Landgrebe M, Frick U, Hauser S, Hajak G, Langguth B. · 2009
The study used a case-control design with 89 electromagnetic hypersensitive patients and 107 matched controls to assess tinnitus occurrence and severity by questionnaires. Tinnitus was significantly more frequent in the electromagnetic hypersensitive group (50.72% vs. 17.5%) while tinnitus duration and severity did not differ between groups. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity and tinnitus were independent risk factors for sleep disturbances, but measures of individual EMF exposure like cell phone use did not show any association with tinnitus.
Dahmen N, Ghezel-Ahmadi D, Engel A. · 2009
Results showed laboratory signs of thyroid dysfunction, liver dysfunction, and chronic inflammatory processes in some EHS patients, with significant differences in TSH and ALT/AST between groups. The hypotheses that anemia or kidney dysfunction play a major role in EHS were refuted.
Budak GG, Muluk NB, Budak B, Oztürk GG, Apan A, Seyhan N. · 2009
Blettner M et al. · 2009
The study aimed to investigate whether proximity to mobile phone base stations and risk perception are associated with health complaints. Among 30,047 participants, 18.7% were concerned about adverse health effects and 10.3% attributed personal health effects to base station exposure. Participants concerned about or attributing health effects to base stations and those living within 500 meters reported slightly more health complaints than others. The slightly higher prevalence of health complaints near base stations could not be fully explained by attributions or concerns.
Berg-Beckhoff G et al. · 2009
Researchers conducted a cross-sectional study in 2006 with 3526 participants living mainly in urban regions to test whether low-level RF-EMF from mobile phone base stations was related to health disturbances. Exposure was assessed with a dosimeter measuring different RF-EMF frequencies, and health outcomes were collected via postal questionnaires on sleep disturbances, headaches, health complaints, and mental and physical health. No differences in median health scores were found between exposed and non-exposed participants, and measured RF-EMFs were not associated with adverse health effects.
Augner C, Hacker GW. · 2009
The study examined whether people who believe they live close to mobile phone base stations show greater psychological or psychobiological strain. Fifty-seven participants completed questionnaires and provided saliva samples for alpha-amylase, cortisol, immunoglobulin A, and substance P. Self-declared base station neighbors (within 100 meters) had higher salivary alpha-amylase and higher scores on several symptom checklist subscales and the global strain index, but no difference in EMF-related health concerns.
Kundi M, Hutter HP. · 2009
Cross-sectional investigations of subjective health as a function of distance or measured field strength found indications for an effect of exposure that is likely independent of concerns and attributions. Experimental studies applying short-term exposure to base station signals gave various results, but there is weak evidence that UMTS and to a lesser degree GSM signals reduce wellbeing in persons that report to be sensitive to such exposures. Two ecological studies of cancer near base stations reported a strong increase in incidence within 350 and 400 meters, but limitations prevent firm conclusions.
Augner C, Florian M, Pauser G, Oberfeld G, Hacker GW. · 2009
Researchers examined the effects of short-term GSM base station radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure on psychological symptoms including good mood, alertness, and calmness, as measured by a standardized well-being questionnaire. Fifty-seven participants were randomly assigned to one of three different exposure scenarios, each involving five 50-min exposure sessions. Participants in the high and medium exposure scenarios were significantly calmer than those in the low-exposure scenario (P = 0.042), though no significant differences were found for good mood or alertness. The researchers concluded that short-term exposure to GSM base station signals may have an impact on well-being by reducing psychological arousal.
Balassa T, Szemerszky R, Bárdos G. · 2009
Researchers exposed rats to a 50 Hz electromagnetic field and then tested situational and social anxiety as well as locomotor activity. The tests used included the elevated plus-maze, novel object exploration, social interaction, and territoriality assessments. The researchers found that the field parameters may cause discomfort and may influence behavior, but there was no verified effect on social and territorial behavior.
Wiholm C et al. · 2009
Researchers studied the effects of a 2 1/2 h RF exposure at 884 MHz on spatial memory and learning using a double-blind repeated measures design. The exposure was designed to mimic that experienced during a real-life mobile phone conversation, with an average peak spatial specific absorption rate of 1.4 W/kg. Results showed a significant RF exposure by group effect on distance traveled during the trials, with the symptomatic group improving their performance during RF exposure while there was no such effect in the non-symptomatic group.
Daniels WM, Pitout IL, Afullo TJ, Mabandla MV · 2009
Researchers studied the effect of electromagnetic radiation in the mobile phone range on the behaviour of the rat. Behavioural, histological and biochemical tests were performed on exposed and unexposed male and female rats to examine learning and memory, emotional states and corticosterone levels. No significant differences were found in spatial memory or brain morphology between groups, but some exposed animals showed decreased locomotor activity, increased grooming and a tendency of increased basal corticosterone levels. The researchers suggested that EMR exposure may lead to abnormal brain functioning.
Unknown authors · 2008
RF-EMF discrimination was investigated in seven studies including a total of 182 self-declared electromagnetic hypersensitive (EHS) individuals and 332 non-EHS individuals. The pooled correct field detection rate was 4.2% better than expected by chance (95% CI: -2.1 to 10.5). There was no evidence that EHS individuals could detect presence or absence of RF-EMF better than other persons. There was little evidence that short-term exposure to a mobile phone or base station causes symptoms based on eight randomized trials investigating 194 EHS and 346 non-EHS individuals in a laboratory.
Nieto-Hernandez R et al. · 2008
Sixty-nine participants who reported sensitivity to mobile phones took part in a double-blind, placebo-controlled provocation study. Perceived sensitivity was measured with the Sensitive Soma Assessment Scale and symptom severity was recorded. Participants were then given feedback on the overall negative findings and their individual results. Fifty-eight participants completed a 6-month follow-up and no significant differences in SSAS or symptom severity scores were found between those told they were correct or incorrect. The authors concluded that accurate feedback was insufficient to change attributions or reduce symptoms.
Kim DW, Lee JH, Ji HC, Kim SC, Nam KC, Cha EJ. · 2008
Researchers exposed 18 self-declared EHS volunteers and 19 controls to both sham and real RF from a CDMA phone for half an hour each. They measured heart rate, respiration rate, and heart rate variability. The CDMA phone exposure produced no effects on any of these parameters in either group.
Johansson A et al. · 2008
Fifteen subjects with atopic dermatitis and 15 matched controls were exposed for 30 min to a 900 MHz GSM mobile phone-like RF field at 1 W/kg. Blood samples were taken before and after exposure to measure serum levels of substance P (SP), TNF R1, and brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF). At baseline, the atopic dermatitis group had significantly higher serum TNF R1 and significantly lower BDNF than controls, while SP did not differ. No effects of RF exposure were found on any of the measured substances. Symptom reports were too few to evaluate a possible correlation with exposure.
Bamiou DE, Ceranic B, Cox R, Watt H, Chadwick P, Luxon LM. · 2008
The study used a double blind design with nine case subjects who reported symptoms after prolonged mobile telephone use and 21 control subjects. Each subject underwent 30 min exposures to pulsed RF, continuous RF, or no emission from a dummy phone system at 882 MHz with a maximum SAR of 1.3 W kg−1 (± 30%). Transient evoked otoacoustic emissions showed no significant changes from baseline after any exposure and no differences between cases and controls. Video-oculography detected no effect of exposure on the vestibular end organ in either group.
Stovner LJ, Oftedal G, Straume A, Johnsson A. · 2008
The study aimed to investigate headache type and location in a provocation study to gain insight into possible causes and mechanisms. Seventeen participants completed 130 trials of sham or RF exposure. No significant difference existed in headache type, laterality, or location between the two exposure types. In most participants, the headache was compatible with tension-type headache.
Riddervold IS et al. · 2008
Forty adolescents and 40 adults were exposed to UMTS base station signals and sham conditions in a randomized, double-blinded cross-over design. Each exposure lasted 45 minutes while participants performed cognitive tasks and reported symptoms. No statistically significant differences were found between UMTS and sham conditions for the main cognitive test. An increase in headache rating was observed when combining both age groups, though this may reflect baseline differences.
Kleinlogel H et al. · 2008
Researchers tested 1950 MHz UMTS at SAR 0.1 and 1 W/kg and pulsed 900 MHz GSM at 1 W/kg on well-being and vigilance-controlled resting EEG in 15 healthy right-handed subjects. The study used a double-blind randomised crossover design. Neither UMTS nor GSM exposure produced significant changes in measured parameters compared to sham exposure. The results did not give evidence for a deleterious effect of the EMF on normal healthy mobile phone users.
Cinel C, Russo R, Boldini A, Fox E · 2008
Researchers exposed three groups of volunteers totaling 496 participants to mobile phone electromagnetic fields in one session and sham signals in another session, using a counterbalanced double-blind design. Participants were exposed to either GSM or unmodulated signals with the phone positioned on the left or right side of the head. Before and after each exposure, participants rated five symptoms, and changes after real exposure were compared with changes after sham exposure. For one group of 160 participants, dizziness was affected by GSM exposure, but this effect was not consistent across the other two groups, and no other significant effects were found.
Soderqvist F, Carlberg M, Hardell L. · 2008
The aim of the study was to assess wireless phone use and its relation to explanatory factors and self-reported health symptoms. A postal questionnaire with 27 questions and 75 items was sent to 2000 Swedish adolescents aged 15-19 years selected from the population registry using a stratified sampling scheme, and 63.5% of the study subjects answered it. Most participants reported access to a mobile phone (99.6%) and use increased with age; 55.6% of 15-year-olds and 82.2% of 19-year-olds were regular users, girls generally reported more frequent use than boys, and watching TV increased the odds ratio for wireless phone use adjusted for age and gender. Regular users of wireless phones had health symptoms more often and reported poorer perceived health than less frequent users.
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
