Real or simulated exposure?
Real science or simulated exposure? Real life wifi and mobile phones or simulated?
Real or fake?
Real-world signals or simulated signals. What's the difference in science?
Front. Public Health, 20 December 2022
The quality of the experimental design was then determined based on whether the experiment used real-world signals instead of simulated signals. This selection criterion was deemed important (i) because the investigation focused on real-world exposures, and (2) because previous studies have noted that real-world signals (e.g., from mobile phones) are more likely to produce experimental biological interference effects than simulated laboratory signals that using synthesized, regular patterns (16). Even though simulated signals may be easier to control in experimental settings, they do not allow the experimenter to explore the essential factors that seem to cause stronger biological effects. This is possible because real-world devices emit constantly varying signals, to which human psychophysical systems appear to struggle to adapt, or because they contain pulses that elicit greater biological responses when compared to continuous waves of the same frequency (17). These pertinent factors need to be the focus of future research.
From the paper: “Wireless technology is an environmental stressor requiring new understanding and approaches in health care”
Real versus Simulated Mobile Phone Exposures in Experimental Studies
Pub Med 2015
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.
Sign up for our newsletter
<!– wp:tnp/minimal –>
<div style=”padding:20px” class=”wp-block-tnp-minimal”><p>Subscribe to our newsletter!</p><div>
<!– /wp:tnp/minimal –>