" The evidence presented ... suggests current guidelines are not fit for purpose because genetic damage is being observed at exposures well below public limits and therefore represents a real risk for carcinogenicity. Overall, the results suggest that the use of real-world devices provides strong evidence (85% of papers) of RF exposures increasing DNA damage, whereas the evidence for simulated signals is inconsistent and far less convincing." " ● A typical industry funded study is an in vitro study that exposes a cell line to a single short exposure from a signal generator at a moderately high intensity in a continuous manner." " ● Studies that show genotoxicity are typically in vivo studies (or in vitro), exposing a primary cell or animal or plant to a variable signal from a real-world wireless device, at a low to moderate intensity. This is for an extended period of time (total accumulated exposure) with multiple exposures." " ● The first scenario (industry study) is designed to support current international guidelines to protect people from thermal-based health effects from acute exposures, while the second scenario is more reflective of real-life usage and exposure scenarios." |
Last modified on 12-Oct-22 |