ArticleBioelectromagnetics2025
In-Situ Measurements of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields Measurements Around 5G Macro Base Stations in the UK.
Article in Bioelectromagnetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic field spot measurements were performed in line-of-sight to 56 active 5G macro base stations across 30 publicly accessible locations in the United Kingdom (UK). Four different exposure scenarios were assessed: background (no traffic instigation), streaming videos, downlink speed test, and extrapolation of SS-RSRP decoder measurements. Power density measurements across the 420 MHz-6 GHz frequency range were also performed at each site to assess the total exposure from various RF sources in the environment. Both total RF and 5G specific power density levels were found to be well within the 1998 ICNIRP public reference levels, even when extrapolating to worst-case scenario (≤ 5%). 4G downlink was the dominant contributor to total RF exposure, with 5G contributing on average less than 10%. No statistically significant difference was observed between beamforming and non-beamforming sites. Streaming did not seem to contribute materially to exposure levels, suggesting that background measurements are a good representation of typical downlink exposure at current urban and suburban 5G sites.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.