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

Gene expression analysis of a human lymphoblastoma cell line exposed in vitro to an intermittent 1.9 GHz pulse-modulated radiofrequency field.

No Effects Found

Chauhan V, Mariampillai A, Bellier PV, Qutob SS, Gajda GB, Lemay E, Thansandote A, McNamee JP. · 2006

View Original Abstract
Share:

This study found no cellular stress response from 1.9 GHz RF at cell phone-level exposures, but examined only limited stress markers.

Plain English Summary

Summary written for general audiences

Researchers exposed human immune cells to 1.9 GHz radiofrequency radiation at levels similar to cell phone use (1-10 W/kg SAR) to see if it triggered cellular stress responses. They measured key stress markers including heat shock proteins and proto-oncogenes that typically activate when cells are damaged. The study found no significant changes in these stress indicators, suggesting the RF exposure did not cause detectable cellular stress under these laboratory conditions.

Why This Matters

This 2006 study from Health Canada represents one piece of a much larger puzzle in EMF research. While finding no cellular stress response at SAR levels of 1-10 W/kg is notable, we must consider this within the broader context of hundreds of studies showing biological effects from RF radiation. The exposure levels tested here (1-10 W/kg) encompass typical cell phone SAR values, which range from 0.5-2 W/kg depending on the device and usage conditions. However, this study examined only acute stress responses in a single cell type over a limited timeframe. The reality is that many documented biological effects from RF radiation don't necessarily manifest as classical heat shock responses, and chronic low-level exposures may produce different cellular changes than the intermittent pulse-modulated signals tested here. What this means for you is that while this particular study didn't detect stress responses, it doesn't negate the substantial body of research documenting other biological effects from similar RF exposures.

Exposure Details

SAR
1, 10 W/kg
Source/Device
1.9 GHz

Exposure Context

This study used 1, 10 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: 1, 10 W/kgExtreme Concern - 0.1 W/kgFCC Limit - 1.6 W/kgEffects observed in the Extreme Concern range (Building Biology)FCC limit is 2 times higher than this level
A logarithmic frequency spectrum from 10 Hz to 100 GHz showing where this study's 1.90 GHz exposure sits relative to common EMF sources.Where This Frequency Sits on the EMF SpectrumELFVLFLF / MFHF / VHFUHFSHFmm10 Hz100 GHzThis study: 1.90 GHzPower lines50/60 Hz5G mm28 GHzLogarithmic scale

Study Details

This study was designed to determine whether radiofrequency (RF) fields of the type used for wireless communications could elicit a cellular stress response.

As general indicators of a cellular stress response, we monitored changes in proto-oncogene and heat...

We demonstrated that transcript levels of these genes in RF-field-exposed cells showed no significan...

In conclusion, our study found no evidence that the 1.9 GHz RF-field exposure caused a general stress response in TK6 cells under our experimental conditions.

Cite This Study
Chauhan V, Mariampillai A, Bellier PV, Qutob SS, Gajda GB, Lemay E, Thansandote A, McNamee JP. (2006). Gene expression analysis of a human lymphoblastoma cell line exposed in vitro to an intermittent 1.9 GHz pulse-modulated radiofrequency field. Radiat Res. 165(4):424-429, 2006.
Show BibTeX
@article{v_2006_gene_expression_analysis_of_2969,
  author = {Chauhan V and Mariampillai A and Bellier PV and Qutob SS and Gajda GB and Lemay E and Thansandote A and McNamee JP.},
  title = {Gene expression analysis of a human lymphoblastoma cell line exposed in vitro to an intermittent 1.9 GHz pulse-modulated radiofrequency field.},
  year = {2006},
  
  url = {https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16579654/},
}
PubMed: 16579654

Cited By (33 papers)

Quick Questions About This Study

No, a 2006 study found that 1.9 GHz radiofrequency radiation at cell phone levels (1-10 W/kg SAR) did not trigger stress proteins like HSP27 or HSP70 in human lymphoblastoma cells. The cells showed no significant stress response compared to unexposed control cells.
Research found no evidence that 1.9 GHz radiofrequency exposure activates proto-oncogenes FOS, JUN, or MYC in human immune cells. These genes typically turn on when cells are damaged, but remained unchanged after RF exposure at cell phone power levels.
The study tested 1.9 GHz radiofrequency radiation at 1-10 W/kg SAR levels, which represent typical cell phone exposure ranges. Researchers used intermittent pulse-modulated RF fields to simulate real-world cell phone usage patterns on human TK6 lymphoblastoma cells.
Heat shock caused significant increases in stress proteins HSP27, HSP70, FOS and JUN, while decreasing MYC levels in immune cells. In contrast, 1.9 GHz RF exposure produced no detectable changes in these same stress markers under identical laboratory conditions.
No, TK6 human lymphoblastoma cells showed no signs of cellular damage from 1.9 GHz pulse-modulated radiofrequency exposure. Gene expression analysis revealed no significant changes in key stress response markers that typically indicate cellular harm or damage.