Comments on assessment of polarization dependence of body shadow effect on dosimetry measurements in 2.4GHz band

Responses to comments on assessment of polarization dependence of body shadow effect on dosimetry measurements in the 2.4 GHz band

“…We would like to respond to the comments made by Thielens et al [] on our recent publication Thielens et al state that the propagation and absorption and polarization dependence are more complex than we bring forward in De Miguel‐Bilbao et al []. In their comments, they try to show that the received polarization is neither controlled nor constant in our experiments.…”

The effect of antenna polarization and body morphology on the measurement uncertainty of a wearable multi-band distributed exposure meter

“…The polarization dependency of a distributed exposure meter and the effect of body morphology on this polarization dependency has not been assessed yet. In addition, the existing literature data are not conclusive regarding polarization dependency and the absorption of the EMFs and thus not a general agreement can be found [17]. Before an exposure meter appears on the market, it is necessary to calibrate it on body since it has been shown that on-body calibration of a PEM compensates the under/over estimation of the actual fields caused by body shielding [4,6,7,12,[14][15][16].…”