Common Source of Wireless “WiFi” Radiation Affects Human Cells – Especially Kids – Korean Gov’t Study

There is actually quite a bit of research that has already determined that exposure to various sources of Electromagnetic Radiation (aka “Electrosmog”) is harmful to human health.  Electrosmog” includes common sources of wireless like WiFi, 5G, Bluetooth, and cell phone radiation.  

The Korean Government funded a study which also suggests that exposure to a commonly used wireless frequency can impact us – especially children.

From Environmental Health Trust:

Continuous Exposure to 1.7 GHz LTE Electromagnetic Fields Increases Intracellular Reactive Oxygen Species to Decrease Human Cell Proliferation and Induce Senescence. Choi, J., Min, K., Jeon, S. et al.  Scientific Reports 2020

The journal Scientific Reports published a new study (Choi, J., Min, K., Jeon, S. et al. 2020) exposing human cells to 1.7 GHz LTE. The findings of effects “suggests that the exposure to 1.7 GHz LTE RF-EMF would be more harmful to children, whose adult stem cells should be very active for growth and may accelerate the aging of body cells.”  The authors clarify that “It is not plausible to directly predict the physiological effects of 1.7 GHz LTE RF-EMF from our cell-based study.”

1.7 GHz is the same as 1700 MHz and this spectrum is used by several companies. 

In 2014, the  Federal Communications Commission (Commission) adopted rules governing use of spectrum in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz bands to make available significantly more commercial spectrum for Advanced Wireless Services.

“Due to the rapid development of mobile phone technology, we are continuously exposed to 1.7 GHz LTE radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs), but their biological effects have not been clarified. Here, we investigated the non-thermal cellular effects of these RF-EMFs on human cells, including human adipose tissue-derived stem cells (ASCs), Huh7 and Hep3B liver cancer stem cells (CSCs), HeLa and SH-SY5Y cancer cells, and normal fibroblast IMR-90 cells. When continuously exposed to 1.7 GHz LTE RF-EMF for 72 h at 1 and 2 SAR, cell proliferation was consistently decreased in all the human cells. The anti-proliferative effect was higher at 2 SAR than 1 SAR and was less severe in ASCs. The exposure to RF-EMF for 72 h at 1 and 2 SAR did not induce DNA double strand breaks or apoptotic cell death, but did trigger a slight delay in the G1 to S cell cycle transition. Cell senescence was also clearly observed in ASC and Huh7 cells exposed to RF-EMF at 2 SAR for 72 h. Intracellular ROS increased in these cells and the treatment with an ROS scavenger recapitulated the anti-proliferative effect of RF-EMF. These observations strongly suggest that 1.7 GHz LTE RF-EMF decrease proliferation and increase senescence by increasing intracellular ROS in human cells.”

The paper concludes that

“Altogether, this study as well as other studies strongly suggest that RF-EMF exposure leads to a change in intracellular ROS levels that may result in genotoxic stress, decreased proliferation and cell senescence, or no physiological effects depending on ROS concentration and the differential sensitivity of various cells to ROS. Thus, the mechanism behind RF-EMF exposure altering intracellular ROS levels should be further studied to elucidate the biological effects of RF-EMFs.”

“It is not plausible to directly predict the physiological effects of 1.7 GHz LTE RF-EMF from our cell-based study. However, the anti-proliferative effect of 1.7 GHz LTE RF-EMF on various human cells in this study suggests that the exposure to 1.7 GHz LTE RF-EMF would be more harmful to children, whose adult stem cells should be very active for growth and may accelerate the aging of body cells. We also carefully suggest that the anti-proliferative effect of various cancer cells by 1.7 GHz LTE RF-EMF would be interpreted with care, considering that both positive and negative effects of RF-EMF have been reported on cancer development.”

This work was supported by the Bio & Medical Technology Development Program of the National Research Foundation (NRF) funded by the Korean government (MSIT) [No. NRF-2016M3A9C6918275], and by Korea Mobile EMF consortium. J. Choi was partially supported by Brain Korea (BK) 21 PLUS of 2018~2019.

Choi, J., Min, K., Jeon, S. et al. Continuous Exposure to 1.7 GHz LTE Electromagnetic Fields Increases Intracellular Reactive Oxygen Species to Decrease Human Cell Proliferation and Induce Senescence. Sci Rep 10, 9238 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-65732-4

Environmental Health Trust notes:

Cancer epidemiology update, following the 2011 IARC evaluation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields” published in Environmental Research is a comprehensive research review of RF effects in human and animal research which concludes that scientific evidence is now adequate to conclude radiofrequency radiation is carcinogenic to humans (Miller, 2018). Several previously published studies also concluded that RF causes various types of cancer, for example, Carlberg & Hardell, 2017 published in BioMed Research InternationalAtzman et al., 2016 published in the International Journal Cancer Clinical Research; and Peleg et al., 2018 published in Environmental Research.

2018 study published in Annals of Telecommunications found increased RF-EMF exposure from small cell LTE networks in two urban cities in France and the Netherlands. Researchers measured the RF-EMF from LTE (Long-Term Evolution) MC (macro cells meaning large cell towers) and SC networks (low-powered small cell base stations)  and found that the small cell networks increased the radio emissions from base stations (called downlink) by a factor of 7–46  while decreasing the radio emissions from user equipment exposure (called ) by a factor of 5–17. So while the devices themselves could emit less radiation, the cell antennas increased the levels from cell antennas (Mazloum et al., 2019).

Published in Bio Electro Magnetics, a 2018 double‐blind, crossover, randomized, and counterbalanced design study about the modulation of brain functional connectivity by exposure to 4G LTE cell phone radiation found that acute LTE‐EMF exposure did modulate connectivity in some brain regions.The authors conclude that, “Our results may indicate that approaches relying on network‐level inferences can provide deeper insights into the acute effects of LTE‐EMF exposure with intensities below the current safety limits on human functional connectivity. In the future, we need to investigate the evolution of the effect over time” (Wei et al., 2018).

Read more research on wireless radiation at https://ehtrust.org/scientific-research-on-5g-and-health/

Your DNA is Not your Destiny — or a Good Predictor of Your Health

In most cases, your genes have less than five per cent to do with your risk of developing a particular disease, according to new research by University of Alberta scientists.

In the largest meta-analysis ever conducted, scientists have examined two decades of data from studies that examine the relationships between common gene mutations, also known as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), and different diseases and conditions. And the results show that the links between most human diseases and genetics are shaky at best.

“Simply put, DNA is not your destiny, and SNPs are duds for disease prediction,” said David Wishart, professor in the University of Alberta’s Department of Biological Sciences and the Department of Computing Science and co-author on the study. “The vast majority of diseases, including many cancers, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s disease, have a genetic contribution of 5 to 10 per cent at best.”

The study also highlights some notable exceptions, including Crohn’s disease, celiac disease, and macular degeneration, which have a genetic contribution of approximately 40 to 50 per cent.

“Despite these rare exceptions, it is becoming increasingly clear that the risks for getting most diseases arise from your metabolism, your environment, your lifestyle, or your exposure to various kinds of nutrients, chemicals, bacteria, or viruses,” explained Wishart.

Wishart and his research collaborators suggest that measuring metabolites, chemicals, proteins, or the microbiome provides a much more accurate measure of human disease risk and are also more accurate for diagnosis. The findings fly in the face of many modern gene testing businesses models, which suggest that gene testing can accurately predict someone’s risk for disease.

“The bottom line is that if you want to have an accurate measure of your health, your propensity for disease or what you can do about it, it’s better to measure your metabolites, your microbes or your proteins — not your genes,” added Wishart. “This research also highlights the need to understand our environment and the safety or quality of our food, air, and water.”

Journal Reference:

  1. Jonas Patron, Arnau Serra-Cayuela, Beomsoo Han, Carin Li, David Scott Wishart. Assessing the performance of genome-wide association studies for predicting disease riskPLOS ONE, 2019; 14 (12): e0220215 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220215

Source: Science Daily

Researchers discover how cells know their future and forget their past

(Science Daily) Stem cells all share the potential of developing into any specific cell in the body. Many researchers are therefore trying to answer the fundamental questions of what determines the cells’ developmental fate as well as when and why the cells lose the potential of developing into any cell.

Now, researchers from the Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Stem Cell Biology (DanStem) at University of Copenhagen have discovered how stem cells can lose this potential and thus can be said to “forget their past.” It turns out that the proteins called transcription factors play another role than the scientists thought. For 30 years, the dogma has been that transcription factors are the engines of gene expression, triggering these changes by switching the genes on and off. However, new research results published in Nature reveal something quite different.

“We previously thought that transcription factors drive the process that determines whether a gene is expressed and subsequently translated into the corresponding protein. Our new results show that transcription factors may be more analogous to being the memory of the cell. As long as the transcription factors are connected to a gene, the gene can be read (turned on), but the external signals received by the cells seem to determine whether the gene is turned on or off. As soon as the transcription factors are gone, the cells can no longer return to their point of origin,” explains Josh Brickman, Professor and Group Leader, DanStem, University of Copenhagen.

The question of how a cell slowly develops from one state to another is key to understanding cell behavior in multicellular organisms. Stem cell researchers consider this vital, which is why they are constantly trying to refine techniques to develop the human body’s most basic cells into various specific types of cells that can be used, for example, to regenerate damaged tissue. So far, however, investigating the signals required to make cells switch identity has been extremely difficult, since making all the cells in a dish do the same thing at the same time is very difficult.

A protein centered viewpoint

The researchers developed a stem cell model to mimic a cell’s response to signaling and used it to, for first time, precisely determine the sequence of the events involved in a gene being turned on and off in response to a signal in stem cells. The researchers were able to describe how genes are turned on and off and under what circumstances a cell can develop in a certain direction but then elect to return to the starting-point.

Part of this work involved measuring how proteins in a cell are modified by phosphorylation using advanced mass spectrometry available through an important collaboration with Jesper Olsen’s Group at the Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research.

“Combining forces with the Olsen group in the CPR enabled us to provide a unique deep description of how individual proteins in a cell react to signals from the outside,” continues Josh Brickman.

New answers to old scientific questions

These results are surprising. Although the sequence of cell transcription processes could not previously be measured as accurately as in this study, the dogma was that transcription factors comprise the on-off switch that is essential to initiate transcription of the individual gene. This is not so for embryonic stem cells and potentially for other cell types.

“Transcription factors are still a key signal, but they do not drive the process, as previously thought. Once they are there, the gene can be read, and they remain in place for a while after the gene is read. And when they are gone, the window in which the gene can be read can be closed again. You can compare it with the vapour trails you see in the sky when an airplane has passed. They linger for a while but slowly dissipate again,” explains first author, William Hamilton, Assistant Professor at DanStem.

This discovery is first and foremost basic knowledge, which changes fundamental assumptions in molecular biology. The new results are especially important for researchers working on stem cells and cancer biology. They provide new insight into how cells develop, how pathways involved in development determine when cells change, and when the point of no return is reached. These pathways are also found frequently mutated in cancer and the findings in this study will be valuable to the study of malignant development.

“In the project, we focused on the fibroblast growth factor (FGF)-extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) signalling pathway, which is a signalling pathway from a receptor on the surface of a cell to DNA inside the cell nucleus. This pathway is dysregulated in many types of cancer, and we therefore hope that many of the data in this study will help to inform aspects of cancer biology by indicating new ways to specifically target this signalling pathway in cancer cells,” concludes Josh Brickman.

Story Source:

Study: Vaccines Found to be Deliberately Formulated with Hundreds of Cancer Genes to Ensure Repeat Business for Big Pharma

Groundbreaking research out of Italy has uncovered shocking new details about the aborted human fetal cell lines that are used in many of today’s childhood vaccines.

As reported by Children’s Health Defense (CHD), a group known as Corvelva discovered that the original MRC-5 aborted baby cell line from which vaccines are still made today is derived from the entire human genome of an aborted male baby with “abnormal” genes.

As it turns out, some 560 of these abnormal genes have been linked to cancer, suggesting that a person’s cancer risk increases every time he or she is injected with yet another vaccine that contains this tainted MRC-5 aborted baby cell line.

In case you’re unfamiliar with MRC-5, this cell line is still being used in vaccines like the MMRV, which is manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), as well as in Twinrix (for Hepatitis A and B), Proquad (another MMRV vaccine), and Varivax (for varicella and chicken pox).

While it was already known that this MRC-5 cell line came from aborted fetal tissue, what was not known is that it came from a single male baby – and with some serious health problems, no less.

“The fetal human DNA represented in this vaccine is a complete individual genome, that is, the genomic DNA of all the chromosomes of an individual is present in the vaccine,” CHD explains about this new revelation.

“The human genomic DNA contained in this vaccine is clearly, undoubtedly abnormal, presenting important inconsistencies with a typical human genome, that is, with that of a healthy individual.”

The public health consequences of MRC-5’s cancer-causing genes remains unknown

As for the 560 cancer-causing genes in MRC-5, the Corvelva research team found that these also have many variations for which the consequences remain unknown, “not yet appearing in the literature, but which still affect genes involved in the induction of human cancer,” CHP reveals.

In other words, nobody knows how these genetic variations are affecting people because they’ve apparently never been studied – and yet, we’re all supposed to believe that all vaccines are 100 percent safe and effective?

MRC-5 isn’t the only aborted fetal cell line in vaccines that’s problematic, either. According to Corvelva’s inquiry, WI-38, another aborted fetal cell line, is similarly problematic. And both MRC-5 and WI-38, it turns out, have no upper limits when it comes to the amount of them that are allowed in vaccine material.

Since the time when MRC-5 and WI-38 first started being used in vaccines around the 1960s, testing protocols have changed. But the reference literature for their use hasn’t been updated for about 40 years, until now.

Using Next NGS methodology in its metagenomic analysis, Corvelva compiled the data that drug companies and the federal government should have already compiled years ago, especially before deciding to add increasingly more vaccines to the official schedule.

So what does this all mean in practical terms? It means that vaccines today contain potentially tumorigenic materials that could cause people who receive them to develop cancer. Not only that, but the safety guidelines that correspond with these vaccines are woefully outdated and entirely inadequate in light of this revelation.

“What’s clear from this genetic sequencing is that the vaccine industry is inoculating children with engineered cancer,” contends Mike Adams, the Health Ranger.

“As CHD explains, the vaccines are deliberately formulated with cancer-causing genes which have been specifically modified to promote cancer tumors … Not only is this cancer-ridden genetic code inserted into all these vaccines given to children, but the dose of the cancer-infected DNA is dangerously high.”

Source: Vaccine.news

Study Says Even ‘Safe’ Drinking Water Poses Cancer Risk

A new report from an environmental advocacy watchdog group cautions that carcinogenic products in tap water may altogether increase cancer risk for thousands of U.S. residents over a lifetime.

In a peer-reviewed study published in the journal Heliyon Thursday, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) found that 22 carcinogens commonly found in tap water — including arsenic, byproducts of water disinfectants and radionuclides such as uranium and radium — could cumulatively result in over 100,000 cancer cases over the span of a lifetime.

Although most tap water meets legal standards set by the federal government, EWG researchers found that contaminates present in tap water create a measurable risk for cancer.

“The vast majority of community water systems meet legal standards,” said Olga Naidenko, the vice president for science investigations at EWG, in a statement. “Yet the latest research shows that contaminants present in the water at those concentrations — perfectly legal — can still harm human health.”

An earlier study conducted by EWG found that a cumulative analysis of contaminants in California tap water found heightened risk of cancer for 15,000.

Experts say that the risk of these carcinogens have been under debate for decades. They caution that the standards set for community water systems, which are regulated nationally by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), are complicated and require a balance between cost and safety.

Tap water not as safe as you think

The study, funded by the Park Foundation, compiled a list of 22 contaminants with carcinogenic risks present in 48,363 community water systems in the United States, which EWG estimates serve about 86% of the U.S. population. Based on a cumulative risk assessment, EWG found that per 10,000 people, four will have cancer over the span of the lifetime due to the contaminants in water.

“Drinking water contains complex mixtures of contaminants, yet government agencies currently assess the health hazards of tap water pollutants one by one,” said Sydney Evans, the lead author of the paper, in a statement. “In the real world, people are exposed to combinations of chemicals, so it is important that we start to assess health impacts by looking at the combined effects of multiple pollutants.”

The majority of water systems, they add, are in compliance with EPA standards. The EPA, in a statement to USA TODAY, said that legal limits are set for over 90 contaminants in drinking water.

EWG said that 87% of the cancer risk present in tap water comes from arsenic and byproducts of common disinfectants.

Long-term exposure to arsenic, per the World Health Organization, can cause skin cancer, as well as cancer of the bladder and the lungs. Meanwhile, byproducts of disinfectants have been classified by the NIH and EPA as known and possible human carcinogens that can cause liver and bladder cancer.

This study does not take into account the possible contaminants present in groundwater from private wells, nor does it take into account the heightened risk of carcinogens in vulnerable populations such as infants and children.

Clean water is complicated

In recent years, multiple crises, from Newark, New Jersey to Flint, Michigan have revealed the complications and failures in the management of public water systems, from the different water sources used by municipalities to the pipes that deliver water to homes.

The EPA regulates public drinking water under the Safe Drinking Water Act, which was enacted in 1974. It requires the EPA to set standards for contaminants through the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, which minimizes risk for contaminants.

A spokesperson with the EPA told USA TODAY that water regulations focus primarily on the contaminants that may cause the greatest public health risk.

The standard is splintered into two categories: the maximum contaminant level (MCL), which is enforceable by law and is less stringent, and the maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG), which is only a public health guideline.

For instance, the federally-mandated MCLG for arsenic is 0 micrograms per liter; however, the MCL is 10 micrograms per liter. Meanwhile, the EWG recommends that only four ten-thousandths of a microgram (0.0004 micrograms) of arsenic be allowed in water.

Prof. David Sedlak, a professor of environmental engineering at University of California, Berkeley, and the deputy director of the National Science Foundation-funded urban water research center ReNUWIt, says that regulations for drinking water in the United States are based on a complex balance between health risks from possible carcinogens and the cost of implementing new water cleaning systems.

Sedlak, who is not affiliated with the EWG study, told USA TODAY that arsenic and carcinogenic radionucleides such as radium are both naturally occurring in water systems. Setting the levels of regulation for these carcinogens especially challenging.

“For disinfectants,” he said, “they’ve been in scrutiny over the decades and it’s part of the reason why many cities have switched from chlorine to ozone.”

The Water Research Center says that using ozone water treatment in lieu of chlorine reduces the risk of chemicals leaching into water supplies.

What can be done?

EWG suggests installing a water filter that can remove contaminants found in an individual water source, but some suggested by the group that specifically remove arsenic can cost hundreds or thousands of dollars to purchase and install.

On a broader scale, experts advise solutions aimed at reducing the level of contaminants that are present in tap water.

“We need to prioritize source water protection, to make sure that these contaminants don’t get into the drinking water supplies to begin with,” Naidenko said in a statement.

Sedlak told USA TODAY that the technologies to remove carcinogenic substances from water do, in fact, exist. The biggest hurdle to implementing them, he said, is that they can be costly.

‘Is the Earth unique?’: First water detected on potentially ‘habitable’ planet

“Typically,” he said to USA TODAY, “these additional treatment processes are paid for by consumers — and in many cases, members of the public have been unwilling to see large rate increases in their water bills.”

The EPA agrees. In a handout on the EPA website explaining the Safe Drinking Water Act, it explains that water systems in America rely on community members to ensure that local water suppliers keep their water safe.

“The public is responsible for helping local water suppliers to set priorities, make decisions on funding and system improvements, and establish programs to protect drinking water sources,” the EPA writes.

“If people are aware of the health impacts (of tap water), they might be willing to pay more for water treatment,” said Sedlak. “But at this point, the EPA has made their decision.”

Source: USA Today