Cell Phone Towers are Largest Contributor to Environmental Radiofrequency Radiation

​Wireless Radiation Exposure in New York City

​Thielens A, Salvatore Davi S, Hema S, Ricardo Toledo-Crow R. Urban Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure in New York City. Environmental Research. 2026. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2026.125040.

Abstract

This study investigates Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Field (RF-EMF) exposure across New York City’s five boroughs. The RF-EMF exposure was measured in 39 bands across the 88 MHz to 5.925 GHz frequency range using an exposimeter fixed in a backpack that was worn during walks along 38 predetermined paths in various representative urban environments of the city from September 2024 to May 2025. 

We calculated the summary statistics (minimum, p25, arithmetic mean, geometric mean, median, p25, p50, p75, p90, standard deviation) in units of electric field strength (V/m) and compared RF-EMF exposure quantitatively across urban environment type: commercial, residential, greenery, train underground, water ferry, indoor; across the five boroughs of the City: Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx, and Staten Island; and across six technology categories: radio and TV broadcast, cellular downlink (DL), cellular uplink (UL), WiFi (WLAN), Time Division Duplex (TDD), and Total Exposure. We also analyzed whether population density and foot traffic in each area correlate with RF-EMF exposure. 

A mean total RF-EMF exposure of 0.97 (+/- 0.88 V/m) was measured in NYC. We found that cellular downlink is the dominant contributor to mean environmental exposure, accounting for 45% to 55% of the total exposure in each borough. We found a moderate positive correlation (ρ = 0.5, p-value < 0.05) between exposure and foot traffic, and a weak or negligible, but statistically significant, positive correlation (ρ = 0.1, p-value < 0.05) between exposure and domiciled population density. 

The study provides a detailed assessment of the RF-EMF exposure levels in various urban environments offering a clearer understanding of the extent of exposure in a densely populated city like New York where wireless communication networks are continuously expanding. These results are important for policymakers when establishing RF exposure guidelines for the population of NYC and other urban areas in North America.

​Highlights

• Measurements of RF-EMF exposure across New York City’s five boroughs
• RF exposure is moderately and positively correlated to pedestrian foot traffic
• RF exposure is weakly correlated to residential population density
• Cellular downlink dominates environmental RF-EMF exposure in NYC
• RF exposure measurements are below ICNIRP and FCC reference levels

​Excerpts

... in North America there have been, up to now, only four studies that measure this exposure: one in Los Angeles (Sagar et al., 2018), one in Columbia, South Carolina (Koppel and Hardell, 2022), and two that only consider Wireless Fidelity (WiFi) in Mexico City (Ramirez-Vazquez et al., 2023a, 2021). When compared with approximately 100 studies conducted in Europe to quantify this exposure (Jalilian et al., 2019), it is clear that we are currently lacking measurement data to quantify personal exposure to RF-EMFs in other major metropolitan areas in the U.S....

Micro-environmental personal RF-EMF exposure assessments were conducted using an ExpoM-RF4™ exposimeter (Fields at Work GmbH, Zürich, Switzerland) that measures electric field intensity in V/m, in 39 user-configurable frequency bands covering the 88 MHz - 5.925 GHz frequency range as depicted in Fig. S1 (TOP) and Table S1....​

We selected 38 different urban environments in New York City, which are listed in Table S2 of the Supplementary Materials. Twenty-six were outdoor urban environments located in the five boroughs. Additionally, there were four indoor paths, five train measurements, and three water ferry routes measured, covering important public transport hubs and modes of transportation in NYC....

All data are available on our repository (github.com/NextGen-Environmental-Sensor-Lab/Urban-RF-EMF)....

​

Comparing our results to those reported in a systematic review of multiple cities (Ramirez-Vazquez 2023b, Table 3) would have New York City in 10th place of total ranked mean exposures (0.97 V/m across all 5 boroughs). However, we measured a maximum exposure value of 13.3 V/m in Wall Street (Manhattan in the Financial District) which is higher than the maximum reported in the cities of the systematic review....

Lastly, our indoor measured total mean values of 0.53 V/m (Table 4), although higher, are also within range of other reported values of 0.42 V/m by Kiouvrekis et al. (2020) and Panagiotakopoulos et al. (2023), and of 0.43 V/m by Ramirez-Vazquez et al. (2021)....

Finally, we did not measure RF-EMF exposure in the FR2 (24-28 GHz) frequency band, even though this band is licensed and in use in NYC. While we expect this band to mainly contribute to auto-induced and not environmental RF-EMF exposure, we do aim at quantifying it in our next study....

Conclusion

This study revealed that the mean total environmental RF-EMF exposure in New York City is 0.97 V/m across all five boroughs, which is within range of similar exposures in other technologically developed cities and well below the ICNIRP and FCC safety reference thresholds.

We also found that there is a moderate and statistically significant positive correlation between exposure and foot traffic (pedestrian mobility) across all boroughs. A Spearman correlation analysis showed correlations of with a p-value < 0.05.

We also looked at exposure and population density (residential) and found a weak to negligible yet statistically significant correlation in most boroughs, with the Spearman coefficients ranging between , with a p-value < 0.05.

These findings suggest that areas with a heavier human footprint coincide with higher RF-EMF emissions and that there is an increased demand and usage of mobile communication devices in these areas.

The summary statistics revealed that Commercial areas in the 5 boroughs exhibited the highest amount of total exposure (1.35 V/m). Manhattan measurements showed a higher mean total RMS E-field strength (1.42 V/m) than Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island and the Bronx. Throughout all Boroughs, Downlink was found to be the highest contributor to RF-EMF exposure (47%).

Our future work will aim to measure personal exposure to RF sources operating above 6 GHz, which are sporadically present in NYC, and to perform a more detailed analysis of TDD exposure to separate the UL and DL components. Additionally we plan to conduct long term longitudinal measurements with stationary devices at select locations in the City to investigate the temporal nature of the exposure relative to time of day and season, similar to Iakovidis et al. (2025). Lastly, a future study could use our findings to incorporate foot traffic and population density in machine learning models for the estimation and prediction of RF-EMF exposure, for example through the creation of exposure maps.

Open access: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001393512601371X

​

Supplementary data: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001393512601371X#appsec1

​--

A study conducted by the EPA in the 1970's which assessed RF exposure in 12 cities in the U.S. included New York City (Tell and Mantiply, 1982). The study reported a median exposure for NYC of 0.022 milliwatts per square meter. In comparison, the new study reported a total mean value for NYC of 0.97 V/m or 2.5 milliwatts per square meter. 

Thus, current outdoor RF exposure levels in New York City are about 114 times greater than what the EPA estimated fifty years ago. 

A six nation RF exposure study (Sagar et al., 2018) in which I was a co-author included a site in the U.S.: Los Angeles (see below for more information). In our study, the mean total RF exposure in Los Angeles (1.13 V/m) was slightly higher than the new study found in New York City (0.97 V/m). However, the new NYC study found a much higher maximum exposure in Wall Street (Manhattan in the Financial District) (13.3 V/m) than the highest value we found several years earlier in a rural center of Los Angeles (1.60 V/m).

Compared to the other five countries, Los Angeles had high exposure levels ranging from 1.4 milliwatts per square meter (mW/m²) (or 0.73 V/m) in a non-central residential area of Los Angeles to 6.8 mW/m² (or 1.60 V/m) in a rural center of the city. The median total exposure to RF-EMF across all eight outdoor microenvironments in Los Angeles was 3.4 mW/m² (or 1.13 V/m).

The last time RF-EMF exposure was systematically measured in Los Angeles was in the late 1970’s as part of a 12-city study conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Tell and Mantiply, 1982; Hankin, 1985). The EPA assessed RF-EMF in 38 outdoor locations in Los Angeles and found that the median population-weighted exposure was 0.05 mW/m² (or 0.14 V/m). At that time television and FM radio broadcast antennas were the most important contributors. Hence, since the 1990’s, the implementation of cell phone tower networks has resulted in substantial increase in RF-EMF.

Thus, recent outdoor RF exposure levels in Los Angeles are about 70 times greater than what the EPA estimated fifty years ago.

Sagar S, Adem SM, Struchen B, Loughran SP, Brunjes ME, Arangua L, Dalvie MA, Croft RJ, Jerrett M, Moskowitz JM, Kuo T, Röösli M. Comparison of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure levels in different everyday microenvironments in an international context. Environment International, 114: 297-306. 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.02.036. 

https://www.saferemr.com/2018/03/cell-phone-towers-are-largest.html

--

March 9, 2018

New Study Shows that Cell Phone Towers are Largest Contributor 
to Environmental Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure

A new study measuring radiofrequency electromagnetic fields shows considerable variability in exposure in six countries. Cell phone towers are the most dominant contributor.

(Los Angeles, CA, March 9, 2018) Today the journal, Environment International, published online a six-nation study of outdoor exposures to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF).

Wireless devices and infrastructure emit RF-EMF. However, little is known about how this affects environmental exposures around the world. In the present study, RF-EMF measurements were taken in locations in Australia, Ethiopia, Nepal, South Africa, Switzerland and the United States by means of portable measurement devices. The devices considered exposure from cell phone towers, TV and FM radio broadcast antennas, cell phone handsets and Wi-Fi.

According to Dr. Martin Röösli, Associate Professor at the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute and senior author of the paper, “The study demonstrates that total RF-EMF exposure levels in the environment vary widely between different areas. Cell phone tower radiation is the dominant contributor in most outdoor areas.”

Los Angeles was the study site in the United States.

Compared to the other five countries, the US had high exposure levels ranging from 1.4 milliwatts per square meter (mW/m²) (or 0.73 V/m) in a non-central residential area of Los Angeles to 6.8 mW/m² (or 1.60 V/m) in a rural center of the city. The median total exposure to RF-EMF across all eight outdoor microenvironments in Los Angeles was 3.4 mW/m² (or 1.13 V/m).

Today’s outdoor RF-EMF levels in Los Angeles are about 70 times greater than what the EPA estimated forty years ago.

The last time RF-EMF exposure was systematically measured in Los Angeles was in the late 1970’s as part of a 12-city study conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Tell and Mantiply, 1982; Hankin, 1985). The EPA assessed RF-EMF in 38 outdoor locations in Los Angeles and found that the median population-weighted exposure was 0.048 mW/m² (or 0.13 V/m). At that time television and FM radio broadcast antennas were the most important contributors. Hence, since the 1990’s, the implementation of cell phone tower networks has resulted in substantial increase in RF-EMF.

Although this measurement study demonstrates that environmental exposure levels are substantially below regulatory limits, there are still uncertainties about whether the strong increase of RF-EMF in the environment in recent years poses a health risk. Switzerland has implemented precautionary limits for RF-EMF and indeed exposure levels were lowest among all countries participating in the study.

Röösli and his colleagues emphasize that this measurement study contributes to a better understanding of the exposure situation of the general population all over the world and foster the design of future health studies.

Sanjay Sagar, the first author of the paper, and Martin Röösli, are with the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute in Basel, Switzerland. Co-authors from the U.S. include Michael Jerrett and Tony Kuo with the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, Michael Brunjes and Lisa Arangua with the Los Angeles County Health Department,  and Joel Moskowitz with the UC Berkeley School of Public Health.

--

Sagar S, Adem SM, Struchen B, Loughran SP, Brunjes ME, Arangua L, Dalvie MA, Croft RJ, Jerrett M, Moskowitz JM, Kuo T, Röösli M. Comparison of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure levels in different everyday microenvironments in an international context. Environment International, 114: 297-306. 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.02.036. 

Highlights

•

We measured RF-EMF in 94 matched microenvironments in six countries.

•

We applied a common protocol for direct comparison of RF-EMF.

•

Downlink and broadcasting exposure was most relevant in outdoor microenvironments.

•

Uplink is only relevant in public transport with the highest in Switzerland.

•

Exposure in urban areas tended to be higher.

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to quantify RF-EMF exposure applying a tested protocol of RF-EMF exposure measurements using portable devices with a high sampling rate in different microenvironments of Switzerland, Ethiopia, Nepal, South Africa, Australia and the United States of America.

Method: We used portable measurement devices for assessing RF-EMF exposure in 94 outdoor microenvironments and 18 public transport vehicles. The measurements were taken either by walking with a backpack with the devices at the height of the head and a distance of 20–30 cm from the body, or driving a car with the devices mounted on its roof, which was 170–180 cm above the ground. The measurements were taken for about 30 min while walking and about 15–20 min while driving in each microenvironment, with a sampling rate of once every 4 s (ExpoM-RF) and 5 s (EME Spy 201).

Results: Mean total RF-EMF exposure in various outdoor microenvironments varied between 0.23 V/m (noncentral residential area in Switzerland) and 1.85 V/m (university area in Australia), and across modes of public transport between 0.32 V/m (bus in rural area in Switzerland) and 0.86 V/m (Auto rickshaw in urban area in Nepal). For most outdoor areas the major exposure contribution was from mobile phone base stations. Otherwise broadcasting was dominant. Uplink from mobile phone handsets was generally very small, except in Swiss trains and some Swiss buses.

Conclusions: This study demonstrates high RF-EMF variability between the 94 selected microenvironments from all over the world. Exposure levels tended to increase with increasing urbanity.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29529581

Supplemental Material: http://bit.ly/6nationsupplement

--

Tell and Mantiply. Population exposure to VHF and UHF broadcast radiation in the United States. Radio Science. 17(5S):39S-47S. 1982. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/RS017i05Sp0039S/epdf

Effects of Wireless Radiation on the Blood-Brain Barrier

Here is an early example of why we are still "flying blind" regarding the health effects of wireless radiation including Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, 3G, 4G and 5G.

Fifty-one years ago Allan Frey published a seminal paper which found that low-intensity, pulsed radiofrequency radiation (RFR) can cause the blood-brain barrier (BBB) to leak which allows toxins in our blood system to enter the brain (Frey et al., 1975). 

Frey AH, Feld SR, Frey B. (1975). Neural function and behavior: Defining the relationship. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 247(1), 433–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1975.tb36019.x

Following Allan Frey's groundbreaking 1975 discovery that low-level RFR could cause the BBB to leak, the U.S. military moved to investigate and challenge the findings. 

In 1977 the U.S. Air Force sponsored a pivotal conference that ended the funding for non-thermal BBB RFR research. The resulting 1977 conference and its official report marked the turning point where the military concluded there was no convincing evidence of non-thermal BBB disruption, leading to a freeze on further funding for independent researchers like Frey who were investigating these effects. During this 1977 meeting and subsequent reviews, the Air Force tasked its own scientists (and closely aligned contractors, such as James Merritt at Brooks Air Force Base) to replicate Frey's work. They claimed they were unable to successfully duplicate his results; however, they bungled the research. Many scientists believe this was done intentionally in order to refute Frey's findings.

Albert EN, DeSantis M. (Eds.) / Prepared for the U.S. Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine (USAFSAM).  The Blood-Brain Barrier and Radiofrequency Radiation.1977. USAFSAM-TR-77-XX / Aeromedical Review series.

The content from this 1977 conference was summarized in a highly-cited Air Force summary: 

"A Review of the USAF Radiofrequency Radiation Bioeffects Research Program," published under technical report AD-A114344.

According to historical records and interviews with Dr. Frey, he was told by officials to either cease his work showing the BBB "leakage" or his long-standing contract with the Office of Naval Research would be canceled. Because Frey refused to conceal his findings, his military funding was cut off in 1979, effectively ending that era of federally-funded U.S. research into non-thermal RF effects on the blood-brain barrier.

Frey AH. From the laboratory to the courtroom: Science, scientists, and the regulatory process. In Stenek NH. (Ed.). Risk/Benefit Analysis: The Microwave Case. San Francisco Press. 1982. pp. 197- 226.

Related post: 

AirPods: Are Apple’s New Wireless Earbuds Safe? (Blood-brain barrier effects)

--

Experimental and clinical evidence on radiofrequency electromagnetic field effects 
on the blood-brain barrier: a scoping review

Simsek ET, Sumser K, Mansourinezhad P, Kayhan H, Paulides MM, Buyukatalay EO. Experimental and clinical evidence on radiofrequency electromagnetic field effects on the blood-brain barrier: a scoping review. Phys Med Biol. 2026 May 28;71(10). doi: 10.1088/1361-6560/ae6e17. 

Abstract

Objective. This scoping review evaluates evidence on whether radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure influences blood-brain barrier (BBB) permeability. Given inconsistent findings across decades of research and expanding wireless technology use, we summarize results fromin vivo,in vitro, and human studies with emphasis on exposure characterization and thermal control.

Methods. Literature covering RF-EMF exposures from ∼900 MHz to frequencies relevant for emerging wireless systems was surveyed. Due to substantial heterogeneity in exposure conditions, i.e. specific absorption rates from 0.01 to >10 W kg^-1, diverse modulation schemes, and varied biological endpoints, we performed a qualitative synthesis supported by a methodological audit focusing on dosimetric rigor, temperature monitoring, and sham-control implementation.

Results. Findings remain mixed: seventeen studies reported increased BBB permeability or molecular alterations, while eighteen observed no effects. Null-result studies generally applied stricter dosimetry and thermal safeguards, though incomplete temperature documentation was common. Some in vitro studies suggest effects on tight-junction proteins or cellular stress pathways, but these outcomes show limited reproducibility in animal models. Human data are sparse and do not clearly differentiate thermal from non-thermal influences.

Conclusion. Current evidence does still not establish a causal link between RF-EMF exposure and BBB disruption. Persistent methodological variability limits interpretability. Future work should employ rigorous exposure characterization, validated BBB biomarkers, and robust thermal and sham controls, and address gaps at higher frequencies and in vulnerable populations (prenatal, elderly).

Conclusion and future directions

The current body of experimental evidence, as visualized in (figure 6), presents a complex and unresolved picture regarding the effects of RF-EMF on BBB integrity. While it does not definitively support the hypothesis that RF-EMF exposure compromises the BBB, it is also not possible to entirely refute it.

The field is not divided into ‘old, flawed’ studies versus ‘new, high-quality’ studies. On the contrary, (figure 6) demonstrates that reports of an ‘Effect’ extend into the modern era (e.g. 2017, 2025), just as methodological weaknesses (e.g. ‘Uncontrolled’ dosimetry or incomplete controls) persist even in recent publications (e.g. 2015). This indicates that factors beyond just methodological quality (e.g. frequency, modulation, model differences) must be considered to explain the inconsistencies in the literature.

Therefore, the body of data does not conclusively prove that GSM, UMTS, or TDMA signals have no significant effect on BBB permeability; rather, it shows that the evidence is mixed.

Given this complexity and methodological heterogeneity, it is critical that future research addresses the current issues that challenge comparative analyses and regulatory consensus.

The recommendation to prioritize next-generation frequencies and vulnerable populations is grounded in a clear gap identified within the present database. Our synthesis shows that many studies conducted over the last two decades are limited to legacy 2G/3G bands, with virtually no data exploring the unique absorption characteristics of 5G millimeter waves in the BBB context. Additionally, while the BBB’s integrity varies significantly across the lifespan, the current literature is dominated by healthy young adult male models, effectively ignoring the potential heightened sensitivity of the developing or aging brain.

Future research should prioritize the following:

• Long-term and low-intensity exposure models
• Human studies incorporating CSF biomarkers or advanced imaging techniques. Although the collection of CSF is invasive and may be feasible only in specific patient groups, CSF biomarkers provide the most direct biochemical evidence of BBB integrity and, together with advanced imaging, can offer translational insights beyond peripheral markers or animal models.
• Vulnerable populations, including children, elderly individuals, and patients with neurovascular comorbidities
• Novel technologies such as 5G and millimeter-wave (mmWave) frequencies. Future research should prioritize these frequencies; their distinct biophysical properties, including higher photon energy and unique tissue absorption profiles, present a novel exposure scenario that remains significantly underrepresented in the current BBB literature. The necessity of focusing on 5G mmWave frequencies is further underscored by recent state-of-the-science reviews (Karipidis et al 2021), which identify a profound lack of high-quality, replicated research in the 6–300 GHz range. Our synthesis aligns with their findings, emphasizing that the unique energy deposition patterns of these frequencies necessitate a dedicated re-evaluation of BBB permeability under modern exposure scenarios.
• Methodological rigor, specifically emphasizing double-blind, randomized controlled designs, standardized dosimetry (including thermal monitoring), the use of sham-exposed control groups, and validated, direct outcome measures such as CSF biomarkers.

In conclusion, while current evidence does not definitively indicate that typical RF-EMF exposures within international safety limits impair BBB integrity in healthy individuals, the scientific debate, as highlighted by (figure 6), is not closed. Careful and comprehensive investigation is warranted for emerging exposure scenarios and high-risk populations.

Open access: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6560/ae6e17

---

January 13, 2025

Low-intensity microwave radiation can open the blood-brain barrier

In 1975, Allan Frey published a paper in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences which reported that exposure to low intensity microwave radiation could open the blood-brain barrier in rats. Moreover, pulsed radio frequency waves (like Bluetooth) were more likely to produce this effect than continuous waves. (3)

The blood-brain barrier is a special layer of cells in the brain that prevents toxins in the blood system from reaching the brain. Breaching this barrier could potentially lead to neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative diseases and brain cancer.

More than a dozen peer-reviewed studies have replicated Frey's findings—exposure to low intensity microwave radiation can open the blood-brain barrier (see links below).  

The effect of microwave radiation on the blood-brain barrier is nonlinear—it occurs with low intensity exposures but not at higher intensity exposures.

Although other published studies have failed to find the blood-brain barrier effect, these studies tended to use higher intensity exposures or employed small samples.

References (updated 1/13/2025)

16 peer-reviewed studies that reported significant evidence of opening of the blood-brain barrier from exposure to low-intensity microwave radiation:

Kizilçay AO, Tütüncü B, Koçarslan M, Gözel MA. Effects of 1800 MHz and 2100 MHz mobile phone radiation on the blood-brain barrier of New Zealand rabbits. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2024 Nov 16. doi: 10.1007/s11517-024-03238-1. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39548043/ 

Sırav B, Seyhan N. Effects of GSM modulated radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation on permeability of blood-brain barrier in male & female rats. J Chem Neuroanat. 2016 Sep;75(Pt B):123-7  23. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26723545

Tang J, Zhang Y, Yang L, Chen Q, Tan L, Zuo S, Feng H, Chen Z, Zhu G. Exposure to 900MHz electromagnetic fields activates the mkp-1/ERK pathway and causes blood-brain barrier damage and cognitive impairment in rats. Brain Res. 2015 Jan 15. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25598203

Sirav B, Seyhan N. Effects of radiofrequency radiation exposure on blood-brain barrier permeability in male and female rats. Electromagn Biol Med. 2011 Dec;30(4):253-60. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22047463

Sirav B, Seyhan N. Blood-brain barrier disruption by continuous-wave radio frequency radiation. Electromagn Biol Med. 2009;28(2):215-22. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19811403

Nittby H, Brun A, Eberhardt J, Malmgren L, Persson BR, Salford LG. 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. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19345073

Söderqvist F, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K, Hardell L. Exposure to an 890-MHz mobile phone-like signal and serum levels of S100B and transthyretin in volunteers. Toxicol Lett. 2009 Aug 25;189(1):63-6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19427372

Eberhardt JL, Persson BR, Brun AE, Salford LG, Malmgren LO. Blood-brain barrier permeability and nerve cell damage in rat brain 14 and 28 days after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones. Electromagn Biol Med. 2008;27(3):215-29. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18821198

Belyaev IY,  Koch CB, Terenius O, Roxström-Lindquist K, Malmgren LO, H Sommer W, Salford LG, Persson BR. Exposure of rat brain to 915 MHz GSM microwaves induces changes in gene expression but not double stranded DNA breaks or effects on chromatin conformation. Bioelectromagnetics. 2006 May;27(4):295-306. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16511873

Salford LG, Brun AE,  Eberhardt JL,  Malmgren L,  Persson BR. Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones. Environ Health Perspect. 2003 Jun;111(7):881-3; discussion A408. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12782486

Leszczynski D, Joenväärä S, Reivinen J, Kuokka R. Non-thermal activation of the hsp27/p38MAPK stress pathway by mobile phone radiation in human endothelial cells: molecular mechanism for cancer- and blood-brain barrier-related effects. Differentiation. 2002 May;70(2-3):120-9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12076339

Schirmacher A, Winters S, Fischer S, Goeke J, Galla HJ, Kullnick U, Ringelstein EB, Stögbauer F. Electromagnetic fields (1.8 GHz) increase the permeability to sucrose of the blood-brain barrier in vitro. Bioelectromagnetics. 2000 Jul;21(5):338-45. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10899769

Fritze K, Sommer C, Schmitz B, Mies G, Hossmann KA, Kiessling M, Wiessner C. Effect of global system for mobile communication (GSM) microwave exposure on blood-brain barrier permeability in rat. Acta Neuropathol. 1997 Nov;94(5):465-70. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9386779

Salford LG, Brun A, Sturesson K, Eberhardt JL, Persson BR. Permeability of the blood-brain barrier induced by 915 MHz electromagnetic radiation, continuous wave and modulated at 8, 16, 50, and 200 Hz. Microsc Res Tech. 1994 Apr 15;27(6):535-42. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8012056

Persson BR, Salford LG, Brun A, Eberhardt JL, Malmgren L. Increased permeability of the blood-brain barrier induced by magnetic and electromagnetic fields. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1992 Mar 31;649:356-8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1580510

Frey AH, Feld SR, Frey B. Neural function and behavior: Defining the relationship. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 247: 433–439. 1975. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/46734

Key Cell Phone Radiation Research Studies

Note: This is not a comprehensive list. I have focused on papers published since 2009 and tried to be parsimonious. This list was last updated on November 20, 2025.

The links below were checked and updated on June 7, 2019.

National Toxicology Program cell phone radiation studies

• 2016 NTP Report of Partial Findings (Rats)
• TR-595: NTP Studies of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation (Rats) (Nov. 2018)
• TR-596: NTP Studies of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation (Mice) (Nov. 2018)
  
  Also see: 
• NTP Cell Phone Radiation Study: Final Reports, National Toxicology Program: Peer & public review, National Toxicology Program Finds Cell Phone Radiation Causes Cancer, and Ramazzini Institute Cell Phone Radiation Study Replicates NTP Study

Tumor risk review papers

   Myung et al (2009) Mobile phone use and risk of tumors: a meta-analysis. J Clinical Oncology. http://bit.ly/2F0IdUS

   Khurana et al (2009) Cell phones and brain tumors: a review including long-term epidemiologic data. Surgical Neurology. http://bit.ly/2WTQwfk

   Levis et al (2011) Mobile phones and head tumours: the discrepancies in cause-effect relationships in the epi studies-how do they arise. Environ Health. http://bit.ly/2IsQy4r

   Levis et al (2012) Mobile phones and head tumours: a critical analysis of case-control epi studies. Open Environ Sciences. http://bit.ly/2EXT5ml

   WHO (2013) IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Volume 102: Non-ionizing radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. http://bit.ly/10oIE3o

   Morgan et al (2015) Mobile phone radiation causes brain tumors and should be classified as a probable human carcinogen (2A) (Review). Int J Oncology. http://bit.ly/2XwgVNa
   Wang & Guo (2016) Meta-analysis of association between mobile phone use and glioma risk. J Cancer Research Therapy http://bit.ly/2o1dVcn
   Bortkiewicz et al (2017) Mobile phone use and risk of intracranial tumors and salivary gland tumors - A meta-analysis. Int J Occ Med Envir Health. http://bit.ly/2nVJC5d
   Prasad et al (2017) Mobile phone use and risk of brain tumours: a systematic review of association between study quality, source of funding, and research outcomes. Neurol Sci. http://bit.ly/2Xxp83P

  Yang et al (2017). Mobile phone use and glioma risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175136
   Carlberg, Hardell (2017) Evaluation of mobile phone and cordless phone use and glioma risk using the Bradford Hill viewpoints from 1965 on association or causation. Biomed Res Int. http://bit.ly/2WwBX1K
   Miller et al (2018). Cancer epidemiology update, following the 2011 IARC evaluation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (Monograph 102). Environ Res. http://bit.ly/2rJD7Fu
  Choi, Moskowitz, et al (2020). Cellular phone use and risk of tumors: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Envir Res Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218079.

  Moon et al (2024). Relationship between radiofrequency-electromagnetic radiation from cellular phones and brain tumor: meta-analyses using various proxies for RF-EMR exposure-outcome assessment. Environ Health. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-024-01117-8.

    Mevissen et al (2025). Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure on cancer in laboratory animal studies, a systematic review. Environ Intl  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2025.109482

   Kundi, Hutter (2026). Interpretation of Epidemiological Studies on the Relationship Between Mobile Phone Use and Cancer. Epidemiologia. https://doi.org/10.3390/epidemiologia7030086

    Also see Long-Term Cell Phone Use Increases Brain Tumor Risk

Tumor risk studies

   Interphone Study Group (2010) Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile phone use: results of the Interphone international case-control study. Int J Epidemiol. http://bit.ly/2MzsceR

   Interphone Study Group (2011) Acoustic neuroma risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study. Cancer Epidemiol. http://bit.ly/2Ix7BlQ

   Aydin et al (2011) Mobile phone use & brain tumors in children & adolescents: a multi-center case-control study. (CEFALO Study). JNCI. http://bit.ly/31j0JBa

   Hardell et al (2013) Case-control study of the association between malignant brain tumours diagnosed between 2007 and 2009 and mobile and cordless phone use. Int J Oncology. http://bit.ly/2ZaVJg5

   Hardell et al (2013) Pooled analysis of case-control studies on acoustic neuroma diagnosed 1997-2003 and 2007-2009 and use of mobile and cordless phones. Int J Oncology. http://bit.ly/31gbDaO

   Coureau et al (2014)  Mobile phone use and brain tumours in the CERENAT case-control study. Occup Envi Med. http://bit.ly/1DWgzRi
   Grell et al (2016) The intracranial distribution of gliomas in relation to exposure from mobile phones: Analyses from the INTERPHONE Study. Am J Epidemiol. http://bit.ly/2ZcawHu

    Also see: Acoustic neuroma risk and cell phone use studies and Should Cellphones Have Warning Labels?

Breast cancer

   West et al (2013) Multifocal breast cancer in young women with prolonged contact between their breasts and their cellular phones. Case Rep Med. http://bit.ly/2WW8n52

   Shih et al (2020) The association between smartphone use and breast cancer risk among Taiwanese women: A case-control study. Cancer Manag Res. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7605549/

   Tahmasebi et al (2025) Radiofrequency radiation from mobile phones and the risk of breast cancer: A multicenter case–control study with an additional suspected comparison group. J Res Medical Sciences. https://bit.ly/4pwyn15

Brain tumor incidence trends

   Inskip et al (2010) Brain cancer incidence trends in relation to cellular telephone use in the United States. Neuro Oncology. http://bit.ly/2K6rEuz

   Zada et al (2012) Incidence trends in the anatomic location of primary malignant brain tumors in the United States: 1992-2006. World Neurosurg. http://bit.ly/2Wq1Dbm

   Hardell & Carlberg (2015) Increasing rates of brain tumours in the Swedish National Inpatient Register & the Causes of Death Register. Int J Envir Res Public Health. http://bit.ly/1aDHJm

   Devocht (2016) Inferring the 1985–2014 impact of mobile phone use on selected brain cancer subtypes using Bayesian structural time series and synthetic controls. Environ Int. http://bit.ly/2jJlbZu      corrigendum (2017): http://bit.ly/2Cuq2nU

   Hardell & Carlberg (2017) Mobile phones, cordless phones and rates of brain tumors in different age groups in the Swedish National Inpatient Register and the Swedish Cancer Register during 1998-2015. PLOS One. http://bit.ly/H-C2017
  Philips et al (2018) Brain tumours: Rise in Glioblastoma Multiforme incidence in England 1995-2015 suggests an adverse environmental or lifestyle factor. J Environ Public Health. http://bit.ly/2KIY4aI

    Also see: Brain Tumor Rates Are Rising in the US: The Role of Cell Phone & Cordless Phone Use

Mechanisms

   Ruediger (2009) Genotoxic effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Pathophysiology. http://bit.ly/2EXGaRb 

   Behari (2010) Biological responses of mobile phone frequency exposure. Indian J Exp Biology. http://bit.ly/2Xx0Gzr 
   Giuliani and Soffritti (2010). Nonthermal effects and mechanisms of interaction between electromagnetic fields and living matter. ICEMS Monograph. Ramazzini Institute. 403 pp. http://bit.ly/2HUnO7R

   Juutilainen et al (2011) Review of possible modulation-dependent biological effects of radiofrequency fields. Bioelectromagnetics. http://bit.ly/2MAQ7KJ

   Volkow et al (2011) Effects of cell phone radiofrequency signal exposure on brain glucose metabolism. JAMA. http://bit.ly/2KyjIBT

   Pall (2013) EMFs act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects. J Cell Mol Med. http://bit.ly/2K5yO2e

   Calderon et al (2014) Assessment of extremely low frequency magnetic field exposure from GSM mobile phones. Bioelectromagnetics. http://bit.ly/2EA1N7e

   Dasdag & Akdag (2015) The link between radiofrequencies emitted from wireless technologies & oxidative stress. J Chem Neuroanat. http://bit.ly/2EXN88W

   Yakymenko et al (2016) Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation. Electromagnet Biol Med. http://bit.ly/2qCGM4F

   Barnes & Greenenbaum (2016) Some effects of weak magnetic fields on biological systems: RF fields can change radical concentrations and cancer cell growth rates. IEEE Power Electronics J. http://bit.ly/1WvQGiY

   Tamrin et al (2016)  Electromagnetic fields and stem cell fate: When physics meets biology. Rev Physiol Biochem Pharmacol. http://bit.ly/2b6Ht3y

   Terzi et al (2016) The role of electromagnetic fields in neurological disorders. J Chem Neuroanat. https://bit.ly/3j9if6b 

   Havas (2017) When theory and observation collide: Can non-ionizing radiation cause cancer? Environ Pollution. http://bit.ly/2DssMS2

   Barnes & Kandala (2018) Effects of time delays on biological feedback systems and electromagnetic field exposures. Bioelectromagnetics. http://bit.ly/2EZkZPS

  Belpomme et al (2018) Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An international perspective. Environ Pollution. http://bit.ly/IntlEMFreview

  Hinrikus et al (2018) Understanding physical mechanism of low-level microwave radiation effect. Int J Radiation Biol. http://bit.ly/2EwNyoU

  Mortazavi et al (2019) Evaluation of the validity of a nonlinear J-shaped dose-response relationship in cancers induced by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. J Biomed Phys Eng. http://bit.ly/37FlDxP

  Nielsen et al (2019) Towards predicting intracellular radiofrequency radiation effects. PLOS One. http://bit.ly/2uaeFxY

  Panagopoulos (2019) Comparing DNA damage induced by mobile telephony and other types of man-made electromagnetic fields. Mutation Res. http://bit.ly/2HACI1O
  Halgamuge et al (2020) A meta-analysis of in vitro exposures to weak radiofrequency radiation exposure from mobile phones (1990–2015). Envir Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109227.

  Bertagna et al (2021) Effects of electromagnetic fields on neuronal ion channels: a systematic review. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. https://bit.ly/2R3TigS

  Panagopoulos et al (2021) Human‑made electromagnetic fields: Ion forced‑oscillation and voltage‑gated ion channel dysfunction, oxidative stress and DNA damage (Review). Int J Oncol. https://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/59/5/92  

  Lai H, Levitt B. (2023) Cellular and molecular effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. Reviews on Environmental Health. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2023-0023.

  Héroux P (2025) The Collision between Wireless and Biology. Heliyon. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2025.e42267.

  Panagopoulos et al (2025).  A comprehensive mechanism of biological and health effects of anthropogenic extremely low frequency and wireless communication electromagnetic fields. Front Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1585441.

  Leković Ž. Electromagnetic fields and oxidative stress: The link to the development of cancer, neurological diseases, and behavioral disorders. Electromagn Biol Med. 2025 Oct 21:1-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2025.2567872

  Panagopoulos et al (2026). Recording the extremely low frequency pulsations of wireless communication electromagnetic fields. Electromagn Biol Med. 2026 Apr 19:1-10. doi: 10.1080/15368378.2026.2654072.

Reproductive Health Effects

   LaVignera et al (2011) Effects of the exposure to mobile phones on male reproduction: a review of the literature. J Andrology. http://bit.ly/2wL7zRO

   Aldad et al (2012) Fetal radiofrequency radiation exposure from 800-1900 Mhz-rated cellular telephones affects neurodevelopment and behavior in mice. Science Reports. http://bit.ly/2Z6H45I

   Divan et al (2012) Cell phone use and behavioural problems in young children. J Epidemiol Commun Health. http://bit.ly/2EV1bw8

   Adams et al (2014) Effect of mobile telephones on sperm quality: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Reproduction. http://bit.ly/1pUnmDq

   Houston et al (2016) The effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation on sperm function. Reproduction. http://bit.ly/2cJJ2pE

   Kim et al (2021) Effects of mobile phone usage on sperm quality – No time-dependent relationship on usage: A systematic review and updated meta-analysis. Environ Research. https://bit.ly/3squsu2 

   Kaur et al (2023) Genotoxic risks to male reproductive health from radiofrequency radiation. Cells. https://bit.ly/3PbbIaU

    Also see: Effect of Mobile Phones on Sperm Quality and Pregnancy & Wireless Radiation Risks

Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

    See: Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

Exposure

   Kelsh et al (2010) Measured radiofrequency exposure during various mobile-phone use scenarios. J Exposure Sci Environ Epidemiol. http://bit.ly/2IuYH8s

   Gandhi et al (2012) Exposure limits: the underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children. Electromagnetic Biol Med. http://bit.ly/2EZilbN

    International EMF Scientist Appeal (2015).  https://emfscientist.org/

    International Appeal: Scientists call for protection from non-ionizing electromagnetic field exposure. European J Oncology. 20(3/4). 2015. http://bit.ly/EMFAppealEurOncol   

    Schmid & Kuster (2015) The discrepancy between maximum in vitro exposure levels and realistic conservative exposure levels of mobile phones operating at 900/1800 MHz. Bioelectromagnetics. http://bit.ly/31j46be

   Sagar et al (2018) Comparison of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure levels in different everyday microenvironments in an international context. Environ Intl. http://bit.ly/2E5QR10

  Gandhi OP (2019) Microwave emissions from cell phones exceed safety limits in Europe and the US when touching the body. IEEE Access. http://bit.ly/2QUTI4N

  Wall et al (2019) Real-world cell phone radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposures. Environ Research. https://bit.ly/CDPHphone  

  Calderón et al (2022) Estimation of RF and ELF dose by anatomical location in the brain from wireless phones in the MOBI-Kids study. Environ Intl. https://bit.ly/3Or2x3F

    Lai H, Levitt BB (2022) The roles of intensity, exposure duration, and modulation on the biological effects of radiofrequency radiation and exposure guidelines. Electromagnetic Biol Med. https://bit.ly/RFLaiLevitt2022

   ICBE-EMF (2022) Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G. Environ Health. https://bit.ly/ICBE-EMFpaper1

   Lin J (2023) Incongruities in recently revised radiofrequency exposure guidelines and standards. Environ Research. https://bit.ly/3lijiUP

  Miclaus et al (2023) An Exposimetric Electromagnetic Comparison of Mobile Phone Emissions: 5G versus 4G Signals Analyses by Means of Statistics and Convolutional Neural Networks Classification. Technologies. https://bit.ly/3ParNO5

  Melnick, Moskowitz, ICBE-EMF (2026). Exposure limits to radiofrequency EMF do not account for cancer risk or reproductive toxicity assessed from data in experimental animals. Environ Health.  https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12940-026-01288-6

Genetic Effects

  

   Lai H (2021) Genetic effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. Electromagnetic Biol Med. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15368378.2021.1881866

​   Weller et al (2025) A scoping review and evidence map of radiofrequency field exposure and genotoxicity: assessing in vivo, in vitro, and epidemiological data. Front. Public Health. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1613353/full

   Lai & Levitt (2025). Radiofrequency radiation-induced gene expression. Rev Environ Health. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2025-0104/html

Blood-Brain Barrier Studies

    AirPods: Are Apple’s New Wireless Earbuds Safe? (Blood-Brain Barrier Effects)

5G and Millimeter Wave Studies

5G Wireless Technology: Is 5G Harmful to Our Health?

5G Wireless Technology: Millimeter Wave Health Effects

Other

    Huss et al  (2007) Source of funding and results of studies of health effects of mobile phone use: systematic review of experimental studies. Environ Health Perspec. http://bit.ly/2wBEmYp

    Fragopoulou et al (2010) Scientific panel on electromagnetic field health risks: consensus points, recommendations, and rationales. Rev Environ Health. http://bit.ly/2tWiXHP
    Alster, N (2015) Captured agency: How the FCC is dominated by the industries it presumably regulates. Harvard University. http://bit.ly/FCCcaptured
    Consumer Reports (2015) "Does cell-phone radiation cause cancer?" http://bit.ly/CRoncellphoneradiation

    Kostoff R, Lau C (2017). Modified health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation combined with other agents reported in the biomedical literature. In C.D. Geddes (ed.), Microwave Effects on DNA and Proteins. http://b.gatech.edu/2uyMAz0

   Bandara P, Carpenter DO (2018). Planetary electromagnetic pollution: it is time to assess its impact. The Lancet Planetary Health. http://bit.ly/2GqpJQF

   Foerster et al (2018). A prospective cohort study of adolescents' memory performance and individual brain dose of microwave radiation from wireless communication. Environ Health Perspect. http://bit.ly/2wJs0Pm
   Hertsgaard, M, Dowie, M (2018). "How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation." The Nation, March 29, 2018. https://bit.ly/BigWirelessNation
   Miller et al (2019). Risks to health and well-being from radio-frequency radiation emitted by cell phones and other wireless devices. Front Public Health. http://bit.ly/2TsUNlN

  Kostoff et al (2020). Adverse health effects of 5G mobile networking technology under real-life conditions. Toxicology Letters. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31991167/

    Hardell & Carlberg (2021). Lost opportunities for cancer prevention: historical evidence on early warnings with emphasis on radiofrequency radiation. Rev Envir Res. http://bit.ly/Hardell2021

   Grigoriev YG (2022). Frequencies used in Telecommunications – An Integrated Radiobiological Assessment (ORSAA translation; free 198 page book). https://bit.ly/GrigorievBook
   Ishai et al (2023). Problems in evaluating the health impacts of radio frequency radiation. Envir Res. https://bit.ly/Ishai2023

   Nyberg et al (2023). The European Union assessments of radiofrequency radiation health risks – another hard nut to crack (Review). Rev Environ Health.  https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2023-0046

  Davis D. Wireless technologies, non-ionizing electromagnetic fields and children: Identifying and reducing health risks. Curr Probl Pediatr Adolesc Health Care. 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.cppeds.2023.101374.

  Lin JC (2025) Health and safety practices and policies concerning human exposure to RF/microwave radiation. Front Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1619781

  Levitt et al (2025) Flora and fauna: how nonhuman species interact with natural and man-made EMF at ecosystem levels and public policy recommendations. Front Public Health, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1693873

  Scarato (2025). U.S. policy on wireless technologies and public health protection: regulatory gaps and proposed reforms. Front. Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1677583.

Also see: 

Effects of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (studies published from 1990 on)

Recent Research on Wireless Radiation and Electromagnetic Fields (2000+ abstracts from 2016 on)

PowerWatch: 1,670 Scientific Papers on EMF (1979 - 2018)

Effects of Cell Phone Use on Adolescents

Cell Tower Health Effects

Recent Research on WiFi Effects

Effects of Wireless Radiation on Birds and Other Wildlife

Electromagnetic fields threaten wildlife