A meta-analysis of in vitro exposures to weak radiofrequency radiation exposure from mobile phones (1990-2015)
A meta-analysis of in vitro exposures to weak radiofrequency radiation exposure from mobile phones (1990-2015)
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.envres.2020.109227
复制
发表时间：
2020-05-01
影响因子：
8.3
通讯作者：
Davis, Devra
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Halgamuge, Malka N.;Skafidas, Efstratios;Davis, Devra
为了发挥作用，移动电话系统需要发射机在一个广泛的地理区域内发射和接收射频信号，使处于子宫内、幼儿、青少年和成人等所有发育阶段的人都能接触到这些信号。本研究在体外研究中评估射频辐射对生物体的影响问题。在这项研究中，我们从300篇同行评审的科学出版物（1990-2015）中提取数据，这些出版物描述了基于细胞的体外模型的1127个实验观察结果。我们对这些数据的首次分析发现，在746个人类细胞实验中，45.3%表明细胞发生了变化，而54.7%表明没有变化（p = 0.001）。意识到细胞类型之间在年龄、增殖和凋亡率以及其他特征方面存在着深刻的差异，并且射频信号可以在极性、信息含量、频率、比吸收率（SAR）和功率方面进行表征，我们进一步完善了我们的分析，以确定是否存在与这些特定特征相关的阴性和阳性结果的一些明显特性。我们进一步分析了数据，考虑了累积效应（SAR x暴露时间），得到了实验由于射频暴露而累积吸收的能量，我们认为这一点在之前没有得到充分的考虑。当考虑信号频率、暴露长度和类型、成熟度、生长速率（倍增时间）、凋亡和单个细胞类型的其他特性时，我们的研究结果确定了射频场的一些潜在非热效应，这些效应仅限于特定的快速生长的低分化细胞类型，如人类精子（基于19个报告的实验，p值= 0.002）和人类上皮细胞（基于89个报告的实验）。p值< 0.0001)。相比之下，对于成熟的、分化的胶质细胞（p = 0.001）、胶质母细胞瘤（p < 0.0001）和成人血液淋巴细胞（p < 0.0001），这些繁殖较慢的细胞系没有统计学上的显著差异。因此，我们发现射频诱导了人类细胞（45.3%）和快速生长的大鼠/小鼠细胞数据集（47.3%）的显著变化。与此同时，对其他物种（鸡、兔、猪、青蛙、蜗牛）生长较快的细胞的进一步分析表明，暴露于射频后，大多数细胞发生了显著变化（74.4%）。这项研究证实了REFLEX项目、Belyaev和其他人的观察结果，即细胞反应随信号特性而变化。我们同意，细胞类型的分化因此构成了一个关键的信息，应该是有用的参考，许多研究人员计划进一步的研究。赞助偏见也是我们在分析中没有考虑到的一个因素。
To function, mobile phone systems require transmitters that emit and receive radiofrequency signals over an extended geographical area exposing humans in all stages of development ranging from in-utero, early childhood, adolescents and adults. This study evaluates the question of the impact of radiofrequency radiation on living organisms in vitro studies. In this study, we abstract data from 300 peer-reviewed scientific publications (1990-2015) describing 1127 experimental observations in cell-based in vitro models. Our first analysis of these data found that out of 746 human cell experiments, 45.3% indicated cell changes, whereas 54.7% indicated no changes (p = 0.001). Realizing that there are profound distinctions between cell types in terms of age, rate of proliferation and apoptosis, and other characteristics and that RF signals can be characterized in terms of polarity, information content, frequency, Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) and power, we further refined our analysis to determine if there were some distinct properties of negative and positive findings associated with these specific characteristics. We further analyzed the data taking into account the cumulative effect (SAR x exposure time) to acquire the cumulative energy absorption of experiments due to radiofrequency exposure, which we believe, has not been fully considered previously. When the frequency of signals, length and type of exposure, and maturity, rate of growth (doubling time), apoptosis and other properties of individual cell types are considered, our results identify a number of potential non-thermal effects of radiofrequency fields that are restricted to a subset of specific faster-growing less differentiated cell types such as human spermatozoa (based on 19 reported experiments, p-value = 0.002) and human epithelial cells (based on 89 reported experiments, p-value < 0.0001). In contrast, for mature, differentiated adult cells of Glia (p = 0.001) and Glioblastoma (p < 0.0001) and adult human blood lymphocytes (p < 0.0001) there are no statistically significant differences for these more slowly reproducing cell lines. Thus, we show that RF induces significant changes in human cells (45.3%), and in faster-growing rat/mouse cell dataset (47.3%). In parallel with this finding, further analysis of faster-growing cells from other species (chicken, rabbit, pig, frog, snail) indicates that most undergo significant changes (74.4%) when exposed to RF. This study confirms observations from the REFLEX project, Belyaev and others that cellular response varies with signal properties. We concur that differentiation of cell type thus constitutes a critical piece of information and should be useful as a reference for many researchers planning additional studies. Sponsorship bias is also a factor that we did not take into account in this analysis.