Low Intensity Radiofrequency Radiation: A New Oxidant For Living Cells

There exist a great number of studies showing the negative effects of non-native EMF. As usual, the cell phone industry has led the way in burying this evidence under fallacious claims of safety and labeling whistle-blowers and truth-tellers as wackos.

Just standard operating procedure to keep the cash flow uninterrupted.

Where have we seen this before?

“Radiofrequency radiation (RFR), e.g. electromagnetic waves emitted by our cell phones and Wi-Fi, are referred to as non-ionizing. This means that in contrast to the ionizing radiation, which does induce  ionization of water and biologically  important macromolecules, RFR does not have a capacity for such effects. Unlike, for example X-rays, the energy of RFR is not enough to break electrons off the molecules. However, is RFR completely safe for public health? Traditionally, the industry and the public bodies said yes. Nevertheless, new research data change this perception.

“Oxidative stress is an induced imbalance between pro-oxidant and antioxidant systems resulting in oxidative damage  to  proteins, lipids and DNA; and is closely connected to overproduction of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in living cells. The  notion that the low intensity RFR can bring about significant oxidative stress in living cells has been doubted for years. The logic is simple: as low intensity radiofrequency electromagnetic waves are not able to ionize molecules, they can do nothing   wrong for the living tissues. However, during the last decades a worldwide increase in penetration of wireless communication systems, including cellular telephony and Wi-Fi, attracted massive attention to possible biological effects of low intensity RFR. Consequently, the recent epidemiological studies unexpectedly indicated a significant increase in the occurrence of various  tumors among longterm and “heavy” users of cellular phones. These include brain tumors, acoustic neuromas, tumors of parotid  glands, seminomas, melanomas and lymphomas. Similarly, an increase in tumor incidence  among  people  living nearby cellular base transmitting stations was also reported. As a result, in 2011 the World Health Organization/International Agency for Research on Cancer classified radiofrequency radiation as a possible carcinogen to humans.

“To that, a new medical condition, so-called electro-hypersensitivity, in which subjects suffer due to RFR exposure has been described. Typically these people suffer from skin and mucosa related symptoms (itching, smarting, pain, heat sensation), or heart and nervous system disorders after exposure to computer monitors, cell phones and other electromagnetic devices. This malady is growing continuously: starting from 0.06% of the total population in 1985 this category now includes as much as 9-11% of the European population.

“A number of experimental studies demonstrate metabolic effects induced by low intensity RFR. Notwithstanding the non-ionizing nature of RFR, profound mutagenic effects and features of significant oxidative stress in living cells under low
intensity RFR exposure were detected using various biological models. Some of the papers however still show an absence of  biological effects. To clarify the picture, we analyzed peer-reviewed publications on oxidative effects of RFR and found
altogether 80 currently available papers, of which a remarkable part, 76 papers (92.5%), reported the detection of significant oxidative stress. These effects most often included overproduction of ROS, lipid peroxidation/increased concentrations of malondialde-hyde, protein peroxidation, increased concentrations of nitric oxide (NO) and changes in the   activity of antioxidant enzymes. Some papers point to the role of particular ROS and the ROS related pathways.

“Whatever the particular first-step molecular mechanisms, it is clear that the substantial overproduction of ROS in living cells under low intensity RFR exposure could cause a broad spectrum of health disorders and diseases, including cancer in humans. Undoubtedly, this calls for the further intensive research in the area, as well as to a precautionary approach in routine usage of wireless devices.”(1)

(1) http://www.scopemed.org/fulltextpdf.php?mno=154583

Comments are closed.