Radiofrequency Exposure, Digital Environment, Neural Dynamics and Mental Health

DYNAMIS-RF — Digital Environment, RF Exposure and Neural Dynamics Study investigates whether objectively measured RF-EMF exposure is associated with acute neurophysiological changes or longitudinal differences in sleep, autonomic regulation, anxiety, or depressive symptoms after separating these effects from the behavioral consequences of digital connectivity. Rather than assuming that Wi-Fi or wireless communication causes neurological or health effects, DYNAMIS-RF adopts a multiscale, dose-aware, and falsifiable research framework. Carrier frequency, incident field strength, absorbed dose, biological response, subjective symptoms, and clinical relevance are treated as distinct levels of analysis. The 2026 framework integrates recent international evidence, including systematic reviews, epidemiological studies, controlled human experiments, animal and cellular research, exposure guidelines, and modern dosimetric studies. A dedicated section also examines evidence produced in China, distinguishing four domains that are often conflated in public discussion: environmental regulation, dosimetry, experimental biological mechanisms, and behavioral consequences of digital connectivity. The conceptual model separates two major pathways: RF-EMF exposure → physical coupling and dose → neural and autonomic responses and Digital environment → behavior, sleep, cognitive load, physical activity, and social interaction → mental-health outcomes These pathways may operate independently, interact, or be mediated by additional factors. No causal relationship is assumed in advance. The protocol proposes two complementary research arms. Arm A is a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled, repeated crossover study designed to investigate acute RF exposure using EEG, ECG/heart-rate variability, standardized tasks, and technically characterized exposure conditions. Arm B is a 12-week prospective observational cohort combining personal RF dosimetry, digital-behavior measures, sleep monitoring, and repeated assessments of anxiety and depressive symptoms. The framework includes explicit null hypotheses, falsification criteria, equivalence testing, multiplicity control, analysis of intra-individual variability, and predefined progression rules for confirmatory studies. An additional hypothesis proposes that any RF-associated biological response should be investigated as a function of absorbed dose, field geometry, duration, duty cycle, and exposure regime, rather than inferred from technology labels such as Wi-Fi, 4G, or 5G alone. The study also performs a critical audit of the 2025 exploratory document. Previously reported EEG values, SAR estimates, hypercoherence metrics, and therapeutic interpretations whose provenance could not be independently established are no longer treated as confirmed findings. Metrics associated with the 2PS framework, including hypercoherence and Δ-Coherence, are retained solely as exploratory endpoints and must demonstrate reliability, validity, and incremental value relative to established neurophysiological measures. A central principle of DYNAMIS-RF is that:frequency ≠ dose ≠ biological response ≠ clinical harm Likewise, associations between Internet use and mental health cannot automatically be attributed to RF exposure, because digital connectivity simultaneously modifies sleep, cognition, physical activity, social interaction, and daily behavior. The objective of DYNAMIS-RF is therefore not to demonstrate in advance that Wi-Fi or RF exposure is harmful, nor to preserve any particular theoretical interpretation. Its purpose is to create experimental and observational conditions capable of distinguishing among physical RF effects, behavioral effects of digital life, interactions between them, and the absence of reproducible effects. This document is a conceptual research protocol and reports no new human participant data. Any future experimental phase will require finalized dosimetry, sample-size determination, preregistration, instrumental validation, independent scientific review, and ethical approval. Precise null findings, physiological changes without clinical consequences, predominantly behavioral explanations, or findings incompatible with the original hypotheses are all considered scientifically informative outcomes.