillate with amplitude , is able to irregularly gate cation channels on cell membranes. For z = 1 (potassium ions), and substituting the values for qe, λ on the last condition, we get:

(ν in Hz, Ε0 in V/m)

For double-valence cations (z = 2) (e.g. Ca+2) the condition becomes,

(ν in Hz, Ε0 in V/m)

[An in depth description of the briefly presented mechanism can be found in19,20.]

For electric power fields (ν = 50 Hz), Condition 27 becomes,

Thus, power frequency EMFs with intensities exceeding 5 mV/m are potentially able to disrupt cell function. For N number of EMF-sources of the same polarization (e.g. N number of parallel power lines) the last value is divided by N (according to Eq. 19) at the locations of constructive interference, and thus even more decreased. Such minimum power frequency field intensity values are abundant in urban daily environments, and even more close to high-voltage power transmission lines7.

For pulsed fields the second part of Condition 27 is divided by 2, and becomes:

(ν in Hz, Ε0 in V/m).

For digital mobile telephony fields/radiation emitting ELF pulses with a pulse repetition frequency ν = 217 Hz (among other ELF frequencies they transmit)33, Condition 29 becomes:

For the pulse repetition frequency of ν = 8.34 Hz (also included in mobile telephony signals)33,34, Condition 29 becomes:

As is evident from the described mechanism, the field does not gate the channel by forces exerted directly on the channel sensors. It would take a field on the order of the transmembrane field (106–107 V/m) for that. It is the mediation of the oscillating free ions in close proximity to the S4 channel sensors that allows such weak fields to be able to exert the necessary forces to gate the channel.

Thus, ELF electric fields emitted by mobile phones and base stations stronger than 0.0004 V/m are also potentially able to disrupt the function of any living cell. This ELF intensity value is emitted by regular cell phones at distances up to a few meters and base stations at distances up to a few hundred meters6,34,35. For N number of mobile telephony antennas vertically oriented, the last value is divided by N(according to Eq. 19) at locations of constructive interference.

We do not distinguish between externally applied EMFs and internally induced ones within living tissue, especially in the case of ELF for the following reasons: 1. Living tissue is not metal to shield from electric fields and certainly is not ferromagnetic metal (Fe, Co, Ni) to shield from magnetic fields. Moreover, it is known that especially ELF fields cannot be easily shielded even by Faraday cages and in order to significantly minimize them it is recommended to totally enclose them in closed metal boxes6. Thus, ELF electric fields penetrate living tissue with certain degree of attenuation, and magnetic fields penetrate with zero attenuation. 2. Even in case that the ELF fields are significantly attenuated in the inner tissues of a living body, the eyes, the brain, the skin cells, or the myriads of nerve fiber terminals that end up on the outer epidermis, are directly exposed to the field intensities measured externally on the surface of the living tissue.

It has been shown that tissue preparations (such as bovine fibroblasts or chicken tendons) respond to externally applied pulsed or sinusoidal ELF electric fields (by changes in DNA or protein synthesis rates, proliferation rates, alignment with respect to the field direction, etc), at very low thresholds ~10−3 V/m1,36,37,38. These thresholds are very close to those predicted by the present study.

Except for direct electric field exposure by an external field, there can be an electric field within tissues induced by an externally applied oscillating magnetic one, which as explained penetrates living tissue with zero attenuation. Tuor et al.34 measured ELF magnetic fields from cell phones on the order of 1 G (=10−4 T) at 217 Hz. This can induce electric fields on the order of ~0.1 V/m within the human body, as can be shown by application of Maxwell’s law of electromagnetic induction:

(, , the magnetic and the induced electric field intensities respectively, an incremental length along a closed path l of induced electric field circulation enclosing a surface S. is the unit vector vertical to the surface S).

Assuming parallel to and independent of l, vertical to and independent of S, and l a circular path of radius α including the surfaceS, Eq. 32 becomes:

which gives:

(Eind in V/m, B in T, α in m).

By replacing in the last equation α = 0.20 m (a reasonably large radius for a circumference within an adult human body), and , [according to Tuor et al.34], we get Eind ~ 0.1 V/m. This is the induced electric field intensity within a human body by the 217 Hz pulses of mobile telephony, and it is about ten times larger than the minimum estimated value able to initiate biological effects at this frequency according to Condition 30.


In the present study we showed that polarized EMFs/EMR, such as every type of man-made EMF, have the ability to create interference effects and amplify their field intensities at specific locations where constructive interference occurs, and that this phenomenon cannot occur with natural EMFs/EMR which are not polarized.

Any location at equal distances from identical sources (antennas), in other words any location along the midperpendicular to the distance dbetween the two sources, is a location of constructive interference and increased field and wave intensities. As the number of sources (e.g. antennas) increases, the amplification of the resultant field intensities (E, B) at certain locations increases too (Eq. 19), and for a large number of sources field intensities may become very sharp. This explains theoretically the detected “hot spots” from mobile telephony base stations in urban environments21. The result of field superposition at those locations are standing waves (i.e. they do not change with time) when the two or more sources of the same polarization are in addition coherent (i.e. same frequency, same phase difference). Within biological tissue, at those locations of constructive interference we can have increased biological activity due to the polarized EMFs.

The most usual case is, when the multiple incident fields/waves are of the same polarization but not coherent (i.e. different frequency and/or varying phase difference), as e.g. the waves from all different radio, television, and mobile telephony antennas vertically oriented. Then, the resultant fields/waves are not standing but timely varying, creating momentary constructive interference at unpredictably different locations each moment. This fact may represent an extraordinary ability of man-made/polarized EMFs to trigger biological effects.

Using the forced-oscillation mechanism19,20 we showed that the resultant force exerted on the S4 sensors of electrosensitive ion channels on cell membranes by several ions forced to oscillate on parallel planes and in phase by an applied polarized EMF (and even more by constructively superimposed fields from several polarized EMF-sources), is able to irregularly gate these channels. The result can then be the disruption of the cell’s electrochemical balance, leading to a variety of biological/health effects28. This is in contrast to the null force exerted by any number of ions oscillating on non-parallel random planes and with different phases from each other due to any number of non-polarized applied EMFs, and in contrast to the null force exerted by the random thermal movement of the same ions20,26.

In experiments testing the role of different polarization types on the biological activity of RF EMR, exposure of E. coli to 51.76 GHz radiation resulted in inhibition of DNA repair when linear or right-handed circularly polarized radiation was used, while left-handed circularly polarized radiation caused no effects. Exposure to 41.32 GHz similar EMR was reported to reverse the effect: In this case, only linear or left-handed circularly polarized radiation inhibited the DNA repair39. In both frequencies, the right-handed or the left-handed circularly polarized radiation induced a greater effect than the linearly polarized radiation. When the structure of the DNA was altered by ethidium bromide intercalation, a change in intensity of the effect of polarization was reported40. Chromatin condensation (a sign of cell death) was induced by elliptically polarized 36.65 GHz microwave radiation. The effect increased with intensity. Right-handed polarization induced a stronger effect than left-handed41. These experiments show that not only linear but circular and elliptical polarizations are important parameters for the biological action of EMR, and that molecular structure of biomolecules may be important for the interaction between polarized EMF and the biological tissue. In all these studies there was no comparison with unpolarised field of identical other parameters, but only comparison between different types of polarization. Again, it is important to note that circularly and elliptically polarized 50–60 Hz EMFs are formed around 3-phase power transmission lines.

Experiments with non-polarized and polarized EMFs/EMR of identical other characteristics (intensity, frequency, waveform, etc) on certain biological models should be performed to test the validity of the present theoretical study. This should be the subject of a future experimental study.

The present theoretical analysis shows that polarized man-made EMFs/EMR can trigger biological effects while much stronger and of higher energy (frequency) unpolarized EMFs/Non-Ionizing EMR (e.g. heat, or natural light) cannot.

This is the reason why polarized microwave radiation of maximum power 1 W emitted by a mobile phone can damage DNA and cause adverse health effects2,3,5,6,35, while non-polarized infrared, visible, and ultraviolet radiation from a 100 W light bulb, or ~400 W infrared and visible EMR from a human body14,16, cannot. Similarly with solar EMR the intensity of which incident on a human body (~8–24 mW/cm2) is hundreds of times higher than radiation intensity incident from e.g. a cell phone on a user’s head/body during a usual phone-conversation with the handset in touch with the head (less than 0.2 mW/cm2), or incident intensities from other RF, ELF sources of human technology6,7,12,13. The total daily duration of human exposure to the sunlight is also much longer normally than the total daily duration of cell phone exposure during conversations5,6,12,13. Moreover the frequency (energy) of sunlight is also significantly larger than any man-made RF or ELF frequencies. Yet, there are no adverse biological effects due to normal/non-excessive exposure to sunlight. On the contrary, it is beneficial and vital/necessary for human/animal health, in contrast to cell phone radiation. Similarly, there are no adverse biological effects due to exposure (mainly in the infrared and visible regions) from one human body to another (with an incident intensity ~20 mW/cm2)16. Although all animals on Earth have adapted throughout evolution to exposures to EMFs from the sun and the earth, these fields are non-polarized (even though natural light may become partially polarized in a small average degree due to atmospheric scattering or reflections). Moreover, terrestrial electric and magnetic fields are mainly static, emitting very weak non-polarized ELF radiation due to slight variations in their intensities. However, larger variations on the order of 20% of their normal intensities due to solar activity with a periodicity of about 11 years result in increase of human/animal health incidents15. Therefore, living organisms on Earth are adapted to natural (non-polarized or even partially polarized) EMFs since the beginning of life, but not to variations in their normal intensities on the order of 20%, and thus we would not expect them to adapt to man-made (totally polarized) EMFs/EMR. The present study explained how this difference in polarization results in corresponding differences in biological activity between natural and man-made EMFs.

Increased biological activity does not necessarily result in observable biological/health effects, since there are adaptive mechanisms operating at cellular-tissue-organism levels in response to ever occurring changes. However, these mechanisms may not always be totally effective, especially when the organism is under additional stress or increased metabolic needs (e.g. sickness, childhood/development, old age, etc.). Then exposure to polarized (man-made) EMFs may considerably increase the probability for the initiation of adverse health effects. The effect of polarized EMF-exposure may even be beneficial in certain cases of applied static or pulsed electric or magnetic fields of specified orientation and intensities that enhance the action of endogenous physiological fields within living cells/organisms e.g. during development, wound healing, bone fracture healing etc.38,42.

The role of polarization in the ability of EMFs/non-ionizing EMR to induce biological effects, as described in the present study, is – up to today – largely underestimated in the EMF-bioeffects literature. Thus, we believe that the present study contributes significantly towards a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying EMF-bioeffects.


How to cite this article: Panagopoulos, D. J. et al. Polarization: A Key Difference between Man-made and Natural Electromagnetic Fields, in regard to Biological Activity. Sci. Rep. 5, 14914; doi: 10.1038/srep14914 (2015).


  1. Goodman, E. M., Greenebaum, B. & Marron, M. T. Effects of Electro- magnetic Fields on Molecules and Cells. International Review of Cytology 158, 279–338 (1995).

  2. Phillips, J. L., Singh, N. P. & Lai, H. Electromagnetic fields and DNA damage. Pathophysiology 16, 79–88 (2009).
  3. Blackman, C. Cell phone radiation: Evidence from ELF and RF studies supporting more inclusive risk identification and assessment. Pathophysiology 16, 205–16 (2009).
  4. Johansson, O. 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, 157–77 (2009).
  5. Khurana, V. G., Teo, C., Kundi, M., Hardell, L. & Carlberg, M. Cell phones and brain tumors: a review including the long-term epidemiologic data. Surgical Neurology 72, 205–14 (2009).

  6. Panagopoulos, D. J. “Analyzing the Health Impacts of Modern Telecommunications Microwaves”, In Berhardt, L. V. (Ed),Advances in Medicine and Biology Vol. 17, Nova Science Publishers, Inc., New York, USA (2011).
  7. Panagopoulos, D. J., Karabarbounis, A. & Lioliousis, C. ELF Alternating Magnetic Field Decreases Reproduction by DNA Damage Induction. Cell Biochemistry and Biophysics 67, 703–716 (2013).
  8. IARC. Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 1: Static and Extremely Low-Frequency (ELF) Electric and Magnetic Fields, Vol. 80 (2002).
  9. IARC. Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, Vol. 102 (2013).
  10. Hodgkin, A. L. & Huxley, A. F. A quantitative description of membrane current and its application to conduction and excitation in nerve. J. Physiol. 117, 500–544 (1952).
  11. Alberts, B. et al. Molecular Biology of the Cell, Garland Publishing, Inc., N.Y., USA (1994).
  12. Roller, W. L. & Goldman, R. F. Prediction of solar heat load on man. Journal of Applied Physiology 25, 717–721 (1968).
  13. Parsons, K. C. Human thermal environments, Taylor and Francis, London (1993).
  14. Presman, A. S. Electromagnetic Fields and Life, Plenum Press, New York (1977).
  15. Dubrov, A. P. The Geomagnetic Field and Life – Geomagnetobiology, Plenum Press, New York (1978).
  16. Gulyaev, Yu. V., Markov, A. G., Koreneva, L. G. & Zakharov, P. V.Dynamical infrared thermography in humans, Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, IEEE 14, 766–771 (1995).
  17. Beiser, A. Concepts of Modern Physics, McGraw-Hill, Inc (1987).
  18. Alonso, M. & Finn, E. J. Fundamental University Physics, Vol. 2: Fields and Waves, Addison-Wesley, USA (1967).
  19. Panagopoulos, D. J., Messini, N., Karabarbounis, A., Filippetis, A. L. & Margaritis, L. H. A Mechanism for Action of Oscillating Electric Fields on Cells, Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 272, 634–640 (2000).
  20. Panagopoulos, D. J., Karabarbounis, A. & Margaritis, L. H.Mechanism for Action of Electromagnetic Fields on Cells,Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 298, 95–102 (2002).
  21. Sangeetha, M., Purushothaman, B. M. & Suresh Babu, S.“Estimating cell phone signal intensity and identifying Radiation Hotspot Area for Tirunel Veli Taluk using RS and GIS”,International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology 3, 412–418 (2014).
  22. Arago, D. F. J. & Fresnel, A. J. “On the action of rays of polarized light upon each other”, Ann. Chim. Phys. 2, 288–304 (1819).
  23. Pohl, R. (1960) “Discovery of Interference by Thomas Young”, Am. J. Phys. 28, 530
  24. Chen, H. S. & Rao, C. R. N. Polarization of light on reflection by some natural surfaces. Brit. J. Appl. Phys. 1, 1191–1200 (1968).
  25. Cronin, T. W., Warrant, E. J. & Greiner, B. Celestial polarization patterns during twilight. Applied Optics 22, 5582–5589 (2006).
  26. Panagopoulos, D. J., Johansson, Ο. & Carlo, G. L. Evaluation of Specific Absorption Rate as a Dosimetric Quantity for Electromagnetic Fields Bioeffects. PLoS ONE 8, e62663, 10.1371/journal.pone.0062663 (2013).
  27. Halgamuge, M. N. & Abeyrathne, C. D. A Study of Charged Particle’s Behavior in a Biological Cell Exposed to AC-DC Electromagnetic Fields, Environmental Engineering Science 28, 1–10 (2011).
  28. Pall, M. L. Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects. J Cell Mol Med 17, 958–65 (2013).
  29. Noda, M. et al. Existence of distinct sodium channel messenger RNAs in rat brain. Nature 320, 188–192 (1986).
  30. Liman, E. R., Hess, P., Weaver, F. & Koren, G. Voltage-sensing residues in the S4 region of a mammalian K+ channel. Nature 353, 752–756 (1991).
  31. Miller, C. “An overview of the potassium channel family”. Genome Biology 1, 1–5 (2000).
  32. Penafiel, L. M., Litovitz, T., Krause, D., Desta, A. & Mullins, J. M.Role of Modulation on the effects of microwaves on ornithine decarboxylase activity in L929 cells. Bioelectromagnetics 18, 132–141 (1997).
  33. Tisal, J. GSM Cellular Radio Telephony, J. Wiley & Sons, West Sussex, England (1998).
  34. Tuor, M., Ebert, S., Schuderer, J. & Kuster, N. Assessment of ELF Exposure from GSM Handsets and Development of an Optimized RF/ELF Exposure Setup for Studies of Human Volunteers, BAG Reg. No. 2.23.02.-18/02.001778, IT’IS Foundation (2005).
  35. Panagopoulos, D. J., Chavdoula, E. D. & Margaritis, L. H. Bioeffects of Mobile Telephony Radiation in relation to its Intensity or Distance from the Antenna. International Journal of Radiation Biology 86, 345–357 (2010).
  36. McLeod, K. J., Lee, R. C. & Ehrlich, H. P. Frequency dependence of electric field modulation of fibroblast protein synthesis. Science236, 1465–9 (1987).
  37. Cleary, S. F., Liu, L. M., Graham, R. & Diegelmann, R. F. Modulation of tendon fibroplasia by exogenous electric currents.Bioelectromagnetics 9, 183–94 (1988).
  38. Lee, R. C., Canaday, D. J. & Doong, H. A review of the biophysical basis for the clinical application of electric fields in soft-tissue repair. Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation 14, 319–335 (1993).
  39. Belyaev, I. Y., Alipov, Y. D. & Shcheglov, V. S. Chromosome DNA as a target of resonant interaction between Escherichia coli cells and low-intensity millimeter waves. Electro- and Magnetobiology11, 97–108 (1992).
  40. Ushakov, V. L., Shcheglov, V. S., Belyaev, I. Y. & Harms-Ringdahl, M. Combined effects of circularly polarized microwaves and ethidium bromide on E. coli cells. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 18, 233–242 (1999).
  41. Shckrobatov, Y. G. et al. Effects of differently polarized microwave radiation on the microscopic structure of the nuclei in human fibroblasts. J Zhejiang Univ-Sci B (Biomed & Biotechnol) 11, 801–805 (2010).
  42. Panagopoulos, D. J. “Electromagnetic Interaction between Environmental Fields and Living Systems determines Health and Well-Being”, In Electromagnetic Fields: Principles, Engineering Applications and Biophysical Effects, Nova Science Publishers, New York, USA (2013).


The study was supported by the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, the Irish Doctors Environmental Association, and the Alliance for Irish Radiation Protection. Dr Panagopoulos wishes to thank Drs G. Pantelias and A. Stubos at the National Center for Scientific Research “Demokritos”, Athens, Greece. Prof. Johansson wishes to thank Einar Rasmussen, Norway, and Brian Stein, UK, for their general support.



  1. National Center for Scientific Research “Demokritos”, Athens, Greece

    • Dimitris J. Panagopoulos
  2. Department of Biology, University of Athens, Greece

    • Dimitris J. Panagopoulos
  3. Radiation and Environmental Biophysics Research Centre, Greece

    • Dimitris J. Panagopoulos
  4. Experimental Dermatology Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden

    • Olle Johansson
  5. The Science and Public Policy Institute, Institute for Healthful Adaptation, Washington, DC, USA

    • George L. Carlo


Analyzed the data: D.J.P., O.J. and G.L.C. Wrote and reviewed the paper: D.J.P., O.J. and G.L.C. Conceived and designed the study: D.J.P. Wrote equations and Performed calculations: D.J.P.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dimitris J. Panagopoulos.



Q&A – Olle Johansson Health effects of electromagnetic fields by Open Mind Conference – Denmark 2014

[In questo video il prof. Olle Johansson risponde a domande su esposizione a CEM e possibili danni alla salute, rivoltegli dal pubblico al termine della Open Mind Conference di Copenhagen del 2014.]

Pubblicato il 04 ottobre 2015

Olle Johansson at the Open Mind Conference 2014, Copenhagen.

“Health effects of electromagnetic fields”.

Olle Johansson is associate professor at the Experimental Dermatology Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

He is a leading authority in the field of EMF radiation and health effects. He has also been a professor in basic and clinical neuroscience at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm.

He has published more than 650 original articles, reviews, book chapters and conference reports within the field of basic and applied neuroscience, dermatoscience and health effects of electromagnetic fields.

His studies have been widely recognised in the media, including newspapers, radio and TV, as well as on the Internet, both nationally and internationally. He has on-going international scientific collaborations with e.g. Japan, Brazil, South Africa, Serbia, Germany, the UK and the USA.

Olle Johansson’s presentation covers the historic background of electricity and electromagnetic fields, how suspicions arose early on concerning fields and signals producing negative health effects and how this led to today’s global public discussion about the subject. It will also touch upon the functional impairment electro hypersensitivity.

The lecture will go into depth about the scientific research results regarding the health effects of electromagnetic fields and the urgent need for independent research projects that need to be initiated to ensure our public health.

These projects should be entirely independent of all types of commercial interests as public health cannot have a price-tag. This is the responsibility of the democratically elected body of every country.

The body of evidence on EMF requires a new approach to protection of public health; the growth and development of the fetus, and of children; and argues for strong preventative actions. These conclusions are built upon prior scientific and public health reports documenting the following:

1) Low-intensity (non-thermal) bioeffects and adverse health effects are demonstrated at levels significantly below existing exposure standards.

2) ICNIRP and IEEE/FCC public safety limits are inadequate and obsolete with respect to prolonged, low-intensity exposures.

3) New, biologically-based public exposure standards are urgently needed to protect public health world-wide. 4) It is not in the public interest to wait.

Protect children from EMF.


Electromagn Biol Med. 2015 Sep;34(3):251-6. doi: 10.3109/15368378.2015.1077339.

Markov M1, Grigoriev Y2.

1Research International , Williamsville , NY , USA and.
2Russian National Committee for Protection from Nonionizing Radiation , Russia.


Article history
Published: September 2015

Children protection
Wi-Fi radiation


The twenty-first century is marked with aggressive development of the wireless communications (satellite, mobile phones, Internet, Wi-Fi). In addition to thousand of satellites that deliver radio and TV signals, large satellite and base station networks secure intensive instant delivery of audio and video information. It is fair to say that that the entire civilization, both biosphere and mankind are exposed to continuous exposure of multitude of radiofrequency (RF) signals. It should be taken into account that the entire world population is exposed to exponentially increasing RF radiation from base stations and satellite antennas. While several years ago the potential hazard was connected with placement of mobile phones close to human head, today “smart phones” represent small, but powerful computers continuously receiving audio and video data. The largest group of users is the children and teenagers who “need” to communicate nearly 24 h a day. This is even more important because cell phones and tablets may be seen in the hands of children as little as two years in age. There is no way to assess and predict the potential damages of children brain, vision and hearing under exposure to RF radiation. The WHO precautionary principle and IARC classification must be applied in discussing the potential hazard of the use of today’s and tomorrow’s communication devices.


Elettrosmog e disturbi cognitivi

[Video in Inglese con sottotitoli in Italiano non corretto ma comunque comprensibili.]

Pubblicato il 02 giu 2012

Intervista alla dott.ssa Adamantia F. Fragopoulou dell’Università di Atene sui suoi ultimi studi in merito agli effetti dei Campi Elettromagnetici.
La scienziata spiega come siano stati riscontrati disturbi nella memoria spaziale, di riconoscimento e di lavoro nei topi esposti alle microonde di cellulari, Wi-Fi, telefoni cordless e altre fonti di Elettrosmog.
La stessa scienziata consiglia di avere prudenza con queste tecnologie per evitare problemi di salute (disturbi di memoria, disturbi del sonno, cefalea, ecc. fino a danni organici seri come il cancro).
Viene anche segnalata la situazione di criticità per professioni a rischio come piloti di aereo e controllori aerei, che costituisce un pericolo nell’ambito delle operazioni aeree.

Elettrosensibilità: il caso di una donna inglese allergica all’elettricità

20 maggio 2011 – “”, di Alessandra Profilio

[Articolo un po’ datato che abbiamo pensato di pubblicare per avere occasione di portare l’attenzione su un paio di criticità.
La prima è che se fino a qualche anno fa si poteva parlare di Elettrosensibilità come di una “rara condizione”, attualmente non si può più fare altrettanto in quanto i casi sono in allarmante aumento*.
Sempre più persone stanno contattando la nostra associazione in cerca di sostegno e questo è dovuto alla crescente esposizione ai CEM cui è sottoposta la popolazione.
Altro punto critico è il fatto che ai malati venga negata ogni forma di aiuto come nel caso della donna citata nell’articolo.
Dalla pubblicazione di questo ultimo sono passati quattro anni ed alcune sentenze sono state emesse in favore degli Elettrosensibili, ma ancora lunga sembra essere la strada da percorrere: 
in tanti paesi la malattia continua a non essere riconosciuta come dipendente dalla esposizione ai Campi Elettromagnetici e viene invece considerata di origine psicosomatica; solo Svezia e Svizzera riconoscono il nesso di causalità, il conseguente stato di inabilità e forniscono aiuti concreti ai soggetti affetti.
Capiamo benissimo che la presa in carico dei malati sia estremamente gravosa e quindi si cerchi di liquidare il problema negandone la esistenza, ma sfortunatamente é reale ed è inaccettabile, nonché disumano, che così tante persone siano lasciate a loro stesse nel gestire un dramma di vita enorme il quale, vogliamo sottolinearlo, è causato da chi abita intorno a loro ed usa la tecnologia in modo sconsiderato.

* Secondo stime riportate da numerose survey internazionali. Ed anche solo applicando i dati di maggiore sottostima (3%), attualmente in Italia circa 2.000.000 di persone soffrono di Elettrosensibilità con sintomatologie diversificate per intensità, durata e frequenza nel tempo)]

Immaginate di vivere senza luce, cellulare, televisione, internet ed elettricità. Immaginate, insomma, di rinunciare a tutti i comfort tecnologici che ci circondano per condurre una vita d’altri tempi. Qualcuno, oggi, sceglie una simile esistenza consapevolmente, ma non è questo il caso di Janice Tunnicliffe.Questa signora britannica di 55 anni è infatti affetta da una condizione rarissima, chiamata ‘elettrosensibilità’. In pratica la donna è allergica ai campi elettromagnetici rilasciati da tutti gli apparecchi elettrici. La donna, madre di due figli e sopravvissuta a un cancro, sta male in presenza della tecnologia, che le provoca mal di testa, dolori al petto, nausea, formicolii a gambe e braccia. Soltanto nei weekend, quanto va in campagna, “si rilassa un attimo”.

Janice non puo guardare la tv, non può ascoltare la radio, navigare sul web o usare il cellulare. La sua casa è diversa da quelle moderne di oggi e appare più simile a una casa del Medioevo: non c’è il frigorifero, il congelatore o il computer. La donna trascorre le serate a lume di candela, giocando a scarabeo o a scacchi.

Come raccontano diversi quotidiani britannici, il malessere di Janice Tunnicliffe è cominciato dopo un ciclo di chemioterapia a cui la donna si è dovuta sottoporre circa tre anni fa. Il trattamento le ha lasciato in eredità questa rara condizione chiamata elettrosensibilità. I campi elettromagnetici, innescati da apparecchi in funzione, possono provocare reazioni anche gravi.

La donna è venuta a conoscenza dell’elettrosensibilità tramite internet e con gli anni ha imparato da sola a gestire la sua condizione: lamenta, infatti, di non aver mai trovato ascolto nei medici. Il servizio sanitario britannico si è rifiutato di pagarle il trattamento in un ospedale privato specializzato. Secondo la maggior parte dei medici in Gran Bretagna, l’elettrosensibilità è infatti considerata un disturbo psicosomatico. Secondo Powerwatch, un’organizzazione di ricerca sugli effetti dei campi elettromagnetici, il 3-4% della popolazione può avere una qualche reazione ‘allergica’ alla tecnologia, ma soltanto pochi al livello di Mrs Tunnicliffe


First US Public School District Limits Wi-Fi Radiation Exposure to Students and Staff

[Indubbiamente all’Estero sta crescendo la consapevolezza dei rischi correlati all’uso del Wireless, che danneggia maggiormente i soggetti in via di sviluppo.
E’ per questo che, in un numero crescente di realtà scolastiche, stanno venendo adottati comportamenti che mettono in pratica il cosiddetto “Principio di Precauzione”.
Nelle scuole pubbliche di Ashland, Massachusetts, hanno ad esempio implementato le pratiche per una migliore gestione dei dispositivi Wi-Fi, le quali includono lo spegnere il Wi-Fi quando non lo si utilizza ed il tenere i dispositivi su un tavolo ad adeguata distanza dall’utilizzatore.]

Ashland, Massachusetts Public Schools have implemented Wi-Fi Device “Best Practices” which include turning the Wi-Fi off when not in use and keeping devices on a table.

This press release was orginally distributed by SBWire

Ashland, MA — (SBWIRE) — 09/28/2015 — Based on its own review of the matter, the Ashland Public School District is reducing wireless radiation exposures to children by instituting district wide “best practices for mobile devices”. Spurred by parent Cecelia Doucette’s concerns about the lack of safety data on Wi-Fi and children, the district investigated the issue and developed a policy to substantially reduce wireless exposures to students and staff. Doucette not only brought the issue to the district’s attention, but then also worked with state legislatures who introduced two bills concerning electromagnetic radiation this session. The Environmental Health Trust submitted written testimony on MA Senate Bill 1222 after expert scientists presented information on wireless health risks at a briefing at the Massachusetts State House in June 2015.

Since wireless devices are constantly emitting radiation even when the user is not using the Internet, the instruction to “turn it off when not in use ” stops the Wi-Fi antennas from continuously emitting radiation and is one simple way to reduce the radiation dose and exposure time for children and staff.

Instructions for “Best Practices” are posted in every classroom and include:

– Turn off the device when not in use
– Turn Wi-Fi on only when needed
– Always place the mobile device on a solid surface
– Viewing distance should be a minimum of 12 inches from the screen
– Specific product information guides are available through the IT department
– We ask that staff members regularly remind and instruct students in using best practices in regards to mobile devices

Ashland’s Best Practice of “keeping the device on a table” and no closer than a 12 inch viewing distance is critically important. Laptops and tablets have fine print warnings buried in their manuals specifically stating that the laptop should be at least 8 inches away from the user so that the user is not exposed to radiation levels that exceed as-tested FCC levels. If a device is used on a lap, as is common practice, the student could receive radiation levels far exceeding FCC limits. FCC limits are set to prevent the radiation from heating the brain and body but are not set to avoid chronic impacts on the developing nervous system or reproductive organs.

Many are unaware of FCC fine print advisories in the manuals of every wireless device confirming as-tested distances set to avoid heating. Cell phones, laptops and even baby monitors have these specific instructions in their product information guides. By referring to the product information guides, Ashland Public Schools are informing people about the need to keep a distance between the device and our bodies. As a public service, Environmental Health Trust (EHT) has compiled these fine print warnings on their website

It is important to note that even if users comply with these FCC recommended distances as stated in the device manual, accumulating research shows that biological damage can occur from wireless radiation levels far lower than these FCC levels. FCC limits are only set to protect people from heating harm and do not address non-thermal effects.

This ground breaking policy action by the Massachusetts school district is indicative of the wave of parents raising concerns about Wi-Fi across the country. Ashland, Massachusetts parent Cecelia Doucette wrote an article in Ashland Local Town Pages about these new best practices. Significant news and print media have picked the issue up after Massachusetts parents filed a lawsuit against a private boarding school alleging the school did not accommodate their 12-year-old child’s diagnosed debilitating sensitivity to the school’s WiFi system.

Ashland is the first US public school to create such policy on wireless transmitting devices. However, this US Massachusetts school district now joins dozens of schools and governments that have already implemented even more stringent measures to reduce wireless exposure to children. For example, Israel and France have banned Wi-Fi in kindergarten. The European Union recommends wired Internet rather than wireless in schools.

“Right To Know” efforts by local governments are also moving across the United States. A judge just upheld Berkeley’s new Cell Phone Right To Know Ordinance which requires cell phone sellers to tell customers about these FCC radio frequency radiation distances.

Suffolk County in New York voted to label wireless routers in all public buildings including schools. The US United Federation of Teachers Union now hosts a webpage on how to reduce exposures to protect pregnant women, other staff members and students.

The Environmental Health Trust maintains a regularly updated database of these worldwide precautionary policies on wireless related to children and schools.

About Environmental Health Trust
Environmental Health Trust (EHT) educates individuals, health professionals and communities about controllable environmental health risks and policy changes needed to reduce those risks. Currently EHT is raising health concerns about wireless in schools and recommending safer hardwired internet connection installations. The foundation’s website is the go-to place for clear, science-based information to prevent disease.

Please visit and on Facebook

For more information on this press release visit:

Media Relations Contact

Janet Vasquez
Founder and Managing Director
JV Public Relations NY Inc.
Telephone: 212-645-5498
Email: Click to Email Janet Vasquez

Read more: