Human DNA and chromosome breakage:
Implications for cancer and neural damage!
Recent US studies are showing more significant bio-effects
at lower and lower power densities. (See Above) Dr. Henry Lai
has reported
DNA single and double strand breaks at levels below the
current FCC exposure standard. Magras & Xenos have
reported irreversible sterility in mice after 5 generations of
exposure to .168 to 1.053 microwatts per square centimeter in
an "antenna park." Note that the current, applicable US
exposure standard would be 579 microwatts per square
centimeter, -- 500 times higher! -- and that this very low
exposure level would relate more to a person living near a
cellular tower, than a cell phone user.
The DNA strands form a spiral-staircase-like helix, and so
breaks on only one side of the ladder are much easier to
repair than those where both sides are broken. But in later
experiments Lai and Singh found double-strand DNA breaks after
similar exposures times and levels.
It is possible for the cell to make mistakes when repairing
single-strand breaks, but the likelihood of serious mistakes
(mutations) increases substantially with double-strand breaks.
Another aspect of the Lai-Singh research (with pulsed
microwave similar to GSM cell phones and radar) was also
disturbing. Rat brains which were excised and prepared quickly
for the assay showed fewer breaks, while those which were
checked four hours after exposure revealed much higher levels.
This suggests that both the damage and the repair-initiation
are not simple and immediate processes, and supports the
thesis that DNA damage from repeated uses of a cellphone could
be cumulative.
DNA And The Microwave Effect
Penn State University
January 20, 2001
Can microwaves disrupt the covalent bonds of DNA? The
fundamentals of thermodynamics and physics indicate this is
impossible. Numerous studies have concluded that there is no
evidence to support the existence of the 'Microwave Effect',
and yet, some recent studies have demonstrated that microwaves
are capable of breaking the covalent bonds of DNA. The exact
nature of this phenomenon is not well understood, and no
theory currently exists to explain it. This report summarizes
the history of the controversy surrounding the microwave
effect, and the latest research results.
(Click
Here)
The Lorentz force
(researched at the cellular level, surmised at the genetic
level)
The major contributing factor to the 'microwave
effect' is actually a reciprocating lorentz-force (force
exerted on a charge-carrying substance in the presence of
mutually perpendicular electric and magnetic fields - such as
in a microwave) exerted on the uneven charge distribution of
the DNA/RNA molecule. Thus providing a non-thermal explanation
for this phenomenon. If that is the case, then the frequencies
involved would almost certainly be very different to the
conventional 2450 MHz, since the structures and the forces
involved are so different. It would become a
microscopic structural resonance issue, as opposed to a
purely thermal or purely chemical effect. This would also
explain the similarities between the microwave effect and the
external-heating method.
With the limitations proposed, there are two major ways
genetic damage can occur. You can damage genetic material with
temperature (fry the DNA), or you can blame the damage on
physical forces (smash the bonds of the DNA causing it to
misread RNA).
Northwestern University Physics & Astronomy Department -
Phyx 135-2 (General Physics) -- Professor Donald Ellis
(Student Projects)
Ideas proposed for things not temperature related
(throughout research):
Brownian Motion: At a very general level, the phenomenon of
Brownian Motion and its research basically describes how
things randomly bump into each other. In this case, Brownian
Motion actually results due to the thermal energy of the
particle itself. The thermal energy of the Brownian Motion and
its movements is actually greater by a factor of 10 than the
theorized movements caused by the electromagnetic radiation.
In brownian motion, if one were to analyze the a given area a,
and play a movie of it at speed s, at 4a, you can get the same
type of movie at speed 2s, and in general, this exponential (2
as the base) holds.
Attraction of Cells: Schwan and Aldair proposed that cells in
the presence of an electric field distribute ions across the
membranes so they become polarized (and therefore attracted to
each other). Although this is not directly genetic damage,
many cells rely on proper transport of nutrients across the
membrane to be able to successfuly duplicate genetic material.
This may inhibit the very delicate process of duplication.
Lorentz Effect: This is the one I will spend some more time
going into detail on. Some of the literature on the material
is kind of , but it gives a general idea (in addition, I could
find more on this topic than I could on the other two).
Because I have kind of a push on this effect and the fact that
it relates very well to course material, this topic will be
explored more.
The literature concentrates on cellular damage due to the
Lorentz Force, but it also uses this damage as a potential
gap-filler for the Microwave Effect.
Let's suppose, for a second, that there is some damage to the
hydrogen bonds (this damage would also translate to the
covalent bond, but to about 10 times less a degree). The force
due to direct EMR:
FB = qv X B
The energy of this force is the sum of all FB projected over a
certain distance (dot product). For simplicity, lets assume
that the force acts along a straight line over the length of
the hydrogen bond. The magnetic field will also be I know that
there are a lot of cellular dynamics left out here, but the
calculations would get fearfully complex otherwise.
Requirements for this force to matter:
- the ion(s) must be moving near the DNA
- they must be moving at a velocity in which the resulting
energy is a visible fraction of the total energy to break a
hydrogen bond
- we are assuming worst-case scenario where all conditions
dependent on time are maximized
Question: What would be the required frequency to produce x
percentage of the energy required to break the H-Bond?
Using these equations (some simplified from assumptions)
FB = qv X B ==> FB = qvB (magnetic field is perpendicular to
velocity)
U = Integral(Dot( FB, s) ) ==> U = FBs (where s is the
distance across the hydrogen bond)
E/B = c
E = -grad(V) = -uodqow2/4pi ( sin (z)/r ) cos(w(t-r/c) ) z
====> E = kw2/r (assume head-on radiation at maximum
amplitude) note that r is the distance from the EMR source.
Doing these processes and some algebra, we get:
find B from E
substitute in F
plug in U
solve for w
w = k Ubreak x r /s where k = uodq2/4pi (d and q are related
to the dipole moment from the antenna)
This makes sense with intuition. The frequency required to
achieve x percentage (ie .75) breakage of the H-Bond (Ubreak)
is directly proportional to the bond energy, the distance the
radiation source is from the DNA, and inversely proportional
to the size of the bond needed to be broken. Assuming the
radiation is 10cm away from the nearest DNA strand in a brain
cell of a child and that the H-Bond length is about 2
Angstroms which is very roughly 10-10 m. k is about 3 x 104.
These are all of course rough values. The k is based off of
the the energy of the microwave given in the Temperature
section above (plug into equation and find constant).
So in any case, the general point is made. You need
frequencies much greater (as expected) than a typical
microwave to break the bonds of DNA solely with the Lorentz
force, but it probably has some effect.
Continue this student research on RFR and DNA damage
Radiation can produce a break in a strand by destroying a
P-E bond. Think of radiation as blasting away a
electromagnetic bonds in one side of the ladder. We will call
such damage a single-strand break (SSB). While relatively
weak, the electromagnetic hydrogen bonds between nucleotides
cannot be permanently broken by such a radiation hit. An
isolated SSB also does no permanent damage to the molecule; it
is soon repaired.
The effect of the radiation may not be to kill the cell,
but to alter its DNA code in a way that leaves the cell alive
but with an error in the DNA blueprint. The effect of this
mutation will depend on the nature of the error and when it is
read. Since this is a random process, such effects are now
called stochastic. Two important stochastic effects of
radiation are cancer, which results from mutations in nongerm
cells (termed somatic cells), and heritable changes, which
result from mutations in germ cells (eggs and sperm) BIRTH
DEFECTS.
Read
more
