Cell Phone Hazards: The End of an Era Part 2

In Cell Phone Hazards: Part I, we discussed the safety standards surrounding cell phone radiation and why they are inadequate to protect us against risk of potential adverse health effects. In short, the standards:

• Do not account for cell phone use by children and teens, who are generally more susceptible to health effects of radiation;
• Do not protect against risk of non-thermal health effects;
• Are outdated; and
• May reflect industry bias.

In this article, we provide more detailed information about non-thermal effects associated with cell phone radiation and how they may be endangering your health. Exploration of non-thermal effects as possibilities, rather than certainties, provides a logical foundation for adopting a precautionary approach toward use of cell phones and other wireless technologies.

Why are Cell Phones Potentially Dangerous?

Cell phones emit electromagnetic radiation within the radio frequency (RF) range of the electromagnetic spectrum, which encompasses radio waves and microwaves. RF energy, which is also used for radio and television broadcasting, wireless internet use and microwave cooking, is non-ionizing energy. On the other end of the spectrum are Gamma-rays and X-rays, which emit ionizing energy. Ionizing energy is powerful enough to strip electrons from atoms and cause damaging health effects such as DNA mutations and cancer. While RF energy is non-ionizing, exposure to high levels of it can cause rapid heating of, and damage to, body tissues; this is the principle behind microwave cooking. Biological changes caused by quick tissue heating are known as “thermal” effects.

When establishing safety standards governing the amount of RF radiation cell phones may emit, regulatory organizations and agencies considered only the risk of thermal effects that cell phone radiation may have on our cells. Regulators did not take into account the risk of adverse health effects associated with “non-thermal” biological effects caused by exposure to lower levels of RF energy; the existing information on non-thermal effects was too complex and the relevance to human health too uncertain (ICNIRP Guidelines).

Just because cell phones are not “cooking” our brains and skulls, though, doesn’t mean they get a clean bill of health…

The Federal Communication Commission (FCC), the U.S. agency in charge of regulating cell phones and other consumer wireless devices, has acknowledged that, “in general, while the possibility of 'non-thermal' biological effects may exist, whether or not such effects might indicate a human health hazard is not presently known.” The agency continued by stating, “further research is needed to determine the generality of such effects and their possible relevance, if any, to human health" (OET Bulletin 56).

Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS)

Despite regulatory protection against thermal effects, a small, but significant, percentage of people have reported health problems that are believed to be caused by exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF), for example from cell phone towers, WiFi and cordless phones. Authorities have labeled this group of people as having “electromagnetic hypersensitivity” or EHS. Common symptoms reported by people with EHS include heart palpitations, dizziness, nausea, digestive disturbances, fatigue, tiredness, difficulty concentrating, and skin irritation.

Cellular Stress Response

It’s quite possible that cellular stress response, which is thought to cause non-thermal biological effects, is at the root of the EHS phenomenon. In vitro studies suggest that, in response to low levels (i.e. below existing cell phone radiation standards) of RF energy, some of our cells produce stress proteins (heat shock proteins) as a protective mechanism, and thus perceive wireless radiation as a threat to cellular function. Cellular stress response activates DNA and protein synthesis, which demonstrates the possibility, if not proof, of altered cell physiology, or non-thermal biological effects.

As cellular stress response serves the body best as a short-term protective mechanism, chronic or continual stress response may result in diminished response and protective effect, which could increase cell vulnerability to damage. As such, researchers have hypothesized that chronic cellular stress response can eventually cause damaging non-thermal effects such as leakage of the blood-brain barrier and toxicity of the brain, suppression of the immune system, cardiac disturbances, DNA damage, and even cancer. As subtle as the wireless threat itself, non-thermal biological effects associated with it may begin as cell sensitivities which develop into greater systemic issues.

Wireless Emissions: A Subtle, yet Serious Threat

Compare EKG rhythms on the left, which show the heart’s electrical activity, to the audio waveform on the right.

We are bioelectrical beings by nature, and our hearts and nervous systems are especially vulnerable to electrical disturbances. Wireless radiation, with its non-harmonious jagged waveforms, can disturb our natural biorhythms. From a cardiac perspective, wireless radiation may affect the rate and rhythm of our heartbeats, which can cause arrhythmias, or heart palpitations; some complex or malignant arrythmias can lead to sudden death.

Heart rate variability is a measurement of the beat-to-beat alterations in heart rate, which can indicate whether a person is in a chronic state of sympathetic arousal, or overly stressed, and is used to help determine risk of cardiac events. New research indicates that use of a cordless phone can disturb HRV. Conversely, through a recent study on grounding researchers have learned that placing one's feet in direct contact with the Earth's electromagnetic field supports HRV (Chevalier, et al.). Serindipidously, the researchers also observed that grounding supports zeta potential, the electrical force bewteen red blood cells (RBCs), and that exposure to wireless radiation correlates with RBC stacking; remember that viscous blood increase one's risk of strokes or heart attacks. Wireless radiation may also interfere with our neurological electrical impulses, causing difficulty concentrating and other cognitive issues. These effects might be systemic manifestation of cellular stress response. (For more information about electromagnetic effects on HRV and blood viscosity, read Grounding for a Healthy Heart.)

Cellular Stress Response and the Blood-Brain Barrier

Scientists have also hypothesized that cell phone and other wireless radiation induces a stress response in human endothelial cells (which form the lining of blood vessels), which may compromise function of the blood-brain barrier. The blood-brain barrier performs a gatekeeper function by allowing nutrients and waste products into and out of brain cells while preventing toxins in the bloodstream from getting in. Impaired function of the blood-brain barrier, then, can lead to toxic permeation of the brain, which ultimately damages brain cells. Some researchers believe that this leakage underlies the alarming increase in autism over the last decade.

Immune System Dysfunction

Much like cellular stress response, the body’s immune system also reacts to wireless radiation as if it is a threat. Under currently permitted standards, RF emissions can cause inflammatory and allergic reactions. It follows that chronic exposure to cell phone and WiFi radiation could lead to health problems associated with inflammation. Inflammation, which can lead to cellular, tissue and organ damage over time, is now thought to be the primary precursor to most degenerative diseases. An immune system burdened with chronic inflammatory and allergic reactions lacks optimal resources with which to respond to other reparative tasks, which sets the stage for immune system dysfunction.

DNA Damage

DNA damage, which can be caused by a variety of factors including exposure to ionizing radiation and oxidative stress, is a primary cause of cancer. When DNA damage exceeds the body’s ability to repair it, the damaged cells can start reproducing themselves without eventually dying, causing the formation of tumors.

Mixed results from in vitro and animal model studies, have led researchers to hypothesize that cell phone radiation exposure could damage DNA and/or reduce its reparative ability. Slightly more than 50 percent of studies have demonstrated significant effects on DNA, while the rest have not. This split has resulted in some researchers advocating the precautionary principle, and others dismissing the hypothesis that low-level RF radiation can damage DNA. In the BioInitiative Report, Henri Lai, Ph.D explained that discrepancies in these study findings may occur as a result of different exposure conditions, as well as general differences in the way the particular cells or organisms studied respond to EMF.

As mentioned earlier, ionizing radiation can break chemical bonds within molecules, which damages DNA. Since cell phone radiation under current safety standards lacks sufficient energy to do this, researchers have theorized that any possible DNA damage is through indirect or secondary changes in cell physiology. One of the mechanisms by which cell phone radiation may lead to DNA damage is by enhancing free radical activity within cells, especially nerve cells.

The good news is, if cell phone radiation does increase free radical activity in cells, eating foods rich in, or supplementing with, antioxidants could help protect against possible DNA damage. It follows that grounding, which supplies the body with free electrons with which to counteract free radicals, could also help protect against the possible cancerous effects of cell phone radiation.

Obviously, more research is necessary to state with any certainty that cell phone radiation damages DNA; without conclusive proof that it doesn’t, though, isn’t precautionary use the smartest option?

Discrepancy about Standards Related to Thermal Heating

Cell phone radiation may also be dangerous under current Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) standards because of a basic misconception about the nature of thermal effects. SAR standards are based on the risk one’s entire body temperature increasing by more than 1 degree Celsius. As body temperature often fluctuates in this manner throughout the course of normal physiological processes, cell phone radiation which induces biological effects by raising body temperature up to 1 degree Celsius is considered harmless.

The problem with this standard is that it doesn’t account for localized heating of body tissues, such as in the brain, caused by cell phone radiation. Have you ever felt your ear or side of your face get hot when talking on your cell phone? You can bet the temperature of your entire body has not been similarly raised. As whole body heating happens gradually, your cells have time to generate protective responses; with localized heating, radiation can penetrate unprotected tissues. Hence, even under safety standards designed to protect against thermal effects, cell phone radiation may be causing them locally.

Rationalizing the Precautionary Principle

Cell phone use has indeed exploded over the past decade. In light of such widespread use, any health risks connected to cell phones pose threat of a public health crisis. The “weight of” existing studies does not prove either safety or adverse health effects associated with cell phone use, which has led to a general divide in thinking. While some people entirely dismiss evidence from studies which do link cell phone radiation to adverse health effects, others advocate the Precautionary Principle based on possibility of such effects, especially with regard to children.

Under the Precautionary Principle, the threat of plausible, serious and irreversible hazards to public health from exposure to particular environmental stimuli justify public policy action to reduce such exposure; even though scientific uncertainty or ignorance may preclude findings of a true hazard, waiting for such proof may be more damaging to public health in the long run. With cell phone and other wireless radiation, there is the possibility of adverse health effects under currently permitted standards, and RF radiation may actually alter cell physiology through a combination of thermal and non-thermal effects.

As health problems due to non-thermal and thermal effects can take years to fully develop, and regulatory agencies may take years to update the safety standards, practicing the precautionary principle by limiting exposure to cell phone and other radiation is simply a matter of common sense.

References and Resources:

• The BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF). BioInitiative.org, August 31, 2007:
  • Lai, Henry. Section 6: Evidence of Genotoxic Effects - RFR and ELF Genotoxicity.
  • Blank, Martin. Section 7: Evidence for Stress Response (Stress Proteins).
  • Johansson, Olle. Section 8: Evidence for Effects on the Immune System.
  • Gee, David. Section 16: The Precautionary Principle.

• "Full Statement of Dariusz Leszczynski, PhD, DSc." U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Hearing: "The Health Effects of Cell Phone Use. Appropriations.senate.gov, Sept. 14, 2009.

• World Health Organization (WHO). “Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health: Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity.” Who.org. Accessed Jan. 14, 2011.

• The FCC Office of Engineering and Technology. “Questions and Answers About Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields,” OET Bulletin 56; Fourth Edition: August 1999.
  

• The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIPR). "Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Time Varying Electric, Magnetic and Electromagnetic Fields (Up to 300 GHz)." Health Physics 74: 494-520 (1998).
  

• Havas M, Marrongelle J, et al. Provocation study using heart rate variability shows microwave radiation from 2.4 GHz cordless phone affects autonomic nervous system.Eur. J. Oncol. Library Vol. 5, 2010.
  

• Chevalier G, Sinatra ST, et. al. Emotional Stress, Heart Rate Variability, Grounding and Improved Autonomic Tone: Clinical Applications. To be published in Integrative Medicine: A Clinician's Journal, Feb/Mar. 2011.

• Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones.“The Stewart Report: Mobile Phones and Health," May 11, 2000; Section 5: Scientific Evidence

• Sinatra ST. The Sinatra Solution: Metabolic Cardiology (Basic Health, 2008).

• U.S. National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute. “Cell Phones and Cancer Risk.” Cancer.gov, accessed Jan. 14, 2011.

• Barris, Elizabeth. “The Legislator’s Guide to Warning Labels on Cell Phones and the Layman’s Guide to the Science Behind Non-Thermal Effects From Wireless Devices and Infrastructure.” Citizensforsafetechnology.com, Dec. 23, 2010.

• Valberg PA, van Deventer TE, Repacholi MH. Workgroup Report: Base Stations and Wireless Networks - Radiofrequency (RF) Exposures and Health Consequences.Environ Health Perspect. 2007 March; 115(3): 416–424.

© 2011 Heart MD Institute, PA

Continue lendo

Cell Phone Hazards: The End of an Era Part 1

Regulating Cell Phone Emissions (RF Energy)

As cell phones and cell phone base stations are considered transmitters regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the FCC is the federal agency that sets radio frequency (RF) energy exposure limits for cell phones on the market.¹ In August 1996, the FCC adopted limits for “safe” exposure to RF energy based on Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) value, and began requiring cell phone manufacturers to comply with these limits before marketing their phones. SAR value is a measure of the rate at which body tissue absorbs RF energy when a person uses a cell phone. It is solely based on risk of “thermal effects,” or biological effects caused by the heating of bodily tissues. The FCC currently requires that wireless phones adhere to a safety limit of 1.6 watts per kilogram.

Origins of SAR Value Standards

When establishing SAR limits, the FCC did not conduct any scientific research about the relative safety or harm of cell phone use. Instead, the FCC relied on recommendations made by two expert organizations, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, as well as opinions given by other federal agencies, like the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Seems thorough enough, right?But none of these organizations and agencies actually performed scientific research on the issue either; rather they based their recommendations and opinions on review of existing scientific literature documenting RF biological effects.

As multi-agency and organizational review of pre-1996 scientific literature is the basis for our current standards, it’s in our best interests to ask about the source of this research. While the U.S. Department of Defense has funded military research on the issue (radar and other high-powered radio transmitters involved in routine military operations utilize RF energy), much of the non-military research on the biological effects of RF energy has, unfortunately, been funded by industry organizations such as Motorola, Inc. Without significant scientific research from impartial sources, then, can we really trust exposure limits set by the FCC?

Why are Current Cell Phone Safety Standards Insufficient?

Current FCC SAR value regulations do not sufficiently protect us against potential health hazards for several reasons: (1) they are outdated and do not account for different rates of RF absorption by children and adolescents; (2) they do not account for possible non-thermal health effects; (3) SAR varies with proximity of source radiation; and (4) the standards may reflect industry bias.

1. The Standards are Outdated and Do Not Account For Use By Children and Teens

Cell phone usage patterns, as well as technologies, have changed dramatically since safety standards were established. Approximately four billion people worldwide are now using cell phones with more evolved technologies than those on the market in the 1980’s and 90’s. Industry experts estimate that cell phone use in the U.S. increased from 13 to 91 percent between 1995 and 2009.² While a rise in popularity of cell phones does not, in and of itself, render current SAR values obsolete, it seems to correlate with greater frequency of use, which does affect efficacy of the 1996 standard.

Over the past decade, adults and children alike have been spending more time conversing on cell phones. In 2003, average use among Americans increased by 19 percent: from 14 to 17 minutes per day. In 2008, minutes of use averaged almost 26 minutes per day.³ In a recent Kaiser Family Foundation study, American children (ages 8 to 18) averaged 33 minutes per day talking on their cell phones.⁴While we don’t know whether these minutes were used continuously or spread throughout the day on various calls, the amount is concerning when examined under the existing safety standard.

The 1996 standard reflects 6 minutes of (continuous) exposure to cell phone emissions by a large man. Since, in the Interphone Study, 30 minutes of daily useby adults was linked to increased risk of brain cancer, and experts believe children are at much greater risk than adults because their tissues are not yet fully developed, the rise in minutes of use among children is of serious concern. The current SAR standard desperately needs revision to reflect current usage patterns and technologies, as well as how RF emissions specifically affect children and teens.

Additionally, the 1996 standard was based on studies that could not have accounted for the latency of brain cancer (see Legislative Awareness of Cell Phone Safety). While brain cancer often takes decades to develop, cell phones were not available until at least the 1980’s. Studies conducted in the 1980’s and 90’s necessarily could not have been used to accurately assess cancer risk associated with cell phone use. More recent studies (if free of other methodological limitations and biases) might provide a more reliable determination of any link between cell phone use and cancer.

2. The Standards Do Not Account for Possible Non-Thermal Adverse Health Effects.

It is well known that exposure to ionizing (high frequency) RF energy can rapidly heat body tissues and cause serious biological effects like cancer. The current regulatory position is that cell phone towers, wireless Internet, cordless phones, power lines and other sources of RF emissions (including microwave ovens) generally do not expose people to high enough levels of RF energy to cause thermal, or ionizing, effects. Current safety standards, which are founded on possible risk of thermal effects, do not account for possible “non-thermal effects”associated with exposure to low-frequency RF energy, then.

A small, but significant, portion of the general population has reported suffering from “electromagnetic hypersensitivity,” or EHS, a condition characterized by non-specific symptoms (i.e., they are not associated with any other syndrome) which the afflicted person attributes to sources of electromagnetic fields (EMF) such as cell phones. Some of the more common symptoms include heart palpitations, digestive problems, difficulty concentrating, tiredness, fatigue, insomnia, dizziness, and nausea, as well as skin redness, tingling, and burning sensations of the skin. While EHS is not a medical diagnosis, the World Health Organization has recognized it as a potentially disabling condition with real symptoms which can “vary widely in their severity.” Authorities recognize that EHS affects quality of life, even if, at this point, it is not considered part of the development of any degenerative diseases.

In light of the prevalence of EHS symptoms, scientists have theorized that exposure to RF energy at currently permitted standards induces a stress response in cells. Hypothetically, this stress response could cause adverse biological changes such as compromised function of the blood-brain barrier, DNA damage and suppression of the immune system. To conclusively make such determinations, though, for the purpose of reevaluating SAR value standards, more in vitro and experimental (as opposed to epidemiological) research is needed.

The FCC acknowledges, “in general, while the possibility of 'non-thermal' biological effects may exist, whether or not such effects might indicate a human health hazard is not presently known. Further research is needed to determine the generality of such effects and their possible relevance, if any, to human health.^"5

3. The Standards Do Not Account for Proximity to Source of RF energy.

Regardless of the SAR value of our phones, we face greater exposure to RF radiation when we call people while our cell phone signals are low. When we make calls, signals are sent from our cell phone antennas to the nearest base station antennas. Therefore, RF exposure generally increases the further away we are from base station antennas because more power is required maintain the connections. If we are using cell phones while in rural areas or within the confines of our cars, for example, we will be exposed to more RF energy than if in a city full of cell phone towers and antennas. Because RF emissions vary with the location of the base station, then, SAR value of individual phones may not be a reliable predictor of harm or safety.

4. The Standards May Reflect Industry Bias

There is speculation that the current SAR standard demonstrates bias toward the cell phone industry due to source of funding. In 1999, the FCC acknowledged that “much of the non-military research on biological effects of RF energy in the U.S. is being funded by industry organizations such as Motorola, Inc.”⁶ Since the agencies and organizations the FCC consulted when determining its safety standards derived their opinions and recommendations from scientific literature which had been predominantly industry funded, it follows that current safety standards may reflect favor toward the cell phone industry.

Reducing Unnecessary Risk of RF Exposure

Current regulatory standards for cell phones, set forth in 1996, need to be revised to reflect changes in cell phone technology and usage patterns, possible non-thermal health effects, and other factors affecting reliability of SAR value as a measure of cell phone “safety.” Understandably, the FCC won’t change the SAR value standard for manufacturers until scientists and other experts agree on the actual health risks of cell phone use. Hence, until science gets the facts straight and the government gets up to speed with regulation, we need to take matters into our own hands…we need to act with precaution until we know what the actual risks are.

In response to concerns about cell phone health risks, the FCC has started suggesting precautionary measures to limit cell phone radiation exposure, including:

· Using a headset (HMDI recommends a wired one with an air tube);

· Keeping wireless devices away from the body when they are on;

· Using the speakerphone function;

· Texting rather than talking (but not while driving); and

· Buying a cell phone with a lower SAR value.⁷

HMDI also suggests turning off the phone when not using it for calls or text, using a landline whenever possible and limiting children’s use to emergencies.

_________________________________________________________________

1. Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the FCC is required to evaluate how emissions from FCC regulated transmitters affect the quality of the human environment.

2. International Association for the Wireless Telecommunications Industry web site. “U.S. Wireless Quick Facts,” accessed Sept. 27, 2010.
3. International Association for the Wireless Telecommunications Industry web site. “Growing Wireless Minutes of Use 1991 – 2008, accessed Sept. 27, 2010.
4. Kaiser Family Foundation Web Site, “Daily Media Use Among Children and Teens Up Dramatically from Five Years Ago,” accessed Sept. 27, 2010.
5. The FCC Office of Engineering and Technology. “Questions and Answers About Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields,” OET Bulletin 56; Fourth Edition: August 1999, available at www.fcc.gov.
6. Id.
7. FCC Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau. “Wireless Devices and Health Concerns: FCC Consumer Facts," accessed Sept. 27, 2010.

Additional References and Resources:

• Crofton, K. Wireless Radiation Rescue: Safeguard Your Family from Electro-pollution (Global Well Being Books, 2011).

• Gittleman AL. Zapped: Why Your Cell Phone Shouldn't Be Your Alarm Clock and 1,268 Ways to Outsmart the Hazards of Electronic Pollution (Harper Collins, 2010).
  

• The FCC Office of Engineering and Technology. “Frequently asked questions about the safety of radiofrequency (RF) and microwave emissions from transmitters and facilities regulated by the FCC,” accessed Sept. 27, 2010.

• U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations web site. “Testimony From Hearing on Health Effects of Cell Phone Use,” Sept. 15, 2009.

• “Health and Safety Information,” Samsung SGH-a877 Series Health and Safety Warranty Guide.

• The World Health Organization web site “Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health: Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity,” accessed Sept. 27, 2010.

• The Bioinitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF), August 31, 2007, available at http://www.bioinitiative.org/.

• Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones. “The Stewart Report: Mobile Phones and Health," May 11, 2000.
  

© 2010 Heart MD Institute, PA

Continue lendo

Adverse Health Effects from Electromagnetic Fields

Many studies show a connection between exposure to radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and adverse health effects; many do not, preventing across-the-board conclusions about health risks associated with use of wireless technologies such as cellular and cordless phones, WiFi or baby monitors. Below is just a few of the studies which demonstrate a nexus between EMF and adverse health effects and/or the development of thermal or non-thermal effects which may lead to sickness and disease.

General:

• Blackman C. Cell phone radiation: Evidence from ELF and RF studies supporting more inclusive risk identification and assessment.Pathophysiology. 2009 Aug;16(2-3):205-16. [Abstract]
• Hallberg Ö, Johansson O. Long-term sickness and mobile phone use. J Aust Coll Nutr & Env Med. 2004;23:11-12.
• Johansson O. Electrohypersensitivity: State-of-the-art of a functional impairment. Electromag Biol Med. 25: 245-258, 2006. [Abstract]
• Khurana VG, Hardell L, et al. Epidemiological evidence for a health risk from mobile phone base stations. Int J Occup Health. 2010, July-Sept. 16(3):263-7. [Abstract]
• Santini R. [Cellular telephones and their relay stations: a health risk? (article in French)] Presse Med 1999; 28: 1884-1886. [Abstract]
• Santini R, Seigne M, et al. [Danger of cellular telephones and their relay stations (article in French)]. Pathol Biol (Paris) 2000; 48: 525-528. [Abstract]
• Santini R, Santini P, et al. [Investigation on the health of people living near mobile telephone relay stations: I/Incidence according to distance and sex (article in French)]. Pathol Biol (Paris) 2002; 50: 369-373. [Abstract]

Cancer - Studies Linking Exposure to RF Energy to Development of Tumors:

• Balcer-Kubiczek EK,Harrison GH. Evidence for microwave carcinogenesis in vitro. Carcinogenesis, 6;859, 1985. [Abstract]
• Hardell L, Mild K H, et al. Ionizing radiation, cellular telephones and the risk for brain tumours. Eur J Cancer Prev 2001; 10: 523-529. [Abstract]
• Hardell L, Hallquist A, et al. Cellular and cordless telephones and the risk for brain tumours. Eur J Cancer Prev 2002; 11: 377-386. [Abstract]
• Hardell L, Mild KH, Carlberg M. Case-control study on the use of cellular and cordless phones and the risk for malignant brain tumours. Int J Radiat Biol 2002; 78: 931-936. [Abstract]
• Hardell L, Carlberg M, et al. Long-term use of cellular phones and brain tumours: Increased risk associated with use > 10 years. Occup Environ Med. 2007 September; 64(9):626-632.
• Hardell L, Nasman A, et al. Case-control study on radiology work, medical x-ray investigations, and use of cellular telephones as risk factors for brain tumors. MedGenMed 2000 May 4;2(2):E2. [Abstract]
• Interphone Study Group. Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case control study. Int J Epidemiol, 2010 June;39(3):695-8.
• Lönn S, Ahlbom A, et al. Mobile phone use and the risk of acoustic neuroma. Epidemiology 15: 653-659, 2004. [Abstract]

Genotoxcity - Studies Linking Exposure to RF Emissions and Effects on DNA:

• Aitken RJ, Bennetts LE, et al. Impact of radio frequency electromagnetic radiation on DNA integrity in the male germline. Inter J Androl 28:171-179, 2005. [Abstract]
• Balode, Z. Assessment of radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation by the micronucleus test in bovine peripheral erythrocytes. Sci Total Environ180(1):81-85, 1996. [Abstract]
  
• Belyaev IYa, Alipov YD, et al. Resonance effect of microwaves on the genome conformational state of E. coli cells. Z Naturforsch [C] 47(7-8):621-827, 1992. [Abstract]
• Belyaev IY, Shcheglov VS, et al. Resonance effect of millimeter waves in the power range from 10(-19) to 3 x 10(-3) W/cm2 on Escherichia coli cells at different concentrations. Bioelectromagnetics 17(4):312-321, 1996. [Abstract]
• Belyaev IY, Hillert L, et al. 915 MHz microwaves and 50 Hz magnetic field affect chromatin conformation and 53BP1 foci in human lymphocytes from hypersensitive and healthy persons. Bioelectromagnetics.26(3):173-184, 2005. [Abstract]
• Belyaev IY, Koch CB, et al. Exposure of rat brain to 915 MHz GSM microwaves induces changes in gene expression but not double stranded DNA breaks or effects on chromatin conformation.Bioelectromagnetics. 27:295-306, 2006. [Abstract]
• Busljeta I, Trosic I, Milkovic-Kraus S. Erythropoietic changes in rats after 2.45 GJz nonthermal irradiation. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 207(6):549-554, 2004. [Abstract]
• d’Ambrosio G, Massa R, et al. Cytogenetic damage in human lymphocytes following GMSK phase modulated microwave exposure.Bioelectromagnetics 23:7-13, 2002. [Abstract]
• Diem E, Schwarz C, et al. Non-thermal DNA breakage by mobile-phone radiation (1800MHz) in human fibroblasts and in transformed GFSH-R17 rat granulosa cells in vitro. Mutat Res. 583:178-183, 2005. [Abstract]
• Ferreira AR, Knakievicz T, et al. Ultra high frequencyelectromagnetic field irradiation during pregnancy leads to an increase in erythrocytes micronuclei incidence in rat offspring. Life Sci. 80:43-50, 2006. [Abstract]
• Fucic A, Garaj-Vrhovac V, et al. X-rays, microwaves and vinyl chloride monomer: their clastogenic and aneugenic activity, using the micronucleus assay on human lymphocytes. Mutat Res 282(4):265-271, 1992. [Abstract]
• Gadhia PK, Shah T, et al. A Preliminary Study to Assess Possible Chromosomal Damage Among Users of Digital Mobile Phones.Electromag Biol Med 22:149-159, 2003. [Abstract]
• Gandhi GA. Genetic damage in mobile phone users: some preliminary findings. Ind J Hum Genet 11(2): 99-104, 2005. [Abstract]
• Gandhi G, Singh P. Cytogenetic damage in mobile phone users: preliminary data. Int J Hum Genet 5(4):259-265, 2005.
• Garaj-Vrhovac V, Fucic A, Horvat D. The correlation between the frequency of micronuclei and specific chromosome aberrations in human lymphocytes exposed to microwave radiation in vitro. Mutat Res281(3):181-186, 1992. [Abstract]
• Garaj-Vrhovac V, Horvat D, Koren Z. The effect of microwave radiation on the cell genome. Mutat Res 243(2):87-93, 1990. [Abstract]
• Garaj-Vrhovac V, Horvat D, Koren Z. The relationship between colony-forming ability, chromosome aberrations and incidence of micronuclei in V79 Chinese hamster cells exposed to microwave radiation. Mutat Res263(3):143-149, 1991. [Abstract]
• Garaj-Vrhovac V. Micronucleus assay and lymphocyte mitotic activity in risk assessment of occupational exposure to microwave radiation.Chemosphere 39(13):2301-2312, 1999. [Abstract]
• Garaj-Vrhovac V, Horvat D, Koren Z. The effect of microwave radiation on the cell genome. Mutat Res 243(2):87-93, 1990. [Abstract]
• Haider T, Knasmueller S, et al. Clastogenic effects of radiofrequency radiations on chromosomes of Tradescantia. Mutat Res 324(1-2):65-68, 1994. [Abstract]
• Lai H, Singh NP. Acute low-intensity microwave exposure increases DNA single-strand breaks in rat brain cells. Bioelectromagnetics 16(3):207-210, 1995. [Abstract]
• Lai H, Singh NP. Single- and double-strand DNA breaks in rat brain cells after acute exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation. Int J Radiat Biol 69(4):513-521, 1996. [Abstract]
• Lai, H, Singh NP. Melatonin and a spin-trap compound block radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation-induced DNA strand breaks in rat brain cells. Bioelectromagnetics 18(6):446-454, 1997a. [Abstract]
• Lai H, Singh NP. Interaction of microwaves and a temporally incoherent magnetic field on single and double DNA strand breaks in rat brain cells.Electromag Biol Med 24:23-29, 2005. [Abstract]
• Lai H, Carino MA, Singh NP. Naltrexone blocks RFR-induced DNA double strand breaks in rat brain cells. Wireless Networks 3:471-476, 1997. [Abstract]
• Lixia S, Yao K, et al. Effects of 1.8GHz radiofrequency field on DNA damage and expression of heat shock protein 70 in human lens epithelial cells. Mutat Res. 602:135-42, 2006. [Abstract]
• Markova E, Hillert L, et al. Microwaves from GSM Mobile Telephones Affect 53BP1 and gamma-H2AX Foci in Human Lymphocytes fromHypersensitive and Healthy Persons. Environ Health Perspect.113(9):1172-1177, 2005.
• Mashevich M, Folkman D, et al. Exposure of human peripheral blood lymphocytes to electromagnetic fields associated with cellular phones leads to chromosomal instability. Bioelectromagnetics 24:82-90, 2003. [Abstract]
• Narasimhan V, Huh WK. Altered restriction patterns of microwave irradiated lambdaphage DNA. Biochem Int 25(2):363-370, 1991. [Abstract]
• Nikolova T, Czyz J, et al. Electromagnetic fields affect transcript levels of apoptosis-related genes in embryonic stem cell-derived neural progenitor cells. ASEB J. 19(12):1686-1688, 2005.
• Ono T, Saito Y, et al. Absence of mutagenic effects of 2.45 GHz radiofrequency exposure in spleen, liver, brain, and testis of lacZ-transgenic mouse exposed in utero. Tohoku J Exp Med. 202(2):93-103, 2004.
• Paulraj R, Behari J. Single strand DNA breaks in rat brain cells exposed to microwave radiation. Mutat Res. 596:76-80, 2006. [Abstract]
• Pacini S, Ruggiero M, et al. Exposure to global system for mobile communication (GSM) cellular phone radiofrequency alters gene expression, proliferation, and morphology of human skin fibroblasts.Oncol Res 2002;13: 19-24. [Abstract]
• Sarimov R, Malmgren LOG, et al. Nonthermal GSM microwaves affect chromatin conformation in human lymphocytes similar to heat shock.IEEE Trans Plasma Sci 32:1600-1608, 2004. [Abstract]
• Sarkar S, Ali S, Behari J. Effect of low power microwave on the mouse genome: a direct DNA analysis. Mutat Res 320(1-2):141-147, 1994. [Abstract]
• Semin IuA, Shvartsburg LK, Dubovik BV. [Changes in the secondary structure of DNA under the influence of external low-intensity electromagnetic field (article in Russian)] Radiats Biol Radioecol35(1):36-41, 1995. [Abstract]
• Sykes PJ, McCallum BD, et al. Effect of Exposure to 900 MHz Radiofrequency Radiation on Intrachromosomal Recombination in pKZ1 Mice. Radiat Res 156(5):495-502, 2001. [Abstract]
• Sun LX, Yao K, He JL, Lu DQ, Wang KJ, Li HW. [Effect of acute exposure to microwave from mobile phone on DNA damage and repair of cultured human lens epithelial cells in vitro.] Zhonghua Lao Dong Wei Sheng Zhi Ye Bing Za Zhi. 24(8):465-467, 2006. [Abstract]
• Tice RR, Hook GG, et al. Genotoxicity of radiofrequency signals. I. Investigation of DNA damage and micronuclei induction in cultured human blood cells. Bioelectromagnetics 23:113-126, 2002. [Abstract]
• Trosic I. Multinucleated giant cell appearance after whole body microwave irradiation of rats. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 204(2-3):133-138, 2001. [Abstract]
• Trosic I, Busljeta I, et al. Micronucleus induction after whole-body microwave irradiation of rats. Mutat Res 521(1-2):73-79, 2002. [Abstract]
• Trosic I, Busljeta I, Modlic B. Investigation of the genotoxic effect of microwave irradiation in rat bone marrow cells: in vivo exposure.Mutagenesis. 19(5):361-364, 2004.
• Trosic I, Busljeta I. Erythropoietic dynamic equilibrium in rats maintained after microwave irradiation. Exp Toxicol Pathol. 57(3):247-251, 2006. [Abstract]
• Zhang DY, Xu ZP, Chiang H, Lu DQ, Zeng QL. [Effects of GSM 1800 MHz radiofrequency electromagnetic fields on DNA damage in Chinese hamster lung cells.] Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 40(3):149-152, 2006. [Abstract]
• Zhang MB, He JL, et al. Study of low-intensity 2450-MHz microwave exposure enhancing the genotoxic effects of mitomycin C using micronucleus test and comet assay in vitro. Biomed Environ Sci15(4):283-290, 2002. [Abstract]
• Zotti-Martelli L, Peccatori M, et al. Induction of micronuclei in humanlymphocytes exposed in vitro to microwave radiation. Mutat Res 472(1-2):51-58, 2000. [Abstract]
• Zotti-Martelli L, Peccatori M, et al. Individual responsiveness to induction of micronuclei in human lymphocytes after exposure in vitro to 1800-MHz microwave radiation. Mutat Res. 582(1-2):42-52, 2005. [Abstract]

Cellular Stress Response - Studies Linking Exposure to RF Emissions to Production of Stress Proteins:

• Blank M. Goodman R. Electromagnetic Fields Stress Living Cells.Pathophysiology. 2009 Aug;16(2-3):71-8. [Abstract]
• Daniells C, Duce I, et al. Transgenic nematodes as biomonitors of microwave-induced stress. Mutat Res 1998; 399: 55-64. [Abstract]
• Leszczynski D, Joenvaara S, et al. Non-thermal activation of the hsp27/ p38MAPK stress pathway by mobile phone radiation in human endothelial cells:Molecular mechanism for cancer-and blood-brain barrier-related effects.
  Differentiation 70: 120-129, 2002. [Abstract]
  
• Shallom JM, DiCarlo AL, et al. Microwave exposure induces hsp70 and confers protection against hypoxia in chick embryos. J Cell Biochem86:490-496, 2002. [Abstract]

Cardiovascular Effects - Studies Linking Exposure to RF Emissions to Heart Disturbances

• Havas M, Marrongelle J, et al.Provocation study using heart rate variability shows microwave radiation from 2.4 GHz cordless phone affects autonomic nervous system. Eur. J. Oncol. Library Vol. 5, 2010.
  

Brain Effects - General:

• Volkow ND, Tomasi D, et al. Effects of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Signal Exposure on Brain Glucose Metabolism. JAMA. 2011;305(8):808-813. [Abstract]

Brain Effects - Studies Linking Blood Brain Barrier and Nerve Effects to Exposure to RF Emissions:

• Leszczynski D, Joenvaara S, et al. Non-thermal activation of the hsp27/p38MAPK stress pathway by mobile phone radiation in human endothelial cells: Molecular mechanism for cancer- and blood-brain barrier-related effects. Differentiation 2002; 70: 120-129. [Abstract]
• Salford LG, Brun A, et al. Permeability of the bloodbrain barrier induced by 915 MHz electromagnetic radiation, continuous wave and modulated at 8, 16, 50, and 200 Hz. Microsc Res Tech 1994; 27: 535-542. [Abstract]
• Salford LG, Brun AE, et al. Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones. Environ Health Perspect. 2003 June; 111(7): 881–883.

Immune Response - Studies Linking Exposure to RF Emissions and Immune Reactions:

• Electrical Hypersensitivity – Human Studies in the UK. Conference Presentation WHO International Workshop on Electrical Hypersensitivity, October 25-26, 2004, Prague, Czech Republic.
• Gangi S, Johansson O. A theoretical model based upon mast cells and histamine to explain the recently proclaimed sensitivity to electric and/or magnetic fields in humans. Med Hypotheses 2000; 54: 663-671. [Abstract]
• Johansson O. "Electrohypersensitivity: Observations in the human skin of a physical impairment," Symposium on "Electrical Sensitivity in Human Beings". Royal Society of Medicine, London, U.K., September 11, 2004. [Extended abstract]
• Kimata H. Enhancement of allergic skin wheal responses by microwave radiation from mobile phones in patients with atopic eczema/dermatitis syndrome. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2002; 129: 348-350. [Abstract]

Continue lendo