Brief, and Bold, Statement from David O. Carpenter on RF-EMF and Immune Response

Two biological effects of RF-EMF are considered by anti-5G activists as proving health hazard:

  • DNA damage
  • Inhibition of immune response

Both of the effects are speculated to be caused by the oxidative stress induced in cells by the RF-EMF exposures. There are experimental in vitro and in vivo studies suggesting induction of oxidative stress by RF-EMF exposures, the impact of this oxidative stress on DNA and on immunity remains very speculative.

In my earlier blog I have briefly explained the problem of RF-EMF-caused oxidative stress-induced effects:

“…The both, DNA damage and impairment of the immune response rely on the evidence suggesting that RF-EMF causes oxidative stress in cells. However, simply observing increased oxidative stress in tissues and increased levels of short-lived free radicals is not sufficient to prove human health effect.

Cells are not just balls uniformly filled with viscous liquid. They are extensively compartmentalized and movement of molecules between various compartments is very strictly regulated. The oxidative stress needs to appear in a cellular compartment that will allow certain kind of effect. For example, in order to damage DNA, the very-short-living and very-short distance-acting free radicals need to be generated inside the cell nucleus and in close proximity to the DNA molecule. This might be not so easy spatially because access to DNA molecule is limited by the coat of proteins. So, before claiming that RF-EMF damages DNA we also need to show that, at least, the free radicals are indeed generated within the nucleus…”

The speculated inhibition of the immune response by the RF-EMF exposures, especially by the 5G-emitted radiation, was the cause of the recent controversial scaremongering comments suggesting link between spread of coronavirus and the 5G technology. These claims were unfounded because not only virus spread very efficiently where 5G was not deployed, like in Iran and on cruise ships, but also there is no scientific evidence proving that RF-EMF, including 5G, has any impact on human immune response.

In my opinion, after reviewing scientific studies dealing with the oxidative stress, I did not find any evidence proving causality link between RF-EMF and 5G exposures and immunity.

However, to assure myself, and hopefully to assure the anti-5G activists that the claims of proven inhibition of the immune response by 5G are false, I asked today (16.04.2020) several prominent scientists of their opinion.

I received immediately a statement from David O. Carpenter and, with his permission I am quoting it here:

  • Question: What is, in your opinion, the best experimental study proving directly that RF inhibits immune response? Dariusz Leszczynski
  • Answer: In my judgment there is no convincing evidence that RF inhibits immune responses. There certainly are some publications making that claim, but the evidence is very weak. David O. Carpenter

23 thoughts on “Brief, and Bold, Statement from David O. Carpenter on RF-EMF and Immune Response

  1. David Wedege–I’ve been thinking about what you said about Maria Feytching’s statement in the press: “Maria Feychting, professor of epidemiology at the Institute of Environmental Medicine at Karolinska Institutet, writes in an e-mail that there are no grounds for claims that 2G, 3G, 4G or 5G would affect the immune system.
    “- If it were that way, we would have seen an increased incidence of infectious diseases in most countries for a long time, which has not been observed. In general, on the contrary, a decrease in mortality has been observed.
    The more I think about her statement, the more I find it is actually misleading. Although she makes no mention of increasing rates of autoimmune disease, she does assert a decrease in infectious disease.
    So, those two things she mentions, decreased incidence and decreased mortality from infectious disease in humans. In my understanding, decreased mortalities are largely due to increased medication treatments, vaccines for prevention, and other modern non-pharmaceutical interventions like water purification, etc. But, decreased mortality does not actually equal decreased incidence or emergence, right? “The World Health Organization warned in its 2007 report that infectious diseases are emerging at a rate that has not been seen before. Since the 1970s, about 40 infectious diseases have been discovered, including [HIV], SARS, MERS, Ebola, chikungunya, avian flu, swine flu and, most recently, Zika [ until now, covid-19*].”
    Also, “A 2014 study published in the Journal of the Royal Society Interface, “Global Rise in Human Infectious Disease Outbreaks,” examines the global changes in the frequency of outbreaks of infectious disease between 1980 and 2013…The study’s findings include:
    “The number of outbreaks, and the number of kinds of disease, have both increased significantly since 1980. While the number of outbreaks appears to be increasing over time, the data suggest that per-capita outbreak cases are declining: “Despite an increase in overall outbreaks, global improvements in prevention, early detection, control and treatment are becoming more effective at reducing the number of people infected.” So I don’t think M Feytching’s statement is the whole truth and what ends up happening with Covid-19 may definitely change the heretofore decreased mortality rates, anyway. Not that mortality is the main point.
    And looking up these stats, i was reminded that we also have to consider infectious disease prevalence trends in animals and other living things because we are all exposed. Look what’s happening with tree infections, bees and colony collapse, bats and the white nose fungus, along with increasing reports of mass animal deaths, just yesterday, 11,000 blue tit deaths in Germany. We hear of these mass deaths around the world regularly. According to Fey, et al, 2015, PNAS, “Mass mortality events (MMEs) are rapidly occurring catastrophic demographic events that punctuate background mortality levels. Individual MMEs are staggering in their observed magnitude: removing more than 90% of a population… the increase in MMEs appears to be associated with a rise in disease emergence, biotoxicity, and events produced by multiple interacting stressors… Across all animal taxa, causes of MMEs were most often associated with disease (Fig. 3; 26.3%) and were attributed to viral (44.5%), bacterial (18.3%), and fungal infections (12.2%)…. Biotoxicity was the third leading cause of MMEs (15.6%), primarily resulting from toxin-producing cyanobacteria and dinoflagellates that dominate marine and freshwater harmful algal blooms….In conclusion, our analysis of published animal MMEs indicates that the magnitude of MMEs has been undergoing taxon-specific shifts and that MMEs associated with multiple stressors and disease, which are associated with the largest MME magnitudes, are increasing in frequency.”
    Fetchyings statement is incomplete and misleading at best, was not analyzed by the press and may be generally accepted as true without careful consideration. And it will be repeated.

  2. David, I don’t know what the incidence rates of infectious disease are–other than the dark star of the day, but we do have a lot of medicine now for infectious diseases and medication rates are certainly very high, at least in the US. Look esp at antibiotic rates and to some extent, antivirals, antifungals, etc. Many of these infectious conditions are self-limiting or treatable, although a good deal of bacteria–and some fungi– are becoming resistant to treatment. But we do see incredible increases in chronic autoimmune diseases. According to Richard Lear, who does note that infectious diseases remain a [flat?] major health threat in the 20th century without any figures, “There has been unprecedented growth in a new class of chronic diseases in the US since 1990. Four categories of disease have virtually exploded: autoimmune, neurological, metabolic and inflammatory. Meanwhile, there has been a similar uptick in reproductive conditions like infertility and a half dozen psychiatric disorders. While the major health threats of the 20th century: cardiovascular disease, infectious disease and cancer, are barely growing, at least forty chronic diseases and disorders have more than doubled in the past generation. Many of these new age diseases weren’t even on our radar until the 1980’s.
    In a single generation, there has been a dramatic acceleration* in the prevalence of diseases
    and disorders like autism (2094%), Alzheimer’s (299%), COPD (148%), diabetes (305%),
    sleep apnea (430%), celiac disease (1111%), ADHD (819%), asthma (142%), depression
    (280%), bipolar disease in youth (10833%), osteoarthritis (449%), lupus (787%),
    inflammatory bowel disease (IBD – 120%), chronic fatigue syndrome (11027%),
    fibromyalgia (7727%), multiple sclerosis (117%) and hypothyroidism (702%).” Lear’s theory, like so many others’s, is that “Until now many in the scientific community has been reticent to propose a unifying factor that explains the dramatic rise of so many seemingly unrelated diseases. Yet, there is growing evidence that peroxynitrite may just be that elusive factor…
    Though peroxynitrite is not strictly a free radical, it acts as both an oxidative and nitrative
    agent, causing extensive cellular damage, while disrupting at least 97 critical biological
    processes (see appendix). This molecule is set loose by the combination of two free radicals,
    one of which is nitric oxide (NO). Among the most studied molecules in the body, nitric
    oxide is known to be critical to almost every cellular function. When found in close
    proximity, it combines with superoxide (O2) to create peroxynitrite (ONOO¯). In turn,
    peroxynitrite catapults our sensitive biochemistry into unimaginable chaos.
    Left unchecked, peroxynitrite single-handedly creates high levels of oxidative stress (OS),
    nitrative stress (NS), mitochondrial dysfunction (MD) and autonomic dysfunction (AD)
    while triggering cytokine storms, which then lead to chronic systemic inflammation (CI). By
    stealing electrons from important biological actors like lipids (essential fats), proteins and
    enzymes, peroxynitrite wreaks havoc on cellular integrity and function, upends ATP
    (energy) production, interferes with ion messaging and disrupts key neurotransmitters.
    Meanwhile the prolific anion recklessly damages DNA, which leads to downstream
    genotoxic effects and cultivates an ideal biological environment for disease.” RF exposure can certainly be involved, if not the prime-mover, in this theory.

  3. In a Swedish tabloid paper, Maria Feychting (current vice chair of ICNIRP) is stating:
    “If it were that way, we would have seen an increased incidence of infectious diseases in most countries for a long time, which has not been observed. In general, on the contrary, a decrease in mortality has been observed.”
    It sounds like her epidemiological arguments for the lack of risk for brain tumor.
    Does she have a good argument or could the immune system be adversely affected in the population without showing the what Feychting expects?
    /David Wedege

  4. Yes, I am not really saying that it is reasonable to claim without proof, of course, but I am asking if this is a path one might follow in trying to understand what is happening. For example, if changes in hormones or neurotransmitters that regulate the immune system are shown to be altered when humans, animals and/or cells are exposed to RF and we see a lot of immune system dysregulation in the population, corresponding in time to the deployment of increasing RF, one might reasonably suspect the RF is disrupting the immune system. No doubt along with other agents, perhaps in synergy as shown in many studies. So is there a recognized pathway that would follow? I believe in most systems in which RF/MW radiation is applied chaotically or randomly–not with medical intention–it is shown to disrupt the living system. IF the body can not compensate and adapt, dysregulation, disease, illness, ensues. One can’t just assume thyroid hormones, cortisol, or melatonin, etc, are disrupted, the end. What happens downstream after that? Don’t we know these things?

  5. It is reasonable to suspect and to propose hypothesis for research.
    It is not reasonable to claim without direct proof from research study that these biological effects inhibit immune response and help in spreading diseases (e.g. viral infections).

  6. Is it reasonable to deduce that RF induced biological changes in the nervous system, neurotransmitters and endocrine hormones that have been demonstrated in the studies are taxing and dysregulating the immune system?

  7. Hi Dariusz,

    So, at this time:
    “Nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so” (Shakespeare).

    Henry Lai

  8. Dear Henry,
    Yes, every scientist has some standard he/she uses for evaluation of the science and it is the problem. All ICNIRP scientists have the same standard, what doesn’t mean they are completely correct.
    In my opinion we don’t have sufficient number of comprehensive and of good quality studies examining immune response effects from the current 3G and 4G technologies.
    Even worse is the lack of studies into the effects of 5G on immunity.
    In this situation of the lack of research, quantity and quality, we do not have reliable science to claim that 3G, 4G and 5G weaken immune response, as the anti-5G activists do.
    We don’t know enough to claim the immunity is affected either way.
    We do not have enough science to devise scientifically sound and reliable human health policies.
    What we have enough, is the evidence suggesting that effects of 3G, 4G and 5G are possible and that we should use precaution for as long as the sufficient research is not performed. Not any research, research specifically targeting immune response. We need studies that demonstrate in vivo and unequivocally that immune response is affected. Not that the immune cells numbers go up or down what can suggest effect on immunity. We need to see that immunity is or is not affected. There are relatively simple ways to do it (unfortunately I have no lab to perform experiment).
    As to precautions, the best precaution right now would be few years of moratorium on 5G deployment and funding targeted research that could be directly applied when devising human health policy (not every research is useful for health policy).

  9. Hi Dariusz,
    Every scientist has his /her standard of accepting a certain observed phenomenon is believable. Let’s not debate on that. The fact is that there are research reports that indicated changes (increase or decrease in activity) in immune-functions after exposure to RFR. There is no reason to ignore these data. Of course, there is no conclusion on whether these changes are detrimental or beneficial to health. (Finding changes of a biological function in opposite directions after RFR exposure is not new to bioelectromagnetics research,)
    However, I don’t think there is any study on immunological effects of 5G radiation. When one looks at research on millimeter-waves (40-60 GHz), a major component of the future 5G signal, one would find that most of the data showed activation of immune functions after exposure to millimeter-waves, e.g., Novoselova et al., 2002;Logani et al., 2011; Pletnev, 2000; Gapeyv et al., 2009. The results showed activation of T-cell ( a major component of the immune system) and NK cell and tumor necrosis factor (immune components involved in cancer cell killing). It has been proposed that millimeter –wave activates nerve ending in the skin, that send signals to the central nervous system and causes release of endogenous opioids, such as endorphin. In the 1980s, we also found that RFR of lower frequencies (e.g., those used in other generations of cell phones) activated endogenous opioids in the brain. Probably a different pathway of the endogenous opioid system!?
    Henry Lai

  10. Thanks Henry, in summary it means that anyone, like 5G activists, claiming that it is known and proven that RF-EMF affects immune response is incorrect. It is not known. It might be suspected. It might be considered as reason for precaution, but it is not known if immune response is affected by RF-EMF.

  11. Pri and Henry, as you very well know, there is difference between proven effect and suspected effect. RF-EMF effect on immunity is suspected but not proven. This is what I said and what Carpenter’s opinion says. There are published studies on immunity but the evidence is too poor to claim proven effect. This evidence may be considered as sufficient to call for precautions but nothing more.

  12. Hi Henry,
    I completely agree with you. I didn’t mean to suggest that there is no evidence of reduced immune functions – certainly there are, In fact, after I made that comment in haste, I was thinking that I should have referred to the Boscolo study on young women who lived in high RF-EMR environments who had reduced NKC activity – which suggests that they would have compromised immune functions possibly making them more susceptible to infections by pathogens (note that study may have underestimated an effect because their control group also had fairly high exposure).

    There are different disruptions of immune system indicated by the scientific evidence. Although Kimate studies found that worsening effect in sensitized individuals (not normal people), imagine how much of the population have a “normal” immune system with respect to allergies by now? Over the nearly 20 years since Kimata experiments, the “normal” unsensitised population has dwindled. By 2050, 50% of the world population is expected to have an allergic disease by current trends. Kimata tested only for a couple of antigens. So many people have elevated IgEs – we have no idea what are triggering those reactions.

    Kimata studies have been further strengthened by a recently published birth-cohort study with a 20 year follow-up which found an increased risk of immune diseases and ADHD in children whose mothers recorded a high magnetic field exposure during pregnancy (

    Although Dariiusz attempts to belittle Kimata studies, they clearly had the appropriate controls in the right experiments. Dariusz appears to be confused as he has mixed-up different study scenarios. There were studies where there was no “ringing phones” (completely muted phones where the difference was RFR emission or no emission). The parameters tested and the results they found need to be analysed by those who are experts in clinical research, not muddied by those who don’t have such expertise. Same goes to oxidative stress studies – they should be interpreted by those with expertise in that field.

    Henry, your input to this field with high scientific integrity and wisdom (not to be fooled by the illusion of knowledge) is much appreciated. You are a true hero of humanity.

  13. Also interesting regarding Dr. Carpenter’s discussion of division in the scientific community, scientific uncertainty and judgement.

    April 30, 2012 “It is my opinion that the state of scientific research sufficiently establishes a risk that meters transmitting by radiofrequencies as proposed in the present file by Hydro-Quebec may constitute a risk of serious as well as irreversible damage to health, through biological effects other than those resulting from heat. Some individuals or categories of individuals are more susceptible to injury than others (children, pregnant women, elderly, persons with illness, electrosensitive individuals, etc).
    Such non thermal effects are reviewed in section 5 of this report…”[page 22, Section 5]”…

    h. Immune response suppression :
    i. Lyle, D. B., P. Schechter, et al. (1983). “Suppression of Tlymphocyte
    cytotoxicity following exposure to sinusoidally amplitude-modulated fields.”
    Bioelectromagnetics 4(3): 281-292.
    ii. Elekes, E., G. Thuroczy, et al. (1996). “Effect on the immune system of mice
    exposed chronically to 50 Hz amplitude-modulated 2.45 GHz microwaves.”
    Bioelectromagnetics 17(3): 246-248.
    iii. Dabala, D., D. Surcel, et al. (2008). “Oxidative and Immune Response in
    Experimental Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields.” Electromagnetic field,
    health and environment: proceedings of EHE’07: 105.
    iv. Surcel, D., D. Dabala, et al. (2009). “Free Radicals, Lipid Peroxidation and
    Immune Response in Experimental Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields.”
    Epidemiology 20(6): S118.

    45. As indicated above, the Quebec Energy Board has asked me to indicate if these research
    show that RF exposure « may constitute a risk of serious or irreversible damage to health
    ».The above non-thermal biological effects do indeed constitute a risk serious damage to health. …”

    [page 23] “6.1 The division within the scientific community [page 25] 51. Standards setting organizations have until now generally refused to accept epidemiological and laboratory research findings linking RF electromagnetic fields exposure with various nonthermal biological effects, as being inconclusive and requiring further research.
    The difficulty stems from the fact that, although links have been demonstrated repeatedly
    between RF electromagnetic fields exposure and non-thermal biological effects, there is a lack
    of a comprehensive biological theory explaining why these effects take place, and therefore
    causality cannot, at the present time, be demonstrated with certainty.
    Also in some cases, experimental results could not be duplicated; in some cases attempts to
    duplicate results showed negative results or variations in the results. These discrepancies are
    however normal in the research process; they indicate that biological systems are complex and
    that different variables need to be isolated in other to fully understand these systems.
    Research is still needed in order to determine to what extent non-thermal biological effects may
    vary with frequency, with modulation and depend on the pulsed (instead of continuous)
    character of RF emissions. Emissions from smart meters are pulsed and a recent study by Mc
    Carty et al has shown that certain symptoms may be caused primarily by field transitions (offD
    on, onDoff) rather than the presence of the field itself (This research was already filed as Exhibit C-SE-AQLPA-0037 and is mentioned in section 5 of the present report). There also may be variance between the levels of reaction of different subjects for reasons that still remain to be explained. This is what the research process is about. In biology and medicine there is nothing that is 100 % proven; our understanding of various illnesses such as cancer and Alzheimer for example is still largely incomplete. We rely on statistical significance and weight of evidence and, therefore, on judgment, when drawing conclusions about health effects.
    Standard setting organizations have so far however generally been reluctant to take into
    account these biological findings. “

  14. Hello Darius z, hope you are OK in these challenging times.
    I know it is not science, but I feel the need to report, than when I came down with EHS in 2004, one of the first things I noticed was that my immune system is going down. I became constantly sick with what ever was around these days. Even today, after few days of exposure I get a flu or that my chronic teeth and gums Inflammation becomes much worse.
    Many EHS people I know, report the some.
    All the best

  15. Hi Pri,

    Kimata only found enhanced allergy-responses in patients with atopic eczema dermatitis syndrome, but not in normal subjects.

    There are of course studies indicating a decrease in immune functions after exposure to RFR, e.g., Boscol et al. (2001), Veyret et al. (1991), Nakamura et al (1997). There have not been many RFR/immune-response studies in recent years.

    A change (enhanced/decrease) in immune functions is a double-edged sword; it can be health detrimental or a compensatory response depending on the situation.

    Henry Lai

  16. What lay (and surely some non-lay) readers require is demonstration of what would serve as exemplar of DL’s “clear evidence”, by comparison to another public health matter.

    Re EMR (backpedalling here…) suggestibly as “toxicant” (and not in terms of the regnant thermalist paradigm) there must be by far a greater number of suggestible studies than for any other toxicant. (The essence of precaution, taking parental protection of children as sensible paradigm, would be, when in doubt (suggestibly, esp. and more so by direct personal experience than by scientific study) leave it out.)

    Yet for some/many of these other toxicants there have been very restrictive public and environmental health measures taken. Surely research into few, maybe even none, of these toxicants reached the level of “clarity” sought by DL on which to base public health policy.

    What makes this field so different? Its already deployed ubiquity? Its personal enjoyment by researchers? (Does Devra Davis still have, what was it, 6 phones?) If so, that would make my earlier point about extra-scientific consideration behind talking (nonsensically) of “precaution”, of not taking on the ultimate string-pullers re funding and defunding, of seeking ever finer points before stronger public policy recommendation (such as urgent “white zone” requirement for research and protection).

    A philosophical-minded referee is CLEARLY needed.

  17. Pri, these studies are not clear evidence. These studies are rather very unclear. There is no information on radiation exposure. The effects observed might be related to stress/excitement stemming from playing a video-game or from stress/anticipation caused by cell phone ringing 30 times over short period of time. So, I disagree with your opinion. Quality and execution of these studies does not show impact of RF-EMF on immune response.

  18. There is clear evidence of RF-EMR disrupting immune functions. Just a couple of examples from a series of clinical studies (some double blind) done in a Japanese hospital.:

    Microwave radiation from cellular phones increases allergen-specific IgE production.
    Kimata H.
    Allergy. 2005 Jun;60(6):838-9. No abstract available.
    PMID: 15876318
    Similar articles

    Enhancement of allergic skin wheal responses in patients with atopic eczema/dermatitis syndrome by playing video games or by a frequently ringing mobile phone.
    Kimata H.
    Eur J Clin Invest. 2003 Jun;33(6):513-7.

    Enhancement of allergic skin wheal responses by microwave radiation from mobile phones in patients with atopic eczema/dermatitis syndrome.
    Kimata H.
    Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2002 Dec;129(4):348-50.

    This demonstrated up-regulation of the Th2 response by wireless radiaton is clear immune disturbance – making immune responses worse.
    A recent study also showed EM interference of immune responses though they didn’t provide details of the exposure:

  19. FCC submission, written by Dr. David O. Carpenter: “Bioeffects are clearly established and occur at very low levels of exposure to electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation. Bioeffects can occur in the first few minutes at levels associated with cell and cordless phone use. Bioeffects can also occur from just minutes of exposure to mobile phone masts (cell towers), WI-FI, and wireless utility ‘smart’ meters that produce whole-body exposure. Chronic base station level exposures can result in illness.
    “Many of these bioeffects can reasonably be expected to result in adverse health effects if the
    exposures are prolonged or chronic. This is because they interfere with normal body processes
    (disrupt homeostasis), prevent the body from healing damaged DNA, produce IMMUNE SYSTEM IMBALANCES, metabolic disruption and lower resistance to disease across multiple pathways.
    “Essential body processes can eventually be disabled by incessant external stresses (from systemwide electrophysiological interference) and lead to pervasive impairment of metabolic and reproductive functions.”

  20. So much for not having it both ways. Dr. Carpenter in 2018, Lancet, Planetary Health–“[M]ounting scientific evidence suggests that prolonged exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation has serious biological and health effects… For example, acute non-thermal exposure has been shown to alter human brain metabolism by NIH scientists,3 electrical activity in the brain,4 and systemic immune responses.5 Chronic exposure has been associated with increased oxidative stress and DNA damage6, 7 and cancer risk.8 Laboratory studies, including large rodent studies by the US National Toxicology Program9 and Ramazzini Institute of Italy,10 confirm these biological and health effects in vivo. As we address the threats to human health from the changing environmental conditions due to human activity,11 the increasing exposure to artificial electromagnetic radiation needs to be included in this discussion.”

  21. Perhaps Dr. Carpenter does not find evidence that RF inhibits immune response, but he swore that there is evidence that microwave/radiofrequency radiation dysregulates the immune response. ” Amended Declaration of Dr. David 0. Carpenter, M.D. I, Dr. David 0. Carpenter, M.D., under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, hereby make the following declaration in support of an injunction against Portland Public Schools’ use of WI-FI…14. Human studies of comparable RF/MW radiation parameters show changes in brain function including memory loss, retarded learning, performance impairment in children, headaches and neurodegenerative conditions, melatonin suppression and sleep disorders, fatigue, hormonal imbalances, immune dysregulation such as allergic and inflammatory responses, cardiac and blood pressure problems, genotoxic effects like miscarriage, cancers such as childhood leukemia, childhood and adult brain tumors, and more….26. Additional studies show neurologic, immune, endocrine, reproductive and cardiac, adverse health effects from low-dose, chronic exposure to RF/MW radiation in humans:”

  22. It is true that there are not many publications on negative effect s of RFR exposure on immunity. Actually, there are papers that reported activation of the immune systembt RFR, particularly at low intensity (e.g. Fesenko, 1999; Novoselova, 1999, 2017; Stankiewicz, 2006; Elekes, 1996).

    Also, hydroxyl free radicals produced in the mitochondria can reach the nucleus and damage DNA. (I think the mean free path of hydroxyl radical is approximately the diameter of a cell.) On the other hand, DNA molecules are intercalated with iron atoms that can catalyze the generation of hydroxyl radicals locally via the Fenton reaction. There are numerous papers reporting oxidative DNA-damage after EMF (RFR and ELF-EMF) exposure.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.