Nagaoka T, Kunieda E, Watanabe S · 2008
Researchers used an existing Japanese adult voxel model and three-dimensional deformation to create models representing average-size Japanese children at 3, 5, and 7 years old. The models consist of cubic voxels 2 mm on each side segmented into 51 tissues and organs. They calculated whole-body-averaged and tissue-averaged specific absorption rates for the child models exposed to plane waves from 30 MHz to 3 GHz and compared the results with scaled down adult models. They also determined the incident electric-field strength needed to produce a whole-body-averaged SAR of 0.08 W kg(-1), the ICNIRP basic restriction for general public exposure.
Kleinlogel H et al. · 2008
Researchers tested whether cell phone radiation from GSM and UMTS networks affects brain activity and cognitive performance in 15 healthy adults. They measured brain waves and reaction times during various mental tasks while participants were exposed to phone radiation at levels typical of actual phone use. The study found no significant changes in brain activity or cognitive function during EMF exposure compared to fake (sham) exposure.
Dimbylow PJ, Hirata A, Nagaoka T. · 2008
The study intercompared the HPA male and female models NORMAN and NAOMI with the NICT male and female models TARO and HANAKO. Particular emphasis was placed on how dielectric properties are assigned to tissues such as skin and fat and on the consequences of different SAR calculation algorithms at higher frequencies. Whole-body SAR calculations were performed at three institutions for a vertically polarized plane wave incident on the front of the body from 30 MHz to 3 GHz under isolated conditions.
Zeni O et al. · 2008
Kleinlogel H et al. · 2008
Researchers tested 1950 MHz UMTS at SAR 0.1 and 1 W/kg and pulsed 900 MHz GSM at 1 W/kg on well-being and vigilance-controlled resting EEG in 15 healthy right-handed subjects. The study used a double-blind randomised crossover design. Neither UMTS nor GSM exposure produced significant changes in measured parameters compared to sham exposure. The results did not give evidence for a deleterious effect of the EMF on normal healthy mobile phone users.
Kleinlogel H et al. · 2008
Researchers exposed 15 healthy adults to electromagnetic fields from both GSM (2G) and UMTS (3G) mobile phones while measuring their brain activity with EEG and asking about their well-being. They found no significant changes in brain wave patterns or reported symptoms compared to fake (sham) exposure. The study suggests that typical mobile phone radiation levels don't produce detectable immediate effects on brain activity in healthy users.
Riddervold IS et al. · 2008
Forty adolescents and 40 adults were exposed to UMTS base station signals and sham conditions in a randomized, double-blinded cross-over design. Each exposure lasted 45 minutes while participants performed cognitive tasks and reported symptoms. No statistically significant differences were found between UMTS and sham conditions for the main cognitive test. An increase in headache rating was observed when combining both age groups, though this may reflect baseline differences.
Riddervold IS et al. · 2008
Danish researchers tested whether 45-minute exposures to UMTS cell tower radiation (2140 MHz) affected cognitive performance and symptoms in 40 teenagers and 40 adults. They found no significant differences in cognitive test performance between real and sham exposures, though participants reported slightly more headaches during radiation exposure, which may have been due to baseline differences rather than the radiation itself.
Unknown authors · 2008
Researchers tested 54 women (11 with self-reported mobile phone sensitivity and 43 controls) in a controlled lab setting using 2.14 GHz W-CDMA base station signals at 10 V/m for 30 minutes. Neither group could detect when EMF was actually present, and both groups showed identical psychological, cognitive, and autonomic responses to real versus fake exposure. The study found no evidence that people claiming EMF sensitivity actually respond differently to electromagnetic fields from cell towers.
Unterlechner M, Sauter C, Schmid G, Zeitlhofer J · 2008
Manti L et al. · 2008
Italian researchers exposed human blood cells to cell phone radiation (1.95 GHz UMTS signal) for 24 hours, then hit them with X-rays to see if the RF exposure made the radiation damage worse. While the cell phone signals didn't increase the number of damaged cells, they did cause a small but measurable increase in the severity of chromosome damage within each affected cell at the higher exposure level (2.0 W/kg SAR). This suggests RF radiation might interfere with the cell's ability to repair DNA damage from other sources.
Yan JG, Agresti M, Zhang LL, Yan Y, Matloub HS. · 2008
Researchers exposed adult Sprague-Dawley rats to cell phones for 6 hours per day for 126 days and measured mRNA levels of several injury-associated proteins in the brain. The proteins evaluated included Calcium ATPase, Neural Cell Adhesion Molecule, Neural Growth Factor, and Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor. The results showed statistically significant mRNA up-regulation of these proteins in the brains of exposed rats.
Hirose H et al. · 2008
Researchers continuously exposed BALB/3T3 cells to 2.1425 GHz W-CDMA RF fields at SARs of 80 and 800 mW/kg for 6 weeks. They also tested MCA-treated cells and MCA plus TPA-treated cells for tumor promotion and co-promotion effects. No significant differences in transformation frequency were found between RF-exposed groups and sham-exposed controls in any treatment condition. The results suggest that exposure to low-level RF radiation of up to 800 mW/kg does not induce cell transformation.
Manti L et al. · 2008
Researchers exposed human peripheral blood lymphocytes in vitro to a UMTS signal at a frequency carrier of 1.95 GHz for 24 hours at 0.5 and 2.0 W/kg SAR. Cells were also given 4 Gy of X rays immediately before RF radiation or sham exposures, and chromosome aberrations were measured by fluorescence in situ hybridization. No significant variations due to the UMTS exposure were found in the fraction of aberrant cells, but the frequency of exchanges per cell showed a small but statistically significant increase of 0.11 exchange per cell compared to 0 W/kg SAR.
Unknown authors · 2008
Researchers recorded TEOAEs in 27 healthy young adults before and after 10 minutes of real or sham GSM exposure in a double-blind design. TEOAE data were analyzed both globally using broadband analysis and with wavelet transform for time-frequency fine structure. Both analyses revealed no significant effect of exposure on TEOAEs.
Zhao TY, Zou SP, Knapp PE · 2007
Researchers exposed brain cells (neurons and astrocytes) to radiation from a working GSM cell phone for just 2 hours and found that genes involved in cell death pathways became more active. The effect occurred even when the phone was on standby mode, and neurons appeared more sensitive to the radiation than astrocytes (support cells in the brain). This suggests that even brief cell phone exposure can trigger cellular stress responses in brain tissue.
Peyman A, Holden SJ, Watts S, Perrott R, Gabriel C · 2007
The dielectric properties of pig cerebrospinal tissues were measured in vivo and in vitro in the frequency range of 50 MHz-20 GHz. White matter and spinal cord showed significant variation as a function of animal age while no age-related variations were recorded for grey matter. The in vitro study included tissue from pigs weighing approximately 10, 50, and 250 kg to examine variation with age. Total combined measurement uncertainty was calculated at each frequency point and reported over representative frequency regions. Comparisons were made between the in vivo and in vitro data and with literature from the past decade.
Unknown authors · 2007
Researchers measured radiofrequency fields from wireless local area networks using Wi-Fi technology against background RF fields in the frequency range 75 MHz to 3 GHz. They conducted 356 measurements at 55 sites including residences, commercial spaces, healthcare and educational institutions, and other public spaces in the U.S., France, Germany, and Sweden. Measurements were taken under conditions that would result in the higher end of exposures, including close to Wi-Fi access points and at a distance of approximately 1 m from a laptop uploading and downloading large files. In all cases, measured Wi-Fi signal levels were very far below international exposure limits (IEEE C95.1-2005 and ICNIRP) and in nearly all cases far below other RF signals in the same environments.
Dimbylow P. · 2007
Researchers used finite-difference time-domain calculations to estimate SAR from 20 MHz to 3 GHz in hybrid voxel-mathematical models of the pregnant female. Mathematical models of the developing foetus at 8-, 13-, 26- and 38-week gestation were converted into voxels and combined with the reference adult female model, NAOMI at a resolution of 2 mm. The study calculated the electric field values needed to produce the ICNIRP public exposure restriction of 2 W kg(-1) when averaged over 10 g of the foetus.
Hirose H et al. · 2007
Researchers performed an in vitro study of low-level RF fields from IMT-2000 base stations to test if modulated signals cause hsp27 phosphorylation and overexpression. No significant differences in phosphorylated hsp27 at serine 82 or in hsp gene expression were found between exposed and sham-exposed groups.
Hirose H et al. · 2007
Japanese researchers exposed human brain and lung cells to radiofrequency radiation at levels similar to cell tower emissions (2.1 GHz) for up to 48 hours. They found no changes in heat shock proteins (cellular stress markers that increase when cells are damaged) even at exposure levels 10 times higher than public safety limits. This suggests that cell tower-level RF radiation does not trigger detectable cellular stress responses in laboratory conditions.
Unknown authors · 2007
The paper discusses the phenomenon, mechanism, power requirement, pressure amplitude, and auditory thresholds of microwave hearing. Microwave pulse hearing involves electromagnetic waves from hundreds of MHz to tens of GHz, unlike normal hearing which uses sound pressure waves. The microwave auditory effect does not come from direct interaction with auditory nerves but from a thermoelastic wave launched by pulse absorption in soft tissues. This thermoelastic wave travels by bone conduction to the inner ear and activates cochlear receptors like normal hearing. The paper emphasizes human exposures to wireless communication fields and MRI coils.
Unknown authors · 2007
This 2007 study explains how humans and animals can actually hear microwave pulses, a phenomenon where electromagnetic waves create audible sounds inside the head. The research shows that pulsed microwaves heat tissue, creating pressure waves that travel through bone to the inner ear, where they're perceived as clicking or buzzing sounds. This finding has important implications for understanding exposure to wireless devices and MRI equipment.
Shirai T et al. · 2007
Pregnant F344 rats received a single dose of ENU on gestational day 18. Rats were exposed to a 1.95-GHz W-CDMA signal for 90 minutes a day, 5 days a week, for 104 weeks starting at 5 weeks of age. Brain average specific absorption rates were designed to be .67 and 2.0 W/kg for low and high exposures, respectively. The incidence and numbers of brain tumors in female rats exposed to 1.95-GHz W-CDMA signals showed tendencies to increase but without statistical significance, and overall no significant increase in incidences or numbers was detected in either males or females.
Chauhan V et al. · 2007
Researchers exposed human-derived cell lines TK6, HL60, and Mono-Mac-6 to intermittent 1.9 GHz pulse-modulated RF fields for 6 hours at SARs of 0, 1, and 10 W/kg. Cell viability, apoptosis, and cell cycle kinetics were measured immediately after exposure and 18 hours later. Cytokine expression (TNFA, IL1B, IL6, IL8, IL10, IL12) was also assessed. No detectable changes in cell viability, cell cycle kinetics, apoptosis, or cytokine expression were observed in any exposed group compared to sham controls. The positive heat-shock control showed decreased viability, increased apoptosis, and a G(2)/M cell cycle block.
