Examining Bodily Effects of Electromagnetic Frequencies 1

Examining Bodily Effects of Electromagnetic Frequencies 1

Examining Bodily Effects of Electromagnetic Frequencies

and Modification of Current Regulations

Michael Rizzo

Olentangy Liberty High School

A common problem with the constant and rapid invention of new technology is the race to keep these new products regulated. Often times, the scientific community struggles to fabricate guidelines that maximize safety without limiting the new technology, resulting in temporary gaps where safety is not guaranteed. For example, smoking cigarettes wasn’t always considered unhealthy, and texting while driving wasn’t always illegal . One of the more recent health concerns has been on the effects electromagnetic frequencies (EMFs) emitted from cell phones on the human body. The basis for this issue is the possibility that exposure to EMFs may cause cancer, but since so little time has elapsed since their invention, a vast majority of researchers are uncertain of their long-term effects. We as a society should be cautious, cell phones are not going away any time soon, but since EMFs are potentially carcinogenic, it’s probably best to limit their use as much as possible.

The current regulations we have for cell phones were set in 1998 by the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) which state that high frequency exposure can “cause vibration of charged or polar molecules” which creates friction that becomes heat (Matthes, Feychting, Croft 2016) . To ensure one’s safety from overheating due to EMFs, ICNIRP “recommends limiting the exposure to high frequencies (HF) so that the threshold at which these interactions become detrimental is never reached” (Matthes et al. 2016). The site states that EMFs are not biologically harmful in small amounts because our body is strong enough to compensate for the minor increase in temperature on its own, but when the threshold is exceeded, HF exposure can cause heat stroke and burns. The actual guidelines set by the ICNIRP advise avoiding excessive exposure to reduce the heating effects, but many studies have been conducted showing that EMFs influence the body in a more drastic manner. Despite the opposition, the ICNIRP maintains their assertion that EMFs are not harmful.

Since a number of studies directly oppose the ICNIRP, there is a strong indication that the effects of EMFs are still largely misunderstood. One such study, despite being conducted in 2000, remains viable due to its interesting circumstance. This German study, conducted by the ECOLOG Institute and commissioned by T-Mobile, investigated potential adverse health effects of EMFs relatively early. Its abstract states:

The findings that high frequency electromagnetic fields influence cell transformation, cell growth promotion and cell communication also point on a carcinogenic potential of the fields used for mobile telephony. The study also found teratogenic effects (birth deformities) and loss of fertility in animal studies (Neitzke Voigt Hennies 2000).

What makes this study unique is the fact that its results were largely ignored for 13 years. In 2014, Dr. Neitzke, the primary researcher for the study, came forward and stated that after seeing the findings of his study, T-Mobile covered up the results by commissioning three other studies that would show no relationship between EMFs and cancer. Additionally, Neitzke’s study was originally only published in German until the Human Ecological Social Economic Project (HESE), an organization that translates scientific documents to english, also translated the formal statement that he made to inform the public (Neitzke 2014). If Neitzke’s findings were published in 2000, today’s cell phone ubiquity may be to a much lesser degree. Because these results were hidden for so long, they ended up having little impact, even when the data resurfaced in 2014. This leads many to wonder if there have been more studies that have been covered up for these same reasons. The fact that shady business practices such as these exist automatically, albeit unfairly, reduces the credibility of sources the are uncertain of the true nature of EMFs, yet still claim that they are not cancer inducing.

For the most part, people are being told that cell phones are not dangerous to one’s health. Organizations such as the American Cancer Society (ACS) and the National Cancer Institute (NIH) persist that EMF, or RF (radio frequencies) as they are called in this source, fall into the category of non-ionizing waves. The ACS provides information that is very similar to the ICNIRP guidelines, which were set in 1998, and reaffirmed in 2009, but these are the same sources that are unable to disprove, only discredit. The organization persists that RF “don’t have enough energy to cause cancer by directly damaging the DNA inside cells. RF waves are different from stronger (ionizing) types of radiation such asx-rays, gamma rays, and ultraviolet (UV) light, which can break the chemical bonds in DNA” (American Cancer Society 2016). However, in large amounts, RF can heat up bodily tissue, much like microwaves, and they definitely do impact the body in some way. If they do not damage DNA directly, they may indirectly facilitate an environment where tumors can form. The NIH references the huge increase in cell phone subscriptions in the past few years, but states that improvements have been made to the design of cell phones so their power output has decreased as well. The question is, has the decrease in power output been enough to offset the growing number of cell phones in our world? Many are concerned that, despite non-ionizing waves not having the ability to cause tumors in their current amount, the prevalence of cell phones will cause the amount of radiation in the atmosphere to reach dangerous levels. Additionally, the regulation of cell phones follows rules set over 18 years ago, it is very likely that some aspect of cell phones in our society have changed.

Many groups still remain neutral in this debate. Rather than declaring their opinion one way or another, these authorities believe that insufficient evidence is available to make a definitive conclusion. For example, the CDC states that since our scientific community is divided, it’s probably best to err on the side of caution. RF radiation has been classified as a “possible human carcinogen” but before cell phones are vilified, “It is also important to consider the benefits of cell phones. Their use can be valuable in an urgent or emergency situation – and even save lives” (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2014). A major problem with the cell phone debate is that they have become an integral part of our society. In our modern world, everyone from the largest corporation to the smallest family relies on cell phones, so even if scientists clearly prove that the EMFs from cell phones cause cancer, there’s almost no chance of ridding the world of them completely. The constant access to technology and the constant communication that is provided at one’s fingertips is addicting. More likely than not, a compromise will be needed to make any headway in that direction. Additionally, if our society remains uncertain of their effects, there is no way of convincing those who do not think cell phones are harmful to give up their phone. Since at this point in time only the benefits of cell phones are known, there is nothing concrete enough to contrast these positive attributes.

There have been several case-control experiments and case-review studies conducted in the past 10 years or so that vehemently believe in a link between EMFs and adverse health effects--especially cancer. As seen previously, however, these experiments lie on what could be poor experimental method or bias. The Mayo Clinic summarizes the most relevant studies that have been conducted in recent years by saying “a series of recent studies can't tell the entire story. It often takes many years between the use of a new cancer-causing agent — such as tobacco — and the observation of an increase in cancer rates“ (Moynihan 2015). Many parallels can be drawn between EMF debate and the tobacco debate from years ago. In the beginning, the majority believed that tobacco did not cause any adverse health effects; Smoking cigarettes was allowed inside of buildings and in nearly all public places. Tobacco companies advertised their product relentlessly, and gave false evidence that their product was not harmful. When compared to cell phones and their respective providers today, it is evident that this issue follows many of the same trends. While this is by no means an indication that cell phone waves are carcinogenic, it sets a precedent that our society should reference when making a decision at a time when so much is unknown.

Even with extensive research, scientists are having trouble finding convincing evidence to support either side of the issue. The largest case-control study on this subject to date gave inconclusive results. The study, titled INTERPHONE, utilized sample groups from 13 countries and focused specifically on acoustic neurinomas, and tumors of the parotid gland and brain. Their data indicated that the heaviest cell users had a higher chance of developing tumors, however the increase was just below the threshold of being statistically significant. The same can be said for the location of most of the brain tumors observed, which was in the temporal lobe--directly behind the ears (Cardis Richardson Deltour Armstrong 2007). The final report explained that, since the data was not statistically significant, the observed increases could be due to bias or random chance. Unfortunately for the EMF debate, this evidence does nothing more than skew opinions even further. Those who wanted to see a correlation between EMFs and tumors used the study to strengthen their beliefs, but those who already believed that EMFs were harmless were reassured as well. Studies such as INTERPHONE are problematic because there is so much weight put into the largest study in a subject, even if the study ends up being largely unsuccessful. There is an even larger study called COSMOS that has been underway since 2010, but its results are not expected until 2030-2040 (National Cancer Institute 2016). It appears that this debate will still be underway for a while, but at this moment people are forced to reference INTERPHONE’s polarizing results as the current authority as far as experiments go.

One such group stemmed from INTERPHONE in 2015, titled the International EMF Scientist Appeal. It is an appeal to a variety of authorities such as the World Health Organization to revise the current regulation of EMFs. The site refers to the ICNIRP not changing its guidelines despite new studies being released that indicate the possibility of a link between EMFs and adverse health effects. The appeal persists that “because the ICNIRP guidelines do not cover long-term exposure and low-intensity effects, they are insufficient to protect public health” (Blank Havas Kelley Lai Moskowitz 2015). The appeal even suggests possible improvements to the current regulations, such as increased protection for children and pregnant women, government funded research on EMF effects, manufacturers being required to improve the safety of their product, and radiation-free zones being established (Blank et al. 2015). These are some of the most important precautions to take because, rather than trying to eliminate cell phones from a cell phone-dominated society, they seek to protect those who are most vulnerable and instigate extensive, unbiased research that will help manufacturers improve the safety of their product. Some flaws in this appeal include lack of time which the ICNIRP would need to have reasonable evidence to create guidelines for long-term effects of EMF without guessing. Also, government-funded research is highly unlikely because there are so many other issues vying for money that will complicate the allocation of funds for research on an issue that does not appear dire at surface level. Finally, establishing white-zones (radiation-free zones) would be extremely difficult and expensive, which leads back to the problem of allocating money for an issue that does not appear to be current threat to the government when compared to other issues of today. The ICNIRP has not yet responded to this appeal, likely due to the fact that their is not undeniable evidence that would warrant this kind of (expensive) action. However, the International EMF Scientist Appeal has a point that preemptive measures should be taken before a possible epidemic occurs.

Evidence that supports a link between EMFs and adverse health effects are quickly opposed, but that does not mean their findings do not have some merit. One such study describes a molecular effect of radiofrequency radiation (RFR), a type of EMF, as “oxidative stress induced by RFR exposure should be recognized as one of the primary mechanisms of the biological activity of this kind of radiation” (Yakymenko Tsybulin Sidorik 2015). This effect--which is more or less a slight alteration of glucose metabolism--mainly serves as evidence that EMFs have effects on organic organisms other than simply heating. Since this discovery was not published until last year, it shows that new information about the effects of EMFs is still developing, and that by influencing the physiology of cells, EMFs may pose more of a threat than originally thought. Another study from 2013 found statistically significant evidence of a correlation between the heaviest cell phone users and brain tumors. Specifically for “ positive association when considering life-long cumulative duration (≥896 h, OR=2.89; 95% CI 1.41 to 5.93 for gliomas; OR=2.57; 95% CI 1.02 to 6.44 for meningiomas) and number of calls for gliomas” (Coureau Bouvier Lebailly Peray 2013).

Overall, the experiments conducted thus far have many flaws. The ACS references lack of prolonged research, which will alleviate itself with time, but currently this issue raises a ton of problems. Since tumors develop so slowly, in some cases not for decades, coupled with the fact that cell phones use has skyrocketed in the past few years means that a majority of evidence collected may have become obsolete (American Cancer Society 2016). However, this means that the slight link that was demonstrated in INTERPHONE may be strengthened in the future. With a nearly statistically significant relationship between EMFs and tumors shown back before a massive, widespread increase in cell use occurred, a stronger link may be shown in the future.

It is much harder to prove a fact than it is to disprove an idea, and if organizations such as the ICNIRP, ACS, and NIH can barely keep a lid on the issue as it is, then the drastic increase in cell use will surely settle the issue once time has taken its course. While our society waits eagerly for the results of COSMOS to be reported, we should try to limit how often we use our cell phones. Looking at the past and processing the present, our society has concluded that cell phones are currently an irreplaceable resource, but that resource may come at a cost.

References available in attached document. None of the cited research is my own work.