Smartphones, Wi-Fi and Pandora's box – resulting from electromagnetic radiation investigation (electromagic)

Professor Dariusz Leszczyński and I are talking about how Wi-Fi affects our health, why the decision of the global Agency for investigation on Cancer on telephone Radiation was a shock to business and how to defend ourselves from the negative impact of smartphones.

Justyna Pierzyńska: Could you tell us more about your investigation on electromagnetic radiation? Why are you curious in this subject? What conclusions have your investigation on him led to?

Dariusz Leszczyński: I began to be curious in this subject in the mid-1990s. Working at a Finnish government radiation institution, I was tasked with examining the impact of electromagnetic waves on health.

In the 1990s, I co-authored a study reviewing what was known about this. During the preparation of the report, I realized that so far a variety of studies have been carried out, but in fact we inactive know very small about the impact of electromagnetic fields on human wellness and we request to start systematic investigation from the beginning. I mean, start with investigation on the cells that are most useful for this research, or human cells. Then the results will be closest to reality and useful to human health.

If the intent of investigation is to find whether something is harmful to human health, then, of course, human cells are the best.

What kind of investigation did you do with your investigation group?

Cells can be tested in many different ways, utilizing different tests, but it is frequently hard to prove that the cellular consequence obtained in the survey has actually triggered an interesting factor, or electromagnetic fields, alternatively than, for example, an increase in temperature caused by microwave radiation. Therefore, to avoid this problem, tests require advanced standard apparatus. In our biological studies, we utilized proteomics, a method in which hundreds, thousands of proteins are isolated from cells.

We focused on how the amount and activity (the level of phosphorylation) of different proteins changes after irradiation. This allowed us to see which proteins with circumstantial functions in the cell were activated by electromagnetic radiation. On this basis, we've been making hypotheses about how electromagnetic radiation can affect cells.

One of the first observations we made was the fact that electromagnetic radiation activates the alleged ‘stress response’, which is the body's consequence to signals disrupting average physiological processes.

We irradiated cells with low power, which was within the limits of the standards applicable to mobile phones, obtaining a stress consequence nonetheless. This clearly indicates that the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the telephone affects cells besides within the limits permitted by the current standards. This radiation is recognized by cells as a disruptive agent that activates biochemical pathways to prevent these disorders.

Research on people that we have besides begun is essential to find out precisely what processes happen in the organs of the human body after irradiating the electromagnetic field in the amounts permitted by the regulations.

Our pilot survey has shown that in humans certain proteins respond to irradiation in specified a way that they decrease or increase their amount.

We irradiated tiny fragments of human skin with radiation from a cell telephone of specified power that was within the allowed standards. Then we isolated proteins from these fragments, and it turned out that there were changes in the amount of certain proteins. This indicates that radiation acting on us erstwhile we usage the telephone may affect the physiology of our body. We inactive don't know if it's negative or positive. The continuation of human investigation was interrupted due to the fact that the funds promised for further investigation remained only a promise.

Are people right about putting telecommunications masts close schools, roofs of homes and hospitals? Would you agree not to put masts and base stations in specified places? Would it be wise to prohibit the usage of smartphones in schools, or would it even destruct wireless net in schools?

I would agree with any of these demands.

When it comes to kids and schools, that's where you don't request wireless Internet. In all class you can put computers with wired internet.

The school doesn't should be wifi, especially since it doesn't truly know how it affects children's health.

I am not saying this due to the fact that I know for certain that it has a negative impact, but precisely due to the fact that it is not known. And if the presence of wifi besides psychologically affects parents who are beginning to fear radiation, why not just decide in schools to usage the wired internet?

The second thing is the usage of cell phones. At the minute there is much talk about how they disrupt the intellectual improvement of children, affect social relations, hinder science. More and more countries are simply beginning to prohibit their usage in schools. In Finland, schools that banned the usage of phones during the school day saw an improvement in teaching results and relationships between children, due to the fact that during the break they had to play with each another alternatively of staring at the smartphone screen.

On the another hand, erstwhile it comes to installing telecommunication masts on the roofs of schools, protesting against them is primarily influenced by the intellectual effect.

The mast sends a 1000 times little radiation than the cell telephone on its head.

When we usage the phone, we get dramatically more radiation from the telephone than from the base station on the roof of the school. If we do not usage the telephone during the school day and are inactive close the base station, this is practically equivalent to the deficiency of radiation exposure. It truly is simply a minimal amount of radiation.

If the mast is somewhere further away, even very far away, then our utilized telephone will automatically increase radiation emissions to connect to this mast. The telephone must send more energy if the mast is far away. If the mast is on my roof, which is very close, my telephone sends much little energy. It's the automation on the telephone that makes the farther the base station, the more power the telephone has to send. Therefore, if the base station is on the roof of the school and mobile phones are utilized in the school, it is even better that the base station is close, due to the fact that then users will be little irradiated by their own telephone erstwhile utilizing it. It can be said that concerns about putting masts close schools or houses arise from misunderstandings.

How can we defend ourselves from the possible negative effects of mobile phones on our health?

Choosing a telephone and utilizing it is important. If we keep in our pocket an average telephone of the old type, which is not connected to the internet, it emits in order to contact the base station very small radiation. This amount of energy is close to zero. Then we are not exposed to radiation that could possibly harm us.

But if we keep a smartphone connected to the net constantly in our pocket, the situation changes.

Then our telephone emits energy all the time due to the fact that it needs it not only to contact the base station, but besides to constantly update all applications that are on the smartphone.

That's why the place next to our pocket where we keep the telephone is inactive irradiated. For this reason, it would be best to disable wifi and data transmission on the telephone if we do not request them at the moment.

Some speculate that the increase in colon cancer can be caused by the fact that people keep phones in their back pocket. Others say that men should not keep their smartphone in the front pocket of their trousers, as radiation can harm sperm. I did investigation on the effects of radiation on sperm at the University of Pretoria, South Africa, and their results showed that the radiation actually inhibited any sperm function in the laboratory. However, the same thing happens in a surviving human body under the influence of a telephone in your pocket, we do not know. This is 1 of the things that have not been investigated.

Work is presently underway on the future introduction of the 6G network. In Finland, the university in Oulu, among others, runs it. Will 6G entail further increases in vulnerability standards? Should people who are allergic to electromagnetic radiation fear 6G?

6G's not microwaves anymore. It's terahertz frequencies. It is simply a radiation that can send a immense amount of information, but only for very short distances. All buildings, even leaves, raindrops, are an obstacle even now for 5G.

5G doesn't go through quite a few materials, so it takes quite a few base stations to get the telephone to connect to them.

There will be even more technological problems for 6G. Whether this will have any effect on physiology, no 1 knows due to the fact that there is no investigation on this subject.

This is the problem: communication technology is developing very quickly, while biological investigation is costly and very time-consuming.

They're always behind on technological development. At the time of the introduction of 5G, only a fewer studies existed about its effects on surviving organisms. Only now, after the introduction of 5G, tests are carried out post factum.

The 6G will most likely be introduced first for industry. We may never know how 6G, 5G or electromagnetic radiation affects our health. The reason for this is the multiplicity of factors affecting us simultaneously. The separation from this large mass of influence factors of electromagnetic fields may actually be impossible.

Is there a question about the impact of electromagnetic fields on wellness that no 1 has always asked you? What another issues, too those raised present in our conversation, are worth looking at?

The most crucial issue is the request for human investigation to find what biochemical and physiological changes in the human body origin radiation of electromagnetic fields.

Another crucial issue is the request to form expert groups that would not be common adoration groups and for forums for a real technological discussion.

Is there a chance in the future that the discussion of the impact of electromagnetic fields on wellness will become more productive and more technological than at this moment?

No, I don't see it. ICNIRP is very strong. The WHO is presently conducting a fresh evaluation of what is known about the effects of electromagnetic fields on health. This is done in large secrecy, and people who have prepared preliminary surveys on this subject are mostly affiliated with ICNIRP. Those who offered their own opinions contrary to the ICNIRP position were eliminated. Therefore, I think that the fresh WHO evaluation will announce that there is nothing incorrect with the impact of electromagnetic fields on health, there is no reason to be concerned. This will be the last " nail to the coffin" of investigation on this subject. Nothing else can be done.

So the final conclusion of our conversation seems definitely negative?

Yes, very pessimistic.

Nothing will change.

One of my last articles I just devoted to the request for technological debate.

Do you intend to proceed in different forums and call for a debate to proceed despite specified negative prospects for the future?

Yes, due to the fact that we request a debate of the kind organised by the global Agency for investigation on Cancer in 2011.

I want you good luck with your work. This is simply a very crucial activity. Thank you so much for talking to me.