Lovely R H
Neurosciences Group, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA 99352.
Prog Clin Biol Res. 1988;257:327-47.
Behavioral responses to ELF electric and magnetic fields are reviewed starting with the simple sensory awareness or detection by an animal and moving on through more-complicated behavioral responses such as behavior that averts exposure. The literature selected in this review is taken primarily from the area of behavioral toxicology. As such, it does not review work on specialized response systems to ELF fields. The most notable of these omitted specialized response systems are electroreception, (see Kalmijn, this volume), which occurs in a number of fish species, and homing/navigation and communication of the location of food that occurs in several species of birds and in honeybees, respectively. The toxicologic orientation of most researches that evaluate the effects of exposure to ELF electric and magnetic fields has been influenced primarily by the "missions" of DOE and the power industry programs to determine the health effects of power frequency (50- and 60-Hz) electric and magnetic fields. Because of these large programmatic efforts, most of the recent research has in fact been done at 50 or 60 Hz. In the context of the above limitations, remarkably few robust behavioral effects have been reported. Those that have been reported probably relate to an animal's perception of the electric field, although there are some exceptions to this generalization. The apparent lack of deleterious effects in animals is consistent with recent studies on humans that have been conducted in the UK. With this in mind, it is tempting to conclude that exposure to an ELF field is a rather innocuous event and, other than possible mini-shocks, is without hazard. However, if this is the case, then what sense are we to make of reports of altered neural function (other than behavior) that result from exposure to ELF fields (e.g., suppressed melatonin and SNAT activity in the rat pineal; efflux of calcium ions from brain cortices; histological change in the cerebellum and hippocampus following perinatal exposure, etc.)? Are these neural effects no more than "noise" to the behaving organism? Possible reasons form the disparity between cell biology, neurochemistry, and behavior have been presented in this chapter, and based on the hypothesized reasons for the existing disparity, a number of experiments were suggested.
本文回顾了动物对极低频电场和磁场的行为反应,从动物简单的感官意识或探测开始,进而探讨更复杂的行为反应,如避免暴露的行为。本综述所选文献主要来自行为毒理学领域。因此,它没有回顾关于极低频场的专门反应系统的研究。这些被省略的专门反应系统中最值得注意的是电感受(见卡尔米恩,本卷),它存在于许多鱼类中,以及分别在几种鸟类和蜜蜂中出现的归巢/导航和食物位置通讯。大多数评估极低频电场和磁场暴露影响的研究的毒理学取向主要受到美国能源部和电力行业项目“任务”的影响,这些项目旨在确定工频(50和60赫兹)电场和磁场对健康的影响。由于这些大规模的项目努力,最近的大多数研究实际上是在50或60赫兹下进行的。在上述限制条件下,报告的强大行为效应非常少。那些已报告的效应可能与动物对电场的感知有关,尽管这一普遍规律也有一些例外。动物中明显缺乏有害效应与英国最近对人类进行的研究一致。考虑到这一点,很容易得出结论,即暴露于极低频场是一个相当无害的事件,除了可能的微小电击外,没有危害。然而,如果是这样,那么我们该如何理解因暴露于极低频场而导致的神经功能改变(行为以外的)报告呢(例如,大鼠松果体中褪黑素和SNAT活性受到抑制;钙离子从大脑皮层外流;围产期暴露后小脑和海马的组织学变化等)?这些神经效应对于行为生物体来说仅仅是“噪音”吗?本章提出了细胞生物学、神经化学和行为之间存在差异的可能原因,并基于现有差异的假设原因提出了一些实验建议。