Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37048013›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of environmental research and public health2023

Cell Phone Radiation Exposure Limits and Engineering Solutions.

Paul Héroux, Igor Belyaev, Kent Chamberlin, Suleyman Dasdag, Alvaro Augusto Almeida De Salles, Claudio Enrique Fernandez Rodriguez, Lennart Hardell, Elizabeth Kelley, Kavindra Kumar Kesari, Erica Mallery-Blythe and 4 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Paul HérouxDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 1G1, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9569-4070
Igor BelyaevCancer Research Institute, Biomedical Research Center, Slovak Academy of Sciences, 814 38 Bratislava, Slovakia.ORCID 0000-0002-7963-2240
Kent ChamberlinDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824, USA.
Suleyman DasdagBiophysics Department, Medical School, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Istanbul 34700, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0003-1211-9677
Alvaro Augusto Almeida De SallesGraduate Program on Electrical Engineering (PPGEE), Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre 90010-150, Brazil.
Claudio Enrique Fernandez RodriguezDivision of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Federal Institute of Rio Grande do Sul (IFRS), Canoas 92412-240, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-6551-1301
Lennart HardellDepartment of Oncology, Orebro University Hospital, 701 85 Orebro, Sweden (Retired).ORCID 0000-0001-8131-2337
Elizabeth KelleyICBE-EMF and International EMF Scientist Appeal, and Electromagnetic Safety Alliance, Tempe, AZ 85282, USA.
Kavindra Kumar KesariDepartment of Applied Physics, School of Science, Aalto University, 02150 Espoo, Finland.ORCID 0000-0003-3622-9555
Erica Mallery-BlythePhysicians' Health Initiative for Radiation and Environment, East Sussex TN6, UK.
Ronald L MelnickNational Toxicology Program (Retired), National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC 27709, USA.
Anthony B MillerDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5T 3M7, Canada.
Joel M MoskowitzSchool of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94704, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1001-5260
On Behalf Of The International Commission On The Biological Effects Of Electromagnetic Fields Icbe-Emf

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the 1990s, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) restricted its risk assessment for human exposure to radiofrequency radiation (RFR) in seven ways: (1) Inappropriate focus on heat, ignoring sub-thermal effects. (2) Reliance on exposure experiments performed over very short times. (3) Overlooking time/amplitude characteristics of RFR signals. (4) Ignoring carcinogenicity, hypersensitivity, and other health conditions connected with RFR. (5) Measuring cellphone Specific Absorption Rates (SAR) at arbitrary distances from the head. (6) Averaging SAR doses at volumetric/mass scales irrelevant to health. (7) Using unrealistic simulations for cell phone SAR estimations. Low-cost software and hardware modifications are proposed here for cellular phone RFR exposure mitigation: (1) inhibiting RFR emissions in contact with the body, (2) use of antenna patterns reducing the Percent of Power absorbed in the Head (PPHead) and body and increasing the Percent of Power Radiated for communications (PPR), and (3) automated protocol-based reductions of the number of RFR emissions, their duration, or integrated dose. These inexpensive measures do not fundamentally alter cell phone functions or communications quality. A health threat is scientifically documented at many levels and acknowledged by industries. Yet mitigation of RFR exposures to users does not appear as a priority with most cell phone manufacturers.

Indexed as

Cell PhoneRadiation ExposureCommunicationHumansRadio Wavesantennascancercellular phoneelectromagnetic hypersensitivityradiofrequency radiationSAR

Identifiers

PMID37048013
PMCPMC10094704

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.