An old issue and a new look: electromagnetic hypersensitivity caused by radiations emitted by GSM mobile phones.
← Research streamIn a double-blind provocation design, only 5/20 (25%) self-reported hypersensitive participants reported being able to discriminate real from sham mobile-phone microwave exposure, a rate described as consistent with chance. No statistically significant differ…
Study snapshot
Abstract
University students use mobile phones frequently. We previously showed that there was no association between mobile phone use and EMF health hazards among university students. As our previous study was based only on self-reported symptoms this double-blind study was designed to answer two basic questions. Firstly, are self-reported hypersensitive individuals capable of sensing whether there is a real/sham microwave exposure? Secondly, do hypersensitive patients show alterations in their biological parameters such as heart rate, respiration, and blood pressure during microwave exposure? The study consisted of a preliminary screening phase and two subsequent complementary phases. In the 1st phase, 700 students were screened for EMF hypersensitivity. Fifty two participants were hypersensitive individuals but after applying the exclusion criteria only 28 students were invited to take part in the 2nd and 3rd phase of the study, but only 20 students (71.4%) declared their informed consent. In the 2nd phase, these self reported hypersensitive participants, were exposed/sham exposed to microwave radiation emitted from a mobile phone for 10 minutes and they were asked if they could sense the existence of microwave radiation. In the 3rd phase, all students were connected to ICU monitoring devices and their basic physiological parameters were recorded precisely. Among self-reported symptoms reported in our previous study, in this study only problem in concentration (P < 0.05) and low back pain (P < 0.05) were associated with mobile phone use. Furthermore, there was a significant association between the location of mobile phone during talk and the overall score of the severity of the symptoms (P < 0.001). When the participants were asked to report their perception about the real and sham exposures, only 5 students (25%) could discriminate the real exposure/sham exposure phases. This relative frequency can be only due to chance. In the 3rd phase all of the 20 participants were connected to intensive care unit monitors and the changes in their heart rate, respiration, and blood pressure during real/sham exposure were recorded. No statistically significant changes between the means of these parameters in real/sham exposure were observed. Our findings clearly confirm the results obtained inother provocative studies. These data also indicate the possible role of psychological factors in electromagnetic hypersensitivity.
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.
Main findings
In a double-blind provocation design, only 5/20 (25%) self-reported hypersensitive participants reported being able to discriminate real from sham mobile-phone microwave exposure, a rate described as consistent with chance. No statistically significant differences in heart rate, respiration, or blood pressure were observed between real and sham exposure. Concentration problems and low back pain were reported as associated with mobile phone use, and symptom severity was significantly associated with phone location during talk.
Outcomes measured
- Ability to discriminate real vs sham exposure
- Heart rate
- Respiration
- Blood pressure
- Self-reported symptoms (including concentration problems, low back pain)
- Symptom severity score and association with phone location during talk
Limitations
- Small sample in provocation phases (n=20) after screening 700 students
- Participants were self-reported hypersensitive individuals (screening method details not provided in abstract)
- Exposure characteristics (e.g., frequency, power/SAR) not reported in abstract
- Short exposure duration (10 minutes)
- Outcomes limited to selected physiological parameters and self-reported symptoms
View raw extracted JSON
{
"study_type": "randomized_trial",
"exposure": {
"band": "microwave",
"source": "mobile phone (GSM)",
"frequency_mhz": null,
"sar_wkg": null,
"duration": "10 minutes"
},
"population": "University students screened for EMF hypersensitivity; self-reported hypersensitive participants",
"sample_size": 20,
"outcomes": [
"Ability to discriminate real vs sham exposure",
"Heart rate",
"Respiration",
"Blood pressure",
"Self-reported symptoms (including concentration problems, low back pain)",
"Symptom severity score and association with phone location during talk"
],
"main_findings": "In a double-blind provocation design, only 5/20 (25%) self-reported hypersensitive participants reported being able to discriminate real from sham mobile-phone microwave exposure, a rate described as consistent with chance. No statistically significant differences in heart rate, respiration, or blood pressure were observed between real and sham exposure. Concentration problems and low back pain were reported as associated with mobile phone use, and symptom severity was significantly associated with phone location during talk.",
"effect_direction": "mixed",
"limitations": [
"Small sample in provocation phases (n=20) after screening 700 students",
"Participants were self-reported hypersensitive individuals (screening method details not provided in abstract)",
"Exposure characteristics (e.g., frequency, power/SAR) not reported in abstract",
"Short exposure duration (10 minutes)",
"Outcomes limited to selected physiological parameters and self-reported symptoms"
],
"evidence_strength": "low",
"confidence": 0.74,
"peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
"keywords": [
"electromagnetic hypersensitivity",
"EHS",
"GSM",
"mobile phone",
"microwave exposure",
"double-blind",
"provocation study",
"university students",
"heart rate",
"blood pressure",
"respiration",
"sham exposure"
],
"suggested_hubs": [
{
"slug": "who-icnirp",
"weight": 0.32,
"reason": "Double-blind provocation study on electromagnetic hypersensitivity and mobile-phone RF/microwave exposure, relevant to major guideline discussions."
}
]
}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: 10.3233/thc-2011-0641
PubMed: 22129944
Related papers
- Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: evidence for a novel neurological syndrome. 2011
- EHS subjects do not perceive RF EMF emitted from smart phones better than non-EHS subjects. 2012
- Hypersensitivity to RF fields emitted from CDMA cellular phones: a provocation study. 2009
- Effects of short-term W-CDMA mobile phone base station exposure on women with or without mobile phone related symptoms. 2009
- Perception of the electromagnetic field emitted by a mobile phone. 2008
- 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. 2007