Effects of differently polarized microwave radiation on the microscopic structure of the nuclei in human fibroblasts

Shckorbatov, Y. G.; Pasiuga, V. N.; Goncharuk, E. I.; Petrenko, T. P.; Grabina, V.A.; Kolchigin, N. N.; Ivanchenko, D. D.; Bykov, V. N.; Dumin, Oleksandr

doi:10.1631/jzus.b1000051

Cited by 10 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The effect increased with intensity. Right-handed polarization induced a stronger effect than left-handed 41 . These experiments show that not only linear but circular and elliptical polarizations are important parameters for the biological action of EMR, and that molecular structure of biomolecules may be important for the interaction between polarized EMF and the biological tissue.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Polarization: A Key Difference between Man-made and Natural Electromagnetic Fields, in regard to Biological Activity

Panagopoulos

Johansson

Carlo

2015

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the present study we analyze the role of polarization in the biological activity of Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs)/Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR). All types of man-made EMFs/EMR - in contrast to natural EMFs/EMR - are polarized. Polarized EMFs/EMR can have increased biological activity, due to: 1) Ability to produce constructive interference effects and amplify their intensities at many locations. 2) Ability to force all charged/polar molecules and especially free ions within and around all living cells to oscillate on parallel planes and in phase with the applied polarized field. Such ionic forced-oscillations exert additive electrostatic forces on the sensors of cell membrane electro-sensitive ion channels, resulting in their irregular gating and consequent disruption of the cell’s electrochemical balance. These features render man-made EMFs/EMR more bioactive than natural non-ionizing EMFs/EMR. This explains the increasing number of biological effects discovered during the past few decades to be induced by man-made EMFs, in contrast to natural EMFs in the terrestrial environment which have always been present throughout evolution, although human exposure to the latter ones is normally of significantly higher intensities/energy and longer durations. Thus, polarization seems to be a trigger that significantly increases the probability for the initiation of biological/health effects.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Polarization: A Key Difference between Man-made and Natural Electromagnetic Fields, in regard to Biological Activity

Panagopoulos

Johansson

Carlo

2015

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, a number of outliers appear with higher d values. These are older studies (Garaj-Vrhovac et al, 1991;Zotti-Martelli et al, 2000;Kesari and Behari, 2009;Shckorbatov et al, 2010;Karaca et al, 2012). Their results are not consistent with subsequent studies on similar endpoints and may be in error.…”

Section: Effect Sizesmentioning

confidence: 66%

Needed: More Reliable Bioeffects Studies at “High Band” 5G Frequencies

Foster

Vijayalaxmi

2021

Front. Comms. Net.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One major source of controversy related to possible health effects of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) is the large number of reported statistically significant effects of exposure, over the entire RF part of the spectrum and over a wide range of exposure levels, even as health agencies do not find clear evidence for health hazards of exposure at levels within current IEEE and ICNIRP exposure limits. This Perspective considers 31 studies related to genetic damage produced by exposure to RFR at frequencies above 6 GHz, including at millimeter-wave (mm-wave) frequencies. Collectively, the papers report many statistically significant effects related to genetic damage, many at exposure levels below current exposure limits. However, application of five risk of bias (RoB) criteria and other considerations suggest that the studies in many cases are vulnerable to false discovery (nonreplicable results). The authors call for improvements in study design, analysis and reporting in future bioeffects research to provide more reliable information for health agencies and regulatory decision makers. This Perspective is a companion to another Perspective by Mattsson et al. elsewhere in this volume (Mattsson et al., 2021)1.

show abstract

“…Two of the studies also examined telomere length and found no statistically significant difference between exposed and unexposed cells [15,19]. Last, a Ukrainian research group examined different skin cell types in three studies and reported an increase in chromosome condensation in the nucleus [20][21][22]; these results have not been independently verified. Overall, there was no confirmed evidence of MMWs causing genotoxic damage in epithelial and skin cells.…”

Section: Genotoxicitymentioning

confidence: 99%

5G mobile networks and health—a state-of-the-science review of the research into low-level RF fields above 6 GHz

Karipidis¹,

Mate²,

Urban³

et al. 2021

J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The increased use of radiofrequency (RF) fields above 6 GHz, particularly for the 5 G mobile phone network, has given rise to public concern about any possible adverse effects to human health. Public exposure to RF fields from 5 G and other sources is below the human exposure limits specified by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). This state-of-the science review examined the research into the biological and health effects of RF fields above 6 GHz at exposure levels below the ICNIRP occupational limits. The review included 107 experimental studies that investigated various bioeffects including genotoxicity, cell proliferation, gene expression, cell signalling, membrane function and other effects. Reported bioeffects were generally not independently replicated and the majority of the studies employed low quality methods of exposure assessment and control. Effects due to heating from high RF energy deposition cannot be excluded from many of the results. The review also included 31 epidemiological studies that investigated exposure to radar, which uses RF fields above 6 GHz similar to 5 G. The epidemiological studies showed little evidence of health effects including cancer at different sites, effects on reproduction and other diseases. This review showed no confirmed evidence that low-level RF fields above 6 GHz such as those used by the 5 G network are hazardous to human health. Future experimental studies should improve the experimental design with particular attention to dosimetry and temperature control. Future epidemiological studies should continue to monitor long-term health effects in the population related to wireless telecommunications.

show abstract

Effects of differently polarized microwave radiation on the microscopic structure of the nuclei in human fibroblasts

Cited by 10 publications

References 17 publications

Polarization: A Key Difference between Man-made and Natural Electromagnetic Fields, in regard to Biological Activity

Polarization: A Key Difference between Man-made and Natural Electromagnetic Fields, in regard to Biological Activity

Needed: More Reliable Bioeffects Studies at “High Band” 5G Frequencies

5G mobile networks and health—a state-of-the-science review of the research into low-level RF fields above 6 GHz

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About