The enormous networks of electricity and wireless radiation surrounding our modern lives may be quietly rewiring the way our cells make energy. In doing so, they could be contributing to the surging incidence of type 2 diabetes.
That’s the main conclusion of a new scientific analysis by McGill University biophysicist, Paul Héroux, PhD. Published as a cornerstone chapter in the recent textbook entitled, The Impact of Anthropogenic Activities on the Natural Environment and Societies during the Contemporary Period, Dr. Héroux’s paper makes the case that constant exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) can alter mitochondrial function in ways that predispose us to insulin resistance, and by extension, to increased diabetes risk.
It’s not an entirely new concept. The notion of a link between EMF exposure and diabetes, along with other common chronic illnesses, was forecast long ago in a US Navy review of the science on the biological and health effects of EMFs, published by Zorach Glaser, PhD, in 1971.
Decades later, in 2010, epidemiologist Sam Milham, MD, of Washington State Department of Health echoed Glaser’s warning when he wrote about “the diseases of civilization” linked to electrification, which included cardiovascular disease, cancer and diabetes.
There’s no doubt that incidence of these diseases has risen steadily over the last century. Conventional medical doctrine attributes the increases to changes in diet, activity level, and lifestyle patterns which occurred as countries industrialized. But few recognize a critical variable – electrification – that, according to Milham, is a causal factor in the increases in mortality from chronic diseases that followed industrialization.
As is always the case in any interpretation of epidemiological trends, it is difficult to definitively prove causation in this context. But Héroux’s work, which describes multiple mechanisms by which EMFs can alter cellular function, makes a compelling argument.
Two Tech Waves
Over the past century, two technological waves have transformed earth’s electromagnetic environment. The first came with electrification, which filled homes and cities with extremely low‑frequency (ELF) electric and magnetic fields at 50–60 Hz. The second, starting with the invention of the radio and accelerating through cellular and Wi-Fi systems, inundated the planet in radio‑frequency (RF) radiation. Together, these human‑made fields are now ubiquitous and difficult to escape.
In his just published new report, “Power Systems, Telecommunications, and Diabetes,” Héroux explains that both ELF and RF fields penetrate living tissue and disrupt the movement of protons and electrons in water and inside mitochondria. These interactions, he says, alter pH (increasing acidity) and disrupt the mitochondrial enzyme ATP Synthase, which is essential for facilitating ATP production. When mitochondrial ATP synthesis stalls, energy drops and reactive oxygen species (ROS) — unstable, damaging oxidants — increase.
ROS and acidity are both linked to insulin resistance and the eventual exhaustion of the insulin‑producing β‑cells in the pancreas. These are common characteristics of diabetes.
Héroux and colleagues conducted a series of experiments showing that ELF exposure, at typical environmental levels, can suppress oxidative phosphorylation in human cells, “yielding effects similar to oxygen withdrawal.” Héroux suggests that everyday ELF magnetic fields as well as RF radiation can interfere with the efficacy of Metformin, which is often the first line of treatment for blood sugar control in diabetics.
“Dirty” Electricity
Intermediate frequencies (aka “dirty electricity”) have been shown to increase blood sugar in both type 1 and type 2 diabetics within a matter of minutes. Exposure to dirty electricity – which is generated by electronic devices, energy-efficient light bulbs, dimmer switches, smart meters, and even branches touching power lines – is associated with a greater need for insulin.
The converse is also true, namely reducing exposure to dirty electricity—through use of Graham-Stetzer filters specifically designed for this purpose–is associated with a reduced need for insulin, potentially leading to significant cost savings for diabetic patients.
Héroux bases his argument in large part on population data. In the US, electricity consumption climbed steadily through the twentieth century, and the curve steepened again in the mid-1990s — roughly seven years after the rollout of second‑generation digital cell phones, and after the Telecommunications Act of 1996 became law. As Héroux points out, diabetes incidence rates closely parallel the increased use of electricity and electronic devices.
To Héroux, the correlations between electrification, wireless expansion, and disease incidence hints at a biological trigger hiding in plain sight.
Inadequate Regulatory Standards
His paper also discusses regulatory history, contending that the exposure limits that guide regulatory policy were crafted by committees dominated by industry, and focused only on the short‑term heating effects of EMFs. Standards were established to prevent shocks or burns from EMF exposure, but they do not even consider the possibility of chronic metabolic injury.
Organizations such as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), and eventually the World Health Organization, adopted highly permissive standards that turn a blind eye to the long‑term, low‑level biological effects of EMF exposure.
Despite decades of research, these organizations, including the Federal Communications Commission, continue to ignore a large and compelling body of research on low-intensity, non-thermal effects.
A 2021 case against the FCC brought by the Environmental Health Trustand Children’s Health Defense, contended that when the FCC ruled in 2019 to maintain the RF exposure guidelines established in 1996, the agency arbitrarily ignored hundreds of studies on the potential links between RF exposure and illness risk. Over four years later, this case is still unresolved, as the FCC has not responded to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appealsorder to justify its exposure guidelines, given the evidence presented in the case.
The graph below depicts the far more permissive RF exposure guidelines in the US compared to other countries. Dozens of nations have guidelines that are 10–100 times more protective than the FCC’s exposure guidelines.
Power density and specific absorption rate –the key metrics used in the FCC exposure guidelines—represent a very limited picture of potential risk. There are other parameters, including radiation frequencies, pulsation patterns, signal characteristics, and the proximity and duration of exposures, that are just as, if not more, biologically significant than power levels and absorption rates.
Many citizens and scientists feel an ever-increasing concern today about the telecom industry’s unfolding plans for greater antenna densification, and the placement of cell towers and antennas closer to homes, schools, and recreation areas.
Further, the higher frequencies (millimeter waves) now in use with 5G (and planned for future cellular generations), as well as the new modulation characteristics, with significantly more biologically disruptive pulsation patterns, are also cause for concern.
The Problem with Section 704
There are troubling efforts underway at the FCC and in Congress to pre-empt all remaining state and local authority over the siting, zoning, permitting, and regulation of cell towers and antennas, thereby enable more and more antenna infrastructure. Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act already contained a federal pre-emption that limited the ability of state and local governments to influence the placement of cell towers and antennas based on health or environmental considerations.
At the same time, health and environmental advocacy groups are uniting in an effort called 704 No MoreTM to dismantle Section 704 of the Telecom Act of 1996, to re-establish state and local government rights to regulate towers and antennas on health and environment grounds, and to restore and protect individual Constitutional rights to legal recourse in cases of injury.
Under Section 704, courts have considered personal injury cases ‘conflict pre-empted.’ That means the telecom industry has never had to be held accountable for health and environmental damage caused by wireless exposures over many decades. Section 704 has, in effect, provided liability protection to an industry that has contributed to many chronic illnesses.
Re-Engineer, Not Retreat
We are at a pivotal moment. There are many people wanting to minimize wireless, due to concerns over the physical, mental, and societal impacts of this technology, and powerful forces want to greatly expand it.
Héroux’s comprehensive analysis of the scientific literature on electromagnetic fields and a range of biological effects characteristic of diabetes, is important for practitioners, policymakers, and the general public to comprehend and understand, before enabling the roll out of an ever-increasing number of cell towers and antennas.
As with asbestos, once the harmful effects became undeniable, the economic burden of prior risk denial–litigation, mitigation and healthcare costs–became unfathomable. Over the years, the aggregate price tag for asbestos-related abatements, lawsuits, and medical spending, reached the level of hundreds of billions of dollars.
The same scenario may unfold in the context of wireless EMF exposure as a result of telecom industry expansion.
It is important to note here, that this would not be the case with fibre optics and ethernet. Advocates for minimization of EMF are not Luddites demanding a return to the pre-internet era. Instead, they are demanding a form of transmission that is faster, more secure and less expensive than wireless.
Rather than calling for technological retreat, Héroux prescribes re‑engineering. He advises that homes and grids should use DC power to remove oscillating magnetic fields. Appliances and wiring can be redesigned with shielding and twisted pairs to minimize ELF magnetic fields, or coaxial cables to contain RFR within the cables.
Wireless systems should employ fiber, or visible‑light (Li‑Fi), connections, while cell phones can be manufactured to automatically disable RF when held close to the body.
New cell towers, Héroux suggests, should sit at least 500 meters from housing, which is consistent with the minimum distance I recommended in the BRAG Antenna Ranking of Schools report in 2010, and with the recommendations of the New Hampshire Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology in 2020.
Héroux closes his new chapter with a warning and a hope: electromagnetic pollution may be an underestimated driver of chronic illness, but because it stems from controllable technology, it could also be mitigated.
If his interpretation is right, then redesigning our energy and communication infrastructure could lower global diabetes rates — not through new drugs, but through smarter engineering, including use of wired delivery technologies for internet access, like ethernet and fiber optics. The US lags far behind many other advanced economies in installation of Fiber to the Home (FTTH), and has very unwisely been championing wireless, a vastly inferior technology in many respects.
In addition to reducing risk factors for type 2 diabetes, Héroux’s recommendations may also potentially mitigate risk of other common ailments including insomnia, mood disorders, cardiovascular disease, chronic pain, cancers, autoimmune conditions, neurological disorders like multiple sclerosis, and cognitive disorders like Alzheimer’s.
This is a subject that all health authorities, public utilities, telecom providers, and manufacturers of electronic equipment should be willing to seriously consider. Facilitating the changes Héroux recommends could result in considerable healthcare savings, to say nothing of reducing human suffering, while improving productivity.
END
Magda Havas, BSc, PhD, is Professor Emerita at the Trent School of the Environment, Trent University, Peterborough, Canada. Reach her at: drmagdahavas@gmail.com
