The earth and all living things have evolved for billions of years in natural electromagnetic fields (EMFs) such as the sun, lightning and the earth’s natural magnetic field. EMFs are simply energy waves that combine electric and magnetic fields, moving together at the speed of light. 

However, human-made non-ionizing EMFs generated from electronic equipment are a more recent phenomenon. There are primarily two types of artificial non-ionizing EMFs that researchers have studied for health effects for many decades:

• Wireless Radio Frequency (RF) Radiation: Sources include cell phones, cell towers, radar, 4G, 5G, cordless phones, laptops, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, “smart” utility meters, “smart” speakers, cell boosters and all the wirelessly connected devices and machines of the Internet of Things.
• Extremely Low Frequency Magnetic Fields: Powerlines, electrical substations, household electrical wiring, charging cords, and electric blankets and essentially any device that uses electricity. 

EMFs span a wide range of frequencies, and they are categorized into several types based on their wavelength and frequency. Every wave has a frequency, the amount of wave cycles (also called oscillations) per second, are measured in Hertz (Hz).

The EMF spectrum, arranged in order of increasing frequency and decreasing wavelength, includes extremely low frequency (ELF), very low frequency (VLF), radio waves, microwaves, millimeter waves, infrared radiation, visible light (the only part visible to the human eye), ultraviolet radiation, X-rays, and gamma rays. 

These categories are often discussed as being either ionizing or non-ionizing. 

• Ionizing frequencies such as X rays and gamma rays are of such high energy that they can remove electrons from atoms or molecules, a process well understood to lead to cancer development.
• Non-ionizing frequencies such as the wireless radio frequency from cell towers or extremely low frequency for power lines are of lower energy. However, research has reported various effects at the cellular level, including links to cancer, genetic alterations, sperm damage, and impacts on the immune and endocrine systems.

A frequency is the amount of EMF wave cycles (also called oscillations) per second, measured in Hz. For example, powerline frequencies are 50 Hz and 60 Hz. Wireless networks have carrier frequencies that generally start around 600 MHz (megahertz) or 600,000,000 Hz. This means a 600 MHz wave oscillates 600 million times a second. The human body, and all living things, absorb these energized waves when they are exposed. 

Biological interactions have been observed across all regions of this diverse spectrum, including at non- ionizing frequencies.  

Artificial EMFs, particularly wireless communication signals, differ significantly from natural EMFs in ways that make them more biologically interactive. A key factor is that most human-made EMFs are polarized. Modern wireless signals are complex waveforms, not simple continuous waves; they are pulsed and modulated, incorporating multiple frequencies for data transmission. This complexity—combining polarization, pulsing, modulation, and multiple frequency components—can enhance their biological activity, making them more interactive with living tissues.

The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) is organized to primarily focus on the non-ionizing portions of the Electromagnetic Spectrum, that is from below Extremely Low Frequency Fields (ELF) up to visible light. The radiofrequency and infrared portions of the EMF Spectrum into the Terahertz range deserve scientific attention because transmissions of these frequencies to support 5G and 6G technologies are rapidly escalating due to increased use of wireless technologies. 

No. Safety is not assured. The radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitted from wireless devices and networks, including 5G, have been linked to harmful biological impacts, and the scientific evidence is quite substantial and growing. 

The majority of studies show harm. Dr. Henry Lai, Professor Emeritus at the University of Washington, Editor Emeritus of the journal, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, and an emeritus member of ICBE-EMF has found the majority of studies for oxidative, genetic, neurological and reproductive outcomes have found effects. 

In October 2024 he posted a comprehensive set of abstracts which covers peer-reviewed science back to 1990.  Among hundreds of studies of RFR, 71% to 89% reported significant effects. Among hundreds of studies of ELF and static fields, 75% to 90% reported significant effects.

According to Dr. Lai, 95% of 237 low-intensity (SAR < 0.40 watts per kilogram of tissue) define SAR radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure studies published since 1990 reported significant effects: “This means that biological systems are very sensitive to RFR.” Moreover, “It is clear that the current RFR exposure guidelines are not valid in the protection of the health detrimental effects of RFR.” 

A published paper on studies of people living near cell towers entitled “Evidence for a health risk by RF on humans living around mobile phone base stations: From radiofrequency sickness to cancer” by Balmori (2022) reviewed the existing scientific literature and found studies reported radiofrequency sickness, cancer and changes in biochemical parameters.  

Note: SAR is Specific Absorption Rate – A measure of the rate at which a volume of tissue absorbs energy from wireless RF radiation exposure.  electromagnetic field.

Cell phones emit radiofrequency (RF) radiation, and a significant body of human and animal evidence has associated RF exposure to cancer. 

In 2011 experts convened by the International Agency for Research on Cancer

(IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) classified cellphone radiation a “possible’’ human carcinogen.  A 2012 IARC scientific report detailed the scientific evidence at the time. 

Several major studies published since the 2011 IARC expert meeting have found that long-term, heavy cellphone users have increased risk of brain tumors. In addition,  the large-scale animal studies of the U.S. National Toxicology Program and the Ramazzini Institute found RF-exposed animals developed the same tumor types as found in studies on humans, strengthening confidence in the cell phone cancer association.  

In 2025, a WHO commissioned systematic review reported that there was high certainty scientific evidence linking wireless RF radiation exposure to two types of malignant tumors: gliomas in the brain and malignant schwannomas in the heart. Notably, the same types of tumors have also been observed in human studies, adding significant confidence that the associations observed in human studies are real.  

The advisory group to the IARC has recommended IARC convene an expert group to evaluate the latest research on RFR.

We, along with other scientific experts, believe the body of scientific evidence has become substantial enough to support the IARC evaluation of RF to at least a “probable”, if not “proven” human carcinogen.

The scientific evidence indicates a wide range of health effects from wireless and low frequency EMFs. Here are a few important ones: 

Impacts on the Reproductive System  

Numerous biological studies of lab animals and human sperm,  including the National Institutes of Health and American Cancer Society funded research,  have found that mobile phone radiation decreases testosterone and decreases overall sperm quality by affecting motility, viability, and concentration of semen. These adverse effects are greater with higher mobile phone radiation exposure.  

More science on EMF and sperm quality here.

Impacts on Brain Development and the Nervous System 

The brain is particularly susceptible to EMF exposure. Studies have indicated that wireless radiation can influence how the brain functions, suggesting impacts on learning and memory.

For example, an NIH study revealed that 50 minutes of cell phone radiation exposure altered brain activity, leading to increased glucose metabolism in the brain region nearest to a cell phone’s transmitting antenna. A study on teenagers reported memory damage in brain regions most exposed to cell phone use. Animal studies have further associated RF radiation exposure with increased oxidative stress in brain tissue, along with adverse effects on brain development, neurotransmitters, neuron activity, the blood brain barrier, mitochondria, learning and cognition. 

Impacts to the Endocrine System 

Studies on EMFs have found impacts on the regulation of hormones controlled by the hypothalamus and pituitary glands. Altered thyroid function, as well as impacts on thyroid gland follicles have been observed. EMF exposure has also been linked to increased secretion of corticosterone, a key hormone in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, mediating the body’s response to stress.

Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity 

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), previously known as “microwave syndrome,” consists of non-specific symptoms that occur following a person’s brief or cumulative exposure to non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) including cell phone radiation. 

The most common symptoms of EHS include headaches, other neuro-cognitive problems (memory, concentration, confusion, and dizziness), sleep disorders, heart palpitations, and tinnitus (ringing in ears). Less common symptoms include nausea, fatigue, nervous system disorders, vision and muscular problems.  

Numerous studies have shown biological effects at the cellular level due to low intensity exposure to EMF. Many patients have impaired detoxification systems that become overloaded by excessive oxidative stress. EMF can induce changes in calcium signaling, activate free radical processes, alter neurological and cognitive functions and disrupt the blood-brain barrier.  

Read Learn more about the science and ICBE-EMFs Position Statement on EHS here. 

When you hold a phone up to your head, as much as 90% of the power emitted by the cell phone antenna is dissipated into your head.  A phone pressed to your head will result in the highest levels. 

Distance matters. 

The amount of absorbed power decreases significantly if the phone is held further away from the head. The figures below from the ICBE-EMF paper show the difference in % of power absorbed when the phone is at 0, 2, and 6 centimeters (or about 1 to 2 ½ inches) from the head.

Children absorb cell phone RF radiation at higher rates and deeper into their brans proportionate to adults with the same phone. 

If you hold the phone further away from your head, you will decrease your exposure. The more distance, the better.  

• Don’t carry your cellphone in your pocket, in your bra, or close to your body when it is powered on. 
• Use speakerphone, text, or a wired headset whenever possible. 

The best way to reduce exposure is to choose wired technology whenever possible. 

 Learn more about how to reduce exposure here. 

The American Academy of Pediatrics has repeatedly recommended the U.S. government update its wireless radiation limits in order to better protect children stating that:

“Children are disproportionately affected by environmental exposures, including cell phone radiation”

Children absorb RF at higher rates proportionate to adults. Their skulls are thinner, allowing RF radiation to penetrate deeper into the brain, while their brain tissue’s higher water content makes it more conductive to electromagnetic energy. 

“The average exposure from use of the same mobile phone is higher by a factor of 2 in a child’s brain and higher by a factor of 10 in the bone marrow of the skull,”  

-The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer

Developmentally, children’s brains are still growing, making them more susceptible. This heightened sensitivity is compounded by the fact that children will have a longer lifetime of exposure, starting even before birth, increasing the likelihood of cumulative adverse health effects.

More than twenty governments have issued public health recommendations to minimize cell phone radiation exposure, particularly for children. 

In the United States, the American Academy of Pediatrics, California State Department of Health, Santa Clara Medical Association and Maryland State Environmental Health and Protection Advisory Council  have issued advisories on why and how to reduce wireless  radiation exposure to children. 

Hundreds of scientists with expertise in the biological impacts of EMF from leading research institutions as well as numerous medical practitioners have called upon governments, regulatory bodies, and wireless companies to reduce public and environmental exposures. 

More than 250 EMF scientists from 44 nations who have published over 2,000 papers on electromagnetic fields (EMF) and biology or health have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal which states::  

“Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.” 

In addition, 430 scientists and doctors have signed the 5G Appeal which calls for a moratorium on the roll-out of 5G. This appeal asserts:  

“5G will substantially increase exposure to radio-frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) on top of the 2G, 3G, 4G, Wi-Fi, etc. for telecommunications already in place. RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment.” 

Wildlife are exposed to the ever increasing levels of wireless EMFs in our environment and significant research has found harmful effects from even very low levels of exposure. 

A comprehensive scientific review by Levitt, Lai and Manville (2022) encompassing over 1,200 studies on the effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMFs) on wildlife reported a broad range of adverse impacts stating:

“Numerous studies across all frequencies and taxa indicate that current low-level anthropogenic EMF can have myriad adverse and synergistic effects, including on orientation and migration, food finding, reproduction, mating, nest and den building, territorial maintenance and defense, and on vitality, longevity and survivorship itself. Effects have been observed in mammals such as bats, cervids, cetaceans, and pinnipeds among others, and on birds, insects, amphibians, reptiles, microbes and many species of flora.”

Studies on bees have demonstrated that EMFs can disrupt critical behaviors such as foraging and communication.  Honeybee workers exposed to EMF radiation exhibited piping signals, typically used as a response to threats. Research has found migratory birds exposed to urban electromagnetic noise displayed disruptions in their magnetic compass. Studies have also found impacts to plants and trees.

Changes to the electromagnetic environment could significantly impact wildlife, as birds, amphibians, and other animals rely on the Earth’s geomagnetic fields for navigation and survival.

The cumulative evidence points to EMF as an environmental stressor that could exacerbate existing threats to biodiversity, particularly as the rollout of technologies like 5G increases EMF levels in natural habitats​​.

In addition to the research in ICBE-EMF publications, there are numerous websites that have compiled the latest research on the health effects of wireless and non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. 

Joel Moskowitz, PhD, Director of the Center for Family and Community Health in the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley and ICBE-EMF Commissioner has a blog called Electromagnetic Radiation Safety where he posts regular updates of the latest published science. Read science abstracts here. 

Henry Lai,PhD, has been compiling and analyzing the published research on impacts on genes, reproduction, the nervous system, and oxidative stress, and he has found the majority of research studies has found effects. Read Lai’s recent analysis. 

Lai’s earlier abstract lists are posted on Bioinitiative.org. The Bioinitiative Report is authored by international EMF scientists. It documents the mounting evidence of health effects from non-ionizing EMFs and calls for the reform of outdated safety standards. The Bioinitiative Scientific Color Charts detail the published science showing biological effects at different exposure levels.  

The Oceania Radiofrequency Science Advisory Association (ORSAA) has a comprehensive searchable database on peer-reviewed scientific studies and articles on EMF bioeffects research. The database is designed to enable detailed independent searches invaluable to researchers and scientists. It requires some training on how to use it most effectively.

PubMed is the online searchable database maintained by the National Library of Medicine of the National Institutes of Health. 

The EMF Portal is a searchable literature database from Aachen University in Germany that systematically summarizes the latest scientific research on the health effects of electromagnetic fields. 

The German organization Diagnose:funk is collecting the latest research and summarizing the findings in quarterly reports.  Importantly, they are translating the German-language originals and making these papers available at no charge.  Read science summaries here. 

Microwave News is another key resource for science and policy as they have covered this issue in depth since 1981. If you