Micronuclei and Cytological Abnormalities in Individuals Using Cell Phones

Mobile phone systems operate within the radio frequency section (30KHz 300GHz) of the electromagnetic spectrum, the microwaves. Some adverse effects reported from exposure to microwaves include physiological, neurological and cognitive changes, carcinomas, and other biological damage through heating effects. Although equivocal reports on their genotoxic/ carcinogenic potential exist, yet none have been reported in mobile phone users. This study for the first time reports cytogenetic damage in tissues of some individuals using cell phones over a period of time. Male volunteers (15-55y) using different phone models with specific absorption rates (SAR) between 0.10-1.92 W/kg, usage period of 3-5 years, and daily use from 12 to 18 h, were requested to provide user information and blood (n=15) and buccal smear (n=25) samples after informed consent. Significantly elevated micronucleated buccal cells (0.82±0.094 % frequency) and cytogenetically aberrant cells (31.28±10.29%) in short-term PBL cultures as compared to respective values in ageand sex-matched normal, healthy individuals were observed. The use period of mobile phone (daily and years of usage) and SAR values contributed strongly to the cytogenetic damage. Chromosomal damage in buccal cells correlates with exposure in the oral cavity in comparison to whole body exposure (PBL). These results imply caution for the mobile phone users in terms of the dire outcome of genetic damage. INTRODUCTION Considerable public concern exists about cellular telephone systems (cell/mobile phones) with regards to potential risks from absorption of radio frequency radiation (RFR), both to users of cell phones and from population exposure to cell phone transmitters. The absorbed radiated energy into body tissues –the specific absorption rate (SARexpressed as W/kg or as mW/kg) is not a true measure of the biological hazard from the phone but has been used as an indication of the energy being absorbed into the body. Different organizations and governmental agencies for public health and safety with WHO have been monitoring developments and identifying research needs related to RF biological effects and have developed standards for exposure to RFR. The FCC limits peak exposure to 1.6 W/kg (or 1.6 mW/g) of tissue averaged over any single gram of tissue. European limits are less restrictive, specifying 1.6 W/kg averaged over 10 g. Such low electromagnetic frequencies may induce a classic stress response in cells (de Pomerai et al.,, 2000) involving the induction of heat-shock genes but no clear molecular mechanism to explain the observed effects have been understood. India‟s mobile phone market has also grown rapidly in the last few years with spiraling income levels and falling phone tariffs and handset prices. This widespread prevalence of mobile telecommunications (RF fields 900 MHz -2000 MHz) has generated controversies regarding health outcomes. Published data have largely concentrated on a small number of outcomes, especially brain tumor and leukemia (Ahlbom et al., 2004). Equivocal information has been obtained from animal and cell culture studies for genotoxicity and carcinogenesis. In fact, there are several possible sources of artifacts in such studies and there is often no clear molecular mechanism to explain the effects observed, which may occur only within the narrow windows of frequency and/or power level and/or pulse length/interval/and/or total exposure time (Goodman et al., 1995). A four-year research project funded by the European Union measured a significant increase in singleand double-strand DNA breaks in human and animal cells after being exposed to electromagnetic fields that are typical for mobile phones. The laboratory study did not prove that mobile phones are a risk to health but concluded that more research is International Journal of Basic and Applied Medical Sciences ISSN: 2277-2103 (Online) An Online International Journal Available at http://www.cibtech.org/jms.htm 2011 Vol. 1 (1) September-December, pp.108-125/Gandhi and Prabhjot