Electromagnetic Fields

Electromagnetic field (EMF) pollution, caused by the radio frequencies generated from telecommunications devices, is considered one of the largest environmental problems of this century.¹ The development and use of cell phone technology has indiscriminately increased the levels of EMFs throughout the natural environment. This of course has raised concerns about their effect on humans and other organisms. Yet, we are awash in EMFs as they come from both natural (the sun and earth) and manmade sources (electricity, communication and medical devices). Concern about the possible negative effects of EMF-generated radio frequencies from cell phones is fiercely debated, and much research in this area is ongoing.

Electromagnetic waves exert a physical effect on the tissues of living organisms, with the possibility of influencing their condition for better or worse. Electromagnetic forces, depending on their dose and length of exposure, can either be negative or positive in producing a cytoprotective cellular response.² However, experts investigating these effects note that evidence is accumulating for negative effects on blood tissue from electricity-frequency fields, while communication-frequency fields may be linked to cognitive issues.³

Several studies have already shown a link between low frequency EMFs to varied adverse health outcomes.⁴ Of note are the growing number of epidemiologic studies that have suggested possible associations between EMF exposure and increased risk of suboptimal cellular health throughout the body and the brain.²

Spermatogenesis and Testosterone

Of major concern are the possible effects of EMFs on reproductive health and the developing fetus; however, the consequences of this are still mainly unknown.

Mammalian studies have been carried out showing a negative relationship between cell phone EMF exposure and spermatogenesis and testosterone production.

One study exposed a group of male animals to cell phone EMFs for 30 minutes a day, another group to 60 minutes a day, and yet another to none; each group was exposed for 3 months.⁵ Sixty minute exposures caused 18.75 percent hypospermatogenesis (low sperm production) and maturation arrest compared to controls. The 30-minute exposure group showed no changes.

A similar study used the same cell phone EMF exposures (30 minutes daily, 60 minutes daily and control for 3 months) and examined serum testosterone levels. Researchers noted that the 60-minute exposure group had significantly decreased serum testosterone levels compared to controls.⁶

Stress Markers

Another study examined the effects from exposure to radiofrequency EMFs emitted by cell phone base stations on certain salivary stress markers (cortisol, immunoglobulin A, alpha-amylase).⁷ Each study subject was exposed to five 50-minute exposure sessions (subjects were situated near a source antenna) at low, medium and high levels. Saliva samples were collected three times during each session; exposure moving from low to high exposure led to increased cortisol levels, while exposure alternating from low to high to medium led to an increase in salivary alpha-amylase, and no changes in IgA were recorded. The researchers noted that despite the fact these exposures occurred at levels below current guideline amounts, they still have an influence on stress markers.

Elevated alpha amylase is used in clinical studies to reflect increased physical and psychological stress; thus, the increase seen in the above study points to how EMFs can be perceived by the body as an overt stressor to the balance of the body.

Liver Enzymes

In a study looking at the effects of free radicals on the liver, laboratory animals were exposed to a radio frequency EMF similar to that of cell phones at either 10 or 20 minutes a day for seven days. The researchers found the extent of oxidative effects were proportional to exposure; significant increases in total nitric oxide and malondialdehyde (free radicals) were noted with decreased superoxide dismutase, myeloperoxidase and glutathione peroxidase (antioxidant enzymes) activity after exposure. This study also looked at the benefits of n-acetyl cysteine (NAC) and epigallocatechin-gallate (EGCG) after exposure; both were shown to have a supportive effect against the EMF and elevated antioxidant activity.⁸

Epidemiologic Studies

A review of epidemiologic studies identified 10 citations that examined possible effects of cell phone base stations on the surrounding populations. Eight of the 10 studies reported an increased prevalence of adverse neurobehavioral function or less than optimal neurological cell health in those populations residing closer than 500 meters to the base stations.9 In this analysis, the authors noted that none of the studies reported EMF exposure above current accepted international limits, suggesting the need for revision to safer levels.

The INTERPHONE Study

Considered the most comprehensive look at cell phones and brain health, the INTERPHONE study was an interview-based case control format with 2,708 glioma and 2,409 meningioma cases from 13 countries. The researchers concluded that there was no increased risk of glioma or meningioma from cell phone use; however, they note that there may be an increased risk of glioma at the very highest exposure levels, but based on the nature of this study (retrospective—meaning those with tumors were asked to recall their cell phone usage) the authors felt that this increase may be difficult to link due to biases and error in recall.¹⁰ They concluded that the effects of long term cell phone use on health requires further research. It’s important to note that the Interphone study was industry funded.

The World Health Organization Position

The World Health Organization (WHO) recently announced that cell phones are possibly a cause of concern. The conclusion was based on an extensive review of studies on cell phone safety by a working group of 31 scientists from 14 countries, who have been meeting regularly to evaluate the potential effects from exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. According to the WHO, the working group’s conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore, the working group’s chairmen recommended “we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones” and risk.¹¹

Wi-Fi

Aside from cell phones, other common forms of EMFs are widespread, such as Wi-Fi (Wireless Fidelity). As a newer technology, research is just getting underway looking at any relationship between Wi-Fi and biological changes in living organisms. In a study looking at a specific measurement endpoint of attention and working memory operation of the brain, researchers looked at the effects of Wi-Fi-generated EMFs on these functions, and how the 2 genders were affected as well. After testing working memory in male and female subjects separately, both with and without the presence of Wi-Fi EMFs, the researchers concluded that Wi-Fi exposure may exert gender-related alterations in brain activity.¹² The significance of this is not known; however, it is notable that this study demonstrates the ability of Wi-Fi to alter neural activity.

Effect on Plants

Of additional interest is the damage done to plants that are continuously exposed to EMFs in the environment. One model investigated rhizogenesis (root development) in plants after exposure to cell phone frequencies. The plants exhibited increased activities of proteases, polyphenol oxidases and peroxidases compared to control plants. Additional indicators of lipid peroxidation (increased malondialdehyde, hydrogen peroxide and proline) were noted as damage from reactive oxygen species-mediated oxidative damage. Other antioxidant enzymes (superoxide dismutase, ascorbate peroxidase, guaiacol peroxidase, catalase, and glutathione reductase) were upregulated as well, demonstrating an attempt to protect against EMF-induced damage. All of these findings led researchers to conclude that cell phone-emitted EMFs affect the process of root development through alterations induced by oxidative damage.¹³

Antioxidant Protection

EMFs abound throughout modern civilization, and no real protection exists in the form of avoidance or shelter. Therefore, the only protective emphasis that can be undertaken is strong antioxidative support.

Resveratrol is a phytonutrient found in red wine, grape skin, and other plants. It is a strong inhibitor of 5-lipoxygenase (5-LOX), reducing lipid peroxidation and supporting healthy DNA structure.¹⁴ Resveratrol can also increase superoxide dismutase, glutathione peroxidase, and catalase, all markers of antioxidant activity, in a dose-dependent manner, and has direct ROS scavenging activity.¹⁵ Pterostilbene is a closely related derivative of resveratrol with extremely high bioavailablilty, approaching 80 percent.¹⁶ Pterostilbene is also a potent antioxidant, and targets extracellular reactive oxygen species.¹⁷

Grape seed extract belongs to the proanthocyanidin compound class, which are known for their supportive effects against oxidative stressors in the body.¹⁸ It is considered a “broad spectrum” antioxidant, outperforming the antioxidative capabilities of vitamins C, E and beta-carotene, because of its diverse activity against oxidative stressors.¹⁹

Lipoic acid is one of the body’s most potent antioxidants. Available in a more potent, biologically active form (R-lipoic acid), it can be used to combat free radicals and is best known as an antioxidant to the mitochondria, where it also has a vital role in energy production.²⁰

There are several other potent antioxidants (found in Extension Antioxidant) that can be used to positively support the health of the cells of the body from reactive oxygen species. These include the botanicals turmeric (Curcuma longa),²¹ green tea (Camellia sinensis),²² rosemary leaf extract (Rosmarinus officinalis),^23-24 bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus),²⁵ vitamins A, C and E, N-acetyl cysteine^26-27 and lutein.^28-29

Conclusion

Electromagnetic fields have numerous natural and man-made sources. Regardless they are a part of modern culture and unavoidable for the most part. The health effects of EMFs on humans are continually debated, with many studies showing negative health effects, and others showing none. However, based on the fact that some research is showing that there are possible health effects, it may be important to utilize antioxidant defenses to support one’s health against any possible pro-oxidative effect that EMFs may have, until more is known.

References

1. Dode AC, Leão MM, Tejo FD, et al. Mortality by neoplasia and cellular telephone base stations in the Belo Horizonte municipality, Minas Gerais state, Brazil. Sci Total Environ. 2011 Jul 7.

2. Osera C, Fassina L, Amadio M, et al. Cytoprotective Response Induced by Electromagnetic Stimulation on SH-SY5Y Human Neuroblastoma Cell Line. Tissue Eng Part A. 2011 Jul 5.

3. Carpenter DO, Sage C. Setting prudent public health policy for electromagnetic field exposures. Rev Environ Health. 2008 Apr-Jun;23(2):91-117.

4. Dubey RB, Hanmandlu M, Gupta SK. Risk of brain tumors from wireless phone use. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2010 Nov-Dec;34(6):799-807.

5. Meo SA, Arif M, Rashied S, Khan MM, et al. Hypospermatogenesis and spermatozoa maturation arrest in rats induced by mobile phone radiation. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2011 May;21(5):262-5

6. Meo SA, Al-Drees AM, Husain S, et al. Effects of mobile phone radiation on serum testosterone in Wistar albino rats. Saudi Med J. 2010 Aug;30(8):869-73.

7. Augner C, Hacker GW, Oberfeld G, et al. Biomed Environ Sci. 2010 Jun;23(3):199-207. Effects of exposure to GSM mobile phone base station signals on salivary cortisol, alpha-amylase, and immunoglobulin A.

8. Ozgur E, Güler G, Seyhan N. Mobile phone radiation-induced free radical damage in the liver is inhibited by the antioxidants N-acetyl cysteine and epigallocatechin-gallate. Int J Radiat Biol. 2010 Nov;86(11):935-45.

9. Khurana VG, Hardell L, Everaert J, et al. Epidemiological evidence for a health risk from mobile phone base stations. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2010 Jul-Sep;16(3):263-7.

10. Cardis E, Deltour I, Vrijheid M, et al. Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study. Int J Epidemiol. 2010 Jun;39(3):675-94.

11. Cell Phones Possibly Carcinogenic, WHO Says, available at http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/743673, accessed online August 5, 2011.

12. Papageorgiou CC, Hountala CD, Maganioti AE, et al. Effects of wi-fi signals on the p300 component of event-related potentials during an auditory hayling task. J Integr Neurosci. 2011 Jun;10(2):189-202.

13. Singh HP, Sharma VP, Batish DR, Kohli RK. Cell phone electromagnetic field radiations affect rhizogenesis through impairment of biochemical processes. Environ Monit Assess. 2011 May 12. Published Online Ahead of Print.

14. Chatterjee M, Das S, Janarthan M, Chatterjee M. Role of 5-lipoxygenase in resveratrol mediated suppression of 7,12-dimethylbenz(α)anthracene-induced mammary carcinogenesis in rats. Eur J Pharmacol. 2011 Jul 6. Published Online Ahead of Print.

15. Pintea A, Rugina D, Pop R, et al. Antioxidant Effect of Trans-Resveratrol in Cultured Human Retinal Pigment Epithelial Cells. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2011 Jun 11. Published Online Ahead of Print.

16. Kapetanovic IM, Muzzio M, Huang Z, et al. Pharmacokinetics, oral bioavailability, and metabolic profile of resveratrol and its dimethylether analog, pterostilbene, in rats. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2010 Nov 30. Published Online Ahead of Print.

17. Perecko T, Drabikova K, Rackova L, et al. Molecular targets of the natural antioxidant pterostilbene: effect on protein kinase C, caspase-3 and apoptosis in human neutrophils in vitro. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2010;31 Suppl 2:84-90.

18. Roychowdhury S, Wolf G, Keilhoff G, et al Protection of primary glial cells by grape seed proanthocyanidin extract against nitrosative/oxidative stress. Nitric Oxide. 2001 Apr;5(2):137-49.

19. Bagchi D, Bagchi M, Stohs S, et al. Cellular protection with proanthocyanidins derived from grape seeds. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2002 May;957:260-70.

20. Matsugo S, Bito T, Konishi T. Photochemical stability of lipoic acid and its impact on skin ageing. Free Radic Res. 2011 Aug;45(8):918-24.

21. Singh G, Kapoor IP, Singh P. Comparative study of chemical composition and antioxidant activity of fresh and dry rhizomes of turmeric (Curcuma longa Linn.). Food Chem Toxicol. 2010 Apr;48(4):1026-1031.

22. Dou QP. Molecular mechanisms of green tea polyphenols. Nutr Cancer. 2009 Nov;61(6):827-35.

23. Bakirel T, Bakirel U, Keles OU, et al. In vivo assessment of antidiabetic and antioxidant activities of rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis) in alloxan-diabetic rabbits. J Ethnopharmacol. 2008 Feb 28;116(1):64-73.

24. Pérez-Fons L, Garzón MT, Micol V. Relationship between the antioxidant capacity and effect of rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.) polyphenols on membrane phospholipid order. J Agric Food Chem. 2010 Jan 13;58(1):161-71.

25. Burdulis D, Sarkinas A, Jasutiené I, et al. Comparative study of anthocyanin composition, antimicrobial and antioxidant activity in bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus L.) and blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum L.) fruits. Acta Pol Pharm. 2009 Jul-Aug;66(4):399-408.

26. Weinbroum AA, Rudick V, Ben-Abraham R, Karchevski E. N-acetyl-L-cysteine for preventing lung reperfusion injury after liver ischemia-reperfusion: a possible dual protective mechanism in a dose-response study. Transplantation 2000;69:853-9.

27. Kelly GS. Clinical applications of N-acetylcysteine. Altern Med Rev 1998;3:114-27.

28. Fernández-Sevilla JM, Acién Fernández FG, Molina Grima E. Biotechnological production of lutein and its applications. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2010 Mar;86(1):27-40.

29. Tamimi RM, Colditz GA, Hankinson SE. Circulating carotenoids, mammographic density, and subsequent risk of breast cancer. Cancer Res. 2009 Dec 15;69(24):9323-9.