01 Zur Bewertung der  Herzratenvariabilität wird der Abstand zwischen regulären Herzschlägen beurteilt, d.h. im normalen Sinusrhythmus, ohne Herzrhythmusstörungen. Gemessen wird dabei der Abstand der R-Zacken im Elektrokardiogramm (EKG), dem RR- oder NN-Intervall.

02 Wikipedia: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nervus_vagus.

03 Vollständige Zitate von Abraham R. Liboff und Jacqueline McGlade.

Abraham R. Liboff: “The key point about electromagnetic pollution that the public has to realize is that it is not necessary that the intensity be large for a biological interaction to occur. There is now considerable evidence that extremely weak signals can have physiological consequences. These interactive intensities are about 1000 times smaller than the threshold values formerly estimated by otherwise knowledgeable theoreticians, who, in their vainglorious approach to science, rejected all evidence to the contrary as inconsistent with their magnificent calculations. These faulty estimated thresholds are yet to be corrected by both regulators and the media. The overall problem with environmental electromagnetism is much deeper, not only of concern at power line frequencies, but also in the radiofrequency range encompassing mobile phones. Here the public’s continuing exposure to electromagnetic radiation is largely connected to money. Indeed the tens of billions of dollars in sales one finds in the cell phone industry makes it mandatory to corporate leaders that they deny, in knee-jerk fashion, any indication of hazard.

There may be hope for the future in knowing that weakly intense electromagnetic interactions can be used for good as well as harm. The fact that such fields are biologically effective also implies the likelihood of medical applications, something that is now taking place. As this happens, I think it will make us more aware about how our bodies react to electromagnetism, and it should become even clearer to everyone concerned that there is reason to be very, very careful about ambient electromagnetic fields.”

Abraham R. Liboff,
Research Professor Center for Molecular Biology and Biotechnology Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida; Co-Editor, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine.

Jacqueline McGlade: “There are many examples of the failure to use the precautionary principle in the past, which have resulted in serious and often irreversible damage to health and environments. Appropriate, precautionary and proportionate actions taken now to avoid plausible and potentially serious threats to health from EMF are likely to be seen as prudent and wise from future perspectives.”

Jacqueline McGlade,
Professor. Executive Director, European Environmental Agency
Advisor to European Union countries under the European Commission.

04 Im Folgenden ein Überblick über die aktuelle wissenschaftliche Studienlage.

Balmori, A.: Evidence for a health risk by RF on humans living around mobile phone base stations: From radiofrequency sickness to cancer.Environ Res Jul 14. 2022.

Belpoggi F., STOA: Health impact of 5G. Current state of knowledge of 5G- related carcinogenic and reproductive/developmental hazards as they emerge from epidemiological studies and in vivo experimental studies. 2021.

Belpommes D. et al.: Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An international perspective; Environmental Pollution 242. 2018.

Bortkiewicz A. et al: Mobile Phone use and risk for intracranial tumors and salivary gland tumors – a meta-analysis. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health. 2017.

Belyaev I.Y.: Non-thermal Biological Effects of Microwaves. Electromagn Biol Med 24: 2005. Microwave Review 11 (2), 2005.

Umfangreichste Dokumentation der Studienlage, erstellt von einem internationalen Team von 29 führenden Experten: The BioInitiative Report 2012: A Rationale for Biologically-based Public Exposure Standards for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF). 2012, 2014, 2020.

Di Ciaula A.: Towards 5G communication systems: are there health implications? Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2018; 221 (3).

Gangi S., Johansson, O.: Skin changes in „screen dermatitis“ versus classical UV- and imionizing irradiation-related damage — similarities and differences. Exp Dermatol 1997; 6.

Grigoriev Y.: Evidence for Effects on the Immune System Supplement. Bioinitiative Report 2012, Section 8.

Hecht K., Balzer, H.U.: Biologische Wirkungen elektromagnetischer Felder im Frequenzbereich 0 – 3 GHz auf den Menschen. Studie russischer Literatur von 1960-1996 im Auftrag des Bundesministerium für Telekommunikation. Umwelt-Medizin-Gesellschaft 14, 3/2001.

Hensinger P.: Risiko Mobilfunk – Blick in die Forschung: Gesundheitsschäden durch WLAN- und Mobilfunkstrahlung. DHZ – Deutsche Heilpraktiker Zeitschrift, 2018; 8.

Hensinger P., Wilke I.: Mobilfunk: Neue Studienergebnisse bestätigen Risiken der
nicht-ionisierenden Strahlung. Umwelt-Medizin-Gesellschaft 29, 3/2016.

Khurana V.G. et al.: Epidemiological evidence for a health risk from mobile phone base stations. Int J Occup Environ Health 2010; 16 (3).

Kostoff R.N. et al.: Adverse Health Effects of 5G Mobile Networking Technology
under Real Life Conditions. Toxicol Lett. 2020 May 1;323.

Levitt, B.B., Lai, H.: Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. Environ Rev. 2010; 18.

Mämpel W. et al.: Unterschätzte Gefahren durch Radioaktivität am Beispiel der Radarsoldaten. Bericht des Otto Hug Strahleninstituts, Bericht 25, 2015.

Makker K. et al.: Cell phones: modern man’s nemesis? Reprod Biomed Online 2009; 18 (1).

Miller A.B. et al.: Risks to health and well-being from radio-frequency radiation emitted by cell phones and other wireless devices. Front. Public Health 7:223. 2019.

Molla-Djafari H. et al.: ATHEM-2. Athermal effects of electromagnetic field exposure associated with mobile communication. Allgemeine Unfallversicherungsanstalt AUVA: Research Report 70, 2016.

Morgan L.L. et al.: Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The consequences. JMAU 2 (4). 2014.

Narayanan S.N. et al.: Radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation-induced behavioral changes and their possible basis. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2019 Oct; 26 (30).

Pall, M.L.: Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health. Environmental Research Volume 164, July 2018.

Sage C., Burgio, E.: Electromagnetic Fields, Pulsed Radiofrequency Radiation, and Epigenetics: How Wireless Technologies May Affect Childhood Development. Child Dev. 2018 Jan;89(1).

Saliev T. et al.: Biological effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields: Two sides of a coin. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 141. 2019.

Starkey S.J.: Inaccurate official assessment of radiofrequency safety by the Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation. Rev Environ Health 2016; 31(4).

Simko M., Mattson M.-O.: 5G Wireless Communication and Health Effects-A Pragmatic Review Based on Available Studies Regarding 6 to 100 GHz. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Sep 13; 16(18).

Vornoli A. et al.: The Contribution of In Vivo Mammalian Studies to the Knowledge of Adverse Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation on Human Health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16. 2019.

Wilke I.: Biological and pathological effects of 2.45 GHz radiation on cells, fertility, brain, and behavior. Umwelt-Medizin-Gesellschaft 2018; 31(1).

Wu T. ET AL.: Safe for Generations to Come: Considerations of Safety for Millimeter Waves in Wireless Communications. IEEE Microw Mag 2015; 16 (2).