1. Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) and Health Risk: A Scientific Perspective
Martin Blank, PhD
Columbia University

2. James Thurber
The Thurber Carnival
‘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 EMF Research Shows
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 >> 4mG

8. Biological Thresholds in the ELF Range
Biological System Threshold Reference
Enzyme reaction rates
Na,K-ATPase mG Blank & Soo, 1996
cytochrome oxidase mG Blank & Soo, 1998
ornithine decarboxylase ~20mG Mullins et al, 1999
Electron transfer rate
Belousov-Zhabotinsky <5mG Blank & Soo, 2001
Stress protein synthesis
HL60, Sciara, yeast, <8mG Goodman et al, 1994
breast (HTB124, MCF7) <8mG Lin et al, 1998
chick embryo (anoxia) ~20mG DiCarlo et al, 2000
Disease related
block melatonin inhibition
of breast carcinoma <12mG Liburdy et al, 1993
Safety limit (ELF) ~1000mG ICNIRP, 1997
Leukemia epidemiology mG

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
MYC A
MYC C
MYC B
-320
-230
-192
-166
-160
-107
-100
-68
(bp) A TF T A T A
HSP70
Sp1
AP-2
HSE
Sp1
AP-2
HSE
SRE
Sp1
AP-2
EMF Domain
(non-thermal)
Heat Shock Domain
(thermal) .
Lin et al (1999) J Cellular Biochem 75:

14. EMF-Specific DNA can be moved
Chloramphenicol transferase
(CAT) Activity
Luciferase Activity
counts
counts 10 20 30 40 50 60 B a c k g r o u n d E M N e t i v C l 60 B a c k g r o u n d E M N e t i v C l 50 40 30 20 10
Experimental Conditions
Experimental Conditions
Lin et al (2001) J Cellular Biochem 81:

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 25: , 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, RR>3 (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: m
FM: 54.7kW
TV: 616kW
UHF: 18.3MW
Risk Ratio for all childhood cancers ( )
is elevated (at 3km, 1µW/cm2, RR>5)
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