In order to determine the effect of the contrast agent, the researchers consider that it will be necessary to use real patients. "It is no longer legitimate to repeat a study in healthy subjects but rather we could look at subjects who are due to undergo an examination in the context of screening, for example”, considers Patrizio Lancellotti. “It would also be necessary to establish whether it is something that only applies to heart examinations or whether it could also apply to brain or osteoarticular examinations, which is a very big question”.

More generally, it would be important to demonstrate the impact of non-ionizing radiation on health. We already know that this can cause nausea and dizziness. “Warnings have been issued against intensive use of this non-ionizing radiation for the wider public and workers who are exposed to it”, says Alain Nchimi. “On one hand, a formal link between the  exposure to non-ionizing radiation and clinical effects such as cancer or other pathologies has not been proved yet. On the other hand, as with every theory, there is a counter opinion which states that this non-ionizing radiation is protective (of DNA, as far as external attacks are concerned)".

Controversial results

This study, which proves for the first time that there is a causal link between an increase and persistence of gamma-H2AX and CMR, was published in a journal of the American Heart Association, Circulation Cardiovascular Imaging. While some individuals such as the editor of the publication, and Philip Kaufmann describe these results as remarkable, others are more critical. Nevertheless, if there is a problem, it must be demonstrated and the medical community must be warned. For example, it would be inadmissible not to speak of the effects of ionizing radiation on cells when these have already been well-established. In order to reduce these effects, doses are adapted accordingly, exposure times are reduced, etc. Perhaps the same thing could apply to CMR where specific sensitivity markers should be used...

The head of GIGA-cardiovascular acknowledges that there is a certain ambivalence: "We were not seeking to cause controversy. We are all confronted by the clinic of everyday life and we do not want to send out a message that is too strong without being sure whether or not there is a risk".

"We are not saying we are sure that there are problems”, insists Alain Nchimi, “we are saying that we have observed a certain number of troubling facts and that we are not alone in this. Before us, several studies observed the same facts, including in laboratory tests. Those studies, with one exception, have not resonated with the medical community and it is worrying that manufacturers have not reacted to these results. It is important to elicit a response from manufacturers and other scientists who wish to investigate the question in order to establish whether radiofrequencies generally, are having an effect".

“Currently, manufacturers are not arguing against the studies published on the subject”, adds Alain Nchimi: "Their argument – which is a valid one – is that the anomalies that can be observed after examination by means of non-ionizing radiation are physiological in nature (caused by intense physical activity, for example), and can exist in any individual subjected to the same type of radiation. Statistically, this may be true but more research is needed on the subject". There is enough material here to inspire several research projects which will make it possible to conduct these examinations in total safety…