Dr. Lebrecht von Klitzing was perhaps one of the first pioneers studying heart, brain and central nervous system (CNS) reactions to ELF/RF radiation:
Tuengler, A., & von Klitzing, L. (2013). Hypothesis on how to measure electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 32(3), 281–290. https://doi.org/10.3109/15368378.2012.712586
Other researchers have continued heart rate variability (HRV) measurements:
Koppel, T., Vilcane, I., Carlberg, M., Tint, P., Priiman, R., Riisik, K., ... & Visnapuu, L. (2015). The effect of static magnetic field on heart rate variability-an experimental study. Agronomy Research, 13(3), 765-774.
(Exposing with 150 µT DC magnetic field, 2 minute long phases. When the (normal) earth magnetic field is about 50 µT, in non-exposure phases)
(Exposing with 4 µT AC magnetic field, 2 minutes long phases. I was also involved in this study.)
Misek, J., Belyaev, I., Jakusova, V., Tonhajzerova, I., Barabas, J., & Jakus, J. (2018). Heart rate variability affected by radiofrequency electromagnetic field in adolescent students. Bioelectromagnetics, 39(4), 277–288. https://doi.org/10.1002/bem.22115
What is interesting in this Misek et al. (2018) paper, HRV-readings and reactions could be recorded, when the test subject was in laying in a horisontal position. Exposure was from a mobile phone, in call/listen-mode.
A WISH: Hopefully these HRV-measurements, perhaps with microcirculation and electric skin potential measurements, will r-e-p-l-a-c-e badly constructed provocation studies ála Rubin. Similar suggestion about better research methods has been provided Dr. Dariusz Leszczynski (to the WHO), who has wisely proposed sensitivity research based on proteomics. I find it very counter-productive to do/finance provocation studies, since often those studies have A) sensitives in control-groups B) immediate symptom expectations after exposure C) poorly shielded test laboratories D) no flush-out periods possible.
I am curious to hear more comments about HRV-testing.
Recent Comments