↓ Skip to main content

Mobile phone radiation health risk controversy: the reliability and sufficiency of science behind the safety standards

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, January 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Mobile phone radiation health risk controversy: the reliability and sufficiency of science behind the safety standards
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, January 2010
DOI 10.1186/1478-4505-8-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dariusz Leszczynski, Zhengping Xu

Abstract

There is ongoing discussion whether the mobile phone radiation causes any health effects. The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, the International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety and the World Health Organization are assuring that there is no proven health risk and that the present safety limits protect all mobile phone users. However, based on the available scientific evidence, the situation is not as clear. The majority of the evidence comes from in vitro laboratory studies and is of very limited use for determining health risk. Animal toxicology studies are inadequate because it is not possible to "overdose" microwave radiation, as it is done with chemical agents, due to simultaneous induction of heating side-effects. There is a lack of human volunteer studies that would, in unbiased way, demonstrate whether human body responds at all to mobile phone radiation. Finally, the epidemiological evidence is insufficient due to, among others, selection and misclassification bias and the low sensitivity of this approach in detection of health risk within the population. This indicates that the presently available scientific evidence is insufficient to prove reliability of the current safety standards. Therefore, we recommend to use precaution when dealing with mobile phones and, whenever possible and feasible, to limit body exposure to this radiation. Continuation of the research on mobile phone radiation effects is needed in order to improve the basis and the reliability of the safety standards.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Australia 1 2%
Unknown 51 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 17%
Student > Bachelor 9 17%
Student > Master 8 15%
Researcher 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 13 25%
Unknown 6 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 11%
Computer Science 5 9%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Engineering 3 6%
Other 15 28%
Unknown 8 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 November 2014.
All research outputs
#7,416,987
of 22,679,690 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#832
of 1,202 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,577
of 164,445 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#15
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,679,690 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,202 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 164,445 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.