6,486 Studies Reviewed. 85.2% of Original Studies Found Biological Effects. The Evidence is Clear.
Shield Your Body

Note: This study found no significant biological effects under its experimental conditions. We include all studies for scientific completeness.

Cellular Effects

Effect of GSM-900 and -1800 signals on the skin of hairless rats. III: Expression of heat shock proteins.

No Effects Found

Sanchez S, Masuda H, Ruffié G, De Gannes FP, Billaudel B, Haro E, Lévêque P, Lagroye I, Veyret B. · 2008

View Original Abstract
Share:

GSM cell phone radiation up to 5 W/kg didn't trigger heat shock proteins in rat skin, but this measures only one type of cellular stress response.

Plain English Summary

Summary written for general audiences

Researchers exposed hairless rats to cell phone radiation (GSM-900 and GSM-1800 signals) for up to 12 weeks to see if it would trigger heat shock proteins, which are cellular stress markers that indicate when cells are under strain. The study found no changes in these stress proteins at any exposure level tested, including levels up to 5 watts per kilogram. This suggests that under these experimental conditions, the cell phone radiation did not cause detectable cellular stress in rat skin.

Why This Matters

This study contributes to our understanding of how radiofrequency radiation affects cellular stress responses, specifically examining whether GSM signals trigger heat shock proteins - the cellular equivalent of an alarm system. The researchers tested SAR levels up to 5 W/kg, which is significantly higher than typical cell phone exposures (around 1-2 W/kg during calls). While finding no stress protein activation might seem reassuring, we need to interpret this carefully. Heat shock proteins represent just one type of cellular stress response, and their absence doesn't rule out other biological effects. The science demonstrates that EMF can trigger various cellular responses through different pathways, and this single endpoint study shouldn't be viewed as comprehensive evidence of safety. What this means for you is that while this particular stress marker wasn't activated, it represents only one piece of a much larger research puzzle examining how radiofrequency radiation interacts with living tissue.

Exposure Details

SAR
0, 2.5, and 5 W/kg
Source/Device
GSM-900 and 1800
Exposure Duration
2 hours per day, 5 days per week, for 12 weeks

Exposure Context

This study used 0, 2.5, and 5 W/kg for SAR (device absorption):

Building Biology guidelines are practitioner-based limits from real-world assessments. BioInitiative Report recommendations are based on peer-reviewed science. Check Your Exposure to compare your own measurements.

Where This Falls on the Concern Scale

Study Exposure Level in ContextStudy Exposure Level in ContextThis study: 0, 2.5, and 5 W/kgExtreme Concern - 0.1 W/kgFCC Limit - 1.6 W/kgEffects observed in the Extreme Concern range (Building Biology)This level is 2 times the FCC limit
A logarithmic frequency spectrum from 10 Hz to 100 GHz showing where this study's 900 MHz exposure sits relative to common EMF sources.Where This Frequency Sits on the EMF SpectrumELFVLFLF / MFHF / VHFUHFSHFmm10 Hz100 GHzThis study: 900 MHzPower lines50/60 Hz5G mm28 GHzLogarithmic scale

Study Details

We previously reported the inability of Global System for Mobile communication (GSM) signals at 900 (GSM-900) and 1800 (GSM-1800) MegaHertz (MHz) to induce morphological and physiological changes in epidermis of Hairless rats. The present work aimed at investigating heat shock proteins (HSP) expression – as a cellular stress marker – in the skin of Hairless rats exposed to GSM-900 and -1800 signals.

We studied the expression of the Heat-shock cognate (Hsc) 70, and the inducible forms of the Heat-sh...

Our data indicated that neither single nor repeated exposures altered HSP expression in rat skin, ir...

Under our experimental conditions (local SAR <5 W/kg), there was no evidence that GSM signals alter HSP expression in rat skin.

Cite This Study
Sanchez S, Masuda H, Ruffié G, De Gannes FP, Billaudel B, Haro E, Lévêque P, Lagroye I, Veyret B. (2008). Effect of GSM-900 and -1800 signals on the skin of hairless rats. III: Expression of heat shock proteins. Int J Radiat Biol.84(1):61-68, 2008.
Show BibTeX
@article{s_2008_effect_of_gsm900_and_3357,
  author = {Sanchez S and Masuda H and Ruffié G and De Gannes FP and Billaudel B and Haro E and Lévêque P and Lagroye I and Veyret B. },
  title = {Effect of GSM-900 and -1800 signals on the skin of hairless rats. III: Expression of heat shock proteins.},
  year = {2008},
  doi = {10.1080/09553000701616098},
  url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09553000701616098},
}
DOI: 10.1080/09553000701616098

Cited By (20 papers)

Quick Questions About This Study

No, a 2008 study found that GSM-900 and GSM-1800 cell phone signals did not trigger heat shock proteins in rat skin, even after 12 weeks of exposure at levels up to 5 watts per kilogram. Heat shock proteins are cellular stress markers that indicate when cells are under strain.
Research on hairless rats showed that 12 weeks of GSM cell phone radiation exposure did not cause detectable skin cell stress. The study measured heat shock proteins, which are reliable indicators of cellular stress, and found no changes at any exposure level tested.
Researchers tested SAR levels up to 5 watts per kilogram when examining heat shock protein expression in rat skin exposed to GSM signals. The study found no evidence that any of these exposure levels altered heat shock protein expression in skin tissue.
No, repeated GSM-900 and GSM-1800 signal exposures did not affect cellular stress markers in rat skin according to 2008 research. The study specifically measured heat shock proteins, which are sensitive indicators of cellular stress, and found no changes after repeated exposures.
Yes, heat shock proteins are considered reliable cellular stress markers in EMF research. A 2008 study used these proteins to detect potential cellular damage from GSM signals in rat skin, finding no changes even at high exposure levels, suggesting no detectable cellular stress occurred.