6,486 Studies Reviewed. 85.2% of Original Studies Found Biological Effects. The Evidence is Clear.
Shield Your Body

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

Symptoms & Sensitivity142 citations

Does short-term exposure to mobile phone base station signals increase symptoms in individuals who report sensitivity to electromagnetic fields? A double-blind randomized provocation study.

No Effects Found

Eltiti S, Wallace D, Ridgewell A, Zougkou K, Russo R, Sepulveda F, Mirshekar-Syahkal D, Rasor P, Deeble R, Fox E. · 2007

View Original Abstract
Share:

Short-term exposure to a typical GSM base station-like signal did not affect well-being or physiological functions in sensitive or control individuals.

Plain English Summary

Summary written for general audiences

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.

Why This Matters

The study used both open provocation and double-blind tests to determine if sensitive and control individuals experience more negative health effects when exposed to base station-like signals compared with sham. Subjective measures of well-being and symptoms as well as physiological measures of blood volume pulse, heart rate, and skin conductance were obtained.

Study Details

This study used both open provocation and double-blind tests to determine if sensitive and control individuals experience more negative health effects when exposed to base station-like signals compared with sham.

Fifty-six self-reported sensitive and 120 control participants were tested in an open provocation te...

During the open provocation, sensitive individuals reported lower levels of well-being in both the g...

Short-term exposure to a typical GSM base station-like signal did not affect well-being or physiological functions in sensitive or control individuals. Sensitive individuals reported elevated levels of arousal when exposed to a UMTS signal. Further analysis, however, indicated that this difference was likely to be due to the effect of order of exposure rather than the exposure itself.

Cite This Study
Eltiti S, Wallace D, Ridgewell A, Zougkou K, Russo R, Sepulveda F, Mirshekar-Syahkal D, Rasor P, Deeble R, Fox E. (2007). Does short-term exposure to mobile phone base station signals increase symptoms in individuals who report sensitivity to electromagnetic fields? A double-blind randomized provocation study. Environ Health Perspect. 115(11):1603-1608, 2007.
Show BibTeX
@article{s_2007_does_shortterm_exposure_to_3011,
  author = {Eltiti S and Wallace D and Ridgewell A and Zougkou K and Russo R and Sepulveda F and Mirshekar-Syahkal D and Rasor P and Deeble R and Fox E.},
  title = {Does short-term exposure to mobile phone base station signals increase symptoms in individuals who report sensitivity to electromagnetic fields? A double-blind randomized provocation study.},
  year = {2007},
  
  url = {https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18007992/},
}
PubMed: 18007992

Cited By (142 papers)

View all 142 citing papers on Semantic Scholar

Quick Questions About This Study

The study used both open provocation and double-blind tests to determine if sensitive and control individuals experience more negative health effects when exposed to base station-like signals compared with sham.
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 double-blind tests the GSM signal did not have any effect on either group. Short-term exposure to a typical GSM base station-like signal did not affect well-being or physiological functions in sensitive or control individuals.
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. In double-blind tests, sensitive participants reported elevated levels of arousal during the UMTS condition, whereas the number or severity of symptoms experienced did not increase.
Physiological measures of blood volume pulse, heart rate, and skin conductance did not differ across the three exposure conditions for either group.