‘Cancer and Stroke Houses’ and RF fields by Dr Chris Barnes, Bangor
Scientific Consultants email doctor.barnes@yahoo.co.uk, Released into public
Domain without complete reference list September 2013.
Dr Barnes' Homepage Link http://drchrisbarnes.co.uk
E-mail doctor.barnes@yahoo.co.uk
Abstract
On
balance it would appear that some 65% of studies seen in the academic and
popular scientific literature on the effects of RF on living systems, from bulk
to sub-molecular level, reach the conclusion that there is some of
bio-effect, usually adverse. Despite this no regulatory body in the UK has
tightened exposure limits for RF. Only
the former USSR has tighter exposure limits for RF, particularly microwave
energy than does the UK, Europe and USA, for instance. Traditional radial based geographic
epidemiology studies may, for various technical reasons, underestimate RF
risks. Here and perhaps uniquely an 'egg
and chicken' approach has been employed where the RF fields have been evaluated
adjacent to the premises of some known
Cancer and Stroke victims as reported either directly or by reliable Third
Party contact to the author. The
logic in this is based on a recent hypothesis of the author that the main
unified effect of RF on both animal and plant systems is to perturb existing
free radical pathways and bring about oxidative stress. Although the sample size is presently small
and doubtless thus some statisticians and epidemiologists would argue irrelevance
on that basis alone, they are, nevertheless, analysed for various types of
cancer and for ischemic stroke which has shown a recent unexplained increase in
15-44 year olds. Strong associations of
RF with Brain and Breast Cancers, Lymphoma, Melanoma and Stroke are shown by the present study. No association is shown for Bowel Cancer and only a
possible very weak association for lung cancer.
The cancers which are here show association with RF have also been
discovered by others to do the same. These
associations as is the association with young age Stroke both new and disturbing
particularly given the young are the age group who most engage with wireless
technologies.
Introduction
There
has been much interest in recent years on the possible health implications of
RF technologies spurned by the massive increase in mobile phone and WIFI
use.
Studies can be broken down into three main
categories, namely; epidemiological, in -vivo application, cause and effect and
in vitro using biomaterials and phantoms.
On balance at least 65% of all these types of studies conclude that RF
has some kinds of bio-effect, usually adverse, see for example
bioinitiative.org [1].
Geographic
epidemiological studies usually treat a known environmental emission source of
a carcinogen as a central isotropic emitter and place radial rings there
around. Actual cases of cancer are then sought
which are expected to be located randomly within each specific radius of study
to see if they exceed any expected numbers.
Since RF radiation is usually expected to fall as the inverse square of distance
this is factored into excess risk calculations. Occasionally, in such studies so called cancer
clusters are found and then explanation is sought often on the basis of an industrial,
radiation or even household construction material source such as asbestos, for
example.
Such
epidemiological studies have short comings and may be flawed for a number of
ways. Firstly, when applied specifically to Radio Frequency Radiation (RF) they
do not take into account of the effect of antenna main beams and side
lobes. Secondly, they do not take into
account multi-path propagation and multiple reflection effects. Thirdly, they
do not take into account near field and transition zone effects, although to be
fair it would be very unusual, at least for mobile phone base stations, for
people to be living directly in such zones with respect to base station antennas
although they may often be in such zones due to emissions from laptops, WIFIS
and mobile phone handsets. Finally, they
do not take into account the total RF field in any one location will be a
complex frequency multiplexed conjugate of signals usually from several sources
and directions. Additionally besides myself,
no one has raised the possibility of quantum mechanical effects such as the
electromagnetic Aharonov Bohm effect being potentially relevant.
This
present paper describes an alternative ‘egg and chicken’ approach to the RF cause and effect problem. The reason
for this approach is to attempt to directly verify an important spin off
hypothesis arising from recent new model of the present author; namely that people living or working
or sleeping for long periods in raised RF field strengths of greater than
average ought to more at risk of certain cancers and young age strokes.
Method and Apparatus
Freshly diagnosed and recent (within 1-2 years) cases
of cancer and young age stroke were sought out by personal enquiry via reliable
Third Party contacts such as friends and relatives. Due to the ‘local’ nature of this approach, their
addresses all lie in the county of Gwynedd Wales, mainly in the city of Bangor
but also in the villages of Rhiwlas and Bethesda. These addresses
were logged down and the RF field adjacent to each address was logged and
recorded as was the type of cancer/stroke.
RF fields were also measured at the same number of addresses where there
was known to be no diagnosed cancer. RF
fields at a number of random locations were then measured. The apparatus was a Cornet RF field meter
type .......... . The RF fields arising at these premises will be a complex
frequency multiplexed conjugate of signals usually from several sources and
directions. The most likely RF sources
are nearby pulsed digital communications and television towers at 390MHz TETRA,
900 and 1800 MHz GSM/CDMA; 137/153MHz POCSAG/HERMES and 600-700 MHz DVB. The field strength meter used was sensitive
to all frequencies from 100 MHz to 6 GHz and does not differentiate between
them.
Data Handling and Manipulation
The
average field outside cancer/stroke houses
and its standard deviation was calculated.
The
average field outside houses with no illness and its standard deviation was
calculated.
The
average field at random locations was calculated and its standard deviation
recorded. The results are shown table 1.
Specific
field values were also recorded and averaged
and tabulated against type of cancer and/or stroke and shown in table 2.
Results
|
Field v/m |
SD |
|
|
Cancer+stroke |
0.11 |
0.06 |
|
No illness |
0.019 |
0.008 |
|
Random locations |
0.065 |
0.062 |
Above: Table 1
Type of Cancer observed by proportion.
|
Type of Cancer /Stroke |
RF field V/m |
Association |
|
(av) |
||
|
Bowel |
0.027 |
None |
|
Brain |
0.135 |
Strong |
|
Breast |
0.115 |
Strong |
|
Lung |
0.055 |
Weak |
|
Lymphoma |
0.1 |
Strong |
|
Melonoma |
0.13 |
Strong |
|
Stroke |
0.115 |
Strong |
Above: Table 2
Discussion
The
results table 1 are incredibly clear cut. The average field strengths where there is Cancer or Stroke are on
average some 5 times greater than at premises where there is no recorded
illness. A more detailed breakdown is
shown in Table 2. According to the initial hypothesis there
should be an association of RF field with cancer at levels of field greater
than average. It can be clearly see that Bowel Cancer has no association with
RF field. Lung cancer has either no
association or very little association. Bowel
cancer is generally highly correlated with fat and animal protein and
less so with environmental factors (refs) yet asbestos can feature (refs). It is also strongly correlated with lack of
physical activity. The victims were all
elderly and fit both brackets. One
study shows an association of lung cancer with PEMF but is not considered
detailed enough to be relevant here(ref)..
However,
Brain and Breast Cancers, Lymphoma, Melanoma and Stroke have all been shown
here experimentally to have a strong association with RF field strength.
A
number of studies have cited long term mobile
phone handsets as a risk for brain cancer, see for example Stefan et al [2], M J Schoemaker et al (2005) [3] and the WHO has recently graded
handsets a ‘possible carcinogen’.
Nevertheless my present study is perhaps one of the first studies which
appears to have shown a similar association with externally applied RF at significant
distance.
Excess
risk o/e ratios have previously been reported
for male occupational exposure to EMR for male breast cancer of 2.9 and
o/e of 1.5 for female radio operators. Again, the present work seems to confirm
previous findings.
Szmigielski
1996 has reported an o/e in the region of 6 for non Hodgkin Lymphoma [4]. This present
study again supports their findings.
The
incidence of melanoma has been increasing steadily in many countries since
1960, but the underlying mechanism causing this increase remains elusive. The
incidence of melanoma has been linked to the distance to frequency modulation
(FM) broadcasting towers. In the study
of Hallberg and Johanssen (2001) [5]
the authors sought to determine if
there was also a related link on a larger scale for entire countries.
Exposure-time-specific incidence was extracted from exposure and incidence data
from 4 different countries, and this was compared with reported age-specific
incidence of melanoma. Geographic differences in melanoma incidence were
compared with the magnitude of this environmental stress. The
exposure-time-specific incidence from all 4 countries became almost identical,
and they were approximately equal to the reported age-specific incidence of
melanoma. A correlation between melanoma incidence and the number of locally
receivable FM transmitters was found. The authors concluded that melanoma is
associated with exposure to FM broadcasting, i.e. RF energy. This present study strongly confirms their
findings.
Although
there is no direct reference to stroke risk in the literature, exposure
to 1800 MHz radiofrequency radiation induces oxidative damage to mitochondrial
DNA in primary cultured neurons, see Xu et al (2010) [6]. I have recently
predicted that oxidative stress should be induced by RF radiation [7] i.e. exactly in accordance
with his new model and thus further that
it may account for very recently observed stroke rates in the 15-44 age
group. The victims in this study were
aged in their 30’s. Thus this present
study reveals a new and potentially very important finding and supports the author’s
previous work and hypothesis.
Conclusion
My
present study has strongly supported my hypothesis that when susceptible people
live/work/sleep in RF fields greater than their average background exposure
cancers may develop. The mechanism is
thought to be via oxidative stress. The very types of cancers involved are
confirmed as those highlighted/suspected in mine and other’s previous studies.
People with genetic aberrations, particularly in the P53 tumour suppressor gene
are not only susceptible to more types of cancer but possibly also according to
this study of having that susceptibility promoted or enhanced by relatively low
amounts of pulsed RF radiation [7]. The previous hypothesis also suggested
young age stroke could also occur and this too has been confirmed. The sample sizes are presently
very small and much more work will need to be done. But yet again a cautionary tale regarding the
use and risk of RF technologies has arisen.
Because
free radical mechanisms are involved, RF can be either a carcinogen in its own right
or a cancer promoter [7]. In the
estates in North Wales where these studies have been made at least 2 or 3 other
potential carcinogens /co promoters could also be involved, particularly
asbestos. It is hoped to comment on this
in a future piece of work.
References
1.
http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/section_1_table_1_2012.pdf
3.
http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v93/n7/abs/6602764a.html
4.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0048969795049150
5.
http://media.withtank.com/eec46e2c2f.pdf
7.
http://www.drchrisbarnes.co.uk
8.