The need for consensus guidelines to address the mixed legacy of genetic damage assessments for radiofrequency fields

References

• Alam MT, Barthakur N, Lambert NG, Kasatiya SS. 1978. Cytological effects of microwave radiation in Chinese hamster cells in vitro. Can J Genet Cytol. 20(1):23–30.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bodewein L, Schmiedchen K, Dechent D, Stunder D, Graefrath D, Winter L, Kraus T, Driessen S. 2019. Systematic review on the biological effects of electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields in the intermediate frequency range (300 Hz to 1 MHz). Environ Res. 171:247–259.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bright J, Aylott M, Bate S, Geys H, Jarvis P, Saul J, Vonk R. 2011. Recommendations on the statistical analysis of the comet assay. Pharm Stat. 10(6):485–493.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brusick D, Albertini R, McRee D, Peterson D, Williams G, Hanawalt P, Preston, J, DNA/Genetox Expert Panel. 1998. Genotoxicity of radiofrequency radiation. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 32(1):1–16.,
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaturvedi CM, Singh VP, Singh P, Basu P, Singaravel M, Shukla RK, Dhawan A, Pati AK, Gangwar RK, Singh SP. 2011. 2.45 GHz (CW) microwave irradiation alters circadian organization, spatial memory, DNA structure in the brain cells and blood cell counts of male mice, Mus musculus. Progr Electromagn Res B (PIER B). 29:23–42.
   Google Scholar
• Chen KM, Samuel A, Hoopingarner R. 1974. Chromosomal aberrations of living cells induced by microwave radiation. Environ Lett. 6(1):37–46.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins AR, El Yamani N, Lorenzo Y, Shaposhnikov S, Brunborg G, Azqueta A. 2014. Controlling variation in the comet assay. Front Genet. 5:359.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cordelli E, Bignami M, Pacchierotti F. 2021. Comet assay: a versatile but complex tool in genotoxicity testing. Toxicol Res (Camb). 10(1):68–78.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dasdag S, Akdag MZ. 2016. The link between radiofrequencies emitted from wireless technologies and oxidative stress. J Chem Neuroanat. 75:85–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deshmukh PS, Megha K, Banerjee BD, Ahmed RS, Chandna S, Abegaonkar MP, Tripathi AK. 2013. Detection of low level microwave radiation induced deoxyribonucleic acid damage vis-a-vis genotoxicity in brain of Fischer rats. Toxicol Int. 20(1):19–24.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Deshmukh PS, Nasare N, Megha K, Banerjee BD, Ahmed RS, Singh D, Abegaonkar MP, Tripathi AK, Mediratta PK. 2015. Cognitive impairment and neurogenotoxic effects in rats exposed to low-intensity microwave radiation. Int J Toxicol. 34(3):284–290.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deshmukh PS, Megha K, Nasare N, Banerjee BD, Ahmed RS, Abegaonkar MP, Tripathi AK, Mediratta PK. 2016. Effect of low level subchronic microwave radiation on rat brain. Biomed Environ Sci. 29(12):858–867.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dickson D. 1987. OECD to Set Rules for International Science: research ministers have agreed to seek guidelines governing all aspects of international relations in science; Reagan Administration also wants tighter international copyrights. Science. 238(4828):743–743.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Diem E, Schwarz C, Adlkofer F, Jahn O, Rüdiger H. 2005. Non-thermal DNA breakage by mobile-phone radiation (1800 MHz) in human fibroblasts and in transformed GFSH-R17 rat granulosa cells in vitro. Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutag. 583(2):178–183.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fang L, Neutzner A, Turtschi S, Flammer J, Mozaffarieh M. 2015. Comet assay as an indirect measure of systemic oxidative stress. J Vis Exp. (99):e52763.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foster KR, Vijayalaxmi.   2021. Needed: more reliable bioeffects studies at “High Band” 5G frequencies. Front Comms Net. 2:721925.
   Google Scholar
• Franchini V, Regalbuto E, D, Amicis A, D, Sanctis S, D, Cristofaro S, Coluzzi E, Marinaccio J, Sgura A, Ceccuzzi S, Doria, et al. 2018. Genotoxic effects in human fibroblasts exposed to microwave radiation. Health Phys. 115(1):126–139.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franzellitti S, Valbonesi P, Ciancaglini N, Biondi C, Contin A, Bersani F, Fabbri E. 2010. Transient DNA damage induced by high-frequency electromagnetic fields (GSM 1.8GHz) in the human trophoblast HTR-8/SVneo cell line evaluated with the alkaline comet assay. Mutat Res Fundamental Mol Mechanism Mutagenesis. 683(1–2):35–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herrala M, Mustafa E, Naarala J, Juutilainen J. 2018. Assessment of genotoxicity and genomic instability in rat primary astrocytes exposed to 872 MHz radiofrequency radiation and chemicals. Int J Radiat Biol. 94(10):883–889.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jagetia GC. 2022. Genotoxic effects of electromagnetic field radiations from mobile phones. Environ Res. 212(Pt D):113321.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kumar G, Wood AW, Anderson V, McIntosh RL, Chen YY, McKenzie RJ. 2011. Evaluation of hematopoietic system effects after in vitro radiofrequency radiation exposure in rats. Int J Radiat Biol. 87(2):231–240.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar G, McIntosh RL, Anderson V, McKenzie RJ, Wood AW. 2015. A genotoxic analysis of the hematopoietic system after mobile phone type radiation exposure in rats. Int J Radiat Biol. 91(8):664–672.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar S, Behari J, Sisodia R. 2013. Influence of electromagnetic fields on reproductive system of male rats. Int J Radiat Biol. 89(3):147–154.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lagroye I, Anane R, Wettring BA, Moros EG, Straube WL, LaRegina MC, Niehoff M, Pickard WF, Baty J, Roti Roti JL. 2004. Measurement of DNA damage after acute exposure to pulsed-wave 2450 MHz microwaves in rat brain cells by two alkaline comet assay methods. Int J Radiat Biol. 80(1):11–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lai H, Singh NP. 1995. Acute low-intensity microwave exposure increases DNA single-strand breaks in rat brain cells. Bioelectromagnetics. 16(3):207–210.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lai H, Singh NP. 1996. Single- and double-strand DNA breaks in rat brain cells after acute exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation. Inter J Rad Biol. 69(4):513–521.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lai H. 2021. Genetic effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. Electromagn Biol Med. 40(2):264–273.
   Google Scholar
• Lerchl A, Wilhelm AF. 2010. Critical comments on DNA breakage by mobile-phone electromagnetic fields [Diem et al., Mutat. Res. 583 (2005) 178-183]. Mutat Res. 697(1-2):60–65.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li L, Bisht KS, Lagroye I, Zhang P, Straube WL, Moros EG, Roti Roti JL. 2001. Measurement of DNA damage in mammalian cells exposed in vitro to radiofrequency fields at SARs of 3–5 W/kg. Radiat Res. 156(3):328–332.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lovell DP, Omori T. 2008. Statistical issues in the use of the comet assay. Mutagenesis. 23(3):171–182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malyapa RS, Ahern EW, Bi C, Straube WL, LaRegina MC, Pickard WF, Roti Roti JL. 1998. DNA damage in rat brain cells after in vivo exposure to 2450 MHz electromagnetic radiation and various methods of euthanasia. Radiat Res. 143(6):637–645.
   Google Scholar
• Malyapa RS, Ahern EW, Straube WL, Moros EG, Pickard WF, Roti Roti JL. 1997a. Measurement of DNA damage after exposure to 2450 MHz electromagnetic radiation. Radiat Res. 148(6):608–617.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malyapa RS, Ahern EW, Straube WL, Moros EG, Pickard WF, Roti Roti JL. 1997b. Measurement of DNA damage after exposure to electromagnetic radiation in the cellular phone communication frequency band (835.62 and 847.74 MHz). Radiat Res. 148(6):618–627.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malyapa RS, Ahern EW, Bi C, Straube WL, LaRegina MC, Pickard WF, Roti Roti JL. 1998. DNA damage in rat brain cells after in vivo exposure to 2450 MHz electromagnetic radiation and various methods of euthanasia. Radiat Res. 149(6):637–645.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCredden J, Weller S, Leach,  Victor A. 2023. The assumption of safety is being used to justify the rollout of 5G technologies. Front Public Health. 11:34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamee JP, Bellier PV, Gajda GB, Miller SM, Lemay EP, Lavallee BF, Marro L, Thansandote A. 2002. DNA damage and micronucleus induction in human leukocytes after acute in vitro exposure to a 1.9 GHz continuous-wave radiofrequency field. Radiat Res. 158(4):523–533.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamee JP, Bellier PV, Gajda GB, Lavallee BF, Marro L, Lemay E, Thansandote A. 2003. No evidence for genotoxic effects from 24 h exposure of human leukocytes to 1.9 GHz radiofrequency fields. Radiat Res. 159(5):693–697.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Megha K, Deshmukh PS, Banerjee BD, Tripathi AK, Ahmed R, Abegaonkar MP. 2015. Low intensity microwave radiation induced oxidative stress, inflammatory response and DNA damage in rat brain. Neurotoxicology. 51:158–165.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miyakoshi J, Yoshida M, Tarusawa Y, Nojima T, Wake K, Taki M. 2002. Effects of high‐frequency electromagnetic fields on DNA strand breaks using comet assay method. Electr Eng Jpn. 141(4):9–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF, Quorom G. 1999. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. The Lancet. 354(9193):1896–1900.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group * P. 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 151(4):264–269.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan RL, Beverly B, Ghersi D, Schünemann HJ, Rooney AA, Whaley P, Zhu Y-G, Thayer KA. 2019. GRADE guidelines for environmental and occupational health: a new series of articles in Environment International. Environ Int. 128:11–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olive PL, Banáth JP. 2006. The comet assay: a method to measure DNA damage in individual cells. Nat Protoc. 1(1):23–29.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paulraj R, Behari J. 2006. Single strand DNA breaks in rat brain cells exposed to microwave radiation. Mutat Res Fundamental Mol Mechanism Mutagenesis. 596(1-2):76–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romeo S, Zeni O, Sannino A, Lagorio S, Biffoni M, Scarfì MR. 2021. Genotoxicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields: protocol for a systematic review of in vitro studies. Enviro Int. 148:106386–106386.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruediger HW. 2009. Genotoxic effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Pathophysiology. 16(2-3):89–102.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sakuma N, Komatsubara Y, Takeda H, Hirose H, Sekijima M, Nojima T, Miyakoshi J. 2006. DNA strand breaks are not induced in human cells exposed to 2.1425 GHz band CW and W-CDMA modulated radiofrequency fields allocated to mobile radio base stations. Bioelectromagnetics. 27(1):51–57.
   Google Scholar
• Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks [SCHEER]. 2018. Memorandum on weight of evidence and uncertainties revision 2018. European Commission Director General for Health and Food Safety. https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2019-02/scheer_o_014_0.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks [SCHEER]. 2022. Opinion on the need of a revision of the annexes in the Council 16 Recommendation 1999/519/EC and Directive 2013/35/EU, in view of the latest scientific evidence available with regard to radiofrequency (100kHz–300GHz). European Commission Director General for Health and Food Safety. https://health.ec.europa.eu/publications/scheer-scientific-evidence-radiofrequency_en#files.
   Google Scholar
• Schiavo JH. 2019. PROSPERO: an international register of systematic review protocols. Med Ref Ser Q. 38(2):171–180.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shahin S, Singh VP, Shukla RK, Dhawan A, Gangwar RK, Singh SP, Chaturvedi CM. 2013. 2.45 GHz microwave irradiation-induced oxidative stress affects implantation or pregnancy in mice, Mus musculus. Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 169(5):1727–1751.
   Google Scholar
• Sharma A, Shrivastava S, Shukla S. 2020. Exposure of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation on biochemical and pathological alterations. Neurol India. 68(5):1092.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, Bouter LM, Kristjansson E, Grimshaw J, Henry DA, Boers M. 2009. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 62(10):1013–1020.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siddaway AP, Wood AM, Hedges LV. 2019. How to do a systematic review: a best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses. Annu Rev Psychol. 70(1):747–770.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simko M, Remondini D, Zini O, Scarfi MR. 2016. Quality matters: systematic analysis of endpoints related to “Cellular Life” in vitro data of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 13:701.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith-Roe SL, Wyde ME, Stout MD, Winters JW, Hobbs CA, Shepard KG, Green AS, Kissling GE, Shockley KR, Tice RR, et al. 2020. Evaluation of the genotoxicity of cell phone radiofrequency radiation in male and female rats and mice following subchronic exposure. Environ Mol Mutagen. 61(2):276–290.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Speit G, Gminski R, Tauber R. 2013. Genotoxic effects of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) in HL-60 cells are not reproducible. Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutag. 755(2):163–166.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Speit G, Schütz P, Hoffmann H. 2007. Genotoxic effects of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) in cultured mammalian cells are not independently reproducible. Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutag. 626(1-2):42–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tice RR, Hook GG, Donner M, McRee DI, Guy AW. 2002. Genotoxicity of radiofrequency signals. I. Investigation of DNA damage and micronuclei induction in cultured human blood cells. Bioelectromagnetics. 23(2):113–126.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verschaeve L, Juutilainen J, Lagroye I, Miyakoshi J, Saunders R, de Seze R, Tenforde T, van Rongen E, Veyret B, Xu Z. 2010. In vitro and in vivo genotoxicity of radiofrequency fields. Mutat Res. 705(3):252–268.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verschaeve L, Maes A. 1998. Genetic, carcinogenic and teratogenic effects of radiofrequency fields1This is the second in a series of four papers, the first of which was published in Mutation Res. 387 (1997) pp. 165–171. Mutat Res. 410(2):141–165.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Verschaeve L. 2009. Genetic damage in subjects exposed to radiofrequency radiation. Mutat Res. 681(2-3):259–270.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VIjayalaxmi, Prihoda TJ. 2008. Genetic damage in mammalian somatic cells exposed to radiofrequency radiation: a meta-analysis of data from 63 publications (1990–2005). Radiat Res. 169(5):561–574.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VIjayalaxmi, Prihoda TJ. 2012. Genetic damage in human cells exposed to non-ionizing radiofrequency fields: a meta-analysis of the data from 88 publications (1990–2011). Mutat Res. 749(1-2):1–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VIjayalaxmi, Prihoda TJ. 2019. Comprehensive review of quality of publications and meta-analysis of genetic damage in mammalian cells exposed to non-ionizing radiofrequency fields. Radiat Res. 191(1):20–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vijayalaxmi Foster KR, Miyakoshi J, Verschaeve L. 2020. Comments on the “evaluation of the genotoxicity of cell phone radiofrequency radiation in male and female rats and mice following subchronic exposure” by Smith-Roe et al. Environ Mol Mutag. 61:291–293.
   Google Scholar
• Wasserstein RL, Lazar NA. 2016. The ASA statement on p-values: context, process, and purpose. Taylor & Francis. P. 129–133.
   Google Scholar
• WHO 2014. WHO handbook for guideline development 2nd ed. Geneva: World Health Organization.
   Google Scholar