"Reassessment of Federal Communications Commission Radiofrequency
Exposure Limits and Policies" (Proceeding Number 13-84)
Part II: Key Research Papers Submitted to the FCC
Last revision: November 1, 2019
The FCC received more than 1,200 submissions regarding its cell phone radiation regulations. These documents reveal what we know about wireless radiation health effects, and why we need to strengthen regulations and provide precautionary warnings to the public.
In response to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) request for input regarding its radio frequency radiation regulations adopted in 1996, individuals and organizations submitted thousands of documents, testimonials, research papers and scientific publications that are now available to the media and to the public.
These documents reveal what we know about wireless radiation health effects, and why we need to strengthen regulations and provide precautionary warnings to the public.
Although fifteen countries have issued precautionary health warnings about cell phone radiation and recommendations on how to reduce risks, the wireless industry in the U.S. has opposed precautionary warnings and wants to weaken our radiation standards instead of strengthen them.In all, more than 1,200 submissions were made to the FCC between June 24, 2012 and November 1, 2019. Many submissions include multiple documents. To access these papers go to the FCC's web site for Proceeding Number 13-84.Part II which appears below contains a list of key research papers and monographs submitted to the FCC and links to these documents which enable people to download the papers.
See Part I for key submissions to the FCC regarding cell phone radiation and its health effects, and cell phone testing procedures and regulatory standards.
Published Research PapersSee Part III for links to petitions signed by EMF scientists calling for stronger regulations of electromagnetic fields (EMF) including radio frequency fields. The International EMF Scientist Appeal was signed by more than 240 scientists who have published over 2,000 papers and letters in professional journals on EMF and biology or health.
Adams et al. Effect of mobile telephones on sperm quality: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Environment Int. 2014. 70(2014): 106-112. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001040814
Aldad TS, Gan G, Gao XB, Taylor HS. Fetal radiofrequency radiation exposure from 800-1900 mhz-rated cellular telephones affects neurodevelopment and behavior in mice. Sci Rep. 2012;2:312. doi: 10.1038/srep00312. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311532
Balmori A. Anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as an emerging threat to wildlife orientation. Science of Total Environment. 518-519:58-60. 2015.
Barnes F, Greenebaum B. Role of radical pairs and feedback in weak radio frequency field effects on biological systems. Environ Res. 2018 May;163:165-170.
Betzalel et al. The human skin as a sub-THz receiver–Does 5G pose a danger to it or not? Envir Research. 163:208-216. 2018. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1210030663890/The%20human%20skin%20as%20a%20sub-THz%20receiver%20%E2%80%93%20Does%205G%20pose%20a%20danger%20to%20it%20or%20not%20(1).pdf
Buchner K, Eger H. Changes of Clinically Important Neurotransmitters under the Influence of Modulated RF Fields—A long-term study under real-life conditions. Umwelt-Medizin-Gesellschaft 24(1):44-57. 2011. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940778
Blackman CF. Treating cancer with amplitude-modulated electromagnetic fields: a potential paradigm shift, again? Br J Cancer. 2012 Jan 17;106(2):241-2. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2011.576. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940777
Chou CK, Guy AW, Kunz LL, Johnson RB, Crowley JJ, Krupp JH. Long-term, low-level microwave irradiation of rats. Bioelectromagnetics. 1992;13(6):469-96.
Fernández et al. Absorption of wireless radiation in the child versus adult brain and eye from cell phone conversation or virtual reality. Environ Res. 2018 Nov;167:694-699. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10913927726988/Absorption%20of%20wireless%20radiation%20in%20the%20child%20versus%20adult%20brain%20and%20eye%20from%20T%20cell%20phone%20conversation%20or%20virtual%20reality.pdf
Foerster et al. A prospective cohort study of adolescents' memory performance and individual brain dose of microwave radiation from wireless communication. Envir Health Perspectives. 126(7). July 2018.
Gandhi, OP. Yes the Children Are More Exposed to Radiofrequency Energy From Mobile Telephones Than Adults. IEEE Spectrum. 3:985-988. July 10, 2015.
Kane RC. A possible association between fetal/neonatal exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation and the increased incidence of autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Med Hypotheses. 2004;62(2):195-7.
Kocaman et al. Genotoxic and carcinogenic effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. Environ Res. 2018 May;163:71-79. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1091314126731/Genotoxic%20and%20carcinogenic%20effects%20of%20non-ionizing%20electromagnetic%20fields.pdf
Kundi M, Hunter H-P. Mobile phone base stations—Effects on wellbeing and health. Pathophysiology. 2009.
Lai H. Exposure to Static and Extremely-Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields and Cellular Free Radicals. Electromagn Biol Med. 2019 Aug 26:1-18. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10920151427784/Henry%20Lai%20ELF%20static%20field%20review%20paper%202019.pdf
Levis AG, Gennaro V, Garbiso S. Business bias as usual: The case of electromagnetic pollution. In Elsner W, Frigato P, Ramazzotti P eds: “Social Costs Today. Institutional Analyses of the Present Crises”. Routledge (Taylor&Francis Group), London and New York 2012: 225-68.
Lin JC. Human exposure to RF, microwave, and millimeter-wave radiation. IEEE Microwave Magazine. 17(6):32-36. 2016.
Lin, JC. The significance of primary tumors in the NTP study of chronic rat exposure to cell phone radiation. IEEE Microwave Magazine. 20(11):18-21. 2019.
Lissak G. Adverse physiological and psychological effects of screen time on children and adolescents: Literature review and case study. Environ Res. 2018 Jul;164:149-157. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10913927726988/Adverse%20physiological%20and%20psychological%20effects%20of%20screen%20time%20on%20children%20and%20adolescents%3A%20Literature%20review%20and%20case%20study.pdf
McKee L. Meeting the imperative to accelerate environmental bioelectromagnetics research. Environ Res. 2018 Jul;164:100-108. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10913296696567/Meeting%20the%20imperative%20to%20accelerate%20environmental%20bioelectromagnetics%20research.pdf
Melnick RL. Commentary on the utility of the National Toxicology Program study on cellphone radiofrequency radiation data for assessing human health risks despite unfounded criticisms aimed at minimizing the findings of adverse health effects. Environ Research. 168:1-6. 2019. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1001332406626/Melnick-Commentary%20on%20the%20utility%20of%20the%20National%20Toxicology%20Program%20study.pdf
Miller et al. Cancer epidemiology update, following the 2011 IARC evaluation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (Monograph 102). Envir Research. 2018.
Myung et al. Mobile phone use and risk of tumors: a meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Nov 20;27(33):5565-72. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.21.6366.
Pall ML. Microwave frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produce widespread neuropsychiatric effects including depression. J Chemical Neuroanatomy. 2015.
Pall ML. WiFi is an important threat to human health. Environ Research. 164: 405-416. 2018. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10429016089243/WIF%20threat%20Martin%20Pall%202018%20Environmental%20Research%20.pdf
Panagopoulos DJ. Comparing DNA damage induced by mobile telephony and other types of man-made electric fields. Mutation Research--Reviews in Mutation Research. 781:53-62. 2019. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10429016089243/Panagopoulos-2019-Mut%20Res%20Rev%20Comparing%20DNA%20damage%20induced%20by%20mobile%20telephony%20and%20other%20types%20of%20man-made%20electromagnetic%20fields.pdf
Persson BRR, Salford LG, Brun A. Blood-brain barrier permeability in rats exposed to electromagnetic fields used in wireless communication. Wireless Networks. 3:455-461.1997. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941992
Sage C, Carpenter DO. Public health implications of wireless technologies. Pathophysiology . 16: 233–246. 2009.
Sagar et al. Comparison of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure levels in different everyday microenvironments in an international context. Environ Int. 2018 May;114:297-306. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10920151427784/RF%20microenvironment%206-nation%20study%20Environment%20Intl%20Sagar%20Roosli%202018.pdf
Sivani S, Sudarsanam D. Impacts of radio-frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) from
Thielens et al. Exposure of Insects to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields from 2 to 120 GHz. Sci Reports. 8: 3924. 2018. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1210030663890/Exposure%20of%20Insects%20to%20RadioFrequency%20Electromagnetic%20Fields%20from%202%20to%20120GHz%205g%20.pdf
Tseng et al. Induction of vertebrate regeneration by a transient sodium current. J Neurosci. 2010 Sep 29;30(39):13192-200. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3315-10.2010. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940761
Wall et al. Real-world cell phone radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposures. Environ Res. 2019 Apr;171:581-592.
Yahyazadeh A, Deniz ÖG, Kaplan AA. The genomic effects of cell phone exposure on the reproductive system. Environ Res. 2018 Nov;167:684-693.
European Environment Agency. Statement on Mobile Phones for Conference on Cell Phones and Health: Science and Public Policy Questions, Washington, 15 September 2009. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311538
IARC. Non-Ionizing Radiation. Part 2. Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields. Volume 102. Lyon, France: International Agency for Cancer Research, World Health Organization.
International EMF Scientist Appeal. August 25, 2019. 10 pp.
Kucinich D. 112th H.R. 6358. A bill to examine, label, and communicate adverse human biological effects associated with exposure to electromagnetic fields from cell phones and other wireless devices. Congress. 2d Session. Aug 3, 2012.
Moskowitz JM. Wireless radiation and EMF abstracts published from August, 2016 - August, 2019. School of Public Health University of California, Berkeley. Sep 13, 2019. 527 pp.
Moskowitz JM. We have no reason to believe 5G is safe. Scientific American. Oct 17, 2019.
Naval Medical Research Institute. Bibliography of reported biological phenomena ('effects') and clinical manifestations attributed to microwave and radio-frequency radiation. NTIS. 1972. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1001034847591/Naval-Medical-Research-Institute-1972.pdf
National Toxicology Program. Report of Partial Findings from the National Toxicology Program Carcinogenesis Studies of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation in Hsd: Sprague Dawley® SD rats (Whole Body Exposures). Draft 5/19/2016. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/60002090569.pdf
Roe S. We tested popular cellphones. Now the FCC is testing them. Chicago Tribune. Aug 21, 2019.
Russell C. Wireless Silent Spring. Santa Clara County Medical Association Bulletin. Oct 2018. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1022423602512/Wireless%20Silent%20Spring_%20SCCMA%20Oct%202%2C%202018.pdf
Sierck PH. Smart Meter—What We Know: Measurement Challenges and Complexities. A Technical Paper to Clarify RF Radiation Emissions and Measurement Methodologies. Encinitas, CA: ET&T Indoor Environmental Surveys. Dec 2011.
U.S. E.P.A. Electric and Magnetic Fields: An EPA Perspective on Research Needs and Priorities for Improving Health Risk Assessment. Washington: EPA. Dec 1992. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311520
Wargo J, Taylor HS, Alderman N, Wargo L. Cell Phones: Technology | Exposures | Health Effects. Environment & Human Health, Inc. 2012. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311531
Wisz, J. Potential Hazards of Cellular Phone Radiation: Responses to Fear and Uncertainty. Harvard University. 2002. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001335019