Cytogenetic damage in human lymphocytes following GMSK phase modulated microwave exposure

107

The published in vitro literature relevant to the issue of the possible induction of toxicity, genotoxicity, and transformation of mammalian cells due to radiofrequency field (RF) exposure is examined. In some instances, information about related in vivo studies is presented. The review is from the perspective of technical merit and also biological consistency, especially with regard to those publications reporting a positive effect. The weight of evidence available indicates that, for a variety of frequencies and modulations with both short and long exposure times, at exposure levels that do not (or in some instances do) heat the biological sample such that there is a measurable increase in temperature, RF exposure does not induce (a) DNA strand breaks, (b) chromosome aberrations, (c) sister chromatid exchanges (SCEs), (d) DNA repair synthesis, (e) phenotypic mutation, or (f) transformation (cancer-like changes). While there is limited experimental evidence that RF exposure induces micronuclei formation, there is abundant evidence that it does not. There is some evidence that RF exposure does not induce DNA excision repair, suggesting the absence of base damage. There is also evidence that RF exposure does not inhibit excision repair after the induction of thymine dimers by UVexposure, as well as evidence that indicates that RF is not a co-carcinogen or a tumor promoter. The article is in part a tutorial, so that the reader can consider similarities and discrepancies between reports of RF-induced effects relative to one another. Bioelectromagnetics Supplement 6:S196-S213,

mentioning

confidence: 84%

Radiofrequency exposure and mammalian cell toxicity, genotoxicity, and transformation

Meltz

2003

107

“…Several in vitro studies of micronucleus induction in mouse embryo fibroblasts [Bisht et al, 2002], human leucocytes [Tice et al, 2002;McNamee et al, 2003;Zeni et al, 2003] and human lymphocytes [d 'Ambrosio et al, 2002;Vijayalaxmi, 2006] have been published since 1998. Only one reported statistically significant effects; increased micronucleus frequency was found following exposure to a 1748 MHz phase-modulated RF field, but not after corresponding exposure to a CW field [d' Ambrosio et al, 2002].…”

Section: Review Of Experimental Observations Genotoxicitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Only one reported statistically significant effects; increased micronucleus frequency was found following exposure to a 1748 MHz phase-modulated RF field, but not after corresponding exposure to a CW field [d' Ambrosio et al, 2002]. Juutilainen et al [2007] investigated the effects of long-term exposure to three different mobile phone signals in three strains of mice.…”

Section: Review Of Experimental Observations Genotoxicitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of possible modulation‐dependent biological effects of radiofrequency fields

Juutilainen

Höytö

Kumlin

et al. 2011

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.

“…d 'Ambrosio et al [2002] investigated whether cell cycle progression or MN induction could be caused in human lymphocyte cultures from exposure to 1.748 GHz phase modulated with Gaussian minimum shift keying (GMSK). This study was performed without the concurrent TDMA amplitude modulation used in GSM 1800 mobile phone systems.…”

Section: Mammalian Live Tissues and Cells Exposed In Vitromentioning

confidence: 99%

Radio frequency electromagnetic fields: Cancer, mutagenesis, and genotoxicity

Heynick

Johnston²,

Mason

2003

We present critiques of epidemiologic studies and experimental investigations, published mostly in peer‐reviewed journals, on cancer and related effects from exposure to nonionizing electromagnetic fields in the nominal frequency range of 3 kHz to 300 GHz of interest to Subcommittee 4 (SC4) of the International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety (ICES). The major topics discussed are presented under the headings Epidemiologic and Other Findings on Human Exposure, Mammals Exposed In Vivo, Mammalian Live Tissues and Cell Preparations Exposed In Vitro, and Mutagenesis and Genotoxicity in Microorganisms and Fruit Flies. Under each major topic, we present minireviews of papers on various specific endpoints investigated. The section on Epidemiologic and Other Findings on Human Exposure is divided into two subsections, the first on possible carcinogenic effects of exposure from emitters not in physical contact with the populations studied, for example, transmitting antennas and other devices. Discussed in the second subsection are studies of postulated carcinogenic effects from use of mobile phones, with prominence given to brain tumors from use of cellular and cordless telephones in direct physical contact with an ear of each subject. In both subsections, some investigations yielded positive findings, others had negative findings, including papers directed toward experimentally verifying positive findings, and both were reported in a few instances. Further research on various important aspects may resolve such differences. Overall, however, the preponderance of published epidemiologic and experimental findings do not support the supposition that in vivo or in vitro exposures to such fields are carcinogenic. Bioelectromagnetics Supplement 6:S74–S100, 2003. Published 2003 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.