The Influence of Electromagnetic Field Pollution on Human Health: A Systematic Review

Main Article Content

Monalisha Sahu
Shyambhavee Behera
Biswadip Chattopadhyay

Abstract

Objective: Recent technological advances have exponentially expanded globally; harbouring upon Electromagnetic fields (EMF). The utilization of Electromagnetic field has become universal from everyday usage of electronic appliances such as micro wave ovens, tablets and portable computers to telecommunication systems mobile phone towers, radio- television broadcast systems and electronic power transmission systems resulting in electromagnetic field and associated radiations. EMF can have biological effects on cell at microlevel and have the potential ability to cause cell dysfunction manifesting in various biological effects. This review tried to gather evidence from the existing literature about the biological effects of EMF on human health.
Materials and Methods: We did extensive literature search using PubMed and Cochrane database using key words, “electromagnetic fields”, “Extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF-EMFs)”, “biological effects”, “health effects”, “public health”. We included 20 studies conducted from Dec 2009 to Dec 2019 in our systematic review. Data from each study was extracted by two independent researchers and discrepancies were resolved by consensus.
Results: Significant biological effects of EMF exposure were reported on human health ranging from anxiety, depression, sleep disturbance, increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease and ALS (Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis), hypersensitivity to infertility and increased risk of multiple carcinomas.
Conclusion:
Application of preventive measures in order to minimize the exposure becomes the need of the hour especially so in occupational settings.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Sahu, M., Behera, S., & Chattopadhyay, B. (2021). The Influence of Electromagnetic Field Pollution on Human Health: A Systematic Review. Siriraj Medical Journal, 73(7), 485-492. https://doi.org/10.33192/Smj.2021.63
Section
Original Article

References

1. Wertheimer N, Leeper ED. Electrical wiring configurations and childhood cancer. Am J Epidemiol. 1979;109(3):273-84.
2. World Health Organization. Electromagnetic fields and public health: electromagnetic hypersensitivity [Internet]. World Health Organization; 2005 [cited Apr 12, 2020]. Available from: https://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs296/en/
3. Fang Q, Mahmoud SS, Yan J, Li H. An investigation on the effect of extremely low frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields on human electrocardiograms (ECGs). Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016;13(11):1171.
4. Balamuralikrishnan B, Balachandar V, Kumar SS, Stalin N, Varsha P, Devi SM et al. Evaluation of chromosomal alteration in electrical workers occupationally exposed to low frequency of electromagnetic field (EMFs) in Coimbatore population, India. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2012;13(6), 2961-6.
5. Lasalvia M, Scrima R, Perna G, Piccoli C, Capitanio N, Biagi PF, et al. Exposure to 1.8 GHz electromagnetic fields affects morphology, DNA-related Raman spectra and mitochondrial functions in human lympho-monocytes. PloS one. 2018;13(6):e0198892.
6. Carlberg M, Hardell L. Evaluation of mobile phone and cordless phone use and glioma risk using the Bradford Hill viewpoints from 1965 on association or causation. BioMed research international. 2017;2017:9218486.
7. Kapri-Pardes E, Hanoch T, Maik-Rachline G, Murbach M, Bounds PL, Kuster N, et al. Activation of signaling cascades by weak extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields. Cell. Physiol. Biochem. 2017;43(4):1533-46.
8. Augner C, Hacker GW. Are people living next to mobile phone base stations more strained? Relationship of health concerns, self-estimated distance to base station, and psychological parameters. Indian J Occup Environ Med. 2009;13(3):141-5.
9. Xu S, Chen G, Chen C, Sun C, Zhang D, Murbach M, et al. Cell type-dependent induction of DNA damage by 1800 MHz radiofrequency electromagnetic fields does not result in significant cellular dysfunctions. PloS one. 2013;8(1):e54906.
10. Naarala J, Kolehmainen M, Juutilainen J. Electromagnetic fields, genomic instability and cancer: a systems biological view. Genes. 2019;10(6):479.
11. Wang H, Zhang X. Magnetic fields and reactive oxygen species. Int J Mol Sci. 2017;18(10):2175.
12. Medeiros LN, Sanchez TG. Tinnitus and cell phones: the role of electromagnetic radiofrequency radiation. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2016;82(1):97-104.
13. Kesari KK, Agarwal A, Henkel R. Radiations and male fertility. Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol. 2018;16(1):118.
14. Singh R, Nath R, Mathur AK, Sharma RS. Effect of radiofrequency radiation on reproductive health. Indian J Med Res. 2018;148(Suppl):S92-9.
15. Pall, ML. Scientific evidence contradicts findings and assumptions of Canadian safety panel 6: icrowaves act through voltage-gated calcium channel activation to induce biological impacts at non-thermal levels, supporting a paradigm shift for microwave/lower frequency electromagnetic field action. Rev Environ Health. 2015;30(2):99-116.
16. Teepen JC, van Dijck JA. Impact of high electromagnetic field levels on childhood leukemia incidence. Int. J. Cancer. 2012;131(4):769-78.
17. Vijaylaxmi, Scarfi MR. International and national expert group evaluations: biological/health effects of radiofrequency fields. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014;11(9):9376-408.
18. Santini SJ, Cordone V, Falone S, Mijit M, Tatone C, Amicarelli F, et al. Role of mitochondria in the oxidative stress induced by electromagnetic fields: focus on reproductive systems. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2018;2018:5076271.
19. Carlberg M, Hardell L. Evaluation of mobile phone and cordless phone use and glioma risk using the Bradford Hill viewpoints from 1965 on association or causation. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:9218486.
20. Reale M, Kamal MA, Patruno A, Costantini E, D'Angelo C, Pesce M,et al. Neuronal cellular responses to extremely low frequency electromagnetic field exposure: implications regarding oxidative stress and neurodegeneration. PloS one. 2014;9(8): e104973
21. Swerdlow AJ, Feychting M, Green AC, Kheifets L, Savitz DA. International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection Standing Committee on Epidemiology. Mobile phones, brain tumors, and the interphone study: where are we now? Environ. Health Perspect. 201;119(11):1534-8.
22. Hardell L. World Health Organisation, radiofrequency radiation and health – a hard nut to crack (Review). Int J Oncol. 2017; 51(2):405-13.
23. Kane RC. A possible association between fetal/neonatal exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation and the increased incidence of autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Med Hypotheses. 2004;62(2):195‐197.
24. Gunnarsson LG, Bodin L. Occupational exposures and neurodegenerative diseases—a systematic literature review and meta-analyses Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(3):337.
25. Subba SH, Mandelia C, Pathak V, Reddy D, Goel A, Tayal A, et al. Ringxiety and the mobile phone usage pattern among the students of a medical college in South India. J Clin Diagn Res. 2013;7(2):205-9.
26. Lewczuk B, Redlarski G, Zak A, Ziółkowska N, Przybylska-Gornowicz B, Krawczuk M. Influence of electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields on the circadian system: current stage of knowledge. Biomed Res Int. 2014; 2014:169459.
27. Jazi SD, Modolo J, Baker C, Villard S, Legros A. Effects of A 60 Hz Magnetic field of up to 50 milliTesla on human tremor and EEG: A pilot study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14(12):1446.
28. Esmailzadeh S, Delavar MA, Aleyassin A, Gholamian SA, Ahmadi A. Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields of High Voltage Overhead Power Lines and Female Infertility. Int J Occup Environ Med. 2019;10(1):11-6.
29. Schnorr TM, Grajewski BA, Hornung RW, Thun MJ, Egeland GM, Murray WE, et al. Video display terminals and risk of spontaneous abortion. N Engl J Med. 1991; 324(11):727-33.
30. Luo Q, Jiang Y, Jin M, Xu J, Huang HF. Proteomic analysis on the alteration of protein expression in the early-stage placental villous tissue of electromagnetic fields associated with cell phone exposure. Reprod Sci. 2013;20(9):1055-61.
31. Dieudonné, M. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: a critical review of explanatory hypotheses. Environ Health. 2020;19:48(2020).
32. INTERPHONE Study Group. Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study. Int J Epidemiol. 2010; 39(3):675-94.
33. Bortkiewicz A, Gadzicka E, Szymczak W. Mobile phone use and risk for intracranial tumors and salivary gland tumors-A meta-analysis. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2017;30(1):27-43.
34. Regel SJ, Achermann P. Cognitive performance measures in bioelectromagnetic research-critical evaluation and recommendations. Environmental Health. 2011;10(1):10.
35. Röösli M, Lagorio S, Schoemaker MJ, Schüz J, Feychting M. Brain and salivary gland tumors and mobile phone use: evaluating the evidence from various epidemiological study designs. Annu Rev of Public Health. 2019;40:221-38.