Exposure to 3G cellphone radiation caused cell damage and death in the user's cheek tissue, which could lead to the development of cancer, according to a new peer-reviewed study.
The study authors — including
Michael Kundi, Ph.D., with the Center for Public Health at the Medical University of Vienna, Austria — said they found "clear evidence for induction of acute
toxicity and disturbance of the cell cycle (cytokinesis) as a consequence of exposure" to
radiofrequency (RF) radiation levels used by 3G smartphones.
"These processes may possibly lead to the formation of neoplastic cells," they wrote in their report, published in
Environmental Research.
Malignant neoplasms are cancerous tumors, according to the Cleveland Clinic.
Kundi and his co-authors said their study — which used people, not mice — was the "first controlled human intervention trial concerning cytotoxic/genotoxic effects of mobile phone radiation."
Dr. Rob Brown, a diagnostic radiologist with more than 30 years of experience, told The Defender that the cell damage found in the study "is significant and should be looked at with great concern."Brown is also the vice president of
scientific research and clinical affairs for
Environmental Health Trust (EHT), a nonprofit research and education group focused on the effects of
wireless radiation.
He said the study is "particularly valuable" because it is an
in-vivo study. "Most research to date exploring the
biological effects of electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation has been performed on
in-vitro cell cultures, plants and animal models," Brown said. "Because of this, they have been easier to discount by industry and policymakers."
Kundi and his co-authors undertook their study because prior research suggests that cellphone radiation "may cause
cancer in humans but the underlying molecular mechanisms are currently not known."
Their results shed light on the molecular mechanisms that may be involved.
For instance, they found that 3G cellphone radiation didn't cause chromosomal damage, but it did cause the formation of nuclear anomalies that are indicative of "acute cytotoxic effects" and "disturbed cytokinesis."Devra Davis, Ph.D., MPH — EHT's founder and president emerita whose prior research cited "
substantial scientific evidence" linking cellphone radiation to cancer — said that just because authors of the Austrian study didn't find chromosomal damage in the exposed cells shouldn't be interpreted as suggesting that cancer won't develop.
"In fact, chromosomal damage is not a necessary precondition for carcinogenesis," Davis told The Defender.
"Carcinogenesis can occur without mutagenesis," she said, "Factors contributing to cancer include damage to rates of cellular signaling and repair such as were found in this study."She said the study — which she called "well-designed" — added to prior studies showing harms from RF radiation by elucidating "additional reasons why phones should not be used close to the head or body."
Participants wore RF radiation headsets mimicking cellphone radiation exposureFor the
study, the authors randomly assigned 41 participants, whose average age was 29, to be in a high RF radiation exposure group — designed to simulate holding a cellphone using 3G next to their head — or a low RF radiation group, ostensibly designed to mimic other real-world exposures to RF radiation.
Participants wore a headset that emitted either high- or low-level RF radiation on one side of the head for two hours on five consecutive days.
The study authors collected
buccal smear samples to examine the cells inside both cheeks just before and three weeks after the participants wore the RF radiation headsets.
The researchers also asked the participants to use hands-free devices three weeks before, during and three weeks after the intervention, to minimize other possible cellphone RF radiation to the cheek.
The participants recorded in a journal any potential confounding factors such as
gingival bleeding, eating a spicy meal or visiting the dentist during the study timeframe.
The journals showed such confounding factors were very rare or not present.
Through scientific analysis of the buccal samples, the researchers found that the cells from the cheeks of participants in the high RF radiation group showed "a significant increase of binucleated cells" — cells that contain two nuclei — "which are formed as a consequence of disturbed cell divisions, and of karyolitic cells, which are indicative for cell death.""No such effects were seen in cells from the less exposed side," they said.
Their analysis revealed increased
chromatin fragmentation in the cells, which prior research associated with two forms of cell death:
apoptosis and
necrosis.
"Both forms of cell death are preceded by condensation of chromatin," they explained. "Notably in the present study we found also an increase of CC," or condensed chromatin.
Brown said the findings provide "strong evidence that at least some frequencies emitted by the cellular phone passed through the entire thickness of the cheek's soft tissue (typically 1 centimeter in thickness or more) to affect the sampled cells."He added, "A similar depth of penetration and perhaps even greater should therefore be expected in all parts of the body in which a cellphone may make contact."
Many young people use a cellphone for more than 2 hours a dayThe study authors noted that a limitation of their study was that the participants wore the RF radiation headset for only two hours during each exposure session.
Davis pointed this out, too. "The exposure times used in this study appear much less than those reported in surveys of phone use in many sections of the globe and in younger age groups."
"For instance," she said, "Gen Z users report about 6 or more hours daily use of smartphones."U.S. Americans on average spend 3 hours and 39 minutes a day on their smartphones, reported
ExplodingTopics.com on June 4.
It's difficult to accurately determine how many of those hours are spent with the phone held close to the head, Davis said.
Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D., is a reporter and researcher for The Defender based in Fairfield, Iowa.
Reader Comments
But nonetheless, there is much disinformation around about 5G, especially in the so-called "alternative media". While 5G adds a few new bands (frequencies) far above that used by 3G/4G, those are very rarely used yet. Most 5G devices use the same bands/frequencies, just using a different protocol/standard. For those, the effects can be expected to be the same.
" Speed : Each generation represents a significant increase in data transfer rates:
3G: Average data speed 384 kbps to 42 Mbps, Peak download speed 2 Mbps to 42 Mbps
4G: Average data speed 15-100 Mbps, Peak download speed 300 Mbps to 3 Gbps
5G: Average data speed 150-200 Mbps, Peak download speed 10 GbpsTechnology : Each generation introduces new technologies:
3G: UMTS (Universal Mobile Telecommunications System), HSPA (High-Speed Packet Access), and HSPA+
4G: LTE (Long-Term Evolution), LTE-Advanced, and LTE-Advanced Pro
5G: NR (New Radio)
Security :5G networks encrypt user identity and location data, whereas 3G and 4G networks do not. Both 4G and 5G technologies encrypt calls and messages, with the difference being in the encryption protocol.
Accessibility : 5G offers a significant increase in accessibility and internet access, making it possible to connect to the internet from anywhere , unlike 3G and 4G which may have limited coverage.
Data rate is a function of the modulation and transceiver quality. But carrier wave frequencies are mostly identical. Those are in the range of around 800MHz and around 2GHz and 3.5GHz. New for 5G are especially the frequencies of about 28GHz.
I would need to read this study in detail, but I believe it will totally ignore modulation, i.e. the actual signal form and the resulting spectrum. Which makes the results somewhat ... questionable, I would say. Encryption is software functionality (even if implemented with hardware support), and irrelevant for this purpose. And this is advertisement garbage.
The 3G and 4G standards relied on "normal" cell towers, covering a radius of about 300m. Which means, at least all 300m, there is another cell tower a connection is automatically handed over to if you are moving. To cover that range under most scenarios, 3G/4G phones have a 2W maximal transmitter power. Which is quite a lot ...
The 5G standard relies an base stations about all 10m, and has a maximal transmission power of 10mW. By the way, the same as wireless handhelds of landline phones used to have (at least here).
"Modulation" is the combination of a carrier (sine) wave with the desired signal. AM and FM are kinds of modulation still used for terrestrial radio, were the speech/music defines either the altittude or frequency deviation of the resulting signal. Digital methods are somewhat more complex : [Link]
The point is a different one.
We investigate a biological system here, a human body. We would need to know the power and spectral composition (frequencies) impacting the human, and it's distance, orientation and direction.
And not only the body as a whole, but individual components (limbs, vessels, tissue) serve as "antennas" for the signal, responding differently to the various components of the signal spectrum.
A phone imparts a significant electromagnetic signal to a system (a human body) that functions by electromagnetic means itself. Health issues are a logical consequency by necessity ...
In Summary: Modulation in RF Wi-Fi is the process of encoding digital data onto a carrier wave, allowing it to be transmitted wirelessly over radio frequencies. Wi-Fi uses various modulation techniques, including OFDM, QAM, and DSSS, and adapts to changing signal conditions to ensure reliable data transmission.
Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum (DSSS): Used in 802.11b Wi-Fi standard. DSSS spreads the data across a wide bandwidth using a pseudorandom noise (PN) sequence, and then modulates the amplitude and phase of the carrier wave.
The point here is "resonance". An antenna for instance is a resonant device (an "open" RC element), tuned to a specific frequency via its length. It absorbs almost all energy arriving at its frequency.
As body parts are electrically conductive and have certain physical dimension, they serve as antennas for certain frequencies, too. So, certain limbs, tissues or structures will absorb more energy, and be much more affected than others.
And, as I mentioned somewhere some while ago, I believe it is not a coincidence that the 3G ... 5G mobile phone frequencies have corresponding wave lengths approximately equal to the human head.
And we can't rely on "scientists" and studies in this regard, I think. They were never allowed to investigate it in detail, or publish inconvenient results.
We need to rely a bit on common sense, I fear.