Thermal Imaging Study.
FLIR thermography during sustained phone use.
A thermography study by Dr. Nachaat Mazeh (Beaumont Health Research Institute) recorded skin and underlying tissue temperature during sustained cellphone use. Phone alone: peak temperature increase of +2.04°C. Phone with the BioChip: peak increase of +1.01°C.
This page documents a thermography study using a medical-grade FLIR camera to record skin and underlying tissue temperature during sustained cellphone use, with and without the BioChip.
The protocol held all variables constant across sessions: same subject, same device, same posture, same room, same 45-minute exposure window. The single varied condition was the BioChip's presence on the device.
Note Numbers and methodology on this page come from two source documents: a Green Health Thermography test report and a longer scientific manuscript by Dr. Nachaat Mazeh of the Research Institute, Beaumont Health System. Both available on request.
Background
Medical thermography - measurement principle and significance.
Medical thermography uses a specialized infrared camera to measure skin temperature to within 0.1°C, with a spatial resolution of 25–50 micrometers. It's the same imaging technology used clinically to evaluate breast health, peripheral nerves, and dynamic responses to stimuli.
SAR tells you how much energy is absorbed in a phantom. Thermography shows you where, on a real person, that absorbed energy ends up as heat - and how much, and how long it takes to dissipate. Different question, different layer of evidence.
Why 45 minutes matters
Most people don't put their phone against their head for 45 seconds. Average heavy users spend up to 50 minutes per call with a phone touching the ear. Tissue heating from RF and from the phone's own electronics builds gradually - a 5-minute test wouldn't capture what actually happens during real use.
So the test was designed to mirror real-world worst-case use: continuous talk-mode call, phone against the ear, full 45 minutes. That's the condition the chip needs to perform under to matter.
Study Reference
Thermal Effect of Mobile Phones on Skin Temperature
Authored by Dr. Nachaat Mazeh, PhD - Research Institute, Beaumont Health System (Royal Oak, MI). Tests conducted at Green Health Thermography in Ann Arbor, under supervision of a certified nurse and a Medical Doctor.
Green Health Thermography
IAMT-protocol thermographyTests followed the head-and-neck protocol of the Institute for the Advancement of Medical Thermography (IAMT), with subject orientation defined by Reid's base line - the same anatomical reference used in CT and MRI imaging.
Exposure levels stayed within ICNIRP guidelines (the international RF safety standard). Informed consent obtained; care taken not to over-stress subjects.
Research Institute, Beaumont Health System · Royal Oak, MI · nachaat.mazeh@beaumont.edu
2345 S. Huron Parkway, Ann Arbor, MI 48197
320×240 array · 76,800 pixels · sensitivity <0.05°C @ 30°C · 7.5–13µm spectral range
Active talk mode · 45 min · phone fully charged at start
Held against palm · 20–25 min · dorsal of hand imaged
Informed consent · ICNIRP-compliant exposure
Skin emissivity 0.98 · accuracy ±2°C / ±2%
Methodology
Three thermal scans across defined conditions.
The protocol held all conditions constant across the two test scans, with the BioChip's presence as the single varied input.
Scan 1 - Head test geometry
FLIR IR camera mounted on a tripod 1 meter from the subject, focused on the pinna of the right ear. Phone held against the ear with a small gap to the cheek, posture maintained for the full 45 minutes.
The actual FLIR A320 rig
Medical-grade IR camera (FLIR A320 / Med-Hot Max 76), thermal sensitivity below 0.05°C at 30°C ambient. Mounted 50 cm above for the hand test, 1 m away for the head test.
Acclimate to room temperature
Subject seated in the test room, no phone. After 15 minutes of acclimation at 72°F, IR images were captured from five postures (anterior, right lateral, left lateral, right oblique, left oblique). Temperature locked using Reid's base line as the anatomical reference. This is the baseline scan.
Scan 2 - phone alone, 45 minutes
The test device was turned on and set to active talk mode, communicating with another wireless device (the phone is actually transmitting, not idle). Held against the right ear with normal pressure. The IR camera captured one frame per minute for 45 minutes. At the end, peak temperature near the right pinna was recorded.
Cool-off and recover
Phone removed. The IR camera kept rolling, capturing the cooling curve frame-by-frame so the recovery time could be measured. Subject was allowed to fully return to baseline before the next scan began.
Scan 3 - same phone + BioChip, 45 minutes
Same subject, same posture, same phone, same band, same talk mode. The only addition: the Bodywell® chip attached to the back of the battery compartment. The IR camera ran the same 45-minute capture protocol. Peak temperature recorded at the same anatomical point as Scan 2.
Hand-tissue verification
To probe how heat propagates through tissue (not just on skin surface), a separate test imaged the dorsal of the hand while a different test device was held in the palm in active mode - first without the chip, then with it. The dorsal-of-hand temperature reflects heat that has traveled through the muscles, bones, and connective tissue of the hand, indicative of heat absorption deeper than skin alone.
Measurement Data
Peak temperature increase: +2.04°C (phone alone) → +1.01°C (with BioChip).
All temperatures measured at the same anatomical point (right pinna of the ear), 45 minutes of continuous active talk mode, room held at 72°F throughout. Source: Green Health Thermography temperature change table.
Approximately 50% reduction in peak temperature increase.
Phone alone produced a +2.04°C rise over 45 minutes of continuous talk-mode use. With the BioChip on the battery compartment of the same device under identical protocol, the rise was +1.01°C. Reference values from the original report.
FLIR Imaging
Recorded thermography frames across the three conditions.
Three FLIR thermography frames from the Green Health Thermography test report - baseline, phone alone (45 min), and phone with the BioChip (45 min). Recorded at the same anatomical position under controlled room conditions.
Baseline
Phone alone · 45 min
Phone + BioChip · 45 min
Source: Green Health Thermography test report (Ann Arbor, MI). Images are unedited screenshots from the FLIR thermography software (FLIR A320, Med-Hot Max 76) - temperature scale, software UI, and timestamp visible. Subject participated under informed consent.
Recovery Measurement
Cooling-curve recovery time across the two conditions.
After cellphone removal, IR imaging continued through the cooling period. Recorded recovery times below.
10 minutes after the call ended, the skin had still not returned to baseline.
From the report (Figure 6): "After 10 minutes the SUT has not recovered from heating by the mobile phone." The right side of the head - the side the phone had been against - stayed visibly elevated on the thermal imagery for the entire 10-minute cooling window captured.
Still elevated at 10 min11 minutes after the call ended with the chip, the skin had returned to its pre-exposure temperature.
From the report (Figure 7): "He recovers after 11 minutes from heating when the mobile phone is used in conjunction with the BWC." Same person, same recovery window, but the deep-tissue heat reservoir was smaller to start with - so the cooling completed.
Recovered at 11 minIn the report's words: "Because of the amount of heat absorbed by the SUT during mobile phone communication, the head tissue on the right side around the ear takes much longer to regain its normal temperature before exposure. Temperature increase deep within the tissue contributes to a slow recovery." Less peak heat → less stored heat → faster recovery.
The Deep-Tissue Confirmation
"Maybe the chip is just blocking surface heat" - so they imaged through the hand.
One legitimate question: does the chip actually reduce heating in tissue, or is it just a thermal sticker that absorbs surface warmth before it reaches the skin?
To test for that, the same protocol was repeated on a different anatomy. A test device in active mode was held against the palm of the left hand. The IR camera, mounted 50 cm above, imaged the dorsal (back) of the hand - the side the phone wasn't touching.
Heat rising on the dorsal of the hand has to travel through the muscles, bones, and connective tissue of the hand to get there. It's a measurement of internal heating, not surface contact.
Same pattern. Without the chip, dorsal-side heating built up clearly within 15 minutes. With the chip, the same exposure window produced visibly less internal heating - and recovery on cool-off was faster.
15 min · no chip
15 min · same anatomy
after phone removal · both conditions
Translation: the effect isn't just on the skin where the chip sits. It propagates through tissue. The hand test is the structural confirmation that the head test wasn't a surface artifact.
Funding, Scope, and Context
Disclosures, study scope, and methodological context.
The following sections document the funding disclosure stated by the author, the scope of what the study measures, and the broader research context.
Funding disclosure (the author's own words)
From the acknowledgements section of the Mazeh manuscript, verbatim: "This was funded in part by EZ Technologies, manufacturer of the Bodywell® card. The author acknowledges being consultant scientist to EZ Technologies during the research period the paper was written. This research was conducted independently of the author's affiliation with Beaumont Health System."
That's the right way for a researcher to disclose this kind of relationship - directly, in writing, in the document itself. We're not surfacing it because we have to; we're surfacing it because Mazeh did, and we'd rather you read the disclosure here than discover it later and feel misled.
What it means in practice: this is industry-funded research with proper disclosure. It's also independently cross-reviewed. The Mazeh manuscript was reviewed and reinforced by Dr. Bradley Roth (physics, Oakland University) and Dr. Carol Chandler (post-acquisition imaging review). The methodology and analysis were further reviewed by Prof. Moshe Einat (Ariel University) and Prof. Motti Haridim (Holon Institute of Technology) - the same team that reviewed the SAR work. So while one author was funded, the work itself passed through multiple independent expert hands before publication.
Scope and stated limitations
This study is a thermography measurement of skin and underlying tissue temperature under defined exposure conditions. It is not a clinical health-outcome trial.
The Mazeh manuscript itself stays measured: it cites the literature on RF thermal effects, notes that exposure stayed within ICNIRP guidelines, and frames the chip as "an added measure of safety" - not as a medical device. Our position matches: the data is the temperature reduction; the interpretation of what that means for any individual person's health is a separate question, and the answer depends on the person.
The study served as a documented capability measurement. Methodology, results, and stated limitations are documented in full in the linked manuscript and on this page.
Position within the multi-method framework
The thermal study documents an instrument-recorded measurement of tissue heating, complementing SAR (energy absorption in a phantom), EEG (brain electrical response), and pH (water chemistry).
Direction-of-effect is consistent across the SAR and thermal measurements: lower documented RF absorption corresponds to lower documented tissue heating under matched protocol.
Investigator
Research scientist with a PhD and Beaumont Health affiliation.
Author of the thermography manuscript and conductor of the FLIR-camera tests at Green Health Thermography (Ann Arbor, MI). Beaumont Health is a major Michigan hospital system. The same Dr. Mazeh appears in the SAR record as the investigator behind the independent confirmatory SAR test (the −77% reduction with sugar-based simulant). One scientist, two studies, both peer-reviewed in tandem with Prof. Moshe Einat (Ariel) and Prof. Motti Haridim (HIT).
Disclosed relationships: consultant scientist to EZ Technologies (manufacturer of the Bodywell® card) during the research period - disclosed in the manuscript's acknowledgements. Research conducted independently of Beaumont Health System affiliation per the disclosure.
The Receipts
What the actual FLIR thermography looks like.
Direct excerpt from the Green Health Thermography report - the time-lapse FLIR sequences for the head test, side-by-side with and without the BioChip.
Source: Green Health Thermography (Ann Arbor, MI). FLIR A320 medical thermography. Color bar in °C (28.3 cool → 36.3 warm). The single-point peak temperatures are documented in the temperature comparison above.
Frequently Asked Questions
Thermal study - common questions.
Background on methodology, scope, funding, and applicability.
Two subjects is not a clinical trial. Why publish it?
Correct - and Mazeh's manuscript doesn't pretend it is. Two subjects in a thermography measurement study is exploratory by design. The reason it earns a place in the stack is that the result is direct and visual: the FLIR camera doesn't have an opinion. It records temperature, point by point, frame by frame.
The headline isn't "X% of all human users will see this reduction." The headline is "at the same anatomical point on the same person, the chip cut the rise from +2.04°C to +1.01°C." That's a measurement, not a population claim. We treat it accordingly - as one piece of evidence in a four-study stack, not as standalone proof.
The author was paid by the manufacturer. Doesn't that invalidate the study?
It's a real, named bias and it deserves to be weighted. It doesn't automatically invalidate the data - most pharmaceutical, medical-device, and SAR research is industry-funded by necessity (these tests cost real money) - but it does mean the result needs corroboration from independent sources.
That's part of why we publish four studies instead of one. The SAR work was at RF Exposure Lab - an FCC-accredited third-party facility, not industry-owned. The pH work was at the City University of New York, a public institution. The EEG work was investigator-authored by an independent clinician. The thermal work is industry-funded with disclosure. Different funding structures; converging direction-of-effect across all four. That's the right way to evaluate it.
Where exactly was the temperature measured? "Skin temperature" can mean a lot.
From a single anatomical point, defined by Reid's base line - the same anatomical reference used as the zero plane in CT and MRI imaging. The measurement was taken at the right pinna of the ear (the part of the ear in direct contact with the phone) at the end of the 45-minute exposure window.
Single-point comparison was used specifically so the two scans (phone vs. phone+chip) are directly comparable on the same anatomy of the same person, in the same chair, with the camera locked at the same angle. The Mazeh manuscript also includes full thermal-distribution figures showing the heat distribution across the whole side of the head, not just the single point.
Is +2°C even meaningful? People get hotter than that walking outside.
It's a fair instinct - until you look at the location and the type of heating. +2°C of sustained, focal heating against the same patch of skin and underlying tissue, every day, for the lifetime of a phone-using adult, is not the same as a 2°C rise in core body temperature on a hot day. Whole-body thermoregulation doesn't apply to a hot spot pressed against your ear.
For comparison: a fever of 2°C above your normal body temperature is what most parents would consider serious enough to act on. That's a whole-body, regulated response. Focal RF heating is something different and less monitored.
And there's a deeper consideration: RF energy absorption isn't even - it concentrates in tissue with high water content. Just like a microwave heats food unevenly (the wet spots get hotter than the dry ones), the brain - which has dramatically more water than the surrounding skull - likely sees a higher temperature rise than the skin surface measurement of 2°C suggests. The skin is the thing we can image; what's underneath is harder to measure but harder to dismiss.
The published RF-tissue literature (Mazeh's manuscript cites 22 references on this) discusses thermal effects on facial nerves, ocular tissue, and skin from prolonged phone use. We're not going to extrapolate health outcomes from a thermography study, but the focal, water-concentrated nature of the heating is exactly why this measurement matters - and why halving it is a non-trivial result.
"The phone heats up because of its electronics, not RF." Doesn't that explain the result?
Mazeh's manuscript addresses this head-on. The heat at the ear during a call comes from three sources: (1) the phone's own electronics (battery, processor) acting as thermal insulation, (2) heat propagating from the phone as a heat source to the skin, and (3) RF radiation absorbed in skin and underlying tissue.
Sources (1) and (2) are the same with or without the chip - same phone, same battery, same posture, same surface contact. The variable that changes between the two scans is exclusively whether the chip is on the back. The TRP/TIS test (referenced in the manuscript and detailed on the SAR page) confirms the chip doesn't change the phone's transmit power. So the difference shows up in source (3): the absorbed-RF component, which is exactly what SAR measures separately.
What about modern phones?
The test devices here transmit at 1900 MHz, which is inside the cellular band range every modern phone uses - including 5G mid-band. The MobileTek® technology in today's BioChip is identical to the formulation tested then - passive technology, no firmware, no degradation over time.
The physics of how RF interacts with biological tissue isn't model-specific. Same RF spectrum + same body chemistry + same chip = the same direction of effect.
The Other Studies
Thermal is one of four. Read the rest.
Up to 80% reduction at an FCC-accredited lab.
RF Exposure Lab, San Marcos. Six measurements across multiple test devices, plus a confirmatory test by Dr. Mazeh.
Read the SAR studyBrain alpha-rhythm synchronization in 100% of subjects.
Clinical EEG pilot by Regina Shmelkina. Six subjects, four conditions, full transparency on limitations.
Read the EEG studyCellular pH stabilization in human blood.
City University of New York. Foundational MobileTek® mechanism study, co-led by Prof. Aron Goykadosh, P.E.
Read the pH studyNext Step
You've reviewed the thermography methodology, findings, and disclosure.
The BioChip is available with a 90-day money-back guarantee.