EHS subjects do not perceive RF EMF emitted from smart phones better than non-EHS subjects.

Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Annual International Conference · 2012 · No effect · Moderate evidence

← Research stream

No effectModerate evidencePaper 4482

In a double-blind study with real and sham exposure sessions using a WCDMA module (1950 MHz; SAR 1.57 W/kg; 32 min), there was no indication that EHS subjects perceived RF-EMFs better than non-EHS subjects.

Study snapshot

PublicationAnnual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Annual International Conference · 2012

Study typerandomized_trial

Reported directionNo effect

Evidence ratingModerate

Abstract

As the use of smart phones increases, social concerns have arisen concerning the possible effects of radio frequency-electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs) emitted from wideband code division multiple access (WCDMA) mobile phones on human health. The number of people with self-reported electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) who complain of various subjective symptoms, such as headache, insomnia, etc., has also recently increased. However, it is unclear whether EHS subjects can detect RF-EMFs exposure or not. In this double-blind study, two volunteer groups of 17 EHS and 20 non-EHS subjects were investigated in regards to their perception of RF-EMFs with real and sham exposure sessions. Experiments were conducted using a WCDMA module inside a dummy phone with an average power of 24 dBm at 1950 MHz and a specific absorption rate of 1.57 W/kg using a dummy headphone for 32 min. In conclusion, there was no indication that EHS subjects perceive RF-EMFs better than non-EHS subjects.

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 typerandomized_trial

Effect directionno_effect

PopulationVolunteers with self-reported electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) and non-EHS controls

Sample size37

ExposureRF · 1950 MHz · 1.57 W/kg · 32 min

Evidence strengthModerateConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Outcomes measured

Perception/detection of RF-EMF exposure (real vs sham)

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "randomized_trial",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "mobile phone",
    "frequency_mhz": 1950,
    "sar_wkg": 1.57,
    "duration": "32 min"
  },
  "population": "Volunteers with self-reported electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) and non-EHS controls",
  "sample_size": 37,
  "outcomes": [
    "Perception/detection of RF-EMF exposure (real vs sham)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In a double-blind study with real and sham exposure sessions using a WCDMA module (1950 MHz; SAR 1.57 W/kg; 32 min), there was no indication that EHS subjects perceived RF-EMFs better than non-EHS subjects.",
  "effect_direction": "no_effect",
  "limitations": [],
  "evidence_strength": "moderate",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "electromagnetic hypersensitivity",
    "EHS",
    "RF-EMF",
    "mobile phone",
    "smartphone",
    "WCDMA",
    "double-blind",
    "sham exposure",
    "perception"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.25,
      "reason": "Human provocation-style study relevant to RF-EMF health concerns and perception in EHS."
    }
  ]
}

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: 10.1109/embc.2012.6346396
PubMed: 23366357

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library