Select Page
Share

The following article was published in The Montgomery County Sentinel on July 26, 2021, one day before the Montgomery County Council was set to vote on a bill that would grant cell phone providers the right to put small cell antennas on light posts in front of people’s homes without community feedback and free from local jurisdictional rules. 

By Paul Ben Ishai

I read with some trepidation that wireless providers will be allowed, if this proposal ZTA 19-07 passes, to site small-cell infrastructure, including antennas, within 30 ft of residential buildings. The intention is that by utilizing existing street light poles by simply added a small cell antenna, the provider would not even have to inform the siting of a new antenna.

LEARN MORE

MONTGOMERY COUNTY MARYLAND IS POISED TO VOTE ON OPENING THE FLOODGATES TO 5G CELL TOWERS

THE WASHINGTON POST: “THE UGLY SIDE OF 5G: NEW CELL TOWERS SPOIL THE SCENERY AND CROWD PEOPLE’S HOMES”

Expected Exposure Levels and Current Safety Standards

In general, small cell antennas suitable for serving 4G/5G networks will have an output power between 6 – 10 Watts and an antenna gain for anything between 6 -15 dBi. They can be placed on poles as low as 6 meters in height. For most residential neighborhoods this means that many street-facing second story bedrooms will be in direct line of sight from the antenna. The equivalent power density[1](PD) at 9.14 meters (30 feet) is up to 0.3 W/m2, less than that allowed by the FCC (10 W/m2) at these frequencies, but far higher than those accepted by Russia, Switzerland and Italy (0.1 W/m2) [1] . This level is also far higher than what is today considered as reasonable biological safe, which is 0.1 mW/m2. More worryingly, this estimation is for a single antenna. As the structure of the cellular market is such that there will be competing companies and competing infrastructures, it is natural to assume that many antenna sites will have more than one antenna on them, working at different frequency bands. In short, the figure of 0.3 W/m2 is an under-estimate of the true exposure one would expect in bedrooms so exposed.

What are the health implications to residents?

Long term exposure to low intensity electromagnetic radiation originating from cellphones and their infrastructure is recognized as having a detrimental impact on health. These impacts can take place at the level of cells and sub-cellular structures, including mitochondrial processes critical to cellular energy and metabolism. On the microscopic cellular level harmful effects on both the structures and functions of cells have been demonstrated to arise from mobile phone radiation; these include effects on protein expressiontranscription, and stability mediated by the MAPK (mitogen-activated protein kinase) cascadesenzyme activityovarian follicle development, and increased reactive oxygen species in stem cells. These studies are representative of a large body of work – more than 3000 studies according to EMF Portal and the ORSAA) database of studies demonstrating non-thermal effects at the cellular level. Another noted pathway to cellular damage has been the effect of mobile EMF exposure on cell metabolism and membranes termed Voltage-Gated Calcium Channels (VGCC). VGCCs are a class of membrane proteins responsible for the transport of calcium and other ions into and out of the cellular interior. One of the roles played by these ions is the control of reactive oxygen species (ROS). ROS can lead to the production of free radicals that have the capacity to damage DNA and to destroy essential cellular components. Further, ROS have been identified as important precursors or early biological markers for a number of chronic neurological and other diseases as well as indicators of harmful effects on reproduction.

On the tissue level of the organism (human being), EMF exposure has been linked to degradation of the antioxidant defence system. A common argument against the relevance of this body of work is that it is mainly in – vitro and therefore not applicable to the “real world” situation of mobile phone use, although the “real world” use of cellphones shows that they consistently violate allowed exposure levels. However, recent studies of people living in proximity to mobile base stations have found evidence for ROS in their blood, which is recognized as a biochemical indicator of stress that has been associated with increased risks of cancer and other chronic diseases. Another important 2015 review of existing studies on radio frequency radiation (RFR) effects was published by the National Academy of Sciences in the Ukraine, Indiana University, and the University of Campinas in Brazil. Based on 93 out of 100 peer-reviewed studies, that paper concluded that low-intensity RFR is an oxidative agent for living cells with a high pathological potential. The oxidative stress induced by RFR exposure explains a range of RFR health impacts, both cancer and non-cancer illnesses. In addition to chronicling illnesses, this study outlines 6 different biological mechanisms that may explain these RFR effects in the body. To quote this source:

“In conclusion, our analysis demonstrates that low-intensity radio frequency radiation (RFR) is an expressive oxidative agent for living cells with a high pathogenic potential and that the oxidative stress induced by RFR exposure should be recognized as one of the primary mechanisms of the biological activity of this kind of radiation.”

Studies have also found that nonthermal cellphone radiation and laptop radiation can damage human sperm, reducing sperm quantity and quality, impair mitochondrial DNA of sperm, and appear to play a role in testicular dysgenesis and erectile dysfunction. We should note, as have other commentators, that male infertility clinics in Australia, the United States and India regularly advise men having difficulty impregnating their partners to remove all wireless devices from their bodies. This advice is consistent with studies showing that current levels of cell phone radiation can damage mitochondrial DNA of sperm, increase reactive oxygen species (ROS), and reduce sperm quantity and quality.

There exist ample proof of detrimental effects to human health in epidemiological studies. I list a few here:

  • Miller et al. states “recent case-control studies from Sweden and France corroborate findings of earlier studies in providing support for making a causal connection between cell phone use and brain cancer, as well as acoustic neuroma, also called Vestibular Schwannoma. Hardell and Carlberg (2013) concluded that the Bradford Hill criteria for causality have now been fulfilled. It is notable that three recent meta-analyses all confirm significant increased risk of glioma after 10 or more years of use of cell phones (Bortkiewicz et al., 2017; Prasad et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2017).”
  • Luo et al. also noted the carcinogenicity of cellphone radiation increased the incidence of thyroid cancers when genetic susceptibility was taken into account.
  • The incidence of ROS in in-vivo studies was summarized byDasdag and Akdag and listed over 50 in-vivo studies demonstrating adverse ROS stress as a result of cellphone radiation.
  • In a meta study byBelpomme et al. it was shown that in case -controlled studies there is a consistent increased risk (40%) for glioma and acoustic neuroma associated with mobile phone use. These results are backed by results from animal studies that show co-carcinogenic and tumor promoting effects. The conclusions are further confirmed by studies by Vornoli et al. and Falcioni et al.
  • A significant increase in Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity has also been reported by Belpomme, based on epidemiological studies.
  • A statistically significant increase in heart malignant schwannoma in rats subject to life time exposure to 1.8 GHz GSM transmission was reported by Soffritti an Giuliani as well as by the National Toxicology Program of the NIH.
  • Significant DNA damage, caused by exposure to real life exposure to mobile phones was found by Panagopoulos.

    These studies represent a small portion of the epidemiological studies and in-vivo studies documenting substantiated increases in cancer rates that can be attributed to the use of and exposure to cellphone radiation at levels similar to those expected under this Zoning Ordinance, ZTA 19-07.

    Why Should Cellphone Providers Not Be Allowed to Override Zoning laws?

    The basic goal of a cellphone provider is to make money for its investors, despite whatever their publicity may claim. They have no vested interest in public health. Their primary objective is to provide service to their customers for profit. As outlined above, the public level of exposure, especially inside peoples homes will dramatically increase, along with an expected detrimental effect on their health. That the residents have no say in the matter is fundamentally undemocratic and a violation of their basic right to health.

    ZTA 19-07 will be voted on by the Montgomery County Council on Tuesday the 27th. Given the wealth of scientific evidence as listed above, the power to site and install antenna in the residential domain cannot be the prerogative of a commercial company only.

    Dr. Paul Ben Ishai, a Senior Lecturer with the Department of Physics, Ariel University, Ariel, Israel, and the Head of the Laboratory of Terahertz Dielectric Spectroscopy.

    [1] where G is the gain in linear scale, P is the power in Watts and is the distance from the antenna.

    References

    [1] T. Wu, T. S. Rappaport, and C. M. Collins, “Safe for Generations to Come,” IEEE Microw Mag, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 65–84, Mar. 2015, doi: 10.1109/MMM.2014.2377587.

    [2] A. M. El-Hajj and T. Naous, “Radiation Analysis in a Gradual 5G Network Deployment Strategy,” in 2020 IEEE 3rd 5G World Forum (5GWF), Sep. 2020, pp. 448–453. doi: 10.1109/5GWF49715.2020.9221314.

    [3] IBN-Team, “Standard of Building Biology Testing Methods SBM – buildingbiology.com,” https://buildingbiology.com/. https://buildingbiology.com/building-biology-standard/ (accessed Jul. 22, 2021).

    [4] J. Friedman, S. Kraus, Y. Hauptman, Y. Schiff, and R. Seger, “Mechanism of short-term ERK activation by electromagnetic fields at mobile phone frequencies,” Biochem. J., vol. 405, no. 3, pp. 559–568, Aug. 2007, doi: 10.1042/BJ20061653.

    [5] A. A. Warille et al., “Skeptical approaches concerning the effect of exposure to electromagnetic fields on brain hormones and enzyme activities,”J Microsc Ultrastruct, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 177–184, Dec. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.jmau.2017.09.002.

    [6] F. Azimipour, S. Zavareh, and T. Lashkarbolouki, “The Effect of Radiation Emitted by Cell Phone on The Gelatinolytic Activity of Matrix Metalloproteinase-2 and -9 of Mouse Pre-Antral Follicles during In Vitro Culture,” Cell J, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 1–8, Apr. 2020, doi: 10.22074/cellj.2020.6548.

    [7] M. Durdik et al., “Microwaves from mobile phone induce reactive oxygen species but not DNA damage, preleukemic fusion genes and apoptosis in hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells,”

    Sci Rep, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 16182, Nov. 2019, doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-52389-x.

    [8] “ORSAA Database,” OCEANIA RADIOFREQUENCYSCIENTIFIC ADVISORY ASSOCIATION (ORSAA). https://www.orsaa.org/orsaa-database.html (accessed May 18, 2020).

    [9] V. Leach, S. Weller, and M. Redmayne, “A novel database of bio-effects from non-ionizing radiation,” Reviews on Environmental Health, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 273–280, Sep. 2018, doi: 10.1515/reveh-2018-0017.

    [10] M. L. Pall, “Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects,” J. Cell. Mol. Med. , vol. 17, no. 8, pp. 958–965, Aug. 2013, doi: 10.1111/jcmm.12088.

    [11] A. Görlach, K. Bertram, S. Hudecova, and O. Krizanova, “Calcium and ROS: A mutual interplay,” Redox Biol, vol. 6, pp. 260–271, Dec. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.redox.2015.08.010.

    [12] A. A. Alfadda and R. M. Sallam, “Reactive Oxygen Species in Health and Disease,” Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology, 2012. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2012/936486/ (accessed May 06, 2020).

    [13] I. Yakymenko, O. Tsybulin, E. Sidorik, D. Henshel, O. Kyrylenko, and S. Kyrylenko, “Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation,” Electromagn Biol Med, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 186–202, 2016, doi: 10.3109/15368378.2015.1043557.

    [14] I. Yakymenko, E. Sidorik, D. Henshel, and S. Kyrylenko, “Low intensity radiofrequency radiation: a new oxidant for living cells,” Oxidants and Antioxidants in Medical Science, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–3, 2014.

    [15] M. Sepehrimanesh and D. L. Davis, “Proteomic impacts of electromagnetic fields on the male reproductive system,” Comp Clin Pathol, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 309–313, Mar. 2017, doi: 10.1007/s00580-016-2342-x.

    [16] E. G. Kıvrak, K. K. Yurt, A. A. Kaplan, I. Alkan, and G. Altun, “Effects of electromagnetic fields exposure on the antioxidant defense system,” J Microsc Ultrastruct, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 167–176, Dec. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.jmau.2017.07.003.

    [17] O. P. Gandhi, “Microwave Emissions From Cell Phones Exceed Safety Limits in Europe and the US When Touching the Body,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 47050–47052, 2019, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2906017.

    [18] “OPINION of the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety on the possible health effects associated with high specific absorption rate values from mobile telephones carried close to the body,” ANSES, Opnion 2017-SA-0229, Jul. 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.anses.fr/en/system/files/AP2017SA0229EN.pdf

    [19] Zothansiama, M. Zosangzuali, M. Lalramdinpuii, and G. C. Jagetia, “Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations,” Electromagn Biol Med, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 295–305, 2017, doi: 10.1080/15368378.2017.1350584.

    [20] L. Slesin, “Time to Clean House,” Microwave News, Apr. 07, 2020. https://microwavenews.com/news-center/time-clean-house (accessed May 20, 2020).

    [21] N. R. Desai, K. K. Kesari, and A. Agarwal, “Pathophysiology of cell phone radiation: oxidative stress and carcinogenesis with focus on male reproductive system,” Reprod Biol Endocrinol, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 114, 2009, doi: 10.1186/1477-7827-7-114.

    [22] A. B. Miller, L. L. Morgan, I. Udasin, and D. L. Davis, “Cancer epidemiology update, following the 2011 IARC evaluation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (Monograph 102),”

    Environmental Research, vol. 167, pp. 673–683, Nov. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.06.043.

    [23] L. Hardell and M. Carlberg, “Using the Hill viewpoints from 1965 for evaluating strengths of evidence of the risk for brain tumors associated with use of mobile and cordless phones,”

    Rev Environ Health, vol. 28, no. 2–3, pp. 97–106, 2013, doi: 10.1515/reveh-2013-0006.

    [24] A. Bortkiewicz, E. Gadzicka, and W. Szymczak, “Mobile phone use and risk for intracranial tumors and salivary gland tumors – A meta-analysis,” Int J Occup Med Environ Health, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 27–43, Feb. 2017, doi: 10.13075/ijomeh.1896.00802.

    [25] M. Prasad, P. Kathuria, P. Nair, A. Kumar, and K. Prasad, “Mobile phone use and risk of brain tumours: a systematic review of association between study quality, source of funding, and research outcomes,” Neurol Sci, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 797–810, May 2017, doi: 10.1007/s10072-017-2850-8.

    [26] M. Yang et al., “Mobile phone use and glioma risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” PLOS ONE, vol. 12, no. 5, p. e0175136, May 2017, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175136.

    [27] J. Luo et al., “Genetic susceptibility may modify the association between cell phone use and thyroid cancer: A population-based case-control study in Connecticut,” Environmental Research, vol. 182, p. 109013, Mar. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2019.109013.

    [28] S. Dasdag and M. Z. Akdag, “The link between radiofrequencies emitted from wireless technologies and oxidative stress,” J. Chem. Neuroanat., vol. 75, no. Pt B, pp. 85–93, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.jchemneu.2015.09.001.

    [29] D. Belpomme, L. Hardell, I. Belyaev, E. Burgio, and D. O. Carpenter, “Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An international perspective,” Environmental Pollution , vol. 242, pp. 643–658, Nov. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.07.019.

    [30] T. Tillmann et al., “Indication of cocarcinogenic potential of chronic UMTS-modulated radiofrequency exposure in an ethylnitrosourea mouse model,” International Journal of Radiation Biology, vol. 86, no. 7, pp. 529–541, Jul. 2010, doi: 10.3109/09553001003734501.

    [31] A. Vornoli, L. Falcioni, D. Mandrioli, L. Bua, and F. Belpoggi, “The Contribution of In Vivo Mammalian Studies to the Knowledge of Adverse Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation on Human Health,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 16, no. 18, Art. no. 18, Jan. 2019, doi: 10.3390/ijerph16183379.

    [32] L. Falcioni et al., “Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental emission,” Environmental Research, vol. 165, pp. 496–503, Aug. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.037.

    [33] M. Soffritti and L. Giuliani, “The carcinogenic potential of non-ionizing radiations: The cases of S-50 Hz MF and 1.8 GHz GSM radiofrequency radiation,” Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology, vol. 125, no. S3, pp. 58–69, 2019, doi: 10.1111/bcpt.13215.

    [34] S. L. Smith‐Roe et al., “Evaluation of the genotoxicity of cell phone radiofrequency radiation in male and female rats and mice following subchronic exposure,” Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis, vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 276–290, 2020, doi: 10.1002/em.22343.

    [35] D. J. Panagopoulos, “Comparing DNA damage induced by mobile telephony and other types of man-made electromagnetic fields,” Mutation Research/Reviews in Mutation Research, vol. 781, pp. 53–62, Jul. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.mrrev.2019.03.003.

    Share
    Share