Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Radiations, Emitted by a Cellular Phone, Modify Cutaneous Blood Flow

Abstract

<i>Background:</i> Our surroundings are full of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation (EMR) of different frequency and power. The non-ionizing EMRs emitted by television, computer and cellular phone (CF) sets have been increasing over the past few years. <i>Objective:</i> The aim of our study was to assess the effects of non-ionizing EMRs (frequency 3 × 10<sup>8</sup> to 3 × 10<sup>11</sup> Hz), emitted by CFs, on cutaneous blood flow in healthy volunteers. <i>Methods:</i> Thirty healthy volunteers (14 male and 16 female; age: 18–53 years) entered the study. Measurements of cutaneous blood flow were taken under standard conditions (temperature and humidity), using a laser Doppler He-Ne flowmeter that was applied to the ear skin by an optical fibre probe. Microflow values were recorded without CF contact with the skin (T₀), with the CF turned off but in contact with the ear skin (T<sub>1</sub>), with CF contact and turned on (T<sub>2</sub>), with CF contact, turned on and receiving (T<sub>3</sub>). The microflow values were also recorded backwards: with CF contact and set turned on (T<sub>4</sub>), with CF contact and turned off (T<sub>5</sub>), without CF contact (T<sub>6</sub>). <i>Results:</i> The mean value of basal microflow (T₀), expressed as perfusion units (PU), was 51.26 ± 11.93 PU. During the T<sub>1</sub> phase, the microflow increase was 61.38%; in T<sub>2</sub> it was 131.74%, in T<sub>3</sub> 157.67%, in T<sub>4</sub> 139.21% and in T<sub>5</sub> 122.90%; in T<sub>6</sub>, the microflow value was 57.58 ± 10 PU (similar to the basal microflow). Statistically significant cutaneous microflow values (p < 0.050) were observed comparing the T<sub>1</sub> to T<sub>5</sub> values with basal microflow (T₀). Furthermore, in comparison with T<sub>1</sub> values (CF turned off in contact with the ear skin), the T<sub>2</sub>, T<sub>3</sub> and T<sub>4</sub> data were statistically significant (T<sub>2</sub> vs. T<sub>1</sub>: t = 7.763 with p < 0.050; T<sub>3</sub> vs. T<sub>1</sub>: t = 9.834 with p < 0.050; T<sub>4</sub> vs. T<sub>1</sub>: t = 8.885 with p < 0.050).