International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields

Webinar: Cell Phones and Wireless: Why Current Exposure Limits Do Not Protect Against Cancer and Reproductive Harm

icbeAdmin — Tue, 22 Sep 2026 21:30:00 +0000

Webinar: Cell Phones and Wireless: Why Current Exposure Limits Do Not Protect Against Cancer and Reproductive Harm

Featuring Ronald Melnick, Ph.D.
Former Senior Toxicologist, National Toxicology Program (NTP)

Hosted by: The Collaborative for Health & Environment and Environmental Health Sciences

Date: September 30, 2026
Time: 1:00 PM U.S. Eastern Time
Location: Online via Zoom

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Health and Human Services are both seeking public input on wireless radiation and health. This webinar offers a timely opportunity to hear from one of the scientists who helped lead the U.S. government’s landmark research on cell phone radiation.

Ronald Melnick, Ph.D. served for more than 28 years as a senior toxicologist with the National Toxicology Program (NTP) at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, where he helped design the NTP’s landmark studies on cell phone radiofrequency (RF) radiation. Those studies, together with the Ramazzini Institute research, found increased cancer in laboratory animals chronically exposed to RF radiation.

During this webinar, Dr. Melnick will discuss the scientific evidence linking wireless radiation to cancer and reproductive harm, explain why the U.S. Food and Drug Administration nominated RF radiation for study by the NTP, and review the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 2011 evaluation that classified RF radiation as a possible human carcinogen.

He will also explain why the WHO-commissioned systematic reviews on RF radiation should not be interpreted as evidence of safety and discuss the methodological shortcomings identified in “WHO Commissioned Systematic Reviews on Health Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation Provide No Assurance of Safety,” published in Environmental Health. (Read the paper)

The webinar will examine the scientific basis of the RF exposure limits adopted by the FCC, ICNIRP, and IEEE, drawing from the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) publication “Scientific Evidence Invalidates Health Assumptions Underlying the FCC and ICNIRP Exposure Limit Determinations for Radiofrequency Radiation: Implications for 5G.” (Read the paper)

Finally, Dr. Melnick will present his team’s latest quantitative cancer risk assessment, “Cancer Risk Assessment of Radiofrequency Radiation Using U.S. EPA Methodology,” which applied EPA cancer risk methods to the NTP findings. The analysis concluded that current FCC, IEEE and ICNIRP exposure limits are at least 200 times too high to protect against cancer risk and 24 times too high to protect against reproductive harm. (Read the paper)

About Ronald Melnick, Ph.D.

Ronald Melnick, Ph.D., served for more than 28 years as a senior toxicologist with the National Toxicology Program at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. He led the design and interpretation of numerous toxicity and carcinogenicity studies, including the NTP’s landmark investigations of cell phone radiofrequency radiation. He is Senior Science Advisor and Past Chair of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF).

Dr. Melnick has served on numerous scientific advisory committees and review panels, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). He also served in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and is a Fellow (Emeritus) of the Collegium Ramazzini and has published several papers on RF as well as other environmental health issues.

The webinar will be moderated by Theodora Scarato, Director of the Wireless and EMF Program at Environmental Health Sciences. (Biography)

For additional information, visit the https://www.healthandenvironment.org/che-webinars/97191

The post Webinar: Cell Phones and Wireless: Why Current Exposure Limits Do Not Protect Against Cancer and Reproductive Harm appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.

International Scientific Commission Calls for Urgent Action to Protect Children’s Health from Cell Phones, Cell Towers, Power Lines, and Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) Exposure

icbeAdmin — Wed, 09 Sep 2026 12:54:51 +0000

International Scientific Commission Calls for Urgent Action to Protect Children's Health from Cell Phones, Cell Towers, Power Lines, and Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) Exposure

The position statement says government exposure limits fail to reflect current scientific evidence and calls for stronger protections in schools.

The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF), an independent consortium of scientists, physicians, engineers, and public health experts from around the world, today released a scientific position statement calling for governments to strengthen protections for children from non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMFs). Sources include cell phones, cell towers, 5G, power lines, substations and electrical grid infrastructure.

The statement “Safeguarding Children’s Health in the Digital Age: Addressing Screen Time, Wireless Radiation, and Extremely Low Frequency Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Field Exposures” is posted online and can be downloaded as a PDF.

Drawing on decades of scientific research, the experts conclude that children’s rapidly increasing exposure to cell phones, wireless networks, power lines and other sources of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields requires immediate public health action.

“Wireless radiation and other non-ionizing EMF exposure are critical issues for children’s environmental health.”

“Studies have reported numerous adverse effects, including cancer, oxidative stress, genetic impacts, blood-brain barrier permeability, sperm damage, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, impairments in cognition, learning and memory, sleep impacts, EEG alterations, and other neurological effects.”

“Children can be more vulnerable than adults to the health impacts of wireless radiation because it penetrates deeper and has higher absorption rates in regions of a child’s brain, and because their still-developing brains and physiological systems are more sensitive to environmental toxicants.”

“Government safety limits do not protect children…These limits remain unchanged for over 3 decades, well before children began using cell phones and when much of today’s technologies did not even exist.”

“The technologies shaping our future should not compromise the health of the next generation.”

They are calling on governments around the world to adopt stronger, science-based protections for children by modernizing exposure standards, reducing daily EMF exposures, and implementing practical policies that prioritize children’s health over convenience.

Recommendations for Governments

Update national exposure limits on wireless, power frequency, and other non-ionizing EMF to reflect current scientific evidence and to ensure protection against biological effects.
Fund independent research on long-term, cumulative biological and health effects of non-ionizing EMF.
Require independent pre-market safety testing and independent post-market surveillance for the health effects of wireless and EMF-emitting devices.
Ensure wireless radiation compliance tests for cell phones, Wi-Fi laptops and other RF radiation-emitting devices reflect children’s physiology and the way they use devices today, in direct body contact.
Halt the introduction of new technologies until rigorous pre-market safety testing is performed.
Inform families about the substantial science indicating health risks and educate them on ways to reduce exposures from cell phones, wireless devices, electronics, and other sources of EMF.
Adopt a risk mitigation approach with strong policies that reduce children’s daily exposure at home and school and limit their use of wireless devices.
Promote industry innovation for the design and manufacture of safer technologies, including wired networks, low-emission designs, and devices that minimize user exposure.
Low-EMF spaces must be established in schools as a priority.

The Commission’s members have published numerous influential papers examining the biological effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields, the scientific basis of current exposure limits, and practical ways to reduce exposure. Their research has documented how today’s FCC, ICNIRP, and IEEE exposure limits are based primarily on preventing short-term tissue heating and do not account for the growing body of evidence demonstrating biological effects at non-thermal exposure levels. Commission members have also published analyses concluding that current wireless radiation exposure limits would need to be reduced by at least 200-fold to meet the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s benchmark for acceptable cancer risk. In addition, they have identified hardware and software design changes that can substantially reduce wireless radiation emissions from cell phones while maintaining device performance, demonstrating that safer technologies are both feasible and achievable.

ICBE-EMF is committed to upholding the highest standards of scientific research and makes science-based recommendations to ensure the protection of the public and the environment. ICBE-EMF.org

ICBE-EMF Scientific Position Statement on Children’s Health, Wireless and non-ionizing Electromagnetic Fields Download PDF

ICBE-EMF Scientific Publications

The post International Scientific Commission Calls for Urgent Action to Protect Children’s Health from Cell Phones, Cell Towers, Power Lines, and Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) Exposure appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.

Safeguarding Children’s Health in the Digital Age: Addressing Screen Time, Wireless Radiation, and Extremely Low Frequency Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Field Exposures

icbeAdmin — Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:34:35 +0000

Safeguarding Children's Health in the Digital Age: Addressing Screen Time, Wireless Radiation, and Extremely Low Frequency Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Field Exposures

A Position Statement on Children’s Health and Electromagnetic Fields by the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields

September 9, 2026

Who We Are

The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) is an independent consortium of scientists, physicians, and public health experts from around the world. We have published extensive peer-reviewed studies on the biological effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMFs), including radiofrequency radiation (RFR) from wireless technologies and extremely low frequency (ELF-EMF) electric and magnetic fields from electric grid infrastructure. The Commission was founded to provide science-based evaluations of EMF exposure, to assess the adequacy of current exposure limits, and advocate for evidence-based exposure limits that protect human health and the environment.

Safeguarding Children’s Health in the Digital Age: Addressing Screen Time, Wireless Radiation, and Extremely Low Frequency Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Field Exposures

Download PDF

Executive Summary

Wireless radiation and other non-ionizing EMF exposure are critical issues for children’s environmental health. EMF exposures are increasing across all environments where children live, learn, and play due to the unprecedented proliferation of screens and wireless devices, the rapid expansion of wireless communication networks, and the electrical infrastructure required to power modern technologies, including AI. A risk mitigation approach is urgently required.

Children can be more vulnerable than adults to the health impacts of wireless radiation because it penetrates deeper and has higher absorption rates in regions of a child’s brain, and because their still-developing brains and physiological systems are more sensitive to environmental toxicants.
Screen time not only increases exposure to digital media but also to non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMFs), including RFR from the wireless connection and ELF-EMF from their electrical components and charging systems.
The wireless RF radiation limits developed by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) based on the data of animal experiments carried out in the 1980s, mainly consider the impacts of thermal effects from short-term exposure. Similarly, the ELF limits of the IEEE and ICNIRP only consider optic nerve stimulation from short-term exposures. Based on outdated, invalid assumptions, these limits do not reflect the growing body of scientific evidence pointing to serious human health and environmental risks.

Hundreds of scientists and medical doctors who are experts in the field are calling for more stringent, evidence-based safety limits and policies to reduce exposure to protect public health and the environment.

Health protective measures, especially in schools, can be implemented to reduce childhood EMF exposures and improve child health risk management

We Are Urgently Calling for Safeguards to Protect Children

Children are now exposed daily to multiple sources of artificially generated non-ionizing EMF, including the RFR from cell phones, Wi-Fi laptops and Wi-Fi networks in schools, wireless earbuds, smart-watches, wireless wearables, and cell towers. They are exposed to ELF-EMF from nearby power lines, substations, and electrical wiring, as well as electrically powered equipment. These exposures have increased dramatically to levels unprecedented in human history.¹²

The right to a safe and healthy environment is fundamental to children’s human rights³. Schools are places for learning and development, both of which can be impacted by exposure to EMF. Because children cannot choose the environments in which they live and learn, adults have both a moral and legal responsibility to ensure those environments are safe.

BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE

Screen Time Is Harming Children’s Health

Children’s healthy development is being profoundly compromised by their overuse of screens and unchecked social media consumption. Many screen apps and social media platforms are addictive by design as they are engineered to maximize engagement and keep children online for as long as possible.⁴ Further, neuroimaging studies demonstrate that constant digital stimulation activates the brain’s reward circuitry in ways similar to addictive substances,^5,6 and gaming disorder is now formally recognized by the WHO as a behavioral addiction.⁷

As screen time increases, it often displaces critical developmental activities such as physical play, healthy sleep, face-to-face social interaction, and outdoor time.⁸ Heightened screen use in children and adolescents is correlated with reduced grey/white matter volume and other structural brain alterations, particularly in the prefrontal cortex, which can lead to impaired executive function and reduced impulse control.^9,10

Scientific research has reported that excessive screen time is jeopardizing children’s mental and physical health, affecting sleep¹¹, cognition,^12,13 academic performance,¹⁴ social and emotional development,^15-17 brain function,^18,19 visual health²⁰, cardio-metabolic function²¹, and increasing risk of chronic disease,^22,23 including diabetes.^24,25

However, a critical and largely unexamined variable in much of this important research is children’s chronic exposure to the non-ionizing EMF emitted by screens and other wireless devices proliferating in homes and schools. Many of the adverse health effects associated with overexposure to screens, such as impacts on memory, attention, sleep, and headaches, are also reported in research on non-ionizing EMF exposure. While children’s screentime studies often measure variables such as time on device, device type, content, and timing of use, the accompanying EMF exposure is rarely considered. Comprehensive research is needed to distinguish the effects of these various factors and/or their combined effects and inform effective strategies to protect children’s health.

Children Are Exposed to Numerous Types of Non-Ionizing EMF From Screens.

Cell phones and other wireless electronics are significant everyday sources of non-ionizing EMF exposure for children, and they bundle several non-ionizing radiation-emitting technologies into a single device. Smartphones, tablets, laptops, smart speakers, smart watches, and gaming systems all create RF-EMF exposures from their Wi-Fi, cellular networks, and Bluetooth antennas, while also producing ELF-EMF from their internal electronic circuitry and charging systems.^26,27

As children spend more time on cell phones and screens, their cumulative exposure to multiple, overlapping sources of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMFs) is increased. Combined RF and ELF exposures often occur just inches from a child’s face and abdomen and sometimes at zero distance from the body, substantially increasing the absorbed dose of non-ionizing EMF.^28,29

Parents are generally unaware that there is RF-EMF exposure from devices even when they are not in use. It is important to understand that if a wireless device is powered on and has wireless networking activated, it is constantly receiving and transmitting RF-EMF. While the exposure is higher when the device is in active use, there is still significant exposure when the device is turned on but not in active use. Increasing distance from the device can significantly reduce exposure, as intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source.

In addition, backlighting in screens emits artificial blue light, another type of non-ionizing EMF radiation with well-documented biological effects. Exposure to artificial light and EMF can suppress melatonin, which plays a crucial role in our immune system and regulates the body’s circadian rhythm, the internal 24-hour biological clock that governs sleep–wake cycles and neuroendocrine processes.^30,31 Disruption of circadian rhythm can interfere with restorative sleep, affect brain development, and alter metabolic, endocrine, and immune function, contributing to chronic disease. ^32-34Light at night has been associated with health impacts, including increased breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer risk in several epidemiology studies of adults.^35-38Given that many children and adolescents now spend hours using screens and video gaming late into the evening, often in bedrooms with always-on TVs and screens, the biological effects of this combined chronic nighttime exposure to artificial light and EMF warrant further investigation.

Children’s Escalating Exposure to Environmental Levels of EMF From Modern Technology.

The rapid expansion of cell towers, 4G/5G, and soon 6G, wireless networks, wearables, and constantly connected “smart” devices is dramatically increasing continuous RF radiation exposure in homes and schools. At the same time, the rise of artificial intelligence is driving massive growth in energy-hungry data centers, new electric power lines and substations, further increasing environmental exposure to ELF-EMF, long linked to an increased risk of childhood leukemia.^39-42

Combining different types of EMF exposures together, potentially also in the presence of other (e.g. chemical) environmental toxicants, creates the possibility of synergistic effects which are not considered within current exposure limits.^43-48

The Scientific Research on EMF And Health Supports a Risk Mitigation Approach.

The current body of research provides sufficient evidence to warrant the adoption of policies that mitigate risk by reducing exposure.

Research has reported biological effects from exposure to non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMFs) at levels well below current FCC, ICNIRP, and IEEE exposure limits.⁴⁹^,50 Studies have reported numerous adverse effects, including cancer,⁵¹ oxidative stress,^52,53 genetic impacts,^54,55 blood-brain barrier permeability,^56,57 sperm damage,^58-61structural and functional changes of the reproductive system,^62,63 impairments in cognition, learning and memory,^64-67sleep impacts,^68-70 EEG alterations,^71,72 and other neurological effects⁷³as well as multi-systemic acute symptoms, including electromagnetic hypersensitivity.^74-76

Cancer Is Associated with EMF Exposure

In 2001, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization categorized ELF- magnetic fields as a Group 2B “possible” human carcinogen due to the association of residential exposure with childhood leukemia. In 2011, IARC classified wireless RFR as Group 2B ‘possibly’ carcinogenic to humans, largely due to studies associating heavy cell phone use with brain cancer. Since then, evidence reporting an association between wireless radiation and cancer has increased.^77-81 Multiple case-control epidemiological studies have found increased risks for tumors associated with long-term cell phone use.^82,83 A 2026 paper demonstrated that RFR can promote tumor growth.⁸⁴

Furthermore, the human epidemiology studies are now corroborated by large-scale animal studies, including those by the Ramazzini Institute and the U.S. National Toxicology Program, which concluded there was “clear evidence” of cancer and DNA damage after long-term RFR exposure.^85-88Published analysis of this data concluded that the wireless radiation limits adopted by the IEEE, ICNIRP, and the U.S. FCC for cell phones, cell towers, and other wireless technologies allow public exposures hundreds of times higher than levels derived using EPA cancer risk assessment methods designed to limit lifetime excess cancer risk to approximately one additional cancer case per 100,000 people exposed.

Although human studies have focused on adult populations, these findings are relevant to children as they could indicate increased risk of tumor development later in life, and risk from early exposures will likely be greater given children’s immature physiology and greater cumulative exposures.

Children are More Vulnerable than Adults to Wireless and Non-Ionizing Radiation Exposure.

Children are especially susceptible to environmental stressors. Their brains and bodies are more sensitive, and toxic exposures during critical developmental periods can result in long-lasting and irreversible effects.⁸⁹

Because of their thinner skulls, higher water content, and unique physiology, children absorb proportionally higher rates of cell phone radiation compared to adults, ⁹⁰ as studies have reported exposures up to 30 times greater in the hippocampus⁹¹ and 10 times greater in the bone marrow of the skull.⁹² Similarly, research on cell tower radiation has found that children’s brains can absorb at rates 25–30% greater (up to ~50% at some frequencies).⁹³

Intra-uterine development during pregnancy is also a period of heightened sensitivity, as fetal development involves complex and rapidly growing cellular systems that are particularly vulnerable. Numerous studies have reported a range of adverse effects following prenatal EMF exposure in both humans and experimental animal species at exposure levels below FCC, IEEE, and ICNIRP limits. Studies investigating prenatal exposure have reported increased miscarriages,⁹⁴ impacts to the brain,⁹⁵ decreased memory⁹⁶ and cognition,⁹⁷ changes in behavior,^98,99 and altered growth and development.¹⁰⁰ Parental exposure has been shown to affect the morphology and functions of the reproductive organs.¹⁰¹ These effects could lead to abnormal fetal growth/development and eventually affect the general health of the offspring.

Children today will face lifelong exposure to non-ionizing radiation from multiple sources, beginning before birth and lasting far longer than any generation before them. Today’s 4G/5G dense, heterogeneous networks, constantly-on wearable devices, and smart city infrastructures, etc., mean that people, especially children, are exposed to multiple RF sources simultaneously.

Government Safety Limits Do Not Protect Children.

Numerous scientific publications conclude that government limits for allowable human exposures to wireless RF radiation, such as those of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) do not adequately protect public health and should be updated.^102-106These limits remain unchanged for over 3 decades, well before children began using cell phones and when much of today’s technologies did not even exist. A summary of just a few of the key deficiencies of wireless RF radiation exposure regulations includes that they:

Are based primarily on preventing tissue heating during short-term exposure.
Do not account for the known biological effects from repeated or long-term exposure.
Do not address synergistic effects when combined with chemicals, heavy metals, or other toxic environmental exposures, or the combined effects of simultaneous exposure to multiple EMF sources.
Are not based on an up-to-date health risk assessment of the research reporting cancer and other biological impacts, including effects on the brain and nervous, endocrine, immune, and reproductive systems, genetic effects, and oxidative stress.¹⁰⁷
Were derived from insufficient studies in experimental animals applied to large adult males.
Lack adequate safety factors that account for children’s unique vulnerabilities.
Authorize outdated cell phone and wireless device RFR compliance tests that do not reflect children’s real-world use of multiple devices in close body contact. Premarket tests use a phantom of a large adult male using just one wireless device.
Do not require cell phones and wireless devices to be tested in direct body contact. Instead, companies test with a separation distance between the body phantom and the phone.¹⁰⁸ Cell phones have been found to exceed ICNIRP and FCC limits when tested in direct body contact positions, the way most children use phones today.¹⁰⁹
Do not consider impacts on nature, wildlife, pollinators, plants, and trees, essential to healthy ecosystems on which present and future generations depend.¹¹⁰

The situation is equally inadequate when it comes to limits for power line and electric substation ELF-EMF, because IEEE and ICNIRP limits, used by numerous governments, are based only on acute impacts such as optic nerve stimulation from short-term high exposures, rather than chronic disease risk. Increased risk of cancer, miscarriage, and neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s is documented at ELF- EMF levels well below these limits.^{40, 94, 111} While several countries have adopted public health policies to reduce children’s EMF exposures to levels below the 3-4 mG (milligauss) levels associated with increased childhood leukemia risk, many other nations have simply adopted the IEEE or ICNIRP limits, which are thousands of times higher.¹¹²^,¹¹³

The approach to this issue should be to reduce exposures to levels demonstrated to be safe for children. The failure to update exposure limits for non-ionizing EMFs in the face of mounting scientific evidence portends a public health crisis, endangering children, families, and future generations worldwide. We join with thousands of scientists, medical doctors, public health experts, and policymakers who recommend reducing risk to children by reducing their exposure. ^114-148

As the International EMF Scientists Appeal states, “the various agencies setting safety standards have failed to impose sufficient guidelines to protect the general public, particularly children who are more vulnerable to the effects of EMF.” ¹⁴⁹

Necessary Measures to Protect Children

We call on all governments, school authorities, and communities to adopt technology policies that protect children’s health and future. Children have the right to grow, learn, and thrive in environments free from avoidable health hazards. The scientific evidence demands preventive action, which is long overdue. The technologies shaping our future should not compromise the health of the next generation.

Recommendations for Governments

Update national exposure limits on wireless, power frequency, and other non-ionizing EMF to reflect current scientific evidence and to ensure protection against biological effects.
Fund independent research on long-term, cumulative biological and health effects of non-ionizing EMF.
Require independent pre-market safety testing and independent post-market surveillance for the health effects of wireless and EMF-emitting devices.
Ensure wireless radiation compliance tests for cell phones, Wi-Fi laptops and other RF radiation-emitting devices reflect children’s physiology and the way they use devices today, in direct bodycntact.
Halt the introduction of new technologies until rigorous pre-market safety testing is performed.
Inform families about the substantial science indicating health risks and educate them on ways to reduce exposures from cell phones, wireless devices, electronics, and other sources of EMF.
Adopt a risk mitigation approach with strong policies that reduce children’s daily exposure at home and school and limit their use of wireless devices.
Promote industry innovation for the design and manufacture of safer technologies, including wired networks, low-emission designs, and devices that minimize user exposure.
Low EMF spaces must be established in schools as a priority.

The Importance of Protecting Children in Schools

In light of accumulating evidence and children’s prolonged daily exposure, implementing exposure-reduction strategies in schools represents a prudent public health approach.^150-152Schools should be safe environments for learning. Yet, the widespread use of wireless technologies from Wi-Fi laptops and tablets to smartboards and cell phones has transformed classrooms into settings of chronic, unnecessarily high EMF exposure.^153,154 Cell towers and new high-voltage power lines are increasingly being constructed on or near school grounds, further increasing exposures.^155-159

ICBE-EMF experts, along with numerous other expert bodies, have long recommended that safeguards be implemented to reduce EMF exposures in schools to protect children and staff from health risks.^160-163 Banning the use of cell phones in schools is a step forward, as it not only reduces children’s RFR exposures but also eliminates distractions and supports learning. Laptops and tablets connected with a wired network, rather than Wi-Fi, will also significantly reduce RF radiation exposures. In addition, EMF exposure from outdoor environmental sources such as cell towers, electric substations, and power lines also needs to be regularly assessed and mitigated.¹⁶⁴

A Safer Classroom: EMF Mitigation Steps for Schools to Protect Children, Teachers, and Staff

(Applicable for all personnel and technologies)

Replace all Wi-Fi networks with hardwired, shielded Ethernet internet connections.
Purchase laptops and tablets with Ethernet capability, and with easy steps to disable wireless antennas so that computers connect to the internet with Ethernet only.
Require that all cell phones be powered off for the entire school day and stored in a Faraday box or other shielded storage to reduce unnecessary RF exposure and minimize classroom distractions.
Require that all devices and technology equipment used in schools have wireless transmitters (intentional radiators) disabled, ensuring that no wireless radiation sources operate within school buildings.
Provide wired telephones for personnel in all classrooms
Educate students, staff, and families on the risks of wireless and EMF exposure and how to reduce exposure.
Minimize ELF exposures by ensuring adequate grounding, use of shielded cabling, twisted wiring, and devices with low ELF emissions.
Ensure students are at a distance from electrical equipment and charging stations.
Prohibit cell towers/base stations and other wireless emitting antennas on or near school property as is already the policy in some countries and U.S. school districts.¹⁶⁵
Prohibit high-voltage power lines and electrical substations on or near school property.
School boards should maintain a team that can routinely conduct transparent, independent real-time EMF measurements (including body-worn dosimeters) in classrooms, playgrounds, and sports fields to ensure the lowest possible levels are maintained.
Continuously mitigate as required to ensure the above principles are adhered to.

Determining Protective Setbacks for EMF-Emitting Infrastructure

Because EMF exposure and health impact cannot be predicted by distance from the source alone, each proposed cell tower or power line should be evaluated on a site-specific basis. Factors such as frequency, antenna orientation, signal modulations and beamforming now common in 5G systems, transmission characteristics, nearby structures, terrain, and time spent at a location all influence actual cell tower radiation exposure to a child. For power lines, electric and magnetic field exposure levels can vary substantially depending on the line voltage, current load, line configuration, and other site-specific conditions. Moreover, published research has reported biological effects at exposure levels well below current regulatory limits, and some children may be more impacted than others.

Although no setback distance should be interpreted as a guarantee of safety, setting minimum setbacks between a school and specific types of EMF-emitting infrastructure is a reasonable public health strategy to begin to manage risk. Several scientific studies going back over a decade have recommended minimum setbacks of at least 500 meters (1640 feet) for cell towers.¹⁶⁶ In addition, there are local governments with high-voltage transmission line setback limits of 609 meters (2,000 feet).¹⁶⁷ Technology is rapidly changing. While such measures can often reduce exposure, emitter technical parameters and the exposure environment can vary, significantly altering the electromagnetic environment over distances. Thus, a more comprehensive site-specific assessment (beyond distance) for each installation is always required to fully characterize the exposure. Moreover, science-based exposure limits and exposure evaluations that account for today’s complex multi- source cumulative anthropogenic EMF exposures and children’s vulnerabilities are needed.

Governments, educators, and industry must work together.

By acting now to reduce exposure and adopt safer technologies, we can better ensure technological progress does not come at the expense of the next generation’s health and well-being.

Scientific References

Henshaw DL, Philips A. (2025) A mechanistic understanding of human magnetoreception validates the phenomenon of electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). Int J Radiat Biol 101:186–204. doi: 10.1080/09553002.2024.2435329
Bandara P, Carpenter DO. (2018) Planetary electromagnetic pollution: it is time to assess its impact. Lancet Planet Health 2:e512–e514. doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(18)30221-3
United Nations. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. Treaty Series, 1577, 3. Articles 6 (life, survival and development), 24 (health and environmental pollution), 27 (adequate standard of living) and 28–29 (education).
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Health and Medicine Division; Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice; Committee on the Impact of social media on Adolescent Health; Wojtowicz A, Buckley GJ, Galea S, editors. Social Media and Adolescent Health. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2024 Mar 25. 2, How Social Media Work. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK603437/
Weinstein AM (2017) An update overview on brain imaging studies of Internet gaming disorder. Front. Psychiatry 8:185. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00185
Ding, K. Shen Y, Liu Q, Li H. (2023) “The effects of digital addiction on brain function and structure of children and adolescents: A scoping review.” Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) 12: 15. doi:10.3390/healthcare12010015
World Health Organization. (2019). Addictive behaviours: Gaming disorder. https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/addictive-behaviours-gaming-disorder
Lima Santos JP, Soehner AM, Biernesser CL, Ladouceur CD, Versace A. (2025) Role of sleep and white matter in the link between screen time and depression in childhood and early adolescence. JAMA Pediatr. 179(9):1000–1008. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2025.1718
Huang P, Chan SY, Ngoh ZM, Ong ZY, Low XZ, Law EC, Gluckman PD, Kee MZL, Fortier MV, Chong YS, Zhou JH, Meaney MJ, Tan AP. (2024) Screen time, brain network development and socio-emotional competence in childhood: moderation of associations by parent-child reading. Psychol. Med. 54(9) 1992-2003. doi:10.1017/S0033291724000084
Hutton JS, Dudley J, Horowitz-Kraus T, DeWitt T, Holland SK. (2020) Associations between screen-based media use and brain white matter integrity in preschool-aged children. JAMA Pediatr. 174(1):e193869. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.3869
Carter B, Rees P, Hale L, Bhattacharjee D, Paradkar MS. (2016) Association between portable screen-based media device access or use and sleep outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr. 170(12):1202–1208. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.2341
Ding K, Shen Y, Gao J, Li H. (2025) Impact of digital addiction tendency on inhibitory control in preschoolers: An fNIRS study. Brain Res. 2025 Oct 15;1865:149868. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2025.149868. Epub 2025 Aug 16. PMID: 40825500.
Nagata JM, Wong JH, Kim KE, Richardson RA, Nayak S, Potes C, Rauschecker AM, Scheffler A, Sugrue LP, Baker FC, Testa A. (2025) Social media use trajectories and cognitive performance in adolescents. JAMA. 334(21):1948–1950. doi:10.1001/jama.2025.16613
Li X, Keown-Stoneman CD, Omand JA, Cost KT, Gallagher-Mackay K, Hove J, Janus M, Korczak DJ, Pullenayegum EM, Tsujimoto KC, Vanderloo LM, Maguire JL, Birken CS; TARGet Kids! Collaboration.. (2025) Screen time and standardized academic achievement aests in elementary school. JAMA Netw Open. 8(10):e2537092. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.37092
Vasconcellos RP, Sanders T, Lonsdale C, Parker P, Conigrave J, Tang S, Del Pozo Cruz B, Biddle SJH, Taylor R, Innes-Hughes C, Salmela-Aro K, Vasconcellos D, Wilhite K, Tremaine E, Booker B, Noetel M. (2025) Electronic screen use and children’s socioemotional problems: A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychol Bull. 151(5):513-543. doi: 10.1037/bul0000468. PMID: 40489178.
Twenge JM, Campbell WK. (2018) Associations between screen time and lower psychological well-being among children and adolescents. Prev Med Rep. 12:271–283. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2018.10.003.
Kelly Y, Zilanawala A, Booker C, Sacker A. (2019) Social media use and adolescent mental health: Findings from the UK Millennium Cohort Study. EClinicalMedicine. 6:59-68. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2018.12.005. PMID: 31193561; PMCID: PMC6537508.
Huang P, Chan SY, Zhou KX, et al. (2026) Neurobehavioural links from infant screen time to anxiety. eBioMedicine. 2026;123:106093. doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2025.106093
Teuchert-Noodt, G., & Hensinger, P. (2025). No way out of the smartphone epidemic without taking into account the findings of brain research. J Neurol Neurosci, 16(1), 001–011.
Ha A, Lee YJ, Lee M, Shim SR, Kim YK. (2025) Digital screen time and myopia: A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis, JAMA Network Open. 8(2):e2460026. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.60026.
Horner, D., Jahn, M., Bønnelykke, K., Chawes, B., Flensborg‐Madsen, T., Schoos, A. M. M., Stokholm, J., & Rasmussen, M. A. (2025). Screen Time Is Associated With Cardiometabolic and Cardiovascular Disease Risk in Childhood and Adolescence. Journal of the American Heart Association, 14(16), e041486. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.125.041486
Zablotsky B, Ng AE, Black LI, Haile G, Bose J, Jones JR, Blumberg SJ. (2025) Associations between screen time use and health outcomes among US teenagers. Prev Chronic Dis 22:240537. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd22.24053
Robinson TN, Banda JA, Hale L, Lu AS, Fleming-Milici F, Calvert SL, Wartella E. (2017) Screen media exposure and obesity in children and adolescents. Pediatrics. 140(Suppl 2):S97-S101. doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-1758K
Kmietowicz Z. (2017) Screen time of over three hours a day is linked to diabetes risk factors in children BMJ 356 :j1301 doi:10.1136/bmj.j1301
Qiu Z, Jia X, Li Y, Fu Y, Xiao Y. (2024) Screen time in the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) : a two-sample Mendelian randomization study. Endocrine. 85(1):158-167. doi: 10.1007/s12020-024-03723-5. Epub 2024 Feb 12. PMID: 38347339.
Bellieni, CV, Pinto, I., Bogi, A., Zoppetti, N., Andreuccetti, D., & Buonocore, G. (2012). Exposure to electromagnetic fields from laptop use of “laptop” computers. Arch Envir Occup Health, 67(1), 31–36.
Brodić D, Amelio A. (2016) Detecting the extremely low frequency magnetic field ranges for laptops in normal operating conditions or under stress. Measurement. 91:318–341.
Gandhi, OP. (2019). Microwave emissions from cell phones exceed safety limits in Europe and the US when touching the body. IEEE Access, 7, 47050–47052.
Héroux P, Belyaev I, Chamberlin K, Dasdag S, De Salles AAA, Rodriguez CEF, Hardell L, Kelley E, Kesari KK, Mallery-Blythe E, Melnick RL, Miller AB, Moskowitz JM, (2023) Cell phone radiation exposure limits andengineering solutions. Inter J Environ Res Public Health. 20(7):5398. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20075398.
Yannielli P, Harrington ME.(2004) Let there be “more” light: enhancement of light actions on the circadian system through non-photic pathways. Prog Neurobiol. 74(1):59-76. doi: 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2004.06.001.
Martel J, Chang SH, Chevalier G, Ojcius DM, Young JD. (2023) Influence of electromagnetic fields on the circadian rhythm: Implications for human health and disease. Biomed J. 46(1):48-59. doi: 10.1016/j.bj.2023.01.003. Epub 2023 Jan 19.
Fishbein AB, Knutson KL, Zee PC. (2021) Circadian disruption and human health. J clin inves 131,19:e148286. doi:10.1172/JCI148286
Sletten TL, Cappuccio FP, Davidson AJ, Van Cauter E, Rajaratnam SMW, Scheer FAJL. (2020) Health consequences of circadian disruption. Sleep 43, zsz194. doi:10.1093/sleep/zsz194
Clemente-Suarez VJ, Navarro-Jiménez E, Benitez-Agudelo JC, Beltrán-Velasco AI, Belinchón-deMiguel P, Ramos-Campo DJ, Villanueva-Tobaldo CV, Martín-Rodríguez A, Tornero-Aguilera JF. (2025)The multifaceted impact of circadian disruption on cancer risk: a systematic review of insights and economic implications. J Natl Cancer Cent 5: 524-536. doi:10.1016/j.jncc.2025.04.005
Garcia-Saenz A, de Miguel AS, Espinosa A, Costas L, Aragonés N, Tonne C, Moreno V, Pérez-Gómez B, Valentin A, Pollán M, Castaño-Vinyals G, Aubé M, Kogevinas M. (2020) Association between outdoor light-at-night exposure and colorectal cancer in Spain, Epidemiol: 31(5) : 718-727
Palomar-Cros A, Espinosa A, Bará S, Sánchez A, Valentín A, Cirach M, Castaño-Vinyals G, Papantoniou K, Blay N, de Cid R, Romaguera D, Kogevinas M, Harding BN. (2025) Outdoor artificial light-at-night and cardiometabolic disease risk: an urban perspective from the Catalan GCAT cohort study, Amer J Epidemiol, 194(4):963-974. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwae269
Zhang, D., Jones, RJames, P., Kitahara, CM., Xiao, Q. (2021). Associations between artificial light at night and risk for thyroid cancer: A large US cohort study. Cancer, 127(9):1448–1458.
Garcia-Saenz A, Sánchez de Miguel A, Espinosa A, Valentin A, Aragonés N, Llorca J, Amiano P, Martín Sánchez V, Guevara M, Capelo R, Tardón A, Peiró-Perez R, Jiménez-Moleón JJ, Roca-Barceló A, Pérez-Gómez B, Dierssen-Sotos T, Fernández-Villa T, Moreno-Iribas C, Moreno V, García-Pérez J, Castaño-Vinyals G, Pollán M, Aubé M, Kogevinas M. (2018) Evaluating the association between artificial light-at-night exposure and breast and prostate cancer risk in Spain (MCC-Spain Study). EnviroHealth Perspect, 126:047011. doi: 10.1289/EHP1837.
Seomun G, Lee J, Park J. (2021) Exposure to extremely low-frequency magnetic fields and childhood cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 16(5):e0251628. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251628.
Carpenter DO. (2019) Extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and cancer: How source of funding affects results. Environ Res. 178:108688. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2019.108688.
Hardell, I., Holmbcrg, B, Malker, H, Paulsson LE.(1995) Exposure to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and the risk of malignant diseases — an evaluation of epidemiological and experimental findings. EuropJ Cancer Prevent. 4(1):3. doi: 10.1097/00008469-199509001-00001.
P. Todorović et al., “Health Effects of Extremely Low-Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure From High-Voltage Power Lines and Substations: A Scoping Review of Primary Empirical Research,” in IEEE Access, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2026.3671962.

Kostoff, RN, Lau, CGY. (2017). Modified health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation combined with other agents reported in the biomedical literature. In: Geddes, C. (eds) Microwave Effects on DNA and Proteins. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50289-2_4
Byun YH, Ha M, Kwon HJ, Hong YC, Leem JH, Sakong J, Kim SY, Lee CG, Kang D, Choi HD, Kim N. (2013) Mobile phone use, blood lead levels, and attention deficit hyperactivity symptoms in children: A longitudinal study. PLoS ONE. 8(3):e59742.
Choi KH, Ha M, Ha EH, Park H, Kim Y, Hong YC, Lee AK, Hwa Kwon J, Choi HD, Kim N, Kim S, Park C. (2017) Neurodevelopment during the first three years following prenatal mobile phone use, radiofrequency radiation, and lead exposure. Environ Res. 156:810–817.
Sueiro-Benavides RA, Leiro-Vidal JM, Salas-Sánchez AÁ, Rodríguez-González JA, Ares-Pena FJ, López-Martín ME. (2021) Radiofrequency radiation at 2.45 GHz increases toxicity, pro-inflammatory, and pre-apoptotic activity induced by black carbon in macrophage cells. Scie Total Environ765:142681. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142681.
Soffritti M, Tibaldi E, Padovani M, Hoel DG, Giuliani L, Bua L, Lauriola M, Falcioni L, Manservigi M, Manservisi F, Belpoggi F.. (2016) Synergism between 50 Hz magnetic fields and formaldehyde in triggering carcinogenic effects in male Sprague–Dawley rats. Amer J Indl Med. 59(7):509–521. doi: 10.1002/ajim.22598.
Zhu Y, Zhu L, Lan Y, Sun C, Chen G. (2026) Exposure to hexavalent chromium and 1800 MHz electromagnetic radiation can synergistically induce intracellular DNA damage in mouse embryonic fibroblasts. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 804:153360. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2026.153360.
International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF (2022 Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G. Environ Health 21(1): 92. doi: 10.1186/s12940-022-00900-9
Electromagnetic Radiation Safety (2026). Effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields: Thirty years of research. https://www.saferemr.com/2018/02/effects-of-exposure-to-electromagnetic.html – 290
Melnick RL. (2019) Commentary on the utility of the National Toxicology Program study on cell phone radiofrequency radiatiofn data for assessing human health risks despite unfounded criticisms aimed at minimizing the findings of adverse health effects. Environ Res 168:1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.09.010
Yakymenko, I., Tsybulin, O., Sidorik, E., Henshel, D., Kyrylenko, O., Kyrylenko, S. (2016). Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation. Electromagn Biolo Med, 35(2): 186–202. doi: 10.3109/15368378.2015.1043557.
Lai H, Levitt BB. (2024) Cellular and molecular effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. Rev Environ Health 39:519–529. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2023-0023
Weller SG, McCredden JE, Leach V, Chu C, Lam AK.(2025) A scoping review and evidence map of radiofrequency field exposure and genotoxicity: assessing in vivo, in vitro, and epidemiological data. Front Public Health. 13:1613353. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1613353.
Lai H, Levitt BB. (2025) Radiofrequency radiation-induced gene expression. Rev Environ Health. 40(4):695-719. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2025-0104.
Nittby H, Brun A, Eberhardt J, Malmgren L, Persson BR, Salford LG.(2009) Increased blood-brain barrier permeability in mammalian brain 7 days after exposure to the radiation from a GSM-900 mobile phone. Pathophysiology. 16(2-3):103-12. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2009.01.001..
Tang J, Zhang Y, Yang L, Chen Q, Tan L, Zuo S, Feng H, Chen Z, Zhu G.(2015) Exposure to 900MHz electromagnetic fields activates the mkp-1/ERK pathway and causes blood-brain barrier damage and cognitive impairment in rats. Brain Res1601: 92-101. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2015.01.019.
Kim S, Han D, Ryu J, Kim K, Kim YH. (2021) Effects of mobile phone usage on sperm quality – No time-dependent relationship on usage: A systematic review and updated meta-analysis. Environ Res. 202:111784. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2021.111784.
Assefa EM, Abdu SM (2025) Histopathologic effects of mobile phone radiation exposure on the testes and sperm parameters: a systematic literature review of animal studies. Front. Reprod. Health 6:1515166. doi: 10.3389/frph.2024.1515166
Gelenli Dolanbay E, Mert T, Caliskan Bender G, Bektas H, Uslu U, Fernandez-Rodriguez CE, Dasdag S. (2025). Male reproductive and cellular damage after prenatal 3.5 GHz radiation exposure: One-year postnatal effects AnnN Y Acad Sci. 1554:: 140–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.70116
Zhaowen Z, Ling G, Guiqiang Z, Jiajin L, Tongzhou Q, Jiangyi L, Jing L, Fuli W, Guirong D.(2026) Effects of paternal 5G RFR exposure on health of male offspring mice. Reprod Toxicol. 12:109139. doi: 10.1016/j.reprotox.2025.109139.
Maluin SM., Osman K, JaffaFH F., Ibrahim S. F. (2021). Effect of radiation emitted by wireless devices on male reproductive hormones: A systematic review. Front Physiol, 12:732420. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2021.732420.
Bektas H, Dasdag S. (2025) The effects of radiofrequency radiation on male reproductive health and potential mechanisms. Electromagn Biol Med. 44(3):359-384.. doi: 10.1080/15368378.2025.2480664.
Grigoriev YG, Khorseva NI. (2018). A longitudinal study of psychophysiological indicators in pupils users of mobile communications in Russia (2006–2017): Children are in the group of risk. Chapter10. In M. Markov (Ed.), Mobile Communications and Public Health. CRC Press. 2018. pp. 237-252.
Kim JH, Seok JY, Kim YH, Kim HJ, Lee JK, Kim HR. (2024) Exposure to radiofrequency induces synaptic dysfunction in cortical neurons causing learning and memory alteration in early postnatal mice. Int J Mol Sci. 25(16):8589. doi: 10.3390/ijms25168589.
Tan S, Wang H, Xu X, Zhao L, Zhang J, Dong J, Yao B, Wang H, Hao Y, Zhou H, Gao Y, Peng R. (2021). Acute effects of 2.856 GHz and 1.5 GHz microwaves on spatial memory abilities and CREB-related pathways. Sci Rep, 11(1), 12348. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-91622-4.
Foerster M, Thielens A, Joseph W, Eeftens M, Röösli M. (2018). A prospective cohort study of Adolescents’ memory performance and individual brain dose of microwave radiation from wireless communication. EnvironHealth Persp, 126(7):077007. doi: 10.1289/EHP2427
Bijlsma N, Conduit R, Kennedy G, Cohen M (2024) Does radiofrequency radiation impact sleep? A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, crossover pilot study. Front. Public Health 12:1481537. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1481537
Besset D, Selmaoui B, Delanaud S, Bessarion L, Chardon K, de Seze R, Leke A, Stéphan-Blanchard E. (2023) Influence of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields exposure on sleep patterns in preterm neonates. Int J Radiat Biol. 100(3):427-432. doi: 10.1080/09553002.2023.2277365.
Regel SJ, Tinguely G, Schuderer J, Adam M, Kuster N, Landolt HP, Achermann P.. (2007). Pulsed radio-frequency electromagnetic fields: Dose-dependent effects on sleep, the sleep EEG and cognitive performance. J Sleep Res, 16(3): 253–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2869.2007.00603.x
Yang L, Chen Q, Lv B, Wu T. (2017). Long-term evolution electromagnetic fields exposure modulates the resting state EEG on Alpha and Beta bands. Clin EEG Neurosci. 48(3):168-175. doi: 10.1177/1550059416644887.
Sousouri G, Eicher C, D’Angelo RM, Billecocq M, Fussinger T, Studler M, Capstick M, Kuster N, Achermann P, Huber R, Landolt HP. (2025) 5G radio-frequency-electromagnetic-field effects on the human sleep electroencephalogram: A randomized controlled study in CACNA1C genotyped volunteers. Neuroimage. 317:121340. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2025.121340.
Hosseini E, Farid Habibi M, Babri S, Mohaddes G, Abkhezr H, Heydari H. (2022). Maternal stress induced anxiety-like behavior exacerbated by electromagnetic fields radiation in female rats offspring. PLOS ONE, 17(8): e0273206. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273206.
Hardell L, Nilsson M. (2025) Summary of seven Swedish case reports on the microwave syndrome associated with 5G radiofrequency radiation. Rev Environ Health 40:147–157. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2024-0017
Balmori A. (2022) Evidence for a health risk by RF on humans living around mobile phone base stations: From radiofrequency sickness to cancer. Environ Res. 214(Pt 2):113851. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2022.113851
McCarty DE, Carrubba S, Chesson AL, Frilot C, Gonzalez-Toledo E, Marino AA. (2011) Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: evidence for a novel neurological syndrome. Int J Neurosci. 121(12):670-676. doi: 10.3109/00207454.2011.608139.
Coureau G, Bouvier G, Lebailly P, Fabbro-Peray P, Gruber A, Leffondre K, Guillamo JS, Loiseau H, Mathoulin-Pélissier S, Salamon R, Baldi I. (2014). Mobile phone use and brain tumours in the CERENAT case-control study. Occup Environ Med. 71(7):514-22. doi: 10.1136/oemed-2013-101754.
Hardell L, Carlberg M, Söderqvist F, Mild KH. (2013) Pooled analysis of case-control studies on acoustic neuroma diagnosed 1997-2003 and 2007-2009 and use of mobile and cordless phones. Int J Oncol. 43(4):1036-1044. doi: 10.3892/ijo.2013.2025.
Hardell L, Carlberg M. (2015). Mobile phone and cordless phone use and the risk for glioma – Analysis of pooled case-control studies in Sweden, 1997–2003 and 2007–2009. Pathophysiology, 22(1), 1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2014.10.001.
Hardell L, Carlberg M. (2019). Comments on the US National Toxicology Program technical reports on toxicology and carcinogenesis study in rats exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 900 MHz and in mice exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 1,900 MHz. Interl J Oncol, 54(1), 111–127. doi: 10.3892/ijo.2018.4606.
Cardis E, Armstrong BK, Bowman JD, Giles GG, Hours M, Krewski D, McBride M, Parent ME, Sadetzki S, Woodward A, Brown J, Chetrit A, Figuerola J, Hoffmann C, Jarus-Hakak A, Montestruq L, Nadon L, Richardson L, Villegas R, Vrijheid M. (2011). Risk of brain tumours in relation to estimated RF dose from mobile phones: Results from five Interphone countries. Occup Envir Med68(9): 631-640. doi: 10.1136/oemed-2011-100155
Moon J, Kwon J, Mun Y. (2024) Relationship between radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation from cellular phones and brain tumors: Meta-analyses using various proxies for RF-EMR exposure-outcome assessment. Environ Health. 23(1):82. doi: 10.1186/s12940-024-01117-8.
Choi YJ, Moskowitz JM, Myung SK, Lee YR, Hong YC. (2020) Cellular phone use and risk of tumors: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health.17(21):8079. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17218079.
Kundi M, Hutter HP. (2026) Interpretation of epidemiological studies on the relationship between mobile phone use and cancer. Epidemiologia (Basel). 7(3):86. doi: 10.3390/epidemiologia7030086.

Falcioni L, Bua L, Tibaldi E, Lauriola M, De Angelis L, Gnudi F, Mandrioli D, Manservigi M, Manservisi F, Manzoli I, Menghetti I, Montella R, Panzacchi S, Sgargi D, Strollo V, Vornoli A, Belpoggi F. (2018) Brain and heart tumors in Sprague–Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency fields representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental emission. EnvironRes. 165:496–503. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.037.
National Toxicology Program. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies in Sprague Dawley (Hsd:Sprague Dawley SD) rats exposed to whole-body radio frequency radiation at a frequency (900 MHz) and modulations (GSM and CDMA) used by cell phones. Natl Toxicol Program Tech Rep Ser. 2018 Nov;(595):NTP-TR-595. doi: 10.22427/NTP-TR-595.
Mevissen M, Ducray A, Ward JM, Kopp-Schneider A, McNamee JP, Wood AW, Rivero TM, Straif K.(2025) Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure on cancer in laboratory animal studies, a systematic review. Environ Int 199:109482. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2025.109482f
Melnick RL.(2019) Commentary on the utility of the National Toxicology Program study on cell phone radiofrequency radiation data for assessing human health risks despite unfounded criticisms aimed at minimizing the findings of adverse health effects. EnvironRes. 168:1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.09.010.
Davis D, Birnbaum L, Ben-Ishai P, Taylor H, Sears M, Butler T, Scarato T. (2023). Wireless technologies, non-ionizing electromagnetic fields and children: Identifying and reducing health risks.Curr Probl Pediatr Adolesc Health Care. 2023 Feb;53(2):101374. doi: 10.1016/j.cppeds.2023.101374.
Mohammed B, Jin J, Abbosh AM, Bialkowski KS, Manoufali M, Crozier S. (2017). Evaluation of children’s exposure to electromagnetic fields of mobile phones using age-specific head models with age-dependent dielectric properties. IEEE Access, 5: 27345–27353. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2767074.
Fernández C, de Salles AA, Sears ME, Morris RD, Davis DL. (2018) Absorption of wireless radiation in the child versus adult brain and eye from cell phone conversation or virtual reality. Environ Res. 167:694–701. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.05.013.
Christ A, Gosselin MC, Christopoulou M, Kühn S, Kuster N. (2010) Age-dependent tissue-specific exposure of cell phone users. Phys Med Biol. 55(7):1767-1783. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/55/7/001

Lee AK, Choi HD. (2023) Dosimetric assessment in the brain for downlink EMF exposure in Korean mobile communication networks. Environ Res, 234: 116542. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2023.116542.
Li DK, Chen H, Ferber JR, Odouli R, Quesenberry C. (2017). Exposure to magnetic fField non-ionizing radiation and the risk of miscarriage: A prospective cohort study. Sci Rep, 7(1):17541. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-16623-8.
Kaplan S, Deniz OG, Önger ME, Türkmen AP, Yurt KK, Aydın I, Altunkaynak BZ, Davis D. (2016) Electromagnetic field and brain development. J Chem Neuroanat 75:52–61. doi: 10.1016/j.jchemneu.2015.11.005
Aldad TS, Gan G, Gao XB, Taylor HS. (2012). Fetal radiofrequency radiation exposure from 800-1900 MHz-rated cellular telephones affects neurodevelopment and behavior in mice. Sci Rep, 2(1): 312. doi: 10.1038/srep00312.

Sudan M, Birks LE, Aurrekoetxea JJ, Ferrero A, Gallastegi M, Guxens M, Ha M, Lim H, Olsen J, González-Safont L, Vrijheid M, Kheifets L.. (2018) Maternal cell phone use during pregnancy and child cognition at age 5 years in 3 birth cohorts. Environ Inter. 120:155-162. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2018.07.043
Sudan M, Olsen J, Arah OA, Obel C, Kheifets L. (2016) Prospective cohort analysis of cellphone use and emotional and behavioural difficulties in children. J Epidemiol Community Health. 70(12):1207-1213. doi:10.1136/jech-2016-207419
Divan, H. A., Kheifets, L., Obel, C., & Olsen, J. (2012). Cell phone use and behavioural problems in young children. J Epidemiol Community Health, 66(6): 524–529. doi: 10.1136/jech.2010.115402
Setia MS, Natesan R, Samant P, et al. Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field Emissions and Neurodevelopmental Outcomes in Infants: A Prospective Cohort Study. Cureus. 2025;17. doi:10.7759/cureus.87671
Studies and abstracts showing prenatal and parental exposure effects can be found in Appendix 1 (on RFR) and Appendix 2 (on static and extremely-low frequency EMF).

McCredden, J. E., Cook, N., Weller, S., & Leach, V. (2022). Wireless technology is an environmental stressor requiring new understanding and approaches in health care. Frontiers in Public Health, 10, Article 894447. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.894447

Barnes, F., & Freeman, J. E. R. (2022). Some thoughts on the possible health effects of electric and magnetic fields and exposure guidelines. Frontiers in Public Health, 10. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.994758

Scarato, T. (2025). U.S. policy on wireless technologies and public health protection: Regulatory gaps and proposed reforms. Fronti Public Health, 13: 1677583. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1677583

Lin, J. C. (2023). Incongruities in recently revised radiofrequency exposure guidelines and standards. Environmental Research, 222, 115369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2023.115369

Lai, H., & Levitt, B. B. (2022). The roles of intensity, exposure duration, and modulation on the biological effects of radiofrequency radiation and exposure guidelines. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 41(2), 230–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2022.206568

The FCC and ICNIRP heat-based limits are based on studies pre 1984 as documented in the ICBE- EMF paper “Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G.” Environ Health 21(1):92, 2022. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12940-022-00900-9

Cell phone RF compliance testing requirements vary by country, and different SAR limits apply to the head, body, and extremities. Just as important, however, is how compliance cell phone testing is performed.
Children and teens may use cell phones pressed against the chest, carried in a pants pocket, or connected to earbuds while the phone remains directly against the body. Yet cell phones are not required to demonstrate cell phone radiation SAR compliance in direct body contact before sale (at 0mm from the body). Instead, manufacturers test body-worn exposure at a specified separation distance and provide fine-print instructions stating that distance. When phones are tested at 0 mm by governments doing surveillance or by independent investigations, a number of models have been reported to exceed RF radiation SAR limits.
Cell Phone Manufacturers FCC Instructions to Users to Maintain Separation Distances
- Apple iPhone 17 — FCC body test distance: 5–10 mm
  “iPhone is evaluated in positions that simulate uses against the head, with no separation, and when worn or carried against the torso of the body, with 5 mm separation, and when used in personal hotspot mode, with 10 mm separation.”
- Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 3 5G — FCC body test distance: 15 mm
  “Body-worn SAR testing has been carried out at a separation distance of 1.5 cm… the device should be positioned at least this distance away from the body.”
- LG G8 — FCC body test distance: 10 mm
  “Tested for typical use with the back of the device kept 0.39 inches (1.0 cm) from the body… a minimum separation distance of 0.39 inches (1.0 cm) must be maintained.”
- Google Pixel 9 Pro XL — FCC body test distance: 10 mm
  Highest SAR values are 0.92 W/kg against the head with no separation and 0.99 W/kg against the body at 1.0 cm. The instructions state: “Keep the device away from your body to meet the distance requirement.”
- Jitterbug Flip 2 — FCC body test distance: 15 mm
  “The phone meets FCC RF exposure guidelines provided that it is used with a non-metallic accessory with the handset at least 15 mm from the body.”
When cell phones were first introduced decades ago, manufacturers were generally permitted to select the body-separation distance used for SAR compliance testing. These distances could be as large as 25 mm, reflecting the fact that phones were often carried in belt holsters rather than directly against the body.
In 2016, the European Union tightened its requirements by limiting body-worn SAR testing to a maximum separation distance of 5 mm. France has recommended tightening this further to 0 mm. In the United States, the FCC has proposed interim guidance that would require a minimum 5 mm separation and eliminate testing distances greater than 25 mm, but those changes have not been finalized. As a result, manufacturers in the United States may still use separation distances of up to 25 mm when testing phones and other wireless devices against the SAM phantom. As of the writing of this statement, no country requires cell phones to be tested at 0 mm for body SAR compliance.
Dr. Marc Arazi, a French physician, coined the term “Phonegate” to describe this issue, comparing it to the Volkswagen “Dieselgate” scandal, in which laboratory testing did not reflect real-world operating conditions. The central issue is that phones can pass RF radiation compliance testing at the specified separation distance even though users may carry or press them directly against the body.
France has developed an extensive post-market surveillance program in which the national frequency agency, ANFR, tests phones after they are already on the market. As of September 9, 2026, PhoneGateAlert has documented 65 cell phones and wireless devices that ANFR testing found to exceed SAR limits. When ANFR has identified noncompliant models, manufacturers have either withdrawn the devices from the market or issued software updates to reduce RF emissions so that the phones would comply. See PhoneGate Alert for details https://phonegatealert.org/en/list-of-mobile-phones-with-non-compliant-sars-removed-or-updated-in-france-2/
The United States does not publicly operate a comparable post-market surveillance program. However, in 2019, the FCC’s own laboratory tested cell phones at a 2 mm separation distance and found that multiple models exceeded U.S. RF exposure limits. The FCC labeled the underlying test data “Confidential,” and the results became public only years later through a public-records request. See: FCC Cell Phone Radiation Tests Released: Exposure Limits Were Exceeded.
France’s experience also provides critical data on what happens when cell phones are tested close to the body. Beginning in 2012, ANFR tested phones as part of its market-surveillance program at 0 mm and found that many phones exceeded limits in body-contact positions. Dr. Om Gandhi analyzed ANFR test data from 13 popular phone models in the paper “Microwave Emissions from Cell Phones Exceed Safety Limits in Europe and the US When Touching the Body”. All 13 models complied with the ICNIRP limit at the manufacturer-selected separation distance, but when tested at 0 mm, SAR values exceeded the European limit by factors of 1.6 to 3.7 and could exceed the U.S. FCC limit by as much as a factor of 11.
Another critical limitation of compliance tests is that the head and body phantom does not represent children. The phantom was designed to represent a large 220 pound adult male. It therefore does not model the smaller head and body dimensions of children, nor does the testing reproduce many common positions in which a child may hold or press a phone directly against the abdomen, lap, chest, reproductive organs, or other parts of the body. It also does not represent situations in which a child or an infant’s head may be directly adjacent to a caregiver’s phone.
Head SAR testing also requires careful consideration. Although it is commonly described as “0 mm” testing or in positions against the head, the phone antennas are not necessarily in direct contact with the phantom’s skull. The test phantom includes an artificial ear, or pinna, which acts as a spacer between the phone and the head. The pinna is also treated differently under localized SAR limits allowing much more radiation exposure. As a result, the standardized head-test position does not reproduce situations in which a child presses the corner or edge of a phone directly against the skull.
The separation-distance issue extends beyond cell phones. Many wireless devices, including Wi-Fi routers, baby monitors, smart speakers, Wi-Fi hotspots, televisions, computers, and other wireless electronics, are sold with manufacturers instructions advising users to maintain a separation distance, commonly 20 cm, in order to remain within RF exposure limits. These instructions may appear in regulatory or safety information that most consumers never read.
Children, however, may hold, carry, play with, sit near, or sleep near these devices at distances much closer than those used for compliance testing.
Examples include:
- Amazon Echo Dot (4th Generation) Kids Edition — Safety and Compliance
  “…it is advised to use the Products in such a manner that minimizes the potential for human contact during normal operation.”
  “This Device should be installed and operated with at least 20 cm between the radiator and your body.”
- Samsung Smart TV 6200 User Manual
  “This equipment complies with FCC radiation exposure limits set forth for an uncontrolled environment. This equipment should be installed and operated with minimum distance 20 cm between the radiator & your body.”
- Amazon Echo
  “This device should be installed and operated with a minimum distance of 20 cm between the radiator and your body.”
- Apple iMac Regulatory Compliance Information
  “This device should be operated with a minimum separation distance of 20 cm (8 inches) between the equipment and a person’s body.”
- Apple Watch Model A1553
  “When placing the Apple Watch near your face, keep at least 10 mm of separation to ensure exposure levels remain at or below the as-tested levels.”

Gandhi, O. P. (2019). Microwave Emissions from Cell Phones Exceed Safety Limits in Europe and the US When Touching the Body. IEEE Access, 7, 47050–47052. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2906017

Levitt BB, Lai HC, Manville AM, Scarato T. (2025) Flora and fauna: How nonhuman species interact with natural and man-made EMF at ecosystem levels and public policy recommendations. Frontiers in Public Health 13:1693873. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1693873

Levitt BB, Lai HC and Manville AM II (2022) Low-level EMF effects on wildlife and plants: What research tells us about an ecosystem approach. Front. Public Health 10:1000840. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1000840

Levitt, B. B., Lai, H. C., & Manville, A. M. (2021a). Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, part 1. Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment. Reviews on Environmental Health, 37(1), 81–122.

Levitt, B. B., Lai, H. C., & Manville, A. M. (2021b). Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 2 impacts: How species interact with natural and man-made EMF. Reviews on Environmental Health, 37(3), 327–406.

Levitt, B. B., Lai, H. C., & Manville, A. M. (2021c). Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 3. Exposure standards, public policy, laws, and future directions. Reviews on Environmental Health.

Sandoval-Diez N, Loizeau N, Huss A, Röösli M, Vienneau D. (2026) Long-term residential magnetic field exposure and neurodegenerative disease mortality: An 18-year nationwide cohort study in Switzerland. Environ Int. 208:110145. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2026.110145.

Thus, policies vary widely across nations, with the United Kingdom following the ICNIRP guideline of 3,600 mG, Switzerland applying a 10 mG limit at schools, homes, hospitals, and playgrounds, and in the United States, which fully lacks any federal safety limits, the IEEE guideline of 9,200 mG is generally presented as an adequate level of protection.

See U.K Health Protection Agency (HPA) rationale2005 & 2009); DECC – Power Lines: Demonstrating compliance with EMF public exposure guidelines; Swiss Limits https://www.swissgrid.ch/dam/jcr:6de53c59-32f1-4607-a75d-c530ac908176/electromagnetic-fields-en.pdf and Loizeau N, et al, (2024) Extremely low frequency magnetic fields (ELF-MF) in Switzerland: From exposure monitoring to daily exposure scenarios, Environ Int 194:109181.

Environmental Health Sciences. “Power Lines, EMF & ELF Magnetic Fields Health Effects.” List of countries with policy on EMF from high voltage power lines and substations. https://ehsciences.org/powerlines-emf-elf-magnetic-fields-health/#UEEMF-Global-Policies-To-Min-Exposure

114. International EMF Scientist Appeal. International appeal: Scientists call for protection from non-ionizing electromagnetic field exposure. https://emfscientist.org

Cyprus Medical Association, 2017. The Vienna / Austrian Medical Chambers and the Cyprus National Committee on Environment and Children’s Health: Nicosia Declaration on Electromagnetic Fields / Radiofrequencies, Nov 2017 Common Position Paper.
Physicians for Safe Technology
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), 2013. (60,000 Pediatricians and Pediatric Surgeons).

Letter to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), August 2013.

American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) position statement on EMF radiation and Human Health

The AAEM Statement on WiFi in Schools

International Scientific Declaration on EHS & MCS, 2015. Brussels
International Society (17 countries) of Doctors for the Environment (ISDE)
German Doctors Freiburger Appeal, 2002 and 2012: Radio-frequency Radiation Poses a Health Risk. Physicians Demand Overdue Precaution.
Swiss Physicians for the Environment (MfE)
Irish Doctors Environmental Association (IDEA)
Doctors Call for Protection from Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure: Declaration Submitted to Health Canada
Oceania Scientific Advisory Association
Fragopoulou A, et al. (2010) Scientific panel on electromagnetic field health risks: Consensus points, recommendations, and rationales. Scientific Meeting: Seletun, Norway, November 17-21, 2009, Rev Environ Health 25: 307-317.
The Porto Alegre Resolution, 2009, ICEMS (International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety).
Venice Resolution, 2008, ICEMS (International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety).
^[1] Benevento Resolution, 2006, ICEMS (International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety).
Vienna Resolution, 1998, ICEMS (International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety)
Salzburg Resolution on Mobile Telecommunication Base Stations, 2000, Austria
Catania Resolution, 2002, Italy
London Resolution, 2007. Johansson, Pathophysiology 16 (2009) 247–248.
Helsinki Appeal 2005
Scientists call for Protection from Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure: Declaration submitted to Health Canada, 2014
Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks (SCHEER), Statement on emerging health and environmental issues (2018) Potential effects on wildlife of increases in electromagnetic radiation – categorised as ‘3’ highest priority
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Resolution 1815 (2011): The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment
Stewart Report, 2000, Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP), Chairman Sir William Stewart.
Cyprus Committee on Environment and Children’s Health

16 Practical Rules – Nicosia Declaration on Electromagnetic Fields/Radiofrequencies |

Electromagnetic Radiation | Paidi.com.cy

French National Assembly, Jan 29^th 2015
French National Assembly, March 2013
Israeli Ministry of Education guidelines for Wifi in schools, Aug 2013
Swiss Government Information Document, 2012. Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscapes, (SAEFL) Electrosmog in the environment
German Federal Ministry for Radiation Protection recommends against Wi-Fi in schools, 2007.
Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection RCNIRP, 2012

Recommendations of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection of the necessity to regulate strictly the use of Wi-Fi in kindergartens and schools

ANSES (French Government Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health), 15^th Oct 2013. Update of the “Radiofrequencies and health” expert appraisal.
Environmental Health Sciences, Medical Expert Recommendations on Cell Phone and Wireless Radiation to Protect Public Health, Available from https://ehsciences.org/doctors-and-scientists-on-cell-phone-radiation-health-effects/
Environmental Health Sciences, Scientific Appeals on Wireless and EMF . Available from https://ehsciences.org/scientific-appeals-on-wireless-and-emf-health-effects/

International EMF Scientist Appeal. International appeal: Scientists call for protection from non-ionizing electromagnetic field exposure. https://emfscientist.org
Miller AB, Sears ME, Morgan LL, Davis DL, Hardell L, Oremus M, Soskolne CL.. (2019). Risks to health and well-being from radio-frequency radiation emitted by cell phones and other wireless devices. Front Public Health, 7: 223. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00223
Clegg, F. M., Sears, M., Friesen, M., Scarato, T., Metzinger, R., Russell, C., Stadtner, A., & Miller, A. B. (2020). Building science and radiofrequency radiation: What makes smart and healthy buildings. Building and Environment, 176, 106324.
Makris KC, Philippou C, Vasileiou C, Tornaritis M, Michaelidou SC, Hadjigeorgiou C, Kyriacou M, Santamouris M, Grotto I, Bose-O’Reilly S, Breda J, van den Hazel P. (2026) Reforming schools into health promoting schools: perspective based on expert consensus from a European multistakeholder consultation. Eur J pediatr 185(2): 126. doi:10.1007/s00431-025-06736-y
Soares NE, Bulla G, Fernández-Rodríguez CE, de Salles AA. (2025) Specific absorption rate estimations in a classroom with wireless computers. J Microwaves, OptoelectronElectromagn App.24(2).
Hedendahl LK, Carlberg M, Koppel T, Hardell L. (2017) Measurements of radiofrequency radiation using a body-borne exposimeter in Swedish schools with Wi-Fi. Fronti Public Health. 5:279. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00279.
Acharya SR, Shin YC, Moon DH and Pahari S (2021) Electromagnetic Field Exposure in Kindergarten Children: Responsive Health Risk Concern. Front. Pediatr. 9:694407. doi: 10.3389/fped.2021.694407

Bhatt, C., Redmayne, M., Billah, B. et al. Radiofrequency-electromagnetic field exposures in kindergarten children. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 27, 497–504 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/jes.2016.55

Hardell L, Nilsson M. (2025) High radiofrequency radiation in the surroundings of ten schools in Örebro, Sweden. Fortune J Health Sci.. 2025;306–310.
Chokeli, R., Yuswir, N.S., Ho, Y.B. et al.Environmental radiofrequency exposure and genotoxic biomarkers in schoolchildren: a cross-sectional analysis. Sci Rep(2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-60822-1

Li CY, Sung FC, Chen FL, Lee PC, Silva M, Mezei G. Extremely-low-frequency magnetic field exposure of children at schools near high voltage transmission lines. Sci Total Environ. 2007 Apr 15;376(1-3):151-9. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.01.058. Epub 2007 Feb 20. PMID: 17316772.
Reykjavik Iceland Appeal on Wireless in School https://reykjavikappeal.com

The Maryland State Children’s Environmental Health and Protection Advisory Council, Wi-Fi in School Report and Guidelines to Reduce Cell Phone and Electromagnetic Field Radiation.

Final Report of New Hampshire State Commission on 5G and Evolving Technology. New Hampshire State Commission.

Santa Clara County Medical Association. Recommendations for Best Practices for Safe Technology in Schools.

Acharya SR, Shin YC, Moon DH, Pahari S (2021) Electromagnetic field exposure in kindergarten children: Responsive health risk concern. Front. Pediatr. 9:694407. doi: 10.3389/fped.2021.694407
Several countries and jurisdictions, including Switzerland Greece, Bangladesh, Israel, Chile, regions in India, and Russia have adopted policies that restrict cell towers near schools and other sensitive sites, require setbacks, or impose lower RF exposure targets around children and healthcare facilities. In the USA, Under Connecticut law, enacted through Public Act 12-165 in 2012, a telecommunications tower cannot be located within 250 feet of a school or commercial child day care center unless the municipality’s chief elected official approves the location or the Council makes the findings required by statute.

There are also many school boards that have banned cell towers on school property. Temecula Valley Unified (CA): Passed a resolution and policy prohibiting new towers and lease renewals as well as ensuring regular RF radiation measurements of existing towers. Los Angeles Unified (CA): Passed three resolutions banning cell towers at schools, including one that set a “cautionary level” for radiofrequency radiation at 10,000 times lower than US federal limits for public exposure. Palo Alto Unified (CA): Passed a resolution opposed to new cell towers at schools and in favor of a 1,500 foot setback.

For more details on schools and cell towers. See Environmental Health Sciences Countries and Schools That Prohibit Cell Towers on School Grounds https://ehsciences.org/are-cell-towers-safe/#InternationalCellTower

The following are published literature recommending a cell tower separation distance of 500:

Pearce (2019) states “that deployment of base stations should be kept as efficient as possible to minimize exposure of the public to RFR and should not be located less than 500m from the population…”

Rodrigues et al. (2021) conclude that to “avoid hazards to human health, the safest solution would be to switch off the RBS (radio base station) in an area within a 500 m radius from residences, workplaces, hospital areas, kindergartens, and buildings.”

Dode et al. (2011) found higher deaths from tumors within 500 meters from cellular base stations.

Levitt & Lai (2010) state, “as a general guideline, cell base stations should not be located less than 1500 ft (*500 m) from the population, and at a height of about 150 ft (*50 m).”

Khurana et al. (2010) found that eight of the 10 studies reported increased prevalence of adverse neurobehavioral symptoms or cancer in populations living at distances less than 500 m from base stations.

Pearce, J. M. Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers. Environ. Res. 181, 108845 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.108845

Rodrigues, N. C. P. et al. The effect of continuous low-intensity exposure to electromagnetic fields from radio base stations to cancer mortality in Brazil. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18, 1229 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18031229

Dode, A. C. et al. Mortality by neoplasia and cellular telephone base stations in the Belo Horizonte municipality, Minas Gerais state, Brazil. Sci. Total Environ. 409, 3649–3665 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.05.051

Levitt, B. B. & Lai, H. Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. Environ. Rev. 19, 495–514 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1139/A10-018

Khurana, V. G. et al. Epidemiological evidence for a health risk from mobile phone base stations. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health 16, 263–267 (2010). doi:10.1179/107735210799160192.

In 2000, T-Mobile/Deutsche Telekom commissioned a report by the Ecolog Institute which documented the emerging science linking wireless radiation exposure to health impacts including cancer, DNA damage, blood brain barrier permeability, altered stress hormones, and other nervous system impacts. The Ecolog Report concluded by recommending a precautionary exposure limit 1,000 times lower than the FCC’s current cell tower radiation limits that “should be rigorously adhered to by all base stations near sensitive places such as residential areas, schools, nurseries, playgrounds, hospitals and all other places at which humans are present for longer than 4 hours.”

In South Dakota, Deuel Countyadopted one of the strongest local transmission line setback ordinances in the United States, requiring new 345 kV and higher transmission lines to be located at least 2,000 feet from homes. However, the ordinance was later amended so that landowners can consent to reduced setbacks. BrookingsCounty, South Dakota, has a 1,000-foot setback. Power County, Idaho has a 1,500-foot setback from residences, schools, hospitals, colleges, and daycare centers. Several countries have policies to minimize EMF exposure from powerlines, and they ensure a setback distance.

International policies on power line and substation EMF:

Netherlands: Since 2005, policies have been in place to reduce EMF in homes, schools, and kindergartens. The government recommended that local authorities maintain a distance between high voltage power lines and homes, schools, kindergartens, daycares and nurseries), so that children are not exposed to levels higher than 4 mG. In 2013, houses under 380–220 kV lines were bought out due to elevated exposure. In 2023, based on a scientific literature review and recommendations of the Health Council, the government issued an updated and expanded policy to prevent new situations where people stay for a long time in the area near overhead power lines, substations and electrical grid equipment where the magnetic field exceeds 4 mG (annual average).

Belgium: Flanders recommends new power lines should be avoided near schools and childcare centers, and exposure over homes should be minimized. Year-averaged exposure near new schools and childcare centers should not exceed 4 mG. In Brussels, transformers near areas where children under 15 are must maintain a 24-hour average below 4 mG.

There are several more countries with policies to reduce magnetic field EMF. See more international policies that aim to reduce exposure to power frequency EMF at https://ehsciences.org/powerlines-emf-elf-magnetic-fields-health/#UEEMF-Global-Policies-To-Min-Exposure

About the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (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 the environment. ICBE-EMF.org

The post Safeguarding Children’s Health in the Digital Age: Addressing Screen Time, Wireless Radiation, and Extremely Low Frequency Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Field Exposures appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.

ICBE-EMF challenges U.S. NRC modernization rules for deregulating safety measures

icbeAdmin — Tue, 08 Sep 2026 15:41:00 +0000

ICBE-EMF challenges U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission modernization rules for deregulating safety measures

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) plans to modernize nuclear power generation by encouraging the development of micro-nuclear plants to meet the huge increase in demand for energy resources caused by the construction of hyperscale data centers and manufacturing plants.

ICBE-EMF submitted comments to NRC’s proposed rules as they offer less health protections while placing more weight on technological and economic benefits. This proposed rule is not consistent with international nuclear safety rules. Over 1,000 comments were submitted to NRC about this rulemaking, mostly expressing similar concerns raised by ICBE-EMF.

Here are ICBE-EMF’s comments:

Ionizing radiation has long been recognized as a DNA-damaging human carcinogen by national and international health agencies (e.g., WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, US Environmental Protection Agency, US National Toxicology Program) with no detectable threshold. Therefore, it is critically important that exposures to ionizing radiation be maintained at achievable levels that pose the least possible health risks to the general public and workers. The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) has the following concerns regarding the NRC’s proposed rules for nuclear plants from the standpoint of their impact on health and safety protection for workers and the public.

Discontinuing application of the ALARA principle or, as low as reasonably achievable, while acknowledging there is no established safe dose of radiation and would continue to apply the model of LNT, or Linear non-threshold, is problematic. Nuclear plant licensees would no longer have an incentive to push doses below the regulatory limits to ensure the health and safety protection of workers and the public, even when such action would be technically feasible at minimal cost.
NRC proposes a new framework based on a graded approach to dose management that will be enforced by compliance monitoring using the existing hard dose limits and fixed thresholds, which NRC acknowledges are not science-based.
This regulatory change will have the effect of functionally allowing more radiation exposure than is occurring today at many nuclear plants and that could be readily achieved at future facilities. NRC justifies these changes are meant to reduce the regulatory burden on nuclear plant licensees and to encourage new reactor development. This rule therefore provides no evidence that this new framework is more health-protective. Instead, it will likely lead to less health-protective levels than what is currently achievable
NRC is promoting more weight be placed on technological advancement, economic considerations and operational circumstances. It is clear that these changes would create greater emphasis on the monetary value of lost human lives, rather than on preserving lives.
Optimizing protection of worker health and safety has long been recommended by the International Radiation Protection Agency (IRPA) and is the underlying theme for most other nations. We recommend that NRC adopts dose limits that are consistent with the international exposure limits. For such a well-established human carcinogen, it makes no sense that exposure limits for ionizing radiation are set at levels in which cancer risk for workers is higher than what OSHA typically establishes for chemical carcinogens. In addition, and in the interest of women’s health, we strongly urge the NRC to set exposure levels based on cancer risk for women who are more susceptible than men to radiation-induced cancer.

About the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF):

The post ICBE-EMF challenges U.S. NRC modernization rules for deregulating safety measures appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.

Flawed “Validation” Studies Do Not Negate the Established Evidence That Cell Phone Radiation Causes Cancer in Rats, Scientists Conclude

icbeAdmin — Thu, 06 Aug 2026 17:49:57 +0000

Flawed "Validation" Studies Do Not Negate the Established Evidence That Cell Phone Radiation Causes Cancer in Rats, Scientists Conclude

Summary: A new paper published in Environmental Health on cell phone radiation and cancer finds that the Japanese and Korean animal studies do not prove cell phone safety, as they were underpowered and used too few exposure doses to legitimately challenge the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s landmark findings of increased cancer from long-term cell phone radiation exposure. Long-overdue policy changes to reduce public exposure to cell phone radiation are urgently needed.

PRESS RELEASE

A new peer reviewed paper published in the journal Environmental Health states that two industry-linked “validation” studies from Japan and Korea published in 2026, designed to verify the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) finding that cell phone radiofrequency (RF) radiation causes cancer in rats, were so underpowered and narrowly designed such that they could never have confirmed or refuted the original results, regardless of the outcome. The authors state that these “validation” studies should not comfort the public when it comes to the safety of cell phones and other wireless devices.

The paper “Conflicting views in experimental carcinogenesis: A commentary on design and methodological deficiencies in the follow-up validation studies on radiofrequency radiation,” authored by Ronald L. Melnick (formerly of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences), Joel M. Moskowitz (University of California, Berkeley), and Paul Héroux (McGill University) on behalf of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF), examines the design and interpretation of the Japan and Korea studies against long-standing scientific and regulatory standards for animal carcinogenicity testing.

Background

In 2011, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RF radiation as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based largely on results from human epidemiological studies. In 2018, the National Toxicology Program, which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, issued the final report of their $30 million animal studies concluding there is “clear evidence” that male rats exposed to cell phone (RF) radiation for two years developed malignant heart schwannomas, a rare tumor, along with “some evidence” of brain gliomas and adrenal tumors. The NTP study was designed to provide greater sensitivity than international guidelines for rigorous cancer-testing.

A study conducted by the Ramazzini Institute in 2018 reported increased tumors similar to those observed in the NTP. These new animal cancer findings, along with additional human studies, prompted the WHO/IARC advisory group to repeatedly recommend a new evaluation of the scientific evidence on the carcinogenicity of wireless radiation. Many scientists with expertise in environmental carcinogenicity then published their conclusion that the current evidence is now consistent with IARC criteria for the classification of wireless RF radiation as a “probable human carcinogen” (IARC Group 2A), or even “carcinogenic to humans” (Group 1).

However, after the NTP study was released, new animal studies were launched in Japan and Korea, under an “International Validation Project,” aiming to test whether the NTP’s findings were reproducible. Their results, separately published in 2026, concluded that long-term RF radiation exposure did not produce reproducible carcinogenic or genotoxic effects.

However, according to the new paper, the Japanese and Korean animal studies did not replicate the NTP study and had several deficiencies, including:

Severely Reduced Statistical Power: The follow-up studies used only 70 animals per group, compared to 90 per group in the NTP study. Power calculations indicate that detecting a significant response for rare tumors at the lower exposure level used in those studies would require many more animals per group.
Omission of High-Dose Groups: The follow-up studies tested only a single exposure level (4 W/kg) and dropped the NTP’s highest exposure level (6 W/kg), where significant carcinogenic effects were most statistically pronounced.
Violation of FDA and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Guidelines: Testing guidelines by these groups require at least three different doses plus a control group to conduct a critical dose-response trend analysis. Single-dose studies eliminate the ability to detect dose-dependent trends.
Overlooked Signals of Harm: Despite being underpowered, the Korean study actually observed a 3% incidence rate of heart schwannomas in exposed rats (versus 0% in controls), matching the tumor rate observed at 3 W/kg in the NTP study, yet the researchers surprisingly dismissed the finding.
Prominent Role of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and Industry-Friendly Advisors: The project’s principal investigator was an ICNIRP member, and the advisory committee overseeing the research was heavily composed of current and former ICNIRP members, several of whom have served as industry consultants. The Japan/Korea studies were aimed at protecting ICNIRP’s current cell phone radiation safety limits rather than at documenting radiation risks.

The authors of the new analysis conclude that the Japan and Korea studies’ conclusion of “no reproducible carcinogenic potential” of cell phone radiation is simply not supported by the studies’ design and, in the case of the Korean study, is undercut by its own data. Therefore, the Japan and Korea studies do not alter the National Toxicology Program’s finding of “clear evidence” of cancer.

In a paper published earlier this year, Melnick and Moskowitz concluded that, based on the NTP cancer findings, current FCC and ICNIRP exposure limits would need to be at least 200 times lower to protect against cancer risk from 8 hours of daily exposure. The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields is calling on governments to implement policies that reduce public exposure and inform cell phone users on how to minimize their risk.

Ronald L. Melnick, PhD, lead author and retired toxicologist at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, who led the design of the original NTP radiofrequency radiation studies:

“The Japan and Korea studies cannot be used as proof of safety. To properly verify a study that found clear evidence of rare tumors like heart schwannomas, follow-up research must be designed with equal or greater sensitivity. By dropping the highest exposure level, testing only a single dose, and using fewer animals, these follow-up underpowered studies failed to meet basic FDA and OECD testing guidelines and were systematically biased toward finding no significant effect. These studies appear to be engineered to come back negative.

In short, the Japan and Korea studies cannot be used to invalidate the National Toxicology Program’s peer-reviewed findings of carcinogenicity or to justify the FCC’s and ICNIRP’s thermal-based exposure limits.”

Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, whose research focuses on the public health implications of wireless radiation exposure:

“Millions of people carry cell phones against their bodies for hours a day, and children are being exposed over far longer lifetimes than any generation before them. Public health decisions about safety limits should be built on the most rigorous animal evidence available, not on studies constructed in a way that was unlikely to detect harm even if it exists. We cannot allow flawed experimental designs to shield outdated safety guidelines from necessary, health-protective revisions. The scientific evidence on cancer and other biological effects is sufficient to warrant policies to reduce exposure.”

Dr. Paul Héroux, Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University:

“These studies did not reproduce the original methodology, exposure assessment, or study conditions. From a biostatistical perspective, testing only 70 animals at a single dose level leaves a study severely underpowered to detect rare carcinogenic events. Without multiple dose groups and adequate sample sizes, finding ‘no statistically significant effect’ is an artifact of poor study design rather than evidence of safety. Importantly, when the NTP and Korean and Japanese studies are considered together, the overall evidence confirms cancer risk.”

Implications for Public Policy and Public Health

The authors state that governments have a responsibility to protect public health by ensuring that exposure limits for cell phone and cell tower radiation are based on the strongest available scientific evidence, not on studies that lack the scientific rigor necessary to detect known hazards. They conclude that the Japanese and Korean follow-up studies cannot be relied upon to dismiss the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s findings or to delay protective action. Before negative validation studies can be interpreted as evidence against the NTP’s findings, they must match or exceed the original study’s design, including the same animal model, exposure regimen, adequate group sizes, multiple exposure levels, and sufficient statistical power. Accordingly, they state that the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and regulatory agencies should base hazard evaluations and public health policies on the strongest available evidence.

ICBE-EMF maintains that current U.S. and ICNIRP exposure limits for cell phones, Wi-Fi, smart meters, and cell towers are not adequately protective because a substantial body of research reports cancer and other biological effects, including DNA damage, oxidative stress, neurological effects, and reproductive harm. The Commission calls on governments to halt the rollout of new wireless technologies until independent safety assessments are completed and to adopt policies that reduce RF radiation exposure risks.

Scientific reference:

Melnick, R.L., Moskowitz, J.M., Héroux, P. et al. Conflicting views in experimental carcinogenesis: a commentary on design and methodological deficiencies in the follow-up validation studies on radiofrequency radiation. Environ Health 25, 66 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-026-01324-5

About the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (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 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 the environment.

ICBE-EMF.org

Want to share information on wireless and health with your elected officials?

See ICBE-EMFs Government Brief: Wireless Radiation, EMF Exposure, Public Health and Environment Scientific Findings and Policy Recommendations

The post Flawed “Validation” Studies Do Not Negate the Established Evidence That Cell Phone Radiation Causes Cancer in Rats, Scientists Conclude appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.

Are There Health Risks from Cell Towers?

icbeAdmin — Mon, 13 Jul 2026 16:44:12 +0000

Are There Health Risks from Cell Towers?

As communities debate the placement of new cell towers, many people ask a simple question: Are cell towers safe? Is the RF radiation they emit safe?

According to the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF), experts on the science, human health, and environmental impacts of non-ionizing electromagnetic (EMF) radiation, the current scientific evidence indicates that existing cell tower radio-frequency (RF) radiation exposure limits are not sufficiently health protective and should be updated with a comprehensive scientific review. Until then, governments should adopt measures to reduce unnecessary exposure, such as ensuring cell towers and base station antennas are located far from homes and schools.

In scientific comments submitted to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), ICBE-EMF urged the agency not to fast-track cell towers and wireless infrastructure until current cell tower and wireless radiation exposure limits are independently reviewed and updated. The Commission references peer-reviewed scientific research that has linked RF radiation exposure to numerous health and environmental harms. It states that U.S. cell tower RF radiation exposure limits, unchanged since 1996, “are not science-based and do not protect the public.”

The ICBE-EMF sent a letter to U.S. Congress documenting the science on cell tower and wireless radiation and explaining how an analysis of U.S. government research, published in the journal Environmental Health, found that FCC limits need to be reduced by at least 200 times to protect against an excess cancer risk of one per 100,000, the level typically used by the EPA to determine safety limits for environmental hazards. The ICBE-EMF also has a policymakers factsheet for governments.

What do experts say about cell tower radiation?

“There is no consensus for wireless safety. The International EMF Scientist Appeal, a petition submitted to the United Nations and signed by more than 260 scientists who have published over 2,000 peer-reviewed papers on EMF, biology and health, states that the current wireless RF radiation human exposure guidelines set by the FCC and other national and international organizations such as ICNIRP do not adequately protect against health risks. In addition, numerous medical organizations and public health experts recommend reducing exposure as substantial evidence exists pointing to serious risks.”

According to ICBE-EMF:

Current FCC cell tower RF exposure limits are based only on short-term heating effects and ignore decades of peer-reviewed research reporting biological effects at lower, non-heating exposure levels.
The FCC’s limits do not account for long-term exposure, children’s greater vulnerability, cumulative exposures, electromagnetic hypersensitivity, or documented impacts on wildlife and ecosystems.
A rapidly expanding body of peer-reviewed research demonstrates that RF radiation from wireless infrastructure, including cell towers and 5G small cells, can produce harmful biological effects at levels below current FCC and ICNIRP limits.
Studies of people living near cell towers report increased biomarkers of DNA damage, oxidative stress, hormonal disruption, sleep disturbance, neurological symptoms, and increased cancer rates.
Children are uniquely vulnerable, as research shows children absorb higher rates of wireless RF radiation deeper into their more sensitive brains, as compared to adults. Further, research has also documented that cell phone radiation exposure can exceed limits when the phone is close to the body, and that Wi-Fi and cell towers can increase children’s exposure in schools.

Human Exposure Limits for Cell Tower Radiation Have Not Been Updated Since 1996

The FCC’s RF radiation exposure limits for cell towers and cell phones have remained unchanged and without a comprehensive scientific review since 1996, despite the widespread deployment of smartphones, Wi-Fi, 4G, and 5G technologies.

In 2021, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a remand order on the FCC’s decision not to update its human exposure limits for RF radiation, unchanged since 1996, when only a fraction of the cell towers and cell phones that we have today even existed. The court order found the FCC’s refusal to update the limits as “arbitrary and capricious” and mandated that the FCC show proper review of the record evidence regarding scientific research on the effects of long-term exposure, effects on children, as well as on wildlife and the environment. To date, the FCC has not complied. It has been nearly 5 years since the remand order was issued. The ICBE-EMF recommends a halt to the fast-tracking of cell towers in light of the failure of the FCC to respond to the Court order.

The post Are There Health Risks from Cell Towers? appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.

Power Lines, EMF, Childhood Leukemia, and Public Health: Dr. David Carpenter on the Science

icbeAdmin — Fri, 10 Jul 2026 15:53:17 +0000

Power Lines, EMF, Childhood Leukemia, and Public Health: Dr. David Carpenter on the Science

What does decades of scientific research say about the health risk of EMF magnetic fields from high-voltage power lines and substations?

In this in-depth interview, Dr. David O. Carpenter, a Harvard-trained physician and one of the world’s leading experts on electromagnetic fields (EMF), explains the science on powerline EMF health risk and why the magnetic fields from power lines remain an important health and safety issue.

Dr. Carpenter has published over 500 peer-reviewed scientific publications and has edited six books. Among his numerous papers on non-ionizing electromagnetic fields, he published a major review of the research on EMF from power lines and cancer in the journal Environmental Research, which found magnetic field EMF exposure increases the risk of childhood leukemia. There is also scientific evidence for adult leukemia, brain and breast cancer. The review also compared industry-funded research to independently funded studies and found “almost all government or independent studies find either a statistically significant association between magnetic field exposure and childhood leukemia, or an elevated risk of at least OR = 1.5, while almost all industry-supported studies fail to find any significant or even suggestive association.”

“The evidence that magnetic fields increase the risk of cancer is neither inconsistent nor inconclusive. Furthermore, adults are also at risk, not just children, and there is strong evidence for cancers in addition to leukemia, particularly brain and breast cancer.”

-David Carpenter in Environmental Research “Extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and cancer: How source of funding affects results”

David O. Carpenter M.D. is Director of the Institute for Health and the Environment, a Collaborating Centre of the World Health Organization, at the University at Albany. He is also a Commissioner of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields. Dr. Carpenter directed the New York State Power Lines Project, one of the largest government-funded research programs investigating the health effects of electric and magnetic fields. He discusses the history of EMF research, the evidence linking long-term exposure to magnetic fields with childhood leukemia, and why he believes scientific findings have been misunderstood and minimized.

Topics Covered in this Interview

The research linking high-voltage power lines to childhood leukemia
How industry-funded studies differed from independently funded research
Why U.S. research funding on ELF magnetic fields largely disappeared
Why substations and high-voltage transmission lines should not be located where children, athletes, or residents spend long periods of time
How buried transmission lines can substantially reduce magnetic field exposure

Dr. Carpenter also discusses why he believes policymakers should re-examine the extensive body of published EMF research and implement protections. He states that electricity is essential to modern society, but argues that infrastructure should be designed in ways that minimize unnecessary long-term exposure where people live, attend school, and spend significant amounts of time.

Watch the full interview to learn about the history of EMF research, the scientific evidence on magnetic fields from power lines, and what communities should know when evaluating new transmission line and substation projects.

Some recent scientific publications on high voltage transmission lines, magnetic fields, and cancer risk.

A 2022 systematic review by Brabant et al. in Reviews on Environmental Health found that long-term exposure to magnetic fields above 0.4 µT (4 milligauss) was associated with increased risk of childhood leukemia, particularly acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
A 2021 meta-analysis of 33 studies concluded a significant association between powerline ELF exposure and childhood leukemia, with possible dose-response effects.
A study of children in Mexico City by Correa‐Correa et al. 2025 found children exposed 4 milligauss (ELF-EMF) in their homes had a significantly increased risk of central nervous system tumors. Prolonged tablet use also increased CNST risk, especially in children aged 6–10. Residential ELF-MF exposure was measured over 24 h.
A study by Lowenthal et al. (2007), published in the Internal Medicine Journal, found that people who lived within 300 meters of high-voltage power lines during childhood had significantly elevated risks of lymphoproliferative and myeloproliferative disorders, including approximately threefold higher risk during the first 15 years of life and up to fivefold higher risk with exposure in early childhood.
A large 18-year nationwide cohort study of over 3.5 million people published in Environment International (2026) found increased risk of dementia and Alzheimer’s mortality associated with living close to electrical grid infrastructure like powerlines and substations.

IEEE and ICNIRP limits for magnetic fields do not protect from cancer risk

Dr. Carpenter explains that IEEE and ICNIRP limits primarily address short-term, acute effects (such as nerve stimulation), not long-term EMF exposure health effects. In 2002, the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) determined that ELF-EMF magnetic fields are “possibly carcinogenic” to humans. The US does not have federal safety limits for magnetic field exposure, as the EPA was defunded decades ago. The often cited ICNIRP and IEEE exposure limits for fields at 60 Hz are 2,000–9,000 milligauss. However, the levels at which epidemiologic studies have reported associations with childhood leukemia are at 3–4 milligauss.

Keywords: power lines, EMF, electromagnetic fields, magnetic fields, childhood leukemia, high-voltage transmission lines, substations, public health, Dr. David Carpenter, Harvard Medical School, environmental health, transmission lines, electric and magnetic fields, ELF EMF, power line safety, cancer risk, buried power lines, childhood cancer research.

The post Power Lines, EMF, Childhood Leukemia, and Public Health: Dr. David Carpenter on the Science appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.

Update: The Majority Of Scientific Evidence Has Found Effects From Non-ionizing EMF

icbeAdmin — Wed, 10 Jun 2026 02:15:47 +0000

The Majority of EMF Studies Find Effects: Dr. Henry Lai's Analysis of EMF and Wireless Radiation Studies

The majority of peer-reviewed studies published since 1990 have reported significant adverse effects associated with exposure to radiofrequency radiation, extremely low frequency magnetic fields, and static electromagnetic fields.

This is an excerpt from Dr. Joel Moskowitz’s recent post on Henry Lai’s analysis found here.

Dr. Henry Lai, Professor Emeritus at the University of Washington, Editor Emeritus of the journal, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, and an emeritus member of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of EMF, has compiled summaries of the research on the biological effects of exposure to radio frequency (RFR) and extremely low frequency (ELF) and static electromagnetic fields (EMF). His set of abstracts which covers the period from 1990 through May 2026 constitutes a comprehensive collection of the peer-reviewed publications of in vivo and in vitro research.

Dr. Lai reports that the preponderance of research has found that exposure to RFR or ELF EMF produces oxidative effects or free radicals, and damages DNA. Moreover, the preponderance of studies that examined genetic, neurological and reproductive outcomes has found significant effects. Among hundreds of studies of RFR, 72% to 89% reported significant effects. Among hundreds of studies of ELF and static fields, 78% to 90% reported significant effects.

According to Dr. Lai, 260 low-intensity (SAR < 0.40 W/kg) 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 do not prevent the detrimental health effects of RFR.”

The entire collection contains abstracts for more than 3,000 published papers. The abstracts can be downloaded by clicking on the links below.

Although 89% of 438 peer-reviewed papers published since 1997 found statistically significant evidence of oxidative effects from RFR exposure; a recent WHO systematic review which examined only 52 studies, erroneously concluded, “The evidence for or against a relation between RF-EMF and biomarkers of oxidative stress is overall of very low certainty.(Meyer et al., 2024).

In contrast, a recent WHO systematic review of animal carcinogenicity studies concluded with “high certainty” that chronic exposure to RFR causes cancer in the brain and in the heart (Mevissen et al., 2025) and another WHO review concluded with “high certainty” that it causes infertility (Kenny et al., 2024).

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization classified radio frequency radiation “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B). The IARC had planned to review RFR again by 2024 because most peer-reviewed studies published in the past decade found significant evidence that RFR causes genotoxicity; however, this review has been postponed. If IARC were to convene EMF experts with no conflicts of interest (including no present or past associations with ICNIRP), RFR is likely to be re-classified to either “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A) or “carcinogenic to humans” (Group 1).

Cell phones and other wireless devices also produce static and extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic fields. ELF was classified by the IARC as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B) a decade before RFR received this classification.

Summary of Results (Last major update: June 8, 2026)

Radiofrequency radiation (RFR)

89% (n=390) of 438 RFR oxidative effects (or free radical) papers published since 1997 reported significant effects, including 96% (n=110) of 114 studies with a SAR (specific absorption rate) ≤ 0.40 watts per kilogram (which is ten times less than the 4.0 W/kg threshold of harm that the FCC and the ICNIRP use to base their RFR exposure limits).
72% (n=396) of 550 RFR genetic effects papers published since 1990 reported significant effects including 192 (84%) of 84) of 228 studies of gene expression.
78% (n=396) of 507 RFR neurological papers published since 2007 reported significant effects.
85% (n=354) of 415 RFR reproduction and development papers published since 1990 reported significant effects. Among the low-intensity exposure studies that reported significant effects, 73 studies used an exposure with a SAR ≤ 0.40 W/kg and 53 studies had a SAR ≤ 0.08 W/kg.
260 low-intensity RFR exposure studies (SAR < 0.40 W/kg) published since 1990 reported significant effects.

Extremely low frequency (ELF) and static electromagnetic fields

90% (n=319) of 353 ELF/static EMF oxidative effects (or free radical) papers published since 1990 reported significant effects.
84% (n=363) of 424 ELF/static EMF genetic effects papers published since 1990 reported significant effects including 92% (n=232) of 252 studies of gene expression.
92% (n=364) of 397 ELF/static EMF neurological papers published since 2007 reported significant effects.
78% (n=82) of 105 ELF/static EMF reproduction and development papers published since 1990 reported significant effects.

The post Update: The Majority Of Scientific Evidence Has Found Effects From Non-ionizing EMF appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.

Government Brief: Wireless Radiation, EMF Exposure, Public Health and Environment Scientific Findings and Policy Recommendations

icbeAdmin — Sun, 07 Jun 2026 21:50:42 +0000

Government Brief: Wireless Radiation, EMF Exposure, Public Health and Environment

Scientific Research and Policy Recommendations of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields

The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) is an international commission of distinguished scientists and researchers in engineering, medicine, biology, and public health, with decades of research focused on the biological effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF).

The ICBE-EMF has created a factsheet for policymakers. Download PDF

We recommend science-based policies to protect public health and the environment. 5G, 6G, and wireless network densification should be halted until up-to-date, science-based regulations are in place as the science is now sufficient to support a risk mitigation approach. Stronger safeguards, oversight and transparency measures are needed to ensure that health and environmental protections keep pace with the rapid expansion of wireless and electrical infrastructure. Public exposure to EMF should be dramatically reduced to protect our future.

ICBE-EMF has published several peer-reviewed papers:

ICBE-EMF paper in Environmental Health documents the scientific evidence indicating that current wireless radiation guidelines fail to protect public health.
ICBE-EMF paper in Environmental Health analyzing the cancer data from the $30 million U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) animal study with EPA methodology concluded that FCC/ICNIRP limits are at least 200 times too high to protect us from cancer risk with 8 hours per day of exposure.
ICBE-EMF paper in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health outlines practical engineering solutions to dramatically reduce cellphone radiation emissions.

What is the issue with cell towers, cell phones, 5G, and wireless networks?

Wireless radiofrequency (RF) radiation, a type of non-ionizing EMF, is currently regulated under exposure limits put forth by the FCC, ICNIRP, and IEEE. These limits are based on outdated science, inaccurate assumptions, and fail to reflect the growing body of evidence on health and environmental risk.
Daily exposures are increasing among all age groups and in all settings (home, school, workplace).
Hundreds of scientists are calling for stricter, evidence-based safety limits and policies to reduce exposure in order to protect public health and the environment.

Why do current human exposure guidelines for cell towers, cell phones, and wireless networks fail to protect the public?

Current FCC, IEEE and ICNIRP limits assume heat is the only harmful effect. These limits are based on studies conducted in the 1980s involving 40–60-minute exposures in 5 monkeys and 8 rats.
Significant scientific research has reported adverse effects at non-heating levels allowed by current regulations, including DNA damage, cancer, sperm damage, neurological effects, and oxidative stress.
Limits do not adequately protect the vulnerable: children, medically sensitive individuals, and the developing fetus. Research has found that children can absorb higher rates of wireless in their more sensitive developing brains and bodies.

Recommendations for Policymakers

Ensure a robust, independent scientific review of the research.
Update exposure limits so they are science-based and offer greater protection to the public’s health and our environment
Halt 5G and wireless network densification until up-to-date science-based regulations are in place.
Adopt a risk mitigation approach with policies that reduce exposures, especially for children, such as distancing cell towers and transmission lines from homes, and installing safer Ethernet connections in schools.
Fund independent bioeffects research
Strengthen transparency, compliance and oversight
Measure and monitor EMF levels with data posted on publicly accessible websites.
Expand public awareness on why and how to reduce exposure
Promote industry research and designs that provide safer technology

Scientific References

Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G. Environmental Health (2022)

Cell Phone Radiation Exposure Limits and Engineering Solutions International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (2023)

Exposure Limits to Radiofrequency EMF Do Not Account for Cancer Risk or Reproductive Toxicity Assessed from Data in Experimental Animals. Environmental Health (2026)

ICBE-EMF Factsheets

ICBE-EMF Resources

The post Government Brief: Wireless Radiation, EMF Exposure, Public Health and Environment Scientific Findings and Policy Recommendations appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.

Communications Daily Features ICBE-EMF Letter Opposing Fast-Tracking of Cell Towers Without Updated Safety Review on Health Risk

icbeAdmin — Fri, 15 May 2026 16:55:08 +0000

Communications Daily Features ICBE-EMF Letter Opposing Fast-Tracking of Cell Towers Without Updated Safety Review on Health Risk

Communications Daily, a leading telecommunications industry publication once described by The Washington Post as “the bible of the telecom industry,” featured the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields’ (ICBE-EMF) letter opposing federal efforts to fast-track cell tower and wireless infrastructure deployment.

The May 15, 2026 Communications Daily article, “RF Safety Advocates Oppose Efforts to Speed Wireless Deployments,” highlighted ICBE-EMF’s recent filing at the FCC and letters sent to Congressional leadership raising concerns about proposals that would accelerate deployment of cell towers and wireless infrastructure.

According to Communications Daily:

“The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields filed a letter at the FCC Thursday noting the group’s opposition to efforts by Congress or the FCC to speed up wireless deployments.”

ICBE-EMF’s May 14 letter warns that expanding wireless infrastructure without updated federal safety standards could increase public exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation while relying on outdated FCC exposure limits established nearly three decades ago.

The letter states:

“Cell towers, 5G, and wireless infrastructure should not be fast-tracked as this will increase public exposure to RF radiation, an environmental exposure that peer-reviewed, scientific research has associated with numerous health and environmental harms.”

ICBE-EMF emphasized that current U.S. RF radiation exposure limits “unchanged since 1996, are not science-based and do not protect the public.”

The scientists also pointed to a newly published paper analyzing tumor findings from the U.S. National Toxicology Program. According to the letter:

“The analysis, published in the journal Environmental Health, found that FCC limits need to be reduced by at least 200 times to protect against an excess cancer risk of one per 100,000, the level typically used by the EPA to determine safety limits for environmental hazards.”

The letter further cautioned lawmakers and regulators about the implications of increasing cell tower density nationwide without updated health review:

“We caution that increasing the density of cell towers and wireless networks will come at a serious cost to public health and the environment.”

ICBE-EMF also criticized the FCC for failing to comply with the 2021 federal court remand order in Environmental Health Trust v. FCC, which directed the agency to provide a reasoned explanation for maintaining its current wireless radiation exposure limits despite evidence submitted on long-term exposure, impacts to children, and environmental effects.

The May 14 letter states:

“Congress must hold the FCC accountable to protect public health and the environment.”

The scientists argue that communities should not be stripped of authority over wireless infrastructure siting while significant scientific and regulatory questions remain unresolved. The letter concludes that without updated safety limits and independent scientific review, expanding wireless infrastructure could expose millions of people to higher levels of RF radiation linked in peer-reviewed studies to cancer risk and neurological, reproductive, and immune effects.

Read the full ICBE-EMF letter here.

Read the press release by ICBE-EMF on the letter here.

The post Communications Daily Features ICBE-EMF Letter Opposing Fast-Tracking of Cell Towers Without Updated Safety Review on Health Risk appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.