We are in the midst of a paradigm shift when it comes to our understanding of the biological effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic frequencies generated by our use of electricity, electronics and wireless technology. Ionizing radiation (IR) has enough energy to break chemical bonds and is known to cause cancer. However, because nonionizing radiation (NIR) lacks this energy, it was assumed that these lower frequencies cannot be carcinogenic. This concept is based on a flawed assumption. NIR can and does cause cancer not by increasing the production of free radicals but by interfering with the repair mechanisms that neutralize free-radicals. While the mechanisms differ, the consequences of both NIR and IR are the same–oxidative stress resulting in cellular damage including cancer.

•     Cancer
•     Non-ionizing radiation (NIR)
•     Radio frequency radiation (RFR)
•     Extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF
EMF)
•     Oxidative stress
•     Free-radicals
•     Paradigm shift

Havas M (2017) Carcinogenic effects of Non-Ionizing Radiation: A Paradigm Shift. JSM Environ Sci Ecol 5(2): 1045.

Science advances in two ways … by smooth incremental additions to our understanding and by revolutionary shifts in our knowledge that Kuhn [1], classified as a “paradigm shift.” A paradigm shift is a change from one way of thinking to another and is driven by agents of change.

We are currently experiencing a paradigm shift regarding the biological effects of non-ionizing radiation (NIR). Paradigm shifts are often met with opposition. Here is a quote attributed to Arthur Schopenhauer that I’ve modified:

All truth (A paradigm shift) passes through four stages

. First, it is ignored.

Second, it is ridiculed.

Third, it is violently opposed.

Forth, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Most physicists and many health authorities will tell you that NIR cannot cause cancer because it doesn’t have enough energy to break chemical bonds. For example, according to the National Cancer Institute, U.S. [2], Radiofrequency energy, unlike ionizing radiation, does not cause DNA damage that can lead to cancer. Its only consistently observed biological effect in humans is tissue heating. And, according to the Swedish Radiation Protection Authority [3], there is no biologically plausible mechanism to support a carcinogenic effect of non-ionizing RF waves.

At the same time, empirical evidence–one of the cornerstones of science–documents a link between cancers and exposure to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF EMF) produced by electricity (50 and 60 Hz) as well as radio frequency (RF) and microwave (MW) radiation generated by electronic and wireless technology (kHz to GHz) at levels currently found in the environment and at levels well below international guidelines [4].

More specifically epidemiological studies document an increase leukemia risk for children who live in homes nears power lines or transformers [5]. This study was independently replicated [6], and the results confirmed an odds ratio of 2.8-increased risk of childhood leukemia at magnetic flux density of 2.2 mG. They later reported a much higher risk in homes with conductive plumbing that carried a ground current and generated an elevated magnetic field [7]. The matched odds ratio increased from 1.72 (1.03-2.88) to 3.00 (1.33-6.76)–with conductive plumbing–when analysis was limited to cases and controls who were residentially stable from the reference date to the study date.

The Bonneville Power Authority [8], reviewed much of the early research on the health effects of low frequency electromagnetic fields. In their chapter on human cancers associated with EMF exposure, of the 226 studies available at the time, 48% (108) reported an increased cancer risk and 4% (8) reported a decreased cancer risk with exposure to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (Table 1). The weight of evidence strongly supports an overall increased cancer risk (mostly leukemia, brain and breast cancer) with magnetic fields in the order of 2 to 12 mG experienced in homes near power lines or in occupational settings [9].

Table 1: Human studies of EMF and cancer, based on chapter 3 of the Bonneville Power Authority Review.

For radio frequency and microwave radiation generated by wireless technology, the scientific literature documents an increased risk of ipsilateral gliomas [10,11], meningiomas [12,13], acoustic neuromas [14,15], and salivary gland tumors [16,17], associated with mobile phone use for 10 years or longer.

Similarly women who keep their cell phones in their bras for at least 10 years, have a greater risk of development multifocal breast cancer in the area in contact with the cell phone [18], and men who keep their cell phone in their pocket in standby mode have a greater risk of developing testicular cancer [19].

People who live within 500 m of cell phone antennas [20- 22], and within 2 km of radio or TV broadcast antennas [23-25], have a greater risk of developing and dying from various types of cancers as do those occupationally exposed such as police officers using radar [26,27], telegraph operators [28], and radar exposed military personnel [29].

While health care authorities will say that the scientific evidence is inconclusive, unconvincing and/or inconsistent, the fact that so many studies in different countries using different methods are getting similar results cannot be dismissed so easily. Clearly there is a discrepancy between theory and observation.

Biological organisms are much more complex than simple chemical solutions. They have non-linear homeostatic mechanisms that come into play when their environment changes. If it becomes too hot, many mammals will initiate a cooling effect by perspiring and/or altering behavior. When it is too cold, these same organisms will reduce blood flow to their extremities to protect vital body organs.

Similarly, exposure to NIR in the environment initiates changes in the body that are highly complex and interrelated. These changes, all of which can contribute to cancer, include increased calcium flux between cells and altered cell signaling [30], increased permeability of the blood brain barrier allowing potentially toxic substances to enter the brain [31-33], reduced oncostatic effect of melatonin [34,35], production of heat shock proteins indicating cellular stress [36], induced ornithine decarboxylase activity [37,38], and both single and double strand DNA breaks [39,40].

However, the largest body of evidence–and what I believe to be the most convincing–comes from studies of free-radical production and oxidative stress leading to cellular damage, degeneration and cancer [41]. Yakymenko reviewed the scientific literature and provided evidence documenting RF activation of key pathways generating reactive oxygen species (ROS), activation of peroxidation, oxidative damage of DNA, increase in biomarkers of oxidative stress and carcinogenesis and changes in the activity of antioxidant enzymes (Table 2). Ninety-three of the 100 available peer-reviewed studies, dealing with oxidative effects with low-intensity RF exposure, confirmed that RF induces oxidative stress in biological systems. ELF EMFs have effects similar to RFR. Lai [42], tabulated scientific abstracts dealing with the effects of ELF EMF on free radicals. He found that 84% of the publications (i.e. 97 of 110 studies) reported effects that include production of free radicals and reactive oxygen species (ROS); evidence of oxidative damage including DNA and neurological damage; apoptosis; altered antioxidant enzyme activity (both increase and decrease); and altered immune system response. Supplementation with antioxidants (Zn, Se, Vitamin C, and melatonin) ameliorated the harmful effects of NIR. These two, relatively recent compilations of the scientific literature [41,42], that document oxidative damage generated by NIR from ELF to MW frequencies, in combination with other well documented mechanisms of action (stress protein production, altered calcium flux, increased permeability of the blood-brainbarrier, single and double strand DNA breaks) clearly point to the fact that NIR can and does cause cancer.

Since the 1950s, scientists have been debating whether NIR can be carcinogenic. The scientific evidence is now sufficiently robust to end this debate. Oxidative damage can explain the increased cancer risk among those chronically exposed to NIR at current levels in the environment and at levels well below international guidelines. NIR can and does cause cancer through a series of complex interactions that include oxidative damage to cells that can lead to cellular degeneration including cancer. The mechanism involves altered activity of antioxidant enzymes, altered immune system response, increased free radical accumulation in cells, oxidative damage to DNA, and apoptosis. Additional support comes from the fact that supplementation with antioxidants can ameliorated the harmful effects of NIR. It is time for the debate on the carcinogenicity of NIR to end and for scientists to recognize that we are experiencing a paradigm shift in our understanding of the biological effects of NIR. Our concept of the biological effects of NIR is much more complex then previously assumed and our understanding now much richer because of the international research effort in this area. The time has come for the scientific community to accept the carcinogenic effects of NIR as a “self-evident” truth and for policy makers and regulators to ensure that the public and those occupationally exposed to NIR are protected against this type of pollution.

Table 2: Number of studies documenting a statistically significant response to radio frequency radiation. Based on data provided by Yakymenko [41]. Note that the number of observations adds up to more than the total number of studies because some studies reported more than one observation

1. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press. 1962.

2. National Cancer Institute, U.S, 2016. Cell Phones and Cancer Risk Fact Sheet. 2016.

3. Swedish Radiation Protection Authority. Epidemiological Studies of Cellular Telephones and cancer Risk e a Review. Swedish Radiation Protection Authority, Stockholm. 2002.

4. ICNIRP. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz), Health Physics. 1998; 74: 494?522.

5. Wertheimer N, Leeper E. Electrical wiring configuration and childhood cancer. Am J Epidemiol. 1979; 109: 273-284.

6. Savitz DA, Wachtel H, Barnes FA, et al. Case-control study of childhood cancer and exposure to 60-Hz magnetic fields. Am. J Epid. 1988; 128: 21-38.

7. Wertheimer N, Savitz DA, Leeper E. Childhood cancer in relation to indicators of magnetic fields from ground current sources. Bioelectromagnetics. 1995; 16: 86-96.

8. Lee JM, Pierce KS, Spiering CA. Electrical and biological effects of transmission lines: A review, Bonneville Power Administration Portland. Oregon. 1996.

9. Havas M. Biological effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic energy: A critical review of the reports by the US National Research Council and the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences as they relate to the broad realm of EMF bioeffects. Environ Rev. 2000; 8: 173-253.

10. Cardis E, Deltour I, Vrijheid M, Moissonnier M, Tardy H, Armstrong B, et al. Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: Results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study. Int J Epidemiol. 2010; 39: 675-694.

11. Carlberg M, Hardell L. Evaluation of Mobile Phone and Cordless Phone Use and Glioma Risk Using the Bradford Hill Viewpoints from 1965 on Association or Causation. Biomed Res Int. 2017.

12. Cardis E, Armstrong BK, Bowman JD, Giles GG, Hours M, Krewski D, et al. Risk of brain tumours in relation to estimated RF dose from mobile phones: results from five Interphone countries Occup Environ Med. 2011; 68: 631-640.

13. Morgan LL, Miller AB, Sasco A, Davis DL. Mobile phone radiation causes brain tumors and should be classified as a probable human carcinogen (2A) (review). Int J Oncol. 2015; 46:1865-1871.

14. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. Case-control study on cellular and cordless telephones and the risk for acoustic neuroma or meningioma in patients diagnosed 2000–2003. Neuroepidemiology. 2005; 25:120-128.

15. Sato Y, Akiba A, Kubo O, Yamaguchi N. A case-case study of mobile phone use and acoustic neuroma risk in Japan. Bioelectromagnetics. 2011; 32: 85-93.

16. Sadetzki S, Chetrit A, Jarus-Hakak A, Cardis E, Deutch Y, Duvdevani S, et al. Cellular phone use and risk of benign and malignant parotid gland tumors — a nationwide case-control study. Am J Epidemiol. 2008; 167: 457-467.

17. de Siqueira EC, de Souza FT, Gomez RS, Gomes cc , de Souza RPl. Does cell phone use increase the chances of parotid gland tumor development? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Oral Pathol Med. 2016.

18. West JG, Kapoor NS, Liao SY, June WC, Lisa B, Robert AN. Multifocal Breast Cancer in Young Women with Prolonged Contact between Their Breasts and Their Cellular Phones. Case Reports in Medicine. 2013.

19. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Ohlson CG, Westberg H, Eriksson M, Hansson Mild K. Use of cellular and cordless telephones and risk of testicular cancer. Int J Androl. 2007; 30: 115-122.

20. Eger H, Hagen KU, Lucas B. The Influence of Being Physically Near to a Cell Phone Transmission Mast on the Incidence of Cancer. 2004.

21. Wolf R, Wolf D. Increased incidence of cancer near a cellphone transmitted station. In F. Columbus (Ed.), Trends in Cancer Prevention New York: Nova Science Publishers. 2007; 1-8.

22. Dode AC, Leão MMD, F de AF Tejo Gomes AC, Dode DC, Dode MC, et al. Mortality by neoplasia and cellular telephone base stations in the Belo Horizonte municipality, Minas Gerais state, Brazil. Science of the Total Environment. 2011; 409: 3649-3665.

23. Hocking B, Gordon IR, Grain HL, Hatfield GE. Cancer incidence and mortality and proximity to TV towers. Med J Aust. 1996; 165: 601.

24. Michelozzi P, Capon A, Kirchmayer U, Forastiere F, Biggeri A, Barca A, et al. Adult and Childhood Leukemia near a High-Power Radio Station in Rome, Ital. Am J Epidemiol. 2002; 155: 1096-1103.

25. Ha M, Im H, Lee M, et al. Radio-frequency radiation exposure from AM radio transmitters and childhood leukemia and brain cancer. Am J Epidemiol. 2007; 166: 270-279.

26. Finkelstein MM. Cancer incidence among Ontario police officers. Am J Ind Med. 1998; 34: 157-162.

27. Davis RL, Mostofi FK. Cluster of testicular cancer in police officers exposed to hand-held radar. Am J Ind Med. 1993; 24: 231-233.

28. Tynes T, Hannevik M, Andersen A,Vistnes AI, Haldorsen T, et al. Incidence of breast cancer in Norwegian female radio and telegraph operators. Cancer Causes Control. 1996; 7: 197-204.

29. Szmigielski S. Cancer morbidity in subjects occupationally exposed to high frequency (radiofrequency and microwave) electromagnetic radiation. Sci Total Environ. 1996; 180: 9-17.

30. Pall ML. Scientific evidence contradicts findings and assumptions of Canadian safety panel 6: microwaves act through voltage-gated calcium channel activation to induce biological impacts at non-thermal levels, supporting a paradigm shift for microwave/lower frequency electromagnetic field action. Rev Environ Health. 2015; 30: 99-116. 

31. Leszczynski D, Joenvaara S, Reivinen J, Kuokka R. Non-thermal activation of the hsp27/p38MAPK stress pathway by mobile phone radiation in human endothelial cells: molecular mechanism for cancer-and blood-brain barrier related effects. Differentiation. 2002; 70: 120-129.

32. Salford LG, Brun A, Sturesson K, Eberhardt JL, Persson BRR. Permeability of the blood-brain barrier induced by 915 MHz electromagnetic radiation, continuous wave and modulated at 8, 16, 50 and 200 Hz. Microsc Res Tech. 1994; 27: 535-542.

33. Schirmacher A, Winters S, Fischer S, Goeke J, Galla HJ, Kullnick U, et al. Electromagnetic fields (1.8 GHz) increase the permeability to sucrose of the blood-brain barrier in vitro. Bioelectromagnetics. 2000; 21: 338-345.

34. Liburdy RP, Sloma TR, Sokolic R, Yaswen P. ELF magnetic fields, breast cancer, and melatonin: 60 Hz fields block melatonin’s oncostatic action on ER? breast cancer cell proliferation. J Pineal Res. 1993; 14: 89-97.

35. Blackman CF, Benane SG, DE House. The influence of 1.2 microT, 60 Hz magnetic fields on melatonin-and tamoxifen-induced inhibition of MCF-7 cell growth. Bioelectromagnetics. 2001; 22: 122-128.

36. Blank M, Goodman R. Electromagnetic fields stress living cells. Pathophysiol. 2009; 16: 71-78.

37. Byus CV, Pieper S, Adey WR. The effect of low-energy 60 Hz environmental electromagnetic fields upon the growth related enzyme ornithine decarboxylase. Carcinogenesis. 1987; 8: 1385-1389.

38. Mullins JM, Penafiel LM, Juutilainen J, Litovitz TA. Dose response of electromagnetic field-induced ornithine decarboxylase activity. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg. 1999; 48, 193-199.

39. Lai H, Singh NP. Single- and double-strand DNA breaks in rat brain cells after acute exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation. Int J Radiat Biol. 1996; 69: 513-521.

40. Diem E, Schwarz C, Adlkofer F, Jahn O, Rüdiger H. Non-thermal DNA breakage by mobile-phone radiation (1800 MHz) in human fibroblasts and in transformed GFSH-R17 rat granulosa cells in vitro. Mutat Res. 2005; 583: 178-183.

41. Yakymenko I, Tsybulin O, Sidorik E, Henshel D, Kyrylenko O, Kyrylenko S, et al. Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation. Electromagn Biol Med. 2016; 35: 186-202.

42. Lai H. ELF EMF Free Radical Abstracts, List of 123 abstracts. 2014