Cell Phone Use, Acoustic Neuroma and Cancer of the Pituitary Gland

Cell phone use was associated with increased risk of two types of brain tumors in a new study of 790,000 women.

BERKELEY, Calif. - May 10, 2013 - PRLog -- Cell phone use was associated with increased risk of acoustic neuroma and cancer of the pituitary gland in a prospective study of more than 790,000 women in the United Kingdom. (1)

Acoustic neuroma is a rare, non-malignant tumor that develops on the main nerve leading from the inner ear to the brain. The pituitary gland is an organ that produces hormones which regulate important functions of the body and is located in the middle of the base of the brain.

Women who used cell phones for ten or more years were two-and- a-half times more likely to develop an acoustic neuroma. Their risk of acoustic neuroma increased with the number of years they used cell phones.

The results for acoustic neuroma re-affirm one of the two major conclusions by the World Health Organization (WHO) in its recent monograph about radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and form the basis for classification of cell phone radiation as "possibly carcinogenic" to humans:

“Positive associations have been observed between exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless phones and glioma, and acoustic neuroma.” (p. 421) (2)

The risk of cancer of the pituitary gland more was more than twice as high among women who used a cell phone for less than five years as compared to never users. Although the risk was elevated for women who used a cell phone for ten or more years (about 60% greater than never users), this effect was not significant. Since this may be the first study to find an association between cell phone use and pituitary cancer, further research on this cancer is necessary.

The women reported their cell phone use in 2005 to 2009 and again in 2009 and were followed through 2011 to see whether they developed tumors. The analyses controlled for other factors associated with tumor risk.

The study had numerous weaknesses which may explain why the research failed to replicate the increased risk of glioma associated with cell phone use of ten or more years found in several previous studies. Although this was a prospective study, the assessment of cell phone use was poor. Cell phone use was measured only at two time points and in a crude manner. The authors considered anyone who used a cell phone at least a minute per week to be a cell phone user. Although the authors measured the amount of cell phone use per week at follow-up, they did not report these results.The study did not assess cordless phone use or other microwave radiation exposures that are similar to cell phone emissions. If the never-cell phone users were cordless phone users, the effect of cell phone use on brain tumor risk would have been underestimated.

Since brain tumors can take decades to develop, the study underestimates the long term risk due to cell phone use as the average follow-up period for cell phone users was only seven years. Few women (about 8%) in this study used cell phones for ten or more years. Moreover, the women in this study may have used their cell phones much less than women do today.

The study was published online in the International Journal of Epidemiology on May 8, 2013. The authors are affiliated with the University of Oxford and the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Also see: U.K. Cell Phone Study Points to Acoustic Neuroma, Not Brain Cancer, Risk: Fourth Study to Show Tumor Link, Microwave News, Updated May 11, 2013

http://microwavenews.com/uk-study-points-acoustic-neuroma

References

(1) Benson VS, Pirie K, Schüz J, Reeves GK, Beral V, Green J; for the Million Women Study Collaborators.Mobile phone use and risk of brain neoplasms and other cancers: prospective study. Int J Epidemiol. 2013 Jun;42(3):792-802. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyt072. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23657200 

(2) Non-ionizing radiation, Part II: Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans (2011: Lyon, France). Vol. 102. 2013. http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol102/index.php

Maine Children's Wireless Protection Act: Update

Maine: Children's Wireless Protection Act (LD 1013) Update 

May 8, 2013

The work session scheduled today before the Joint Committee on Energy, Utilities and Technology of the Maine State Legislature regarding Andrea Boland's Children's Wireless Protection Act was tabled.

The following individuals and organizations have submitted public hearing testimony. See links below to download documents.

Barris, Elizabeth	American Assoc. of Cell Phone Safety	(127 KB)
Boland, Andrea	Maine State Legislature	(1779 KB)
Callahan, Kevin	TechAmerica	(108 KB)
Carpenter, David	University of Albany, N.Y.	(529 KB)
Cobb, Kristin	Portland	(908 KB)
Edwards, Jane	Vassalboro	(171 KB)
Friedman, Ed	Bowdoinham	(241 KB)
Hayes, Terry	Maine State Legislature	(65 KB)
Keegan, Gerard	CTIA-The Wireless Association	(5175 KB)
Keene, Elery	Winslow	(72 KB)
Parker, Beedy	Camden	(53 KB)
Picard, Curtis	Retail Association of Maine	(112 KB)
Spear, Jody	Harborside	(63 KB)

 
The CTIA's testimony (dated May 2, 2013) submitted by Gerard Keegan made the following assertions: 

• the March 29, 2013 FCC Notice of Inquiry (NOI) states that the FCC "continues to have confidence in the current exposure limits"; that the FCC does not expect consumers to keep cell phones "at least a specified distance (up to 2.5 cm) from the head during normal use to ensure compliance with SAR limits"; and that exceeding the SAR limit does not necessarily imply unsafe operation, nor do lower SAR quantities imply safer operation;
• federal law preempts state governments from mandating cell phone labeling; 
• regarding the CTIA's lawsuit to block San Francisco's cell phone right to know law: the "Ninth Circuit ruled in the CTIA's favor, finding that the FCC has concluded that cell phones are safe and the ordinance's requirements were misleading"; "Accordingly, the court permanently enjoined the City from enforcing its ordinance"; and "CTIA and San Francisco have entered into a settlement agreement that would permanently bar the City from enforcing its cell phone labeling and disclosure ordinance."

The CTIA filing is available at  
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/getTestimonyDoc.asp?id=10653

Did the CTIA know ahead of time that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors would vote on May 7, 2013 to enter into the settlement agreement? 

http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/display_ps.asp?PID=0&snum=126&paper&paperld=l&ld=1013#

Open Letter to San Francisco Mayor and Board of Supervisors

April 30, 2013

Dear Mayor and Members of the Board,

Since December, 2010, I have served as a consultant to the San Francisco City Attorney's Office regarding the health research related to cell phone radiation. I have done this work pro bono in support of San Francisco's "cell phone right to know" ordinance because the public needs to know.

Although the U.S. has been in denial about the health effects of cell phone radiation, fifteen nations and the European Union have issued precautionary health warnings about mobile phone use, especially among children. Two states, Maine and Pennsylvania, will soon try to adopt a Children's Wireless Protection Act.

In my opinion, the public needs ample warnings and other protections from what is likely to be a major public health problem resulting in substantial costs to our health care system, lost productivity, needless suffering, and preventable deaths.

Three years ago, I published an op-ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle which called for precautionary health warnings about cell phone use (1). This article was based upon a review of the research about mobile phone use and tumor risk that my colleagues and I published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (2).

Today, the evidence is considerably stronger. The evidence is also stronger than two years ago when 30 experts convened by the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer categorized mobile phone radiation "possibly carcinogenic" in humans (Group 2B). (BTW, almost all substances listed in Group 2B are covered by Proposition 65 health warnings in California.) In fact, many experts now believe we have sufficient evidence to upgrade the classification of mobile phone radiation to "probably carcinogenic" (Group 2A). Also, we now have evidence that cell phone radiation damages human sperm and is associated with male infertility. Moreover, prenatal exposure is associated with increased risk of neurological disorders in children, especially attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

For more information about the health risks of cell phone radiation, see my news releases and social media web sites (links below). Two of my news releases document that San Francisco's cell phone radiation fact sheet that was approved by District Court Judge Alsup is indeed factual and non-controversial (3, 4).

Please feel free to contact me if I can be of assistance.

Sincerely,

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley

====

(1) Moskowitz JM. Government must inform us of cell phone risk (Open Forum), San Francisco Chronicle, April 28, 2010. URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/04/28/EDMB1D58TC.DTL

(2) Myung SK, Ju W, McDonnell DD, Lee YJ, Kazinets G, Cheng CT, Moskowitz JM. Mobile phone use and risk of tumors: a meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2009 Nov 20; 27(33):5565-5572. Epub 2009 Oct 13. URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19826127

(3) Moskowitz JM. San Francisco’s Cell Phone Fact Sheet is Factual. Sep 12, 2012. URL: http://www.prlog.org/11973342-san-franciscos-cell-phone-fact-sheet-is-factual.html

(4) Moskowitz JM. The San Francisco Cell Phone Fact Sheet Suppressed by the CTIA. Apr 17, 2013. URL: http://saferemr.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-san-francisco-cell-phone-fact-sheet.html
 

The San Francisco Cell Phone Fact Sheet Suppressed by the CTIA

Below is a link to the fact sheet that the Wireless Industry does not want the City and County of San Francisco to show you (see page 2).  I have appended annotated comments that verify it is indeed factual.

The fact sheet was approved by the Federal district court judge, but then the CTIA appealed the case to a higher court.

The fact sheet is the basis for the CTIA's current lawsuit against SF.  The industry has claimed  if retailers were forced to distribute it, this could cause confusion and panic among consumers.
 
You can decide for yourself whether the industry is right.


https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9fjS-Ghc0OkZEVjRFFXRjRrQUE/edit?usp=sharing

WHO Monograph on Cancer Risk from Mobile Phone Use Released

The World Health Organization concludes there is “limited evidence” in both humans and laboratory animals for the carcinogenicity of radiofrequency radiation, especially from cell phones.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) published its long-awaited monograph on the cancer risk to humans from exposure to cell phone radiation and other radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. The primary focus of the review is on the microwave radiation emitted by cell phones.

According to the monograph, “Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields are possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B).” (p. 421) Children are particularly vulnerable to this carcinogenic effect as “the average exposure from use of the same mobile phone is higher by a factor of 2 in a child’s brain and higher by a factor of 10 in the bone marrow of the skull.” Also, the child’s brain is developing at a greater rate than the adult brain.

This 471 page report is based on the consensus of a Working Group of 31 international experts who met in Lyon, France in May, 2011. Although a few studies published since this meeting were included in this monograph, other recent studies that further support the evidence for increased cancer risk due to exposure to cell phone radiation were not reviewed.
 

The monograph only examines research on cancer risk. Other research has found that cell phone radiation has additional harmful effects on humans, especially on sperm and the fetus.

Following are what I consider to be the most important quotes from the monograph. I highlighted some phrases with boldface type.

From IARC's "Note to the Reader"

"The term ‘carcinogenic risk’ in the IARC Monographs series is taken to mean that an agent is capable of causing cancer...identification of cancer sites with sufficient evidence or limited evidence in humans should not be viewed as precluding the possibility that an agent may cause cancer at other sites. The evaluations of carcinogenic risk are made by international working groups of independent scientists and are qualitative in nature. No recommendation is given for regulation or legislation.”

Exposure Data

“While the number of mobile-phone subscriptions has been increasing rapidly around the world (4.6 billion subscribers in 2009), changes in mobile-phone technology have led to lower time-averaged RF power emitted from mobile phones used at present than those of previous generations. Of major interest to this Monograph is the exposure scenario in which mobile phones are held against the ear during a voice call.” (p. 407)

“GSM 900/1800/PCS phones (Global System for Mobile communications/Personal Communications Service, operating at 900 or 1800 MHz) held next to the ear induce high spatial-averaged SAR values in the brain. This is because adaptive power control on average only reduces the output power to about 50% of its maximum during calls, but this would vary depending on the network software.” (p. 408) [SAR or Specific Absorption Rate is a measure of the maximum amount of radiation absorbed in the brain from a cell phone or cordless phone, averaged over a specific volume of tissue for a specific period of time.]

“Adaptive power control is much more effective with third-generation (3G) phone technologies, and this has led to a reduction of SAR in the brain by almost two orders of magnitude compared with that from GSM phones. The DECT (Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications) phone is another widely used device that is held against the ear to make and receive voice calls. The average SAR in the brain from use of DECT phones is around five times lower than that measured for GSM phones … The spatial maximum exposure from cordless DECT phones is an order of a magnitude lower than that from mobile phones.” (p. 408) [DECT phone technology is used in cordless phones used in homes and offices.]

“Due to the closer proximity of the phone to the brain of children compared with adults, the average exposure from use of the same mobile phone is higher by a factor of 2 in a child’s brain and higher by a factor of 10 in the bone marrow of the skull.” (p. 408)

INTERPHONE Study 

“In terms of cumulative call time, all odds ratios were uniformly below unity for all deciles of exposure except for the highest decile (≥ 1640 hours of cumulative call time). For this exposure group, the odds ratio for glioma was 1.40 (95% CI, 1.03–1.89). Some other analyses of the same data also pointed to a possible association of mobile-phone use with risk of glioma, including the findings related to location of tumour (a higher odds ratio for tumours in the temporal lobe) and laterality of mobile-phone use (an apparently higher odds ratio in those who used a mobile phone on the same side of the head as the tumour). In an attempt to obviate the distortions that might have been generated by differential non-participation, an analysis was conducted with the lowest exposure decile as the reference; this showed a high odds ratio in the highest exposure decile.” (p. 411)

“In summary, in the INTERPHONE study there was no increased risk of glioma associated with having ever been a regular user of mobile phones. However, there were indications of an increased risk of glioma at the highest levels of cumulative call time, for ipsilateral exposures, and for tumours in the temporal lobe, but chance or bias may explain this increased risk.” (p. 411) 

Swedish Studies

“When mobile phone users were compared with people who reported no use of mobile or cordless phones, or exposure > 1 year before the reference date, an increased odds ratio was estimated (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1–1.6). The odds ratios increased progressively with increasing time since first mobile phone use, and with increasing cumulative call time for the ordered categories of exposure duration (1–1000, 1001–2000, and > 2000 hours) as follows: 1.2 (95% CI, 0.98–1.4), 1.5 (95% CI, 1.1–2.1), and 2.5 (95% CI, 1.8–3.5), respectively. Ipsilateral use of the mobile phone was associated with higher risk. Further, there were similar findings in relation to the use of cordless phones.” (p. 411)

Comparison of INTERPHONE and Swedish Studies 

“Overall, the Working Group reviewed all the available evidence with regard to the use of wireless phones, including both mobile and cordless phones, and the risk of glioma. Time trends were considered, as were several early case–control studies and one cohort study. The evidence from these studies was considered less informative than the results of the INTERPHONE study and the Swedish case–control study. While both of these are susceptible to bias, the Working Group concluded that these findings could not be dismissed as reflecting bias alone, and that a causal interpretation was possible.”

“In considering the evidence on acoustic neuroma, the Working Group considered the same methodological concerns as for glioma, but concluded that bias was not sufficient to explain the positive findings, particularly those of the study from Sweden.” (p. 412) [My note: positive findings refers to increased tumor risk]

“For meningioma, the same two studies mentioned above provided the key evidence. Overall, in each, the findings generally indicated no increase in risk.” (p. 412)

“The Working Group found the evidence to be insufficient to reach a conclusion as to the potential association of mobile-phone use and either leukaemia or lymphoma.” (p. 412)

“Evidence to date does not point to a causal association of mobile-phone use with the various additional malignancies addressed, including ocular or cutaneous melanoma, cancer of the testis, cancer of the breast, or tumours of the parotid gland.” (p. 412)  

Cancer in Humans

“There is limited evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of radiofrequency radiation. Positive associations have been observed between exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless phones and glioma, and acoustic neuroma.” (p. 421)

Cancer in Experimental Animals

“There is limited evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of radiofrequency radiation.” (p. 412)

 Overall Evaluation

“Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields are possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B).” (p. 421)

“The comparative weakness of the associations in the INTERPHONE study and inconsistencies between its results and those of the Swedish study led to the evaluation of limited evidence for glioma and acoustic neuroma, as decided by the majority of the members of the Working Group. A small, recently published Japanese case–control study, which also observed an association of acoustic neuroma with mobile phone use, contributed to the evaluation of limited evidence for acoustic neuroma.” (p. 421)

 Reference

Non-ionizing radiation, Part II: Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields / IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans (2011: Lyon, France).  Vol. 102 (2013).

The complete monograph can be downloaded from the IARC web site:

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol102/index.php

Experts Adopt Two Resolutions about Pulsed Radiofrequency Radiation

An international scientific conference was held in Potenza Picena, Italy on April 20, 2013.  The meeting was organized by the International Commission on Electromagnetic Safety (http://www.icems.eu).  At the conclusion of the meeting, the twelve experts adopted two resolutions based upon the precautionary principle.

 

The scientists presented research which found that microwave radiation harms humans and other species. 

The experts reached the following conclusions:

• Radar that uses pulsed radiofrequency (RF) causes biological effects more invasive than non-pulsed EMF;
•  RF can cause structural changes in enzymes in nanoseconds, while pulsed RF emitted by radar occurs every milliseconds which suggests that for every pulsing event several enzymatic changes occur; 
• the pulsed signals can induce significant modifications in DNA regulation due to methylation of the genome; 
• the scientific literature concludes that biological/health effects can occur at low intensity exposure, and chronic exposure can make a living organism more susceptible to EMF effects; 
• ICEMS monograph (Eur. J. Oncol., 2010) concludes there are nonthermal mechanisms of action of EMF (including RF) on living matter; 
• experiments on cells cultured in residential areas of Potenza Picena showed that radar activates apoptosis for short exposures; 
• preliminary results from animal experiments show that RF is a co-carcinogenic agent; 
• RF induces oxidative stress in tissues and living organisms; 
• epidemiologic studies find significant health risks for people exposed to pulsed RF; more research is needed especially regarding pulsed RF; 
• and the scientific literature suggests that the precautionary principle should be applied to EMF internationally.

Thus, stricter safety standards for EMF need to be adopted by governments and public health agencies because the existing standards are obsolete and are not based on the recent literature about biological effects.

According to the precautionary principle, sources of RF should be reduced to be as low as possible because it is impossible at this time to establish a safe limit under which no biological effects can be observed.

RF sources should be kept far from residential areas. For pulsed RF sources, such as radar and Wi-Max antennas, the distance from the source should be even greater because they cause more biologic effects than non-pulsed signals.

Wi-Fi should not be placed in schools and in public areas since it employs pulsed signals.

The precautionary principle suggests the need for special precaution with younger people and with those susceptible to EMF effects, such as those with Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity, a condition found to be increasing in modern societies that makes people sick from EMF exposure even at low intensity.

The two resolutions are available at: 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/137733972/Potenza-Picena-Scientific-Resolution-Radar-radiofrequency-and-health-risk 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/137734801/Resolution-on-the-Radar-in-Potenza-Picena

A news report (in Italian) on the meeting is available at: http://www.cronachemaceratesi.it/2013/04/21/dagli-esperti-un-appello-spegnete-il-radar/315390

Environmental Fields (EMF) Interact with Living Systems to Affect Health (book chapter)

Panagopoulos, DJ. Electromagnetic Interaction between Environmental Fields and Living Systems Determines Health and Well-Being. In Kwang, MH. and Yoon, SO. (eds.) Electromagnetic Fields: Principles, Engineering Applications and Biophysical Effects. Nova Publishers. 2013. URL: https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=37822

This 41 page book chapter can be downloaded from:

http://citizensforsafetechnology.org/uploads/scribd/Panagopoulos-Nova-2013-EMFs-chapter.pdf

Summary (from Abstract)

The chapter presents data showing the electric nature of the natural environment and living organisms and discusses how the interaction between the two, determines health and well-being.

A brief theoretical background of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and the differences between natural and man-made electromagnetic radiation are discussed.

The electromagnetic nature of the natural environment is discussed – terrestrial electric and magnetic fields, natural radiation from the sun and stars, cosmic microwaves and natural radioactivity. All living organisms live in harmony with these fields as long as these fields are within normal levels and not disturbed by changes, usually in solar activity.

The electrical nature of all living organisms is determined by electrical properties of cell membranes, the circadian biological clock, endogenous electric currents within cells and tissues, and intracellular ionic oscillations.

The periodicity of our natural environment mainly determined by movement of the earth around its axis and around the sun implies the periodic function of the suprahiasmatic nuclei (SCN) - a group of neurons located above the optic chiasm - which constitute the central circadian biological clock in mammals. The chapter describes: 1) the probable connection between the central biological clock with the endogenous electric oscillations within cells and organs constituting the “peripheral clocks”; 2) how the central clock controls the function of peripheral ones in the heart, brain, and all parts of the body by electrical and chemical signals; 3) how cellular/tissue functions are initiated and controlled by endogenous (intracellular/trans-cellular) weak electric currents consisting of directed free ion flows through the cytoplasm and the plasma membrane, and 4) the connection of these currents with the function of the circadian biological clock.

Experimental data are presented which show that the endogenous electric currents and the functions they control can be easily varied by externally applied EMF of similar or even smaller intensities than those generating the endogenous currents.

Two possible ways by which external EMFs like those produced by human technology can distort the physiological endogenous electric currents and the corresponding biological/ physiological functions are discussed: 1) by direct interference between the external and the endogenous fields and, 2) by alteration of the intracellular ionic concentrations (i.e. by changing the number of electric current carriers within the cells) after irregular gating of electrosensitive ion channels on the cell membranes.

Finally, the chapter discusses how maintenance of this EMF equilibrium between living organisms and the natural environment, determines health and well-being, and how its disturbance will inevitably lead sooner or later to health effects.

Book’s Table of Contents

Earth’s Natural Electromagnetic Noises in a Very-Low Frequency Band
(Yury P. Malyshkov, Sergey Yu. Malyshkov, Vasily F. Gordeev, Sergey G. Shtalin, Vitaly I. Polivach, Vladimir A. Krutikov, Michail M. Zaderigolova, Institute of Monitoring of Climate and Ecosystems, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Science, Russia, and others)
Electromagnetic Interaction between Environmental Fields and Living Systems Determines Health and Well-Being
(Dimitris J. Panagopoulos, University of Athens, Department of Biology, Athens, Greece, and others)
Thermodynamics of Surface Electromagnetic Waves
(Illarion Dorofeyev, Institute for Physics of Microstructures, Russian Academy of Sciences, Nizhny, Novgorod, Russia)
Magnetic Field Originated by Power Lines
(J.A. Brandão Faria, M.E. Almeida Pedro, Instituto de Telecomunicações, Instituto Superior Técnico, Technical University of Lisbon, Portugal)
Microwave Heating for Metallurgical Engineering
(Jingjing Yang, Ming Huang, Jinhui Peng, Wireless Innovation Lab, School of Information Science and Engineering, Yunnan University, Kunming, People’s Republic of China, and others)
Extremely Low Frequency Electromagnetic Field and Cytokines Production
(M. Reale, P. Amerio, Dept. of Experimental and Clinical Sciences, Dept. of Aging Medicine and Science (DMSI), Dermatologic Clinic, University "G. d'Annunzio" Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy)
High Frequency Induction Heating for High Quality Injection Molding
(Keun Park, Seoul National University of Science & Technology, Seoul, Korea)
Electromagnetic Characterization of Electrically Small Piezoelectric Antennas and Waveguiding Devices for Detection of Cancer-Related Anomalies in Biological Tissues
(Diego Caratelli, Alessandro Massaro, Delft University of Technology, Microwave Technology and Systems for Radar (MTS-Radar), Delft, the Netherlands, and others)
Electro-Magnetic Field Induced Entropy Production in a Cell: Its Difference between Cancerous and Normal Cells
(Liaofu Luo, Changjiang Ding, School of Physical Science, Inner Mongolia University, Hohhot, China, and others)
An Evaluation of Neurotoxicity Markers in Rat Brains, using a Pre-Convulsive Model and Exposure to 900 MHZ Modulated GSM Radio Frequency
(María Elena López-Martín, Francisco José Ares-Pena, Morphological Sciences Department, Faculty of Medicine, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain, and others)
The Effect of Settlement Reoccupation on Electromagnetic Induction Data Sets in Archaeology
(Daniel P. Bigman, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA)
New Cooperative Effects in Single- and Two-Photon Interactions of Radiators with Electromagnetic Bath
(Nicolae Enaki, Quantum Optics and Kinetic Process Laboratory, Institute of Applied Physics, Academy of Sciences of Moldova, Chisinau MD)

https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=37822