Thursday, August 5, 2021

Cellphone Radiation Health Risks: Dr. Joel Moskowitz interview by UC Berkeley News in multiple languages

 Moskowitz: Cellphone radiation is harmful, but few want to believe it

The vast majority of American adults — 97% — own a cellphone of some kind, according to the Pew ResearchCenter. (Photo by Susanne Nilsson via Flickr)

For more than a decade, Joel Moskowitz, a researcher in the School of Public Health at UC Berkeley and director of Berkeley’s Center for Family and Community Health, has been on a quest to prove that radiation from cellphones is unsafe. But, he said, most people don’t want to hear it.

“People are addicted to their smartphones,” said Moskowitz. “We use them for everything now, and, in many ways, we need them to function in our daily lives. I think the idea that they’re potentially harming our health is too much for some people.”

Since cellphones first came onto the market in 1984, they have gone from clunky devices with bad reception to today’s sleek, multifunction smartphones. And although cellphonesare now used by nearly all American adults, considerable research suggests that long-term use poses health risks from the radiation they emit, said Moskowitz.

Joel Moskowitz is a researcher in the School of Public Health and director of the Center for Family and Community Health at UC Berkeley. (School of Public Health photo)

“Cellphones, cell towers and other wireless devices are regulated by most governments,” said Moskowitz. “Our government, however, stopped funding research on the health effects of radiofrequency radiation in the 1990s.”

Since then, he said, research has shown significant adverse biologic and health effects — including brain cancer — associated with the use of cellphones and other wireless devices. And now, he said, with the fifth generation of cellular technology, known as 5G,there is an even bigger reason for concern.

Berkeley News spoke with Moskowitz about the health risks of cellphone radiation, why the topic is so controversial and what we can expect with the rollout of 5G.

Berkeley News: I first heard you speak about the health risks of cellphone radiation at Berkeley in 2019, but you’ve been doing this research since 2009. What led you to pursue this research?

Joel Moskowitz: I got into this field by accident, actually. During the past 40 years, the bulk of my research has been focused on tobacco-related disease prevention. I first became interested in cellphone radiation in 2008, when Dr. Seung-Kwon Myung, a physician scientist with the National Cancer Center of South Korea, came to spend a year at the Center for Family and Community Health. He was involved in our smoking cessation projects, and we worked with him and his colleagues on two reviews of the literature, one of which addressed the tumor risk from cellphone use.

At that time, I was skeptical that cellphone radiation could be harmful. However, since I was dubious that cellphone radiation could cause cancer, I immersed myself in the literature regarding the biological effects of low-intensity microwave radiation, emitted by cellphones and other wireless devices.

After reading many animal toxicology studies that found that this radiation could increase oxidative stress — free radicals, stress proteins and DNA damage — I became increasingly convinced that what we were observing in our review of human studies was indeed a real risk.

While Myung and his colleagues were visiting the Center for Family and Community Health, you reviewed case-control studies examining the association between mobile phone use and tumor risk. What did you find?

Our 2009 review, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, found that heavy cellphone use was associated with increased brain cancer incidence, especially in studies that used higher quality methods and studies that had no telecommunications industry funding.

Last year, we updated our review, published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, based on a meta-analysis of 46 case-control studies — twice as many studies as we used for our 2009 review — and obtained similar findings. Our main takeaway from the current review is that approximately 1,000 hours of lifetime cellphone use, or about 17 minutes per day over a 10-year period, is associated with a statistically significant 60% increase in brain cancer.

One thing I think we should address upfront is how controversial this research is. Some scientists have said that these findings are without basis and that there isn’t enough evidence that cellphone radiation is harmful to our health. How do you respond to that?

Well, first of all, few scientists in this country can speak knowledgeably about the health effects of wireless technology. So, I’m not surprised that people are skeptical, but that doesn’t mean the findings aren’t valid.

A big reason there isn’t more research about the health risks of radiofrequency radiation exposure is because the U.S. government stopped funding this research in the 1990s, with the exception of a $30 million rodent study published in 2018 by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences’ National Toxicology Program, which found “clear evidence” of carcinogenicity from cellphone radiation.

In 1996, the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, adopted exposure guidelines that limited the intensity of exposure to radiofrequency radiation. These guidelines were designed to prevent significant heating of tissue from short-term exposure to radiofrequency radiation, not to protect us from the effects of long-term exposure to low levels of modulated, or pulsed, radiofrequency radiation, which is produced by cellphones, cordless phones and other wireless devices, including Wi-Fi. Yet, the preponderance of research published since 1990 finds adverse biologic and health effects from long-term exposure to radiofrequency radiation, including DNA damage.

More than 250 scientists, who have published over 2,000papers and letters in professional journals on the biologic and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields produced by wireless devices, including cellphones, have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for health warnings and stronger exposure limits. So, there are many scientists who agree that this radiation is harmful to our health.

Why did the government stop funding this kind of research?

The telecommunications industry has almost complete control of the FCC, according to Captured Agency, a monograph written by journalist Norm Alster during his 2014-15 fellowship at Harvard University’s Center for Ethics. There’s a revolving door between the membership of the FCC and high-level people within the telecom industry that’s been going on for a couple of decades now.

The industry spends about $100 million a year lobbying Congress. The CTIA, which is the major telecom lobbying group, spends $12.5 million per year on 70 lobbyists. According to one of their spokespersons, lobbyists meet roughly 500 times a year with the FCC to lobby on various issues. The industry as a whole spends $132 million a year on lobbying and provides $18 million in political contributions to members of Congress and others at the federal level.

It reminds me of when the U.S. Surgeon General released a landmark report in 1964 that linked cigarettes with dangerous health effects, including cancer and heart disease. Even though the 10-person committee consulted more than 7,000 articles already available in biomedical literature, the report’s findings were very controversial when they came out.

Yes, there are strong parallels between what the telecom industry has done and what the tobacco industry has done, in terms of marketing and controlling messaging to the public. In the 1940s, tobacco companies hired doctors and dentists to endorse their products to reduce public health concerns about smoking risks. The CTIA currently uses a nuclear physicist from academia to assure policymakers that microwave radiation is safe. The telecom industry not only uses the tobacco industry playbook, it is more economically and politically powerful than Big Tobacco ever was. This year, the telecom industry will spend over $18 billion advertising cellular technology worldwide.

You mentioned that cellphones and other wireless devices use modulated, or pulsed, radiofrequency radiation. Can you explain how cellphones and other wireless devices work, and how the radiation they emit is different from radiation from other household appliances, like a microwave?

Basically, when you make a call, you’ve got a radio and a transmitter. It transmits a signal to the nearest cell tower. Each cell tower has a geographic cell, so to speak, in which it can communicate with cellphones within that geographic region or cell.

Then, that cell tower communicates with a switching station, which then searches for whom you’re trying to call, and it connects through a copper cable or fiber optics or, in many cases, a wireless connection through microwave radiation with the wireless access point. Then, that access point either communicates directly through copper wires through a landline or, if you’re calling another cellphone, it will send a signal to a cell tower within the cell of the receiver and so forth.

The difference is the kind of microwave radiation each device emits. With regard to cellphones and Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, there is an information-gathering component. The waves are modulated and pulsed in a very different manner than your microwave oven.

What, specifically, are some of the health effects associated with long-term exposure to low-level modulated radiofrequency radiation emitted from wireless devices?

Many biologists and electromagnetic field scientists believe the modulation of wireless devices makes the energy more biologically active, which interferes with our cellular mechanisms, opening up calcium channels, for example, and allowing calcium to flow into the cell and into the mitochondria within the cell, interfering with our natural cellular processes and leading to the creation of stress proteins and free radicals and, possibly, DNA damage. And, in other cases, it may lead to cell death.

In 2001, based upon the biologic and human epidemiologic research, low-frequency fields were classified as “possibly carcinogenic” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization. In 2011, the IARC classified radiofrequency radiation as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based upon studies of cellphone radiation and brain tumor risk in humans. Currently, we have considerably more evidence that would warrant a stronger classification.

Most recently, on March 1, 2021, a report was released by the former director of the National Center forEnvironmental Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which concluded that there is a “high probability” that radiofrequency radiation emitted by cellphones causes gliomas and acoustic neuromas, two types of brain tumors.

Let’s talk about the fifth generation of cellphone technology, known as 5G, which is already available in limited areas across the U.S. What does this mean for cellphone users and what changes will come with it?

For the first time, in addition to microwaves, this technology will employ millimeter waves, which are much higher frequency than the microwaves used by 3G and 4G. Millimeter waves can’t travel very far, and they’re blocked by fog or rain, trees and building materials, so the industry estimates that it’ll need 800,000 new cell antenna sites.

Each of these sites may have cell antennas from various cellphone providers, and each of these antennas may have microarrays consisting of dozens or even perhaps hundreds of little antennas. In the next few years in the U.S., we will see deployed roughly 2.5 times more antenna sites than in current use unless wireless safety advocates and their representatives in Congress or the judicial system put a halt to this.

How are millimeter waves different from microwaves, in terms of how they affect our bodies and the environment?

Millimeter wave radiation is largely absorbed in the skin, the sweat glands, the peripheral nerves, the eyes and the testes, based upon the body of research that’s been done on millimeter waves. In addition, this radiation may cause hypersensitivity and biochemical alterations in the immune and circulatory systems — the heart, the liver, kidneys and brain.

Millimeter waves can also harm insects and promote the growth of drug-resistant pathogens, so it’s likely to have some widespread environmental effects for the microenvironments around these cell antenna sites.

What are some simple things that each of us can do to reduce the risk of harm from radiation from cellphones and other wireless devices?

First, minimize your use of cellphones or cordless phones — use a landline whenever possible. If you do use a cellphone, turn off the Wi-Fi and Bluetooth if you’re not using them. However, when near a Wi-Fi router, you would be better off using your cellphone on Wi-Fi and turning off the cellular because this will likely result in less radiation exposure than using the cellular network.

Second, distance is your friend. Keeping your cellphone 10 inches away from your body, as compared to one-tenth of an inch, results in a 10,000-fold reduction in exposure. So, keep your phone away from your head and body. Store your phone in a purse or backpack. If you have to put it in your pocket, put it on airplane mode. Text, use wired headphones or speakerphone for calls. Don’t sleep with it next to your head — turn it off or put it in another room.

Third, use your phone only when the signal is strong. Cellphones are programmed to increase radiation when the signal is poor, that is when one or two bars are displayed on your phone. For example, don’t use your phone in an elevator or in a car, as metal structures interfere with the signal.

Also, I encourage people to learn more about the 150-plus local groups affiliated with Americans for Responsible Technology, which are working to educate policymakers, urging them to adopt cell tower regulations and exposure limits that fully protect us and the environment from the harm caused by wireless radiation.

For safety tips on how to reduce exposure to wireless radiation from the California Department of Public Health and other organizations, visit Moskowitz’s website, saferemr.com, Physicians forSafe Technology and the EnvironmentalHealth Trust.

https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/07/01/health-risks-of-cell-phone-radiation/

==


La radiación de los teléfonos móviles es dañina para la salud, pero poca gente quiere creerlo

Durante más de una década, Joel Moskowitz, investigador de la Escuela de Salud Pública de UC Berkeley y director del Centro de Salud Familiar y Comunitaria de Berkeley, ha estado en la búsqueda para demostrar que la radiación de los teléfonos móvil no es segura. Pero al ver el nivel de ignorancia de la Sociedad dijo, la mayoría de la gente no quiere escucharlo.

“La gente es adicta a sus teléfonos smartphone”, dijo Moskowitz. “Los usamos para todo y, de muchas maneras, los necesitamos para funcionar en nuestra vida diaria. Creo que la idea de que potencialmente están dañando nuestra salud es demasiado para algunas personas ".

Desde que los teléfonos móviles salieron al mercado por primera vez en 1984, han pasado de dispositivos torpes con mala recepción a los elegantes teléfonos Smartphone multifunción de hoy en día. Y aunque casi todos los adultos estadounidenses utilizan ahora los teléfonos móviles, una investigación considerable sugiere que el uso a largo plazo plantea riesgos para la salud por la radiación que emiten, dijo Moskowitz.

"Los teléfonos móviles, las torres de telefonía móvil y otros dispositivos inalámbricos están regulados por la mayoría de los gobiernos", dijo Moskowitz. "Nuestro gobierno, sin embargo, dejó de financiar la investigación sobre los efectos de la radiación de radiofrecuencia en la salud en la década de 1990".

Desde entonces la investigación ha mostrado importantes efectos biológicos y de salud adversos, incluido el cáncer de cerebro, asociados con el uso de teléfonos móvil es y otros dispositivos inalámbricos. Y ahora, dijo, con la quinta generación de tecnología móvil, conocida como 5G, hay un motivo aún mayor de preocupación.

Berkeley News habló con Moskowitz sobre los riesgos para la salud de la radiación de los teléfonos móvil es, por qué el tema es tan controvertido y qué podemos esperar con el lanzamiento de 5G.

Berkeley News: Lo escuché por primera vez hablar sobre los riesgos para la salud de la radiación de los teléfonos móvil es en Berkeley en 2019, pero ha estado haciendo esta investigación desde 2009. ¿Qué lo llevó a realizar esta investigación?

Joel Moskowitz: Entré en este campo por accidente, de hecho. Durante los últimos 40 años, la mayor parte de mi investigación se ha centrado en la prevención de enfermedades relacionadas con el tabaco. Me interesé por primera vez en la radiación de los teléfonos móviles en 2008, cuando el Dr. Seung-Kwon Myung, un científico médico del Centro Nacional del Cáncer de Corea del Sur, vino a pasar un año en el Centro de Salud Familiar y Comunitaria. Participó en nuestros proyectos para dejar de fumar y trabajamos con él y sus colegas en dos revisiones de la literatura, una de las cuales abordó el riesgo de tumores por el uso de teléfonos móvil.

En ese momento, era escéptico de que la radiación de los teléfonos móviles pudiera ser dañina. Sin embargo, como tenía dudas de que la radiación de los teléfonos móviles pudiera causar cáncer, me sumergí en la literatura sobre los efectos biológicos de la radiación de microondas de baja intensidad, emitida por teléfonos móviles y otros dispositivos inalámbricos.

Después de leer muchos estudios de toxicología animal que encontraron que esta radiación podría aumentar el estrés oxidativo (radicales libres, proteínas de estrés y daño al ADN), me convencí cada vez más de que lo que estábamos observando en nuestra revisión de estudios en humanos era de hecho un riesgo real.

Mientras Myung y sus colegas visitaban el Centro de Salud Familiar y Comunitaria, usted revisó los estudios de casos y controles que examinaban la asociación entre el uso de teléfonos móviles y el riesgo de tumores. ¿Que encontraste?

Nuestra revisión de 2009 , publicada en el Journal of Clinical Oncology , encontró que el uso intensivo de teléfonos móvil es se asoció con una mayor incidencia de cáncer de cerebro, especialmente en estudios que utilizaron métodos de mayor calidad y estudios que no tenían financiación de la industria de las telecomunicaciones.

El año pasado, actualizamos nuestra revisión, publicada en la Revista Internacional de Investigación Ambiental y Salud Pública , con base en un metanálisis de 46 estudios de casos y controles, el doble de los estudios que usamos para nuestra revisión de 2009, y obtuvimos hallazgos similares. Nuestra principal conclusión de la revisión actual es que aproximadamente 1,000 horas de uso del teléfono móvil de por vida, o aproximadamente 17 minutos por día durante un período de 10 años, se asocia con un aumento estadísticamente significativo del 60% en el cáncer de cerebro.

Una cosa que creo que deberíamos abordar desde el principio es cuán controvertida es esta investigación. Algunos científicos han dicho que estos hallazgos no tienen fundamento y que no hay suficiente evidencia de que la radiación de los teléfonos móvil es sea dañina para nuestra salud. Como respondes a eso?

Bueno, en primer lugar, pocos científicos de este país pueden hablar con conocimiento de causa sobre los efectos de la tecnología inalámbrica en la salud. Entonces, no me sorprende que la gente sea escéptica, pero eso no significa que los hallazgos no sean válidos.

Una gran razón por la que no hay más investigaciones sobre los riesgos para la salud de la exposición a la radiación de radiofrecuencia es que el gobierno de EE. UU. Dejó de financiar esta investigación en la década de 1990, con la excepción de un estudio con roedores de 30 millones de dólares publicado en 2018 por el Instituto Nacional de Ciencias de la Salud Ambiental. 'Programa Nacional de Toxicología, que encontró "evidencia clara" de carcinogenicidad de la radiación de los teléfonos móviles.

En 1996, la Comisión Federal de Comunicaciones, o FCC, adoptó pautas de exposición que limitaban la intensidad de la exposición a la radiación de radiofrecuencia. Estas pautas fueron diseñadas para evitar un calentamiento significativo de los tejidos debido a la exposición a corto plazo a la radiación de radiofrecuencia, no para protegernos de los efectos de la exposición a largo plazo a niveles bajos de radiación de radiofrecuencia modulada o pulsada, que es producida por teléfonos móviles y otros dispositivos inalámbricos, incluido Wi-Fi. Sin embargo, la preponderancia de las investigaciones publicadas desde 1909 encuentra efectos biológicos y para la salud adversos de la exposición prolongada a la radiación de radiofrecuencia, incluido el daño del ADN.

Más de 250 científicos, que han publicado más de 2.000 artículos y cartas en revistas profesionales sobre los efectos biológicos y en la salud de los campos electromagnéticos no ionizantes producidos por dispositivos inalámbricos, incluidos los teléfonos móviles, han firmado el Llamamiento internacional para científicos de EMF , que exige advertencias sanitarias y límites de exposición más estrictos. Entonces, hay muchos científicos que coinciden en que esta radiación es perjudicial para nuestra salud.

¿Por qué el gobierno dejó de financiar este tipo de investigación?

La industria de las telecomunicaciones tiene un control casi completo de la FCC, según Captured Agency, una monografía escrita por el periodista Norm Alster durante su beca 2014-15 en el Centro de Ética de la Universidad de Harvard. Existe una puerta giratoria entre los miembros de la FCC y las personas de alto nivel dentro de la industria de las telecomunicaciones que ha estado sucediendo durante un par de décadas.

La industria gasta alrededor de $ 100 millones al año presionando al Congreso. La CTIA , que es el principal grupo de presión de las telecomunicaciones, gasta 12,5 millones de dólares al año en 70 cabilderos. Según uno de sus portavoces, los cabilderos se reúnen aproximadamente 500 veces al año con la FCC para cabildear sobre diversos temas.

La industria en su conjunto gasta 132 millones de dólares al año en cabildeo y proporciona 18 millones de dólares en contribuciones políticas a miembros del Congreso y otros a nivel federal.

Me recuerda cuando el Cirujano General de EE. UU. Publicó un informe histórico en 1964 que vinculaba los cigarrillos con efectos peligrosos para la salud, incluidos el cáncer y las enfermedades cardíacas. A pesar de que el comité de 10 personas consultó más de 7,000 artículos ya disponibles en la literatura biomédica, los hallazgos del informe fueron muy controvertidos cuando se publicaron.

Sí, existen fuertes paralelismos entre lo que ha hecho la industria de las telecomunicaciones y lo que ha hecho la industria del tabaco, en términos de marketing y control de mensajes al público. En la década de 1940, las empresas tabacaleras contrataron a médicos y dentistas para respaldar sus productos y reducir las preocupaciones de salud pública sobre los riesgos de fumar. La CTIA utiliza actualmente a un físico nuclear del mundo académico para asegurar a los legisladores que la radiación de microondas es segura. La industria de las telecomunicaciones no solo usa el manual de la industria del tabaco, es más poderosa económica y políticamente de lo que alguna vez fue Big Tobacco. Este año, la industria de las telecomunicaciones gastará más de 18.000 millones de dólares en publicidad de tecnología móvil en todo el mundo.

Usted mencionó que los teléfonos móviles son otros dispositivos inalámbricos que usan radiación de radiofrecuencia modulada o pulsada. ¿Puede explicar cómo funcionan los teléfonos móviles y otros dispositivos inalámbricos y en qué se diferencia la radiación que emiten de la radiación de otros electrodomésticos, como un microondas?

Básicamente, cuando haces una llamada, tienes una radio y un transmisor. Transmite una señal a la torre móvil más cercana. Cada torre móvil tiene una celda geográfica, por así decirlo, en la que puede comunicarse con teléfonos móvil es dentro de esa región geográfica o celda.

Luego, esa torre móvil se comunica con una estación de conmutación, que luego busca a quién está tratando de llamar, y se conecta mediante un cable de cobre o fibra óptica o, en muchos casos, una conexión inalámbrica a través de radiación de microondas con el punto de acceso inalámbrico. . Luego, ese punto de acceso se comunica directamente a través de cables de cobre a través de una línea fija o, si está llamando a otro teléfono móvil , enviará una señal a una torre móvil dentro de la celda del receptor y así sucesivamente.

La diferencia es el tipo de radiación de microondas que emite cada dispositivo. Con respecto a los teléfonos móviles, Wi-Fi y Bluetooth, existe un componente de recopilación de información. Las ondas se modulan y pulsan de una manera muy diferente a la de su horno microondas.

¿Cuáles son, específicamente, algunos de los efectos sobre la salud asociados con la exposición prolongada a la radiación de radiofrecuencia modulada de bajo nivel emitida por dispositivos inalámbricos?

Muchos biólogos y científicos de campos electromagnéticos creen que la modulación de los dispositivos inalámbricos hace que la energía sea más biológicamente activa, lo que interfiere con nuestros mecanismos móvil es, abriendo canales de calcio, por ejemplo, y permitiendo que el calcio fluya hacia la célula y hacia las mitocondrias dentro de la célula. interfiriendo con nuestros procesos móvil es naturales y conduciendo a la creación de proteínas de estrés y radicales libres y, posiblemente, daño al ADN. Y, en otros casos, puede provocar la muerte móvil .

En 2001, sobre la base de la investigación epidemiológica biológica y humana, los campos de baja frecuencia fueron clasificados como "posiblemente cancerígenos" por la Agencia Internacional para la Investigación del Cáncer (IARC) de la Organización Mundial de la Salud. En 2011, la IARC clasificó la radiación de radiofrecuencia como “posiblemente cancerígena para los humanos”, basándose en estudios de radiación de teléfonos móvil es y riesgo de tumores cerebrales en humanos. Actualmente, tenemos mucha más evidencia que justificaría una clasificación más sólida.

Más recientemente, el 1 de marzo de 2021, el exdirector del Centro Nacional de Salud Ambiental de los Centros para el Control y la Prevención de Enfermedades publicó un informe que concluyó que existe una "alta probabilidad" de que la radiación de radiofrecuencia emitida por los teléfonos móvil es cause gliomas y neuromas acústicos, dos tipos de tumores cerebrales.

Hablemos de la quinta generación de tecnología de teléfonos móviles, conocida como 5G, que ya está disponible en áreas limitadas en los EE. UU. ¿Qué significa esto para los usuarios de teléfonos móviles y qué cambios vendrán con él?

Por primera vez, además de las microondas, esta tecnología empleará ondas milimétricas, que tienen una frecuencia mucho más alta que las microondas utilizadas por 3G y 4G. Las ondas milimétricas no pueden viajar muy lejos y están bloqueadas por la niebla o la lluvia, los árboles y los materiales de construcción, por lo que la industria estima que necesitará 800.000 nuevos sitios de antenas móvil es.

Cada uno de estos sitios puede tener antenas móvil es de varios proveedores de telefonía móvil, y cada una de estas antenas puede tener ‘microrays’ que consisten en docenas o incluso quizás cientos de pequeñas antenas. En los próximos años en los EE.UU., Veremos desplegados aproximadamente 2,5 veces más sitios de antenas que en el uso actual, a menos que los defensores de la seguridad inalámbrica y sus representantes en el Congreso o el sistema judicial pongan fin a esto.

¿En qué se diferencian las ondas milimétricas de las microondas en términos de cómo afectan nuestros cuerpos y el medio ambiente?

La radiación de ondas milimétricas se absorbe en gran medida en la piel, las glándulas sudoríparas, los nervios periféricos, los ojos y los genitales, según el conjunto de investigaciones que se han realizado sobre ondas milimétricas. Además, esta radiación puede causar hipersensibilidad y alteraciones bioquímicas en los sistemas inmunológico y circulatorio: corazón, hígado, riñones y cerebro.

Las ondas milimétricas también pueden dañar a los insectos y promover el crecimiento de patógenos resistentes a los medicamentos, por lo que es probable que tengan algunos efectos ambientales generalizados para los microambientes alrededor de estos sitios de antenas móvil.

¿Cuáles son algunas cosas simples que cada uno de nosotros puede hacer para reducir el riesgo de daño por radiación de teléfonos móvil es y otros dispositivos inalámbricos?

Primero, minimice el uso de teléfonos móvil es o teléfonos inalámbricos; use un teléfono fijo siempre que sea posible. Si usa un teléfono móvil, apague el Wi-Fi y el Bluetooth si no los está usando. Sin embargo, cuando esté cerca de un enrutador Wi-Fi, será mejor que use su teléfono móvil en Wi-Fi y apague el móvil porque esto probablemente resultará en una menor exposición a la radiación que usar la red móvil.

En segundo lugar, la distancia es tu amiga. Mantener su teléfono móvil a 10 centímetros de su cuerpo, resulta en una reducción de 10,000 veces en la exposición. Por lo tanto, mantenga su teléfono alejado de su cabeza y cuerpo. Guarde su teléfono en un bolso o mochila. Si tiene que guardarlo en su bolsillo, póngalo en modo avión. Envía mensajes de texto, usa auriculares con cable o altavoz para llamadas. No duerma con él al lado de su cabeza, apáguelo o colóquelo en otra habitación.

En tercer lugar, use su teléfono solo cuando la señal sea fuerte. Los teléfonos móviles están programados para aumentar la radiación cuando la señal es deficiente, es decir, cuando se muestran una o dos barras en su teléfono. Por ejemplo, no use su teléfono en un ascensor o en un automóvil, ya que las estructuras metálicas interfieren con la señal.

Además, animo a las personas a aprender más sobre los más de 150 grupos afiliados a Americans for Responsible Technology , que están trabajando para educar a los legisladores, instándolos a adoptar regulaciones de torres de telefonía móvil y límites de exposición que nos protejan completamente a nosotros y al medio ambiente del daño causado por la radiación inalámbrica.

Joel Moskowitz es investigador de la Escuela de Salud Pública y director del Centro de Salud Familiar y Comunitaria de UC Berkeley. Desde 2009, Moskowitz ha estado difundiendo investigaciones sobre tecnología inalámbrica, salud pública y políticas.

https://plataforma.quieroauditoriaenergetica.org/blog/14-categoria-blog-1/593-radiacion-telefonos-moviles-mata/

== 

Moskowitz: A radiação do celular é prejudicial, mas poucos querem acreditar

Por Anne Brice , Berkeley News | 1 ° DE JULHO DE 2021

A grande maioria dos adultos americanos – 97% – possui algum tipo de celular, de acordo com o Pew Research Center . (Foto de Susanne Nilsson via Flickr)

Por mais de uma década, Joel Moskowitz , pesquisador da Escola de Saúde Pública da UC Berkeley e diretor do Centro de Saúde Familiar e Comunitária de Berkeley, tem procurado provar que a radiação de telefones celulares não é segura. Mas, disse ele, a maioria das pessoas não quer ouvir.

“As pessoas são viciadas em smartphones”, disse Moskowitz. “Nós os usamos para tudo agora e, de muitas maneiras, precisamos que funcionem em nosso dia a dia. Acho que a ideia de que eles estão potencialmente prejudicando nossa saúde é demais para algumas pessoas. ”

Desde que os telefones celulares chegaram ao mercado em 1983, eles passaram de dispositivos desajeitados com má recepção para smartphones multifuncionais elegantes de hoje. E embora os telefones celulares sejam usados por quase todos os adultos americanos , pesquisas consideráveis sugerem que o uso a longo prazo apresenta riscos à saúde por causa da radiação que emitem, disse Moskowitz.

Joel Moskowitz é pesquisador da Escola de Saúde Pública e diretor do Centro de Saúde Familiar e Comunitária da UC Berkeley. (Foto da Escola de Saúde Pública)

“Celulares, torres de celular e outros dispositivos sem fio são regulamentados pela maioria dos governos”, disse Moskowitz. “Nosso governo, no entanto, parou de financiar pesquisas sobre os efeitos da radiação de radiofrequência na saúde na década de 1990”.

Desde então, ele disse, a pesquisa mostrou efeitos biológicos e de saúde adversos significativos – incluindo câncer no cérebro – associados ao uso de telefones celulares e outros dispositivos sem fio. E agora, disse ele, com a quinta geração da tecnologia celular, conhecida como 5G, há um motivo ainda maior para preocupação .

O Berkeley News conversou com Moskowitz sobre os riscos à saúde da radiação de celulares, por que o assunto é tão polêmico e o que podemos esperar com o lançamento do 5G.

Berkeley News: Acho que devemos abordar o quanto essa pesquisa é controversa. Alguns cientistas afirmam que essas descobertas são infundadas e que não há evidências suficientes de que a radiação do celular seja prejudicial à saúde. Como você responde a isso?

Joel Moskowitz: Bem, em primeiro lugar, poucos cientistas neste país podem falar com conhecimento de causa sobre os efeitos da tecnologia sem fio na saúde. Portanto, não estou surpreso que as pessoas sejam céticas, mas isso não significa que as descobertas não sejam válidas.

Um grande motivo pelo qual não há mais pesquisas sobre os riscos à saúde da exposição à radiação de radiofrequência é porque o governo dos EUA parou de financiar essa pesquisa na década de 1990, com exceção de um estudo de roedores de $ 30 milhões publicado em 2018 pelo National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences ‘Programa Nacional de Toxicologia, que encontrou “evidências claras” de carcinogenicidade da radiação do celular.

Em 1996, a Federal Communications Commission, ou FCC, adotou diretrizes de exposição que limitavam a intensidade da exposição à radiação de radiofrequência. Essas diretrizes foram elaboradas para evitar o aquecimento significativo do tecido devido à exposição de curto prazo à radiação de radiofrequência, não para nos proteger dos efeitos da exposição de longo prazo a baixos níveis de radiação de radiofrequência modulada ou pulsada, que é produzida por telefones celulares, sem fio telefones e outros dispositivos sem fio, incluindo Wi-Fi. No entanto, a preponderância de pesquisas publicadas desde 1990 encontra efeitos adversos biológicos e para a saúde da exposição de longo prazo à radiação de radiofrequência, incluindo danos ao DNA.

Mais de 250 cientistas, que publicaram mais de 2.000 artigos e cartas em periódicos profissionais sobre os efeitos biológicos e à saúde de campos eletromagnéticos não ionizantes produzidos por dispositivos sem fio, incluindo telefones celulares, assinaram o International EMF Scientist Appeal , que pede advertências e limites de exposição mais fortes. Portanto, há muitos cientistas que concordam que essa radiação é prejudicial à nossa saúde.

Ouvi você falar pela primeira vez sobre os riscos à saúde da radiação de telefones celulares em Berkeley em 2019, mas você tem feito essa pesquisa desde 2009. O que o levou a fazer essa pesquisa?

Eu entrei neste campo por acidente, na verdade. Durante os últimos 40 anos, a maior parte da minha pesquisa se concentrou na prevenção de doenças relacionadas ao tabaco. Eu comecei a me interessar pela radiação de telefones celulares em 2008, quando o Dr. Seung-Kwon Myung, um médico cientista do National Cancer Center da Coreia do Sul, veio passar um ano no Center for Family and Community Health. Ele estava envolvido em nossos projetos de cessação do tabagismo e trabalhamos com ele e seus colegas em duas revisões da literatura, uma das quais abordou o risco de tumor pelo uso de telefones celulares.

Naquela época, eu não acreditava que a radiação do celular pudesse ser prejudicial. Porém, por ter dúvidas de que a radiação do celular pudesse causar câncer, mergulhei na literatura a respeito dos efeitos biológicos da radiação de micro-ondas de baixa intensidade, emitida por celulares e outros dispositivos sem fio.

Depois de ler muitos estudos de toxicologia animal que descobriram que essa radiação poderia aumentar o estresse oxidativo – radicais livres, proteínas do estresse e danos ao DNA – fiquei cada vez mais convencido de que o que estávamos observando em nossa revisão de estudos em humanos era de fato um risco real.

Enquanto Myung e seus colegas estavam visitando o Center for Family and Community Health, você revisou estudos de caso-controle que examinaram a associação entre o uso de telefone celular e o risco de tumor. O que você achou?

Nossa revisão de 2009 , publicada no Journal of Clinical Oncology , descobriu que o uso pesado de telefones celulares estava associado ao aumento da incidência de câncer no cérebro, especialmente em estudos que usaram métodos de maior qualidade e estudos que não tiveram financiamento da indústria de telecomunicações.

No ano passado, atualizamos nossa revisão , publicada no Jornal Internacional de Pesquisa Ambiental e Saúde Pública , com base em uma meta-análise de 46 estudos de caso-controle – o dobro de estudos que usamos em nossa revisão de 2009 – e obtivemos resultados semelhantes. Nossa principal conclusão da revisão atual é que aproximadamente 1.000 horas de uso vitalício do celular, ou cerca de 17 minutos por dia em um período de 10 anos, está associado a um aumento estatisticamente significativo de 60% no câncer cerebral.

Por que o governo parou de financiar esse tipo de pesquisa?

O setor de telecomunicações tem o controle quase total da FCC, de acordo com a Captured Agency , uma monografia escrita pelo jornalista Norm Alster durante sua bolsa de 2014-15 no Centro de Ética da Universidade de Harvard. Há uma porta giratória entre a filiação à FCC e pessoas de alto nível na indústria de telecomunicações que já dura algumas décadas.

A indústria gasta cerca de US $ 100 milhões por ano fazendo lobby no Congresso. A CTIA , que é o maior grupo de lobby de telecomunicações, gasta US $ 12,5 milhões por ano com 70 lobistas. De acordo com um de seus porta-vozes, os lobistas se reúnem cerca de 500 vezes por ano com a FCC para fazer lobby em várias questões. A indústria como um todo gasta US $ 132 milhões por ano em lobby e fornece US $ 18 milhões em contribuições políticas para membros do Congresso e outros no nível federal.

A influência da indústria de telecomunicações sobre a FCC, como você descreve, me lembra da indústria do tabaco e do poder da publicidade que ela tinha ao minimizar os riscos de fumar.

Sim, existem fortes paralelos entre o que a indústria de telecomunicações fez e o que a indústria do tabaco fez, em termos de marketing e controle de mensagens para o público. Na década de 1940, as empresas de tabaco contrataram médicos e dentistas para endossar seus produtos a fim de reduzir as preocupações de saúde pública sobre os riscos do fumo. O CTIA atualmente usa um físico nuclear da academia para garantir aos formuladores de políticas que a radiação de microondas é segura. A indústria de telecomunicações não apenas usa o manual da indústria do tabaco, mas é mais econômica e politicamente poderosa do que as Big Tobacco jamais foram. Este ano, a indústria de telecomunicações gastará mais de US $ 18 bilhões em publicidade de tecnologia celular em todo o mundo.

Você mencionou que os telefones celulares e outros dispositivos sem fio usam radiação de radiofrequência modulada ou pulsada. Você pode explicar como os telefones celulares e outros dispositivos sem fio funcionam e como a radiação que eles emitem é diferente da radiação de outros eletrodomésticos, como um microondas?

Basicamente, quando você faz uma chamada, você tem um rádio e um transmissor. Ele transmite um sinal para a torre de celular mais próxima. Cada torre de celular possui uma célula geográfica, por assim dizer, na qual pode se comunicar com telefones celulares dentro daquela região geográfica ou celular.

Em seguida, essa torre de celular se comunica com uma estação de comutação, que então procura para quem você está tentando ligar e se conecta por meio de um cabo de cobre ou fibra óptica ou, em muitos casos, uma conexão sem fio por radiação de microondas com o ponto de acesso sem fio . Então, esse ponto de acesso se comunica diretamente por meio de fios de cobre por meio de um telefone fixo ou, se você estiver ligando para outro celular, enviará um sinal para uma torre de celular dentro da célula do receptor e assim por diante.

A diferença é o tipo de radiação de microondas que cada dispositivo emite. No que diz respeito aos telefones celulares e Wi-Fi e Bluetooth, existe um componente de coleta de informações. As ondas são moduladas e pulsadas de uma maneira muito diferente do seu forno de micro-ondas.

Quais são, especificamente, alguns dos efeitos à saúde associados à exposição de longo prazo à radiação de radiofrequência modulada de baixo nível emitida por dispositivos sem fio?

Muitos biólogos e cientistas do campo eletromagnético acreditam que a modulação de dispositivos sem fio torna a energia mais biologicamente ativa, o que interfere em nossos mecanismos celulares, abrindo canais de cálcio, por exemplo, e permitindo que o cálcio flua para a célula e para as mitocôndrias dentro da célula, interferindo em nossos processos celulares naturais e levando à criação de proteínas de estresse e radicais livres e, possivelmente, danos ao DNA. E, em outros casos, pode levar à morte celular.

Em 2001, com base na pesquisa epidemiológica biológica e humana, os campos de baixa frequência foram classificados como “possivelmente carcinogênicos” pela Agência Internacional de Pesquisa sobre o Câncer (IARC) da Organização Mundial da Saúde. Em 2011, o IARC classificou a radiação de radiofrequência como “possivelmente carcinogênica para humanos”, com base em estudos de radiação de celular e risco de tumor cerebral em humanos. Atualmente, temos consideravelmente mais evidências que justificariam uma classificação mais forte.

Mais recentemente, em 1º de março de 2021, foi divulgado relatório do ex-diretor do Centro Nacional de Saúde Ambiental dos Centros de Controle e Prevenção de Doenças , que concluiu que há uma “alta probabilidade” de que a radiação de radiofrequência emitida por celulares cause gliomas e neuromas acústicos, dois tipos de tumores cerebrais.

Vamos falar sobre a quinta geração da tecnologia de celular, conhecida como 5G, que já está disponível em áreas limitadas nos Estados Unidos. O que isso significa para os usuários de celular e que mudanças virão com isso?

Pela primeira vez, além do micro-ondas, essa tecnologia vai empregar ondas milimétricas, que têm frequência muito maior do que as micro-ondas usadas pelo 3G e 4G. As ondas milimétricas não podem viajar muito longe e são bloqueadas por neblina ou chuva, árvores e materiais de construção, então a indústria estima que precisará de 800.000 novos locais de antenas de celular.

Cada um desses sites pode ter antenas celulares de vários provedores de telefonia celular, e cada uma dessas antenas pode ter microarrays consistindo em dezenas ou mesmo centenas de pequenas antenas. Nos próximos anos, nos Estados Unidos, veremos a implantação de cerca de 2,5 vezes mais antenas do que o uso atual, a menos que os defensores da segurança sem fio e seus representantes no Congresso ou no sistema judiciário parem com isso.

Como as ondas milimétricas são diferentes das microondas, em termos de como elas afetam nossos corpos e o meio ambiente?

A radiação de ondas milimétricas é amplamente absorvida na pele, nas glândulas sudoríparas, nos nervos periféricos, nos olhos e nos testículos, com base no corpo de pesquisas que tem sido feito em ondas milimétricas . Além disso, essa radiação pode causar hipersensibilidade e alterações bioquímicas nos sistemas imunológico e circulatório – coração, fígado, rins e cérebro.

Ondas milimétricas também podem prejudicar insetos e promover o crescimento de patógenos resistentes a medicamentos, portanto, é provável que tenham alguns efeitos ambientais generalizados para os microambientes ao redor dessas antenas celulares.

Quais são algumas coisas simples que cada um de nós pode fazer para reduzir o risco de danos causados pela radiação de telefones celulares e outros dispositivos sem fio?

Primeiro, minimize o uso de telefones celulares ou sem fio – use um telefone fixo sempre que possível. Se você usa um telefone celular, desligue o Wi-Fi e o Bluetooth se não os estiver usando. No entanto, quando estiver perto de um roteador Wi-Fi, seria melhor usar seu celular no Wi-Fi e desligar o celular, porque isso provavelmente resultará em menos exposição à radiação do que usar a rede celular.

Em segundo lugar, a distância é sua amiga. Manter o celular a 25 centímetros de distância do corpo, em comparação com um décimo de polegada, resulta em uma redução de 10.000 vezes na exposição. Portanto, mantenha o telefone longe da cabeça e do corpo. Guarde seu telefone em uma bolsa ou mochila. Se você tiver que colocá-lo no bolso, coloque-o no modo avião. Envie mensagens de texto, use fones de ouvido com fio ou viva-voz para fazer chamadas. Não durma com ele próximo à sua cabeça – desligue-o ou coloque-o em outro cômodo.

Terceiro, use o telefone apenas quando o sinal for forte. Os telefones celulares são programados para aumentar a radiação quando o sinal é fraco, ou seja, quando uma ou duas barras são exibidas em seu telefone. Por exemplo, não use o telefone no elevador ou no carro, pois as estruturas metálicas interferem no sinal.

Além disso, incentivo as pessoas a aprenderem mais sobre os mais de 150 grupos locais afiliados ao Americans for Responsible Technology , que estão trabalhando para educar os formuladores de políticas, incitando-os a adotar regulamentos de torres de celular e limites de exposição que protegem totalmente a nós e ao meio ambiente dos danos causados por radiação sem fio.

Para dicas de segurança sobre como reduzir a exposição à radiação sem fio do Departamento de Saúde Pública da Califórnia e outras organizações, Moskowitz recomenda que os leitores visitem seu site, saferemr.com , Physicians for Safe Technology e Environmental Health Trust.

https://blogs.correiobraziliense.com.br/aricunha/deixem-a-cultura-arder-no-fogo/

Tuesday, August 3, 2021

Recent Research on Wireless Radiation and Electromagnetic Fields

I have been circulating abstracts of newly-published scientific papers on wireless radiation and electromagnetic fields (EMF) about once a month since August 2016. These updates are sent to several hundred EMF scientists around the world.

The latest additions appear below. The complete collection of abstracts now covers more than 1,000 scientific papers. This 1,019-page document (pdf) can be downloaded by clicking on the following link:


Note: This link will change when new abstracts are added to the collection.

Recent Papers

Health impact of 5G: Current state of knowledge of 5G-related carcinogenic and reproductive/developmental hazards as they emerge from epidemiological studies and in vivo experimental studies

Fiorella Belpoggi. Health impact of 5G: Current state of knowledge of 5G-related carcinogenic and reproductive/developmental hazards as they emerge from epidemiological studies and in vivo experimental studies. Panel for the Future of Science and Technology. European Parliamentary Research Service. Scientific Foresight Unit (STOA). PE 690.012. June 2021.

Abstract

The upcoming deployment of 5G mobile networks will allow for significantly faster mobile broadband speeds and increasingly extensive mobile data usage. Technical innovations include a different transmission system (MIMO: use of multiple‐input and multiple‐output antennas), directional signal transmission or reception (beamforming), and the use of other frequency ranges. At the same time, a change is expected in the exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) of humans and the environment. In addition to those used to date, the 5G pioneer bands identified at EU level have frequencies of 700 MHz, 3.6 GHz (3.4 to 3.8 GHz) and 26 GHz (24.25 to 27.5 GHz). The first two frequencies (FR1) are similar to those used for 2G to 4G technologies and have been investigated in both epidemiological and experimental studies for different end points (including carcinogenicity and reproductive/developmental effects), while 26 GHz (FR2) and higher frequencies have not been adequately studied for the same end points.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency (RF) EMF as 'possibly carcinogenic to humans' (Group 2B) and recently recommended RF exposure for re-evaluation 'with high priority' (IARC, 2019). Since 2011 a great number of studies have been performed, both epidemiological and experimental. The present review addresses the current knowledge regarding both carcinogenic and reproductive/ developmental hazards of RF as exploited by 5G. There are various in vivo experimental and epidemiological studies on RF at a lower frequency range (450 to 6000 MHz), which also includes the frequencies used in previous generations' broadband cellular networks, but very few (and inadequate) on the higher frequency range (24 to 100 GHz, centimetre/MMW).

The review shows: 1) 5G lower frequencies (700 and 3 600 MHz): a) sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in epidemiological studies; b) sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental bioassays; c) sufficient evidence of reproductive/developmental adverse effects in humans; d) sufficient evidence of reproductive/ developmental adverse effects in experimental animals; 2) 5G higher frequencies (24.25-27.5 GHz): the systematic review found no adequate studies either in humans or in experimental animals.

Conclusions: 1) cancer: FR1 (450 to 6 000 MHz): EMF are probably carcinogenic for humans, in particular related to gliomas and acoustic neuromas; FR2 (24 to 100 GHz): no adequate studies were performed on the higher frequencies; 2) reproductive developmental effects: FR1 (450 to 6 000 MHz): these frequencies clearly affect male fertility and possibly female fertility too. They may have possible adverse effects on the development of embryos, foetuses and newborns; FR2 (24 to 100 GHz): no adequate studies were performed on non-thermal effects of the higher frequencies.



--

Environmental impacts of 5G: A literature review of effects of radio-frequency electromagnetic field exposure of non-human vertebrates, invertebrates and plants

Arno Thielens. Environmental impacts of 5G: A literature review of effects of radio-frequency electromagnetic field exposure of non-human vertebrates, invertebrates and plants. Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA). European Parliament. 2021, 137 pp. PE 690.021, ISBN 9789284680337. doi: 10.2861/318352.

Abstract

Telecommunication networks use radio-frequency electromagnetic fields to enable wireless communication. These networks have evolved over time, and have been launched in successive generations. The fifth generation of telecommunication networks will operate at frequencies that were not commonly used in previous generations, changing the exposure of wildlife to these waves. This report reviews the literature on the exposure of vertebrates, invertebrates and plants to radio-frequency electromagnetic fields in anticipation of this change.

The review shows that dielectric heating can occur at all considered frequencies (0.4-300 GHz) and for all studied organisms. Summarising and discussing the results of a series of studies of radio-frequency electromagnetic field exposure of wildlife, the review shows that several studies into the effects of radio-frequency electromagnetic field exposure on invertebrates and plants in the frequency bands considered demonstrate experimental shortcomings. Furthermore, the literature on invertebrate and plant exposure to radio-frequency electromagnetic fields above 6 GHz is very limited. More research is needed in this field.


--

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

Uloma Igara Uche, Olga V Naidenko. Development of health-based exposure limits for radiofrequency radiation from wireless devices using a benchmark dose approach. Environ Health 20, 84 (2021). doi: 10.1186/s12940-021-00768-1.

Abstract

Background  Epidemiological studies and research on laboratory animals link radiofrequency radiation (RFR) with impacts on the heart, brain, and other organs. Data from the large-scale animal studies conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) and the Ramazzini Institute support the need for updated health-based guidelines for general population RFR exposure.

Objectives  The development of RFR exposure limits expressed in whole-body Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), a metric of RFR energy absorbed by biological tissues.

Methods  Using frequentist and Bayesian averaging modeling of non-neoplastic lesion incidence data from the NTP study, we calculated the benchmark doses (BMD) that elicited a 10% response above background (BMD10) and the lower confidence limits on the BMD at 10% extra risk (BMDL10). Incidence data for individual neoplasms and combined tumor incidence were modeled for 5% and 10% response above background.

Results  Cardiomyopathy and increased risk of neoplasms in male rats were the most sensitive health outcomes following RFR exposures at 900 MHz frequency with Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) and Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) modulations. BMDL10 for all sites cardiomyopathy in male rats following 19 weeks of exposure, calculated with Bayesian model averaging, corresponded to 0.27–0.42 W/kg whole-body SAR for CDMA and 0.20–0.29 W/kg for GSM modulation. BMDL10 for right ventricle cardiomyopathy in female rats following 2 years of exposure corresponded to 2.7–5.16 W/kg whole-body SAR for CDMA and 1.91–2.18 W/kg for GSM modulation. For multi-site tumor modeling using the multistage cancer model with a 5% extra risk, BMDL5 in male rats corresponded to 0.31 W/kg for CDMA and 0.21 W/kg for GSM modulation.

Conclusion  BMDL10 range of 0.2—0.4 W/kg for all sites cardiomyopathy in male rats was selected as a point of departure. Applying two ten-fold safety factors for interspecies and intraspecies variability, we derived a whole-body SAR limit of 2 to 4 mW/kg, an exposure level that is 20–40-fold lower than the legally permissible level of 0.08 W/kg for whole-body SAR under the current U.S. regulations. Use of an additional ten-fold children’s health safety factor points to a whole-body SAR limit of 0.2–0.4 mW/kg for young children.


--

Effects of mobile phone usage on sperm quality - No time-dependent relationship on usage: A systematic review and updated meta-analysis

Sungjoon Kim, Donghyun Han, Jiwoo Ryu, Kihun Kim, Yun Hak Kim. Effects of mobile phone usage on sperm quality - No time-dependent relationship on usage: A systematic review and updated meta-analysis. Environ Res. 2021 Jul 29;111784. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2021.111784.

Abstract

Background: Mobile phones emit radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic waves (EMWs), a low-level RF that can be absorbed by the human body and exert potential adverse effects on the brain, heart, endocrine system, and reproductive function. Owing to the novel findings of numerous studies published since 2012 regarding the effect of mobile phone use on sperm quality, we conducted a systematic review and updated meta-analysis to determine whether the exposure to RF-EMWs affects human sperm quality.

Methods: This study was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. The outcome measures depicting sperm quality were motility, viability, and concentration, which are the most frequently used parameters in clinical settings to assess fertility.

Results: We evaluated 18 studies that included 4280 samples. Exposure to mobile phones is associated with reduced sperm motility, viability, and concentration. The decrease in sperm quality after RF-EMW exposure was not significant, even when the mobile phone usage increased. This finding was consistent across experimental in vitro and observational in vivo studies.

Discussion: Accumulated data from in vivo studies show that mobile phone usage is harmful to sperm quality. Additional studies are needed to determine the effect of the exposure to EMWs from new mobile phone models used in the present digital environment.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34333014/

Excerpts

... 18 studies fulfilled all inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis (Table 1 and Fig. 1) (Agarwal et al., 2008, 2009; Ahmad and Baig, 2011; Al-Bayyari, 2017b; De Iuliis et al., 2009; Ding et al., 2018a; Dkhil et al., 2011; Erogul et al., 2006; Falzone et al., 2008; Fejes et al., 2005; Kaya et al., 2020; Malini, 2017b; Rago et al., 2013; Sajeda and Al-Watter, 2011; Veerachari and Vasan, 2012; Wdowiak et al., 2018; Yildirim et al., 2015; Zalata et al., 2015). Nine studies from a previous meta-analysis and nine new studies that included 4280 samples were used for analysis. One conference paper included in the previous study was excluded. The sperm quality parameters established in each paper varied and were subjected to a meta-analysis; 16 papers provided data on sperm motility, 6 provided data on sperm viability, and 12 provided data on sperm concentration. All in vitro studies were experimental, whereas all in vivo studies were observational. We identified the MD values of the entire 4280 samples and analyzed the MD values of each group after classifying them according to four criteria: control group setting (non-exposure vs. less exposure), study design (in vivo and in vitro), participant group (fertility clinic and population), and storage location (trousers or not).

Conclusion

Mobile phone use decreased the overall sperm quality by affecting the motility, viability, and concentration. It was further reduced in the group with high mobile phone usage. In particular, the decrease was remarkable in in vivo studies with stronger clinical significance in subgroup analysis. Therefore, long-term cell phone use is a factor that must be considered as a cause of sperm quality reduction. Additional studies are needed to determine the effect of the exposure to EMWs emitted from new mobile phone models in the present digital environment.

--

Association between mobile phone use and hearing impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis


Mohammad Hosein Taziki Balajelini, Masoud Mohammadi, Abdolhalim Rajabi. Association between mobile phone use and hearing impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Rev Environ Health. 2021 Jul 22. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2021-0062.

Abstract

Objectives: To investigate whether a possible association of mobile phone use with hearing impairment was conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Content: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis. A comprehensive literature search was carried out based on the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) methodology using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, OVID, and Cochrane. The Robins-I tool was used for quality assessment and risk of bias. Two investigators independently reviewed all articles. Pooled effect size was calculated and meta-analysis was performed to compute an overall effect size.

Summary: Overall, five relevant studies (two cross-sectional and three cohort studies) with 92,978 participants were included in the analysis. The studies were stratified by design, there was no significant association between mobile phone use and hearing impairment in cross-sectional studies (OR=0.94, 95% CI=0.57-1.31) and cohort studies (OR=1.09, 95% CI=0.93-1.25). In addition, the effect estimates did not differ significantly between cross-sectional and cohort studies (Q=0.50, p=0.48). Overall, the pooled odds ratio (OR) of hearing impairment was 1.07 (95% CI: 0.94-1.20), which indicates no significant association between mobile phone use and hearing impairment.

Outlook: Our findings indicate no association between mobile phone use and hearing impairment. However, these findings must be interpreted with caution.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34293837/

--

Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 2 impacts: how species interact with natural and man-made EMF

B. Blake Levitt, Henry C. Lai, Albert M Manville. Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 2 impacts: how species interact with natural and man-made EMF. Rev Environ Health. 2021 Jul 8.doi: 10.1515/reveh-2021-0050.

Abstract

Ambient levels of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) have risen sharply in the last five decades to become a ubiquitous, continuous, biologically active environmental pollutant, even in rural and remote areas. Many species of flora and fauna, because of unique physiologies and habitats, are sensitive to exogenous EMF in ways that surpass human reactivity. This can lead to complex endogenous reactions that are highly variable, largely unseen, and a possible contributing factor in species extinctions, sometimes localized. Non-human magnetoreception mechanisms are explored. Numerous studies across all frequencies and taxa indicate that current low-level anthropogenic EMF can have myriad adverse and synergistic effects, including on orientation and migration, food finding, reproduction, mating, nest and den building, territorial maintenance and defense, and on vitality, longevity and survivorship itself. Effects have been observed in mammals such as bats, cervids, cetaceans, and pinnipeds among others, and on birds, insects, amphibians, reptiles, microbes and many species of flora. Cyto- and geno-toxic effects have long been observed in laboratory research on animal models that can be extrapolated to wildlife. Unusual multi-system mechanisms can come into play with non-human species — including in aquatic environments — that rely on the Earth’s natural geomagnetic fields for critical life-sustaining information. Part 2 of this 3-part series includes four online supplement tables of effects seen in animals from both ELF and RFR at vanishingly low intensities. Taken as a whole, this indicates enough information to raise concerns about ambient exposures to nonionizing radiation at ecosystem levels. Wildlife loss is often unseen and undocumented until tipping points are reached. It is time to recognize ambient EMF as a novel form of pollution and develop rules at regulatory agencies that designate air as ‘habitat’ so EMF can be regulated like other pollutants. Long-term chronic low-level EMF exposure standards, which do not now exist, should be set accordingly for wildlife, and environmental laws should be strictly enforced — a subject explored in Part 3.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34243228/

Conclusion

Effects from both natural and man-made EMF over a wide range of frequencies, intensities, wave forms, and signaling characteristics have been observed in all species of animals and plants investigated. The database is now voluminous with in vitro, in vivo, and field studies from which to extrapolate. The majority of studies have found biological effects at both high and low-intensity man-made exposures, many with implications for wildlife health and viability. It is clear that ambient environmental levels are biologically active in all non-human species which can have unique physiological mechanisms that require natural geomagnetic information for their life’s most important activities. Sensitive magnetoreception allows living organisms, including plants, to detect small variations in environmental EMF and react immediately as well as over the long term, but it can also make some organisms exquisitely vulnerable to man-made fields. Anthropogenic EMF may be contributing more than we currently realize to species’ diminishment and extinction. Exposures continue to escalate without understanding EMF as a potential causative and/or co-factorial agent. It is time to recognize ambient EMF as a potential novel stressor to other species, design technology to reduce exposures to as low as reasonably achievable, keep systems wired as much as possible to reduce ambient RFR, and create laws accordingly — a subject explored more thoroughly in Part 3.

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2021-0050/html

--

The effect of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields on cognitive performance in human experimental studies: A protocol for a systematic review


Blanka Pophof, Jacob Burns, Heidi Danker-Hopfe, Hans Dorn, Cornelia Egblomassé-Roidl, Torsten Eggert, Kateryna Fuks, Bernd Henschenmacher, Jens Kuhne, Cornelia Sauter, Gernot Schmid. The effect of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields on cognitive performance in human experimental studies: A protocol for a systematic review. Environ Int. 2021 Jul 29;157:106783. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2021.106783.

Abstract

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) is currently assessing the potential health effects of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs) in the general and working population. Related to one such health effect, there is a concern that RF-EMFs may affect cognitive performance in humans. The systematic review (SR) aims to identify, summarize and synthesize the evidence base related to this question. Here, we present the protocol for the planned SR.

Objectives: The main objective is to present a protocol for a SR which will evaluate the associations between short-term exposure to RF-EMFs and cognitive performance in human experimental studies.

Data sources: We will search the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and the EMF-Portal. The reference lists of included studies and retrieved review articles will be manually searched.

Study eligibility and criteria: We will include randomized human experimental studies that assess the effects of RF-EMFs on cognitive performance compared to no exposure or lower exposure. We will include peer-reviewed articles of any publication date in any language that report primary data.

Data extraction and analysis: Data will be extracted according to a pre-defined set of forms developed and piloted by the review author team. To assess the risk of bias, we will apply the Rating Tool for Human and Animal Studies developed by NTP/OHAT, supplemented with additional questions relevant for cross-over studies. Where sufficiently similar studies are identified (e.g. the heterogeneity concerning population, exposure and outcome is low and the studies can be combined), we will conduct random-effects meta-analysis; otherwise, we will conduct a narrative synthesis.

Assessment of certainty of evidence: The certainty of evidence for each identified outcome will be assessed according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Performing the review according to this protocol will allow the identification of possible effects of RF-EMFs on cognitive performance in humans. The protocol has been registered in PROSPERO, an open-source protocol registration system, to foster transparency.

Open access paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412021004086?via%3Dihub

--

Improving the Quality of Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research: The Need for a Carrot and a Stick

Vijayalaxmi, Kenneth R Foster. Improving the Quality of Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research: The Need for a Carrot and a Stick. Radiat Res. 2021 Jul 16. doi: 10.1667/RADE-21-00079.1.

Abstract

This commentary considers research needs for radiofrequency (RF) energy above 6 GHz, including in the "high band" of 5G New Radio (NR) communications systems that exists just beneath the mm-wave band (30-300 GHz). As of late 2020, approximately 100 RF bioeffects studies have been published involving exposures above 6 GHz, encompassing a wide range of exposure levels and frequencies. A majority of these studies report statistically significant effects of exposure, many at exposures within international safety limits. This commentary examines 31 genetic damage studies involving RF exposures above 6 GHz in the context of two sets of quality-assessment criteria: 1. "Risk of bias" (RoB) criteria used for systematic reviews of health-related studies; and 2. a broader set of criteria for research quality from a different scholarly approach (metascience). The 31 studies report several statistically significant effects of exposure on different markers for genetic damage. These effects, if real, would have great potential significance for carcinogen risk assessment. However, the studies as a group have significant technical weaknesses, including small size, failure to meet multiple RoB criteria, naïve use of statistics, and lack of prespecified hypotheses and methods of analysis, all of which increase the chances of false discovery. Here we propose a "carrot" (adequate funding to support high-quality research) and a "stick" (more stringent review of bioeffects manuscripts, including explicit instructions to reviewers to assess study quality) approach to increase the reliability of RF bioeffects studies to facilitate health agency reviews of this socially controversial topic.


--

American National Standard for Methods of Measurements of Radio-Frequency Emissions from Wireless Power Transfer Equipment


"American National Standard for Methods of Measurements of Radio-Frequency Emissions from Wireless Power Transfer Equipment," in ANSI C63.30-2021 , vol., no., pp.1-253, 15 July 2021, doi: 10.1109/IEEESTD.2021.9491984.

Abstract

U.S. consensus standard methods, instrumentation, and facilities for measurement of radio-frequency (RF) emissions and signals emitted from wireless power transfer equipment in the frequency range from 9 kHz to 40 GHz are specified. This standard does not include generic nor product-specific emission limits. Where possible, the specifications herein are harmonized with other national and international standards used for similar purposes.

Scope  This standard includes procedures for evaluating the compliance of wireless power transfer (WPT) equipment with applicable electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) requirements. Test procedures for radiated field strength and conducted disturbance measurements are included, with reference to established standards, where applicable. WPT RF exposure compliance procedures are not included. This document covers measurement methodologies but is not intended to specify regulatory limits. This standard does not consider test methods for the transmitter or receiver portion of any radio apparatus subcomponents that might be included in the equipment under test (EUT), other than those operating at the WPT frequency (or frequencies). These non-WPT radio subcomponents, which can be related or not to the WPT function of the EUT, are covered by other standards (e.g., ANSI C63.10 [B1] and ANSI C63.26 [B2]).

Purpose  This standard specifies the methods of measurement to be used for evaluating compliance with the applicable radiated and ac mains power-line conducted emissions requirements for WPT devices that are either already in wide use or soon to be introduced on the market, at the time of publishing this first edition of ANSI C63.30 (such as Qi, PMA, A4WP2, and SAE3 J2954 [B26]compliant models -- see Annex A). This document includes procedures developed from an exhaustive investigation of such devices, inclusive of field propagation properties, simulation-based analysis, and test site dynamics (see Annex B).

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/servlet/opac?punumber=9491982

--

Use of Machine Learning for the Estimation of Down- and Up-Link Field Exposure in Multi-Source Indoor WiFi Scenarios

Gabriella Tognola, David Plets, Emma Chiaramello, Silvia Gallucci, Marta Bonato, Serena Fiocchi, Marta Parazzini, Luc Martens, Wout Joseph, Paolo Ravazzani. Use of Machine Learning for the Estimation of Down- and Up-Link Field Exposure in Multi-Source Indoor WiFi Scenarios. Bioelectromagnetics. 2021 Jul 23. doi: 10.1002/bem.22361.

Abstract

A novel Machine Learning (ML) method based on Neural Networks (NN) is proposed to assess radio-frequency (RF) exposure generated by WiFi sources in indoor scenarios. The aim was to build an NN capable of addressing the complexity and variability of real-life exposure setups, including the effects of not only down-link transmission access points (APs) but also up-link transmission by different sources (e.g. laptop, printers, tablets, and smartphones). The NN was fed with easy to be found data, such as the position and type of WiFi sources (APs, clients, and other users) and the position and material characteristics (e.g. penetration loss) of walls. The NN model was assessed using an additional new layout, distinct from that one used to build and optimize the NN coefficients. The NN model achieved a remarkable field prediction accuracy across exposure conditions in both layouts, with a median prediction error of -0.4 to 0.6 dB and a root mean square error of 2.5-5.1 dB, compared with the target electric field estimated by a deterministic indoor network planner. The proposed approach performs well for the different layouts and is thus generally used to assess RF exposure in indoor scenarios.


--

Time-temperature Thresholds and Safety Factors for Thermal Hazards from Radiofrequency Energy above 6 GHz

Kenneth R Foster, Marvin C Ziskin, Quirino Balzano. Time-temperature Thresholds and Safety Factors for Thermal Hazards from Radiofrequency Energy above 6 GHz. Health Phys. 2021 Jul 9. doi: 10.1097/HP.0000000000001447.

Abstract

Two major sets of exposure limits for radiofrequency (RF) radiation, those of the International Commission on Nonionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP 2020) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE C95.1-2019), have recently been revised and updated with significant changes in limits above 6 GHz through the millimeter wave (mm-wave) band (30-300 GHz). This review compares available data on thermal damage and pain from exposure to RF energy above 6 GHz with corresponding data from infrared energy and other heat sources and estimates safety factors that are incorporated in the IEEE and ICNIRP RF exposure limits. The benchmarks for damage are the same as used in ICNIRP IR limits: minimal epithelial damage to cornea and first-degree burn (erythema in skin observable within 48 h after exposure). The data suggest that limiting thermal hazard to skin is cutaneous pain for exposure durations less than ≈20 min and thermal damage for longer exposures. Limitations on available data and thermal models are noted. However, data on RF and IR thermal damage and pain thresholds show that exposures far above current ICNIRP and IEEE limits would be required to produce thermally hazardous effects. This review focuses exclusively on thermal hazards from RF exposures
above 6 GHz to skin and the cornea, which are the most exposed tissues in the considered frequency range.


--

Effects of 5.8 GHz microwave on hippocampal synaptic plasticity of rats


Gang Rui, Li-Yuan Liu, Ling Guo, Yi-Zhe Xue, Pan-Pan Lai, Peng Gao, Jun-Ling Xing, Jing Li, Gui-Rong Ding. Effects of 5.8 GHz microwave on hippocampal synaptic plasticity of rats. Int J Environ Health Res. 2021 Jul 22;1-13. doi: 10.1080/09603123.2021.1952165.

Abstract

Objective 5.8 GHz spectrum is gaining more attention in wireless technology. To explore the potential hazards, we investigated the effect of exposure to 5.8 GHz microwave on learning and memory ability of rats.

Methods Morris Water maze (MWM), Novel object recognition (NOR) and Fear conditioning test (FCT) were used to evaluate the ability of spatial and non-spatial memory of rats. The hippocampal morphology, the level of brain injury factors in serum and the mitochondrial membrane potential of hippocampal neurons was examined to evaluate the damage of hippocampal neurons. The density of dendritic spines, the ultrastructure of synapses and the level of PSD95, Synaptophysin, p-CREB and CREB were detected to evaluate the hippocampal synaptic plasticity.

Results Compared with Sham group, there was no significant difference in the performance of ethology (in MWM, NOR, FCT) in Microwave 2 h group or Microwave 4 h group. The hippocampal morphology, the serum level of brain injury factors and the content of mitochondrial JC-1 monomer in Microwave 2 h group or Microwave 4 h group did not change obviously, compared with Sham group. The density of dendritic spines, the ultrastructure of synapse and the level of PSD95, Synaptophysin, p-CREB and CREB in hippocampus in Microwave 2 h group or Microwave 4 h group did not significantly change, compared with Sham group.

Conclusion Under this experimental condition, exposure to 5.8 GHz microwave could not affect the hippocampal synaptic plasticity of rats.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34293966/

--

Specific electromagnetic radiation in the wireless signal range increases wakefulness in mice

Lingyu Liu, Hu Deng, Xiaping Tang, Yingxian Lu, Jiayao Zhou, Xiaofei Wang, Yanyu Zhao, Bing Huang, Yigong Shi. Specific electromagnetic radiation in the wireless signal range increases wakefulness in mice.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Aug 3;118(31):e2105838118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2105838118.

Abstract

Electromagnetic radiation (EMR) in the environment has increased sharply in recent decades. The effect of environmental EMR on living organisms remains poorly characterized. Here, we report the impact of wireless-range EMR on the sleep architecture of mouse. Prolonged exposure to 2.4-GHz EMR modulated by 100-Hz square pulses at a nonthermal output level results in markedly increased time of wakefulness in mice. These mice display corresponding decreased time of nonrapid eye movement (NREM) and rapid eye movement (REM). In contrast, prolonged exposure to unmodulated 2.4-GHz EMR at the same time-averaged output level has little impact on mouse sleep. These observations identify alteration of sleep architecture in mice as a specific physiological response to prolonged wireless-range EMR exposure.

Open access paper: https://www.pnas.org/content/118/31/e2105838118

--

Glioblastoma Cell Migration is Directed by Electrical Signals

Hannah Clancy, Michal Pruski, Bing Lang, Jared Ching, Colin D McCaig. Glioblastoma Cell Migration is Directed by Electrical Signals. Exp Cell Res. 2021 Jul 14;112736. doi: 10.1016/j.yexcr.2021.112736.

Abstract

Electric field (EF) directed cell migration (electrotaxis) is known to occur in glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) and neural stem cells, with key signalling pathways frequently dysregulated in GBM. One such pathway is EGFR/PI3K/Akt, which is down-regulated by peroxisome proliferator activated receptor gamma (PPARγ) agonists. We investigated the effect of electric fields on primary differentiated and glioma stem cell (GSCs) migration, finding opposing preferences for anodal and cathodal migration, respectively. We next sought to determine whether chemically disrupting Akt through PTEN upregulation with the PPARγ agonist, pioglitazone, would modulate electrotaxis of these cells. We found that directed cell migration was significantly inhibited with the addition of pioglitazone in both differentiated GBM and GSCs subtypes. Western blot analysis did not demonstrate any change in PPARγ expression with and without exposure to EF. In summary we demonstrate opposing EF responses in primary GBM differentiated cells and GSCs can be inhibited chemically by pioglitazone, implicating GBM EF modulation as a potential target in preventing tumour recurrence.


--

Heisenberg uncertainty of spatially gated electromagnetic fields

Vladimir Y Chernyak, Shaul Mukamel. Heisenberg uncertainty of spatially gated electromagnetic fields. J Chem Phys. 2021 May 7;154(17):174110. doi: 10.1063/5.0045352.

Abstract

A Heisenberg uncertainty relation is derived for spatially-gated electric ΔE and magnetic ΔH field fluctuations. The uncertainty increases for small gating sizes, which implies that in confined spaces, the quantum nature of the electromagnetic field must be taken into account. Optimizing the state of light to minimize ΔE at the expense of ΔH and vice versa should be possible. Spatial confinements and quantum fields may alternatively be realized without gating by interaction of the field with a nanostructure. Possible applications include nonlinear spectroscopy of nanostructures and optical cavities and chiral signals.


--

Reflection Properties of the Human Skin From 40 to 110 GHz: A Confirmation Study

Andreas Christ, Adrian Aeschbacher, Fereshteh Rouholahnejad, Theodoros Samaras, Bernadetta Tarigan, Niels Kuster. Reflection Properties of the Human Skin From 40 to 110 GHz: A Confirmation Study. Bioelectromagnetics. 2021 Jul 21. doi: 10.1002/bem.22362.

Abstract

Several recent theoretical dosimetric studies above 6 GHz apply generic layered skin models. For this frequency range, new experimental phantoms for over-the-air performance of wireless devices were proposed that simulate the impedance matching effects of the stratum corneum layer (SCL) with a low-loss coating layer. The aim of this study was to verify the skin models by comparing their reflection coefficients S11 with measurements of 37 human volunteers (21 males, 16 females, 5-80 years) at 21 body locations (10 at palm, 11 at arm/face) with different SCL thicknesses, using waveguides covering frequencies from 40 to 110 GHz. Such measurements were also carried out with the phantom material. The statistical analysis showed strong evidence that S11 depends on the SCL thickness and no evidence that S11 depends on sex. The measured S11 values for thin and thick skin can be represented by SCL layers of 15 and 140 μm, respectively. These values correspond well to the assumptions of previous studies. (The cohort did not include volunteers doing heavy manual work.) The phantom material mimics the matching effect of the SCL with deviations from the waveguide measurements of less than 0.85 dB (22%), which confirms the suitability of layered phantoms to represent the electromagnetic reflection/absorption of human skin

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34289515/

--

Electromagnetic Field Exposure in Kindergarten Children: Responsive Health Risk Concern

Shiva Raj Acharya, Yong Chul Shin, Deog Hwan Moon, Sandip Pahari. Electromagnetic Field Exposure in Kindergarten Children: Responsive Health Risk Concern. Front Pediatr. 2021 Jul 5;9:694407. doi: 10.3389/fped.2021.69.

Abstract

Long-term exposure to physical agents can be detrimental to children due to their vulnerability. This study aimed to assess and compare the electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure level around the kindergartens from the underground transmission line (UGTL). We investigated randomly selected 24 kindergartens based on the location of the UGTL. The EMF emission levels were measured using an EMDEX II (Electric and Magnetic Digital Exposure Meter). The maximum mean value of the EMF emission level was 13.5 mG around the kindergartens and 17.7 mG from the point of UGTL to kindergartens. EMF emission level around the kindergartens was significantly associated with the location of the UGTL (t = -7.35, P < 0.001). These estimates are not trivial, as long-term exposure to EMF among kindergarten children can lead to different health problems. Routine monitoring of EMF emission levels is recommended including the awareness of EMF exposure to public citizens.


--

Radiofrequency Exposure Levels from Mobile Phone Base Stations in Outdoor Environments and an Underground Shopping Mall in Japan

Teruo Onishi, Miwa Ikuyo, Kazuhiro Tobita, Sen Liu, Masao Taki, Soichi Watanabe. Radiofrequency Exposure Levels from Mobile Phone Base Stations in Outdoor Environments and an Underground Shopping Mall in Japan. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(15), 8068; doi: 10.3390/ijerph18158068.
 
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Occupational and General Public Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields)
Abstract

Recent progress in wireless technologies has made human exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) increasingly complex. The situation can increase public concerns related to possible health effects due to EMF exposure. Monitoring EMF exposure levels and characterizing them are indispensable for risk communications of human exposure to EMFs. From this background, a project on the acquisition, accumulation, and applications of EMF exposure monitoring data in Japan was started in 2019. One of the objectives of this project is to obtain a comprehensive picture of EMF exposure in actual daily lives. In 2019 and 2020, we measured the electric field (E-field) strength from mainly mobile phone base stations in the same areas as those in measurements conducted in 2006 and 2007 by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC), Japan, and compared the data to investigate the time-course of the EMF environment. The number of measured points was 100 (10 × 10 grids) in an area of 1 km × 1 km in two urban and two suburban areas, and that in an underground shopping mall was 158. This large-scale study is the first in Japan. As a result, we found that the measured E-field strengths tended to be higher in 2019 and 2020 than those in 2006 and 2007, especially in the mall. However, the median ratios to the Japanese radio wave protection guideline values for urban areas and malls are lower than −40 dB.

Excerpts

"Measurement results were compared with limits in general environments in the radio wave protection guidelines in Japan, as shown in Table 2. The E-field strength in the radio wave protection guidelines is proportional to the square root of the frequency in between 300 MHz and 1.5 GHz and is constant at 61.4 V/m (155.76 dBμV/m) at frequencies above 1.5 GHz [25]. The minimum E-field strength in the guidelines at the target frequency of this measurement is 44.1 V/m (152.89 dBμV/m). Therefore, the ratio to the guideline value in each frequency band and the sum of squares were calculated. A measurement of 0 dB means the same level as the limits. As shown in Table 2, the maximum ratios in the urban areas and the mall are about 10 times higher than those in the suburban areas; however, they were lower than −20 dB from the level of the Japanese guidelines. If we focus on the median value, the ratio is approximately on the order of the −40 dB from the limit."

"The results of E-field strength measurements in mobile phone base stations, which are one of the main sources of EMF exposure in the general environment, namely in outdoor environments and an underground shopping mall in Japan in 2019 and 2020, have been presented. The measurements were conducted in the same areas as those conducted by MIC, Japan, in 2006 and 2007.

As a result, we found that the total median E-field strengths in the urban areas are about 7 dB larger than those in the suburban areas. The E-field strengths in the urban areas also tend to be larger than those in the suburban areas in individual frequency bands. For the shopping mall, it is clear that the differences in E-field strengths between daytime and night-time are marginal. The E-field strengths in the 2000 and 3500 MHz bands are larger than those in other bands. The E-field strengths in the 2400 MHz ISM band are the same as those in the 2000 MHz band, whereas the median E-field strengths in the 5000 MHz ISM bands are 5–9 dB smaller.

The measured results were compared with the Japanese radio wave protection guidelines. As a result, we found amounts lower than the limits by −20 dB. If the median E-field strength is focused on, the ratio is approximately on the order of −40 dB with respect to the limit. Compared with the previous data in 2006 and 2007, it is clear that the E-field strengths in both outdoor environments and the mall increased, especially in the mall, whose ratio of the E-field strength in 2007 to that in 2020 is 20.3 dB. Although the present measurement conditions are not precisely the same as those in the previous measurements, it is useful to investigate the time-course of EMFs in various environments. Additionally, the E-field strengths we obtained in outdoor environments are slightly smaller than those in another country.

Since our measurements were carried out before the start of 5G commercial service, the exposure level at the frequency band used in 5G was not included. However, measurements of exposure levels for 5G and new radio waves used will be continued. Due to the limited time and space of the measurements in this study, exposure level data under various conditions of daily life will be accumulated in the future."


--

Epigenetic dysregulation in various types of cells exposed to extremely low-frequency magnetic fields (Review)

Gianfranco Giorgi, Brunella Del Re. Epigenetic dysregulation in various types of cells exposed to extremely low-frequency magnetic fields.  Cell Tissue Res. 2021 Jul 21. doi: 10.1007/s00441-021-03489-6.

Abstract

Epigenetic mechanisms regulate gene expression, without changing the DNA sequence, and establish cell-type-specific temporal and spatial expression patterns. Alterations of epigenetic marks have been observed in several pathological conditions, including cancer and neurological disorders. Emerging evidence indicates that a variety of environmental factors may cause epigenetic alterations and eventually influence disease risks. Humans are increasingly exposed to extremely low-frequency magnetic fields (ELF-MFs), which in 2002 were classified as possible carcinogens by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. This review summarizes the current knowledge of the link between the exposure to ELF-MFs and epigenetic alterations in various cell types. In spite of the limited number of publications, available evidence indicates that ELF-MF exposure can be associated with epigenetic changes, including DNA methylation, modifications of histones and microRNA expression. Further research is needed to investigate the molecular mechanisms underlying the observed phenomena.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34287715/

--

Effect of the Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Radiation on Transcriptomic Profile of Pig Myometrium during the Peri-Implantation Period-An In Vitro Study


Ewa Monika Drzewiecka, Wiktoria Kozlowska, Lukasz Paukszto, Agata Zmijewska, Pawel Jozef Wydorski, Jan Pawel Jastrzebski, Anita Franczak. Effect of the Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Radiation on Transcriptomic Profile of Pig Myometrium during the Peri-Implantation Period-An In Vitro Study. Int J Mol Sci. 2021 Jul 7;22(14):7322. doi: 10.3390/ijms22147322.

Abstract

The electromagnetic field (EMF) affects the physiological processes in mammals, but the molecular background of the observed alterations remains not well established. In this study was tested the effect of short duration (2 h) of the EMF treatment (50 Hz, 8 mT) on global transcriptomic alterations in the myometrium of pigs during the peri-implantation period using next-generation sequencing. As a result, the EMF treatment affected the expression of 215 transcript active regions (TARs), and among them, the assigned gene protein-coding biotype possessed 90 ones (differentially expressed genes, DEGs), categorized mostly to gene ontology terms connected with defense and immune responses, and secretion and export. Evaluated DEGs enrich the KEGG TNF signaling pathway, and regulation of IFNA signaling and interferon-alpha/beta signaling REACTOME pathways. There were evaluated 12 differentially expressed long non-coding RNAs (DE-lnc-RNAs) and 182 predicted single nucleotide variants (SNVs) substitutions within RNA editing sites. In conclusion, the EMF treatment in the myometrium collected during the peri-implantation period affects the expression of genes involved in defense and immune responses. The study also gives new insight into the mechanisms of the EMF action in the regulation of the transcriptomic profile through lnc-RNAs and SNVs.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34298942/

--

Magnetic Field Affects Growth and Yield of Sunflower Under Different Moisture Stress Conditions

Ananta Vashisth, Neetu Meena, Prameela Krishnan. Magnetic Field Affects Growth and Yield of Sunflower Under Different Moisture Stress Conditions. Bioelectromagnetics. 26 June 2021/ doi: 10.1002/bem.22354

Abstract

Magnetic field treatments of seeds have shown significant effects on the enhancement of crop growth. Soil moisture stress is the major constraint in the production of the sunflower crop. Therefore, the experiment was conducted to investigate the effect of a 200 mT magnetic field for 2 h on crop growth, and yield of sunflower crops raised from magnetically treated seeds sown under different moisture stress conditions. Results showed that plants from magnetically treated seeds had higher leaf area index, shoot length, number of leaves, chlorophyll content, biomass, 1000-seed mass, and seed yield as compared with untreated. Radiation use efficiency and water productivity were significantly higher in plants raised from magnetically treated seeds than untreated seeds. Crop raised from magnetically treated seeds had 6.2% more seed yield, 7.1% more protein, and oil content as compared with crops raised from untreated seeds. Hence, it may be concluded that exposure of dry sunflower seeds to the static magnetic field of 200 mT for 2 h could be used for improving crop growth and yield under different moisture stress conditions.


--

Changes in Body Temperature of Small Mammals and Birds in a Few Minutes Range as Reflection of Environmental Influences


M E Diatroptov. Changes in Body Temperature of Small Mammals and Birds in a Few Minutes Range as Reflection of Environmental Influences. Bull Exp Biol Med. 2021 Jul 23. doi: 10.1007/s10517-021-05234-z.

Abstract

The study examined the changes in intraperitoneal body temperature of laboratory mice, Jungar hamsters, European greenfinch Chloris chloris, and starlings. In a few minutes range, these changes significantly correlated not only between the animals of the same species, but also between the different classes such as birds and mammals, which were isolated from each other and maintained under different illumination regimen. This phenomenon indicates some external influence(s) on the central mechanisms of the thermal control system not related to illumination regiment. In 80% cases, the phases of most pronounced rhythms of body temperature oscillating with the periods of 8-9 and 12-13 min coincided with those of geomagnetic field within the accuracy of ±1 min. However, the amplitude of body temperature oscillations did not depend on the amplitude of geomagnetic field (GMF) oscillations. Synchronicity of the changes in body temperature and GMF was observed at the amplitude of GMF oscillation of 0.4 nT, which is extremely low value. In contrast, there was no reaction of body temperature to greater (6-10 nT) but irregular and abrupt perturbations of GMF.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34297296/

--

Methods and Experiments for Sensing Variations in Solar Activity and Defining Their Impact on Heart Variability

Michael Hanzelka, Jiří Dan, Zoltán Szabó, Zdeněk Roubal, Přemysl Dohnal, Radim Kadlec. Methods and Experiments for Sensing Variations in Solar Activity and Defining Their Impact on Heart Variability. Sensors (Basel). 2021 Jul 14;21(14):4817. doi: 10.3390/s21144817.

Abstract

This paper evaluates variations in solar activity and their impact on the human nervous system, including the manner in which human behavior and decision-making reflect such effects in the context of (symmetrical) social interactions. The relevant research showed that solar activity, manifesting itself through the exposure of the Earth to charged particles from the Sun, affects heart variability. The evaluation methods focused on examining the relationships between selected psychophysiological data and solar activity, which generally causes major alterations in the low-level electromagnetic field. The investigation within this paper revealed that low-level EMF changes are among the factors affecting heart rate variability and, thus, also variations at the spectral level of the rate, in the VLF, (f = 0.01-0.04 Hz), LF (f = 0.04-0.15 Hz), and HF (f = 0.15 až 0.40 Hz) bands. The results of the presented experiments can also be interpreted as an indirect explanation of sudden deaths and heart failures.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34300557/

--

Effects of communicating uncertainty descriptions in hazard identification, risk characterization, and risk protection

Peter Wiedemann, Franziska U Boerner, Frederik Freudenstein. Effects of communicating uncertainty descriptions in hazard identification, risk characterization, and risk protection. PLoS One. 2021 Jul 13;16(7):e0253762. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253762.

Abstract

Uncertainty is a crucial issue for any risk assessment. Consequently, it also poses crucial challenges for risk communications. Many guidebooks advise reporting uncertainties in risk assessments, expecting that the audience will appreciate this disclosure. However, the empirical evidence about the effects of uncertainty reporting is sparse and inconclusive. Therefore, based on examples of potential health risks of electromagnetic fields (EMF), three experiments were conducted analysing the effects of communicating uncertainties separately for hazard identification, risk characterisation and risk protection. The setups aimed to explore how reporting and how explaining of uncertainty affects dependent variables such as risk perception, perceived competence of the risk assessors, and trust in risk management. Each of the three experiments used a 2x2 design with a first factor presenting uncertainty descriptions (as used in public controversies on EMF related health effects) or describing a certainty conditions; and a second factor explaining the causes of uncertainties (by pointing at knowledge gaps) or not explaining them. The study results indicate that qualitative uncertainty descriptions regarding hazard identification reduce the confidence in the professional competencies of the assessors. In contrast, a quantitative uncertainty description in risk characterisation-regarding the magnitude of the risk-does not affect any of the dependent variables. Concerning risk protection, trust in exposure limit values is not affected by qualitative uncertainty information. However, the qualitative description of uncertainty regarding the adequacy of protection amplifies fears. Furthermore, explaining this uncertainty results in lower text understandability.

Conclusions

Our experiments provide several implications for reporting uncertainties. They show that informing about uncertainties is not always a means for improving trust and credibility. Science skeptics and activists with a particular political agenda might instrumentalize uncertainty for spreading distrust in science, primarily when uncertainty refers to hazard identification. Risk communicators should be aware that admitting uncertainty is a double-edged sword. Laypersons might attribute it to the lack of professional expertise.

Further research should focus on the issues of cognitive resources and prior beliefs. It should focus on how the recipients interpret the specific social context in which the information is given and how the recipients’ cognitive resources, motivations to process information, and their prior beliefs influence uncertainty information interpretation. These issues could be tackled by dual-process theories developed in judgment and decision-making [53]. Recipients might understand the same information differently depending on whether the information is processed by elaborative or heuristic cognition. Furthermore, prior beliefs shape the interpretation of uncertainties in risk assessment. This issue can be tackled by theories that explain how motivated reasoning influences judgments and opinions about uncertainty information [54].

Finally, we would like to stress the importance of the performative goal of informing about uncertainty. It makes a massive difference whether uncertainty is used to raise fears and distrust in science or honestly report the limits of evidence-based knowledge. Further research should pay more attention to this subject. New studies could learn from the analysis of the politicization of science [16] that has focused on how uncertainty is exploited for undermining trust in science.


--

Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on tumor cell viability: a meta-analysis of in vitro randomized controlled experiments


Guangzhou An, Meilun Shen, Juan Guo, Xia Miao, Yuntao Jing, Keying Zhang, Ling Guo, Junling Xing. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on tumor cell viability: a meta-analysis of in vitro randomized controlled experiments. Electromagn Biol Med. 2021 Jul 26;1-8. doi: 10.1080/15368378.2021.1958341.

Abstract

Malignant tumor treatment remains a big challenge till now, and expanding literature indicated that pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF) is promising in tumor treatment with the advantage of safety and being economical, but it is still controversial on whether PEMF could affect the tumor cell viability. Therefore, we conducted the meta-analysis to evaluate effects of PEMF on tumor cell viability. The PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies published up to February 2021. Studies on the direct effects of PEMF on tumor cell viability, determined using colorimetric analysis, were included. Two authors extracted the data and completed the quality assessment. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate the absorbance values and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random-effects models. Seven studies, including 32 randomized controlled experiments, were analyzed. Compared with the control group, tumor cell viability in the PEMF exposure group was obviously lower (SMD, -0.67; 95% CI: -1.12 to -0.22). The subgroup meta-analysis results showed that PEMF significantly reduced epithelial cancer cell viability (SMD, -0.58; 95% CI: -0.92 to -0.23) but had no influence on stromal tumor cell viability (SMD, -0.93; 95% CI: -0.21 to 0.15). Our study demonstrated that PEMF could inhibit tumor cell proliferation to some extent, but the risk of bias and high heterogeneity (I2 > 75%) weakened the strength of the conclusions drawn from the analysis.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34311647/