Cancer Causes & Control

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 323–332 | Cite as

Radio frequency radiation (RFR): the nature of exposure and carcinogenic potential

  • Peter A. Valberg


Epidemiologic evidence on the relation between radio-frequency radiation (RFR) and cancer is reviewed. Radio-wave communications are used extensively in modern society; thus, we are all subject to RFR created by radio, television, wireless telephony, emergency communications, radar, etc. Interest in the health effects of RFR has been motivated by the rapid growth in wireless communications and by media reports expressing concern that specific diseases may be caused by RFR exposure, e.g., from cellular telephone handsets. Due to the ubiquitous presence of RFR, the public health implication of any connection between RFR and cancer risk is potentially significant. (It is important to keep RFR distinct from power-line electromagnetic fields.) Comparison of potential risks from RFR exposure with other occupational and environmental health risks requires evaluating the level of support from available epidemiology, from studies with laboratory animals, and from mechanistic or biophysical information about the interaction of RFR with living tissues. A large number of studies have been done with laboratory animals and with in vitro systems; a more limited set of epidemiologic studies is available. Effects from RFR exposure that lead to temperature increases have been consistently reported, but 'non-thermal' effects have not been substantiated. Also, there are no mechanistic theories that support 'non-thermal' interactions with biology. Evidence to support a causal relationship between exposure to RFR and human cancers is scant. Our present state of knowledge about exposure, mechanisms, epidemiology, and animal studies does not identify significant cancer risks.

Cancer cellular telephones electromagnetic fields nonionizing radiation radio frequency radiation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Rothman KJ, Chou CK, Morgan R,et al. Assessment of cellular telephone and other radio frequency exposure for epidemiologic research. Epidemiology 1996; 7: 291–8.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Radiofre-quency Radiation Levels and Population Exposure in Urban Areas of the Eastern United States. Silver Spring, MD(USA): EPA Office of Radiation Programs, 1978; Dept. of Commerce Publication PB-292–855, EPA-520/2-77-008. (TW Athey, et al) May, 1978.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stuchly MA. Mobile communication systems and biological effects on their users. Radio Sci Bull 1995; 275: 7–13.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chou CK, Bassen H, Osepchuk J,et al. Radio frequency electromagnetic exposure: Tutorial review on experimental dosimetry. Bioelectromagnetics 1996; 17: 195–208.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). Health issues related to the use of hand-held radiotelephones and base transmitters. Health Physics 1996; 70: 587–93.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Durney CH, Massoudi H, Iskander MF. Radiofrequency Dosimetry Handbook (4th Edition). Washington, DC: US School of Aerospace Medicine, 1986; Report USAFAM-TR: 85–73.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grandolfo M. Occupational exposure limits for radio-frequency and microwave radiation. Appl Inc Hyg 1986; 2: 75–86.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Petersen RC, Testagrossa PA. Radio-frequency electromagnetic fields associated with cellular-radio cell-site antennas. Bioelectromagnetics 1992; 13: 527–42.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Adair RK. Biological effects on the cellular level of electric field pulses. Health Physics 1991; 61: 395–9.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weibel ER. The Pathway for Oxygen. Cambridge, MA (USA): Harvard University Press, 1984.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dimbylow PJ. FDTD calculations of the SAR for a dipole closely coupled to the head at 900 MHz and 1.9 GHz. Phys Med Biol 1993; 38: 361–8.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gandhi OP. Some numerical methods for dosimetry: extremely low frequencies to microwave frequencies. Radio Sci 1995; 30: 161–7.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Anderson V, Joyner KH. Specific absorption rate levels measured in a phantom head exposed to radio frequency transmissions from analog hand-held mobile phones. Bioelectromagnetics 1995; 16: 60–9.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    US National Council on Radiation Protection and Meas-urement (NCRP). Biological effects of exposure criteria for radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Washington, DC: NCRP, 1986; NCRP Report Number 86.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gough M, ed. Assessing and managing health risks of wire-less communication instruments (Symposium Proceedings). Hum Eco Risk Assess 1997; 3: 1–117.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Balcer-Kubiczek EK, Harrison GH. Neoplastic transfor-mation of C3H/10T1/2 cells following exposure to 120-Hz modulated 2.45 GHz microwaves and phorbol ester tumor promoter. Radiation Res 1991; 126: 65–72.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Salford LG, Brun A, Persson BRR, Eberhardt J. Experimental studies of brain tumor development during exposure to continuous and pulsed 915 MHz radiofrequency radiation. Bioelectrochem Bioenergy 1993; 30: 313–8.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wu RY, Chiang H, Shao BJ, Fu YD. Effects of 2.45 GHz microwave radiation and phorbol ester 12-O-tetrade-canolylphorbol acetate on dimethylhydrazine-induced colon cancer in mice. Bioelectromagnetics 1994; 15: 531–8.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Szmigielski S, Szudzinski A, Pietraszek A, Bielec M, Janiak M, Wrembel JK. Accelerated development of spontaneous and benzopyrene-induced skin cancer in mice exposed to 2450-MHz microwave radiation. Bioelectromagnetics 1982; 3: 179–91.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Santini R, Hosni M, Deschaux P, Pacheco H. B16 melanoma development in black mice exposed to low-level microwave radiation. Bioelectromagnetics 1988; 9: 105–7.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Szmigielski S, Bielec M, Lipski S, Sokolska G. Immunologic and cancer-related aspects of exposure to low-level microwave and radiofrequency fields. (Chapter 25) In: Marino A, ed. Modern Bioelectricity. New York, NY (USA): Marcel-Dekker, 1988: 861–925.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rotkovska D, Moc J, Kautska J, Bartnickova A, Keprtova J, Hofer M. Evaluation of the biological effects of police radar RAMER 7F. Env Health Perspec 1993; 101: 134–6.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Adey WR, Byus CV, Cain CD,et al. Brain tumor incidence in rats chronically exposed to digital cellular telephone fields in a initiation-promotion model. 18th Annual Bioelectromagnetics Society Meeting 1996: p.27, Abstract A–7-3.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    World Health Organization (WHO). Environmental Health Criteria 137: Electromagnetic Fields (300 Hz to 300 GHz). Geneva, Switzerland: WHO, 1993: 1–290.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hayes RB, Brown LM, Pottern LM,et al. Occupation and risk for testicular cancer: A case-control study. Int J Epidemiol 1990; 19: 825–31.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hill DG. A longitudinal study of a cohort with past expo-sure to radar: The MIT Radiation Laboratory follow-up study. Doctoral dissertation. UMI Dissertation Information Service, Ann Arbor, MI, 1988.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Robinette CD, Silverman C, Jablon S. Effects upon health of occupational exposure to microwave radiation (radar). Am J Epidemiol 1980; 112: 39–53.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Silverman C. Epidemiologic studies of microwave effects. Proc IEEE 1980; 68: 78–84.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Milham S. Mortality by license class in amateur radio operators. Am J Epidemiol 1988; 128: 1175–6.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Thomas TL, Stolley PD, Stemhagen A,et al. Brain tumor mortality risk among men with electrical and electronics jobs: A case-control study. JNCI 1987; 79: 233–8.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Selvin S, Schulman J, Merrill DW. Distance and risk measures for the analysis of spatial data: a study of childhood cancers. Soc Sci Med 1992; 34: 769–77.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Linet MS, Devesa SS. Descriptive epidemiology of childhood leukemia. Br J Cancer 1991; 63: 424–9.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Brown PN, Ertz H, Olsen JH, Yssing M, Scheibel E, Jensen OM. Incidence of childhood cancer in Denmark 1943–1984. Int J Epidemiol 1989; 18: 546-55.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rothman KJ, Loughlin JE, Funch DP, Dreyer NA. Overall mortality of cellular telephone customers. Epidemiology 1996; 7: 303–5.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Office of Engineering and Technology. Questions and answers about biological effects and potential hazards of radiofrequency radiation. Washington, DC: Federal Communications Commission, OET, 1989; DCOET Bulletin No. 56, January 1989.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE). IEEE Standard for safety levels with respect to radio frequency electromagnetic fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz. IEEE C95.1–1991. New York, April 27, 1992.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Parker SL, Tong T, Bolden S, Wingo PA. Cancer statistics, 1996. CA Cancer J Clin 1996; 65: 5–27.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    US National Safety Council. Accident Facts: 1993 Edition. Itasca, IL (USA): National Safety Council, 1993: 1–120.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Henderson BE, Ross RK, Pike MC. Toward the primary prevention of cancer. Science 1991; 254: 1131–8.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Olsen RG, Wong PS. Characteristics of low frequency electric and magnetic fields in the vicinity of electric power lines. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery 1992; 7: 2046–55.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Dolk H, Shaddick G, Walls P,et al. Cancer incidence near radio and television transmitters in Great Britain: I. Sutton Coldfield transmitter. Am J Epidemiol 1997; 145: 1–9.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Dolk H, Elliott P, Shaddick G,et al. Cancer incidence near radio and television transmitters in Great Britain: II. All high power transmitters. Am J Epidemiol 1997; 145: 10–17.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman and Hall 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter A. Valberg
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Gradient CorporationCambridge
  2. 2.Harvard School of Public HealthBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations