Analyzing the Health Impacts of Modern Communications Microwaves

In: Advances in Medicine and Biology. Volume 17
ISBN: 978-1-61122-790-1
Editor: Leon V. Berhardt
©2011 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.






Chapter 1



ANALYZING THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF MODERN
TELECOMMUNICATIONS MICROWAVES


Dimitris J. Panagopoulos*
1) University of Athens, Faculty of Biology,
Department of Cell Biology and Biophysics, Athens, Greece
2) Radiation and Environmental Biophysics Research Centre, Athens, Greece


ABSTRACT

While different classes of biological effects of radiation used in modern
telecommunications are already confirmed by different experimenters, a lot of
contradictory results are also reported. Despite uncertainties, some of the recent results
reporting effects show an intriguing agreement between them, although with different
biological models and under different laboratory conditions. Such results of exceptional
importance and mutual similarity are those reporting DNA damage or oxidative stress
induction on reproductive cells of different organisms, resulting in decreased fertility and
reproduction. This distinct similarity among results of different researchers makes
unlikely the possibility that these results could be wrong. This chapter analyzes and
resumes our experimental findings of DNA damage on insect reproductive cells by
Global System for Mobile telecommunications (GSM) radiation, compares them with
similar recent results on mammalian-human infertility and discusses the possible
connection between these findings and other reports regarding tumour induction,
symptoms of unwellness, or declines in bird and insect populations. A possible
biochemical explanation of the reported effects at the cellular level is attempted. Since
microwave radiation is non-ionizing and therefore unable to break chemical bonds,
indirect ways of DNA damage are discussed, through enhancement of free radical and
reactive oxygen species (ROS) formation, or irregular release of hydrolytic enzymes.
Such events can be initiated by alterations of intracellular ionic concentrations after
irregular gating of electrosensitive channels on the cell membranes according to the Ion

* Correspondence: 1) Dr. Dimitris J. Panagopoulos, Department of Cell Biology and Biophysics, Faculty of
Biology, University of Athens, Panepistimiopolis, 15784, Athens, Greece. Fax: +30210 7274742, Phone:
+30210 7274273. E-mail: dpanagop@biol.uoa.gr, 2) Dr. Dimitris J. Panagopoulos, Radiation and
Environmental Biophysics Research Centre, 79 Ch. Trikoupi str., 10681 Athens, Greece., E-mail:
dpanagop@biophysics.gr

---

2
Dimitris J. Panagopoulos
Forced-Vibration theory that we have previously proposed. This biophysical mechanism
seems to be realistic, since it is able to explain all of the reported biological effects
associated with exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs), including the so-called
“windows” of increased bioactivity reported for many years but remaining unexplained
so far, and recorded also in our recent experiments regarding GSM radiation exposure.
The chapter also discusses an important dosimetry issue, regarding the use of Specific
Absorption Rate (SAR), a quantity introduced to describe temperature increases within
biological tissue (thermal effects), while the recorded biological effects in their vast
majority are non-thermal. Finally the chapter attempts to propose some basic precautions
and a different way of network design for mobile telephony base station antennas, in
order to minimize the exposure of human population and reduce significantly the current
exposure limits in order to account for the reported non thermal biological effects.

Keywords: microwaves, non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetic fields,
mobile telephony radiation, GSM, RF, ELF, biological effects, health effects,
reproduction, DNA damage, cell death, intensity windows, SAR.


INTRODUCTION

Modern Telecommunication Microwave Radiations such as GSM and 3G (3rd generation)
(Curwen and Whalley 2008) is probably the main source of public microwave exposure in our
time. Billions of people globally are self-exposed daily by their own mobile phones, while at
the same time they are also exposed by base station antennas which are installed within
residential and working areas. While exposure from mobile phones is voluntary for every user
for as long daily periods as each one decides, exposure from base station antennas -although
weaker- is involuntary and constant for up to 24 h a day.
A large number of biological, clinical and epidemiological studies regarding the possible
health and environmental implications of microwave exposure is already published (for a
review see Panagopoulos and Margaritis 2008; 2009; 2010a). While many of these studies do
not report any effect, many others are indicating serious biological, clinical and health effects
such as DNA damage, cell death, reproductive decreases, sleep disturbances, electro-
encephalogram (EEG) alterations, and cancer induction.
Some of the studies report DNA damage or cell death or oxidative stress induction on
reproductive insect and mammalian (including human) cells (Panagopoulos et al 2007a; 2010;
De Iuliis et al. 2009; Agarwal et al 2009; Mailankot et al 2009; Yan et al 2007). The findings
of these studies seem to explain the results of other studies that simply report insect, bird, and
mammalian (including human) infertility (Panagopoulos et al 2004; 2007b; Gul et al 2009;
Agarwal et al 2008; Batellier et al 2008; Wdowiak et al 2007; Magras ans Xenos 1997). Other
recent reports regarding reduction of insect (especially bees) and bird populations during the
last years (Stindl and Stindl 2010; Bacandritsos et al 2010; van Engelsdorp et al 2008;
Everaert and Bauwens 2007; Balmori 2005), also seem to correlate with the above mentioned
studies since their findings may be explained by cell death induction on reproductive cells.
Other studies report DNA damage or oxidative stress induction or increase in cellular damage
features in somatic mammalian and insect cells after in vitro or in vivo exposure to
microwaves, (Guler et al 2010; Tomruk et al 2010; Franzellitti et al 2010; Luukkonen et al
2009; Yao et al 2008; Yadav and Sharma 2008; Sokolovic et al 2008; Lee et al 2008; Lixia et

---

Analyzing the Health Impacts of Modern Telecommunications Microwaves
3
al 2006; Zhang et al 2006; Nikolova et al 2005; Belyaev et al 2005; Diem et al. 2005). At the
same time, some other studies report brain tumour induction in humans, (Hardell et al 2009;
2007; Khurana et al 2009; Johansson 2009), or symptoms of unwellness among people
residing around base station antennas (Hutter et al 2006; Salama et al 2004; Navarro et al
2003).
Despite many other studies that report no effects (see Panagopoulos and Margaritis 2008;
2009; 2010a), the consistency of the above findings and their rapidly increasing number
during the last years is of great importance. All the above-mentioned recent studies from
different research groups and on different biological models exhibit mutually supportive
results and this makes unlikely the possibility that these results could be either wrong or due
to random variations. While recent experimental findings tend to show a distinct similarity
between them, the need for a biophysical and biochemical explanation on the basis of a
realistic mechanism of action of EMFs at the cellular level, becomes more and more
demanding.
Although until today there is still no widely accepted biophysical or biochemical
mechanism to explain the above findings at cellular level, many recent findings tend to
support the possibility that oxidative stress and free radical action may be responsible for the
recorded genotoxic effects of EMFs which may lead to health implications and cancer
induction. It is possible that free radical action and/or irregular release of hydrolytic enzymes
like DNases, induced by exposure to EMFs, may constitute the biochemical action leading to
DNA damage. This biochemical action may be initiated by alterations in intracellular ionic
concentrations after irregular gating of electro-sensitive channels on cell membranes by
external EMFs. Such irregular gating of ionic channels may represent the more fundamental
biophysical mechanism to initiate the biochemical one, as previously supported by us
(Panagopoulos et al 2000; 2002).


EFFECTS OF MODERN TELECOMMUNICATION MICROWAVES
ON A MODEL BIOLOGICAL SYSTEM

After 12 years of experimentation on the biological effects of the pulsed microwave
radiation used in modern mobile telecommunications, we shall attempt a summarizing
presentation of the effects of the two mobile telephony radiation systems used in Europe,
GSM 900 MHz and GSM 1800 MHz (named also DCS –Digital Cellular System), on a model
biological system, the reproductive capacity of the insect Drosophila melanogaster.
The reproductive capacity of animals depends on their ability to successfully complete
subtle biological functions, as is gametogenesis (oogenesis, spermatogenesis), fertilization,
and embryogenesis, in spite of any disturbing exogenous (or endogenous) factors. In the
experiments that will be presented here the exogenous disturbing factor is the Radio-
Frequency (RF)/microwave radiation-fields used in modern mobile telecommunications.
Gametogenesis (oogenesis, spermatogenesis) in all animals is a biological process, much
more sensitive to environmental stress than other developmental - biological processes that
take place at later stages of animal development. This is shown with regard to ionizing
radiations as stress factors, it is in agreement with the empirical law of Bergonie-Tribondau
(Coggle 1983; Hall and Giaccia 2006) and it is verified also in relation to non-ionizing

---

4
Dimitris J. Panagopoulos
radiation by several recent experimental results, including our own, presented in the following
pages.
The reproductive capacity of Drosophila melanogaster (especially oogenesis) is a model
biological system, very well-studied, with a very good timing of its developmental processes
under certain laboratory conditions (King 1970; Panagopoulos et al 2004; Horne-Badovinac
and Bilder 2005).
Following a well-tested protocol of ours, the reproductive capacity is defined by the
number of F1 (first filial generation) pupae, which under the conditions of our experiments
corresponds to the number of laid eggs (oviposition), since there is no statistically significant
mortality of fertilized eggs, larvae or pupae derived from newly eclosed adult flies during the
first days of their maximum oviposition (Panagopoulos et al. 2004).


Basic Experimental Procedure

All sets of experiments were performed with the use of commercially available cellular
mobile phones as exposure devices.
The exposures were performed with the mobile phone antenna outside of the glass vials
containing the flies, in contact with, or at certain distances from the glass walls. The daily
exposure duration was a few minutes (depending on the kind of experiments – see below), in
one dose. The exposures always started on the first day (day of eclosion) of each experiment,
and lasted for a total of five or six days.
The temperature during the exposures was monitored within the vials by a mercury
thermometer with an accuracy of 0.05°C (Panagopoulos et al. 2004).
In each experiment, we collected newly emerged adult flies from the stock; we
anesthetized them very lightly and separated males from females. We put the collected flies in
groups of ten males and ten females in standard laboratory 50-ml cylindrical glass vials
(tubes), with 2.5cm diameter and 10cm height, with standard food, which formed a smooth
plane surface 1cm thick at the bottom of the vials. The glass vials were closed with cotton
plugs.
In each group we kept the ten males and the ten females for the first 48h of the
experiment in separate glass vials. Keeping males separately from females for the first 48h of
the experiment ensures that the flies are in complete sexual maturity and ready for immediate
mating and laying of fertilized eggs, (Panagopoulos et al. 2004).
After the first 48h of each experiment, the males and females of each group were put
together (ten pairs) in another glass vial with fresh food, allowed to mate and lay eggs for
72h. During these three days, the daily egg production of Drosophila is at its maximum.
After five days from the beginning of each experiment the flies were removed from the
glass vials and the vials were maintained in the culture room for at least six additional days,
without any further exposure to the radiation. The removed maternal flies depending on each
separate experimental series, could be collected and their ovaries were dissected and treated
for different biochemical assays (see below).
After the last six days, most F1 embryos (deriving from the laid eggs) are in the stage of
pupation, where they can be clearly seen with bare eyes and easily counted on the walls of the
glass tubes.

---

Analyzing the Health Impacts of Modern Telecommunications Microwaves
5
We have previously shown that this number of F1 pupae, under the above-described
conditions, is a representative estimate of the insect’s reproductive capacity (Panagopoulos et
al 2004).
Exposures and measurements of mobile phone emissions were performed at the same
place within the lab, where the mobile phone had full reception of the GSM signals.
The results were analyzed by Single Factor Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test.


1. Comparison of Biological Activity between Non-Modulated (DTX) and
Modulated (Talk Signal) GSM Radiation

In the first series of experiments, (parts 1A and 1B) we separated the insects into two
groups: a) the Exposed group (E) and b) the Sham Exposed (Control) group (SE). Each one of
the two groups consisted of ten female and ten male, newly emerged adult flies. The sham
exposed groups had identical treatment as the exposed ones, except that the mobile phone
during the “exposures” was turned off.
The total duration of exposure was 6 min per day in one dose and we started the
exposures on the first day of each experiment (day of eclosion). The exposures took place for
a total of 5 days.
In the first part of these experiments (1A) the insects were exposed to Non-Modulated
GSM 900 MHz radiation (TDX -discontinuous transmission mode-signal) while in the second
part (1B) they were exposed to Modulated GSM 900 MHz radiation (or “GSM talk signal”).
In both cases, the exposures were performed with the antenna of the mobile phone in contact
with the walls of the glass vials containing the insects.
The difference between the Modulated and the corresponding Non-Modulated GSM
radiation is that, the intensity of the Modulated radiation is about ten times higher than the
intensity of the corresponding Non-Modulated from the same handset (mobile phone) and
additionally that, the Modulated radiation includes more and larger variations in its intensity
within the same time interval, than the corresponding Non-Modulated one (Panagopoulos et
al. 2004; Panagopoulos and Margaritis 2008).
The mean power density for 6 min of Modulated emission, with the antenna of the mobile
phone outside of the glass vial in contact with the glass wall and parallel to the vial’s axis,
was 0.436±0.060 mW/cm2 and the corresponding mean value for Non-Modulated (NM)
emission, 0.041±0.006 mW/cm2. The measured Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) mean
values of electric field intensity of the GSM signals excluding the ambient fields of 50Hz,
were 6.05±1.62 V/m for the Modulated signal, and 3.18±1.10 V/m for the Non-Modulated
signal. These values are averages from eight separate measurements of each kind ± Standard
Deviation (SD).

1A. Experiments with Non-Modulated GSM 900 MHz radiation (“non-speaking”
emission or DTX-signal), showed that this radiation decreases insect reproduction by an
average of 18.24 %, after 6 min daily exposure for 5 consecutive days (Table 1).
The exposure conditions in these experiments simulate the potential biological impact on
a mobile phone user who listens through the mobile phone during a conversation, with the
handset close to his/her head.

---

6
Dimitris J. Panagopoulos
The average mean numbers of F1 pupae from 4 identical separate experiments
(corresponding to the number of laid eggs) per maternal fly in the groups E(NM) exposed to
Non-Modulated (NM) GSM radiation-field, and in the corresponding sham exposed (control)
groups SE(NM) during the first three days of the insect’s maximum oviposition, are shown in
the first two rows of Table 1.
Single factor Analysis-of-Variance (ANOVA) test, showed that the probability that
differences between the groups exposed to non-modulated GSM radiation and the sham
exposed groups, owing to random variations, is P < 5×10-4, meaning that, the decrease in the
reproductive capacity is actually due to the effect of the GSM field. [A detailed description of
these experiments can be found in Panagopoulos et al. 2004].

1B. Experiments with Modulated GSM 900 MHz radiation (“speaking” emission or
“GSM Talk signal”) exposure, showed that this radiation decreases insect reproduction by an
average of 53.01 %, after 6 min daily exposure for 5 consecutive days (Table 1).
The experimenter spoke close to the mobile phone’s mic during the exposures. The
exposure conditions in this case simulate the potential biological impact when a user speaks
on the mobile phone during a conversation, with the handset close to his/her head.

Table 1. Effect of Non-Modulated (DTX) and Modulated (Talk mode) GSM Radiation
on the Reproductive Capacity of Drosophila melanogaster



Average Mean

Probability that
Type of
Groups
Number of F1
Deviation from the
Differences between
GSM 900 MHz
Pupae per
corresponding
Exposed and
Radiation
Maternal Fly in
Sham-Exposed
corresponding
four separate
Groups
Sham-Exposed Groups are
experiments ± SD
due to random variations
NM or DTX-signal E(NM)
9.97 ± 0.31
-18.24%
P < 5×10-4

SE(NM)
12.2 ± 0.57


M or Talk-signal
E(M)
5.85 ± 0.67
-53.01%
P < 10-5

SE(M)
12.45 ± 0.6



The last two rows of Table 1 show the average mean number of F1 pupae from 4 identical
separate experiments (corresponding to the number of laid eggs) per maternal fly in the
groups E(M), exposed to “Modulated” (M) GSM radiation- field and in the corresponding
sham-exposed groups, SE(M), during the first three days of the insect’s maximum
oviposition.
The statistical analysis showed that the probability that mean oviposition differs between
the groups exposed to modulated GSM radiation and the corresponding sham-exposed
groups, owing to random variations, is very small, P < 10-5. Thus the recorded effect is
actually due to the GSM signal.
Although the intensity of the modulated signal is about ten times higher than the
corresponding intensity of the non-modulated RF signal, the reproductive capacity was
decreased by 53.01 % by the modulated emission, and 18.24 % by the non-modulated one.
Thus the effect seems to be strongly, but non-linearly, dependent on the radiation intensity.

---

Analyzing the Health Impacts of Modern Telecommunications Microwaves
7
The results from the first set of experiments (parts 1A and 1B) are represented
graphically, in Figure 1.
Temperature increases were not detected within the vials during the 6 min exposures with
either DTX or “Talk signal”. Therefore the described effects are considered as non-thermal.

Bioactivity of Non-Modulated and Modulated GSM Radiation
14
12
i
t
y
c
10
a
p
a
8

C
e
t
i
v
c
6
u
d
r
o
p
4
e
R
2
0
SE(NM)
E(NM)
SE(M)
E(M)

Groups

Figure 1. Reproductive Capacity (average mean number of F1 pupae per maternal insect) ± SD of the
insect groups exposed to non-modulated and modulated GSM 900 MHz radiation [E(NM), E(M)] and
the corresponding sham-exposed, [SE(NM), SE(M)], groups.

2. Effect of GSM Radiation on Males and Females

In this set of experiments, we investigated the effect of GSM 900 MHz field on the
reproductive capacity of each sex. The mobile phone was operating in speaking mode during
the 6 min exposures, and the insects were separated into four groups (each one consisting
again of 10 male and 10 female insects): In the first group (E1) both male and female insects
were exposed. In the second group (E2) only the females were exposed. In the third group
(E3) only the males were exposed and the fourth group (SE) was sham-exposed (control).
Therefore in this set of experiments, the 6-min daily exposures took place only during the first
two days of each experiment while the males and females of each group were separated and
the total number of exposures in each experiment was 2 instead of 5. The exposures were
again performed with the antenna of the mobile phone in contact with the glass vials
containing the insects.
The average mean number of F1 pupae per maternal fly of each group, in four separate
identical experiments, are given in Table 2 and represented graphically in Figure 2.

---

8
Dimitris J. Panagopoulos
Table 2. Effect of GSM Radiation on the Reproductive Capacity of Males and Females


Average Mean Number

Groups
of F1 Pupae
Deviation from Control
per Maternal Fly ± SD
E1
7.7 ± 0.66
-42.32%
E2
8.85 ± 0.73
-33.71%
E3
11.75 ± 0.54
-11.985%
SE (Control)
13.35 ± 0.39


The statistical analysis (single factor Analysis of Variance test) shows that the probability
that the mean number of F1 pupae differs between the four groups because of random
variations is, P < 10-7.
These results show that the GSM radiation-field decreases the reproductive capacity of
both female and male insects. The reason why female insects (E2) appear to be more affected
than males (E3), is probably that, by the time we started the exposures, spermatogenesis was
already almost completed in male flies, while oogenesis had just started (King 1970;
Panagopoulos et al. 2004). Therefore it should be expected that the GSM exposure would
affect oogenesis more than spermatogenesis and the decrease in reproductive capacity would
be more evident in the female than in the male insects.


GSM Radiation Effect on the Reproductive Capacity of each Sex
14
12
i
t
y
c
a
10
p
a

C
8
e
t
i
v
c
6
u
d
r
o
4
p
e
R
2
0
SE
E1
E2
E3
Groups

Figure 2. Effect of GSM radiation on the reproductive capacity of each sex of Drosophila
melanogaster. Average mean number of F1 pupae per maternal insect ± SD. SE: sham exposed groups,
E1: groups in which both sexes were exposed, E2: groups in which only the females were exposed, E3:
groups in which only the males were exposed.

---

Analyzing the Health Impacts of Modern Telecommunications Microwaves
9

3. Comparison of Bioactivity Between GSM 900 MHz and GSM 1800 MHz

GSM 900 MHz antennas of both handsets and base stations operate at double the power
output than the corresponding GSM 1800 MHz antennas. [As mentioned before, GSM 1800
MHz radiation is also referred to as DCS]. Additionally, the two systems use different carrier
frequencies (900 or 1800 MHz respectively). Therefore, a comparison of the biological
activity between the two European systems of Mobile Telephony radiation is of great
importance. [GSM 1900 MHz system operating in the USA, is similar to GSM 1800 MHz,
except for the 100 MHz difference of their carrier frequencies].
In this and the next series of experiments, we used a dual band cellular mobile phone that
could be connected to either GSM 900 or 1800 networks, simply by changing SIM
(“Subscriber Identity Module”) cards on the same handset. The highest Specific Absorption
Rate (SAR), given by the manufacturer for human head, was 0.89 W/Kg. The exposure
procedure was the same. The handset was fully charged before each set of exposures. The
experimenter spoke on the mobile phone’s microphone during the exposures, thus, the GSM
900 and 1800 fields were “modulated” by the human voice, (“speaking emissions” or “GSM
talk signals”).
The exposures and the measurements of the mobile phone emissions were always
performed at the same place within the lab, where the mobile phone had full reception of both
GSM 900 and 1800 signals.
The measured mean power densities in contact with the mobile phone antenna for six min
of modulated emission, were 0.407 ± 0.061 mW/cm2 for GSM 900 MHz and 0.283 ± 0.043
mW/cm2 for GSM 1800 MHz. As expected, GSM 900 MHz intensity at the same distance
from the antenna and with the same handset was higher than the corresponding 1800 MHz.
For a better comparison between the two systems of radiation we measured the GSM power
density at different distances from the antenna and found that at 1cm distance, the GSM 900
MHz intensity was 0.286± 0.050 mW/cm2, almost equal to GSM 1800 MHz at zero distance.
Measured electric and magnetic field intensities in the ELF range for the modulated field,
excluding the ambient electric and magnetic fields of 50Hz, were 22.3±2.2 V/m electric field
intensity and 0.50±0.08 mG magnetic field intensity for GSM 900 at zero distance, 13.9±1.6
V/m, 0.40±0.07 mG correspondingly for GSM 900 at 1 cm distance and 14.2 ±1.7 V/m,
0.38±0.07 mG correspondingly for GSM 1800 at zero distance. All these values are averaged
over ten separate measurements of each kind ± standard deviation (SD).
Each type of radiation gives a unique frequency spectrum. While GSM 900 MHz gives a
single peak around 900 MHz, GSM 1800 MHz gives a main peak around 1800 MHz and a
smaller one around 900 MHz, (Panagopoulos et al. 2007b).
In this set of experiments we separated the insects into four groups: a) the group exposed
to GSM 900 MHz field with the mobile phone antenna in contact with the glass vial
containing the flies (named “900”), b) the group exposed to GSM 900 MHz field with the
antenna of the mobile phone at 1cm distance from the vial (named “900A”), c) the group
exposed to GSM 1800 MHz field with the mobile phone antenna in contact with the glass vial
(named “1800”), and d) the sham-exposed (Control) group (named “SE”). The comparison
between first and third groups represents comparison of potential biological impact between
GSM 900 and GSM 1800 users under the actual exposure conditions. Comparison between

---

10
Dimitris J. Panagopoulos
the first and the second groups represents comparison of bioactivity between signals of
different intensity but of the same carrier frequency, and finally, comparison between the
second and third groups represents comparison of bioactivity between the RF carrier
frequencies of the two systems under equal radiation intensities. Therefore the introduction of
the second group (900A) contributes significantly to the better comparison of the effects
between the two types of radiation.
The average mean numbers of F1 pupae in ten replicate experiments for the different
groups, are given in Table 3 and represented graphically, in Figure 3.


Table 3. Effect of GSM 900 and GSM 1800 fields on the Reproductive Capacity of
Drosophila melanogaster

Groups
Average Mean Number of F1 Pupae per
Deviation from Control
Maternal Fly in ten replicate experiments ± SD
900
6.51 ± 0.67
-48.25%
900A
8.46 ± 0.55
-32.75%
1800
8.67 ± 0.65
-31.08%
SE (Control)
12.58 ± 0.95



Bioactivity of GSM 900 and GSM 1800
14
12
i
t
y
c
10
pa
a

C
8
e
t
i
v
uc
6
d
r
o
ep
4
R
2
0
SE
900
900A
1800
Groups

Figure 3. Reproductive Capacity (average mean number of F1 pupae per maternal insect) ± SD of insect
groups exposed to GSM 900 and GSM 1800 radiations (900, 900A, 1800) and sham-exposed (SE)
groups
The results from this set of experiments show that the reproductive capacity in all the
exposed groups is significantly decreased compared to the sham-exposed. The average
decrease in ten replicate experiments was found to be maximum in the 900 groups (48.25%

---