The preponderance of research published from 1990 through July 2023 has found significant effects from exposure to radio frequency radiation as well as to extremely low frequency and static electromagnetic fields.
Government and scientists who receive industry funding for their research often claim that research on the effects of exposure to EMF is inconsistent, and that more research is needed before health warnings are issued or regulatory exposure limits are strengthened.
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.
70% (n=312) of 448 RFR genetic effects studies published since 1990 reported significant effects including 79% (n=103) of 131 studies of gene expression.
Extremely low frequency (ELF) and static electromagnetic fields
91% (n=310) of 339 ELF/static EMF neurological studies published since 2007 reported significant effects.
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.
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