Some Very Brief Comments on Seeking Associations in Carcinogenesis with special reference to effects of electromagnetic radiation. By Dr Chris Barnes, Bangor Scientific and Educational Consultants December 2013 Revised version July 2016. Email email@example.com
Disadvantages of using cancer death rates for associative investigations are highlighted. When incidence rates are employed latency and multiple factors always feature. The most important environmental factor, namely RF radiation has rarely if ever been considered by traditional oncologists because they have not appreciated either quantum biology or geometric distribution of bio-effects around transmitters. RF technologies are advancing at an alarming rate without any proper regard or caution for the integrity of life on our planet. Shortly OAM ( orbital angular momentum) radio systems with spiral vortex E/H waves will be developed. Given the geometry of DNA and the mode of bio-replication, the profound fear is the potential for catastrophic bio-damage. It essential that oncologists open their minds and take on board a more multi-or cross-disciplinary approach to cancer treatment and diagnosis. There may then be opportunities to use RF technologies positively and to the benefit of human kind rather than to the detriment.
New carcinogens and cancer promoters are often discovered in animal studies or even using in vitro cellular systems. Results are usually clear fairly clear cut with the exception of the effects of RF radiation.
When epidemiological studies are made there has been both a historic (refs) and more contemporary tendency to work with local death rates.
Why are death rates not a good idea?
Due to recent advances in cancer treatment, death rates in most cancers in the UK with the exception of malignant melanoma are falling considerably. Thus one cannot necessarily be sure if a lower death rate is due to no or negative association or simply due to masking from cured individuals. Incidence rates, on the other hand with some cancers are rising almost exponentially.
Some have even tried to employ wide area death rates to establish causal links with specific mutagens or promoters. This is not good practice because in addition to errors caused by advances in treatment, there is a range of latency periods which can only ever be found by means of reference to a known incidence occurrence with known dosage of mutagen.
As an alternative to death rates, incidence rates may be a better indicator of (new) environmental problems. Yet again latency needs to be taken into account.
Why are incidence rates rising?
The standard answers given are:
1. Better diagnosis
2. An aging population
3. Exposure to ionising radiation
4. Obesity/ Lifestyle
7. General Toxins
The eighth member of the list
There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that exposure to wideband pulse radio frequency radiation sources such as DVB (T), CDMA/WDCMA may be connected with certain cancer incidence (refs). Such sources have proliferated faster in the last two decades than anything on the above list.
Reasons for criticising or rejecting the possibility of RF as a mutagen and/or cancer promoter
1. There is no single model of RF interaction
2. RF has a field quantum insufficiently energetic to break chemical bonds
Reasons against the above i.e. for accepting the possibility of RF as either a carcinogen or promoter of cancer
1. Carcinogenesis is a multi-step (usually 10 are accepted) process, therefore it is unlikely there will be a ‘one theory fits all’ scenario although some aspects of some theories may be testable in some situations.
2. Living systems generate coherent electromagnetic signals of their own
3. Living systems exhibit facets of quantum entanglement and tunnelling http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21150047 Jim Al-Khalili of the University of Surrey is investigating whether tunnelling occurs during mutations to our DNA - a question that may be relevant to the evolution of life itself, and of course carcinogenesis.
4. RF radiation can alter concentrations of ROS of which ROS processes are implicated in all ten presently accepted cascade steps of carcinogenesis as presently accepted and understood.
5. RF radiation has most recently been shown by Lauer (2013) to influence the very facets of the immune system which are the first line of defence against cancer.
6. RF radiation with rotating magnetic field components can interact directly with cryptochrome magnetic proteins which control the body circadian clock linked to the immune system and cancer.
7. Exposure to RF fields can suppress melatonin, linked to the immune system and cancer.
Final notes of caution
Cancer death rates and cancer incidence rates may be influenced by multiple factors including multiple environmental carcinogens, environmental anti-cancer agents and ionising radiation. Also when attempting to evaluate the effects of known transmitter sites whose locations are published such broadcast emitters or mobile phone masts as given by ‘site finder’ it is possible there are other powerful transmitters in an area whose locations are not published. For example, there are more than 500 powerful POCSAG paging transmitters in the UK operating on 153 MHz with ERP’S of thousands of watts whose locations are not disclosed. Such things can further complicate situations.
The author has also shown that cancers follow RF radiation with a geometric rather than an exponential decay probability distribution from given sources (refs). Given that this is effectively due to the electromagnetic AB effect (ref|) the link with biological quantum entanglement can hardly be denied.
Many classical epidemiologists and cancer oncologists seem incapable of opening their minds and the solution would be the inception of far more work with Cross or Inter-disciplinary frameworks if advances are ever to be made in this field. Optical OAM is with us and crude radio OAM has already been demonstrated(refs). With proposals to develop orbital angular momentum modulated WIFI in the footing and knowing the helical format of DNA let us pray such inceptions will not be too late.
To re-evaluate the work of Vincnet Lauer(2013) to try and test this hypothesis using UK Cancer incidence statistics. If Al-Khalili is also correct there may be conflicting or complimentary processes at work. Biological systems are often bi-phasic (ref) and this could be yet another aspect of this well-known phenomenon.