UVR-Induced Vitamin D:

he Elephant Sitting In The Living Room—Part V Is FM Broadcast Radiation

References

This is the final installment of a series of articles that discuss the what, where, when, how and why reasons that vitamin D is so important to the health and welfare of Americans. Please check out the first four installments of the series in the June, July, August and September issues, respectively, or view them online at www.lookingfit.com. 

Author’s Note: While reading this article keep in mind that 1) the only way the American public can safely attain and maintain an optimal (150 nmol/L) blood level of vitamin D is through routine sensible, moderate and responsible UVR exposure, ideally at an indoor tanning salon, and 2) the primary “barrier” to doing so for most people is the fear of developing Cutaneous Malignant Melanoma (CMM).

The elephant sitting in the living room is that, while everyone knows that the majority of the American public is vitamin D deficient/insufficient— and as shown by the article titled “The Miracle Vitamin” in the August 2006 issue of Reader’s Digest,— their health and welfare would be improved if they attained/maintained an optimal level of vitamin D, people are afraid to expose their bodies to UVR because they fear that doing so will cause CMM.

This article brings to the attention of the indoor tanning industry, for the first time, a ubiquitous environmental agent—frequency modulation (FM) broadcast radiation—that we believe (and the scientific evidence reveals) is the “real culprit” that has induced the recent increase in the incidence of CMM. Hopefully, this information will cause all entities that sincerely want to reduce the incidence of CMM to stop blaming this increase on UVR and instead, call for a thorough investigation of the role played by FM broadcast radiation.

If you ask a card-carrying member of the dermatology community what induces CMM you will get the “knee-jerk” answer—ultraviolet radiation (UVR)—notwithstanding the inconvenient fact that there is nothing but the flimsiest of epidemiological evidence supporting this false, deceptive and unsubstantiated claim.

A recent article by Wang, et al, showed that while there are “UVB-induced chromatid breaks” leading to Squamous Cell Carcinoma (SCC) and Basal Cell Carcinoma (BCC), there were no UVR-induced chromatid breaks leading to CMM which lead the authors to conclude that “UVB-induced mutagen sensitivity may play a role insusceptibility to Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer (MNSC) but not to CMM. ¹

Moreover, an article by DeFabo, et al, showed that UVA (UVA1 and UVA2) does not induce CMM in mice specifically bred to develop a “human-like” version and that UVB only can induce CMM in “embryo” mice three days old (or less) that have not yet developed a protective immune defense system and only then at dose levels much higher than would be experienced in either sunlight or a tanning device. ²

In addition, articles by Gallagher and Berwick show that routine sunscreen use does not prevent CMM (as you would expect if UVR was involved)—another inconvenient fact that the dermatology community chooses to ignore. ^3-4

[Note: The dermatology community and the sunscreen industry now are recommending the use of sunscreens containing additives that absorb UVA photons. Either they are willfully ignoring or woefully ignorant of the fact that the longer UVA wavelengths (320 nm-400 nm) are immuno-stimulatory (i.e., they stimulate our immune defense system) and, therefore, using products that absorb UVA photons may result in the “unintended consequence” of compromising (weakening) the human immune defense system.]

Before any “CMM-inducing environmental agent” (i.e., an environmental cause of CMM) can be deemed responsible for the rapid increase in the incidence of CMM, the data must satisfactorily answer the following five questions. Keep in mind that UVR overexposure (chronic or intermittent) does not provide satisfactory answers to these questions.

1. Why are most CMMs found on areas of the body not exposed to UVR?
2. Why did the rapid increase in CMMs begin at different times in different countries?
3. Why has there been a rapid increase in some countries and not in other countries?
4. Why is there a higher-incidence rate in people born before 1945 than in those born later?
5. Why, prior to 1945,was more than 80 percent of CMMs found on UVR-exposed areas of the body, while after 1945 only 10 percent to 15 percent of the CMMs were found on UVR-exposed areas of the body?

A few years ago Orjan Hallberg, a brilliant scientist at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, realized that something happened between 1950-1960 (the actual start time varied on a country-by-country basis) to cause a rapid increase in the incidence of CMM. After much research he came to the conclusion that body-resonant frequency modulation (FM) broadcast radiation was the only “environmental agent” that satisfactorily answered all of the questions listed above. Moreover, and very importantly, he concluded that neither acute nor intermittent UVR overexposure satisfactorily answered these questions.

Hallberg and his associates have published a number of articles in respected scientific journals explaining how and why they concluded that body-resonant FM radiation induces CMM. ^5-9

Other authors also have published scientific articles that contribute to the understanding of this important subject. ^10-16

For readers who don’t want to take the time to wade through all of this complex technical data, the following background information summary is provided in order to help you better understand this important health issue.

FM Broadcast Radiation

FM broadcast radiation modulates the frequency of the signal and is better known as a “high fidelity” or “stereo” radio/TV signal as compared to amplitude modulation (AM) broadcast radiation that modulates the amplitude of the signal and is known as a “low fidelity” or “mono” radio/TV signal.

According to recent Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Fact Book, there are more than 10,000 FM radio/TV stations in the United States, which means we all are exposed to multiple locations emitting these electromagnetic spectrum wavelengths. ¹⁷

Yes, the increase in CMM incidence is proportional to the number of FM radio/TV stations broadcasting in a given area. The addition of one radio/TV station in an area triples the incidence of CMM over the baseline level (i.e., no radio/TV station); two stations increases the incidence six-fold; three stations increases the incidence by 7.5 times; four stations increases the incidence by 9.2 times; and five stations or more increases the incidence by 10 times over the baseline number of CMM cases, which is about 10 percent to 15 percent of the total number of cases reported.

FM radio/TV stations utilize frequencies of 87.8-108 MHz with each “channel” (station) occupying 0.2 MHz. Unfortunately, it turns out that the human body is a good FM receptor and has a “FM resonance frequency” equal to a “body-mass antenna” of approximately 3 feet 6 inches to 4 feet 6 inches, which corresponds to the arms, legs and main body area of an adult and/or the full body of a teenager. As stated by Hallberg, “FM resonance is highest in the central parts of the body where melanoma of the skin is predominately found.” ¹¹

The “critical age” is 13 for females and 15 for males because this is the age where the “critical height” of 4 feet 6 inches to 5 feet 6 inches tall is reached that corresponds to the “total body mass” required for optimal “body resonance” to an FM signal.

The exact biological mechanism whereby FM broadcast radiation induces CMM is not known. However, we believe that the available evidence points to a perturbation in cellular signaling that results in either a) the degradation/inactivation of the immune defense system; b) a reduction in the “repair capacity” of affected cells; c) an increase in cellular temperature; d) the impact of long-term “vibration” of the cells (melanocytes) involved in the development of CMM; e) suboptimal vitamin D levels; or f) a combination of these factors.

Since FM radio/TV stations operate 24 hours a day and the signal transmission is horizontal to the ground, the most critical period is at night while you sleep.

The answer to this question is easy to understand because different countries “adopted” FM broadcast radiation in the 87.8-108 MHz range at different times. For instance, the Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland) adopted FM broadcast radiation between 1953-1955, while the widespread adoption in the United States didn’t occur until 1965-1967. Note: The first FM transmitters were in Connecticut and the earliest recorded increase in the incidence of CMM also occurred there. ^18-19

Given the “lag time” of FM-induced CMM of approximately six to 10 years, these respective “FM transmitter start-up dates” help to explain why the rapid increase in CMM incidence occurred within a decade after the introduction of 87.8-108 MHz FM transmitters.

Why Do People Born Before 1945 Have A Higher CMM Incidence Rate Than Those Born After 1945?

Once again, the answer to this question is easy to understand because everyone born after the date that FM broadcast radiation transmitters were widely adopted have been exposed to these wavelengths their entire lives, while those born before this date were not exposed during their critical teenage years.

This fact “explains”why the highest increase in the incidence of CMM today is in individuals who are 60 years of age or older and why their CMM incidence rate won’t “match” those born after 1945 until they are 80 years of age.

According to Hallberg, an inexpensive precaution is to turn one’s bed into the weakest reception of the horizontal FM signal. He also suggested that FM transmitters be shut down at night in one or more Nordic countries in order to see if this would make a difference over time. This suggestion makes a lot of sense. ^{5, 20}

In addition, radio/TV stations could voluntarily could agree to change from 87.8-108 MHz to a lower frequency (<70 MHz) that has been shown to have less potential to induce CMM.

The latest scientific evidence shows that the rapid increase in the incidence of CMM is not caused by UVR; rather it shows that FM broadcast radiation is the most likely cause and, therefore, it is a waste of time and resources to keep blaming UVR for this increase.

All individuals and entities who truly want to reduce the incidence of CMM should immediately demand that that Congress appropriate funding to research organizations that can help confirm whether FM broadcast radiation is, in fact, the “real culprit” inducing the dramatic increase in CMM incidence.

• It is highly doubtful that the “closed minds” in the dermatology community will help because this information will cause its sun (UVR) avoidance and slather on a sunscreen every day of the year no matter the season “message” to be (correctly) seen to be false, deceptive and misleading.
• It is also highly doubtful that the “closed minds” in the FM radio/TV industry will help because this information would make it necessary to a) quit transmitting at night, and b) change their transmission frequency from 87.8-108 MHz to a lower and less-damaging frequency.
• It is even more doubtful that the “closed minds” in the sunscreen industry will help because this information would be seen as having the potential to reduce sales of their products.

Therefore, only a widespread “public demand” will cause the government to take action and that is where YOU come in. Take the time to make copies of this article and send them to a) all of your local media outlets with the request that they bring this important information to the attention of their readers/viewers/listeners, and b) all of your local, state and federal elected officials.

If enough members of the indoor tanning industry take the time do so, the resultant “grassroots” movement will help encourage Congress to take action that will benefit all Americans. Remind them in your cover letter a) that it is important to have an “open mind” regarding whether FM broadcast radiation is the “real culprit” causing the dramatic increase in CMM incidence, and b) that continuing to blame this increase on ultraviolet radiation, given the lack of valid scientific evidence, indicates a “closed mind” that is counterproductive. Challenge them to put the health and welfare of the American public ahead of any other consideration.

Patricia E. Reykdal owns and operates four tanning salons in Tucson, Ariz., and her husband, Donald L. Smith, is director of research of the Non-Ionizing Radiation Research Institute. Together, they have written more than 200 articles promoting sensible, moderate and responsible exposure to ultraviolet radiation. You can e-mail them your comments or questions to reyksmith@aol.com. 

1. Wang, L, et al. “In Vitro Sensitivity to Ultraviolet B Light and skin Cancer Risk: A Case- Control Analysis”. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Vol. 97 No. 24, December 21, 2005.

2. De Fabo, E, et al. “Ultraviolet B but not Ultraviolet A Radiation Initiates Melanoma.” Cancer Research. Vol. 54. pp. 6372-6376. September 15, 2004.

3. Gallagher, R. “Sunscreens in melanoma and skin cancer prevention.” CMAJ. 244-245, August, 2005.

4. Berwick, M.. “Sunscreens and skin cancer”. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Annual Meeting, February 17, 1998.

5. Hallberg, O, et al. “Melanoma Incidence and Frequency Modulation (FM) Broadcasting”. Archives of Environmental Health. Vol. 57 (No. 1) January/February, 2002.

6. Hallberg, O, et al. “Malignant melanoma of the skin—not a sunshine story!”. Medical Science Monitor. 10(7) 336-340; 2004.

7. Hallberg, O, et al. “FM Broadcasting Exposure Time and Malignant Melanoma Incidence”. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. 24: 1-8, 2005.

8. Hallberg, O. “Increasing Incidence of malignant melanoma of skin can be modeled as a response to suddenly imposed environmental stress”. Medical Science Monitor. 11(10) 457-461; 2005.

9. Hallberg, O. “A theory and model to explain the skin melanoma epidemic”. Melanoma Research. Vol. 16, No. 2, 2006.

10. Ahlbom, A, et al. “Epidemiology of Health Effects of Radiofrequency Exposure”. Environmental Health Perspectives. Vol. 112, No. 17; December, 2004.

11. Gallus, S, et al. “Anthropometric measures and risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma: a case-control study from Italy”. Melanoma Research. 16: 83-87, 2006.

12. Tynes, T, et al. “Residential and occupational exposure to 50 Hz magnetic fields and malignant melanoma: a population based study”. Occupational & Environmental Medicine. 60 343-347, 2003.

13. Pazur, A. “Characterisation of weak magnetic field effects in an aqueous glutamic acid solution by nonlinear dielectric spectroscopy and voltammetry”. BioMagnetic Research and Technology. 2.8, Vol. 10, 1-11, 2004.

14. Takashima, S, et al. “Dielectric Behavior of DNA Solution at Radio and Microwave Frequencies (At 20¯ C)”. Biophysical Journal. Vol. 46, 29-34, July, 1984.

15. Goldsmith, J. “Epidemiologic Evidence Relevant to Radar (Microwave) Effects”. Environmental Health Perspectives. Vol. 105, 1579-1587, December, 1997.

16. Vignati, M, et al. “Radiofrequency Exposure Near High-Voltage Lines”. Environmental Health Perspectives. Vol. 105, 1569-1573, December, 1997.

17. Central Intelligence Agency: The World Factbook. 2006.

18. Chen, Y, et al. “Malignant melanoma incidence in Connecticut (United States): time trends and age-period-cohort modeling by anatomic site”. Cancer Causes and Control. Vol. 5, 1994.

19. Roush, G, et al. “Time Period Compared to Birth Cohort in Connecticut Incidence Rates for Twenty-Five Malignant Neoplasms”. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Vol. 74, 1985.

20. Hallberg, O. “Personal communications”, 2006.

Share this article: Email, Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Yahoo!MyWeb, Windows Live Favorites, Furl
Add this article feed to: RSS, My Yahoo, Newsgator, Bloglines

Read Comments [0]