Mobile Phones And Health
Inquiry Memorandum
By: Dr. Gerald J. Hyland
Department of Physics
University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
and
International Institute of Biophysics
Neuss-Holzheim, Germany
June 18, 1999
PERSONAL STATEMENT
Since 1985, I have been involved with the interaction of non-ionising
radiation - specifically MICROWAVES - with living organisms, actively
developing the novel ideas of H. Fröhlich, FRS, who, 30 years ago, first
predicted that adequately metabolising living systems themselves support a
coherent microwave activity.
During the last 18 months, I have been applying my findings to the question
of potential health hazards posed by mobile telephones and their associated
base stations.
I am recognised as an international expert in this field, and have published
numerous articles and papers - dealing not only with the microwave
sensitivity of living systems, but also with the emission from them of
coherent, ultra-weak light (biophotons). I am regularly invited to speak at
international conferences, at meetings of Professional Bodies (such as the
Institution of Electrical Engineers), and on radio and television, both
national and international. My work is frequently reported on in the Press,
and has recently been the subject of articles and features in numerous
international magazines, including the New Scientist.
Given my vantagepoint from theoretical biophysics, I believe that I am
uniquely qualified to assess the problem in its entirety, thereby being able
to offer invaluable insights that might not otherwise be available.
SUMMARY
Attention is drawn to the inadequacy of existing safety guide-lines
governing the exposure of the public to radiation of the kind used in mobile
telephony, and to the fact that the philosophy underlying the formulation of
these guide-lines is fundamentally flawed.
This is because only established, reproducible effects are currently
considered to constitute an acceptable basis for the formulation of safety
guidelines; this restricts the effects against which some degree of
protection is afforded to intensity-based heating. For, being independent of
whether the irradiated object is dead or alive, they can be predicted with
certainty.
Thereby excluded, however, are possible adverse health effects provoked by
the ability of living organisms - and only living ones - to respond in an
non-thermal way to aspects of this radiation other than its intensity -
specifically its frequency - both the microwave carrier and the lower
frequency amplitude modulations that characterise the digital signals
employed by the GSM system. The dependence of these effects on the aliveness
of the organism necessarily means that they cannot enjoy the same degree of
reproducibility, as do those that are not so dependent. This does not mean,
however, that they do not exist, or that they should be excluded from the
formulation of safety guidelines; indeed, the very real possibility that
they might trigger adverse health effects must be seriously considered. The
empirical fact that such radiation is known to have deleterious effects on
both the neurological and immunological functioning of living organisms
including humans is consistent with this possibility.
Systematic experimentation is urgently needed, not only in order to be able
to identify more precisely the parameters governing non-thermal influences
of ultra-low intensity microwave (and low frequency modulated) irradiation
of living organisms, but equally important, to ascertain the nature and
severity of any adverse effects on human health thereby provoked. Some
interim measures are identified to ameliorate the unnecessarily hazardous
situation currently prevailing in the vicinity of the base stations that
service the mobile phone network.
1. Existing safety guidelines governing exposure of the public to the
radiation employed in mobile telephony are totally inadequate, and the
philosophy underlying their formulation is fundamentally flawed.
2. Existing guidelines regulate only the intensity of the radiation in an
attempt to protect the human body from adverse health effects which are
known to be linked to intensity namely, a) the absorption of energy by
biological tissue which, in the case of microwave
irradiation, causes heating, or b) the induction in the body of circulating
electric currents, in the case of exposure to extremely low frequency (ELF)
magnetic fields. Both these effects have been well understood for almost a
hundred years, and always occur - irrespective of whether the irradiated
system is a living organism or a piece of inanimate matter. Existing safety
limits are set [1] by restricting the intensity to ensure that the
temperature rise, or induced electric currents are kept well below the
thresholds of the onset of established bio-negative effects.
Although the existing safety guidelines are clearly necessary, they are
quite inadequate. For they completely fail to consider the possibility of
adverse health effects linked to the fact that living organisms and only
living ones have the ability [2] to respond to aspects of technologically
produced radiation other than its intensity, and, accordingly, can respond
at intensities well below the limits imposed by the safety guidelines. A
well-known example of this is the ability of a stroboscope - even at quite
low intensities - to induce epileptic seizures.
3. The crucial discriminating feature of technologically produced radiation
(whatever its intensity) - which is necessary if it is
to carry information - is its coherence, the degree of which is
significantly higher than that characterising radiation of natural origin,
such as sunlight, to which Mankind has evolved a certain immunity. This
immunity does not, however, extend to the much more coherent radiation of
technological origin, to which we have only relatively recently been
exposed. Coherence is a concept that is, of course, familiar in the
context of lasers, whose light, due to
its coherence, is in-step (in phase) with itself, and thus particularly pure
in frequency (colour), and hence far more potent than that from an ordinary
lamp. This potency still obtains in the case of the much less intense
radiation emitted by other devices, in particular, those employed in mobile
telephony whose coherency greatly facilitates its discernment by the living
organism against the level of the ever-present (incoherent) thermal
background emission appropriate to its own physiological temperature i.e.
the coherence of the radiation significantly increases its potency to affect
living organisms.
4. The ability of living organisms to respond to external coherent radiation
arises because they are electromagnetic instruments of great and exquisite
sensitivity, that themselves support a variety of highly organised, coherent
electrical activities, each characterised by a specific frequency, which
play important roles in maintaining the organisation and control of the
living organism [3]. This natural (endogenous) coherent electrical activity
preconditions the living organism to be highly sensitive to external,
coherent electromagnetic radiation in a non-thermal way that is not
primarily dependent on its intensity (brightness), but rather, on its
frequency (colour) which, as already noted, is sharply defined.
5. The reality of adverse bioeffects not primarily dependent on intensity is
well illustrated by the ability (already mentioned) of a light flashing at a
certain frequency (between 15 and 20 times per second) to induce epileptic
seizures in certain susceptible people. It is the digitisation into regular
pulses that effectively makes the light (which is naturally incoherent)
coherent the regularity of the pulses evidently being close to that of an
important brainwave activity, interference with which provokes the seizure.
It is not so much a question of the amount of energy absorbed from the
irradiating field (which is determined by its intensity, or brightness) but
rather the information transmitted by the (coherent) regularity of its
flashing - at a frequency that the brain recognises, because it matches, or
is close to one utilised by the brain itself.
6. Somewhat less well known is the fact that the microwave signals used in
the digital GSM system of mobile telephony similarly flash 217 times per
second, and that this flashing is punctuated at the much slower rate of 8.34
per second - a frequency that happens to lie in the range of the important
alpha brainwaves! Given that both light and microwaves belong to the same
electromagnetic spectrum, differing only in their frequency and degree of
coherence, there is no reason to suppose that the deleterious effect of a
flashing visible light does not extend to microwave radiation flashing at an
equally low frequency, since this can easily penetrate the skull. (The
effect of this punctuated flashing can easily be detected as a crackling
sound when a turned-on mobile phone handset is held near a switched-on radio
receiver). That it is surely unreasonable to suppose that our brains should
somehow be immune to this electromagnetic aggression is pointedly emphasised
by the prohibition on the use of mobile phones in aircraft, on the grounds
that their signals might interfere with the planes control systems. Given
the infinitely greater electromagnetic sensitivity of the alive human
organism, it would be paradoxical if the same radiation did not similarly
interfere with our own neural processes, whether we are in the (far) field
of a base station mast, or the (near) field of a phone antenna.*
*In this connection, it
should be pointed out that when a handset equipped with discontinuous
transmission (DTX) is in listening mode, there is an even lower frequency
pulsation at 2Hz. This is of particular concern since it falls in the range
of the so-called delta brain-waves which, if present in the EEG of awake
adults, are symptomatic of neural pathology, and therefore should not be
promoted by exposure to radiation of this frequency. On the other hand,
brain activity at this frequency also characterises deep sleep, so that
reports of tiredness experienced during the day are perhaps not surprising.
In children, by contrast, delta waves are normal, and thus, again, should
not be disturbed by external interference. Current safety guidelines thus
fail to take into account the most discriminating feature of all namely the
aliveness of the organism being irradiated!
7. Even less well known is the fact that adequately metabolising living
organisms can themselves support another kind of organised (coherent)
electrical activity, the frequency of which happens to fall in the microwave
band [2], to which the carrier frequencies used in mobile telephony belong.
Again, just as a relatively slowly flashing (visible) light can affect
certain (electro-chemical) neurological processes characterised by the same
frequency, so living systems have a preconditioned sensitivity also to
ultra-weak microwave radiation; thus, in addition to a sensitivity to the
low frequency (8Hz) punctuation of the microwave flashes used in mobile
telephony, the human organism could well be sensitive also to the colour of
these flashes (i.e. to the microwave carrier frequency). Accordingly, there
is the possibility [4] of either a resonant amplification (perhaps to a
dangerously high level) of an internal biological electrical activity, or
interference with it, resulting in its degradation. It is also possible for
external radiation to augment the naturally prevailing level of metabolism,
and, after a sufficient time, to thereby effectively switch on an internal
microwave activity that Nature did not intend to be on; this requires a
certain minimum threshold intensity that is, however, well below thermal
levels.
8. It is thus apparent that existing safety guidelines (which address only
thermal effects dependent on the intensity of the field) do not, and cannot
protect against any adverse health effects that might be allied specifically
to the wave nature of the radiation, such as its frequency (colour),
coherence (purity of colour), amplitude modulations, etc. Clearly there is
another side of the coin to be taken into account just as, in addition to
photography (an intensity dependent process), there is also holography (a
process intimately related to the wave nature of light, specifically its
phase). It must be stressed, however, that these other possibilities depend
on the organism being alive; for it is through its vitality that it is
sensitised just as a radio has to be switched on before it can respond to a
signal. Effects due solely to intensity, by contrast, do not require the
organism to be alive i.e. are not specific to living systems; for example, a
microwave oven will cook a piece of (dead) meat, just as it will a (living)
animal.
9. In turn, whilst
the aliveness opens the system to certain features to which it would not
otherwise be sensitive, it also means, however, that any particular
non-thermal effect cannot be predicted to occur with the same absolute
certainty as that with which thermal effects dependent solely on intensity
can - against which existing safety guidelines attempt to protect. In the
case of these non-thermal effects of microwave radiation, even the
occurrence of the primary, initiating interaction cannot be predicted with
certainty, since unlike the intensity-based heating effect, it depends on
the aliveness (e.g. metabolic rate) of the irradiated subject, which, in
general, varies from person to person. The situation can be likened to the
difference between putting ones hand in a fire (which can be definitively
predicted to cause burning), and having contact with a flu virus, the
consequence of which cannot be uniquely predicted - whether one catches the
flu depending, amongst other things, on the robustness of ones immune
system, which, of course, varies from person to person; similarly, in the
case of an epidemic, not everyone succumbs.
This, of course, has serious implications on the acceptibility of the
philosophy underlying the current formulation of safety guidelines by the
National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) and other regulatory bodies -
namely, that they can be based only on established, reproducible effects.
The intensity-based heating effect of microwave radiation, of course,
conforms to this criterion, since being independent of whether the
irradiated organism is alive or dead, it can be predicted to occur with
certainty. Necessarily excluded, however, are effects contingent on the
aliveness of the human organism - in particular, the non-thermal effects
discussed above, that, in principle, cannot enjoy the same degree of
reproducibility; this does not mean, however, that they do not exist!
Accordingly, the prevailing philosophy must be considered to be
fundamentally flawed!
The same is true of statements to the effect that there are no established
health hazards of radiation of sub-thermal intensity, since, unlike thermal
effects, only the possibility of any initiating non-thermal influence can be
meaningfully spoken of. The traditional understanding of cause and effect is
thus no longer appropriate here, and must be replaced [5] by the more modern
idea of signals and responses - a concept familiar in sociological contexts,
where the response of different people to the same signal can vary
enormously, particularly if in one person it strikes a raw nerve, that is
absent in another.
It is thus clear that effects not allied to intensity inevitably slip
through the net of existing safety guidelines, which, of course, raises the
question as to how a more comprehensive level of safety might be ensured.
Before considering this, it is necessary to assess the status of evidence -
both theoretical and experimental - consistent with the potentiality of
living organisms to be adversely affected by ultra-low intensity radiation.
10. Firstly, it is to be noted that the preconditioned hypersensitivity of
adequately metabolising living organisms to ultra-weak microwave radiation
of a particular frequency is a quite general prediction of modern biophysics
[2], reflecting the self-organising ability of open, dissipative systems in
the non-linear regime far from thermodynamic equilibrium, whereby once the
rate of metabolic energy supply exceeds the rate at which the system can
turn it into heat, a certain fraction of this energy is (non-thermally)
channelled into a highly organised (coherent) collective vibration of the
whole system, wherein it is stored and effectively protected against
dissipation - the frequency of this vibration being in the microwave band.
Secondly, much experimental evidence has accumulated over the past 25 years
that is consistent not only with the existence [6] of this endogenous
microwave activity, and with associated non-thermal, highly
frequency-dependent influences [4] - such as, for example, alterations in
the growth rate of E.coli [7] and yeast [8], synchronisation of cell
division [9], the switch-on of certain genetic processes [10], alteration in
the activity of important enzymes [11], etc. - but also with the fact that
other organised electrical activities in quite different frequency ranges,
such as brainwaves [12], can likewise be influenced in a non-thermal way by
external fields, (amplitude) modulated to a similar frequency; in addition,
there are numerous reports of other non-thermal influences of the radiation
of the kind used in mobile telephony, such as effects on human blood
pressure [13], depression of the immune efficiency of human leukocytes
(white blood cells) [14], increases in the permeability of the blood-brain
barrier [15], increases in calcium efflux from brain tissue [16], and most
dramatically, a significant increase in the mortality of chick embryos
[17].
Finally, there are the numerous reports (that display a remarkable
consistency (world-wide) of adverse health effects experienced both by users
of mobile phones and by people resident in the vicinity of the associated
base stations, the most common complaints being those of a neurological
nature, such as effects on short-term memory, concentration, learning,
sleeping disorders and anxiety states [18], as well as increases in the
incidence of leukemia [19].
It is clear that the laboratory findings* referred to above are, in general,
consistent with the reported adverse health problems. Given this degree of
circumstantial evidence, research effort must now be directed towards
understanding the extent to which the reported adverse health effects can be
considered to be actually initiated by some primary non-thermal influence of
an ultra-low intensity external electromagnetic field on the human organism,
and, further, to consider whether adverse health effects other than those
already reported might also be provoked.
The present situation is summarised in the attached Figure.
11. Taken individually, the evidence from each of the four sectors might
well be considered less than compelling, but when considered together, a
rather interconsistent picture emerges from which it is clear that the issue
of non-thermal effects can no longer be responsibly dismissed as an
epiphenomenom, but is indeed a reality which cannot be reasonably denied a
reality which mandates firstly its recognition by regulatory bodies, and
secondly, that serious and urgent attention be given to how the public might
be better protected against any associated adverse health effects, so that
the benefits of modern telecommunication technology can be enjoyed with a
higher degree of safety than is currently the case. Before this can be done,
however, much more research into these subtle effects is required
specifically:
A. Further studies at the level of the primary interaction of ultra-low
intensity microwaves (including pulsed ones) with living organisms - along
the lines already persued in the laboratory, using lower forms of life for
experimentation [7-11] - aimed at obtaining a much better understanding of
the ability of such radiation (of sub-thermal intensity) to influence,
non-thermally, biological processes both at a cellular and sub-cellular
level, addressing, for example, the magnitude of the (sub-thermal) threshold
intensity and duration of irradiation necessary to achieve the switch-on of
various processes, and the dependence of these processes on the frequency of
the radiation.
B. Much needed physiological studies, to establish the nature and extent of
any adverse effects on human health provoked by the primary non-thermal
influence of ultra-low intensity radiation on the living organism [12-17].
*It should be stressed that experimental difficulties encountered in
independent attempts to reproduce these findings are not unexpected, but
indeed reflect the non-uniqueness in the response of living organisms
mentioned above. It must be appreciated that not only are these experiments
extremely difficult in themselves, but also that the relatively large
numbers of variables involved in the full characterisation of the living
organism (not to mention deterministic chaos [20]) militates against the
realisation of the identical conditions necessary to ensure reproducibility.
In many cases, positive results were only obtained, with considerable
patience and effort, after many initial failures. Since the odds are so
stacked against a positive result, the realisation of one must be considered
to be rather significant.
12. Meanwhile, several courses of action can be identified that would go
some way to ameliorating the (unnecessarily) hazardous situation currently
obtaining in the case of base stations:
(i) Ensure that the field strengths to which the public is so
indiscriminately and involuntarily exposed are kept well below the threshold
values referred to above, which are 1000 times lower than thermal levels,
being of the order of microwatts/cm2 ( = (W/cm2)
This will, of course, also lower the energy in each pulse, and can be
achieved either by locating the antennae on much higher masts, or by
introducing an exclusion zone, such as the one of 500 metres recommended
(but not legally enforceable) by the Association of Local Governments of New
South Wales (NSW), Australia; clearly, mast height can be traded against the
extent of any exclusion zone.
It may be noted, in connection with NSW, that the safety limits there
recommended (but again not legally enforceable) are the most stringent in
the world - being 1000 times lower than 1(W/cm2. By comparison, the NRPB
value of 3300(W/cm2 is one million times higher! Furthermore, the NRPB value
is more than 7 times higher than that (450(W/cm2) of the International
Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP [1]) who advise the
World Health Organisation, whilst the EU has recently recommended a value of
10 (W/cm2).
(ii) Prevent localised areas of unnecessarily high fields by prohibiting the
future erection of clusters of masts in the same vicinity, and requiring
that existing clusters be replaced by a single tall mast serving the various
companies. In considering Planning Applications, attention should be given
to the proposed site of a mast in relation to the local topography, so as to
ensure that in hilly terrain, for example, there are no homes, schools,
hospitals or any other public buildings that are occupied for any
appreciable period of time on a level with the emitting antennae.
Furthermore, the antennae distribution on the mast should be such that the
highest possible emission in any direction (taking into account the maximum
call traffic) is, in publicly accessible areas, well below the 1
microwatt/cm2 threshold value.
(iii) Remove from the digital signal any low frequency (amplitude)
modulations that fall in the range of the human brainwaves.
18 June 1999
REFERENCES
1. Health Physics, 74(4), 494-522 (1998)
2. H. Fröhlich, Advances in Electronics and Electron Physics, 53, 85-152
(1980)
3. C.W. Smith & S. Best, Electromagnetic Man, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London,
1989
4. G.J. Hyland, Engineering Science and Education Journal, 7(6), 261-269
(1998)
5. C. Brauner, Electrosmog a Phantom Risk, Swiss Reinsurance Company, 1996
6. S.J. Webb et al., Phys. Letts, 60A, 267-268 (1977); ibid., 63A, 407-408
(1977); ibid., 69A, 65-67 (1978); Physics Report, 60(4), 201-224 (1980); V.S.
Bannikov et al., Doklady Akad. Nauk. 253(2), 479-480 (1980); F. Drissler &
L. Santo, in Coherent Excitations in Biological Systems, (Eds. H. Fröhlich &
F. Kremer), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1983, pp.6-9.
7. S.J. Webb & A.D. Booth, Nature, 222, 1199-1200 (1969); A.J. Berteaud et
al., C.R. Hebd. Seances Acad. Sci. Ser. D, 281, 843-846 (1975)
8. W. Grundler & F. Kaiser, Nanobiology, 1, 163-176 (1992)
9. M.B. Golant et al., Radiophys. Quantum Electron. 37, 82-84 (1994); I.Ya.
Be lyaev et al., Electro-and Magnetobiology, 13(1), 53-65 (1994)
10. S.J. Webb, Phys. Lett. 73A, 145-148 (1979); K. Lukashevsky & I.Ya.
Belyaev, Med. Sci. Res. 18, 955-957 (1990)
11. L. Miguel Penafiel et al., Bioelectromagnetics 18, 132-141 (1997)
12. L von Klitzing, Phys. Medica XI(2), 77-80 (1995); K. Mann & J. Roschke,
Neuropsychobiology, 33, 41-47 (1996)
13. S. Braune et al., The Lancet 351, Saturday 20 June 1998
14. R. Coghill, accepted for publication in Bioelectrochemistry and
Bioenergetics, 1999
15. L.G. Salford et al., Microsc. Res. Tech., 27, 535-542 (1994)
16. S.K. Dutta et al., Bioelectromagnetics, 5, 71-78 (1984)
17. M. Bastide et al., submitted to Bioelectromagnetics, 1999; see also B.J.
Youbicier-Simo et al., ibid., 18(7), 514-523 (1997)
18. A.A. Kolodynski & V.V. Kolodynski, The Science of the Total Environment,
180, 87-93 (1996)
19. B. Hocking et al., Medical J. Australia, 165, 601-605 (1996); H. Dolk et
al., American J. of Epidemiology, 145(1), 1-9 (1997); ibid., 10-17 (1997)
20. F. Kaiser, in Energy Transfer Dynamics, (Eds. T.W. Barrett & H.A. Pohl),
Springer-Verlag, Berlin,1987, Ch.21, pp.224-236 SEITE
Top of Page