Wireless, EMF & Health Facts
The scientists of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Non-ionizing Electromagnetic Fields are focused on ensuring public health and environmental protection based on the best peer-reviewed research.
Here is what you need to know about about wireless, electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and your health.
EMF Basics
The earth and all living things have evolved for billions of years in natural electromagnetic fields (EMFs) such as the sun, lightning and the earth’s natural magnetic field. EMFs are simply energy waves that combine electric and magnetic fields, moving together at the speed of light.
However, human-made non-ionizing EMFs generated from electronic equipment are a more recent phenomenon. There are primarily two types of artificial non-ionizing EMFs that researchers have studied for health effects for many decades:
- Wireless Radio Frequency (RF) Radiation: Sources include cell phones, cell towers, radar, 4G, 5G, cordless phones, laptops, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, “smart” utility meters, “smart” speakers, cell boosters and all the wirelessly connected devices and machines of the Internet of Things.
- Extremely Low Frequency Magnetic Fields: Powerlines, electrical substations, household electrical wiring, charging cords, and electric blankets and essentially any device that uses electricity.
EMFs span a wide range of frequencies, and they are categorized into several types based on their wavelength and frequency. Every wave has a frequency, the amount of wave cycles (also called oscillations) per second, are measured in Hertz (Hz).
The EMF spectrum, arranged in order of increasing frequency and decreasing wavelength, includes extremely low frequency (ELF), very low frequency (VLF), radio waves, microwaves, millimeter waves, infrared radiation, visible light (the only part visible to the human eye), ultraviolet radiation, X-rays, and gamma rays.
These categories are often discussed as being either ionizing or non-ionizing.
- Ionizing frequencies such as X rays and gamma rays are of such high energy that they can remove electrons from atoms or molecules, a process well understood to lead to cancer development.
- Non-ionizing frequencies such as the wireless radio frequency from cell towers or extremely low frequency for power lines are of lower energy. However, research has reported various effects at the cellular level, including links to cancer, genetic alterations, sperm damage, and impacts on the immune and endocrine systems.
A frequency is the amount of EMF wave cycles (also called oscillations) per second, measured in Hz. For example, powerline frequencies are 50 Hz and 60 Hz. Wireless networks have carrier frequencies that generally start around 600 MHz (megahertz) or 600,000,000 Hz. This means a 600 MHz wave oscillates 600 million times a second. The human body, and all living things, absorb these energized waves when they are exposed.
Biological interactions have been observed across all regions of this diverse spectrum, including at non- ionizing frequencies.
Artificial EMFs, particularly wireless communication signals, differ significantly from natural EMFs in ways that make them more biologically interactive. A key factor is that most human-made EMFs are polarized. Modern wireless signals are complex waveforms, not simple continuous waves; they are pulsed and modulated, incorporating multiple frequencies for data transmission. This complexity—combining polarization, pulsing, modulation, and multiple frequency components—can enhance their biological activity, making them more interactive with living tissues.
The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) is organized to primarily focus on the non-ionizing portions of the Electromagnetic Spectrum, that is from below Extremely Low Frequency Fields (ELF) up to visible light. The radiofrequency and infrared portions of the EMF Spectrum into the Terahertz range deserve scientific attention because transmissions of these frequencies to support 5G and 6G technologies are rapidly escalating due to increased use of wireless technologies.
No. Safety is not assured. The radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitted from wireless devices and networks, including 5G, have been linked to harmful biological impacts, and the scientific evidence is quite substantial and growing.
The majority of studies show harm. Dr. Henry Lai, Professor Emeritus at the University of Washington, Editor Emeritus of the journal, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, and an emeritus member of ICBE-EMF has found the majority of studies for oxidative, genetic, neurological and reproductive outcomes have found effects.
In October 2024 he posted a comprehensive set of abstracts which covers peer-reviewed science back to 1990. Among hundreds of studies of RFR, 71% to 89% reported significant effects. Among hundreds of studies of ELF and static fields, 75% to 90% reported significant effects.
According to Dr. Lai, 95% of 237 low-intensity (SAR < 0.40 watts per kilogram of tissue) define SAR radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure studies published since 1990 reported significant effects: “This means that biological systems are very sensitive to RFR.” Moreover, “It is clear that the current RFR exposure guidelines are not valid in the protection of the health detrimental effects of RFR.”
A published paper on studies of people living near cell towers entitled “Evidence for a health risk by RF on humans living around mobile phone base stations: From radiofrequency sickness to cancer” by Balmori (2022) reviewed the existing scientific literature and found studies reported radiofrequency sickness, cancer and changes in biochemical parameters.
Note: SAR is Specific Absorption Rate – A measure of the rate at which a volume of tissue absorbs energy from wireless RF radiation exposure. electromagnetic field.
Cell phones emit radiofrequency (RF) radiation, and a significant body of human and animal evidence has associated RF exposure to cancer.
In 2011 experts convened by the International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) classified cellphone radiation a “possible’’ human carcinogen. A 2012 IARC scientific report detailed the scientific evidence at the time.
Several major studies published since the 2011 IARC expert meeting have found that long-term, heavy cellphone users have increased risk of brain tumors. In addition, the large-scale animal studies of the U.S. National Toxicology Program and the Ramazzini Institute found RF-exposed animals developed the same tumor types as found in studies on humans, strengthening confidence in the cell phone cancer association.
In 2025, a WHO commissioned systematic review reported that there was high certainty scientific evidence linking wireless RF radiation exposure to two types of malignant tumors: gliomas in the brain and malignant schwannomas in the heart. Notably, the same types of tumors have also been observed in human studies, adding significant confidence that the associations observed in human studies are real.
The advisory group to the IARC has recommended IARC convene an expert group to evaluate the latest research on RFR.
We, along with other scientific experts, believe the body of scientific evidence has become substantial enough to support the IARC evaluation of RF to at least a “probable”, if not “proven” human carcinogen.
The scientific evidence indicates a wide range of health effects from wireless and low frequency EMFs. Here are a few important ones:
Impacts on the Reproductive System
Numerous biological studies of lab animals and human sperm, including the National Institutes of Health and American Cancer Society funded research, have found that mobile phone radiation decreases testosterone and decreases overall sperm quality by affecting motility, viability, and concentration of semen. These adverse effects are greater with higher mobile phone radiation exposure.
More science on EMF and sperm quality here.
Impacts on Brain Development and the Nervous System
The brain is particularly susceptible to EMF exposure. Studies have indicated that wireless radiation can influence how the brain functions, suggesting impacts on learning and memory.
For example, an NIH study revealed that 50 minutes of cell phone radiation exposure altered brain activity, leading to increased glucose metabolism in the brain region nearest to a cell phone’s transmitting antenna. A study on teenagers reported memory damage in brain regions most exposed to cell phone use. Animal studies have further associated RF radiation exposure with increased oxidative stress in brain tissue, along with adverse effects on brain development, neurotransmitters, neuron activity, the blood brain barrier, mitochondria, learning and cognition.
Impacts to the Endocrine System
Studies on EMFs have found impacts on the regulation of hormones controlled by the hypothalamus and pituitary glands. Altered thyroid function, as well as impacts on thyroid gland follicles have been observed. EMF exposure has also been linked to increased secretion of corticosterone, a key hormone in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, mediating the body’s response to stress.
Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), previously known as “microwave syndrome,” consists of non-specific symptoms that occur following a person’s brief or cumulative exposure to non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) including cell phone radiation.
The most common symptoms of EHS include headaches, other neuro-cognitive problems (memory, concentration, confusion, and dizziness), sleep disorders, heart palpitations, and tinnitus (ringing in ears). Less common symptoms include nausea, fatigue, nervous system disorders, vision and muscular problems.
Numerous studies have shown biological effects at the cellular level due to low intensity exposure to EMF. Many patients have impaired detoxification systems that become overloaded by excessive oxidative stress. EMF can induce changes in calcium signaling, activate free radical processes, alter neurological and cognitive functions and disrupt the blood-brain barrier.
Read Learn more about the science and ICBE-EMFs Position Statement on EHS here.
When you hold a phone up to your head, as much as 90% of the power emitted by the cell phone antenna is dissipated into your head. A phone pressed to your head will result in the highest levels.
Distance matters.
The amount of absorbed power decreases significantly if the phone is held further away from the head. The figures below from the ICBE-EMF paper show the difference in % of power absorbed when the phone is at 0, 2, and 6 centimeters (or about 1 to 2 ½ inches) from the head.
Children absorb cell phone RF radiation at higher rates and deeper into their brans proportionate to adults with the same phone.
If you hold the phone further away from your head, you will decrease your exposure. The more distance, the better.
- Don’t carry your cellphone in your pocket, in your bra, or close to your body when it is powered on.
- Use speakerphone, text, or a wired headset whenever possible.
The best way to reduce exposure is to choose wired technology whenever possible.
The American Academy of Pediatrics has repeatedly recommended the U.S. government update its wireless radiation limits in order to better protect children stating that:
“Children are disproportionately affected by environmental exposures, including cell phone radiation”
Children absorb RF at higher rates proportionate to adults. Their skulls are thinner, allowing RF radiation to penetrate deeper into the brain, while their brain tissue’s higher water content makes it more conductive to electromagnetic energy.
“The average exposure from use of the same mobile phone is higher by a factor of 2 in a child’s brain and higher by a factor of 10 in the bone marrow of the skull,”
-The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer
Developmentally, children’s brains are still growing, making them more susceptible. This heightened sensitivity is compounded by the fact that children will have a longer lifetime of exposure, starting even before birth, increasing the likelihood of cumulative adverse health effects.
More than twenty governments have issued public health recommendations to minimize cell phone radiation exposure, particularly for children.
In the United States, the American Academy of Pediatrics, California State Department of Health, Santa Clara Medical Association and Maryland State Environmental Health and Protection Advisory Council have issued advisories on why and how to reduce wireless radiation exposure to children.
Hundreds of scientists with expertise in the biological impacts of EMF from leading research institutions as well as numerous medical practitioners have called upon governments, regulatory bodies, and wireless companies to reduce public and environmental exposures.
More than 250 EMF scientists from 44 nations who have published over 2,000 papers on electromagnetic fields (EMF) and biology or health have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal which states::
“Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.”
In addition, 430 scientists and doctors have signed the 5G Appeal which calls for a moratorium on the roll-out of 5G. This appeal asserts:
“5G will substantially increase exposure to radio-frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) on top of the 2G, 3G, 4G, Wi-Fi, etc. for telecommunications already in place. RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment.”
Wildlife are exposed to the ever increasing levels of wireless EMFs in our environment and significant research has found harmful effects from even very low levels of exposure.
A comprehensive scientific review by Levitt, Lai and Manville (2022) encompassing over 1,200 studies on the effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMFs) on wildlife reported a broad range of adverse impacts stating:
“Numerous studies across all frequencies and taxa indicate that current low-level anthropogenic EMF can have myriad adverse and synergistic effects, including on orientation and migration, food finding, reproduction, mating, nest and den building, territorial maintenance and defense, and on vitality, longevity and survivorship itself. Effects have been observed in mammals such as bats, cervids, cetaceans, and pinnipeds among others, and on birds, insects, amphibians, reptiles, microbes and many species of flora.”
Studies on bees have demonstrated that EMFs can disrupt critical behaviors such as foraging and communication. Honeybee workers exposed to EMF radiation exhibited piping signals, typically used as a response to threats. Research has found migratory birds exposed to urban electromagnetic noise displayed disruptions in their magnetic compass. Studies have also found impacts to plants and trees.
Changes to the electromagnetic environment could significantly impact wildlife, as birds, amphibians, and other animals rely on the Earth’s geomagnetic fields for navigation and survival.
The cumulative evidence points to EMF as an environmental stressor that could exacerbate existing threats to biodiversity, particularly as the rollout of technologies like 5G increases EMF levels in natural habitats.
In addition to the research in ICBE-EMF publications, there are numerous websites that have compiled the latest research on the health effects of wireless and non-ionizing electromagnetic fields.
Joel Moskowitz, PhD, Director of the Center for Family and Community Health in the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley and ICBE-EMF Commissioner has a blog called Electromagnetic Radiation Safety where he posts regular updates of the latest published science. Read science abstracts here.
Henry Lai,PhD, has been compiling and analyzing the published research on impacts on genes, reproduction, the nervous system, and oxidative stress, and he has found the majority of research studies has found effects. Read Lai’s recent analysis.
Lai’s earlier abstract lists are posted on Bioinitiative.org. The Bioinitiative Report is authored by international EMF scientists. It documents the mounting evidence of health effects from non-ionizing EMFs and calls for the reform of outdated safety standards. The Bioinitiative Scientific Color Charts detail the published science showing biological effects at different exposure levels.
The Oceania Radiofrequency Science Advisory Association (ORSAA) has a comprehensive searchable database on peer-reviewed scientific studies and articles on EMF bioeffects research. The database is designed to enable detailed independent searches invaluable to researchers and scientists. It requires some training on how to use it most effectively.
PubMed is the online searchable database maintained by the National Library of Medicine of the National Institutes of Health.
The EMF Portal is a searchable literature database from Aachen University in Germany that systematically summarizes the latest scientific research on the health effects of electromagnetic fields.
The German organization Diagnose:funk is collecting the latest research and summarizing the findings in quarterly reports. Importantly, they are translating the German-language originals and making these papers available at no charge. Read science summaries here.
Microwave News is another key resource for science and policy as they have covered this issue in depth since 1981. If you
5G, Health & Environment
5G is the fifth generation of wireless technology. It is designed to connect everything wireless together from your cell phone to the “smart” appliances and devices of the internet of things (IOT) to cars, machines, robots, drones and satellites.
5G networks utilize millimeter wave frequencies in addition to the low and mid band frequencies that have long been used in 2G and 3G networks. 5G antenna systems can have multiple directed antennas which target the radiation at cellphone users and transmit large amounts of data in brief bursts. This can expose people and wildlife to intense pulses of wireless RF radiation.
Most governments, including the U.S., have established human exposure limits for wireless radiation based on short-term studies conducted in the 1980s.
In these studies, a small number of rats and monkeys were exposed to high levels of RF radiation for less than an hour. As their body temperatures rose, their behaviors changed, leading researchers to conclude that the observed effects were due to overheating. Consequently, safety limits were set under the assumption that thermal effects were the primary concern.
As a result, regulatory agencies such as the Federal Communications Commision (FCC), International Commission for Non ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) designed exposure limits to prevent short-term heating effects. However, these guidelines do not consider the biological and health effects observed in hundreds of studies at radiation levels that do not cause a measurable increase in body temperature.
The increasing use of wireless technologies, including 5G and the internet of things, is increasing both ambient and personal RF exposures.
5G requires deployment of hundreds of thousands more cell antenna base stations and cell towers situated in close proximity to where we live, work and play, thereby increasing our daily RFR exposure.
The wireless industry has been pushing for countries to relax their RF safety limits due to the higher power and more concentrated beams of 5G base station antennas. They argue that regulatory changes are needed to allow the full rollout of 5G. Lithuania and Poland used to have stringent limits, but they were loosened to ICNIRP limits for 5G.
Importantly, 5G networks are being deployed in addition to the 4G networks already in place. 4G is considered the backbone of 5G, and this technology is expected to remain in place for at least a decade.
5G signals do penetrate the skin—contrary to claims that they simply “bounce off.”
Many 5G networks operate on lower frequency bands (600–850 MHz), which penetrate well beyond the skin and skull. In fact, telecommunications companies are repurposing frequency bands previously used for 2G and 3G in 5G networks, meaning these frequencies have already been shown to be absorbed deep into the body.
Higher frequency 5G signals (above 6 GHz) primarily deposit energy into the outer layers of the skin, such as the epidermis and dermis, due to their shorter wavelengths. However, as the skin is the body’s largest organ, prolonged and intense exposure to these frequencies warrants thorough safety research. Studies have shown that these frequencies uniquely interact with skin structures like sweat glands and can also affect small organisms, such as insects.
Furthermore, 5G signals are modulated, meaning they carry low-frequency components that can penetrate deeper into tissues than the carrier frequency itself. Research suggests these components may influence biological responses.
The research indicates that 5G technology could not only affect the skin and eyes but may cause systemic effects such as immune system disruption, neurological and endocrine issues, and amplified toxicity when combined with environmental pollutants.
Despite this, telecommunications frequencies continue to increase without comprehensive safety testing. Until recently, frequencies above 6 GHz were not widely used in commercial telecommunications. In 2019, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) opened the Terahertz spectrum (95 GHz to 3 THz) for experimental use. The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields advocates rigorous safety testing before deploying new wireless technologies.
The widespread 5G rollout is increasing RF radiation levels, impacting wildlife, particularly bees and pollinators, by disrupting orientation, reproduction, behavior, circadian rhythms, and inducing oxidative stress.
The massive 5G rollout is increasing environmental levels of RF radiation, exposing wildlife and their habitat. Research reviews have documented numerous impacts to bees and other pollinators including impacts to orientation, reproduction, behavior, flight dynamics, circadian rhythm, mitochondria, the immune system and induction of oxidative stress.
Several groundbreaking research studies have been published finding the shorter wavelengths of higher frequency 5G closely match insect body sizes, creating a resonance effect that can significantly increase their absorption. These studies revealed a consistent pattern: as frequencies approached the resonance frequency for each insect, absorbed power increased dramatically, with some estimates ranging up to 370%.
See below an image from the study “Exposure of Insects to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields from 2 to 120 GHz published in Scientific Reports by Thielens et al. (2018) showing higher absorption into the honeybee.
Questions on the Science
The U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) is world-renowned for toxicology research and has evaluated over 3000 environmental exposures.
In 2018, the NTP released the findings of their cell phone RF radiation animal studies which reported DNA damage and “clear evidence” of an association with cancers in male rats. The cancers the study found were schwannomas of the heart and gliomas of the brain. The study found that one in twelve (8.5%) of the 540 male rats exposed to cellphone radiation developed cancer or pre-cancerous cells as compared to none of the 90 rats in the control condition. The nerve cells that developed the brain tumors, called glial cells, found in the NTP study are the same types of cells that displayed elevated tumor risk in studies of long-term, human heavy cellphone users.
The renowned Ramazzini Institute also did large-scale animal studies exposing rats to wireless radiofrequency and they found the same tumor types as the NTP, but at much lower exposure levels, designed to mimic cell tower (base station) RF levels.
Nearly all carcinogens found to cause cancer in lab animals are later found to cause cancer in people. In fact, about one-third of human carcinogens were first discovered in animal bioassays like the NTP’s. The NTP findings invalidate the long-held assumption that heating is the only harm from RF and they add critical animal evidence supporting the association between cellphone radiation and cancer.
A published analysis of the NTP data concluded that FCC limits should be strengthened by 200 to 400 times to protect children by applying current risk assessment guidelines (Uche 2021).
The American Cancer Society called the NTP study paradigm-shifting “good science.” The findings of the same tumor cell type elevated in both human and animal studies increase confidence that the associations are causative. In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified RF radiation as a “possible” human carcinogen-based largely on human studies. One reason RF was not evaluated as a probable or proven carcinogen in 2011 was that more animal research was needed to support the human data. Today, with the findings of the NTP, many scientists state that the WHO would likely classify cell phone RF radiation as a probable, if not proven carcinogen, based on the current scientific evidence.
“This is by far—far and away—the most carefully done cell phone bioassay, a biological assessment. This is a classic study that is done for trying to understand cancers in humans,’ stated Dr. Christopher Portier, former Director of the National Center for Environment Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and of the NTP in Scientific American.
In 2021 Portier submitted a comprehensive review of the scientific research in a major cell phone/brain cancer lawsuit where he concludes that “The evidence on an association between cellular phone use and the risk of glioma in adults is quite strong” and “In my opinion, RF exposure probably causes gliomas and neuromas and, given the human, animal and experimental evidence, I assert that, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, the probability that RF exposure causes gliomas and neuromas is high.”
Just because cell phone and wireless radiation is non-ionizing, does not mean it can’t damage DNA or cause cancer. Over 50 studies, including the National Toxicology Program (NTP) studies, have reported DNA damage after radiofrequency (RF) radiation. The mechanism for chemical changes is indirect.
The way that living cells respond to non-ionizing EMF fits a pattern referred to as a ‘cellular stress response.” Even subtle impacts at the cellular level, especially when prolonged over time, can ultimately lead to a range of health impacts. Several peer-reviewed papers present evidence for mechanisms by which RFR can cause cancer including disruption of the cell membrane and effects on mitochondria, the energy center of the cells (Santini et al., 2019, Georgiou & Margaritis, 2021, Panagopoulos et al. 2021).
Importantly, the majority of studies have found that non-ionizing EMF can trigger an oxidative stress response, characterized by the excessive production of free radicals and stress proteins (Yakymenko et al 2016, Schuermann & Mevissen, 2021). These highly reactive molecules can damage cellular components, including DNA, and overwhelm the body’s repair mechanisms. Prolonged oxidative stress is widely recognized as a key factor contributing to mutations, cellular dysfunction, and the development of cancer.
Head and neck tumors associated with cell phone use have increased in the U.S. since 2000. The incidence of malignant brain tumors such as glioblastoma, as well as nonmalignant brain tumors (i.e., meningioma) have increased substantially in the U.S. since cellphones became popular.
As another example, on March 3, 2025, Santé Publique France released a study on cancer incidence among adolescents and young adults (AYA) aged 15 to 39. The report highlights a concerning rise in glioblastomas—an aggressive form of brain cancer—within this age group. Between 2000 and 2020, the incidence rate of glioblastomas increased by an average of 6.11% annually, amounting to a staggering overall increase of approximately 233% over the two-decade period.
However, brain cancer can take decades to be diagnosed from the first time of exposure to an environmental agent, so it is premature to see overall increases in malignant brain tumors in the general population. Also, many cases identified by screening are never reported to cancer registries because no pathology of brain tissue was done.
Many countries including the U.S. have experienced a major increase in the incidence of thyroid cancer which may be related to cell phone use, especially smartphones which often have an antenna that transmits radiation in the bottom of the phone exposing the neck to the greatest RF radiation (whereas earlier cell phone antennas were in the top of the phone). A Yale study funded by the American Cancer Society by Luo et al. (2020) found elevated thyroid cancer risk in heavy cell phone users with specific genetic susceptibilities.
Two major cohort studies, the Danish Cohort Study and the British Million Women Study are often brought up as proof of cell phone safety, yet they suffer serious methodological flaws. These studies used crude measures of cellphone radiation exposure and neither stands up to scrutiny.
The Danish Cohort Study
The Danish study included many heavy cellphone users in the non-cellphone-user control group. The starting cohort excluded all corporate subscribers, most likely the heaviest users at that time. Further, the only information about the person’s exposure to cell phone radiation was the length of the cell phone subscription, not the actual time on the cell phone.
These design flaws are why the study was not weighed heavily by the World Health Organization International Agency for the Research on Cancer (IARC) when they reviewed the research on cell phone radiation cancer risk. The IARC monograph stated of the Danish study that “there were various sources of misclassification as acknowledged by the authors.” All of the studies’ publications suffer from this fundamental design problem.
The Danish cohort study design has been criticized by numerous experts including Ahlbom et al. 2007, Söderqvist, Carlberg, and Hardell 2012, Philips and Lamburn 2011, Leszczynski 2011, Khurana 2011,
The Million Woman Study
The Million Woman study (Shuz et al., 2022) only surveyed women twice in median years 2001 and 2011, asking if they “never”, “ever” or “daily” used a cell phone. Experts criticized the study for this design because women who used the phone once a day were lumped together with women who used the phone for hours a day (Birnbaum et al., 2022, Moskowitz 2022).
The Million Woman study is irrelevant to today’s cell phone usage patterns as most of the women studied used cell phones under 30 minutes a week. As one of the studies’ own researchers stated, “The participants in this study were not particularly heavy users of mobile phones, as only 18% of phone-users reported talking on a mobile phone for 30 minutes or more each week. As such, we were unable to assess the risks associated with considerably greater levels of exposure.”
Government Safety Limits
No. The ICBE-EMF has concluded that government cell phone and wireless safety limits based on protection of overheating, such as those set by the FCC, ICNIRP and IEEE, do not adequately protect humans nor wildlife and the natural environment. These limits are based on protection from heat but not biological impacts.
Numerous studies have found adverse effects at levels well below government safety limits.
The ICBE-EMF published a scientific paper detailing how FCC and ICNIRP limits are based on science from the 1980s – before cell phones were ubiquitous, and they do not adequately protect workers, children, people with electromagnetic hypersensitivity, and the public.
Dr. Henry Lai, Professor Emeritus at the University of Washington, Editor Emeritus of the journal, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, and an emeritus member of ICBE-EMF has compiled summaries of the research on the biological effects of EMF exposure, finding the preponderance of studies that examined the induction of oxidative effects as well as neurological and reproductive outcomes have reported significant effects. Among hundreds of studies of RFR, 71% to 89% reported significant effects. Among hundreds of studies of ELF and static fields, 75% to 90% reported significant effects.
According to Dr. Lai, 95% of 237 low-intensity radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure studies published since 1990 reported significant effects (below a Specific Absorption Rate of 0.40 W/kg). “This means that biological systems are very sensitive to RFR.” Moreover, “It is clear that the current RFR exposure guidelines are not valid in the protection of the health detrimental effects of RFR.”
A robust quantitative health risk assessment is needed to develop more protective safety standards.
The ICBE-EMF has identified seven “regulatory blind spots” that have resulted in non-protective wireless radiation standards.
These blind spots are featured in our publications and reflect a deep misunderstanding of toxicology, biology, and medicine.
1.The inappropriate focus on a single variable, heat, ignores non-thermal effects.
Current government regulations for human exposure (FCC or ICNIRP, and IEEE-based) only consider heating from RF radiation as a danger, disregarding the effects caused by much lower exposure levels. There is no known threshold for the biological effects of radiofrequency RF radiation in humans. In other words, all cellphone and cell tower RFR will cause biological effects in human cells regardless of the level of exposure.
2. Reliance on acute exposure experiments performed over remarkably short times.
The current standards are based on studies with RF exposures lasting 40 to 60 minutes. Yet humans are exposed to cell phone and cell tower radiation 24/7. The animal experiments that current standards rely on have little relation to the chronic exposures to which humans are now subjected to.
3. The use of averaging overlooks important time and amplitude characteristics of the signals.
The current standards allow for “averaging” of RF radiation intensity over periods of 6 minutes for occupational settings and 30 minutes for the general public. This ignores the vast and extremely rapid variations of the digital signals produced by today’s devices, variations that set off biological effects at the cell level. A wireless signal is a complex waveform. Digital data “bursts” happen many times a second, going from very low energy to very high energy. These peaks are especially important in causing biological effects. However, the use of averaging basically erases the peak levels.
To analogize, imagine someone punching you relentlessly for six minutes. In order to throw a punch, that person has to withdraw his/her fist each time and then accelerate it toward you again. But if you take the average distance from the attacker’s hand to your face for those six minutes, the attacker can claim that on average their fist was only halfway between the two of you and that therefore they on average never even touched you. This is analogous to the averaging allowed under the standards.
4. Carcinogenicity, electromagnetic hypersensitivity, and other diseases and health conditions are ignored.
Because the limits only protect against heating-related effects, other health effects such as cancer are ignored. Epidemiological studies have reported significant associations between exposure to RF radiation and increased risks of glioma (brain tumors), acoustic neuroma (tumors on a hearing nerve), and thyroid cancer, among others. Despite documentation of the EHS syndrome, industry and governments have not reacted to curb emissions or ensure safety limits are protective.
5. Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) measurements for cellphone premarket radiation tests use an arbitrary gap between the phone and the head.
Although people use cell phones in direct contact with their head and body, SAR measurements are performed with a separation distance. Modeling SAR values with precision into biological tissue is difficult and carries an uncertainty of at least 25%. Most notably, SAR decreases by at least 12.5% per millimeter for very short distances as a cellphone is moved away. The use of separation distances is problematic because when phones are used at close distances like at body contact or 2 millimeters (in a tight pocket) the radiation exposes could exceed federal safety limits.
6. SAR doses were averaged at volumetric or mass scales irrelevant to health.
The current SAR testing regime uses homogeneous liquid to represent human brain and body tissue. This model assumes that all of our tissue is uniform in structure and in its sensitivity to RF radiation, while in fact human tissue is heterogeneous and anisotropic [that is, having different properties in different directions] at the cellular, organelle, molecular, and particle levels. A safety standard resting on this model cannot be deemed reliable.
7. Cell Phone SAR simulations did not represent realistic situations.
The cell phone SAR test regime also is inadequate because it only estimates exposure based on the phone and head. A realistic model would include the hand holding the phone. Our modeling shows that a substantial proportion of the radiated power from the cell phone dissipates into the body, with a modest remainder actually available for wireless communication. This is not healthy due to the radiation exposure and also not efficient.
Download ICBE-EMFs factsheet with more details on the engineering solutions and regulatory blind spots here.
A quantitative health risk assessment typically involves four steps:
- Hazard identification: Potential health hazards are identified, and the relevant toxicological data are collected to characterize the nature and severity of the hazard.
- Exposure assessment: The extent to which populations are exposed to the hazardous agent, as well as the frequency, duration, and pathways of exposure are assessed.
- Dose-response assessment: The relationship between the amount of exposure to the hazardous agent and the resulting health effects is evaluated based on the available scientific evidence.
- Risk characterization: This step integrates the information gathered in the previous steps to estimate the probability and magnitude of health risks associated with exposure to the hazardous agent.
How we address risks that have been uncovered is based on the assessment itself and the judgment of policymakers. Such assessments need to be performed to fully understand potential impacts of an exposure.
Quantitative health risk assessments are conducted routinely by the World Health Organization and the Scientific Committees of the European Commission. In the United States, they are conducted by many agencies including:
- The Environmental Protection Agency uses this type of assessment on air pollutants, pesticides, and toxic chemicals. For example, the agency has conducted assessments of the potential health risks associated with exposure to lead, mercury, and other contaminants in drinking water.
- The Food and Drug Administration routinely uses this type of assessment to evaluate the safety and efficacy of drugs and medical devices before they are approved for use and also after they are already on the market. For example, the agency uses this assessment to predict “possible harm that can come from a defective or malfunctioning device. The assessment helps the FDA and the company to determine if any actions are necessary such as recalling the devices or notifying the public about the risk.”
- The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) through its National Center for Environmental Health uses this type of assessment to gauge the potential health risks associated with environmental exposures. For example, the agency has conducted these assessments to evaluate the risks of exposure to mold, radon, and other environmental contaminants in both homes and workplaces.
However, none of these agencies have conducted a quantitative health risk assessment for non-ionizing EMFs.
Statements on the websites of U.S. federal health agencies seem to imply these agencies have robustly researched the issue and come to a science-based conclusion regarding safety. This is inaccurate. None of these agencies, individually or together, have evaluated the totality of the science, nor have they conducted any safety testing for cell phones, cell towers, 4G, 5G, Li-Fi or other emerging wireless technologies.
A Brief Background on U.S. Safety Limits for Wireless
In the 1980s, the EPA was tapped to develop proper safety standards as it had a robust research program studying biological impacts of electromagnetic fields. However, by 1996, the EPA was defunded and its work, in process, on developing science-based human exposure limits was halted.
That same year, the Telecommunications Act was passed and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted human exposure limits based on recommendations, primarily from physicists and engineers, by two outside organizations (ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1991, and NCRP’s 1986 Report). Medical doctors, public health experts and biologists were generally not involved. The FCCs limits were set only to protect against overheating from short term exposure, but they were not designed to address biological impacts from non–heating intensities nor impacts from long term exposure. These limits did not consider the need for greater protection for children, pregnant women, and those with chronic health conditions, including those who are electromagnetically hypersensitive (EHS).
A Regulatory Vacuum
Despite significant scientific evidence linking wireless to harmful impacts, FCC limits have remained unchanged since 1996. Federal agencies are no longer engaged in researching the issue. Since that time, many important scientific papers have been published that continue to confirm the effects documented in earlier studies and contain novel findings on biological and health effects. Yet these are not taken into account by these limits.
U.S. agencies have not engaged in risk assessment activities to determine a safe level or to assess if the FCCs 1996 limits are adequately protective.
Center for Disease Control (CDC)
The CDC website states, “At this time we do not have the science to link health problems to cell phone use.” However, the CDC has never issued any type of research review, risk assessment or scientific report on cell phone health effects.
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
The NCI website states, “currently (there is) no consistent evidence that non-ionizing radiation increases cancer risk ….The only consistently recognized biological effect of radio frequency energy in humans is heating.” While the webpage lists some studies, the NCI has repeatedly clarified it has not performed any science-based quantitative health/risk assessment regarding safety or the adequacy of FCC limits.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The EPA website states, “Overall, studies have not shown an association between cell phone use and radiogenic health effects, such as cancer.” However, the EPA has not issued any research review, assessment or report on the issue since 1984.
National Toxicology Program (NTP)
The NTP, nominated by the FDA, conducted large-scale animal studies to help clarify potential health hazards from cell phone radiation, and the research found “clear evidence of an association with cancer in male rats, as well as DNA damage and cardiomyopathy. The FDA disagreed with the conclusions and did not perform a quantitative risk analysis of the NTP study findings. Although the NTP initiated followup studies to further investigate their reports of DNA damage, and to study physiological impacts, all followup research was halted by 2024.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
The FCC website states, “currently no scientific evidence establishes a causal link between wireless device use and cancer or other illnesses.” However, the FCC is admittedly not a health agency and has no medical, public health or environmental health experts on staff to justify this statement.
Further, the FCC has not complied with a federal court order –Environmental Health Trust et al v. the FCC– that would ensure a full review of the scientific evidence.
A Harvard investigation has detailed how the FCC is a captured agency, exemplifying the “revolving door” between industry & regulators and thus is controlled by the industry it is supposed to be regulating–like the wolf watching the henhouse.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
The FDA website states, “Current scientific evidence does not show a danger to any users of cell phones from radio frequency energy, including children and teenagers.” However, the FDA has not evaluated all of the evidence, as the only FDA report is a literature review with studies to 2018, penned by unknown authors, which is focused on only cell phones (not cell towers or Wi-Fi) and only on cancer (not other impacts such as oxidative stress, or impacts on the neurological, endocrine and reproductive systems). This report dismissed the findings of the NTP and Ramazzini studies.
Until these agencies have properly evaluated non-ionizing EMFs for safety, none can offer scientifically supported conclusions related to health and safety.
Yes. There have been numerous efforts internationally to protect public health. While more work needs to be done, here are some examples:
- Belgium: In 2013 the government banned the advertising and sale of phones designed for young children.
- Cyprus: The government supported a multimedia campaign with full-scale bus ads, brochures and videos for teens and parents.
- French Polynesia: The country’s multimedia campaign to reduce exposure included videos, posters and brochures.
- France: In 2010, France banned the sale of cell phones designed for children under six and prohibited advertising phones to children under fourteen. Retailers were also required to label phones with their SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) levels and sell them with headsets. In 2015, the French government expanded these regulations to include stricter labeling. Wi-Fi is banned in areas for children under three and must be turned off by default in elementary schools when not in use. A 2019 Ministerial order ensures consumers receive information to use a hands-free device or speakerphone, limit frequency and duration of calls for children and keep wireless devices away from the belly of pregnant women and lower abdomen of adolescents.”
When it comes to cell tower radiation, countries vary in terms of their environmental exposure limits. Numerous governments have set limits for maximum permissible RF levels for cell towers and base station antennas that are far more stringent than U.S. FCC and ICNIRP limits.
The Figure below compares the allowable public exposure levels for radiofrequency at one frequency (1800 MHz W/m2 equivalent plane wave density) in various countries. Several countries have increased protections for “sensitive areas” generally defined as areas that include day-cares, schools, hospitals and playgrounds. Some regulators have set more stringent thresholds and/or restrict cell tower placements in and near these sensitive areas.
Cell Phone Engineering Solutions
The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) has identified six straightforward cost-effective engineering modifications that could significantly reduce the RF radiation exposure from cell phones.
These recommendations are detailed in their paper “Cell Phone Radiation Exposure Limits and Engineering Solutions” published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.
The ICBE-EMF’s paper details several modifications that aim to lower users’ exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation without compromising the functionality or communication quality. Given the mounting evidence of health effects from cellphone radiation, the wireless industry should prioritize consumer safety and adopt these measures.
- Use existing body sensors in Android and iPhone devices to detect when the phone is near the body and automatically turn off emissions.
- Use materials —already patented by many cellphone manufacturers—to reduce exposure from 2 to 100 times.
- Program cell phone software to choose Wi-Fi for calling whenever it is available rather than always cellular.
- Reduce “handshake” transmissions by eliminating these emissions when the user is not moving.
- Make airplane mode the default setting.
- Utilize an application to monitor and limit call duration.
In addition, you can connect your cell phone to your internet modem by ethernet and still go online to the internet, only without the wireless radiation. All you need is an adapter to connect the phone to ethernet.
Download ICBE-EMFs factsheet with more details on the engineering solutions here.
Most of the fixes ICBE-EMF has proposed are software fixes and quite economical to deploy. All that is required is the writing of the appropriate code and the delivery of that code through normal updating channels.
Consumers concerned about reducing their cellphone radiation exposure will be thankful for the option and these features will be marketable selling points.
Safety is a top priority, especially for parents. Once people learn about the growing scientific concern regarding cell phones, the first thing they ask is “Where can I get a safer phone?”
As evidence of adverse health risks continues to accumulate and public awareness grows, more and more people will search for phones and software designed to lower personal radiation exposure.
Several medical organizations recommend reducing cell phone radiation exposure.
In the United States, the American Academy of Pediatrics, California State Department of Health, Santa Clara Medical Association and Maryland State Environmental Health and Protection Advisory Council have issued advisories on why and how to reduce wireless radiation exposure to children.
Many consumers are already limiting time on cell phones and using safer options. Instead of holding the phone up to the head, there are wired headsets which have an air tube between the speaker and the ears designed to avoid transmission of microwave radiation up the wire of the headset to the head.
Many people are choosing to use wired landline connections for voice calls even when they own cell phones. People also connect their computers with ethernet, instead of Wi-Fi, whenever possible because ethernet and corded connections eliminate Wi-Fi RF radiation exposures.
Only one of the solutions in the ICBE-EMF paper involves a change to the physical hardware of the phone. The others are software fixes that could be provided by any company willing to undertake such projects. We hope to see such solutions being developed and offered to consumers.
We believe that manufacturers will start to voluntarily offer such hardware and software solutions in order to stay competitive on safety features.
There are many ways to manage this. You can already get a large reduction in the number of handshakes if you inhibit these emissions and if the phone has not moved, that is, it stayed in the same place in the same cell. “Not moved” can be determined by the phone’s accelerometer or GPS circuit.
The phone’s position is determined by the strength of the signal from three towers (triangulation). Then, the GPS can calculate whether the mobile has moved enough to cross out of the cell. In this case, a handshake signal could be sent by the phone.
If the location of the mobile is lost from a given cell, the network can query neighboring cells to find it. If the phone still fails to answer the handshake, the network can try a list of cells that have been frequently used by this user in the past.
If the phone answers a handshake in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, this means the user is going somewhere in a plane, and so its location is predictable. This will minimize the number of handshakes.
There could be a safety feature added that allows the phone to send a handshake at a certain interval, say every hour.
A major point is, that if reducing emitted pulses becomes a priority, this is a golden opportunity for artificial intellignence (AI) to shine. AI is already used to manage power levels emitted by cell phones in real time (12 times/second).
It is difficult to calculate exactly how much handshake emissions would be reduced by our recommendations as the reductions would obviously depend on how the phone is used, how many apps it has, etc. But it could be up to three orders of magnitude. Engineers are great at optimizing systems of this kind.
If done properly, a sensor should be installed on each side of the phone. However, most phones currently only have a sensor on one side. So, adding another sensor would be a hardware solution.
There is already substantial efficiency seen with the single sensor, as people tend to handle phones in their hand with the screen facing them, and this is how they are likely to put them in their pocket.
It is not possible for us to give detailed information for every model of phone on the market, and there are probably significant differences between iPhones and Androids. This is a problem that engineers will elegantly solve.
There is not a scientifically supportable 50 times safety factor for health effects. The cell phone and wireless radiation SAR limits are only based on protection for heating effects, not biological effects.
An increasing number of published studies has found biological effects orders of magnitude below these SAR limits. Biological effects signal hazards, and they can lead to negative health effects, especially when the exposure continues for several years.
No, U.S. standards are not protective. Several published analyses of the research indicate the limits should be at least hundreds of times more stringent.
Until cell phone radiation limits are based on a quantitative health risk assessment of the available body of science that has investigated the full range of harmful impacts linked to exposure, we believe the industry should move forward with a hazard reduction, risk mitigation strategy. Congress and a designated Federal agency should conduct a safety assessment of new and emerging wireless technologies prior to being introduced into the marketplace to ensure consumer protection. Not only will this reduce cellphone users’ radiation exposure, but it will also reduce the growing exposure of wireless manufacturers and service providers to liability and lawsuits for health damages.
Some products claim to offer health protection against EMF-RF signals but they have not been verified objectively.
Some people want to shield rooms near cell tower antennas. The best way to ensure that you are blocking EMF-RF transmissions is to acquire shielding materials that are manufactured expressly for this purpose. Next, you must verify that these shielding materials are blocking EMF-RF signals by using an EMF meter, ideally with professional expertise. Each environment is different and shielding should be verified with measurements.