8,700 Studies Reviewed. 87.0% Found Biological Effects. The Evidence is Clear.

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

Söderqvist F, Carlberg M, Hardell L

No Effects Found

Authors not listed · 2009

Share:

Swedish study of 1,000 adults found no evidence that wireless phone use compromises blood-brain barrier integrity.

Plain English Summary

Summary written for general audiences

Swedish researchers tested whether wireless phone use affects blood-brain barrier integrity by measuring S100B protein levels in 1,000 adults. The study found no significant association between mobile or cordless phone use and elevated S100B levels, suggesting wireless phones don't compromise the blood-brain barrier based on this biomarker.

Cite This Study
Unknown (2009). Söderqvist F, Carlberg M, Hardell L.
Show BibTeX
@article{sderqvist_f_carlberg_m_hardell_l_ce3494,
  author = {Unknown},
  title = {Söderqvist F, Carlberg M, Hardell L},
  year = {2009},
  doi = {10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.09.051},
  
}

Quick Questions About This Study

This Swedish study of 1,000 adults found no evidence that mobile or cordless phone use affects blood-brain barrier integrity, as measured by S100B protein levels in blood samples.
S100B is a protein that leaks into blood when the blood-brain barrier is damaged. Researchers used it as a biomarker to detect potential barrier dysfunction from wireless phone radiation exposure.
No significant differences were found between cordless and mobile phone users. Both device types showed similar lack of association with elevated S100B levels in this Swedish population study.
The low response rate limits the study's statistical power and may introduce selection bias. However, the researchers still obtained data from over 300 participants for their blood-brain barrier analysis.
Men using UMTS (3G) phones showed a weak association with S100B levels, but this was based on only 31 subjects and may be a statistical coincidence requiring larger studies to confirm.