English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Electromagnetic fields, in particular so-called radiofrequencies are used by mobile or wireless communication systems as for example GSM mobile telephones, DECT telephones, wifi etc. Recent years were characterized by a tremendous increase in applications and types of wireless communication systems and this is responsible for an important increase in human exposure to radiofrequency radiation. Discussions on alleged adverse health effects are going on for years and so far no consensus agreement has been reached. These discussions are held amongst scientists as well as amongst laymen from the general public and authorities. Radio, TV, newspapers and magazines often bring erroneous information to the public. But also scientists do not agree. The scientific literature is full of papers showing that these fields can be dangerous and others showing that they are not. This holds true for virtually all possible endpoints and scientific disciplines that were studied, going from in vitro studies on cell proliferation, genetic and immunological effects, over animal experimental data on cancer and non cancer issues and human epidemiological investigations. It is not uncommon that controversial results are reported by the same laboratory. This results in claims of ‘danger’ when reference is made to essentially ‘positive’ papers (showing adverse biological effects) or claims of innocuity when only papers showing no effects are emphasized. It is clear that all (peer reviewed) scientific data should be considered and carefully analysed in order to come to a best possible ‘weight of evidence’ evaluation of risk. According to the WHO (World health Organisation) and ICNIRP (International Committee on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection) a single study does not provide the basis for hazard identification. It can at the best form the basis of a hypothesis. Confirmation of the results of any study is needed through replication and/or supportive studies. Only the resulting body of evidence forms the basis for science-based judgments by defining exposure levels for adverse health effects and no observable adverse effects.

Evaluations of International Expert Group Reports on the Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Fields