Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation
Authors: Sergiy Kyrylenko
Olexandr Tsybulin
Olga Kyrylenko
Diane Henshel
Igor Yakymenko
Evgeniy Sidorik
Journal: Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine (2016)
Discipline: BIOLOGY & BIOCHEMISTRY
Keywords: Cellular signaling; cancer; free radicals; oxidative stress; radiofrequency radiation
Affiliations: a Institute of Experimental Pathology, Oncology and Radiobiology, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine , Kyiv , Ukraine., b Department of Biophysics , Bila Tserkva National Agrarian University , Bila Tserkva , Ukraine., c School of Public and Environmental Affairs , Indiana University Bloomington , Bloomington , IN , USA., d A.I. Virtanen Institute, University of Eastern Finland , Kuopio , Finland., e Department of Structural and Functional Biology , University of Campinas , Campinas , Brazil.

Abstract:  This review aims to cover experimental data on oxidative effects of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation (RFR) in living cells. Analysis of the currently available peer-reviewed scientific literature reveals molecular effects induced by low-intensity RFR in living cells; this includes significant activation of key pathways generating reactive oxygen species (ROS), activation of peroxidation, oxidative damage of DNA and changes in the activity of antioxidant enzymes. It indicates that among 100 currently available peer-reviewed studies dealing with oxidative effects of low-intensity RFR, in general, 93 confirmed that RFR induces oxidative effects in biological systems. A wide pathogenic potential of the induced ROS and their involvement in cell signaling pathways explains a range of biological/health effects of low-intensity RFR, which include both cancer and non-cancer pathologies. In conclusion, our analysis demonstrates that low-intensity RFR is an expressive oxidative agent for living cells with a high pathogenic potential and that the oxidative stress induced by RFR exposure should be recognized as one of the primary mechanisms of the biological activity of this kind of radiation. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 The authors are particularly dependent on Hardell et al. ![file] They cite the 1998 Guidelines by the *International Commission On Nonu2010Ionizing Radiation Protection*, but do not seem to have read more recent ICNIRP documents, such as the [2009 Review] , with its criticism of Hardell s work.  The studies by Hardell and colleagues are particularly problematic because of variation across their publications in the exact constitution of case groups, criteria for exclusion, exposure definitions, and the selection of results for presentation in the multiple overlapping publications. In our view, the series of decisions in methods, analysis, and presentation provide the most plausible explanation for the deviation of the findings of the Hardell studies from those of other investigators. This does not address the other positive reports, but they seem to fit more in the distribution of results expected given random error across studies. ![file] --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Friedman et al (2007) are [already covered in PubPeer] , and have attracted an Expression of Concern. ![] ,