In our increasingly electrified world, the very structure of our biological systems is being challenged by exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from man-made sources. But not all artificial EMFs have this harmful effect on human biology, in fact, some EMFs can be beneficial and are used every day for cell restoration treatments.
Decades of research provide sufficient experimental evidence to distinguish between telecommunications electromagnetic waves and the electromagnetic pulses used in physiotherapy. Having directly witnessed more than a thousand cases of electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), I have reached a profound conclusion: neither conventional thermal effects nor apparent power density dictate biological disruption. Instead, the subtle, non-thermal, ultra-weak emissions alter spin states at the core of our cellular communication systems.
The central role of spin in biology
At the fundamental level, the spin of subatomic particles is not simply a quantum property but is a regulatory key in many biochemical processes. The evidence is overwhelming. Usselman and colleagues have shown that radiofrequency magnetic fields can modulate the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) through spin biochemistry. Their study shows that even weak magnetic fields, well below levels that would cause any thermal damage, can change the balance between different ROS species, specifically, by decreasing superoxide (O₂••⁻) while increasing hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) by influencing singlet-triplet transitions in radical pairs.
In these processes, enzyme-bound flavin molecules and oxygen radicals form transient radical pairs. The relative yields of these products are determined by their spin states, a process exquisitely sensitive to external magnetic influences. These pairs of spin-correlated radicals are at the very heart of cellular redox signaling, meaning that any disruption of their natural balance can lead to oxidative stress, cellular dysfunction, and, ultimately disease.
Non-thermal effects: a paradigm shift in electromagnetic exposure
Traditional safety standards, such as those set by the FCC, have long been based on thermal effects—the idea that electromagnetic exposure is only harmful if it heats biological tissue. However, mounting evidence confirms that biological systems are far more vulnerable to non-thermal effects, where the field’s structure and behavior matter more than its intensity.
Alternating current (AC), along with its harmonics and transients circulating through power grids and telecommunications systems, generates Artificial Quantum Noise (AQN). This phenomenon results from Artificial Polarization of Quantum Spin (QSAP), a concept I explore in depth in my book Electromagnetic Pollution. AQN represents a new class of electromagnetic pollution caused by advanced digital modulation techniques, such as orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM), widely used in telecommunications.
Unlike thermal effects, AQN produces fundamental interferences that impact both electronic systems and biological organisms. In technology, AQN degrades device performance, causing operational failures and material fatigue. In biological systems, it can induce oxidative stress, interfere with cellular signaling, and disrupt the natural polarization of biomolecules. This phenomenon is particularly insidious because it is generated by ultra-weak emissions, making it undetectable using conventional safety protocols that focus solely on thermal effects.
Despite being classified as "safe" under outdated regulations, artificial EMFs can induce oxidative stress by subtly altering the quantum spin dynamics of radical pairs. This observation aligns with my experience working with individuals suffering from EHS and those exposed to high levels of dirty electricity and telecommunications signals (WiFi, 5G). Both groups exhibit oxidative stress responses and nervous system dysregulation—independent of symptoms—demonstrating that biological interference occurs at a deep quantum level.
Systematic evaluations using heart rate variability (HRV) analysis, cardiac coherence measurements, and body stress assessments consistently confirm these findings.
Radical Pair Mechanism:
Bridging the Gap between Quantum Physics and Biology
The radical pair mechanism provides the most scientifically robust explanation for these non-thermal effects. As reviewed by Zadeh-Haghighi and Simon, weak magnetic fields—orders of magnitude below thermal energy thresholds—can influence the coherent dynamics of radical pairs.
This mechanism, extensively studied in avian magnetoreception, is now recognized as a unifying principle for various biological effects observed under low-intensity EMF exposure. Importantly, magnetoreception is not exclusive to birds and bees; it extends to all living beings, including humans. Certain brain structures and cells respond to changes in the Earth’s magnetic field, offering new perspectives on how environmental EMFs influence sensory processes.
According to this mechanism, the electron and nuclear spins in radical pairs oscillate between singlet and triplet states. An applied electromagnetic field can interfere with these oscillations, altering the likelihood that the radical pair will recombine into a benign or reactive species. In biological systems, this disruption can be the difference between normal cellular function and a pathological oxidative stress response. When this balance tips toward increased hydrogen peroxide production, a chain reaction of oxidative damage ensues, disrupting cellular homeostasis.
The complexity of these quantum processes explains why conventional shielding methods, such as Faraday cages, fail to provide complete protection. Over the years, I have encountered numerous cases where individuals continued to experience severe health issues even in shielded environments—until the AQN was neutralized. This suggests that quantum noise bypasses physical barriers through quantum tunneling, a well-known phenomenon in quantum mechanics where wave-like particles traverse energy barriers. This means that AQN fluctuations can propagate even in environments presumed to be EMF-free.
Polarization: The Critical Difference Between Artificial and Natural Fields
One of the most underestimated differences between artificial and natural electromagnetic fields is polarization. Researchers like Panagopoulos have emphasized its fundamental role in the biological effects of electromagnetic fields, though they sometimes use the terms polarization and coherence interchangeably. In his work, Panagopoulos differentiates between artificial polarization—where a wave maintains a fixed orientation—and natural coherence, which refers to the multi-frequency, fractal geometric organization observed in biological systems. Natural electromagnetic fields, such as those found in the environment, exhibit this fractal structure, generating ultra-weak but highly organized fields that contribute to a balanced and stable biological environment.
This distinction has been repeatedly confirmed in field studies, including my own research detailed in Dynamic Environmental Energy Assessment (Machado, 2021). The impact of artificial EMFs can be compared to the difference between a natural symphony and a monotonous, repetitive noise. While natural electromagnetic fields exhibit a balanced and adaptive signal propagation—except in geopathic zones—artificial fields, due to their rigid polarization and constant artificial coherence, act as disruptive signals that interfere with biological equilibrium, even at relatively low intensities.
Implications for public health and safety regulations
The mounting evidence from spin biochemistry, radical pair dynamics, and polarization studies demonstrates that current electromagnetic exposure guidelines, which focus solely on thermal effects, are inadequate. Ultra-weak, non-thermal emissions, even at levels deemed "safe" by regulatory agencies like the FCC, can trigger profound alterations in cellular biochemistry.
This understanding is particularly crucial in the context of ubiquitous wireless technologies, such as mobile telecommunications and Wi-Fi networks. Over the past two decades, as I outlined in my book Electromagnetic Pollution, I have accumulated extensive scientific data indicating that these non-thermal effects result from exposure to Artificial Quantum Noise (AQN). In the future, I believe it will become widely recognized that what we currently call electromagnetic pollution is, in reality, AQN.
AQN is not just an abstract concept; it is the primary mechanism responsible for disrupting the natural polarization of spin states within cells, leading to oxidative stress. This phenomenon cannot be explained using conventional power density metrics, which overlook the subtle but biologically significant interactions between polarized artificial fields and the quantum mechanics of biological systems.
A call for deeper research in quantum biology
It is now evident that the intersection of quantum mechanics and biology—often referred to as quantum biology—is essential for understanding the true impact of man-made electromagnetic fields on health. As an expert in applied nanomagnetism, my research has increasingly focused on spin polarization, a factor that has been largely ignored in mainstream bioelectromagnetism.
This is not a fringe theory but a necessary evolution in our understanding of electromagnetic interactions with biological systems. I urge the scientific community and regulatory bodies to reconsider the metrics used to assess electromagnetic safety. Instead of relying solely on thermal parameters, we must explore the deeper quantum mechanisms at play. Research should prioritize:
-
The radical pair mechanism and its role in oxidative stress.
-
The natural coherence of spin states in biological systems.
-
The specific biological effects of polarized artificial fields.
There are now hundreds of independent studies supporting the idea that spin dynamics play a central role in mediating biological responses to electromagnetic exposure. It is time to establish new safety protocols that incorporate this understanding.
The Need for New Standards: Addressing AQN
The next step is to develop protocols that quantify and mitigate AQN. Without addressing AQN at a fundamental level, we cannot establish meaningful safety criteria for modern technologies. The ALARA principle (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) must be applied even more rigorously—not just in exposure guidelines, but in the design of all electronic circuits and communication systems.
In my career, the development of the IAS Method has been crucial in assessing real-world electromagnetic pollution levels and determining the danger of specific emissions. While not an ultimate solution, this method has helped hundreds of individuals suffering from EHS or chronic exposure to electromagnetic pollution. What is clear is that we can no longer rely on outdated evaluation methods that ignore the deeper quantum interactions of EMFs.
At a broader level, the public and even many experts struggle to understand why pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMF) devices can have beneficial effects while cell phone radiation can be harmful. The debate often centers on power levels, but the true issue lies in AQN. After more than a decade of experimental research, I insist that we must educate ourselves on the real nature of electromagnetic fields.
Most EMF meters, for instance, only measure electromagnetic energy within a specific frequency band—whether from an electric field, magnetic field, or set of radio frequencies. However, they do not detect the harmonic and transient interferences inherent in modern electrical systems, nor do they assess bandwidth variations or digital modulation types—factors that are crucial in determining the true biological risk of exposure.
Conclusion
The evidence is unequivocal: at the subatomic level, spin states are the foundation of cellular communication. When artificial electromagnetic fields—particularly those that are polarized—disrupt this delicate quantum balance, they trigger a cascade of non-thermal effects that ultimately lead to oxidative stress and systemic dysregulation.
This paradigm shift challenges the long-held assumption that electromagnetic safety can be evaluated purely in terms of thermal effects. As we move forward, quantum biology must expand to uncover the deeper mechanisms behind these interactions and, more importantly, develop strategies to mitigate their effects.
I encourage scientists, healthcare professionals, and policymakers to re-evaluate the available scientific literature. The work of Dr. Carlo, Usselman, Zadeh-Haghighi, Simon, and Panagopoulos provides a compelling foundation for this field. The stakes are high, and a deeper understanding of these quantum mechanisms is essential to protecting public health in our increasingly wireless world.
We must rise to this challenge by rethinking our approach to electromagnetic safety standards and fostering research at the intersection of quantum physics and biology.
As a step toward this goal, I have launched the Bio-compatible Electromagnetic Compliance Program (BEMCP) through the EFEIA Institute, a non-profit organization I founded to develop a new safety framework. This initiative will not only provide tools for evaluating emerging technologies but will also encourage independent, multidisciplinary collaboration—free from academic or governmental constraints.
Only through a comprehensive and unconventional approach can we effectively diagnose, mitigate, and neutralize AQN, paving the way for safer and more biologically compatible technologies in the 21st century.
References:
Usselman, R. J., Hill, I., Singel, D. J., & Martino, C. F. (2014). Spin biochemistry modulates reactive oxygen species (ROS) production by radio frequency magnetic fields. PLoS ONE, 9(3), e93065. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0093065
Zadeh-Haghighi, H., & Simon, C. (2022). Magnetic field effects in biology from the perspective of the radical pair mechanism. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 19(20220325). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2022.0325
Panagopoulos, D. J., Johansson, O., & Carlo, G. L. (2015). Polarization: A key difference between man-made and natural electromagnetic fields, in regard to biological activity. Scientific Reports, 5, 14914. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep14914
Machado, J. J. (2021). Dynamic evaluation of environmental energy and electromagnetic radiation 4G LTE/5G/WIFI/Bluetooth and improvements with the application of SPIRO® filters [Unpublished final project]. European University of the Atlantic.
