Welcome to Mast Sanity

We are the primary national organisation opposing the insensitive siting of mobile phone and Tetra masts in the UK. Read more...

Phone Mast News Feeds

News Now News Now
Google News Google News Feed
Powerwatch Powerwatch News Feed
** New** ES-UK ES-UK News Feed
MS Research Mast Sanity Research News Feed
MS News Mast Sanity News Feed

Donate

Please consider supporting our efforts.

Amount: 

Or Send Donations by post to:

Mast Sanity
c/o Highfields
Brantham Hill,
Manningtree, Essex
CO11 1SD

Andrew Goldsworthy, August 2007

Weak non-ionising electromagnetic radiation in the environment can be linked to more‘modern illnesses’ than even the pessimists thought possible. Modern science can now beginto explain how.

Abstract
 
Weak electromagnetic radiation removes structurally important calcium (and possibly
magnesium) ions from cell membranes, making them weaker and more prone to transient
pore formation. This makes them leaky to even large molecules. Prolonged exposure to
mobile phone radiation causes serious damage to the DNA in living cells, probably
because of digestive enzymes leaking from lysosomes. This may be responsible for the
reduction in sperm quantity and quality found in recent studies of people using mobile
phones for more than a few hours a day. We might also expect it lead to an increase in the
incidence of cancer, but this may not become apparent for many years. Electromagnetic
exposure also increases the permeability of the blood‐brain barrier to large molecules and
allows potentially damaging substances to enter the brain from the bloodstream. The
blood‐brain barrier is characterised by having cells joined by ‘tight junctions’, where the
gaps between the cells are sealed by impermeable materials. Equivalent layers of cells
with tight junctions cover all of our body surfaces and a similar increase in their
permeability could allow the entry of a wide range of potential toxins, allergens and
carcinogens from the environment. There is evidence that this increase in permeability is
mediated by the loss of calcium from cell membranes and should also be enhanced by
electromagnetic exposure. This effect can link the current rise in the incidence of multiple
chemical sensitivities, various allergy‐related diseases and skin cancer to the
electromagnetic environment. Electrosensitive individuals can be thought of as people
who have abnormally weak permeability barriers that are more easily compromised by
electromagnetically‐induced calcium or magnesium loss. In general, the symptoms
resemble those of hypocalcaemia and hypomagnesaemia, which suggests a common
aetiology based on a reduction in membrane stability. Low concentrations of either
calcium or magnesium ions in the blood may be predisposing factors, but once the
condition is established, it can be progressive with increasing exposure to radiation. It
then appears to be irreversible.

Introduction

Nearly all of us are exposed to weak non‐ionising electromagnetic radiation from all sorts
of electrical appliances and even the wiring in our own homes. If we could see it, it would
look like a fog over almost everything, with particularly dense patches around people
using mobile phones and DECT cordless phones. There would be other dense patches
hovering permanently over their base stations and Wi‐Fi routers. People have dubbed this
‘electromagnetic smog’ and, like real smog, it can have serious effects on our health.
Electrosensitive people have known this for a long time because they experience pain and
other symptoms when they are exposed to the denser patches. However, the dangers go
well beyond that. Many people have attributed the recent rise in the incidence of a large
number of medical conditions such as asthma, other allergies, various cancers, diabetes
and multiple sclerosis to electromagnetic exposure. However, until very recently no one
has been able explain just how this could happen, but we are now learning about the
likely mechanisms and just how serious the situation is.

Calcium loss makes cell membranes porous

The most important factor giving adverse health effects from electromagnetic exposure
seems to be the electromagnetically‐induced loss of calcium ions (electrically charged
calcium atoms) from cell membranes. We have known for over thirty years that weak
electromagnetic fields remove calcium ions from the surfaces of cell membranes (Bawin et
al. 1975.; Blackman et al. 1982; Blackman 1990). In theory, magnesium ions can be
removed by a similar mechanism (See Goldsworthy 2006). However, divalent ions (ions
with a double charge) such as calcium are important in maintaining membrane stability
(Steck et al. 1970; Lew et al. 1988; Ha 2001) and their loss would make the membranes
more prone to the formation of transient pores and increase their general permeability to a
wide range of materials.

Pore formation can have many biological effects

Spontaneous pore formation has already been reported in stationary artificial
phospholipid membranes exposed to DC fields (Melikov et al. 2001) and we would expect
an even greater effect on the membranes of living cells, which are routinely subjected to
stresses and strains from being adjacent to moving cytoplasm. If these membranes were in
addition suffering from electromagnetically‐induced calcium depletion, we would expect
pore formation to be more frequent and give rise to larger pores that are slower to heal. In
this way, exposure to weak non‐ionising radiation would give a non‐specific increase in
membrane permeability. Such an increase can explain a large number of non‐thermal
biological effects of electromagnetic fields, ranging from changes in the growth rate of
plants to accelerated rates of healing and changes in gene expression in animals (See
Goldsworthy 2006; 2007). However, it can also cause serious damage.

Mobile phone radiation can damage DNA

Low‐level, non‐thermal (i.e. not strong enough to generate significant heat) microwave
radiation similar to that from mobile phones has been shown to do serious damage to the
DNA in cultures of living cells. Lai and Singh (1995) were the first to show this in rat brain
cells, but many other workers have since confirmed it. The most comprehensive study on
this was the Reflex Project sponsored by the European Commission and replicated in
laboratories in several European countries. They found that radiation from GSM mobile
phone handsets caused both single and double stranded breaks in the DNA of cultured
human and animal cells. Not all cell types were equally affected and some seemed not to
be affected at all (Reflex Report 2004). The degree of damage depended on the duration of
the exposure. With human fibroblasts, it reached a maximum at around 16 hours.
Intermittent exposure (5 minutes on, ten minutes off) was considerably more damaging
than continuous exposure, thus emphasising its non‐thermal nature. (Diem et al. 2005).
Because of the high stability of DNA molecules, the only plausible mechanism for this so
far is the release of DNAase and possibly other digestive through the membranes of
lysosomes (organelles that digest waste) that had been perforated or ruptured by the
radiation. If this is correct, there is likely to be considerable collateral damage to other
cellular systems.

If similar DNA fragmentation were to occur in the whole organism, we would expect a
more or less immediate reduction in male fertility as developing sperm become damaged,
an increased risk of cancer, which (by analogy with tobacco and asbestos) may take
several years to appear, and genetic mutations that will appear in future generations. It
would be unwise to assume that exposures of less than 16 hours are necessarily safe, since
covert DNA damage to give aberrant cells could occur long before it becomes obvious
under the microscope. Claims made by the mobile phone industry that their devices are
safe because not all cells are affected are rather like clutching at straws, since very few
genetically aberrant cells are needed to initiate a tumour.

Mobile phones can reduce fertility

We might expect DNA damage to result in a loss of fertility. Recent studies have shown
significant reductions in sperm motility, viability and quantity in men using mobile
phones for more than a few hours a day (Fejes et al. 2005; Agarwal et al. 2006; Agarwal et
al. 2007) so it is advisable to keep your mobile calls to a minimum. Since similar
experiments have not yet been performed with mobile phone base stations, it would be
premature to assume that they are necessarily safe, particularly since living near one will
involve a considerably longer exposure.

Electromagnetic exposure disrupts tight junction barriers

We might expect radiation that is strong enough to disrupt lysosomes also to be strong
enough to disrupt the outer membranes of cells so that these too are made more
permeable to large molecules. The effects of this would be most serious in the cells of the
various barriers within our bodies that prevent the passage of unwanted substances.
These are characterised by cells joined by ‘tight junctions’, in which the gaps between the
cells are sealed with impermeable materials to prevent leakage around their sides. One
such barrier is the blood‐brain barrier, which normally prevents unwanted substances in
the bloodstream from entering the brain. We know that the radiation from mobile phones
can increase the permeability of this barrier even to protein molecules as large as albumin
(Persson et al. 1997) and this increase in permeability can damage the neurones beneath
(Salford et al. 2003).

Calcium ions control barrier tightness

The loss in tightness of the blood‐brain barrier could be due to an increase in membrane
leakiness as proposed by Goldsworthy (2006; 2007) and/or to a disruption of the tight
junctions themselves, either of which could be triggered by an electromagneticallyinduced
loss of calcium from their membranes. The central role of membrane‐bound
calcium in controlling the ‘tightness’ of these layers is supported by an observation by
Chu et al. (2001). They found that either low levels of external calcium or the addition of
EGTA (a substance that removes calcium ions from surfaces) caused massive increases in
the electrical conductance and permeability to virus particles of respiratory epithelia,
which also has tight junctions.

We have many other tight junction barriers

There is a protective layer in the skin in the stratum granulosum, which is the outermost
layer of living skin cells, in which the cells are connected by tight junctions (Borgens et al.
1989; Furuse et al. 2002). In addition to this, virtually all of our other body surfaces are
protected by cells with tight junctions, including the nasal mucosa (Hussar et al. 2002), the
lungs (Weiss et al. 2003) and the lining of the gut (Arrieta et al. 2006). A similar
electromagnetically‐induced increase in the permeability of any of these would allow the
more rapid entry into the body of a whole range of foreign materials, including allergens,
toxins and carcinogens.

Loss of tightness can exacerbate many illnesses

Electromagnetically induced losses of barrier tightness at our body surfaces can explain
how the general increase in public exposure to electromagnetic fields may be responsible
for our ever‐increasing susceptibility to various allergies, multiple chemical sensitivities,
asthma, skin rashes and bowel cancer to name just a few. In addition, a non‐specific
increase in the permeability of the gut has been linked to type‐1 diabetes, Crohns disease,
celiac disease, multiple sclerosis, irritable bowel syndrome and a range of others (Arrieta
et al. 2006). The list is truly horrendous and points to a very real need to reduce our
exposure to non‐ionising radiation.

Electrosensitivity

Electrosensitivity (sometimes called electromagnetic hypersensitivity) is a condition in
which some people experience a wide range of unpleasant symptoms when exposed to
weak non‐ionising radiation. Only a small proportion of the population is electrosensitive
(currently estimated at around three percent) and an even smaller proportion is so badly
affected that they can instantly tell whether a device is switched on or off. At the other
end of the scale, there are people who may be electrosensitive but do not know it because
they are chronically exposed to electromagnetic fields and accept their symptoms
(headaches, pins and needles, numbness, fatigue, irritability and many others.) as being
perfectly normal. Electrosensitivity is in effect a continuum and there is no clear cut‐off
point.

Causes and symptoms of electrosensitivity

The cause of the condition is uncertain and not everyone shows the same symptoms, but
they seem to be characterised by having skins that have an unusually high electrical
conductance (Eltiti et al. 2007). This is consistent with them having a stratum granulosum
which is abnormally leaky, and may account for the high incidence of allergies and
chemical sensitivities commonly found in this group. One explanation for this is that they
normally have asymptomatic low levels of calcium and/or magnesium in their blood,
which gives low concentrations of these ions on their cell membranes. This means that less
has to be removed by electromagnetic exposure to produce biological effects; hence their
greater sensitivity.

The range of electromagnetically‐induced symptoms reported by electrosensitives, which
includes skin disorders, various paresthesias (pins and needles, numbness, burning
sensations) fatigue, muscle cramps, cardiac arrhythmia, and gastro‐intestinal problems are
remarkably similar to those from hypocalcaemia (low blood calcium)
(http://tinyurl.com/2dwwps ) and hypomagnesaemia (low blood magnesium)
(http://tinyurl.com/3ceevs ). This suggests that they share a common aetiology, that being
that there are inadequate concentrations of these divalent ions on the cell membranes to
maintain stability, which promotes poration and gives rise to an unregulated flow of
materials across them. If a patient reporting symptoms of electrosensitivity is diagnosed
as having sub‐clinical low levels of either of these ions in the blood, and if caught at an
early stage, it may be possible to mitigate the effects of electromagnetic exposure by
conventional treatment for hypocalcaemia and/or hypomagnesaemia.

Unfortunately, it does not end there. When electrosensitive people to are subjected to
further exposure to electromagnetic fields, it seems to do permanent damage. This could
be due to DNA or other cellular damage from ruptured lysosomes. The affected cells may
then not function properly and become incapable of protecting themselves fully from
further damage. This could include an ever‐increasing loss of their ability to form
adequate tight junction barriers, so making the victim progressively more sensitive to the
radiation. It is important, therefore, to protect electrosensitive people from further
electromagnetic exposure, but sadly, there is no Government provision for this in the UK
because the condition is not officially recognised.

Postscript

Virtually all of the observations cited above came originally from peer‐reviewed journals.
I obtained them in my retirement by piecing together the findings from many scientific
papers, often on unrelated topics, for which I thank the Library at Imperial College.
However, there has been very little research specifically directed at discovering, either the
full range of the adverse health effects of electromagnetic exposure or of the mechanisms
by which they occur. I hope that the time for this will soon come. In the meantime, if you
would like to learn more about electromagnetic fields and how to avoid them, visit
www.powerwatch.org.uk . If you want to know more about electrosensitivity, visit
www.electrosensitivity.org.uk .

References

Agarwal A, Prabakaran SA, Ranga G, Sundaram AT, Shama RK, Sikka SC (2006),
‘Relationship between cell phone use and human fertility: an observational study’.
The Dangers of Electromagnetic Smog 6
Fertility and Sterility 86 (3) Supplement 1 S283. Data also available at
http://tinyurl.com/28rm6n
Agarwal A, Deepinder F, Rakesh K, Sharma RK, Ranga G, Li J (2007), ‘Effect of cell phone
usage on semen analysis in men attending infertility clinic: an observational study’.
Fertility and Sterility. In press (available online ‐ doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.01.166)
Arrieta MC, Bistritz L, Meddings JB (2006), ‘Alterations in intestinal permeability’. Gut 55:
1512‐1520
Bawin SM, Kaczmarek KL, Adey WR (1975), ‘Effects of modulated VHF fields on the
central nervous system’. Ann NY Acad Sci 247: 74‐81
Blackman CF (1990), ‘ELF effects on calcium homeostasis’. In: Wilson BW, Stevens RG,
Anderson LE (eds) Extremely Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields: the Question of
Cancer. Battelle Press, Columbus, Ohio, pp 189‐208
Blackman CF, Benane SG, Kinney LS, House DE, Joines WT (1982), ‘Effects of ELF fields
on calcium‐ion efflux from brain tissue in vitro’. Radiation Research 92: 510‐520
Borgens RB, Robinson, KR, Vanable JW, McGinnis ME (1989), Electric Fields in Vertebrate
Repair. Liss, New York
Chu Q, George ST, Lukason M, Cheng SH, Scheule RK, Eastman SJ (2001), ‘EGTA
enhancement of adenovirus‐mediated gene transfer to mouse tracheal epithelium
in vivo’. Human Gene Therapy 12: 455‐467
Diem E, Schwarz C, Adlkofer F, Jahn O, Rudiger H (2005), ‘Non‐thermal DNA breakage
by mobile phone radiation (1800 MHz) in human fibroblasts and in transformed
GFSH‐R17 rat granulosa cells in vitro’. Mutation Research / Genetic Toxicology and
Environmental Mutagenesis 583: 178‐183
Eltiti S, Wallace D, Ridgewell A, Zougkou K, Russo R, Sepulveda F, Mirshekar‐Syahkal D,
Rasor P, Deeble R, Fox E (2007), ‘Does short‐term exposure to mobile phone base
station signals increase symptoms in individuals who report sensitivity to
electromagnetic fields? A double blind provocation study’. Environmental Health
Perspectives http://www.ehponline.org/members/2007/10286/10286.pdf
Fejes I, Zavaczki Z, Szollosi J, Koloszar S, Daru J, Kovaks L, Pal A (2005), ‘Is there a
relationship between cell phone use and semen quality?’ Arch Andrology 51: 385‐
393
Furuse M, Hata M, Furuse K, Yoshida Y, Haratake A, Sugitani Y, Noda T, Kubo A,
Tsukita S (2002), ‘Claudin‐based tight junctions are crucial for the mammalian
epidermal barrier: a lesson from claudin‐1‐ deficient mice’. J Cell Biol 156; 1099‐
1111
Goldsworthy A (2006), ‘Effects of electrical and electromagnetic fields on plants and
related topics’. In: Volkov AG (ed) Plant Electrophysiology – Theory and Methods.
Springer‐Verlag, Berlin
The Dangers of Electromagnetic Smog 7
Goldsworthy A (2007), ‘The biological effects of weak electromagnetic fields’.
http://tinyurl.com/2nfujj
Ha B‐Y (2001), ‘Stabilization and destabilization of cell membranes by multivalent ions’.
Phys Rev E 64: 051902 (5 pages)
Hussar P, Tserentsoodol N, Koyama H, Yokoo‐Sugawara M, Matsuzaki T, Takami S,
Takata K (2002), ‘The glucose transporter GLUT1 and the tight junction protein
occludin in nasal olfactory mucosa’. Chem Senses 27: 2‐11
Lew VL, Hockaday A, Freeman CJ, Bookchin RM (1988), ‘Mechanism of spontaneous
inside‐out vesiculation of red cell membranes’. J Cell Biol 106: 1893‐1901
Lai H, Singh NP (1995), Acute low‐intensity microwave exposure increases DNA singlestrand
breaks in rat brain cells. Bioelectromagnetics 16: 207‐210
Melikov KC, Frolov VA, Shcherbakov A, Samsonov AV, Chizmadzhev YA,
Chernomordik LV (2001), ‘Voltage‐induced nonconductive pre‐pores and
metastable single pores in unmodified planar lipid bilayer’. Biophys J 80: 1829‐1836
Persson BRR, Salford LG, Brun A (1997), ‘Blood‐brain barrier permeability in rats exposed
to electromagnetic fields used in wireless communication’. Wireless Networks 3:
455–461
Reflex Report (2004), http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/reports/20041222_reflex.pdf
Salford LG, Brun AE, Eberhardt JL, Malmgren K, Persson BRR (2003), ‘Nerve cell damage
in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones’.
Environmental Health Perspectives 111: 881‐883
Steck TL, Weinstein RS, Straus, JH, Wallach DFH (1970), ‘Inside‐out red cell membrane
vesicles: preparation and purification’. Science 168: 255‐257
Weiss DJ, Beckett T, Bonneau L, Young J, Kolls JK, Wang G (2003), ‘Transient increase in
lung epithelial tight junction permeability: an additional mechanism for of
enhancement of lung transgene expression by perfluorochemical liquids’.
Molecular Therapy 8: 927‐935

Andrew Goldsworthy BSc PhD is an Honorary Lecturer in Biology at Imperial College
London

(Produced with permission - original article here )