Non Ionizing Radiation Health Effects
These are paraphrased notes and screen shots from a talk given by Dr. Erica Mallery Bathe published on youtube.
Exposures to non – ionizing radiation have risen dramatically in the recent years.
Result there is a renewed call for new biologically based guidelines for these frequencies. Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR) has been classified as a 2B possible carcinogen in 2011 by the World Health Organization. At the time it was held back from a higher determination due to lack of clear mechanistic data. Since then there has been a massive evolution in the science. As a medical Dr., it makes sense to Erica that voltage gated calcium channels are a mechanism keyed in with multiple disease end points.
Watch The Video Or Continue Reading Below:
It should also be understood that Extremely Low Frequency ELFs are equally as important in terms of biological impact.
RF damages biology at non thermal (NT) levels. Ie. Low intensity exposure There are no North American safety levels to prevent this damage. Standards only limit or prevent thermal exposure. Also biological disruption is not linearly proportional to intensity or frequency. Meaning outcomes are completely unpredictable, one can't just say a lower intensity frequency has a lower impact than a higher frequency. Thus the need for a more precautionary approach when considering health impacts.
There has been zero precaution when implementing these frequencies.
Biological effects depend on:
Energy absorption rate
Frequency
Polarization
Geometrical character or biological absorber (tissue type)
Power Density Absorbed depends on:
Reflection/ Standing waves which may change absorption by order of magnitude
Frequency and amplitude windows:
Makes it non-linear
You can have lower frequencies that have a more harmful biological affect (all this was noted in the 1970’s)
Also Noted:
Low (NT) intensity effects
Ca2+ handling changes
DNA changes
Alteration in growth rate of some cells
Variable sensitivity levels of organisms (EHS)
CNS effects are predominate
And the frequencies of maximum affect coincide with brainwave frequencies
RF damages biology at non thermal NT levels. Ie. Low intensity exposure.
Biological disruption is not linearly proportional to intensity or frequency.
Huge proliferation in the intensity of exposure has shaped the last 10 years plus.
Its not just the intensity that is so different from actual background radiation in these ranges of frequency. The nature of this frequency on earth is that we have had a natural quiet zone for these ranges. It is man that has filled in these ranges with man made radiation in the GHz range. It is different in terms of its intensity and in fact a Quintilian times higher in intensity (10 power 18) some studies reveal. Exposures include:
1. Window effects
2. Polarization effects
3. Cumulative exposure
4. Type of signal matters, intermittent vs continuous
5. Information carrying content
6. Morphology (pulse modulation / sine)
7. EMF / Chemical synergy
In labs these differences are isolated but in real life they interact and overlap in real-time. Clear evidence shows that chemicals interact with this type of EMF where there are synergies such as 2+2 becomes 5. Synergistic effects enhance the biological damage. We are exposed to interference where multiple waves crossover as well as hot spots where super intensity takes place.
Evidence of damage DNA breaks by using a cell phone.
It was controversial at the time but validation did take place through the court of law. DNA damage of 24 hours on a cell phone is equivalent to 1600 chest x-rays. This is completely validated by new studies – Romazzini Institute Study.
Children are more vulnerable:
1. Less shielding (thinner skull)
2. Higher body water content – more efficient RF absorption
3. Nervous system still in development and more sensitive
4. Physically smaller
5. Longer time for latent effects to manifest, carcinogenic effects can take decades to manifest
5 year old’s absorb 60% more microwaves than adults (Stuart Report, 2000)
Exposure in bone marrow increases 10x greater than in adults (Christ et al 2010)
EHS in children:
Demonstrated in peer-reviewed double blind published provocation studies
It can start with headaches using the cell phone, then they continue those exposures and get headaches from wifi or lighting or cell base stations etc. If intense exposure continues the intensity to trigger becomes much lower.
This is not a placebo effect and is different from electrophobia.
There are wide ranging symptoms and they are non specific and are identifiable classifications.
Dose response – if you take away exposure you see a reduction in whole constellations of symptoms.
When it comes to mobile phones, wifi, dect phones, base stations, etc we are seeing the same constellations of symptoms. This provides evidence for causality.
Click To Enlarge Images
How is something like this happening again?
After what happened with the Tobacco industry and other industries how is it that we are back in the same issue with this industry and in fact it makes the Tobacco ordeal look like child's play. This is not the first time we’ve taken know environmental toxins and then allowed them to be freely used and circulated in the public and to escalate to a level to which we have no idea of the ramification for health.
Reasons:
Socio-economic pressure – lots of money made at multiple levels
Destruction to funding valid science and fueling invalid science – its easy to design a study to fail
Marginalization – its not in the core of mainstream medicine so it is ignored
Litigation – One has to be a giant to get anywhere
Dr’s are not taught anything about these frequencies and biological damage – ignorance and they have not time to learn
Social ignorance – people love their devices so there is no political action being taken