ICES Database
ElectroMagnetic Field Literature
Search Engine
  

EMF Study
(Database last updated on Mar 27, 2024)

ID Number 1059
Study Type In Vivo
Model 1900 MHz (GSM) exposure to Drosophila and analysis of reproduction and stress response
Details

Drosphila were exposed to 1900 MHz (GSM) RF from a mobile phone hooked up to network service during a 10 day period from egg to pupae. At a subsequent FGF / COST 281 meeting in Helsinki Finland the authors reported an SAR of 1.4 W/kg but did not detail how this value was determined. Exposure was reported to increase numbers of offspring, elevate hsp70 levels, increase serum response elevment (SRE), and induce phosporylation of ELK-1. The authors also report that a phone shielding device (TechnoZone AO MP12) was successful not only in reducing E-field levels at the speaker of the phone, but in reversing the effects of RF exposure on reproduction.

Findings Effects
Status Completed With Publication
Principal Investigator Columbia University, NYC USA - rmg5@columbia.edu
Funding Agency Private/Instit.
Country UNITED STATES
References
  • Weisbrot, D et al. J Cell Biochem, (2003) 89:48-55
  • Comments

    The phone was hooked up to service, not placed in test transmit mode, and no RF exposure assessment was performed at the location of the experiment. The phone was operating at an unknown power level during the experiment, although the authors report that the max SAR for the phone model used was 1.4 W/kg. E-field measurements were taken (presumably at another location), but these were clearly in the near field (2.5 cm from speaker) and it is unclear how they relate to SAR. 5 tubes were lined up along a retractable dipole phone antenna that would obviously recieved different RF exposures, and different levels of E and H field components - in fact the feedpoint of the antenna may have been closer to the handset next to tube #1, with a dramatic dropoff at tube #5. Further, the flies could travel the length of the tube (top to bottom) which would have also caused dramatic variations in exposure. Finally, there is no mention of talking into the phone (either during the experiment or during E-field measurements) so there may have been significant skipped significant frames during transmission and differences from one exposure to another. Remarkably, an MP-12 shielding device placed over the phone speaker not only reduced E-field measurements at the speaker, but reduced the effect of RF on fly reproduction in the tubes over the extended antenna.

    Return