Showing posts with label radiation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label radiation. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 13, 2025

NIEHS Cell Phone Radiation Studies


US Government Releases Report on Pilot Studies of Cell Phone Radiation and DNA Damage


Safety is not assured and questions remain unanswered. 


Electromagnetic Radiation Safety, August 13, 2025


In August 2025, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) published a peer-reviewed report online that described its pilot studies on cell phone radiation exposure conducted by the Division of Translational Toxicology (DTT). These pilot studies were launched specifically “to better understand the biological mechanisms that produced tumor development and DNA damage” as reported in the 2018 rodent studies conducted by the NIEHS National Toxicology Program (NTP).

Although the pilot studies reported “limited findings” and claimed no DNA damage in its 5-day exposure tests, these results cannot be used to conclude that cell phone radiation is safe. Not only were the experiments short-term and limited in scope, but contrary to the stated conclusion of no effects, the authors reported statistically significant evidence of DNA damage. These findings do not negate the findings from the earlier NTP research that reported animals exposed to 14 to 19 weeks of cell phone radiation experienced DNA damage.

The NIEHS's decision to disregard the findings of the DTT and NTP studies, which linked cell phone radiation to DNA damage and cancer, and to halt further research on this environmental carcinogen, represents a failure to uphold its mandate of protecting public health.

The DTT Pilot Studies

The DTT developed a small-scale radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure system with a signal generator capable of generating a broader array of RF signals than the 2G/3G signals employed in the NTP studies. This system was developed to allow for efficient testing of later generations of cell phone technology (e.g., 4G and 5G).

To help understand the NTP studies, the DTT conducted 2G/3G pilot studies that were limited to 5 days of exposure and used smaller sample sizes compared to the original NTP studies. Nevertheless, these peer-reviewed studies found statistically-significant (p < .05) (in addition to marginally-significant, p < .10) trend effects of cell phone radiation on DNA damage (Wyde et al., 2025):

Male rats: GSM -- hippocampus (p-trend = .002), blood (p-trend = .053), frontal cortex (p-trend = .064)
Female rats: CDMA -- frontal cortex  (p-trend = .043)
Male mice: CDMA --  liver (p-trend = .010), heart (p-trend = .054), blood (p-trend = .077)

Numerous peer-reviewed studies have reported DNA damage caused by cell phone radiation exposure (e.g., Weller et al., 2025Lai, 2021) in addition to the earlier NTP studies. Thus, it is surprising that the DTT report dismissed these adverse effects calling them of "uncertain biological significance."

Overcoming technical challenges, the DTT developed a prototype capable of testing the effects of later generations of cell phone technology. The DTT report concluded:

"Despite a number of difficulties (i.e., engineering requirements, system modifications, measurement of body temperature during exposure), this small-scale RFR exposure system presents a prototype for investigative toxicological studies by researchers interested in conducting experimental RFR studies in rodent models. High-quality studies to understand the effects of RFR exposure on biological responses are needed given the widespread human exposure to RFR associated with cell phone use." 

However, on August 7, 2025, contrary to the results of the DTT report, the NIEHS posted on its website:

 "Also, NIEHS researchers found that exposure to RFR did not induce DNA damage, after five days of continuous exposure, up to 9 watts/kg in rats and 15 watts/kg in mice." https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/research/topics/cellphones 

And contrary to the report's conclusions, the NIEHS stated:

"The research using this small-scale RFR exposure system was technically challenging and more resource intensive than expected... no further work with this RFR exposure system will be conducted and NIEHS has no further plans to conduct additional RFR exposure studies at this time." https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/research/topics/cellphones

Results of the NTP Studies

https://www.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/NTP_cell_phone_factsheet_jan_2024_508.pdf

Based on the NTP studies, the NIEHS published a peer-reviewed paper which concluded that exposure to radio frequency radiation (RFR) is associated with an increase in DNA damage (Smith-Roe et al., 2020). The NTP found significant increases in DNA damage in the frontal cortex of male mice (both modulations--GSM and CDMA), leukocytes of female mice (CDMA only), and hippocampus of male rats (CDMA only) from 14-19 weeks of exposure to cell phone radiation. Increases in DNA damage judged to be equivocal were observed in several other tissues of rats and mice. 


Comparison of 2018 NTP Studies and 2025 DTT Pilot Studies 


2018 NTP Studies

2025 DTT Pilot Studies

Purpose

Comprehensive evaluation of cancer and DNA damage risks from long-term cell phone radiofrequency radiation exposure in male and female rats and mice

Mechanistic follow-up to explore possible biological pathways for tumor and DNA damage seen in the 2018 NTP study in male and female rats and male mice

Exposure Duration

14 to 19 weeks for DNA genotoxicity tests


2 years for carcinogenicity study

5 days for DNA genotoxicity tests

Pre-natal Exposure

Yes, for male and female rats, studies began on gestation day 6.

No, for male mice, 5-6 weeks old on first day of study.

No, male rats were 28–31 weeks old, female rats were 23 weeks old, and male mice were 33 weeks old on first day of study.

Cancer 

Increased tumors in male rats:

  • Clear evidence of cancer in the heart (malignant schwannoma)

  • Some evidence of cancer in the brain (malignant glioma)

  • Some evidence of tumors in the adrenal glands (benign, malignant, or complex combined pheochromocytoma)


Did not test for cancer

DNA Damage

Significant increases in DNA damage in:


  • the hippocampus of male rats,

  • the frontal cortex of the brain in male mice, and

  • the blood cells of female mice.


Although report concluded RFR exposure for 5 days did not induce DNA damage, the studies found significant increases in DNA damage in:


  • the hippocampus of male rats,

  • the frontal cortex of the brain in female rats, and

  • the liver in male mice.

 


Related posts:

==

Cell Phone Radiation Follow-up Studies

NIEHS, August 7, 2025

"NIEHS scientists in the Division of Translational Toxicology, which supports the NTP, undertook research to better understand some of the findings seen in the earlier RFR rodent studies reported in NTP Technical reports TR-595 and TR-596.

They designed and developed a novel custom small-scale RFR exposure system, which included building, testing, and validating the exposure system. This new exposure system was based on the system used in the published NTP rodent studies. Researchers then conducted a series of short-term in vivo rodent studies.

NIEHS has completed the follow-up studies with this small-scale RFR exposure system. The results from these follow-up studies are published in a peer-reviewed report posted on the NIEHS website (see sidebar).

The research using this small-scale RFR exposure system was technically challenging and more resource intensive than expected. In addition, this exposure system was designed to study the frequencies and modulations used in 2G and 3G devices, but is not representative of newer technologies such as 4G/4G-LTE, or 5G (which is still not fully defined). Taking these factors into consideration, no further work with this RFR exposure system will be conducted and NIEHS has no further plans to conduct additional RFR exposure studies at this time."

RFR Follow-up Studies

"Following publication of the NTP RFR studies, NIEHS scientists conducted additional research to better understand the biological mechanisms that produced tumor development and DNA damage in exposed rodents. Specifically, they set out to understand if the health effects seen in the original studies were due to direct RFR exposure or RFR-induced changes in the temperature of body-tissue.

The scientists designed and developed a RFR exposure system that employed sub-cutaneous chips and implanted temperature data loggers to measure internal body temperature of rodents. Technical advances of the system also supported improved control of the exposure process and testing of 2G, 3G, 4G-LTE, and unmodulated RF signals. The scientists conducted short-term studies using the new system.

The scientists obtained some limited results. For example, scientists observed no changes in rodent behavior during operation of the RFR exposure system. Also, NIEHS researchers found that exposure to RFR did not induce DNA damage, after five days of continuous exposure, up to 9 watts/kg in rats and 15 watts/kg in mice.

Despite these findings, the new RFR exposure system left the body temperature question unanswered. Neither the microchips nor the data loggers successfully measured internal body temperature of the test rodents making it impossible to draw conclusions about the role of tissue heating in RFR-induced toxicity and carcinogenicity. The system is also incapable of testing many of the frequencies associated with newer 5G cell phone technology. It became clear that this experimental approach is insufficient for additional RFR research by NIEHS.

Nevertheless, the study generated useful exposure information that may support further study by other organizations.

The full, peer-reviewed report of the study is published under the title of Development and Testing of a Novel Whole-Body Exposure System for Investigative Studies of Radiofrequency Radiation in Rodents on the NIEHS website."

https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/research/topics/cellphones

--

Development and testing of a novel whole-body exposure system for investigative studies of radiofrequency radiation in rodents

Wyde ME, Capstick M, Hall SM, Hooth MJ, Kuster N, Ladbury JM, Roberts GK, Shipkowski KA, Shockley KS, Smith-Roe SL, Stout MD, Walker NJ. 2025. Development and testing of a novel whole-body exposure system for investigative studies of radiofrequency radiation in rodents. Research Triangle Park, NC: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. [https://doi.org/10.22427/NIEHS-RFR]

Executive Summary

"The predominant source of human exposure to radiofrequency radiation (RFR) occurs through the use of cell phone handsets. Previous toxicology studies on RFR, conducted in support of the National Toxicology Program (NTP) by researchers at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), found exposure-related effects on body temperature and DNA damage. The studies reported herein were conducted by NIEHS researchers in the Division of Translational Toxicology to better understand the biological mechanisms that produced tumor development and DNA damage in exposed rodents. These studies were not conducted as part of the NTP.

The goals of the current research were to design, construct, and use a small-scale RFR exposure system to conduct toxicological research in rats and mice. One of the primary specific objectives of this research was to test and use new, experimental methods to collect physiological data from animals in real time during RFR exposures, including assessment of body temperature and use of videos for clinical observations. Previously, such data collections were not feasible without cessation of RFR exposure.

A new RFR exposure system based on the technical parameters of the system used in the previous NTP toxicology and carcinogenesis studies was developed for small-scale investigative studies with fewer animals. The system was designed with enhanced capabilities and more flexibility, including the ability to generate additional radiofrequency (RF) signals with frequencies and modulations used in more current wireless communication technologies. After development and installation, the system was rigorously tested and independently verified before animal studies were conducted. Following completion of the mouse study, several system modifications were required before the rat studies could be conducted. These system modifications required significant technical expertise and sometimes took several months to resolve successfully.

A series of 5-day studies was conducted in male or female Sprague Dawley (Hsd:Sprague Dawley® SD®) rats or B6C3F1/N mice to evaluate the effect of exposure to the same Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA)- or Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM)-modulated RF signals used in the previous NTP studies. Video from the cameras in the exposure chambers demonstrated no visible response in either rats or mice at the first time the exposure system was activated, at subsequent system on/off transitions, or during the periods of exposure. Exposure to RFR for 5 days did not induce DNA damage in brain cells (frontal cortex, hippocampus, and cerebellum), or in liver, heart, or blood cells of rats and mice, as measured using the comet assay. These investigative studies of RFR exposure were technically challenging to conduct and, unfortunately, measurement by two different methods did not yield data useful for assessing body temperature during exposure.

Despite a number of difficulties (i.e., engineering requirements, system modifications, measurement of body temperature during exposure), this small-scale RFR exposure system presents a prototype for investigative toxicological studies by researchers interested in conducting experimental RFR studies in rodent models. High-quality studies to understand the effects of RFR exposure on biological responses are needed given the widespread human exposure to RFR associated with cell phone use. The aim of this report is to share knowledge and facilitate advancement in research methodologies for investigating the potential health effects of RFR."

Excerpts

"In the current studies, male rats were exposed to CDMA or GSM-modulated RFR, and female rats and male mice were exposed to CDMA-modulated RFR."

"Based on the homogeneity results of previous analyses that modeled the specific absorption rate (SAR) distribution of RFR across the whole body, rats were exposed at a frequency of 900 MHz, and mice were exposed at 1,900 MHz."

"While reviewing videos captured during exposure (see Section 4.2.3.5), it was noted that the stirrer on the back wall of the control chamber (Chamber 4) did not move throughout the four experiments (male mouse CDMA, male rat CDMA, female rat CDMA, male rat GSM)."

"The signal generator (SMBV-100A, Rhode & Schwarz, Germany) chosen was capable of generating the types of signals used in the previous NTP RFR studies."

"These chambers and the studies described in Section 4.2 utilized a 10-minute on/10-minute off alternating exposure paradigm by which animals in each chamber were exposed for 9 hours and 10 minutes per day over an 18-hour and 20-minute exposure period."

"An RFR field exposure system was designed to enable equivalent exposure conditions to those utilized in the previous NTP 2-year studies and for a smaller number of animals with a smaller facility footprint."

Figure 3: The mouse CDMA study was conducted in July 2020. The rat studies were conducted from September to November 2021.

"During the acclimation period, prior to the start of exposure, it was discovered that the rats were able to chew through the cage filter tops and escape their cage units."

"After system installation, verification, and qualification were completed, a series of four 5-day studies was conducted in Sprague Dawley (Hsd:Sprague Dawley ® SD®) rats or B6C3F1/N mice. The goal of these studies was to further characterize radiofrequency radiation (RFR)-induced changes in body temperature and DNA damage observed in the previous National Toxicology Program (NTP) RFR studies and evaluate the use of new methods for collecting live, real-time data."

"On the first day of the studies, rats were approximately 28–31 weeks (male) or 23 weeks (female) old, and male mice were approximately 33 weeks old. Rats and mice were randomly assigned to one of five exposure groups before the start of the study. Randomization was stratified by body weight that produced similar group mean weights using NTP Provantis software (Instem, Stone, UK)."

"Groups of 10 male and 10 female rats and 10 male mice were housed individually in reverberation chambers and exposed to whole-body RFR via Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) (Interim Standard 95 [IS-95], 1,900 MHz) or via Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) single modulation (900 MHz)."

"These studies were conducted under the NIEHS contract with Battelle Memorial Institute (HHSN273201400015C). The studies were initiated at the Battelle testing facility in West Jefferson, Ohio. On May 1, 2021, the testing facility was transferred to a new company, AmplifyBio....For the mouse study, all of the in-life, postmortem, and analytical portions of the study were conducted while Battelle was the testing facility; reporting was conducted under AmplifyBio as the testing facility. The rat studies were conducted under AmplifyBio as the testing facility."

"Body temperature data were unusable because of data quality or data collection issues."

"There were no exposure-related effects on survival or body weights with CDMA-modulated RFR exposure up to 9 W/kg for 5 days in male rats."

"There were no exposure-related effects on body weights with GSM-modulated RFR exposure up to 9 W/kg for 5 days in male rats. On study day 5, body weights showed a negative trend and a significant decrease in the 6 W/kg group compared to the chamber control group."

"Statistical methods were chosen based on distributional assumptions. Unless specifically mentioned, all endpoints were tested for a trend across exposure groups, followed by pairwise tests for each exposed group against the chamber control group. Significance of all trend and pairwise tests is determined by a p value of ≤0.05 and is reported at both 0.05 and 0.01 levels. The room control group was analyzed only by a single pairwise comparison to the chamber control group. The room control analysis was kept separate from that of the other exposed groups and was excluded from all trend tests."

DNA damage from exposure to RFR was assessed in frontal cortex, hippocampus, cerebellum, liver, blood, and heart cell samples from male mice and male and female rats using the comet assay (Table D-1, Table D-2, Table D-3, and Table D-4). For CDMA male mice, there were no significant increases in DNA damage, measured as the percent tail DNA, in cells sampled from the three brain regions, blood, and heart tissue; there was a significant trend test for the percent tail DNA in liver cells that is of uncertain biological significance. For CDMA male and CDMA female rats, no significant increases in the percent tail DNA were observed for any tissue. For GSM male rats, there were no significant increases in DNA damage, measured as the percent tail DNA, in cells sampled from frontal cortex, cerebellum, liver, blood, or heart tissue; there was a significant trend test for the percent tail DNA in hippocampal cells that is of uncertain biological significance.

4.4 Summary: "Five-day studies were conducted in male mice or male or female rats to evaluate the effect of exposure to the same CDMA- or GSM-modulated RF signals used in the previous NTP studies. Video from the cameras in the exposure chambers demonstrated no consistent, exposure-related, and visible changes in activity in either rats or mice the first time the exposure system was activated, at subsequent system on/off transitions, or during the periods of exposure. There were no exposure-related effects on survival or body weights following exposure to RFR for 5 days. There was no increase in DNA damage following exposure to RFR for 5 days, as measured using the comet assay, in brain cells (frontal cortex, hippocampus, and cerebellum), or in liver, heart, or blood cells of mice and rats. Body temperature measurements were collected during the studies using two different devices; however, the data were unusable."

Conclusions

"The studies reported herein were conducted by researchers in the Division of Translational Toxicology (DTT) at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). These studies were not conducted as part of the National Toxicology Program."

"The new small-scale RFR exposure system described in this report was developed by NIEHS/DTT to overcome those limitations with a signal generator capable of generating a broader array of RF signals. In addition to the GSM and CDMA signals at 900 and 1,900 MHz used in the previous NTP studies, the small-scale exposure system could generate signals reflective of more current wireless communications (e.g., Third Generation Partnership Project [3GPP] LTE Frequency Division Duplex [FDD] and Time Division Duplex [TDD], LTE-Advanced, 3GPP FDD/ High-Speed Packet Access [HSPA]/HSPA+, GSM/Enhanced Data rates for GSM Evolution [EDGE]/EDGE Evolution, Time Division-Synchronous CDMA [TD-Whole-body Radiofrequency Radiation SCDMA], Wireless Local-area Network [WLAN]) with frequencies between 9 kHz and 3.2 GHz, modulations with base bandwidths of up to 120 MHz, and carrier frequencies of up to 3,200 MHz."

"In these studies, evaluation of video from the cameras in the exposure chambers demonstrated no consistent, exposure-related, and visible changes in activity in either rats or mice the first time the system was activated, during subsequent system on/off transitions, or during the periods of exposure."

"Equivocal results, showing limited statistically significant effects, were observed for male mouse liver cells (CDMA) and male rat hippocampal cells (GSM) in these 5-day studies. Although it is not possible to directly compare the 5-day and 90-day comet assay studies, it is interesting to note that a positive result for hippocampal cells from male rats exposed to CDMA was observed in the 90-day study."

"High-quality studies to understand the effects of RFR exposure on biological responses are needed given the widespread human exposure to RFR associated with cell phone use."

Excerpts from tables with statistically significant tests of trends for DNA damage




Table D-1. DNA Damage in Male Mice Exposed to Whole-body CDMA-modulated Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation for Five Days



Open access report: https://www.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2025-08/cellphonerfr_long_508.pdf

https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/atniehs/dtt/assoc/reports/cellphonerfr

Sunday, August 15, 2021

Part I: Why We Need Stronger Cell Phone Radiation Regulations--Key Testimony Submitted to the FCC

On August 8, 2019, the FCC published a news release in which Ajit Pai, the FCC chairperson, issued a proposal that the FCC not change its existing radiofrequency (RF) exposure limits. He also proposed to gather public comment on rules to determine compliance with the exposure limits and establish uniform guidelines to ensure compliance.

The press release makes the following claims:
“The FCC sets radiofrequency limits in close consultation with the FDA and other health agencies. After a thorough review of the record and consultation with these agencies, we find it appropriate to maintain the existing radiofrequency limits, which are among the most stringent in the world for cell phones,” said Julius Knapp, chief of the FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology.
As Jeffrey Shuren, Director of the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, wrote to the FCC, “[t]he available scientific evidence to date does not support adverse health effects in humans due to exposures at or under the current limits…” and “[n]o changes to the current standards are warranted at this time.”
Unfortunately, these assertions do not reflect the state of the scientific literature regarding RF health effects, nor do they adequately reflect the public comment received by the FCC over the years regarding RF exposure limits for Proceeding Number 13-84.

The FCC has no health expertise and relies upon Federal health agencies, especially the FDA, for advice about RF exposure limits. However, these agencies have lacked the requisite expertise to provide this guidance because their RF health experts retired or took industry jobs. In the past decade, these agencies have failed to monitor the vast and growing body of peer-reviewed research that documents adverse health effects from low-intensity exposure to radiofrequency radiation. Rather, the Federal government has increasingly relied upon advice from lobbyists and engineers and scientists affiliated with the telecommunications or wireless industry.

Following is an index of key submissions to the FCC regarding RF exposure limits and RF health effects from June 2012 through September 2019.

Many of the links below no longer work because the FCC made recent changes to its website.


November 1, 2019 

Selected FCC Submissions re: 

"Reassessment of Federal Communications Commission Radiofrequency 

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


Part I: Key Testimony Submitted to the FCC


Last revision: October 1, 2019

The FCC received more than 1,200 submissions regarding its cell phone radiation regulations. These documents reveal what we know about wireless radiation health effects, and why we need to strengthen regulations and provide precautionary warnings to the public.
In response to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) request for input regarding its radiofrequency radiation regulations adopted in 1996, individuals and organizations submitted thousands of documents, testimonials, research papers and scientific publications that are now available to the public. 
These documents reveal what we know about wireless radiation health effects, and why we need to strengthen regulations and provide precautionary warnings to consumers.

Although more than fifteen countries have issued precautionary health warnings about cell phone radiation and recommendations about how to reduce risks, the wireless industry in the U.S. has opposed precautionary warnings and wants to weaken cell phone radiation standards.
In all, the FCC received more than 1,200 submissions between June 25, 2012 and October 1, 2019. Many submissions include multiple documents. The preponderance of submissions call on the FCC to adopt stronger exposure limits on radiofrequency radiation.
Hundreds of individuals submitted statements that document their personal health problems and diseases experienced from exposure to radiofrequency radiation. These and other submissions can be viewed or downloaded by clicking on Proceeding Number 13-84 on the FCC web site.
The FCC's obsolete RF exposure limits are 23 years old. The current request for public input is six years old. The FCC never reported on or acted upon a similar request for public input issued in 2003.
In 2015, a Harvard publication exposed how industry captured the FCC, "As a captured agency, the FCC is a prime example of institutional corruption. Officials in such institutions do not need to receive envelopes bulging with cash. But even their most well-intentioned efforts are often overwhelmed by a system that favors powerful private influences, typically at the expense of public interest."
Obviously, updating RF regulations and testing procedures has not been a priority for the FCC even though the U.S. General Accountability Office recommended this in 2012.
Although there is a search engine on the FCC web site, one cannot easily find important documents. Hence, I constructed several indices.
Part I which appears below contains key submissions to the FCC regarding cell phone radiation and its health effects, and cell phone testing procedures and regulatory standards.

The submissions are organized under the following categories:

(1) Scientific Expert Resolutions Calling for Stronger Regulations
(2) Expert Comments in Support of Stronger Regulations
(3) Expert Comments that Support Weaker Regulations
(4) Consumer, Environmental and Health Organizations
(5) Government Agencies
(6) Wireless Industry Corporations and Associations
(7) Miscellaneous Other 
Not indexed below are submissions from individuals without organizational or institutional affiliations.  Many of these submissions discuss electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) (see Part IV).
Part II contains a list of key research papers that can be downloaded from the FCC web site. (updated Aug 11, 2019)
Part III lists 98 scientific experts from 23 nations who have signed resolutions between 2002 and 2014 that call for stronger regulations on wireless radiation, especially cell phone radiation.
In 2015, scientists who published peer-reviewed research on the health effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) submitted a petition to the United Nations, the World Health Organization, and all world leaders calling for stronger regulations on exposure to radiofrequency radiation than current national and international exposure limits allow. The International EMF Scientist Appeal was also submitted to the FCC.
The Appeal has been signed by more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on electromagnetic fields and biology and health. These scientists representing over 40 nations have published more than 2,000 papers and letters on EMF in professional journals. This petition was recently submitted to the United Nations Environment Programme. 
Part IV summarizes the responses of 184 persons with self-reported electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) who submitted comments to the FCC and reported either their symptoms or the sources of their problematic exposure to radio frequency radiation.

Scientific Expert Resolutions Calling for Stronger Regulations  
Catania Resolution (2002; 16 signees)

Benevento Resolution (2006; 52 signees)
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941320
Seletun Scientific Panel (2009); 7 signees)
Health Canada Safety Code 6 Declaration  (Jul 9, 2014; 54 signees)
The International EMF Scientist Appeal (May 11, 2015; 200 signees)
The International EMF Scientist Appeal (Aug 25, 2019; 250 signees)
The 5G Appeal (2017 moratorium; signed by 245 scientists and doctors)
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1040566847805/Scientist-5G-appeal-2017.pdf

Expert Comments in Support of Stronger Regulations
Omer Abid, MD, MPH

David Adams, PhD
Norm Alster ("FCC captured agency")
Frank Barnes, PhD

BioInitiative Working Group (29 contributing authors)
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521097953
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/111701910403/17111608-1.pdf
Martin Blank, PhD
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940937
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1092868197238/5%20-%20Attachment%205%20-%20Martin%20Blank%20PhD%20-%20Opposition%20Statement%20-%20File%2013-0953.pdf
David O. Carpenter, MD

Neil Cherry, PhD
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1092868197238/4%20-%20Attachment%204%20-%20Olle%20Johansson%20PhD%20-%20Opposition%20Statement%20-%20File%2013-0953.pdf
Richard H. Conrad, PhD

Devra L. Davis, PhD, MPH
Devra Davis PhD MPH, Alvaro de Salles PhD, Susan Downs MD, Gunnar Heuser MD PhD, Anthony Miller MD. Lloyd Morgan BSEE, Yael Stein MD. Elihu Richter MD MPH (rebuttal of CTIA's claims)

Alan H. Frey

Om Gandhi, PhD

Livio Giulani, PhD

Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD
Martha Herbert, MD, PhD
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940748
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1070786836035/MarthaHerberttoMCPS2015.pdf
 
Isaac Jamieson, PhD
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10930270536460/IAJ_comments_to_FFC_Sep_30_2016.pdf
Toril Jeter, MD, FAACP
Olle Johansson, PhD
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7022311370.pdfhttps://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1092868197238/4%20-%20Attachment%204%20-%20Olle%20Johansson%20PhD%20-%20Opposition%20Statement%20-%20File%2013-0953.pdf
Suleyman Kaplan, PhD
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941388
Henry C. Lai, PhD

Victor Leach / Simon Turner   
Dariusz Leszczynski, PhD
B. Blake Levitt

De-Kun Li, MD, PhD, MPH

James C. Lin, PhD
Don Maisch, PhD
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7022311348.pdf
Lloyd Morgan, BSEE

Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311233
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60002030879
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60002031262
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/60002031262.
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1082955067871
Martin Pall, PhD
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1092725512546
Jerry L. Phillips, PhD
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940948
Ronald M. Powell, PhD
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1070786836035/Message%20to%20Public%20Schools%20about%20Wireless%20Devices.pdfhttps://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1083040514650/The%20Health%20Argument%20against%20Cell%20Phones%20and%20Cell%20Towers.pdf
William J. Rea, MD
Cindy Lee Russell, MD
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1001076789440
Cindy Sage, Lennart Hardell, MD & Martha Herbert, MD, PhD
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940054

Cindy Sage & David O. Carpenter, MD
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520939954

J. Bertel Schou, PhD & Diane Schou, PhD

Miriam D. Weber, MD

Grace Ziem, MD, MPH, DrPH

Expert Comments that Support Weaker Regulations
Joe A. Elder, PhD

Consumer, Environmental and Health Organizations

American Academy of Environmental Medicine
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941435

Center for Electrosmog Prevention


Electromagnetic Safety Alliance, Inc.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311420
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941598
EMF Safety Network

Environmental Health Trust
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311561
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10512278328322/Ex%20Parte-Pai%20051017.pdf
Environmental Working Group
Environmental Working Group (petition w/ 26,000 signatures):
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941684
Global Union Against Radiation Deployment from Space http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60001390648

Pharmacists Planning Service Inc (PPSI)


Stop Smart Meters New York
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941985

Wireless Education Action
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311599


Government Agencies

Cities of Boston, Massachusetts and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Environmental Protection Agency
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7520941527.pdf
FCC Office of the Chairman (Response to Sen. Blumenthal & Rep. Eshoo)
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001353996
FCC Office of Engineering Technology Bureau
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022136643http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520936584https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10809296013805/13-84.pdf https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10809189809418/13-84b.pdfhttps://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1080943159446/13-84c.pdfhttps://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1032547831999/TIA-MWF%20Notice%20of%20Ex%20Parte%20for%20OET-Labs%20Meeting.pdf
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10815418118189/13-84.pdf
International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization

Los Angeles Unified School District

Town of Hillsborough, California
Montgomery County, Maryland
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10512278328322/Ex%20Parte-Pai%20051017.pdf 
National Cancer Institute & National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7521123438.pdf 
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

City of Portland, Oregon

City and County of San Francisco

Radiation Protection Division, Environmental Protection Agency
Radiofrequency Interagency Working Group (Federal)
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941598
City of Tucson and County of Pima, Arizona Resolution

U.S. Department of Labor
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10612045456038/03-137.pdf

Wireless Industry Corporations and Associations

Alarm Industry Communications Committee
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520958406

ARRL, the National Association for Amateur Radio
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941424


Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition

GSM Association
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940433

IEEE International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety (ICES)
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940730 
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1021282928777 
Medtronic Inc
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941474
MMWave Coalition
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1081078030685/Docket%2013-84%20mmWC%20%20FINAL.pdf 
Momentum Dynamics Corporation and Oak Ridge National Laboratory
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941870

National Association of Broadcasters
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941561

National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors

PCIA-The Wireless Infrastructure Association and The HetNet Forum
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941685
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60000971924

Telecommunications Industry Association
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941840
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520958447
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60000974727
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1032547831999/TIA-MWF%20PowerPoint%20for%20FCC%20Labs%20and%20OET%20Meeting.pdf
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1032547831999/TIA-MWF%20Notice%20of%20Ex%20Parte%20for%20OET-Labs%20Meeting.pdf
Richard Tell Associates

American Association for Justice
Austrian Medical Association
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10929117005596/48-Attachment%2048-%20Austrian%20Medical%20Assoc%20Guideline%20EMF%20Disease.pdf 
California Medical Association
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1092989731923/30-Attachment%2030-%20California%20Medical%20Association%20Resolution.pdf
Council of Europe - Resolution 1815
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/109271312500258/1-Attachment%201%20-%20COUNCIL%20OF%20EUROPE%202011.pdf
Senator Bill Galvano (Florida)
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940383
Green Swan, Inc.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941846
National Assn. of Telecommunications Officers, National League of Cities, National Assn of Counties, & U.S. Conference of Mayors
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/100252268811/Joint%20letter%20re%20RF%20to%20FCC%20NACo%20Final.pdf
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1062194009350/Wireless%20Bureau%20Ex%20Parte%20061918.pdf
North America's Building Trade Unions
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60001483296http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60001328468https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/60001514689.pdf