“Science” Magazine Gets It Wrong (Tel. celulare)

7/28/2019 Science Magazine Gets It Wrong (Tel. celulare)

1/3

Vol. XXVIII No. 11 A Report on Non-Ionizing Radiation September 3/November 27, 2008

SupportMicrowave News,

the independentsource for news and

opinion on the healtheffects of EMFs andRF radiation

Microwave News is now distributed

free of charge, so we need your

support more than ever. Please send us

what you can. See the form on p.2.

Thank you!

MICROWAVE NEWS ISSN 0275-6595

155 East 77th Street, New York, NY 10075

(212) 517-2800 Fax: (212) 734- 0316

E-mail:

Web: Edi-

tor and Publisher: Louis Slesin, PhD; As-

sistant Editor: Danny Nassre Copyright

2008 by Louis Slesin Reproduction in

any form is forbidden without written per-

mission.

(continued on p.2)

The Web version of this article has use-ful links to people, organizations and pub-lications.

Science Magazine Gets ItWrong On DNA Breaks

September 3 Making sweeping statements about scientific knowledgeis always challenging, especially when writing about an unfamiliar fieldof research. Take, for example, this opening sentence from an article,

Fraud Charges Cast Doubt on Claims of DNA Damage from Cell Phone

Fields by Gretchen Vogel in this weeks Science magazine:

The only two peer-reviewed scientific papers showing that electromag-

netic fields (EMFs) from cell phones can cause DNA breakage are at the

center of a misconduct controversy at the Medical University of Vienna.

Sweeping ... and wrong.Not counting the two papersfrom Hugo Rdigers lab in Vienna,

here are 11 papers that point to changes in DNA breaks following expo-

sures to cell phone radiation:

R.J. Aitken et al., Impact of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radia-tion on DNA Integrity in the Male Germline,International Journal of

Andrology,28, pp.171-179, 2005 (Australia);

W. Baohong et al., Studying the Synergistic Damage Effects Inducedby 1.8GHz Radiofrequency Field Radiation (RFR) with Four ChemicalMutagens on Human Lymphocyte DNA Using Comet Assay in Vitro,

Mutation Research, 578,pp.149-157, 2005 (China);

W. Baohong et al., Evaluating the Combinative Effects on HumanLymphocyte DNA Damage Induced by Ultraviolet Ray C Plus 1.8GHzMicrowaves Using Comet Assay in Vitro, Toxicology, 232, pp.311-316,2007 (China);

G. Gandhi and Anita, Genetic Damage in Mobile Phone Users: SomePreliminary Findings,Indian Journal of Human Genetics, 11, pp.99-104, 2005 (India);

J. Kim et al., In Vitro Assessment of Clastogenicity of Mobile-PhoneRadiation (835MHz) Using the Alkaline Comet Assay and ChromosomalAberration Test,Environmental Toxicology, 23, pp.319-327, 2008 (Ko-rea);

S. Lixia et al., Effects of 1.8GHz Radiofrequency Field on DNA Dam-age and Expression of Heat Shock Protein 70 in Human Lens EpithelialCells,Mutation Research, 602,pp.135-142, 2006 (China);

J. Phillips et al., DNA Damage in Molt-4 T-Lymphoblastoid CellsExposed to Cellular Telephone Radiofrequency Fields in Vitro,
http://www.sciencemag.org/http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18278508,15869902http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18278508,15869902http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15910543http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15910543http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15910543http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15935405http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17336440http://www.ijhg.com/article.asp?issn=0971-6866;year=2005;volume=11;issue=2;spage=99;epage=104;aulast=Gandhi;type=0http://www.ijhg.com/article.asp?issn=0971-6866;year=2005;volume=11;issue=2;spage=99;epage=104;aulast=Gandhi;type=0http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18214898http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17011595http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17011595http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18214898http://www.ijhg.com/article.asp?issn=0971-6866;year=2005;volume=11;issue=2;spage=99;epage=104;aulast=Gandhi;type=0http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17336440http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15935405http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15910543http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15910543http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18278508,15869902http://www.sciencemag.org/


2/3

2 MICROWAVE NEWS September 3/November 27, 2008

Bioelectromagnetics, 24, pp.82-90, 2003 (Israel);

P. Sykes et al., Effect of Exposure to 900MHzRadiofrequency Radiation on Intrachromosomal Recom-bination in pKZ1 Mice,Radiation Research, 156, pp.495-502, 2001 (Australia).

And finally, a number of researchers have documentedDNA changes at other, similar microwave frequencies butwhich are not used in mobile phone networks. For instance:

H. Lai and N.P. Singh, Acute Low-Intensity Micro-wave Exposure Increases DNA Single-Strand Breaks in RatBrain Cells,Bioelectromagnetics, 16, pp.207-210, 1995(U.S.);

H. Lai and N.P. Singh, Single- and Double-Strand DNABreaks in Rat Brain Cells After Acute Exposure toRadiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation,International

Journal of Radiation Biology, 69,pp.513-521, 1996 (U.S.);

R. Paulraj and J. Behari, Single-Strand DNA Breaksin Rat Brain Cells Exposed to Microwave Radiation,Mu-

tation Research, 596, pp.76-80, 2006 (India);

S. Sarkar et al., Effect of Low-Power Microwave onthe Mouse Genome: A Direct DNA Analysis, Mutation

Research, 320, pp.141-147, 1994 (India);

M. Zhang et al., Study of Low-Intensity 2450MHzMicrowave Exposure Enhancing the Genotoxic Effects ofMitomycin C Using Micronucleus Test and Comet Assayin Vitro, Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 15,pp.283-290, 2002 (China);

M. Zhang et al., Effects of 2450MHz Microwave onDNA Damage Induced by Three Chemical Mutagens in

Vitro, Chinese Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Occu-pational Diseases, 21, pp.266-269, 2003 (China, in Chi-nese).

Sources tell us that there are more papers now in thepublication pipeline.

None of this should be interpreted as indicating that

Bioelectrochemistry and Bioenergetics, 45, pp.103-110,1998 (U.S.);

T. Nikolova et al., Electromagnetic Fields Affect Tran-script Levels of Apoptosis-Related Genes in EmbryonicStem Cell-Derived Neural Progenitor Cells, The FASEB

Journal,156, pp.495-502, 2001 (Germany);

K. Yao et al., Effect of Superposed ElectromagneticNoise on DNA Damage of Lens Epithelial Cells Inducedby Microwave Radiation,Investigative Ophthalmology& Visual Science, 49, pp.2009-2015, 2008 (China);

K. Yao et al., Electromagnetic Noise Inhibits Radio-frequency Radiation-Induced DNA Damage and ReactiveOxygen Species Increase in Human Lens Epithelial Cells,

Molecular Vision, 14,pp.964-969, 2008 (China);

D. Zhang et al., Effects of GSM 1800 MHzRadiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields on DNA Damagein Chinese Hamster Lung Cells, Chinese Journal of Pre-ventive Medicine,40, pp.149-152, 2006 (China, in Chi-

nese).

Some of these experiments investigated the effects ofcell phone radiation alone while others looked at synergis-tic action with other agents. Some found large effects, whileothers saw small ones. Most found increased DNA breaks,while Jerry Phillips measured both increases and decreases.Nevertheless, they all reported DNA changes with cellphone radiation.

In addition, others have shown chromosomal changesfollowing exposure to cell phone radiation. For instance:

L. Manti et al., Effects of Modulated Microwave Ra-diation at Cellular Telephone Frequency (1.95GHz) on X-Ray-Induced Chromosome Aberrations in Human Lym-phocytes in Vitro,Radiation Research, 169,pp.575-583,2008 (Italy);

M. Mashevich et al., Exposure of Human PeripheralBlood Lymphocytes to Electromagnetic Fields Associatedwith Cellular Phones Leads to Chromosomal Instability,

Enclosed is my contribution of

$25.00 $50.00 $100.00 $250.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 Other $ ___

Suggested Contributions: Individuals $50$100; Corporations and Institutions $250$500.

Microwave News, 155 East 77th Street, Suite 3D, New York, NY 10075, USA

: +1 (212) 517- 2800, Fax: +1 (212) 734- 0316; E-mail:

Please Help Keep Microwave News On the Web

We now accept contributions through credit cards and PayPal on our web site.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/102523679/abstracthttp://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/102523679/abstracthttp://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1667%2F0033-7587(2001)156[0495%3AEOETMR]2.0.CO%3B2http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1667%2F0033-7587(2001)156[0495%3AEOETMR]2.0.CO%3B2http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112129973/abstracthttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8627134http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8627134http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16458332http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16458332http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16458332http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7506381http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7506381http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12642984http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14761437http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14761437http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14761437http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TF7-3V572NV-D&_user=10&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F1998&_rdoc=12&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info(%23toc%235219%231998%23999549998%2331112%23FLA%23display%23Volume)&_cdi=5219&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_ct=16&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b5baa68022d5123c5ba4e8efed5113bfhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TF7-3V572NV-D&_user=10&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F1998&_rdoc=12&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info(%23toc%235219%231998%23999549998%2331112%23FLA%23display%23Volume)&_cdi=5219&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_ct=16&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b5baa68022d5123c5ba4e8efed5113bfhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16116041http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16116041http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18436834http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18436834http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18509546http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16836873http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16836873http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16836873http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1667%2FRR1044.1http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1667%2FRR1044.1http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16836873http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16836873http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18509546http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18436834http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18436834http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16116041http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16116041http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TF7-3V572NV-D&_user=10&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F1998&_rdoc=12&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info(%23toc%235219%231998%23999549998%2331112%23FLA%23display%23Volume)&_cdi=5219&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_ct=16&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b5baa68022d5123c5ba4e8efed5113bfhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14761437http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14761437http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12642984http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7506381http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7506381http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16458332http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16458332http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8627134http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8627134http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112129973/abstracthttp://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1667%2F0033-7587(2001)156[0495%3AEOETMR]2.0.CO%3B2http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/102523679/abstract


3/3

3MICROWAVE NEWS September 3/November 27, 2008

the cell phoneDNA issue is closed. Others have failed tosee such genetic effects and the jury is still out. But, clearly,to state that only two papers have shown DNA breaks isgrossly misleadingno, simply wrong.

We have been closely following the University of

November 27Sciencehas conceded the error: More thanone lab has in fact shown that cell phone radiation can causeDNA breaks.

Back in August, reporter Gretchen Vogel claimed thatHugo Rdiger at the University of Vienna medical schoolwas the only one. Now, Vogel allows that a team fromZhejiang University in Hangzhou, China, had observed

DNA breaks in cells exposed to GSM radiation (see Yao etal.,Molecular Vision, in our list on p.2).

In a letter published in the magazines November 28issue, Vini Khurana, a neurosurgeon in Canberra, Austra-lia, advises that, [T]here are many other peer-reviewedpapers from laboratories in at least seven countries, includ-ing the United States, showing that cell phone or similarlow-intensity EMFs can break DNA or modulate it struc-turally. (Others have submitted similar complaints to themagazines editors.)

Vienna story for some months. The Science story revealsbut a glimpse of some of the maneuvering going on behindthe scenes; in this case, manipulating the media to influ-ence public opinion. At the moment, we are still trying tosort out who is doing what.

Science Concedes Error on DNA Breaks

In her response, Vogel writes, My intention was notto imply that there were only two papers showing any ef-fects of EMFs. There are many publications that show ef-fects of EMFs on DNA, but the citations listed [by Khurana]

do not directly contradict the quoted sentence. That sen-tence which leads her August 29 article begins: The onlytwo peer-reviewed scientific papers showing that [EMFs]

from cell phones can cause DNA breakage...In an exchange withMicrowave News, Vogel drew a

sharp distinction between DNA damage and breakage,which, she said, allowed her to exclude many other papers,particularly the one by John Aitken.

Khurana made international headlines earlier this year

when he predicted that cell phone radiation would turn outto be a worse public-health disaster than either smoking orasbestos (see our April 10, 2008 post).
http://www.sciencemag.org/magazine.dtlhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18509546http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15910543http://www.microwavenews.com/nc_marapr2008.htmlhttp://www.microwavenews.com/nc_marapr2008.htmlhttp://www.microwavenews.com/nc_marapr2008.htmlhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15910543http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18509546http://www.sciencemag.org/magazine.dtl

Documents

“Science” Magazine Gets It Wrong (Tel. celulare)