A
brief letter of critique of the J. Mark Elwood paper entitled Epidemiological Studies of Radio
Frequency Exposures and Human Cancer by
Dr Chris Barnes Bangor Scientific and Educational Consultants August 2013
Dr Barnes' Homepage Link http://drchrisbarnes.co.uk
Abstract
This present paper presents
a brief criticism of the J. Mark Elwood paper on the basis that it (a) ignores part of the electromagnetic spectrum
and (b) disregards two key and contemporary
authors in the field. Finally the
validity of classic radial ring analysis is called into question when
analysing the bio-effects of Radio
Frequency Radiation.
Introduction
The paper in question
entitled Epidemiological Studies of Radio Frequency Exposures and Human Cancer
appeared in Bioelectromagnetics Supplement 6;s63-s73
in 2003 (1).
The work reaches the
conclusion that studies to date can neither confidently prove or disprove an
associative risk of cancer with Radio Frequency Exposure. No one is trying, necessarily, to suggest
that all, even non -thermal RF radiation
is a carcinogen per se and indeed few
workers other than Cherry (2) have
done this. However, high levels of RF
have been shown in both animal models and in vitro models to be cancer
promoters, possibly through thermal mechanisms alone. There are numerous other
mechanisms through which RF and living systems can interact from a bulk scale
down to a cellular and even sub-cellular
level, see Challis (3). There are even more controversial theories covering how magnetic
fields associated with RF influence memory states in bound water and hence
cellular membrane tunnelling processes, see Smith (4) and Ludwig (5)
and Lednyiczky
(6).
More references appear in the Stewart Report 2000 (7).
The present author
believes the Elwood paper (1) is a
very valuable starting source of reference and reviews a good deal of the
relevant literature but is flawed in its interpretation based on its own
content figure1 and has omitted various crucial pieces of work which pre-date
it.
The
critique
A simple qualitative
visual assessment of the data presented in figure 1 of the paper shows the mean
relative risk of all the studies to be in excess of unity, i.e. some sort of
real risk occurs. Granted the error
bars for the 95% confidence intervals 5/16 of the studies are larger than would
normally be desired but on balance even a lay person could see that the bulk of
the data is on the high side of unity.
Crucially also the
paper effectively dismisses ELF as
though it were in a separate category when both ELF and RF are both forms
of EMF or EMR.
Finally and even more
crucially, the paper makes no reference to the work of two important
contemporary scientists of the era
immediately predating it. Namely this
work involves that of the late Dr Neil Cherry
of Lincoln University in New Zealand (2000) (8) and the work of Morton and Phillips (2000) (9) of Oregon Health Science University.
We now know that ELF
studies including power-line studies and residential magnetic field studies
always show a positive association with childhood Leukaemia of the acute
lymphoblastic type (ALL), see Pelissari 2009 (10).
For the Portland-Vancouver metropolitan area, Morton and Philips (9) show an association with leukaemia
and breast cancer for VHF TV signals even though the power density of FM
signals from the same tower was greater.
The conclusion was that VHF TV signals are more biologically potent due
to the low frequency synchronisation pulses contained therein.
Cherry (2002) (11) analysed cancer in residential
populations using radial ring analysis methods around the San Francisco Sutro TV tower which transmits both RF ( VHF FM and UHF
frequencies ) and MW
( Medium Wave). An astounding
result was found, that is that Cancer relative risk seemed to follow the
antenna radial field attenuation pattern taking into account the way that
geographic topology influences signal distribution form the tower. This led to an approximate 50:50 mix in the
population, the 'exposed' group and the 'unexposed' group. Moreover the peak RR values
particularly for all kinds of lymphomas
and leukaemia and even brain cancers in the exposed group were up to an
order of magnitude higher than anything reported elsewhere.
There is, however,
words of caution. Two confounding factors were not considered by Cherry.
Firstly, natural radiation in the atmosphere from gamma ray flux,
charged particles and neutrons all increase with height, see Blumthaler et al (1997) (12). Secondly, natural UVB
radiation both increases with height and changes its peak frequency. Exposure to the former could perhaps explain
some of the excess cancers which appeared to correlate with transmitter field
strength due to location height. Exposure
to the latter has been shown to reduce the risk of breast cancer due to increased
provision of body (serum) vitamin D, see Lappe (2011)
(13). Finally, when Cherry refers to 'all cancers', it is believed here that
he his referring merely to all the cancers in his study and not to all known
cancers per se.
Cherry(11) has also pointed out the work of Dolk 1997 in the UK,
which was both referenced and discussed by
Elwood and which produced conclusive results for the Sutton Coldfield
transmitter (14) but mixed results
for others in the UK. The present
author hopes to comment on Dolk's inconclusive
findings for all other high power UK
transmitters (15) elsewhere and in
the near future.
Epidemiologists
need to understand the following 'new' science
The crucial point is that with a radio or TV
transmitter as far as epidemiology is concerned it simply does not behave like
one source. It is not like say a factory chimney emitting PCBS or dioxins being
blown in fixed direction by the wind.
There is a main beam
from the antenna and often multiple side lobes.
There are multiple reflections due to ground topography and even taking
the simplistic view that the field strength alone is what counts only people hit by the beam
will be affected. Thus in a population as a whole even given a radial ring
treatment of analysis, if there are few people in the beam than not in the beam
incorrect conclusions will be reached regarding cause and effect.
Following an initial
suggestion of Smith (16,17 ) the
present author has developed a quantum mechanical hypothesis further and can
predict at least for trees ( possibly for humans as well but there is
insufficient data yet) precise
geographic locations around any transmitter antenna where there is likely to be
increased risk. Biological systems can
only be influenced by information at biological rates. Modern pulsed transmissions often pulse at
biological rates. The definition of a
cancer promoter is an agent which can influence biological reaction rates. In this
respect it is possible to speculate that other than high power CW fields with
their obvious thermal effects, pulsed emissions are likely to be more
biologically potent than non- pulsed emissions . An understanding of the
electromagnetic Aharonov-Bohm effect
shows the information contained in the modulation of a radio
transmission to be in the magnetic vector potential (18-21)
which unlike the electric field is not readily attenuated. Thus
rather than rethinking safe power levels for transmitters we may need to
rethink safe (precise) locations for either transmitter installations and/or
residences and public buildings if we
wished to totally remove ourselves from
risk.
Conclusion
and Further work
This is an emerging
area and concurring with Elwood on one
essential point, much more research is needed.
It is the aim of the present author to make revelations and elucidations
in this perplexing field in the very near future.
References
1.
Epidemiological Studies of Radio
Frequency Exposures and Human Cancer appeared in Bioelectromagnetics
Supplement 6;s63-s73 in 2003 (1).
2.
http://www.vws.org/documents/Cell-Project-Documents/7Dr.CherryEvidence.pdf
3.
Challis (2005)
http://www.microwaveheating.wsu.edu/Safety%20-%20MW-%20RF/files/Safety%20of%20RF-Microwave.pdf
4.
http://www.scienceoflife.nl/html/cyril_smith.html
5.
http://www.magnetotherapy.de/fileadmin/downloads/pdfs/E/Memory_of_water.pdf
6.
http://hippocampus-brt.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/WhatCanScienceDoForHomeopathy.pdf
7. The Stewart Report 2000, http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/niemr/power_density_effects.pdf
9.
Morton and Phillips,
Epidemiology 11(4) July 2000 pS57
10.
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-311X2009001500009
11.
Cherry 2002, http://www.neilcherry.com/documents/90_r3_EMR_Sutro_Paper_09-02.pdf
12. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1011134496000188
14.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8982016
15. Dolk ii, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8982017
18.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/fan/publication/Fang_PRL_108_103901_2012.pdf
19.
http://www.emph.com.ua/18/pdf/barrett.pdf
20.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1948AuSRA...1..351B
21.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uxAfnxKMdPcC&pg=PA101&lpg=PA101&dq=magnetic+vector+potential++not+attenuated&source=bl&ots=6goaZohiVV&sig=C3lYzuwstSFaHjQUYvomi1KuSYs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qZbaUraLMMuthQeh-oDYBQ&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=magnetic%20vector%20potential%20%20not%20attenuated&f=false
22.