Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) and Health Risk: A Scientific Perspective

1
Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) and Health Risk A
Scientific Perspective

• Martin Blank, PhD
• Columbia University

2
James Thurber The Thurber Carnival - 1945
Electricity was leaking all over the house
3
Involuntary Exposure to EMF

• Cell Phone Antennas in lower Manhattan,
• as shown on the cover
• of New York magazine
• October 4, 2004

4
RF
RF
/------------------ thermal effects
--------------------/
/------------------non-ionizing radiation
-------------------/ /-- ionizing radiation --/
5

• EMF Safety Assumes
• only ionizing radiation causes chemical change
• EMF cell damage is only caused by heating
• safe EMF limits can be set in terms of heating
  rate (SAR)
• EMF exposure limits can be set separately for
  each EM spectrum subdivision

• EMF Research Shows
• non-ionizing EMF also causes chemical change
• EMF cell damage occurs without heating
• non-thermal EMF effects occur below the safety
  limits
• biological reactions are stimulated across
  spectrum and effects may be additive

6
Studying Health Impact

• Epidemiology
• Correlation, qualitative relation
• Dose-Response, quantitative relation
• Laboratory research
• Mechanism, scientific plausibility

7
Epidemiology of childhood leukemia

• EMF-RAPID Report to Congress (1999) on ELF
• EMF not entirely safe minimize exposure to
  magnetic fields
• Epidemiology threshold for childhood leukemia is
  3-4mG (Greenland et al, 2000 Ahlbom et al,
  2000)
• IARC - International Agency for Research on
  Cancer (2002)
• Exposure to electric and magnetic fields (EMF)
  is possible cause of cancer
• ELF background 1mG appliances gtgt 4mG

8
Biological Thresholds in the ELF Range
Biological System Threshold Reference Enzy
me reaction rates Na,K-ATPase
2-3mG Blank Soo, 1996 cytochrome oxidase
5-6mG Blank Soo, 1998 ornithine
decarboxylase 20mG Mullins et al,
1999 Electron transfer rate Belousov-Zhabotinsky
lt5mG Blank Soo, 2001 Stress
protein synthesis HL60, Sciara, yeast,
lt8mG Goodman et al, 1994 breast (HTB124, MCF7)
lt8mG Lin et al, 1998 chick embryo
(anoxia) 20mG DiCarlo et al,
2000 Disease related block melatonin inhibition
of breast carcinoma 2lt12mG Liburdy
et al, 1993 Safety limit (ELF)
1000mG ICNIRP, 1997 Leukemia epidemiology
3-4mG
9
Cells answer safety question!

• Cells synthesize stress proteins in
• reaction to potentially harmful stimuli in
• the environment (e.g., changes in
• temperature, toxic ions, pH, alcohol, etc.).
• DNA ? mRNA ? protein
• EM fields stimulate the stress response.

10
Stress Response Evidence of Molecular Damage

• stress response ... defense reaction of cells
  to damage that environmental forces inflict on
  macromolecules.
• Kültz, Physiol Rev (2005)
• genes stimulated along with stress genes sense
  and repair damage to DNA, proteins
• stimulated by ELF and RF

11
EMF affects breast cancer cell growth
Melatonin, Tamoxifen inhibit MCF7 breast cancer
cell growth. Liburdy et al. J Pineal Res,
1993 2mG does not affect inhibition 12mG
overcomes the inhibition and cells continue to
grow. EMF threshold is between 2mG and
12mG. Experiment has been repeated in six labs.
12
Human DNA is 2meters long and has 3 billion
base pairs
13

EMF Specific Domain in HSP70
HSP
HSP
HSP
MYC
A
MYC
C
MYC
B
-230
-160
1 (bp)
-192
-107
-68
-100
-166
-320
A
TF
T
A
T
A
HSP70
Sp1
AP-2
HSE
Sp1
AP-2
HSE
SRE
Sp1
AP-2
Heat Shock Domain (thermal)
EMF Domain (non-thermal)

.
Lin et al (1999) J Cellular Biochem 75170-176.

14
EMF-Specific DNA can be moved
Chloramphenicol transferase (CAT) Activity
Luciferase Activity
counts
counts
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Experimental Conditions
Experimental Conditions
Lin et al (2001) J Cellular Biochem 81143-148.
15
EMF breaks DNA
Comet Assay 60Hz, 2hrs a. control b. 1G c.
2.5G d. 5G Lai, Singh (1997)
REFLEX (2004) DNA damage at 0.35G
16
RF also reacts with DNA

• RF stimulates stress response
• C. elegans (dePomerai et al, 2000)
• Human epithelial cells (Kwee et al, 2001)
• Human endothelial cells (Leszczynski et al, 2002)
  
• Chick embryos (Shallom et al, 2002)
• Drosophila (Weisbrot et al, 2003)
• RF damages DNA (strand breaks)
• Human T-lymphoblastoid cells (Phillips et al,
  1998)
• Human lymphocytes (Mashevich et al, 2003)
• Human fibroblasts, HL60 (REFLEX, 2004)

17
Specific Absorption Rate (SAR)does not measure
biological dose

• The stress response is stimulated
• - in ELF, SAR 10-12 W/kg (no heating)
• - in RF, SAR 10-1 W/kg
• Biological dose is not related to heating rate
• SAR is no basis for a safety standard!
• Blank, Goodman. BEMS 25642-646, 2004

18
Health Risk of RF Fields

• Cellular studies
• - RF stimulates protein synthesis, DNA damage
• Animal studies
• - lymphoma in mice, Repacholi et al (1997)
• - blood-brain barrier leaks, Persson et al
  (1997)
• - micronuclei in blood, Carlo (2001)
• Epidemiology
• - cell phones and cancer, acoustic neuroma
• 10yr, RRgt3 (Kundi et al, 2004 Lonn et al,
  2004)
• - radio and TV antennas
• Cherry (San Francisco) Szmigielski (Poland)
• Hocking (Sydney) short wave case in Rome

19
Sutro Tower Study (Cherry, 2002)
Tower 577m Antennas 400-570m FM 54.7kW TV
616kW UHF 18.3MW

• Risk Ratio for all childhood cancers (1937-1988)
• is elevated (at 3km, 1µW/cm2, RRgt5)
• falls off with distance from antennas

20
Effects of EMF on Cells

• ELF/RF interact with DNA in many cells
• - activate DNA, protein synthesis ? cancer
• - cause DNA damage ? cancer
• Many frequencies active may be synergistic
• ELF thresholds (field strength, duration) are
  below safety limits
• Thermal basis (SAR) for RF safety is flawed!

21
EMF Safety Needs a Scientific Basis

• IEEE guideline The RF safety standard should be
  based on science.
• EMF research requires a biological standard to
  replace thermal (SAR) standard
• EMF research requires protection against
  cumulative biological effects stimulated by EMF
  across the EM spectrum

22
Above all Minimize EMF Exposure!

• Precautionary Principle
• Prudent Avoidance - for public
• ALARA as low as reasonably attainable for
  regulatory agencies