Toxicol Ind Health. 2006 Jun;22(5):211-6

* Koylu H, * Mollaoglu H, * Ozguner F, * Nazyroglu M, * Delibab N.

Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, Suleyman Demirel University, 32260, Isparta, Turkey.

Microwaves (MW) from cellular phones may affect biological systems by increasing free radicals, which may enhance lipid peroxidation levels of the brain, thus leading to oxidative damage. Melatonin is synthesized in and secreted by the pineal gland at night and exhibits anti-oxidant properties. Several studies suggest that supplementation with anti-oxidant can influence MW-induced brain damage. The present study was designed to determine the effects of MW on the brain lipid peroxidation system, and the possible protective effects of melatonin on brain degeneration induced by MW. Twenty-eight Sprague-Dawley male rats were randomly divided into three groups as follows: (1) sham-operated control group (N = 8); (2) study 900-MHz MW-exposed group (N = 8); and (3) 900-MHz MW-exposed+melatonin (100 microg/kg sc before daily MW exposure treated group) (N = 10). Cortex brain and hippocampus tissues were removed to study the levels of lipid peroxidation as malonyl dialdehyde. The levels of lipid peroxidation in the brain cortex and hippocampus increased in the MW group compared with the control group, although the levels in the hippocampus were decreased by MW+melatonin administration. The brain cortex lipid peroxidation levels were unaffected by melatonin treatment. We conclude that melatonin may prevent MW-induced oxidative changes in the hippocampus by strengthening the anti-oxidant defense system, by reducing oxidative stress products.

PMID: 16898263 [PubMed - in process]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16898263&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum

--------

This is an interesting follow-up to similar studies, eg:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15729859&dopt=Abstract

J Dermatol. 2004 Nov;31(11):878-83.

Oxidative stress-mediated skin damage in an experimental mobile phone model can be prevented by melatonin.

Ayata A, Mollaoglu H, Yilmaz HR, Akturk O, Ozguner F, Altuntas I.

Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Suleyman Demirel University, Isparta, Turkey.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16318001&query_hl=1


Vopr Kurortol Fizioter Lech Fiz Kult. 2005 Sep-Oct;(5):17-20.

Influence of shf (460 MHz) electromagnetic fields on the level of induced lipid peroxidation in the structures of visual analyzer and hypothalamus in experimental animals


All a story of oxidative stress again, and how the body responds. But all these studies clearly show that these frequencies, not their power. And cells don't have to do fast-Fourier transforms or behave like radio receivers, or get hot, in order to see these altered chemical reactions. So the role of melatonin remains high on the agenda, and demonstrating that (and finding out why) remains a key element in sub-thermal EMF bio-effects. Reminder of three good reasons why, (the industry hasn't answered these noted effects, they just deny them). These effects must be measured at the right time and at cellular level, not just in expressed melatonin levels in the morning (too crude an indicator):

a) direct EMF pineal "illumination" (as in "light at night")

b) serotonin alteration (nitric oxide prevents formation of melatonin)

c) sleep cycle disruption by any other method disrupts the melatonin cycle.

Any one of these, or all, will reduce immune response to free radical generation by EMFs (or anything else).

[... and since you might ask, nitric oxide is also a regulator of lipid peroxidation, in a complex way, and can suppress or enhance it according to a balance with other enhancers and suppressants]

Andy


From Mast Sanity/Mast Network

The following are some interesting analyses by Lloyd Morgan on the Hardell studies of phones and the comparison between their research and the Interphone studies. Particularly telling are the scatter graphs in the second entry, showing a very graphical representation of the results compared against each other.

http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/columns/morgan/20060817_wireless_tumours.asp (Increase of risk based on phone use)

http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/columns/morgan/20060818_phones_tumours.asp (Comparison of Swedish research and Interphone studies, with a link to:)

http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/columns/morgan/20060818_viewgraphs.asp (The comparison graphs themselves. Three graphs are available, just click on the relevant link at the top of the page)


Best Regards,

Graham Philips
Technical Manager
Powerwatch UK

--------

This is really alarming for two reasons. Firstly, it is ANALOG phones which are being clearly shown in these studies as carrying the highest risk of brain cancers, followed by DECT, then mobiles. Secondly, we are seeing many cases of brain cancer after only a few months to a couple of years use, which is unusual in the development of cancers, which, the authors state, typically appear decades after exposure to carcinogens.

In other words if we are seeing such abnormally rapid carcinogenic development from microwave phone use in comparison to other carcinogens, what does that portend for the future?

Gary

--------

Analogue phones were higher average powered compared with GSM (0.6 watts rms max; c.f. 1 or 2 W peak, 0.125 or 0.25 W rms for GSM).

Also the networks had less base stations then, so the handsets had to work at high power for much more of the time.

I suspect that these were just promoting existing brain tumours into becoming active.

Dr John Holt, President of the Australian College of Radiologists, treated cancers with radiotherapy. To kill cells they need to be in mitosis (dividing) and not dormant. If you treat a very slow growing tumour with radiation you will kill as many or more good tissue cells as you will kill cancer cells. People have tried warming up cancer sites before radiotherapy, and this works slightly to stimulate the cancer cells to grow. However John Holt found that a 5 minute exposure to a 900 MHz cell phone next to the tumour site changed a 5% growing cancer into a 95% growing cancer for about the next 30 minutes. So he applied various microwave frequencies (mainly 450 and 900 MHz) to stimulate the cancer cells before radiotherapy and achieved much better treatment outcomes. There was no increase in temperature of the cancer sites (or, at least, nothing compared with the old method of heating by several degrees), so this is a non-thermal effect. There was some controversy over his claims because the establishment does not believe in non-thermal effects, but they are well documented.

See: http://www.wanttoknow.info/050729cancercure

I think the most worrying finding is that cordless phones over ten year use seem to produce significant brain cancer increases.

Alasdair
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk


From Mast Sanity/Mast Network

Over a period of 15 years (1980-1996) the number of children with braincancer has increased more than twice: i.e. 60% and in many cases ended fatally. Scientists from the Danish Cancer Association said that this is a mystery and worth investigating! To us this does not come as a surprise.

This was from The Danish Cancer Organization's own press information. Increase from 30 cases in 1980 to 50 cases in 1996, which they call a doubling. In the newspapers it was written in very small type, in between a lot of miscellaneous news items, so the public would not pay attention to it.


Sianette Kwee
Sensommervej 16
DK-8600 Silkeborg
Denmark



http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=braincancer
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Sianette

I have often wondered about the tinnitus problem that I developed when first effected by electro magnetic radiation.

Today I saw the term - "microwave hearing" and have started searching for more information. I now believe that I am probably hearing microwave transmissions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_auditory_effect

The link below explains about microwave hearing and even mentions why some people see the colour blue when exposed to radiation. This may help some victims to understand their symptoms better.

Martin Weatherall

--------

----- Original Message -----
From: Milt Bowling
To: Martin Weatherall
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 1:06 AM
Subject: Re: Microwave auditory effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Martin,

Check the attached.
http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/emf_microwave_hearing.pdf


Milt

--------

Cellular Phones and Tinnitus
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/565419/

Regarding the microwave hearing affect
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1419445/

Health aspects of wireless communication: auditory perception of microwaves --- hearing microwaves
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1373016/

Cellular Phones and Tinnitus
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/565419/

Microwave Hearing
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/545924/

MICROWAVE HEARING - YEAR 1980 : ANTENNAS AND WIRELESS "DECT" ARE PSYCHOLOGICAL ARMS
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/226533/

Neurosci Lett. 2006 May 1;398(1-2):139-44. Epub 2006 Jan

Lopez-Martin E, Relova-Quinteiro JL, Gallego-Gomez R, Peleteiro-Fernandez M, Jorge-Barreiro FJ, Ares-Pena FJ.

Morphological Sciences Department, University of Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Santiago Compostela, Spain. cmelena@usc.es

This study investigated the effects of mobile-phone-type radiation on the cerebral activity of seizure-prone animals. When rats transformed into an experimental model of seizure-proneness by acute subconvulsive doses of picrotoxin were exposed to 2 h GSM-modulated 900 MHz radiation at an intensity similar to that emitted by mobile phones, they suffered seizures and the levels of the neuronal activity marker c-Fos in neocortex, paleocortex, hippocampus and thalamus increased markedly. Non-irradiated picrotoxin-treated rats did not suffer seizures, and their cerebral c-Fos counts were significantly lower. Radiation caused no such differences in rats that had not been pretreated with picrotoxin. We conclude that GSM-type radiation can induce seizures in rats following their facilitation by subconvulsive doses of picrotoxin, and that research should be pursued into the possibility that this kind of radiation may similarly affect brain function in human subjects with epileptic disorders.

PMID: 16448750 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16448750&dopt=Abstract

Proteomics. 2006 Jul 28; [Epub ahead of print]

Nylund R, Leszczynski D.

Functional Proteomics Group, Radiation Biology Laboratory, STUK, Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, Helsinki, Finland.

We have examined in vitro cell response to mobile phone radiation (900 MHz GSM signal) using two variants of human endothelial cell line: EA.hy926 and EA.hy926v1. Gene expression changes were examined in three experiments using cDNA Expression Arrays and protein expression changes were examined in ten experiments using 2-DE and PDQuest software. Obtained results show that gene and protein expression were altered, in both examined cell lines, in response to one hour mobile phone radiation exposure at an average specific absorption rate of 2.8 W/kg. However, the same genes and proteins were differently affected by the exposure in each of the cell lines. This suggests that the cell response to mobile phone radiation might be genome- and proteome-dependent. Therefore, it is likely that different types of cells and from different species might respond differently to mobile phone radiation or might have different sensitivity to this weak stimulus. Our findings might also explain, at least in part, the origin of discrepancies in replication studies between different laboratories.

PMID: 16878295 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16878295&dopt=Abstract

Proteomics. 2006 Jul 28; [Epub ahead of print]

Remondini D, Nylund R, Reivinen J, Poulletier de Gannes F, Veyret B, Lagroye I, Haro E, Trillo MA, Capri M, Franceschi C, Schlatterer K, Gminski R, Fitzner R, Tauber R, Schuderer J, Kuster N, Leszczynski D, Bersani F, Maercker C.

University of Bologna, Department of Physics, Bologna, Italy.

Possible biological effects of mobile phone microwaves were investigated in vitro. In this study, which was part of the 5FP EU project REFLEX (Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards From Low-Energy Electromagnetic Field Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods), six human cell types, immortalized cell lines and primary cells, were exposed to 900 and 1800 MHz. RNA was isolated from exposed and sham-exposed cells and labeled for transcriptome analysis on whole-genome cDNA arrays. The results were evaluated statistically using bioinformatics techniques and examined for biological relevance with the help of different databases. NB69 neuroblastoma cells, T lymphocytes, and CHME5 microglial cells did not show significant changes in gene expression. In EA.hy926 endothelial cells, U937 lymphoblastoma cells, and HL-60 leukemia cells we found between 12 and 34 up- or down-regulated genes. Analysis of the affected gene families does not point towards a stress response. However, following microwave exposure, some but not all human cells might react with an increase in expression of genes encoding ribosomal proteins and therefore up-regulating the cellular metabolism.

PMID: 16878293 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16878293&dopt=Abstract

Just read this. The relevant passage is on page 11 of the document. Attached is the copy we have at w-a-r-t. Hope it helps: http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/barry_trower_2005V2.htm

Peter



Hello everyone

The quote in Barry's document is incorrect.

It should read Professor Gerd Oberfield, Public Health Officer for Environmental Medicine, Province of Salzburg, Austria

Trent University is where Magda Havas is based.

Both Gerd Oberfield and Magda Havas responded to a letter in the Washingon Post.

Please could everyone correct this where they have used the quote from Barry's report.

I actually fixed this in Barry's report when I reviewed it at the beginning of last year; don't know what happened that it didn't get updated, but I've attached the original article. Barry is referring to so you can see the context of the quote.


Best regards

Nancy Watts



On Nov. 18 and Dec. 2, Fairfax Extra published guest columns discussing both sides of a debate about the Fairfax County School Board's commercial venture to build cell phone towers at schools. The columns prompted the following letters from two researchers on radio frequency radiation.


Putting Cell Phone Antennas Near Schools Is Too Risky
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/489469/

Thursday, December 30, 2004; Page VA10

I read the article in Fairfax Extra by Karl Polzer ["Schools Are No Place for Cell Towers," Nov. 18] and the rebuttal ["Cell Phone Antennas No Threat to Schools," Dec. 2] by John Walls, vice president of public affairs for the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association.

"While the wireless industry appreciates the concerns of some parents in this instance, they can be assured that no one's health, particularly their children's, would be subjected to any unnecessary risks. The possibility of negative health effects on people in close proximity to cell phone towers has been exhaustively researched by the world's leading health organizations, and all of them have reached the same conclusion: Observing prescribed standards of power emission, such facilities do not pose any threat to human health."

This statement is blatantly false. His reference is to a fact sheet on the World Health Organization Web site that was last revised in 2000 and is now out of date. Even in 2000 the health effects were not "exhaustively researched," and indeed there is much disagreement about what is considered safe. That is why radio frequency guidelines worldwide range more than six orders of magnitude! Since biological effects associated with radio frequency radiation are likely to be the same in Austria, Italy, China, Hungary, Switzerland and Russia, why do these countries have much lower guidelines than the United States?

Recent studies show that people who live within 300 meters of mobile phone base stations have a number of symptoms that are now referred to as electrical hyper- sensitivity and were originally called radio wave illness. These include fatigue, sleep disturbances, headaches, difficulty concentrating, depression, memory loss, visual and hearing disruptions, irritability, skin problems and dizziness. Symptoms are particularly severe for those within 10 meters (30 feet) of a cell phone mast.

Electrical hypersensitivity is a very real phenomenon and is classified as a disability in Sweden. The World Health Organization organized a workshop in October in Prague on electrical hypersensitivity.

Guidelines for radio frequency exposure in the United States and Canada are based on thermal effects. There is now considerable evidence that non-thermal effects exist below existing guidelines and that these may be "associated with adverse health effects," according to the Royal Society of Canada.

These studies tell me that we should be careful with the placement of mobile phone base stations. If in doubt, do not place these base stations near schools and homes and places where people spend considerable time. The adverse biological effects and eventual lawsuits are simply not worth the price of this shortsighted thinking.

Magda Havas
Associate Professor
Environmental and Resource Studies Program Trent University Peterborough, Ontario

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35421-2004Dec29.html


With respect to negative health effects on people living in close proximity to cell phone towers, there are three different epidemiological studies, including our recent study.

All of them found statistically significant relationships between exposure to radiation and health effects. The findings are from 2002 and 2004. It is important to note that cell phone antennas emit microwave radiation all the time and may act as a chronic stressor at low exposure levels. Two of the studies did measurements in subjects' bedrooms and found significant increases in stress-related symptoms as well as neurological symptoms above exposures to 0.005 microwatts per centimeter squared. This is roughly 500,000 times lower than U.S. exposure standards for cell tower radiation. The main symptoms reported by our study were depression, fatigue, sleep disorders and concentration difficulty. These symptoms were related to exposure levels, not distance from the antennas.

Concerning cellular phones, recent research from a project called EU-Reflex, or European Union Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards From Low-Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Using Sensitive In Vitro Methods, shows that cells exposed to cell phone radiation exhibit chromosomal damage well below the exposure guidelines of the World Health Organization. Also, a new study by Swedish researchers confirms previous findings that long-term exposure to cellular phones increases the risk for acoustic neuroma, a benign type of brain tumor.

Exposure guidelines proposed by the World Health Organization are based only on short-term effects and are not designed to protect the public from long-term effects and non-thermal effects.

There is increasing evidence showing that microwave radiation is a threat to well-being and health. Schools and all other places where humans, and especially children, stay for long periods should have safe exposure levels. Before an antenna is mounted, it is possible to calculate the theoretical exposure. It should be noted that under the antennas there can be higher exposure levels because the side lobes of radiation touch ground in close proximity to the radiation source.

In order to reduce the health risks from cell towers significantly, the public health department of Salzburg in Austria recommends exposure levels not exceeding 0.001 microwatts per centimeter squared outside and 0.0001 microwatts per centimeter squared inside buildings. The basis of this recommendation is the empirical evidence that is backed by all three epidemiological cell tower studies.

Because children's bodies are developing and research is not complete on the health effects of microwave radiation, greater caution should be taken in siting cell towers near places where children spend considerable amounts of time. As a general rule, cell towers should not be placed near schools.

Gerd Oberfeld, MD
Public Health Officer for Environmental Medicine Province of Salzburg, Austria

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35421-2004Dec29_2.html


Informant: Robert Riedlinger

Starmail - am Mittwoch, 26. Januar 2005, 22:20 -
http://www.buergerwelle.de/

Rubrik: Wissenschaft zu Mobilfunk
http://omega.twoday.net/topics/Wissenschaft+zu+Mobilfunk


From Mast Sanity/Mast Network

Some very interesting material on the effects of external electromagnetic fields upon brain chemistry and function.

International Encyclopedia of Neuroscience

Author: W. Ross Adey

1. Bioelectromagnetics: developments towards a physical biology

2. Observed effects of environmental fields in the central nervous system.

3. Calcium-dependent neuroregulatory mechanisms modulate by EM fields

4. Neuroendocrine sensitivities

5. Influence of EM fields on brain tumor incidence in man and in animal models

6. Summary: intrinsic and induced electric fields as threshold determinants in central nervous tissue; the potential role of cell ensembles.

7. See also "Search Neuroscion"

Bibliographic References:
http://www.emrnetwork.org/research/adey_encneuro_emfs.pdf


Bob D.