Krause CM, Pesonen M, Haarala Bjornberg C, Hamalainen H. · 2007
Researchers recruited two groups of 36 male participants each, one performing an auditory memory task and the other a visual working memory task under six exposure conditions. The study aimed to partially replicate earlier work and investigate effects of mobile phone EMF on event-related desynchronisation/synchronisation EEG responses during cognitive processing. EMF exposure produced modest effects on alpha band oscillatory responses but no effects on behavioural measures. The EEG effects were varying, unsystematic, and inconsistent with previous reports.
Hours M et al. · 2007
Cases were histologically confirmed or based on radiological images, and controls were matched for gender, age, and residence, drawn from electoral rolls. Detailed exposure information was collected via face-to-face interviews, and conditional logistic regression estimated odds ratios. Regular cell phone use was not associated with increased risk of neuroma, meningioma, or glioma. A tendency for increased glioma risk was observed among the heaviest users, but the study had limited statistical power and results need verification in the international analysis.
Hardell LO et al. · 2007
Researchers reviewed two cohort studies and 16 case-control studies on cellular phone use and brain tumour risk, focusing on use for 10 or more years and ipsilateral exposure. The cohort study was considered of limited value due to methodological shortcomings, and most case-control results were based on low numbers. Four case-control studies found an association with acoustic neuroma for at least 10 years' use, while six studies reported increased odds ratios for malignant brain tumours, especially for ipsilateral exposure. A meta-analysis found ipsilateral cell phone use for 10 or more years yielded an odds ratio of 2.4 for acoustic neuroma and 2.0 for glioma.
Hansson Mild K, Hardell L, Carlberg M. · 2007
The study presents a pooled analysis of two case-control studies on the association of brain tumours with mobile phone use. Use of analogue cellular phones increased the risk for acoustic neuroma by 5% per 100 hours of use. The risk increased for astrocytoma grade III-IV with latency period, with highest estimates for more than 10 years since first use. Risk increased per year of use for analogue phones by 10%, digital phones by 11%, and cordless phones by 8%. For all studied phone types, odds ratios for brain tumours, mainly acoustic neuroma and malignant brain tumours, increased with latency period, especially for astrocytoma grade III-IV.
Ha M, Im H, Lee M, Kim HJ, Kim BC, Gimm YM, Pack JK. · 2007
Researchers selected leukemia and brain cancer patients under age 15 and matched controls from 14 South Korean hospitals using the Medical Insurance Data System. Exposure to RFR from 31 AM transmitters of at least 20 kW was estimated using a GIS-based prediction program calibrated with measurements. The odds ratio for all leukemia was 2.15 for children within 2 km of the nearest transmitter versus those beyond 20 km. For total RFR exposure, lymphocytic leukemia odds ratios were 1.39 and 1.59 in the second and third quartiles versus the lowest, and brain cancer was not associated with AM RFR.
Arns M, Van Luijtelaar G, Sumich A, Hamilton R, Gordon E. · 2007
Researchers used standardized data from the Brain Resource International Database to examine the relationship between mobile phone usage, personality, and brain function in 300 participants. The findings suggest a subtle slowing of brain activity related to mobile phone use that is not explained by personality differences. These changes are still within normal physiological ranges. Better executive function in mobile phone users may reflect more focused attention, possibly associated with a cognitive training effect from frequently making phone calls in distracting places. Participants were divided into three groups based on the frequency and duration of their mobile phone usage.
Al-Dousary SH. · 2007
The study aimed to observe mobile phone induced sensorineural hearing loss. A case of sensorineural hearing loss due to Global System for Mobile Communications mobile phone use in a 42-year-old male was reported.
Zhao TY, Zou SP, Knapp PE. · 2007
Researchers exposed primary cultured neurons and astrocytes to GSM cell phone emissions at 1900 MHz for 2 hours. Neurons showed up-regulation of caspase-2, caspase-6, and Asc genes in both 'on' and 'stand-by' modes. Astrocytes showed up-regulation of the same genes only in 'on' mode and also up-regulated the Bax gene.
Vecchio F et al. · 2007
Ten subjects underwent two EEG recordings separated by one week in a crossover double-blind paradigm. The mobile phone was held on the left side of the head by a modified helmet. Each session lasted 45 minutes with real GSM exposure in one session and sham in the other. GSM stimulation modulated interhemispheric frontal and temporal coherence at alpha2 and alpha3 bands compared to sham.
Parazzini M et al. · 2007
Researchers exposed 26 healthy young volunteers to 900 MHz GSM phone radiation and sham exposure in separate double-blind sessions. A rest-to-stand protocol assessed autonomic nervous system function during rest and after sympathetic activation. No statistically significant effect of EMF exposure was found on the main RR mean or most other heart rate variability parameters. A weak interaction between some time and frequency domain HRV parameters and RF exposure was observed around the sympathetic response to standing.
Abdel-Rassoul G et al. · 2007
A cross-sectional study enrolled 85 residents living near a mobile phone base station in Egypt and 80 matched controls. Exposed residents reported significantly higher rates of headache, memory changes, dizziness, tremors, depressive symptoms, and sleep disturbance than controls. On neurobehavioral testing, exposed residents performed worse on a test of attention and short-term auditory memory but better on tests of visuomotor speed and attention. Residents living opposite the station performed worse on a problem-solving test than those living under the station. Measured radiofrequency radiation levels were below the allowable standard.
Meral I et al. · 2007
In brain tissue, the MDA level increased and GSH level and CAT enzyme activity decreased in EMF-exposed guinea pigs, while vitamins A, E, and D3 levels did not change. In blood, MDA, vitamins A, D3, and E levels, and CAT enzyme activity increased, while GSH level decreased in the EMF-exposed guinea pigs.
Kumlin T et al. · 2007
Researchers exposed young male Wistar rats to a 900 MHz mobile phone signal for 2 h/day on 5 days/week. After 5 weeks of exposure at whole-body average specific energy absorption rates of 0.3 or 3.0 W/kg or sham exposure, rats were assessed for behavioral and morphological changes. No degenerative changes, dying neurons, or effects on blood-brain barrier leakage were detected, and no group differences appeared in the open-field, plus maze, or acoustic startle response tests. In the water maze test, significantly improved learning and memory were detected in rats exposed to RF fields.
Hung CS, Anderson C, Horne JA, McEvoy P · 2007
Researchers exposed 10 healthy young adults to talk, listen, standby, or sham signal modes for 30 minutes, then gave them a 90-minute sleep opportunity. Sleep latency after talk mode was markedly and significantly delayed beyond listen and sham modes. This condition effect was also evident in 1–4 Hz EEG frontal power, a frequency range described as particularly sensitive to sleep onset. There was no condition effect for subjective sleepiness.
Takebayashi T et al. · 2006
Regular mobile phone use showed no significant increase in risk, with an odds ratio of 0.73 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.23). No increase in risk was observed for cumulative years of use or cumulative call time.
Yuasa K et al. · 2006
Researchers studied somatosensory evoked potentials in 12 normal volunteers before and after 30 minutes of mobile phone exposure compared with sham exposure. In 7 of the 12 volunteers, the recovery function of the somatosensory evoked potential was also measured. Neither the somatosensory evoked potentials nor their recovery function were affected by the mobile phone exposure or sham exposure.
Terao Y, Okano T, Furubayashi T, Ugawa Y · 2006
Researchers used a double-blind, counterbalanced crossover design with 16 normal subjects. Subjects performed a visuo-motor precued choice reaction time task before and after 30 minutes of mobile phone EMF exposure or sham exposure. Reaction times and movement times under different precue conditions were not affected by real or sham exposure.
Schuz J et al. · 2006
Researchers conducted a population-based case-control study in three German regions, enrolling 366 glioma cases, 381 meningioma cases, and 1,494 controls. Overall cellular phone use was not associated with brain tumor risk, with odds ratios of 0.98 for glioma and 0.84 for meningioma. Among long-term users of 10 or more years, glioma risk was elevated (odds ratio 2.20) but meningioma risk was not, and cordless phone use showed no association with either tumor.
Russo R et al. · 2006
The study tested 168 volunteers on three cognitive tasks: a simple reaction task, a vigilance task, and a subtraction task. Participants completed the tasks in two sessions, one with RF exposure (GSM or CW signals) and one with sham exposure. No significant effects of RF exposure on performance were found for either GSM or CW signals, regardless of phone position.
Muscat JE, Hinsvark M, Malkin M · 2006
Researchers analyzed time trends in age-adjusted incidence rates of adult neuronal cancers using SEER data from 1973 to 2002. The rates did not change during this period despite an exponential increase in mobile phone subscriptions starting in 1984. The results indicate that mobile phone use is unrelated to the risk of neuronal cancers.
Mora R, Crippa B, Mora F, Dellepiane M · 2006
The study measured transient evoked otoacoustic emission and auditory brainstem response in 20 healthy men before and after cell phone exposure. Exposure sessions lasted 15 to 30 minutes at 900 to 1,800 MHz. No significant changes in either measurement were observed throughout the study.
Maby E, Jeannes Rle B, Faucon G · 2006
Researchers studied auditory evoked potentials in nine healthy subjects and six epileptic patients to determine localized effects of GSM microwaves. They used a support vector machine-based parameter selection method to estimate parameters most altered by radiofrequencies and computed the topography of modifications. Epileptic patients showed a lengthening of the N100 component in the frontal area contralateral to the radiation, while healthy subjects showed an amplitude increase of the P200 wave in the frontal area. The study suggests that radiofrequency fields emitted by mobile phones modify the AEP but found no direct link to RF-induced brain function damage.
Lahkola A, Tokola K, Auvinen A. · 2006
Researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 12 studies with 2780 cases to assess mobile phone use and intracranial tumor risk. The pooled odds ratio for all intracranial tumors was 0.98 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.83 to 1.16. For gliomas the pooled odds ratio was 0.96, for meningiomas 0.87, and for acoustic neuromas 1.07. Little indication was found for increased risks from analogue or digital phone use or for temporal or occipital tumors. The evidence does not indicate a substantially increased risk of intracranial tumors from mobile phone use for at least 5 years.
Hepworth SJ et al. · 2006
Researchers conducted a case-control study with 966 glioma cases and 1716 controls to investigate the risk of glioma in relation to mobile phone use. The overall odds ratio for regular phone use was 0.94 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.78 to 1.13, indicating no increased risk. However, ipsilateral phone use was associated with a significant excess risk (odds ratio 1.24, 1.02 to 1.52) while contralateral use showed a significant reduction in risk (odds ratio 0.75, 0.61 to 0.93).
Hamblin DL, Croft RJ, Wood AW, Stough C, Spong J. · 2006
Researchers tested 120 participants in a double-blind, counterbalanced, crossover design with two sessions one week apart. In both sessions, participants performed auditory and visual oddball tasks while EEG was recorded with a mobile phone set to sham exposure mounted over the temporal region, and then performed the same tasks while the handset was set to active or sham. No significant differences were found between exposure conditions for any ERP component or reaction time.