cancer risk of cell phones Archives - 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.

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.

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.

U.S. And International Scientists Urge Congress to Question FCC Over Outdated Cell Tower Radiation Safety Limits

icbeAdmin — Wed, 14 Jan 2026 13:19:29 +0000

U.S. and International Scientists Urge Congress to Question FCC Over Outdated Cell Tower and Wireless Radiation Safety Limit

The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, experts on cell tower and wireless radiation, sent a letter to Congress ahead of the House oversight hearing January 14, 2026.

Washington, DC- “The FCC’s cell tower radiation limits are not science-based, not protective of public health, and have not been meaningfully reviewed since 1996,” warned the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) in a letter sent to members of the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce ahead of today’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) oversight hearing.

The letter, signed by the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF)an international consortium of physicians and scientists with extensive expertise in electromagnetic field (EMF) health effects, urges Congress to press the FCC on its continued reliance on decades-old cell tower and wireless radiofrequency (RF) exposure limits that ignore a large body of peer-reviewed research documenting biological harm at non-thermal levels

“The FCC’s current standards are based almost entirely on preventing short-term tissue heating and fail to account for chronic exposure, children’s vulnerability, or the extensive scientific evidence of biological effects below FCC limits,” the Commission wrote.

ICBE-EMF highlighted findings from large-scale animal studies conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program and the Ramazzini Institute, both of which reported increased brain and heart tumors following long-term RF exposure.

ICBE-EMF reminded lawmakers that in 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ordered the FCC to explain why it has not updated its RF exposure limits, finding that the agency failed to address evidence of harm at levels below its guidelines. According to the Commission, the FCC has still not complied with that court order.

“Without updated safety limits or a comprehensive scientific review, the FCC is effectively treating American communities as subjects in an uncontrolled national experiment.”

“The public cannot be assured of safety, and Congress cannot exercise meaningful oversight, without a transparent accounting of the scientific basis for continued reliance on outdated RF exposure limits,” the Commission concluded.

John Frank, MD, ICBE-EMF Chairperson; physician and epidemiologist, University of Edinburgh; Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto, stated:

“Current government limits for wireless exposure based on the FCC and ICNIRP do not ensure safety. Based on hundreds of studies published over the past 30 years showing adverse effects at non-heating levels, far lower than the regulations allow, the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields is calling for a halt to the introduction of new technologies and immediate action to reduce public exposure. We caution all governments that the science clearly demonstrates that both the U.S. FCC and ICNIRP limits are fundamentally flawed.”

Dr. Joel Moskowitz, ICBE-EMF Commissioner, Director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley stated:

“The FCC’s current limits for cell‑tower and wireless‑device radiation were developed decades ago and do not reflect today’s real‑world patterns of continuous exposure. These limits also do not incorporate considerations for children’s heightened vulnerability or the growing body of peer‑reviewed research reporting neurological, reproductive, immunological, and environmental effects at exposure levels below current FCC thresholds. From a public‑health standpoint, governments should take steps to reduce population‑wide exposure, with particular attention to protecting children.”

Ronald Melnick, Ph.D. Past Chair, ICBE-EMF, now Senior Advisor; former Senior Toxicologist, National Toxicology Program, National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences, stated:

“The current human exposure limits for wireless radiation, established by the FCC in 1996, are based on behavioral studies of a single effect from the 1980s, in which small groups of rats and monkeys were exposed to a limited number of sessions for no more than one hour. At that time, the prevailing assumption was that no adverse effects would occur if increases in body temperature were less than one degree centigrade. These studies are inadequate for setting health protective exposure limits.”

“Until science-based exposure limits are properly established, especially for vulnerable populations, such as children and pregnant women, health agencies need to educate the public and promote practical ways to reduce exposures. In addition, public areas with low wireless radiation levels need to be established for susceptible and highly sensitive individuals.”

ICBE-EMF Documents

Link to the ICBE-EMF paper published in the journal Environmental Health, “Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G” on the inadequacy of FCC limits.

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 U.S. And International Scientists Urge Congress to Question FCC Over Outdated Cell Tower Radiation Safety Limits appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.

Scientists Warn the FCC: Fast-Tracking Cell Towers Risks Public Health and the Environment

icbeAdmin — Thu, 18 Dec 2025 03:52:07 +0000

Scientists Warn the FCC: Fast-Tracking Cell Towers Risks Public Health and the Environment

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Washington, DC — The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF), an international consortium of physicians and scientists, has formally cautioned the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that U.S. cell tower and wireless radiation guidelines are outdated, scientifically unsupported, and fail to protect public health.

In comments submitted to the FCC in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, “Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireless Deployments” (WT Docket No. 25-276), which proposes a series of measures to override local city and state governments to speed deployment of cell towers and wireless infrastructure across the United States of America.

ICBE-EMF stated that it is “challenging the safety of the FCC’s wireless radiation exposure limits and is calling for an independent evaluation before the FCC moves to fast-track cell towers and wireless infrastructure across the nation.”

ICBE-EMF warned of cell tower health risks, stating that “cell towers, 5G and wireless infrastructure should not be fast-tracked as this will increase public exposure to RF radiation, an environmental exposure that decades of scientific research has associated with numerous health and environmental harms.”

Regarding the FCC limits for human exposure, ICBE-EMF stated, “U.S. limits on allowable exposures to RF radiation, unchanged since 1996, are not science-based and do not protect the public.”

According to the filing, “the outdated 1996 limits are based on scientifically unsupported assumptions, focusing only on short-term heating effects while ignoring the extensive peer-reviewed published scientific evidence of biological harm at lower, non-heating levels.” ICBE-EMF further stated that FCC limits “do not account for long-term health effects, children’s vulnerability, cumulative exposures, electromagnetic hypersensitivity, or the documented impacts on wildlife and ecosystems.”

Citing large bodies of peer-reviewed scientific research, ICBE-EMF explained that “many studies have demonstrated oxidative effects associated with exposure to low-intensity RF radiation, and significant adverse effects including cardiomyopathy, carcinogenicity (brain and thyroid cancer), DNA damage, neurological disorders, increased permeability of the blood-brain barrier, and sperm damage.”

The filing also referenced a recent World Health Organization-commissioned systematic review, stating that it reported “high certainty” evidence linking radiofrequency radiation exposure to cancer in laboratory animals, and concluded that “the long-standing assumption that current government limits are based on — that cell phone RF radiation can only cause harm through tissue heating — is wrong.”

ICBE-EMF warned that the FCC’s proposal to fast-track cell towers would also harm the environment, stating that “The FCC’s plan to proliferate cell towers would put flora and fauna at risk. The FCC has not established guidelines to protect non-human species from RF radiation even though there is a large and growing body of evidence that demonstrates the biological effects of RF radiation on animals and plants.”

The Commission further criticized the FCC for failing to comply with a federal court mandate, stating that “to date, the FCC has not complied” with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ 2021 order requiring the agency to justify its refusal to update wireless radiation limits and to examine long-term health and environmental effects, particularly for children.

ICBE then addressed the FCC’s proposals to preempt local rules that are RF related based on Section 704 of the Telecom Act stating, “The FCC’s reliance on Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act to preempt local consideration of environmental and health impacts is unjustified because the Commission has not conducted any meaningful review of RF radiation effects, nor ensured that any federal agency is doing so. Without updated safety limits, NEPA analysis, or an up-to-date current scientific evaluation, the FCC cannot continue to claim that health and environmental impacts may not be considered by local governments. Because the Commission has failed to perform the very scientific and environmental oversight that Congress presumed when enacting Section 704, it cannot lawfully claim that state and local governments are barred from considering impacts the FCC itself has never reviewed.”

This came at the same time the organization submitted a letter to members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation ahead of the December 17, 2025, FCC oversight hearing, urging lawmakers to question the FCC’s continued reliance on its 1996 wireless radio-frequency (RF) radiation exposure limits for cell towers and wireless networks.

Download PDF of the ICBE-EMF Submission to the FCC

The post Scientists Warn the FCC: Fast-Tracking Cell Towers Risks Public Health and the Environment appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.

Scientific Letter to the Senate Calling For FCC Accountability on Cell Tower and Wireless Radiation Safety

icbeAdmin — Wed, 17 Dec 2025 16:07:14 +0000

The ICBE-EMF Scientific Letter to the Senate Calling For FCC Accountability on Cell Tower and Wireless Radiation Safety

The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) submitted this letter to the Honorable Ted Cruz, Chairman, and the Honorable Maria Cantwell, Ranking Member, and all Members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Re: Oversight Hearing of the Federal Communications Commission—December 17, 2025

We write to you as experts of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF), an international consortium of scientists, doctors, and researchers with extensive expertise and peer-reviewed publications on the biological and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields, including the radiofrequency (RF) radiation emitted by cell towers and 4G/5G infrastructure.

We have just submitted our scientific comments to the FCC opposing its “Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireless Deployments” NPRM due to the serious public health and environmental implications, its disregard for established scientific research, and its erosion of democratic, community-based decision-making. In our filing, we told the FCC that 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. U.S. limits on allowable exposures to RF radiation, unchanged since 1996, are not science-based and do not protect the public.

We write to you to request that you ask the FCC several questions regarding the FCC’s activities related to cell tower and wireless safety.

As documented by ICBE-EMF, in our paper published in Environmental Health entitled “Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G,” FCC’s RF radiation exposure guidelines ignore decades of peer-reviewed research showing biological harm at levels far below those that cause heating (1). The FCC’s outdated 1996 limits are based on scientifically unsupported assumptions, focusing only on short-term heating effects while ignoring the extensive peer-reviewed published scientific evidence of biological harm at lower, non-heating levels. The FCC’s 1996 limits were derived almost entirely from short-term behavioral disruption studies in animals, such as heat-induced changes in behavior and the limits do not account for chronic exposure or the pulse-modulated signals transmitted by wireless technologies. Further, despite a federal court order (2, 3) to explain how its limits are adequately protective, FCC limits have not been updated based upon a comprehensive review of the current scientific evidence on cellular, neurological, reproductive, or carcinogenic effects. Thus, they do not account for long-term health effects, children’s vulnerability, electromagnetic hypersensitivity, cumulative exposures, or the documented impacts on wildlife and ecosystems.

A rapidly expanding body of peer-reviewed research demonstrates that RF radiation from wireless infrastructure, including cellular towers and 5G small cell towers, can produce harmful effects at levels far below current FCC limits (4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11).

Large-scale animal research, including the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) and Ramazzini Institute studies, both found increased brain and heart tumors (12,13). Notably, the Ramazzini Institute (RI) used much lower RF radiation levels as compared to the NTP, with RF levels that were lower than the FCC limit for cell tower emissions (14,15). Further, the same types of tumors reported in the NTP and RI studies have also been observed in human studies,, adding significant confidence that the associations observed in human studies are real (16,17). Studies of people living near cell towers show increased biomarkers of DNA damage, oxidative stress, hormonal disruption, sleep disturbance, neurological symptoms, and increased cancer rates (18,19,20).

The American Academy of Pediatrics has repeatedly urged (21) the FCC to update its outdated wireless radiation regulations to account for children’s increased vulnerability, noting that the research shows children absorb higher rates of RF radiation deeper into their more sensitive brains, as compared to adults (22,23). Further, research has also documented that cell phone radiation exposure can exceed limits when the phone is close to the body (24,25), and that Wi-Fi and cell towers can increase children’s exposure in schools (26,27).

Further, the FCC plan puts wildlife at risk. The FCC has not established guidelines to protect non-human species from RF radiation even though there is a large and growing body of evidence that demonstrates the biological effects of RF radiation on animals and plants (28,2930,31,32).

We caution that the FCC’s proposed changes will come at a serious cost to public health and the environment, as well as strip state and local government authority.

In 2021, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a remand order on the FCC RF radiation emission limits, requiring it to provide a reasoned explanation for not updating its RF radiation emission limits, which were last set in 1996, when only a fraction of the cell towers and cell phones that we have today existed. The order stated that the FCC had failed to respond to “record evidence that exposure to RF radiation at levels below the Commission’s current limits may cause negative health effects unrelated to cancer.” The Court ordered the FCC to examine the effects of long-term exposure to humans and the environment, particularly to children (2,3). To date, the FCC has not complied.

The FCC’s reliance on Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act to preempt local consideration of environmental and health impacts is unjustified because the Commission has not conducted any meaningful review of RF radiation effects, nor ensured that any federal agency is doing so. Without updated safety limits or an up-to-date current scientific evaluation, how can the FCC continue to claim that health and environmental impacts may not be considered by local governments when considering where to place a cell tower? The Commission has failed to perform the very scientific and environmental oversight that Congress presumed when enacting Section 704, and it cannot lawfully claim that state and local governments are barred from considering impacts the FCC itself has never reviewed.

There is not a 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 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 are based on avoiding heating effects and do not adequately protect against known health risks that do not involve heat that can cause long-term health risks (33,34). The science is far from settled, and numerous medical organizations and public health experts recommend reducing exposure as substantial evidence exists pointing to serious risks (35).

The FCC’s proposal effectively treats American communities as test subjects in an uncontrolled national radiation experiment, one conducted without consent, without monitoring, and without updated safety limits. If the Commission proceeds to fast-track cell towers without revising its outdated 1996 RF radiation exposure limits, it will knowingly promote densification of industrial wireless transmitters and expose millions to cell tower RF radiation levels that multiple peer-reviewed studies associate with increased cancer risk, neurological reproductive harm.

Given the FCC’s continued reliance on outdated 1996 cell tower and wireless RF radiation exposure limits and the agency’s lack of proper substantive scientific review in the nearly three decades since, we respectfully request clear and direct answers to the following oversight questions.

Your RF exposure limits were set in 1996. What specific scientific review since then has the FCC conducted that justifies treating those limits as protective for today’s chronic cell tower radiation exposures?
What evidence does the FCC rely upon to conclude its limits adequately protect children, especially for long-term exposure?
In 2021, the D.C Circuit ordered the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation for not updating its wireless RF limits and to address scientific evidence of harm below FCC RF limits, including impacts on children and the environment. What has the FCC done since that remand, and why has it still not updated the limits? Provide the timeline and deliverables regarding the FCC’s response to the court.
The FCC relies on Section 704 of the Telecom Act to preempt local consideration of health/environmental effects, yet the FCC has not shown it has conducted any meaningful review of the health effects of RF radiation. On what basis can the FCC bar local consideration of impacts the FCC itself has not fully analyzed?
In a February 6, 2019, Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee hearing on 5G, when industry executives were asked what safety testing has been performed on 5G, wireless industry representatives were asked whether they have supported research on the safety of 5G technology and the industry representatives conceded they have not. Then Senator Blumenthal stated, “we’re kind of flying blind here” with respect to the health and safety of 5G. What have the FCC, FDA, and federal agencies done during the past 7 years to assure the Senators and the American public that 5G and new technologies are safe? (36, 37)
What safety testing has been done on 5G and new and emerging technologies to ensure protection for long-term exposures?
In light of the increased daily wireless RF radiation exposure to the population, why isn’t the FCC recommending policies to monitor and reduce public exposure to RF radiation as many other countries already have done?
What incentives does the FCC provide to support R and D for safer technology with lower RF emissions? (38)

The public cannot be assured of safety, and Congress cannot exercise its oversight function, without a clear accounting of the scientific basis for continued reliance on decades-old limits that predate modern wireless technologies, chronic exposures, and the ubiquity of RF sources in daily life. We welcome continued dialogue that could lead to more health-protective solutions.

Our experts stand ready to meet with you and provide any additional information or clarification needed to support the fulfillment of the Committee’s oversight responsibilities.

Respectfully submitted,

John Frank MD, Chairperson, ICBE-EMF

Ronald L. Melnick PhD, Senior Advisor, ICBE-EMF

Elizabeth Kelley, MA, Managing Director, ICBE-EMF Management@ICBE-EMF.org

The ICBE-EMF Letter to the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
The ICBE-EMF Scientific Comments to the FCC in 25-276 Build America
Link to the ICBE Submission on the FCC Docket
Link to the ICBE-EMF paper published in the journal Environmental Health, “Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G” on the inadequacy of FCC limits.

Scientific References

International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF), Belyaev I, Blackman C, Chamberlin K, DeSalles A, Dasdag S, Fernández C, Hardell L, Héroux P, Kelley E, et al. Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G. Environ Health (2022) 21: doi: 10.1186/s12940-022-00900-9
Environmental Health Trust et al. v. Federal Communications Commission. (2021). https://www.fcc.gov/document/dc-circuit-decision-environmental-health-trust-v-fcc
Landmark Federal Court Decision on Wireless Radiation Human Exposure Limits.https://ehsciences.org/lawsuit-wireless-radiation-safety/\
Lai H, Levitt BB. Cellular and molecular effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. Rev Environ Health (2024) 39:519–529. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2023-0023
Lin JC. Health and safety practices and policies concerning human exposure to RF/microwave radiation. Front Public Health (2025) 13: doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1619781
Lai H, Levitt BB. Radiofrequency radiation-induced gene expression. Rev Environ Health. 2025 Oct 29. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2025-0104.
Henshaw DL, Philips A. A mechanistic understanding of human magnetoreception validates the phenomenon of electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). Int J Radiat Biol (2025) 101:186–204. doi: 10.1080/09553002.2024.2435329
McCredden JE, Cook N, Weller S, Leach V. Wireless technology is an environmental stressor requiring new understanding and approaches in health care. Front Public Health (2022) 10: doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.986315
Davis D, Birnbaum L, Ben-Ishai P, Taylor H, Sears M, Butler T, Scarato T. Wireless technologies, non-ionizing electromagnetic fields and children: Identifying and reducing health risks. Curr Probl Pediatr Adolesc Health Care (2023) 53:101374. doi: 10.1016/j.cppeds.2023.101374
Joel M. Moskowitz, Effects of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields: Thirty Years of Research, Science Blog (Feb. 2018) https://www.saferemr.com/2018/02/effects-of-exposure-to-electromagnetic.html
Lai H, Levitt BB. The roles of intensity, exposure duration, and modulation on the biological effects of radiofrequency radiation and exposure guidelines. Electromagn Biol Med (2022) 41:230–255. doi: 10.1080/15368378.2022.2065683
Lin JC. Carcinogenesis from chronic exposure to radio-frequency radiation. Front Public Health (2022) 10:1042478. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1042478
Melnick RL. 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. Environ Res (2019) 168:1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.09.010
Moon J, Kwon J, Mun Y. 2024. “Relationship between radiofrequency-electromagnetic radiation from cellular phones and brain tumor: meta-analyses using various proxies for RF-EMR exposure-outcome assessment. Environ Health 23, 82. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-024-01117-8
Choi, Y-J, Moskowitz JM, Myung S=K, Lee Y-R, Hong Y-C. 2020. “Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis” Int J Environ Res Public Health 17, no. 21: 8079. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17218079
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. IntJ Oncology, 54(1), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.3892/ijo.2018.4606
Prasad M, Kathuria P, Nair P, Kumar A, Prasad K. 2017. “Mobile phone use and risk of brain tumours: a systematic review of association between study quality, source of funding, and research outcomes.” Neurol Sci.doi: 10.1007/s10072-017-2850-8
Balmori A. Evidence for a health risk by RF on humans living around mobile phone base stations: From radiofrequency sickness to cancer. Environ Res (2022) 214:113851. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2022.113851
Hardell L, Nilsson M. Summary of seven Swedish case reports on the microwave syndrome associated with 5G radiofrequency radiation. Rev Environ Health (2025) 40:147–157. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2024-0017
Sailo, L, Laldinpuii, Zosangzuali M, Weller S, Varte CL, Tochhawng L, Zothansiama. (2025). Greater prevalence of symptoms associated with higher exposures to mobile phone base stations in a hilly, densely populated city in Mizoram, India. Electromagn BiolMed, 44(4), 385–404.doi: 10.1080/15368378.2025.2513900
American Academy of Pediatrics. Letter in Support of the Cell Phone Right to Know to The Honorable Dennis Kucinich. (2012). Letter to the FCC Honorable Mignon L. Clyburn and FDA Honorable Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg Commissioner (2013); Letter to the FCC Honorable Julius Genachowski (2012) Available online at: https://icbe-emf.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/American-Academy-of-Pediatrics-Letters-to-FCC-and-Congress-on-cell-phone-radiation-health-effects-.pdf
Fernández C, de Salles, AA., SearsM. E., Morris RD, & Davis D L Absorption of wireless radiation in the child versus adult brain and eye from cell phone conversation or virtual reality. Environmental Research (2018) 167, 694–699 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.05.013
Mohammed B, Jin J, Abbosh AM, Bialkowski KS, Manoufali M and Crozier S, “Evaluation of Children’s Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields of Mobile Phones Using Age-Specific Head Models with Age-Dependent Dielectric Properties,” IEEE Access (2017) vol. 5, pp. 27345-27353, 2017, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2767074
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.
Scarato T. U.S. policy on wireless technologies and public health protection: regulatory gaps and proposed reforms. Front Public Health (2025) In press.
Soares NE, Bulla G, Fernández-Rodríguez CE, de Salles AA. “SAR Estimations in a Classroom with Wireless Computers” Journal of Microwaves, Optoelectronics and Electromagnetic Applications (2025) Vol. 24, No. 2, e2025288526 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2179-10742025v24i3288526
Bhatt CR, Redmayne M., Billah B., Abramson MJ., & Benke, G. Radiofrequency-electromagnetic field exposures in kindergarten children. Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology (2017) 27(5), 497–504. https://doi.org/10.1038/jes.2016.55
Levitt BB, Lai HC, Manville AM. Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, part 1. Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment. Rev Environ Health. 2021 May 27;37(1):81-122. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2021-0026.
Levitt BB, Lai HC, Manville AM. Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 2 impacts: how species interact with natural and man-made EMF. Rev Environ Health. 2021 Jul 8;37(3):327-406. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2021-0050.
Levitt BB, Lai HC, Manville AM. Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 3. Exposure standards, public policy, laws, and future directions. Rev Environ Health. 2021 Sep 27;37(4):531-558. doi:10.1515/reveh-2021-0083.
Levitt BB, Lai HC, Manville AM. Low-level EMF effects on wildlife and plants: What research tells us about an ecosystem approach. Front Public Health (2022) 10: doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1000840
Levitt BB, Lai HC., Manville AM II, & ScaratoT. 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. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2025.1693873
EMF Scientist International Appeal. 4G/5G antenna densification is escalating health risks – a global crisis [Internet]. New York, NY: EMFscientist.org; 22 Jul 2019 [cited 2025 Oct 29]. Available from: https://emfscientist.org/
Kelley E, Blank M, Lai H, Havas M, Moskowitz J. International Appeal: Scientists call for protection from non-ionizing electromagnetic field exposure. European J Oncol. 2015;20(3/4):180-182. Available from: https://www.mattioli1885journals.com/index.php/EJOEH/article/view/4971
Environmental Health Sciences. Doctors and scientists on cell phone radiation health effects EHSciences.org; 2025. Available from: https://ehsciences.org/doctors-and-scientists-on-cell-phone-radiation-health-effects/
U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, At Senate Commerce Hearing, Blumenthal Raises Concerns on 5G Wireless Technology’s Potential Health Risks, U.S. Senate Press Release. https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/at-senate-commerce-hearing-blumenthal-raises-concerns-on-5g-wireless-technologys-potential-health-risks
Video of Senator Bliementhal Link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QgGA_dLVYw
Héroux P, Belyaev I, Chamberlin K, Dasdag S, De Salles AAA, Rodriguez CEF, Hardell L, Kelley E, Kesari KK, Mallery-Blythe E, et al. Cell Phone Radiation Exposure Limits and Engineering Solutions. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(7):5398.

The post Scientific Letter to the Senate Calling For FCC Accountability on Cell Tower and Wireless Radiation Safety appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.

Wireless, Non-ionizing Radiation and Children’s Health at School: Dr. Erica Mallery-Blythe Lecture

icbeAdmin — Mon, 08 Dec 2025 13:13:29 +0000

Wireless, Non-ionizing Radiation and Children's Health at School

A Presentation by Dr. Erica Mallery Blythe

In this presentation, Dr. Erica Mallery-Blythe — a UK-based medical doctor with a decade of experience working within the UK National Health System hospital care and sixteen years of research following this in the field of biological effects of electromagnetic fields, addresses the impact of wireless, non-ionizing radiation on children’s health at school.

Speaking to educators, parents, and policymakers, Dr. Mallery-Blythe explains that while society has long accepted wireless technology as harmless, modern research tells a very different story.

We Are Electromagnetic Beings

Dr. Mallery-Blythe begins with a reminder that life itself is electromagnetic. “At the most basic level, we are electromagnetic,” she says. Every heartbeat, every neuron firing in the brain, depends on electromagnetism.

The Myth of “Harmless” Non-Ionizing Radiation

For decades, the non-ionizing portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, such as Wi-Fi and cell towers, was considered harmless at low doses — unlike X-rays or gamma rays, which can ionize atoms and damage DNA. But according to Dr. Mallery-Blythe, “all parts of the electromagnetic spectrum can interact with our biology”.

Evidence now indicates that even at low intensities, radiofrequency (RF) radiation — the same frequencies used for Wi-Fi and cell phones — can interact with the body in measurable ways.

Unfortunately, existing exposure limits of the FCC and ICNIRP are based on outdated science. The current exposure limits assume harm occurs only if tissue is over-heated, but they do not protect for the harmful effects of long-term cumulative exposure.

Dr. Mallery-Blythe and her colleagues at the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) published a peer-reviewed paper which “mapped out 14 assumptions which are invalid underlying the current exposure limits.”

Children, she warns, are not adequately protected. “They used the exposure values from adults to set restrictions for children.”

Children Are Especially Vulnerable

Differences in the anatomy, physiology and permittivity of children can make them more vulnerable and children can absorb relatively more radiation compared to adults. Dr. Mallery-Blythe cites research showing “five-fold increases in the delicate eyes of a child and up to 30-fold in substructures within the brain such as the hippocampus.”

These exposures are not hypothetical. In classrooms filled with Wi-Fi routers, tablets, and laptops, radiation levels can be significantly increased — especially during activities like video streaming, where multiple devices are transmitting simultaneously.

Documented Biological Effects

Dr. Mallery-Blythe outlines several biological mechanisms observed in both laboratory and epidemiological studies, including oxidative stress — a process that accelerates cellular aging and has been implicated in cancer, infertility, and neurological disorders.

She points to animal research from the U.S. National Toxicology Program and Italy’s Ramazzini Institute, which both found the same cancers — gliomas and schwannomas — in rodents exposed to RF radiation.

Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: A Growing Concern

Dr. Mallery-Blythe also highlights the condition known as electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) — characterized by headaches, dizziness, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and skin symptoms triggered by EMF exposure. She cautions that some children and adults are now so severely affected they “cannot go to school safely or even access their own home without symptoms.”

What Schools Can Do

Rather than waiting for policy to catch up, Dr. Mallery-Blythe urges schools to take immediate risk reduction measures. She notes that “radiofrequency radiation below limits can induce serious biological damage” and that present safety standards must be revised to protect children. She calls for schools to conduct proper risk assessments, especially in the setting of a child or member of staff who has acute or chronic health challenges which could be linked to EMFs and for governments to enact policies to reduce exposure.

She emphasizes, “Children are especially vulnerable, and hardwired internet services can immediately be used to protect children at school.”

Simple steps can make a difference:

Replace Wi-Fi with hardwired Ethernet connections
Use hardwired phones in schools for staff and students
Use Faraday pouches or boxes to store mobile phones
Educate staff and parents about how to reduce exposure

The bottom line is that science has advanced, but government policies have not. We have the tools to make schools safer right now through wired technology, informed choices, and public awareness.

Dr. Erica Mallery-Blythe

Dr. Erica Mallery-Blythe is a Special Expert at the International Commission on Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) and Founder of Physicians’ Health Initiative for Radiation and Environment (PHIRE). She is a UK trained medical doctor with a decade of experience within hospital medicine. Emergency trauma medicine was her area of expertise in hospital, and in training for this specialty she has a broad base of medical experience including surgery, anesthetics, obstetrics, paediatrics and intensive care (both neonatal and adult). She has worked in hospital emergency rooms, led trauma teams, taught on trauma medicine courses throughout the UK and abroad and was selected to instruct doctors on teaching within medicine for Advanced Trauma and Life Support (ATLS)

References:

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. Current Problems in Pediatric and Adolescent Health Care, 53(2),101374.

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. Oct 18;21(1):92.

Schuermann, D., & Mevissen, M. (2021). Manmade Electromagnetic Fields and Oxidative Stress—Biological Effects and Consequences for Health. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 22(7), 3772.

Yakymenko, I., Tsybulin, O., Sidorik, E., Henshel, D., Kyrylenko, O., & Kyrylenko, S. (2016). Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 35(2), 186–202.

Henshaw DL, Philips A. A mechanistic understanding of human magnetoreception validates the phenomenon of electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). Int J Radiat Biol. 2024 Dec 9:1-19. doi: 10.1080/09553002.2024.2435329. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 39652433.

Maluin, S. M., Osman, K., Jaffar, F. H. F., & Ibrahim, S. F. (2021). Effect of Radiation Emitted by Wireless Devices on Male Reproductive Hormones: A Systematic Review. Frontiers in Physiology, 12.

Norton Escopelli Soares , Giovani Bulla , Claudio E. Fernández-Rodríguez , Alvaro A. A. de Salles. “SAR Estimations in a Classroom with Wireless Computers” Journal of Microwaves, Optoelectronics and Electromagnetic Applications, Vol. 24, No. 2, e2025288526 May 2025 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2179-10742025v24i3288526

Fernández, C., de Salles, A. A., Sears, M. E., Morris, R. D., & Davis, D. L. (2018). Absorption of wireless radiation in the child versus adult brain and eye from cell phone conversation or virtual reality. Environmental Research, 167, 694–699.

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). Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental emission. Environmental Research, 165, 496–503.

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. International Journal of Oncology, 54(1), 111–127.

Moon, J., Kwon, J. & Mun, Y. Relationship between radiofrequency-electromagnetic radiation from cellular phones and brain tumor: meta-analyses using various proxies for RF-EMR exposure-outcome assessment. Environ Health 23, 82 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-024-01117-8

John W. Frank, Joel M. Moskowitz, Ronald L. Melnick, Lennart Hardell, Alasdair Philips, Paul Héroux, Elizabeth Kelley. The Systematic Review on RF-EMF Exposure and Cancer by Karipidis et al. (2024) has Serious Flaws that Undermine the Validity of the Study’s Conclusions. Environment International, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2024.109200.

Mevissen M, Ward JM, Kopp-Schneider A, McNamee JP, Wood AW, Rivero TM, Thayer K, Straif K. Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF EMF) on cancer in laboratory animal studies. Environ Int. 2022 Mar;161:107106. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2022.10710

The post Wireless, Non-ionizing Radiation and Children’s Health at School: Dr. Erica Mallery-Blythe Lecture appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.

Letter to Prevention Magazine on Cell Phone Cancer Article

icbeAdmin — Fri, 26 Sep 2025 15:37:51 +0000

Letter to Prevention Magazine on Cell Phone Cancer Article

On September 24, 2025, Dr. Joel Moskowitz of the ICBE-EMF submitted a letter to Prevention Magazine regarding its article “Do Cell Phones Cause Cancer? Experts Explain the Latest Science.” The article suggested that cell phone use does not increase cancer risk, a claim that ICBE-EMF argues is misleading and not supported by the full body of scientific evidence.

Letter to Prevention Magazine

I’m writing to voice my concern about the article “Do Cell Phones Cause Cancer? Experts Explain the Latest Science,” published on September 18, 2025, which suggests that cell phone use doesn’t increase cancer risk. This statement is misleading.

Recent research, including a Letter to the Editor published in the journal Environment International by the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF), indicates that a recent World Health Organization (WHO) review on this topic is scientifically flawed (Frank et al., 2024). The ICBE-EMF, a group of experts on the health effects of wireless radiation, found that the review by Karipidis et al. (2024) doesn’t reliably assess the risk of brain cancer from cell phone use.

There is substantial evidence linking cell phone use to an increased risk of brain tumors. For instance, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified wireless radiation as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” in 2013, citing several case-control studies that found an increased incidence of brain tumors in mobile phone users (Interphone 2010, 2011; Hardell et al., 2013). This risk seems to increase with more frequent use, with studies showing a higher risk of tumors after 800 to 1,000 hours of call time (e.g., Choi et al., 2020; Moon et al., 2024).

Further cause for concern is the rise in brain tumor rates. In the U.S., the incidence of nonmalignant meningioma has increased by 77% from 2004 to 2022. Other countries have also seen significant increases in glioblastoma, the most common type of brain cancer. Finally, a separate WHO systematic review (Mevissen et al., 2025) concluded with “high certainty” that cell phone radiation caused cancer in animal models, affecting the same types of cells that are found in human brain tumors.

Given this evidence, it’s crucial that we have a more balanced discussion about the potential risks of cell phone use. I urge Prevention magazine to provide a more accurate and complete picture of the current scientific findings.

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.
School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley
International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF)

ICBE-EMF urges media outlets to present balanced reporting on the health effects of cell phone radiation.

Learn more about our research on wireless exposure risks here.

Want to reduce your exposure to cell phones? See ICBE-EMF’s recommendations here.

The post Letter to Prevention Magazine on Cell Phone Cancer Article appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.

ICBE-EMF Submits Comments Opposing Proposal to Raise Wireless Exposure Thresholds in France

icbeAdmin — Fri, 12 Sep 2025 01:54:01 +0000

ICBE-EMF Submits Comments Opposing Proposal to Raise Wireless Exposure Thresholds in France

On September 11, 2025, the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) formally submitted comments regarding its opposition to the French government’s proposal to raise its atypical point threshold for wireless radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic field exposure.

Until now, ANFR (the French National Frequency Agency) has applied a 6 volts per meter (V/m) threshold for atypical points. The proposal would allow ANFR to increase the threshold from 6 V/m to 9 V/m.

ICBE-EMF strongly opposes the proposed measure, claiming:

“Increasing exposure limits from current limits that were approved over two decades ago puts the short-term commercial interests of wireless companies above the health and well-being of people and all of nature in France. What new information about RF-EMF has become available that justifies increased levels of permissible human exposure to this form of radiation?”

ICBE-EMF emphasized that current exposure limits were set nearly 25 years ago based on short-term animal studies and fail to account for long-term health impacts. The submission referenced mounting evidence of cell tower and cell phone radiation health effects and the risks of cell phone radiation, including brain cancer, fertility issues, oxidative stress, DNA damage, sperm damage, and neurological effects.

ICBE-EMF stated that international safety guidelines promoted by ICNIRP and the FCC are based on flawed assumptions. The Commission urged the French authorities to reject the proposed increase and instead contends:

“Urgently needed are protective wireless exposure limits for humans and the environment. These limits must be based on scientific evidence rather than on the industry’s misdirected needs for expansion.”

The submission makes clear that raising RF-EMF thresholds is inconsistent with public health protection. ICBE-EMF calls on French authorities to safeguard people and ecosystems from increasing RF-EMF exposures, particularly with the rapid rollout of 5G technologies.

This submission is part of ICBE-EMF’s global effort to raise awareness on the growing scientific evidence regarding wireless radiation health risks and push for stronger RF exposure protections worldwide. By challenging ANFR’s proposal, ICBE-EMF emphasizes that France should lead Europe in adopting policies that protect both people and biodiversity.

Read more about our published research at ICBE-EMF.org.

The post ICBE-EMF Submits Comments Opposing Proposal to Raise Wireless Exposure Thresholds in France appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.

Wireless Health Effects to Wildlife and Their Habitats: Albert Manville II Ph.D.

icbeAdmin — Mon, 08 Sep 2025 00:41:30 +0000

Wireless Health Effects to Wildlife And Their Habitats: The Need For Serious Consideration And Immediate Action

Dr. Albert Manville II Ph.D.

Vimeo Link, PDF of powerpoint slides

“Hello, my name is Al Manville. I’m a certified wildlife biologist. My topic today is radio frequency radiation effects on wildlife and their habitats—the need for serious consideration and immediate action.”

Dr. Albert M. Manville II, PhD, is retired from 17 years in the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service where he served as their national lead on causes of bird mortality from cell towers, including impacts from radiation, collision, and electrocution. In this presentation, he describes the need to address wireless health effects for both humans and wildlife.

Dr. Manville co-authored a three-part research review in the journal Reviews on Environmental Health entitled “Effects of Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Fields on Flora and Fauna.” Drawing from more than 1,200 studies, the review found adverse effects in every species studied, even at low exposure levels.

Wireless Radiation Levels Are Increasing

According to Dr. Manville, “ambient levels of non-ionizing EMFs have risen sharply over the past 80 years… growing exponentially, creating a novel chronic energetic exposure for wildlife and humans which previously did not exist.”

These invisible exposures are not benign. Contrary to outdated assumptions, even very low intensities can be biologically disruptive. As he explains, “Very low intensities of radiation, barely above natural background levels, can and are causing biological effects.”

The massive rollout of 5G and wireless infrastructure has dramatically increased background non-ionizing wireless RF radiation levels. For migratory birds, pollinators, and countless other species, this creates new survival challenges at a time when biodiversity is already under threat.

Direct Evidence of Wireless Health Effects

Dr. Manville summarizes decades of research on wireless health effects:

“These can include things like DNA strand breaks, cancers and benign growth, metabolic changes, animal disorientation including during migration, fertility problems, behavioral abnormalities, impacts to food finding, reproduction, mating, nest and den building, territorial maintenance and defense, and longevity and survivorship.”

These are not isolated findings. He stresses that such wireless health effects have been “exhibited in laboratory test animals, domestic livestock, and in wildlife.”

Landmark Review of Wireless Effects to Wildlife

Dr. Manville co-authored a three-part research review which found adverse effects in every species studied, even at low exposure levels.

Among the wireless effects to wildlife documented:

Disorientation during migration
Reduced fertility and reproductive success
Impaired nest and den building
Survival challenges and shortened lifespan
Ecosystem-level disruptions in wilderness areas and national parks

As he notes, “Virtually all terrestrial plants and animals—and some marine organisms—are inadvertently impacted by exposure from EMF including from electrosmog.”

Outdated Regulations Leave Wildlife Unprotected

Despite mounting scientific evidence of impacts at non-heating levels, government regulations remain dangerously out of date.

The U.S. Department of the Interior stated in a 2014 letter to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration:

“…the electromagnetic radiation standards used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) continue to be based on thermal heating, a criterion now nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today… “ and “…third-party peer-reviewed studies need to be conducted in the U.S. to begin examining the effects from radiation on migratory birds and other trust species.”

Manville states, “we have no EMF exposure standards for wildlife, including long-term chronic low-level EMF exposure guidelines.”

He calls for EMF to be treated as a new form of air pollution, urging agencies like the EPA, FCC, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and USDA to “designate air as habitat so EMF can be regulated like other pollutants.”

Solutions: What Needs to Change

To reduce the wireless risks, Dr. Manville recommends adopting the ALARA principle (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) in setting exposure guidelines. He also calls for a government-wide response rooted in aeroecology, the concept of treating air as habitat.

“The public needs to speak up and challenge the status quo,” he urges. “This can involve voting for politicians who commit to making positive change, making sure that these commitments are honored. This will require a massive public and government-wide engagement if changes are to occur. If we don’t try, the alternatives could be pretty grim.”

By recognizing EMF as pollution and updating regulations, society can address both wireless health effects and the wireless effects to wildlife before damage becomes irreversible.

Suggestions for Change

We need a government-wide response that treats EMF as air pollution, addressing air as habitat (aeroecology).
We need radiation exposure guidelines for wildlife, including long-term, chronic, low-level exposures.
We need wider application of the ALARA principle.
The public must speak up and challenge the status quo.
Political engagement is essential: vote for leaders who commit to making positive change and ensure those commitments are honored.

“Without action, the alternatives could be grim. The “radiation genie” has long been released from the bottle — making change is challenging, but essential.”

About Dr. Albert M. Manville II

Albert M. Manville II, PhD. is a wildlife biologist, Senior Lecturer and Adjunct Professor at Johns Hopkins University, retired from 17 years in the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service where he served as their national lead on anthropocentric causes of bird mortality from structures, including impacts from radiation, collision, and electrocution.

He chaired the Communication Tower Working Group, a wind turbine working group, and a waterbird bycatch working group, and co-chaired the Interagency Seabird Working Group. He represented the Service on the Wildlife Workgroup of the National Wind Coordinating Collaborative, on the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC), and was a technical scientific advisor to the Wind Energy Federal Advisory Committee, among numerous other groups.

Dr. Manville has testified over forty times before Congress and related bodies; published more than 175 professional papers; and his most recent peer-reviewed publications include a three-part review paper on EMF impacts to flora and fauna.

Scientific References

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.

Manville AM II, Levitt BB and Lai HC (2024) Health and environmental effects to wildlife from radio telemetry and tracking devices—state of the science and best management practices. Front. Vet. Sci. 11:1283709.

The post Wireless Health Effects to Wildlife and Their Habitats: Albert Manville II Ph.D. appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.

cancer risk of cell phones Archives - 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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. And International Scientists Urge Congress to Question FCC Over Outdated Cell Tower Radiation Safety Limits

U.S. and International Scientists Urge Congress to Question FCC Over Outdated Cell Tower and Wireless Radiation Safety Limit

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

Scientists Warn the FCC: Fast-Tracking Cell Towers Risks Public Health and the Environment

Scientists Warn the FCC: Fast-Tracking Cell Towers Risks Public Health and the Environment

Scientific Letter to the Senate Calling For FCC Accountability on Cell Tower and Wireless Radiation Safety

The ICBE-EMF Scientific Letter to the Senate Calling For FCC Accountability on Cell Tower and Wireless Radiation Safety

Wireless, Non-ionizing Radiation and Children’s Health at School: Dr. Erica Mallery-Blythe Lecture

Wireless, Non-ionizing Radiation and Children's Health at School

A Presentation by Dr. Erica Mallery Blythe

We Are Electromagnetic Beings

The Myth of “Harmless” Non-Ionizing Radiation

Children Are Especially Vulnerable

Documented Biological Effects

Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: A Growing Concern

What Schools Can Do

Dr. Erica Mallery-Blythe

Letter to Prevention Magazine on Cell Phone Cancer Article

Letter to Prevention Magazine on Cell Phone Cancer Article

ICBE-EMF Submits Comments Opposing Proposal to Raise Wireless Exposure Thresholds in France

ICBE-EMF Submits Comments Opposing Proposal to Raise Wireless Exposure Thresholds in France

Join Our Mailing List

Wireless Health Effects to Wildlife and Their Habitats: Albert Manville II Ph.D.

Wireless Health Effects to Wildlife And Their Habitats: The Need For Serious Consideration And Immediate Action

Dr. Albert Manville II Ph.D.

Wireless Radiation Levels Are Increasing

Direct Evidence of Wireless Health Effects

Landmark Review of Wireless Effects to Wildlife

Outdated Regulations Leave Wildlife Unprotected

Solutions: What Needs to Change

About Dr. Albert M. Manville II

Scientific References