QuantaDose Press Releases

Introduction: “Thermal-Only” vs. Biological Reality

Below is a topical breakdown of the major points in the Héroux (2025) Heliyon article, “The Collision between Wireless and Biology.” We’ll focus particularly on why older, “thermal-only” arguments about electromagnetic radiation (EMR) safety are inadequate, and how more current science explains non-thermal (NTER) biological effects.

1. Introduction: “Thermal-Only” vs. Biological Reality

  • Traditional Guideline Assumption
    Regulatory bodies (IEEE, ICNIRP, etc.) have long used heat-based models—basically, they assume electromagnetic fields only harm tissue when they raise its temperature above normal physiology.
  • Industry’s Rationale
    1. Non-ionizing radiation (like radiofrequency or power-frequency fields) supposedly lacks enough energy to knock electrons off atoms (i.e., no ionization).
    2. The radiation’s energy is much smaller than the random thermal (kT) energy of molecules in the body.

Héroux contends these arguments are incomplete, ignoring the biology of ongoing metabolic ionization and living structures’ vulnerability to subtle electromagnetic interference. This contradiction underpins why older “thermal only” guidelines are outdated.

2. Arrhenius Equation and the kT Paradox

A. The Arrhenius Equation (1889)

  • Historical Role: Arrhenius’s work explained reaction rates in gases using an activation energy (Eₐ). Molecules must surmount an energy barrier to react.
  • Industry’s Use of Arrhenius:
    • If chemical reactions in cells require Eₐ bigger than what ELF/RF photons provide, non-thermal EMR can’t cause direct chemical change.
    • Thermal agitation in water (kT ≈ 1.5 × 10⁻²⁰ J at body temperature) is said to be larger than an RF photon’s energy (e.g., ~10⁻²⁵ J). So the external field is “swamped” by random thermal noise.

B. The kT Paradox

  • Claim: Any small “push” by non-thermal fields is lost amid random collisions with water molecules.
  • Rebuttal: The article shows how modern views of reaction rates and living systems do not rely on single molecules surmounting an “Arrhenius barrier” in a simplistic manner. Biology orchestrates electrons and protons in large, collective processes that can be more sensitive to small fields than older models predict.

3. Improved Reaction Rate Theories (Eyring, Bennett-Chandler)

A. Eyring Equation (1935)

  • Next Step in Reaction Kinetics: Introduces Gibbs free energy (ΔG\Delta G) for activation. Recognizes that in condensed phases (liquids, living tissue), reaction steps aren’t just “heat collisions” but also structural or conformational changes.

B. Bennett-Chandler Equation (1977–1978)

  • Explicit Entropy (ΔS) Contributions: k  =  (kBTh)  e−ΔH/(RT)  eΔS/Rk \;=\; \Bigl(\frac{k_B T}{h}\Bigr)\;\mathrm{e}^{-\Delta H / (RT)} \;\mathrm{e}^{\Delta S / R}
    • Enthalpy (ΔH\Delta H) and entropy (ΔS\Delta S) shape the “transition state.”
    • Negative entropy changes (organization) must be balanced by increases in entropy elsewhere, often via metabolic energy and ROS byproducts (the “negentropy” concept).

C. Why These Matter

  • Living Cells = Far From Equilibrium
    The older “thermal overshadowing” argument ignores that cells actively power and maintain molecular order.
  • Life Provides Its Own Ionization
    The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (universal drive toward higher entropy) is reconciled by the continuous, energy-consuming flux of electrons (redox) in mitochondria. So even if external RF/ELF doesn’t ionize directly, biology itself supplies ionized intermediates and reactive oxygen species (ROS).

Key Point: The body’s own metabolism creates free radicals, electron flows, and other delicate phenomena that can be externally perturbed by electromagnetic fields smaller than “thermal” thresholds.

4. Metabolism as the Vulnerable Target

A. Electron and Proton Currents

  • Oxidative Phosphorylation (OXPHOS):
    In mitochondria, electrons from food flow through complexes I–IV, while protons flow across a membrane to drive ATP synthase.
  • Scale:
    These electron and proton currents travel tens to hundreds of nanometers—much larger than single-atom jumps. Multiplied by the huge number of mitochondria and OXPHOS complexes in the body, there’s a massive “antenna” for EM interaction.

B. Energy Sensitivity

  • Because these flows are essential for ATP production, any small external electromagnetic interference can alter electron flow or proton flux. That can lead to partial decoupling, ROS overproduction, or lowered ATP yield—all with no overt “heating.”

C. Evidence from Tissue Impedance

  • Real-time Tissue Changes: Impedance measurements show that when tissue is deprived of oxygen, its electrical properties shift rapidly, reflecting how deeply life’s metabolic activity is tied to electrons/protons.
  • Relevance: Traditional SAR phantom models (sugar-water-salt) cannot capture living, active metabolism’s electrical properties.

5. Crest Factors, Pulses, and Time Dependence

A. Crest Factor (Cf)

  • Non-thermal Pulsed Signals: Digital telecom signals (4G, 5G) have pulses/peaks much higher than their time-averaged power. The ratio of peak to average power is the “crest factor.”
  • Physiological Relevance: Even if average power is low and “safe” by old standards, peak pulses can reach thresholds that alter sensitive biochemical steps.

B. Time Integration (“Area Under the Curve”)

  • Health effects can accumulate over chronic, sub-thermal exposures (long-time exposure to repeating pulses).
  • IEEE/ICNIRP “One-Hour” Assumption: They historically tested short exposures (30–60 min) for heating. This overlooks cumulative biological stress that can develop over days, months, and years at lower intensities.

6. Linking Wireless Capacity to Health Impacts

A. Shannon–Hartley Theorem

  • Increasing data throughput → higher frequency, wider bandwidth, bigger peak powers.
  • Conclusion: Technical advancements for faster wireless inherently produce higher peak power or more frequent pulses, or both—and thus exacerbate the same non-thermal effects that older guidelines ignore.

7. Why “Thermal Only” Guidelines Are Outdated

  1. They were developed from 19th/early-20th century energy-based assumptions (Arrhenius, purely thermal).
  2. They treat the body like inert matter (just water, salt, sugar, ignoring metabolism).
  3. They only measure heat or short-term acute outcomes (e.g., 1 °C temperature rise in a test phantom).
  4. They dismiss the deeper biological processes of electron transport, proton channels, and free radical production.

Modern science shows that living tissues can be influenced at energies below thresholds needed for heating or direct ionization. The body is already “ionized” metabolically, creating numerous possible sites for EM disruption.

8. Evidential Highlights

A. Free Radical / Oxidative Stress

  • ~90% of studies on RF/ELF fields and oxidative stress find an effect—consistent with the notion that small fields can increase leakage in mitochondrial electron transport.

B. Neurological and Reproductive Effects

  • The nervous system and reproductive tissues are especially vulnerable; many studies link non-thermal EMR to:
    • Neurodegenerative conditions (possible contribution to Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, etc.).
    • Sperm quality and fertility decline, matching global fertility issues.

C. Carcinogenicity

  • Studies in rodents (NTP, Ramazzini Institute) and humans (cell phone epidemiology) point to tumors in the brain and heart after long-term, non-thermal RF.
  • ELF similarly linked to childhood leukemia since the 1970s (Wertheimer & Leeper 1979).

9. Socio-Political Context and Prolonged Controversy

  • Financial and Military Interests
    • Power utilities, telecom operators, and military agencies found it more convenient to rely on “thermal-only” arguments.
    • Military usage of portable, high-power wireless systems incentivizes broad adoption of these technologies.
  • Industry-Backed Standards
    • IEEE and ICNIRP guidelines reflect these legacy assumptions. They continue to emphasize “thermal thresholds” (e.g., 4 W/kg SAR).
    • Critics argue that chronic, low-intensity exposures are left unexamined or dismissed in official guidelines.
  • Push for Non-Thermal Safe Limits
    • Alternatives have been proposed by independent scientists (e.g., EUROPAEM, ICBE-EMF).
    • They suggest orders of magnitude lower exposure limits or wired alternatives (fiber-optic) to reduce ambient radiation.

10. Conclusion and Future Directions

  1. Life’s Metabolism is the Key:
    • Active electron/proton flows in mitochondria form a vast “network of conductors” that can be modulated by external fields far below thermal thresholds.
  2. Modern Reaction Kinetics and Thermodynamics:
    • The Second Law of Thermodynamics plus Schrödinger’s “negentropy” argument implies ionization is always happening inside cells. “Non-ionizing” EMR is still capable of amplifying that free-radical damage.
  3. Exposures Outpacing Safety:
    • Wireless technologies push to higher frequencies, more peak power bursts (crest factors), and longer hours of daily usage.
    • This trajectory clashes with the need to maintain a healthy environment.
  4. Need for New Guidelines:
    • Biological realities underscore that time, peak amplitude, pulse shape, and modulation matter for potential harm.
    • Safer engineering strategies exist (wired connections, shielding, more energy-efficient signals) but require a shift in policy and industry approach.

In short, the “thermal-only” standard is obsolete because it ignores how non-thermal electromagnetic fields can perturb ongoing metabolic processes—particularly electron-proton flows in mitochondria—at energies far below those necessary to cause overt tissue heating.

Practical Takeaways

  • For Public Health: Cumulative non-thermal exposures (e.g., Wi-Fi routers, cell towers, portable devices, smart meters) may contribute to oxidative stress, neurological effects, and reproductive harm.
  • For Standards: Adoption of stricter, biology-based guidelines (rather than “thermal-only”) might reduce disease incidence linked to electromagnetic pollution.
  • For Researchers: Consider cellular bioenergetics and signal characteristics (pulses, crest factors, long-term, chronic exposures) when investigating EM fields.
  • For Industry: There is scope to innovate new modulation schemes or revert to wired solutions in some contexts for robust data transfer without flooding the environment in pulses of high-frequency radiation.

Overall, Héroux’s article adds to the argument that non-thermal guidelines are essential. The out-of-date reliance on Arrhenius-based, purely thermal thresholds is insufficient to protect health, given modern knowledge of mitochondrial electron transport and free radical mechanisms.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *