____________________________

The presentation includes:

Intro:

“There are polarized camps concerning the risks of electromagnetic radiation – one tells us that there is no way it can effect our bodies, that there is no scientific explanation, that is, no mechanism for how such an impact can come about. [They claim] cell phones, wifi and so one, cannot possibly have any health impacts. Each and every research study that shows harmful effects is discarded or discredited because of problems with methodology or because the findings cannot be possible as there is no mechanism.”

[Note: Dr. Pall answers that problem – he has identified the mechanism for electromagnetic radiation to harm biological beings – including all animals and plants.]

“The other end of the spectrum states there must be something, people say there must be something because “they feel it”. They are accused of being hypochondriacs or subject to placebo effects. They spend their lives hiding away from radiation. They  fight for health and self-esteem and against a toxin that cripples them and has longterm effects on them. The studies are discounted. This should not continue, let us listen to a person who has found what the mechanism is to address both camps.”

Dr. Martin Pall:
How can EMF’s effect our body?

Several of the points presented by Dr. Pall, paraphrased herein:

• Electromagnetic field (EMF) exposures act through activation of L-type voltage calcium channels. This leads to
  electromagnetic hypersensitivity and other impacts on health. You will see how all this fits together.

• Thousands of papers show biological effects outside the [current, international] safety standards. (1:06:05)

• Pulsed EMF’s are much more bio-active than non-pulsed fields – this has been known for 30 years.

• Substantial literature shows EMF’s activate the voltage regulated calcium channels [in our cells].

• All of the effects produced can be blocked by calcium channel blockers – drugs that block voltage-gated calcium channels.

•  [EMF exposure] allows calcium to flow into the cell – excess calcium in the cell is responsible for most of the biological effects. Lots of calcium in the cell produces then the changes. alot of effects are then produced; these are called downstream (indirect) effects, which occur along different pathways as well.

• The advocates of the current safety standards still claim “there is no biophysically viable mechanism for these weak field EMFs to produce non-thermal effects in our bodies”. They are simply wrong about that… You will, no doubt, see them making this claim, even after this, But it is simply a false claim.

• The finding that EMF exposure acts via the activation of VGCC ‘s provides for the first time, an answer to the puzzle of how these  EMF’s composed of low energy photons can affect our biology and medicine.

• It is the fields as a whole that are responsible for opening and closing these channels, not just the low energy photons that produce these effects.

• When you increase intracellular calcium, one of the things that happens, that is quite important, is that you increase the synthesis of nitric oxide (NO)… Two of the enzymes that make NO … are calcium dependent enzymes. They require elevated calcium … to produce NO.

• VGCC activation can act, in turn, to stimulate NO (nitric oxide) synthesis. Such NO increases may also have important effects, some effects occur independent of that.

• Arthur A. Pilla, researcher, recently showed that pulsed microwave frequency EMF’s could produce almost immediate increases in calcium, and also in NO synthesis, in less than five seconds. You measure the NO … increases are very quick. (Pilla AA, 2012)

• Most pathophysiological effects of NO are mediated through its role as a precursor of peroxynitrite (ONOO-), a potent oxidant, so it can produce a lot of oxidative damage … leading to free radical generation and oxidative and nitricative stress, which leads to depletion of antioxidants in the body, which can produce physiological effects as well.

• Calcium signalling can produce pathophysiological effects, apart from NO.

• Cancer  – EMF’s can produce single and double-strand DNA breaks, changes in cellular DNA; produced by elevated NO, peroxynitrite … How can cancer be produced? Look at how it is produced under other circumstances. Inflammatory carcinogenesis. When you have chronically inflamed tissues, there are higher rates of cancer in those tissues.

• Dr. Pall points out that EMF exposure can lead to infertility

• EMF’s cause the blood brain barrier to become permeable, allowing toxins in, impacting the brain

• In the Q & A period at the end, Dr. Pall confirms that some scientists feel that exposure to EMF’s (in addition to chemicals) may be responsible for the “Autism epidemic”.

• People asked, “What can we do now?”. Dr. Pall answered that they can try their best to avoid EMF’s and use shielding, when possible. Research must also be funded. Companies must make devices like computers and notebooks safer, shielding them.

• We know that excessive activity in these channels can cause autism. That doesn’t tell you that this is a general cause of Autism in the wider population… but there is some evidence that supports that view as well. There is an alternative explanation and that is chemical exposure. They both have roles. My opinion is that the EMF role is stronger than the chemical role, but I could be wrong. Whether it is a primary cause for the autism epidemic or the secondary cause, I don’t know.

• We have so many studies falsifying the ‘safety standards’, and these people are ignoring them. Thousands and thousands of studies, I mean it’s just incredible. (1:33:10)

• Our exposure to these fields is about 10 to the 10th times what we were exposed to in earlier human evolution. A huge increase in exposure. 10,000 million times now, keeps going up as new devices get introduced. To do this without any sense of the dangers makes no sense to me.(1:20:20 – 1:21:05)

• There is evidence that a wide range of organisms are negatively impacted by these fields. (1:12:16)

• All of the evidence supporting the thermal paradigm is of the weakest type.  On the other hand, there are thousands of studies of the strongest type that argue against it (the current safety standards). I see no substance… the whole thing [the thermal paradigm – the flawed  theory that heating is necessary to cause harm] is “dead”. How long its going to take before it actually “falls out” physically, I don’t know – but it will.” (1:06:41)

• Funding is needed for this. “[The research] desperately needs to be done.”

Note: Dr. Pall is not a medical doctor; he is a scientist and researcher. He specifically states this several times, and that none of his presentation should be considered medical advice. He believes that all of the above needs to be investigated further, and that studies should be funded to do so, worldwide.

CEP has done its best to accurately paraphrase some of Dr. Pall’s presentation above. Any errors are inadvertent, due to its technical nature.

If you would like to support this research, Dr. Pall can be contacted at pall (at) mail.wsu.edu

————————————————-

This link was sent to CEP by Dr. Olle Johansson, a medical doctor and researcher at the Karolinska Institute, in Sweden, who was present in the audience, and is heard speaking and answering some questions at the end of the session. I have spoken with both Dr. Pall and Dr. Johansson over the past decade on a number of occasions. They are both highly respected and  quite learned in the area of health and electromagnetic fields. Dr. Pall has also been an expert and researcher for many years on the related topic of Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, which he explains occurs together with ElectroHyperSensitivity (EHS), often, and why. We have heard from many people that this is so, particularly if they have a pre-existing condition from past mold or chemical exposures.