ICES Database
ElectroMagnetic Field Literature
Search Engine
  

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

ID Number 859
Study Type In Vitro
Model 900 MHz (GSM) exposure to human astrocytes and mast cells and analysis of stress markers
Details

Human primary astrocyte cells were exposed to 900 MHz (GSM) RF at 0.2 W/kg in a TEM cell placed inside an incubator at 37 degrees. Exposure was either acute (1 x 1 hour on the 4th day) or chronic (1 hour exposure per day for 4 days). Gene expression including analysis of heat shock proteins was performed. Although some genes were slightly increased and decreased with exposure, the authors report no significant effect as the small number of genes affected (< 1%) and the lack of repeatability between two separate experiments suggested random variations. The authors did suggest that the study be performed at higher SAR (2 W/kg) before definitive conclusions are made. Follow-on studies in HMC-1 Mast cells exposed to 864 MHz RF at 7 W/kg for 20 min/day, 7 days in a temperature controlled environment were reported to change the localization of Protein Kinase-C and expression of c-kit, nucleoside diphosphate kinase B, and DAD-1. The authors suggest these results indicate non-thermal effects. The group also performed several theoretical modeling studies of pulsed wave MW exposure at "athermal levels" and activation of stress response through localized heating that results in protein denaturation and hsp protein activation (citations located under Theoretical Modeling catch-all). The data reported that a peak temperature rise of 0.704°C was expected at 3 GHz in a human head model from a corresponding exposure level of 6.4 W/kg over 10g (well below the C95.1-1991 maximal permissible exposure for controlled exposures). This model did not account for vasodialation or sweating.

Findings Effects
Status Completed With Publication
Principal Investigator St. Vincents Hospital, Australia - p.french@cfi.unsw.edu.au
Funding Agency Private/Instit.
Country AUSTRALIA
References
  • Harvey, C et al. Cell Biol Int, (2000) 23:739-748
  • Comments

    Return