food news


food news

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

Recent Posts on EMR Safety
"Cell Phones, Cell Towers, and Wireless Safety" (UC Berkeley talk)
  Video and slides from a recent presentation by Joel Moskowitz at UC Berkeley about wireless radiation research and policy developments including 5G. Non-technical overview of key issues.

Why we need stronger cell phone safety regulations--Key testimony submitted to the FCC
Why we need stronger cell phone safety regulations--Key research papers submitted to the FCC
Cell Tower Health Effects
  A summary of research on the biologic and health effects associated with exposure to cell tower radiation.

ICNIRP’s Exposure Guidelines for Radio Frequency Fields
  Exposé of ICNIRP and other EMF projects by Investigate Europe, a pan-European journalist team.

Recent Research on Wireless Radiation and Electromagnetic Fields 
  Compilation of over 750 abstracts of scientific papers published since August, 2016

5G Wireless Technology: Millimeter Wave Health Effects
  A brief review of the biologic and health effects from exposure to millimeter waves.

5G Wireless Technology: Cutting Through the Hype
  Many news stories debunk the exaggerated benefits of 5G cellular technology.

Effects of Cell Phone Use on Adolescents 
 Research on adolescents suggests that cell phone use disturbs sleep and has adverse effects on memory and cognitive processes, and on the endocrine system.

5G Wireless Technology: Is 5G Harmful to Our Health?
  "Both oncologic and non-cancerous chronic effects have been suggested."

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety: 2018 Year in Review
   A summary of key research and policy developments in 2018 with links to further information.

Worldwide Radio Frequency Radiation Exposure Limits versus Health Effects  "Wireless radiation exposure limits and a summary of biologic and health effect studies by exposure level."
Effect of Mobile Phones on Sperm Quality
  Research that examines the effects of wireless radiation on sperm. Eight review papers and more than 40 recent studies.

Thyroid Cancer & Mobile Phone Use
  The evidence is mounting from epidemiologic and biologic studies that heavy cell phone use may cause thyroid cancer.

NTP Cell Phone Radiation Study: Final Reports
  A $30 million study by the National Toxicology Program found that long-term exposure to cell phone radiation caused cancer in male rats and DNA damage in mice and rats.
National Toxicology Program: Peer & public review of cell phone radiation study.
  Former NTP scientist defends study; expert reviewers argue that results call for stronger RF exposure guidelines & IARC should upgrade cancer risk.
National Toxicology Program (NTP) Finds Cell Phone Radiation Causes Cancer
  Experts convened by NTP found "clear evidence" of cancer from cell phone radiation. Official summary now available.
Recent News

Sam Roe. We tested popular cellphones for radiofrequency radiation. Now the FCC is investigating. Chicago Tribune. Aug 21, 2019.
  The paper's year-long investigation found some of the most popular cell phones, including Apple iPhones, emit radiation that exceeds government (FCC) safety limits
Sam Roe. Testing cellphones for radiofrequency radiation: How we did it. Chicago Tribune. Aug 21, 2019. 

Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D. 5G Health RisksBBC Radio 5, May 30, 2019 (9 minute news segment).
  The deployment of 5G in the United Kingdom today has generated great concern among the public. This is a brief overview of the health risks from exposure to 5G millimeter waves.

Devra Davis, Ph.D. 5G: The Unreported Global Threat. Medium, May 18, 2019.
  Major mainstream newspapers commonly ignore the substantial body of science pinpointing wireless radiation and 5G hazards detailed in journalistic investigations.
Investigate Europe. Mobile phones and health: Is 5G being rolled out too fast? Computer Weekly, April, 2019.
  Countries are deploying 5G at breakneck speed to gain a competitive edge, but scientists have concerns about effects on public health and are calling for a precautionary approach.
Markham Heid. Are AirPods and Other Bluetooth Headphones Safe? Medium, Mar 7, 2019.  Numerous scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below international and national guidelines including cancer, neurological disorders, and DNA damage.
Investigate Europe. The 5G mass experiment. Jan 13, 2019.   In a series of news stories, a team of investigative journalists examines the risks of 5G deployment. "it could also harm your health. Europe's governments ignore the danger." 

Hiawatha Bray. Could your cellphone’s electromagnetic field make you sick? Boston Globe, Jan 17, 2019.
  The Massachusetts Department of Public Health may be withholding information about possible health risks posed by cellphones and other wireless technologies.

Ronald Melnick, Ph.D. There's a clear cell phone-cancer link, but FDA is downplaying itThe Hill, Nov 13, 2018.
  Dr. Melnick was the senior toxicologist who led the design of the National Toxicology Program cell phone radiation studies.

Joyce Nelson. 5G Corporate Grail: Smart cities/dumb people?  Watershed Sentinel, Nov 5, 2018.
  "There’s a lot of hype about 5G, the fifth-generation wireless technology that is being rolled out in various “5G test beds” in major cities ...But it’s hard to see why we should be excited."

Annelie Fitzgerald. Mobile Phone Cover-up? Gov’t advisory body disbanded – inaccurate and misleading conclusions remain. TruePublica (UK), Oct 17, 2018.   UK disbanded advisory group on non-ionizing radiation (AGNIR) after group issued inaccurate assessment of wireless radiation science subject to conflicts of interest. Public Heath England still relies on AGNIR report.
Martin Röösli. Mobile phone radiation may affect memory performance in adolescents. Medical Xpress. July 20, 2018.  Radio frequency radiation may have adverse effects on memory performance of specific brain regions exposed during mobile phone use.

Ronnie Cohen. Do cellphones cause cancer? Government study reveals 'stunningly important findingsNewsweek, July 19, 2018.
  Current cellphone safety regulations are based on a premise that is now arguably false: that cellphone radiation can cause harm only by heating tissue.
Mark Hertsgaard and Mark Dowie. The inconvenient truth about cancer and mobile phones.The Guardian, July 14, 2018.
  We dismiss claims about mobiles being bad for our health – but is that because studies showing a link to cancer have been cast into doubt by the industry?

Reynard Loki. Our cellphone addiction is turning wireless tech into an invisible weapon that’s destroying wildlife. Salon, July 14, 2018.
  Electromagnetic radiation from Wi-Fi and cell towers poses a “credible risk” to birds, mammals, insects and plants
Lynne Peeples. Should cell phone providers warn customers of health risks? Berkeley says yesMcClatchy News Washington Bureau, July 11, 2018.
  Although the scientific community has not reached consensus, the California health department said research indicates long-term, extensive cellphone use may affect health.

Lynne Peeples. Wireless industry using First Amendment as a cudgel in its battle against safety warningsFairWarning, July 11, 2018.
  Complete version of the article. News websites published the McClatchy version.

Microwave News. "'Clear evidence' of cell phone cancer risk, say leading pathologists." April 9, 2018.  Why the peer review panel and NTP interpreted the same animal data differently. 

Mark Hertsgaard and Mark Dowie. "How big wireless made us think that cell phones are safe: A special investigation.The Nation, March 29, 2018.
  The disinformation campaign—and massive radiation increase—behind the 5G rollout.

translate | 21.8.2019 22:03

Part I: Why We Need Stronger Cell Phone Radiation Regulations--Key Testimony Submitted to the FCC

On August 8, 2019, the FCC published a news release in which Ajit Pai, the FCC chairperson, issued a proposal that the FCC not change its existing radiofrequency (RF) exposure limits. He also proposed to gather public comment on rules to determine compliance with the exposure limits and establish uniform guidelines to ensure compliance.
The press release makes the following claims:
“The FCC sets radiofrequency limits in close consultation with the FDA and other health agencies. After a thorough review of the record and consultation with these agencies, we find it appropriate to maintain the existing radiofrequency limits, which are among the most stringent in the world for cell phones,” said Julius Knapp, chief of the FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology.
As Jeffrey Shuren, Director of the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, wrote to the FCC, “[t]he available scientific evidence to date does not support adverse health effects in humans due to exposures at or under the current limits…” and “[n]o changes to the current standards are warranted at this time.”
Unfortunately, these assertions do not reflect the state of the scientific literature regarding RF health effects, nor do they adequately reflect the public comment received by the FCC over the past six years regarding RF exposure limits for Proceeding Number 13-84.
The FCC has no health expertise and relies upon Federal health agencies, especially the FDA, for advice about RF exposure limits. However, these agencies have lacked the requisite expertise to provide this guidance as their RF health experts retired or took industry jobs. In the past decade, these agencies have failed to monitor the vast and growing body of peer-reviewed research that documents adverse health effects from low-intensity exposure to radiofrequency radiation. Rather, the Federal government has increasingly relied upon advice from engineers and scientists with conflicts of interest and industry lobbyists.
Following is an index of key submissions to the FCC regarding RF exposure limits and RF health effects since mid-2012.
August 12, 2019 
Selected FCC Submissions re: 

"Reassessment of Federal Communications Commission Radiofrequency 

Exposure Limits and Policies" (Proceeding Number 13-84)

Part I: Key Testimony Submitted to the FCC

Last revision: Aug 12, 2019
The FCC received more than 1,200 submissions regarding its cell phone radiation regulations. These documents reveal what we know about wireless radiation health effects, and why we need to strengthen regulations and provide precautionary warnings to the public.
In response to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) request for input regarding its radiofrequency radiation regulations adopted in 1996, individuals and organizations submitted thousands of documents, testimonials, research papers and scientific publications that are now available to the public. 
These documents reveal what we know about wireless radiation health effects, and why we need to strengthen regulations and provide precautionary warnings to consumers.

Although more than fifteen countries have issued precautionary health warnings about cell phone radiation and recommendations about how to reduce risks, the wireless industry in the U.S. has opposed precautionary warnings and wants to weaken cell phone radiation standards.
In all, the FCC received 1,270 submissions between June 25, 2012 and August 12, 2019. Many submissions include multiple documents. The preponderance of submissions call on the FCC to adopt stronger exposure limits on radiofrequency radiation.
Hundreds of individuals submitted statements that document their personal health problems and diseases experienced from exposure to radiofrequency radiation. These and other submissions can be viewed or downloaded by clicking on Proceeding Number 13-84 on the FCC web site.
The FCC's obsolete RF exposure limits are 23 years old. The current request for public input is six years old. The FCC never reported on or acted upon a similar request for public input issued in 2003.
In 2015, a Harvard publication exposed how industry captured the FCC, "As a captured agency, the FCC is a prime example of institutional corruption. Officials in such institutions do not need to receive envelopes bulging with cash. But even their most well-intentioned efforts are often overwhelmed by a system that favors powerful private influences, typically at the expense of public interest."
Obviously, updating RF regulations and testing procedures has not been a priority for the FCC even though the U.S. General Accountability Office recommended this in 2012.
Although there is a search engine on the FCC web site, one cannot easily find important documents. Hence, I constructed several indices.
Part I which appears below contains key submissions to the FCC regarding cell phone radiation and its health effects, and cell phone testing procedures and regulatory standards.
The submissions are organized under the following categories:
(1) Scientific Expert Resolutions Calling for Stronger Regulations
(2) Expert Comments in Support of Stronger Regulations
(3) Expert Comments that Support Weaker Regulations
(4) Consumer, Environmental and Health Organizations
(5) Government Agencies
(6) Wireless Industry Corporations and Associations
(7) Miscellaneous Other 
Not indexed below are submissions from individuals without organizational or institutional affiliations.  Many of these submissions discuss electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS).
Part II contains a list of key research papers that can be downloaded from the FCC web site. (updated Aug 11, 2019)
Part III lists 98 scientific experts from 23 nations who have signed resolutions between 2002 and 2014 that call for stronger regulations on wireless radiation, especially cell phone radiation.
In 2015, scientists who published peer-reviewed research on the health effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) submitted a petition to the United Nations, the World Health Organization, and all world leaders calling for stronger regulations on exposure to radiofrequency radiation than current national and international exposure limits allow. The International EMF Scientist Appeal was also submitted to the FCC.
The Appeal has been signed by more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on electromagnetic fields and biology and health. These scientists representing 42 nations have published more than 2,000 papers and letters on EMF in professional journals. This petition was recently submitted to the United Nations Environment Programme. 

Scientific Expert Resolutions Calling for Stronger Regulations  
Catania Resolution (2002; 16 signees)http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940474
Benevento Resolution (2006; 52 signees)
Seletun Scientific Panel (2009); 7 signees)http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940752
Health Canada Safety Code 6 Declaration  (Jul 9, 2014; 54 signees)http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521745425
The International EMF Scientist Appeal (May 11, 2015; 200 signees)http://bit.ly/FCCappeal

The 5G Appeal (2017 moratorium; signed by 245 scientists and doctors)

Expert Comments in Support of Stronger Regulations
Omer Abid, MD, MPH
David Adams, PhD
Norm Alster ("FCC captured agency")
Frank Barnes, PhD

Igor Belyaev, DrSc
BioInitiative Working Group (29 contributing authors)
Martin Blank, PhD
David O. Carpenter, MD
Neil Cherry, PhD
Richard H. Conrad, PhD

Devra L. Davis, PhD, MPH
Devra Davis PhD MPH, Alvaro de Salles PhD, Susan Downs MD, Gunnar Heuser MD PhD, Anthony Miller MD. Lloyd Morgan BSEE, Yael Stein MD. Elihu Richter MD MPH (rebuttal of CTIA's claims)
Alan H. Frey
Om Gandhi, PhD
Livio Giulani, PhD
Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD

Martha Herbert, MD, PhD
Isaac Jamieson, PhD
Toril Jeter, MD, FAACP
Olle Johansson, PhD
Suleyman Kaplan, PhD
Henry C. Lai, PhD

Victor Leach / Simon Turner   
Dariusz Leszczynski, PhD

B. Blake Levitt
De-Kun Li, MD, PhD, MPH
James C. Lin, PhD
Richard Meltzer, PhD
Don Maisch, PhD
Lloyd Morgan, BSEE
Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD
Martin Pall, PhD
Jerry L. Phillips, PhD
Ronald M. Powell, PhD
William J. Rea, MD
Cindy Lee Russell, MD
Cindy Sage, Lennart Hardell, MD & Martha Herbert, MD, PhD

Cindy Sage & David O. Carpenter, MD

J. Bertel Schou, PhD & Diane Schou, PhD

Miriam D. Weber, MD
Grace Ziem, MD, MPH, DrPH
Expert Comments that Support Weaker Regulations
Joe A. Elder, PhD
Consumer, Environmental and Health OrganizationsAmerican Academy of Pediatrics

American Academy of Environmental Medicine
California Brain Tumor Association

Center for Electrosmog Prevention
Consumers for Safe Cell Phones

Electromagnetic Safety Alliance, Inc.
EMF Safety Networkhttp://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940957http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940667

EMRadiation Policy Institute
Environmental Health Trust
Environmental Working Grouphttp://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520958411http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941812http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=752094148http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001040810http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001040811http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001040813
Environmental Working Group (petition w/ 26,000 signatures):
Global Union Against Radiation Deployment from Space http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60001390648
Gust Environmental

Pharmacists Planning Service Inc (PPSI)http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520958027http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520958028
Stop Smart Meters

Smart Meters Irvine

Stop Smart Meters New York

Wireless Education Action

Government Agencies

Cities of Boston, Massachusetts and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Environmental Protection Agency
FCC Office of the Chairman (Response to Sen. Blumenthal & Rep. Eshoo)
FCC Office of Engineering Technology Bureau
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022136643http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520936584https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10809296013805/13-84.pdf https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10809189809418/13-84b.pdfhttps://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1080943159446/13-84c.pdfhttps://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1032547831999/TIA-MWF%20Notice%20of%20Ex%20Parte%20for%20OET-Labs%20Meeting.pdf
International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization
Los Angeles Unified School District
Town of Hillsborough, California
Montgomery County, Maryland
National Cancer Institute & National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
City of Portland, Oregon

City and County of San Francisco
Radiation Protection Division, Environmental Protection Agency
Radiofrequency Interagency Working Group (Federal)
City of Tucson and County of Pima, Arizona Resolution
U.S. Department of Labor

Wireless Industry Corporations and Associations
Alarm Industry Communications Committee

ARRL, the National Association for Amateur Radio


Association for Advancement of Medical Instrumentation

AT&T Services

Blooston Private Users

Cohen, Dippell and Everist, P.C

Consumer Electronics Association

CTIA--The Wireless Association
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001040407 (290 pp. SCENIHR Report)
Fixed Wireless Communications Coalitionhttp://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941477
GSM Association

IEEE International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety (ICES)
Medtronic Inc
MMWave Coalition
Mobile Manufacturers Forum

Mobile and Wireless Forum
Momentum Dynamics Corporation and Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Motorola Solutions

National Association of Broadcasters

National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors


PCIA-The Wireless Infrastructure Association and The HetNet Forum

Qualcomm, Inc.

RF Check Inc.
Sensormatic Electronics, LLC

Telecommunications Industry Association
Richard Tell Associateshttp://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940058
Verizon and Verizon Wireless
Wi-Fi Alliance

Miscellaneous Other

American Association for Justice
Austrian Medical Association
California Medical Association
Council of Europe - Resolution 1815
Senator Bill Galvano (Florida)
Green Swan, Inc.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee
Mechanical Contractors Association
National Assn. of Telecommunications Officers, National League of Cities, National Assn of Counties, & U.S. Conference of Mayors
North America's Building Trade Unions
Operative Plasters' & Cement Masons International Association
Pong Research Corporation

Skyvision Solutions
United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers & Allied Workers

translate | 13.8.2019 21:53

Part II: Why We Need Stronger Cell Phone Radiation Regulations--Key Research Papers Submitted to the FCC

Selected FCC Submissions re: 

"Reassessment of Federal Communications Commission Radiofrequency 

Exposure Limits and Policies" (Proceeding Number 13-84)

Part II: Key Research Papers Submitted to the FCC

Last revision: August 12, 2019
The FCC received more than 1,200 submissions regarding its cell phone radiation regulations. These documents reveal what we know about wireless radiation health effects, and why we need to strengthen regulations and provide precautionary warnings to the public.
In response to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) request for input regarding its radiofrequency radiation regulations adopted in 1996, individuals and organizations submitted thousands of documents, testimonials, research papers and scientific publications that are now available to the media and to the public. 
These documents reveal what we know about wireless radiation health effects, and why we need to strengthen regulations and provide precautionary warnings to the public.

Although fifteen countries have issued precautionary health warnings about cell phone radiation and recommendations on how to reduce risks, the wireless industry in the U.S. has opposed precautionary warnings and wants to weaken our radiation standards instead of strengthen them.
In all, more than 1,200 submissions were made to the FCC between June 24, 2012 and August 12, 2019. Many submissions include multiple documents. To access these papers go to the FCC's web site for Proceeding Number 13-84.
Part II which appears below contains a list of key research papers and monographs submitted to the FCC and links to these documents which  enable people to download the papers.
(See Part I for key submissions to the FCC regarding cell phone radiation and its health effects, and cell phone testing procedures and regulatory standards, and Part III for a list of 98 scientific experts who have signed resolutions that call for stronger regulations on wireless radiation, especially cell phone radiation.)
 Published Research Papers

Adams JA, Galloway TS, Mondal D, Esteves SC, Mathews F. Effect of mobile telephones on sperm quality: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Environment Int. 2014. 70(2014): 106-112.  http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001040814

Aldad TS, Gan G, Gao XB, Taylor HS. Fetal radiofrequency radiation exposure from 800-1900 mhz-rated cellular telephones affects neurodevelopment and behavior in mice. Sci Rep. 2012;2:312. doi: 10.1038/srep00312. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311532
Balmori A. Electromagnetic pollution from phone masts. Effects on wildlife. Pathophysiology. 2009 Aug;16(2-3):191-9. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2009.01.007.http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940774

Balmori A. Anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as an emerging threat to wildlife orientation. Science of Total Environment. 518-519:58-60. 2015.

Belpomme et al. Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizingradiation: An international perspective. Envir Pollution. 242:643-658. 2018. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/12103008105187/nonionizing%20radiation%20international%20perspective%20Belpomme%20Hardell%20Carpenter%202018.pdf
Belyaev et al. Nonthermal effects of extremely high-frequency microwaves on chromatin conformation in cells in vitro—Dependence on physical, Physiological, and genetic factors. IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques. 48(11):2172-2179. 2000.

Betzalel et al. The human skin as a sub-THz receiver–Does 5G pose a danger to it or not? Envir Research. 163:208-216. 2018. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1210030663890/The%20human%20skin%20as%20a%20sub-THz%20receiver%20%E2%80%93%20Does%205G%20pose%20a%20danger%20to%20it%20or%20not%20(1).pdf

Buchner K, Eger H. Changes of Clinically Important Neurotransmitters under the Influence of Modulated RF Fields—A long-term study under real-life conditions. Umwelt-Medizin-Gesellschaft 24(1):44-57. 2011. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940778
Blackman CF. Treating cancer with amplitude-modulated electromagnetic fields: a potential paradigm shift, again? Br J Cancer. 2012 Jan 17;106(2):241-2. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2011.576. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940777
Chou CK, Guy AW, Kunz LL, Johnson RB, Crowley JJ, Krupp JH. Long-term, low-level microwave irradiation of rats. Bioelectromagnetics. 1992;13(6):469-96.

Costa FP, de Oliveira AC, Meirelles R, Machado MC, Zanesco T, Surjan R, Chammas MC, de Souza Rocha M, Morgan D, Cantor A, Zimmerman J, Brezovich I, Kuster N, Barbault A, Pasche B. Treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with very low levels of amplitude-modulated electromagnetic fields. Br J Cancer. 2011 Aug 23;105(5):640-8.doi:10.1038/bjc.2011.292.http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940776
Cucurachi S, Tamis WL, Vijver MG, Peijnenburg WJ, Bolte JF, de Snoo GR. A review of the ecological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). Environ Int. 2013 Jan;51:116-40. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2012.10.009.http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940763
Davis DL, Kesari S, Soskolne CL, Miller AB, Stein Y. Swedish review strengthens grounds for concluding that radiation from cellular and cordless phones is a probable human carcinogen. Pathophysiology. 2013 Apr;20(2):123-9. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2013.03.001.http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520943925
Everaert J, Bauwens D. A possible effect of electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone base stations on the number of breeding house sparrows (Passer domesticus). Electromagn Biol Med. 2007;26(1):63-72. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940767
Falcioni et al. 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. Envir Research. 2018.

Foerster et al. A prospective cohort study of adolescents' memory performance and individual brain dose of microwave radiation from wireless communication. Envir Health Perspectives. 126(7). July 2018. 

Fragopoulou A, Grigoriev Y, Johansson O, Margaritis LH, Morgan L, Richter E, Sage C. Scientific panel on electromagnetic field health risks: consensus points, recommendations, and rationales. Rev Environ Health. 2010 Oct-Dec;25(4):307-17.http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940752
Gandhi, OP. Yes the Children Are More Exposed to Radiofrequency Energy From Mobile Telephones Than Adults. IEEE Spectrum. 3:985-988. July 10, 2015.

Gandhi, OP, Kang G. Inaccuracies of a plastic pinna SAM for SAR testing of cellular telephones against IEEE and ICNIRP safety guidelines. IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques. 52(8):2004-2012. Aug 2004; DOI: 10.1109/TMTT.2004.832689. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311473

Gandhi OP, Morgan LL, de Salles AA, Han Y-Y, Herberman RB, Davis DL. Exposure limits: the underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children. Electromagn Biol Med. 2012 Mar;31(1):34-51. doi: 10.3109/15368378.2011.622827. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311190
Giuliani L, Soffritti M. (Eds.) Non-thermal Effects and Mechanisms of Interaction between Electromagnetic Fields and Living Matter. ICEMS Monograph. European J Oncology. Vol. 5. 2010.http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940834

Güler G, Tomruk A, Ozgur E, Sahin D, Sepici A, Altan N, Seyhan N. The effect of radiofrequency radiation on DNA and lipid damage in female and male infant rabbits. Int J Radiat Biol. 2012 Apr;88(4):367-73. doi: 10.3109/09553002.2012.646349.http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311528
Haggerty K. Adverse Influence of Radio Frequency Background on Trembling Aspen Seedlings: Preliminary Observations.International Journal of Forestry Research, vol. 2010, Article ID 836278, 7 pages, 2010. doi:10.1155/2010/836278. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940764
Hagström M, Auranen J, Ekman R. Electromagnetic hypersensitive Finns: Symptoms, perceived sources and treatments, a questionnaire study. Pathophysiology. 2013 Apr;20(2):117-22. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2013.02.001. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941823
Hardell L. World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health - a hard nut to crack (Review). Int J Oncology. 51:405-413. 2017.https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/12103008105187/World%20Health%20Organization%2C%20radiofrequency%20radiation%20and%20health%20-%20a%20hard%20nut%20to%20crack%20(Review)%20Lennart%20Hardell%20.pdf

Havas M. Radiation from wireless technology affects the blood, the heart, and the autonomic nervous system. Rev Environ Health. 2013;28(2-3):75-84. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2013-0004. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520958029
Herbert MR, Sage C. Autism and EMF? Plausibility of a pathophysiological link - Part I. Pathophysiology. 2013 Jun;20(3):191-209. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2013.08.001.http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520958030
Herbert MR, Sage C. Autism and EMF? Plausibility of a pathophysiological link part II. Pathophysiology. 2013 Jun;20(3):211-34. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2013.08.002.http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520958031
Houston et al. The effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation on sperm function. Reproduction. 2016.

Kane RC. A possible association between fetal/neonatal exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation and the increased incidence of autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Med Hypotheses.2004;62(2):195-7.http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941400
Kesari KK, Kumar S, Behari J. Pathophysiology of microwave radiation: effect on rat brain. Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 2012 Jan;166(2):379-88. doi: 10.1007/s12010-011-9433-6.http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520939750
Kundi M, Hunter H-P. Mobile phone base stations—Effects on wellbeing and health. Pathophysiology. 2009.

Levis AG, Gennaro V, Garbiso S. Business bias as usual: The case of electromagnetic pollution.  In Elsner W, Frigato P, Ramazzotti P eds: “Social Costs Today. Institutional Analyses of the Present Crises”. Routledge (Taylor&Francis Group), London and New York 2012: 225-68.http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520958478
Levis AG, Minicuci N, Ricci P, Gennaro V, Garbisa S. Mobile phones and head tumours. The discrepancies in cause-effect relationships in the epidemiological studies - how do they arise? Environ Health. 2011 Jun 17;10:59. doi: 10.1186/1476-069X-10-59.http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940825
Levitt BB, Lai H. Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. Environ. Res. 18:369-395. 2010.http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311466
Li DK, Ferber JR, Odouli R, Quesenberry CP Jr. A prospective study of in-utero exposure to magnetic fields and the risk of childhood obesity. Sci Rep. 2012;2:540. doi: 10.1038/srep00540. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311533

Melnick RL. Commentary on the utility of the National Toxicology Program study on cellphone radiofrequency radiation data for assessing human health risks despite unfounded criticisms aimed at minimizing the findings of adverse health effects. Environ Research. 168:1-6. 2019. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1001332406626/Melnick-Commentary%20on%20the%20utility%20of%20the%20National%20Toxicology%20Program%20study.pdf

Miller et al. Cancer epidemiology update, following the 2011 IARC evaluation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (Monograph 102). Envir Research. 2018. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/12103008105187/Miller%20et%20al%20(1).%20Cancer%20epidemiology%20update%20copy%202.pdf

Myung SK, Ju W, McDonnell DD, Lee YJ, Kazinets G, Cheng CT, Moskowitz JM. Mobile phone use and risk of tumors: a meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Nov 20;27(33):5565-72. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.21.6366.http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940706
Nittby H, Brun A, Eberhardt J, Malmgren L, Persson BR, Salford LG. Increased blood-brain barrier permeability in mammalian brain 7 days after exposure to the radiation from a GSM-900 mobile phone. Pathophysiology. 2009 Aug;16(2-3):103-12. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2009.01.001.http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941405
Nittby H, Grafström G, Eberhardt JL, Malmgren L, Brun A, Persson BR, Salford LG. Review. Radiofrequency and extremely low-frequency electromagnetic field effects on the blood-brain barrier. Electromagn Biol Med. 2008;27(2):103-26. doi: 10.1080/15368370802061995.http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941406
Odaci E, Bas O, Kaplan S. Effects of prenatal exposure to a 900 MHz electromagnetic field on the dentate gyrus of rats: a stereological and histopathological study. Brain Res. 2008 Oct 31;1238:224-9. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2008.08.013. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311527
Pall ML. Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects. J Cell Mol Med. 2013 Aug;17(8):958-65. doi: 10.1111/jcmm.12088.http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941801

Pall ML. Microwave frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produce widespread neuropsychiatric effects including depression. J Chemical Neuroanatomy. 2015.

Pall ML. WiFi is an important threat to human health. Environ Research. 164: 405-416. 2018. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10429016089243/WIF%20threat%20Martin%20Pall%202018%20Environmental%20Research%20.pdf
Panagopoulos DJ. Comparing DNA damage induced by mobile telephony and other types of man-made electric fields. Mutation Research--Reviews in Mutation Research. 781:53-62. 2019. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10429016089243/Panagopoulos-2019-Mut%20Res%20Rev%20Comparing%20DNA%20damage%20induced%20by%20mobile%20telephony%20and%20other%20types%20of%20man-made%20electromagnetic%20fields.pdf

Panagopoulos DJ, Johansson O, Carlo GL. Evaluation of specific absorption rate as a dosimetric quantity for electromagnetic fields bioeffects. PLoS One. 2013 Jun 4;8(6):e62663. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0062663. Print 2013. Erratum in: PLoS One.http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520938512
Persson BRR, Salford LG, Brun A. Blood-brain barrier permeability in rats exposed to electromagnetic fields used in wireless communication. Wireless Networks. 3:455-461.1997. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941992
Rea WJ, Pan Y, Fenyves EJ, Sujisawa I, Suyama H, Samadi N, Ross GH. Electromagnetic field sensitivity. Journal of Bioelectricity. 10(1&2):242-256. 1991.http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520937451
Russell CL. 5 G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health andenvironmental implications. Environ Research. 165:484-495. 2018. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1001332406626/CindyRussell5%20G%20wireless%20telecommunications%20expansion.pdf

Sage C, Carpenter DO. Public health implications of wireless technologies. Pathophysiology . 16: 233–246. 2009. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/109303096909269/Sage%20%26%20Carpenter%2C%202009.pdf
Sivani S, Sudarsanam D. Im pacts of radio-frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) fromcell phone towers and wireless devices on biosystem and ecosystem – a review. Biology and Medicine 4(4):202-216. 2012. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940779

Thielens et al. Exposure of Insects to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields from 2 to 120 GHz. Sci Reports. 8: 3924. 2018. 
Tseng AS, Beane WS, Lemire JM, Masi A, Levin M. Induction of vertebrate regeneration by a transient sodium current. J Neurosci. 2010 Sep 29;30(39):13192-200. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3315-10.2010. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940761

Yakymenko I, Tsybulin O, Sidorik E, Henshel, Kyrylenko O, Kyrylenko S, Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. Posted online on July 7, 2015. 

Zothansiama et al. Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. 2017. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1210030663890/Impact%20of%20radiofrequency%20radiation%20on%20DNA%20damage%20and%20antioxidants%20in%20peripheral%20blood%20lymphocytes%20of%20humans%20residing%20in%20the%20vicinity%20of%20mobile%20phone.pdf
Monographs and Papers
Austrian Medical Association. Guideline of the Austrian Medical Association for the diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses (EMF syndrome): Consensus paper of the Austrian Medical Association’s EMF Working Group. Vienna, Austria. Mar 2012.http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940750
Bioeffects of Selected Nonlethal Weapons. Addendum to the Nonlethal Technologies *Worldwide (NGIC-I 147-101-98) Study. Undated classified document released by the Dept of the Army Dec 13, 2006. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311621
BioInitiative Working Group. Sage C, Carpenter DO. (Eds). BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for  Biologically-based Exposure Standards for Low-Intensity Electromagnetic Radiation. www.bioinitiative.org, December 31, 2012. (29 chapter authors)http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520939958 
Council of Europe. Parliamentary Assembly. The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment. Doc. 12608. May 6, 2011. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311504
Dart P. Alterations in Hormone Physiology. Undated. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940905
Dart P. Cell Phones and Risk of Brain Tumor. Undated.http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940911
Dart P. Consequences of Chronic Microwave RF Exposure. Undated.http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940908
Dart P. Effects of Microwave RF Exposure on Fertility. Undated.http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940909
Dart P. Health Effects of Microwave Radio Exposures: Acute Symptoms from RF Exposure. Undated. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940904
Dart P. Microwave RF Interacts with Molecular Structures. Undated.http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940906
Dart P, Cordes K, Elliott A. Public Health Implications of the Proposed Cell Phone Transmission Tower at Oakway Golf Course. Undated. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311419
Dart P, Cordes K, Elliott A, Knackstedt J, Morgan J, Wible P, Baker S. Biological and health effects of microwave radiofrequency transmissions: A review of the research literature. A report to Eugene Water and Electric Board. Jun 4, 2013.http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940903
European Environment Agency. Statement on Mobile Phones for Conference on Cell Phones and Health: Science and Public Policy Questions, Washington, 15 September 2009. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311538
Frey A. Opinion: Cell Phone Health Risk? The Scientist. Sep 25, 2012. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311550
Frey AH. On the Safety of Cell Phone Radiation. British Medical Journal. Nov 7, 2011.http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311551
Glaser ZR. Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena (‘Effects’) and Clinical Manifestations Attributed to Microwave and Radio-Frequency Radiation: Research Report No. 2 Revised. Naval Medical Research Institute. Oct 4, 1971. Second printing w/ revisions. Apr 20, 1972. (Contains more than 2,000 references.) http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311479
Goldsworthy A. The Biological Effects of Weak Electromagnetic Fields. Mar 2012.
Hardell L, Carlberg M, Gee D. Chapter 21. Mobile phone use and brain tumour risk: early warnings early actions?  In Emerging issues: Late lessons from early warnings: Science, precaution, innovation. European Environment Agency Report 1/2013. Jan 2013. Pp. 541-561. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941294
IARC. Non-Ionizing Radiation. Part 2. Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields. Volume 102. Lyon, France: International Agency for Cancer Research, World Health Organization. 

Kane RC. Cellular Telephone Russian Roulette: A Historical and Scientific Perspective. New York: Vantage Press. 2001. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941881
Kucinich D. 112th H.R. 6358. A bill to examine, label, and communicate adverse human biological effects associated with exposure to electromagnetic fields from cell phones and other wireless devices. Congress. 2d Session. Aug 3, 2012.http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311505
Lai H. Exhibit D: An Update on Neurological Effects of Nonionizing Electromagnetic Fields. Mar, 2014. 169 pp.http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521098237
Lai H. Exhibit E: An Update on the Genetic Effects of Nonionizing Electromagnetic Fields. Mar, 2014. 94 pp.http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521098238
Leszczynski, D. FCC, IEEE and ICNIRP should tighten safety standards. Washington Times Communities. Apr 9, 2013.http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022272017
Markova E, Malmgren L, Belyaev I. Microwaves from Mobile Phones Inhibit 53BP1 Focus Formation in Human Stem Cells Stronger than in Differentiated Cells: Possible Mechanistic Link to Cancer Risk. Environ Health Perspect. 118(3):394-399. Mar 2010. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311529
Moskowitz JM. Comments on the 2012 GAO Report: “Exposure and Testing Requirements for Mobile Phones Should Be Reassessed”. Aug 15, 2012 (rev. Aug 24, 2012).http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940705
Moskowitz JM. Why the FCC Must Strengthen Radiofrequency Radiation Limits in the U.S.: A compilation of original press releases from April 2012 – November 2013. Nov 5, 2013.http://bit.ly/1b9FG37
Naval Medical Research Institute. Bibliography of reported biological phenomena ('effects') and clinical manifestations attributed to microwave and radio-frequency radiation. NTIS. 1972. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1001034847591/Naval-Medical-Research-Institute-1972.pdf

National Toxicology Program. Report of Partial Findings from the National Toxicology Program Carcinogenesis Studies of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation in Hsd: Sprague Dawley® SD rats (Whole Body Exposures). Draft 5/19/2016. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/60002090569.pdf

Sierck  PH. Smart Meter—What We Know: Measurement Challenges and Complexities. A Technical Paper to Clarify RF Radiation Emissions and Measurement Methodologies. Encinitas, CA: ET&T Indoor Environmental Surveys. Dec 2011.http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311412
U.S. Department of the Army. Bioeffects of Nonlethal Weapons. Feb 17, 1998 (Unclassified Dec 13, 2006). https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7022311476.pdf

U.S. E.P.A. Electric and Magnetic Fields: An EPA Perspective on Research Needs and Priorities for Improving Health Risk Assessment. Washington: EPA. Dec 1992.http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311520

U.S. EPA. EPA Comments to the Federal Communications Commission on FCC 93-142 April 1993. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Guidlines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation. http://bit.ly/2avzSMU

U.S. EPA. Letter from Norbert Hankin to Janet Newton re: inadequacy of FCC radiofrequency guidelines. Jul 16, 2002. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7022311328.pdf
Wargo J, Taylor HS, Alderman N, Wargo L. Cell Phones: Technology | Exposures | Health Effects. Environment & Human Health, Inc. 2012. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311531
Wisz, J. Potential Hazards of Cellular Phone Radiation: Responses to Fear and Uncertainty. Harvard University. 2002. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001335019
translate | 13.8.2019 21:50

Key Cell Phone Radiation Research Studies

Note: This is not a comprehensive list. I have focused on more recent papers and tried to be parsimonious. The links to all abstracts and open access papers below were checked and updated on June 7, 2019.  I will update this list periodically.

National Toxicology Program cell phone radiation studies
Tumor risk review papers
   Myung et al (2009) Mobile phone use and risk of tumors: a meta-analysis. J Clinical Oncology. http://bit.ly/2F0IdUS   Khurana et al (2009) Cell phones and brain tumors: a review including long-term epidemiologic data. Surgical Neurology. http://bit.ly/2WTQwfk   Levis et al (2011) Mobile phones and head tumours: the discrepancies in cause-effect relationships in the epi studies-how do they arise. Environ Health. http://bit.ly/2IsQy4r   Levis et al (2012) Mobile phones and head tumours: a critical analysis of case-control epi studies. Open Environ Sciences. http://bit.ly/2EXT5ml   WHO (2013) IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Volume 102: Non-ionizing radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. http://bit.ly/10oIE3o   Morgan et al (2015) Mobile phone radiation causes brain tumors and should be classified as a probable human carcinogen (2A) (Review). Int J Oncology. http://bit.ly/2XwgVNa
   Wang Y, Guo X (2016) Meta-analysis of association between mobile phone use and glioma risk. J Cancer Research Therapy http://bit.ly/2o1dVcn
   Bortkiewicz et al (2017) Mobile phone use and risk of intracranial tumors and salivary gland tumors - A meta-analysis. Int J Occ Med Envir Health. http://bit.ly/2nVJC5d
   Prasad et al (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. http://bit.ly/2Xxp83P
   Carlberg, Hardell (2017) Evaluation of mobile phone and cordless phone use and glioma risk using the Bradford Hill viewpoints from 1965 on association or causation. Biomed Res Int. http://bit.ly/2WwBX1K

   Miller, et al (2018). Cancer epidemiology update, following the 2011 IARC evaluation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (Monograph 102). Environ Res. http://bit.ly/2rJD7Fu

    Also see Long-Term Cell Phone Use Increases Brain Tumor Risk

Tumor risk studies
   Interphone Study Group (2010) Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile phone use: results of the Interphone international case-control study. Int J Epidemiol. http://bit.ly/2MzsceR   Interphone Study Group (2011) Acoustic neuroma risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study. Cancer Epidemiol. http://bit.ly/2Ix7BlQ   Aydin et al (2011) Mobile phone use & brain tumors in children & adolescents: a multi-center case-control study. (CEFALO Study). JNCI. http://bit.ly/31j0JBa   Hardell et al (2013) Case-control study of the association between malignant brain tumours diagnosed between 2007 and 2009 and mobile and cordless phone use. Int J Oncologyhttp://bit.ly/2ZaVJg5   Hardell et al (2013) Pooled analysis of case-control studies on acoustic neuroma diagnosed 1997-2003 and 2007-2009 and use of mobile and cordless phones. Int J Oncology. http://bit.ly/31gbDaO   Coureau et al (2014)  Mobile phone use and brain tumours in the CERENAT case-control study. http://bit.ly/1DWgzRi
   Grell et al (2016) The intracranial distribution of gliomas in relation to exposure from mobile phones: Analyses from the INTERPHONE Study. Am J Epidemiol. http://bit.ly/2ZcawHu

    Also see: Acoustic neuroma risk and cell phone use studies and 
Should Cellphones Have Warning Labels?
Breast cancer
   West et al (2013) Multifocal breast cancer in young women with prolonged contact between their breasts and their cellular phones. Case Rep Med. http://bit.ly/2WW8n52
Brain tumor incidence trends
   Inskip et al (2010) Brain cancer incidence trends in relation to cellular telephone use in the United States. Neuro Oncology. http://bit.ly/2K6rEuz   Zada et al (2012) Incidence trends in the anatomic location of primary malignant brain tumors in the United States: 1992-2006. World Neurosurg. http://bit.ly/2Wq1Dbm   Hardell & Carlberg (2015) Increasing rates of brain tumours in the Swedish National Inpatient Register & the Causes of Death Register. Int J Environ Res Public Health. http://bit.ly/1aDHJm   Devocht (2016) Inferring the 1985–2014 impact of mobile phone use on selected brain cancer subtypes using Bayesian structural time series and synthetic controls. Environ Int. http://bit.ly/2jJlbZu      corrigendum (2017): http://bit.ly/2Cuq2nU
   Hardell & Carlberg (2017) Mobile phones, cordless phones and rates of brain tumors in different age groups in the Swedish National Inpatient Register and the Swedish Cancer Register during 1998-2015. PLOS One. http://bit.ly/H-C2017
  Philips et al (2018) Brain tumours: Rise in Glioblastoma Multiforme incidence in England 1995-2015 suggests an adverse environmental or lifestyle factor. J Environ Public Health http://bit.ly/2KIY4aI

    Also see: Brain Tumor Rates Are Rising in the US: The Role of Cell Phone & Cordless Phone Use

   Ruediger (2009) Genotoxic effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Pathophysiology. http://bit.ly/2EXGaRb    Behari (2010) Biological responses of mobile phone frequency exposure. Indian J Exp Biology. http://bit.ly/2Xx0Gzr 
   Giuliani and Soffritti (2010). Nonthermal effects and mechanisms of interaction between electromagnetic fields and living matter. ICEMS Monograph. Ramazzini Institute. 403 pp. http://bit.ly/2HUnO7R   Juutilainen et al (2011) Review of possible modulation-dependent biological effects of radiofrequency fields. Bioelectromagnetics. http://bit.ly/2MAQ7KJ   Volkow et al (2011) Effects of cell phone radiofrequency signal exposure on brain glucose metabolism. JAMA. http://bit.ly/2KyjIBT   Pall (2013) EMFs act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects. J Cell Mol Med. http://bit.ly/2K5yO2e   Calderon et al (2014) Assessment of extremely low frequency magnetic field exposure from GSM mobile phones. http://bit.ly/2EA1N7e   Dasdag & Akdag (2015) The link between radiofrequencies emitted from wireless technologies & oxidative stress. J Chem Neuroanat. http://bit.ly/2EXN88W   Yakymenko et al (2016) Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation. Electromagnet Biol Med. http://bit.ly/2qCGM4F   Barnes & Greenenbaum (2016) Some effects of weak magnetic fields on biological systems: RF fields can change radical concentrations and cancer cell growth rates. IEEE Power Electronics J. http://bit.ly/1WvQGiY   Tamrin et al (2016)  Electromagnetic fields and stem cell fate: When physics meets biology. Rev Physiol Biochem Pharmacol. http://bit.ly/2b6Ht3y   Terzi et al (2016) The role of electromagnetic fields in neurological disorders. J Chem Neuroanat. http://bit.ly/2WQw2E1   Havas (2017) When theory and observation collide: Can non-ionizing radiation cause cancer? Environ Pollution. http://bit.ly/2DssMS2   Barnes & Kandala (2018) Effects of time delays on biological feedback systems and electromagnetic field exposures. Bioelectromagnetics. http://bit.ly/2EZkZPS  Belpomme et al (2018). Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An international perspective. Environ Pollution. http://bit.ly/IntlEMFreview
  Hinrikus et al (2018) Understanding physical mechanism of low-level microwave radiation effect. Int J Radiation Biol. http://bit.ly/2EwNyoU
  Nielsen et al (2019). Towards predicting intracellular radiofrequency radiation effects. PLOS One. http://bit.ly/2uaeFxY
  Panagopoulos (2019). Comparing DNA damage induced by mobile telephony and other types of man-made electromagnetic fields. Mutation Res. http://bit.ly/2HACI1O

Reproductive Health Effects
   LaVignera et al (2011) Effects of the exposure to mobile phones on male reproduction: a review of the literature. J Andrology. http://bit.ly/2wL7zRO   Aldad et al (2012) Fetal radiofrequency radiation exposure from 800-1900 Mhz-rated cellular telephones affects neurodevelopment and behavior in mice. Science Reports. http://bit.ly/2Z6H45I   Divan et al (2012) Cell phone use and behavioural problems in young children. J Epidemiol Commun Health. http://bit.ly/2EV1bw8   Adams et al (2014) Effect of mobile telephones on sperm quality: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Reproduction. http://bit.ly/1pUnmDq   Houston et al (2016) The effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation on sperm function. Reproduction. http://bit.ly/2cJJ2pE
    Also see: Effect of Mobile Phones on Sperm Quality and Pregnancy & Wireless Radiation Risks
Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

    See: Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity


   Kelsh et al (2010) Measured radiofrequency exposure during various mobile-phone use scenarios. J Exposure Sci Environ Epidemiol. http://bit.ly/2IuYH8s   Gandhi et al (2012) Exposure limits: the underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children. Electromagnetic Biol Med. http://bit.ly/2EZilbN   Schmid & Kuster (2015) The discrepancy between maximum in vitro exposure levels and realistic conservative exposure levels of mobile phones operating at 900/1800 MHz. Bioelectromagnetics. http://bit.ly/31j46be   Sagar et al. (2018) Comparison of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure levels in different everyday microenvironments in an international context. Environ Int. http://bit.ly/2E5QR10  Gandhi OP (2019) Microwave emissions from cell phones exceed safety limits in Europe and the US when touching the body. IEEE Access. http://bit.ly/2QUTI4N

Blood-Brain Barrier Studies

    AirPods: Are Apple’s New Wireless Earbuds Safe? (Blood-Brain Barrier Effects)

5G and Millimeter Wave Studies
5G Wireless Technology: Is 5G Harmful to Our Health?5G Wireless Technology: Millimeter Wave Health Effects

    Huss et al  (2007) Source of funding and results of studies of health effects of mobile phone use: systematic review of experimental studies. Environ Health Perspec. http://bit.ly/2wBEmYp    Fragopoulou et al (2010) Scientific panel on electromagnetic field health risks: consensus points, recommendations, and rationales. Rev Environ Health. http://bit.ly/2tWiXHP
    Alster, N (2015) Captured agency: How the FCC is dominated by the industries it presumably regulates. Harvard University. http://bit.ly/FCCcaptured
    Consumer Reports (2015) "Does cell-phone radiation cause cancer?" http://bit.ly/CRoncellphoneradiation    International EMF Scientist Appeal (2015) https://emfscientist.org/    International Appeal: Scientists call for protection from non-ionizing electromagnetic field exposure. European J Oncology. 20(3/4). 2015. http://bit.ly/EMFAppealEurOncol
    Kostoff R, Lau C (2017). Modified health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation combined with other agents reported in the biomedical literature. In C.D. Geddes (ed.), Microwave Effects on DNA and Proteins. http://b.gatech.edu/2uyMAz0   Bandara P, Carpenter DO (2018). Planetary electromagnetic pollution: it is time to assess its impact. The Lancet Planetary Health. http://bit.ly/2GqpJQF
   Foerster et al (2018). A prospective cohort study of adolescents' memory performance and individual brain dose of microwave radiation from wireless communication. Environ Health Perspect. http://bit.ly/2wJs0Pm
   Hertsgaard, M, Dowie, M (2018). "How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation." The Nation, March 29, 2018. http://bit.ly/BigWireless
   Miller et al (2019). Risks to health and well-being from radio-frequency radiation emitted by cell phones and other wireless devices. Front. Public Health 7:223. http://bit.ly/2TsUNlN
translate | 21.8.2019 21:29

5G Wireless Technology: Cutting Through the Hype

See the bottom of this page for links to recent news stories about 5G.
The CTIA, the wireless industry trade association, has launched an advertising campaign entitled, "The Global Race to 5G." The ads claim that unless the U.S. wins this "global race" to become the first nation to deploy the fifth generation of wireless technology or 5G, we will not reap the economic benefits of this technology. 

The CTIA claims that "compared to today's 4G networks, 5G will be up to 100x faster, support 100x more devices, and provide a 5x faster response time." Moreover, the association asserts that the nation's wireless industry is prepared to invest $275 billion in 5G which will yield three million new jobs and $500 billion in economic growth. If we win the global race, the "next-generation of wireless will drive $2.7 trillion of new economic benefits to American families and businesses."
The CTIA has denied for decades that there are adverse health effects from exposure to wireless radiation. By establishing a revolving door between its leadership and the FCC's, the CTIA ensures that the federal regulatory agency maintains the inadequate, obsolete radio frequency exposure limits which the FCC adopted in 1996.
The FCC and federal health agencies have been oblivious to the health concerns raised by more than 247 scientists from 42 nations who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic or health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields.
This September more than 200 scientists and doctors from 35 countries signed a declaration demanding a moratorium on the planned increase of cell antennas for 5G deployment in the European Union. Concerns over health effects from higher radiation exposure include potential neurological impacts, infertility, and cancer.
The following excerpts were extracted from a 23-page special report from RCR Wireless that cuts through much of the hype surrounding the deployment of 5G. The excerpts are direct quotes from the report. RCR Wireless is a trade publication that has reported on the wireless industry and wireless technology since 1982.
Transitioning to a 5G World
Kelly Hill, RCR Wireless, November, 2017

Excerpts from the Report
Hype is certainly high for 5G, given that the industry is still technically in a pre-standard phase and that standalone 5G systems are still some time off.
5G is coming even faster than originally expected. In December, the first official specification from the Third Generation Partnership Project is expected to be released; 5G New Radio will finally make its standardized debut – although like Long Term Evolution, 5G will continue to evolve and be refined in the coming years.
“5G will not replace LTE,” Rysavy Research concluded in an August report for the GSMA. “In most deployments, the two technologies will be tightly integrated and co-exist through at least the late-2020s.”
Although the industry is preparing for 5G, LTE [4G] capabilities will continue to improve in LTE Advanced Pro through the rest of the decade,”  Rysavy wrote .... 5G will eventually play an important role, but it must be timed appropriately so that the jump in capability justifies the new investment.
KT, for example, plans to support two different frequencies from the get-go in its 5G network: 3.5 GHz as an anchor with better propagation, complemented by 28 GHz in dense areas. Given that networks are expected to initially be 4G/5G networks, testing will have to continue to support LTE alongside 5G.
Hurtarte of LitePoint noted that although “millimeter wave” tends to be treated as one category, there are significant differences between the components and frequency planning needed at 28 GHz versus 39 GHz. In addition, although some frequencies are widely agreed upon, there are other frequencies that may get the nod for 5G use: 24 GHz in China, possibly 40-43 Ghz and possibly even above 70 GHz.
There are some major challenges to the success of 5G, which are all interrelated: the move to mmwave, the need for ultra-density, and the question of when the economics of 5G will actually work well enough to take off.
Mmwave [millimeter wave] provides the huge bandwidths that are needed for fast speeds and high capacity, but the higher the frequency, the shorter its range and more susceptible it is to being easily blocked and reflected (thus the need for beamforming in order to focus the energy more tightly). Seasonal foliage, energy efficient glass windows with special coatings, and standard housing materials all present effective barriers to mmwave reaching indoors to customer premise equipment, operators and vendors have found in their field testing.
Denisowski pointed out that fixed wireless is one thing, but moving objects are another. Obstruction, not radiating sources of energy, is likely to be the main cause of interference in 5G systems: vehicles driving back and forth, or even wind farms can scatter microwave radiation.
Density of foliage “plays a big role,” said Thadasina of Samsung, which has been working with a number of carriers on 5G trials. “What we found is that for the mmwave signal, as it penetrated through trees, the thickness of the trees matters. Initially the impedence offered by foliage is linear, but beyond a certain density it is no longer linear … it kills the signal.” Building materials are well-known to play a role in transmission from outdoors to indoors, he added, but the angle of incidence does as well. The difference between 30 degrees to 60 degrees to 90 degrees can create additional impedance, Thadasina said, “some of those things make it challenging in terms of closing the link.” Moisture levels play a role as well, he said ....
Fiber is fuel for 5G, and its prevalence is increasing. SNL Kagan found earlier this year that global fiber residential investment increased sharply in 2016, and that fiber is on track to reach 1 billion subscribers by 2021. Meanwhile, in the U.S., Vertical Systems Group reported that 49.6% of multi-tenant and enterprise buildings had access to fiber last year, compared to only 10% in 2004.

Deloitte said earlier this year that it expects to see $130 billion-$150 billion in “deep fiber” investment in the U.S. over 5-7 years, due to a combination of broadband competition, ensuring 5G readiness, and expanding fiber into new areas.

Murphy of Nokia said that operators should expect that, depending on which frequency they deploy in, they will need 2.5 to 10 times as many sites as they have now. That’s a tall order, especially given that small cell sites in cellular frequencies can take 18 to 24 months to get site approvals – scaling small cells has been hard enough in LTE, with the market moving much more slowly than analysts had predicted or carriers would like.
“It’s going to take a long time,” Einbinder said. “Constructing a cell tower is hard. A micro-cell has a lot of the same issues”: power and fiber and access to a site, which a community may be reluctant to grant – California, for instance, recently rejected a measure passed at the state level that would have streamlined processes for small cells.
... Einbinder thinks that some communities will take initiative and want to be 5G economic centers. While that’s encouraging for operators, it may also mean that 5G coverage maps look very different from the familiar red, blue, yellow and magenta maps indicating nationwide coverage. “The resulting coverage maps might have a lot more to do with [communities] than any economic or technological drivers – it’s going to be driven by local preference.”
While early work estimated that as many as 40 to 50 homes could be covered by a single fixed wireless site, according to Rouault of EXFO, that number has turned out to be around five in testing because of the complexity of beamforming necessary to support multiple homes. “It’s not at the point we would say the verdict is out,” Rouault added. “The technology is proven to work, but to make the business case work, the scale is the problem right now.”
So the biggest question is where a breakthrough is going to happen that becomes the point at which 5G becomes a more attractive investment than LTE. “What can 5G do that other systems can’t? This is where there is no clear answer,” said Hemant Minocha, EVP for device and IoT at TEOCO. There is no 5G requirement for IoT [Internet of Things], he points out, and the business case hasn’t yet been proven out for ultra-low latency (not to  mention that LTE is capable of lower latency than it has achieved to this point in networks).
Key Takeaways:
• The industry is moving quickly toward 5G, with momentum in testing and trials. The first official 5G specification from 3GPP is expected in December, with a protocol-focused release coming in the spring of 2018.
• Many features and architectures in LTE, particularly gigabit LTE, will both underpin future 5G networks and provide lessons learned in making 5G systems work. These include dense fiber deployment, higher-order and massive MIMO, network slicing, virtualization, and mobile edge computing.
• The biggest challenge for 5G lies in a millimeter-wave based RAN, with significant challenges ahead for designing and deploying a workable, optimized and profitable mmwave network on a large scale.

The RCR Wireless report, "Transitioning to a 5G World," can be downloaded at http://bit.ly/5Ghype.

Related posts
Scientists and Doctors Demand Moratorium on 5G5G Wireless Technology: Is 5G Harmful to Our Health?
5G Wireless Technology: Millimeter Wave Health Effects

5G Day of Action
5G Wireless Technology: Newspaper editorials oppose "small cell" antenna bills
Cell Tower Health Effects
International EMF Scientist Appeal
An Exposé of the FCC: An Agency Captured by the Industries it RegulatesFCC: Why We Need Stronger Cell Phone Radiation Regulations--Key TestimonyCell Tower Radiation Affects Wildlife: Dept. of Interior Attacks FCC

Recent News Stories
5G Hype Won't Close the Digital Divide
Dhara Singh, c|net, Aug 14, 2019

Verizon warns that mid-band 5G will perform more like 4G
Jeremy Horwitz, Venture Beat, Aug 7, 2019

The Downside of 5G: Overwhelmed Cities, Torn-Up Streets, a Decade Until CompletionChristopher Mims, Wall Street Journal, Jun 29, 2019

The History of Cellular Networks Doesn't Bode Well for 5GThreat Lab, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Jun 26, 2019
Verizon Claims 5G Will Help Fight Cancer. Experts Say That’s Not LikelyKarl Bode, Vice.com, Jun 14, 2019
Choosing the Wrong Lane in the Race to 5GJessica Rosenworcel (FCC Commissioner), Wired, Jun 10, 2019

Wait, why the hell is the ‘race to 5G’ even a race? No one has a good answer to this question.Nilay Patel, Verge, May 23, 2019
The Terrifying Potential of the 5G NetworkThe future of wireless technology holds the promise of total connectivity. But it will also be especially susceptible to cyberattacks and surveillance.Sue Halpern, The New Yorker, Apr 26, 2019

Millimeter-wave 5G isn’t for widespread coverage, Verizon admits ... 5G's highest speeds will only be for select areasJon Brodkin, ars Technica, Apr 23, 2019

5G is still just hype for AT&T and Verizon
Chaim Gartenberg, The Verge, Apr 5, 2019

Verizon 5G Home service too expensive to scale, attracts few usersJeremy Horwitz, Venture Beat, Mar 22, 2019

What is 5G and will it live up to the hype?
Staff, The Week, Mar 17, 2019

Executives Don’t Believe the Hype Around 5G, According to Accenture StudyPatrick Kulp, Adweek, Mar 1, 2019

Cutting through the 5G hype: Survey shows telcos' nuanced views
Ferry Grijpink et al, McKinsey & Company, Feb, 2019

Verizon’s stalled 5G rollout reportedly covers less than 10% of Sacramento
Jeremy Horwitz, VentureBeat, Feb 12, 2019
Enough of the 5G HypeErnesto Falcon, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Feb 11, 2019

Sprint files lawsuit against AT&T over 5G claimsCorinne Reichert, ZDNet, Feb 11, 2019    5G can't fix America's broadband problems
Don't expect the new generation of wireless tech to replace fiber.... 
Karl Bode, The Verge, Feb 6, 2019

Apple just endorsed AT&T’s fake 5G E networkChaim Gartenberg, The Verge, Feb 4, 2019

Verizon and AT&T Jumped the Gun on 5G
Sascha Segan, PC Magazine, Jan 31, 2019

Telecom Companies Are Seriously Overhyping 5G NetworksAmir Nasr, Slate, Jan 30, 2019
5G has 200 times more access points for hackers than existing networks, experts warnEmily Jackson, Ottawa Citizen, Jan 24, 2019

Time to move beyond 5G hype
Tom Wheeler, Brookings, Jan 11, 2019

Beware the 5G Hype: Wireless Rivals Fuel Confusion
Drew FitzGerald, Wall Street Journal, Jan 9, 2019

Verizon and T-Mobile bash AT&T over 'fake 5G'Marguerite Reardon, c|net, Jan 8, 2019

Dial Down the 5G Hype
Dan Gallagher, Wall Street Journal, Jan 2, 2019

AT&T is branding 4G networks & phones as 5G in a marketing scam: Advanced 4G is not 5GIsaac Mayer, Techspot, Dec 22, 2018
2018 was the year of 5G hype. The 5G reality is yet to comeBrian Fung, Washington Post, Dec 21, 2018
AT&T will put a fake 5G logo on its 4G LTE phones
Jacob Kastrenakes, The Verge, Dec 21, 2018
5G wireless service is coming, but Deloitte forecasts slow rolloutTroy Wolverton, Business Insider, Dec 14, 2018

Don’t buy a 5G smartphone—at least, not for a whileRon Amadeo, Ars Technica, Dec 14, 2018

Why 5G Hype is Out of Control This Week
Sam Rutherford, Gizmodo, Dec 7, 2018

The first ‘real world’ 5G test was a dudSean Hollister, The Verge, Dec 4, 2018

5G Corporate Grail: Smart cities/dumb people?  
Joyce Nelson. Watershed Sentinel, Nov 5, 2018.

Do we even need 5G at all?
Jeremy Kaplan, Digital Trends, Oct 26, 2018

Why 5G is out of reach for more people than you thinkShara Tibken, c|net, Oct 25, 2018

Volkswagen a winner as EU set to favour wifi over 5G: draft
Foo Yun Chee, Reuters, Oct 19, 2018

The 5G hype cycle is about to run into a hard truth: Subsidies needed!
Strategy Analytics, Business Wire, Oct 18, 2018

Carriers race to establish 5G as critics say slow down Frederica Kolwey, Jackson Hole News & Guide, Oct 17, 2018   

5G is almost a reality. Here's what it'll really feel like. Hype alert: Don't expect 5G to change your life right away.Robert Cheng, c|net, Oct 17, 2018

Verizon’s 5G rollout experiences are a mixed bag so farDexter Johnson, IEEE Spectrum, Oct 11, 2018

Experts worry 5G can widen digital divide in cities
Ali Breland, The Hill, Sep 30, 2018

Why 5G will disappoint everyone
Mike Elgan, Computerworld, Sep 29, 2018

Has 5G Hype Outpaced Reality?
Kate Patrick, Government Technology, Sep 28, 2018

Rural America worries it will miss out on 5G
Ali Breland, The Hill, Sep 26, 2018

FCC angers cities and towns with $2 billion giveaway to wireless carriersJon Brodkin, Ars Technica, Sep 21, 2018

FCC's 5G masterstroke little more than big biz cash giveaway – expertKieren McCarthy, The Register, Sep 19, 2018

The Problem with 5GJohn C. Dvorak, PC Magazine, Aug 22, 2018.
Rising Cost of 5G: Big increases in power consumption & uncertainty about how to test these devices have yet to be resolvedEd Sperling, Semiconductor Engineering. Aug 22, 2018.
The Week In 5G:6/1/2018 – 3GPP Set To Announce Final Phase-1 Standard In June; 5G Sparks Security and Health Concerns AnewJof Enriquez, RF Globalnet, June 1, 2018
The ‘Race to 5G’ Is Just Mindless Marketing Bullshit
Karl Bode, Motherboard, May 4, 2018
MWC and the 5G Hype Machine Keep on Giving, and Giving and Giving...
Ernest Worthman, AGL Media Group, Apr 19, 2018

“5G” Wireless Is the New Fiber Optic, Bait-and-Switch ScandalBruce Kushnick, Medium, Mar 8, 2018

The 5G Hype Machine Continues to Mislead
Ernest Worthman, Above Ground Level, Feb 1, 2018

Super-fast 5G wireless is coming this year, but it probably won't be cheapDavid Lazarus, Los Angeles Times, Jan 9, 2018

Upgrade to 5G Costs $200 Billion a Year, May Not Be Worth ItOlga Kharif and Scott Moritz, Bloomberg, Dec 18, 2017

Impact of EMF Limits on 5G Network Rollout
Christer Tornevik, ITU Workshop on 5G, EMF and Health, Dec 5, 2017

Microwave Radiation Coming to a Lamppost near You
Merinda Teller, MPH, PhD, Weston A. Price Foundation, Dec 1, 2017

5G Is Not the Answer For Rural BroadbandLarry Thompson and Warren Vande Stadt, Broadband Communities. March/April, 2017

The Next Generation of Wireless -- "5G"-- Is All Hype
Susan Crawford, Wired, Aug 11, 2016

translate | 20.8.2019 01:29

Wireless Radiation TV News

Which wireless radiation risks are covered most by TV news in the U.S.?

Since June, 2014, television stations in the U.S have aired more than 200 news stories about health risks from wireless radiation exposure. Almost half of the stories focus on radiation risks from use of a cell phone, including risks to children. About 30% of stories discussed cell tower radiation risks. More than a dozen stories focus on cell towers or Wi-Fi in schools. Other technologies of concern include wireless smart meters and Wi-Fi-emitting devices. 

CBS and its affiliates have provided the most news coverage about wireless radiation and health. Besides CBS national news coverage, almost all major CBS stations have run stories including stations in Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Charleston, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Des Moines, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Miami, Minneapolis, New York, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, Portland, Raleigh, Sacramento, San Antonio, San Francisco, Spokane, and Washington, DC. 

CBS was the only television network to cover the two major wireless policy developments in 2015 (the International EMF Scientist Appeal and the Berkeley cell phone "Right to Know" ordinance), and the only network to cover the release of the California Department of Public Health's cell phone safety guidance in 2017. 

CBS's 60 Minutes has won every broadcast journalism award. In June, 2017, the show aired a story on smartphone addiction,"Hooked on Your Phone?", and in December, 2018, a story on the adverse effects of digital device use on children, "Phones, Tablets, and their Impact on Kids' Brains."  However, 60 Minutes has yet to examine the health risks from the wireless radiation produced by these devices. With the publication of Norm Alster's book,"Captured agency: How the Federal Communications Commission is dominated by the industries it presumably regulates," it is time for 60 Minutes to do an investigative story about why our government has not updated the obsolete wireless regulations adopted in 1997 that fail to protect us from harmful levels of wireless radiation.

The above statistics are based upon Google searches for TV news stories about wireless radiation health risks where a video was posted online; thus, the overall amount of TV news coverage is underestimated.

Links to the TV new stories appear below.

Updated: August 14, 2019
CBS News

Costa Mesa Residents Air Concerns Over 5G TowersStacey Butler, CBS Los Angeles, Aug 14, 2019
Protest held over 5G zoning ordinance in San Diego
Steve Fiorina, CBS San Diego, Aug 7, 2019

Boulder Holds Study Session On 5G Coverage For Concerned ResidentsTori Mason, CBS Denver, Jul 23, 2019
5G coming to ChicoHayley Watts, KVNV (Chico, CA), Jul 3, 2019

CBS13 Investigates: Could A New Cell Tower Hurt You Financially? 
A new cell tower could put a local preschool out of business.Julie Watts, CBS Sacramento, Jun 28, 2019
CBS San Francisco, Jul 6-7, 2019
Lake Forest residents voice concerns over 5G cell towersCBS Los Angeles, Jun 19, 2019

A look at the arrival of 5G, and just how dangerous it could beAngelina Dixson, KVAL (Eugene, OR), May 22, 2019
5G cell tower critics post 'health warning' signs
Lisa Balick, KOIN (Portland, OR), May 21, 2019

5G cell tower protest in Ashland
KTVL (Ashland, OR), May 15, 2019

Plan For 5G Cell Phone Towers Raises Health Concerns In MoragaSusie Steimle, CBS San Francisco, Apr 10, 2019
After several childhood cancer cases at one school, parents question radiation from cell towerCBS This Morning (CBS Network news), Apr 4, 2019
VERIFY: No, scientists didn't say AirPods cause cancer. But they do have questions.Jason Puckett & David Tregde, WUSA (Washington, DC), Mar 20, 2019

Brain trauma suffered by U.S. diplomats abroad could be work of hostile foreign government
Scott Pelley, 60 Minutes (CBS Network news), Mar 17, 2019

Could Using Wireless Earbuds Be Putting You At Risk For Cancer?Dr. Maria Simbra, CBS Pittsburgh, Mar 13, 2019

Experts: Wireless Headphones Like AirPods Could Pose Cancer RiskKDFW (Dallas, TX), Mar 13, 2019

Recent Articles That Say AirPods Can Cause Cancer Are Not Quite RightTahesha Moise, WFMY (Greensboro, NC), Mar 13, 2019
Parents Blame Elementary School’s Cell Tower After 4th Student Diagnosed With CancerJennifer McGraw, CBS Sacramento, Mar 13, 2019
Some Iowa residents push back against new smart metersHannah Hilyard, KCCI (Des Moines, IA), Dec 5, 2018
New study suggests that use of cell phones may affect memory in teenagersRose Beltz, KREM (Spokane, WA), Jul 27, 2018

New 5G network with ubiquitous antennas raises health concerns among someSteve Sbraccia, WNCN (Raleigh, NC), Jun 5, 2018

Wireless Worries: 5G service is coming – and so are health concerns over the towers that support it
Tony Dokoupil, CBS This Morning (national), May 29, 2018

5G wireless service Is coming, and so are health concerns over the towers that support ItCBS New York, May 29, 2018

5G Service Is Coming – And So Are Health Concerns Over The Towers That Support It
CBS Boston, May 29, 2018

Questions Raised About 5G Health Risks Months Before Sacramento Launches ServiceCBS Sacramento, May 29, 2018

Radiation Concerns Being Raised Over New 5G Wireless ServiceCBS Philadelphia, May 29, 2018

Can Cellphones Cause Cancer? Experts Surprised By Latest TestsCBS Pittsburgh, Mar 29, 2018
Ashland residents protesting 5G tower installationRichie Garza, KTVL (Medford, OR), May 25, 2018
Findings of cancer in rodents exposed to cell-phone-like radiation draws crowd to RTPRobert Richardson, WNCN (Raleigh, NC), Mar 28, 2018

I-Team Report: Cell Phone Dangers
Colette Boyd, WNEW (Saginaw, MI), Feb 14, 2018

Do Cellphones Cause Cancer?Heather Brown, CBS Minnesota, Feb 8, 2018

This Cell Phone Radiation Study Found More Questions Than AnswersCBS Miami, Feb 7, 2018

Cellphone Radiation Linked To Tumors In Male Rats, Government Study SaysAndrea Borba, CBS San Francisco, Feb 2, 2018

ConsumerWatch: 5G Cellphone Towers Signal Renewed Concerns over Impacts on HealthJulie Watts and Abigail Sterling, CBS San Francisco, Jan 25, 2018

California to set guidelines for limiting cellphone radiation exposure
CBS Evening News (network), Dec 15, 2017
California health officials release guidelines on cellphone radiation
Susie Steimle, CBS San Francisco, Dec 14, 2017
CBS (network) News. Dec 14, 2017
CBS Los Angeles, Dec 14, 2017

California Public Health Officials Issue Cellphone Radiation WarningCBS Sacramento, Dec 13, 2017
When Kids Get Their First Cell Phones Around The World
CNN, CBS San Francisco, Dec 11, 2017

East Bay Homeowners Challenge Proposed Cellphone TowersEmily Turner, CBS San Francisco, Nov 15, 2017
Cellphone EMF-Blocking Products Put In A Real World TestJulie Watts, CBS San Francisco, Nov 14, 2017
Long Islanders Sue Over Health Concerns About New Cellphone TowersJennifer McLogan, CBS New York, Oct 19, 2017
Cities, Counties Line Up Against Bill Removing Limits On Cell TransmittersLemor Abrams, CBS Sacramento, Jul 12, 2017
Plan To Install 50,000 Cell Towers In California Faces OppositionPhil Matier, CBS San Francisco, June 28, 2017
Woodbury, L.I. Residents Furious Over Cellphone Repeaters On Their BlockCarolyn Gusoff, CBS New York, May 11, 2017

Cell towers could be built at dozens of Prince George's Co. schoolsScott Broom, WUSA (Washington, DC), May 11, 2017

Draft Fact Sheet From California Health Officials Links Cellphone Use, Cancer Risk
CBS Los Angeles, Mar 3, 2017

Consumer Watch: State Continues To Refuse To Release Records On Cell Phone Radiation
Julie Watts, CBS San Francisco, Feb 26, 2017

Judge Orders California To Release Papers Discussing Risk Of Cell Phone Use
Julie Watts, CBS San Francisco, Feb 24, 2017

Cell phone explosion caught on cameraWGCL (Atlanta, GA), Jan 12, 2017

San Francisco Cellphone Service Shockingly Bad For Global Tech Capitol
Susie Steimle, CBS San Francisco, Jan 3, 2017
Parents upset over proposed cell towerWUSA (Washington, DC), Sep 28, 2016

Berkeley’s Cellphone Radiation Warning Law Disputed Before Appeals CourtCBS SF Bay Area, Sep 13, 2016
Apple Unveils iPhone 7 Without Headphone Jack Julie Watts, CBS San Francisco, Sep 7, 2016

Man Chains Electric Meter To Prevent Utility From Installing Smart MeterJon Delano, CBS Pittsburgh, Sep 1, 2016
Mt. Tabor neighbors fight plans for cell towers
Chris Holmstrom, KOIN (Portland, OR), Aug 31, 2016

Addressing health concerns of new KUB smart meters
Heather Burian, WVLT (Knoxville, TN), May 31, 2016

Study reignites concern about cell phones and cancer
Paula Cohen, CBS News, May 27, 2016

WiFi in schools: Is it hurting your child?
Paul Joncich, KLAS (Las Vegas, NV), May 10, 2016

New Research Links Cell Phones To Health Issues In Children
Ami Yensi, CBS Baltimore, May 3, 2016

Cell tower proposed behind middle school causing controversy
WDRW (Columbia County, GA), May 3, 2016

Protester Claims Vice President Biden's Son Died from Cell Phone-Related Brain Cancer 
CBS SF Bay Area, Feb 28, 2016

Could Your Cell Phone Be Harming You?
Tess Leonhardt, WDTV (Bridgeport, WV), Feb 21, 2016

Notre Dame researchers target cell phone radiation
Zach Crenshaw, WSBT (Mishiwaka, IN), Jan 27, 2016

Bay Area Residents Worried About Radiation Face Uphill Battle Fighting Cell Towers
Julie Watts, CBS San Francisco, Jan 12, 2016

Scientists: Effects of cell phone radiation on kids is cause for concern
Ashley Daley, Live 5 News (Charleston, SC), Nov 6, 2015

SF Residents Battle Wireless Firms Over Super Bowl Building Boom In Neighborhood Cell Antenna Systems
Julie Watts, CBS San Francisco, Oct 31, 2015

Montgomery County parents concerned about wireless routers in schools
Mola Lenghi, WUSA9 (Maryland), Oct 20, 2015

Will Berkeley Cell Phone Ordinance Harm Consumers?
CBS This Morning, Jul 27, 2015

Retired Electronics Professor Wants To Create Wi-Fi Free Refuge
Mark Ackerman, CBS Denver, Jul 9, 2015

Are Wi-Fi Signals Making You Sick?
Marissa Bailey, CBS Chicago, July 1, 2015

People Believe Wi-Fi Is Making Them Sick
Dr. Mallika Marshall, CBS Boston, Jun 8, 2015

Seen At 11: Is Wi-Fi Making You Sick?
CBS New York, May 20, 2015

Why I Declared Our Bedroom A Wireless-Free Zone
Julie Watts, CBS SF Bay Area, May 20, 2015

Special Report: Upgrade Outage
WMMT (Kalamazoo, MI), May 19, 2015

Berkeley Passes Nation’s First Radiation Warning For New Cellphones
CBS SF Bay Area, May 13, 2015
Berkeley, California, to require cellphone health warnings
CBS News, May 13, 2015

Cellphone safety: Where do you keep your phone? (web article)Elizabeth Hinson, CBS National, May 12, 2015 (last updated May 14, 2015)
       KMOV (St. Louis, MO)
       KPAX (Missoula, MT)
       WCTV (Tallahassee, FL)
       WDTV  (Weston, West Virginia)
       WFMY (Greensboro, NC)
       WIVB (Buffalo, NY)
       WKBN (Youngstown, OH)
       WREQ (Memphis,TN)
       WTSP (Tampa Bay, FL)

Can you get radiation poisoning from your cellphone?
CBS News, May 12, 2015

Woman Cuts Family Off From WiFi Over Health Concerns
Gerri Constant, CBS Los Angeles, May 5, 2015

LA County Firefighters Address Lawmakers Over Cell Tower Concerns
CBS Los Angeles, Mar 24, 2015

Local parents concerned about WiFi radiation

Andrea McCarren, WUSA (Washington, DC), Mar 7, 2015

Planned Smart Electric Meters On Long Island Draw Fears About Privacy, Radiation
CBS New York, Mar 6, 2015

Woman believes cell phone radiation nearly killed her husbandSamantha Cortese, KESQ (Palm Desert, CA), Feb 18, 2015 (also ABC affiliate)

In-depth investigation: Examining reports of a cancer cluster at La Quinta Middle School
Natalie Brunnell, KESQ (Palm Desert, CA), Feb 12, 2015 (also ABC affiliate)

Failure to follow cellular antenna regulations raises safety issues
CBS Atlanta, Nov 17, 2014 (updated Feb 10, 2015)

Some residents worried about health effects of smart meters
WMMT (Kalamazoo, MI), Dec 3, 2014

New smart meters installed in Spokane raise questions

KREM (Spokane, WA), Dec 2, 2014
CPS Energy's smart meters show random spikes in radiation outputKENS (San Antonio, TX), Nov 18, 2015

Cell phone towers raise new concerns about safety
Jason Barry, KPHO (Phoenix), Nov 10, 2015 (updated Nov. 25)

FPL, Foes Of Smart Meters Square Off
CBS Miami, Sep 30, 2014

Are Cell Phones Really Giving Us Cancer?CBS Pittsburgh, Sep 15, 2014

Brain Cancer Warning Stickers Proposed For Cellphones Sold In Berkeley
CBS SF Bay Area, Aug 22, 2014

NBC News

Neighbors fight losing battle against 5G tower right next to Denver home
Nelson Garcia, KUSA (Denver, CO), Aug 9, 2019
Concern grows over electromagnetic frequency radiation as cell phones turn to 5GAnnaliese Garcia, WBBH (Fort Myers, FL), Aug 6, 2019
Cell tower causes some concern for Catalina residents
Eric Fink, KVOA (Tucson, AZ), Jun 6, 2019

Germantown withdraws plan for cell phone tower near elementary school
WMC (Memphis, TN), Jun 5, 2019

Cell phone radiation: Just how dangerous is it for you?
Angelina Dixson, KMTR (Eugene, OR), May 22, 2019

Locals plan rally against 5G rollout
KOBI (Medford, OR), May 15, 2019

Is 5G technology safe? The debate intensifies
Jennifer Lewke, WHEC (Rochester, NY), May 2, 2019

VERIFY: Does 5G cause health problems?
Gordon Severson, KARE (Minneapolis, MN), Apr 22, 2019

5G fears: Homeowners worry about mini towers in streetJohn Matarese, WTMJ (Milwaukee, WI), Feb 8, 2019

Testicular cancer: Why it's difficult to talk about, and why it's risingChris Hrapsky, KARE (Minneapolis, MN), Nov 21, 2018

People concerned about 5G as FCC approves installationAllie Potter, KVOA (Tucson, AZ), Nov 16, 2018
Poor cell phone reception could increase your radiation exposure by 10,000xBob Segall, WTHR (Indianapolis, IN), Oct 5, 2018
Protecting yourself from cellular radiation
Denelle Confair, KVOA (Tucson, AZ), Sep 23, 2018

Protestors rally against Pacific Power’s smart metersRayvan Vares, KOBI (Medford, OR), Sep 22, 2018

Not in my backyard: Are cell towers coming to your neighborhood?
Nate Morabito, WCNC (Charlotte, NC), Jul 27, 2018

Pacific Power Installing Smart Meters in Jackson County
Elizabeth Ruiz, KOBI (Medford, OR), Jul 2, 2018

Palo Alto City Leaders Approve Verizon Cell TowersIan Cull, NBC Bay Area, May 22, 2018

Construction halted on cell tower near elementary school playground
Laura Wilson, KOAA (Colorado Springs, CO), Apr 25, 2018

City Council denies cell phone tower being built on church propertyNatassia Paloma, KTSM (El Paso, TX), Apr 17, 2018

New Study Links Cancer to Cell Phone UseBianca Castro, KXAS (Dallas, TX), Mar 28, 2018
KOBF (Albuquerque, NM), Apr 3, 2018
WCMH (Columbus, OH), Apr 3, 2018
WBBH (Fort Myers, FL), Apr 3, 2018
WTHR (Indianapolis, IN), Apr 3, 2018
KPRC (Houston, TX), Apr 4, 2018

Verify: Are electromagnetic fields harmful to your health?Tami Tremblay, KTVB (Boise, ID), Feb 8, 2018

New study reigniting cell phone, cancer debate
Rob Hughes, WCNC (Charlotte, NC), Feb 6, 2018

Study of rats reveals cellphone radiation risk is low
Erika Edwards, NBC Connecticut (West Hartford, CT), Feb 5, 2018
NBC Southern California, Feb 5, 2018

Aiken County Planning Commission recommends denying request for new cell phone tower
Ben Billmyer & Lia Fernandez, WRDW (Aiken County, SC), Jan 18, 2018

New guidance issued for avoiding cell phone radiation
Bob Segall, WTHR (Indianapolis, IN), Dec 26, 2017

How worried do we need to be about cell phone radiation?
Sean Franklin, WBIR (Knoxville, TN), Dec 22, 2017

Health officials release guidelines on dangerous cellphone radiation
Madeline Cuddihy, WXIA (Atlanta, GA), Dec 19, 2017

Debate over Cell Towers in Hillsborough
NBC Bay Area, Dec 18, 2017

Proposed bill would cover potential injuries from microwaves, cellphonesElisha Machado, WWLP (Springfield, MA), Nov 28, 2017

New cellphone tower has some residents concerned
Kaylie Spotts, WNWO (Whitehouse, OH), Sep 4, 2017

Controversial T-Mobile cell phone tower back on Roswell's agenda
Christopher Hopper, WXIA (Atlanta, GA), Jul 11, 2017

Texas teen electrocuted after cell phone incident in bathtub
Presley Fowler, KCBD (Lubbock, Tx), Jul 11, 2017

2 students get cancer; Ripon parents want cell towers removed from schools
Natalie Brunell, KCRA (Sacramento, CA), Jun 20, 2017

Government Study Links Cellphone Radiation to Cancer
NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt, May 27, 2017

Greenbelt Residents Worried About Health Effects of Cellphone TowerDarcy Spencer, NBC Washington (DC), Apr 25, 2017

Cellphone safety tips to limit radiation exposure
Natalie Brunell, KCRA (Sacramento, CA), Apr 9, 2017

Sign puts Berkeley in center of cellphone debate
Natalie Brunell, KCRA (Sacramento, CA), Apr 9, 2017

How to reduce electromagnetic fields created by electricityMeredyth Censullo, KFLA (Tampa, FL), Mar 31, 2017

Cell Phone Cancer Debate Heats up With Document Release
Scott Budman, NBC Bay Area, Mar 3, 2017

NBC Southern California, Mar 3, 2017
State health officials accused of keeping cell phone dangers secret
Vicki Gonzalez, KCRA (NBC Sacramento), Mar 3, 2017
Cell phones safe? Flap in California revives debateJeff Gillan, KSNV (NBC Las Vegas), Mar 3, 2017
Researchers: Long-term cell phone use may increase your risk for a brain tumor
Bob Segall, WTHR (Indianapolis, IN), Feb 21, 2017

Special Report: The Facts about Smart Meters
Joy Wang, WILX (Lansing, MI), Feb 12, 2017

Board denies proposed Greendale cell towerRebecca Klopf, WTMJ (Milwaukee, WI), Feb 7, 2017

Radiation-blocking underwear and five other crazy CES gadgetsMatt Granite, WGRZ (Buffalo, NY), Jan 7, 2016
Rat Study Launches New Debate over Cell Phone Radiation and Cancer
Rachel Polansky, WBBH (Fort Myers, FL), Dec 19, 2016

13 Investigates cellphones and cancer: Is the risk real?
Bob Segall, WTHR (Indianapolis, IN), Nov 14, 2016

Are Kids at Risk? Scores of Chicago-Area Schools Allow Cell Towers on their Buildings, Grounds
Phil Rogers, Katy Smyser, NBC Chicago, Oct 3, 2016

Parents Fight Plans for Cell Tower at Virginia Elementary School
David Culver, NBC Washington (DC), Sep 21, 2016

Berkeley Cellphone Ordinance Challenged in Appeals CourtMark Matthews & Stephen Ellison, NBC Bay Area (San Jose, CA), Sep 13, 2016
Montgomery County Residents Shocked by Proposal to Build Cell Towers in Front of HomesJackie Bensen, NBC Washington (DC), Sep 2, 2016

Government study links cell phone radiation to cancer
Maggie Fox, NBC News, May 27, 2016

Piper Glenn residents cite eagles in cell tower fightBill McGinty, WCNC (Charlotte, NC), Apr 7, 2016

Berkeley's 'Right to Know' Cell Phone Radiation Warning Ordinance Now in EffectJean Elle, NBC Bay Area (San Jose, CA), Mar 21, 2016

BGE makes case for another rate hike
George Lettis, WBAL (Baltimore, MD), Mar 18, 2016

North Kingstown teacher says she's being fired because she believes WiFi is health hazard
Brian Crandall, WJAR (Providence, RI), Feb 23, 2016

Kids Face Potential Radiation Danger Using Cell Phones
Shanay Campbell, WSAV (Savannah, GA), Nov 6, 2015

Scientists: Effects of cell phone radiation on kids is cause for concern
Ashley Daley, WMBF (Myrtle Beach, SC), Nov 6, 2015

Pediatricians express concern over growing cellphone use, radiation exposure for children
Meghan McRoberts, WPTV (West Palm Beach, FL), Nov 6, 2015

Potential radiation danger to kids using cell phones

Shannon Wolfson, KXAN (Austin, TX), Nov 5, 2015

Pediatricians' new warning: Limit children's exposure to cellphones
Danielle Dellorto, NBC Today Show, Nov 5, 2015

Report Examines Cell Phone Radiation
Jean Elle, NBC Bay Area, Sep 24, 2015

Group wants cell towers gone
Barry Sims, WBAL (Anne Arundel County, MD), Sep 22, 2015

Neighborhood fights possible new cell tower on church property
Forrest Sanders, WSMV (Nashville, TN), Jul 30, 2015

Residents protest cell tower installation citing health concerns
Sophia Kunthara and Melissa Etezadi, NBC Southern California, Jul 20, 2015

Wireless companies sue Berkeley over cellphone radiation warning ordinanceTamara Palmer, NBC Bay Area (San Jose, CA), Jun 8, 2015

Berkeley approves "Right to Know" cell phone radiation warning ordinance
Jean Elle, NBC Bay Area 
 (San Jose, CA), May 12, 2015

West Seattle residents protest new cell phone antennas
Alex Rozier, KING (Seattle, WA), May 7, 2015

Bay Area documentary "Mobilize" examines cell phone dangers
Jean Elle, NBC Bay Area 
 (San Jose, CA), Mar 28, 2015

ABC News

Los Altos man leads effort to keep AT&T wireless nodes away from daughter's bedroom, neighborhoodAmanda del Castillo, KGO (San Francisco, CA), Jul 11, 2019
Protesters in WDSM for new Verizon 5G installationsAdam Cron, KCWI (Des Moines, IA), Jun 14, 2019
Denver Public Schools faces backlash from parents about placement of cell towers on schools
Russell Haythorn, KMGH (Denver, CO), Jun 7, 2019

West Boca tower proposal meets resistance at zoning meeting
Ron Burke, WPBF (Boca Raton, FL), Jun 7, 2019

Albany residents debate safety of 5G
WNYT (Albany, NY), May 17, 2019

Protesters rally against 5G in San Diego
KGTV (San Diego, CA), May 15, 2019 

Local group rallies in Asheville as part of national protest over 5G technology
WLOS (Asheville, NC), May 15, 2019

Group rallies against 5G roll out
KDRV (Medford, OR), May 15, 2019

'On Your Side' West Jacksonville community opposed to cell phone tower
Kenneth Amaro, WTLV (Jacksonville, FL), Mar 29, 2019
5G speeds: National City seeks public input for Small Cells InstallationRina Nakano, KGTV (San Diego, CA), Mar 12, 2019
5G wireless technology comes with big promises, but city of Portland has big concernsKeaton Thomas, KATU (Portland, OR), Mar 11, 2019

5G fears: Homeowners worry about mini towers in streetJohn Matarese, WCPO (Cincinnati, OH), Feb 8, 2019
Local group protests 5G cell tower in Eugene
Madison Glassman, KEZI (Eugene, OR), Jan 26, 2019

5G Fight: Greendale residents don't want cell towers in their yardsCaroline Reinwald, WISN (Milwaukee, WI), Jan 4, 2019
Some Duke Energy customers claim smart meters are making them sickTonya Simpson & Diane Wilson, WTVD (Raleigh, NC), Oct 1, 2018
The health effects with 'smart' utility metersJennifer Emert, WLOS (Asheville, NC), Sep 27, 2018
Smart meter workshop met with protesters
KDRV (Medford, OR), Sep 22, 2018

Some San Mateo residents upset over planned installation of Verizon antennas on utility polesVic Lee, KGO (San Mateo, CA), Sep 20, 2018
Concerned Talent citizens say new smart meters are unhealthyKDRV (Medford, OR), May 31, 2018

Verify: Do diode stickers protect you from cellphone radiation?WVEC (Norfolk, VA), Apr 18, 2018

Are mini-cell phone towers a health risk in your neighborhood?WJLA (Washington, DC), Apr 6, 2018
New study on link between cancer and cell phonesTiffany Neely, KAIT (Jonesboro, AR), Apr 3, 2018
Does cell phone radiation cause cancer? Scientists gather at RTP to discuss
WTVD (Raleigh, NC), Mar 28, 2018

The potential health risks of cell phones, explainedSam Benson Smith & Zak Dalheimer, KESQ (Thousand Palms, CA), Feb 15, 2018

New warning links cell phones to health risks
Good Morning America / ABC Network News, Dec 18, 2017

Ask Dr. Nandi: California sets guidelines to limit cell phone radiation exposure
WXYZ-TV (Detroit, MI), Dec 18, 2017

Hillsborough homeowners fight proposed cell towersKatie Marzullo, KGO (San Francisco, CA), Dec 9, 2017

Can mobile phone use lead to health problems?Abigail Elise, WISN (Milwaukee, WI), May 14, 2017

Long Island Residents Outraged by Cellphone Towers in Front of Homes
N.J. Burkett, WABC (New York, NY), May 11, 2017 

Cell phones and cancer, is there a connection?
Kerri O'Brien, WRIC (Richmond, VA), Mar 20, 2017

CA Health Dept. Releases Report Saying Cellphone Use May Cause Cancer
Lyanne Melendez, KGO (San Franciscom CA), Mar 3, 2017

Parents fight plan to put cell tower near playground at Virginia elementary school
Richard Reeve, Jay Goldberg, WJLA (Washington, DC), Sep 28, 2016

San Jose residents fight cellphone tower proposal over radiation concerns
Lisa Amin Gulezian, KGO (San Francisco, CA), Aug 13, 2016

Alpine residents outraged over EMF levels from Sunrise Powerlink
Ariel Wesler, KGTV (San Diego, CA), Feb 24, 2016

Notre Dame researchers making a faster and safer phone
Brandon Pope, WBND (South Bend, IN), Feb 5, 2016

New concerns over kids and electronics
Shannon Murray, KVUE (Austin, TX), Dec 3, 2015

Parents upset over cell tower possibly being installed near Weho school
Mayde Gomez, KABC (Los Angeles, CA), Dec 1, 2015

City leaders, neighbors raise concerns about cell towers
Kayla Moody, WHAS (Louisville, KY), Oct 28, 2015

Cell phone industry sues city of Berkeley
Lyanne Melendez, KGO (San Francisco, CA), Aug 20, 2015

Alki Beach residents protest plan for cell antennas near schoolTheron Zahn, KOMO (Seattle, WA), May 7, 2015

Lake Ronkonkomo residents speak out against proposed cell tower in neighborhood
Kristin Thorne, WABC (New York, NY), Apr 29, 2015

Workers say cell tower sites putting them at risk
Cristin Severance, KGTV (San Diego, CA), Mar 19, 2015 (updated Mar 24, 2015)

Ann Arbor family has power shut off by DTE in dispute over installing new SMART meter on their home
Dave LewAllen, WXYZ (Detroit, MI), Mar 18, 2015

Smart meters' slammed at House committee hearingWZZM (Lansing, MI), Dec 2, 2014

Man claims OUC's smart meter made him sick, files federal lawsuitWFTV (Orlando, FL), Dec 2, 2014

Alamo Heights residents voice concerns over smart readersKSAT (San Antonio), Sep 22, 2014 (updated Sep 23, 2014

3 Reasons Not to Sleep With Your Phone in the Bed
Camille Chatterjee, ABC News, Aug 5, 2014

City pushes for cancer warning stickers on cell phones
WCVB (Boston), Jul 15, 2014

Berkeley City Council proposes ordinance to get warning labels on cellphones
Tiffany Wilson, KGO (San Francisco), Jul 15, 2014

Fox News

5G warning posters placed around Downtown Orlando
Matthew Trezza, WOFL (Orlando, FL), Jun 14, 2019

San Francisco is resisting 5G, calling it 'ugly' and 'dangerous'
Brooke Crothers, Fox News network, Jun 1, 2019

Locals plan rally against 5G rolloutKMVU (Medford, OR), May 15, 2019

Parents upset about possible cell tower near Germantown elementary school
Jacque Masse, WHBQ (Memphis, TN), Mar 18, 2019

Are Apple AirPods putting you at risk for cancer?Dr. Marc Siegel, Tucker Carlson Tonight / Fox News Network, Mar 13, 2019
STL Moms: Kids cellphone safetyKTVI, (St. Louis, Mo), Mar 8, 2019

Town of Union Residents "Devastated" Over Possibility of Cell Tower in Neighborhood
Amanda Pitts, WICZ (Binghamton, NY), Jun 4, 2018

Parents worry cellphone tower could expose children to radiation
Keagan Harsha, KDVR (Denver, CO), Apr 23, 2018

Montgomery County residents fighting rezoning to allow new 5G cell towersWTTG (Washington, D.C.), April 4, 2018

Could your cell phone be endangering your health?Jeff Abell, WBFF (Baltimore, MD), Feb 20, 2018

Opposition to cell towers in Hillsborough
Tom Vacar, KTVU (Oakland, CA), Dec 19, 2017

Health officials warn sleeping near cell phone could cause cancer and infertility
Darren Sweeney, WJW (Cleveland, OH), Dec 18, 2017
Family chooses to live with no power rather than a DTE Smart MeterHilary Golston, WJBK (Detroit, MI), Nov 9, 2017

Ashland residents meet to discuss potential health risks of wireless radiationTed Daniel, WFXT (Boston, MA), Jun 20, 2017

Parents of Cancer Survivors Still Waiting for School District’s Response Regarding Cell Phone TowerEric Rucker, KTXL (Sacramento, CA), Jun 19, 2017

After 2 Ripon Children Diagnosed with Cancer, Kids and Parents Protest Cell Tower on School Grounds
Kay Recede, KTXL (Sacramento, CA), May 31, 2017
More than 400 MTEMC customers reject company’s request to install smart meters
Jeremy Finley, WBRC (Birmingham, AL), May 23, 2016

Controversy surrounding EMF exposure: Do wireless devices pose dangers?Danielle Miller, KSAZ (Phoenix, AZ), Feb 22, 2016

Cell phones and fertility
Dr. Devi Nampiaparampil, WNYW (New York City, NY), Feb 21, 2016

Health concerns over Wi-Fi technology exposures in schools
Laura Evans, WTTG (Washington, DC), Feb 15, 2016

Cell Phone Dangers?
Stacey Delikat, WNYW (New York City, NY), Jan 16, 2016

High Point neighbors speak out against cell tower projectJasmine Spencer, WGHP (High Point, NC), Dec 8, 2015

More than 400 MTEMC customers reject company’s request to install smart metersJeremy Finley, WBRC (Franklin, TN), Nov 23, 2015

Pediatricians express concern over growing cellphone use, radiation exposure for children
WFLX (West Palm Beach, FL), Nov 6, 2015

Scientists: Effects of cell phone radiation on kids is cause for concern
Ashley Daley, Fox Carolina News (Greenville, SC), Nov 6, 2015
Mount Tabor neighbors fight cell phone tower proposal
KPTV (Beaverton, OR), Jun 4, 2015 (updated Jul 2, 2015)

Berkeley passes cell phone safety ordinance
Amber Lee, KTVU (Oakland, CA), May 12, 2015

How to spot potential radiation hiding in your home

Fox News (national), Feb 1, 2015

Experts: Why wearable tech could pose health risks
Brooke Crothers, Fox News (national), Oct 20, 2014


Cell phone radiation study finds more questions than answersJacqueline Howard, CNN, Feb 7, 2018
Electrosensitivity, Vital Signs with Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Oct 24, 2017 (also CNN International)
Part 1: Welcome to the National Quiet ZonePart 2: Wireless ExposurePart 3: Living in the National Quiet Zone
Cell phone radiation increases cancers in rats, but should we worry?Carina Storrs, CNN, May 27, 2016

Half of teens think they're addicted to their smartphonesKelly Wallace, CNN, May 3, 2016

Other TV News

Activists protest against 5G towers
WDVM (Hagerstown, MD), May 15, 2019

Germantown residents protest cell phone tower installation near elementary schoolWMC (Memphis, TN), Mar 18, 2019

Cell Phone Safety for Kids
Tonya Harris, WISH (Indianapolis, IN), Mar 5, 2019

Is 5G Technology Dangerous?
Stephanie Whitfield, KHOU (Houston, TX), Feb 11, 2019

Local Neighborhood Concerned for Possible AT&T Tower
Dan Garrett, KSNT (Topeka, KS), Feb 4, 2019

U.S. Sen. Blumenthal briefing on concerns with possible health risks posed by 5G wireless technology
Congressional news briefing, Connecticut Network (Hartford, CT), Dec 3, 2018
Senator Blumenthal pushes to investigate link between 5G wireless tech and cancerHector Ramirez, WTNH (New Haven, CT), Dec 3, 2018
Controversy in Ozark over where a cell phone tower will be builtBrandon Berg, KY3 (Springfield, MO), Nov 16, 2018
5G wireless will provide faster cellular service. But how safe is it?Sara Girard, WINK (Fort Myers, FL), Nov 7, 2018
Debate continues over 5G wireless towers placed in residential areasShennikia Grimshaw, WDVM (Montgomery County, MD), Sep 25, 2018
Concern grows over cellphone towers on Crown Heights buildingNews 12 Brooklyn (Brooklyn, NY), Sep 24, 2018

Some Danville residents express radiation concerns over building of small cell towersGabe Slate, KRON, (San Francisco, CA), Apr 17, 2018

Homeowners file lawsuit over potential wireless transmitter health risksShari Einhorn, News 12 Long Island, NY, Oct 19, 2017
Allergic to Wi-Fi: Woman helps locals suffering from electromagnetic radiation sensitivityWGN (Chicago, IL), Jun 6, 2017
WQAD (Moline, IL), Jun 6, 2017

Can Wireless Technology Make You Sick?Azia Celestino, Channel One News, May 18, 2017

Cell Phone Radiation Warning Law Causes ControversyAzia Celestino, Channel One News, May 17, 2017

No Wi-Fi or cellphones allowed in the ‘Quietest Town in America’Julie Unruh, WGN (Chicago, IL), May 15, 2017
The secret inside your cellphoneCBC Marketplace, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Mar 24, 2017

Berkeley's Cellphone Crusade
The National, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Mar 23, 2017

California Department of Public Health releases draft of document warning against cellphone radiation
Gabe Slate, KRON (San Francisco, CA), Mar 3, 2017

Smart meter opt out fees could be nixed in legislative session

Emily Ikeda, WHAG (Montgomery County, MD), Feb 2, 2017

City Light takes feedback on opt-out for smart meters
Joel Moreno, KOMO (Seattle, WA), Aug 12, 2016

Special Report: The facts about smart meters
Joy Wang, WILX (Lansing, MI), Feb 12, 2016

Very easy changes could limit your exposure to cell phone radiation
Jenny Day, San Diego 6 News, Nov 6, 2015

Cell phones believed to cause sleep problemsKXII (Denison, TX), Jun 26, 2014
translate | 15.8.2019 00:13

Overview of Contents

Welcome to EMR Safety
"Cell Phones, Cell Towers, and Wireless Safety" (Invited public presentation at UC Berkeley / transcript, podcast, video & slides, 2019)
"Why experts believe wireless radiation is harmful" (Slides & comments from brief presentation, 2019)
Electromagnetic Radiation Safety: 2018 Year in Review
Overview Articles
International EMF Scientist Appeal -  also see https://emfscientist.org/ (video)

Cellphones and Public Health Policy (webinar, 30-minute video, 2018)
Wall Street Journal asks "Should Cellphones Have Warning Labels?"
EMF Health Impacts and Policy Change Webinar
Wireless Technology & Public Health Teleconference (audio & slides)
Wireless Technology & Public Health Forum (video & slides)Expert Forum on Cell Phone and Wireless Risks to Children (video)Consumer Reports: Cell Phone Radiation Warnings
Four Lectures on Wireless Radiation Health Risks (2016) (slides)Mobilize: A Film About Cell Phone Radiation (video)Wireless Radiation TV News Coverage (200+ videos)

Tips to Reduce Your Wireless Radiation Exposure

Mobile Phone Health Effects
Key Cell Phone Radiation Research Studies
Scientific Evidence of Harm from Cell Phone Radiation: Two Years of Research

Cancer or Tumor Risk

         Animal Research
NTP Cell Phone Radiation Study: Final Reports
National Toxicology Program (NTP) Finds Cell Phone Radiation Causes Cancer
National Toxicology Program: Peer & public review of cell phone radiation study reports
NTP: Not the First Govt. Study to Find Wireless Radiation Can Cause Cancer in Lab Rats
Ramazzini Institute Cell Phone Radiation Study Replicates NTP Study
        Human Research
Acoustic Neuroma and Cell Phone Use
Cell phone and cordless phone use causes brain cancer: New review
Long-Term Cell Phone Use Increases Brain Tumor Risk
Storyline vs. Rest-of-the-story: Brain cancer incidence, cellphone use & trends dataThyroid Cancer and Mobile Phone Use
Cell Phone Use and Salivary Gland Tumor Risk
MOBI-KIDS: Childhood Brain Tumor Risk & Mobile Phone Use Study
Why do many scientists believe mobile phone use increases cancer risk?
WHO Monograph on Cancer Risk from Mobile Phone Use     
        Brain Tumor Incidence
Brain Tumor Rates Are Rising in the US:The Role of Cellphone & Cordless Phone Use
Trends in Brain Tumor Incidence Outside the U.S.
The Incidence of Meningioma, a Non-Malignant Brain Tumor, is Increasing in the U.S.

Other Health Risks

Does long-term exposure to 4G LTE cell phone radiation impair cell phone users' health?
Secondhand Exposure to Cell Phone Radiation: An Emerging Public Health Problem?

Effect of Mobile Phones on Sperm QualityPregnancy & Wireless Radiation RisksFemale Infertility & Cell Phone Radiation

Effects of Cell Phone Use on Adolescents
Research on Smart Phone and Internet Addiction
Has the Smart Phone Replaced the Cigarette?

Does Cell Phone and Wi-Fi Radiation Cause Alzheimer's Disease?Cellphone use may be harmful for people with dental braces
Cell Phone Radiation
What's Wrong with Cell Phone Radiation Exposure Limits? (SAR)
Children are more exposed to cell phone radio-frequency radiation than adults
Buyer Beware: Cell Phone Radiation-Reducing Products
Cell Phone Cases Can Increase Radiation Exposure

Product Safety
Do iPhones emit more radiation than Samsung Galaxy phones?

iPhone XS and XR: Specific Absorption Rates or RF ExposureiPhone X Models: Specific Absorption Rates (SAR) or RF Exposure
iPhone 8 Models: Specific Absorption Rates (SAR) or RF Exposure
iPhone 7 Models: Specific Absorption Rates (SAR) or RF ExposureiPhone 6 SAR: Radiation Levels & Separation DistanceiPhone SE SAR: Radiation Levels & Separation Distance

Samsung Galaxy S9 and S9 Plus Specific Absorption Rates (SAR)Samsung Galaxy S8 and S8 Plus Specific Absorption Rates (SAR) 
Samsung Galaxy S7 and S7 Edge Specific Absorption Rates (SAR)
Samsung Galaxy S6 and S6 Edge Specific Absorption Rates (SAR)

AirPods: Are Apple’s New Wireless Earbuds Safe? (Blood-brain barrier effects)New Apple Watch Reignites Concerns over Cell Phone Radiation
Google Glass Alert: Potential health risks from wireless radiation

Wireless Radiation Health Risks
International Perspective on Health Effects of Low Intensity Non-Ionizing Radiation
Recent Research on Wireless Radiation and Electromagnetic Fields
PowerWatch: 1,670 Scientific Papers on EMF (1979 - 2018)
Effects of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields: 1,027 StudiesFour lectures on wireless radiation health effectsHow does wireless radiation produce harmful health effects?EMF Controversies in Neurobiology

Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS)

Cell Tower Health Effects
Cell Phone Towers are Largest Contributor to Environmental Radiofrequency Radiation
Recent Research on WiFi EffectsWi-Fi in Schools & Other Public PlacesCouncil of Europe: Restrict Wi-Fi and Mobile Phone Use in Schools

Effects of Wireless Radiation on Birds and Other WildlifeElectromagnetic fields threaten wildlife
Cell Tower Radiation Affects Wildlife: Dept. of Interior Attacks FCC
Health Experts Caution About Smart Meters
Hybrid & Electric Cars: Electromagnetic Radiation Risks

U.S. Navy's Electronic War Games

5G Wireless Technology and "Small Cell" Antennas
Scientists and Doctors Demand Moratorium on 5G
5G Wireless Technology: Is 5G Harmful to Our Health?5G Wireless Technology: Millimeter Wave Health Effects5G Wireless Technology: Cutting Through the Hype
5G Day of Action5G Wireless Technology: Major newspaper editorials oppose "small cell" antenna bills
FCC Open Letter Calls for Moratorium on New Applications of Radiofrequency Radiation

Cell Tower Health Effects
The Politics of Wireless Radiation Research & Regulation
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Academy of Pediatrics: Protect Children from Cell Phone & Wireless Radiation

American Cancer Society
American Cancer Society: Cell Phone Radiation Risk

Berkeley Model Cell Phone Ordinance
Berkeley Cell Phone "Right to Know" Ordinance
Berkeley Cell Phone "Right to Know" Ordinance: Media Coverage
California Public Health Department
Cell Phone Safety Guidance from the California Public Health Department
California's Cell Phone Safety Guidance: Media Coverage
California’s Cell Phone Safety Guidance: 2017 vs 2009

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
New York Times’ Exposé of CDC’s Retraction of Warnings about Cell Phone Radiation

Federal Communications Commission
FCC Open Letter: Moratorium on New Commercial Applications of RF Radiation
FCC needs input regarding allocation of spectrum for 5GAn Exposé of the FCC: An Agency Captured by the Industries it RegulatesGAO 2012 Mobile Phone Report to the Congress
FCC:Why We Need Stronger Cell Phone Radiation Regulations--Key Testimony
Cell Tower Radiation Affects Wildlife: Dept. of Interior Attacks FCC
Cell Phone Radiation Hazards in 2002

Industry Influence
Industry-funded Scientists Undermine Cell Phone Radiation ScienceGovernment Failure to Address Wireless Radiation RisksCell Phone Industry Product Liability Lawsuit

International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection
ICNIRP’s Exposure Guidelines for Radio Frequency Fields 
Worldwide Radio Frequency Radiation Exposure Limits versus Health Effects

State Legislation
Massachusetts Cell Phone & Wireless Safety LegislationOregon Cell Phone & Wi-Fi Safety Warning Legislation
World Health Organization
WHO Radiofrequency Radiation Policy

Power Line Frequencies or Extremely Low Frequency FieldsPowerWatch: 1,670 Scientific Papers on EMF (1979 - 2018)Effects of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields: 1,027 Studies
Cancer Risks from Exposure to Power Lines and Electrical Appliances

translate | 20.8.2019 22:11

5G Wireless Technology: Is 5G Harmful to Our Health?

See the bottom of this page for additional resources.

 5G mobile networks rated as "high impact" risk for insurance industry
in new Emerging Risk report from Swiss Re
Swiss Re, one of the world's leading providers of insurance and reinsurance, rated 5G as a "high impact" risk for the insurance industry that may affect property and casualty claims in more than 3 years.
      Off the leash – 5G mobile networks
     "5G – short for fifth generation – is the latest standard for cellular mobile communications. Providing ultrafast broadband connection with higher capacity and lower latency, 5G is not only heaven for your smartphone. It will enable wireless connectivity in real time for any device of the Internet of things (IoT), whether that be autonomous cars or sensor-steered factory. In doing so, it will allow decentralised seamless interconnectivity between devices. To allow for a functional network coverage and increased capacity overall, more antennas will be needed, including acceptance of higher levels of electromagnetic radiation. In some jurisdictions, the rise of threshold values will require legal adaptation. Existing concerns regarding potential negative health effects from electromagnetic fields (EMF) are only likely to increase. An uptick in liability claims could be a potential long-term consequence.
     Other concerns are focused on cyber exposures, which increase with the wider scope of 5G wireless attack surfaces. Traditionally IoT devices have poor security features. Moreover, hackers can also exploit 5G speed and volume, meaning that more data can be stolen much quicker. A large-scale breakthrough of autonomous cars and other IoT applications will mean that security features need to be enhanced at the same pace. Without, interruption and subversion of the 5G platform could trigger catastrophic, cumulative damage. With a change to more automation facilitated by new technology like 5G, we might see a further shift from motor to more general and product liability insurance.  There are also worries about privacy issues (leading to increased litigation risks), security breaches and espionage. The focus is not only on hacking by third parties, but also potential breaches from built-in hard- or software “backdoors.” In addition, the market for 5G infrastructure is currently focussed on a couple of firms, and that raises the spectre of concentration risk. Potential impacts:
·       Cyber exposures are significantly increased with 5G, as attacks become faster and higher in volume. This increases the challenge of defence.
·         Growing concerns of the health implications of 5G may lead to political friction and delay of implementation, and to liability claims. The introductions of 3G and 4G faced similar challenges.
·         Information security and national sovereignty concerns might delay implementation of 5G further, increasing uncertainty for planning authorities, investors, tech companies and insurers.
·         Heated international dispute over 5G contractors and potential for espionage or sabotage could affect international cooperation, and impact financial markets negatively.
·         As the biological effects of EMF in general and 5G in particular are still being debated, potential claims for health impairments may come with a long latency."
Source: Swiss Re. SONAR – New emerging risk insights. Zurich, Switzerland: Sustainability, Emerging and Political Risk Management, Swiss Re Institute, Strategy Development & Performance Management. May 2019.  page 29.

--5G Deployment
Blackman C, Forge S. 5G Deployment: State of Play in Europe, USA, and Asia. Study for the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies, European Parliament, Luxembourg, 2019. 
Download the report at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2019/631060/IPOL_IDA(2019)631060_EN.pdf

“It is becoming clear that 5G [fifth generation cellular technology] will cost much more to deploy than previous mobile technologies (perhaps three times as much) as it is more complex and requires a denser coverage of base stations to provide the expected capacity. The European Commission has estimated that it will cost €500 billion to meet its 2025 connectivity targets, which includes 5G coverage in all urban areas.
As 5G is driven by the telecoms supply industry, and its long tail of component manufacturers, a major campaign is under way to convince governments that the economy and jobs will be strongly stimulated by 5G deployment. However, we are yet to see significant “demand-pull” that could assure sales. These campaign efforts are also aimed at the MNOs [mobile network operators] but they have limited capacity to invest in the new technology and infrastructure as their returns from investment in 3G and 4G are still being recouped.
The notion of a “race” is part of the campaign but it is becoming clear that the technology will take much longer than earlier generations to perfect. China, for instance, sees 5G as at least a ten-year programme to become fully working and completely rolled out nationally. This is because the technologies involved with 5G are much more complex. One aspect, for example, that is not well understood today is the unpredictable propagation patterns that could result in unacceptable levels of human exposure to electromagnetic radiation.”
“Although lower frequencies, many in the UHF [ultra high frequency] range, are being proposed for the first phase of 5G networks, much higher radio frequencies are also projected in bands traditionally used for radars and microwave links. Whether this will transpire is still open to question. These frequencies are being commercially tested by some (e.g. by AT&T in the USA at 28 GHz [gigahertz]). The new bands are well above the UHF ranges, being either in centimetric (3-30 GHz) or in millimetric bands (30-300 GHz) and popularly branded “mmWave”, but present technical challenges that are expensive to solve.”
“Although many 5G networks currently being piloted will use the much lower bands, those upper frequencies being proposed for the future may offer propagation ranges only in the order of hundreds or even tens of metres. Higher frequency signals are also subject to more interference from weather – rain, snow, fog – and obstacles - wet foliage or buildings and their walls. This means that, at higher frequencies, indoor use may be problematic if based on through-wall or window penetration. Consequently, re-use of the existing UHF bands and also those just above in the 3-10 GHz range (“mid-range”) are emphasised today, to give 5G signals greater range with fewer technical challenges.”
“With higher frequencies and shortened ranges, base stations will be more closely packed into a given area to give complete coverage that avoids “not-spots”. Ranges of 20-150 metres may be typical, giving smaller coverage areas per “small cell”. A cell radius of 20 metres would imply about 800 base stations per square kilometre (or small area wireless access points (SAWAPs), the term used in the European Electronic Communications Code (EECC)). That contrasts with 3G and 4G which use large or “macro” cells. Traditionally they offer ranges of 2-15 km or more and so can cover a larger area but with fewer simultaneous users as they have fewer individual channels.”
5G Electromagnetic Radiation and Safety
“Significant concern is emerging over the possible impact on health and safety arising from potentially much higher exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation arising from 5G. Increased exposure may result not only from the use of much higher frequencies in 5G but also from the potential for the aggregation of different signals, their dynamic nature, and the complex interference effects that may result, especially in dense urban areas.
The 5G radio emission fields are quite different to those of previous generations because of their complex beamformed transmissions in both directions – from base station to handset and for the return. Although fields are highly focused by beams, they vary rapidly with time and movement and so are unpredictable, as the signal levels and patterns interact as a closed loop system. This has yet to be mapped reliably for real situations, outside the laboratory.
While the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) issues guidelines for limiting exposure to electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (EMF), and EU member states are subject to Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC which follows ICNIRP guidelines, the problem is that currently it is not possible to accurately simulate or measure 5G emissions in the real world.”
“The USA is moving towards some form of rollout of mobile broadband as 5G but not necessarily in a holistic, well-orchestrated operation. It is more a set of ad hoc commercial manoeuvres. Some of these are simply rebranding existing LTE, rather than delivering novel networks. Re-use of the LTE spectrum in the UHF ranges (300 MHz to 3 GHz) is significant. The latter decision is probably warranted by its geography of large rural spaces and high density urban centres situated more on the coasts. Thus, the insistence for 5G on high centimetric bands (25–30 GHz and higher) is probably less justified than for the dense conurbations of Asia and the EU.
A significant challenge concerns the administrative local barriers to small cell rollout. The need for many small cells implies long delays and high costs. Local regulations continue to prevail despite the FCC’s mandate on a light-touch regime and minimal permit costs. This has led to a wide divide between local and central government on the principles of having to obtain permission for rollout and the charges for that. Local administrations, especially in the larger municipalities, are at loggerheads with the FCC (Zima, 2018). Several court challenges are being made to the FCC mandate of August 2018 that overrides local objections to a “one-touch” regime.”
Related Posts
Scientists and Doctors Demand Moratorium on 5G5G Wireless Technology: Millimeter Wave Health Effects5G Wireless Technology: Cutting through the Hype5G Wireless Technology: Newspaper editorials oppose "small cell" antenna bills

ICNIRP’s Exposure Guidelines for Radio Frequency Fields 
Worldwide Radio Frequency Radiation Exposure Limits versus Health Effects
Cell Tower Health EffectsElectromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS)
Physicians for Safe TechnologyEnvironmental Health Trust
--How Harmful is 5G?

Harald Schumann and Elisa Simantke. How harmful is 5G really? Der Tagesspiegel, Jan 15, 2019. (In German. For English translation email me at jmm@berkeley.edu.)
"5G should transfer huge amounts of data quickly. But it could also harm your health. Europe's governments ignore the danger."
Investigate Europe reports on the current state of the science and exposes the harmful roles that the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), the World Health Organization's International EMF Project,  and the EU Commission's Scientific Committee on New Health Risks (SCENIHR) have played in paving the way for the deployment of 5G without regard to health consequences.
Investigate Europe is a pan-European journalist team that researches topics of European relevance and publishes the results across Europe. The project is supported by several foundations, the Open Society Initiative for Europe, and readers' donations. Among the media partners for the report on 5G include "Newsweek Polska", "Diario de Noticias", "Il Fatto Quotidiano", "De Groene Amsterdamer", "Efimerida ton Syntakton", "Aftenbladet" and the "Falter". In addition to the authors, Crina Boros, Wojciech Ciesla, Ingeborg Eliassen, Juliet Ferguson, Nikolas Leontopoulos, Maria Maggiore, Leila Minano, Paulo Pena and Jef Poortmans contributed to this. 

More about the project: https://www.investigate-europe.eu/publications/the-5g-mass-experiment/https://www.tagesspiegel.de/gesellschaft/mobilfunk-wie-gesundheitsschaedlich-ist-5g-wirklich/23852384.html
Literature Reviews
EMF safety guidelines are fraudulent: The consequences for microwave frequency exposures and 5G
Pall M. Eight repeatedly documented findings each show that EMF safety guidelines do not predict biological effects and are, therefore fraudulent: The consequences for both microwave frequency exposures and also 5G. Second Edition, May 23, 2019. 


ICNIRP, US FCC, EU and other EMF safety guidelines are all based on the assumption that
average EMF intensities and average SAR can be used to predict biological effects and therefore safety. Eight different types of quantitative or qualitative data are analyzed here to determine whether these safety guidelines predict biological effects. In each case the safety guidelines fail and in most of these, fail massively. Effects occur at approximately 100,000 times below allowable levels and the basic structure of the safety guidelines is shown to be deeply flawed. The safety guidelines ignore demonstrated biological heterogeneity and established biological mechanisms. Even the physics underlying the safety guidelines is shown to be flawed. Pulsed EMFs are in most cases much more biologically active than are non-pulsed EMFs of the same average intensity, but pulsations are ignored in the safety guidelines despite the fact that almost all of our current exposures are highly pulsed. There are exposure windows such that maximum effects are produced in certain intensity windows and also in certain frequency windows but the consequent very complex dose-response curves are ignored by the safety guidelines. Several additional flaws in the safety guidelines are shown through studies of both individual and paired nanosecond pulses. The properties of 5G predict that guidelines will be even more flawed in predicting 5G effects than the already stunning flaws that the safety guidelines have in predicting our other EMF exposures. The consequences of these findings is that “safety guidelines” should always be expressed in quotation marks; they do not predict biological effects and therefore do not predict safety. Because of that we have a multi-trillion dollar set of companies, the telecommunication industry, where all assurances of safety are fraudulent because they are based on these “safety guidelines.”

Open access paper: http://bit.ly/RFguidelinesPall190523   


5G Wireless Telecommunications Expansion: Public Health & Environmental Implications

Russell CL. 5G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications. Environmental Research.  2018 Aug;165:484-495. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.016.
The popularity, widespread use and increasing dependency on wireless technologies has spawned a telecommunications industrial revolution with increasing public exposure to broader and higher frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum to transmit data through a variety of devices and infrastructure. On the horizon, a new generation of even shorter high frequency 5G wavelengths is being proposed to power the Internet of Things (IoT). The IoT promises us convenient and easy lifestyles with a massive 5G interconnected telecommunications network, however, the expansion of broadband with shorter wavelength radiofrequency radiation highlights the concern that health and safety issues remain unknown. Controversy continues with regards to harm from current 2G, 3G and 4G wireless technologies. 5G technologies are far less studied for human or environmental effects.
It is argued that the addition of this added high frequency 5G radiation to an already complex mix of lower frequencies, will contribute to a negative public health outcome both from both physical and mental health perspectives.
Radiofrequency radiation (RF) is increasingly being recognized as a new form of environmental pollution. Like other common toxic exposures, the effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF EMR) will be problematic if not impossible to sort out epidemiologically as there no longer remains an unexposed control group. This is especially important considering these effects are likely magnified by synergistic toxic exposures and other common health risk behaviors. Effects can also be non-linear. Because this is the first generation to have cradle-to-grave lifespan exposure to this level of man-made microwave (RF EMR) radiofrequencies, it will be years or decades before the true health consequences are known. Precaution in the roll out of this new technology is strongly indicated.
This article will review relevant electromagnetic frequencies, exposure standards and current scientific literature on the health implications of 2G, 3G, 4G exposure, including some of the available literature on 5G frequencies. The question of what constitutes a public health issue will be raised, as well as the need for a precautionary approach in advancing new wireless technologies.

Although 5G technology may have many unimagined uses and benefits, it is also increasingly clear that significant negative consequences to human health and ecosystems could occur if it is widely adopted. Current radiofrequency radiation wavelengths we are exposed to appear to act as a toxin to biological systems. A moratorium on the deployment of 5G is warranted, along with development of independent health and environmental advisory boards that include independent scientists who research biological effects and exposure levels of radiofrequency radiation. Sound regulatory policy regarding current and future telecommunications initiative will require more careful assessment of risks to human health, environmental health, public safety, privacy, security and social consequences. Public health regulations need to be updated to match appropriate independent science with the adoption of biologically based exposure standards prior to further deployment of 4G or 5G technology.
Considering the current science, lack of relevant exposure standards based on known biological effects and data gaps in research, we need to reduce our exposure to RF EMR where ever technically feasible. Laws or policies which restrict the full integrity of science and the scientific community with regards to health and environmental effects of wireless technologies or other toxic exposures should be changed to enable unbiased, objective and precautionary science to drive necessary public policies and regulation. Climate change, fracking, toxic emissions and microwave radiation from wireless devices all have something in common with smoking. There is much denial and confusion about health and environmental risks, along with industry insistence for absolute proof before regulatory action occurs (Frentzel-Beyme, 1994; Michaels 2008). There are many lessons we have not learned with the introduction of novel substances, which later became precarious environmental pollutants by not heeding warning signs from scientists (Gee, 2009). The threats of these common pollutants continue to weigh heavily on the health and well being of our nation. We now accept them as the price of progress. If we do not take precautions but wait for unquestioned proof of harm will it be too late at that point for some or all of us?


Towards 5G Communication Systems: Are there Health Implications?
Di Ciaula A. Towards 5G communication systems: Are there health implications? Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2018 Apr;221(3):367-375. doi: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2018.01.011.
• RF-EMF exposure is rising and health effects of are still under investigation.
• Both oncologic and non-cancerous chronic effects have been suggested.
• 5G networks could have health effects and will use MMW, still scarcely explored.
• Adequate knowledge of RF-EMF biological effects is also needed in clinical practice.
• Underrating the problem could lead to a further rise in noncommunicable diseases.

The spread of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) is rising and health effects are still under investigation. RF-EMF promote oxidative stress, a condition involved in cancer onset, in several acute and chronic diseases and in vascular homeostasis. Although some evidences are still controversial, the WHO IARC classified RF-EMF as "possible carcinogenic to humans", and more recent studies suggested reproductive, metabolic and neurologic effects of RF-EMF, which are also able to alter bacterial antibiotic resistance. 

In this evolving scenario, although the biological effects of 5G communication systems are very scarcely investigated, an international action plan for the development of 5G networks has started, with a forthcoming increment in devices and density of small cells, and with the future use of millimeter waves (MMW). 

Preliminary observations showed that MMW increase skin temperature, alter gene expression, promote cellular proliferation and synthesis of proteins linked with oxidative stress, inflammatory and metabolic processes, could generate ocular damages, affect neuro-muscular dynamics. 

Further studies are needed to better and independently explore the health effects of RF-EMF in general and of MMW in particular. However, available findings seem sufficient to demonstrate the existence of biomedical effects, to invoke the precautionary principle, to define exposed subjects as potentially vulnerable and to revise existing limits. An adequate knowledge of pathophysiological mechanisms linking RF-EMF exposure to health risk should also be useful in the current clinical practice, in particular in consideration of evidences pointing to extrinsic factors as heavy contributors to cancer risk and to the progressive epidemiological growth of noncommunicable diseases.


Effects of Millimeter Waves Radiation on Cell Membrane - A Brief Review
Ramundo-Orlando A.  Effects of millimeter waves radiation on cell membrane - A brief review.  J Infrared Milli Terahz Waves. 2010; 30 (12): 1400-1411.
The millimeter waves (MMW) region of the electromagnetic spectrum, extending from 30 to 300 GHz in terms of frequency (corresponding to wavelengths from 10 mm to 1 mm), is officially used in non-invasive complementary medicine in many Eastern European countries against a variety of diseases such gastro duodenal ulcers, cardiovascular disorders, traumatism and tumor. On the other hand, besides technological applications in traffic and military systems, in the near future MMW will also find applications in high resolution and high-speed wireless communication technology. This has led to restoring interest in research on MMW induced biological effects. In this review emphasis has been given to the MMW-induced effects on cell membranes that are considered the major target for the interaction between MMW and biological systems.
 “Several studies on the effects induced by millimeter radiation on biological systems have been reported in the literature. Diverse effects have been observed on cell free systems, cultured cells, isolated organs of animals and humans. The subject has been extensively reviewed by Motzkin [17] and more recently by Pakhomov [3]. At the cellular level these effects are mainly on the membrane process and ion channels, molecular complexes, excitable and other structures. Many of these effects are quite unexpected from a radiation penetrating less than 1 mm into biological tissues [3, 18, 19]. However none of the findings described in the above reviews has been replicated in an independent laboratory, thus they cannot be considered as established biological effects.”
“…a large number of cellular studies have indicated that MMW may alter structural and functional properties of membranes (Table 2).”
“In this review emphasis has been given to the low-level MMW effects on cell membranes. Above all, it should be mentioned that the reported effects are of a non-thermal character, that is, the action of radiation does not produce essential heating of the biological system or destroy its structure. In this context it appears that no permanent structural change of lipid bilayer could arise under low level (less than 10 mW/cm2) millimeter waves irradiation.
On the other hand, MMW radiation may affect intracellular calcium activities, and, as a consequence, several cellular and molecular processes controlled by Ca2+ dynamics themselves. The effects of MMW radiation on ion transport may be the consequence of a direct effect on membrane proteins as well as on phospholipid domain organization. Water molecules seem to play an important role in these biological effects of MMW radiation. Unfortunately, detailed cellular and molecular mechanisms mediating physiological responses to MMW exposure remain largely unknown.
Usually the search at a molecular level is simpler if we can reduce the complexity of our biological samples. This is the case for cell membranes by using model systems. They can be formed by a simple lipid bilayer without interfering components and they give independence from biological activity that can create complication in searching for electromagnetic fields bioeffects. The emphasis is on the search for molecular mechanisms of the membrane effect induced by MMW with different frequencies and power density. Furthermore, replication studies are needed including good temperature control and appropriate internal control samples. It is also advantageous if the future studies are multidisciplinary, invoking an integration of high quality exposure and effects methodologies.
Clearly a significant amount of accurate experimental work is still required in order to fully understand the interactions between MMW radiation and cell membrane.”

Research Papers

A Survey on Electromagnetic Risk Assessment and Evaluation Mechanism for Future Wireless Communication Systems

Jamshed MA, Heliot F, Brown T. A Survey on Electromagnetic Risk Assessment and Evaluation Mechanism for Future Wireless Communication Systems. IEEE Journal of Electromagnetics, RF and Microwaves in Medicine and Biology. May 20, 2019. DOI: 10.1109/JERM.2019.2917766 
The accurate measurement of electromagnetic exposure and its application is expected to become more and more important in future wireless communication systems, given the explosion in both the number of wireless devices and equipments radiating electromagnetic-fields (EMF) and the growing concerns in the general public linked to it. Indeed, the next generation of wireless systems aims at providing a higher data rate,better quality of service (QoS), and lower latency to users by increasing the number of access points, i.e. densification, which in turn will increase EMF exposure. Similarly, the multiplication of future connected devices,e.g. internet of things (IoT) devices, will also contribute to an increase in EMF exposure. This paper provides a detailed survey relating to the potential health hazards linked with EMF exposure and the different metrics that are currently used for evaluating,limiting and mitigating the effects of this type of exposure on the general public. This paper also reviews the possible impacts of new wireless technologies on EMF exposure and proposes some novel research directions for updating the EMF exposure evaluation framework and addressing these impacts in future wireless communication systems. For instance, the impact of mmWave or massive-MIMO/beamforming on EMF exposure has yet to be fully understood and included in the exposure evaluation framework.
A thorough survey on exposure risk assessment, evaluation, limitation and mitigation for current and future wireless devices and equipments has been provided in this paper. From the human health point of view, it seems that the possibility of brain tumor is still the main cause of concerns related to the extensive use of wireless devices, even though the effects of EMF exposure is now being investigated in new parts of the body (e.g. eyes). Meanwhile, with the advent of 5G, more efforts are now been made to understand the thermal and non-thermal effects of mmWave exposure on the human body. When it comes to the evaluation of EMF exposure, we have presented the most common evaluation frameworks and metrics that are utilized in wireless communications to measure the exposure. We have also explained how new more generic metrics have been defined by combining existing metrics to better reflect the exposure of large geographical areas and have argued that a generic metric for measuring the individual exposure would also be of interest. We have also reviewed the existing exposure guidelines and have explained how they can be updated for better reflecting the true nature of EMF exposure, i.e. by better taking into account the duration of exposure. Finally, we have provided some views on how key 5G enabling technologies such as densification, massive MIMO and mmWave will impact the EMF exposure in the near future; for instance, the dense deployment of small cells and IoT devices is very likely to increase the overall ambient exposure. We also believe that there could be some technical opportunities in 5G to increase the exposure awareness of wireless system users and to let them decide if they want to reduce it at the cost of, for instance, a lower QoS.

Assessment of Maximally Allowable Power-Density Averaging Area for EMF Exposure above 6 GHz
Neufeld E, Carrasco E, Murbach M, Balzano Q, Christ A, Kuster N. Theoretical and numerical assessment of maximally allowable power-density averaging area for conservative electromagnetic exposure assessment above 6 GHz.  Bioelectromagnetics.  2018 Dec;39(8):617-630. doi: 10.1002/bem.22147.
The objective of this paper is to determine a maximum averaging area for power density (PD) that limits the maximum temperature increase to a given threshold for frequencies above 6 GHz. This maximum area should be conservative for any transmitter at any distance >2 mm from the primary transmitting antennas or secondary field-generating sources. To derive a generically valid maximum averaging area, an analytical approximation for the peak temperature increase caused by localized exposure was derived. The results for a threshold value of 1 K temperature rise were validated against simulations of a series of sources composed of electrical and magnetic elements (dipoles, slots, patches, and arrays) that represented the spectrum of relevant transmitters. The validation was successful for frequencies in which the power deposition occurred superficially (i.e., >10 GHz). In conclusion, the averaging area for a PD limit of 10 W/m2 that conservatively limits the temperature increase in the skin to less than 1 K at any distance >2 mm from the transmitters is frequency dependent, increases with distance, and ranges from 3 cm2 at <10 GHz to 1.9 cm2 at 100 GHz. In the far-field, the area depends additionally on distance and the antenna array aperture. The correlation was found to be worse at lower frequencies (<10 GHz) and very close to the source, the systematic evaluation of which is part of another study to investigate the effect of different coupling mechanisms in the reactive near-field on the ratio of temperature increase to incident power density. The presented model can be directly applied to any other PD and temperature thresholds.

The Human Skin as a Sub-THz Receiver - Does 5G Pose a Danger to It or Not?
Betzalel N, Ben Ishai P, Feldman Y. The human skin as a sub-THz receiver - Does 5G pose a danger to it or not? Environ Res. 2018 May;163:208-216. 


• The sweat duct is regarded as a helical antenna in the sub-THz band, reflectance depends on perspiration.
• We outline the background for non-thermal effects based on the structure of sweat ducts.
• We have introduced a realistic skin EM model and found the expected SAR for the 5G standard.


In the interaction of microwave radiation and human beings, the skin is traditionally considered as just an absorbing sponge stratum filled with water. In previous works, we showed that this view is flawed when we demonstrated that the coiled portion of the sweat duct in upper skin layer is regarded as a helical antenna in the sub-THz band. 

Experimentally we showed that the reflectance of the human skin in the sub-THz region depends on the intensity of perspiration, i.e. sweat duct's conductivity, and correlates with levels of human stress (physical, mental and emotional). Later on, we detected circular dichroism in the reflectance from the skin, a signature of the axial mode of a helical antenna. The full ramifications of what these findings represent in the human condition are still unclear. We also revealed correlation of electrocardiography (ECG) parameters to the sub-THz reflection coefficient of human skin. In a recent work, we developed a unique simulation tool of human skin, taking into account the skin multi-layer structure together with the helical segment of the sweat duct embedded in it. The presence of the sweat duct led to a high specific absorption rate (SAR) of the skin in extremely high frequency band. 
In this paper, we summarize the physical evidence for this phenomenon and consider its implication for the future exploitation of the electromagnetic spectrum by wireless communication. Starting from July 2016 the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has adopted new rules for wireless broadband operations above 24 GHz (5 G). This trend of exploitation is predicted to expand to higher frequencies in the sub-THz region. One must consider the implications of human immersion in the electromagnetic noise, caused by devices working at the very same frequencies as those, to which the sweat duct (as a helical antenna) is most attuned. 
We are raising a warning flag against the unrestricted use of sub-THz technologies for communication, before the possible consequences for public health are explored.



The need for high data transmission rates, coupled with advances in semiconductor technology, is pushing the communications industry towards the sub-THz frequency spectrum. While the promises of a glorious future, resplendent with semi-infinite data streaming, may be attractive, there is a price to pay for such luxury. We shall find our cities, workspace and homes awash with 5 G base stations and we shall live though an unprecedented EM smog. The benefits to our society of becoming so wired cannot ignore possible health concerns, as yet unexplored. There is enough evidence to suggest that the combination of the helical sweat duct and wavelengths approaching the dimensions of skin layers could lead to non-thermal biological effects. Such fears should be investigated and these concerns should also effect the definition of standards for the application of 5G communications.


On Measuring Electromagnetic Fields in 5G Technology

Pawlak R, Krawiec P, Żurek J. On measuring electromagnetic fields in 5G technology. IEEE Access. 7: 29826-29835. March 5, 2019. DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2902481


At the awakening of the new 5G network as the network of services, issues related to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) will become one of the key aspects for the cost-effective establishment of the 5G infrastructure. The new 5G services will meet the rigorous demand for bandwidth through the implementation of a large number of densely located base stations operating in the millimeter-wave range. Introduction of new emission sources, working in parallel with already existing 2G/3G/4G mobile technologies, raises concerns about exceeding the admissible EMF exposure limits. This paper analyzes issues and challenges related to EMF measurements in 5G technology, which are crucial for the assessment of EMF compliance with regulatory limits. We point out that the existing methodologies, dedicated to EMF measurements in 2G, 3G, and 4G networks, are not suitable for 5G. The reason is the use of new techniques, such as massive MIMO and precise beamforming together with higher frequency bands so that the existing measurement methods can lead to significantly overestimated results when they will be applied to 5G networks. Such results, in conjunction with the restrictive legislation on the EMF limits that apply in some countries, may have the negative impact on 5G network deployment, making it difficult to achieve the intended 5G network capabilities. We also propose an alternative method of EMF exposure assessment that is based on calculations and simulations and allows obtaining an accurate estimation of the EMF distribution in the 5G environment.

Open access paper: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8660395


Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Assessment for Future 5G Networks
Persia S, Carciofi C, Barbiroli M, Volta C, Bontempelli D, Anania G. Radio frequency electromagnetic field exposure assessment for future 5G networks. IEEE 29th Annual International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC), 2018. IEEE, 2018. doi:10.1109/PIMRC.2018.8580919


The fifth generation of mobile network (5G) will relay not only on the expansion of existing fourth (4G) Long Term Evolution (LTE) network, but thanks to the introduction of new radio access in the millimetre wave bands will allow to meet new requirements in terms of connectivity and capacity. Specifically, 5G network will be characterized by the use of new spectrum at higher frequencies with a very large number of antenna elements deployment. As a consequence, the RF EMF (Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Field) compliance assessments with the regulatory requirements for human exposure for the installation permission needs to be revised accordingly. In this work, a Country case (Italy), where a more restrictive regulatory framework than the ICNIRP Guidelines is applied, has been analysed to investigate the impact of the restrictive approach on the future 5G mobile networks roll-out.


The EMF evaluations of existing cellular networks has been analysed in this work in order to highlight how restrictive regulatory framework than International Guidelines can affect 5G and future network deployment. Italy case study is considered as an example, due to its restrictive regulation to verify if it can permit an efficient 5G roll-out. This consideration has been confirmed by evaluations of the trend of saturated sites from 2010 to 2017 in Italy. Simulations demonstrate that in Italy the strong development expected for the evolution of 4G networks and, in the perspective of 5G systems, can be threatened with the stringent constraints imposed by the current regulatory framework for exposure to electromagnetic fields.


Derivation of Safety Limits for 5G RF Exposure Based on Analytical Models & Thermal Dose

Neufeld E, Kuster N. Systematic Derivation of Safety Limits for Time-Varying 5G Radiofrequency Exposure Based on Analytical Models and Thermal Dose. Health Phys. 2018 Sep 21. 705-711. doi: 10.1097/HP.0000000000000930.


Extreme broadband wireless devices operating above 10 GHz may transmit data in bursts of a few milliseconds to seconds. Even though the time- and area-averaged power density values remain within the acceptable safety limits for continuous exposure, these bursts may lead to short temperature spikes in the skin of exposed people. In this paper, a novel analytical approach to pulsed heating is developed and applied to assess the peak-to-average temperature ratio as a function of the pulse fraction α (relative to the averaging time T; it corresponds to the inverse of the peak-to-average ratio). This has been analyzed for two different perfusion-related thermal time constants (τ1 = 100 s and 500 s) corresponding to plane-wave and localized exposures. To allow for peak temperatures that considerably exceed the 1 K increase, the CEM43 tissue damage model, with an experimental-data-based damage threshold for human skin of 600 min, is used to allow large temperature oscillations that remain below the level at which tissue damage occurs. To stay consistent with the current safety guidelines, safety factors of 10 for occupational exposure and 50 for the general public were applied. The model assumptions and limitations (e.g., employed thermal and tissue damage models, homogeneous skin, consideration of localized exposure by a modified time constant) are discussed in detail. 

The results demonstrate that the maximum averaging time, based on the assumption of a thermal time constant of 100 s, is 240 s if the maximum local temperature increase for continuous-wave exposure is limited to 1 K and α ≥ 0.1. For a very low peak-to-average ratio of 100 (α ≥ 0.01), it decreases to only 30 s. The results also show that the peak-to-average ratio of 1,000 tolerated by the International Council on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines may lead to permanent tissue damage after even short exposures, highlighting the importance of revisiting existing exposure guidelines. 


Human Exposure to RF Fields in 5G Downlink
Nasim I, Kim S. Human Exposure to RF Fields in 5G Downlink. Submitted on 10 Nov 2017 to IEEE International Communications Conference. arXiv:1711.03683v1.
While cellular communications in millimeter wave (mmW) bands have been attracting significant research interest, their potential harmful impacts on human health are not as significantly studied. Prior research on human exposure to radio frequency (RF) fields in a cellular communications system has been focused on uplink only due to the closer physical contact of a transmitter to a human body. However, this paper claims the necessity of thorough investigation on human exposure to downlink RF fields, as cellular systems deployed in mmW bands will entail (i) deployment of more transmitters due to smaller cell size and (ii) higher concentration of RF energy using a highly directional antenna. In this paper, we present human RF exposure levels in downlink of a Fifth Generation Wireless Systems (5G). Our results show that 5G downlink RF fields generate significantly higher power density (PD) and specific absorption rate (SAR) than a current cellular system. This paper also shows that SAR should also be taken into account for determining human RF exposure in the mmW downlink.



Colombi D, Thors B, Törnevik C. Implications of EMF exposure limits on output power levels for 5G devices above 6 GHz. IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters. 14:1247-1249. 04 February 2015. DOI: 10.1109/LAWP.2015.2400331.
Spectrum is a scarce resource, and the interest for utilizing frequency bands above 6 GHz for future radio communication systems is increasing. The possible use of higher frequency bands implies new challenges in terms of electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure assessments since the fundamental exposure metric (basic restriction) is changing from specific absorption rate (SAR) to power density. In this study, the implication of this change is investigated in terms of the maximum possible radiated power (P max ) from a device used in close proximity to the human body. The results show that the existing exposure limits will lead to a non-physical discontinuity of several dB in P max as the transition is made from SAR to power density based basic restrictions. As a consequence, to be compliant with applicable exposure limits at frequencies above 6 GHz, P max might have to be several dB below the power levels used for current cellular technologies. Since the available power in uplink has a direct impact on the system capacity and coverage, such an inconsistency, if not resolved, might have a large effect on the development of the next generation cellular networks (5G).
Above 6 GHz for FCC and 10 GHz for ICNIRP, EMF exposure limits are defined in terms of free-space power density rather than SAR. It was shown that at the transition frequency where the exposure metric changes, the maximum radiated power to meet compliance with ICNIRP and FCC EMF limits, for a device used in close proximity of the body, presents a strong discontinuity (in the order of 6 dB for the investigated case). This discrepancy has no scientific basis and is due to inconsistencies in the exposure limits. As a consequence, the estimated maximum output power in uplink for devices operating at frequencies above 6-10 GHz is about 18 dBm and 15 dBm for ICNIRP and FCC, respectively. These figures were obtained by numerical simulations of a canonical dipole at frequencies up to 70 GHz. It was shown that for more directive antennas, the maximum available power can be substantially lower. For the IEEE limits, the incongruity at the transition frequency is less evident. This is because the IEEE PD limits make use of a larger averaging area than the ICNIRP and FCC limits. The IEEE limits, however, have not yet been adopted in any national regulations.
With a growing interest for utilizing frequency bands above 6 GHz for mobile communications, it is important that the inconsistencies at the transition frequency from SAR to PD based basic restrictions are timely solved. If not, the observed discrepancy might have a large impact on the development of future mobile communication networks. We therefore encourage the relevant standardization organizations and regulatory authorities responsible for defining EMF exposure limits to address this issue.


Expert Opinions

May 20, 2019

5G: The Unreported Global Threat

Devra Davis, PhD, Medium, May 18, 2019


Aug 18, 2017 (Updated Sep 27, 2017)
Scientists and Physicians Oppose
"Small Cell" Antenna Bill (Calif. SB 649)
I have been hearing from scientists around the world who are deeply concerned about the deployment of fifth generation (5G) wireless technology without adequate research on the health effects of exposure to this type of radio frequency radiation.

Following is a sample of letters sent to California Governor Brown asking him to veto SB 659, a "small cell" antenna bill written by the cellular industry that paves the way for deployment of 5G wireless technology across the state.

Professor Beatrice Golomb, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine in the School of Medicine at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Golomb's letter begins with the following warning:
"I urge in the strongest terms that you vigorously oppose California SB 649.
If this bill passes, many people will suffer greatly, and needlessly, as a direct result. 
This sounds like hyperbole. It is not.
My research group at UC San Diego alone has received hundreds of communications from people who have developed serious health problems from electromagnetic radiation, following introduction of new technologies. Others with whom I am in communication, have independently received hundreds of similar reports. Most likely these are a tip of an iceberg of tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of affected person. As each new technology leading to further exposure to electromagnetic radiation is introduced – and particularly introduced in a fashion that prevents vulnerable individuals from avoiding it – a new group become sensitized to health effects. This is particularly true for pulsed signals in the radiowave and microwave portion of the spectrum, the type for which the proposed bill SB 640 will bypass local control."
In the letter, Dr. Golomb summarizes the research on the effects of exposure to radio frequency radiation and advocates for "safer, wired and well shielded technology – not more wireless." 
Appended to the letter are 360 references to the scientific literature.
The letter can be downloaded at: http://bit.ly/SB649Golomb822.

Professor Martin Pall, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences at Washington State University, explains in his letter to the Governor his peer-reviewed research which has documented ...
"exquisite sensitivity to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) in the voltage sensors in each cell, such that the force impacting our cells at the voltage sensor has massive impact on the biology in the cells of our bodies."
"This new understanding [1-7] means we can debunk the claims of the wireless industry that there cannot be a mechanism for effects produced by these weak EMFs. The 20 years plus of industry propaganda claims are false. Rather the thousands of studies showing diverse health impacts of these EMFs can be explained. We now have a mechanism, one that is supported by both the biology and the physics, both of which are pointing in exactly the same direction."
"5G will be much more active in activating the VGCCs and producinghealth impacts because of its rapid absorption by materials in the body, because of its very rapid pulsations and because of the huge number antennae they are planning to put up, at least 200 times the number of antennae from all current cell phone towers. What this means is that the impacts on the outer one to two inches of our bodies will be massive."

His letter discusses the potential health impacts on humans and on agriculture with exposure to 5G radiation.

The letter can be downloaded at: http://bit.ly/SB649Pall

Dr. Michael Lipsett, MD, JD, a retired public health physician with extensive experience in environmental health, mentions in his letter the recent demand for a 5G moratorium by more than 180 scientists and physicians and the study of cell phone radiation conducted by the National Toxicology Program

He points out that while individuals can take precautions to reduce their exposure to radiofrequency radiation emitted by wireless devices, this is not feasible with exposure from cell antennas. He notes that ...
"laboratory and human health investigations designed and conducted by independent researchers have reported associations linking exposure to radiation from cell phones or similar devices with multiple adverse effects (e.g., headaches, impacts on brain function, memory, learning and sleep; decreased sperm counts and quality) as well as with DNA damage and tumors of the brain and nervous system."
"Potential health impacts of wireless communication have been ignored or obscured for decades by the telecommunications industry, which has implied that cell phones and other devices are safe because they comply with federal safety standards. However, these standards were established more than 20 years ago and were based on assumptions that have since been called into question by health research studies. The push to establish a 5G network, exemplified by SB 649, is based on a similarly unproven assumption: i.e., that round-the-clock exposure to 5G frequencies will not affect human health or the environment.
Establishment of a 5G network will be irreversible, as will the pattern of near-universal exposure of California residents to high-frequency, as-yet-untested 5G electromagnetic radiation."
The letter can be downloaded at: http://bit.ly/LipsettSB649.

June 23, 2017

EMF Scientist Appeal Advisors Call for Moratorium on Policies 
for 5G “Small Cell” Antennas

The advisors to the International EMF Scientist Appeal submitted a letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in opposition to a proposed change in FCC rules that would allow rapid deployment of 5th generation (5G) wireless infrastructure throughout the nation. A copy of the Appeal was appended to the letter.
5G involves transmission of millimeter waves which operate at much higher frequencies than currently used for cellular transmission (30 to 300 gigahertz). Because the range of these signals is limited (i.e., less than a football field), hundreds of thousands of new “small cell” antennas will be required in the U.S. The wireless industry wants to install these not-so-small cellular antennas on existing public utility poles.
The FCC intends to streamline the approval of these antennas which would further undermine the regulatory authority of cities and states over cell towers.
Meanwhile the wireless industry is lobbying for legislationin many states across the country that would limit local authority over cell antenna deployment.
Due to the concern that the FCC’s new rules will result in increased exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF), the Appeal’s advisors oppose the new rules and call for a “public health review of the growing body of scientific evidence that includes reports of increasing rates of cancer and neurological diseases that may be caused by exposure to EMF from wireless sources.”
The Appeal reflects the concerns of 225 EMF expertsfrom 41 nations about the impact of EMF exposure on public health. All of the experts who signed this appeal have published research in peer-reviewed scientific journals about the biologic or health effects of EMF.
According to the Appeal’s signatories, current national and international EMF exposure guidelines are obsolete and inadequate to protect human health and the environment. The FCC’s radio frequency guidelines were adopted in 1996.
The letter (dated June 9, 2017) is signed by the five advisors to the International EMF Scientist Appeal: Drs. Martin Blank, Magda Havas, Henry Lai, and Joel Moskowitz, and Elizabeth Kelley.
For more information:
FCC filing detail   (June 9, 2017)FCC letter submitted by Advisors to International EMF Scientist Appeal
FCC submission: International EMF Scientist Appeal

International EMF Scientist Appeal Official Website International EMF Scientist Appeal on Electromagnetic Fields and Wireless Technology  
May 8, 2017

A 5G Wireless Future: Will it give us a smart nation or contribute to an unhealthy one?
Dr. Cindy Russell, The (SCCMA) Bulletin, Jan/Feb 2017
Safety testing for 5G is the same as other wireless devices. It is based on heat. This is an obsolete standard and not considering current science showing cellular and organism harm from non-thermal effects. There is a large gap in safety data for 5G biological effects that has been demonstrated in older studies including military.
1. Do not proceed to roll out 5G technologies pending pre-market studies on health effects.
2. Reevaluate safety standards based on long term as well as short term studies on biological effects.
3. Rescind a portion of Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which preempts state and local government regulation for the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects so that health and environmental issues can be addressed.
4. Rescind portions of The Spectrum Act which was passed in 2012 as part of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, which strips the ability city officials and local governments to regulate cellular communications equipment, provides no public notification or opportunity for public input and may potentially result in environmental impacts.
5. Create an independent multidisciplinary scientific agency tasked with developing appropriate safety regulations, pre-market testing and research needs in a transparent environment with public input.
6. Label pertinent EMF information on devices along with appropriate precautionary warnings.
Dr. Russell provides a brief review of the research on millimeter wave bioeffects in this article: http://bit.ly/5GRussell.


Aug 17, 2016 (Updated Aug 19)

5G cellular technology will employ much higher frequency microwaves than current cell phone technologies: 2G, 3G, and 4G.  These microwaves, known as millimeter waves, won't penetrate building materials like the current technology which is why industry may need one cell antenna base station for every 12 homes. But millimeter waves can affect your eyes and penetrate your skin.

When the Los Angeles Times reporter contacted me for the story below, I did a quick search and found several recently published articles examining biological effects of millimeter waves (see references below). This form of microwave radiation is most likely to affect our skin and neuronal cells in the upper dermis.

Moreover, widespread adoption of 5G cellular technology in the U.S. may have profound effects on our ecosystem by altering bacteria, possibly creating harmful bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics.

History has proved that we cannot trust the FCC and the FDAto protect our health from microwave radiation exposure.

I submitted an open letter to the FCC in July calling for "an independent review of the biologic and health research to determine whether the RF standards should be modified before allowing additional spectrum to be used for new commercial applications."

Moreover, the FCC has ignored the 800-plus submissionsthat call upon the agency to adopt rigorous radio frequency standards to protect the public’s health. Instead the agency maintains its 20-year old exposure guidelinesthat control only for heating or thermal risks. The FDA has ignored the thousands of studies that find nonthermal biologic effects, and the human studies that find a wide range of health effects including increased cancer risk and reproductive harm from exposure to low intensity microwaves.
In my opinion, precaution is warranted before unleashing 5G technology on the world. I suspect most of the 221 scientists who signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal (referenced in the article below), would support this assertion.

However, more research is also needed as specific characteristics of the millimeter waves (e.g., pulsing, modulation) to be employed in 5G cellular technology may be more important than the frequency or intensity of the waves in terms of biologic and health effects. The research funding must be independent of industry as conflicts of interest have been found to undermine the science in this field.
For an unbiased summary of the partial findings of the National Toxicology Program study of cancer risk from 2G cell phone radiation, see http://www.saferemr.com/2016/05/national-toxicology-progam-finds-cell.html.
-- Low-intensity millimeter waves used for pain therapy have side effects
The Russians have pioneered millimeter wave therapy (MWT) using low intensity millimeter waves to reduce pain including headaches, joint pain, and postoperative pain.

Although the following review paper documents some positive effects from short-term exposure to MWT, the authors note that there are side effects including fatigue, sleepiness, and paresthesia (an abnormal sensation, tingling or pricking [“pins and needles”] caused by pressure on or damage to peripheral nerves). 

"We conclude that there is promising data from pilot case series and small-scale randomized controlled trials for analgesic/hypoalgesic effects of electromagnetic millimeter waves in frequency range 30–70 GHz. Large-scale randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness of this non-invasive therapeutic technique are necessary." 
"In the studies reviewed the authors did not report any health-related side effects of MWT. Slight paresthesias, previously mentioned in several case reports and non-controlled case series (10,11), appeared in almost 50% of patients in studies where the effects of MWT were carefully described (21,27,28,31). The paresthesias were of short duration and reported as pleasant (‘warmth’) or neutral. General fatigue and sleepiness during the treatment sessions in almost 80% of the patients was a rather desirable side effect of MWT, as also described in previous reviews on biomedical effects of MWT (10,11,21,27,28)."
From: Usichenko TI, Edinger H, Gizhko VV, Lehmann C, Wendt M, Feyerherd F. Low-intensity electromagnetic millimeter waves for pain therapy. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2006 Jun;3(2):201-7. URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1475937/
Little research is available on long-term exposure to millimeter waves (see below). Most of the studies referred to in this review paper did not modulate or pulse the carrier waves which will be required for information-carrying millimeter waves employed in 5G technologies. Prior research suggests that such waves will be more biologically active than pure sine waves.

Additional Resources 
(Updated 8/12/2019)
The essential 5G glossary of key terms and phrases
Michaela Goss, Tech Target,, Aug 12, 2019

Senator Blumenthal Raises Concerns on 5G Wireless Technology Health Risks at Senate Hearing         "We're kind of flying blind here so far as health and safety is concerned."
U.S. Senate Commerce Committee Hearing, Feb 6, 2019 (5 minute video)
Is 5G Harmful for Humans and the Environment?Kashyap Vyas, Interesting Engineering, Jan 27, 2019
U.S. Senator Blumenthal briefing on possible health risks posed by 5G wireless technologyCongressional news briefing, Connecticut Network, Dec 3, 2018 (22 minute video)

Congressional letter to FCC Commissioner requesting evidence for safety of 5G
Richard Blumenthal, Anna G. Eshoo, Dec 3, 2018

Resistance to 5G: Roadblock to a High Tech Future or Warning of a Serious Health Risk? Conan Milner, Epoch Times, November 9, 2018
The roll out of 5G wireless service is 'a massive health experiment,' public health expert warns as cell companies install 800,000 towers across the US
Natalie Rahhal, Daily Mail, May 29, 2018

The 5G telecommunication technology--emitted millimeter waves: Lack of research on bioeffects
Dariusz Leszczynski, PhD, Presentation at 5th Asian & Oceanic IRPA Regional Congress on Radiation Protection, Melbourne, Australia, May 22, 2018

NEPA rollback now official for small wireless projectsSobczyk N, GreenWire, May 3, 2018

5G: Great risk for EU, U.S. and International Health! Compelling Evidence for
Eight Distinct Types of Great Harm Caused by Electromagnetic Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them
Martin L. Pall, PhD, undated

5G and Internet of Things: A Trojan Horse
Paul Héroux, PhD, The Green Gazette, Mar 27, 2018

Residents worried about small cell safety have been waiting years for federal guidance
Ryan Barwick, Center for Public Integrity, Mar 2, 2018
5G Cell Service Is Coming. Who Decides Where It Goes?
Allan Holmes, New York Times, Mar 2, 2018

‘Tsunami of data’ could consume one fifth of global electricity by 2025
The Guardian, Dec 11, 2017

California: Bill to ease permits for cellular antennas could impact healthTracy Seipel. Mercury News (San Jose, CA), Aug 31, 2017
Is 5G technology dangerous? Early data shows a slight increase of tumors in male rats exposed to cellphone radiationJim Puzzanghera, Los Angeles Times, Aug 8, 2016

translate | 15.8.2019 20:14

Effect of Mobile Phones on Sperm Quality

Diagrammatic representation of various sources of RF EMF exposure effect on brain and testicular organ and deleterious outcomes
(Kesari, Agarwal & Henkel, 2018)
Review Papers
Jaffar FHF, Osman K, Ismail NH, Chin KY, Ibrahim SF. Adverse Effects of Wi-Fi Radiation on Male Reproductive System: A Systematic Review. Tohoku J Exp Med. 2019;248(3): 169-179. doi: 10.1620/tjem.248.169. (Note: Smartphones emit Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and various types of cellular radiation.)


Extensive use of Wi-Fi has contributed to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) pollution in environment. Various studies have been conducted to evaluate the effect of RF-EMR emitted by Wi-Fi transmitter on male reproduction health. However, there are conflicting findings between studies. Thus, this review aims to elucidate the possible effects of 2.45 GHz Wi-Fi exposure on both animal and human male reproductive system. A computerized database search performed through MEDLINE via Ovid and PUBMED with the following set of keywords: 'Wi-Fi or WiFi or wireless fidelity or Wi-Fi router or WiFi router or electromagnetic or radiofrequency radiation' AND 'sperm or spermatozoa or spermatogenesis or semen or seminal plasma or testes or testis or testosterone or male reproduction' had returned 526 articles. Only 17 studies conformed to pre-set inclusion criterion. Additional records identified through Google Scholar and reviewed article further revealed six eligible articles. A total of 23 articles were used for data extraction, including 15 studies on rats, three studies on mice, and five studies on human health. Sperm count, motility and DNA integrity were the most affected parameters when exposed to RF-EMR emitted by Wi-Fi transmitter. Unfortunately, sperm viability and morphology were inconclusive. Structural and/or physiological analyses of the testes showed degenerative changes, reduced testosterone level, increased apoptotic cells, and DNA damage. These effects were mainly due to the elevation of testicular temperature and oxidative stress activity. In conclusion, exposure towards 2.45 GHz RF-EMR emitted by Wi-Fi transmitter is hazardous on the male reproductive system.

Open access paper: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/tjem/248/3/248_169/_article

Kesari KK, Agarwal A, Henkel R. Radiation and male fertility. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2018 Dec 9;16(1):118. doi: 10.1186/s12958-018-0431-1.During recent years, an increasing percentage of male infertility has to be attributed to an array of environmental, health and lifestyle factors. Male infertility is likely to be affected by the intense exposure to heat and extreme exposure to pesticides, radiation, radioactivity and other hazardous substances. We are surrounded by several types of ionizing and non-ionizing radiations and both have recognized causative effects on spermatogenesis. Since it is impossible to cover all types of radiation sources and their biological effects under a single title, this review is focusing on radiation deriving from cell phones, laptops, Wi-Fi and microwave ovens, as these are the most common sources of non-ionizing radiation, which may contribute to the cause of infertility by exploring the effect of exposure to radiofrequency radiation on the male fertility pattern. From currently available studies it is clear that radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) have deleterious effects on sperm parameters (like sperm count, morphology, motility), affects the role of kinases in cellular metabolism and the endocrine system, and produces genotoxicity, genomic instability and oxidative stress. This is followed with protective measures for these radiations and future recommendations. The study concludes that the RF-EMF may induce oxidative stress with an increased level of reactive oxygen species, which may lead to infertility. This has been concluded based on available evidence from in vitro and in vivo studies suggesting that RF-EMF exposure negatively affects sperm quality. Open access paper: https://rbej.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12958-018-0431-1

Ford-Glanton BS, Melendez DA. Male reproductive toxicants: Electromagnetic radiation and heat. Reference Module in Biomedical Sciences, 2018.

Human population in today's world lives surrounded by radiofrequency fields (RF) and electromagnetic radiation (EM) fields, transmitting almost all forms of electronic communication and data that humans produce every second. Mobile devices and laptop computers are EMR-emitting devices. The effect of mobile phone emitted radiation and heat on fertility is the subject of recent interest and investigations. Many studies have found a decrease in semen quality which has increased the focus on male reproductive health. Infertility affects approximately 15% of couples of reproductive age, and nearly half of these cases are linked to male fertility (Sharlip et al., 2002). Different harmful environmental influences have led to changes in semen analysis standards by reducing the lower limits of normal ranges, which were declared by the World Health Organization (2010). The possible negative impact of mobile phone radiation on sperm quality has been well established. While no certain conclusions can be drawn from current evidence, a growing number of studies indicate a decrease in male fertility associated with increased cellular phone usage (Agarwal et al., 2011) and laptop computers using Wi-Fi (Avendaño et al., 2012a). Here we review the current evidence regarding the effects of electromagnetic radiation and heat in male fertility.


Yahyazadeh A, Deniz OG, Kaplan AA, Altun G, Yurt KK, Davis D. The genomic effects of cell phone exposure on the reproductive system. Environ Res.  2018 Nov;167:684-693. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.05.017.


Humans are exposed to increasing levels of electromagnetic fields (EMF) at various frequencies as technology advances. In this context, improving understanding of the biological effects of EMF remains an important, high priority issue. Although a number of studies in this issue and elsewhere have focused on the mechanisms of the oxidative stress caused by EMF, the precise understanding of the processes involved remains to be elucidated. Due to unclear results among the studies, the issue of EMF exposure in the literature should be evaluated at the genomic level on the reproductive system. Based on this requirement, a detail review of recently published studies is necessary. The main objectives of this study are to show differences between negative and positive effect of EMF on the reproductive system of animal and human. Extensive review of literature has been made based on well known data bases like Web of Science, PubMed, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Science Direct, Scopus. This paper reviews the current literature and is intended to contribute to a better understanding of the genotoxic effects of EMF emitted from mobile phones and wireless systems on the human reproductive system, especially on fertility. The current literature reveals that mobile phones can affect cellular functions via non-thermal effects. Although the cellular targets of global system for mobile communications (GSM)-modulated EMF are associated with the cell membrane, the subject is still controversial. Studies regarding the genotoxic effects of EMF have generally focused on DNA damage. Possible mechanisms are related to ROS formation due to oxidative stress. EMF increases ROS production by enhancing the activity of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NADH) oxidase in the cell membrane. Further detailed studies are needed to elucidate DNA damage mechanisms and apoptotic pathways during oogenesis and spermatogenesis in germ cells exposed to EMF.


This paper reviews the current literature and is intended to contribute to a better understanding of the genotoxic effects of EMF emitted from mobile phones and wireless systems on the human reproductive system, especially on fertility. The current literature reveals that mobile phones can affect cellular functions via non-thermal effects (Diem et al., 2005; Hanci et al., 2013 ;  Odaci et al., 2016a). Although the cellular targets of GSM-modulated EMF are associated with the cell membrane, the subject is still controversial (Eberhardt et al., 2008). Studies regarding the genotoxic effects of EMF have generally focused on DNA damage (Mortelmans and Rupa, 2004; Young, 2002; Zeiger, 2004; Panagopoulos, 2012 ;  Turedi et al., 2016). Possible mechanisms are related to ROS formation due to oxidative stress (Moustafa et al., 2004; Hanukoglu et al., 2006). EMF increases ROS production by enhancing the activity of NADH oxidase in the cell membrane (Friedman et al., 2007b). In this context, EMF affected spermatozoa may have a high degree rate of infertilization. It seems that previous genomic studies do not show definitive evidence regarding EMF affected cells in the fertilization. Although we evaluated broadly the genomic effects of cell phone exposure on the reproductive system using both animal and human studies, one of the weaknesses of this work is insufficient review of human studies. This may come from limited number of EMF based human studies in the literature. Further detailed studies are needed to elucidate DNA damage mechanisms and apoptotic pathways during oogenesis and spermatogenesis in germ cells that are exposed to EMF.



Altun G, Deniz OG, Yurt KK, Davis D, Kaplan S. Effects of mobile phone exposure on metabolomics in the male and female reproductive systems. Environ Res. 2018 Nov;167:700-707. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.02.031. 

• Long-term exposure to EMF decreases sperm motility and fertilization.• Effects of EMF emitted from mobile phones are related to protein synthesis.
• Oxidative stress based EMF exposure modulates nitric oxide level in the germ cells.
• Oxidative stress based EMF exposure inhibits antioxidant mechanisms in the germ cells.

With current advances in technology, a number of epidemiological and experimental studies have reported a broad range of adverse effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) on human health. Multiple cellular mechanisms have been proposed as direct causes or contributors to these biological effects. EMF-induced alterations in cellular levels can activate voltage-gated calcium channels and lead to the formation of free radicals, protein misfolding and DNA damage. Because rapidly dividing germ cells go through meiosis and mitosis, they are more sensitive to EMF in contrast to other slower-growing cell types. In this review, possible mechanistic pathways of the effects of EMF exposure on fertilization, oogenesis and spermatogenesis are discussed. In addition, the present review also evaluates metabolomic effects of GSM-modulated EMFs on the male and female reproductive systems in recent human and animal studies. In this context, experimental and epidemiological studies which examine the impact of mobile phone radiation on the processes of oogenesis and spermatogenesis are examined in line with current approaches.


EMF emitted by mobile phones has a number of well-documented adverse metabolomic effects on the male and female reproductive systems and can lead to infertility by increasing ROS production and reducing GSH and other antioxidants. The primary target of the EMF emitted by mobile phones may be the cell membrane (Pall in press, this volume). This then results in accelerated activity of membrane NADH oxidase and, consequently, greater rates of ROS formation that cannot be easily conjugated or detoxified. Although many studies have reported morphological and functional deteriorations in testis and ovary following EMF exposures, as well both structural and functional deficits in reproductive health, the underlying mechanisms have not been fully elucidated. To assist in further clarification of these processes and mechanisms, Table 1 summarizes key studies on the metabolomic effects of EMF on reproductive systems. Future studies will benefit greatly from standardized exposure protocols and evaluations of key metabolomic indicators.


Sepehrimanesh, M. & Davis, D.L. Proteomic impacts of electromagnetic fields on the male reproductive system. Comp Clin Pathol. 26(2):309-313. 2017. doi:10.1007/s00580-016-2342-x. 


The use of mobile phones and other wireless transmitting devices is increasing dramatically in developing and developed countries, as is the rate of infertility. A number of respected infertility clinics in Australia, India, USA, and Iran are reporting that those who regularly use mobile phones tend to have reduced sperm quantity and quality. Some experimental studies have found that human sperm exposed to electromagnetic fields (EMF), either simulated or from mobile phones, developed biomarkers of impaired structure and function, as well as reduced quantity. These encompass pathological, endocrine, and proteomic changes. Proteins perform a vast array of functions within living organisms, and the proteome is the entire array of proteins—the ultimate biomolecules in the pathways of DNA transcription to translation. Proteomics is the art and science of studying all proteins in cells, using different techniques. This paper reviews proteomic experimental and clinical evidence that EMF acts as a male-mediated teratogen and contributor to infertility.

As among the most rapidly proliferating human cells, spermatogenesis and associated activities offer an important endpoint for evaluation. More than 60 different compounds or industrial processes have been identified as increasing defects in human sperm or testicular tissue and possibly increasing the risk to offspring from male-mediated exposures. In this study, we reviewed structural and functional proteomic changes related to EMF exposure. Reported changes are categorized based on main affected tissue and also the most important adverse effects. Overall, these results demonstrate significant effects of radio frequency-modulated EMF exposure on the proteome, including both structural and functional impacts such as a decrease in the diameter and weight of the seminiferous tubules and the mean height of the germinal epithelium (Ozguner et al. 2005) and/or pathological and physiological changes in key biochemical components of the testicular tissues (Luo et al. 2013). These structural and functional changes may account for the pathological impact of EMF on the male reproductive system reported in the experimental work that we and others have conducted. While EMF is currently being used for a number of therapeutic applications (REF), the work we have reviewed here clearly indicates a range of harmful effects, especially on genital systems.



Houston B, Nixon B, King BV, De Iuliis G, Aitken RJ. The effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation on sperm function. Reproduction. 2016 Dec;152(6):R263-R276. 


Mobile phone usage has become an integral part of our lives. However, the effects of the radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) emitted by these devices on biological systems and specifically the reproductive systems are currently under active debate. A fundamental hindrance to the current debate is that there is no clear mechanism of how such non-ionising radiation influences biological systems. Therefore, we explored the documented impacts of RF-EMR on the male reproductive system and considered any common observations that could provide insights on a potential mechanism. 

Among a total of 27 studies investigating the effects of RF-EMR on the male reproductive system, negative consequences of exposure were reported in 21. Within these 21 studies, 11 of the 15 that investigated sperm motility reported significant declines, 7 of 7 that measured the production of reactive oxygen species documented elevated levels and 4 of 5 studies that probed for DNA damage highlighted increased damage, due to RF-EMR exposure. Associated with this, RF-EMR treatment reduced antioxidant levels in 6 of 6 studies that studied this phenomenon, while consequences of RF-EMR were successfully ameliorated with the supplementation of antioxidants in all 3 studies that carried out these experiments. 
In light of this, we envisage a two-step mechanism whereby RF-EMR is able to induce mitochondrial dysfunction leading to elevated ROS production. 
A continued focus on research which aims to shed light on the biological effects of RF-EMR will allow us to test and assess this proposed mechanism in a variety of cell types.


To date, contradictory studies surrounding the impacts of RF-EMR on biological systems maintain controversy over this subject. Nevertheless, research into the biological responses stimulated by RF-EMR is particularly important given our ever-increasing use of mobile phone technology. While clinical studies are identifying possible detrimental effects of RF-EMR, it is imperative that mechanistic studies are conducted that elucidate the manner in which RF-EMR perturbs biological function, thus supplying a rational cause. A focus on the male reproductive system may experience as consequences of the personal storage of mobile devices, the unique vulnerability of the highly specialised sperm cell, and the future health burden that may be created if conception proceeds with defective, DNA-damaged spermatozoa. While this subject remains a topic of active debate, this review has considered the growing body of evidence suggesting a possible role for RF-EMR induced damage of the male germ line. In a majority of studies, this damage has been characterized by loss of sperm motility and viability as well as the induction of ROS generation and DNA damage. We have therefore given consideration to the potential mechanisms through which RF-EMR may elicit these effects on spermatozoa, which we utilized as a sensitive model system. We propose a mechanistic model in which RF-EMR exposure leads to defective mitochondrial function associated with elevated levels of ROS production and culminates in a state of oxidative stress that would account the varying phenotypes observed in response to RF-EMR exposure. With further complementary data, this model will provide new impetus to the field and stimulate research that will allow us to confidently assess the reproductive hazards of mobile phone usage.

Adams JA, Galloway TS, Mondal D, Esteves SC, Mathews F. Effect of mobile telephones on sperm quality: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Int.  2014 Sep;70:106-12. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2014.04.015.


Mobile phones are owned by most of the adult population worldwide. Radio-frequency radiation (RFR) from these devices could affect sperm development and function. Around 14% of couples in high- and middle-income countries have difficulty conceiving. Male infertility is involved approximately 40% of the time. Several countries have reported unexplained declines in semen quality.Animal research has found that RFR can affect the cell cycle of sperm, increase sperm cell death and produce histological changes in the testes. Research on humans has found that prolonged mobile phone use is associated with decreased motility, sperm concentration, morphology and viability suggesting a likely impact on fertility.
The authors of this peer-reviewed study conducted a systematic review of the research and a quantitative analysis to determine whether exposure to mobile phone radiation affects human sperm quality. Participants were from fertility clinics and research centers.
The study examined the sperm quality outcome measures most frequently used to assess fertility in clinical settings: motility (the ability to move properly through the female reproductive tract), viability (the ability to fertilize the egg), and concentration (the number of sperm in a milliliter of ejaculate).
Ten studies were examined including 1,492 human sperm samples. Exposure to mobile phones was found to be associated with a significant eight per cent average reduction in sperm motility and a significant nine per cent average reduction in sperm viability. The effects on sperm concentration were more equivocal. The results were consistent across experimental laboratory studies and correlational observational studies.

The authors concluded that the overall results suggest that mobile phone exposure negatively affects sperm quality in humans. The clinical importance of these effects  in this study may be limited to subfertile men and to men at the lower-end of the normal spectrum.Open access paper: http://bit.ly/cellphonespermdamage.


Liu K, Li Y, Zhang G, Liu J, Cao J, Ao L, Zhang S. 
Association between mobile phone use and semen quality: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Andrology. 2014 Jul;2(4):491-501.


Possible hazardous health effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiations emitted from mobile phone on the reproductive system have raised public concern in recent years. This systemic review and meta-analysis was prepared following standard procedures of the Cochrane Collaboration and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and checklist. Relevant studies published up to May 2013 were identified from five major international and Chinese literature databases: Medline/PubMed, EMBASE, CNKI, the VIP database and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in the Cochrane Library. Eighteen studies with 3947 men and 186 rats were included in the systemic review, of which 12 studies (four human studies, four in vitro studies and four animal studies) with 1533 men and 97 rats were used in the meta-analyses. Systemic review showed that results of most of the human studies and in vitro laboratory studies indicated mobile phone use or radiofrequency exposure had negative effects on the various semen parameters studied. However, meta-analysis indicated that mobile phone use had no adverse effects on semen parameters in human studies. In the in vitro studies, meta-analysis indicated that radiofrequency radiation had detrimental effect on sperm motility and viability in vitro [pooled mean difference (MDs) (95% CI): -4.11 (-8.08, -0.13), -3.82 (-7.00, -0.65) for sperm motility and viability respectively]. As for animal studies, radiofrequency exposure had harmful effects on sperm concentration and motility [pooled MDs (95% CI): -8.75 (-17.37, -0.12), -17.72 (-32.79, -2.65) for sperm concentration and motility respectively]. Evidence from current studies suggests potential harmful effects of mobile phone use on semen parameters. A further multicentred and standardized study is needed to assess the risk of mobile phone use on the reproductive system.


Recent Studies (Updated: 11/29/2018)
Abeer M. Hagras, Eman A. Toraih, Manal S. Fawzy. Mobile phones electromagnetic radiation and NAD+-dependent Isocitrate Dehydrogenase as a mitochondrial marker in Asthenozoospermia. Biochimie Open. Available online July 25, 2016. http://bit.ly/2b69gh9

Adams JA, Galloway TS, Mondal D, Esteves SC, Mathews F. Effect of mobile telephones on sperm quality: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Environment International70:106-112. September 2014. http://bit.ly/cellphonespermdamage

Agarwal A, Deepinder F, Sharma RK, Ranga G, Li J. Effect of cell phone usage on semen analysis in men attending infertility clinic: an observational study. Fertil Steril. 2008 Jan;89(1):124-8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17482179

Agarwal A, Desai NR, Makker K, Varghese A, Mouradi R, Sabanegh E, Sharma R. Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic waves (RF-EMW) from cellular phones on human ejaculated semen: an in vitro pilot study. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(4):1318-25. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18804757

Agarwal A, Singh A, Hamada A, Kesari K. Cell phones and male infertility: a review of recent innovations in technology and consequences.Int Braz J Urol. 2011; 37(4):432-54. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21888695

Akdag MZ, Dasdag S, Canturk F, Karabulut D, Caner Y, Adalier N. Does prolonged radiofrequency radiation emitted from Wi-Fi devices induce DNA damage in various tissues of rats? J Chem Neuroanat. 2016 Jan 8. http://1.usa.gov/1RjkMVb

Al-Bayyari N. Middle East Fertility Society Journal.  The effect of cell phone usage on semen quality and fertility among Jordanian males. Published online Apr 7, 2017. http://bit.ly/2pfcO6L

Al-Quzwini OF, Al-Taee, Al-Shaikh SF. Male fertility and its association with occupational and mobile phone towers hazards: An analytic study. Middle East Fertility Society Journal. 2016 Apr 8. http://bit.ly/1SRUWWs

Bin-Meferij MM, El-Kott AF. The radioprotective effects of Moringa oleifera against mobile phone electromagnetic radiation-induced infertility in rats.Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015 Aug 15;8(8):12487-97. http://1.usa.gov/1MURLR1

Boga A, Emre M, Sertdemir Y, Uncu İ, Binokay S, Demirhan O. Effects of GSM-like radiofrequency irradiation during the oogenesis and spermiogenesis of Xenopus laevis. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2016 Mar 24;129:137-144. http://1.usa.gov/1VQh4pP

Çetkin M, Kızılkan N, Demirel C, Bozdağ Z, Erkılıç S, Erbağcı H. Quantitative changes in testicular structure and function in rat exposed to mobile phone radiation. Andrologia. 2017 Jan 26. http://bit.ly/2jIxlyh

Fatehi D, Anjomshoa M, Mohammadi M, Seify M, Rostamzadeh A. Biological effects of cell-phone radiofrequency waves exposure on fertilization in mice; an in vivo and in vitro study. Middle East Fertility Society Journal. 23 October 2017. http://bit.ly/2iUT4Yd

Ford-Glanton BS, Melendez BA. Male Reproductive Toxicants: Electromagnetic Radiation and Heat. Reference Module in Biomedical Sciences. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-801238-3.64536-1.
Gautam R, Singh KV, Nirala J, Murmu NN, Meena R, Rajamani P. Oxidative stress-mediated alterations on sperm parameters in male Wistar rats exposed to 3G mobile phone radiation. Andrologia. 2019 Apr 51(3):e13201. http://bit.ly/2PT5dwg
Gao XH, Hu HR, Ma X2, Chen J, Zhang GH. [Cellphone electromagnetic radiation damages the testicular ultrastructure of male rats]. [Article in Chinese].  Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue. 2016 Jun;22(6):491-495. http://bit.ly/2ywyJig

Gohari FA, Saranjam B, Asgari M, Omidi L, Ekrami H, Moussavi-Najarkola SA. An experimental study of the effects of combined exposure to microwave and heat on gene expression and sperm parameters in mice. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2017 Apr-Jun;10(2):128-134. http://bit.ly/2EpfWVM

Hancı H, Kerimoğlu G, Mercantepe T, Odacı E. Changes in testicular morphology and oxidative stress biomarkers in 60-day-old Sprague Dawley rats following exposure to continuous 900-MHz electromagnetic field for 1 h a day throughout adolescence. Reprod Toxicol. 2018 Oct;81:71-78. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30009952

Houston B, Nixon B, King BV, De Iuliis G, Aitken RJ. The effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation on sperm function. Reproduction. 2016 Sep 6. pii: REP-16-0126. http://bit.ly/2cJJ2pE

Houston BJ, Nixon B, King BV, Aitken RJ, De Iuliis GN. Probing the origins of 1,800 MHz radio frequency electromagnetic radiation induced damage in mouse immortalized germ cells and spermatozoa in vitro. Front. Public Health. 2018 Sep 21. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00270

Kamali K, Atarod M, Sarhadi S, Nikbakht J, Emami M, Maghsoudi R, Salimi H, Fallahpour B, Kamali N, Momtazan A, Ameli M. Effects of electromagnetic waves emitted from 3G+wi-fi modems on human semen analysis. Urologia. 2017 Sep 14:0. 

Lewis RC, Mínguez-Alarcón L, Meeker JD, Williams PL, Mezei G, Ford JB, Hauser R; EARTH Study Team.Self-reported mobile phone use and semen parameters among men from a fertility clinic. Reprod Toxicol. 2016 Nov 9. pii: S0890-6238(16)30408-7. http://bit.ly/2fV0DuM 
(Note: Authors report conflict of interest and limited statistical power to detect effects.)

Li R, Yang WQ, Chen HQ, Zhang YH. Morinda Officinalis How improves cellphone radiation-induced abnormality of LH and LHR in male rats. Article in Chinese.  2015 Sep;21(9):824-7. http://bit.ly/1Sn6Qsy

Lin YY, Wu T, Liu JY, Gao P, Li KC, Guo QY, Yuan M, Lang HY, Zeng LH, Guo GZ. 1950 MHz radio frequency electromagnetic radiation inhibits testosterone secretion of mouse Leydig cells. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017 Dec 23;15(1).  http://bit.ly/2CV3VKc

Liu Q, Si T, Xu X, Liang F, Wang L, Pan S. Electromagnetic radiation at 900 MHz induces sperm apoptosis through bcl-2, bax and caspase-3 signaling pathways in rats. Reprod Health. 2015; 12:65. http://bit.ly/2hhk9mF
Ma HR, Cao XH, Ma XL, Chen JJ, Chen JW, Yang H, Liu YX. [Protective effect of Liuweidihuang Pills against cellphone electromagnetic radiation-induced histomorphological abnormality, oxidative injury, and cell apoptosis in rat testes]. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue. 2015 Aug;21(8):737-41. [Article in Chinese]. http://1.usa.gov/1MtbdCM 

Nakatani-Enomoto S, Okutsu M, Suzuki S et al. Effects of 1950 MHz W-CDMA-like signal on human spermatoza. Bioelectromagnetics. 11 Jun 2016. http://bit.ly/28L7nE5

Narayanan SN, Lukose ST, Arun G, Mohapatra N, Pamala J, Concessao PL, Jetti R, Kedage V, Nalini K, Bhat PG. Modulatory effect of 900 MHz radiation on biochemical and reproductive parameters in rats. Bratisl Lek Listy. 2018;119(9):581-587. http://bit.ly/2pxJx9B

Odacı E, Hancı H, Yuluğ E, Türedi S, Aliyazıcıoğlu Y, Kaya H, Çolakoğlu S.Effects of prenatal exposure to a 900 MHz electromagnetic field on 60-day-old rat testis and epididymal sperm quality. Biotech Histochem. 2015 Oct 15:1-11. http://1.usa.gov/1LB2jyE

Oyewopo AO, Olaniyi SK, Oyewopo CI, Jimoh AT. Radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation from cell phone causes defective testicular function in male Wistar rats. Andrologia. 2017 Mar 6. http://bit.ly/2lZ1rP1

Pandey N, Giri S, Das S, Upadhaya P. Radiofrequency radiation (900 MHz)-induced DNA damage and cell cycle arrest in testicular germ cells in swiss albino mice. Toxicol Ind Health. 2016 Oct 13. http://bit.ly/2e1OscT

Parsanezhad M, Mortazavi SMJ, Doohandeh T, Namavar Jahromi B, Mozdarani , Zarei A, Davari M, Amjadi S, Soleimani A, Haghani M. Exposure to radiofrequency radiation emitted from mobile phone jammers adversely affects the quality of human sperm. International Journal of Radiation Research. 15(1). Jan 2017. http://bit.ly/2nyVhck

Radwan, M, Jurewicz, J, Merecz-Kot, D,  Sobala, W, Radwan, P, Bochenek, M, Hanke, W. Sperm DNA damage—the effect of stress and everyday life factors. International Journal of Impotence Research. 14 April 2016. http://bit.ly/1W0igXi

Saygin M, Asci H, Ozmen O, Cankara FN, Dincoglu D, Ilhan I. Impact of 2.45 GHz microwave radiation on the testicular inflammatory pathway biomarkers in young rats: The role of gallic acid. Environ Toxicol. 2015 Aug 13. doi: 10.1002/tox.22179. [Epub ahead of print] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26268881?dopt=Abstract

Schauer I, Mohamad Al-Ali B. Combined effects of varicocele and cell phones on semen and hormonal parameters.  Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2017 Oct 13. doi: 10.1007/s00508-017-1277-9. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29030685 

Sepehrimanesh, M. & Davis, D.L. Proteomic impacts of electromagnetic fields on the male reproductive system. Comp Clin Pathol (2016). doi:10.1007/s00580-016-2342-x. http://bit.ly/2dTj1oT

Sepehrimanesh M, Kazemipour N, Saeb M, Nazifi S, Davis DL.Proteomic analysis of continuous 900-MHz radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure in testicular tissue: a rat model of human cell phone exposure. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2017 Apr 10. doi: 10.1007/s11356-017-8882-z. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28397118

Sokolovic D, Djordjevic B, Kocic G, Stoimenov TJ, Stanojkovic Z, Sokolovic DM, et al. The Effects of Melatonin on Oxidative Stress Parameters and DNA Fragmentation in Testicular Tissue of Rats Exposed to Microwave Radiation. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2015 May-Jun;24(3):429-36. doi: 10.17219/acem/43888. http://1.usa.gov/1hJdzAz
Solek P, Majchrowicz L, Bloniarz D, Krotoszynska E, Koziorowski M. Pulsed or continuous electromagnetic field induce p53/p21-mediated apoptotic signaling pathway in mouse spermatogenic cells in vitro and thus may affect male fertility. Toxicology. 2017 Mar 16. pii: S0300-483X(17)30092-6. http://bit.ly/2ntlHvN

Wang D, Li B, Liu Y, Ma YF, Chen SQ, Sun HJ, Dong J, Ma XH, Zhou J, Wang XH. [Impact of mobile phone radiation on the quality and DNA methylation of human sperm in vitro]. [Article in Chinese]. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue. 2015 Jun;21(6):515-520. http://1.usa.gov/1OTD4tG
Wessapan T, Rattanadecho P. Temperature induced in the testicular and related tissues due to electromagnetic fields exposure at 900 MHz and 1800 MHz. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 102:1130-1140. 2016. http://bit.ly/2bh0xtd

Yildirim et al. What is harmful for male fertility, cell phone or the wireless internet? Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences. Published online Jul 26, 2015. Abstract and summary: http://www.saferemr.com/2013/03/opposition-to-los-angeles-public.html.
Zang Z, Ji S, Huang S, Jiang M, Fang Y. (2016) Impact of Cellphone Radiation on Sexual Behavior and Serum Concentration of Testosterone and LH in Male Mice. Occupational Diseases and Environmental Medicine, 4(3):56-62. http://bit.ly/2bgF6Y4

Zhang G, Yan H, Chen Q, Liu K, Ling X, Sun L, Zhou N, Wang Z, Zou P, Wang X, Tan L, Cui Z, Zhou Z, Liu J, Ao L, Cao J. Effects of cell phone use on semen parameters: Results from the MARHCS cohort study in Chongqing, China. Environ Int. 2016 Mar 4;91:116-121. http://1.usa.gov/1pvU2YV

Zilberlicht et al. Habits of cell phone usage and sperm quality – does it warrant attention? Reproductive BioMedicine Online. 31(3):421-426. Sep2015. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26206279
translate | 1.8.2019 21:15

Effects of Wireless Radiation on Birds and Other Wildlife

Selected Studies that Reported Adverse Effects of Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposure 
on Plants, Animals and Insects
Excerpted from a letter to the United Nations Environmental Programme written by the Advisors to the International EMF Scientist Appeal, June 25, 2019

EMF exposure studies have found ...
in plants reduced growth, increased infection and physiological and morphological changes (Balodis et al. 1996, Haggerty 2010, Waldmann-Selsam et al. 2016, Havas and Symington 2016, Vian et al. 2016, Halgamuge 2017);
in birds, aggressive behavior, impaired reproduction and interference with migration (Southern 1975, Larkin and Sutherland 1977, Balmori 2004, Balmori and Hallberg 2007, Everaert and Bauwens 2007, Fernie et al. 2010, Engels et al. 2015, Wiltschko et al. 2015);
in livestock, especially dairy cows, reduced productivity, impaired reproduction, and sudden death (Burchard et al. 1996, Loscher and Kas 1998, Hillman et al. 2013, Stetzer et al. 2016);
in rodents, increased cancer risk in three long-term studies (Chou et al 1992, NTP 2018, Falcioni et al. 2019); 
in amphibians (Balmori 2006, Balmori 2010) and insects (Cucurachi et al. 2013), deformities and population decline; and
in honey bees, aggressive behavior, reduced productivity, swarming and abandoning hives (Harst et al. 2006, Pattezhy 2009, Warnke 2009, Favre 2011, Kumar et al. 2011, Sahib 2011).
Balmori A. 2004. Effects of electromagnetic fields of phone masts on a population of white storks (Ciconia ciconia). Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 24: 109–119.
Balmori A. 2006. The incidence of electromagnetic pollution on the amphibian decline: Is this an important piece of the puzzle? Toxicological & Environmental Chemistry 88 (2): 287–299.
Balmori A. 2010. Mobile phone mast effects on common frog (Rana temporaria) tadpoles: the city turned into a laboratory. Electromagn Biol Med. 29 (1–2):31–35.
Balmori A and O Hallberg. 2007. The urban decline of the house sparrow (Passer domesticus): A possible link with electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 26 (2): 141–151.
Balodis V, G Briimelis, K Kalviskis, et al. 1996. Does the Skrunda Radio Location Station diminish the radial growth of pine trees? The Science of the Total Environment 180: 57-64.
Burchard JF, DH Nguyen DH, and M Rodriguez. 2006. Plasma concentrations of thyroxine in dairy cows exposed to 60 Hz electric and magnetic fields. Bioelectromagnetics 27 (7): 553–559.
Chou C-K, A Guy, LL Kunz, RB Johnson, JJ Crowley and J. H. Krupp. 1992. Long-term, low-level microwave irradiation of rats. Bioelectromagnetics 13:469–496. See NTP: Not the First Govt. Study to Find Wireless Radiation Can Cause Cancer in Lab Rats
Cucurachi S, WLM Tamis et al. 2013. A review of the ecological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF), Environment International 51:116–140.
Engels S, N-L Schneider, N Lefeldt, et al. 2015. Anthropogenic electromagnetic noise disrupts magnetic compass orientation in a migratory bird. Nature 509: 353.
Everaert J and D Bauwens. 2007. A possible effect of electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone base stations on the number of breeding house sparrows (Passer domesticus) Electromagn Biol Med. 26 (1): 63–72.
Falcioni L, L Bua, E Tibaldi, et al. 2019. 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. See Ramazzini Institute Cell Phone Radiation Study Replicates NTP Study

Favre D. 2011. Mobile phone-induced honeybee worker piping. Apidologie 42 (3): 270– 279.
Ferni KJ, NJ Leonard and DM Bird. 2010. Behavior of free-ranging and captive American kestrels under electromagnetic fields. J. Tox. and Environ. Health Part A Vol 59 (8).
Haggerty K. 2010. Adverse influence of radio frequency background on Trembling Aspen seedlings: Preliminary observations. International Journal of Forestry Research 2010, 7 pages.
Halgamuge MN. 2016. Review: Weak radiofrequency radiation exposure from mobile phone radiation on plants. Electromagn Biol Med. 2017;36(2):213-235.
Harst W, J Kuhn, and H Stever. 2006. Can electromagnetic exposure cause a change in behaviour? Studying possible non-thermal influences on honey bees–An approach within the framework of Educational Informatics. Acta Systematica – IIAS Intern. J. 6: 1–6.
Havas M and MS Symington. 2016. Effects of Wi-Fi radiation on germination and growth of garden cress (Lepidium sativum), broccoli (Brassica oleracea), red clover (Trifolium pratense) and pea (Pisum sativum) seedlings: A partial replication study. Current Chemical Biology 10 (1): 65–73.
Hillman D, D Stetzer, M Graham, CL Goeke, et al. 2013. Relationship of electric power quality to milk production of dairy herds – Field study with literature review. Science of the Total Environment 447: 500–514.
Kumar NR, S Sangwan and P Badotra. 2011. Exposure to cell phone radiations produces biochemical changes in worker honey bees. Toxicol Int. 18 (1): 70–72.
Larkin RP and PJ Sutherland. 1977. Migrating birds respond to Project Seafarer's electromagnetic field. Science. 195 (4280): 777–9.

Löscher W, and G Käs. 1998. Extraordinary behavior disorders in cows in proximity to transmission stations. Translated from German language. Der Praktische Tierarz 79 (5): 4377 444.
NTP 2018. NTP Technical Report on the Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies in Hsd:Sprague Dawley SD Rats exposed to Whole-body Radio Frequency Radiation at a Frequency (900 MHz) and Modulations (GSM and CDMA) used by Cell Phones. National Toxicology Program, National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 384 pp. See NTP Cell Phone Radiation Study: Final Reports
Pattazhy S. 2009. Mobile phone towers a threat to honey bees: Study. The Times of India, August 2009. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/Science/Mobile-phonetowers-a-threatto-honeybees-Study/articleshow/4955867.cms.
Southern WE. 1975. Orientation of gull chicks exposed to project Sanguine's electromagnetic field. Science. 189 (4197): 143–145.
Stetzer D, AM Leavitt, CL Goeke, and M Havas. 2016. Monitoring and remediation of on-farm and off-farm ground current measured as step potential on a Wisconsin dairy farm: A case study. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 35 (4): 321–336.
Vian, A, E Davies, M Gendraud and P Bonnet. 2016. Plant responses to high frequency electromagnetic fields, BioMed research International Vol. 2015 Article ID 1830262, 13 pp.
Waldmann-Selsam, A Balmori-de la Puente, H Breunig and A Balmori. 2016. Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations. Science of the Total Environment 572: 13 554–569.
Warnke U. 2009. Bees, birds and mankind. Destroying nature by ‘electrosmog’ effects of wireless communication technologies, A brochure series by the Competence Initiative for the Protection of Humanity, Environment and Democracy, 47 pp.
Wiltschko R, P Thalau, D Gehring, C Niessner, T Ritz and W. Wiltschko. 2015. Magnetoreception in birds: the effect of radio-frequency fields. J R Soc Interface 12(103).
April 17, 2019
Letter to the National Park Service from the Environmental Health Trust
This thirteen page letter to the National Park Service from the Environmental Health Trust, dated April 10, 2019, summarizes the scientific basis for major health and environmental concerns about a proposal to install wireless telecom facilities in Grand Teton National Park.
The letter summarizes research on harm to the environment and wildlife from wireless radiation exposure. Furthermore, it addresses the following topics: (1) research on harm to humans; (2) rapid increase in wireless radiation exposure; (3) inadequacy of the Federal Communications Commission's exposure limits to protect humans; (4) greater susceptibility of children; (5) recent appeals from hundreds of experts to reduce exposure limits; and (6) other cell tower safety hazards. 

This well-documented letter (81 references) can be downloaded from the following link:


July 18, 2016
A Briefing Memo by Dr. Albert Manville
Albert M. Manville, II, Ph.D. A Briefing Memorandum: What We Know, Can Infer, and Don’t Yet Know about Impacts from Thermal and Non-thermal Non-ionizing Radiation to Birds and Other Wildlife — for Public Release. July 14, 2016.

In this memo, Dr. Manville reviews the scientific literature that examines the impacts on wildlife from exposure to radio frequency radiation. 
He observes that although the FCC has standards to protect humans from the heating  (i.e., thermal) effects of wireless radiation exposure from cellular and broadcast towers, no standards exist to protect wildlife from thermal or non-thermal effects:
“The radiation effects on wildlife need to be addressed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Commerce, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and other governmental entities.”
Dr. Manville concludes with the following statement:
“In summary, we need to better understand … how to address these growing and poorly understood radiation impacts to migratory birds, bees, bats, and myriad other wildlife. At present, given industry and agency intransigence … massive amounts of money being spent to prevent addressing impacts from non-thermal radiation — not unlike the battles over tobacco and smoking — and a lack of significant, dedicated and reliable funding to advance independent field studies, … we are left with few options. Currently, other than to proceed using the precautionary approach and keep emissions as low as reasonably achievable, we are at loggerheads in advancing meaningful guidelines, policies and regulations that address non-thermal effects....”
Dr. Manville recommends that the U.S. adopt the following recommendations because federally-protected wildlife species are currently in danger from RFR exposure:
“We desperately need to conduct field research on thermal and non-thermal radiation impacts to wild migratory birds and other wildlife here in North America, similar to studies conducted in Europe….”
“Studies need to be designed to better tease out and understand causality of thermal and non-thermal impacts from radiation on migratory birds…. efforts need to be made to begin developing exposure guidelines for migratory birds and other wildlife …”
“To minimize deleterious radiation exposures, these guidelines should include use of avoidance measures such as those developed by the electric utility industry for bird collision and electrocution avoidance …”
“Studies need to be conducted on the use of “faux” branches (i.e., metal arms that mimic pine or fir branches) on cell and/or FM towers intended to disguise the towers as trees, but provide nesting and roosting opportunities for migratory birds including Bald Eagles, which will almost certainly be impacted both by thermal and non-thermal radiation effects.”
“Agencies tasked with the protection, management, and research on migratory birds and other wildlife … need to develop radiation policies that avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds and other trust wildlife species.”
“As Levitt and Lai (2010) concluded, we do not actually need to know whether RFR effects are thermal or non-thermal to set exposure guidelines. Most scientists consider non-thermal effects as well established, even though the implications are not fully understood.”
“Given the rapidly growing database of peer-reviewed, published scientific studies (e.g., http://www.saferemr.com, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley), it is time that FCC considers thermal and non-thermal effects from EMR in their tower permitting, and incorporates changes into their rulemaking regarding ‘effects of communication towers on migratory birds.’”

Dr. Albert Manville II is an adjunct faculty member at Johns Hopkins University. He served as a senior wildlife biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from 1997 to 2014.  He chaired the Communication Tower Working Group, partnering with the communications industry, federal and state agencies, researchers, and non-profit organizations. He testified more than 40 times before Congress and other governmental bodies and published more 170 papers. For more information, see http://advanced.jhu.edu/about-us/faculty/albert-manville/.
Dr. Manville’s memo is available at http://bit.ly/Manvillewildlife.
Also see:

Cell Tower Radiation Affects Wildlife: Dept. of Interior Attacks FCC

Cell Tower Health Effects

translate | 1.8.2019 06:18


website no use cookies, no spying, no tracking
device: computer
country · city: US · Ashburn
browser: CCBot 2 · platform:
counter: 1 · online:
created and powered by:
RobiYogi.com - Professional Responsive Websites