Health and safety practices and policiesconcerning human exposure to RF/microwave radiation
In a newly-published paper,
one
of the world's most renowned scientists who has studied the effects of
radio frequency (RF) radiation, Dr. James C. Lin,
Professor Emeritus at the University of Illinois, Chicago, and a former
President of the Bioelectromagnetics Society and ICNIRP Commissioner,
criticizes current RF radiation safety standards and the
World Health Organization's systematic reviews of the research on RF
radiation that dismiss the substantial evidence for adverse biological
and health effects. He concludes this commentary with a discussion of an
apparent paradigm shift in military research, namely recognition of
nonthermal genotoxic effects from low-intensity RF radiation.
.jpg)
Professor Lin received the 2025 IEEE Microwave Career Award from the IEEE Microwave Theory and Techniques Society. The award recognizes individuals who have made outstanding achievements and contributions to microwave theory and technology.Lin’s prolific career includes work in biomedical instrumentation, electromagnetics in biology and medicine, imaging and sensing, bioelectromagnetics, mobile telecommunication safety, and biological interactions of electromagnetic radiation, including RF, microwaves, and lasers.
Lin is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and the Union Radio-Scientifique Internationale. He is a founding member of the American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering and was a member of the U.S. President’s Committee on the National Medal of Science.
James C. Lin. Health and safety practices and policies concerning human exposure to RF/microwave radiation. Front. Public Health, 20 July 2025. Volume 13 - 2025 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.
Concerns about the impacts on the public health and safety of radiofrequency (RF) exposure are increasing with the rapid proliferation of cellular mobile telecommunication systems and devices. There is also lack of confidence surrounding the applicability of stated health safety rules, limits and guidelines for RF exposure including their use for 5G and the expected 6G. This paper: (1) considers the currently promulgated standards for safe human exposure to RF radiation, (2) examines assumptions underlying the standards, (3) describes the roles of the military industrial complex in influencing research on the health effects and standards setting for safety levels, (4) discusses the engagement of an industry-regulatory complex, (5) explains the interaction between ICNIRP and the WHO-EMF, (6) scrutinizes recent publications of WHO-EMF commissioned systematic reviews, and (7) concludes with some observations on an apparent paradigm shift.
Discussion and conclusion
Public health concerns for the biological effects and safety of wireless RF radiation exposure are increasing with the rapid proliferation of cellular mobile telecommunication systems and devices. There is also lack of confidence about the efficacy of promulgated health safety limits, rules, and recommendations for wireless RF radiation including 5G used by these devices and systems. The currently promulgated RF exposure guidelines and standards apply predominantly to restrict short-term heating of RF radiation due to elevated tissue temperatures.
There are substantial incongruities and inconsistencies in the ICNIRP guidelines and IEEE/ICES standards. Furthermore, apart from the guideline’s irregularities, the biased assessments of the scientific database and less trustworthy appraisals such as many of the recent WHO sponsored systematic reviews make it difficult to reach a judgment with confidence. Some of the safety guidelines are irrelevant, debatable, and absent of scientific justification from the standpoint of safety and public health protection.
Full recognition of a public health risk takes time, and it is taking even longer these days given the fast pace of technological developments and rapidity at which they are launched into the commercial realm. The postulate of “An ounce of prevention is far better than a pound of cure” appears to have banished with little trace (39). Its mere mention under the current environment easily stirs robust rejoinders, with momentous opposition from those who may have profited from the massive marketing efforts. But given the growing ubiquity, is the premise of an “ounce of prevention” for RF radiation from cellphones and related wireless communication tools so far out of the question?
The question of how there can be such dissimilar assessments and inferences of the same scientific studies has persisted for some time. Less than strict enforcement of policies and procedures in research conduct or full disclosure of conflicts of financial and other interests can lead to failures in guiding and informing the development of transparent and consistent evaluations of scientific evidence for safety protection. Humans are not necessarily consistent or as reasonable as presumed. It is well known that politicians frequently make choices to promote self-interest or gain political advantage. To be fair, scientists can be driven by egocentric motives and are not immune to conflicts of interest. Indeed, science has never been devoid of politics—like it or not. Humans regularly make choices and judgments that challenge clear logic. Biases can impair rational thinking and lead to flawed decisions. “Groupthink can keep humans from being sensible and prevent the reaching of evidence-based conclusions” (30). Regrettably, groupthink or the herd mindset is as rife today as ever. “Has science become partisan? And the corollary, if science becomes partisan, is it science or politics, or would it be political science? Perhaps, science got wrapped up in politics and politics is intervening with science—a matter of guilelessly being politically correct of the willing” (82). When decisions are made through compromised judgment or not reached by cautiously weighing the scientific information they could lead to poor conclusions through biases.
Cellphones and wireless mobile communication technologies have enriched human lives. It is difficult to imagine contemporary lives without them. The deployment of 5G mobile technology is well underway with it heralded mm-wave performances. It is not evident whether the health effects of 5G mm-wave radiations would be analogous or not to previous generations of cellphone and wireless communication technologies, given the paucity of research on health effects of 5G mm-wave radiations. Without dispute, cellphones have provided direct benefits to multiple arenas of human endeavor that includes helping to safeguard our personal safety and security. Nonetheless, for the judgment on the health and safety of billions of users who are subjected to repeated, unnecessary levels of RF radiation over a protract length of time or even over their lifetimes, the verdict is still out. It is significant to note that cellphones have SAR ranging from 0.2 and 0.5 W/kg (83). Clearly, cellphones operate at a fraction of the SAR acceptable to IEEE-ICES and ICNIRP. It is conceivable that forthcoming developments would enable cellphone functions including data transmission at much lower exposure levels. Therefore, the ALARA—as low as reasonably achievable principle and practice —should be followed for RF health and safety when confronted with such divergent assessments of wireless RF radiation.
As noted, the recent announcement of termination of NIH-NTP’s RF effects research program on how RF microwave radiation causes cancer practically halted most, if not all, biological research of RF radiation supported by the civilian U.S. government. On the other hand, the RadioBio initiative seems to suggest a paradigm shift in the U.S. military’s standard of operation procedures, away from a conviction of nothing but thermal effect could be associated with RF and microwaves. The new initiatives appear to allow exploration (and perhaps exploitation) of low-level, nonthermal biological response to RF radiation. In this regard, the recent publications from some of the military research laboratories may serve as telltales of more to come. These results are putting a spotlight on an atypical event, a paradigm shift in which a scientific investigation from an U.S. military research laboratory reporting a cytogenetic response or more specifically, an epigenetic role in the cellular response to low-level RF exposure, potentially, with major influences on gene activities.
Public health concerns for the biological effects and safety of wireless RF radiation exposure are increasing with the rapid proliferation of cellular mobile telecommunication systems and devices. There is also lack of confidence about the efficacy of promulgated health safety limits, rules, and recommendations for wireless RF radiation including 5G used by these devices and systems. The currently promulgated RF exposure guidelines and standards apply predominantly to restrict short-term heating of RF radiation due to elevated tissue temperatures.
There are substantial incongruities and inconsistencies in the ICNIRP guidelines and IEEE/ICES standards. Furthermore, apart from the guideline’s irregularities, the biased assessments of the scientific database and less trustworthy appraisals such as many of the recent WHO sponsored systematic reviews make it difficult to reach a judgment with confidence. Some of the safety guidelines are irrelevant, debatable, and absent of scientific justification from the standpoint of safety and public health protection.
Full recognition of a public health risk takes time, and it is taking even longer these days given the fast pace of technological developments and rapidity at which they are launched into the commercial realm. The postulate of “An ounce of prevention is far better than a pound of cure” appears to have banished with little trace (39). Its mere mention under the current environment easily stirs robust rejoinders, with momentous opposition from those who may have profited from the massive marketing efforts. But given the growing ubiquity, is the premise of an “ounce of prevention” for RF radiation from cellphones and related wireless communication tools so far out of the question?
The question of how there can be such dissimilar assessments and inferences of the same scientific studies has persisted for some time. Less than strict enforcement of policies and procedures in research conduct or full disclosure of conflicts of financial and other interests can lead to failures in guiding and informing the development of transparent and consistent evaluations of scientific evidence for safety protection. Humans are not necessarily consistent or as reasonable as presumed. It is well known that politicians frequently make choices to promote self-interest or gain political advantage. To be fair, scientists can be driven by egocentric motives and are not immune to conflicts of interest. Indeed, science has never been devoid of politics—like it or not. Humans regularly make choices and judgments that challenge clear logic. Biases can impair rational thinking and lead to flawed decisions. “Groupthink can keep humans from being sensible and prevent the reaching of evidence-based conclusions” (30). Regrettably, groupthink or the herd mindset is as rife today as ever. “Has science become partisan? And the corollary, if science becomes partisan, is it science or politics, or would it be political science? Perhaps, science got wrapped up in politics and politics is intervening with science—a matter of guilelessly being politically correct of the willing” (82). When decisions are made through compromised judgment or not reached by cautiously weighing the scientific information they could lead to poor conclusions through biases.
Cellphones and wireless mobile communication technologies have enriched human lives. It is difficult to imagine contemporary lives without them. The deployment of 5G mobile technology is well underway with it heralded mm-wave performances. It is not evident whether the health effects of 5G mm-wave radiations would be analogous or not to previous generations of cellphone and wireless communication technologies, given the paucity of research on health effects of 5G mm-wave radiations. Without dispute, cellphones have provided direct benefits to multiple arenas of human endeavor that includes helping to safeguard our personal safety and security. Nonetheless, for the judgment on the health and safety of billions of users who are subjected to repeated, unnecessary levels of RF radiation over a protract length of time or even over their lifetimes, the verdict is still out. It is significant to note that cellphones have SAR ranging from 0.2 and 0.5 W/kg (83). Clearly, cellphones operate at a fraction of the SAR acceptable to IEEE-ICES and ICNIRP. It is conceivable that forthcoming developments would enable cellphone functions including data transmission at much lower exposure levels. Therefore, the ALARA—as low as reasonably achievable principle and practice —should be followed for RF health and safety when confronted with such divergent assessments of wireless RF radiation.
As noted, the recent announcement of termination of NIH-NTP’s RF effects research program on how RF microwave radiation causes cancer practically halted most, if not all, biological research of RF radiation supported by the civilian U.S. government. On the other hand, the RadioBio initiative seems to suggest a paradigm shift in the U.S. military’s standard of operation procedures, away from a conviction of nothing but thermal effect could be associated with RF and microwaves. The new initiatives appear to allow exploration (and perhaps exploitation) of low-level, nonthermal biological response to RF radiation. In this regard, the recent publications from some of the military research laboratories may serve as telltales of more to come. These results are putting a spotlight on an atypical event, a paradigm shift in which a scientific investigation from an U.S. military research laboratory reporting a cytogenetic response or more specifically, an epigenetic role in the cellular response to low-level RF exposure, potentially, with major influences on gene activities.
==
July 23, 2018
Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An international perspective
Belpomme D,
Hardell, L, Belyaev I, Burgio E, Carpenter DO. Thermal and non-thermal health
effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An international perspective.
Environ Pollut. 2018 Jul 6; 242(Pt A):643-658. doi:
10.1016/j.envpol.2018.07.019.
Highlights
• Exposure to electromagnetic fields has increased dramatically.
• Electromagnetic fields at low and non-thermal intensities increase risk of cancer in animals and humans.
• Some individuals are particularly sensitive and develop a syndrome of electrohypersensitivity.
• There is an urgent need to recognize hazards associated with excessive exposure to non-thermal levels of electromagnetic fields.
Abstract
Exposure to low frequency and radiofrequency electromagnetic fields at low intensities poses a significant health hazard that has not been adequately addressed by national and international organizations such as the World Health Organization. There is strong evidence that excessive exposure to mobile phone-frequencies over long periods of time increases the risk of brain cancer both in humans and animals. The mechanism(s) responsible include induction of reactive oxygen species, gene expression alteration and DNA damage through both epigenetic and genetic processes. In vivo and in vitro studies demonstrate adverse effects on male and female reproduction, almost certainly due to generation of reactive oxygen species. There is increasing evidence the exposures can result in neurobehavioral decrements and that some individuals develop a syndrome of "electro-hypersensitivity" or "microwave illness", which is one of several syndromes commonly categorized as "idiopathic environmental intolerance". While the symptoms are non-specific, new biochemical indicators and imaging techniques allow diagnosis that excludes the symptoms as being only psychosomatic. Unfortunately standards set by most national and international bodies are not protective of human health. This is a particular concern in children, given the rapid expansion of use of wireless technologies, the greater susceptibility of the developing nervous system, the hyperconductivity of their brain tissue, the greater penetration of radiofrequency radiation relative to head size and their potential for a longer lifetime exposure.
Highlights
• Exposure to electromagnetic fields has increased dramatically.
• Electromagnetic fields at low and non-thermal intensities increase risk of cancer in animals and humans.
• Some individuals are particularly sensitive and develop a syndrome of electrohypersensitivity.
• There is an urgent need to recognize hazards associated with excessive exposure to non-thermal levels of electromagnetic fields.
Abstract
Exposure to low frequency and radiofrequency electromagnetic fields at low intensities poses a significant health hazard that has not been adequately addressed by national and international organizations such as the World Health Organization. There is strong evidence that excessive exposure to mobile phone-frequencies over long periods of time increases the risk of brain cancer both in humans and animals. The mechanism(s) responsible include induction of reactive oxygen species, gene expression alteration and DNA damage through both epigenetic and genetic processes. In vivo and in vitro studies demonstrate adverse effects on male and female reproduction, almost certainly due to generation of reactive oxygen species. There is increasing evidence the exposures can result in neurobehavioral decrements and that some individuals develop a syndrome of "electro-hypersensitivity" or "microwave illness", which is one of several syndromes commonly categorized as "idiopathic environmental intolerance". While the symptoms are non-specific, new biochemical indicators and imaging techniques allow diagnosis that excludes the symptoms as being only psychosomatic. Unfortunately standards set by most national and international bodies are not protective of human health. This is a particular concern in children, given the rapid expansion of use of wireless technologies, the greater susceptibility of the developing nervous system, the hyperconductivity of their brain tissue, the greater penetration of radiofrequency radiation relative to head size and their potential for a longer lifetime exposure.
Excerpts
"In spite of a
large body of evidence for human health hazards from non-ionizing EMFs at
intensities that do not cause measureable tissue heating, summarized in an
encyclopedic fashion in the Bioinitiative Report (www.bioinitiative.org), the
World Health Organization (WHO) and governmental agencies in many countries
have not taken steps to warn of the health hazards resulting from exposures to
EMFs at low, non-thermal intensities, nor have they set exposure standards that
are adequately health protective. In 2001 the International Agency for Research
on Cancer (IARC, 2002), part of the WHO, declared ELF-EMFs to be “possibly
carcinogenic to humans”, and in 2011 they made a similar declaration for
RF-EMFs (Baan et al., 2011; IARC, 2013). The classification of RF-EMFs as a
“possible” human carcinogen was based primarily on evidence that long-term
users of mobile phones held to the head resulted in an elevated risk of
developing brain cancer. One major reason that the rating was not at “probable”
or “known” was the lack of clear evidence from animal studies for exposure
leading to cancer. The US National Toxicology Program has released preliminary
results of a study of long term exposure of rats to cell phone radiation which
resulted in a statistically significant increase in brain gliomas, the same
cancer found in people after long-term cell phone use, and schwannomas, a tumor
similar to the acoustic neuroma also seen after intensive mobile phone use
(Wyde et al., 2016). Similar results in rats have been reported in an
independent study at the Ramazzini Institute with exposures similar to those
from a mobile phone base station (Falcioni et al., 2018). This evidence, in
conjunction with the human studies, demonstrates conclusively that excessive
exposure to RF-EMF results in an increased risk of cancer. In light of this new
evidence for cancer in rodents in response to prolonged exposure to mobile
phone frequencies, the IARC rating should be raised at least to “probable”
(Group 2A) if not “known” (Group 1).
Unfortunately
the International EMF Project of the WHO, which is part of the Department of
Public Health, Environment and Social Determinants of Health in Geneva, has
consistently minimized health concerns from non-ionizing EMFs at intensities
that do not cause tissue heating (WHO, 2014). In this regard WHO has failed to
provide an accurate and human health-protective analysis of the dangers posed
to health, especially to the health of children, resulting from exposure to
non-thermal levels of electromagnetic fields. The Department of Public Health,
Environment and Social Determinants of Disease takes its advice on the issues
related to human health effects of non-ionizing EMFs from the International
Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). Almost all members of
the core group preparing the new Environmental Health Criteria (EHC) document
for the WHO are members of ICNIRP (Starkey, 2016; Hardell, 2017), a
non-government organization (NGO) whose members are appointed by other members.
In spite of recent efforts to control for conflicts of interest, ICNIRP has a
long record of close associations with industry (Maisch, 2006). When queried as
to why the WHO would take recommendations from such a group, WHO staff replied
that ICNIRP is an official NGO which works closely with the WHO. Why this
should exclude other scientific research groups and public health professionals
is unclear, particularly since most members of ICNIRP are not active
researchers in this field. We are particularly concerned that a new WHO EHC
document on RF-EMFs is scheduled to be released soon, and that the members of
the EHC Core Group and the individuals whose assistance has been acknowledged
are known to be in denial of serious non-thermal effects of RF-EMFs in spite of
overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary (Starkey, 2016; Hardell,
2017).
Others have
dismissed the strong evidence for harm from ELF- and RF-EMFs by arguing that we
do not know the mechanism whereby such low energetic EMFs might cause cancer
and other diseases. We have definitive evidence that use of a mobile phone
results in changes in brain metabolism (Volkow et al., 2011). We know that
low-intensity ELF- and RF-EMFs generate reactive oxygen species (ROS), alter
calcium metabolism and change gene expression through epigenetic mechanisms,
any of which may result in development of cancer and/or other diseases or
physiological changes (see www.bioinitiative.org for many references). We do not know
the mechanisms behind many known human carcinogens, dioxins and arsenic being
two examples. Given the strength of the evidence for harm to humans it is
imperative to reduce human exposure to EMFs. This is the essence of the
“precautionary principle”."
"Based on
case-control studies there was a consistent finding of increased risk for
glioma and acoustic neuroma associated with use of mobile phones. Similar
results were found for cordless phones in the Hardell group studies, although
such use was not reported by the other study groups. The findings are less
consistent for meningioma although somewhat increased risk was seen in the
meta-analysis of ipsilateral mobile phone use. A longer follow-up time is
necessary for this type of slow growing tumor."
"There are
other significant human health hazards of concern. There is strong animal and
human evidence that exposure to RF-EMFs as well as ELF-EMFs reduces fertility
in both males (reviewed by McGill and Agarwal, 2014) and females (Roshangar et
al., 2014) … There is evidence that isolated human sperm exposed to RF-EMFs are
damaged by generation of reactive oxygen species (Agarwal et al., 2009)."
"Exposure to
RF-EMFs has been reported to increase neuropsychiatric and behavioural
disorders (Johansson et al., 2010; Divan et al., 2012), trigger cardiac rhythm
alteration and peripheral arterial pressure instability (Havas, 2013; Saili et
al., 2015), induce changes in immune system function (Lyle et al., 1983;
Grigoriev et al., 2010; Sannino et al., 2011, 2014) and alter salivary (Augner
et al., 2010) and thyroid (Koyu et al., 2005; Mortavazi et al., 2009; Pawlak et
al., 2014) function."
"Children, and
especially fetuses, are more vulnerable than adults for most environmental exposures
(Sly and Carpenter, 2012) ….
Divan et al.
(2008) reported that prenatal and to a lesser degree postnatal exposure to cell
phones is associated with emotional and hyperactivity problems in 7-year old
children. This finding was confirmed in a second replicative study involving
different participants (Divan et al., 2012). Birks et al. (2017) used data from
studies in five cohorts from five different countries (83,884 children) and
concluded that maternal mobile phone use during pregnancy increased the risk
that the child will show hyperactivity and inattention problems. A
meta-analysis involving 125,198 children (mean age 14.5 years) reported statistically
significant associations between access to and use of portable screen-based
media devices (e.g. mobile phones and tablets) and inadequate sleep quality and
quantity and excessive daytime sleepiness (Carter et al., 2016)…."
"The specific
absorption rate (SAR)-based ICNIRP safety limits were established on the basis
of simulation of EMF energy absorption using standardized adult male phantoms,
and designed to protect people only from the thermal effects of EMFs. These
assumptions are not valid for two reasons. Not only do they fail to consider
the specific morphological and bioclinical vulnerabilities of children, but
also they ignore the effects known to occur at non-thermal intensities…."
"There is a
segment of the human population that is unusually intolerant to EMFs. The term
“electromagnetic hypersensitivity” or “electrohypersensitivity (EHS)” to
describe the clinical conditions in these patients was first used in a report
prepared by a European group of experts for the European Commission (Bergqvist et
al., 1997). Santini et al. (2001, 2003) reported similar symptoms occurring in
users of digital cellular phones and among people living near mobile phone base
stations ….
In summary it
is the strong opinion of the authors that there is presently sufficient
clinical, biological and radiological data emanating from different independent
international scientific research groups for EHS, whatever its causal origin,
to be acknowledged as a well-defined, objectively characterized pathological
disorder."
"Arguments
used in the past to attempt to discount the evidence showing deleterious health
effects of ELF-EMFs and RF-EMF exposure at non-thermal SAR levels were based on
the difficulties encountered in understanding the underlying biological effects
and the lack of recognized basic molecular mechanisms accounting for these
effects. This is no longer the case. There are a number of well-documented
effects of low intensity EMFs that are the mechanistic basis behind the
biological effects documented above (www.bioinitiative.org). These include induction
of oxidative stress, DNA damage, epigenetic changes, altered gene expression
and induction including inhibition of DNA repair and changes in intracelluar
calcium metabolism …."
"EMFs at
non-thermal intensities may interfere with other environmental stressors,
showing an interplay of molecular pathways and resulting in either beneficial
or detrimental health effects, depending on the nature and conditions of
co-exposures (Novoselova et al., 2017; Ji et al., 2016). One example is the
demonstration that RF-EMF exposure modulates the DNA damage and repair induced
by ionizing radiation (Belyaev et al., 1993). Another example is the
synergistic of exposure to lead and EMFs on cognitive function in children
described above (Choi et al., 2017; Byun et al., 2017). These co-exposure
factors should be considered when assessment of detrimental effects, including
carcinogenicity, is performed."
"Public Health
Implications of Human Exposure to EMFs
The incidence of brain cancer in children and adolescents has increased between 2000 and 2010 (Ostrom et al., 2015). Gliomas are increasing in the Netherlands (Ho et al., 2014), glioblastomas are increasing in Australia (Dobes et al., 2011) and England (Philips et al., 2018) and all brain cancers are increasing in Spain (Etxeberrua et al., 2015) and Sweden (Hardell and Carlberg, 2017). The latency period between initial exposure and clinical occurrence of brain cancer is not known but is estimated to be long. While not all reports of brain cancer rates show an increase, some do. The continually increasing exposure to EMFs from all sources may contribute to these increases. The prevalence of EHS is unknown, but various reports suggest that it is between 1 and 10% of the population (Hallberg and Oberfeld, 2006; Huang et al., 2018). Male fertility has been declining (Geoffroy-Siraudin et al., 2012; Levine et al., 2017). EMFs increase the risk of each of these diseases and others. Alzheimer's disease is increasing in many countries worldwide and its association with ELF-EMF occupational exposure has been clearly demonstrated through several independent epidemiological studies (Davanipour and Sobel, 2009; Sobel et al., 1996; Qiu et al., 2004) and a meta-analysis of these studies (García et al., 2008). A recent meta-analysis (Huss et al., 2018) has reported an increased risk of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in workers occupationally exposure to ELF-EMFs.
Safety limits for RF exposure have been based (until today) on the thermal effects of EMFs. But these standards do not protect people, particularly children, from the deleterious health effects of non-thermal EMFs (Nazıroğlu et al., 2013; Mahmoudabadi et al., 2015). Each of these diseases is associated with decrements in health and quality of life. Brain cancer patients often die is spite of some improvement in treatment, while EHS patients present with increased levels of distress, inability to work, and progressive social withdrawal. The ability for humans to reproduce is fundamental for the maintenance of our species.
The scientific evidence for harm from EMFs is increasingly strong. We do not advocate going back to the age before electricity or wireless communication, but we deplore the present failure of public health international bodies to recognize the scientific data showing the adverse effects of EMFs on human health. It is encouraging that some governments are taking action. France has removed WiFi from pre-schools and ordered Wi-Fi to be shut off in elementary schools when not in use (http://www.telegraph.co.uk.news/2017/12/11/france-ipose-total-ban-mobile-phones-schools/). The State of California Department of Public Health has issued a warning on use of mobile phones and offered advice on how to reduce exposure (State of California, 2017). There are many steps that are neither difficult nor expensive that can be taken to use modern technology but in a manner that significantly reduces threats to human health.
It is urgent that national and international bodies, particularly the WHO, take this significant public health hazard seriously and make appropriate recommendations for protective measures to reduce exposures. This is especially urgently needed for children and adolescents. It is also important that all parts of society, especially the medical community, educators, and the general public, become informed about the hazards associated with exposure to EMFs and of the steps that can be easily taken to reduce exposure and risk of associated disease."
The incidence of brain cancer in children and adolescents has increased between 2000 and 2010 (Ostrom et al., 2015). Gliomas are increasing in the Netherlands (Ho et al., 2014), glioblastomas are increasing in Australia (Dobes et al., 2011) and England (Philips et al., 2018) and all brain cancers are increasing in Spain (Etxeberrua et al., 2015) and Sweden (Hardell and Carlberg, 2017). The latency period between initial exposure and clinical occurrence of brain cancer is not known but is estimated to be long. While not all reports of brain cancer rates show an increase, some do. The continually increasing exposure to EMFs from all sources may contribute to these increases. The prevalence of EHS is unknown, but various reports suggest that it is between 1 and 10% of the population (Hallberg and Oberfeld, 2006; Huang et al., 2018). Male fertility has been declining (Geoffroy-Siraudin et al., 2012; Levine et al., 2017). EMFs increase the risk of each of these diseases and others. Alzheimer's disease is increasing in many countries worldwide and its association with ELF-EMF occupational exposure has been clearly demonstrated through several independent epidemiological studies (Davanipour and Sobel, 2009; Sobel et al., 1996; Qiu et al., 2004) and a meta-analysis of these studies (García et al., 2008). A recent meta-analysis (Huss et al., 2018) has reported an increased risk of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in workers occupationally exposure to ELF-EMFs.
Safety limits for RF exposure have been based (until today) on the thermal effects of EMFs. But these standards do not protect people, particularly children, from the deleterious health effects of non-thermal EMFs (Nazıroğlu et al., 2013; Mahmoudabadi et al., 2015). Each of these diseases is associated with decrements in health and quality of life. Brain cancer patients often die is spite of some improvement in treatment, while EHS patients present with increased levels of distress, inability to work, and progressive social withdrawal. The ability for humans to reproduce is fundamental for the maintenance of our species.
The scientific evidence for harm from EMFs is increasingly strong. We do not advocate going back to the age before electricity or wireless communication, but we deplore the present failure of public health international bodies to recognize the scientific data showing the adverse effects of EMFs on human health. It is encouraging that some governments are taking action. France has removed WiFi from pre-schools and ordered Wi-Fi to be shut off in elementary schools when not in use (http://www.telegraph.co.uk.news/2017/12/11/france-ipose-total-ban-mobile-phones-schools/). The State of California Department of Public Health has issued a warning on use of mobile phones and offered advice on how to reduce exposure (State of California, 2017). There are many steps that are neither difficult nor expensive that can be taken to use modern technology but in a manner that significantly reduces threats to human health.
It is urgent that national and international bodies, particularly the WHO, take this significant public health hazard seriously and make appropriate recommendations for protective measures to reduce exposures. This is especially urgently needed for children and adolescents. It is also important that all parts of society, especially the medical community, educators, and the general public, become informed about the hazards associated with exposure to EMFs and of the steps that can be easily taken to reduce exposure and risk of associated disease."
