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., 2025; Lai, 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:

NTP Cell Phone Radiation Study: Final Reports

National Toxicology Program: Peer & public review of cell phone radiation study reports

National Toxicology Program (NTP) Finds Cell Phone Radiation Causes Cancer

NTP: Not the First Govt. Study to Find Wireless Radiation Can Cause Cancer in Lab Rats
Ramazzini Institute Cell Phone Radiation Study Replicates NTP Study

Thirty Years of Research on Effects of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (1990 - 2025)

==

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

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

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

Genetic effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields

Radiofrequency radiation-induced gene expression

Lai H, Levitt BB. Radiofrequency radiation-induced gene expression. Rev Environ Health. 2025 Oct 29. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2025-0104.

​Abstract

Genes are differentially expressed in cells in response to changes in the internal or external environment. The response is generally an adaptive mechanism to the environmental challenge to restore cell functions to homeostasis. There are numerous studies reporting changes in gene expression in cells exposed to radiofrequency radiation (RFR), the type of energy emitted by wireless communication devices. The major genes affected are those involved in: repair of damaged proteins, response to stress, oxidative changes, apoptosis, DNA damage detection and repair, and changes in neural functions. Gene expression data supports the notion that RFR is a stressor that causes oxidative changes and DNA and protein damage in cells under different exposure conditions, in many biological systems. Changes in all these significant gene expression effects are supported by results of other biological studies of RFR exposure in the literature. They should be considered in the setting of RFR-exposure guidelines.

Excerpts

"Gene expressions are under feedback control in response to external challenges with numerous variables. RFR has a complex interaction with living organisms depending on various parameters of the field. With these considerations in mind, response oscillation and non-linear dose-response could occur. But gene expression is not expected under all exposure conditions and biological systems studied. Thus, inevitably, in some studies, no significant effects would be expected. There are studies that reported no significant effect of RFR on gene expression related to protein damage and removal, DNA, oxidative processes, stress, and brain functions (Table 7)."

"Forty gene expression effects (marked as low intensity (LI) in Tables 1–6) were observed at a SAR less than 0.4 W/kg. This is relevant to the effects of exposure to RFR in the environment. 0.4 W/kg is the dose rate assumed to be safe by international radiofrequency radiation guidelines (e.g., the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the International Electronics and Electrical Engineers (IEEE)). This is important to understand regarding the validity of those organization’s high-intensity standards-setting models. (For readers who are interested in ‘low-intensity’ RFR effects, there are more than 200 studies that reported biological effects at SAR <0.4 W/kg [see the ‘RFR-low-intensity studies’ file in reference [1]]).

Lastly, one may wonder whether up-regulation of gene expression would lead to translation into functional proteins. Several RFR studies support increased translation (e.g., [33], [34], [35], [36]). It is an important complement to the gene-expression studies to look at translation levels of proteins as these are the functional units that promote/sustain both health and illness. Proteomic studies are an attractive next step in understanding the biological effects of RFR exposure. This was suggested more than a decade ago [37]. Changes in transcription and protein functions point to a need to investigate molecular signaling pathways after RFR exposure [38]. In addition, the data on gene-expression suggests two areas of mechanism research that are worth pursuing. The first area is the involvement of stress in RFR-induced biological effects. Involvements of ‘cellular stress responses’ and the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and, particularly, effects on the limbic system should be further investigated [3]. The second area is the cellular oxidative processes. Particularly, the mechanism of induction of free radicals by RFR should be systematically studied. Present data indicates that low-frequency modulations in RFR may play a role [39]. It is, however, not known how much these low-frequency components contribute to the overall effect. Similar effects on gene expression have been reported after exposure to extremely-low frequency electromagnetic fields (see ‘static and ELF EMF genetic effects’ file in reference [1])."

Open access: https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2025-0104/html

--​

 A scoping review and evidence map of radiofrequency field exposure and genotoxicity: assessing in vivo, in vitro, and epidemiological data

​Weller SG, McCredden JE, Leach V, Chu C, Lam AK-Y (2025) A scoping review and evidence map of radiofrequency field exposure and genotoxicity: assessing in vivo, in vitro, and epidemiological data. Front. Public Health 13:1613353. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1613353.

Abstract

Background  Studies investigating genotoxic effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure (3 kHz−300 GHz) have used a wide variety of parameters, and results have been inconsistent. A systematic mapping of existing research is necessary to identify emerging patterns and to inform future research and policy.

Methods  Evidence mapping was conducted using guidance from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). A comprehensive search strategy was applied across multiple research databases, using specific inclusion and exclusion criteria within each knowledge domain. Quantitative aggregation using tables, graphs and heat maps was used to synthesize data according to study type, organism type, exposure level and duration, biological markers (genotoxicity, cellular stress, apoptosis), RF-EMF signal characteristics, as well as funding source to further contextualize the evidence landscape. Quality criteria were applied as part of a focused analysis to explore potential biases and their effects on outcomes.

Results  Over 500 pertinent studies were identified, categorized as in vitro (53%), in vivo (37%), and epidemiological (10%), and grouped according to type of DNA damage, organism, intensity, duration, signal characteristics, biological markers and funding source. In vitro studies predominantly showed proportionally fewer significant effects, while in vivo and epidemiological studies showed more. DNA base damage studies showed the highest proportion of effects, as did studies using GSM talk-mode, pulsed signals and real-world devices. A complex relationship was identified between exposure intensity and duration, with duration emerging as a critical determinant of outcomes. A complex U-shaped dose-response relationship was evident, suggesting adaptive cellular responses, with increased free radical production as a plausible mechanism. Higher-quality studies showed fewer significant effects; however, the funding source had a stronger influence on outcomes than study quality. Over half (58%) of studies observing DNA damage used exposures below the International Commission of Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) limits.

Conclusion  The collective evidence reveals that RF-EMF exposures may be genotoxic and could pose a cancer risk. Exposure duration and real-world signals are the most important factors influencing genotoxicity, warranting further focused research. To address potential genotoxic risks, these findings support the adoption of precautionary measures alongside existing thermal-based exposure guidelines.

Excerpts

Implications for policy and practice

The evidence from the evidence map indicates that medium to long-term RF-EMF exposures, particularly at low intensities, can induce genetic damage through non-thermal mechanisms such as increased free radical production and oxidative stress. Genetic damage can have far-reaching, long-term, and potentially irreversible consequences for individual organisms and broader ecological and planetary health (112, 113).

Both In vivo and epidemiological RF-EMF studies provide credible evidence of genotoxicity, suggesting potential risks such as increased cancer susceptibility and reproductive harm. Studies on brain cells frequently reported positive findings for DNA damage, suggesting that brain cells may be particularly sensitive to RF-EMF, indicating a risk for neurological diseases and brain tumors, as observed in animal models (114–116).

Current RF-EMF exposure guidelines established by ICNIRP (15), prioritize the prevention of thermal effects by incorporating substantial safety margins (e.g., a 50-fold reduction from effect thresholds, setting a local SAR limit of 2 W/kg for the head and torso for the general public, averaged over 10 grams of tissue). However, the evidence mapping process found statistically significant DNA damage at extremely low intensities, with the lowest recorded effects occurring at a SAR of 0.000000319 W/kg in an epidemiological study (117) and at 0.000003 W/kg in several in vivo experiments (118, 119). These levels are substantially (>600,000 times) below the ICNIRP public exposure limits (15). This pattern suggests non-thermal genotoxic effects, because temperature changes at these intensities would be negligible and not measurable.

ICNIRP (2020) guidelines (15) set RF-EMF exposure limits to protect against thermal effects from acute exposures, with averaging times of 6 min for local exposure (head and torso) and 30 min for whole-body exposure. However, the above analysis revealed that medium (1 day−3 months) and long-term RF-EMF exposures (>3 months or 1,000 h) were most strongly linked to genotoxic effects, even at very low exposure intensities. ICNIRP (2020) guidelines (15) do not set specific limits for chronic, low-level RF-EMF exposures, particularly for non-thermal effects like genotoxicity, citing “no substantiated evidence of health-relevant effects” [(15), p. 522].

The mapping process also revealed that RF exposures are associated with genetic damage in a wide range of organisms, with an observed sensitivity of non-mammalian organisms, such as plants, insects, and possibly amphibians. Current guidelines neglect potential effects on wildlife or ecosystems (78, 96). Notably, a recent WHO-commissioned systematic review of animal studies suggested carcinogenic effects from RF-EMF exposures (116). Other studies suggest biological effects on non-human species (120, 121). Together, these results suggest that the environmental implications of RF-EMF exposure merit greater scrutiny (122), even though the current evidence remains limited and debated (96).

While these findings do not yet establish causation or a clear No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL), they indicate risks that ICNIRP's current framework discounts by prioritizing only effects with confirmed harm [(15), p. 487]. ICNIRP's review process and position is best described as a hazard-based assessment focused only on confirmed effects. This approach is overly restrictive, as it delays updating guidelines until absolute certainty is achieved (123), which may not align with the precautionary needs of public health or environmental protection.

Currently, there is a widespread (6) and often non-consensual nature to RF-EMF exposure (92) from mobile phones, base stations, and other wireless technologies. While acknowledging the permanence of this technology in modern society, policy adjustments are required that prioritize health and environmental protection over economic interests. This can be achieved by adopting a precautionary approach to RF-EMF (123) and addressing potential risks from non-thermal RF-EMF effects, despite scientific uncertainty. Strategies such as justification (assessing net benefits of RF-EMF applications), optimization (balancing protection with societal needs), and As low as Reasonably Achievable or As Low as Technically Achievable - ALARA/ALATA (avoiding deterministic effects and minimizing stochastic effects) per International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommendations - ICRP103 (124) could be considered. Further development and deployment of wireless technologies should incorporate improved safety measures in their design (125), such as creating devices that emit lower levels of RF-EMF or using materials and antenna designs to direct emissions away from the body.

Additionally, public information regarding potential health risks and personal protective measures could be disseminated through public health campaigns, making use of existing advice such as the EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 (126); e.g. minimizing the use of wireless devices, prioritizing wired connections, maintaining distance between RF-EMF sources and the body, use of air-tube headsets or handsfree calls, turning off wireless when not in use, and mitigation of oxidative stress by incorporating antioxidants into the diet.

While individual actions are valuable, they are not a substitute for robust regulatory standards and industry accountability. Ensuring the safety of wireless technologies requires a collective effort from manufacturers, policymakers, and consumers to develop comprehensive RF safety guidelines. Future regulatory guidelines could encompass workplace protection measures, including substitution, engineering, and administrative controls (127), integration of building biology standards (128), mandatory detailed product labeling to inform users of potential risks, and standardized safety hygiene practices.

Recommended actions

To address these concerns and bridge existing gaps, the following actions are recommended:

• Standardization of Research Protocols: Harmonizing methodologies across studies, particularly comet assay protocols, is critical for reducing heterogeneity and enabling robust meta-analyses.

• Focus on Long-Term and Low-Intensity Exposures: Future research should prioritize investigating the cumulative effects of prolonged and low-intensity RF-EMF exposures, which are most relevant to real-world scenarios and devices.

• Inclusion of Emerging Frequencies: Given the rapid deployment of 5G and other novel technologies, research focused on higher frequencies and new modulation schemes is urgently needed.

• Targeted Environmental and Health Studies: Targeted research in both human health and ecological systems needs to be conducted independently of vested interest influences, ensuring methodological rigor in each domain.

• Independent Funding and Research Oversight: To mitigate biases associated with industry funding, greater support for independent research is essential. Transparent disclosure of ALL funding sources and researcher affiliations should be mandatory.

• Re-evaluation of RF Standards: Regulatory bodies must update exposure guidelines to reflect non-thermal mechanisms and the potential health effects from long-term chronic exposure settings by incorporating findings from independent, high-quality studies.

Conclusions

The evidence map presented here reveals statistically significant DNA damage in humans and animals resulting from man-made RF-EMF exposures, particularly DNA base damage and DNA strand breaks. The evidence also suggests plausible mechanistic pathways for DNA damage, most notably through increased free radical production and oxidative stress. Sensitivity to damage varied by cell type, with reproductive cells (testicular, sperm and ovarian) along with brain cells appearing particularly vulnerable. A complex U-shaped dose-response relationship was observed for both exposure duration and intensity, with more DNA damage occurring in specific frequency and intensity combination windows. DNA damage was more likely to be found using in vivo studies, very weak or very strong signal intensities, very short or very long exposure durations, 900, 1,800 and 2,450 MHz frequencies, GSM-talk mode and pulsed modulations, particularly when using real-world devices. On the other hand, research funded by vested interests has tended to use different experimental design parameters, with a high proportion of studies using in vitro, short-term exposures, medium-high intensity signals and using signal generators. Funding source is also a stronger determinant of experimental outcomes than study quality.

Overall, there is a strong evidence base showing DNA damage and potential biological mechanisms operating at intensity levels much lower than the ICNIRP recommended exposure limits. Public policy could benefit from the implementation of precautionary measures such as ALARA or ALATA, along with public information campaigns to better safeguard human and environmental health and wellbeing.

Open access:  https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1613353  

--

Genetic effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields

Lai H. Genetic effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. Electromagn Biol Med. 2021 Apr 3;40(2):264-273. doi: 10.1080/15368378.2021.1881866. 

Abstract

This is a review of the research on the genetic effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic field (EMF), mainly on radiofrequency radiation (RFR) and static and extremely low frequency EMF (ELF-EMF). The majority of the studies are on genotoxicity (e.g., DNA damage, chromatin conformation changes, etc.) and gene expression. Genetic effects of EMF depend on various factors, including field parameters and characteristics (frequency, intensity, wave-shape), cell type, and exposure duration. The types of gene expression affected (e.g., genes involved in cell cycle arrest, apoptosis and stress responses, heat-shock proteins) are consistent with the findings that EMF causes genetic damages. Many studies reported effects in cells and animals after exposure to EMF at intensities similar to those in the public and occupational environments. The mechanisms by which effects are induced by EMF are basically unknown. Involvement of free radicals is a likely possibility. EMF also interacts synergistically with different entities on genetic functions. Interactions, particularly with chemotherapeutic compounds, raise the possibility of using EMF as an adjuvant for cancer treatment to increase the efficacy and decrease side effects of traditional chemotherapeutic drugs. Other data, such as adaptive effects and mitotic spindle aberrations after EMF exposure, further support the notion that EMF causes genetic effects in living organisms.

Excerpts

"Supplements 1 and 2 show that the majority of studies reported genetic effects of EMF (66% for RFR and 79% for static/ELF-EMF). Thus, it is safe to conclude that genotoxic effects of EMF have been reported. The most common effects found are: DNA strand breaks, micronucleus formation, and chromosomal structural changes. There are not many studies on mutation. Thus, it is not known whether these genotoxic effects transform into mutation and involved in carcinogenesis. Interestingly, available data do not suggest mutagenic effect after RFR exposure (Chang et al., 2005; Meltz et al., 1990; Ono et al., 2004; Takahashi et al., 2002); whereas most static/ELF-EMF studies (Chahal et al., 1993; Mairs et al., 2007; Miyakoshi, 1997; Miyakoshi et al., 1998, 1996; Potenza et al., 2004; Wilson et al., 2015) suggested some mutagenic effects...."

"There are similarly many studies that showed changes in gene expression after EMF exposure (Supplement 3). Changes in expression of many different genes have been reported. Studies in gene expression by static/ELF-EMF are far more diversified than those of RFR. The most interesting results are the expression of genes related to stress response both in vitro and in vivo in plans and animals. Another important finding is the expression of heat shock proteins, particularly HSP70, which is an important protein involved in protein misfolding and protecting cells from environmental stress...."

"Effects of EMF on cellular free radical processes have been reported in many experiments (cf. Lai, 2019; Yakymenko et al., 2016). It is conceivable that an increase in free radicals in cells could cause macromolecular damages including DNA. There are many reports on involvements of free radicals in genetic processes, including both reactive oxygen species and reactive nitrogen species...."

"There are many reports of genetic effects induced by low intensities of EMF. The studies are listed in Supplement 4. This is an important topic to consider since living organisms are being constantly exposed to low levels of EMF in the occupational and public environments. This is particularly true for ELF-EMF, since intensities of ELF-EMF in the environment are in microtesla (µT) levels, even exposure to fields from electrical appliances rarely exceed 10 microtesla (i.e., 0.01 mT). However, most laboratory cell and animal studies in ELF-EMF used fields in the millitesla (mT) level...."

"Another important observation of the studies is that EMF can interact with other entities and synergistically cause genetic effects.... Most of the compounds that have been shown to interact with EMF are mutagens. This is important because in real-life situations, a person is usually exposed simultaneously to EMF and many different environmental factors, including mutagens. "

"Two other important findings of recent studies are that the effects of EMF are waveform specific and cell-type specific (Supplement 5). These findings underscore the complicity of interaction of EMF with biological tissues and may partially explain why effects were observed in some studies and not others. It is essential to understand why and how certain wave-characteristics of an EMF are more effective than other characteristics in causing biological effects, and why certain types of cells are more susceptible to the effect of EMF? The fact that “there are different biological effects elicited by different EMF wave-characteristics” is a critical proof for the existence of non-thermal effects...."

"Regarding cell-type specificity, one can speculate that: 1. Cells that are metabolic active are more susceptible to EMF effects with an increase in generation of free radical in the mitochondria; 2. Cells that have higher anti-oxidative activities are less susceptible; 3. Transitional elements, e.g., iron, may play a role in the effect via the Fenton reaction (see Lai, 2019). Brain cells contain a relatively high concentration of free iron, particularly intercalated in the DNA molecules, and are more susceptible; 4. Cell cycle arrests are common in cells exposed to EMF. It may be a response to repair genetic damages caused by EMF. If damage could not be repaired, cell death occurs, particularly via apoptosis, which is a common outcome after EMF exposure. These effects are consistent with the gene expression studies, showing activation of genes involved in both cell death and repair. 5. If genetic damaged cells are allowed to survive, cancer may occur. However, if they die, the risk of cancer would actually be reduced. But, other detrimental health outcomes may occur, e.g., death of brain cells could lead to neurodegenerative diseases. Increased incidences of degenerative diseases..."

"The main question is whether EMF exposure could cause genetic effects? It is pertinent here to quote a recent statement made by two prominent bioelectromagnetic researchers (Barnes and Greenebaum, 2020): “The evidence that weak radiofrequency (RF) and low-frequency fields can modify human health is still less strong, but the experiments supporting both conclusions are too numerous to be uniformly written off as a group due to poor technique, poor dosimetry, or lack of blinding in some cases, or other good laboratory practices.” All in all, in the studies reviewed in Supplements 1 and 2, approximately 70% of them showed effects. One could say that EMF exposure can lead to genetic changes. Some genetic damages could eventually lead to detrimental health effects. However, the mechanisms remain to be uncovered. But, knowing the mechanism is not necessary to accept that the data are valid. It is also a general criticism that most EMF studies cannot be replicated. I think it is a conceptual and factual mis-statement. Replication is also not a necessary and sufficient condition to believe that certain data are true. Scientific studies are hardly replicated. Rational funders do not generally fund replications. All scientists should know that it is very difficult to replicate exactly an experiment carried out by another lab. This is particularly true when the effects of EMF depend on many unknown factors. By the way, not many replication experiments have been carried out in EMF genetic-effect research to justify the statement that “data from EMF are not replicable”. In some cases, the experimenters deliberately changed the procedures of an experiment that they were supposed to be replicating and claimed that their experiment was a replication, for example, compare the experimental procedures of Lai and Singh (1995) and Malyapa et al. (1998).

To prove an effect, one should look for consistency in data. Genetic damage studies have shown similar effects with different set-up and in various biological systems. And, the gene expression results (Supplement 3) also support the studies on genetic damages. Expression of genes related to cell differentiation and growth, apoptosis, free radical activity, DNA repair, and heat-shock proteins have been reported. These changes could be consequences of EMF-induced genetic damages.... In conclusion, there are enough reasons to believe that genetic effects of EMF are real and possible.

During cell phone use, a relatively constant mass of tissue in the brain is exposed to the radiation at relatively high intensity (peak specific absorption rate (SAR) of 4–8 W/kg). Many papers have reported genetic effect/DNA damage at much lower SAR (or power density) (see Supplement 4). This questions the wisdom of the several exposure standard-setting organizations in using the obsolete data of 4 W/kg (whole-body averaged SAR) as the threshold for exposure-standard setting. Furthermore, since critical genetic mutations in one single cell are sufficient to lead to cancer and there are millions of cells in a gram of tissue, it is inconceivable that some standards have changed the SAR from averaged over 1 gm to 10 gm of tissue. (The limit of localized tissue exposure has been changed from 1.6 W/kg averaged over 1 gm of tissue to 2 W/kg over 10 gm of tissue. Since distribution of radiofrequency energy is non-homogenous inside tissues, this change allows a higher peak level of exposure.) What is actually needed is a better refinement of SAR calculation to identify ‘peak values’ of SAR inside the brain.

Any effect of EMF has to depend on the energy absorbed by a biological entity and on how the energy is delivered in space and time. Aside from influences that are not directly related to experimentation (Huss et al., 2007), many factors could influence the outcome of an experiment in bioelectromagnetics research. Frequency, intensity, exposure duration, and the number of exposure episodes can affect the response, and these factors can interact with each other to produce different effects. In addition, in order to understand the biological consequences of EMF exposure, one must know whether the effect is cumulative, whether compensatory responses result, and when homeostasis will break down. A drawback in the interpretation and understanding of experimental data from bioelectromagnetic research is that there is no general accepted mechanism on how EMF affects biological systems. Since the energy level is not sufficient to cause direct breakage of chemical bonds within molecules, the effects are probably indirect and secondary to other induced chemical changes in the cell. The mechanisms by which EMF causes genetic effects are  unknown. This author suspects that biological effects of EMF exposure are caused by multiple inter-dependent biological  mechanisms."

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15368378.2021.1881866

Part II: Why We Need Stronger Cell Phone Radiation Regulations--Key Research Papers Submitted to the FCC

Selected FCC Submissions re: 

"Reassessment of Federal Communications Commission Radiofrequency 
Exposure Limits and Policies" (Proceeding Number 13-84)


Part II: Key Research Papers Submitted to the FCC

Last revision: November 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 radio frequency radiation regulations adopted in 1996, individuals and organizations submitted thousands of documents, testimonials, research papers and scientific publications that are now available to the media and 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 the public.

Although fifteen countries have issued precautionary health warnings about cell phone radiation and recommendations on how to reduce risks, the wireless industry in the U.S. has opposed precautionary warnings and wants to weaken our radiation standards instead of strengthen them.

In all, more than 1,200 submissions were made to the FCC between June 24, 2012 and November 1, 2019. Many submissions include multiple documents. To access these papers go to the FCC's web site for Proceeding Number 13-84.

Part II which appears below contains a list of key research papers and monographs submitted to the FCC and links to these documents which  enable people to download the papers.

See Part I for key submissions to the FCC regarding cell phone radiation and its health effects, and cell phone testing procedures and regulatory standards.

See Part III for links to petitions signed by EMF scientists calling for stronger regulations of electromagnetic fields (EMF) including radio frequency fields. The International EMF Scientist Appeal was signed by more than 240 scientists who have published over 2,000 papers and letters in professional journals on EMF and biology or health.

 Published Research Papers

Adams et al. Effect of mobile telephones on sperm quality: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Environment Int. 2014. 70(2014): 106-112.  http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001040814

Aldad TS, Gan G, Gao XB, Taylor HS. Fetal radiofrequency radiation exposure from 800-1900 mhz-rated cellular telephones affects neurodevelopment and behavior in mice. Sci Rep. 2012;2:312. doi: 10.1038/srep00312. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311532

Altun et al. Effects of mobile phone exposure on metabolomics in the male and female reproductive systems. Environ Res. 2018 Nov;167:700-707.

https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1091314126731/Effects%20of%20mobile%20phone%20exposure%20on%20metabolomics%20in%20the%20male%20and%20female%20T%20reproductive%20systems.pdf

Balmori A. Electromagnetic pollution from phone masts. Effects on wildlife. Pathophysiology. 2009 Aug;16(2-3):191-9. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2009.01.007.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940774

Balmori A. Anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as an emerging threat to wildlife orientation. Science of Total Environment. 518-519:58-60. 2015.
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/109303096909269/Balmori%202015.pdf 

Barnes F, Greenebaum B. Role of radical pairs and feedback in weak radio frequency field effects on biological systems. Environ Res. 2018 May;163:165-170.
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10913119016386/Role%20of%20radical%20pairs%20and%20feedback%20in%20weak%20radio%20frequency%20field%20effects%20on%20biological%20systems.pdf

Belpomme et al. Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizingradiation: An international perspective. Envir Pollution. 242:643-658. 2018. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/12103008105187/nonionizing%20radiation%20international%20perspective%20Belpomme%20Hardell%20Carpenter%202018.pdf

Belyaev et al. Nonthermal effects of extremely high-frequency microwaves on chromatin conformation in cells in vitro—Dependence on physical, Physiological, and genetic factors. IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques. 48(11):2172-2179. 2000. 

https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10711815002508/2000%20Belyaev%20IEEE_MTT_%20MMW%20Review.pdf

Betzalel et al. The human skin as a sub-THz receiver–Does 5G pose a danger to it or not? Envir Research. 163:208-216. 2018. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1210030663890/The%20human%20skin%20as%20a%20sub-THz%20receiver%20%E2%80%93%20Does%205G%20pose%20a%20danger%20to%20it%20or%20not%20(1).pdf

Buchner K, Eger H. Changes of Clinically Important Neurotransmitters under the Influence of Modulated RF Fields—A long-term study under real-life conditions. Umwelt-Medizin-Gesellschaft 24(1):44-57. 2011. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940778

Blackman CF. Treating cancer with amplitude-modulated electromagnetic fields: a potential paradigm shift, again? Br J Cancer. 2012 Jan 17;106(2):241-2. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2011.576. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940777

Chou CK, Guy AW, Kunz LL, Johnson RB, Crowley JJ, Krupp JH. Long-term, low-level microwave irradiation of rats. Bioelectromagnetics. 1992;13(6):469-96.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60002060833

Costa et al. Treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with very low levels of amplitude-modulated electromagnetic fields. Br J Cancer. 2011 Aug 23;105(5):640-8.doi:10.1038/bjc.2011.292.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940776

Cucurachi et al. A review of the ecological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). Environ Int. 2013 Jan;51:116-40. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2012.10.009.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940763

Davis et al. Swedish review strengthens grounds for concluding that radiation from cellular and cordless phones is a probable human carcinogen. Pathophysiology. 2013 Apr;20(2):123-9. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2013.03.001.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520943925

Everaert J, Bauwens D. A possible effect of electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone base stations on the number of breeding house sparrows (Passer domesticus). Electromagn Biol Med. 2007;26(1):63-72. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940767

Falcioni et al. Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental emission. Environ Res. 2018 Aug;165:496-503. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10913119016386/Report%20of%20final%20results%20regarding%20brain%20and%20heart%20tumors%20in%20Sprague-Dawley%20rats%20exposed%20from%20prenatal%20life%20until%20natural%20death%20to%20mobile%20phone%20radiofrequency%20field%20representative%20of%20a%201.8%20GHz%20GSM%20base%20station%20environmental%20emission.pdf

Fernández et al. Absorption of wireless radiation in the child versus adult brain and eye from cell phone conversation or virtual reality. Environ Res. 2018 Nov;167:694-699. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10913927726988/Absorption%20of%20wireless%20radiation%20in%20the%20child%20versus%20adult%20brain%20and%20eye%20from%20T%20cell%20phone%20conversation%20or%20virtual%20reality.pdf

Foerster et al. A prospective cohort study of adolescents' memory performance and individual brain dose of microwave radiation from wireless communication. Envir Health Perspectives. 126(7). July 2018. 
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10429016089243/ProspectiveCohortStudyofAdolescents%E2%80%99%20Memory%20PerformanceandIndividual%20Brain%20DoseofMicrowaveRadiation.pdf

Fragopoulou et al. Scientific panel on electromagnetic field health risks: consensus points, recommendations, and rationales. Rev Environ Health. 2010 Oct-Dec;25(4):307-17.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940752

Gandhi, OP. Yes the Children Are More Exposed to Radiofrequency Energy From Mobile Telephones Than Adults. IEEE Spectrum. 3:985-988. July 10, 2015.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001122233

Gandhi, OP, Kang G. Inaccuracies of a plastic pinna SAM for SAR testing of cellular telephones against IEEE and ICNIRP safety guidelines. IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques. 52(8):2004-2012. Aug 2004; DOI: 10.1109/TMTT.2004.832689.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311473

Gandhi et al. Exposure limits: the underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children. Electromagn Biol Med. 2012 Mar;31(1):34-51. doi: 10.3109/15368378.2011.622827.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311190

Giuliani L, Soffritti M. (Eds.) Non-thermal Effects and Mechanisms of Interaction between Electromagnetic Fields and Living Matter. ICEMS Monograph. European J Oncology. Vol. 5. 2010.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940834

Güler et al. The effect of radiofrequency radiation on DNA and lipid damage in female and male infant rabbits. Int J Radiat Biol. 2012 Apr;88(4):367-73. doi: 10.3109/09553002.2012.646349.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311528

Haggerty K. Adverse Influence of Radio Frequency Background on Trembling Aspen Seedlings: Preliminary Observations.International Journal of Forestry Research, vol. 2010, Article ID 836278, 7 pages, 2010. doi:10.1155/2010/836278. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940764

Hagström M, Auranen J, Ekman R. Electromagnetic hypersensitive Finns: Symptoms, perceived sources and treatments, a questionnaire study. Pathophysiology. 2013 Apr;20(2):117-22. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2013.02.001. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941823

Hardell L. World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health - a hard nut to crack (Review). Int J Oncology. 51:405-413. 2017.

https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/12103008105187/World%20Health%20Organization%2C%20radiofrequency%20radiation%20and%20health%20-%20a%20hard%20nut%20to%20crack%20(Review)%20Lennart%20Hardell%20.pdf

Havas M. Radiation from wireless technology affects the blood, the heart, and the autonomic nervous system. Rev Environ Health. 2013;28(2-3):75-84. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2013-0004. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520958029

Herbert MR, Sage C. Autism and EMF? Plausibility of a pathophysiological link - Part I. Pathophysiology. 2013 Jun;20(3):191-209. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2013.08.001.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520958030

Herbert MR, Sage C. Autism and EMF? Plausibility of a pathophysiological link part II. Pathophysiology. 2013 Jun;20(3):211-34. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2013.08.002.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520958031

Houston et al. The effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation on sperm function. Reproduction. 2016.
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1093016723166/RF%20Impact%20on%20Spermatozoa.pdf

Kane RC. A possible association between fetal/neonatal exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation and the increased incidence of autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Med Hypotheses. 2004;62(2):195-7.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941400

Kesari KK, Kumar S, Behari J. Pathophysiology of microwave radiation: effect on rat brain.

Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 2012 Jan;166(2):379-88. doi: 10.1007/s12010-011-9433-6.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520939750

Kocaman et al. Genotoxic and carcinogenic effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. Environ Res. 2018 May;163:71-79.  https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1091314126731/Genotoxic%20and%20carcinogenic%20effects%20of%20non-ionizing%20electromagnetic%20fields.pdf

Kundi M, Hunter H-P. Mobile phone base stations—Effects on wellbeing and health. Pathophysiology. 2009.
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/109303096909269/Kundi%20%26%20Hutter%2C%202009.pdf

Lai H. Exposure to Static and Extremely-Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields and Cellular Free Radicals. Electromagn Biol Med. 2019 Aug 26:1-18. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10920151427784/Henry%20Lai%20ELF%20static%20field%20review%20paper%202019.pdf

Levis AG, Gennaro V, Garbiso S. Business bias as usual: The case of electromagnetic pollution.  In Elsner W, Frigato P, Ramazzotti P eds: “Social Costs Today. Institutional Analyses of the Present Crises”. Routledge (Taylor&Francis Group), London and New York 2012: 225-68.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520958478

Levis et al. Mobile phones and head tumours. The discrepancies in cause-effect relationships in the epidemiological studies - how do they arise? Environ Health. 2011 Jun 17;10:59. doi: 10.1186/1476-069X-10-59.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940825

Levitt BB, Lai H. Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. Environ. Res. 18:369-395. 2010.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311466

Li DK, Ferber JR, Odouli R, Quesenberry CP Jr. A prospective study of in-utero exposure to magnetic fields and the risk of childhood obesity. Sci Rep. 2012;2:540. doi: 10.1038/srep00540. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311533

Lin JC. Human exposure to RF, microwave, and millimeter-wave radiation. IEEE Microwave Magazine. 17(6):32-36. 2016.
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1018263449175/IEEE%20MWM%20RF%20Exposure%2007464988%20James%20C%20Lin%202016.pdf

Lin, JC. The significance of primary tumors in the NTP study of chronic rat exposure to cell phone radiation. IEEE Microwave Magazine. 20(11):18-21. 2019.  
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1018805901388/Lin%20NTP%20Primary%20Tumors%2008866792.pdf

Lissak G. Adverse physiological and psychological effects of screen time on children and adolescents: Literature review and case study. Environ Res. 2018 Jul;164:149-157. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10913927726988/Adverse%20physiological%20and%20psychological%20effects%20of%20screen%20time%20on%20children%20and%20adolescents%3A%20Literature%20review%20and%20case%20study.pdf 

McKee L. Meeting the imperative to accelerate environmental bioelectromagnetics research. Environ Res. 2018 Jul;164:100-108. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10913296696567/Meeting%20the%20imperative%20to%20accelerate%20environmental%20bioelectromagnetics%20research.pdf

Melnick RL. Commentary on the utility of the National Toxicology Program study on cellphone radiofrequency radiation data for assessing human health risks despite unfounded criticisms aimed at minimizing the findings of adverse health effects. Environ Research. 168:1-6. 2019. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1001332406626/Melnick-Commentary%20on%20the%20utility%20of%20the%20National%20Toxicology%20Program%20study.pdf

Miller et al. Cancer epidemiology update, following the 2011 IARC evaluation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (Monograph 102). Envir Research. 2018. 

https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/12103008105187/Miller%20et%20al%20(1).%20Cancer%20epidemiology%20update%20copy%202.pdf

Myung et al. Mobile phone use and risk of tumors: a meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Nov 20;27(33):5565-72. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.21.6366.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940706

Nittby et al. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2009.01.001.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941405

Nittby et al. Review. Radiofrequency and extremely low-frequency electromagnetic field effects on the blood-brain barrier. Electromagn Biol Med. 2008;27(2):103-26. doi: 10.1080/15368370802061995.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941406

Odaci E, Bas O, Kaplan S. Effects of prenatal exposure to a 900 MHz electromagnetic field on the dentate gyrus of rats: a stereological and histopathological study. Brain Res. 2008 Oct 31;1238:224-9. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2008.08.013. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311527

Pall ML. Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects. J Cell Mol Med. 2013 Aug;17(8):958-65. doi: 10.1111/jcmm.12088.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941801

Pall ML. Microwave frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produce widespread neuropsychiatric effects including depression. J Chemical Neuroanatomy. 2015.
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1001669617135/PallNeuropsychiatric2015.pdf

Pall ML. WiFi is an important threat to human health. Environ Research. 164: 405-416. 2018. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10429016089243/WIF%20threat%20Martin%20Pall%202018%20Environmental%20Research%20.pdf

Panagopoulos DJ. Comparing DNA damage induced by mobile telephony and other types of man-made electric fields. Mutation Research--Reviews in Mutation Research. 781:53-62. 2019. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10429016089243/Panagopoulos-2019-Mut%20Res%20Rev%20Comparing%20DNA%20damage%20induced%20by%20mobile%20telephony%20and%20other%20types%20of%20man-made%20electromagnetic%20fields.pdf

Panagopoulos DJ, Johansson O, Carlo GL. Evaluation of specific absorption rate as a dosimetric quantity for electromagnetic fields bioeffects. PLoS One. 2013 Jun 4;8(6):e62663. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0062663. Print 2013. Erratum in: PLoS One.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520938512

Peleg M, Nativ O, Richter ED. Radio frequency radiation-related cancer: assessing causation in the occupational/military setting. Environ Res. 2018 May;163:123-133.

https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10913296696567/Radio%20frequency%20radiation-related%20cancer%3A%20assessing%20causation%20in%20the%20occupational%3Amilitary%20setting.pdf

Persson BRR, Salford LG, Brun A. Blood-brain barrier permeability in rats exposed to electromagnetic fields used in wireless communication. Wireless Networks. 3:455-461.1997. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941992

Rea et al. Electromagnetic field sensitivity. Journal of Bioelectricity. 10(1&2):242-256. 1991.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520937451

Russell CL. 5 G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications. Environ Research. 165:484-495. 2018. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1001332406626/CindyRussell5%20G%20wireless%20telecommunications%20expansion.pdf

Sage C, Carpenter DO. Public health implications of wireless technologies. Pathophysiology . 16: 233–246. 2009. 

https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/109303096909269/Sage%20%26%20Carpenter%2C%202009.pdf 

Sagar et al. Comparison of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure levels in different everyday microenvironments in an international context. Environ Int. 2018 May;114:297-306. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10920151427784/RF%20microenvironment%206-nation%20study%20Environment%20Intl%20Sagar%20Roosli%202018.pdf

Sivani S, Sudarsanam D. Impacts of radio-frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) from

cell phone towers and wireless devices on biosystem and ecosystem – a review. Biology and Medicine 4(4):202-216. 2012. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940779

Thielens et al. Exposure of Insects to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields from 2 to 120 GHz. Sci Reports. 8: 3924. 2018.  https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1210030663890/Exposure%20of%20Insects%20to%20RadioFrequency%20Electromagnetic%20Fields%20from%202%20to%20120GHz%205g%20.pdf

Tseng et al. Induction of vertebrate regeneration by a transient sodium current. J Neurosci. 2010 Sep 29;30(39):13192-200. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3315-10.2010. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940761 

Wall et al. Real-world cell phone radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposures. Environ Res. 2019 Apr;171:581-592.
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10913296696567/Real-world%20cell%20phone%20radiofrequency%20electromagnetic%20field%20exposures.pdf

Yahyazadeh A, Deniz ÖG, Kaplan AA. The genomic effects of cell phone exposure on the reproductive system. Environ Res. 2018 Nov;167:684-693.
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/109131837001830/The%20genomic%20effects%20of%20cell%20phone%20exposure%20on%20the%20reproductive%20system.pdf

Yakymenko et al. Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. Posted online on July 7, 2015. 
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001122232

Zothansiama et al. Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. 2017. 

https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1210030663890/Impact%20of%20radiofrequency%20radiation%20on%20DNA%20damage%20and%20antioxidants%20in%20peripheral%20blood%20lymphocytes%20of%20humans%20residing%20in%20the%20vicinity%20of%20mobile%20phone.pdf

Papers and Monographs

Austrian Medical Association. Guideline of the Austrian Medical Association for the diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses (EMF syndrome): Consensus paper of the Austrian Medical Association’s EMF Working Group. Vienna, Austria. Mar 2012.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940750

Bioeffects of Selected Nonlethal Weapons. Addendum to the Nonlethal Technologies *Worldwide (NGIC-I 147-101-98) Study. Undated classified document released by the Dept of the Army Dec 13, 2006. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311621

BioInitiative Working Group. Sage C, Carpenter DO. (Eds). BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for  Biologically-based Exposure Standards for Low-Intensity Electromagnetic Radiation. www.bioinitiative.org, December 31, 2012. (29 chapter authors)

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520939958 

Council of Europe. Parliamentary Assembly. The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment. Doc. 12608. May 6, 2011. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311504

Dart P. Alterations in Hormone Physiology. Undated.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940905

Dart P. Cell Phones and Risk of Brain Tumor. Undated.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940911

Dart P. Consequences of Chronic Microwave RF Exposure. Undated.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940908

Dart P. Effects of Microwave RF Exposure on Fertility. Undated.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940909

Dart P. Health Effects of Microwave Radio Exposures: Acute Symptoms from RF Exposure. Undated. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940904

Dart P. Microwave RF Interacts with Molecular Structures. Undated.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940906

Dart P, Cordes K, Elliott A. Public Health Implications of the Proposed Cell Phone Transmission Tower at Oakway Golf Course. Undated. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311419

Dart P, Cordes K, Elliott A, Knackstedt J, Morgan J, Wible P, Baker S. Biological and health effects of microwave radiofrequency transmissions: A review of the research literature. A report to Eugene Water and Electric Board. Jun 4, 2013.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940903

European Environment Agency. Statement on Mobile Phones for Conference on Cell Phones and Health: Science and Public Policy Questions, Washington, 15 September 2009. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311538

Frey A. Opinion: Cell Phone Health Risk? The Scientist. Sep 25, 2012.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311550

Frey AH. On the Safety of Cell Phone Radiation. British Medical Journal. Nov 7, 2011.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311551

Glaser ZR. Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena (‘Effects’) and Clinical Manifestations Attributed to Microwave and Radio-Frequency Radiation: Research Report No. 2 Revised. Naval Medical Research Institute. Oct 4, 1971. Second printing w/ revisions. Apr 20, 1972. (Contains more than 2,000 references.) http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311479

Goldsworthy A. The Biological Effects of Weak Electromagnetic Fields. Mar 2012.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311211

Hardell L, Carlberg M, Gee D. Chapter 21. Mobile phone use and brain tumour risk: early warnings early actions?  In Emerging issues: Late lessons from early warnings: Science, precaution, innovation. European Environment Agency Report 1/2013. Jan 2013. Pp. 541-561. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941294

IARC. Non-Ionizing Radiation. Part 2. Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields. Volume 102. Lyon, France: International Agency for Cancer Research, World Health Organization. 
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1071413202273/Monograph%20radiofrequecy%20radiation%20WHO%3AIARC.pdf

International EMF Scientist Appeal. August 25, 2019. 10 pp.
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10916233196437/International_EMF_Scientist-Appeal%208-25-2019.pdf

Kane RC. Cellular Telephone Russian Roulette: A Historical and Scientific Perspective. New York: Vantage Press. 2001. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941881

Kucinich D. 112^th H.R. 6358. A bill to examine, label, and communicate adverse human biological effects associated with exposure to electromagnetic fields from cell phones and other wireless devices. Congress. 2d Session. Aug 3, 2012.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311505

Lai H. Exhibit D: An Update on Neurological Effects of Nonionizing Electromagnetic Fields. Mar, 2014. 169 pp.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521098237

Lai H. Exhibit E: An Update on the Genetic Effects of Nonionizing Electromagnetic Fields. Mar, 2014. 94 pp.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521098238

Lai H. Abstracts of research publications on the biological effects of radiofrequency and cell phone radiation (1990-2017). Dec 13, 2017. 1,013 pp.

https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10916020933093/RFR%20ResearchSummary%20Henry%20Lai%202017.pdf

Lai H. A summary of recent literature on neurobiological effects of radiofrequency radiation. in “Mobile Communications and Public Health” Markov, M. (ed.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2018, Chapter 8, pp.187-222. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10916020933093/Neurological%20effects%20of%20RF%20Henry%20Lai%20chapter%20Markov%202018.pdf

Lai H. Neurological effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields. Oct 1, 2017. 237 pp. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10916020933093/RFR-neurological-effects-%20Henry%20Lai%202017.pdf

Lai H. Abstracts of research publications on radiofrequency radiation and free radical (oxidative) effects. Apr 19, 2019. 118 pp.

https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10916151357910/RF-Free-Radical-oxidative-effect%20Henry%20Lai%204-19-2019.pdf

Lai H. Radiofrequency radiation comet assay studies. Apr 1, 2013. 40 pp.

https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10916151357910/RFR%20DNA%20comet-assay-studies%20Henry%20Lai%202017.pdf

Lai H. Percent comparison showing effect vs. no effect in neurological effect studies. Aug, 2019. 1 p.

https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10916151357910/Neurological%20Effects-Percent-Graphic-Henry%20Lai%20August-2019.pdf

Lai H. Percent comparison showing effect vs. no effect in comet assay and free radical (oxidative) (radiofrequency radiation and static field/ extremely low frequency field effect studies. Dec, 2017 and Apr, 2019. 1 p.

https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10916151357910/Genotoxic%20studies-Percent-Graphic-Henry%20Lai%202019.pdf

Lai H. Abstracts of research publications on neurological effects of static and extremely-low frequency electromagnetic fields (2007-2019). Sep 13, 2019. 117 pp.

https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10920151427784/Henry%20Lai%20static%20field%20ELF%20neurological%20effects%202007-2019%209-13-2019.pdf

Lai H. Supplementary Material: Literature on free radical generation after exposure to static and extremely-low-frequency electromagnetic fields (as of July 2019). 63 pp.

https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10920151427784/Henry%20Lai-ELF%20static%20fields%20free%20radicals%20supplementary%20material%207-2019.pdf

Leszczynski, D. FCC, IEEE and ICNIRP should tighten safety standards. Washington Times Communities. Apr 9, 2013.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022272017

Markova E, Malmgren L, Belyaev I. Microwaves from Mobile Phones Inhibit 53BP1 Focus Formation in Human Stem Cells Stronger than in Differentiated Cells: Possible Mechanistic Link to Cancer Risk. Environ Health Perspect. 118(3):394-399. Mar 2010. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311529

Moskowitz JM. Comments on the 2012 GAO Report: “Exposure and Testing Requirements for Mobile Phones Should Be Reassessed”. Aug 15, 2012 (rev. Aug 24, 2012).

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940705

Moskowitz JM. Why the FCC Must Strengthen Radiofrequency Radiation Limits in the U.S.: A compilation of original press releases from April 2012 – November 2013. Nov 5, 2013.

http://bit.ly/1b9FG37

Moskowitz JM. Wireless radiation and EMF abstracts published from August, 2016 - August, 2019. School of Public Health University of California, Berkeley. Sep 13, 2019. 527 pp.
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1091330786203/Wireless%20radiation%20and%20EMF%20abstracts%20August%202016%20-%20August%202019%20Joel%20Moskowitz%209-13-2019.pdf

Moskowitz JM. We have no reason to believe 5G is safe. Scientific American. Oct 17, 2019.
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1018805901388/191017_Scientific_American_We%20Have%20No%20Reason%20to%20Believe%205G%20is%20Safe%20Moskowitz.pdf

Naval Medical Research Institute. Bibliography of reported biological phenomena ('effects') and clinical manifestations attributed to microwave and radio-frequency radiation. NTIS. 1972. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1001034847591/Naval-Medical-Research-Institute-1972.pdf

National Toxicology Program. Report of Partial Findings from the National Toxicology Program Carcinogenesis Studies of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation in Hsd: Sprague Dawley® SD rats (Whole Body Exposures). Draft 5/19/2016. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/60002090569.pdf

Powerwatch. 1,670 peer-reviewed scientific papers on electromagnetic fields and biology or health. Electromagnetic Radiation Safety. Oct 22, 2018.
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1018805901388/181022_EMF%20Studies%20from%20Powerwatch.pdf

Roe S. We tested popular cellphones. Now the FCC is testing them. Chicago Tribune. Aug 21, 2019.  
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1091340619273/We%20tested%20popular%20cellphones%20for%20radiofrequency%20radiation.%20Now%20the%20FCC%20is%20investigating.%20-%20Chicago%20Tribune.pdf

Russell C. Wireless Silent Spring. Santa Clara County Medical Association Bulletin. Oct 2018. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1022423602512/Wireless%20Silent%20Spring_%20SCCMA%20Oct%202%2C%202018.pdf

Sierck  PH. Smart Meter—What We Know: Measurement Challenges and Complexities. A Technical Paper to Clarify RF Radiation Emissions and Measurement Methodologies. Encinitas, CA: ET&T Indoor Environmental Surveys. Dec 2011.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311412

U.S. Department of the Army. Bioeffects of Nonlethal Weapons. Feb 17, 1998 (Unclassified Dec 13, 2006). https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7022311476.pdf

U.S. E.P.A. Electric and Magnetic Fields: An EPA Perspective on Research Needs and Priorities for Improving Health Risk Assessment. Washington: EPA. Dec 1992. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311520

U.S. EPA. EPA Comments to the Federal Communications Commission on FCC 93-142 April 1993. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Guidlines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation. http://bit.ly/2avzSMU

U.S. EPA. Letter from Norbert Hankin to Janet Newton re: inadequacy of FCC radiofrequency guidelines. Jul 16, 2002. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7022311328.pdf

Wargo J, Taylor HS, Alderman N, Wargo L. Cell Phones: Technology | Exposures | Health Effects. Environment & Human Health, Inc. 2012. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311531

Wisz, J. Potential Hazards of Cellular Phone Radiation: Responses to Fear and Uncertainty. Harvard University. 2002. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001335019