Real versus Simulated Mobile Phone Exposures in Experimental Studies

It explains that there are differences on the quantity of effects found when comparing studies that used telephony radiation simulation generators (less effects) or radiation generated by real mobiles (more effects).

" The aim of the present study is to review biological and clinical experimental studies on mobile phone radiation effects which have employed exposures with real mobile phone emissions, as opposed to the mainstream studies which employ simulated mobile phone emissions produced by generators or test phones." {Credits 1}

It's viewed that pulsed modulated and/or intermittent exposure (more realistic) is more bioactive than continuous signals. For example; Radiofrequency plus Extremely Low Frequency pulsing frequencies has been found to be more bioactive than a Radiofrequency carrier alone.

" the phase of the carrier signal varies continuously during a phone-conversation, and the RF frequency constantly changes between different available frequency channels, especially in third generation (3G) radiation." {Credits 1}

" while within the group of studies with simulated emissions there is also a conflict between studies that find effects and studies that do not [50-50%], the group of studies with real exposures demonstrates an impressive consistency in showing effects almost at 100%." {Credits 1}

{Credits 1} 🎪 Panagopoulos, D. J., Johansson, O., & Carlo, G. L. (2015). Real versus simulated mobile phone exposures in experimental studies. BioMed research international, 2015. © 2015 Dimitris J. Panagopoulos et al. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.

Last modified on 15-Mar-16

/ EMMIND - Electromagnetic Mind