Authors at Oakland: A Celebration of the Book

Are Electromagnetic Fields Making Me Ill?,
by Brad Roth

Every year the Kresge Library at Oakland University hosts an event called “Authors at Oakland” where they honor publications by Oakland University faculty. This year was “a celebration of the book.” Intermediate Physics for Medicine and Biology was featured at a previous Authors at Oakland event, and this year I submitted Are Electromagnetic Fields Making Me Ill? Two authors were selected to give a short talk about their book, and I was one of them. So on Wednesday, March 20 I spoke to an audience of OU librarians, members of the faculty senate library committee, and other interested professors and students.

The talk was not recorded but below is a transcript, as best as I can remember it.

Thank you for selecting my book Are Electromagnetic Fields Making Me Ill? to be featured here at Authors at Oakland. My friend David Garfinkle once told me that any time a book has a title in the form of a question, the answer’s always “no.” That’s true for my book, and sums it up in a nutshell.

How did I come to write this book? In November of 2019, just before Covid arrived, I was asked to participate in a town hall meeting in Rochester, Michigan about the then-new 5G cell phones. I was to be the health effects expert. I thought I was going to give a short talk to a quiet and respectful audience. Little did I know what was in store. [At this point I showed about the first one and a half minutes of the video below.]

I discussed the hazards of 5G cell phone radiation at a town hall meeting in Rochester, Michigan in 2019. The audience was not convinced by my claim that the risks are small. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smQ0Nnz7lLk

This experience got me to wondering why people believe things that aren’t supported by the evidence and what could I do about it? In response to the second question, I wrote this book.

The book covers several topics, but today I’ll focus on the issue that started it all: cell phones and cancer.

Not everyone agrees with me that 5G cell phone radiation is harmless. Devra Davis has written a book titled Disconnect, in which she claims to tell “the TRUTH about cell phone RADIATION, what the INDUSTRY has done to HIDE it, and how to PROTECT your FAMILY.” I disagree with her conclusions, but the issue shouldn’t be viewed as my word against hers. Let’s look at the evidence. That’s how science works.

The electromagnetic spectrum.
(From: https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/
emf/index.cfm)

To start we need to discuss a little physics. Electromagnetic waves come in many frequencies, from extremely low frequencies like those produced by 60 Hz power lines, to intermediate frequencies such as from cell phones, to very high frequencies such as x-rays.

Quantum mechanics tells us that electromagnetic radiation is not continuous but comes in lumps called photons. The energy of a photon is proportional to its frequency. Very high frequency photons like for x-rays have enough energy that they can disrupt DNA, causing mutations leading to cancer. However, cell phones operate at a much lower frequency, on the order of a gigahertz (one billion oscillations per second), in the realm of microwaves. These photons have an energy of about 0.000004 eV (an eV or “electron volt” is a unit of energy appropriate when discussing single atoms or molecules). What should we compare that energy to? All molecules are bouncing around randomly, called thermal motion. The thermal energy at our body temperature is about 0.02 eV. A cell phone photon would be swamped by the thermal noise. Chemical bonds have strengths of several electron volts. A cell phone photon is far too weak to break bonds, so they can’t directly disrupt DNA and cause cancer like x-ray photons can. If they have any effect it must be an indirect one, such as affecting our immune system or suppressing our body’s ability to repair DNA damage.

A microwave oven.
(Consumer Reports, CC BY-SA 4.0,
https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-sa/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons)

Even though one photon can’t damage our tissue, you might be wondering what would happen if we deposited many, many photons into our body? Physicists have a word for that: “heat.” We know microwaves can heat tissue. You prove that every time you warm up your leftovers in your microwave oven. However, physicists understand how microwaves heat tissue very well, and can predict how hot tissue will get when exposed to microwaves. Cell phones don’t emit enough microwave radiation to significantly heat tissue. The Federal Communications Commission limits the amount of radiation a cell phone can emit to levels that don’t cause significant heating. Your cell phone doesn’t cook your brain. If microwave radiation represents a hazard to our tissue, it’s not only through an indirect effect but also a nonthermal effect.

Let’s now look at four types of evidence about the risk of cell phone radiation: 1) theoretical analysis, 2) cancer rates, 3) epidemiological evidence, and 4) laboratory experiments.

Asher Sheppard and his colleagues have analyzed every theoretical mechanism they could think of to determine if microwaves have a significant affect on our tissue. After an exhaustive search, they concluded that

In the frequency range from several megahertz to a few hundred gigahertz, the focus of this paper, the principal mechanism for biological effects, and the only well-established mechanism, is the heating of tissues.

I can imagine that you’re thinking “well, maybe those armchair theorists just weren’t smart enough to dream up the correct mechanism.” Perhaps, but the point I want to make is that the concern about cell phone radiation isn’t being driven by a theoretical prediction. Theory does not predict there should be an effect.

Cell phone use and brain cancer trends between 1976 and 2006.
(Data from Inskip et al.)

Now look at this plot of brain cancer trends. Back in the 1980s, when I was a graduate student, no one had cell phones. The use of cell phones has exploded since then. The data shown only goes out to about 2010, but if you extend the data to today essentially everyone has a cell phone. However, the cancer rate has been flat over those decades. And the brain cancer rate, in particular, has been nearly flat. If cell phones are causing brain cancer, it’s not a strong enough signal to show up in the cancer rate data.

Epidemiology studies examine large groups of people, some exposed to a hazard and some not, to compare their health. One of the first epidemiological studies is called the INTERPHONE study, and it did suggest a weak association of heavy cell phone use with cancer. INTERPHONE was a case control study; the researchers interviewed many people with brain cancer to determine their prior cell phone use, and compared these people to a control group without cancer. These studies are useful for getting data on rare hazards quickly, but they’re susceptible to biases, such as “recall bias” where a person with cancer who used their cell phone a lot will remember that clearly and perhaps regretfully while a member of the control group might not remember whether or not they even used a cell phone at all. A cohort study is a better type of epidemiological analysis. A large number of people, some cell phone users and some not, are followed for many years to see who gets cancer. Two large cohort studies—the Million Women Study in Europe and another study that involved essentially the entire population of Denmark—didn’t indicate a signal for an increased rate of cancer caused by cell phone use. A meta-analysis of many epidemiological studies by Martin Röösli and his coworkers concluded that

Epidemiological studies do not suggest increased brain or salivary gland tumor risk with [mobile phone] use, although some uncertainty remains regarding long latency periods (>15 years), rare brain tumor subtypes, and [mobile phone] usage during childhood.

Another large cohort study, called COSMOS, is now being carried out in Europe. When I was preparing this Powerpoint presentation, I thought I’d have to tell you that we’ll need to wait a few years until the results are published. Then, just this week, a preliminary report found that there’s no evidence that cell phone use is associated with higher rates of brain cancer. Some people might claim that there’s a long latency period between the exposure to cell phone radiation and the occurrence of cancer, and that a large uptick in the cancer rate will happen soon. Maybe, but as each year goes by that scenario becomes less and less likely.

The final type of evidence is laboratory experiments, such as studies using rats, mice, or cells in a dish. The evidence here is mixed; many experiments see effects and many do not. In fact, you could make a compelling case for or against cell phone health effects, depending on which articles you read. Unfortunately, the quality of these studies is also mixed.

Often scientists sometimes conduct a systematic review, weighing the pros and cons of the many experiments. For example, Anne Perrin and her collaborators reviewed the effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields on the blood brain barrier, and found that

recent studies provide no convincing proof of deleterious effects of [radiofrequency radiation] on the integrity of the [blood brain barrier].

But other systematic reviews have come to different conclusions, and I fear it’s difficult to draw definite conclusions from the experimental investigations.

Federal agencies—such as the Food and Drug Administration, the Center for Disease Control, and the National Cancer Institute (part of the National Institutes of Health)—often conduct their own reviews of the evidence. My favorite is the National Cancer Institute, which was the agency that got the round of boos during that 5G town hall meeting I participated in. These aren’t bureaucrats conducting the review, but instead are our nation’s top cancer scientists. They concluded that

The human body does absorb energy from devices that emit radiofrequency radiation. The only consistently recognized biological effect of radiofrequency radiation absorption in humans that the general public might encounter is heating to the area of the body where a cell phone is held (e.g., the ear and head). However, that heating is not sufficient to measurably increase core body temperature. There are no other clearly established dangerous health effects on the human body from radiofrequency radiation.

So, the evidence from theoretical analysis, cancer trends, epidemiology, and experiments makes a strong case that there are no health risks from cell phone radiation. Impossibility proofs are difficult in biology and medicine, but to me the evidence is compelling that the electromagnetic waves emitted by cell phones are safe.

A final question is if we should believe the scientists. Should we trust the National Cancer Institute to provide a unbiased review, or are they trying to hide hazardous effects. I believe a conspiracy secretly carried out by hundreds if not thousands of scientists and medical doctors is absurd. In my book I wrote

Dangers arising from cell phone radiation strike me as unlikely, but not inconceivable. However, the claims that there exists a vast plot, with scientists colluding to conceal the facts, are ridiculous.

My book covers other topics besides just cell phone radiation. There’s a chapter on power line electric and magnetic fields causing leukemia, another on the Havana Syndrome, and others. My conclusion is that all these potential affects of electromagnetic fields are overblown.

Finally, in the acknowledgments section of my book I thank the Kresge Library for “assisting me with obtaining books and articles related to this research.” In particular, the interlibrary loan office here at Kresge Library has been essential to my research. I worked them pretty hard. You can’t write a book like this without a good interlibrary loan department.

Thank you. Does anyone have questions?

I must admit the biggest applause arose from my comment about the interlibrary loan office, but then the crowd was largely librarians. Overall Authors at Oakland was a wonderful event, and I deeply appreciate being invited to speak at it.

Oh, Myyy!

Recently I was reading an article by Ramsay Lewis and Yuhong Dong in The Epoch Times titled Invisible Electromagnetic Fields: Do They Harm Your Health? My friend and colleague David Garfinkle once told me that whenever you see a book or article whose title is in the form of a question, the answer is always “no.” I assumed that would be the case for this article, and I began reading.

The article describes how citizens of Virginia Beach opposed an offshore renewable energy project, justifying their opposition in part because of possible health hazards from electric and magnetic fields produced by transmission cables.

The article started off well and discussed many of the issues described in Chapter 9 of Intermediate Physics for Medicine and Biology and in my book Are Electromagnetic Fields Making Me Ill? (which, by the way, does follow Garfinkle’s rule of the title question having “no” for an answer). Then, suddenly, Lewis and Dong took a bizarre turn. They wrote

In repeated experiments, Nobel Prize laureate Professor Luc Montagnier amazingly demonstrated that a low intensity electromagnetic field (EMF) of 7 HZ (similar to Schumann resonances), could produce DNA in a tube of pure water, simply by being adjacent to another tube containing DNA. In other words, he created something—DNA—out of nothing, simply by being close to DNA and adding low frequency EMFs.

Wait... What?! This sounded serious enough that I decided to look into it. After all, the idea was championed by one of the discovers of HIV, the virus responsible for AIDS.

Luc Montagnier in 2008
Prolineserver, GFDL 1.2, via Wikimedia Commons

I found a paper published by Montagnier and his coworkers (Montagnier et al., 2009, “Electromagnetic signals are produced by aqueous nanostructures derived from bacterial DNA sequences,” Interdisciplinary Sciences: Computational Life Sciences, Volume 1, Pages 81–90). Below I reproduce their abstract.

A novel property of DNA is described: the capacity of some bacterial DNA sequences to induce electromagnetic waves at high aqueous dilutions. It appears to be a resonance phenomenon triggered by the ambient electromagnetic background of very low frequency waves. The genomic DNA of most pathogenic bacteria contains sequences which are able to generate such signals. This opens the way to the development of highly sensitive detection system for chronic bacterial infections in human and animal diseases.

The key phrase in the abstract is “at high aqueous dilutions.” The authors repeatedly made 10:1 dilutions of the DNA solution. After 18 dilutions, the concentration of DNA should be 0.000000000000000001 times what it was originally. The purported electromagnetic wave effect persisted, even though there was no DNA left in the sample. The water “remembered” the DNA. It’s homeopathy all over again.

Oh, Myyy! This is the worst sort of pseudoscience.

A 2010 interview in Science politely hinted that this idea is absurd.

Virologist and Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier announced earlier this month that, at age 78, he will take on the leadership of a new research institute at Jiaotong University in Shanghai. What has shocked many scientists, however, isn’t Montagnier’s departure from France but what he plans to study in China: electromagnetic waves that Montagnier says emanate from the highly diluted DNA of various pathogens…

But Montagnier’s new direction evokes one of the most notorious affairs in French science: the “water memory” study by immunologist Jacques Benveniste. Benveniste, who died in 2004, claimed in a 1988 Nature paper that IgE antibodies have an effect on a certain cell type even after being diluted by a factor of 10¹²⁰. His claim was interpreted by many as evidence for homeopathy, which uses extreme dilutions that most scientists say can’t possibly have a biological effect. After a weeklong investigation at Benveniste’s lab, Nature called the paper a “delusion.”

Here’s part of the interview with Montagnier.

Q: You have called Benveniste a modern Galileo. Why? 

L.M.: Benveniste was rejected by everybody, because he was too far ahead. He lost everything, his lab, his money. … I think he was mostly right, but the problem was that his results weren’t 100% reproducible. 

Q: Do you think there’s something to homeopathy as well? 

L.M.: I can’t say that homeopathy is right in everything. What I can say now is that the high dilutions are right. High dilutions of something are not nothing. They are water structures which mimic the original molecules. We find that with DNA, we cannot work at the extremely high dilutions used in homeopathy; we cannot go further than a 10⁻¹⁸ dilution, or we lose the signal. But even at 10⁻¹⁸, you can calculate that there is not a single molecule of DNA left. And yet we detect a signal.

Why should we care about all this silliness? Wouldn’t it be better to just ignore it? Here’s the problem: Climate change is real. There’s a consensus among scientists that it’s a serious, man-made crisis that must be addressed. One way to fight climate change it is to build alternative sources of energy, such as offshore wind farms. Yet citizens and journalists are citing ridiculous nonsense like Montagnier’s water memory hypothesis to oppose wind farms. Quackery and voodoo science are being used to impede solutions to what may be the most dire challenge mankind has ever faced.

To quote Charles Dickens, “I’ll retire to bedlam.”

Co-discoverer of HIV Luc Montagnier dies aged 89. BBC News

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iat2FncJ1to

 

What is Homeopathy, by Science Saves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rw766-Z97BI

 

Robert Kemp Adair (1924–2020)—Notes on a Friendship

Robert Adair.
Photo credit: Michael Marsland/Yale University.

I try to write obituaries of scientists who appear in Intermediate Physics for Medicine and Biology, but for some reason I didn’t write about Robert Adair’s death in 2020. Perhaps the covid pandemic over-shadowed his demise. In Chapter 9 of IPMB, Russ Hobbie and I cite seven of his publications. He was a leader in studying the health effects (or, lack of heath effects) from electric and magnetic fields.

Recently, I read a charming article subtitled “Notes on a Friendship” about Adair, written by Geoffrey Kabat, the author of Getting Risk Right: Understanding the Science of Elusive Health Risks. I have Getting Risk Right on my to-read list. It sounds like my kind of book.

I admire Adair’s service in an infantry rifle platoon during World War II. I loved his book about baseball. I respect his independent assessment of the seriousness of climate change, although I don’t agree with all his conclusions. He certainly was a voice of reason in the debate about health risks of electric and magnetic fields. He led a long and useful life. We need more like him.

I will give Kabat the final word, quoting the last paragraph of his article.

In early October 2020, Bob’s daughter Margaret called me to tell me that Bob had died. I looked for an obituary in the New York Times, and was shocked when none appeared, likely due to the increased deaths from the pandemic. I wrote to an epidemiologist colleague and friend, who knew Bob’s work on ELF-EMF [extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields] and microwave energy, and who had served on a committee to assess possible health effects of the Pave Paws radar array on Cape Cod. My friend Bob Tarone wrote back, “Very sad to hear that. Adair was not directly involved in the Pave Paws study, but we relied heavily on his superb published papers on the biological effects of radio-frequency energy in our report. He and his wife were superb scientists. Losing too many who don’t seem to have competent replacements. Too bad honesty and truth are in such short supply in science today.” He concurred that there should have been an obituary in the Times.

“Havana Syndrome”: A post mortem

“Havana Syndrome”: A Post Mortem,
by Bartholomew and Baloh.

Remember the Havana Syndrome? You don’t hear much about it anymore. Recently I read an article titled “‘Havana Syndrome’: A Post Mortem,” by Robert Bartholomew and Robert Baloh. These two researchers are long-time skeptics who don’t believe that the Havana Syndrome was caused by a physical attack on US and Canadian diplomats. They are also critical of the National Academies report that suggested microwave weapons might be responsible for the Havana Syndrome. I came to a similar conclusion in my book Are Electromagnetic Fields Making Me Ill?, where I wrote

At this time, we have no conclusive explanation for the Havana syndrome. We need more evidence. Measuring intense beams of microwaves should be easy to do and would not be prohibitively expensive. Until someone observes microwaves associated with the onset of this illness, I will remain skeptical of the National Academies’conclusion.

Bartholomew and Baloh believe that the Havana Syndrome is psychogenic. In my book, I make an analogy to post traumatic stress syndrome: it’s a real disease, but not one with a simple physical cause. Below I quote the abstract from Bartholomew and Baloh’s paper.

Background: Since 2016, an array of claims and public discourse have circulated in the medical community over the origin and nature of a mysterious condition dubbed “Havana Syndrome,” so named as it was first identified in Cuba. In March 2023, the United States intelligence community concluded that the condition was a socially constructed catch-all category for an array of health conditions and stress reactions that were lumped under a single label.

Aims: To examine the history of “Havana Syndrome” and the many factors that led to its erroneous categorization as a novel clinical entity.

Method: A review of the literature.

Results/Conclusions: Several factors led to the erroneous classification of “Havana Syndrome” as a novel entity including the failure to stay within the limitations of the data; the withholding of information by intelligence agencies, the prevalence of popular misconceptions about psychogenic illness, the inability to identify historical parallels; the role of the media, and the mixing of politics with science.

In Intermediate Physics for Medicine and Biology, Russ Hobbie and I discuss the health effects of electromagnetic fields. It’s crucial to understand the physics that underlies tissue-field interactions before postulating a nefarious role for electromagnetic fields in human health. If you suggest an idea that is not consistent with physics, prepare to be proved wrong.

A final note: Baloh and Bartholomew write

In September 2021, the head of a U.S. Government panel investigating “Havana Syndrome,” Pamela Spratlen, was forced to resign after refusing to rule out [mass psychogenic illness] as a possible cause... A former senior C.I.A. operative wrote that Spratlen’s position was “insulting to victims and automatically disqualifying.”

I think we all owe Pamela Spratlen an apology. Thank you for your service.

 Was “Havana Syndrome” a case of mass hysteria? DW News.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/ljf1TVWTSlQ

 

Havana Syndrome: Tilting at Windmills?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IWnhmqVsPc
 

 The Havana Syndrome: A Disorder of Neuropolitics?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izeVdfkYnIo

The Deadly Rise of Anti-Science

The Deadly Rise of Anti-Science,
by Peter Hotez.

This week I read The Deadly Rise of Anti-Science: A Scientist’s Warning, by Peter Hotez. Every American should read this book. In his introductory chapter, Hotez writes

This is a dark and tragic story of how a significant segment of the population of the United States suddenly, defiantly, and without precedent turned against biomedical science and scientists. I detail how anti-science became a dominant force in the United States, resulting in the deaths of thousands of Americans in 2021 and into 2022, and why this situation presents a national emergency. I explain why anti-science aggression will not end with the COVID-19 pandemic. I believe we must counteract it now, before something irreparable happens to set the country on a course of inexorable decline…

The consequences are shocking: as I will detail, more than 200,000 Americans needlessly lost their lives because they refused a COVID-19 vaccine and succumbed to the virus. Their lives could have been saved had they accepted the overwhelming scientific evidence for the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 immunization or the warnings from the community of biomedical scientists and public health experts about the dangers of remaining unvaccinated. Ultimately, this such public defiance of science became a leading killer of middle-aged and older Americans, more than gun violence, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, cyberattacks or other major societal threats.

Where did this 200,000 number come from? On page 2 of Intermediate Physics for Medicine and Biology, Russ Hobbie and I claim that

One valuable skill in physics is the ability to make order-of-magnitude estimates, meaning to calculate something approximately right.

Hotez gives a classic example of estimation when deriving the 200,000 number. First, he notes that 245,000 Americans died of covid between May 1 and December 31, 2021. Covid arrived in the United States in early 2020, but vaccines did not become widely available until mid 2021. Actually, the vaccines were ready in early 2021 (I had my first dose on March 20), but May 1 was the date when the vaccine was available to everyone. During the second half of 2021, about 80% of Americans who died of covid were unvaccinated. So, Hotez multiplies 245,000 by 0.8 to get 196,000 unvaccinated deaths. After rounding this off to one significant figure, this is where he gets the number 200,000.

There are a few caveats. On the one hand, our estimate may be too high. The vaccine is not perfect. If all of the 200,000 unvaccinated people who died would have gotten the vaccine, some of them would still have perished from covid. If we take the vaccine as being 90% effective against death, we would multiple 196,000 times 0.9 to get 176,400. On the other hand, our estimate may be too low. Covid did not end on January 1, 2022. In fact, the omicron variant swept the country that winter and at its peak over 2000 people died of covid each day. So, the total covid deaths since the vaccine became available—the starting point of our calculation—is certainly higher than 245,000.

As Hotez points out, other researchers have also estimated the number of unnecessary covid deaths, using slightly different assumptions, and all the results are roughly consistent, around 200,000. (Hotez’s book appears to have been written in mid-to-late 2022; I suspect the long tail of covid deaths since then would not make much difference to this estimation, but I’m not sure.) 

In the spirit of an order-of-magnitude estimate, one should not place too great an emphasis on the precise number. It was certainly more than twenty thousand and it was without a doubt less than two million. I doubt we’ll ever know if the “true” amount is 187,000 or 224,000 or any other specific value. But we can say with confidence that about a couple hundred thousand Americans died unnecessarily because people were not vaccinated. Hotez concludes

That 200,000 unvaccinated Americans gave up their lives needlessly through shunning COVID-19 vaccines can and should haunt our nation for a long time to come.

Infectious disease scientists such as Peter Hotez, Tony Fauci, and others are true American heroes. That far-right politicians and journalists vilify these researchers is despicable and disgusting. We all owe these scientists so much. Last Monday was “Public Health Thank You Day” and yesterday was Thanksgiving. I can think of no one more deserving of our thanks than the scientists who led the effort to vaccinate America against covid. 

Why Science Isn’t Up for Debate, with Peter Hotez.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbGfeksduGE

Oppose Federal Legislation That Would Protect Homeopathic Drugs From FDA Regulation

In Intermediate Physics for Medicine and Biology, Russ Hobbie and I don’t talk about homeopathy (thank goodness!). A homeopathic medicine is one that has been diluted with water multiple times (for example, 30 dilutions, each by a factor of ten), until not even a single molecule of the active ingredient remains. Proponents of homeopathy believe that the water “remembers” the original ingredient. This, of course, conflicts with everything scientists know about water. If you believe physics underlies medicine, you should reject homeopathy.

Why bring up homeopathy now? I recently received an email from one of my favorite organizations—the Center For Inquiry (CFI)—calling on people to oppose federal legislation that would limit the Food and Drug Administration’s ability to regulate homeopathic drugs. Rather than repeating everything the CFI said, I’ll simply quote from their website. I already wrote my Congressman about this issue.

CFI calls on our supporters to help defeat a pro-homeopathy amendment being proposed for the federal appropriations bill H.R. 4368. The homeopathy lobby is pushing hard for this amendment, and we need CFI supporters to voice their opposition to their members of Congress.

Homeopathy groups such as Americans For Homeopathy Choice (AFHC) are lobbying strenuously for Appropriations Amendment #4. This amendment would bar FDA enforcement of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act against new homeopathic drug products as long as a product complies with “standards for strength, quality, and purity set forth in the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States.” In other words, it would replace much-needed federal regulation with the industry’s own standards.

CFI has consistently pointed out that homeopathy is bunk science that does not work beyond the placebo effect. Homeopathic products are typically diluted to the point that no active ingredients remain. It is quack medicine and consumer fraud.

The Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia’s standards of quality are not medically valid. Yet the amendment would exempt homeopathic products from FDA regulation and oversight if they comport with those standards. This amounts to an argument of “No need for federal regulation, we can regulate ourselves with our own standards even if they constitute medical fraud” – or, more succinctly, “Let the fox guard the henhouse, please.” (Indeed, CFI has tussled with the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia before.)

At the moment, AFHC and the homeopathy lobby are seeking additional co-sponsors in the House of Representatives for their amendment. This is where CFI’s supporters come in.

We need our supporters to mobilize and contact their members in the House of Representatives immediately. Please let them know, in no uncertain terms, that homeopathy cannot and must not escape federal regulation. It is crucial to keep Appropriations Amendment #4 out of the federal appropriations bill.

 

 Homeopathy, quackery and fraud, a TED talk by James Randi.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0Z7KeNCi7g

The Connect Our Parks Act is Safe, but Maybe Not Wise

Congress is currently considering the “Connect Our Parks Act.” It is

a bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct an assessment to identify locations in National Parks in which there is the greatest need for broadband internet access service and areas in National Parks in which there is the greatest need for cellular service, and for other purposes.

I don’t want people hiking through Yellowstone while squawking on their cell phone, so I’m not sure I’d vote for the bill. However, a recent opinion piece in The Hill by Devra Davis, titled “We Cannot Ignore the Dangers of Radiation in Our National Parks,” encourages people to oppose the bill because of “the damaging impacts of wireless radio frequency (RF) radiation — emitted by cellular installations — on all living creatures.” She concludes that “Expanding cell towers in parks without adequate safeguards will irrevocably harm wildlife, the environment and our encounters with the wild.”

Are Electromagnetic Fields
Making Me Ill?

The health risk of cell phone radiation is small to negligible. Russ Hobbie and I review much of the evidence of radio-frequency health effects in Section 9.10 of Intermediate Physics for Medicine and Biology. I also discuss this topic in my book Are Electromagnetic Fields Making Me Ill? In that publication, I specifically address Davis’s book Disconnect, which promotes a connection between cell phone radiation and cancer. My conclusions differ from hers. I wrote

Reviews such as these [for example, the FDA’s 2020 review] are a key reason the major health agencies do not believe that cell phones cause cancer. When agency scientists systematically weigh all the evidence, they consistently find no effect. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—the US government federal agency that is responsible for protecting public health—is a bit more equivocal: “At this time we do not have the science to link health problems to cell phone use” [22]. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) is part of the US National Institutes of Health and is the primary federal agency for cancer research. Many of the nation’s best and brightest scientists and doctors work for, or are funded by, the NCI. Anyone who wants expert information about cancer should consult the NCI. On its website, it concludes that “the only consistently recognized biological effect of radiofrequency radiation absorption in humans that the general public might encounter is heating to the area of the body where a cell phone is held (e.g., the ear and head). However, that heating is not sufficient to measurably increase body temperature. There are no other clearly established dangerous health effects on the human body from radiofrequency radiation” [13].

Decide for yourself if you support the Connect Our Parks Act. I can see how cell phone reception could be vital for a hiker lost in the Grand Canyon but I don’t want people using their laptop to conduct a noisy zoom meeting in Yosemite. Do not, however, oppose the Connect Our Parks Act because of concerns about health hazards from electromagnetic radiation. There is little evidence that such hazards exist. If you want to examine the evidence yourself, get a copy of Are Electromagnetic Fields Making Me Ill? The Connect Our Parks Act is safe, but maybe not wise.

The Unscientific King: Charles III’s History Promoting Homeopathy

King Charles III of England was crowned this week. What’s that got to do with Intermediate Physics for Medicine and Biology? Well, the king is a big supporter of alternative medicine and one goal of IPMB is to highlight science-based medicine. If you believe in science, you don’t believe in alternative medicine. If science shows that some treatment works, it becomes part of medicine; there is nothing “alternative” about it. If science doesn’t show that some treatment works, then advocating for that treatment as “alternative medicine” is silly and foolish. In the realm of medicine, the king is a snake oil salesman.

Voodoo Science
by Robert Park.

Particularly worrisome is the king’s support for homeopathy. For those not familiar with homeopathic medicine, it works like this: a drug is repeatedly diluted, first by a 10:1 ratio of water to active ingredient (1X), then again a 10:1 dilution so the total dilution is by a factor of 100 (2X), then again a 10:1 dilution (3X), and so on. In Voodo Science, Bob Park described it this way:

The dilution limit is reached when a single molecule of the medicine remains. Beyond that point, there is nothing left to dilute. In over-the-counter homeopathic remedies, for example, a dilution of 30X is fairly standard. The notation 30X means the substance was diluted one part in ten and shaken, and then this was repeated sequentially thirty times. The final dilution would be one part medicine to 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 parts of water. That would be far beyond the dilution limit. To be precise, at a dilution of 30X you would have to drink 7,874 gallons of the solution to expect to get just one molecule of the medicine.

The supporters of homeopathy would have us believe that the water “remembers” the presence of the active ingredient.

King Charles’s support of alternative medicine was discussed in a recent article in The Scientist by Sophie Fessl, titled “The Unscientific King: Charles III’s History Promoting Homeopathy.” The first paragraph is reproduced below.

King Charles III has been conferred many new titles following the recent death of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, but one existing title that remains is “Royal Patron of the Faculty of Homeopathy,” an organization of healthcare practitioners who also practice the pseudoscientific form of medicine. And the new king’s ties with alternative medicine go beyond this patronship and a dalliance with alternative medicine: In several instances, then-Prince Charles appears to have lobbied for homeopathy and other fields of alternative medicine. As King Charles ascends the throne, experts are reflecting on his influence on medical science in the UK as Prince of Wales, and how he might affect alternative medicine in the UK going forward as monarch. 

One book I have not read yet but is on my to-read list is Charles, The Alternative King, by Edzard Ernst, an advocate for evidence-based medicine and one of my heroes. In his preface, Ernst writes

This book chronicles Charles’s track record in promoting pseudo- and anti-science in the realm of alternative medicine. The new edition includes an additional final chapter with a summary of some of the scientific evidence that has emerged since this biography [originally titled Charles, The Alternative Prince] was first published. It demonstrates that the concerns about the safety and efficacy of the treatments in question are becoming even more disquieting. Whether such data will tame the alternative bee under the royal bonnet seems, however, doubtful.

This is the man who now sits on the thrown of England. We Americans owe George Washington so much.

Abraham Liboff (1927–2023)

Abe Liboff, in his
office at Oakland University

Oakland University physicist Abe Liboff died recently. A notice from President Ora Hirsch Pescovitz, published on the OU website, stated:

It is with deep sadness that I inform you of the death of Professor Emeritus Abraham Liboff who passed away on January 9, 2023. Dr. Liboff joined the Oakland University community in the Department of Physics on August 15, 1972, where he served until his retirement in August 2000.

During his tenure here at OU, Dr. Liboff was Chair of the Department of Physics. He is credited with 111 research publications, more than two dozen patents and nearly 3,400 scholarly citations during his career.

I arrived at OU in 1998, so his time at OU and mine overlapped by a couple years. I remember having a delightful breakfast with him during my job interview. He was one of the founders of OU’s medical physics PhD program that I directed for 15 years. His office was just a few doors down the hall from mine and he helped me get started at Oakland. I’ll miss him.

Although I loved the man, I didn’t love Abe’s cyclotron resonance theory of how magnetic fields interact with biological tissue. It’s difficult to reconcile admiration for a scientist with rejection of his scientific contributions. Rather than trying to explain Abe’s theory, I’ll quote the abstract from his article “Geomagnetic Cyclotron Resonance in Living Cells,” published in the Journal of Biological Physics (Volume 13, Pages 99–102, 1985).

Although considerable experimental evidence now exists to indicate that low-frequency magnetic fields influence living cells, the mode of coupling remains a mystery. We propose a radical new model for electromagnetic interactions with cells, one resulting from a cyclotron resonance mechanism attached to ions moving through transmembrane channels. It is shown that the cyclotron resonance condition on such ions readily leads to a predicted ELF-coupling at geomagnetic levels. This model quantitatively explains the results reported by Blackman et al. (1984), identifying the focus of magnetic interaction in these experiments as K⁺ charge carriers. The cyclotron resonance concept is consistent with recent indications showing that many membrane channels have helical configurations. This model is quite testable, can probably be applied to other circulating charge components within the cell and, most important, leads to the feasibility of direct resonant electromagnetic energy transfer to selected compartments of the cell.

In my book Are Electromagnetic Fields Making Me Ill? I didn’t have the heart to attack Abe in print. When discussing cyclotron resonance effects, I cited the work of Carl Blackman instead, who proposed a similar theory. What’s the problem with this idea? If you calculate the cyclotron frequency of a calcium ion in the earth’s magnetic field, you get about 23 Hz (see Eq. 8.5 in Intermediate Physics for Medicine and Biology). However, the thermal speed of a calcium ion at body temperature is about 440 m/s (Eq. 4.12 in IPMB). At that speed, the radius of the cyclotron orbit would be 3 meters (roughly ten feet)! The mean free path of a ion in water, however, is about an angstrom, which means the ion will suffer more than a billion collisions in one orbit; these interactions should swamp any cyclotron motion. Moreover, ion channels have a size of about 100 angstroms. In order to have a orbital radius similar to the size of a ion channel, the calcium ion would need to be moving extremely fast, which means it would have a kinetic energy vastly larger than the thermal energy. The theory just doesn’t work.

Since Liboff isn’t around to defend himself, I’ll let Louis Slesin—the editor and publisher of Microwave News—tell Abe’s side of the story. Read Slesin’s Reminiscence on the Occasion of Abe Liboff’s 90th Birthday. Although I don’t agree with Slesin on much, we both concur that Abe was a “wonderful and generous man.” If you want to hear about cyclotron resonance straight from the horse’s mouth, you can hear Abe talk about his career and work in a series of videos posted on the Seqex YouTube channel. (Seqex is a company that sells products based on Abe’s theories.) Below I link to the most interesting of these videos, in which Abe tells how he conceived of his cyclotron resonance idea.

Abe Liboff discussing the cyclotron resonance theory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL-wqJ-PMAQ&list=PLCO-VktC6wofkMeEeZknT9Y4WhMnP76Ee&index=6

The Invisible Rainbow

The Invisible Rainbow,
by Arthur Firstenberg.

Over Christmas break, I read The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life, by Arthur Firstenberg. What can I say about such a book? First, if the conclusions in my own book—Are Electromagnetic Fields Making Me Ill? How Electricity and Magnetism Affect Our Health—are true, then everything Firstenberg writes about in his book is false. We disagree about the health risks posed by electromagnetic fields.

Firstenberg covers a wide range of issues in The Invisible Rainbow and let me begin by admitting that I’m not an expert in all of these subjects. For instance, I don’t know much about infectious diseases, such as influenza, and I’m not particularly knowledgeable about viruses in general. However, the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention gathers input from authorities on these topics and here is what it says about the causes of the flu.

“Most experts believe that flu viruses spread mainly by tiny droplets made when people with flu cough, sneeze, or talk. These droplets can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby. Less often, a person might get flu by touching a surface or object that has flu virus on it and then touching their own mouth, nose or possibly their eyes.”

Firstenberg, on the other hand, claims that the flu is an electrical disease not caused by a virus spread from person to person. He writes

In 1889, power line harmonic radiation began. From that year forward the earth’s magnetic field bore the imprint of power line frequencies and their harmonics. In that year, exactly, the natural magnetic activity of the earth began to be suppressed. This has affected all life on earth. The power line age was ushered in by the 1889 pandemic of influenza.

In 1918, the radio era began. It began with the building of hundreds of powerful radio stations at [low] and [very low] frequencies, the frequencies guaranteed to most alter the magnetosphere. The radio era was ushered in by the Spanish influenza pandemic of 1918.

In 1957, the radar era began. It began with the building of hundreds of powerful early warning radar stations that littered the high latitudes of the northern hemisphere, hurling millions of watts of microwave energy skyward. Low-frequency components of these waves rode on magnetic field lines to the southern hemisphere, polluting it as well. The radar era was ushered in by the Asian flu pandemic of 1957.

In 1968, the satellite era began. It began with the launch of dozens of satellites whose broadcast power was relatively weak. But since they were already in the magnetosphere, they had as big an effect on it as the small amount of radiation that managed to enter it from sources on the ground. The satellite era was ushered in by the Hong Kong flu pandemic of 1968.

No mechanism is offered to explain how electromagnetic fields might cause a flu pandemic. No distinction is made between power line frequency (60 Hz) and radio frequency (MHz) radiation, although their physical effects are distinct. No estimation of “dose” (the distribution and magnitude of electric and magnetic field exposure) is provided. No randomized, controlled, double-blind studies are cited. He merely lists anecdotal evidence and coincidences.

Perhaps we could just ignore such dubious claims, except that The Invisible Rainbow is often quoted as evidence supporting the assertion that the Covid pandemic is somehow related to 5G cell phone radiation. Why would anyone get a Covid vaccine if they erroneously believe that the disease is caused by electromagnetic radiation? Such misinformation is dangerous to us all.

Firstenberg describes old studies without critical analysis. For instance, on page 73 he writes

In 1923, Vernon Blackman, an agricultural researcher at Imperial College in England, found in field experiments that electric currents averaging less than one milliampere (one thousandth of an ampere) per acre increased the yields of several types of crops by twenty percent. The current passing through each plant, he calculated, was only about 100 picoamperes.

One hundred picoamperes is 10⁻¹⁰ amperes. We aren’t told what the crops were, but let’s assume they consist of a thin stalk that I’ll estimate has a cross-sectional area of one square centimeter (10⁻⁴ m²). That means the current density would be 10⁻⁶ A/m². Furthermore, let’s assume an electrical conductivity on the order of saline, 1 S/m. The resulting electric field is 10⁻⁶ V/m, or one microvolt per meter. This is far less than the electric field that always surrounds us and is caused by thermal fluctuations. The proposition that one milliamp per acre has such an effect defies credulity.

Previously in this blog I have written about Robert Becker—author of The Body Electric—where I dismiss his assertions that nerve axons are semiconductors and that the myelin surrounding some nerve axons carries steady currents. Firstenberg quotes Becker to support these ideas.

It was the Schwann cells, Becker concluded—the myelin-containing glial cells—and not the neurons they surrounded, that carried the currents that determined growth and healing. And in a much earlier study Becker had already shown that the DC currents that flow along salamander legs, and presumably along the limbs and bodies of all higher animals, are of semiconducting type.

Firstenberg believes cell phones cause many health hazards. On page 176, he writes

[Allan Frey] discovered the blood-brain barrier effect, an alarming damage to the protective shield that keeps bacteria, viruses, and toxic chemicals out of the brain—damage that occurs at levels of radiation that are much lower than what is emitted by cell phones today.

In Are Electromagnetic Fields Making Me Ill? I discuss a recent review by Anne Perrin and collaborators, which considered many articles about electromagnetic fields and the blood-brain barrier, and concluded that the literature provides “no convincing proof of deleterious effects of [radio frequency radiation] on the integrity of the [blood-brain barrier]” (Comptes Rendus Physique, Volume 11, Pages 602–612, 2010).

On Page 255, Firstenberg discusses an epidemiological study that found no relationship between cell phones and cancer.

[A] study, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, was titled “Cellular Telephone Use and Cancer Risks: Update of a Nationwide Danish Cohort.” It claimed to come to its conclusions after an examination of the medical records of over 420,000 Danish cell phone users and non-users over a period of two decades. It was clear to me that something was wrong with the statistics.

Firstenberg claims he could not follow up on his suspicions because the authors would not share their data. Recently Martin Röösli and coworkers performed a meta-analysis of many epidemiological studies (including the Danish one), and concluded that they "do not suggest increased brain or salivary gland tumor risk with [mobile phone] use” (Annual Review of Public Health, Volume 40, Pages 221–238, 2019).

I could go on. Firstenberg believes electromagnetic fields are responsible for diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. His views on the mechanism of hearing are at odds with what most researchers believe. He thinks the “qi” that supposedly underlies acupuncture is electric in nature (similar to Becker’s view).

Readers of Intermediate Physics for Medicine and Biology will find little physics in The Invisible Rainbow. One skill that Russ Hobbie and I stress is the ability to make order-of-magnitude estimations of effects, and I don’t see Firstenberg doing that.

I do have some sympathy for Firstenberg. He’s been plagued by a variety of symptoms that he associates with electromagnetic hypersensitivity. I have no doubt his suffering is real. Yet, the evidence from controlled, double-blind experiments does not support his claim that electromagnetic radiation causes his illness. Rubin et al. reviewed many experiments and concluded that “at present, there is no reliable evidence to suggest that people with [idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields] experience unusual physiological reactions as a result of exposure to [electromagnetic fields]. This supports suggestions that [electromagnetic fields are] not the main cause of their ill health” (Bioelectromagnetics, Volume 32, Pages 593–609, 2011). The World Health Organization concludes

EHS [electromagnetic hypersensitivity] is characterized by a variety of non-specific symptoms that differ from individual to individual. The symptoms are certainly real and can vary widely in their severity. Whatever its cause, EHS can be a disabling problem for the affected individual. EHS has no clear diagnostic criteria and there is no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to EMF [electromagnetic field] exposure. Further, EHS is not a medical diagnosis, nor is it clear that it represents a single medical problem.

I put Arthur Firstenberg in the same category as Martin Pall, Robert Becker, Paul Brodeur, and Devra Davis: well-meaning scientific mavericks whose hypotheses have not been confirmed. The Invisible Rainbow is an interesting read, but beware: as science it is flawed.

 Listen to Arthur Firstenberg, author of The Invisible Rainbow, answer questions about the hidden dangers of wireless and cellular phone radiation (I post this video so you can hear his side of the story, not because I agree with him).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyfa454Akm0

Radiofrequency Radiation and Cancer, by David Robert Grimes

Grimes DR (2021)
Radiofrequency Radiation and Cancer,
JAMA Oncology, 8:456–461.

In my book Are Electromagnetic Fields Making Me Ill? I discussed the danger of cell phone radiation. Recently David Robert Grimes wrote his own review about this topic—Radiofrequency Radiation and Cancer—which appeared in JAMA Oncology (Volume 8, Pages 456–461, 2021). Below is his abstract.

Importance Concerns over radiofrequency radiation (RFR) and carcinogenesis have long existed, and the advent of 5G mobile technology has seen a deluge of claims asserting that the new standard and RFR in general may be carcinogenic. For clinicians and researchers in the field, it is critical to address patient concerns on the topic and to be familiar with the existent evidence base.

Observations This review considers potential biophysical mechanisms of cancer induction, elucidating mechanisms of electromagnetically induced DNA damage and placing RFR in appropriate context on the electromagnetic spectrum. The existent epidemiological evidence in humans and laboratory animals to date on the topic is also reviewed and discussed.

Conclusions and Relevance The evidence from these combined strands strongly indicates that claims of an RFR–cancer link are not supported by the current evidence base. Much of the research to date, however, has been undermined by methodological shortcomings, and there is a need for higher-quality future research endeavors. Finally, the role of fringe science and unsubstantiated claims in patient and public perception on this topic is highly relevant and must be carefully considered.

Many of Grimes’s conclusions are similar to those in Are Electromagnetic Fields Making Me Ill? and in Intermediate Physics for Medicine and Biology. I was particularly interested in the last few paragraphs of his discussion, where he examines the public perception of cell phone radiation health risks.

Public perception is also an important consideration, especially in the context of addressing patient fears. Given the combined biophysical and epidemiological evidence base to date against the proposition that RFR is carcinogenic, it might seem surprising that this belief is so widely evangelized and propagated relentlessly. A major and unedifying part of the reason for this is the noxious influence of fringe science on confounding public understanding; the BioInitiative Report, a nonscholarly [non-peer reviewed] work that insists that RFR causes many harms from cancer to autism, has been widely circulated since 2007. Despite its popularity, it has been repeatedly debunked by health bodies worldwide, and the attempts to treat its unsubstantiated assertions as equivalent to the weight of peer-reviewed weight of scientific evidence are archetypical false balance.

Tellingly perhaps, the recent misinformation propagated around 5G is not even new—the same grave claims were made about prior mobile technologies for decades and were equally unsupported. Their renaissance now is underpinned by disinformation perpetuated across social media and a microcosm of a greater problem with online disinformation. There is, for example, a thriving online market for dubious devices that promise to protect consumers from RFR, furthering a likely misguided perception of harm. Cancer is an emotive topic, which undoubtedly increases the virulence of misguided assertions. It is accordingly important to be cognizant of the fact that while the issue may be strictly academic to researchers, it is a source of anxiety and apprehension to patients and the general public, and there is an onus on scientists to both convey the scientific consensus and to ensure that future work is conducted to a high standard.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer designation of RFR as a group 2B agent (a possible carcinogen) in 2011 is also frequently misunderstood as implying evidence of harm. However, such an interpretation is incorrect, as reiterated in the most recent International Agency for Research on Cancer communication in 2020, which stated that “despite considerable research efforts, no mechanism relevant for carcinogenesis has been consistently identified to date. In the past 5 years, epidemiological research on mobile phone use and tumours occurring in the head has slowed down compared with the previous decade. Most new and previous case-control studies do not indicate an association between mobile phone use and risk of glioma, meningioma, acoustic neuroma, pituitary tumours, or salivary gland tumours.”

It is worthwhile too to acknowledge a potentially political dimension to the propagation of falsehoods on 5G in particular; a New York Times investigation found that Russian state forces were complicit in spreading falsehoods, with the European Commission finding the fingerprints of both Russian and Chinese health disinformation rising with the advent of COVID-19, including false claims linking cancer to RFR. All of this undermines collective understanding and makes it imperative that scientists be at the vanguard of communicating the evidence to prevent detrimental misconceptions [my italics].

Grimes has taken much criticism for his article, all of which, in my opinion, is undeserved. See, for example, this website containing an attack titled “Why did JAMA Oncology publish a paper written by a Telecom industry spokesperson?” by Joel Moskowitz (JAMA Oncology did no such thing). Several groups called for JAMA Oncology to retract Grimes’s article, but the journal refused (I’m proud of them). My advice for Grimes is to just be happy that people are paying attention to his work. Are Electromagnetic Fields Making Me Ill?, which covers much of the same ground and comes to similar conclusions, has not been similarly criticized, apparently because the critics are either unaware of it or don’t think it’s important enough to bother with.

Grimes is an Irish scientist and science writer who won the 2014 John Maddox Prize for standing up for science and was elected a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. If you want to read more by him, I suggest his excellent book Good Thinking: Why Flawed Logic Puts Us All at Risk and How Critical Thinking Can Save the World.