More egg than chicken, an experimental exploration of the link between ‘Cancer Houses’ and the quantum mechanics of biology and radio emissions. By Dr Chris Barnes, Bangor Scientific and Educational Consultants, December 2013
A quantum mechanical distance relationship based on the electromagnetic Aharonov Bohm effect is proposed, tested and validated for a small sample size for known cancer locations in relation to their distance from the antenna (base station) sources of electromagnetic technologies utilising modulation schemes such as; FM,POCSAG,DAB,TETRA,DVB,GSM and UTMS. Lauer has recently proposed a new quantum mechanical model of interaction at the cellular level based on random thermal and RF perturbation of quantum well interactions. The theory is elegant and certainly seems to explain some of what we observe. Water and bound water are implicit in all biological systems and molecules. Any perturbation of water structure will via changes in dielectric constant and /or magnetic permeability perturb the quantum well levels of Lauer. Thus the two hypotheses are mutually inclusive. Antenna main beam and secondary side lobe interactions (SSL) can produce e-field fluctuations at distances similar to but not equal to those predicted by the quantum model advanced here. For instance re-evaluation of the famous Sutro transmitter study gives better fits to the recorded cancer epidemiology than does SSL. it may soon be possible to devise strategies to reverse autoimmune conditions and even some cancer using appropriate space/time/power spectrum combinations of RF radiation. Incredible as it is this method was first proposed and tested using broad band radiation by George Lakhovsky (1941).
Despite several thousand publications exploring the link between radio frequency energy and biological systems, mainly at a cellular level and further despite some 67% of these concluding potentially adverse effects including even carcinogenesis , no or little influence appears to have been made on regulatory bodies governing the use of radio frequency emissions and wireless devices in general. Nor has there been any real influence to date on the thinking of cancer biologists or oncologists either. It is hoped this work and subsequent work may be a primer for change.
Perhaps a reason for past intransigence has been that peer published epidemiological studies to date have generally also thrown up conflicting results, with at best very weak associations between RF radiation and disease including cancer for the public at large but slightly more statistically relevant associations being shown for certain occupational studies. Another difficulty for some is that present hypotheses of the interaction of RF radiation with tissue are often very complex and not all readily testable. The present author is of the opinion that just because something is complicated does not necessarily mean that it is wrong. For instance, a nuclear physicist might not understand aspects of microbiology and a microbiologist might not understand aspects of nuclear physics.
The present author has recently shown that more sense can be made of some of the epidemiological studies if co-promoters are also taken into account,see Barnes 2013 (1,2). The ultimate epidemiological study is one in which the numbers in the study are maximised. A study of World proportions should thus be indisputable. Using a geographic mapping meta-analysis technique the present author has recently shown such an indisputable link between growing cancer incidence statistics and the penetration of wireless technologies (3).
The question which such a study does not answer concerns that of a person’s positional vulnerability relative to the locations of broadcast and mobile communications transmitters. Smith (2004) (4) re-assessed the work of Dolk I regarding the Sutton Coldfield Transmitter in the UK. His conclusions were that rather than noting Cancer incidence falling off with radial distance from the transmitter source it appeared to peak at a radial distance of about 5 kilometres from the source. The explanation was in terms of quantum mechanics and essentially what effectively amounts to the electromagnetic Aharonov Bohm (AB) effect . A brief illustration of the original effect is given at Physics World.com (5) but there have been a huge number of both theoretical and experimental publications since Aharonov Bohm's original work in 1959 (6). In order to understand how the AB effect impinges on biology one has to conceive of water magnetic memory, see Cardella et al (2001) (7) and Smith (2004) (8) and the notion that the statistical odds of writing to this memory are maximised when the E and B vectors of the electromagnetic wave are 2pi radians out of phase with A, the magnetic vector potential. The ‘source’ in this case (4) was deemed to be the FM radio emissions from the Sutton Coldfield Transmitter mast at approximately 100MHz. At 100 MHz the cycle time is 10ns so half a cycle is 5ns and half a wavelength =1.5m . Thus the phase ‘catch up’ transit distance will be given by :
D= C*lambda/2*delta C where ...................................................................(1)
C=3*10^8m/s delta C = 88*10^3m/s (for air)
D= 5.11 Km.
The present author (9) has extended this hypothesis to work odd integer multiples of this ‘catch up distance’ wherein the same phase relationship ought to be satisfied.
This method was used successfully to predict locations where the magneto-acoustic phenomenon known commonly as ‘the Hum’ was present. The Hum is believed in certain individuals to arise after RF sensitisation but NOT to be necessarily to be directly caused by the former (9). However, there may be special cases involving Bragg Matching and RF modulation of power systems such as solar inverters where the two are more closely allied.
As in the previous piece of work, Barnes 2013 (10) an egg and chicken approach is adopted to the often emotive subject of ‘Cancer Houses’ and their relationship with RF energy. There is no intention of uncovering new clusters or new epidemiology here since the available database is simply not large enough. The methodology was purposely unorthodox and non-traditional. However, a strong and undeniable point seems to have been demonstrated that is RF field strengths are generally greater than the background or average just outside the premises of most newly diagnosed cancer victims in certain housing estates in North Wales.
The purpose of this present study is to further explore the above but in terms of quantum mechanical hypotheses. Lauer has recently proposed a new quantum mechanical model of interaction at the cellular level based on random thermal and RF perturbation of quantum well interactions. The theory is elegant and certainly seems to explain some of what we observe. Water and bound water are implicit in all biological systems and molecules. Any perturbation of water structure will via changes in dielectric constant and /or magnetic permeability perturb the quantum well levels of Lauer. Alternatively magnetite may be involved, see Bokkon and Salari (2009) (11). There is no reason to suppose these hypotheses should not be mutually inclusive.
Two choices for interaction previously discussed by Barnes are that biological water structure may be perturbed on a quantum level or by the gross physical-chemical interactions at gas –water interfaces to release free radicals again it is quite possible that both processes proceed as a result of RF interaction (12).
If quantum mechanical interaction is relevant one should see effects, particularly ‘Cancer Houses’ at certain key distances from transmitters according to the above equation (1). Moreover, it may even be possible to determine which transmitter and frequency causes most problem when, as will usually be the case, a property is exposed to RF field’s from more than one source.
Key distances for A and B being 2pi radians out of phase with each other are calculated from equation (1) above after frequency to wavelength calculation for each of the key frequencies involved. Not only will the key distance D from any transmitter be expected to be relevant, but also odd integer multiples of this distance as well. This is because at such multiples, the same effective phase relationship will be met out the travelling wave.
The Data Set
The data set is presently small as very detailed Cancer Registry information is not always readily available to private researchers in the UK. The study has had therefore to rely on reports from friends and relatives together with well known newspaper reports and the like. Part of the data set is the same as was used in the earlier ‘Cancer Houses –field strength study’ of the present author (10).
It has, however, been extended by considering a report of possible cancer clusters in the village of Llan Ffestiniog in Gwynedd (13). Over the years cancer clustering here has been blamed on lake Trawsfynydd which it has been suggested is radioactively slightly hot possibly with plutonium from the defunct nearby Nuclear power station. However, the village in question is not the closest population centre to the lake and with the exception of a resent who ate fish from the lake, there is no reason why other associations should not be examined.
The data set has further been extended with regards to breast and other cancers by using well known internet reports from some cases in the West Midlands and elsewhere (14,15).
In Bangor Gwynedd, two cases of animal cancer also occurred in the same premises as the bowel cancer case and in Rhiwlas Gwynedd, a young age stroke also took place in the same premises as one of the breast cancer cases.
Locations 1-4 and 6 are in the villages of Rhiwlas and Maesgierchen, Bangor in Gywynedd, Wales. Location 5 is in Wednesbury, West Midlands. Location 7 is in Llanfestiniog , Gwynedd. Location 8 is in Forest Hill, Oxford. It is potentially highly significant because asbestos has previously been blamed for a cancer cluster here and was not found by analysis. Finally, location 9 is a well known location in Kingswinford, Dudley close to the High Acres Water Tower which has featured several times in the national press. Examination on site finder yields a truly enormous range of mobile base stations at the location including 3x 900 MHz, 3x1800 MHz and 4x2100MHz.
There is reference to some twenty different cancers at each of locations 8 and 9 with o/e well over 5. Only those with sufficient detail to be included have been so.
The choice of frequencies considered was informed by all the possible known strong RF sources in the Gwynedd area but these will be essentially the same in most parts of the UK.
100 MHz was used for VHF FM broadcast. 153 MHz for POCSAG paging. 224 MHz was used for DAB. Standard frequencies were also used for DVB and mobile phone emissions based on site-finder and online TV transmitter information websites.
Results and Discussion
The results are summarised and shown in the above table. They are quite literally striking and astounding. Every known case of cancer or animal cancer in the study took place in premises satisfying the phase relationship which would allow magnetic imprinting of biological water according to the electromagnetic Aharonov Bohm effect.
The first two cancers on the list were particularly virulent. The breast cancer was a triple negative and the brain cancer caused death within a few months of diagnosis. Both seem to be associated with maximum imprinting at multiple frequencies.
In terms of sheer numbers of cancers within the study DVB was associated with 1.5 times as many cancers as 900 MHz GSM, and 1800 MHz GSM was associated with almost the same numbers as with 900 MHz GSM. It may be, however that the 1800 MHz rate is inflated because in the Llanfestiniog location DVB and 1800 MHz were also almost harmonically related. 2100 MHz has only been associated with predominantly brain cancer but overall does not seem as prevalent as the other frequencies. 2100 MHz base stations employ a different type of technology known as UMTS.
The sample size is of course very small and thus it is possibly just coincidence that none of the locations were at critical distances from POCSAG or DAB. A larger study is needed to clarify.
Antenna main beam and secondary side lobe interactions (SSL) can produce e-field fluctuations at distances similar to but not equal to those predicted by the quantum model advanced here. For instance re-evaluation of the famous Sutro transmitter study results gives better fits to the recorded cancer epidemiology according to the quantum model than it does to SSL.
It would seem from this present study that the odds of breast cancer being associated with RF energy via quantum coupling are about twice that of any other cancer. This is totally in line with the findings of the present author’s recent geographic meta-analysis studies (3). Trolle (2000) (16) also conducted a study of the interaction between radio pagers and breast cancer in female physicians.
Lauer (2013) (17) has provided us with an energy /exposure time quantum hypothesis of the interference of RF energy on T-cell mechanisms in the immune system. Now we have a positional quantum hypothesis in addition. We can begin to piece together which sites are safe for us to be in and which sites are not. Further Lauer suggests that under some conditions RF can be pro-cancer and under some conditions anti-cancer. One may expect a similar effect with the quantum positional hypothesis here with regard to imprinting or erasing magnetic imprints in biological water or perhaps also spin states of bio-magnetite (see for example Kirschvink et al (2001). T-cell involvement is not of course a new concept in cancer and both thymic and non-thymic populations have parts to play. There is strong historic evidence in the practical research literature that Lauer’s theoretical hypothesis is viable, see Faseb and Cleary et al (1996) (18) who showed that RF radiation effects depend strongly on the mitotic state of T-cells. Smigilelski et al (2006) found immune system changes in the blood of humans exposed to RF especially lymphocytes and monocytes (19).
So given that RF interaction with humans is now a quantum phenomenon in both time and space are we all equally at risk? The answer is probably not. Firstly, we don't all live at the required key distances form transmitters and secondly some people are genetically more susceptible than others. This is where the present author’s hypothesis on the P53 tumour suppressor gene also comes into play (20).
Hopefully, based on the above in combination with hypotheses like those of Lauer (17), it may soon be possible to devise strategies to reverse autoimmune conditions and even some cancer using appropriate space/time/power spectrum combinations of RF radiation. Incredible as it may seem this method was first proposed and tested using broad band radiation by George Lakhovsky (1941) (21).
From this present study, it would appear that the UTMS type of mobile phone base station signal has most potency for brain cancer but not so much for others, clearly the modulation envelope is important, this has been highlighted by Lauer (17) who showed the dangers of DVB.
However, epidemiology studies of radio amateurs and ship's radio operators do not show them to be ‘dropping like flies’ yet they are often exposed to very high levels of e-field. Firstly, they are within the near field so the required phase relationship for bio- imprinting is not likely to be satisfied. Secondly, they use multiple frequencies and modulation schemes so will build up good distributions of T-cells following Lauer (17). Thirdly, their exposure times are often very short as they often spend more time listening (receiving) than transmitting. Thus the overall effect of their operations may be mainly cancer neural or even anti-cancer. This would then also explain why their predominant cancers are leukaemia which is perhaps more a feature of exposure to 50/60 Hz magnetic fields in their equipment.
The quantum mechanical distance relationship based on the electromagnetic Aharonov- Bohm effect proposed above has been tested and validated for a small sample size (31) for known cancer locations in relation to their distance from electromagnetic sources with modulation types such as FM,POCSAG,DAB,TETRA,DVB,GSM and UTMS.
It is believed this paper unlocks yet another critical part of the puzzle with regard to RF radiation and cancer.
Much larger sample sizes are needed to firm up on this work. Unusually via this publication the author is appealing to any readers directly who may be able to provide cancer registry data or the like for such a complex study. An appeal also goes out for anyone wishing to collaborate in this exciting work OR anyone who would wish to have the author as a consultant to or collaborator for their own research group.
Cancer Epidemiology; combined effect of powerful radio and TV broadcast transmitters and atmospheric pollution in the UK, by Dr Chris Barnes, Bangor Scientific and Educational Consultants http://drchrisbarnes.co.uk/Cancer%20Epidemiology.html
With special reference to some key papers, the importance of making sure co-carcinogens and/or co-promoters are not missed and is EMF the same as ELF and RF in Cancer Studies Association and Epidemiology ? By Dr Chris Barnes, Bangor Scientific and Educational Consultants. http://www.drchrisbarnes.co.uk/EMFCOMP.htm
Smith C.W. http://cwl2004.powerwatch.org.uk/programme/posters/day4-smith.pdf
Smith (2004) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15025880
Bokkon and Salari http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2791810/
Trolle (2000) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10689960