lotus



previous page: 12) Are static magnetic fields genotoxic?
  
page up: Static Electromagnetic Fields and Cancer FAQ
  
next page: 14) Do laboratory studies indicate that static magnetic fields have any biological effects that might be relevant to cancer?

13) Do static magnetic fields enhance the effects of other genotoxic agents?




Description

This article is from the Static Electromagnetic Fields and Cancer FAQ, by John Moulder jmoulder@its.mcw.edu and the Medical College of Wisconsin with numerous contributions by others.

13) Do static magnetic fields enhance the effects of other genotoxic agents?

In general, static magnetic fields do not appear to have this type of
epigenetic activity. There are a few studies that suggest that static
magnetic fields might enhance the effects of other genotoxic agents, but
none of these studies has been replicated.

Three studies [14,30,31] have found that 140-3700 mT static fields do
not enhance the mutagenic effects of ionizing radiation; but a fourth
study [32] reported that 1100-1400 mT static fields caused a slight
increase in the number of chromosome aberrations produced by exposure to
high doses of ionizing radiation, and a fifth study reported that a 4000
mT field slightly increased radiation-induced cell killing [33]. Repair
of radiation-damage was reported not be affected by a 140 mT field [31],
but to be inhibited at 4000 mT [33]. Kale & Baum [34] reported that
1300-3700 mT static fields did not enhance the mutagenic effects of a
known chemical genotoxin.

Two studies [35,36] found that 150-800 mT static fields did not enhance
the development of chemically-induced mammary tumors, but a third study
[12] reported that a 0.02 mT static field did enhance the development of
chemically-induced mammary tumors.

 

Continue to:













TOP
previous page: 12) Are static magnetic fields genotoxic?
  
page up: Static Electromagnetic Fields and Cancer FAQ
  
next page: 14) Do laboratory studies indicate that static magnetic fields have any biological effects that might be relevant to cancer?