A brief introduction to internet discussions regarding the facts that electrical emissions are involved with cancer and a group of other diseases. *

Pertinent information that surfaced in the internet survey that was prompted by the key case, described in Essay 1 on this website, is being presented briefly here.
     Three “giants” regarding electrical emissions surfaced.       
     The first “giant” is Dr. David Carpenter.(1)  He was originally hired by industries to deny electrical emission dangers.  His studies convinced him that dangers indeed were present.  He then organized and became head of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University of Albany in Rensselaer, New York.  He contacted the top investigators in the world and they, as a group, put together   a definitive report that establishes, without a doubt, that in some instances electrical emissions are involved not only in childhood leukemia, as well as in a host of other serious diseases.(1)  The report has 122 references that make this point. I submit that when interested readers studied this report and its key references that they will share his and my concern in regard to this problem.(1)
*In this discussion emissions due to electrical flow and magnetic fields are lumped together.
     The abstract of Dr. Carpenter article follows:
     “Electrical fields (EMF) permeate our environment, coming both from such natural sources as the sun and from man-made sources like electricity, communication technologies and medical devices.  Although life on earth would not be possible without sunlight, increasing evidence indicates that exposures to the magnetic fields associated with electricity and to communication frequencies associated with radio, television, WiFi technology, and mobile cellular phones pose significant hazards to human health.  The evidence is strongest for leukemia from electricity-frequency fields and for brain tumors from communication-frequency fields, yet evidence is emerging for an association with other diseases as well, including neurodegenerative diseases.  Some uncertainty remains as to the mechanism(s) responsible for these biological effects, and as to which components of the fields are of greatest importance.  Nevertheless, regardless of whether the associations are causal, the strengths of the associations are sufficiently strong that in the opinion of the authors, taking action to reduce exposures is imperative, especially for the fetus and children.  Inaction is not compatible with the Precautionary Principle, as enunciated by the Rio Declaration.  Because of ubiquitous exposure, the rapidly expanding development of new EMF technologies and the long latency for the development of such serious diseases as brain cancers, the failure to take immediate action risks epidemics of potentially fatal diseases in the future.”  The references in this article are well worth studying.
     The second “giant” that surfaced is Dr. Sam Milham, a retired distinguished member of the United States Public Health Service.  Dr. Milham has been studying electrical emissions for many years. 
     When some teachers in California approached him because they felt that they were suffering from an “epidemic” of cancer of the breast, he studied their school building and found that due to faulty wiring the teachers were being exposed to high levels of high frequency voltage transients (dirty power) which he was able to correlate with the “epidemic” of breast cancer.(2) 
     His extensive studies should convince an open minded reader that electrical emissions are in some instances related to cancer of the breast.(2)
     A remark by Dr. Milham during his appearance on ‘Larry King Live’ was “The consensus of the scientific community is that there is a real and direct danger from radio frequencies and power frequencies.”
     The third “giant” is Dr. H. Lai who is a distinguished professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering at the University of Washington, Seattle.(3)  He has been studying in vitro the effect of electrical emissions on cell types that are involved in many diseases.(3) The many effects that he has documented will suggest to interested investigators many methods to study in a surrogate manner diseases that may be caused by electrical emissions.(3,4)
Dr. Lai’s comments follow:
     “As described in a later section, we found that a single episode of RFR exposure increases DNA damage in brain cells of the rat.  Definitely, DNA damage in cells is cumulative.  Related to this is that various lines of evidence suggest that responses of the central nervous system to RFR could be a stress response [Lai, 1992; Lai et al., 1987a].  Stress effects are well known to cumulate over time and involve first adaptation and then an eventual break down of homeostatic processes when the stress persists.  Since nerve cells do not divide and are not likely to become cancerous, more likely consequences of DNA damage in nerve cells are changes in functions and cell death, which could either lead to or accelerate the development of neurodegenerative diseases.  Double strands breaks, if not properly repaired, are known to lead to cell death.  Indeed, we have observed an increase in apoptosis (a form of cell death) in cells exposed to RFR (unpublished results).  However, these type of brain cells, the glial cells, can become cancerous, resulting from DNA damage.”
1.  The labeling of all electrical equipment should include a required SAR study (which determines the amount of energy absorbed by one kg tissue).(5,6)  Thus, when a possible untoward result from electrical emission occurs, the “dose” of electrical emissions received by a patient can be determined by multiplying the hours of exposure by the SAR determinations.(5)  This information will be helpful if it is included in the history of patients with acustic neuromas, childhood leukemia, Alzheimers disease, ALS, and in other types of cancer.(1,2)
2.  The levels of electrical emissions of all types that are permitted in electrical apparatus by law should be posted and in many instances lowered.  This of course was suggested in Dr. Carpenter’s seminal article.(1)
3.  In all the cases of cancer of the breast, the homes and work places of the patients should be tested for “dirty electricity” by the use of the meter developed by Dr. Milham which can be plugged it into any wall socket.(2)
4.  Surrogate in vitro studies as pioneered by Dr. Lai should be augmented by exposing in vitro cell cultures that are now becoming available to known dosages of electrical fields.  This will give a better idea of how much electrical exposure can be tolerated by these cells.  The cells involved in cancer neogenesis, ALS, and Alzheimer disease are good candidates for studies of this type.(4)  In the case of ALS, the astrocytes developed through stem cell research will be particularly good candidates for this type of study.(6)
5.  Human populations that, on a genetic basis, have increased sensitivity to electrical emissions should be identified.(7)  The classic example of this is the genetic disease Ataxia Telangiectasia.(7-9)  This is described in more detail in Essays 3 in this series.
6.  Clinical observers who come across patients who may have been damaged by electrical emissions should continue to share their observations with their colleagues through the internet and case reports in the peer reviewed medical literature.
7.  Warnings regarding the use of electrical devices by thoughtful professional observers should be heeded by us all.  These have been published by government agencies around the world.
     A series of warnings regarding the use of cell phones put out by Dr. Haberman, the head of the cancer center at the University of Pittsburgh, should be of particular interest to all parents and grandparents.(10)



1.  Carpenter D., Sage C.: Setting Prudent Public Health Policy for Electromagnetic
     Field Exposure. 
     Reviews for Environmental Health 2008 23 91-112

2.  Milham G. and Morgan LL.: A New Electric Magnetic Exposure Meter.  High
     Frequency Voltage Transients Associated with Increase in Cancer Incidence in
     Teachers in California.
     AM I. Med – Published on line www.intersciencewiley.com 1-5

3.  Lai H.: Vienna report on RFR bioeffects 1999

4.  Silva A, Bragy A, Ciammole A et al
     Motor Nerve Cultures as a Model to Study ALS
     J. Neurol. Suppliment ISSN 0939-1517

5.  Miller, A.: RF Exposure: SAR standards and Test Methods 2003

6.  Bruijn L.  Testimony before Congress on ALS

7.  Great Plains Laboratory - Discussion of Ataxia Telangiectasia

8.  Koo, CM, Tang W, Hehell - et al High Frequency and Error Prone DNA
     Recombination Ataxia Telangiectasia Illnesses.
     J. Biol Chem. 196 4497-4503


9.  Determination of A-T Gene Sequences
     John Hopkins DNA Diagnostic laboratory
     CMSC 600 Wolf Street
     Baltimore, Maryland  21287
     (see details in Essay 4)

10.  Haberman R.  The Case for Precautions in the Use of Cell Phones – Advice from
       the University Of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute  2008


View our Notice of Privacy Practices


THIS WEBSITE DOES NOT PROVIDE MEDICAL ADVICE. The contents of the Waisbren Clinic website, such as text, graphics, images, and other material contained on the Waisbren Clinic website ("Content") are for informational purposes only. The Content is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read on the Waisbren Clinic website! If you think you may have a medical emergency, call your doctor or 911 immediately. Reliance on any information provided by the Waisbren Clinic, Waisbren Clinic employees, or other visitors to the website is solely at your own risk.

About the Waisbren Clinic | About Dr. Waisbren | Essays and Information

Back to Top | Contact Us


Dr. Waisbren

The Waisbren Clinic
201 North Mayfair Road
Suite 510
Wauwatosa, WI 53226