Impacts of radio-frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) from cell ...

Review Article Biology and Medicine, 4 (4): 202–216, 2012FCC, 1999). The electromagnetic radiations areof two types, one being ionizing radiations suchas X-rays and gamma rays, and the other beingnon-ionizing radiations such as electric andmagnetic fields, radio waves, radio- frequencyband which includes microwaves, infrared,ultraviolet, and visible radiation (Figure 1).The biological effects of RF-EMF at molecularlevel induce thermal and non-thermal damage,which may be due to dielectric heating leadingto protein denaturation, polar molecular agitation,cellular response through molecular cascadesand heat shock proteins, and changesin enzyme kinetics in cells (Instituto Edumed,2010). The three major physical parameters ofRF-EMF radiations is frequency, intensity, andexposure duration. Although the non-ionizingradiations are considered less dangerous thanionizing radiation, over-exposure can causehealth hazards (FCC, 1999).Electromagnetic Spectrum and RF-EMF RadiationThe RF-EMF radiations fall in the range of10 MHz–300 GHz. Cell phone technology usesfrequencies mainly between 800 MHz and 3 GHzand cell tower antenna uses a frequency of 900or 1800 MHz, pulsed at low frequencies, generallyknown as microwaves (300 MHz–300 GHz).Power Density and Specific Absorption Rate(SAR)Variables used in the measurement of theseradiations are power density, measured in wattsper meter squared (W/m 2 ) and specific absorptionRate (SAR). The term used to describe theabsorption of RF-EMF radiation in the body isSAR, which is the rate of energy that is actuallyabsorbed by a unit of tissue, expressed inwatts per kilogram (W/kg) of tissue. The SARmeasurements are averaged either over thewhole body or over a small volume of tissue,typically between 1 and 10 g of tissue. SARwas set with the help of a phantom, known asspecific anthropomorphic mannequin (SAM)derived from the size and dimensions of the90th percentile large adult male reported in a1988 US Army study who is 6 feet 2 inchesand weighed 200 pounds (Davis, 2010). SARis set at 1.6 W/kg averaged over 1 g of bodytissue in the US and Canada and 2 W/kgaveraged over 10 g of body tissue in countriesadopting the ICNIRP guidelines. The SAR isused to quantify energy absorption to fields typicallybetween 100 kHz and 10 GHz and encompassesradio-frequency radiation from devicessuch as cellular phones up through diagnosticmagnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The biologicaleffects depend on how much of the energyNon-ionizingIonizingRadio-frequenciesVisiblelightPower linesRadio andMicrowaves Infrared UltraviolettelevisionCellular radioX-raysGamma raysFrequency (Hz)10 10 210 3 10 4 10 5 10 6 10 7 10 8 10 9 10 10 10 11 10 12 10 13 10 14 10 15 10 16 10 17 10 18 10 19 10 20 10 21 10 22 10 23 10 24 10 25 10 26Energy (eV)10 −13 10 −12 10 −11 10 −10 10 −9 10 −8 10 −7 10 −6 10 −5 10 −4 10 −3 10 −2 0.1 1 10 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 10 6 10 7 10 8 10 9 10 10 10 11Figure 1: Electromagnetic spectrum from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), OETBulletin 56, 1999.BMID: BM-8 203

Review Article Biology and Medicine, 4 (4): 202–216, 2012and proteomics as high-throughput screeningtechniques (HTSTs), were eventually employed inEMF research with an intention to screen potentialEMF responsive genes and/or proteins withoutany bias (Nylund and Leszczynski, 2004).The safety standards set by ICNIRP, adopted byIndia, has only taken into account the short-termeffects and not against the biological effects fromlong-term, non-thermal, low-level microwaveexposure from mobile phones, cell phone towers,and many other wireless devices.Current ResearchVarious studies have shown that even at lowlevels of this radiation, there is evidence of damageto cell tissue and DNA, and it has been linkedto brain tumors, cancer, suppressed immunefunction, neuroendocrine disruption, chronicfatigue syndrome, and depression (Rogers, 2002;Milham, 2010). Oncogenesis studies at molecularand cellular levels due to RF-EMF radiationsare considered particularly important (Marinoand Carrubba, 2009). Orientation, navigation,and homing are critical traits expressed byorganisms ranging from bacteria through highervertebrates. Across many species and groups oforganisms, compelling evidence exists that thephysical basis of this response is tiny crystalsof single-domain magnetite (Fe 3O 4) (Kirschvinket al., 2001). All magnetic field sensitivity in livingorganisms, including elasmobranch fishes,is the result of a highly evolved, finely-tunedsensory system based on single-domain, ferromagneticcrystals. Animals that depend on thenatural electrical, magnetic, and electromagneticfields for their orientation and navigation throughearth’s atmosphere are confused by the muchstronger and constantly changing artificial fieldscreated by technology and fail to navigate backto their home environments (Warnke, 2007).Studies on PlantsTops of trees tend to dry up when they directlyface the cell tower antennas and they seem tobe most vulnerable if they have their roots closeto the water (Belyavskaya, 2004). They also havea gloomy and unhealthy appearance, possiblegrowth delays, and a higher tendency to contractplagues and illnesses. According to Levitt(2010), trees, algae, and other vegetation mayalso be affected by RF-EMF. Some studies havefound both growth stimulation and dieback.The browning of tree tops is often observednear cell towers, especially when water is neartheir root base. The tree tops are known as RFwaveguides. In fact, military applications utilizethis capability in trees for low-flying weapon systems.In an observational study, it was found thatthe output of most fruit-bearing trees reduceddrastically from 100% to ,5% after 2.5 years ofcell tower installation in a farm facing four celltowers in Gurgaon–Delhi Toll Naka (Kumar andKumar, 2009).Studies on InsectsMonarch butterflies and locusts migrate greatdistances using their antennae to sense air currentsand earths electromagnetic fields. Mothsare drawn to light frequencies. Ants, with the helpof their antennas are adept at electrical transmissionand found to respond to frequencies as lowas 9 MHz. Flying ants are very sensitive to electromagneticfields (Warnke, 2007).Bees have clusters of magnetite in theabdominal areas. colony collapse disorder (CCD)was observed in beehives exposed to 900 MHzfor 10 minutes, with sudden disappearance ofa hive’s inhabitants, leaving only queen, eggs,and a few immature workers behind. With navigationalskills affected, worker bees stoppedcoming to the hives after 10 days and egg productionin queen bees dropped drastically to100 eggs/day compared to 350 eggs (Sharma andKumar, 2010). Radiation affects the pollinators,honeybees, whose numbers have recently beendeclining due to CCD by 60% at US West Coastapiaries and 70% along the East Coast (Caneand Tepedino, 2001). CCD is being documentedin Greece, Italy, Germany, Portugal, Spain, andSwitzerland. Studies performed in Europe documentednavigational disorientation, lower honeyproduction, and decreased bee survivorship(Kimmel et al., 2007). EMFs from telecommunicationinfrastructure interfere with bees’ biologicalclocks that enable them to compensate properlyfor the sun’s movements, as a result of which,may fly in the wrong direction when attemptingto return to the hive (Rubin et al., 2006). Bee coloniesirradiated with digital enhanced cordlesscommunications (DECT) phones and mobilehandsets had a dramatic impact on the behaviorof the bees, namely by inducing the workerBMID: BM-8 206

Review Article Biology and Medicine, 4 (4): 202–216, 2012piping signal. In natural conditions, worker pipingeither announces the swarming process ofthe bee colony or is a signal of a disturbed beecolony (Favre, 2011).A study by the University of Athens onfruit flies exposed to 6 minutes of 900 MHz pulsedradiation for 5 days showed reduction in reproductivecapacity (Panagopoulos et al., 2004).Likewise in 2007, in both 900 and 1800 MHz,similar changes in reproductive capacity with nosignificant difference between the two frequencieswere observed (Panagopoulos et al., 2007).In a third study, it was found it was due degenerationof large numbers of egg chambers afterDNA fragmentation (Panagopoulos et al., 2010).When Drosophila melanogaster adult insectswere exposed to the radiation of a GSM 900/1800mobile phone antenna at different distances rangingfrom 0 to 100 cm, these radiations decreasedthe reproductive capacity by cell death inductionat all distances tested (Levengood, 1969).Studies on Amphibians and ReptilesSalamanders and turtles have navigational abilitiesbased on magnetic sensing as well as smell.Many species of frogs have disappeared allover the world in the last 3–5 years. Amphibianscan be especially sensitive because their skinis always moist, and they live close to, or inwater, which conducts electricity easily (Hotaryand Robinson, 1994). Toads when exposed to1425 MHz at a power density of 0.6 mW/cm 2developed arrhythmia (Levitina, 1966). Increasedmortality and induced deformities were notedin frog tadpoles (Rana temporaria) (Levengood,1969). It was observed that experimental tadpolesdeveloped more slowly, less synchronouslythan control tadpoles, remain at the earlystages for a longer time, developed allergies andthat EMF causes changes in the blood counts(Grefner et al., 1998). In a two-month study inSpain in common frog tadpoles on the effectsof mobile phone mast located at a distance of140 m noted low coordination of movements,an asynchronous growth, resulting in both bigand small tadpoles, and a high mortality (90%)in exposed group. For the unexposed group inFaraday cage, the coordination of movementswas normal, the development was synchronous,and a mortality of 4.2% was obtained (Balmori,2009). In the eggs and embryos of Rana sylvaticaand Ambystoma maculatum abnormalities atseveral developmental stages were noted suchas microcephalia, scoliosis, edema, and retardedgrowth. Tadpoles developed severe leg malformationsand extra legs, as well as a pronouncedalteration of histogenesis which took the form ofsubepidermal blistering and edema. Effects werenoted in reproduction, circulatory, and centralnervous system, general health and well being(Balmori, 2010; Balmori, 2005).Studies on BirdsA study by the Centre for Environment andVocational Studies of Punjab University noted thatembryos of 50 eggs of house sparrows were damagedafter being exposed to mobile tower radiationfor 5–30 minutes (MOEF, 2010). Observedchanges included reproductive and coordinationproblems and aggressiveness. Tower-emittedmicrowave radiation affected bird breeding, nesting,and roosting in Valladolid, Spain (US Fish &Wildlife Service, 2009). House sparrows, whitestorks, rock doves, magpies, collared dovesexhibited nest and site abandonment, plumagedeterioration (lack of shine, beardless rachis, etc.),locomotion problems, and even death amongsome birds. No symptoms were observed prior toconstruction of the cell phone towers. Accordingto Balmori, plumage deterioration and damagedfeather are the first signs of weakening, illnesses,or stress in birds. The disappearance of insects,leading to lack of food, could have an influenceon bird’s weakening, especially at the first stagesin young bird’s life. In chick embryos exposed toELF pulsed EMR, a potent teratogenic effect wasobserved, leading to microphthalmia, abnormaltrunkal torsion, and malformations on the neuraltube (Lahijani and Ghafoori, 2000).White storks were heavily impacted bythe tower radiation during the 2002–2004 nestingseason in Spain. Evidence of a connectionbetween sparrow decline in UK and theintroduction of phone mast GSM was established(Balmori, 2009). In a study in Spain, theeffects of mobile phone mast has been notedin house sparrow (Passer domesticus), whitestork (Ciconia ciconia), reporting problems withreproduction, circulatory, and central nervoussystem, general health and well-being (microwavesyndrome) (Balmori, 2009). Deformitiesand deaths were noted in the domestic chickenembryos subjected to low-level, non-thermalradiation from the standard 915 MHz cell phoneBMID: BM-8 207

Review Article Biology and Medicine, 4 (4): 202–216, 2012The most affected of the species arebees, birds, and bats and without these pollinatorsvisiting flowers, 33% of fruits and vegetableswould not exist, and as the number ofpollinators decline, the agricultural crops will fallshort and the price of groceries will go up (Kevanand Phillips, 2001).Studies on HumansThe exposure to continuous RF-EMF radiationposes a greater risk to children, particularly dueto their thinner skulls and rapid rate of growth.Also at risk are the elderly, the frail, and pregnantwomen (Cherry, 2001). DNA damage viafree radical formation inside cells has also beenrecorded (Lai and Singh, 1996). Free radicalskill cells by damaging macromolecules such asDNA, protein, and membrane are carcinogenic.In fact, EMR enhances free radical activity.Single- and double-strand DNA breaks are seenin rat brain cells after acute exposure to radiofrequencyelectromagnetic radiation. Kane (2001)denotes that RF-EMF radiations lead to tissuedamage, DNA damage, or chromosome mutations.In 2008, the Austrian Department of Healthfound a higher risk of cancer among people livingwithin 200 m of a mobile phone base station andthat cancer risk rose with increasing exposure,reaching 8.5 times the norm for people mostexposed. From a study on in vitro cell responseto mobile phone radiation (900 MHz GSM signal)using two variants of human endothelial cellline, it was suggested that the cell response tomobile phone radiation might be genome- andproteome-dependent. Therefore, it is likely thatdifferent types of cells and from different speciesmight respond differently to mobile phoneradiation or might have different sensitivity to thisweak stimulus (Nylund and Leszczynski, 2006).The results of the interphone, an internationalcase–control study to assess the braintumor risk in relation to mobile telephone use,reveals no overall increase in risk of glioma ormeningioma but there were suggestions of anincreased risk of glioma at the highest exposurelevels (30 minutes per day of cell phone use for8–10 years) and ipsilateral exposures (ICNIRP,2011). Children and young adults were excludedfrom the study and a separate study called Mobi-Kids is underway. According to Santini et al.(2002), comparisons of complaints in relationwith distance from base station show significantincrease as compared to people living greaterthan 300 m or not exposed to base station, till300 m for tiredness, 200 m for headache, sleepdisturbance, and discomfort, and 100 m for irritability,depression, loss of memory, dizziness, andlibido decrease. Women significantly more oftenthan men complained of headache, nausea, lossof appetite, sleep disturbance, depression, discomfort,and visual perturbations (Santini et al.,2002). According to Oberfeld et al. (2004) in Spain,a follow-up study found that the most exposedpeople had a higher incidence of fatigue, irritability,headaches, nausea, loss of appetite, sleepingdisorders, depression, discomfort, difficultiesconcentrating, memory loss, visual disorders,dizziness, and cardiovascular problems. Womenare more at risk as they tend to spend more timeat home and are exposed to radiation continuously.The authors recommended a maximumexposure of 0.0001 µW/cm 2 or 0.000001 W/m 2 .There was prevalence of neuropsychiatric complaintsamong people living near base stations(Abdel-Rassoul et al., 2007). Urban electromagneticcontamination (electrosmog) 900 and1800 MHz pulsated waves interfere in the nervoussystem of living beings (Hyland, 2000). Growingamounts of published research show adverseeffects on both humans and wildlife far below athermal threshold, usually referred to as “non-thermaleffects”, especially under conditions of longterm,low-level exposure (Levitt and Lai, 2010).Australian research conducted by DeIuliis et al. (2009) by subjecting in vitro samplesof human spermatozoa to radio-frequencyradiation at 1.8 GHz and SAR of 0.4–27.5 W/kgshowed a correlation between increasing SAR anddecreased motility and vitality in sperm, increasedoxidative stress and 8-Oxo-2-deoxyguanosinemarkers, stimulating DNA base adduct formationand increased DNA fragmentation. GSM mobilephone exposure can activate cellular stressresponse in both humans and animal cells andcause the cells to produce heat shock proteins(HSP27 and HSP70) (Leszczynski, 2002). HSPsinhibit natural programmed cell death (apoptosis),whereby cells that should have committed suicidecontinue to live. Recent studies have shown thatthese HSPs inhibit apoptosis in cancer cells. Inseveral cases, melatonin hormone which controlsthe daily biological cycle and has an oncostaticaction, produced by the epiphysis (pineal gland)in mammals, mainly during the night, is found toreduce the action of EMR exposure, but the synthesisof melatonin itself seems to be reducedBMID: BM-8 209

Review Article Biology and Medicine, 4 (4): 202–216, 2012by EMR (Panagopoulos et al., 2008). In a studyto observe the effects of melatonin in hormonebalance in a diabetic, it was found that melatonincaused reduction in serum insulin, serum cortisol,serum ACTH, and serum TSH levels while increasein serum gastrin level. Of the biochemical parameters,melatonin caused reductions in TLC, LDLC,and FBS while increase in HDLC. It also causedreduction in neutrophil and increase in lymphocytecount in a diabetic with increase in faecal fat excretion(Mitra and Bhattacharya, 2008).RF-EMR produces DNA damage viafree radical formation inside cells. Free radicalskill cells by damaging macromolecules such asDNA, protein, and membrane, also shown to becarcinogenic. EMR enhances free radical activity.EMR interferes with navigational equipments, lifelineelectronic gadgets in hospitals, and affectspatients with pacemakers. A short-term exposure(15 and 30 minutes) to RFR (900 MHz) froma mobile phone caused a significant increasein DNA single strand breaks in human hair rootcells located around the ear which is used for thephone calls (Çam and Seyhan, 2012). Various invitro studies have shown that 1800 MHz RF-EMFradiation could cause oxidative damage tomtDNA in primary cultured neurons. Oxidativedamage to mtDNA may account for the neurotoxicityof RF radiation in the brain (Xu et al., 2010).Studies carried out on the RF levelsin North India, particularly at the mobile towersites at Delhi have shown that people in Indiancities are exposed to dangerously high levelsof EMF pollution (Tanwar, 2006). An independentstudy was commissioned by the CellularOperators Association of India (COAI) andAssociation of Unified Telecom Service Providersof India (AUSPI) as a proactive measure stemmingfrom the concern for the public healthand safety issues on electromagnetic radiationmeasurement at New Delhi showed compliancewith ICNIRP standards. 180 areas were studiedacross the capital to understand the extentof RF-EMF radiations emitting from the mobiletowers, revealed that the readings were 100times below international safety guidelines. Thestudy measured cumulative emissions within the800–2000 MHz band of frequency (which includesboth GSM and CDMA technologies) across in thenation’s capital using carefully calibrated equipment,as per the DoT prescribed procedure in linewith the ICNIRP specifications. In a similar, butindependent case study in Mumbai, it was foundthat people living within 50–300 m radius are inthe high radiation zone and are more prone to illeffectsof electromagnetic radiation. Four casesof cancer were found in three consecutive floors(6th, 7th, 8th) directly facing and at similar heightas four mobile phone towers placed at the roof ofthe opposite building (Kumar, 2010). According tothe Seletun Scientific Statement (2011), low-intensity(non-thermal) bioeffects and adverse healtheffects are demonstrated at levels significantlybelow existing exposure standards. ICNIRP/WHOand IEEE/FCC public safety limits are inadequateand obsolete with respect to prolonged, low-intensityexposures (New International EMF Alliance,2011). New, biologically-based public exposurestandards are urgently needed to protect publichealth world-wide. EMR exposures should bereduced now rather than waiting for proof of harmbefore acting (Fragopoulou et al., 2010).Electrohypersensitivity (EHS) andElectromagnetic Field Intolerance (EFI)SyndromeElectrosensitivity of people is now recognizedas a physical impairment by government healthauthorities in the United Kingdom and Sweden.The UK Health Protection Agency (HPA) recognizedthat people can suffer nausea, headaches,and muscle pains when exposed to electromagneticfields from mobile phones, electricity pylons,and computer screens. A case study in Sweden,one of the first countries were mobile technologywas introduced approximately 15 years ago,shows that 250,000 Swedes are allergic to mobilephone radiation. Sweden has now recognizedEHS as a physical degradation and EHS sufferersare entitled to have metal shielding installed intheir homes free of charge from the local government(Kumar, 2010; Johansson, 2010).Belpomme (2011) in his presentation atthe 8th National Congress on Electrosmog inBerne in 2011 elaborates on the dangers of wirelesstechnology and the diagnostics and treatmentof the electromagnetic field intolerance (EFI)Syndrome. In his study from 2008 to 2011, thepatients with EHS were investigated with a pulseequilibrium brain scan, dosage of histamine in theblood, dosage of the heat shock proteins HSP70and HSP27, and appearance and disappearanceof symptoms on exposure to an electromagneticfield source. Diagnosis of fatigue and depressionwere noted. The physiological changessuch as vitamin D deficiency, decrease in heatBMID: BM-8 210

Review Article Biology and Medicine, 4 (4): 202–216, 2012shock proteins, increase in histamines, increasein biomarker of the opening of blood-brain barrier,protein S100P, decrease in urinary melatonin,and increase in blood anti-myelin proteins werenoted in the electrosensitives. Around 50% of thepatients in the study had used a mobile phone formore than one hour per day during several yearsand his findings were similar to the figures publishedby Hardell’s study (2007) dealing with thecancer occurrences and electromagnetic fields.Future Challenges and SolutionsResearch into the advantages of radio-frequencyenergies seen in tissue heating in benign prostatichyperplasia (BPH), electrical therapy for cardiacarrhythmia, radio-frequency ablation, use of 41.5–44.58C temperature to kill tumors, shortwave andmicrowave diathermy for musculoskeletal injuries,and microwave oven used in food preparation areall carried out under controlled conditions. Buteffects, if any, from RF-EMF radiations releasedinto the environment over a long period of time indensely populated areas where people are continuouslyexposed to them will show in years tocome. According to Osepchuk (1983), frequenciesused in industrial, scientific, and medical heatingprocesses are 27.12, 40.68, 433, 915, 2450, and5800 MHz. Out of which, for diathermy, frequenciesused are 27.12, 915, and 2450 MHz in US and433 MHz is authorized in Europe. According toKasevich (2000), “the physics of electromagneticwaves and their interactions with material and biologicalsystems is based on the concept that theelectromagnetic wave is a force field which exerts amechanical torque, pressure or force on electricallychanged molecules. All living things contain thesedielectric properties. The thermal effects producedby absorption of electromagnetic energy are thedirect result of water molecules acted upon bythe oscillating electric field, rubbing against eachother to produce electric heat (thermal effects)”.Research work on electromagnetic bioeffects inhumans and animals in the non-thermal range iscontinuing where effects are noted even at intensitieslower than 1 mW/m 2 (0.001 W/m 2 or 1000 µW/m 2 , 0.0001 mW/cm 2 or 0.1 µW/cm 2 ).According to Levitt (2007), adverse outcomesof pregnancy can be mutagenic, teratogenic,oncogenic or carcinogenic, and ionizingradiations can cause all three. In animal studies,non-ionizing radiation was also found to be teratogenicand oncogenic, and likely mutagenic, butit is unclear if these observations were due toheating affect, non-thermal affects or both. Trees,plants, soil, grass, and shrubs have the abilityto absorb electromagnetic wave energy over avery broad range of wavelengths. According tothe resonance concept, human beings can act asreceiving antennas for some frequencies, wherethe absorbed energy is maximized in some areasof the body, like the brain (Levitt, 2007).In the Bioinitiative Report, a documentprepared by 14 international experts in a ninemonthproject, in which over 2000 scientific studieswere reviewed, Sage (2007) came to a conclusionthat there may be no lower limit that may be safe,and there was a need for biologically-based limits(1 mW/m 2 or 0.001 W/m 2 ) and children are atmost risk. Safety limits suggested are 0.001 W/m 2for outdoor cumulative radio-frequency exposureand 0.0001 W/m 2 for indoor, cumulative radiofrequencyexposure. According to Blank (2012),there is a need for a realistic biological standard toreplace the thermal (SAR) standard. The precautionaryapproaches includes prudence avoidancefor public and ALARA, which stands for “as lowas reasonably attainable” for regulatory agencies.According to Havas (2006), several disorders,including asthma, ADD/ADHD, diabetes,multiple sclerosis, chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia,are increasing at an alarming rate, as is electromagneticpollution in the form of dirty electricity,ground current, and radio-frequency radiationfrom wireless devices and the connection betweenelectromagnetic pollution and these disordersneeds to be investigated and the percentage ofpeople sensitive to this form of energy needs tobe determined. According to Milham (2010), 20thcentury epidemic of the so-called diseases of civilization,including cardiovascular disease, cancer,diabetes, and also suicides, was caused by electrificationand the unique biological responseswe have to it and that our evolutionary balance,developed over the millennia has been severelydisturbed and disrupted by man-made EMFs.ConclusionThe Department of Telecommunication (DoT)in India has set new norms for cell phone towerswith effect from September 1, 2012 (TheHindu, 2012). Exposure standards for RF-EMFradiation has been reduced to one-tenth of theexisting level and SAR from 2 to 1.6 W/kg. Thiscame after the ministry of environment and forestBMID: BM-8 211

Review Article Biology and Medicine, 4 (4): 202–216, 2012HumanOther animalsPlantsWildlifeBeesBirds0%10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Impact No impact InconclusiveFigure 2: Percentage of studies that reported harmful effect of EMR in various groups of organisms(n 5 919), MOEF Report (2010).(MOEF) set up an Inter-ministerial Committee(IMC) to study the effects of RF-EMF radiationson wildlife (Figure 2) and concluded that outof the 919 research papers collected on birds,bees, plants, other animals, and humans, 593showed impacts, 180 showed no impacts, and196 were inconclusive studies. They concludethat there are no long-term data available on theenvironmental impacts of RF-EMF radiations inIndia. The population of India is increasing aswell as the cell phone subscribers and the celltowers as supporting infrastructure. Hence, thereis an urgent need to fill the gaps and do furtherresearch in this field with emphasis on the effectsof early life and prenatal RF-EMF radiation exposurein animals, dosimetry studies, cellular studiesusing more sensitive methods, and humanepidemiological studies, especially on childrenand young adults on behavioral and neurologicaldisorders and cancer. Meanwhile, one can takethe precautionary principle approach and reduceRF-EMF radiation effects of cell phone towers byrelocating towers away from densely populatedareas, increasing height of towers or changingthe direction of the antenna.ReferencesAbdel-Rassoul G, El-Fateh OA, Salem MA, Michael A,Farahat F, EI-Batanouny M, et al., 2007. Neurobehavioraleffects among inhabitants around mobile phone basestations. Neurotoxicology, 28(2): 434–440.ARPANSA, 2011. Introduction to radiation basics.http://www.arpansa.gov.au/RadiationProtection/basics/index.cfmBalmori A, 2003. The effects of microwave radiationon the wildlife. Preliminary results, Valladolid (Spain).http://www.whale.to/b/martinez.pdfBalmori A, 2005. Possible effects of electromagneticfields from phone masts on a population of whitestork (Ciconia ciconia). Electromagnetic Biology andMedicine, 24: 109–119.Balmori A, 2009. Electromagnetic pollution from phonemasts. Effects on wildlife. Pathophysiology, 16(2):191–199. DOI: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2009.01.007Balmori A, 2010. Mobile phone masts effects oncommon frog (Rana temporaria) tadpoles: the cityturned into a laboratory. Electromagnetic Biology andMedicine, 29: 31–35.Barnes FS, Greenebaum B, 2007. Handbook of biologicaleffects of electromagnetic fields: bioengineering andbiophysical aspects of electromagnetic fields. 3rdEdition, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Taylor and FrancisPress, 440.Beason RC, Semm P, 2002. Responses of neuronsto an amplitude modulated microwave stimulus.Neuroscience Letters, 333: 175–178.Belpomme D, 2011. Presentation of Prof. DominiqueBelpomme at 8th National Congress on Electrosmog,Berne. http://citizensforsafetechnology.org/uploads/scribd/Presentation%20of%20Prof.pdfBMID: BM-8 212

Review Article Biology and Medicine, 4 (4): 202–216, 2012Belyaev IY, Koch CB, Terenius O, Roxström-Lindquist K,Malmgren LO, Sommer W, et al., 2006. Exposureof rat brain to 915 MHz GSM microwaves induceschanges in gene expression but not double strandedDNA breaks or effects on chromatin conformation.Bioelectromagnetics, 27(4): 295–306.Belyavskaya NA, 2004. Biological effects due toweak magnetic field on plants. Advances in SpaceResearch, 34(7): 1566–1574.Birenbaum L, Grosof GM, Rosenthal SW, ZaretMM, 1969. Effect of microwaves on the eye. IEEETransactions on Biomedical Engineering, 16(1): 7–14.Blank M, 2012. Cell Towers and Cancer – BioinitiativeReport. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v5a6wLFeIrCtU&feature5related; www.weepinitiative.orgBusiness Standard, 2010. Cellular tower studydebunks radiation myth by COAI, AUSPI. December21, 2010. http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/cellular-tower-study-debunks-radiation-mythby-coai-auspi/419036Çam ST, Seyhan N, 2012. Single -strand DNA breaksin human hair root cells exposed to mobile phoneradiation. International Journal of Radiation Biology,88(5): 420–424.Cane JH, Tepedino VJ, 2001. Causes and extent ofdeclines among native North American invertebratepollinators: detection, evidence, and consequences.Conservation Ecology, 5(1): 1.Cherry N, 2001. Evidence that electromagneticradiation is genotoxic: the implications for theepidemiology of cancer and cardiac, neurological,and reproductive effects. http://www.neilcherry.com/documents/90_m2_EMR_Evidence_That_EMR-EMF_is_genotoxic.pdfDavis D, 2010. Disconnect. USA: Dutton PenguinGroup, 69–95.De Iuliis GN, Newey RJ, King BV, Aitken RJ, 2009.Mobile phone radiation induces reactive oxygenspecies production and DNA damage in humanspermatozoa in vitro. PLoS ONE, 4(7): e6446.DoT, 2010. Report of the Inter-Ministerial Committee(IMC) on EMF radiation. Ministry of Communicationand Information Technology, Government of India.http://www.dot.gov.in/miscellaneous/IMC%20Report/IMC%20Report.pdfDoyon PR, 2008. Are the microwaves killing theinsects, frogs, and birds? And are we next? http://www.thenhf.com/article.php?id5480Favre D, 2011. Mobile phone-induced honeybee workerpiping. Apidologie, 42(3): 270–279. DOI: 10.1007/s13592-011-0016-xFCC, 1999. Questions and answers aboutbiological effects and potential hazards of radiofrequencyelectromagnetic fields. OET Bulletin 56,4th Edition. http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/oetbulletins-lineFragopoulou A, Grigoriev Y, Johansson O, Margaritis LH,Morgan L, Richter E, et al., 2010. Scientific panelon electromagnetic field health risks: consensuspoints, recommendations, and rationales. Reviews onEnvironmental Health, 25(4): 307–317.Grefner NM, Yakovleva TL, Boreysha IK, 1998. Effectsof electromagnetic radiation on tadpole developmentin the common frog (Rana temporaria L.). RussianJournal of Ecology, 29(2): 133–134.Hardell L, Carlberg M, Söderqvist F, Mild KH, MorganLL, 2007. Long-term use of cellular phones andbrain tumours: increased risk associated with usefor . or 5 10 years. Occupational and EnvironmentalMedicine, 64(9): 626–632.Hässig M, Jud F, Naegeli H, Kupper J, Spiess BM,2009. Prevalence of nuclear cataract in Swiss vealcalves and its possible association with mobiletelephone antenna base stations. Schweizer Archiv furTierheilkde, 151(10): 471–478.Havas M, 2006. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity:biological effects of dirty electricity with emphasison diabetes and multiple sclerosis. ElectromagneticBiology and Medicine, 25: 259–268.Hotary KB, Robinson KR, 1994. Endogenouselectrical currents and voltage gradients in Xenopusembryos and the consequences of their disruption.Developmental Biology, 166: 789–800.Hyland GJ, 2000, Physics and biology of mobiletelephony. The Lancet, 356: 1833–1836.ICNIRP SCI Review, 2011. Mobile phones, braintumors, and the interphone study: Where are wenow? Environmental Health Perspectives, 119(11):1534–1538.ICNIRP, 1998. Guidelines for limiting exposure totime-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagneticfields (up to 300 GHz). Health Physics, 74(4):494–522.Instituto Edumed, 2010. Latin American expertscommittee on high frequency electromagnetic fieldsand human health, Non-ionizing electromagneticBMID: BM-8 213

Review Article Biology and Medicine, 4 (4): 202–216, 2012radiation in the radio-frequency spectrum and its effectson human health. www.edumed.org.br/lasr2008/en/Jing J, Yuhua Z, Xiao-qian Y, Rongping J, Dong-mei G,Xi C, 2012. The influence of microwave radiation fromcellular phone on fetal rat brain. ElectromagneticBiology and Medicine, 31(1): 57–66.Johansson O, 2010. Aspects of studies on thefunctional impairment electrohypersensitivity. IOPConference Series: Earth and Environmental Science,10: 012005. DOI:10.1088/1755-1315/10/1/012005Kane RC, 2001. Cellular telephone russian roulette –a historical and scientific perspective. New York:Vantage Press.Kasevich RS, 2000. Cell Towers, Wireless Convenienceor Environmental Hazards? Proceedings of the “CellTowers Forum” State of the Science/State of the Law.Chapter 11, Levitt BB (Ed.), Canada: New CenturyPublishing, pp. 170–175.Kesari KK, Kumar S, Behari J, 2011. Biomarkersinducing changes due to microwave exposureeffect on rat brain, pp. 1–4. http://www.academia.edu/967270/Biomarkers_inducing_changes_due_to_microwave_exposure_effect_on_rat_brainKevan PG, Phillips TP, 2001. The economic impactsof pollinator declines: an approach to assessing theconsequences. Ecology and Society, 5(1): 8.Kimmel S, Kuhn J, Harst W, Stever H, 2007. Effectsof electromagnetic exposition on the behavior of thehoneybee (Apis mellifera). Environmental SystemsResearch, 8: 1–8.Kirschvink JL, Walker MM, Diebel CE, 2001.Magnetite-based magnetoreception. Current Opinionin Neurobiology, 11: 462–467.Kumar G, 2010. Report on cell tower radiation, submitted tothe Secretary, DoT, Delhi. http://www.ee.iitb.ac.in/~mwave/GK-cell-tower-rad-report-DOT-Dec2010.pdfKumar N, Kumar G, 2009. Biological effects of celltower radiation on human body. Electrical engineeringdepartment, IIT Bombay. December 16–19, ISMOT,2009, New Delhi, India.Lahijani MS, Ghafoori M, 2000. Teratogenic effects ofsinusoidal extremely low frequency electromagneticfields on morphology of 24 hr chick embryos.Indian Journal of Experimental Biology, 38(7):692–699.Lai H, Singh NP, 1995. Acute low-intensity microwaveexposure increases DNA single-strand breaks in ratbrain cells. Bioelectromagnetics, 16: 207–210.Lai H, Singh NP, 1996. Single- and double-strand DNAbreaks in rat brain cells after acute exposure to radiofrequencyelectromagnetic radiation. InternationalJournal of Radiation Biology, 69: 513–521.Lai H, Singh NP, 1997. Melatonin and a spin-trapcompound block radio-frequency electromagneticradiation-induced DNA strand breaks in rat brain cells.Bioelectromagnetics, 18: 446–454.Leszczynski D, Joenväärä S, Reivinen J, Kuokka R,2002. Non-thermal activation of the hsp27/p38MAPKstress pathway by mobile phone radiation in humanendothelial cells: molecular mechanism for cancerandblood-brain barrier–related effects. Differentiation,70: 120–129.Levengood WC, 1969. A new teratogenic agentapplied to amphibian embryos. Journal of Embryologyand Experimental Morphology, 21(1): 23–31.Levitina NA, 1966. Non-thermal effect of microwaveson the rhythm of cardiac contractions in the frog.Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine, 62(12):64–66.Levitt BB, 2007. Electromagnetic fields: a consumer’sguide to the issues and how to protect ourselves.Authors Guild Backinprint.com Edition, iUniverse, Inc.ISBN: 978-0-595-47607-7.Levitt BB, 2010. The environmental effects of wirelesstechnologies and other sources of non-ionizingradiation: an overview. http://www.croww.org/environmental-effects.pdfLevitt BB, Lai H, 2010. Biological effects from exposureto electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell towerbase stations and other antenna arrays. Canada: NRCResearch Press, 369–395.Marino AA, Carrubba A, 2009. The effects of mobilephone electromagnetic fields on brain electrical activity:A critical review of literature. Electromagnetic Biologyand Medicine, 28(3): 250-274. http://andrewamarino.com/PDFs/CellphoneEMFs-Review.pdfMilham S, 2010. Historical evidence that electrificationcaused the 20th century epidemic of disease ofcivilization. Medical Hypotheses, 74(2): 337–345.Mitra A, Bhattacharya D, 2008. Effects of melatonin inmild diabetics with dyslipidaemia. Journal of HumanEcology, 23(2): 109–114.MOEF, 2010. Report on possible impacts of communicationtowers on wildlife, including birds andbees, Government of India. http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/final_mobile_towers_report.pdfBMID: BM-8 214

Review Article Biology and Medicine, 4 (4): 202–216, 2012Mouritsen H, Ritz T, 2005. Magnetoreception and itsuse in bird navigation. Current Opinion in Neurobiology,15(4): 406–414.Narayanan SN, Kumar RS, Potu BK, Nayak S,Bhat PG, Mailankot M, 2010. Effect of radio-frequencyelectromagnetic radiations (RF-EMR) on passive avoidancebehaviour and hippocampal morphology in Wistarrats. Uppsala Journal of Medical Sciences, 115: 91–96.New International EMF Alliance, 2011. SeletunStatement, Oslo, Norway. http://iemfa.org/index.php/publications/seletun-resolutionNylund R, Leszczynski D, 2004. Proteomics analysisof human endothelial cell line EA.hy926 after exposureto GSM 900 radiation. Proteomics, 4: 1359–1365.Nylund R, Leszczynski D, 2006. Mobile phone radiationcauses changes in gene and protein expression inhuman endothelial cell lines and the response seemsto be genome- and proteome-dependent. Proteomics,6: 4769–4780.Oberfeld G, Navarro E, Portoles M, Maestu C, Gomez-Perretta C, 2004. The microwave syndrome – furtheraspects of a Spanish study. EBEA Congres Kos-Greece, 1: 1–9.Osepchuk JM, 1983. Biological Effects ofElectromagnetic Radiation. New York, USA: JohnWiley and Sons, IEEE INC.Panagopoulos DJ, Karabarbounis A, Margaritis LH,2004. Effect of GSM 900 MHz mobile phone radiation onthe reproductive capacity of Drosophila melanogaster.Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 23(1): 29–43.Panagopoulos DJ, Karabarbounis A, Margaritis LH,2008. Mobile Telephony Radiation Effects on LivingOrganisms. In: mobile telephones, Chapter 3, HarperAC, Buress RV (Eds.). New York: Nova SciencePublishers, pp. 107–149.Panagopoulos DJ, Chavdoula ED, Nezis IP, MargaritisLH, 2007. Cell death induced by GSM 900 MHz andDCS 1800 MHz mobile telephony radiation. MutationResearch, 626(1–2): 69–78.Panagopoulos DJ, Chavdoula ED, Margaritis LH, 2010.Bioeffects of mobile telephony radiation in relation toits intensity or distance from the antenna. InternationalJournal of Radiation Biology, 86(5): 345–357.Repacholi MH, Cardis E, 2002. Criteria for EMF healthrisk assessment. Radiation Protection Dosimetry,72: 305–312.Repacholi MH, Rubtsova NB, Muc AM, 1998. Proceedingsof the International Meeting on “Electromagnetic Fields:Biological Effects and Hygienic Standardization”,Moscow. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organisation,1999. http://www.who.int/iris/handle/10665/65976Rogers KJ, 2002. Health effects from cell phonetower radiation. http://www.scribd.com/doc/3773284/Health-Effects-from-Cell-Phone-Tower-RadiationRubin EB, Shemesh Y, Cohen M, Elgavish S, RobertsonHM, Bloch G, 2006. Molecular and phylogeneticanalyses reveal mammalian-like clockwork in thehoney bee (Apis mellifera) and shed new light on themolecular evolution of the circadian clock. GenomeResearch, 16(11): 1352–1365.Sage C, 2007.The Bioinitiative Report and BiologicallybasedExposure Standards. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v5jC6Bzz25rzU&feature5relmfuSantini R, Santini P, Danze JM, Le Ruz P, Seigne M,2002. Investigation on the health of people living nearmobile telephone relay stations: incidence accordingto distance and sex. Pathological Biology (Paris),50(6): 369–373.SCENIHR, 2007. Possible effects of electromagneticfields (EMF) on human health. 16th Plenary on 21st March2007. http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/docs/scenihr_o_007.pdfSharma VP, Kumar NR, 2010. Changes in honeybeebehaviour and biology under the influence of cellphoneradiations. Current Science, 98(10): 1376–1378.Tanwar VS, 2006. Living Dangerously in Indiancities: an RF radiation pollution perspective.ElectroMagnetic Interference and Compatibility(INCEMIC), 2006 Proceedings of the 9th InternationalConference, Cogent EMR Solutions, New Delhi, India,pp. 458–466.The Hindu, 2012. Mobile base station radiationlimit will be cut from September 1. August 27,2012. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3828735.eceThe Hindu, 2012. No major health fallout fromtypical exposure, say studies. August 28, 2012.http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article3829594.eceTRAI, 2012. Indian telecom services performanceindicator report for the quarter ending December.Information note to the Press. Press release No.74/2012, New Delhi. www.trai.gov.inUS Fish & Wildlife Service, 2009. Public Pressrelease on briefing paper on the need for researchinto the cumulative impacts of communicationtowers on migratory birds and other wildlife inBMID: BM-8 215

Review Article Biology and Medicine, 4 (4): 202–216, 2012the United States, Division of Migratory BirdManagement (DMBM). http://electromagnetichealth.org/pdf/CommTowerResearchNeedsPublicBriefing-2-409.pdfWarnke U, 2007. Bees, birds, and mankind: destroyingnature by “Electrosmog”. Effects of mobile radio andwireless communication. A series of papers by thecompetence initiative for the protection of mankind,environment, and democracy. Kempten. http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/papers/warnke_bbm.pdfWHO Press Release, 2011. IARC classifies radiofrequencyelectromagnetic fields as possiblycarcinogenic to humans. International Agency forResearch on Cancer (IARC). http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/enXu S, Zhou Z, Zhang L, Yu Z, Zhang W, Wang Y,et al., 2010. Exposure to 1800 MHz radio-frequencyradiation induces oxidative damage to mitochondrialDNA in primary cultured neurons. Brain Research,1311: 189–196.BMID: BM-8 216