Get the facts

Clear explanations to help resolve common questions.

Frequently Asked Questions

This section contains Answers to Frequently Asked Question. The first tab contains a short answer to the question, and the 2nd tab contains a more detailed explanation with references.

  • The available scientific evidence does not indicate an increased risk of malignant or benign brain or central nervous system (CNS) tumors from cell phone use [Karipidis 2024, Karipidis 2025]. Current studies in many countries that monitor the occurrence of brain tumors conclude that the rate of occurrence does not correlate with the broad introduction of cell phones in society [Deltour 2022; NCI-SEER statfacts1992-2022].
  • Children who regularly use cell phones were not observed to be at greater risk of developing brain tumors than children who do not use or infrequently use cell phones (Aydin 2012; Castano-Vinyals 2022).
  1. The available scientific evidence to date from epidemiologic studies of cancer risks associated with cell phone RF exposures is based on the use of cell phones next to the ear. The data do not show that cell phones increase the risk of malignant or benign brain or central nervous system tumors or other types of cancers that have been studied.
    1. Some people are concerned that widespread cell phone usage may cause malignant or benign brain tumors because cell phones are often held close to the head while in use.
    2. Cell phones emit non-ionizing radiofrequency (RF) radiation, which has much lower energy than ionizing radiation like X-rays and gamma rays.
    3. Epidemiologic research has been carried out over many years by different experts in multiple countries, using scientific studies with large numbers of people.
    4. A comprehensive analysis of existing epidemiologic studies does not support a link between cell phone use and malignant or benign brain tumors in adults or children (Karipidis 2024) or other cancers (Karipidis 2025)
    5. Overall, the evidence from 52 animal studies showed no or minimal evidence of RF exposure-related cancer, except for two studies indicating an increase in brain tumors and schwannomas of the heart. The findings for these two types of neoplasms were mixed. In addition, how these findings relate to humans is complicated and unclear in part because the exposures are to the whole body of the animal and not similar to the way that humans use cell phones.” (Mevissen 2025).
    6. The strongest evidence of no relationship between cell phone use and malignant and benign brain tumors in adults comes from large cohort studies, which are the optimal epidemiologic study design. All of the large cohort studies have shown no relationship including the nationwide Danish population of adult cell phone subscribers [Frei 2011]and the cohort from the million women study in the United Kingdom; both of these found no evidence of an increased risk of malignant or benign brain tumors with longer or more intensive cell phone use, [Schüz 2022]. The COSMOS study enrolled over 250,000 people from several European countries, followed them for over seven years, and found no indication that those who were heavier cell phone users had a higher risk of brain cancer [Feychting 2024].
    7. The second most high-quality epidemiologic study designs are large multi-country case-control studies. Most case-control epidemiologic studies found no evidence of an association between cell phone use and the entire population in each study. The largest and most important case-control study was the 13-country Interphone case-control study, which compared the amount of cell phone use in people with brain tumors to the amount of use in people without brain tumors, mostly showed no evidence of increased risks. Only in one subgroup of the entire population, and across multiple analyses, was there an association indicating a slight increase in malignant brain cancers among individuals who spent the most time on cell phone calls (total lifetime hours of use). Still, the researchers themselves interpreted this finding as inconclusive because the amount of reported use was much higher than is plausible among a small subset of those with brain tumors [Interphone 2010]. The high cell phone use group finding is most likely due to inaccurate recall of lifetime mobile phone use [Bouaoun 2024, Röösli 2019].
    8. Single country case-control studies in adults, which are a third level of quality below large cohort studies (first level quality) and multi-country case-control studies (second level quality) have mostly reported no association between the use of cell phones and brain cancers.
      1. A few studies have reported an increased incidence, but this is inconsistent with the majority of other research and unlikely to indicate a causal effect given observed trends in brain cancer incidence [Deltour 2022].
      2. A limitation of case-control studies is reliance on retrospective self-reported mobile phone use data, which is often inaccurate and may be affected by brain tumor symptoms and subsequent diagnosis.
      3. Some of the reported links between mobile phones and cancer in the Interphone study are likely due to memory errors. This means that people with cancer may have mistakenly overestimated how much they used their phones compared to healthy individuals or have wrongly attributed the side of head where the mobile phone was used to the side where the tumor occured [Röösli 2019 Bouaoun L 2024].
    9. In most countries that continuously monitoring disease incidence rates, the data does not support a link between the increased use of cell phones and an increased incidence of brain tumors. Because the number of cell phone users and the amount of cell phone use have expanded dramatically since the mid-1990s, one would expect to see increasing rates of these tumors if cell phone use increased the risk of brain tumors.
      1. The number of cell phone users has increased dramatically from a small minority in the mid-1990s to nearly 100% at present.
      2. Over the same period, the rate of new brain tumor cases in the overall population, including adults and children, has remained largely stable in the U.S. and other countries. According to the 2024 National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data, the rate of central nervous system (CNS) cancers from 1992 to 2022 has been fairly stable, with a slight decrease over the 30-year period, Figure 1.

Figure 1 CNS Cancer Rate of New Cases and Deaths. All Races, Both Sexes. Rates are Age-Adjusted. [NIH SEER Cancer Stat Facts: Brain and Other Nervous System Cancer] Accessed 2024-12-11

  1. Two major studies have investigated whether children and adolescents who use cell phones may be at increased risk of developing brain tumors. Two international case-control studies of child/adolescent and adolescent/young adult brain tumors showed no increase in brain tumor risk related to the use of cell phones [Aydin 2011, Castaño-Vinyals 2022].

Bouaoun L, Byrnes G, Lagorio S, Feychting M, Abou-Bakre A, Béranger R, Schüz J. Effects of Recall and Selection Biases on Modeling Cancer Risk From Mobile Phone Use: Results from a Case-Control Simulation Study. Epidemiology. 2024 Jul 1;35(4):437-446.

Deltour I, Poulsen AH, Johansen C, Feychting M, Johannesen TB, Auvinen A, Schüz J. Time trends in mobile phone use and glioma incidence among males in the Nordic Countries, 1979-2016. Environ Int. 2022 Oct;168:107487.

Frei P, Poulsen AH, Johansen C, et al. Use of mobile phones and risk of brain tumours: Update of Danish cohort study. BMJ 2011;343:d6387. https://doi-org.utk.idm.oclc.org/10.1136/bmj.d6605

Schùz J, Pirie K, Reeves GK, et al. Cellular telephone use and the risk of brain tumor: update of the UK Million Women Study J Natl Cancer Inst 2022;114(5):704-711. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djac042

Feychting M, Schüz J, Toledano MB, Vermeulen R, Auvinen A, Harbo Poulsen A, Deltour I, Smith RB, Heller J, Kromhout H, Huss A, Johansen C, Tettamanti G, Elliott P. Mobile phone use and brain tumour risk – COSMOS, a prospective cohort study. Environ Int. 2024 Mar 2;185:108552. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2024.108552. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 38458118.

The Interphone Study Group. Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: Results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study. Int J Epidemiol 2010;39(3):675-694. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyq079

Röösli M, Lagorio S, Schoemaker MJ et al. Brain and salivary gland tumors and mobile phone use: Evaluating the evidence from various epidemiological study designs. Ann Rev Publ Health 2019;40:221-238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040218-044037

Aydin D, Feychting M, Schuz J, et al. Mobile phone use and brain tumors in children and adolescents: a multicenter case-control study. JNCI 2011;103(16):1264-1276  https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djr244

Aydin D, Feychting M, Schuz J, et al. Childhood brain tumors and use of mobile phones: comparison of a case-control study with incidence data. Environ Health 2012; May 20:11:35.https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-11-35.

Castaño-Vinyals G, Sadetzki S, Vermeulen R, et al. Wireless phone use in childhood and adolescence and neuroepithelial brain tumours: Results from the international MOBI-Kids study. Environ Int 2022;160:107069

National Cancer Institute, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results, Cancer Stat Facts: Brain and Other Nervous System Cancer, New cases come from SEER 8. Deaths come from U.S. Mortality.  https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/brain.html

Karipidis K, Baaken D, Loney T, Blettner M, Brzozek C, Elwood M, Narh C, Orsini N, Röösli M, Paulo MS, Lagorio S. The effect of exposure to radiofrequency fields on cancer risk in the general and working population: A systematic review of human observational studies – Part I: Most researched outcomes. Environ Int. 2024 Sep;191:108983. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2024.108983. Epub 2024 Aug 30. PMID: 39241333.

Mevissen M, Ducray A, Ward JM, Kopp-Schneider A, McNamee JP, Wood AW, Rivero TM, Straif K. Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure on cancer in laboratory animal studies, a systematic review. Environ Int 2025;199:109482    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2025.109482.

Bouaoun L, Byrnes G, Lagorio S, Feychting M, Abou-Bakre A, Béranger R, Schüz J. Effects of Recall and Selection Biases on Modeling Cancer Risk From Mobile Phone Use: Results From a Case-Control Simulation Study. Epidemiology. 2024 Jul 1;35(4):437-446. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000001749. Epub 2024 May 20. PMID: 38771708; PMCID: PMC11191551.

Karipidis K, Baaken D, Lovey T, Blettner M, Brzozek C, Elwood M, Nath C, Orsini N, Roosli M, Paulo MS, Lagorio S. The effect of exposure to radiofrequency fields on cancer risk in the general and working population: A systematic review of human observational studies – Part II: Less researched outcomes. Environ Int 2025 Feb;196:109274. doi: 10.1016/j.envint 109274 Epub 2025 Jan 11.

  • Research on the effects of cell phone use on mental skills and general issues like sleep problems is limited. Specific sensitivity to RF exposure, also known as electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), has been studied more in-depth. However, the current evidence does not show that cell phone radiation increases the risk of these problems, although other aspects of screen time may have negative effects via a psychological pathway.
  1. Data shows that cell phones do not cause acute (short-term) effects on cognition or sleep. Questions about long-term effects are more challenging to resolve.
    1. Acute effects of cell phones on cognitive and sleep disorders have not been shown to occur whereas questions about long-term effects are more challenging to resolve [Pophof 2024, Bosch-Capblanch 2024].
    2. Few studies address the long-term effects of cell phone use on cognitive outcomes and non-specific symptoms such as sleep disorders, but available data do not suggest a causal effect from cell phone radiofrequency exposure [Benke 2024, Röösli 2024].
  2. EHS refers to a range of non-specific symptoms that some individuals attribute to exposure to RF or electromagnetic fields (EMF). The World Health Organization (WHO) states that EHS lacks clear diagnostic criteria and that there is no scientific basis to associate EHS symptoms with EMF exposure. Scientific research does not indicate a link between RF exposure and these symptoms [de Vocht Frank, Röösli Martin2025].
  3. A systematic review of the data suggests that self-reported symptoms may be influenced by psychological processes rather than radiofrequency exposure, as double-blind studies did not yield systematic differences [Bosch-Capblanch 2024].
  4. High brain exposure to cell phone radiation can cause subtle changes in EEG (electroencephalography) readings, often showing alterations in brainwave activity referred to as ‘alpha’. Alpha waves are a marker of relaxed, idle brain activity and are sensitive to changes in attention, relaxation, and underlying brain health. changes seen during RF exposure are small and may not have significant health implications for most people. For example, the alpha change reported to result from RF exposure is much less than would occur from merely relaxing or closing your eyes.[Dalecki 2021, ICNIRP 2020]


Benke G, Abramson MJ, Brzozek C, McDonald S, Kelsall H, Sanagou M, Zeleke BM, Kaufman J, Brennan S, Verbeek J, Karipidis K. The effects of radiofrequency exposure on cognition: A systematic review and meta-analysis of human observational studies. Environ Int. 2024 Jun;188:108779.

Röösli M, Dongus S, Jalilian H, Eyers J, Esu E, Oringanje CM, Meremikwu M, Bosch-Capblanch X. The effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields exposure on tinnitus, migraine and non-specific symptoms in the general and working population: A systematic review and meta-analysis on human observational studies. Environ Int. 2024 Jan;183:108338

Bosch-Capblanch X, Esu E, Oringanje CM, Dongus S, Jalilian H, Eyers J, Auer C, Meremikwu M, Röösli M. The effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields exposure on human self-reported symptoms: A systematic review of human experimental studies. Environ Int. 2024 May;187:108612.

Anna Dalecki, Adam Verrender, Sarah P Loughran, Rodney J Croft. The Effect of GSM Electromagnetic Field Exposure on the Waking Electroencephalogram: Methodological Influences. Bioelectromagnetics 2021 May;42(4):317-328.

Pophof B, Kuhne J, Schmid G, Weiser E, Dorn H, Henschenmacher B, Burns J, Danker-Hopfe H, Sauter C. The effect of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields on cognitive performance in human experimental studies: Systematic review and meta-analyses. Environ Int. 2024 Sep;191:108899. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2024.108899. Epub 2024 Jul 22. PMID: 39265322.

de Vocht Frank, Röösli Martin. Electrohypersensitivity: what is belief and what is known Frontiers in Public Health; Volume 13 – 2025 DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1603692

  • An individual’s exposure to RF energy from a cell phone tower depends on power, frequency, orientation, and distance (see Science Section) and is generally much less than exposure from a cell phone held close to a user.
  • Regulatory authorities, such as the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC), set exposure limits for RF based on recommendations from health agencies (Food and Drug Administration, Occupational Safety and Health Administration) and national (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements) and international (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection and IEEE International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety) groups that address RF safety standards.
  • Research does not suggest that RF exposure to individuals living near cell phone towers causes adverse health effects.
  • RF exposure is typically thousands of times less from a nearby cell tower than from a mobile device being used. Public exposure levels from cell towers are typically thousands of times below the FCC exposure limits.
  • The only cancer that has been sufficiently studied in relation to living near cell phone or other transmission towers is childhood leukemia and childhood brain tumors [Karipidis 2024]. Overall, the evidence was described as providing moderate to low certainty that such exposures did not show an increase in these cancers.
  1. Regulatory authorities such as the US Federal Communication Commission (FCC) set the limits for safe exposure to radiofrequency based on recommendations from health agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Experts (scientists and engineers) from two organizations, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and the IEEE International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety, extensively reviewed the scientific literature on the biological effects of RF radiation exposure levels from cell towers and established safety criteria or standards, which the FCC has adopted.
  2. Limits adopted by the FCC are similar to those recommended by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), which has a formal collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO).
  3. Epidemiological studies evaluating residential RF exposures from cell towers have not reported increased childhood leukemia risks [Karipidis 2024] or headache or non-specific symptoms in relation to closeness of residences based on a small number of studies, although the exposure levels from cell towers are dramatically lower than exposures from use of cell phones [Röösli 2024].
  4. RF exposure near cell towers is within the regulatory safety limits.
    1. Cell phones communicate with nearby cell towers through RF signals.
    2. The RF exposure from a cell tower decreases rapidly as the distance from the cell tower increases. Thus, exposure on the ground or in nearby residences or buildings is always much lower than at the antenna.
  5. A cell phone user’s RF exposure is typically much higher from their own phone than from any nearby cell tower.
    1. The FCC’s Wireless Devices and Health Concerns page (Updated November 2020) indicated that users’ RF exposure levels from cell phones are higher than from cell towers, mainly because cell phones are much closer to the user’s body.
    2. A study of usage scenarios [Kuehn 2020] found that: “The peak dose is always dominated by an individual’s cell phone and, in the case of non-users, by the bystanders’ cell phones.”
    3. Exposure levels around cell towers are usually thousands of times below the limits.


Karipidis K, Baaken D, Loney T, Blettner M, Brzozek C, Elwood M, Narh C, Orsini N, Röösli M, Paulo MS, Lagorio S. The effect of exposure to radiofrequency fields on cancer risk in the general and working population: A systematic review of human observational studies – Part I: Most researched outcomes. Environ Int. 2024 Sep;191:108983. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2024.108983. Epub 2024 Aug 30. PMID: 39241333.

Kuehn, S.; Pfeifer, S.; Kuster, N. Total Local Dose in Hypothetical 5G Mobile Networks for Varied Topologies and User Scenarios. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5971.
https://doi.org/10.3390/app10175971https://doi.org/10.3390/app10175971

Röösli M, Dongus S, Jalilian H, Eyers J, Esu E, Oringanje CM, Meremikwu M, Bosch-Capblanch X. The effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields exposure on tinnitus, migraine and non-specific symptoms in the general and working population: A systematic review and meta-analysis on human observational studies. Environ Int. 2024 Jan;183:108338

  • 5G adds millimeter wave frequencies, which penetrate only a few millimeters into tissue and result in lower exposure.
  • Beamforming antennas direct energy toward active users, reducing environmental RF exposure, often far below cell phone exposure.
  1. 5G cell towers use the same frequencies as existing installations but also may include millimeter wave (mmW) frequencies.
  2. Epidemiologic data on RF exposures from 5G are lacking which is to be expected as 5G is a relatively new technology and epidemiological studies can only be performed when there has been a substantial period of exposure.
  3. Exposure from mmW frequencies has been shown to be much lower than those from previous generations of wireless technologies.
    1. Exposure from mmW cannot penetrate deep into tissue (beyond a few mm).
    2. The higher frequency millimeter waves (mmW) that can be used in 5G networks penetrate less into buildings and your body. Thus, in that respect, exposure levels are expected to be lower. The 5G mmW frequency band currently in use ranges from 20 to 60 GHz. In general, RF exposure levels have not changed appreciably with the introduction of 5G.
  4. 5G beamforming antennas reduce the average environmental exposure by directing energy toward active cell phone users.
    1. To support higher data rates, 5G cellular cell sites can focus their energy and track user devices. That means areas not occupied by active users will have even lower RF exposure.
    2. Even when focusing on a user, the amount of RF exposure a person receives from the base station utilizing beam forming antennas is typically 100-1,000 times less than the exposure from using a cell phone.
    3. Assessments show that 5G mmW exposure from 5G cell sites is typically much less than 4G exposure levels. [Aerts, 2021].
    4. Expert scientists from two organizations, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the IEEE International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety, reviewed the scientific literature on the biological effects of the RF waves used in 5G and have established safety guidelines.
    5. All cell sites are evaluated to ensure exposure levels of the public are below recommended safety levels.
    6. Studies evaluating biological responses to exposure [Karipidis 2024; Wood 2021; Simko 2019] reviewed and analyzed 94 publications on relevant in vivo or in vitro studies. The studies included the study type (in vivo or in vitro), biological material (species, cell type, etc.), biological endpoint, exposure (frequency, duration, power density), and quality criteria.
  5. For additional information on 5G exposure, see the Health Physics Society Fact Sheet (2020) and the Spanish Scientific Advisory Committee on Radiofrequency and Health (2024).

Aerts, S.; Deprez, K.; Colombi, D.; Van den Bossche, M.; Verloock, L.; Martens, L.; C.; Joseph, W. “In Situ Assessment of 5G NR Massive MIMO Base Station Exposure Commercial Network in Bern, Switzerland”. Applied Sciences 2021, 11, 3592.

Simkó M and Mattsson M-O. 5G Wireless communication and health effects. A pragmatic review based on available studies regarding 6 to 100 GHz. Int J Environ Res Public Health: 16 (18), 3406, 2019. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16183406

Foster KR and Vijayalaxmi. Needed: More reliable bioeffects studies at “High Band” 5G frequencies. Frontiers in communications and networks. 2: 721925. https://doi.org/10.3389/frcmn.2021.721925

Wood A, Mate R, Karipidis K. Meta-analysis of in vitro and in vivo studies of the biological effects of low-level millimetre waves. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2021 Jul;31(4):606-613.

Karipidis K, Mate R, Urban D, Tinker R, Wood A. 5G mobile networks and health-a state-of-the-science review of the research into low-level RF fields above 6 GHz. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2021 Jul;31(4):585-605.
  • A high density of cell sites does not necessarily increase exposure to cell phone users, because the main source of RF exposure is the cell phone. Adding cell sites usually improves network quality and thus reduces cell phone output power.
  • New cell sites may increase public RF exposure slightly within tens of meters surrounding the site, but the average exposure levels in the environment will continue to be low.
  1. More cell sites will generally lower exposure for cell phone users because the main source of RF exposure is from the phone, not the cell site.
    1. Cell phone communication is two-way. Both your cell phone and the cell site transmit and receive radiofrequency (RF) signals. Like all electromagnetic energy, RF signals get weaker the further you get from the source.
    2. The greater the distance a cell phone is away from an antenna, the more power it needs to use for its signal to reach the antenna.
    3. Your total exposure to RF is due primarily to your own phone’s emissions — an exposure that increases when the cell sites are farther away from you and your phone. Cell phones have adaptive power control: once the connection is established between the phone and the cell site, the phone can reduce its transmitted power if the signal from the site is sufficiently strong. Cell phones operate at the minimum power necessary to reliably communicate with the network, to conserve battery power, and minimize interference with other users. When phone users are close to cell sites, the phone uses less power to transmit its signal, resulting in lower RF exposure for the user. The output power from a cell phone can be as much as a million times lower when the user is near a cell site.
    4. If there are no nearby cell phone users, additional cell sites may increase an individual’s exposure, but typically still by only a few percent of the public exposure limits.
    5. Public exposures surrounding cell sites are typically a few percent or less of the public exposure standard, [Bushberg 2025, Calderon 2025].

Bushberg J, Butcher M. Measurement of Ambient Millimeter Wave Exposure Levels around Small Base Stations. Health Phys. 2025 Jun 1;128(6):442-448. doi: 10.1097/HP.0000000000001935.

Calderon C, Addison D, Peyman A. In-Situ Measurements of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields Measurements Around 5G Macro Base Stations in the UK. Bioelectromagnetics. 2025 Jul;46(5):e70012. doi: 10.1002/bem.70012.

  • Cell phone antennas may serve an area of several kilometers (macrocell) or only a few meters (microcell). For most antennas serving macrocells, the RF exposure is usually below public exposure limits a few meters from the antenna. With every doubling in distance, exposure reduces by a factor of 4. There are exceptions to this general statement. For example, when a site is using C-Band frequencies (3.5-4 GHz) the exposure at the same elevation of the antenna (in some cases) may not be below the public exposure limit until 30 or more meters from the antenna.
  • Walls and windows also reduce the signal and associated RF exposures inside the building. The higher the frequency, the stronger the damping, and thus, millimeter waves (mmW) do not penetrate buildings.
  1. In urban areas, cell site antennas are usually installed on the edge of rooftops or the sides of buildings, typically directed away from the building. RF energy from these antennas is directed horizontally, although the radiation pattern often exhibits some down tilt.
  2. Some of the RF energy can be directed towards adjacent building walls and windows.
  3. Walls and windows reduce signal strength for people inside the building. Tinted windows, often containing metal, are particularly effective at reducing RF exposure levels (often by a factor of 10 or more). In fact, they can reduce RF exposure levels even more than solid exterior walls. Both walls and windows are even more effective at dampening mmW 5G signals.
  4. RF exposure on open-air balconies will be higher than inside the building, but cell sites are designed and reviewed to ensure all potentially accessible locations meet current RF exposure guidelines.
  • Modulation refers to changing the properties of an RF wave—such as its amplitude (height), frequency (how fast it oscillates), or phase (the wave’s timing).
  • There are no known mechanisms by which modulation could cause adverse health effects.
  1. Numerous experimental studies, mostly in animals and in small studies in humans, have tested various types of modulation. While individual studies have described various modulation effects, no overall pattern has been observed. This indicates that the results from a single study are most likely due to chance findings arising from testing multiple exposure conditions simultaneously.
  2. More strongly modulated fields, like those from pulsed radar, can cause biological effects such as microwave heating. However, there have been no observed effects from the much weaker modulation used in wireless communication fields.


Dongus S, Jalilian H, Schürmann D et al (2022) Health effects of WiFi radiation: a review based on systematic quality evaluation,, Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 52:19, 3547-3566, DOI: 10.1080/10643389.2021.1951549

Foster KR and Repacholi MH. Biological effects of radiofrequency fields: Does modulation matter? Radiat Res. 2004 Aug;162(2):219-25. DOI: 10.1667/rr3191. PMID: 15387150.

NCRP. 2003. NCRP Commentary No. 18, Biological Effects of Modulated Radiofrequency Fields. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements.

Juutilainen J, Höytö A, Kumlin T, Naarala J. Review of possible modulation-dependent biological effects of radiofrequency fields. Bioelectromagnetics. 2011 Oct;32(7):511-34. doi: 10.1002/bem.20652. Epub 2011 Apr 7. PMID: 21480304.fcvb

  • Research on childhood cancer risks near cell sites is limited. Several epidemiologic studies have examined childhood leukemia in relation to proximity to cell phone (and other RF) transmitters, and overall, they have not found convincing evidence of increased risk at typical environmental exposure levels.
  • Few studies have addressed possible childhood leukemia risks from proximity to cell phone towers. However, studies examining childhood leukemia risk among individuals living in proximity to TV and radio broadcast towers have found no association. Too few studies of childhood brain tumors have been reported to reach meaningful conclusions.
  • RF exposures fall dramatically with increased distance from the cell site; even exposures close to the cell site are lower than the RF exposures from using a cell phone.
  1. Major cell tower–focused childhood studies
    1. UK national case–control study [Elliott 2010]. The design: 1,397 cancer cases (0–4 years) and 5,588 controls, using national data on 76,890 macrocell base station antennas in Great Britain. Distance to nearest base station, total power output of base stations within 700 m, and modelling of the RF field strength at the birth address during pregnancy were performed. Result: No association between maternal exposure during pregnancy to mobile phone base stations and risk of leukemia or other early childhood cancers.
    2. Utah health consultation [Utah Department of Health, 2008]. The State health department reviewed the incidence of childhood leukemia in relation to proximity to cell towers in Salt Lake County. Result: The analysis found no evidence of an elevated incidence of childhood leukemia among children living near cell towers, although the assessment was relatively ecological and limited in power.
  1. RF broadcasting and childhood leukemia (related, higher power sites)
    Several large studies have examined broadcast radio/TV transmitters, which often produce higher population-level RF exposure than individual cell towers and are relevant to RF–leukemia questions.
    1. Swiss census-based cohort [Hauri 2014]. The design was a Nationwide, census-based cohort of children with modelled RF exposures from broadcasting transmitters at their home addresses. Result: No evidence of increased childhood leukemia risk with higher predicted RF exposure from broadcast transmitters.
    2. Italian high-power radio station study [Michelozzi 2002]. This was an ecological study of leukemia incidence and mortality near a high-power radio station. Result: Reported an excess of childhood leukemia cases within about 6 km of the station, with risk declining with distance, but with small numbers and notable uncertainty and potential confounding. Results for CNS tumors were less consistent, but the most comprehensive analysis did not suggest an association.
  1. Broader reviews and pediatric EMF summaries
    1. Pediatric EMF health review (2020)
      A review of electromagnetic field health effects in children notes that most robust RF-EMF studies (including base stations and broadcasting) do not show a consistent increase in childhood leukemia risk, in contrast to the more established association with extremely low-frequency magnetic fields from power lines [Moon 2020].
    2. Cancer society and public health summaries
      The American Cancer Society and similar organizations state that current evidence does not show a clear increase in cancer risk, including childhood leukemia, from living near cell phone towers, while acknowledging that research continues and recommending adherence to existing exposure limits as a precaution [ACS2020].

Elliott P, Toledano MB, Bennett J, Beale L, de Hoogh K, Best N, Briggs DJ. Mobile phone base stations and early childhood cancers: case-control study. BMJ. 2010 Jun 22;340:c3077. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c3077. PMID: 20570865; PMCID: PMC3191724.

Environmental Epidemiology Program Office of Epidemiology, Utah Department of Health. The health effects to children of low‑frequency electromagnetic fields (EMF) towers in close proximity to schools. 2008 December https://appletree.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/EMF_Proximity_to_Schools_HC_2008.pdf

American Cancer Society. Cell phone towers. Atlanta (GA): American Cancer Society; 2020 Jun 1 [cited 2025 Dec 20]. Available from: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/radiation-exposure/cellular-phone-towers.html

Hauri DD, Spycher B, Huss A, Zimmermann F, Grotzer M, von der Weid N, Spoerri A, Kuehni CE, Röösli M; Swiss National Cohort; Swiss Paediatric Oncology Group. Exposure to radio-frequency electromagnetic fields from broadcast transmitters and risk of childhood cancer: a census-based cohort study. Am J Epidemiol. 2014 Apr 1;179(7):843-51. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwt442. Epub 2014 Feb 19. PMID: 24651167.

Michelozzi P, Capon A, Kirchmayer U, Forastiere F, Biggeri A, Barca A, Perucci CA. Adult and childhood leukemia near a high-power radio station in Rome, Italy. Am J Epidemiol. 2002 Jun 15;155(12):1096-103. doi: 10.1093/aje/155.12.1096. PMID: 12048223.

Moon JH. Health effects of electromagnetic fields on children. Clin Exp Pediatr. 2020 Nov;63(11):422-428. doi: 10.3345/cep.2019.01494. Epub 2020 May 26. PMID: 32683815; PMCID: PMC7642138.

  • RF energy absorption in children’s brains is higher than for adults, however this is accounted for in the safety standard.
  • Two different studies in multiple countries found no increase in brain tumors.
  1. Experimental and computational studies suggest that about twice as much energy from exposure to cell phones is absorbed in the outer parts of children’s brain tissue because their skulls are thinner, and their brains have higher water content than adults. While this results in some increased heating in the brain, it is rapidly dissipated by the blood flow. Given the small amount of power limited by the RF safety standards, the increase in temperature is less than the normal physiological variation.
    1. A large‑scale analysis [Keshvari 2016] was conducted using highly realistic, MRI-based head and hand models covering a wide range of ages from childhood to adult, as well as detailed models of mobile phones. The study included over 400 simulated exposure configurations across adult and child heads and compared them to the standard adult model.
    2. The findings showed: (1) no systematic differences in peak RF absorption rate between adult and child head models use to test maximum RF exposure from phones, and (2) the adult model was found to be conservative in the vast majority of cases, indicating that compliance testing based on adult-sized models provides sufficient protection across all age groups.
  2. Researchers have wondered if children exposed to cell phones may be at higher risk of brain tumors than adults because of the difference in RF energy absorption and the fact that their brain tissue is still developing.
    1. Two case-control studies [Aydin 2012, Castaño-Vinyals 2022] of cell phone use and brain tumors in children have found no clear increase in risk by the amount of use of cell phones. In addition, the location of brain tumors in children was not related to where cell phones were held against the head.
    2. Both of these studies were carried out in multiple centers in several countries (the early one in four countries involving 352 cases and 646 controls at ages 7-19 and the later in 14 countries involving 899 cases and 1910 controls aged 10-24 years). The two studies employed detailed questionnaires, examined the location of the brain tumor in relation to the use of cellular phones, examined the potential for recall bias by comparing self-reported with objective cell phone use data, and examined the potential for confounding.
    3. Despite the multi-center, multi-country nature of both studies, the rarity of brain tumors made it difficult to identify small risks (particularly when analyzed by age, type of brain tumor, and location of the tumor in the brain). In addition, the use of questionnaires does not capture the actual exposure in the brain.

Aydin D, Feychting M, Schuz J et al. Mobile phone use and brain tumors in children and adolescents: a multicenter case-control study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011;103:1264-1276. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djr244

Castano-Vinyals G, Sadetzki S, Vermeulen R, et al. Wireless phone use in childhood and adolescence and neuroepithelial brain tumours: Results from the international MOBI-Kids Study. Environ Int 2022;160:107069.
https://doi.org/10.1289/isee.2022.P-1070

Keshvari J, Kivento M, Christ A, et al Large-scale study on the variation of RF energy absorption in the head & brain regions of adults and children and evaluation of the SAM phantom conservativeness. Bioelectromagnetics. 2016;37(6):374–386. doi:10.1002/bem.21991

Kheifets L, Repacholi M Saunders R et al. The sensitivity of children to electromagnetic fields. Pediatrics 2005;116:e303-313. https://doi-org.utk.idm.oclc.org/10.1542/peds.2004-2541

Christ A, Gosselin MC, Christopoulou M, et al. Age-dependent tissue-specific exposure of cell phone users. Phys Med Biol 2010;55:1767-1783.https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/55/7/001

Wiart J, Hadjem A, Wong MF et al. Analysis of RF exposure in the head tissues of children and adults. Phys Med Biol 2008;53:3681-3695. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/53/13/019

K. Foster and C-K. Chou. Response to “Children Absorb Higher Doses of Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Radiation From Mobile Phones Than Adults” and “Yes the Children Are More Exposed to Radiofrequency Energy From Mobile Telephones Than Adults”. IEEE Access 4: 522-5326, 2016, DOI: http://10.0.4.85/ACCESS.2016.2601490

  • No, however, the fetus is known to be at risk of health effects from certain environmental exposures, such as lead and some drugs.
  1. Most mobile phone radiation is absorbed by the body of the mother and thus exposure of the fetus is minimal, in particular at the early stage of pregnancy, which is most critical for development (Varsier N. 2014)
  2. A few studies have looked at the effect of RF exposure on the health of pregnant women and fetuses, assessing outcomes such as miscarriage, preterm birth, or birth defects. Overall, these studies did not find convincing evidence of adverse effects when exposure was below established public safety standards.
    1. The Infant Risk Center, located at the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center School of Medicine, indicates that Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure Unlikely to Harm Pregnant Women [2014, accessed 2025-01.]
    2. The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) published a review: Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure on adverse pregnancy outcomes in human observational studies [2024 Accessed 2025-01-11]. They found “Overall evidence from review and meta-analysis indicates no or little association between maternal RF-EMF exposure and pregnancy outcomes in general public and occupational populations.”
  3. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) uses RF pulses to produce images. It has been used safely in pregnant women (Joel Ray, 2016).
  4. Regarding RF exposure to the fetus from various environmental sources such as cell phones and cell sites, the NCRP states: “In the absence of a causal connection between RF exposure and various adverse health endpoints, the current consensus regarding long-term exposure at nonthermal levels is that there are no established adverse health effects of RF energy that are not associated with excessive heating.” (NCRP 2013)
  5. In summary, the limited existing relevant and informative research does not provide a scientific basis for adverse reproductive health effects from RF exposures from common sources of wireless technology during pregnancy.

NCRP 2013: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Preconception and prenatal radiation exposure: Health and protective guidance. Recommendations of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. NCRP Report No. 174. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, MD; 2013.

Varsier N, Dahdouh S, Serrurier A, De la Plata JP, Anquez J, Angelini ED, Bloch I, Wiart J. Influence of pregnancy stage and fetus position on the whole-body and local exposure of the fetus to RF-EMF. Phys Med Biol. 2014 Sep 7;59(17):4913-26. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/59/17/4913. Epub 2014 Aug 7. PMID: 25098501.

“Joel Ray, et al. Association Between MRI Exposure During Pregnancy and Fetal and Childhood Outcomes. JAMA. 2016;316(9):952-961. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.12126”
  • Current evidence does not support long-term sleep effects from RF-EMF exposure from mobile phones;
  1. Current evidence does not support the hypothesis that RF‑EMF from mobile phone use has long‑term effects on sleep quality [Bodewein 2022]. Note that the RF emissions of a phone are minimal when it is not in use.
  2. There is concern that the presence of smartphones may interfere with the sleep of children due to extensive usage. Several studies found that the presence of smartphones in children’s bedrooms is associated with shorter sleep duration. There is also concern that extensive social media use is associated with reduced quality of life and mental health problems, although more rigorous research is needed to establish causality [Lund 2021, Hale 2015, Tettamanti 2020].

 

Lund L, Sølvhøj IN, Danielsen D, Andersen S. Electronic media use and sleep in children and adolescents in western countries: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2021 Sep 30;21(1):1598. doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-11640-9. PMID: 34587944; PMCID: PMC8482627.

Hale L, Guan S. Screen time and sleep among school-aged children and adolescents: a systematic literature review. Sleep Med Rev. 2015 Jun;21:50-8. doi: 10.1016/j.smrv.2014.07.007. Epub 2014 Aug 12. PMID: 25193149; PMCID: PMC4437561.

Bodewein L, Dechent D, Graefrath D, Kraus T, Krause T, Driessen S. Systematic review of the physiological and health-related effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure from wireless communication devices on children and adolescents in experimental and epidemiological human studies. PLoS One. 2022 Jun 1;17(6):e0268641. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268641. PMID: 35648738; PMCID: PMC9159629.

Tettamanti G, Auvinen A, Åkerstedt T, Kojo K, Ahlbom A, Heinävaara S, Elliott P, Schüz J, Deltour I, Kromhout H, Toledano MB, Poulsen AH, Johansen C, Vermeulen R, Feychting M, Hillert L; COSMOS Study Group. Long-term effect of mobile phone use on sleep quality: Results from the cohort study of mobile phone use and health (COSMOS). Environ Int. 2020 Jul;140:105687. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.105687. Epub 2020 Apr 8. PMID: 32276731; PMCID: PMC7272128.

  • Wireless headphones and other Bluetooth devices generally operate at lower RF power than cell phones.
  • Health agencies require that wireless headphones meet national and international safety regulations.
  1. Earbuds transmit at a power level lower than the maximum allowed for a cell phone or any other device.
    1. According to the FCC’s Equipment Authorization database the 2nd generation wireless headphones have at most a Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) of 43% of the limit. However, the vast majority of wireless headphones operate at a small fraction of that.
    2. To make the battery last longer, adaptive power management is used to reduce the transmittable power to what is required to transfer the required data.
    3. Because of the tiny batteries in these devices, the average power will be very small with respect to the maximum allowed? as well.
  2. According to Reuters Fact Check: No established evidence that Apple wireless headphones
    harm your health harm your health a spokesperson for Public Health England said in an email: “Our position is there is no convincing evidence that exposure to electromagnetic fields has adverse health effects provided exposures are below ICNIRP guideline levels.”
  3. The World Health Organization also reported in Reuters: “There is currently no established evidence that the expected low-level electromagnetic fields used in wireless headphones would cause cancer.”
  4. Cell phones can emit more RF power than Bluetooth devices, like wireless headphones. This is because they need to communicate with distant cell sites, which requires more power.
  5. A study from the California Department of Public Health [Wall 2019] found “Depending on the Bluetooth headset model, exposures were 10–400 times lower than direct near-ear exposure from the phones to which they were connected.”
  6. During a call, an earpiece, such as wireless headphones, may reduce the RF exposure substantially compared to holding the cell phone to your ear.
      1. Wireless headphones and similar devices use a low-power 2.4 GHz Bluetooth link to communicate with the nearby handset, so they emit radiofrequency (RF) signals similar in frequency to the UHF or microwave signals that a cell phone emits to communicate with a cell site.
      2. However, these Bluetooth links transmit at an absolute maximum power level of 100 milliwatts (mW), which is much less than a typical cell phone. The absolute maximum Bluetooth transmit power depends on the class of the Bluetooth device. Bluetooth devices are classified into three main classes based on their transmit power [RF Wireless World 2024]:
        1. Class 1: The maximum transmit power is 100 mW (milliwatts). These devices have the longest range, typically up to 100 meters. However, these class devices are required to have adaptive power control.
        2. Class 2: The maximum transmit power is 2.5 mW. These devices have a moderate range, typically up to 10 meters. Most consumer Bluetooth devices, such as smartphones and headphones, fall into this category.
        3. Class 3: The maximum transmit power is 2.5 mW. These devices have a moderate range, typically up to 10 meters. Most consumer Bluetooth devices, such as smartphones and headphones, fall into this category.

 

In practice, most consumer Bluetooth devices, including wireless headphones, operate as Class 2 devices with a maximum transmit power of 2.5 mW.

Earbuds spend most of the time receiving signals and only transmit a small fraction of the time. This implies that the exposure time is much shorter than the usage time.

Wall S, Wang ZM, Kendig T, Dobraca D, Lipsett M. Real-world cell phone radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposures. Environ Res. 2019 Apr;171:581-592

RF Wireless World. Bluetooth power classes: levels and range explained. RF Wireless World; [updated 2024; cited 2025 Dec 23]. Available from:
https://www.rfwireless-world.com/tutorials/bluetooth-power-classes-levels-range

  • What about exposing my child to Wi-Fi radiation in school?
  • Studies have found no indication of harmful effects on sleep, fatigue, or behavioral problems.
  1. Wi-Fi provides a minor contribution to total RF exposure [Schmutz 2022].
    1. Exposure to children or adults from Wi-Fi, whether in schools, public buildings, or at home, is common but is only a small contributor to RF exposure overall.
    2. Wi-Fi is estimated to contribute less than 10% of total environmental RF exposure. It is thousands of times lower than the regulatory limits,
    3. The other sources of RF include but are not limited to phones, satellites, radio and tv broadcasting, microwave ovens, and cell phone towers.
  2. Studies found no indication of harmful effects on sleep, fatigue, or behavioral problems.
    1. Personal measurement studies could not find any relevant difference in possible effects of the RF exposures of children in relation to the Wi-Fi conditions at home or school [Roser 2017]. There are few studies on WiFi exposure, and they have not shown evidence that WiFi causes sleep disturbance, headaches, fatigue, or changes in blood pressure or heart rate [Dieudonné 2020, Dongas 2022, Bodewein 2022].

Schmutz C, Bürgler A, Ashta N, Soenksen J, Bou Karim Y, Shen C, Smith RB, Jenkins RH, Mireku MO, Mutz J, Maes MJA, Hirst R, Chang I, Fleming C, Mussa A, Kesary D, Addison D, Maslanyj M, Toledano MB, Röösli M, Eeftens M. Personal radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure of adolescents in the Greater London area in the SCAMP cohort and the association with restrictions on permitted use of mobile communication technologies at school and at home. Environ Res. 2022 Sep;212(Pt B):113252. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2022.113252. Epub 2022 Apr 12.

Roser K, Schoeni A, Struchen B, Zahner M, Eeftens M, Fröhlich J, Röösli M. Personal radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure measurements in Swiss adolescents. Environ Int. 2017 Feb;99:303-314.

Dieudonné M. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: a critical review of explanatory hypotheses. Environ Health. 2020 May 6;19(1):48. doi: 10.1186/s12940-020-00602-0. PMID: 32375774; PMCID: PMC7201940.

Dongus, S., Jalilian, H., Schürmann, D., & Röösli, M. (2021). Health effects of WiFi radiation: a review based on systematic quality evaluation. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 52(19), 3547–3566. https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2021.1951549

Bodewein L, Dechent D, Graefrath D, Kraus T, Krause T, Driessen S. Systematic review of the physiological and health-related effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure from wireless communication devices on children and adolescents in experimental and epidemiological human studies. PLoS One. 2022 Jun 1;17(6):e0268641. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268641. PMID: 35648738; PMCID: PMC9159629.

  • Manufacturers test their cell phones to ensure they meet the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) limits under maximum-load usage scenarios.
  • Even though some parties claim that the RF exposure evaluation procedures for phones should require testing with a “zero” spacing against the body, the FCC has explained why this is unnecessary.
  1. Testing is done at specific distances following a protocol designed to ensure compliance with safety standards.
    1. The FCC specifies models of humans (phantoms) to test whether local radiofrequency (RF) exposure (measured as Specific Absorption Rate, SAR) of cell phones is within regulatory limits. SAR is a measure of the rate of energy absorption by the body.
    2. Cell phones are tested in a maximum output configuration in the laboratory, even though cell phones do not operate that way when in use, due to the adaptive power control (adjust output power according to signal strength). The FCC measurement procedure requires cell phones to deliver maximum radiofrequency output when tested in proximity to the head or body in typical user positions.
    3. Two phantoms are used for this purpose. The first is a head phantom model in which the cell phone is positioned next to the right and left ears during testing. The other is a body phantom used to mimic the cellphone’s location in body-worn accessory configurations. The area surrounding a cell phone when it is carried or used must have a local SAR of no more than 1.6 W/kg, averaged over 1 g of tissue.
  1. Several factors can influence the SAR levels, such as:
    1. Proximity to the Body: SAR levels can increase when the phone is pressed directly against the body compared to being held a short distance away.
    2. Phone Model and Design: Different phone models have varying RF emissions, and their design can affect how close the antennas are to the user’s body.
    3. Usage Conditions: Factors such as signal strength, network technology (e.g., 3G, 4G, 5G), and the phone’s power output during use can impact RF exposure.
  1. According to the FCC, “Even though some parties claim that the RF exposure evaluation procedures for phones should require testing with a ‘zero’ spacing – against the body – this is unnecessary” [FCC 2019].
    1. Phones are already tested directly against the ear to reflect normal use during calls, and these tests are conducted at maximum power levels, which exceed typical real-world conditions. In practice, separation distances used in testing are often smaller than the standard 2.5 cm; for instance, hotspot mode is tested at just 1 cm. Moreover, existing RF exposure limits are set with substantial safety margins, well below levels known to cause harmful tissue heating. As a result, even if certified devices occasionally exceed Commission limits during normal use, exposures remain well below hazardous levels.
  1. Manufacturers test their phones to ensure they meet the SAR limits. Manufacturers’ guidelines often recommend using a holster or case that keeps the phone at a specified distance from the body. Despite these precautions, use in extremely rare cases can result in brief periods during which the SAR may approach or exceed regulatory limits, but sustained exposure above the limits is not typical.


FCC Resolution of Notice of Inquiry, Second Report and Order, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 34 F.C.C.R. 11687 ¶ 14 (2019)

https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/specific-absorption-rate-sar-cell-phones-what-it-means-you

Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) Testing | UL

  • The National Toxicology Program (NTP) studied cell phone exposures and cancer and other health outcomes in laboratory rats and mice.
  • The NTP study reviewed over 200 biological endpoints and reported a slight increase in a rare tumor (malignant schwannomas of the heart), and this was observed only in male rats.
  • The Ramazzini study by Falcioni et al. (2) also reported an increase in malignant schwannomas of the heart in rats at a lower SAR of approximately 0.1 W/kg as compared to the NTP study, which only reported a statistically significant number of malignant schwannomas of the heart with exposures at 6.0 W/kg.
  • After careful review of these studies, ICNIRP, IEEE, NCRP, and other expert groups consider the results from both studies uninformative for the purpose of establishing safety standards because the exposure conditions in the NTP study far exceeded the current RF safety standards (6 W/kg is 75 times above the whole body exposure limit 0.08 W/kg), and both studies had numerous limitations, making it difficult to draw conclusions relative to the safety of RF exposure in human.
  • Two focused studies were performed to assess the reproducibility of the NTP positive findings. Both the Japanese and Korean teams observed no evidence of increased tumor risk and no genotoxic effects compared with sham-exposed controls.
  1. NTP studied cell phone exposures in rats and mice.
    1. In 1999, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommended that studies be undertaken on animals using radiofrequency radiation in 2G and 3G cell phones due to widespread public use of cell phones and limited knowledge about health effects from long-term exposure.
    2. The NTP conducted two-year studies in rats and mice that were initiated during pregnancy for rats and within a few weeks after birth for mice. The number of animals studied included ninety exposed and ninety unexposed rats, as well as the same number of mice. These animals were exposed for 9+ hours daily, with 10-minute on/off cycles during those hours.
    3. The NTP study found no overall increase in all cancers combined. A slight increase in one rare tumor type (heart schwannoma) was found, and this was limited to male rats.
    4. The NTP researchers summarized the findings as showing that only one of the groups studied, exposed male rats, had a statistically significant increased risk of a cancerous heart tumor, malignant schwannoma, with increasing levels of radiofrequency exposures.
    5. The NTP studies also observed some evidence of tumors in the brain and adrenal gland in male rats, although the evidence was not as strong as that observed in the heart.
    6. For female rats and male and female mice, there were no statistically significant increases in these or other types of cancers related to cell phone radiofrequency radiation.
    7. One interesting result was that male rats exposed to 6, 3, and 1.5 W/kg averaged over the whole body had substantially longer survival rates than the sham-exposed animals. Survival rate increased with increasing exposure intensity.
    8. There has been no evidence of an increase in these extremely rare tumors in humans.
    9. Malignant schwannomas of the heart are extremely rare in humans, with only 60 cases reported in the medical literature over the last 50 years; therefore, it is difficult to evaluate the applicability of the findings to humans.
    10. Studies of schwannoma of cranial nerves in humans have not shown a clear increase over time.
    11. These conclusion was based on (1) inconsistencies between the findings for male versus female rats and between male rats and mice; (2) lack of any tumors in the control rats even though some would have been expected based on previous studies; (3) shorter survival of male control rats than male exposed rats, thus reducing the possibility that late-onset tumors could arise; (4) review of the tumor and other pathology by pathologists who knew which tissues belonged to exposed animals and which belonged to unexposed animals; (5) lack of use of standard methods to account for the many statistical comparisons that possibly resulted in randomness or chance as an explanation for the results.
    12. In addition, the exposures were to the whole body of the animals, whereas cell phone exposures of concern are to the head.
  1. Ramazzini study compared with the NTP study
    1. Reconciling the results of the Ramazzini study [Falcioni 2018] and the NTP study is challenging. The Ramazzini study reported malignant heart schwannomas at a SAR of approximately 0.1 W/kg, approximately 15 times lower than the lowest exposure in the NTP study (1.5 W/kg), which showed no statistically significant increase. Only the highest exposure in the NTP study with a different modulation (CDMA vs GSM) at exposures of 6.0 W/kg reported a significant increase in malignant heart schwannomas. Note 6.0 W/kg is 60 times higher than the Ramazzini study observation and 75 times higher than the FCC public exposure limit (0.08 W/kg). None of the glioma incidence results in the Ramazzini study were reported to be statistically significant at any exposure level. This disparity in findings and the fact that the only exposure level in the NTP study that showed a significant increase exceeded the FCC public exposure limit underscores the complexity of determining the carcinogenicity of RF exposure for humans.
  1. Strengths and limitations:
    1. The NTP and Ramazzini studies were large and used high quality engineering and careful expert pathology review of the tissues, but how the results relate to humans is unclear because the exposures were to the whole bodies of the animals (unlike the localized exposure to the head of humans), the animal studies found small numbers of tumors that are different than those in humans, and there were some methodological and statistical limitations.
  2. Implications for human health effects
    1. There are a number of reasons that one should use caution in interpreting the results from the NTP and Ramazzini studies on potential human health effects from cell phone use.
    2. Animal studies involved whole-body exposures at levels much higher than those experienced by humans, and human behavior is different from that of caged animals.
    3. The finding of an increase in malignant schwannomas of the heart in male rats does not extrapolate to humans. For male rats, historical control data indicate a background incidence of cardiac malignant schwannoma of ~0.3% (range, 0.0–2.1%). Because they are so rare, the incidence of human cardiac schwannoma isn’t established. A 2023 meta-analysis [Reynen 1996] identified only ~60 published cases worldwide. The incidence in the general population is far below 10 per million, but no precise rate is available.
  3. NTP focused replication studies
    1. Japanese study [Imaida et al., 2026]: In male Sprague–Dawley rats exposed long-term (2 years) to 900 MHz CDMA RF at whole-body SAR 4 W/kg, the investigators found no statistically significant increases in tumors or other lesions in major organs (including brain and heart) and no evidence of genotoxicity on comet/micronucleus testing; the RF-exposed group had higher survival, which the authors suggest may relate to lower body weight/food intake.
    2. Korean study [Kim et al., 2026]: Using the same collaborative protocol and exposure conditions (900 MHz CDMA, SAR 4 W/kg), the Korean arm reported no statistically significant RF-related changes in tumor incidence or survival, no notable effects in heart/brain/adrenal findings or body temperature, and no evidence of DNA damage or mutation on genotoxicity assays—concluding the exposure was neither carcinogenic nor genotoxic in male rats.

 

National Toxicology Program. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies in Hsd: Sprague Dawley SD rats exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at a frequency of (900 MHz) and modulations (GSM and CDMA) used by cell phones. Research Triangle Park, NC: National Toxicology Program; NTP TR-595; 2018a. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/ntp/htdocs/lt_rpts/tr595_508.pdf

National Toxicology Program. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies in B6C3F1/N mice exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at a frequency of (900 MHz) and modulations (GSM and CDMA) used by cell phones. Research Triangle Park, NC: National Toxicology Program; NTP TR-596; 2018b.
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/ntp/htdocs/lt_rpts/tr596_508.pdf

National Toxicology Program. Actions from peer review of draft NTP technical reports on cell phone radiofrequency radiation, March 26-28, 2018.https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/ntp/about_ntp/trpanel/2018/march/actions20180328_508.pdf

Falcioni L, Bua L, Tibaldi E, Lauriola M, De Angelis L, Gnudi F, Mandrioli D, Manservigi M, Manservisi F, Manzoli I Menghetti I, Montella R, Panzacchi S, Sgargi D, Strollo V, Vornoli A, Belpoggi F. 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 base station environmental emission. Environ Res 165:496-503: 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.037

International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). ICNIRP Note: Critical evaluation of two radiofrequency electromagnetic field animal carcinogenicity studies published in 2018. Health Phys 2020;118(5):525-532.
https://doi.org/10.1097/HP.0000000000001137

Reynen K. Frequency of primary tumors of the heart. Am J Cardiol. 1996 Jan 1;77(1):107. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9149(97)89149-7. PMID: 8540447

Vijayalaxmi, Foster KR, Miyakeshi J, Verschaeve L. Comments on the evaluation of the genotoxicity of cell phone radiofrequency radiation in male and female rats and mice following subchronic exposure by Smith-Roe et al. Environ Mol Mutag 2020;61(s):291-293.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31883146/

USFDA, 2020: Review of Published Literature between 2008 and 2018 of Relevance to Radiofrequency Radiation and Cancer
https://www.fda.gov/media/135043/download?attachment

Imaida K, Kawabe M, Wang J, Yokohira M, Imai N, Han KH, Kim YB, Jeon SB, Kim HS, Ahn YH. The International Collaborative Animal Study of Mobile Phone Radiofrequency Radiation Carcinogenicity and Genotoxicity: The Japanese Study. Toxicol Sci. 2026 Jan 12:kfag002. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfag002. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 41527296.

Kim HS, Han KH, Kim YB, Jeon SB, Lee AK, Moon JI, Choi HD, Imaida K, Yokohira M, Kawabe M, Imai N, Wang J, Ahn YH. The International Collaborative Animal Study of The Carcinogenicity and Genotoxicity of Mobile Phone Radiofrequency Radiation: The Korean Study. Toxicol Sci. 2026 Jan 16:kfag001. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfag001. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 41546387.

  • The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) conducts comprehensive reviews of cancer risk from chemical and physical agents.
  • IARC experts vote on their conclusions from the review and assign a category.
  • IARC classification 2B means limited evidence associating cell phone use with brain tumors.
  1. IARC is part of the World Health Organization.
  2. For its detailed reviews, IARC brings together large groups of experts from different fields to look at all the published studies on a specific agent.
  3. The committee votes on whether the weight of evidence from the entire group of studies supports or does not support the agent as a cause of human cancer.
  4. They assign a group number that shows how likely it is that the substance can cause cancer in humans.
  5. IARC currently uses the following classification system.
    • Group 1: The agent is carcinogenic to humans
    • Group 2A: The agent is probably carcinogenic to humans.
    • Group 2B: The agent is possibly carcinogenic to humans.
    • Group 3: The agent is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans.
  6. The IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) classified radiofrequency radiation from cell phones as Group 2B, “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” This means there is limited evidence suggesting a possible link between heavy, long-term cell phone use and certain types of brain tumors (like glioma and acoustic neuroma), but the evidence is not strong enough to conclude that cell phones definitely cause cancer. In simple terms, 2B is a “maybe” category—such as pickled vegetables or aloe vera—indicating that more research is needed to know for sure [IARC 2011]
  7. In 2011, 30 experts reviewed all available evidence on radiofrequency exposures with a major focus on cell phones.
  8. A majority of the committee concluded that radiofrequency exposure from cell phones is a possible cause of two rare types of cancer (glioma and acoustic neuroma) in For other cancers, the evidence was inadequate.
  9. The evidence for cancer developing from other RF sources, such as TV and radio broadcasts and cell sites, was also judged inadequate.
  10. One month after the IARC classification of RF exposure as Group 2B, the WHO International EMF Project office issued a fact sheet #193: Are there any health effects? “A large number of studies have been performed over the last two decades to assess whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use.”
  11. Since 2011, several additional studies have been published, including two large cohort studies (Million Women Study and COSMOS) reporting no evidence of increased brain tumor risks. As further research is done, IARC may revise its assessment based on additional evidence
  • Thermal effects can occur when very strong radiofrequency (RF) exposure causes tissue heating. Exposure at lower intensity results in minimal tissue heating. Exposures at levels below established safety standards are generally considered non-thermal.
  • Tissue heating has been identified as the only clear cause of adverse health effects to humans from radiofrequency (RF) exposure.
  • In general, studies finding effects at non-thermal exposure levels have either, not been replicated, considered inadequate because of study design or methodology, or the effects have not been demonstrated to be adverse to human health.
  • Public health agencies and established scientific review committees have not identified mechanisms that lead to adverse health effects from exposure to levels considered non-thermal.
  1. Thermal effects involve heating tissues, whereas non-thermal effects encompass other biological changes that do not result from heating [Foster 2000].
    1. Thermal Effects.
      1. Definition: Thermal effects of RF (radiofrequency) exposure occur when the RF energy is absorbed by the body and converted into heat, leading to an increase in the temperature of the tissues.
      2. Example: RF energy heats the food when using a microwave oven. Similarly, RF exposure from devices like cell phones can cause a slight and temporary warming of body tissues, but at much lower levels than a microwave oven.
    2. Non-Thermal Effects
      1. Definition: Non-thermal effects of RF exposure refer to biological changes or effects that occur without a significant increase in temperature. These effects are not related to heating but rather to the interaction of RF energy with biological tissues in other ways.
      2. Example: Potential non-thermal effects include changes in cell signaling, gene expression, or membrane permeability. These effects are less well understood and remain under investigation. At present, established non-thermal effects are not believed to adversely affect health.
  2. Many animal studies have been conducted, and do not conclusively demonstrate any adverse biological effects beyond tissue heating.
  3. Some investigations report the effects of RF exposure on the tissues and organs of live animals such as mice, rats, and rabbits at levels below exposure limits. These animals exposed to RF have been observed for evidence of cancer, neurological abnormalities, reproductive abnormalities, as well as DNA damage, and other changes in metabolism. Many of these investigations are small observational studies that use RF exposure equipment of questionable utility and have quality control issues or problems with investigator blinding during data analysis. Overall, studies to date do not support RF biological effects other than tissue heating above the current exposure limit.
  4. Other investigators have examined whether RF exposure is associated with an increased risk of cancer. Two studies are discussed in the FAQ“What about the NTP and the Ramazzini Institute study?”
  5. Two long-term cancer bioassay studies where exposures were near or at the threshold for thermal effects did not show any evidence of RF-induced carcinogenesis. Lee et al. [Lee 2011] used mice that spontaneously develop lymphoma to investigate whether RF exposure increases lymphoma incidence. The animals were exposed for 45 minutes per day, 5 days a week, for 42 weeks at a SAR of 2 W/kg. No significant effect of RF exposure was observed on lymphoma incidence, survival time, or body weight. Jin et al. [Jin 2011] used two combined modulations (849 MHz CDMA and 1950 MHz WCDMA) at a SAR of 4 W/kg for rats for 45 minutes per day for a year. There were no significant effects on animal weight or spontaneous tumor development.
  6. Some investigations claim RF exposure can induce tumors, while others claim RF exposure does not. A critical consideration in evaluating these studies is that much of this research exhibits methodological shortcomings, including noncompliance with good laboratory practice, unblinded analyses, and inadequate RF exposure systems. Taken together, the in vivo studies do not support the conclusion that RF exposure causes carcinogenesis.

IARC Press Release N° 208, IARC classifies Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans, May 2011. https://www.iarc.who.int/news-events/iarc-press-release-n-208/

Foster KR. Thermal and Nonthermal Mechanisms of Interaction of Radio-Frequency Energy with Biological Systems. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Sci. 28: 15-23, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1109/27.842819

Lee H, Jin Y, Lee J, Choi S, Kim T Pack J, Choi H, Kim N, Lee Y. Lymphoma development of simultaneously combined exposure to two radiofrequency signals in AKR/J mice. Bioelectromagnetics, 32, 485-492; 2011, https://doi-org.utk.idm.oclc.org/10.1002/bem.20655

Jin Y, Lee H, Seon Lee J, Pack J, Kim N, Lee Y. One-year, simultaneous combined exposure of CDMA and WCDMA radiofrequency electromagnetic fields to rats. International Journal Radiation Biology, 87(4), 416-23; 2011. https://doi-org.utk.idm.oclc.org/10.3109/09553002.2010.537428
  • Regulations on exposure limits to RF vary among countries and even among local governments.
  • In most countries, policies and recommendations put into place at the national level are similar to the safety standards used by the FCC.
  • Some countries have more restrictive limits
  1. These regulations typically set exposure limits based on the frequency of electromagnetic energy from various sources.
  2. The WHO Global Health Observatory has an easy online tool to find guidelines and limits in various countries for a variety of indicators related to electromagnetic fields. See WHO
  3. Some countries and local governments set exposure limits based on the observation of biological effects, not necessarily those that are thought to be adverse to human health. Examples are Bulgaria, China, Lithuania, Poland, Russia (Soviet influence). Note, these limits do not apply to military personnel [Repacholi 2012].
  4. Belgium, Chile, Greece, India, Israel, Italy, Liechtenstein, and Switzerland have national or local limits below ICNIRP recommendations based on an additional level of precaution.
  5. Despite lower limits adopted by some countries most public exposures fall below these levels.


Repacholi M., Grigoriev Y., Buschmann J., Pioli C. “Scientific basis for the Soviet and Russian radiofrequency standards for the general public.” Bioelectromagnetics, 33, 623 – 633, 2012.

  • Questions have arisen as to whether funding sources have influenced research studies.
  • Some evidence suggests that bias can occur in both directions.
  1. Research on radiofrequency (RF) exposure and health has raised concerns about whether funding sources influence study outcomes. Huss concluded that sponsorship should be considered when interpreting results, noting that unfunded studies more often reported effects while industry-funded studies tended not to [Huss 2007]. A later review by Vijayalaxmi and Prihoda found that industry-funded studies tended to have stronger quality controls but were less likely to report increases in genetic damage compared with government-funded research [Vijayalaxmi 2019]. Overall, transparency regarding funding and adequate quality-control methods are essential to avoid bias.
  1. Evidence also suggests that studies with mixed funding or those using “firewalls” (where sponsors have no direct contact with researchers) are of higher quality and show less bias. Van Nierop reported that studies with mixed funding scored highest in randomization, blinding, and exposure design, whereas those that did not disclose funding tended to be of the lowest quality and more likely to report significant effects [Van Nierop 2010]. Improvements in study design and exposure systems over time may also explain why more recent studies have reported fewer harmful effects than earlier investigations. There has been ongoing debate in scientific and public meetings about whether the funding source influenced the results of research on the human health effects of exposure to radiofrequency (RF) energy.

Huss A, Egger M, Hug K, Huwiler-Muntener, Roosli M. Source of funding and results of studies of health effects of mobile phone use: Systematic review of experimental studies. Environ Health Persp. 2007; 115: 1-4, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1289%2Fehp.9149

Vijayalaxmi and Prihoda TJ, Funding Source, Quality of Publications and Outcome in Genetic Damage in Mammalian Cells Exposed to Non-Ionizing Radiofrequency Fields. Rad Res. 193, 353-362, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1667/RR15364.1

Van Nierop L.E., Röösli M., Egger M., Huss A. Source of funding in experimental studies of mobile phone use on health: Update of systematic review. Comptes-Rendus Physique de l’Académie des Sciences, 2010, 11 (9-10): 622–627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crhy.2010.10.002
  • No. These devices do not provide meaningful protection against RF exposure, but in some cases, they may increase exposure.
  1. The term “shield” typically refers to a protective mat or other device placed on or beneath a laptop, tablet, or mobile device to shield the user from RF exposure. These shields contain metal that reduces the amount of radio waves penetrating the shield.
  2. There is not much reduction in RF exposure by utilizing a shield of this nature. The use of shields or similar devices can reduce the effectiveness of wireless devices and, in some cases, increase RF exposure [Oliver 2003].
  3. The FCC’s Equipment Authorization Process requires all electronic devices to be certified to meet RF exposure limits.
  4. The Federal Trade Commission issued guidance on this topic: FTC Offers Tips to Help Consumers Avoid Cell Phone Radiation Scams.

Oliver JP, Chou CK, Balzano Q. Testing the effectiveness of small radiation shields for mobile phones. Bioelectromagnetics. 2003 Jan;24(1):66-9. doi: 10.1002/bem.10076. PMID: 12483667
  • Many studies have observed biological responses to RF exposure, but a biological effect by itself does not equal a health risk. Just as normal adaptations like sweating in heat or pupil constriction in bright light protect us without harm.
  1. Numerous studies have reported biological effects from RF exposure.
  2. The finding of a biological response does not necessarily mean there is a threat to health. For example, we adapt to changes in temperature and light levels. If the temperature is too high, we can remove or change clothing, and our bodies will adapt by sweating to maintain a constant internal temperature. When we move from indoors to outdoors on a sunny day, the pupils in our eyes get smaller to prevent retinal damage from excessive light intensity.  These are subtle biological responses to environmental change, but the important question is whether they indicate potential harm to health. In the case of radiofrequency exposure below established safety standards, no adverse effects have been found.

Chou C-K. A need to provide explanations for observed biological effects of radiofrequency exposure. Electromagn Biol Med. 2015;34(3):175–179. doi:10.3109/15368378.2015.1076439. PMID: 26444189.

Chou CK. Basic problems of diversely reported biological effects of radio frequency fields. Radiats Biol Radioecol. 2003 Sep–Oct;43(5):512–518. PMID: 14658280.
  • A few case-control studies have reported increased brain tumor risks, but individual studies have limitations, and results often vary. To draw reliable conclusions about RF exposure, we must consider the totality of evidence and replicated findings—avoiding cherry-picking isolated results that may be inaccurate.
When several studies investigate the same health question, it is normal and expected that their results will not all align perfectly. Some will point toward possible harm, others toward no effect, and a few may even suggest potential benefits. To reach sound conclusions, the full body of evidence has to be evaluated together, rather than focusing on any single result in isolation.
  1. Variability across studies
    1. Different studies often use different methods, exposure conditions, statistical approaches, and animal or human populations, which naturally produces a spread of findings.
    2. In the radiofrequency (RF) field, for example, some experiments may suggest possible adverse health effects, while others—sometimes better controlled or larger—do not replicate those findings.
    3. This variability does not automatically mean the effects are real or unreal; it means the data must be weighed systematically, considering study quality, consistency, and biological plausibility.
  2. Mixed findings within a single study
      1. Even within one well-designed study, results are rarely uniform across all endpoints. A study might find a change in one health marker, no change in several others, and an apparent improvement in yet another.
      2. In RF research, this can include isolated tumor increases, small shifts in survival curves, or changes in body weight or food consumption that do not form a clear or consistent pattern.
      3. Such internal heterogeneity requires careful interpretation: researchers need to distinguish between statistically significant findings that could occur by chance and those that form a coherent, dose-related, and biologically credible signal.
  3. The problem of “cherry picking.”
    1. “Cherry picking” occurs when particular studies—or even individual results within a study—are selectively highlighted because they support a preferred conclusion, while equally relevant, contradictory, or null findings are minimized or ignored.
    2. This can happen in both directions: emphasizing only studies that suggest harm, or only those that find no effect, thereby presenting a distorted picture of the evidence.
    3. Avoiding cherry picking requires transparent criteria for including and evaluating studies, explicit discussion of limitations, and attention to the totality of high-quality data rather than to isolated, attention-grabbing results.
  4. Importance of weight of evidence evaluation
    1. Rigorous health risk assessment uses a “weight of evidence” or “evidence integration” approach, in which all relevant studies are considered, with greater weight given to those that are larger, better controlled, better blinded, and more directly applicable to human exposure conditions.
    2. In the case of RF exposure, that means looking at animal carcinogenicity studies, mechanistic work, and human epidemiology together, and judging consistency across them rather than over-interpreting any single positive or negative finding.
    3. This approach helps ensure that conclusions about possible health effects rest on the most reliable science available, rather than on selective citation or emphasis.

Ioannidis JPA. Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLOS Medicine. 2005;2(8):e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124. PMID: 16060722

Miguel A. Hernán & James M. Robins. Estimating causal effects from epidemiological data. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health. 2006;60(7):578–586. doi: 10.1136/jech.2004.029496. PMID: 16790829

Karipidis K, Baaken D, Loney T, Blettner M, Brzozek C, Elwood M, Narh C, Orsini N, Röösli M, Paulo MS, Lagorio S. The effect of exposure to radiofrequency fields on cancer risk in the general and working population: A systematic review of human observational studies – Part I: Most researched outcomes. Environ Int. 2024 Sep;191:108983. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2024.108983. Epub 2024 Aug 30. PMID: 39241333.
  • Many harms linked to cell phones aren’t from RF at all—think crash risk while driving, sleep disruption from nighttime use, and mental-health concerns tied to social media. Symptoms can also arise from the belief in exposure (the nocebo effect), even when RF is absent.
  1. Other adverse effects from cell phone use have been reported that are not due to RF exposure.
    1. Cell phone use can have potential adverse effects, but there is no relationship with RF exposure. For example, the link between cell phone use while driving and the risk of motor vehicle injury is clear, and there is a great deal of concern over the mental health impact of excessive use of cell phones for social media. Cell phone use at night has been associated with disturbed sleep, but not because of radiofrequency exposure.
    2. Even if there is no RF exposure, the belief that someone is being exposed can lead to a range of symptoms. This is sometimes referred to as the nocebo effect.

Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022, 19, 16942. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/24/16942

Statements from Governments and Expert Panels Concerning Health Effects and Safe Exposure Levels of Radiofrequency Energy (2010-2025) https://sagroups.ieee.org/ices/expert-reviews/.

Further Reading

  1. Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks. SCENIHR opinion on potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF), 27 January 2015. https://health.ec.europa.eu/publications/potential-health-effects-exposure-electromagnetic-fields-emf_en
  2. Health Council of the Netherlands. Mobile phones and cordless phones and cancer: part 3. Update and overall conclusions from epidemiological and animal studies. The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands; Publication 06; 2016. https://www.healthcouncil.nl/documents/advisory-reports/2016/06/01/mobile-phones-and-cancer-part-3-update-and-overall-conclusions-from-epidemiological-and-animal-studies
  3. Swedish Radiation Safety Authority. 2025:04 Recent Research on electromagnetic fields and Health Risk, nineteenth report from SSM’s Scientific Council on Electromagnetic Fields, 2024
View All