2013
DOI: 10.1109/jproc.2013.2248111
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cellular and Molecular Responses to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
31
0
1

Year Published

2014
2014
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 48 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 60 publications
1
31
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Furthermore, the measure and evaluation criteria of electromagnetic field intensity are also crucial. Presently, there are many associations and scientific research organizations which study the effects on creatures caused by this radiofrequency electromagnetic field [102][103][104], but until now, there are no direct and sufficient evidences which can prove that radiofrequency electromagnetic field has bad effects on biological histocytes [105]. Additionally, exposure to 20 kHz, 0.2 mT (RMS) or 60 kHz, 0.1 mT (RMS) sinusoidal magnetic fields shows no reproducible, reproductive and developmental toxicity for mammals [106].…”
Section: Future Trendsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, the measure and evaluation criteria of electromagnetic field intensity are also crucial. Presently, there are many associations and scientific research organizations which study the effects on creatures caused by this radiofrequency electromagnetic field [102][103][104], but until now, there are no direct and sufficient evidences which can prove that radiofrequency electromagnetic field has bad effects on biological histocytes [105]. Additionally, exposure to 20 kHz, 0.2 mT (RMS) or 60 kHz, 0.1 mT (RMS) sinusoidal magnetic fields shows no reproducible, reproductive and developmental toxicity for mammals [106].…”
Section: Future Trendsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, the effects of RF-EMFs on DNA have been extensively assessed in various cellular and animal models. Unfortunately, currently available data are inconsistent or difficult to compare456. Possible causes of this inconsistency are that different groups 1) adopted different biological models, 2) applied different exposure systems and/or exposure parameters, and/or 3) employed different protocols to detect the same endpoint.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Obeed VLC, further, provides larger energy efficiency, lower battery consumption, and smaller latency as compared to RF-based networks [4]. VLC can be indeed safely used in sensitive environments such as chemical plants, aircraft, and hospitals [5]. In spite of the small coverage of the transmitters in VLC systems, an exhaustive reuse of frequency can be implemented, with a relatively small effect on the performance due to the manageable co-channel interference [6].…”
Section: A Overviewmentioning
confidence: 99%