TESTING CELL PHONE NEUTRALIZING TECHNOLOGIES


Numerous recent scientific studies from independent laboratories at various Universities throughout the world has now confirmed that cell phone radiation is harmful to the human body (Krishna, 2009). Cell phone industry studies, which contradict these findings, are typically experimentally designed to fail or are based on SAR measurements. The specific absorption rate Rate, SAR, is considered the official gold standard for measuring the effects of cell phone radiation on the human brain. In fact it is a model system based on physics and not biology. The human brain is modelled as a solution of salts. The amount and distribution of EM energy in such a model is used by the cell phone industry to monitor human exposure standards to cell phone radiation. The cell phone industry has further defined that any cell phone protection technology must reduce SAR measurements using this arbitrary model system. 

Biologists agree that SAR measurements do not accurately represent the real-life exposure of the human brain to cell phone radiation (Blank, 2012). An increasing number of scientists are using biological systems in evaluating harmful effects of cell phone radiation and technology which claims to reduce or neutralize this radiation (Goodman, 2002; Syldona, 2007). 


New Bioassasys for Measuring Effects of Cell Phones on Human DNA


Dr. Rein has pioneered a new in-vitro bioassay for evaluating the effects of cell phone radiation and the efficacy of neutralizing technologies. The new method is based on the well established observation that cell phone radiation physically damages human DNA by nicking one or both of its strands (Cam, 2012). It is also known that radio frequency and microwave EM fields (like those generated from cell phones) have a detrimental effect on different functional properties  of DNA (Kumar, 2010). Based on previous studies indicating EM fields can alter the conformation (shape) of DNA (Semin, 1995), Dr Rein developed a bioassay for measuring the effects of weak EM fields based on the ability of DNA to spontaneously rewind after partially separating the two strands which make up the DNA helix(Rein, 2002).  Using this bioassay, it was shown that CP radiation does in fact affect the rate of rewinding and that a neutralizing technology was able to completely reverse the CP induced this effect on DNA rewinding (Syldona, 2007 ).

More recently Dr. Rein developed an even more sensitive bioassay for measuring the effects of EM fields on human DNA. The new assay is based on the known ability of DNA to conduct electrons along its strands (Bakhshi, 1994).  Electrical conductivity, or charge transport along DNA is well known to correlate with its physiological functions. For example, increased conductivity is associated with increased DNA repair (Kratochvilova, 2010) and electron conduction is associated with self-assembly on DNA networks (Cai, 2000).The new assay uses a technique called non-linear dielectric spectroscopy (Treo, 2009). In this technique DNA is exposed to a weak electric field to excite electrons and cause them to propagate along the DNA strands. This propagation is measured as the induced current by a second electrode placed in the DNA solution. It is further known that electrical conductivity in DNA occurs via two mechanisms - classical electron hopping (Giese, 2002) and quantum electron tunelling (Zikic, 2006). Normally conductivity occurs by both mechanisms, randomly switching back and forth. Dr. Rein has discovered that using certain excitation conditions, quantum electron tunelling is favored. Thus, the new assay method can be considered as a measure of the quantum properties of DNA. The new method has been shown to be highlysensitive the several types of weak EM fields, including cell phones. This method is now available to companies that have cell phone neutralizing technologies.




References

Bakhshi AK. Investigation of electronic conduction in proteins and DNA.Prog Biophys Mol Biol 1994;61:187-253

Blank M, Goodman RM. Electromagnetic fields and health: DNA-based dosimetry. Electromagn Biol Med. 2012 Jun 7 (Epub ahead of print).Cai L, Tabata H, Kawai T “Self-assembled DNA networks and their electrical conductivity” Appl Phys Lett 2000;77:3105-3116

Çam ST, Seyhan N. “Single-strand DNA breaks in human hair root cells exposed to mobile phone radiation”. Int J Radiat Biol 2012;88:420-4.

Giese B. “Long-distance electron transfer through DNA.” Annu Rev Biochem. 2002;71:51-70.

Goodman R, Lin H, Ye L et al “EM field induced markers as delineators of interaction mechanisms” Proc Bioelectromagnetics Soc. Quebec City, Canada, June, 2002

Kumar S, Kesari KK, Behari J. Evaluation of genotoxic effects in male Wistar rats following microwave exposure. Indian J Exp Biol. 2010;48:586-92.

Kratochvílová I, Todorciuc T, Král K et al “Charge transport in DNA oligonucleotides with various base-pairing patterns.” J Phys Chem B. 2010;114:5196-205.

Krishna S, Boren SA, and E. Andrew Balas EA “Healthcare via Cell Phones: A Systematic Review” Telemedicine and e-Health 2009;15:231-240 

Rein G. “Utilization of a new in-vitro bioassay to quantify the effects of conscious intention of healing-arts practitioners” In: The Science of Whole Person Healing, Vol 2. Roy R (ed), Iuniverse Inc, Lincoln, NE, p222-236.

Semin IuA, Shvartsburg LK, Dubovik BV. “Changes in the secondary structure of DNA under the influence of external low-intensity electromagnetic field”. Radiats Biol Radioecol 1995;35:36-41.

Syldona M. Reducing the in-vitro electromagnetic field effect of cellular phones on human DNA and the intensity of their emitted radiation. Acupunct Electrother Res. 2007;32:1-14.

Treo EF, Felice CJ “Non-linear dielectric spectroscopy of microbiological suspensions.” Biomed Eng Online 2009;8:19-28.

Zikic R, Krstić PS, Zhang XG et al. Characterization of the tunneling conductance across DNA bases.   Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys. 2006 Jul;74(1 Pt 1):011919.










..






INNOVATIVE BIOPHYSICAL TECHNOLOGIES