Real versus Simulated Mobile Phone Exposures in Experimental Studies

Friends:

New paper published today where we make the following points:

• In studies of RF health and biological effects where simulated signals are used to estimate exposure, unreliable results are likely produced. These can lead to false assurances of public safety.
• In studies where real cell phones are used to measure actual exposure, studies are almost uniform in showing adverse effects -- more than 95% do so. This is because the real phone signals are polarized, variable in form, and therefore more bio-active than simulated estimates. As such, organisms are not able to readily adapt and compensate for damage. 
• Studies that do not use real signals do not reflect the reality of use in the population and are therefore of limited scientific and public health protection value. 

Thanks.

G 

________________
Dr. George L. Carlo

Washington, D.C.

Real versus Simulated Mobile Phone Exposures in Experimental Studies

Dimitris J. Panagopoulos,1,2,3 Olle Johansson,4 and George L. Carlo5

1National Center for Scientific Research “Demokritos”, 60037 Athens, Greece
2Department of Biology, University of Athens, 15784 Athens, Greece
3Radiation and Environmental Biophysics Research Centre, 11143 Athens, Greece
4Experimental Dermatology Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, 171 77 Stockholm, Sweden
5The Science and Public Policy Institute, Institute for Healthful Adaptation, Falls Church, VA 22044, USA

Received 20 February 2015; Accepted 14 July 2015

Academic Editor: Sabrina Angelini 

Copyright © 2015 Dimitris J. Panagopoulos et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

We examined whether exposures to mobile phone radiation in biological/clinical experiments should be performed with real-life Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) emitted by commercially available mobile phone handsets, instead of simulated EMFs emitted by generators or test phones. Real mobile phone emissions are constantly and unpredictably varying and thus are very different from simulated emissions which employ fixed parameters and no variability. This variability is an important parameter that makes real emissions more bioactive. Living organisms seem to have decreased defense against environmental stressors of high variability. While experimental studies employing simulated EMF-emissions present a strong inconsistency among their results with less than 50% of them reporting effects, studies employing real mobile phone exposures demonstrate an almost 100% consistency in showing adverse effects. This consistency is in agreement with studies showing association with brain tumors, symptoms of unwellness, and declines in animal populations. Average dosimetry in studies with real emissions can be reliable with increased number of field measurements, and variation in experimental outcomes due to exposure variability becomes less significant with increased number of experimental replications. We conclude that, in order for experimental findings to reflect reality, it is crucially important that exposures be performed by commercially available mobile phone handsets.

Read more at

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2015/607053/