Sunday, December 1, 2019

Effects of Wireless Radiation on Birds and Other Wildlife

Review. The influence of bioactive mobile telephony radiation at the level of a plant community – Possible mechanisms and indicators of the effects

Czerwiński M, Januszkiewicz L, Vian A, Lázaro.A. Review. The influence of bioactive mobile telephony radiation at the level of a plant community – Possible mechanisms and indicators of the effects. Ecological Indicators. 108, January 2020, 105683.


• There are various indicators of microwave radiation impact on herbaceous vegetation.
• The best indicators are some parameters of vegetation canopy or individual  plants.
• Specific plant functional groups may be indicators of long-term community processes.
• Other organisms interacting with plants, e.g. pollinators, should also be cons idered.
• The selection of indicators depends on the propagation of radiation in the canopy.


Environmental exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs) from mobile telephony has rapidly increased in the last two decades and this trend is expected to continue. The effects of this exposure at plant community level are unknown and difficult to assess in a scientifically appropriate manner. Such an assessment can be scientifically adequate if a studied plant community is completely new and control-impact radiation treatment is used.

In this review we aimed to predict ecological effects and identify indicators of the impact of bioactive RF-EMFs at the mobile telephony frequency range on plant communities. We considered the scenario where a plant community was exposed to radiation generated by a base transmitting station antenna mounted on a nearby mast. This plant community can be represented by mesic meadow, ruderal or arable weed community, or other herbaceous, moderately productive vegetation type. We concentrated primarily on radiation effects that can be recorded for a year since the exposure started. To predict them we used physical theories of radiowave propagation in vegetation and the knowledge on plants physiological responses to RF-EMF. Our indicators can be used for the detection of the impact of RF-EMFs on vegetation in a control-impact experiment.

The identified indicators can be classified into the following groups: (1) canopy parameters; (2) plant characteristics to be measured in the field or laboratory in a number of individuals that represent the populations of selected species; (3) community weighted means/medians (CWMs) of plant traits and strategies; (4) the abundance of other organisms that interact with plants and can influence their fitness or population size. The group of canopy parameters includes mean height, vertical vegetation structure and dry weight of above-ground standing phytomass. Plant characteristics requiring biometric sampling in the field are plant height, the number of fruits and seeds, as well as seed viability. The group of plant traits that are calculated as CWMs covers seed releasing height, seed dispersal mode, SLA, leaf orientation, month of germination and flowering, Ellenberg’s light indicator value, and the proportion of individuals in the classes of competitors and stress tolerators according to Grime's CSR strategy scheme. The group of “non-plant” indicators includes primarily the frequency of flower visits by beetles, wasps, hoverflies, and bees that have their nests over ground. To detect ecological responses that occur for the first year since a herbaceous community has been exposed to potentially bioactive RF-EMF, the first two indicators groups should be used.

Aug 1, 2019 (Updated Nov 1, 2019)

Selected Studies that Reported Adverse Effects of Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposure 
on Plants, Animals and Insects

written by the Advisors to the International EMF Scientist Appeal, June 25, 2019

EMF exposure studies have found ...

in plants reduced growth, increased infection and physiological and morphological changes (Balodis et al. 1996, Haggerty 2010, Waldmann-Selsam et al. 2016, Havas and Symington 2016, Vian et al. 2016, Halgamuge 2017);

in birds, aggressive behavior, impaired reproduction and interference with migration (Southern 1975, Larkin and Sutherland 1977, Balmori 2004, Balmori and Hallberg 2007, Everaert and Bauwens 2007, Fernie et al. 2010, Engels et al. 2015, Wiltschko et al. 2015);

in livestock, especially dairy cows, reduced productivity, impaired reproduction, and sudden death (Burchard et al. 1996, Loscher and Kas 1998, Hillman et al. 2013, Stetzer et al. 2016);

in rodents, increased cancer risk in three long-term studies (Chou et al 1992, NTP 2018, Falcioni et al. 2019); 

in amphibians (Balmori 2006, Balmori 2010) and insects (Cucurachi et al. 2013), deformities and population decline; and

in honey bees, aggressive behavior, reduced learning, reduced productivity, swarming and abandoning hives (Harst et al. 2006, Pattezhy 2009, Warnke 2009, Favre 2011, Kumar et al. 2011, Sahib 2011, Shepherd et al. 2019). 


Balmori A. 2004. Effects of electromagnetic fields of phone masts on a population of white storks (Ciconia ciconia). Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 24: 109–119.

Balmori A. 2006. The incidence of electromagnetic pollution on the amphibian decline: Is this an important piece of the puzzle? Toxicological & Environmental Chemistry 88 (2): 287–299.

Balmori A. 2010. Mobile phone mast effects on common frog (Rana temporaria) tadpoles: the city turned into a laboratory. Electromagn Biol Med. 29 (1–2):31–35.

Balmori A and O Hallberg. 2007. The urban decline of the house sparrow (Passer domesticus): A possible link with electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 26 (2): 141–151.

Balodis V, G Briimelis, K Kalviskis, et al. 1996. Does the Skrunda Radio Location Station diminish the radial growth of pine trees? The Science of the Total Environment 180: 57-64.

Burchard JF, DH Nguyen DH, and M Rodriguez. 2006. Plasma concentrations of thyroxine in dairy cows exposed to 60 Hz electric and magnetic fields. Bioelectromagnetics 27 (7): 553–559.

Chou C-K, A Guy, LL Kunz, RB Johnson, JJ Crowley and J. H. Krupp. 1992. Long-term, low-level microwave irradiation of rats. Bioelectromagnetics 13:469–496. See NTP: Not the First Govt. Study to Find Wireless Radiation Can Cause Cancer in Lab Rats

Cucurachi S, WLM Tamis et al. 2013. A review of the ecological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF), Environment International 51:116–140.

Engels S, N-L Schneider, N Lefeldt, et al. 2015. Anthropogenic electromagnetic noise disrupts magnetic compass orientation in a migratory bird. Nature 509: 353.

Everaert J and D Bauwens. 2007. A possible effect of electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone base stations on the number of breeding house sparrows (Passer domesticus) Electromagn Biol Med. 26 (1): 63–72.

Falcioni L, L Bua, E Tibaldi, et al. 2019. Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental emission. Environmental Research 165:496–503. See Ramazzini Institute Cell Phone Radiation Study Replicates NTP Study

Favre D. 2011. Mobile phone-induced honeybee worker piping. Apidologie 42 (3): 270– 279.

Ferni KJ, NJ Leonard and DM Bird. 2010. Behavior of free-ranging and captive American kestrels under electromagnetic fields. J. Tox. and Environ. Health Part A Vol 59 (8).

Haggerty K. 2010. Adverse influence of radio frequency background on Trembling Aspen seedlings: Preliminary observations. International Journal of Forestry Research 2010, 7 pages.

Halgamuge MN. 2016. Review: Weak radiofrequency radiation exposure from mobile phone radiation on plants. Electromagn Biol Med. 2017;36(2):213-235.

Harst W, J Kuhn, and H Stever. 2006. Can electromagnetic exposure cause a change in behaviour? Studying possible non-thermal influences on honey bees–An approach within the framework of Educational Informatics. Acta Systematica – IIAS Intern. J. 6: 1–6.

Havas M and MS Symington. 2016. Effects of Wi-Fi radiation on germination and growth of garden cress (Lepidium sativum), broccoli (Brassica oleracea), red clover (Trifolium pratense) and pea (Pisum sativum) seedlings: A partial replication study. Current Chemical Biology 10 (1): 65–73.

Hillman D, D Stetzer, M Graham, CL Goeke, et al. 2013. Relationship of electric power quality to milk production of dairy herds – Field study with literature review. Science of the Total Environment 447: 500–514.

Kumar NR, S Sangwan and P Badotra. 2011. Exposure to cell phone radiations produces biochemical changes in worker honey bees. Toxicol Int. 18 (1): 70–72.

Larkin RP and PJ Sutherland. 1977. Migrating birds respond to Project Seafarer's electromagnetic field. Science. 195 (4280): 777–9.

Löscher W, and G Käs. 1998. Extraordinary behavior disorders in cows in proximity to transmission stations. Translated from German language. Der Praktische Tierarz 79 (5): 4377 444.

NTP 2018. NTP Technical Report on the Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies in Hsd:Sprague Dawley SD Rats exposed to Whole-body Radio Frequency Radiation at a Frequency (900 MHz) and Modulations (GSM and CDMA) used by Cell Phones. National Toxicology Program, National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 384 pp. See NTP Cell Phone Radiation Study: Final Reports

Pattazhy S. 2009. Mobile phone towers a threat to honey bees: Study. The Times of India, August 2009.

Shepherd S, Hollands G, Godley VC, Sharkh SM, Jackson CW, Newland PL. Increased aggression and reduced aversive learning in honey bees exposed to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields. PLoS One. 2019 Oct 10;14(10):e0223614. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223614.

Southern WE. 1975. Orientation of gull chicks exposed to project Sanguine's electromagnetic field. Science. 189 (4197): 143–145.

Stetzer D, AM Leavitt, CL Goeke, and M Havas. 2016. Monitoring and remediation of on-farm and off-farm ground current measured as step potential on a Wisconsin dairy farm: A case study. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 35 (4): 321–336.

Vian, A, E Davies, M Gendraud and P Bonnet. 2016. Plant responses to high frequency electromagnetic fields, BioMed research International Vol. 2015 Article ID 1830262, 13 pp.

Waldmann-Selsam, A Balmori-de la Puente, H Breunig and A Balmori. 2016. Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations. Science of the Total Environment 572: 13 554–569.

Warnke U. 2009. Bees, birds and mankind. Destroying nature by ‘electrosmog’ effects of wireless communication technologies, A brochure series by the Competence Initiative for the Protection of Humanity, Environment and Democracy, 47 pp.

Wiltschko R, P Thalau, D Gehring, C Niessner, T Ritz and W. Wiltschko. 2015. Magnetoreception in birds: the effect of radio-frequency fields. J R Soc Interface 12(103).


Increased aggression and reduced aversive learning in honey bees exposed to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields

Shepherd S, Hollands G, Godley VC, Sharkh SM, Jackson CW, Newland PL. Increased aggression and reduced aversive learning in honey bees exposed to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields. PLoS One. 2019 Oct 10;14(10):e0223614. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223614. 


Honey bees, Apis mellifera, are a globally significant pollinator species and are currently in decline, with losses attributed to an array of interacting environmental stressors. Extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF EMFs) are a lesser-known abiotic environmental factor that are emitted from a variety of anthropogenic sources, including power lines, and have recently been shown to have a significant impact on the cognitive abilities and behaviour of honey bees. Here we have investigated the effects of field-realistic levels of ELF EMFs on aversive learning and aggression levels, which are critical factors for bees to maintain colony strength. Bees were exposed for 17 h to 100 μT or 1000 μT ELF EMFs, or a sham control. A sting extension response (SER) assay was conducted to determine the effects of ELF EMFs on aversive learning, while an intruder assay was conducted to determine the effects of ELF EMFs on aggression levels. Exposure to both 100 μT and 1000 μT ELF EMF reduced aversive learning performance by over 20%. Exposure to 100 μT ELF EMFs also increased aggression scores by 60%, in response to intruder bees from foreign hives. These results indicate that short-term exposure to ELF EMFs, at levels that could be encountered in bee hives placed under power lines, reduced aversive learning and increased aggression levels. These behavioural changes could have wider ecological implications in terms of the ability of bees to interact with, and respond appropriately to, threats and negative environmental stimuli.

Open access paper:


April 17, 2019

Letter to the National Park Service from the Environmental Health Trust

This thirteen page letter to the National Park Service from the Environmental Health Trust, dated April 10, 2019, summarizes the scientific basis for major health and environmental concerns about a proposal to install wireless telecom facilities in Grand Teton National Park.

The letter summarizes research on harm to the environment and wildlife from wireless radiation exposure. Furthermore, it addresses the following topics: (1) research on harm to humans; (2) rapid increase in wireless radiation exposure; (3) inadequacy of the Federal Communications Commission's exposure limits to protect humans; (4) greater susceptibility of children; (5) recent appeals from hundreds of experts to reduce exposure limits; and (6) other cell tower safety hazards. 

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


July 18, 2016

A Briefing Memo by Dr. Albert Manville

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

In this memo, Dr. Manville reviews the scientific literature that examines the impacts on wildlife from exposure to radio frequency radiation. 

He observes that although the FCC has standards to protect humans from the heating  (i.e., thermal) effects of wireless radiation exposure from cellular and broadcast towers, no standards exist to protect wildlife from thermal or non-thermal effects:

“The radiation effects on wildlife need to be addressed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Commerce, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and other governmental entities.”

Dr. Manville concludes with the following statement:

“In summary, we need to better understand … how to address these growing and poorly understood radiation impacts to migratory birds, bees, bats, and myriad other wildlife. At present, given industry and agency intransigence … massive amounts of money being spent to prevent addressing impacts from non-thermal radiation — not unlike the battles over tobacco and smoking — and a lack of significant, dedicated and reliable funding to advance independent field studies, … we are left with few options. Currently, other than to proceed using the precautionary approach and keep emissions as low as reasonably achievable, we are at loggerheads in advancing meaningful guidelines, policies and regulations that address non-thermal effects....”

Dr. Manville recommends that the U.S. adopt the following recommendations because federally-protected wildlife species are currently in danger from RFR exposure:

“We desperately need to conduct field research on thermal and non-thermal radiation impacts to wild migratory birds and other wildlife here in North America, similar to studies conducted in Europe….”

“Studies need to be designed to better tease out and understand causality of thermal and non-thermal impacts from radiation on migratory birds…. efforts need to be made to begin developing exposure guidelines for migratory birds and other wildlife …”

“To minimize deleterious radiation exposures, these guidelines should include use of avoidance measures such as those developed by the electric utility industry for bird collision and electrocution avoidance …”

“Studies need to be conducted on the use of “faux” branches (i.e., metal arms that mimic pine or fir branches) on cell and/or FM towers intended to disguise the towers as trees, but provide nesting and roosting opportunities for migratory birds including Bald Eagles, which will almost certainly be impacted both by thermal and non-thermal radiation effects.”

“Agencies tasked with the protection, management, and research on migratory birds and other wildlife … need to develop radiation policies that avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds and other trust wildlife species.”

“As Levitt and Lai (2010) concluded, we do not actually need to know whether RFR effects are thermal or non-thermal to set exposure guidelines. Most scientists consider non-thermal effects as well established, even though the implications are not fully understood.”

“Given the rapidly growing database of peer-reviewed, published scientific studies (e.g.,, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley), it is time that FCC considers thermal and non-thermal effects from EMR in their tower permitting, and incorporates changes into their rulemaking regarding ‘effects of communication towers on migratory birds.’”

Dr. Albert Manville II is an adjunct faculty member at Johns Hopkins University. He served as a senior wildlife biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from 1997 to 2014.  He chaired the Communication Tower Working Group, partnering with the communications industry, federal and state agencies, researchers, and non-profit organizations. He testified more than 40 times before Congress and other governmental bodies and published more 170 papers. For more information, see

Dr. Manville’s memo is available at

Monday, November 4, 2019

International Agency for Research on Cancer (WHO) Position on Radiofrequency Radiation

In May, 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the specialized cancer agency of the World Health Organization, classified radio frequency radiation (RFR) as "possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, associated with wireless phone use." "The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk."

A working group of 31 scientists from 14 nations made this determination after reviewing hundreds of studies that examined the potential carcinogenic hazard of long-term exposure to RFR. They examined exposure data, studies of cancer in humans, studies of cancer in experimental animals, and mechanistic and other relevant data. 

" 'Given the potential consequences for public health of this classification and findings,' said IARC Director Christopher Wild, 'it is important that additional research be conducted into the long‐term, heavy use of mobile phones. Pending the availability of such information, it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands‐free devices or texting.' "

IARC (2011). "IARC classifies radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans." Press Release No. 208. IARC, WHO.

IARC (2013e). Non-ionizing radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum. 102:1–460. Available from: PMID:24772662

For a summary of this 2013 monograph see:


In March, 2019, the Advisory Group for the IARC recommended that the IARC review the research on RFR to determine if it is a carcinogenic hazard (i.e. Group 2A or Group 1). The advisory group recommended that this review be conducted within the next five years and called it a "high priority."

Following are excerpts from the IARC report:

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Report of the Advisory Group to Recommend Priorities for the IARC Monographs during 2020–2024. IARC, World Health Organization, 2019.

Report of the Advisory Group to Recommend Priorities for the IARC Monographs during 2020–2024

Introduction (pp. 1-2)

"An IARC Advisory Group to Recommend Priorities for the IARC Monographs during 2020–2024 met in Lyon, France, on 25–27 March 2019. IARC periodically convenes such Advisory Groups to ensure that the Monographs evaluations reflect the current state of scientific evidence relevant to carcinogenicity.

Before the meeting, IARC solicited nominations of agents via the website of the IARC Monographs programme and the IARC RSS news feed, and through direct contact with the IARC Governing Council and members of the IARC Scientific Council, WHO headquarters and regional offices, and previous participants in the Monographs programme. Nominations were also developed by IARC personnel, including the recommended priorities remaining from a similar Advisory Group meeting convened in 2014 (Straif et al., 2014), and the priorities nominated by the Advisory Group.

The list of Advisory Group members and all other meeting participants is provided in Annex 1 (see ) ...."

"Priority was assigned on the basis of (i) evidence of human exposure and (ii) the extent of the available evidence for evaluating carcinogenicity (i.e. the availability of relevant evidence on cancer in humans, cancer in experimental animals, and mechanisms of carcinogenesis to support a new or updated evaluation according to the Preamble to the IARC Monographs). Any of the three evidence streams could alone support prioritization of agents with no previous evaluation. For previously evaluated agents, the Advisory Group considered the basis of the previous classification as well as the potential impact of the newly available evidence during integration across streams (see Table 4 in the Preamble to the IARC Monographs). Agents without evidence of human exposure or evidence for evaluating carcinogenicity were not recommended for further consideration."


"Non-ionizing radiation (radiofrequency) and extremely low-frequency magnetic fields (pp. 148-149)

Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) were evaluated by the IARC Monographs as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) (IARC, 2013e), on the basis of limited evidence of an increased risk of glioma. Extremely low-frequency magnetic fields (ELF-MF) were evaluated as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) (IARC, 2002), on the basis of limited evidence of an increased risk of childhood leukaemia.

Exposure Data

Human exposures to RF-EMF can occur from use of personal devices (e.g. cell phones, cordless phones, and Bluetooth) and from environmental sources such as cell phone base stations, broadcast antennas, and medical applications. More than 5 billion people now have access to cell phone devices, and the technology is constantly evolving. Use has also expanded rapidly in low- and middle-income countries, where more than 75% of adults now report owning a cell phone; in high-income countries, the proportion is 96% (Pew Research Center, 2018).

Cancer in Humans

Since the previous IARC Monographs evaluation, several new epidemiological studies have been published on the association between RF-EMF and cancer, although the evidence remains mixed. In the Million Women Study cohort, there was no evidence of increased risk of glioma or meningioma, even among long-term users. There was an increased risk of acoustic neuromas with long-term use and a significant dose–response relationship (Benson et al., 2013). Updated follow-up in the Danish nationwide subscribers study did not find increased risks of glioma, meningioma, or vestibular schwannoma, even among those with subscriptions of 10 years or longer (Frei et al., 2011; Schüz et al., 2011). New reports from case–control studies that assessed long-term use also found mixed results; for example, increased risks of glioma and acoustic neuroma were reported by Hardell & Carlberg (2015) and Hardell et al. (2013), but no evidence of increased risks for these tumours were reported by Yoon et al. (2015) and Pettersson et al. (2014). Röösli et al. (2019) recently reviewed these new data. Several large-scale studies are still in progress and should report results within the next few years. Mobi-Kids is a multicentre case–control study of brain tumours in those aged 10–24 years. Cohort Study of Mobile Phone Use and Health (COSMOS) is a new European cohort of adult cell phone users. There will also be updated results from the Million Women Study.

Cancer in Experimental Animals

New data in experimental animals for exposure to RF-EMF have been published since the previous IARC Monographs evaluation. The large study by the United States National Toxicology Program found an increased risk of malignant schwannomas of the heart in male rats with high exposure to radiofrequency radiation at frequencies used by cell phones, as well as possible increased risks of certain types of tumours in the brain and adrenal glands, but no increased risks in mice or female rats (NTP, 2018a, b). Another study in experimental animals also found an increase in schwannomas of the heart in highly exposed male rats and a possible increase in gliomas in female rats (Falcioni et al., 2018).

 Mechanistic Evidence

The previous IARC evaluation concluded that there was weak evidence that radiofrequency radiation was genotoxic but that there was no evidence for mutagenicity (IARC, 2013e). Although there have been many new publications from a wide variety of experiments, uncertainty remains about the mechanisms, and there are few systematic reviews of the new data (Kocaman et al., 2018).

Although a future evaluation could be broadened to consider exposure to all non-ionizing radiation (including ELF-MF), ELF-MF were evaluated by IARC as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), and the Advisory Group did not recommend an update, because of a lack of new informative epidemiological findings, no toxicological evidence, and little supporting mechanistic evidence.


The following key references were also identified: Coureau et al. (2014); Carlberg & Hardell (2015); Pedersen et al. (2017).

Recommendation for non-ionizing radiation (radiofrequency): High priority (and ready for evaluation within 5 years)

Recommendation for extremely low-frequency magnetic fields: No evaluation "

References cited in this section of the report:

Benson VS, Pirie K, Schüz J, Reeves GK, Beral V, Green J; Million Women Study Collaborators (2013). Mobile phone use and risk of brain neoplasms and other cancers: prospective study. Int J Epidemiol. 42(3):792–802. PMID:23657200

Carlberg M, Hardell L (2015). Pooled analysis of Swedish case-control studies during 1997-2003 and 2007-2009 on meningioma risk associated with the use of mobile and cordless phones. Oncol Rep. 33(6):3093–8. PMID:25963528

Coureau G, Bouvier G, Lebailly P, Fabbro-Peray P, Gruber A, Leffondre K, et al. (2014). Mobile phone use and brain tumours in the CERENAT case-control study. Occup Environ Med. 71(7):514–22. PMID:24816517

Falcioni L, Bua L, Tibaldi E, Lauriola M, De Angelis L, Gnudi F, et al. (2018). Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental

Frei P, Poulsen AH, Johansen C, Olsen JH, Steding-JessenM, Schüz J (2011). Use of mobile phones and risk of brain tumours: update of Danish cohort study. BMJ. 343:d6387. PMID:22016439

Hardell L, Carlberg M (2015). Mobile phone and cordless phone use and the risk for glioma - analysis of pooled case-control studies in Sweden, 1997-2003 and 2007-2009. Pathophysiology. 22(1):1–13. PMID:25466607

IARC (2013e). Non-ionizing radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum. 102:1–460. Available from: PMID:24772662

Kocaman A, Altun G, Kaplan AA, Deniz ÖG, Yurt KK, Kaplan S (2018). Genotoxic and carcinogenic effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. Environ Res. 163:71–9. PMID:29427953

NTP (2018a). Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies in B6C3F1/N mice exposed to whole-body radio frequency radiation at a frequency (1900 MHz) and modulations (GSM and CDMA) used by cell phones. Natl Toxicol Program Tech Rep Ser. 596. Research Triangle Park (NC), USA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Available from:

NTP (2018b). Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies in Hsd:Sprague Dawley SD rats exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at a frequency (900MHz) and modulations (GSM and CDMA) used by cellphones. Natl Toxicol Program Tech Rep Ser. 595. Research Triangle Park (NC), USA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Available from:

Pedersen C, Poulsen AH, Rod NH, Frei P, Hansen J, Grell K, et al. (2017). Occupational exposure to extremely low-frequency magnetic fields and risk for central nervous system disease: an update of a Danish cohort study among utility workers. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 90(7):619–28. PMID:28429106

Pettersson D, Mathiesen T, Prochazka M, Bergenheim T, Florentzson R, Harder H, et al. (2014). Long-term mobile phone use and acoustic neuroma risk. Epidemiology. 25(2):233–41. PMID:24434752

Pew Research Center (2018). Social media use continues to rise in developing countries, but plateaus across developed ones. Available from:

Schüz J, Steding-JessenM, Hansen S, Stangerup SE, Cayé-Thomasen P, Poulsen AH, et al. (2011). Long-term mobile phone use and the risk of vestibular schwannoma: a Danish nationwide cohort study. Am J Epidemiol. 174(4):416–22. PMID:21712479

Straif K, Loomis D, Guyton K, Grosse Y, Lauby-Secretan B, El Ghissassi F, et al. (2014). Future priorities for the IARC Monographs. Lancet Oncol. 15(7):683–4.

Yoon S, Choi J-W, Lee E, An H, Choi HD, KimN (2015). Mobile phone use and risk of glioma: a case-control study in Korea for 2002-2007. Environ Health Toxicol. 30:e2015015. PMID:26726040

Friday, November 1, 2019

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

Selected FCC Submissions re: 

"Reassessment of Federal Communications Commission Radiofrequency 

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

Part II: Key Research Papers Submitted to the FCC

Last revision: 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.
See 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.
 Published Research Papers

Adams et al. Effect of mobile telephones on sperm quality: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Environment Int. 2014. 70(2014): 106-112.

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.

Altun et al. Effects of mobile phone exposure on metabolomics in the male and female reproductive systems. Environ Res. 2018 Nov;167:700-707.

Balmori A. Electromagnetic pollution from phone masts. Effects on wildlife. Pathophysiology. 2009 Aug;16(2-3):191-9. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2009.01.007.

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.

Belpomme et al. Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizingradiation: An international perspective. Envir Pollution. 242:643-658. 2018.

Belyaev et al. Nonthermal effects of extremely high-frequency microwaves on chromatin conformation in cells in vitro—Dependence on physical, Physiological, and genetic factors. IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques. 48(11):2172-2179. 2000.

Betzalel et al. The human skin as a sub-THz receiver–Does 5G pose a danger to it or not? Envir Research. 163:208-216. 2018.

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.

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.

Chou CK, Guy AW, Kunz LL, Johnson RB, Crowley JJ, Krupp JH. Long-term, low-level microwave irradiation of rats. Bioelectromagnetics. 1992;13(6):469-96.

Costa et al. Treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with very low levels of amplitude-modulated electromagnetic fields. Br J Cancer. 2011 Aug 23;105(5):640-8.doi:10.1038/bjc.2011.292.

Cucurachi et al. A review of the ecological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). Environ Int. 2013 Jan;51:116-40. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2012.10.009.

Davis et al. Swedish review strengthens grounds for concluding that radiation from cellular and cordless phones is a probable human carcinogen. Pathophysiology. 2013 Apr;20(2):123-9. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2013.03.001.

Everaert J, Bauwens D. A possible effect of electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone base stations on the number of breeding house sparrows (Passer domesticus). Electromagn Biol Med. 2007;26(1):63-72.

Falcioni et al. Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental emission. Environ Res. 2018 Aug;165:496-503.

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.

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

Fragopoulou et al. Scientific panel on electromagnetic field health risks: consensus points, recommendations, and rationales. Rev Environ Health. 2010 Oct-Dec;25(4):307-17.

Gandhi, OP. Yes the Children Are More Exposed to Radiofrequency Energy From Mobile Telephones Than Adults. IEEE Spectrum. 3:985-988. July 10, 2015.

Gandhi, OP, Kang G. Inaccuracies of a plastic pinna SAM for SAR testing of cellular telephones against IEEE and ICNIRP safety guidelines. IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques. 52(8):2004-2012. Aug 2004; DOI: 10.1109/TMTT.2004.832689.
Gandhi et al. Exposure limits: the underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children. Electromagn Biol Med. 2012 Mar;31(1):34-51. doi: 10.3109/15368378.2011.622827.

Giuliani L, Soffritti M. (Eds.) Non-thermal Effects and Mechanisms of Interaction between Electromagnetic Fields and Living Matter. ICEMS Monograph. European J Oncology. Vol. 5. 2010.
Güler et al. The effect of radiofrequency radiation on DNA and lipid damage in female and male infant rabbits. Int J Radiat Biol. 2012 Apr;88(4):367-73. doi: 10.3109/09553002.2012.646349.

Haggerty K. Adverse Influence of Radio Frequency Background on Trembling Aspen Seedlings: Preliminary Observations.International Journal of Forestry Research, vol. 2010, Article ID 836278, 7 pages, 2010. doi:10.1155/2010/836278.

Hagström M, Auranen J, Ekman R. Electromagnetic hypersensitive Finns: Symptoms, perceived sources and treatments, a questionnaire study. Pathophysiology. 2013 Apr;20(2):117-22. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2013.02.001.

Hardell L. World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health - a hard nut to crack (Review). Int J Oncology. 51:405-413. 2017.

Havas M. Radiation from wireless technology affects the blood, the heart, and the autonomic nervous system. Rev Environ Health. 2013;28(2-3):75-84. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2013-0004.

Herbert MR, Sage C. Autism and EMF? Plausibility of a pathophysiological link - Part I. Pathophysiology. 2013 Jun;20(3):191-209. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2013.08.001.

Herbert MR, Sage C. Autism and EMF? Plausibility of a pathophysiological link part II. Pathophysiology. 2013 Jun;20(3):211-34. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2013.08.002.

Houston et al. The effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation on sperm function. Reproduction. 2016.

Kane RC. A possible association between fetal/neonatal exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation and the increased incidence of autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Med Hypotheses. 2004;62(2):195-7.

Kesari KK, Kumar S, Behari J. Pathophysiology of microwave radiation: effect on rat brain.
Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 2012 Jan;166(2):379-88. doi: 10.1007/s12010-011-9433-6.

Kocaman et al. Genotoxic and carcinogenic effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. Environ Res. 2018 May;163:71-79.

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.

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.

Levis et al. Mobile phones and head tumours. The discrepancies in cause-effect relationships in the epidemiological studies - how do they arise? Environ Health. 2011 Jun 17;10:59. doi: 10.1186/1476-069X-10-59.

Levitt BB, Lai H. Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. Environ. Res. 18:369-395. 2010.

Li DK, Ferber JR, Odouli R, Quesenberry CP Jr. A prospective study of in-utero exposure to magnetic fields and the risk of childhood obesity. Sci Rep. 2012;2:540. doi: 10.1038/srep00540.

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. 

McKee L. Meeting the imperative to accelerate environmental bioelectromagnetics research. Environ Res. 2018 Jul;164:100-108.

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.

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.

Nittby et al. Increased blood-brain barrier permeability in mammalian brain 7 days after exposure to the radiation from a GSM-900 mobile phone. Pathophysiology. 2009 Aug;16(2-3):103-12. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2009.01.001.

Nittby et al. Review. Radiofrequency and extremely low-frequency electromagnetic field effects on the blood-brain barrier. Electromagn Biol Med. 2008;27(2):103-26. doi: 10.1080/15368370802061995.

Odaci E, Bas O, Kaplan S. Effects of prenatal exposure to a 900 MHz electromagnetic field on the dentate gyrus of rats: a stereological and histopathological study. Brain Res. 2008 Oct 31;1238:224-9. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2008.08.013.

Pall ML. Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects. J Cell Mol Med. 2013 Aug;17(8):958-65. doi: 10.1111/jcmm.12088.

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.

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.

Panagopoulos DJ, Johansson O, Carlo GL. Evaluation of specific absorption rate as a dosimetric quantity for electromagnetic fields bioeffects. PLoS One. 2013 Jun 4;8(6):e62663. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0062663. Print 2013. Erratum in: PLoS One.

Peleg M, Nativ O, Richter ED. Radio frequency radiation-related cancer: assessing causation in the occupational/military setting. Environ Res. 2018 May;163:123-133.

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.

Rea et al. Electromagnetic field sensitivity. Journal of Bioelectricity. 10(1&2):242-256. 1991.

Russell CL. 5 G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications. Environ Research. 165:484-495. 2018.

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.

Sivani S, Sudarsanam D. Impacts of radio-frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) from
cell phone towers and wireless devices on biosystem and ecosystem – a review. Biology and Medicine 4(4):202-216. 2012.

Thielens et al. Exposure of Insects to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields from 2 to 120 GHz. Sci Reports. 8: 3924. 2018.

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. 

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.

Yakymenko et al. Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. Posted online on July 7, 2015.

Zothansiama et al. Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. 2017. 

Papers and Monographs

Austrian Medical Association. Guideline of the Austrian Medical Association for the diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses (EMF syndrome): Consensus paper of the Austrian Medical Association’s EMF Working Group. Vienna, Austria. Mar 2012.

Bioeffects of Selected Nonlethal Weapons. Addendum to the Nonlethal Technologies *Worldwide (NGIC-I 147-101-98) Study. Undated classified document released by the Dept of the Army Dec 13, 2006.

BioInitiative Working Group. Sage C, Carpenter DO. (Eds). BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for  Biologically-based Exposure Standards for Low-Intensity Electromagnetic Radiation., December 31, 2012. (29 chapter authors)

Council of Europe. Parliamentary Assembly. The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment. Doc. 12608. May 6, 2011.

Dart P. Alterations in Hormone Physiology. Undated.

Dart P. Cell Phones and Risk of Brain Tumor. Undated.

Dart P. Consequences of Chronic Microwave RF Exposure. Undated.

Dart P. Effects of Microwave RF Exposure on Fertility. Undated.

Dart P. Health Effects of Microwave Radio Exposures: Acute Symptoms from RF Exposure. Undated.

Dart P. Microwave RF Interacts with Molecular Structures. Undated.

Dart P, Cordes K, Elliott A. Public Health Implications of the Proposed Cell Phone Transmission Tower at Oakway Golf Course. Undated.

Dart P, Cordes K, Elliott A, Knackstedt J, Morgan J, Wible P, Baker S. Biological and health effects of microwave radiofrequency transmissions: A review of the research literature. A report to Eugene Water and Electric Board. Jun 4, 2013.

European Environment Agency. Statement on Mobile Phones for Conference on Cell Phones and Health: Science and Public Policy Questions, Washington, 15 September 2009.

Frey A. Opinion: Cell Phone Health Risk? The Scientist. Sep 25, 2012.

Frey AH. On the Safety of Cell Phone Radiation. British Medical Journal. Nov 7, 2011.

Glaser ZR. Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena (‘Effects’) and Clinical Manifestations Attributed to Microwave and Radio-Frequency Radiation: Research Report No. 2 Revised. Naval Medical Research Institute. Oct 4, 1971. Second printing w/ revisions. Apr 20, 1972. (Contains more than 2,000 references.)

Goldsworthy A. The Biological Effects of Weak Electromagnetic Fields. Mar 2012.

Hardell L, Carlberg M, Gee D. Chapter 21. Mobile phone use and brain tumour risk: early warnings early actions?  In Emerging issues: Late lessons from early warnings: Science, precaution, innovation. European Environment Agency Report 1/2013. Jan 2013. Pp. 541-561.

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.

Kane RC. Cellular Telephone Russian Roulette: A Historical and Scientific Perspective. New York: Vantage Press. 2001.

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.

Lai H. Exhibit D: An Update on Neurological Effects of Nonionizing Electromagnetic Fields. Mar, 2014. 169 pp.

Lai H. Exhibit E: An Update on the Genetic Effects of Nonionizing Electromagnetic Fields. Mar, 2014. 94 pp.

Lai H. Abstracts of research publications on the biological effects of radiofrequency and cell phone radiation (1990-2017). Dec 13, 2017. 1,013 pp.

Lai H. A summary of recent literature on neurobiological effects of radiofrequency radiation. in “Mobile Communications and Public Health” Markov, M. (ed.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2018, Chapter 8, pp.187-222.

Lai H. Neurological effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields. Oct 1, 2017. 237 pp.

Lai H. Abstracts of research publications on radiofrequency radiation and free radical (oxidative) effects. Apr 19, 2019. 118 pp.

Lai H. Radiofrequency radiation comet assay studies. Apr 1, 2013. 40 pp.

Lai H. Percent comparison showing effect vs. no effect in neurological effect studies. Aug, 2019. 1 p.

Lai H. Percent comparison showing effect vs. no effect in comet assay and free radical (oxidative) (radiofrequency radiation and static field/ extremely low frequency field effect studies. Dec, 2017 and Apr, 2019. 1 p.

Lai H. Abstracts of research publications on neurological effects of static and extremely-low frequency electromagnetic fields (2007-2019). Sep 13, 2019. 117 pp.

Lai H. Supplementary Material: Literature on free radical generation after exposure to static and extremely-low-frequency electromagnetic fields (as of July 2019). 63 pp.

Leszczynski, D. FCC, IEEE and ICNIRP should tighten safety standards. Washington Times Communities. Apr 9, 2013.

Markova E, Malmgren L, Belyaev I. Microwaves from Mobile Phones Inhibit 53BP1 Focus Formation in Human Stem Cells Stronger than in Differentiated Cells: Possible Mechanistic Link to Cancer Risk. Environ Health Perspect. 118(3):394-399. Mar 2010.

Moskowitz JM. Comments on the 2012 GAO Report: “Exposure and Testing Requirements for Mobile Phones Should Be Reassessed”. Aug 15, 2012 (rev. Aug 24, 2012).

Moskowitz JM. Why the FCC Must Strengthen Radiofrequency Radiation Limits in the U.S.: A compilation of original press releases from April 2012 – November 2013. Nov 5, 2013.

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.

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.

Powerwatch. 1,670 peer-reviewed scientific papers on electromagnetic fields and biology or health. Electromagnetic Radiation Safety. Oct 22, 2018.

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.

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. Department of the Army. Bioeffects of Nonlethal Weapons. Feb 17, 1998 (Unclassified Dec 13, 2006).

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.

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

U.S. EPA. Letter from Norbert Hankin to Janet Newton re: inadequacy of FCC radiofrequency guidelines. Jul 16, 2002.

Wargo J, Taylor HS, Alderman N, Wargo L. Cell Phones: Technology | Exposures | Health Effects. Environment & Human Health, Inc. 2012.

Wisz, J. Potential Hazards of Cellular Phone Radiation: Responses to Fear and Uncertainty. Harvard University. 2002.