Dangers of EMFs: ‘The current evidence is overwhelming and indisputable’ – Nick Pinault’s interview with biophysicist Dr. Dimitris J. Panagopoulos

Dangers of EMFs: ‘The current evidence is overwhelming and indisputable’.
Interview with biophysicist Dr. Dimitris J. Panagopoulos

Years after writing ‘The Non-Paranoid Guide to EMFs’, where I argued that our current use of man-made EMFs (mobile phones, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, mobile phone towers, etc.) is reckless, irresponsible. And one of the most likely causes of the modern epidemic of chronic disease… I still regularly argue with ‘sceptics’ who tell me:

• There are no credible scientific studies showing that man-made EMFs cause harm.
• Anyone who argues that EMFs could be dangerous should wear a tinfoil hat is either delusional or paranoid.
• There are no known mechanisms that can explain how ‘low levels’ of EMF can cause harm.
• Man-made EMFs, such as those from phones, Wi-Fi or Bluetooth gadgets, are ‘non-ionising’. And therefore they can’t damage your DNA or cause any harm.
• Sunlight exposes you to an incredible amount of radiation, which proves that mobile phones could not harm you at such low power levels.

I see one form or another of the above arguments being used by doctors of physics, medical doctors, professional sceptics, science writers and, of course, electrical engineers.

Rather than argue with them – hey, after all, I’m just a citizen journalist trying to understand all this – I decided to ask one of the most renowned scientists in the field of the biological and health effects of EMFs what he thinks.

Are man-made EMFs safe or dangerous? Are there mechanisms that can explain the harm caused by EMFs? Have I lost my mind? Was Elon Musk right?

I sent several questions to biophysicist Dr. Dimitris J. Panagopoulos. Here is what he had to say.

Dr. Dimitris J. Panagopoulos, a biophysicist specialising in EMF, works at the Choremeion Research Laboratory, Faculty of Medicine, National Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece. His experiments were among the first to show harmful effects of microwaves and other man-made EMF on DNA and reproduction. His theory of the biophysical mechanism of action of EMFs on cells, also known as the ‘ion-forced oscillation mechanism’, is considered the most plausible. It has explained why man-made polarised EMFs are much more harmful than natural, non-polarised EMFs. And why real, highly variable exposures from mobile phones and other microwave devices are much more harmful than simulated exposures with unchanging parameters.

Definitions:

• WC: Wireless communication (mobile/smartphones, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, mobile phone towers, etc.)
• EMF: Electromagnetic fields
• RF: Radio frequency radiation (mobile/smart phones, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, mobile phone towers, etc.)
• VGICs: Voltage-regulated ion channels
• mV: millivolt
• ROS: Reactive Oxygen Species
• OS: Oxidative stress
• EHS: Electrohypersensitivity
• AC: Alternating current
• Anthropogenic EMF: Man-made electromagnetic fields. This includes wireless communication, but also other types such as dirty electricity, AC electric fields, AC magnetic fields, electric and magnetic fields from power lines, etc.).
• MT: mobile telephony (mobile/smart phones)
• km: Kilometres

1) His recent article ‘Mobile phone radiation exerts a genotoxic action and significantly enhances the effects of gamma radiation on human cells’. It showed that radiofrequency radiation enhances the genotoxic action of gamma radiation.

Q: Given that aeroplanes are now full of Wi-Fi (radio frequency) emissions, what are the implications of this study for pilots, flight attendants or passengers?

A: The experiments described in this article showed that electromagnetic fields (EMF) from wireless communication (WC) act synergistically with ionising radiation (gamma). Similarly, previous experiments (Panagopoulos 2020) showed that they also act synergistically with caffeine. This means that combined exposure to several stressors induces significantly more biological damage than exposure to the stressors separately.

In fact, more than that: the combined exposure in both cases (with gamma radiation or caffeine) induced more aberrations than the sum of the aberrations induced by the separate exposures. Today, people are exposed daily not only to EMFs from WC, but also to a variety of other stressors such as chemicals, pharmaceuticals, psychological stress, etc.

On aeroplanes during flights, people are exposed to increased levels of ionising radiation of cosmic and solar origin. Each form of ionising radiation is significantly more genotoxic and carcinogenic than man-made EMFs. People exposed in an aircraft become even more vulnerable to ionising radiation. This is due to the use of smartphones, tablets and other devices wirelessly connected to the internet during flights.

In addition, electromagnetic radiation from WC devices is trapped and magnified inside the aircraft’s metal cage. Acting as a ‘Faraday cage’, exposing every passenger and crew member to significant levels of EMF. If authorities really protected public health, the use of WC devices should be strictly prohibited. Not only in aeroplanes, but also in all public transport vehicles (trains, buses, etc.).

I should also say that all types of EMF from the WC (from telephones mobile/wireless, Wi-Fi, etc.) are not simply radio frequency (RF) emissions. They consist of modulated RF EMF (300 kHz-300 GHz) emitted as repeated on/off pulses at various very low frequencies (ELF: 0-3000 Hz) and with intense variability in intensity, frequency and other parameters, mainly in the ultra-low frequency band (0-3 Hz). In other words, they are a combination of high and low frequency emissions (RF/ELF/ULF).

2) It has recently been stated that ‘power level is irrelevant’ when it comes to the biological effects of man-made electromagnetic radiation.

Q. The argument includes, for example, the idea that ‘little or no power is needed to interfere with life’ and that ‘low power can be more harmful than high power’. Do you agree with these statements?

A. No, I disagree.
The effects of all anthropogenic EMFs, including wireless communication (WC), are dose-dependent and, moreover, increase with increasing levels of power density (intensity) in the vast majority of cases. However, they do not always increase linearly (doubling the exposure level does not necessarily double the effect). Occasionally, so-called ‘window’ effects have been reported in the literature. That is, an effect may peak within certain values of the exposure parameters and decrease for both lower and higher values. Several scientists, including myself, have reported such effects (Panagopoulos et al. 2010).

Window’ effects are due to the fact that living tissue does not always respond linearly to an applied stressor/EMF. For example, voltage-gated ion channels (VGICs), which are the natural EMF sensors in all animal and plant cell membranes, do not respond to any change in membrane voltage. Only to voltage changes of approximately 30 to 100 millivolts (mV).

For larger voltage changes, the ionic flux through the channel becomes saturated. This is an energy-saving mechanism that acts as a natural protection for the cell. I have argued that the explanation behind the ‘window’ effects long reported in the literature is actually the existence of this corresponding window (30-100 mV) in the opening/closing of VGICs (Panagopoulos et al. 2021). And possibly also other biological ‘windows’ or resonance phenomena that have not yet been discovered or are not fully understood.

In conclusion, the existence of non-linear effects in biology is a fact, but this does not justify claims that the power level is irrelevant.

If the power level were irrelevant, that would mean that being exposed to a cellular base station antenna at a distance of 1 kilometre (km) or a few metres would make no difference. It would also mean that using the mobile phone at a distance via speakerphone or air-tube headset during calls would make no difference compared to using the mobile phone close to the head/body, which is a totally misleading and dangerous idea.

This would also justify the current absence of any caution in the use of WC devices, and the current practice of installing antennas close to homes and workplaces without maintaining a safe distance of at least several hundred metres, depending on the transmitting power.

3) In 2021, it published a seminal paper.

In which he demonstrated that he had arrived at a ‘complete picture […] of how exposure to man-made EMFs can indeed lead to DNA damage and related pathologies, including cancer’.

Q: Can you explain, in simple terms, how these man-made EMF exposures (including wireless communications) impact human cells?

A: This article addresses the biophysical mechanism of action of EMFs on cells. It explains how polarised and coherent (man-made) EMFs, including wireless communications (WC), can cause dysfunction of voltage-gated ion channels (VGICs). VGICs, the natural EMF sensors in living organisms, are the most abundant class of ion channels in all animals (and plants). This shows that all living organisms are essentially electromagnetic in nature.

All processes in cells are initiated and mediated by ionic fluxes (endogenous electrical currents) through cells, tissues and ion channels in cell membranes. Irregular opening and closing (dysfunction) of VGICs, as shown in this mechanism, alters ionic concentrations in cells. This leads to triggering the (over)production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) by specific enzymes in cells that normally produce ROS for physiological purposes, such as protection against infectious microorganisms.

These enzymes are activated by alterations in the concentrations of various ions in cells, such as calcium, potassium, sodium or protons. Prolonged overproduction of ROS in cells is an irritating/inflammatory condition called oxidative stress (OS), which can easily result in various pathologies.

A relatively mild ‘pathology’ of this type is what is called electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) in its early stages. Actually, in my opinion, this is not a pathology. It is a healthy reaction to unnatural exposure, which is fully polarised and coherent (man-made) EMF. If the person does not minimise the exposure in the early stages of the onset of EHS, the initial healthy reaction can turn into a severe pathology with unbearable symptoms. The continuous production of ROS due to continuous exposure is connected to DNA damage induced by certain ROS. ROS are particularly harmful, such as hydroxyl radical or peroxynitrite.

These ROS can easily damage DNA and other critical biomolecules. Irreparable damage to DNA can lead to cell death or mutations, which in turn can lead to reproductive problems, organic diseases and cancer. Therefore, the biophysical mechanism initiates a cascade of biochemical events. These events result in oxidative stress (OS) in cells and the various pathologies reported in the literature. OS was long ago reported to be induced by exposure to anthropogenic EMF, and this article explained why and how it occurs.

The same biophysical mechanism explains most, if not all, of the reported biological effects of EMFs, including ‘window’ effects. It has also explained the ability of sensitive people to perceive impending thunderstorms (Panagopoulos and Balmori 2017). As well as, the ability of certain animals to perceive impending earthquakes (Panagopoulos et al. 2020) through the action of natural EMFs associated with these phenomena.

Recently, the same mechanism has explained one of the best-known scientific problems: how migratory animals orient themselves and navigate over thousands of kilometres on Earth. Finding exact locations by detecting the strength and direction of the geomagnetic field. Unfortunately, my colleagues and I have had trouble getting this article published. Just as we had trouble publishing other papers before (papers that have now been widely accepted and cited by hundreds of other studies).

Unfortunately, conflicts of interest and corruption in science have left many of the leading scientific journals unaffected. Certain people do not want this mechanism to be widely known and established. Instead, they favour other theories that are complicated and impossible, which gets the science nowhere. In fact, the adverse biological and health effects of man-made EMFs can now be thoroughly explained and confirmed. But they do not want this fact to be widely accepted, although every true expert admits it.

They prefer to sow confusion, doubt and ignorance in the public. Many scientists also promote this confusion in various ways. Whether they know it or not, by supporting, for example, impossible theories that lead nowhere.

ELECTROHYPERSENSITIVITY TEST

4) I keep coming across statements like ‘non-ionising radiation cannot damage DNA’ (from PhD physicists).

Q: Although you and many of your colleagues have shown this to be completely false decades ago. How do you think we can break through this veil of ignorance?

A: Such erroneous statements are made because some physicists and engineers confuse living tissue with inanimate matter. Living tissue does not respond to EMFs and other stressors in the same way as inanimate matter. It is much more complicated than that. A relevant statement would be ‘non-ionising radiation cannot directly cause DNA damage’. But it can do so indirectly in living cells by causing dysfunction of VGICs. This alters ionic concentrations in cells, triggering the production of ROS, as I explained earlier.

ROS can then easily damage DNA and other critical biological molecules. As many experimental studies in which animals and cells were exposed to man-made EMFs have shown. In fact, EMFs from wireless communication (WC) from mobile phones and other devices/antennas cause oxidative stress (OS) and DNA damage within minutes. This, in turn, explains epidemiological studies that have connected exposure to man-made EMFs to cancer. [Nick’s note: For example, this 2018 review by Miller et al. shows that radiofrequency radiation should be reclassified as a definite class 1 carcinogen].

The above provides a complete explanation of the biological mechanisms. But in addition, the confidence of some people/scientists who claim that anthropogenic EMFs, at frequencies below those of infrared radiation, cannot cause ionisation, i.e. break chemical bonds. This stems from the erroneous and misleading assumption of modern quantum physics. That any EMF consists of photons, regardless of how it is generated.

According to this assumption, microwaves and other forms of anthropogenic EMF, which have lower frequencies than infrared and visible light, «do not have enough energy in their photons» to produce ionization. However, anthropogenic EMF do not consist of photons, as I have previously argued (Panagopoulos 2018).

They consist of continuous waves as described by classical electromagnetism, not by quantum physics. Continuous waves are not instantaneous emissions (photons). They can have durations that are trillions of times longer, and therefore, can possess much more energy than a photon. Even when their frequency is much lower.

In your 2019 article «Comparing DNA damage induced by mobile telephony and other types of man-made electromagnetic fields,» you confirmed your previous work showing that actual mobile telephony (MT) devices cause more DNA damage than other types of man-made EMF (50/60 Hz magnetic or electric fields).

Q: Could you explain why these experiments were conducted on fruit flies (Drosophila) and how applicable these results are to humans?

A: These experiments were conducted on fruit flies. This insect is one of the most studied and common laboratory animals in biology. They are small, clean, and easy to maintain in the lab. Additionally, they have a well-defined schedule of developmental processes under controlled conditions, and a lifespan of approximately one month. This allows us to observe systemic (whole-body) effects much faster than in humans or other animals, among many other advantages.

Most importantly, their cells, like those of all insects, are essentially the same as those of mammals (including humans). They have the same types of cell membranes, proteins, ion channels, intracellular organelles, nuclei, DNA, and the same ions that control all cellular processes.

Considering that all biological and health effects begin within the cells, any effect found in Drosophila is absolutely expected in mammals, including humans, and vice versa. Although their lifespan is too short to develop cancer, this animal is used in cancer research due to its genetic similarities with mammals and humans.

My experiments showed similar DNA damage in both fruit fly cells and human cells. This damage occurred after exposure to radiation from both mobile phones and other types of man-made EMF. As you mentioned, the EMF from mobile phones caused more damage than the EMF from power lines, which have long been linked to cancer.

Many scientists who study EMF have faced systematic attacks throughout their careers.

Q: Considering that you co-authored and edited the most comprehensive book ever written on the biological and health effects of man-made EMF in 2023, do you believe things are changing now that the published literature is becoming harder to ignore?

A: Indeed, some of the pioneering scientists who first reported DNA damage and other significant biological effects in the 1990s and early 2000s, after exposing biological samples to anthropogenic EMF, were unethically attacked by «scientists» hired for that purpose. They were even accused of having falsified their data.

Nowadays, hundreds of published and peer-reviewed studies have confirmed these effects. Unfortunately, as far as I know, those who accused them did not face legal consequences, and the damage done to the scientists was never restored. The current evidence is overwhelming and indisputable, and as you mentioned, it is becoming increasingly difficult to dismiss

The recent book is a source of evidence-based knowledge for all those who want to learn the truth in this highly debated scientific field. It is also for those who wish to understand the science and protect themselves, their loved ones, and the environment. I highly recommend it to everyone.

Interview conducted by Nick Pinault.