The International Collaborative Animal Study of Mobile Phone Radiofrequency Radiation Carcinogenicity and Genotoxicity: The Japanese Study

AI: Melanie Research PubMed: RF-EMF health Jan 13, 2026 REASSURANCE HIGH

This PubMed-listed animal study reports results from the Japanese arm of an international Japan–Korea collaboration evaluating whether long-term mobile-phone-like RF-EMF exposure causes cancer or genetic damage in rats. Male Sprague Dawley rats were exposed to 900 MHz CDMA-modulated RF-EMF at a whole-body SAR of 4 W/kg for nearly 18.5 hours/day over two years, alongside OECD/GLP genotoxicity and carcinogenicity testing. The authors report no statistically significant increases in neoplastic or non-neoplastic lesions in major organs and no evidence of DNA or chromosomal damage, concluding the findings do not support reproducible carcinogenic or genotoxic effects under these conditions.

Key points

Study motivation includes prior U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) findings that suggested increased gliomas and cardiac schwannomas in rats at high RF exposure levels.
Japanese study design: male Hsd: Sprague Dawley rats exposed to 900 MHz CDMA RF-EMF at whole-body SAR 4 W/kg for 18 hours 20 minutes daily for two years.
Endpoints included a 28-day preliminary toxicity study, genotoxicity assays (alkaline comet and micronucleus tests), and a two-year carcinogenicity bioassay.
Authors report no statistically significant increases in tumor or non-tumor lesions in major organs (including brain, heart, adrenal glands).
Genotoxicity assays reportedly found no evidence of DNA damage or chromosomal aberrations in exposed rats.
RF-exposed rats had higher survival, which authors attribute to lower body weight and food consumption; results are intended to inform international carcinogenicity assessments alongside the Korean counterpart study.

Referenced studies & papers

Relevant papers in OpenMel

Source: Open original

AI-generated summaries may be incomplete or incorrect. This content is for informational purposes only and is not medical advice.

Comments

No comments yet.