Rev. Cub. Fís. vol. 27, No. 2B, 2010, p.

203-207
ISSN: 0253-9268. Revisión/review.

Electromagnetic Radiation:
Harmful or beneficial?
A. González Arias

Facultad de Física, Universidad de España; arnaldo@fisica.es

Abstract. Nowadays there is a ‘boom’ in the study of medical applications of the low frequency
electromagnetic radiation. A great deal of reviews and papers are published, in support and against it.
Most of these articles are not devoted to biological studies of the effects on tissues, but to statistical
studies carried out on persons, with the a priori assumption that the treatment will be always innocuous
or favorable. On the contrary, others blame the radiation coming from high-tension lines and electro
domestic equipment as the cause of all type of harmful effects. ¿Who is right?

Sumario. Actualmente hay un ‘boom’ en el estudio de las aplicaciones médicas de la radiación

ectromagnética de baja frecuencia. Se publican infinidad de artículos y reviews, tanto a favor como en
contra. Van siendo incluso frecuentes los ‘resúmenes de resúmenes’ y la meta-análisis estadística,
compendio de muchos estudios. La mayor parte no se refiere al estudio biológico de los efectos sobre
los tejidos, sino a estudios estadísticos llevados a cabo sobre las personas, asumiendo a priori que el
tratamiento será siempre inocuo o benéfico. Otros, por el contrario, le achacan a la radiación
proveniente de las líneas de alta tensión y equipos electrodomésticos toda clase de efectos perniciosos.
¿Quién tiene razón?

Keywords: Electric and magnetic fields effects, in biological systems 87.50.C-, therapeutic
applications, 87.50.ct

Introduction
At the moment there is a boom in the study of
Medical applications of electromagnetic radiation
from Low intensity and low frequency,
understood as such Radiations with frequencies of
20-100 Hz and intensities Of 20-100 μT. Also
pulsed fields are used, Which are not applied on
an ongoing basis, but Pulses of short duration,
with a somewhat higher frequency. Many articles
appear for and against Therapies applied to
specific diseases (arthritis, Head, fractures) and
summary or review articles Are multiplied, to the
point practically Impossible to review them all.
The number of publications Is such that there are
already even 'summaries of Summaries'. 1
A quick review shows that most of the
Publications is not devoted to the study of tissues
and Biological, biochemical or biophysical
evaluation of the effects Of the radiation, but
statistical studies are carried out In order to
establish whether the procedure will be Or not
beneficial for a particular ailment. The results
Are very dissimilar: sometimes no benefit is
reported any; In others the benefit is within the
limits of The reliability of applied statistics, which
makes them Very doubtful, and only in a few
reports of applications Very specific effects
appear clearly differentiated With the control
groups. Other summaries report that many of
these reports Statistics do not include control
groups (and thus Its reliability is null because of
the placebo effect). In this specific summary, the
conclusion was More studies', something that is
repeated enough in many Articles.2
The number of articles where they are
summarized and compared Different therapies is
actually colossal. The summary Of Summaries on
Various Treatments for Osteoarthritis In the knee
already mentioned in [1] (23 in total), Reports
only two results concerning therapies
Electromagnetic - indeed, contradictory 3,4, for To
come to the conclusion, after a broad discussion,
That it is much better to do exercises.
One of the most widespread applications of
therapies Electromagnetic is related to the
fractures of the Long bones A meta-analysis of 11
statistical articles Selected between 1980 and
2008 with rigorous criteria Of reliability,
concluded that:
“Although Electromagnetic stimulation has been
evaluated In multiple randomized trials, current
evidence Little justification for the relatively high
Clinical use ... in the repair of fractures”.5
Another summary 2009 on the cardiovascular
effects of The radiation claims that attempts to
reproduce both Epidemiological studies such as
laboratory Have been generally unsuccessful. It is
concluded that The misleading results reported to
date require Clarification with deeper studies.6
Although most of these reports refer to Beneficial
effects on people, there are They say the opposite,
and attribute harmful effects to Low-frequency
radiation, whatever its intensity (For example, that
from Electrical). However a summary published
in 1992 Expresses:
“A substantial amount of evidence indicates That
the effects of electromagnetic fields on the Cell
biochemistry ... can be related to the density Of
induced currents, with most of the effects
Occurring at levels in excess of 10 mA / m2 ...
these Effects occur at levels that exceed the
endogenous currents Normally present in living
tissues. From this perspective, it is extremely
difficult to interpret The results of recent
epidemiological studies Which report a
correlation between the incidence of Cancer and
exposure to magnetic fields of frequency 50-60 Hz
and extremely low flow densities. The levels of
current density induced by the exposure Are, in
almost all cases, significantly Less than the levels
that cause disturbances Measurements in the
laboratory on the Biological”.7
Skeptics are not lacking either. An article by S.
Solomon, Doctor of the Department of Neurology
of Montefiore Medical Center of New York, after
a very Exhaustive analysis of all the factors
involved in Pain concludes that improvement in
pain or other symptoms Is often falsely attributed
to an alleged therapy, When in fact the referral
takes place because The disease has continued its
normal course.8 Of course, there are also non-
based summaries In statistics, but in biochemical
and biophysical studies Complex at the cellular
level. A research group of The Technical
university of Dresden has published A very
comprehensive summary of 86 pages (15 edicated
to listing about 400 references) that includes The
action of electric, magnetic and electromagnetic
fields At the cellular level. The great diversity of
themes Treated makes it virtually impossible to
reach a General conclusion.9 In statistical studies,
since there are no effects Undesirable
immediately, it is customary to assume that the
Procedure will not be detrimental to the patient.
But Nobody guarantees that in the long run it
could be. Examples Very specific in history, and it
is appropriate to recall What happened with the x-
rays in its beginnings, Where there were no
immediate damages to the After application.
X-rays and female beauty
Soon after the first equipment to appear
Radiographs, emerged in the United States.
Beauty salons That used the x-rays to depilate the
hairs in different Parts of the body, mainly young
women. The procedure was promoted, among
others, by Albert C. Geyser, who presented
himself with the Following attributes (depending
on the original in English): „Medical Director of
the Tricho System, Formerly, Professor of
Physiological Therapy and Chief of Clinic at
Fordham University, Lecturer and Chief of
Electro and Roentgenray Clinic at Cornell
College, Lecturer and Chief of the Electro and
Radio Therapy Clinic at the New York Polyclinic,
etc.‟ In short, as if to believe on foot Everything
he said.
Figure 1. The Tricho system to remove facial hair
throughRadiation.
By 1925 they existed in the USA. Around 75
Tricho machines designed to eliminate the
annoying and Undesirable hairs on the cheeks and
upper lip of Ladies and young ladies - and perhaps
some of the other dissatisfied Knight (figure 1).
However, after a few Few years it was found that
a large single dose of radiation, Or many small
doses repeated over long periods Of time, could
cause serious damage to the tissues Without being
noticed immediately, creating lesions that They
came to light months or years later. The lesions
were manifested Such as changes in pigmentation,
keratosis, Ulcers and the appearance of
carcinomas leading to death.
In 1930 Dr. Henry H. Hazen published an article
titled Damage as a result of irradiation in the
Beauty Salons' where the following is written:
"About 5 years ago a certain number of Beauty in
several cities installed Roentgen machines For the
purpose of treating superficial hair ... (Also)
treatments were applied for other conditions ...
In my list there is a patient who claimed Having
been treated for acne, and another for freckles. " 10
In your The vast majority were women between
the ages of 18 and 30 years. Dr. Hazen
summarizes this later: "In several Many reports of
damage to the Skin diseases caused by Roentgen
ray treatments in The salons of beauty ... In this
series of 10 cases no Less than 7 women have
been seriously injured ... It is Noted that in each
case an irritation appeared from the Of the third
or fourth session and that, nevertheless, The
application of treatments. We can not leave To
marvel at the stupidity of the operators and Of the
persistence and ignorance of the victims. Any
Measure to protect from their own foolishness the
Women looking to improve their appearance is
recommended. It is amazing that in many
communities Medical practice minutes only
include the prescription Medications and allow
any physiotherapist to Apply their practices
without permission or interference, with a Total
disregard for the potential dangers of his
behavior. "
What is even more surprising is that situations
Similar situations are occurring today, not with X-
rays, but with other rocedures that have not been
Studied enough. Such procedures promise A
maximum of benefits with a minimum of
annoyances, Although in reality its effectiveness
has not been demonstrated, and In the long run
they could be harmful to the patient. The Situation
is much worse when practitioners see themselves
Stimulated by indifference, tolerance, and
sometimes the Official support. Once introduced,
the alleged treatments Beneficial are very difficult
to eradicate. Serve Example, the fact that, despite
the fact that the procedure Of Tricho could lead to
death, reports Of damaged victims appeared in
magazines Until about 15 years later, well into the
decade. Of 1940.
Low-frequency radiation
Treatment with low-frequency radiation between
20 and 100 Hz, reputed by some as very new,
Actually, it is not. Figure 2 shows a patient During
a Theronoid application, produced in the USA
From 1928. It consisted of a toroidal coil
Conductor wire about 50 cm in diameter With a
box attached and two controls: one of off/On, and
another high / low to regulate the intensity.
Designed for home applications, the patient
Connected to the current housing to self-apply
Daily treatments lasting 3 to 5 minutes. East Was
not the first device with these characteristics,
Since previously similar patents had been
patented,To be used both in people and animals,
Even on horses (for the whole horse, standing on
4 legs,Figure 3).

Figure 2. The Theronoid of 1928, forbidden in
1933.
Figure 2. The Theronoid of 1928, forbidden in
1933.
As almost always happens with these 'wonderful'
therapies, The promoters claimed that the device
could Cure almost any ailment, from constipation
To paralysis. In 1933 the Federal Trade
Commission Of the USA. Banned Theronoid
advertising As a therapeutic device, for not
finding that Provide any benefit to persons
Electrical activity is present in the human body
at all times. It is possible to measure the potentials
caused By the currents in the heart through the
electrocardiogram, Or in the brain by the
electroencephalogram.
A bone subjected to mechanical stress Can also
generate potential differences due to piezoelectric.
So it is not absurd to suppose That the application
of an adequate electric current Low intensity
could affect tissues of different Ways.
In our view, the main problem lies in Which is
almost never supposed to have harmful effects.
zThe majority of researchers assume input Which,
if there is any effect, will be beneficial, without
taking Due precautions by testing with tissues
and animals. The electric current can be applied
directly, Through contacts on the skin, or
indirectly By means of a low frequency
electromagnetic field Which generates electric
fields and currents in the Inside the body. The
right word is important; Tissues respond in very
different ways to different Electrical signals,
depending on both the particular tissue
Considered as the applied signal.8 Although there
are many other applications reported, the More
studied is the one related to bone fractures. Yes
Well the mechanism is not fully understood, it is
known That the radiation stimulates the biological
processes To the formation of the bone and to the
assimilation of implants. It is usual to use
frequencies between 20 and 100 Hz with very
small intensities, between 0.5 and 8 MT, and
duration of up to 30 minutes. The treatment Can
be extended for days or months
But along with animal testing reports, Many are
applied to people, despite the fact that That it has
not been fully demonstrated that treatments Are
always beneficial, and that there are researchers
Who claim that bone regeneration could occur
Undesirably. A very well documented article,
Based on animal testing, published in 2003,
concludes what
"... without knowing precisely the mechanism
Cellular response associated with tissue response
to these interventions, It would be difficult and
ineffective to implement Appropriate therapy
according to clinical prescription Needs. He
further points out that "it requires a In this sense
to achieve sufficiency in the application clinic".
And at the end of the publication, in an exchange
With the referees, the authors themselves warn:
"... to use this technology indiscriminately
(without Prescription and proper supervision)
may cause Undesirable side effects, and even
harmful.
Low-frequency electromagnetic radiation does not
Only applies to bones. Also in the head, for
Supposedly to calm the pains or the anxiety, or in
Any other part of the body for various purposes.
Exist Commercial equipment in which you can
enter the Torso of a person (figure 4).
However, a fairly extensive report from the
University Washington in 2004, signed by H. Lai
and N.P. Singh12 reports that "... rats exposed to
fields Sinusoidal 60 Hz for two hours, at 0.1-0.5
mT, showed increased chain breakage Simple and
double-stranded DNA in brain cells. "
This result should indicate to the
magnetotherapists Contemporaries do not apply
indiscriminately fields Of low frequency near the
head of the patients, at the Less until you have
more information on the subject. Yes The effect
would also occur in another type of cells Which is
very likely - when exposing the ovaries or
testicles These radiations could damage the DNA
of eggs And sperm. Since they are unicellular
entities, Would increase the likelihood that the
patient To produce children with some
abnormality, Which, of course, will not be known
immediately.
Figure 4. Modern Commercial Equipment for
Low Radiations frequency.
CONCLUSIONS
In spite of the huge amount of publications and
abstracts About the effects of electromagnetic
radiation In therapies of various types, the
common denominator Of the findings appear to be
'further studies are needed'. It is recognized the
stimulation of the growth of The fractures as
something proven, but there are alerts Indicating
that bone regeneration could occur Undesirably.
Others feel that the benefits Do not justify their
relatively high clinical use in some places.
Reports on chain damage Of DNA from rats
suggest possible involvement in ova And
spermatozoa if the radiation is applied
Indiscriminate The levels of induced current
density Exposure to high voltage lines and other
Sources in the industry and residential areas are,
in almost All cases, well below the measurable
levelsIn the laboratory that cause disturbances on
Biological functions. This result tends to Any
possible influence of residential factors In the
health of people.
References
Haavardsholm, I. Holm, K. B Hagen, Physical
therapy interventions for patients with
osteoarthritis of the knee: An overview
of systematic reviews, Physical Therapy vol. 88
Number
1, January (2008).
2. Vincent W., F. Andrasik and R. Sherman,
Headache treatment with pulsing electromagnetic
fields: A literature review, Appl. Psychophysiol.
Biofeedback 32:191–207 (2007)
3. McCarthy CJ, Callaghan MJ, Oldham JA.
Pulsed electromagnetic energy treatment offers no
clinical benefit in reducing the pain of knee
osteoarthritis: A systematic review.
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 7:51, (2006)
4. Hulme JM, Robinson VA, de Bie RA, et al.
Electromagnetic fields for the treatment of
osteoarthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.
(1):CD003523, (2002)
5. Mollon B., V.da Silva, J. W. Busse, T. A.
Einhorn and M.Bhandari, Electrical stimulation
for long-bone fracturehealing: A meta-analysis of
randomized controlled trials, J Bone Joint Surg
Am.; 90: 2322-2330 (2008).
6. McNamee D.A., A.G. Legros, D.R. Krewski,
Gerald Wisenberg, Frank S. Prato and Alex W.
Thomas, A literature review: the cardiovascular
effects of exposure to extremely low frequency
electromagnetic fields; Internat. Archives of
Occupational and Environmental Health, vol. 82:
919-1041 (2009)
7. Tenford T.S. e, Biological Interactions and
Potential Health Effects of Extremely-Low–
Frequency Magnetic Fields From Power Lines
and other Common Sources. Annu. Rev.
Publ. Health 13:173 (1992)
8. Solomon S., A Review of Mechanisms of
Response to Pain Therapy: Why Voodoo Works;
Headache, vol. 42:656-
662 (2002)
9. Funk R.H.W, T. Monsees and N Ozkucur,
Electromagnetic effects – From cell biology to
medicine, Progress in Histochemistry and
Cytochemistry 43, 177–264, (2009)
10. H.H. Hazen, Injuries Resulting from and remodelling, European Cells and Materials,
Irradiation in Beauty Shops, American Journal of vol. 6, p.72-85, (2003).
Roentgenology and Radium Therapy vol. 23, 12. H. Lai and N.P. Singh, Environmental
No.4, 409-412 (1930). Magnetic-Field– Induced DNA Strand Breaks in
11. E.Y.S. Chao and N. Inoue, Biophysical Brain Cells of the Rat, Health Perspectives, 112,
stimulation of bone fracture repair, regeneration 6, p.687-694, Mayo (2004).