The biological effects of modulated radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields have been a subject of debate since early publications more than 30 years ago, suggesting that relatively weak amplitude-modulated RF electromagnetic fields have specific biological effects different from the well-known thermal effects of RF energy. This discussion has been recently activated by the increasing human exposure to RF fields from wireless communication systems. Modulation is used in all wireless communication systems to enable the signal to carry information. A previous review in 1998 indicated that experimental evidence for modulation-specific effects of RF energy is weak. This article reviews recent studies (published after 1998) on the biological effects of modulated RF fields. The focus is on studies that have compared the effects of modulated and unmodulated (continuous wave) RF fields, or compared the effects of different kinds of modulations; studies that used only one type of signal are not included. While the majority of recent studies have reported no modulation-specific effects, there are a few interesting exceptions indicating that there may be specific effects from amplitude-modulated RF fields on the human central nervous system. These findings warrant follow-up studies.

The increasing use of mobile phones by children and teenagers has raised concerns about their safety. Addressing such concerns is difficult, because no data are available on possible effects from long-term exposure to radiofrequency (RF) fields during the development of the nervous system. Possible morphological and functional changes were evaluated in the central nervous system of young male Wistar rats exposed to 900 MHz mobile phone signal for 2 h/day on 5 days/week. After 5 weeks of exposure at whole-body average specific energy absorption rates of 0.3 or 3.0 W/kg or sham exposure, six rats per group were examined histologically, and the remaining 18 rats per group were subjected to behavioral tests. No degenerative changes, dying neurons, or effects on the leakage of the blood-brain barrier were detected. No group differences were observed in the open-field test, plus maze test or acoustic startle response tests. In the water maze test, however, significantly improved learning (P = 0.012) and memory (P = 0.01) were detected in rats exposed to RF fields. The results do not indicate a serious threat to the developing brain from mobile phone radiation at intensities relevant to human exposure. However, the interesting finding of improved learning and memory warrants further studies.

The increased use of mobile phones has raised the question of possible health effects of such devices, particularly the risk of cancer. It seems unlikely that the low-level radiofrequency (RF) radiation emitted by them would damage DNA directly, but its ability to act as a tumor promoter is less well characterized. In the current study, we evaluated the effect of low-level RF radiation on the development of cancer initiated in mice by ionizing radiation. Two hundred female CBA/S mice were randomized into four equal groups at the age of 3 to 5 weeks. The mice in all groups except the cage-control group were exposed to ionizing radiation at the beginning of the study and then to RF radiation for 1.5 h per day, 5 days a week for 78 weeks. One group was exposed to continuous NMT (Nordic Mobile Telephones)-type frequency-modulated RF radiation at a frequency of 902.5 MHz and a nominal average specific absorption rate (SAR) of 1.5 W/kg. Another group was exposed to pulsed GSM (Global System for Mobile)-type RF radiation (carrier-wave frequency 902.4 MHz, pulse frequency 217 Hz) at a nominal average SAR of 0.35 W/kg. The control animals were sham-exposed. Body weight, clinical signs, and food and water consumption were recorded regularly. Hematological examinations and histopathological analyses of all lesions and major tissues were performed on all animals. The RF-radiation exposures did not increase the incidence of any neoplastic lesion significantly. We conclude that the results do not provide evidence for cancer promotion by RF radiation emitted by mobile phones.

The objective of this study was to determine whether daytime occupational exposure to extremely low frequency magnetic fields (MFs) suppresses nocturnal melatonin production. Sixty female volunteers were recruited. Thirty-nine worked in a garment factory, and 21 office workers served as a reference group. Exposure assessment was based on the type of sewing machine used and MF measurements around each type of machine. Eye-level MF flux density was used to classify the operators to higher (>1 microT) and lower (0.3-1 microT) exposure categories. A third group of factory workers had diverse MF exposures from other sources. The reference group had average exposure of about 0.15 microT. Urine samples were collected on Friday and Monday for three consecutive weeks. Melatonin production was assessed as urinary 6-hydroxymelatonin sulfate (6-OHMS) excretion. The ratio of Friday morning/Monday morning 6-OHMS was used to test the hypothesis that melatonin production is suppressed after 4 days of occupational MF exposure with significant recovery during the weekend. Possible chronic suppression of melatonin production was evaluated by studying exposure-related differences in the Friday values by multivariate regression analysis. The Monday/Friday ratios were close to 1.0, suggesting that there is no increase in melatonin production over the weekend. The average 6-OHMS excretion on Friday was lower among the factory workers than in the reference group, but no monotonous dose-response was observed. Multivariate regression analysis identified MF exposure, smoking, and age as significant explanatory variables associated with decreased 6-OHMS excretion.

Most of the studies reviewed used magnetic fields of 100 microT or higher, so the findings are not directly relevant for explaining the epidemiological findings suggesting increased risk of childhood leukemia above 0.4 microT. However, confirmed adverse effects even at 100 microT would have implications for risk assessment and management, including the need to reconsider the exposure limits for magnetic fields. There is an obvious need for further studies on combined effects with magnetic fields.