Showing posts with label reproductive health effects. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reproductive health effects. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 17, 2026

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.

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


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

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
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. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/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
Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

    See: Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

Exposure & Exposure Limits

   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
   Barnes F, Freeman JER (2022) Some thoughts on the possible health effects of electric and magnetic fields and exposure guidelines. Front Public Health. https://bit.ly/4f5cS3A
    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 RL, Moskowitz JM, 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
    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)

Monday, November 11, 2013

Researcher Establishes Archive for Cell Phone Industry Whistleblowers

Wearing Your Smartphone – Not Too Smart?

Mark Scheerer, Public News Service, Nov 11, 2013

Download audio


PHOTO: Google Glass (above), although not yet available to the general public, joins smart watches, wrist phones and all kinds of wearable cell phones and digital devices as highly desirable consumer products with the approach of the holiday season. Scientists are issuing health warnings, however. Courtesy Wikipedia.org.

PHOTO: Google Glass (above), although not yet available to the general public, joins smart watches, wrist phones and all kinds of wearable cell phones and digital devices as highly desirable consumer products with the approach of the holiday season. Scientists are issuing health warnings, however. Courtesy Wikipedia.org. 
 
NEW YORK - Wearable phones and computers are on loads of shopping lists as the holiday season approaches, but scientists are warning that research indicates they present likely health risks - especially from cell-phone radiation.


Dr. David Gultekin, a research physicist at New York's Memorial Sloane-Kettering Cancer Center, showed that cell-phone radiation creates hot spots in human brains - a troublesome finding. Dr. Hugh Taylor, chairman of the obstetrics and gynecology at the Yale University School of Medicine, exposed pregnant mice to close-up cell-phone signals and observed the offspring behaving like children with attention deficit disorder.

"I think all these radiation-emitting technologies deserve a proper evaluation that includes not only exposure to adults but what happens to the fetus, the most vulnerable stage of life," Taylor said.

Many scientists question the accuracy of industry-funded research. They say money for government and foundation-funded research is scarce, and that when they report on the evidence of risk, the mainstream media - like those lab mice - have a short attention span.


Dr. Martin Blank, retired associate professor of physiology and cellular biophysics at Columbia University and a DNA expert, said research like that which found the DNA of mice altered by cell-phone exposure is more than enough to prompt action.
"When you get a situation where a problem arises, you invoke what's known as the precautionary principle," he said. "You take a certain amount of precaution as a result of a risk that has been identified."

 

Gultekin said wearable gadgets are brought to the marketplace with little concern for safety.
 

"When they're designing and developing a new product and introducing it, very rarely the health aspects of it is mentioned, or not mentioned at all," he said.
 

Advocates recommend keeping cell phones and other devices away from sensitive body parts and especially caution pregnant women against holding cell phones near their abdomens or in handbags carried near their bodies.
 

Just as the lies about the health threats from cigarettes were eventually exposed by someone from inside the tobacco industry, Dr. Joel Moskowitz, director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California-Berkeley School of Public Health, said he hopes the same will happen regarding the risks of electromagnetic fields.
 

"I've been waiting for a whistle-blower for the last five years since I've been involved in this issue, but haven't had any forthcoming, unfortunately," he said. "But if you know of any whistle-blowers and they want to send me documents, I can assure that they will be protected."
 

An educational forum for the public will bring together many of the leading experts on electromagnetic fields on Friday at the New York Open Center in New York City. More information is online at electromagnetichealth.org.


http://bit.ly/1iZzFsD

Sunday, November 3, 2013

Cellphones and Health



Cellphones and Health by Dr. Joel Moskowitz

Reprinted from TheGreenGazette, Sept/Oct 2013 issue, pp. 8-9

In the last issue we explored the potential hazards of electromagnetic radiation from iPad use. We learned about warnings from the European parliaments and doctors' associations in various countries, and discussed the differences between pulsed digital wireless signals and continuous analogue radio waves. This time we are pleased to invite Dr. Joel Moskowitz to share his research findings regarding the health effects of cellphones. 

I started studying the effects of cellphone radiation when Dr. Seung-Kwon Myung, a physician and epidemiologist from the National Cancer Center of South Korea, spent a year working in my center at UC Berkeley. He specializes in meta-analysis, a method by which data are combined across studies to generate more robust conclusions.  

My colleagues and I reviewed research that examined the association between cellphone use and tumor risk. When we grouped the 23 studies based upon quality of the research, we found strong group differences. In the 13 studies which failed to meet scientific best practices, we found what appeared to be reduced tumor risk. The 10 higher-quality studies found a harmful association between cellphone use and tumor risk. Also, the higher quality studies had no funding from the cellular industry whereas the lower quality studies had at least partial industry funding.

Since our study was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2009, I have reviewed hundreds of cellphone radiation studies. There is evidence that cellphone radiation may damage sperm and increase male infertility, increase risk of reproductive health problems, increase brain glucose metabolism, and alter EEG readings.

Many individuals have reported developing a sensitivity to cellphone radiation and other forms of radiofrequency energy.  They experience various allergic symptoms which may include ringing in their ears, headaches, dizziness, an irregular heartbeat, and memory and sleep problems. This condition, known as electromagnetic hypersensitivity, is considered a functional impairment in Sweden. The incidence of this condition, which is not easily diagnosed, appears to be increasing in many countries with the proliferation of “electrosmog.”

We need more research on the short-term and long term risks; risks to children and adolescents who are more vulnerable; reproductive health risks, and risks of newer technologies. We need to better understand the mechanisms that contribute to health effects and how to reduce the risks. Many scientists believe that there are mechanisms other than “heat” at work. Currently, the regulations adopted by most governments, including Canada and the U.S., only address the heating effect produced by cellphone radiation. They completely ignore biologic reactivity.

Cellphone and Brain Tumour Risk

It's premature to estimate long-term tumor risk because tumors can take several decades to develop. A few studies suggest that the risk of glioma, a serious and often deadly brain tumor, doubles after 10 years of cellphone use. This could amount to an additional 10,000 cases per year in the U.S.

Many people have come to rely on their cellphones over land lines, and many children start using cellphones at a young age, so we may see increased risk in the future. On the other hand, changes in the pattern of use (e.g. hands-free, texting) can reduce health risks. Also, technology is changing; yet we don't know if newer technologies are safer or more harmful. It is difficult for scientific research about long-term effects to keep up with the speed at which companies bring forth new consumer radiofrequency microwave devices. This behooves us to practice precaution.

Cellphone Radiation Damages Sperm

On June 28, 2012, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) reported: “EWG scientists have analyzed 10 scientific studies documenting evidence that cellphone radiation exposure leads to slower, fewer and shorter-lived sperm. The research raises concerns for men who carry their phones on their belts or in pants pockets. This conclusion is supported by a review paper recently published in the Journal of Andrology:

 “The results showed that human spermatozoa exposed to RF-EMR (radio frequency electromagnetic radiation) have decreased motility, morphometric abnormalities, and increased oxidative stress, whereas men using mobile phones have decreased sperm concentration, decreased motility (particularly rapid progressive motility), normal morphology, and decreased viability. These abnormalities seem to be directly related to the duration of mobile phone use.” (La Vignera et al, 2012). 
Infertility has become a mounting problem in America and Canada. According to Statistics Canada, infertility in Canada has almost doubled between 1992 and 2010, not just among couples who got married older, but also among younger couples in their 20's.  

Cellphone Radiation, Pregnancy and Children

The latest, peer-reviewed science finds prenatal cellphone radiation exposure damages test mammals' offspring. Several new, independent studies confirm previous research that pulsed digital signals from cellphones disrupt DNA, impair brain function, and damage sperm. 

Many studies have found that exposure to low-intensity cellphone radiation can open the blood-brain barrier. This can enable toxins in the blood to penetrate the brain. A recent study found that children who used cellphones were more likely to exhibit ADHD (attention-deficit hyperactivity) symptoms than children who did not use them, but this effect was observed only among children who used cellphones who had slightly elevated lead levels in their blood. Moreover, in the children with some lead in their blood, the more they used their cellphones, the more likely they had ADHD symptoms.

On December 12, 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics sent a letter to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting reassessment of cellphone exposure limits:

“Children are disproportionately affected...The differences in bone density and the amount of fluid in a child’s brain compared to an adult’s brain could allow children to absorb greater quantities of RF (radiofrequency) energy deeper into their brains than adults. It is essential that any new standards for cellphones or other wireless devices be based on protecting the youngest and most vulnerable populations to ensure they are safeguarded through their lifetimes.” 
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report last summer calling on the FCC to update cellphone exposure limits and testing requirements. The report noted that the testing requirements are inadequate as cellphones are being used closer to the head and body than the test requires. Thus, actual users' exposure to cellphone radiation may exceed the legal limit.

Are all Cellphones Equal with regards to Radiation?

The amount of cellphone radiation your phone emits depends on various factors, including your location and distance from cell towers. Some cellphones generate as much as eight times more radiation than others. A measurement, called the SAR (Specific Absorption Rate), is available on the internet for every cellphone, but this measures the maximum amount of radiation emitted, not the typical amount. You can't find out how much radiation a phone generates during average daily use, which may be more important in terms of cumulative health risk. Some low SAR phones may generate more radiation on average than high SAR phones. 

Your cellphone carrier also matters. One study shows that GSM phones can emit 28 times more radiation on average than CDMA phones. Another study shows GSM affects EEG readings more than CDMA. Your cellphone carrier determines which type of phone you have. In the U.S., people can choose to use a CDMA phone by selecting Verizon or Sprint; however, in Canada all carriers use GSM phones. Soon voice calls will use 4G technology, that is LTE, instead of GSM or CDMA.  More comparative studies on different carrier standards are needed, especially the newer standards.

Recommendations on Cellphone Usage

Although further research is needed, we cannot afford to wait for conclusive evidence. There are more than 300 million cellphones in use in the U.S. Two-thirds of children eight and older use them. The government's regulations are outmoded and need to be revised. About a dozen nations have issued precautionary health warnings. It is time to publicize practical ways in which people can minimize their personal health risk. In addition, I have recommended an annual assessment of $1 on each cellphone. In the U.S., this would generate $300 million annually for vitally needed research and education.

Here are some practical steps which cellphone users can easily adopt:
  • Keep your cellphone away from your body. Don't keep the phone near your head or reproductive organs whenever it is turned on. Don’t sleep with the phone near your bed. The amount of radiation is related to the square of the distance, so keeping your phone 10 inches away reduces your exposure 100-fold compared to an inch.
  • Use a corded headset or other hands-free method such as a speakerphone or text. Keep your calls short. 
  • Minimize cellphone use among children, teens, and pregnant women. A child’s brain absorbs twice as much radiation as an adult brain.
  • Don’t use your phone when the signal is weak, for example, on an elevator or in a moving vehicle, as the phone is designed to increase its signal strength to compensate.
  • When carrying a cellphone in your pocket: Keep the cellphone turned off, or deactivate its signals (i.e. keep it on airplane mode, plus turn off the WiFi and Bluetooth functions). Turn it on or activate it periodically to check for messages, or check for messages from a land line. The cellphone is designed to send signals to cell towers regularly to identify its location, whenever it's turned on. The WiFi antenna in a smartphone sends beacon signals continually if it's not turned off.
  • Demand that the government revise regulations, fund research, and issue precautionary health recommendations.
Dr. Joel Moskowitz is on the research faculty at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health. He has conducted research on chronic disease prevention and health promotion for more than 30 years, has authored dozens of peer-reviewed health publications, and is Director of UC Berkeley's Center for Family and Community Health.

Article References: http://bit.ly/14CkeFm
For more information, contact: Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., email: jmm@berkeley.edu; Electromagnetic Radiation Safety Website: http://www.saferemr.com/ or on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/SaferEMR.

For the online version of this magazine article including interesting graphics, see pages 8-9 of the Sept./Oct. issue of TheGreenGazette: http://bit.ly/18RXE7x


Dr. Joel Moskowitz: Cellphone Radiation and Health
References and Further Reading 

Myung SK, Ju W, McDonnell DD, Lee YJ, Kazinets G, Cheng CT, Moskowitz JM, Mobile phone use and risk of tumors: a meta-analysis, J Clin Oncol. 2009 Nov x20;27(33):5565-72. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.21.6366. Epub 2009 Oct 13.  http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/27/33/5565 

Byun Y-H, Ha M, Kwon H-J, Hong Y-C, Leem J-H, et al. (2013) Mobile Phone Use, Blood Lead Levels, and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Symptoms in Children: A Longitudinal Study. PLoS ONE 8(3): e59742. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0059742. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0059742  

Süleyman Kaplan, MD

Slides: Effects of prenatal and adult EMF exposure on brain development
http://www.healthandenvironment.org/uploads/docs/Cell_phone_and_neuron_health_November_11-11-2012_Short.pdf

Effects of prenatal exposure to a 900 MHz electromagnetic field on the dentate gyrus of rats: a stereological and histopathological study. Odaci, et al
http://www.healthandenvironment.org/uploads/docs/Odaci_Effects_of_prenatal_exp_to_a_MWR_on_brain_of_babies_2008.pdf
 
Nesrin Seyhan, PhD

Slides: Gazi non-ionizing radiation protection center and Gazi biophysics department

The effect of radiofrequency radiation on DNA and lipid damage in female and male infant rabbits. Guler, et al

Devra Davis, PhD, MPH

Slides: Cellphone toxicology, exposure assessment and epidemiology--an update

Slides: Expert forum: Cellphone radiation risk to prenancy and sperm

Cellphone safety: The right to know about gray matters, Devra Davis

Doctors' advice to patients and their families: Cellphones and Health: Simple precautions make sense, Environmental Health Trust

Igor Belyaev, PhD

Slides: Exposure to microwaves from mobile communication, DNA repair and cancer risk http://www.healthandenvironment.org/uploads/docs/2nd_2012_NPC_Belyaev_final.pdf

Role of physical and biological variables in bioeffects of non-thermal microwaves, Igor Belyaev http://www.healthandenvironment.org/uploads/docs/BelyaevePhysical_Bio_Variables_Bioeffets_10-23-12.pdf

Microwaves from mobile phones inhibit 53BP1 focus formation in human stem cells more strongly than in differentiated cells: Possible mechanistic link to cancer risk. Markova, et al
http://www.healthandenvironment.org/uploads/docs/Belyaev_Cellphones_Stem_Cells_with_Link_to_Cancer_3-10.pdf

Hugh Taylor, MD, PhD

Slides: Fetal cellphone exposure affects behavior
http://www.healthandenvironment.org/uploads/docs/Taylor_Fetal_Affects_from_Cellphone_Radiation_in_Mice_3-15-12.pdf

Fetal radiofrequency radiation exposure from 800-1900 Mhz-rated cellular telephones afets neurodevelopment and behavior in mice. Aldad, et al

EHHI report: The cellphone problem, February 2012

EHHI cellphone report summary

Ronald Herberman, MD

Slides: Cellphone radiation risks--the case for precaution

Exposure limits: The underestimation of absorbed cellphone radiation, especially in children. Gandhi, et al

Dr. De-Kun Li, MD, PhD

Senior Research Scientist, Division of Research, Kaiser Foundation Research Institute; Lecturer, Stanford University

A prospective study of in-utero exposure to magnetic fields and the risk of childhood obesity. Li, et al


Collaborative on Health and the Environment:
http://www.healthandenvironment.org/partnership_calls/11452?res

GAO Report:
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-771

Environmental Health Trust: 
http://ehtrust.org/

Environmental Working Group review of sperm damage research:
http://www.prlog.org/11911996

Dr. Dariusz Leszczynski's science blog on mobile phone radiation and health:
http://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/

Video (1 hour, 58 minutes): 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnn6gNyRU7g

Infertility rates rising for Canadian couples

BlackBerry: Keep Our Phones Away From Your Body

Environmental Working Group. Cellphone Radiation Damages Sperm, Studies Show. Jun 28, 2012

La Vignera et al. Effects of the exposure to mobile phones on male reproduction: a review of the literature. Journal of Andrology. 2012 May/June: 33(3):350-356. 

CNET Report: Cellphone use could reduce sperm count
Dong Ngo, August 18, 2011  (This article was reprinted on 105 news web sites in China, Indonesia, Romania, Taiwan, United Kingdom, and Vietnam.)