Cellular Phone Electromagnetic Field Effects on Bioelectric Activity of Human Brain
Starmail - 14. Aug, 17:10
Wissenschaft zu Mobilfunk
14
Aug
2005
13
Aug
2005
On the Non-ionizing Radiation Red Herring
Response to Lloyd Morgan’s message from Iris Atzmon:
Don,
Lloyd wanted responses from the public, I think it would be very interesting for him to read what Dr. Robert Kane has written about the ionizing/ non-ionizing and the mechanism, Lloyd and Kane complement each others messages:
http://www.emfbioeffects.org/images/RedHerring.doc
Regards, Iris.
Note: Robert Kane is the author of “Cellular telephone Russian Roulette”
On the Non-ionizing Radiation Red Herring
Robert Kane
Reports relating radiofrequency (RF) energy exposures to humans seem inevitably to note distinctions between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. For those not formally trained as scientific researchers, and even for non-physicist bioeffects professionals, there persists a notion that this demarcation, ionizing versus non-ionizing, establishes some barrier separating hazardous from non-hazardous exposures. The common argument holds that since x-rays and ultraviolet rays are ionizing radiations known to cause various kinds of cancers that it must only be ionizing radiation that causes cancer. The truth of the matter is that researchers don’t know that the ionizing capability of the radiation is the causative mechanism.
Ionization as it is referred to in this context means the liberating of an electron from an atom. Only electromagnetic radiation of sufficient energy can liberate an electron from an atom. For metals, such as gold or copper, the concept of ionization energies is straightforward and describes the effect of absorption of photons within the material. However, in biologic systems comprised of complex organs, cell structures, and extensive molecules such as DNA the restriction of disruptive effects via ionization is entirely removed. In short, maintaining and professing a belief that only ionizing radiation holds a capability to damage tissue is of itself without scientific foundation.
In fact, the scattering of ionizing radiation throughout biological tissue efficiently breaks the covalent bonds that are the basis for construction of organic molecules. It may well be this effect and not the inherent ionizing capability of a particular frequency or wavelength that gives rise to initiation or promotion of cancers. It’s somewhat like a bullet shot into a concrete room and ricocheting from the walls, ceiling and floor. Each time the bullet hits a surface it loses a little energy while continuing to bounce about until the energy is fully spent. For a high-energy photon scattering through living tissue, each of the multiple contacts leaves behind some energy that can destroy the bonds that form the molecules.
The distinction between ionizing and non-ionizing loses all meaning for biological applications. The ionization potential refers to the photoelectric effect whereby an electron is liberated from an atom or dissociated from an atom in an ionic molecule and is accomplished via a single photon absorption event.
By contrast, of interest for biological applications is the energy necessary to disrupt one or more covalent bonds of which the biological system is comprised. For example, covalent bonds in human tissue may be disrupted at energy levels hundreds of times lower than necessary for ionization.
In the presence of an exogenous energy source of sufficient magnitude sequential photon absorption may lead to continually increasing excited energy states until bond disruption occurs. No such comparable mechanism or effect is available for ionization since the allowed energy states do not provide for sequential photon absorption to achieve ionization. It’s like the old saying, “you can’t get there from here”. Well, for the ionization argument it’s true. RF energy doesn’t let you get to ionization. But, most important is that ionization never has been the threshold. Clearly, by now we must all agree that it is not necessary to ionize a DNA molecule to disrupt one or more of the molecule’s covalent bonds. For the instance of covalent bond disruption in complex molecules the energy may be provided by means other than single photon absorption. And since that is accepted the ionizing/non-ionizing argument becomes inconsequential.
Single atoms have well defined and distinct energy bands that allow only specific energy states for the electrons. In order to ionize, eject an electron, it is necessary to provide a photon having sufficient energy to move the electron from an allowed energy state to a completely free state in one step. Multiple photon absorption is not permitted. This is the basis for the photoelectric effect - i.e. ionization.
Atoms in close proximity to one another establish a more complex system of allowed energy states. As atoms move close together the probability density functions indicate that there is some overlap and energy band shifting occurs. That is, additional allowed energy states are created due to the proximity of multiple atoms. For complex macromolecules, such as human DNA comprised of many thousands of interrelated atoms, the allowed energy states form a virtual continuum. The complex energy state structure of macromolecules provides for a significantly different energy absorption and dissipation profile. This energy state structure is so dissimilar from the single atom picture that it makes it impossible to apply the ionization argument.
RF energy absorption in biologic tissue takes place via an energy conversion process. Photon energy is converted to phonon energy better known as heat energy. Phonon energy is more familiarly observed as vibrational, translational, or rotational motion of atoms constrained by their covalent bonds. The absorbed energy may either reside at the absorption site, in which case the site is said to be in an excited state, or the energy may be dispersed through the system. If RF energy is incident at a rate that is greater than the energy dispersion rate then subsequent photon absorptions at any particular site, which has experienced a prior absorption event, will lead to a change in energy state to a second higher allowed energy level. Succeeding photon energy absorptions may continue up to the point where the covalent bond ceases to exist by virtue of the increasingly excited energy state.
Although the energy conversion process yields heat energy - phonon energy - there need not be any measurable temperature variation. In fact, the very use of the distinctions between thermal and non-thermal, or athermal is another “red herring”. Since all energy absorption is thermal by nature there is, strictly speaking, no such thing as non-thermal or athermal energy absorption.
Instead, when speaking of energy absorption it may be more appropriate to speak of measurable or not measurable temperature rise. In either case there is an increase in thermal energy whether it be on the order of pico-joules (immeasurable by typical thermometric means) or milli-joules.
RF energy photons are particularly suited for deep penetration into human tissue. Infrared, visible light, and ultraviolet radiation does not penetrate human tissue to any appreciable extent. However, the penetration capabilities of RF radiation puts it in the same category as x-ray radiation, which is also a deep penetrating energy. This penetrating characteristic of x-ray radiation and RF radiation provides that a single photon of x-ray energy may scatter through the tissue or molecule and disrupt many, many covalent bonds even without liberating an electron from an atom (in other words an ionizing event is not required) while RF radiation may be less extensive in bond disruptions until exposures are encountered that overcome inherent energy dispersion mechanisms. In essence the effects can be identical - the disruption of covalent bonds is essentially what destroys DNA molecules and genetic information and leads to neo-plastic transformation of cells.
Although a single x-ray photon may destroy molecular bonds RF energy can effect damage by multiple photon absorption. For example, a cell phone emits about 8.9 x 1021 photons per second per square centimeter at the surface of the human head. For those unfamiliar with the scientific notation of that number, its magnitude appears more dramatic when written in standard notation as 8,900,000,000,000,000,000,000 photons per square centimeter per second.
Consider, then, that the energy from each and every photon absorbed will disturb the equilibrium of the system while the energy is being diffused and dispersed. Biological systems, and in particular the human brain do not have the capability to handle the massive dose of photon energy coming from such radiation absorption. Under normal circumstances, when not exposed to high doses of RF energy, the body compensates for naturally occurring damages. During high dose RF energy exposures the biological protection and repair mechanisms may be overwhelmed and irreparable disruptions, caused by the radiation, lead to widespread submicroscopic damage including permanent DNA damage.
It will serve as little comfort to know that exposure to cell phone towers provides an RF energy dose only slightly lower at about 7 x 1018 photons per square centimeter per second (7,000,000,000,000,000,000) and that’s at a distance of a few hundred feet from the tower.
http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/index.php?p=173
Don,
Lloyd wanted responses from the public, I think it would be very interesting for him to read what Dr. Robert Kane has written about the ionizing/ non-ionizing and the mechanism, Lloyd and Kane complement each others messages:
http://www.emfbioeffects.org/images/RedHerring.doc
Regards, Iris.
Note: Robert Kane is the author of “Cellular telephone Russian Roulette”
On the Non-ionizing Radiation Red Herring
Robert Kane
Reports relating radiofrequency (RF) energy exposures to humans seem inevitably to note distinctions between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. For those not formally trained as scientific researchers, and even for non-physicist bioeffects professionals, there persists a notion that this demarcation, ionizing versus non-ionizing, establishes some barrier separating hazardous from non-hazardous exposures. The common argument holds that since x-rays and ultraviolet rays are ionizing radiations known to cause various kinds of cancers that it must only be ionizing radiation that causes cancer. The truth of the matter is that researchers don’t know that the ionizing capability of the radiation is the causative mechanism.
Ionization as it is referred to in this context means the liberating of an electron from an atom. Only electromagnetic radiation of sufficient energy can liberate an electron from an atom. For metals, such as gold or copper, the concept of ionization energies is straightforward and describes the effect of absorption of photons within the material. However, in biologic systems comprised of complex organs, cell structures, and extensive molecules such as DNA the restriction of disruptive effects via ionization is entirely removed. In short, maintaining and professing a belief that only ionizing radiation holds a capability to damage tissue is of itself without scientific foundation.
In fact, the scattering of ionizing radiation throughout biological tissue efficiently breaks the covalent bonds that are the basis for construction of organic molecules. It may well be this effect and not the inherent ionizing capability of a particular frequency or wavelength that gives rise to initiation or promotion of cancers. It’s somewhat like a bullet shot into a concrete room and ricocheting from the walls, ceiling and floor. Each time the bullet hits a surface it loses a little energy while continuing to bounce about until the energy is fully spent. For a high-energy photon scattering through living tissue, each of the multiple contacts leaves behind some energy that can destroy the bonds that form the molecules.
The distinction between ionizing and non-ionizing loses all meaning for biological applications. The ionization potential refers to the photoelectric effect whereby an electron is liberated from an atom or dissociated from an atom in an ionic molecule and is accomplished via a single photon absorption event.
By contrast, of interest for biological applications is the energy necessary to disrupt one or more covalent bonds of which the biological system is comprised. For example, covalent bonds in human tissue may be disrupted at energy levels hundreds of times lower than necessary for ionization.
In the presence of an exogenous energy source of sufficient magnitude sequential photon absorption may lead to continually increasing excited energy states until bond disruption occurs. No such comparable mechanism or effect is available for ionization since the allowed energy states do not provide for sequential photon absorption to achieve ionization. It’s like the old saying, “you can’t get there from here”. Well, for the ionization argument it’s true. RF energy doesn’t let you get to ionization. But, most important is that ionization never has been the threshold. Clearly, by now we must all agree that it is not necessary to ionize a DNA molecule to disrupt one or more of the molecule’s covalent bonds. For the instance of covalent bond disruption in complex molecules the energy may be provided by means other than single photon absorption. And since that is accepted the ionizing/non-ionizing argument becomes inconsequential.
Single atoms have well defined and distinct energy bands that allow only specific energy states for the electrons. In order to ionize, eject an electron, it is necessary to provide a photon having sufficient energy to move the electron from an allowed energy state to a completely free state in one step. Multiple photon absorption is not permitted. This is the basis for the photoelectric effect - i.e. ionization.
Atoms in close proximity to one another establish a more complex system of allowed energy states. As atoms move close together the probability density functions indicate that there is some overlap and energy band shifting occurs. That is, additional allowed energy states are created due to the proximity of multiple atoms. For complex macromolecules, such as human DNA comprised of many thousands of interrelated atoms, the allowed energy states form a virtual continuum. The complex energy state structure of macromolecules provides for a significantly different energy absorption and dissipation profile. This energy state structure is so dissimilar from the single atom picture that it makes it impossible to apply the ionization argument.
RF energy absorption in biologic tissue takes place via an energy conversion process. Photon energy is converted to phonon energy better known as heat energy. Phonon energy is more familiarly observed as vibrational, translational, or rotational motion of atoms constrained by their covalent bonds. The absorbed energy may either reside at the absorption site, in which case the site is said to be in an excited state, or the energy may be dispersed through the system. If RF energy is incident at a rate that is greater than the energy dispersion rate then subsequent photon absorptions at any particular site, which has experienced a prior absorption event, will lead to a change in energy state to a second higher allowed energy level. Succeeding photon energy absorptions may continue up to the point where the covalent bond ceases to exist by virtue of the increasingly excited energy state.
Although the energy conversion process yields heat energy - phonon energy - there need not be any measurable temperature variation. In fact, the very use of the distinctions between thermal and non-thermal, or athermal is another “red herring”. Since all energy absorption is thermal by nature there is, strictly speaking, no such thing as non-thermal or athermal energy absorption.
Instead, when speaking of energy absorption it may be more appropriate to speak of measurable or not measurable temperature rise. In either case there is an increase in thermal energy whether it be on the order of pico-joules (immeasurable by typical thermometric means) or milli-joules.
RF energy photons are particularly suited for deep penetration into human tissue. Infrared, visible light, and ultraviolet radiation does not penetrate human tissue to any appreciable extent. However, the penetration capabilities of RF radiation puts it in the same category as x-ray radiation, which is also a deep penetrating energy. This penetrating characteristic of x-ray radiation and RF radiation provides that a single photon of x-ray energy may scatter through the tissue or molecule and disrupt many, many covalent bonds even without liberating an electron from an atom (in other words an ionizing event is not required) while RF radiation may be less extensive in bond disruptions until exposures are encountered that overcome inherent energy dispersion mechanisms. In essence the effects can be identical - the disruption of covalent bonds is essentially what destroys DNA molecules and genetic information and leads to neo-plastic transformation of cells.
Although a single x-ray photon may destroy molecular bonds RF energy can effect damage by multiple photon absorption. For example, a cell phone emits about 8.9 x 1021 photons per second per square centimeter at the surface of the human head. For those unfamiliar with the scientific notation of that number, its magnitude appears more dramatic when written in standard notation as 8,900,000,000,000,000,000,000 photons per square centimeter per second.
Consider, then, that the energy from each and every photon absorbed will disturb the equilibrium of the system while the energy is being diffused and dispersed. Biological systems, and in particular the human brain do not have the capability to handle the massive dose of photon energy coming from such radiation absorption. Under normal circumstances, when not exposed to high doses of RF energy, the body compensates for naturally occurring damages. During high dose RF energy exposures the biological protection and repair mechanisms may be overwhelmed and irreparable disruptions, caused by the radiation, lead to widespread submicroscopic damage including permanent DNA damage.
It will serve as little comfort to know that exposure to cell phone towers provides an RF energy dose only slightly lower at about 7 x 1018 photons per square centimeter per second (7,000,000,000,000,000,000) and that’s at a distance of a few hundred feet from the tower.
http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/index.php?p=173
Starmail - 13. Aug, 08:30
12
Aug
2005
Nailaer Mobilfunkstudie
http://www.nailaer-mobilfunkstudie.de/
Die Nailear Mobilfunkstudie ist jetzt im Original (als pdf-Datei zum
downloaden oder lesen) unter
http://www.frankenwaldmed.de/Mobilfunkstudie/Studie/umg%204_2004-Eger.pdf
MfG
H. Schüller
Die Nailear Mobilfunkstudie ist jetzt im Original (als pdf-Datei zum
downloaden oder lesen) unter
http://www.frankenwaldmed.de/Mobilfunkstudie/Studie/umg%204_2004-Eger.pdf
MfG
H. Schüller
Starmail - 12. Aug, 17:50
Oxidation stress and the role of superoxide and nitric oxide in the body
(excerpt)
Also you can get problems with low frequency because of the shielding. And shielding reduces the intensity, but not the structure (frequency/cies, pulsation, modulation etc.) of the radiation.
Generally, I think shielding is never successful as it should be, it is only an additive help (e.g. shielding clothes) like using pills like Gaba(pentine) is, to reduce exposure more or less. Even Charles Claessens moved from Rotterdam to Belgium, because shielding had its limits. There are complications (psychologically (always remembering you are in a cage), missing natural background waves, the situation directly outside the cage is worse, on the street, in town, at the job etc. it is still hundreds to thousands of mikroWatt/m2, the earth to which connected may be not clean from frequencies, it is expensive, etc.).
So, should we move? But where? The goal of 3G is to cover 99,9 % of the population.
It is sad that we have to argue technical data while the disaster is the damage to our bodies and minds, that there is no normal life anymore, as if we are environmental refugees and the war around us is still going and growing.
Frans
From Mast Sanity
--------
And my 1 pence worth!
I looked into enclosure rather than shielding and came to the conclusion that it has to be total, because if you let some radiation in it can't get out, but will bounce around inside. None of us is going to achieve a total F cage, so there may be risk in getting almost there. And yes, cutting natural radiation frequencies is bad too. Add to that the effect on small air ions of having grounded walls, and we could be asking for trouble that way.
Creating radiation shadows is an improvement and is feasible at more reasonable cost, and sleeping in a microwave bed-canopy is a good 7-hour protection.
Finally, in my research on oxidation stress and the role of superoxide and nitric oxide in the body as potentially affected by EMF (studies have demonstrated this) I also find that this is affected by other stress. If living in a cage gives you peace of mind, that's fine, but for others it will feel like being a prisoner, and itself be a constant reminder of danger, which is stressful and could end up generating the very problems it is designed to alleviate.
Andy
From Mast Sanity
--------
Andy
I am not so familiar with this very gene. I am afraid the situation is more complex. The SOD1 gene is one out of several dozens of redox-sensitive genes, whose table I am holding now. EMF gene damage is caused by free radicals. All these genes are induced by free radicals, EMF included. Now it depends what damage has been observed in this very gene (A00564), and what is residual activity left if any. You may follow it at the lists of mutants of these genes, and also in pubmed (medline, the NIH library) by relevant key words, or in cancer genetics web at http://www.cancer-genetics.org.
Zamir
From Mast Sanity
--------
Nitric Oxide and Symptoms
For those who read Andy's files on Nitric Oxide and radiation, this can add more data to the picture.
I noticed the interest and knowledge of Andy (Mast Sanity, TETRAWATCH.NET) on Nitric Oxide and the link to EMR radiation effects:I think it would be interesting for him and others to know about a short but interesting paragraph published in Town Send Letter for Doctors & Patients (August/September 2005). It speaks about how nitric oxide leads to multiple chemical sensitivity, chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, and post traumatic stress disorder. Martin L. Pall (School of molecular biosciences, Washington State university, Pullman, Washington) believes that an elevated nitric oxide/ peroxynitrite mechanism underlies these conditions, he says that the evidence shows that short term stress and chemical exposure increases nitric oxide levels in the body. It is an inflammatory response, incited by inflammatory cytokines.
NO reacts with superoxide to form peroxynitrite, a potent oxidant. Peroxynitrite is known to deplete ATP, producing fatigue. It also increases permeability of the Blood brain barrier. NO contributes to the loss of more than one porphyrin biosynthetic enzyme, a condition common among people with MSC. In classical porphyria, only one enzyme in the pathway is low. NO also inhibits cytochrome p450 metabolism, which breaks down hydrophobic molecules such as organic solvents and pesticides implicated in MSC. According to Pall's theory, the chronic nature of MSC and similar conditions results because peroxynitrite can continue to profuce more of its precursors NO and superoxide (and therefore, itself) via six different feedback loop mechanisms. In the case of MSC, an elevated nitric oxide/ peroxynitrite theory correlates with the neural sensitization theory, proposed by Bell et al (1992, 1996, 1998, 1999). In this theory, chemical sensitivity results from long-term potentiation, which involves stimulation of the N-mthyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors. Several research groups have reported that excessive NMDA stimulation produces increases in nitric oxide and its oxidant product peroxynitrite. Pall suggests that the initial chemical exposure stimulates NMDA activity in the CNS/ brain limbic system, causing increases in nitric oxide and peroxynitrite. Nitric Oxide acts as a messanger that tells the body to release neurotransmitters, including glutamate, which further stimulates NMDA receptors. Peroxynitrite increases the receptor's sensitivity to stimulation. "Nervous system dysfunction is common in MSC" Pall says, "and has been confirmed by SPECT and PET scans of brains of MSC patients as well as changes in EEG patterns." Excessive NMDA activity, leading to high levels of NO and peroxynitrite, has also been implicated in several neurodegenerative diseases including amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, AIDS-related dementia, stroke, epilepsy, Huntington's disease, and Alzheimer disease. Pall hopes that the nitric oxide/ peroxynitrite/NMDA hypothesis will provide a framework for further research. By testing predictions derived from the hypothesis, researchers may develop effective treatments. In the case of MSC, he suggests that antioxidants may help lower peroxynitrite levels. Vitamin B12, administered subcutaneously and in the form of hydroxocoblamin, scavenges unwanted nitric oxide. Other treatments could focus on lowering the activity of NMDA receptors and on improvong mitochondrial function and ATP production.
PAll, ML. Elevated nitric oxide / peryxonitrite theory of MCS: central role of NMDA receptors in the sensitivity mechanism. Environmental Health Perspectives 111:12 (september 2003) Pall, ML NMDA sensitization and stimulation by peroxynitrite, nitric oxide, and and organic solvents as mechanism of chemical sensitivity in multiple chemical sensitivity. FASEBJ. 200216:1507-1417.
Town Send Letter for Doctors and Patients (August/September 2005). page 26. http://www.townsendletter.com
For those interested to read more, there is even a long article in the same Town send letter issue, by Martin L. Pall (Ph.D), which enters into the full details of the mechanisms (page 52-56). Martin Pall's contact details are: Washington State university, Pullman, Washington 99164-4234 USA 509-335-1246 email martin_pall@wsu.edu
Informant: Iris Atzmon.
Also you can get problems with low frequency because of the shielding. And shielding reduces the intensity, but not the structure (frequency/cies, pulsation, modulation etc.) of the radiation.
Generally, I think shielding is never successful as it should be, it is only an additive help (e.g. shielding clothes) like using pills like Gaba(pentine) is, to reduce exposure more or less. Even Charles Claessens moved from Rotterdam to Belgium, because shielding had its limits. There are complications (psychologically (always remembering you are in a cage), missing natural background waves, the situation directly outside the cage is worse, on the street, in town, at the job etc. it is still hundreds to thousands of mikroWatt/m2, the earth to which connected may be not clean from frequencies, it is expensive, etc.).
So, should we move? But where? The goal of 3G is to cover 99,9 % of the population.
It is sad that we have to argue technical data while the disaster is the damage to our bodies and minds, that there is no normal life anymore, as if we are environmental refugees and the war around us is still going and growing.
Frans
From Mast Sanity
--------
And my 1 pence worth!
I looked into enclosure rather than shielding and came to the conclusion that it has to be total, because if you let some radiation in it can't get out, but will bounce around inside. None of us is going to achieve a total F cage, so there may be risk in getting almost there. And yes, cutting natural radiation frequencies is bad too. Add to that the effect on small air ions of having grounded walls, and we could be asking for trouble that way.
Creating radiation shadows is an improvement and is feasible at more reasonable cost, and sleeping in a microwave bed-canopy is a good 7-hour protection.
Finally, in my research on oxidation stress and the role of superoxide and nitric oxide in the body as potentially affected by EMF (studies have demonstrated this) I also find that this is affected by other stress. If living in a cage gives you peace of mind, that's fine, but for others it will feel like being a prisoner, and itself be a constant reminder of danger, which is stressful and could end up generating the very problems it is designed to alleviate.
Andy
From Mast Sanity
--------
Andy
I am not so familiar with this very gene. I am afraid the situation is more complex. The SOD1 gene is one out of several dozens of redox-sensitive genes, whose table I am holding now. EMF gene damage is caused by free radicals. All these genes are induced by free radicals, EMF included. Now it depends what damage has been observed in this very gene (A00564), and what is residual activity left if any. You may follow it at the lists of mutants of these genes, and also in pubmed (medline, the NIH library) by relevant key words, or in cancer genetics web at http://www.cancer-genetics.org.
Zamir
From Mast Sanity
--------
Nitric Oxide and Symptoms
For those who read Andy's files on Nitric Oxide and radiation, this can add more data to the picture.
I noticed the interest and knowledge of Andy (Mast Sanity, TETRAWATCH.NET) on Nitric Oxide and the link to EMR radiation effects:I think it would be interesting for him and others to know about a short but interesting paragraph published in Town Send Letter for Doctors & Patients (August/September 2005). It speaks about how nitric oxide leads to multiple chemical sensitivity, chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, and post traumatic stress disorder. Martin L. Pall (School of molecular biosciences, Washington State university, Pullman, Washington) believes that an elevated nitric oxide/ peroxynitrite mechanism underlies these conditions, he says that the evidence shows that short term stress and chemical exposure increases nitric oxide levels in the body. It is an inflammatory response, incited by inflammatory cytokines.
NO reacts with superoxide to form peroxynitrite, a potent oxidant. Peroxynitrite is known to deplete ATP, producing fatigue. It also increases permeability of the Blood brain barrier. NO contributes to the loss of more than one porphyrin biosynthetic enzyme, a condition common among people with MSC. In classical porphyria, only one enzyme in the pathway is low. NO also inhibits cytochrome p450 metabolism, which breaks down hydrophobic molecules such as organic solvents and pesticides implicated in MSC. According to Pall's theory, the chronic nature of MSC and similar conditions results because peroxynitrite can continue to profuce more of its precursors NO and superoxide (and therefore, itself) via six different feedback loop mechanisms. In the case of MSC, an elevated nitric oxide/ peroxynitrite theory correlates with the neural sensitization theory, proposed by Bell et al (1992, 1996, 1998, 1999). In this theory, chemical sensitivity results from long-term potentiation, which involves stimulation of the N-mthyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors. Several research groups have reported that excessive NMDA stimulation produces increases in nitric oxide and its oxidant product peroxynitrite. Pall suggests that the initial chemical exposure stimulates NMDA activity in the CNS/ brain limbic system, causing increases in nitric oxide and peroxynitrite. Nitric Oxide acts as a messanger that tells the body to release neurotransmitters, including glutamate, which further stimulates NMDA receptors. Peroxynitrite increases the receptor's sensitivity to stimulation. "Nervous system dysfunction is common in MSC" Pall says, "and has been confirmed by SPECT and PET scans of brains of MSC patients as well as changes in EEG patterns." Excessive NMDA activity, leading to high levels of NO and peroxynitrite, has also been implicated in several neurodegenerative diseases including amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, AIDS-related dementia, stroke, epilepsy, Huntington's disease, and Alzheimer disease. Pall hopes that the nitric oxide/ peroxynitrite/NMDA hypothesis will provide a framework for further research. By testing predictions derived from the hypothesis, researchers may develop effective treatments. In the case of MSC, he suggests that antioxidants may help lower peroxynitrite levels. Vitamin B12, administered subcutaneously and in the form of hydroxocoblamin, scavenges unwanted nitric oxide. Other treatments could focus on lowering the activity of NMDA receptors and on improvong mitochondrial function and ATP production.
PAll, ML. Elevated nitric oxide / peryxonitrite theory of MCS: central role of NMDA receptors in the sensitivity mechanism. Environmental Health Perspectives 111:12 (september 2003) Pall, ML NMDA sensitization and stimulation by peroxynitrite, nitric oxide, and and organic solvents as mechanism of chemical sensitivity in multiple chemical sensitivity. FASEBJ. 200216:1507-1417.
Town Send Letter for Doctors and Patients (August/September 2005). page 26. http://www.townsendletter.com
For those interested to read more, there is even a long article in the same Town send letter issue, by Martin L. Pall (Ph.D), which enters into the full details of the mechanisms (page 52-56). Martin Pall's contact details are: Washington State university, Pullman, Washington 99164-4234 USA 509-335-1246 email martin_pall@wsu.edu
Informant: Iris Atzmon.
Starmail - 12. Aug, 15:22
Gesundheitsstadträtin fordert Grenzwerte
Handystrahlung 12.08.2005
Gesundheitsstadträtin fordert Grenzwerte
Klagenfurts Gesundheitsstadträtin Maria-Luise Mathiaschitz (SPÖ) fordert verbindliche Grenzwerte für die Strahlung beim Mobilfunk ein. Die Politikerin hat als Umweltmedizinerin selbst an einer Studie über die Auswirkungen der Handystrahlung mitgearbeitet.
Mehr Schutz für Bevölkerung
In der aktuellen Diskussion rät Mathiaschitz zu mehr Schutz für die Bevölkerung. Egal ob Handybenützung oder Handymasten: In beiden Fällen könne die Strahlung zu gesundheitlichen Schäden führen, sagt Mathiaschitz.
Mathiaschitz: "Bund bei Verordnung säumig"
Für die Gesundheitsstadträtin ist es ein Versäumnis, dass in Österreich noch gar keine gesetzlichen Limits für die Strahlung existieren:
"Es gibt für Mobilfunk in Österreich keine verbindlichen Grenzwerte. Aus diesem Grund fordere ich, dass der Bund endlich diese säumige Grenzwertverordnung erlässt. Ganz wesentlich ist, dass wir endlich ein Limit setzen, wie weit eine Belastung für den Menschen gehen darf".
Von Kopfschmerz bis zur Schlafstörung
Auch wenn die Mobilfunkbetreiber gesundheitsschädliche Auswirkungen bestreiten, ist für Mathiaschitz ist klar, dass es in Einzelfällen zu Auswirkungen kommen kann:
"Das kann von Kopfschmerzen, Konzentrationsstörungen und Verdauungsproblemen bis hin zu Schlafstörungen gehen".
1.846 Handymasten in Kärnten
Gegenwärtig senden in Kärnten 1.846 Handymasten ihre Strahlen in die Umwelt. Der Trend zu noch mehr Masten hält an, wie derzeit in Villach. Anrainerproteste können aber die Aufstellung von Handymasten kaum verhindern.
kaernten.ORF.at; 6.8.05
Protest gegen Handymasten
http://oesterreich.orf.at/kaernten/stories/50045/
Bei Unsicherheit: Minimierungsprinzip
Zur Diskussion, ob Kinder mit Handy telefonieren sollen oder nicht, sagte Mathiaschitz:
"Als Medizinerin bin ich für das Minimierungsprinzip, wenn wir nicht genau wissen, welche Auswirkungen eine Substanz hat".
Steuer bringt vorerst keine Entlastung
Die in Niederösterreich beschlossene Handymastensteuer dürfte übrigens vorerst nicht zum Gesundheitsschutz der Bevölkerung beitragen. Denn die Mobilfunkbetreiber reagieren nicht mit weniger Masten, sondern mit höheren Gebühren für das Telefonieren mit Handy.
wien.ORF.at; 8.8.05
Ärztekammer verteidigt Warnung
http://oesterreich.orf.at/wien/stories/50366/
tirol.ORF.at; 6.8.05
Ärztekammer warnt vor Handystrahlen
http://oesterreich.orf.at/tirol/stories/50022/
http://kaernten.orf.at/stories/51248/ (Auszug)
Nachrichten von der BI Bad Dürkheim
Gesundheitsstadträtin fordert Grenzwerte
Klagenfurts Gesundheitsstadträtin Maria-Luise Mathiaschitz (SPÖ) fordert verbindliche Grenzwerte für die Strahlung beim Mobilfunk ein. Die Politikerin hat als Umweltmedizinerin selbst an einer Studie über die Auswirkungen der Handystrahlung mitgearbeitet.
Mehr Schutz für Bevölkerung
In der aktuellen Diskussion rät Mathiaschitz zu mehr Schutz für die Bevölkerung. Egal ob Handybenützung oder Handymasten: In beiden Fällen könne die Strahlung zu gesundheitlichen Schäden führen, sagt Mathiaschitz.
Mathiaschitz: "Bund bei Verordnung säumig"
Für die Gesundheitsstadträtin ist es ein Versäumnis, dass in Österreich noch gar keine gesetzlichen Limits für die Strahlung existieren:
"Es gibt für Mobilfunk in Österreich keine verbindlichen Grenzwerte. Aus diesem Grund fordere ich, dass der Bund endlich diese säumige Grenzwertverordnung erlässt. Ganz wesentlich ist, dass wir endlich ein Limit setzen, wie weit eine Belastung für den Menschen gehen darf".
Von Kopfschmerz bis zur Schlafstörung
Auch wenn die Mobilfunkbetreiber gesundheitsschädliche Auswirkungen bestreiten, ist für Mathiaschitz ist klar, dass es in Einzelfällen zu Auswirkungen kommen kann:
"Das kann von Kopfschmerzen, Konzentrationsstörungen und Verdauungsproblemen bis hin zu Schlafstörungen gehen".
1.846 Handymasten in Kärnten
Gegenwärtig senden in Kärnten 1.846 Handymasten ihre Strahlen in die Umwelt. Der Trend zu noch mehr Masten hält an, wie derzeit in Villach. Anrainerproteste können aber die Aufstellung von Handymasten kaum verhindern.
kaernten.ORF.at; 6.8.05
Protest gegen Handymasten
http://oesterreich.orf.at/kaernten/stories/50045/
Bei Unsicherheit: Minimierungsprinzip
Zur Diskussion, ob Kinder mit Handy telefonieren sollen oder nicht, sagte Mathiaschitz:
"Als Medizinerin bin ich für das Minimierungsprinzip, wenn wir nicht genau wissen, welche Auswirkungen eine Substanz hat".
Steuer bringt vorerst keine Entlastung
Die in Niederösterreich beschlossene Handymastensteuer dürfte übrigens vorerst nicht zum Gesundheitsschutz der Bevölkerung beitragen. Denn die Mobilfunkbetreiber reagieren nicht mit weniger Masten, sondern mit höheren Gebühren für das Telefonieren mit Handy.
wien.ORF.at; 8.8.05
Ärztekammer verteidigt Warnung
http://oesterreich.orf.at/wien/stories/50366/
tirol.ORF.at; 6.8.05
Ärztekammer warnt vor Handystrahlen
http://oesterreich.orf.at/tirol/stories/50022/
http://kaernten.orf.at/stories/51248/ (Auszug)
Nachrichten von der BI Bad Dürkheim
Starmail - 12. Aug, 14:31
Austrian doctor’s group warns of excessive mobile phone use by children
Sent by Robert Riedlinger:
Vienna Doctor’s Chamber (Wiener Ärztekammer) warns of excessive mobile phone use by children.
Data for the cancer risk from mobile phone radiation are increasing: new catalogue of guidelines advises cautious contact with mobile phones.
Wien (OTS) - The Vienna Doctor’s Chamber (Wiener Ärztekammer) warns expressly against excessive mobile phone use especially by children. The reason for this is the recently presented “Reflex Study” (Reflex-Studie) in which a definite genotoxic effect of mobile phone radiation was seen. The first consequence is that the Doctor’s Chamber (Ärztekammer) has now drawn up a catalogue of guidelines, which stipulates specific rules of behaviour for use of mobile phones.
The Reflex Studie (Reflex Study), which was supported by the EU at a cost of more than two million Euros, was carried out at various important research centres in Europe, including the Wiener AKH. In the course of this study, the so-called mutagenicity of a substance, in this case in by electromagnetic field, was tested. They looked for changes in the genes which are the possible beginning of a cancer disease. One part of the study tests was carried out on human promyelocytes, a preliminary stage of the cells of blood formation. A mutation of such cells can as a further consequence lead to leukaemia and similar illnesses of the blood forming system.
The results from these studies can be summarised in one sentence: “There is indeed a genotoxic effect on human cell cultures from mobile phone radiation at a strength that is supplied by every GSM mobile phone.”
First studies confirmed
Previous earlier animal experiments already showed a dose-dependant genotoxic effect under high frequency radiation. Further, in the brains of rats increased functionless nerve cells were found after two hours of mobile phone radiation. Two corroborative epidemiological studies showed a three- to four-fold increased risk for auditory nerve cancers after ten years of mobile phone use.
With the now presented Reflex Study, a cell-biological relationship has been proven for all these results. Eric Huber, Speaker for Environmental Medicine for the Doctor’s Chamber for Vienna (Referent für Umweltmedizin der Ärztekammer für Wien): “If medications delivered the same test results as mobile phone radiation one would have to immediately remove them from the market”.
The Vienna Doctor’s Chamber (Wiener Ärztekammer) finds it necessary to call upon the population to take more care with use of mobile phone equipment, especially children. Huber: “We must assume that children are more sensitive towards high frequency radiation than adults since the skull bones are thinner and the children’s child-like cells show an increased rate of division, in which they are more sensitive to genotoxic effects”.
That is why they have decided to follow the example of the British Ministry of Health and the Danish Health Council, and to also warn against excessive mobile phone use, especially by children, in Austria.
The following guidelines for mobile phones should according to Huber, “Expressly not only be valid for children”.
* Children under 16 years should not use mobile phones.
*Only use mobile phones in emergencies and then only telephone briefly.
*A mobile phone in the trouser pocket and also the sending of SMS messages under the school desk can influence fertility and should be completely avoided.
*If sending SMS messages keep the mobile phone away from the body.
*Turn off the mobile phone at night ˆ if left turned on, do not keep it near the head.
*Also, headsets are not recommended, since the cable frequently transmits the signal like an antenna.
*Play no games on the mobile phone.
*Keep the mobile phone away from the head during the telephone connection.
*Keep a couple of metres distance away from other people, they are being radiated with you.
*Less mobile phone telephone calls mean less radiation from mobile phone masts.
* Internet via cable connections such as UMTS and WLAN lead to high radiation exposure.
http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/index.php?p=172
--------
Vienna doctors group say children shouldn't have phones
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/903250/
Vienna Medical Association Issues Strict Warnings Against Cell Phone Dangers
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/4089113/
Vienna Doctor’s Chamber (Wiener Ärztekammer) warns of excessive mobile phone use by children.
Data for the cancer risk from mobile phone radiation are increasing: new catalogue of guidelines advises cautious contact with mobile phones.
Wien (OTS) - The Vienna Doctor’s Chamber (Wiener Ärztekammer) warns expressly against excessive mobile phone use especially by children. The reason for this is the recently presented “Reflex Study” (Reflex-Studie) in which a definite genotoxic effect of mobile phone radiation was seen. The first consequence is that the Doctor’s Chamber (Ärztekammer) has now drawn up a catalogue of guidelines, which stipulates specific rules of behaviour for use of mobile phones.
The Reflex Studie (Reflex Study), which was supported by the EU at a cost of more than two million Euros, was carried out at various important research centres in Europe, including the Wiener AKH. In the course of this study, the so-called mutagenicity of a substance, in this case in by electromagnetic field, was tested. They looked for changes in the genes which are the possible beginning of a cancer disease. One part of the study tests was carried out on human promyelocytes, a preliminary stage of the cells of blood formation. A mutation of such cells can as a further consequence lead to leukaemia and similar illnesses of the blood forming system.
The results from these studies can be summarised in one sentence: “There is indeed a genotoxic effect on human cell cultures from mobile phone radiation at a strength that is supplied by every GSM mobile phone.”
First studies confirmed
Previous earlier animal experiments already showed a dose-dependant genotoxic effect under high frequency radiation. Further, in the brains of rats increased functionless nerve cells were found after two hours of mobile phone radiation. Two corroborative epidemiological studies showed a three- to four-fold increased risk for auditory nerve cancers after ten years of mobile phone use.
With the now presented Reflex Study, a cell-biological relationship has been proven for all these results. Eric Huber, Speaker for Environmental Medicine for the Doctor’s Chamber for Vienna (Referent für Umweltmedizin der Ärztekammer für Wien): “If medications delivered the same test results as mobile phone radiation one would have to immediately remove them from the market”.
The Vienna Doctor’s Chamber (Wiener Ärztekammer) finds it necessary to call upon the population to take more care with use of mobile phone equipment, especially children. Huber: “We must assume that children are more sensitive towards high frequency radiation than adults since the skull bones are thinner and the children’s child-like cells show an increased rate of division, in which they are more sensitive to genotoxic effects”.
That is why they have decided to follow the example of the British Ministry of Health and the Danish Health Council, and to also warn against excessive mobile phone use, especially by children, in Austria.
The following guidelines for mobile phones should according to Huber, “Expressly not only be valid for children”.
* Children under 16 years should not use mobile phones.
*Only use mobile phones in emergencies and then only telephone briefly.
*A mobile phone in the trouser pocket and also the sending of SMS messages under the school desk can influence fertility and should be completely avoided.
*If sending SMS messages keep the mobile phone away from the body.
*Turn off the mobile phone at night ˆ if left turned on, do not keep it near the head.
*Also, headsets are not recommended, since the cable frequently transmits the signal like an antenna.
*Play no games on the mobile phone.
*Keep the mobile phone away from the head during the telephone connection.
*Keep a couple of metres distance away from other people, they are being radiated with you.
*Less mobile phone telephone calls mean less radiation from mobile phone masts.
* Internet via cable connections such as UMTS and WLAN lead to high radiation exposure.
http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/index.php?p=172
--------
Vienna doctors group say children shouldn't have phones
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/903250/
Vienna Medical Association Issues Strict Warnings Against Cell Phone Dangers
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/4089113/
Starmail - 12. Aug, 09:54
11
Aug
2005
Stop UMTS
Scientific research concerning human well-being and health in the vicinity of phone masts.
http://www.stopumts.nl/pdf/epidemiologic.pdf
Source: http://www.stopumts.nl/english.php
http://www.stopumts.nl/pdf/epidemiologic.pdf
Source: http://www.stopumts.nl/english.php
Starmail - 11. Aug, 17:48
10
Aug
2005
"Reflex-Studie": Wiener Ärztekammer warnt vor übermäßigem Handytelefonieren von Kindern
10.08.05
Die Wiener Ärztekammer warnt ausdrücklich vor übermäßigem Handytelefonieren vor allem bei Kindern. Grundlage dafür ist die kürzlich präsentierte "Reflex-Studie", in der ein gentoxischer Effekt von Mobilfunkstrahlen nachgewiesen worden sein soll. Als erste Konsequenz daraus hat nun die Ärztekammer einen Leitlinienkatalog erstellt, der konkrete Verhaltensregeln im Umgang mit Handys empfiehlt.
Die ganze Nachricht im Internet:
http://www.ngo-online.de/ganze_nachricht.php?Nr=11595
Die Wiener Ärztekammer warnt ausdrücklich vor übermäßigem Handytelefonieren vor allem bei Kindern. Grundlage dafür ist die kürzlich präsentierte "Reflex-Studie", in der ein gentoxischer Effekt von Mobilfunkstrahlen nachgewiesen worden sein soll. Als erste Konsequenz daraus hat nun die Ärztekammer einen Leitlinienkatalog erstellt, der konkrete Verhaltensregeln im Umgang mit Handys empfiehlt.
Die ganze Nachricht im Internet:
http://www.ngo-online.de/ganze_nachricht.php?Nr=11595
Starmail - 10. Aug, 22:38
Prof Olle Johansson's comments on EHS research
Dear Iris,
I certainly agree with starting from true life and real problems, I have argued exactly that model for decades in Sweden.
I would like to promote research to find out the real cause of EHS people's reactions. In this way, one could initiate well conducted studies and draw conclusions from true science. For instance, one needs to make a thorough, complete health survey of EHS persons to find biological and clinical differences, these can then later on be used as scientific "handles" to further clarify the EHS symptoms and to build grounds for a treatment strategy (the "treatment" could, of course, be to entirely remove all microwave sources).
Maybe, dear Iris, you want to add these papers to your list, they are ecological investigations - as you know - so they have perhaps an ever greater impact on the whole issue.
Hallberg Ö, Johansson O, "Does GSM 1800 MHz affect the public health in Sweden?", In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop "Biological Effects of EMFs", Kos, Greece, October 4-8, 2004
Hallberg Ö, Johansson O, "1997 - A curious year in Sweden", Eur J Cancer Prev 2004; 13: 535-538
Hallberg Ö, Johansson O, "Long-term sickness and mobile phone use", J Aust Coll Nutr & Env Med, 2004; 23: 11-12
Hallberg Ö, Johansson O, "Mobile handset output power and health", Electromag Biol Med 2004; 23: 229-239
Best regards Yours Olle
(Olle Johansson, assoc. prof. The Experimental Dermatology Unit Department of Neuroscience Karolinska Institute
171 77 Stockholm Sweden)
From Iris Atzmon
I certainly agree with starting from true life and real problems, I have argued exactly that model for decades in Sweden.
I would like to promote research to find out the real cause of EHS people's reactions. In this way, one could initiate well conducted studies and draw conclusions from true science. For instance, one needs to make a thorough, complete health survey of EHS persons to find biological and clinical differences, these can then later on be used as scientific "handles" to further clarify the EHS symptoms and to build grounds for a treatment strategy (the "treatment" could, of course, be to entirely remove all microwave sources).
Maybe, dear Iris, you want to add these papers to your list, they are ecological investigations - as you know - so they have perhaps an ever greater impact on the whole issue.
Hallberg Ö, Johansson O, "Does GSM 1800 MHz affect the public health in Sweden?", In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop "Biological Effects of EMFs", Kos, Greece, October 4-8, 2004
Hallberg Ö, Johansson O, "1997 - A curious year in Sweden", Eur J Cancer Prev 2004; 13: 535-538
Hallberg Ö, Johansson O, "Long-term sickness and mobile phone use", J Aust Coll Nutr & Env Med, 2004; 23: 11-12
Hallberg Ö, Johansson O, "Mobile handset output power and health", Electromag Biol Med 2004; 23: 229-239
Best regards Yours Olle
(Olle Johansson, assoc. prof. The Experimental Dermatology Unit Department of Neuroscience Karolinska Institute
171 77 Stockholm Sweden)
From Iris Atzmon
Starmail - 10. Aug, 16:29
