EFFECTS OF 2.4 GHz RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION EMITTED FROM WI-FI EQUIPMENT ON microRNA EXPRESSION IN BRAIN TISSUE.
The results revealed that long term exposure of 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi radiation can alter expression of some of the miRNAs such as miR-106b-5p (adjP* = 0,010) and miR-107 (adjP* = 0,005). We observed that mir 107 expression is 3.3 times and miR-106b-5p expression is 3.65 times lower in the exposure group than in the control group. However, miR-9-5p, miR-29a-3p and miR-125a-3p levels in brain were not altered.
Long term exposure of 2.4 GHz RF may lead to adverse effects such as neurodegenerative diseases originated from the alteration of some miRNAs expression and more studies should be devoted to the effects of RF radiation on miRNAs expression levels.
34 Studies on Wi-Fi Radiation
1. Atasoy H.I. et al., 2013. Immunohistopathologic demonstration of deleterious effects on growing rat testes of radiofrequency waves emitted from conventional Wi-Fi devices. Journal of Pediatric Urology 9(2): 223-229. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22465825
2. Avendaño C. et al., 2012. Use of laptop computers connected to internet through Wi-Fi decreases human sperm motility and increases sperm DNA fragmentation. Fertility and Sterility 97(1): 39-45. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22112647
3. Avendaño C. et al., 2010. Laptop expositions affect motility and induce DNA fragmentation in human spermatozoa in vitro by a non-thermal effect: a preliminary report. American Society for Reproductive Medicine 66th Annual Meeting: O-249http://wifiinschools.org.uk/resources/laptops+and+sperm.pdf)
4. Aynali G. et al., 2013. Modulation of wireless (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative toxicity in laryngotracheal mucosa of rat by melatonin. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 270(5): 1695-1700.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23479077
5. Gumral N. et al., 2009. Effects of selenium and L-carnitine on oxidative stress in blood of rat induced by 2.45-GHz radiation from wireless devices. Biol Trace Elem Res. 132(1-3): 153-163.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19396408
6. Havas M. et al., 2010. Provocation study using heart rate variability shows microwave radiation from 2.4GHz cordless phone affects autonomic nervous system. European Journal of Oncology Library Vol. 5: 273-300. http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm?f=/c/a/2009/12/15/MNHJ1B49KH.DTL part 2.
7. Havas M. and Marrongelle J. 2013. Replication of heart rate variability provocation study with 2.45GHz cordless phone confirms original findings. Electromagn Biol Med 32(2): 253-266.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23675629
8. Maganioti A. E. et al., 2010. Wi-Fi electromagnetic fields exert gender related alterations on EEG. 6th International Workshop on Biological Effects of Electromagnetic fields.http://www.istanbul.edu.tr/6internatwshopbioeffemf/cd/pdf/poster/WI-FI%20ELECTROMAGNETIC%20FIELDS%20EXERT%20GENDER.pdf
9. Margaritis L.H. et al., 2013. Drosophila oogenesis as a bio-marker responding to EMF sources. Electromagn Biol Med., Epub ahead of print. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23915130
10. Naziro?lu M. and Gumral 2009. Modulator effects of L-carnitine and selenium on wireless devices (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative stress and electroencephalography records in brain of rat. Int J Radiat Biol. 85(8): 680-689. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19637079
11. Naz?ro?lu M. et al., 2012. 2.45-Gz wireless devices induce oxidative stress and proliferation through cytosolic Ca2+ influx in human leukemia cancer cells. International Journal of Radiation Biology 88(6): 449–456. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22489926
12. Naz?ro?lu M. et al., 2012b. Melatonin modulates wireless (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative injury through TRPM2 and voltage gated Ca(2+) channels in brain and dorsal root ganglion in rat. Physiol Behav. 105(3): 683-92. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22019785
13. Oksay T. et al., 2012. Protective effects of melatonin against oxidative injury in rat testis induced by wireless (2.45 GHz) devices. Andrologia doi: 10.1111/and.12044, Epub ahead of print.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23145464
14. Papageorgiou C. C. et al., 2011. Effects of Wi-Fi signals on the p300 component of event-related potentials during an auditory hayling task. Journal of Integrative Neuroscience 10(2): 189-202. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21714138
(Wi-Fi alters brain activity in young adults:http://wifiinschools.org.uk/resources/wifi+brain+July+2011.pdf)
15. Shahin S. et al., 2013. 2.45 GHz Microwave Irradiation-Induced Oxidative Stress Affects Implantation or Pregnancy in Mice, Mus musculus. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 169: 1727–1751.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23334843
16. Türker Y. et al., 2011. Selenium and L-carnitine reduce oxidative stress in the heart of rat induced by 2.45-GHz radiation from wireless devices. Biol Trace Elem Res. 143(3): 1640-1650.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21360060
And here are a few more studies of similar microwave frequencies at low exposures (6V/m or below) (this is not comprehensive):
17. Balmori A. 2010. Mobile phone mast effects on common frog (Rana temporaria) tadpoles: the city turned into a laboratory. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 29(1-2):31-35.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20560769
18. Erdinc O. O. et al., 2003. Electromagnetic waves of 900MHz in acute pentylenetetrazole model in ontogenesis in mice. Neurol. Sci. 24:111-116 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14600821
19. Fesenko E. E. et al., 1999. Stimulation of murine natural killer cells by weak electromagnetic waves in the centimeter range. Biofizika 44:737–741http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10544828
20. Fesenko E. E. et al., 1999. Microwaves and cellular immunity. I. Effect of whole body microwave irradiation on tumor necrosis factor production in mouse cells, Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg. 49:29–35 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10619445
21. Havas M. et al., 2010. Provocation study using heart rate variability shows microwave radiation from 2.4GHz cordless phone affects autonomic nervous system. European Journal of Oncology Library Vol. 5: 273-300 http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm?f=/c/a/2009/12/15/MNHJ1B49KH.DTLpart 2.
22. Kesari K. K. and Behari J., 2009. Microwave exposure affecting reproductive system in male rats. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 162(2):416-428 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19768389
23. Kesari K. K. and Behari J., 2009. Fifty-gigahertz microwave exposure effect of radiations on rat brain. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 158:126-139 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19089649
24. Khurana V. G. et al., 2010. Epidemiological Evidence for a Health Risk from Mobile Phone Base Stations. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health 16:263–267http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20662418
25. Maier R. et al., 2004. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on cognitive processes – a pilot study on pulsed field interference with cognitive regeneration. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica 110: 46-52 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15180806
26. Nittby H. et al., 2008. Cognitive impairment in rats after long-term exposure to GSM-900 mobile phone radiation. Bioelectromagnetics 29: 219-232http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18044737
27. Novoselova E. G. et al., 1998. Stimulation of production of tumor necrosis factor by murine macrophages when exposed in vivo and in vitro to weak electromagnetic waves in the centimeter range Bofizika 43:1132–1333.
28. Novoselova E. G. et al., 1999. Microwaves and cellular immunity. II. Immunostimulating effects of microwaves and naturally occurring antioxidant nutrients. Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg. 49:37–41http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10619446
29. Otitoloju A. A. et al., 2010. Preliminary study on the induction of sperm head abnormalities in mice, Mus musculus, exposed to radiofrequency radiations from Global System for Mobile Communication Base Stations. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 84(1):51-4.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19816647
30. Panagopoulos D. J.et al., 2010. Bioeffects of mobile telephony radiation in relation to its intensity or distance from the antenna. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. Vol 86(5):345-357.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20397839
31. Persson B. R. R. et al., 1997. Blood-brain barrier permeability in rats exposed to electromagnetic fields used in wireless communication. Wireless Networks 3: 455-461.
32. Pyrpasopoulou A. et al., 2004. Bone morphogenic protein expression in newborn kidneys after prenatal exposure to radiofrequency radiation. Bioelectromagnetics 25:216-27http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15042631
33. Salford L. G. et al., 2010. Effects of microwave radiation upon the mammalian blood-brain barrier. European Journal of Oncology Library Vol. 5:333-355 http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm?f=/c/a/2009/12/15/MNHJ1B49KH.DTL part 2.
34. Salford L. G., et al., 2003. Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones. Environ. Health Perspect. 111:881-883.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12782486
Study Suggests Wi-Fi Exposure More Dangerous To Kids Than Previously Thought
Most parents would be concerned if their children had significant exposure to lead, chloroform, gasoline fumes, or the pesticide DDT. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IRIC), part of the United Nations’ World Health Organization (WHO), classifies these and more than 250 other agents as Class 2B Carcinogens – possibly carcinogenic to humans. Another entry on that same list is radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF/EMF). The main sources of RF/EMF are radios, televisions, microwave ovens, cell phones, and Wi-Fi devices.
Uh-oh. Not another diatribe about the dangers of our modern communication systems? Obviously, these devices and the resulting fields are extremely (and increasingly) common in modern society. Even if we want to, we can’t eliminate our exposure, or our children’s, to RF/EMF. But, we may need to limit that exposure, when possible.
That was among the conclusions of a survey article published in the Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure entitled “Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The consequences.” From an analysis of others studies, the authors argue that children and adolescents are at considerable risk from devices that radiate microwaves (and that adults are at a lower, but still significant, risk). The following points were offered for consideration:
- Children absorb a greater amount of microwave radiation than adults.
- Fetuses are even more vulnerable than children. Therefore pregnant women should avoid exposing their fetus to microwave radiation.
- Adolescent girls and women should not place cellphones in their bras or in hijabs (headscarf).
- Cellphone manual warnings make clear an overexposure problem exists.
- Government warnings have been issued but most of the public are unaware of such warnings.
- Current exposure limits are inadequate and should be revised.
- Wireless devices are radio transmitters, not toys. Selling toys that use them should be monitored more closely.
Children and fetuses absorb more microwave radiation, according to the authors, because their bodies are relatively smaller, their skulls are thinner, and their brain tissue is more absorbent.
Do the benefits of immersive learning applications outweigh the dangers of increased cellular and Wi-Fi exposure for children?
More generally, the studies cited in the paper seek to link RF/EMF exposure to different types of cancer, low sperm count, and other disorders. However, it is important to note that survey articles such as these need to be taken in their proper context. This particular article is one group’s perspective. It was published in a relatively new and minor journal with limited data sets. They also note that the average time between exposure to a carcinogen and a resultant tumor is three or more decades, thus making it difficult to arrive at definitive conclusions.
This is not a call to throw out all electronic devices. However, at the very least, it should open up the discussion about different safety levels for adults versus children. Hopefully more longitudinal studies will be done to verify or contradict the assumptions so far. In the meantime, are the government’s current regulations adequate? The exposure levels they warn against haven’t seem to have been updated for more than 19 years.
In a Network World opinion article ominously titled “Is Wi-Fi killing us…slowly?” columnist Mark Gibbs makes the point that “… laws and warnings are all very well but it’s pretty much certain that all restrictions on products that use microwave technology will err on the safe side; that is, the side that’s safe for industry, not the side of what’s safe for society.” Gibbs then added this ominous closing question, “Will we look back (sadly) in fifty or a hundred years and marvel at how Wi-Fi and cellphones were responsible for the biggest health crisis in human history?”
But, short of that worst-case scenario, the topic certainly merits more scrutiny, and perhaps some common sense limits on what devices our children use, and for how long.
Wi-Fi Makes Trees Sick, Study Says
Plants won’t grow near Wi-Fi routers, experiment finds
Friday, December 13, 2013 by: Michael Ravensthorpe
(NaturalNews) It’s not difficult to understand the appeal of Wi-Fi. This revolutionary technology, which has been commercially available since 1999, eliminates cabling and wiring for computers, reduces cellular usage charges and allows us to connect to the Internet from anywhere with a signal. Despite these benefits, however, studies continue to show that the radiation generated by wireless routers is negatively affecting our health. In fact, the British activist website Stop Smart Meters recently published a list of 34 scientific studies demonstrating the adverse biological effects of Wi-Fi exposure, including studies linking it to headaches, reduced sperm count and oxidative stress.
The latest research into the dangers of Wi-Fi, though, comes from a surprisingly humble source: Five ninth grade female students from Denmark, whose science experiment revealed that wireless radiation is equally as devastating to plants.
The experiment began when the five students realized that they had difficulty concentrating in school if they slept near their mobile phones the previous night. Intrigued by this phenomenon, the students endeavored to study the effects of cellphone radiation on humans. Unfortunately, their school prevented them from pursuing this experiment due to a lack of resources, so the students decided to test the effects of Wi-Fi radiation (comparable in strength to cellphone radiation) on a plant instead.
The girls placed six trays of Lepidium sativum seeds (a garden cress grown commercially throughout Europe) in a room without radiation, and an equal amount in a room next to two Wi-Fi routers. Over a 12-day period, they observed, measured, weighed and photographed the results. Even before the 12th day arrived, however, the end results were obvious: The cress seeds placed near the routers either hadn’t grown or were completely dead, while the seeds placed in the radiation-free room had blossomed into healthy plants.
The experiment earned the five students top honors in a regional science competition. Moreover, according to a teacher at their school, Kim Horsevad, a professor of neuroscience at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden was so impressed with the experiment that he is interested in repeating it in a controlled scientific environment.
You can help reduce your exposure to Wi-Fi radiation by following the advice in this article.
Sources for this article include:
About the author:
Michael Ravensthorpe is an independent writer whose research interests include nutrition, alternative medicine, and bushcraft. He is the creator of the website, Spiritfoods, through which he promotes the world’s healthiest foods.
Radiation from WiFi connections can reduce sperm activity in up to a quarter of men, study finds
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
UPDATED: 09:50 GMT, 1 December 2011
Working on a laptop wirelessly may hamper a man’s chances of fatherhood.
In a study, sperm placed under a laptop connected to the internet through wi-fi suffered more damage than that kept at the same temperature but away from the wireless signal.
The finding is important because previous worries about laptops causing infertility have focused on the heat generated by the machines.
Radiation: It may be convenient, but using a laptop on your lap could be harming your sperm, say researchers (file picture)
In the latest study, researchers took sperm from 29 men aged 26 to 45 and placed them either under a wi-fi connected laptop or away from the computer.
The laptop then uploaded and downloaded information from the internet for four hours.
At the end of the experiment, 25 per cent of the sperm under the laptop had stopped moving and 9 per cent showed DNA damage.
By comparison, just 14 per cent of samples kept away from the wi-fi stopped moving. And just 3 per cent suffered DNA damage, the journal Fertility and Sterility reports.
The wireless connection creates electromagnetic radiation that damages semen, the scientists, from the United States and Argentina, believe.
Lead researcher Conrado Avendano, of Nascentis Medicina Reproductiva in Cordoba, said: ‘Our data suggest that the use of a laptop computer wirelessly connected to the internet and positioned near the male reproductive organs may decrease human sperm quality.
‘At present we do not know whether this effect is induced by all laptop computers connected by WiFi to the internet or what use conditions heighten this effect.’
A separate test with a laptop that was on, but not wirelessly connected, found negligible EM radiation from the machine alone.
The findings fuel concerns raised by a few other research teams.
Some have found that radiation from mobile phones creates feeble sperm in the lab, for example.
And last year urologists described how a man sitting with a laptop balanced on his knees can crank up the temperature of his scrotum to levels that aren’t good for sperm.
So between the heat and the radiation from today’s electronic devices, testicles would seem to be hard-pressed.
Concern: A quarter of sperm exposed to WiFi radiation in the study were no longer swimming around after four hours
However, Dr Robert Oates, the president of the Society for Male Reproduction and Urology, has managed to father two kids despite having both a laptop and an iPad.
He told Reuters Health he doesn’t believe laptops are a significant threat to male reproductive health.
Remarking on the new study, he said: ‘This is not real-life biology, this is a completely artificial setting.
‘It is scientifically interesting, but to me it doesn’t have any human biological relevance.’
He added that so far, no study has ever looked at whether laptop use has any influence on fertility or pregnancy outcomes.
‘Suddenly all of this angst is created for real-life actual persons that doesn’t have to be,’ said Oates, also of Boston Medical Center.
He added: ‘I don’t know how many people use laptops on their laps anyway.’
According to the American Urological Association, nearly one in six couples in the U.S. have trouble conceiving a baby, and about half the time the man is at the root of the problem.
While the impact of modern technology is still murky, lifestyle does matter, researchers say.
Earlier this month, a report in Fertility And Sterility showed that men who eat a diet rich in fruit and grains and low in red meat, alcohol and coffee have a better shot at getting their partner pregnant during fertility treatment.