Literature DB >> 31416578

Comparing DNA damage induced by mobile telephony and other types of man-made electromagnetic fields.

Dimitris J Panagopoulos1.   

Abstract

The number of studies showing adverse effects on living organisms induced by different types of man-made Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) has increased tremendously. Hundreds of peer reviewed published studies show a variety of effects, the most important being DNA damage which is linked to cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, reproductive declines etc. Those studies that are far more effective in showing effects employ real-life Mobile Telephony (MT) exposures emitted by commercially available mobile phones. The present review - of results published by my group from 2006 until 2016 - compares DNA fragmentation induced by six different EMFs on the same biological system - the oogenesis of Drosophila melanogaster - under identical conditions and procedures. Such a direct comparison between different EMFs - especially those employed in daily life - on the same biological endpoint, is very useful for drawing conclusions on their bioactivity, and novel. It shows that real MT EMFs are far more damaging than 50 Hz alternating magnetic field (MF) - similar or much stronger to those of power lines - or a pulsed electric field (PEF) found before to increase fertility. The MT EMFs were significantly more bioactive even for much shorter exposure durations than the other EMFs. Moreover, they were more damaging than previously tested cytotoxic agents like certain chemicals, starvation, dehydration. Individual parameters of the real MT EMFs like intensity, frequency, exposure duration, polarization, pulsing, modulation, are discussed in terms of their role in bioactivity. The crucial parameter for the intense bioactivity seems to be the extreme variability of the polarized MT signals, mainly due to the large unpredictable intensity changes.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  DNA damage; Drosophila melanogaster; ELF; Electromagnetic fields; Microwaves; RF

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31416578     DOI: 10.1016/j.mrrev.2019.03.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mutat Res Rev Mutat Res        ISSN: 1383-5742            Impact factor:   5.657


  9 in total

Review 1.  Evidence for a connection between coronavirus disease-19 and exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless communications including 5G.

Authors:  Beverly Rubik; Robert R Brown
Journal:  J Clin Transl Res       Date:  2021-09-29

2.  Exposure to 10 Hz Pulsed Magnetic Fields Do Not Induce Cellular Senescence in Human Fetal Lung Fibroblasts.

Authors:  Chuan Sun; Zheng Huang; Houbing Qin; Jing Zhang; Sanying Wang; Xiaogang Xu; Shibo Ying; Genxiang Mao
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2021-11-11

3.  Methodology of Studying Effects of Mobile Phone Radiation on Organisms: Technical Aspects.

Authors:  Katerina Bartosova; Marek Neruda; Lukas Vojtech
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-11-30       Impact factor: 3.390

Review 4.  Human‑made electromagnetic fields: Ion forced‑oscillation and voltage‑gated ion channel dysfunction, oxidative stress and DNA damage (Review).

Authors:  Dimitris J Panagopoulos; Andreas Karabarbounis; Igor Yakymenko; George P Chrousos
Journal:  Int J Oncol       Date:  2021-10-07       Impact factor: 5.650

5.  The Effect of Electromagnetic Radiation Transmitted from Routers on Antibiotic Susceptibility of Bacterial Pathogens.

Authors:  Athanasios Pegios; Dimitrios Kavvadas; Konstantinos Ζarras; Konstantia Mpani; Prodromos Soukiouroglou; Sofia Charalampidou; Eleni Vagdatli; Theodora Papamitsou
Journal:  J Biomed Phys Eng       Date:  2022-08-01

Review 6.  Plasma oncology: Adjuvant therapy for head and neck cancer using cold atmospheric plasma.

Authors:  Xuran Li; Xiaoqing Rui; Danni Li; Yanhong Wang; Fei Tan
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-09-29       Impact factor: 5.738

Review 7.  The Contribution of In Vivo Mammalian Studies to the Knowledge of Adverse Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation on Human Health.

Authors:  Andrea Vornoli; Laura Falcioni; Daniele Mandrioli; Luciano Bua; Fiorella Belpoggi
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2019-09-12       Impact factor: 3.390

8.  Appeals that matter or not on a moratorium on the deployment of the fifth generation, 5G, for microwave radiation.

Authors:  Lennart Hardell; Rainer Nyberg
Journal:  Mol Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-01-22

Review 9.  The Critical Importance of Molecular Biomarkers and Imaging in the Study of Electrohypersensitivity. A Scientific Consensus International Report.

Authors:  Dominique Belpomme; George L Carlo; Philippe Irigaray; David O Carpenter; Lennart Hardell; Michael Kundi; Igor Belyaev; Magda Havas; Franz Adlkofer; Gunnar Heuser; Anthony B Miller; Daniela Caccamo; Chiara De Luca; Lebrecht von Klitzing; Martin L Pall; Priyanka Bandara; Yael Stein; Cindy Sage; Morando Soffritti; Devra Davis; Joel M Moskowitz; S M J Mortazavi; Martha R Herbert; Hanns Moshammer; Gerard Ledoigt; Robert Turner; Anthony Tweedale; Pilar Muñoz-Calero; Iris Udasin; Tarmo Koppel; Ernesto Burgio; André Vander Vorst
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2021-07-07       Impact factor: 5.923

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.