Public health implications of wireless technologies
a Sage Associates, 1396 Danielson Road, Santa Barbara, CA 93108, USA
b Institute for Health and the Environment, University at Albany, Rensselaer, NY, USA
Received 18 January 2008; accepted 30 January 2009
Abstract
Global exposures to emerging wireless technologies from applications including mobile phones, cordless phones, DECT phones, WI-FI,
WLAN, WiMAX, wireless internet, baby monitors, and others may present serious public health consequences. Evidence supporting a publichealth risk is documented in the BioInitiative Report. New, biologically based public exposure standards for chronic exposure to low-intensityexposures are warranted. Existing safety standards are obsolete because they are based solely on thermal effects from acute exposures. Therapidly expanding development of new wireless technologies and the long latency for the development of such serious diseases as brain cancersmeans that failure to take immediate action to reduce risks may result in an epidemic of potentially fatal diseases in the future. Regardless ofwhether or not the associations are causal, the strengths of the associations are sufficiently strong that in the opinion of the authors, taking actionto reduce exposures is imperative, especially for the fetus and children. Such action is fully compatible with the precautionary principle, asenunciated by the Rio Declaration, the European Constitution Principle on Health (Section 3.1) and the European Union Treaties Article 174. 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Wireless technology; Brain cancer; Radiofrequency; Cell phones; Wireless antenna facilities; Childrens’ health
1. Introduction and background
brainwave activity (altered EEG) are also reported in the sci-entific literature mechanisms that may
Exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) has been linked
account for such effects can be found in various articles and
to a variety of adverse health outcomes that may have sig-
nificant public health consequences most serious
The public health implications of emerging wireless tech-
health endpoints that have been reported to be associated with
nologies are enormous because there has been a very rapid
extremely low frequency (ELF) and/or RF include childhood
global deployment of both old and new forms in the last 15
and adult leukemia, childhood and adult brain tumors, and
years. In the United States, the deployment of wireless infras-
increased risk of the neurodegenerative diseases, Alzheimer’s
tructure has accelerated greatly in the last few years with
and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). In addition, there
220,500 cell sites in 2008 Eighty-four percent of
are reports of increased risk of breast cancer in both men
the population of the US own cell phones Annualized
and women, genotoxic effects (DNA damage and micronu-
wireless revenues in 2008 will reach $144 billion and US
cleation), pathological leakage of the blood–brain barrier,
spending on wireless communications will reach $212 bil-
altered immune function including increased allergic and
lion by 2008. Based on the current 15% annual growth rate
inflammatory responses, miscarriage and some cardiovascu-
enjoyed by the wireless industry, in the next 5 years wireless
lar effects Insomnia (sleep disruption) is reported in
will become a larger sector of the US economy than both the
studies of people living in very low-intensity RF environ-
agriculture and automobile sectors. The annualized use of
ments with WI-FI and cell tower-level exposures
cell phones in the US is estimated to be 2.23 trillion minutes
Short-term effects on cognition, memory and learning, behav-
in 2008 are 2.2 billion users of cell phones world-
ior, reaction time, attention and concentration, and altered
wide in 2008 many million more users of cordlessphones.
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 805 969 0557; fax: +1 805 969 5003.
Over 75 billion text messages were sent in the United
States, compared with 7.2 billion in June 2005, according to
0928-4680/$ – see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:
C. Sage, D.O. Carpenter / Pathophysiology 16 (2009) 233–246
CTIA, the Wireless Association, the leading industry trade
is reduced, resulting in altered circadian rhythms and disrup-
group consumer research company Nielsen Mobile,
tion of several physiological functions. (Chapters 5–12 of the
which tracked 50,000 individual customer accounts in the
BioInitiative Report papers in this Supplement.)
second quarter of this year, found that Americans each sent
These effects can reasonably be presumed to result
or received 357 text messages a month then, compared with
in adverse health effects and disease with chronic and
204 phone calls. That was the second consecutive quarter in
uncontrolled exposures, and children may be particularly
which mobile texting significantly surpassed the number of
vulnerable The young are also largely unable to
remove themselves from such environments. Second-hand
The Electronics Industries Alliance (EIA) represents 80%
non-ionizing radiation, like second-hand smoke may be con-
of the $550 billion US electronics industry “that provides
sidered of public health concern based on the evidence at
two million jobs for American workers.” Its members include
companies from the consumer electronics and telecommuni-cations industries, among others
There is intense industry competition for market share.
Telecom taxes form an immense revenue generator for the
At present, the most persuasive evidence for cancer result-
government sector. Sale of the airwaves (auctions selling
ing from RF exposure is that there is a significantly increased
off wireless bandwidth) is a multi-million dollar industry
risk of malignant glioma in individuals that have used a
for governments, and multi-billion dollar global advertising
mobile phone for 10 or more years, with the risk being ele-
budgets are common. Lobbying dollars from the telecom-
vated only on the side of the head on which the phone is used
related industries are estimated to be $300 million annually.
regularly (ipsilateral use) While the risk for
The media is nearly silent on health issues, perhaps in part
adults after 10 or more years of use is reported to be more
because of global advertising revenues that compromise jour-
than doubled, there is some evidence beginning to appear
nalistic independence and discourage balanced coverage of
that indicates that the risk is greater if the individual begins
to use a mobile phone at younger ages. Hardell et al. reported higher odds ratios in the 20–29-year-old group thanother age ranges after more than 5 years of use of either ana-
2. Evidence supporting a public health risk
log or cordless phones. Recently in a London symposiumHardell reported that after even just 1 or more years of use
Even if there is only a small risk to health from chronic
there is a 5.2-fold elevated risk in children who begin use of
use of and exposure to wireless technologies, there is the
mobile phones before the age of 20 years, whereas for all
potential for a profound public health impact. RF radi-
ages the odds ratio was 1.4. Studies from Israel have found
ation now saturates the airwaves, resulting in exposure
that the risk of parotid gland tumors (a salivary gland in the
to both users and non-users. The effects are both short-
cheek) is increased with heavy cell phone use The risk
term (sleep disruption, hormone disruption, impairment of
of acoustic neuroma (a benign but space-occupying tumor
cognitive function, concentration, attention, behavior, and
on the auditory nerve) is also significantly increased on the
well-being) and they are almost certainly long-term (gen-
ipsilateral side of the head after 10 or more years of mobile
erational impacts on health secondary to DNA damage,
phone use relationship has also been documented
physiological stress, altered immune function, electrosensi-
in some of the published reports of the WHO Interphone
tivity, miscarriage risks, effects on sperm quality and motility
Study, a decade-long 13-country international assessment of
leading to infertiility, increased rates of cancer, and neuro-
logical diseases including Alzheimer’s disease and ALS—at
Kundi reports that “(E)pidemiological evidence compiled
least for ELF exposures). (Chapters 5–12 of the BioInitiative
in the last 10 years starts to indicate an increased risk, in
particular for brain tumors (glioma, meningioma, acoustic
There is credible scientific evidence that RF exposures
neuroma), from mobile phone use. Considering biases that
cause changes in cell membrane function, metabolism and
may have been operating in most studies the risk estimates
cellular signal communication, as well as activation of proto-
are rather too low, although recall bias could have increased
oncogenes and triggering of the production of stress proteins
risk estimates. The net result, when considering the different
at exposure levels below current regulatory limits. There is
errors and their impact is still an elevated risk” [19].
also generation of reactive oxygen species, which cause DNAdamage, chromosomal aberrations and nerve cell death. A
The latency for most brain tumors is 20 years or more
number of different effects on the central nervous system have
when related to other environmental agents, for example, to
also been documented, including activation of the endoge-
X-ray exposure. Yet, for cell phone use the increased risks
nous opioid systems, changes in brain function including
are occurring much sooner than twenty years, as early as
memory loss, slowed learning, motor dysfunction and per-
10 years for brain tumors in adults and with even shorter
formance impairment in children, and increased frequency of
latencies in children. This suggests that we may currently be
headaches, fatigue and sleep disorders. Melatonin secretion
significantly underestimating the impact of current levels of
C. Sage, D.O. Carpenter / Pathophysiology 16 (2009) 233–246
use of RF technology, since we do not know how long the
the time they reach school age Their exposure is invol-
average latency period really is. If it is 20 years, then the
untary in all cases. Children are largely unable to remove
risk rate will likely be much higher than an overall doubling
themselves from exposures to harmful substances in their
of risk for cell phone users if the peak comes later than 10
years. It may also signal very troubling risks for those whostart using cell phones, and perhaps all wireless devices, in
2.2. Plausible biological mechanisms for a relationship
early childhood. We may not have proof of effect for decades
until many hundreds of thousands of new cases of malignantgliomas are set in motion by long-term cell phone use. 2.2.1. DNA damage and oxidative stress
The preliminary evidence that mobile phone use at
Damage to DNA from ELF and from RF cell phone
younger ages may lead to greater risk than for older persons is
frequencies at very low intensities (far below FCC and
of particular concern. There is a large body of evidence that
ICNIRP safety limits) has been demonstrated in many stud-
childhood exposure to environmental agents poses greater
risk to health than comparable exposure during adulthood
have been reported by various researchers in different labora-
There is reason to expect that children would be
tories. This is damage to the human genome, and can lead to
more susceptible to the effects of EMF exposure since they
mutations which can be inherited, or which can cause cancer,
are growing, their rate of cellular activity and division is more
rapid, and they may be more at risk for DNA damage and
Non-ionizing radiation is assumed to be of too low energy
subsequent cancers. Growth and development of the central
to cause direct DNA damage. However both ELF and RF
nervous system is still occurring well into the teenage years
radiation induce reactive oxygen species, free radicals that
so that neurological changes may be of great importance to
react with cellular molecules including DNA. Free-radical
normal development, cognition, learning, and behavior.
production and/or the failure to repair DNA damage (sec-
A greater vulnerability of children to developing brain
ondary to damage to the enzymes that repair damage) created
cancer from mobile phone use may be the consequence of
by such exposures can lead to mutations. Whether it is greater
a combination of patterns of use, stage of development and
free-radical production, reduction in anti-oxidant protection
physical characteristics related to exposure. In addition to the
or reduced repair capacity, the result will be altered DNA,
fact that the brain continues to develop through the teen years,
increased risk of cancer, impaired or delayed healing, and
many young children and teenagers now spend very large
premature aging Exposures have also been linked
periods of time using mobile phones. The brain is the main
to decreased melatonin production, which is a plausible bio-
target organ of cell phones and cordless phones, with highest
logical mechanism for decreased cancer surveillance in the
exposure to the same side as the phone is used. Further, due
to anatomical reasons, the brain of a child is more exposed to
An increased risk of cancers and a decrease in survival has
RF radiation than the brain of an adult is caused
been reported in numerous studies of ELF and RF
by the smaller brain size, a thinner pinna of the ear, thinnerskin and thinner skull bone permitting deeper penetration
2.2.2. Stress proteins (heat shock proteins or HSP)
into the child’s brain. A recent French study showed that
Another well-documented effect of exposure to low-
children absorb twice the RF from cell phone use as do adults
intensity ELF and RF is the creation of stress proteins (heat
shock proteins) that signal a cell is being placed under phys-
In addition to concerns about cancer, there is evidence for
iological stress) The HSP response is generally
short-term effects of RF exposure on cognition, memory and
associated with heat shock, exposure to toxic chemicals and
learning, behavior, reaction time, attention and concentration,
heavy metals, and other environmental insults. HSP is a signal
altered brainwave activity (altered EEG) all of
of cells in distress. Plants, animals and bacteria all produce
these effects argue for extreme caution with regard to expo-
stress proteins to survive environmental stressors like high
sure of children. The development of children into adults is
temperatures, lack of oxygen, heavy metal poisoning, and
characterized by faster cell division during growth, the long
period needed to fully develop and mature all organ systems,
We can now add ELF and RF exposures to this list of
and the need for properly synchronized neural development
environmental stressors that cause a physiological stress
until early adulthood. Chronic, cumulative RF exposures may
response. Very low-level ELF and RF exposures can cause
alter the normal growth and development of children and
cells to produce stress proteins, meaning that the cell
adversely affect their development and capacity for normal
recognizes ELF and RF exposures as harmful. This is
learning, nervous system development, behavior and judg-
another important way in which scientists have documented
that ELF and RF exposures can be harmful, and it happens
Prenatal exposure to EMF has been identified as a possible
at levels far below the existing public safety standards. An
risk factor for childhood leukemia (1). Maternal use of cell
additional concern is that if the stress goes on too long, the
phones has been reported to adversely affect fetal brain devel-
protective effect is diminished. The reduced response with
opment, resulting in behavioral problems in those children by
prolonged exposure means the cell is less protected against
C. Sage, D.O. Carpenter / Pathophysiology 16 (2009) 233–246
damage, and this is why prolonged or chronic exposures
People who are chronically exposed to low-level wire-
may be harmful, even at very low intensities.
less antenna emissions report symptoms such as problems insleeping (insomnia), as well as other symptoms that include
2.2.3. RF-induced gene expression changes
fatigue, headache, dizziness, grogginess, lack of concen-
Many environment agents cause diseases, including can-
tration, memory problems, ringing in the ears (tinnitus),
cer, not by direct damage to DNA but rather by up- or
problems with balance and orientation, and difficulty in
down-regulation of genes that regulate cell growth and func-
multi-tasking n children, exposures to cell phone
tion. Usually there are many genes whose expression is
radiation have resulted in changes in brain oscillatory activity
changed, and it is difficult to determine the exact changes
responsible for the disease. Both ELF and RF exposures have
loss of mental concentration, distraction, speeded mental
been shown to result in altered gene expression. Olivares-
function but lowered accuracy, impaired judgment, delayed
Banuelos et al. that ELF exposure of chromaffin
reaction time, spatial disorientation, dizziness, fatigue,
cells resulted in changed expression of 53 transcripts. Zhao
headache, slower motor skills and reduced learning ability
et al. vestigated the gene expression profile of rat neu-
in children and adults have all been reported
rons exposed to 1800 MHz RF fields (2 W/kg) and found 24
These symptoms are more common among “electrosen-
up-regulated genes and 10 down-regulated genes after a 24-h
sitive” individuals, although electrosensitivity has not been
exposure. The altered genes were involved in multiple cellular
documented in double-blind tests of individual identifying
functions including cytoskeleton, signal transduction path-
themselves as being electrosensitive as compared to controls
ways and metabolism. Kariene et al. xposed human
owever people traveling to laboratories for test-
skin to mobile phone radiation, and found by punch biopsy
ing are pre-exposed to a multitude of RF and ELF exposures,
that 8 proteins were significantly altered in expression, con-
so they may already be symptomatic prior to actual testing.
sistent with gene induction. Several other studies have found
There is also evidence that RF exposures testing behavioral
altered gene expression following RF exposure, although
changes show delayed results; effects are observed after ter-
none have been found that explain specific disease states
mination of RF exposure. This suggests a persistent change
in the nervous system that may be evident only after time has
DNA activation at very low ELF and RF levels, as in
passed, so is not observed during a short testing period.
the stress response, and DNA damage (strand breaks andmicronuclei) at higher levels, are molecular precursors to
3.1. Plausible biological mechanisms for
changes that are believed to lead to cancer. These, along
with gene induction, provide plausible biological mecha-nisms linking exposure to cancer.
The biochemical pathways that are activated are the same
While there remains controversy as to the degree that
for ELF and for RF exposures, and are non-thermal (do not
RF and ELF fields alter neurobehavioral function, emerg-
require heating or induced electrical currents). This is true
ing evidence provides a plausible mechanism for both effects
for the stress response, DNA damage, generation of reactive
on sleep and cognition. Sleep is controlled by the central
oxygen species as well as gene induction. Thus it is not sur-
circadian oscillator in the suprachiasmatic nucleus, located
prising that the major cancers resulting from exposure to ELF
in the hypothalamus. The activity of this central circadian
and RF are the same, namely leukemia and brain cancer. The
oscillator is, in turn, controlled by the hormone, melatonin,
safety standards for both ELF and RF, based on protection
which is released from the pineal gland There is con-
from heating, are irrelevant and not protective. ELF exposure
siderable evidence that ELF exposure reduces the release
levels of only 5–10 mG have been shown to activate the stress
of melatonin from the pineal gland—see Section 12 of the
Bioinitiative Report There has been less study of the
effects of RF exposure on melatonin release, but investiga-tions have demonstrated a reduced excretion of the urinarymetabolite of melatonin among persons using a mobile phone
3. Sleep, cognitive function and performance
for more than 25 min per day In a study of womenliving near to radio and television transmitters, Clark et al.
The relationship of good sleep to cognition, perfor-
no effect on urinary melatonin metabolite excre-
mance and healing is well recognized. Sleep is a profoundly
tion among pre-menopausal women, but a strong effect in
important factor in proper healing, anti-inflammatory bene-
fits, reduction in physical symptoms of such as tendonitis,
The “melatonin hypothesis” also provides a possible basis
over-use syndrome, fatigue-induced lethargy, cognition and
for other reported effects of EMFs. Melatonin has important
learning. Incomplete or slowed physiological recovery is
actions on learning and memory, and inhibits electrophys-
common when sleep is impaired. Circadian rhythms that
iological components of learning in some but not all areas
normalize stress hormone production (cortisol, for example)
of the brain Melatonin has properties as a free-
depend on synchronized sleep patterns.
radical scavenger and anti-oxidant and consequently,
C. Sage, D.O. Carpenter / Pathophysiology 16 (2009) 233–246
a reduction in melatonin levels would be expected to increase
output of the phone), the more powerful the RF signal will be.
susceptibility to cancer and cellular damage. Melatonin could
Hence, newer cordless phones may in some cases be similar
also be the key to understanding the relationship between
to the power output of cell phones. The cumulative emis-
EMF exposure and Alzheimer’s disease. Noonan et al.
sions from cell and cordless phones taken together should
reported that there was an inverse relationship between excre-
be recognized when considering the relative risks of wireless
tion of the melatonin metabolite and the 1–42 amino acid
form of amyloid beta in electric utility workers. This form of
PDAs such as the BlackBerry, Treo and iPhone units are
amyloid beta has been found to be elevated in Alzheimer’s
‘souped-up’ versions of the original voice communication
devices (cell phones). The often produce far higher ELF emis-sions than do cell phones because they use energy from the
3.1.2. Blood–brain barrier alterations
battery very intensively for powering color displays and dur-
Central nervous system effects of EMFs may also be sec-
ing data transmission functions (email, sending and receiving
ondary to damage to the blood–brain barrier (BBB). The
large files, photos, etc.) emissions have been
blood–brain barrier is a critical structure that prevents tox-
reported from PDAs at several tens to several hundreds of mil-
ins and other large molecules that are in peripheral blood
ligauss. Evidence of significantly elevated ELF fields during
from having access to the brain matter itself. Salford et al.
normal use of the PDA has public health relevance and has
ve reported that a 2-h exposure of rats to GSM-900
been reported in at least three scientific papers
radiation with a SAR of 2–200 mW/kg resulted in nerve cell
In the context of repetitive, chronic exposure to significantly
damage. In a follow-up study, Eberhardt et al. report that
elevated ELF pulses from PDAs worn on the body, relevant
2-h exposures to cell phone GSM microwave RF resulted
health studies point to a possible relationship between ELF
in leakage of albumin across the blood–brain barrier and
exposure and cancer and pregnancy outcomes
neuronal death Neuronal albumin uptake was signif-
We include discussion of the ELF literature for two
icantly correlated to occurrence of damaged neurons when
reasons. As mentioned above ELF activates the same biol-
measured at 28 days post-exposure. The lowest exposure
ogy as RF, it contributes to the total EMF burden of
level was 0.12 mW/kg (0.00012 W/kg) for 2 h. The highest
the body. In addition, PDAs and cell phones emit both
exposure level was 120 mW/kg (0.12 W/kg). The weakest
radiofrequency/microwave radiation (RF) and extremely low
exposure level showed the greatest effect in opening the BBB
frequency ELF from the battery switching of the device
Earlier blood–brain studies by Salford and Schirma-
(the power source). Studies show that some devices pro-
duce excessively high ELF exposures during voice and datatransmission. ELF is already classified as a 2B (Possible)Carcinogen by IARC, which means that ELF is indisputably
4. What are sources of wireless radiation?
an issue to consider in the wireless technology debate. ELFhas been classified as a Group 2B carcinogen for all humans,
There are many overlapping sources of radiofrequency
not just children. The strongest evidence came from epidemi-
and microwave emissions in daily life, both from industrial
ological studies on childhood leukemia, but the designation
sources (like cell towers) and from personal items [cell and
applies to all humans, both adults and children
cordless phones, personal digital assistants (PDAs), wire-
Wireless headsets that allow for conversations with cell
less routers, etc.]. Published data on typical levels found
phones at a distance from the head itself reduce the emis-
in some cities and from some sources are available at
sions. Depending on the type of wireless device, they may
operate (transmit signal) only during conversations or they
Cell phones are the single most important source of
may be operational continuously. The cumulative dose of
radiofrequency radiation to which we are exposed because of
wireless headsets has not been well characterized under either
the relatively high exposure that results from the phone being
form of use. Substantial cumulative RF exposure would be
held right against the head. Cell phones produce two types
expected if the user wears a wireless headset that transmits a
of emissions that should be considered. First, the radiofre-
signal continuously during the day. However a critical factor
quency radiation (typically microwave frequency radiation)
is where the cell phone is placed. If worn on a belt with a
is present. However, there is also the contribution of the
headset, the exposure to the brain is reduced but the exposure
switching battery pack that produces very high levels of
extremely low frequency electromagnetic field
Cell towers (called “masts” in Europe and Scandinavian
Cordless telephones have not been widely recognized as
countries) are wireless antenna facilities that transmit the
similar in emissions to cell phones, but they can and do pro-
cell phone signals within communities. They are another
duce significant RF exposures. Since people tend to use them
major source of RF exposures for the public. They differ
as substitutes for in-home and in-office corded or traditional
from RF exposures from wireless devices like cell phones in
telephones, they are often used for long periods of time. As
that they produce much lower RF levels (generally 0.05 to
the range of cordless phones has increased (the distance away
1–2 W/cm2 in the first several hundred feet around them)
that you can carry on a conversation is related to the power
in comparison to several hundred microwatts per centimeter
C. Sage, D.O. Carpenter / Pathophysiology 16 (2009) 233–246
squared for a cell phone held at the head. However they create
under the skin. They create a detectable signal to track the
a constant zone of elevated RF for up to 24 h per day. many
hours per day, and the exposure is whole body rather thanlocalized at the head. These facilities are the distribution sys-tem for wireless voice communications, internet connections
5. Problems with existing public health standards
and data transmission within communities. They are often
(safety limits)
erected on free-standing towers. They may be constructed ontelephone poles or electrical poles. They may be built into the
If the existing standards were adequate none of the effects
fac¸ade or rooftops of buildings behind wood screening. These
documented above should occur at levels to which people are
are called stealth installations for wireless antenna facilities.
regularly exposed. The fact that these effects are seen with
Some installations are camouflaged to resemble ‘false trees
our current ambient levels of exposure means that our exist-
or rocks’. They emit RF to provide cell service to specific
ing public safety standards are obsolete. It also means that
“cells” or locations that receive the signal.
new, biologically based public exposure standards for wire-
Other forms of wireless transmission that are common in
less technologies are urgently needed. Whether it is feasible
areas providing cell service are wireless land area networks
to achieve low enough levels that still work and also protect
(WLAN), (WiMAX) and WIFI networks. Some cities are
health against effects of chronic RF exposure – for all age
installing city-wide WIFI service to allow any user on the
groups – is uncertain. Whether we can protect the public and
street to log into the internet (without cables or wire connec-
still allow the kinds of wireless technology uses we see today
tions). WIFI installations may have a signal reach for a few
hundred feet where WiMAX installations may transmit sig-
The nature of electromagnetic field interactions with
nal more than 10 miles, so produce a stronger RF emission
biological systems has been well studied or pur-
for those in close proximity. Each type has its particular sig-
poses of standard-setting processes for both ELF and RF, the
nal strength and intended coverage area, but what they have
hypothesis that tissue damage can result only from heating is
in common is the production of continuous RF exposure for
the fundamental flaw in the misguided efforts to understand
those within the area. We do not know what the cumula-
the basic biological mechanisms leading to health effects.
tive exposure (dose) might be for people living, working or
The thermal standard is clearly untenable as a measure of
going to school in continuously elevated RF fields, nor are
dose when EMF stimuli that differ by many orders of magni-
the possible health implications yet known. However, based
tude in energy can stimulate the same biological response. In
on studies of populations near cell sites in general, there is a
the ELF range, the same biological changes occur as in the
constellation of generally observed health symptoms that are
RF, and no change in temperature can even be detected. With
reported to occur In this regard it is important to
DNA interactions the same biological responses are stimu-
note that children living near to AM radio transmitters have
lated in ELF and RF ranges even though the frequencies of
been found to elevated risks of leukemia While
the stimuli differ by many orders of magnitude. The effects of
AM radio RF fields are lower in frequency than that common
EMF on DNA to initiate the stress response or to cause molec-
in mobile phones, this is a total body irradiation with RF.
ular damage reflect the same biology in different frequency
The fact that leukemia, not brain cancer, is apparent in these
ranges. For this reason it should be possible to develop a scale
studies suggests that leukemia is the cancer seen at the lowest
based on DNA biology, and use it to define EMF dose in dif-
levels of both ELF and RF fields under the circumstances of
ferent parts of the EM spectrum. We also see a continuous
scale in DNA experiments that focus on molecular damage
Commercial surveillance systems or security gates pose
where single and double strand breaks have long been known
an additional source of strong RF exposures. They are ubiq-
to occur in the ionizing range, and recent studies have shown
uitous in department stores, markets and shops at the entry
similar effects in both ELF and RF ranges [144].
and exit points to discourage shoplifting and theft of goods. Security gates can produce excessively high RF exposures
Existing standard-setting bodies that regulate wireless
(although transitory) and have been associated with inter-
technologies, assume that there are no bioeffects of concern
ference with pacemakers in heart patients. The exposure
at exposure levels that do not cause measurable heating. How-
levels may approach thermal public safety limits in inten-
ever, it has been established beyond any reasonable doubt that
sity, although no one expects a person to stand between
bioeffects and some adverse health effects occur at far lower
the security gate bars for more than 6 min (safety limits for
levels of RF and ELF exposure where no heating (or induced
uncontrolled public access are variable depending on the fre-
current) occurs; some effects are shown to occur a thou-
quency, but are all averaged over a 6-min exposure period).
sand times or more below the existing public safety limits.
RFID chips (radiofrequency identification chips) are being
New, biologically based public exposure limits are urgently
widely used to track purchases and for security of pets, and in
needed. New wireless technologies for cell and cordless
some cases to keep track of patients with Alzheimer’s disease
phones, other wireless communication and data transmission
and of children. RFID chips are implanted in fabrics, inserted
systems affect living organisms in new ways that our anti-
in many types of commercial goods, and can be implanted
quated safety limits have not foreseen, nor protected against. C. Sage, D.O. Carpenter / Pathophysiology 16 (2009) 233–246
The exposure of children to electromagnetic fields has
medical uncertainties still exist, but where policy decisions
not been studied extensively; in fact, the Federal Com-
today may greatly reduce human disease and societal costs
munications Commission (FCC) standards for exposure to
radiofrequency radiation are based on the height, weight and
Policy decisions in public health must address some amount
stature of a 6-foot tall man, not scaled to children or adults
of uncertainty when balancing likely benefits and estimated
of smaller stature. They do not take into account the unique
costs. Although new insight will allow better appreciation
susceptibility of growing children to exposures, nor are there
of difficult issues, such as those occurring in environmental
studies of particular relevance to children.
and occupational health, an expanded perspective may also
In addition there is a problem in the consideration of the
enlarge the list of problems that need to be managed. Ignor-
level of evidence taken into consideration by these bodies.
ing the problems carries its own costs (as deferring a decision
There have not been adequate animal models shown to have
is a decision in itself). With environmental and other public
cancer as an endpoint, and a perception that no single mech-
health problems becoming increasingly complex and interna-
anism is proven to explain these associations. Thus these
tional in scope, scientific documentation alone rarely justifies
committees have tended to ignore or minimize the evidence
for direct hazard to humans, and believe there is no proof ofcause and effect. These bodies assume from the beginning
Social issues regarding the controversy over public and
that only conclusive scientific evidence (absolute proof) will
occupational exposures to ELF and RF center on the resolute
be sufficient to warrant change, and refuse to take action on
adherence to existing ICNIRP and FCC/IEEE standards by
the basis of a growing body of evidence which provides early
many countries, in the face of growing scientific evidence
of health risks at far lower levels The composition of
The Radiofrequency Interagency Working Group of the
these committees, usually with excessive representation of
US governmental agencies involved in RF matters (RFI-
the physics and engineering communities rather than public
AWG) issued a Guidelines Statement in June of 1999 that
health professionals, results in a refusal to adopt biologically
concluded the present RF standard “may not adequately pro-
based exposure standards. Furthermore, there is widespread
tect the public” RFIAWG identified fourteen (14)
belief that governments are ignoring this evidence and there is
issues that they believe are needed in the planned revisions
widespread distrust of and lack of confidence in governments
of ANSI/IEEE RF exposure guidelines including “to pro-
and their health agencies. The basis on which most review
vide a strong and credible rationale to support RF exposure
bodies and standard-setting agencies have avoided the con-
guidelines”. In particular, the RFIAWG criticized the exist-
clusion that the science is strong enough to warrant new safety
ing standards as not taking into account chronic, as opposed
limits for ELF and RF is to require a demonstration of abso-
to acute exposures, modulated or pulsed radiation (digital
lute proof before taking action. A causal level of evidence, or
or pulsed RF is proposed at this site), time-averaged mea-
scientific certainty standard is implicit in nearly all reviews of
surements that may erase the unique characteristics of an
the ELF and RF science, although this runs counter to good
intensity-modulated RF radiation that may be responsible
for reported biologic effects, and stated the need for a com-
There is no question that global implementation of the
prehensive review of long-term, low-level exposure studies,
safety standards proposed in the Bioinitiative Report, if
neurological-behavioral effects and micronucleus assay stud-
implemented abruptly and without careful planning, have the
ies (showing genetic damage from low-level RF) This
potential to not only be very expensive but also disruptive
important document from relevant US agencies questions
of life and the economy as we know it. Action must be a
existing standards in the following ways: (a) selection of an
balance of risk to cost to benefit. The major risk from main-
adverse effect level for chronic exposures not based on tissue
taining the status quo is an increasing number of cancer cases,
heating and considering modulation effects; (b) recognition
especially in young people, as well as neurobehavioral prob-
of different safety criteria for acute and chronic exposures at
lems at increasing frequencies. The benefits of the status quo
non-thermal or low-intensity levels; (c) recognition of defi-
are expansion and continued development of communica-
ciencies in using time-averaged measurements of RF that
tion technologies. But we suspect that the true costs of even
does not differentiate between intensity-modulated RF and
existing technologies will only become much more apparent
continuous wave (CW) exposure, and therefore may not ade-
with time. Whether the costs of remedial action are worth the
quately protect the public; (d) having standards based on
societal benefits is a formula that should reward precaution-
adult males rather than considering children to be the most
ary behavior. Prudent corporate policies should be expected to
address and avoid future risks and liabilities, otherwise, thereis no market incentive to produce safe (and safer) products.
The deployment of new technologies is running ahead of
6. Prudent public health responses
any reasonable estimation of possible health impacts and esti-mates of probabilities, let alone a solid assessment of risk.
Emerging environmental health problems require pre-
However, what has been missing with regard to EMF has
ventative public health responses even where scientific and
been an acknowledgement of the risk that is demonstrated by
C. Sage, D.O. Carpenter / Pathophysiology 16 (2009) 233–246
the scientific studies. There is clear evidence of risk, although
the magnitude of the risk is uncertain, and the magnitude of
Public health implications of wireless technologies argue for change ingovernmental and health agency actions.
doing nothing on the health effects cost to society is simi-larly uncertain. This situation is very similar to our history of
Secure US and EU legislative mandates for safer technologies for
communication and data transmission, for security and surveillance
dealing with the hazards of smoking decades ago, where the
power of the industry to influence governments and even con-
Promote wired alternatives for voice and data communication (cable,
flicts of interest within the public health community delayed
action for more than a generation, with consequent loss of life
Discourage or ban use of cell phones by children and young teen-agers
and enormous extra health care costs to society. New stan-
Provide permanent (unremovable) labels on cell phones “Not for use by
dards are warranted now, based on the totality of scientific
Implement national public education campaigns on health issues (cell
evidence; the risks of taking no-action, the large population
phones, cordless phones, PDAs, wireless internet, city-wide WI-FI,
at risk, costs associated with ignoring the problem in new
and upgraded site selection and construction, and the loss of
Promote industry redesign for safer products: support innovation for
public trust by ignoring the problem.
Slow or stop deployment of wireless technologies to discourage reliance
Direct medical and rehabilitative health costs associated
on wireless technologies for communication and security needs
with treatment for diseases that are reasonably related to
Put the burden of proof on industry to show “new wireless tech” is safe
wireless technologies may be very large. Although there
is uncertainty involved in how much disease is related to
Adopt and enforce restricted use areas for sensitive or more vulnerable
wireless exposures, the mere scale of the problem with sev-
segments of society including low-EMF environments in public areasand “No Cell” zones in airports, hospitals, schools
eral billion users of cell phones and even larger impacts
Acknowledge FCC and ICNIRP thermal safety standards are obsolete for
on bystander populations (from cell site exposures, from
other WI-FI and wireless exposures in-home and commer-
Appoint new standard-setting bodies familiar with biological effects to
cial use, etc.) the associated public health costs will likely
develop new guidelines for public safety limits.
be monumental. Furthermore the costs to families with can-
Develop new biologically based standards that address low-intensity,
cers, neurological diseases or learning disabilities in children
Require standard of evidence and level of proof = public health
related in part or in whole to wireless technologies extend
Reject “causal” standard of evidence for taking action on science
beyond medical costs. They may reasonably extend to fam-
Make industry financially liable for “guessing wrong” and ignoring health
ily disruption and family psychological problems, losses in
The history of governments and their official health agen-
cies to deal with emerging and newly identified risks to health
requirements for redesign of wireless devices, proscription of
is not good is particularly true where industry
use of wireless devices by children and teenagers, strong and
investments in new products and technologies occur without
independent research programs on causes and prevention of
full recognition, disclosure or even knowledge of possible
EMF-related diseases, and consultation with all stakehold-
health consequences. Large economic investments in pol-
ers on issues relating to involuntary exposures (bystander or
luting industries often make for perilously slow regulatory
second-hand radiation exposures from wireless technologies)
action, and the public health consequences may be very great
The scientific information contained in this Supplement
Free markets do not internalize the costs to society of
argues for thresholds or guidelines that are substantially
“guessing wrong”. Unexpected or hidden health costs of new
below current FCC and ICNIRP standards for localized
technologies may not be seen for many years, when the ability
exposures to wireless devices and for whole-body exposure.
to recall or to identify the precise exposures related to dis-
Uncertainty about how low such standards might have to
ease outcomes is difficult or impossible. The penalty nearly
go to be prudent from a public health standpoint should
always falls to the individual, the family or the taxpayer and
not prevent reasonable efforts to respond to the informa-
not to the industry that benefits economically—at least in
tion at hand. No lower limit for bioeffects and adverse health
free-market economies. Thus, the profits go to industry but
effects from RF has been established, so the possible health
the costs may go to the individual who can suffer both dimin-
risks of wireless WLAN and WI-FI systems, for example,
ished quality of life and health and economic disadvantage.
will require further research. No assertion of safety at any
If all disease endpoints that may be reasonably related to
level of wireless exposure (chronic exposure) can be made
chronic exposure to electromagnetic fields are considered
at this time. The lower limit for reported human health
even a small attributable fraction for one or more indus-
effects has dropped 100-fold below the safety standard (for
tries, it will have enormous global impact on public health.
mobile phones and PDAs); 1000–10,000-fold for other wire-
The public health implications are immense. But they can
less (cell towers at distance; WI-FI and WLAN devices). The
be reduced by strong government and public health inter-
entire basis for safety standards is called into question, and
ventions providing information on alternatives to wireless
it is not unreasonable to question the safety of RF at any
technologies, public education campaigns, health advisories,
C. Sage, D.O. Carpenter / Pathophysiology 16 (2009) 233–246
It is likely that for both ELF and RF, as for other carcino-
the occupational studies for adult cancers and neurologi-
gens, there is no threshold of exposure that is without risk,
cal diseases report their highest exposure category is 4 mG
but the magnitude of the risk increases linearly with the level
(0.4 T) and above, so that new ELF limits should target
of exposure. Our society will not go back to the pre-electric
the exposure ranges of interest, and not necessarily higher
and pre-wireless age, but the clear evidence of health haz-
ards to the human population from exposure mandates that
Avoiding chronic ELF exposure in schools, homes and the
we develop ways in which to reduce exposure through educa-
workplace above levels associated with increased risk of dis-
tion, new technologies and the establishment of biomedically
ease will also avoid most of the possible bioactive parameters
of ELF discussed in the relevant literature.
It is not prudent public health policy to wait any longer
to adopt new public safety limits for ELF. These limits
7. Conclusions and recommended actions
should reflect the exposures that are commonly associ-ated with increased risk of childhood leukemia (in the
New ELF limits are warranted based on a public health
2–5 mG (0.2–0.5 T) range for all children, and over 1.4 mG
analysis of the overall existing scientific evidence. These lim-
(0.14 T) for children age 6 and younger). Avoiding chronic
its should reflect environmental levels of ELF that have been
ELF exposure in schools, homes and the workplace above lev-
demonstrated to increase risk for childhood leukemia, and
els associated with increased risk of disease will also avoid
possibly other cancers and neurological diseases. ELF lim-
most of the possible bioactive parameters of ELF discussed
its should be set below those exposure levels that have been
linked in childhood leukemia studies to increased risk of dis-
The rapid deployment of new wireless technologies that
ease, plus an additional safety factor. It is no longer acceptable
chronically expose people to pulsed RF at levels reported to
to build new power lines and electrical facilities that place
cause bioeffects, which in turn, could reasonably be presumed
people in ELF environments that have been determined to
to lead to serious health impacts, is a public health concern.
be risky. These levels are in the 2–4 milligauss (mG) range
There is suggestive to strongly suggestive evidence that RF
(0.2–0.4 T), not in the 10 s of mG or 100 s of mG. The exist-
exposures may cause changes in cell membrane function, cell
ing ICNIRP limit is 1000 mG (100 T) and 904 mG (90.4 T)
communication, metabolism, activation of proto-oncogenes
in the US for ELF is outdated and based on faulty assump-
and can trigger the production of stress proteins at expo-
tions. These limits are can no longer be said to be protective
sure levels below current regulatory limits. Resulting effects
of public health and they should be replaced. A safety buffer
can include DNA breaks and chromosome aberrations, cell
or safety factor should also be applied to a new, biologically
death including death of brain neurons, increased free-radical
based ELF limit, and the conventional approach is to add a
production, activation of the endogenous opioid system, cell
safety factor lower than the risk level.
stress and premature aging, changes in brain function includ-
While new ELF limits are being developed and imple-
ing memory loss, retarded learning, performance impairment
mented, a reasonable approach would be a 1 mG (0.1 T)
in children, headaches and fatigue, sleep disorders, neurode-
planning limit for habitable space adjacent to all new or
generative conditions, reduction in melatonin secretion and
upgraded power lines and a 2 mG (0.2 T) limit for all
cancers (BioInitiative Report Chapters 5–10, 12)
other new construction. It is also recommended that a 1 mG
This information now argues for thresholds or guidelines
(0.1 T) limit be established for existing habitable space
that are substantially below current FCC and ICNIPR stan-
for children and/or women who are pregnant (because of
dards for whole-body exposure. Uncertainty about how low
the possible link between childhood leukemia and in utero
such standards might have to go to be prudent from a pub-
exposure to ELF). This recommendation is based on the
lic health standpoint should not prevent reasonable efforts
assumption that a higher burden of protection is required for
to respond to the information at hand. No lower limit for
children who cannot protect themselves, and who are at risk
bioeffects and adverse health effects from RF has been estab-
for childhood leukemia at rates that are traditionally high
lished, so the possible health risks of wireless WLAN and
enough to trigger regulatory action. This situation in partic-
WI-FI systems, for example, will require further research
ular warrants extending the 1 mG (0.1 T) limit to existing
and no assertion of safety at any level of wireless expo-
occupied space. “Establish” in this case probably means for-
sure (chronic exposure) can be made at this time. The lower
mal public advisories from relevant health agencies. While
limit for reported human health effects has dropped 100-fold
it is not realistic to reconstruct all existing electrical distri-
below the safety standard (for mobile phones and PDAs);
bution systems, in the short-term; steps to reduce exposure
1000–10,000-fold for other wireless (cell towers at distance;
from these existing systems need to be initiated, especially in
WI-FI and WLAN devices). The entire basis for safety stan-
places where children spend time, and should be encouraged.
dards is called into question, and it is not unreasonable to
These limits should reflect the exposures that are commonly
question the safety of RF at any level.
associated with increased risk of childhood leukemia (in the
A cautionary target level for pulsed RF exposures for
2–5 mG (0.2–0.5 T) range for all children, and over 1.4 mG
ambient wireless that could be applied to RF sources from cell
(0.14 T) for children age 6 and younger). Nearly all of
tower antennas, WI-FI, WI-MAX and other similar sources
C. Sage, D.O. Carpenter / Pathophysiology 16 (2009) 233–246
is proposed. The recommended cautionary target level is 0.1
• ELF limits should be set below those exposure levels
microwatts per centimeter squared (W/cm2) (or 0.614 V per
that have been linked in childhood leukemia studies to
meter or V/m) for pulsed RF where these exposures affect the
increased risk of disease, plus an additional safety factor.
general public; this advisory is proportionate to the evidence
It is no longer acceptable to build new power lines and
and in accord with prudent public health policy. A precau-
electrical facilities that place people in ELF environments
tionary limit of 0.1 W/cm2 should be adopted for outdoor,
that have been determined to be risky (at levels generally
cumulative RF exposure. This reflects the current RF science
and prudent public health response that would reasonably
• While new ELF limits are being developed and imple-
be set for pulsed RF (ambient) exposures where people live,
mented, a reasonable approach would be a 1 mG (0.1 T)
work and go to school. This level of RF is experienced as
planning limit for habitable space adjacent to all new or
whole-body exposure, and can be a chronic exposure where
upgraded power lines and a 2 mG (0.2 T) limit for all
there is wireless coverage present for voice and data transmis-
other new construction, It is also recommended for that
sion for cell phones, pagers and PDAs and other sources of
a 1 mG (0.1 T) limit be established for existing habit-
radiofrequency radiation. An outdoor precautionary limit of
able space for children and/or women who are pregnant.
0.1 W/cm2 would mean an even lower exposure level inside
This recommendation is based on the assumption that a
buildings, perhaps as low as 0.01 W/cm2. Some studies and
higher burden of protection is required for children who
many anecdotal reports on ill health have been reported at
cannot protect themselves, and who are at risk for child-
lower levels than this; however, for the present time, it could
hood leukemia at rates that are traditionally high enough
prevent some of the most disproportionate burdens placed
to trigger regulatory action. This situation in particular
on the public nearest to such installations. Although this RF
warrants extending the 1 mG (0.1 T) limit to existing
target level does not preclude further rollout of WI-FI tech-
occupied space. “Establish” in this case probably means
nologies, we also recommend that wired alternatives to WI-FI
formal public advisories from relevant health agencies.
be implemented, particularly in schools and libraries so that
• While it is not realistic to reconstruct all existing electrical
children are not subjected to elevated RF levels until more is
distributions systems, in the short-term; steps to reduce
understood about possible health impacts. This recommen-
exposure from these existing systems need to be initi-
dation should be seen as an interim precautionary limit that is
ated and should be encouraged, especially in places where
intended to guide preventative actions; and more conservative
• A precautionary limit of 0.1 W/cm2 (which is also
Broadcast facilities that chronically expose nearby res-
0.614 V per meter) should be adopted for outdoor, cumula-
idents to elevated RF levels from AM, FM and television
tive RF exposure. This reflects the current RF science and
antenna transmission are also of public health concern given
prudent public health response that would reasonably be
the potential for very high RF exposures near these facilities
set for pulsed RF (ambient) exposures where people live,
(antenna farms). RF levels can be in the 10 s to several 100 s
work and go to school. This level of RF is experienced
of W/cm2 in residential areas within half a mile of some
as whole-body exposure, and can be a chronic exposure
broadcast sites (for example, Lookout Mountain, Colorado
where there is wireless coverage present for voice and
and Awbrey Butte, Bend, Oregon). Like wireless communica-
data transmission for cell phones, pagers and PDAs and
tion facilities, RF emissions from broadcast facilities that are
other sources of radiofrequency radiation. Some studies
located in, or expose residential populations and schools to
and many anecdotal reports on ill health have been reported
elevated levels of RF will very likely need to be re-evaluated
at lower levels than this; however, for the present time,
it could prevent some of the most disproportionate bur-
For emissions from wireless devices (cell phones, per-
dens placed on the public nearest to such installations.
sonal digital assistant or PDA devices, etc.) there is enough
Although this RF target level does not preclude further
evidence for increased risk of brain tumors and acoustic neu-
rollout of WI-FI technologies, we also recommend that
romas now to warrant intervention with respect to their use.
wired alternatives to WI-FI be implemented, particularly
Redesign of cell phones and PDAs could prevent direct head
in schools and libraries so that children are not subjected
and eye exposure, for example, by designing new units so
to elevated RF levels until more is understood about pos-
that they work only with a wired headset or on speakerphone
sible health impacts. This recommendation should be seen
as an interim precautionary limit that is intended to guide
These effects can reasonably be presumed to result
preventative actions; and more conservative limits may be
in adverse health effects and disease with chronic and
uncontrolled exposures, and children may be particularlyvulnerable. The young are also largely unable to removethemselves from such environments. Second-hand radiation,
References
like second-hand smoke is an issue of public health concernbased on the evidence at hand.
[1] C. Sage, D.O. Carpenter (Eds.), BioInitiative Working Group
In summary, the following recommendations are made:
BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public
C. Sage, D.O. Carpenter / Pathophysiology 16 (2009) 233–246
Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF), 2007.
[21] World Health Organization, Children’s Health and Environment:
A Review of Evidence: A Joint Report from the European Envi-
[2] REFLEX Program. Risk evaluation of potential environmental haz-
ronmental Agency and The World Health Organization, 2002.
ards from low frequency electromagnetic field exposure using
sensitive in vitro methods. A project funded by the European Union
[22] O.P. Gandhi, G. Lazzi, C.M. Furse, Electromagnetic absorption in the
under the programme Quality of Life and Management of Living
human head and neck for mobile telephones at 835 and 1900 MHz,
IEE Trans. Microw. Theory Tech. 44 (1996) 1884–1896.
[3] L. Hardell, C. Sage, Biological effect from electromagnetic field expo-
[23] O.P. Gandhi, G. Kang, Some present problems and a proposed exper-
sure and public exposure standards, Biomed. Pharmacother. 62 (2008)
imental phantom for SAR compliance testing of cellular telephones
104–109, doi:10.1016/j.bipha.(2007)12.004.
at 835 and 1900 MHz, Phys. Med. Biol. 47 (2002) 1501–1518.
[4] L. Hardell, M. Carlberg, F. Söderqvist, K. Hansson Mild, Meta-
[24] J. Wiart, A. Hadjem, M.F. Wong, I. Bloch, Analysis of RF exposure
analysis of long-term mobile phone use and the association with brain
in the head tissues of children and adults, Phys. Med. Biol. 53 (2008)
tumours, Int. J. Oncol. 32 (2008) 1097–1103.
[5] P. Kan, S.E. Simonsen, J.L. Lyon, J.R.W. Kestle, Cellular phone
J. Wiatt, A. Hadjem, M.F. Wong, I. Bloch, Analysis of RF exposure
use and brain tumor: a meta-analysis, J. Neurooncol. (2007),
in the head tissues of children and adults, Wiatt Phys. Med. Biol. 53
[6] E. Cardis, Interphone Study Memo, International Agency for Cancer
[25] H.A. Divan, L. Kheifets, C. Obel, J. Olsen, Prenatal and postna-
tal exposure to cell phone use and behavioral problems in children,
[7] S. Sadetzki, A. Chetrit, A. Jarus-Hakak, E. Cardis, Y. Deutch, S.
Dvendevani, A. Zultan, I. Novikov, L. Freedman, M. Wolf, Cel-
[26] International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection,
lular phone use and risk of benign and malignant parotid gland
Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic
tumors—a nationwide case–control study, Am. J. Epidemiol. (2008),
and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz). Health Phys. 74(4) (1998)
[8] A. Lahkola, T. Salminen, J. Raitanen, S. Heinavaara, M.J. Schoe-
[27] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc (IEEE), Section
maker, H.C. Christensen, M. Feychting, C. Johansen, L. Klaeboe,
4.2 of “IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Expo-
S. Lonn, A.J. Swerdlow, T. Tynes, A. Auvinen, Meningioma and
sure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz,”
mobile phone use—a collaborative case–control study in five North
ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992. New York, NY, 1992.
European countries, Int. J. Epidemiol. Adv. Access (August) (2008),
[28] H. Lai, N.P. Singh, Single and double strand DNA breaks in rat
brain cells after acute exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic
[9] T. Takebayashi, S. Akiba, Y. Kikuchi, et al., Mobile phone use and
radiation, Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 69 (1996) 513–521.
acoustic neuroma risk in Japan, Occup. Environ. Med. 63 (2007)
[29] S. Ivancsits, A. Pilger, E. Diem, O. Jahn, H.W. Rudinger, Cell type-
specific genotoxic effects of intermittent extremely-low frequency
[10] D.O. Carpenter, C.L. Sage, Setting prudent public health policy for
electromagnetic fields, Mutat. Res. 583 (2005) 184–188.
electromagnetic field exposures, Rev. Environ. Health 23 (2) (2008)
[30] J. Phillips, et al., DNA damage in molt-4 lymphoblastoid cells exposed
to cellular telephone radiofrequency fields in vitro, Bioelectrochem.
[11] D.O. Carpenter, C.L. Sage, BioInitiative Working Group, Key scien-
tific evidence and public health policy options, BioInitiative Report
[31] R.J. Aitken, L.E. Bennetts, D. Sawyer, A.M. Wiklendt, B.V. King,
Impact of radio frequency electromagnetic radiation on DNA integrity
[12] European Commission, Health and Consumer Protection, Scientific
in the male germline, Int. J. Androl. 28 (2005) 171.
Committee on SCENIHR Report on Emerging and Newly Identified
[32] J.Y. Kim, S.Y. Hong, Y.M. Lee, S.A. Yu, W.S. Koh, J.R. Hong,
Health Risks—Possible Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) on
T. Son, S.K. Chang, M. Lee, In vitro assessment of clastogenic-
ity of mobile-phone radiation (835 MHz) using the alkaline comet
assay and chromosomal aberration test, Environ. Toxicol. 23 (2008)
Fields Environmental Health Criteria Monograph 238, 2007.
emf/meetings/elf emf workshop 2007/en/index.html.
wei, W. Baohong, Z. Wei, L. Jianling, W. Wei, Effects of 1.8 GHz
y field on DNA damage and expression of heat shock
protein 70 in human lens epithelial cells, Mutat. Res. 602 (2006)
[34] R. Paulraj, J. Behari, Single strand DNA breaks in rat brain cells
exposed to microwave radiation, Mutat. Res. 596 (2006) 76.
[35] M. Mashevich, D. Folkman, A. Kesar, A. Barbul, R. Korenstein, E.
Members Info. Electronics Industries Alliance Website, November,
Jerby, L. Avivi, Exposure of human peripheral blood lymphocytes
to electromagnetic fields associated with cellular phones leads to
Members Info, Electronics Industries Alliance Website, November
chromosomal instability, Bioelectromagnetics 24 (2003) 82.
[36] I.G. Akoev, M.S. Pashovkina, L.P. Dolgacheva, T.P. Semenova, V.L.
[18] L. Hardell, M. Carlberg, K. Hansson Mild, Pooled analysis of two
Kalmykov, Enzymatic activity of some tissues and blood serum from
case–control studies on use of cellular and cordless telephones and
animals and humans exposed to microwaves and hypothesis on the
the risk for malignant brain tumours diagnosed in 1997–2003, Int.
possible role of free radical processes in the nonlinear effects and mod-
Arch. Environ. Health 79 (2006) 630–639, doi:10.1007/s00420-006-
ification of emotional behavior of animals, Radiat. Biol. Radioecol.
[19] M. Kundi, The controversy about a possible relationship between
[37] C. Blackman, et al., The influence of 1.2 T, 60 Hz magnetic fields on
mobile phone use and cancer, Environ. Health Persp. (September)
melatonin and tamoxifen-induced inhibition of MCF-7 cell growth,
Bioelectromagnetics 22 (2) (2001) 122–128.
[20] J. Pronczuk-Garbino (Ed.), Children’s Health and the Environment: A
[38] D.E. Blask, S.M. Hill, Effects of melatonin on cancer: studies on
Global Perspective, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland,
MCF-7 human breast cancer cells in culture, J. Neural Transm. Suppl. C. Sage, D.O. Carpenter / Pathophysiology 16 (2009) 233–246
[39] J.B. Burch, J.S. Reif, C.W. Noonan, T. Ichinose, A.M. Bachand, T.L.
micronuclei in V79 Chinese hamster cells exposed to microwave
Koleber, M.G. Yost, Melatonin metabolite excretion among cellular
radiation, Mutat. Res. 263 (3) (1991) 143–149.
telephone users, Int. J. Rad. Biol. 78 (2002) 1029–1036.
[59] V. Garaj-Vrhovac, A. Fucic, D. Horvat, The correlation between the
[40] Girgert, et al., Induction of tamoxifen resistance in breast cancer cells
frequency of micronuclei and specific chromosome aberrations in
by ELF electromagnetic fields, Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun.
human lymphocytes exposed to microwave radiation in vitro, Mutat.
[41] Harland, et al., Environmental magnetic fields inhibit the antiprolif-
[60] V. Garaj-Vrhovac, Micronucleus assay and lymphocyte mitotic
erative action of tamoxifen and melatonin in a human breast cancer
activity in risk assessment of occupational exposure to microwave
cell line, Bioelectromagnetics 18 (1997) 555–562.
radiation, Chemosphere 39 (13) (1999) 2301–2312.
[42] Harland, et al., Evidence for a slow time-scale of interaction for mag-
[61] M. Ha, H. Im, M. Lee, H.J. Kim, B.C. Kim, Y.M. Gimm, et al.,
netic fields inhibiting tamoxifen’s antiproliferative action in human
Radio-frequency radiation exposure from AM radio transmitters and
breast cancer cells, Cell Biochem. Biophys. 31 (3) (1999) 295–306.
childhood leukemia and brain cancer, Am. J. Epidemiol. 166 (2007)
[43] A. Ilhan, A. Gurel, F. Armutcu, S. Kamisli, M. Iraz, O. Akyol, S.
Ozen, Ginkgo biloba prevents mobile phone-induced oxidative stress
[62] B. Hocking, et al., Cancer incidence and mortality and proximity to
in rat brain, Clin. Chim. Acta 340 (1–2) (2004) 153–162.
TV towers, Med. J. Aust. 165 (11–12) (1996) 601–605.
[44] Ishido, et al., Magnetic fields (MF) of 50 Hz at 1.2 T as well as
[63] B. Hocking, Decreased survival for childhood leukemia in proximity
100 T cause uncoupling of inhibitory pathways of adenylyl cyclase
to TV towers, in: Poster Presented at the Annual Scientific Meeting of
mediated by melatonin 1a receptor in MF-sensitive MCF-7 cells,
the Royal Australian College of Physicians in Adelaide, SA, Australia,
Carcinogenesis 22 (7) (2001) 1043–1048.
[45] H. Koylu, H. Mollaoglu, F.N. Ozguner, Melatonin modulates 900 Mhz
[64] D.E. Foliart, B.H. Pollock, G. Mezei, R. Iriye, J.M. Silva, K.L. Epi,
microwave-induced lipid peroxidation changes in rat brain, Toxicol.
L. Kheifets, M.P. Lind, R. Kavet, Magnetic field exposure and long-
Ind. Health 22 (5) (2006) 211–216.
term survival among children with leukemia, Brit. J. Cancer 94 (2006)
[46] R.P. Liburdy, T.R. Sloma, et al., ELF magnetic fields, breast cancer,
and melatonin: 60 Hz fields block melatonin’s oncostatic action on
[65] A. Huss, A. Spoerri, M. Egger, Röösli for the Swiss national cohort
ER+ breast cancer cell proliferation, J. Pineal Res. 14 (1993) 89–97.
study, residence near power lines and mortality from neurodegen-
[47] R.P. Liburdy, et al., Magnetic Fields, melatonin, tamoxifen and
erative diseases: longitudinal study of the Swiss population, Am. J.
human breast cancer cell growth, in: R.G. Stevens, B.W. Wilson,
Epidemiol. (November) (2008) (Epub ahead of print).
L.E. Anderson (Eds.), The Melatonin Hypothesis—Breast Cancer and
[66] F. Marinelli, D. La Sala, G. Cicciotti, L. Cattini, C. Trimarchi,
Use of Electric Power, Battelle Press, Columbus, Richland, 1997, pp.
S. Putti, A. Zamparelli, L. Giuliani, G. Tomassetti, C. Cinti,
Exposure to 900 MHz electromagnetic field induces an unbalance
[48] L.I. Loberg, Gene expression in human breast epithelial cells exposed
between pro-apoptotic and pro-survival signals in T-lymphoblastoid
to 60 Hz magnetic fields, Carcinogenesis 20 (1999) 1633–1636.
leukemia CCRF-CEM cells, J. Cell Physiol. 198 (2) (2004) 324–
[49] Luben, et al., Replication of 12 mG EMF effects on melatonin
responses of MCF-7 breast cancer cells in vitro, in: Abstract A-1 of
[67] P. Michelozzi, C. Ancona, D. Fusco, F. Forastiere, C.A. Perucci, Risk
the 1996 Annual Review of Research on Biological Effects of Elec-
of leukemia and residence near a radio transmitter in Italy, Epidemi-
tric and Magnetic Fields from the Generation, Delivery and Use of
Electricity, San Antonio, TX, November 17–21, 1996, p. 1.
[68] M. Repacholi, et al., Lymphomas in E-Pim1 transgenic mice
[50] Luben, et al., Independent replication of 60-Hz 1.2 T EMF effects
exposed to pulsed 900 MHz electromagnetic fields, Radiat. Res. 147
on melatonin and tamoxifen responses of MCF-7 cells in vitro, in:
Abstract A-3.4, Bioelectromagnetics Society Annual Meeting, St.
[69] A. Stang, et al., The possible role of radiofrequency radiation in
Pete Beach, FL, June 7–11, 1998, pp. 17–18.
the development of uveal melanoma, Epidemiology 12 (1) (2001)
[51] Morris, In vitro exposure of MCF-7 human breast cancer cells to 60-
Hz magnetic fields, in: Abstract p-125A, Bioelectromagnetics Society
[70] M. Blank (2007). Section 7, pp. 1–40. Evidence for Stress Response
Annual Meeting, St. Pete Beach, FL, June 7–11, 1998, pp. 204–
(Stress Proteins). In BioInitiative Report: A Scientific Perspective on
Health Risk of Electromagnetic Fields. Published Online 31August
[52] F. Oktem, F. Ozguner, H. Mollaoglu, A. Koyu, E. Uz, Oxidative
damage in the kidney induced by 900-MHz-emitted mobile phone:
[71] C. Daniells, I. Duce, D. Thomas, P. Sewell, J. Tattersall, D. de Pomerai,
protection by melatonin, Arch. Med. Res. 36 (4) (2005) 350–355.
Transgenic nematodes as biomonitors of microwave-induced stress,
[53] F. Ozguner, G. Aydin, H. Mollaoglu, O. Gokalp, A. Koyu, G. Cesur,
Prevention of mobile phone induced skin tissue changes by melatonin
[72] D. de Pomerai, et al., Non-thermal heat-shock response to
in rat: an experimental study, Toxicol. Ind. Health 20 (6–10) (2004)
microwaves, Nature 405 (2000) 417–418.
[73] S. Kwee, et al., The biological effects of microwave radiation, in: Pro-
[54] F. Ozguner, A. Altinbas, M. Ozaydin, A. Dogan, H. Vural, A.N.
ceedings of the Second World Congress for Electricity and Magnetism
Kisioglu, G. Cesur, N.G. Yildirim, Mobile phone-induced myocar-
in Biology and Medicine, Bologna, Italy, June, 1997.
dial oxidative stress: protection by a novel antioxidant agent caffeic
[74] S. Kwee, et al., Changes in cellular protiens due to environmental
acid phenethyl ester, Toxicol. Ind. Health 21 (9) (2005) 223–230.
non-ionizing radiation. I. Heat-shock proteins, Electro Magnetobiol.
[55] A.W. Guy, C.K. Chou, L.L. Kunz, J. Crowley. J. Krupp, Effects of
long-term low-level radiofrequency radiation exposure on rats. US Air
[75] D. Leszczynski, S. Oenväärä, J. Reivinen, R. Kuokka, Non-thermal
Force School of Aerospace Medicine Brooks Air Force Base, Texas
activation of the hsp27/p38MAPK stress pathway by mobile phone
TR-85-64 Final Report August 1985, Approved for public release:
radiation in human endothelial cells: molecular mechanism for
cancer- and blood–brain barrier-related effects, Differentiation 70
[56] C.K. Chou, Long-term low level microwave irradiation of rats, Bio-
electromagnetics 13 (1992) 469–496.
[76] D. Leszczynski, R. Nylund, S. Joenvaara, J. Reivinen, Applicability of
[57] H. Dolk, et al., Cancer incidence near radio and television transmitters
discovery science approach to determine biological effects of mobile
in Great Britain, Am. J. Epidemiol. 145 (1) (1997) 1–9.
phone radiation, Proteomics 4 (2) (2004) 426–431.
[58] V. Garaj-Vrhovac, D. Horvat, Z. Koren, The relationship between
[77] S. Lixia, Y. Ke, W. Kaijun, L. Dequiang, H. Huajun, G. Xiang-
colony-forming ability, chromosome aberrations and incidence of
wei, W. Baohong, Z. Wei, L. Jianling, W. Wei, Effects of 1.8 GHz
C. Sage, D.O. Carpenter / Pathophysiology 16 (2009) 233–246
radiofrequency field on DNA damage and expression of heat shock
[96] S.E. Chia, Prevalence of headache among handheld cellular telephone
protein 70 in human lens epithelial cells, Mutat. Res. (2006),
users in Singapore: a community study, Environ. Health Persp. 108
[78] M. Simko, C. Hartwig, M. Lantow, M. Lupke, M.O. Mattsson, Q.
[97] H. Chiang, et al., Health effects of environmental electromagnetic
Rahman, J. Rollwitz, Hsp 70 expression and free radical release after
fields, J. Bioelectr. 8 (1989) 127–131.
exposure to non-thermal radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and
[98] H. D’Costa, et al., Human brain wave activity during exposure to
ultrafine particles in human Mono Mac 6 cells, Toxicol. Lett. 161
radiofrequency field emissions from mobile phones, Aust. Phys. Eng.
(2006) 73–82 (Elsevier Science Direct).
[79] S. Velizarov, The effects of radiofrequency fields on cell prolifer-
[99] H.P. Hutter, H. Moshammer, P. Wallner, M. Kundi, Subjective symp-
ation are non-thermal, Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg. 48 (1999) 177–
toms, sleeping problems and cognitive performance in subjects living
near mobile phone base stations, Occup. Env. Med. 63 (2006)
[80] D. Weisbrot, H. Lin, L. Ye, M. Blank, R. Goodman, Effects of mobile
phone radiation on reproduction and development in Drosophila
[100] M. Koivisto, et al., Effects of 902 MHz electromagnetic field emitted
melanogaster, J. Cell Biochem. 89 (1) (2003) 48–55.
by cellular telephones on response times in humans, Neuroreport 11
[81] T. Olivares-Banuelos, L. Navarro, A. Gonzalez, R. Drucker-Colin,
Differentiation of chromaffin cells elicited by ELF MF modifies gene
[101] M. Koivisto, et al., The effects of electromagnetic field emitted by
expression pattern, Cell Biol. Int. 28 (2004) 273–279.
GSM phones on working memory, Neuroreport 11 (2002) 1641–
[82] R. Zhao, S. Zhang, Z. Xu, L. Ju, D. Lu, G. Yao, Studying gene
expression profile of rat neuron exposed to 1800 MHz radiofrequency
[102] A.A. Kolodynski, V.V. Kolodynska, Motor and psychological func-
electromagnetic fields with cDNA microassay, Toxicology 235 (2007)
tions of school children living in the area of the Skrunda radio location
station in Latvia, Sci. Total Environ. 180 (1996) 87–93.
[83] A. Karinen, S. Heinavaara, R. Nylund, D. Leszczynski, Mobile
[103] C.M. Krause, L. Sillanmaki, M. Koivisto, A. Haggqvist, C. Saarela,
phone radiation might alter protein expression in human skin, BMC
A. Revonsuo, M. Laine, H. Hamalainen, Effects of electromagnetic
Genomics 9 (2008) 77, doi:10.1186/1471-2164-9-77.
field emitted by cellular phones on the EEG during a memory task,
[84] J. Vanderstraeten, L. Verschaeve, Gene and protein expression follow-
Neuroreport 11 (4) (2000) 761–764.
ing exposure to radiofrequency fields from mobile phones, Environ.
[104] C.M. Krause, L. Sillanmaki, M. Koivisto, A. Haggqvist, C. Saarela,
Health Persp. 116 (2008) 1131–1135.
A. Revonsuo, M. Laine, H. Hamalainen, Effects of electromagnetic
[85] G. Abdel-Rassoul, O.A. El-Fateh, M.A. Salem, A. Michael, F. Fara-
fields emitted by cellular phones on the electroencephalogram during
hat, M. El-Batanouny, E. Salem, Neurobehavioral effects among
a visual working memory task, Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 76 (12) (2000)
inhabitants around mobile phone base stations, Neurotoxicology 28
[105] J. Lass, et al., Effects of 7 Hz-modulated 450 MHz electromagnetic
[86] P. Acherman, Exposure to pulsed high-frequency electromagnetic
radiation on human performance in visual memory tasks, Int. J. Radiat.
field during waking affects human sleep EEG, Neuroreport 11 (15)
[106] A.A. Marino, E. Nilsen, C. Frilot, Nonlinear changes in brain
[87] E.S. Altpeter, T.H. Krebs, Study on health effects of the shortwave
electrical activity due to cell phone radiation, Bioelectromagnetics
transmitter station of Schwarzenburg, Bern, Switzerland, University
of Bern BEW Publications Study No. 56, The Federal Office of
[107] G. Oberfeld, et al., The microwave syndrome—further aspects of a
Spanish study, in: Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on
[88] A.A. Borbely, et al., Pulsed high-frequency electromagnetic field
Bioelectromagnetic Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, Kos, Greece,
affects human sleep and sleep electroencephalogram, Neurosci. Lett.
[108] A. Preece, et al., Effect of a 915-MHz simulated mobile phone
[89] R. Huber, T. Graf, K.A. Cote, L. Wittmann, E. Gallmann, D. Matter,
signal on c function in man, Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 75 (1999) 447–
J. Schuderer, N. Kuster, A.A. Borbely, P. Achermann, Exposure to
pulsed high-frequency electromagnetic field during waking affects
[109] S.J. Regel, S. Negovetic, M. Roosli, V. Berdinas, J. Schuderer, A.
human sleep EEG, Neuroreport 11 (15) (2000) 3321–3325.
Huss, U. Lott, N. Kuster, P. Achermann, UMTS base station-like expo-
[90] K. Mann, Effects of pulsed high-frequency electromagnetic fields on
sure, well-being and cognitive performance, Environ. Health Persp.
human sleep, Neuropsychobiology 33 (1996) 41–47.
[91] G. Oberfeld, The microwave syndrome—further aspects of a Span-
[110] S. Eltiti, D. Wallace, A. Ridgewell, K. Zougkou, R. Russo, F. Sepul-
ish study, in: Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on
veda, D. Mirshekar-Syahkal, P. Rasor, R. Deeble, E. Fox, Does
Bioelectromagnetic Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, Kos, Greece,
short-term exposure to mobile phone base station signals increase
symptoms in individuals who report sensitivity to electromagnetic
[92] R. Santini, M. Seigne, L. Bonhomme-Faivre, S. Bouffet, E. Defrasne,
fields? A double-blind randomized provocation study, Environ. Health
M. Sage, Symptoms experienced by users of digital cellular phones:
a pilot study in a French engineering school, Pathol. Biol. (Paris) 49
[111] E.F. Pace-Schott, J.A. Hobson, The neurobiology of sleep: genetics,
cellular physiology and subcortical networks, Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 3
[93] R. Santini, P. Santini, P. Le Ruz, J.M. Danze, M. Seigne, Survey
study of people living in the vicinity of cellular phone base stations,
[112] J.B. Burch, J.S. Reif, C.W. Noonan, T. Ichinose, A.M. Bachand, T.L.
Electromag. Biol. Med. 22 (2003) 41–49.
Koleber, M.G. Yost, Melatonin metabolite excretion among cellular
[94] TNO Physics and Electronics Laboratory, The Netherlands, Effects
telephone users, Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 78 (2002) 1029–1036.
of Global Communication System Radio-frequency Fields on Well-
[113] M.L. Clark, J.B. Burch, M.G. Yost, Y. Zhai, A.M. Bachand, C.T.
being and Cognitive Functions of Human Beings With and Without
Fitzpatrick, J. Ramaprasad, L.A. Cragin, J.S. Reif, Biomonitoring of
Subjective Complaints, Netherlands Organization for Applied Scien-
estrogen and melatonin metabolites among women residing near radio
and television broadcasting transmitters, J. Occup. Environ. Med. 49
[95] E.S. Altpeter, T.H. Krebs, Study on health effects of the shortwave
transmitter station of Schwarzenburg, Bern, Switzerland, University
[114] L.M. Wang, N.A. Suthana, D. Chaudhury, D.R. Weaver, C.S. Col-
of Bern BEW Publications Study No. 56, The Federal Office of
well, Melatonin inhibits hippocampal long-term potentiation, Eur. J. C. Sage, D.O. Carpenter / Pathophysiology 16 (2009) 233–246
[115] M. Ozcan, B. Yilmaz, D.O. Carpenter, Effects of melatonin on synap-
study of personal exposure to magnetic fields during pregnancy and
tic transmission and long term potentiation in two areas of mouse
the risk of spontaneous abortion, Epidemiology 13 (2002) 9–20.
hippocampus, Brain Res. 1111 (2006) 90–94.
[133] G. Theriault, M. Goldberg, A.B. Miller, B. Armstrong, P. Guenel, J.
[116] R.J. Reiter, L. Tang, J.J. Garcia, A. Munoz-Hoyos, Pharmacological
Deadman, E. Imbernon, T. To, A. Chevalier, D. Cyr, C. Wall, Can-
actions of melatonin in oxygen radical pathophysiology, Life Sci. 60
cer risks associated with occupational exposure to magnetic fields
among utility workers in Ontario and Quebec, Canada and France:
[117] C.W. Noonan, J.S. Reif, J.B. Burch, T.Y. Ichinose, M.G. Yost, K. Mag-
1970–1989, Am. J. Epidemiol. 139 (1994) 550–572.
nusson, Relationship between amyloid beta protein and melatonin
[134] P. Michelozzi, A. Capon, U. Kirchmayer, F. Forastiere, A. Biggeri,
metabolite in a study of electric utility workers, J. Occup. Environ.
A. Barca, C.A. Perucci, Adult and childhood leukemia near a high-
power radio station in Rome, Italy, Am. J. Epidemiol. 155 (2002)
[118] L.G. Salford, A.E. Brun, et al., Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain
after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones, Environ.
[135] M. Ha, H. Im, M. Lee, H.J. Kim, B.C. Kim, Y.M. Gimm, J.K. Pack,
Radio-frequency radiation exposure from AM radio transmitters and
[119] J.L. Eberhardt, B.R.R. Persson, A.E. Brun, L.G. Salford, L.O.G.
childhood leukemia and brain cancer, Am. J. Epidemiol. 166 (2007)
Malmgren, Blood–brain barrier permeability and nerve cell dam-
age in rat brain 14 and 28 days after exposure to microwaves from
[136] C. Sage, D.O. Carpenter (Eds.), BioInitiative Working Group
GSM mobile phones, Electromagn. Biol. Med. 27 (2008) 215–229.
BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public
Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF), 2007.
[120] L.G. Salford, et al., Permeability of the blood brain barrier induced by
915 MHz electromagnetic radiation continuous wave and modulated
C. Blackman, H. Lai, Chapters 6 and 14 of the BioInitiative Report,
at 8, 16, 50 and 200 Hz, Microsc. Res. Tech. 27 (1994) 535–542.
[121] A. Schirmacher, Electromagnetic fields (1.8 GHz) increase the
[137] A. Chiabrera, B. Bianco, E. Moggia, J.J. Kaufman, Bioelectromag-
permeability of sucrose of the blood–brain barrier in vitro, Bioelec-
[138] D.J. Panagopoulos, L.H. Margaritis, in: A.C. Harper, R.V. Buress
[122] Y. Hamnerius, Microwave exposure from mobile phones and base
(Eds.), Mobile Telephony Radiation Effects on Living Organisms,
stations in Sweden, in: Proceedings of the International Conference
2008, pp. 107–149. ISBN 978:1-60456-436-5.
on Cell Tower Siting, sponsored by the University of Vienna & Land-
[139] W.R. Adey, in: P.J. Rosch, M.S. Markov (Eds.), Potential Therapeutic
Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria, June 7–8, 2000.
Applications of Nonthermal Electromagnetic Fields: Ensemble Orga-
[123] E.D. Mantiply, Summary of measured radiofrequency electric and
nization of Cells in Tissue as a Factor in Biological Field Sensing,
magnetic fields (10 kHz–30 GHz) in the general and work environ-
Bioelectromagnetic Medicine, 2004, pp. 1–16.
ment, Bioelectromagnetics 18 (1997) 563–577.
[140] S. Engstrom, in: P.J. Rosch, M.S. Markov (Eds.), Magnetic Field
[124] Sage Associates, 2004. An Overview of Low-intensity radiofre-
Generation and Dosimetry, Bioelectromagnetic Medicine, 2004, pp.
quency/microwave radiation studies relevant to wireless commu-
nications and data, Bioelectromagnetics Society Annual Meeting,
[141] A. Pilla, in: F.S. Barnes, B. Greenebaum, (Eds.), Mechanisms and
Therapeutic Applications of Time-varying and Static Magnetic Fields
[125] C. Sage, O. Johansson, S.A. Sage, Personal digital assistant (PDA) cell
in Biological and Medical Aspects of Electromagnetic Fields, third
phone units produce elevated extremely-low frequency electromag-
netic field emissions, Bioelectromagnetics 28 (7) (2007) 581–582.
[142] M. Blank, R. Goodman, Initial interactions in electromagnetic field-
[126] C. Sage, O. Johansson, Response to comment on personal digital
induced biosynthesis, J. Cell. Physiol. 199 (2004) 359–363.
assistant (PDA) cell phone units produce elevated extremely-low fre-
[143] M. Blank, R. Goodman, A biological guide for electromagnetic safety:
quency electromagnetic field emissions, Bioelectromagnetics (July)
the stress response electromagnetic initiation of transcription at spe-
cific DNA sites, Bioelectromagnetics 25 (2004) 642–646.
[127] C. Sage, O. Johansson, Response to comment on measuring ELF fields
[144] M. Blank, BEMS Soc. Newslett. (January–February) (2008) 6–7.
produced by mobile phones and personal digital assistants (PDAs),
[145] G. Lotz, Letter from Greg Lotz, PhD, Chief Physical Agents Effects
Bioelectromagnetics (July) (2007), 17654536.
Branch, Division of Biomedical and Behavioral Science, National
[128] M. Tuor, S. Ebert, J. Schuderer, N. Kuster, Assessment of ELF
Institute of Occupational Safety and Health to Richard Tell, Chair,
magnetic fields from five mobile handsets, in: ITIS Foundation, Con-
IEEE SCC28 (SC4) Risk Assessment Work Group, June 17, 1999.
ference Presentation, Monte Verita, 2005.
[146] P. Grandjean, Implications of the precautionary principle for pri-
[129] T. Linde, K.H. Mild, Measurement of low frequency magnetic
mary prevention and research, Am. Rev. Public Health 25 (2004)
fields from digital cellular telephones, Bioelectromagnetics 18 (1997)
[147] D. Davis, The Secret History of the War on Cancer, Basic Books,
[130] B. Armstrong, G. Theriault, P. Guenel, J. Deadman, M. Goldberg,
P. Heroux, Association between exposure to pulsed electromagnetic
[148] R. Proctor, Cancer Wars, Harper Collins Publishers, 1995.
fields and cancer in electrical utility workers in Ontario and Que-
[149] European Environmental Agency, Late Lessons from Early Warnings.
bec, Canada, and France 1970–1989, Am. J. Epidemiol. 140 (1994)
The Precautionary Principle 1896–2000. Copenhagen, Denmark,
[131] G.M. Lee, R.R. Neutra, L. Hristova, M. Yost, R.A. Hiatt, A nested
[150] P. Landrigan, How much do chemicals affect our health? Discover
case–control study of residential and personal magnetic field measures
and miscarriages, Epidemiology 13 (1) (2002) 21–31.
[151] California Air Resources Board, Appendix III Proposed Identification
[132] K.D. Li, R. Oudouli, S. Wi, T. Janevic, I. Golditch, T.D. Bracken, R.
of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant. Part
Senior, R. Rankin, R. Iriye, A population-based prospective cohort
2º Exposición Integral para la Mujer Reglamento de participación 13.2. No se permite indicar precios de los artículos expuestos, salvo en los folletos entregados dentro del área alquilada. 1. INTRODUCCIÓN 7. ENERGIA ELÉCTRICA 13.3. Podrá venderse la mercadería exhibida, pero sólo podrá ser retirada del recinto ferial una vez finalizado el evento. 1.1. Esta exposición
EFFECT OF DEWORMING WITH IVOMEC POUR-ON PERFORMANCE OF GRAZING STOCKER CATTLE Story in Brief One hundred twelve healthy stocker steers averaging 533 lb and grazingsummer forages were used to evaluate the effect of ivermectin on weight gain. Treatment groups consisted of one or two treatments with ivermectin and acontrol group receiving none. Cattle receiving treatment with ivermectin
Public health implications of wireless technologies
a Sage Associates, 1396 Danielson Road, Santa Barbara, CA 93108, USA
b Institute for Health and the Environment, University at Albany, Rensselaer, NY, USA
Received 18 January 2008; accepted 30 January 2009
Abstract