How Exposure To GSM & TETRA Base Station Radiation Can Adversely Affect
Humans
International Institute Of Biophysics University Of Warwick Coventry, United
Kingdom
Dr. Gerald J. Hyland - Associate Fellow - Department Of Physics Executive
Member
July, 2002
It is perfectly true that levels of microwave radiation in publicly
accessible locations near GSM and TETRA Base-stations comply, by many
factors of 1000, with the current safety guidelines set by the International
Commission for Non-ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). These limits are,
however, purely thermally based - i.e. they simply limit the intensity of
the radiation to ensure that the amount of tissue heating by absorption of
microwave radiation is not in excess of what the body can cope with. If
heating were the only effect of the radiation, existing guidelines would
afford adequate protection; unfortunately, however, this is not the case.
For microwaves are waves, and, as such, have properties other than solely
intensity. In particular, the pulsed microwave radiation used in the GSM and
TETRA systems of telecommunication has a number of rather well defined
frequencies that facilitate its discernment by the alive human organism, and
via which the organism can, in turn, be affected in a purely non-thermal
way. This is so because the alive human organism (and only the alive one)
itself supports a variety of oscillatory electrical biological/ biochemical
activities, each characterised by a specific frequency, some of which happen
to be close to those found in GSM and TETRA signals, a coincidence that
makes them potentially vulnerable to interference. This comes about because
these oscillatory electrical activities play a role akin to the tuned
circuits in a radio, making the living organism an electromagnetic
instrument of great and exquisite sensitivity that is able to 'recognise'
and discern the presence of the radiation 'informationally' by decoding
(demodulating) its various frequency characteristics, including those of any
amplitude modulations. Since these activities are involved in
bio-communication and in the control and regulation of bio-processes
essential to well-being, it is reasonable to anticipate that it is the
functionality of the alive organism that is impaired by exposure to
radiation of sub-thermal intensity containing bioactive frequencies; this
contrasts with the situation at thermal levels, where actual material damage
to DNA, cells and tissue can occur. It is to be stressed, however, that
unlike heating, non-thermal (informational) influences are possible only
when the organism is alive: the Dead have no electrical brain activity with
which an external electromagnetic field can interfere!
The frequency of the radiation that is used to carry the voice information
(messages) in both GSM and TETRA lies in the microwave band - a frequency
range in which processes as fundamental as cell division can be interfered
with - the somewhat lower carrier frequencies characterising the TETRA
radiation facilitating its deeper penetration into tissue. On the other
hand, the rates at which the microwaves are emitted in distinct groups of
flashes (or pulses) happen to be close to the frequencies of some of the
brain's own electrical and electrochemical rhythms; accordingly, these can
be interfered with, and even entrained, by the radiation. In the case of GSM,
the basic 'flash rate' is 217Hz, but the flashes are emitted in groups of 25
at the rate of 8.34Hz - a frequency that lies in the range of the human
alpha brain wave activity. In the case of TETRA, on the other hand, the
nature of the pulsing is somewhat different, but is again characterised by
low frequencies that are here close to 70Hz and 17Hz - the latter, in
particular, characterising the much more accentuated pulsing of the
emissions of vehicularly mounted antennae. 17Hz is very close to the
frequency (16Hz) at which there are reports of a significant increase in
loss (efflux) of calcium from brain cells - thereby potentially undermining
the integrity of the nervous system - and the frequency at which seizures
can be provoked in photosensitive epileptics by a light flashing at between
15-20 times per second.
What the Mobile Phone Industry and the various Regulatory Bodies (such as
the NRPB and ICNIRP) dispute is that the very weak, pulsed microwave
radiation used in GSM and TETRA exerts any non-thermal biological influences
that entail adverse health reactions. This belief is based, firstly, on the
erroneous view that electromagnetic fields should be treated as toxins -
rather than as an integral feature of the living state - and, secondly, on
an outdated 'linear' mindset, within prejudices the conclusion that exposure
to weak radiation can entail only correspondingly weak effects, and vice
versa. The invalidity of the latter is indicated by the possibility of the
'informational' influences referred to above, which, being contingent on our
aliveness, are inherently non-linear effects: attempts to understand such
effects from a linear perspective are thus doomed, in that they are impotent
to address the most discriminating feature of all, namely the 'aliveness' of
the system under study.
The importance of ensuring non-thermal electromagnetic compatibility between
mobile phone radiation and energised electronic equipment, such as that in
aircraft and hospitals, for example, is, of course, generally accepted and
respected. Ironically, however, the same does yet not obtain in the case of
the alive human organism, despite (i) the fact that the latter is itself an
electromagnetic instrument par excellence, as already mentioned, and (ii)
the existence of a wide variety of non-thermal bio-effects induced by low
intensity microwave radiation (both pulsed and continuous) that have been
revealed by many experiments, enjoying varying degrees of corroboration*,
which have been performed over the last 30 years on many kinds of living
organisms - including humans - most of which have been published in
international, peer reviewed scientific journals.
Of particular concern is the way in which this radiation affects brain
function - specifically, its electrical activity (EEG), its
electro-chemistry, and the blood/ brain barrier - and degrades the immune
system. For such non-thermal influences are of a kind that are consistent
with the nature of adverse health reactions reported both by some users of
mobile phones and by some people exposed long-term to the radiation from
Base-stations. Thus, for example, the radiation is known to affect the
dopamine-opiate system of the brain and to increase the permeability of the
blood brain barrier (thereby facilitating the passage of toxins into brain
fluid), both of which are medically considered to underlie headache - one of
the most persistently reported adverse health effects. Similarly, the
duration of REM sleep is shortened by exposure to radio-frequency radiation,
whilst nocturnal secretion of melatonin is partly inhibited, both of which
are consistent with reports of sleep disruption and concentration problems.
Furthermore, the possibility of deliberately provoking epileptic seizures in
certain animals by exposing them to pulsed microwave radiation is consistent
with reports of an increased frequency of seizures in some epileptic
children when exposed to GSM Base-station emissions. The latter finding is
not at all unreasonable, given the known ability of a visible light (such as
a stroboscope) flashing at a rate somewhere between 15-20 times per second
to provoke seizures in the 5% minority of epileptics who are photosensitive.
For visible light and microwaves are both simply different realisations of
electromagnetic radiation, and the microwave radiation used in GSM and TETRA
similarly 'flashes' (pulses) at rates that the brain is able to recognise;
unlike visible light, however, pulsed microwaves are not reliant on the eye
and optic nerve to access the brain, but can penetrate the skull directly.
Another possible contributory factor to sleeping problems is the phenomenon
of so-called 'microwave hearing', whereby people (even those who are
clinically totally deaf) can discern buzzing/clicking sounds in their heads
when exposed to low energy, pulsed microwaves.
It should be noted that although microwave radiation is non-ionising - i.e.
does not have enough energy to break chemical bonds, particularly in DNA -
it can, nevertheless, functionally interfere with the natural processes
involved in DNA replication and repair; this could well account,
respectively, for the reports of chromosome aberrations and micronuclei
formation, and for the increased amount of DNA fragmentation observed under
irradiation. Similarly, the finding that exposure to pulsed GSM radiation
(at least at an intensity comparable to that realised during use of a mobile
phone) promotes the development of cancer in mice that have been of heat
shock proteins (HSPs) - for these are known to inhibit naturally programmed
cell death (apoptosis), genetically engineered to have a predisposition to
cancer is consistent with the over-expression (under exposure) whereby cells
'should have died' continue to live.
Taken together, these effects are consistent with the 2-3 fold increase in
the incidence of a rare form of cancer in the periphery of the human brain
(where the radiation from the handset most easily penetrates) - the
laterality of which correlates with that of handset use - which has been
found in a recent epidemiological study in the USA.
Difficulties in replication can often be traced to some crucial difference
in experimental protocol that effectively undermines the fidelity of the
purported replication; thus the reason why some experiments have not been
replicated is precisely because they have not been replicated!
It is important to appreciate that these and other findings pertaining to
exposure to the emissions of GSM handsets are not irrelevant to exposure to
Base-station radiation, since the informational content of the latter is the
same as that of the phone signals; indeed, the increasing number of
disturbing reports of serious adverse effects in animals (particularly
cattle) exposed to GSM Base-station radiation could well be valuable warning
portents that perhaps should not be ignored.
It is essential to appreciate, however, that because the possibility of
non-thermal influences is dependent on the organism being alive, it
necessarily follows that not everyone will be equally susceptible, even
exposed to exactly the same radiation - susceptibility depending not only on
the radiation, but also on the genetic predisposition and physiological
state of the individual when irradiated, such as the stability of electrical
brain activity and the person's level of stress prior to exposure. Whilst
this admittedly makes the occurrence of non-thermal effects more difficult
to predict than is the case with thermal effects - and hence to regulate
against - it does not mean that they can be safely ignored, or that they
cannot provoke adverse health reactions in some people, the severity of
which will again vary from person to person, according to the robustness of
their immune system. It is probably true to say that if the same degree of
risk and uncertainty as to subjective noxiousness obtained in the case of a
new drug or foodstuff, it is unlikely that they would ever be licensed.
Quite apart from their weaker immune systems, children are particularly
vulnerable because of the increased rate at which their cells divide (making
them more susceptible to genetic damage) and because their nervous system is
still developing - the smaller size of their heads and their thinner skulls
increasing the amount of radiation that they absorb. Particularly vulnerable
to interference by the pulses of microwaves, is their electrical brain-wave
activity, which does not settle into a stable pattern until puberty. The use
of mobile phones by pre-adolescent children is thus to be strongly
discouraged, and the siting of Base-station masts in the vicinity of schools
and nurseries strongly resisted: financial gain must not be allowed to be
the overriding consideration.
In connection with Base-station exposure, it must be appreciated that it is
impossible to cite a unique 'safe distance'. The only meaningful approach,
at present, is to require, in publicly accessible locations near a mast,
that the intensity of the radiation should be below the level at which any
adverse health effects have so far been reported; including an additional
safety factor of 10, a maximum intensity limit of 10nW/cm2 ( = 10-4W/m2 -
equivalent to > 0.2V/m) is indicated. The precise distance from a mast at
which this level is realised depends, however, on how powerful are the
antennae, the orientations of the main beams and their 'side lobes'
(subsidiary emissions that are much more localised in the immediate vicinity
of a mast), and the local topography.
To cite the examples of radio and television transmission in an attempt to
support the claim that exposure to the (much less intense) radiation used in
mobile telephony is harmless is flawed on at least two accounts: (i) the
occurrence, in any case, of certain health problems that correlate with
exposure to the radiation from these installations, and (ii) the fact that,
unlike the radiation used in GSM /TETRA installations, this radiation is not
emitted in pulses, in patterns that the brain can recognise. Furthermore,
before taking reassurance from an apparent absence of health problems
amongst continental users of TETRA, it should be remembered that it is often
the much less biologically active TETRAPOL (as opposed to TETRA) that is
there used.
In conclusion, it can hardly be disputed that to enjoy an acceptable quality
of life requires more than simply an absence of terminal disease. Adverse
health effects in humans of the kinds already reported worldwide - such as
headaches, sleep disruption, impairment of short-term memory, etc. - whilst
maybe not life-threatening in themselves, do nevertheless have a
debilitating effect that undoubtedly affects general well-being, and which
in the case of some children could well undermine their neurological and
academic development. It should, of course, be stressed that the apparent
absence, to date, of more serious pathologies attributable to exposure to
the emissions of GSM/TETRA Base-stations is no guarantee of immunity in the
long-term. For exposure to this kind of radiation is still in its 'early
days' in comparison to the much longer latency periods that are generally
considered to characterise the kinds of cancers that could well be promoted
or initiated in certain people, although it should be appreciated that
existing latency estimates, based on experience under non-exposed
conditions, are not necessarily relevant here.