Literature DB >> 19264460

Cell phone radiation: Evidence from ELF and RF studies supporting more inclusive risk identification and assessment.

Carl Blackman1.   

Abstract

Many national and international exposure standards for maximum radiation exposure from the use of cell phone and other similar portable devices are ultimately based on the production of heat particularly in regions of the head, that is, thermal effects (TE). The recent elevation in some countries of the allowable exposure, that is, averaging the exposure that occurs in a 6min period over 10g of tissue rather than over 1g allows for greater heating in small portions of the 10-g volume compared to the exposure that would be allowed averaged over 1-g volume. There is concern that 'hot' spots, that is, momentary higher intensities, could occur in portions of the 10-g tissue piece, might have adverse consequences, particularly in brain tissue. There is another concern about exposure to cell phone radiation that has been virtually ignored except for the National Council of Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) advice given in a publication in 1986 [National Council for Radiation Protection and Measurements, Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, National Council for Radiation Protection and Measurements, 1986, 400 pp.]. This NCRP review and guidance explicitly acknowledge the existence of non-thermal effects (NTE), and included provisions for reduced maximum-allowable limits should certain radiation characteristics occur during the exposure. If we are to take most current national and international exposure standards as completely protective of thermal injury for acute exposure only (6min time period) then the recent evidence from epidemiological studies associating increases in brain and head cancers with increased cell phone use per day and per year over 8-12 years, raises concerns about the possible health consequences on NTE first acknowledged in the NCRP 1986 report [National Council for Radiation Protection and Measurements, Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, National Council for Radiation Protection and Measurements, 1986, 400 pp.]. This paper will review some of the salient evidence that demonstrates the existence of NTE and the exposure complexities that must be considered and understood to provide appropriate, more thorough evaluation and guidance for future studies and for assessment of potential health consequences. Unfortunately, this paper is necessary because most national and international reviews of the research area since the 1986 report [National Council for Radiation Protection and Measurements, Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, National Council for Radiation Protection and Measurements, 1986, 400 pp.] have not included scientists with expertise in NTE, or given appropriate attention to their requests to include NTE in the establishment of public-health-based radiation exposure standards. Thus, those standards are limited because they are not comprehensive.

Entities:  

Year:  2009        PMID: 19264460     DOI: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2009.02.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pathophysiology        ISSN: 0928-4680


  8 in total

1.  Cancer cell proliferation is inhibited by specific modulation frequencies.

Authors:  J W Zimmerman; M J Pennison; I Brezovich; N Yi; C T Yang; R Ramaker; D Absher; R M Myers; N Kuster; F P Costa; A Barbault; B Pasche
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2011-12-01       Impact factor: 7.640

2.  Letter to the editor.

Authors:  Stefano Falone
Journal:  Cent European J Urol       Date:  2014

3.  Microwaves from mobile phone induce reactive oxygen species but not DNA damage, preleukemic fusion genes and apoptosis in hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells.

Authors:  Matus Durdik; Pavol Kosik; Eva Markova; Alexandra Somsedikova; Beata Gajdosechova; Ekaterina Nikitina; Eva Horvathova; Katarina Kozics; Devra Davis; Igor Belyaev
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-11-07       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 4.  Electrohypersensitivity as a Newly Identified and Characterized Neurologic Pathological Disorder: How to Diagnose, Treat, and Prevent It.

Authors:  Dominique Belpomme; Philippe Irigaray
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2020-03-11       Impact factor: 5.923

5.  Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G.

Authors: 
Journal:  Environ Health       Date:  2022-10-18       Impact factor: 7.123

6.  Development of health-based exposure limits for radiofrequency radiation from wireless devices using a benchmark dose approach.

Authors:  Uloma Igara Uche; Olga V Naidenko
Journal:  Environ Health       Date:  2021-07-17       Impact factor: 5.984

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

Authors:  Dimitris J Panagopoulos; Olle Johansson; George L Carlo
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2015-10-12       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Analysis of gene expression in mouse brain regions after exposure to 1.9 GHz radiofrequency fields.

Authors:  James P McNamee; Pascale V Bellier; Anne T M Konkle; Reuben Thomas; Siriwat Wasoontarajaroen; Eric Lemay; Greg B Gajda
Journal:  Int J Radiat Biol       Date:  2016-03-30       Impact factor: 2.694

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.