CureZone   Log On   Join
Not convinced? (too much information above to search through?) Re: How bad is it? It's BAD!!!
unyquity Views: 5,352
Published: 10 years ago
Status:       ~RN [Message recommended by a moderator!]
This is a reply to # 1,756,503

Not convinced? (too much information above to search through?) Re: How bad is it? It's BAD!!!

From here:

Headaches & inability to sleep after only THREE HOURS?!  What in the WORLD does this do to our body?  And how in the world can we expect our body to function (let alone HEAL from something that's already wrong), if we willingly expose ourselves to this "convenience"? :::eyeroll:::

Please folks, we lived without it all our lives, let's continue living without it!


The Effects of 884 MHz GSM Wireless Communication Signals on Self-reported Symptom and Sleep (EEG)- An Experimental Provocation Study

Bengt B. Arnetz, Torbjorn Akerstedt, Lena Hillert, Arne Lowden, Niels Kuster, and Clairy Wiholm


[PDF Full Text (275 KB)]

In the current study we assessed possible effects of prolonged (3 hours) exposure to 884 MHz GSM wireless communication signals on self-reported symptoms, cognitive function, and electroencephalographically (EEG) recorded sleep. The study group consisted of 36 women and 35 men. Twenty-two women and sixteen men reported symptoms they specifically related to mobile phone use (SG). The rest of the participants reported no mobile phone-related symptoms (NG).

Potential participants volunteering for the study were evaluated by physicians, including some biochemical assessments, to rule out medical conditions that could interfere with study variables of interest. Once selected, participants spent three different sessions in the laboratory. The habituation session was followed by two subsequent sessions. In these subsequent sessions, subjects were either exposed to sham exposure (sham) or 884 MHz GSM wireless communication signals for 3 hours (an average of 1.4 W/kg including periods of DTX and Non-DTX. Exposure directed to the left hemisphere). Data was collected before, during and following the exposure/sham sessions. Data collected included self-reported symptoms, including headache, cognitive function, mood, and electroencephalographic recordings.

During actual exposure, as compared to sham exposure, sleep initiated one hour after exposure was affected. There was a prolonged latency to reach the first cycle of deep sleep (stage 3). The amount of stage 4 sleep was also decreased in exposed subjects. NG subjects reported more headaches during exposures vs. sham exposure. Neither group (SG and NG) was able to detect the true exposure status more frequently than by chance alone.

The study indicates that during laboratory exposure to 884 MHz wireless signals, components of sleep, believed to be important for recovery from daily wear and tear, are adversely affected. Moreover, participants that otherwise have no self-reported symptoms related to mobile phone use, appear to have more headaches during actual radiofrequency exposure as compared to sham exposure. However, subjects were not able to detect the true exposure status more often than would have been expected by statistical chance alone.

Additional self-reported findings, biochemical, performance and electrophysiological data are currently being analyzed. Possible health implications from the findings will also be further explored.

1. Besset, A., F. Espa, Y. Dauvilliers, M. Billiard, and R. de Seze, "No effect on cognitive function from daily mobile phone use," Bioelectromagnetics, Vol. 26, No. 2, 102-8, 2005.

2. Braune, S., A. Riedel, J. Schulte-Monting, and J. Raczek, "Influence of a radiofrequency electromagnetic field on cardiovascular and hormonal parameters of the autonomic nervous system in healthy individuals," Radiat Res., Vol. 158, No. 3, 352-6, 2002.

3. Eliyahu, I., R. Luria, R. Hareuveny, M. Margaliot, N. Meiran, and G. Shani, "Effects of radiofrequency radiation emitted by cellular telephones on the cognitive functions of humans," Bioelectromagnetics, Vol. 27, No. 2, 119-26, 2006.

4. Hietanen, M., A. M. Hamalainen, and T. Husman, "Hypersensitivity symptoms associated with exposure to cellular telephones: no causal link," Bioelectromagnetics, Vol. 23, No. 4, 264-70, 2002.

5. Hocking, B., "Preliminary report: symptoms associated with mobile phone use," Occup Med. (Lond), Vol. 48, No. 6, 357-60, 1998.

6. Hocking, B., "Symptoms associated with mobile phone use: addendum," Occup Med (Lond), Vol. 48, No. 7, 472, 1998.

7. Koivisto, M., C. Haarala, C. M. Krause, A. Revonsuo, M. Laine, and H. Hamalainen, "GSM phone signal does not produce subjective symptoms," Bioelectromagnetics, Vol. 22, No. 3, 212-5, 2001.

8. Oftedal, G., J. Wilen, M. Sandstrom, and K. H. Mild, "Symptoms experienced in connection with mobile phone use," Occup Med (Lond), Vol. 50, No. 4, 237-45, 2000.

9. Rubin, G. J., G. Hahn, B. S. Everitt, A. J. Cleare, and S. Wessely, "Are some people sensitive to mobile phone signals? Within participants double blind randomised provocation study," BMJ, Vol. 332, No. 7546, 886-91, 2006.


Printer-friendly version of this page Email this message to a friend

This Forum message belongs to a larger discussion thread. See the complete thread below. You can reply to this message!


Donate to CureZone

CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with

Contact Us - Advertise - Stats

Copyright 1999 - 2021

0.563 sec, (4)