Explore the vast range of titles available.

To evaluate SAR as a dosimetric quantity for EMF bioeffects, and identify ways for increasing the precision in EMF dosimetry and bioactivity assessment. We discuss the interaction of man-made electromagnetic waves with biological matter and calculate the energy transferred to a single free ion within a cell. We analyze the physics and biology of SAR and evaluate the methods of its estimation. We discuss the experimentally observed non-linearity between electromagnetic exposure and biological effect. WE FIND THAT: a) The energy absorbed by living matter during exposure to environmentally accounted EMFs is normally well below the thermal level. b) All existing methods for SAR estimation, especially those based upon tissue conductivity and internal electric field, have serious deficiencies. c) The only method to estimate SAR without large error is by measuring temperature increases within biological tissue, which normally are negligible for environmental EMF intensities, and thus cannot be measured. SAR actually refers to thermal effects, while the vast majority of the recorded biological effects from man-made non-ionizing environmental radiation are non-thermal. Even if SAR could be accurately estimated for a whole tissue, organ, or body, the biological/health effect is determined by tiny amounts of energy/power absorbed by specific biomolecules, which cannot be calculated. Moreover, it depends upon field parameters not taken into account in SAR calculation. Thus, SAR should not be used as the primary dosimetric quantity, but used only as a complementary measure, always reporting the estimating method and the corresponding error. Radiation/field intensity along with additional physical parameters (such as frequency, modulation etc) which can be directly and in any case more accurately measured on the surface of biological tissues, should constitute the primary measure for EMF exposures, in spite of similar uncertainty to predict the biological effect due to non-linearity.

In the present study we analyze the role of polarization in the biological activity of Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs)/Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR). All types of man-made EMFs/EMR - in contrast to natural EMFs/EMR - are polarized. Polarized EMFs/EMR can have increased biological activity, due to: 1) Ability to produce constructive interference effects and amplify their intensities at many locations. 2) Ability to force all charged/polar molecules and especially free ions within and around all living cells to oscillate on parallel planes and in phase with the applied polarized field. Such ionic forced-oscillations exert additive electrostatic forces on the sensors of cell membrane electro-sensitive ion channels, resulting in their irregular gating and consequent disruption of the cell’s electrochemical balance. These features render man-made EMFs/EMR more bioactive than natural non-ionizing EMFs/EMR. This explains the increasing number of biological effects discovered during the past few decades to be induced by man-made EMFs, in contrast to natural EMFs in the terrestrial environment which have always been present throughout evolution, although human exposure to the latter ones is normally of significantly higher intensities/energy and longer durations. Thus, polarization seems to be a trigger that significantly increases the probability for the initiation of biological/health effects.

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.

The correct Equation should be j = σ E. Citation: Panagopoulos DJ, Johansson O, Carlo GL (2013) Correction: Evaluation of Specific Absorption Rate as a Dosimetric Quantity for Electromagnetic Fields Bioeffects. No competing interests declared.

Reports of interference between European cellular telephones and cardiac pacemakers in 1994 1 – 3 prompted the U.S. government and researchers to examine the potential for wireless (cellular) telephones to interfere with implanted pacemakers. Since that time, further European in vitro studies and small in vivo studies have also shown that hand-held wireless telephones interfere with the function of pacemakers. 4 – 7 (Household cordless telephones are not considered wireless.) Furthermore, in vitro studies in the United States have demonstrated the potential for interference between American wireless telephones and pacemakers. 8 – 12 This interference may prevent the pacemaker from functioning properly, resulting in possible adverse . . .

Clinical research aiming at objectively identifying and characterizing diseases via clinical observations and biological and radiological findings is a critical initial research step when establishing objective diagnostic criteria and treatments. Failure to first define such diagnostic criteria may lead research on pathogenesis and etiology to serious confounding biases and erroneous medical interpretations. This is particularly the case for electrohypersensitivity (EHS) and more particularly for the so-called “provocation tests”, which do not investigate the causal origin of EHS but rather the EHS-associated particular environmental intolerance state with hypersensitivity to man-made electromagnetic fields (EMF). However, because those tests depend on multiple EMF-associated physical and biological parameters and have been conducted in patients without having first defined EHS objectively and/or endpoints adequately, they cannot presently be considered to be valid pathogenesis research methodologies. Consequently, the negative results obtained by these tests do not preclude a role of EMF exposure as a symptomatic trigger in EHS patients. Moreover, there is no proof that EHS symptoms or EHS itself are caused by psychosomatic or nocebo effects. This international consensus report pleads for the acknowledgement of EHS as a distinct neuropathological disorder and for its inclusion in the WHO International Classification of Diseases.

Purpose To evaluate SAR as a dosimetric quantity for EMF bioeffects, and identify ways for increasing the precision in EMF dosimetry and bioactivity assessment. Methods We discuss the interaction of man-made electromagnetic waves with biological matter and calculate the energy transferred to a single free ion within a cell. We analyze the physics and biology of SAR and evaluate the methods of its estimation. We discuss the experimentally observed non-linearity between electromagnetic exposure and biological effect. Results We find that: a) The energy absorbed by living matter during exposure to environmentally accounted EMFs is normally well below the thermal level. b) All existing methods for SAR estimation, especially those based upon tissue conductivity and internal electric field, have serious deficiencies. c) The only method to estimate SAR without large error is by measuring temperature increases within biological tissue, which normally are negligible for environmental EMF intensities, and thus cannot be measured. Conclusions SAR actually refers to thermal effects, while the vast majority of the recorded biological effects from man-made non-ionizing environmental radiation are non-thermal. Even if SAR could be accurately estimated for a whole tissue, organ, or body, the biological/health effect is determined by tiny amounts of energy/power absorbed by specific biomolecules, which cannot be calculated. Moreover, it depends upon field parameters not taken into account in SAR calculation. Thus, SAR should not be used as the primary dosimetric quantity, but used only as a complementary measure, always reporting the estimating method and the corresponding error. Radiation/field intensity along with additional physical parameters (such as frequency, modulation etc) which can be directly and in any case more accurately measured on the surface of biological tissues, should constitute the primary measure for EMF exposures, in spite of similar uncertainty to predict the biological effect due to non-linearity.

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of mortality among current and former male employees of a modern tire manufacturing plant in Texas. Vital status was ascertained for more than 99% of the cohort of 2306 workers. Standardized mortality ratio analyses were completed based on 102 deaths. No significant excess for any disease-specific cause of death was identified, and significant deficits in all-cause mortality and deficits in cancer mortality were observedfor both white and nonwhite men. The analyses were consistent in indicating that this work force has experienced no excessive diseasespecific mortality.

The etiology of capsular contracture is unclear and probably multifactorial. This review covers the literature on several proposed contracture factors, including filler material, implant placement, surface texture, and bacterial infection. The pilot study's goal was to test the feasibility of a data collection form, which could be used in a scaled-up study analyzing multiple surgeon's records. The goal of the expanded version of this study will be to determine the efficacy of available interventions for capsular contracture, including surveillance. The Breast Implant Public Health Project, LLC (BIPHP), piloted a retrospective review of outcomes in women who had interventions to relieve capsular contracture or had chosen a wait-and-watch approach. An evaluation of the efficacy of various treatments can help women decide if they want to pursue treatment at all and, if so, which treatment might offer them the best solution. BIPHP researchers (E.E.A., M.E.) developed a data collection form after reviewing records of three surgeons (B.C., W.P., V.L.Y.). During the data collection using the same records, we tested a randomization process to identify women with capsular contracture who underwent various interventions, including a wait-and-watch strategy, and those who had no mention of any intervention or waiting approach. Data were gathered on a total of 90 breasts with capsular contracture (scored Baker I-IV or qualitatively), of which 45 underwent a total of 102 interventions for capsular contracture. Interventions were classified as \"closed capsulotomy,\" \"surgical,\" or \"watchful waiting.\" Closed capsulotomy was performed most often (47%), followed by surgery (29%) and watchful waiting (21%). Presurgical Baker scores averaged higher in breasts that underwent surgery (3.1) than for watchful waiting (2.5) or closed capsulotomy (2.3). Though closed capsulotomies had 100% of outcomes scoring \"improved\" or \"same,\" 58% of the breasts underwent the procedure more than once, suggesting that the favorable outcome was short-lived. The wait-and-watch approach resulted in scores of either \"same\" or \"worse\"; surgery (open capsulotomy, repositioning, or capsulectomy) resulted in 79% improved, 16% same, and 5% worse outcomes in breasts with outcomes listed. In all intervention procedure categories, outcomes were frequently unavailable; they were noted only 60% of the time (52/87). The missing 40% may have resulted from the doctor's failure to note it in the chart, satisfied patients not returning for additional treatment, or dissatisfied patients seeking treatment elsewhere. Generally, the data collection forms and procedures were workable; however, we uncovered issues to address in the scale-up of this pilot study: (1) the outcome report rate was 60%; (2) though Baker scores are commonly used to evaluate the degree of capsular contracture, it seems that grade I may have different meanings for different surgeons, which would need to be clarified; (3) participating surgeons will need to divulge standard-of-care items that they may not have included in medical records, but routinely performed (e.g., patient massage, use of prophylactic antibiotics); and (4) records were initially separated by \"implant,\" then researchers realized that a more useful collection would be by \"breast.\" The latter approach captures the history of the breast in one record, which may be more important to contracture than the differences in implants. With the modifications discussed, the study can be scaled up to encompass as many records as necessary to achieve robust statistical power. These data will add to the existing literature regarding factors associated with capsular contracture and identify factors that affect the successful outcome of capsular contracture interventions.