medigraphic.com
ISSN 2007-8013 (Impreso)
Órgano oficial de la Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa

2021, Número 3

<< Anterior Siguiente >>

Rev Med UAS 2021; 11 (3)


¿Puede la tecnología 5g afectar a la salud?

Verdugo-Díaz L

Idioma: Español
Referencias bibliográficas: 78
Paginas: 241-257
Archivo PDF: 293.08 Kb.


RESUMEN

En los últimos meses se han publicado comentarios que relacionan la nueva tecnología de comunicación denominada 5G con daños a la salud humana. La inquietud que genera y que la hace diferente de las anteriores tecnologías es que tanto las antenas como los aparatos que usan ondas milimétricas deben de estar más cerca de los usuarios, lo cual puede afectar los patrones de exposición conocidos. En el presente trabajo, se hace un breve resumen histórico de las normas y guías publicadas, enfocándose a la reciente inquietud respecto al uso de la tecnología 5G y su relación con la salud humana.


REFERENCIAS (EN ESTE ARTÍCULO)

  1. Organización Mundial de la Salud.OMS. Temasde Salud. Campos electromagnéticos[consultado el 30 de septiembre 2020]. Disponibleen: https://www.who.int/topics/electromagnetic_fields/es/

  2. Unión Internacional de Telecomunicaciones.UIT. [consultado el 30 de septiembre 2020].Disponible en:https://www.itu.int/es/about/Pages/default.aspx.

  3. 5G Americas. 5G Spectrum Recommendations-Abril 2017. Disponible en:http://www.5gamericas.org/-files/9114/9324/1786/5GA_5G_Spectrum_Recommendations_2017_FINAL.pdf

  4. International Agency for Research on Cancer.IARC. Working Group on the Evaluationof Carcinogenic Risks to Humans.PRESS RELEASE. 2011; N° 208. Disponibleen: https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf.

  5. The International Commission on Non-IonizingRadiation Protection. ICNIRP. Guidelinesfor limiting exposure to electromagneticfields (100 kHz to 300 GHz). Health Phys.2020; 118:483–524.doi.org/10.1097/HP.0000000000001210.

  6. Pall ML. Scientific evidence contradicts findingsand assumptions of Canadian SafetyPanel 6: microwaves act through voltagegatedcalcium channel activation to inducebiological impacts at non-thermal levels,supporting a paradigm shift for microwave/lower frequency electromagnetic fieldaction. Rev Environ Health. 2015;30(2):99-116. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2015-0001.

  7. Hardell L, Oremus M, Soskolne CL. Risks toHealth and Well-Being from Radio-FrequencyRadiation Emitted by Cell Phonesand Other Wireless Devices. Front. PublicHealth. 2019; 7:223. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2019.00223.

  8. International Agency for Research on Cancer.IARC monographs on the identificationof carcinogenic hazards to human. Disponibleen: https://monographs.iarc.fr/

  9. National Council on Radiation Protectionand Measurements. NCRP. Report No. 086– Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria forRadiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields(1986). Disponible en:https://aapm.org/pubs/NCRP/detail.asp.

  10. EMF-PORTAL. Electromagnetic fields(WHO EHC Monograph No. 137) guidelineWorld Health Organization (WHO) 1993,WHO Environmental Health Criteria 137: 1-146. Disponible en: https://www.emf-portal.org/en/article/15261.

  11. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.IEEE standard for safety levels withrespect to human exposure to radio frequencyelectromagnetic fields, 3 kHz to 300GHz. In IEEE Std C95.1􀇦2005 (Revision ofIEEE Std C95.1􀇦1991). Disponible en:https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1626482.

  12. The International Commission on Non-IonizingRadiation Protection. ICNIRP Statementon EMF-emitting new technologies. HealthPhysics. 2008; 94(4):376􀇦392. Disponibleen: https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPNewTech.pdf.

  13. Scientific Committee on Emerging andNewly Identified Health Risks. SCENIHR.Possible effects of Electromagnetic Fields(EMF) on Human Health. 2007. Disponibleen: https://ec.europa.eu/health/archive/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/docs/scenihr_o_007.pdf.

  14. Scientific Committee on Emerging andNewly Identified Health Risks. SCENIHR.Health Effects of Exposure to EMF. 2009.Disponible en: https://ec.europa.eu/health/archive/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/docs/scenihr_o_022.pdf.

  15. INTERPHONE Study Group. Brain tumorrisk in relation to mobile telephone use: Resultsof the INTERPHONE international casecontrol study. Int J Epidemiol. 2010; 39:675–694. doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyq079.

  16. International Agency for Research on Cancer.IARC. Working Group on the Evaluationof Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Nonionizingradiation, Part 2: Radiofrequencyelectromagnetic fields. IARC Monogr EvalCarcinog Risks Hum. 2013; Vol.102(Pt 2):1–460. https://monographs.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/mono102.pdf.

  17. World Health Organization. WHO. ModelLegislation for Electromagnetic Fields Protection.Disponible en:https://www.who.int/peh-emf/standards/EMF_model_legislation%5B1%5D.pdf.

  18. Lin JC. Clear evidence of cell􀇦phone RF radiationcancer risk. IEEE Microw Mag. 2018;

  19. 19:16–24.https://avaate.org/IMG/pdf/lin_2018.pdf.19. Barnes F, Greenebaum B. Setting Guidelinesfor Electromagnetic Exposures and ResearchNeeds. Bioelectromagnetics. 2020;41(5):392-397. doi: 10.1002/bem.22267.

  20. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. FDA. Reviewof Published Literature between 2008and 2018 of Relevance to RadiofrequencyRadiation and Cancer. 2020. Disponible en:https://www.fda.gov/media/135043/download.

  21. The International Commission on Non-IonizingRadiation Protection. ICNIRP. Guidelinesfor limiting exposure to time-varyingelectric, magnetic, and electromagneticfields (up to 300 GHz). Health Phys. 1998;74 (4):494-522. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9525427/

  22. The International Commission on Non-IonizingRadiation Protection. ICNIRP statementon the “guidelines for limiting exposure totime􀇦varying electric, magnetic, and electromagneticfields (up to 300 GHZ). HealthPhys. 2009b; 97:257–258. doi:10.1097/HP.0b013e3181aff9db.

  23. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.IEEE. Standard for safety levels withrespect to human exposure to electric, magnetic,and electromagnetic fields, 0 Hz to 300GHz. Disponible en: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8859679.

  24. The International Commission on Non-IonizingRadiation Protection. ICNIRP. Differencesbetween the ICNIRP (2020) and previousguidelines. Disponible en:https://www.icnirp.org/en/differences.html

  25. Belpomme D, Hardell L, Belyaev I, Burgio E,Carpenter DO. Thermal and non-thermalhealth effects of low intensity non-ionizingradiation: An international perspective. EnvironPollut. 2018; 242(Pt A):643-58. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2018.07.019.

  26. Miller AB, Sears ME, Morgan LL, Davis DL,Hardell L, Oremus M, et al. Risks to Healthand Well-Being from Radio-Frequency RadiationEmitted by Cell Phones and OtherWireless Devices. Front Public Health. 2019;7:223. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00223.

  27. Falcioni L, Bua L, Tibaldi E, Lauriola M, DeAngelis L, Gnudi F, et al. Report of final resultsregarding brain and heart tumors inSprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatallife until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequencyfield representative of a 1.8GHz GSM base station environmental emission.Environ Res. 2018; 165:496–503. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.037.

  28. Smith􀇦Roe SL, Wyde ME, Stout MD, WintersJW, Hobbs CA, Shepard KG, et al. Evaluationof the genotoxicity of cell phone radiofrequencyradiation in male and female ratsand mice following subchronic exposure. EnvironMol Mutagen. 2020; 61:276–90. doi:10.1002/em.22343.

  29. Kostoff RN, Heroux P, Aschner M, TsatsakisA. Adverse health effects of 5G mobile networkingtechnology under real-life Conditions.Toxicol Lett. 2020; 323:35-40. doi:10.1016/j.toxlet.2020.01.

  30. Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific AdvisoryAssociation. ORSAA. [consultado el 30 deseptiembre 2020]. Disponible en:https://www.orsaa.org/about-us.html

  31. Leach V, Weller S, Redmayne M. A noveldatabase of bio-effects from non-ionizing radiation.Rev Environ Health. 2018;https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2018-0017.

  32. Shckorbatov YG, Grigoryeva N, ShakhbazovVG, Grabina VA, Bogoslavsky AM. Microwaveirradiation influences on the state ofhuman cell nuclei. Bioelectromagnetics.1999; 19:414–9. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1521-186X.

  33. Szabo I, Rojavin MA, Rogers TJ, Ziskin MC.Reactions of keratinocytes to in vitro millimeterwave exposure. Bioelectromagnetics.2001; 22(5):358–64. doi: 10.1002/bem.62.

  34. Szabo I, Manning MR, Radzlevsky AA, WetzelMA, Rogers TJ, Ziskin MC. Low PowerMillimeter Wave Irradiation Exerts No HarmfulEffect on Human Keratinocytes In Vitro.Bioelectromagnetics. 2003; 24(3):165–73.doi: 10.1002/bem.10077.

  35. Chen Q, Zeng QL, Lu DQ, Chiang H. MillimeterWave Exposure Reverses TPA Suppressionof Gap Junction Intercellular Communicationin HaCaT Human Keratinocytes,Bioelectromagnetics. 2004; 25(1):1–4. doi:10.1002/bem.10140.

  36. Beneduci A, Chidichimo G, De Rose R, FilippelliL, Straface SV, Venuta S. Frequencyand irradiation time-dependant antiproliferativeeffect of low-power millimeter waves onRPMI 7932 human melanoma cell line. AnticancerRes. 2005; 25(2A):1023–8.

  37. Beneduci A, Chidichimo G, Tripepi S, PerrottaE. Transmission electron microscopystudy of the effects produced by wide-bandlow-power millimeter waves on MCF-7 humanbreast cancer cells in culture. AnticancerRes. 2005; 25(2A):1009–13.

  38. Szabo I, Kappelmayer J, Alekseev SI, ZiskinMC. Millimeter wave induced reversible externalizationof phosphatidylserine moleculesin cells exposed in vitro. Bioelectromagnetics.2006; 27(3):233–44.

  39. Korenstein-Ilan A, Barbul A, Hasin P, EliranA, Gover A, Korenstein R. Terahertz RadiationIncreases Genomic Instability in HumanLymphocytes, Radiat. Res, 2008;170(2):224–34. doi: 10.1667/RR0944.1.

  40. Beneduci A. Evaluation of the Potential InVitro Antiproliferative Effects of MillimeterWaves at Some Therapeutic Frequencies onRPMI 7932 Human Skin Malignant MelanomaCells. Cell Biochem Biophys. 2009;55:25-32. doi: 10.1007/s12013-009-9053-8.

  41. Nicolaz CN, Zhadobov M, Desmots F, SauleauR, Thouroude D, et al. Absence of directeffect of low-power millimeter-wave radiationat 60.4 GHz on endoplasmic reticulumstress. Cell Biol Toxicol. 2009: 25(5);471–8.doi: 10.1007/s10565-008-9101-y.

  42. Nicolaz CN, Zhadobov M, Desmots F, AnsartA, Sauleau R, et al. Study of narrowband millimeter-wave potential interactionswith endoplasmic reticulum stress sensorgenes. Bioelectromagnetics. 2009;30(5):365–73. doi: 10.1002/bem.20481.

  43. Shckorbatov YG, Pasiuga VN, Kolchigin NN,Grabina VA, Batrakov DO, et al. The influenceof differently polarised microwave radiationon chromatin in human cells. Int J RadBiol. 2009; 85:322-9. doi:10.1080/09553000902781113.

  44. Zhadobov M, Nicolaz CN, Sauleau R,Desmots F, Thouroude D, et al. Evaluationof the Potential Biological Effects of the 60-GHz Millimeter Waves Upon Human Cells.IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation,2009; 57:2949-55, doi:10.1109/TAP.2009.2029308.

  45. Shckorbatov YG, Pasiuga VN, GoncharukEI, Petrenko TP, Grabina VA, et al. Effectsof differently polarized microwave radiationon the microscopic structure of the nuclei inhuman fibroblasts. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B.2010;11(10):801-5. doi:10.1631/jzus.B1000051. PMID: 20872988;PMCID: PMC2950243.

  46. Le Quément C, Nicolaz NC, Zhadobov M,Desmots F, Sauleau R, et al. Whole-genomeexpression analysis in primary humankeratinocyte cell cultures exposed to 60 GHzradiation. Bioelectromagnetics. 2012; 33(2):147–58. doi: 10.1002/bem.20693.

  47. Le Quément C, Nicolaz CN, Habauzit D,Zhadobov M, Sauleau R, Le Dréan Y. Impactof 60-GHz millimeter waves and correspondingheat effect on endoplasmic reticulumstress sensor gene expression. Bioelectromagnetics.2014; 35(6):444–51. doi:10.1002/bem.21864.

  48. Habauzit D, Le Quément C, Zhadobov M,Martin C, Aubry M, et al. Transcriptome analysisreveals the contribution of thermal andthe specific effects in cellular response tomillimeter wave exposure. PLoS One. 2014;9(10). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0109435.

  49. Volkova NA., Pavlovich EV, Gapon AA, NikolovOT. Effects of Millimeter-Wave ElectromagneticExposure on the Morphologyand Function of Human CryopreservedSpermatozoa. Bull Exp Bio. Med.2014;157(5):574–6. doi: 10.1007/s10517-014-2618-6.

  50. Koyama S, Narita E, Shimizu Y, Suzuki Y,Shiina T, et al. Effects of long-term exposureto 60 GHz millimeter-wavelength radiationon the genotoxicity and heat shock protein(HSP) expression of cells derived from humaneye. Int J Environ Res. Public Health.2016; 13(8). doi: 10.3390/ijerph13080802.

  51. Soubere-Mahamoud Y, Aite M, Martin C,Zhadobov M, Sauleau R, et al. Additive Effectsof Millimeter Waves and 2-DeoxyglucoseCo-Exposure on the Human KeratinocyteTranscriptome. PLoS One. 2016;11(8):e0160810. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0160810.

  52. Vlasova II, Mikhalchik EV, Gusev AA, BalabushevichNG, Gusev SA, Kazarinov KD.Extremely high-frequency electromagneticradiation enhances neutrophil response toparticulate agonists. Bioelectromagnetics.2018; 39(2):144–55. doi:10.1002/bem.22103.

  53. Yaekashiwa N, Otsuki S, Hayashi S, KawaseK. Investigation of the non-thermal effectsof exposing cells to 70-300 GHz irradiationusing a widely tunable source. J RadiatRes. 2018; 59(2):116–21. doi:10.1093/jrr/rrx075.

  54. Le Pogam P, Le Page Y, Habauzit D, DouéM, Zhadobov M, et al. Untargeted metabolomicsunveil alterations of biomembranespermeability in human HaCaT keratinocytesupon 60 GHz millimeter-wave exposure. Sci.Reports. 2019; 9:9343. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-45662-6.

  55. Radzievsky AA, Rojavin MA, Cowan A, ZiskinMC. Suppression of pain sensationcaused by millimeter waves: a doubleblinded,cross-over, prospective human volunteerstudy. Anesth Analg. 1999;88(4):836–40.

  56. Walters TJ, Blick DW, Johnson LR, AdairER, Foster KR. Heating and pain sensationproduced in human skin by millimeter waves:comparison to a simple thermal model.Health Phys. 2000; 78(3):259-67. doi:0.1097/00004032-200003000-00003.

  57. Alekseev S. I., A. A. Radzievsky, I. Szabo,and M. C. Ziskin, “Local heating of humanskin by millimeter waves: Effect of bloodflow,” Bioelectromagnetics, vol. 26, no. 6, pp.489–501. 2005. Doi:10.1002/bem.20118.

  58. Müller J, Hadeler KP, Müller V, Waldmann J,Landstorfer FM, et al. Influence of low powercm-mm-microwaves on cardiovascular function.Int J Env Health Res. 2004; 14(5):331–41. doi: 10.1080/09603120400004006.

  59. Egot-Lemaire SJ.-P, Ziskin MC. Dielectricproperties of human skin at an acupuncturepoint in the 50-75 GHz frequency range: apilot study. Bioelectromagnetics. 2011;32(5): 360–6. doi: 10.1002/bem.20650.

  60. Partyla T, Hacker H, Edinger H, Leutzow B,Lange J, Usichenko T. Remote Effects ofElectromagnetic Millimeter Waves on ExperimentallyInduced Cold Pain: A Double-Blinded Crossover Investigation in HealthyVolunteers. Anesth Analg. 2017; 124(3):980–5. doi:10.1213/ANE.0000000000001657.

  61. Gibbons JA. Localized Heat Urticaria from95-GHz Millimeter Wave. Aerosp Med HumPerform. 2017; 88:586-8. doi:10.3357/AMHP.4707.

  62. Leszczynski D. Physiological effects of millimeter-waves on skin and skin cells: an overviewof the to-date published studies. RevEnviron Health. 2020; 24. doi:10.1515/reveh-2020-0056.

  63. Simkó M, Mattsson MO. 5G Wireless Communicationand Health Effects-A PragmaticReview Based on Available Studies Regarding6 to 100 GHz. Int J Environ Res PublicHealth. 2019; 16(18):3406. doi:10.3390/ijerph16183406.

  64. Halgamuge MN. Review: Weak radiofrequencyradiation exposure from mobilephone radiation on plants. Electromagn BiolMed. 2017; 36(2):213-235. doi:10.1080/15368378.2016.1220389.

  65. Czerwiński M, Vian A, Lázaro A. The influenceof bioactive mobile telephony radiationat the level of a plant community – Possiblemechanisms and indicators of the effects.Ecological Indicators, Elsevier, 2019, 108,ff10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105683ff. ffhal-02625424f.

  66. Cucurachi S, Tamis WL, Vijver MG, PeijnenburgWJ, Bolte JF, de Snoo GR. A Review ofthe ecological effects of radiofrequency electromagneticfields (RF-EMF). Environ Int.2013; 51:116–140. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2012.10.009.

  67. Narayanan SN, Jetti R, Kesari KK, KumarRS, Nayak SB, Bhat PG. Radiofrequencyelectromagnetic radiation-induced behavioralchanges and their possible basis. EnvironSci Pollut Res Int. 2019; 26(30):30693-710. doi: 10.1007/s11356-019-06278-5.

  68. Yakymenko I, Tsybulin O, Sidorik E, HenshelD, Kyrylenko O, Kyrylenko S. Oxidativemechanisms of biological activity of low-intensityradiofrequency radiation. ElectromagnBiol Med. 2016; 35(2):186-202. doi:10.3109/15368378.2015.1043557.

  69. Kostoff RN, Heroux P, Aschner M, TsatsakisA. Adverse health effects of 5G mobile networkingtechnology under real-life conditions.Toxicol Lett. 2020; 323:35-40. doi:10.1016/j.toxlet.2020.01.020.

  70. Adair RK. Biophysical Limits on Athermal Effectsof RF and Microwave Radiation. Bioelectromagnetics.2003; 24:39-48.

  71. Ledoigt, G., Belpomme, D. Cancer inductionmolecular pathways and HF-EMF irradiation.Adv Biol Chem. 2013; 3:177-86.doi:10.4236/abc.2013.32023.

  72. Montoya RD. Magnetic fields, radicals andcellular activity. Electromagn Biol Med.2017; 36(1):102-13. doi:10.1080/15368378.2016.1194291.

  73. Belpomme D, Hardell L, Belyaev I, Burgio E,Carpenter DO. Thermal and non-thermalhealth effects of low intensity non-ionizingradiation: An international perspective. EnvironPollut. 2018; 242(Pt A):643-58. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2018.07.019.

  74. Russell CL. 5 G wireless telecommunicationsexpansion: Public health and environmentalimplications. Environ Res. 2018:165:484-95. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.016.

  75. Di Ciaula A. Towards 5G communicationsystems: Are there health implications? Int JHyg Environ Health. 2018; 221(3):367-75.doi: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2018.01.011.

  76. Keller H. On the assessment of human exposureto electromagnetic Fields transmittedby 5g nr base stations. Health Physics.2019; 117(5):541-5. doi:10.1097/HP.0000000000001089.

  77. McClelland S, Jaboin JJ. The RadiationSafety of 5G Wi-Fi: Reassuring or RussianRoulette? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.2018; 101(5):1274,-5 doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.04.051.

  78. Hardell L, Nyberg R. Appeals that matter ornot on a moratorium on the deployment ofthe fifth generation, 5G, for microwave radiation.Mol Clin Oncol. 2020; 12:247-57.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com