8,700 Studies Reviewed. 87.0% Found Biological Effects. The Evidence is Clear.

Gryz K et al, (March 2015) The Role of the Location of Personal Exposimeters on the Human Body in Their Use for Assessing Exposure to the Electromagnetic Field in the Radiofrequency Range 98-2450 MHz and Compliance Analysis: Evaluation by Virtual Measurements, Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:272460. doi: 10.1155/2015/272460

Bioeffects Seen

Authors not listed · 2015

Share:

Personal EMF meters can be off by up to 233% depending on body placement, making current exposure assessments unreliable.

Plain English Summary

Summary written for general audiences

Researchers tested how the human body affects personal EMF meters that measure radiofrequency radiation from 98-2450 MHz. They found that where you wear the device on your body dramatically changes the readings, with errors ranging from -96% to +133% compared to actual field strength. This means current EMF exposure assessments using body-worn devices may be significantly inaccurate.

Why This Matters

This study reveals a critical flaw in how we measure EMF exposure in real-world conditions. The science demonstrates that your body acts like an antenna, dramatically altering the electromagnetic fields around you - sometimes doubling the readings, other times cutting them in half. What this means for you is that most personal EMF measurements and compliance testing may be giving you false reassurance or unnecessary alarm. The reality is that regulatory agencies and researchers have been making exposure assessments based on potentially flawed data. When exposure limits are already set thousands of times higher than levels shown to cause biological effects in independent research, this measurement uncertainty becomes even more concerning. You don't have to accept inadequate exposure assessment methods when the stakes involve your family's health.

Exposure Information

A logarithmic frequency spectrum from 10 Hz to 100 GHz showing where this study's 98-2450 MHz exposure sits relative to common EMF sources.Where This Frequency Sits on the EMF SpectrumELFVLFLF / MFHF / VHFUHFSHFmm10 Hz100 GHzThis study: 98-2450 MHzPower lines50/60 HzCell phones~1 GHzWiFi2.4 GHz5G mm28 GHzLogarithmic scale

Specific exposure levels were not quantified in this study.

Cite This Study
Unknown (2015). Gryz K et al, (March 2015) The Role of the Location of Personal Exposimeters on the Human Body in Their Use for Assessing Exposure to the Electromagnetic Field in the Radiofrequency Range 98-2450 MHz and Compliance Analysis: Evaluation by Virtual Measurements, Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:272460. doi: 10.1155/2015/272460.
Show BibTeX
@article{gryz_k_et_al_march_2015_the_role_of_the_location_of_personal_exposimeters_on_the_human_body_in_their_use_for_assessing_exposure_to_the_electromagnetic_field_in_the_radiofrequency_range_98_2450_mhz_and_ce1129,
  author = {Unknown},
  title = {Gryz K et al, (March 2015) The Role of the Location of Personal Exposimeters on the Human Body in Their Use for Assessing Exposure to the Electromagnetic Field in the Radiofrequency Range 98-2450 MHz and Compliance Analysis: Evaluation by Virtual Measurements, Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:272460. doi: 10.1155/2015/272460},
  year = {2015},
  doi = {10.1155/2015/272460},
  
}

Quick Questions About This Study

Measurement errors ranged from -96% to +133% depending on where the exposimeter was placed on the human body. The waist-back and chest-front positions showed the most consistent results across different exposure scenarios.
The study examined radiofrequency radiation from 98 to 2450 MHz, covering FM radio, cell phone, WiFi, and Bluetooth frequencies. This range includes most common wireless communication devices people encounter daily.
The human body acts as an antenna that absorbs, reflects, and scatters electromagnetic fields. This interaction significantly alters the field strength around the body, causing dramatic variations in what exposimeters measure.
The study found that placing exposimeters on the waist-back or chest-front reduced measurement uncertainty compared to other body locations, though significant errors still remained across various exposure conditions.
The research suggests current compliance testing using single body-worn exposimeters has significantly higher uncertainty than unperturbed field measurements, potentially compromising the reliability of exposure assessments and safety evaluations.