ID Number		2676
Study Type		Human / Provocation
Model		Our aim was to evaluate whether subjects were able to identify exposure conditions, to assess if providing feedback on personal test results altered the level of self-reported EHS and reporting a nation-wide survey of medical personnel.
Details		AUTHORS' ABSTRACT: van Moorselaar et al. 2016 (IEEE #6628): BACKGROUND: Previous provocation experiments with persons reporting electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) have been criticised because EHS persons were obliged to travel to study locations (seen as stressful), and that they were unable to select the type of signal they reported reacting to. In our study we used mobile exposure units that allow double-blind exposure conditions with personalised exposure settings (signal type, strength, duration) at home. Our aim was to evaluate whether subjects were able to identify exposure conditions, and to assess if providing feedback on personal test results altered the level of self-reported EHS. METHODS: We used double-blind randomised controlled exposure testing with questionnaires at baseline, immediately before and after testing, and at two and four months post testing. Participants were eligible if they reported sensing either radiofrequency or extremely low frequency fields within minutes of exposure. Participants were visited at home or another location where they felt comfortable to undergo testing. Before double-blind testing, we verified together with participants in an unblinded exposure session that the exposure settings were selected were ones that the participant responded to. Double-blind testing consisted of a series of 10 exposure and sham exposures in random sequence, feedback on test results was provided directly after testing. RESULTS: 42 persons participated, mean age was 55years (range 29-78), 76% were women. During double-blind testing, no participant was able to correctly identify when they were being exposed better than chance. There were no statistically significant differences in the self-reported level of EHS at follow-up compared to baseline, but during follow-up participants reported reduced certainty in reacting within minutes to exposure and reported significantly fewer symptoms compared to baseline. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that a subgroup of persons exist who profit from participation in a personalised testing procedure. AUTHORS' ABSTRACT: Martens et al. 2017 (IEEE #6747): We assessed associations between modeled and perceived exposure to radio-frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) from mobile-phone base stations and the development of nonspecific symptoms and sleep disturbances over time. A population-based Dutch cohort study, the Occupational and Environmental Health Cohort Study (AMIGO) (n = 14,829; ages 3165 years), was established in 2011/2012 (T0), with follow-up of a subgroup (n = 3,992 invited) in 2013 (T1; n = 2,228) and 2014 (T2; n = 1,740). We modeled far-field RF-EMF exposure from mobile-phone base stations at the home addresses of the participants using a 3-dimensional geospatial model (NISMap). Perceived exposure (0 = not at all; 6 = very much), nonspecific symptoms, and sleep disturbances were assessed by questionnaire. We performed cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses, including fixed-effects regression. We found small correlations between modeled and perceived exposure in AMIGO participants at baseline (n = 14,309; rSpearman = 0.10). For 222 follow-up participants, modeled exposure increased substantially (>0.030 mW/m2) between T0 and T1. This increase in modeled exposure was associated with an increase in perceived exposure during the same time period. In contrast to modeled RF-EMF exposure from mobile-phone base stations, perceived exposure was associated with higher symptom reporting scores in both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses, as well as with sleep disturbances in cross-sectional analyses.
Findings		No Effects
Status		Completed With Publication
Principal Investigator		Public Health Service of Amsterdam, The Netherland
Funding Agency		?????
Country		NETHERLANDS
References		van Moorselaar, I et al. Environ Int., (2017) 99:255-262 Martens, AL et al. American Journal of Epidemiology., (2017) 186:210-219 Martens, A et al. Journal of Psychosomatic Research., (2018) 112:81-89 Marten, A et al. Science of The Total Environment., (2018) 639:75-83 Slottje, P et al. International journal of hygiene and environmental health., (2017) 220:395-400 van Dongen, D et al. Perspectives in public health., (2014) 134:160-168 Traini, E et al. Sci Total Environ. , (2023) 856:159240- Slottje, P et al. BMJ Open., (2014) 4:Article e005858-
Comments