臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

研究目的：評估電磁波對生理的短期影響。
實驗設計：實驗對象為年齡在20-69歲，無懷孕、腦損傷、癲癇、心血管疾病、慢性皮膚病、配戴助聽器、及精神方面疾病（如幽閉恐懼症、焦慮症）近6個月接受治療者。激發實驗在能屏蔽電磁波的實驗室中進行，暴露的電磁波射源為2G與3G行動電話基地台頻率之混和(0.1mW/cm2)，採交叉雙盲之隨機暴露。受試者以問卷評估感受症狀，以生理量測儀器連續記錄動態心電圖、動脈氧血紅素飽和度、脈搏、血壓、體溫；每個人暴露30分鐘的電磁波，30分鐘的清除時間，及30分鐘的假暴露。
結果：符合條件完成試驗者共102名，其中有10名自陳有電磁波敏感。在問卷中自陳對電磁波環境較敏感之族群對容易感到有不舒適症狀，且達統計上顯著差異(p〈0.05)；回覆相關症狀較一般族群顯著者有：噁心、注意力下降、焦慮、頭痛、耳朵不適、心悸、暈眩。受試者對電磁波環境的不舒服症狀依感受問卷之評估，並不會因電磁波的暴露而有統計上之差異。以ANOVA重複測量之混和效應分析受試者的收縮壓、舒張壓、平均血壓、心跳及心跳之變異在受試者暴露與非暴露期間的固定效應和隨機效應發現：收縮壓、舒張壓、平均血壓、心跳及心跳變異皆有顯著之個人差異，平均血壓則依年齡及性別而有不同，但與暴露與否無關。短期暴露於0.1mW/cm2電磁波下有個人之隨機差異，但電磁波暴露無明顯之固定效應。自陳對電磁波環境較敏感族群無論是在有或是沒有電磁波暴露的時段，他們都有比較高的比率回覆「感受到電磁波」。
結論：實驗結果發現短期暴露於0.1mW/cm2電磁波下並沒有明顯之健康效應。

Objective: To evaluate the acute health effects of the electromagnetic field (EMF) associated with cell phone base station on humans.
Design: We recruited participants aged between 20 and 69 years and conducted a double-blind crossover provocation study. Candidates who had a history of brain injury, epilepsy, cardiovascular disease, claustrophobiaor, or psychiatric disease with medical treatment during the recent 6 months, or were pregnant at the time of recruitment were excluded. The participants were asked to complete questionnaires of subjective symptoms and received monitoring of electrocardiography (EKG), oxyhemoglobin saturation (by pulse oximetry), pulse rate, blood pressure, skin temperature, and heart rate variability in an EMF-shielding room. Each participant received an exposure session of EMF with frequency mimicking cell phone base stations and a sham session. The sequence of the sessions was assigned by random and unknown to both the participants and the observers.
Results: A total of 102 persons participated in the study, including 10 who reported having “electromagnetic hypersensitivity” (sensitive group) and 92 who did not (regular group). The sensitive group reported more uncomfortable symptoms when they were exposed to electronic products, including nausea, decreased attention, anxiety, headache, ear discomfort, palpitations, and dizziness. However, there were no differences in physiological data between the two groups during or after EMF exposure. Random effects of systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, mean artery pressure, pulse rate, and heart rate variability were observed between the exposure and sham sessions. Whereas fixed effects of age and sex on the systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and mean artery pressure were noted, time sequence and exposure were not associated with those parameters. The proportion of accurate perception was 5% for exposure sessions and 95% for sham sessions in both two groups. The sensitive group tended to report feeling EMF more frequently in both exposure and sham sessions, but the differences did not reach statistical significance.
Conclusion: We did not observed any significant health effects of EMF with the frequencies similar to cell phone base stations.

1.INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 BACKGROUND 1
1.2 DEFINITION OF ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD 3
1.3 DEFINITION OF THE ELECTROMAGNETIC HYPERSENSITIVE SYNDROME 5
1.4 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 6
1.4.1 Double-blind provocation studies 6
1.4.2 Can evidence change belief? .. 10
2.MATERIAL AND METHOD 11
2.1 SUBJECTS 11
2.2 RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF QUESTIONNAIRES 11
2.3 INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD (IRB) 13
2.4 EXPERIMENT DESIGN 14
2.5 CROSS-OVER AND DOUBLE-BLIND PROVOCATION STUDY 17
2.6 EXPECT THE SIZE OF SUBJECTS 19
3.RESULTS OF EXPERIMENT 19
3.1 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 19
3.2 DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS 20
3.3 ANALYSIS OF THE EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE OF PROVOCATION STUDY 21
3.4 PHYSIOLOGICAL DATA ANALYSIS 22
3.5 CARRY-OVER EFFECT 23
4.DISCUSSION 24
5.THE LIMITATION OF STUDY 28
6.REFERENCES 30

1.Andersson B, Berg M, Arnetz BB, Melin L, Langlet I, Liden S. 1996. A cognitive-behavioral treatment of patients suffering from “electric hypersensitivity: subjective effects and reactions in a double-blind provocation study. J Occup Environ 38(8):752-758.

2.Andrzejak R, Poreba R, Poreba M, Derkacz A, Skalik R, Gac P, et al. 2008. The influence of the call with a mobile phone on heart rate variability parameters in health volunteers. Industrial Health 46(4): 409–417.

3.Cinel C, Russo R, Boldini A, Fox E. 2008. Exposure to mobile phone electromagnetic fields and subjective symptoms: a double-blind study. Psychosomatic Medicine 70(3):345–348.

4.Cheng TJ. Lin YP, Chan CC. 2008.The research of the environment impact of non-ionizing radiation: final report. Environmental Protection Administration Program.

5.Electromagnetism. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:VFPt_Solenoid_correct2.svg. Wikipedia.

6.Eltiti S, Wallace D, Ridgewell A, Zougkou K, Russo R, Sepulveda F, et al. 2007. Does short-term exposure to mobile phone base station signals increase symptoms in individuals who report sensitivity to Electromagnetic Fields? A double-blind randomized provocation study. Environmental Health Perspectives 115(11):1603-1608.

7.Eltiti S, Wallace D, Zougkou K, Russo R, Joseph S, Rasor P, et al. 2007b. Development and evaluation of the electromagnetic hypersensitivity questionnaire. Bioelectromagnetics 28(2):137–151.

8.Environmental Protection Administration. Available: http://ivy1.epa.gov.tw/nonionized_net/EME/safety.asp

9.Fulton JP, Cobb S, Preble L, Leone L, Forman E. 1980. Electrical Wiring configurations and childhood leukemia in Rhode Island. American Journal of Epidemiology 111(3): 292-296.

10.Furubayashi T, Ushiyama A, Terao Y, Mizuno Y, Shirasawa K, Pongpaibool P, et al. 2009. Effects of short-term W-CDMA mobile phone base station exposure on women with or without mobile phone related symptoms. Bio-electromagnetic 30(2): 100-113.

11.Goldberg DP, Hillier VF. 1979. A scaled version of the General Health Questionnaire. Psychological Medicine 9(1):139-145.

12.Guo HR, Chang CC, Cheng TC. 2010. The Impact of Electromagnetic Field (EMF) on the Environment Project. Environmental Protection Administration Program.

13.Hallberg O, Oberfeld G. 2006. Letter to the editor: will we all become electrosensitive? Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 25(3): 189–191.

14.Hillert L, Berglind N, Arnetz BB, Bellander T. 2002. Prevalence of self-reported hypersensitivity to electric or magnetic fields in a population-based questionnaire survey. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health 28(1): 33–41.

15.Infas, Ermittlung der Befurchtungen und Angste der breiten Offentlichkeit hinsichtlich moglicher Gefahren der hochfrequenten elektromagnetischen Felder des Mobilfunks: Abschlussbericht uber die Befragung im Jahr 2006. Institut fur Angewandte Sozialwissenschaft GmbH, Bonn.

16.International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. 1998. Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields (up to 300 GHz). Health Physics 74(4):494-522.

17.International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. 2010. Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric and magnetic field (1Hz to 100kHz) Health Physics Society 818-836.

18.International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. 2010. Note from the international commission on non-ionizing radiation protection (ICNIRP) on the interphone publication. Munich.

19.International Conference on Measurement of Non-ionizing Radiation.2008. Available: http://mommath.cy1000.com.tw/register/

20.Interphone study reports on mobile phone use and brain cancer risk. 2010. International agency for research on cancer. WHO.

21.Kim DW, Lee JH, Ji HC, Kim SC, Nam KC, Cha EJ. 2008. Physiological effects of RF exposure on hypersensitive people by a cell phone. Conference Proceedings--IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society 2322-2325.

22.Lai H, Singh NP. 2004. Magnetic-Field–Induced DNA Strand Breaks in Brain Cells of the Rat. Environmental Health Perspectives 112(6): 687-694.

23.Landgrebe M, Frick U, Hauser S, Hajak G, Langguth B. 2009. Association of tinnitus and electromagnetic hypersensitivity: hints for a shared pathophysiology? PLoS One 4(3): e5026.

24.Langrebe M, Hauser S,Langguth B, Frick U, Hajak G, Eichhammer P. 2007. Altered cortical excitability in subjectively electrosensitive patients: results of a pilot study. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 62(3):283-288.

25.Levallois P, Neutra R, Lee G, Hristova L. 2002. Study of selfreported hypersensitivity to electromagnetic fields in California. Environ Health Perspectives 110(Suppl. 4): 619–623.

26.Nieto-Hernandez R, Rubin GJ, Cleare AJ, Weinman JA, Wessely S. 2008. Can evidence change belief? Reported mobile phone sensitivity following individual feedback of an inability to discriminate active from sham signals. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 65(5): 453–460.

27.Nittby H, Grafatrom G, Tian DP, Malmgren L, BrunA, Persson BR, et al. 2008. Cognitive impairment in rats after long-term exposure to GSM-900 mobile phone radiation. Bioelectromagnetics 29(3):219-232.

28.Robert L, Spitzer, Janet BW, Williams, Kurt KP. Patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9). Available: http://www.pdhealth.mil/508/guidelines/downloads/appendix2.pdf

29.Roosli M. 2008. Radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure and non-specific symptoms of ill health: a systemic review. Environmental Research 107(2):277-287.

30.Rubin GJ, Das Munshi J, Wessely S. 2005. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: A systematic review of provocation studies. Psychosomatic Medicine 67(2):224-232.

31.Rubin GJ, Hahn G, Everitt BS, Cleare AJ, Wessely S. 2006. Are some people sensitive to mobile phones signals? A within-participants, double blind, randomized provocation study. British Medical Journal 332(7546):886–891.

32.Rubin GJ, Cleare AJ, Wessely S. 2008. Psychological factors associated with self-reported sensitivity to mobile phones. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 64(1):1-9.

33.Rubin GJ, Nieto-Hernandez R, Wessely S. 2010. Idiopathic environment intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (formerly Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity): an updated systemic review of provocation studies. Bioelectromagnetics 31(1): 1-11.

34.Sandstrom M, Lyskov E, Hornsten R, Hansson Mild K, Wiklund U, Rask P, et al. 2003. Holter ECG monitoring in patients with perceived electrical hypersensitivity. International Joural of Psychophysiology 49(3):227–235.

35.Schreier N, Huss A, Roosli M. 2006. The prevalence of symptoms attributed to electromagnetic field exposure: a cross-sectional representative survey in Switzerland. Soz Praventivmed 51(4):202–209.

36.The Health Council of the Netherlands, Annual Update 2008. Available: http://www.gr.nl/samenvatting.php?ID

37.Vecchia P, Matthes R, Gunde Ziegelberger G, Lin J , Saunders R, Swerdlow A. 2009. Exposure to high frequency electromagnetic fields, biological effects and health consequences (100 kHz-300 GHz). ICNIRP.

38.World Health Organization. 2005. Electromagnetic fields and public health Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity. Available: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs296/en/index.html

39.World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer Monograph Working Group. 2012. Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields: evaluation of cancer hazards.