Comments on "Diverse Radiofrequency Sensitivity and Radiofrequency Effects of Mobile or Cordless Phone near Fields Exposure in Drosophila Melanogaster"

Panagopoulos Dimitris J,Karabarbounis Andreas

doi:10.36959/742/223

Abstract

Geronikolou, et al. followed the same experimental methodology without reporting replication or even citing the original study. Then, they differentiated on secondary points - employing a different statistical method, calculating theoretically the near-field instead of measuring it, not sham-exposing the control groups, and including experiments with cordless phones based on the same procedures - which led them to serious flaws and misleading conclusions. Our present commentary is a necessary action to protect authorship and restore science in regards to experiments with mobile and cordless phones.

Highlights

We recently saw a paper published in Plos One titled “Diverse Radiofrequency Sensitivity and Radiofrequency Effects of Mobile or Cordless Phone near Fields Exposure in Drosophila melanogaster” by Geronikolou, et al (2014) [1]
It follows that the Geronikolou, et al paper titled “Diverse Radiofrequency Sensitivity and Radiofrequency Effects of Mobile or Cordless Phone near Fields Exposure in Drosophila melanogaster” [1] is a replication of Panagopoulos, et al “Effect of GSM 900-MHz Mobile Phone Radiation on the Reproductive Capacity of Drosophila melanogaster” [2], with certain differentiations on secondary points
This is obvious by simple comparison of the corresponding parts of the text between the two papers, especially the parts referring to the main experimental procedure

Summary

Introduction

We recently saw a paper published in Plos One titled “Diverse Radiofrequency Sensitivity and Radiofrequency Effects of Mobile or Cordless Phone near Fields Exposure in Drosophila melanogaster” by Geronikolou, et al (2014) [1]. They differentiated from Panagopoulos, et al (2004) [2] by doing minor changes in the procedure and by rephrasing the text They claimed they found “errors” in previous studies on the effects of microwave Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) on Drosophila reproduction, including another study of ours [3] based on the same methods introduced by [2]. They claimed they “overcame systematic errors”, by using a different statistical method to analyse the results, and by calculating theoretically the near-field intensity of the exposure device instead of measuring it with field meters. They replicated our experiments without reporting that, but in addition they tried to downgrade certain parts of our methodology

Objectives

Findings

Conclusion