International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields

Documentary on Health Effects of 5G: The Untold Story

icbeAdmin — Wed, 18 Jun 2025 07:49:31 +0000

Documentary: “5G – THE UNTOLD STORY” – June 11, 2025

Stockholm, June 11, 2025: Today the documentary “5G – The Untold Story” will be released, offering a powerful investigation into the hidden health consequences of 5G. Through compelling personal accounts and scientific analysis, the film sheds light on the real impacts of the radiation from 5G on people’s health. Within days of 5G antennas being activated near their homes, healthy people developed insomnia, headaches, heart palpitations and more.

The film is available in English on You Tube.

The film has been translated to French at this link.

In 2025, Stockholm was named the city offering the best 5G experience in Europe. But behind that headline, lies a more troubling reality. Numerous individuals, previously in good health, began to experience serious symptoms after 5G antennas were installed near their homes.

The documentary draws on groundbreaking research by Dr. Lennart Hardell, a world renowned epidemiologist and oncologist, who conducted a series of case studies on health effects on people living close to 5G antennas in collaboration with Mona Nilsson from the Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation. The studies conclude people exposed to 5G rapidly develop the “microwave syndrome”, previously described as an effect from microwave radiation exposure, and that 5G leads to very high radiation exposure. These studies, the first in the world to scientifically document health effects from real life 5G exposure, presents a disturbing conclusion: 5G acts as a toxic agent.

5G – The Untold Story challenges the silence of those in power. 5G was deployed without precaution and previous safety studies with the complicity of public health organizations. These institutions, the film suggests, appear to prioritize industrial interests over public safety.

Dr. Lennart Hardell is also an ICBE-EMF Special Expert.

The post Documentary on Health Effects of 5G: The Untold Story appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.

Poland Institute of Civil Affairs Interview with Dr. Joel Moskowitz: Wireless Radiation Health Effects

icbeAdmin — Fri, 23 May 2025 10:53:09 +0000

Poland Institute of Civil Affairs Interview with Dr. Joel Moskowitz: Wireless Radiation Health Effects

Smartphones, Wi-Fi routers and mobile phone masts – what impact do they have on your health?

Dr. Joel Moskowitz was interviewed by the Poland Institute of Civil Affairs on wireless radiation health effects. This is the full interview translated by Google.

Institute of Civil Affairs (Łódź, Poland), No. 281 / (20) 2025, 20 May 2025

From Dr. Joel M. Moskowitz, director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, Berkeley, we are talking about the impact of electrosmog on our lives, the latest scientific research and government limits on electromagnetic radiation that are not safe.

Dr. Joel M. Moskowitz

He has headed the Center for Family and Community Health at the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley, since 1993. He has been publishing research on disease prevention for forty years. In 2009, he served as the senior author of a landmark review paper on cell phone use and cancer risk research published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. He updated this meta-analysis in an article published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. He co-wrote an article on electromagnetic hypersensitivity published in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences. In 2017, he won a lawsuit against the California Department of Public Health which suppressed their own scientists’ recommendations on cell phone safety for eight years. As a result, the Department has released health warnings about cell phones. He serves as an advisor to Physicians for Safe Technology and to the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which has been signed by more than 250 scientists who have published more than 2,000 papers in scientific journals on electromagnetic fields and their health impacts. Since 2013, he has translated and disseminated research on the biological and health effects of wireless radiation through his website (https://saferemr.com). [In 2021 he co-founded the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF)].

Rafał Górski, Maksymilian Fojtuch: Let’s start our conversation with two photos. The first one depicts a building belonging to the District Thermal Energy Company in Gdynia, which leases its roof surface to mobile network operators. As you can see, two masts have been erected, which are located about 15 meters from a five-storey residential building from prefabricated concrete blocks. 100 meters behind the heating plant there is a large complex of school buildings.

Gdynia, masts on the roofs of buildings

The second photo was taken in the more rural district of Gdynia, in northern Poland. It presents a high mast located in the Remiza of the Volunteer Fire Brigade in Vistula in Gdynia.

Wiczlino Gdynia, the mast of mobile telephony visible in the depths of the frame by the road

What health problems will occur in residents and students exposed to this near source of electromagnetic radiation, commonly known as electrosmog?

Dr. Joel M. Moskowitz: Since 2013, I have been running the Saferemr.com website, which provides a selection of links to scientific articles about the health risks associated with mobile and wireless phones, mobile phone masts, Wi-Fi routers, smart meters, electric and hybrid cars, and various wireless devices.

Scientific research reviews on the health effects of mobile phone masts (e.g. “Biological effects from exposure electromagnetic to radiation emitted by cell tower base and other antenna arrays” and “Evidence for a health risk by RF on human living around mobile phone base stations: From radiofrequency sickness to cancer” showed headaches, skin rashes, sleep disorders, depression, decreased libido, increased rates of suicide, dizziness, memory changes, increased cancer risk.

How does electromagnetic radiation affect children and students aged 6-15 years in terms of their physical and mental health?

There is evidence that electromagnetic radiation can have a negative impact on cognitive development in children.

Children with higher exposure to telecommunications masts had shorter sleep, deteriorated motor skills, difficulty concentrating, deteriorated hand-eye coordination skills [hand-eye coordination is the ability to precisely synchronize hand movements with what the eye sees], and other health effects. On my website you can find a summary of these seven studies.

Does the distance from the cell phone base stations [includes cell towers] play a significant role in radiation?

Yes, the power density of the signal from the cell phone mast decreases rapidly with the distance from the mast due to the inverse square law. However, mobile phone users are likely to be exposed to greater radiation from their mobile phones if the signal strength from the nearest base station is poor, such as due to a long distance or terrain obstacles. This is because your mobile phone increases the power of the broadcast to keep the mast connected. As a result, the phone emits stronger electromagnetic radiation to level the weak signal.

The researchers recommend the location of cell phone base stations at a minimum distance of 500 meters from where people work, live or engage in physical activity in the open air.

What advice can you give to a person living within 100 m, 200 m and 300 m from such objects?

Monitor the biological effects of radiation. Consider changing your place of residence or shielding the apartment. Reduce the exposure of radiation from wireless devices, including Wi-Fi routers and mobile phones.

I asked artificial “intelligence” how many wireless devices are produced in the world. I received a reply that, according to various sources, in 2023, about 40-50 million smartphones were produced per month, which translates to about 1.3-1.6 million smartphones per day. In addition to this, there are tablets, laptops, wireless headphones, smartwatches, routers, mobile phone masts. In total, the production of wireless devices can reach several million units per day.

What impact does using these devices have on the health of children?

Wireless technology has an enormously detrimental impact on our children’s health. Numerous studies have shown that the physical and mental health of children and adolescents is adversely affected by the long time spent with the smartphone screen, as well as the exposure of the mobile phone user to the adverse effects of electromagnetic field radiation, associated with use of this addictive technology. As children are much more vulnerable, access to this technology should be very limited.

What are the three most important scientific studies indicating that electrosmog has a negative impact on health?

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) in the U.S. has published a multi-year study that has spent $30 million to taxpayers, which found “clear evidence” that cell phone radiation causes heart cancer and “certain evidence” that it causes brain cancer in male rats and DNA damage in male and female mice and rats.

The Ramazzini Institute in Italy reiterated its findings on cancer by using significantly less exposure to cell phone radiation.

It is difficult to choose the three most important scientific studies, talking about the negative impact of electrosmog on our health, because the results of thousands of tests are to be chosen. Please refer to my list of the most important studies that focus on the risk of cancer, the impact on reproductive health and electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS).

An excellent review of the biological and health risks of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) can be found in the landmark publication of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields. “Scientific evidence invalidates the health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP’s exposure limits on radiofrequency exposure limits: effects on 5G.”

It is worth quoting his summary here: “In the late 1990s. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) have adopted limits on exposure to radiofrequency radiation (RFR) to protect society and workers from the negative effects of RFR. These limits were based on behavioral research conducted in the 1980s which included exposures ranging from 40 to 60 minutes in five monkeys and eight rats followed by arbitrary safety factors with respect to the observed level of energy absorption rate (SAR) of 4 W/kg). (SAR determines the amount of energy that the phone emits when connecting tiny antennas that are mounted in it, with mobile phone masts).

The limits were also based on two main assumptions: all biological effects were due to excessive tissue heating and no effects would occur below the assumed SAR threshold, as well as on twelve assumptions that were not determined by the FCC or by ICNIRP. In this article, we show how research conducted over the past 25 years on RFR shows that the underlying assumptions of the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limits are inappropriate and still pose a threat to public health. The negative effects observed at exposures below the SAR threshold include production of reactive oxygen species, DNA damage, cardiomyopathy, carcinogenicity, sperm damage, and neurological effects, including electromagnetic hypersensitivity. In addition, numerous human studies have shown statistically significant links between exposure to RFR and an increased risk of brain and thyroid cancers. Still, in 2020, in light of the evidence presented in this article, the FCC and ICNIRP reaffirmed the same limits that were set in the 1990s. Therefore, these exposure limits, based on false assumptions, do not adequately protect workers, children, hypersensitive people and the general public for short-term or long-term exposure to RFR.

Therefore, exposure limits to protecting human health and the environment are urgently needed.

These limits must be based on scientific evidence, not on erroneous assumptions, particularly in the face of increasing exposure of people and the environment to RFR, including new forms of radiation from 5G telecommunications, for which there are no adequate health-effect studies.”

– Who are you? What happened that you were interested in the impact of electrosmog on human health? Why would Polish women and Poles trust you?

I became interested in this area by accident. Over the past forty years, most of my research has focused on the prevention of tobacco-related diseases.

I first became interested in cell phone radiation in 2008 when Dr. Seung-Kwon Myung, a scientist and doctor at the National Cancer Center in South Korea, came to the Center for Family and Public Health, a research center I lead from the University of California, Berkeley. He participated in our research on smoking cessation and we worked with him and his team of colleagues on two reviews of the scientific literature, one of which concerned the risk of cancer caused by cell phone use.

I was skeptical at the time whether cell phone radiation could be harmful. However, since I doubted that cell phone radiation could cause cancer, I delved into the literature on the biological effects of low-intensity radiation emitted by mobile phones and other wireless devices.

Our 2009 review, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, found that intensive cell phone use was associated with an increased incidence of brain cancer, particularly in studies that used advanced quantitative methods with no research funding from the telecommunications industry.

After reading a number of toxicological studies on animals that have shown that this radiation can increase oxidative stress — free radicals, stress proteins, and DNA damage — I was increasingly convinced that what we found in our human research reviews was indeed a real threat.

In 2020, we updated our review published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health based on a meta-analysis of the results of 46 case-control studies – twice as many studies as in our 2009 study – and we received similar conclusions. Our core summary of this review is the following conclusion: about 1,000 hours or more of using your mobile phone for life or about 17 minutes a day for 10 years is associated with a statistically significant 60% increase in brain cancer risk. Since 2016, six other meta-analyses have led to similar conclusions, including a review of the results of the 2024 study.

What is ICNIRP and what do you think about the article. “Self-referencing authorships behind the ICNIRP 2020 radiation protection guidelines” published in the journal “Reviews on Environmental Health”?

ICNIRP is a non-governmental organization based in Germany that promotes telecommunications-friendly limits on non-ionizing radiation exposure (NIR).

The self-selected members and advisors of ICNIRP believe that their guidelines must protect people only from the temperature (thermal) effects resulting from acute exposure to NIR. Researchers at ICNIRP argue that thousands of peer-reviewed studies found harmful biological or health effects of chronic exposure to non-thermal NIR levels are insufficient to warrant more stringent safety guidelines. NIR covers RFRs used in wireless communication devices, excluding the frequency of power lines.

In 2019, investigative journalists from eight European countries published 22 articles in major newspapers and magazines that exposed conflicts of interest in ICNIRP.

Recently, Dr. James Lin, an emeritus professor of electrical engineering, bioengineering, and physiology and biophysics, as well as former ICNIRP commissioner, accused ICNIRP of “groupthink”—a psychological phenomenon that occurs when the group prioritizes harmony over critical thinking, which can lead to irrational or dangerous decisions.

The article, which you ask, by Nordhagen and Flydal, exposes this contemporary “Village from the Land of Oz” as a fraudster – moving in the midst of smoke and mirrors. Authors come to the following conclusions:

“The ICNIRP 2020 guidelines do not meet the fundamental scientific quality requirements and are therefore not suitable to be taken as a basis for setting limits on radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation exposure (RF EMF) to protect human health. Focusing on the thermal effect on tissues, ICNIRP is at odds with most of the research results and therefore needs to be supplemented by a solid scientific basis. Our analysis shows that, in fact, the case is the opposite of that in ICNIRP 2020, so these guidelines cannot form the basis for the relevant recommendations.”

Nordhagen and Flydal have revealed how ICNIRP is biased to evaluate its reviews of specialized literature to justify its liberal RF-EMF exposure guidelines:

“Our analysis showed that ICNIRP 2020 itself (and thus also the entire auxiliary literature) comes from a monogenic network of co-authors, the core of which is only 17 researchers, most of whom are associated with ICNIRP and/or IEEE – Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (a global organization promoting development and implementation of electronic technologies). Moreover, the literature reviews submitted by ICNIRP 2020 as originating from independent committees are in fact the product of the same informal network of cooperating authors who are also members of these institutions. This exposes the fact that the ICNIRP 2020 Guidelines do not meet the fundamental scientific quality requirements and are therefore not adequate to adopt them as a basis for setting limits on exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF EMF) to protect human health.”

Unlike ICNIRP, more than 260 scientists from 45 countries who have published peer-reviewed NIR and Biology or Health Studies, covering a total of more than 2,000 scientific papers, have signed an international appeal of researchers to protect against exposure to non-ionizing electromagnetic fields.

The petition calls on the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations and all member states to adopt much stricter guidelines on exposure to NIRs that protect humans and other species from nonthermal levels of non-ionizing radiation, and to issue health warnings about the risk of exposure to the above-mentioned radiation.

On January 1, 2021, the Polish government raised the limits of the radiation of the society to electromagnetic radiation 100 times. The permissible level of exposure to the electromagnetic field was 0.1 W/m2 (watt per square metre) for the frequencies used in cellular networks. After the change, the limit was increased to 10 W/m2. At the same time, the government launched SI2PEM, i.e. the Information System on Installations that produce ElectroMagnetic Radiation. It is a public database containing information about the electromagnetic field in the environment, conducted by the Minister of Digital Affairs. “Thanks to the system, every citizen will gain access to information, where the base station is located, to whom it belongs, when it has undergone all the necessary measurements and certifications, and what their results were.”

Please comment.

As I mentioned, more than 260 scientists in electromagnetic fields believe that this exposure limit is insufficient to protect the health of humans and other species. In 2021, the same scientists commissioned The International Commission On The Biological Effects Of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). Its position, based on an objective assessment of scientific research, calls for the implementation of much stricter exposure limits to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields.

Why does electromagnetic hypersensitivity develop in some people and not in others?

Everyone is sensitive to electromagnetic fields because our cells operate on the basis of bioelectricity.

Some of us may be more sensitive to electromagnetic fields, depending on our biology (or genetic structure) and our cumulative exposure to biological toxins and toxic chemicals.

According to “Physician’s Weekly,” “Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS), known in the past as a “environmental syndrome,” is a clinical syndrome characterized by a broad spectrum of non-specific multi-organ symptoms, typically involving central nervous system symptoms that occur as a result of an acute or chronic patient exposure to the effects of electromagnetic fields in the environment or at the workplace. Repeated exposure causes sensitization and, consequently, strengthening the reaction. Many hypersensitive patients appear to have impaired detoxification systems that are overloaded by the excessive stress produced by oxidizers.

Patients may experience neurological, neurohormonal and neuropsychiatric symptoms after exposure to electromagnetic fields as a result of nerve damage and hypersensitivity of neuronal reactions.”

How can people suffering from EHS who are a minority improve their situation in a democratic society? What will their future look like?

Unfortunately, the number of cases of EHS in Poland is likely to increase with the government adopting a significantly reduced radio frequency exposure limit, which is propagating ICNIRP.

A democratic society should prioritise the health protection of its most vulnerable members. People with EHS experience functional impairment and some people suffer from severe disability.

Many of them require adequate accommodation.

ICBE-EMF recently issued a statement calling EHS a “humanitarian crisis requiring an urgent response”:

“Our goal is to formally recognize EHS as an external cause of damage caused by electromagnetic fields by public health agencies around the world, and greater recognition of the needs of people with reduced proficiency due to EHS, so that they have access to safer homes, healthcare, education, employment, opportunities, facilities and equal access in all public spaces. Such recognition should lead to increased public awareness, research funding and increased efforts to reduce the limits for exposure to electromagnetic fields. People with EHS should be provided with a low EMF space for residence, work, school and general access to public spaces. It is urgent to create the necessary areas with low electromagnetic radiation values – not only to reduce the severity of people with EHS, but to significantly reduce EHS cases.”

Do you think there are any similarities between the tobacco industry and the telecommunications industry? I ask in the context of the book “EMF Electromagnetic Fields”, written by Dr. Joseph Mercola.

In studying the behavior of the tobacco industry for four decades and the telecommunications industry over the past 16 years, I’ve noticed numerous similarities between these two global corporate entities. Both industries produce consumer products that are very popular and are very profitable. Their products become addictive, even if they are used as intended, and in the long run harm those who are not their users and those who use them.

Both industries are allocating significant resources to influence state authorities to keep to a minimum public health and environmental regulations, and promote policies that minimize the financial liability of the industry.

Finally, both industries “war game” the science and manipulate mainstream media, using the help of industry-friendly “experts” to cause confusion and arouse a lack of confidence in scientific evidence confirming the harm of their products.

Is there a global legal tool that can be used to defend the right to live in a healthy environment?

The Precautionary principle. According to it, corporations implementing wireless communication should prove that electromagnetic radiation is not harmful to human health and the environment. They don’t have that evidence today.

You reminded me of the interview I had with prof. Marek Zmyslomy. “For me the most important thing is human health.” An expert from the Institute of Occupational Medicine also refers to the precautionary principle. Belgian doctors in their Electromagnetic safety warning appeal refer to the precautionary principle. In Poland, the Demagog Association discredits you in the article entitled. “Bluetooth headphones harmful? Radiation is safe.” Please comment.

Although I don’t know the “Demagog” Association, it seems that this organization is guided by good intentions in its mission to check the facts.

Nevertheless, fact-checkers can make mistakes, because science is complex, especially when the advantage of the evidence collected does not support the interests of business and government.

The “Demagogue” text you mention quotes an article I wrote in 2019 for Scientific American: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe.” In this short article, I responded to a pro-industry opinion that the 5G network was secure, summing up the evidence that many electromagnetic field scientists believe that government exposure limits are insufficient. In this article, I did not discuss Bluetooth or wireless headphones. Scientific American then published an article full of deceptive arguments, which I rejected on my website because Scientific American refused to continue this debate. I encourage readers to read these articles and draw conclusions on their own.

What about wireless headphones?

I raised the issue of the security of wireless Bluetooth headphones in a series of posts on my website: “AirPods: are the new Appl e wireless in-ear headphones safe? (Research on the blood-brain barrier).” Although the results of the analysis are mixed, 16 studies have shown that low-intensity RFR radiation can open the blood-brain barrier, which would allow toxic chemicals found in the circulatory system to enter the brain, which must be alarming. While this health risk requires further research, I recommend using wired headphones.

Security recommendations from various reputable sources can be found on my website in the section entitled. “Guidelines for reducing exposure to wireless radiation.”

What important question has anyone asked you about this before? And what is your answer to this question?

For sixteen years I have been dealing with this topic, I have given interviews to hundreds of journalists who have asked virtually every question imaginable.

Unfortunately, we do not have unequivocal answers to many important questions due to limited research funds and active lobbying by government agencies and industry.

From the outset, the WHO EMF project, initially funded by the telecommunications industry, has been promoting the interests of the telecommunications industry beyond public health and the environment. ICBE-EMF recently published letters critical of two new reviews of the WHO study: “Critical assessment of the WHO’s systematic review of 2024 on the impact of RF-EMF exposure to erroneous noise, migraine/baxiglass and non-specific symptoms” and ‘A systematic review of exposure to RF-EMF radiation and cancer carried out by Karipidis and in 2024 have serious flaws that undermine the validity of the study’.

In a newly published article. “The World Health Organization’s systematic review of the EMF project on the link between RF exposure and health effects is experiencing difficulties, one of the world’s most famous electromagnetic field scientists Dr. James C. Lin, criticized the WHO’s systematic reviews of RF-EMF research because they reject compelling evidence of adverse biological and health effects of radio-electromagnetic fields.

“Criticism and the challenges faced by WHO-EMF’s published systematic reviews are brutal and include demands to withdraw. Strict reviews reveal serious concerns. In addition to scientific quality, they seem to impose the belief that when radiating radio fields, you should not worry about anything but heat. The subtle message that mobile phones do not pose a cancer risk is clear. In reviews, the lack of serious concerns about the conflict of interest and the recently announced ICNIRP guidelines on exposure to human radio safety are unequivocally supported.

Since its inception, WHO-EMF has maintained close links with ICNIRP, a private organization, often referred to as the WHO-EMF project’s scientific secretariat. What may not be so obvious in the case of systematic reviews under the aegis of the WHO-EMF is the lack of diversity of views. Many commissioners and members of the ICNIRP committees have been named as the authors of these WHO-EMF reviews; some were also leading authors. This should be of concern from the point of view of the reviewer’s independence and potential conflict of interest.”

In May, Environmental International published an article on the effects of electrosmog on cancer in animals (“Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field field exposure on cancer in laboratory animal studies, a systematic review.” This is a broad overview of the scientific research on this subject. It was commissioned by the WHO. What are the results of this review?

Contrary to a scientific review by Karipidis et al. (2024) on human cancer studies, a WHO analysis confirmed that there is “high certainty” evidence linking radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation exposure to two types of cancer: brain cancer (i.e., in glial cells or glioma) and heart cancer (in schwann cells–a type of glial cell in the peripheral nervous system). Importantly, tumors in the same types of cells have also been found in human studies (i.e., glioma and vestibular schwannoma), which increases confidence that the observed effects are real, and that this review has implications for tumor risk in humans.

Thank you for the conversation

Link to interview

The post Poland Institute of Civil Affairs Interview with Dr. Joel Moskowitz: Wireless Radiation Health Effects appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.

ICBE-EMF Chairpersons Report 2024-2025

icbeAdmin — Fri, 16 May 2025 22:38:40 +0000

Chairperson’s Report

2024-2025 Annual Meeting

By Ronald L Melnick, Ph.D.

In our first two years of existence, ICBE-EMF members established our organization as a critical player on health issues related to RF-EMF exposures; some of those activities included demonstrating that the FCC’s and ICNIRP’s exposure limits to RF-EMF are unreliable because they are based on invalid assumptions, and specifying engineering fixes to reduce levels of RF radiation exposures from use of cell phones. During the past year ICBE-EMF built on its previous accomplishments and has now more firmly established itself as the main organization that applies scientific principles to counter misinformation and misleading statements in the media and in journal publications that inappropriately dismiss scientific evidence on human and environmental health risks from RF-EMF exposures. We have frequently demonstrated that conclusions claiming exposure to RF radiation is safe for humans are based on inadequate data and flawed methodologies and analyses.

The World Health Organization (WHO) announced plans to publish an Environmental Health Criteria monograph on potential adverse health outcomes in relation to exposure to radiofrequency radiation. This monograph would be based on the input from 12 systematic reviews (SR) commissioned by the WHO; all those SRs were published over the past 18 months. ICBE-EMF members have authored critiques on two of those SRs (Frank et al., 2024, A critical appraisal of the WHO 2024 systematic review of the effects of RF-EMF exposure on tinnitus, migraine/headache, and non-specific symptoms; and Frank et al., 2025, The systematic review on RF-EMF exposure and cancer by Karipidis et al. (2024) has serious flaws that undermine the validity of the study’s conclusions), while critiques of three additional SRs are in progress. Our rebuttal to the incorrect and misleading responses from Karipidis et al. to our critique of their systematic review on human cancers associated with exposure to RF-EMF was posted on ICBE-EMF’s website. In addition, an overarching critique of the 12 WHO-commissioned SRs is nearly complete. In order for that critique to have a meaningful impact on the WHO’s document on health effects of RF-EMF exposures, it must be published before the Environmental Health Criteria monograph has been written. A separate flawed cohort study on brain tumor risk associated with exposure to mobile phone radiofrequency radiation was recently published by Feychting et al. (2024). ICBE-EMF members authored a critique of the authors’ conclusions due to numerous methodological flaws in that study (Moskowitz et al., 2024: COSMOS: A methodologically-flawed cohort study of the health effects from exposure to radiofrequency radiation from mobile phone use).

This has been a very busy and intense year for ICBE-EMF in responding to the published WHO-commissioned documents because of their potential impact on how health and regulatory agencies will respond to reports of adverse health effects associated with exposure to RF-EMF from current or future wireless technology. We must continue to assess the soundness of future publications and authors’ conclusions on health risks from RF-EMF exposures.

There has also been tremendous expansion of ICBE-EMF’s website this past year. Some of the new material added this year address who we are and what we do, provide our position statement on electromagnetic hypersensitivity, and present several press releases on the health effects of RF-EMF. The press releases are very valuable because they increase the visibility of activities undertaken by ICBE-EMF. This information helps amplify our message of ensuring protection of humans and other species from harmful effects of non-ionizing radiation.

This year, ICBE-EMF is providing financial support (for the first time) for a project led by Claudio Fernández which is aimed at developing a new EMF safety metric based on wavelength-dependent peak spatial specific absorption rates. Hopefully, other ICBE-EMF members will develop small or pilot proposals for financial support for projects that are pertinent to our mission.

ICBE-EMF members are currently working on a draft health protective framework for non-ionizing radiation that is expected to be completed and published before the end of the current calendar year. The framework characterizes the problem with current exposure limits to radiofrequency radiation and then describes a new science- and health-based approach for protecting the general public, workers and the environment from adverse effects of RF-EMF exposures. The draft framework also specifies mitigation and precautionary measures that the wireless industry, public health and regulatory agencies, and consumers should take until truly protective exposure limits are established.

Download this as a PDF.

The post ICBE-EMF Chairpersons Report 2024-2025 appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.

Scientists show mobile phone-cancer link

icbeAdmin — Sun, 11 May 2025 11:27:58 +0000

Scientists show mobile phone-cancer link

The following is excerpted from an update by EMR Australia

Can radiofrequency radiation (wireless radiation) cause cancer?

A new systematic review says that it can – at least in animals.

This is important because ‘Strong evidence on cancer in experimental animals is relevant to the identification of a carcinogenic hazard to humans,’ the paper says.

The systematic review¹ was commissioned and partly funded by the World Health Organization and conducted by a multi-country research team. It looked at 52 studies and cancers in different systems of the body.

‘The findings of this systematic review indicate that there is evidence that RF EMF exposure increases the incidence of cancer in experimental animals with the CoE [certainty of evidence] being strongest for malignant heart schwannomas and gliomas,’ the review concluded.

The authors found:

moderate certainty of evidence for lymphoma
moderate certainty of evidence for adrenal gland neoplasms
moderate certainty of evidence for hepatoblastomas (liver cancers)
moderate certainty of evidence of lung neoplasms
high certainty of evidence for brain tumours
high certainty of evidence for heart schwannomas (tumours) in male rats.

Significantly, brain tumours and schwannomas of the heart have also been in found in exposed humans.

“The evidence is now clear,’ says Dr Ron Melnick, Chair of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF), ‘cell phone radiation can cause cancer in animals in concordance with the tumor types identified in human studies of mobile phone users. As animal studies are essential for predicting cancer risk in humans, governments should develop science-based safety standards to protect human health. The conclusion of the study commissioned by the WHO shows that the long-standing assumption current government limits are based on — that cell phone RF radiation can only cause harm through tissue heating — is wrong.’

The ICBE-EMF is calling for governments and policy makers around the globe to revise their radiation standards to provide greater protection for people and the environment.

Dr Louis Slesin from Microwave News, says: ‘This finding runs counter to the stated views of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the WHO itself, as well those of most national health agencies.’ ²

What about the effects of 5G radiation?

The authors of the review point out that the ‘Frequencies that will be used in current and future 5G networks (3.5 – 60 GHz) are anticipated occur long before animal cancer data will be available to affect exposure guidelines. Such studies require many years to design, conduct and report which makes it a challenge to keep up with technology changes.’

In other words, we won’t know until long after we’re all exposed.

1. M. Mevissen, A. Ducray, J.M. Ward, A. Kopp-Schneider, J.P. McNamee, A.W. Wood, T.M. Rivero, K. Straif, Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure on cancer in laboratory animal studies, a systematic review, Environment International (2025), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envi…

2. ICBE-EMF, ‘New WHO-funded Study Reports High Certainty of The Evidence Linking Cell Phone Radiation To Cancer In Animals, Press release 27.4.2025,

3. Microwave News, WHO Review Finds Cancer Risk in RF-Exposed Animals, 27.4.2025,

The following is excerpted from an update by EMR Australia

Cell phone safety tips compiled by the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields can be found here.

The post Scientists show mobile phone-cancer link appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.

Expert Scientific Commission Warns Against FCC Proposal to Deregulate Wireless Industry

icbeAdmin — Tue, 29 Apr 2025 12:13:34 +0000

Expert Scientific Commission Warns Against FCC Proposal to Deregulate Wireless Industry

Expert Comments Call For the Government to Revise Its “Obsolete” Human Exposure Limits.

TUCSON ARIZONA. – The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) has issued strong opposition to the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) proposed deregulation of wireless communications infrastructure, calling the move “reckless” and urging immediate action to protect public health and the environment.

In formal comments submitted to the FCC, ICBE-EMF — an international consortium of scientists, doctors, and researchers — called for the FCC to halt its deregulatory initiatives related to cell towers, 5G and wireless infrastructure and instead prioritize updating its outdated safety guidelines for wireless radiation exposure.

“We urge the FCC to set its top priority on the protection of public health and the environment before it considers deleting federal rules that apply to wireless communications devices and infrastructure. The threshold dose that FCC used to establish human exposure limits is inadequate, does not consider hundreds of studies that show health effects below the exposure limits, and ignores studies reporting biological harm to the environment. This is an urgent call for action.”

“FCC, in consultation with the Food and Drug Administration, should responsibly address the urgent need to protect the population from health risks due to exposure to RF radiation before adopting these proposed rules.”

The comments cited the scientific documentation in the Commission’s landmark paper published in Environmental Health,“Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G,” which concluded that the FCC and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) have ignored key scientific findings.

“The 1980s science used to set exposure thresholds is obsolete.”

Additionally, the ICBE-EMF pointed to a just published 2025 WHO-funded study that found “high certainty” evidence linking cell phone radiofrequency radiation to gliomas in the brain and malignant schwannomas in the heart in laboratory animals.

“The conclusion of the WHO-commissioned study shows that the longstanding assumption that harm only occurs via tissue heating is wrong.”

“Many studies have demonstrated oxidative effects associated with exposure to low-intensity RFR, and significant adverse effects including cardiomyopathy, carcinogenicity, DNA damage, neurological disorders, increased permeability of the blood-brain barrier, and sperm damage,” explains Dr. Ronald Melnick, ICBE-EMFs Chair and a former senior toxicologist with the U.S. National Toxicology Program at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences at the time. “These effects need to be addressed in revised and health-protective exposure guidelines. Furthermore, the assumption that 5G millimeter waves are safe because of limited penetration into the body does not dismiss the need for health effects studies.

The scientists pointed out that the FCC has yet to respond to a 2021 court order requiring it to explain why it has not updated its radiofrequency emission limits.

“In 2021, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a remand order on the FCC emission limits, requiring it to provide a reasoned explanation for not updating its RF radiation emission limits which were last set in 1996 when only a fraction of the cell towers and cell phones that we have today were in existence. The order stated that FCC had failed to respond to “record evidence that exposure to RF radiation at levels below the Commission’s current limits may cause negative health effects unrelated to cancer.” In doing so, the FCC was required to examine the effects of long-term exposure to humans and the environment, particularly to children. The Court found that the FCC did not convene a committee or produce a report. The court order is still outstanding, and, to date, the FCC has not complied.”

ICBE-EMF is calling for an immediate, independent scientific review of the wireless radiation exposure standards based on the latest research, with the goal of setting much stricter limits.

”In recognition of the flaws identified here with the current FCC radiofrequency human exposure guidelines and given the high level of certainty in the systemic review commissioned by the World Health Organization reporting high certainty of cancers in laboratory animals, the FCC should immediately move to revise its RF radiation exposure limits to protect public health and the environment.”

ICBE-EMF Comments to the FCC

About the ICBE-EMF

ICBE-EMF is an international consortium of scientists, doctors and researchers with expertise and peer-reviewed publications on the biological and health effects of electromagnetic fields including wireless RF radiation. Wireless devices such as cell phones, cordless phones, Wi-Fi and cell towers emit radiofrequency (RF) radiation.

The Commission is committed to upholding the highest standards of scientific research and makes science-based recommendations to ensure the protection of the public and environment. icbe-emf.org

The post Expert Scientific Commission Warns Against FCC Proposal to Deregulate Wireless Industry appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.

WHO Funded Study Reports High Certainty of the Evidence Linking Cell Phone Radiation to Cancer in Animals

icbeAdmin — Sun, 27 Apr 2025 22:04:43 +0000

New WHO-Funded Study Reports High Certainty of the Evidence Linking Cell Phone Radiation to Cancer in Animals

Scientific Experts Urge the FCC to Establish Science-Based Exposure Limits to Address Wireless Health Risks

Media Contact: communications@icbe-emf.org

Press Release April 27, 2025

Environment International has published a new systematic review, partially funded by the World Health Organization, concluding that there is high certainty of the evidence linking cell phone radiofrequency (RF) radiation to two types of cancer in animals. In response, leading scientists from the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) are calling for immediate policy action to protect public health and the environment, warning that further delay could have serious consequences amid the global surge in the use of wireless communication devices.

What the Review Found

A new systematic review of 52 animal studies, “Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure on Cancer in Laboratory Animal Studies” by Mevissen et al. (2025), concluded there is high certainty of the evidence linking RF radiation exposure to two types of 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 review also found moderate certainty of evidence of an increased risk of rare tumors, such as pheochromocytomas in the adrenal glands and hepatoblastomas in the liver. Additionally, some studies indicated a possible association with lymphomas, although the findings were inconsistent.

ICBE-EMF highlights that in 2011, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency radiation (RF-EMF) as a Group 2B “possible” human carcinogen, noting limited animal evidence. Since then, major animal studies — including those by the U.S. National Toxicology Program and the Ramazzini Institute — have found that RF radiation exposure causes cancer in rats.

The new WHO-funded review, concluding there is “high certainty” animal evidence of cancer causation, reinforces calls for IARC to urgently reevaluate the cancer classification of RF radiation.

Given this high level of certainty, government policymakers worldwide should immediately move to revise their RF radiation exposure limits to protect public health and the environment.

Statements by Experts of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields

“The evidence is now clear —cell phone radiation can cause cancer in animals in concordance with the tumor types identified in human studies of mobile phone users. As animal studies are essential for predicting cancer risk in humans, governments should develop science-based safety standards to protect human health. The conclusion of the study commissioned by the WHO shows that the long-standing assumption current government limits are based on — that cell phone RF radiation can only cause harm through tissue heating — is wrong” stated Ron Melnick, PhD, Chair of the ICBE-EMF and former senior toxicologist and Director of Special Programs at the National Toxicology Program and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS).

“The preponderance of the research published since 1996 finds adverse biologic and health effects from long-term exposure to low levels of modulated or pulsed wireless RF radiation. Given the widespread global usage of wireless among users of all ages, even a very small increase in the incidence of disease will have broad implications for public health,” stated said Joel Moskowitz, PhD, Director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, also an ICBE-EMF member.

“To protect public health and the environment, exposure to cell phone and wireless radiation must be significantly reduced,” said Elizabeth Kelley, Managing Director of ICBE-EMF. She referenced the EMF Scientist Appeal now signed by 267 scientists from 45 nations. “Hundreds of scientists worldwide agree that current exposure limits are outdated and do not adequately protect against health risks.”

ICBE-EMF emphasizes that governments must act immediately to strengthen regulatory limits on wireless radiation to protect public health. Wildlife exposures must be mitigated. Current exposure standards, based on outdated assumptions, do not reflect the scientific evidence linking RF radiation to cancer and other health effects.

ICBE-EMF also highlights practical steps the public can take to reduce exposure — such as using speakerphone or wired headsets, keeping devices away from the body, and limiting wireless use among children — but stresses that personal actions are not a substitute for government-enforced safety standards. Stronger, science-based regulations are urgently needed to address the widespread and increasing exposure to wireless radiation.

About the ICBE-EMF

ICBE-EMF recently published major scientific papers concluding that current government safety limits for wireless radiation are not protective of public health and highlighting engineering solutions that could dramatically reduce radiation emissions from cell phones.

The Commission is committed to upholding the highest standards of scientific research and makes science-based recommendations to ensure the protection of the public and environment. icbe-emf.org

Video of Dr. Ronald Melnick on the Cell Phone Wireless Radiation Animal Cancer Study

Video of Elizabeth Kelley on the Cell Phone Radiation Animal Cancer Study

The post WHO Funded Study Reports High Certainty of the Evidence Linking Cell Phone Radiation to Cancer in Animals appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.

Expert Call for the World Health Organization to Pause Monograph on Wireless Radiation Health Risk Until Independent Review

icbeAdmin — Fri, 25 Apr 2025 19:22:45 +0000

Expert Call for the World Health Organization to Pause Monograph on Wireless Radiation Health Risk Until Independent Review

Dr. Joel Moskowitz, Director of the Center for Family and Community Health at UC Berkeley, has called for the World Health Organization (WHO) to pause the publication of its forthcoming monograph on cell phone and wireless radiofrequency (RF) radiation health effects. He urges this action pending a comprehensive critical review by independent, un-conflicted experts.

This post is reposted from the website of Dr. Joel Moskowitz, Director Center for Family and Community Health School of Public Health University of California, Berkeley and ICBE-EMF Commissioner found here.

The WHO Monograph on Radio Frequency Radiation Health Effects should be put on hold pending a comprehensive critical review.

The World Health Organization (WHO) commissioned twelve systematic reviews (SRs) in preparation for a new WHO monograph on the health effects of radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). The WHO last published a monograph on this potential health hazard 32 years ago in 1993. Thus, the new monograph will be used to inform global public, occupational, and environmental health RF-EMF standards for several decades.

Many current and former ICNIRP members, whose mission is to develop and disseminate EMF exposure guidelines, were involved in the design and conduct of these SRs. Hence, the monograph will likely be used to justify ICNIRP’s RF-EMF exposure standards which only protect against the heating risks from RF-EMF exposure. (Yet, the one SR intended to address heating risks was never assigned by WHO: “SR10–Effect of exposure to heat from any source on pain, burn, cataract, and heat-related illnesses.”)

Eleven of the twelve WHO SRs have been published to date in a special issue of the journal Environment International. Although these SRs were all subjected to the journal’s peer review process prior to publication, the peer review process is often imperfect. A handful of peer reviewers simply do not have the capacity to critique all aspects of a complex systematic review, especially one with many meta-analyses. Moreover, the authors of these SRs may not have complied with all of the reviewers’ criticisms.

The journal asked me to serve as a peer reviewer for one of these SRs–an activity I have performed more than 70 times in my career. However, unlike my previous experiences the process was extremely frustrating. Systematic reviews require a multitude of macro- and micro-decisions. When conducted by biased investigative teams, systematic reviews can generate erroneous conclusions and policy implications. By design, this SR excluded most of the relevant research; hence, its conclusion is very limited in scope. Although the authors complied with some of the reviewers’ suggestions, the authors refused to deviate from several problematic decisions made in their protocol paper which was published several years earlier. After two revisions, the special issue editor allowed a critically, flawed SR paper to be published in the journal.

Although I don’t have information about the quality of peer review for the other SRs, to date several SRs have been criticized in peer-reviewed journal articles:

Di Ciaula A, Petronio MG, Bersani F, Belpoggi F. Exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and risk of cancer: Epidemiology is not enough! Environment International, 2025. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2025.109275. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412025000261
Frank JW, Melnick RL, Moskowitz JM. (2024). A critical appraisal of the WHO 2024 systematic review of the effects of RF-EMF exposure on tinnitus, migraine/headache, and non-specific symptoms. Rev. Environ. Health. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2024-0069. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2024-0069/html
Frank JW, Moskowitz JM, Melnick RL, Hardell L, Philips A, Héroux P, Kelley E. The Systematic Review on RF-EMF Exposure and Cancer by Karipidis et al. (2024) has Serious Flaws that Undermine the Validity of the Study’s Conclusions. Environ Int. 2025 Jan;195:109200. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2024.109200. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412024007876
Hardell L, Nilsson M. A Critical Analysis of the World Health Organization (WHO) Systematic Review 2024 on Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure and Cancer Risks. Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics. 9 (2025): 09-26. doi: 10.26502/jcsct.5079261. https://www.fortunejournals.com/articles/a-critical-analysis-of-the-world-health-organization-who-systematic-review-2024-on-radiofrequency-radiation-exposure-and-cancer-ri.html
Lin JC. World Health Organization’s EMF Project’s Systemic Reviews on the Association Between RF Exposure and Health Effects Encounter Challenges [Health Matters]. IEEE Microwave Magazine, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 13-15, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.1109/MMM.2024.3476748. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10795296
Nordhagen EK, Flydal E. WHO to build neglect of RF-EMF exposure hazards on flawed EHC reviews? Case study demonstrates how “no hazards” conclusion is drawn from data showing hazards. Rev Environ Health. 2024 Jul 10. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2024-0089. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2024-0089/html

Moreover, to date the authors of three SRs have issued corrigenda after publication of their SRs to correct significant errors:

2024, Bosch-Capblanch X, Esu E, Moses Oringanje C, Dongus S, Jalilian H, Eyers J, Auer C, Meremikwu M, Röösli M. Corrigendum to “The effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields exposure on human self-reported symptoms: A systematic review of human experimental studies” [Environ. Int. 187 (2024) 108612] [erratum] Environ Int 190: 108892 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412024004781
2025, Cordelli E, Ardoino L, Benassi B, Consales C, Eleuteri P, Marino C, Sciortino M, Villani P, Brinkworth MH, Chen G, McNamee JP, Wood AW, Belackova L, Verbeek J, Pacchierotti F. Corrigendum to “Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field (RF-EMF) exposure on pregnancy and birth outcomes: A systematic review of experimental studies on non-human mammals” [Environ. Inter. 180 (2023) 108178] [erratum] Environ Int 196: 109273 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412025000248
2025, Cordelli E, Ardoino L, Benassi B, Consales C, Eleuteri P, Marino C, Sciortino M, Villani P, Brinkworth MH, Chen G, McNamee JP, Wood AW, Belackova L, Verbeek J, Pacchierotti F. Corrigendum to “Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure on male fertility: A systematic review of experimental studies on non-human mammals and human sperm in vitro” [Environ. Int. 185 (2024) 108509], Environment International, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2025.109449. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412025002004

How many more significant errors or major problems will be uncovered by the authors or by critical readers of the 12 WHO SRs?

Given widespread exposure to anthropogenic sources of RF-EMF in recent times and its potential adverse health impacts, the forthcoming WHO monograph on RF-EMF health effects should be put on hold until a comprehensive review of all aspects of the 12 SRs is completed by experts who have no actual or even apparent conflicts of interest.

The post Expert Call for the World Health Organization to Pause Monograph on Wireless Radiation Health Risk Until Independent Review appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.

Cell Phone and Wireless Health Facts

icbeAdmin — Wed, 02 Apr 2025 17:18:51 +0000

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

What are electromagnetic fields (EMFs)?

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.

Are cellphones, cell towers, 5G, and cellular antennas arrays safe?

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.

Do cell phones cause cancer?

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.

Is cancer the only health issue?

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.

How much cell phone radiation is absorbed into our brain?

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.

Learn more about how to reduce exposure here.

Are children at risk?

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.

What do the experts say?

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.”

What about wildlife and plants?

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.

Where can I find peer reviewed papers on wireless and EMF that are published in professional journals?

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

What is 5G?

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.

Why would governments allow 5G deployment if it’s not safe?

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.

Will 5G increase RF exposure?

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.

How deeply does 5G penetrate into the skin?

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.

Could 5G harm bees and other insects?

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

Why is the NIH National Toxicology Program study on cell phone radiation and cancer important?

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.”

Since cell phone radiation is non-ionizing, how can it damage DNA or cause cancer?

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.

Shouldn't we see an increase in brain tumors due to the substantial increase in cellphone use?

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.

Why did the Danish Cohort and Million Women study find no cancer risk from cellphone radiation?

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

Do government human exposure limits ensure safety?

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.

Why are government limits unable to protect human health?

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.

What exactly is a quantitative health risk assessment?

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.

Can you give me examples of how this quantitative health risk assessment has been used?

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.

What is the position of U.S. federal health agencies on health effects from wireless technology?

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.

Do any governments have laws to mitigate risks to public health?

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.

What engineering fixes can reduce cell phone radiation?

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.

Aren’t engineering fixes that reduce cell phone radiation exposure costly, as the industry claims?

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.

Do cellphone users want phones that reduce exposure?

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.

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.

How can companies get involved?

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.

Can you explain why your engineering solution of reducing handshakes is not a problem for connectivity?

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.

Explain how body sensors can be used to reduce emissions?

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.

The industry claims the US cell phone radiation safety human exposure limits (SAR limits) include a 50-fold safety factor. Isn’t this safety factor large enough to ensure safety, even if phones sometimes exceed the standard?

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.

The limit in many European nations for cell phone radiation is 2 W/kg, whereas the US FCC limit is 1.6 W/kg. Doesn’t this mean that U.S. standards are more protective?

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.

The post Cell Phone and Wireless Health Facts appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.

Special Expert Theodora Scarato

icbeAdmin — Thu, 27 Feb 2025 20:14:21 +0000

Theodora Scarato MSW

Special Expert to the International Commission on the Biological Impacts of Electromagnetic Fields

Theodora Scarato is an environmental health policy expert on wireless and other non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMFs) focused on U.S. and international regulations, laws and policies.

She is the Director of the Wireless and Electromagnetic Field Program at Environmental Health Sciences and previously served as Executive Director of Environmental Health Trust.

Scarato has co-authored scientific publications on wireless and children’s health and best practice building strategies to mitigate wireless risk. Scarato served as a lead technical expert in a major federal legal case against the U.S. Federal Communications Commission in which the agency was ordered to review the evidence it had ignored regarding health and environmental impacts, to ensure U.S. regulations for wireless exposure were adequate.

In addition to the favorable ruling in the U.S. lawsuit on wireless limits, highlights of her professional activities over the last decades of her work in non-ionizing electromagnetic fields and health include helping to organize the 2019 EMF medical conference, the first exclusively designed to train medical and professionals and she also has presented at the subsequent 2021 EMF Medical Conference.

Her testimony and research was utilized in the New Hampshire State 5G Commission and instrumental in the Maryland State Children’s Environmental Health Protection Advisory Council addressing radio frequency in classrooms and issuing state guidance on how to reduce EMF. She has presented at numerous U.S. and international conferences including the National Institutes of Health, the National Spectrum Management Association and the American Public Health Association.

She has worked on wireless and non-ionizing EMF health and environment risks for over a decade.

She can be reached on Linked In here and ResearchGate here.

The post Special Expert Theodora Scarato appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.

Animal Studies Find Cell Phone and Wireless Radiation Can Increase Cancer

icbeAdmin — Tue, 25 Feb 2025 13:24:33 +0000

Animal Studies Find Wireless Radiation Can Increase Cancer

Newly published letter concludes the WHO cell phone cancer review cannot offer safety assurances.

With the rapid expansion of wireless technology, concerns about its health effects, including cancer risks, continue to grow. A recently published critique highlights why relying solely on human epidemiology studies are not sufficient to address this pressing public health concern.

A Letter to the Editor “Exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and risk of cancer: Epidemiology is not enough!” published in Environment International by Agostino Di Ciaula, Maria Grazia Petronio, Fausto Bersani and Fiorella Belpoggi of the International Society of Doctors for Environment argues that a WHO funded systematic review by Karipidis et al. 2024 is insufficient for concluding cell phones and wireless technology is safe.

Although the WHO review seemed to offer cell phone safety assurances, even among long-term users, Di Ciaula et al. 2025 argues that the evidence supporting such safety conclusions is limited, because the human studies reviewed in the paper have selection biases, imprecise exposure assessments, and insufficient adjustment for confounding factors. Ignoring these issues could lead to an underestimation of the potential risks.

The Missing Piece: Experimental and Animal Studies

Di Ciaula et al. 2025 states that Karipidis et al.’s conclusions fail to incorporate findings from experimental and animal research. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RF-EMF as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B) in 2011. Since then, several experimental animal studies, such as those by Falcioni et al. (2018), Lerchl et al. (2015), and the U.S. National Toxicology Program (2018) have strengthened the argument for a causal link between RF-EMF exposure and cancer. These carefully controlled animal studies all found associations between wireless exposure and increased cancers.

By focusing solely on human epidemiological data, the WHO study dismisses a broader scientific perspective that includes cancer associations and biological impacts demonstrated in controlled animal experiments. Di Ciaula et al. warns that relying on human case counts alone is a dangerous assumption, as it implies that we must wait for significant harm to manifest before taking precautionary and protective measures.

“Excluding the results of studies on animal carcinogenicity from the discussion on a health topic of primary social and regulatory relevance, as that of RF-EMF exposure, offers a very partial scenario and generates uncertainty. This approach reinforces the anti-ethical belief that epidemiological assessments simply based on the “count” of cancer cases in humans (even if approximate and conditioned by a number of possible confounders) would be a privileged way to demonstrate the carcinogenicity (or the lack of carcinogenicity) of widely diffused, potentially harmful environmental agents. This is an extremely dangerous assumption, as it is equivalent to accept that potentially detrimental effects can only be determined a posteriori, after the considered agent has had time to damage public health.”

Di Ciaula et al. emphasizes the need for a public health approach whereby wireless exposure is minimized, especially for children.

“Resorting to caution” in RF-EMF use—especially among vulnerable populations—should be a priority until stronger epidemiological evidence emerges. Future studies should integrate experimental findings and acknowledge the evolving nature of exposure when assessing potential health risks.

This newly published review echoes the critique published by the International Commission for the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (2025) and a critique by Hardell and Nilsson (2025) which also documented the inaccuracies and conflicts of interest in the WHO funded review.

Read the Letter to the Editor “Exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and risk of cancer: Epidemiology is not enough!” published in Environment International by Agostino Di Ciaula, Maria Grazia Petronio, Fausto Bersani and Fiorella Belpoggi.

Watch Fiorella Belpoggi PhD present on the Ramazzini Institute animal studies here.

The post Animal Studies Find Cell Phone and Wireless Radiation Can Increase Cancer appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.