THE LARGEST UNETHICAL MEDICAL
EXPERIMENT IN HUMAN HISTORY
Ronald N. Kostoff, Ph.D.
Research Affiliate, School of Public Policy,
Georgia Institute of Technology
KEYWORDS
Unethical Research; Electromagnetic Fields; Wireless Radiation; Radiofrequency Radiation; RF;
Non-Ionizing Radiation; Mobile Networking Technology; 5G; Adverse Health Effects
ABSTRACT
This monograph describes the largest unethical medical experiment in human history: the
implementation and operation of non-ionizing non-visible EMF radiation (hereafter called
wireless radiation) infrastructure for communications, surveillance, weaponry, and other
applications. It is unethical because it violates the key ethical medical experiment requirement
for “informed consent” by the overwhelming majority of the participants.
The monograph provides background on unethical medical research/experimentation, and
frames the implementation of wireless radiation within that context. The monograph then
identifies a wide spectrum of adverse effects of wireless radiation as reported in the premier
biomedical literature for over seven decades. Even though many of these reported adverse
effects are extremely severe, the true extent of their severity has been grossly underestimated.
Most of the reported laboratory experiments that produced these effects are not reflective
of the real-life environment in which wireless radiation operates. Many experiments do not
include pulsing and modulation of the carrier signal, and most do not account for synergistic
effects of other toxic stimuli acting in concert with the wireless radiation. These two additions
greatly exacerbate the severity of the adverse effects from wireless radiation, and their neglect
in current (and past) experimentation results in substantial under-estimation of the breadth and
severity of adverse effects to be expected in a real-life situation. This lack of credible safety
testing, combined with depriving the public of the opportunity to provide informed consent,
contextualizes the wireless radiation infrastructure operation as an unethical medical experiment.
Addition of the nascent fifth generation of mobile networking technology (5G) globally to the
existing mobile technology network will contribute further to the largest unethical medical
experiment in human history!
This monograph consists of four chapters and eight appendices. Chapter 1 focuses on
unethical research, showing how wireless radiation infrastructure implementation fits into the framework of unethical medical experimentation, and providing many examples of other types of
unethical medical experimentation.
Chapter 2 is the main technical chapter, focusing on adverse health effects of wireless
radiation. It describes:
• adverse effects from past research, and what additional adverse effects can be expected
when 5G is implemented fully
• lack of full consensus among key stakeholders on adverse effects from wireless radiation,
and the role played by conflicts-of-interest in this lack of consensus
• the main reason that this unethical medical experiment was allowed to take place:
The Federal government that promotes accelerated implementation of wireless radiation
technology also 1) sponsors research examining the technology’s potential adverse effects
and 2) regulates the technology’s potentially adverse impacts on the public. This unethical
promotion-sponsorship-regulation conflict-of-interest lays the groundwork for unethical
medical experimentation! [this is so messed up
Chapter 3 contains the references for the main text, and Chapter 4 contains the eight
appendices.
Appendix 1 presents more details about unethical medical experiments, including
examples and many references for further study.
Appendix 2 contains a manual taxonomy of a representative adverse EMF effects
database;
Appendix 3 contains a factor analysis taxonomy of the same database; and,
Appendix 4
contains a text clustering taxonomy of the same database. All three taxonomies contain links
between the categories in the summary tables and the titles of papers associated with each
category.
Appendix 5 shows the potential contribution of wireless radiation to the opioid crisis
and potential contribution of wireless radiation to exacerbation of the coronavirus pandemic.
Appendix 6 shows the link between funding source and research outcomes, and
presents many references on the topic of funding source-driven bias.
Appendix 7 describes the under-recognized adverse effects of wireless radiation related
to medical implants (pacemakers, defibrillators, cochlear implants, dental implants, bone pins,
etc) and metal appendages (metal jewelry, etc), and potential micro/nano-implant analogues.
Appendix 8 shows adverse effects of wireless radiation on automotive vehicle
occupants (and bystanders), and the under-advertised on-board and external sources of this
radiation.
Largest Unethical Medical Experiment in Human History
Chapter 1
Unethical Research
1A. Monograph Overview
We are in the midst of the largest unethical medical experiment in human history. This
experiment is the implementation and operation of a global wireless network for
communications, surveillance, and other purposes. It is a medical experiment because we do not
know the full extent of the adverse health effects that will result from this wireless network
implementation and operation. It is an unethical medical experiment because it violates the key
ethical medical experiment requirement of ‘informed consent’ from the participants.
The current chapter provides 1) some background on the requirements for ethical medical
research/experimentation and 2) examples of how those requirements have been violated in the
past century. It places wireless radiation implementation and operation in the context of these
other examples of unethical medical experiments.
Chapter 2 presents a detailed description of some of the adverse health effects of wireless
radiation as reported in the unclassified open literature. Even though the adverse health effects
of wireless radiation reported over the past seventy+ years span the range of severity from
discomfort to lethality, we do not know the full extent of adverse health effects from this
technology because:
Most laboratory experiments aimed at identifying wireless radiation health effects bear
no relation to real-life exposures, and are performed under the most benign conditions of
• single stressors (wireless radiation only)
• no pulsing and modulation of the carrier signal
• no synergistic effects of other toxic stimuli acting in concert with the wireless radiation
These experimental deficiencies are compounded by
• lack of access to the global classified literature on adverse health effects from wireless
radiation
• lack of knowledge of proprietary basic and advanced studies on adverse health effects
from wireless radiation.
As Chapter 2 shows, the adverse wireless radiation health effects that have been
identified already from the incomplete literature openly available are massive in scope and
magnitude. They support the conclusion that wireless radiation as already implemented is
extremely dangerous to human health. It acts as both a promoter/accelerator and initiator of
adverse health effects. Addition of the missing elements described above and more wireless
radiation infrastructure will exacerbate further the adverse effects from wireless radiation on
• human health directly through contribution to chronic disease and
• human health indirectly through degradation of the food chain ecosystem.
Chapter 3 contains the references for the main text.
Chapter 4 contains eight Appendices:
• Appendix 1 contains examples of unethical medical experiments conducted in the last
century, mainly (not entirely) in the USA or under USA auspices;
• Appendix 2 contains a manual taxonomy of the adverse health and biomedical effects
component of a representative wireless radiation literature, and is derived in part from the
taxonomies in Appendices 3 and 4;
• Appendix 3 contains a taxonomy based on factor analysis of the same representative
wireless radiation literature;
• Appendix 4 contains a taxonomy based on text clustering of the same representative
wireless radiation literature;
• Appendix 5 shows potential links between wireless radiation exposure and 1)
expansion of the opioid crisis and 2) exacerbation of coronavirus pandemic;
• Appendix 6 lists references showing effects of industry funding on research outcomes
for myriad (mainly biomedical) research disciplines;
• Appendix 7 overviews the oft-neglected topics of wireless radiation adverse effects on
regions containing medical implants (e.g., pacemakers, defibrillators, cochlear implants,
dental implants, bone pins, plates, etc) and appendages (e.g., metal eyeglasses, earrings,
metal jewelry, etc), as well as other micro/nano exogenous implant analogues;
• Appendix 8 describes adverse effects of automotive-based wireless radiation.
1B. Unethical Research
1B1. Broad Definition
There are myriad definitions for 'unethical' research
These definitions of 'unethical' research encompass a broad spectrum of actions. Much
reporting of 'unethical' medical research in myriad media tends to focus on one aspect only:
biomedical experiments performed on subjects who did not give 'informed consent'. The classic
example reflects the experiments performed on concentration camp inmates by the Nazi-regime
doctors during WWII, and the lesser-known experiments performed by their Japanese
counterparts during WWII. These experiments were certainly horrific, but not unique. The test
subjects in these experiments were neither informed about the nature and consequences of these
experiments, nor did they give consent.
1B2. Informed Consent
A comprehensive discussion of the importance of ‘informed consent’ in medical
experimentation was presented in a journal Special Issue [Goodwin, 2016]. An excellent
overview and rationale for informed consent in human experiments is shown in the following
box (obtained from a booklet titled Informed Consent in Human Subjects Research), prepared by
the Office for Protection of Research Subjects, University of Southern California (https://oprs.usc.edu/training/booklets/).
[Informed Consent is a voluntary agreement to participate in research. It is not merely a form
that is signed but is a process, in which the subject has an understanding of the research and
its risks. Informed consent is essential before enrolling a participant and ongoing once
enrolled. Informed Consent must be obtained for all types of human subjects’ research
including; diagnostic, therapeutic, interventional, social and behavioral studies, and for
research conducted domestically or abroad. Obtaining consent involves informing the
subject about his or her rights, the purpose of the study, the procedures to be undergone, and
the potential risks and benefits of participation. Subjects in the study must participate
willingly. Vulnerable populations (i.e. prisoners, children, pregnant women, etc.) must
receive extra protections. The legal rights of subjects may not be waived and subjects may
not be asked to release or appear to release the investigator, the sponsor, the institution or its
agents from liability for negligence.]
There are three important concepts in this definition: research, informed, and consent.
[Research]
What is a research experiment? According to myriad Web sources, an experiment is a set
of actions undertaken to
• make a discovery or
• test a hypothesis or
• demonstrate a known fact.
The first two of these can be classified as research experiments, and the third is a
demonstration experiment. A further breakdown would be informative. There are proactive
experiments, where established rules and procedures (the scientific approach) are used to plan,
conduct, and report the experiment. There are reactive experiments, where the experiment is
secondary to higher priority actions, and consequently is conducted and reported under more
constrained conditions. The proactive experiments can be viewed generally as explicit or ‘a
priori’, and the reactive experiments can be viewed generally as implicit or ‘a posteriori’.
Where does wireless technology implementation and operation fit in this research
experiment categorization? Wireless technology implementation has two major characteristics:
development and operation of a technology to achieve targeted technical goals (explicit), and
conduct of an experiment that may result in serious adverse health impacts (implicit). Of interest
in the current document is the experiment (implicit) component.
Identification of wireless radiation health effects will result from both proactive and
reactive experiments. The proactive experiments are (mainly) the thousands of laboratory-based
studies (performed to estimate wireless radiation health impacts) that have been reported in the
biomedical literature. The reactive experiments are (mainly) those studies that have been done
after the previous generations of mobile networking technologies have been implemented
(usually epidemiology), and those studies that will be done after 5G is implemented.
Thus, 5G implementation can be viewed mainly as an implicit reactive research
experiment with respect to identifying myriad adverse health effects on the exposed population.
It will also have a demonstration component, confirming thousands of pre-5G research studies
that have shown adverse health effects from wireless radiation in 5G and non-5G frequency
ranges. Because these studies tend to underestimate real-life effects of wireless radiation, the
full scope of adverse health effects from 5G operation under real-life conditions are currently
unknown. Ascertainment of these adverse health effects will require ‘a posteriori’ reactive
research experiments after 5G implementation, under today’s 5G implementation scenario. A
major concern, especially in the current environment of accelerating 5G implementation, is that
serious longer-term latent health effects will be discovered only after 5G has been fully
implemented.
[Informed]
There is much information available in the open literature detailing the adverse health
effects of wireless radiation. These adverse effects reflect the role of wireless radiation both as a promoter/accelerator and/or initiator of myriad biomedical abnormalities and serious diseases.
However, the vast public is not informed (or is misinformed) of these adverse health effects by
the:
• developers of wireless radiation systems,
• vendors of these systems,
• mainstream media
• government regulators of these systems, and
• Federal, State, and Local politicians who pass laws that accelerate implementation of
these systems.
These stakeholders
1) do not inform the public of the demonstrated adverse effects of wireless
radiation and, in many cases,
2) misinform the public that wireless radiation is safe from a
health perspective.
[Consent]
Many segments of the public do provide consent to be exposed to wireless radiation,
because of its perceived benefits to them. A small amount of this consent may be informed, and
the providers of this consent may be gambling that they can escape the adverse health effects.
Most of the consent is probably not informed, since most people will not do the independent
research required to gather in the relevant information on adverse health effects, but will rely on
the government’s and mainstream media’s misleading assurances that wireless radiation is safe.
However, other segments of the public do not provide consent to be exposed to wireless
radiation from these implemented technologies. Unlike other forms of toxic stimuli (e.g.,
cigarettes, cocaine, alcohol, etc), where exposures may be individual or very local, wireless
radiation exposure is very large in extent. With the advent of the latest generation of wireless
radiation (5G), there may be 1) small cell towers erected outside of every few houses, with the
consequent radiation blanketing the environment, and 2) thousands of satellites blanketing the
Earth’s surface with wireless radiation. There are Federal laws that essentially prevent
opposition to construction and operation of these small cell towers, and prevent opposition to the
launching and operation of these satellites. Forcing exposure to this harmful wireless radiation
on members of the public who do not provide consent is the cornerstone of wireless radiation
implementation and operation being labeled unethical medical experimentation.
Its context differs from some other technologies with serious adverse effects, such as
automotive technology and cigarette smoking. For the most part, users of these other
technologies have been informed about potential serious consequences, and non-users are
impacted minimally (at least today).
1B3. Examples of Unethical Medical Experimentation
Many books and articles have been written concerning horrific medical experiments (that
were performed in the USA over the past century) without obtaining ‘informed consent’ from the
test subjects. These books describe a wide spectrum of experiments. Individual readers could
have different opinions on whether any of the individual experiments reported are more or less
'unethical' than those in the Nazi concentration camps, or whether they are 'unethical' at all.
Appendix 1 contains references to books and journal articles that describe some of these
experiments (mainly, but not entirely, conducted in the USA or under USA auspices), based on
Medline searches and Web sources. Like most research of this type, the conduct of the
experiments and the experimental results are not advertised widely. I was not aware of most of
these experiments prior to conducting the analysis on under-reporting of adverse events in my
2015 eBook “Pervasive Causes of Disease” [Kostoff, 2015].
[The experiments reported in Appendix 1 cover the full spectrum of toxic stimuli, including
biological, chemical, and nuclear. These are the three types of toxic stimuli that constitute the
core of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Interestingly, with all of the USA’s concern
about potential WMD attacks from Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, we have completely
overlooked the ongoing and exponentially increasing WMD attack on the Homeland that has
been occurring for at least two decades: 24/7 spewing of harmful wireless radiation in almost
every corner of the USA, with far more to come if 5G is implemented!]
The copious references identified in Appendix 1 are not the result of an exhaustive
search; they were obtained after a very brief survey. There are undoubtedly many other
examples (of 'unethical' medical experiments) published already that were missed by the survey.
Given the odious nature of these experiments, there are probably far more experiments whose
disclosure has not yet seen the light of day. As shown in the tobacco and asbestos examples in
section 9C of Kostoff [2015], most of this information comes to light either from 1)
whistleblowers or 2) 'discovery' resulting from lawsuits. In addition, some investigators may
stumble across evidence of this type of 'unethical' research while doing relatively unrelated types
of investigations.
Documentation of many types of 'unethical' medical experiments may:
• not have been done, or
• have been done and destroyed, or
• have been done but distorted to protect the miscreants.
This is why retrospective analysis of this type of 'research', which in many cases relies heavily on
the printed word as 'proof', may be highly under-reflective of the full spectrum of what was
actually done in these experiments (e.g., Stephen Kinzer’s description of the records destroyed
by the Head of the CIA’s MK-Ultra program https://www.c-span.org/video/?464648-1/poisonerchief).
While there are many stages of the medical research process that could be subjected to
'unethical' practices (e.g., those outlined in Chapter 9 of Kostoff [2015], including selection of
the most important research problems for funding, conducting the research, disseminating the
results of the research, etc), conducting the medical research experiments 'unethically' has
received the most attention by far. The references in Appendix 1, and additional books and
journal and magazine articles on unethical medical research experiments, are testimony to this
imbalance.
Books and articles only tell part of the larger story. A more representative reporting on
the damage from any type of 'unethical' medical research would reflect the pain, suffering, and
premature mortality resulting from the medical research experimentation. A simple estimate of
the experiment’s damage could be obtained by integrating the number of people affected by the
'unethical' medical experimentation and the degree of damage experienced by each person. This
could be viewed as a ‘weighted’ impact of the adverse effects of the unethical medical
experimentation.
In the most widely reported examples of 'unethical' medical research (the medical
experiments performed in the Nazi concentration camps during WWII), perhaps a few thousand
prisoners were involved; it is difficult to find accurate information for actual numbers of
prisoners involved. Further, it is difficult to separate out the
1) many thousands of German
citizens subjected to forced sterilization procedures starting in 1933 and
2) many deliberately
exterminated in the concentration camps, from
3) those who suffered from the medical
experiments in the camps and died as a result of the experiments alone.
In the references in Appendix 1
• some of the ‘unethical’ medical experiments described involved under a hundred
test subjects,
• many of the 'unethical' medical experiments described tended to involve on the
order of hundreds of test subjects (who did not provide 'informed consent'), and
• in some rarer cases, perhaps thousands of test subjects were involved.
Many of these experiments, in parallel with the spirit of the Nazi concentration camp
experiments, involved people confined in large institutions who were (usually) not told the full
story of the nature of the experiments, or, if they were told, either did not 1) understand it or 2)
give 'informed consent'. These people were confined in prisons, the military service, mental
institutions, children's institutions, etc.
[How do the above odious procedures in these references differ conceptually from the recent
trend toward government effectively promoting/mandating implementation of wireless
radiation infrastructure whose safety has not been demonstrated, but (a fraction of) whose
adverse health effects have been widely demonstrated?]
Based on what has been reported in the experiments referenced in Appendix 1 (which
could in fact be the tip of a much larger unreported iceberg), perhaps on the order of 10,000-
30,000 people may have been subjected to ‘unethical’ medical experiments in the past century
(excluding those who unwittingly participated in clinical trials that were “off-shored” to
(typically) developing countries with knowingly less stringent test subject protections [Kostoff,
2015, section 9D3]). A few thousand of these test subjects would have died prematurely, and
most would have suffered unnecessarily. These, of course, are horrific numbers. Unfortunately,
they pale in comparison to what can be expected if wireless radiation infrastructure is expanded
domestically and globally to satisfy the requirements of 5G. The following box shows one
estimate of potential adverse effects from wireless radiation.
[One of the many adverse health effects of wireless radiation is cancer of the brain, especially
gliomas. What approximate increases in glioma incidence can be expected from widespread
expansion of wireless radiation?
There are different estimates of glioma incidence and trends in glioma incidence. For an
approximate estimate, Rasmussen et al [2017] estimates the glioma incidence in the Danish
population at about 7/100,000, a figure in line with other national and global estimates.
Additionally, Phillips et al [2018] presents evidence of a 100% increase in Glioblastoma
Multiforme from 1995-2015, a major component of glioma. Some of this increase may have
been due to wireless radiation exposure, since that time period was associated with a major
expansion of cell phone and other wireless device use. For approximate estimation purposes,
assume the wireless-free glioma incidence to be about 5/100,000.
Hardell et al [2011] showed, in a case-controlled study, that glioma incidence doubled for
those who starting using cell phones as adults (>20 years old), were ‘heavy’ users (>30
minutes per day), and used cell phones for more than ten years. Hardell also showed glioma
incidence quadrupled for those who started using cell phones younger than twenty years old,
were heavy users, and used cell phones for more than ten years.
If we apply Hardell’s conservative doubling estimate to all potential users, then we can expect
an increased glioma incidence per year of about 5/100,000. By the time 5G is rolled out, the
global population will be at least eight billion. If we assume ¾ of the global population will
be cell phone users and/or exposed to cell towers and other sources of wireless radiation, then
about six billion people would be the pool for potential glioma victims from wireless
radiation. Multiplying 5/100,000 by 6,000,000,000 yields 300,000 new cases of glioma/year.
In one year, the deaths from glioma alone attributed to wireless radiation
will swamp all the deaths from all the horrific unethical medical
experiments of the twentieth century referenced in Appendix 1!]
[This number was obtained using the most conservative estimates of Hardell and the incidence
data, and it didn’t take into account the increase in glioma incidence that would be expected as
latency times increase. For smoking, the average latency period between initiation of
smoking and lung cancer is between twenty and thirty years, depending on which database
was examined. The fact that glioma incidence shows measurable increases after only a ten year latency period should be most disturbing, and does not bode well for glioma incidences
after a twenty, thirty, or forty-year latency!
Again, glioma is but one of the large numbers of adverse health effects potentially resulting
from exposure to wireless radiation. Integrating over all the adverse health effects potentially
resulting from the wireless radiation experiment would yield numbers of experiment-based
premature deaths and enhanced suffering unparalleled in human history!]
Given the magnitude of 5G projected global implementation, the numbers of people that
will be exposed to this radiation, the numbers of people expected to suffer myriad adverse effects
from this technology, and the lack of credible ‘informed consent’ from the vast majority of these
people, we are well justified in calling global implementation of mobile networking technology
The Largest Unethical Medical Experiment in Human History!
Finally, in the spirit of the ‘unethical’ medical experiments referenced in Appendix 1,
it is the poor and dispossessed who will suffer the most from wireless radiation exposure.
This is because wireless radiation plays a dual role of initiator and promoter/accelerator
of serious disease, as will be shown in the next chapter. In its promoter/accelerator role, it can
accelerate the progression of existing serious diseases such as cancer, and/or, through synergy,
can produce serious adverse health effects when combined with other toxic stimuli that neither
constituent of the combination could produce in isolation. [imagine that, same thing they are saying about side effects of the jabs. dc]
Many toxic stimuli, such as harsh chemicals, biotoxins, ionizing radiation sources,
vibrating machinery, prolonged sitting doing repetitive tasks, high air pollution, etc, are
used/experienced by the poorest members of society in their occupations, and many toxic
stimuli, such as air pollutants, toxic wastes, etc, are very prevalent in their residential
environments. Thus, people who spray pesticides in farm labor or household applications,
people who do cleaning with harsh chemicals, people who dispose of hazardous materials,
basically, people who do the dirty work in our society and live in dirty environments, are
already leading candidates for higher risk of serious diseases. Adding a wireless radiation
promoter/accelerator to their residential and occupational environments will radically increase
their chances for developing serious diseases. Closing the ‘digital divide’ for them will translate
to increased suffering and reduced longevity!
Chapter 2
Adverse Impacts of Wireless Radiation
2A. Overview
Wireless communications have been expanding globally at an exponential rate. The
latest imbedded version of mobile networking technology is called 4G (fourth generation), and
the next generation (5G) is in the early implementation stage. Neither 4G nor 5G have been
tested for safety in any credible real-life scenarios. The current chapter assesses the medical and
biological studies that have been performed and then published in the biomedical literature, and
shows why they are deficient relative to identifying adverse health and safety effects.
However, even in the absence of the missing real-life components (which tend to
exacerbate the adverse effects of the wireless radiation shown in the biomedical literature), the
published literature shows there is much valid reason for concern about potential adverse health
effects from both 4G and 5G technology. The studies reported in the literature should be viewed
as extremely conservative, underestimating the adverse impacts substantially.
2A1. The Context of Wireless Radiation
Health and Safety Research
Before addressing the technical and biological details of wireless radiation health and
safety research shown in the published literature, the context in which this literature has been
generated will be discussed.
The results shown in the literature cannot be separated from the context in which this
research has been sponsored, conducted, and disseminated!
In the USA (and in most, if not all, countries), the two major sponsors of wireless
radiation health and safety research are the Federal government and the wireless radiation
industry, in that order. Both of these organizations have a strong intrinsic conflict-of-interest
with respect to wireless radiation.
2A1a. Intrinsic Federal government
wireless radiation conflict-of-interest
The Federal government is a strong promoter of wireless radiation infrastructure
development and rapid expansion, most recently supporting accelerated implementation of 5G
infrastructure. Every
• Congressional evaluation of 5G I have heard (or read),
• Congressperson’s statement on 5G I have heard (or read),
• Presidential proclamation on 5G I have heard (or read), and
• FCC proclamation on 5G I have heard (or read),
has unabashedly supported the most accelerated implementation of 5G infrastructure.
The Federal government that promotes accelerated implementation of wireless radiation
technology also 1) sponsors research examining the technology’s potential adverse effects
and 2) regulates the technology’s potentially adverse impacts on the public. The fact that
these development, regulation, and safety functions may be assigned to different Executive
Agencies within the Federal government is irrelevant from an independence perspective.
The separate Executive Agencies in the Federal government are like the tentacles of an
Octopus; they operate synchronously under one central command.
The wireless promoters’ main objectives of developing and implementing the technology
rapidly are enabled by suppressing knowledge (to the public) of potential adverse effects from
the technology’s operation. These fundamental conflicts impact the objectivity of the health
and safety R&D sponsors and performers. Any Federal research sponsor of wireless
radiation technology safety would be highly conflicted between 1) a desire to satisfy
Executive and Legislative objectives of accelerating expansion of wireless radiation
technology and implementation and 2) sponsoring objective research focused on identifying
and reporting adverse effects of wireless radiation expected under real-life conditions.
Likewise, any sponsored research performer addressing wireless radiation technology safety
would be highly conflicted between 1) reporting the actual adverse effects expected under
real-life conditions and 2) the desire to satisfy wireless radiation promotional objectives of the
research sponsors in order to maintain long-range funding.
2A1b. Intrinsic wireless radiation industry conflict-of-interest
The wireless radiation industry is obviously a strong promoter of accelerated
development and implementation of wireless radiation devices and infrastructure, and is a
sponsor of wireless radiation and safety research. Trillions of dollars in revenues are
potentially at stake in successful promotion and adoption of wireless radiation infrastructure
and technology! The industry’s conflicts with respect to promotion and safety research are
similar to those of the Federal government listed above.
The wireless industry’s role in suppressing information about the adverse impacts of
wireless radiation was described eloquently in a 2018 Nation article (https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-aspecial-investigation/). As this exposé shows, studies on health effects were commissioned by the
wireless radiation industry in the 1990s under the management of Dr. George Carlo. The
adverse effects shown were downgraded and suppressed, in the spirit of similar suppression by
the tobacco and fossil energy industries, as stated in the Nation article:
Carlo’s story underscores the need for caution, however, particularly since it evokes eerie
parallels with two of the most notorious cases of corporate deception on record: the
campaigns by the tobacco and fossil-fuel industries to obscure the dangers of smoking and
climate change, respectively. Just as tobacco executives were privately told by their own
scientists (in the 1960s) that smoking was deadly, and fossil-fuel executives were privately
told by their own scientists (in the 1980s) that burning oil, gas, and coal would cause a
“catastrophic” temperature rise, so Carlo’s testimony reveals that wireless executives were
privately told by their own scientists (in the 1990s) that cell phones could cause cancer and
genetic damage…..Like their tobacco and fossil-fuel brethren, wireless executives have
chosen not to publicize what their own scientists have said about the risks of their products.
On the contrary, the industry—in America, Europe, and Asia—has spent untold millions of
dollars in the past 25 years proclaiming that science is on its side, that the critics are quacks,
and that consumers have nothing to fear. This, even as the industry has worked behind the
scenes—again like its Big Tobacco counterpart—to deliberately addict its customers. Just as
cigarette companies added nicotine to hook smokers, so have wireless companies designed
cell phones to deliver a jolt of dopamine with each swipe of the screen.”
While the wireless radiation industry doesn’t play a formal role in regulating the safety
aspects of wireless radiation, it plays a strong de facto role. In addition to its lobbying efforts to
minimize regulations on wireless radiation exposure levels, it plays a revolving-door role with
respect to regulation.
The previous FCC Chairman had been President of the National Cable &
Telecommunications Association (NCTA) and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications &
Internet Association (CTIA) before assuming his FCC Chairmanship. In recognition of his work
in promoting the wireless industry, he was inducted into the Wireless Hall of Fame in 2003 and
in 2009 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler).
The present FCC Chairman served as
Associate General Counsel at Verizon Communications Inc., where he handled competition
matters, regulatory issues, and counseling of business units on broadband initiatives is the case with so many other Federal
regulatory agencies [Kostoff, 2015-Chapter 9; 2016], the FCC is essentially an agency captured
by industry [Alster, 2015]! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_Pai#cite_note-Bio-2).
So, in the two most recent Administrations, under two supposedly very different
Presidents, the FCC Chairmen had been, in different ways, lobbyists for the wireless radiation
technology industry. Both were (and are) extremely ardent promoters of the most rapid
acceleration of implementation of 5G infrastructure and associated devices and technologies.
2A1c. Relation of wireless radiation health and safety
research to sponsors’ and performers’
conflicts-of-interest
The incentives for sponsors of wireless radiation health and safety research to fund
studies that will help promote accelerated expansion of wireless radiation devices and
infrastructure are many and the disincentives are essentially non-existent. Likewise, incentives
for performers of wireless radiation health and safety research to conduct studies that will help
promote accelerated expansion of wireless radiation devices and infrastructure are many and the
disincentives are few. Because of this unfortunate reality,
EVERY wireless radiation health and safety study/experiment whose results support the
wireless radiation promotion objectives of the organization(s) that sponsor these studies
must receive the highest level of scrutiny.
There is not a credibility symmetry between studies whose results 1) support the
promotional objectives of their sponsors or 2) do not support the promotional objectives of their
sponsors. For studies/experiments of equally high research/scientific quality, those studies that
do not support the promotional objectives of their sponsors should be assigned relatively higher
credibility priority than those that do support the promotional objectives of their sponsors. This
should not be interpreted as a lack of absolute credibility for studies that support the promotional
objectives of their sponsors. Many may very well be credible, as discussed further in section 2F.
However, research findings opposing the promotional objectives of the sponsors may
result in termination of further funding for the project, and adverse career and financial
consequences for the performer(s). Conversely, research findings supporting the promotional
objectives of the sponsors will most likely lead to continued and enhanced funding for the
project, and very positive career and financial impacts for the performer(s). Therefore, high
quality research studies whose results could impose serious career and financial risks for their
performers should rank higher in the credibility chain.
These conflicts-of-interest of researchers who accept funding from wireless radiation
promoters extend well beyond the papers and studies they publish. This category of wireless
radiation researchers tends to populate the Advisory Committees that help set the exposure safety
studies imposed by government regulatory agencies. Hardell has done a comprehensive
evaluation of some of the more influential Advisory Committees [Hardell, 2017], especially
ICNIRP and WHO, and has shown clearly the inter-locking linkages among these proxies of the
wireless radiation promoters.
Operationally, the wireless radiation regulatory commissions, their advisory committees, their
health and safety research sponsors, and some of the researchers sponsored by the wireless
radiation promoters, along with the mainstream media, serve as the de facto marketing arm
of the wireless radiation promoters, in their attempts to mislead the public into believing
wireless radiation under present day exposure limits is safe!
2A1d. Relation of wireless radiation health and
safety research to publishers’ conflicts-of interest
Some journal publishers of articles concerning health and safety effects of wireless
radiation have similar conflicts of interest. Many journals are not independent from government
or industry sponsorship, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly. This conflict-of-interest is
addressed further in section 2F. These journals control the review process by which articles are
selected for publication, and it is extremely easy for a journal to select articles for publication
that will align strongly with the promotional interests of the organizations or people that
contribute to their revenue stream. These direct or indirect journal sponsors include:
• Promotional organizations that contribute directly to the journals;
• Promotional organizations that contribute directly to professional societies that sponsor
many of the ‘leading’ journals;
• Individuals who receive funding from industrial or governmental organizations
promoting wireless radiation technology and who
o contribute directly to the journals and/or
o contribute to professional societies that sponsor many of the leading’ journals
Anyone who has read thousands of wireless radiation journal article abstracts on health
and safety would have little problem in identifying those journals that rarely publish results
opposing the promotional objectives of government and industry (see Slesin [2006] for
allegations of possible bias in one journal’s publication patterns of microwave-induced
genotoxic results). Equally, they would have little problem in identifying those authors or author
institutions that even more rarely publish results opposing the promotional objectives of
government and industry. If we take into account the credibility asymmetry between studies
whose results 1) support the promotional objectives of their sponsors or 2) do not support the
promotional objectives of their sponsors, then a much different picture of the wireless radiation
health and safety research literature emerges. Many of the so-called conflicting results disappear
when credibility weightings are applied, and the true serious adverse effects resulting from this
harmful technology are shown in detail. The reader should keep this credibility asymmetry in
mind when evaluating the myriad adverse health effects shown in sections 2D and 2E.
2B. Wireless Radiation/Electromagnetic Spectrum
This section overviews the electromagnetic spectrum, and delineates the parts of the
spectrum on which this monograph will focus. The electromagnetic spectrum encompasses the
entire span of electromagnetic radiation. The spectrum includes: ionizing radiation (gamma rays,
x-rays, and the extreme ultraviolet, with wavelengths below ~10-7 m and frequencies above
~3x1015 Hz); non-ionizing visible radiation (wavelengths from ~4x10-7 m to ~7x10-7 m and
frequencies between ~4.2x1014 Hz and ~7.7x1014 Hz); non-ionizing non-visible radiation (short
wavelength radio waves and microwaves, with wavelengths between ~10-3 m and ~105 m and
frequencies between ~3x1011 to ~3x103 Hz; long wavelengths, ranging between ~105 m and ~108
m and frequencies ranging between 3x103
and 3 Hz).
The low frequencies (3 Hz–300 KHz) are used for electrical power line transmission (60
Hz in the U.S.) as well as maritime and submarine navigation and communications. Medium
frequencies (300 KHz–900 MHz) are used for AM/FM/TV broadcasts in North America. Lower
microwave frequencies (900 MHz–5 GHz) are used for telecommunications such as microwave
devices/communications, radio astronomy, mobile/cell phones, and wireless LANs. Higher
microwave frequencies (5 GHz– 300 GHz) are used for radar and proposed for microwave WiFi,
and will be used for ‘high-band’ 5G communications. Terahertz frequencies (300 GHz–3000
GHz) are used increasingly for imaging to supplement X-rays in some medical and security
scanning applications [Kostoff and Lau, 2017; Kostoff, 2019a; Kostoff et al, 2020].
In the study of non-ionizing EMF radiation health effects reported in this monograph, the
frequency spectrum ranging from 3 Hz to 300 GHz is covered, with particular emphasis on the
high frequency communications component ranging from ~1 GHz to ~300 GHz. A previous
review found that pulsed electromagnetic fields applied for relatively short periods of time could
sometimes be used for therapeutic purposes, whereas chronic exposure to electromagnetic fields
in the power frequency range (~60 Hz) and microwave frequency range (~1 GHz-tens GHz)
tended to result in detrimental health effects [Kostoff and Lau, 2013, 2017]. Because of present
concerns about the rapid expansion of new communications systems without adequate safety
testing, more emphasis will be placed on the communications frequencies in this monograph.
2C. Modern Non-Ionizing EMF Radiation Exposures
In ancient times, sunlight and its lunar reflections provided the bulk of the visible
spectrum for human beings (with fire a distant second and lightning a more distant third). Now,
many varieties of artificial light (incandescent, fluorescent, and light emitting diode) have
replaced the sun as the main supplier of visible radiation during waking hours. Additionally,
EMF radiation from other parts of the non-ionizing spectrum has become ubiquitous in daily life,
such as from wireless computing and telecommunications. In the last two or three decades, the
explosive growth in the cellular telephone industry has placed many residences in metropolitan
areas within less than a mile of a cell tower. Future implementation of the next generation of
mobile networking technology, 5G, will increase the cell tower geographical densities by an order of magnitude. Health concerns have been raised about non-ionizing EMF radiation from
(1) mobile communication devices,
(2) occupational exposure,
(3) residential exposure,
(4)
wireless networks in homes, businesses, and schools, and
(5) other non-ionizing EMF radiation
sources such as ‘smart meters’ and ‘Internet of Things’.
2D. Demonstrated Biological and Health Effects from
Prior Generations of Wireless Networking
Technology
2D1. Limitations of Previous Wireless
Radiation Health Effects Studies
There have been two major types of studies performed to ascertain biological and health
effects of non-ionizing radiation: laboratory and epidemiology. The laboratory tests provide the
best scientific understanding of the effects of wireless radiation, but do not reflect the real-life
operating environment in which wireless radiation is embedded. There are three main reasons
that laboratory tests do not reflect real-life exposure conditions for human beings.
First, the laboratory tests have been performed mainly on animals, especially rats and
mice. Because of physiological differences, there have been continual concerns about
extrapolating small animal results to human beings. Additionally, while inhaled or ingested
substances can be scaled from small animals to human beings relatively straight-forwardly,
radiation may be more problematical. For non-ionizing radiation, penetration depth is a function
of frequency, tissue, and other parameters, and radiation of a given wavelength could penetrate
much deeper into the (small) animal’s interior than similar wavelength radiation in humans.
Different organs and tissues would be affected, with different power densities.
Second, the typical incoming EMF signal for many/most laboratory tests performed in
the past consisted of the single carrier wave frequency; the lower frequency superimposed signal
containing the information was not always included. This omission may be important. As
Panagopoulos states: “It is important to note that except for the RF/microwave carrier frequency,
Extremely Low Frequencies – ELFs (0–3000 Hz) are always present in all telecommunication
EMFs in the form of pulsing and modulation. There is significant evidence indicating that the
effects of telecommunication EMFs on living organisms are mainly due to the included ELFs….
While ∼50% of the studies employing simulated exposures do not find any effects, studies
employing real-life exposures from commercially available devices display an almost 100%
consistency in showing adverse effects”. [Panogopoulos, 2019]. These effects may be
exacerbated further with 5G: “with every new generation of telecommunication devices…..the
amount of information transmitted each moment…..is increased, resulting in higher variability
and complexity of the signals with the living cells/ organisms even more unable to adapt
[Panogopoulos, 2019]”
Third, these laboratory tests typically involved one stressor (wireless radiation) and were
performed under pristine conditions. This contradicts real-life exposures, where humans are
exposed to multiple toxic stimuli, in parallel or over time. In perhaps five percent of the wireless
radiation studies reported in the literature, a second stressor (mainly biological or chemical toxic
stimuli) was added, to ascertain whether additive, synergistic, potentiative, or antagonistic effects
were generated by the combination [Kostoff and Lau, 2013, 2017; Juutilainin et al, 2008;
Juutilainin et al, 2006].
Combination experiments are extremely important because, when other toxic stimuli are
considered in combination with non-ionizing EMF radiation, the synergies tend to enhance the
adverse effects of each stimulus in isolation. In other words, combined exposure to 1) toxic
stimuli and 2) non-ionizing EMF radiation translates into much lower levels of tolerance for each
toxic stimulus in the combination relative to its exposure levels that produce adverse effects in
isolation. So, the regulatory exposure limits for non-ionizing EMF radiation when examined in
combination with other potentially toxic stimuli should be far lower for safety purposes than
those derived from non-ionizing EMF radiation exposures in isolation [Kostoff et al, 2020].
Thus, almost all of the laboratory tests that have been performed are flawed with respect
to demonstrating the full adverse impact of the wireless radiation. Either 1) non-inclusion of
signal information or 2) using single stressors only 3) tends to underestimate the seriousness of
the adverse effects from non-ionizing radiation. Excluding both of these phenomena from
experiments, as was done in the vast majority of cases, tends to amplify this underestimation
substantially. Therefore, the results (of adverse effects from wireless radiation exposure)
reported in the biomedical literature should be viewed as 1) extremely conservative and 2) the
very low ‘floor’ of the seriousness of the adverse effects, not the ‘ceiling’.
The epidemiology studies typically involved human beings who had been subjected to
myriad known and unknown stressors prior to (and during) the study. The wireless radiation
exposure levels from e.g. the cell tower studies reported in Kostoff and Lau [2017] associated
with increased cancer incidence tended to be orders of magnitude lower than e.g. those exposure
levels generated in the recent highly-funded NTP studies [Melnick, 2019] and other laboratory
studies associated with increased cancer incidence. The inclusion of real-world effects in the cell
tower studies most likely accounted for the orders of magnitude wireless radiation exposure level
decreases that were associated with the initiation of increased cancer incidence.
Thus, the laboratory tests were conducted under very controlled conditions not
reflective of the real-world, while the epidemiology studies were performed in the presence of
many stressors, known and unknown, reflective of the real-world. The exposure levels of the
epidemiology studies were, for the most part, uncontrolled.
2D2. Adverse Health Effects Identified in Major Review Studies
Many thousands of papers have been published over the past sixty+ years showing
adverse effects from wireless radiation applied in isolation or as part of a combination with other
toxic stimuli. Extensive reviews of these wireless radiation biological and health effects have
been published, including [Belpomme et al, 2018; Desai et al, 2009; Di Ciaula, 2018; Doyon and
Johansson, 2017; Havas, 2017; Kaplan et al, 2016; Kostoff and Lau, 2013, 2017; Kostoff et al,
2020; Lerchl et al, 2015; Levitt and Lai, 2010; Miller et al, 2019; Pall, 2016, 2018;
Panagopoulos, 2019; Panagopoulos et al, 2015; Russell, 2018; Sage and Burgio, 2018; Van
Rongen et al, 2009; Yakymenko et al, 2016; Bioinitiative, 2019].
In aggregate, for the high frequency (radiofrequency-RF) part of the spectrum, these
reviews show that RF radiation below the FCC guidelines can result in:
-carcinogenicity (brain tumors/glioma, breast cancer, acoustic neuromas, leukemia,
parotid gland tumors),
-genotoxicity (DNA damage, DNA repair inhibition, chromatin structure),
-mutagenicity, teratogenicity,
-neurodegenerative diseases (Alzheimer’s Disease, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis),
-neurobehavioral problems, autism,
-reproductive problems, pregnancy outcomes,
-oxidative stress, inflammation, apoptosis, blood-brain barrier disruption,
-pineal gland/melatonin production, sleep disturbance, headache,
-irritability, fatigue, concentration difficulties, depression, dizziness, tinnitus,
-burning and flushed skin, digestive disturbance, tremor, cardiac irregularities, and can
-adversely impact the neural, circulatory, immune, endocrine, and skeletal systems.
The effects range from myriad feelings of discomfort to life-threatening diseases. From
this perspective, RF exposure is a highly pervasive cause of disease!
2D3. Adverse Health Effects from Open Literature Analysis
2D3a. Overview
To corroborate the findings from the major review studies of the previous section, an
analysis of a representative sample of the wireless radiation adverse health effects literature was
performed. A relatively simple query was used to retrieve records related to adverse health
effects from wireless radiation. Some filtering was done to remove records that did not identify
adverse health effects, but because of extensive use of titles (and sometimes abstracts) that
discuss methodologies rather than results, some/many records were retrieved that did not
demonstrate adverse health effects.
In all, 5311 records with abstracts were retrieved from Medline (Pubmed), and these
records were categorized by three different methods: manual taxonomy; factor analysis
taxonomy; text clustering taxonomy. The three methods and their results will be briefly
summarized here, and the more detailed results, including category record titles, will be
presented in Appendices 2-4.
2D3b. Manual taxonomy results
Based on the factor analysis (section 2D3c) and text clustering (2D3d) results, as well as
reading thousands of abstracts from the full database, a manual taxonomy of adverse health
effects from wireless radiation was constructed. Appendix 2 presents this taxonomy (Table A2-
1), and the titles of the records that were assigned to each category in the taxonomy. The record
titles give a better appreciation for the contents of each category than the brief category heading.
This manual taxonomy is the most relevant (of the three taxonomies presented) to the
main objective of identifying and categorizing specific adverse health effects from wireless
technology, since it was not dependent on any algorithm to determine adverse effects categories
and received a higher level of title filtering than the other two. Table A2-1 (reproduced in the
following) presents the categories in the taxonomy, and a strong condensation of the key phrases
1) used to define the category and 2) link to the record titles shown in Appendix 2. A more
detailed manual taxonomy, with orders-of-magnitude more phrases, is shown in Appendix 2.
The adverse effects identified in the manual taxonomy cover those summarized in the
comprehensive review analyses described previously, and go well beyond. While all the
categories shown are problematical and harmful, the most researched categories with perhaps the
most serious adverse effects are cancer/tumors, neurodegenerative diseases, reproduction
problems, and genotoxicity. Thus, even confining these results to the non-classified open
literature, many of which are based on single stressor experiments that tend to downplay greatly
real-life adverse effects, there is more than enough hard evidence that wireless radiation 1) can
be extremely harmful in real-life environments, and 2) needs to be subjected to orders-of magnitude harsher exposure limitations than is the case today. In Appendix 2, the categories in
Table A2-1 are hyperlinked to their respective record title sections.
Table A2-1
Manual Taxonomy
CATEGORY KEY PHRASES
Cancer/Tumors cancer, leukemia, glioma, lymphoma, melanoma, Hodgkin's
disease, tumor, acoustic neuroma, meningioma
Neurodegenerative memory, central nervous system, learning, neurodegenerative,
Alzheimer's disease, cognition, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis,
dementia, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, cognitive impairment,
seizures, autism
Reproduction pregnancy, reproductive, sperm, embryos, testicular, fertility,
embryo, testosterone, infertility
Genotoxicity DNA damage, genotoxic, micronuclei, mutagenic, strand breaks,
chromatin, mutation, chromosome aberrations,
Cardiovascular Cardiac, cardiovascular, pacemaker, implanted, Cardiovascular
disease, arrhythmia, arterial blood pressure, ventricular fibrillation
Immunity lymphocytes, immune system, immunity, leukocytes, antibodies,
neutrophils, autoimmune, macrophage,
Biomarkers apoptosis, oxidative stress, Malondialdehyde, reactive oxygen
species, superoxide dismutase, lipid peroxidation, inflammation,
oxidation, ornithine decarboxylase, barrier permeability, atrophy,
C-reactive protein, oxidative damages
Sensory Disorders auditory, acoustic, hypersensitivity, electromagnetic
hypersensitivity, cataract, tinnitus, dermatitis, cataractogenic, pain
sensitivity, pain threshold
Discomfort
Symptoms
depression, anxiety, headache, dizziness, depressed, vertigo, nausea,
low back pain
Congenital
Abnormalities
malformations, teratogenic, congenital malformations, cleft palate,
Circadian
Rhythym and
Melatonin
melatonin, sleep, circadian, insomnia, pineal function
Chronic
Conditions
metabolism, glucose, endocrine, cholesterol, Diabetes, calcium
homeostasis, obesity
2D3b1. Adverse effects of wireless radiation on food chain
The above taxonomy (and its associated records) focuses on the direct linkage between
wireless radiation exposure and biomarkers, symptoms, and diseases. As such, these effects can
be viewed as direct effects. Equally important, but usually overlooked in any discussions of
adverse effects of wireless radiation, are the indirect effects, especially those on the ecological
infrastructure that supports human life.
An analogy to war and conflict may be instructive. When one examines the great wars
and battles of human history, especially those that persisted for more than very short periods, the
critical role of logistics in determining the outcome becomes obvious. Many wars/battles have
been won or lost by the adequacy and timeliness of logistical supplies and support.
The struggle for survival of human life on Earth is similarly dependent on the logistical
food supply chain. At the foundation of this supply chain (before the farmers become involved
in harvesting its bounty) are the insects, seeds, flora, trees, etc, that enable the bountiful growth
of the myriad potential foods. If the integrity of this foundational logistical supply chain is
threatened in any way, then both the animals and plant products we consume become
unavailable.
There is a substantial literature on the adverse impacts of wireless radiation on this
foundational logistical supply chain. These adverse effects are from the pre-5G exposures, and
would include enhanced coupling from the higher frequency harmonics. Many of these supply
chain elements (e.g., insects, seeds, larvae, etc) are very small, and we could expect enhanced
resonance/energy coupling from the shorter-wavelength 5G radiation when implemented. This
indirect impact of wireless radiation may turn out to be at least as important (if not more
important) as the direct impact of wireless radiation on human survival! At the end of Chapter 3
are a few references showing the harmful effects of wireless radiation on the foundational food
supply chain. They are the tip of the iceberg of a much larger literature on adverse effects of
wireless radiation on the foundational food supply chain.
From a broader perspective, most of the laboratory experiment component of the wireless
radiation adverse effects literature can be viewed as related to the foundational food supply
chain. Much of this research is focused on mice, rats, insects, small birds, small fish, etc. These
species tend to be prey of larger animals/fowl/fish, and eventually make their way to the human
food table. Any environmental factor that affects the health of these species adversely will
eventually impacts the humans who are at the end of that chain. In reality, we have accumulated
a massive literature describing the adverse impacts of wireless radiation on myriad contributing
components to our food supply, and the results do not bode well for our future ability to feed the
existing world’s population, much less the growing world’s population!
2D3b2. Implants and Appendages
The adverse impacts of wireless radiation on myriad medical implants don’t get much
discussion in the literature, especially passive implants (defined below), and especially with
regard to radiofrequency radiation. A number of articles in the database addressed non-organic
implants, which are foreign bodies inserted into humans and animals for medical purposes. Nonorganic implants addressed in the present database are typically not rejected by the immune
system like organic foreign substances (although some adjuvants such as metal could induce
autoimmune responses [Loyo et al, 2013]). Non-rejection does not mean they are safe,
especially from exposure to wireless radiation.
There were two major types of implants covered by the database articles showing adverse
effects: active implants that produced electrical signals mainly for controlling heart irregularities
(e.g., pacemakers, defibrillators) and hearing deficiencies (e.g., cochlear implants), and passive
metallic implants for structural support (e.g., dental implants, bone pins, plates, etc).
Additionally, there are articles addressing adverse effects from wireless radiation in the vicinity
of metallic appendages (e.g., metallic eyeglasses, metallic jewelry, etc).
The external EMF from microwaves (and other sources) could 1) impact the electrical
operation of the active implants adversely, 2) increase the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR)
values of tissue in the vicinity of the passive implants substantially because of resonance effects,
and 3) increase the flow and acidity of saliva in the vicinity of dental structures. While the EMF
effects on the cochlear implants could adversely affect auditory capability, EMF effects on the
heart-related implants could potentially be life-threatening. The increased SAR values around
the passive metal implants could result in increased tissue temperatures, and could adversely
impact integration and longevity of the passive metallic implants.
In the mouth, the combination of 1) increased tissue temperatures in proximity to the
implant or other orthodontic structures and 2) increased flow rate and acidity of saliva could lead
to 3) increased leaching of heavy metals. Exposure to heavy metals is a major contributor to
myriad chronic diseases [Kostoff, 2015]. The question then becomes: what other adverse health
effects from the exposure of both the active and passive implants to increasing levels of wireless
radiation have not been identified or addressed?
Appendix 7 addresses this issue of wireless radiation adverse effects related to medical
implants and appendages in more detail, and additionally addresses potential wireless radiation
adverse effects on tissues imbedded (deliberately or inadvertently) with exogenous-based
nanoparticles that effectively act as micro/nano-implants. These nanoparticle-imbedded tissues
may have the potential for enhanced energy absorption from the incoming RF signal, and may
exhibit potentially harmful thermal transients (over and above the potential thermal transients
resulting from the pulsed high peak-to-average power of the RF signal) that would be
camouflaged under the wide averaging time periods in the FCC Guidelines.
2D3c. Factor analysis taxonomy results
The 5,311 records in the retrieved and partially filtered adverse health effects database
were imported into the VP software [VP, 2019], and a factor analysis was performed. Thousands
of MeSH Headings extracted by the VP software were inspected visually, and those directly
applicable to adverse health effects were selected. The software then used these selected MeSH
Headings to generate a factor matrix, which identified the main adverse health effects themes of
the database. Appendix 3 presents this taxonomy (Table A3-1), and the titles of the records that
were assigned to each category in the taxonomy. The titles give a better appreciation for the
contents of each category than the brief category heading.
Table A3-1 (reproduced from Appendix 3) follows. It presents the factors/categories in
the taxonomy, and the key MeSH Headings used to define the factor/category and link to the
record titles shown in Appendix 3. In Appendix 3, the factors in Table A3-1 are hyperlinked to
their respective record titles.
Table A3-1
Factor Analysis Taxonomy
FACTOR
THEME MESH HEADINGS
1
Electromagnetic
hypersensitivity
and inflammation
C-Reactive Protein, Liver Diseases, Thyroid Diseases, Inflammation,
Tonsillitis, Hypersensitivity
2
Coronary artery
disease
Plaque, Atherosclerotic, Coronary Artery Disease, Diabetes Mellitus,
Carotid Artery Diseases, Inflammation, Hypertension
3A. Congenital
abnormalities
Cleft Lip, Cleft Palate, Calcification, Physiologic, Congenital
Abnormalities
3B. Mammary tumors
Fibroadenoma, Adenoma, Mammary Neoplasms, Animal, Mammary
Neoplasms, Experimental, Adenocarcinoma
4
Male infertility
Sperm Count, Spermatozoa, Sperm Motility, Semen, Testis, Infertility,
Male, Spermatogenesis, Testosterone, Fertility
5. Brain neoplasms
Meningioma, Glioma, Meningeal Neoplasms, Neuroma, Acoustic,
Brain Neoplasms, Glioblastoma, Neoplasms, Radiation-Induced,
Neuroma, Cranial Nerve Neoplasms, Parotid Neoplasms, Central
Nervous System Neoplasms
6
Sensory disorders
Burning Mouth Syndrome, Taste Disorders, Skin Diseases, Mouth
Diseases, Dizziness, Vision Disorders, Hypersensitivity, Delayed,
Fatigue
7. Breast neoplasms
Carcinoma, Lobular, Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast, Breast Neoplasms,
Male, Adenoma
8.Oxidative stress
Oxidative Stress, Malondialdehyde, Glutathione Peroxidase, Lipid
Peroxidation, Reactive Oxygen Species, Apoptosis, DNA Damage,
Nitric Oxide, Protein Carbonylation
9.Neurodegenerative
diseases
Parkinson Disease, Neurodegenerative Diseases, Alzheimer Disease,
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, Motor Neuron Disease, Occupational
Diseases, Dementia, Brain Diseases, Dementia, Vascular
10.Cerebrovascular
disorders
Cerebrovascular Disorders, Dementia, Migraine Disorders, Tinnitus,
Headache, Sleep Wake Disorders, Carotid Artery Diseases, Alzheimer
Disease, Dementia, Vascular
11
Congenital
abnormalities and
glandular-based
tumors
Cleft Lip, Cleft Palate, Fibroadenoma, Adenoma, Calcification,
Physiologic, Mammary Neoplasms, Animal, Mammary Neoplasms,
Experimental, Adenocarcinoma
12
Skin neoplasms
Carcinoma, Basal Cell, Carcinoma, Squamous Cell, Skin Neoplasms,
Carcinogenesis, Neoplasms, Experimental, Neoplasms, Radiation Induced, Colonic Neoplasms
13
Leukemia
Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute, Leukemia, Lymphocytic, Chronic, B-Cell,
Leukemia, Myelogenous, Chronic, BCR-ABL Positive, Leukemia,
Myeloid, Leukemia, Multiple Myeloma, Lymphoma, Leukemia,
Radiation-Induced, Acute Disease, Liver Neoplasms, Experimental,
Central Nervous System Neoplasms
14
Precancerous
conditions
Atrophy, Precancerous Conditions, Hyperplasia, Hypersensitivity,
Delayed, Thymus Gland, Capillary Permeability, Lymphoma
15
Circadian Rhythm
Melatonin, Circadian Rhythm, Pineal Gland
16
Eye diseases
Eye Diseases, Cataract, Vision Disorders, Sensation Disorders,
Neurotic Disorders, Lens, Crystalline, Corneal Diseases, Edema,
Hematologic Diseases
17
Electromagnetic
interference in
implanted
electronic devices
Tachycardia, Ventricular, Ventricular Fibrillation, Death, Sudden,
Cardiac, Arrhythmias, Cardiac
18
Liver Neoplasms
Liver Neoplasms, Carcinoma, Hepatocellular, Neoplasm Recurrence,
Local, Lymphatic Metastasis
19
Symptoms of
discomfort
Headache, Dizziness, Fatigue, Depression, Anxiety, Tremor, Sleep
Wake Disorders, Neurotic Disorders, Stress, Psychological, Anxiety
Disorders, Nervous System Diseases
20
Neoplasms
Lung Neoplasms, Ovarian Neoplasms, Pituitary Neoplasms,
Lymphoma, Prostatic Neoplasms, Colonic Neoplasms, Carcinoma,
Breast Neoplasms, Hematologic Neoplasms, Neoplasms, Liver
Neoplasms, Cell Transformation, Neoplastic, Nervous System
Neoplasms....
continue here at page 45 on the scroll....
No comments:
Post a Comment