Liu T, Wang S, He L, Ye K. · 2008
The study investigated whether anxiety levels could be affected by repeated extremely low frequency magnetic field (ELF MF) exposure of different daily durations. Rats exposed for 4 h/day showed increased anxiety-like behaviors in the open field test and the elevated plus maze test, without changes in locomotor activity, but showed no effect in the light/dark box test. Rats exposed for 1 h/day showed no effect in any of the tests.
Mathur R. · 2008
Researchers exposed growing rats to a radiofrequency field (73.5 MHz amplitude modulated, 16 Hz, SAR = 0.4 w/kg) for 45 days at 2 hours per day and recorded their responses to several types of noxious stimuli. The tonic pain rating was also decreased (p < 0.01), which the researchers said indicates analgesia in response to tonic pain. The data suggest that amplitude modulated RF field differentially affects the mechanisms involved in the processing of various noxious stimuli.
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.
Paglialonga A et al. · 2007
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.
Davidson HC, Lutman ME. · 2007
Researchers distributed questionnaires to University of Southampton postgraduates and analyzed 117 out of 160 returned surveys. Ninety-four percent of respondents were current mobile phone users, and only two percent had never used a mobile phone. High or long-term users reported no worse hearing, tinnitus, or balance than low or short-term users.
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.
Hallberg O. · 2007
Researchers related health parameters to population density in 21 Swedish counties and to estimates of average mobile phone output power. People in sparsely populated counties in Sweden, Denmark, and Norway have suffered more illness and longer recovery since 1997, whereas the countryside was the healthiest place 20 years ago. The strongest correlations with decreased health quality were estimated average mobile phone power output (positive correlation) and GSM base station coverage (negative correlation) in each county.
Al-Dousary SH. · 2007
The study aimed to observe mobile phone induced sensorineural hearing loss. A case of sensorineural hearing loss due to Global System for Mobile Communications mobile phone use in a 42-year-old male was reported.
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.
Stevens P · 2007
Researchers studied whether exposure to a 0–5 µT magnetic field at EEG alpha-band frequencies (8–12 Hz) would affect emotional state. Participants reported a change in emotional state following exposure, and a decrease in global field power was observed. The frontal alpha-asymmetry that would physiologically indicate a directly induced emotional state was absent, and researchers suggested that participant experiences were due to an interpretation of the effects of MF exposure.
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.
Oktay MF, Dasdag S · 2006
The study enrolled three groups of 20 men each: heavy users who spoke on a cellular phone for about two hours per day for four years, moderate users who used a phone for 10 to 20 minutes per day for four years, and a control group of men who had never used a cellular phone. In brainstem evoked response audiometry the I-III, III-V, and I-V interpeak latencies were evaluated. The BERA results showed no differences among the groups. Pure tone audiometry found no difference between moderate users and controls. Heavy users had significantly higher detection thresholds at 4000 Hz for both bone and air conduction in the right ear and at 500 Hz and 4000 Hz for bone and air conduction in the left ear.
Lopez-Martin E et al. · 2006
The study investigated effects of mobile-phone-type radiation on cerebral activity of seizure-prone animals. Rats pretreated with subconvulsive picrotoxin and exposed to 2 hours of GSM-modulated 900 MHz radiation suffered seizures and showed markedly increased c-Fos levels in neocortex, paleocortex, hippocampus and thalamus. Non-irradiated picrotoxin-treated rats did not suffer seizures and had significantly lower c-Fos counts. Radiation caused no such differences in rats not pretreated with picrotoxin.
Jeong JH, Kum C, Choi HJ, Park ES, Sohn UD. · 2006
Researchers investigated the effect of 60 Hz ELF-MF on hyperalgesia in mice using a hot plate test. Exposure to ELF-MF lowered pain threshold and elevated NO synthesis in brain and spinal cord. The hyperalgesic effects were blocked by an NOS inhibitor and a Ca2+ channel blocker but not by an NMDA receptor antagonist.
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.
