Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33727687›Full record

ReviewJournal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology2021

5G mobile networks and health-a state-of-the-science review of the research into low-level RF fields above 6 GHz.

Ken Karipidis, Rohan Mate, David Urban, Rick Tinker, Andrew Wood

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05001646 (Clinical and Molecular Impact of In-home Resonance-based Electromagnetic Field Protection Device Usage in Healthy Individuals), which is not on this map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
25.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05001646 phase2unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Clinical and Molecular Impact of In-home Resonance-based Electromagnetic Field Protection Device Usage in Healthy Individuals

TypeinterventionalSponsorTruDiagnosticRan2022 to 2023Enrolled44ConditionsAging, Aging WellArmsIn-home resonance-based electromagnetic field protection device
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 134 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Affective evaluation and exposure perception of everyday mobile phone usage situations.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Ken KaripidisAustralian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. ken.karipidis@arpansa.gov.au.ORCID 0000-0001-7538-7447
Rohan MateAustralian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
David UrbanAustralian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Rick TinkerAustralian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Andrew WoodSchool of Health Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety AgencyEnvironmental Protection Agency · IESwinburne University of Technology · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The increased use of radiofrequency (RF) fields above 6 GHz, particularly for the 5 G mobile phone network, has given rise to public concern about any possible adverse effects to human health. Public exposure to RF fields from 5 G and other sources is below the human exposure limits specified by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). This state-of-the science review examined the research into the biological and health effects of RF fields above 6 GHz at exposure levels below the ICNIRP occupational limits. The review included 107 experimental studies that investigated various bioeffects including genotoxicity, cell proliferation, gene expression, cell signalling, membrane function and other effects. Reported bioeffects were generally not independently replicated and the majority of the studies employed low quality methods of exposure assessment and control. Effects due to heating from high RF energy deposition cannot be excluded from many of the results. The review also included 31 epidemiological studies that investigated exposure to radar, which uses RF fields above 6 GHz similar to 5 G. The epidemiological studies showed little evidence of health effects including cancer at different sites, effects on reproduction and other diseases. This review showed no confirmed evidence that low-level RF fields above 6 GHz such as those used by the 5 G network are hazardous to human health. Future experimental studies should improve the experimental design with particular attention to dosimetry and temperature control. Future epidemiological studies should continue to monitor long-term health effects in the population related to wireless telecommunications.

Indexed as

Cell PhoneElectromagnetic FieldsHumansRadio WavesDiseaseEpidemiologyHealth studiesRadiation

Identifiers

PMID33727687
PMCPMC8263336
OpenAlexW3136472191

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.