Review date
April 2024
Article publication date
March 2024
Summary
This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the results of 41 human experimental studies on self-reported symptoms associated with radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure in the general population and people who self-identify as having idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to EMF (IEI-EMF), commonly referred to as electromagnetic hypersensitivity. The symptoms were grouped into headache, sleep disturbances and composite symptoms, and then further divided by exposure type (localised head or whole body) as well as by participant group, general population or IEI-EMF individuals. Results were reported as the standardised mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Evidence of a dose-response relationship and data relating to RF-EMF exposure perception were also assessed.
For each of the health outcomes investigated, the SMD was very small, and the 95% confidence interval encompassed zero, indicating that there is no effect. For example: Headache for the general population was reported as SMD 0.08 (95% CI -0.07 to 0.22) from head exposure and SMD 0.09 (95% CI -0.35 to 0.54) from whole body exposure. For IEI-EMF individuals, headache was reported as SMD 0.16 (95% CI -0.38 to 0.06) for head exposure and SMD 0.11 (95% CI -0.29 to 0.52) for whole body exposure. The report did not find evidence of any dose-response relationship. Certainty of evidence assessments for each outcome were rated high to moderate except for sleeping disturbance from whole body exposure which was rated as low and composite symptoms from head exposure for both IEI-EMF individuals and the general population which was rated as very low. The main contributor to alterations in the certainty of evidence assessments were the risk of bias (ROB) classifications. The ROB assessments were performed according to OHAT guidelines and the most common sources of bias identified were from a lack of exposure randomisation and how the outcomes were assessed. Inconsistency and indirectness were secondary contributors to downgrades in the certainty of evidence.
The review further analysed data relating to EMF perception. The available evidence showed that study participants were not able to perceive RF-EMF exposure beyond what is expected by pure chance and that there was no difference in RF-EMF perception between IEI-EMF individuals and the general population. Interestingly, the authors noted that in open provocation studies, where the subjects are informed of their exposure, more symptoms are reported indicating that symptoms are associated with the perception of exposure and not the physiological reality. The authors further suggested that these results indicate that acute affects attributed to everyday RF-EMF are more likely to be a result of the nocebo effect.
Link to
Published In
Environmental International
ARPANSA commentary
This review provides high quality evidence on the acute effects of RF-EMF exposure on self-reported symptoms. The overall conclusion of the review showed that RF-EMF exposure to the head or whole body does not cause headache, sleep disturbances or composite symptoms. A WHO review assessing similar symptoms in human observational studies (Röösli, et al., 2024) that ARPANSA has previously summarised also showed similar results. The lack of any significant difference between results from the general population and IEI-EMF persons aligns with the assertion of ARPANSA and the World Health Organization (WHO) that exposure to the low levels of electromagnetic radiation experienced by the public is not the cause of symptoms experienced by IEI-EMF individuals. A limitation of the study is that it only examined acute effects from RF-EMF exposure, due to the nature of the human experimental studies. However, findings from human observational studies indicate similar results.
It should be noted that the RF-EMF exposure levels in the included studies are below the exposure limits for the general public given in the ARPANSA safety standard and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines. The conclusions of this review therefore further reiterate the assessment of ARPANSA that exposure to RF-EMF fields at levels below those prescribed in the standard does not cause adverse health effects. This review is part of the World Health Organisation’s ongoing project assessing the health effects of RF-EMF (SR8 – Symptoms (human experimental studies)). ARPANSA is supporting this WHO review process.
