GROWTH RETARDATION OF CHICK EMBRYO EXPOSED TO A LOW DOSE OF ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES

Authors

  • Najam Siddiqi Oman Medical College
  • Muthusami John C Surgery Unit-I, Christian Medical College, Vellore
  • Mark Norrish Associate Dean International, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Coventry University
  • Thomas Heming Department of Physiology, OMC

Abstract

Background: The objectives of this study were to explore the effects of low dose of the non-ionizing (REW) emitted by a mobile phone on the development of chick embryo. Methods: one hundred and twenty chick fertilized eggs were equally divided into a control and an exposed group. Sixty fertilized eggs were placed in an egg incubator with a mobile phone (SAR US: 1.10W/kg (head) 0.47 W/kg body) in silent mode having vibration disable mode. Mobile was called for a total of 20 minutes in 24 hours. Twenty embryos each were sacrificed at day 5, 10 and 15, mortality, wet body weight, head to rump length, eye diameter and morphological changes were noted. The control group, 60 eggs were incubated in the same conditions, having removed the phone. Results: No mortality was noted. The experimental group exposed to REW showed subcutaneous haemorrhagic areas and significant growth retardation at day 10 as evidence by smaller eye diameter, wet weight and CR length than the control group. There were no significant growth differences at either day 5 or at day 15. Conclusion: Electromagnetic waves emitted from mobile phones even though for a very short duration of 20 minutes per day have affected the growth of the chick embryo at day 10 of incubation, Hence exposure of these waves are not 100% safe.Keywords: electromagnetic waves, chick embryo, mobile phone, egg incubator, growth retardation

Author Biography

Najam Siddiqi, Oman Medical College

Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology

References

Samkange-Zeeb F, Blettner M, Emerging aspects of mobile phone use. Emerg Health Threats J 2009;2:e5.

World Health Statistics. World Health Organization, WHO library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data. 2013.

Aitken RJ, Bennetts LE, Sawyer D, Wiklendt AM, King BV. Impact of radio frequency electromagnetic radiation on DNA integrity in the male germline. Int J Androl 2005;28(3):171–9.

Velizarov S, Raskmark P, Kwee S. The effects of radiofrequency fields on cell proliferation are non-thermal. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg 1999;48(1):177–80.

Verschaeve L, Heikkinen P, Verheyen G Van Gorp U, Boonen F, Vander Plaetse F, et al. Investigation of co-genotoxic effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields in vivo. Radiat Res 2006;165(5):598–607.

Donato A, Ceci P, Cannavo A. Tomei F, Naro F. Low power microwave interaction with phospholipase C and D signal transduction pathways in myogenic cells. Cell Biol Int 2004;28(10):683–8.

Maier R. Is CNS activity modified by pulsed electromagnetic fields? Biomed Tech (Berl) 2001;46(1-2):18–23.

Franke H, Streckert J, Bitz A, Goeke J, Hansen V, Ringelstein EB, et al. Effects of Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) electromagnetic fields on the blood-brain barrier in vitro. Radiat Res 2005;164(3):258–69.

Sukhotina I, Streckert JR, Bitz AK, Hansen VW, Lerchl A. A 1800 MHz electromagnetic field effects on melatonin release from isolated pineal glands. J Pineal Res 2006;40(1):86–91.

Spadaro JA, Bergstrom WH. In vivo and in vitro effects of a pulsed electromagnetic field on net calcium flux in rat calvarial bone. Calcif Tissue Int 2002;70(6):496–502.

Lantow M, Schuderer J, Hartwig C, Simkó M. Free radical release and HSP70 expression in two human immune-relevant cell lines after exposure to 1800 MHz radiofrequency radiation. Radiat Res 2006;165(1):88–94.

Bonhomme-Faivre L, Marion S, Forestier F, Santini R, Auclair H. Effects of electromagnetic fields on the immune systems of occupationally exposed humans and mice. Arch Environ Health 2003;58(11):712–7.

Levitt BB, Lai H. Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. Environ Rev. 2010;18:369–95.

Oh CM, Jung KW, Won YJ, Shin A, Kong HJ, Lee JS. Age-Period-Cohort Analysis of Thyroid Cancer Incidence in Korea. Cancer Res Treat 2015;47(3):362–9.

Hardell L, Carlberg M. Mobile phone and cordless phone use and the risk for glioma - Analysis of pooled case-control studies in Sweden, 1997-2003 and 2007-2009. Pathophysiology 2015;22(1):1–13.

Ubeda A, Leal J, Trillo MA, Jimenez MA, Delgado JM. Pulse shape of magnetic fields influences chick embryogenesis. J Anat 1983;137(Pt 3):513–36.

Cox CF, Brewer LJ, Raeman CH, Schryver CA, Child SZ, Carstensen EL. A test for teratology effects of power frequency magnetic fields on chick embryos. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1993;40(7):605–10.

Farrell JM, Litovitz TL, Penafiel M, Montrose CJ, Doinov P, Barber M, et al. The effect of pulsed and sinusoidal magnetic firlds on the morphology of developing chick embryos. Bioelectromagnetics 1997;18(6):431–8.

Youbicier-Simo BJ, Lebecq JC, Giaimis J, Bastide M. Mortality of chicken embryos continuously exposed under GSM cell phone and validation of the effectiveness of a protective device. International conference on cell tower siting, Salzburg, Austria, 2000. [Internet]. [cited 2015 Feb 15]. Available from: http://www.salzburg.gv.at/gesundheit_/Documents/proceedings_(01)_title_and_summary.pdf

Veteran L, Veteranyova A, Jedlicka J. Effects of magnetic field on embryonic mortality. Cesk Fysiol 2001;50(3):141–3.

Grigor’ev luG. Biological effects of mobile phone electromagnetic field on chick embryo (risk assessment using the mortality rate). Radiats Biol Radioecol 2003;43(5):541–3.

Ingole IV, Ghosh SK. Exposure to radio frequency radiation emitted by cell phone and mortality in chick embryo (Gallus domesticus). Biomed Res 2006;17(3):205–10.

Al-Qudsi F, Azzouz S. Effects of electromagnetic radiation on chick embryo development. Life Sci J 2012;9(2):983–91.

Jyoti KR, Bagai U. Effect of mobile phone frequency radiation on early development of chick embryo. Int J Sci Environ Technol 2014;3:1273–80.

Lahijani MS, Ghafoori M. Teratogenic effects of sinusoidal extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields on morphology of 24 hr. chick embryos. Indian J Exp Biol 2000;38(7):692–9.

Zareen N, Khan MY, Minhas LA. Dose related shifts in the developmental progress of chick embryo exposed to mobile phone induced electromagnetic fields. J Ayub Med Coll 2009;21(1):130–4.

Fathi E, Farahzadi R. Interaction of mobile telephone radiation with biological systems in veterinary and medicine. J Biomed Eng Technol 2014;2(1):1–4.

Hamburger V, Hamilton HL. A Series of normal stages in the development of the chick embryo. 1951. Dev Dyn 1992;195(4):231–72.

Batellier F, Couty I, Picard D, Brillard JP. Effects of exposing chicken eggs to a cell phone in "call" position over the entire incubation period. Theriogenology 2008;69(6):737–45.

Lahijani MS, Farivar S, Khodaeian M. Effects of 50 Hz electromagnetic fields on the histology, apoptosis, and expression of c-Fos and β-catenin on the livers of preincubated white Leghorn chicken embryos. Electromagn Biol Med 2011;30(3):158–69.

Ubeda A, Trillo MA, Chacon L, Blanco MJ, Leal J. Chick embryo development can be irreversibly altered by early exposure to weak extremely-low-frequency magnetic fields. Bioelectromagnetics 1994;15(5):385–98.

De Iuliis GN, Newey RJ, King BV, Aitken RJ. Mobile phone radiation induces Reactive Oxygen Species production and DNA damage in human spermatozoa in Vitro. PLoS One 2009;4(7):e6446.

Rao VS, Titushkin IA, Moros EG, Pickard WF, Thatte HS, Cho MR. Non-thermal effects of radiofrequency-field exposure on calcium dynamics in stem cell-derived neuronal cells: elucidation of calcium pathways. Radiat Res 2008;169(3):319–29.

Markova E, Malmgren LO, Belyaev IY. Microwaves from mobile phones inhibit 53BP1 focus formation in human stem cells more strongly than in differentiated cells: Possible mechanistic link to cancer. Environ Health Perspect 2010;118(3):394–9.

Desai N, Sharma R, Makker K, Sabanegh E, Agarwal A. Physiological and pathological levels of reactive oxygen species in neat semen of infertile men. Fertil Steril 2009;92(5):1626–31.

Downloads

Published

2016-06-01