Subjective complaints of people living near mobile phone base stations in Poland.

International journal of occupational medicine and environmental health · 2012 · Mixed · Low evidence

← Research stream

MixedLow evidencePaper 4551

Study snapshot

PublicationInternational journal of occupational medicine and environmental health · 2012

Study typecross_sectional

Reported directionMixed

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aim of our study was to assess the health conditions and subjective symptoms of the inhabitants living in the base stations vicinity and to analyse the relationship between the complaints and level of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our study was performed in housing estates located in five regions of Łódź. The electric field measurements were performed in the buildings located closest to the azimuth of the antennas. Respondents were selected by trained interviewers using an uniform procedure. The number of the households to be examined was set at a minimum of 420. The questionnaire contained: demographic data, occupational and environmental exposure to EMF, health condition, subjective complaints. Results were adjusted for confounders (age, gender, EMF at the workplace and EMF emitted by household equipment) using multiple regression model. RESULTS: 181 men and 319 women from 500 households were examined. Electric field above 0.8 V/m was recorded in 12% of flats. There was no significant correlation between electric field strength and the distance of examined flats from the base stations. To make possible comparison with relevant literature, we analysed also the frequency of the reported symptoms vs. the distance. Headache was declared by 57% people, most frequently (36.4%) living 100-150 m away from the base station compared to people living at longer distances (p = 0.013). 24.4% subjects, mostly living at a distance above 150 m, declared impaired memory. Difference was statistically significant in comparison with people living at other distances (p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: The explanation why we did not find any correlation between the electric field strength and frequency of subjective symptoms but found a correlation between subjective symptoms and distance from base station needs further studies. Maybe new metrics of exposure assessment should be adopted for this purpose.

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 typecross_sectional

Effect directionmixed

PopulationInhabitants living in housing estates near mobile phone base stations in five regions of Łódź, Poland

Sample size500

ExposureNot supplied

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Among 500 respondents from 500 households, electric field >0.8 V/m was recorded in 12% of flats and was not significantly correlated with distance from base stations. No significant correlation was found between measured electric field strength and frequency of subjective symptoms, but symptom frequency differed by distance: headache was most frequently reported among those living 100–150 m away (p=0.013) and impaired memory was mostly reported among those living >150 m away (p=0.004).

Outcomes measured

Health condition (self-reported)
Subjective complaints/symptoms
Headache
Impaired memory
Electric field strength in flats
Distance from base station

Limitations

Cross-sectional design (cannot establish causality)
Symptoms and health condition were self-reported via questionnaire
Electric field measurements were performed in buildings closest to the antenna azimuth (may not represent all residences/exposures)
No significant correlation between measured field strength and distance; distance used as an additional proxy for exposure

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "cross_sectional",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "mobile phone base station",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Inhabitants living in housing estates near mobile phone base stations in five regions of Łódź, Poland",
  "sample_size": 500,
  "outcomes": [
    "Health condition (self-reported)",
    "Subjective complaints/symptoms",
    "Headache",
    "Impaired memory",
    "Electric field strength in flats",
    "Distance from base station"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Among 500 respondents from 500 households, electric field >0.8 V/m was recorded in 12% of flats and was not significantly correlated with distance from base stations. No significant correlation was found between measured electric field strength and frequency of subjective symptoms, but symptom frequency differed by distance: headache was most frequently reported among those living 100–150 m away (p=0.013) and impaired memory was mostly reported among those living >150 m away (p=0.004).",
  "effect_direction": "mixed",
  "limitations": [
    "Cross-sectional design (cannot establish causality)",
    "Symptoms and health condition were self-reported via questionnaire",
    "Electric field measurements were performed in buildings closest to the antenna azimuth (may not represent all residences/exposures)",
    "No significant correlation between measured field strength and distance; distance used as an additional proxy for exposure"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "mobile phone base stations",
    "RF exposure",
    "electric field measurements",
    "distance to base station",
    "subjective symptoms",
    "headache",
    "memory impairment",
    "Poland",
    "Łódź"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "occupational-exposure",
      "weight": 0.22,
      "reason": "Questionnaire included occupational EMF exposure and analyses adjusted for EMF at the workplace."
    }
  ]
}

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: 10.2478/s13382-012-0007-9
PubMed: 22219055

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library