RF Safe

Vibration as a possible explanation for putative electromagnetic field effects: a case study on marine diatoms.

International journal of radiation biology · 2004 · No effect · Low evidence

← Research stream
No effectLow evidencePaper 3666

Across 96 vertical vibration treatments (amplitude envelope described from 10–500 Hz), no significant effect of mechanical vibrations on diatom motility was observed. The authors conclude that variability in earlier ELF-EMF experiments is unlikely to be expla…

Study snapshot

PublicationInternational journal of radiation biology · 2004
Study typeother
Reported directionNo effect
Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

PURPOSE: We examined the conjecture that mechanical vibration, being an uncontrolled and variable factor from one trial to another, might explain the inconsistency of results from investigations of the influence of extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields on the Ca-dependent motility of marine diatoms (Amphora coffeaeformis, strain #2038). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Owing to slight differences in culture of diatoms in previous studies, culture techniques are described in detail here. Diatoms showed maximal motility in logarithmic growth and motility was dependent on external [Ca], reducing at <.25 mM added Ca. Ninety-six different vertical vibration treatments were applied to the petri dishes containing the agar on which the diatoms were placed. The envelope of amplitudes varied from 50-500 pmicro at 10Hz to 100 nm-l1mmicro at 500 Hz. RESULTS: No significant effect of the mechanical vibrations on the motility response of diatoms was observed. We were unable to impose deliberate vibrations in a horizontal direction though some component of horizontal movement was probably present in our tests. CONCLUSIONS: The results imply that the variability of earlier experiments with extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields is unlikely to be ascribable to mechanical vibration.

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typeother
Effect directionno_effect
PopulationMarine diatoms (Amphora coffeaeformis, strain #2038)
Sample sizeNot supplied
ExposureELF
Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Across 96 vertical vibration treatments (amplitude envelope described from 10–500 Hz), no significant effect of mechanical vibrations on diatom motility was observed. The authors conclude that variability in earlier ELF-EMF experiments is unlikely to be explained by uncontrolled mechanical vibration.

Outcomes measured

  • Ca-dependent motility of marine diatoms
  • Motility response under mechanical vibration

Limitations

  • Unable to impose deliberate vibrations in a horizontal direction; some horizontal component may have been present
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "other",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "ELF",
    "source": null,
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Marine diatoms (Amphora coffeaeformis, strain #2038)",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Ca-dependent motility of marine diatoms",
    "Motility response under mechanical vibration"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Across 96 vertical vibration treatments (amplitude envelope described from 10–500 Hz), no significant effect of mechanical vibrations on diatom motility was observed. The authors conclude that variability in earlier ELF-EMF experiments is unlikely to be explained by uncontrolled mechanical vibration.",
  "effect_direction": "no_effect",
  "limitations": [
    "Unable to impose deliberate vibrations in a horizontal direction; some horizontal component may have been present"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "mechanical vibration",
    "extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields",
    "ELF",
    "marine diatoms",
    "Amphora coffeaeformis",
    "calcium-dependent motility"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": []
}
AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.1080/09553000400015493
PubMed: 15799616

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library