Transcript No Slide Title

Cell Phone SARmax
Dimbylow and Mann (1994)- 2.3 and 4.8 W/kg/gm
tissue per W output at 900 MHz and 1.8 GHz.
Anderson and Joyner (1995)- 0.12-0.83 W/kg
Gandhi et al. (1999)- 0.13-5.41 W/kg/gm tissue at
0.6 W output (835 and 1900 MHz)
Van de Kamer and Lagendijk (2002)- 1.72-2.55
W/kg /gm tissue at 0.25 W output (915 MHz)
Studies on Wireless Communication-related Signals
Cancer
Effect: Adey (99); Auvinen (02); Hardell (99, 00, 01, 02a,b;
03a,b; 05a,b,c; 06a,b); Lonn (04); Repacholi (97); Stang (01);
Wolf (04)
No Effect: Adey (00); Anane (03); Bartsch (02); Cain (97);
Chaynaud (99); Chang (05); Christensen (04, 05); Cook (03);
Hardell (04); Heikkinen (01, 03); Hepworth (06);
Higashikubo (99); Huang (05); Imaida (98a,b); Inskip (01);
Johansen (01, 02); Kahn (03);La Regina (03); Muscat (00a,b);
Lonn (05); Salford (97); Schoemaker (05); Shirai (5); Schuz
(06); Sommer (04); Zook (01, 06); Utteridge (02); Warren
(03); Yu (06)
*Cell phone industry-sponsored studies in red
Studies on Wireless Communication-related Signals
Genetic Effects
Effect: Aitken (05); Belyaev (05, 06); Czyz (04); d’Ambrosio
(02); Diem (05); Gadhia (03); Gandhi (05a,b); Goswami
(99); Harvey & French (00); Ivaschuk (97); Maes (96, 97);
Markova (05); Mashevich (03); Nikolova (05); Pacini (02);
Phillips (98); Sarimov (04); Sykes (01); Tice (02); Wang
(05); Zotti-Martelli (05)
No Effect: Antonopoulos (97); Bisht (02); Chang (05)
Chauhan (06a,b); Finnie (05); Fritz (97); Gorlitz (05); Gos
(00); Hook (04a); Kuribayashi (05); Li (01); Maes (01, 06);
Malyapa (97); McNamee (02a,b, 03); Morrisey (99); Qutob
(06); Sakuma (06); Stronati (06); Takahaski (02);
Verschaeve (06); Vijayalaxmi (01a,b, 03); Whitehead (05,
06); Zeni (03)
Studies on Wireless Communication-related Signals
Cellular/Molecular Effects
Effect: Aksoy (05); Ayata (04); Barteri (05); Caraglia(05); French (97);
Ilhan (04); Irmak (02); Kimata (05); Kwee & Raskmark (98); Kwee
(01); Leszczynski (02); Litovitz (93, 97); Mancinelli (04); Marinelli (04);
Markkanen (04); Mausset (01); Mausset-Bonnefont (04); Nylund (04);
Oktem (05); Ozguner (04, 05a,b,c, 06); Pyrpasopoulou (04); Penafiel
(97); Persson (97); Philippova (94); Salford (03); Stagg (97); Shallom
(02); Stopczyk (02); Tafforeau (02); Testylier (02) Velizarov (99); Wang
(05); Weisbrot (03); Wolke (96); Yariktas (05); Zmyslony (04)
No Effect: Capri (04a); Capri (04b); Desta (03); Gatta (03);
Higashikubo (01); Hook (04b); Joubert (06);Lantow (06a,b); Laszlo
(05); Li (99); Lee (05); Lim (05); Merola (06); Roti-Roti (01); Simko
(06) Simsek (03); Stagg (01); Tsurita (00)
Studies on Wireless Communication-related Signals
Electrophysiology
Effect: Beason & Semm (02); Bolshakov & Alekseev
(92); Borbely (99); Croft (02); Curcio (05); D’Costa (03); Esen
(06); Eulitz (98); Freude (98, 00); Hamblin (04); Hinrichs (04);
Huber (00, 02, 03); Kellenji (99); Kramarenko (03); Krause
(00a,b; 04); Lebedeva (00, 01); Loughran (05); Maby (04, 05);
Mann & Rosche (96); Marino (03); Nam (06); Papageorgiou (04,
06); Von Klitzing (95); Vorobyov (04); Xu (06)
No Effect: Arai (03); Aran (04); Haarala (03b); Hamblin (06);
Hietanen (00); Linz (99) Rosche & Mann (97); Sievert (05); Urban
(98); Wagner (98,00)
Studies on Wireless Communication-related Signals
Behavior
Effect: Borbely (99); Cao (00); Curcio (04);
Edelstyn & Oldershaw (02); Eliyahu (05); Hladky
(99); Jech (01); Koivisto (00a,b); Langer (2005); Lee
(01, 03); Loscher & Kos (98); Maier (04); Mann &
Rosche (96); Preece (97); Santini (01, 02); Smythe &
Costall (03)
No Effect: Besset (05); Bornhausen & Scheingnaber
(00); Dubreiul (02, 03); Haarala (03a,b, 04, 05);
Koivisto (01); Preece (05); Russo (05); Schmid (05);
Sienkiewicz (00); Wagner (98;00); Yamaguchi (03)
Other Effects:
Nervous system
Blood-brain barrier
Calcium
Cardiovascular
warm sensation
Hormones
Immunology
Metabolic rate/effect
Reproduction/growth
Subjective symptoms
Studies on Wireless Communication-related Signals
Other Effects
Effect: Aalto (06); Aksen (04); Al-Khlaiwi (04); Balik (05); Balikci (05);
Bergamaschi (04); Braune (98); Burch (02); Chia (00); Dasdag (99, 00);
DiCarlo (02); Donnellan (97); Fejes (05); Forgacs (06); Garcia (05);
Grigor’ev (03); Grisanti (98); Hocking (98); Huber (05);Jarupat (03);
Kilgallon (05); Kimata (02); Imaida (98a,b); Keetley (06); Khudnitskii
(99); Koyu (05b); Lopez-Martin (06); Meo (05); Monfrecola (03);
Moustafa (01); Oftedal (00); Oktag (06); Ozguner (05); Panagopoulos
(04); Paredi (01); Salford (94); Sandstrom (01); Schirmacher (01); Singh
& Bate (96); Sukhotina (06); Tkalec (05); Wilen (03, 05); Wood (06)
No Effect: Anane (03); Bakos (03); Bortkiewicz (02); Braune (02); Celik
(04); Chagnaud & Veyret (99); Cranfield (01); Dasdag (03); DeSeze (98,
99); Finnie (01, 02, 06); Franke (05); Fritze (97); Galloni (05a,b);Hata
(05); Hietanen (02); Janssen (05); Jensh (97); Kizilay (03);Koyu (05a);
Mann (98); Marino (00); Monnery (04); Mora (06); Nakamura (03);
Ozturan (02); Parazzini (05); Pau (05); Tahvanainen (04); Tuschi (05);
Uloziene (05); Vollrath (97); Yuasa (06)
Cell Phone Biological Studies
Effect
IndustryFunded
27
(28%)
No Effect
69
96 (29%)
(72%)
Non-IndustryFunded
154
76
(67%)
(33%)
Total
181(56%)
145 (44%)
c2 = 39.80 (p< .001)
Total
230(71%)
326
(7/11/06)
Studies reporting biological effects of
radiofrequency radiation (RFR) at low
intensities
(1) Balode (1996)- blood cells from cows from a farm close and
in front of a radar showed significantly higher level of severe
genetic damage.
(2) Boscol et al. (2001)- RFR from radio transmission stations
(0.005 mW/cm2) affects immunological system in women.
(3) Chiang et al. (1989)- people who lived and worked near
radio antennae and radar installations showed deficits in
psychological and short-term memory tests.
(4) de Pomerai et al. (2000, 2002) reported an increase in a
molecular stress response in cells after exposure to a RFR
at a SAR of 0.001 W/kg. This stress response is a basic
biological process that is present in almost all animals including humans.
(5) De Pomerai et al. (2003) RFR damges proteins at 0.0150.02 W/kg.
(6) D'Inzeo et al. (1988)- very low intensity RFR (0.002 –
0.004 mW/cm2) affects the operation of acetylcholinerelated ion-channels in cells. These channels play
important roles in physiological and behavioral functions.
(7) Dolk et al. (1997)- a significant increase in adult
leukemias was found in residents who lived near the Sutton
Coldfield television (TV) and frequency modulation (FM)
radio transmitter in England.
(8) Dutta et al. (1989) reported an increase in calcium efflux in
cells after exposure to RFR at 0.005 W/kg. Calcium is an
important component of normal cellular functions.
(9) Fesenko et al. (1999) reported a change in immunological
functions in mice after exposure to RFR at a power density of
0.001 mW/cm2.
(10) Hjollund et al. (1997)- sperm counts of Danish military
personnel, who operated mobile ground-to-air missile units
that use several RFR emitting radar systems (maximal mean
exposure 0.01 mW/cm2), were significantly lower compared to
references.
(11) Hocking et al. (1996)- an association was found between
increased childhood leukemia incidence and mortality and
proximity to TV towers.
(12) Ivaschuk et al. (1999)- short-term exposure to cellular
phone RFR of very low SAR (26 mW/kg) affected a gene
related to cancer.
(13) Kolodynski and Kolodynska (1996)- school children who
lived in front of a radio station had less developed memory
and attention, their reaction time was slower, and their
neuromuscular apparatus endurance was decreased.
(14) Kwee et al. (2001)- 20 minutes of cell phone RFR
exposure at 0.0021 W/kg increased stress protein in human
cells.
(15) Lebedeva et al. (2000)- brain wave activation was
observed in human subjects exposed to cellular phone RFR
at 0.06 mW/cm2.
(16) Magras and Xenos (1999) reported a decrease in
reproductive function in mice exposed to RFR at power densities
of 0.000168 - 0.001053 mW/cm2.
(17) Mann et al. (1998)- a transient increase in blood cortisol was
observed in human subjects exposed to cellular phone RFR at
0.02 mW/cm2. Cortisol is a hormone involved in stress reaction.
(18) Marinelli et al. (2004)- exposure to 900-MHz RFR at 0.0035
W/kg affected cell’s self-defense responses.
(19) Michelozzi et al. (1998)- leukemia mortality within 3.5 km
(5,863 inhabitants) near a high power radio-transmitter in a
peripheral area of Rome was higher than expected.
(20) Michelozzi et al. (2002)- childhood leukemia higher at a
distance up to 6 km from a radio station.
(21) Navakatikian and Tomashevskaya (1994)- RFR at low
intensities (0.01 - 0.1 mW/cm2; 0.0027- 0.027 W/kg) induced
behavioral and endocrine changes in rats. Decreases in blood
concentrations of testosterone and insulin were reported.
(22) Novoselova et al. (1999)-low intensity RFR (0.001 mW/cm2)
affects functions of the immune system.
(23) Novoselova et al. (2004)- chronic exposure to RFR (0.001
mW/cm2) decreased tumor growth rate and enhanced survival
in mice.
(24) Park et al. (2004) higher mortality rates for all cancers and
leukemia in some age groups in the area near the AM radio
broadcasting towers.
(25) Persson et al. (1997) reported an increase in the permeability
of the blood-brain barrier in mice exposed to RFR at 0.0004 - 0.008
W/kg. The blood-brain barrier envelops the brain and protects it
from toxic substances.
(26) Phillips et al. (1998) reported DNA damage in cells exposed to
RFR at SAR of 0.0024 - 0.024 W/kg.
(27) Polonga-Moraru et al. (2002) change in membrane of cells in
the retina (eye) after exposure to RFR at 15 mW/cm2.
(28) Pyrpasopoulou et al. (2004) exposure to cell phone radiation
during early gestation at SAR of 0.0005 W/kg (5 mW/cm2) affected
kidney development in rats.
(29) Salford et al. (2003)- nerve cell damage in brain of rats
exposed for 2 hrs to GSM signal at 0.02 W/kg.
(30) Santini et al. (2002)- increase in complaint frequencies
for tiredness, headache, sleep disturbance, discomfort,
irritability, depression, loss of memory, dizziness, libido
decrease, in people who lived within 300 m of mobile phone
base stations.
(31) Sarimov et al. (2004)- GSM microwaves affect human
lymphocyte chromatin similar to stress response at 0.0054
W/kg.
(32) Schwartz et al. (1990)- calcium movement in the heart
affected by RFR at SAR of 0.00015 W/kg. Calcium is
important in muscle contraction. Changes in calcium can
affect heart functions.
(33) Somosy et al. (1991)- RFR at 0.024 W/kg caused
molecular and structural changes in cells of mouse
embryos.
(34) Stagg et al. (1997)- glioma cells exposed to cellular
phone RFR at 0.0059 W/kg showed significant increases
in thymidine incorporation, which may be an indication of
an increase in cell division.
(35) Stark et al. (1997)- a two- to seven-fold increase of
salivary melatonin concentration was observed in dairy
cattle exposed to RFR from a radio transmitter antenna.
(36) Tattersall et al. (2001)- low-intensity RFR (0.0016 0.0044 W/kg) can modulate the function of a part of the
brain called the hippocampus, in the absence of gross
thermal effects. The changes in excitability may be
consistent with reported behavioral effects of RFR, since
the hippocampus is involved in learning and memory.
(37) Vangelova et al. (2002)- operators of satellite station
exposed to low dose (0.1127 J/kg) of RFR over a 24-hr shift
showed an increased excretion of stress hormones.
(38) Velizarov et al. (1999) showed a decrease in cell
proliferation (division) after exposure to RFR of 0.000021 0.0021 W/kg.
(39) Veyret et al. (1991)- low intensity RFR at SAR of 0.015
W/kg affects functions of the immune system.
(40) Wolke et al. (1996)- RFR at 0.001W/kg affects calcium
concentration in heart muscle cells of guinea pigs.