Rubin GJ, Cleare AJ, Wessely S · 2008
Fifty-two people reporting sensitivity to mobile phones, 19 reporting both mobile phone sensitivity and electrosensitivity, and 60 nonsensitive controls completed a questionnaire. Perceived sensitivity was linked to using a mobile phone mainly for work (3% of controls, 13% of mobile-phone-sensitive, 21% of electrosensitivity) and to greater modern health worries about radiation (mean scores 2.0, 2.7, and 4.0 on a 1–5 scale). The electrosensitivity group reported greater depression, more worries about tainted food and toxic interventions, worse general health, and more medically unexplained syndromes, with no differences in psychiatric cases.
Landgrebe M et al. · 2008
Researchers conducted a case-control study with 89 electromagnetic hypersensitive patients and 107 matched controls. They assessed health status, EMF-specific cognitions, perception thresholds, and cortical excitability using questionnaires and transcranial magnetic stimulation. Discrimination ability was significantly reduced in the hypersensitive group, while perception thresholds for real magnetic pulses were similar between groups. Intra-cortical facilitation was decreased in younger hypersensitive patients and increased in older hypersensitive patients. EMF-related cognitions such as rumination and symptom intolerance differentiated the hypersensitive patients from controls.
Khan MM. · 2008
Researchers surveyed medical students using a questionnaire about mobile phone use and health complaints. The response rate was 86.6% with 286 of 330 forms completed. Most students (83.57%) had some knowledge about adverse effects of mobile phone use. Daily mobile phone use was less than 30 minutes for 55.94% of students, 30-60 minutes for 27.97%, 60-90 minutes for 11.53%, and more than 90 minutes for 4.54%. Reported symptoms included headache (16.08%), fatigue (24.48%), impaired concentration (34.27%), memory disturbances (40.56%), sleeplessness (38.8%), hearing problems (23.07%), facial dermatitis (16.78%), and a sensation of warmth in the ear area (28.32%); 44.4% of the 286 subjects linked their symptoms to mobile phone use.
Hinrikus H, Bachmann M, Lass J, Karai D, Tuulik V. · 2008
Unknown authors · 2007
Preece AW, Georgiou AG, Dunn EJ, Farrow S · 2007
Field strengths in exposed villages reached up to 0.30 (Volts/Vm(-1) metre) from the 17.6 MHz military transmissions and up to 1.4 Vm(-1) from other sources, while the control village measured below 0.01 Vm(-1). Compared with the control village, exposed residents reported significantly more migraine, headache, and dizziness, and had poorer scores on all eight SF-36 health domains. The authors noted heightened risk perception, especially for noise and electromagnetic pollution, and suggested the symptom excess was more likely due to antenna visibility or aircraft noise.
Oftedal G, Straume A, Johnsson A, Stovner L · 2007
Seventeen eligible individuals who experienced symptoms in an open provocation test took part in a double-blind, randomized provocation study with cross-over design. Sixty-five pairs of sham and mobile phone RF exposures were conducted. The increase in pain or discomfort on visual analogue scales was 10.1 in RF sessions and 12.6 in sham sessions (P=0.30). Changes in heart rate or blood pressure were not related to the type of exposure (P: 0.30-0.88). The study gave no evidence that RF fields from mobile phones may cause head pain or discomfort or influence physiological variables.
Eltiti S et al. · 2007
Fifty-six self-reported sensitive and 120 control participants were tested in an open provocation test, of which 12 sensitive and 6 controls withdrew after the first session, and the remainder completed a series of double-blind tests. During the open provocation, sensitive individuals reported lower levels of well-being in both GSM and UMTS compared with sham exposure, whereas controls reported more symptoms during the UMTS exposure. During double-blind tests the GSM signal did not have any effect on either group. Sensitive participants reported elevated levels of arousal during the UMTS condition, whereas the number or severity of symptoms experienced did not increase. Physiological measures did not differ across the three exposure conditions for either group.
Landgrebe M et al. · 2007
Researchers measured cortical excitability parameters using transcranial magnetic stimulation in 23 subjectively electrosensitive patients and two control groups totaling 49 participants with varying levels of unspecific health complaints. Electrosensitive patients showed reduced intracortical facilitation compared to both control groups. Motor thresholds and intracortical inhibition were unaffected in electrosensitive patients relative to controls. The authors suggest that altered central nervous system function may account for symptom manifestation in subjectively electrosensitive patients.
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.
Unknown authors · 2006
Researchers conducted telephone interviews with a random sample of 342 Swiss general practitioners, achieving a 28.2% response rate. 69% of GPs reported at least one consultation due to EMF, with a median of three such consultations per year. The most commonly reported symptoms were sleep disorders, headaches, and fatigue, while the main suspected EMF sources were mobile phone base stations, power lines, and personal mobile phone use. GPs judged the association between EMF and symptoms as plausible in 54% of cases, but no specific symptom-source combination was consistently judged plausible.
Unknown authors · 2006
Researchers conducted telephone interviews between May and June 2004 with a representative sample of 2048 Swiss residents aged over 14 years. The study found a 5% prevalence of electromagnetic hypersensitivity with a 95% confidence interval of 4% to 6%. Among those with electromagnetic hypersensitivity, the most common complaints were sleep disorders at 43% and headaches at 34%. 53 percent of the population were worried about adverse health effects from EMF without attributing their own health symptoms to them.
Unknown authors · 2006
Regel SJ et al. · 2006
Researchers performed a controlled exposure experiment with 45-minute sessions at 0, 1, or 10 V/m in a randomized, double-blind crossover design with 117 healthy subjects including 33 self-reported sensitive and 84 nonsensitive subjects. In both groups, well-being and perceived field strength were not associated with actual exposure levels, and no consistent condition-induced changes in cognitive performance were observed except for two marginal effects. At 10 V/m a slight effect on speed in one of six tasks in sensitive subjects and an effect on accuracy in another task in nonsensitive subjects were observed, but both effects disappeared after multiple endpoint adjustment.
Hutter HP, Moshammer H, Wallner P, Kundi M. · 2006
Researchers conducted a cross-sectional study of 365 randomly selected inhabitants living near 10 mobile phone base stations in urban and rural areas. High-frequency electromagnetic field strength was measured in the bedrooms of 336 households, and several cognitive tests, wellbeing, and sleep quality were also assessed. Total HF-EMF exposure was far below recommended levels, with a maximum of 4.1 mW/m2, and average power density was 0.05 mW/m2 in the rural area and 0.02 mW/m2 in the urban area. Some symptoms showed a significant relation to measured power density, headaches most strongly, while sleep quality showed no significant effect.
Wilen J, Johansson A, Kalezic N, Lyskov E, Sandstrom M · 2006
Researchers investigated the effect of a mobile phone-like radiofrequency electromagnetic field on people who reported subjective symptoms when using mobile phones. Twenty subjects with mobile phone-related symptoms were matched with 20 controls without such symptoms, and each person took part in one true exposure session and one sham exposure session in random order. No significant differences related to radiofrequency exposure conditions were detected. The symptomatic group displayed a shift in low/high frequency ratio towards sympathetic dominance in the autonomous nervous system during tests, regardless of exposure condition.
Unknown authors · 2005
An overwhelming percentage of general practitioners (up to 96%) to some degree, or totally, believe in a health-relevant role of environmental electromagnetic fields. Two-thirds are consulted occasionally or even frequently by self-declared electromagnetic hypersensitive patients. Only 4% mention having received information on "electromagnetic pollution" from such a source.
Seitz H, Stinner D, Eikmann T, Herr C, Röösli M. · 2005
Researchers systematically reviewed literature from 2000 to 2004 on electromagnetic hypersensitivity and mobile phone electromagnetic fields, evaluating 13 studies of sufficient quality. Five randomized cross-over studies on impaired well-being from mobile phone exposure gave contradictory results and were limited by short exposure periods and small sample sizes. Observational epidemiological studies showing a positive association between exposure and unspecific symptoms had methodological limitations preventing firm conclusions. In the only provocation study with self-reported electromagnetic hypersensitivity individuals, perception of field status was no better than chance.
Uloziene I, Uloza V, Gradauskiene E, Saferis V. · 2005
The study aimed to assess potential hearing changes from mobile phone electromagnetic fields at 900 and 1800 MHz. Thirty volunteers aged 18 to 30 with normal hearing participated in a within-subject design. Each participant attended two sessions, one with genuine exposure and one with sham exposure, administered double-blind and counterbalanced. Hearing threshold levels on pure tone audiometry and transient evoked otoacoustic emissions were recorded before and immediately after each 10-minute exposure. Statistical analysis showed no significant differences in mean hearing threshold levels or TEOAE shifts before and after either genuine or sham exposure, average TEOAE levels changed less than 2.5 dB, and the greatest individual change was a 10 dB decrease after real exposure.
Straume A, Oftedal G, Johnsson A · 2005
One healthy male subject participated in the study. The subject held the phone in a normal position while the phone was off, on with a 50 Ohm load replacing the antenna to remove RF exposure, and on while transmitting RF fields. The phone’s output power was set to its minimum and maximum levels. The experiment was double blind. Skin temperature changes were calculated on the exposed side of the head relative to the unexposed side after 15 and 30 minutes of use.
Szyjkowska A et al. · 2005
A survey using a self-reported questionnaire was conducted among randomly selected university students in Lodz, Central Poland. Out of 160 questionnaires distributed, 140 were completed and 117 were analyzed after excluding respondents with pre-existing health problems. The participants were 61 males and 56 females, with most rating their health as good or very good. Seventy percent of students reported headache, 20% reported dizziness, 56% reported impaired concentration, and 11% reported facial dermatitis. Only 8 of 82 students with headache and 10 of 65 with impaired concentration attributed these symptoms to mobile phone use, and the authors concluded that further experimental and epidemiologic studies are needed.
Meo SA, Al-Drees AM · 2005
Researchers invited 873 mobile phone users (57.04% males, 39.86% females) to complete a structured questionnaire and used chi-square tests to examine call duration and symptoms. The study found an association between mobile phone use and hearing and vision complaints, with 34.59% reporting hearing issues like impaired hearing, ear ache, or warmth, and 5.04% reporting decreased or blurred vision. The authors concluded that mobile phone use is a health risk factor and suggested avoiding excessive use while increasing social awareness through health promotion.
Balikci K, Cem Ozcan I, Turgut-Balik D, Balik HH. · 2005
Balik HH, Turgut-Balik D, Balikci K, Ozcan IC. · 2005
Researchers conducted a survey to investigate the possible effects of long-term mobile phone use on eyes. The studied symptoms included blurring of vision, redness on the eyes, vision disturbance, secretion of the eyes, inflammation in the eyes, and lacrimation of the eyes. There was no effect on redness or vision disturbance, but statistical evidence suggested mobile phone use may cause blurring of vision, secretion, inflammation, and lacrimation.
Belyaev IY et al. · 2005
Researchers exposed human lymphocytes from healthy subjects and from persons reporting hypersensitivity to electromagnetic field (EMF) to 915 MHz microwaves and 50 Hz magnetic field, then measured chromatin conformation and markers of DNA damage. Both exposures caused significant chromatin condensation, similar to heat shock at 41 °C, but no significant differences were found between hypersensitive and healthy subjects. Neither 915 MHz nor 50 Hz exposure induced 53BP1 foci, and no apoptosis was induced.
