Acute exposure to low‐level CW and GSM‐modulated 900 MHz radiofrequency does not affect Ba<sup>2+</sup> currents through voltage‐gated calcium channels in rat cortical neurons

Platano, Daniela; Mesirca, Pietro; Paffi, Alessandra; Pellegrino, M.; Liberti, Micaela; Apollonio, Francesca; Bersani, Ferdinando; Aicardi, Giorgio

doi:10.1002/bem.20345

Cited by 38 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 34 publications

(40 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…No effects were observed from either the modulated or the CW exposures. Platano et al [2007] measured Ba 2þ current through voltage-gated calcium channels in primary rat cortical neurons and found no effects, irrespective of the signal used. Thorlin et al [2006] reported no effects from CWor GSM-modulated RF fields on Il6, Tnfa, Gfap and ED-1 levels in rat primary astroglial and microglial cells.…”

Section: Other Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of possible modulation‐dependent biological effects of radiofrequency fields

Juutilainen

Höytö

Kumlin

et al. 2011

Bioelectromagnetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Other Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of possible modulation‐dependent biological effects of radiofrequency fields

Juutilainen

Höytö

Kumlin

et al. 2011

Bioelectromagnetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This should be borne in mind, since some studies have shown that modulated RFR may cause neurological effects even at low average power [Bawin et al, 1975;Foster, 1996]. Others, however, show no such effect [e.g., Green et al, 2005;Platano et al, 2007].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive effects of radiation emitted by cellular phones: The influence of exposure side and time

Luria

Eliyahu²,

Hareuveny³

et al. 2008

Bioelectromagnetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the time dependence effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitted by standard GSM cellular phones on the cognitive functions of humans. A total of 48 healthy right-handed male subjects performed a spatial working memory task (that required either a left-hand or a right-hand response) while being exposed to one of two GSM phones placed at both sides of the head. The subjects were randomly divided into three groups. Each group was exposed to one of three exposure conditions: left-side of the head, right-side, or sham-exposure. The experiment consisted of 12 blocks of trials. Response times (RTs) and accuracy of the responses were recorded. It was found that the average RT of the right-hand responses under left-side exposure condition was significantly longer than those of the right-side and sham-exposure groups averaged together during the first two time blocks. These results confirmed the existence of an effect of exposure on RT, as well as the fact that exposure duration (together with the responding hand and the side of exposure) may play an important role in producing detectable RFR effects on performance. Differences in these parameters might be the reason for the failure of certain studies to detect or replicate RFR effects.

show abstract

“…The nervous system is one of the most studied systems under the action of exogenous electromagnetic fields (Espinosa et al, 2006 ; Marchionni et al, 2006 ; Platano et al, 2007 ; Apollonio et al, 2013 ; Di Lazzaro et al, 2013 ). Particularly, experimental and clinical studies that explore the effects of the stimulation of the Central Nervous System (CNS) with weak Magnetic Fields (MF) (i.e., with amplitude up to a few mT) and with a low frequency content (Extremely Low Frequency, ELF, 0–500 Hz) have yielded some evidence of functional changes in excitable biological tissues, as recently discussed in Di Lazzaro et al ( 2013 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The CNP signal is able to silence a supra threshold neuronal model

Camera

Paffi

Thomas

et al. 2015

Front. Comput. Neurosci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several experimental results published in the literature showed that weak pulsed magnetic fields affected the response of the central nervous system. However, the specific biological mechanisms that regulate the observed behaviors are still unclear and further scientific investigation is required. In this work we performed simulations on a neuronal network model exposed to a specific pulsed magnetic field signal that seems to be very effective in modulating the brain activity: the Complex Neuroelectromagnetic Pulse (CNP). Results show that CNP can silence the neurons of a feed-forward network for signal intensities that depend on the strength of the bias current, the endogenous noise level and the specific waveforms of the pulses. Therefore, it is conceivable that a neuronal network model responds to the CNP signal with an inhibition of its activity. Further studies on more realistic neuronal networks are needed to clarify if such an inhibitory effect on neuronal tissue may be the basis of the induced analgesia seen in humans and the antinociceptive effects seen in animals when exposed to the CNP.

show abstract

Acute exposure to low‐level CW and GSM‐modulated 900 MHz radiofrequency does not affect Ba²⁺ currents through voltage‐gated calcium channels in rat cortical neurons

Cited by 38 publications

References 34 publications

Review of possible modulation‐dependent biological effects of radiofrequency fields

Review of possible modulation‐dependent biological effects of radiofrequency fields

Cognitive effects of radiation emitted by cellular phones: The influence of exposure side and time

The CNP signal is able to silence a supra threshold neuronal model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Acute exposure to low‐level CW and GSM‐modulated 900 MHz radiofrequency does not affect Ba2+ currents through voltage‐gated calcium channels in rat cortical neurons

Cited by 38 publications

References 34 publications

Review of possible modulation‐dependent biological effects of radiofrequency fields

Review of possible modulation‐dependent biological effects of radiofrequency fields

Cognitive effects of radiation emitted by cellular phones: The influence of exposure side and time

The CNP signal is able to silence a supra threshold neuronal model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Acute exposure to low‐level CW and GSM‐modulated 900 MHz radiofrequency does not affect Ba²⁺ currents through voltage‐gated calcium channels in rat cortical neurons