Open Access

Looking at the other side of the coin: the search for possible biopositive cognitive effects of the exposure to 900 MHz GSM mobile phone radiofrequency radiation

  • Seyed Ali Reza Mortazavi1,
  • Ali Tavakkoli-Golpayegani2,
  • Masoud Haghani1 and
  • Seyed Mohammad Javad Mortazavi1, 3, 4Email author
Journal of Environmental Health Science and Engineering201412:75

https://doi.org/10.1186/2052-336X-12-75

Received: 18 October 2013

Accepted: 14 April 2014

Published: 26 April 2014

Abstract

Although exposure to electromagnetic radiation in radiofrequency range has caused a great deal of concern globally, radiofrequency radiation has many critical applications in both telecommunication and non-communication fields. The induction of adaptive response phenomena by exposure to radiofrequency radiation as either increased resistance to a subsequent dose of ionizing radiation or resistance to a bacterial infection has been reported recently. Interestingly, the potential beneficial effects of mobile phone radiofrequency radiation are not only limited to the induction of adaptive phenomena. It has previously been indicated that the visual reaction time of university students significantly decreased after a 10 min exposure to radiofrequency radiation emitted by a mobile phone. Furthermore, it has been revealed that occupational exposures to radar radiations decreased the reaction time in radar workers. Based on these findings, it can be hypothesized that in special circumstances, these exposures might lead to a better response of humans to different hazards. Other investigators have also provided evidence that confirms the induction of RF-induced cognitive benefits. Furthermore, some recent reports have indicated that RF radiation may play a role in protecting against cognitive impairment in Alzheimer’s disease. In this light, a challenging issue will arise if there are other RF-induced stimulating effects. It is also challenging to explore the potential applications of these effects. Further research may shed light on dark areas of the health effects of short and long-term human exposure to radiofrequency radiation.

Keywords

Mobile phone GSM Radiofrequency Non-ionizing radiation Microwave Beneficial effects

Introduction

Non-ionizing Radiation is a part of the electromagnetic radiation (EMR) which due to its lower energy is unable to produce ionization. However, non-ionizing radiation affects the cells electrically, chemically and thermally causing a wide range of beneficial or harmful effects. The radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF EMR) component of the electromagnetic radiation which is produced by both natural and artificial sources can be defined as that part of the spectrum where electromagnetic waves have frequencies in the range of about 3 kHz to 300 GHz [1].

The strength of the RF field is usually expressed in terms of its two cardinal components, electric and magnetic fields. The strength of electric and magnetic field components of RF EMR are measured in units of V/m and A/m, respectively. On the other hand, the “power density” can also be used to characterize an RF field. Power density that is expressed in units of W/m2 can be defined as power per unit area. On the other hand, specific absorption rate (SAR), that is usually expressed in units of W/kg, is often used to measure the amount of RF radiation absorbed in the body [2]. Specific absorption rate is usually averaged either over the whole body or over a small sample volume (typically 1 g or 10 g of tissue). When the electric field is known, SAR can be calculated within the tissue as:
SAR = sample σ r | E r | 2 ρ r d r

Where σ is the sample electrical conductivity, E is the root mean square (RMS) electric field, and ρ is the sample density. According to WHO, the minimum SAR that is needed to produce known adverse health effects in humans exposed to RF in the frequency range of 1 MHz to 10 GHz is about 4 W/kg [3]. RF EMR has many applications in both telecommunication (mobile phones, cordless phones, wireless computer networks, radio and television broadcasting, satellite communications) and non-communication (microwave ovens, industrial RF heating and sealing) fields. Despite these applications, there are reports indicating higher risk of tumor formation in heavy mobile phone users [47]. It has also been claimed that health symptoms such as tiredness, stress, headache, anxiety, concentration difficulty and sleep disturbance are frequently reported by the users of mobile phones [810]. However, Mortazavi et al. found no significantly higher prevalence of self-reported symptoms in individuals who had used mobile phones [11]. On the other hand, some recent studies were unable to show an association between cancer and mobile phone use [12] or living nearby mobile base stations [13]. There was also no association between risk of early childhood cancers and mother’s exposure to mobile phone base stations during pregnancy [14]. A recent study even indicated that short-term exposure to weak microwave radiation can temporarily stimulate specific humoral or cellular immune responses, while prolonged exposures may inhibit the same functions [15]. In this light, it can be concluded that current findings are complicated by a wide range of confounding factors and hence these studies do not show strong and convincing evidence that there is a causal association between cancer and exposure to RF energy [16].

Over the past years, our laboratory has focused on studying the health effects of exposure of laboratory animals and humans to some common and/or occupational sources of electromagnetic fields such as mobile phones [1724] and their base stations [25], mobile phone jammers [26], laptop computers [27], radars [18], dentistry cavitrons [28] and MRI [29]. To the best of our knowledge this paper is the first article that reviews the beneficial effects of exposure to mobile phone radiofrequency radiation.

Are there known detrimental effects associated with exposure to RF EMR?

There is growing serious concern that the exponentially increased exposure to RF-EMF from mobile phones might lead to adverse health effects [30]. Cell phones are popular communication devices that emit low levels of RF-EMF. Even in stand-by mode, mobile phones emit a very short signal at certain intervals. Over the past two decades, hundreds of worldwide studies have been conducted to assess the biological effects of RF-EMF. It has been reported that self-reported symptoms such as headache, earache, and warmth sensation, concentration problem and fatigue are associated with using mobile phones [31, 32]. On the other hand, other studies as well as studies performed by Mortazavi et al. which could not find any association between mobile phone use and the self-reported symptoms indicate the role of psychological factors in electromagnetic hypersensitivity [33, 34]. Genotoxic effects of exposure to mobile phone radiation have also been studied. In a recent study, possible genotoxic effect of RF EMR (GSM, 1,800 MHz) in human lymphocytes was investigated through collaboration of six independent institutes. Genotoxicity end points were chromosome aberration, micronuclei, sister chromatid exchange and the alkaline comet assay. This study could not show any evidence of a genotoxic effect induced by RF EMR [35]. Regarding possible carcinogenic effects of mobile phone radiation, mobile phone users were not more likely to have been diagnosed with brain tumors compared with nonusers [36, 37]. However, a nationwide cohort study in Denmark showed little evidence of an increased risk of skin cancer among the users of mobile phones [38].

Beneficial effects of RF EMR

Dr. Sheldon Wolff In 1992 published his popular paper entitled “Is Radiation All Bad? The Search for Adaptation” [39]. He was globally famous for his studies on the stimulatory and beneficial effects of low dose ionizing radiation. At this time, considering intensely increase in using mobile phones (more than 4.5 billion subscribers around the globe), we should change Wolff’s question to a new query “Is mobile phone radiofrequency (RF) radiation all bad?” [40]. Nowadays, in some developing countries with poor infrastructure for landlines, mobile phone use has exponentially increased in the last decade. Interestingly, in some parts of the world, mobile phones are the main or even the only available telephone system.

Substantial evidence indicates that cells pre-exposed to low doses of DNA damaging agents such as ionizing radiation, ultraviolet (UV) rays, alkylating agents, oxidants and heat become immune to the detrimental effects of high doses of these agents or even similar agents. This phenomenon is usually referred to as “adaptive response”. Olivieri et al. in 1984 for the first time reported that pre-exposure of human lymphocytes to low doses of ionizing radiation induced an adaptive response as decreased susceptibility to chromatid break induced by a subsequent high dose radiation [41]. Although the mechanisms underlying the induction of adaptive response after pre-irradiation by a low dose radiation are not fully understood, it has been demonstrated that the improvement of DNA repair may be involved in this phenomenon [42, 43]. Also it has been revealed that p53 might be a crucial mediator of DNA repair process after exposure to a low dose [44].

The induction of adaptive response phenomena by exposure to radiofrequency radiation as either increased resistance to a subsequent dose of ionizing radiation or resistance to a bacterial infection has been also reported [20, 4551]. The mechanisms of radiofrequency-induced adaptive response are not clearly known, so far [47]. It has been also recently shown that when laboratory animals are pre-exposed to electromagnetic radiofrequency radiation emitted from a common GSM mobile phone, they become resistant to a following bacterial infection [17, 52]. Furthermore, there is another report by Plews et al. that indicated the induction of adaptive response induced by low-dose whole-body radiation treatments as prolonged survival of prion-infected mice by reducing oxidative stress [53]. As discussed in our previous articles, RF-induced resistance against bacterial infection can open new horizons in overcoming the problem of long term human stay in the space [54].

Furthermore, the possible advantageous effects of radiofrequency radiation are not only restricted to the induction of adaptive responses. Reaction time plays a critical role in performing activities necessary to better cope with life’s threats and/or avoid hazards. Reaction time widely varies from an individual to another, and increased reaction time may lead to fatal accidents. Previously, it has been indicated that the visual reaction time of university students was significantly decreased after a ten minute exposure to electromagnetic radiation in radiofrequency range emitted by a common mobile phone [19]. This finding is in line with the findings of other researchers who reported improved cognitive functions such decreased reaction time or improved performance on attention and short term memory after exposure to radiofrequency radiation [5560]. Furthermore, it has been reported that the reaction time in radar workers whom are occupationally exposed to radar microwave radiations is significantly shorter than that of the control group [18]. Altogether, our results revealed that exposure to microwave radiation decreased the reaction time which helps people better respond to different threatening situations. Therefore these exposures can decrease the probability of human errors and reduce destructive accidents. Different trials [6163] and some epidemiological studies [64, 65] conducted over the past years were unable to reveal effects of exposure to mobile base stations on cognitive functions. Furthermore, stimulatory cognitive effects caused by long term exposure to RF radiation have been shown in some studies performed over the past years. Arns et al. in 2007 used a word interference test and reported that long term intense cell phone use caused better performance of normal individuals [66]. Furthermore, in 2009 Schuz et al. indicated that long-term mobile phone users (those who used 10 years or more) had a 30–40 percent reduced risk of hospitalization because of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and vascular dementia [67]. Arendash et al. previously indicated that currently available drugs only treat/mask AD symptoms for about one year (none of these drugs directly slow or lessen AD pathogenesis). In this light, they proposed that high frequency electromagnetic radiation can be a safe, non-pharmaceutical approach to treat AD [6870]. Recently, Arendash reported that as AD drugs cannot get into neurons and as most of these drugs have a single mechanism-of-action, pharmacologic interventions against AD seem to be unsuccessful [71]. Therefore, he stated that long-term transcranial electromagnetic treatment (TEMT) can prevent and reverse both cognitive impairment and brain amyloid-β (Aβ) deposition in AD transgenic mice. He also claimed that TEMT even improves cognitive performance in normal mice. Arendash believes that understanding the mechanisms of action of transcranial electromagnetic treatment (TEMT) can help scientists provide remarkable therapeutic methods for prevention and treatment of other neurologic disorders such as Parkinson’s disease, or injuries like traumatic brain injury and stroke [71].

Conclusion

Substantial evidence indicate that pre-exposure to radiofrequency radiation can induce stimulatory phenomena such as adaptive response. Furthermore, it has recently been shown that pre-exposure of laboratory animals to RF EMR increases their resistance to a subsequent bacterial infection, a response which may have implications in manned deep space exploration. Interestingly, the potential beneficial effects of RF radiation are not only limited to the induction of adaptive phenomena. Our findings showed that human exposure to RF EMR leads to the better performance of short term memory and decreased reaction time. Other investigators have also provided evidence that confirms the induction of RF-induced cognitive benefits such as protection against cognitive impairment in Alzheimer’s disease. In this light, a challenging issue will arise whether there are other radiofrequency-induced stimulatory or beneficial effects. It is also challenging to investigate the possible applications of these RF-induced stimulatory effects. Further research is needed to clarify the health effects of short and long term effects of human exposure to different levels of radiofrequency radiation.

Abbreviations

EMR: 

Electromagnetic radiation

RF: 

Radiofrequency

RF EMR: 

Radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation

SAR: 

Specific absorption rate

RMS: 

Root mean square

MHz: 

Megahertz

GHz: 

Gigahertz

GSM: 

Global system for mobile communication

UV: 

Ultraviolet

AD: 

Alzheimer’s disease

TEMT: 

Transcranial electromagnetic treatment.

Declarations

Acknowledgment

This study was supported by the Ionizing and Non-ionizing Radiation Protection Research Center (INIRPRC), Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (SUMS), Shiraz, Iran.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Ionizing and Non-ionizing Radiation Protection Research Center (INIRPRC), School of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences
(2)
Standard Research Institute
(3)
Department of Medical Physics and Medical Engineering, School of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences
(4)
Medical Physics & Medical Engineering Department, School of Medicine, Imam Hossein

References

  1. D’Andrea JA, Ziriax JM, Adair ER: Radio frequency electromagnetic fields: mild hyperthermia and safety standards. Prog Brain Res 2007, 162: 107–135.Google Scholar
  2. ICNIRP: Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz). International commission on non-ionizing radiation protection. Health Phys 1998, 74(4):494–522.Google Scholar
  3. WHO: Electromagnetic fields and public health: radars and human health. World Health Organization; 2013. Fact sheet N°226Google Scholar
  4. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Soderqvist F, Mild KH: Case–control study of the association between malignant brain tumours diagnosed between 2007 and 2009 and mobile and cordless phone use. Int J Oncol 2013, 43(6):1833–1845.Google Scholar
  5. Sato Y, Akiba S, Kubo O, Yamaguchi N: A case-case study of mobile phone use and acoustic neuroma risk in Japan. Bioelectromagnetics 2011, 32(2):85–93. 10.1002/bem.20616Google Scholar
  6. Sadetzki S, Chetrit A, Jarus-Hakak A, Cardis E, Deutch Y, Duvdevani S, Zultan A, Novikov I, Freedman L, Wolf M: Cellular phone use and risk of benign and malignant parotid gland tumors–a nationwide case–control study. Am J Epidemiol 2008, 167(4):457–467. 10.1093/aje/kwm325Google Scholar
  7. Moon IS, Kim BG, Kim J, Lee JD, Lee WS: Association between vestibular schwannomas and mobile phone use. Tumour Biol 2014, 35(1):581–7. 10.1007/s13277-013-1081-8Google Scholar
  8. Soderqvist F, Carlberg M, Hardell L: Use of wireless telephones and self-reported health symptoms: a population-based study among Swedish adolescents aged 15–19 years. Environ Health 2008, 7: 18. 10.1186/1476-069X-7-18Google Scholar
  9. Van den Bulck J: Adolescent use of mobile phones for calling and for sending text messages after lights out: results from a prospective cohort study with a one-year follow-up. Sleep 2007, 30(9):1220–1223.Google Scholar
  10. Punamaki RL, Wallenius M, Nygard CH, Saarni L, Rimpela A: Use of information and communication technology (ICT) and perceived health in adolescence: the role of sleeping habits and waking-time tiredness. J Adolesc 2007, 30(4):569–585. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.07.004Google Scholar
  11. Mortazavi SM, Ahmadi J, Shariati M: Prevalence of subjective poor health symptoms associated with exposure to electromagnetic fields among university students. Bioelectromagnetics 2007, 28(4):326–330. 10.1002/bem.20305Google Scholar
  12. Benson VS, Pirie K, Schuz J, Reeves GK, Beral V, Green J: Mobile phone use and risk of brain neoplasms and other cancers: prospective study. Int J Epidemiol 2013, 42(3):792–802. 10.1093/ije/dyt072Google Scholar
  13. Stewart A, Rao JN, Middleton JD, Pearmain P, Evans T: Mobile telecommunications and health: report of an investigation into an alleged cancer cluster in Sandwell. West Midlands Perspect Public Health 2012, 132(6):299–304. 10.1177/1757913911427375Google Scholar
  14. Elliott P, Toledano MB, Bennett J, Beale L, de Hoogh K, Best N, Briggs DJ: Mobile phone base stations and early childhood cancers: case–control study. BMJ 2010, 340: c3077. 10.1136/bmj.c3077Google Scholar
  15. Szmigielski S: Reaction of the immune system to low-level RF/MW exposures. Sci Total Environ 2013, 454–455: 393–400.Google Scholar
  16. Moulder JE, Foster KR, Erdreich LS, McNamee JP: Mobile phones, mobile phone base stations and cancer: a review. Int J Radiat Biol 2005, 81(3):189–203. 10.1080/09553000500091097Google Scholar
  17. Mortazavi SMJ, Motamedifar M, Namdari G, Taheri M, Mortazavi AR, Shokrpour N: Non-linear adaptive phenomena which decrease the risk of infection after pre-exposure to radiofrequency radiation. Dose–response in pressGoogle Scholar
  18. Mortazavi SMJ, Taeb S, Dehghan N: Alterations of visual reaction time and short term memory in military radar personnel. Iranian J Publ Health 2013, 42(4):428–435.Google Scholar
  19. Mortazavi SMJ, Rouintan MS, Taeb S, Dehghan N, Ghaffarpanah AA, Sadeghi Z, Ghafouri F: Human short-term exposure to electromagnetic fields emitted by mobile phones decreases computer-assisted visual reaction time. Acta Neurol Belg 2012, 112(2):171–175. 10.1007/s13760-012-0044-yGoogle Scholar
  20. Mortazavi SMJ, Mosleh-Shirazi MA, Tavassoli AR, Taheri M, Mehdizadeh AR, Namazi SAS, Jamali A, Ghalandari R, Bonyadi S, Shafie M: Increased radioresistance to lethal doses of gamma rays in mice and rats after exposure to microwave radiation emitted by a GSM mobile phone simulator. Dose Response 2013, 11(2):281–292. 10.2203/dose-response.12-010.MortazaviGoogle Scholar
  21. Mortazavi S, Mosleh-Shirazi M, Tavassoli A, Taheri M, Bagheri Z, Ghalandari R, Bonyadi S, Shafie M, Haghani M: A comparative study on the increased radioresistance to lethal doses of gamma rays after exposure to microwave radiation and oral intake of flaxseed oil. Iranian J Radiat Res 2011, 9(1):9–14.Google Scholar
  22. Mortazavi SMJ, Habib A, Ganj-Karimi AH, Samimi-Doost R, Pour-Abedi A, Babaie A: Alterations in TSH and thyroid hormones following mobile phone use. OMJ 2009, 24: 274–278.Google Scholar
  23. Mortazavi SMJ, Daiee E, Yazdi A, Khiabani K, Kavousi A, Vazirinejad R, Behnejad B, Ghasemi M, Balali Mood M: Mercury release from dental amalgam restorations after magnetic resonance imaging and following mobile phone use. Pak J Biol Sci 2008, 11(8):1142–1146. 10.3923/pjbs.2008.1142.1146Google Scholar
  24. Mortazavi SMJ: Does the ringtone or radiofrequency radiation of a mobile phone affect reaction time of its owner? IJOMEH 2014, 27(1):149–50. 10.2478/s13382-014-0231-6Google Scholar
  25. Mortazavi SMJ: Safety issue of mobile phone base stations. J Biomed Phys Eng 2013, 3(1):1–2.Google Scholar
  26. Mortazavi SMJ, Parsanezhad ME, Kazempour M, Ghahramani P, Mortazavi SAR, Davari M: Male reproductive health under threat: short term exposure to radiofrequency radiations emitted by common mobile jammers. J Human Reprod Sci in pressGoogle Scholar
  27. Mortazavi SMJ, Tavasoli AR, Ranjbari F, Moamaei P: Effects of laptop computers’ electromagnetic field on sperm quality. J Reprod Infertility 2011, 11(4):251–258.Google Scholar
  28. Mortazavi SM, Vazife-Doost S, Yaghooti M, Mehdizadeh S, Rajaie-Far A: Occupational exposure of dentists to electromagnetic fields produced by magnetostrictive cavitrons alters the serum cortisol level. J Nat Sci Biol Med 2012, 3(1):60–64. 10.4103/0976-9668.95958Google Scholar
  29. Mortazavi SMJ, Neghab M, Anoosheh SMH, Bahaeddini N, Mortazavi G, Neghab P, Rajaeifard A: High-field MRI and mercury release from dental amalgam fillings. Int J Occup Environ Med 2014, 5: 101–105.Google Scholar
  30. Deshmukh PS, Megha K, Banerjee BD, Ahmed RS, Chandna S, Abegaonkar MP, Tripathi AK: Detection of low level microwave radiation induced deoxyribonucleic acid damage vis-a-vis genotoxicity in brain of Fischer rats. Toxicol Int 2013, 20(1):19–24. 10.4103/0971-6580.111549Google Scholar
  31. Johansson A, Nordin S, Heiden M, Sandstrom M: Symptoms, personality traits, and stress in people with mobile phone-related symptoms and electromagnetic hypersensitivity. J Psychosom Res 2010, 68(1):37–45. 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2009.06.009Google Scholar
  32. Korpinen LH, Paakkonen RJ: Self-report of physical symptoms associated with using mobile phones and other electrical devices. Bioelectromagnetics 2009, 30(6):431–437. 10.1002/bem.20500Google Scholar
  33. Mortazavi SMJ, Mahbudi A, Atefi M, Bagheri S, Bahaedini N, Besharati A: An old issue and a new look: electromagnetic hypersensitivity caused by radiations emitted by GSM mobile phones. Technol Health Care 2011, 19(6):435–443.Google Scholar
  34. Rubin GJ, Das Munshi J, Wessely S: Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: a systematic review of provocation studies. Psychosom Med 2005, 67(2):224–32. 10.1097/01.psy.0000155664.13300.64Google Scholar
  35. Waldmann P, Bohnenberger S, Greinert R, Hermann-Then B, Heselich A, Klug SJ, Koenig J, Kuhr K, Kuster N, Merker M, Murbach M, Pollet D, Schadenboeck W, Scheidemann-Wesp U, Schwab B, Volkmer B, Weyer V, Blettner M: Influence of GSM signals on human peripheral lymphocytes: study of genotoxicity. Radiat Res 2013, 179(2):243–253. 10.1667/RR2914.1Google Scholar
  36. Aydin D, Feychting M, Schuz J, Tynes T, Andersen TV, Schmidt LS, Poulsen AH, Johansen C, Prochazka M, Lannering B, Klæboe L, Eggen T, Jenni D, Grotzer M, Von der Weid N, Kuehni CE, Röösli M: Mobile phone use and brain tumors in children and adolescents: a multicenter case–control study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011, 103(16):1264–1276. 10.1093/jnci/djr244Google Scholar
  37. Frei P, Poulsen AH, Johansen C, Olsen JH, Steding-Jessen M, Schuz J: Use of mobile phones and risk of brain tumours: update of Danish cohort study. BMJ 2011, 343: d6387. 10.1136/bmj.d6387Google Scholar
  38. Poulsen AH, Friis S, Johansen C, Jensen A, Frei P, Kjaer SK, Dalton SO, Schuz J: Mobile phone use and the risk of skin cancer: a nationwide cohort study in denmark. Am J Epidemiol 2013, 178(2):190–197. 10.1093/aje/kws426Google Scholar
  39. Wolff S: Failla memorial lecture. Is radiation all bad? the search for adaptation. Radiat Res 1992, 131(2):117–123. 10.2307/3578431Google Scholar
  40. Mortazavi SMJ: Is mobile phone radiofrequency radiation all bad? J Med Hypotheses Ideas 2014, 8(1):42–43. 10.1016/j.jmhi.2013.08.003Google Scholar
  41. Olivieri G, Bodycote J, Wolff S: Adaptive response of human lymphocytes to low concentrations of radioactive thymidine. Science 1984, 223(4636):594–597. 10.1126/science.6695170Google Scholar
  42. Szumiel I: Adaptive response: stimulated DNA repair or decreased damage fixation? Int J Radiat Biol 2005, 81(3):233–241. 10.1080/09553000500077047Google Scholar
  43. Feinendegen LE, Pollycove M, Neumann RD: Whole-body responses to low-level radiation exposure: new concepts in mammalian radiobiology. Exp Hematol 2007, 35(4, Supplemen):37–46. 10.1016/j.exphem.2007.01.011Google Scholar
  44. Verschooten L, Declercq L, Garmyn M: Adaptive response of the skin to UVB damage: role of the p53 protein. Int J Cosmet Sci 2006, 28(1):1–7. 10.1111/j.1467-2494.2006.00299.xGoogle Scholar
  45. Sannino A, Sarti M, Reddy SB, Prihoda TJ, Vijayalaxmi , Scarfi MR: Induction of adaptive response in human blood lymphocytes exposed to radiofrequency radiation. Radiat Res 2009, 171(6):735–742. 10.1667/RR1687.1Google Scholar
  46. Vijayalaxmi , Cao Y, Scarfi MR: Adaptive response in mammalian cells exposed to non-ionizing radiofrequency fields: A review and gaps in knowledge. Mutat Res 2014. doi: 10.1016/j.mrrev.2014.02.002Google Scholar
  47. Sannino A, Zeni O, Romeo S, Massa R, Gialanella G, Grossi G, Manti L, Vijayalaxmi L, Vijayalaxmi , Scarfi MR: Adaptive response in human blood lymphocytes exposed to non-ionizing radiofrequency fields: resistance to ionizing radiation-induced damage. J Radiat Res 2013, 55(2):210–7.Google Scholar
  48. Sannino A, Zeni O, Sarti M, Romeo S, Reddy SB, Belisario MA, Prihoda TJ, Vijayalaxmi , Scarfi MR: Induction of adaptive response in human blood lymphocytes exposed to 900 MHz radiofrequency fields: Influence of cell cycle. Int J Radiat Biol 2011, 87(9):993–9. 10.3109/09553002.2011.574779Google Scholar
  49. Cao Y, Xu Q, Jin ZD, Zhou Z, Nie JH, Tong J: Induction of adaptive response: pre-exposure of mice to 900 MHz radiofrequency fields reduces hematopoietic damage caused by subsequent exposure to ionising radiation. Int J Radiat Biol 2011, 87(7):720–728. 10.3109/09553002.2010.550981Google Scholar
  50. Jiang B, Nie J, Zhou Z, Zhang J, Tong J, Cao Y: Adaptive response in mice exposed to 900 MHz radiofrequency fields: primary DNA damage. PLoS One 2012, 7(2):e32040. 10.1371/journal.pone.0032040Google Scholar
  51. Zeni O, Sannino A, Romeo S, Massa R, Sarti M, Reddy AB, Prihoda TJ, Vijayalaxmi , Scarfi MR: Induction of an adaptive response in human blood lymphocytes exposed to radiofrequency fields: Influence of the universal mobile telecommunication system (UMTS) signal and the specific absorption rate. Mutat Res 2012, 2012: 2012.Google Scholar
  52. Mortazavi SMJ, Motamedifar M, Namdari G, Taheri M, Mortazavi AR: Counterbalancing immunosuppression-induced infections during long-term stay of humans in space. J Med Hypotheses Ideas 2013, 7(1):8–10. 10.1016/j.jmhi.2012.12.001Google Scholar
  53. Plews M, Simon SL, Boreham DR, Parchaliuk D, Wyatt H, Mantha R, Frost K, Lamoureux L, Stobart M, Czub S, Mitchel RE, Knox JD: A radiation-induced adaptive response prolongs the survival of prion-infected mice. Free Radic Biol Med 2010, 49(9):1417–1421. 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2010.07.025Google Scholar
  54. Mortazavi SMJ, Mozdarani H: Deep space missions and the issue of overcoming the problem of space radiation. Int J Radiat Res 2013, 11(3):199–202.Google Scholar
  55. Preece AW, Iwi G, Davies-Smith A, Wesnes K, Butler S, Lim E, Varey A: Effect of a 915-MHz simulated mobile phone signal on cognitive function in man. Int J Radiat Biol 1999, 75(4):447–456. 10.1080/095530099140375Google Scholar
  56. Koivisto M, Revonsuo A, Krause C, Haarala C, Sillanmaki L, Laine M, Hamalainen H: Effects of 902 MHz electromagnetic field emitted by cellular telephones on response times in humans. Neuroreport 2000, 11(2):413–415. 10.1097/00001756-200002070-00038Google Scholar
  57. Koivisto M, Krause CM, Revonsuo A, Laine M, Hamalainen H: The effects of electromagnetic field emitted by GSM phones on working memory. Neuroreport 2000, 11(8):1641–1643. 10.1097/00001756-200006050-00009Google Scholar
  58. Edelstyn N, Oldershaw A: The acute effects of exposure to the electromagnetic field emitted by mobile phones on human attention. Neuroreport 2002, 13(1):119–121. 10.1097/00001756-200201210-00028Google Scholar
  59. Lee TM, Ho SM, Tsang LY, Yang SH, Li LS, Chan CC, Yang SY: Effect on human attention of exposure to the electromagnetic field emitted by mobile phones. Neuroreport 2001, 12(4):729–731. 10.1097/00001756-200103260-00023Google Scholar
  60. Smythe JW, Costall B: Mobile phone use facilitates memory in male, but not female, subjects. Neuroreport 2003, 14(2):243–246. 10.1097/00001756-200302100-00017Google Scholar
  61. Regel SJ, Negovetic S, Roosli M, Berdinas V, Schuderer J, Huss A, Lott U, Kuster N, Achermann P: UMTS base station-like exposure, well-being, and cognitive performance. Environ Health Perspect 2006, 114(8):1270–1275. 10.1289/ehp.8934Google Scholar
  62. Riddervold IS, Pedersen GF, Andersen NT, Pedersen AD, Andersen JB, Zachariae R, Molhave L, Sigsgaard T, Kjaergaard SK: Cognitive function and symptoms in adults and adolescents in relation to rf radiation from UMTS base stations. Bioelectromagnetics 2008, 29(4):257–267. 10.1002/bem.20388Google Scholar
  63. Furubayashi T, Ushiyama A, Terao Y, Mizuno Y, Shirasawa K, Pongpaibool P, Simba AY, Wake K, Nishikawa M, Miyawaki K, Yasuda A, Uchiyama M, Yamashita HK, Masuda H, Hirota S, Takahashi M, Okano T, Inomata-Terada S, Sokejima S, Maruyama E, Watanabe S, Taki M, Ohkubo C, Ugawa Y: Effects of short-term W-CDMA mobile phone base station exposure on women with or without mobile phone related symptoms. Bioelectromagnetics 2009, 30(2):100–113. 10.1002/bem.20446Google Scholar
  64. Hutter HP, 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(5):307–313. 10.1136/oem.2005.020784Google Scholar
  65. Abdel-Rassoul G, El-Fateh OA, Salem MA, Michael A, Farahat F, El-Batanouny M, Salem E: Neurobehavioral effects among inhabitants around mobile phone base stations. Neurotoxicology 2007, 28(2):434–440. 10.1016/j.neuro.2006.07.012Google Scholar
  66. Arns M, Van Luijtelaar G, Sumich A, Hamilton R, Gordon E: Electroencephalographic, personality, and executive function measures associated with frequent mobile phone use. Int J Neurosci 2007, 117(9):1341–1360. 10.1080/00207450600936882Google Scholar
  67. Schuz J, Waldemar G, Olsen JH, Johansen C: Risks for central nervous system diseases among mobile phone subscribers: a Danish retrospective cohort study. PLoS One 2009, 4(2):e4389. 10.1371/journal.pone.0004389Google Scholar
  68. Arendash GW, Sanchez-Ramos J, Mori T, Mamcarz M, Lin X, Runfeldt M, Wang L, Zhang G, Sava V, Tan J, Cao C: Electromagnetic field treatment protects against and reverses cognitive impairment in Alzheimer’s disease mice. J Alzheimers Dis 2010, 19(1):191–210.Google Scholar
  69. Dragicevic N, Bradshaw PC, Mamcarz M, Lin X, Wang L, Cao C, Arendash GW: Long-term electromagnetic field treatment enhances brain mitochondrial function of both Alzheimer’s transgenic mice and normal mice: a mechanism for electromagnetic field-induced cognitive benefit? Neuroscience 2011, 185: 135–149.Google Scholar
  70. Arendash GW, Mori T, Dorsey M, Gonzalez R, Tajiri N, Borlongan C: Electromagnetic treatment to old Alzheimer’s mice reverses beta-amyloid deposition, modifies cerebral blood flow, and provides selected cognitive benefit. PLoS One 2012, 7(4):e35751. 10.1371/journal.pone.0035751Google Scholar
  71. Arendash GW: Transcranial electromagnetic treatment against Alzheimer’s disease: why it has the potential to trump Alzheimer’s disease drug development. J Alzheimers Dis 2012, 32(2):243–266.Google Scholar

Copyright

© Mortazavi et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement