RF Safe

Electromagnetic field emitted by 902 MHz mobile phones shows no effects on children's cognitive function.

Bioelectromagnetics · 2005 · No effect · Low evidence

← Research stream
No effectLow evidencePaper 5170

In 32 children aged 10–14, cognitive tests performed during exposure to an active 902 MHz GSM mobile phone versus an inactive phone showed no statistically significant differences in reaction time or accuracy across all tests or any single test.

Study snapshot

PublicationBioelectromagnetics · 2005
Study typerandomized_trial
Reported directionNo effect
Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

The present study investigated the potential effects of a standard 902 MHz global system for mobile communication (GSM) mobile phone on 10-14 years old children's cognitive function. A total of 32 children (16 boys, 16 girls) participated with their own and parental consent. The subjects were 10-14 years old (mean 12.1 years, SD 1.1). They performed a battery of cognitive tests twice in a counter-balanced order: once while exposed to an active mobile phone and once during exposure to an inactive phone. The tests were selected from those we used earlier with adults. The statistical analyses showed no significant differences between the mobile phone off and on conditions in reaction times and accuracy over all tests or in any single test. It was concluded that a standard mobile phone has no effect on children's cognitive function as measured by response speed and accuracy. The present results challenge some earlier findings suggesting that the electromagnetic field (EMF) created by an active mobile phone would facilitate cognitive functioning.

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
PopulationChildren aged 10–14 years
Sample size32
ExposureRF · 902 MHz
Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

In 32 children aged 10–14, cognitive tests performed during exposure to an active 902 MHz GSM mobile phone versus an inactive phone showed no statistically significant differences in reaction time or accuracy across all tests or any single test.

Outcomes measured

  • Cognitive function (battery of cognitive tests)
  • Reaction time
  • Accuracy

Limitations

  • Small sample size (n=32)
  • Exposure duration not reported in abstract
  • Only short-term/acute exposure during testing is described; longer-term effects not addressed in abstract
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "randomized_trial",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "mobile phone",
    "frequency_mhz": 902,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Children aged 10–14 years",
  "sample_size": 32,
  "outcomes": [
    "Cognitive function (battery of cognitive tests)",
    "Reaction time",
    "Accuracy"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In 32 children aged 10–14, cognitive tests performed during exposure to an active 902 MHz GSM mobile phone versus an inactive phone showed no statistically significant differences in reaction time or accuracy across all tests or any single test.",
  "effect_direction": "no_effect",
  "limitations": [
    "Small sample size (n=32)",
    "Exposure duration not reported in abstract",
    "Only short-term/acute exposure during testing is described; longer-term effects not addressed in abstract"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "902 MHz",
    "GSM",
    "mobile phone",
    "children",
    "cognitive tests",
    "reaction time",
    "accuracy",
    "RF-EMF"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "mobile-phones",
      "weight": 0.9,
      "reason": "Study tests cognitive effects of exposure to an active vs inactive GSM mobile phone in children."
    }
  ]
}
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: 10.1002/bem.20142
PubMed: 16059918

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library