Download the Press Release
Download the Statement

Karolinska Institutet

Department of Neuroscience

Experimental Dermatology Unit

Stockholm, 2011-02-03

Scientists Urge Halt of Wireless Rollout and Call for New Safety Standards: Warning Issued on Risks to Children and Pregnant Women

Scientists who study radiofrequency radiation from wireless technologies have issued a scientific statement warning that exposures may be harming the development of children at levels now commonly found in the environment. Pregnant women are cautioned to avoid using wireless devices themselves and distance themselves from other users.

The Seletun Scientific Statement has now been published in Reviews on Environmental Health (2010; 25: 307-317). The article recommends that lower limits be established for electromagnetic fields and wireless exposures, based on scientific studies reporting health impacts at much lower exposure levels. Many researchers now believe the existing safety limits are inadequate to protect public health because they do not consider prolonged exposure to lower emission levels that are now widespread.

“Current US and ICNIRP standards for radiofrequency and microwave radiation from wireless technologies are entirely inadequate. They never were intended to address the kind of exposures from wireless devices that now affect over 4 billion people.”

(Olle Johansson, professor, The Experimental Dermatology Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, and The Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden)

The combined effect of cell phones, cordless phones, cell towers, WI-FI and wireless internet place billions of people around the world at risk for cancer, neurological disease and reproductive and developmental impairments.

“We are already seeing increases in health problems such as cancer and neurobehavioural impairments, even though these wireless technologies are fairly new in the last decades or so for the general public. This finding suggests that the exposures are already too high to protect people from health harm. Evidence suggests there are special risks for persons with occupational exposures to RF/MW as well as ELF.”

(Elihu Richter, assoc. professor, Unit of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Hebrew University-Hadassah School of Medicine, Jerusalem, Israel)

Safety standards also ignore the developing fetus, and young children who are more affected.

“Pregnant women and children of all ages should avoid using cell and cordless phones given the health effects we are seeing already.”

(Yuri Grigoriev, professor, Dr of Med Sci, Chairman of Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Moscow, Russian Federation)

Many countries are promoting wireless communications on a community-wide scale for energy management and conservation. The SmartGrid concept could require every home to have a wireless electric and gas meter in place of their existing meters. If implemented, it will greatly increase the intensity of new wireless emissions in homes, schools and every other building that uses electricity and gas.

“WI-FI routers, DECT phones and other wireless devices like baby monitors produce radio frequency emissions that will affect millions of people and babies in their homes, and should be halted until other, less harmful options are investigated.”

(Lukas Margaritis, professor, Department of Cell Biology and Biophysics,?Faculty of Biology,?University of Athens, Athens, Greece)

The Scientific Panel urges a halt to the rollout of new wireless technologies, especially those that cause exposures for pregnant women and for children.

“New, biologically-based exposure limits are crucial to guide new technology development toward solutions that are not harmful to health. The global rollout of wireless technologies has outpaced both health studies and calls for more restrictive public safety limits.”

(Cindy Sage, co-editor of The Bioinitiative Report, MA, Sage Associates,?Santa Barbara, CA, USA)

Copies of the Seletun Scientific Statement [Fragopoulou A, Grigoriev Y, Johansson O, Margaritis LH, Morgan L, Richter E, Sage C. “Scientific panel on electromagnetic field health risks: Consensus points, recommendations, and rationales. Scientific Meeting: Seletun, Norway, November 17-21, 2009”, Rev Environ Health 2010; 25: 307-317] can be obtained from the Karolinska Institute. Contact: Prof. Olle Johansson.

Download the Statement

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

Scientific Panel on Electromagnetic Field Health Risks: Consensus Points, Recommendations, and Rationales

Scientific Meeting: Seletun, Norway, November 17-21, 2009

Adamantia Fragopoulou,[1] Yuri Grigoriev,[2] Olle Johansson,[3] Lukas H Margaritis,[1]

Lloyd Morgan,[4] Elihu Richter[5] and Cindy Sage[6]

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

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

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

Correspondence: Professor Olle Johansson, The Experimental Dermatology Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, 171 77 Stockholm, and The Royal Institute of Technology, 100 44, Stockholm (Sweden). E-mail:contact information available only in attached download


In November, 2009, a scientific panel met in Seletun, Norway, for three days of intensive discussion on existing scientific evidence and public health implications of the unprecedented global   exposures   to   artificial   electromagnetic fields (EMF).

EMF  exposures  (static  to  300  GHz)  result from the use of electric power and from wireless telecommunications technologies for voice and data transmission, energy, security, military and radar use in weather and transportation.

The Scientific Panel recognizes that the body of evidence on EMF requires a new approach to protection of public health; the growth and development of the fetus, and of children; and argues for strong preventative actions. These conclusions are built upon prior scientific and public health reports /1-6/ documenting the following:

1) Low-intensity (non-thermal) bioeffects and adverse health effects are demonstrated at levels significantly below existing exposure standards.

2)  ICNIRP and IEEE/FCC public safety limits

are inadequate and obsolete with respect to prolonged, low-intensity exposures.

3)  New, biologically-based public exposure standards are urgently needed to protect public health world-wide.

4)  It is not in the public interest to wait.

Strong concern has been voiced by the public, and by scientists as well as public health and environmental policy experts, that the deployment of technologies that expose billions of people worldwide to new sources of EMF may pose a pervasive risk to public health. Such exposures did not exist before the ?age of industry and information?. Prolonged exposure appears to disrupt biological processes that are fundamental to plant, animal and human growth and health. Life on earth did not evolve with biological protections or adaptive biological responses to these EMF exposures. Exceptionally small levels of EMF from earth and space existed during the time that all life evolved on earth on the order of less than a billionth to one ten-billionth of a Watt per meter squared. A rapidly accumulating body of scientific evidence of harm to health and well- being constitute warnings that adverse health effects  can  occur  with  prolonged  exposures  to very low-intensity EMF at biologically active frequencies or frequency combinations.

The Seletun Scientific Panel has adopted a Consensus Agreement that recommends preventative and precautionary actions that are warranted now, given the existing evidence for potential  global  health  risks.  We  recognize  the duty of governments and their health agencies to educate and warn the public, to implement measures balanced in favor of the Precautionary Principle, to monitor compliance with directives promoting alternatives to wireless, and to fund research and policy development geared toward prevention of exposures and development of new public safety measures.


  • Global    populations   are    not    sufficiently protected from electromagnetic fields (EMF) from emerging communication and data transmission technologies that are being deployed worldwide, affecting billions of people;
  • Sensitive   populations   (for    example,   the elderly, the ill, the genetically and/or immunologically challenged) and children and fetuses  may  be  additionally  vulnerable  to health risks; their exposures are largely involuntary and they are less protected by existing public safety standards;
  • It is well established that children are more vulnerable to health risks from environmental toxins in general;
  • It is established that the combined effects of chemical toxins and EMF together is greater than either exposure alone;
  • The  Seletun  Scientific  Panel  takes  note  of international   scientific   reviews,   resolutions and recommendations documenting scientific and public health evidence on EMF exposures;
  • The   Seletun   Scientific   Panel  notes   that complete  “consistency” of  study findings is not to be expected, and it should not be interpreted as a necessary pre-condition for a consensus linking EMF exposure to health impacts. “Consistency in nature does not require that all or even a majority of studies find the same effect. If all studies of lead showed the same relationship between variables, one would be startled, perhaps justifiably suspicious” /7/;
  • The Seletun Scientific Panel acknowledges that some, but not all, of these exposures support preventative and precautionary action, and the need for more stringent public health limits;
  • The Panel takes note of international scientific resolutions and expressions of concern including the Salzburg, Catania, Freiberger Appeal, Helsinki, Irish Doctors (IDEA), Benevento, Venice, London, and Porto Alegre Resolutions (2000-2009);
  • The     Panel    is     guided    by     previously recommended target limits for EMF exposure in  the  BioInitiative  Report  (2007)  and  the London Resolution (2009);
  • The  Panel  urges  governments  to  adopt  an explicit   statement   that   ?the   standard   for judging and acting on the scientific evidence shall be based on prudent public health planning principles rather than scientific certainty of effect (causal evidence)?. Actions are warranted based on limited or weak scientific  evidence,  or  a  sufficiency  of evidence – rather than a conclusive scientific evidence (causation or scientific certainty) where the consequence of doing nothing in the short term may cause irreparable public health harm, where the populations potentially at risk are very large, where there are alternatives without similar risks, or where the exposures are largely involuntary;
  • The  Seletun  Scientific  Panel  urges  governments  to  make  explicit  that  the  burden  of proof of safety rests with the producers and providers of EMF-producing technologies, not with the users and consumers.


General Agreements from the Seletun Scientific


  • The  Seletun  Scientific  Panel  has  identified specific  scientific  and  public  health benchmarks  for  numeric  limits  and preventative  action  that  are  justified  now based on the existing body of evidence;
  • The Panel is relying on scientific evidence as the basis for identifying scientific benchmarks establishing EMF levels associated with adverse health effects. The Panel notes that radiofrequent (RF) levels in some regions may already   exceed   scientific   benchmarks   for health harm identified here, but political expediency is not the guiding criterion in this assessment;
  • EMF exposures should be reduced now rather than waiting for proof of harm before acting. This recommendation is in keeping with traditional public health principles, and is justified now given abundant evidence that biological  effects  and  adverse  health  effects are occurring at exposure levels many orders of magnitude below existing public safety standards around the world;
  • SAR  (Specific  Absorption  Rate)  is  not  an adequate approach to predict many important biologic effects in studies that report increased risks for cancer, neurological diseases, impairments to immune function, fertility and reproduction, and neurological function (cognition, behaviour, performance, mood status, disruption of sleep, increased risk for auto collisions, etc);
  • SAR fails to adequately address known effects from modulation.

General  Recommendations  from  the  Seletun

Scientific Panel

  • The Seletun Scientific Panel recommends an international registry be established to track time-trends in incidence and mortality for cancers  and  neurological  and  immune diseases. Tracking effects of EMF on children and sensitive EHS populations is a high priority. There should be open access to this information;
  • The Panel recommends existing brain tumour registries  provide  timely  age-specific incidence rates. An early indication of brain tumors from mobile (cell) phone use could be in the younger age-specific incidence rates. Where  such  brain  tumors  registries  to  not exist, they should be established;
  • Intervention-related   epidemiological   studies are needed to track the efficacy of intervention(s) that reduce or eliminate exposures to EMF;
  • There  is  a  need  for  mandatory  pre-market assessments of emissions and risks before deployment of new wireless technologies. There should be convincing evidence that products do not cause health harm before marketing;
  • For  occupational  exposures,  there  has  been epidemiological evidence as well as clusters and case reports which state the ?case for action‘ and stringent control measures based on classic industrial hygiene principles (separation, distancing and enclosure). Further, there is need for surveillance markers of hematologic, immunotoxic and chromosome aberrations;
  • The  Panel  discourages  use  of  more  lenient safety standards for workers, as compared to the general public. Separate safety limits are not ethically acceptable. Workers include women of childbearing age and men who wish to retain their  fertility.  Occupational  environments where wireless exposures are common may be potentially hazardous to fertility and repro- duction (retail and restaurant workers, transit workers, telecommunications and broadcast workers, medical workers, educators, admini- strators, etc) and those with other exposures or special health risks;
  • The Panel strongly recommends that persons with electrohypersensitivity symptoms (EHS) be classified as functionally impaired rather than  with ?idiopathic  environmental disease‘ or similar indistinct categories. This terminology will encourage governments to make adjustments in the living environment to better address social and well-being needs of this  subpopulation  of  highly  sensitive members of society.

General Research Recommendations from the

Seletun Scientific Panel

  • Research   funding   is   urgently   needed   for assays for biological markers [EMF bioassays as biological markers of EMF dose] which show promise to measure adverse health effects, and biological effects that, with prolonged or repetitive exposure, can reasonably be presumed to lead to harmful health consequences (biomarkers from cerebrospinal fluid, saliva, immune function changes, and DNA damage to name some);
  • The  Scientific  Panel  recommends  research funding for studies on bioactive modulation which  may,  based  on  current  knowledge, cause  major  consequences  at  far  lower exposure levels based on different exposure parameters including modulation, frequency windows, intensity windows, duration, geomagnetic field and other factors;
  • Research is urgently recommended for effects of prolonged or repetitive wireless exposure on  children  (cancers,  neurological  diseases, and impairment of cognition, behavior, performance and mood status, and disruption of sleep, etc) ;
  • Research in SAR refinements is given a low priority. The scientific panel is in unanimous agreement that SAR is a poor measurement tool. Yet SARs have been used in many key studies reporting increased risk of DNA damage, increased risk for brain cancer, increased risk for acoustic neuroma, and reduced sperm quality parameters, among others. SAR measures only one aspect of exposure and ignores other critical aspects, such as biologically active frequencies (and modulations) that is essential information needed to understand the biological responses induced by EMF over short and long term exposures (e.g., nervous system response and tissue/organ development, respectively) that does not cause thermal damage so that effective, biologically protective limits can be developed.

Specific  Recommendations  from  the  Seletun

Scientific Panel

Extremely Low Frequency (Fields from Electrical


  • Based on the available evidence, the Seletun Scientific Panel recommends a 0.1 uT (1 mG) exposure limit for all new installations based on   findings   of   risk   for   leukemia,   brain tumours,  Alzheimer‘s,  ALS,  sperm  damage and DNA strand breaks. This exposure limit does not include a safety margin;
  • For  all  newly  installed,  or  newly  upgraded electrical power distribution, the Panel recommends a 0.1 uT (1 mG) set-back distance, from residences, hospitals, schools, parks, and playgrounds schools (and similar locations occupied by children) [A 0.1 uT (1 mG)  time-weighted  average  (TWA)  using peak loading for transmission lines to ensure that average is about half of this for typical exposures; or equivalent for long-term exposure in interior EMF environments (wiring, trans-formers, appliances, others).];
  • For all newly constructed residences, offices, schools  (and  other  facilities  with  children), and hospitals there shall be a 0.1 uT (1 mG) max. 24 hour average exposure limit;
  • For  all  new  equipment  (e.g.  transformers, motors, electronic products), where practical, the Panel recommends a 0.1 uT (1 mG) max. 24 hour average exposure limit. Where not practical (e.g. large power transformers), there should be a fence, or boundary marker, with clearly written warning labels that states that within the boundary area the 0.1 uT (1 mG) maximum, 24 hour average exposure limit is exceeded;
  • The  Panel  recommends  all  countries  should adopt electrical code requirements to disallow conduction  of  high-frequency  voltage transients back into electrical wiring systems;
  • All new electronic devices including compact fluorescent  lamps  (CFLs)  should be constructed with filters to block high- frequency voltage transients from being conducted back onto electrical wiring systems;
  • The     Panel    recommends    electric    field reductions from electrical wiring in buildings based  on  evidence  of  increased  cancer  risk from prolonged or repetitive electric field exposure.  The  United  States  National Electrical Code (NEC) and other govern- mental codes relating to building design and construction should be revised so that all new electrical wiring is enclosed in a grounded metal shield;
  • The  United  States  NEC  and  other  govern-mental codes that disallow net current on electrical  wiring  should  be  better  enforced, and ground fault interrupters (GFIs) should be installed on all electrical circuits in order to reduce net current.

Radiofrequency/Microwave Radiation

Exposure Limit Recommendations

Present guidelines, such as IEEE, FCC, and ICNIRP, are not adequate to protect humans from harmful effects of chronic EMF exposure. The existing scientific knowledge is, however, not sufficient at this stage to formulate final and definite  science-based  guidelines  for  all  these fields and conditions, particularly for such chronic exposure as well as contributions of the different parameters of the fields, e.g. frequency, modulation, intensity, and window effects. The values suggested below are, thus, provisional and may be altered in the future.

  • For whole-body (in vivo experiments) or cell culture-based exposure, the Seletun Scientific Panel finds sufficient evidence to establish a scientific benchmark for adverse health effect at 0.0166 W/kg based on at least 32 scientific studies reporting low-intensity effects (defined as studies reporting effects at exposures of 0.1 W/kg or lower) /8-39/.
  • The Panel recommends a provisional whole- body limit of 0.00033 W/kg by incorporation of an additional 50-fold safety margin applied to the scientific benchmark of 0.0166 W/kg. This is consistent with both ICNIRP and IEEE/FCC  safety  factors.  An  additional  10- fold reduction is applied to take prolonged exposure into account (because 29 of the 32 studies are acute exposure only), giving a final whole-body   limit   of   0.000033   W/kg   (33 µW/kg). No further safety margin or provision for sensitive populations is incorporated. This may need to be lowered in the future.
  • Based  on  power  density  measurements,  the Seletun Scientific Panel finds sufficient evidence for a whole-body scientific bench- mark for adverse health effect exists down to 85 mW/m2  (0.0085 mW/cm2  or 8.5 µW/cm2) based on at least 17 scientific studies reporting low-intensity effects on humans. Taking more recent human studies conducted near base stations,  or  at  base-station  RF  levels,  Kundi and Hutter /57/ report that the levels must exceed 0.5-1.0 mW/m2  (0.05 to 0.1 uW/cm2) for effects to be seen; /40-57/.
  • The Panel recommends a provisional whole-body (far-field) limit of 1.7 mW/m2  (also = 0.00017 mW/cm2 = 0.17 µW/cm2) by incorporation of an additional 50-fold safety margin applied to the scientific benchmark of 85  mW/m2.  This  is  consistent  with  both ICNIRP and IEEE/FCC safety factors. This may need to be lowered in the future.
  • It   can   be   argued   that   a   further   10-fold reduction is not justified since 13 of the 17 studies are already testing for long-term RF exposure. However, considering that the latest human  population  studies  as  reported  by Kundi & Hutter (2009) do not show effects below 0.5-1.0 mW/m2, it can also then be argued that an additional 10-fold reduction on precautionary grounds is justified. If another 10-fold reduction is applied, the recommended level   would   then   be   0.17   mW/m2    (also 0.000017 mW/cm2 = 0.017 µW/cm2);
  • The  Seletun  Scientific  Panel  recommends these  numeric  limits  to  governments  and health agencies for adoption in place of ICNIRP, IEEE/FCC and other outdated public safety guidelines and limits in use around the world. This approach is based on traditional public health principles that support taking actions  to  protect  public  health  when sufficient evidence is present. Sufficient scientific evidence and public health concern exist today based on increased risk for cancer, adverse fertility and reproductive outcomes, immune disruption, neurological diseases, increased risk of road collisions and injury- producing  events,  and  impairment  of cognition, behaviour, performance, mood status, and disruption of sleep; Numeric limits recommended here do not yet take into account sensitive populations (EHS, immune-compromised, the fetus, developing children, the elderly, people on medications, etc). Another safety margin is, thus, likely justified further below the numeric limits for EMF exposure recommended here;
  • The   Scientific   Panel   acknowledges   that numeric limits derived here for new biologically-based public exposure standards are  still  a  billion  times  higher  than  natural EMF levels at which all life evolved.

Specific Recommendations for mobile (cell) and cordless phone use

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


The undersigned recognize the duty of governments and their health agencies to educate and warn the public, to implement measures balanced in favor of the Precautionary Principle, to monitor compliance with directives promoting alternatives to wireless, and to fund research and policy development geared toward prevention of exposure.

The undersigned urge governments and their health agencies to adopt new interim numeric limits and new timetables for implementation of biologically-based precautionary action to limit exposures to EMF.

Agreed 19 November 2009

(as revised through April 20, 2010)

(in alphabetical order)

Adamantia Fragopoulou, Greece             Yuri Grigoriev, Russia

Olle Johansson, Sweden                         Lukas H Margaritis, Greece

Lloyd Morgan, USA                                Elihu Richter, Israel

Cindy Sage, USA


(in alphabetical order)

Adamantia  Fragopoulou,  Ph.D.  Candidate,  Department  of  Cell  Biology  and  Biophysics,?Faculty  of

Biology,?University of Athens, Athens (Greece)

Yury Grigoriev, Professor, Dr of Med Sci, Chairman of Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing

Radiation Protection, Moscow (Russian Federation)

Olle  Johansson,   professor,   The   Experimental   Dermatology   Unit,   Department   of   Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, and The Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm (Sweden)

Lukas  H  Margaritis,  professor,  Department  of  Cell  Biology  and  Biophysics,?Faculty  of  Biology,

University of Athens, Athens (Greece)

Lloyd Morgan, Bioelectromagnetics Society, 2022 Francisco Street, Berkeley, CA 94709, USA

Elihu D Richter, Professor, Unit of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Hebrew University- Hadassah School of Medicine, Jerusalem (Israel)

Cindy Sage, MA, Sage Associates,?Santa Barbara, CA, USA


1.   Pathophysiology 2009; 16

2.   European Parliament, Mid-Term Review of the

European Environmental and Health Action Plan


3. European Environmental Agency 2007. everyday-devices-assessed

4. Blackman CF, Blank M, Kundi M, Sage C, Carpenter DO, Davanipour Z, et al. The Bioinitiative Report—A     Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF)., 2007.

5. European Commission Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR), Possible Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (EMF on Human Health 2007 (Sections on scientific evidence).

6. REFLEX  Consortium,  Risk  evaluation  of potential environmental hazards from low energy electromagnetic field exposure using sensitive in vitro methods. A project funded by the European Union  under  the  5th    Framework  Programme. Contract QLK4-CT-1999-01574, 2004; 292 pp,

7.  Needleman HL. Making models of real world events: the use and abuse of inference. Neuro- toxicol Teratol 1995;17: 241-2; discussion 249-51

8.   Belyaev IY, Hillert L, Protopopova M, Tamm C, Malmgren LO, Persson BR, Selivanova G, et al.

915 MHz microwaves and 50 Hz magnetic field affect chromatin conformation and 53BP1 foci in human lymphocytes from hypersensitive and healthy  persons.  Bioelectromagnetics  2005;26: 173-184.

9.   Belyaev IY, Markovà E, Hillert L, Malmgren LO, Persson BR. Microwaves from UMTS/GSM mobile phones induce long-lasting inhibition of 53BP1/ gamma-H2AX DNA repair foci in human lymph- ocytes. Bioelectromagnetics 2009;30:129-41.

10. Capri M, Scarcella E, Fumelli C, Bianchi E, Salvioli S, Mesirca P, et al. In vitro exposure of human lymphocytes to 900 MHz CW and GSM modulated radiofrequency: studies of proliferation, apoptosis and mitochondrial membrane potential0. Radiat Res 2004; 162: 211-218.

11.  de Pomerai DI, Smith B, Dawe A, North K, Smith T,  Archer  DB,  et  al.  Microwave radiation can alter protein conformation without bulk heating. FEBS Lett 2003; 543: 93-97.

12. D‘Inzeo G, Bernardi P, Eusebi F, Grassi F, Tamburello C, Zani BM. Microwave effects on acetylcholine-induced channels in cultured chick myotubes. Bioelectromagnetics 1988; 9: 363-372.

13. Dutta SK, Ghosh B, Blackman CF. Radio- frequency radiation-induced calcium ion efflux enhancement from human and other neuro- blastoma  cells  in  culture.  Bioelectromagnetics 1989; 10: 197-202.

14.  Forgacs  Z, Somosy  Z, Kubinyi  G, Bakos  J, Hudak A, Surjan A, et al. Effect of whole-body 1800MHz GSM-like microwave exposure on testicular steroidogenesis and histology in mice. Reprod Toxicol 2006; 22: 111-117.

15.  Ivaschuk OI, Jones RA, Ishida-Jones T, Haggren W, Adey WR, Phillips JL. Exposure of nerve growth factor-treated PC12 rat pheochromo- cytoma cells to a modulated radiofrequency field at 836.55 MHz: effects on c-jun and c-fos expression. Bioelectromagnetics 1997; 18: 223-9.

16.  Jech  R,  Sonka  K,  Ruzicka  E,  Nebuzelsky  A, Bohm  J,  Juklickova  M,  et  al.  Electromagnetic field of mobile phones affects visual event related potential   in   patients   with   narcolepsy.   Bio-electromagnetics 2001; 22: 519-28.

17.  Kesari KK, Behari J. Fifty-gigahertz microwave exposure effect of radiations on rat brain. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 2009; 158: 126-139.

18. Kwee S, Raskmark P, Velizarov P. Changes in cellular proteins due to environmental non- ionizing  radiation.  I.  Heat-shock  proteins, Electro- and Magnetobiology 2001; 20: 141-152.

19.  Lerchl A, Krüger H, Niehaus M, Streckert JR, Bitz AK, Volkert Hansen V. Effects of mobile phone electromagnetic fields at nonthermal SAR values on melatonin and body weight of Djungarian hamsters (Phodopus sungorus), J Pineal Res 2008; 44: 267-272.

20.  Markovà E, Hillert L, Malmgren L, Persson BR, Belyaev IY. Microwaves from GSM mobile telephones affect 53BP1 and gamma-H2AX foci in human lymphocytes from hypersensitive and healthy persons. Environ Health Perspect 2005; 113: 1172-1177.

21. Marinelli F, La Sala D, Cicciotti G, Cattini L, Trimarchi C, Putti S, et al. Exposure to 900 MHz electromagnetic field induces an unbalance between pro-apoptotic and pro-survival signals in T-lymphoblastoid leukemia CCRF-CEM cells. J Cell Physiol 2004; 198: 324-332.

22. Navakatikian MA, Tomashevskaya LA. Phasic behavioral and endocrine effects of microwaves of nonthermal intensity. In: Carpenter DO, ed, Biological effects of electric and magnetic fields, Volume  1.  San  Diego,  CA:  Academic  Press, 1994;333-342.

23. Nittby H, Grafström G, Tian DP, Malmgren L, Brun A, Persson BR, et al. Cognitive impairment in rats after long-term exposure to GSM-900 mobile   phone   radiation.   Bioelectromagnetics 2007; 29: 219-232.

24.  Pérez-Castejón C, Pérez-Bruzón RN, Llorente M, Pes N, Lacasa C, Figols T, Lahoz M, et al. Exposure to ELF-pulse modulated X band micro- waves increases in vitro human astrocytoma cell proliferation. Histol Histopathol 2009;24:1551-61.

25.  Persson BRR, Salford LG, Brun A. Blood-brain barrier permeability in rats exposed to electro- magnetic fields used in wireless communication. Wireless Network 1997; 3: 455-461.

26.  Phillips JL,  Ivaschuk O,  Ishida-Jones T,  Jones RA, Campbell-Beachler M, Haggren W. DNA damage  in  Molt-4  T-lymphoblastoid  cells exposed   to   cellular   telephone   radiofrequency fields  in  vitro.  Bioelectrochem Bioenerg 1998; 45: 103-110.

27. Pyrpasopoulou  A,  Kotoula  V,  Cheva  A, Hytiroglou P, Nikolakaki E, Magras IN, et al. Bone morphogenetic protein expression in newborn rat kidneys after prenatal exposure to radiofrequency   radiation.   Bioelectromagnetics 2004; 25: 216-227.

28.  Salford LG, Brun AR, Eberhardt JL, Malmgren L, Persson BRR, Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones. Environ Health Persp 2003; 111: 881-883.

29. Sarimov R, Malmgren LO, Markova E, Persson BR, Belyaev IY. Nonthermal GSM microwaves affect chromatin conformation in human lymphocytes similar to heat shock. IEEE Trans Plasma Sci 2004; 32: 1600-1608.

30.  Schwartz JL, House DE, Mealing GA. Exposure of  frog  hearts  to  CW  or  amplitude-modulated VHF fields: selective efflux of calcium ions at 16 Hz. Bioelectromagnetics 1990; 11: 349-358.

31. Schwarz C, Kratochvil E, Pilger A, Kuster N, Adlkofer F, Rüdiger HW. Radiofrequency electromagnetic   fields   (UMTS,   1,950   MHz) induce genotoxic effects in vitro in human fibroblasts  but  not  in  lymphocytes.  Int  Arch Occup Environ Health 2008; 81: 755-767.

32.  Somosy Z, Thuroczy G, Kubasova T, Kovacs J, Szabo LD. Effects of modulated and continuous microwave irradiation on the morphology and cell surface negative charge of 3T3 fibroblasts. Scanning Microsc 1991; 5: 1145-1155.

33.  Stagg RB, Thomas WJ, Jones RA,  Adey WR. DNA  synthesis  and  cell  proliferation  in  C6 glioma  and  primary  glial  cells  exposed  to  a 836.55  MHz  modulated  radiofrequency  field. Bioelectromagnetics 1997; 18: 230-236.

34. Stankiewicz W, D?browski MP, Kubacki R, Sobiczewska E, Szmigielski S, Immunotropic influence of 900 MHz microwave GSM signal on human blood immune cells activated in vitro. Electromagn Biol Med 2006; 25: 45-51.

35.  Tattersall JE, Scott IR, Wood SJ, Nettell JJ, Bevir MK, Wang Z, et al. Effects of low intensity radiofrequency  electromagnetic  fields  on electrical activity in rat hippocampal slices. Brain Res 2001; 904: 43-53.

36.  Velizarov S, Raskmark P, Kwee S, The effects of radiofrequency  fields  on  cell  proliferation  are non-thermal. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg 1999; 48:


37. Veyret B, Bouthet C, Deschaux P, de Seze R, Geffard M, Joussot-Dubien J, et al. Antibody responses of mice exposed to low-power micro- waves under combined, pulse-and-amplitude modulation, Bioelectromagnetics 1991; 12: 47-56.

38.  Wolke S, Neibig U, Elsner R, Gollnick F, Meyer R. Calcium homeostasis of isolated heart muscle cells exposed to pulsed high-frequency electromagnetic fields. Bioelectromagnetics 1996; 17:144-153.

39. Yurekli AI, Ozkan M, Kalkan T, Saybasili H, Tuncel H, Atukeren P, et al. GSM base station electromagnetic radiation and oxidative stress in rats, Electromagn Biol Med 2006; 25: 177-188

40.  Boscol  P,  Di  Sciascio  MB,  D‘Ostilio  S,  Del Signore A, Reale M, Conti P, et al. Effects of electromagnetic fields produced by radiotelevision broadcasting stations on the immune system of women, Sci Total Environ 2001; 273: 1-10.

41.  Chiang H, Yao GD, Fang QS, Wang KQ, Lu DZ, Zhou YK. Health effects of environmental electro- magnetic fields. J Bioelectricity 1989;8:127-31.

42. D‘Inzeo G, Bernardi P, Eusebi F, Grassi F, Tamburello C, Zani BM. Microwave effects on acetylcholine-induced channels in cultured chick myotubes. Bioelectromagnetics 1988; 9: 363-372.

43. Fesenko  EE,  Makar  VR,  Novoselova  EG, Sadovnikov VB. Microwaves and cellular immunity. I. Effect of whole body microwave irradiation on tumor necrosis factor production in mouse cells. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg 1999; 49: 29-35.

44.  Hjollund NH, Bonde JP, Skotte J. Semen analysis of personnel operating military radar equipment. Reprod Toxicol 1997; 11: 897.

45.  Hutter H-P, Moshammer H, Wallner P, Kundi M. Subjective symptoms, sleeping problems, and cognitive performance in subjects living near mobile phone base stations. Occup Environ Med 2006; 63: 307-313.

46. Kolodynski AA, Kolodynska VV. Motor and psychological functions of school children living in the area of the Skrunda Radio Location Station in Latvia. Sci Total Environ 1996; 180: 87-93.

47. Lebedeva NN, Sulimov AV, Sulimova OP, Kotrovskaya TI, Gailus T. Cellular phone electromagnetic field effects on bioelectric activity of human brain. Crit Rev Biomed Eng 2000; 28: 323-337.

48. Magras IN, Xenos TD. RF radiation-induced changes in the prenatal development of mice. Bioelectromagnetics 1997; 18: 455-461.

49.  Mann K, Wagner P, Brunn G, Hassan F, Hiemke C, Roschke J. Effects of pulsed high-frequency electromagnetic fields on the neuroendocrine system. Neuroendocrinology 1998; 67: 139-144.

50.  Navarro  EA,  Segura  J,  Portoles  M,  Gomez- Perretta de Mateo C. The microwave syndrome: a preliminary study in Spain. Electromag Biol Med 2003; 22: 161-169.

51.  Novoselova EG, Fesenko EE, Makar VR, Sadov- nikov VB. Microwaves and cellular immunity. II. Immunostimulating effects of microwaves and naturally occurring antioxidant nutrients. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg 1999; 49: 37-41.

52. Novoselova  EG,  Ogay  VB,  Sorokina  OV, Glushkova OV, Sinotova OA, Fesenko EE. The production of tumor necrosis factor in cells of tumor-bearing mice after total-body microwave irradiation and antioxidant diet. Electromag Biol Med 2004; 23: 167-180.

53.  Oberfeld G, Enrique NA, Manuel P, Ceferino M, Gomez-Perrretta C. The microwave syndrome—

further aspects of a Spanish study, 3rd  Inter- national Workshop on Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, Kos, Greece, 2004.

54.  Pologea-Moraru R, Kovacs E, Iliescu KR, Calota V, Sajin G. The effects of low level microwaves on the fluidity of photoreceptor cell membrane, Bioelectrochemistry 2002; 56: 223-225.

55. Thomas S, Kühnlein A, Heinrich S, Praml G, Nowak D, von Kries R, et al. Personal exposure to mobile phone frequencies and well-being in adults:  a  cross-sectional  study  based  on dosimetry. Bioelectromagnetics 2008;29:463-70.

56. Zwamborn AP, Vossen SH, van Leersum BJ, Ouwens MA, Mäkel WN. Effects of global communication system radiofrequency fields on well being and cognitive functions of human subjects with and without subjective complaints, TNO-report FEL-03-C148 2003; 148: 1-89

57. Kundi  M  Hutter  HP.  Mobile  phone  base stations—Effects on wellbeing and health. Pathophysiology 2009; 16: 123-35.