Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
http://www.tandfonline.com/iebm
ISSN: 1536-8378 (print), 1536-8386 (electronic)
Electromagn Biol Med, 2015; 34(3): 251256
! 2015 Taylor & Francis. DOI: 10.3109/15368378.2015.1077339
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Abstract
Keywords
The twenty-first century is marked with aggressive development of the wireless communications (satellite, mobile phones, Internet, Wi-Fi). In addition to thousand of satellites that deliver
radio and TV signals, large satellite and base station networks secure intensive instant delivery
of audio and video information. It is fair to say that that the entire civilization, both biosphere
and mankind are exposed to continuous exposure of multitude of radiofrequency (RF) signals.
It should be taken into account that the entire world population is exposed to exponentially
increasing RF radiation from base stations and satellite antennas. While several years ago
the potential hazard was connected with placement of mobile phones close to human head,
today smart phones represent small, but powerful computers continuously receiving
audio and video data. The largest group of users is the children and teenagers who need
to communicate nearly 24 h a day. This is even more important because cell phones and tablets
may be seen in the hands of children as little as two years in age. There is no way to assess and
predict the potential damages of children brain, vision and hearing under exposure to RF
radiation. The WHO precautionary principle and IARC classification must be applied in
discussing the potential hazard of the use of todays and tomorrows communication devices.
History
Received 24 July 2015
Accepted 24 July 2015
Published online 7 October 2015
252
DOI: 10.3109/15368378.2015.1077339
tissues are local and for many individuals are not detectable.
Well, how thermal effects could be detected in cohort of
hundreds or even thousand of individuals?
The information obtained by these numbers basically do
not relate to biology, to the process of occurrence of one or
another modification of the living tissue. But the epidemiological team claims there isnt consistent evidence for
occurrence of the modification. They also state there is no
conclusive and consistent evidence that non-ionizing radiation
emitted by cell phone is associated with cancer risk (Boice
and Tarone, 2011). It is remarkable that this paper was
published after IARC defined RF as possible cancerogenic
for humans.
In 2012 one of us (Markov, 2012), discussed the fact that
the long-delayed publication of the INTERPHONE data
resulted in the strange situation: two groups of participants in
this project published two papers that basically contradict
each other. We are close to saying that the conclusion of
epidemiological studies should not be trusted, especially that
in most cases the investigators are funded by the industry.
Another critical point of consideration is that different
tissues have specific absorption windows and epidemiology is not able to distinguish the effects of different
RF fields.
At the same time, the energy absorption characteristics that
make the 750 and 915 MHz frequencies so desirable for
hyperthermia and diathermy treatments have the similar
absorption characteristics that make the first cellular
phone transmission band of 825845 MHz so dangerous
(Kane, 1995).
Let us remind to the readers that one of the first papers
on the absorption of non-ionizing electromagnetic energy
was published by Schwan and Piersol (1978), in which they
connected absorption with the tissue composition. It is
important to remember that this composition is a very
complex one and varies from organ to organ, from person to
person. From biophysics point of view, the energy absorption
also depends on the depth of penetration for the specific
frequency range (for 825845 MHz the penetration depth into
brain tissue is from 2 to 3.8 cm) (Polk and Postow, 1986).
These specifics were recognized early and for more than
half a century, a very serious group of scientists have
investigated the importance of SAR. The SAR is assumed to
provide a measure of absorbed energy in a given tissue.
Absorption, not delivery. This term is particularly advantageous since the energy absorption in biological bodies and
specific organs is nonuniform and frequency dependent.
However, up today, SAR is more often used to describe the
energy delivered by the source of the electromagnetic field.
One can only wonder how a device may be characterized by
SAR. Let us repeat, the SAR identifies the amount of energy
that is absorbed in a gram of tissue. Therefore, any
characterization of the delivered energy by SAR is false and
should not be done. One cannot use SAR instead of the
incident power density. It appears that the safety standards
should include both incident power and SAR. In addition, in
evaluation of potential hazard one must consider the SAR
received by the specific target tissue/organ. We should not
forget that continuous exposure to RF radiation could cause
an accumulation of changes initiated by RF.
253
254
DOI: 10.3109/15368378.2015.1077339
255
Declaration of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The authors alone
are responsible for the content and writing of the article.
References
Boice, J., Tarone, R.E. (2011). Cell phone, cancer and children. J. Natl.
Inst. Cancer. 103:12111213.
Chizhevsky, L.I. (1976). The Terrestrial Echo of Solar Storms. Moscow:
Nauka. (in Russian).
Christ, A., Gosselin, M.C., Christopoulou, M., et al. (2010a). Agedependent tissue specific exposure of cell phone users. Phys. Med.
Biol. 55:17631783.
Christ, A., Gosselin, M.C., Kuhn, S., et al. (2010b). Impact of pinna
compression on the RF absorption in the head of adults and juvenile
cell phone users. Bioelectromagnetics 31:406412.
Durney, C.H., Massodi, E., Iskander, M.F. (1978). Radiofrequency
radiation dosimetry handbook. Rep. SAM-TR-78-22, 1978. USAF
School of Aerospace Medicine, Brooks Air Force Base, Texas.
256
Markov, M.S., Grigoriev, Y.G. (2013). WiFi technology an uncontrolled experiment on human health. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 32:
200208.
Michaelson, S.M. (1972). Human exposure to nonionizing radiant
energypotential hazards and safety standards. Proceedings of the
IEEE, April 1972, pp. 389421.
Nikita, K.S., Kiourri, A. (2011). Mobile communication field in
biological systems. In: Lin, J. Electromagnetic Fields in Biological
Systems. Boca Raton: CRC Press. pp. 261329.
Polk, C., Postow, E. (1986). CRC Handbook of Biological Effects of
Electromagnetic Fields. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Pressman, A.S. (1968). Electromagnetic Fields and Living Nature.
Moscow: Science. (in Russian).
Sage, C. (2012). The similar effects of low-dose ionizing radiation and
non-ionizing radiation from background environmental levels of
exposure. Environmentalist. 32:144156.
Schwan, H.P., Piersol, G.M. (1978). The absorption of electromagnetic energy in body tissues. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. VT-27:
5156.
Schwan, H.P. (1972a). Microwave radiation; hot spots in conducting
spheres by electromagnetic waves and biological implications. IEEE
Trans. Biomed. Eng. BME 19:5358.
Schwan, H.P. (1972b). Microwave radiation; biophysical considerations and standards criteria. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. BME 19:
304312.
Serduk, A.M. (1977). Interactions of the Organism with
Electromagnetic Fields as a Factor of Environment. Kiev: Science.
(in Russian).
White, G.N., Egot-Lamaire, S.J.P., Baclavage, W.X. (2011). A novel
view of biologically active electromagnetic fields. Environmentalist
31:107113.
WHO. (2014). www.cdc.gov./nceh/radiation/cell_phones.FAQ.htm.