Marloes Eeftens1, Benjamin Struchen2, Laura Ellen Birks3, Elisabeth Cardis3, Marisa Estarlich4, Mariana F Fernandez5, Peter Gajšek6, Mara Gallastegi7, Anke Huss8, Leeka Kheifets9, Inger Kristine Meder10, Jørn Olsen11, Maties Torrent12, Tomaž Trček6, Blaž Valič6, Roel Vermeulen13, Martine Vrijheid3, Luuk van Wel8, Mònica Guxens14, Martin Röösli2. 1. Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland; University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. Electronic address: marloes.eeftens@swisstph.ch. 2. Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland; University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 3. ISGlobal, Barcelona Institute for Global Health, Barcelona, Spain; Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain; Spanish Consortium for Research on Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Institute of Health Carlos III, Madrid, Spain. 4. Spanish Consortium for Research on Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Institute of Health Carlos III, Madrid, Spain; Epidemiology and Environmental Health Joint Research Unit, FISABIO-Universitat Jaume I-Universitat de València, 46020 València, Spain. 5. Spanish Consortium for Research on Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Institute of Health Carlos III, Madrid, Spain; University of Granada, Center for Biomedical Research (CIBM), & Biosanitary Research Institute of Granada (ibs.GRANADA), Spain. 6. Institute of Non-ionizing Radiation (INIS), Ljubljana 1000, Slovenia. 7. BIODONOSTIA Health Research Institute, Dr. Begiristain Pasealekua, San Sebastian, Spain; University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Preventative Medicine and Public Health Department, Faculty of Medicine, Leioa, Spain. 8. Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences (IRAS), Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands. 9. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, USA. 10. Danish National Birth Cohort, Statens Serum Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark. 11. Danish Epidemiology Science Centre, Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. 12. ib-salut, Area de Salut de Menorca, Menorca, Spain. 13. Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences (IRAS), Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands; Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands. 14. ISGlobal, Barcelona Institute for Global Health, Barcelona, Spain; Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain; Spanish Consortium for Research on Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Institute of Health Carlos III, Madrid, Spain; Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry/Psychology, Erasmus University Medical Centre-Sophia Children's Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) from mobile communication technologies is changing rapidly. To characterize sources and associated variability, we studied the differences and correlations in exposure patterns between children aged 8 to 18 and their parents, over the course of the day, by age, by activity pattern, and for different metrics of exposure. METHODS: Using portable RF-EMF measurement devices, we collected simultaneous real-time personal measurements of RF-EMF over 24 to 72 h in 294 parent-child pairs from Denmark, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Switzerland, and Spain. The devices measured the power flux density (mW/m2) in 16 different frequency bands every 4 s, and activity diary Apps kept by the participants were used to collect time-activity information in real-time. We analyzed their exposures by activity, for the different source constituents of exposure: downlink (radiation emitted from mobile phone base stations), uplink (transmission from phone to base station), broadcast, DECT (digital enhanced cordless telecommunications) and Wi-Fi. We looked at the correlations between parents and children overall, during day (06:00-22.00) and night (22:00-06:00) and while spending time at home. RESULTS: The mean of time-weighted average personal exposures was 0.16 mW/m2 for children and 0.15 mW/m2 for parents, on average predominantly originating from downlink sources (47% for children and 45% for parents), followed by uplink (18% and 27% respectively) and broadcast (25% and 19%). On average, exposure for downlink and uplink were highest during the day, and for Wi-Fi and DECT during the evening. Exposure during activities where most of the time is spent (home, school and work) was relatively low whereas exposure during travel and outside activities was higher. Exposure to uplink increased with age among young people, while DECT decreased slightly. Exposure to downlink, broadcast, and Wi-Fi showed no obvious trend with age. We found that exposure to total RF-EMF is correlated among children and their parents (Rspearman = 0.45), especially while at home (0.62) and during the night (0.60). Correlations were higher for environmental sources such as downlink (0.57) and broadcast (0.62) than for usage-related exposures such as uplink (0.29). CONCLUSION: The generation gap between children and their parents is mostly evident in uplink exposure, due to more and longer uplink and cordless phone calls among parents, and their tendency to spend slightly more time in activities with higher environmental RF-EMF exposure, such as travel. Despite these differences in personal behavior, exposure to RF-EMF is moderately correlated between children and their parents, especially exposures resulting from environmental RF-EMF sources.
BACKGROUND: Exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) from mobile communication technologies is changing rapidly. To characterize sources and associated variability, we studied the differences and correlations in exposure patterns between children aged 8 to 18 and their parents, over the course of the day, by age, by activity pattern, and for different metrics of exposure. METHODS: Using portable RF-EMF measurement devices, we collected simultaneous real-time personal measurements of RF-EMF over 24 to 72 h in 294 parent-child pairs from Denmark, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Switzerland, and Spain. The devices measured the power flux density (mW/m2) in 16 different frequency bands every 4 s, and activity diary Apps kept by the participants were used to collect time-activity information in real-time. We analyzed their exposures by activity, for the different source constituents of exposure: downlink (radiation emitted from mobile phone base stations), uplink (transmission from phone to base station), broadcast, DECT (digital enhanced cordless telecommunications) and Wi-Fi. We looked at the correlations between parents and children overall, during day (06:00-22.00) and night (22:00-06:00) and while spending time at home. RESULTS: The mean of time-weighted average personal exposures was 0.16 mW/m2 for children and 0.15 mW/m2 for parents, on average predominantly originating from downlink sources (47% for children and 45% for parents), followed by uplink (18% and 27% respectively) and broadcast (25% and 19%). On average, exposure for downlink and uplink were highest during the day, and for Wi-Fi and DECT during the evening. Exposure during activities where most of the time is spent (home, school and work) was relatively low whereas exposure during travel and outside activities was higher. Exposure to uplink increased with age among young people, while DECT decreased slightly. Exposure to downlink, broadcast, and Wi-Fi showed no obvious trend with age. We found that exposure to total RF-EMF is correlated among children and their parents (Rspearman = 0.45), especially while at home (0.62) and during the night (0.60). Correlations were higher for environmental sources such as downlink (0.57) and broadcast (0.62) than for usage-related exposures such as uplink (0.29). CONCLUSION: The generation gap between children and their parents is mostly evident in uplink exposure, due to more and longer uplink and cordless phone calls among parents, and their tendency to spend slightly more time in activities with higher environmental RF-EMF exposure, such as travel. Despite these differences in personal behavior, exposure to RF-EMF is moderately correlated between children and their parents, especially exposures resulting from environmental RF-EMF sources.
Authors: Raquel Ramirez-Vazquez; Jesus Gonzalez-Rubio; Isabel Escobar; Carmen Del Pilar Suarez Rodriguez; Enrique Arribas Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-02-14 Impact factor: 3.390