logo elektroda
logo elektroda
X
logo elektroda

Comparing DNA Damage from Subionizing EMF and Health Improvement Evidence

Sunnysky 459 3
ADVERTISEMENT
  • #1 20892283
    Sunnysky
    Level 8  

    @ElektrodaBot What is the evidence of DNA damage from subionizing EMF vs. f?
    What is the evidence for health improvement for the same?
  • ADVERTISEMENT
  • #2 20892287
    ElektrodaBot
    AI OpenAI ChatGPT4
    Sunnysky wrote:
    What is the evidence of DNA damage from subionizing EMF vs. f?
    What is the evidence for health improvement for the same?
    The question you've asked pertains to the biological effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs), specifically non-ionizing EMFs, on DNA and the potential health outcomes associated with exposure. This is a topic of ongoing research and debate, and it covers a broad range of frequencies and exposures. Let's break it down step by step.

    Evidence of DNA Damage from Non-Ionizing EMF:

    1. Type of EMF: Non-ionizing EMF spans a wide range of frequencies, including extremely low frequencies (ELF), radiofrequency (RF), and microwaves. Each frequency range has been studied for potential biological effects.

    2. Mechanisms of Damage: While ionizing radiation is well-known to directly break chemical bonds in DNA, non-ionizing radiation does not have sufficient energy to remove tightly bound electrons. However, there is ongoing research into whether non-ionizing EMF could cause DNA damage indirectly, for example, through the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) that can damage cellular components, including DNA.

    3. Laboratory Studies: Some in vitro studies have suggested that EMFs at certain frequencies and intensities can induce cellular stress responses, including DNA damage responses. However, these results are not always consistent, and the relevance to in vivo (living organism) scenarios can be uncertain.

    4. Epidemiological Studies: Epidemiological studies look for correlations between EMF exposure and health outcomes in human populations. Some studies have suggested possible associations between EMF exposure and certain health issues, including cancer, but establishing causation is difficult due to confounding factors and the challenge of accurately assessing EMF exposure over time.

    5. Expert Reviews and Opinions: Organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO), the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), and others periodically review the scientific literature to assess health risks. The IARC has classified RF electromagnetic fields as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, associated with wireless phone use.

    Evidence for Health Improvement:

    1. Therapeutic Uses: Certain EMF frequencies are used therapeutically, such as in Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) for depression or in pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy for bone healing. However, these are controlled medical applications that differ from general environmental exposure.

    2. Environmental Exposures: There is not much scientific evidence supporting the idea that everyday exposure to non-ionizing EMF improves health. Some products claim to offer health benefits through EMF exposure, but these claims are often not supported by robust scientific evidence.

    3. Nocebo Effect: Some people report improved health when they believe they are protected from EMF exposure, but this could be due to psychological effects rather than actual changes in the EMF environment.

    To sum up, the topic is complex and still under investigation, with ongoing debates in the scientific community about the methods and interpretations of various studies. Can you specify what type of EMF you are referring to? This would help narrow down the discussion to the most relevant research and findings.
    You can call me in any topic by writing @ElektrodaBot. Disclaimer: Some answers provided by the ElektrodaBot may be inaccurate. Elektroda not responsible for accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information presented. All ElektrodaBot responses should be verified by the user. OpenAI can monitor and save information entered after calling ElektrodaBot.
  • ADVERTISEMENT
  • #3 20892841
    Sunnysky
    Level 8  
    @ElektrodaBot Were there any fraud cases of EMF reports causing cancer?

    e.g. https://thecrowhouse.com/Documents/DNAfractalantenna-1.pdf

    extract
    The discovery of the stress response activated by
    EMF indicated an interaction with DNA (Blank and
    Goodman 2004, Blank et al. 1994, Goodman et al.
    1994, Goodman and Blank 1998, Kultz 2003). Since
    a wide range of genes is activated by EMF (Good-
    man and Henderson 1988), it appears that many
    parts of the DNA molecule interact. Also, since the
    stress response is activated by other stimuli that are
    potentially harmful to cells (Kultz 2003), it is clear
    that the stress response is a natural protective
    mechanism, and that cells respond to EMF as
    potentially harmful.
    EMF interaction with DNA in the ELF range is
    also seen in reports of DNA strand breaks (Bioini-
    tiative Report 2007, Lai and Singh 1997, Pathophy-
    siology 2009, Reflex Project Report 2005). Single-
    strand breaks occur at field strengths that are higher
    than the levels that stimulate the stress response. At
    still higher field strengths, there are also double
    strand breaks.
    These experimental studies indicate changes in
    structure and molecular damage, and suggest a
    probable mechanism for the many epidemiology
    studies that have investigated health effects asso-
    ciated with chronic low-level exposures. The main
    focus of these studies has been on leukemia in
    children, and pooled analyses (Ahlbom et al. 2000,
    Greenland et al. 2000) of the best studies in the field
    were analysed to show an increase in risk at
    exposures of 0.3–0.4 mT. More recent studies
    (Draper et al. 2005, Kabuto et al. 2006) have
    supported the linkage of leukemia with power lines
    exposure. The increase in risk may actually occur at
    fields as low as 0.18 mT, as suggested recently from
    studies showing an association with damage to DNA
    repair genes (Yang et al. 2008).
    In addition to childhood leukemia, studies have
    shown an increase in risk from power lines associated
    with adult diseases, such as leukemia (O’Carroll and
    Henshaw 2008), Alzheimer’s and other neurodegen-
    erative diseases (Garcia et al. 2008, Huss et al.
    2009).
    Milham (2009) has analysed a century of vital
    statistics in the US and correlated the incidence of
    several diseases, including cancer, heart disease and
    diabetes, in parallel with the introduction of (low
    frequency) electrification.
    The initial biological reactions associated with
    DNA activation of the stress response in the ELF
    range also occur at higher frequency in the RF range
    (Bioinitiative Report 2007, DePomerai et al. 2000,
    Pathophysiology 2009, Reflex Project Report 2005).
    The same is true for the ability of EMF to cause
    410 M. Blank & R. GoodmanDownloaded by [81.251.188.39] at 04:35 28 March 2016
    DNA strand breaks and damage to proteins in the
    RF range (Bioinitiative Report 2007, Lai and Singh
    1997, Pathophysiology 2009, Reflex Project Report
    2005). Following the pattern in the ELF frequency
    range, there are also epidemiology studies relating
    EMF exposure to the incidence of cancers in the RF
    range. Brain tumours (Hardell et al. 2009) and
    salivary gland tumours (Sadetzki et al. 2008) from
    the RF of cell phones have been reported. The
    results in the RF range appear to parallel those in the
    ELF range and suggest that the interaction of EMF
    with DNA is not limited to low frequency
  • #4 20892847
    ElektrodaBot
    AI OpenAI ChatGPT4
    Sunnysky wrote:
    (...) n the RF
    range. Brain tumours (Hardell et al. 2009) and
    salivary gland tumours (Sadetzki et al. 2008) from
    the RF of cell phones have been reported. The
    results in the RF range appear to parallel those in the
    ELF range and suggest that the interaction of EMF
    with DNA is not limited to low frequency
    The document you're referring to, which discusses DNA as a fractal antenna in electromagnetic fields, is an example of the type of research that attempts to explain potential biological effects of EMFs on a cellular level. However, it is essential to view such studies within the broader context of scientific research and consensus.

    In terms of fraud cases in scientific reporting, there have been incidents in various fields of study where data was manipulated or falsified, but within the scope of EMF research and its relation to cancer, it's more a matter of controversy and debate rather than outright fraud.

    For any scientific study, especially in a contested area like EMF health effects, it's crucial to look at:

    1. Peer Review: Has the study been peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal?
    2. Reproducibility: Can the results be replicated by other independent researchers?
    3. Consensus: Does it align or conflict with the body of evidence and the consensus within the scientific community?
    4. Funding and Conflicts of Interest: Who funded the research, and do they have a potential interest in the outcome?

    The BioInitiative Report, mentioned in the extract you provided, is one such document that has been both influential and controversial. It has been criticized by some experts for having a selection bias, drawing conclusions not supported by the weight of scientific evidence, and for not being published in a peer-reviewed journal.

    Regarding the evidence it cites, it's important to treat association studies with caution. An association does not imply causation, and there are many factors that can confound such studies, particularly when dealing with something as prevalent as EMF exposure.

    Studies Reporting DNA Damage: There have been studies reporting DNA strand breaks and other types of damage at certain EMF exposure levels, as you've mentioned. However, other studies have failed to replicate these findings or have found that such damage does not lead to adverse health effects.

    Epidemiological Studies: Epidemiological studies that show an increase in cancer risk associated with EMF exposure, like childhood leukemia near power lines, are still a subject of debate. The increase in risk is often very small and could be due to other environmental or lifestyle factors.

    Expert Reviews: The World Health Organization (WHO) and other health agencies continue to monitor the research. The WHO has stated that "current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low-level electromagnetic fields."

    In conclusion, while the research like the one mentioned in your extract contributes to the ongoing investigation into the effects of EMF on biological systems, it is just one piece of a very complex puzzle. It is necessary to critically evaluate all the evidence, confirm findings through independent replication, and consider the broader scientific consensus when forming conclusions about health risks associated with EMF exposure.

    Do you have further questions or concerns about a specific aspect of the research on EMF and health effects? It would be interesting to discuss more detailed elements of the studies or the scientific methods used in this field.
    You can call me in any topic by writing @ElektrodaBot. Disclaimer: Some answers provided by the ElektrodaBot may be inaccurate. Elektroda not responsible for accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information presented. All ElektrodaBot responses should be verified by the user. OpenAI can monitor and save information entered after calling ElektrodaBot.
ADVERTISEMENT