
DNA is a fractal antenna in electromagnetic fields (2011) - hachiya
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21457072
======
tzs
One reason this is interesting is because of the possible role of charge
transfer in the DNA repair mechanism. See the work of Jacqueline Barton's
group at Caltech [1] for more information.

Here was how it was described when she was awarded the National Medal of
Science: "For discovery of a new property of the DNA helix, long-range
electron transfer, and for showing that electron transfer depends upon
stacking of the base pairs and DNA dynamics. Her experiments reveal a strategy
for how DNA repair proteins locate DNA lesions and demonstrate a biological
role for DNA-mediated charge transfer".

If it turns out that the cell does locate damage by looking for sections of
DNA that do not conduct when they should, then having the DNA acting as an
antenna could interfere with that. The induced currents in the separate
strands on both sides of a break could make it look like there is no break.

I'd guess that this would not be as bad as getting hit with ionizing
radiation, which can actually break bonds. Non-ionizing radiation inducing
currents would not break bonds--it would just interfere with repairing bonds
that were broken by some other mechanism.

Still not something I want to encourage, so I'm going to avoid dumping large
amounts of non-ionizing radiation into my body just to be on the safe side
[2].

[1] [http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jkbgrp/](http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jkbgrp/)

[2] ...says the man who just ordered a handheld ham radio transceiver that
puts out 5 watts at 144/220/440 MHz, which is several times what a cell phone
puts out.

~~~
datenwolf
> ...says the man who just ordered a handheld ham radio transceiver that puts
> out 5 watts at 144/220/440 MHz, which is several times what a cell phone
> puts out.

The frequency allocations for 2G cellular communications networks do allow the
ME to transmit up to 5W. That figure was inherited from the very first brick
phones and still holds up, because, you know, there could be still some brick
phones in use :)

------
jobu
This is an interesting counterpoint to an article/thread from earlier today:

"Why Cell Phones Can’t Cause Cancer, But Bananas Can"

[http://mitchkirby.com/2015/04/22/why-cell-phones-cant-
cause-...](http://mitchkirby.com/2015/04/22/why-cell-phones-cant-cause-cancer-
but-bananas-can/)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9446505](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9446505)

~~~
ghostberry
Evidence trumps theory. A theory can be as clever as you like, but if it
disagrees with the evidence, the theory is wrong.

~~~
acqq
And what is the actual evidence of the visible increase of cancer from EM
radiation? Is there a real "signal" or a kind of "noise"?

I've also stumbled to this:

[http://www.febsletters.org/article/S0014-5793%2800%2901822-6...](http://www.febsletters.org/article/S0014-5793%2800%2901822-6/abstract?cc=y)

~~~
jfoutz
Well, X-rays of course. There's a pretty strong case to be made that exposure
to uv increases skin cancer rates.

I'm sure you mean the lower frequency stuff though, and yeah, that's probably
pretty safe.

~~~
acqq
Yes, of course, I mean all the waves on the infrared side of the light (those
that we call "radio waves") not on the ultraviolet one. And I mean not
including heating effects, which are already measured.

------
CamperBob2
In other news, fractal antennas don't work any better than any other antennas
when immersed in a bag of salt water, which is what a cell is.

~~~
Gnarl
"a bag of salt water, which is what a cell is"!!? Wow. It always amazes me how
physicists manage to reduce the extremely complex and beautiful world of
biology for their own computational comfort. Is your brain simply a "bag full
of bags of saltwater"? The SAR test rationale assumes it is.

~~~
pavel_lishin
> _Is your brain simply a "bag full of bags of saltwater"?_

Also, sugar.

------
mjfl
The title could perhaps mislead people into believing that DNA is some kind of
communication device for extraterrestrial beings rather than the intention of
this article which is to point out that EM radiation like that from your
cellphone in your pocket can cause cancer.

~~~
agumonkey
How different is it from the public concerns about microwaves/cellphones from
the last decade ?

~~~
mjfl
Not different, perhaps confirms concerns.

------
hachiya
See also the related document the study's author submitted to the FCC:

[http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940937](http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940937)

~~~
Gnarl
Seems like that document has been disappeared from the FCC website.

------
rjurney
This is pretty interesting, because I have radiofrequency ablation treatments
every 6-12 months, where they stick wires near the nerve roots in my neck and
run RF through the wire until it heats to 100C, thereby killing the nerves
that transmit pain to my spinal chord.

Wonder what an internal radiosource that powerful does to the rest of me?

There's another, less invasive version called pulsed radiofrequency ablation
that doesn't cook the nerves - it uses the RF signal to confuse/fuck up the
nerves without killing them. Doesn't work as well, but less risk. I wonder if
DNA/radio is part of how pulsed RF works?

~~~
jacquesm
That sounds pretty harsh which probably translates into the alternative being
even harsher. Wow. I have a small RF burn in one of my fingers, about 3 mm
across and as deep as the bone, it never healed properly (I got it when I was
17, a long time ago from a Tronser trimmer that I touched by accident in a 1KW
FM transmitter). I hope that your treatment does not leave such marks.

Apparently the 'pulsed' version of your treatment is to keep the temperature
down while still having the same effect on the nerve.

------
grandalf
From an evolutionary perspective, considering that environmental radiation can
harm organisms, perhaps DNA evolves to be highly vulnerable to such radiation
so that reproduction will fail in high radiation environments where the
radiation would cause other damage later.

So maybe it's more like a fuse than an antenna.

------
jjoonathan
Here is an open review which is also more thorough:
[http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10762-011-9794-5](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10762-011-9794-5)

~~~
anateus
Although this also covers non-ionizing radiation, this is a very different
frequency range.

~~~
jjoonathan
True, and if someone has a link handy for a similar review covering >1mm
wavelengths it would undeniably be more pertinent. Still, the original link
rubs me wrong in two ways:

1\. It's paywalled. Many of us can't even RTFP.

2\. It's clearly trying to prove a pet model.

There's nothing inherently wrong with #2, but #2 makes this article a bad
place to start a discussion among non-experts who aren't in a position to
judge the model in comparison to others that answer similar questions. This
problem is exacerbated by #1.

------
amelius
Perhaps we should use spread spectrum techniques instead of a single prominent
carrier frequency. That way, the signal will look mostly like noise and will
not trigger any biological mechanisms that resonate at certain frequencies.

~~~
TaylorAlexander
We do use spread spectrum technologies a lot. I don't know about cell phones
though.

~~~
greenyoda
CDMA, a radio interface used by some cellular carriers (e.g., Verizon Wireless
and Sprint in the U.S.), is spread spectrum.[1]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_division_multiple_access](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_division_multiple_access)

------
irixusr
If it acts as a (relatively good) antenna to emf, then won't emf cause a
mechanical stress on the strand?

~~~
Florin_Andrei
Well, there are RF antennae that shoot our kilowatts or even megawatts of EMF,
and there's no mechanical stress at all.

As a HAM radio operator, you could literally hang a copper wire between two
trees and pump 1 kW into it. No mechanical stress whatsoever - the EMF
frequency is too high to generate elastic waves in the wire.

------
crystaln
In what cases does modern technology produce stronger, as opposed to more
ordered, EMF than naturally occurs?

~~~
dogma1138
Radiation follows the inverse square law, while you're cellphone does not
produce EM radiation which comes even close to natural high energy radiation
sources you don't really put pulsars to your ear.

Additionally "natural" radiation is something you've evolved to coexist with.
Take for example Uranium vs Plutonium, both are alpha emitters and they emit
particles at nearly the same energy levels however that tiny energy difference
results in very big difference in their effects on living tissue. The
difference however cannot be explained by the power level difference alone, as
both higher level alpha particles from natural sources as well as lower level
alpha emissions from artificial sources showed a lower and higher amount of
damage to nuclear material and cellular tissue general respectively.

And yes I am very well aware that alpha radiation isn't part of the EM
spectrum as it's electron free helium nucleus, however it just shows that life
evolved to be resilient to environmental sources of radiation be it high level
particles like the nuclear decay of natural (existing since the 1st self
replicating proteins occurred or even earlier if those had a replicating
precursor) or high energy protons form the sun, or terrestrial and extra
terrestrial sources of EM radiation.

~~~
duaneb
> while your cellphone does not produce EM radiation which comes even close to
> natural high energy radiation sources you don't really put pulsars to your
> ear.

Or worse, right next to your reproductive material.

------
sp332
How is DNA self-similar?

~~~
Crito
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome#/media/File:Chromati...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome#/media/File:Chromatin_Structures.png)

Like that maybe? DNA coils coiling into coils which again coil into coils...

------
crimsonalucard
ESP!

