THE MEETING IN SELETUN- EMFs HEALTH RISKS

REVIEWS ON ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
VOLUME 25, No. 4, 2010

Scientific Panel on Electromagnetic Field Health Risks:
Consensus Points, Recommendations, and Rationales
Scientific Meeting: Seletun, Norway, November 17-21, 2009

Adamantia Fragopoulou,1 Yuri Grigoriev,2 Olle Johansson,3 Lukas H Margaritis,1
Lloyd Morgan,4 Elihu Richter5 and Cindy Sage6

1University of Athens, Athens, Greece; 2Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation
Protection, Moscow (Russian Federation); 3Karolinska Institute and The Royal Institute of Technology,
Stockholm, Sweden ; 4Bioelectromagnetics Society, Berkeley, CA, USA; 5Hebrew University-Hadassah
School of Medicine, Jerusalem (Israel); 6Sage Associates, Santa Barbara, CA, USA

Summary: In November, 2009, a scientific panel met in Seletun, Norway, for three days of intensive discussion on
existing scientific evidence and public health implications of the unprecedented global exposures to artificial
electromagnetic fields (EMF). EMF exposures (static to 300 GHz) result from the use of electric power and from wireless
telecommunications technologies for voice and data transmission, energy, security, military and radar use in weather and
transportation. The Scientific Panel recognizes that the body of evidence on EMF requires a new approach to protection of
public health; the growth and development of the fetus, and of children; and argues for strong preventative actions. New,
biologically-based public exposure standards are urgently needed to protect public health worldwide.

Keywords: EMF, wireless telecommunications technology, radiofrequency, non-ionizing radiation, non-thermal effects,
long-term effects, public exposure guidelines, public health

Correspondence: Professor Olle Johansson, The Experimental Dermatology Unit, Department of Neuroscience,
Karolinska Institute, 171 77 Stockholm, and The Royal Institute of Technology, 100 44, Stockholm (Sweden). E-mail:
olle.johansson@ki.se

______________________________________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND
protection of public health; the growth and
In November, 2009, a scientific panel met in
development of the fetus, and of children; and
Seletun, Norway, for three days of intensive
argues for strong preventative actions. These
discussion on existing scientific evidence and
conclusions are built upon prior scientific and
public health implications of the unprecedented
public health reports /1-6/ documenting the
global exposures to artificial electromagnetic
following:
fields (EMF).

EMF exposures (static to 300 GHz) result
1) Low-intensity (non-thermal) bioeffects and
from the use of electric power and from wireless
adverse health effects are demonstrated at
telecommunications technologies for voice and
levels significantly below existing exposure
data transmission, energy, security, military and
standards.
radar use in weather and transportation.
2) ICNIRP and IEEE/FCC public safety limits
The Scientific Panel recognizes that the body
are inadequate and obsolete with respect to
of evidence on EMF requires a new approach to
prolonged, low-intensity exposures.

---

SELETUN SCIENTIFIC PANEL 2010
3) New, biologically-based public exposure
from emerging communication and data
standards are urgently needed to protect
transmission technologies that are being
public health world-wide.
deployed worldwide, affecting billions of
4) It is not in the public interest to wait.
people;
Strong concern has been voiced by the public,
 Sensitive populations (for example, the
and by scientists as well as public health and
elderly, the ill, the genetically and/or
environmental policy experts, that the deployment
immunologically challenged) and children and
of technologies that expose billions of people
fetuses may be additionally vulnerable to
worldwide to new sources of EMF may pose a
health risks; their exposures are largely
pervasive risk to public health. Such exposures
involuntary and they are less protected by
did not exist before the ―age of industry and
existing public safety standards;
information‖. Prolonged exposure appears to
 It is well established that children are more
disrupt biological processes that are fundamental
vulnerable to health risks from environmental
to plant, animal and human growth and health.
toxins in general;
Life on earth did not evolve with biological
 It is established that the combined effects of
protections or adaptive biological responses to
chemical toxins and EMF together is greater
these EMF exposures. Exceptionally small levels
than either exposure alone;
of EMF from earth and space existed during the
 The Seletun Scientific Panel takes note of
time that all life evolved on earth on the order of
international scientific reviews, resolutions
less than a billionth to one ten-billionth of a Watt
and recommendations documenting scientific
per meter squared. A rapidly accumulating body
and public health evidence on EMF exposures;
of scientific evidence of harm to health and well-
 The Seletun Scientific Panel notes that
being constitute warnings that adverse health
complete “consistency” of study findings is
effects can occur with prolonged exposures to
not to be expected, and it should not be
very low-intensity EMF at biologically active
interpreted as a necessary pre-condition for a
frequencies or frequency combinations.
consensus linking EMF exposure to health
The Seletun Scientific Panel has adopted a
impacts. “Consistency in nature does not
Consensus
Agreement
that
recommends
require that all or even a majority of studies
preventative and precautionary actions that are
find the same effect. If all studies of lead
warranted now, given the existing evidence for
showed the same relationship between
potential global health risks. We recognize the
variables, one would be startled, perhaps
duty of governments and their health agencies to
justifiably suspicious” /7/;
educate and warn the public, to implement
 The Seletun Scientific Panel acknowledges that
measures balanced in favor of the Precautionary
some, but not all, of these exposures support
Principle, to monitor compliance with directives
preventative and precautionary action, and the
promoting alternatives to wireless, and to fund
need for more stringent public health limits;
research and policy development geared toward
 The Panel takes note of international scientific
prevention of exposures and development of new
resolutions and expressions of concern
public safety measures.
including the Salzburg, Catania, Freiberger
Appeal, Helsinki, Irish Doctors (IDEA),
POINTS OF AGREEMENT
Benevento, Venice, London, and Porto Alegre
Resolutions (2000-2009);
 Global populations are not sufficiently
 The Panel is guided by previously
protected from electromagnetic fields (EMF)
recommended target limits for EMF exposure

---

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD HEALTH RISKS
in the BioInitiative Report (2007) and the
already exceed scientific benchmarks for
London Resolution (2009);
health harm identified here, but political
 The Panel urges governments to adopt an
expediency is not the guiding criterion in this
explicit statement that ―the standard for
assessment;
judging and acting on the scientific evidence
 EMF exposures should be reduced now rather
shall be based on prudent public health
than waiting for proof of harm before acting.
planning principles rather than scientific
This recommendation is in keeping with
certainty of effect (causal evidence)‖. Actions
traditional public health principles, and is
are warranted based on limited or weak
justified now given abundant evidence that
scientific evidence, or a sufficiency of
biological effects and adverse health effects
evidence – rather than a conclusive scientific
are occurring at exposure levels many orders
evidence (causation or scientific certainty)
of magnitude below existing public safety
where the consequence of doing nothing in the
standards around the world;
short term may cause irreparable public health
 SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) is not an
harm, where the populations potentially at risk
adequate approach to predict many important
are very large, where there are alternatives
biologic effects in studies that report increased
without similar risks, or where the exposures
risks for cancer, neurological diseases,
are largely involuntary;
impairments to immune function, fertility and
 The Seletun Scientific Panel urges govern-
reproduction,
and
neurological
function
ments to make explicit that the burden of
(cognition, behaviour, performance, mood
proof of safety rests with the producers and
status, disruption of sleep, increased risk for
providers of EMF-producing technologies, not
auto collisions, etc);
with the users and consumers.
 SAR fails to adequately address known effects
from modulation.
THE SELETUN SCIENTIFIC PANEL
General Recommendations from the Seletun
UNANIMOUSLY ENDORSES THESE GENERAL
Scientific Panel
AGREEMENTS AND GENERAL AND SPECIFIC
RECOMMENDATIONS
 The Seletun Scientific Panel recommends an
international registry be established to track
General Agreements from the Seletun Scientific
time-trends in incidence and mortality for
Panel
cancers
and
neurological
and
immune
diseases. Tracking effects of EMF on children
 The Seletun Scientific Panel has identified
and sensitive EHS populations is a high
specific
scientific
and
public
health
priority. There should be open access to this
benchmarks
for
numeric
limits
and
information;
preventative action that are justified now
 The Panel recommends existing brain tumour
based on the existing body of evidence;
registries
provide
timely
age-specific
 The Panel is relying on scientific evidence as
incidence rates. An early indication of brain
the basis for identifying scientific benchmarks
tumors from mobile (cell) phone use could be
establishing EMF levels associated with
in the younger age-specific incidence rates.
adverse health effects. The Panel notes that
Where such brain tumors registries to not
radiofrequent (RF) levels in some regions may
exist, they should be established;

3

---

SELETUN SCIENTIFIC PANEL 2010
 Intervention-related epidemiological studies
General Research Recommendations from the
are needed to track the efficacy of
Seletun Scientific Panel
intervention(s) that reduce or eliminate
exposures to EMF;
 Research funding is urgently needed for
 There is a need for mandatory pre-market
assays for biological markers [EMF bioassays
assessments of emissions and risks before
as biological markers of EMF dose] which
deployment of new wireless technologies.
show promise to measure adverse health
There should be convincing evidence that
effects, and biological effects that, with
products do not cause health harm before
prolonged
or
repetitive
exposure,
can
marketing;
reasonably be presumed to lead to harmful
 For occupational exposures, there has been
health
consequences
(biomarkers
from
epidemiological evidence as well as clusters
cerebrospinal fluid, saliva, immune function
and case reports which state the ‗case for
changes, and DNA damage to name some);
action‘ and stringent control measures based
 The Scientific Panel recommends research
on classic industrial hygiene principles
funding for studies on bioactive modulation
(separation, distancing and enclosure). Further,
which may, based on current knowledge,
there is need for surveillance markers of
cause major consequences at far lower
hematologic, immunotoxic and chromosome
exposure levels based on different exposure
aberrations;
parameters including modulation, frequency
 The Panel discourages use of more lenient
windows,
intensity
windows,
duration,
safety standards for workers, as compared to
geomagnetic field and other factors;
the general public. Separate safety limits are not
 Research is urgently recommended for effects
ethically acceptable. Workers include women
of prolonged or repetitive wireless exposure
of childbearing age and men who wish to retain
on children (cancers, neurological diseases,
their fertility. Occupational environments
and impairment of cognition, behavior,
where wireless exposures are common may be
performance and mood status, and disruption
potentially hazardous to fertility and repro-
of sleep, etc) ;
duction (retail and restaurant workers, transit
 Research in SAR refinements is given a low
workers, telecommunications and broadcast
priority. The scientific panel is in unanimous
workers, medical workers, educators, admini-
agreement that SAR is a poor measurement
strators, etc) and those with other exposures or
tool. Yet SARs have been used in many key
special health risks;
studies reporting increased risk of DNA
 The Panel strongly recommends that persons
damage, increased risk for brain cancer,
with electrohypersensitivity symptoms (EHS)
increased risk for acoustic neuroma, and
be classified as functionally impaired rather
reduced sperm quality parameters, among
than with ‗idiopathic environmental disease‘
others. SAR measures only one aspect of
or
similar
indistinct
categories.
This
exposure and ignores other critical aspects,
terminology will encourage governments to
such as biologically active frequencies (and
make adjustments in the living environment to
modulations) that is essential information
better address social and well-being needs of
needed to understand the biological responses
this
subpopulation
of
highly
sensitive
induced by EMF over short and long term
members of society.
exposures (e.g., nervous system response and

---

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD HEALTH RISKS
tissue/organ development, respectively) that
 The Panel recommends all countries should
does not cause thermal damage so that
adopt electrical code requirements to disallow
effective, biologically protective limits can be
conduction
of
high-frequency
voltage
developed.
transients back into electrical wiring systems;
 All new electronic devices including compact
Specific Recommendations from the Seletun
fluorescent
lamps
(CFLs)
should
be
Scientific Panel
constructed with filters to block high-
frequency voltage transients from being
Extremely Low Frequency (Fields from Electrical
conducted back onto electrical wiring systems;
Power)
 The Panel recommends electric field
 Based on the available evidence, the Seletun
reductions from electrical wiring in buildings
Scientific Panel recommends a 0.1 uT (1 mG)
based on evidence of increased cancer risk
exposure limit for all new installations based
from prolonged or repetitive electric field
on findings of risk for leukemia, brain
exposure.
The
United
States
National
tumours, Alzheimer‘s, ALS, sperm damage
Electrical Code (NEC) and other govern-
and DNA strand breaks. This exposure limit
mental codes relating to building design and
does not include a safety margin;
construction should be revised so that all new
 For all newly installed, or newly upgraded
electrical wiring is enclosed in a grounded
electrical power distribution, the Panel
metal shield;
recommends a 0.1 uT (1 mG) set-back
 The United States NEC and other govern-
distance, from residences, hospitals, schools,
mental codes that disallow net current on
parks, and playgrounds schools (and similar
electrical wiring should be better enforced,
locations occupied by children) [A 0.1 uT (1
and ground fault interrupters (GFIs) should be
mG) time-weighted average (TWA) using
installed on all electrical circuits in order to
peak loading for transmission lines to ensure
reduce net current.
that average is about half of this for typical
exposures; or equivalent for long-term
Radiofrequency/Microwave Radiation
exposure in interior EMF environments
Exposure Limit Recommendations
(wiring, trans-formers, appliances, others).];
Present guidelines, such as IEEE, FCC, and
 For all newly constructed residences, offices,
ICNIRP, are not adequate to protect humans from
schools (and other facilities with children),
harmful effects of chronic EMF exposure. The
and hospitals there shall be a 0.1 uT (1 mG)
existing scientific knowledge is, however, not
max. 24 hour average exposure limit;
sufficient at this stage to formulate final and
 For all new equipment (e.g. transformers,
definite science-based guidelines for all these
motors, electronic products), where practical,
fields and conditions, particularly for such chronic
the Panel recommends a 0.1 uT (1 mG) max.
exposure as well as contributions of the different
24 hour average exposure limit. Where not
parameters of the fields, e.g. frequency,
practical (e.g. large power transformers), there
modulation, intensity, and window effects. The
should be a fence, or boundary marker, with
values suggested below are, thus, provisional and
clearly written warning labels that states that
may be altered in the future.

within the boundary area the 0.1 uT (1 mG)
For whole-body (in vivo experiments) or cell
maximum, 24 hour average exposure limit is
culture-based exposure, the Seletun Scientific
exceeded;
Panel finds sufficient evidence to establish a

5

---

SELETUN SCIENTIFIC PANEL 2010
scientific benchmark for adverse health effect
below 0.5-1.0 mW/m2, it can also then be
at 0.0166 W/kg based on at least 32 scientific
argued that an additional 10-fold reduction on
studies reporting low-intensity effects (defined
precautionary grounds is justified. If another
as studies reporting effects at exposures of 0.1
10-fold reduction is applied, the recommended
W/kg or lower) /8-39/.
level would then be 0.17 mW/m2 (also
 The Panel recommends a provisional whole-
0.000017 mW/cm2 = 0.017 µW/cm2);
body limit of 0.00033 W/kg by incorporation
 The Seletun Scientific Panel recommends
of an additional 50-fold safety margin applied
these numeric limits to governments and
to the scientific benchmark of 0.0166 W/kg.
health agencies for adoption in place of
This is consistent with both ICNIRP and
ICNIRP, IEEE/FCC and other outdated public
IEEE/FCC safety factors. An additional 10-
safety guidelines and limits in use around the
fold reduction is applied to take prolonged
world. This approach is based on traditional
exposure into account (because 29 of the 32
public health principles that support taking
studies are acute exposure only), giving a final
actions to protect public health when
whole-body limit of 0.000033 W/kg (33
sufficient evidence is present. Sufficient
µW/kg). No further safety margin or provision
scientific evidence and public health concern
for sensitive populations is incorporated. This
exist today based on increased risk for cancer,
may need to be lowered in the future.
adverse fertility and reproductive outcomes,
 Based on power density measurements, the
immune disruption, neurological diseases,
Seletun Scientific Panel finds sufficient
increased risk of road collisions and injury-
evidence for a whole-body scientific bench-
producing
events,
and
impairment
of
mark for adverse health effect exists down to
cognition, behaviour, performance, mood
85 mW/m2 (0.0085 mW/cm2 or 8.5 µW/cm2)
status, and disruption of sleep;
based on at least 17 scientific studies reporting
 Numeric limits recommended here do not yet
low-intensity effects on humans. Taking more
take into account sensitive populations (EHS,
recent human studies conducted near base
immune-compromised, the fetus, developing
stations, or at base-station RF levels, Kundi
children, the elderly, people on medications,
and Hutter /57/ report that the levels must
etc). Another safety margin is, thus, likely
exceed 0.5-1.0 mW/m2 (0.05 to 0.1 uW/cm2)
justified further below the numeric limits for
for effects to be seen; /40-57/.
EMF exposure recommended here;
 The Panel recommends a provisional whole-
 The Scientific Panel acknowledges that
body (far-field) limit of 1.7 mW/m2 (also =
numeric limits derived here for new
0.00017 mW/cm2 = 0.17 µW/cm2) by
biologically-based public exposure standards
incorporation of an additional 50-fold safety
are still a billion times higher than natural
margin applied to the scientific benchmark of
EMF levels at which all life evolved.
85 mW/m2. This is consistent with both

ICNIRP and IEEE/FCC safety factors. This
Specific Recommendations for mobile (cell) and
may need to be lowered in the future.
cordless phone use
 It can be argued that a further 10-fold
 The Seletun Scientific Panel recommends that
reduction is not justified since 13 of the 17
users keep mobile (cell) phones away from
studies are already testing for long-term RF
head and body;
exposure. However, considering that the latest
 The Seletun Scientific Panel recommends that
human population studies as reported by
users keep mobile (cell) phones and PDAs*
Kundi & Hutter (2009) do not show effects
switched off if worn or carried in a pocket or

---

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD HEALTH RISKS
holster, or on a belt near the body.
connections that may produce unnecessary and
*PDA is generic for any type of Personal
potentially harmful EMF exposures;
Digital Assistant or hand-held computer device;
 The Panel recognizes that wired internet access
 The Panel strongly recommends against the
(cable modem, wired Ethernet connections, etc)
use of mobile (cell) and cordless phones and
is available as a substitute;
PDAs by children of any age;
 The Panel recommends use of wired headsets,
 The Panel strongly recommends against the
preferably with hollow-tube segments;
use of mobile (cell) and cordless phones and
 The Panel recommends avoidance of wireless
PDAs by pregnant women;
(Bluetooth-type) headsets in general;
 The Panel recommends that use of mobile
 The Panel encourages the removal of speakers
(cell) and cordless phones and PDAs be
from headsets on wireless phones and PDAs;
curtailed near children or pregnant women, in
 The Panel encourages ‗auto-off switches‘ for
keeping with preventative and precautionary
mobiles (cells) and PDAs that automatically
strategies. The most vulnerable members of
turn off the device when placed in a holster;
society should have access to public places
 The Panel strongly discourages the technology
without fear of harm to health;
that allows one mobile (cell) phone to act as a
 Public access to public places and public
repeater for other phones within the general
transportation should be available without
area. This can increase exposures to EMF that
undue risk of EMF exposure, particularly in
are unknown to the person whose phone is
enclosed spaces (trains, airplanes, buses, cars,
―piggy-backed‖ upon without their knowledge
etc) where the exposure is likely to be
or permission;
involuntary;
 The Panel recommends the use of telephone
 The Panel recommends wired internet access
lines (land-lines) or fiber optic cables for
in schools, and strongly recommends that
SmartGrid type energy conservation infra-
schools do not install wireless internet
structure. Utilities should choose options that
connections
that
create
pervasive
and
do not create new, community-wide exposures
prolonged EMF exposures for children;
from wireless components of SmartGrid-type
 The Panel recommends preservation of existing
projects. Future health risks from prolonged or
land-line connections and public telephone
repetitive wireless exposures of SmartGrid-type
networks;
systems may be avoided by using telephone
 The Panel recommends against the use of
lines or fiber-optic cable. The Panel endorses
cordless phones (DECT phones) and other
energy conservation but not at the risk of
wireless devices, toys and baby monitors,
exposing hundreds of millions of families in
wireless internet, wireless security systems, and
their homes to a new, involuntary source of
wireless power transmitters in SmartGrid-type
wireless radiofrequency radiation.

7

---

REVIEWS ON ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
VOLUME 25, No. 4, 2010

..............................................................................................................................................................................
The undersigned recognize the duty of governments and their health agencies to educate and warn the
public, to implement measures balanced in favor of the Precautionary Principle, to monitor compliance with
directives promoting alternatives to wireless, and to fund research and policy development geared toward
prevention of exposure.
The undersigned urge governments and their health agencies to adopt new interim numeric limits and
new timetables for implementation of biologically-based precautionary action to limit exposures to EMF.

Agreed 19 November 2009
(as revised through April 20, 2010)
(in alphabetical order)
Adamantia Fragopoulou, Greece
Yuri Grigoriev, Russia
Olle Johansson, Sweden
Lukas H Margaritis, Greece
Lloyd Morgan, USA
Elihu Richter, Israel
Cindy Sage, USA

Affiliations
(in alphabetical order)
Adamantia Fragopoulou, Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Cell Biology and Biophysics,
Faculty of
Biology,
University of Athens, Athens (Greece)
Yury Grigoriev, Professor, Dr of Med Sci, Chairman of Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing
Radiation Protection, Moscow (Russian Federation)
Olle Johansson, professor, The Experimental Dermatology Unit, Department of Neuroscience,
Karolinska Institute, and The Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm (Sweden)
Lukas H Margaritis, professor, Department of Cell Biology and Biophysics,
Faculty of Biology,

University of Athens, Athens (Greece)
Lloyd Morgan, Bioelectromagnetics Society, 2022 Francisco Street, Berkeley, CA 94709, USA
Elihu D Richter, Professor, Unit of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Hebrew University-
Hadassah School of Medicine, Jerusalem (Israel)
Cindy Sage, MA, Sage Associates,
Santa Barbara, CA, USA


REFERENCES
Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for
Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF). http://
1. Pathophysiology 2009; 16
www.bioinitiative.org, 2007.
2. European Parliament, Mid-Term Review of the
5. European Commission Health and Consumer
European Environmental and Health Action Plan
Protection Directorate-General Scientific Committee
2009;http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/
on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks
briefing_page/33692-245-09-36-20080708BRI3
(SCENIHR), Possible Effects of Electromagnetic
3691-01-09-2008-2008/default_p001c023_en.htm
Fields (EMF on Human Health 2007 (Sections on
3. European Environmental Agency 2007. http://
scientific evidence).
www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/radiation-risk-from-
6. REFLEX Consortium,
Risk evaluation of
everyday-devices-assessed
potential environmental hazards from low energy
4. Blackman CF, Blank M, Kundi M, Sage C,
electromagnetic field exposure using sensitive in
Carpenter DO, Davanipour Z, et al. The
vitro methods. A project funded by the European
Bioinitiative
Report—A
Rationale
for
a
Union under the 5th Framework Programme.

---

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD HEALTH RISKS
Contract QLK4-CT-1999-01574, 2004; 292 pp,
electromagnetics 2001; 22: 519-28.
http://www.verum-foundation.de/reflex
17. Kesari KK, Behari J. Fifty-gigahertz microwave
7. Needleman HL. Making models of real world
exposure effect of radiations on rat brain. Appl
events: the use and abuse of inference. Neuro-
Biochem Biotechnol 2009; 158: 126-139.
toxicol Teratol 1995;17: 241-2; discussion 249-51
18. Kwee S, Raskmark P, Velizarov P. Changes in
8. Belyaev IY, Hillert L, Protopopova M, Tamm C,
cellular proteins due to environmental non-
Malmgren LO, Persson BR, Selivanova G, et al.
ionizing radiation. I. Heat-shock proteins,
915 MHz microwaves and 50 Hz magnetic field
Electro- and Magnetobiology 2001; 20: 141-152.
affect chromatin conformation and 53BP1 foci in
19. Lerchl A, Krüger H, Niehaus M, Streckert JR,
human lymphocytes from hypersensitive and
Bitz AK, Volkert Hansen V. Effects of mobile
healthy persons. Bioelectromagnetics 2005;26:
phone electromagnetic fields at nonthermal SAR
173-184.
values on melatonin and body weight of
9. Belyaev IY, Markovà E, Hillert L, Malmgren LO,
Djungarian hamsters (Phodopus sungorus), J
Persson BR. Microwaves from UMTS/GSM mobile
Pineal Res 2008; 44: 267-272.
phones induce long-lasting inhibition of 53BP1/
20. Markovà E, Hillert L, Malmgren L, Persson BR,
gamma-H2AX DNA repair foci in human lymph-
Belyaev IY. Microwaves from GSM mobile
ocytes. Bioelectromagnetics 2009;30:129-41.
telephones affect 53BP1 and gamma-H2AX foci
10. Capri M, Scarcella E, Fumelli C, Bianchi E,
in human lymphocytes from hypersensitive and
Salvioli S, Mesirca P, et al. In vitro exposure of
healthy persons. Environ Health Perspect 2005;
human lymphocytes to 900 MHz CW and GSM
113: 1172-1177.
modulated radiofrequency: studies of proliferation,
21. Marinelli F, La Sala D, Cicciotti G, Cattini L,
apoptosis and mitochondrial membrane potential0.
Trimarchi C, Putti S, et al. Exposure to 900 MHz
Radiat Res 2004; 162: 211-218.
electromagnetic field induces an unbalance
11. de Pomerai DI, Smith B, Dawe A, North K, Smith
between pro-apoptotic and pro-survival signals in
T, Archer DB, et al. Microwave radiation can
T-lymphoblastoid leukemia CCRF-CEM cells. J
alter protein conformation without bulk heating.
Cell Physiol 2004; 198: 324-332.
FEBS Lett 2003; 543: 93-97.
22. Navakatikian MA, Tomashevskaya LA. Phasic
12. D‘Inzeo G, Bernardi P, Eusebi F, Grassi F,
behavioral and endocrine effects of microwaves
Tamburello C, Zani BM. Microwave effects on
of nonthermal intensity. In: Carpenter DO, ed,
acetylcholine-induced channels in cultured chick
Biological effects of electric and magnetic fields,
myotubes. Bioelectromagnetics 1988; 9: 363-372.
Volume 1. San Diego, CA: Academic Press,
13. Dutta SK, Ghosh B, Blackman CF. Radio-
1994;333-342.
frequency radiation-induced calcium ion efflux
23. Nittby H, Grafström G, Tian DP, Malmgren L,
enhancement from human and other neuro-
Brun A, Persson BR, et al. Cognitive impairment
blastoma cells in culture. Bioelectromagnetics
in rats after long-term exposure to GSM-900
1989; 10: 197-202.
mobile phone radiation. Bioelectromagnetics
14. Forgacs Z, Somosy Z, Kubinyi G, Bakos J,
2007; 29: 219-232.
Hudak A, Surjan A, et al. Effect of whole-body
24. Pérez-Castejón C, Pérez-Bruzón RN, Llorente M,
1800MHz GSM-like microwave exposure on
Pes N, Lacasa C, Figols T, Lahoz M, et al.
testicular steroidogenesis and histology in mice.
Exposure to ELF-pulse modulated X band micro-
Reprod Toxicol 2006; 22: 111-117.
waves increases in vitro human astrocytoma cell
15. Ivaschuk OI, Jones RA, Ishida-Jones T, Haggren
proliferation. Histol Histopathol 2009;24:1551-61.
W, Adey WR, Phillips JL. Exposure of nerve
25. Persson BRR, Salford LG, Brun A. Blood-brain
growth factor-treated PC12 rat pheochromo-
barrier permeability in rats exposed to electro-
cytoma cells to a modulated radiofrequency field
magnetic fields used in wireless communication.
at 836.55 MHz: effects on c-jun and c-fos
Wireless Network 1997; 3: 455-461.
expression. Bioelectromagnetics 1997; 18: 223-9.
26. Phillips JL, Ivaschuk O, Ishida-Jones T, Jones
16. Jech R, Sonka K, Ruzicka E, Nebuzelsky A,
RA, Campbell-Beachler M, Haggren W. DNA
Bohm J, Juklickova M, et al. Electromagnetic
damage in Molt-4 T-lymphoblastoid cells
field of mobile phones affects visual event related
exposed to cellular telephone radiofrequency
potential in patients with narcolepsy. Bio-
fields in vitro. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg 1998;

9

---

SELETUN SCIENTIFIC PANEL 2010
45: 103-110.
37. Veyret B, Bouthet C, Deschaux P, de Seze R,
27. Pyrpasopoulou A, Kotoula V, Cheva A,
Geffard M, Joussot-Dubien J, et al. Antibody
Hytiroglou P, Nikolakaki E, Magras IN, et al.
responses of mice exposed to low-power micro-
Bone morphogenetic protein expression in
waves under combined, pulse-and-amplitude
newborn rat kidneys after prenatal exposure to
modulation, Bioelectromagnetics 1991; 12: 47-56.
radiofrequency radiation. Bioelectromagnetics
38. Wolke S, Neibig U, Elsner R, Gollnick F, Meyer R.
2004; 25: 216-227.
Calcium homeostasis of isolated heart muscle cells
28. Salford LG, Brun AR, Eberhardt JL, Malmgren L,
exposed to pulsed high-frequency electromagnetic
Persson BRR, Nerve cell damage in mammalian
fields. Bioelectromagnetics 1996; 17:144-153.
brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM
39. Yurekli AI, Ozkan M, Kalkan T, Saybasili H,
mobile phones. Environ Health Persp 2003; 111:
Tuncel H, Atukeren P, et al. GSM base station
881-883.
electromagnetic radiation and oxidative stress in
29. Sarimov R, Malmgren LO, Markova E, Persson
rats, Electromagn Biol Med 2006; 25: 177-188
BR, Belyaev IY. Nonthermal GSM microwaves
40. Boscol P, Di Sciascio MB, D‘Ostilio S, Del
affect
chromatin
conformation
in
human
Signore A, Reale M, Conti P, et al. Effects of
lymphocytes similar to heat shock. IEEE Trans
electromagnetic fields produced by radiotelevision
Plasma Sci 2004; 32: 1600-1608.
broadcasting stations on the immune system of
30. Schwartz JL, House DE, Mealing GA. Exposure
women, Sci Total Environ 2001; 273: 1-10.
of frog hearts to CW or amplitude-modulated
41. Chiang H, Yao GD, Fang QS, Wang KQ, Lu DZ,
VHF fields: selective efflux of calcium ions at 16
Zhou YK. Health effects of environmental electro-
Hz. Bioelectromagnetics 1990; 11: 349-358.
magnetic fields. J Bioelectricity 1989;8:127-31.
31. Schwarz C, Kratochvil E, Pilger A, Kuster N,
42. D‘Inzeo G, Bernardi P, Eusebi F, Grassi F,
Adlkofer F, Rüdiger HW. Radiofrequency
Tamburello C, Zani BM. Microwave effects on
electromagnetic fields (UMTS, 1,950 MHz)
acetylcholine-induced channels in cultured chick
induce genotoxic effects in vitro in human
myotubes. Bioelectromagnetics 1988; 9: 363-372.
fibroblasts but not in lymphocytes. Int Arch
43. Fesenko EE, Makar VR, Novoselova EG,
Occup Environ Health 2008; 81: 755-767.
Sadovnikov VB. Microwaves and cellular
32. Somosy Z, Thuroczy G, Kubasova T, Kovacs J,
immunity. I. Effect of whole body microwave
Szabo LD. Effects of modulated and continuous
irradiation on tumor necrosis factor production in
microwave irradiation on the morphology and cell
mouse cells. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg 1999; 49:
surface negative charge of 3T3 fibroblasts.
29-35.
Scanning Microsc 1991; 5: 1145-1155.
44. Hjollund NH, Bonde JP, Skotte J. Semen analysis
33. Stagg RB, Thomas WJ, Jones RA, Adey WR.
of personnel operating military radar equipment.
DNA synthesis and cell proliferation in C6
Reprod Toxicol 1997; 11: 897.
glioma and primary glial cells exposed to a
45. Hutter H-P, Moshammer H, Wallner P, Kundi M.
836.55 MHz modulated radiofrequency field.
Subjective symptoms, sleeping problems, and
Bioelectromagnetics 1997; 18: 230-236.
cognitive performance in subjects living near
34. Stankiewicz W, Dąbrowski MP, Kubacki R,
mobile phone base stations. Occup Environ Med
Sobiczewska E, Szmigielski S, Immunotropic
2006; 63: 307-313.
influence of 900 MHz microwave GSM signal on
46. Kolodynski AA, Kolodynska VV. Motor and
human blood immune cells activated in vitro.
psychological functions of school children living
Electromagn Biol Med 2006; 25: 45-51.
in the area of the Skrunda Radio Location Station
35. Tattersall JE, Scott IR, Wood SJ, Nettell JJ, Bevir
in Latvia. Sci Total Environ 1996; 180: 87-93.
MK, Wang Z, et al. Effects of low intensity
47. Lebedeva NN, Sulimov AV, Sulimova OP,
radiofrequency
electromagnetic
fields
on
Kotrovskaya TI, Gailus T. Cellular phone
electrical activity in rat hippocampal slices. Brain
electromagnetic field effects on bioelectric activity
Res 2001; 904: 43-53.
of human brain. Crit Rev Biomed Eng 2000; 28:
36. Velizarov S, Raskmark P, Kwee S, The effects of
323-337.
radiofrequency fields on cell proliferation are
48. Magras IN, Xenos TD. RF radiation-induced
non-thermal. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg 1999; 48:
changes in the prenatal development of mice.
177-180.
Bioelectromagnetics 1997; 18: 455-461.

---