Copyright © 2013 TheFullertonInformer.com. All rights reserved. TheFullertonInformer.com is the legal copyright holder of the material on this blog and it may not be used, reprinted, or published without express written permission. The information contained in this website is for entertainment and educational purposes ONLY. This website contains my personal opinion and experience based on my own research from scientific writings, internet research and interviews with doctors and scientists all over the world. Do not take this website, links or documents contained herein as a personal, medical or legal advice of any kind. For legal advice, please consult with your attorney. Consult your medical doctor or primary care physician for advice regarding your health and your children’s health and nothing contained on this website is intended to provide or be a substitute for medical, legal or other professional advice. The reading or use of this information is at your own risk. Readers will not be put on spam lists. We will not sell your contact information to another company. We are not responsible for the privacy practices of our advertisers or blog commenters. We reserve the right to change the focus of this blog, to shut it down, to sell it, or to change the terms of use at our discretion. We are not responsible for the actions of our advertisers or sponsors. If a reader purchases a product or service based upon a link from our blog, the reader must take action with that company to resolve the issue, not us. Our policy on using letters or emails that have been written directly to us is as follows: We will be sharing those letters and emails with the blogging audience unless they are requested to be kept confidential. We will claim ownership of those letters or emails to later be used in an up-and-coming book,blog article,post or column, unless otherwise specified by the writer to keep ownership.
THE TRUTH WILL STAND ON ITS OWN AND THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE-SEEK IT AT ALL COSTS!
#1 by Columbia University, College of Physicians and Surgeons on January 15, 2016 - 3:51 pm
Columbia University, College of Physicians and Surgeons
Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics 630 West 168 Street
New York, NY 10032
Greater Victoria Board of Education (SD 61)
Trustees@sd61.bc.ca
Telephone: (212) 305-3644 Telefax: (212) 305-5775 EMAIL: mb32@columbia.edu
October 3, 2012
Many studies on the biological effects of electromagnetic radiation (EMR), and most recently about radiofrequency (RF) radiation, have led to the conclusions that:
EMR can cause single and double strand DNA breakage at exposure levels that are considered safe under guidelines of the FCC in the USA as well as Health Canada
there are many epidemiology studies that show an increased risk of cancers associated with exposure to EMR.
Children and teenagers are far more susceptible to these harmful effects, because they are growing rapidly and their cells are dividing more rapidly.
Since we know that an accumulation of changes or mutations in DNA is associated with cancer, there is good reason to believe that the elevated rates of cancers among persons holding cell phones to their heads or living near RF towers are probably linked to DNA damage. Because of the nature of EMR and the length of time it takes for most cancers to develop, one cannot expect ‘conclusive proof’ such as the link between helicobacter pylori and gastric ulcer. (That link was recently demonstrated by the Australian doctor who proved a link conclusively by swallowing the bacteria and getting the disease.) However, there is enough evidence of a plausible mechanism to link EMF exposure to increased risk of cancer, and therefore of a need to limit exposure, especially of children.
EMR has been shown to cause other potentially harmful biological effects, such as leakage of the blood brain barrier (that surrounds and protects the brain) that can lead to damage of neurons in the brain, increased micronuclei (DNA fragments) in human blood lymphocytes, all at EMR exposures considered safe. Probably the most convincing evidence of potential harm comes from living cells themselves when they start to manufacture stress proteins upon exposure to EMR. The stress response occurs with a number of potentially harmful environmental factors, such as elevated temperature, changes in pH, toxic metals, etc. This means that when stress protein synthesis is stimulated by radiofrequency or power frequency EMR, the body is telling us in its own language that RF exposure is harmful.
Two of my recent research papers have added to our understanding of the problem:
Blank M, Goodman R (2011) DNA is a fractal antenna in electromagnetic fields (EMF).
International Journal of Radiation Biology 87(4):409-15.
The compaction of DNA in the cell nucleus leads to a coiled-coil structure that makes the DNA respond as a fractal antenna that is sensitive to a wide variety of EMR frequencies. This makes DNA particularly vulnerable to damage by EMR. This also means that the
damage in different frequency ranges is cumulative and that safety standards should be
based on cumulative effects on DNA due to all EMR frequencies.
Blank M, Goodman R (2011) Electromagnetic fields and health: interactions with DNA
and dosimetry. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, Posted online on June 7, 2012. (doi:10.3109/15368378.2011.624662).
The reactions of DNA with EMR indicate that the reactions can serve as a dosimeter, i.e., a way to measure the degree of interaction and a better measure of cumulative exposure.
I have included URLs so you can download the papers.
As I mentioned above, many potentially harmful effects, such as the stress response and DNA strand breaks, occur at non-thermal levels (field strengths that do not cause a temperature increase) and are therefore considered safe. It is obvious that the safety standards must be revised downward to take into account the now established non-thermal as well as thermal biological responses that occur at much lower intensities. Since we cannot rely on the current standards, it is best to act according to the precautionary principle, the approach advocated by the European Union. In light of the current evidence, the precautionary approach appears to be the most reasonable for those who must protect the health and welfare of the public and especially its most vulnerable members, children of school-age.
Sincerely yours,
Martin Blank, Ph.D.
Special Lecturer in Physiology and Cellular Biophysics
Associate Professor of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics, 1968-2011