Note: This study found no significant biological effects under its experimental conditions. We include all studies for scientific completeness.

EHS subjects do not perceive RF EMF emitted from smart phones better than non-EHS subjects.

No Effects Found

Kwon MK, Kim SK, Koo JM, Choi JY, Kim DW. · 2012

View Original Abstract

People with electromagnetic hypersensitivity cannot detect cell phone radiation any better than others, suggesting symptoms aren't due to enhanced EMF perception.

Plain English Summary

Summary written for general audiences

Researchers tested whether people who report electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) could actually detect cell phone radiation better than those without the condition. In a double-blind study, 37 participants were exposed to real and fake cell phone signals at levels similar to normal phone use, but neither group could reliably tell when the radiation was present. The findings suggest that EHS symptoms may not be directly caused by the ability to physically sense electromagnetic fields.

Why This Matters

This study addresses a key question in the EHS debate: whether people reporting electromagnetic sensitivity can actually detect EMF exposure better than others. The research used realistic exposure conditions (1.57 W/kg SAR at 1950 MHz) that mirror typical cell phone use, making the findings practically relevant. While this suggests EHS sufferers aren't detecting EMF through enhanced physical sensitivity, it doesn't invalidate their very real symptoms or dismiss the possibility that EMF exposure could trigger health effects through other biological pathways. The science demonstrates that symptom perception and biological effects can operate independently - just because someone can't consciously detect radiation doesn't mean their body isn't responding to it at the cellular level.

Exposure Details

SAR: 1.57 W/kg
Source/Device: 1950 MHz
Exposure Duration: 32 minutes

Exposure Context

This study used 1.57 W/kg for SAR (device absorption):

3.9x above the Building Biology guideline of 0.4 W/kg

Building Biology guidelines are practitioner-based limits from real-world assessments. BioInitiative Report recommendations are based on peer-reviewed science. Check Your Exposure to compare your own measurements.

Where This Falls on the Concern Scale

Study Details

In this double-blind study, two volunteer groups of 17 EHS and 20 non-EHS subjects were investigated in regards to their perception of RF-EMFs with real and sham exposure sessions.

Experiments were conducted using a WCDMA module inside a dummy phone with an average power of 24 dBm...

In conclusion, there was no indication that EHS subjects perceive RF-EMFs better than non-EHS subjects.

Cite This Study

Kwon MK, Kim SK, Koo JM, Choi JY, Kim DW. (2012). EHS subjects do not perceive RF EMF emitted from smart phones better than non-EHS subjects. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2012:2190-193, 2012.

Show BibTeX

@article{mk_2012_ehs_subjects_do_not_3165,
  author = {Kwon MK and Kim SK and Koo JM and Choi JY and Kim DW.},
  title = {EHS subjects do not perceive RF EMF emitted from smart phones better than non-EHS subjects.},
  year = {2012},
  
  url = {https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6346396},
}

Quick Questions About This Study

No, a 2012 double-blind study found that people with electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) could not detect 1950 MHz cell phone radiation any better than people without the condition. Neither group could reliably tell when the radiation was present during testing.

Research shows electromagnetic hypersensitivity does not improve detection of smartphone EMF signals. A controlled study using 1950 MHz radiation found that EHS subjects performed no better than non-EHS subjects at identifying when cell phone radiation was actually present.

EHS symptoms are likely not caused by physically sensing electromagnetic fields. A 2012 study demonstrated that people reporting electromagnetic hypersensitivity cannot actually detect 1950 MHz cell phone radiation better than those without symptoms, suggesting other mechanisms are involved.

Electromagnetic sensitive people cannot identify real versus fake phone signals any better than non-sensitive individuals. In double-blind testing with 1950 MHz radiation at normal phone use levels, both groups failed to reliably distinguish actual radiation from sham exposure.

Electromagnetic hypersensitive subjects do not have enhanced RF field perception abilities. Research using 37 participants exposed to 1950 MHz radiation found no indication that EHS subjects perceive radiofrequency electromagnetic fields better than people without the condition.