The newly released IEEE Std C95.1 TM-2019 defines exposure criteria and associated limits for the protection of persons against established adverse health effects from exposures to electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields, in the frequency range 0 Hz to 300 GHz. The exposure limits apply to persons permitted in restricted environments and to the general public in unrestricted environments. These limits are not intended to apply to the exposure of patients by or under the direction of physicians and care professionals, as well as to the exposure of informed volunteers in scientific research studies, or to the use of medical devices or implants. IEEE Std C95.1 TM
The widespread use of mobile phones has led to public concerns about the health effects associated with exposure to radiofrequency (RF) fields. The paramount concern of most persons relates to the potential of these fields to cause cancer. Unlike ionizing radiation, RF fields used for mobile telecommunications (800-1900 MHz) do not possess sufficient energy to directly damage DNA. Most rodent bioassay and in vitro genotoxicity/mutation studies have reported that RF fields at non-thermal levels have no direct mutagenic, genotoxic or carcinogenic effects. However, some evidence has suggested that RF fields may cause detectable postexposure changes in gene expression. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the ability of exposure to a 1.9 GHz pulse-modulated RF field for 4 h at specific absorption rates (SARs) of 0.1, 1.0 and 10.0 W/kg to affect global gene expression in U87MG glioblastoma cells. We found no evidence that non-thermal RF fields can affect gene expression in cultured U87MG cells relative to the nonirradiated control groups, whereas exposure to heat shock at 43 degrees C for 1 h up-regulated a number of typical stress-responsive genes in the positive control group. Future studies will assess the effect of RF fields on other cell lines and on gene expression in the mouse brain after in vivo exposure.
The influence of 60-Hz magnetic fields on free radical reactions can be quantitatively predicted from the knowledge of the effect of static fields on free radical behavior. Studies of radical reactions in micellar systems show that the behavior under a 60-Hz field is identical to that under a static field at any given point in time.
Human blood cultures were exposed to a 1.9 GHz continuous-wave (CW) radiofrequency (RF) field for 2 h using a series of six circularly polarized, cylindrical waveguides. Mean specific absorption rates (SARs) of 0.0, 0.1, 0.26, 0.92, 2.4 and 10 W/kg were achieved, and the temperature within the cultures during a 2-h exposure was maintained at 37.0 +/- 0.5 degrees C. Concurrent negative (incubator) and positive (1.5 Gy (137)Cs gamma radiation) control cultures were run for each experiment. DNA damage was quantified immediately after RF-field exposure using the alkaline comet assay, and four parameters (tail ratio, tail moment, comet length and tail length) were used to assess DNA damage for each comet. No evidence of increased primary DNA damage was detected by any parameter for RF-field-exposed cultures at any SAR tested. The formation of micronuclei in the RF-field-exposed blood cell cultures was assessed using the cytokinesis-block micronucleus assay. There was no significant difference in the binucleated cell frequency, incidence of micronucleated binucleated cells, or total incidence of micronuclei between any of the RF-field-exposed cultures and the sham-exposed controls at any SAR tested. These results do not support the hypothesis that acute, nonthermalizing 1.9 GHz CW RF-field exposure causes DNA damage in cultured human leukocytes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.