Maximum recommended radio frequency exposure levels(power density) by source
FCC (based on acute heating averaged over 30 minutes)
µW/m2 (for 30 - 300 MHz)
frequency (in Hz)/150 µW/m2
(for 300 MHz - 1500 MHz)
µW/m2 (for 1500 MHz - 100,000 MHz)
ICNIRP (2020) (based on acute heating averaged over 30 minutes)
2,000,000 µW/m2 (for 30 - 400 MHz)
frequency (in Hz)/200 µW/m2
(for 400 MHz - 2000 MHz)
µW/m2 (for 2000 MHz - 300,000 MHz)
Council of Europe, Resolution 1815
Recommended level: 106 µW/m2
European EMF guideline for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses.(Belyaev et al,, 2016)
FM radio: 100 - 10,000 µW/m2
Cell phone frequencies: 1 - 100 µW/m2
Wi-Fi (2400 and 5000 MHz): 0.1 - 10 µW/m2
Recommended levels: 3–6 µW/m2
Recommended level: <0.1 µW/m2
Mhz = megahertz = million cycles per second
µW/m2 = microwatts per square meter = millionths of a watt per square meter
April 19, 2022
Leading experts on wireless radiation biological effects call for stronger exposure limits in new research review
On April 19, Dr. Henry Lai and B. Blake Levitt published an extensive review of the research on the biological effects of wireless radiation which calls for stronger limits on radio frequency radiation exposure to protect human health. According to their paper, governments should adopt a maximum full-body Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) of 1.65 milliwatts per kilogram which is 48 times lower than the wireless exposure limits that allow the public to be exposed to a full-body SAR of 80 milliwatts per kilogram and 960 times lower than the 1.6 watts per kilogram cell phone exposure limit for the head and torso in the U.S. The paper was published in the peer-reviewed journal, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine (see abstract and excerpts below).
Lai H, Levitt BB. The roles of intensity, exposure duration, and modulation on the biological effects of radiofrequency radiation and exposure guidelines. Electromagn Biol Med. 2022 Apr 3;41(2):230-255. doi: 10.1080/15368378.2022.2065683.
"The duration of exposure is another important factor in biological effects. Other than demarcations for whole body exposures averaged over 30 minutes and local body areas averaged over 6 minutes, neither FCC nor ICNIRP address duration, especially pertaining to long-term and low-level RFR exposures. These are prevalent in both near-field exposures to people with WiFi routers, for example, as well as cell phones, and far-field exposures from infrastructure that have created chronic rising ambient background levels (Levitt et al. 2021a). The guidelines are written only for short-term acute durations.... What we do know is that the supposition that all exposures are the same above and below the SAR threshold set by FCC/ICNIRP is fundamentally flawed in light of the most current research. One feasible and logical solution to such uncertainties regarding duration as an exposure factor would be to adopt an SAR level commensurate with the studies summarized in Supplement 1 at no higher than 0.00165 W/kg, no matter the exposure conditions."
It is also apparent that
how RFR modulation affects biological functions is difficult to
quantify. Observed effects are multi-variant and involve many factors
such as intensity, carrier frequencies and modulation, the modulation
waveform itself, exposure duration, and properties of the exposed
object. Not enough research data are presently available to provide an
explanation or prediction of modulation effects under all circumstances.
It may also turn out that modulation is of little major health concern
or conversely that it is the only factor that matters – evidence is thus
far too contradictory regarding modulation’s ability to consistently
enhance the biological effects of carrier-waves. Then again, with most
modulation forms the carrier-wave is completely altered. All of this
awaits proper investigation with comparison studies. In the meantime,
there are legitimate reasons for concern, given the contradictions in the
In general, anthropogenic RFR – with highly unusual waveform characteristics and intensities that do not exist in the natural world – is new to the environment and thus has not been a factor in the evolution of species. Living organisms evolved over millions of years in the presence of static and extremely-low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic fields. These fields play critical roles in their survival, e.g., in migration, food foraging, and reproduction, etc. (see Levitt et al. 2021b). Living organisms are extremely sensitive to the presence of these environmental fields and thus, they can easily be disturbed by man-made EMF. RFR probably acts upon and modifies these primordial EMFs and affects biological functions. Interactions of static/ELF EMF and RFR are basically not well studied, not to mention the mechanisms of involvement of RFR modulations. The interactions are inevitably complex. Such interaction studies would provide answers to wildlife effects.
Regarding the perennial thermal- versus non-thermal- effects criticism inherent in human RFR exposure guidelines, it must be said that the underlying mechanisms of effects should not be a matter of concern in setting of exposure guidelines as is common today. What is important is the level at which energy absorption causes an effect. One such powerful proof – among so very many others – of non-thermal effects is evidenced in the fact that CW and modulated-waves of the same frequency and incident power density can produce different effects, as seen in the modulation section of this paper and Table 2."
Cellphone radiation was classified a “possible carcinogen” in 2011 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, a conclusion based on human epidemiological studies that found an increased risk of glioma, a malignant brain cancer, associated with cellphone use.
“We have grave concerns over the outdated approach the federal government has relied on to study the health effects of cellphone radiation and set its current safety limit and advice for consumers,” said EWG President Ken Cook. “Government guidelines are a quarter-century old and were established at a time when wireless devices were not a constant feature of the lives of nearly every American, including children.”
AbstractBackground Epidemiological studies and research on laboratory animals link radiofrequency radiation (RFR) with impacts on the heart, brain, and other organs. Data from the large-scale animal studies conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) and the Ramazzini Institute support the need for updated health-based guidelines for general population RFR exposure.
Objectives The development of RFR exposure limits expressed in whole-body Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), a metric of RFR energy absorbed by biological tissues.
Methods Using frequentist and Bayesian averaging modeling of non-neoplastic lesion incidence data from the NTP study, we calculated the benchmark doses (BMD) that elicited a 10% response above background (BMD10) and the lower confidence limits on the BMD at 10% extra risk (BMDL10). Incidence data for individual neoplasms and combined tumor incidence were modeled for 5% and 10% response above background.
Results Cardiomyopathy and increased risk of neoplasms in male rats were the most sensitive health outcomes following RFR exposures at 900 MHz frequency with Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) and Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) modulations. BMDL10 for all sites cardiomyopathy in male rats following 19 weeks of exposure, calculated with Bayesian model averaging, corresponded to 0.27–0.42 W/kg whole-body SAR for CDMA and 0.20–0.29 W/kg for GSM modulation. BMDL10 for right ventricle cardiomyopathy in female rats following 2 years of exposure corresponded to 2.7–5.16 W/kg whole-body SAR for CDMA and 1.91–2.18 W/kg for GSM modulation. For multi-site tumor modeling using the multistage cancer model with a 5% extra risk, BMDL5 in male rats corresponded to 0.31 W/kg for CDMA and 0.21 W/kg for GSM modulation.