DNA is a fractal antenna in electromagnetic fields (2011) | Hacker News Reader

DNA is a fractal antenna in electromagnetic fields (2011)

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

67 pointshachiya46 comments

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/

[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.

> ...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 :)

Just stick with HF, it's more fun anyway :)

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-...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9446505

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

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...

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.

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.

http://www.skepticnorth.com/2010/11/levitt-and-lai-peddling-...

There are a lot of papers which have failed to reproduce these effects. Granted fractal antennas are weird in and of themselves but cellular ones fail to pass the sniff test.

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.

That's not completely accurate. If you consider the water to also be the antenna things are much more complicated.

The ocean blocks radio waves because it is much much larger than them. A small (very small) ocean would act like an antenna, not an insulator.

No, the ocean blocks radio waves because its index of refraction at RF is very different from that of free space, resulting in a massive impedance mismatch at the boundary. In bulk matter, this is a scale-independent phenomenon.

By that logic copper would also block RF.

Which it does. That Maxwell guy knew what he was talking about, believe it or not.

And yet it works as an antenna if it's the right size.

Salt water will also work as an antenna if it's the right size.

Which is what I said in my original message.

There's actually a lot more to the question than size. RF is all about boundary conditions, and everything else is a consequence of that fact. It's a fascinating area of study, and in all seriousness, I'd recommend you take a look at some of the underlying principles behind EM physics and propagation. It'll help you reject "not even wrong" bullshit like what's portrayed in this article, and even better, it'll give you a deeper appreciation for the way wireless technology actually works.

I didn't actually read the article, the title alone didn't make sense, I didn't check any further.

I was just refuting your assumption that because the DNA is in a cell that means it can not see any RF.

"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.

> Is your brain simply a "bag full of bags of saltwater"?

Also, sugar.

Very relevant here...

https://xkcd.com/793/

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.

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

Not different, perhaps confirms concerns.

http://news.discovery.com/space/alien-life-exoplanets/could-...

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

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940937

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

I do not believe spread spectrum transmission allows for lower transmit or receive power. This would mean that you would just be submitted to more radiation instead of less.

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

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.

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

Any time there's an amplifier and antennae?

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.

> 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.

How is DNA self-similar?

In this case, its response to a large frequency band of electromagnetic waves is.

Hence "fractal antenna".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome#/media/File:Chromati...

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

ESP!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com