Thursday, October 1, 2026

Overview of Contents




"Harmful Wireless Radiation" (Joel Moskowitz, Green Sense Radio podcast, July 2025) 

"Health Hazards of Wireless Technologies: What do we know now?" (Joel Moskowitz, Collaborative on Health & Environment webinar / video & slides, Sep. 2024)

"Radiofrequency Radiation and Your Health: Is 5G Harmful?" (Joel Moskowitz, Federal Mobility Group webinar / video & slides, 2023)

"Health Effects of Cellphone & Cell Tower Radiation: Implications for 5G" (Joel Moskowitz, University of California Center for Occupational & Environmental Health webinar / video & slides, 2021)



"Cellphone radiation is harmful, but few want to believe it" (Joel Moskowitz, UC Berkeley News, 2021)


Wireless Radiation TV News Coverage (300+ TV news videos)


Mobile Phone Health Effects

Key Cell Phone Radiation Research Studies
Recent Research on Wireless Radiation and Electromagnetic Fields (2016 on)

Cancer or Tumor Risk

         Animal Studies
The UK Million Women Study of Cell Phone Use and Brain Tumor Risk

Other Health Risks



Cell Phone and Wireless Radiation





Wireless Radiation Research, Guidelines & Regulatory Policies

American Academy of Pediatrics
American Academy of Pediatrics: Protect Children from Cell Phone & Wireless Radiation

American Cancer Society
American Cancer Society: Cell Phone Radiation Risk

Berkeley Model Cell Phone Ordinance
Berkeley Cell Phone "Right to Know" Ordinance

California Public Health Department
Cell Phone Safety Guidance from the California Public Health Department
California's Cell Phone Safety Guidance: Media Coverage

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
New York Times’ Exposé of CDC’s Retraction of Warnings about Cell Phone Radiation

Federal Communications Commission

Government Accountability Office (GAO)
Cell Phone Industry Product Liability Lawsuit

International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF)

Welcome to EMR Safety

The Electromagnetic Radiation Safety web site has addressed key scientific and policy developments concerning the health risks from exposure to electromagnetic radiation (EMR) and other non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) since 2013.

This website is curated by Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley. To avoid conflicts of interest, I do not promote or endorse any products. Moreover, I have little confidence in most manufacturers' product safety claims even by manufacturers who report independent laboratory test results for their products.


Any use of my name, image, webinars, or website in marketing products is unauthorized and misleading. For more information see Buyer Beware: Cell Phone Radiation-Reducing Products.

With over 250 posts, Saferemr.com provides a curated collection of links to articles about the health risks associated with cell phones, cell towers, 2G thru 5G, Wi-Fi, Smart Meters, electric and hybrid cars, and other wireless devices. 

I also report on the manufacturing of doubt about the science by industry-linked scientists and organizations and by government agencies and their support for the inadequate EMF exposure guidelines recommended by the IEEE, ICNIRP, and the FCC.

Key Posts
This web site has had more than 5 million page views by visitors from over 200 countries which attests to global concern about the impact of wireless radiation on our health and on the environment.


EMR Safety reached one million page views on April 7, 2017, two million page views on March 11, 2019, three million page views on July 14, 2021, four million page views on February 22, 2024, five million pages on November 12, 2025, and 5.5 million pages on June 11, 2026.

More than half (56%) of visitors were from outside the United States with Canada, United Kingdom, France, India, Germany, China, Hong Kong, Russia, and Australia represented the most.



For visitors new to this website or this topic, see the overviews about why we are concerned about cell phones, cell towers, and other wireless devices:

"Cellphone radiation is harmful, but few want to believe it"
(Interview with Joel Moskowitz, UC Berkeley News, July 1, 2021)


"Health Hazards of Wireless Technologies: What do we know now?" (Joel Moskowitz, Collaborative on Health & Environment webinar / video & slides, 2024)
To explore specific topics, click on "Overview of Contents," located on the right hand side of the page.  Articles are listed by topic. Find the article of interest and click on the link.

You can also look up articles by the month and year they were last updated in the archive, which is located in the right-hand column. Click on the month and a list of articles posted that month will appear. Then click on the article’s title, and it will take you to the post of interest.

Each month I update a summary of peer-reviewed research on health risks associated with wireless radiation including the cancer risk, reproductive harm and neurological disorders. The complete collection of abstracts which contains more than 2,000 scientific papers since 2016 can be downloaded as pdf files.

Finally, you can find topics of interest by using the Search Box at the upper left hand side of the page: 

The most popular posts address 5G radiation, cellphones and health, the role of cell phones in increasing cancer or tumor incidence, and EMF in hybrid and electric automobiles.

For regular updates about electromagnetic radiation safety follow me on 
LinkedIn, X (@berkeleyprc) or Facebook.




International Scientist Appeal on Electromagnetic Fields & Wireless Technology  (250+ EMF scientists petition for warnings & stronger regulation)

Mobilize, a Film about Cell Phone Radiation  -- Award-winning documentary


Radio Interviews (and Podcasts)

Supplemental Information:

Monday, September 28, 2026

Cross-Review Audit of WHO RF-EMF Systematic Reviews

Sep 15, 2026 (updated Sep 28, 2026)

Because I co-authored three peer-reviewed papers* critical of the WHO radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) systematic reviews, Academia Co-scientist (an AI collaborator) proposed and produced an audit of these reviews for me. These systematic reviews will form the basis for an upcoming WHO Monograph on RF-EMF effects which is why I am sharing this working paper now while it can still do some good. 

Whereas the original working paper (dated Sep 15, 2026) reported on 112 outcome-level certainty ratings, the current version (dated Sep 27, 2026) reports on 150 outcome-level certainty ratings. The current version includes certainty ratings reported in supplementary files for several of the 12 WHO RF-EMF systematic reviews. Furthermore, this version contains the corrected values reported in corrigenda published by the authors of several systematic reviews after their original reviews were published.

As with my original message, this message was sent to the corresponding authors of the WHO RF-EMF systematic reviews, the members of the WHO RF-EMF Monograph Task Force, and several hundred EMF scientists worldwide to stimulate critical discussion about the validity of the reviews upon which this monograph will rely.

"Inconsistent application of GRADE certainty-of-evidence domains across the WHO-commissioned systematic reviews of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure: a cross-review audit"
 

By Academia Co-scientist assisted by Claude Opus 5, September 27, 2026

Summary

To update its 1993 RF-EMF monograph, the WHO commissioned a series of systematic reviews addressing prioritized health outcomes. Each review assessed certainty of evidence using the GRADE framework. If GRADE ratings are to be applied across a commissioned series into an overall statement about a hazard, the instrument must have been applied consistently across the reviews making up that series. This is not a question about RF-EMF at all. It is a question about the documents: does the imprecision domain mean the same thing in review A as in review B? Is an outcome rated Moderate in one review on the same scale as an outcome rated Moderate in another? Are the same upgrade routes available throughout?

A cross-review audit was conducted. Every outcome-level rating and domain decision was extracted from 11 reviews reported in 12 publications; the statistical power of every meta-analysis was quantified; risk-of-bias assignments were cross-checked against the primary papers; and all four published corrigenda were reconciled into the corpus.

The audit yielded 150 outcome-level certainty ratings and found that certainty ratings are not commensurable across the series.

Inconsistent "Imprecision": The imprecision domain carries at least eight operational definitions across the series. Each review, taken by itself, is broadly coherent — imprecision decisions track achieved power in the expected direction, pooled and within reviews (Spearman ρ = −0.46 across 122 estimates). What the reviews do not share is a threshold. Reviews downgraded for imprecision at achieved powers as high as 100% and declined to downgrade at powers as low as 10.4%, so there is no level of precision at which the series agrees on what the domain requires. This is a harder problem than carelessness: it cannot be fixed by asking any individual review to be more careful.

Contradictory Indirectness Rules: Two reviews hold that epidemiological evidence is never downgraded for indirectness. Four others downgrade it, one by two levels per outcome. The rules are mutually exclusive and are applied within a single evidence stream.

Structural Bias (Missing Upgrades): The upgrade half of GRADE is absent from three instruments and unused in most of the rest. Of 150 outcomes, eight operative upgrades use a bespoke cross-species domain; where the standard columns are present with prespecified numeric thresholds, they were never met. An instrument that can only subtract will inevitably converge on low certainty regardless of what the studies actually show.

Internal Contradictions: Identical inputs sometimes yielded opposite verdicts. Two halves of a single review implemented the same protocol clause in opposite directions. More sharply, within one evidence profile assessed by one team, a confidence interval 0.293 SD wide was downgraded for imprecision while one 0.351 SD wide, on the same cognitive test and at the same power, was not — the domain is not monotone in interval width even within a single table.

Certainty Language Outruns Precision: Of 122 meta-analyses with interpretable targets, 63 had less than 80% power against their moderate target. The principal cancer review has a median power of 0.28 to detect a 20% increase in risk, downgraded no outcome for imprecision, and rated four outcomes Moderate — the wording being that exposure "likely does not increase" risk — at powers of 0.17 to 0.64. A rating of that kind documents an absence of precision rather than an absence of effect.

Non-Comparable Scales: The animal and human cancer reviews were rated on entirely different scales. One expresses strength of positive support for a hazard, the other confidence in an absence of association, and the same word — "Moderate" — denotes different quantities in the two.

The audit takes no position on whether RF-EMF exposure causes any of these outcomes. Every finding above would stand unchanged if the reviews' substantive conclusions were entirely correct, because each concerns the internal consistency of the instrument rather than the adequacy of the inference.


Recommendations Prior to WHO Publication of RF-EMF Monograph

These differences originate in the instruments, not the evidence. The series should take the following steps before the WHO Monograph is published:

Publish a common operational specification for the imprecision and indirectness domains. One review in the series already prespecifies a quantitative imprecision criterion and obeys it in every row of its evidence profile, which establishes both that the domain can be specified and that no one else adopted the specification.

Explain the omission of upgrade columns (dose–response and large magnitude), as a downgrade-only instrument cannot return a high rating for any body of evidence.

Issue errata for internal discordances and clearly distinguish domains assessed "without concern" from domains that simply "could not be assessed." An evidence profile that prints a single character in a cell cannot express the difference, and readers aggregating across reviews cannot recover it.

Prior to publication of the WHO Environmental Health Criteria Monograph, the series should establish a common operational specification for the imprecision and indirectness domains and apply those criteria across all of its constituent reviews, to ensure consistency in their certainty-of-evidence ratings. Until then, ratings from different reviews in this series should not be treated as equivalent, and an overall characterization built by aggregating them across reviews will inherit differences that originate in the instruments rather than in the evidence.

The revised audit report can be downloaded at:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qrLFvfxK2ATg9JYM_ncJy65uS68J9xsp/view?usp=drive_link


* References

Frank, Melnick, Moskowitz on behalf of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). A critical appraisal of the WHO 2024 systematic review of the effects of RF-EMF exposure on tinnitus, migraine/headache, and non-specific symptoms. Reviews on Environmental Health, 2024. DOI: 10.1515/reveh-2024-0069. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2024-0069/html

Frank, Moskowitz, Melnick, Hardell, Philips, Héroux, Kelley, E. The systematic review on RF-EMF exposure and cancer by Karipidis et al. (2024) has serious flaws that undermine the validity of the study’s conclusions. Environment International, 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2024.109200. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412024007876

Melnick, Moskowitz, Héroux, Mallery-Blythe, McCredden, Herbert, Hardell, Philips, Belpoggi, Frank, Scarato, Kelley; on behalf of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). The WHO-commissioned systematic reviews on health effects of radiofrequency radiation provide no assurance of safety. Environmental Health. 2025 Oct 2;24(1):70. DOI: 10.1186/s12940-025-01220-4. https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-025-01220-4 Supplementary Material 1: "Examples of Working Group Authors’ Ties to Industry" Supplementary Material 2:  Moskowitz: "The Meta-Analyses in the WHO RF-EMF Systematic Reviews Yielded Unreliable Results" 


Related posts

Biased WHO-commissioned review claims no cancer link to cellphone use

International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF)

ICBE-EMF Publications

Tuesday, September 22, 2026

U.S. Health and Human Services Dept. Requests Information on EMF and Wireless Radiation






Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS or the Department).

ACTION: Notice of Request for Information (RFI) on electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure and human health.

SUMMARY: Consistent with the Department of Health and Human Services' emphasis on evaluating environmental factors that may affect human health, particularly among children and other potentially vulnerable populations, HHS seeks information on electromagnetic field (EMF) emissions and exposure, particularly RF and wireless, and human health. RF radiation and other forms of non-ionizing electromagnetic (EMF) exposure, will hereafter be referred to as “RF/EMF.” Responses will help identify and assess the current state of the scientific evidence on RF/EMF exposures and health outcomes, compare existing domestic and international safety standards and regulatory approaches, identify research gaps and priority areas for future study, and inform practical, evidence-based recommendations for policymakers, public health stakeholders, families, schools, and communities. HHS welcomes input from researchers, clinicians, public health professionals, industry, standards organizations, educators, advocacy groups, and members of the public to clearly distinguish established evidence from emerging findings and areas of uncertainty, and supports transparent, science-informed decision-making.

DATES:  Comments on this notice must be received no later than October 21, 2026.

ADDRESSES: 

RFI Docket: You may examine the RFI docket at regulations.gov under HHS-OASH-2026-0397. The docket contains this RFI and all comments received to date. To submit a response, click the “Comment” button inside Docket: HHS-OASH-2026-0397and follow all instructions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  

Victoria Marshall, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, OASH-RFI@hhs.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are energy fields produced by moving electrically charged particles and electrical currents. EMFs occur across a broad range of frequencies, including low radiofrequency (RF) associated with power systems and household appliances, as well as higher RF and microwave exposures associated with wireless communication technologies. HHS is conducting this request for information under 21 CFR subpart J.

Public concern about potential health effects from RF/EMF exposure has increased, particularly in relation to children, schools, and long-term cumulative exposure. At the same time, scientific literature is extensive, technically complex, and not always easy for policymakers or public health stakeholders to interpret. Exposure standards and regulatory approaches also vary across jurisdictions. HHS is interested in clear, balanced, and evidence-informed information about RF/EMF exposure that can support decision-making, identify research priorities, and inform practical strategies to reduce unnecessary exposure where appropriate.

Request for Information

For this RFI, HHS is seeking input from the public, including individuals, families, caregivers, healthcare professionals, public health practitioners, researchers, organizations, equipment or product manufacturers, service or infrastructure providers, and other interested stakeholders that have knowledge of or experience with RF/EMF emission and exposure. Please identify whether your response is based on peer-reviewed research, government reports, industry data, clinical observations, or other sources. If you rely on existing exposure guidelines, regulatory frameworks, or scientific assessments, please identify the specific framework(s) and explain how they inform your response. Respondents are encouraged to include supporting facts, research, datasets, technical reports, and other evidence in their comments, including citations to the published materials referenced, and active hyperlinks, where available.

INSTRUCTIONS

1. Responses submitted at regulations.gov/deregulation should follow the format provided there. You may respond to one or more of the questions listed below and please include question numbers provided in the response. Each responding entity (person or organization) should submit only one response. Unless submitted anonymously, responses should include the name(s) of the person(s) or organization(s) submitting the comment. If a comment is submitted on behalf of an organization, the individual respondent's role in the organization may also be provided. In your response, please describe which perspective(s) your comments represent: individual consumer, patient, family member, or caregiver; healthcare professional; equipment or product manufacturer; service or infrastructure provider; business; industry group; government; research entity; or another type of organization or perspective.

This RFI is voluntary, and responses may be submitted anonymously. Please do not submit proprietary, classified, confidential, or sensitive information, to include personally identifiable (PII) or personal health information (PHI), in response to this RFI.

This RFI should not be construed as a policy, solicitation for applications, or as an obligation on the part of the government to provide support for any ideas in response to it. Comments submitted will become public on regulations.gov. The information provided will be analyzed and may appear in anonymized reports, on HHS websites, or otherwise released publicly. Respondents are advised that the government is not obligated to acknowledge receipt of submissions. Those submitting responses are solely responsible for all expenses associated with response preparation. HHS will use the information submitted in response to this RFI at its discretion and will not comment on any respondent's submission. However, responses to this RFI may be reflected in future solicitation(s) or policies.

QUESTIONS

Public Experiences and Reported Potential Adverse Health Effects

2. In your response, please describe which perspective(s) your comments represent: individual consumer, patient, family member, or caregiver; healthcare professional; worker with occupational exposure; equipment or product manufacturer; service or infrastructure provider; business; industry group; government; research entity; or another type of organization or perspective.

3. We invite individuals, families, caregivers, healthcare professionals, and organizations to share experiences regarding potential adverse health effects they believe may be associated with exposure to RF/EMFs. Respondents are encouraged to provide as much detail as they are comfortable sharing, recognizing that responses to this RFI will be public and therefore should not include PII or PHI. Examples of information that may be helpful to include are the following:

a. The type(s) of wireless technology or RF/EMF source(s) involved ( e.g., mobile phones, Wi-Fi, smart meters, wireless infrastructure, wearable devices, occupational equipment).

b. The nature, duration, frequency, and approximate timing of the reported exposure(s).

c. The potential adverse health effects experienced.

d. When potential adverse health effects first appeared relative to when exposure began and whether any changes in exposure coincided with potential adverse health effects.

e. Whether medical evaluation or treatment was sought, including any diagnoses received (if the respondent chooses to share them).

f. Whether steps to reduce or eliminate exposure were taken and, if so, whether any subsequent changes in potential adverse health effects were observed.

g. Any supporting documentation, including scientific reports, exposure measurements, or other relevant information.

4. We invite healthcare professionals, researchers, and public health practitioners to describe observations from clinical practice, occupational settings, or research that may help identify patterns, if any, of reported potential adverse health effects associated with RF/EMF radiation and exposure. In describing these observations, please include where available:

h. The types of potential adverse health effects reported.

i. Onset of potential adverse health effects.

j. Characteristics of the individuals or populations involved, excluding any identifying information such as PII or PHI.

k. Any observed exposure patterns.

l. What standardized methods were used to assess exposure or potential adverse health effects, if any were used.

m. Recommendations for future research or surveillance.

Exposure Standards and Risk Assessment

5. What existing national and international exposure standards, guidelines, or regulatory frameworks should federal health agencies consider when evaluating the potential adverse health effects of human exposure to RF/EMF?

n. What scientific, technical, or regulatory changes by federal health agencies, if any, would improve the assessment, disclosure, and regulation of wireless radiation exposure?

o. Is additional research needed to develop, test, and evaluate the effectiveness of procedures and techniques for minimizing exposure to electronic product radiation? Where are the largest gaps, if any, in knowledge? What research is needed to appropriately evaluate current or future national and international exposure standards, guidelines, or regulatory frameworks.

p. How, if at all, should a classification system account for exposure-related characteristics, including operating frequency, power density, specific absorption rate (SAR), electric- and magnetic-field strength, modulation and pulse characteristics, duty cycle, beamforming, simultaneous exposure to multiple frequencies, duration of exposure, distance from the source, proximity to the body, and cumulative exposure over time?

6. What scientific evidence exists about potential adverse health effects caused by current exposure limits?

Measuring Human Exposure and Public Health Surveillance

7. What scientific methods are currently available for accurately characterizing individual and population-level RF radiation exposure?

8. What, if any, improvements in exposure assessment methodologies are needed to better evaluate real-world exposure conditions?

9. What, if any, technical and exposure-related information should be disclosed to consumers, residents, workers, schools, healthcare providers, and local governments?

10. What data sources or surveillance systems currently exist to monitor potential adverse health effects associated with RF radiation exposure? Should additional data sources or surveillance systems be developed? Please discuss the benefits and challenges of the following data sources and surveillance systems, as relevant:

a. disease registries.

b. occupational monitoring.

c. environmental monitoring.

d. longitudinal cohort studies.

e. biomonitoring.

f. adverse event reporting.

g. disease or illness clusters.

h. Other.

11. Should exposure assessment or risk evaluation differ for sensitive populations such as those noted below? Please explain.

a. children.

b. pregnant women.

c. older adults.

d. individuals with implanted medical devices.

e. workers with elevated occupational exposure.

f. individuals with preexisting medical conditions.

g. Other populations that may uniquely experience potential adverse health effects in response to RF radiation.

Existing Evidence

12. What scientific evidence exists regarding potential adverse health effects associated with RF radiation exposure at levels below current federal exposure limits?

13. According to scientific evidence, how do the technologies below affect cumulative exposure patterns?

a. 5G.

b. 6G.

c. Wi-Fi.

d. Satellite-based communications.

e. Internet of Things (IoT).

f. Wearable technologies.

g. Smart homes/appliances.

h. Smart cities.

i. Autonomous vehicles.

j. Wireless medical devices.

k. Communication enabled smart meters.

14. What scientific evidence exists regarding potential adverse environmental effects associated with RF radiation?

15. What types of scientific evidence should be considered when evaluating RF exposure associated with wireless infrastructure? Please comment on:

a. proximity to homes, schools, childcare facilities, healthcare facilities, and/or workplaces.

b. cumulative neighborhood exposure.

c. antenna density.

d. small-cell deployment.

e. livestock.

Federal Research Priorities

16. What are the highest priority research gaps regarding EMF and RF radiation and public health that the federal health agencies should address?

17. How can federal health agencies improve coordination of EMF and RF radiation research? Please comment on potential roles for federal health agencies including, but not limited to:

a. HHS Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

b. HHS National Institutes of Health (NIH).

c. HHS Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Additional Information

18. Please identify any additional scientific evidence, technical information, data, or recommendations that federal health agencies should consider when evaluating potential adverse health effects associated with RF/EMF radiation exposure.

Published Document: 2026-19252 (91 FR 59792)