RESEARCH
Open Access
Abstract
Background: With the use of the third generation (3 G) mobile phones on the rise, social concerns have arisen
concerning the possible health effects of radio frequency-electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs) emitted by wideband
code division multiple access (WCDMA) mobile phones in humans. The number of people with self-reported
electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), who complain of various subjective symptoms such as headache, dizziness
and fatigue, has also increased. However, the origins of EHS remain unclear.
Methods: In this double-blind study, two volunteer groups of 17 EHS and 20 non-EHS subjects were
simultaneously investigated for physiological changes (heart rate, heart rate variability, and respiration rate), eight
subjective symptoms, and perception of RF-EMFs during real and sham exposure sessions. Experiments were
conducted using a dummy phone containing a WCDMA module (average power, 24 dBm at 1950 MHz; specific
absorption rate, 1.57 W/kg) within a headset placed on the head for 32 min.
Results: WCDMA RF-EMFs generated no physiological changes or subjective symptoms in either group. There was
no evidence that EHS subjects perceived RF-EMFs better than non-EHS subjects.
Conclusions: Considering the analyzed physiological data, the subjective symptoms surveyed, and the percentages
of those who believed they were being exposed, 32 min of RF radiation emitted by WCDMA mobile phones
demonstrated no effects in either EHS or non-EHS subjects.
Keywords: Provocation, Physiological changes, HRV, Subjective symptoms, EMF perception
Background
With the increasing use of third generation (3 G) mobile
phones, social concerns have arisen concerning the possible health effects of radio frequency-electromagnetic
fields (RF-EMFs) emitted by mobile phones in humans
[1]. On the basis of limited evidence from both human
and animal studies, the World Health Organization has
classified RF-EMFs as possibly carcinogenic to humans
(Group 2B) [2]. A number of people have self-reported
electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), characterized by
a variety of non-specific symptoms that differ from individual to individual. Cross-sectional survey studies in
* Correspondence: kdw@yuhs.ac
1
Brain Korea 21 Project for Medical Science, Yonsei University College of
Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
2
Department of Medical Engineering, Yonsei University College of Medicine,
Seoul, South Korea
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
different countries have reported that EHS subjects experience non-specific subjective symptoms (e.g., headache, dizziness, fatigue, sleep disorder) associated with
EMF exposure: 1.5% in Sweden [3], 3.2% in California
[4], and 5% in Switzerland [5]. For some individuals, the
symptoms can have lifestyle-changing consequences [6].
Although numerous studies have examined the effects
of Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) on
humans between EHS and non-EHS groups, only a few
provocation studies involving WCDMA have simultaneously evaluated physiological changes, subjective symptoms, and EMF perception. Furubayashi et al. measured
psychological and cognitive parameters during pre- and
post-exposure [7]. They also monitored physiological
parameters, such as skin temperature, heart rate and
local blood flow, and asked participants (EHS and nonEHS women) to report on their subjective perception of
2012 Kwon et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Methods
Subjects
Page 2 of 8
Page 3 of 8
EHS
Non-EHS
17
20
P-value
-
Male: female
8: 9
11: 9
0.75
Age (yr)
30.1 7.6
29.4 5.2
0.87
Height (cm)
167.9 7.5
167.6 8.0
0.71
Weight (kg)
63.2 11.9
60.3 11.5
0.44
BMI (kg/m )
22.3 2.9
21.3 2.3
0.24
Nonsmoker: smoker
15:2
18:2
1.00
4.4 2.9
5.0 3.8
0.99
1.6 1.3
1.5 1.1
0.96
10.9 3.0
11.6 2.6
0.33
Physiological measurements
Page 4 of 8
Subjects were asked to answer the question Do you believe that you are exposed right now? nine times during
each session. Percentages of those who believed they
were being exposed were calculated for pre-exposure,
exposure, and post-exposure periods. The total number
of inquiries was 185 (5 37) during real exposure and
481 (13 37) during non-exposure; the total number of
subjects was 37 (17 + 20).
Data analysis
Pre-Exposure
Resting
0
Stage
I
10
15 16
o
21
Stage
II
26 27
32
o
37
Post-Exposure
Stage
III
42 43
48
o
53
Stage
IV
58 59
64 (min)
Figure 3 Experimental procedures for measuring physiological changes and investigating symptoms and perception. The four shaded
areas are periods during which the subjects were questioned regarding the eight symptoms. o indicates timing of the inquiries for perception.
were being exposed were obtained and evaluated for significant differences between real and sham sessions
using the McNemar test. The pre-exposure period of the
sham sessions was compared with that of the real sessions to test whether the conditions before sham and
real exposures of subjects were the same. The sham exposure period was compared with the real exposure
period to test whether the subjects could detect the
fields. The post-exposure period after sham exposure
was compared with the post-exposure period after real
exposure to test whether the real exposure influenced
the perception of exposure in the post-exposure period.
The Chi-square test was applied to evaluate differences
in the percentages of those who answered yes, which
were ordinal data, as shown in Figure 4.
Results
EHS and non-EHS groups
Page 5 of 8
Physiological variables
Subjective symptoms
Neither the EHS nor the non-EHS group showed significant differences in any of the eight subjective symptoms
surveyed (throbbing, itching, warmth, fatigue, headache,
dizziness, nausea, and palpitation) between sham and
real sessions in any of the four stages.
Figure 4 Percentage of belief of being exposed in EHS and non-EHS groups for sham (A) and real (B) exposure sessions. Asterisks
indicate statistical significance in perception percentages between EHS and non-EHS groups. Bars indicate standard errors.
Page 6 of 8
Table 2 Descriptive and statistical tests for heart rate, respiration rate, and LFP/HFP among stage, exposure, and
interaction
Heart rate (bpm)
Non-EHS
Real
Sham
Real
Non-EHS
Sham
Real
LFP/HFP (%)
EHS
Sham
Non-EHS
Real
Sham
Real
EHS
Sham
Real
Sham
100.0 (0.0)
100.0 (0.0)
100.0 (0.0)
76.0 (1.7) 75.6 (2.5) 77.0 (2.8) 77.2 (2.8) 17.2 (0.6) 17.3 (0.6) 17.4 (0.6) 18.0 (0.8) 100.0 (0.0)
II
75.5 (1.6) 75.3 (2.6) 77.8 (2.9) 77.2 (2.8) 17.3 (0.7) 17.9 (0.5) 17.6 (0.6) 17.0 (0.7) 143.9 (27.0) 165.6 (12.8) 133.8 (15.0) 122.7 (17.0)
III
75.2 (1.7) 74.4 (2.2) 76.4 (2.7) 77.6 (2.9) 16.9 (0.7) 17.6 (0.5) 17.5 (0.6) 17.3 (0.6) 151.0 (31.5) 167.6 (23.4) 198.3 (32.8) 110.6 (13.7)
IV
75.1 (1.6) 73.3 (2.1) 76.9 (2.8) 77.6 (2.9) 18.4 (0.7) 17.7 (0.5) 17.1 (0.7) 17.5 (0.7) 131.3 (23.5) 178.0 (19.9) 178.5 (31.0) 141.5 (23.5)
Factor (P-value)
Exposure
0.629
0.815
0.772
0.754
0.552
0.079
Stage
0.166
0.727
0.205
0.614
0.001*
0.048*
Interaction
(exposure &
stage
0.621
0.226
0.518
0.431
0.428
0.055
Perception percentages
Discussion
Neither the EHS nor the non-EHS group showed significant differences in heart or respiration rate between real
and sham exposures or among stages. In the case of
LFP/HFP, however, there were significant differences
Table 3 Percentages of those who believed they were being exposed during pre-exposure, exposure and postexposure periods, and P-values for sham and real exposures in EHS and non-EHS groups
Group
Session
Pre-exposure (%)
P-value
Exposure (%)
P-value
Post-exposure (%)
P-value
EHS (n = 17)
Real
47.1
1.000
65.9
0.572
62.8
1.000
Sham
41.2
Non-EHS (n = 20)
Real
0.0
Sham
0.0
61.2
1.000
5.0
8.0
62.8
0.375
6.7
6.7
1.000
Page 7 of 8
Conclusions
In both the EHS and non-EHS groups, there were no
significant differences in heart rate, respiration rate, or
LFP/HFP between sham and real exposure to a
WCDMA module (average power, 24 dBm at 1950
MHz; specific absorption rate, 1.57 W/kg) attached inside a dummy phone for 32 min. There was no association between eight subjective symptoms and RF-EMFs
exposure in either group. There was also no indication
that EHS subjects could detect exposure. Therefore,
considering the physiological data analyzed, the subjective symptoms surveyed, and the percentages of those
who believed they were being exposed, no effects were
observed in EHS or non-EHS subjects as a result from
32 min of RF radiation emitted by WCDMA mobile
phones.
Abbreviations
ANOVA: Analysis of variance; ECG: Electrocardiogram; EHS: Electromagnetic
hypersensitivity; ELF: Extremely low frequency; ERP: Ear reference point;
GSM: Global System for Mobile Communications; HFP: High-frequency
power; HRV: Heart rate variability; h/d: Hour per day; IEEE: Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers; LFP: Low-frequency power;
Max: Maximum; Min: Minimum; n: Number; RF-EMFs: Radio frequencyelectromagnetic fields; SAR: Specific absorption rate; SD: Standard deviation;
WCDMA: Wideband code division multiple access; yr: Year; YUHS: Yonsei
University Hospital System; 3G: Third generation.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors contributions
MKK recruited subjects, collected experimental data, and performed
statistical analyses. JYC and SKK collected experimental data. TKY analyzed
experimental data. DWK contributed to the development of the study
protocol and editing of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the
final manuscript.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by a grant from the Basic Science Research
Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded
by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (20100022374), and
Power Generation & Electricity Delivery of the Korea Institute of Energy
Technology Evaluation and Planning(KETEP) grant funded by the Korea
government Ministry of Knowledge Economy (No. 2011101050018D).
Author details
1
Brain Korea 21 Project for Medical Science, Yonsei University College of
Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. 2Department of Medical Engineering, Yonsei
University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. 3Graduate Program in
Biomedical Engineering, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea. 4Department
of Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Received: 30 April 2012 Accepted: 17 September 2012
Published: 21 September 2012
References
1. Heinrich S, Thomas S, Heumann C, vonKries R, Radon K: Association
between exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields assessed by
dosimetry and acute symptoms in children and adolescents: a
population based cross-sectional study. Environ Health 2010, 9:75.
2. Baan R, Grosse Y, Lauby-Secretan B, El Ghissassi F, Bouvard V,
Benbrahim-Tallaa L, Guha N, Islami F, Galichet L, Straif K: Carcinogenicity of
radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Lancet Oncol 2011, 12:624626.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Page 8 of 8
23. Nam KC, Lee JH, Noh HW, Cha EJ, Kim NH, Kim DW: Hypersensitivity to RF
fields emitted from CDMA cellular phones: a provocation study.
Bioelectromagnetics 2009, 30:641650.
24. Kim DW, Choi JL, Nam KC, Yang DI, Kwon MK: Origins of electromagnetic
hypersensitivity to 60 Hz magnetic fields: A provocation study.
Bioelectromagnetics 2012, 33:326333.
25. Akselrod S, Gordon D, Ubel FA, Shannon DC, Berger AC, Cohen RJ: Power
spectrum analysis of heart rate fluctuation: a quantitative probe of beatto-beat cardiovascular control. Science 1981, 213:220222.
26. Hjortskov N, Rissen D, Blangsted AK, Fallentin N, Lundberg U, Sgaard K:
The effect of mental stress on heart rate variability and blood pressure
during computer work. Eur J Appl Physiol 2004, 92:8489.
27. Nam KC, Kwon MK, Kim DW: Effects of posture and acute sleep
deprivation on heart rate variability. Yonsei Med J 2011, 52:569573.
28. Wiln J, Johansson A, Kalezic N, Lyskov E, Sandstrm M:
Psychophysiological tests and provocation of subjects with mobile
phone related symptoms. Bioelectromagnetics 2006, 27:204214.
29. Oftedal G, Straume A, Johnsson A, Stovner LJ: Mobile phone headache: a
double blind, sham-controlled provocation study. Cephalalgia 2007,
27:447455.
doi:10.1186/1476-069X-11-69
Cite this article as: Kwon et al.: Effects of radiation emitted by WCDMA
mobile phones on electromagnetic hypersensitive subjects.
Environmental Health 2012 11:69.