Top

Scientific Evidence on Microwave Frequencies Contradicts Canadian Safety Panel

Contradicts Canadian Safety PanelAs many regular visitors to Eco Health Solutions would know, our safety standards for exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) are based on outdated data and incorrect assumptions.

During the 2015 Environmental Sensitivities Symposium, Prof Emeritus Martin L Pall discussed this in detail. (Transcript available here)

Scientific Evidence Contradicts Canadian Safety Panel Assumptions

Prof Pall writes: “The 2014 Canadian Report by a panel of experts only recognizes thermal effects regarding safety standards for non-ionizing radiation exposures.”

His paper sifts through data from 24 studies that demonstrate the role of voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs) and directly contradicts the assumptions made by the Canadian Safety Panel.

What is more, he points out that there has been literature as far back as the 1950s that recognises the non-thermal effects of microwave/radiofrequency radiation (RF).

Subsequently, there have been thousands of international published studies reporting non-thermal or what are sometimes called micro-thermal effects producing therapeutic responses, changes in calcium fluxes and signaling, increased oxidative stress, and a wide variety other health-related responses in humans and animal models.

Pall systematically refutes and, backed with scientific evidence, contradicts Canadian Safety Panel assumptions and premises. This is summarised as follows:

  • “It fails to individually assess the thousands of studies that provide evidence apparently falsifying their heating/thermal paradigm…”
  • “The Report fails to provide any “risky prediction” type evidence (the second most important type of evidence) in favor of the heating/thermal hypothesis, but such risky predictions are available supporting the VGCC mechanism of action.”
  • “The Report bases its conclusion on the weakest type of evidence, evidence that some responses could be generated by heating but does not rule out other types of mechanisms…”
  • “The Report repeatedly fails to provide an objective assessment of the scientific literature.”
  • “The Report claims that there is no biophysically viable alternative to the heating/thermal paradigm, a claim clearly shown here to be false.”
  • “The Report claims extensive inconsistencies (what others have called conflicts) occur in the literature, where what it considers ‘similar’ studies produced different results and it uses these claims of ‘inconsistencies’ to throw out large amounts of the literature. However, these ‘similar’ studies are in fact, dissimilar, differing in cell type being studied, the properties of the fields being studied and/or the end point being studied, with each of these having demonstrated roles in determining outcome.”
  • “The Report fails to use its own inconsistency argument… in the heart of the report, the part that argues for a heating/thermal mechanism, thus failing to be consistent in its own treatment of this issue.”
  • “The Report fails to give the reader enough information in the Report itself or in the citations provided to allow the reader to assess its scientific merit.”

All in all, Pall argument is a compelling read, sheds light on the flaws, and contradicts Canadian Safety Panel assumptions.

Download and read the full article here.

Reference:

Martin L. Pall (April 16, 2015) “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” DOI 10.1515/reveh-2015-0001

#VGCCs #MartinLPall #nonthermaleffectsofEMF

 

, , , , , , ,

Author of all content is Lucinda Curran, unless otherwise indicated.