| Mobile phones have
revolutionised communications throughout the world. Texting has
resulted in a new language barely understood by the pre-mobile
phone generation. It is hard to imagine the modern business and
younger social world without the mobile phone. Unfortunately,
research from across the globe is showing that long-term usage
of mobile phones can be damaging to your health. It is
associated with brain tumours, memory and concentration problems
and rat experiments have found signs of early onset dementia
(similar to Alzheimer's -
Salford 2003).
Mobile phone use without a hands-free kit in a car has been
banned in the UK, because of the increased risk of having an
accident (Due to the distraction caused by using the phone). The
UK Department of Health has also
issued advice
stating that people should attempt to keep their calls as short
as possible, and that children and young people under the age of
16 should only use their phones in emergencies, based on the
current uncertainties in the existing scientific literature.
Your phone communicates at full power when
it is connecting to a number. Hold your phone away from your
body when you have finished dialling until the person answers.
If you are texting, hold it away from you until the text is
sent. The parts of the body which are most vulnerable to
microwave radiation are the eyes, the breasts and testicles.
Other parts of the body which are sensitive are internal soft
tissue organs such kidneys, liver, ovaries, etc. Your phone
should be kept away from these parts of the body. When your
phone is on standby, it communicates (at full power) with the
nearest base station regularly to ensure it has the best signal
possible. This could be once every 30 minutes if you are
stationary in a good signal area. If you are in a poor signal
area, it may transmit as often as every 30 seconds as it
attempts to get a better signal. If you are on the move, it will
transmit frequently.
Mobile phones are suspected to initiate
Electrical Hypersensitivity (ES),
which can be a very debilitating condition. If you feel you
need to use a mobile phone, please read
reducing your exposure
on reducing your microwave exposure from your current phone and
what to look for when you buy a new one.
2. Mobile / Cordless Phones and Brain
Cancer
There has been repeated coverage in the
last few years that mobile phones will increase your chances of
getting both malignant and benign forms of brain tumours. There
has been vehement criticism of this coverage, claiming that
there is no scientific evidence to support such an association,
and that reporting a link is inappropriate at best,
irresponsible scaremongering at worst.
In actual fact, there is now a large
amount of epidemiological literature assessing the risk of
mobile phone usage and brain cancer. In reality we would not
expect studies to have found a link at this point in time, as
the latency period (time between exposure to cause and diagnosis
of cancer) of most brain tumours is between 15 and 25 years, and
mobile phones have only been in widespread usage for about 10
years.
Despite this, a number of papers are
now showing signs of a significantly increased risk of brain
cancer incidence from long term usage (over 10 years) have now
been published:
Lennart Hardell and Swedish Research
Oncologist Lennart Hardell and his
colleagues has been researching this association for about 10
years and has published numerous papers covering their findings.
Starting with preliminary work at the turn of the century where
they found a statistically significant 1.4-fold increase in risk
for brain tumours (not sub-categorised) on the same side of the
head as the mobile phone was used[Hardell
1999,
Hardell 2000].
In 2002, looking at 1617 patients
histopathologically diagnosed with brain tumours, they found
that use of analogueue mobile phones was associated with a
significant 30% increase in risk for brain tumours (overall).
This increased to 80% when only looking at patients who had used
their phone for over 10 years, and further to 150% (2.5 times as
likely to develop a brain tumour) when side of the head was
taken into account. For acoustic neuromas, the increase in risk
was 250% [Hardell
2002].
This was followed in 2003 by a separate analysis that found that
Astrocytomas also had a significantly increased risk of 80%[Hardell
Feb 2003],
and a subsequent paper finding a 3.5-fold risk of Acoustic
Neuroma from mobile phone use (CI 1.77-6.76)[Hardell
Mar 2003]
By 2005 most papers generally
sub-categorised brain tumour risk from mobile phone usage into
acoustic neuromas, meningiomas and gliomas. Hardell produced a
paper in 2005 analysing the increase in risk for acoustic
neuromas and meningiomas. With a very good response rate (85%)
he found that, for a mobile phone usage of greater than 10
years, the odds ratio for meningiomas was 2.1 (CI 1.1-4.3) and
for acoustic neuromas this was split further into digital mobile
phones (2.0 - CI 1.05-3.8) and analogueue mobile phones (4.2 -
CI 1.8-10)[Hardell
2005].
By this stage his results were consistently pointing towards a
possible doubling in risk, and this for mobile phone users who
had not used their phone for as long as the typical latency
period for the tumours! Hardell also published one of the only
papers to date looking at risk of non-hodgkin's lymphoma,
finding a 6-fold increase for over 10 years of use. He did
highlight however that there were very few cases and that the
results should be interpreted with a fair degree of caution[Hardell
Sept 2005].
In February 2006 Hardell published a
paper using more recent diagnoses (patients diagnosed between
2000 and 2003), and found that the increase in risk was steadily
strengthening in magnitude and statistical significance as the
length of phone usage was increasing. For malignant tumours he
found that the OR for analogueue phone use was 2.6 (CI 1.5-4.3),
for digital phone use was 1.9 (CI 1.3-2.7), and for cordless
phone use was 2.1 (CI 1.4-3.0). Looking at patients who had used
their phones for 10 years or more this increased to 3.5 (CI
2.0-6.4), 3.6 (CI 1.7-7.5) and 2.9 (CI 1.6-5.2) respectively[Hardell
Feb 2006].
This work was followed up in October 2006 looking specifically
at acoustic neuromas (a benign form of brain tumour),
astrocytomas and non-hodgkin's lymphomas. He found acoustic
neuromas and the higher grades of astrocytoma (Grades III and
IV) to have significant increases from all forms of mobile and
cordless phone usages (around 50% increase in risk in each
case), which increased further for those who had used their
phone greater than 10 years. However, he found no increase for
lower grade astrocytomas (Grade I and II), and no increase for
non-hodgkin's lymphomas in contrast to his paper from the
previous year[Hardell
Oct 2006].
Hardell's published a meta-analysis in
September 2007 of the existing literature to date (2 cohort
studies and 16 case-control studies). His findings were a 140%
increase in risk for benign acoustic neuromas (CI 1.1-5.3) and a
100% increase in risk for malignant gliomas (CI 1.2-3.4), with
further increased risks when looking at ipsilateral exposure[Hardell
Sept 2007].
His summary so far on all the work (including work from other
researchers) is that "Results from present studies on use of
mobile phones for > or =10 years give a consistent pattern of
increased risk for acoustic neuroma and glioma. The risk is
highest for ipsilateral exposure.
Flaws, Recall Bias and Selection Bias
As he is one of the only researchers
consistently finding an effect, he has received a lot of
criticism for the suspected quality (or lack of) his work. The
primary criticism that has been directed at his work is that of
recall bias (failure of the mobile phone users to correctly
remember the amount of usage and the side of the head). However
(and primarily for the Interphone study), this has been
addressed by Vrijheid in a study that found that heavy users
generally overestimated their use and light users generally
underestimated their use[Vrijheid
2006].
As the high risk category is the heavy users, an overestimation
of use would imply the risk is actually attributed to lower
usage, which will lead to an underestimation of risk.
Vrijheid also found a small element of inaccuracy of users
recalling which side of the head their phone used which may
contribute to a slight overestimation of risk in the highest
user category[Vrijheid
2008].
The other Interphone study to look at recall bias found that
users were more accurate at recalling phone usage in terms of
number of calls made than total phone usage, but without comment
as to how this was likely to effect the reported risk[Samkange-Zeeb
2004].
One of the Interphone papers looked at selection bias, and found
that approximately 10% less cases responded than controls (70%
and 80% response rates respectively)[Lahkola
2005].
If this difference is real, it would lead to an overestimation
in risk, but it is only based on one of the Interphone studies
and Lloyd Morgan's pooled analysis found only 60% of controls
responded on average (See the section on flaws of the Interphone
Project below) - if so, this would instead lead to an
underestimation in risk.
The Interphone Project
The Interphone project, initiated in
1999, is a multi-national initiative aiming to fully examine the
association between long term mobile phone usage and increases
in risk for all forms of brain cancer. The results of the
project were expected to be published in 2005, but the findings
were conflicting and the researchers involved in the project
were divided into three opinions on how the results should be
summarised: a) that there was a possible increase in brain
tumour risk that is real and warrants further investigation, b)
that the increase is an artefact due to bias in the study, and
c) that with the data currently available it is not possible to
tell whether a) or b) are correct, with both being a feasible
possibility. Louis Slesin has covered the various updates in the
Interphone project in great detail on his
Microwave News website. The
results of the Interphone project have still (as of August 2008)
not been published.
Unfortunately, here are a number of
flaws with the design of the studies in the Interphone project.
One of the major flaws is a lack of inclusion in most of the
studies of any form of recognition of digital cordless phone
users. With the handset similar to a phone and the base unit
exposing users all the time whilst they are in the building,
this becomes a very large confounder for using "length of phone
usage" as a metric of exposure level.
Lloyd Morgan, an American researcher
and electronic engineer (and currently a member of the board of
directors at the
Central Brain Tumour Registry of the
United States), has been
writing about the Interphone papers as each one is published,
and has explained the major flaws with the Interphone protocol
in
great detail in his column
(though this is currently out of date - a new update is
currently being developed). The summary of the 6 primary flaws
are listed below:
Flaw 1: Selection Bias
The first flaw is called selection
bias. It is likely the result of the low percentage of controls
that participated in the studies (weighted average of 59%).
Think about being randomly selected for a cellphone study. You
are told you will be asked to answer a long questionnaire. If
you use a cellphone you are more likely to agree to participate
than if you do not use a cellphone. If this happens it is called
selection bias. Selection bias will result in an
underestimation of risk.
Flaw 2: Inclusion of tumours
Outside the Cellphone's Radiation Plume
The second flaw is the inclusion of all
brain tumours without regard to their location. Because the
cellphone's radiation plume only penetrates a short distance
into the head, nearly all of this radiation is absorbed by the
temporal lobe, the acoustic nerve, or the parotid gland. Even
when cellphone exposure of one side of the head is considered on
the side where the cellphone was held, a substantial portion of
half the brain is unexposed (the opposite side is completely
unexposed). Studies that include brain tumours outside of the
cellphone radiation plume contribute to an underestimation of
the risk of brain tumours.
Flaw 3: Latency Time and
Definition of Regular User
The third flaw is the definition of
"regular" cellphone use in relation to a reasonable latency
time. "Regular" cellphone use is defined as use of a cellphone
on average once per week for at least 6 months. Exposure within
1 year of the diagnosis date is not considered. The result of
this definition, combined with the incredibly fast rate of new
cellphone users, is to overweight "regular" users with an
incredibly large group of short-term users - far too short a
time to expect a tumour to be diagnosed.
The latency time for brain tumours is
between 15 and 25 years. For the Interphone studies, using
weighted averages for cases or controls, we see that 6.3% of
cases and 6.4% of controls have used a cellphone for 10 years or
more, and 18% of cases and 21% of controls have used a cellphone
for 5 years or more (Weighted average of 10 Interphone brain
tumour studies - 3 Interphone studies of 5 countries which the
10 studies are excluded). For a reasonable latency time, it
would be unlikely to find any risk of tumours, given the
percentage of cases and controls. Yet some of the Interphone
studies are already finding a risk. Because such a large
percentage of "regular" users have used a cellphone for an
unreasonably short latency time the reported results for < 10
years as well as for > 10 years (6.3% of cases) are an
underestimation of risk.
Flaw 4: Children and Young Adult
Are Not Included in Interphone Studies
The Interphone Protocol states that
cases be between 30 and 59 years of age While a few studies have
included cases as young as 20, the non-inclusion of < 20 year
olds is likely to result in an underestimation of risk.
Research has shown that children's brains (due to skull
formation through the childhood years) absorb a greater
proportion of the radiation emitted by a mobile phone[Ghandi
1996,
Ghandi 2002,
Christ 2005,
de Salles 2006,
Wiart 2008].
They are also likely to be at a greater risk due to their higher
rate of cell division (than adults). It is generally accepted
that teenagers and young adults are the primary users of mobile
phones.
Flaw 5: Cellphone's Radiated
Power
It is reasonable to expect that risk of
a tumour from a cellphone, after a reasonable latency time,
would be the cellphone's power multiplied by cumulative time of
use. In the early days of cellphone use all cellphones used
analogue technology. These always radiated a fixed amount of
power (~2 Watts). analogue cellphones use has been totally
displaced by digital cellphones. Digital cellphones have a
feature called Automatic Power Control or APC. At the beginning
of a call the cellphone radiates maximum power (~2 Watts) but
quickly reduces the power so the radiated power is sufficient to
have a reliable link to the cell tower (AKA masks or base
stations). The result is that cellphones radiate far less power
in urban areas compared to rural areas. This is because cell
phone towers are much closer in urban areas compared to rural
areas so the cellphone radiates less power in urban areas and
more power in rural areas. When rural and urban cellphones are
not reported separately the result is an underestimation of
risk.
Flaw 6: Number of Cases Included
in a Study
The weighted average time in these 10
studies for a case to be eligible for inclusion in the study was
only 2.6 years. When one considers 4 of the 5 previous flaws, it
becomes obvious that such a short period of time for eligibility
will result in too few cases to resolve these flaws. For
example, if tumours were limited only to the exposed region of
the brain then there would be far fewer cases; if a reasonably
long latency time was included, again there would be far fewer
cases; if children had been included there would have been more
cases; and, if rural users were to be compared to the far larger
number of urban users a much larger number of cases would need
to be eligible to participate in the Interphone Study.
In this year's (2008) BEMS (Bioelectromagnetics
Society) meeting, Lloyd presented a
thorough talk
outlining all of these flaws, their implications, and how this
affected the statistical data represented in the papers. His
indication that the flaws in the Interphone protocol would
significantly underestimate the overall risk would closely match
our original theory
as speculated in January 2007 when one of Lahkola's studies[Lahkola
2007]
was published, based on crude statistical analysis of suspicious
looking figures. Lahkola published a meta-analysis of
scandinavian papers in August 2008 that similar found these
strongly significant protective effects, with an OR 0.76 (CI
0.65-0.89)[Lahkola
2008]!
It wasn't just Lahkola's work though, a
number of the Interphone studies have found statistically
significant protective effects from mobile phone
usage[Schuz
Mar 2006,
Schuz Dec 2006,
Christensen 2005,
Lonn 2005,
Klaeboe 2007],
and despite these flaws some have still found statistically
significant increase in risk for the heavier group of mobile
phone users[Hepworth
2006,
Lonn Nov 2004,
Schoemaker 2005,
Takebayashi 2008,
Hours 2007].
A number of the papers have not shown
this unlikely looking protective effect and have still not shown
an increase[Christensen
2004,
Takebayashi 2006],
but it is important to remember that with around 5% of the cases
having used their phone for 10 years or more we would not expect
to see a risk anyway (as the latency period for these tumours
tends to be between 15 and 25 years). The fact that any papers
are showing a risk is very concerning.
Other Research
There have been a number of other
issues on an individual study basis, such as the highly
publicised Danish cohort study towards the end of 2006[Schuz
Mar 2006,
Schuz Dec 2006]
which was hyped as being a "definitive study", containing some
400,000 people in the dataset. Sadly, as we
covered in great detail in December 2006,
the classification of these subjects was extremely misleading:
Firstly, only contract users were considered as those were the
only users that it was possible to identify. All "pay as you go"
users were classified as "non-mobile phone users" and
effectively moved into the control group - this would lead to
an underestimation of risk. Originally the authors had
720,000 records, of which 100,000 were removed (quite validly)
due to duplication. Out of the remaining 620,000, a further
200,000 were removed because they "couldn't identify the users"
as the contracts were corporate and not linked to any specific
individual. By the authors' own admission these were likely to
be the heaviest phone users in the dataset, so another 33% of
the heaviest users they were looking for were moved in to the
"non-user" control group, which would also lead to an
underestimate the risk. Strangely, the study's findings then
highlighted a significant protective effect (7 of the 18 data
points had a statistically significant reduction in risk), which
disappeared in the highest usage category. One reason for this
may be the flaws detailed by Lloyd Morgan above for the
Interphone project papers, that would expect a significantly
reduced OR in cases when compared to controls. If these are
controlled for in the statistical calculations, we end up
finding an increase in risk of 30% for the heaviest users,
reaching borderline significance!
There have been a number of other
epidemiological papers published over the last 10 years looking
at mobile phones and brain cancer, but most of these have failed
to find an effect. This is unsurprising, as the studies were
published a number of years ago and the cases involved had used
their phones for less than 5 years - far too short a period to
find any risk of brain tumours[Lonn
Jan 2004,
Cook 2003,
Muscat 2002,
Johansen 2001,
Inskip 2001,
Muscat 2000,
Auvinen 2002].
Despite this, two of the studies found increases for brain
cancer that were of borderline significance[Muscat
2000,
Auvinen 2002].
More recently Kan performed a meta-analysis on 9 case-control
studies, finding no increase of risk overall but a statistically
significant increase in risk (OR 1.25) for those who have used
their phone for more than 10 years (CI 1.01-1.54)[Kan
2008].
Parotid / Salivary
Gland Tumours
An Israeli study this
year found a statistically significant
association between mobile usage and parotid
gland (salivary gland) tumours[Sadetzki
2008].
Whilst the findings show a 60% increase in risk,
other research from the previous 5 years failed
to find an increase[Lonn
2006,
Hardell
2004,
Auvinen
2002].
That said, this is another tumour with a long
typical latency period (20 years), so any effect
would be unexpected and should be treated with
concern at this stage. It may also be to do with
the high general mobile phone usage of the
Israeli population. Lloyd Morgan has produced
another
excellent analysis
on why some of the studies may have not found
the effect that the Israeli paper found.
Other Tumours
Other tumours that have
been assessed but found to have no association
with mobile phone usage are central nervous
system tumours and arrhythmia-related heart
diseases[Johansen
2004],
and malignant melanomas of the eye[Johansen
2002],
though Stang published a paper the previous year
finding a statistically significant and
considerable increase in risk for uveal melanoma
(a malignant form of eye cancer - OR 4.2 - CI
1.2-14.5)[Stang
2001].
Mobile
Phone Radiation and EEG or
Neurological Effects
Mobile
phone usage has expanded
enormously over the last 10
years, and teenagers / young
adults are now amongst the
heaviest users. There have been
reports that concentration,
behaviour, memory and other
cognitive performance have been
negatively affected by mobile
phones and their base stations.
If these are true, extensive
mobile phone use could be
responsible for behavioural and
performance issues in children
of school age - A study
published in July 2008 found
that children exposed prenatally
and early postnatally to mobile
phones had an 80% increase in
behavioural problems (CI
1.45-2.23)[Divan
2008]
Other research into prenatal
exposure has found that mobile
phone exposure has a significant
effect on foetal heart rate and
cardiac output[Rezk
2008],
and research from Turkey has
found that 900 MHz prenatal
exposure inhibits neuronal brain
development in rats[Odaci
2008].
The following is a brief summary
of the research looking into
neurological effects from mobile
phone or other pulsed RF
electromagnetic field exposure.
Neurological Effects
With
two exceptions (a Chinese study
that found reaction times
decreased from pulsed RF
exposure[Cao
2000],
and a recent study from Germany
finding no effect on cognitive
function or sleep[Fritzer
2007]),
research has found that exposure
to mobile phone or other pulsed
RF radiation exposure improved
reaction times[Preece
2005,
Koivisto
Feb 2000],
general cognitive performance[Edelstyn
2002],
and high intensity memory tasks[Krause
Dec 2000,
Koivisto
June 2000,
Krause
March 2006]
(Including one that found
improvements in those with
self-assessed sensitivity to
mobile phones without a
corresponding improvement in the
control group[Wiholm
2008].
A Turkish paper also found
significant temporary hearing
loss from mobile phone exposure[Oktay
2006].
The
precise implications and cause
(if the association is truly
causal) is not clear, but it is
clear that the pulsed
radiofrequency electromagnetic
fields produced by mobile phones
is having some effect on
attention, concentration,
memory, reaction times and
general cognitive performance.
EEG
and rCBF Effects
Sleep,
EEG (electroencephalograph) and
waking rCBF (regional cerebral
blood flow) have been studied in
relation to RF exposure for a
decade now, and the majority of
papers published have found some
form of effect. Whilst a Finnish
study failed to find any effect
on sleep or other cognitive
function from pulsed RF exposure[Haarala
2007],
most other papers have found
significant effects on sleep[Hung
2007,
Huber 2005,
Huber 2002,
Huber 2000,
Borbely
1999,
Andrzejak
2008].
Interestingly, two of these
papers found the effect was only
present when the exposure was
pulsed (amplitude modulated)[Huber
2005,
Huber 2002],
and one early paper actually
found that sleep quality
(measured by the amount of
participants' broken sleep)
actually improved[Borbely
1999]!
Whilst
some papers were inclusive or
inconsistent[Krause
2007,
Papageorgiou 2006],
a number of studies have now
demonstrated reversible EEG and
rCBF alterations from exposure
to pulsed RF exposure[Aalto
2006,
Krause
June 2006,
D'Costa
2003,
Kramarenko
2003].
German research from 2006 found
that statistically significant
EEG changes could be
consistently found, but only in
a relatively low proportion of
study participants (12 - 30%)[Bachman
2006].
Other
Effects
Mobile
phones have been negatively
associated with subjectively
reported symptoms such as
headaches, nausea, concentration
issues, dizziness, blurred
vision and a number of other
symptoms that tend to be grouped
under the umbrella category
Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity.
A number of double blind
provocation studies have failed
to find the association (see our
electromagnetic hypersensitivity
page for further details),
though there are a number of
theorised flaws on the methods
by which traditional provocation
studies are carried out.
Bruce
Hocking has published 3 studies
at the beginning of this decade
looking specifically at finding
objective signs on people
subjectively suffering from some
form of general dysaesthesiae
(impairment of any of the
senses), finding significant
signs of nerve damage in those
suffering[Hocking
2001,
Hocking
2002,
Hocking
2003].
These findings support the
possibility, and provide a
plausible mechanism, of
subjective symptoms that some
mobile phone users report to
suffer from. The papers are all
from only one author, but there
are no papers that have
attempted to replicate these
findings, which now seems long
overdue.
[Back
to Top]
6.
Mobile Phone Radiation and DNA
Strand Breaks / Cellular Damage
A
superb 291-page summary into
existing work and a considerable
amount of extra research was
performed by A number of
laboratories across Europe
summarised most of the existing
cellular literature (on RF and
ELF EMFs) and conducted a
considerable amount of extra
research, publishing their
results as a 291-page report
under the European Union
programme "Quality of Life and
Management of Living Resources"
as the REFLEX report[REFLEX
report 2004].
DNA
Strand Breaks and Cell Mutation
/ Death
As
early as 1996 researchers have
found that radiofrequency EMFs
are capable of causing cellular
damage, when scientists from
Canada found that prolonged (24
hour) exposure to 900 MHz
radiation damaged the lungs of
live pigs[Singh
1996].
Since then, a number of in
vivo experiments have found
mobile phone or simulated mobile
phone radiation exposure can
cause cell damage, reactive
oxygen species formation (which
are the primary cause of DNA
strand breaks), and cell death[Oktem
2005,
Oral 2006,
Ferreira
2006,
Panagopoulos 2007,
Yan 2008,
Sokolovic
2008].
It is
often claimed that there is
insufficient energy in microwave
frequency radiation to cause DNA
strand breaks (as in the case
of, for example, ionising
radiation). What is less known
is that the primary cause of DNA
strand breaks is not high energy
radiation, but as a by-product
of ROS (reactive oxygen species)
creation. A number of in
vitro experiments have found
an association between RF
exposure and ROS production, and
then subsequent DNA single and
double strand breaks[Nikolova
2005,
Friedman
2007,
Yao May
2008(1),
Yao May
2008(2)],
though some papers have failed
to replicate this effect[Lantow
2006,
Valbonesi
2008].
There
have also been a number of other
cellular effects found, from
cell mutations (such as
micronuclei formation and
cellular aneuploidy)[D'Ambrosio
2002,
Hoyto 2007,
Mazor 2008,
Schwarz
2008],
and even impaired cell repair or
cell death[Joubert
2008,
Manti 2008,
Palumbo
2008].
A study published by Belyaev in
2006 found that whilst he could
not induce DNA double strand
breaks, exposure to 900 MHz GSM
radiation induced changes in
gene expression in rat brain
cells[Belyaev
2006].
Heat
Shock Protein Type Effects
Heat Shock
Proteins
are also known as "stress
proteins", and are known for
increasing their expression when
their cells are exposed to
elevated stress. It is known
that microwave frequency
radiation sufficient to heat
tissue trigger the increase in
heat shock protein response, but
research has found effects in
both sub-thermal levels of RF
exposure, and levels of response
beyond those expected from just
heating effects for higher
levels of exposure[Velizarov
1999,
Leszczynski 2002,
de Pomerai
2003,
Czyz 2004,
Belyaev
2005,
Nylund
2006,
George
2008,
Vanderstraetan 2008].
In 2008 Karinen published a very
interesting paper showing that a
proteomics screening approach
can enable in vivo
identification in changes in
protein expression for humans
exposed to radiofrequency
radiation (at 1.3 W/kg)[Karinen
2008].
Nerve
Damage and Signalling Effects
Finally, a number of papers have
found effects on nerve damage,
calcium pathways, and
neurotransmitter expression from
exposure to pulsed microwave
radiation[Lai
1989,
Lai 1994,
Donnellan
1997,
Leszczynski 2002,
Salford
2003,
Wang 2004,
Wang Mar
2005,
Wang Sept
2005,
Rao 2008]
[Back
to Top]
|
|
|
|
[Back to Top] |