Advertisement

The Environmentalist

, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 144–156 | Cite as

The similar effects of low-dose ionizing radiation and non-ionizing radiation from background environmental levels of exposure

  • Cindy SageEmail author
Article

Abstract

The meltdown and release of radioactivity (ionizing radiation) from four damaged nuclear reactors at the Fukushima Nuclear Facility in Japan in March 2011 continues to contaminate air and ocean water even 1 year later. Chronic exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation will occur over large populations well into the future. This has caused grave concern among researchers and the public over the very long period of time expected for decommissioning alone (current estimate from official sources is 30–40 years based on TEPCO in Mid-and long-term roadmap towards the decommissioning of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power units 1–4, 2011) and the presumed adverse effects of chronic, low-dose ionizing radiation on children, adults and the environment. Ultimately, radioactive materials from Fukushima will circulate for many years, making health impacts a predictable concern for many generations (Yasunari et al. in PNAS 108(49):19530–19534, 2011). There is long-standing scientific evidence to suggest that low-dose ionizing radiation (LD-IR) and low-intensity non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation (LI-NIER) in the form of extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation (RFR) share similar biological effects. Public health implications are significant for reconstruction efforts to rebuild in post-Fukushima Japan. It is relevant to identify and reduce exposure pathways for chronic, low-dose ionizing radiation in post-Fukushima Japan given current scientific knowledge. Intentional planning, rather than conventional planning, is needed to reduce concomitant chronic low-intensity exposure to non-ionizing radiation. These are reasonably well-established risks to health in the scientific literature, as evidenced by their classification by World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer as Possible Human Carcinogens. Reducing preventable, adverse health exposures in the newly rebuilt environment to both LD-IR and LI-NIER is an achievable goal for Japan. Recovery and reconstruction efforts in Japan to restore the communications and energy infrastructure, in particular, should pursue strategies for reduction and/or prevention of both kinds of exposures. The design life of buildings replaced today is probably 35–50 years into the future. Cumulative health risks may be somewhat mitigated if the double exposure (to both chronic low-dose IR from the Fukushima reactors and LI-NIER [EMF and RFR] in new buildings and infrastructure) can be dealt with effectively in early planning and design in Japan’s reconstruction.

Keywords

Low-dose ionizing radiation Background levels Non-ionizing radiation Free radical DNA damage Public health policy Health risk reduction Precautionary action 

References

  1. Ahlbom A, Day N, Feychting M, Roman E, Skinner J, Dockerty J, Linet M, McBride M, Michaelis J, Olsen JH, Tynes T, Verkasalo PK (2000) A pooled analysis of magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia. Br J Cancer 83:692–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akoev IG, Pashovkina MS, Dolgacheva LP, Semenova TP, Kalmykov VL (2002) Enzymatic activity of some tissues and blood serum from animals and humans exposed to microwaves and hypothesis on the possible role of free radical processes in the nonlinear effects and modification of emotional behavior of animals. Radiats Biol Radioecol 42(3):32–330Google Scholar
  3. Baan R, Grosse Y, Lauby-Secretan B, El Ghissassi F, Bouvard V, Benbrahim-Tallaa L, Guha N, Islami F, Galichet L, Straif K, WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer Monograph Working Group (2011) Carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Lancet Oncol 12:624–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belyaev IY (2005) Nonthermal biological effects of microwaves: current knowledge, further perspective, and urgent needs. Electromagn Biol Med 24(3):375–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Belyaev IY (2010) Radiation-induced DNA repair foci: spatio-temporal aspects of formation, application for assessment of radiosensitivity and biological dosimetry. Mutat Res 704:132–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Belyaev IY, Hillert L, Protopopova M, Tamm C, Malmgren LO, Persson BR, Selivanova G, Harms-Ringdahl M (2005) 915 MHz microwaves and 50 Hz magnetic field affect chromatin conformation and 53BP1 foci in human lymphocytes from hypersensitive and healthy persons. Bioelectromagnetics 26:173–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Belyaev IY, Markova E, Hillert L, Malmgren LO, Persson BR (2009) Microwaves from UMTS/GSM mobile phones induce long-lasting inhibition of 53BP1/gamma-H2AX DNA repair foci in human lymphocytes. Bioelectromagnetics 30:129–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bertell, R (1996), International Medical Commission on Chernobyl, Vienna, Austria, 12–15 April 1996 in CHERNOBYL: environmental, health and human rights implications, pp 15–21, 115–123Google Scholar
  9. Billingsley J (2003) Low-dose radiation harms cells longer. Health Scout News Reporter, 11 March 2003Google Scholar
  10. BioInitiative Working Group (2007) In: Sage C, Carpenter DO (eds) BioInitiative report: a rationale for a biologically-based public exposure standard for electromagnetic fields (ELF and RFR). August 31. http://www.bioinitiative.org
  11. Blank M (2007) Evidence for stress response (stress proteins)-health risk of electromagnetic fields: research on the stress response. In: Sage C, Carpenter DO (eds) BioInitiative report: a rationale for a biologically-based public exposure standard for electromagnetic fields (ELF and RFR). August 31. http://www.bioinitiative.org
  12. Blank M (ed) (2009) Electromagnetic Fields (EMF), Special Issue. Pathophysiology 16(2–3):67–250Google Scholar
  13. Blank M, Goodman R (2004) Comment: a biological guide for electromagnetic safety: the stress response. Bioelectromagnetics 25:642–646 (discussion 647–648)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Blank M, Goodman R (2011) DNA is a fractal antenna in electromagnetic fields. Int J Radiat Biol 87(4):1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burlakova EB (1996) International Medical Commission on Chernobyl, Vienna, Austria, 12–15 April 1996 in CHERNOBYL: environmental, health and human rights implications, pp 107–109Google Scholar
  16. California Department of Health Services (2002) Electric and magnetic field risk evaluation. http://www.ehib.org/emf/RiskEvaluation/riskeval.html
  17. Capri M, Scarcella E, Bianchi E, Fumelli C, Mesirca P, Agostini C, Remondini D, Schuderer J, Kuster N, Franceschi C, Bersani F (2004) 1800 MHz radiofrequency (mobile phones, different Global System for Mobile communication modulations) does not affect apoptosis and heat shock protein 70 level in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from young and old donors. Int J Radiat Biol 80(6):389–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chiang H (1989) Health effects of environmental electromagnetic fields. J Bioelectr 8:127–131Google Scholar
  19. Del Signore A, Boscolo P, Kouri S, Di Martino G, Giuliano G (2000) Combined effects of traffic and electromagnetic fields on the immune system of fertile atopic women. Ind Health 38(3):294–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Diem E, Schwarz C, Adlkofer F, Jahn O, Rüdiger H (2005) 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 583:178–183Google Scholar
  21. D’Inzeo G, Bernardi P, Eusebi F, Grassi F, Tamburello C, Zani BM (1988) Microwave effects on acetylcholine induced channels in cultured chick myotubes. Bioelectromagnetics 9:363–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dolk H, Elliott P, Shaddick G, Walls P, Thakrar B (1997) Cancer incidence near radio and television transmitters in Great Britain. II. All high power transmitters. Am J Epidemiol 145(1):10–17Google Scholar
  23. Dubrova YE, Nesterov VN, Krouchinsky NG, Ostapenko VA, Neumann R, Neil DL, Jeffreys AJ (1996a) Human minisatellite mutation rate after the Chernobyl accident. Nature 380:683–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dubrova Y, Neumann R, Neil DL, Jeffreys AJ, Nesterov VN, Krouchinsky NG, Ostapenko VA (1996b) Effects of radiation on children. Nature 383:226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dumansky JD, Shandala MG (1974) The biologic action and hygienic significance of electromagnetic fields of super high and ultra high frequencies in densely populated areas. In: Czerski P et al (eds) Biologic effects and health hazard of microwave radiation: proceedings of an international symposium. Polish Medical Publishers, WarsawGoogle Scholar
  26. Dutta SK, Ghosh B, Blackman CF (1989) Radiofrequency radiation-induced calcium ion efflux enhancement from human and other neuroblastoma cells in culture. Bioelectromagnetics 10:197–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Feinberg AP, Ohlsson R, Henikoff S (2006) The epigenetic progenitor origin of human cancer. Nat Rev Genet 7:21–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fesenko EE, Makar VR, Novoselova EG, Sadovnikov VB (1999) Microwaves and cellular immunity. I. Effect of whole body microwave irradiation on tumor necrosis factor production in mouse cells. Bioelectrochem Bioenergy 49:29–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Feychting M, Schulgen G, Olsen JH, Ahlbom A (1995) Magnetic fields and childhood cancer—a pooled analysis of two Scandinavian studies. Eur J Cancer 31A:2035–2039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Forgacs Z, Somosy Z, Kubinyi G, Bakos J, Hudak A, Surjan A, Thuroczy G (2006) Effect of whole-body 1800 MHz GSM-like microwave exposure on testicular steroidogenesis and histology in mice. Reprod Toxicol 22(1):111–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gangi S, Johansson O (1997) Skin changes in “screen dermatitis” versus classical UV- and ionizing irradiation-related damage—similarities and differences. Two neuroscientists’ speculative review. Exp Dermatol 6:283–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gangi S, Johansson O (2000) A theoretical model based upon mast cells and histamine to explain the recently proclaimed sensitivity to electric and/or magnetic fields in humans. Med Hypotheses 54:663–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hardell L, Sage C (2008) Biological effects from electromagnetic field exposure and public exposure standards. Biomed Pharmacother 62:104–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hocking B (2000) Decreased survival for childhood leukemia in proximity to TV towers. Poster presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Royal Australian College of Physicians in Adelaide, SA, Australia, May 2000Google Scholar
  35. Hocking B, Gordon IR, Grain ML, Hatfield GE (1996) Cancer incidence and mortality and proximity to TV towers. Med J Aust 165:601–605Google Scholar
  36. Hutter HP, Moshammer H, Wallner P, Kundi M (2006) Subjective symptoms, sleeping problems, and cognitive performance in subjects living near mobile phone base stations. Occup Environ Med 63(5):307–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ivancsits S, Diem E, Pilger A, Rüdiger HW, Jahn O (2002) Induction of DNA strand breaks by intermittent exposure to extremely-low-frequency electromagnetic fields in human diploid fibroblasts. Mutat Res 26(519):1–13Google Scholar
  38. Ivaschuk OI, Jones RA, Ishida-Jones T, Haggren W, Adey WR, Phillips JL (1997) Exposure of nerve growth factor-treated PC12 rat pheochromocytoma cells to a modulated radiofrequency field at 836.55 MHz: effects on c-jun and c-fos expression. Bioelectromagnetics 18(3):223–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Johansson O (2006) Electrohypersensitivity: state-of-the-art of a functional impairment. Electromagn Biol Med 25:245–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Johansson O (2007) Evidence for effects on the immune system. BioInitiative Working Group (2007) In: Sage C, Carpenter DO (eds) BioInitiative report: a rationale for a biologically-based public exposure standard for electromagnetic fields (ELF and RFR). August 31. http://www.bioinitiative.org
  41. Johansson O (2009) Disturbance of the immune system by electromagnetic fields—a potentially underlying cause for cellular damage and tissue repair reduction which could lead to disease and impairment. Pathophysiology 16:157–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Johansson O, Liu PY (1995) “Electrosensitivity”, “electrosupersensitivity” and “screen dermatitis”: preliminary observations from on-going studies in the human skin. In: Simunic D (ed) Proceedings of the COST 244: biomedical effects of electromagnetic fields—workshop on electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Brussels/Graz: EU/EC (DG XIII), pp 52–57Google Scholar
  43. Joiner MC, Marples B, Lambin P, Short SC, Turesson I (2001) Low-dose hypersensitivity: current status and possible mechanisms. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 49:379–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kesari KK, Behari J (2009) Fifty-gigahertz microwave exposure effect of radiations on rat brain. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 158:126–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Khurana VG, Hardell L, Everaert J, Bortkiewicz A, Carlberg M, Ahonen M (2010) Epidemiological evidence for a health risk from mobile phone base stations. Int J Occup Environ Health 16:263–267Google Scholar
  46. Kolodynski AA, Kolodynska VV (1996) Motor and psychological functions of school children living in the area of the Skrunda radio location station in Latvia. Sci Total Environ 180(1):87–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kryzhanovskaya L (1996) Testimony before the permanent people’s tribunal, international medical commission on Chernobyl, Vienna, Austria, 12–15 April 1996 in CHERNOBYL: environmental, health and human rights implications, pp 123–128Google Scholar
  48. Kuhne M, Riballo E, Rief N, Rothkamm K, Jeggo PA, Lobrich M (2004) A double-strand break repair defect in ATM-deficient cells contributes to radiosensitivity. Cancer Res 64:500–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kundi M (2007) Evidence for childhood cancers (leukemia). In: Sage C, Carpenter DO (eds) BioInitiative report: a rationale for a biologically-based public exposure standard for electromagnetic fields (ELF and RFR). August 31. http://www.bioinitiative.org
  50. Kundi M, Hutter HP (2009) Mobile phone base stations—effects on well-being and health. Pathophysiology 16(2–3):123–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kwee S, Raskmark P, Velizarov P (2001) Changes in cellular proteins due to environmental non-ionizing radiation. I. Heat-shock proteins. Electro Magnetobiol 20:141–152Google Scholar
  52. Lai H (2007). Section 6. Evidence for genotoxic effects. In: Sage C, Carpenter DO (eds) BioInitiative report: a rationale for a biologically-based public exposure standard for electromagnetic fields (ELF and RFR). http://www.bioinitiative.org
  53. Lai H, Horita A, Guy AW (1994) Microwave irradiation affects radial-arm maze performance in the rat. Bioelectromagnetics 15(2):95–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lai H, Singh NP (1995) Acute low-intensity microwave exposure increases DNA single-strand breaks in rat brain cells. Bioelectromagnetics 16:207–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lai H, Singh NP (1996) Single- and double-strand DNA breaks in rat brain cells after acute exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation. Int J Radiat Biol 69:513–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lai H, Singh NP (1997a) Acute exposure to a 60 Hz magnetic field increases DNA strand breaks in rat brain cells. Bioelectromagnetics 18:156–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lai H, Singh NP (1997b) Melatonin and a spin-trap compound block radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation-induced DNA strand breaks in rat brain cells. Bioelectromagnetics 18:446–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lai H, Singh NP (1997c) Melatonin and N-tert-butyl-alpha-phenylnitrone block 60-Hz magnetic field-induced DNA single and double strand breaks in rat brain cells. J Pineal Res 22:152–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lai H, Singh NP (2004) Magnetic-field-induced DNA strand breaks in brain cells of the rat. Environ Health Perspect 112:687–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lerchl A, Krüger H, Niehaus M, Streckert JR, Bitz AK, Hansen V (2008) Effects of mobile phone electromagnetic fields at nonthermal SAR values on melatonin and body weight of Djungarian hamsters (Phodopus sungorus). J Pineal Res 44(3):267–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Leszczynski D, Joenväärä S, Reivinen J, Kuokka R (2002) Non-thermal activation of the hsp27/p38MAPK stress pathway by mobile phone radiation in human endothelial cells: Molecular mechanism for cancer- and blood-brain barrier-related effects. Differentiation 70:120–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Levallois P, Neutra R, Lee G, Hristova L (2002) Study of self-reported hypersensitivity to electromagnetic fields in California. Environ Health Perspect 110(Suppl 4):619–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Lin H, Opler M, Head M, Blank M, Goodman R (1997) Electromagnetic field exposure induces rapid, transitory heat shock factor activation in human cells. J Cell Biochem 66:482–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Lobrich M, Rief N, Kuhne M, Heckmann M, Fleckenstein J, Rube C, Uder M (2005) In vivo formation and repair of DNA double strand breaks after computed tomography examinations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:8984–8989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Magras IN, Xenos TD (1997) RF radiation-induced changes in the prenatal development of mice. Bioelectromagnetics 18(6):455–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Marinelli F, La Sala D, Cicciotti G, Cattini L, Trimarchi C, Putti S, Zamparelli A, Giuliani L, Tomassetti G, Cinti C (2004) Exposure to 900 MHz electromagnetic field induces an unbalance between pro-apoptotic and pro-survival signals in T-lymphoblastoid leukemia CCRF–CEM cells. J Cell Physiol 198(2):324–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Markova E, Hillert L, Malmgren L, Persson BR, Belyaev IY (2005) Microwaves from GSM mobile telephones affect 53BP1 and gamma-H2AX foci in human lymphocytes from hypersensitive and healthy persons. Environ Health Perspect 113:1172–1177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Markova E, Malmgren LO, Belyaev IY (2009) Microwaves from mobile phones inhibit 53PB1 focus formation in human stem cells stronger than in differentiated cells: Possible mechanistic link to cancer risk. Environ Health Perspect On-line 22 Oct 2009 doi: 10.1289/ehp.0900781
  69. Monmaney T (1996) Post-Chernobyl children show high mutation rates. Los Angeles Times, 25 April 1996Google Scholar
  70. Navarro AE, Sequra J, Portolés M, Gómez-Perretta de Mateo C (2003) The microwave syndrome: a preliminary study in Spain. Electromagn Biol Med 22(2–3):161–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Neumaier T, Swenson J, Pham C, Polyzos A, Lo AT, Yang P, Dyball J, Asaithamby J, Chen DJ, Bissell MJ, Thalhammer S, Costes SV (2012) Evidence for formation of DNA repair centers and dose-response nonlinearity in human cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109(2):443–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Nittby H, Grafström G, Tian DP, Malmgren L, Brun A, Persson BR et al (2007) Cognitive impairment in rats after long-term exposure to GSM-900 mobile phone radiation. Bioelectromagnetics 29:219–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Novoselova EG, Fesenko EE, Makar VR, Sadovnikov VB (1999) Microwaves and cellular immunity II. Immunostimulating effects of microwaves and naturally occurring antioxidant nutrients. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg 49(1):37–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Oberfeld G, Navarro AE, Portoles M, Maestu C, Gomez-Perretta C (2004) The microwave syndrome—Further aspects of a Spanish study. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on biological effects of electromagnetic fields, Kos, Greece, 4–8 Oct 2004Google Scholar
  75. Oral B, Guney M, Ozguner F, Karahan N, Mungan T, Comlekci S, Cesur G (2006) Endometrial apoptosis induced by a 900-MHz mobile phone: preventive effects of vitamins E and C. Adv Ther 23(6):957–973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Pelevina II (1996) International Medical Commission on Chernobyl, Vienna, Austria, 12–15 April 1996 in CHERNOBYL: environmental, health and human rights implications, pp 113–115Google Scholar
  77. Persson BRR, Salford LG, Brun A (1997) Blood–brain barrier permeability in rats exposed to electromagnetic fields used in wireless communication. Wirel Netw 3(6):455–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Phillips JL, Ivaschuk O, Ishida-Jones T, Jones RA, Campbell-Beachler M, Haggren W (1998) DNA damage in Molt-4 T-lymphoblastoid cells exposed to cellular telephone radiofrequency fields in vitro. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg 45(1):103–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Phillips J, Singh NP, Lai H (2009) Electromagnetic fields and DNA damage. Pathophysiology 16:79–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Pyrpasopoulou A, Kotoula V, Cheva A, Hytiroglou P, Nikolakaki E, Magras IN, Xenos TD, Tsiboukis TD, Karkavelas G (2004) Bone morphogenetic protein expression in newborn rat kidneys after prenatal exposure to radiofrequency radiation. Bioelectromagnetics 25(3):216–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Rothkamm K, Lobrich M (2003) Evidence for a lack of DNA double-strand break repair in human cells exposed to very low x-ray doses. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:5057–5062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Rothkamm K, Balroop S, Shekhdar J, Fernie P, Goh V (2007) Leukocyte DNA damage after multi-detector row CT: a quantitative biomarker of low-level radiation exposure. Radiology 242:244–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Ruediger H (2009) Genotoxic effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Pathophysiology 16:89–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. REFLEX (2004) REFLEX final report: risk evaluation of potential environmental hazards from low frequency electromagnetic field exposure using sensitive in vitro methods, European Union, Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources, Contract: QLK4-CT-1999-01574, 1 February 2000–31 May 2004. Available at http://www.itis.ethz.ch/downloads/REFLEX_Final%20Report_171104.pdf. Accessed 5 Feb 2012
  85. Sage C, Carpenter DO (2007) Key scientific evidence and public health policy recommendations. In: Sage C, Carpenter DO (eds) BioInitiative report: a rationale for a biologically-based public exposure standard for electromagnetic fields (ELF and RFR). August 31. http://www.bioinitiative.org
  86. Sage C, Carpenter DO (2009) Public health implications of wireless technologies. Pathophysiology 16:233–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Sage C, Sage SA (2006) Briefing report on electromagnetic fields: health effects, public policy and site planning. J Aust Coll Nutr Environ Med 25:3–6 and 9Google Scholar
  88. Salford LG, Brun AR, Eberhard JL, Malmgren L, Persson BRR (2003) Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones. Environ Health Perspect 111(7):881–883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Sarimov R, Malmgren LOG, Markova E, Persson BRR, Belyaev IY (2004) Nonthermal GSM microwaves affect chromatin conformation in human lymphocytes similar to heat shock. IEEE Trans Plasma Sci 32(4):1600–1608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Schwartz JL, House DE, Mealing GA (1990) Exposure of frog hearts to CW or amplitude-modulated VHF fields: selective efflux of calcium ions at 16 Hz. Bioelectromagnetics 11(4):349–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Science News-New take on impacts of low dose radiation. Science Daily Dec 20 (2011) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111220133911.htm
  92. Seitz H, Stinner D, Eikmann Th, Herr C, Roosli M (2005) Review. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) and subjective health complaints associated with electromagnetic fields of mobile phone communication—a literature review published between 2000–2004. Sci Total Environ 349:45–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Simko M, Hartwig C, Lantow M, Lupke M, Mattsson MO, Rahman Q, Rollwitz J (2006) Hsp70 expression and free radical release after exposure to non-thermal radio-frequency electromagnetic fields and ultrafine particles in human Mono Mac 6 cells. Toxicol Lett 161(1):73–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Somosy Z, Thuroczy G, Kubasova T, Kovacs J, Szabo LD (1991) Effects of modulated and continuous microwave irradiation on the morphology and cell surface negative charge of 3T3 fibroblasts. Scanning Microsc 5:1145–1155Google Scholar
  95. Stagg RB, Thomas WJ, Jones RA, Adey WR (1997) DNA synthesis and cell proliferation in C6 glioma and primary glial cells exposed to a 836.55 MHz modulated radiofrequency field. Bioelectromagnetics 18(3):230–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Stankiewicz W, Dabrowski MP, Kubacki R, Sobiczewska E, Szmigielski S (2006) Immunotropic influence of 900 MHz microwave GSM signal on human blood immune cells activated in vitro. Electromagn Biol Med 25(1):45–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Tattersall JE, Scott IR, Nettell JJ, Bevir MK, Wang Z, Somasiri NP, Chen X (2001) Effects of low intensity radiofrequency electromagnetic fields on electrical activity in rat hippocampal slices. Brain Res 904(1):43–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. TEPCO (2011) Mid-and long-term roadmap towards the decommissioning of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power units 1–4. Tokyo Electric Power Company, JapanGoogle Scholar
  99. Tez M (2008) Cancer is an adaptation mechanism of the aged stem cell against stress. Rejuvenation Res 11:1059–1060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Tokalov SV, Gutzeit HO (2004) Weak electromagnetic fields (50 Hz) elicit a stress response in human cells. Environ Res 94:145–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Vecchio F, Babiloni C, Ferreri F, Curcio G, Fini R, Del Percio C, Rossini PM (2007) Mobile phone emission modulates interhemispheric functional coupling of EEG alpha rhythms. Eur J Neurosci 25(6):1908–1913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Velizarov S, Raskmark P, Kwee S (1999) The effects of radiofrequency fields on cell proliferation are non-thermal. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg 48(1):177–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Veyret B, Bouthet C, Deschaux P, de Seze R, Geffard M, Joussot-Dubien J, Diraison M, Moreau JM, Caristan A (1991) Antibody responses of mice exposed to low-power microwaves under combined, pulse-and-amplitude modulation. Bioelectromagnetics 12(1):47–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Wang J, Koyama S, Komatsubara Y, Suzuki Y, Taki M, Miyakoshi J (2006) Effects of a 2450 MHz high-frequency electromagnetic field with a wide range of SARs on the induction of heat-shock proteins in A172 cells. Bioelectromagnetics 27:479–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Wolke S, Neibig U, Elsner R, Gollnick F, Meyer R (1996) Calcium homeostasis of isolated heart muscle cells exposed to pulsed high-frequency electromagnetic fields. Bioelectromagnetics 17(2):144–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Yablokov AV, Nesterenko VB, Nesterenko AV (2009) Chernobyl: consequences of the catastrophe for people and the environment. In: Janette D. Sherman-Nevinger, Consulting Editor. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol 1181. New York Academy of SciencesGoogle Scholar
  107. Yasunari TJ, Stohl A, Hayano RS, Burhkart JF, Echhardt S, Yasunari T (2011) Cesium-137 deposition and contamination of Japanese soils due to the Fukushima nuclear accident. PNAS 108(49):19530–19534. Published online before print 14 Nov 2011. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1112058108 Google Scholar
  108. Yurekli AI, Ozkan M, Kalkan T, Saybasili H, Tuncel H, Atukeren P, Gumustas K, Seker S (2006) GSM base station electromagnetic radiation and oxidative stress in rats. Electromagn Biol Med 25(3):177–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Zwamborn APM, Vossen SHJA, van Leersum BJAM, Ouwens MA, Makel WN (2003) Effects of global communication system radio-frequency fields on well being and cognitive functions of human subjects with and without subjective complaints. Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO), Physics and Electronics Laboratory, The Hague, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sage AssociatesSanta BarbaraUSA

Personalised recommendations