StopUMTS Logo
how to get rid of moles 
Zoeken
   
Voorlichting
06/11/17Beschermen tegen de ra
12/10/17Meetspecialisten, meet
Artikelen
18/11/17Vuile stroom (netvervuili
16/11/17ADHD is meer een probleem
16/11/17Mobile phones cause letha
16/11/17Mt Nardi Wildlife Report
15/11/17Cell Phone Headaches –
14/11/1715.000 wetenschappers uit
Berichten Nederland
18/11/17KWF collecteert met stral
16/11/17Promotie van een psycholo
16/11/17Toename van klachten in N
14/11/17Aantal antenne-installati
13/11/17Vanavond 13 nov. in Radar
Berichten België
14/11/17Hoe gezond of ongezond is
24/10/17NMBS-baas Sophie Dutordoi
Berichten Internationaal
18/11/17IARC-WHO: Global burden o
18/11/17Duits verbod op 'slimme'
14/11/17De stralingsbelasting en
09/11/17Bill Gates and Steve Jobs
Ervaringen | Appellen/oproepen
17/11/17Alice kan niet tegen stra
12/11/17Afscherming, voor sommige
05/11/17TV met WiFi; een ervaring
Onderzoeken
14/11/17Modeled and Perceived Exp
06/11/17Decreases in sleep durati
25/10/17Radiation from wireless t
Veel gestelde vragen
13/05/17Vakantie? Witte zo
10/07/16Zeven veel gestelde vrage
Juridische informatie
08/11/17InPower Movement: Early r
19/10/17The precautionary princip
11/10/17Telekom warns of (its own
Oproepen
29/11/17Raadsmarkt ZENDMASTEN &
11/11/17Cursus ‘Straling meten
29/10/17Petitie: Geen uitbreiding
Folders
10/09/17Brochures, folders, websi
29/04/16USA: Meer dan 50 tips voo
Briefwisselingen | Archief: 2008, 2005
10/07/17Brief naar de gemeente C.
14/06/17Mail naar 'De Monitor' na
Illustraties
 Algemeen
 Fotoalbum zendmasten
 Wetenschappelijke illustraties
Combined biological and health effects of electromagnetic fields and other agents    
Ga naar overzicht berichten in: Onderzoeken

Combined biological and health effects of electromagnetic fields and other agents
donderdag, 24 oktober 2013 - Dossier: Algemeen


Bron: stip.gatech.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/EMF-SYNERGY_JOURNAL_PAPER_TFSC_3_REVMOD6.pdf .
okt 2013

Combined biological and health effects of electromagnetic fields and other agents in the published literature.

Een speciaal en lang artikel wat speciaal gaat over hoe biologische processen in ons lichaam die van nature optreden, zoals groei van kankercellen, celdood, herstel van DNA breuken, enz., of veroorzaakt worden door externe factoren, zoals toedienen van drugs (medicijnen), versterkt worden door aanwezige LF en RF elektromagnetische velden.
Eén van de effecten is bijv. dat deze velden de doorlaatbaarheid van celmembranen vergroten, waardoor zowel drugs die een positief effect hebben als toxische stoffen makkelijker in de cellen komen. Hieronder het eerste deel van de korte samenvatting. Voor het volledige artikel zie bovenstaande link.


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

EMFs can serve as initiators of health effects, as well as serve as co-promoters or
potentiators of biochemical agents, both beneficial and adverse. However, as this
study has shown, the numbers and types of impacts are increased substantially
when EMFs function in combination or as co-promoters. There were many
examples where either 1) EMFs by themselves had no effect, but enhanced the
demonstrated individual effect of another agent or 2) EMFs by themselves had no
effect and other agents by themselves had no effect, but in combination the two
had an effect. In other words, there is an enhancement of the singular effects.

Generally, the combined effects occured in 'windows' for specific combinations of
multiple variables, or stated another way, in specific regions of parameter space.
Thus, combined effects could be observed at one dose rate but not at another, at
one frequency but not at another, at one intensity but not at another, at one
modulation pattern but not at another, at a different sequence of exposure, and so
on. This large combinatorial parameter space makes drawing conclusions about
combined effects difficult in many cases, since the effect will display only under
the proper combination of variables and parameters within limited ranges of each.

The overall results could be frequency-grouped into three major categories. One
category contained pulsed electric fields and pulsed magnetic/electromagnetic
fields. A second category contained extremely-low frequency electromagnetic
fields, cell phone radiofrequency fields, and WiFi radiofrequency fields. The third
smaller category contained static magnetic fields.

The first category, which could be termed the Treatment category, tended to use
EMFs proactively to enhance therapeutic treatment, whether for enhanced drug
delivery, accelerated wound and fracture healing, or bacterial inactivation for
prolonged food storage. The second category, which could be termed the
Environmental Exposure category, tended to identify the overwhelmingly
detrimental reactive effects from exposures to EMFs used for non-treatment
purposes, such as electrical appliances, residential wiring, and wireless
communications. These reactive health effects included enhanced oxidative
damage, enhanced DNA damage, enhanced mutagenicity, enhanced teratogenicity,
and many others. The third category, which could be termed the Superposition
category, superpositioned the static magnetic field with other magnetic fields
(geomagnetic or alternating) to provide a net magnetic field that could have a
multiplicity of positive or negative health consequences by allowing or suppressing
ion resonances for selected ions.

The EMFs in the Treatment category tended to be relatively short-term, especially
those that were pulsed, whereas the EMFs in the Exposure category that had health
impacts tended to require relatively long exposures. The static magnetic fields in
the Superposition category, when used as co-promoters with other EMFs, required
an intensity on the order of magnitude comparable to the other EMFs. Even with
other non-EMF agents, the static magnetic fields tended to have relatively
substantive intensities.

The documents selected for this study required that the EMF component of the
combination have some impact. In many articles not selected for the study, the
EMF-agent combination may have been similar to the EMF-agent combination
selected for the study, but the presence of the EMF component did not affect the
outcome (especially in the Environmental Exposure category for the adverse health
impacts). What could account for this difference? For a given combination, one or
more of the studies could have had poor research, one or more of the studies could
have had preconceived bias, or the experimental conditions for the two studies
were sufficiently different that the 'window' in parameter space required for the
effect to be observed was not present in one study but was present in another study.

There appears to be sufficient data among diverse research groups that adverse
health effects from EMF combinations exist in at least selected 'windows' of
parameter space. Overall, the number and extent of these 'windows' need to be
identified, to ascertain their overlaps with the operational EMF parameter space.
This overlap would provide some indication or estimate of potential real-world
health effects.


Ga terug naar het hoofdmenu
Afdrukken | Vragen | RSS | Disclaimer