Radiofrequency radiation from nearby mobile phone base stations-a case comparison of one low and one high exposure apartment

2019 · Unclear · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream

UnclearInsufficient evidencePaper 1699

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2019

Study typeexposure_assessment

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

Radiofrequency radiation from nearby mobile phone base stations-a case comparison of one low and one high exposure apartment Koppel T, Ahonen M, Carlberg M, Hedendahl LK, Hardell L. Radiofrequency radiation from nearby mobile phone base stations-a case comparison of one low and one high exposure apartment. Oncology Letters. Published online Sep 20, 2019. doi.org Abstract Radiofrequency (RF) radiation in the frequency range of 30-300 GHz has, since 2011, been classified as a 'possible' human carcinogen by Group 2B, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) at WHO. This was based on a number of human epidemiology studies on increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma. Based on further human epidemiology studies and animal studies, the evidence on RF radiation carcinogenesis has increased since 2011. In previous measurement studies, it has been indicated that high environmental RF radiation levels are present in certain areas of Stockholm Sweden, including in one apartment. Field spatial distribution measurements were performed in the previously measured apartment in Stockholm, which exhibited high RF radiation from nearby base stations. Based on the RF broadband analyzer spot measurements, the maximum indoor E-field topped at 3 V m-1 in the bedroom at the 7th floor. The maximum outdoor exposure level of 6 V m-1 was encountered at the 8th floor balcony, located at the same elevation and only 6.16 m away from the base station antennas. For comparison, a measurement was made in a low exposure apartment in Stockholm. Here, the maximum indoor field 0.52 V m-1 was measured at the corner window, with direct line of sight to the neighboring house with mobile phone base station antennas. The maximum outdoor field of 0.75 V m-1 was measured at the balcony facing the same next-door building with mobile phone base station antennas. The minimum field of 0.10 V m-1 was registered on the apartment area closest to the center of the building, demonstrating the shielding effects of the indoor walls. Good mobile phone reception was achieved in both apartments. Therefore, installation of base stations to risky places cannot be justified using the good reception requirement argument. Open access paper: spandidos-publications.com

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typeexposure_assessment

Effect directionunclear

PopulationNot supplied

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureRF

Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Field spatial distribution and spot measurements in one previously identified high-exposure Stockholm apartment found maximum indoor E-field up to 3 V/m (bedroom, 7th floor) and maximum outdoor E-field up to 6 V/m (8th floor balcony ~6.16 m from base station antennas). In a comparison low-exposure apartment, maximum indoor field was 0.52 V/m (corner window with line of sight to base station) and maximum outdoor field was 0.75 V/m (balcony), with a minimum of 0.10 V/m in the building center area, suggesting shielding by indoor walls.

Outcomes measured

Indoor electric field strength (V/m)
Outdoor electric field strength (V/m)
Spatial distribution of RF field levels in apartments

Limitations

Case comparison of only two apartments; generalizability not established
Frequency components/technology (e.g., 2G/3G/4G/5G) not specified in abstract
Measurement protocol details (time of day, averaging, calibration, uncertainty) not described in abstract
No health outcomes assessed; exposure measurements only

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "exposure_assessment",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "mobile phone base station",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": null,
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Indoor electric field strength (V/m)",
    "Outdoor electric field strength (V/m)",
    "Spatial distribution of RF field levels in apartments"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Field spatial distribution and spot measurements in one previously identified high-exposure Stockholm apartment found maximum indoor E-field up to 3 V/m (bedroom, 7th floor) and maximum outdoor E-field up to 6 V/m (8th floor balcony ~6.16 m from base station antennas). In a comparison low-exposure apartment, maximum indoor field was 0.52 V/m (corner window with line of sight to base station) and maximum outdoor field was 0.75 V/m (balcony), with a minimum of 0.10 V/m in the building center area, suggesting shielding by indoor walls.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "Case comparison of only two apartments; generalizability not established",
    "Frequency components/technology (e.g., 2G/3G/4G/5G) not specified in abstract",
    "Measurement protocol details (time of day, averaging, calibration, uncertainty) not described in abstract",
    "No health outcomes assessed; exposure measurements only"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "radiofrequency",
    "base station",
    "apartment",
    "exposure assessment",
    "electric field",
    "Stockholm",
    "environmental exposure",
    "broadband analyzer",
    "spatial distribution"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "5g-policy",
      "weight": 0.2,
      "reason": "Discusses RF range up to 30–300 GHz and base station placement, but specific 5G/mmWave not stated."
    },
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.25,
      "reason": "Mentions IARC/WHO classification of RF as possible carcinogen (Group 2B)."
    }
  ]
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.3892/ol.2019.10899
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library