Loading... Please wait...

FREE SHIPPING ON ALL ORDERS OVER $125

Our Newsletter


Electromagnetic Fields - Crisis in the Cells

“If the body's cancer-fighting T-cells fail to detect that a particular cell has become cancerous because cell-to-cell communication is disrupted by EMFs, that would increase the risk of a tumor developing. There is also laboratory research indicating that EMFs may inhibit the body's cancer-fighting ability in other ways.”

Those of us in the healthcare industry have known for years that EMF’s play a menacing role in the health of our red and white blood cells; ultimately, creating the worst and most likely is cancer among other countless diseases. Picture homes usually found in the newer neighborhoods, below the high-powered lines and wonder what these people, unknowingly, will end up becoming deathly ill from; compromised immune systems, free-radical damaged red blood cells, and apoptosis (cell programmed death) creating an internal environment that welcomes disease.

The much debated topic of Electromagnetic Fields and our health continues to plague our everyday lives. The 64 million dollar question remains, “so, just how can we live for 120 years” as Barbara Walter’s recent television special intrigued millions?

And, continuing with referring to the literature stated in regards to “Can EMF Harm Your Health?” a local municipal utility district states an imperturbable paragraph as follows;

“Electric and magnetic fields are present wherever electricity flows—around appliances and power lines and in offices, schools and homes. Many researchers believe that if there is a risk of adverse health effects from usual residential exposures to EMF, it is probably just at the detection limit of human health studies; nonetheless, the possible risk warrants further investigation. The varying results from epidemiological studies, which looked at estimated EFF exposures and childhood leukemia, are consistent with a weak link. Laboratory experiments have shown that EMFs can cause changes in living cells. There is little evidence that these changes suggest any risk to human health”.

Do you find this above paragraph disturbing? These EMFs are occurring daily within all our lives no matter where we reside. It’s about time we protect our bodies’ immune systems resulting in the demise of the red and white blood cells un-healthy appearances captured from one tiny drop of blood. Biological changes are constantly taking place while you read, work, play, drive, relax and sleep. After all, most people believe that to see is believe, i.e., Vital Hematology, and, hopefully not, “I’ll believe it when and if it happens.”

I found it extremely important to write about this particular topic as many clients have been inquiring about a multitude of health symptoms. Unbeknownst to most people, the devastating effects taking place even as you read this you hold in your hands the means to eradicate, rejuvenate and heal these cells; thereby increasing the over-all health of T-helper cells, B Cells and Neutrophils due to degradation of red blood cells’ ability to survive from free-radical damage; generating devastation to the mitochondria known as Mitochondrial Myopathty: An Energy Crisis in the Cells.

The questions have been raised many times over about the dangerous side-effects the electro-magnetic fields (EFFs) which are found wherever you have electric power create. Our blood “is our life-giving substance” and, we actually can see the damaged cells as a result. We must be vigilant concerning our own health status, and, the ones we deeply care about. This newsletter contains information that will, hopefully, help you understand the EMF issue, plus practical tips you can use if you want to reduce your exposure at home and at work. As you read this information, it will become recognized as one of several topics we have covered while viewing the distroyed appearance of the cells together at Life Sources Wellness Center, including the ultimate demise of the mitochondria (the inside of the red blood cells) which communicate with our DNA.

The results from many research studies have been evaluated by both national and California EMF research programs to find out if EMF poses any health risk. “Given the uncertainty of the issue, the medical and scientific communities have been unable to determine that usual residential exposures to EMFs cause health effects or to establish any standard level of exposure that is known to be either safe or armful. The conclusions remain unchanged by recent studies.”

Responding to the questions raised by epidemiologists, a number of medical researchers have launched laboratory based studies of the effects of EMFs on living tissue. There has been an explosion of knowledge about molecular biology and the related field of genetics in recent years, and one of the focal points of this research has been the role of electromagnetic signals at the molecular level. Among other things, there have been studies suggesting that certain types of electromagnetic fields may alter the body's genetic makeup, causing chromosome damage.

It is also known now that some EMFs may disrupt the flow of vital chemical and electrical signals between cells in the human body. EMFs appear to alter the passage of chemical and electrical signals through the cell membrane (the thin layer of material that covers each cell). This has caused some scientists to conclude that EMFs may sometimes affect the work of the body's immune system in fighting cancer.

If the body's cancer-fighting T-cells fail to detect that a particular cell has become cancerous because cell-to-cell communication is disrupted by EMFs that would increase the risk of a tumor developing. There is also laboratory research indicating that EMFs may inhibit the body's cancer-fighting ability in other ways. But, we can reverse the damage as blood cells live for a 120 day life cycle.

Researchers have found that certain EMFs reduce the activity of messenger enzymes called protein kinases and also affect the way cell growth is regulated. There is also evidence, now confirmed through research in several countries that EMFs sometimes work together with cancer-promoting chemicals to increase the risk of cancer beyond that associated with either the chemicals or EMFs alone.

EMFs also appear to change the body's rate of production of certain hormones that have cancer-inhibiting effects, such as melatonin. Some studies have found that persons sleeping under electric blankets have lower-than-normal levels of melatonin production when the blanket is operating, but their melatonin production returns to normal when the blanket is switched off. Some scientists think the effect of EMFs on melatonin production may explain many of the apparent health effects of exposure to low-level fields.

As with the epidemiological studies, laboratory research has raised questions and stirred controversy. Some laboratory studies have been difficult to replicate: Other researchers have not always observed the same results when they attempted to repeat some experiments. There appear to be other variables that affect the outcome of research on the biological effects of EMFs.

For example, there is evidence that low-level EMFs have significant biological effects only at certain frequencies and intensities--and not at other frequencies or intensities. There is a general rule about toxic and cancer-causing chemicals: If some is bad, more is worse. That rule may not necessarily apply to EMFs, however: Some studies have detected biological effects of low-level EMFs--but not when the field is stronger.

There are also studies showing health effects at certain frequencies but not at adjacent frequencies. And there are studies suggesting that a radio signal modulated by certain low frequencies, or a signal that is keyed or pulsed, has more harmful effects than an unmodulated, steady carrier. Scientists call these kinds of phenomena window effects, and they greatly complicate any attempt to understand the relationship between EMFs and health.

There is an unfortunate footnote to this research on window effects: Much research seems to indicate that there is a window at 50 or 60 Hz--the exact frequency of the electric energy traveling through millions of miles of in-home wiring in the US and many other countries: EMFs at higher and lower frequencies may not have the same health effects as 60-Hz fields. And yet, the financial and technical obstacles that would stand in the way of changing the frequency of ordinary household ac current--should that prove to be desirable--are staggering.

Safe Operating Practices

After reading this far, if you are uncertain about the possible health effects of EMFs, you're not alone. The scientific community itself does not agree about this issue. In fact, medical doctors, biologists, physicists and other scientific researchers are engaged in an intense, sometimes-emotional debate about the health effects of EMFs. There is a computer bulletin board system for scientists concerned about this issue; messages posted there range from esoteric discussions of these complex issues to personal attacks on some scientists who espouse views not shared by others!

If the experts don't always agree, how can the rest of us know what is safe and what isn't? The American National Standards Institute (ANSI), a private body that sets voluntary standards for industry, has had guidelines for exposure to EMFs for many years. In fact, the ANSI guidelines have been revised downward repeatedly to reduce the recommended safe levels of EMF exposure.

ANSI adopted its latest guidelines in 1992, but many health scientists have questioned whether even the newest guidelines are adequate to protect public health. Recently, the Environmental Protection Agency publicly questioned the adequacy of the 1992 ANSI standards in an official statement to the Federal Communications Commission.

Some scientists challenge the newest ANSI standard on several grounds. For one thing, it's primarily intended to prevent exposure to EMFs strong enough to cause thermal effects, not exposure to weaker EMFs that may cause athermal effects. Nor does the ANSI standard take into account the effects of modulation. And the ANSI standard applies only to RF energy, not to low-frequency EMFs that are so central to public debate these days.

There is no generally accepted standard in America for exposure to the low-frequency fields produced by power lines or home appliances. And in general, there is considerable uncertainty about what level of electromagnetic energy should be considered safe.

Another problem is that RF fields are difficult to measure. The price of a professional quality RF power density meter runs well into four figures, and low-cost meters for home use are often grossly inaccurate. Even the best meters may not be accurate in the near field, the area close to an antenna where the potential for hazardous RF energy levels is greatest.

Field strengths can be calculated using mathematical formulas, but that, too, fails to take into account the random hot spots that often exist in the near field. Fortunately, the low-frequency fields from power lines and appliances are easier to measure than RF power densities.

If there is no consensus about safe energy levels, and if EMFs are difficult to measure, what can we do to minimize the potential health hazards of EMFs?

Several years ago, Professor M. Granger Morgan of Carnegie Mellon University offered a simple proposal: practice prudent avoidance. Dr Morgan said we should avoid unnecessary exposure to EMFs as a common-sense response to potential--but not yet proven--health hazards. He didn't suggest that we all abandon our electric appliances and go off to live in the woods in cabins without electricity, but he did suggest that we minimize exposure to EMFs when it's practical to do so.

He said, in essence, to avoid electromagnetic fields strong enough that they may have adverse health effects. The League has adopted Dr Morgan's approach: The RF safety sections of major ARRL publications urge radio amateurs to practice prudent avoidance wherever possible.

Which amateur operating practices are clearly safe, and which ones might be hazardous? Here are some suggestions based on guidelines developed by the League's Bio-Effects Committee:

  • Transmitting antennas should be mounted well away from living areas. If medium or high transmitter power (100 watts or more) is to be used, antennas should be mounted on a mast or tower at least 35 feet above any populated area if possible. The FCC/EPA study indicated that with an antenna that high, there is little RF energy where people are.
  • Because feed lines can radiate in some cases, when installing open-wire line (or even coaxial cable if the SWR on the line is high), it's best to route it away from areas where people will be spending a lot of time.
  • When using a ground-mounted or mobile antenna, be careful not to transmit when anyone is near the antenna. A good rule of thumb is to avoid transmitting when anyone is within three feet of a car-mounted 2-meter FM whip if you're using a typical 25-watt transceiver. With a 100-watt amplifier, don't transmit when anyone is within five or six feet of a whip antenna. If you're using a beam antenna and 100 watts or more, follow the 35-foot rule: Don't transmit when anyone is within 35 feet of the front of the antenna (the direction where the antenna is pointed). It may be safe to transmit when people are a little closer to the antenna if everyone is below it or behind it, not in front of it.
  • Exercise particular care when using indoor antennas, including those mounted in attics, because in some situations they can generate substantial RF fields. Try to locate indoor antennas as far from people as possible. Use low power (10 watts output or less), and keep your transmissions short when someone might be near the antenna.
  • Never use a power amplifier that has its metal cover removed. The cover provides shielding, keeping the RF energy inside the unit--not out in the room.
  • If you're going to experiment with UHF or microwave equipment, or do moon bounce communications, discuss your installation with experienced operators before getting on the air. UHF and microwave antennas and waveguides--as well as high-gain moon bounce antennas--may produce hazardous levels of RF energy and must be installed carefully so that no person is in the line of fire. Never look into an activated waveguide or stand in front of a high-gain VHF-UHF antenna when the transmitter is on.
  • When using a hand-held transceiver, use the lowest power possible and keep the antenna as far from your head as possible. Within the scientific community, there is disagreement about the safety of ""handy talkies."" Most hand-helds have been exempt from the ANSI standard because their power output is too low to produce significant whole-body heating. However, there is growing evidence that even one- or two-watt hand-held radios may produce significant EMFs within the user's head, with possible health effects that are not yet fully understood. (The potential for a health hazard is greatly reduced when a hand-held radio is used in its low-power position, with only a fraction of a watt of output power.)
  • Be aware that low-frequency fields exist in your home. If possible, avoid being within 24 inches of any electric motor or power transformer while it is turned on. Hair dryers, ac-operated hand drills and other electric devices that are held close to the body when in use often expose users to stronger EMFs than those produced by Amateur Radio equipment. Nevertheless, it is a good idea to stay about 24 inches away from the fans and power transformers found in high-power amplifiers and 12-volt power supplies, for example.

Since the doors opened for the first time on March 1, 1999, Life Sources, Inc. remains committed to you, our clients and friends, in hopes that the information we send monthly is of interest to you.

Our continued goal is to educate, inspire, and ultimately lead you to living a healthier life-in-the healthiest-style. We also invite any comments, suggestions or testimonies you have to share.

Thank you for being a part of the Life Sources’ Team!

Andrea McCreery, President/Founder; www.life-sources.com