8,700 Studies Reviewed. 87.0% Found Biological Effects. The Evidence is Clear.
Shield Your Body
Whole Body / General

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 over 100% due to body interference, making current exposure assessments unreliable.

Plain English Summary

Summary written for general audiences

Researchers used computer models to test how the human body affects radiofrequency measurements from personal EMF meters worn at different body locations. They found measurement errors ranging from -96% to +133% compared to actual field strength, with waist and chest positions providing the most reliable readings.

Why This Matters

This research exposes a critical flaw in how we measure EMF exposure in real-world conditions. The science demonstrates that your body itself dramatically alters radiofrequency readings, creating measurement errors of over 100% depending on where you wear the device. This isn't just an academic concern - it means current compliance testing may be fundamentally unreliable. When regulators and industry claim exposures are 'within safe limits,' they're often using measurement methods that can underestimate actual exposure by nearly double, or overestimate it by more than 130%. What this means for you is that the EMF measurements being used to justify safety claims may bear little resemblance to your actual exposure levels.

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_ce1222,
  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},
  
}
DOI: 10.1155/2015/272460PubMed: 25879021

Quick Questions About This Study

Personal EMF meters can underestimate actual radiofrequency exposure by up to 96% when worn on the body. This massive measurement error occurs because the human body interferes with the electromagnetic field being measured.
The waist back position or front chest location provide the most reliable readings from body-worn EMF meters. However, even these optimal positions still produce significantly higher measurement uncertainty than stationary spot measurements.
Yes, body-worn EMF meters can overestimate actual radiofrequency exposure by up to 133% depending on placement. The human body's electromagnetic properties can either amplify or reduce measured field strength unpredictably.
Researchers tested radiofrequency ranges from 98 MHz to 2450 MHz, covering FM radio, cell phone, WiFi, and microwave frequencies. All frequencies showed significant measurement errors when personal EMF meters were worn on the body.
Computer modeling of 256 different exposure scenarios consistently showed that the human body significantly influences EMF meter readings. Every scenario demonstrated measurement errors, proving this is a systematic problem with body-worn devices.