OGAN GUREL, MD

The Glow of Life

December 31, 2009
Ogan Gurel, MD MPhil

Following the Christmas Day airplane bomb scare, we wonder how such acts might be
prevented in the future. One measure being debated (some might say no longer debatable) has
been the use of ‘full-body scanners’ also known as millimeter wave scanners. The Dutch
authorities have just announced that such technology would be used for all flights departing for
the United States. Forty such devices have been deployed by the TSA here with fervent efforts
underway to expand their use.
Are these devices safe? The party line is, “Of course they are.” But this technology,
specifically the use of ‘active’ devices that transmit millimeter/terahertz radiation, potentially
poses great risk.
In 2007, the National Research Council published what has become the definitive study on
the use of millimeter-wave and terahertz technology for airport security. The report was
compiled by eleven committee members, all highly regarded security experts. But this was not a
diverse group. Of the eleven, three were professional security consultants, one a physicist, the
remaining seven were engineers; none were biologists or physicians. The committee
recommended proceeding with this technology though no suggestion was offered to investigate
the biological effects of such radiation.
How is it possible for these experts to so cavalierly discount the potential risks of a relatively
unknown region of the electromagnetic spectrum? Two reasons: first, it is true that the
millimeter/terahertz band is non-ionizing. Unlike ionizing gamma rays and x-rays,
millimeter/terahertz radiation, by not interacting with atomic nuclei (or inner electrons), does not
cause mutations: all those vile carcinogenic effects of ionizing rays simply do not apply.
Secondly, one might infer from our long experience with radio waves—bathing us all-around, all
the time—that millimeter/terahertz waves are equally benign. For a physicist or engineer such an
inference might ring true; to a biologist this extrapolation is dangerously wrong.
It is well-known to structural biologists that most proteins, those molecules that make life
work, vibrate at well-defined frequencies; furthermore these vibrational frequencies are essential
to the function of these workhorses of life. Proteins are also charged; vibrating charges emit
electromagnetic radiation and likewise radiation causes charges to vibrate. That, ultimately, is
how radios and analog TVs work, though these matter-energy interactions are in the radio-wave
spectrum.
It turns out—as substantiated by extensive research—that proteins vibrate with frequencies
largely in the millimeter to terahertz range. In fact, one of the very first papers outlining this
phenomenon (Levitt, Sander, Stern, “Protein Normal-mode Dynamics: Trypsin Inhibitor,
Crambin, Ribonuclease and Lysozyme,” J Mol Biol 181:423, 1985) identified low-frequency
vibrational modes spanning 69 – 132 GHz with peak frequencies ranging from 959 – 1229 GHz
(this being just a sampling out of the tens of thousands of different proteins in our bodies).
These (and many other) results have been supported by countless experiments also showing that
such motions are critical to protein function. Because of these vibrations, proteins therefore emit
radiation in the millimeter/terahertz band and are likewise sensitive to such. Intriguingly, the
human body naturally emits such millimeter radiation (albeit at very low power). This millimeter

p 1 of 2
 OGAN GUREL, MD

‘glow’ literally reflects the vibrations of our proteins as they perform their vital functions. It is
the signature of life itself.
The frequency range for commercial whole-body scanners depends upon the product, but
frequencies of 26 - 30 GHz (PNNL), 77 – 95 GHz (Trex), 89 - 300 GHz (Farran) have been
cited. The frequencies for the L-3 Safeview product (the major supplier to the TSA) could not be
obtained. Moreover, the TSA website quotes no frequency information.
Why are we in the dark? Four reasons: one is the epistemological fallacy of relying purely on
physics and engineering to assess a technology that could have significant biological effects.
Second, these devices indeed might be safe, but their negligible biological effects arise fortuitously
from their low power and wide spectral range; nevertheless, long-term exposure (frequent fliers
take note) might still be a danger. The third is ‘We just don’t know.’ Ignorance, however, should
not be confused with safety. The fourth is that ‘Are we not supposed to know?’
Given the scientific facts outlined above, any reader can imagine the potential implications
of this technology. A millimeter/terahertz source of sufficient power and specific frequency
could, by activating and/or inactivating critical proteins, function as a weapon. Likewise, such a
technology might be used as a form of medical therapy, inactivating, for example, certain cancer-
related proteins. Other clinical applications can be envisioned.
But in a world abounding in threats, it is no surprise that the military uses would be those
attracting study. In this respect, the biological effects might very well be understood but that
information, alas, would be classified. This might also explain the curious reticence of some
governments with respect to the wider deployment of these devices. So, while this technology
holds great promise, the public must demand—and fully deserves—a more in-depth study of
how such radiation influences the ‘glow’ of life—our life. Through that knowledge not only
might we make air travel safer, but perhaps even cure some diseases along the way.

Brief bio: Dr. Gurel holds an MD and an MPhil in Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics
from Columbia University as well as an A.B. in Biochemical Sciences from Harvard. He has
published scientific papers in molecular biophysics and most recently is the author of the novel
Waves, which outlines, in the form of literature, the scientific and ethical implications of terahertz
radiation and its intersection with protein electrodynamics.

Ogan Gurel, MD
gurel@post.harvard.edu

p 2 of 2