Dear James
I would like to add the following quotes from research papers attached to my earlier submission.
From : Electromagnetic pollution from phone masts. Effect on wildlife by Alfonso Balmori. Director
General of Natural medicine, Council of environmental health in Spain. He concludes: “In light of
current knowledge there is enough evidence of serious effects from this technology to wildlife. For
this reason precautionary measures should be developed, alongside environmental impact
assessments prior to installation, and a ban on installation of phone masts in protected natural
areas and in places where endangered species live.”
It should be remembered this mast will be covering the Bradford on Avon Country Park where it
has been reported 14 species of bat live, which are protected species by UK law.
From : Impacts of radio-frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) from cell phone towers and
wireless devices on biosystem and ecosystem – a review by S. Sivani and D Sudarsanam published in
2013. They report that “The Ministry of environment and forestry in India set up an inter-ministerial
committee who reported in 2010 that there were:
919 research papers covering the effects on wildlife collected
593 (65%) showed negative impacts
180 (19.5%) showed no impact
196 (21%) were inconclusive so could not state if there was an
effect or not.
I attach copies of the papers for your files.
This just goes to show the absolute need for the applicant to provide good quality peer reviewed
research by scientists with cross functional expertise in both the science of electromagnetic
radiation and in the biological science of the relevant species of bats in the Country Park that must
be protected before any planning approval is considered or granted.
Regards
Richard Ross
78 Bath Road
Bradford on Avon
COMMENTS ON NOTICE OF INQUIRY
ET DOCKET 13-84
eISSN: 09748369
Impacts of radio-frequency electromagnetic
field (RF-EMF) from cell phone towers
and wireless devices on biosystem
and ecosystem – a review
Biology and Medicine
Review Article
Volume 4, Issue 4, Pages 202–216, 2012
Review Article
Biology and Medicine, 4 (4): 202–216, 2012
www.biolmedonline.com
Impacts of radio-frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) from
cell phone towers and wireless devices on biosystem
and ecosystem – a review
S Sivani*, D Sudarsanam
Department of Advanced Zoology and Biotechnology, Loyola College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
*Corresponding Author: [email protected]
Accepted: 3rd Dec 2012, Published: 6th Jan 2013
Abstract
This paper summarizes the effect of radio-frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) from cell towers and wireless
devices on the biosphere. Based on current available literature, it is justified to conclude that RF-EMF radiation exposure can change neurotransmitter functions, blood-brain barrier, morphology, electrophysiology, cellular metabolism,
calcium efflux, and gene and protein expression in certain types of cells even at lower intensities. The biological
consequences of such changes remain unclear. Short-term studies on the impacts of RF-EMF on frogs, honey bees,
house sparrows, bats, and even humans are scare and long-term studies are non-existent in India. Identification of
the frequency, intensity, and duration of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields causing damage to the biosystem and
ecosystem would evolve strategies for mitigation and would enable the proper use of wireless technologies to enjoy
its immense benefits, while ensuring one’s health and that of the environment.
Keywords: Radio-frequency electromagnetic field; cell phone tower; power density; SAR; non-ionizing radiation;
non-thermal.
Introduction
There has been an unprecedented growth in the
global communication industry in recent years
which has resulted in a dramatic increase in the
number of wireless devices. Mobile services
were launched in India in 1995 and it is one of the
fastest growing mobile telephony industries in
the world. According to the Telecom Regulatory
Authority of India (TRAI, 2012), the composition
of telephone subscribers using wireless form
of communication in urban area is 63.27% and
rural area is 33.20%. By 2013, it is estimated that
more than one billion people will be having cell
phone connection in India. This has led to the
mushrooming of supporting infrastructure in the
form of cell towers which provide the link to and
from the mobile phone. With no regulation on the
placement of cell towers, they are being placed
haphazardly closer to schools, creches, public
playgrounds, on commercial buildings, hospitals, college campuses, and terraces of densely
populated urban residential areas. Hence, the
public is being exposed to continuous, low
intensity radiations from these towers. Since the
BMID: BM-8
electromagnetic radiations, also known as electrosmog cannot be seen, smelt or felt, one would
not realize their potential harm over long periods
of exposure until they manifest in the form of
biological disorders. Various studies have shown
the ill-effects of radio-frequency electromagnetic
field (RF-EMF) on bees, fruit flies, frogs, birds,
bats, and humans, but the long-term studies of
such exposures are inconclusive and scarce, and
almost non-existent in India (MOEF, 2010; DoT,
2010). In 2011, International Agency for Research
on Cancer (IARC), part of WHO, designated
RF-EMF from cell phones as a “possible human
carcinogen” Class 2B (WHO, 2011). Cancer, diabetes, asthma, infectious diseases, infertility,
neurodegenerative disorders, and even suicides
are on the rise in India. This invisible health hazard
pollution (IHHP) is a relatively new environmental
threat.
Electromagnetic radiation, in the form
of waves of electric and magnetic energy, have
been circulating together through space. The
electromagnetic spectrum includes radio waves,
microwaves, infrared rays, light rays, ultraviolet
rays, X-rays, and gamma rays (ARPANSA, 2011;
202
Review Article
Biology and Medicine, 4 (4): 202–216, 2012
Power Density and Specific Absorption Rate
(SAR)
FCC, 1999). The electromagnetic radiations are
of two types, one being ionizing radiations such
as X-rays and gamma rays, and the other being
non-ionizing radiations such as electric and
magnetic fields, radio waves, radio-­frequency
band which includes microwaves, infrared,
ultraviolet, and visible radiation (Figure 1).
The ­biological effects of RF-EMF at molecular
level induce thermal and non-thermal damage,
which may be due to dielectric heating leading
to protein denaturation, polar molecular agitation, ­cellular response through molecular cascades and heat shock proteins, and changes
in enzyme kinetics in cells (Instituto Edumed,
2010). The three major physical parameters of
RF-EMF radiations is frequency, intensity, and
exposure ­duration. Although the non-ionizing
radiations are ­considered less dangerous than
ionizing radiation, over-exposure can cause
health hazards (FCC, 1999).
Variables used in the measurement of these
radiations are power density, measured in watts
per meter squared (W/m2) and specific absorption Rate (SAR). The term used to describe the
absorption of RF-EMF radiation in the body is
SAR, which is the rate of energy that is actually absorbed by a unit of tissue, expressed in
watts per kilogram (W/kg) of tissue. The SAR
measurements are averaged either over the
whole body or over a small volume of tissue,
typically between 1 and 10 g of tissue. SAR
was set with the help of a phantom, known as
specific anthropomorphic mannequin (SAM)
derived from the size and dimensions of the
90th percentile large adult male reported in a
1988 US Army study who is 6 feet 2 inches
and weighed 200 pounds (Davis, 2010). SAR
is set at 1.6 W/kg averaged over 1 g of body
tissue in the US and Canada and 2 W/kg
averaged over 10 g of body tissue in countries
adopting the ICNIRP guidelines. The SAR is
used to quantify energy absorption to fields typically between 100 kHz and 10 GHz and encompasses radio-frequency radiation from devices
such as cellular phones up through diagnostic
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The biological effects depend on how much of the energy
Electromagnetic Spectrum and RF-EMF Radiation
The RF-EMF radiations fall in the range of
10 MHz–300 GHz. Cell phone technology uses
frequencies mainly between 800 MHz and 3 GHz
and cell tower antenna uses a frequency of 900
or 1800 MHz, pulsed at low frequencies, generally known as microwaves (300 MHz–300 GHz).
Non-ionizing
Ionizing
Radio-frequencies
Visible
light
Radio and
television
Power lines
Microwaves
Ultraviolet
Infrared
X-rays
Gamma rays
Cellular radio
Frequency (Hz)
2
Energy (eV)
3
4
5
10 10 10
10
−13
10
−12
10
−11
6
10
−10
10 10
7
10
−9
10
8
9
10
11
12
10
10 10
10
10 10
10
−8
−7
−5
−4
−2
10
−6
10 10
−3
10 10 10
10
13
14
10
0.1
15
10
16
10
1 10 10
2
17
10
18
19
10 10
3
4
10 10
20
21
10
5
22
10 10
6
10 10
7
10
23
10
8
24
10
9
10
10
10 10 10
25
10
26
10
11
Figure 1: Electromagnetic spectrum from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), OET
Bulletin 56, 1999.
BMID: BM-8
203
Review Article
Biology and Medicine, 4 (4): 202–216, 2012
is absorbed in the body of a living organism, not
just what exists in space. Absorption of RF-EMF
radiations depend on frequency of transmission, power density, distance from the radiating
source and the organism’s size, shape, mineral,
and water content. Exposure will be lower from
towers under most circumstances than from
cell phones because the transmitter is placed
directly against the head during cell phone use
whereas proximity to a cell tower will be an
ambient exposure at a distance (Levitt and Lai,
2010). Exposure guidelines for RF protection
had adopted the value of 4 W/kg averaged over
the whole body (SARWB) as the threshold for the
induction of adverse thermal effects associated
with an increase of the body core temperature
of about 18C in animal experiments. This standard is set by International Commission on Nonionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), national
Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), and
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
(IEEE) (Barnes and Greenebaum, 2007).
Cell Phones and Cell Tower Standards in India
India has adopted ICNIRP guidelines as the
standard for safety limits of exposure to radiofrequency energy produced by mobile handsets
for general public as follows: whole-body average SAR of 0.08 W/kg, localized SAR for head
and trunk of 2 W/kg, and localized SAR for limbs
4 W/kg. The basic restrictions/proper limits for
power density specified in ICNIRP guidelines for
safe frequencies between 400 and 2000 MHz,
adopted in India, for occupational exposure is
22.5 W/m2, and general public is 4.5 W/m2 for
900 MHz (ICNIRP, 1998).
Antennas of cell tower transmit in the
frequency range of 869–890 MHz for CDMA,
935–960 MHz for GSM-900, 1805–1880 MHz for
GSM-1800, and 2110–2170 MHz for 3G. Wi-Fi
frequency range is 2.4 GHz, WiMAX is 2.5–3.3 GHz, and 4G LTE is 2.99 GHz. The antennas for
cellular transmissions are typically located on
towers mounted on terraces of houses, apartments or other elevated structures including
rooftops and the sides of buildings, and also
as a freestanding tower. Typical heights for cell
towers are 50–200 feet. Sector antennas for 2G
and 3G transmission, broader sector antennas
for 4G transmission, and parabolic microwave
antennas for point-to-point communications
are used in urban and suburban areas (Table 1).
There are different types of base stations used
by operators in India and they include the macro
cell, micro cell, or pico cell. Categorization is
based on the purpose of the site rather than in
terms of technical constraints such as radiated
power or antenna height. In India, macro cellular
base station provide the main infrastructure for
a mobile phone network and their antennas are
mounted at sufficient height to give them a clear
view over the surrounding geographical area.
The maximum power for individual macro cellular base station transmitter is 20 W. According to
FCC (1999), depending on the cell tower height,
the majority of cellular base stations in urban
and suburban areas operate at an effective radiated power (ERP) of 100 W per channel or less.
ERP is a quantity that takes into consideration
transmitter power and antenna directivity. An
ERP of 100 W corresponds to an actual radiated
power of about 5–10 W, depending on the type
of antenna used. In urban areas, an ERP of 10 W
per channel (corresponding to a radiated power
of 0.5–1 W) or less is commonly used. In India,
cell tower sites transmit hundreds of watts of
power with antenna gain of 50, so ERP sometimes equals 5000 W (Kumar, 2010).
For installation of mobile towers, the
standing advisory committee on radio frequency
Table 1: Radio-frequency sources in India.
RF source
Operating frequency
Transmission powers
Numbers
AM towers
540–1600 kHz
100 KW
197 towers
FM towers
88–108 MHz
10 KW
503 towers
TV towers
180–220 MHz
40 KW
1201 towers
Cell towers
800, 900, 1800 MHz
20 W
5.4 lakh towers
Mobile phones
GSM-1800/CDMA
GSM-900
1 W
2 W
8001 million
Wi-Fi
2.4–2.5 GHz
10–100 mW
Wi-Fi hot spots
BMID: BM-8
204
Review Article
Biology and Medicine, 4 (4): 202–216, 2012
allocations (SACFA) clearances are issued by the
wireless monitoring organization, Department of
Telecommunications (DoT), after getting no objection from defence and airport authority considering aviation hazards, obstruction to line of sight
of existing/planned networks and interferences.
In many metros in India, there is no restriction on
the location of the towers ­leading to a situation of
overlapping of towers, where even more than 30
cell towers can be seen within 1 km2.
As mobile technology progresses, the
data demands on mobile network increases,
coupled with lower costs, their use has increased
dramatically and the overall levels of exposure of
the population as a whole had increased drastically. Table 2 gives the reference levels for general
public exposure adopted by various countries
and organizations.
Impacts on Biosystem and Ecosystem
Every living being is tuned into the earth’s
electromagnetism and uses it for various purposes. A natural mineral magnetite, which is
found in living tissues, seems to play an important role. These magnetite crystals are found in
bacteria, protozoa, teeth of sea mollusks, fish
and sea mammals, eye and beak of birds, and
in humans. They are also found in the ethmoid
bone above the eye and sinuses and blood-brain
barrier (Warnke, 2007). Migratory birds rarely get
lost, but sometimes there are disruptions due to
storms and magnetic disturbances caused by
man (Kirschvink et al., 2001). The traditional and
most effective approach to study cause–effect
relationships in biological sciences is by experimentation with cells and organisms. The areas
of enquiry and experimentation of in vitro studies include genotoxicity, cancer-related gene and
protein expression, cell proliferation and differentiation, and apoptosis and in vivo studies include
thermal effects, animal behavior, brain biochemistry, neuropathology, teratogenicity, reproduction
and development, immune function, blood-brain
barrier, visual auditory systems and effects on
genetic material, cell function, and biochemistry
(Repacholi and Cardis, 2002). In human health
studies, concerns have been expressed about
the possible interactions of RF-EMF with several
human organ systems such as nervous, circulatory, reproductive, and endocrine systems. In
order to reveal the global effects of RF-EMF on
gene and protein expression, transcriptomics,
Table 2: Reference levels for the general public.
Power density (W/m2)
Country/organization Standards
900 MHz
1800 MHz
ICNIRP, 1998, adopted by India
4.5
9
FCC, 1999
6
10
IEEE, USA, 1999
6
12
Australia
2
2
Belgium
1.1
2.4
Italy
1
1
Israel
x
1
New Zealand
x
0.5
China
x
0.4
Russia
x
0.2
Hungary
0.1
0.1
Toronto Board of Health, Canada, 1999
0.06
0.1
Switzerland
0.04
0.1
France
x
0.1
Germany, ECOLOG, 1998
x
0.09
Austria’s precautionary limit
0.001
0.001
BMID: BM-8
205
Review Article
and proteomics as high-throughput screening
techniques (HTSTs), were eventually employed in
EMF research with an intention to screen potential EMF responsive genes and/or proteins without any bias (Nylund and Leszczynski, 2004).
The safety standards set by ICNIRP, adopted by
India, has only taken into account the short-term
effects and not against the biological effects from
long-term, non-thermal, low-level microwave
exposure from mobile phones, cell phone towers, and many other wireless devices.
Biology and Medicine, 4 (4): 202–216, 2012
also be affected by RF-EMF. Some studies have
found both growth stimulation and dieback.
The browning of tree tops is often observed
near cell towers, especially when water is near
their root base. The tree tops are known as RF
waveguides. In fact, military applications utilize
this capability in trees for low-flying weapon systems. In an observational study, it was found that
the output of most fruit-bearing trees reduced
drastically from 100% to ,5% after 2.5 years of
cell tower installation in a farm facing four cell
towers in Gurgaon–Delhi Toll Naka (Kumar and
Kumar, 2009).
Current Research
Various studies have shown that even at low
levels of this radiation, there is evidence of damage to cell tissue and DNA, and it has been linked
to brain tumors, cancer, suppressed immune
function, neuroendocrine disruption, chronic
fatigue syndrome, and depression (Rogers, 2002;
Milham, 2010). Oncogenesis studies at molecular and cellular levels due to RF-EMF radiations
are considered particularly important (Marino
and Carrubba, 2009). Orientation, navigation,
and homing are critical traits expressed by
organisms ranging from bacteria through higher
vertebrates. Across many species and groups of
organisms, compelling evidence exists that the
physical basis of this response is tiny crystals
of single-domain magnetite (Fe3O4) (Kirschvink
et al., 2001). All magnetic field sensitivity in living organisms, including elasmobranch fishes,
is the result of a highly evolved, finely-tuned
sensory system based on single-domain, ferromagnetic crystals. Animals that depend on the
natural electrical, magnetic, and electromagnetic
fields for their orientation and navigation through
earth’s atmosphere are confused by the much
stronger and constantly changing artificial fields
created by technology and fail to navigate back
to their home environments (Warnke, 2007).
Studies on Plants
Tops of trees tend to dry up when they directly
face the cell tower antennas and they seem to
be most vulnerable if they have their roots close
to the water (Belyavskaya, 2004). They also have
a gloomy and unhealthy appearance, possible
growth delays, and a higher tendency to contract plagues and illnesses. According to Levitt
(2010), trees, algae, and other vegetation may
BMID: BM-8
Studies on Insects
Monarch butterflies and locusts migrate great
distances using their antennae to sense air currents and earths electromagnetic fields. Moths
are drawn to light frequencies. Ants, with the help
of their antennas are adept at electrical transmission and found to respond to frequencies as low
as 9 MHz. Flying ants are very sensitive to electromagnetic fields (Warnke, 2007).
Bees have clusters of magnetite in the
abdominal areas. colony collapse disorder (CCD)
was observed in beehives exposed to 900 MHz
for 10 minutes, with sudden disappearance of
a hive’s inhabitants, leaving only queen, eggs,
and a few immature workers behind. With navigational skills affected, worker bees stopped
coming to the hives after 10 days and egg production in queen bees dropped drastically to
100 eggs/day compared to 350 eggs (Sharma and
Kumar, 2010). Radiation affects the pollinators,
honeybees, whose numbers have recently been
declining due to CCD by 60% at US West Coast
apiaries and 70% along the East Coast (Cane
and Tepedino, 2001). CCD is being documented
in Greece, Italy, Germany, Portugal, Spain, and
Switzerland. Studies performed in Europe documented navigational disorientation, lower honey
production, and decreased bee survivorship
(Kimmel et al., 2007). EMFs from telecommunication infrastructure interfere with bees’ biological
clocks that enable them to compensate properly
for the sun’s movements, as a result of which,
may fly in the wrong direction when attempting
to return to the hive (Rubin et al., 2006). Bee colonies irradiated with digital enhanced cordless
communications (DECT) phones and mobile
handsets had a dramatic impact on the behavior of the bees, namely by inducing the worker
206
Review Article
piping signal. In natural conditions, worker piping either announces the swarming process of
the bee colony or is a signal of a disturbed bee
colony (Favre, 2011).
A study by the University of Athens on
fruit flies exposed to 6 minutes of 900 MHz pulsed
radiation for 5 days showed reduction in reproductive capacity (Panagopoulos et al., 2004).
Likewise in 2007, in both 900 and 1800 MHz,
similar changes in reproductive capacity with no
significant difference between the two frequencies were observed (Panagopoulos et al., 2007).
In a third study, it was found it was due degeneration of large numbers of egg chambers after
DNA fragmentation (Panagopoulos et al., 2010).
When Drosophila melanogaster adult insects
were exposed to the radiation of a GSM 900/1800
mobile phone antenna at different distances ranging from 0 to 100 cm, these radiations decreased
the reproductive capacity by cell death induction
at all distances tested (Levengood, 1969).
Studies on Amphibians and Reptiles
Salamanders and turtles have navigational abilities based on magnetic sensing as well as smell.
Many species of frogs have disappeared all
over the world in the last 3–5 years. Amphibians
can be especially sensitive because their skin
is always moist, and they live close to, or in
water, which conducts electricity easily (Hotary
and Robinson, 1994). Toads when exposed to
1425 MHz at a power density of 0.6 mW/cm2
developed arrhythmia (Levitina, 1966). Increased
mortality and induced deformities were noted
in frog tadpoles (Rana temporaria) (Levengood,
1969). It was observed that experimental tadpoles developed more slowly, less synchronously than control tadpoles, remain at the early
stages for a longer time, developed allergies and
that EMF causes changes in the blood counts
(Grefner et al., 1998). In a two-month study in
Spain in common frog tadpoles on the effects
of mobile phone mast located at a distance of
140 m noted low coordination of movements,
an asynchronous growth, resulting in both big
and small tadpoles, and a high mortality (90%)
in exposed group. For the unexposed group in
Faraday cage, the coordination of movements
was normal, the development was synchronous,
and a mortality of 4.2% was obtained (Balmori,
2009). In the eggs and embryos of Rana sylvatica
and Ambystoma maculatum abnormalities at
BMID: BM-8
Biology and Medicine, 4 (4): 202–216, 2012
several developmental stages were noted such
as microcephalia, scoliosis, edema, and retarded
growth. Tadpoles developed severe leg malformations and extra legs, as well as a pronounced
alteration of histogenesis which took the form of
subepidermal blistering and edema. Effects were
noted in reproduction, circulatory, and central
nervous system, general health and well being
(Balmori, 2010; Balmori, 2005).
Studies on Birds
A study by the Centre for Environment and
Vocational Studies of Punjab University noted that
embryos of 50 eggs of house sparrows were damaged after being exposed to mobile tower radiation for 5–30 minutes (MOEF, 2010). Observed
changes included reproductive and coordination
problems and aggressiveness. Tower-emitted
microwave radiation affected bird breeding, nesting, and roosting in Valladolid, Spain (US Fish &
Wildlife Service, 2009). House sparrows, white
storks, rock doves, magpies, collared doves
exhibited nest and site abandonment, plumage
deterioration (lack of shine, beardless rachis, etc.),
locomotion problems, and even death among
some birds. No symptoms were observed prior to
construction of the cell phone towers. According
to Balmori, plumage deterioration and damaged
feather are the first signs of weakening, illnesses,
or stress in birds. The disappearance of insects,
leading to lack of food, could have an influence
on bird’s weakening, especially at the first stages
in young bird’s life. In chick embryos exposed to
ELF pulsed EMR, a potent teratogenic effect was
observed, leading to microphthalmia, abnormal
trunkal torsion, and malformations on the neural
tube (Lahijani and Ghafoori, 2000).
White storks were heavily impacted by
the tower radiation during the 2002–2004 nesting season in Spain. Evidence of a connection between sparrow decline in UK and the
introduction of phone mast GSM was established (Balmori, 2009). In a study in Spain, the
effects of mobile phone mast has been noted
in house sparrow (Passer domesticus), white
stork (Ciconia ciconia), reporting problems with
reproduction, circulatory, and central nervous
system, general health and well-being (microwave syndrome) (Balmori, 2009). Deformities
and deaths were noted in the domestic chicken
embryos subjected to low-level, non-thermal
radiation from the standard 915 MHz cell phone
207
Review Article
frequency under laboratory conditions (US Fish
& Wildlife Service, 2009). Neural responses
of Zebra Finches to 900 MHz radiation under
laboratory conditions showed that 76% of the
neurons responded by 3.5 times more firings
(Beason and Semm, 2002). Eye, beak, and brain
tissues of birds are loaded with magnetite, sensitive to magnetic fields, interferes with navigation
(Mouritsen and Ritz, 2005).
Studies on Mammals
In a survey of two berry farms in similar habitats
in Western Massachusetts (Doyon, 2008), one
with no cell phone towers, there were abundant
signs of wildlife, migrating and resident birds,
bats, small and large mammals, and insects
including bees and the other farm with a cellphone tower located adjacent to the berry patch,
virtually no signs of wildlife, tracks, scat, or
feathers were noted. The berries on bushes were
uneaten by birds and insects and the berries
that fell to the ground were uneaten by animals.
Whole body irradiation of 20 rats and 15 rabbits
at 9.3 GHz for 20 minutes revealed statistically
significant changes in cardiac activity (Repacholi
et al., 1998). Bradycardia developed in 30% of
the cases. Separate ventricular extra systoles
also developed. In a study on cows and calves
on the effects of exposure from mobile phone
base stations, it was noted that 32% of calves
developed nuclear cataracts, 3.6% severely.
Oxidative stress was increased in the eyes with
cataracts, and there was an association between
oxidative stress and the distance to the nearest
mast (Hässig et al., 2009). It was found that at
a GSM signal of 915 MHz, all standard modulations included, output power level in pulses
2 W, specific absorption rate (SAR) 0.4 mW/g
exposure for 2 hours, 11 genes were up-regulated and one down-regulated, hence affected
expression of genes in rat brain cells (Belyaev et
al., 2006). The induced genes encode proteins
with diverse functions including neurotransmitter
regulation, blood-brain barrier (BBB), and melatonin production.
When rats were exposed for 2 hours
a day for 45 days at 0.21 mW/cm2 power density SAR (0.038 W/kg), a significant decrease in
melatonin and increase in both creatine kinase
and caspase 3 was found (Kesari et al., 2011).
This shows that chronic exposure to these
radiations may be an indication of possible
BMID: BM-8
Biology and Medicine, 4 (4): 202–216, 2012
tumor promotion. A study on pregnant rats and
brains of fetal rats was carried out after irradiating them with different intensities of microwave
radiation from cellular phones for 20 days three
times a day. Superoxide dismutase (SOD), glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px), malondialdehyde (MDA), noradrenaline (NE), dopamine (DA),
and 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA) in the
brain were assayed. The significant content differences of noradrenaline and dopamine were
found in fetal rat brains (Jing et al., 2012). A
study in rabbits exposed to continuous wave and
pulsed power at 5.5 GHz found acute effects in
the eyes, where lens opacities developed within
4 days (Birenbaum et al., 1969).
Behavioral tasks, including the morris
water maze (MWM), radial arm maze, and object
recognition task have been extensively used to test
cognitive impairment following exposure of rodents
to mobile phone radiation (GSM 900 MHz) on various frequencies and SAR values (Fragopoulou et
al., 2010). Exposed animals in most of the cases
revealed defects in their working memory possibly due to cholinergic pathway distraction. Mobile
phone RF-EMF exposure significantly altered the
passive avoidance behavior and hippocampal
morphology in rats (Narayanan et al., 2010).
With regards to DNA damage or cell
death induction due to microwave exposure, in
a series of early experiments, rats were exposed
to pulsed and continuous-wave 2450 MHz radiation for 2 hours at an average power density
of 2 mW/cm2 and their brain cells were subsequently examined for DNA breaks by comet
assay. The authors found a dose-dependent
(0.6 and 1.2 W/kg whole body SAR) increase in
DNA single-strand and double-strand breaks,
4 hours after the exposure to either the pulsed
or the continuous-wave radiation. The same
authors found that melatonin and PBN (N-tertbutyl-alpha-phenylnitrone) both known free radical scavengers, block the above effect of DNA
damage by the microwave radiation (Lai and
Singh, 1995, 1996, 1997). Death in domestic animals like hamsters and guinea pigs were noted
(Balmori, 2003). Bats use electromagnetic sensors in different frequencies. Since 1998, a study
on a free-tailed bat colony, having Tadarida
teniotis and Pipistrellus pipistrellus has been carried out in Spain and a decrease in number of
bats were noted with several phone masts 80 m
from the colony. A dead specimen of Myotis
myotis was found near a small antenna in the city
centre (Balmori, 2009).
208
Review Article
The most affected of the species are
bees, birds, and bats and without these pollinators visiting flowers, 33% of fruits and vegetables would not exist, and as the number of
pollinators decline, the agricultural crops will fall
short and the price of groceries will go up (Kevan
and Phillips, 2001).
Studies on Humans
The exposure to continuous RF-EMF radiation
poses a greater risk to children, particularly due
to their thinner skulls and rapid rate of growth.
Also at risk are the elderly, the frail, and pregnant women (Cherry, 2001). DNA damage via
free radical formation inside cells has also been
recorded (Lai and Singh, 1996). Free radicals
kill cells by damaging macromolecules such as
DNA, protein, and membrane are carcinogenic.
In fact, EMR enhances free radical activity.
Single- and double-strand DNA breaks are seen
in rat brain cells after acute exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation. Kane (2001)
denotes that RF-EMF radiations lead to tissue
damage, DNA damage, or chromosome mutations. In 2008, the Austrian Department of Health
found a higher risk of cancer among people living
within 200 m of a mobile phone base station and
that cancer risk rose with increasing exposure,
reaching 8.5 times the norm for people most
exposed. From a study on in vitro cell response
to mobile phone radiation (900 MHz GSM signal) using two variants of human endothelial cell
line, it was suggested 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 (Nylund and Leszczynski, 2006).
The results of the interphone, an international case–control study to assess the brain
tumor risk in relation to mobile telephone use,
reveals no overall increase in risk of glioma or
meningioma but there were suggestions of an
increased risk of glioma at the highest exposure
levels (30 minutes per day of cell phone use for
8–10 years) and ipsilateral exposures (ICNIRP,
2011). Children and young adults were excluded
from the study and a separate study called MobiKids is underway. According to Santini et al.
(2002), comparisons of complaints in relation
with distance from base station show significant
BMID: BM-8
Biology and Medicine, 4 (4): 202–216, 2012
increase as compared to people living greater
than 300 m or not exposed to base station, till
300 m for tiredness, 200 m for headache, sleep
disturbance, and discomfort, and 100 m for irritability, depression, loss of memory, dizziness, and
libido decrease. Women significantly more often
than men complained of headache, nausea, loss
of appetite, sleep disturbance, depression, discomfort, and visual perturbations (Santini et al.,
2002). According to Oberfeld et al. (2004) in Spain,
a follow-up study found that the most exposed
people had a higher incidence of fatigue, irritability, headaches, nausea, loss of appetite, sleeping disorders, depression, discomfort, difficulties
concentrating, memory loss, visual disorders,
dizziness, and cardiovascular problems. Women
are more at risk as they tend to spend more time
at home and are exposed to radiation continuously. The authors recommended a maximum
exposure of 0.0001 µW/cm2 or 0.000001 W/m2.
There was prevalence of neuropsychiatric complaints among people living near base stations
(Abdel-Rassoul et al., 2007). Urban electromagnetic contamination (electrosmog) 900 and
1800 MHz pulsated waves interfere in the nervous
system of living beings (Hyland, 2000). Growing
amounts of published research show adverse
effects on both humans and wildlife far below a
thermal threshold, usually referred to as “non-thermal effects”, especially under conditions of longterm, low-level exposure (Levitt and Lai, 2010).
Australian research conducted by De
Iuliis et al. (2009) by subjecting in vitro samples of human spermatozoa to radio-frequency
radiation at 1.8 GHz and SAR of 0.4–27.5 W/kg
showed a correlation between increasing SAR and
decreased motility and vitality in sperm, increased
oxidative stress and 8-Oxo-2-deoxyguanosine
markers, stimulating DNA base adduct formation
and increased DNA fragmentation. GSM mobile
phone exposure can activate cellular stress
response in both humans and animal cells and
cause the cells to produce heat shock proteins
(HSP27 and HSP70) (Leszczynski, 2002). HSPs
inhibit natural programmed cell death (apoptosis),
whereby cells that should have committed suicide
continue to live. Recent studies have shown that
these HSPs inhibit apoptosis in cancer cells. In
several cases, melatonin hormone which controls
the daily biological cycle and has an oncostatic
action, produced by the epiphysis (pineal gland)
in mammals, mainly during the night, is found to
reduce the action of EMR exposure, but the synthesis of melatonin itself seems to be reduced
209
Review Article
by EMR (Panagopoulos et al., 2008). In a study
to observe the effects of melatonin in hormone
balance in a diabetic, it was found that melatonin
caused reduction in serum insulin, serum cortisol,
serum ACTH, and serum TSH levels while increase
in serum gastrin level. Of the biochemical parameters, melatonin caused reductions in TLC, LDLC,
and FBS while increase in HDLC. It also caused
reduction in neutrophil and increase in lymphocyte
count in a diabetic with increase in faecal fat excretion (Mitra and Bhattacharya, 2008).
RF-EMR produces DNA damage via
free radical formation inside cells. Free radicals
kill cells by damaging macromolecules such as
DNA, protein, and membrane, also shown to be
carcinogenic. EMR enhances free radical activity.
EMR interferes with navigational equipments, lifeline electronic gadgets in hospitals, and affects
patients with pacemakers. A short-term exposure (15 and 30 minutes) to RFR (900 MHz) from
a mobile phone caused a significant increase
in DNA single strand breaks in human hair root
cells located around the ear which is used for the
phone calls (Çam and Seyhan, 2012). Various in
vitro studies have shown that 1800 MHz RF-EMF
radiation could cause oxidative damage to
mtDNA in primary cultured neurons. Oxidative
damage to mtDNA may account for the neurotoxicity of RF radiation in the brain (Xu et al., 2010).
Studies carried out on the RF levels
in North India, particularly at the mobile tower
sites at Delhi have shown that people in Indian
cities are exposed to dangerously high levels
of EMF pollution (Tanwar, 2006). An independent study was commissioned by the Cellular
Operators Association of India (COAI) and
Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers
of India (AUSPI) as a proactive measure stemming from the concern for the public health
and safety issues on electromagnetic radiation
measurement at New Delhi showed compliance
with ICNIRP standards. 180 areas were studied across the capital to understand the extent
of RF-EMF radiations emitting from the mobile
towers, revealed that the readings were 100
times below international safety guidelines. The
study measured cumulative emissions within the
800–2000 MHz band of frequency (which includes
both GSM and CDMA technologies) across in the
nation’s capital using carefully calibrated equipment, as per the DoT prescribed procedure in line
with the ICNIRP specifications. In a similar, but
independent case study in Mumbai, it was found
that people living within 50–300 m radius are in
BMID: BM-8
Biology and Medicine, 4 (4): 202–216, 2012
the high radiation zone and are more prone to illeffects of electromagnetic radiation. Four cases
of cancer were found in three consecutive floors
(6th, 7th, 8th) directly facing and at similar height
as four mobile phone towers placed at the roof of
the opposite building (Kumar, 2010). According to
the Seletun Scientific Statement (2011), low-intensity (non-thermal) bioeffects and adverse health
effects are demonstrated at levels significantly
below existing exposure standards. ICNIRP/WHO
and IEEE/FCC public safety limits are inadequate
and obsolete with respect to prolonged, low-intensity exposures (New International EMF Alliance,
2011). New, biologically-based public exposure
standards are urgently needed to protect public
health world-wide. EMR exposures should be
reduced now rather than waiting for proof of harm
before acting (Fragopoulou et al., 2010).
Electrohypersensitivity (EHS) and
Electromagnetic Field Intolerance (EFI)
Syndrome
Electrosensitivity of people is now recognized
as a physical impairment by government health
authorities in the United Kingdom and Sweden.
The UK Health Protection Agency (HPA) recognized that people can suffer nausea, headaches,
and muscle pains when exposed to electromagnetic fields from mobile phones, electricity pylons,
and computer screens. A case study in Sweden,
one of the first countries were mobile technology was introduced approximately 15 years ago,
shows that 250,000 Swedes are allergic to mobile
phone radiation. Sweden has now recognized
EHS as a physical degradation and EHS sufferers are entitled to have metal shielding installed in
their homes free of charge from the local government (Kumar, 2010; Johansson, 2010).
Belpomme (2011) in his presentation at
the 8th National Congress on Electrosmog in
Berne in 2011 elaborates on the dangers of wireless technology and the diagnostics and treatment of the electromagnetic field intolerance (EFI)
Syndrome. In his study from 2008 to 2011, the
patients with EHS were investigated with a pulse
equilibrium brain scan, dosage of histamine in the
blood, dosage of the heat shock proteins HSP70
and HSP27, and appearance and disappearance
of symptoms on exposure to an electromagnetic
field source. Diagnosis of fatigue and depression were noted. The physiological changes
such as vitamin D deficiency, decrease in heat
210
Review Article
shock proteins, increase in histamines, increase
in biomarker of the opening of blood-brain barrier, protein S100P, decrease in urinary melatonin,
and increase in blood anti-myelin proteins were
noted in the electrosensitives. Around 50% of the
patients in the study had used a mobile phone for
more than one hour per day during several years
and his findings were similar to the figures published by Hardell’s study (2007) dealing with the
cancer occurrences and electromagnetic fields.
Future Challenges and Solutions
Research into the advantages of radio-frequency
energies seen in tissue heating in benign prostatic
hyperplasia (BPH), electrical therapy for cardiac
arrhythmia, radio-frequency ablation, use of 41.5–
44.58C temperature to kill tumors, shortwave and
microwave diathermy for musculoskeletal injuries,
and microwave oven used in food preparation are
all carried out under controlled conditions. But
effects, if any, from RF-EMF radiations released
into the environment over a long period of time in
densely populated areas where people are continuously exposed to them will show in years to
come. According to Osepchuk (1983), frequencies
used in industrial, scientific, and medical heating
processes are 27.12, 40.68, 433, 915, 2450, and
5800 MHz. Out of which, for diathermy, frequencies used are 27.12, 915, and 2450 MHz in US and
433 MHz is authorized in Europe. According to
Kasevich (2000), “the physics of electromagnetic
waves and their interactions with material and biological systems is based on the concept that the
electromagnetic wave is a force field which exerts a
mechanical torque, pressure or force on electrically
changed molecules. All living things contain these
dielectric properties. The thermal effects produced
by absorption of electromagnetic energy are the
direct result of water molecules acted upon by
the oscillating electric field, rubbing against each
other to produce electric heat (thermal effects)”.
Research work on electromagnetic bioeffects in
humans and animals in the non-thermal range is
continuing where effects are noted even at intensities lower than 1 mW/m2 (0.001 W/m2 or 1000 µW/
m2, 0.0001 mW/cm2 or 0.1 µW/cm2).
According to Levitt (2007), adverse outcomes of pregnancy can be mutagenic, teratogenic, oncogenic or carcinogenic, and ionizing
radiations can cause all three. In animal studies,
non-ionizing radiation was also found to be teratogenic and oncogenic, and likely mutagenic, but
BMID: BM-8
Biology and Medicine, 4 (4): 202–216, 2012
it is unclear if these observations were due to
heating affect, non-thermal affects or both. Trees,
plants, soil, grass, and shrubs have the ability
to absorb electromagnetic wave energy over a
very broad range of wavelengths. According to
the resonance concept, human beings can act as
receiving antennas for some frequencies, where
the absorbed energy is maximized in some areas
of the body, like the brain (Levitt, 2007).
In the Bioinitiative Report, a document
prepared by 14 international experts in a ninemonth project, in which over 2000 scientific studies
were reviewed, Sage (2007) came to a conclusion
that there may be no lower limit that may be safe,
and there was a need for biologically-based limits (1 mW/m2 or 0.001 W/m2) and children are at
most risk. Safety limits suggested are 0.001 W/m2
for outdoor cumulative radio-frequency exposure
and 0.0001 W/m2 for indoor, cumulative radiofrequency exposure. According to Blank (2012),
there is a need for a realistic biological standard to
replace the thermal (SAR) standard. The precautionary approaches includes prudence avoidance
for public and ALARA, which stands for “as low
as reasonably attainable” for regulatory agencies.
According to Havas (2006), several disorders, including asthma, ADD/ADHD, diabetes,
multiple sclerosis, chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia,
are increasing at an alarming rate, as is electromagnetic pollution in the form of dirty electricity,
ground current, and radio-frequency radiation
from wireless devices and the connection between
electromagnetic pollution and these disorders
needs to be investigated and the percentage of
people sensitive to this form of energy needs to
be determined. According to Milham (2010), 20th
century epidemic of the so-called diseases of civilization, including cardiovascular disease, cancer,
diabetes, and also suicides, was caused by electrification and the unique biological responses
we have to it and that our evolutionary balance,
developed over the millennia has been severely
disturbed and disrupted by man-made EMFs.
Conclusion
The Department of Telecommunication (DoT)
in India has set new norms for cell phone towers with effect from September 1, 2012 (The
Hindu, 2012). Exposure standards for RF-EMF
radiation has been reduced to one-tenth of the
existing level and SAR from 2 to 1.6 W/kg. This
came after the ministry of environment and forest
211
Review Article
Biology and Medicine, 4 (4): 202–216, 2012
Human
Other animals
Plants
Wildlife
Bees
Birds
0%
10%
20%
30%
Impact
40%
50%
No impact
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Inconclusive
Figure 2: Percentage of studies that reported harmful effect of EMR in various groups of organisms
(n 5 919), MOEF Report (2010).
(MOEF) set up an Inter-ministerial Committee
(IMC) to study the effects of RF-EMF radiations
on wildlife (Figure 2) and concluded that out
of the 919 research papers collected on birds,
bees, plants, other animals, and humans, 593
showed impacts, 180 showed no impacts, and
196 were inconclusive studies. They conclude
that there are no long-term data available on the
environmental impacts of RF-EMF radiations in
India. The population of India is increasing as
well as the cell phone subscribers and the cell
towers as supporting infrastructure. Hence, there
is an urgent need to fill the gaps and do further
research in this field with emphasis on the effects
of early life and prenatal RF-EMF radiation exposure in animals, dosimetry studies, cellular studies using more sensitive methods, and human
epidemiological studies, especially on children
and young adults on behavioral and neurological
disorders and cancer. Meanwhile, one can take
the precautionary principle approach and reduce
RF-EMF radiation effects of cell phone towers by
relocating towers away from densely populated
areas, increasing height of towers or changing
the direction of the antenna.
ARPANSA, 2011. Introduction to radiation basics.
http://www.arpansa.gov.au/RadiationProtection/
basics/index.cfm
Balmori A, 2003. The effects of microwave radiation
on the wildlife. Preliminary results, Valladolid (Spain).
http://www.whale.to/b/martinez.pdf
Balmori A, 2005. Possible effects of electromagnetic
fields from phone masts on a population of white
stork (Ciconia ciconia). Electromagnetic Biology and
Medicine, 24: 109–119.
Balmori A, 2009. Electromagnetic pollution from phone
masts. Effects on wildlife. Pathophysiology, 16(2):
191–199. DOI: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2009.01.007
Balmori A, 2010. Mobile phone masts effects on
common frog (Rana temporaria) tadpoles: the city
turned into a laboratory. Electromagnetic Biology and
Medicine, 29: 31–35.
Barnes FS, Greenebaum B, 2007. Handbook of biological
effects of electromagnetic fields: bioengineering and
biophysical aspects of electromagnetic fields. 3rd
Edition, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Taylor and Francis
Press, 440.
References
Beason RC, Semm P, 2002. Responses of neurons
to an amplitude modulated microwave stimulus.
Neuroscience Letters, 333: 175–178.
Abdel-Rassoul G, El-Fateh OA, Salem MA, Michael A,
Farahat F, EI-Batanouny M, et al., 2007. Neurobehavioral
effects among inhabitants around mobile phone base
stations. Neurotoxicology, 28(2): 434–440.
Belpomme D, 2011. Presentation of Prof. Dominique
Belpomme at 8th National Congress on Electrosmog,
Berne. http://citizensforsafetechnology.org/uploads/
scribd/Presentation%20of%20Prof.pdf
BMID: BM-8
212
Review Article
Belyaev IY, Koch CB, Terenius O, Roxström-Lindquist K,
Malmgren LO, Sommer W, et al., 2006. Exposure
of rat brain to 915 MHz GSM microwaves induces
changes in gene expression but not double stranded
DNA breaks or effects on chromatin conformation.
Bioelectromagnetics, 27(4): 295–306.
Belyavskaya NA, 2004. Biological effects due to
weak magnetic field on plants. Advances in Space
Research, 34(7): 1566–1574.
Birenbaum L, Grosof GM, Rosenthal SW, Zaret
MM, 1969. Effect of microwaves on the eye. IEEE
Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 16(1): 7–14.
Blank M, 2012. Cell Towers and Cancer – Bioinitiative
Report. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v5a6wLFeIr
CtU&feature5related; www.weepinitiative.org
Business Standard, 2010. Cellular tower study
debunks radiation myth by COAI, AUSPI. December
21, 2010. http://www.business-standard.com/india/
news/cellular-tower-study-debunks-radiation-mythby-coai-auspi/419036
Çam ST, Seyhan N, 2012. Single­-strand DNA breaks
in human hair root cells exposed to mobile phone
radiation. International Journal of Radiation Biology,
88(5): 420–424.
Cane JH, Tepedino VJ, 2001. Causes and extent of
declines among native North American invertebrate
pollinators: detection, evidence, and consequences.
Conservation Ecology, 5(1): 1.
Cherry N, 2001. Evidence that electromagnetic
radiation is genotoxic: the implications for the
epidemiology of cancer and cardiac, neurological,
and reproductive effects. http://www.neilcherry.com/
documents/90_m2_EMR_Evidence_That_EMR-EMF_
is_genotoxic.pdf
Davis D, 2010. Disconnect. USA: Dutton Penguin
Group, 69–95.
De Iuliis GN, Newey RJ, King BV, Aitken RJ, 2009.
Mobile phone radiation induces reactive oxygen
species production and DNA damage in human
spermatozoa in vitro. PLoS ONE, 4(7): e6446.
Biology and Medicine, 4 (4): 202–216, 2012
Favre D, 2011. Mobile phone-induced honeybee worker
piping. Apidologie, 42(3): 270–279. DOI: 10.1007/
s13592-011-0016-x
FCC, 1999. Questions and answers about
biological effects and potential hazards of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. OET Bulletin 56,
4th Edition. http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/oetbulletins-line
Fragopoulou A, Grigoriev Y, Johansson O, Margaritis LH,
Morgan L, Richter E, et al., 2010. Scientific panel
on electromagnetic field health risks: consensus
points, recommendations, and rationales. Reviews on
Environmental Health, 25(4): 307–317.
Grefner NM, Yakovleva TL, Boreysha IK, 1998. Effects
of electromagnetic radiation on tadpole development
in the common frog (Rana temporaria L.). Russian
Journal of Ecology, 29(2): 133–134.
Hardell L, Carlberg M, Söderqvist F, Mild KH, Morgan
LL, 2007. Long-term use of cellular phones and
brain tumours: increased risk associated with use
for . or 5 10 years. Occupational and Environmental
Medicine, 64(9): 626–632.
Hässig M, Jud F, Naegeli H, Kupper J, Spiess BM,
2009. Prevalence of nuclear cataract in Swiss veal
calves and its possible association with mobile
telephone antenna base stations. Schweizer Archiv fur
Tierheilkde, 151(10): 471–478.
Havas M, 2006. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity:
biological effects of dirty electricity with emphasis
on diabetes and multiple sclerosis. Electromagnetic
Biology and Medicine, 25: 259–268.
Hotary KB, Robinson KR, 1994. Endogenous
electrical currents and voltage gradients in Xenopus
embryos and the consequences of their disruption.
Developmental Biology, 166: 789–800.
Hyland GJ, 2000, Physics and biology of mobile
telephony. The Lancet, 356: 1833–1836.
ICNIRP SCI Review, 2011. Mobile phones, brain
tumors, and the interphone study: Where are we
now? Environmental Health Perspectives, 119(11):
1534–1538.
DoT, 2010. Report of the Inter-Ministerial Committee
(IMC) on EMF radiation. Ministry of Communication
and Information Technology, Government of India.
http://www.dot.gov.in/miscellaneous/IMC%20Report/
IMC%20Report.pdf
ICNIRP, 1998. Guidelines for limiting exposure to
time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic
fields (up to 300 GHz). Health Physics, 74(4):
494–522.
Doyon PR, 2008. Are the microwaves killing the
insects, frogs, and birds? And are we next? http://
www.thenhf.com/article.php?id5480
Instituto Edumed, 2010. Latin American experts
committee on high frequency electromagnetic fields
and human health, Non-ionizing electromagnetic
BMID: BM-8
213
Review Article
radiation in the radio-frequency spectrum and its effects
on human health. www.edumed.org.br/lasr2008/en/
Jing J, Yuhua Z, Xiao-qian Y, Rongping J, Dong-mei G,
Xi C, 2012. The influence of microwave radiation from
cellular phone on fetal rat brain. Electromagnetic
Biology and Medicine, 31(1): 57–66.
Johansson O, 2010. Aspects of studies on the
functional impairment electrohypersensitivity. IOP
Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science,
10: 012005. DOI:10.1088/1755-1315/10/1/012005
Kane RC, 2001. Cellular telephone russian roulette –
a historical and scientific perspective. New York:
Vantage Press.
Kasevich RS, 2000. Cell Towers, Wireless Convenience
or Environmental Hazards? Proceedings of the “Cell
Towers Forum” State of the Science/State of the Law.
Chapter 11, Levitt BB (Ed.), Canada: New Century
Publishing, pp. 170–175.
Kesari KK, Kumar S, Behari J, 2011. Biomarkers
inducing changes due to microwave exposure
effect on rat brain, pp. 1–4. http://www.academia.
edu/967270/Biomarkers_inducing_changes_due_to_
microwave_exposure_effect_on_rat_brain
Kevan PG, Phillips TP, 2001. The economic impacts
of pollinator declines: an approach to assessing the
consequences. Ecology and Society, 5(1): 8.
Kimmel S, Kuhn J, Harst W, Stever H, 2007. Effects
of electromagnetic exposition on the behavior of the
honeybee (Apis mellifera). Environmental Systems
Research, 8: 1–8.
Kirschvink JL, Walker MM, Diebel CE, 2001.
Magnetite-based magnetoreception. Current Opinion
in Neurobiology, 11: 462–467.
Kumar G, 2010. Report on cell tower radiation, submitted to
the Secretary, DoT, Delhi. http://www.ee.iitb.ac.in/~mwave/
GK-cell-tower-rad-report-DOT-Dec2010.pdf
Kumar N, Kumar G, 2009. Biological effects of cell
tower radiation on human body. Electrical engineering
department, IIT Bombay. December 16–19, ISMOT,
2009, New Delhi, India.
Lahijani MS, Ghafoori M, 2000. Teratogenic effects of
sinusoidal extremely low frequency electromagnetic
fields on morphology of 24 hr chick embryos.
Indian Journal of Experimental Biology, 38(7):
692–699.
Lai H, Singh NP, 1995. Acute low-intensity microwave
exposure increases DNA single-strand breaks in rat
brain cells. Bioelectromagnetics, 16: 207–210.
BMID: BM-8
Biology and Medicine, 4 (4): 202–216, 2012
Lai H, Singh NP, 1996. Single- and double-strand DNA
breaks in rat brain cells after acute exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation. International
Journal of Radiation Biology, 69: 513–521.
Lai H, Singh NP, 1997. Melatonin and a spin-trap
compound block radio-frequency electromagnetic
radiation-induced DNA strand breaks in rat brain cells.
Bioelectromagnetics, 18: 446–454.
Leszczynski D, Joenväärä S, Reivinen J, Kuokka R,
2002. Non-thermal activation of the hsp27/p38MAPK
stress pathway by mobile phone radiation in human
endothelial cells: molecular mechanism for cancerand blood-brain barrier–related effects. Differentiation,
70: 120–129.
Levengood WC, 1969. A new teratogenic agent
applied to amphibian embryos. Journal of Embryology
and Experimental Morphology, 21(1): 23–31.
Levitina NA, 1966. Non-thermal effect of microwaves
on the rhythm of cardiac contractions in the frog.
Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine, 62(12):
64–66.
Levitt BB, 2007. Electromagnetic fields: a consumer’s
guide to the issues and how to protect ourselves.
Authors Guild Backinprint.com Edition, iUniverse, Inc.
ISBN: 978-0-595-47607-7.
Levitt BB, 2010. The environmental effects of wireless
technologies and other sources of non-ionizing
radiation: an overview. http://www.croww.org/
environmental-effects.pdf
Levitt BB, Lai H, 2010. Biological effects from exposure
to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower
base stations and other antenna arrays. Canada: NRC
Research Press, 369–395.
Marino AA, Carrubba A, 2009. The effects of mobile
phone electromagnetic fields on brain electrical activity:
A critical review of literature. Electromagnetic Biology
and Medicine, 28(3): 250-274. http://andrewamarino.
com/PDFs/CellphoneEMFs-Review.pdf
Milham S, 2010. Historical evidence that electrification
caused the 20th century epidemic of disease of
civilization. Medical Hypotheses, 74(2): 337–345.
Mitra A, Bhattacharya D, 2008. Effects of melatonin in
mild diabetics with dyslipidaemia. Journal of Human
Ecology, 23(2): 109–114.
MOEF, 2010. Report on possible impacts of commu­
nication towers on wildlife, including birds and
bees,
Government
of
India.
http://www.
indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/final_mobile_
towers_report.pdf
214
Review Article
Biology and Medicine, 4 (4): 202–216, 2012
Mouritsen H, Ritz T, 2005. Magnetoreception and its
use in bird navigation. Current Opinion in Neurobiology,
15(4): 406–414.
Biological Effects and Hygienic Standardization”,
Moscow. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organisation,
1999. http://www.who.int/iris/handle/10665/65976
Narayanan SN, Kumar RS, Potu BK, Nayak S,
Bhat PG, Mailankot M, 2010. Effect of radio-frequency
electromagnetic radiations (RF-EMR) on passive avoid­
ance behaviour and hippocampal morphology in Wistar
rats. Uppsala Journal of Medical Sciences, 115: 91–96.
Rogers KJ, 2002. Health effects from cell phone
tower radiation. http://www.scribd.com/doc/3773284/
Health-Effects-from-Cell-Phone-Tower-Radiation
New International EMF Alliance, 2011. Seletun
Statement, Oslo, Norway. http://iemfa.org/index.php/
publications/seletun-resolution
Nylund R, Leszczynski D, 2004. Proteomics analysis
of human endothelial cell line EA.hy926 after exposure
to GSM 900 radiation. Proteomics, 4: 1359–1365.
Nylund R, Leszczynski D, 2006. Mobile phone radiation
causes changes in gene and protein expression in
human endothelial cell lines and the response seems
to be genome- and proteome-dependent. Proteomics,
6: 4769–4780.
Oberfeld G, Navarro E, Portoles M, Maestu C, GomezPerretta C, 2004. The microwave syndrome – further
aspects of a Spanish study. EBEA Congres KosGreece, 1: 1–9.
Osepchuk JM, 1983. Biological Effects of
Electromagnetic Radiation. New York, USA: John
Wiley and Sons, IEEE INC.
Panagopoulos DJ, Karabarbounis A, Margaritis LH,
2004. Effect of GSM 900 MHz mobile phone radiation on
the reproductive capacity of Drosophila melanogaster.
Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 23(1): 29–43.
Panagopoulos DJ, Karabarbounis A, Margaritis LH,
2008. Mobile Telephony Radiation Effects on Living
Organisms. In: mobile telephones, Chapter 3, Harper
AC, Buress RV (Eds.). New York: Nova Science
Publishers, pp. 107–149.
Panagopoulos DJ, Chavdoula ED, Nezis IP, Margaritis
LH, 2007. Cell death induced by GSM 900 MHz and
DCS 1800 MHz mobile telephony radiation. Mutation
Research, 626(1–2): 69–78.
Panagopoulos DJ, Chavdoula ED, Margaritis LH, 2010.
Bioeffects of mobile telephony radiation in relation to
its intensity or distance from the antenna. International
Journal of Radiation Biology, 86(5): 345–357.
Repacholi MH, Cardis E, 2002. Criteria for EMF health
risk assessment. Radiation Protection Dosimetry,
72: 305–312.
Repacholi MH, Rubtsova NB, Muc AM, 1998. Proceedings
of the International Meeting on “Electromagnetic Fields:
BMID: BM-8
Rubin EB, Shemesh Y, Cohen M, Elgavish S, Robertson
HM, Bloch G, 2006. Molecular and phylogenetic
analyses reveal mammalian-like clockwork in the
honey bee (Apis mellifera) and shed new light on the
molecular evolution of the circadian clock. Genome
Research, 16(11): 1352–1365.
Sage C, 2007.The Bioinitiative Report and Biologicallybased Exposure Standards. http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v5jC6Bzz25rzU&feature5relmfu
Santini R, Santini P, Danze JM, Le Ruz P, Seigne M,
2002. Investigation on the health of people living near
mobile telephone relay stations: incidence according
to distance and sex. Pathological Biology (Paris),
50(6): 369–373.
SCENIHR, 2007. Possible effects of electromagnetic
fields (EMF) on human health. 16th Plenary on 21st March
2007. http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_
scenihr/docs/scenihr_o_007.pdf
Sharma VP, Kumar NR, 2010. Changes in honeybee
behaviour and biology under the influence of cellphone
radiations. Current Science, 98(10): 1376–1378.
Tanwar VS, 2006. Living Dangerously in Indian
cities: an RF radiation pollution perspective.
ElectroMagnetic Interference and Compatibility
(INCEMIC), 2006 Proceedings of the 9th International
Conference, Cogent EMR Solutions, New Delhi, India,
pp. 458–466.
The Hindu, 2012. Mobile base station radiation
limit will be cut from September 1. August 27,
2012.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/
article3828735.ece
The Hindu, 2012. No major health fallout from
typical exposure, say studies. August 28, 2012.
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/
article3829594.ece
TRAI, 2012. Indian telecom services performance
indicator report for the quarter ending December.
Information note to the Press. Press release No.
74/2012, New Delhi. www.trai.gov.in
US Fish & Wildlife Service, 2009. Public Press
release on briefing paper on the need for research
into the cumulative impacts of communication
towers on migratory birds and other wildlife in
215
Review Article
the United States, Division of Migratory Bird
Management (DMBM). http://electromagnetichealth.
org/pdf/CommTowerResearchNeedsPublicBriefing2-409.pdf
Warnke U, 2007. Bees, birds, and mankind: destroying
nature by “Electrosmog”. Effects of mobile radio and
wireless communication. A series of papers by the
competence initiative for the protection of mankind,
environment, and democracy. Kempten. http://www.
hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/papers/warnke_bbm.pdf
BMID: BM-8
Biology and Medicine, 4 (4): 202–216, 2012
WHO Press Release, 2011. IARC classifies radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly
carcinogenic to humans. International Agency for
Research on Cancer (IARC). http://www.who.int/
mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en
Xu S, Zhou Z, Zhang L, Yu Z, Zhang W, Wang Y,
et al., 2010. Exposure to 1800 MHz radio-frequency
radiation induces oxidative damage to mitochondrial
DNA in primary cultured neurons. Brain Research,
1311: 189–196.
216
PATPHY-589;
No. of Pages 9
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Pathophysiology xxx (2009) xxx–xxx
Electromagnetic pollution from phone masts. Effects on wildlife
Alfonso Balmori
Direccion General del Medio Natural, Consejería de Medio Ambiente, Junta de Castilla y Leon, C/Rigoberto Cortejoso,
14, 47014 Valladolid, Spain
Received 10 August 2008; received in revised form 28 August 2008; accepted 30 January 2009
Abstract
A review on the impact of radiofrequency radiation from wireless telecommunications on wildlife is presented. Electromagnetic radiation
is a form of environmental pollution which may hurt wildlife. Phone masts located in their living areas are irradiating continuously some
species that could suffer long-term effects, like reduction of their natural defenses, deterioration of their health, problems in reproduction and
reduction of their useful territory through habitat deterioration. Electromagnetic radiation can exert an aversive behavioral response in rats,
bats and birds such as sparrows. Therefore microwave and radiofrequency pollution constitutes a potential cause for the decline of animal
populations and deterioration of health of plants living near phone masts. To measure these effects urgent specific studies are necessary.
© 2009 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
Keywords: Effects on wildlife; Effects on birds; Electromagnetic radiation; Mammals; Microwaves; Mobile telecommunications; Non-thermal effects; Phone
masts; Radiofrequencies
1. Introduction
Life has evolved under the influence of two omnipresent
forces: gravity and electromagnetism. It should be expected
that both play important roles in the functional activities
of organisms [1]. Before the 1990’s radiofrequencies were
mainly from a few radio and television transmitters, located
in remote areas and/or very high places. Since the introduction of wireless telecommunication in the 1990’s the rollout
of phone networks has caused a massive increase in electromagnetic pollution in cities and the countryside [2,3].
Multiple sources of mobile communication result in
chronic exposure of a significant part of the wildlife (and
man) to microwaves at non-thermal levels [4]. In recent
years, wildlife has been chronically exposed to microwaves
and RFR (Radiofrequency radiation) signals from various
sources, including GSM and UMTS/3G wireless phones
and base stations, WLAN (Wireless Local Area Networks),
WPAN (Wireless Personal Area Networks such as Bluetooth), and DECT (Digital Enhanced (former European)
Cordless Telecommunications) that are erected indiscriminately without studies of environmental impact measuring
E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected].
long-term effects. These exposures are characterized by low
intensities, varieties of signals, and long-term durations. The
greater portion of this exposure is from mobile telecommunications (geometric mean in Vienna: 73% [5]). In Germany
the GSM cellular phone tower radiation is the dominating
high frequency source in residential areas [6]. Also GSM is
the dominating high frequency source in the wilderness of
Spain (personal observation).
Numerous experimental data have provided strong evidence of athermal microwave effects and have also indicated
several regularities in these effects: dependence of frequency
within specific frequency windows of “resonance-type”;
dependence on modulation and polarization; dependence on
intensity within specific intensity windows, including superlow power density comparable with intensities from base
stations/masts [4,7–9]. Some studies have demonstrated different microwave effects depending on wavelength in the
range of mm, cm or m [10,11]. Duration of exposure may
be as important as power density. Biological effects resulting
from electromagnetic field radiation might depend on dose,
which indicates long-term accumulative effects [3,9,12].
Modulated and pulsed radiofrequencies seem to be more
effective in producing effects [4,9]. Pulsed waves (in blasts),
as well as certain low frequency modulations exert greater
0928-4680/$ – see front matter © 2009 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
doi:10.1016/j.pathophys.2009.01.007
Please cite this article in press as: A. Balmori, Electromagnetic pollution from phone masts. Effects on wildlife, Pathophysiology (2009),
doi:10.1016/j.pathophys.2009.01.007
PATPHY-589;
No. of Pages 9
2
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Balmori / Pathophysiology xxx (2009) xxx–xxx
biological activity [11,13–15]. This observation is important
because cell phone radiation is pulsed microwave radiation
modulated at low frequencies [8,9].
Most of the attention on possible biological effects of electromagnetic radiation from phone masts has been focused
on human health [5,16–21]. The effects of electromagnetic
pollution on wildlife, have scarcely been studied [22–25].
The objective of this review is to detail advances in knowledge of radiofrequencies and microwave effects on wildlife.
Future research may help provide a better understanding of
electromagnetic field (EMF) effects on wildlife and plants
and their conservation.
2. Effects on exposed wildlife
2.1. Effects on birds
2.1.1. Effects of phone mast microwaves on white stork
In monitoring a white stork (Ciconia ciconia) population
in Valladolid (Spain) in vicinity of Cellular Phone Base Stations, the total productivity in nests located within 200 m
of antennae, was 0.86 ± 0.16. For those located further than
300 m, the result was practically doubled, with an average of
1.6 ± 0.14. Very significant differences among total productivity were found (U = 240; P = 0.001, Mann–Whitney test).
Twelve nests (40%) located within 200 m of antennae never
had chicks, while only one (3.3%) located further than 300 m
had no chicks. The electric field intensity was higher on nests
within 200 m (2.36 ± 0.82 V/m) than nests further than 300 m
(0.53 ± 0.82 V/m). In nesting sites located within 100 m of
one or several cellsite antennae with the main beam of radiation impacting directly (Electric field intensity >2 V/m) many
young died from unknown causes. Couples frequently fought
over nest construction sticks and failed to advance the construction of the nests. Some nests were never completed
and the storks remained passively in front of cellsite antennae. These results indicate the possibility that microwaves
are interfering with the reproduction of white stork [23].
(Fig. 1)
Fig. 1. Average number of youngs and electric field intensity (V/m) in 60
nests of white storks (Ciconia ciconia) (Hallberg, Ö with data of Balmori,
2005 [23]).
2.1.2. Effects of phone mast microwaves on house
sparrows
A possible effect of long-term exposure to low-intensity
electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone (GSM) base
stations on the number of house sparrows during the breeding season was studied in Belgium. The study was carried
out sampling 150 point locations within six areas to examine
small-scale geographic variation in the number of house sparrow males and the strength of electromagnetic radiation from
base stations. Spatial variation in the number of house sparrow males was negative and highly significantly related to the
strength of electric fields from both the 900 and 1800 MHz
downlink frequency bands and from the sum of these bands
(Chi-square-tests and AIC-criteria, P < 0.001). This negative
relationship was highly similar within each of the six study
areas, despite differences among areas in both the number of
birds and radiation levels. Fewer house sparrow males were
seen at locations with relatively high electric field strength
values of GSM base stations and therefore support the notion
that long-term exposure to higher levels of radiation negatively affects the abundance or behavior of house sparrows in
the wild [24].
In another study with point transect sampling performed at
30 points visited 40 times in Valladolid (Spain) between 2002
and 2006, counting the sparrows and measuring the mean
electric field strength (radiofrequencies and microwaves:
1 MHz to 3 GHz range). Significant declines (P = 0.0037)
were observed in mean bird density over time, and significantly low bird density was observed in areas with high
electric field strength. The logarithmic regression of the
mean bird density vs. field strength groups (considering field
strength in 0.1 V/m increments) was R = −0.87; P = 0.0001
According to this calculation, no sparrows would be expected
to be found in an area with field strength >4 V/m [25]. (Fig. 2)
In the United Kingdom a decline of several species of
urban birds, especially sparrows, has recently happened
[26]. The sparrow population in England has decreased in
the last 30 years from 24 million to less than 14. The
more abrupt decline, with 75% descent has taken place
from 1994 to 2002. In 2002, the house sparrow was added
to the Red List of U.K. endangered species [27]. This
coincides with the rollout of mobile telephony and the
Fig. 2. Mean sparrow density as a function of electric field strength grouped
in 0.1 V/m. (Balmori and Hallberg, 2007 [25]).
Please cite this article in press as: A. Balmori, Electromagnetic pollution from phone masts. Effects on wildlife, Pathophysiology (2009),
doi:10.1016/j.pathophys.2009.01.007
PATPHY-589;
No. of Pages 9
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Balmori / Pathophysiology xxx (2009) xxx–xxx
Fig. 3. Annual number of contacts (Mean) for 14 species studied in “Campo
Grande” urban park (lack the information of the years 1999–2001).
possible relationship of both circumstances should be investigated.
In Brussels, many sparrows have disappeared recently
[28]; similar declines have been reported in Dublin [29]. Van
der Poel (cited in Ref. [27]) suggested that sparrows might
be declining in Dutch urban centres also.
2.1.3. Effects on the bird community at an urban park
Microwaves may be affecting bird populations in places
with high electromagnetic pollution. Since several antennas were installed in proximities of “Campo Grande” urban
park (Valladolid, Spain) the bird population has decreased
and a reduction of the species and breeding couples has
occurred. Between 1997 and 2007, of 14 species, 3 species
have disappeared, 4 are in decline and 7 stay stable (Balmori,
unpublished data) (Fig. 3). In this time the air pollution (SO2,
NO2, CO and Benzene) has diminished.
During the research some areas called “silence areas” contaminated with high microwave radiation (>2 V/m), where
previously different couples usually bred and later disappeared, have been found. Several anomalies in magpies (Pica
pica) were detected: plumage deterioration, locomotive problems (limps and deformations in the paws), partial albinism
and melanism, especially in flanks [30]. Recently cities have
increased cases of partial albinism and melanism in birds
(Passer domesticus, Turdus merula and P. pica) (personal
observation).
2.1.4. Possible physiological mechanisms of the effects
found in birds
Current scientific evidence indicates that prolonged exposure to EMFs, at levels that can be encountered in the
environment, may affect immune system function by affecting biological processes [3,31,32]. A stressed immune system
may increase the susceptibility of a bird to infectious diseases,
bacteria, viruses, and parasites [33].
The plumage of the birds exposed to microwaves looked,
in general, discolorated and lack of shine. This not only
occurred in ornamental birds; such as peacocks, but also
in wild birds; such as, tits, great tits, house sparrows, etc
(personal observation). We must mention that plumage deterioration is the first sign of weakening or illnesses in birds
since damaged feathers are a sure sign of stress.
3
Physiological conditions during exposure minimize
microwave effects. Radical scavengers/antioxidants might be
involved in effects of microwaves [4].
Microwaves used in cellphones produce an athermal
response in several types of neurons of the birds nervous
system [34]. Several studies addressed behavior and teratology in young birds exposed to electromagnetic fields
[23,25,35–37]. Most studies indicate that electromagnetic
field exposure of birds generally changes, but not always
consistently in effect or in direction, their behavior, reproductive success, growth and development, physiology and
endocrinology, and oxidative stress [37]. These results can
be explained by electromagnetic fields affecting the birds’
response to the photoperiod as indicated by altered melatonin
levels [38].
Prolonged mobile phone exposure may have negative
effects on sperm motility characteristics and male fertility
as has been demonstrated in many studies made in man and
rats [39–46]. EMF and microwaves can affect reproductive
success in birds [23,25,35,36,47]. EMF exposure affected
reproductive success of kestrels (Falco sparverius), increasing fertility, egg size, embryonic development and fledging
success but reducing hatching success [35,36].
The radiofrequency and microwaves from mobile telephony can cause genotoxic effects [48–55]. Increases
in cytological abnormalities imply long-term detrimental
effects since chromosomal damage is a mechanism relevant
to causation of birth defects and cancer [55].
Long-term continuous, or daily repeated EMF exposure
can induce cellular stress responses at non-thermal power
levels that lead to an accumulation of DNA errors and to
inhibition of cell apoptosis and cause increased permeability of blood–brain barrier due to stabilization of endothelial
cell stress fibers. Repeated occurrence of these events over
a long period of time (years) could become a health hazard due to a possible accumulation of brain tissue damage.
These findings have important implications with regards to
potential dangers from prolonged and repeated exposure to
non-ionizing radiation [56,57].
Pulsed magnetic fields can have a significant influence on
the development and incidence of abnormalities in chicken
embryos. In five of six laboratories, exposed embryos exhibited more structural anomalies than controls. If the data from
all six laboratories are pooled, the difference for the incidence
of abnormalities in exposed embryos and controls is highly
significant [58]. Malformations in the nervous system and
heart, and delayed embryo growth are observed. The embryo
is most sensitive to exposure in the first 24 h of incubation
[58]. An increase in the mortality [59] and appearance of
morphological abnormalities, especially of the neural tube
[13,60,61] has been recorded in chicken embryos exposed to
pulsed magnetic fields, with different susceptibility among
individuals probably for genetic reasons. A statistically significant high mortality rate of chicken embryos subjected to
radiation from a cellphone, compared to the control group
exists [62,63]. In another study eggs exposed to a magnetic
Please cite this article in press as: A. Balmori, Electromagnetic pollution from phone masts. Effects on wildlife, Pathophysiology (2009),
doi:10.1016/j.pathophys.2009.01.007
PATPHY-589;
No. of Pages 9
4
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Balmori / Pathophysiology xxx (2009) xxx–xxx
field intensity of 0.07 T showed embryonic mortality during their incubation was higher. The negative effect of the
magnetic field was manifested also by a lower weight of
the hatched chicken [64]. Bioelectric fields have long been
suspected to play a causal role in embryonic development.
Alteration of the electrical field may disrupt the chemical
gradient and signals received by embryo cells. It appears that
in some manner, cells sense their position in an electrical
field and respond appropriately. The disruption of this field
alters their response. Endogenous current patterns are often
correlated with specific morphogenetic events [65].
Available data suggests dependencies of genotype, gender,
physiological and individual factors on athermal microwave
effects [4,9]. Genomic differences can influence cellular
responses to GSM Microwaves. Data analysis has highlighted
a wide inter-individual variability in response, which was
replicated in further experiments [4]. It is possible that each
species and each individual, show different susceptibility to
radiation, since vulnerability depends on genetic tendency,
and physiologic and neurological state of the irradiated organism [15,35–37,61,66–68]. Different susceptibility of each
species has also been proven in wild birds exposed to electromagnetic fields from high-voltage power lines [47].
2.2. Effects on mammals
2.2.1. Alarm and aversion behavior
Rats spent more time in the halves of shuttle boxes
that were shielded from 1.2 GHz. Microwaves irradiation.
The average power density was about 0.6 mW/cm2 . Data
revealed that rats avoided the pulsed energy, but not the continuous energy, and less than 0.4 mW/cm2 average power
density was needed to produce aversion [69]. Navakatikian
& Tomashevskaya [70] described a complex series of experiments in which they observed disruption of rat behavior
(active avoidance) from radiofrequency radiation. Behavioral disruption was observed at a power density as low as
0.1 mW/cm2 (0.027 W/kg). Mice in an experimental group
exposed to microwave radiation expressed visible individual
panic reaction, disorientation and a greater degree of anxiety. In the sham exposed group these deviations of behavior
were not seen and all animals show collective defense reaction [71]. Microwave radiation at 1.5 GHz pulsing 16 ms. At
0.3 mW/cm2 power density, in sessions of 30 min/day over
one month produced anxiety and alarm in rabbits [72].
Electromagnetic radiation can exert an aversive behavioral response in bats. Bat activity is significantly reduced in
habitats exposed to an electromagnetic field strength greater
than 2 V/m [73]. During a study in a free-tailed bat colony
(Tadarida teniotis) the number of bats decreased when several
phone masts were placed 80 m from the colony [74].
2.2.2. Deterioration of health
Animals exposed to electromagnetic fields can suffer a
deterioration of health and changes in behavior [75,76].
There was proof of frequent death in domestic animals; such as, hamsters and guinea pigs, living near mobile
telecommunication base stations (personal observation).
The mice in an experimental group exposed to microwave
radiation showed less weight gain compared to control, after
two months. The amount of food used was similar in both
groups [71]. A link between electromagnetic field exposure
and higher levels of oxidative stress appears to be a major contributor to aging, neurodegenerative diseases, immune system
disorders, and cancer in mammals [33].
The effects from GSM base transceiver station (BTS)
frequency of 945 MHz on oxidative stress in rats were
investigated. When EMF at a power density of 3.67 W/m2 ,
below current exposure limits, were applied, MDA (malondialdehyde) level was found to increase and GSH (reduced
glutathione) concentration was found to decrease significantly (P < 0.0001). Additionally, there was a less significant
(P = 0.0190) increase in SOD (superoxide dismutase) activity
under EM exposure [77].
2.2.3. Problems in reproduction
In the town of Casavieja (Ávila, Spain) a telephony
antenna was installed that had been in operation for about
5 years. Then some farmers began blaming the antenna for
miscarriages in many pigs, 50–100 m from the antenna (on
the outskirts of the town). Finally the topic became so bad that
the town council decided to disassemble the antenna. It was
removed in the spring 2005. From this moment onwards the
problems stopped (C. Lumbreras personal communication).
A Greek study reports a progressive drop in the number of
rodent births exposed to radiofrequencies. The mice exposed
to 0.168 ␮W/cm2 become sterile after five generations, while
those exposed to 1.053 ␮W/cm2 became sterile after only
three generations [22].
In pregnant rats exposed to 27.12 MHz continuous waves
at 100 ␮W/cm2 during different periods of pregnancy, half
the pregnancies miscarried before the twentieth day of gestation, compared to only a 6% miscarriage rate in unexposed
controls, and 38% of the viable foetuses had incomplete cranial ossification, compared to less than 6% of the controls.
Findings included a considerable increase in the percentage
of total reabsorptions (post-implantation losses consequent
to RF radiation exposure in the first post-implantation stage).
Reduced body weight in the exposed dams reflected a negative influence on their health. It seems that the irradiation
time plays an important role in inducing specific effects consequent to radiofrequency radiation exposure [78]. There was
also a change in the sex ratio, with more males born to rats that
had been irradiated from the time of conception [2]. Moorhouse and Macdonald [79] find a substantial decline in female
Water Vole numbers in the radio-collared population, apparently resulting from a male skew in the sex ratios of offspring
born to this population. Recruits to the radio-tracked population were skewed heavily in favour of males (43:13). This
suggests that radio-collaring of females caused male-skewed
sex ratios.
Please cite this article in press as: A. Balmori, Electromagnetic pollution from phone masts. Effects on wildlife, Pathophysiology (2009),
doi:10.1016/j.pathophys.2009.01.007
PATPHY-589;
No. of Pages 9
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Balmori / Pathophysiology xxx (2009) xxx–xxx
Mobile phone exposure may have negative effects on
sperm motility characteristics and male fertility in rats [46].
Other studies find a decrease of fertility, increase of deaths
after birth and dystrophic changes in their reproductive organs
[11]. Intermittent exposure showed a stronger effect than
continuous exposure [4]. Brief, intermittent exposure to lowfrequency EM fields during the critical prenatal period for
neurobehavioral sex differentiation can demasculinize male
scent marking behavior and increase accessory sex organ
weights in adulthood [80].
In humans, magnetic field exposures above 2.0 mG were
positively associated with miscarriage risk [81]. Exposure
of pregnant women to mobile phone significantly increased
foetal and neonatal heart rate, and significantly decreased the
cardiac output [82].
2.2.4. Nervous system
Microwaves may affect the blood brain barrier which lets
toxic substances pass through from the blood to the brain
[83]. Adang et al. [84] examined the effect of microwave
exposure to a GSM-like frequency of 970 MHz pulsed waves
on the memory in rats by means of an object recognition task.
The rats that have been exposed for 2 months show normal
exploratory behavior. The animals that have been exposed for
15 months show derogatory behavior. They do not make the
distinction between a familiar and an unfamiliar object. In the
area that received radiation directly from “Location Skrunda
Radio Station” (Latvia), exposed children had less developed memory and attention, their reaction time was slower
and neuromuscular apparatus endurance was decreased [85].
Exposure to cell phones prenatally and, to a lesser degree,
postnatally was associated with behavioral difficulties such
as emotional and hyperactivity problems around 7 years
of age [86]. Electromagnetic radiation caused modification
of sleep and alteration of cerebral electric response (EEG)
[87–89]. Microwave radiation from phone masts may cause
aggressiveness in people and animals (personal observation).
2.3. Effects on amphibians
Disappearance of amphibians and other organisms is
part of the global biodiversity crisis. An associated phenomenon is the appearance of large numbers of deformed
amphibians. The problem has become more prevalent, with
deformity rates up to 25% in some populations, which is significantly higher than previous decades [90]. Balmori [91]
proposed that electromagnetic pollution (in the microwave
and radiofrequency range) is a possible cause for deformations and decline of some wild amphibian populations.
Two species of amphibians were exposed to magnetic
fields at various stages of development. A brief treatment of
early amphibian embryos produced several types of abnormalities [92]. Exposure to a pulsed electromagnetic field
produced abnormal limb regeneration in adult Newts [93].
Frog tadpoles (Rana temporaria) developed under electro-
5
magnetic field (50 Hz, 260 A/m) have increased mortality.
Exposed tadpoles developed more slowly and less synchronously than control tadpoles and remain at the early
stages for longer. Tadpoles developed allergies and EMF
caused changes in blood counts [94].
In a current study exposing eggs and tadpoles (n = 70)
of common frog (R. temporaria) for two months, from
the phase of eggs until an advanced phase of tadpole, to four telephone base stations located 140 m
away: with GSM system 948.0–959.8 MHz; DCS system:
1830.2–1854.8; 1855.2–1879.8 MHz. and UMTS system:
1905–1910; 1950–1965; 2140–2155 MHz. (electric field
intensity: 1.847–2.254 V/m). A low coordination of movements, an asynchronous growth, with big and small tadpoles,
and a high mortality (90%) was observed. The control group
(n = 70), under the same conditions but inside a Faraday cage
(metallic shielding component: EMC-reinforcement fabrics
97442 Marburg Technic), the coordination of movements was
normal, the development was synchronously and the mortality rate was only 4.2% [95].
2.4. Effects on insects
The microwaves may affect the insects. Insects are the
basis and key species of ecosystems and they are especially
sensitive to electromagnetic radiation that poses a threat to
nature [96].
Carpenter and Livstone [97] irradiated pupae of Tenebrio molitor with 10 GHz microwaves at 80 mW for
20–30 min and 20 mW for 120 min obtained a rise in
the proportion of insects with abnormalities or dead. In
another study exposing fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster)
to mobile phone radiation, elevated stress protein levels
(Hsp70) was obtained, which usually means that cells are
exposed to adverse environmental conditions (’non-thermal
shock’) [98]. Panagopoulos et al. [99] exposed fruit flies (D.
melanogaster) to radiation from a mobile phone (900 MHz)
during the 2–5 first days of adulthood. The reproductive
capacity of the species reduced by 50–60% in modulated radiation conditions (emission while talking on the phone) and
15–20% with radiation nomodulated (with the phone silent).
The results of this study indicate that this radiation affects
the gonadal development of insects in an athermal way. The
authors concluded that radio frequencies, specifically GSM,
are highly bioactive and provoke significant changes in physiological functions of living organisms. Panagopoulos et al.
[100] compare the biological activity between the two systems GSM 900 MHz and DCS 1800 MHz in the reproductive
capacity of fruit flies. Both types of radiation were found to
decrease significantly and non-thermally the insect’s reproductive capacity, but GSM 900 MHz seems to be even more
bioactive than DCS 1800 MHz. The difference seems to be
dependent mostly on field intensity and less on carrier frequency.
A study in South Africa finds a strong correlation
between decrease in ant and beetle diversity with the
Please cite this article in press as: A. Balmori, Electromagnetic pollution from phone masts. Effects on wildlife, Pathophysiology (2009),
doi:10.1016/j.pathophys.2009.01.007
PATPHY-589;
No. of Pages 9
6
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Balmori / Pathophysiology xxx (2009) xxx–xxx
electromagnetic radiation exposure (D. MacFadyen, personal communication.). A decrease of insects and arachnids
near base stations was detected and corroborated by engineers and antenna’s maintenance staff [101]. In houses
near antennas an absence of flies, even in summer, was
found.
In a recent study carried out with bees in Germany,
only a few bees irradiated with DECT radiation returned
to the beehive and they needed more time. The honeycomb
weight was lower in irradiated bees [102]. In recent years
a “colony collapse disorder” is occurring that some authors
relate with pesticides and with increasing electromagnetic
pollution [96].
The disappearance of insects could have an influence on
bird’s weakening caused by a lack of food, especially at the
first stages in a young bird’s life.
2.5. Effects on trees and plants
The microwaves may affect vegetables. In the area that
received radiation directly from “Location Skrunda Radio
Station” (Latvia), pines (Pinus sylvestris) experienced a
lower growth radio. This did not occur beyond the area of
impact of electromagnetic waves. A statistically significant
negative correlation between increase tree growth and intensity of electromagnetic field was found, and was confirmed
that the beginning of this growth decline coincided in time
with the start of radar emissions. Authors evaluated other
possible environmental factors which might have intervened,
but none had noticeable effects [103]. In another study investigating cell ultrastructure of pine needles irradiated by the
same radar, there was an increase of resin production, and was
interpreted as an effect of stress caused by radiation, which
would explain the aging and declining growth and viability
of trees subjected to pulsed microwaves. They also found a
low germination of seeds of pine trees more exposed [104].
The effects of Latvian radar was also felt by aquatic plants.
Spirodela polyrrhiza exposed to a power density between
0.1 and 1.8 ␮W/cm2 had lower longevity, problems in reproduction and morphological and developmental abnormalities
compared with a control group who grew up far from the
radar [105].
Chlorophylls were quantitatively studied in leaves of black
locust (Robinia pseudoacacia L.) seedlings exposed to high
frequency electromagnetic fields of 400 MHz. It was revealed
that the ratio of the two main types of chlorophyll was
decreasing logarithmically to the increase of daily exposure
time [106].
Exposed tomato plants (Lycopersicon esculentum) to low
level (900 MHz, 5 V/m) electromagnetic fields for a short
period (10 min) measured changes in abundance of three
specific mRNA after exposure, strongly suggesting that they
are the direct consequence of application of radio-frequency
fields and their similarities to wound responses suggests that
this radiation is perceived by plants as an injurious stimulus [107]. Non-thermal exposure to radiofrequency fields
induced oxidative stress in duckweed (Lemna minor) as well
as unespecific stress responses, especially of antioxidative
enzymes [108].
For some years progressive deterioration of trees near
phone masts have been observed in Valladolid (Spain). Trees
located inside the main lobe (beam), look sad and feeble,
possibly slow growth and a high susceptibility to illnesses
and plagues. In places we have measured higher electric field
intensity levels of radiation (>2 V/m) the trees show a more
notable deterioration [109]. The tops of trees are dried up
where the main beams are directed to, and they seem to be
most vulnerable if they have their roots close to water. The
trees don’t grow above the height of the other ones and, those
that stand out far above, have dried tops (Hargreaves, personal communication and personal observation). White and
black poplars (Populus sp.) and willows (Salix sp.) are more
sensitive. There may be a special sensitivity of this family
exists or it could be due to their ecological characteristics
forcing them to live near water, and thus electric conductivity.
Other species as Platanus sp. and Lygustrum japonicum, are
more resistant (personal observation). Schorpp [110] presents
abundant pictures and explanations of what happens to irradiated trees.
3. Conclusions
This literature review shows that pulsed telephony
microwave radiation can produce effects especially on nervous, cardiovascular, immune and reproductive systems
[111]:
- Damage to the nervous system by altering electroencephalogram, changes in neural response or changes of the
blood–brain barrier.
- Disruption of circadian rhythms (sleep–wake) by interfering with the pineal gland and hormonal imbalances.
- Changes in heart rate and blood pressure.
- Impairment of health and immunity towards pathogens,
weakness, exhaustion, deterioration of plumage and growth
problems.
- Problems in building the nest or impaired fertility, number
of eggs, embryonic development, hatching percentage and
survival of chickens.
- Genetic and developmental problems: problems of locomotion, partial albinism and melanism or promotion of
tumors.
In the light of current knowledge there is enough evidence
of serious effects from this technology to wildlife. For this
reason precautionary measures should be developed, alongside environmental impact assessments prior to installation,
and a ban on installation of phone masts in protected natural
areas and in places where endangered species are present.
Surveys should take place to objectively assess the severity
of effects.
Please cite this article in press as: A. Balmori, Electromagnetic pollution from phone masts. Effects on wildlife, Pathophysiology (2009),
doi:10.1016/j.pathophys.2009.01.007
PATPHY-589;
No. of Pages 9
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Balmori / Pathophysiology xxx (2009) xxx–xxx
Acknowledgment
The author is grateful to Denise Ward and Örjan Hallberg.
References
[1] J.M.R. Delgado, Biological effects of extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields, J. Bioelectr. 4 (1985) 75–91.
[2] A. Firstenberg, Microwaving Our Planet: The Environmental Impact
of the Wireless Revolution, 11210, Cellular Phone Taskforce, Brooklyn, NY, 1997.
[3] A.L. Galeev, The effects of microwave radiation from mobile telephones on humans and animals, Neurosci. Behav. Physiol. 30 (2000)
187–194.
[4] I. Belyaev, Non-thermal biological effects of microwaves, Microw.
Rev. 11 (2005) 13–29, http://www.mwr.medianis.net/pdf/Vol11No203-IBelyaev.pdf.
[5] H.P. Hutter, H. Moshammer, P. Wallner, M. Kundi, Subjective symptoms, sleeping problems, and cognitive performance in subjects living
near mobile phone base stations, Occup. Environ. Med. 63 (2006)
307–313.
[6] T. Haumann, U. Munzenberg, W. Maes, P. Sierck, HF-radiation levels
of GSM cellular phone towers in residential areas, in: 2nd International Workshop on Biological effects of EMFS, Rhodes, Greece,
2002.
[7] W.R. Adey, Tissue interactions with non-ionizing electromagnetic
fields, Physiol. Rev. 61 (1981) 435–514.
[8] G.J. Hyland, Physics and biology of mobile telephony, Lancet 356
(2000) 1–8.
[9] H. Lai, Biological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field, in:
Encyclopaedia of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, 2005,
doi:10.1081/E-EBBE-120041846, pp. 1–8.
[10] S. Kemerov, M. Marinkev, D. Getova, Effects of low-intensity electromagnetic fields on behavioral activity of rats, Folia Med. 41 (1999)
75–80.
[11] N. Nikolaevich, A. Igorevna, and G. Vasil, Influence of highfrequency electromagnetic radiation at non-thermal intensities on
the human body (A review of work by Russian and Ukrainian
researchers), No place to hide, 3 (Supplement), 2001.
[12] W.R. Adey, Bioeffects of mobile communications fields: possible
mechanisms for cumulative dose. in: N. Kuster, Q. Balzano, J.C. Lin,
(Eds.), Mobile communications safety, New York: Chapman & Hall,
1997, pp. 95–131.
[13] A. Úbeda, M.A. Trillo, L. Chacón, M.J. Blanco, J. Leal, Chick
embryo development can be irreversibly altered by early exposure to
weak extremely-low-frequency magnetic fields, Bioelectromagnetics
15 (1994) 385–398.
[14] I.U.G. Grigoriev, Role of modulation in biological effects of electromagnetic radiation, Radiats. Biol. Radioecol. 36 (1996) 659–670.
[15] G.J. Hyland, The physiological and environmental effects of nonionising electromagnetic radiation, Working document for the STOA
Panel, European Parliament, Directorate General for Research, 2001.
[16] R. Santini, J.M. Santini, P. danze, M. Leruz, M. Seigne, Enquête sur
la santé de riverains de stations relais: I. Incidences de la distance et
du sexe, Pathol. Biol. 50 (2002) 369–373.
[17] R. Santini, P. Santini, J.M. Le Ruz, M. Danze, M. Seigne, Survey
study of people living in the vicinity of cellular phone base stations,
Electromagn. Biol. Med. 22 (2003) 41–49.
[18] R. Santini, P. Santini, J.M. Danze, P. Le Ruz, M. Seigne, Symptoms
experienced by people in vicinity of base stations: II/Incidences of age,
duration of exposure, location of subjects in relation to the antennas
and other electromagnetic factors, Pathol. Biol. 51 (2003) 412–415.
[19] E.A. Navarro, J. Segura, M. Portolés, C. Gómez Perretta, The
microwave syndrome: a preliminary study in Spain, Electromagn.
Biol. Med. 22 (2003) 161–169.
7
[20] G. Oberfeld, E. Navarro, M. Portoles, C. Maestu, C. Gomez-Perretta,
The microwave syndrome—further aspects of a Spanish study, in:
EBEA Congres Kos, Greece, 2004.
[21] G. Abdel-Rassoul, M.A. Salem, A. Michael, F. Farahat, M. ElBatanouny, E. Salem, Neurobehavioral effects among inhabitants
around mobile phone base stations, Neurotoxicology 28 (2007)
434–440.
[22] I.N. Magras, T.D. Xenos, Radiation-induced changes in the prenatal
development of mice, Bioelectromagnetics 18 (1997) 455–461.
[23] A. Balmori, Possible effects of electromagnetic fields from phone
masts on a population of white stork (Ciconia ciconia), Electromagn.
Biol. Med. 24 (2005) 109–119.
[24] J. Everaert, D. Bauwens, A possible effect of electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone base stations on the number of breeding
House Sparrows (Passer domesticus), Electromagn. Biol. Med. 26
(2007) 63–72.
[25] A. Balmori, Ö. Hallberg, The urban decline of the house sparrow
(Passer domesticus): a possible link with electromagnetic radiation,
Electromagn. Biol. Med. 26 (2007) 141–151.
[26] M.J. Raven, D.G. Noble, S.R. Baillie, The breeding bird survey
(2002), BTO Research Report 334, British Trust for Ornithology,
Thetford, 2003.
[27] J.D. Summers-Smith, The decline of the house sparrow: a review,
Brit. Birds 96 (2003) 439–446.
[28] J. De Laet, Ligue Royale Belgue pour la Protection des Oiseaux avec
l’Université de Gand, 2004, <http://www.protectiondesoiseaux.be/
content/view/801/74/> (Accessed on May 20, 2008).
[29] A. Prowse, The urban decline of the house sparrow, Brit. Birds 95
(2002) 143–146.
[30] A. Balmori, Aves y telefonía móvil. Resultados preliminares de los
efectos de las ondas electromagnéticas sobre la fauna urbana, El
ecologista 36 (2003) 40–42.
[31] C.K. Chou, A.W. Guy, L.L. Kunz, R.B. Johnson, J.J. Crowley, J.H.
Krupp, Long-term, low-level microwave irradiation of rats, Bioelectromagnetics 13 (1992) 469–496.
[32] E.T. Novoselova, E.E. Fesenko, Stimulation of production of tumour
necrosis factor by murine macrophages when exposed in vivo and in
vitro to weak electromagnetic waves in the centimeter range, Biofizika
43 (1998) 1132–1133.
[33] K.J. Fernie, D.M. Bird, Evidence of oxidative stress in American
kestrels exposed to electromagnetic fields, Environ. Res. A 86 (2001)
198–207.
[34] R.C. Beasond, P. Semm, Responses of neurons to an amplitude modulated microwave stimulus, Neurosci. Lett. 33 (2002) 175–178.
[35] K.J. Fernie, D.M. Bird, R.D. Dawson, P.C. Lague, Effects of electromagnetic fields on the reproductive success of American kestrels,
Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 73 (2000) 60–65.
[36] K.J. Fernie, N.J. Leonard, D.M. Bird, Behavior of free-ranging and
captive American kestrels under electromagnetic fields, J. Toxicol.
Environ. Health, Part A 59 (2000) 597–603.
[37] K.J. Fernie, S.J. Reynolds, The effects of electromagnetic fields from
power lines on avian reproductive biology and physiology: a review.,
J. Toxicol. Environ. Health, Part B 8 (2005) 127–140.
[38] K.J. Fernie, D.M. Bird, Effects of electromagnetic fields on body mass
and food-intake of American kestrels, Condor 101 (1999) 616–621.
[39] S. Dasdag, M.A. Ketani, Z. Akdag, A.R. Ersay, I. Sar, Ö.C. Demirtas, M.S. Celik, Whole body microwave exposure emitted by cellular
phones and testicular function of rats, Urol. Res. 27 (1999) 219–223.
[40] M. Davoudi, C. Brössner, W. Kuber, Der Einfluss elektromagnetischer
wellen auf die Spermienmotilität, J. für Urol. Urogynäkol. 9 (2002)
18–22.
[41] I. Fejes, Z. Za Vaczki, J. Szollosi, R.S. Kolosza, J. Daru, L. Kova Cs,
L.A. Pa, Is there a relationship between cell phone use and semen
quality? Arch. Androl. 51 (2005) 385–393.
[42] P. Stefanis, A. Drakeley, R. Gazvani, D.I. Lewis-Jones, Growing concern over the safety of using mobile phones and male fertility, Arch.
Androl. 52 (2006) 9–14.
Please cite this article in press as: A. Balmori, Electromagnetic pollution from phone masts. Effects on wildlife, Pathophysiology (2009),
doi:10.1016/j.pathophys.2009.01.007
PATPHY-589;
8
No. of Pages 9
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Balmori / Pathophysiology xxx (2009) xxx–xxx
[43] O. Erogul, E. Oztas, I. Yildirim, T. Kir, E. Aydur, G. Komesli, H.C.
Irkilata, M.K. Irmak, A.F. Peker, Effects of electromagnetic radiation
from a cellular phone on human sperm motility: an in vitro study,
Arch. Med. Res. 37 (2006) 840–843.
[44] A. Agarwal, F. Deepinder, R.K. Sharma, G. Ranga, J. Li, Effect of
cell phone usage on semen analysis in men attending infertility clinic:
an observational study, Fertil. Steril. 89 (2008) 124–128.
[45] A. Wdowiak, L. Wdowiak, H. Wiktor, Evaluation of the effect of
using mobile phones on male fertility, Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 14
(1) (2007) 169–172.
[46] J.G. Yan, A.M. Gresti, T. Bruce, Y.H. Yan, A. Granlund, H.S. Matloub,
Effects of cellular phone emissions on sperm motility in rats, Fertil.
Steril. 88 (4) (2007) 957–964.
[47] P.F. Doherty, T.C. Grubb, Effects of high-voltage power lines on
birds breeding within the powerlines’ electromagnetic fields, Sialia
18 (1996) 129–134.
[48] V. Garaj-Vrhovac, D. Horvat, Z. Koren, The relationship between
colony-forming ability, chromosome aberrations and incidence of
micronuclei in V79 Chinese hamster cells exposed to microwave
radiation, Mutat. Res. 263 (1991) 143–149.
[49] H. Lai, N.P. Singh, Acute low-intensity microwave exposure increases
DNA single-strand breaks in rat brain cells, Bioelectromagnetics 16
(1995) 207–210.
[50] S. Balode, Assessment of radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation
by the micronucleus test in bovine peripheral erythrocytes, Sci. Total
Environ. 180 (1996) 81–85.
[51] I. Belyaev, L. Hillert, E. Markova, R. Sarimov, L. Malmgren, B. Persson, M. Harms-Ringdahl, Microwaves of mobile phones affect human
lymphocytes from normal and hypersensitive subjects dependent
on frequency, in: 26th Annual Meeting of the Bioelectromagnetics
(BEMS), Washington, USA, 2004.
[52] G. Demsia, D. Vlastos, D.P. Matthopoulos, Effect of 910-MHz electromagnetic field on rat bone marrow, Sci. World J. 4 (2004) 48–54.
[53] Reflex, 2004, <http://www.verum-foundation.de/cgi-bin/content.cgi?
id=euprojekte01>.
[54] E. Diem, C. Schwarz, F. Adlkofer, O. Jahn, H. Rudiger, Non-thermal
DNA breakage by mobile-phone radiation (1800 MHz) in human
fibroblasts and in transformed GFSH-R17 rat granulosa cells in vitro,
Mut. Res. 583 (2005) 178–183.
[55] A.G. Gandhi, P. Singh, Cytogenetic damage in mobile phone users:
preliminary data, Int. J. Hum. Genet. 5 (2005) 259–265.
[56] A. Di Carlo, N. Wite, F. Guo, P. Garrett, T. Litovitz, Chronic
electromagnetic field exposure decreases HSP70 levels and lowers
cytoprotection, J. Cell. Biochem. 84 (2002) 447–454.
[57] D. Leszczynski, S. Joenväärä, J. Reivinen, R. Kuokka, Non-thermal
activation of the hsp27/p38MAPK stress pathway by mobile phone
radiation in human endothelial cells: molecular mechanism for
cancer- and blood-brain barrier-related effects, Differentiation 70
(2002) 120–129.
[58] E. Berman, L. Chacon, D. House, B.A. Koch, W.E. Koch, J. Leal,
S. Lovtrup, E. Mantiply, A.H. Martin, G.I. Martucci, K.H. Mild,
J.C. Monahan, M. Sandstrom, K. Shamsaifar, R. Tell, M.A. Trillo,
A. Ubeda, P. Wagner, Development of chicken embryos in a pulsed
magnetic field, Bioelectromagnetics 11 (1990) 169–187.
[59] B.J. Youbicier-Simo, M. Bastide, Pathological effects induced by
embryonic and postnatal exposure to EMFs radiation by cellular
mobile phones, Radiat. Protect. 1 (1999) 218–223.
[60] A. Úbeda, J. Leal, M.A. Trillo, M.A. Jimenez, J.M.R. Delgado, Pulse
shape of magnetic fields influences chick embryogenesis, J. Anat. 137
(1983) 513–536.
[61] J.M. Farrel, T.L. Litovitz, M. Penafiel, The effect of pulsed and
sinusoidal magnetic fields on the morphology of developing chick
embryos, Bioelectromagnetics 18 (1997) 431–438.
[62] Ju.G. Grigoriew, Influence of the electromagnetic field of the mobile
phones on chickens embryo, to the evaluation of the dangerousness after the criterion of this mortality, J. Radiat. Biol. 5 (2003)
541–544.
[63] F. Batellier, I. Couty, D. Picard, J.P. Brillard, Effects of exposing
chicken eggs to a cell phone in “call” position over the entire incubation period, Theriogenology 69 (2008) 737–745.
[64] L. Veterány, A. Veterányová, J. Jedlicka, Effect of magnetic field on
embryonic mortality, Cesk. Fysiol. 50 (2001) 141–143.
[65] K.B. Hotary, K.R. Robinson, Evidence of a role for endogenous electrical fields in chick embryo development, Development 114 (1992)
985–996.
[66] M. Mevissen, M. Haübler, Acceleration of mammary tumorigenesis
by exposure of 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene-treated female rats in
a 50-Hz, 100-␮T magnetic field: replication study, J. Toxicol. Environ.
Health, Part A 53 (1998) 401–418.
[67] D. Flipo, M. Fournier, C. Benquet, P. Roux, C. Le Boulaire,
Increased apoptosis, changes in intracellular Ca2+ , and functional
alterations in lymphocytes and macrophages after in vitro exposure
to static magnetic field, J. Toxicol. Environ. Health, Part A 54 (1998)
63–76.
[68] M. Fedrowitz, K. Kamino, W. Löscher, Significant differences
in the effects of magnetic field exposure on 7,12 dimethylbenz
(a)anthracene-induced mammary carcinogenesis in two sub-strains
of Sprague-Dawley rats, Cancer Res. 64 (2004) 243–251.
[69] A.H. Frey, S.R. Feld, Avoidance by rats of illumination with low
power nonionizing electromagnetic energy, J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 89 (1975) 183–188.
[70] M.A. Navakatikian, L.A. Tomashevskaya, Phasic behavioral and
endocrine effects of microwaves of nonthermal intensity, in: D.O.
Carpenter (Ed.), Biological Effects of Electric and Magnetic Fields,
1, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 1994.
– D.T. Sokolović, V.V. Marković, D.M.
[71] D.D. Krstić, B.J. Ðindić,
Petković, S.B. Radić, The results of experimental exposition of mice
by mobile telephones, in: TELSIKS Conference, Serbia and Montenegro, Microw. Rev. (2005) 34–37.
[72] I.U.G. Grigoriev, S.N. Luk’ianova, V.P. Makarov, V.V. Rynskov, N.V.
Moiseeva, Motor activity off rabbits in conditions of chronic lowintensity pulse microwave irradiation, Radiat. Biol. Radioecol. 35
(1995) 29–35.
[73] B. Nicholls, P.A. Racey, Bats avoid radar installations: Could electromagnetic fields deter bats from colliding with wind turbines? PLOS
One 3 (2007) e297.
[74] A. Balmori Murciélago rabudo–Tadarida teniotis, En: Enciclopedia Virtual de los Vertebrados Españoles, Carrascal, L.M., Salvador,
A. (Eds.), Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, 2004c,
<http://www.vertebradosibericos.org/>.
[75] T.A. Marks, C.C. Ratke, W.O. English, Strain voltage and developmental, reproductive and other toxicology problems in dogs, cats and
cows: a discussion, Vet. Human Toxicol. 37 (1995) 163–172.
[76] W. Löscher, G. Käs, Conspicuous behavioural abnormalities in a dairy
cow herd near a TV and radio transmitting antenna, Pract. Vet. Surg.
29 (1998) 437–444.
[77] A. Yurekli, M. Ozkan, T. Kalkan, H. Saybasili, H. Tuncel, P. Atukeren,
K. Gumustas, S. Seker, GSM Base Station Electromagnetic Radiation and Oxidative Stress in Rats, Electromagn. Biol. Med. 25 (2006)
177–188.
[78] S. Tofani, G. Agnesod, P. Ossola, S. Ferrini, R. Bussi, Effects
of continuous low-level exposure to radio-frequency radiation on
intrauterine development in rats, Health Phys. 51 (1986) 489–
499.
[79] T.P. Moorhouse, D.W. Macdonald, Indirect negative impacts of radiocollaring: sex ratio variation in water voles, J. Appl. Ecol. 42 (2005)
91.
[80] R.F. McGivern, R.Z. Sokol, W.R. Adey, Prenatal exposure to a lowfrequency electromagnetic field demasculinizes adult scent marking
behavior and increases accessory sex organ weights in rats, Teratology
41 (1990) 1–8.
[81] G.M. Lee, R.R. Neutra, L. Hristova, M. Yost, R.A. Hiatt, A Nested
Case-Control Study of Residential and Personal Magnetic Field Measures and Miscarriages, Epidemiology 13 (2002) 21–31.
Please cite this article in press as: A. Balmori, Electromagnetic pollution from phone masts. Effects on wildlife, Pathophysiology (2009),
doi:10.1016/j.pathophys.2009.01.007
PATPHY-589;
No. of Pages 9
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Balmori / Pathophysiology xxx (2009) xxx–xxx
[82] A.Y. Rezk, K. Abdulqawi, R.M. Mustafa, T.M. Abo El-Azm, H. AlInany, Fetal and neonatal responses following maternal exposure to
mobile phones, Saudi Med. J. 29 (2008) 218–223.
[83] L.G. Salford, A.E. Brun, J.L. Eberhardt, L. Malmgren, B.R. Persson,
Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves
from GSM mobile phones, Environ. Health Perspect. 111 (2003)
881–893.
[84] D. Adang, B. Campo, A.V. Vorst, Has a 970 MHz Pulsed exposure an
effect on the memory related behaviour of rats? in: The 9th European
Conference onWireless Technology, September 2006, 2006, pp.
[85] A.A. Kolodynski, V.V. Kolodynska, Motor and psychological functions of school children living in the area of the Skrunda Radio
Location Station in Latvia, Sci. Total Environ. 180 (1996) 87–93.
[86] H.A. Divan, L. Kheifets, C. Obel, J. Olsen, Prenatal and postnatal exposure to cell phone use and behavioral problems in children,
Epidemiology 19 (2008) 523–529.
[87] K. Mann, J. Roschkle, Effects of pulsed high-frequency electromagnetic fields on human sleep, Neuropsychobiology 33 (1996) 41–47.
[88] A.V. Kramarenko, U. Tan, Effects of high-frequency electromagnetic
fields on human EEG: a brain mapping study, Int. J. Neurosci. 113
(2003) 1007–1019.
[89] A.A. Marino, E. Nilsen, C. Frilot, Nonlinear changes in brain electrical activity due to cell phone radiation, Bioelectromagnetics 24 (2003)
339–346.
[90] A.R. Blaustein, P.T.J. Johnson, Explaining frog deformities, Sci. Am.
288 (2003) 60–65.
[91] A. Balmori, The incidence of electromagnetic pollution on the
amphibian decline: is this an important piece of the puzzle? Toxicol.
Environ. Chem. 88 (2006) 287–299.
[92] W.C. Levengood, A new teratogenic agent applied to amphibian
embryos, J. Embryol. Exp. Morphol. 21 (1969) 23–31.
[93] R.H. Landesman, W. Scott Douglas, Abnormal limb regeneration in
adult newts exposed to a pulsed electromagnetic field, Teratology 42
(1990) 137–145.
[94] N.M. Grefner, T.L. Yakovleva, I.K. Boreysha, Effects of electromagnetic radiation on tadpole development in the common frog (Rana
temporaria L.), Russ. J. Ecol. 29 (1998) 133–134.
[95] A. Balmori, in preparation: Phone masts effects on common frog
(Rana temporaria) tadpoles: An experiment in the city. See the
video clips in: http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/issues/nature.
php?id=frogs.
[96] U. Warnke, Bienen, vögel und menschen, Die Zerstörung der Natur
durch “Elektrosmog”. Kompetenzinitiative, 2007 46 pp.
[97] R.L. Carpenter, E.M. Livstone, Evidence for nonthermal effects of
microwave radiation: Abnormal development of irradiated insect
pupae, IEEE Trans. Microw. Theor. Tech. 19 (1971) 173–178.
9
[98] D. Weisbrot, H. Lin, L. Ye, M. Blank, R. Goodman, Effects of mobile
phone radiation on reproduction and development in Drosophila
melanogaster, J. Cell. Biochem. 89 (2003) 48–55.
[99] D.J. Panagopoulos, A. Karabarbounis, L.H. Margaritis, Effect of GSM
900 MHz Mobile Phone Radiation on the Reproductive Capacity of
Drosophila melanogaster, Electromagn. Biol. Med. 23 (2004) 29–43.
[100] D.J. Panagopoulos, E.D. Chavdoula, A. Karabarbournis, L.H. Margaritis, Comparison of bioactivity between GSM 900 MHz and DCS
1800 MHz mobile telephony radiation, Electromagn. Biol. Med. 26
(2007) 33–44.
[101] A. Balmori, Efectos de las radiaciones electromagnéticas de la telefonía móvil sobre los insectos, Ecosistemas (2006).
[102] H. Stever, J. Kuhn, C.Otten, B.Wunder, W. Harst, Verhaltensanderung unter elektromagnetischer Exposition. Pilotstudie,
Institut für mathematik. Arbeitsgruppe, Bildungsinformatik. Universität Koblenz-Landau, 2005.
[103] V.G. Balodis, K. Brumelis, O. Kalviskis, D. Nikodemus, V.Z. y Tjarve,
Does the Skrunda radio location station diminish the radial growth of
pine trees? Sci. Total Environ. 180 (1996) 57–64.
[104] T. Selga, M. Selga, Response of Pinus Sylvestris L. needles to electromagnetic fields. Cytological and ultraestructural aspects, Sci. Total
Environ. 180 (1996) 65–73.
[105] I. Magone, The effect of electromagnetic radiation from the Skrunda
Radio Location Station on Spirodela polyrhiza (L.) Schleiden cultures, Sci. Total Environ. 180 (1996) 75–80.
[106] D.D. Sandu, C. Goiceanu, A. Ispas, I. Creanga, S. Miclaus, D.E. Creanga, A preliminary study on ultra high frequency electromagnetic
fields effect on black locust chlorophylls, Acta Biol. Hung. 56 (2005)
109–117.
[107] D. Roux, Al. Vian, S. Girard, P. Bonnet, F. Paladian, E. Davies,
G. Ledoigt, High frequency (900 MHz) low amplitude (5 V m−1 )
electromagnetic field: a genuine environmental stimulus that affects
transcription, translation, calcium and energy charge in tomato, Planta
227 (2007) 883–891.
[108] M. Tkalec, K. Malarik, B. Pevalek-Kozlina, Exposure to radiofrequency radiation induces oxidative stress in duckweed Lemna minor
L., Sci. Total Environ. 388 (2007) 78–89.
[109] A. Balmori, ¿Pueden afectar las microondas pulsadas emitidas por
las antenas de telefonía a los árboles y otros vegetales? Ecosistemas (2004), http://www.revistaecosistemas.net/articulo.asp?Id=
29&Id Categoria=1&tipo=otros contenidos.
[110] V. Schorpp, 2007, <http://www.puls-schlag.org/baumschaeden.htm#
linden>.
[111] A. Balmori, Posibles efectos de las ondas electromagnéticas utilizadas
en la telefonía inalámbrica sobre los seres vivos, Ardeola 51 (2004)
477–490.
Please cite this article in press as: A. Balmori, Electromagnetic pollution from phone masts. Effects on wildlife, Pathophysiology (2009),
doi:10.1016/j.pathophys.2009.01.007