Effects of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields: Thirty years of research

The preponderance of peer-reviewed research published since 1990 has found significant adverse effects from exposure to radio frequency radiation and extremely low frequency and static electromagnetic fields. 

Dr. Henry Lai, Professor Emeritus at the University of Washington, Editor Emeritus of the journal, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, and an emeritus member of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of EMF, has compiled summaries of the research on the biological effects of exposure to radio frequency (RFR) and extremely low frequency (ELF) and static electromagnetic fields (EMF). His set of abstracts which covers the period from 1990 to January 2024 constitutes a comprehensive collection of the peer-reviewed research.

Dr. Lai reports that the preponderance of research has found that exposure to RFR or ELF EMF produces oxidative effects or free radicals, and damages DNA. Moreover the preponderance of studies that examined genetic, neurological and reproductive outcomes has found significant effects: 79% of more than 1,500 studies of RFR, and 87% of more than 900 studies of ELF and static fields reported significant effects.

The collection contains about 2,500 studies. The abstracts for these studies can be downloaded by clicking on the links below.

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization classified radio frequency radiation “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B). The IARC had planned to review RFR again by 2024 because most peer-reviewed studies published in the past decade found significant evidence that RFR causes genotoxicity; however this review has been postponed. IARC is likely re-classify RFR to either "probably carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2A) or "carcinogenic to humans" (Group 1) if IARC convenes EMF experts who have no conflicts of interest.

Cell phones and other wireless devices also produce static and extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic fields. ELF was classified by the IARC as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B) a decade before RFR received this classification.

Summary of Results (Last update: October 4, 2024)

Radio frequency radiation (RFR)

89% (n=340) of 383 RFR oxidative effects (or free radical) studies published since 1997 reported significant effects including 96% (n=94) of 98 studies with a SAR (specific absorption rate) ≤ 0.40 watts per kilogram (which is ten times less than the 4.0 W/kg threshold of harm that the FCC and the ICNIRP use to base their RFR exposure limits).

70% (n=328) of 466 RFR genetic effects studies published since 1990 reported significant effects including 79% (n=113) of 144 studies of gene expression.

77% (n=333) of 435 RFR neurological studies published since 2007 reported significant effects.

83% (n=280) of 335 RFR reproduction and development studies published since 1990 reported significant effects. Among the studies that reported significant effects, 56 studies used an exposure with a SAR ≤ 0.40 W/kg and 37 studies had a SAR ≤  0.08 W/kg.

Extremely low frequency (ELF) and static electromagnetic fields

90% (n=292) of 323 ELF/static EMF oxidative effects (or free radical) studies published since 1990 reported significant effects.

84% (n=288) of 344 ELF/static EMF genetic effects studies published since 1990 reported significant effects including 95% (n=168) of 177 studies of gene expression.

91% (n=315) of 345 ELF/static EMF neurological studies published since 2007 reported significant effects.

75% (n=65) of 87 ELF/static EMF reproduction and development studies published since 1990 reported significant effects. 

Links to download each set of abstracts

   RFR = radio frequency electromagnetic fields

   ELF = extremely low frequency or static electromagnetic fields

RFR Oxidative Effects studies

RFR Genetic Effects studies

RFR Neurological Effects studies

RFR Reproduction / Development studies

Studies of biological effects in animals & plants exposed to low intensity RFR (SAR < 0.4 W/kg)

ELF Oxidative Effects studies

ELF Genetic Effects studies

ELF Neurological Effects studies

ELF Reproduction studies

List of  static / ELF low flux density studies that found effects

Intermediate Frequency studies

--

Feb 4, 2023 (Updated Aug 4, 2023)

Effects of Radio Frequency Radiation Exposure on Free Radical-Related Cellular Processes (332 studies)

Dr. Henry Lai, Professor Emeritus, Department of Bioengineering, University of Washington

This document contains abstracts for 332 studies published since 1997 that assessed the effects of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure on free radical-related cellular processes.

See pages 180-207 for the Table that summarizes key details about each study.

Summary

1. Of the 332 studies published from 1997- August, 2023, 297 (89%) studies reported significant effects; 36 (11%) studies found no significant effects.

2. Change in cellular free radical status is a consistent effect of radiofrequency radiation.

3. Effects can occur at low specific absorption rates (SAR) or power density of exposure. See 82 studies marked LI for low intensity (less than or equal to 0.4 W/kg); 79 LI studies found effects.

4. Effects have been reported at different frequencies, exposure duration, and modulations, and in many different biological systems, cell lines, and animal species. These data support the assertion that “Radiofrequency radiation affects cellular free radical processes.”

5. Most of the studies are live animal (in vivo) studies with long-term exposure, e.g., daily exposure up to months.

6. Some studies used mobile phones or RFR-emitting devices for exposure (see Table). The SAR and characteristics of RFR in these studies are not well defined. However, these studies should not be overlooked because they represent real-life exposure scenarios. Waveform modulations of radiofrequency radiation during wireless communication usage probably play an important role in biological effects. They are not revealed in studies that used a simple form of radiation (e.g., continuous-wave or GSM) and spatially uniformed fields. Researchers in bioelectromagnetics should realize that the perfect RFR exposure system simulating real life exposures simply does not exist.

Click on the following link to download the 207-page document (pdf): Link

Biased WHO-commissioned review claims no cancer link to cellphone use

Relationship between radiofrequency-electromagnetic radiation from cellular phones and brain tumor: 

Meta-analyses using various proxies for RF-EMR exposure-outcome assessment

Today the journal Environmental Health published a systematic review and meta-analytic study on cell phone use and brain tumor risk by Moon et al. (2024). The study found significantly elevated risks for three types of brain tumors when examining tumors on the side of the head where cell phones were held and for heavy, long-term cell phone use.

Six other systematic reviews and meta-analyses of case-control studies published in peer-reviewed journals since 2016 have also also found significant associations between heavy, long-term cellphone use and brain tumor risk (Wang & Guo, 2016; Bortkiewicz et al., 2017; Carlberg & Hardell, 2017; Prasad et al., 2017, Yang et al., 2017; Choi et al., 2020).

These seven peer-reviewed meta-analytic studies contradict the conclusion of the recent WHO systematic review conducted by Karipidis et al. (2024) that there is no evidence cell phone use causes brain cancer. To learn about serious problems with the WHO systematic reviews on the health effects of radiofrequency radiation see:

WHO Radiofrequency EMF Health Risk Assessment Monograph (EHC series) 

Wang & Guo (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

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

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

Yang et al (2017). Mobile phone use and glioma risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS One. https://bit.ly/3U0kafd

Choi, Moskowitz, et al (2020). Cellular phone use and risk of tumors: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Envir Res Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218079.

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

Karipidis et al. (2024). 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108983

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

Abstract

Introduction  The authors conducted meta-analyses regarding the association between cellular and mobile phone use and brain tumor development by applying various radiofrequency-electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) exposure subcategories. With changing patterns of mobile phone use and rapidly developing Wireless Personal Area Network (WPAN) technology (such as Bluetooth), this study will provide insight into the importance of more precise exposure subcategories for RF-EMR.

Methods  The medical librarian searched MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library until 16 December 2020.

Results  In these meta-analyses, 19 case-control studies and five cohort studies were included. Ipsilateral users reported a pooled odds ratio (OR) of 1.40 (95% CI 1.21–1.62) compared to non-regular users. Users with years of use over 10 years reported a pooled OR of 1.27 (95% CI 1.08–1.48). When stratified by each type of brain tumor, only meningioma (OR 1.20 (95% CI 1.04–1.39)), glioma (OR 1.45 (95% CI 1.16–1.82)), and malignant brain tumors (OR 1.93 (95% CI 1.55–2.39)) showed an increased OR with statistical significance for ipsilateral users. For users with years of use over 10 years, only glioma (OR 1.32 (95% CI 1.01–1.71)) showed an increased OR with statistical significance. When 11 studies with an OR with cumulative hours of use over 896 h were synthesized, the pooled OR was 1.59 (95% CI 1.25–2.02). When stratified by each type of brain tumor, glioma, meningioma, and acoustic neuroma reported the pooled OR of 1.66 (95% CI 1.13–2.44), 1.29 (95% CI 1.08–1.54), and 1.84 (95% CI 0.78–4.37), respectively. For each individual study that considered cumulative hours of use, the highest OR for glioma, meningioma, and acoustic neuroma was 2.89 (1.41–5.93) (both side use, > 896 h), 2.57 (1.02–6.44) (both side use, > 896 h), and 3.53 (1.59–7.82) (ipsilateral use, > 1640 h), respectively. For five cohort studies, the pooled risk ratios (RRs) for all CNS tumors, glioma, meningioma, and acoustic neuroma, were statistically equivocal, respectively. However, the point estimates for acoustic neuroma showed a rather increased pooled RR for ever-use (1.26) and over 10 years of use (1.61) compared to never-use, respectively.

Excerpts

“In consideration of these rapidly changing mobile phone technologies, the currently used proxies for RF-EMR exposure assessment are crude and insufficient to clarify the relationship between RF-EMR exposure from cell phones and brain tumor incidence.... The usual exposure measures, such as the years of mobile phone use, the cumulative duration of calls, and the number of calls per week, are rough indicators of mobile phone use.... the authors conducted a series of meta-analyses and subgroup analyses using various exposure measuring categories, from crude to more precise ones. In consideration of crude exposure classifications used in previous meta-analyses, this study will give insight into the importance of more precise exposure subcategories in investigating this topic."

"... the authors analyzed the risk of bias regarding selection and recall bias for the amount of cell phone use and misclassification and recall bias for ipsilateral/contralateral use. A major reason was that typical risk of bias rating tools such as the National Toxicology Program Office of Health Assessment and Translation Risk of Bias rating tool (NTP OHAT RoB rating tool, Supplementary material B) were not appropriate for assessing individual studies regarding this topic." [Note: Karipidis et al. (2024) relied on this rating tool.]

"With the conversion from 2G cellular phones through 3G and 4G mobile phones to current 5G mobile phones, transmission of large data became possible. With the introduction of 3G technology, all aspects of our society and daily lives have changed drastically. Currently, we are using mobile phones nearly continuously and putting mobile phones near our bodies even when we are not using them. For example, if people use their mobile phone for morning-alarming purposes, they might put their mobile phone near the bed, sometimes even beside their head, all night. These changed patterns of mobile phone use could increase exposure to RF-EMR from cellular and mobile phones. Therefore, precise exposure assessment for RF-EMR from mobile phones would become more complex in future studies."

"The results of cumulative meta-analyses according to precision indicated that the pooled OR was biased downwards with the addition of studies with lower precision. This indicates that the results of studies with a lower precision should be interpreted cautiously."

"Because brain tumors require a latency period to develop [29], an accurate assessment of brain tumor risk associated with RF-EMR exposure requires a long observation span. However, each included study did not consider a sufficient latency period in their study design. This could have led to a possible underestimation of brain tumor risk. Future studies with long observation spans might resolve this problem.”

"In this meta-analysis, as the applied exposure subcategories became more concrete, the pooled ORs showed more increased values with statistical significance. Even though the meta-analysis of cohort studies showed statistically equivocal pooled effect estimates, (i) as the number of included studies increases and (ii) as the applied exposure subcategory becomes more concrete, the pooled RRs could show a different aspect in future studies. Furthermore, changing patterns of mobile phone use and increasing use of earphones or headphones with WPAN technology should be sufficiently considered in future studies. Relatively short observation spans for brain tumor incidence and age of starting exposure and brain tumor diagnosis should also be considered in future studies. Previous studies that adjusted for selection and recall bias for the amount of cellphone use and misclassification and recall bias for ipsilateral/contralateral use showed possible underestimations of previous risk estimates. Future studies should try to adjust for these biases in their study design."

Open access paper: https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-024-01117-8

Supplementary material: https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1186%2Fs12940-024-01117-8/MediaObjects/12940_2024_1117_MOESM1_ESM.docx

--

Commentary on the WHO-commissioned systematic review 

on mobile phone use and tumor risk (Karipidis et al. 2024) 

September 16, 2024 (Updated Sep 20, 2024)

On September 3, the lead author of a new WHO-commissioned systematic review of research on mobile phone use and tumor risk (Karipidis et al. 2024), issued a news release about the study which made the following claims: 

• "This systematic review provides the strongest evidence to date that radio waves from wireless technologies are not a hazard to human health."
• "Overall, the results are very reassuring. They mean that our national and international safety limits are protective. Mobile phones emit low-level radio waves below these safety limits, and there is no evidence exposure to these has an impact on human health."
• "There remains no evidence of any established health effects from exposures related to mobile phones, and that is a good thing."

These assertions are highly irresponsible. Substantial disagreement has existed for decades among experts who study the effects of radio frequency radiation (RFR). The WHO-sponsored systematic reviews of this scientific literature will exacerbate these disagreements rather than alleviate them due to bias in the selection of review teams by the WHO and in the resulting papers which were recently published in a special issue of Environment International prior to publication of a forthcoming WHO monograph on this topic.

Following are concerns I have regarding the Karipidis et al (2024) study:

• All human studies are likely biased toward the null due to exposure misclassification caused by unreliability in study participants' self-reported recall of number of phone calls and call time. Thus, meta-analysis of these studies underestimates the risks of harm.
  
• The cohort studies employed crude assessment of mobile phone use and/or insufficient followup periods, especially the studies of cancer or tumor risk.
• In most studies "regular cellphone use" was defined as at least one cellphone call weekly over the past six months. One would hardly expect to find any adverse effects with such little exposure to RFR; yet, the primary focus in Karipidis et al. used this definition of cellphone use.
• Call time, even if it were based on cellphone company records, has at best a moderate association with radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure because numerous factors affect exposure to RFR (e.g., proximity of phone to the body during calls; strength of signal from cell tower).
• Nonetheless, analyses of cumulative call time (CCT) are more useful to examine than analyses of "regular use." For the CCT analyses, Karipidis et al. employed multiple, meta-regression models which were separately conducted for different types of tumors. The resulting J-shaped curves suggested increased tumor risk with greater celllphone use after about 500 hours of cellphone use, but the confidence intervals were large. Karipidis et al. erroneously concluded there was no evidence of increased tumor risk because the results were not statistically significant; however, their analyses were underpowered because most of the individual studies contained relatively few users with substantial exposure. This was particularly problematic because separate analyses were conducted for each tumor type which limited the number of individual studies in any given analysis. 
• In contrast to the current study, in a meta-analysis of 46 case-control studies, my colleagues and I (Choi et al , 2020) employed a more conventional approach to the meta-analysis of the cumulative call time data. We employed data from all tumor types and conducted separate random effects meta-analyses to examine low, medium, and higher-level mobile phone use. We found a significant increased tumor risk in the higher-level mobile phone use analysis which included 8 studies with more than 1000 hours of lifetime mobile phone call time. This analysis found statistically significant evidence for increased risk of tumors in the brain and salivary glands (OR = 1.60 (95% CI = 1.12 , 2.30)). Soon after our study was published, Karipidis and a few of his colleagues published letters to the editor that criticized our meta-analyses; however, we successfully defended our systematic review of the case-control studies in two peer-reviewed letters (see https://www.saferemr.com/2020/11/new-review-study-tumor-risk.html).
  
• In most case-control studies data collection ended by the mid-2000's. Although the results for meningioma were mixed, these studies were largely limited to malignant cases because tumor registries did not begin recording nonmalignant tumors until the mid-2000's. That the age-adjusted incidence of the most common brain tumor, nonmalignant meningioma, has increased substantially in the past two decades should be of great concern; yet, little attention has focused on the factors contributing to this trend.
  
• Most human research to date has focused on either cell phones or cell towers and ignored other sources of exposure (e.g., use of cordless phones or personal wireless devices) resulting in misclassification of individuals' overall RFR exposure. 
• The Karipidis et al. review relied heavily on the Interphone studies which suffered from substantial selection bias; yet, judged these studies to be low risk of bias, and ignored the correction for selection bias in the pooled Interphone study which doubled the glioma risk estimate for mobile phone use > 1640 hours from OR = 1.40 (95% CI = 1.03, 1.89) in the main body of paper to 1.82 (1.15, 2.89) in Appendix 2.
• The justification in Karipidis et al. for excluding study results based on tumor location and laterality was inadequate. Meta-analyses of these results provide significant evidence of increased tumor risk with greater amounts of mobile phone use for brain tumors in the temporal lobe and ipsilateral tumors.
  
• The risk of bias assessment in Karipidis et al. may have been applied in a biased manner to the Hardell studies. Although we used different risk of bias rating criteria, we found in 2009 and again in 2020 the Hardell studies to be stronger methodologically than most other case-control studies.
  
• Karipidis et al. only examined human studies of mobile phone use, most of which likely underestimate the risk of cancer and nonmalignant tumors. They did not address the considerable evidence base of animal and mechanistic studies--the preponderance of which found oxidative effects, DNA damage and/or carcinogenicity from RFR exposure.
  

Limits on the generalizability of most human studies to date on mobile phone use and tumor risk:

• Since most case-control data were collected in the early 2000's and there is a long latency for detection of solid tumors, most studies primarily assessed the effects of GSM (2G) cellphone radiation, the most commonly used cellular technology in Europe where most of the research has been conducted. So little is known about the long-term effects of exposure to subsequent generations of cellular technology.
  
• With the introduction of the smartphone in the mid-2000's, cellphone technology has changed substantially. The phone's cellular transmission antenna was moved from the top to the bottom of the phone exposing the lower head and neck to the greatest radiation instead of the temporal and frontal lobes of the brain. This may increase the risk for tumors of the thyroid and salivary glands.
  
• How cellphones are used has changed over time. More texting, greater use of wired and wireless headsets may have lowered RFR exposure to the head. However, research suggests that exposure to low-intensity RFR may open the blood-brain barrier, exposing the brain to toxic chemicals in the body's circulatory system. The effects of cellphone radiation on a specific organ may depend on the carrier frequency, pulsing and modulation of the signal and is likely non-linear with regard to intensity of the exposure. 
• Cell tower density has increased over time lowering RFR exposure from cellphones. However, with the introduction of "small cells," the proximity of base stations to users increased causing increased full-body 24-7 RFR exposure from towers.
  
• 5G employs different carrier frequencies (including, but not limited to, millimeter waves) and new features including massive MIMO and beamforming that cause brief, intense peak RFR exposures that exceed exposure limits (which are based on time-averaged exposures). Some research suggests that peak exposures are better predictors of harm than averaged exposures. Thus, 5G may pose greater health risks than its predecessors. A comprehensive program of research is essential but funding to study RFR effects has been quite limited. In fact, the U.S. has been grossly negligent in failing to support the research needed to develop safe RFR exposure limits for almost three decades.

In sum, this review suffered from numerous problems. The authors did not adequately deal with heterogeneity, i.e., differences in the original studies’ methods or results.  They ignored the fact that most of the original studies had little power to detect effects due to use of crude measures of exposure and/or inadequate followup time. Tumors can require several decades to be diagnosed.

The only informative results in Karipidis et al. (2024) were the cumulative call time analyses which found that after about 500 hours of cellphone use, the risk of glioma and meningioma increased with call time. However, these results were not statistically significant because the original studies had relatively few users with substantial call time.

In contrast, in our 2020 review paper, we combined studies of different tumor types and found significantly increased risk for tumors in the brain and salivary glands after 1,000 hours of cumulative call time (OR = 1.60; 95% CI = 1.12, 2.30).

==

Russian National Committee for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection Chairman attacks WHO-commissioned review that claims no cellphone-cancer link

Dr. Oleg A. Grigoriev, Sept 11, 2024 

(Dr. Grigoriev, one of the world's leading experts, emailed me this message regarding the Karipidis et al. (2024) review and gave me permission to post it.)

A group of little-known scientists have claimed responsibility for all cases of cancer associated with exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. These scientists claim that possible, probable, and proven cancer from exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields does not exist and never can exist. Thus, responsibility for misleading consumers, industry, and healthcare systems lies with several specific authors.

They made this conclusion based on an analysis of other people's articles, selected using a methodology not developed by them, using analysis criteria that they also did not develop. These scientists themselves are not known for their affiliation with scientific schools studying the biomedical effects of electromagnetism, their fundamental work in the field of biological effects of electromagnetic fields and hygiene is unknown. For an unknown reason, the scientists speak on behalf of the World Health Organization, whose employees remain silent and, in principle, do not have the authority (and competence) to make such categorical conclusions. As is well known, science has no categorical judgments, even geometry from the obvious Euclidean has become non-Euclidean, the theory of relativity has become relative. We do not discover "laws of nature", but only generalize what is known. The physical nature of the electromagnetic field has been and remains a subject of discussion, as well as human nature and the role of natural electromagnetism and electricity in it.

The discussion of the carcinogenic potential of radio frequencies has become one of the topics of the international electromagnetic project after 1996, and we have repeatedly discussed this issue with the participants of the WHO project. I have been directly involved in discussions since 1997. Every specialist involved in experimental work using several species of animals, with volunteers, with hygiene and epidemiology understands how dangerous it is to make a categorical judgment "this exists" or "this does not exist". We all need to be very careful when meeting the statements of such authors who "know the answer" in such a complex area for research as the bioeffects of the electromagnetic field.

Dr. Oleg A. Grigoriev 

Dr. Sc. (radiobiology), Ph.D.(radiobiology & hygiene of non-ionizing radiation)

Chairman, Russian National Committee for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection

Member of the Board, Scientific Council for Radiobiology, Russian Academy of Sciences

Chairman, Non-Ionizing Radiation Section, Russian National Radiobiological Society

Chief Expert of the State Commission on Sanitary Rules (retired)

Member of the IAC WHO EMF Int Project - now WHO Non-ionizing Project (since 2004)

Member of the Advisory Group to Recommend Priorities for the IARC Monographs

during 2020–2024

==

September 11, 2024 

"Old Wine in New Bottles: Decoding New WHO–ICNIRP Cancer Review; Game Over? Likely Not," Microwave News, Sep 11, 2024. https://microwavenews.com/news-center/old-wine-new-bottles

Microwave News reports on the 20-year history behind the ICNIRP's efforts to convince the scientific community and the public that cellphone radiation cannot cause cancer and the WHO's conflicted relationship with the ICNIRP.

"The fact is that there’s very little new here. The same people have been making similar claims for some 20 years. This is only their latest gambit to make them stick."

 

"In short, the new systematic review is an ICNIRP production.

Indeed, ICNIRP’s scientific secretary, Dan Baaken, is another coauthor of the new review! He serves, with Karipidis, on the Commission’s board of directors. Baaken is on staff at the German Radiation Protection Office (BfS), the principal sponsor of ICNIRP.

ICNIRP has always rejected a cancer risk. No one on ICNIRP has ever broken ranks.* This is not surprising: The Commission is a private, self-perpetuating club. Membership demands swearing allegiance to the no-cancer dogma. Okay, that’s a bit of an exaggeration, but not by much.

The results of this review were never in doubt. The WHO managers, who selected the Karipidis team, knew what to expect —and they got what they wanted." 

==

September 3, 2024

Today, many major news outlets are promoting a biased review of the literature commissioned by the World Health Organization (WHO) which claims that cellphone use has no link to cancer.

In my professional opinion, the WHO selected scientists to conduct systematic literature reviews on the biologic and health risks of wireless radiation who had demonstrated their bias through prior publications by either not finding evidence of harm or dismissing any evidence they found. 

Moreover, each WHO team has one or more members of the ICNIRP, a German NGO that issues exposure limits for wireless radiation primarily based on research produced by its own members, their former students and close colleagues. The ICNIRP limits, designed to protect humans only from the acute effects of heating induced by wireless radiation, are promoted by the WHO and are similar to those adopted by the FCC. 

In 2019 investigative journalists from eight European countries published 22 articles in major news media that exposed conflicts of interest in this "ICNIRP cartel." The journalists report that the cartel promotes the ICNIRP guidelines by conducting biased reviews of the scientific literature that minimize health risks from electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure. These reviews have been conducted for the WHO and other government agencies. By preserving the ICNIRP exposure guidelines favored by industry, the cartel ensures that the cellular industry will continue to fund their research. Since then, a former ICNIRP member who served as editor in chief of the Bioelectromagnetics Society journal accused ICNIRP of "groupthink."

Recently, the ICBE-EMF published several peer-reviewed papers refuting the "thermal-only paradigm" upon which the ICNIRP exposure limits are based because the preponderance of peer-reviewed research finds non-thermal effects. 

International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G. Environmental Health. 2022. 21:92. DOI:10.1186/s12940-022-00900-9. https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-022-00900-9

Héroux P, Belyaev I, Chamberlin K, Dasdag S, De Salles AAA, et al. on behalf of the ICBE-EMF. Cell phone radiation exposure limits and engineering solutions. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2023, 20, 5398. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20075398

ICBE-EMF also published a critique of another WHO-commissioned review:

Frank, J.W,, Melnick, R.L, Moskowitz, J.M., on behalf of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). A critical appraisal of the WHO 2024 systematic review of the effects of RF-EMF exposure on tinnitus, migraine/headache, and non-specific symptoms. Reviews on Environmental Health. 2024. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2024-0069. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2024-0069/html

The WHO-commissioned paper that has revived the controversy about the cancer risks of cellphone radiation is now available:

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. Environment International (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108983

The paper's main conclusions seem biased (although not nearly as strong as reported in the news media)....

"For near field RF-EMF [radio frequency electromagnetic fields] exposure to the head from mobile phone use, there was moderate certainty evidence that it likely does not increase the risk of glioma, meningioma, acoustic neuroma, pituitary tumours, and salivary gland tumours in adults, or of paediatric brain tumours.

For near field RF-EMF exposure to the head from cordless phone use, there was low certainty evidence that it may not increase the risk of glioma, meningioma or acoustic neuroma."

My colleagues and I arrived at very different conclusions based upon our 2020 systematic review of 46 case-control studies on cellphone use and tumor risk:

Choi Y-J, Moskowitz JM, Myung S-K, Lee Y-R, Hong Y-C. Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(21):8079. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218079

"In sum, the updated comprehensive meta-analysis of case-control studies found significant evidence linking cellular phone use to increased tumor risk, especially among cell phone users with cumulative cell phone use of 1000 or more hours in their lifetime (which corresponds to about 17 min per day over 10 years), and especially among studies that employed high quality methods. Further quality prospective studies providing higher level of evidence than case-control studies are warranted to confirm our findings."

A preliminary comparison of the differences between our review and the new WHO review indicates that our review:

• examined only case-control studies of tumor risk and cellphone use as we did not consider any occupational, cohort or time-trend studies to be of sufficient quality to warrant consideration;

• our rubric for rating risk of bias of individual studies resulted in very different results;

• and most importantly, we employed a more conventional approach to the analysis of the cumulative call time data that examined the effects of heavy cell phone use.

Furthermore, we successfully rebutted criticisms of our review made by three authors of the new WHO review in letters to the editor:

de Vocht F, Röösli M. Comment on Choi, Y.-J., et al. Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(6), 3125; doi: 10.3390/ijerph18063125. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/6/3125

Myung S-K, Moskowitz JM, Choi Y-J, Hong Y-C. Reply to Comment on Choi, Y.-J., et al. Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(6), 3326; doi: 10.3390/ijerph18063326. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/6/3326

Brzozek C, Abramson MJ, Benke G, Karipidis K. Comment on Choi et al. Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8079. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18(10): 5459. 2021. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18105459. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/10/5459

Moskowitz JM, Myung S-K, Choi Y-J, Hong Y-C. Reply to Brzozek et al. Comment on “Choi et al. Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8079”. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18(11), 5581. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18115581.https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/11/5581

The new WHO review relies heavily on cohort and time-trend studies of cellphone use and cancer risk which we have found to be at least as problematic as case-control studies in terms of drawing causal inferences:

Hardell L, Moskowitz JM. A critical analysis of the MOBI-Kids study of wireless phone use in childhood and adolescence and brain tumor risk. Reviews on Environmental Health. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2022-0040

Moskowitz JM. RE: Cellular Telephone Use and the Risk of Brain Tumors: Update of the UK Million Women Study. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2022. Djac109. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djac109

Moskowitz JM, Frank JW, Melnick RL, Hardell L, Belyaev I et al., ICBE-EMF. COSMOS. A methodologically-flawed cohort study of the health effects from exposure to radiofrequency radiation from mobile phone use. Environment International, Volume 190, 2024, 108807, doi: 1016/j.envint.2024.108807. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412024003933

Although no scientific literature review is perfect, I believe that our 2020 review of cellphone use and tumor risk is less biased and will withstand the test of time better than the new review commissioned by the WHO.

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 the abstracts and open access papers below were checked and updated on June 7, 2019.  This list is periodically updated.

National Toxicology Program cell phone radiation studies

• 2016 NTP Report of Partial Findings (Rats)
• TR-595: NTP Studies of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation (Rats) (Nov. 2018)
• TR-596: NTP Studies of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation (Mice) (Nov. 2018)
  
  Also see: 
• NTP Cell Phone Radiation Study: Final Reports, National Toxicology Program: Peer & public review, National Toxicology Program Finds Cell Phone Radiation Causes Cancer, and Ramazzini Institute Cell Phone Radiation Study Replicates NTP Study

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 & Guo (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

  Yang et al (2017). Mobile phone use and glioma risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175136
   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
  Choi, Moskowitz, et al (2020). Cellular phone use and risk of tumors: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Envir Res Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218079.

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

  

    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 Oncology. http://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. Occup Envi Med. 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

   Shih et al (2020) The association between smartphone use and breast cancer risk among Taiwanese women: A case-control study. Cancer Manag Res. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7605549/

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 Envir 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

Mechanisms

   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. Bioelectromagnetics. 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. https://bit.ly/3j9if6b 

   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

  Mortazavi et al (2019) Evaluation of the validity of a nonlinear J-shaped dose-response relationship in cancers induced by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. J Biomed Phys Eng. http://bit.ly/37FlDxP

  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
  Halgamuge et al (2020) A meta-analysis of in vitro exposures to weak radiofrequency radiation exposure from mobile phones (1990–2015). Envir Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109227.

  Bertagna et al (2021) Effects of electromagnetic fields on neuronal ion channels: a systematic review. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. https://bit.ly/2R3TigS

  Panagopoulos et al (2021) Human‑made electromagnetic fields: Ion forced‑oscillation and voltage‑gated ion channel dysfunction, oxidative stress and DNA damage (Review). Int J Oncol. https://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/59/5/92  

  Lai H, Levitt B. (2023) Cellular and molecular effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. Reviews on Environmental Health. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2023-0023

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

   Kim et al (2021) Effects of mobile phone usage on sperm quality – No time-dependent relationship on usage: A systematic review and updated meta-analysis. Environ Research. https://bit.ly/3squsu2 

   Kaur et al (2023) Genotoxic risks to male reproductive health from radiofrequency radiation. Cells. https://bit.ly/3PbbIaU

    Also see: Effect of Mobile Phones on Sperm Quality and Pregnancy & Wireless Radiation Risks

Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

    See: Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

Exposure

   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

    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   

    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 Intl. 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

  Wall et al (2019) Real-world cell phone radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposures. Environ Research. https://bit.ly/CDPHphone  

  Calderón et al (2022) Estimation of RF and ELF dose by anatomical location in the brain from wireless phones in the MOBI-Kids study. Environ Intl. https://bit.ly/3Or2x3F

    Lai H, Levitt BB (2022). The roles of intensity, exposure duration, and modulation on the biological effects of radiofrequency radiation and exposure guidelines. Electromagnetic Biol Med. https://bit.ly/RFLaiLevitt2022

   ICBE-EMF (2022). Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G. Environ Health. https://bit.ly/ICBE-EMFpaper1

   Lin J (2023). Incongruities in recently revised radiofrequency exposure guidelines and standards. Environ Research. https://bit.ly/3lijiUP

  Miclaus et al (2023). An Exposimetric Electromagnetic Comparison of Mobile Phone Emissions: 5G versus 4G Signals Analyses by Means of Statistics and Convolutional Neural Networks Classification. Technologies. https://bit.ly/3ParNO5

Genetic Effects

  Lai H (2021) Genetic effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. Electromagnetic Biol Med. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15368378.2021.1881866

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

Other

    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

    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. http://bit.ly/2TsUNlN

  Kostoff et al (2020). Adverse health effects of 5G mobile networking technology under real-life conditions. Toxicology Letters. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31991167/

    Hardell & Carlberg (2021). Lost opportunities for cancer prevention: historical evidence on early warnings with emphasis on radiofrequency radiation. Rev Envir Res. http://bit.ly/Hardell2021

   Grigoriev YG (2022). Frequencies used in Telecommunications – An Integrated Radiobiological Assessment (ORSAA translation; free 198 page book). https://bit.ly/GrigorievBook
   Ishai et al (2023). Problems in evaluating the health impacts of radio frequency radiation. Envir Res. https://bit.ly/Ishai2023

   Nyberg et al (2023). The European Union assessments of radiofrequency radiation health risks – another hard nut to crack (Review). Rev Environ Health.  https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2023-0046

Also see: 

Effects of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (studies published from 1990 on)

Recent Research on Wireless Radiation and Electromagnetic Fields (2000+ abstracts from 2016 on)

PowerWatch: 1,670 Scientific Papers on EMF (1979 - 2018)

Effects of Cell Phone Use on Adolescents

Cell Tower Health Effects

Recent Research on WiFi Effects

Effects of Wireless Radiation on Birds and Other Wildlife

Electromagnetic fields threaten wildlife