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.

Scientists Call on Congress and FCC to Halt Cell Tower Fast-Track Proposals in Light of New Scientific Analysis on Wireless Radiation Health Risks

icbeAdmin — Fri, 15 May 2026 06:14:36 +0000

ICBE-EMF Letter to Congress and the FCC Calling to Halt Cell Tower Fast Track Proposal in Light of New Scientific Analysis on Cell Tower and Wireless Radiation Health Risks

Letter to House and Senate leadership and the Federal Communications Commission warns that newly published peer-reviewed analysis indicates current federal wireless radiation limits may be set hundreds of times too high to protect against cancer risk.

May 14, 2026

Berkeley, California: The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) just sent a scientific letter to U.S. Senate and House leadership and to the FCC Commissioner challenging federal proposals to allow the densification of cell towers near homes and schools without updating FCC wireless radiation limits. ICBE-EMF maintains that the FCC’s 1996 human exposure limits for the radiofrequency radiation (RF) emitted by cell towers, cell phones, and wireless networks fail to adequately protect the public against cancer and other health effects. Unless Congress and the FCC ensure a formal review that takes into account the most recent scientific evidence, they “would be failing to protect public health,” cautioned the Commission’s scientists, an international consortium of scientists, physicians, and researchers with extensive expertise in the health effects of wireless and other non-ionizing electromagnetic field exposures.

The Commission’s letter specifically highlighted a newly published peer-reviewed paper in the journal Environmental Health by ICBE-EMF scientists Dr. Ronald Melnick, former senior toxicologist with the National Toxicology Program, and Dr. Joel Moskowitz of the University of California, Berkeley. Using results from a $30 million U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) cancer study, the researchers applied standard procedures developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and found that current RF exposure limits are at least 200 times too high to protect the public from cancer risk.

“Our analysis clearly demonstrates that the current FCC and ICNIRP limits for cell phones and wireless networks are structurally incapable of protecting human health. We urgently need governments to step up, abandon these obsolete guidelines, and conduct rigorous risk assessments using modern toxicological data,” stated Dr. Melnick.

The scientists warned that if the FCC moves forward with plans to fast-track cell towers and wireless infrastructure by preempting local government control, as outlined in the FCC’s proposed “Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireless Deployments” (NPRM 25-276), without first updating federal exposure limits to reflect the latest scientific research, Americans would effectively become “test subjects in an uncontrolled national radiation experiment, one conducted without consent, without monitoring, and without updated safety limits.”

The ICBE-EMF submitted a comprehensive scientific filing to the FCC in the “Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireless Deployments” proceeding, detailing the latest scientific research on wireless radiation health effects, deficiencies in current FCC regulations, and the need for updated science-based protections. ICBE-EMF scientists also sent letters to both House and Senate committees in advance of their FCC oversight hearings calling for independent scientific review and greater oversight and accountability. This new letter expands upon those concerns by incorporating the findings from the latest publication.

The Letter and Documents

New Scientific Publication

Melnick, R.L., Moskowitz, J.M. Exposure limits to radiofrequency EMF do not account for cancer risk or reproductive toxicity assessed from data in experimental animals. Environ Health 25, 42 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-026-01288-6 Press Release

Previous ICBE-EMF Letters to Congress Regarding the FCC and RF Limits

Watch a video below of Dr. Ronald Melnick sharing details of the paper when it was first published.

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 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 Scientists Call on Congress and FCC to Halt Cell Tower Fast-Track Proposals in Light of New Scientific Analysis on Wireless Radiation Health Risks appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.

Video Release: Current FCC and ICNIRP Wireless Radiation Limits Fail to Protect Public Health

icbeAdmin — Fri, 27 Mar 2026 19:42:40 +0000

Video Release: Current FCC and ICNIRP Wireless Radiation Limits Fail to Protect Public Health

Dr. Ronald Melnick explains the latest published analysis of major animal studies on cell phone radiation and cancer, which concludes that limits need to be tightened by at least 200 times.

In this video, Dr. Ronald Melnick, a retired toxicologist from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (28 years) who led the design of NTP’s cell phone radiation study and ICBE-EMF Senior Advisor, presents the findings of the new peer-reviewed study published in the journal Environmental Health entitled “Exposure Limits to Radiofrequency EMF Do Not Account for Cancer Risk or Reproductive Toxicity Assessed from Data in Experimental Animals,” which concludes that based on key scientific evidence, current government safety limits for radiofrequency radiation (RFR), emitted by cell phones, Wi-Fi routers, smart meters, and cell towers, are inadequate to protect public health.

Co-author Joel M. Moskowitz, M.A., Ph.D., has directed the Center for Family and Community Health in the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley since 1993.The new study was conducted on behalf of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF).

Taking results from a $30 million U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) cancer study, the researchers applied standard procedures developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to determine a RFR dose of radiofrequency radiation that is associated with an excess cancer risk of one per 100,000. This is a level typically used by the EPA for environmental agents. They found that current RFR exposure limits are at least 200 times too high to protect us from cancer risk when evaluated for 8 hours per day of exposure. Also, based on other research, RFR limits were 24 times too high to protect against reproductive impacts. An addendum to the study documents that, additionally, when the animal cancer data of the Ramazini Institute studies were evaluated, they found the FCC limit was too high by 4,200 times.

Drs. Melnick and Moskowitz conducted risk assessments on cancer and reproduction because recent systematic reviews commissioned by the World Health Organization concluded with “high certainty” that RFR exposure caused cancer in animal models. The authors strongly recommend an immediate, independent re-evaluation of wireless radiation exposure limits. They urge regulatory bodies to lower RFR exposure limits by applying the rigorous, health-protective methodologies commonly used for toxic and carcinogenic environmental agents, as discussed in this paper.

The paper “Exposure Limits to Radiofrequency EMF Do Not Account for Cancer Risk or Reproductive Toxicity Assessed from Data in Experimental Animals,” can be downloaded from the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12940-026-01288-6.

ICBE-EMF press release

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 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 Video Release: Current FCC and ICNIRP Wireless Radiation Limits Fail to Protect Public Health appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.

Current Cell Phone and Wireless Radiation Limits Fail to Protect Against Cancer and Reproductive Harm, New Study Finds

icbeAdmin — Sat, 14 Mar 2026 20:02:32 +0000

Current Cell Phone and Wireless Radiation Limits Fail to Protect Against Cancer and Reproductive Harm, New Study Finds

Researchers conclude that current wireless radiation exposure limits are at least 200 times too high to safely protect people.

PRESS RELEASE

Berkeley, CA — March 14, 2026 — A new peer-reviewed study published in the journal Environmental Health reveals that current safety limits for radiofrequency radiation (RFR)–emitted by cell phones, Wi-Fi routers, smart meters, and cell towers—are severely inadequate to protect public health. Taking results from a $30 million U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) cancer study, the researchers applied standard procedures developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and found that current RFR exposure limits are at least 200 times too high to protect us from cancer risk with 8 hours per day of exposure. Also, based on other research, RFR limits were 24 times too high to protect against reproductive impacts.

DOWNLOAD A PDF OF THE PAPER

For decades, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the United States, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) have maintained RFR exposure limits based on behavioral studies with less than one hour of exposure, conducted on small groups of animals in the 1980s. Those limits were designed solely to prevent tissue heating during short-term exposure, ignoring non-thermal biological effects and long-term exposure.

The new study, co-authored by Drs. Ronald L. Melnick and Joel M. Moskowitz, on behalf of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF), conducted risk assessments on cancer and reproduction because recent systematic reviews commissioned by the World Health Organization concluded with “high certainty” that RFR exposure caused cancer and adverse reproductive impacts in animal models.

Key Findings

Cancer Risk: Current FCC and ICNIRP public exposure limits need to be reduced by at least 200 times to maintain an acceptable environmental cancer risk of 1 in 100,000.
Reproductive Toxicity: Limits need to be reduced by 8 to 24 times to address risks related to male reproductive outcomes, such as decreased sperm count, vitality, and testosterone levels.
Workers Are at Risk: Occupational exposure limits for RFR are currently set five times higher than those for the public, putting workers at an even greater unmitigated risk for these adverse health effects.

Watch a video of Dr. Melnick presenting the key findings here.

“Current regulatory limits for RFR are based on outdated assumptions that have been thoroughly invalidated by the last thirty years of scientific research,” says Dr. Melnick, a retired toxicologist from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences who led the design of NTP’s cell phone radiation study. Our analysis clearly demonstrates that the current limits for cell phones and wireless networks are structurally incapable of protecting human health. We urgently need governments to step up, abandon these obsolete guidelines, and conduct rigorous risk assessments using modern toxicological data. The science is there; now we need the policy to catch up so we can protect public and occupational health.”

“We are constantly surrounded by devices emitting wireless radiation; yet government regulations do not account for the chronic, low-level exposures they create,” adds Dr. Moskowitz from the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley. “The exposure levels calculated in this paper should not be interpreted as ‘safe limits;’ rather they represent risk-based estimates derived from the data reviewed in the WHO systematic reviews using standard EPA risk-assessment methods, indicating that current regulatory limits should, at a minimum, be reduced to levels in this range to better align with modern scientific evidence.”

The authors strongly recommend an immediate, independent re-evaluation of wireless radiation exposure limits. They urge regulatory bodies to lower RFR exposure limits by applying the rigorous, health-protective methodologies commonly used for toxic and carcinogenic environmental agents, as discussed in this paper.

About the Study

The paper, “Exposure Limits to Radiofrequency EMF Do Not Account for Cancer Risk or Reproductive Toxicity Assessed from Data in Experimental Animals,” is online at the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12940-026-01288-6.

The PDF can be downloaded at https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/s12940-026-01288-6.pdf

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 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 Current Cell Phone and Wireless Radiation Limits Fail to Protect Against Cancer and Reproductive Harm, New Study Finds appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.

WHO Reviews on Cell Phone RF Radiation Health Effects: The Systematic Reviews Do Not Prove Safety

icbeAdmin — Fri, 06 Mar 2026 19:58:00 +0000

WHO Reviews on Cell Phone RF Radiation Health Effects: The Systematic Reviews Do Not Prove Safety

James Lin Ph.D., published “The WHO-Commissioned Systematic Reviews on Health Effects of Microwave and RF Radiation” in the March 2026 IEEE Microwave Magazine

The latest article by Dr. James C. Lin in IEEE Microwave Magazine concludes that the systematic reviews commissioned by the World Health Organization (WHO) cannot be interpreted as proof that radiofrequency (RF) radiation emitted from cell phones, cell towers, 5G, and wireless devices is safe.

Lin’s latest article examines the WHO-commissioned series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the health effects of RF radiation. These reviews were intended to evaluate research on a broad range of outcomes, including cancer, reproductive effects, oxidative stress, neurological effects, and symptoms associated with RF exposure.

However, a growing number of scientists, such as the experts of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) have raised serious concerns about the methods and conclusions of these reviews.

WHO Reviews Do Not Demonstrate Safety

According to the analysis discussed in the article, the WHO-commissioned systematic reviews cannot be used as evidence that wireless technologies are safe. The primary reason is methodological.

“Simply put, the criticisms and challenges encountered by those WHO SRs, aside from the most recent one, are serious and severe, including calls for retraction.”

The reviews have been criticized in numerous publications for serious methodological faults and deficiencies, meaning that the way studies were selected, evaluated, and combined may bias the results toward a conclusion of no risk.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses can be powerful tools in science, but only when certain conditions are met. They rely on combining results from multiple studies that are methodologically similar and statistically compatible. If studies are highly heterogeneous or if key research is excluded, pooled conclusions may be unreliable.

The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) conducted an independent evaluation of the WHO-commissioned reviews on RF radiation. Their analysis identified significant weaknesses in the way the reviews were conducted.

These included:

Exclusion of relevant studies that reported biological effects
Inclusion of lower-quality studies that diluted observed associations
High heterogeneity between studies, making meta-analysis unreliable
Small numbers of studies in several pooled analyses

Lin highlighted how the ICBE-EMF evaluation concluded that these methodological problems undermine the reliability of conclusions claiming RF exposure is safe.

Evidence of Biological Effects Remains

The article also highlights that other lines of research continue to report biological effects from cell phone, cell tower and wireless RF radiation exposure.

For example, the National Toxicology Program studies in the United States reported increased rates of malignant schwannomas and gliomas in rodents exposed to cellphone radiation. Research from the Ramazzini Institute in Italy reported similar tumor findings in long-term animal exposure studies.

Earlier evaluations by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a specialized cancer agency of the WHO, classified RF electromagnetic fields as a possible human carcinogen based on epidemiological evidence.

Scientific Reviews Require Independence

Another concern discussed in the article is the potential lack of independence in the WHO-commissioned reviews. Many of the authors involved in the reviews were members of, or closely affiliated with, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). ICNIRP is the organization responsible for developing the RF exposure limits used by many governments and regulatory agencies worldwide.

Because ICNIRP develops the guidelines that determine what levels of RF exposure are considered safe, the involvement of ICNIRP members in scientific reviews evaluating the safety of those same exposure limits raises concerns about institutional bias and conflicts of interest.

According to the ICBE-EMF analysis discussed in the article, every one of the WHO-commissioned reviews included at least one ICNIRP member as an author, and some included several.

As Lin states,

“The systematic reviews displayed un-equivocal but misguided bias for the ICNIRP RF exposure guidelines for human safety, with faulty scientific analysis and justification.”

The structure of the reviews appeared to reinforce the assumption that RF radiation is safe under existing ICNIRP limits, rather than objectively testing that assumption against the full body of scientific evidence.

C. Lin, “The WHO-Commissioned Systematic Reviews on Health Effects of Microwave and RF Radiation [Health Matters],” in IEEE Microwave Magazine, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 14-17, March 2026, doi: 10.1109/MMM.2025.3637921.

PDF

About James C. Lin

Bioengineering at the University of Illinois Chicago and one of the world’s leading researchers in bioelectromagnetics, the study of how electromagnetic fields interact with biological systems.

Over a career spanning more than four decades, Dr. Lin has conducted extensive research on the biological and health effects of wireless radiofrequency radiation. He served as Editor-in-Chief of the peer-reviewed journal Bioelectromagnetics, the leading scientific journal in the field, beginning in 2006.

Dr. Lin has held numerous leadership roles in scientific and professional organizations. He served as President of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, Chair of the IEEE Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR), and Vice President of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). He has also chaired international scientific committees focused on electromagnetic fields and human health.

Dr. Lin was also a member of ICNIRP from 2004–2016

Lin has authored or edited 14 books, authored 400 book chapters and articles in journals and magazines, and made 300 conference presentations. He was a recipient of the d’Arsonval Medal from the Bioelectromagnetics Society, the IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility Prize Paper Award, the IEEE COMAR Recognition Award, and the CAPAMA Outstanding Leadership and Service Awards.

Read his full biography at IEEE.

The post WHO Reviews on Cell Phone RF Radiation Health Effects: The Systematic Reviews Do Not Prove Safety appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.