Download Appendix 1 - buergerwelle.de

Consultation Response Form
SCENIHR opinion on
"Possible effects of Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) on Human Health"
Contact details of person and/or institution submitting comments:
Name of person
Address
e-mail address
Igor Belyaev, Igor Y. Belyaev, Ph.D., D.Sc.
Associate Professor
Stockholm University, S-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden
[email protected]
Name of Institution Department of Genetics, Microbiology and Toxicology
Stockholm University, S-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden
Address
[email protected]
e-mail address
Do you write as an individual or on behalf of an organization?

 individual
organization
If you write on behalf of an organization, please specify the following
Type
Academic
institute
Business
Public authority
Trade union
NGO
Other
If other, please specify: ________________________________
1
Please include your comments on the opinion in the following field:
Although the SCENIHR report states that ”Since the adoption of the 2001 opinion extensive
research has been conducted regarding possible health effects of exposure to low intensity RF
fields, including epidemiologic, in vivo, and in vitro research”, there remains many in vitro and in
vivo studies have not been covered. It is of particular interest that those studies that have been
overlooked either show or may be interpreted as indicating and supporting the adverse health
effects. Numerous examples include the studies by our group [1-4]. Due to the omission of those
studies, the conclusions of the SCENIHR report emphasizes the lack of consistent data indicating
the adverse effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields. Such emphasis results in a one-side
interpretation of the experimental data if one is trying to establish a weight of evidence approach by
enumerating the number of papers that show or do not show effects of RF/ELF. Once this bias is
removed, it becomes evident that the SCENIHR report should clearly state that the precautionary
approach should be applied for the effects of electromagnetic fields because of lack of full scientific
certainty.
There as a number of deficiencies in the SCENIHR report. The report does not cover the published
biophysical mechanisms for the effects of ELF and RF/microwaves. Examples include the
mechanisms by Frölich, Liboff, Blanchard and Blackman, Chiabrera, Binhi. These mechanisms
explain many experimental data such as dependence of ELF/RF effects on frequency and
modulation. The SCENIHR report did not pay attention to these dependences nor the influence of a
number of physical and biological parameters that have been recently reviewed [5-7]. Scientific
data beginning from early pioneering studies by Devyatkov, Vilenskaja, Smoljanskaja in USSR and
Adey, Bawin, Blackman in USA and recent publications from many countries provided evidence
that microwave radiation induce biological effects at levels of exposure below those allowed by
ICNIRP standards (so-called non-thermal or non-heating effects). The non-thermal effects of
microwaves depend on a number of physical and biological variables (Appendix 1). By not taking
these variables into account, scientists risk overlooking evidence of damage and risk adopting the
misleading conclusion that there are no reproducible effects. The results of this bias is clearly seen
in the conclusions of the SCENIHR report, which claims a lack of evidence for hypersensitivity to
electromagnetic fields, and in the contrast made between epidemiologic and in vivo data regarding
relationship of ELF exposure and leukemia in children (the available data are not comparable
because of different variables). One of the reasons that past research fails to address these variables
is that experimental tests are not always conducted using EMF real signals—in other words,
signals encountered in every day life. In many past studies, exposures have been artificially
generated in the laboratory and differ from real exposures in terms of carrier frequency, modulation,
polarization, duration and/or intermittence.
Most independent scientists now consider non-thermal effects either as proven or as possible. One
example is Sweden, where most experts having experience in studying the effects of microwaves:
Prof. B. Persson, Prof. L. Salford, Prof. L. Hardell, Prof. K. Hansson Mild, Ass. Prof. I. Belyaev,
accept that non-thermal effects of microwaves can be detrimental for human health and have
provided evidence for these effects in their studies.
The SCENIHR report states that there are no mechanisms to explain the association of ELF
exposure with increased childhood leukemia in contrast to the lack of such relationship for adults.
Such mechanism has been recently reported [8]. The mechanism is based on the experimental data
showing higher sensitivity of stem cells to adverse effects of microwaves from GSM/UMTS
telephones as compared to other cell types. Since stem cells are more active in children, the
mechanism of ELF acting through stem cells in children may explain the above mentioned
differences and predict that children may be more likely affected by RF/microwave radiation from
multiple sources including wireless and mobile phones, base stations, wireless networks of
different types.
2
It is becoming increasingly clear that the SAR concept adopted by ICNIRP for safety
standards may not be useful as a single parameter for the evaluation of risks from
microwaves of mobile communication on health and well-being. A reappraisal of the role of
other exposure parameters such as frequency, modulation, polarization, duration, and intermittence
of exposure should be taken into account and is an urgent question to solve. Solving this question
would greatly benefit from the knowledge of the biophysical mechanisms of the microwave effects.
The understanding of mechanisms for the non-thermal microwave effects is far from being
comprehensive, in part due to biased reports that minimize if not discount the possibility of nonthermal effects.
One important conclusion stemming from the available in vitro and in vivo studies is that
epidemiological studies should not be given priority for risk assessment before proper design of
these studies will be available as based on mechanistic understanding of the microwave effects.
This conclusion is based on two principle arguments. First, it is almost impossible to select controlunexposed groups because whole population in many countries is exposed to wide range of MW
signals from various sources such as mobile phones and base stations/masts of various kinds,
WLAN, WPAN, DECT wireless phones and second, the duration of exposure (must be at least 10
years for cancer latency period) may be more important for the adverse health effects of
microwaves than Power Density/SAR. It should be stressed, that inappropriate definition of controlunexposed groups is a typical flow in those epidemiological studies that are not based on
mechanistic issues regarding the non-thermal effects of microwaves [9]. Subjective dividing of
telephone users into “exposed” and “unexposed-control” groups make such studies inconclusive or
at the least biases against finding a statistical difference between the compared groups.
It should be noted that one group of epidemiologists with a long-lasting experience in studying
relationship between mobile phone usage and cancer risk have consistently been concerned
regarding importance of the type of MW signal and the exposure duration [10-13]. The group of
Hardell was the first epidemiological group in attempting to study separately the MW signals from
cordless phones, analogue phones and digital phones. As a rule, analogue phones had the highest
association with the cancer risk. Cordless phones were associated with the risk for brain tumors,
acoustic neuroma, and T-cell lymphoma stronger or in the same degree as digital and analogue
phones despite significantly lower SAR values were produced by cordless phones [10, 12-14]. This
important result can be considered as an independent conformation, at the epidemiological level, of
the observations from specially designed in vitro and in vivo studies that show non-thermal effects
of microwaves depend not solely on SAR/PD but also on other parameters. It should be also noted
that epidemiological data are controversial and methodological differences are a subject of debates
between various research groups [14, 15]. However, the approach of the Hardell’s group is more
valid from the mechanistic point of view and this should be taken into account when comparing
with results with other epidemiological groups that are either not aware of or ignore the complex
dependencies of the non-thermal effects of microwaves on variety of physical and biological
parameters [15].
Because microwaves affect not only brain cells, but also affect blood cells [1-3, 16], skin and
fibroblasts [17-20], stem cells [21, 22], reproductive organs and sperm quality [23-25] the using of
hands-free cannot minimize all adverse health effects. Possibilities to minimize the adverse effects
of microwaves using various biophysical and biochemical approaches should be studied.
Identification of those signals and frequency channels/bands for mobile communication, which do
not affect human cells, is needed as a high priority task for the development of safe mobile
communication.
Research to date has shown that neither the safe nor the potentially dangerous combinations of
carrier frequency, modulation, polarization, duration and/or intermittence are easily predictable
using currently available tools. New tools are needed based on the new data/information and
insights to be generated.
3
References:
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
R. Sarimov, L. O. G. Malmgren, E. Markova, B. R. R. Persson, and I. Y. Belyaev, "Nonthermal GSM microwaves affect chromatin conformation in human lymphocytes similar to
heat shock," IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, vol. 32, pp. 1600-1608, 2004.
I. Y. Belyaev, L. Hillert, M. Protopopova, C. Tamm, L. O. Malmgren, B. R. R. Persson, G.
Selivanova, and M. Harms-Ringdahl, "915 MHz microwaves and 50 Hz magnetic field affect
chromatin conformation and 53BP1 foci in human lymphocytes from hypersensitive and
healthy persons," Bioelectromagnetics, vol. 26, pp. 173-184, 2005.
E. Markova, L. Hillert, L. Malmgren, B. R. Persson, and I. Y. Belyaev, "Microwaves from
GSM Mobile Telephones Affect 53BP1 and gamma-H2AX Foci in Human Lymphocytes
from Hypersensitive and Healthy Persons," Environ Health Perspect, vol. 113, pp. 1172-1177,
2005.
I. Y. Belyaev, C. B. Koch, O. Terenius, K. Roxstrom-Lindquist, L. O. Malmgren, H. S. W, L.
G. Salford, and B. R. Persson, "Exposure of rat brain to 915 MHz GSM microwaves induces
changes in gene expression but not double stranded DNA breaks or effects on chromatin
conformation," Bioelectromagnetics, vol. 27, pp. 295-306, 2006.
I. Belyaev, "Non-thermal Biological Effects of Microwaves," Microwave Review, vol. 11, pp.
13-29, http://www.mwr.medianis.net/pdf/Vol11No2-03-IBelyaev.pdf, 2005.
I. Y. Belyaev, "Risk assessment of chronic exposures to non-thermal microwaves from mobile
communication," presented at the VALDOR 2006 Symposium,
http://www.congrex.com/valdor2006/papers/40_Belyaev.pdf, Stockholm, Sweden, 2006.
I. Belyaev, "Nonthermal Biological Effects of Microwaves: Current Knowledge, Further
Perspective, and Urgent Needs," Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, vol. 24, pp. 375 403, 2005.
E. Markova, V. Altanerova, L. Hillert, L. Malmgren, B. Persson, and I. Belyaev, "Adverse
effects of microwaves from GSM/UMTS mobile phones on human primary lymphocytes and
stem cells depend on carrier frequency and type of signal," presented at V Russian Congress
on Radiation Research (Radiobiology, Radioecology, and Radiation Protection), Moscow,
Russia, 2006.
S. Lonn, A. Ahlbom, P. Hall, and M. Feychting, "Long-term mobile phone use and brain
tumor risk," Am J Epidemiol, vol. 161, pp. 526-35, 2005.
L. Hardell, M. Eriksson, M. Carlberg, C. Sundström, and K. Hansson Mild, "Use of cellular or
cordless telephones and the risk for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma," Int Arch Occup Environ
Health, vol. DOI 10.1007/s00420-005-0003-5, 2005.
L. Hardell and K. H. Mild, "Mobile phone use and acoustic neuromas," Epidemiology, vol. 16,
pp. 415; author reply 417-418, 2005.
L. Hardell, K. H. Mild, and M. Carlberg, "Further aspects on cellular and cordless telephones
and brain tumours," Int J Oncol, vol. 22, pp. 399-407, 2003.
L. Hardell, K. H. Mild, A. Pahlson, and A. Hallquist, "Ionizing radiation, cellular telephones
and the risk for brain tumours," Eur J Cancer Prev, vol. 10, pp. 523-529, 2001.
M. Kundi, K. Mild, L. Hardell, and M. O. Mattsson, "Mobile telephones and cancer - a review
of epidemiological evidence," J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev, vol. 7, pp. 351-384, 2004.
A. Ahlbom, A. Green, L. Kheifets, D. Savitz, and A. Swerdlow, "Epidemiology of health
effects of radiofrequency exposure," Environ Health Perspect, vol. 112, pp. 1741-1754, 2004.
G. d'Ambrosio, R. Massa, M. R. Scarfi, and O. Zeni, "Cytogenetic damage in human
lymphocytes following GMSK phase modulated microwave exposure," Bioelectromagnetics,
vol. 23, pp. 7-13, 2002.
F. Ozguner, G. Aydin, H. Mollaoglu, O. Gokalp, A. Koyu, and G. Cesur, "Prevention of
mobile phone induced skin tissue changes by melatonin in rat: an experimental study," Toxicol
Ind Health, vol. 20, pp. 133-139, 2004.
S. Pacini, M. Ruggiero, I. Sardi, S. Aterini, F. Gulisano, and M. Gulisano, "Exposure to global
system for mobile communication (GSM) cellular phone radiofrequency alters gene
expression, proliferation, and morphology of human skin fibroblasts," Oncol Res, vol. 13, pp.
19-24, 2002.
4
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
E. Diem, C. Schwarz, F. Adlkofer, O. Jahn, and H. Rudiger, "Non-thermal DNA breakage by
mobile-phone radiation (1800 MHz) in human fibroblasts and in transformed GFSH-R17 rat
granulosa cells in vitro," Mutat Res, vol. 583, pp. 178-183, 2005.
T. A. Litovitz, D. Krause, M. Penafiel, E. C. Elson, and J. M. Mullins, "The role of coherence
time in the effect of microwaves on ornithine decarboxylase activity," Bioelectromagnetics,
vol. 14, pp. 395-403, 1993.
J. Czyz, K. Guan, Q. Zeng, T. Nikolova, A. Meister, F. Schonborn, J. Schuderer, N. Kuster,
and A. M. Wobus, "High frequency electromagnetic fields (GSM signals) affect gene
expression levels in tumor suppressor p53-deficient embryonic stem cells,"
Bioelectromagnetics, vol. 25, pp. 296-307, 2004.
T. Nikolova, J. Czyz, A. Rolletschek, P. Blyszczuk, J. Fuchs, G. Jovtchev, J. Schuderer, N.
Kuster, and A. M. Wobus, "Electromagnetic fields affect transcript levels of apoptosis-related
genes in embryonic stem cell-derived neural progenitor cells," Faseb J, 2005.
M. Ozguner, A. Koyu, G. Cesur, M. Ural, F. Ozguner, A. Gokcimen, and N. Delibas,
"Biological and morphological effects on the reproductive organ of rats after exposure to
electromagnetic field," Saudi Med J, vol. 26, pp. 405-410, 2005.
D. J. Panagopoulos, A. Karabarbounis, and L. H. Margaritis, "Effect of GSM 900-MHz
Mobile Phone Radiation on the Reproductive Capacity of Drosophila melanogaster,"
Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, vol. 23, pp. 29 - 43, 2004.
I. Fejes, Z. Za Vaczki, J. Szollosi, R. S. Kolosza, J. Daru, L. Kova Cs, and L. A. Pa, "Is there a
relationship between cell phone use and semen quality?," Arch Androl, vol. 51, pp. 385-93,
2005.
Appendix 1
A range of variables that affect the way in which microwaves impact on the body includes:
1. Windows of frequency
Some effects have been found in specific windows (ranges) of frequencies but not others.
2. Windows of power
Similarly, effects have been found at particular power densities and not others. Some of the power
densities at which effects have occurred compare to those found near base stations and other
environmental sources of microwaves.
3. Duration of exposure
Whether or not effects are detected depends not only on the length of exposure, but on the length of
time after exposure that cells are examined.
Increasing the amount of time spent in a field appears to counteract the benefits obtained by
lowering the amount of exposure an organism receives.
4. Types of exposure
Microwave signals can be either continuous of intermittent (for example five minutes on and five
minutes off). A number of studies have shown that intermittent exposure has a greater effect than
exposure to a continuous signal.
5. Polarization
Microwave radiation can be oriented (polarised) in different directions—in plane or in a circle.
Different orientations produce different effects.
6. Modulation
Modulation occurs where one signal piggy-backs on another. How a signal is modulated will affect
how it impacts on an organism.
7. Electromagnetic environment
Background electromagnetic environment may influence the way in which an organism responds to
microwaves.
8. Cell-to-cell communication
5
The way that cells communicate with each other also affects their response to microwaves. This is
affected, for example, by the density of cells in a culture being studied.
9. Genetic factors, gender-related and individual differences
Plants and animals of different genetic strains respond differently to identical exposures from
microwaves. For example, transgenic mice exposed to mobile phone radiation showed an increased
rate of lymphomas, whereas wild mice did not. Even sex may be a factor in how a person responds to
microwave radiation. EEG readings have shown that exposure to microwaves decreased the EEG
energy of males and increased that of females.
10. Physiological variables
The physiological state of the organisms will also affect its response to microwaves. Cells, for
example, will respond differently to microwaves according to their current phase of growth.
The presence of oxygen in the cell will influence the effect of microwaves. And the presence of
antioxidants such as melatonin and Ginkgo biloba has been shown to prevent the damaging effects of
microwaves in some studies.
6